Flying Pig

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:

Slips are being discussed on the Peco subforum. I haven't heard of plans for a three way.

I've been trying to resist the temptation to suggest more sidings for shunting parcels stock as it just seemed greedy, but if there's prototypical justification then I'm not going to bother any more. The variety of parcels vehicles still in service during scottystitch's stated era is very appealing though sadly I think he's just a year or two early to be packing Platform 7 with BRUTEs.

Do you have a signal diagram that shows how the points were worked, or can you deduce it from the photos? As you've drawn the layout it looks, like there was a set of points where the sidings diverged from the main line, followed by a second set where the two sidings diverged. Perhaps the second set was originally worked from the box (three dolls) and later simplified to a hand lever with the signal reduced to two dolls: platform road and (either) siding?

Brief discussion of similar roofs on this thread:

May I suggest a slight rearrangement of the lines near the double slip, which I think will give a neater appearance, closer to what bigP sketched? I've used plain left and right points as indicated by L or R which means the lines marked with a double crosshatch should end up parallel, assuming all your pointwork has the same angles. I've also suggested putting the loco spur on the down side where it has a trailing connection and access to all platforms. As currently drawn it's the wrong side of the trailing crossover for a direct run into P1 (not sure whether that matters in your operational scheme). Alternatively you could just move it to the right of the crossover, or even move the crossover, as suggested.

Surely that should be Lightning and Deltic with a 1/32 washing machine for the full 1950s EE experience.

Possibly, but modellers of the UK scene love double slips for their convenience and use them in places the prototype wouldn't because they save space, which is what is likely to drive bullhead sales.

I'm doubtful that the signalling would allow that, as the overlap beyond the "home" signal would be occupied by the train in the platform, which is why I don't think singling would affect operational capacity.

I think the BR line at West Acton could be singled completely without losing any operational interest. This would allow more breathing space at the left hand end, where facilities for the District are rather cramped, and more visual separation between the LU and BR lines at this point.

The LNER got a bit carried away following Mallard's exploits on Stoke Bank and the publicity department approached the National Physical Laboratory with a request that they calculate what an A4 might look like at relativistic speed. The NPL's reply has not survived, but it was clearly not encouraging. Subsequently the LNER found an undergraduate* on the Cambridge express and bribed him with Lyons fruit pies to do the work for them. This appears to be the model he made, so it goes without saying that it is a Rare! item. *unfortunately he was studying Classics and it shows.