Flying Pig

Given that anyone from any time after time travel was invented could visit the same period as you, the likelihood of your meeting any natives at all would seem to be vanishingly small, so this is unlikely to be a serious problem.

Naah - the Thompson Pacifics are Hornby's best LNER big beasts.

That is quite exciting, in a raising the blood pressure sort of way.

Consider yourself fortunate. I quite often come across people who want to travel faster than me but don't appear to know how to overtake, even on a straight clear road.

Just got around to browsing this thread, probably much too late, and I notice it seems to be yet another branch terminus made up from first principles (apologies if I've missed any prototype references). If I were designing an S&D branch on a site this shape, I'd certainly have a look at Wells Friary (minus the GW routes). http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/gwr/wells.html

Yup, there are two in 'swede' and two more in 'beet'. That should be plenty.

As I understand, Unifrog is not exactly like either traditional electrofrog or insulfrog, since both diverging roads remain live regardless of the position of the blades. Both traditional types make one road 'dead' (though the way they do it differs) which is useful on a DC layout but may be undesirable on DCC if features on locos or stock are required to continue operating. If points have been used for power switching, replacing them with unifrogs will need further thought.

Great job conveying the character of a Deltic and an excellent finish.

I wonder if @bmthtrains - David can recover any pictures of Cross Street (thread linked, but the pictures were lost in the Crash)? It was a layout in N heavily inspired by the Oxford Road area. Crucially, it represented only one end of the station and showed the spacious effect that could be achieved that way. By modelling the entire station with both throats, you have ended up with very short platforms indeed which is a pity given the decent size you have to use.

That makes you a penny short, Wilkins.

How well did the Coronation Scot sell? I don't recall there being a bandwagon for that and I would have thought it had a more restricted appeal than a royal train.

They were a revelation at the time - correctly proportioned, right shape, proper bogies etc - but they really aren't as good as, say, the newer Hornby Period III non-gangwayed stock. I'm not sure the difference is worth forty years though. Also they aren't suburban stock - an odd choice by Airfix.

Good plan but it cries out for a single slip where the diamond is to allow for movements from the middle road to the outbound main line (e.g. of released locos heading for the shed). Not sure what Peco's intentions are in that regard, but the single slip is a massively useful item for modelling traditional British formations. You could extend the middle road to the buffer stops to hold a couple of vans. I would also consider putting the sidings on the departure side, accessed by a trailing point where the loco spur is now. That would allow them to be shunted on the outbound line which is simpler in signalling terms. You could even put a bay on that side for departures only, once local trains are a thing in TT:120.

The report is here: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=808

I don't, at least not anywhere accessible.

Just take a file to a Castle to get it within the loading LMS gauge. However, as mentioned on here before, the railway companies were not allowed to sell new locomotives from their works, so it would be more likely that the LMS would have built the locos themselves based on the GWR drawings, had the GWR been willing to share them. Years ago there were some images of LMS Castles on one or other generation of RMweb, including a couple I modified from someone elses original (with permission). Both showed outside valve gear but I gave one a cab and platework in the style of a Horwich 4-6-0 and the other followed Royal Scot era cab and platework styling, wth flat smoke deflectors. I think the boilers were domed with a top feed, but I'm not entirely sure at this remove. The tender was in the Fowler style like those originally fitted to 6200 and 6201. To be honest, neither looked quite right, giving the impression of a mutant Jubilee.

Aha, now we know what that steampunk business was all about: a practice run for the appliqué bling of an Indian steamer. An old steam locomotive in India by Eats & Retreats, on Flickr

The goods yard seems cramped by its situation between the station approach and the baseboard edge. This results in rather short sidings and a lead (highlighted below) that doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Could you move the station building to other platform to give the goods yard more room?

Do you, necessarily? Couldn't the station goods yard be worked just by up trains and the branch goods (which would return in the down direction)?

I doubt my eyes are any better, but they do usually show the track layout clearly, which maps don't always. The rest is pot luck and in this case mostly unreadable as you say.

There were also some vehicles in the Coronation Scot collection which could be converted into ordinary service stock including, as I recall, a vestibule third which was a very numerous type. I'm not convinced Hornby are interested though.

Diagramatically: https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwb/S318.htm

The Hattons 6 wheelers appear to have fixed outer axles with some sideplay on the middle wheelset, so presumably they wondered the same thing.

Apologies if this has been discussed, but how are goods services going to be arranged? With your current layout the only way I can see is if the branch goods works from and to a yard along the main line in the down (left) direction. It would need to set back onto the branch but from prior discussion this doesn't seem to be a problem.

It (or an equivalent range) could look better than current Setrack. It could also include power buses with better connections between track pieces than can be achieved with just rail joiners, point motors, switched live frogs, optional power routing for DC users and whatever kind of remote point operation the manufacturer chose to install. It could look good and have reliable plug and play functionality matching what new users expect from their other consumer electronics. But it would need to be significantly more expensive than current Setrack. Edit- and to return to the topic, it would probably be a project too far for Hornby in their current circumstances so I wouldn't expect it from them. TT would have been the place to start if they had wanted to.