What did the typical GWR single track branch look like?

[Lacathedrale]

After re-starting the BRM 'How to build a layout' series, I'm struck by how typical the track plan 'seems'. I wonder however, how much of this is fiction and how much is reality.  How much of the design tropes we accept as given are actually just echos of earlier layouts, rather than real life?

 

When designers plonk down a single-faced platform with a runaround loop, cattle dock and coal siding - is this ACTUALLY typical of GWR branch line practise? I think we can assume that the levels of traffic on BLT layouts vastly outstrip their prototypes, but if we were to speed up and compress those operations into a representational microcosm - does a 14xx and an autocoach, or a Praire and a B-set, or a Pannier and a rake of cattle vans truly represent reality?

 

I know the easy answer to this is 'it depends', but I would be interested in a discussion of where layouts diverge drastically from the prototype - and where prototypical nuances are missed on layouts.

[Chris M]

In simple terms - yes. Urban locations would have been more cramped and  have more industry and so more sidings than the rural location which is usually modelled. To run a typical GWR country branch in a  prototypical  manner you probably just need one small prairie, a couple of non corridor coaches and a small collection of covered, coal and open wagons. The loco would run a few passenger services, then leave the coaches parked for a pick up goods run, and then back to coaches. From what I have seen it would have been unusual to have an engine shed at the end of the branch, certainly from the early 1930s onwards but I am sure there are exceptions.

[rovex]

The problem with idea of a typical GWR branch line is that from a track layout perspective does one actually exist. So many of them were built by other companies and subsequently absorbed by the GWR.

[Harlequin]

Good questions.

 

I think the elements you listed really were typical of a lot of rural branch line termini. A lot of stations were first built by independent companies before being absorbed by the GWR and even they often have that same basic form - so it's not just a GWR thing.

 

To be picky I'd suggest that two goods sidings were more typical: One into a goods shed and the other for general loading and unloading in the open, including coal.

 

I hope that model designers don't just "plonk down" those elements because, of course, it's the individual arrangement in the real world setting that gives each station it's unique character.

 

However, when the constraints of a model are applied it's very difficult to retain that character and compressing what were unique track plans in the real world inevitably results in the same track topology turning up again and again in model form. In fact, the track plans of model BLTs can look like clichés and you have to try to look past that and see the detailed differences and hope that the scenic treatment will give the model something special.

 

Notice that no-one has yet mentioned the "bay platform"... It appears in so many model BLT designs but not so much in the real world. I confess I am a sinner.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Harlequin

[Miss Prism]

https://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/zrailmotor93/archivenews_13/pictures/13_04_26_01.jpg

[Western Star]

https://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/zrailmotor93/archivenews_13/pictures/13_04_26_01.jpg

Timeless and a brilliant photograph.

[Joseph_Pestell]

After re-starting the BRM 'How to build a layout' series, I'm struck by how typical the track plan 'seems'. I wonder however, how much of this is fiction and how much is reality.  How much of the design tropes we accept as given are actually just echos of earlier layouts, rather than real life?

 

When designers plonk down a single-faced platform with a runaround loop, cattle dock and coal siding - is this ACTUALLY typical of GWR branch line practise? I think we can assume that the levels of traffic on BLT layouts vastly outstrip their prototypes, but if we were to speed up and compress those operations into a representational microcosm - does a 14xx and an autocoach, or a Praire and a B-set, or a Pannier and a rake of cattle vans truly represent reality?

 

I know the easy answer to this is 'it depends', but I would be interested in a discussion of where layouts diverge drastically from the prototype - and where prototypical nuances are missed on layouts.

 

Sticking just with the GW, I can not think of any two branch termini with the same track layout. So, no such thing as a typical GW BLT.

 

The problem stems from layouts that are designed/built the wrong way round. People choose a baseboard dimension (usually rectangular) and then build a layout to fit it. In the real world, the railway considers what facilities it needs and then tries to fit them around the natural topography on the site. That leads to all sorts of odd track layouts, sometimes difficult to operate, that are far more interesting.

[Lacathedrale]

Indeed, it was this onward ossification of design trends away from prototype and more to model-of-model which interested me initially.

 

I wonder whether a wider trick is being missed in not employing Chris Nevard's through/halt-style layouts more, since with  GWR's typical short-ish trains a terminus isn't required when a pair of cassettes may do.

 

(this may or may not be a result of a cheeky pannier tank bid on eBay).

[Lacathedrale]

Sticking just with the GW, I can not think of any two branch termini with the same track layout. So, no such thing as a typical GW BLT.

 

The problem stems from layouts that are designed/built the wrong way round. People choose a baseboard dimension (usually rectangular) and then build a layout to fit it. In the real world, the railway considers what facilities it needs and then tries to fit them around the natural topography on the site. That leads to all sorts of odd track layouts, sometimes difficult to operate, that are far more interesting.

 

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

[Stubby47]

Good questions.

 

I think the elements you listed really were typical of a lot of rural branch line termini. A lot of stations were first built by independent companies before being absorbed by the GWR and even they often have that same basic form - so it's not just a GWR thing.

 

To be picky I'd suggest that two goods sidings were more typical: One into a goods shed and the other for general loading and unloading in the open, including coal.

 

I hope that model designers don't just "plonk down" those elements because, of course, it's the individual arrangement in the real world setting that gives each station it's unique character.

 

However, when the constraints of a model are applied it's very difficult to retain that character and compressing what were unique track plans in the real world inevitably results in the same track topology turning up again and again in model form. In fact, the track plans of model BLTs can look like clichés and you have to try to look past that and see the detailed differences and hope that the scenic treatment will give the model something special.

 

Notice that no-one has yet mentioned the "bay platform"... It appears in so many model BLT designs but not so much in the real world. I confess I am a sinner.

 

(cough) Ashburton (/cough)

[clachnaharry]

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

 

 

I would say the "goods yard beyond the station platform" as exemplified by Fairford and Looe.

 

At the other extreme is the  "goods yard trailing in towards the buffer stops". Often a feature of models, but the only GWR branch line terminus with that feature which I can think of is Yealmpton.

[Flying Pig]

...

 

I wonder whether a wider trick is being missed in not employing Chris Nevard's through/halt-style layouts more, since with  GWR's typical short-ish trains a terminus isn't required when a pair of cassettes may do.

 

...

Do for what? There's a lot more play value operational interest in a terminus than in a layout where basically all you're doing is handling cassettes. Also, if space is tight, why use twice as much of it for offscene storage? Termini are popular for good reason.

 

On the other hand, a simple length of track can provide plenty of scope for scenic modelling and work very well as a photographic stage or even an exhibition layout, as Chris Nevard has demonstrated. Horses for courses.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Quite so. Find a location that is of interest, and then do the work of fitting its essential nature into whatever space is available for the model.

[Harlequin]

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

Do you mean terminus or through station?

 

If terminus, then a great book that shows how the basic elements were arrayed in unique ways in the real world is, "Great Western Branch Line Termini" by Paul Karau.

 

The combined edition covers, Abbotsbury, Ashburton, Fairford, Hemyock, Lambourn, Moretonhampstead, Princetown, Tetbury, Wallingford and Watlington and shows changes in track plans over time.

[tractionman]

Do you mean terminus or through station?

 

If terminus, then a great book that shows how the basic elements were arrayed in unique ways in the real world is, "Great Western Branch Line Termini" by Paul Karau.

 

The combined edition covers, Abbotsbury, Ashburton, Fairford, Hemyock, Lambourn, Moretonhampstead, Princetown, Tetbury, Wallingford and Watlington and shows changes in track plans over time.

 

and there is hours of fun to be had looking at historic OS 1:2500 scale maps of the real thing using

 

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=7&lat=51.5345&lon=-4.2765&layers=168&b=1

 

to explore ex-GWR BLTs!

 

eg https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=50.9189&lon=-3.2279&layers=168&b=1

 

all the best,

 

Keith

Edited November 1, 2018 by tractionman

[Harlequin]

The problem stems from layouts that are designed/built the wrong way round. People choose a baseboard dimension (usually rectangular) and then build a layout to fit it.

 

More often than not baseboard dimensions are imposed by the space available right from the start.

 

So then, I guess the trick is to find a prototype that can be compressed into the fixed size without losing too much of its unique character.

[Nick Holliday]

The first volume of Stephen Williams's trilogy on GW Branch Lines tries to analyse the various styles of station design, and provides many examples of both "typical" and unusual layouts. Well worth tracking down, IMHO.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Nick Holliday

[Lacathedrale]

A bit of GWR BLT related light reading wouldn't go amiss, so I'm looking into that now.

 

I've always liked the idea of modelling something broadly on the trackplan of Hawkhurst (being my family's ancestral home) https://www.kentrail.org.uk/hawkhurst_track_plan.htm though I know it's been done perfectly to prototype before, something reduced and compressed and in a Western flavour might not go amiss. There are Phil's pair of sidings (one of which going to a bay platform/loading dock), a shed off the platform loop headshunt for a left-hand scenic break and a very modelgenic goods yard (at least in the sense it appears roughly rectilinear rather than a fan shape).

 

In the context of our discussion - what makes this an SR terminus? What would make it a GWR terminus? Are the idiosyncrasies of every BLT enough to simply overawe company choices?

[Ian Morgan]

I would think the architecture, rather than the track plan, would identify a station's location (except maybe Midland stations where facing points would be few in number.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I would say the "goods yard beyond the station platform" as exemplified by Fairford and Looe.

 

At the other extreme is the  "goods yard trailing in towards the buffer stops". Often a feature of models, but the only GWR branch line terminus with that feature which I can think of is Yealmpton.

..... and Tetbury (and certainly others).

[Joseph_Pestell]

A bit of GWR BLT related light reading wouldn't go amiss, so I'm looking into that now.

 

I've always liked the idea of modelling something broadly on the trackplan of Hawkhurst (being my family's ancestral home) https://www.kentrail.org.uk/hawkhurst_track_plan.htm though I know it's been done perfectly to prototype before, something reduced and compressed and in a Western flavour might not go amiss. There are Phil's pair of sidings (one of which going to a bay platform/loading dock), a shed off the platform loop headshunt for a left-hand scenic break and a very modelgenic goods yard (at least in the sense it appears roughly rectilinear rather than a fan shape).

 

In the context of our discussion - what makes this an SR terminus? What would make it a GWR terminus? Are the idiosyncrasies of every BLT enough to simply overawe company choices?

 

Hawkhurst was originally built as a light railway and owes only a little to its SER heritage. LSWR termini tended to look quite different with, very often, a double slip somewhere in the mix.

 

True Southern termini (post 1923) different again - especially with the concrete architecture. So, no. SR termini have nothing more in common with each other than GW termini (or LNER, LMS or the various pre-group companies).

[Steamport Southport]

After re-starting the BRM 'How to build a layout' series, I'm struck by how typical the track plan 'seems'. I wonder however, how much of this is fiction and how much is reality.  How much of the design tropes we accept as given are actually just echos of earlier layouts, rather than real life?

 

When designers plonk down a single-faced platform with a runaround loop, cattle dock and coal siding - is this ACTUALLY typical of GWR branch line practise? I think we can assume that the levels of traffic on BLT layouts vastly outstrip their prototypes, but if we were to speed up and compress those operations into a representational microcosm - does a 14xx and an autocoach, or a Praire and a B-set, or a Pannier and a rake of cattle vans truly represent reality?

 

I know the easy answer to this is 'it depends', but I would be interested in a discussion of where layouts diverge drastically from the prototype - and where prototypical nuances are missed on layouts.

 

Not necessarily so.

 

Most branch lines were in rural areas, but they also often served towns/villages that had market days where people travelled from miles around to attend.

 

 

Ashburton is a good example. Smallish station, but it received hundreds of cattle wagons on market day.

 

Just look at how many cattle are in the photograph on this page. They all probably travelled by train.

 

https://www.oldashburton.co.uk/markets-and-fairs.php

 

 

Jason

[ejstubbs]

I would say the "goods yard beyond the station platform" as exemplified by Fairford and Looe.

 

At the other extreme is the  "goods yard trailing in towards the buffer stops". Often a feature of models, but the only GWR branch line terminus with that feature which I can think of is Yealmpton.

 

AIUI one reason why Yealmpton was that way because the line was originally going to go onwards to Modbury.

 

I believe similar reasons lie behind the location of the Fairford goods yard (though not involving Modbury, obviously).

 

So the history behind a line sometimes also has a hand to play in the layout of stations.

Edited November 1, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Karhedron]

Notice that no-one has yet mentioned the "bay platform"... It appears in so many model BLT designs but not so much in the real world. I confess I am a sinner.

Many branches tended to be operated by one engine in steam so not much call for a bay in many locations. They did exist of course, Marlow had one although this photo is the only one I have found showing it in use. My guess is that it might have been used by the regular branchline train when the main platform was occupied by Regatta specials but that is just speculation on my part.

 

 

My own BLT is based loosely on the Marlow tracklpan (although not the setting) so I have included a bay for the fun of it.

 

[Guy Rixon]

One should be very careful of context when designing a single-road engine-shed into a fictional terminus. A shed implies that an engine is left there overnight, then railway workers arrive the next morning ˆseveral hours before that engine is needed in service, to raise steam. If it's the engine for the branch passenger-train, that implies lighting up in the dead of night, in time for an early-morning departure. Who does the lighting up, how do they get to the shed, and who's managing them if the station is closed overnight? It seems much more sensible to stable the branch engine at a larger shed, which will be open 24 hours, and where there are proper facilities for the crew to sign on and read notices.

 

Having an active, local shed only makes sense if the branch used to be a light railway, or a tramway, or an industrial line, and all the staff lived locally. However, the other facilities with the shed such as water tank and ash pit would still be used.