pre-Grouping Dockside 'Nook in c.5'x2' - A Question of Track

[Schooner]

Hullo lads and lasses of the Senior Scale Section, I hope we're all well?

 

Entering the final stage of planning of my first 7mm layout (and only second 'proper' layout at any scale), and I'd appreciate feedback from those with experience of the scale to help finalise plans, please.

 

Story so far

I got back into railway modelling a couple of years ago; started building a 4mm table-top layout last year. It's not finished, but it is getting that way. I like 4mm but suspect I would prefer 7mm, and I'm keen to explore fresh territory although I remain constrained to the table-top site for the scenic area. After a few revisions (planning post here) the plan now stands thus:

To start with, any and all feedback is appreciated - if you have a thought please do share. It's why I'm here :)

 

As can just about be seen in the above, the 'wings' are yard-long semi-scenic* cassettes/fiddle sticks, 'tho only one need be used at a time.

*track ballasted, rear fence viewblock

 

 

Current situation

Most of the main elements to get started are accounted for:

• Baseboard construction - all being well, assisted by someone who certainly knows their way around the scale and whose modelling chops I admire very much. So ✅

• The coaster - I have a longer-term plan, but for now I've managed to find a suitable-enough option that's good to go for a reasonable price. Another ✅

(that's not it btw, but a model of the same vessel held by the National Museum, Wales. If only mine were so tidy! Not sure about that antifouling, mind...)

 

• Props - I'm privileged to be receiving support from some exceptional modellers with a couple of important scenic elements. Another ✅

 

• Stock - where the problem started! On getting home from the London show the other weekend I found a stowaway in my bag:

Not the world's most accurate, but I was - and remain - charmed; the required TLC being part of the appeal. Before her arrival, Plan A had been to take some

and add a bit of

to achieve maximum 😁s...which still feels like a great idea, so that's progressing too. Stock I'm happy to build from kits during the process, and that game has begun too. It's a ✅

 

• Control system - No idea. DCC, that's all I know. This is, I think, the last major piece of the puzzle.

 

How does all that sound, so far?

 

 

Questions

• As above, I'd like to hear any and all information on suitable DCC system. It's a scary world out there and I've got no idea, so really would appreciate advice.

 

It's a tiny layout with a tiny loco stud, no clever signalling or interlocking required, no automation...so it feels a bit silly in many regards because I won't get so many of the benefits of going digital. But. Slow speed running. Sound and smoke. For a layout that's going for 'small but perfectly formed'*, intimate if you will, I don't think I can turn these down. It does also future-proof the layout and my wider modelling to some extent, which has value.

 

*Aim for the stars and you might just hit...something!

 

• The idea is for the wagon TT to be operational. Again, I'd love to hear any advice or experience the Parish has with this. 

 

I'd like for this to be manually/mechanically operated (control wheel on the fascia, flywheel on the shaft for a nice weighty feel...?). As it only needs to turn to and fro through 90 degrees (I can't see a need to turn wagons), it could have simple physical stops for indexing. It feels doable, but I'm not basising that on any evidence. If you're able to provide some, please do!

 

• A related ambition is getting vans in and out of the transit shed, and accessing the kickback spur labelled 'coal'. I think rope/chain shunting with the loco is viable (I'm just starting experiments in 4mm which should confirm, hopefully)...but I'm also wondering about a Magnorail system (again turned by hand via a wheel on the facia, perhaps?) to 'simulate' a shunter with a pinch bar just giving it a heave :) They're not exclusive, but obviously a Magnorail would need to be incorporated into the build and TT design. Watcha reckon?

 

 

In Conclusion

Hi, I'm Schooner and it's been...oh, I dunno, about 3 minutes since my last tiny-and-yet-overambitious layout scheme! No, I don't know how it happens either. Anyway, I'm quite excited for this one but need to acknowledge that I don't really know what I'm doing. I generate a lot more ideas than I have experience or skill to back up and, whilst I really am honoured to be getting the help I am with the layout, I'd benefit hugely from the wider experience of this forum. 

 

Any ideas, any warnings, any advice - hit me. It's all welcome, and it's all appreciated, and it all makes for a better layout and a happier modeler :)

 

Thanks for reading, I hope it's been of some interest or at least entertainment. Pip pip,

 

Schooner

 

PS. Something like that

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Schooner

[EasternO]

I can't help you with anything as I'm a noob myself, but looks like a great project.

 

I've gone the other way to you - from 7mm plans to 4mm.

[Schooner]

On 29/03/2023 at 21:05, EasternO said:

 

I've gone the other way to you - from 7mm plans to 4mm.

 

Interesting! What are your reasons? Pros and cons to each of course, but always good to hear where others find their balance.

 

For those who caught this in the Layout and Track Design section, please forgive the re-post. I thought this would also be a good place to canvas for opinions.

 

Cassettes

 

Problem: The design of yard-long fiddlesticks/headshunt to act as the wings to the layout's main stage.

 

 

Factors: These are a yard long because a) PECO and b) that gives 700mm for 5 wagons and 200mm for a loco, which seems about right.

 

The other crucial dimension is depth. Given the height of the quayside, a little overlap with the tabletop etc, we're looking at about 200mm total fascia height. Therefore <200mm cassette height.

 

Anything which improves flexibility and ease of use gets extra points with this project, and I wondered what could be done within the above constraints to push these.

 

Towards a solution:

Reading one of the Gauge O Guild's layout books, I read the nominal height gauge is 105mm. This gave me an idea... Dangerous, I know, but sometimes I just can't hold it back!

 

This is very much just an initial sketch*, but the idea looked something like:

*very initial, drawn on the train as a way of thinking out loud, it's far from perfect but I hope it's coherent.

 

Each cassette is made up of

a scenic element (eg fence)

2 x identical 'train decks' (A1, A2 as labelled above)

a structural spacer (B above)

located to each other by magnets (a magnetic fence? Thanks @Mikkel !), to the baseboard by...not sure yet, but something staunch and load-bearing, and to the ground with a e.g. camera tripod.

 

The train deck has length to match a section of PECO track, and depth to extend past the camera-tripod fitting on the underside. Its edges are bare, save for the inset magnets top and bottom. Its centre is of top-dressed cinder-ballasted track. Its ends have the fittings for connection to baseboard/end piece.

 

The spacer has length to match, and height to exceed the relevant height gauge. Again, magnets top and bottom; fittings to connect with baseboard/end piece in the ends.

 

Operation

In 'light' mode, the top train deck could be taken off a small stack of such cassettes, plugged into the layout and tripod and we're good to go. Play trains as per previous description. When the train deck swaps sides or gets rotated, so can the fence. 

 

In 'full' mode, a whole cassette is plugged in to each side of the layout. Each train deck can then represent a different location on the docks network; or immediate-use storage of other stock (eg moving from Midland to LSWR); or just look a bit prettier!

 

Current thinking is that two such cassettes gives me space for enough stock for the two initial companies for the foreseeable, would stack and stow neatly, and have a functional purpose whilst playing trains. I think.

 

Improvements

Next steps involve turning the idea/sketch into the best version it can be, and then seeing if that's a workable, practical, buildable thing. 

 

Thoughts on all the above, and help with the last bit, would be much appreciated. I have a feeling the layout will fly or fall based on how well these work...

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

[EasternO]

5 hours ago, Schooner said:

Interesting! What are your reasons? Pros and cons to each of course, but always good to hear where others find their balance.

Space would be the primary reason. Having a 7mm circuit in my loft was not advisable. I like building models and at that stage I just wanted somewhere to test them and simply sit and watch them go round.

 

Then I thought about building to a new standard gauge scale, exactly between 4mm and 7mm, but despite loving building things, this would have taken me years to get anything built because absolutely nothing currently exists. I dropped that idea and plumped for 4mm. Now I don't have to build anything but the layout - after I've thrown the junk out!

[Schooner]

Update:

Heaps exciting!

 

For the next step I thought I had an answer, but I'm now doubting it, so

 

A Question of Track

 

As far as I'm aware, there are three easily accessible options

• Peco (Ready to lay)
• Marcway (Ready to lay IIUC)
• C&L (DIY kit)

The planning software I used had templates for Peco track only, so that's what I based the layout geometry on - one LH, one RH, one Y. Peco's c.72'' radius meets my minimum criteria; not too worried about aesthetics as it will all be ballasted to at least sleeper-top if not rail-top; they're affordable and available.

 

But. Quite apart from the look of the thing, recently I've been reading about poor running and connectivity on Peco turnouts due to sub-optimal switch/closure rail hinging. Being used to the one-piece rails of the Peco code 75 bullhead 00 turnouts, this does not appeal to me at all. Is this an issue? 

 

If so, are the 6' LH and RH, and 72" Y Marcway turnouts - which match the Peco radius and so presumably have similar overall geometry - an improvement over Peco? They seem good value if so...?

 

C&L kits looks like the Rolls Royce option, but are they worth it? If so, would the best way to check what I need to be to finally download Templot? If going that far what's the risk that I'll want to go fully bespoke?!

 

Any advice would be much appreciated, dear online model railway club of mine :)

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

[LBSC123]

Not entirely sure on what track might be best for you but you can get these kits from Greenwood too: https://greenwoodmodelrailwayproducts.co.uk/shop/o-gauge/a-5-point/ (someone more knowledgeable than me would have to tell you what the various A5 etc mean).

 

A more general query is, if you’re pushed for space and only intending to use small locos, could you reduce radius below 72”? I see Marcway do points in 4/5ft radius? 

[Giles]

Also, is this track to be tramway? Buried in setts? If so, copper clad sleepers with no chairs would be fine.

[lezz01]

4 hours ago, LBSC123 said:

Not entirely sure on what track might be best for you but you can get these kits from Greenwood too: https://greenwoodmodelrailwayproducts.co.uk/shop/o-gauge/a-5-point/ (someone more knowledgeable than me would have to tell you what the various A5 etc mean).

 

A more general query is, if you’re pushed for space and only intending to use small locos, could you reduce radius below 72”? I see Marcway do points in 4/5ft radius? 

A5 refers to the switch type and crossing angle, so in this case the turnout has a type A switch and a crossing angle of 1in 5. Simples!

Regards Lez.

[Tortuga]

12 hours ago, Schooner said:

C&L kits looks like the Rolls Royce option, but are they worth it?

I can’t help you regarding PECO or Marcway points, but I bought C&L kits for Alsop (I know thats 4mm scale, but I’m guessing 7mm kits are similar?) and I found them pretty good kits to build. As a complete novice at track building, I managed to build a Tandem 3-way point and not having to file my own blades or build my own common crossings was a massive help.

Just make sure you order the right kit! - when I ordered my 4mm kits I didn’t know any better and ended up with common crossings with a 1mm flangeway, when I should’ve gone for ones with a 1.25mm flangeway. I don’t know if there’s a similar scale/gauge issue in 7mm?

The kits helpfully include roller gauges, but you can opt not to include them when ordering.
I’d also recommend reading the instructions through several times before starting and not necessarily starting with step one - the instructions start with laying the straight stock rail and general advice (from the track laying section on here) was to position the common crossing first, which I did.

 

The only bad points (pardon the unintentional pun) are the templates (I’ll explain in a bit) and the tie bar, which for your use will probably be OK since you’re insetting the track.

 

12 hours ago, Schooner said:

If so, would the best way to check what I need to be to finally download Templot?

Yes. 100x yes. It takes a bit of getting used to in order to use, BUT I’d say well worth it.
The templates included in the C&L kits are fine IF you’re building a straight point (which you are), but Templot will give you the opportunity to “try before you buy”. I’d use it to create templates for different types of point (ie A5, B6, etc.) then print them, cut them out and lay them out in your track plan to see which sort you need.

 

13 hours ago, Schooner said:

If going that far what's the risk that I'll want to go fully bespoke?!

Well, therein lies the danger! I’m resisting changing to EM by repeatedly reminding myself that I don’t want to completely ruin £100-£200 steam locomotives trying to regauge them. I’d imagine that’s easier with £500+ ones?!

[bluestag]

Regarding the connectivity of Peco points.   I have about 15 on my layout.   They all have additional jumpers soldered to them.   None rely on pressing against the running rails for juice.    Most were inherited.   All have the wires joining the frog to the closure rails cut.    The frog is separately switched at the tortoise switch motor.    The closure rails have a jumper to the adjacent running rail.   LIkewise the points, right at the place closest to the closure rails.     Mostly with success.    I had one older point that had the frog isolate one rail from the other, and needed a supplemental dropper soldered on.    They seem to work well.   On one or two occasions, the switches in the tortoise (also repurposed) have failed, and it was necessary to use the other set of switches on the tortoise.    Which is easy enough.    I had miles and miles of 20ga ribbon wire.   I used an eight wire length about a foot long, soldered to all the points on the tortoise, and running to an eight terminal terminal block.   All the wires under my layout end in a forked crimp on connector.   Over 300 of them.   There was no way I was going to work with a soldering iron and solder overhead.    (My baseboards cannot be inverted).

[Schooner]

12 hours ago, LBSC123 said:

Greenwood

Thanks for the link - I'd not come across them, and not only do they do standard turnouts like the A5, but also some using Peco geometry which is worth knowing.

 

12 hours ago, Giles said:

Also, is this track to be tramway?

Short answer, no.

 

Looking at the primary inspiration

 

I think we're looking at track dressed to sleeper-top in general, and rail-top at road vehicle crossings. I like this, as a little variation in ballasting depth/ground height gives a lot of aesthetic variation, and can support narrative too. For close-ups, these (of Poplar Dock, Port of London, but the best examples I can think of off the top of my head) are pretty demonstrative of the most built-up finish I have in mind:

(all Getty high-res previews, embedding permitted. Open in new tab and zoom for full benefit :)

 

So although track detailing isn't crucial, I think sleeper, chair and rail choice must look right as well as run right.

 

I did think about inset (in setts) 'tho, your excellent embossing tool makes it a doddle and the results look fantastic!

 

8 hours ago, lezz01 said:

A5 refers to the switch type and crossing angle, so in this case the turnout has a type A switch and a crossing angle of 1in 5. Simples!

At risk of derailing my own train of thought, I've read several times that A5s are a modellerism; that there are better switch types to use for small footprint small radius turnouts that are perfectly viable, if only people knew to ask for them. Any ideas on what these might be?

 

7 hours ago, Tortuga said:

Yes. 100x yes.

😆 Righty oh, that's that settled then! Thanks for the C&L info too.

 

4 hours ago, bluestag said:

I have about 15 on my layout.

That's all very useful information @bluestag, thanks for sharing.

 

12 hours ago, LBSC123 said:

A more general query is, if you’re pushed for space and only intending to use small locos, could you reduce radius below 72”? I see Marcway do points in 4/5ft radius? 

A good question. I'm pretty sure I could drop down to <36" with the intended stock without causing any issues at all. In fact, the scheme began as a 'things to do with the Peco Starter Set on my tabletop'! In short, I found that even using Set Track points I couldn't really fit any more railway into the space, so I chose to relax all the radii* instead. Marcway 72" suggested as that matches the (claimed!) Peco turnout radius (which I also used for the curve of the running line at the front of the layout), but I don't think it would cause any issues to drop down to 5' or even 4' radius points if needed to fit the available footprint.

 

*To look a little prettier, run a little better, and keep the dream alive that one day I might win the lottery and be able to afford a Lee Marsh 850

 

So, I feel I have two main options

• Cheap: ready to lay turnouts and flexitrack. I'm sure there's room in the layout to absorb slight turnout geometry variations. This I could do myself.
  • Checking prices, it seems like Marcway is very competitive with Peco (read, cheaper) and uses single-piece switch and closure rails. Why go Peco, then?
• Less cheap: hand-built turnouts and track. This would be really lovely, and @Tricky (who would be doing the hard bit**) has kindly come up with a suggestion to make this approach as workable as possible. However, it is still significantly less pocket-friendly, which translates to a tighter budget elsewhere.

I know which my heart has picked, but I need to give my head a moment or two to work out the pros and cons of each. Please do spell these out for me/how they would apply to you, it's really very helpful getting access to a breadth of informed opinion, and thanks for all the excellent input so far!

 

**Oh, I've just seen that I didn't credit his fine work here! The baseboard shown above is his smart woodwork, not mine and very glad of it I am too!

 

PS.

If you can think of a trackplan that does require tighter radii, or would rely on bespoke track geometry then please do share. The entry and exit points are now set and the quay edge is fixed - so it's a realistic track planning situation - but I'm still very open to ideas on what would work in the space. Cheers, L

Edited May 12, 2023 by Schooner
1) Sp. 2) PS.

[magmouse]

33 minutes ago, Schooner said:

I know which my heart has picked, but I need to give my head a moment or two to work out the pros and cons of each. Please do spell these out for me/how they would apply to you

 

Your heart is right - ready-made points can't replicate the real thing the way hand-built, bespoke turnouts do. The point being (*ahem*) on the prototype the track geometry follows its own logic and the turnouts follow that, not the other way round. Once to start to see it, all RTR paintwork looks wrong. This is especially the case with complex layouts (scissor crossings, interlaced points, anything on a curve, etc.) but for me at least it applies to a single turnout as well.

 

Do you need to bite the bullet and learn to build your own? Even when you factor in Fred Brooks' "plan to throw one away" mantra, it probably becomes the cheapest option, at least in cash if not in time (sorry, Tricky!).

 

Nick.

[lezz01]

2 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

 

At risk of derailing my own train of thought, I've read several times that A5s are a modellerism; that there are better switch types to use for small footprint small radius turnouts that are perfectly viable, if only people knew to ask for them. Any ideas on what these might be?

 

The A5 is the smallest template that is available through the EMGS. I have an A4 from C&L and you can go down from that BUT you have to factor in the wheelbases of both your locos and rolling stock plus any overhang and what type of couplings you are using, is any of the former going to cause buffer locking. If so can you mitigate against it? What compromises are you prepared to live with and what are you not? If you are going with 3 link or screw link and even AJ type couplings and anything other than an 0-4-0T I wouldn't go with anything under a B6 coz whatever train you have you will have to push through a turnout at some point and that sorts it out very quickly. Now you can get away with an A5 or even a very short Y point as long as you always pull through it, it's pushing that causes the problems. As long as you stick with that Deeley dock tank or the Johnson saddle tank and short wheelbase wagons you should be fine with an A5 but don't try to run an M class 2F or anything else with an 8' 8'6" wheelbase through it coz it probably won't have it.  

Regards Lez. 

   

[magmouse]

Good points from Lez regarding the risk of buffer locking, remembering that the O gauge finescale standard has more slop between the width over flanges and the track gauge compared to some other standards. Wagons and locos can therefore ’crab’ on curves, which can add to the problem. This helps get longer wheelbases around tight curves, but of course shorter wheelbase stock can crab more.

 

Could you get a bit of second-hand Peco to try, and sell it on for little loss if you don’t decide to use it? It feels like some testing of the particular set-up you are planning is needed. This layout is going to be all about satisfyingly realistic shunting moves, so it’s vital to get the operation satisfactory.

 

Nick.

[Schooner]

On 12/05/2023 at 21:32, magmouse said:

Your heart is right

Well, that's that then! Decision made, information passed.

 

On 12/05/2023 at 23:50, lezz01 said:

The A5 is the smallest template

Noted, thank you. My point was more that there are other switch designs that permit greater divergence in a shorted footprint with greater ruling radius than the A4/5 pattern - sorry I wasn't more clear! I've heard of these 'other switch designs' a few times (probably in the British Finescale turnout kits thread), but have only once seen any info on what these alternatives look like.. I also remember the comment being made that A4/5s only exist because modellers ask for them, being a logical progression, but really they'd be better off using other designs. Seemed to me like a prime opportunity for a turnout-kit supplier to do a bit of audience education but we're not there yet, it seems.

 

Couplings to be Dinghams for hands-free, which I think ask for 4' radius, but expected to be 3-link in most part. Planned ruling radius is 6', and haven't seen any reason to reduce that. With luck going with C&L will make for even more flowing relaxed curvature :)

 

Reference pics

Out of time for chats, sorry, but one quick demo of ballasting levels

and then a dump of pics I want to keep for warehouse/shed and wall references

https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/epw033436

https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW033441

https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/epw024187

https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW023710

https://www.francisfrith.com/topsham/topsham-the-quay-1906_53990

 

Additions and suggestions are always very welcome.

 

Okay byyyeee!

 

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Schooner

[Gedward]

Seems like we'e both modelling very similar scenarios. My layout is also in the planning stages as I haven't moved into my new house yet.

 

Bovey Quay, a fictitious quayside with working dockside railway. Set somewhere between 1945 - 1965.

So it's very useful to see the images above and the one of Teignmouth harbour, very useful indeed.

TBH, I've been struggling to find decent reference of small dockside railways such as these. Any help with how to source inspiration of docksides from anywhere in the UK, would be enormously helpful.

 

[34006]

Have a look at Bude - a harbour branch,with a loop and a couple of sidings,and a narrow gauge(horse drawn) tramway to collect sand from the beach .https://m.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.875862365803428.1073741845.796320380424294&type=3   and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okehampton–Bude_line will give you some ideas,photos and references.

 

Good hunting

 

atb

Phil

[magmouse]

+1 for Bude (though I am biased having been on family holiday there for over 20 years). The canal, with basin and sea lock, add further interest, and there are some pleasingly characterful buildings adjacent.

 

Nick.

[Schooner]

Evening @Gedward Si, I've been following the ups and downs of your move*, hope it'll all be worth it in a year or few when you're cosy in your new railway room surrounded by Bovey goodness. 20'x8' wasn't it? Enough to get into some serious trouble, that :)

 

 

*And the 'up and ever up's of your gorgeous modelling

 

For direct references, it'll be a bit of a struggle and likely tied to a specific single industry - the railway had killed the small quays just as the lorry then killed the railway. Post-war options are limited, but as you've seen there are a few goodies. Especially so if you're happy taking elements from different places and combining them into a coherent whole. Assuming some but limited tolerance for compression, the primary routes are small corners of big networks (Southampton, London Royal Docks etc), or whole chunks of smaller systems (eg. Falmouth, or Aberdovey), or find one inspiration for feel and another for detail (eg. Gloucester Docks would be my go-to for a Little London - all the tone with none of the volume :) 

 

That said, there are ways to fit eg. the essence of the entire Millwall Dock into a shed (in 00 at least!)

but one must be clear on aims and compromises.

 

Regardless, my general method to find references is to scout on NLS for trackplans*, switch to Britain from Above for general feel, and just diving into Google for details/buildings etc. once I can narrow down search terms/areas/periods. The other good starting point is something like Akins' Great Western Docks and Marine.

 

*Being sure to check the options in the "Choose an historic map overlay" box on the lower left, and those hiding within the Map Finder tab at the top, once a likely spot has been found - always worth checking how the quays were used over time. One of my favourites, Devonport New Quays/Ocean Quay, looks like this (too late)

or this (too early)

 

...oh they won't copy over. Weird. 

 

Early

 

Just right

 

The photos above are from Teignmouth and Topsham, both close enough to Bovey to be linkable, so perhaps start there and just work around the coast :) There's enormous variety even between the Tamar and the Truro rivers - be sure to explore up both! That way you'll cover not just Bude, but be able to draw inspiration from as diverse a mix as Brading and Brentford and Bridgwater. All good grist to the mill :)

 

If it'd be helpful, feel free to let me know what you want from the scene and I'll do my best to suggest likely candidates/join the hunt too - the more the merrier!

 

At risk of overstepping the mark, here's a spread of shed-size O quayside ideas/sketches and the place that sparked them:

Sutton Harbour, Plymouth

 

Limehouse Basin, London (believe it or not!)

 

The two Southampton piers

 

Erm...St Martin's Wharf!

...but inspired by any of the numerous (if non-rail served) little up-river quays of South Devon and Cornwall.

 

Sorry, bit overkill on that response there - quiet night! - but hope it helps some.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Schooner
Moar maps!

[Annie]

I suppose you would have seen 'Saltfleet Haven' on Carendt.com.  https://www.carendt.com/micro-layout-design-gallery/layouts-using-sector-plates-contd/

 

 

It's only a simple little thing, but I can see how it could be a lot of fun to mess about with.

[Gedward]

Morning @Schooner

 

Thanks so much for all the info! I've now got a really good grasp of where to look and I'm sure I'll find something suitable. I'm really not too concerned about prototypes as Bovey Quay will be a mishmash of whatever suits the project. 

[Gedward]

Thanks to everyone for their contributions, really appreciate it.

 

[phil_sutters]

On 29/03/2023 at 20:04, Schooner said:

 

 

 

 

A rather grainy snap from Dad's albums of a post-war image of another of the same class.

For further inspiration from a smaller* dock you could look at Chris Handley's ' The Maritime Activities of the Somerset and Dorset Railway.' which has many photos of Highbridge and a few of Bridgwater.

* I calculated that Highbridge Wharf would take up 10 metres by 3 metres in 4mm scale!

Edited May 18, 2023 by phil_sutters