A newbie to layout planning needing advice.

[Lion-Face]

Hi all

 

I'm looking for some advice on creating a new layout.

 

I have a number of engines from a previous layout which I wish to use for something smaller and portable with the intention of taking it to my local exhibition from time to time.  

 

The plan is a small TMD, based in the late 60's UK era, more specifically the Barrow in Furness region of the Midland railway mostly because of the classes 03/17/25/28 BR Green I have (just gives me a little focus, but I'm not bound by history).

 

The idea is a 2 road engine shed, with a refuelling point siding, a diesel storage tank siding and possibly a small platform near the engine shed for loading/unloading wagons of supplies for the TMD.  I'm not sure how realistic this is, I am happy with something believable that will give me some operating potential.  

 

The space in my house I have is at best 1500mm in length to store (not including fiddle yard) and so my current track plans are based on a 1200x300 area, going out to 1500 if need be and can go to 400mm wide for scenic purposes, ideally keeping within the 300mm width for the track.

 

I'm also using Templot for the first time (loving it!) and plan to make the track myself for my first time.  

 

Please let me know where I am going wrong or any improvements I can make while I'm still in the early planning stages.  Any thoughts from anyone is greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you for reading

 

Matthew.

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

Welcome to the forum Matthew.

 

First question - you will get a few. Where does the 1.5M length restriction come from? Depending what you build it might be possible to store it on its end. However for transport you might want multiple but shorter, boards. Theres a lot of expertise here about that, including folding layouts.

[ikcdab]

Hi Matthew, I'm glad you are using templot, it really is the best planning package there is and almost automatically leads to realistic trackwork. 

Your plan looks good. The second option looks better as the sidings are longer.

If you are using templot, you might as well make the turnouts as large radius as you can, in a loco depot these could be B6 or B8.

Looking good.

[Lion-Face]

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Welcome to the forum Matthew.

 

First question - you will get a few. Where does the 1.5M length restriction come from? Depending what you build it might be possible to store it on its end. However for transport you might want multiple but shorter, boards. Theres a lot of expertise here about that, including folding layouts.

 

Hello and thank you.

 

I currently have a layout, which is on the way out, which is made of 2x 1200x600mm boards.  When separated I can move them on my own to storage.  So I figured I would start with a 1200mm length, a bit narrower for ease of mobility, hence the track plan drawn to 300mm board width with the thought of going to 400mm wide for scenic purposes.  Seeing as the space I have available, I can go to 1500mm if that is going to be a better fit for my intentions.  Anything larger and it will encroach on living space if it is setup all the time, which I prefer as I enjoy being able to view it all the time and come/go from the layout for modelling/operating as I see fit rather than potentially being put off by the thought of setting it up.  

 

I have no experience with transporting layouts outside of the home, so any advice/suggestions in regards to baseboard size is very welcome.  

 

1 hour ago, ikcdab said:

Hi Matthew, I'm glad you are using templot, it really is the best planning package there is and almost automatically leads to realistic trackwork. 

Your plan looks good. The second option looks better as the sidings are longer.

If you are using templot, you might as well make the turnouts as large radius as you can, in a loco depot these could be B6 or B8.

Looking good.

 

Hi Ian

 

Yes I agree, templot is really good and I certainly intend on continuing with it.  The appeal of it came from seeing some very aspirational layouts on these forums over the years with beautiful flowing point work.

 

Thank you for the comment on my plan.  I do prefer the longer sidings of the 2nd layout, yet prefer the look/feel of the 1st plan, I just like the shape or flow of it better, but it is probably too restrictive within the 1200mm bounds I'm attempting to hold myself to.

 

And thank you for the information on the turnouts.  I have no knowledge on what is reasonable/realistic size for a TMD for the turnouts, so B6/B8 is a great start.  Where I don't restrict myself to absolute realism, were I can better replicate it I will.

 

[Dungrange]

I like the flowing track-work, but I'd expect the tracks within the engine shed to be straight - ie it is easier to construct a building with straight walls and right angles for the corners.

 

In the first image you have a siding labelled 'diesel storage'.  I'm presuming that the intention is that this is where fuel would be brought into the depot by rail and unloaded.  That would therefore imply that you would have a locomotive with a single tank wagon, which would proceed from the fiddle yard to the head-shunt and then propel the tank wagon into this siding.  The head-shunt looks a little short, as it looks to be about 12" (0.3 m), which by the time you've fitted a buffer stop leaves maybe 10" (0.25 m) for a locomotive and wagon.  That may be enough for the 03 shunter, but may restrict the locomotives that could perform this manoeuvre.  It would be much easier to perform the same movement in the second image, as the head-shunt is longer.  It may also be possible to use two tank wagons if the siding were longer.

 

I'm not familiar enough with the prototype to comment on what other facilities a TMD of this size may have.

[Flying Pig]

8 hours ago, Lion-Face said:

The space in my house I have is at best 1500mm in length to store (not including fiddle yard) and so my current track plans are based on a 1200x300 area, going out to 1500 if need be and can go to 400mm wide for scenic purposes, ideally keeping within the 300mm width for the track.

 

How big can the layout be when set up?  If you can store a couple of boards or even construct a folding board that could give you a bit more freedom.

 

1200mm is really tiny for a modern TMD so if you are restricted to that size, then a lot of the success of the layout will be in how it deceives the eye into believing there's more than there actually is.  A very good example of that was Marc Smith's Hendre Lane which went to a lot of shows and was extremely effective.

[Lion-Face]

 

19 hours ago, Dungrange said:

I like the flowing track-work, but I'd expect the tracks within the engine shed to be straight - ie it is easier to construct a building with straight walls and right angles for the corners.

 

In the first image you have a siding labelled 'diesel storage'.  I'm presuming that the intention is that this is where fuel would be brought into the depot by rail and unloaded.  That would therefore imply that you would have a locomotive with a single tank wagon, which would proceed from the fiddle yard to the head-shunt and then propel the tank wagon into this siding.  The head-shunt looks a little short, as it looks to be about 12" (0.3 m), which by the time you've fitted a buffer stop leaves maybe 10" (0.25 m) for a locomotive and wagon.  That may be enough for the 03 shunter, but may restrict the locomotives that could perform this manoeuvre.  It would be much easier to perform the same movement in the second image, as the head-shunt is longer.  It may also be possible to use two tank wagons if the siding were longer.

 

I'm not familiar enough with the prototype to comment on what other facilities a TMD of this size may have.

 

Hi David

 

I agree with the straight tracks into the engine shed, and will tidy those details up in future plans.

 

And yes to the diesel storage, the intention is a siding where fuel is brought into the depot by rail and unloaded.  It was the intention of having this done by my class 03 or similar sized loco in the future, hence why I thought I could get away with a shorter siding.  Would this have been performed by any engine available at the time?  

 

18 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

How big can the layout be when set up?  If you can store a couple of boards or even construct a folding board that could give you a bit more freedom.

 

1200mm is really tiny for a modern TMD so if you are restricted to that size, then a lot of the success of the layout will be in how it deceives the eye into believing there's more than there actually is.  A very good example of that was Marc Smith's Hendre Lane which went to a lot of shows and was extremely effective.

 

Hi Simon

 

I have read thought a couple of Marc Smith's layouts, he is brilliant!  I really love the Poynton Sneer sidings and I hadn't seen Hendre Lane before you mentioned it so thank you for introducing me to that.  

 

At most I could setup approx 3 meters in my living room.  Storage is the bigger problem, although 3x 1000mm boards should be doable.  

 

I guess my main goal with my restrictions are:

 

 - Have it setup and displayed all the time in the living room.  Max length 1500mm

 - Ideally a single board that I can lift and move myself, probably max length 1200mm, width 600mm but I want to come down on width, hence why I have ended up with a 1200x400mm plan

 - Keep complexity down.  Less board joins, less things to go wrong.  Easier to move and setup.  My last project was a failure with too complex board joins, although I do know where I went wrong and wont make the same mistake again. 

 - Keep costs down.  Smaller boards, harder to go overboard with costs.

 - Smaller will give me a better chance to complete a layout.  I want to move onto a bigger project in the future, but I also want to see a layout from start to finish, learn techniques, practice etc.  

 

But, now that it has been mentioned in this thread, I am opening up to the idea of a longer layout, maybe even a folding layout.  I'm unsure of the complexity and the best way to go about baseboard construction but I'm sure I can learn.  

 

I'm unsure what a modern (or 60's era) TMD should entail outside of the basics I have in my plans in the original post, and I also don't know if 1200mm is too big or small.  Judging by the comments its probably on the small side. 

 

So what I want to know from here is, what would be a reasonable size, based on my proposed restrictions?  Is 1500 going to give me enough of a run?  Obviously that would just extend the existing sidings.  Or do I need to go to 2000mm, introduce run around loop, another facility or siding?  Any and all help is greatly appreciated, and I'm really thankful for the replies so far.  

[Dungrange]

19 minutes ago, Lion-Face said:

And yes to the diesel storage, the intention is a siding where fuel is brought into the depot by rail and unloaded.  It was the intention of having this done by my class 03 or similar sized loco in the future, hence why I thought I could get away with a shorter siding.  Would this have been performed by any engine available at the time?  

 

I suppose the answer depends on what the railway looks like 'off stage'.  I'd have envisaged whatever locomotive brought the goods train to your nearby station would then have shunted the wagons to their respective destinations (especially in the context of current railway operations where there are fewer small shunters left).  However, if an adjacent goods yard is sufficiently busy to justify a permanent shunter (ie the Class 03) then I suppose you could legitimately say that the movement of fuel from the goods yard to the TMD is a trip working always undertaken by the resident Class 03.  I think the only question I'd have would be why the Class 03 trips the fuel to the depot if the train engine was also heading to the depot for servicing?  I guess your answer to that could be because the head shunt in too short to allow the placement of the fuel tank to be undertaken by any other locomotive.  However, my follow on question would then be why was a brand new facility constructed that way (ie in the 1960s this would have been a brand new diesel depot).  Obviously the answer to that lies in the fact that the majority of your infrastructure, including the track, was probably designed for the steam era, but the fuel storage tanks would obviously be new, so why were they placed with such restrictive access?  The answer may be that the site is very constrained in real life, just as it is in your model - ie there is a reason why the head shunt is short, which couldn't be changed.

 

As you don't have any run round facilities, the return of the empty fuel tank to the adjacent goods yard would be a propelling movement, which should be okay if the trip back to the yard is short.  I'm not sure what the restrictions are with regards to how far a train can be propelled without a brake van.

[Flying Pig]

7 hours ago, Lion-Face said:

I'm unsure what a modern (or 60's era) TMD should entail outside of the basics I have in my plans in the original post, and I also don't know if 1200mm is too big or small. 

 

You might find the following threads useful to give you some idea about what you are trying to represent.  They were found by a quick search for 'TMD' in the Prototype Questions forum and there's probably a lot more info lurking about on RMweb if do a bit of ferreting.

 

Diesel TMD's

 

How Common Were/Are The Small TMDs?

 

What is a "Diesel Depot" i.e. which are and which aren't

 

 

[DCB]

Templot isn't great for RTR track planning, it's more a design tool for hand made track.  Big failing is the kinks between points and adjacent track it often introduces.   The lower plan has a couple of nasty ones.   Anyrail is better in this respect.

If you have a short length its vital to get the longest sidings possible which means cramming the pointwork into the shortest space consisten with your chosen minimum radius.    The upper plan has a short straight in the worst possibe place followed by a very sharp radius point.   It looks like 1st radius, a 3ft would fit without that straight.   If you must use Set Track 2nd radius its well worth carving off the last 10mm from the frog end of the point to reduce the length and track spacing.   Its more sensible to use 2ft min radius and the Peco Double slip, symetrical 3 way point, and small Y as well as the 7.5" points are all a nominal 2ft radius.  With such a small 5t  layout and large ( 1ft) locos  the possibilities are limited when you add in 14" from point toe to tracks back parallel.   Its a situation where hand bilt of carved up RTR track can make a huge difference. Maybe a great opportunty for non conuctive non insulated track with R/C... R/C sound......

[Lion-Face]

23 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

I suppose the answer depends on what the railway looks like 'off stage'.  I'd have envisaged whatever locomotive brought the goods train to your nearby station would then have shunted the wagons to their respective destinations (especially in the context of current railway operations where there are fewer small shunters left).  However, if an adjacent goods yard is sufficiently busy to justify a permanent shunter (ie the Class 03) then I suppose you could legitimately say that the movement of fuel from the goods yard to the TMD is a trip working always undertaken by the resident Class 03.  I think the only question I'd have would be why the Class 03 trips the fuel to the depot if the train engine was also heading to the depot for servicing?  I guess your answer to that could be because the head shunt in too short to allow the placement of the fuel tank to be undertaken by any other locomotive.  However, my follow on question would then be why was a brand new facility constructed that way (ie in the 1960s this would have been a brand new diesel depot).  Obviously the answer to that lies in the fact that the majority of your infrastructure, including the track, was probably designed for the steam era, but the fuel storage tanks would obviously be new, so why were they placed with such restrictive access?  The answer may be that the site is very constrained in real life, just as it is in your model - ie there is a reason why the head shunt is short, which couldn't be changed.

 

As you don't have any run round facilities, the return of the empty fuel tank to the adjacent goods yard would be a propelling movement, which should be okay if the trip back to the yard is short.  I'm not sure what the restrictions are with regards to how far a train can be propelled without a brake van.

 

That is really interesting and great information.  Along with some of the info found in Simon's links it becomes apparent that I have to develop a bit more of a backstory as to why the depot exists and therefore what movements there will be on the layout.  Thank you, it has given me a different perspective on my planning. 

 

 

16 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

You might find the following threads useful to give you some idea about what you are trying to represent.  They were found by a quick search for 'TMD' in the Prototype Questions forum and there's probably a lot more info lurking about on RMweb if do a bit of ferreting.

 

Diesel TMD's

 

How Common Were/Are The Small TMDs?

 

What is a "Diesel Depot" i.e. which are and which aren't

 

 

 

Thank you very much for those links, a lot of interesting reading ahead.  I really appreciate it and will do further ferreting when I am done with them.

 

5 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Templot isn't great for RTR track planning, it's more a design tool for hand made track.  Big failing is the kinks between points and adjacent track it often introduces.   The lower plan has a couple of nasty ones.   Anyrail is better in this respect.

If you have a short length its vital to get the longest sidings possible which means cramming the pointwork into the shortest space consisten with your chosen minimum radius.    The upper plan has a short straight in the worst possibe place followed by a very sharp radius point.   It looks like 1st radius, a 3ft would fit without that straight.   If you must use Set Track 2nd radius its well worth carving off the last 10mm from the frog end of the point to reduce the length and track spacing.   Its more sensible to use 2ft min radius and the Peco Double slip, symetrical 3 way point, and small Y as well as the 7.5" points are all a nominal 2ft radius.  With such a small 5t  layout and large ( 1ft) locos  the possibilities are limited when you add in 14" from point toe to tracks back parallel.   Its a situation where hand built or carved up RTR track can make a huge difference. Maybe a great opportunty for non conuctive non insulated track with R/C... R/C sound......

 

Hi David, thank you for your comment

 

I do understand that Templot isn't a great track for RTR and I wouldn't use it for that.  I am planning on hand making the track for this layout.  It is something I have been wanting to do for a while and seeing as I am at the beginning of planning a small layout, I figured this would be the best time to experiment with hand built track.  

 

I would guess the kinks in my track plans are my learning process of Templot.  I hadn't seen any, I also haven't looked that closely at it, just getting a feel for a track layout, and one of the appealing things of posting this on RMWeb was that someone more experienced would point out faults that I don't see yet.  Thank you for pointing that out and I will make a better effort at producing a tidier plan next time.  

 

I certainly agree that using a 3 way point and slip would save a lot of space, I am reluctant to go down that route as I feel single points will be difficult enough to hand build without the added complexity of other point and slip variations, maybe for my next layout.  

 

What I am gathering though is I am going to have to prioritize siding length in future plans, and I will likely be expanding the length of the layout to use up some of the space I have available.  What would be a minimum radius found in small depots like this?  I assume the slower speeds allow for some fairly tight track, but I don't know how tight is too tight.  

 

[Flying Pig]

7 minutes ago, Lion-Face said:

What I am gathering though is I am going to have to prioritize siding length in future plans, and I will likely be expanding the length of the layout to use up some of the space I have available.  What would be a minimum radius found in small depots like this?  I assume the slower speeds allow for some fairly tight track, but I don't know how tight is too tight.  

 

 

Your plans posted at the start of the thread seem to have very tight curves on the pointwork - more model railway than prototype.  This is rapidly getting beyond my knowledge, but model railway points and curves are generally much tighter than the real thing, to an extent that may surprise you.  It should be possible to design a good compromise with Templot by using the shorter prototype components.

 

TBH though I would do the background reading and sketch some general layouts to see what appeals before worrying about the details of track design.

[Dungrange]

29 minutes ago, Lion-Face said:

What would be a minimum radius found in small depots like this?  I assume the slower speeds allow for some fairly tight track, but I don't know how tight is too tight.  

 

Most prototype railway stock can traverse a five chain curve 'dead slow' - ie at a speed of less than 5 mph.  A chain is 66ft long, so a five chain curve in 4 mm scale would have a radius of about 52".  However, any curve on the prototype with a radius of less than ten chains would usually have a continuous checkrail and a severe speed restriction.  That means that in model form, any curves with a radius of less than about 8' 8" should have a continuous checkrail and would be considered a 'tight' radius in terms of the prototype.

 

If you were trying to create a scale model of a small depot, with fairly tight track, you'd probably be looking at a minimum ten foot radius in model form.  Of course none of us have the space to build scale curves, so it's down to what looks right in the space you have available.  A radius of less than two feet definitely looks like a train set, but once you get up to radii greater than about three foot, you're into the territory of 'looking right', even if the radius is still unrealistically tight.  Given how space constrained you are, I think I'd start with a minimum two foot radius curve, but try and increase that where possible.  If you can work with three foot radius curves, it would be better.

[Chimer]

Given the OP is intending to build his own track, which is why he's using Templot, I was wondering (only out of idle curiosity, not something I will ever embark on) whether the smallish radius points he will need are more difficult to build by hand?  I would guess that they are less forgiving in a number of ways ......

[Lion-Face]

On 11/05/2021 at 20:35, Flying Pig said:

 

Your plans posted at the start of the thread seem to have very tight curves on the pointwork - more model railway than prototype.  This is rapidly getting beyond my knowledge, but model railway points and curves are generally much tighter than the real thing, to an extent that may surprise you.  It should be possible to design a good compromise with Templot by using the shorter prototype components.

 

TBH though I would do the background reading and sketch some general layouts to see what appeals before worrying about the details of track design.

 

Thank you for your thoughts.  I kind of knew that it would be difficult to replicate the real thing in a small space but wasn't sure how big of a difference it would be.  As has been pointed out, quite a bit!  I am more than happy with 'looking right' more so than train set curves, so will be sketching a few more plans out to see if I can come up with a nice compromise.  

 

On 11/05/2021 at 21:04, Dungrange said:

 

Most prototype railway stock can traverse a five chain curve 'dead slow' - ie at a speed of less than 5 mph.  A chain is 66ft long, so a five chain curve in 4 mm scale would have a radius of about 52".  However, any curve on the prototype with a radius of less than ten chains would usually have a continuous checkrail and a severe speed restriction.  That means that in model form, any curves with a radius of less than about 8' 8" should have a continuous checkrail and would be considered a 'tight' radius in terms of the prototype.

 

If you were trying to create a scale model of a small depot, with fairly tight track, you'd probably be looking at a minimum ten foot radius in model form.  Of course none of us have the space to build scale curves, so it's down to what looks right in the space you have available.  A radius of less than two feet definitely looks like a train set, but once you get up to radii greater than about three foot, you're into the territory of 'looking right', even if the radius is still unrealistically tight.  Given how space constrained you are, I think I'd start with a minimum two foot radius curve, but try and increase that where possible.  If you can work with three foot radius curves, it would be better.

 

This is great, thank you.  That gives me a very good guide on where to go with curve radius and planning.  I will have a rethink on how I am going to approach the room constraints and see how I can feasibly muster up more space in what I want and reproduce a new plan based on the information provided in this thread, it has been of great help.  

[Lion-Face]

After a bit of a rethink and measure of my space.  I have extended the layout to 3000mm scenic area.

 

With the advice given in this thread so far along with reading and researching further, I have come up with this track plan.  Still a work in progress, and am happy to read your thoughts on my new plan.

 

Having extended the layout length, the shortest point is a B-6 and the min radius is 3ft.  The shortest siding is at least 400mm.  The engine shed straight length is approx. 500mm before curving to meet the points.  

 

With the S bend of the main layout, I have now also added a small wagon repair shop to the back left of the layout which will introduce some more interesting traffic and operating potential although I am still battling with how many roads the wagon shop should be and the exact layout.  I'm thinking a single road shed with a siding just to the left.  

 

I'm also not sold on the heavily curved line on the far left of the layout, although now I am thinking this layout could potentially have fiddle yards at either end, although I do not have room for 2 to be permanently setup, the intention is still to have one fiddle yard feeding the right hand end of the layout.

[Lion-Face]

I am happy with the plan so far and have further refined it since my last post.  Thank you all who contributed, I feel it has gotten to a much better place than my initial concept. 

 

I made the distance between the tracks more realistic, adjusted the passing loop between the engine shed and refuel point a little wider to allow for the she building and adjusted some of the curves to be a little more gentle.  My min radius as I stated in my last post is still 3ft, but I didn't realize it didn't take into account the inside branch track of the point, so those are tighter than the 3ft radius I was trying to stick to.  Even in discovering this, I am happy with the look and feel of the plan and am willing to take that compromise as I cannot extend the layout any further.  If there is some glaring issue with the design of this plan, please let me know now, I'm more than happy to spend extra time in the planning stage to get things right.

 

I need to figure out how to adjust the timbers correctly for the points. 

 

I printed it out as it is to lay it out on the floor to get a feel for it with a few of my locos and rolling stock placed down, photos attached.  

 

Also below is a link to my templot2 file for the layout, if anyone was interested in having a closer look at where it currently sits.  JPGs can only do so much.  

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmHw_RldVytugdl5CtZz3HNviU3p-g

[The Johnster]

IMHO the two roads running through the shed are too close together.  A loco shed usually has room inside the building on each side of a stabled loco for basic maintenance, and if there are inspection pits, a bit of ground is needed between them for stability with heavy locomotives on top, not to mention that a decent walkway is needed between the roads.  Margam diesel depot was a ballpark similar size to this, a smallish 2 roader. 
 

Having objected to the spacing of the two toads through the building, I am at a loss to suggest how you might provide the extra space between them.  My suggestion, therefore, is to lose one of them or truncate it outside the building.  Have a look at Severn Tunnel Jc. diesel depot, a very busy place with a one through roader building, and locos mostly stabled out in the open.  

[Lion-Face]

19 hours ago, The Johnster said:

IMHO the two roads running through the shed are too close together.  A loco shed usually has room inside the building on each side of a stabled loco for basic maintenance, and if there are inspection pits, a bit of ground is needed between them for stability with heavy locomotives on top, not to mention that a decent walkway is needed between the roads.  Margam diesel depot was a ballpark similar size to this, a smallish 2 roader. 
 

Having objected to the spacing of the two toads through the building, I am at a loss to suggest how you might provide the extra space between them.  My suggestion, therefore, is to lose one of them or truncate it outside the building.  Have a look at Severn Tunnel Jc. diesel depot, a very busy place with a one through roader building, and locos mostly stabled out in the open.  

Thank you for the information!  I have never thought of things like ground separation for stability and support of the heavy locos. Nor did I ever consider working distance between tracks, only passing distance.  I do like the idea of having a siding outside of the shed as a bit of interest and I think I would rather have the locos visible than tucked away.  

 

After posting I was doing further reading and came across some traffic flows of stabling depots.  It seems I would have the refuelling and engine shed in the wrong places, and it would be more likely to have the refuelling roads where I have the diesel shed location to allow locos to come and go and not be stuck behind waiting for another loco to be refuelled.

 

So I am going to explore placing a 2 road dead end shed in the bottom of the layout while opening up the gap for the fuelling roads.  Or I may join the refuel point to the track entering the right hand side of the layout and leaving the shed where it is.  I hope that makes sense.  I will update when I have played around in Templot again.  

[Lion-Face]

After doing further reading about TMD's and stabling points etc, I have revised my current plan.  It now shows the fuel point taking up the middle roads where locos can come into the depot, fuel up and then leave, or be stabled waiting for their next shift.  The shed is small and is just intended for light maintenance. The arrows mark out the traffic flow of the depot.  I have opened up the tighter points so that the inner branch is no less than 30" radius where most are much more gentle than that.  

 

The brown rectangles mark out intended buildings.  The fuel point is effectively the size of 2x knightwing  diesel fuelling points end to end, and the shed is the size of a two road engine shed with a bit extra for an office/storage etc.  I intend to make this a 1 road shed, and was using the 2 road size to see how it fit on the layout.  

 

I was wondering about a sanding tower and where would it be placed?  Would it be placed at the end of the fuelling points or in between the two of them?  Would a sanding tower be relevant for this sized depot or would there just be a stack of sand somewhere which is just manually loaded by shovel?  

 

Any thoughts, objections, or ideas on my revised plan is greatly welcomed.  

Edited June 20, 2021 by Lion-Face