TonyMay

Not only that; the other thing that's noticeably different on the Hornby/LMS version is the smokebox door. Apart from the length issue of course, but that's less easily fixed.

You have... and yet you haven't. You asked about livery, but really the defining feature of wartime livery was dirt. Labour shortages put cleaning way down the priority list. IMHO, it could use weathering.

You have... and yet you haven't. You asked about livery, but really the defining feature of wartime livery was dirt. Labour shortages put cleaning way down the priority list. IMHO, it could use weathering.

AFAICT the LNER adopted NE as wagon markings during the war: https://www.lner.info/article/liveries/livery.php So, It's entirely prototypical to see a wagon in the early 1950s still carrying pre-1948 markings.

You appear to be struggling with the basic concept of generic coaches. I think the four wheel brake third (or "brake ferd" as the Hattons bloke calls them) would look good in SD&JR blue, regardless of actual authenticity.

Actually I would worry about this. Developing a theme now will make it not look so "wrong" later. 1970s/80s BR blue would seem to fit the stock you've got now. But you could make a change to 1950s/1960s BR era. GWR 1930s is also generally well-catered for, but not so much the other big four companies. The "problem" with modern stock is that it tends to be loooooong, and coaches on 2nd radius curves look... interesting. Actually what I'd consider is going for is O16.5, with bodies. Or take a look at the little Hattons coaches with something appropriate - terriers maybe.

I think you'll find she was built by Haydock Foundry in 1874, in Haydock, Lancs.

I find it difficult to identify any I'd question whether this even remotely comes close to representing any sort of real world railway let alone key aspects of Midland freight operations.

Have a look at the earlier Midland engines, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Midland_Railway_2441_Class#/media/File:Derby_7_works_geograph-2212766.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Midland_Railway_2441_Class#/media/File:Cricklewood_Locomotive_Depot_geograph-2822011-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg The biggest visaul differences between Jinties and earlier engines IMHO are having a smokebox that doesn't protrude slightly in front of the smokebox saddle, not having a keyhole in the side tank for sandboxes, and having a flat-backed bunker.

My 2D is that the front buffer beam needs to come slightly forwards, so that the cleaner can stand on it while cleaning out the smokebox and being in no danger of falling off. It looks a little front-heavy - but maybe the buffer beam extension would help with that. But if not, my second thought is that the driving wheels could be moved forwards a few mm, so that the total weight is balanced over them. This would need new splashers, so may be a bit drastic. The buffer beam, though...

It's about right, but if you were to go to a local model shop and offer to swap a brand new Peco OO double slip for a brand new Peco OO single slip, they'd probably agree to it. It gives you a little more variety in trackwork with 2 double slips in the yard. Also, it means you can signal it properly. All moves off the main line need to be signalled. In the case of a single slip, that means a signal with two arms for reversing moves (1) into the yard and (2) back down the mainline (your clockwise line). If you use a double slip, then you also need another signal to signal the facing move off the clockwise line into the yard - which of course wouldn't be there in real life.

Locomotives and rolling stock for export were routinely shipped large distances (to e.g. Australia, New Zealand, China) on fairly bog standard merchant ships.

If you look at the right-hand side you can see the point marked SS - this indicates that it's a single slip. There are others on the plan marked DS (double slip), LL = long left, LR = long right.

Two points would generally not be prototypical because it introduces a facing route into the goods yard: a single slip doesn't physically allow for this route

What you seem to be suggesting is two parallel single lines, one for passenger trains and one for freight. But that's not how railways worked (or work). For a double track line trains always travel on the left. Freight trains, stopping passenger trains, and express trains all share the same track going one way, and then share the other track on their return journey. A double track railway with an up-down arrangement (1) has more capacity than two parallel single lines and (2) is easier (i.e. cheaper) to signal. With double track, facing points are generally avoided, partly because they are a safety risk, and partly because they are more expensive than trailing points because of the extra safety features required.

Not sure about GWR practice completely, but we're getting back to avoiding facing points again. Typically a goods yard in this position would be accessed from what is your outer track, with a single slip (or maybe a plain crossover) where it crosses the other line - not a double slip because that would introduce a route through a facing point into the goods yard.: There is no way for a inner track train to access the goods yard directly; it would have to stop, run the loco round to the other end of the train using a pair of crossovers, draw the train back onto the outer line, and then propel the stock into the goods yard.

There is a solution - which is not to run trains past each other through the curve, but to treat it as "interleaved track". This could be achieved by simply remembering to do this; alternatively it would be possible to design a system whereby only one of the tracks could be powered at one time and the signaller has to choose between them.

So two scenes; one an MPD, one a station, or do as I suggest, which is to drop the MPD and curve the track more realistically. The optimum curve IMHO is something like this, which gives you space in front for a goods yard, maybe some curved platforms, a little bit of scenery. I suggest the sidings on the right could be like a dairy scene.

So two scenes; one an MPD, one a station, or do as I suggest, which is to drop the MPD and curve the track more realistically. The optimum curve IMHO is something like this, which gives you space in front for a goods yard, maybe some curved platforms, a little bit of scenery. I suggest the sidings on the right could be like a dairy scene.

Looking at the boards you have I'd have the top right, bottom right and bottom left curves as off-stage set-track corners. But I'd use flexible track to maximise the curve through the top left corner so you get a nice curve through the station scene.

The goods shed looks like an afterthought. In reality, a station this size would have had a significant goods yard, but not necessarily an MPD.

So has everyone been pronouncing Minories wrong? M

You can see here them next to wagons. They are slightly overscale,

There were 197 right-hand drive Midland 4Fs, but 575 LMS left-hand drive 4Fs. That should mean that for a "typical" layout, there should be approx 3 LMS 4Fs for every Midland 4F. Additionally, I suspect that the ex-Midland 4Fs tended to stay in the Midland Division whereas the LMS 4Fs were distributed throughout the LMS system. So, will Bachmann produce an LMS 4F? How easy would the Midland 4Fs be to convert? Has anyone made a conversion kit?

But serieously, set-track points? What's wrong with streamline Ys?