Flying Pig

I thought it was the Setrack ones that could be troublesome?

What's the problem with Code 55 curved points all of a sudden? Peco tell me they are 18"/36" which seems quite generous.

I'm thinking of something that resembles traditional freight, serving a small number of customers. Not sure whether that can be stretched to the OP's timeframe, but this thread might help:

My understanding of Creep Control is that it deliberately operates in the "creep zone" with the wheels slipping, because the coefficient of friction is greatest with a small amount of relative movement between wheel and rail, counter-intuitive as this may be.

I like this one very much, but I'm not entirely convinced by the goods sidings: fewer longer sidings with the pointwork as close to the throat as possible looks better imo (even if real sites didn't always follow the rules). Also, the factory building is a bit dominant (and in real life would need to extend well off the board). I'd suggest something more open - maybe a cement terminal with a couple of sidings for the other remaining traffic in the remains of the steam age goods yard. Barnstaple would be worth a look as a late-surviving freight terminal and has been discussed on here.

When a friend's children were young, he used to get quite irate about the drivers speeding past his rural home. My favoured solution was a herd of inflatable cows, powered by airbag technology, implanted in the road surface and deployed on the approach of a speeding miscreant. Not sure how you reset the system for the next offender (who will probably only be seconds away).

Following on from Keith's suggestions, here's an idea. It has only two sidings which gives it a less cluttered look, but may not be enough for your needs. Edit: it also avoids using a slip, which can be tricky in N.

Plenty of room for a runround in the freight sidings. Once the outbound train is assembled the loco runs round and propels it into the headshunt before departing.

This is what a considerably rationalised Kings Lynn looked like circa 1990 (from the Quail map).

No you (as always) present your opinion as the only one. I haven't even expressed my opinion about the model. Not in the mood.

See, where you're falling down here is forgetting that other people are not you and have different opinions about what is desirable.

Potato tomato. They're all toys at the end of the day and the same people are demanding authenticity and gimmick.

When I was a lad, the great majority of layouts I saw were set pre-WW2, but even then post 1928 LMS liveries were the rule. As for pre-Stanier rolling stock, you had to build kits (there was practically no authentic rtr LMS stock of any kind before Airfix and Mainline came along anyway). There is much more available today, but there are still many parts of Britain that can't be represented with a reasonable degree of authenticity using only rtr items before about the mid 1950s. The sheer variety of older passenger and freight stock still in widespread use defeats this. A slightly different question imo, as many of these designs lasted right through the popular transition and early diesel eras.

Simply untrue. Gimmicks are an established part of high end models and many people demand them.

I imagine something like a papal conclave in deepest Devon.

The de facto 00 implementation of the NEM standard is bonkers anyway. Why does it combine NEM 362 and something like to NEM 363 (documents here) in the same mounting when they were intended to be alternatives? Two interfaces where only one is needed is always going to be more bulky and obtrusive. Also we lose the benefit of NEM 363 where space is tight and end up with couplings that stick out too far.

Last time I looked at the points you had to plug in all the chairs but I see that is no longer the case. They still require a bit of assembly though (even soldering) which makes them kits, even if simple and exceptionally well-designed kits.

Dreadful idea - imagine all the French tourists in Swindon. It would ruin the place.

Time has actually made things worse. Old fashioned steamroller wheels will negotiate the gaps more smoothly. The (welcome) advent of better looking wheels requires narrower gaps for smooth running, but backward,compatibility militates against this. The major issue on Code 55 diamonds and slips is the obtuse crossings in the middle, where the gaps are very wide, which allows wheels the oportunity to go the wrong way. Indeed, as far as I can tell from pictures, Peco have left out some of the checkrails altogether on the slip for practicality of manufacture: code 55 rail is quite clumsy (much too wide) and with that and the oversize flange gaps a lot of the clearances for prototypical components just disappear. There was a consultation a few years back about better ready to run track in N (mostly on the N Gauge Forum) which in the end led to the Finetrax kits. These show that it is possible to make good-looking track which accepts current UK rtr N gauge stock, but I have no personal experience with them. Clearly the demand wasn't sufficient to make a ready to use range viable.

To expand on what @RailWest has posted. A small yard like yours would normally have received and consigned small numbers of wagons at a time rather than being the starting and ending point for goods trains. It would have been shunted by passing local goods trains which would work between marshalling yards (often very small ones) picking up and dropping off wagons along the way. The train would normally stand on the main line while the loco shunted the sidings and note that it would need trailing not facing access to them in order to do this (otherwise it just gets trapped in the siding). To achieve this while avoiding facing points, the simplest layout is what you have, bar the facing crossover. Your sidings can be adequately worked just by goods trains on the inner anticlockwise circuit, with wagons reversing their journeys at the marshalling yards at either end of the goods trip if necessary. Or if you really need to shunt a clockwise train*, the loco will need to run round first before crossing over to the anticlockwise line to shunt. But all of this can be done with the trailing crossovers controlled by ground signals. (*if this was expected to be a frequent occurrence, a trailing crossover from the clockwise main to the yard headshunt would have been provided, crossing the other running line via a diamond or single slip.) So, what to do with the facing crossover (apart from just removing it)? Facing points became far more common in the modern era and you mention DMUs so I gather your layout is set post about 1960. Perhaps the crossover is a recent addition to allow increase frequency DMU services to terminate in the inner platform as well as the bay? In that case, it would need a third main signal on the home bracket, reading over the crossover and another stop signal at the far end of the platform.

According to the 2P service sheet (downloadable here) the part number for a set of tender wheels is X8303. I can't find it advertised and in stock anywhere, however.

See the beginning of this film. It seems to be a D1666 they're roasting a few minutes later too.

The restored Tempest Mk ii flew for the first time on 10th October at Sywell.

Were sprags actually used to stop moving vehicles? I've only ever heard of them being inserted to prevent an already stationary vehicle from moving, a practice which I think predates the railways.

I mean like the TARDIS. Impossible of course, but anything you do inside a 22x is hampered by the basic design. In any case, XC Voyager interiors may look worn, but they compare favourably for comfort with some more recent stock. It is in my experience a relief to change from an 80x to a northbound Voyager at Bristol Parkway.