Wallingford GWR BLT

[Harlequin]

The question arose recently of why GWR BLT layouts are often so similar.

 

Part of the problem is that in the real world they are often strung out over long distances and so are difficult to compress into the relatively tight spaces available to modellers. If they are compressed they can lose their unique character and the elements end up being arranged in over-familiar ways.

 

I was looking at the book, "Great Western Branch Line Termini" (the combined edition), by Paul Karau and I realised that Wallingford station in Berkshire would fit in 10 feet (3m) with very little compression at 4mm scale. So it would retain it's character and it's unique arrangement of the expected elements (run round loop, single face platform, engine shed, cattle dock, etc, etc...)

 

At Wallingford, the run round loop was not against the platform face, the goods yard was behind the platform and there was a kickback siding for the gasworks, which used the engine shed spur as an unfeasibly short headshunt.

 

Here's what I came up with:

[Click to enlarge]

• All the points are Peco Streamline Large Radius and so Bullhead track could be used throughout.
• The lengths and positions of the track and buildings are very close to those shown on the 1933 map (from old-maps.co.uk).
• The goods sidings are shortened slightly and pushed slightly closer together than they are on the map.
• The biggest compromise is that only one back siding is shown instead of two. That allows the design to fit onto 2ft 6in wide boards and avoids a very long set of slightly curved points that the Peco geometry really can't emulate.
• The backdrop would show the neighbouring gasworks buildings, including a tall chimney and gasometers.
• The large radius point representing the trap at the end of the run round loop would need fettling to make it look like a proper trap (until Peco make a proper Bullhead version).

I haven't worked out how to disguise the exit from the scene yet and, as currently shown with two 5 foot long boards, a crucial set of points lies across the board joint. I'm still thinking about that - it's tricky!

 

So a layout based on Wallingford could be reasonably accurate, could have lots of character and would be a bit different from the bog-standard GWR BLT.

 

By the way: Note that the North indication on the track plans in the book is wrong. North is actually 90 degrees anticlockwise from what's shown.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Harlequin

[mdvle]

Very nice, very tempting.

 

For the scenic divide St. John's Road isn't too much further down the line and could be used.

 

Myself, I would be tempted to do a bit of fudging and slightly move the brook and turn it into what it appears to have been converted into now - a walking path.  Add a pedestrian bridge and you have your divide, slightly different than the frequent road and you could put a couple of young trainspotters on it.

[mdvle]

Wikipedia has a short article on the branch with a picture from the 60's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallingford_railway_branch_line

 

Another article, this time on station, with a picture from 1959

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallingford_railway_station_(England)

 

A plea for info for a modeller in 2009

http://bwtas.blogspot.com/2009/02/wallingford-research-request.html

 

Picture of the former station can be found on this page

https://sites.google.com/site/wallingfordhistorygateway/Home/sites/historicsites

 

Ebay listing of a picture showing the signal box and looking down the line

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wallingford-Railway-Station-Photo-Cholsey-Moulsford-Line-Great-Western-18-/263364602420

 

and a closeup

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wallingford-Railway-Station-Photo-Cholsey-Moulsford-Line-Great-Western-16-/263364600941

 

View of what might have been end of passenger service given the number of people around

https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-diesels/14284427493/in/photostream/

Edited November 15, 2018 by mdvle

[The Great Bear]

 

I haven't worked out how to disguise the exit from the scene yet and, as currently shown with two 5 foot long boards, a crucial set of points lies across the board joint. I'm still thinking about that - it's tricky!

 

 

There was an overbridge outside of the station a little distance away beyond the creamery, as I expect you know. If you got get the latter in adds more operational interest. Whether you could slightly more compress the station to get that in with the siding to the creamery straight after end of run around loop?

[Harlequin]

Thanks for the references, mdvle.

 

It's interesting that the sources are not clear about the location of the creamery. One refers to a private siding off the goods yard and one photo is captioned as being on "Borough Ave" (also in the Karau book) but Borough Avenue seem to have been built on the old track bed after the station was closed. The Karau book nails it down though, with a photo (WL28) showing the private siding diverging to the west of the branch line just north of the St. John's Road bridge. It says that the siding was installed in 1933.

 

Here's an image showing the map in brown overlaid on the layout design so that you can see how far the design differs from the actual c.1933 station plan.

[Click to enlarge]

 

This also gives some idea how the gasworks would be represented on the backscene.

 

The creamery working could still provide operational interest without actually being modelled: During the morning yard shunting the loco would disappear up the line (into the fiddle yard) and reappear a few minutes later with a C.W.S. liveried milk tanker. :-)

 

The layout would have to be longer to include the St John's road bridge without compressing the station, and even more so for the creamery.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Harlequin

[clachnaharry]

What a  splendid piece of work. With reference to your visual block, I would be tempted to use hole in the backscene hidden by a clump of trees. The fact that the line is slightly angled away from the viewing side would help this illusion.

 

The biggest problem with Wallingford is the lack of operational interest. My books are in storage at the moment, but from recollection, the train service from the 30s through to closure consisted of a 14/48/58xx and autotrailer shuffling back and forwards to the junction. The only break in that monotony was a couple of mixed trains and the occasional milk tanker as tail traffic. I'm sure I have read that the yard was often shunted with the autotrailer still attached, due to the time constrains of the frequent passenger service, and the complexity of detaching the coach.

 

Of the ten terminii  featured in Paul Karau's books on the subject, only four, Ashburton, Fairford, Lambourn, and Moretonhampstead retained their signalling beyond the 1920s and thus allowed more than one train to be present at one time. Of these Fairford has the most operational interest, with two engines and two sets of coaches stabled at the terminus overnight, and visited by two goods trains during the day. The shuffling around when a goods was present, whilst the passenger need to run-round must have been very interesting, given the need to use the platform line whilst shunting the yard. The motive power had more variety and included small tender locos as well as the ubiquitous pannier tanks. There is even a perfect scenic break with the overbridge by the station. The downside is the extreme length of the site, and I would love to see your treatment of that!

 

Lambourn, looks like a more easily modelled station, and although the traffic pattern was not as complex or interesting as Fairford, it did at least have periods where the branch goods and passenger trains were both in the station, it featured tender loco's, tail traffic (horseboxes) and best of all, legitimate GWR railcar use! 

Edited November 16, 2018 by clachnaharry

[The Johnster]

Another feature of Lambourn was the use of auto trailers without auto fitted locomotives, due to the number of ground level halts that had to be served with coaches that had retractable footsteps.  Plus you can include horseboxes!

 

I walked the Wallingford branch in 1969 (bad boy, Johnster, you were trespassing), and remember it very much as depicted in the 'Wallingford in the 1960s' photo.  It would make a fine model, but operation is a bit dull for my taste and I like things a bit busier than this 'minimal railway' one engine in steam approach.  The general look of the line was fairly open, and I remember no overbridges; I would adopt the 'hole in the sky hidden by trees' look for the scenic break.

[Harlequin]

Lambourn would make a fine model no doubt but it was the fact that Wallingford fitted into 10 feet without compression that got me started. Lambourn would need a bit more space and or a bit more compression by the look of it.

 

Regarding operations at Wallingford, Karau says that the goods yard was quite busy with a number of local businesses shipping goods in and out. There was also coal traffic for the gasworks, which needed some fiddly shunting to get in and out of the kickback siding.

 

Karau also says that the auto trailers were not allowed into the goods yard and so after the 14xx/48xx had disconnected and performed its shunting duties the crew sometimes didn't bother to reconnect the control gear to the auto trailer for the next up passenger trip. (It sounds like the rules were bent a bit and I bet some shunting was done with the trailer attached as Clachnaharry says.)

 

So it sounds to me like it was fairly busy, at least pre-war, for a single-engine-in-steam station.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Harlequin

[clachnaharry]

A quick look at an old 25inch/mile map shows Lambourn fitting into a site about 800 x 180 ft, so about 10.5 x 2.5 feet in 4mm scale,  but the fiddle yard exit problems are even worse than Wallingford as the single line leaves on an embankment. Watlington is even smaller at about 750 x 150 ft.

 

 

Unfortunately, my favourite prototype, Fairford, would require more than 20 feet in length...

[The Johnster]

I think I've seen photographs of shunting at Wallingford with the trailer attached somewhere, and with the coach at the 'country' end of the loco and the wagons at the 'town' end I'm not sure any rules were actually being broken.  Connecting the auto gear was a faffy job that would be avoided if you could get away with it, and if the rules were bent in terms of the driver being on the loco when you were propelling (as I know they were in some places in South Wales) there is little trouble in regard to crossings or signals to sight that you can get into propelling to Cholsey and Moulsford.  Not saying it ever happened, but...

[Joseph_Pestell]

How far back in GW history would one need to go for more interesting operation?

[Flying Pig]

I came across Iain C Robinson's post showing his model of the station building and loco shed at Wallingford, which was described in the Railway Modeller: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/70935-anything-you-can-do-i-can-do-better-robinson-and-downes/page-20&do=findComment&comment=1082951

[mdvle]

I suspect for many / most the operational limitations will be a non-issue - you can only operate one train at a time and thus if you are a lone operator at home the limitation of one loco becomes a non-issue.

 

If you slow things down (which is becoming more popular) and operate things with more prototype accuracy in terms of speed, taking time to connect / disconnect couplings, and otherwise follow the real rulebook you could have a nice escape for an hour or two with this layout which is all many of us need.

 

Also suspect that while the autocoach may have been left on on times, it probably spent a lot of its life improperly connected given that shunting the coal would be a lot easier without the autocoach I would assume.

[Neal Ball]

It will be interesting to see how this develops if you do indeed build Wallingford. With the usual operators licence atet many trains will be running!

 

Btw: Ages ago, I looked at Fairford, but decided against it as a model as it would be very long and thin!

 

Good luck with the model.

Neal.

[Harlequin]

I have no plans to build this - just exploring for fun.

 

So if anyone else wants to have a go they wouldn't be treading on my toes.

[ozthedog]

I am building Wallingford in 00 in a 3.5 metre long shed.  This requires only minimal compression of the trackwork.

I have prepared the trackplan as a mirror image of that drawn in the Karau book so that the gas works forms a backdrop.  If you are interested I have described the layout build in a Wordpress blog.  Website address below.

[PatB]

Of course, even having built a prototypical model, there's no actual obligation to always operate it prototypical. Rule 1 and all that...

[Harlequin]

I am building Wallingford in 00 in a 3.5 metre long shed.  This requires only minimal compression of the trackwork.

I have prepared the trackplan as a mirror image of that drawn in the Karau book so that the gas works forms a backdrop.  If you are interested I have described the layout build in a Wordpress blog.  Website address below.

 

Hi oz,

 

We both had the same idea of using the gasworks and waterworks as a more interesting backdrop! You say you mirrored the layout because of space restrictions and it looks like you are going to complete the run round loop in the fiddle yard for the same reason?

 

Good luck with it! Looking forward to seeing more pictures (maybe in an RMWeb layout topic?).

Edited November 17, 2018 by Harlequin

[caradoc]

By coincidence I was reading the April 1971 Railway Magazine last night in which there are 3 photos of the Wallingford branch freight in October 1970, headed by Class 22 6343. The train started from Reading and ran round at Didcot, on its return traffic for Reading was left in a siding at Cholsey and the remainder of the train was propelled to what was left at Wallingford (the ABM sidings). So no run round loop required, but less operational interest than in steam/passenger days too.

[ozthedog]

Hi oz,

 

We both had the same idea of using the gasworks and waterworks as a more interesting backdrop! You say you mirrored the layout because of space restrictions and it looks like you are going to complete the run round loop in the fiddle yard for the same reason?

 

Good luck with it! Looking forward to seeing more pictures (maybe in an RMWeb layout topic?).

Harlequin,

 

I had to use modellers licence to complete the run round loop and include the creamery.  Here is the track plan as laid.  The right hand curve is necessitated by  the end of the shed.

 

You can see photos of the build so far at https://gwrbranchline.wordpress.com/  .  I am about to start building the gasworks on a 20cm wide removable baseboard that can be dropped in at the rear of the layout.

 

Regards

 

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks for the references, mdvle.

 

It's interesting that the sources are not clear about the location of the creamery. One refers to a private siding off the goods yard and one photo is captioned as being on "Borough Ave" (also in the Karau book) but Borough Avenue seem to have been built on the old track bed after the station was closed. The Karau book nails it down though, with a photo (WL28) showing the private siding diverging to the west of the branch line just north of the St. John's Road bridge. It says that the siding was installed in 1933.

 

Here's an image showing the map in brown overlaid on the layout design so that you can see how far the design differs from the actual c.1933 station plan.

Wallingford 7.png

[Click to enlarge]

 

This also gives some idea how the gasworks would be represented on the backscene.

 

The creamery working could still provide operational interest without actually being modelled: During the morning yard shunting the loco would disappear up the line (into the fiddle yard) and reappear a few minutes later with a C.W.S. liveried milk tanker. :-)

 

The layout would have to be longer to include the St John's road bridge without compressing the station, and even more so for the creamery.

 

The connection to the CWS creamery was 280 yards from the former signalbox building.

I think I've seen photographs of shunting at Wallingford with the trailer attached somewhere, and with the coach at the 'country' end of the loco and the wagons at the 'town' end I'm not sure any rules were actually being broken.  Connecting the auto gear was a faffy job that would be avoided if you could get away with it, and if the rules were bent in terms of the driver being on the loco when you were propelling (as I know they were in some places in South Wales) there is little trouble in regard to crossings or signals to sight that you can get into propelling to Cholsey and Moulsford.  Not saying it ever happened, but...

 

It was perfectly legitimate to shunt, including freight shunting, with an auto trailer attached as it was authorised in the General Appendix.  it definitely happened on the Wallingford branch as there is indeed photographic evidence although the trailer might well have been officially bared from certain sidings.  It was incidentally not exactly an 'unusual' practice for autogear not to be reconnected if the engine and trailer had to be split for whatever reason - it definitely happened on the Marlow branch so I wouldn't be at all surprised if it also happened on the Wallingfird branch.

 

Pre War three trains in each direction were authorised to run as 'Mixed Auto' - basically Down in the morning and Up in the afternoon/evening (as might be expected) so logically there could be two trains in each direction conveying a freight brakevan on the rear in order to get it back to the other end of the branch for the next Mixed Train.

 

Additionally post-war one train in each direction was officially described as 'Milk Auto'

By coincidence I was reading the April 1971 Railway Magazine last night in which there are 3 photos of the Wallingford branch freight in October 1970, headed by Class 22 6343. The train started from Reading and ran round at Didcot, on its return traffic for Reading was left in a siding at Cholsey and the remainder of the train was propelled to what was left at Wallingford (the ABM sidings). So no run round loop required, but less operational interest than in steam/passenger days too.

 

When I travelled on the trip in 1967, the loco then was a D63XX which was the usual booked traction for the trip.  As you described the trip ran from Reading West Jcn to Didcot to runround and then entered the branch off the Up Relief at Cholsey. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[Craigw]

If you are happy to live within the constraints of a BLT (of any persuasion), the Wallingford has always struck me as a very appealing example indeed. While the 48XX and autotrailer may be a little predictable, if you step back to the early 1920s - before autotrains then you have a set of 4 wheel coaches. Locos allocated there in 1923 were a 517, 850 saddle tank and 850 pannier. That strikes me as much more appealing I must say. 

 

A branchline is not something you model if you want intensive operation but there again, it is also a far more realistic option for many of us. Provided you stick with the smaller locos, i do not think it matters if you fudge history a bit. A metro would not look out of place, nor would quite a few others.

 

This is a station that has a lot of potential and does not take up a great deal of space. 

 

What more could one want?

 

Craig W

[The Johnster]

It is surprising how busy BLT's, even single platform ones, can be.  Rural traffic tends to be light and infrequent, and the 'typical' modelled branch is idyllically rural, but urban and industrial areas also featured such railways.  My own fictitious South Wales effort, Cwmdimabath, is much simpler track layout wise than Wallingford, and is based on the real terminus at Abergwynfi.  I have a WTT for 1960 which shows very few spare paths on the section to Cwmmer Afan only 2 miles away between the box opening at 06.00 and it closing at 18.00 in the evening.  Things ease off then and the service is a one engine in steam auto, but the last train doesn't get in from Bridgend, where it connects with the 20.00 ex Paddington-Swansea, until just before midnight (it also presumably carries the odd late night reveller who has sampled Bridgend's fleshpots.  

 

Abergwynfi was even simpler as a track layout than my Cwmdimbath layout; a run around loop and a colliery branch, no sidings.  But the signalman had plenty to occupy himself!  

 

Another example would be Clarence Road, in Cardiff's docklands.  This short branch, only a mile and a half long from the Riverside platforms of Cardiff General, hosted a very intense rush hour commuter traffic necessitating double track with only a single platform; a busy trip freight traffic servicing the factories and a canal wharf railway was superimposed onto this in the slack morning and mid afternoon periods.  All went dead by about 6 in the evening!

[DCB]

I can't help thinking Faringdon is a better starting point as the loop is adjacent to the platform and the footprint is quite a lot shorter.

There are a lot of branch termini with goods sidings beside the platforms which are generally less space hungry, Nailsworth (MR) and the end

of the Worth Valley railway are this style as are several late GW branches, Chew Valley and one south East from Plymouth spring to mind but

not clearly enough to remember its mame.

[Jeff Smith]

Wallingford is a preserved railway, I am staying near it but have not visited the site so do not know how much is left. Last time I visited the Wallingford History Centre there was an N gauge model of the station on display.