Flying Pig

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.

A map of BR(NE). There are actually rather few branch termini. British Railways - North Eastern Region - Yorkshire area railway map - 1959 by mikeyashworth, on Flickr

Brush 2s (later Class 31) weren't allocated to the former North Eastern Region until after 1970 so wouldn't be likely except in the very south of Yorkshire. A 24 or 25 would be better. Looking at some photos would be useful as there may also be other possibilities; David Heys collection would probably be a good place to start. From my own brief look at the Railcar site, I think the original Derby Lightweights and their descendants the Class 108s are probably the best bet amongst rtr units. You don't actually need the single slip as the double slip forms the crossover, so a plain diamond would be better. The railways didn't provide more S&C (switches and crossings) than absolutely necessary, particularly in quiet locations like this, as it cost money both to build and more importantly to maintain (especially if passenger trains were running over it). For the same reason, I'm unconvinced by the double slip as the trap could more economically be provided by a couple of catch points without the short siding. This arrangement was fairly common but unfortunately isn't available rtr in model form; it can pretty easily be mocked up in non-working form however.

A bit behind the times, but here's the original scheme, which I still prefer, with a few tweaks. The bay is gone and the siding pointwork is concentrated on the middle board, which allows for two sidings in the yard without looking unduly cramped, as well as lengthening the loop slightly. I've forgotten to move the yard points up against the diamond to keep them off the board join but that shouldn't be a problem.

They can be huge in real life but I think such a structure would dominate the scene excessively. Two smaller buildings might make a more pleasing composition and the two bridge arrangement would be very attractive. It also makes for two distinct spots for shunting and possibly more varied traffic. Again worth mocking up full size to see what you think. I still think your coal siding is shorter than it might be.

Here's my contribution, along the lines of less is more. I've rearranged the throat a bit to avoid the curved point which is imo a little tight on its inside radius, but the length of the runround is very close to your previous version. Having drawn it I would say that this is quite short and you might want to play with the plan at full size to see how the resulting trains look. I would put a loading bank and small goods shed on the line adjacent to the loco release, though there would be little to no traffic passing through by your period. In the event that there were wagons in the siding, you could still shunt the mill as shown by the arrow. There's a single general goods/coal siding as I think this fits the space you have better. I haven't provided a dedicated oil siding, so you may have to shunt everything else to get at the tanks, but I believe this sort of thing wasn't uncommon on the prototype and I don't know where you'd put a siding without cramping the plan. I've kept the 'bay', though I don't know what it would be used for. I can imagine it having previously been carriage dock and cattle, but by your period it would probably just be a spare road.

We're not having a good thread vis-a-vis reading the OP. Perhaps F2Andy should do us all a favour and avoid the confusion by modelling the transition era in 00 like a normal person

North's distant 10 would be slotted to act also as an outer up distant for South. South's inner distant should be slotted under North's up main home 9, as indicated by beast66606 above, but there is insufficient braking distance from this signal to South's home, hence the need for an additional distant signal. The same applies in the down direction: North's down inner distant should be slotted under South's down main home 3, again as beast66606 indicated. The distant arms will be clear only when the corresponding stop arms at both boxes are clear to allow a non-stop run through. They are not required for trains taking diverging routes as these will always be controlled by holding the relevant home signal at danger and will never run through under clear signals. It's much simpler once North is abolished as the whole station becomes "station limits" and only the outer distants are required.

Like this with apologies for the crude sketch. The goods shed is shown rather larger than I intended, but as noted above the style does depend on the originating company.

I'm afraid the best I can do is this page of models - I was thinking of something on the scale of the GWR store illustrated, so as not to hide the station building too much. Most photos online seem to be of the larger designs with a siding under cover. However, for more general information on goods sheds I stumbled across some useful free resources - see this thread.

I don't know whether this pair of publications fom Historic England have been linked before - both available as free pdf downloads Railway Goods Sheds and Warehouses (24 pages, 2.27MB) The Railway Goods Shed and Warehouse in England (143 pages, 14.24MB) From the description of the shorter book:

Andrew has a knack of making layouts look good, but in your case I'm afraid its all ended up looking a little cramped and chaotic around the sidings. I don't think you have room for the loco shed and the headshunt, but fortunately the headshunt really isn't needed, so I'd remove that for a start. I think I might widen the loading bank and put a small lock-up goods shed on it instead of the large one on the left. The weighbridge will have to move but you can relocate the yard entrance where there's more room. Then perhaps put a single slip at the corner of the loop and run a siding along the front of the layout, butting up against the loading bank, with just a single kickback siding in front of the loco shed off the other end of the slip? On a practical note, you have drawn a four foot wide baseboard on the left which is going to make reaching the track at the rear nigh on impossible, so pruning the kickback yard might allow a more accessible arrangement.

The Darlington to Newcastle section has the advantage of being mostly double track, and abounding in curves and civil engineering, which may be easier for the OP to represent satisfactorily in the space available than the very open straight racing stretch north of York. Here are some photos of Bishops Wearburn, an N gauge layout set in that area, showing the sort of effect that can be achieved.

Many thanks, Grahame! They give an excellent overview of the layout.

That sounded quite low for rolling resistance on the flat, but when I had a play with the numbers, based on Wardale's calculations here (5AT site chosen as it causes satisfying amounts of rage on RMweb, rather than for any technical reason), I got pretty much the same for a Duchess with 500 tons: I am sorry ever to have doubted you.

Isn't that an early rail grinder? Probably looked interesting in yellow.