Partly Maidenhead

[Tallpaul69]

Hi All,

 

This plan "Partly Maidenhead" still uses the 12ftx8ft space I have but aims to represent the Relief lines, Yard and Branch of Maidenhead.

 

It is based on a 6ft x4ft n gauge plan in Hornby Magazine Yearbook No.3, which has the right configuration of station, down loop and branch to represent the relief lines, station and branch to High Wycombe of Maidenhead. This is blown up to represent 00.

 

I very much like the sweeping curves of the mainline.

 

I am not convinced by the left hand end of the fiddle yard and will redraw this area with similar curves to the right hand end of the fiddle yard.

 

I have added an up loop, a siding off of this to represent the coal yard, and carried the bay platform round to eventually join the Branch fiddle yard. 

 

Then I carried this line round to join the up line at the right hand end of the fiddle yard, with a line off to join the coal yard siding and allow the removal of full coal wagons and replacement of them by empty ones! I have yet to finalise how this area is masked from view!

 

The station still requires further work including the overall roof over part of the bay platform.

 

By running all the trains in both directions (hence the loco sidings in the top left and right of the plan), a reasonable representation of the actual service is possible. 

 

I attach a plan of what is proposed drawn on the layout photocopied from the book.

 

Constructive comments welcome. If you look back at my posts under "Nearly Slough" you will see some of my underlying thinking and acceptable/not acceptable compromises.

 

In my next post I will explain the train service.

 

Best regards

Paul

[Nick Holliday]

The visible part is much more practical than Nearly Slough, although it has only a slight echo of Maidenhead, the branch junction in particular looking a bit rustic, compared with the full double junction that served for much of the station's life. To increase the similarity it might be worth trying to replicate the effect of the multiple island platforms near the duck under.

Sorry to be negative, but one problem with doubling the size of an N gauge plan is that you are also doubling the width of the baseboards, and, in particular, the depth of the corners, which at one point appear to be almost five feet from the operating well to the far corner, which is quite a reach, and even the centre of the fiddle yard is going to be quite a stretch if all the tracks are occupied. On the original design there wouldn't be any problem, since it is likely that access to the outside would be possible, but yours is confined by four walls, so you may want to think about minimising widths, and providing access points to the outside corners, for emergencies, and perhaps, on the scenic side limiting the baseboard to mainly the tracks with a few inches of landscaping.

This brings into question the viability of the loco sidings at both ends. I don't quite understand how they contribute to your statement "By running all the trains in both directions". If your intention is to run, say, a down train into a fiddle yard siding, and then bring a new loco onto the rear, and then run it back as an up train, then you will need to have more crossovers to allow these movements to take place off scene, especially in the top left corner.

[DCB]

You need to us AnyRail or similar to check the pointwork wlill work but its pretty obvious to me that the Bottom Right Hand corner curves are drawn much too tight. The curved Peco points are 5ft radius.  RH top looks OK.    I think you have too much visible running line, 4 into 2 platforms is pretty awkward.

The Branch platform needs a run round loop, the vestigial one provided would barely allow 1 coach to be run round.   The locos will pop out into the visible bit when changing trains which is n't great and the duck under will be a pain in the back.  We hinged ours after a few years, 7 tracks one end, two levels, with very robust hinges it can be lifted , someone can get in or out and be back down ready for the next train in 15 seconds.

Edited November 26, 2018 by DavidCBroad

[Joseph_Pestell]

This looks like a feasible plan. But I agree it needs to be drawn out properly to be sure that it does all fit in.

 

You probably won't manage to make it work with Peco Streamline curved points but there are curved points available from other HO manufacturers which would be suitable. Avoid the Hornby ones though. They do not work well with modern finer wheel flanges.

[Tallpaul69]

Thanks for the input:-

Trying to respond to all the points:-

1) Nick:- the double junction went in late 1974, I intend to run a 1962 scenario, a 1979 scenario and a 1992 scenario, so this compromise is acceptable!

              Had I sufficient room, I would have the main lines in as loops connecting into the reliefs at the extremes of the visible section. I decided looking at the WTTs for 1960-61 that there was more benefit by having a goods      yard behind the station (it wont fit between the relief line loop and the branch). The lack of fiddle yard loops means that some of the main line trains have to go so I think I can get a reasonable representation with just the relief lines. I can replicate most of the calling class 9 freights and the correct branch operations. As always I had to decide which compromises I could live with! Hence the "Partly Maidenhead" title.

             Please explain how I get locos on the rear of  down trains without sidings for them? I do intend to redraw that corner to allow an access point! Oops! The crossover from down to up at that end got lost when I moved the bridges!. 

 

2) David:- by the comment "the 4 into 2 platforms"  as you put it I assume refers to the loops? However the loops at Maidenhead were not for running as 4 tracks but to allow fast trains to pass stopped trains! If you are referring to the lack of Main lines, see my comment in answer to Nick above. 

            Reference the run round loop, there wasn't one beside the bay platform, running round could be done round the island platform. I have yet to work in a connection for this off scene.

            On the matter of height I intend to have the model high , at least 5ft, so ducking under will not be too problematic!. I am not a fan of the unrealistic low "helicopter" view that so many models are presented at. Looking down from on high view makes tight curves look worse!

 

3) Thanks Joseph, I had forgotten the HO curved points which especially  off scene will not be out of place.

 

I have queried the tight curves at the end of the fiddle yard with Hornby Magazine. Whether I get an answer remains to be seen!

 

Best regards

Paul

[imt]

Here I go again.  It doesn't fit.  Two points - and there are many more but I have neither the time nor inclination to continue:

 

1) The "new" curve you have put in bottom right by pushing the bay through the platform end is below 2ft radius (it looks like 20" based on a bit of squared paper aligned to the 8' end of your layout idea giving me 24 squares) in reality at any speed your carriage stock will buffer lock and/or fall off.

 

2) The "fiddle yard" is 12 parallel lines wide.  I would suggest that needs to be at least 3ft (900 mm) to give a fairly minimum space for fingers - I just manage with my track at 60 mm centres which isn't ideal (I make mistakes too!). With 18" for the 6 line station throat that is 4' 6" of your width gone, which is not how it appears in the "blown up" diagram (quick estimate of 4').

 

As Nick says, there is more to enlarging an N gauge layout into 00 than just doubling the dimensions.  I hate to be a wet blanket but every time your daydream layouts have inherent problems which will make them unattainable in real life.

 

If you are serious go to a stationer, get some A4 squared paper and a French curve or a small set of compasses and draw it yourself.  Better still spend a few bob on a decent model railway CAD package.

 

You need to get your own feel of what fits where - then you can more easily recognise whether these layouts drawn with deludingly thin lines can actually be replaced by 30 mm wide tracks on a baseboard in real life.  Most of the pretty plans in books cannot.

 

I hope you do some of your own measuring and checking soon, because if you don't you will end up in frustration.  Why not build something less ambitious that will fit?

 

I will go away now and keep quiet.  On your own head be it!

[OhOh]

Aspiring as I do to eventually (a very l-o-n-g way in the future yet!) building something of a similar size, I'm interested to see how things might fit so have tried to reproduce the bottom half of your drawing in Anyrail, mainly to see how the curves at bottom right work as they do look rather tight in your plan (and also to keep within the 50 free sections limit of my version).

 

Just about managed it using Setrack curved points (ST244/245) and Setrack curves at 22.5" (ST235) and 33.75" (ST238) radius. Having heard less than wonderful reports of ST244/245's I'd be wary of using them in such numbers, if at all. I did try with Streamline points, but grew tired of jiggling things around without success.

 

The FY lines are very tightly packed; hardly ideal as mentioned by imt above.

 

I'm only just starting out with my layout build, it's tiny, but even for that I found Anyrail extremely useful, not to mention the myriad of other (so far pure fantasy) layouts I've used it to design over the last few years. As others have already suggested, do yourself a big favour and get Anyrail or something similar; it'll make planning and rehashing things so much easier and will quickly confirm what is or isn't doable. 

 

 

[mdvle]

If you are serious go to a stationer, get some A4 squared paper and a French curve or a small set of compasses and draw it yourself.  Better still spend a few bob on a decent model railway CAD package.

 

I suspect for most people the learning curve of using some software, some of which can be had either entirely free or free with some limitations, is the better option.

 

The software won't let you cheat, something I have experienced, particularly when it comes to switches.

[Tallpaul69]

Here I go again.  It doesn't fit.  Two points - and there are many more but I have neither the time nor inclination to continue:

 

1) The "new" curve you have put in bottom right by pushing the bay through the platform end is below 2ft radius (it looks like 20" based on a bit of squared paper aligned to the 8' end of your layout idea giving me 24 squares) in reality at any speed your carriage stock will buffer lock and/or fall off.

 

2) The "fiddle yard" is 12 parallel lines wide.  I would suggest that needs to be at least 3ft (900 mm) to give a fairly minimum space for fingers - I just manage with my track at 60 mm centres which isn't ideal (I make mistakes too!). With 18" for the 6 line station throat that is 4' 6" of your width gone, which is not how it appears in the "blown up" diagram (quick estimate of 4').

 

As Nick says, there is more to enlarging an N gauge layout into 00 than just doubling the dimensions.  I hate to be a wet blanket but every time your daydream layouts have inherent problems which will make them unattainable in real life.

 

If you are serious go to a stationer, get some A4 squared paper and a French curve or a small set of compasses and draw it yourself.  Better still spend a few bob on a decent model railway CAD package.

 

You need to get your own feel of what fits where - then you can more easily recognise whether these layouts drawn with deludingly thin lines can actually be replaced by 30 mm wide tracks on a baseboard in real life.  Most of the pretty plans in books cannot.

 

I hope you do some of your own measuring and checking soon, because if you don't you will end up in frustration.  Why not build something less ambitious that will fit?

 

I will go away now and keep quiet.  On your own head be it!

Thanks everyone for your inputs:-

 

I am glad there was some positives amongst the negatives, but clearly I was wrong to think that the people at Hornby Magazine's ideas might work!  

 

I would love to have some suggestions as to what you think is achievable in my space, which will have operational (not just shunting) interest, with a variety of passenger and freight workings, to a real timetable, but is, as David put it " Less ambitious". Not sure what he thinks would be suitable?

 

Learning Software packages in my experience is not easy, and you cant draw either by hand or on a package until you have a plan to draw!  ,

 

I might draw out Bourne End, but I don't think that will have sufficient operating interest unless I pretend the GW & GC is closed and send Castle hauled expresses through Bourne End!

 

 

Cheers

Paul 

[mdvle]

First, don't get discouraged.  Unless we are very fortunate we all go through this learning and compromise process and we generally realize:

 

1) railways in real life take up a lot of space

 

2) we don't have that space in a scale form.

 

3) reality is harsh (by which I mean some things don't scale well, and there are limits to how far we can reach).

 

My suggestion is to decide which is more important to you, lots of operation or locations that you seem to be preferring.

 

If it's location, then give some thought to smaller secondary lines that may not offer the operations but do allow you to fit into your space the area of the country you are happiest with.

 

If it's operation, then consider other parts of the GWR network that will give you much of the operation you seek but with a "smaller" footprint - for example a 2 track mainline.  To this again I refer to the further parts of the GWR network, Devon and Cornwall or maybe Wales, where the summers and in particularly the summer Saturdays will give you a real reason to operate the variety of things you want - and more given that "foreign" rolling stock was common all in double track territory.

 

Finally, just to be complete, while acknowledging that they aren't for everybody have you considered a club if there any in your area?  If you are happy with the compromises necessary for a club layout (or a group exhibition layout) that can get you a much bigger layout than you can have in your room with the resulting operating potential.

[Harlequin]

There's nothing wrong with ambition but you have to understand the limits which will constrain and mould what you can do.

 

You do need to draw things to scale one way or another - there's no avoiding it. One big advantage of software is that you can try things and keep on changing your mind without wearing through the paper or copying the good bits over and over again!

 

Plot out the room as accurately as you can and then lay on the tightest curves you can accept. Remember nothing can turn inside those curves by definition. They basically define where the innermost of the tracks will run. All parallel tracks will have to run outside the innermost tracks on increasing radii (start with 51mm between track centres but that can vary). So when placing the inner curves leave room for parallel outer curves and scenery.

 

Aim to for a design that gives a flavour of a prototype rather than slavishly following it and avoid complex prototype track plans if possible.

 

Think about the features that you really, really must have. Eliminate everything else for now - even features that would be very nice. They might be able to fit in later if you're lucky.

 

Try to fit the must-have features in the simplest way possible and once that works then start to move things around, change the angles, play with the curves to make the design more interesting. While you're doing that you should see opportunities to get some of the would-be-nice features in.

 

If you're interested in scenery and atmosphere you need to allow room for it so don't fill the baseboard with trackwork.

 

Don't start building before you've finalised your design.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

First, don't get discouraged.  Unless we are very fortunate we all go through this learning and compromise process and we generally realize:

 

1) railways in real life take up a lot of space

 

2) we don't have that space in a scale form.

 

3) reality is harsh (by which I mean some things don't scale well, and there are limits to how far we can reach).

 

My suggestion is to decide which is more important to you, lots of operation or locations that you seem to be preferring.

 

If it's location, then give some thought to smaller secondary lines that may not offer the operations but do allow you to fit into your space the area of the country you are happiest with.

 

If it's operation, then consider other parts of the GWR network that will give you much of the operation you seek but with a "smaller" footprint - for example a 2 track mainline.  To this again I refer to the further parts of the GWR network, Devon and Cornwall or maybe Wales, where the summers and in particularly the summer Saturdays will give you a real reason to operate the variety of things you want - and more given that "foreign" rolling stock was common all in double track territory.

 

Finally, just to be complete, while acknowledging that they aren't for everybody have you considered a club if there any in your area?  If you are happy with the compromises necessary for a club layout (or a group exhibition layout) that can get you a much bigger layout than you can have in your room with the resulting operating potential.

 

As 'Castles' did run through Bourne End it might not be such a bad idea after all although the curvature would again  be a nuisance unless you straighten the Marlow branch.  regular fare preDMU days was of course 14XX and 61XX although Slough's 56XX could be seen on the Wycombe Goods and the excursion choice is pretty broad including a 'Jubillee' at least once, a B1, and 'Beachy Head'.

[imt]

The difficulty is what you WANT as opposed to what will fit.  What you want might fit into a 16' by 10' garage if you have one spare.  Otherwise you need to be sure what your minimum ask is.  You simply cannot have 4 track main lines.  You might get away with 2 and a goods loop (bi-directional?).  You also seem to want big trains - well with that you need some bigger curves - because at speed the trains will look daft on a tight line and likely will buffer lock and/or tip over or derail.  I think a 6 coach + tender loco will fit in 6' which with 3' minimum inside radius will give a few problems if you want multiple tracks.  You choose your own compromise.  Remember reach length - 12 line fiddle yards are simply too wide to reach over - if you try you will constantly brush over stock/locos and you also need some handling (finger) space between/around the lines.  You need about 4" or 5" width for each track for good finger room - reduce it only if you are increasing the number of lines: but as I said, closer together more chance of unintended derailing.  So you might get 7 or 8 lines at a push.  Multiple lines in the fiddle yard mean curved points outside it if you want to keep the sidings the same length. Curved points need to be good ones because of travel speed.

 

Now you can begin to see why most of us suffer end to end BLTs or Minories take offs of various sorts.  We would LOVE 12' by 8' but won't be getting it any time soon.  You have luxury space - but not if you want to emulate the real thing in any detail.  It's going to be about compromise.  My "expresses" are diesel loco 4 coaches and a BG.  Doesn't look too bad.

Edited November 27, 2018 by imt

[Tallpaul69]

OK-picking up on a few points in today's posts:-

 

As the things I said at the beginning of Nearly Slough such as what I accepted in terms of such things as train lengths have been lost in along string of posts, I need to recap:-

Main line Expresses:- 5 Coaches plus King, Castle or County (4-6-0 type)

Long distance commuter trains:- 4 corridor coaches

Local commuter trains:- 3/4 non corridor coaches plus 61xx, 57xx or 94xx or 3 car DMU

Long distance/slow freight:- up to 15 wagons (less for lwb wagons) + Toad-28/38xx,Hall, 9F or WD 2-8-0

Local freight up to 10 wagons (less for lwb wagons) + Toad- 22xx, 56xx or 57xx

Plus GWR Railcars, Auto coach +14xx

 

My interest is in operation not building a layout so my layout will be professionally built and wired. Scenery I can probably manage although I may need to get particular buildings professionally built.

I am busy fixing the points raised about Partly Maidenhead, and will Post a revised version in a few days.

 

Along the way I had decided that 4 track main line would not fit, so I went for relief lines plus the loops off them, hence Partly Maidenhead,- Maidenhead without main line pair of tracks but with the elements that interest me.(Branch, Commuter trains, stopping freights, for a start).

I might change the name to Somewhere in Berkshire, (Junction for Nowhere)!.

 

If trains will not work at 5 coaches +loco on 3ft minimum radius, what radius is needed??? Why do all the magazines and books  show so many plans  that do not meet this criteria????

 

Unfortunately there is no club that I can easily get to and from as we no longer have a car, and bus services stop around 8pm!

 

Not having a car does not free up a garage, there isn't one!

 

I have a plan B, but will not progress that until I can decide if a worthwhile timetable can be run with part single line and 5 track fiddle yard plus 3 track branch fiddle yard.

 

Cheers all

Paul

[Joseph_Pestell]

I understand your frustration about being misled by some plans that appear in the model press. I don't know why they are still doing it.

 

The track planning software, especially AnyRail, is not difficult to master - even for a non-IT person like myself.

 

In your 12' x 8', you should be able to achieve something along the lines of your most recent plan, especially if you only model one end of the station so the length of platforms is not a factor.

 

Operationally, there may be a better option. A high-level terminus with four platforms leading down to a continuous run and return loop. This gives a short run of quadruple track where the two double tracks are running parallel.

[Harlequin]

In my experience a Hornby Castle can haul 5 coaches around a 2ft radius semi-circle with no problem.

 

But that sort of radius doesn't look right, of course, so should be reserved for the fiddle yard or disguised in some way.

[imt]

Please note I didn't say 3' radius was not good enough.  What I was saying was that was what you needed and 3' + 6' + 3' is your maximum so 1) you cannot have 3' curves as they will hit the walls, but with some compromise on fiddle yard road length and maybe 34" curves it would work.  2) as you come down from 34" you really should keep to the maximum curvature possible - the larger the better it looks.  3) 24" and less curves are likely to cause running problems - so you need to ensure that your balance between number and length of fiddle yard roads and the curvature that you need results in a useful and enjoyable (for you) result.  4) points on curves are a source of running problems, they need to be well laid in and not of the Settrack type, if you want 5 coach trains (which should be possible) you are likely to be putting curved points in.  Getting that right needs a CAD package (best) or a lot of work with pencil and paper or using templates real size. 5) your lovely design (which we agree won't fit) has some sweeping curves - great they look good, BUT you cannot just wallop from one of those into a tight curve to get you into the fiddle yard - it'll need some transition.  Those on the current plan seem to have that - but when you make your plan don't forget the requirement. 

 

I too am far more interested in the operations side of the model - timetables, WTTs, traffic realism etc.  But I do need a track which when I run the trains means they do what is required - so you need good track planning and laying PLUS a plan of how you will use the fiddle yard to meet the traffic needs.

 

Good luck.

[Tallpaul69]

Please note I didn't say 3' radius was not good enough.  What I was saying was that was what you needed and 3' + 6' + 3' is your maximum so 1) you cannot have 3' curves as they will hit the walls, but with some compromise on fiddle yard road length and maybe 34" curves it would work.  2) as you come down from 34" you really should keep to the maximum curvature possible - the larger the better it looks.  3) 24" and less curves are likely to cause running problems - so you need to ensure that your balance between number and length of fiddle yard roads and the curvature that you need results in a useful and enjoyable (for you) result.  4) points on curves are a source of running problems, they need to be well laid in and not of the Settrack type, if you want 5 coach trains (which should be possible) you are likely to be putting curved points in.  Getting that right needs a CAD package (best) or a lot of work with pencil and paper or using templates real size. 5) your lovely design (which we agree won't fit) has some sweeping curves - great they look good, BUT you cannot just wallop from one of those into a tight curve to get you into the fiddle yard - it'll need some transition.  Those on the current plan seem to have that - but when you make your plan don't forget the requirement. 

 

I too am far more interested in the operations side of the model - timetables, WTTs, traffic realism etc.  But I do need a track which when I run the trains means they do what is required - so you need good track planning and laying PLUS a plan of how you will use the fiddle yard to meet the traffic needs.

 

Good luck.

Thanks to You, Joseph and Phil for todays input:-

 

I intend to have the layout professionally built so that the track laying and the baseboards are correct.

Can't quite marry your and Phil's comments about 2ft curves although I agree they should be limited to fiddle yards or short lengths in sidings.

 

Joseph, I understand what you are saying but the only possible termini are Paddington, Penzance or Weymouth, so the raised terminus idea wont fly for me!

 

I will continue to refine Partly Maidenhead. In addition to the changes resulting from replies to my previous posts, I am also going to look at the following:-

 

1) Remove the station with just the ramps and a few feet visible on the right hand side of the layout. This will possibly allow a more correct goods yard, however the branch line may gain extra un prototypical curves. 

2) Look at having fewer but longer fiddle yard tracks by moving some of the points on to the 8ft sides of the layout. This will reduce the requirement for curved points and may help cure the "reach" problem (together with accesses from under in the layout corners), but will reduce the flexibility of the fiddle yard with 3 longer or 4 shorter trains stored one behind the other on each track. I will have to look at the consequences of this for my timetable   

3) As a consequence the scenic area will be limited to  one 12 ft side, the branch curving round on one 8ft side and buildings masking the tracks on the other 8ft side. I can live with this compromise!

 

If it works at that stage, then I can move on to a larger scale plan. What scale do you all think is best?

 

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

Those sound like sensible compromises.

 

If you mean drawing scale, then the best way would be to draw at a scale of 1:10 (easy maths) on a sheet of A3 paper. If you're restricted to A4 then 1:20 but it's a bit small...

[Zomboid]

.Joseph, I understand what you are saying but the only possible termini are Paddington, Penzance or Weymouth, so the raised terminus idea wont fly for me!

Can I question that? Basically, why only those?

The GWR had many other termini, and not all were on branch lines. Birmingham Moor St seems like something that might work in this context. Swansea is another one to think about, though I think Moor St would be better with its through lines that didn't have platforms. Plymouth Millbay is another. Birkenhead Woodside...

 

And I don't even like the GWR

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think it was the "high level" that was off-putting to him.

 

Of course it is only high level in the context of the model. There are no visible tracks immediately adjacent to the terminal tracks so one can invert real geography and ignore altitude.

 

I agree though that Millbay is a much neglected modelling opportunity, due no doubt to its early closure date. What is not to like about a compact city terminus that allows big express locos but only has four short platforms?

[imt]

I should think Paddington could be made to fit, its only 8 platform faces and a narrow throat  You could have a station 9' long before the curve.  The problem is the need then for building in a down slope to the rest of the layout and fiddle yard.  Getting 4" rise between surfaces at a minimum of 1 in 50 you are looking at a 16-17' run probably 18' given some transition.  Not impossible since it's less than two sides' length.you then either have to run the fiddle yard under the down slope or have those lines behind the yard - you could risk it being a bit difficult to get at because a) derailments unlikely(?) b) you don't need to take stuff off the track or put it on there.

 

If you want to see roundy-roundy in countryside that idea is no good, but there are other things to do.

 

There are a thousand ways to choke this cat if you have no cream left!

[Joseph_Pestell]

I should think Paddington could be made to fit, its only 8 platform faces and a narrow throat  You could have a station 9' long before the curve.  The problem is the need then for building in a down slope to the rest of the layout and fiddle yard.  Getting 4" rise between surfaces at a minimum of 1 in 50 you are looking at a 16-17' run probably 18' given some transition.  Not impossible since it's less than two sides' length.you then either have to run the fiddle yard under the down slope or have those lines behind the yard - you could risk it being a bit difficult to get at because a) derailments unlikely(?) b) you don't need to take stuff off the track or put it on there.

 

If you want to see roundy-roundy in countryside that idea is no good, but there are other things to do.

 

There are a thousand ways to choke this cat if you have no cream left!

 

Rather more than 8 platforms at Paddington (even ignoring Bishops Rd platforms) and wide as well due to cab roads and the like. So it would have to be rather "representative". But nothing wrong with that. Do you remember that terrific GW based layout in the late 1960s?

 

Another dodge for a London GW terminus is to consider the genuinely proposed "what if" of a GW line along the route of the Regent's Canal to get to the City and Docks.

 

As to the gradients, the secret is not to put it all on the rise to the terminus but split it between the route to the terminus and the continuous run with just the double junction on the level.

[imt]

There's a Paddington on youTube as well - may be the same thing Joseph is talking about.

[OhOh]

I wonder, would something like a vertical FY help?