Flying Pig

The advantage of the prototype arrangement, which admittedly does appear strange at first sight, is that it can be shunted conveniently from the main line. The goods loop in your plan doesn't appear to have any purpose - it has to be kept clear for use as a headshunt for the siding, but the siding could equally well come directly off the main line.

I can't see how that would be workable, given that wagons need to stand on the goods loop (or what is it for?). Come to that, while I understand the desire to use the space in the corner, I think a closer representation of the goods yard at Fairford would (with one exception) be easier to work. That was basically a long siding, divided in the middle by a crossover,so each part could be shunted separately from the platform end. The short kickback to a loading dock is the exception to easy working and either was not loco shunted or required a loco to enter the goods shed. As the runround on Phil's latest plan is significantly longer than the trains that will be run, I think that the points at the station end could be swapped to increase the length of the goods sidings somewhat without it becoming cramped. I also don't see why the loco facilities shouldn't reflect the prototype more closely, giving something like the very hasty sketch below (swapped points arrowed):

In which case, could you not just replace the boiler with a big motor/generator and flywheel for energy storage and do away with the steam altogether? That would give regenerative braking too. For starting off the wire, the flywheel could be spun up from a shore supply. You could probably fit all the equipment on the loco frames and scrap the tender.

Obviously, just driving the wheels with electric motors is an absurd notion, so how many more stages of complication can we devise between the wires and the rails? I'm thinking perhaps an electrically powered coal gasification plant in the tender?

The gasometers rising and falling on the tender would make for an interesting model.

I'm sure I should have known that and it makes more sense than a third route to Bradford. The service itself was long established - presumably back to GNR days as it used their lines throughout.

Thanks. Does Peel give any further information about "The Yorkshireman"? It doesn't sound likely that it ran via Huddersfield and Penistone. Wikipedia also mentions The White Rose as a BR train running from Bradford Exchange to St Pancras via Leeds in the BR era, but this would have had to use former LNER lines to Leeds.

My father's family moved to Penistone in 1945 and he recalls travelling on the South Yorkshireman some time in the late 1940s. Wikipedia tells me that as a named train it dates from 1948, but it seems to have its ultimate origin as a joint enterprise between the L&YR and the GCR (as mentioned in this article). Does anyone know if a similar through train or carriages ran during the grouping period? It competed of course with through carriages to Kings Cross from the GN side of Bradford Exchange via Wakefield, which would make less commercial sense after 1923.

I think you've misunderstood me - by small, I only meant branch line rather than main or secondary line types. The same restrictions apply to Fairford and more so to Hemyock, so I dont think this particular layout is special in that respect. We're not talking Highworth here. Really, the chief distinguishing feature of this plan is the conventional arrangement of the loop, the main advantage of which is that it places the platform, runround and sidings in parallel and hence economises on length.

Would a similar design based on the Prototype Deltic also work?

I was thinking of the poor bl***y corpuscles going up in the morning bright eyed and fully oxygenated (ha!) and returning depleted in the evening.

The diagrams of Reading on this ebay listing look identical to those in the 1989 Quail.

Surely only up trains should be Arterio, with down trains formed of Veino units and perhaps Lympho for empty stock workings?

HillsideDepot's layout Westonmouth Central is very similar to what you're proposing. Nigel Burkin made a model of platforms 4a and 4b at the other end of the station which was covered on the old forum.

Nope. I think the universal BLT fits the bill perfectly

A possible drawback of Fairford is that it puts the platform on a sharp curve. Uxbridge Vine St (signal diagram) is a good basis for a busier sort of layout (it could easily represent a small country town), sacrificing open country for more railway. A bitsa runround completed in the fiddle yard is a possibility if length is tight if you can't fit in both crossovers (was this how the 0 gauge exhibition layout was set up?). I would compress by taking the down side sidings off a slip on the inner crossover.

I like this - if you can live with terminus to fiddle yard and small engines, it might well be all you need. You can up the challenge by using some sort of wagon operating system if that's the sort of thing you like. A small point, but flip the kickback siding so it can be shunted from the main line and extend it to make a nice long mileage siding. Yes it's conventional, but there's a reason for that.

We discussed that plan quite recently:

I was considering this, but the photos of the engineering prototypes earlier in this thread show that the tank tops are moulded as part of the boiler, so it seems it wouldn't just be a case of swapping components. BTW this is a perfectly sensible design choice as there looks to be a skirt between the boiler cladding and the tank tops.

A little early, I suspect. Rationalisation of freight working largely took place from the 1960s onwards, so for most of the BR steam period it would probably be business as usual. That doesn't preclude trip workings to marshalling yards of which there might have been several. As @Joseph_Pestell indicates, stations frequently remained open for goods long after they closed to passengers so in that respect there's no reason not to build a goods version of Minories. However the problem of end throw doesn't affect goods stock nearly so much, so the features that specifically characterise Minories maybe aren't needed. Possibly a different layout would be more appropriate (and, I suggest, a separate thread for the passenger-station-converted-to-goods discussion).

Pizza layout round the font cover?

I would have thought a habited Benedictine was quite absorbent and if rotated frequently to a drier site they could perhaps control damp quite effectively. As a side effect, the singing of the offices drifting up from the cellar might be quite relaxing.

... is not always the point, Phil.

Probably the reason then - looking for impulse buys as there's already a plain LNER one in the range. This one won't be competing with an even prettier Maude.

Could you flip this to put the platform at the back? As it is, the platform and any station buildings will tend to hide both the trains and the sidings and you'll always be reaching over to operate. What sort of fiddling space do you have? Perhaps a couple of Bachmann 57' Mk1 non gangwayed carriages would be better? Or even bits of DMU, so long as they're the short-frame type - Class 101, 108 or 110 are fine. DMU driving trailers have been operated as observation cars.