Flying Pig

Don't say that - Peco are taking their time as it is. Anyway, judging by the mess some of the livelier grades have made of its bar, that Hybar is a complete amateur when it comes to keeping coal in order and isn't likely to last long in the job.

Hattons are listing the crane at £17 "subject to confirmation" which sounds too good to be true. However even if the eventual price is considerably more, it should still pick up plenty of sales from folk for whom the Bachmann model was too dear or just too big - a very canny move IMO. The GER van is a nice choice - long-lived and slightly left-field, really more appropriate for a small range like Oxford than trying to cover the whole set of LMS merchandise stock. I think the NER hopper is an obvious Hornby target once they recover from centenary madness.

The East Coast plan you linked above has a tmd, a freight yard and potentially a set of carriage sidings too, as well as a bay for a DMU to hide in. A layout set up like this doesn't need a fiddle yard as you can start and terminate trains and swap engines all day completely within the context of the layout.

They would be loaded onto slices of bread in the pilchard wagon (using the 15t crane of course) and marshalled into special trains, often J26-hauled. The van contained condiments (mustard usually in ex-GER. vehicles) and occasionally Worcestershire sauce (a class A liquid) would added en-route. By the time the ensemble reached its destination it would be carrying tasty hot pilchards on toast. Another 15t crane would be needed to unload. It's a solid line-up from Oxford, though a brake van from another manufacturer will be needed to complete the train.

You might find @The Stationmaster's posts about large engine shenanigans on the Western Region of interest:

If my maths is right that's 1:33, so about the same as my estimate. There's a recent thread on gradients which may help you:

At a rough estimate, the first plan is going to need around 1 in 30 to 1 in 35 to give a 30mm rise to the bridge at the top of the gradient. Changes in gradient will need to be smooth, especially at the top where there is also a change in curvature, to avoid derailment and unwanted uncoupling.

You won't be buying the all new Fowler 7F with working inside motion and axlebox glow then?

I think I like this one best - as you say, it's simple but it can accommodate a variety of trains and realistic movements. One thing to note though is that the platforms are very short, only about two coaches and a loco. Can you try laying it out in Anyrail to see how much longer you can make them in your space? The loco depot bottom right needs a longer reception line, or a headshunt, so that locos can move about it without fouling the main line. A crossover between the main lines next to it would be useful.

440mm is too narrow even for a first radius loop in N. While tighter curves can be achieved with flexitrack, they need great care in laying and not all models will run over them. End to end is a safer bet here, as Aire Head noted above, unless the width can be increased somewhat.

Nice pictures. I concede now that I was wrong - there are actually 7 Poirots and a Captain Hastings hidden on Aerodrome park, but you have to look very hard indeed for them. I still maintain that the females holding the lamps were not meant to represent Miss Lemon.

I assume it has all mod cons under the skin?

A New Zealand version of the Model T railcar features at the start of this video, with another brief demo of the controls near the end at about 25min.

You really haven't read the thread have you Meanwhile I would like to see the 300,000,000th anniversary of coal deposition in the UK marked properly (there will of course be some dispute here about the precise date). My preference would be for the welded version of the 21t hopper which afaik hasn't been available rtr before. Hornby's recent form on steam era mineral hoppers is excellent and they seem to have got through the big four brake vans now. Also for pity's sake stop messing around and do an LMS driving trailer from your brake third. It isn't our fault you've let Bachmann do all the suitable locos.

I think Coachmann converted the Bachmann model to the Belpaire version and some remnants of the thread may still be around. It involved raising the boiler pitch slightly as well as extending the bunker, for which he used privately etched parts.

Doesn't "blocking back outside home" allow for just this kind of manoeuvre? As you say, it could be avoided by using the siding to run round.

Here's my go at the unmodified track layout, the main difference from Jim's being a signal at the up end of platform 2, which is required whether trains run through or only terminate at this platform. In addition, there is a limit of shunt board to allow shunts back behind the bracket on the up line when: this could be for a loco running round, or for a branch train train that has terminated in platform 1 to be shunted to platform 2 for it's return journey. Up stopping goods draw forward to the up advanced starter (rightmost signal) and set back into the yard - no wrong line running outside station limits needed. There should probably be calling on arms on the up line bracket to allow a loco to set back onto its train when running round (a movement into an occupied platform), but as the layout is not 100% prototypical anyway it doesn't hurt to keep things simple. It does mean all the signals are simple types that should be fairly easily available. I'd still recommend that the spur on the up side is used as a goods siding for added play value. There's really no need for a station pilot to cope with the odd terminating branch train.

Here's my go at signalling that configuration. I've left in your "shunting spur" off the up line as a siding of some kind to increase operating potential. Trains are assumed to approach and depart station limits "right line" which greatly reduces the number of signals. Discs are provided for shunting moves - the experts can argue over whether multiple discs should be provided where there is more than one route, but I believe that the ER was frugal in that respect. Note that the down advanced starter (leftmost signal) has been included in error on this diagram and should be deleted. However, if you are still at the planning stage, I think that the following is a more likely layout for a smallish station such as yours. It avoids facing points on the main line and goods trains enter the yard by drawing up to the advanced starter and reversing, which was very common practice. If you browse the signal plans on signalbox.org or the Signalling Record Society you will find many similar layouts. Finally, a development of the above catering for terminating trains off the branch line, which arrive and run round in platform 1 before shunting into the bay platform 3 to await departure, again a common practice.

This is rather confused. H0, 1:120 TT and 1:160 N are also accurate scale/gauge combinations. Proto 87 and FS160 (is there a finescale 1:120 standard?) have nothing to do with correcting the gauge and are concerned with finescale wheels and track that would not be appropriate for commercial products. Rtr models in 1:64 would be subject to the same compromises as all other scales.

You want to be careful. Word in the Monkey and Dog Takeaway is that most of the Rivet Police are members of the Finescale Brigade on the side and are not above slipping a packet of rail joiners into your morning porridge if you so much as stand with your feet too close together.

I don't want to get rid of you, but you might find a query in the Pre-Grouping subforum attracts more informed responses.

I do prefer sidings "right way round" as in your last diagram but I would move the shed and the yard points out of the loop to the right as your sidings are a bit short. The short bit of track currently at about the 3' 6" mark would do fine to cross the board joint. But this is all very generic 20th Century blt stuff and I have no idea what the period features for 1890 would be. Very early stations often looked quite different.

Plain sidings would probably be better than the two additional platforms, both from a visual and an operational point of view (more shunting). I don't think you have to have dedicated parcels platforms as it would be quite normal to handle mail and parcels in any platform.

You could probably manage one additional siding off the headshunt without cramping the scene too badly.

The real problem with the Hornby 4-wheelers as bashing material is the weird beading. There are more convincing starting points knocking around: