TonyMay

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?

Turn it upside down over a concrete floor and hit it with a hammer.

Would it not be a better starting position to start with a Bachmann C class and convert that either with (1) a new cab/bunker and saddletank or (2) a completely new body?

If not a fiddle yard, some kind of cassette system to get stock onto and off the layout. As for something with unusual stock - a preservation centre.

It looks to be an improvement. Friendly questions though; (1) how does it sit within the loading gauge, e.g. next to wagons? (2) I think it needs more coal capacity, maybe extending the side tanks forward to just behind the smokebox would allow firebox-side bunkers without having to extend the frames out at the back (assuming you're using the original chassis). (3) I think it also could benefit from a larger chimney that matches the height of the cab. Just my opinions of course.

Have you considered N gauge?

Also technically, if you want to be prototypical, curves should be transitioned so that there are no abrupt changes in radius, e.g. from dead straight to tightly-curved.

The bunker definitely is undersized. Building up a bunker at the back would allow for the use of a slightly longer chassis or a shorter boiler. In the paintshop of the red 0-6-0T the boiler looks too long. I don't think the cab is as bad, but probably could do with more height (if possible within the loading gauge), and maybe a little more length.

There's a video here on someone trying to bash one into a OO9 coach. Not super convincing as it ends up being too tall. Further surgery to remove the top panel from above the doors, might produce a better result.

To me the back end doesn't look substantial enough to merit trailing wheels. You could however extend the frames backwards, and build a more substantial bunker at the back. Possibly you could use a bunker from a Hornby pannier tank.

Helices. It's Greek.

You're probably going to have to be a bit more specific than "not that big".

How big do you want it?

You shouldn't have *any* facing points on an S&C layout. Save yourself the cost of a single/double slip. It should be as per the upper track diagram. Goods trains were reversed into the yard. This is to render impossible a route being set that misroutes a train off the mainline into a siding, which would lead to a derailment or a potential collision.

The basic idea is functionally quite sound and works quite well for fiddle yards, but it's not really prototypical.

Is the headshunt in the northern station long enough for your longest loco? (probably a 9F or a Princess). It looks a bit short. Also, at the north station, is the loop long enough for the trains you want to run? Again, looks rather short. Again, single track is also probably better than double given the space and prototype. I'd also consider having one of the ends (probably the northern one) as a fiddle yard. The scissor crossing requires a bit of point hacking to get the spacing right. But if you go for single track you won't need it anyway.

Oh, I should add that only 1 preserved line has turning facilities at both of its termini, and only one of those is a turntable - the other one is a triangle.

Assuming "North" is at the top of the screen as we look at it: Assuming left-hand running and British practice, because you've got a facing crossover in the neck of the north station, the two uppermost tracks are unusable as anything running into them can be run round but is then obliged to run wrong line (i.e. on the right) back to the other station. This is not so much of a problem at the South station, where you've got two arrival tracks that can also be departed from plus two departure-only tracks that can be shunted into from the arrival tracks. Having the turntable at the end of the line would be unlikely to be signed off on safety grounds Most heritage railways (in fact, all except one) are single track. Reducing your track to single track would allow room for a little more scenery, and maybe a passing loop half-way. You need to use flexitrack on the corners. The set-track curves and straights combination is not pleasing. Both stations are very much alike operationally and scenically. Is this really what you want?

The crossings can also be bent a little bit by cutting the webbing if you want to achieve a curve throughout the junction, especially if that curve continues after the junction.

If more space is available, could that not be used? Even if it's just a plain double track board with no scenery in places?

There is some degree of authenticity if you restrict yourself to specific locomotives and stock that have actually been preserved.