somewhere fictional

Indeed — it's funny when you realise the old layout made perfect sense when they built it. I do wonder why, later on (in the 80s and beyond) they didn't put any effort into making the "rat hole" a passenger line instead of building a flyover — would it just have been too hard?

I'd actually really love a 1960s timetable for Euston so I can see it being used as it was intended. I don't have any data for one, though.

One thought does cross my mind... what about a 'might-have-been'? For example, imagine the Eastern Region had found the money, following the Potters Bar widenings, to resignal the southern part of the GN Main Line. This was before reliable multiplexing allowed large control areas so there would have been a number of smaller power boxes, probably of the Metro-Vickers GRS NX type. I imagine there would have been boxes at Kings X itself, Finsbury Park, Ferme Park, Wood Green (now Alexandra Palace), New Barnet, Potters Bar, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City, Stevenage & Hitchin. I would then expect to have found 'hybrid' boxes (points mechanically worked by levers, signals worked from an IFS panel replacing the block shelf), probably re-using the central part of the existing frames, at Letchworth, Royston, Biggleswade, Sandy, St Neots, Huntingdon, Connington and Fletton, then another NX panel at Peterborough (probably located, in fact, in the New England area). Probably the various level crossings would have been worked from 'crossing boxes' with controls on what would otherwise be auto signals. There might have been hybrids (possibly an NX panel at Hertford itself) to work the Hertford Loop. (Or it might be that the Loop was considered sufficiently unimportant to be left for later, of course.)

All this would have had basically the steam-age layouts (perhaps a few rationalisations in the later schemes), so a lot more track & signals than the present Kings X and Peterborough and a number of interesting features - for instance the bottleneck at Sandy, the old junction layout at Hitchin, perhaps even provision for some of the branches later closed (and presumably connections to the LNWR line at Sandy, slotted from the LNWR box there). There might also be a hybrid box at Arlesey controlling the level crossing there and its associated bottleneck.

This has the advantage that track layouts are either known or discoverable without too many problems. It also has known traffic patterns (with room for a degree of creativity in that department too, if desired - what would have happened if successive governments had been less enthusiastic about the motor car and the motor lorry, for example?). But there is no great issue with finding information about signal spacing, overlaps, etc. What would be needed - and this is what would make the difference between a real railway and a toy - would be sufficient awareness of contemporary signalling standards and regional practice to create a layout that was credible for location and era.

Any offers?

That one would need a new delay reason adding.

"Train refuses to leave tunnel due to rain"

" said:

That one would need a new delay reason adding.

"Train refuses to leave tunnel due to rain"

You don't need a fictional one for that! A 7 1/4in gauge one with open carriages is quite enough to trigger that!

" said:

" said:

That one would need a new delay reason adding.

"Train refuses to leave tunnel due to rain"

You don't need a fictional one for that! A 7 1/4in gauge one with open carriages is quite enough to trigger that!

Indeed, I've had that whilst working Everglades on the Gt Cockcrow Railway - sensible driver.

There are an infinite number of styles in between:
1. Strict prototype - total accuracy
2. Loose prototype - small variances to increase fun
3. Strict proto-freelance - actual prototype practices with freelance elements
4. Loose proto-freelance - no such prototype, but keep it plausible
5. Strict freelance – somewhat fanciful, but still feels like “real” trains
6. Loose freelance – anything goes as long as it’s trains and it’s fun