Flying Pig

The other option being the unhinged layout?

I watched one today chewing wood from a bird hide, so she must have already started a nest nearby. If it's quiet you can even hear the rasping sound as they do this but it was too windy today. Coachmann's second visitor appears to be a Tree Bumblebee.

Looks like the common wasp, actually.

In the days when people had rather little stock, they still tended to have more locos than could be used at once. This layout has no stabling for passenger trains, but conversely can be worked with a couple of short main line sets and a branch set, possibly no more than 7 or 8 carriages in total. Being able to supply a few extra locos from the shed, means that interest can be added by engine changes in the lower platforms, or even by terminating and reversing trains there. It's a different paradigm from the currently fashionable one of small scale trainspotting, but can still provide railway-like operations and interest for the operator.

Nope but going back to a medium on the Up main does. As I've drawn things with the additional point, it wouldn't take more than a very small amount of paring down the diamond to bring the pilot siding too close to the centre road, so there's not much to be gained by it (other than practice in the dark arts). Finally, replacing the three-way with a single slip, which would work well, if one were available. Turntable is about 60' in both cases.

Forgot about the board join, but I think that the symmetrical 3-way would bring the warehouse siding point back across the 4' divide being slightly shorter. The long is neither here nor there and since the whole layout still has a somewhat CJF ambience, mediums are probably more in keeping. Have you considered doing it in Tri-ang TT?

Nice plan. I don't know about catch points, but I think A and B would work as trap points Some minor alterations: - rightmost point on Up main replaced with a long to improve flow; - I have an aversion to the Peco symmetric 3-throw so I've reworked your yard with the code 75 tandem; - curves on platform 4 and the centre road tweaked to improve flow (centre road needs a trap - could be a dummy); - loco headshunts/pilot siding separated from the goods road, partly for operational convenience, partly just to improve the look; - got carried away by the resemblance to Kings Cross and added a stabling siding to the loco yard BTW, I don't think parcels need be confined to platform 4 and conversely, it can be used as an ordinary departure platform most of the time. Edit - apologies that it's in Anyrail as I don't have XtrkCad on this computer.

Just heard the Atomic Deltic masquerading as 55012 at the York show and couldn't really believe my ears. It's absolutely stupendous, with loads of bass and the engine sync effects are spot on. TBH I never thought a truly convincing Deltic could be done in 4mm but clearly it can.

...certainly in coal consumption. Much as I like the Lanky, I doubt even the sorted Dreadnoughts were as good a practical tool as the Castles, though they were handsome in that overstuffed late L&Y way. Wasn't the Crab based on a Caledonian design with one of Hughes's low pressure boilers and cylinders to match?

As mentioned in the linked article, the line appeared as a Plan of the Month in RM back in 1978. I could have sworn someone had actually built and exhibited it, but I can't find any evidence online so I may be imagining things again. The railway plays a minor role in the novel "The Somme Stations" by Andrew Martin, a WW1 detective story which also features the narrow gauge lines at the front.

Or simply make them longer to produce a more balanced four platform station, which would be entirely equivalent to Cheltenham St James.

Lambton58 and I found that the sandpipes had a tendency to catch on the track, particularly over points. They need to be adjusted closer to the wheels to clear the railhead properly. Easy to test if this is the problem by unclipping them from the keeper plate.

Based on your original plan, think I would do it as below, which avoids the double wiggle for trains running into the top platform. The reverse curve out of the main departure platform seems to be unavoidable but could be eased by using a long Y point at the platform end. Note that shunts between either of the main platforms and the middle roads can happen without blocking the other platform completely. There's no access for trains to arrive directly into the middle roads, but I'm not sure why you would want that. It could be provided if absolutely necessary by changing the single slip into a double slip. Bays without access for arriving trains seem to be a pretty common arrangement on the prototype so I've left them as they were. Edit: very similar to your revised version; delayed waiting for a battery to charge before taking the photo!

Surely those are the floodlights extreme right above the coach roof?

Excellent news and a very encouraging timescale for the samples.

A trailing connection from the yard headshunt to the Down line would allow simpler access for down trains in the absence of a facing slip. It would also allow running round using the Down main without needing a dedicated runround within the yard. This was a very common arrangement on the prototype.

Keep an eye on those swans. There were whoopers on the floods behind North Duffield at the beginning of the year.

As built they would have carried the full livery, but when repainted they would get whatever style was current. In his MRJ article planning the coaches for Inkermann Street, David Jenkinson quotes seven years as a typical interval for repainting, so it's likely that the majority of PI and PII carriages were in simple livery by the start of the War. The old Mainline/Bachmann Period I carriages were fine for vehicles repainted during the 1930s, apart from the waist line which was simplified to a single yellow line.

Paul Shannon's Rail freight since 1968 series states that wagonload traffic in unbraked and vacuum-fitted stock ceased in May 1983, except for some coal and scrap flows which continued in vacuum fitted wagons until 1984. After this time all remaining wagonload traffic was transferred to the air-braked Speedlink network. A photo of Thurso station in the volume on Coal traffic shows two 16t minerals, both fitted, with another unidentifiable 16 tonner and a (fitted) van just visible in the background. Otherwise the yard looks very empty. The caption says that coal traffic in "the Highlands" was concentrated in Inverness from 1984 which would concur with clachnaharry's post. There's a previous thread on far north line traffic: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/55590-far-north-line-traffic/

Operation of these wagons is also discussed on theRevolutioN thread http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/114706-revolution-announce-class-b-tanks-for-n-gauge/

Mine binds intermittently. I think this is due to the little end of one of the connecting rods not being properly retained against the crosshead. It can thus slide inward along the gudgeon pin and foul the leading crankpin. There doesn't appear to be a retaining washer on the other side of the loco and I have a feeling that the gudgeon pin simply needs to be pinched to keep the little end in place, but as it is cast as part of the crosshead I'm wary of breaking it. BTW the rear of the crosshead is flush and not recessed which somewhat surprises me as it would increase clearance between the con rod and crankpins (my ancient Mainline Scot and Jubilee have this feature).

Minories is always drawn in the same orientation as CJF originally envisaged, but the whole thing could be turned 180° without rearranging the track layout at all. As well as placing the main line more conveniently for a traverser, this would put the goods shed at the back which has some advantages too. For example, it could be built as a large low relief warehouse with a loading bank at the front.

I'm disturbed to see no mention so far on RMweb of the Serious Incident that occurred late this afternoon in the Exchange Sidings. The silence is particular sinister given the response of one of the operating team (the Political Commissar, perhaps?) shortly afterwards and I am concerned for the safety of the one onlooker who managed to obtain high quality photographic evidence. What or who was in the vans which left following the close of the exhibition? Meanwhile the people will not be silenced and we eagerly await the RAIB's interim statement. Personally, I suspect from the pervasive aroma of Mrs Tweedy's Pies at around 16.15 that key personnel were Not At Their Posts when the calamity transpired. The Truth must be told!

The Southwell train appears in a photo on Dave Ford's thread in this post. I started a separate thread (don't ask me why!) here to identify the carriage and coachmann identified it as an LNWR M71 which is available from London Road as a kit. Note that the carriages in the other photo I linked appear to be the MR types mentioned above. Most photos of the Cudworth train show an 0-4-4t and not a radial tank so that's one service where they probably worked together. Anyone know of any pictures of the driving end of these conversions?

Sorry to disagree, but the Wild Swan publication lists 2218 as the first of the second batch of the '1833' class, ten engines built by Dübs with condensing gear. Bachmann's BR 58072 (originally 2226) was one of this batch. Larger tanks began with 2228, again built by Dübs, and BR 58073 as shown in post #378 was one of these. Compare that photo with Bachmann's one of 58072 and I think it's clear that 58072 doesn't have the larger tanks.