John Hubbard

It's a great picture and very inspirational for perhaps hundreds of GWR BLT's over the years, and I like the reasoning regarding the date too, it makes a lot of sense. WRT track, my fiction will be that this is one of the few lines that had dual gauge track, at least for a period (my train-set my rules ). As my time frame will be from ~1860 to ~1899, I think I can keep the TT in front of the Engine shed and include the Good shed running in to a loop, however I will take on board the need for some catch points. Now where is that soldering iron, BG rail, and timber?

Taking in to account the feedback, I've shifted the TT from the end of the platform, but as I still need to turn the engine I've added a spur leading to a TT. It's at this point when I felt like a cyclist with wheels dropping into tram tracks when as soon as I added a station and good shed a prototype came to mind. My challenge will be making it sufficiently different t so as not to be labelled yet another... I'm hoping with the scenery and the obvious use of dual gauge I can create the differentiation, perhaps even removing the train shed will help with this although they are a nice early feature. Noting the diagram is showing the P4 track and not the BG (not an option on Anyrail), is there anything else I should be doing do you think? All suggestions welcome.

If the question is a red herring it isn't deliberate, I'm genuinely trying to understand the GWR BG approach, and I do appreciate the contribution thank you I know from the few books I have that TT engine release was in practice, but I can't find the point at which it ended, but it is certainly evident during the BG period, I guess the question is would it be present in a station during dual gauge? If the probability is that a station engine release during dual gauge would be via points that would at least address one issue for me. However, I do still need to turn engines due to the BoT prohibition. The period I'm interested in modelling is up to and including the very first years of the dual gauge for no other reason than I can run the early fascinating BG engines and early standard gauge stock. I guess I'm trying to have my cake and eat it.

Following that logic the lines entering the TT would need to 'split' before the TT in order to have the rails central as per image? This affecting the BG shared line only, the NG line can be slewed across. Thank you for your help, it's much appreciated.

First my apologies if I have this is in the wrong section but I couldn't find a specific 'broad gauge' forum. A question in two parts... I understand that in the early days a turntable would be used at the end of a terminus station to both turn an engine and act as a point to return the engine to the front of a train (see pic). If correct would this practice have continued in to dual running era? If the practice continued, how would 'narrow gauge' engines be turned, would I be correct in assuming they were only ever turned ~150+deg to only ever align with the additional 'narrow' rail? Thank you for your help. John

Thank you for your thoughts. The flex track experiment option makes a lot of sense, as do the cautions.

Apologies if this is repeating an existing thread, I've looked but can't find it. At the club we are in debate concerning a proposed new layout and one of the contenders is a dock layout. Given your expertise could you share your advice with regard to minimum radius that a MODEL can negotiate in either OO (or my pref' EM)? We're expecting to be using short wheelbase 0-4-0, with 4 wheel wagons, and I'm wondering is we can go tighter that Peco setrack radius and if so by how much, and any advice you can share if we follow this route, e.g. catch rails etc. BTW we're expecting to make track rather than buy.

Signal box is currently located below the X and above the 4, and well sighted. We could locate it anywhere below the private siding and above 3 if needed. Thank you all for your thoughts. I think we're getting closer to a plan. I also think my next step is to propose signals based on the advice and share the plan once again to see if I've understood things correctly.... watch this space.

Thanks Chris for the quick reply. That's a good pint about the trap for the engine shed. We should have known better, but I guess we've got so used to it we haven't stepped back to check. I understand turn outs 5, and 7, and it makes sense for no C/L on the main. Do you have any suggestions for where the shunt signals and main signals should be sited and what types?

Hi, I (we) need help please. We have a club layout that we have enjoyed putting together and we are at the "track down and working, must do signals before scenery" stage. However, collectively we don't know that much about signalling and we're hoping to learn from the group wisdom here. The club layout is set on the cusp of the transition to BR, and is Southern Region. It's a single line in to a terminus, see pic. Points are numbered in red, and names/numbers of lines in blue for easy reference. We think we need colour light ground signals and upper quadrant semaphore for the main as its a minor branch and the club consensus is it's unlikely colour lights would have found there way out here yet for the main (is this true?). The question... Where should we site the signals and what types should they be? Thankyou all in advance for you help and patience.

@Tim V would that include the roof timbers too?

Thanks @ROSSPOP, great pictures, and some models to aspire too The door pic is useful for the paint colours, I can mix to these now. I can see I've used completely the wrong colour for the wood work, I'll redo as light stone. I notice on the Ratio model they have the door edges dk stone, and the interior of the doors as lt stone, however your version is all dk stone(?). Does this vary from location to location? I would expect on the good yard ease of maintenance would rule and your version be more realistic, but I'm not sure. I can see I need to redo the roof light outside frame as lt stone too, and not white. I'll also redo the gutters too as these are too dark. BTW, very impressive station building.

Thank you @gwrrob, It was reading the website that made me concerned I had the colour scheme wrong. I've learned the barge boards should be light stone, but should the doors be light (1) or dark (2), I'm not clear from the notes on this point particularly, and similarly the wood above the entrance, would I be right in saying this should be light stone too? Thanks John

I need your help and advice please? I've built this goods shed based on the Ratio kit which is supposed to be typical GWR (or as typical as GWR gets). However, on reflection I'm not sure I have the paint scheme correct for the Edwardian period. For example, I've painted the barge boards chocolate, but I think they should be dark stone, and I'm not sure about the doors, currently cream, should they be light stone or dark stone? Interior roof timbers currently unpainted, is this correct as far as we know? Any other suggestions or feedback warmly received, before I start adding interior detail, signs, barrels, pallet-ed engines, sack trucks, shades for the lights, etc.

Thank you for the really helpful suggestions. On the plus side I can sneak the carriages on to the layout as a through working and also have an excuse for some nice LNWR at some point. The MR loco will need to run under spurious 'exchange' conditions or simply rule 1. Fascinating detail regarding GC locos on GW though, thanks for that.

@Harlequin I like the idea, and better than rule 1. Thank you.

Before you lay your track apply a sheet of vinyl wrap, lots of colours to choose from and in-expensive. I get mine from eBay in the Motors section, look for 'graphics'.

With out wanting to invoke rule #1 (my railway, my trains etc), is there a plausible reason for having a MR loco and rake of carriages running over GWR metals? The period in question is 1900 to 1913, and the GWR metals are somewhere down Exeter way. Could I have a holiday special for example? Thank you for your suggestions.

@HarlequinThat's a very interesting article, and it appears I'm following a well trodden path. As you say its amusing how you've gone one direction from MH, while I seem to be following another. How is work progressing on your project? I must admit, I'm hoping I can avoid the signalling debate by simply copying the original MH installation. WRT the most recent diagram, noting viewing is expected to be from the goods side, the rear will be "forested", if I'm still short of space when I lay this out I have two options I think... remove the front siding negotiate an extra few inches width by insisting its the last layout in the van, or even hiring a separate van for the few instances it travels in a full van. Generally in terms of scenery, top left will be good yard cameos, with stories from the MH book describing yard activity, along with cattle being 'driven' to or from the the dock. Behind the engine shed, and in that area will be more stories from the book, along with an occupation crossing just to the right of the point leading to the back scene through a background of forestry, (I'm going to have to learn to like making trees), n.b. the track will not link to the station directly, or rather it might but 'off board'. That leaves most of the middle board, which at the moment will be farmland, perhaps somewhere for me to model some of my country upbringing rather than trying to cram something else, maybe I'll be a little provocative and include a 'hunt' in the back ground. I'm open to ideas for this bit though.

As the quote goes... "the best laid plans etc", apparently boards need to be max 2' x 4' to fit the racking in the van I can't see a way to make the track plan fit an eight foot board so I've added an extra board, so now I have a longer narrower platform to work from. Given the extra length I can now fit the Mortenhampstead track plan, however, due to the more narrow boards and to add interest I've set it on a curve, and with a bit of jiggling I should be able to fit an extra siding, With regard too... Shunting - I really can't see a way to get reliable horse and rope shunting working so I've stayed with the layout of MH. Lack of rolling stock - for me this is part of the attraction, and not needing a massive stable to operate will allow me time to get rolling stock built (some is ready just waiting paint). Track type - I'm still going to try the baulk road approach to drive home the turn of the century look and feel. Turntable - a small one required which I'll need to scratch build, but necessary for time and location. Name - I don't want to be tied to a specific location so the name will be something like Ash-Hampstead although I'm considering the local stations mentioned by @Rivercider. As for the loading area, I like your suggestion @Harlequin of a dusty loading area, and again I will probably steal this idea as one of the cameo areas if you don't mind. Once again, many thanks all.

Thank you all for your advice. I thought I would update you with my conclusion. Based on the advice I think something with a mix of Ashburton and Moretonhampstead will work. The track diagram will be similar to my first one, with the Ashburton style cross over, with a curve designed in to make it more 'flowing' and not parallel to the board edge. In all other respects it will be Morton style buildings etc. In terms of unique selling points I love the idea of baulk road track bed, so will implement this, but I'll now need to get lots of diagrams and detail of this type of track (trip to Didcot to be scheduled ), and more low volume manufacturing I suspect. I'll also need to design and build a circa ~24' turntable in front of the engine shed along with the original maintenance pit and ash drop, and ensure all buildings show their broad gauge heritage, i.e. leaving the wider track bed with old ballast and wide train, good and engine shed openings. Once again, thank you for your advice, and I will post occasional updates as I progress. The name... probably not that original but "Ash-hampstead" should cover it, at least until something more appropriate comes to mind. Once again, thank you all for your kind thoughts.

@Nearholmer Thank you for those thoughts, I feel some more research coming on.

Thank you all, this is really very helpful and useful feedback. I've tried modifying the last diagram with a smaller table in line rather than off a spur. A smaller table works better I feel, although that will mean more scratch-building, unless someone has a recommendation? Then I thought that if the TT is in line, why should I not move it to the East (as per Moretonhampstead), but unlike Moreton' keep the GS south of the station and add the cattle dock at the end of the GS, see last diagram. Scenic section is a little less open on the west end, but I guess I don't have to worry about what to put in the space , and I also have lots of scenic space in the east. Aesthetically it seems to look right too. Again, thoughts please?

...and with a bit more fiddling around...

@Robert Stokes Agreed this is usually avoided although as others have said GWR had an example of everything in this case Moretonhampstead in its early years. To address the TT breakdown issue, it was not necessary to turn the TT to release an engine i.e. entry and exit were at 180deg, although obv the engine would then not be turned, and a worse case scenario of breakdown during turning wouldn't help. @RJS1977 A very good point (sorry about the pun), for train sheds (and Platform canopies) I usually have them removable by having the legs fit in to brass tubes fitted in to the platform/track-bed. An idea I think I found on this forum, and thought it made great sense and have since adopted.