How big is to big

[Pandora]

Read some of the USA railway modelling magazines, they have more coverage of "Grand Layouts"

You can divide your layout into sections, "off-stage" sections and "on-stage" the off-stage being non-scenic holding loops and plain line using Setrack  the on-stage can be smaller scenic areas where you concentrate your finescale efforts, i wish I had your area, I would run scale length freight and passenger on a continuous loop passing through an urban trench style of suburban 2-platform station.

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Pandora

[ianathompson]

Posted in error.

Edited May 11, 2022 by ianathompson
the editor has a mind of its own!

[ianathompson]

 

 

3 hours ago, Pandora said:

Read some of the USA railway modelling magazines, they have more coverage of "Grand Layouts"

 

I often wonder about how reliable the US magazines are at showing the typical US layout.

Large model railroads sell magazines and allow people to dream.

There are plenty of small to medium layouts featured in the magazines as well but obviously they do not make the same impact.

 

One feature underpinning large US layouts is that YOU will build it but OTHERS will operate it.

The typical large layout apparently works on the premise that a large crew will assemble to run the layout, sometimes driving for 3 hours or so to run it.

The oft quoted adage is that, "You build it and they (the operators) will come.

 

The owner, meanwhile , acts as Troubleshooter No1.

He does not get to run trains on his own layout and has created a layout that can never be operated by himself alone.

It seems strange, to me, that these sorts of layouts are eulogised.

 

I suppose, on the other hand, that in effect, that assembling such a crew is no different from running a sports team.

I just preferred to spend my time playing more physical games, although I am reduced to spectating nowadays.

 

20 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Pinterest will show you any number of examples of American detached house footprint basement which repeat the same sort of theme, not very well IMHO, a single track main line running through the Rockies between passing loops and serving small industries along the way.  This is, in itself, a perfectly cromulent layout scenario, but the standard US interpretation of it involves crowding the space with peninsular baseboards and the use of unfeasibly sharp curvature, and looping to provide multiple levels with an overprovision of trestle bridges.  A mountainside might go from floor to ceiling and the track passes across a scene at 4 or 5 different levels

 

I might suggest that whilst this once was the standard interpretation that things have moved on.

Bill Darnaby's Maumee Route and Tony Koester's Nickel Plate layouts are more typical of the large US layout nowadays.

Having said that the current issue of Model Railroad Planning featues someone recreating John Allen's Gorre & Daphaetid for some reason.

Although it was a classic of its time it did follow the template suggested by The Johnster and influenced many other modellers.

 

 

I would be lying if I said that my own layout was not influenced by American, rahter than British, ideas.

There is an anlysis of the underlying planning philosophies here.

It is, however, deisgned to be operated by a one man band.

 

Returning to the OP's question, "How big is too big?" CJF attempted to cover this in a Plan of the Month in Railway Modeller, back in the seventies(?)

The title was something like the "The Practical Maximum" (more than likely this is the wrong title!).

From memory he advocated a large terminus fed by a return loop that housed various stations and (possibly a fiddleyard).

I am sure that the concept would still be valid today if you can find a copy of the plan.

 

Ian T

 

 

 

 

 

[Andymsa]

Well it has caused some good discussion and ideas, Ian T sort of hit the nail on the head with the reference to railway modeller. So let’s look at what I want to achieve with a bigger layout.

 

Terminus with loco and emu depot

a large yard

through stations

branch line with stations

a rack and pinion railway

 

i could achieve these things now, but would sacrifice plain line running, what I wanted was more realistic distances between these locations and a bigger sized room would achieve that. The original question was how big would be practical.

[njee20]

And isn’t that what the whole thread is discussing? No need to start again. The answer is “it depends”. 
 

I’d say that actually adding loads of plain line isn’t hugely more onerous. If you take your existing layout and added 20’ to it it would remain manageable probably. If you decided that you wanted to add 20’ to your BLT and portray Kings Cross to scale then less so…

[Big James]

Depends. I’ve always built micro layouts. The largest being my last layout in my living room. Which was 10ftx1ft. I moved into a house last year with a shed for the railway. And was given the shed to play in. I built a board of 12ftx6ft. I thought I could make a start of my magnum opus. But a year on the railways been plagued with gremlins. Electrical faults plague it, if the track needs cleaning I gotta climb all over everything to clean it and the same goes if a train derails. It’s made me appreciate how much more manageable my last layout was. 
 

Big James

[Andymsa]

47 minutes ago, Big James said:

Depends. I’ve always built micro layouts. The largest being my last layout in my living room. Which was 10ftx1ft. I moved into a house last year with a shed for the railway. And was given the shed to play in. I built a board of 12ftx6ft. I thought I could make a start of my magnum opus. But a year on the railways been plagued with gremlins. Electrical faults plague it, if the track needs cleaning I gotta climb all over everything to clean it and the same goes if a train derails. It’s made me appreciate how much more manageable my last layout was. 
 

Big James

 

that would be something that would be designed out, easy access to things is a must especially as we get older.

[AndrewC]

I know the original post is now moot but it brings up a good talking point around how big is too big. A few years ago Joe Fugate (he of Model Railroad Hobbiest) relocated. In doing so he ended up scrapping what had been close to 20 years of basement empire. Since then he has adopted and been promoting a concept known as TOMA. Basically it's part way between a full modular standard and permanent layout. The idea is to build parts of your empire as semi-self contained segments. By build, they mean to near completion before moving to the next one. Some people never get past the first section. Others find new incentive with every segment. 

https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/using-sectionalmodular-methods-on-a-home-layout-toma-12204673 

 

In my case I've got a 12 by 24 space. At the moment it houses 4 discrete NMRA-BR standard modules. Each can be operated stand alone, taken to a modular meet, or all together in a multi-level figure 8 ish continuous run. It also means I've got space to pack away one or more to give space to build a micro or 2. 

[Compound2632]

I'm reminded of an Oxford philosophy entrance interview question:

 

"Can God cook himself a breakfast bigger than he can eat?"

 

to which the smart answer, that would get you in, was:

 

"If I was God, I wouldn't want to cook myself a breakfast bigger than I could eat."

[The Johnster]

A good point made above about the capacity of a layout to be broken down to be moved or stored if needed.  We are sort of culturally conditioned to desire more space and build to the maximum space we are able, unless we specifically build micro-layouts which are a different discipline.  There is a temptation, when we are building layouts that are never going to to be taken apart and taken to exhibitions and which we think of as 'permanent', to build solid, heavy, and large baseboards to provide the best support for the track and scenery and avoid the scenic anomalies associated with baseboard joins.  Track is laid over the joins, and buildings are set over them as well.

 

In order to do this, one must be absolutely 100% certain that one is going to continue to live in this house for the rest of one's life.  Think about 'absolutely 100% certain' for a moment.  Is your career conducive to this?  If you lose your main source of income for any reason can you continue to live there?  Will you never need or want to move elsewhere?  See what I mean?

 

Cwmdimbath, not a large layout, 15' x 18" (skipraided Ikea shelves) in double-dogleg formation, lives in a rented flat.  I have no reason to suppose that my landlord will ever want me to move out, and he has said that he is happy for me to occupy the property indefinitely, but there is no guaranett that he will not change his mind or need to sell the property for his own reasons, or die (in fact there is every reason to assume that he will die sooner or later, most of us seem to), and i will have a new landlord who may do all sorts of things, not least increase the rent beyond what I can afford, and I'll have to move!  I am on my second landlord at this property, which was sold with sitting tenants a few years ago.

 

This has resulted in a 'permanent' layout that can be broken down into 4 main baseboards , something like a 'psuedo module' approach.  The wisdom of this was bourne out when the previous landlord refurbished my flat prior to selling the property, and moved me into the empty flat across the hall temporarily.  The layout was hacksawed apart and the individual boards (there were only 3 then, it's extended  by a board since), track taken out 3 inches each side of the joins, and the boards stored on end in the temporary flat. The boards were heavy and awkward to handle, but not prohibitively so.  Removing detail, lifting track over joins, avoiding turnouts over joins, and breaking down took about 3 hours work, boxing the stock took at least as long!

 

Re-assembly, relaying/ballasting track over the joins, and repair to the inevitable minor damage the layout suffered took a couple of days, but was not onerous and in fact presented an opportunity for a few improvements in aligning the boards.  It served as an efffective 'dry run' against the eventuality of ever having to re-home the layout elsewhere.  I commend the approach to anyone building a 'permanent' layout, of whatever size.  It will keep the baseboard sizes down to something consistent with what you can reach across (I'm against the idea of baseboards wider than 2' anyway), and a cut every 5 or 6' will be sufficient.  'Permanent' boards tend to be heavy to start with and with track and scenery are quite lumpy.

[Happy Hippo]

I have a long term project in 7 mm scale which I would continue with. 

 

I would just make it slightly bigger

 

The scenic section would remain the same, just less compressed with the track plan unchanged (7 turnouts and a single slip).

 

Train lengths could increase slightly to 5 coaches and goods trains of 15 wagons plus a bv.

 

It would be built into the designated space in the room (no need to fill it up completely) and would be built so it could be dismantled easily (I have seen too many layouts ruined because the late owner made no provision for easy disposal by their next of kin.)

Edited May 11, 2022 by Happy Hippo

[RobinofLoxley]

On 06/05/2022 at 12:39, The Johnster said:

I endorse the comments about operation and complextity, and the point is that a successful layout will provide you with the operational features that you want without being so complex that you stress yourself out running it.  If we assume that you want some manual operation against a backdrop of automated trains, perhaps shunting a goods or loco yard, or even at this sort of size an entire branch line from junction bay to terminus, with maybe the ability to manually override the automated main line trains to proved work for visiting operators to do would be suitable for your needs.

 

A complex automated operation such as one sometimes sees on big permanent display layouts requires permanent staff to keep up with the cleaning and maintenance requirments of large numbers of loco mechs and point motors, not to mention the electronics; complexity equals logistics, and the thing can become tail wagging a dog rathere than a pleasurable hobby!

 

It is a temptation, especially since you clearly have a sizeable disposbable income to devote to this project (if I may make some assumptions from the presence of a swimming pool and a snooker room) to build the layout you dreamed of when you had your first train set, with multiple roads, from the last page of the track plans book, a dozen or so trains running around it, high level sections, complex loops and tunnels and so forth, but I'd advise against this .  You can build a layout that looks like this, and there are plenty of examples of American layouts of this sort on Pinterest, but examination of them usually reveals that the whole complex boils down to what is essentially a single or at most double track continuous loop layout.  There may be a dozen or more trains in play, but most are held in passing loops or refuge sidings, only one or two are running at a given time.  Complex appearance but simple operation of a good variety of trains.

To understand Andy's questions better search for Llamberg in layout topics. Unfortunately since the migration there currently arent the photos to see whats been done.

 

Your comments above are wide of the mark in this case, but completely understandable.

 

A lot of things that might be issues have been engineered out as far as I can see.

[RobinofLoxley]

9 hours ago, Andymsa said:

Well it has caused some good discussion and ideas, Ian T sort of hit the nail on the head with the reference to railway modeller. So let’s look at what I want to achieve with a bigger layout.

 

Terminus with loco and emu depot

a large yard

through stations

branch line with stations

a rack and pinion railway

 

i could achieve these things now, but would sacrifice plain line running, what I wanted was more realistic distances between these locations and a bigger sized room would achieve that. The original question was how big would be practical.

What you could get in a large space is a visual separation of things that in the normal way of modelling never are. At Warley in I guess 2019 there was a layout from the Netherlands in N gauge, modern image dutch railways, fully automatic DCC, at least 10M long if I remember right, in N, so that despite the flat beside the canal look of it, the layout did generate the feeling of trains coming from somewhere and  going somewhere as the yard was so far away you didnt really see it (Behind you!!). Now in a room of those dimensions or similar, you could partition it completely to have a station scene with trains arriving on very long lead-ins with a good sense of proportion - im thinking of using the partition on the longer axis. Then the other side could be the busy side with all the storage roads, TMD, etc.

[The Johnster]

23 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

 Behind you!!

 

Oh, no, it isn't...

[DCB]

15 hours ago, Andymsa said:

Well it has caused some good discussion and ideas, Ian T sort of hit the nail on the head with the reference to railway modeller. So let’s look at what I want to achieve with a bigger layout.

 

Terminus with loco and emu depot

a large yard

through stations

branch line with stations

a rack and pinion railway

 

i could achieve these things now, but would sacrifice plain line running, what I wanted was more realistic distances between these locations and a bigger sized room would achieve that. The original question was how big would be practical.

 

Sounds a bit conflicted, terminus with loco hauled and a large yard with automation.   I like reading US Magazines when I can and the big layouts look like great fun, but it seems you build a layout and have friends around to operate it.  

If you have that circle of friends then an Anglicised big US Layout might work.   If not something like the Bourton on the Water Model Railway exhibition which runs itself while the owners spend their time maintaining it might be the answer, though quite what the question is I don't know.  With a much smaller layout I find myself spending most of my time maintaining the layout and little operating, fortunately my son often operates while I am working.    More plain line sounds good but it gets very tedious waiting for trains to get out of the way so you can run the next one, Just look at Pendon.   Or again look at the Madder Valley also at Pendon,    What is too big is what id beyond your ability to maintain, my father in law could spread his layout over double its 24 X 8 area if he took the terminus off the top of the hidden sidings, it might cost £30 for extra plain track but would need no more points, motors switches, £5 worth of wire maybe. its the complexity which eats up the cash and the scenic details which eat up the time.   How much cash and how much time you have determines how big is too big.

My garden railway is too big. The weeds have won again

[Kallaroonian]

I have to admit I only skip-read this thread.

 

Much of what leapt off the pages I can relate to, possibly all of it. Let me first of all congratulate The Johnster for the use of the word cromulent which I have never heard of but will certainly be using in the future.

 

See my old threads about Hatfield - I forget the exact title of the first one but the current is Hatfield : Part the Second.

 

This things is ridiculously huge.  It was all designed with Xtrkcad ages ago and is intended to be a scale size slightly romanticised model of Hatfield Herts. One photo shows the whole thing including under board storage yards, the other just the top sections.

 

I started the idea of this when my son was probably say 4 or 6 or something like that. He is now virtually 17. Finding the time and the money - what with various periods of unemployment - and doing all the work myself means it has just taken ages. And its in a loft space, access won't get easier as I get older, there is much much much left to do and I have currently unresolved problems with keeping the track clean (but there will be a solution.....)

 

Plus of course while it is theoretically removable - there are separate boards either supporting themselves or laid across huge spars - the practical reality of points on joints, wiring, size etc etc all means that if we move it would possibly be finis. Aside from anything else any move would be a downsize so that would really be a problem.

 

Why did I embark on this? I wanted to get back into model railways. I had the space. I wanted to run full size trains and build essentially a real model (its the extra engine shed that is a romanticism).

 

So would I do it again. For sure. I've enjoyed building it, and that's really the point I think

 

And where I'm at right now I'm fairly optimistic that all the wiring will be done before too long. With that and the clean track solution I can run some trains and get into some scenery. Whether the viaduct ever gets a scale brick coating or stays as extruded polystyrene blue is a question though.............. 

 

 

 

[cessna152towser]

Bear in mind that as you get older the appetite for huge layouts may diminish as there is a lot of work to building and maintaining them.

Years ago, our local railway society had a huge layout in the basement of our town hall, two lap large circuits on two levels with trains returning to fiddle yard below the scenery at end of every second lap, plus two lengthy branch lines. The second branch line was never fully wired or sceniced.   We eventually demolished it and downsized to a large oval to allow more clubroom circulation space.  As we are now mostly old age pensioners we gave up the clubrooms and took accommodation in our local men's shed, where we have a small roundy roundy 00 layout based on a Hornby trackmat plan.   This is good enough for me for a continuous run if I want to test a loco or run in a new loco, as my home layout is end to end round three sides of a small spare bedroom.  However, each to their own, and our tastes may change with the different phases of our lives.

Edited May 12, 2022 by cessna152towser

[SamThomas]

On 06/05/2022 at 20:44, Andymsa said:

The dilemma for me is as the property I would love to buy is vast in the additional space available, although the house is fairly modest there is still a maintenance aspect to this and time available for the build, one other possibility is to build my own similar sized structure with less time consuming property to maintain. The other issue the pool would require filling in, which is not difficult but would require a vast amount of hardcore and time. But also this is very much dependent on me getting the property at the price I want. The reason I posed the question was to see if this idea was practically possible 

To fill in the pool with hardcore will be expensive & intrusive with regards to HGV's bringing it in & getting it from the tipping point into the pool itself.

If the pool is in good condition why not consider boarding it over so that in the event you want to sell the property a pool will almost certainly be an additional selling point. May even be more cost effective.

 

You could always extend the layout as time allows, even if a lot is plain track to start will, atleast you could then relay with a cup of tea & watch 12 coach trains & long freights doing what they do.

 

Good luck with the project.

Edited May 12, 2022 by SamThomas

[Philou]

I've gone for BIG (by my standards) the threads are on RMWeb. It's to be 7.85m x 6.2m (approx 25.75' x 20.3') in an old barn - the roof is sound having done it myself with help about 5 years ago. I started in September 2021 and I gave myself a year to get something up and running. Will I do it? I hope so! Having had delays in sourcing timber, the joists and beams were in place by October, then there were delays in getting flooring. I had wanted OSB panels or at a push T&G - OSB was not available in the thickness I wanted at the time and T&G was just too expensive to cover 52m² (approx 520sq ft). In then end PSE planking was readily(!) available and after a 4 week wait it arrived soaking wet. I waited a fortnight for it to dry off a tad and laid it before Christmas but had to abandon work for a couple of months due to it being very cold.

 

I restarted at the beginning February in repointing some of the internal walls (the external faces were done some time ago) and filling some of the cavities caused by wash-out in some time past. I have, at the time of posting here, three days worth of jointing and filling to do and that phase is finished. HOWEVER, in the meantime, the flooring has completely dried out and I now have 10mm gaps along each plank and I have to now unscrew 1030 screws, shift the planks and then tighten down again BUT I now have a nesting pair of swallows immediately underneath where I want to work! Nil desperandum. Once retightened, I can get the studwalls and insulation in place.

 

Onto practicalities: The layout is to be along all 4 sides of the new room with a peninsular fiddle/storage yard - all on view. As access is from below, there is no need for lifting sections or crawl-unders. The construction with be in 10mm ply on adjustable softwood legs and will be a psuedo-modular type (as per @The Johnster) Very cromulent! It means that if any electrical works needs doing, the modules can be slid out and placed on their sides and worked upon.

 

All modules (excepting the fiddle yard, as it's accessible from both sides) will be no wider than 900mm and the corners curved accordingly (maximum reach, innit) and the emplacement of point work will determine their lengths - thus avoiding points on joints.

 

It's to be a double track roundy-roundy but with a tunnelled single track section as per prototype as so trains will need to be driven and not set on their way going round and round in opposite directions. There are two main stations each with a branch and both branches end up at a third station (you will need to visit the thread to understand why). As I shall be on my own most of the time I will be operating under DCC but without any automation (save perhaps at the entrances to the single line section), or juicers as there are no return loops. The layout will be divided into areas so that I can operate in roundy-roundy mode or do some shunting at each of the stations or undertake branch line movements. The fiddle yard will also be self-contained and each area will have its own mimic panel for the pointwork (good old fashioned stuff mixed in with modern - what's not to like). This means then if club members come to operate (I nearly said 'play' - oops) at least 4 can be gainfully occupied within areas and the rest can run some stock.

 

Seemingly it now seems you only need the one console (I have an ECoS II) and the rest operate 'their' train by means of an 'app' on their mobile phones - I make do with a dial-up phone and I haven't that tried yet!

 

Is too big? Ask me in September!

 

Cheers everyone,

 

Philip

 

Links if anyone wants to see the gestation of the plan and current building works:

 

 

 

[Andymsa]

1 hour ago, SamThomas said:

To fill in the pool with hardcore will be expensive & intrusive with regards to HGV's bringing it in & getting it from the tipping point into the pool itself.

If the pool is in good condition why not consider boarding it over so that in the event you want to sell the property a pool will almost certainly be an additional selling point. May even be more cost effective.

 

You could always extend the layout as time allows, even if a lot is plain track to start will, atleast you could then relay with a cup of tea & watch 12 coach trains & long freights doing what they do.

 

Good luck with the project.

that particular property has been dropped now, but as to filling in a swimming pool you can’t just board over it, as the ground factors can push an empty pool out of the ground as there be no water to counter act ground pressure.

[Andymsa]

I thought I better explain my existing room size. The building I built was done in two stages, the original build was 10 meters by 4 meters. 8 years later I built an extension to it of 6 meters by 2.75 meters. The shape of the building is in a L, my regrets is not building the extension a bit wider, I am looking at the possibility of an extension of the other end of the original build but I am still not convinced the gain would be worth it, maybe in the future. I think the main issue really boils down to the L shape and width of the extension, so a larger rectangular building is what I have in mind. Unfortunately to find property with space to build it generally has acres of land I don’t want so the hunt continues.

[RobinofLoxley]

2 hours ago, Kallaroonian said:

I have to admit I only skip-read this thread.

 

Much of what leapt off the pages I can relate to, possibly all of it. Let me first of all congratulate The Johnster for the use of the word cromulent which I have never heard of but will certainly be using in the future.

 

See my old threads about Hatfield - I forget the exact title of the first one but the current is Hatfield : Part the Second.

 

This things is ridiculously huge.  It was all designed with Xtrkcad ages ago and is intended to be a scale size slightly romanticised model of Hatfield Herts. One photo shows the whole thing including under board storage yards, the other just the top sections.

 

I started the idea of this when my son was probably say 4 or 6 or something like that. He is now virtually 17. Finding the time and the money - what with various periods of unemployment - and doing all the work myself means it has just taken ages. And its in a loft space, access won't get easier as I get older, there is much much much left to do and I have currently unresolved problems with keeping the track clean (but there will be a solution.....)

 

Plus of course while it is theoretically removable - there are separate boards either supporting themselves or laid across huge spars - the practical reality of points on joints, wiring, size etc etc all means that if we move it would possibly be finis. Aside from anything else any move would be a downsize so that would really be a problem.

 

Why did I embark on this? I wanted to get back into model railways. I had the space. I wanted to run full size trains and build essentially a real model (its the extra engine shed that is a romanticism).

 

So would I do it again. For sure. I've enjoyed building it, and that's really the point I think

 

And where I'm at right now I'm fairly optimistic that all the wiring will be done before too long. With that and the clean track solution I can run some trains and get into some scenery. Whether the viaduct ever gets a scale brick coating or stays as extruded polystyrene blue is a question though.............. 

 

 

 

I think that this size of plan shows something that I comment on regularly - sorry if I get a bit boring but the very tools that make track planning software so useful encourage Byzantine projects, and over-use of track generally. I think solo projects of this size rarely get finished.

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

2 hours ago, Kallaroonian said:

I have to admit I only skip-read this thread.

 

Much of what leapt off the pages I can relate to, possibly all of it. Let me first of all congratulate The Johnster for the use of the word cromulent which I have never heard of but will certainly be using in the future.

 

See my old threads about Hatfield - I forget the exact title of the first one but the current is Hatfield : Part the Second.

 

This things is ridiculously huge.  It was all designed with Xtrkcad ages ago and is intended to be a scale size slightly romanticised model of Hatfield Herts. One photo shows the whole thing including under board storage yards, the other just the top sections.

 

I started the idea of this when my son was probably say 4 or 6 or something like that. He is now virtually 17. Finding the time and the money - what with various periods of unemployment - and doing all the work myself means it has just taken ages. And its in a loft space, access won't get easier as I get older, there is much much much left to do and I have currently unresolved problems with keeping the track clean (but there will be a solution.....)

 

Plus of course while it is theoretically removable - there are separate boards either supporting themselves or laid across huge spars - the practical reality of points on joints, wiring, size etc etc all means that if we move it would possibly be finis. Aside from anything else any move would be a downsize so that would really be a problem.

 

Why did I embark on this? I wanted to get back into model railways. I had the space. I wanted to run full size trains and build essentially a real model (its the extra engine shed that is a romanticism).

 

So would I do it again. For sure. I've enjoyed building it, and that's really the point I think

 

And where I'm at right now I'm fairly optimistic that all the wiring will be done before too long. With that and the clean track solution I can run some trains and get into some scenery. Whether the viaduct ever gets a scale brick coating or stays as extruded polystyrene blue is a question though.............. 

 

 

 

 

 

I have commented before that its a feature of track planning software that the very useful tools it provides cause Byzantine projects to be started that have a very low completion rate, as well as putting in too much track as the default.

 

The other side is that anyone with a strong interest in the hobby and wants a lot of track probably needs a big project otherwise it will be finished too quickly.

[SamThomas]

33 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

that particular property has been dropped now, but as to filling in a swimming pool you can’t just board over it, as the ground factors can push an empty pool out of the ground as there be no water to counter act ground pressure.

You can if it is done properly, but no point in going into details now.

[njee20]

3 hours ago, Kallaroonian said:

Let me first of all congratulate The Johnster for the use of the word cromulent which I have never heard of but will certainly be using in the future.

 

 

If you weren’t aware the word “cromulent” was invented in the mid-90s by the Simpsons as part of a joke. I love that it’s passed into common use!