Not standard gauge then?

[Stephen Rainsbury]

There is a section the new Chris Ford Welsh Railway book that says copying a standard gauge track plan and reducing it will not give you a very good NG layout.

Here my lack of experience with Full sized railways becomes painfully obvious, what sort of things is he talking about please?

[Peter Boulter]

Bit of a tricky question to answer.  But having been a standard gauge modeller for years I think the differences are in the operational practices between the two gauges.  Narrow gauge railways tend to be less 'formal' or 'rigid' in their track layouts.

Not perhaps a very good answer, but I'm sure someone will be able to put the differences better than me.

[Hobby]

It's a bit of a sweeping statement and without seeing the context in which it's written it's hard to comment, though I'll try! The use of the phrase "standard gauge" is the contentious bit, compared to many SG lines run by the large rail companies I'd agree with him, they tended to be built in set ways, similar track plans and designs of buildings (look at the stations on the Settle to Carlisle to see it taken to it's ultimate. However I'd have said that when compared to Light Railways (of which a large number were SG) then the differences are much less. However I'm talking about "common carrier" lines like the Welshpool where i suspect had the line been built to SG wouldn't have  been a great deal different to what it was in NG... "Industrial" lines like the Talylyn, Festiniog or Corris, though, wouldn't have used standard station track plans, being built to suit their use... Perhaps that's what he was referring to?

It's like when people model Austrian NG using Lilliput stock and the track plan they use is clearly based on a British "style" station layout... Drives me nuts and it's just down to laziness, not being willing to do some research... Perhaps the comment was made to make people think and look at prototypes before building in which case I fully support him!

[B.Meldon]

I have seen some very good 009 layouts based on standard gauge track plans.
But it does very much depend on what type of NG line you are baseing your layout on.

It is always best to look at photos of existing NG railways that may be a bit like the type of lne you want to model.

[Graeme Dunbar]

I'd say (thinking out loud)  what sort of standard gauge layout and what sort of NG one? Along with that, which country?

The clearest distinction between SG and NG in the UK would be double track running, but I'm sure there are or were many branch lines that could make for an interesting NG line However I'm sure though there is double track NG somewhere in the world (Switzerland, Japan...) ***. Another thing will be operational speed and its implication on track design and placement and orientation of pointwork. Facing points being avoided at all costs in some situations and in certain eras. Another aspect is probably SG stations (even on single track) cope regularly with more than one train in a station at the same time and passengers changing trains but that is possibly quite rare in NG (except in places where NG is the main system or busy tourist lines). Another would be separation or lack of it between passenger and goods handling possibly lack of separation of trains and people.

(It is weird and unnerving to see railroad track in small-town USA. I guess that is why they have those annoying bells, whistles and horns that DCC layout operators at exhibitions use to torment other exhibitors.)


*** even in the UK apparently!

https://rogerfarnworth.com/2019/05/11/caithness-double-track-narrow-gauge-line/


(I can see someone in 'that other place' 3D printing this railway!  ;D )

[Hobby]

There are a lot of SG modellers branching out into narrow gauge and it's too easy for them just to build a smaller version of what they've done in the past. Chris and the rest of us are saying that's the wrong approach, do some research first, NG is often quite different...

Now where is my signal gantry kit... ;)

[Stephen Rainsbury]

OK that all makes sense, thanks, but this brings me on to the next train of thought <pun intended>

How are/were the operations of NG different, and I am thinking specifically UK, here before Heritage/Preservation really took hold?

I have only come back to the hobby recently and most of my time on Full size railways was not spent trying to understand the sublties of operation, but after have read several books about Col Stephens I am left with the impression that for him

• Standardization was jus a word, you used what was available and cheap. This alone is probably why it appeals to me so much as I can let my imagination run free.
• Mixed traffic was normal practice, but then it was on SG branch lines (see Titfield Thunderbolt)(just see it anyway)
• Signals seem optional at best
• Signal boxes were rare, in favour of lever or ground frames if you were posh
• The number of points was minimized, probably for cost and build time.

I appreciate that this is far from an exhaustive list, but in the past whenever I poste a plan somebody would point out that having points there would not be prototypical or a siding would have served no purpose, so any other observations would be more than welcome :-)

[Hobby]

It depends on the line itself.

I mentioned earlier about Common Carriers, they would operate in the same way, regardless of gauge, many being built using the Light Railways Act of 1896 to get the finance. I mentioned the Welshpool before, had that have been built as SG its unlikely that operation would have been any different other than the transfer of goods at Welshpool would not have been necessary.

Your bullet points would be valid for both SG and NG common carrier railways.

Regarding your comments about track plans and sidings that wouldn't exist, think about bullet points 1 and 5, they were cash strapped and points cost, so there would have to be a good reason to put a siding in. An example on the Welshpool was the siding at Tanllan, which was used for logging which would have been quite common in such areas. Coal, cattle and probably a small crane would also be there. Facilities in both cases same whether SG or NG. Platforms may axist on SG light railways but less common on NG lines, or certainly not full sized.

All of that is for common carriers, industrial lines such as slate lines would have different priorities and so track layouts and facilities.

[clayliner]

Have a look at the 'Narrow Gauge Atmosphere' thread on here (in the Prototype > General section) for more discussion about what makes n-g different from s-g (sometimes, anyway).

David.

[B.Meldon]

Stephen.

Each NG line in the UK was different in the way they were operated and they there were the countless industrial narrow-gauge lines, that would all be different again. There is no 'typical' narrow gauge railway.

There were even some industrial narrow-gauge systems that had some long sections of double track!

So, the question you need to ask yourself is what type of narrow-gauge line do you want to model?
Once you know the answer to that it is easy to work out how to plan the track etc.

[Stephen Rainsbury]

Each NG line in the UK was different in the way they were operated and they there were the countless industrial narrow-gauge lines, that would all be different again. There is no 'typical' narrow gauge railway.
...
So, the question you need to ask yourself is what type of narrow-gauge line do you want to model?
Once you know the answer to that it is easy to work out how to plan the track etc.

Thanks Brian,

At the moment I am enjoying making up a couple of Microlayouts, which is giving me chance to find out about issues with track laying, servo point motors, trying to make a piece of scrub actually look like scrub etc. 

In parallel I have built a set of Freem009 modules and want to make something that could have existed in Kent 100 years ago, but has now been restored as closely as possible, but still uses rolling stock and locos form any age or location.  My two closest NG lines are the "Sittingbourne and Kemsley" and "Bredgar and Wormshill" so many if ideas have come from there.

Some 50+ years ago I was inspired by the layout below "Porthleven" and it stayed with me over the many years that I was not active in the hobby, indeed it was watching the "Great Model railway Challenge" that prompted me to seek out a copy of the magazine, which in turn started me buying stuff again.

Just before Christmas I realized that this layout in N-Gauge would just fit on one of my modules, and that would allow me to run some of my favorite Steam locos in a lazy backwater GWR summer setting, but then I worked out he price.

My next thought was to re-create the layout in 009, the track would be the same, and stock about the same sizes, and I already had it, but Chris's comments made me start to think about the design.

Why are the points in the middle of the platform? If they had neem past the end then a loco could have just run around without moving the coaches. 
Is coming into that Y prototypical?
Did locos refuel from the staithes or were they for selling coal?
Can only one loco operate here at a time with only one tablet?  In which case it doesn't matter if it stops for water in the middle of the main approach. Does this mean that a good train couldn't come in while a passenger one was there?

This is where my 50 years in the wilderness has not helped. :-)

[B.Meldon]

That plan could work in 009. But perhaps with some modifications.

The fact that there is a platform at all is the first thing. Many narrow-gauge lines had ground level platforms.

It is quite common for a platform to go all the way to the end of the headshunt, even on some narrow-gauge lines.
In this case there is no room for the station building where the carriages would be when the loco runs round. Also, the platform finishes short of the run round point so a train that is the max length for the run round would need to be pulled further forward so all the carriages were in the platform.
Only after all the passengers had got off would the train be pushed back to where it could be run round.
Also note the location of the water crane, for a loco to use this it would need to push the coaches back into the head shunt.
It is also worth remembering that it was not only for passengers, good were often also loaded and unloaded to and from vans on platforms as well.

It looks like a three way point at the start of the station, as there are no 009 three-way electrofrog points you will need to use a LH and then one RH point and change the plan for these. 

The Y point in the plan looks a lot larger radius than the 18 inch radius Peco 009 Y point, it is up to you if you use one but a normal LH or RH point with an approaching curve may look better.

[Hobby]

I'll answer the coal question as well. There is no loco shed in that plan so it is unlikely a loco would stay overnight. Hence coaling facilities would be at the other end of the line. Watering facilities are different, a loco would have enough coal for its days work but doesn't carry enough water so needs topping up. The train would arrive, run round its train and fill up with water before attaching itself for its return journey. The staithes would be for the local coal merchant, not for loco use.

Back to the Welshpool as an example, when it initially opened Llanfair had no loco facilities and the water tower was a few hundred yards down the line. Coaling and maintenance were carried out at Welshpool. It was one engine in steam so the location of the water tower wasn't an issue. When the preservationists took over the HQ of the line was transferred to Llanfair as they lost the old town section and it took several years to re-open as for as Raven Square. So the loco shed and servicing facilities were moved to Llanfair. So now there are no servicing facilities at Welshpool apart from the water tower which the loco uses before heading back, note the the loco carries enough coal to make the return journey.

One other thing worth of note is that plan has a full signal box and token apparatus, if Llanfair in its pre-preservation days is anything to go by that's OTT for a small NG common carrier line. As built Llanfair had a small station building, goods shed, weighbridge and a urinal, that was it. In 1940 it had a larger goods shed, a couple of small warehouses (storage sheds, really), a yard crane plus some storage ground (probably for the coal merchant to load/unload the wagons). The only signalling was a ground frame at the entrance point. (All info from plans published in the Glynn Williams book.

The likelihood would be that only one engine would be used at any one time and either mixed trains where the goods wagons were shunted on arrival. If a second train was needed (fair days) then some sort of paper token would have been used, but from what I've read they just piled all the stock behind one loco (they only had three coaches, remember!). Rule of the day would be only two or three trains each way each day, with the morning and evening ones being mixed. Hence not many passenger trains survived once buses and coaches became more efficient and roads better.

Operation in preservation days is very different.

[Graeme Dunbar]

Why are the points in the middle of the platform? If they had neem past the end then a loco could have just run around without moving the coaches. 
Is coming into that Y prototypical?
Did locos refuel from the staithes or were they for selling coal?
Can only one loco operate here at a time with only one tablet?  In which case it doesn't matter if it stops for water in the middle of the main approach. Does this mean that a good train couldn't come in while a passenger one was there?

I see with my slow typing this is largely redundant now, but hey ho!

Looking at the scale, it could be that passenger trains were just one carriage, perhaps two and the point is where it is because that length of release is needed for the loco to clear the point blades.

I think given the size of the nature of the location it would be rare for more than one train to be present. Even one train to present (except on alternate Wednesdays  ;D ) However, the tablet would control which locomotive could leave the station limits and travel off to its destination. My guess is that if two engines were present and one left the other tablet/token would be locked in the mechanism until the first train had reached its destination or intermediate location where it was inserted into a similar machine which would then release the second tablet. (I'm glad I got to see the tokens being exchanged in their leather pouches on the Aberdeen to Elgin line when they were still in use.)

I understand that coal staithes were something of a trope at one time in railway modelling and were not actually all that common. Possibly just popular because Peco made a model of them. Also that they were quite a regional feature perhaps Northern English (it does sound like it might be a Viking word).

I believe that coal was as likely to be shovelled directly onto the back of cart or lorry or even directly onto the ground and bagged up. I'm not sure, but I think the coal was for distribution not refueling engines. It is water that is most likely to be consumed and taken on and there is little logistic sense in transporting coal to a small branch terminus if the bunker can hold enough for the (in all likelihood) short round trip.
I don't understand what you mean by the "Y".

[Hobby]

If you want British NG termini of Common Carriers where the loco facilities were at the terminus at the opposite end try Hulme End on the Leek and Manifold, or Southwold. A Google search will show you the plans.

As ever do your research, there's plenty of information out there!