Each state relied heavily on standardisation, but each to its own design. Each colonial system built railway facilities clearly recognisable as such, and the railway commissioners and their senior staff met regularly. Their was substantial technical cooperation, but in the facilities most visible to the public, the station buildings, locomotives and rolling stock, and bridge design, each system developed its own style, even though they share knowledge about engineering principles.

The heritage structures in each state thus reflect a combination of the economic strength of the state and the ideas and traditions of the key staff of each state's rail system. Consequently, the timber and even the pre-cast concrete stations are recognisable as distinctive to each state even though they performed similar functions and used similar materials. It is thus important that each state system recognises its own distinctive heritage.

Queensland Railways led railway technology in Narrow Gauge. It was not, initially, an indigenous technology but wholly imported, but making the technology workable and economical was entirely in the hands of Queensland Railways. Once the initial construction period was over, and using the staff and the equipment imported from Britain, it was purely a local enterprise. In those early years there was a sense of confidence that in choosing narrow gauge and adopting cheap methods of construction, Queensland had made the right choice at the right time. Narrow gauge would eventually spread - to Japan, Africa, New Zealand and much of Australia, and in metre gauge to India, South East Asia and South America, in many countries as the principal and main line gauge - reinforced the judgement.

Fitzgibbon sold the concept and supervised initial construction, and Sir Charles Fox provided the men and the equipment. The major development and adaptation took place after their involvement ceased at the end of the 1870s. 

Adopting both narrow gauge and bridgework of light construction severely constrained rolling stock dimensions and weight and locomotive design. The combined result was that Queensland Railways was limited, especially in the steam locomotive era, by engine power. This became more a problem when loads began to grow. 

The problem was reinforced by the long steep grades on the main range adopted to save construction costs. In less difficult country, cheaper construction was by introducing curves to avoid obstacles. On narrow gauge sharp curves can be negotiated as fast or faster than on broader gauge, and consequently with low maximum speeds permitted on the straight track, curves were much less an impediment. As well, the extra friction resulting from curvature was less a problem with the short trains of the early years, but became a substantial penalty when heavier locomotives and longer trains were in use. 

Besides adopting narrow gauge, Queensland used lighter track than on standard or broad gauge. Gauge and bridge strength both limited the load that could be carried so it made sense to achieve further savings by reducing rail weight. 

Substantial savings were made in design costs on most railways by using standard designs. These were developed for bridges, whether timber, steel or concrete, for trackwork including complex track as in pointwork, and for station buildings, houses, quarters, stockyards, cranes and the like. In all cases the standards were evolving ones and standards generally were useful and did not inhibit development. As the system grew, the Railway Department had hundreds of stations throughout the state. They varied from the smallest wayside stations to busy stations handling large volumes of passengers and freight. Many of the basic requirements were the same, and so two stations hauling similar volumes of traffic could be served by similar facilities. 

In many cases the railway was built to promote settlement, and designers had to guess at the likely traffic resulting after the railway had been built a few years. The numbers of stations with light traffic, either unattended or justifying only a small staff far outnumbered the important major stations. 

In such an environment it was particularly appropriate that standard designs should be used for station buildings, houses for station masters, gatekeepers and maintenance men, and especially for facilities such as cattle and sheep yards, goods sheds, cream sheds, lamp rooms and toilets. 

The Railway Department had its own drawing office although early station design involved the Colonial Architect.

Queensland had many lines where trains were few. Branch lines commonly had one or fewer trains per day. On main lines, traffic was not heavy and the necessity of paying staff to ensure safe operation of the single track added to costs. On a branch line, provision for trains travelling in opposing directions could often be avoided. Station Masters have always been trained in the safe operation of trains so that provision was usually made for trains to pass wherever a station master was deemed necessary. At junctions there was not always need for a station master but it was necessary to employ a trained person to handle trains, and junctions generally had passing facilities, but not always. Sometimes - as at Dalby - lines were extended into the nearest station to save employing extra staff.

On a main line, unless passing places - terms crossing loops - were provided fairly frequently long delays would result if one train was late, thus forcing the other train to wait an equal amount of time at the crossing loop. 

Two techniques were developed, one the line clear, to enable crossing places to be altered when using the traditional staff and ticket system on single lines. The subsequent introduction of electric tablet and electric staff - both developed overseas eliminated the use of the less-safe line clear. Expense meant that large sections of QR operated with the older staff and ticket system. 

The technique in which Queensland was quite innovative was the unattended crossing loop. An early development was the practice of locking the staff in a box accessible to train guard and driver if station staff were off duty. This enabled a driver to obtain staff or ticket for the single track ahead but did not permit trains to cross. On branch lines, such as the Mackay Railway at Newbury Junction for a number of years, safety was placed totally in the hands of guards, drivers were warned to approach the station with caution and rules formulated so that trains could cross without the necessity to pay a station master. 

On main lines, more sophistication was needed. The first development was the unattended crossing loop with dead ends - as at Beta on the Central Line - dating from 1924. This was followed in the depression years, when reducing station staff was pursued, by the smash signals, a system which relied on a signal which swung across part of the track. It enabled trains to pass at unattended crossing loops much more expeditiously. 

A station mistress, not qualified in safety, was usually employed at such places. Later an unattended crossing procedure was adopted which did not require any special provision. One signal was left at clear and the other at stop, with the train confronting the stop signals being allowed to proceed when all was clear and train crew arranged the crossing when one was needed. In time the stop at the signal was eliminated and passage through an unattended station was effected very quickly. In 1961 the trailable crossing loop was introduced - the first installation being at Mayne in 1960 to test the concept and the first crossing loop installation is believed to have been as Borallon on the Brisbane Valley branch. 

This made crossing trains safer and more expeditious when crossings were frequent as it eliminated the need for train crews to hand operate points and wait for trains to enter loops. The development of unattended crossing loops resulted in firemen having a significant role in the safe operation of trains whereas on most systems they were simply what their title implied and little more. 

The Queensland terrain did not generally require structures at the cutting edge of bridge technology. Innovation was generally directed more towards economy. Thus Queensland became a leader in wooden bridge design, rapidly changing from the early elaborate structures using an excessive amount of timber in the absence of proper information about its strength into much more economical structures. Timber construction proved by far the most suited to Queensland, with techniques developed for renewal of structures and strengthening for heavier engines by the addition of extra girders and piles with minimal disruption to traffic. In this regard the timber bridge proved far more adaptable than the early iron and steel structures. 

When the first railway was built, Queensland timber was largely an unknown quantity for engineering design. Little was used except for sleepers. Bridges were largely built of iron with brick and stone culverts. Timber was used in piles to save expensive cast iron cylinders, but timber under compression was much less critical than under stress as in bridge girders. With experience, and railways designed by its own engineers, timber was increasingly used for bridges, and unlike the original iron bridges, was readily strengthened by the addition of extra piles and extra girders. Techniques were developed so that bridge carpenter gangs could replace piles and girders with minimal interruption to traffic, and upgrade bridges for heavier rolling stock.

Queensland was an innovator in the adoption of construction for bridge spans. The commissioning of the testing room at the new Ipswich Workshops in 1905, enabled many timber tests to be made increasing knowledge of bridge construction report Chief Engineer Pagan in his appendix to the Annual Report of the Commissioner for Railways. The majority of today's mainlines were not built to present mainline standards. Much engineering efforts has gone into the gradual upgrading of structures. As finances permitted, bridges have been strengthened, and rails relaid, to permit the operation of heavier locomotives and rolling stock. 

Since the end of World War II there has been a continuous program of timber bridge elimination. Much of this has been achieved by means of culverts sufficient for flood water flow and converting the bridge into embankment. In comparatively few cases have timber spans been replaced in steel. (There were a number of cases where timber spans were used on the North Coast Line when steel was unprocurable, and these were replaced in steel, up to 30 years later.)

Since the early 1960s there has been little construction of steel bridges. Once pre-stressed concrete bridge girders were proved adequate for rail use, this design became almost universal. Its first widespread use was in the Mount Isa Project where all timber bridges west of Hughenden were so replaced. 

After persuading the government to adopt the narrow gauge, Fitzgibbon set about provided the colony with a scaled down model of an English railway. This was most evident in the station buildings. These needed to be of a certain standard since the major stations housed the administrative offices as well as basic facilities for passengers. Nevertheless, the two-storey station buildings built of imported materials at Ipswich, Laidley and Rockhampton, and that planned for Toowoomba were hardly those for a colony which could not even afford a basic education system for many of its children. The lavishness of early station buildings surprised visitors familiar with railways in the United States in frontier territory and given the choice of narrow gauge to save money.

Except for a handful of stations at important capital city and provincial locations, stations were built to a small number of styles. While the dimensions varied to meet the anticipated level of traffic and internal layouts varied, there was a uniformity that made station architecture instantly recognisable. Few stations survive from before the 1880s. Since then stations have generally been built to standard concepts, a practice that continues.

Many stations built in the 1880s were simply a rectangle with a single-pitch of roof sloping down to the rear of the building to take rain away from the platform. An awning was added to these buildings, providing both protection for passengers and enhancing the bare appearance of the station. Examples are at Cooper's Plains, Sunnybank, Glass House Mountains, Beerwah and Landsborough.

During the 1890s the front overhang or verandah over the platform became an integral part of the roof structure. The verandah is generally supported by curved timber. uring the 1910s a number of standard plans were drawn and given a series of codes such as A1, B4, C4 for station buildings reflecting a grading in style, with other codes such as CQ for camping quarters. During the 1920s a number of new branch line were provided with stations built from pre-cast concrete units. Stations rebuilt in the 1930s commonly used pre-cast concrete.

Most early stations except minor halts were built to be attended. Later more stations were built to be unattended, and some structures were larger, with a wooden floor, and roof sloping down towards the track extended to provide a verandah, this design necessitating guttering to collect rain. In the north and west, where protection from sun and heavy rain was more important, a canopy roof style was frequently used to provide a verandah all round. This also provided more pleasant conditions for staff inside the buildings. 

Almost as distinctive as the standard station were the standard designs of goods shed. The early sheds commonly were built over the goods siding so that wagons could be shunted into the shed and unloaded under cover. 

Besides the buildings, stockyards and cranes, the railway gates, fences, and especially station nameboards are important. The traditional nameboard with cast metal letters screwed to a large wooden plank, either supported on posts or attached to the building is an important part of railway heritage, as well as the cranes, `cart' weighbridges, staff quarters and housing.