TonyMay

There are few, if any, actual surviving branch line termini in the East Midlands. Matlock maybe, but actually it's a through station because it connects to Peak Rail. Buxton is really North-West rather than East Midlands. In reality, the East Midlands isn't greatly served by rail, and the few secondary lines in the region start/finish at mid-sized town or city junction stations that have at least one main route running through. One possibility instead of a BLT is to model "platforms 9 & 10" of a much larger station. Platforms 9&10 being what the local 3 car DMUs use. The rest of the station is off-stage and can be represented by a grand station building, or overall roof. There would be then an excuse for having railway-related maintenance buildings on the site.

Does that apply to the Y points as well as the LH/RH points? Also, are track pieces not aligning properly due to lack of fishplates between the rails, in which case, would adding fishplates help with the alignment?

Yeah, so the solutions are: 1. Tolerate the massive point throw and the huge gaps. Probably the cheapest option, but looks the worst. 2. Build your own track using tramway components. Requires some patience and skill. The overall price will probably depend on whether you already have the tools you need or if you need to invest in tools. 3. Use Tillig tramway track https://www.tillig.com/dateien/Produkte/TTModellbahnen/Zubehör/Sonstiges/TILLIG Straßenbahngleis.pdf

The issue here is that the throw of 1:1 scale points is only enough as it needs to be to allow a train's wheels to pass cleanly through the gap left. This is quite small. The throw on commercial model railway points is massively overscale when compared to the prototype. Hence the massive gaps.

Coaling stages/cenotaphs need two sidings, one for full coal wagons and one for empties, so full wagons can be pushed up the bank, emptied and added to the train being prepared for outgoing.

There is also a facing point.

Given how short the fiddle-yard needs to be here (not very), having the tracks turn round a 90-degree corner is not needed. Putting the fiddle yard where it turns the corner is seems more logical to me.

This is a bit of a mess of half-baked ideas that need solidifying. What's the real-world justification for your layout? If you haven't bought the track yet, it's better to move away from Peco or Hornby set-track and adopt Peco Streamline track. If your interested in locos, and most moves on/off shed are light engine, then the fiddle yard can be cassette-based and quite small. 2-3 car DMUs are middling size and require medium FY, which can also be cassettes, whereas full length HSTs require fiddle yards of similar length, and cassettes are difficult. The station "passing loop" is a not a passing loop but a run-round loop. Necessary for some modern engineering trains but otherwise not used.

I think your idea of trying it practically is probably best. If you're really stuck for space, you can treat the parallel tracks as like interlaced track for signalling purposes, meaning that no two trains can pass at that point. If no two trains pass there, they can't collide with each other. Finally, it's quite easy to mix track spacings, e.g. streamline and set-track, as long as there's a slight curve to the track.

I wouldn't recommend using set-track points and track spacing on a layout this large. Better using streamline.

BR Mk1 coaches have a superficial resemblance to LMS Period III coaches, but not if you know what you're looking at.

There were a few stations with the run-round before the platform. Passenger trains would arrive, set back into the loop with no passengers, run round, and then set back into the platform. Actually makes a more complicated operation than just a simple run-round. Loop in platform is uncouple, forward, points, points, back, points, points, forward, couple is 9 operations) Loop before is arrive, set back, uncouple, back, points, points, run round, points, points, back onto train, couple, propel, i.e. 13 operations.

But could be achieved with one extra crossing piece, consisting of a straight with a curved track crossing over it. This could be used for either right-hand and left-hand junctions. I wonder if any company other than Peco make one?

I mean like this:

Why do you need two loops, one for clockwise one for anti-clockwise? Because one covering both directions will suffice, take up less space and be a lot less complicated.

Worth including illustrations of three junctions with small, medium and large points. As you can see, the large radius junction isn't that much bigger than the small radius junction, but does look a lot better.

Usually newcomers are concerned abuot DC v DCC, not 2-rail v 3-rail.

How did you get the lining effect?

It looks like a boiler stuck on top of a wagon chassis, with no means of converting the power from the boiler into kinetic energy.

Don't forget that slopes on a corner are worse than slopes on a straight because there's more wheel-chafing. That slope is definitely on a corner.

My thought is that the station (4 platforms) is disproportionate to the single-track line, it looks like you're trying to maximise the station size by having lots of platforms, but I don;t think this is a good idea. I'd also consider ditching the reversing loop entirely, as this simplifies things and allows you to have more storage. Just have clockwise and anti-clockwise trains.

pity no turbomotive.

Couldn't you find a bigger chimney?

Yes, but that means introducing an unsightly kink in the track. If you put the whole thing on a slight curve (it only needs to be a few degrees), then the change is hardly noticeable.

Yes, but this is the design forum, so are you going to revise the design towards a workable design that reflects prototype practice?