GWR branchline coach operations

[Andy Kirkham]

2 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Henley at one time had more through services to/from Paddington during the Regatta

 

As seen here

 

[The Stationmaster]

24 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

As seen here

 

I wonder where the ladies' bicycle event was taking place as that very definitely was not at Henley

[The Stationmaster]

Alas my first reply has vanished so I'll start again.  Henley and Windsor were unusual among GWR branch lines for having both business travel (later called commuters) and a lot of leaisure travel including seasonal and special events to/from London.   Hence both branches long retained through trains to/from Paddington for business travel plus attracting considerable excursion and special event traffic and had quite extensive station facilities to deal with the latter.  the number of dail through trains to/from paddington varied over the years - Heley for example generally had 2 Up morning trains balanced by 2 Down evening trains until the Turbo era but GWR subsequently reinstated at least one through train in each direction on weekdays and these lasted until electrification and the line capacity pressures resulting from the unloading of the awful Crossrail trains onto stations way out of London on the GWML.  Windsor of curse also had a through train to/from the City until the end of through working in September 1939 as did Uxbridge (which had several such trains as well as others terminating at Paddington.

 

but in terms of passenger traffic none of these branches could really be regarded as 'typical country branch lines' because of the very different nature of their passenger traffic.   

 

as far as 2251s were concerned they were very definitely branchline engines - a member of teh class was for many years the regular engine on both teh Hemley g branch freight trip from/to Reading West Jcn and on a trip from there to Reading Central over the goods only branch which served that place.  As already noted 2251s also appeared on the Lambourn and Wallingford branches and they were of course ideal for the long straggling branch to Fairford where they shared the work with pannier tanks before being supplanted by D63XX (as they were on the cutback remnant of the Lambourn branch).

 

But as the Johnster pointed out what  was 'a typical GWR branchline'?    To be honest I'd be hard put to define such a beast, because even after dieselisation the variety of motive power working what was by then the remaining branchlines on the Western Region was probably almost as diverse as it had been in the steam age and the nature of passenger traffic (plus the remaining freight on some of them) was also still pretty diverse.   I would certaily not fimd it at all easy to define a 'typical GWR branchline'.

[The Johnster]

The water is further muddied in my view by the use of the term branch for lines such as the Wye Valley branch, not really a branch as such but part of a network of routes centred on Monmouth Troy that included Pontypool Road and Ross on Wye as well.  It was worked as a branch in the sense that there was a Wye Valley train that ran between Troy and Chepstow, as there was between Troy and PPRD, and Troy and Ross on Wye.  A similar network could be found in North Somerset, called branches but not quite branches in the sense of a route from a main line junction to a branch termius.  Fairford could have ended up like this as it was intended to connect with Cirencester, which would have made a through route between Oxford and Kemble.

 

The Taff Vale regarded it's main line as running from Cardiff Docks (Bute Road later) to Merthyr, with 'branches' to Aberdare and Treherbertm the latter having a sub branch (twig?) to Maerdy from Porth, but these 'branches' were double track intensively worked routes with frequent passenger and goods and an intense coal traffic, at least as busy as the Merthyr 'main line'.  The Barry had a branch from Cadoxton to Cogan on which it ran it's through passenger service to Clarence Road, a GW branch that was atypical in that no GW passenger trains ran on it until the grouping; it was served by the Barry from Barry or Pontypridd and the Taff Vale from Penarth.  It was short and double track throughout, not what one thinks of as a branch line at all.

 

In South Wales, the use of the term 'branch' rarely denoted a terminus in the sense that most modellers would understand the word, as in most places the railway continued past the passenger terminus to dissolve into colliery sidings.  Off hand I can only think of Merthyr High Street, more like a main line terminus, Barry Pier, also double track and only used for steamer connection traffic, Mumbles Pier, which was very much an oddball and not part of the 'big' railway, which it predated, and arguably Clarence Road, but there was a canalside railway which ran past this only a few yards away and connected to it. 

 

But the modellers' mythological pre-war West Country rural idyll, always high summer, god's in his heaven and all's right with the world, is a persistent myth, and a powerful one.  It contains, I submit, all of the following features of varying suitability:-

 

.A single track route to a terminus in a village.

 

.A run around loop at the station platform.

 

.Plenty of people on the platform waiting for the train.  This nonsence particularly irks me; in such places the locals knew the timetable by heart and would hear the loco whistle as it approached, and so would stay indoors until there was a train in the station for them to sit out of the rain in.  When there was no train in the platform, it was usually full on Paris, Texas deserted, except for the station cat sunning iteself on a bench.

 

.A bay platform (unusual in realiity) that has a 48xx and auto trailer and or a diesel railcar shuttling in and out of it, sometimes to a sub-branch.

 

.A goods shed with cattle/end loading dock, often on a spur off the loco run around loop at the 'town' end, and a mileage road with coal cells.

 

.A single road loco shed with coaling stage and a water tower,

 

.Different locos for the sub-branch, the daily pickup, and the 'main train' to the junction.  In reality the 48xx did pretty much everything,

 

.Despite being set in the 30s, before the razor style railcar it features was built, there are no panelled auto trailers or pre-48xx auto locos such as 517s or Metro tanks. 

 

.A Ratio grounded coach body, and/or a grounded van body as a store, from a prototype still in service in the 30s or not yet built. 

 

.Private owner coal wagons from a variety of owners including collieries that did not produce house coal, in pristine condition.

 

.No weighbridge at the goods yard road entrance.

 

Additional features may well be:-

 

.A dairy served by miltas, at a period when the traffic went in churns carried by siphons.

 

.An inappropriate industrial shunting loco as yard pilot (finescale 7mm layouts particularly guilty of this).

 

 

[dibber25]

I think the above is pretty ruthless dismantling of at least half a century of 'OO' layout building by some hundreds of modellers. There's really just two types of GWR branchline layouts - the slavishly accurate representations of a particular place at a particular moment in its railway history and the fantasy layouts that don't claim to be anything else other than how someone dreams a place that he dreamt up might have been. Neither is more valid than the other and something is only 'inappropriate' if its on a layout that is claimed to be an accurate representation of a real place and really shouldn't be. The WR branch line terminus has been my first love since I 'discovered' Fairford closed and derelict in the early 1960s but it was the fictitious GWRBLTs that first attracted me to model WR branch lines, (K's 14XX + auto trailer AND diesel railcar. And yes, Fairford, Tetbury, Staines all had the goods shed/cattle dock/engine shed/coaling stage/water tower etc just as described as did lots of others- true Fairford's loop wasn't in the station platform and it also had a turntable.  (CJL)

[BWsTrains]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

While 2251s and Dean Goods were not branch locos in general, and one must consider that the definition of a 'branch loco' is a bit elastic to start wtih, as is 'branch line', rural branches occasionally featured through workings to or from places beyond the junction, such as cattle or broccili specials, or passenger excursions, that would use locomotives capable of the entire journey so long as they were route available for the branch.  Urban and industrial branches were usually route available to all classes, as was the entired Newport Division's route map in South Wales, so a rugby special or an excursion to Bristol zoo might feature empty stock and big tender locos from a main line depot working tender first to the terminus and taking up the working from there. 

 

The Porthcawl Branch allowed 43xx and tank locos up to 42xx for excursion workings, and the daily Cardiff commuter service was hauled by Bulldogs pre-war and Collett 31xx large prairies post-war; one would not consider these as branch locos in the normal sense even if one could objectively define this.  Porthcawl also saw BR standard class 4MT 2-6-4Ts on the daily Swansea commuters, after the LNWR's Paxton St. loco shed closed and the locos were transferred to Landore, which promptly closed for rebuilding into a diesel depot so that Landore's steam locos were transferred to Neath Court Sart.  On one occasion a Fowler 2-6-4T turned up. 

 

Seaside destination branches also featured through working from distant main line locations, especially on summer Saturdays, and Kingswear saw Kings on through trains from Paddington.  Barry Island saw anything and everything short of Kings and 47xx, including LNWR G2a 0-8-0s on excursions from Tredegar.  The Lambourn Branch featured tender locos such as 2251s and Dean Goods hauling auto trailiers because of the traffic requirement for stock that could be accessed by retractable steps from low level halt platforms and the need to carry heavy tail traffic on an ad hoc basis because of the horseboxes needed for the branch's connection with racehorse training.  More or less everything modellers think of as rules for GW branch lines was broken somewhere or other. 

 

Typical GW branch lines were, typically, atypical, and only atypically typical...

 

Johnster,

 

you may consider yourself duly appointed as my  "resident" Branch Operations Consultant.  Sadly, the position is unpaid and does not include travel visits to Oz.

All the same thanks for your many helpful insights.

 

Regards.

 

Colin

Edited September 19, 2021 by BWsTrains

[DavidB-AU]

I've commented on some of the above several times in the Layout & Track Design group, particularly the bit about the small engine shed and loco coal at the terminus - that would be at the junction and the BLT only needs water.

 

There was a near epidemic of layouts either of or based on Ashburton about 50 years ago which probably helped perpetuate the myth of what a BLT should look like. CJF's designs certainly contributed.

 

Cheers

David

[BWsTrains]

9 minutes ago, DavidB-AU said:

I've commented on some of the above several times in the Layout & Track Design group, particularly the bit about the small engine shed and loco coal at the terminus - that would be at the junction and the BLT only needs water.

 

There was a near epidemic of layouts either of or based on Ashburton about 50 years ago which probably helped perpetuate the myth of what a BLT should look like. CJF's designs certainly contributed.

 

Cheers

David

 

The vexed question of "Engine Sheds or not?" specifically on the GWR was discussed in depth here:

 

and when the initiator rather uncharitably deleted his whole topic #  was continued by me here:

 

Always keen to have hard data to back up memories and assertions I went browsing thru old OS maps of a wide range of randomly selected GWR BLT locales and with hardly an exception there was a single engine shed to be found. Thus supporting the view from one contributor that it was the GWR default up to the 1920s or so. For the full details the interested can wade back thru the two topics.

 

# Andy Y very kindly had the topic reinstated at my request and when the offending member deleted it again he was "Red Carded" - good one Andy.

 

 

 

[BWsTrains]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

But the modellers' mythological pre-war West Country rural idyll, always high summer, god's in his heaven and all's right with the world, is a persistent myth, and a powerful one.  It contains, I submit, all of the following features of varying suitability:-

 

 

A great list, however it does span a very wide range from the actual, found almost on every BLT to the pure fanciful. There is no substitute for research when planning a layout and then some decisions can made as to where Rule 1! can be judiciously applied to add to the outcome.  One thing I've observed is the power of assertions to take on a "virtual truth" if not checked / validated. The GWR Engine Shed Myth being a fine example. Look and ye shall find them sitting in all the 25" OS maps of the era irrespective of whatever anyone asserts to the contrary!

 

Regarding Dibber25's point

I reckon it is very hard to faithfully model an actual BLT setting - scale compression mostly rules that out unless the main features to be modelled are the station buildings / structures themselves.  A few tracks, virtually no passengers and few trains coming / going makes for a poor reward for much hard work. 

 

So that leaves the majority of us with option #2 to enjoy.

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by BWsTrains

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, BWsTrains said:

Sadly, the position is unpaid

Curses, foiled again!

 

Engine sheds were present at some termini and not others; again, there were no unbreakable rules.  It depended on how the traffic was worked; was it more important to have a first train from the junction carrying mail and today's London papers, or to have one starting at the terminus to connect with the first London up the main line?  A branch loco shed would have a coaling stage and water, and possibly an inspection pit; it's purpose is to provide somewhere for the branch loco to be kept in light steam overnight.  Locos were kept in steam continuously between boiler washouts, which were carried out at the bigger junction sheds, for about 2 weeks at a time to minimise the damage caused by expansion and contraction when a loco is allowed to go cold.  Minor repairs could be carried out during this overnight period, but anything more than the most simple tasks would have to be done at the junction shed.

 

I don't personally like loco sheds at branch termini, though there is nothing wrong with them and I would not try to persuade others not to have them or that it is bad modelling in any way.  The reason I don't like them is that they are typically empty during the day, and the only action they see is when the loco is disposed in the evening and when it is coaled and watered as soon as pressure is high enough to move it in the morning, so from an operational point of view, they are dead areas for most of the timetable day.  Given that the usual reason for choosing a BLT type of layout is lack of space, I would rather use the space for something that generates traffic, such as a small factory, dairy/creamery, quarry, wharf, mine or such.  My own layout features both a private siding serving two small industrial concerns and the exchange road for a colliery.

 

Dibber 25 and his articles in MRC 50 or 60 years ago were a major driving force in the popularity of GW branch lines, and I am grateful to him for the very considerable influence he had on my own modelling.  My layout is of a GW branch terminus, but in a South Wales mining valley, a very different scenario and scenic treatment to the bucolic idylls that permeated exhibitions and magazine articles for so long.  As I said, it was a myth but a very persuasive, seductive, and powerful one, and it's influence can be probably discerned on my own layout and those of many others, including those not concerned with the GW or with rural branches at all.

[kandc_au]

2 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

 

 

 

Regarding Dibber25's point

I reckon it is very hard to faithfully model an actual BLT setting - scale compression mostly rules that out unless the main features to be modelled are the station buildings / structures themselves.  A few tracks, virtually no passengers and few trains coming / going makes for a poor reward for much hard work. 

 

So that leaves the majority of us with option #2 to enjoy.

 

Probably why Ashburton was so popular as it could be built as a scaled model without compression!

Khris

[DCB]

21 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I'd beg to differ. Whilst many branch lines did not see a Dean Goods or a 2251, some did.

 

I've seen photos of Deans working some of the minor Cambrian branches in mid-Wales, likewise Karau's book on the Wallingford Branch includes a photo of a 2251 on the line. So there is justification there if you want to run one on your layout! 

I was talking about West Country Branches, Devon and Cornwall.  In the 1950s there was one 2251 at Exeter and that's it for 0-6-0s for Devon and Cornwall.  Main purpose was as a Ballast train engine, but it was photographed on Exeter to Newton Abbott or Kingswear locals.   The Ballast trains spent long periods away from water columns so a Tender engine was preferred. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by DCB

[The Stationmaster]

Talk of the South wales Valleys is rather off the mark for a 'typical-ish' GWR branchline terminus because the GWR iytself was responsible for few branchline termin i in South Wales and most of those it took over at the grouping remained very much as originally designed and constructed but plus various GWR added features such as signals and signage  plus some new smaller buildings.  in other words they were not really GWR branchline termini.

 

If we look at the ones which were GWR, or were built be companies absorbed into or taken over by the GWR long before the grouping, a different picture emerges.  The first group were those which were hemmed in by topography or existing buildings and equally were in heavily freight trafficked areas with loco depots all over the place - thus the termini  at Nantymoel, Cwmavan Colliery Halt, Blaenavon, Cardiff Clarence Road,  Swansea East Dock and - arguably - Ebbw Vale were either adjuncts to or built alongside freight lines and tened to not havea wide expanse of layout for their various (often limited) facilities) so all were very different from the usual sort of GWR branchline terminus.

 

Merthyr was more typical in many respects its many oddity being the number of Pre-Group railway companies which served it and of course it boasted a Brunellian overall roof.  Porthcawl was more in the Henley/Windsor bracket serving both some commuting anda considerable of excursion traffic which greatly influenced the number of platforms and the track layout and like Windsor it didn't have an engine shed becaiuse facu ilities were available not to far away.

 

The rest were far more typical - generally well spread out as they were, with a couple of exceptions, built on sites where land was not only cheap but readily available.  and Aberayron, Newcastle Emlyn, Cardigan, Pembroke dock, Milford Have, and Fishguard, all had engine sheds (although Fishguard's was not at the terminus due to lack of space.  fishguard is of course arguable as a 'branch terminus but technically it was at the time it was built because the main line went to Neyland (which also had an engine shed and remained until closure of the Western's most fascinating stations with separate arrival and departure platforms - and the engine shed lying between them).

 

So effectively the South wales Valleys/conurbations branches were very much the odd ones out with the tendency to laterally cramped, so therefore narrow, sites and the impact of being in an area where freight (mineral traffic) tended to predominate and thus decide the siting of loco depots etc.

 

Generally I think it is fair to say that the majority of GWR branchline termini only had a single platform face for handling passenger traffic. but many had an adjacent dock.   Except in areas where freight traffic overwhelmingly predominated most branch termini had an engine shed and many lasted in use until the end of steam traction although some went earlier during the 1950s.   Locos in use on branchlines varied considerably and only the very minor ones - usually with Mixed Trains - saw the same class of engine doing everything and in some cases weight restrictions meant only engines of a limited number of classes could appear.    Otherwise there could be a considerable mixture - for example on the Henley branch in the 1950s the normal branch passenger engines were a 57XX and a 94XX but ex GWR railcars regularly worked certain trains and a 14XX and trailer worked a couple of late night services on a timetabled basis.  Thus, in a single day, if you travelled on the right trains you could have trips behind a pannier and on an ex GWR railcar and on an auto train.  Oh and the freight trip was normally worked by a 2251.  But on the nearby Marlow branch it was (excursions aside) a 14XX or nothing - until you changed at Bourne End and then it could be behind a 61XX if the 14XX wasn't working through to Maidenhead.  Not much further away the Watlington branch was usually the preserve of 57XX panniers, except when an ex LNEr 0-6-0 was substituted.

[RJS1977]

8 hours ago, kandc_au said:

Probably why Ashburton was so popular as it could be built as a scaled model without compression!

Khris

 

Although even Ashburton scales out at 11' long, plus fiddle yard.

[DCB]

On 18/09/2021 at 21:07, Siberian Snooper said:

 

 

Without wishing to be too pedantic or split hairs, surely Exeter to Newton Abbot, via Heathfield is the Teign Valley line, Moretonhampstead would require a reversal at Heathfield, from Exeter.

 

 

The junction at Heathfield was remodelled at some stage, pre ww2, to allow through working. previously trains had to shunt in and out of the bay, though not change direction. Afterwards Prairies could take main line trains round this way if the sea wall was out of action.

Heathfield pre alterations, and Tiverton were two places where a sub branch joined a branch and where the sub branch used the bay platforms.  

Edited September 20, 2021 by DCB

[RJS1977]

One other advantage of the BLT is that they changed little over a lengthy period (30-50 years or more) - maybe a different shade of paint or change from GWR to WR signage, if they were lucky. The bigger changes would be in road vehicles etc but even there, many pre-War cars lasted into the 1950s. Consequently it could be possible to run a wider variety of locos/rolling stock on such a layout than would have been seen at any one particular time, especially if the timetable/operating sequence is arranged so that conflicting items never 'meet'.

[Compound2632]

 

20 hours ago, Andy Kirkham said:

As seen here

 

Much sharper version at BFI free - you can read some of the carriage numbers! (Not accessible outside the UK, I'm afraid.)

[The Stationmaster]

26 minutes ago, DCB said:

I was talking about West Country Branches, Devon and Cornwall.  In the 1950s there was one 2251 at Exeter and that's it for 0-6-0s for Devon and Cornwall.  Main purpose was as a Ballast train engine, but it was photographed on Exeter to Newton Abbott or Kingswear locals.   The Ballast trains spent long periods away from water columns so a Tender engine was preferred. 

You didn't say you were only talking about 'West Country' branches otherwise various of us wouldn't have mentioned branches where 2251 were regular performers.  2251 were rare in the West of England (you mentioned the one at Exeter and there were latterly quite a number at Taunton).

 

As far as Heathfield is concerned one source quotes a running junction from the Teign Valley line towards Newton being provided in 1916 and the layout was considerably enhanced in 1943 presumably as part of the preparation of facilities to ensure ready flow of supplies to the West of England ports involved in and supporting the 1944 D Day invasion.  But notwithstanding those changes it would still have required a reversal fora train to run from the Exeter direction off the Teign Valley line towards Moretonhampstead - as 'Siberian Snooper' previously pointed out.

[Andy Kirkham]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

If we look at the ones which were GWR, or were built be companies absorbed into or taken over by the GWR long before the grouping, a different picture emerges.  The first group were those which were hemmed in by topography or existing buildings and equally were in heavily freight trafficked areas with loco depots all over the place - thus the termini  at Nantymoel, Cwmavan Colliery Halt, Blaenavon, Cardiff Clarence Road,  Swansea East Dock and - arguably - Ebbw Vale were either adjuncts to or built alongside freight lines and tened to not havea wide expanse of layout for their various (often limited) facilities) so all were very different from the usual sort of GWR branchline terminus.

 

 

Here's a nice photo of Ebbw Vale, which certainly bears out Mike's point about the restricted site. Was it still double track for freight traffic at this point, even through the station has only one platform?

 

 

[Siberian Snooper]

Launceston had a shed and a 55ft turntable. Princetown had a shed and and a 'table capable of turning a pannier on snow ploughing duties. Kingsbridge also had a shed and I think that Barnstaple also had a shed. I'm pretty sure that Yealmpton, didn't have a shed. I think that between us, we have covered Devon.

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

18 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

I've commented on some of the above several times in the Layout & Track Design group, particularly the bit about the small engine shed and loco coal at the terminus - that would be at the junction and the BLT only needs water.

 

There was a near epidemic of layouts either of or based on Ashburton about 50 years ago which probably helped perpetuate the myth of what a BLT should look like. CJF's designs certainly contributed.

 

Cheers

David

 

All GWR branch line termini had an engine shed.

 

Most also had a turntable, usually removed by the 1920s though.

 

Buy this as it's total nonsense to suggest that GWR termini didn't have engine sheds.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/historical-survey-Great-Western-engine/dp/0902888161

 

 

 

Jason

[Andy Kirkham]

1 hour ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Launceston had a shed and a 55ft turntable. Princetown had a shed and and a 'table capable of turning a pannier on snow ploughing duties. Kingsbridge also had a shed and I think that Barnstaple also had a shed. I'm pretty sure that Yealmpton, didn't have a shed. I think that between us, we have covered Devon.

 

And Ashton had a shed. Where? No, I'd never heard of it either, but the shed appears clearly in this picture.

 

Ashton was on the Teign Valley line. It was originally the terminus of the line from Heathfield opened in 1882. Online sources are a bit unclear on the history but judging from a pre-1903 OS 25-inch map, it seems as though the line was in 1883 extended northwards to a place just south of Christow named Teign House Sidings; there is no sign of a passenger station at this site, so I presume Ashton remained the terminus of passenger services until in 1903 the through route to Exeter was opened.

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Andy Kirkham

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

All GWR branch line termini had an engine shed.

No sheds at Clarence Road, Ebbw Vale, New Tredegar, Abergwynfi, Blaengarw, Nantymoel, Gilfach Goch, Porthcawl, Penygraig, Maerdy, Portishead, Clevedon, off the top of my head.

[BWsTrains]

53 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

No sheds at Clarence Road, Ebbw Vale, New Tredegar, Abergwynfi, Blaengarw, Nantymoel, Gilfach Goch, Porthcawl, Penygraig, Maerdy, Portishead, Clevedon, off the top of my head.

 

Would this be because the myriad Welsh minor railway companies remained as such until Grouping whereas many other GWR Branch-lines came under GWR control much earlier in their lives, even if not originally built by the GWR itself? That would leave some 50+ years from the later branch builds thru to the early 20s.

 

As to why Clevedon had no shed, it was a very short line, barely 3 miles with no stops from the mainline at Yatton and the nearest shed so would hardly warrant one.

[Andy Kirkham]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

No sheds at Clarence Road, Ebbw Vale, New Tredegar, Abergwynfi, Blaengarw, Nantymoel, Gilfach Goch, Porthcawl, Penygraig, Maerdy, Portishead, Clevedon, off the top of my head.

 

Portishead old station did have a shed and a turntable, as can be seen here. 

 

For anyone who doesn't know the story, the site of the old station was required for an extension to Portishead power station, so the CEGB paid for a brand-new station which opened in 1954 but closed in 1964. The new station was actually better sited that the old one, which served the dock rather than the town

 

I don't think New Tredegar really belongs in that list as it was not originally a terminus; it only became one when the continuation of the line to Rhymney was closed - I think due to a landslip.

 

But otherwise Johnster's point is well made; and nearly all his examples are on lines that were GWR before the Grouping.

 

I think we should conclude that it was very common for GWR branch termini to have an engine shed, especially on the rural branches - but they didn't all.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Andy Kirkham