Penzyth - GWR/WR layout for big and small kids!

[aforsyth]

A quick introducion - after 3 years of pondering and dreaming, I am committed to a serious return to model railways after 20+ years.

These are the requirements for the layout:

• GWR (30s) / Western Region (50s or 80s) - these periods represent the majority of the stock I have accumulated!
  
• Branchline, terminus and junction station.
  
• Continuous run for kids.
  
• Out and back for me, with reasonable operational potential.
  
• Seaside / coast for scenic potential
  

Nice-to-have features

• Turntable for larger steam locos
  
• Multi-level layout, for interest / kids
  
• Storage loops / fiddleyard, for more realistic operations
  

The plans shown below are my current thoughts - which seem to embrace as much as I can get into the space without seriously compromising or overdoing it. I am starting off with DC, but have recently invested in a couple of DCC Sound locos and controller, so will eventually switch over (I have a many older Hornby / Lima locos to chip).

The baseboards will be open top / L-girder. I built a similar size classic flat-top baseboard (2x1, chipboard, legs) when I was younger, which was fun - but I'm interested to try out the L-Girder method or similar, especially when building in stages.

 

The available space (roughly 2.4m (8') x 3m (9')) is in our master bedroom, which has been granted to me by my patient wife (she will get to do the scenics!). The roof is sloping up from the window, which adds challenges to the height of the layout (I'm guessing that the lowest track will be around 80cm above the ground) ... but that's another topic entirely.

 

There are three levels, and three stages of construction.

 

Stage 1: Lowest level - branchline loop and spur up to eventual mainline junction station

 

A simple continuous run designed to be up and running as soon as possible, to allow me to cut my teeth on baseboards, track laying and electrics before going for the more advanced stages.

 

 

Stage 2: Middle and high levels - mainline figure-of-eight with reverse loop via bridge section

 

Mainly for me and the kids to watch trains going round. It has the advantage that the lower (liftable) section allows an out-and-back route for the eventual mainline terminus.

 

 

Stage 3: High level terminus

 

This is the focus of realistic operations - based on a simplified plan of Penzance ('Penzuncle') from 'Aspects of Modelling - Track Layouts' by Anthony New.

 

 

Final layout:

 

 

Help Required!

 

I'm very open to any suggestions or criticism. I may well be trying to expect too much from one layout - but the following is what I'm really wondering:

- Is the terminus going to be usable without a decent fiddleyard / storage roads? I can add a few more storage loops to the mainline going under the terminus, but this is going to be quite hard to access (although I will ensure that all areas of the layout are in some way accessible for crashes, etc.).

- Could I / should I use a simpler trackplan for the terminus without losing any operational aspects? The Penzance features of carriage sidings running back from the bay platform / goods yard are basically unusable in the space I have, so could this be simplified?

- Is it reasonable to eventually have the whole layout eventually under DCC, but the branch loop switchable from DCC to DC as necessary (with proper isolating / separation of course)?

- Has anyone else attempted a multi-stage, multi-level layout like this, and ended up with something that's fun to run and operate (not a total nightmare)? :-)

 

Thanks,

Alan

[Kenton]

I'm seriously worried about access to the distant levels - you can only comfortably reach over about 24 inches - in reality much less when you are trying to do something delicate. Try for example holding your arm outstretched with a scalpel then trying to cut a piece of paper in two parallel lines. Even more difficult with something heavy or delicate. Your arm will take on shakes and tire quite quickly.

 

Another concern will all multilevel plans is adequate clearance between levels to get a hand in under to uncouple/rerail etc. Not to mention the amount of travel - gradient - required to get a loco + whatever up and down the gradient.

 

Finally the station area and the sidings in general give the impression you have just kept adding points and sidings for the sake of it - as in without purpose other than to fill space. The space you have is considerable but it soon fills up in OO I would look at something with about half the track you are proposing a terminus out to a double track bent oval (combination of step 2 & 3. Do try to plan for some scenery or it soon becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, boards, all track and nothing else - boredom, abandonment.

[aforsyth]

Kenton - just what I need. The voice of reason and experience! Thanks for your comments:

 

I'm seriously worried about access to the distant levels - you can only comfortably reach over about 24 inches - in reality much less when you are trying to do something delicate. Try for example holding your arm outstretched with a scalpel then trying to cut a piece of paper in two parallel lines. Even more difficult with something heavy or delicate. Your arm will take on shakes and tire quite quickly.

Yes - spot on. This is continually a challenge with this space. The 'window' is a dormer / attic style (don't know the correct term) with adequate headroom - whereas to the left and right of it, the roof is sloping upwards from chest height towards the middle of the room (bottom of the plans). This makes even narrow boards (1 ft wide) against the l/h wall difficult to reach when standing by the window facing left. Thus I stuck with the wider boards, access area where there's good headroom and less railway at the top left and top parts of the plan. But - I'm probably still shooting myself in the foot... :-/ Your comments confirm that.

 

Another concern will all multilevel plans is adequate clearance between levels to get a hand in under to uncouple/rerail etc. Not to mention the amount of travel - gradient - required to get a loco + whatever up and down the gradient.

That is the greatest compromise on the plan. The mainline curves are 3rd and 4th radius with transition curves - but the inclines are Anyrail default minimum mostly (4% / 1 in 25). I can reduce that to 1 in 33 without too much work, and don't plan to run more than 5 coach trains anyway - but it's not ideal.

 

Finally the station area and the sidings in general give the impression you have just kept adding points and sidings for the sake of it - as in without purpose other than to fill space. The space you have is considerable but it soon fills up in OO I would look at something with about half the track you are proposing a terminus out to a double track bent oval (combination of step 2 & 3.

 

Right - down to the crux of the matter. The Penzyth track plan is a compressed Penzance as I said, but may well not make sense in this guise. Which specific parts on there seem irrelevant? I'd like to be able to run perhaps 5 trains (2 on the mainline, 1 on the branch, 2 at the terminus at platforms), but this is only when there are other operators - otherwise 3 will probably be enough at one time.

The St. Cherth (sorry for these names - made them up a short while ago) sidings are not thought out yet - I want to work out whether the whole plan is at all viable before finalising the sidings, crossovers, etc.

 

Oh yes - and the platforms are placeholders - I will be making my own platforms, not using the Hornby products! :-)

 

Finally -- do you think in the space I have, I could create a viable model, similar to Penzance, with out-and-back and continuous run? I am certainly not married to the figure-of-eight -- it's ugly, but gets the job done. I would love to have the PZ seawall, but with a continuous run, it's pretty hard to justify!

 

Do try to plan for some scenery or it soon becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, boards, all track and nothing else - boredom, abandonment.

 

Yes - that's what happened last time, 20 years ago! I haven't shown it on the plan, again because it takes me ages to work on the plan in Anyrail, and I have little free time at this moment.

BUT: the access area is basically a bay, with a beach to the right (just below the up mainline track of St. Cherth). There would be a cliff to provide a scenic break between terminus and branchline, with dock scene there (thus the dock sidings for the branch). There will be a village behind the station at St. Cherth, built into the hillside that covers the top-right tunnel.

 

However - after all that - I will probably need to take your wise words into consideration, and cut this down a lot. It's tough - I'm not sure what to lose. I would like the mainline terminus + out & back, branchline and continuous run - but is even that asking too much for a space this size? I suspect your answer is: 'yes'!

 

Alan

[Stubby47]

Try making the lines on Stage 2 & 3 single, rather than double.

[colin penfold]

how does the St Cherth station work? I think you have it on two levels yet there is a crossover between the two? You coud make an interesting feature of a station with platforms on more than one level (like East Grinstead)

[Trains&armour]

Hi

 

Still struggeling with designing a GWR layout myself, but I do agree with Kenton and think that your layout is too complex. But what I specifically noticed was this:

That is the greatest compromise on the plan. The mainline curves are 3rd and 4th radius with transition curves - but the inclines are Anyrail default minimum mostly (4% / 1 in 25). I can reduce that to 1 in 33 without too much work, and don't plan to run more than 5 coach trains anyway - but it's not ideal.

Alan

 

This is certainly not ideal, even worse, it won't work! Modern RtR steam engines (no traction tires) will not climb these kinds of inclines, not without a lot of slipping. I,ve tested it with my stock ( Then a Castle, Hall, Manor, Collett goods, 43xx, 4500, and a 87xx) on 3rd radius inclines starting with 1:33. And a five coach train or about 12 goods wagons will not go up reliably with an incline of more than 1 in 40. (only the pannier tank had no problems with an incline up to 1 in 33) An incline around 1in 50 would be my advise!

 

Sierd Jan

[aforsyth]

Try making the lines on Stage 2 & 3 single, rather than double.

 

Hmmm.... interesting idea. I can certainly try that.

 

Do you think it's worth trying to 'do' terminus, branch, junction station and continuous-run mainline on one layout? Or is it more sensible to stick to a smaller number of combinations and do them well? I am worried that I'll lose the baby with the bathwater, so to speak - killing off any real operational potential by trying to do too much.

Can anyone point to a good example of a layout that works for kids (continuous run, simple to operate) and yet has operational potential for when the kids have gone to bed?

 

Thanks - I really appreciate all help and comments.

Alan

[aforsyth]

how does the St Cherth station work? I think you have it on two levels yet there is a crossover between the two? You coud make an interesting feature of a station with platforms on more than one level (like East Grinstead)

 

Hi Colin - two levels is certainly a possibility - I quite like the idea, although it might be more difficult to construct.

Actually, in this plan, all track at St.Cherth station is on one level, then there is a descent down to the junction with the branchline loop, which at this point has risen to meet it. Inspiration partially from Liskeard/Looe, although there are no viaducts on this part of the layout.

 

Alan

[aforsyth]

Hi

 

Still struggeling with designing a GWR layout myself, but I do agree with Kenton and think that your layout is too complex. But what I specifically noticed was this:

 

 

This is certainly not ideal, even worse, it won't work! Modern RtR steam engines (no traction tires) will not climb these kinds of inclines, not without a lot of slipping. I,ve tested it with my stock ( Then a Castle, Hall, Manor, Collett goods, 43xx, 4500, and a 87xx) on 3rd radius inclines starting with 1:33. And a five coach train or about 12 goods wagons will not go up reliably with an incline of more than 1 in 40. (only the pannier tank had no problems with an incline up to 1 in 33) An incline around 1in 50 would be my advise!

 

Sierd Jan

 

Sierd - thanks, I didn't realise that. I have a new Castle (Hornby's Clun Castle) that will be the pride of the fleet, so if that won't get up the mainline inclines properly with 5 coaches, that's sounding the death-knell for this figure-of-eight plan - I can't do better than 1 in 33, I think, with the space I have. I also have a Lima 45xx, Hornby 57xx and various other older tanks, so despite the fact that I will probably be running diesels (50s, 37s, dmus) much of the time, it will be a pain if these struggle. Arghhh... :-/

 

Alan

[Stubby47]

You might be better creating two separate layouts, one on each level. The lower one as the roundy, with the trains appearing from tunnels, would appeal to the little kids, whilst the upper layout is the terminus / out and back to satisfy the bigger kids. If there is room for a long gradient between them then all the better, but you might not want Thomas & coaches arriving at your version of Penzance, and a King or 67 might look too out of place passing though Tidmouth.

 

Stu

[aforsyth]

You might be better creating two separate layouts, one on each level. The lower one as the roundy, with the trains appearing from tunnels, would appeal to the little kids, whilst the upper layout is the terminus / out and back to satisfy the bigger kids. If there is room for a long gradient between them then all the better, but you might not want Thomas & coaches arriving at your version of Penzance, and a King or 67 might look too out of place passing though Tidmouth.

 

Stu

 

Hmmm... great food for thought, Stu. Thank you. In the end, that might be the best way. It would also still ensure that the roundy is built first with its tunnels, which would satisfy the impatient kids (although one of them is only 7 months old as yet, so I have a bit of breathing space).

With regards to the terminus - do you think the track layout is good as-is for a layout in itself? Does it really need the carriage sidings, like the real Penzance?

 

Thanks,

Alan

[Stubby47]

Carriage sidings would be up to you, how much stock you have / want on the layout at the same time ? As for the layout as drawn, the only comment I'd make is the turntable seems a bit contrived and awkward to access.

Are the platforms strictly arrival or departure only ? Assuming they are and platform 3 (from the left) is arrivals, the loco release loop would be better leading direct to the t/table - but have you space to store locos awaiting their next turn ? Also, would you have the required length beyond the throat to move the coaches into the departure platform/s ?

 

Hope that helps...

 

Stu

[edcayton]

I agree with what Stu said about not connecting the levels. You can then have a seperate level for the kids but the visual appeal of a multi-layer railway. It also means that if you c***up one level it won't affect the others(much).

 

Ed

[The Stationmaster]

Only just come across this and it simply looks like far too much shoehorned into too little space plus unworkable gradients. So separating levels as already suggested would be a sensible change but my biggest concern is how on earth do you reach some parts of the layout (e.g. Penzyth station)? That point needs to thought about very carefully as Kenton noted at an early stage.

 

Also as drawn Penzyth would be well nigh unworkable without interfering with the middle level - you just haven't got any room to shunt as Stu has noted (and I presume you'll also hit the gradient problem as well). It would help enormously to provide a much greater distance between the approach to the station and any sort of continuous run it feeds into.

[aforsyth]

Carriage sidings would be up to you, how much stock you have / want on the layout at the same time ? As for the layout as drawn, the only comment I'd make is the turntable seems a bit contrived and awkward to access.

Yup -you're right, Stu. Guess what the one thing was that I added to the original plan? :-) I'd like a turntable, now that I have the Castle, but don't have too much space for it. In the case of Penzance, the original turntable and engine shed were approximately where the turntable is (although the track plan was different). Then in the 30's, I think, they moved the engine shed to a larger depot area at Ponsandyne a short distance down the track, where it remains to this day (minus turntable, steam facilities and original sheds, of course).

Are the platforms strictly arrival or departure only ? Assuming they are and platform 3 (from the left) is arrivals, the loco release loop would be better leading direct to the t/table - but have you space to store locos awaiting their next turn ? Also, would you have the required length beyond the throat to move the coaches into the departure platform/s ?

To be honest, I don't know the details of Steam-age operation for Penzance, but what you mention sounds sensible. In its current placement, the turntable would seem to 'work' for platforms 1 and 2 as arrival, 3 and 4 as departure. However, I agree - the turntable would be better on the goods / bay side of the mainline, if I had the space. The carriage sidings in the original track plan start from the loco spur / headshunt, which ends just before my mainline junction. I have a feeling that a lot of the trackwork around there doesn't makes sense without them.

 

Anyway - I'm beginning to get some ideas for an updated layout trackplan, which might give me more space for at least carriage sidings...

[aforsyth]

ok - thank you everyone for your comments. The general consensus is clear - too much crammed into too little space, which decreases rather than increases the operational aspects of this plan.

 

I don't have the time at this moment to get to AnyRail - but my thoughts are this:

 

- Scrap the figure-of-eight mainline, with its mountain gradients.

- Terminus (remains basically the same, details to be worked on), with a more gentle approach running clockwise around to St.Cherth, then diving down under the terminus to a fiddleyard. By increasing the length of the track from terminus to fiddleyard, I'll aim for the 1 in 40 that has been suggested as minimum. I'm hoping that without the figure-of-eight overbridge and mainline junction, I can add the original carriage sidings here and a longer approach for shunting.

- Branchline - still starts at St.Cherth, and would be good for this to be the (only) continuous run portion of the layout, for the kids.Have to work this one out.

- The left-hand board with the high-level terminus and low-level storage yard becomes much narrower (no curving mainline or branch docks), so the access is much improved to storage yard / terminus.

 

I hope you can visualise this and comment - I'll try to get to AnyRail later today.

 

Alan

[The Stationmaster]

That sounds much more realistic - in all senses of the word. But if I were you I'd try to make the gradients even shallower than 1 in 40 if you can, especially on curved track.

[Kenton]

ok - thank you everyone for your comments. The general consensus is clear - too much crammed into too little space, which decreases rather than increases the operational aspects of this plan.

 

I don't have the time at this moment to get to AnyRail - but my thoughts are this:

 

- Scrap the figure-of-eight mainline, with its mountain gradients.

- Terminus (remains basically the same, details to be worked on), with a more gentle approach running clockwise around to St.Cherth, then diving down under the terminus to a fiddleyard. By increasing the length of the track from terminus to fiddleyard, I'll aim for the 1 in 40 that has been suggested as minimum. I'm hoping that without the figure-of-eight overbridge and mainline junction, I can add the original carriage sidings here and a longer approach for shunting.

- Branchline - still starts at St.Cherth, and would be good for this to be the (only) continuous run portion of the layout, for the kids.Have to work this one out.

- The left-hand board with the high-level terminus and low-level storage yard becomes much narrower (no curving mainline or branch docks), so the access is much improved to storage yard / terminus.

 

I hope you can visualise this and comment - I'll try to get to AnyRail later today.

 

Alan

 

Sounds like a step forward.

 

I would try to stick with the double track circuit, it is all very well watching the trains go by doing a couple of circuits but this is so much more fun when they are passing in opposite directions.

 

The ideal gradient is 1:100 and I don't think you will manage that even in that space 1:50 is workable though even on this some of the locos will very markedly struggle. I would unfold the figure 8 and open up the operating well so that it allows you closer to the station and the loops under the station. you should get sufficient gradient along the whole length of the window to get down to the lower level at about the right hand end of the room. this will allow all of the lower level to be on approximately its own level. Levels and gradients are notoriously difficult but you could (if up to it) make much of the track even on the lower level part of the incline that would be some 16' of gradient! and only the storage sidings under the station and the station on the flat. It must be possible somewhere on the loop and oval to be able to place a small branch and/or dock area and either on the window side or the bottom to run a convincing length of sea wall.

 

Incorporating the out and back loop you will find important in running a terminus layout and well worth the extra complexity in wiring. I can tell you, from experience there is nothing much worse in a layout design where there is an evidently important terminus to have to reverse trains back in off the circuit.

 

Some other minor and more detailed points. The station track arrangement doesn't work. Consider that all trains leaving need to be able to access the left hand running line and all arrivals must come from the right hand running line. The right-hand platforms do not obey this operational norm. The double/single slip on to the turntable will be problematic (they are best avoided if possible) and I would look to move the turntable. If you require engine facilities than try to make a full go at it possibly inside the curve, but in this case it is a little "stuck there to fill the space".

 

This may seem to be a lot of critical points but the problem with big layouts is that you are going to devote a great deal of time and money to building it. After say 5 years you still want it to be justified and a pleasure to operate. You can always add a siding or two later, but the only way to change your mind completely is to scrap the lot!

[edcayton]

I'd agree with most of what Mike and Kenton have said. In my view the most fun in playing trains is when two are running next to each other in the same direction at different speeds-ie one overtaking the other. The obvious way to do this is with a multi-track main line but most of us don't have the space (or money) for this, so my solution is to have a branch next to the main line for a while before it diverges, or a freight loop or headshunt or similar.

 

My other suggestion is to look in plan books by Freezer and others, but to look at plans drawn for a space SMALLER than yours. When you expand it to fit it will look so much better.

 

Ed

[aforsyth]

Kenton - thank you. I like your suggestions, and was also hoping to keep the double track (I side with Ed - it's fun to see trains running together).

 

Is there any way you could mock up what you have in mind? I was also trying to unfold the figure-of-eight on paper, but I'm not sure how I would manage it. I'd also be interested to see where/how you place the branch and docks - a fresh viewpoint on this would be great; I'm still trying to get rid of the 'eight' in my head... :-/

 

Thanks,

Alan

 

Sounds like a step forward.

 

I would try to stick with the double track circuit, it is all very well watching the trains go by doing a couple of circuits but this is so much more fun when they are passing in opposite directions.

 

The ideal gradient is 1:100 and I don't think you will manage that even in that space 1:50 is workable though even on this some of the locos will very markedly struggle. I would unfold the figure 8 and open up the operating well so that it allows you closer to the station and the loops under the station. you should get sufficient gradient along the whole length of the window to get down to the lower level at about the right hand end of the room. this will allow all of the lower level to be on approximately its own level. Levels and gradients are notoriously difficult but you could (if up to it) make much of the track even on the lower level part of the incline that would be some 16' of gradient! and only the storage sidings under the station and the station on the flat. It must be possible somewhere on the loop and oval to be able to place a small branch and/or dock area and either on the window side or the bottom to run a convincing length of sea wall.

 

Incorporating the out and back loop you will find important in running a terminus layout and well worth the extra complexity in wiring. I can tell you, from experience there is nothing much worse in a layout design where there is an evidently important terminus to have to reverse trains back in off the circuit.

 

Some other minor and more detailed points. The station track arrangement doesn't work. Consider that all trains leaving need to be able to access the left hand running line and all arrivals must come from the right hand running line. The right-hand platforms do not obey this operational norm. The double/single slip on to the turntable will be problematic (they are best avoided if possible) and I would look to move the turntable. If you require engine facilities than try to make a full go at it possibly inside the curve, but in this case it is a little "stuck there to fill the space".

 

This may seem to be a lot of critical points but the problem with big layouts is that you are going to devote a great deal of time and money to building it. After say 5 years you still want it to be justified and a pleasure to operate. You can always add a siding or two later, but the only way to change your mind completely is to scrap the lot!

[aforsyth]

After a session with AnyRail, I have come up with the following, based (I hope) on feedback received. I'd be interested, Kenton, if this is the kind of thing you had in mind - or something different?\

Changes:

- Double-track mainline oval via St.Cherth, with arrival / departure platforms added for the terminus, Penzyth. St. Cherth now has 6 platforms -- can this be reduced somehow?

- I think the pointwork at St.Cherth can be better designed, but I'm just trying to get an idea of how a larger station there might work.

- Out-and-back option for mainline remains for Penzyth trains.

- Terminus at 13cm high, St.Cherth now two level (branch + Penzyth platforms @3.5cm, mainline loop platforms @2.5cm), all inclines should be 1 in 40 now (could perhaps be decreased to 1 in 50 - I haven't tried it).

- Terminus board with storage loops underneath now much more accessible.

- Penzyth turntable temporarily removed (where would be best now?), and carriage sidings added.

- I am at a temporary loss with the branch - I'd like it to get to a halt and dockyard somehow / somewhere, to provide some freight & passenger interest.

- Once again, platforms are place-holders / markers on the diagrams!

 

 

Mainline + Remains of Branch

 

 

Terminus

 

 

I've attached the AnyRail file too in a zip, in case anyone wants to play with it (requires the licensed version, I would think).

bedroom_layout_rmweb_20120616.zip

 

Overall, I'm glad that there is still a continuous-run double-track mainline, but I'm undecided how the Penzyth line should connect to it - and how that should affect St.Cherth.

I'd also like to work out how the branch / docks might still work - without overloading it all again...!

 

Thanks for any input...

Alan

[aforsyth]

Yes - forgot to mention in the last post - I originally tried a full double-track junction for the line from Penzyth to the mainline loop, but then realised I probably didn't need double-track for the line to Penzyth(?) However, in the diagram above, I forgot to single the track to Penzyth - or is it better if I keep it double-track?

I can also see that I should move that trailing mainline cross-over at St.Cherth back round towards the storage yards, to enable through trains from Penzyth to get on the correct track, if they're not using the out-and-back option.

Looks like there needs to be a trailing cross-over at the entrance to Penzyth too... I'll fix that in a later update.

 

Alan

[Kenton]

The entrance to Penzyth is still incorrect. I don't know how you are numbering your platforms but if they are left to right, platform 3 and 4 have no ability to depart along the correct line. (also, minor issue, if that way of numbering is correct then the loco release is wrong way round - it nearly always was in favour of the most important platform).

 

As I said above, do not be in such a hurry to get the track plan sorted and final in a couple of days - this is the way it appears to me. I know you are enthusiastic and desperate to get going and lay track, even to see trains running but there is more to planning a layout than can be achieved overnight.

 

Try to concentrate on the terminus and get that right and started. As long as you build the framework to accommodate the lower level you can then make a start on modelling while still seeing something progress.

 

You do need to make up your own mind on single or double track working, in my opinion it just has to be double track, but this has to be your layout in the end.

 

BTW I like the idea of the carriage sidings at Penzyth - as this gives the upper level more scope, however you are still in a bit of a confusion on the lower level with a blue branch? going under the double main while it is dropping in gradient!

[Katier]

Dare I say it, but wouldn't the best starting point for the terminus be a certain Mr Freezer's rather infamous plan?

 

Most terminus stations automatically have something in common with this layout and certainly I believe it could easily work here.

 

Move the small siding on Minories so it's point is straight after (rather than between) the second cross-over and that becomes your left hand platform (as for your terminus). You have thus converted Minories to a four platform station and can easily then add your extra siding and carriage sidings off from the right hand platform pretty much exactly as per your plan.

[aforsyth]

Kenton - you're right again! The final crossover on the way out of Penzyth should be trailing, not facing - my oversight, I missed that on the plan. However, the loco release is correct according to the prototype. Apparently all four platform roads at Penzance could be used for both arrival and departure during the steam age, although that still doesn't explain why this was so.

 

I am currently musing about the mainline / branchline part. Penzyth is probably always going to be the final stage of the railway (just look at all those curved electrofrog points I need to buy!). I still have some small radius insulfrogs from my boyhood layout along with a double slip, so it would still be good to start with something small and achievable for minimum expense right now.

I remember on my last trip to Pecorama some years ago, seeing the 'Garage' layout with its long impressive viaduct made from Wills kits. I've just dug out the May 2006 issue of Railway Modeller, where the initial construction of the baseboards and track bed are described. It would be great to use the sweep of the mainline (yes, double-track!) going up to the terminus for a viaduct, or perhaps for the mainline loop, with a small branchline wandering through one of the arches...

 

As you suggest, I am not going to rush things (despite taking 4 months to come up with the first plan in this article! :-/). I'd like to come up with an interesting, yet basically simple plan, which can still be built in stages, but I would love to start construction before the year's end!

 

Alan

 

The entrance to Penzyth is still incorrect. I don't know how you are numbering your platforms but if they are left to right, platform 3 and 4 have no ability to depart along the correct line. (also, minor issue, if that way of numbering is correct then the loco release is wrong way round - it nearly always was in favour of the most important platform).

 

As I said above, do not be in such a hurry to get the track plan sorted and final in a couple of days - this is the way it appears to me. I know you are enthusiastic and desperate to get going and lay track, even to see trains running but there is more to planning a layout than can be achieved overnight.

 

Try to concentrate on the terminus and get that right and started. As long as you build the framework to accommodate the lower level you can then make a start on modelling while still seeing something progress.

 

You do need to make up your own mind on single or double track working, in my opinion it just has to be double track, but this has to be your layout in the end.

 

BTW I like the idea of the carriage sidings at Penzyth - as this gives the upper level more scope, however you are still in a bit of a confusion on the lower level with a blue branch? going under the double main while it is dropping in gradient!