Flying Pig

Indeed. It is possible to feel anger towards these people and to condemn their actions without completely dehumanising them. RMweb is the only site I know where lack of compassion is worn as a badge of honour by otherwise respectable posters* and I find it disturbing. Some of you need to take a hard look at yourselves. * it's easy to find similar attitudes on the likes of 4chan, but I expect better from RMwebbers.

I'm all for lifelike operation. Decoders for modern units could add a SIM and phone a friend to bring over a rescue loco, thus ensuring a realistic delay before resumption of normal service. Or perhaps a little hook could be deployed from the panto of your 91 to tear down the overhead, hours of fun ensuing.

Welcome to the forum Simonsteel. I'd suggest you change the title of the thread, as it implies an announcement that hasn't been made (clicking or tappint "edit" below your initial post will allow you to do this).

A pity - I think having the sea at the back would have worked well (see for example Gordon Gravett's Arun Quay).

Continuing on the branch terminus theme, perhaps a bitsa like Sandpiper's Ullapool? Edit: it would work with pretty much the same track plan as The Mill, though you'd need a longer sector plate to cope with a useful number of wagons (passenger trains wouldn't need to have more than one coach visible). Again, a simple plug in fiddle yard would be a great help.

Possibly, although flat earthers are such an extreme example of Poe's law that it's very hard to tell whether any of them is being serious. In case they are (caution - bad language): https://youtu.be/azmb2TIu1j8 I particularly like Question 4.

Alternatively, do have room to add a fiddle yard on when the layout is set up to operate? It could be stored upside down on top of the drawer and would take up very little more height. Even 30" of train would be enough and then you could build a small branch terminus for your 0-6-0s.

Some other layouts by RMwebbers that could be adapted to your space are The Mill and Canute Road Quay, both of which owe something to the classic "Timesaver" shunting puzzle. But note that all these plans are principally shunting layouts and your J36 and 812 are really going to be too big for them - for a start making the headshunts big enough for an 0-6-0 will eat up a lot of length. They are much better suited to a small shunting tank, of which we seem to have something of a glut at the moment (though a Barclay is the obvious Scottish choice).

Try here? There's a picture of Seaton on Ebay that seems to show a the building right behind the buffer stops: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Seaton-Railway-Station-Photo-Colyford-Colyton-and-Seaton-Junction-Line-18/262214779787

I have found Paul Shannon's "Rail Freight Since 1968" series quite useful for this kind of information, though they do tend to leave me wanting more. They seem to be mostly out of print now, but worth picking up second hand if they can be found at a sensible price.

The Wolverton Royal Train stock is second only to the Wainright D on my "I can't believe they haven't done that" list.

Type Ketton into the search field top right. If the search range in the grey box does not say Forum index, click on the grey box and select from the drop-down menu. The layout thread is number eight in my search results. Not so terrible as all that.

I know it's a long way from Cardiff to Darlington and there are houses in between, but Nellie is nothing like an NER loco. More like something neither of the Drummonds built, possibly not for either of the South Westerns. Discussed at length in other threads. Anyway, in my day, it was proper Triang-Hornby with Magnadhesion and 1 in 15 was no problem. The locos never slipped back because the loose track pins adhering to the chassis would dig into the sleepers and prevent it.

As the later pre-grouping designs were only 20-25 years old when withdrawals were interrupted by the war, there would be quite a lot of pre-grouping carriages in service up to 1950. Even with post-war replacement programmes, pre-grouping carriages are frequent in photos from the first half of the 1950s.

No. The gauge excess is greater and 00 wheels are relatively narrower so they'll tend to drop between the rails on P4 plain track.

Recent N gauge stock will run on 2FS plain track. The gauge of 2FS is slightly larger than N, but N gauge wheels are wide enough to cope with the excess. N gauge stock will not run through 2FS points and crossings.

Searching for shed allocations found these pages http://shedbashuk.blogspot.com/2013/04/ayr-1959-1966.html http://shedbashuk.blogspot.com/2013/04/hurlford-1959-1966.html One class characteristic of the area was the LMS 2P. From the above links they seem to have been just clinging on in 1960, but out of service by 1962 so if you're being strict about your period they aren't for you.

Obviously you should find someone of similar build to Windy, get them to dress up appropriately (google "Camberwick Green cosplay") and then have them scanned by Modelu. If they were to change their name by deed poll to Windy Miller beforehand that should forestall any copyright suit.

Just received my triples of plain black and UM, well packed and in good condition. A small point - the blue-ended UM tanks appear to be on the original suspension and not revised as advertised. Can someone at Revolution check please?

By having two signalboxes you have created a block section through the platforms (from s8 to s9 on the down line and from s5 - which needs a stop arm above the distant - to s6 on the up). This is not absolutely wrong but it does make life more complicated. The situation would be much simplified by abolishing the left hand box and bringing all points and signals under control of the remaining one, and I think this would likely have been done by the BR period. None of the distant arms shown on the plan would then be required. I think you could also get rid of stop arms at s5 and s9, as I don't see what operationally flexibility they add. S11 is an advanced starter, but unless you are shunting long trains into the loco yard, it could be brought much closer to the box. As noted above, shunting signals are required to control movements in and out of the yards and over crossovers. The precise type and placing of these are quite dependent on time and place so I'll leave the details to the experts. I'd prefer to see a single slip on the goods loop - it would be worked more as a double ended siding in real life and no facing access would be needed.

British Thomson-Houston, the main contractor for the Class 15

It's a couple of years since I did the calculation, but as far as I recall, BS113a flat bottom works out at almost exactly code 83 in 4mm scale. Code 75 is therefore closer to scale than code 100, though this doesn't mean it will look better. Code 75 is correct for 95lb per yard bullhead rail, but as David says, the chairs hold bullhead well above the sleeper and the ballasting in the pictures posted by the OP accentuates the gap under the rail.

A couple of days ago RevolutioN emailed to say that the main batch of Class B tanks had arrived and been divvied up between Ben and Mike for shipping. Then two separate emails today informing me that my orders for Class B tanks are complete, which I presume means they're winging their way to me at fully fitted speeds. Probably I'd have got them even sooner if I'd ordered in block loads, but waiting for the trip to arrive will give me a few days to build a suitable layout...

Not just this country. A company I worked for delivered some goods directly to a customer of its German distributor and managed to send the invoice to the customer too, showing the wholesale price. The ensuing row could be heard clearly from southern England: apparently some German customers don't believe in profit margins either.

This would be an alternative to messing with the Triang cattle van underframe. Trouble is, it's 25 times the value of the body plus wheels. https://railsofsheffield.com/products/23403/parkside-dundas-pa10-oo-gauge-br-12-unfitted-underframe-kit