TonyMay

What about something like Grantham? http://www.tracksthroughgrantham.uk/buildings-and-landscape-01/turntables-and-triangles/

How about a forest? Actually the rest of the layout needs trees adding as well, all it has now is small shrubs.

seemingly not: emin

The ECML is 393 miles long from King's Cross to Edinburgh. By the 1990s it had been electrified, albeit on the cheap. Much of that is four-tracked, and a lot of it is straight. Like really straight. It doesn't look very much like what you've drawn. Longer trains would be possible, but would also involve switching to N gauge.

I agree with the above, though perhaps it would be better with a single line. When you go to the theatre, (bear with this) you get to see the front of the stage, but there's lots you don't get to see; the wings where the scenery is stored, the trapdoor in the middle of the stage, etc. With an exhibition layout you can have the operators behind the stage and the audience at the front. Note the audience gets the best view - the operators don't. With home operation, this all has to be compromised. Often the builder/operator wants the best view from the operating position, but at the same time wants to access the fiddle yard. The solution of an open fiddle yard meanwhile shows your audience the backstage. It's a dilemma.

and some idiot on a forum would be asking what trains would be like if track gauge was 3'6" rather than 4'1.5".

Let's say standard gauge wasn't decided at 4'8½" but instead at 4'1½". What would the effect have been on the railways?

I think the issue here is getting the bit between the running plate and the saddle tank looking right. There probably would be two pretty hefty springs visible for both of the wheels, along with a proper firebox, reversing mechanism, and other gubbins. Rather like the Heljan 1361 class.

yes, because all Chinese figures are going to come wearing conical straw coolie hats (/sarcasm)

One of the reasons it doesn't really work as a steam-era through station is that in the steam era, it wasn't common at a double-track through station for lines in both directions to be able to access all platforms. This was partly to avoid potential facing conflicts, i.e. trains running head first into each other, which was considered undesirable. So, there would be one set of up platforms and one set of down platforms. An up train wanting to reverse would enter the station in the up direction, would enter the up platforms. It would then either depart in the down direction from the up platforms, using a trailing crossover, or be shunted across into the down platforms for a later departure. So to "improve" the accuracy you should really delete the facing crossover from the approach. Modern signalling layouts prefer maximum flexibility, so usually allow both lines to access all platforms. A "minories" type approach allows that. I think it looks OK as a modern layout with three platforms, one Right-to-left and two left-to-right, assuming that there's an appropriate approach at the other end. It's similar to the new Rochester station.

Are there any prototypes with saddle tanks styled as Percy's is?

I've noticed that if i search Google for rmweb and a topic, then it gives results here. However if I search Bing it gives me nothing. Even if I search for 'site:rmweb.co.uk' in Bing, it literally returns no results whatsoever. Are the admins aware of this? Can it be fixed?

You say you have space, but haven't defined exactly what space you have. In most cases, a doughnut shaped layout with access in the middle and a lift-out section to allow access is better than one shaped like a piece of toast without a hole in the middle. t that much bigger for example is really no

I seem to remember there being a fairly significant difference between the first batch and the second in terms of the shape of the firebox. And also that the first two ran with domeless boilers but were later changed to domed boilers. Does the model cater for all of these variants or just one of hem?

The point and the outermost blue line can simply be removed.

There is an alternative forum at https://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewforum.php?f=15 which is more focused on train sets, big or small, made with RTR toys rather than scale models of railways. If you are unhappy with the ideas kindly presented here then they might be able to come up with something closer to your tastes. PS - if it is not formulaic why do we end up with the same solutions, e.g. GWR BLT, Minories or Inglenook?

On the left hand side, roughly between where the text says "headshunt" there is a facing crossover - this really should be a trailing crossover.

The left-hand side of the layout needs to be bent around the corner and tweaked so as to avoid following an S-curve. There's no point in having any S-curves here. The traffic exiting from the bay platforms anti-clockwise turns to the right and then to the left - it only needs to turn left. Similarly clockwise traffic into the upper island platform turns to the right, then to the left, then straightens again. This just needs to turn to the right.

That deals with reduction in demand, but don't forget increase in supply; these old gents will either sell their collections for extra cash in their old age, or they'll pass away and their middle-aged sons and daughters inherit dad's toy train collection.

To my eye, you've compressed the station approaches but not the platforms, meaning the platforms dominate, particularly because they're straight and parallel with the baseboard. Now the west end of Plymouth station is quite compact, the east end is much lengthier. And the platforms are not dead straight but slightly curved in places. Has the approach of modelling the approaches to a station - with (most of) the platforms being off-scene - been considered and discounted? If it has, and you want to stick to this basic plan, then I think you need to begin to curve the platforms around to the left on the left-hand side of the layout. Also, remember tunnelling is expensive and the GWR wouldn't've put the start of the station throat in the tunnel on the right; they'd've started the throat after the tunnel exit. A road bridge would present less of a problem on this front.

There is a nucleus of a good idea here, based on restricting the location and time period. SE London, or maybe Kent, an urban landscape with terraced housing. A junction maybe with a fly-over. Peco do imitation 3rd rail chairs. There are some RTR 3rd rail EMUs available now, though dedicated modellers will tend to build kits. The class 91 and mk4 coaches would be out of place. See https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/184-southern-electrics/

If running a full loop back over the hatch is possible and practicable, as it is implied that it is, I would definitely go with that.

For an industrial loco, there are more typical choices available, even on a budget. An Austerity tank for example, or even a dreaded Smokey Joe.

A little bit of waddling is prototypical from a 2-cylinder engine.

I'd say colour photos for most of these should be available. Try https://colourrail.co.uk/