Flying Pig

Brief discussion of similar roofs on this thread:

May I suggest a slight rearrangement of the lines near the double slip, which I think will give a neater appearance, closer to what bigP sketched? I've used plain left and right points as indicated by L or R which means the lines marked with a double crosshatch should end up parallel, assuming all your pointwork has the same angles. I've also suggested putting the loco spur on the down side where it has a trailing connection and access to all platforms. As currently drawn it's the wrong side of the trailing crossover for a direct run into P1 (not sure whether that matters in your operational scheme). Alternatively you could just move it to the right of the crossover, or even move the crossover, as suggested.

Surely that should be Lightning and Deltic with a 1/32 washing machine for the full 1950s EE experience.

Possibly, but modellers of the UK scene love double slips for their convenience and use them in places the prototype wouldn't because they save space, which is what is likely to drive bullhead sales.

I'm doubtful that the signalling would allow that, as the overlap beyond the "home" signal would be occupied by the train in the platform, which is why I don't think singling would affect operational capacity.

I think the BR line at West Acton could be singled completely without losing any operational interest. This would allow more breathing space at the left hand end, where facilities for the District are rather cramped, and more visual separation between the LU and BR lines at this point.

The LNER got a bit carried away following Mallard's exploits on Stoke Bank and the publicity department approached the National Physical Laboratory with a request that they calculate what an A4 might look like at relativistic speed. The NPL's reply has not survived, but it was clearly not encouraging. Subsequently the LNER found an undergraduate* on the Cambridge express and bribed him with Lyons fruit pies to do the work for them. This appears to be the model he made, so it goes without saying that it is a Rare! item. *unfortunately he was studying Classics and it shows.

Looks like the same prototype shown last year and linked in the OP (PMP's original blog post here).

I think the industry elevated in front of and partly over the fiddle yard would make the latter very inconvenient indeed to work. Has anyone tried a scheme with the fiddle yard on the longer leg of the L? You might fit a conventional traverser of 30-36" in the available space, which is enough for a two coach passenger or a 5-6 wagon goods.

The LH point provides a straighter run for locos using the coaling road at the expense of a wiggle for the coal wagons and shunter, so it arguably makes sense even if it doesn't look as slick.

Indeed, and what an inconvenience it can be. I'm sure most of us will recognise this situation.

Not asking why Mr Pritchard took the cash - of course he would; asking why "Mr Exchange" bothered to place an advert at all, when we know he is really famous celebrity railway enthusiast Chris Donald off of Viz and must be aware that RM readers will be too busy discussing whether the wheel spacing on the Scotsman's tender is correct and whether it is Thompson's fault to even think about ordering. BTW I wonder if it's the GN side of Bradford Exchange or the Lanky side we're dealing with here? Or is Mr Donald channelling a false flag operation by the North Eastern? It's all rather confusing really.

I think it is probable that the author of the piece is fully aware of the correct 00 scale ratio to three significant figures and has deliberately misquoted it in order to trick or "bait" anoraks such as we are into pointing out the discrepancy, therefore exposing ourselves to ribaldry based on the small magnitude of the inaccuracy, our perceived obsessiveness over such a minute quantity and our uncontrollable urge to correct trivial factual errors at tedious length. His easy success indicates that he is a master of his craft.

The vendors call themselves "Bradford Exchange" and they claim to have been in business "Since 1973". Come on! It's obviously a sidline of Viz founder Chris Donald, the well-known celebrity rail enthusiast who has done so much to make the hobby look cool. Nice try, Chris, but we saw through that one pretty quickly! Not sure why it's being advertised in the Modeller though - it's unlikely they'll get much interest from the readers there, not when an Accurascale Class 43 Deltic or a good second hand Clag Gone can be had for the same money. Much better try Radio Times or the People's Friend.

I notice that you haven't included a runround loop. The great majority of small termini would have had one (although a few used tricks like gravity shunting to run round). However, in a 1970s/80s scenario, it's quite possible that the branch has been truncated and the station was originally a small through station with some sidings and no loop. So there's no absolute need to alter the track plan - in the absence of a runround, passenger services are now provided by DMUs and the freight trip is propelled down the branch. I think it's very unlikely that the middle line would be used by passenger trains, so I'll assume it's just a siding. I would use it to exchange vans and grain wagons for the brewery. You could probably run to an elderly 48DS to shunt the brewery siding, which avoids the need to run round anything. The bottom siding could service a small coal or oil depot for some variety of traffic. With that preamble, I'll have a go at the signalling and give the experts something to laugh at. You don't need any as the branch has been rationalised to one train working and all the signals have been removed and the box demolished. The end. But if you do want signals, I don't think you need more than 2 - just a starter and a yellow disc controlling movements out of the siding, which can be passed at danger when the points are set for the brewery siding. There would also be a home signal with a bracketed miniature arm (or co-located disc) to control access to the sidings and possibly an advanced starter but these would all be offscene.

I dimly recalled a couple of musicians being interviewed on telly about a record of Western hydraulics they had made and my memory insisted they were from XTC. Turns out it was Lieutenant Pigeon.

I had a look through the brdatabase allocation info for Type 2s and it seems that there was a right old menagerie at the southern end of the GN main line in 1959-60. Presumably you already have EE (Class 23), BRCW (Class 26) and Brush (Class 30) locos in your collection? Can you bring yourself to run a Derby Type 2 to represent the period after some of the others had been banished (NBL) or sadly lost (BRCW) to the Scottish Region?

The usual way to modify Peco points is to bond the stock rail to the fixed closure rail rather than directly to the moving switch, so current flow to the switch itself remains an issue and you would still need to avoid getting paint on the contact areas at the heel and tip of the switch.

It seems to have the Triang B12 tender - is it supposed to be a J15 perhaps?

Correct. With our current knowledge, we cannot state with certainty that life exists beyond Earth. Making precisely the same logical error you reject above. The correct answer, regardless of one's personal opinion, is that we just don't know.

I'd speculate that an EE electric built for the UK would have the house style cab. Perhaps a Baby Deltic would be a good starting point?

Thanks. I acknowledge Balders45's response, but note that the revised arrangement gives more separation between the sidings and the short loop, where it is needed for loading and unloading (Lambourne actually had a crane in this space). I'm not sure what you propose to use the back siding for - coal perhaps (Lambourne had the cattle dock here of course)? In any case it looks like loading access if required would be towards the bottom of the plan so separation between the two sidings is not critical. That would go well with an end dock on the bay, built originally to handle carriages travelling with their wealthy owners. By the way, Lambourne is a small town rather than a village, so that fits too. Another station, reasonably close to Lambourne, that would give a good impression of a town site is Abingdon - there's a fair amount of info online, including a video of a very nice N gauge layout.

I think it's been said before in this thread, but imo the end dock would work better on the bay, which would then have some purpose. Have you tried putting a medium Y point between the two sidings in the yard and omitting the short 1° curve? I think that would still give the required separation and would be more compact and easier to lay neatly.

That clears up a lot of confusion! Was I the only person looking at the photos and wondering why the 'headshunt' seemed to connect to an up running line without a trap or signal when junctionmad was saying it didn't?

It would make more sense to put the loco shed and sidings next to the station if possible and move the quarry to the end of the branch line. You could even have a passenger service along the branch.