Rowan

many thanks @Hal Nail. I have to say, I am very tempted with the kit but thanks for posting the photos.

@Nick Holliday You are quite correct - I did mean 'Bramley'. Apologies and the original post has been corrected.

Thanks for the info. I suspect I have most, if not all, the photographs of Cynwyd station. Sadly, although they give a very good overview, none are detailed enough to enable a 'brick count' survey of the building. Can I clarify, I am not replicating Cynwyd station in its entirety but only using the station building - the layout is just a figment of my imagination.

As many of you are aware I live in Malaysia and am currently building an 00 gauge shelf layout of a fictitious country station somewhere on the Ruabon/Dolgellau line set in circa 1910. For inspiration of the station building I am using Cynwyd, which no longer exists. However, based on photographs of 1910, it appears to be a generic GWR station building very similar to Malvern Wells and Bramley (Hants). I am not sure if Malvern Wells still exists but Bramley (Hants) certainly does. I know of no one who lives in the Basingstoke area so my question is, does anyone have an array of photographs of the main building of Bramley (Hants) station sufficient for me to scratch build a model. I can work up elevations, etc. as templates using AutoCad by counting bricks (I was an architect in a previous life!). Thanks, Rowan.

I have just started making the Ratio 531 kit and my already diminished head of hair is even more diminished! In all my years of making kits of various types and materials from various manufacturers I don't think I have ever encountered such badly written/drafted instructions! There is no substantial guidance as to the optimum sequence for assembling the kit. I am not even halfway and already I have had to dismantle parts many times to enable me fit other parts in place. My guess is Peco have made the classic mistake of not having a someone unfamiliar with the product test both the kit and the instructions. Can anyone kindly point me in the direction of some clearer instructions I can download? Thanks.

That is not my experience! I am still waiting for a response to an email last November and resent in January!

Many thanks, guys, for the extremely useful information. Does anyone have any feedback on the Peco 'Prince' and 'Princess' locos? Cheers, Rowan.

Hi Guys, A bit of pre-planning here. Can anyone kindly point be in the direction of a list of FR locos operating in about 1910? In about a year's time (God willing) I will be starting an 009 model loosely based on the FR. I plan to have 2 locos, one pulling coaches and the other slate and returning with general freight. I am considering Machmann's Fairlie for the passenger train but am confused over the colour - maroon or green? I would like to use a non-Fairlie for the slate/goods train, DCC ready preferably. Any suggestions? The time period for the model is 1910ish so I can use surplus figures, etc. from my current 00 gauge model which is similarly set in the Edwardian era. Cheers.

@The Stationmaster Mike, I'm not sure if you know the answer to this. If not, as the saying goes, can you kindly point me in the direction of 'a man who can'. I intend to fit Accurascale screw link couplings to both locos and all rolling stock that were fitted with screw link couplings in the prototype. Although largely cosmetic, Accurascale screw link couplings can be used to hook locos and stock. Can you kindly point me in the direction as to how to fit these to locos as the like. Do I remove the hook on the buffer beam and form a slot to fit the Accurascale coupling or do I drill a hole in the existing buffer beam hook to take the 1st link of the screw link coupling. Advice would be most welcome as I really don't want to mess up a loco experimenting/learning how to fit them. Cheers.

@KeithMacdonald Many thanks for posting. This is educated guesswork. Looking at the Cynwyd bridge, I think the deck structure fitted within the depth of the lower panels. Bearing in mind the bridge would have been built when this section of the Ruabon/Dolgellau line was constructed (1885ish) I recon the basic structure would have been short span brick arches between riveted iron 'H' or 'T' section beams. I doubt these beams would have spanned abutment to abutment but spanned the shortest span from plate girder to plate girder and would probably have been located at the plate junctions where the girders would have been at their strongest. The roadway above the arches would have been formed of crushed stone in layers, each one getting finer. In 1910, there would have been no macadam surface, just fine gravel. In the photo, the plate girders appear to be supported on corbeled padstones. These appear to corbel out to increase the width of the abutment rather than reduce the span of the plate girders, which I find a little strange.

Many thanks @rovex and many thanks to everyone else. Brick arches between lateral H beams makes sense, reinforced concrete as a structural material not having been developed until after the 1880's when the bridge would have been built. I doubt I will be building the bridge soffit (not seen) but it does give me an idea as to where the road surface would be in relation to the side plate girders. In the model, the bridge abuts the end board so I will only be building half the width of the bridge.

Hi Guys and Gals, Maes y Coed plan originally had a 'road over' plate girder bridge at one end but I scrapped that idea thinking in wildest North Wales in 1910 they would have used other materials. Instead I went for a Wills SS53 brick arch bridge thinking it would be more fitting to the location and era. Once built, I realised the kit was useless both it terms of its overall construction and its detail so that got cosigned to the scrapyard! The next idea was a simple level crossing as used at the other end of the model, which I would start building after I completed the station building. Then I found this - Cynwyd station in 1912. Cynwyd is on the Ruabon/Dolgellau line as is the mythical Maes y Coed so it's back to a plate girder bridge! However it's all going to have to be scratch built. Can anyone kindly point me in the direction of where to find the construction of GWR plate girder bridges? I am guessing there will be girders/RSJs between the plate girders plus some form of planking to support the roadway (gravel in 1910). Why were the plates split horizontally? Any ideas? Mr Google has failed me in this instance so any advice will be greatly appreciated.

As a retired architect, nothing raises my blood pressure more than kits/building sheets that are incorrect and it is inexcusable when the correct sizes are so easily obtained. Living in Malaysia, I cannot just pop down to a model railway exhibition or a model shop to see a product before I buy. I am totally dependent upon the manufacturer's information and I have to assume the manufacturers know their business. The problems manifest themselves only when the kits/building sheets arrive at my door. By then I have a simple choice - wasted money or waste hours of time making something I know to be incorrect. Wills are, by far, the greatest offenders. All their brickwork kits, components and building sheets seem to operate on the basis that British brick coursing is three courses per foot. It is not: it is four. But Wills are not the only offenders. Slaters paving slab embossed sheets are incorrect in both the slab size and bond. Standard paving slabs are 3'x2', 2'x2' or 2'x1' and are laid to a 1/3rd bond. Their 0419 stone courses embossed sheet is not correct for OO gauge either and I will have to re-order the sheets I need using their 0420 sheet, which they state is for O gauge. All the Wills brick components and building sheets have been consigned to the bin and all their brick building kits have been used a templates to scratch build. All the Slaters paving and stone courses sheets will be used only for reinforcing. Turning to the other subject of this thread, the Malaysian climate is particularly harsh on plastics - they all go like a prawn cracker within a few years! That said, the softer plastics used by Slaters and Ratio cope reasonable well. I have yet to find a successful way to prevent plastic from becoming brittle or a method of restoring it once it has become brittle.

@dpgibbons Spookily enough, I read the self same section of the GWR Modelling web site this morning so a big thank you for highlighting it. That website is very useful and very user-friendly. I would repaint with Phoenix Precision paint but, living in Malaysia, I have no means of shipping enamel paint. So, the sad truth is my older wagons have faded in the watery, Welsh sunshine and my little Welsh workmen originally mixed their paint to the 'some and plenty' formula! {;-) As @turbos succinctly points out, most of the care was lavished on the public face of the company.

Hi everyone. On the subject of GWR Freight Grey, I have a question. I recently bought an RTR Rapido Trains 16T Toad. The grey seems very dark. I have some older kit built wagons which are painted with Railmatch GWR Freight Grey enamel paint. They are a significantly lighter grey. Can anyone tell me, which is correct? Cheers.

@bécasse Thanks for the re-direct. Although 0 gauge, I am sure there will be a lot of useful information. I have bookmarked the thread so I can slowly go through the multitude of pages. Apologies to everyone for posting on this thread, which has gone way off topic. Sorry guys.

@Stephen Freeman I was contemplating my navel when something occurred to me regarding your post. You wouldn't happen to know if, pre 1922, all that happened at Dolgellau was the loco change? The reason I ask is, if only the loco was changed, there would have been some trains where rakes of GWR carriages were pulled by Cambrian locos west of Dolgellau and vice versa east of Dolgellau. Dolgellau Station had full GWR station facilities on the 'up' line platform. These were replicated in their entirety by Cambrian Railways on the 'down' line platform. Whilst this is, by no means, definitive, logic says more than the loco was changed. From the physical description of the layout of Dolgellau Station, not only did passengers have to alight the train, they had to exit the station! They had to then cross a bridge and enter the Cambrian Railways facilities on the opposite platform, buy a separate ticket before boarding the Cambrian Railways train for their onward journey and vice verso if travelling east. It would be really helpful to have a definitive answer.

Using a bit of logic rather than knowledge, my preference is to place the siphon immediately behind the loco. I do not know whether this is correct to the prototype of 1910. Certainly, from childhood memories, they were at the rear but, by that time, the requirement for rear side lamps on passenger trains had been scrapped.

My understand is, being rated as passenger stock, they would have been fitted with screw link couplings. I believe I am being an AH! As the model is a prototype for production, I would respectfully suggest fitting a standard tension lock coupling but fixed in such a way it is easily removed. That way you satisfy the widest possible market. Personally, none of my stock has/will have tension lock couplings - I remove them to fit 3 link chain, instanter or screw link couplings as appropriate.

Thanks to you all. I have a Dart/Shirescenes kit on order. I am confused dot com (not difficult these days!) as to where the siphon is placed in a train. Some say it is simply added to the end of the train but, in a non-corridor train, this would seem to fly in the face of the safety rules, which required side lamps on the rearmost carriage/wagon. These lamps showed a white light forwards and a red one to the rear. In the event of part of the train becoming detached, the guard was required to swap one of these light round to show red from the driver's viewpoint in order to notify him of the problem. If the siphon is to the rear the brake carriage, how does the guard get to the rear of the siphon other than by giving a quick Indiana Jones impression?

@The Stationmaster Thank you for your post. It was most enlightening (and I'm not being sarcastic). I had correctly guessed some of the mechanics of drop-off/pick up but your post filled in the gaps. I don't have a problem with changing the coal train to general freight - they both carry the same 'K' head code. All the wagons you see in the photo of Maes y Coed are from a model made some 20 years ago and some are a little tired. I have yet to start upgrading this aspect of the model and many of the wagons are incorrect for 1910. The problem I have is finding wagon kits (preferred) or RTR ones, which are period correct.

Thanks @Stephen Freeman. In that case I am sure you will appreciate the mythical settlement of Maes y Coed is located somewhere between Ruabon and Dolgellau ;-)!

A potted history of the Raubon/Barmouth line. The line joins the GWR Shrewsbury/Chester line, part of the London Paddington/Birkenhead line, at Ruabon. The line was built in 5 sections by 4 different companies: Vale of Llangollen Railway Company, Llangollen and Corwen Railway Company, Bala and Dolgelly Railway company and the final Dolgelly to Barmouth section by the Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway Company. With regard to the sections built by the Vale of Llangollen, Llangollen and Corwen and Bala and Dolgelly railway companies, all 4 sections were run by GWR from the outset. The 3 companies were absorbed by GWR in 1896, 1896 and 1877 respectively. Construction of the final section bankrupted the Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway Company and the company was taken over by Cambrian Railways in whose ownership it remained until the creation of 'The Big Four' when it passed to GWR. Cambrian Railways completed construction and the section opened in 1868. I do not know whether running of this small section was by Cambrian Railways or GWR. Incidentally, from my researches, Bala Junction was a junction in the middle of nowhere consisting solely of a transfer platform with not even a roadway connection. The benefit to both GWR and Cambrian of the line was it provided a more direct route to the beaches of the Llyn Peninsular, which both companies wished to develop to meet the growing recreational needs of the rapidly expanding industrial centres. The alternative route was Cambrian Railways more tortuous, mid-Wales one from Oswestry to Aberystwyth and Barmouth via Machynlleth (Dovey Junction), a similar junction station to Bala Junction save Dovey Junction had a roadway connection. The problem I have had throughout the development of Maes y Coed is most information, be it from books, Internet searches or personal recollections, is based upon post nationalisation practices. Much water passed under the bridge between 1910 and 1947 - what was valid for post 1947 may not necessarily be valid for 1910.

Thank you @Philou for your supportive message. I have looked into the impact of a 'Highley' type point configuration on my layout. Even if I demolished the whole model and started again to include it, it is a non-starter. The point configuration would occupy 53", leaving a mere 39" for the freight drop-off line, enough for a loco, 2 or 3 wagons plus a brake van. The total width of the 3 tracks also increases by 4", cramping the goods yard area to the point where to include one becomes impossible. All in all, although incorrect to the prototype, I am satisfied my track plan is the best compromise given the space available. As previously stated, perhaps the only modification I will make is to change the platform bay line to narrow gauge. Visually, this would make more sense but I doubt it accords with the prototype. And I will make sure the signals look right. Merci. Cordialement.

Thank you for your observations @bécasse. May I respectfully point out my original post on this thread clearly stated my model was of a fictitious small country station somewhere along the GWR Ruabon/Barmouth line in 1910. I also included a photograph which showed the track had been laid with ballasting substantially complete. 1) In 1910, such stations would have kept their own Shires both for shunting wagons and for the delivery of goods. 2) The cattle line/dock would only have, at best, usage once a week on market day. In the completed model, the cattle dock is immediately adjacent to the cattle market, all of which gains access from a lane (yet to be modelled) that runs along the left-hand end of the model. 3) The model does not and will not include a train for general freight or perishable freight. The only non-coal freight activity will be a milk siphon C coupled to the passenger train. 4) I do not know this for sure as I can find no details of the working practices of a drop-off freight train, head code K, which stops at intermediate stations. Bearing in mind the plethora of small stations it would be required to stop at between Ruabon and Barmouth, I would guess it highly unlikely it would do more than drop off and collect the few empty coal wagons scheduled for each station. Shunting the wagons to their final places would be left to the station using whatever means they had available. My final point in my last post was, to a degree, stating the obvious - to adversely criticise someone's model once those elements under consideration are substantially complete will achieve nothing but dishearten the modeller. Even if those criticisms are valid, there comes a point when they cease to be constructive.