What did the typical GWR single track branch look like?

[RaritanFan4]

So based on the comments I’ve seen there seem to be conflicting stories BUT the possible truths I can glean from this seem to be for the GWR

1. Locos were in steam for long periods of time.

 

2. at least 1 loco could be theoretically based out of a terminus meaning there could be a single road engine shed for such an engine.

 

3. There could be one engine handling the lines traffic 

 

Now for a layout I want to build I’d like to do it within the realm of realism pulling ideas from different locations.

 

I want to have a single road shed for a 14xx, small prairie, or 64xx (yes I’m aware the 64xx might not have been used in such a way)

 

I’d like to ideally have an auto train which starts its first run from the terminus balanced out by a small prairie and B set which run in between. I’d also like a goods train which I would use a pannier or a collett or dean goods (seen on Lambourne?) 

 

Perhaps milk traffic tacked onto a passenger train in the morning with a bogie siphon van and tanker.. If churn traffic was present would tankers not be? 

 

The “usual” setup coal dealer, cattle dock, goods shed. The addition of a platform with a small yard crane as well. 

 

Taking inspiration from Lambourne again I’d like to have a siding for horse box traffic.. but this isn’t a necessity I just wanted to add something different. 

 

Just need some advice on prototype operating and there seem to be so many opinions here. 

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, RaritanFan4 said:

I’d like to ideally have an auto train which starts its first run from the terminus balanced out by a small prairie and B set which run in between. I’d also like a goods train which I would use a pannier or a collett or dean goods (seen on Lambourne?) 

 

 

Most branch lines used only one set of coaching stock - it shuttled to and from the junction connecting with main line services.  So either the B set or the auto train, but probably not both.  There would be no need for a second set because the service frequency was sparse enough and the branch short enough for one train to do as many round trips as required  - perhaps half a dozen or fewer round trips daily.   Exceptions justifying an extra set might apply where the service ran through to a big city, and if the terminus was at the seaside, you might get excursions from further afield worked through using their train engine.

 

Sometimes the service would be sparse enough that the same loco ran the daily goods train during an interval beteen trains, but it could be a trip working by another engine from the local marshalling yard.  That loco would not be stabled on the branch.

[Northroader]

Prototype operating on a branch? If you copy that accurately, you could end up with not much happening for long periods. Four or five passenger trains, maybe. A daily goods, or even one of the passenger trains mixed.

You're building a model layout, and it should give a nice presentational picture, where trains can come and go. You can relax for half an hour or so with a bit of shunting. Will you want to build up a complete timetable, following it slavishly, and needing longer sessions to work it? Keep it simple.

Then you could consider just which part of the GWR the line is set in, topography, scenery, buildings, and what architecture you use for the station.

[RaritanFan4]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Most branch lines used only one set of coaching stock - it shuttled to and from the junction connecting with main line services.  So either the B set or the auto train, but probably not both.  There would be no need for a second set because the service frequency was sparse enough and the branch short enough for one train to do as many round trips as required  - perhaps half a dozen or fewer round trips daily.   Exceptions justifying an extra set might apply where the service ran through to a big city, and if the terminus was at the seaside, you might get excursions from further afield worked through using their train engine.

 

Sometimes the service would be sparse enough that the same loco ran the daily goods train during an interval beteen trains, but it could be a trip working by another engine from the local marshalling yard.  That loco would not be stabled on the branch.

This helps thank you! One of the ideas I had to justify a second set of coach stock would be to have another branch connect to the terminus off set hidden by a scenic divide. So a junction further up from the main terminus. Not sure if this ever happened but it’s my railway.
 

also wanted to have some kind of carriage shed at the terminus. I was thinking double track just in case. The ratio twin track carriage shed seemed to be the right kit but I’m not sure what GWR practices were. Based on a lot of the info I see is more or less “a lot of branches were pre GWR so they had their own brand of architecture” I’m not too picky on what I choose. 

[Mol_PMB]

A loco shed and a carriage shed at the terminus would be a strong implication that the line was built and initially operated independently of its connected main line.

Small independent lines were often promoted by the people of the terminus town, to give their businesses and homes a connection to the outside world, and it would have seemed logical to base their railway's HQ at their own town rather than the junction.

If it had been built by the main line company, those facilities would have been at the junction or even further away at a bigger town/station.

 

So if you want those facilities at the terminus, you can develop your own local architecture or just pick what you like to suit your own plausible history.

 

You may need to think about how the branch operations might have changed when it was absorbed by the big company. Was there a shortage of space at the junction station which meant that it still made sense to out-base the loco and carriages?

 

 

[johnofwessex]

The Lyme Regis branch loco's were shedded at Lyme Regis, it was a lodging turn from Exmouth Junction with crews staying for a week at a time in accommodation in the station.  One fireman got a job as a barman in the local pub so he had proper accommodation for the week

 

I believe there was one freight 'turn' on the Mid Suffolk where crews spent the night at Laxfield. I gather that the normal arrangement was to take bikes, get to Laxfield as soon as possible and cycle to the nearest main line station and go home 

[KeithMacdonald]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Most branch lines used only one set of coaching stock - it shuttled to and from the junction connecting with main line services.  So either the B set or the auto train, but probably not both.  There would be no need for a second set because the service frequency was sparse enough and the branch short enough for one train to do as many round trips as required  - perhaps half a dozen or fewer round trips daily.   Exceptions justifying an extra set might apply where the service ran through to a big city, and if the terminus was at the seaside, you might get excursions from further afield worked through using their train engine.

 

Ashburton might be a classic example of a "normal" service with the two-coach set and a small engine. 

 

 

Or in busier times (perhaps summer tourists), four coaches.

 

 

But depending on the chosen era, it could be like Moretonhampstead with older six-wheel coaches.

 

 

But my favourite is any excuse to use an autocoach e.g. at Cholsey for the Wallingford branch.

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

One option with a small layout of course is to model more than one era by having sets of rolling stock that you swap around from one running to another.  Most branch lines didn't change much, aprt from a bit of ratiomalisation when good traffic died out.

[Nearholmer]

I wonder whether there is a case for “trickle changing” the stock, rather than having a mass change between sessions, so gradually changing items one by one, as must have been the case in reality. You could even do the same with road vehicles, and if you wanted to go crazy then also with female passengers as skirt-lengths changed (working men seem to have worn clothes that didn’t change to a degree visible at 1:76 scale from about 1880-1970!).

[RaritanFan4]

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Ashburton might be a classic example of a "normal" service with the two-coach set and a small engine. 

 

 

Or in busier times (perhaps summer tourists), four coaches.

 

 

But depending on the chosen era, it could be like Moretonhampstead with older six-wheel coaches.

 

 

But my favourite is any excuse to use an autocoach e.g. at Cholsey for the Wallingford branch.

 

 

Just need to find who makes good GWR branch buildings in OO. Kit or otherwise.

[Jeff Smith]

Look at the Ratio range from Peco.

[KingEdwardII]

4 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Most branch lines used only one set of coaching stock

Big "it depends" regarding that.

It depends on whether some trains started/terminated well off the branch itself, rather than just running to/from the junction station(s). This varied from branch to branch.

 

So for the Cheddar Valley & East Somerset branch (via Cheddar, Wells, Shepton Mallet) some trains did terminate at either Yatton in the West or Witham in the East. However, other trains went to/from Bristol TM or to/from Frome & Westbury.

 

Some trains on the branch were as small as a single railcar. Some trains were 2 carriage "B" sets. Others could be 3 or 4 carriages, especially the longer distance trains.

 

These aspects also affected the motive power used - there was a variety on the Cheddar Valley & East Somerset, which might not apply to a smaller, shorter line.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Remember that the GW was more than a bucolic country branch. 

Something set in South Wales or the Black Country might have an interesting/intensive passenger service, plus more substantial freight.

[osbornsmodels]

Quote

Peter Kazmierczak posted

Something set in South Wales or the Black Country might have an interesting/intensive passenger service

or Henley perhaps with some mainline through services or Wallingford with an engine shed, gasworks, goods yard and Dairy but a not very inspiring branch train

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Most branch lines used only one set of coaching stock

 

... at a time.

 

But if you want two sets of branch coaches, I think it would be prototypical to use one one week and the other the next, as they would need to be worked in rotation to get back to the district's main carriage sidings for cleaning, maintenance, and, if gas-lit, having the cylinders re-filled. 

 

At least, that's the way some railways worked; I don't know about the Great Western.

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Remember that the GW was more than a bucolic country branch. 

Something set in South Wales or the Black Country might have an interesting/intensive passenger service, plus more substantial freight.

We didn't really have many single track dead end branches on GWR lines in the West Midlands. Most seemed to be links between other through routes like the Bumble Hole between the Stourbridge line and the OWW

[Karhedron]

7 hours ago, RaritanFan4 said:

Perhaps milk traffic tacked onto a passenger train in the morning with a bogie siphon van and tanker.. If churn traffic was present would tankers not be? 

 

You could get both tankers and churn traffic in some places. Usually tanks would be carrying milk to London but churns might be carrying cream to somewhere like a holiday resort.

[DLT]

I've come late to this discussion, so my apologies if this has been mentioned before.

"Great Western Branch Line Termini, Combined Edition" by Paul Karau, OPC, is a must-have book.

Quite a few available on Ebay Here#

Originally two volumes, with five termini in each.  First one covered Oxfordshire/Berkshire/Cotswolds, with Lambourn, Tetbury, Fairford, Watlington, & Wallingford.

Second one was Devon/Dorset with Ashburton, Moretonhampstead, Princetown, Hemyock and Abbotsbury.

All initially built by independent companies and all different, even though they became more Great Western-ised as time went on.  Layout, or track-plan was usually dictated by the site available.

Happy researching!

Dave.

Edited September 27 by DLT

[Jeff Smith]

The go-to book for GWR branch inspiration is Great Western Branch Line Termini, Combined Edition by Paul Karau. Details of ten termini including Hemyock which had a dairy and despatched plenty of milk tankers.....  You could use this, or any, as inspiration but if building a scale model, Hemyock would require some scratch built buildings.

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Most branch lines used only one set of coaching stock - it shuttled to and from the junction connecting with main line services.  So either the B set or the auto train, but probably not both.  There would be no need for a second set because the service frequency was sparse enough and the branch short enough for one train to do as many round trips as required  - perhaps half a dozen or fewer round trips daily.   Exceptions justifying an extra set might apply where the service ran through to a big city, and if the terminus was at the seaside, you might get excursions from further afield worked through using their train engine.

 

Sometimes the service would be sparse enough that the same loco ran the daily goods train during an interval beteen trains, but it could be a trip working by another engine from the local marshalling yard.  That loco would not be stabled on the branch.

Kingsbridge in Summer 1952 certainly used two B-Sets. I drew up the graph for M-F services as part of a talk I gave several years ago.

 

 

[KingEdwardII]

14 hours ago, DLT said:

Great Western Branch Line Termini

Fine as far as it goes - but is definitely only looking at the smaller end of the spectrum.

 

No places like Minehead, for example, which is larger and more complex. Branch lines took many forms.

 

So it really depends on what you want to model.

 

 

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Kingsbridge in Summer 1952

Like many seaside-oriented BLTs, it was a totally different place on a summer Saturday!

 

Yours, Mike.

[johnofwessex]

Why though the Hobbys strange obsession with the GWR BLT?

 

OK I can understand that Wells S&D isnt the simplest prototype compared with say Abbotsbury or Blagdon, and motive power variety wasnt a feature of Lyme Regis

 

Did the GWP have more BLT's any other company?  Or is it an issue over space and availability of suitable stock and accessories?

[Michael Hodgson]

19 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

(working men seem to have worn clothes that didn’t change to a degree visible at 1:76 scale from about 1880-1970!).

 

Cloth caps, bowlers for the gaffer and hats generally had gone out of fashion by 1970. 

For some workers at least, hard hats hard come in.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, 1970 is definitely at the outer end of “trad”, although my grandfather (head gardener on a country estate) stuck with it until the early 1980s when he retired, and I used to get Irish guys turning-up on site to dig cable routes or unload wagons, wearing tweed suits, and the odd older guy in a cap, also into the early 1980s - they’d come over seasonally, working for Bord na Mona the rest of the year, bringing nothing but the clothes they were standing up in! Railway stores were also still issuing trad clothes at that time, long black macs for operational supervisors and managers, and very good quality (if always slightly too big!) pea-coats for engineering supervisors and junior engineers. 

[KeithMacdonald]

13 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Kingsbridge in Summer 1952 certainly used two B-Sets. I drew up the graph for M-F services as part of a talk I gave several years ago.

 

Nice graph 🙂

Interesting that the timetable mentions one down and one up service that had through coaches, detached or attached at Brent. Were those summer-only services to cope with the extra volume of tourist traffic?