The olden days (pic)

Signal position isn't wrong Phil. It's positioned to give the driver a better view of it!

Sam

I've seen this in a book (Can't think what book though) I think it's supposed to be around Kings Cross.

Those trains are a bit anorexic, barely wider than the track.

There were plenty of places on the old GWR where signals were placed on the far side of the opposite track to aid sighting. I can dig out some photos if anyone is interested.

Getting back to the question that was asked, the engine on left is clearly a District engine on an Inner Circle service (the present Circle). The engine on right looks GWR to me, so I'll take a punt on the picture being supposed to show the junction between H&C and Circle east of Paddington.

Sorry Sydneynick - loco (non-district) is definitely supposed to be Great Northern: that limits the location to east of Euston Square. I'm hoping someone like Harsig will identify it, because the caption (which I'll add tomorrow) has a definite contradiction.
As to the signals, it seems I'm lacking in knowledge in this respect - a photo or two would definitely help.

If you're interested Phil, Ketton's down Starter signal is still on the opposite side of the other line.

Sam

You're close Harsig - or not, depending on which part of the caption you believe. When I post it, I eagerly await the consumption of the can of worms opened thereby!!!!!

I also think it must be Farringdon.

No - there are no junctions of that sort facing in that direction at Barbican. If the painting was reversed and the double track with the GNR tank was curving in from the left, it could have been the old Southern Region-used side of the Snow Hill triangle, to provide direct access to Moorgate from the Holborn Viaduct lines.

Caption now added: let the fun begin ;D ;D ;D

Hmmm.. so we assume that the broad gauge tracks had been lifted by 1885 - and the 6ft adjusted according to the artist!

Definitely not an accurately observed scene, unlike your earlier engraving.

Although each artist worked differently, most of those who contributed to The Illustrated London News appear to have made detailed notes/sketches at the scene (sometimes very quickly) with the actual engravings being produced elsewhere. Their work is remarkably good, bearing in mind the conditions and pressure under which they worked. For most of the time, they were employed to try to record what they saw as accurately as possible and, as jobbing artists, it was not necessary for them to have any understanding of the subject that they were looking at. If something was missing or unclear from their notes, it had to be filled in by guessing what should be there, so inaccuracies do sometimes occur. The case of a specialist railway artist is somewhat different, as they should have some knowledge of their subject.
The engraving which Harsig has submitted does have a few perspective problems in relation to the figures (the track workers) the position and size of which appear to have been copied, and in some cases made worse, by the later artist. My view is that the original ILN artist can be excused because the figures were probably not in the original notes and were almost certainly added later, which would explain why the scale is out slightly.
I have seen this problem in other ILN engravings and attribute it to the fact that the priority of the artists was to record a scene that they had probably never seen before. They did not need to waste time making location drawings of people as they knew what people looked like and could add them to the final engraving in any position that looked good. The problem came when they failed to mark reference points to depict the height of a subject in relation to the surroundings.
We must also note that the size of the train is almost certainly inaccurate because it would not have stood still and posed for the artist.
Now, imagine the engraving without the train or the people and I think that you may have a pretty reasonable representation of what the artist saw.
What I find interesting is the point at which the artist was located when recording this picture. This appears to be, quite logically, in the larger space between the two sets of running rails and raised in the air by something like 7 - 10 feet (no metric measurements in those days).
Does anyone know what there is/was at this point?

On the original caption, "Aldgate" is presumably a typo or other transcription error for "Aldersgate." Not sure if G.N.R. locos were running cross-river services in 1885 - lots of different people had a go, I'm not sure if anyone found out how to make it pay... was the "inner rail" of the (Inner) Circle the MDR's or the Met's in motive power terms, I know they had one each in steam days but which was whose I dunno... the wheel arrangement of the GNR loco is wrong, I think it should be 0-4-4WT.

Moorgate to Woolwich was indeed an SER service (via the dissapeared east to south curve at Farringdon) - I belive they were withdrawn to proviode freight train paths via the widened lines to the South coast for the military effort in France.Look carefully out of the window near the west wall on Thameslink and you can see a GWR boundary marker.

Re cross London services pre WW1 - one of the more fascinating was a Midland Cricklewood - Victoria via the Dudding Hill line - one of many to dissapear after the advent of deep level tubes and motor buses.(in this case - Kilburn - Baker Street Met / Bakerloo / Embankment - quciker and cleaner !) Even with 2 changes - or the bus direct !