GWR station inspiration

[iamwill]

Hi all,

 

I am looking to get back into the hobby after having a trainset as a child and plan to build a continuous run DC layout in N gauge in a 6ftx3ft space. I have drawn up a rough track plan as below and I will set the layout in 1920-1940 West England. Are there any branch line junction stations in the GWR world that resemble this station design (the road and canal are not essential) that I can use as a reference? Would these style of stations typically have small goods yards and would it be worth sacrificing curve radius to fit a yard around the lower part of the station (currently 4th radius outer curve)? 

 

Thank you.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Not that I can think of offhandbut if you remoc ve the loop at the bottom of the plan the basic arrangement becomes a sort of mirror image of Bodmin Road without the sidings and no curve in the branch platform.  Yelverton would also have similarities again as a mirror image and without the curve in the branch platform but it was on a single line.

 

So either of those would be worth a look although Yelverton was much more restricted for motive power as it was a junction on a branch line

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwf/S1058.htm

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwf/S973.htm

 

https://www.oldplymouth.uk/Railways-Yelverton Station.htm

[KingEdwardII]

3 hours ago, iamwill said:

Would these style of stations typically have small goods yards

In a word: Yes.

 

Freight was a big part of the railway's income and usually even the smallest country stations had some provision for it.

 

None of the stations along the branch from Witham through Wells, Cheddar to Yatton was without goods facilities, even where the passenger provision was a simple single platform along the line!

 

Yours,  Mike.

[iamwill]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Not that I can think of offhandbut if you remoc ve the loop at the bottom of the plan the basic arrangement becomes a sort of mirror image of Bodmin Road without the sidings and no curve in the branch platform.  Yelverton would also have similarities again as a mirror image and without the curve in the branch platform but it was on a single line.

 

So either of those would be worth a look although Yelverton was much more restricted for motive power as it was a junction on a branch line

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwf/S1058.htm

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwf/S973.htm

 

https://www.oldplymouth.uk/Railways-Yelverton Station.htm

Thank you Mike. Replacing the bottom loop with the car park allows space for sidings where the car park was initially planned, which I feel is a better compromise for the layout. Bodmin Road as well as Bere Alston which I've found should provide some really good references.

[iamwill]

4 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

In a word: Yes.

 

Freight was a big part of the railway's income and usually even the smallest country stations had some provision for it.

 

None of the stations along the branch from Witham through Wells, Cheddar to Yatton was without goods facilities, even where the passenger provision was a simple single platform along the line!

 

Yours,  Mike.

Thanks Mike, rearranging the station to make way for a goods yard will definitely be the way forward.

[iamwill]

Having removed the bottom loop and moved the station car park I've made space for a goods yard with connections to both the canal and road. I'm still very new to this and I'm guessing that the only way into the goods yard via the branch platform isn't too realistic. Is there a better way of doing this? Perhaps swapping the location of the farm and canal/road routes, and have the goods yard sit above the branch platform?

[The Stationmaster]

I think the problem is the lack of spacebetween the curves at each end and in 00 you can't do much about that.  But look carefully at Bodmin Road and then flick your plan through a mirror image turnover.  So you get this 

 

 

This gives you a trailing connection to the yard sidings via the branch bay so it immediately looks more realistic.  If you move the road and canal you could also pit sifdings in at the bottom left reached off a trailing connection passing across the othjer running ;loine through a single slip.  That also gives up you the essential trailing crossover which every station once had at least one of and you could create what is in the bottom left corner of the linked Bodmin Road diagram.

 

No need for any of that car park nonsense in the period you want to model - a couple of taxis oustide the frnt of teh station to meet 'the London' and maybe a private car for the same reason and that's about it.  the goods yard back then was far more useful than a near useless car park

[Michael Hodgson]

The plan currently has no connection either in the station or the fiddle yard between inner and outer circles.  As has already been metnioned you would have a trailing one somewhere, and if there's a branch, trains have to be able both to enter it and leave it.  Think about the likely service pattern.  Even if the passenger service on the branch was just a shuttle between the junction station and the branch terminus, there would be a goods train from the rest of the country to the branch and another in the opposite direction.

[iamwill]

On 17/06/2023 at 17:58, The Stationmaster said:

I think the problem is the lack of spacebetween the curves at each end and in 00 you can't do much about that.  But look carefully at Bodmin Road and then flick your plan through a mirror image turnover.  So you get this 

 

 

This gives you a trailing connection to the yard sidings via the branch bay so it immediately looks more realistic.  If you move the road and canal you could also pit sifdings in at the bottom left reached off a trailing connection passing across the othjer running ;loine through a single slip.  That also gives up you the essential trailing crossover which every station once had at least one of and you could create what is in the bottom left corner of the linked Bodmin Road diagram.

 

No need for any of that car park nonsense in the period you want to model - a couple of taxis oustide the frnt of teh station to meet 'the London' and maybe a private car for the same reason and that's about it.  the goods yard back then was far more useful than a near useless car park

 

On 17/06/2023 at 21:47, Michael Hodgson said:

The plan currently has no connection either in the station or the fiddle yard between inner and outer circles.  As has already been metnioned you would have a trailing one somewhere, and if there's a branch, trains have to be able both to enter it and leave it.  Think about the likely service pattern.  Even if the passenger service on the branch was just a shuttle between the junction station and the branch terminus, there would be a goods train from the rest of the country to the branch and another in the opposite direction.

 

Thank you for both of your insights. It's greatly appreciated as a novice to the hobby. I've taken onboard what you've both suggested and I've now got the following plan. My only concern now is that to fit the trailing crossover, the distance between the two mainlines is no longer constant. I will be using Peco code 80 track so a single slip is not a possibility here. Having used Bath Spa station many times I'm guessing this is not the biggest problem in terms of historical accuracy but wondering in terms of a model railway enthusiast if there is a better way of designing the station to keep the core layout the same but improve the track spacing, given the space constraints?

 

[RobinofLoxley]

All those curved on the rh end of the station need to be replaced with flexitrack sections to smooth them out and reduce the platform curvature, which leads to large gaps being needed to accommodate the overhang of coaches. Combined with the use of appropriate gauges you should be able to maintain parallel tracks in that area.

[The Stationmaster]

If you seek out the. (big) Grantham layout threas you'll find ways of reducing track spacing when using Peco Code 100 points - not for the faint hearted but quite feasible and that layout runs superbly.  The same should be feasible with teh Code 80 track I would think although the feometry is, I believe, slightly different. and it has been done with Peco code 75 track.  But yo'll need to watch it on the curved crossover as how close you can go depeneds b vey much on clearance issues on curves.

 

Apart from having to use a diamond instead of a sing;e slip I think the c visible track ;ayou is noe w quite good - the only noticeable av bsence is a trap point for teh sidings off the branch platform but that can be easily dummied up so no problem.   T Freight trains can only work in one ditrection but that isn't the end of the world and a second crossover would have been useful but that too isn't a show stopper.

 

The worst operational problem you face is teh laclk of hidden sidngs for the branch so trains from the branch will have to change their identities while on teh visible section of the layout - just a bit more make ebelieve to add y to the oprerating.   And I wonder if you'll find that you don't have enough hidden loops? 

[Harlequin]

The space between the mainlines is not constant around the right hand crossover because you have combined a Setrack part with a Streamline part. The two systems have different geometries and so the tracks can't remain parallel.

 

Stick to Streamline everywhere if you can.

 

[iamwill]

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

If you seek out the. (big) Grantham layout threas you'll find ways of reducing track spacing when using Peco Code 100 points - not for the faint hearted but quite feasible and that layout runs superbly.  The same should be feasible with teh Code 80 track I would think although the feometry is, I believe, slightly different. and it has been done with Peco code 75 track.  But yo'll need to watch it on the curved crossover as how close you can go depeneds b vey much on clearance issues on curves.

 

Apart from having to use a diamond instead of a sing;e slip I think the c visible track ;ayou is noe w quite good - the only noticeable av bsence is a trap point for teh sidings off the branch platform but that can be easily dummied up so no problem.   T Freight trains can only work in one ditrection but that isn't the end of the world and a second crossover would have been useful but that too isn't a show stopper.

 

The worst operational problem you face is teh laclk of hidden sidngs for the branch so trains from the branch will have to change their identities while on teh visible section of the layout - just a bit more make ebelieve to add y to the oprerating.   And I wonder if you'll find that you don't have enough hidden loops? 

 

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

The space between the mainlines is not constant around the right hand crossover because you have combined a Setrack part with a Streamline part. The two systems have different geometries and so the tracks can't remain parallel.

 

Stick to Streamline everywhere if you can.

 

Thank you both. I’ll be sure to stick to streamline and with regards to hidden loops and sidings, I don’t plan to have more than 4/5 locos (a couple of 4-6-0s, a Prairie tank and 1/2 Pannier tanks) on the layout as I anticipate I’ll move onto another layout in the longer term.
 

As this won’t be a long term project I plan for this to be DC to save funds. I know it’s inferior but it was always the intention with this layout. My final question to the forum for the time being is if there are any particular issues that may arise from this layout configuration when wiring? And should I have 2 or 3 controllers for this layout? I am aware that only 2/3 trains can feasibly run at once and it’s a lot more manual operation but I’ve used DC before and for the sake of being able to afford this layout it’s a compromise I’ll have to make, with hopefully future layouts years down the line I’ll be able to make the switch to DCC. 
 

A big thank you to everyone that’s given advice in this thread, the shared wisdom of you all is greatly appreciated. 

[The Stationmaster]

With that track layout you could in the real world only see a maximum of three trains om the running lines at any one time (plus maybe an engine siting in a siding).  So DC with suitable sectioning is perfectly ok if you don't fancy/can't afford DCC.

[Morello Cherry]

What about somewhere like Moreton-in-Marsh or Kingham? Not West of England but still interesting.

 

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/moreton_marsh.htm

 

Even a through station like Charlbury had an interesting track plan - loading bay + long gas works siding.

 

 

 

[DCB]

A few ideas  on the original sketch, flipped horizontally as per the Stationmaster .  A double slip on the branch with a kick back/ headshunt lets the branch train run as two main line trains run.  Having the points for the outer loops spaced as shown lengthens the loop and removes a reverse curve or two.  The long siding off the inner loop holds one long train on the inner.  Crossovers allow running round, correct road running to the branch,  Few had facing connections from the main line reversal was quite common.

Bigger canal,  sort of wharf, lock  baseboard would need to be dropped locally .  canal could terminate or go on into tunnel.  Backscene pushed back for access or hundreds of pounds of static grass and fancy trees/ buildings etc     Just ideas not

a worked up plan.  

[DCB]

1 hour ago, Morello Cherry said:

What about somewhere like Moreton-in-Marsh or Kingham? Not West of England but still interesting.

 

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/moreton_marsh.htm

 

Even a through station like Charlbury had an interesting track plan - loading bay + long gas works siding.

Moreton is very good,  Very odd.  The branch is from about 1835, originally horse drawn  the branch diverged part way along the platform on a tight curve to avoid the busy A429 road, built by Italians in around the year dot when we were invaded by foreign forces  subjected to colonial rule.  It was very well preserved until the 2020s when it was re double tracked, 

Edited June 21, 2023 by DCB

[CKPR]

On 21/06/2023 at 13:33, Morello Cherry said:

Even a through station like Charlbury had an interesting track plan - loading bay + long gas works siding.

 

 

 

One advantage of Charlbury is that you can use the old  Prototype Models GWR range to provide the buildings - you'll can always find them on Ebay or possibly via Freestone Model Accessories. Also, have another look at Yelveton Junction as well as Churston as these are really compact and elegant GWR designs for junction stations.

[Jeff Smith]

Personally I would avoid curved platforms as they emphasize tight curves.

[Rugd1022]

17 hours ago, CKPR said:

One advantage of Charlbury is that you can use the old  Prototype Models GWR range to provide the buildings - you'll can always find them on Ebay or possibly via Freestone Model Accessories. Also, have another look at Yelveton Junction as well as Churston as these are really compact and elegant GWR designs for junction stations.

 

Also the home of BR Chairman Sir Peter Parker, he used to catch the train from Charlbury into Paddington on a regular basis. On arrival at Padd he always made a point of thanking the driver!

[KeithMacdonald]

17 hours ago, CKPR said:

Also, have another look at Yelveton Junction as well as Churston as these are really compact and elegant GWR designs for junction stations.

 

There's an excellent topic all about Yelverton Junction somewhere here on RMWeb.

 

Here's Churston.

 

[KeithMacdonald]

20 hours ago, CKPR said:

Also, have another look at Yelveton Junction

 

A good "corner of the room" layout perhaps?

 

[DCB]

Churston , is a nice station but is a single track branch off a single track branch, it's  also quite long if you model the loop on the branch which is useful if running freight.
Yelverton is a single track branch off a single track former main line, more awkwardly there was no branch run round and the loco changed ends by shunting the coaches up hill and ducking in to the loco siding  while the coach coasted back down past it.  Needs at least working brakes on the coaches to replicate that.
The classic GWR branch station without goods facilities is Kemble on the Swindon - Gloucester (former south wales) line.   The lord of the Manor insisted there be no public access and the station was to be for interchange to the  Cirencester Branch only.  The goods station was built some way North adjacent to the Foss Way and Kemble only had an end loading dock but did have marshalling sidings.

[The Stationmaster]

The big advantage of Churston is that overbridge across one end of the layout which might make a view block.  Interesting working of  course and plenty of big engines, including 'Kings'  were permitted on the Kingswear line which the Western classed as a main line.