GW Branch Line (III) - a Portable Layout Puzzle

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Narrowing the Options (Part 2): I’m also going to cross St. Ives off my list, for a different reason.  The problem with the concept as I’d drawn it was a lot of operations would happen in the unsupported corner of the layout:

 

 

Even if I swap the Goods Shed and Engine Shed, key pointwork, as well as coupling and uncoupling, would be in that corner.  It would be more difficult to engineer lightweight baseboards for this arrangement than for other designs, where a straight overhang in this corner could be more easily counterbalanced.  It could make the layout building more complicated than I’d feel comfortable with (not impossible, but not for me).

 

St. Ives in the steam era could be busy, so has merits for the trains I have in mind.  It could still be done, but working the other way round: a mirrored version of St. Ives could start where my Fiddle Yard is shown and work the other way.  I used the approach of keeping the station on the short edge of the layout when suggesting a variation to the design Andy York had in BRM recently, which can be found here:  July 2020 BRM

 

It would mean a Fiddle Yard over the bed – but it should be possible by keeping the straight baseboards used for other schemes.  Although the far end of the Fiddle Yard is at a stretch, there might be room for a short train turntable Fiddle Yard here, as it could swing round over the bed.  Balancing such a system so it wouldn’t topple over would be possible, but I have to admit it isn’t something I fancy - especially for a lightweight portable layout.  For someone keen to model St Ives, there are possibilities in this space, but I'll look at my other options instead.

_______________________________________________________

 

The question of reaching across the unsupported or "overhanging" parts of the layout also arises when thinking about how long the overhang can be:

 

On 29/08/2020 at 20:30, Harlequin said:

Could you lengthen the station boards to cantilever further over the bed? It should be fine if the support is strong enough there's sufficient weight on the other side of the bearing point to hold it up - so long as no-one leans on it!

 

On 29/08/2020 at 20:54, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I've been wondering about a longer cantilever over the bed - as there's no need to incorporate an unsupported "right turn" with your baseboard arrangement it should be possible (maybe make Board 1 a bit longer, so there's more of a counterweight where it is supported?).  My thinking at this point is to leave the dimensions as they are for now to give me some wiggle room later.

 

Having checked the maths however, I'm not sure a longer baseboard over the bed would actually work:

 

My original suggestion for a 15.5" overhang gave a diagonal reach into the corner of about 24" (as long as the baseboard is not much more than 18" wide):

 

 

I've checked my reach where two of our kitchen worktops meet  in a corner (they are 3' above the floor).  I am OK with a 24" reach, although it's been noted it wouldn't be a good idea to be reaching that far all the time:

 

On 26/08/2020 at 12:07, The Stationmaster said:

3. Unless you happen to have very long arms Plan 2 does not work because trains have to reverse in those loop sidings which means transferring engines and freight brakevans from end-t-end of a train and at a reach of two feet.   Just try it and see if you can do it uncoupling, re-railing, and coupling models plus get unavoidable amount of handling they will get.

 

However, as I extend the overhang, the baseboard needs to get narrower to maintain the 24" diagonal: as shown above, a 20" overhang needs a 13.3" wide baseboard, narrower than I'd like.  So I think 15.5" looks about right still.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Fairford 2: A couple of quick modifications.  Having spotted the problem I'd given myself running the Engine Shed off the Goods Loop, I've moved it across to the Run-round loop instead.  In reality, this is where the Carriage Siding was, so I've put that at the other end of the loop in front of the Station.

 

This does make the Station area look quite different, but means there are two lines in front of the platform with its awning - somehow this just looks a bit more likely (if I ignore the fact the front line is a siding).

 

I wondered about moving the Goods Shed onto the loop as well - but with this quick redrawing there's not quite enough width on the baseboard (I have a Ratio Kit for the Goods shed which is more than 6" square).  It would be prototypical to have the loading dock siding run from a point just in front of the Good Shed, although there was a second crossover onto the Goods Loop beyond the Shed, which I think is the one that was used - in which case the Loading Dock was shunted through the Goods Shed (as I have it):

 

 

This is just a placeholder for now - I think Fairford might be worth a complete re-drawing with the platform on the inside of the curve (as with the prototype).  This would mean the longer loop (the passenger run-round) would be on the outside of the curve - where basic geometry tells me it should be longer.  Running the Goods Loop (now the inner loop) as a chord between its points should give a straight section for the Goods Shed, although ironically I guess the Engine Shed May end up on the outside again.  I do keep coming back to this idea...

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I'm also going to apply the same thinking and rule out my second idea for a Generic BLT, another one I liked, but which is also more suited for a Light Branch Line with smaller engines, as noted

 

I think you've misunderstood me - by small, I only meant branch line rather than main or secondary line types. The same restrictions apply to Fairford and more so to Hemyock, so I dont think this particular layout is special in that respect.  We're not talking Highworth here.

 

Really, the chief distinguishing feature of this plan is the conventional arrangement of the loop,  the main advantage of which is that it places the platform, runround and sidings in parallel and hence economises on length. 

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

5 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think you've misunderstood me - by small, I only meant branch line rather than main or secondary line types. The same restrictions apply to Fairford and more so to Hemyock, so I dont think this particular layout is special in that respect.  We're not talking Highworth here.

 

Really, the chief distinguishing feature of this plan is the conventional arrangement of the loop,  the main advantage of which is that it places the platform, runround and sidings in parallel and hence economises on length. 

 

 

Oops, sorry. Thanks for the clarification.  It is a nice plan, but it looks like I have got room to fit in a bit more even in this space.

[Jeff Smith]

Fairford is an interesting basis for a layout.  There are two plans shown in Paul Karau's GWR Branch Line Termini  Vol 1 (or the combined edition), 1890s and 1960 final form.  I realise you are just basing-on but the coal staithes were removed about 1920, there being no railway coal stored there after that, however there was a coal office so domestic coal would presumably have been brought there.  Also there was no cattle dock in the 1960 plan.

 

Referring to your plan, I like it but would comment that Fairford had all the facilities on the north side accessed from the station approach yard.  Your plan would require road access yards on both sides, probably not that unusual but a scenic consideration.  Also, although the generally curved plan is visually attractive it may make coupling/uncoupling difficult.  My On30 roundy layout had magnets on curved track and the Kadee knuckle couplers frequently both went the same way and would not uncouple.  I have no experience of tension-lock couplers so do not know if that would be a problem.

 

Operation should be interesting (full typical day description in the Paul Karau book) two locos were sub-shedded there together with two sets of coaches.  The first passenger train departed, the first goods train arrived, then the second passenger train departed leaving the goods to be sorted.....and so on.  There were two goods trains per day.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

6 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Fairford is an interesting basis for a layout.  There are two plans shown in Paul Karau's GWR Branch Line Termini  Vol 1 (or the combined edition), 1890s and 1960 final form.  I realise you are just basing-on but the coal staithes were removed about 1920, there being no railway coal stored there after that, however there was a coal office so domestic coal would presumably have been brought there.  Also there was no cattle dock in the 1960 plan.

 

Referring to your plan, I like it but would comment that Fairford had all the facilities on the north side accessed from the station approach yard.  Your plan would require road access yards on both sides, probably not that unusual but a scenic consideration.  Also, although the generally curved plan is visually attractive it may make coupling/uncoupling difficult.  My On30 roundy layout had magnets on curved track and the Kadee knuckle couplers frequently both went the same way and would not uncouple.  I have no experience of tension-lock couplers so do not know if that would be a problem.

 

Operation should be interesting (full typical day description in the Paul Karau book) two locos were sub-shedded there together with two sets of coaches.  The first passenger train departed, the first goods train arrived, then the second passenger train departed leaving the goods to be sorted.....and so on.  There were two goods trains per day.

 

Thanks Jeff, some useful pointers: very good point about couplers - especially as curves get tighter, coupling wagons with tension locks, which I do have, can become problematic.

 

Very good point about access on one side, thank you.  It's something I looked at for my original plan proposal, and had some very helpful advice on this thread: GW Branch Line Station Buildings .  I don't know if I can get the Engine Shed and all the Goods facilities on the same side in my compressed version - I'll have a look.

 

As you've noted, the Coal Wharf on my drawing is the one Karau has for Railway Coal on his early plan (I kept it as it's the only rationale for the kickback siding without the turntable).  I could take out that siding of course.

As you say, there's no evidence of any commercial Coal storage at the station.  Until I started looking at plans and photos more carefully I assumed every Station had Coal Staithes or bins, but it wasn't actually the case. 

 

As you note, the cattle dock disappeared - if I move the Goods Shed onto the loop I might take it out.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Fairford 3.

 

This has the station on the inside of the curve - so the station building (and awning) hide the gap between the platform and coaches, and I've kept the carriage siding by the station for now.

 

 

The Goods Shed is now on the loop.  I couldn't get the Engine Shed onto the same side, without shortening the Good Loop too much.  I reversed the Engine Shed to ease access from the running line, which avoids having anything other than the end of the line on the overhang.

 

The two main problems with this version are 1) having lengthened the loops to train length (just about) by moving the first point nearer the station, it's likely that engines arriving at the station would foul on the point, and 2) this version would be better viewed from the outside, which is not possible.

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Fairford 4: Although Fairford 3 had some benefits, I wasn't satisfied with the two problems I'd left myself.  With a bit of time to put in some changes before the Bank Holiday starts, I've gone back to having the Station on the outside.  I've lengthened the run-round loop by bringing the point to the middle of  the platform - where engines won't foul it.  I don't know if this would have been allowed, as trains in both directions stop over the point? 

 

 

The other change is to put the Engine Shed by the Station - the Carriage Siding can only take two coaches, but this would be OK, as I think the spare Branch set was stabled there.

 

I've put the Goods Yard back as I had it in version 1.  I'm not sure exactly how the sequence would work for arriving Goods Trains to enter the Goods Yard, as there's only room for the Engine beyond the Goods Loop.  The Cattle Dock will probably disappear.

 

What I do like about this version is the gentle run of the three parallel lines: that's what I particularly like about Fairford.  With my bigger station building ("and awning") the platform end of the station will look quite different to the prototype anyway, so losing the other distinctive feature of the prototype, with the platform before the sidings changes anyway.

 

Although the Engine Shed is not on the same side of the Station as the other facilities, a second road access to come from that side of the road bridge, which would look plausible.  I quite like this.  Keith.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Joseph_Pestell]

I really like that plan.

 

It does not matter at all if the locomotive is clear of the platform and lying foul of the turnouts.

[St Enodoc]

2 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

It does not matter at all if the locomotive is clear of the platform and lying foul of the turnouts.

There would be at least one fouling bar to stop the points being changed under the train.

[Harlequin]

Hi Keith,

One of the characteristic features of Fairford is the single track against the platform. If you can retain it then it should give a bit more sense of the track in open countryside - at least the scene in front of the station can be countryside.

 

The composition looks a bit unbalanced to my eye - very developed on the right and not much on the left.

 

I think you're onto a good thing with Fairford because of it's individuality and the legitimate ability to have several locos on scene at once, as described by The Stationmaster, but you've missed a trick! Many modellers would kill for a reason to have a working turntable in their BLT! Turntables often get shoehorned into inappropriate positions, with sketchy justification and they are always much too big. You have the room, a completely valid reason for having one and the prototype example of small size - either 45' or 55'. This would be a great feature and would add operational interest because locos would need to be turned before the long journey back down the branch.

 

BTW: About length of run round: Karau says that in the 20s excursion trains were sometimes longer than the run round at Fairford and a cable was used to haul them towards the buffer stops and clear the loop entry points. So there is justification for trains longer than the run round... If you can figure out a way to simulate cable shunting...  Not serious but it's just an interesting point!

 

About the cantilever over the bed: Remember that you don't need to be able to reach into the very far corner because:

1. Most of the operations at that end (for a Fairford-style setup) will be light engine movements. No need to fiddle with couplings, just the occasional poke for electrical pickup.
2. The beauty of a movable modular design is that you can take it apart to work on the scenery and then things become more accessible.
3. Some of the extra length could be used to give the plan a bit of scenic breathing space and avoid the buffers being up against the backdrop.

P.S. I've asked about goods arrivals at Fairford on "Everything Great Western" because I know there are guys on there who worked the line. No reply yet.

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Harlequin

[Keith Addenbrooke]

10 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Keith,

One of the characteristic features of Fairford is the single track against the platform. If you can retain it then it should give a bit more sense of the track in open countryside - at least the scene in front of the station can be countryside.

 

The composition looks a bit unbalanced to my eye - very developed on the right and not much on the left.

 

I think you're onto a good thing with Fairford because of it's individuality and the legitimate ability to have several locos on scene at once, as described by The Stationmaster, but you've missed a trick! Many modellers would kill for a reason to have a working turntable in their BLT! Turntables often get shoehorned into inappropriate positions, with sketchy justification and they are always much too big. You have the room, a completely valid reason for having one and the prototype example of small size - either 45' or 55'. This would be a great feature and would add operational interest because locos would need to be turned before the long journey back down the branch.

 

BTW: About length of run round: Karau says that in the 20s excursion trains were sometimes longer than the run round at Fairford and a cable was used to haul them towards the buffer stops and clear the loop entry points. So justification for trains longer than the run round... If you can figure out a way to simulate cable shunting...  Not serious but it's just an interesting point!

 

About the cantilever over the bed: Remember that you don't need to be able to reach into the very far corner because:

1. Most of the operations at that end (for a Fairford-style setup) will be light engine movements. No need to fiddle with couplings, just the occasional poke for electrical pickup.
2. The beauty of a movable modular design is that you can take it apart to work on the scenery and then things become more accessible.
3. Some of the extra length could be used to give the plan a bit of scenic breathing space and avoid the buffers being up against the backdrop.

P.S. I've asked about goods arrivals at Fairford on "Everything Great Western" because I know there are guys on there who worked the line. No reply yet.

 

 

Thanks - some helpful pointers.  I'll think about the composition: it may not look as unbalanced in the actual setting in the room, as the station area is what you see when coming in (the far end is hidden by the door and over the bed, so in my mind's eye it doesn't look as odd).  As you say, it is where I deviate from the prototype most.  I'll think about a turntable - they did turn the tank engines, it's just never been something high on my list.

 

Agree 100% with points 1. to 3. in your list - all of them help turn this very compact space into an opportunity.

 

Thanks for making the enquiry on the GW Forum - be interesting to see what transpires.

[Zomboid]

I agree with @Harlequin, whilst you're not necessarily aiming to faithfully recreate Fairford, one of the major defining characteristics of it is the single track at the platform, and that would be something that I would strive to keep if I were doing an inspired by Fairford layout.

 

[Kris]

Your Fairford layout put me in mind of Looe (without the quay sidings). 

 

I've thrown together a quick sketch of the layout below. 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

While I'm making progress (more than I expected) with an idea based on Fairford, I'd like to have a comparator before commiting myself - especially as I'm thinking of open top baseboards.

 

Inspired by...

 

3.  Wallingford

 

Wallingford was the next station on my list to look at.  It was covered in this thread a couple of years ago: Wallingford GWR BLT  .  It has great potential, but I'm going to cross it off my own personal list for this project.  I couldn't decide if I wanted the Engine Shed and Platform at the front - highlighting the distinctive kickback siding but pushing the Goods Yard to the back.  Or to have the Goods Yard and Sidings at the front for shunting, but leaving the platform and Engine Shed hidden behind the Station building.

 

It's a purely personal preference - when I next get a chance I will look at something else, either revisiting the Generic BLT or even taking the track plan from Princetown and seeing how it curves.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

7 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I agree with @Harlequin, whilst you're not necessarily aiming to faithfully recreate Fairford, one of the major defining characteristics of it is the single track at the platform, and that would be something that I would strive to keep if I were doing an inspired by Fairford layout.

 

 

Fair point: I think I'd need to be looking at a name change for the layout.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[RJS1977]

Just a few thoughts from me:

 

1) The proposal of having a board running lengthwise over the bed, supported only on one side,  looks to be a recipe for trouble to me - the weight of the unsupported side is going to try to induce a twist in the baseboard. Whilst it could potentially be overcome, it would require extra bracing/diagonal supports. all of which are going to increase weight and make dismantling/erection of the layout more difficult.

 

2) Several of your plans seem to include points over baseboard joins - not a good idea for layouts which are going to be taken down on a regular basis!

 

3) Ideally I'd say keep the tracks crossing board joins to a minimum, preferably at 90 degrees to the join.

 

4) Although you've said you have no intention of exhibiting it, you may find that (once things return to a degree of normality) if word gets out that you have a portable layout, you may start getting invitations anyway - particularly if exhibition managers have to fill a space at short notice! There are really two options available:

a) Design it to be sufficiently difficult to transport that it clearly can't be taken anywhere; or

b) Design it to be easy to transport should the opportunity arise.

Designing something that is transportable but awkward is probably the worst of both worlds!

 

5) Following on from that, and from (3) - if you design the layout so that the fiddle yard can be attached directly on to the terminus, not only would it make exhibiting the layout easier (not only from a transport/set-up point of view, but also for an exhibition manager to fit it in), it will also mean that the layout is potentially more adaptable to a new site in the event of any future house move.

 

6) What height are you planning to have the layout at? You've shown the desk on one side of the room. If it's designed to sit on the desk (ideally with some sort of protection under it to prevent scratching the desk) this will both simplify construction and subsequent erection/dismantling.

[The Stationmaster]

As Fairford seems to keep coming to the fore I've added below the Service Timetables (STT - GWR speak for WTT) for October 1910 and September 1948 - so they are both the Winter service.  The ones below are of course readily available online.  While I can't easily copy them I have the Summer period STTs for 1891, 1901, and 1938 in my collection so can possibly answer queries should they arise.

 

The 1948 tables will enlarge if you click on them.

 

October 1910

 

 

September 1948

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

Just a few thoughts from me:

 

1) The proposal of having a board running lengthwise over the bed, supported only on one side,  looks to be a recipe for trouble to me - the weight of the unsupported side is going to try to induce a twist in the baseboard. Whilst it could potentially be overcome, it would require extra bracing/diagonal supports. all of which are going to increase weight and make dismantling/erection of the layout more difficult.

 

2) Several of your plans seem to include points over baseboard joins - not a good idea for layouts which are going to be taken down on a regular basis!

 

3) Ideally I'd say keep the tracks crossing board joins to a minimum, preferably at 90 degrees to the join.

 

4) Although you've said you have no intention of exhibiting it, you may find that (once things return to a degree of normality) if word gets out that you have a portable layout, you may start getting invitations anyway - particularly if exhibition managers have to fill a space at short notice! There are really two options available:

a) Design it to be sufficiently difficult to transport that it clearly can't be taken anywhere; or

b) Design it to be easy to transport should the opportunity arise.

Designing something that is transportable but awkward is probably the worst of both worlds!

 

5) Following on from that, and from (3) - if you design the layout so that the fiddle yard can be attached directly on to the terminus, not only would it make exhibiting the layout easier (not only from a transport/set-up point of view, but also for an exhibition manager to fit it in), it will also mean that the layout is potentially more adaptable to a new site in the event of any future house move.

 

6) What height are you planning to have the layout at? You've shown the desk on one side of the room. If it's designed to sit on the desk (ideally with some sort of protection under it to prevent scratching the desk) this will both simplify construction and subsequent erection/dismantling.

Thank you - some really useful points:

 

1) Agreed - won’t happen.  Only my St. Ives idea would have needed it, and it was ruled out for this reason.

2) Agreed - baseboard joints are only indicative at this stage - the boards will be all new so can be designed to fit around the plan.

3) Agreed - but may not be possible in all cases here.
4) Very unlikely - but a valid point.

5) Good idea nevertheless: one benefit of a modular design.

6) As it’s not my desk the layout really needs to be well clear of it (it’s not a very solid desk: from memory cost me £10 from Tesco flat pack many years ago - to be fair to my daughter, she does look after things very well).  May need track level as high as 4’.

 

Thanks, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Despite my earlier confidence that there might be many possible stations to look at, to compare with my take on Fairford, attempts at sketching out alternative designs based on other locations (including Princetown) haven't proved as fruitful as I'd hoped.  It may be that I'm missing something obvious in the approach I'm taking - I've been trying to avoid having a bank of Right Hand Curved points coming round into a Goods Yard and Station Platforms on the lower baseboards - and it could be that is making it more difficult. 

 

So I've had a go at translating my Original Idea 3 for a diagonal Generic BLT onto the suggested boards for comparison purposes.  

 

Inspired by:

 

4.  The Generic BLT

 

 

At least there's no problem fitting in the Station awnings I've got!  Although a station such as this might usually only see one train at a time, it might have been a designated crossing place (like Ashburton) - as long as Passenger Trains were routed to the platform line, and there might be a third loco on Engine Shed (like Fairford).

 

There are bound to be a few tweaks to be done here and there and some things I've not put in the best places, so this could be improved - but I think it conveys the basic concept of a CJF-inspired Generic BLT.

______________________________

 

I'm not sure it's as distinctive as Fairford, though?  For me, the "feature" at Fairford comes from the three parallel lines beyond the station - it's interesting to note that the station itself, with the platform against a single line, is standing out as the thing to keep.  Such an arrangement was common at through stations - starting with Lechlade, the next stop along the line, but it is unusual for a terminus (which Fairford wasn't supposed to be).  I wonder if "Lower Fairford" would work as a name change so I could run the same timetable?

______________________________

 

I think it would still be wise for me to find a comparator where the loop comes first and the platform is at the end of the line.  Maybe I dismissed Hemyock too quickly, or perhaps there's somewhere else I’ve not yet thought of.  I should also have another look at Looe, as suggested above.

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Danemouth]

And another station plan very similar to Danemouth - except the carriage siding in your plan is a bay platform  on Danemouth

 

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[Zomboid]

I think the benefit of the cookie cutter BLT in this application is the fact that you can have a nice scenery only approach to the station. So I wouldn't bother with the engine shed, in essence it stretches the station area round the corner fairly inefficiently. Just have some non-railway scenery there.

 

It'll be hard going to do better than a variation on Fairford for my 50p. The unusual track layout and legitimate ability to have multiple trains on scene (that evidently happened in reality too) are pretty compelling.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

14 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I think the benefit of the cookie cutter BLT in this application is the fact that you can have a nice scenery only approach to the station. So I wouldn't bother with the engine shed, in essence it stretches the station area round the corner fairly inefficiently. Just have some non-railway scenery there.

 

It'll be hard going to do better than a variation on Fairford for my 50p. The unusual track layout and legitimate ability to have multiple trains on scene (that evidently happened in reality too) are pretty compelling.

Thanks - I think one big thing operationally with Fairford was the 20+ mile run, which meant there was a sense of “journey” and lead to the more complex departures (eg: two passenger trains in a row to start the day).  The description of a working day in Karau’s book gets rather complicated.

 

I’m really just wrestling with whether or not my interpretation catches the essence of the place sufficiently to retain interest: if a train emerged from under the bridge into my alternative reality, would the crew and passengers still know where they were?

Edited August 31, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Jeff Smith]

A lot of people only know where they are by reading the station name board 

A back scene of course helps with the illusion but is an added complication with a portable layout.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

It finally dawned on me when trying to visualise the layout in place that I've probably been drawing them all upside down the whole time: this is more like the view when you enter the room:

 

 

I've moved the Engine Shed back to the far end of the line, and on the North side with everything else.  The first half of the platform is now in open countryside.  I've kept the start of the run-round loop where it was so it's not fouled by engines at the end of the platform, which I want to avoid.  The short stub siding is just "there" (which means I'm still thinking about it: I liked having the Engine Shed there but it did change the balance of the plan).

 

In other news, this rather interesting vessel was moored part way across the River Mersey this morning:

 

(Sorry, photo no longer available)

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos