Flying Pig

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?

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.