Flying Pig

I think individual stepper motors are probably indicated.

I found these in my bookmarks the other day, but I think there have been others over the years, particularly on coal handling. Some of them may be on the old forum and no longer available.

They are really - here's the Disused Stations entry for orientation and thumbnail signal plans on the Signalling Record Society site for North and South boxes. Although it's becoming a cliché to suggest it, I think a layout based on the north end only would work well, centring on the throat, bays and ends of the main platforms, with the curtain walls and footbridge limiting the view.

It also allows shunting clear of the running lines, which is the point of having a separate headshunt. It might be better to have the crossover to the yard face the station as at Sidmouth, though of course there the yard and runround are on the same side of the station.

This is pretty generous and it should be easily possible to rework the plan using streamline points and flexitrack for much smoother curves. Harlequin is probably doing that right now... I would add my voice to the chorus regarding the coal kickback coal sidings - IMO you would be better of leaving them out and using what you've drawn as the headshunt as the coal siding. Don't worry if you have to shunt to extract the empties from the partly-empties as I don't think the operation of most coal sidings in your period was particularly scientific.

Yup A train leaving the branch would always take the left hand line where the track became double and run through the junction as a normal double track junction. If that meant crossing one of the main lines on the diamond so be it. This arrangement avoids any wrong line running through the junction or on the main line during normal operation.

The airflow arrangement is similar to the Bulleid spamcans, though I agree that the Madonna-style smokebox door is a little unusual (did it really need to be that exact shape?).

I doubt there was regular shunting of any kind at Berwick in the 1990s and prototypical operation would be restricted to long distance trains stopping and occasionally freight waiting in the loops. It's perfectly fine to operate the layout like that and just watch the trains go by, but there scope for a lot more railwaylike activity if the operators feel inclined.

I think it's more likely that the valve spindle and associated supports are included as a non-working part of the cylinder moulding on UK outline steamers (not just Hornby) as a compromise to achieve a scale appearance at an acceptable price point. The valve spindle assembly on the Roco 012 looks very fine and it's good to see it moving, but I note that the radius rod is fixed in mid gear. Perhaps Roco don't know how Walschaerts gear works either, or more likely they have compromised too. Also the Roco model is priced about 50% higher than recent Hornby equivalents which are already regarded as expensive by many in the UK market. Manufacturers have to make these choices.

You will need some sort of storage on the layout if you don't want to keep moving trains on and off the track manually. As I recall, the original plan you were looking at online had scope for carriage and loco sidings as part of the modelled scene, rather than a fiddle yard. This would allow a variety of prototypical movements - carriage shunting, light engines and so on with trains starting and terminating at the station - so would be a good choice if you find that sort of thing interesting. However, the storage loops Harlequin has drawn allow you to just pick another train to run at a moments notice which may well suit your daughter better! Fiddle yards are usually hidden and regarded as offstage, representing the rest of the world, but in this case you could keep everything in view and watch the trains go by if you prefer. While only two trains can actually run at a time, there are three loops - two in the fiddle yard and one in the station - for other trains to wait their turn. So the maximum is five if you don't mind a crowd and of course the various sidings will hold additional engines and stock.

I think that drawing is of the 2A rebuilds. There are some drawings and info on this thread - the drawing shows a short firebox engine with dome and single saddle per 65179's post.

The biggest challenge will be to get whatever you use to adhere well to the ends of the rails - not a large area. It would be worth experimenting with scrap rail and maybe seeing how well the bond lasts before you try the actual job.

Just the top feed under a domelike casing. Steam collection in the early Stanier boilers was at the top front corners of the firebox, GWR style, but this didn't work well for the LMS so they changed to domed designs. Another feature of the early short-firebox Jubilees as built was a twin smokebox saddle, which was replaced by the standard single unit fairly early on as part of the rather complicated boiler evolution of the class. It's visible on this photo (probably the same one as in your book). Never seen on rtr models so worth replicating if in period just for something different. Good luck with the build.

I'm sure you can see it, but I can't.

Commiserations in your sad affliction. Perhaps Vimto would be a suitable Coarse Railwaying alternative, though nowhere near as sustaining.

Implies fresh tea in the not too distant past, so not entirely a bad thing. I'll add the scent of meths used with an old hankie to clean steel track, but the oil and phenolic smell of an X04 is the most potent memory for me.

I shudder to think what you originally posted...

Remarkably similar to your earlier plan and could be even more so with a few tweaks. Indeed a large goods shed bottom right and a long mileage road next to the down siding would probably work quite well. You might even fit in the exchange siding for the gasworks on the up side... (*coff* 48DS *coff*).

Understood, but I think this may come at a high price in terms of eating into the scenic area of the layout (which was behind my earlier comments). Still it will be interesting to see some worked out plans.

Why do they need to be bidirectional?

I think you should raise this point on the Wright Writes thread. It would be an enormous boon for folk who insist on building all their locos only to have to build one.

Basically, you could run the entire layout with a single Black Five. Very economical.

That sounds good, though I agree that five trains sounds like a squeeze. However, if you could arrange another shortish storage loop, would a three-coach stopping passenger be an appropriate alternative to one of the goods, possibly with a tank engine to keep the length down?

It's clearly post 1938 as it has a livery that wasn't introduced until then. The 1940 date is from information that 6201 carried a domeless boiler* from 1937-1940. So I think post 1940 really is the best conclusion. *this was the third, spare boiler for 6200 and 6201 which for some reason was not rebuilt with a dome when the others were about 1935.

Some info from Brassmasters: http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/princess_4000_tender.htm Princesses only had the 9 ton type between 1935 and about 1937 and the 10 ton after that, so for most modellers it isn't an issue, though it's a possible future variant or kitbash.