AlfaZagato

Were there any three-cylinder simple 0-8-0 in the UK? I could see that being an interesting compromise design. No pilot truck to interfere with maintenance of the inside cylinder, while pushing extra power with outside cylinders to the limits of the loading gauge. Having typed this out, I think a four-cylinder simple would work better in this regard. Effectively, strapping two cylinders to the outside of a 7F or the like.

@tythatguy1312 Well-tank Q1?

Have you seen any failures on the bevel-drive arrangement? I have a set I was either going to wedge into a Y8 or Johnson 3F.

BR tried Gresley's U1 Garratt on Lickey. Evidently, local crews despised the smoke, so normally ran cab-end-first up the hill. Running thusly led to water not consistently covering the firebox, which led to crews filling more water, which led to priming and a shortened boiler life. Eventually replaced with a 9F wearing Bertha's electric light. I'd imagine, unless they pulled a crew off of the Toton coal run, that any LMS-built Garratt would have had the same issue.

Seeing the Hemsworth wagon makes me think. I wonder how many pop culture references could be obliquely made via actual PO wagons?

I'd think MGR might suit a well-geared turbine.

OK, no, keep her at IRM, then. I hate what MSI did with Pioneer. Outright shameful. I've been told the big problem at IRM right now is pest control. The South Shore 800 is apparently rotting inside-out due to racoons & skunks. In regards to the BR Standards, or maybe backtracking earlier to grouping, what if the ROD commissioned a cut-down USRA Light Pacific or Light Mikado? I'd imagine both designs are right up Riddles' alley. I wanted to suggest the 2-6-6-2, but the rated TE is almost twice a 9F's...

I think you put too much faith in the Illinois Railway Museum to suppose that they'd keep Uncle Sam.

I think some of the shame mentioned in the stories you mentioned, @The Johnster, was the fact both locos you mentioned were hold-overs from predecessor companies. Locos BR had spent the past 30 years crying were obsolete and needed to be released post-haste. I'll tell ya, we weren't proud when the fancy new Volvo rig needed to spotted by the old nonturbo Mack.

Somehow the I-diagrams are completely avoided, so call it the I1?

Were there any docks known to have cranes such as these with lines equipped with OHLE?

None preserved, new build completed in what looks suspiciously like EWS colors named 'Wisconsin Central' 71215?

Who's to say that the van didn't wander its way down from Edinburgh? Seven hour trip nowadays, not too bad?

I suppose it doesn't help you here, but did Hornby number any as 1/152's, with the requisite pipe?

Lack of teenagers...

I foresee shadows of the 5100 class with that arrangement.

Crew safety is why American diesels redeveloped the broad nose common on modern hood units. I believe it was either CP or ATSF that first started employing what were called 'Comfort Cabs' in the 1970's. These updated cabs were broadly devoid of heavy equipment, and engineered along the lines of automotive crumple zones. My understanding is that such cabs have proven relatively effective. Federally required at this point, too.

It is not just a shortage of containers, but the vessels themselves. There are also labor shortages in the US, which means a lot of containers get held up here, for lack of manpower.

Ask the seller if they can have the file printed in metal. I know I've seen an N scale DSB shunter offered in brass. Or, if you have casting facility for lead, copy them for yourself in lead.

My collection in N is aimed at about 1937. Let's me run Aeros and Buffaloes.

An autocannon is better fare for a bus, methinks.

Bondo. Lots of Bondo. And duct tape.

I believe, in regards to the modern hot/cold on styling, that it all has to do with economics. No point in streamlining if the speeds don't warrant the work. That was probably the GWR's reasoning on never joining the 'airsmoothed' trend. Touching 100 was already good enough to make for some of the best timings.

I would say replacing the turbine would prove trickier. On a much smaller scale, the running Howmet TX is with a different make of turbine altogether. The original had a known failure rate. There's also the question of other running gear. I'd imagine most of that is unique, or very uncommon at this point.

I suppose numbering series would depend on how you pose such a loco came about. You say you used the 28XX boiler? There was a Collet update of the 28XX, classed as 2884. The last 2884 was numbered 3866. If you call this a development of that series, maybe 3867 series?