Flying Pig

I've always thought the low slung outside cylinders and long wheelbase make the B16/1 a tricky proposition for an rtr model which has to negotiate 2nd radius curves. The rebuilds, with the bogie 9" further forward still are probably even worse, even with higher mounted cylinders.

Blimey, that's fighting talk. The NER Class O (LNER G5) 0-4-4T was a solid and long-lived design, so very unlikely to have been sacked for unreliability. More likely the impecunious LNER was trying to save money.

Could you not just file the interesting bits off a 4F?

The Q is like a Midland 4F with all the character removed. It's so dull that the Southern got tired of building it after only 20 examples. If Hornby must do another Southern group 0-6-0, the Brighton C2X would be a more interesting choice, was more numerous and lasted nearly as late in service.

Nothing to do with track planning, but you might enjoy looking at Little Muddle and Pendon Museum.

Would it be possible to drop out the spur gear between the two axles? That would avoid potentially disturbing a wheelset.

Crewlisle, (plan here) is 8.5 x 7.5 feet and is a terminus with return loop and continuous running similar to your original concept.

The vehicle in your photo looks like an NER 6-wheel full brake.

This photo is dated 29th June 1980 and the lead vehicle is clearly painted BR maroon, presumably the support coach? That would make a relatively economical addition to a train of standard blue and grey Mk1s for something a bit different. Preserved steam locos run around with just their support coaches too. BTW, the Railtour Files at https://www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk show that there were numerous railtour operators during the 1980s. LMS 6201 PRINCESS ELIZABETH by Ingy The Wingy, on Flickr

I do agree that unless the layout is going to be just for shunting, some sort of fiddle yard is needed to give the trains somewhere to run to, and also that the original plans are very crowded. However, I'm not really keen on this: it isn't railway-like to have the headshunt cross the running line to reach the sidings, particularly where there are passenger trains. Would a fiddle yard at the rear right be accessible, or is that too inconvenient? I was thinking along the lines of a traditional branch terminus with single platform at the back on the left and runround loop and sidings in front. The industry would be at the front right as a kickback with (removable?) buildings masking the fiddle yard.

Class 55 for me too; I'd even buy one which I can't say for any other 4mm diesels. The man said "accurate representation" not "travesty".

My sketch from the 1988 Quail diagrams is here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79492-layout-plan-critique-please/?view=findpost&p=1254456 I didn't include the extensive goods sidings and docks in the sketch, but apart from traffic over the goods branch to British Industrial Sands at Middleton Towers I don't know what still ran at this time. BIS traffic is shown on Paul Bartlett's site http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/bispaa

I'm not convinced this is simpler than direct trailing access from running line to sidings, which would only require a single reversal for an east to south train and the same runround plus one reversal for a south to east train.

Not a new phenomenon http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051713

Simple trailing access to the sidings for a southbound train would seem to make more sense at first sight and would certainly need fewer movements to work with a locomotive. However, there were stations laid out like yours - see this discussion of Wooler on the North Eastern Railway: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/91157-headshunt-operation-question/ It looks like an unnecessary complication - perhaps it was done to avoid a facing point on the running line?

From w Do you mean butanone, also known as methyl ethyl ketone or MEK? That's available quite widely in the UK at least.

If you can't remember, it probably did.

Perhaps the OP could clarify the title of this thread, as I'm beginning to suspect that posting it in the Farish section wasn't a big enough hint Edit: not picking on Ian in particular as it seems others may also have fallen into the trap.

Brian D's layout Deneside is built in an 11'x7' shed and has gone through a number of design iterations which may give you some idea of what can be fitted in. Thread here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/89435-deneside-br-north-eastern-region/

It should probably be 5594 as the livery most resembles on an experimental scheme carried by Bhopal from 1946 but not adopted (yes, that was a vertical throatplate engine).

The cab moulding clips tightly into a groove at the back of the firebox and should be removable with care, though you may damage the fine pipe running from the ejector into the cab on the LHS. If you are unlucky the cab could be glued to the large tab projecting from the main body moulding under the cab floor and/or smaller ones under the running plate just ahead of the cab. As I recall from nearly 40 years ago (!), comparing the model to the Roche drawing showed that the problem is not so much that the cab is mounted too high, but that the whole cab side is too tall. Looking at your picture of the model and comparing with prototype photos, the bottom edge of the cab does appear to be at about the correct height relative to the tender running plate, though there's obviously something not right with the footsteps. I believe most of the error is in the lower panel of the cabside, so it might be amenable to a cut and shut below the horizontal beading, but I never plucked up the courage to do that.

Apart from the lack of motor and some separate handrails, the Railroad Fowler tender is the same model that first appeared behind the Airfix 4F of 1978. As far as I recall, it matched the Roche drawing pretty well at the time and the axleboxes and springs are nicely moulded. Other aspects could be improved: the steps are moulded solid with the frames and the prong-like fire iron supports are a bit strange. I see from the photo linked by adb968008 that the prototype tender was the beaded and flush riveted variant with tank vents in the coal space, so is an appropriate choice by Hornby, as the Airfix/Railroad model has AFAIK only ever appeared in this form.

With a single crossover, wouldn't it be more usual (at least in British practice) for it to be trailing? I've illustrated this by flipping the plan, though it messes up the goods sidings somewhat. I think I would forget the kickback and make the sidings trail off the up line, shunting using that running line.

Yes she did - all the LMS pacifics had pretty much the same arrangement of rear truck as shown in the Roche drawings posted above, particularly the plan views of the rear ends. However, prior to the final pair, they also had outside frames, which hide much of the truck.

As Roche doesn't seem to show the bottom edge of the frame - I think his dotted line is the ashpan - this is the diagram from Rowledge's Engines of the LMS.