Flying Pig

Why do you need a trap for the connection between Goods Reception and the yard? Wouldn't the reception road itself be trapped, points 15 forming the trap at one end, with normal lie towards the yard? You still have the signalling issue for passing points 15 during shunting of course.

That's really nice finishing of track and ballast. I hope the horse and groom weren't injured.

I'm not convinced that the lines needs to exit at the very front of the board (how many traverser roads do you actually need?) so here's another take on this theme. I have placed both siding points outside the crossover and moved the bay turnout outwards a little; this appears to be closer to the prototype layout and IMO results in a more spacious and flowing throat. As regards the headshunt, it could be visually differentiated from the running line by the colour and condition of the track and ballast; you might also find room to plant the home signal between the two. The separation of the two lines as they enter the fiddle yard can easily be adjusted by tweaking the curve on the running line and the position of the Y point.

I tend to agree. While it's a notable feature of the prototype, it will be almost hidden behind the canopy on the model and will be difficult to work. A CCT parked at the end of the bay will give the same operational interest.

In cases like this, it's worth starting with an original latout and working forward. To that end here's how I think the pre-truncation layout might have looked in diagramatic form; I suspect that this was not the station where branch services terminated - that would be further along to the right - which explains the lack of dedicated branch platform. Here's one possible rationalisation of that: the dotted lines show a couple of optional crossovers. I've left out the goods yard, but I agree with Harlequin that it looks very tight in your plan. I also agree that the layout would benefit from some curves in the track and in the scenic treatment as well to avoid having everything parallel to the board edge, which can give a rather lifeless effect.

The photos of Norwich coal concentration depot on page 2 of giz's link show a site crying out to be modelled. More pictures on Railscot.

Possibly, but I think it's in the wrong thread. I don't think we're helping Chuffingell by leading him and his simple 00 gauge Peco layout down a rabbit hole of the fine details of point and signal operating gear. He's not building in P4 and a good impression rather than an exact representation should be what he's aiming for. Not only will that make life easier for him, but a consistent level of detail will always produce the most satisfying result.

I like the tank-derived 2-6-0s, Clive. Give them 5' 3" drivers and you have a 4F replacement long before the Ivatt 4MT came along. They could have been compactified along with the tanks under Fairburn and gone on to be BR Standards. Of course plenty of people apparently didn't want to replace the 4F and these would no doubt be more expensive to build. But then so no doubt was a 2-6-4t compared to a Flatiron.

If you're using small radius points, you may still want to pad out the three points at the left end of the loop with a couple of slivers of straight track. Small points are short at the switch end and don't give full track spacing when connected 'nose to tail' as these are. You could also try using a Y bottom centre of the loop as it might look more natural.

Assuming it is floppy. This suggests it may not be. The pivots must both be loose enough for the bogie to find its own level on the track independently of the rest of the chassis. If for example the rivet holding the arm to the bogie is too tight, this can't happen.

Take supplies and winter clothing.

A shortish thread on 16 tonners.

I confess I'm not clear what scale or era you're thinking of now, but the direction this is going in puts me in mind of Easington Lane, a 1970s era layout which plays with themes of truncation and modernisation and includes a variety of freight and passenger movements.

Signal diagram here shows the signal.

I'm saying nothing.

I'll leave that to the experts.

At Moretonhampstead, the release crossover was actually worked from the box (plan here) which I guess is why the ground signal was too. With a crossover worked from a ground frame, wouldn't the signal also be? If indeed there was a ground signal and not just handsignals.

Only the loco release needs a ground frame. The other points would almost certainly be worked by individual levers next to the point. There was some discussion about (non-working) model ground frames and levers in this thread.

Only the crossover into the loop next to the box would definitely be worked from the box and hence need a rodding run. The loco release crossover (including the shed points) at the other end of the loop might be, but could also be worked by a ground frame - I think this would be released from the box, thus needing a single line of rodding, but others will confirm. All the siding points (except those mentioned above) would be changed by a ground lever adjacent to the point, so no rodding from the box would be needed.

That does show how cramped a site East Brent occupies. I would suggest using a curved point at the outer end of the loop, hard up against the junction to gain as much length as possible. Moving the points mostly out of sight would probably also help to suggest that the station islonger than it really is. I'd also make the entry to the main platform at Berrow straight through, simply to move the platform to the right and gain some space for the goods yard which is very tight as drawn. You could adjust the main line curve to get the angle you want. I like the loop from the bay to the turntable but I wonder how it was worked. I'd be tempted to put the cattle dock on it just to make market days really weird!

As usual it depends. If as I suspect this is going to be a home layout worked with one operator in steam, then it makes little practical difference that a shunt at either station uses the other as a neck or blocks the junction. And as the operator is looking at the station being worked, then provided there's a half decent scenic break between the two it shouldn't be visually intrusive either: the track beyond the starter can be imagined to be the section that should exist between the two stations and it can all be worked in a railwaylike manner with disbelief adquately suspended. The junction could be the most visually tricky aspect of the layout as it's rather too close to the throat at East Brent but the original hides it behind the mill and in the photos East Brent looks quite self-contained.

Probably my irony meter needs its back to backs checking.

Looking at Berrow brought Deneside to mind for me too. The long branch on Deneside would remove the shunting problem at East Brent, though of course it is a bigger layout.

Not completely. The issue isn't recreating Berrow (which is pretty conventional in its actual trackwork), it's how much space you need to do it using a particular track system.

Beautiful work. And in case anyone has forgotten, this is how some of them fit together: Wilbury 1 Wilbury 2