What did the typical GWR single track branch look like?

[Karhedron]

I suppose that branch termini could be divided into those whose traffic was purely local and those that served holiday destinations. The former would normally have only the most basic facilities, while the latter might well have an additional platform to be able to handle more than one train at once.

It also depended on the size of the town being served. Uxbridge Vine street was a suburban BLT but was quite well furbished with 2 platform faces, plenty of siding space and generous goods shed. Definitely no skimping on facilities.

 

[DCB]

I think we can definitively say that the defining features of a GWR branch were that a) It was operated by the GWR and b) that it was single track.

 

Some were laid out for double track, with double track size overbridges etc some were once double track (Glos Ledbury and MSWJR Cirencester Andoversford for instance) others had minimum size overbridges (Fairford and Glos to Hereford) 

 

All the termini were a lot bigger than we think, Minehead is a monster and takes around 12 Mk1s even tiny Bodmin has a platform around 6 feet in 00  However several through stations had platforms in the 180 foot range (Chedworth MSWJR) and the wooden platform Halts were even shorter.

 

One Branch had Kings and 10 coach trains. The  others didn't.   

 

They were all Standard gauge except the ones which weren't.

[Siberian Snooper]

Can you have a SPAD on a distant signal?

Ah,I hadn't noticed that it was a distant signal. As far as I am aware, you can't SPAD a distant. I fink I need another visit to Specsavers.

[davepen]

There are a few in West Wales.  Aberwystwyth, Fishguard and New Milford (Neyland) could all be said to be terminus at the end of single track lines.  Although Aber was two or three termini in one, and only fully GWR after Grouping (Cam-Rlys)  The other two were built by the GWR, or Brunel.  Both were aimed at the Irish traffic, so rather than termini were interchanges and had stabling for boat trains and sleepers.  Pembroke and Old Milford were at the end of the line for passengers, but had major ports to serve. 

 

Three more typical BLT's would be Cardigan, Newcastle Emlyn and Aberayron,  Although built by local concerns, they were run by the GWR.  All had a single platform, goods yards and sidings.  All had a small loco shed.  I think a GWR Magazine 20 years ago talked about the 0-6-0PT engine at Cardigan being the pilot at Whitland during the day in the 1950's.  The branch then run by several 45xx from Whitland. The branch was long and steep up to Boncath/Crymmach.  The station at Cardigan was constrained by the river valley.  At Aberayron, there was a bridge in the middle, and the cattle dock was replaced by a Camping Coach in the 1930's.  The branch was shorter, with a run into the mainline at Lampeter, mainly by steam railcar or 517 and autocoach.  Freight services were more important, and lasted longer than passenger services, with milk tankers collected by Hymeks into the 70's on the Newcastle and Aberayron branches.  There have been a series of post and articles on Newcastle in the Welsh Railway section of this forum.

[Jeff Smith]

I think we can definitively say that the defining features of a GWR branch were that a) It was operated by the GWR and b) that it was single track.

 

Some were laid out for double track, with double track size overbridges etc some were once double track (Glos Ledbury and MSWJR Cirencester Andoversford for instance) others had minimum size overbridges (Fairford and Glos to Hereford) 

 

All the termini were a lot bigger than we think, Minehead is a monster and takes around 12 Mk1s even tiny Bodmin has a platform around 6 feet in 00  However several through stations had platforms in the 180 foot range (Chedworth MSWJR) and the wooden platform Halts were even shorter.

 

One Branch had Kings and 10 coach trains. The  others didn't.   

 

They were all Standard gauge except the ones which weren't.

I would add, and maybe your last sentence covered this, that some were originally broad gauge which affected track spacing and buildings, e.g. goods shed door width, train shed width, etc.

[Lacathedrale]

davepen's comment around freight piqued my interest - Other than the usual suspects of general goods and domestic coal; it seems that the GWR and WR in general is synonymous with milk traffic. Would this be in evidence in most of the west country? what about Wales? Would these small BLTs have feeder lines from nearby large industry, or would those factories and plants have dedicated sidings? Or would they just unload and load in the same spot as everyone else?

[D9020 Nimbus]

Ashburton (favoured by CJ Freezer)

I've seen this stated many times—but is it true? I've never come across any writing by CJF that indicates this, rather the opposite—I'd have said that he disliked the track plan, largely due to the kick-back siding to the mill. It always seemed to me that he favoured Seaton (Devon—in rebuilt form).

[Silver Sidelines]

I used the word 'favoured' because CJ Freezer made use of the layout on several occasions. 

 

I've seen this stated many times—but is it true? I've never come across any writing by CJF that indicates this, rather the opposite—I'd have said that he disliked the track plan, largely due to the kick-back siding to the mill. It always seemed to me that he favoured Seaton (Devon—in rebuilt form).

 

For example In the Blog Post already referred to above:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/880/entry-12506-branching-out/

 

There is a link to a 1961 article by CJ Freezer where he uses the Ashburton track plan to suggest two different layouts - strictly speaking no mention of liking or disliking but he sees no problem with adapting the track plan.  Towards the end of the article he also suggests that Buckingham Central might also be based upon the same track layout - again I would say indicating that he liked that layout too.

 

I doubt it was a competiton between layout plans just someone offering advice.

 

Cheers Ray

Edited November 3, 2018 by Silver Sidelines

[Lacathedrale]

Ray, your blog really is a treasure trove

Edited November 3, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[stivesnick]

davepen's comment around freight piqued my interest - Other than the usual suspects of general goods and domestic coal; it seems that the GWR and WR in general is synonymous with milk traffic. Would this be in evidence in most of the west country? what about Wales? Would these small BLTs have feeder lines from nearby large industry, or would those factories and plants have dedicated sidings? Or would they just unload and load in the same spot as everyone else?

 

Following the theme of previous posts, the answer to your question is many BLT would have had dedicated factory sidings apart from those that didn't!

 

So, china clay in Cornwall, coal in south Wales, quarries, docks, farm products, manufacturing .... whatever you want. From a modelling point of view, a facility that had both incoming and outgoing items by rail in different types of wagon and some distinctive architecture to the buildings would add most to a model.

 

Nick

[Northroader]

I tried Ashburton a while ago, and one thing it showed is do you want to have a terminus where you can have two trains, passenger and goods, in at the same time, or just do one at a time. In early Railway Modeller days, it figured a lot as the GWR model to have, but it’s very limited operationally if you try to condense the length as well. It’s either an auto train in and out, or turn it over to the goods to use the full space. Still, I suppose that’s what makes a country branch line.

One terminus I really like which hasn’t been mentioned is St. Ives, corner situation, very simple track layout, beautiful setting. Not much on the goods side, but summer Saturdays with through portions from London and you needed a couple of engines to help keep things moving, and the engine road was away from the rest which helped to hide the assisting engines.

I think one aspect of Malmesbury which should be mentioned is that the engine shed is on a loop, not a dead end siding. Once the branch line engine had woken up and gone out for the day, the shed road became the runround road, and what looks like the runround becomes a dumping ground for goods or coaching stock.

[Miss Prism]

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

I tried Ashburton a while ago, and one thing it showed is do you want to have a terminus where you can have two trains, passenger and goods, in at the same time, or just do one at a time. In early Railway Modeller days, it figured a lot as the GWR model to have, but it’s very limited operationally if you try to condense the length as well. It’s either an auto train in and out, or turn it over to the goods to use the full space. Still, I suppose that’s what makes a country branch line.

One terminus I really like which hasn’t been mentioned is St. Ives, corner situation, very simple track layout, beautiful setting. Not much on the goods side, but summer Saturdays with through portions from London and you needed a couple of engines to help keep things moving, and the engine road was away from the rest which helped to hide the assisting engines.

I think one aspect of Malmesbury which should be mentioned is that the engine shed is on a loop, not a dead end siding. Once the branch line engine had woken up and gone out for the day, the shed road became the runround road, and what looks like the runround becomes a dumping ground for goods or coaching stock.

 

Ashburton was about as unique as you could get because very unusually, and for quite what reasons is far from clear, it was operated to what had originally been some unique South Devon Railway Rules & Regulations for, I believe, its entire life and certainly with some unusual operating Instructions deriving from the original SDR Regulations.

[Jeff Smith]

Operationally a simple BLT, even with adjacent industry is not too complex to operate; and therefore some would say not very interesting. However some people like to build representative models just for the pleasure of creating them. You cannot do much with my GWR BLT, a three-way and two single points, but to me it looks great and functionally it works. It doubles as a scenic test track and photo back drop.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Regardless of the owning railway company, if you want an interesting BLT for a model you want to lay it out so that there are several (preferably 3+) places to shunt wagons to.

 

Starting from Ashburton as an example, that has two: the goods shed road and the cattle dock (off the run round loop). I am ignoring the mill siding as a kickback siding does not work without a 1:76 scale horse. But put in a coal siding on the other side of the station, or a dairy next to the station approach, and it suddenly becomes interesting to shunt.

 

Sticking with a model based closely on a GW BLT, I would go for Kingsbridge. It does not have to built on a curve. It can work just as well on straight baseboards.

[Jeff Smith]

Kick-back sidings do not need a horse and can lead to interesting operation.....

[Karhedron]

davepen's comment around freight piqued my interest - Other than the usual suspects of general goods and domestic coal; it seems that the GWR and WR in general is synonymous with milk traffic. Would this be in evidence in most of the west country? what about Wales?

 

The west country and wales were both prime dairy country and the biggest milk flows on the GWR were the Penzance and Whitland milk trains. These normally ran twice daily and picked up from the various creameries en-route to the capital. Several creameries were adjacent to the mainline such as St Erth, Lothwithiel, Whitland and Wooton Basset. Others were located on secondary lines or BLTs such as Hemyock, Aberaeron and Pont Llanio. Tankers from these facilities would normally be tripped to the junction and then picked up by the main milk train on its run to London.

 

If you are interested in milk flows and dairies on Branchlines, there is a very good thread on the subject here. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/120441-branch-line-creameries/

Edited November 3, 2018 by Karhedron

[Karhedron]

Would these small BLTs have feeder lines from nearby large industry, or would those factories and plants have dedicated sidings? Or would they just unload and load in the same spot as everyone else?

Larger industries would frequently justify their own sidings. A good example was Greenwich sawmills at Marlow which had quite extensive sidings opposite the main station platform. Several branchlines served industries where the freight traffic was more significant than the passengers. Others could be handled at the normal station facilities. For example, wool from the mills at Dre-fach Felindre was normally loaded at the goods shed at nearly Henllan station on the Newcastle Emlyn branch.

 

[Coppercap]

It also depended on the size of the town being served. Uxbridge Vine street was a suburban BLT but was quite well furbished with 2 platform faces, plenty of siding space and generous goods shed. Definitely no skimping on facilities.

 

Uxbridge was a genuine Brunel-era broad gauge terminus, and there used to be an engine shed there too!  

 

The train on the right is quite likely similar to that with which my great grandfather tried demolishing the buffers at that very station in 1909, by ramming the carriages hard into the buffers when backing into the platform, derailing them. Oops!

[Pacific231G]

I've seen this stated many times—but is it true? I've never come across any writing by CJF that indicates this, rather the opposite—I'd have said that he disliked the track plan, largely due to the kick-back siding to the mill. It always seemed to me that he favoured Seaton (Devon—in rebuilt form).

Just before he moved to Seaton with RM, which happened when Sydney Pritchard bought the magazine from Ian Allan, CJF wrote in an editorial that he was working on an EM gauge version of Ashburton - though with what alterations I don't know. Peter Denny also said (in Buckingham Great Central) that Ashburton, which he discovered during his honeymoon in South Devon, was the inspiration behind Buckingham Mk2. Apart from Buckingham being a mirror image of Ashburton, Denny developed the track plan by putting a mill where Ashburton's loco shed was and extending the kick-back mill siding to form another loop with a head shunt and the loco shed off it. He built that in 1950 (and then gradually expanded it) so it may very well  have been Peter Denny who introduced CJF to Ashburton. Of the layouts that Cyril Freezer actually built, Tregunna was definitely based on St. Ives.   

 

It's interesting that, while carefully pointing out its operational inadequacies , CJF still used Ashburton as the worked example for Peco's 1965 booklet "Starting in Scale OO". One reason given for choosing  it was that it could, because of its preservation by the Dart Valley Railway, be studied in reality.  I think the real reason may have been much simpler. Despite knowing only too well its limitations as a layout prototype he had, like many others,  probably simply fallen in love with the station. It's diffcult to explain its appeal to anyone who didn't know it but it really was an absolute gem. I only visited it a couple of times while working briefly on the embryonic DVR when it was disused but still completely intact (before the line to it from Buckfastleigh was pinched for a bypass)  and have been haunted by it- in a good way-  ever since.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Lacathedrale]

Kingsbridge is certainly very pretty - I the gentle curves make it a real winner in my book for that reason alone.

 

I mean look at this, it's like somethign directly off of a Peco backscene:

 

It doesn't help that the whole station could be modelled 100% as-is in 2mmFS in under 10' - MUST RESIST

Edited November 4, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[57xx]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

Just get a copy of Paul Karau's book and stop reading the guesswork/speculation on here.

[caradoc]

Personally I'm not planning to model a GWR branch line any time soon, but this has been a really interesting topic, showing that there were nearly as many variations on GWR branches as there were GWR branches ! It occurs to me that another realistic branch line traffc flow is new motor cars (Abingdon, and although it was a through route rather than a branch, it was single track, Morris Cowley).

[kevinlms]

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.

But the question relates to a 'typical' GWR branch line, so NOT an exact replica of one.

 

It comes down to a modeller compiling a list of what facilities he/she wants to include. Then build a model of such a thing, in a 'GWR' style. As others have stated, virtually none are identical, especially due to geographic & the historical building railway.

 

That way you end up with, typically again.

1/ 1 main platform.

2/ A run round loop.

3/ A single loco shed.

4/ A goods shed.

5/ A cattle dock.

6/ A bay platform.

7/ A coal merchants siding.

8/ Add as required.

 

See almost any issue of Railway Modeller, since the first edition for an example!

[DCB]

I tried Ashburton a while ago, and one thing it showed is do you want to have a terminus where you can have two trains, passenger and goods, in at the same time, or just do one at a time. In early Railway Modeller days, it figured a lot as the GWR model to have, but it’s very limited operationally if you try to condense the length as well. It’s either an auto train in and out, or turn it over to the goods to use the full space. Still, I suppose that’s what makes a country branch line.

One terminus I really like which hasn’t been mentioned is St. Ives, corner situation, very simple track layout, beautiful setting. Not much on the goods side, but summer Saturdays with through portions from London and you needed a couple of engines to help keep things moving, and the engine road was away from the rest which helped to hide the assisting engines.

I think one aspect of Malmesbury which should be mentioned is that the engine shed is on a loop, not a dead end siding. Once the branch line engine had woken up and gone out for the day, the shed road became the runround road, and what looks like the runround becomes a dumping ground for goods or coaching stock.

Ashburton or any of these termini are fun to operate as long as you have a long enough run round loop and enough main line to act as a head shunt,  Quite often a loop capable of holding 40 or 60 wagons is condensed to 3 feet or less and there is a minimal Fiddle yard so operation becomes a bit samey. 

I  shunt an 8 foot long 00 BLT with 12 wagon trains but some shunting moves see 20 wagons pulled down the main line before being pushed back, and its getting one or two specific wagons out of a raft in a siding and putting the rest back that makes it interesting, while the kick back is a damned nuisance and needs far too much pre planning for my liking.

On many branches the branch engine hauled both passengers and goods and one engine pottered back an forth all day. On others the Goods was timed to cross the passenger at an intermediate station and shunt the terminus while the passenger was elsewhere. There are plenty of photos of Kingsbridge and Fairford with both passenger and goods trains present but trying to operate Ashburton like Fairford will be challenging.