Harlequin

I'm afraid not because the total angle of divergence of the Large Ys is also 12 degrees: -6 for one arm and +6 for the other.

I can't shed (haha) any light on operations but would just point out that Newbury had a similar double road shed. So you might be able to find some relevant info from that source. Originally built for broad gauge, dating from 1848, it survived the redevelopment of the station in 1908. There's a 1904 photo of the interior in "A history of the Berks and Hants line". Two wagons visible, both on the inner road next to the platform.

Pigs and apple trees work well together, of course...

Hi Clive, I think you're saying that you wanted the convenience and speed of an RTL system but if there had been more variation in the geometry you would have used it. Is that fair? If so, I think that agrees with the broad thrust of this thread. BTW: You said about the Bullhead track, "at the time there was only one type of point available". That is still true today (and there are problems with them)...

Yes, and that's very sensible (if only they'd get a move on with the idea!) but there's nothing to stop them producing additional products, compatible in all ways with Streamline but with new geometry that allows subtler formations to be created. For instance, here's the junction from Iain Rice's Downingham mentioned above, which he described as being, "designed around the geometry of Peco Streamline": I've used four medium radius turnouts and a long crossing and you can see that it nearly works but, because of the strictures of the 12 degree Streamline angle, the bottom route has an unwanted bow which creates two ugly reverse curves. Maybe Mr Rice's sense of aesthetic beauty overcame his sense of geometry when he drew that formation. Completely understandably. Another case in point is the Single and Double Slip. Streamline geometry means that they can only ever be small radius and that makes them really clunky to use in many situations, especially main line junctions. You can make all your formations as smooth as possible but if you need a slip it has to be small radius and you have to put up with vehicles turning rather abruptly through them. Streamline is a good compromise and helps to compress track plans into the kind of spaces available to us but it seems from this thread that there's a substantial demand for a wider range of options. Perhaps "Streamline+" with 6 degree or 9 degree turning angles? I take the point @Pete the Elaner made that competition might be dangerous to Peco. I'm sure we all want them to thrive but they are a lumbering giant in their little market niche, almost a monopoly, and they need something to buck them up!

Alne is pretty simple if you ignore the junction, the coal depot and the quad track to the south of it. I think it would be a good template. Simple goods yard trailing from the Down line, crossover, long goods headshunt which you could happily run on into your scenic area because it would not look "stationy" - wouldn't detract from the scenery.

It's amusing that some of us feel the need to convert N to OO and convert metric to imperial before we can think about this layout sensibly...

It would be really good fun if these traction engines had motors in them and could sit there quietly idling. Just the flywheel (correct term???) turning would be enough from a distance but the pistons moving would be even better.

Hi Chris, Nice opening post - you've set your stall out very clearly. Hopefully someone who knows more about the character of mainline stations in your chosen area and era will offer some advice. Generally speaking, though, you'll be compressing the length of real station track plans and simplifying them, even if you're not modelling a real place. The trick is to retain the feel of the real thing while you do that. Do you have any real stations or parts of stations in mind as inspiration for your layout? The historical mapping websites are very useful as a first step for researching the general layouts of stations. maps.nls.uk and old-maps.co.uk.

There's lovely! Short curving platforms. Small goods shed doesn't need so much space around it. Piles of coal on the ground. Board crossings only. Ground disc just in rear of a simple trap.

All good points (sorry) and great ideas but what are the chances that Peco will do anything like that in our lifetimes? Look at the development speed of the Bullhead range - and even the first bullhead points are flawed and in need of revision! Perhaps it needs someone new to step in and shake things up a bit.

Hi Kevin, Just going back to an earlier theme for a moment, I was reading "Western Steam in Colour" by Hugh Ballantyne recently and I found just the photo for you on page 47 - two panniers double-heading a freight train near the river Avon. Large cab 9626, older small cab, 8714, both with spare lamps stowed ;-) The only thing wrong with the picture is they are filthy black, not proper-job green... There's another photo in the book that made me think of Little Muddle: A 1366 class small pannier (1370) at Weymouth Quay. Diminutive, outside cylinders, designed for sharp curves in places like dockyards and quaysides, where they would normally be shedded. Very photogenic. The Heljan model has some detail problems (I understand) but would look great after a bit of expert fettling. Need I say more?

Peco's large radius turnout is the largest radius possible within the constraints of their geometry. That is: 2in (50.8mm) between parallel track centres and 12 degrees of turn mid-crossover. That large radius point is actually ~45.75in (1162mm) radius, despite what Peco claim. If they made the radius any larger then the turnout wouldn't connect easily with the rest of the system. The question is, why doesn't Peco Streamline pointwork work for you? If you've got the space for scale formations, then fair enough. If the appearance is the problem, then the Bullhead range will help eventually - although development is glacially slow... It is possible to make reasonably smooth junctions and other formations by using the full Streamline range creatively, in particular by using the curved points and the large Y, which have a 60in (1524mm) radius. If you do want to build your own pointwork then OO-SF might be work a look. Stoke Courtenay is a good example.

Suggestion: To open up the yard (which is a bit cramped) how about moving the siding points further around the curve and re-arranging like this: Room to turn lorries and back up to goods loading bay. No coal staithes - just unload directly into carts or lorries. Two possible positions for yard crane shown (not two cranes!). Goods shed backs onto platform like Moretonhamsptead. Edit: Keep the cattle mess away from the passengers.

I wonder how many new modellers go to the big social media platforms when they need help these days? From my experience the quality of discussion and information on those platforms is much lower than here on RMWeb.

Hi Pete, If you're thinking of somewhere with the sort of character of Llanglydwen, one of my favourites (see here), then in my opinion you've got a bit too much going on for an authentic model: The goods shed is too big and fancy The coal merchant is too big and fancy (and might be better moved to give access to the siding) The private siding looks grafted on to use up a corner. The signal box is too big. Some other thoughts: Glad you got rid of the footbridge. The barrow crossing, for use by the passengers, would probably be near the public entrance to the station, so probably near the road. Since this is a compressed model you have to imagine that the "real" station wouldn't be so tightly curved and so the signal box would have good views of all it needs to see if placed at the other end of the platform. Points in the goods yard would not be controlled from the box. Entry and exit from the goods yard could be signalled by ground discs (the exit one just in rear of the imagined trap point). (see Llanglydwen.) You could still splay the sidings as @The Johnster suggested to open up the goods yard and make more use of the middle of the layout. Could you possibly extend the loop round to where points 11 are? And then take the goods yard off the inner track of the loop??? I don't know if that's possible (using curved points) but it would be more authentic and would allow you to make both platforms longer, following the curve if you removed the private siding. Clearance might be an issue, though. Don't worry about not using buildings that you've already bought. It's better to get the character of the place right. Spare buildings will always come in useful in years to come. Sorry to drop all that on you. You said the magic word, Llanglydwen, that got me going ... ;-)

Hi, In Tony Atkins’ comprehensive book, “GWR Goods Train Working Volume One”, he devotes an entire chapter to “Headcodes, Head and Tail Lamps”. He says that the headlamp body colour changed from black to red in 1903, at the same time as the GWR adopted the RCH-inspired headlamp codes. Edit: The implication being that all head lamp bodies were painted red after that date but this may have been done gradually of course, as the lamps came in for repair. And he adds that in the London area the GW "retained green and blue/purple headlamps for some years after 1903"! More details in the book.

Ah yes! Bullseye! The brackets are OK. You can see that in Kevin’s previous photo of the Mogul, actually. (D’Oh!) I hadn’t spotted the different kind of lamp.

“Great Western Moguls & Prairies” by David Maidment (Pen and Sword) lists the withdrawal dates of all the class members and notes which had their “wheels and motion used for construction of Granges and Manors”.

The scenario I had in mind was a rather portly and very loud local MP who insisted his town had a direct connection to London for trade (but mainly for his own benefit) and the slip coach was retained as the ultimate conclusion of a lot of hard bargaining and brinkmanship in Westminster.

That's really beautiful - the light is amazing. It would be great if your could get the lamps to sit down on their brackets properly - I have the same problem and I haven't done anything about it yet... And sorry to be an armchair critic but your spare lamp brackets should be turned 90 degrees, I think: I guess that was a failsafe measure so that extra lights couldn't accidentally show forwards. Imagine seeing a "tail light" heading towards you at 30mph in the dark!

The 1907 map from old-maps.co.uk (processed a bit): Notice that there are two tracks along most of the quayside that rejoin just before the harbour wall.

Absolutely wonderful! Thanks Mike! So, if I'm going to do it I may have to bend reality very slightly to justify slip coach working in my era and my location but not too much.

If you are no longer committed to an existing baseboard then is there an opportunity to ease the track plan a bit? (I’m thinking of that ugly sharp corner on the right... ) And then to make the new baseboard give the trackplan just a bit more room to breathe? Just 50mm for a bit of scenery outside the track would do wonders! I notice that passenger access to the halt platform is a bit tricky. That could move outside the circuit if you had the space...

OK, thanks everyone. So, is this right?: The slip coach would be brought to a stop at the Down Main platform. There would be a pilot loco or a branch train timetabled to be standing at the Branch platform waiting to pick it up (or rescue it if things didn't go to plan). Assume it's a pilot loco for now. The pilot would cross onto the Down Main through the double-slips and back up to the slip coach. Couple up, connections made, vacuum tested, lamps re-arranged. The new train would then set back to clear the facing branch connection, if needed to, and then set off down the branch line. Regarding powered slip coaches: It's subjective, of course, but since the real thing was unpowered and just relied on momentum it feels right, to me, for the model to do the same thing if at all possible. A slip coach that didn't slow down in a very Newtonian way would really annoy me - and a slip coach that sped up would drive me crazy! I guess that some sort of DCC controlled braking might improve the realism, but that's as far as I'd go!