moawkwrd

Looks great side-on like that! I've held off on getting mine - preordered the HST set instead since it's a no brainer to get an extra coach for free, and off on holiday for 2 weeks in a week or so. Planning to order my guards, buffet and first coach when I return ready to make up a 5 coach set.

Not sure why you've repeated the same thing twice over the last few pages? People have already responded effectively to your points. Your last point is completely irrelevant to the thread.

From my own experience and others on the Hornby forum, their current setup is pretty awful and could be dramatically improved. It's not unheard of for people to receive an individual parcel per item of preordered stock, with all of the admin and notifications that entails (and the poor DPD person having to carry them all for delivery) rather than just bulking preorders into a single package like most others would do. Then the rigmarole of contacting Hornby to get a refund on the individual postage charges entails... all of which takes up resources and costs money. Recently I wanted to return a preordered item within the timelimit of the distance selling regs... it took almost 3 weeks to get an RMA number from Hornby customer services (as required for returns) and the refund took another week to arrive. When almost everyone else makes the above process so easy, it's a shock that they're still set up like it's the early 2000s. It would be an easy win to solve since nobody else seems to have this problem and Hornby are hardly unique in their requirements. Whoever they've outsourced it to is doing an awful job and costing time, money and effort all around. Binning them could only be an improvement.

Surely the psychological bit is the fact UK railway modellers have been working with largely incorrect scales for more than half a century and now something more correct has turned up.

Thinking about signalling for the layout - Would I be right in thinking that only a home signal on the left and a junction signal at the end of the platform are really required (for anti-clockwise running) for this plan? I assume the rest of the points would have ground signals instead for shunting moves, all controlled by the signal box since it has a good view of everything from the bottom right. For clockwise, would it be plausible that the home signal for the main line is before the tunnel rather than immediately after it before the point? Then another home can sit on the left hand side opposite the end of the platform. For the branchline 1 or 2 home signals and ground signals seems sufficient. I know on the original Bredon there was quite a lot of signals in both directions which looked a bit too busy to me.

Couldn't see a way to like your reply - but thank you, this is super useful. Operationally that's what I was thinking as well - I'm going to stick a small building by that siding too so there's a reason for freight to be dropped off their as well as moving back to the yard. Arguably curved points on the bends would work cleaner for this but at least it means there's an excuse for the J50 to run through the station then onto the outer line and then back in again to access the yard so lots to keep me busy when running trains. Re DMUs, that's my reasoning for having another platformed siding of at least 2 straights so that eventually a 2 car DMU can be accommodated there, as well as for goods trains dropping off platformed freight, parcels etc before moving to the other sidings.

Yes but they wouldn’t be seen together so it’s irrelevant and running a 125 alongside A3/A4s makes just as much sense. Having steam eastern locos isn’t a reason to then only have diesel or electric eastern locos unless they’re of the same era surely.

How does the 225 fit in any better than the 125 with the current and upcoming eastern steam locos?

Just in the sense of balance, the static side-on Hornby pictures of the OO J50 also do not show a front coupling. This isn’t a TT specific issue, unless it was mentioned in the text that accompanied it.

This layout is looking great! Wish I had that kind of space to do TT:120 Justice.

Yes mine three. Could be the back to backs too wide?

People say this a lot but I don't think it really holds up to scrutiny... he says as a 30 year old who finds anything past 1980-ish dull and boring, with current day at the worst end of that spectrum. If TT:120 had only been current/modern stuff I never would've got back into the hobby.

Hi Phil, Thank you - this is super helpful I took the station/sidings layout straight from the Peco plan book but I see what you're saying about the bay platform being... too much. That's an easy fix I think - something like this instead? Yes, as @DavidB-AU says this is following the original idea of Bredon as a junction station between a single track mainline and a branch line. I quite like the idea so wouldn't want to lose it unless it's completely compromising the layout. In place of the bottom left siding - I could add a staggered platform there possibly instead. That'd make use of the footbridge I have from the first attempt. I do have some hardboard left over - I think that would be sturdy enough with some reinforcement below and cork above to add a bit of extra width... I could fit a few extra inches at least but then I might be able to fit in 3rd radius instead if I do that. Hmm, will think on that. Re the panelling and fiddleyard - I'll be repurposing most of that for the scenic break. I intend for the fiddleyard to be facing me with the scenic area facing away. I'm hoping in future I can move the layout to somewhere it can sit narrow side on so both long sides are accessible.

Thanks again If I push out the track as far as I think it can go whilst still allowing for the tunnel mouths on either side, I think I could fit another set of points in the fiddleyard to allow anti-clockwise running. It does mean that siding is a bit shorter though so reduces my max train length. There's also space for another point to add a spur on the inner fiddleyard siding. Perhaps wouldn't require that straight away but could be added later. Sadly yes, I think with the above I'm already at the limits of my space. I had to get rid of the extra loop there from the original Bredon - I also wasn't totally sure on the purpose of that. I'll have a play around this weekend with the latest plan and the single line one as see how I feel about the twin track on the right. I take your point, but I feel like the original single track is perhaps too... symmetrical in the way a train set is if that makes sense? I like how Bredon appears to be a single track mainline joining with a branch line, or twin going down to single - it makes it feel like the station serves a purpose along a route, so taking that feature away I think results in a layout with less interest, even if it means there are operational impacts as a result.

Thank you - I had similar thoughts yesterday after my last post when thinking about the track movements that could take place. Can I clarify - do you mean the original Bredon plan or one of mine? If mine - I think I can use both plans like so: Does that work better operationally do you think? Might have to adapt a couple of the short straights for it to fit but that's no issue. I think the main fiddleyard sidings are just about the same length - 4 and a bit 16.6cm straights so could accommodate 3 coaches and an engine depending on the rolling stock with effectively a dead third siding in the top left for others locos etc. Could always replace the third radius curves with extra points if I needed more.