Jump to content

Flying Pig

Members
  • Content Count

    2,398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,741 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It won't do you know, Phil, and you've been here long enough to know that. The proper response is to throw your toys out of the pram and shout 'waah'. But seriously, nice tweak.
  2. There's a slightly off-topic thought: a BR standard driving trailer with a cab in EPB style. It doesn't fit history as railcarisation was underway by the time the BR-pattern EMUs came along, but still.
  3. It may be less than you think. As I noted above, it looks bigger than it is due to the length of the loop, but the platforms are considerably shorter than the loop and it is really only a small country station on a secondary line. It would be quite happy with two or three coach passenger trains behind small engines and short goods trains but with the advantage of a prototypically spacious feel. A couple of D63xx and a suitable DMU (if you can find one) would be fine to work it. In the absence of a cross-country DMU rtr, maybe a tired 3MT if you can stomach that much steam. If yo
  4. Possibly, but why not just load them at the platform in the yard?
  5. I like the way you have replicated the prototype goods yard, which is a little different from most modeller-designed yards both in layout and facilities. It's actually quite difficult to 'make up' a convincing set of sidings, as I think @Standby is finding out One thing that does strike me about this station is the amount of high level access provided for what appears to be mileage traffic, something modellers would not generally think to include (which does raise the question of what the separate loading bank was actually for). It would be worth adding the platforms to the drawi
  6. You and a few others A search for 2-8-2 within this topic returns quite a number of results and the Riddles 2-8-2 is a perennial favourite. Several fine models of the latter have appeared on RMweb.
  7. ...it needs to be in N scale and numbered for an Etches Park set.
  8. No problem as there's a live thread on the subject: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/165032-shunting-query/
  9. Do mixed trips to multiple destinations actually exist on the modern railway? My feeling is that the wagons would arrive and depart as a block load with the only shunting being the loco running round with the wagons standing in the goods loop. There isn't room on even this quite generous layout for a complete runround of credible size for the modern railway, so completing the runround via the fiddle yard is an unavoidable part of the subterfuge.
  10. But you already have that with your through station - no need for an extra loop behind it. Could you place the station on a sweeping curve across the top left of the room, with the sidings falling naturally into the corner? As you have it, the layout is rather square in its overall aspect Signal diagram on the Signalling Record Society site: https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwe/S769.htm
  11. Trying to work out why 2-12-4+4-12-2 Super Garratts with 30" cylinders never ran here I think.
  12. This might work - Alsop en le Dale is on the LMS page: https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/drawings.php The 1922 OS map shows how short the loop and trap were. I'm guessing the 'Y's indicate yellow shunting signals, which would be interesting as the diagram seems to show them as LNWR types. Stacked discs are read left to right from top to bottom.
  13. Difficult to see why, assuming (big assumption) that the figures in WikiP are correct: GWR 4575 Ivatt 2MT tank The TE of the Prairie is a bit higher due to slightly smaller drivers and an inch more on cylinder diameter, but the overall weight and boiler dimensions are practically identical. As for the LMS 2-6-4T, the firegrate is 60% bigger than a 4575 and the total heating surface about 25% more. Since the LMS 2-6-4Ts (unlike the 3P 2-6-2Ts) were not notably shy steamers I find it hard to believe that the two types were actually equivalent on the road. Would a S
  14. Not sure about that right hand yard. You've swapped a few long sidings for more rather short ones which won't be so useful for storing trains between runs,if that's what you were wanting to do with them. Aren't there still some setrack points in the loco yard?
  15. A few more comments: - there seems to be a mixture of setrack and streamline points used on the plan; I think you can do it entirely with streamline which will look and run better even if you use the short points; - you will need to be careful about track spacing which is a little inconsistent as currently drawn; curves below 30" radius may need to be laid at setrack spacing which is wider than that given by a crossover formed by streamline points; curves below 24" radius almost certainly will; - would the dreaded headshunt (see below) be useful for shuntin
×
×
  • Create New...