Flying Pig

Yes, it would fit more neatly into the rectangular space, but is that what is wanted? Perhaps implying that the layout fans out beyond what we can see is better? As I've already said, one of the strong points about this layout is the way it implies its context beyond the rather small box in which it is built.

It isn't quite, as platform 2 is departure only. The layout of the station is a bit quirky with the main arrival platform (with loco release) 'wrong side' and we would probably have torn it to bits if it had been posted on here. But Geoff had created a lot of lore concerning the history and operation of the station that made sense of it - he explained it to me at an exhibition and only I wish that I could remember the details of what he said. @Pacific231G do you have a picture of the diagram of routes connecting to Tower Pier that you could post here, please?

On the small number of occasions I saw Tower Pier, I was as impressed by Geoff's interactions with the public as by the excellence of his layout. The personal qualities recalled in his obituary were certainly on display. It's very pleasing to hear the layout is in safe hands, since it is in my view one of the greats.

Please do. I agree it is a very fine layout and I do hope it won't be lost. It's a layout that benefits from being well integrated into its railway surroundings, which gives even almost vestigial trackwork like the goods roads much more presence and interest. A great use of limited space and always well presented when I saw it.

I googled "Geoff Ashdown tower pier" and got a lot of images linked to various RMweb threads, so it hasn't been reposted elsewhere afaik.

A perhaps useful repost, originally posted by @Pacific231G on this thread, now lost from the forum but still for some reason cached by Google. The signal diagram for Tower Pier:

You might like this ;)

You don't have to. For one person operation and a less intense operating regime, separating the arrival and departure platforms and having to shunt before departure may be seen as increasing the play value. That requires just a single trailing crossover with the conventional double track approach, but the OP has complicated things by imagining two separate single lines. You could start with the layout as posted, remove one of the crossovers (duplication achieves nothing here) and run the approach as double track with the junction imagined off scene (perhaps some splitting distants on the starters to suggest it).

I was more concerned by the South Western coos at the start.

Yeah, 14 year olds get funny ideas. Good thing I was 12 when my Mamod arrived.

Planet Industrials in 00 (and Minerva in 0).

info about the preserved 01 here and it is notable how dreary GW livery is compared to the TVR and Hetton schemes. Alternatively an 02 is also preserved and operational on the Worth Valley. It too worked for the NCB in County Durham as Lambton No. 52. I don't think we've had an rtr Lambton engine yet - a major omission in my opinion. Lambton Hetton & Joicey Colliery Railway 52 by Nick Baxter, on Flickr

Maybe try Wizard Models who have the MSE signal parts. It might be possible to reduce the etchings to 1:120 if there was enough interest.

They're actually part of the handbrake linkage. Which doesn't make them less of a nuisance on the model of course.

TBH I don't think Minories is giving you anything here, though this isn't quite Minories as it has two crossovers of the same hand, rather than one of each. That means trains to or from the top branch can't use the bottom platform at all, but trains to or from the bottom branch have an unnecessary duplicate route to the top platform. A simple pair of crossovers would be more flexible.

Wouldn't that be Chaloners Whin (now known as Tesco)? The Selby Diversion didn't open until after the end of the world in January 1982.

We've got to have boundaries, or how would we know which side we were on? Stands to reason.

When that involves unprototypical shunting methods or complicated mechanisms in a small scale, compromise may be the better option. There is already a lot of compromise in model goods yards, almost certainly including your own, and it is a matter of individual taste where the line is drawn.

If you look at the station as a whole, there is plenty of scope for operation and I doubt it would detract much from the enjoyment of the layout if you left the goods shed and its surrounding track as essentially scenic. You could park a couple of wagons in the headshunt beyond the shed to give an impression of its operation and just stick to shunting the reception sidings.

I can only guess that the goods shed roads were laid out for straight through working from left to right, with processed wagons running into the headshunt then back over the crossover to the reception sidings. It is possible that capstans were installed as it seems to be a reasonably large shed. It's one of those situations that will be tricky to replicate on model form, particularly in N. Your reworked plan is closer to the prototype, but may I suggest that Y points where I have added a red dot might improve the flow of the main line? You may need to substitute a curved point on the yellow dot.

Signalbox.org has a plan for Cheltenham St James and you seem to have rearranged it somewhat, particularly the spur off the double slip between the running lines and the way the arrival platforms and middle sidings are laid out. This is a pity as it loses some of the character of the station.

I notice that they all have vacuum pipes. Is that because they are modelled in preserved condition? Are the brake valve and ejector also modelled?

Because trains sometimes reach the end of their journey and have to reverse, locos need to run round, trains need to reach loops, sidings and bay platforms on the other side of the line. In real life trains could also be crossed over to allow a faster train to pass (using the other line as a refuge siding) or if single line working was in force, but those aren't usually part of model operation.

Make that obsolete materials containing now-banned ingredients.