Flying Pig

A Peckett, a single Mk I looming over it, a yard or two of track and a short, obviously new platform and you've got most 1970s preservation startups to a tee. Actually, it would make a perfect trainset for nostalgic 40-somethings getting back into the Hobby.

The CAD suggests it will have: http://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/new-for-2016-the-peckett-w4-0-4-0st/

I don't know what the statistically correct roof for a small urban terminus is, but in my opinion this would be perfectly convincing. It's your railway however so go with what suits your vision.

I'm not an engineer, but think what you propose for the train shed sounds pretty good. As the kit is supplied, the continuous girders do look a little odd and it seems a bit high off the ground to my eye as well, but the arch is a good starting point. FWIW, I'd cut the girders at or just below the trusses and add longitudinal lattices (Plastruct?), the whole supported on cast columns (no idea who does those). The columns could be left open or a curtain wall added between or behind them. I think you're right that the screen would be history by 1983 and the whole roof would probable be looking rather sad. Examples that might help: Manchester Piccadilly, Bradford Exchange, Darlington, Bath Green Park and doubtless lots of others I can't think of.

New Romney itself is thumbnailed on the SRS site: http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/srb/R1873.htmIt appears to be extremely simple with just two worked signals and I'd guess most shunts didn't need to pass the starter.

It's a very specific arrangement of points in the throat that makes Minories. As you say, there are other ways to reduce the effects of crossovers, but they are not Minories. That said "Minories" is a proper noun referring to a specific layout plan and not an adjective meaning "well-designed" when referring to small urban termini. There a lots of different ways to drink your Vimto - one of my favourite layouts, Tower Pier, is quite different from Minories (and rather odd) but works very well.

The basic topology of Minories is so simple, just two crossovers and a bay, that it really can't be regarded as a defining feature Of the design. So, for me no CJF Weave, no Minories.

Three coach trains could be seen substituting for DMUs - see for example this thread (particularly the final post). I'm sure there's been a more detailed discussion of DMU replacement workings on RMweb at some time, but I can't find it at the moment.

The layout of the station throat was intended to eliminate tight reverse curves in the crossovers, not to save length, and I doubt whether the reverse curve in the main platform roads saves more than a very small fraction of an inch. What it does achieve is to accommodate the lower platform at a realistic width without having to push the bay forward and increase the overall width of the layout. I'd be surprised if that was not in CJF's mind when he first drew it. Visually, I find Minories layouts drawn with dead straight platforms look oddly dog-legged. The balancing curve on the original keeps the overaĺl station axis straight and to my eye looks attractive. I also remain to be convinced that it is unrealistic as termini in cramped city locations could involve quite tightly curved platforms. Regarding the kickback siding, IMO a probable original use for this would be fish and perishables or horse and carriage traffic arriving as tail loads on passenger trains. By 1983 this traffic would be long gone and the loading bank possibly demolished, leaving an orphaned siding whose former use was not obvious to the casual observer. The most likely use as already suggested would be stabling of locos or units - dedicated parcels trains would be handled in the main station, though a lot of parcels went in the van of passenger trains at this period. I feel the same about fuelling facilities in small locations like this as Joseph_Pestell does about unnecessary reverse curves ☺.

I've a feeling it wasn't in the first version without goods facilities, but I'm sure you could find the definitive answer by scouring one of the many Minories themed threads on the forum! Given your board split, I would leave it out rather than disort the rest of the plan to fit the point in!

Looking at this, I can't help feeling that the junction with its facing slip seems a little forced. A possible alternative would be to follow the example of Tower Pier (posts 44 and 48 above) where the goods lines are entirely separate from the passenger lines and at a slightly different level. The variation in levels adds a lot to the visual interest of what is a very compact layout. I can think of a couple of ways of doing this. First keeping it very simple: Or, if you have the space for the approach tracks, an 'omage to the Ray St Gridiron:

No. 29 is indeed a Kitson engine, but no. 5 was built by Robert Stephenson & Co. The Consett engine is interesting as a late example of the Stephenson "long boiler" layout.

Would it not be more Brunellian to simply demolish the various destinations and rebuild them on a suitably sized traverser so that the train could be pointed at its destination with uninterrupted motive force and without undesirable transverse disturbances to its motion or its passengers'convenience?

Perhaps a bit late for you as you seem to be well on your way, but this is a scheme I came up with a while back for a compact colliery layout that avoids the loading problem altogether. We see the dead end of the colliery yard and the rear entrance to the screens/loading building which forms the scenic break with the fiddle yard to the right: the connection to the rest of the world is imagined to be well off-stage. Empty wagons are drawn up behind the screens to the headshunt and then run back through for loading: in real life this would likely be by gravity but on the model perhaps they could be drawn through by hand or by a second loco hidden in the FY. Note that loaded wagons never appear on the layout. For interest I added a second through line in front of the screens, giving access to loco sheds and workshops and a reason to run a variety of non-coal wagons. A short runround assists shunting. The pithead buildings at the very front of the layout hide the exit of this line to the fiddle yard and also help to disguise the shortness of the screens building. At the other end of the layout, the loco shed and workshops disguise the brevity of the headshunt and can even suggest that the line continues to another pit if you wish (modular NCB standard anyone?). In the annotated N-gauge original, I sited the exchange sidings behind the colliery (some versions of this plan even had a separate BR loco release and headshunt). This was a blatant fudge to allow BR locos to appear, but TBH I think it looks contrived: the exchange siding would IRL almost certainly be off-stage to the right and I've left them out of the 00 version. This really is-a-no-main-line-engines scheme and great self control will be demanded of the operator N gauge version: 00 gauge version squished to 5 feet:

Closest to our willow and marsh tits and very similar in appearance.

Nor did I think you were; and nor was I commenting on the accuracy of the model, but rather commending the decision to release the particular configuration that precisely satisfies my wishes. Well done, Bachmann

Wrong - it's entirely correct that they've released it in blue with an unrefurbished bodyshell, plated end doors, dominoes and no boiler, the logic being that I want one. Possibly two if my earlier musing about conversion to 31/4 is correct. I reckon they've got the face just about spot on and - good grief - have they even managed to mould the windscreen grommets on the body?. It certainly doesn't suffer the EE squint. I agree about the masking of the yellow panel, however, that is pretty rough. BTW Jo, I think the fan grille on this one is etched.

Possibly, but arguably preferable to separate items made from the same gas piping used for the 25. The handrail under the middle window has been left out altogether which is probably a wise compromise too.

For the first batch of unrefurbished conversions, surely all you need is the jumpers and a new number? Honk splutter!

Thanks - more than I thought. Weren't some released on Commonwealth bogies too?

Does anyone have a list of the Mk1 body types issued to Blue Riband standard? Bogies fitted would be interesting too, but I'm not after a complete list of liveries and catalogue numbers. Prompted by seeing an RMB in the new Cumbrian Mountain set and wondering what standard it'll be to. Thanks in advance.

They're waiting for Hubble expansion to correct the error for them.

Dear goodness, what is he - an engineer or something? Doesn't he know that wild anticipation, disappointment and rage are the bedrock of the hobby? And he wants to make a chassis that fits?

A 2005 photo 0f 62005 shows straight framing: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LNER-K1_62005_Lord_of_the_Isles-01.jpg So does this of 62006 in service in 1965: http://www.semaphoresandsteam.com/p319064844/h3E773BD2#h3e773bd2 I'm not so sure about the rear of the tender frames in this picture of 62028 (undated but "early crest"): http://shedbashuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/darlington-1951-1953.html but this later photo of the same loco is clearer: http://www.modelmasterdecals.com/LNER/058-LNER%20K1%202-6-0%20No.62028.jpg

It would surely make more sense for Hornby to continue with the solid GE section theme they are currently developing, rather than switch focus to a new region and perhaps squander the effort so far expended. While the B17, Britannia, now the K1 and the forthcoming J15 and D16 are a great start, there are still very obvious gaps in the range to be addressed. A new tooling of the venerable B12 has long been talked of and with clever use of slides it could possibly also be made to represent the original GER 1500 class, which would look magnificent in full pre-grouping livery (and of course a few of these locos were based at Gorton in LNER days to work the North Country Continental). Where too are the all the various Buckjumpers, the J17 and the J20? Or (most inexplicably of all) the Derby Heavyweight DMUs that worked down the Loop Line from Lincoln? Indeed mention of the Loop Line is a good reminder of the GN locos that also need to be considered before this range can be thought of as anything like complete. There is much work for Hornby still to do before they can afford to be distracted by the products of Darlington.