Rowan

Many railway modellers do not have direct knowledge of the design and practices of the prototype railway. Instead, most of us have to rely upon advice and information gleaned from manufacturers, 'experts' or the Internet. In my case, the use of points, the lack of traps and the spacing of sidings was based upon a professionally designed track plan for a previous model, many track planning publications and even manufacturer's information sheets. The rationale behind my track plan is the track adjacent to the platform is the main line. The next one is the passing loop. I accept passenger trains cannot cross but we are talking of a small, rural station in 1910 where passenger trains would be few and far between (they could be timetabled to pass at an adjacent station). The third line is for a coal train to drop off wagons and collect empties. The locos originally envisaged were a shunting loco, a fully lined Dean Goods and a fully lined Small Prairie. And before anyone says anything, all GWR locos were fully lined up until 1906 so a fully lined goods loco in 1910 is a reasonable supposition. Looking into something else unrelated, I discovered that shunting operations in small, rural goods yards were carried out by either manpower or horsepower right up until the 1950's (the last shunting horse was retired in C1967 at Lambourn). The shunting loco idea was scrapped and the model adjusted to include stabling for Hercules the Horse. Regarding scenic blunders, I was thinking more of kits or ready made houses where the position of the chimney would indicate the fireplace was behind the front door, yard offices and the like where the door cill is flush with the ground when the reality would be a minimum of 6" up stand, etc., etc. If we are discussing overall modelling faux pas, I have seen videos of much vaunted layouts that include impossibly steep gradients to both tracks and embankments and many other such errors. But I return to my original point: whether the model railway is correct to the prototype is secondary to the satisfaction of the modeller. We model for our own enjoyment not to produce 'museum' quality masterpieces correct in every detail although we try to follow the prototype as best we can. From this perspective, any criticism of someone's model requires it to be constructive rather than destructive; encouraging rather than it being a 'put down'.

To amplify @Grovenor's point and to a certain extent @Kieth Addenbrooke, replicating the prototype in model form is inevitably a complex set of compromises. To faithfully replicate Highley would, at a guess, require a model some 4 to 5 meters in length. As tolerant as my wife is, it is doubtful marital harmony could be retained if I embarked upon such a project! The compromises each person is prepared to make will vary and boil down to what pleases them regardless as to whether this accords with prototype practice or not. Each person's compromises are equally valid. It is your model and you decide what is acceptable to you. That said, it does not mean one should ignore prototype practice but do so based on knowledge. This is moving off topic but, as a retired Architect, the biggest problems I have are with buildings and other scenic structures. Most contain elements that are constructional or engineering impossibilities. Although nowhere complete, most of the structures within Maes y Coed are heavily kit-bashed or scratch built. Perhaps this could be a separate thread.

Thanks Guys. It doesn't take much to confuse me these days! Am I right in thinking 'Ramblin Rich' is saying, on my layout, the points in and of themselves would act as traps? The trap shown on the Highley track plan is, I believe, on the line from the quarry. I'm guessing this would have been a private siding and the purpose of the trap at the end of that particular siding would be to prevent private owner wagons/trains damaging GWR stock and equipment. With regard to 3 way turnouts, yes I agree - they were/are as rare as hen's teeth in real life.

Hi Mike, I have just re-read your post and chewed the cud a little. With regard to the signalling, I will use Stephen's plan of Highley, which he kindly posted as my guide. It may, or may not, include the bay platform as a standard gauge track. With regard to catch points, if my reading of the Highley plan is correct, there appears to be only one. I would value your input as to where these should be located on my track plan. Also, I would be most grateful if you could point (no pun intended) me in the direction of instructions as to how to go about making a non-working catch point on track already laid and ballasted as you suggest. Thanks to everyone.

Many thanks to both Mike and Stephen for their helpful advice. Stephen, it was interesting you mentioned Highley - I found its track plan a few months ago and they are, indeed, very similar. As result, I decided to relocate the signal box (when the kit finally arrives!) to a similar location to that of Highley where it can also usefully serve to hide the only surface mounted point motor. To answer Mike's points - to a degree, living in Malaysia, few will be aware of the detail of UK railway operations and I am only just learning about them myself. I will readily admit, I am not a railway guru but I'm learning as I go along. Few will notice the omission of catch points (myself included if the omission had not been pointed out) and to include them now would require a great deal of demolition. It is a similar logic with regard to signalling, to replicate the prototype in 00 scale is, inevitably, a compromise particularly in a compact model. I will follow your advice and keep it simple. I am sorely tempted to remove the ridiculously short station siding completely and replace it with a narrow gauge line (totally incorrect for its location on the Ruabon/Barmouth line) purely so I can include the very attractive Victorian 'Plum and Cream' bug boxes. It will mean some limited track relaying to take out the 3-way turnout but, visually, it may be worth the effort and additional expense. Thanks again.

Reverting to the initial post in this thread, I am struggling to work out the signalling for my Maes y Coed layout. Maes y Coed is a mythical small, single platform country station on the Ruabon/Barmouth single track line set in C1910. I have to confess, when I created the track plan, I only thought of one direction - a down passenger train at the platform and an up freight train on the passing loop. As far as shunting is concerned, this will all be done by Hercules the horse! What I forgot is what goes down must also go up! The 'up' passenger train must also pull into the station and the down freight train onto the passing loop. Does this mean I have to have 'home' signals at both ends of the platform? I'm guessing the goods line (the uppermost of the 3 lines), even though freight trains will run on it to load/unload wagons, could be controlled by ground signals or does this need to the controlled by standard semaphore signals. Any advice would be most welcome.

Hi Guys, Joining late on this one. I am working on an Edwardian GWR layout of a fictitious small country station set in Welshest N. Wales - all passenger stock is 4 wheel but the train will carry a milk siphon at the rear. My understanding of the rules is the milk siphon should carry a rear lamp and side lamps on both sides. Given that the siphon is behind the brake/3rd coach and there being no corridors, how does the guard get to the side lamps to do his stuff or is this a complication that was discretely ignored in the days of yore? Cheers, Rowan.

Hi Peeps, I am building a small GWR country station shelf layout in 00. The setting is N. Wales in the 1910s. Try as I may, I cannot find an acceptable kit for a 6 wheel Milk Siphon. All that I seem to be able to find are RtR Siphon G and Siphon H stock, which are of completely the wrong time period. Does anyone know of any halfway sensible 4 or 6 wheel kits to (I think) 'C' and/or articles bashing later outside frame Siphons. Just for fun, attached is a photo of Maes y Coed - yes, I know! The Toad is also incorrect but that is a problem for another day.

I'm sure this has been covered somewhere by someone! I am about to fit functioning screw link couplings to some 4mm scale RTR coaches and loco. Can anyone kindly point me in the direction of an idiot's guide as to the easiest way to do it. From post I have read, the probability is I will be using Smiths ready assembled couplings. Cheers, Rowan.

Thanks Guys (& Gals) for the suggestions - most helpful. I have many, many other questions but not for this thread. But one that is linked, how do you make/buy horse droppings for I would imagine there will be a few piles dotted around! Cheers.

Hi Guys, This is my first post so please forgive me if I do anything wrong. I am modelling a fictional GWR/Cambrian country station in 00 gauge set in wildest Mid-Wales. The period is pre WW1 so, based on a B&W photo, I'm guessing the goods yard surface would have been simply blinded hardcore. Can anyone kindly give me a heads-up as to the best and simplest method of achieving this effect? Any suggestion would be most welcome. I had thought of mixing a plaster of paris slurry and, being Mr Messy, spreading it with my fingers to give a slightly undulating effect - perhaps the odd press of a finger to create a pothole. Thanks for reading, Rowan.