ciderglider

Thanks @doctor quinn and @Vecchio for your positive thinking. Yes, I think the branch could have a siding that supplies a power station. I wouldn't have to model the whole power station, just the bit where the coal is unloaded.

@Vecchio thanks for your reply. So it looks like the hoppers would be out-of-place on a branch line! The video you liked to is impressive. The footage of the wagons being unloaded was just what I was looking for

I have some models of self-unloading hopper wagons, Falns 103, I think. I am wondering whether there is a place for them on my proposed small branch line terminus layout, set in Era IV. Would they appear in ones and twos among other wagons, or would they only appear in trains comprising only self-unloading hoppers? I suspect the latter may be the case. Would destinations other than power stations would be plausible? What cargo would they carry apart from coal? Would they have been used for things like sugar beet? I know there is also a version with a roof for grain cargo, but I don't have that. And can anyone point me to a photo of the unloading of these wagons in progress?

I am considering a z scale shunting layout. This will involve a mainline with some sidings. The mainline will have catenary, but should the sidings also have catenary? Googling images of German marshalling yards hasn't really answered my question. Whenever I see a picture of a German shunting loco (model or prototype), it seems to be the BR 260 diesel 0-6-0. This makes me think there must have been a lot of unelectrified track in otherwise electrified parts of the DB network. If leaving the sidings without catenary would be prototypical, then that is all to the good, as it makes things cheaper, and I don't want the layout to fall victim to HS2 style cost overruns.

Your argument makes a lot of sense, but The Corridor was one of the most prestigious Anglo Scottish expresses, that left Euston at 2pm. And that doesn't fit your theory very well, unless the LNWR made a big thing of that train in order to encourage passengers to use what would otherwise be an underused service. I still await a convincing explanation of the need for long infrequent trains from Euston after Grouping.

Yes, I am a bit sceptical of the "too many freight trains" argument. The section of the line at Ellistown is double tracked, not sure if it is all the way to Leicester. I've lived in area for about 8 years, and only seen a train on the line once.

Network Rail have announced they will not reopen the Leicester to Coalville section of the line to passengers, they are only considering the section from Coalville to Burton. In addition to the problems connecting to the MML at Leicester, apparently there is too much freight traffic between Coalville and Leicester.

The USA has more generous loading gauges than we have in the UK or the rest of Europe. Union Pacific's FEF class 4-8-4 was a large express loco, with just two cylinders. So it seems to me that the main reason for going beyond two cylinders was staying within the loading gauge, rather than achieving smoothness.

As the OP I apologize for posing the question ambiguously. I should have added the proviso "per set of coupled wheels".

Peppercorn's Pacific's came after Bulleid's, and had 3 cylinders, but one might not consider them entirely new designs.

That is quite something, but the Wikipedia entry suggests it wasn't a great success. I wonder if Chapelon came up with his "three's enough" maxim after seeing this loco in action?

When reading about steam locos, I have got the impression that 3 or 4 cylinders are better than 2, at least for express locos. The argument seems to be that the extra cylinders make things smoother. Also having more than 2 cylinders means the outside cylinders can be smaller, to fit the loading gauge. But this comes at the cost of complexity, which I suppose is why Riddles designed the Britannnias with just 2 cylinders. What I've never really understood is why some designers opted for 3 and others for 4. And why never more than 4?