Flying Pig

Doesn't ring a bell but you could well be right.

There used to be an 0 gauge exhibition layout that I think drew heavily on Great Moor Street. Can anyone remember what was called?

Chaps, there's already an rtr pre-grouping thread and an rtr North Eastern thread. Can we please keep the frothing out of this one?

That is, if I may say, a very Scots approach to choosing a loco. But do note that if you buy the Caley versions of 828, you get the blue paint at no additional cost.

Could you make the extension a sector plate and feed a siding directly from it? With just one point on the layout you would have much longer sidings and perhaps a more spacious appearance.

I was pretty sure TMC would go for a simple 0-6-0, but Bachmann obviously think they can do an 0-4-4T and they have a way of making small black tank engines hard to resist. Great choice of prototype. Will someone etch a headbord for the last 00 branch passenger train hauled by an unfitted Mainline J72?

They certainly didn't find a B-52 bomber on the Moon and you shouldn't spread groundless rumours like that. It was a World War 2 bomber.

You're forgetting coal, so that's three. Four if you include coke.

Ooh, a pannier tank - tasty. Goes with the wagons too.

Not a loco, but am I the only person who noticed the NER 20T hopper at 8:45, coupled to the Gulf tankers? Is that not new? Could it be a hint of a related loco to come?

Not saying I could afford £300. I just feel sometimes that it's better to know that something beautiful exists than to posses something that has to be mediocre just so I can afford it. I mean, they could have done the Sistine Chapel in artex and then we could all have one.

Note that the wagons have TOPS codes beginning with Z - probably ZHV - and at least the first has a number beginning DB... which also indicate wagons in departmental service. I think the most common use was for spent ballast and spoil, as they are clearly not adapted for discharging fresh ballast.

Some info on the LMS vehicle on this thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/113993-how-to-correct-the-Hornby-lms-tpo/

Precisely what was being discussed in this thread before it became a bunch of old chaps waving their brake sticks and quavering about how things were done "in my day". The video I linked earlier shows the hitting up part, for the wagon chasing, see the first couple of minutes of https://youtu.be/N1QY2A2C5pc

Also, if that hundred quid would enable Hornby to deliver a rock solid quality product that would avoid all the issues and disappointments we saw when the first batch was released, it would be well worth it in my book.

It's still too low. I was saved from buying the first issue, as it sold out while I was dithering. If the next one doesn't sell so quickly, I may be in danger again. Another £100 would put it safely out of reach - please reconsider, Hornby.

Surely this only works on the Circle Line?

Loose shunting at Tinsley in 1990:

Hi Bill It's not the slip in the throat that bothers me. That's an improvement on the original as regards eliminating reverse curves, the only potential issue being the tight radius of rtr slips, which of course doesn't apply if you're building your own track. I've sketched your plan below (on the right), next to a version of standard Minories that also uses a slip (and has an additional crossover, of which more later). Most of the track below the dashed line is the same on both. Above the line you have changed the access to platforms 2 and 3, and added a trailing crossover A. (Sorry for the small size of the image - I don't have access to decent drawing software at the moment.) So my points: - rearranging access to platform 3 has allowed arrival into that platform simultaneously with departure from platform 2, which Minories does not (I confess I hadn't noticed this when I posted before); - however, unlike Minories, an arrival into platform 2 blocks departures from platform 1; - the extra crossover A through the tandem adds nothing, as departures from platform 3 still block the whole throat just as if they were going via the slip; - so on balance, your layout actually has about the same operational flexibility as Minories, but uses more points and is at least one ordinary point plus a tandem point longer. If you want simultaneous operation of platforms 2 and 3 in Minories, a better way to achieve it IMO is just to add an extra trailing crossover (B in my sketch) as this doesn't affect any of the other movements already possible and may be slightly more compact.

1) Additional unnecessary points to build; 2) Two to three more point lengths in the throat; 3) Less operational flexibility than Minories (a train arriving in the middle platform blocks one departing from the rightmost platform). A good illustration of why CJF was unable to improve on his original idea

There's a fair amount on Wikipedia about the Horwich 2-10-0 and it does seem to have been a serious project. The Flamme Type 36 which inspired it appears to have had a divided drive with the inside cylinders set well forward, as well as a degree of articulation in the coupled wheelbase (which the Horwich sketch seems to have omitted in favour of a more compact wheelbase). More on both engines in this excerpt.

This is a really nice idea and well worth someone with access to planning software or templates working out in detail. It reminds me very much of Lymebrook Yard, one of my favourite N gauge layouts, which note is not a full double circuit, but compensates for that by using streamline points.

I like this. For practicality I would put a bridge over the right hand end of the yard and take the goods loop right round the back of the layout, thus avoiding the need for a curved point at setrack radii.

People who think that a small urban layout needs to be a square box with houses along the back should be made to look at Hedges Hill until the penny drops. It's a superbly composed scene.

Just some old layout... Still the best evocation of its time and place that I've seen.