Flying Pig

We do have a bit of a thing about Minories on RMweb and there a lot of threads covering it. They're worth a look as they tend to pull in other similar ideas as well. Here are some good ones I found quickly, but there are plenty more - just search for "Minories"! A couple that actually got built: Minories 1983 (BR blue period) Birmingham Hope St (BR 1965) And the rest http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted (25 pages) http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78492-minories-holborn-viaduct (13 pages) http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131100-is-minories-operationally-satisfying http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131901-minories-steam-or-diesel

The Dapol kit is a BR Standard Class 4 2-6-0 which is quite a different engine from the Stanier design. BR standards seem to be quite popular on RMweb, so if you put that in the thread title you should get some useful answers. Good luck!

DMUs were the default diesel passenger train for the 1970s, despite our near obsession with locomotives, and you could run many a small to medium-sized terminus with almost nothing else. There was actually a slight swing back to loco hauled trains on some secondary services towards the end of the decade and into the 80s as 1st generation DMUs began to wear out, which continued due to problems with newly introduced Sprinters. I think this gives a false impression to people with memories of the late 80s and 90s that the multiple unit revolution began then. It didn't - it happened thirty years earlier (a hundred years earlier on electrified lines). Moral of the story - more multiple units. [/rant] The most common method at larger termini, perhaps because diesels and electrics didn't need servicing between trains as steam had. This looks the wrong way round to me. Usually the loco would set back over release points. Can you cite an example?

Just to add, I'm not getting at the OP. Harlequin is right: practical requirements (there are several) are all that matter.

I'm not sure this is an ideal state of affairs. Many modellers will be left with nagging doubt over whether what they have made is a true fiddle yard. Others will have spent hours at exhibitions, craning their necks and risking osteological damage, in order to see the trains in what turn out on analysis not to have been fiddle yards at all. Surely RMweb can spare twenty or thirty pages of informed debate to settle this issue once and for all and prevent unnecessary physical and existential suffering?

Yes, yes - and you'll be telling us next you sing in the Grumbly Town Choir.

The Railex website doesn't mention the overspill parking, though it has been a feature for several years (and was also available for Scaleforum in 2017). Can someone from the team please clarify so we can plan our journeys? Parking in front of the centre is likely to fill up very rapidly.

I saw a TV programme a number of years ago which pointed out that until modernisation railway embankments represented a relic of unimproved grassland managed largely without chemicals that had mostly disappeared from the wider countryside. Ideally, the flora the should be left to regenerate from the seed bank still in the soil, if this is still viable, so as to peserve local genetic diversity, with planting only where absolutely necessary. What will flourish depends on the subsequent management regime, but shrubs will almost certainly plant themselves.

It isn't Liverpool Street, or even Norwich, so providing an additional loco to release passenger trains seems less likely to me than just running short passenger trains that fit the loop. Most likely, all passenger trains would be multiple units, but if you must have a portion of the boat train, just make it a couple of Mk1s behind a Brush 2 and wave your hands about portions being combined at Marks Tey. Similarly, a BG and a GUV would be perfectly adequate for parcels at such a small place, again behind a Brush 2, and could easily run round in A and shunt to B for handling. For freight, think St Botolphs and run a trip from a nearby larger yard. No more than a few vehicles - you only have a couple of sidings anyway, plus whatever you imagine to be worked akong the way. Type 1 or 2 power, or would the ER have used a 204hp shunter on such a short working?

It sounds as though the axles may be very slightly loose in the bearings, so they're above the designed centreline when running. I believe the recent Hornby 21t hoppers have a similar issue which leads to flanges rubbing on the hopper. Both models no doubt have adequate clearance as designed, but one or more of the factories isn't up to the required tolerances. Glad you now have usable coaches!

There was a whole subforum on it: How to build a train set in 6 weeks, with threads about various aspects of layout building..

There's really no need to go into minute detail about the OP's last layout when he's already said that he would like something similar but better. There are a number of less than ideal features in the old plan, which is why it is preferable to go back to basics and look at the prototype.

Late to the party, but I think it would be worth thinking about how you will operate this layout. A few possible issues jump out at me: - the entrance to the scrapyard is facing from the main line which means the loco bringing a train in would be trapped; how will you deal with this? - a train leaving the yard cannot use the crossover to gain the correct line; the crossover really needs to be to the right of the yard entrance, which would be a good use of extra layout length; - the sidings in the yard face in both directions, but there is no runround; how will you shunt it?

Here are a couple I found on signalbox.org that are not a million miles away from your previous layout Wilmcote Broadway Note the use of a single slip to combine a crossover with trailing access to the goods yard, avoiding a facing point on the running line. If you want to add a bay, a trailing point off the line the train will depart along is probably best. The arriving train can terminate in the main line platform and shunt across to the departure line and into the bay when empty. If you need to run round, a pair of trailing crossovers as at Broadway will suffice. No facing crossovers are necessary. Keep the bay separate from the goods loop as it makes signalling simpler and there will be wagons standing on the latter.

Nope, both items are gratifyingly tacky, though the N gauge wagon fails to be quite as hilariously inappropriate as previous essays: there's a faint whiff of gravitas about a tanker that is absent from a coal wagon. Perhaps only 7/10 for entertainment value for Peco this time, then, but still 10/10 for good honest cashing-in on by a manufacturer whose products have no relevance to the event they purport to commemorate. A fine British tradition upheld.

or: wiser heads have prevailed, the UK act has been ditched and Hornby International is the replacement singer with a heart-rending ditty about two mismatched tension lock couplings finding love.

A three rail tinplate live steam Class 86 in TT scale, fitted with Hornby Dublo couplings and working pantograph.

I find these ideal for watching radio comedy as they completely block out the parts that I wouldn't like, or aren't as good as I remember. However, before I had them, a good hot cup of tea was nearly as effective.

Does it not allow you to clamp the two rails for soldering?

To add to the stew, I think a flipped version of the Quail diagram would work well here:

Phil, that's generally a more rational plan than most in the thread so far, but the throat is distinctly odd. Why is there no direct access from the down line to platform 2? This means that only trains arriving into platform 1 can do so without blocking the up line. For reference the 1938 OS survey of Enfield is on the NLS site here and below is my rough sketch of Enfield Town station from the 1988 Quail.

Looks like one of the LMS articulated pairs (BTO + TO) leading the train behind the Jubilee in jrg1's photo. Because, as you said yourself, it was quicker that way? The object was to get the fish into batter as soon as may be, not give it a tour of the Dukeries. Any haddock that was bothered about ticking off unusual routes could always join the LCGB.

Read the thread

Probably more than you ever wanted to know about 6-wheel underframes (including some of brossard's work) on this thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/52620-6-wheel-coaches/

Only one Gay in the village, eh?