Nick Holliday

What's wrong with the exact scale representation using 12mm track and 4mm scale? Since most of your work is scratch built, and suitable vehicles should be available, it seems the perfect choice. As for propulsion, just looking at Bemo prices is eye watering, but you can pick from TT manufacturers, such as Piko and Roco for more affordable solutions, and if you check motorbogies.com they have a wide variety of 12mm gauge power units, from the likes of Halling and Bullant, at prices around a third of Bemo.

You might find inspiration in the Warwickshire Railways website, with hundreds of GWR photos to browse. As you say, the ballast seemed to get finer, probably with a high proportion of ash, and often up to the level of the sleepers. Areas where the level was up to the railhead, to allow road vehicles access, might require something like check rails to maintain the flangeway clearance, and the surface might then be tarmac or cobbles for durability.

And it has Jane's Trains, probably the only surviving model railway shop in south west London!

Don't try to copy the B4 cab, there is very little commonality between them. In Bradley's Wild Swan book on Drummond locos, there is a GA drawing of the C14 on the penultimate pages. Unfortunately the bit showing the backhead is not as clear as in some of the other drawings, but careful scrutiny should reveal what you might want. In addition, in Barry Curl's magnum opus "The LSWR at Nine Elms" there are two pictures of a C14 under construction. (Page 324) They show the boiler from both ends before the cab has been fitted, and should provide everything you need to corroborate the drawing. I have to say that the cab and the door opening are so small that very little will be visible, especially if the crew are added, but, perhaps, in 7mm it would be more obvious.

The normal assumption for UK brickwork is four horizontal courses being one foot high, which makes modelling in 4mm very easy, as each course would be the equivalent on 1mm on the model. Bricks are usually deemed to be 9 inches long, including the mortar thickness. I must admit that when I first read this I thought it was referring to its length, not its height! I'd be inclined to find out its overall length, using a mapping service, and, since the photo is reasonably square to the box, then, using something like PowerPoint to scale it to approximately the correct length, and then see how high it comes out, as the top panels are going to be difficult to estimate.

I have found a few photos of Craven and Stroudley water cranes, which may be of interest. Stroudley

I've managed to locate the Mike's Models kits - for once my "filing" system in the loft actually worked! It's a Craven type actually made up, MM No 10, and the Stroudley Ball-end type is MM No 22. I see they were an expensive 46½p when I bought them, goodness knows when. Holt are asking around £12.50, a greater than 2,500% increase; perhaps I should have invested in more of them!

Unfortunately, the 5&9 model is based on a relatively ! modern type dating from around the mid 1880's. Earlier types, and some later ones too, had a much shorter arm, similar to other lines, such as GWR. The difference can be seen in before and after shots of the rebuilt Lewes station, in John Minnis's book on EJ Bedford's photographs. 4mm models of both the initial Craven type, in which the vertical section is made up of four castings bolted together, and Stroudley's later version with a smooth casting, were made by Mike's Models and they appear to still be available from Holt Models, although they haven't got photos of theirs, so it is impossible to tell which is which. I have both types stached way somewhere in the loft, which might help if I can find them, assuming they have kept the same numbering system.

I like the ones arranged at 45 degrees, presumably because the track centres are too tight. Not noticed anything like that before.

If you can get hold of a copy, I would recommend reading Stephen Wiliam's books on Great Western Branch Line Modelling. The first volume, of three, in particular, examines the various typical station layouts and has lots of inspirational ideas.

The real thing was a conversion from an SER ballast wagon, possibly originally dumb buffered. It was actually allocated to Feltham yard, and was a Brush Truck, for sweeping snow off the rails, to maintain track circuiting. According to Southern Wagons Volume 3 it was converted to a brush wagon in March 1913 and withdrawn in July 1936. The photo in Vol 3, and a clearer one in Kidner's Service Stock of the Southern Railway, shows it in SR livery, with its number 226S at the left hand end, and, in italic script, the legend "Signal & Telegraph Dept Brush Truck Feltham" on two lines to the right end.

Langley do a set of donkeys, with riders for a beach scene. The animals seem a bit chunky, and I think the Dart one is a very good model.

Hi, Joey I'm surprised there hasn't been any response yet, but I suspect everyone is still stunned by the amount of space you have, and your comment that it won't be massive. Many UK modellers would kill for an area like that! For many individuals a 12 x 8 layout would be thought of as large. As an LBSCR enthusiast I can't really help you too much on things Great Western, but I suggest you could help by narrowing down what interests you most. Assuming you are modelling in OO, you could have quite an extensive junction station on one side, with perhaps a (slightly Hackneyed) single line branch terminus on the other, still leaving room for some sort of fiddle yard. But do you just want to run mainline trains, or do you want a goods yard that can be shunted, or would generate goods traffic? What sort of scenery would you prefer? The GW mainline to Bristol passes through mainly rural farmland - check the Pendon photos here to see what that could look like, so if you want something a bit more spectacular then Wales, Shropshire or the South West would be better, but no Bristolian! If you want a mainline, would that be two or four lines, or perhaps a station with additional throug lines between the platforms. How did you intend to go "off-stage"? You have space to just use the curve, but perhaps you wanted somewhere with over-bridges or a tunnel to top and tail your scenery. Would you prefer a station in a cutting, or on an embankment? What about architecture - large fancy buildings or modest timber structures? Any clues as to your preferences would allow the experts a better chance of coming up with something suitable to meet your requirements.

I have always thought that the cess was the relatively flat section of the formation, beyond the shoulder of ballast, past the sleeper ends. A very good drawing of a typical formation can be seen at the Swithland website, http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/1_Embankments_and_Cuttings.jpg which also shows the limited use of clay to create a watertight drainage channel, but well beyond the actual track.

In general, vacuum pipes are ribbed, and/or reinforced with wires, because they have to resist the external air pressure trying to squash the pipe, whereas Westinghouse hoses were smooth, as the material used was able to cope with pressure inside without swelling visibly. So, in 4mm, guitar string for vacuum, wire for air. (alternative materials are available)

Although the Newark brake trials of 1875 had clearly demonstrated the superiority of the Westinghouse brake it wasn't universally adopted. The main problem was cost, the vacuum equipment was cheaper to make and instal, and also Westinghouse had patented the system, which meant that those companies, such as the LNWR, who liked to keep everything in house, couldn't make cheap imitations, without paying royalties. I would estimate that less than half of the pre-grouping lines adopted the Westinghouse system, and that only about a third of the coaching stock in the UK was primarily air braked, because many of the bigger lines, such as the GWR and LNWR favoured vacuum brakes. The vacuum ejector was generally a smaller item than the Westinghouse pump, and was often hidden away out of sight. Choice might depend upon which system near neighbours had chosen, although that didn't stop the Caledonian using the air brake despite its West Coast partner, the LNWR, going different ways! As for your adaption of an American design for UK use, there is plenty of precedent. Lovett Eames was shipped to England to demonstrate its eponymous braking system, the Midland, Great Northern and, I think, the Great Central imported a number of anglicised Moguls at the turn of the century, and several odd tanks were bought by the Welsh railway companies, with a handful of industrial tanks thrown in for good measure. All this well before the influx of US designs during WW2. As for bogie brakes, several companies, including the LBSC, tried them, but almost all found they were more trouble than they were worth. Presumably, with continuous brakes on passenger stock, there was little to be gained, and the need for extra braking when light engine seems unlikely. Most goods locos at the turn of the century eschewed bogies or pony trucks, so brakes on the driving wheels was all there was.

There are a number of places in the UK where two single line branches have run parallel from the junction to the point of divergence. The section between Ryde to Smallbrook on the IOW in particular comes to mind, and the northern junction of the Meon Valley line was another.

Those two American layouts do demonstrate one of the differences between US modellers and those in the UK. The former often have large dedicated rooms, perhaps basements, where these large size and complex systems can be built up over a number of years, often as group projects, whereas in the UK space is usually at a premium, and it's mainly individuals building models of one or two stations (generalisation I know). I have to say the scope and quality of both is amazing, but I was surprised that there was so little actually moving; I had to scroll through the video to actually find a train in action, there was plenty of talk but not much action. My other concern is that neither could be considered "modern image" as they are set sixty years ago, so I am not sure what the OP's point is, in that respect. Ignoring the supposed era consideration, there are several layouts that are currently in use that could be considered, primarily Pendon, but what about Copenhagen Fields, Gresley Beat, Tony Wright's layout, the late Richard Chown's multi station set up and Pete Waterman's set up? I admit they don't feature many diesels, but many of them represent a more modern date that the US ones.

I've always liked the East and West Yorkshire Union Railway, but I'm not sure where you could source the "U"!

If you haven't got a name for your railway yet, it might be easier to adopt one which could use the initials of one of the main line railways that have got transfers available. Perhaps WGR or SCR. It might be possible to come up with a combination that could offer you fancier lettering for coaches or locos, from readily available sources, as well as wagons.

The old-maps website can offer 1:1,250 scale maps for 1927 and 1968 as well as 1901. https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/519500/299500/13/101329 Might work, but you may need to pan out a bit and search for the railway station.

Dave and Shirley Rowe did another layout, even more water based, called Exebridge Quay and an article can be found via Google at original.trainlife.com, although described as HO! Their possible solution to the meniscus problem seemed to be to have the quayside wall just dipping into the water, with the actual fibre glass tank hidden behind.

According to Len Tavender, the initial Government requisition only covered those wagons in use in September 1939, but wagon production still continued, fulfilling orders, so, over the next six months, further requisition orders had to be made to bring these, possibly 4,000 of them, new wagons into the scheme. In addition, replacement wagons, for those destroyed in air raids, also continued to be built. These were the property of the original owner, and they were painted overall black, with the owner's name in small lettering at bottom left, but given the pooling, it was possible that the true owner never saw his wagon in the flesh, as it would have been sent from the wagon builder straight into service. Also, it would seem that, for quite a long period, standards of maintenance were generally maintained, and the sad condition of woebegone wagons only came to a fore later in the war, as supplies, resources and morale began to run out.

I've since remembered there was an earlier drawing in Model Railway News in the 1945 volume. Leleux says it is on page 100, but I don't know which month that would be. He describes it as No. 1011 as rebuilt, if that is the one you are after. Hopefully someone can turn that one up as well, I think I may have a copy but it is carefully(?) filed amongst a thousand other pages from old MRNs in one of several unmarked boxes in the loft!

The second dome housed the top-feed, according to Bradley, "to raise the clacks and permit the fitting of a deeper distributing tray to prevent any matter suspended in the water entering the boiler. Cleaning and inspection was also made easier and quicker." Edit I realise that this quote is slightly out of context. Lawson Billinton introduced top-feed to the LBSCR on the ninth and tenth of his K Class 2-6-0 freight locos, in 1916, replacing the side feed used previously. However, this required a manhole cover on the boiler, between the dome and the smokebox, and eventually seven of the class were fitted with this arrangement. It was in 1920 that L Billinton decided to place the clack valves inside a second dome, with his final batch, 347-353, emerging from Brighton Works thus endowed. The quote refers to the improved arrangement offered by the additional dome.