Regularity

That’s what worried me. Although M1 and 14BA happen to be the same thread.

Yes.I think the tap for extracting the contents as intended is not quite at the bottom of the lower end. Not sure if there was another tap for draining the sediment/clearing a blockage.

Not enough mustard, that’s what it is.

For a brief moment, I wondered if you were talking about scantily clad young ladies again...

I don’t think anyone would mind if the at least two ladies were to object to the pictures and I am sure we would self-moderate if they did, but I imagine they are laughing at us as much as with us. Besides, I prefer the pictures of JA dressed up in Edwardian style clothing. (I refer to the dress of the period, rather than whatever happens on a Friday night in Castle Aching...)

Notice that they are all slightly inclined.

I’m not sure I want to know about Edwardian’s nether world.

Those are H-section cast iron spokes, not MW double-boss wheels (also used by others, e.g. Hunslet). Looks like an 0-4-2PT, known as “Bessel tanks” (due to the trailing truck) and also as “dock tanks.

Echo himself! Now, what were you thinking of, when you dreamt that up?

Pass the tea-cup!

In my mind, enlightened long-term self-interest means that no one individual is capable of making these decisions. Unfortunately, that only leads to utilitarianism, relativism, and rule by the mob, and we are back where we started: bathing in the mustard. That spinning noise you hear is my own mind going round in circles.

Bottom of the well?

Bloody hell that looks good: what BREL were trying to achieve with the 58, perhaps?t It us probably a foot too wide, but can we gloss over that? (Maybe numbered as a class 61, 62, 63, 64 or 68?)

If you don’t mind, I downloaded your sketch and made some very coarse freehand alterations. My suggestion with this is that you can re-locate the turnout for accessing the goods shed, creating a more spacious feel, and move the dock to the bay - this could happen whether or not it remained as a bay, although I have opted for not having one. I have also “removed” some levers from the frame, (3, 4 and 13) and allocated to them some white levers (unused on the prototype, although you could paint them black on your frame) used to operate the goods yard, as numbers 3,4,5 with the dolly number 2 moved up to turnout 9 - could this be a ringed signal, Mike? 13 is now 7, operating a ground signal for access from the bay/dock to the main. I don’t know if there would be a three-armed signal on approaching the station, and gave sketched a two-arm (for main and loop) with a disc at the base. Mike can tell you (us) if that is the most likely scenario. Now the interesting bit, to which I don’t know the answer for your modelling period, but Mike does. If we are to have a train arriving into an occupied platform road, then we need to draw the arriving train to a stop, and allow it to draw forward slowly. I think this is a calling-on rather than a warning signal, but I am unsure as to how it would be signaled. Would it be signaled with a flag? In which case, yellow or green - and you could allocate lever 13 to drive a servo to put signalman holding a flag out of an open window. Would it have an extra, subsidiary arm below the home, again, lever 13. If so, when were these introduced? However, I have always understood that that the levers running from the right most side are used to protect the section, so on a through station we might see 16 - distant, 15 - outer home, 14 - home, and so on. This suggests to me that on your layout, 16 might have once been the distant, and 15 the home. At some point, it became the norm for terminal stations to have a fixed distant on the approach, and for the lever to become spare. However, if this change coincided with the introduction of a calling-on signal, then maybe 16 became the home and 15 the calling-on? I honestly don’t know enough to comment, but it raises the possibility of a really interesting and different to most operating pattern, and unless you have a penchant for bay platforms, one I think worth considering, even if you have to renumber most of the levers to accommodate it! Hope the suggestions are not too presumptuous!

I don’t think you have: there are good reasons for your choices.If at this point in time, alternatives are put to you, then you will know that your choices were informed and the right ones for you: if you had built this, then I wouldn’t suggest them. And they are just suggestions of what I would probably do. Respectfully (which always means, “Please bear with me whilst I am rude and/or outrageous”!) I say that you are thinking like a Railway Modeller.What you describe is not only possible with a single platform face, but also happened regularly on the prototype. My recommendation is that before you finally commit track to baseboard is that you read up on the Cardigan Branch, where all sorts of weird and wonderful things happened, including a freight train and a passenger train in the platform on a daily basis, with two engines present. (Also suggests that DCC is a good idea even on simple layouts! You can then divorce the roles of driver and signaller completely, and drive according to the instructions from the bobby in the box. And if you don’t, you may end up in the ballast.) PM me your email address: I have some links and materials I can send to you.

Many railways running on 42” or metre gauge track have a similar loading gauge to ours. That’s the penalty of being a pioneer.

Ah. “Spare us The Cutter: couldn’t cut the mustard...” (A truly excellent band: live performances had to be experienced.)

PS Ultimately, it’s your layout and only you can choose how it is configured, but there comes a point where you have to decide where to put the balance point between “maximum play value*” and fidelity to prototype**. * People who take themselves too seriously get upset with this, and prefer “operational scope”. ** “The art of the typical is the art that convinces”*** - The late Bob Barlow, per Iain Rice, MRJ 19. *** Model the rule, not the exceptions, unless it be a real place you are copying.**** **** Sometimes, exactly modelling the prototype can be easier than creating a hypothetical.

If everyone acted within the perspective of enlightened long-term self-interest, we wouldn’t need any laws at all, as we would always be looking forward to what is best for the sustainable survival of the human race and the planet. (Although sometimes I wonder if the latter might not be better served by the absence of the last 2 centuries of the former.) I presume you mean that if people behaved themselves, we wouldn’t need laws?

I have often thought that Ireland got the track gauges and loading gauges that we really needed in Great Britain. That extra 6.5” between the frames, plus a foot wider and quite a bit taller on the loading gauge, would have transformed our network. Oh well, it was too late by 1829, so no going back now, but what a “might have been” scenario!

My workshop looks that most of the time!

Of course you may, just as I may say that I disagree!(They are an essential part of due process.) And autocorrect changed sooner to sinner in my post, which is rather funny so I shall leave it there!

That would be a disaster... ...see your first statement!(The problem, as I see it, is that most laws are created by lawyers, under the guise of being Members of Parliament, which strikes me as a conflict of interest. ) Went out with a couple of lawyers when younger. Great date, ‘cos you know that sinner [sic! *] or later you will get screwed... * Autocorrect being amusing.

I stand corrected, m’learned friend...

Sorry, will add “allegedly”, and refer to “some lawyers”.(Which proves the point, when you think about it.) I am aware of what Edwardian does for a living, too.