jamespetts

Thank you for the useful information. I have noticed that it can be quite hard to get hold of suitable N gauge stock - production runs seem to be short and sell out quickly, and second-hand availability seems to be sporadic. The HST, for example, seems to have been produced by Dapol a few years ago but is now discontinued; there appear to be one or two components on eBay, but probably not enough to make several full rakes. Similarly, the older class 50 is hard to find secondhand (I understand that a newer one is to be produced later this year), and there appear not to be many number variants of, e.g., class 47s. How do people find it best to build a suitable collection of stock for a layout in N gauge (is it just a matter of waiting for things to come up on eBay and elsewhere?), and is renumbering an N gauge locomotive by hand a feasible proposition?

An interesting point. How would one calculate the maximum length of train, I wonder? I imagine that the longest trains would be the MGR coal trains.

Thank you all for your replies. That Euston layout is looking very impressive so far - and all with hand built track and locomotives, too! It must take some serious skill and patience to build all the track by hand for something like that. That will be quite splendid when it is done, I am sure. In relation to the position of the station throat - I had considered shifting it upwards a little to slacken the curves, but I thought that that would then make it too far from the edge of the baseboard to be able to reach, and one of the other pieces of advice was to make sure that the more complex things especially were close to the edge of the baseboards. I wonder whether reducing the size of the baseboard at the front in that area might assist? I do wonder whether that would make the baseboards rather unevenly shaped so as to make the resulting well less useful in space than it might otherwise be for the equivalent amount of area. Also, would putting the station throat further up not eat into what is otherwise the only significant uninterrupted space left for scenery? In relation to straight platforms, I thought that these would be significantly easier to model than curved platforms (one can, after all, buy prefabricated straight platforms, which should significantly reduce the work involved in installing them) and would take up less shed space for a given length of platform. After all, many mainline termini do in fact have straight or mostly straight platforms: Paddington's are mostly straight apart from some curvature at the Western end, those of Euston, King's Cross and Marylebone are entirely straight, as are those of Charging Cross, Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street. Waterloo has some curvature, but mainly at the end, I think, and I think that Victoria is similar. Mightbe - instead of giving the measurements in this thread, I thought that it might be easier just to upload the .scarm file, which is here. Edit: The above reply crossed with Shady's, so I reply to that here. I agree that it is helpful to plan the layout before finalising the shed. On the basis of measurements and calculations this afternoon based on this layout (as revised following advice on this thread), I am likely to change the position of the door and remove one of the planned windows - which I can do as I have yet formally to place the order for the shed. The widest station board is 1.1m. The plan is for this layout to be circa 1.2m off the floor. Having just conducted a brief test using my measuring tape and monitors, I think that I can reach that far, although it is hard to be sure without an actual flat surface at that height and depth, which I do not have. I should have to make sure that any overall roof that I might have is easily removable for these purposes - does anyone have any experience with removable overall roofs? On the suburban dive-under, there is just over 3.1m of linear gradient before the start of the helix, which I have specified as being 70mm below the upper track level. I do not imagine that there will be much, if anything, in the way of wiring at the far end of the station. As to the helix, being able to rescue things from inside is a very good idea - thank you for that: I will ask the baseboard builders to cut a hole in the centre so that it can be reached from below. The current plan is for the lower level to be circa 900mm above floor level. The desk at which I am typing this now is 800mm above floor level, and I can get under that without too much difficulty. In relation to testing with long trains, I do not think that I can do that until I have the shed, as I do not think that a track to fit a 12 carriage train will sensibly fit in any of the rooms in my house.

Thank you all for your replies: that is helpful. The more that I read (both on the forums and elsewhere), the more that I think that quite a bit of testing is going to be very helpful before I start building things. I wonder the extent to which, if at all, I can sensibly start testing things, before the shed is complete? I attach a slightly revised version of the plans, with the lower level fiddle yards reorganised to take up less space (to allow more room for the end of a workbench to sail underneath them), and with both sets of fiddle yards colour coded and labelled. Mike - the floor will be insulated: that is part of the package. In relation to operators, I was not specifically planning on having multiple people operate the layout at once (as stated, I am very interested in computer control - but will have to test what this is capable of doing either with some testing infrastructure that is never intended to be turned into a permanent layout, or with the smaller N gauge layout before committing to a project that requires this in order to work well). It would be good to have the option to have one or two additional operators, and I think that there should be space for a few people in the shed with a layout to this plan: the middle part of the well (not including the tight squeeze at the end) is 4.5m long and between 0.75m and 1.1m wide. In relation to different people having different skills and doing things at different rates - this is one of the main reasons that I am wary of vague advice about "complexity" (especially as regards electronics/logic/programming, where I do have quite a number of years of experience, albeit in a slightly different context), and why I do not think it rational immediately to abandon this idea entirely on the basis of that vague advice without trying a smaller layout and various tests first. (It is really very, very odd that people appear to be hostile for the sole reason that I have not publicly committed to abandoning building a layout along these lines immediately that such a thing be suggested, but have instead stated that I will build a smaller layout and carry out some tests first, and in the meantime revise these plans based on specific feedback received so far and seek further specific feedback on the plans as revised). As to the Nelevator - that is intriguing: I had no idea that those things existed. I am not sure that this will actually be simpler to use than a helix, however; does anyone here have experience of using one? I note the point that the trains would then need turning, and I imagine that a Nelevator plus a whole train turntable (do these exist? How much space would they take?) would probably be quite a lot more complex than a helix, which is quite a well known railway modelling standard by now (although they were unheard of 25 years ago, from what I recall). As to track laying, as stated before, I plan to have the baseboards built professionally, so hopefully I will not need to worry about the flatness of the surface (at least, so far as the baseboard is concerned) to which the track is applied. In respect of the underlay, the convention I know is to use cork, although there are other products (are these worthwhile, or is it not worth the extra money for, e.g., the DCC concepts trackbed?). Obviously, this will have to be cut to the right size with a sharp knife following measurement, laid out in draft with the track resting lightly on it, then glued to the baseboard before the track be finally fitted on top of it using the conventional pinning method (perhaps with the addition of glue; or do people recommend using glue instead of pins?). Is there anything that I am missing here, especially about ensuring the flatness of the cork? I was planning on using the 1:1 printout from SCARM (if I use Peco track at least) to align the track in exactly the right position. I realise that this will require quite a bit of paper and toner. I do think that reliability is likely to be very important, and have spent some time researching things significant to reliability. Recommendations that I have found so far include using electrofrog points (or possibly the new unifrog points if I end up using Peco bullhead rail), increasing the weight of both locomotives and rolling stock, using the PowerBase on difficult sections, installing "stay alive" capacitors in the locomotives if they prove to be prone to stalling, using high quality DCC decoders (i.e., buying "DCC ready" rather than "DCC fitted" and fitting my own decoders), keeping the track clean (I believe that there are special track cleaning tanker wagons), wiring the layout using power districts so that a short circuit in one area does not affect the whole layout, using as large a radius set of curves as can be fit in the space and not having gradients too steep. I suspect that using mostly more modern locomotives is also likely to be helpful (especially if I am using code 75 track). I should note that, freight shunting not being an interest of mine, the possibility for complexities and derailments from shunting small loose wagons is at least eliminated. In any event, thank you all for your help so far; it is appreciated.

Thank you both for your thoughts. A reason that I am keen on reversing loops is the lack of any need to change locomotives manually in the fiddle yards so that I can automate, so the revised suggestion above is probably not suitable for me. Also, I cannot see that the same HSTs continually passing in the same direction would be any better than the first class sections being at the wrong end sometimes, especially as occasionally in reality the first class ended up being at the wrong end (and still does). (I accept that this might be a matter where tastes vary). As to the depth, looking at this on SCARM again, the rearmost tracks are 100mm from the rear of the board, so, in principle, I could simply truncate 100mm from the baseboard without modifying the design, making boards 800m wide rather than 900mm wide. However, this would not improve access to the rear tracks, as these would be just as far away from the front of the board as they were before. If there is to be a layout underneath of at least 900mm width, might it be better for this layout to be of a similar width to enable easier access, or would an 800mm wide baseboard be no more difficult in reality?

That is an interesting idea. Do you think that that might be more practical than a helix? Does anyone here have any experience of using a lift in this way? Edit: Incidentally, I realise that I had missed the second paragraph of Chris/Chimer's earlier post above: my apologies. Thank you very much for doing those tests - that is very helpful. Can you let me know a little more about the derailments on the pointwork? I should be very interested in the results of your future proposed tests.

Phil - I did specifically check much earlier in the planning process whether the proposed shed shed would occupy more than 50% of the area of land surrounding the house as it stood in 1948, and spent some time calculating this, but it does not, and so this remains permitted development. Chimer - as noted above, long trains will not be using the helix, so this is not an issue. Gordon - I realise that the gradient will be circa 1:36: that is why I intend to test the ability of the relevant sort of train to climb gradients. As noted previously, the magnetic adhesion system seems very promising in this regard.

Sigtech - the suggestion that I am resistant to advice, which has been made repeatedly, is simply false. I have already dealt with this above. I have specifically taken advice on: (1) starting with a smaller layout and reconsidering such things as may become apparent are necessary from experience with that smaller layout (and then have revised that layout diagram many times based on very helpful advice received in that thread); (2) increasing the curve radii; (3) increasing the separation between upper and lower levels; (4) reducing the proportion of trackwork to baseboard; (5) having less (and especially less pointwork) far from the edge of the layout; (6) the need to test the ability of trains to negotiate gradients before building a layout incorporating them; (7) the need to test the ability of locomotives to haul long trains around tight corners before building a layout with tight corners that is intended to accommodate long trains; (8) the need to have a more interesting station on the lower level; (9) having the space to have a gentle transition between flat and gradient without nearby pointwork; (10) not having the engine shed primarily accessible via the turntable; and (11) investigating methods of improving adhesion on corners and gradients. I repeat what I wrote above: I very much appreciate the specific, practical advice that has been offered in this and the other thread. I should make it quite clear - once I start building the smaller layout and get an idea of what is involved, and once I conduct the adhesion tests that I plan, I may very well significantly revise what I plan to do. Just because I am not unquestioningly deferring to other people's ideas about what to do (which are not always consistent with one another, and in many cases have been based on an incomplete understanding of what I actually intend to do (such as the multitude of comments to the effect that I should need an army of operators to work a layout to this plan when I have made it clear that I intend to use computer automation or that I should have difficulty with the traction of long trains on gradients when I have made it clear that only short trains will use the gradiented section)) does not mean that I am not receptive to specific, practical advice and information. On many occasions, when I have asked for more information about the very general statements that some people have made, I have had no response. I do not understand what you think that you are contributing by posting a message doing nothing other than asserting that I am not receptive to advice, especially when that is demonstrably false, and especially when I have made it clear many times over that I am extremely grateful for the specific practical advice received. The purpose of a discussion in this thread is not to have an argument about what I should build; it is to share information and ideas about what I have proposed so far and the consequences of it to enable me to make a more informed choice (which information might also be of assistance to others who may read this thread in the future). If I do not accept anyone's advice and end up with difficulties, that is my problem. It is simply out of order to post messages in an accusatory tone criticising me for not being more deferential, not least because anyone reading your post (and anyone else's with a similar tone or content) might be discouraged from offering further practical advice of the sort that that I have found extremely helpful so far because they may falsely be lead to believe that I unthinkingly reject any advice given, when that is clearly not the case. Thus, not only is a post of this sort not constructive, it is positively harmful.

I think that a fully timetabled service would certainly be something that I should want to try, especially for computer controlled operation. As to the width, a dogbone shaped layout would create more curvature on the main line and would also leave less room for scenery behind the station building, would it not?

Thank you for your reply. What degree of separation would you suggest if not 30cm? 35cm? 40cm? 50cm? Greater separation can be achieved by more turns in the helix, of course. However, I have to balance the degree of separation between the levels with the separation between the lower level and the floor and the quality of the viewing angles for the upper level, as well as the preference to have an N gauge layout (discussed in another thread) on top along one wall. Having the Underground station opening out to the main section is an interesting idea, but I do not think that that would work here: there is insufficient space in the right place to allow for this, and in any event, the intention is for the Underground station to be depicted as being a number of miles away from the main station, thus separated by the scenic break. The plan is for trains to pause for a pre-programmed time in the helix to simulate the time that they would take to traverse the distance between the main station and the Underground station. As to the complexity of the helix, presumably all but laying track on it and wiring it would be done by whoever builds the baseboards, so all that I would have to do is lay track on it and wire it, and neither of those seem to be enormously complex (especially, as far as the wiring is concerned, given that this is a plain track section). As to planning, I do need to have a good idea of what I plan to put in the shed before finalising it and ordering it in order to make very sure that I do not need to adjust the size or door/window placement of the shed to fit with what I seek to achieve. There is of course a risk of wasted planning time, but that seems to be a less problematic risk than the risk of specifying the shed and then later finding out, too late to do anything about it, that a small change in its specification could have made a big change to what I could do with it. It is a difficult balance to some extent.

Thank you all very much for your assistance: that is most useful. I can see that the revised design fiddle yards/reversing loop is superior to that which I had originally set out. I attach a revised plan incorporating the suggested features from both Mightbe and Satan's Goldfish, which allow longer carriage sidings, a straighter down headshunt in the carriage sidings, and the elimination of the bulging baseboard in the centre, allowing the maximum width of the layout to be restricted to 900mm, providing easier access to the rear sections. In this layout, even platform 5 should be (just about) long enough to accept an 8 carriage HST, and platforms 2/3 long enough to take one with room to spare. I have coloured the fiddle yard storage sections differently for the clockwise and anti-clockwise storage to make the diagram clearer. There are now four storage roads and one through road on each side of the fiddle yards, each storage road being long enough to accommodate more than one train. I imagine that a sensible way of hiding the reversing loops would be to use a curved back scene board (preferably a removable one, perhaps with pegs slotting into holes in the baseboard, to allow easy access to the fiddle yard, as this layout is planned to be situated fairly high: about 1,500mm above the floor. Thank you all very much for your help. Any feedback on this revised plan would be much appreciated.

Phil - if 30cm is not enough separation, may I ask what you think is sufficient and why? I chose 30cm because I had not had any answers here to my earlier question as to what was sufficient, and I saw that 30cm was used by a modeller who had a Youtube channel, and that appeared to be satisfactory. Given that I do not plan on building the baseboards myself, does a helix really add that much by way of complexity? Putting the tracks on a helix is not that complex, is it, nor is putting some steel sheets underneath them (or am I missing something)? The connexion between the main line and Underground lines is not planned to be used only rarely - there would be a frequent inner suburban service. As to the Underground station, it is intended to represent a station in a cutting, as most of the stations in the City Widened Lines section were (and still are), the line disappearing into tunnels at the point where the scenic section transforms into the fiddle yard area. I shall enjoy seeing a lot of retaining wall at the back. In relation to the appearance of the underside of the other layout/top part of the layout, is this really any worse than the ceiling of a room? Unless one is actually outside, one will never get an immersive view of a model railway looking upwards.

Thank you for that - in relation to a minimum of complexity, I notice that this arrangement uses the same number of diamond crossings as the original, but an extra pair of double slips. On the face of it, it would appear to be more complex; but am I missing something? I did notice the difference apropos the fiddle yards; my original plan was for the fiddle yard storage to occur after using the reversing loop in the clockwise direction and before using the reversing loop in the anti-clockwise direction, meaning that only anti-clockwise fiddle yards would be needed, using fewer turnouts and a simpler arrangement. Is there an operational issue with this that I have not spotted, however?

Gosh, you did all the work on that yourself? That is quite impressive.

Thank you for that suggestion: that is helpful. I have had a go at this, but this does not seem to save a significant amount of space: I have not completed the track layout yet, but there is enough to show the amount of space used where it is implemented (at the right hand side - I have not completed the left hand side). Do you still think this arrangement advantageous even in spite of it not saving space?

Shady - thank you for your detailed reply. I shall look forward to seeing pictures of your layout in due course! I should note that I am not building the shed myself; the whole thing is going to be built (including thick insulation and electrics) by a company that specialises in "garden rooms". The 7.5m x 2.5m is the internal measurement: the external measurement is 7.7m x 2.9m. I will then be having a separate heating/air conditioning unit fitted at a high level. As to the cement/concrete, I did show the representative from the shed people the nature of the access through my house, and he said that that would not be a problem. Last year, I had about a tonne of slate chippings brought in that way, so I cannot imagine that cement/concrete would be much different. Regarding having two layouts: I genuinely did (and do) want to be able to have a layout depicting the 1980s as well as a larger 1930s layout. I am not particularly wedded to any gauge, and selected N gauge for the 1980s layout because I can make better use of the space in that gauge. I looked into N gauge for the other layout, too, but found that there is not enough variety of stock available, and especially, no London Underground stock. I should probably have used N gauge for both layouts if there were enough stock because of the ability to fit more into the space. In relation to there not being enough space to fit all three, I had thought to have the N gauge layout at 1.5m high, the upper level of the OO gauge layout at 1.2m high and the lower level of the OO gauge layout at 0.9m high. I am quite tall (1.85m - 6ft 1"), so, for me, the N gauge would be at eye level standing, the upper tier of the OO gauge would be at lower chest level standing, and the lower level of the OO gauge layout would be at eye level sitting. That should leave enough room under the board of the lower OO gauge layout to solder by leaning forward from a sitting position without having to crawl under the boards - apart, perhaps, from the very far boards. I shall have to inquire in due course with baseboard makers how this might be achieved, and look into the extent to which anything can be attached to the wall of the shed. The N gauge layout would be built only along the long wall without windows. In relation to the layer separation between the upper and lower levels of the OO gauge layout, I have investigated helices, and it seems that it is possible for me to fit a 2nd/3rd radius helix in the space, allowing me to have a full 30cm (1ft) separation between levels. I attach a revised track plan showing this arrangement, and at the same time adding more interest to the lower level station, which was liable to be tedious before. Now, the centre platforms are terminating platforms for some of the Underground trains, including the locomotive hauled Underground trains (all of which would have to terminate there, as the fiddle yards for the Inner Circle (east) have no reversing loop, so we can imagine this as having shades of Aldgate, which is not too far from the actual Pudding Lane). Thank you very much for your testing suggestions. I do not have a great deal of space in the house to test with long trains (which is why I am having the shed built in the first place), but I could set up a temporary oval on the floor of the shed for testing in due course, and acquire the helix for testing the ability of trains to use the gradient with the tight curves with/without magnetic assistance, as well as for the longer trains to use 505mm (3rd radius) curves on the flat with/without magnetic assistance. I could then assess the viability of these plans in light of the results of the tests. I wonder whether there are any tests that I could sensibly run in a much smaller space inside the house? Pre-shed testing would be most useful if practical. As to buffer lock, incidentally, I am currently inclined to retain the default tension lock couplers, which look a lot better than they did when I was a nipper, and which are fairly robust at preventing that sort of thing from what I understand - although, of course, I will need to test this, too, with a freight train downhill on the helix. In any event, thank you again for your assistance: it is much appreciated.

Thank you all for your replies. Royaloak: I think that you may have misunderstood the PowerBase product. It consists of (1) steel plates underneath the track; and (2) high strength permanent mangents attached to the bottom of the locomotives. The tests which I have found seem to suggest that it can more than double the ability of model locomotives to haul long trains up gradients. I am having difficulties in understanding why you think that the discussion of ballasting amounts to "avoiding" traction issues. I have spent a great deal of time trying to explore traction issues and the precise extent to which (1) it is an issue; and (2) it can be alleviated, in light of conflicting information, have resolved to test this myself. I have also (more recently) learnt about PowerBase, which seems to be very effective. Do I understand that when you were referring to points (plural) being avoided, you actually meant just the one issue of traction? Incidentally, I am not planning on running 12 carriage trains around inclined curves, nor have I ever been. I have had to state at least four times now that I have no plans to do so, even though that ought to have been clear from the original post. The 12 carriage trains will remain on the flat. The inclined curves will be used only by shorter trains. As to computer control, I had spent some time researching this, and found iTrain, which appears to be a very interesting product that allows for a high degree of automation and also runs on Linux. Does anyone have any experience of using this software? As to people working on the layout, my plan at this stage is to have the baseboards professionally built and then to lay the track and install the wiring myself. Neither of those tasks seem overwhelmingly difficult (given that I will be using prefabricated track, rather than making my own as some very talented modellers do) even for quite a bit of track, but I will in any event have a better idea of the relative ease or difficulty of tracklaying when I work on the smaller layout that I am planning to build first following advice earlier in this thread. If anyone can, as requested above, share their experiences of the time taken for tracklaying (with prefabricated track and no OHLE) and wiring (with DCC) for any given size of layout, that would be extremely helpful.

That would be very helpful - thank you. I did try to get the reversing loops in the centre, but could not find a better way of doing it.

Royaloak - I can only make use of advice that is not vague, so stating that I am trying to fit "too much" into the space is not useful without a reliable means of calibrating where the threshold between "too much" and a reasonable amount is, as well as an explanation for why it is calibrated at that level so that I can make sense of any relevant variables (e.g. whether the threshold is set by practicality or aesthetics, and, if by practicality, the nature of the practical issues so that I can investigate the extent to which those specific practical issues can be overcome and what effect that that would have on the resulting calibration). In relation to ballasting, would any degree of ballasting be liable to cause any model locomotive to burn out, or does it vary depending on the amount of ballast and the particular locomotive in question? If the latter, do you or does anyone else have any idea where I can find a reliable source of information in this regard? That would be most helpful. When you refer to the layout being "unworkable", can you elaborate on what you mean by that? I stated in the original post and then had to repeat in at least three subsequent posts that I was planning to use computer control for this layout, as I am well aware that it would not be operable manually by one person (and was before I started planning it). As for needing to be a "computer genius" - do you have experience of attempting to automate a layout? If so, I should be grateful if you could let me know the practical difficulties that you encountered so that I can understand what you mean by this comment. I do have quite a bit of experience in computer programming, which I anticipate will be helpful with wiring and control aspects. As to trying to avoid points, can you elaborate more precisely on what points that you think that I am trying to avoid (bearing in mind that this is a thread in which I am seeking advice, not in which I am making some sort of claim that requires justification)? In relation to track laying, I have asked a number of times for some sort of idea about how long that that specific element takes, but I have not had any sort of answer, and I notice that many of the layouts displayed here and elsewhere have considerably more than 10% of the trackwork planned here, so I am afraid that I do not understand where you get the figure of 10%. Can you elaborate? As stated several times above, the plan at present is to build the smaller layout first and see what sort of time that that takes before committing to a layout based on the concept discussed in this thread, but it would be extremely helpful, as I have already stated, to get some idea about the time that track laying and/or wiring takes for any given amount of trackwork. For those who seem to think that I am not receptive to advice - what I am seeking when posting on this forum is not for somebody else to make the decision about what sort of model railway to build for me, but for others to give me useful, specific, practical information so that I can make that decision myself. If I am not deferring to the opinions of others as to what sort of model railway to build, it is either because insufficient reason or data has been given for me to make an informed independent decision about whether there is a good reason for me to do as advised or not, because what is advised is not sufficiently precise to enable me to formulate a specific plan taking into account the constraints suggested, or because it is apparent that the advice in question is or appears likely to be based on aesthetic considerations in circumstances where I do not share the relevant aesthetic preferences of the person giving the advice. Thus, repeating the same generalised statement about the layout being too complex in increasingly emphatic or in some cases hyperbolic tones really does not assist at all, but information such as experience of specific practical problems of particular features (e.g. sharp corners, small degrees of separation between different levels, etc.) are extremely useful, and I very much encourage anyone who is able to assist further in that regard to do so. Edit: I notice with interest the DCC Concepts Powerbase, which is advertised as significantly improving adhesion with relative ease. Has anyone any experience as to how well that this works with long trains and tight corners and/or shorter trains and gradients? I note that was able to get a Hornby B1 to haul 8 carriages up a 3rd radius helix (I cannot recall whether 2% or 3%) using this system.

I note that you refer to the issues relating to slips and diamonds to be common to all non-plain track - is that correct? If so, was I incorrect in my understanding that "complex" trackwork refers to certain types of non-plain track? Nearly all layouts will have some points somewhere - so I am now very unclear indeed on what it means for a layout to have "complex" trackwork. Can you elaborate? Is it the absolute number of points? The density? The type?

Thank you both for your thoughts. I have tried to put the reversing loop inside the main loop, but, with a minimum of 305mm (~12") radius curves, this takes more space than the outside loop: see the attached plan (I did not complete the right hand side loops on account of the lack of benefit of the left hand loops). Am I getting something wrong here? In terms of complex track, do I understand that you mean any piece of intersecting trackwork which has more than three entrances (including three-way points, diamond crossings and single and double slips)? If so, can you elaborate on the nature and degree of problems that these tend to cause and the circumstances in which they cause such trouble, as it would help me very much to understand this with more precision. And thank you for clarifying the sandwich/model railway confusion: that is most helpful.

Thank you for your feedback: that is helpful. In relation to the lower layer: I am keen on having an interesting model of a working Underground station, so should prefer not to abandon this if possible. I think that it is a little lacking in interest at present; I am thinking of altering the design to add some centre terminating platforms on the electrified side, if there is space, to resemble something like Aldgate, Tower Hill or similar, albeit with a City Widened Lines setting. As to the height separation, I can well see that 142mm would be impractical, and that was one thing that concerned me when I first designed this. One possible way to solve this, as discussed above, would be to use a helix - if I can fit one in, it should in principle be possible to have a consistent 2% gradient over a number of turns rather than the 3% gradient currently specified. Can anyone suggest a sensible degree of height separation between upper and lower areas to enable adequate access to the rear of the lower area and the underside of the upper area? Incidentally, Gordon: I think that your post was very helpful, and should not want you or anyone else to desist in posting helpful, specific, practical feedback on account of the understandable criticism of those who have been somewhat less constructive and more tending towards hyperbole than clear, practical advice in their approach. It is precisely this sort of information that I am after in posting this thread in the first place. I do not entirely understand those who believe that I have not been receptive to advice regarding minimum radii for long trains; I have specifically posted an altered design with increased minimum radii and spent some time researching the matter, and have also explicitly stated that, owing to somewhat inconsistent information that I have had so far, both in this thread and from other sources, I intend to test this practically before building any layout incorporating such curve radii. I should be very grateful if anyone who believes that I have not been receptive to advice on curve radii could explain why, in light of that, they take that view? Phil - thank you for your feedback. You are correct that all of the green and yellow areas on the plan are non-scenic areas, so it is not relevant that the tight curves do not look realistic in these areas, but is relevant if a long train cannot get around them, and it is on this topic that I have had somewhat inconsistent and incomplete information, which is why I aim to test this practically before building any such layout as stated above. As to the long platforms, I suspect that this is more of a matter of taste: I am keen on the idea of having realistic length trains, even if that means long platforms and less room for background scenery. Some might find long platforms boring; but I find unrealistically short trains grating. It is a matter of taste rather than of practicality in this instance. In relation to the station throat, ideally it would be longer, but it is already 2.7m long, compared to the platforms, the longest of which are 3.8m long, not including the ramp, so it is not enormously out of proportion as far as I can see. Given that there is good access to all of the lines using only long radius turnouts, does it really need to be longer? As to the carriage sidings and depot - I should prefer to have them on the same plane as the station, but there is no room for that without significantly shortening the platforms (which could then allow the carriage sidings to be shortened), and I should prefer not to do this if at all possible for the reasons already given (i.e. my preference for realistic lengths of trains). Indeed, I estimate that the platform lengths would have to be reduced by about half to allow for this, which would only allow trains of up to 6 carriages - only one carriage longer than the normal length for London suburban trains on the Great Western. Actually, now that I have taken out the electrified dive-under that was intended to represent the Hammersmith & City, I wonder whether there might be room for the engine shed, even if not the carriage sidings, in the top left/north west corner? An interesting idea which might allow the fiddle yards to be straighter, which I note is recommended. However, a disadvantage of this would be that the engine shed would then be in a far corner and hard to reach - might this be impractical? Would a corner engine shed be better or worse than curved fiddle yards? It would also reduce the overall scenic area of the layout, which goes against other recommendations. I thought that it might be nice to have a raised section behind a retaining wall with some terraced buildings and a 'bus stop in that area. As to the overall scale of the project, it is very difficult to know quite what to do with people's suggestions in this regard without more data. When I build the smaller layout, I should get an idea of how long that the basic tasks - track-laying and wiring (recall that I intend to have the baseboards built by contractors on account of my lack of woodworking skill) should take for any given amount of track. I note that there are people who have posted threads on this forum featuring lovely layouts with perhaps 25-30% of the trackwork that this plan has - but who have built the layout in finescale and made every single piece of trackwork by hand (from what I understand, a simple set of points/crossings can take an experienced modeller circa two hours to build from a kit), which does not seem to be an undertaking of a lesser degree in terms of time than a considerably larger layout using only prefabricated track, especially given the need to re-wheel every item of rolling stock. I know that this may be hard to remember with any precision now, but if anyone can for any given layout built with DCC, entirely off-the-shelf track and no OHLE (the complexity of which layout can be discerned by way of a link to a thread on this forum or elsewhere with a track diagram and/or photographs) give me an idea of the time that it took between the completion of the baseboards and the time when the track was all laid, and the time between when the track was all laid and the wiring was at least basically complete (barring any later refinements), that would be very helpful. The more data points of this sort that I can gather, the better understanding that I can get of the magnitude of any given project.

I have to say, I am still really very unclear what people mean when they refer to "simple" trackwork - can anyone elaborate to the extent that one can use the definition reliably to determine whether any given layout has "simple" or "complex" trackwork (by this specific definition) on the basis of the information contained in the given definition alone, not relying on any assumptions that may not be common to all persons with a working knowledge of railways generally? Also, may I ask what a BLT layout is? I must confess, I thought that that particular initialism refers to a type of sandwich. Incidentally, as to operating potential, I had imagined the following diagrams: (1) London to Bristol - HST - Intercity - every other train in each direction stops; (2) London to Cardiff - HST - Intercity - every other train in each direction stops; (3) London to Swansea - HST - Intercity - no train stops; (4) Poole to Glasgow - locomotive hauled - Intercity - all trains stop; (5) Southampton to York - locomotive hauled - Intercity - all trains stop; (6) London to Worcester (fast) - locomotive hauled - Regional Railways - all trains stop; (7) Oxcott to Worcester (slow) - DMU - Regional Railways - trains terminate from the down direction; (8) Reading to Worcester (slow) - DMU - Regional Railways - all trains stop; (9) Oxcott to Banbury - DMU - Regional Railways - trains terminate from the branch; (10) Reading to Oxcott (slow) - DMU - NSE - trains terminate from the up direction; (11) London to Oxcott (semi-fast) - DMU - NSE - trains terminate from the up direction; (12) London to Oxcott (fast) - locomotive hauled - NSE - trains terminate from the up direction; (13) London to Bristol (mail) - locomotive hauled - RES - every third train stops; (14) MGR - locomotive hauled - RF coal - trains may stop to let express trains past if necessary; (15) tankers - locomotive hauled - RF liquids - trains may stop to let express trains past if necessary; (16) steel flats - locomotive hauled - RF metals - trains may stop to let express trains past if necessary; and (17) civil engineer's train - locomotive hauled - CE dept. - runs ad hoc. I hope that that should provide sufficient operational interest.

I have revised the design a little further in the platform area, eliminating the diamond crossings (which I am aware were avoided wherever possible by the 1980s), and making the platform design closer to other stations of a similar size on the Western region. I have also eliminated all but four sets of facing points on the mainline (two in each direction: one for the station in each direction, and one for the locomotive sidings, the other for the branch). I did have another go at the reverse loop idea without crossing the main width of the baseboard, but this did not seem to be productive as it required too much width to get a 305mm (~12") curve in both directions of the necessary "S" bend (and would still require diamond crossings in any event). Thank you again all for your feedback: it is much appreciated in helping to design this.

I have indeed kept to a minimum radius of 305mm (~12") for this layout in order to ensure reliable running. Joseph - I should be very grateful to see the sketch: that would be most helpful. As to the track layout in the scenic section, I have been thinking of a way of doing away with the diamond crossings that had fallen out of favour by the 1980s, and wonder whether a slightly different (and possibly more realistic) platform arrangement would be to have a pair of loops off the mainline that do not cross the running line in the opposite direction. This would also reduce conflicting movements. I will have a go at posting a design for that in due course. Incidentally, I am aware that the real Oxford station has just two main line platforms; but this station (which you may notice from the filename of the plans is provisionally entitled, "Oxcott") is intended to be a hybrid between Oxford and Didcot, and, although more closely resembling Oxford in design, is nonetheless intended to have the main line HST operations of a location on the London to Bristol route. Indeed, part of the idea for interesting operations would include stopping freight trains in the slow platforms to allow for expresses to pass. On the subject of operations, I should prefer not to have freight terminal operations, as that is not what interests me so much; I am rather more interested in passenger train movements (although I plan on having through freight trains). I had wondered at one stage whether an engineering siding (as in the real Oxford) might be a thing to have, although I did not have space for that in the end. Thank you again in any event for all of your feedback - it is much appreciated.