Flying Pig

Only one Gay in the village, eh?

Why? Surely adhesion is the limiting factor here, not tractive effort?

That's a pretty shonky Patriot, but an excellent SPARE-PARTS ROYAL SCOT (as built with parallel boiler).

The Mainline trilobites managed separate footboards with their little pincers though. 1-0 to Palaeozoic arthropods.

Sorry if these have already been mentioned - in a hurry. I believe there was often a cab (taxi) road on the arrivals side of the station. So I like the wide arrivals platform, but I think the departure platform could be narrower and save some space. I think the outer crossover to the goods road shown in your earlier plans could usefully be retained: it allows goods trains to arrive without blocking departures from any of the passenger platforms. In the goods yard, I would slew road 8 (counting from the top of the plan) to allow access between it and road 7 - either a plain roadway, or a platform emanating from a warehouse per my previous sketch - and make sure road 9 was kept as a headshunt for the kickback sidings only.

If I understand you correctly, by 4 you mean the 5th line from the top of the plan, on which you have put six carriages in your diagram. As you have things at the moment, the next line down, 5, makes a much better reception since it's connected directly to the headshunt, which 4 is not. If you want to use 4 as the goods reception, you need to revise the connections so that the train can be drawn directly back into the headshunt, without movements onto the main line.

A couple more in the light of 31A's comment and I promise to stop doodling after this. I like middle roads for some reason and they do provide a loco release without blocking a platform as well as a dead end for vans to lurk on.

I've had a play with your goods yard. You now have on the left, top to bottom: - a reception road, - two roads running into a half relief goods warehouse (grey shaded area), with a goods platform between, - a headshunt for the kickback siding This only needs a bit of realignment and doesn't cost any more points. For a few more points, I've added: - a runround to make shunting the kickback much easier, - an extra kickback siding I'm not sure what I'd do with the kickback sidings, but I wouldn't want to put large buildings over them and hide the view of the station throat. Coal drops perhaps?

You might be interested in Wigan Central, which was built with extension in mind (along with a number of interesting chemicals, judging by the station building).

Could you try substituting curved points for just the four that I've highlighted? I know it isn't completely Bastille, but it will maintain the flow of the main line. It's quite obvious from things like bogie swing when a loco runs between short sections of straight and curved track and I find it a bit jarring to watch.

I think you could have a lot of fun with that plan as a private system with both internal and export traffic, using one of the long outside sidings as an exchange siding with the Big Railway - effectively a scenic fiddle yard. I'd keep the main flat, but you could perhaps ramp one of the long straight sidings for e.g. tipping spoil.

Are you possibly at cross purposes here? Does the caveat about removing the lining apply to current production?

I must say that has struck me too. You seem to like the kind of trains you ran on Hope St and I can see you building a different layout "just because" and then having to invoke the more esoteric clauses of Rule 1 all the time to justify the kind of operation you really want.

Not enough imagination. The Deltic cab is fine at one end for express passenger work, but how about a Class 20 cab at the other for overnight freight, thus pre-empting the Class 91s by a few decades? Also, as it seems like there's enough room in there for every conceivable voltage, plus clockwork, why not give it a 1500V DC panto for Woodhead workings at one end, some shoes for through workings to the Southern and possibly centre skates for Hornby Dublo three-rail, thus also thoroughly gazumping the 92s? Presumably the radiators are retained as part of the electric tea-making equipment for the Manchester Pullman?

I've drawn a trap point beyond the bridge, but it should be offscene so it won't need to be modelled. The only remaining issue I can see is that trains from the two front fiddle sidings have to arrive in the stabling sidings over this line as there's no modelled crossover for them to reach the down main. This does imply access further back along the imagined line - either another facing crossover or a single line after all. Both the 3-ways in your photos seem to be of the tandem type. It's the symmetric one that's an unlikely element in most trackplans. BTW, if you hadn't already built the backscene behind the stabling sidings, I'd suggest a carriage shed over the rear couple of sidings as a view blocker instead, which would make the fiddle yard somewhat easier to reach.

The photo is very revealing. Your diagram shows a rather odd alignment of the platform roads and implies the use of the dreaded SL-99 symmetric three-throw abomination. The reality, with a tandem 3-way and the straight platform road aligned with the down main, looks much better (I really like your retaining wall and its pipework). A possible story that occurs to me is of a rationalised four-platform terminus as below: I don't know whether you have room to model the foundations of the demolished platform and trackbeds of the lifted roads, but it might help to set the scene. The amount of stabling is almost certainly excessive for the remaining passenger services, but would fit a location in the London suburbs where stock is stabled between the peaks, so I've drawn the main as double track with a separate connection for ECS departing the stabling sidings.

Seems to be a continuation of a thread from last year about signalling the same layout. Possible amendments and trapping were raised then.

I'm going back to the NE 20t hopper seen in the video on the G5 thread.

Yup. Just listened to the second episode and it was embarrassingly pedestrian. Too preoccupied with impersonating itself and missing the point entirely.

Pulled by LBSC/SR locos, yes. But not necessarily in the same train. If your goods train has more than one PO wagon in it, deciding which wagons go together is more complicated than deciding whose loco to use. I think that's the point we're trying to make.

I'm a little puzzled by this thread and I think you may be barking up the wrong tree in considering regions based on railway companies when trying to work out where a P.O. wagon would appear. It's more about what locations the wagon worked between and what route it took between them, though the latter might well depend on which railway company conveyed the wagon. You may find the following thread useful (there have been other discussions, particularly of coal traffic on RMweb which are worth searching out). http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94803-just-where-did-private-owner-wagons-go/

Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs, but I'd suggest you use one of the established model railway wheel profiles as this is more likely to result in wheels that run successfully. For example, the NMRA publishes RP25 online and it includes a very detailed tyre profile that should be possible to implement in your CAD.

It looks ideal for a gauge 1 live steamer and might even work as an outside fired pot boiler, what with having no motion between the frames and big tanks.

That sounds correct, from distant memory. The roof clips to lugs on the glazing which comes out as two separate pieces once the roof is off. You may find this thread on the Dapol reissue of these coaches of interest: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67996-making-use-of-Dapol-lms-coach-kits/ I also came across the old Comet Models site, which gives a good summary of the types then produced, helpfully along with length and build date. Of course you need to look on the Wizard Models site for current production. You need the Stanier (Period 3) designs for the Airfix coaches as earlier vehicles had different roofs, ends and gangways. The Mainline/Bachmann model would make a good basis for Period I (up to about 1928) conversions (the D1692/99 "two window" style vestibule 3rd would seem to be an obvious candidate as it looks nicely different). http://www.cometmodels.co.uk/modules/viewcategory.php/LMS%20Coach%20Kits%20and%20Sides

Which may well be what 81C was talking about. I doubt you'd see many inter-district sets on long distance trains to the south west.