Flying Pig

I think it's been said before in this thread, but imo the end dock would work better on the bay, which would then have some purpose. Have you tried putting a medium Y point between the two sidings in the yard and omitting the short 1° curve? I think that would still give the required separation and would be more compact and easier to lay neatly.

That clears up a lot of confusion! Was I the only person looking at the photos and wondering why the 'headshunt' seemed to connect to an up running line without a trap or signal when junctionmad was saying it didn't?

It would make more sense to put the loco shed and sidings next to the station if possible and move the quarry to the end of the branch line. You could even have a passenger service along the branch.

I'll shout - good idea. One point not mentioned so far is that abrupt changes of gradient combined with changes of curvature (which are inevitable with this plan) can cause derailments of longer vehicles due to wheels lifting off the rail. My childhood layout suffered from this and it took me ages to work out what was happening. We got away with all sorts of sins, though, like a 1st radius reverse curve on a (constant) 1 in 20ish that probably shouldn't have worked, largely because we knew no better. We had Magnadhesion in those days of course to get trains up silly slopes.

You don't need that much more width (about 60cm) to accommodate a 2nd/3rd radius double track continuous run in N gauge, with 2m clear between the curves for modelling what you will.

There are a couple of chaps in the Dapol railway workers set that could be used to prod wagons along manually if fitted with a suitable wire handle. Arguably as realistic as manual coupling of three links and better than improbable locomotive moves.

The overbridge and its embankment are unnecessary as suitably placed gasworks buildings will hide the exit from the operator's viewpoint. There's 4 feet clear in the runround, which is longer than most of the fiddle yard roads so you could shorten the loop without compromising operation.

Or they could be a standard item - the top of the window is a simple arc that doesn't quite match the shape of the N7 cab and the lower edge would fit a much larger boiler. I wonder if Hornby would sell the holes in their L1 spectacle plate as a spare? Weybourne Yard Pt2 by Andrew Southwell, on Flickr

Are the cab front spectacles quite right on the round-top model? Shouldn't the lower edge follow the curve of the firebox? These look unchanged from the belpaire version.

As I recall, the layout is meant to be set in the 1960s by which time a lot of general goods had been lost, so limited traffic to the railway sidings would be quite plausible and Nearholmer's idea of an abandoned siding coming off the front of the layout is a good one. I think you need to go easy on the internal railway system as it would be easy to overpower the layout. It also needs to be in proportion to the number of wagons your exchange sidings can handle.

Yes, but the wagons wouldn't have been repainted since before 1940 so would be looking very worn indeed by the late 50s (the models on this page give an idea of their probable condition). Characterful in their way but possibly not what you were after.

The Q1 cab would be bang on trend and would match the profile of the Bulleid tender. Perhaps something similar could be carved from the Dapol B of B kit? I think for the post-war period a simple all-welded boiler would be fine (unless they decided to air-smooth the thing). It does need a proper cylindrical smokebox on a saddle, though, rather than the D-shaped Schools smokebox which is bit antique by this time. All in all it's a really nice what-if and with everything welded might be lighter than it appears, but I think it would struggle to come in at a lower axle loading than a 4MT. Perhaps even Bulleid would see sense and drive the poppet valves with bevel gears.

Me neither - I was just referring to this (bad idea as it turns out):

It looks very much like what's needed here is a coupling moulded with integral NEM fitting, saving the length of the socket entirely. A standard socket could easily be substituted by those wishing to use alternative couplings.

Estimez le poids du Deltic...

Check out this thread about two doors down for some approaches to point control and switching, some of them very simple and inexpensive.

I have a vision of ancient tonsured* fellows, secreted in monastic cells in the west of Ireland who have been practising their craft since the days of St Patrick. They have certainly excelled in this instance. Agree about Andy's photos too: they bring out the character of the model superbly. *Celtic tonsure of course.

I doubt the post war GDP would have run to preserving Warspite given the condition she was in by the end of her service. She should have been towed out into the Western Approaches in heavy weather and allowed to sink as she apparently tried to on her way to the scrapyard.

The yard would have been laid out when the line was built in the 19th century in the hope of handling just about everything that was produced or consumed locally. In most areas that would include a lot of domestic coal, but that might have been supplied directly from a nearby colliery in your area and not by rail. Livestock in urban areas would have been inward for local slaughter but that traffic declined rapidly after WW2 so a cattle dock is possible but would probably be out of use. Small high value items would travel as parcels and be handled on the passenger platform and this traffic continued well after steam. Most would be carried in the guards van of a passenger train but if there was enough traffic an additional van might be attached to some trains or even a short dedicated parcels train run - still handled in the passenger platform.

The experts will probably correct me but as I understand things, goods wouldn't usually be handled on the same platform as passengers (unless it was parcels travelling in the van of a passenger train). The size of a goods yard depends on the amount of traffic handled, but at the least you probably need one open siding, which can handle both coal and general goods, and one running through a goods shed. As you suggest, both need access for road vehicles - most conveniently provided as a single roadway between the two which really should be wide enough for vehicles to turn round and to back up to the goods shed, but you might have to fudge that a bit. Your platform only needs to serve the passenger side which it means it can be slightly narrower than if it had two faces. It should have a wall or fence along the back.

Maybe, but I'm not sure you have the room - you need to fit in the railway's goods yard between the platform and the exchange sidings.

The runround you've drawn in the goods yard would be unusual and just eats space. Two or three sidings is fine for the yard - see posts from Johnster and others earlier in the thread for what facilities you need. I would add a single exchange siding at the back of the yard for the private line and take a kickback to the left from that, through a gate and onto private territory. To avoid having to run the private loco round, the kickback is best worked as a headshunt, with the shunter always on the left of the wagons. You can either take sidings off the headshunt or, possibly better, just sneak a line into the fiddle yard, which would avoid having to couple and uncouple wagons in the middle of the baseboard. This is a minimalist approach but doesn't overcrowd your scene and still gives your industrial loco(s) a run. Rough sketch below.

Call it a Derby Type 2 - no-one will notice the difference.

Yes they do - thanks.

The A Class is much better looking than its cousins that ran in Britain and would look fantastic in BTC black and silver.