Regularity

Depends if, say, 4 trains an hour is a severe restriction or acceptable in prototype terms. Also depends on when the line was built, and whether the traffic justified rebuilding. Don’t forget that the Midland managed to have only a single facing point on the Settle and Carlisle line, and never changed it during their existence. (But there are many strange things about the Midland!) Having operated Oakhurst on several occasions, I can tell you that it was never restricting of my enjoyment! But if you want a complex approach “throat”, you could consider a scissors crossover which also includes a 3-way and a single slip and even a double slip, and indeed consider having a scissors crossover for loco release purposes - as at Oban. It is possible to do what a railway would do with something like minories, and add an extra crossover (from the middle platform road to the departure road) to create the extra flexibility to support multiple movements: the steam age railway did this a lot, but the modern railway tends to try to restrict the number of turnouts and remove diamond crossings. One good reason to be careful when looking at the current scene! But Kevin raises an interesting point. He is obviously enthused about the arrival and departure of trains on an intensive service. I am more interested in train disposal and makeup, and the use of station pilots to move coaches and release engines. To me, the intensity comes from this shuttling back and forth. YMMV

Here’s what I sketched out. If the bay is just for parcels, etc, then you don’t need the “bypass” at all and just need the single slip. If the bay is for arriving trains, then the bypass is a better idea than a double slip, as it would allow for arrivals into the bay whilst stock was moved from the arrival to the departure route. You might want to look up some prototype stations of the era, especially Bromley (North) SER station, which was used by Geoff Stenner as the basis for his Scale7 Oakhurst layout. RM Dec 2001/Jan 2002, also viewable here: http://www.uckfieldmrc.co.uk/exhib06/oakhurst.html

They also had various degrees of aversion to facing points, so an alternative would be to simply reverse the crossover. This provides an arrival road which would be used almost exclusively for this - once a train has arrived, another cannot arrive until this road is clear, so it would not be allowed to remain blocked for too long. Can yout clarify the role of the bay? Is it for parcels/milk/etc? Or is it for local traffic? If the latter, then it can arrive but not depart. I will download your image and draw some lines, but a single slip is high in my mind.

What I can’t work out, is how so many modellers came to tolerate it.

It’s not wisdom. It’s knowledge: open to anyone who wants to find out about it, nothing special, although the therapy for being this obsessive can be expensive. (And even if you did joggle, it would only be a few thousandths of an inch.)

Although perhaps we can see why there was a need for H&S, if only to combat such stupidity?

The correct answer is that it depends on your design of switch blades, the short answer for you is no. Joggling is usual for straight-cut blades, but you are unlikely to have them. A few pre-group turnouts remained at the back of obscure goods yards on the Highland even in the seventies, but that would be where you would find them: anywhere without a need to upgrade them due to very little traffic at very low speed. If there are interlaced sleepers rather than full length timbers under the turnout, then it is an old HR turnout which would have had straight cut blades. The LMS, and BR in your area of modelling, used semi-curved blades, and these have a fine point on the blades, as well as a slightly rounded tip at the top of the blade, so that there was no blunt square point to shock the wheel as it struck the tip. There was no joggle, but the turnout road stock rail had a small set, a slight twist to start its divergence, set slightly ahead of the blade, just enough that when set for the main route, there was no bump for the wheelset as it moved forward. The set also ensures there is no tight-to-gauge problem on the turnout route. The way to test if you point blades are tapered into a fine enough point is to prod the end into your finger. If you don’t draw blood, it’s too blunt... Hope that helps.

You’ve reached that stage where it looks almost too beautiful to paint. Nice workmanship.

And a garret is an attic room...

I recently saw a Mirror Group Newspapers articulated lorry with the following emblazoned on the side curtain: So, not at all, then...

I am pretty sure Andy was making a funny.

You can start with Wikipedia, of course: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_locomotive

You haven’t mentioned Forney tanks, or Pechot-Bourdon, or...

Conversely, USPS tells me that my package from the US left Heathrow for an internal U.K. destination (i.e. me) a week ago and is no longer traceable on their system. Unfortunately Royal Mail says it is not recognised on their system. (I double-checked with Parcel Farce and they confirmed that the tracking code was for a Royal Mail delivery.)

Other than having simple rather than compound expansion, the US mallet was exactly like M. Mallet’s design. That’s why it’s called a Mallet.But I seem to be repeating myself. Yes, but not on all branchlines.

Yes, not Mallets in the sense that M. Mallet originally intended, but otherwise the front frames were pivoted at their rear to the front of the rear, fixed, frames. Definitely not a Garret.

Why not take a prototype example and build a model of that? That way, you won’t have to worry about getting it right?

The alternative being what? Driving the middle axle which means there is little space for the motor, let alone a gearbox, or the rear axle, which means with the gearbox in the cab, or a drive extender, which will simply reverse the current order of gearbox-motor-flywheel, which whilst creating more space, would not create enough for a clutch and a significant flywheel, possibly creating some balance issues into the bargain? That open space is balanced by the open space in the cab. Most of the mass in this example is over the wheels, keeping the centre of gravity where it needs to be. In answer to the OP, a simple solid flywheel will help smooth out any cogging, and add a little bit of inertia, which is all he wanted to know.

The 14 coupled experience in the Soviet Union demonstrated why articulated engines came about: such a long rigid wheelbase is fine, but only on straight lines. Mallets were often used on “branchlines” in the Appalachian mountains, to provide brute force on steeply graded sinuous lines built to access the coal mines: nothing else could cope, and having several engines with several crews would have been a nightmare to coordinate when switching (shunting), as well as creating problems with drifting smoke, etc. On the plains, with level routes and long distances, more conventional locos were more than up to the task, as the Nickel Plate knew - one of their Berkshires (2-8-4) was an easy master of a long freight train running steadily at 55 mph, and outperformed diesels in this scenario. The NKP actually held off dieselisation for a few more years because of this, but eventually the economics of better fleet utilisation won through. Of course, when diesels came along with their MU capabilities, they offered a much more flexible approach that only required a single crew, and with all the units operating together. As well as a more generous loading gauge, American lines were also built to accommodate heavier axle loads with closer spaced ties and heavier rail, and the bigger engines were not the same problem as over here.

There is no duty charged on model railway products when imported, just the VAT plus handling fee (because the Royal Mail/Parcel Force are acting as an agent for HMRC, and HMRC won’t cover the costs of processing as a reduction from the VAT).

Post 652?

That never stopped them from making a play to gain territory!

How did dancing help? ...is that my taxi?

Mmm. That was a bit gruff!