Flying Pig

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.

Did anyone else see this? It looks almost like English at first, but the rest makes no sense at all. Similar posts keep popping up on the thread. Who are these people and how do they come to speak such a baffling tongue?

Do you have a photo of the unit?

For background, this is Maidenhead from the 1989 Quail, which is pretty much as in codek's OP. As an alternative approach to this layout, could the fast and slow lines be taken right round, with their own separate staging loops, eliminating the double junctions which seem to be consuming a lot of space?

Wire in tube operated from a slider switch works fine with Peco points (and is quite economical!). I don't see why it wouldn't work also with Marcway with an omega loop or similar to provide contact pressure. I've never been able to understand what Blue Point and the like are able to add to this beyond local crossing polarity switching, which makes little difference on a small layout, and they seem very bulky and expensive.

A minor typo here: these were LNER locos, not NER.

No. 7 needs only two positions, to work the traps and the main line points together as a crossover and thus control access to the running line. It doesn't work the two siding points as they're worked by handlevers. OP, note the location of the traps at 7 and not between the toe of the three-way and the running line as previously suggested, which would probably still allow runaway vehicles to foul the running line.

Some info about the signalling at Clayton West (ex L&Y under BR(NE region)) in this thread:

Right, the RMwebber was @Pacific231G and the layout was Newford: pics here and he gives some dimensions in here.

If you've a spare afternoon, check the numerous and lengthy Minories threads in this section, as photos have been posted several times by a member who operated the layout for a while.

Main line running is probably out, but a shunting layout in an industrial setting can work in a small space. Have a browse of the Micro Layout Design Gallery and the micros and boxfiles section of this forum. Enigma Engineering is an example of what can be achieved, built to P4 standards and extremely absorbing. If you can step up to small radius Peco Streamline with live frogs it will help the running of the inevitable small locos (and there's never been a better time for rtr industrials), but I appreciate that space is very tight.