What did the typical GWR single track branch look like?

[David Bigcheeseplant]

It maybe worth looking at this list of GWR trainsheds http://www.broadgauge.org.uk/heritage/train_sheds_list.html there is nearly 100 of them! most train shed were built at the terminus of a line, although many stations were extended through or the train shed disapeared early on. but if you want to model early GWR including broad gauge then it does become more standard as most of the train shed terminus did have engine sheds goods sheds etc. Also if you model early on the stations are much more compact, also many of the termini had small turntables too again these tended to be removed early on.

 

David 

[Andy Kirkham]

I suppose that branch termini could be divided into those whose traffic was purely local and those that served holiday destinations. The former would normally have only the most basic facilities, while the latter might well have an additional platform to be able to handle more than one train at once.

On reflection I can think of very few single-line branch termini that were significantly expanded to deal with holiday traffic - Newquay, Minehead, Kingswear and Porthcawl are the only ones that come to mind. 

 

Another basic division is the location of the goods yard: is it facing the main passenger platform or behind it? (or beyond it in a very few cases - Looe and Fairford have been mentioned).

Edited November 4, 2018 by Andy Kirkham

[Pacific231G]

Just get a copy of Paul Karau's book and stop reading the guesswork/speculation on here.

Though I've no intention of ever modelling A GW branch line, I have both volumes of Paul Karau's book Great Western Branch Line Termini. They are excellent and full of detail about typical achitecture and the track plans used but also on the operation of these lines using locos (or more often a loco) suppled by the nearest MPD.They were all I think operated by crews based at the terminus, even for a very short branch like Wallingford. For one loco there were generally two footplate crews and usually but not always a shedman who worked overnight.

It's interesting to note that the loco based at Princetown only needed to go to Laira evey eight weeks, presumably because the water in that rather bleak part of Dartmoor was so pure.  

 

I think my only caveats would be that the termini he chose are all very rural (often some way from the communities they served) with usually very modest services and "typically" GWR, the sort of terminus that can become a bit of a cliche.  It might have been good to have had some branch termini serving larger towns such as Minehead or Barnstaple (GWR). I think about half of them operated single engine in steam.

 

It's also noticeable how long many of these vey modest stations were, often a little over a quarter of a mile from the first set of points to the buffers. To exact scale in 4mm/ft, that's about seventeen feet for a terminus where just one loco runs up and down with passengers maybe five or six times a day while a second loco brings in, shunts and takes out a daily goods train. Despite that operational limitation, the terminus site is probably not much if any shorter than a small busy urban (or outer suburban) terminus.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Lacathedrale]

That was a big justification in Iain Rice's "Urban Modelling" book; that the space of a tiny, quiet BLT was the same length as a busy urban/suburban terminus.

 

I think one must bear in mind however, that undulating countryside and haywain-esque scenes appear to be a big part of the nostalgia that's a huge part of railway modelling for many people - so the scenic modelling opportunities of a rural branch outweigh the operational limitations. It also helps that it's a damned sight more work to model 17' of viaducts, factories and houses than it is a rolling field.

[Northroader]

I’ve seen layouts where a plan was made by taking an OS map of the location, and just scaling it down, which will give you lengths of 17’, and looking at them, to my mind they sprawl terribly, and it’s not using the space that’s available to the best effect. Anyone who’s trying to fit a line along the spare bedroom wall isn’t going to use that approach, but squash what they can in the space they have, and can still end up with a good looking line with a couple of short trains working it. The Americans call it “selective compression”, and I feel it’s a very necessary skill in layout design.

[Lacathedrale]

Northroader, I can't remember which book it was, but old enough that someone suggested tracing the OS-grid map onto a fresh sheet, and then start to re-trace and cobble together the ladders and crossovers into reasonable length. Iain Rice's style plans can sometimes come across as too compressed to my eye - so there must be a balance.

 

That said, we don't see 'real' railways from the same birds eye view from which we review most layouts. In the context of a model railway we expect to see lots of compression just by the virtue of experience,  so the transposition of real distances to model form jars our expectations. I imagine if the cameras and viewpoints were at close to eye level and with the same attention to detail, view blocks, etc. one would expect in real life - the result would be even more authentic.

 

I do feel that having a decent throat and a couple of headshunts along the running line makes a big difference, as well as room for at least a four coach train on the platforms - to my eye and less and it's toylike.

 

What do you think about Bodmin (see previous) for an example? It seems to be a pretty faithful duplication of the real station's plan and dimensions. Maybe it is the exception in this case

[Karhedron]

It also helps that it's a damned sight more work to model 17' of viaducts, factories and houses than it is a rolling field.

In a lot of ways, it depends what you attempting to depict. About 10 years ago, there was a competition to design the best "minories" layout to celebrate 50 years of CJF's original plan. There were several excellent entries which included retaining walls to give the impression of a layout in a cut-and-cover setting such as the Widened Lines. "Minories GN" was a great example the game the feel of an urban setting without actually having to recreate a complex city-scape.

 

 

 

With a bit of clever design work, an urban/suburban layout can potentially require fairly little modelling beyond the track boundaries.

[Pacific231G]

That was a big justification in Iain Rice's "Urban Modelling" book; that the space of a tiny, quiet BLT was the same length as a busy urban/suburban terminus.

 

I think one must bear in mind however, that undulating countryside and haywain-esque scenes appear to be a big part of the nostalgia that's a huge part of railway modelling for many people - so the scenic modelling opportunities of a rural branch outweigh the operational limitations. It also helps that it's a damned sight more work to model 17' of viaducts, factories and houses than it is a rolling field.

 

That's all true and if your interest is in modelling scenery then a rural scene is going to suit you more than the railways serving some dark satanic mill.

The other huge advantage of the small BLT is that you CAN compress it massively without losing its character or any of its operation. I've seen Ashburton modelled well in seven or eight feet (in 4mm scale) and having visited the real station, it was, totally convincingly, Ashburton. I've also seen it modelled to exact scale and that seemed to lose the real station's sense of compactness- Ashburton really was small but perfectly formed. 

 

We perceive models very differently from the real world where we mentally edit out a great deal so IMHO Selective compression isn't a compromise we can get away with but a necessity for creating a convincing setting.  This applies to other things as well such as the geometry of pointwork where what looks quite generous in a model would be round the back of the gasworks at full size. .

Edited November 5, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Northroader]

The scalefour model of Bodmin General is a beautiful job, good craftsmanship, and great to look at. It was made as a “club” layout to be set up at an exhibition with generous space in a hall. You could try the same thing in your model space at home, and it would have to come as a much shorter version, but to me it would still be a good model to do.

[Karhedron]

We perceive models very differently from the real world where we mentally edit out a great deal so IMHO Selective compression isn't a compromise we can get away with but a necessity for creating a convincing setting.  This applies to other things as well such as the geometry of pointwork where what looks quite generous in a model would be round the back of the gasworks at full size. .

I totally agree. We normally view real railways from ground level which means that the "stuff" in the distance is foreshortened by perspective. Selective compression helps to represent this when we view from the unnatural "birds-eye-view" of many model railway layouts.

[57xx]

I think my only caveats would be that the termini he chose are all very rural (often some way from the communities they served) with usually very modest services and "typically" GWR, the sort of terminus that can become a bit of a cliche.  It might have been good to have had some branch termini serving larger towns such as Minehead or Barnstaple (GWR). I think about half of them operated single engine in steam.

Barnstaple (Victoria Road) is the theme of my dream 4mm layout, I would have loved to have seen it in the book too. It's certainly not a sleepy GWR BLT, loads going on there and plenty of size to it. I've managed to get OS maps for it from most parts of the Century through a former contact in the OS. One day....

 

It's also noticeable how long many of these vey modest stations were, often a little over a quarter of a mile from the first set of points to the buffers. To exact scale in 4mm/ft, that's about seventeen feet for a terminus where just one loco runs up and down with passengers maybe five or six times a day while a second loco brings in, shunts and takes out a daily goods train. Despite that operational limitation the terminus site is probably not much if any shorter than a small busy urban (or outer suburban) terminus.

 

My N gauge layout plan based on Mortonhampstead is compressed and still takes up 8ft!

[The Johnster]

Do you have any examples of a station arrangement or layout which is not typically seen in our idealised model form, but which is not so atypical as to be idiosyncratic?

 

Clarence Road, Cardiff; urban commuter branch on cramped narrow site, with industrial sidings and canal exchange traffic but no general merchandise goods or coal handling and no water facilities, single platform terminus of double track branch line.  Very intensive rush hour service, kind of pocket Minories station throat.  For 1950s,  64xx, 57xx'/8750, 94xx panniers, 4575 small and 5101 large prairies, 56xx, BR class 3MT 82xxx, rebuilt TVR A, and possibly 04, Rhymney R.  Rolling stock Collett and Hawksworth non gangwayed, not B sets, and auto trailers, various.

 

Pure GW branch, built by GWR not independent company and then absorbed, in which respect I think it might be unique.  No GW passenger service until post grouping as TVR and Barry Railways had running powers.  Closed to passengers 1964 and completely 1969, but used for stock storage into early 70s.  Services to Pontypridd via St Fagan's/Tonteg (St Fagan's Pullman), Penarth, Cadoxton via Penarth, Llantwit Major, and Bridgend via Vale of Glamorgan line.

 

Atypical but not overtly idiosycratic, at least until you get on to the Glamorgan Canal Railway, where things get a bit left field with battery electrics and main road swing bridges with very tall control rooms.

 

Can be modelled to scale including canal exchange in 20 linear feet by about 3; compression to 16 feet will still allow 4 coach trains to be run around.

Edited November 9, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

Some ruthless curmudgeon appears to have swiped the bid on the 57xx pannier, but I'm yet to be dissuaded. I won the auction on GWR Branch Line Termini so that'll be a good read I'm sure, and I'll check out Macduff, Hayling and Kingsbridge. To be honest I quite enjoyed the sincerity of the BRM series - sure, it was a Freezer plan with very much off-the-shelf components, but 'so what' ?

 

If it was a lined black BR liveried example, I might be the ruthless curmudgeon, but I doubt it as mine was 'Buy it Now'; can't be faffing around with all that bidding nonsense especially when some ruthless curmudgeon swipes the bid...

[The Johnster]

To get back to the OP's original question, GW BLTs were BLTs first and foremost and shared the features and facilities common to BLTs everywhere.  Basic passenger and goods handling facilities, coal staithes or drops, a lockup if there was no goods shed, and a cattle dock that could double as an end loading bay if the location was rural.  Urban branches could dispense with goods facilities altogether.

 

The thing that defines the branch as GW is the signals and the stock.  Most models get the signals right, but the stock tends to rely on what the trade provides, which going back to the 60s when it was provided by kits was universally 48xx/14xx tanks and auto coaches, or B sets.  B sets were not actually all that common on branch lines (not saying they were unknown), being more appropriate stock for local main line work.  They were not suitable for suburban commuter work, either, as the sacrifice of passenger accommodation for brake van space makes them inefficient mass people carriers.  Many branches used a single brake composite with an all third strengthener for busy periods, and these coaches have never been available from the RTR trade in non-gangwayed form; the longer branches of Wales or the West Country were more likely to feature corridor stock.

 

Auto trailers are catered for by 2 types, the Hornby A28/30 hybrid and the Bachmann A38, which leaves pre-1927 layouts a bit out in the cold.  These classes were produced in good numbers when they were eventually built, but the most numerous single type was the A26, which had a very large geographical spread as well.  It is a panelled 70 footer and lasted until the late 50s, so one might have thought it an obvious choice for RTR; perhaps the length restricts it on no.1 or 2 curves.  It also appeared with several different bogies which means that re-releases could be kept going for years!

 

In short, passenger stock for GW branchlines is not particularly well provided for by the trade, with the situation getting worse the further back in time you go.  On the loco front things are better than they were in the old days, with very good 64xx, 57xx/8750, 45xx, and 4575 being available.  There was a time when the arrival of Airfix on the RTR market suggested that all that ever ran on a GW branch was 14xx/A28 or 30, and 61xx/B set, with the odd Lima railcar, far too often the parcels one which is entirely a main line beast and not suitable for a branch line at all.  The reality contained much more variety than this.

 

Most rural branches, not just GW ones, were built by independent locally floated companies which promised the earth and went bankrupt before the track was laid, at which point the bigger company, which had underwritten the project, pounced.  So, local stone or brick, a sort of standard architectural style within the confines of the branch only.  They never made any money, but were a useful traffic feeder and distributor to and from the trunk network, so were worth subsidising with the trunk network's profits; Beeching's approach was to reduce costs by identifying loss making parts of the railway, and, like the main line local stations and goods yards that actually constituted the great bulk of Beeching closures despite their being irrevocably associated in the general consciousness with branches, it was the end for many of them.

 

Branch lines did not even constitute the bulk of mileage closed in the 60s; that was much more taken from secondary through routes, especially single track ones in thinly populated areas.  Mid Wales, Oxford-Cambridge, the M & GN, and later the Waverly and GC were the big losses.

[Northroader]

Back in the 40s/50s, my local branch always had corridor main stock, two coaches of collett or hawksworth build, although I remember an auto coach running with a corridor on one occasion. The reason as I had it was schoolchildren were travelling on the line and needed supervision (!) which non corridor stock wouldn’t give.

[The Stationmaster]

Back in the 40s/50s, my local branch always had corridor main stock, two coaches of collett or hawksworth build, although I remember an auto coach running with a corridor on one occasion. The reason as I had it was schoolchildren were travelling on the line and needed supervision (!) which non corridor stock wouldn’t give.

 

Same on ours - and it also came w complete with a rather ancient former Slip coach as well.  The sort of passenger stock which could be seen was very much dictated by the nature and location of the branch and also the availability of vehicles of course -hence the use of former main line gangwayed stock on some GWR branches.  Prior to the Modernisation Plan dieselisation of our local branch the following sort of trains could be found in regular operation covering the services limited to the branch- 2 coach sets of fairly old former mainline gangwayed stock, ex GWR diesel railcars, and occasionally a 14XX and auto trailer deputising for a failed or under maintenance railcar.  

 

We also had two through trains a day to/from lLondon in later years (more in earlier years) and these were all gangwayed stock until one set was trengthened with non-gangwayed vehicles to increase capacity.  In addition apart from occasional excursion we had a local annual event which saw the normal branch trains replaced by 5 coach non-gangwayed sets worked by 61XX prairie tanks.  Admittedly our, double track, branch was a bit unusual however the mix of trains on normal branch domestic workings necessarily wasn't.

[The Fatadder]

Kingsbridge is certainly very pretty - I the gentle curves make it a real winner in my book for that reason alone.

 

I mean look at this, it's like somethign directly off of a Peco backscene:

 

It doesn't help that the whole station could be modelled 100% as-is in 2mmFS in under 10' - MUST RESIST

One day when I eventually move to a bigger house, it is my intention to build a slightly simplified Kingsbridge as a replacement for the branch fiddleyard on Brent

[The Johnster]

This illustrates the point about 'bay' platforms being used as loading docks.  

[D9020 Nimbus]

I think most NER branches were built by the NER directly, although there weren't anything like as many as GWR branches (allowing for the different size of the railways). And the track plans were generally more extensive—sometimes much more extensive—than GWR ones (e.g Alnwick). I can't offhand think of any NER branch with a terminus as simple as Ashburton, for instance.

 

There is little relevant motive power available in OO, currently just the J39, V3 and K1 really, although Whitby saw Q6s and B1s. The G5 is of course on its way. There's probably more available in N gauge—no G5, K1 or Q6, but there are J25, J26, J27 and D20s available—all of which could appear (perhaps not the J26). Perhaps Union Mills might consider a J21 sometime?

[Northroader]

I suppose Alston comes fairly close?

P.s. Masham has just occurred to me.(then I look it up, and see it does have a lot more sidings!)

Edited November 10, 2018 by Northroader

[Andy Kirkham]

I suppose Alston comes fairly close?

P.s. Masham has just occurred to me.(then I look it up, and see it does have a lot more sidings!)

How about Guiseborough? - looking picturesquely moribund in these pictures - but still served by DMUs in 1964.

https://flic.kr/p/28x76Di

https://flic.kr/p/28x76QF

https://flic.kr/p/28x77hx

https://flic.kr/p/28sHN73

Edited November 10, 2018 by Andy Kirkham

[bgman]

How aboutGuiseborough? - looking picturesquely moribund in these pictures

https://flic.kr/p/28x76Di

https://flic.kr/p/28x76QF

https://flic.kr/p/28x77hx

https://flic.kr/p/28sHN73

 

 

Ey up ! Is that the Yarkshire Branch of the Great Way Round ? 

[The Stationmaster]

This illustrates the point about 'bay' platforms being used as loading docks.  

 

And stabling for loco coal wagons!

[Lacathedrale]

Got the Karau book and crikey, it's just wonderful.

 

If I had not seen the dog-leg with an engine shed on one side and a gas works siding on the other, I wouldn't have believed it

Edited November 18, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[bgman]

Got the Karau book and crikey, it's just wonderful.

 

 

Lots to keep you happy in there, enjoy !