Flying Pig

I think the siding does need to continue offscene as it will look too short otherwise. It doesn't need to be a loop of course and other view blockers are available.

It's not the notional correct outbound track - it is the correct outbound track, because that's how the line is signalled. It would certainly be more efficient to reach it directly from platform 2, but that isn't permissible without a signal and facing point lock that aren't present on the original plan B2 that TA posted, so the less efficient shunt is necessary. This is perfectly railwaylike and the prototype would have provided the extra equipment only if the potential of delay to other traffic due to the shunt justified the cost. If we pretend it didn't, we get the extra moves. To me this is all part of the fun of reproducing the operation of the prototype as it was, warts and all. I agree that layouts where the fiddle yard impinges on local movements require more suspension of disbelief, but that's the price to pay for modelling railway features bigger than we actually have room for. My main concern about the plan in that regard is that shunting the goods yard will prove to be fiddly and less satisfying than the fan of sidings at a typical model BLT, but that's a matter of taste and for the OP to decide.

Ok, that sounds sensible. If you place a station building at the left hand end of the layout as a view blocker, you can omit the left hand crossover and use a short traverser or cassette for loco release, hidden behind the building. Trains can then run right up to the end of the layout on arrival and a short passenger train shouldn't look too cramped in the 4 feet of platform you've shown as actually modelled. I'd guess that passenger trains will need to shunt to depart, as the layout isn't locked and signalled for departures from the lower platform. You could always resignal, but it would only reduce the play value. There won't be that many trains - just the branch service, or a reduced passenger service to a the last station on a route that has been truncated for some reason. I think the latter scenario is better as it gives a reason for the goods to reverse too and not run through to the next large yard. Below are a couple of ideas based on your plan B2. The station building is a view blocker on the left and on the right, the end of a large goods shed on a loop is used. Both sidings continue into the fiddle yard - I don't know how or if that will play with your need to turn through 90°. I've used large radius points on the Anyrail plan, so the new bullhead range would fit. I've also extended the trap siding to form a short dock of some sort - quite a common Midland feature. To be honest, while this would probably make a convincing scene as a slice of a wayside station, it provides only about the same operating potential as a simple branch terminus and probably less conveniently.

Sorry , should have looked at your (perfectly clear BTW) Anyrail plans. To be honest I think you will struggle to fit a double track passing station and goods yard into the space you have. Even if you treat Plan B2 as a bitsa and continue the sidings offscene, the platform is very short (and I think crossover 7 should probably be in advance - i.e. to the left - of starter 13, which consumes even more length) and the result will probably look cramped.

If you move crossover 8 on plan B2 to the right and use a single slip to connect to the dead end of the siding as in plan B1, you'll have achieved peak Midland wayside station.

A TPE Class 68 passed Strensall light mid-morning, heading towards Scarborough.

Agreed, but I still prefer the arrangement with the loop around the exchange siding. Placing it within the factory leaves you with only one and a bit usable sidings rather than the full three.

We had a whole thread on spikey's private sidings. It's quite useful to see them in context.

If you could bear to model just part of the depot, you could concentrate on coal, ash, water, turning and short term stabling, where most of the movement us concentrated, and include the more static sheds and sidings only as your space allowed. Loco sheds cut off to one or two loco lengths can still effectively suggest a much bigger building and also make good view blocks for lines disappearing behind.

I like this - the compromise in the coal yard helps considerably and single slip access to sidings is a signature Midland feature so sits quite happily in the scene. I think the top coal siding is now the only one that needs to be trapped as none of the others impinge on a passenger line. My only but is the goods shed which simply would not work as drawn. A goods shed is quite a wide building which needs to cover at least the siding and a platform for loading and unloading, as well as road access (which may be outside under an awning). There is however a workaround if the sidings are placed at the back of the layout, as the goods shed siding could be placed against the backscene with the shed modelled in part relief, road access on the hidden side.

I have the same feeling, though it works well in a freight-only, particularly industrial, context. For the kind of mixed operation you describe, the classic loop and two or three sidings (per 'Mutton') would seem to fit the bill admirably. If you want a busier feel, the same sort of thing in an urban context might justify engines up to Crab or 2-6-4t size if you have these and want to run them - Ilkeston Town would be a Midland example.

I agree about the coal yard. To me, the general goods yard also looks like it needs to lose a siding - I can't see you fitting a goods shed, with necessary road access, in that space. Even with more width, you might struggle to fan the sidings out enough in the length you have.

I did a bit of messing around in a spreadsheet last night and guesstimated that a Class 20 with slug could develop that 84,000lb TE up to about 3mph*. Then I realised that it couldn't, as the main generator would probably not be able to supply sufficient current, or would melt in the attempt. Even EE equipment is mortal, shocking as that may seem. *continuous tractive effort of 25,000lb at 11mph (Wikipedia ) equates to about 730hp at the rail - balance other values for TE and speed to give about the same power. Plenty of other possible factors ignored here - as I say, guesstimated.

But the Deltic was a beautiful freak. A loco with a conventional EE-type engine in the 3000hp class looks like a Class 56.

I think the goods yard on the middle board looks a little cramped too. I'd have just a single overbridge and leave out the left hand crossover, using the traverser to complete the runround. This would give you a few more inches to share between the traverser and the station section, in return for not much loss of scenic interest. You might still have to reduce the goods yard to two sidings though. BTW how was the coal yard worked if the sidings were surrounded by embankments?

That looks very like Powell's diagram (except it should have Ivatt not Riddles details and styling). If you feel like counting pixels, the coupled wheel spacing should be 6' 1" between each set. Your front truck is a bit shorter - it's 9' between front coupled axle and pony axle in the diagram. BTW the same book (Living with London Midland Locomotives) also proposes a light 2-8-2 based on the Clan boiler with 5' 3" drivers and axle loads around 15.5tons for weight limited routes along with numerous other what-if classes.

Close to A. J. Powell's heavy 2-8-2 which he rated at 7P9F, 36,000lbs using a Britannia boiler and slightly modified cylinders. Estimated axle weight of just 17 tons and 5' 6" coupled wheels to reuse parts from the Stanier 2-6-0s.

Like it - Osney Mead perhaps, a fairly cramped site south of the Botley Road? The main line would presumably run very close to the present route of the A34 and the station buildings would no doubt have a suitably Gothic revival appearance (though come to think of it this pretty much the default for early GWR).

It was obvious someone had to tackle the TPE sets - compact loco-powered express trains ideal for a model railway. Good to see the project is in reliable hands.

Your single lead junction needs to be a plain point and a facing crossover to match prototype practice. So actually, a double junction would be more compact after all! Apologies for the misinformation. As regards the fiddle yard, I think you may have to sacrifice one of the other elements to fit it in a more convenient position.

A single lead junction to the branch, with the main line remaining double at least until out of sight would probably look better, unless you have space for a double junction. I also think you may need a bit more length than you have shown for the junction plus disused station platforms. Is the staging yard conveniently placed if you have to do any fiddling?

That would indeed be very interesting. The subject has been discussed on the Peco Bullhead thread starting with this post

Windsor and Eton on the SRS site. The 1958 plan could, I think, be simplified for sectional track by making the outer crossover facing instead of trailing and reducing the scissors to a plain trailing crossover at the entrance to platforms 3 and 4, without losing any parallel moves. The arrangement of the slip in the throat reminds me of Borchester Market (another excellent plan for a model terminus). The 1963 layout with four platforms feeding a single line, loco release crossovers and colour light signalling seems to have been designed for modellers.

You do understand that you live in a different country from most posters in this thread and that the law and practice you're familiar with (and the examples you cite) may well not apply in the UK?

And also here.