Dungrange

Unfortunately, I can't both agree and laugh at the idea of Mr Blobby Rail. 🤣 Obviously FIA wagons with logos other than RfD/EWS/DB are going to fictional and I guess Mr Blobby Rail is no more fictional that adding Colas, Freightliner or DRS logos to a Bachmann FIA (which is a DB wagon). Once into the world of fantasy modelling, you can basically do what you like. 😀

What is the space between the second and third tracks on the left of your plan? It looks a bit narrower than the spacing that you have elsewhere formed by two points with an ST-203 in between.

Thanks Andy - I think you make a few very good points, some of which are quite subtle, but which highlight why it’s not possible to have an accurate ‘rule of thumb’ generalisation that applies everywhere (as some have already highlighted). Since there are few photographs of freight traffic on the Wisbech and Upwell tramway in 1921 and my wagon spotting skills are well below the observational skills of some, like @Compound2632, my approach has been to try and ‘forecast’ what I’d expect to see, and I’ve been adopting a two-step approach to that. The first is to try and forecast the pre-war situation (based on trip lengths to the nearest stations, company ownership of the nearest stations and both the breakdown and size of each company’s fleet) and then try to consider how that may have changed post-pooling as company fleets mixed. What I had identified is that the variable that my 1921 forecast is most sensitive to is the question of how quickly the fleets mixed - it's the biggest uncertainty I have. I must admit that I hadn’t really considered that the speed at which the fleets mixed would vary across the country and be related to the intensity of freight traffic. At a location that saw the arrival of 1,000 loaded wagons per day the impact of pooling would probably be obvious ten times quicker than a location that saw only 100 loaded wagons per day and 100 times quicker than at a location that saw just 10 loaded wagons per day. It makes sense: I just hadn’t thought about it. It doesn’t mean that comparisons at places like Birmingham Central aren’t useful, but means that when drawing conclusions about the impacts of pooling, one needs to be aware of the relative traffic levels and adjust accordingly, so as well as requiring fairly accurate dates for photographs post-1917, there is a need to understand the difference in freight intensity between the photographs being looked at and the location being modelled to fully understand the impact of pooling at a given date in the twilight years of the pre-grouping period. I think this is also an interesting observation and I can see its relevance. A lot has been written about pooling in the post-grouping period with an accepted general rule of thumb being that the number of LMS, LNER, GWR and SR wagons on a layout should be broadly in proportion with the size of each companies’ pooled fleet, so even a layout in the south of England should have more LMS than SR wagons. However, whilst this might be true when considering just four companies, the same probably isn’t true when considering 20+ pre-grouping companies (in the same way as there are 20 countries that use the Euro). I guess the question then becomes, what is the equilibrium point? For my own forecasts I was assuming that I needed to weight each company’s fleet breakdown by the average distance to all stations on their network. This means that I’m biasing the impact of pooling in favour of the local companies because whilst a Highland Railway wagon may have ended up in East Anglia, it would most likely get there having made dozens of shorter journeys, each of which present the opportunity for it to be sent back in the direction from which it came. Therefore, even although pooling may have resulted in a HR wagon being spotted at Upwell, I think it would still have been rare (in the same way as certain Euro coins are still rare in rural France). I guess that raises another question for me – should I be weighting the company fleets by distance (as I have done) or by something like the square of the distance, which would result in the expectation of fewer Scottish foreigners, with the foreign wagons being more heavily biased to the neighbouring companies? That's a bit of a rhetorical question. Again, a subtle point that I hadn’t fully appreciated. My approach to trying to derive a pre-WW1 forecast has been to start with an assumed deterrence function. The local traffic (ie traffic travelling less than 10 miles) would be my baseline and the further away a station is, the less traffic it would dispatch. For example, I was assuming that the average station 100 miles away may produce just 1% of the traffic that would be generated at Wisbech (which is just 6 miles away). I then looked at counting how many stations are 10-20 miles distant, 20-30 miles distant etc. I did this accurately for stations within 100 miles, and then very crudely after that because it's less important. Combining these then gives me a trip length distribution. I was hoping that I could find data to calibrate this (since it would be virtually impossible to calibrate the deterrence function directly). The trip length distribution that I’ve derived is highly plausible (the most common trip length is circa 30-40 miles, approximately 2/3 of traffic is travelling less than 50 miles and about 95% of traffic is travelling less than 100 miles). However, what you’re highlighting is that the distribution of trip lengths will vary by location and whilst at some more urban locations perhaps 10% of traffic may have travelled more than 100 miles, in a sparsely populated areas there is probably a much lower proportion of long-distance traffic. Again, the approach that I’m taking isn’t necessarily wrong, but I’ll need to give thought to calibrating the likelihood of the longer distance trips. Whilst there was a lot of long-distance exports from Upwell, it doesn’t mean that there was a similar proportion of long-distance imports. The resultant mix that I’ve derived as an annual pre-WW1 estimate for Upwell is as below, which overall, I think is plausible, although I’m still looking to make refinements. Although that's an assumption that I would need about 21% of stock to be foreign, it's worth highlighting that the assumed likely foreign stock is very heavily biased to the local companies that were operating within 40 miles of Upwell. I'd therefore expect a lower percentage of foreign stock at a location deep within one company's territory and a higher proportion of foreign stock at a yard on the periphery of a company's territory. Unfortunately, it sometimes feels like this is an unanswerable question, but I suppose if none of us know the answer, there is no-one who can definitively tell us that we are wrong. My next task is to look at the Private Owner wagon fleet!!! Unfortunately, that's the answer that I though you might give. I'm aware that the L&Y Railway Society also have some details on their website of L&Y registered wagons - https://lyrs.org.uk/lyr-private-owner-wagon-register/. I'm assuming that the registers for the other companies, where these are available, will convey similar information. I was hoping that there may be some high level breakdown of the circa 650,000 wagons by geography and/or wagon type, because going through each companies registers would be a mammoth task, which would probably be of little real value. That's very true, but with 650,000 prototypes to choose from, is there really a need for fictitious liveries? My interest is really, of the PO coal wagons that turned up in Upwell, how may plausibly came from Scotland, South Wales, the North East etc (which would be related to the size of the PO wagon fleet in each area).

I'm going to raise the same issue as I have previously. Between 2 and 2A you have a short straight between the points to increase the gap between the tracks, but between 3A and 9 you seem to be down to the Streamline track spacing of 2". That therefore makes me question what the spacing is between the tracks 10 - 9 and 10 - 3 and what sort of collision risk you have here. I think my other question is about the size of your operating voids. The pointed parts of each opening are not usable (because humans are quite round: some more so than others). Do you actually intend to be able to stand in these voids or are they just going to be so that you can stick your head / an arm through? Will your body / head / arm fit? Given the overall dimensions are given as 8' x 5', they don't look particularly big.

I agree with that, but statistically the likelihood of a wagon being a GER one would have declined over time, because that was the outcome of pooling. If the Midland Railway were sending out a wagon from Birmingham Central Goods Depot in 1895, then they would almost certainly have dispatched a MR wagon. However, if they were to dispatch a wagon in 1922, the probability of them sending out a MR wagon would have been much lower (as we can see from looking at the photographs on warwickshirerailways.com). What we don't really know is the speed at which the probability changed, but which is actually quite important if trying to replicate the immediate post-war period anywhere in the UK.

I think most of it left the GER. Yes, some fruit went to London, but I believe the majority went to northern English cities and both Glasgow and Edinburgh received fruit from Upwell at the height of the season. I believe that quantities increased over time, so I can't be sure about traffic operation in the pre-grouping time period, but I have a copy of an LNER Traffic Notice for 1947, which gives a special timetable for the fruit season. There were six weekday afternoon departures from Upwell at 3:15, 3:20, 3:30, 4:15, 4:45 and 4:50. The 3:15 departure was 'to convey traffic for Newcastle and Scotland'. It connected with a Magdalen Road to Peterborough service, which was marked as only to convey 'Passenger rated traffic for Newcastle and Scotland'. The 3:20 and 3:30 services were both marked as being 'to convey passenger traffic for Joint Line and Peterborough, also goods rated traffic (in vacuum fitted vehicles) for Newcastle (New Bridge Street) and Scotland'. The 4:15 service was marked as 'To convey traffic for via Joint Line and Peterborough' The 4:45 service was marked as 'To work Joint Line traffic except Newcastle (New Bridge Street) and Scotland' The 4:50 service was marked as 'To work Peterborough and London traffic. To connect with 7:35pm to Peterborough and 7:00pm (altered to 7:55pm) to Spitalfields. To leave Upwell formed: - Engine, via London, via Peterborough, Brake'. As only the final train of the day mentions London, and it is distinguished separately from Peterborough, I think it's fair to assume that produce was exported to most of the major cities in the UK in 1947. Peterborough would have acted as hub for traffic to the west (ie towards Birmingham, Coventry, Leicester, Nottingham etc), while the GN&GE Joint Line would have been used to convey the traffic to Yorkshire and Newcastle / Scotland where so identified. I believe that most of the agricultural produce travelled quite far and would have resulted in a lot of GER vehicles getting all over the country. However, it's important to highlight that much of the fruit would have been conveyed in passenger rated vans or fitted covered goods wagons, which were obviously not pooled. I don't know how wide the distribution was for say potatoes or other vegetables, which would have been conveyed in pooled vehicles was. The Wisbech and Upwell Tramway wasn't really a rural backwater - just a relatively sparsely populated rural area that produced goods sent far and wide.

Obviously the image in this post has been lost, but did this information contain any details of where the wagons were from or does it just record the owning company of the various wagons? Ideally, I'd like to know what proportion of traffic had travelled more than 50 miles, 100 miles, 150 miles, etc to understand what a typical trip length distribution looked like, so a large sample size would be ideal. It's something I've been pondering myself, but the problem is that we don't know at what rate wagons wandered off their home turf and didn't return as they would have done prior to the introduction of pooling. Unfortunately, any assumption makes a huge difference to predicting how much foreign stock may have been present at any point in the post-WW1 pre-grouping period. The question I want to answer is firstly how much foreign stock was on the Wisbech and Upwell tramway pre-WW1 and to what extent that had changed by 1921 (the period I am currently looking to model). The graph below, shows how things might have looked at various dates if we assume that 0.8% of pooled wagons wandered off turf each month (and were replaced by foreign wagons weighted by the size of their fleets and the relative proximity of these fleets). At this rate, it would take around 10 years for the various company fleets to be be fully mixed. If that assumption is correct, then the majority of my wagons in 1921 need to be home company wagons. However, if say 4.2% of pooled wagons wandered off turf each month (and were replaced by foreign wagons weighted by the size of their fleets and the relative proximity of these fleets), then the picture would be radically different by grouping. 4.2% per month is equivalent to fully mixing pooled vehicles in around 24 months. If the company fleets mixed this quickly, then by 1921 most of my fleet should be foreign wagons. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to derive a measure of how quickly the various company fleets were mixed. I think all we're really left with is finding before and after photographs to make a comparison and we need accurate dates for the post-pooling photographs. In many respect the 1890s photograph isn't particularly relevant to answering a general question as to how many foreign wagons could be seen in the pre-pooling period. I'd expect to see loads of GWR, LNWR and MR wagons in Birmingham around 1895, but since each company had their own freight depots, it's entirely unsurprising that there are no GWR or LNWR wagons in a depot owned by the Midland Railway. As such, the only foreign wagons I'd expect to see in 1895 in a Midland depot would be wagons from distant companies with no presence in the Birmingham area such as the SECR or the G&SWR, but such long distance traffic would presumably be relatively rare, so would not detract from the MR uniformity. The post-pooling photograph is perhaps far more enlightening as presumably all the wagons on display were brought in on MR traffic flows and it shows MR wagons in the minority. Unfortunately, the one linked to doesn't have a date, but this one https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrcgy692.htm is stated as being 22 September 1922 and this seems to show foreign wagons outnumbering those of this Midland, but nonetheless MR wagons still look more common than any other company. That would lead me to speculate that the fleets became quite mixed over a relatively short period - perhaps in the order of three or four years at most. As @Compound2632 has stated we need to be clear as to whether we're referring to pre- or post-pooling, as there was a definite step change in foreign wagons post-WW1.

Apart from the fact that I don't like the track plan because it's not very prototypical, if you look at the top corner of your plan, you don't have adequate track spacing to avoid stock collisions. These are second and third radius curves, which should be 67 mm apart (centre line to centre line). If you have the correct track spacing, then the R607 and R609 should line up at both ends, which yours don't. I think you need to fix that issue.

Where would these larger sidings be going? It doesn't look like there is any scope to make them any bigger.

Again, they represent different wagons. The Hornby model represents the first 400 MHA to be constructed. The Accurascale model represents the most recent 600+ wagons. There are some fairly obvious differences between the two bodies if you look at the real wagons and a rake would generally comprise both types (often with some other types as well, which will vary depending on your time period). However, the underframe detail is better on the Accurascale model and they may in time tool up to produce the earlier MHA wagons currently produced by Hornby. As @Steven B has highlighted, there are numerous different types of TEA tank wagon built over a 50+ year period. Which ones are most suitable for the time period you want to portray? The prototype for the Bachmann model is the batch built from the late 1960s. The Cavalex ones represent a TEA built in, I think, the 1980s, whilst the Revolution Trains model represents a prototype that was introduced in 2006. There is no point in buying the Revolution Trains model if you want to represent the year 2000 (and you wouldn't want the Accurascale MHA either). If you're looking to model current day operations, then you're probably not looking at the Bachmann TEA model. The TEAs modelled by Bachmann were still in use out of Grangemouth circa 2010, but by circa 2015, I think they've been exclusively the type of TEA modelled by Revolution Trains. I'm not sure that there are any of the prototype modelled by Bachmann left on the network, but I'm not an expert on the differences between the dozens of different types of TEA.

Agreed, although you could also just get rid of the surplus ones that are in the poorest condition and keep the better ones for your own use.

The Railway Yearbooks show 1915 as well, and being a contemporary publication, I'm inclined to believe them over more recent books, which is why I think 1915 is the correct date. I maybe need to consult the 1916 Yearbook to confirm, as each one lists key events in the last 12 months as well as the key dates in history. I note this is where there is a difference between Tatlow and Atkins as the above states 'and' rather than 'principally'. It appears I've been under the misapprehension that the pooling in 1917 was all non-covered goods wagons with 3 or more planks and that 1918 was just pulling all remaining one and two planks not in departmental use into the common user scheme. I suspect that there was less need to pool mineral wagons since as @Steamport Southport highlights, they were often used for specific flows. They're a bit to modern for me, but I agree that they're suitable for @Mr chapman. When Accurascale announced their NER wagons, I thought, great a Pre-grouping wagon, but quickly realised that they wouldn't have ventured off home turf, so no good for a pre-grouping East Anglian layout or a Southern post-grouping layout. To return to the original question, I think you can use any companies wagon sheet on any companies wagon. In theory, if the LNER contributed around 36% of wagons and wagons sheets, then only 36% of LNER wagons probably had LNER sheets (ie an LMS sheet on an LNER wagon may have been more common), but I expect that to some extent old habits probably meant that there was a higher proportion of LNER sheets on LNER wagons than you'd expect if sheets were truly used on a random basis. In fact, if the SR only contributed 6% of wagons and wagons sheets, then a southern wagon with a southern wagon sheet should be quite rare if they were truly allocated on a random basis.

I think it's from one of the Tatlow books on LNER wagons - I've seen it before, but don't own the book.

I believe that there is an error with the first date (ie for the GN, GC & GE scheme) should be 13/12/15. A bit off topic, but was the first pooling of mineral wagons in 1926? That is, was the pooling in 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918 all just general merchandise open wagons?

A shunter will push or pull stock depending on the layout of the sidings to be shunted, but yes, it is more likely to be at one end, pushing stock into sidings and pulling stock out of sidings (otherwise it will get trapped without a run-round). I agree with @ITG that there is no need for two run round loops - on will suffice. I also agree with @The Johnster that your goods yard and locomotive stabling facilities should be kept separate. Therefore, if sticking with your current plan, I'd remove Point 20 and extend these two sidings, replace point 15 with a straight and add a curved point in the track below that will connect to Points 18 and 19. The operation of your goods facilities, then becomes arrival via Point 19. The locomotive will then run round and the incoming wagons are then shunted to the two sidings off Point 18. The main 'point' to note (no pun intended) is that the length of track beyond Point 21 is only long enough to release a Class 08 or similar, so if your inbound train is hauled by a Class 37, then it won't be able to run round and will remain trapped until a separate locomotive takes the train away. I'm not sure what your thoughts are with @RobinofLoxley's suggestion, but I agree that the access junction is more prototypical and it also negates the need to extend your baseboard in an attempt to accommodate set-track spacing, which might still not be enough. Because @RobinofLoxley is suggesting a single slip rather than a diamond crossing, a train travelling clockwise on your inner circuit will have direct access to the goods area via the slip, while traffic exiting the area will have direct access to travel clockwise around your outer circuit. The crossovers at each end of the station provide the opportunity for all trains to use the top loop and therefore this can be used to both change direction (of a DMU), or run round a train.

Set track spacing (ie the difference between 2nd radius and 3rd radius is 67 mm (2.64")), so you now have somewhere between streamline and set-track track spacing. Is that enough? Ultimately you're going to have to test and adjust as you're laying the track and perhaps still accept that some stock can't run simultaneously. Unfortunately, whilst you do appear to have set track spacing on the top part of your plan, you seem to have adopted streamline spacing for the lower part of the plan (it's controlled by the single slip and connecting turnout). That therefore means that you're plan as drawn has the same issue as may of @Cliff M's earlier plans and any collision is likely to occur going into / coming out of the set-track curves at either end of the bottom straight. I'd be tempted to increase the distance to the edge of the board if you can, but it depends on how you're going to treat the edges of your baseboard. If you were to have an edge that extends above track level, then I think it's probably okay. All you really need is to make sure that a derailment doesn't end up with stock falling to the floor.

Can you clarify the source of these numbers? I'd like a breakdown of the circa 650,000 PO wagons across all of the pre-grouping companies, but don't know where to find this information.

Could you post that image again - it's a pity some of the useful posts in this thread now have missing images.

I'm still not convinced that the pre-WW1 situation with regards goods wagons is quite as restrictive as some suggest, but I'd expect a different answer to the question depending on whether the question is about goods wagons on a train or goods wagons in a yard. It will also vary depending on whether the yard is in an urban or rural area, and whether the line is a through route or a branch line. Looking at the statistical returns for the GER for 1913 (ie immediately before WW1 and the introduction of subsequent pooling arrangements), the following figures are presented. General Merchandise by Good Train - 5,717,841 tons, of which 3,552,974 tons originated on the GER (62.1%). Coke, Coal and Patent Fuel - 5,078,840 tons, of which 150,240 tons originated on the GER (3.0%). Other Minerals - 2,436,226 tons, of which 1,443,343 originated on the GER (59.2%). Livestock - 1,790,329 animals, of which 1,411,053 animals originated on the GER (78.8%) If we consider the terminus of an 'average' GER branch line, then I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that on average, only 62.1% of inbound general merchandise is conveyed in GER wagons, meaning that 37.9% of inbound general merchandise wagons would be foreign wagons. Outbound merchandise would be in GER wagons, but if we assume that the traffic flows on the branch line are balanced, then something like 81% GER vs 19% foreign is not an unrealistic split. If we take the same approach with livestock traffic, then a 89% GER vs 11% foreign split would again seem reasonable. Obviously home company traffic will dominate, but I don't think 'very little' foreign traffic is entirely accurate. Of course that's looking at a destination. If looking at a train, then the longer distance traffic may be routed by competing routes, so any foreign traffic conveyed is more likely to be partner company wagons, than wagons from anywhere. However, I'd still expect a few foreign wagons in most trains.

Is that not meant to be can't use? Sounds interesting - do you have any more details?

Don't place your SL-E87 as close to point 9 - it's probably easier to be closer to point 7 (which it replaces). Let's start by saying that Point 9 is in the correct place. The next piece of track that you want to position is the double second radius curve (45 Degrees), which connects at the toe end of point 9. The next piece of track that you want to position after that is the double third radius curve (45 Degrees) that should be parallel to the second radius curve and 67 mm from it. Once you have that, you can extend both curves using the 2nd/3rd radius 22.5 Degree curves, which will remain 67 mm apart. At that point you can add a SL-E87 into your outer curve. The inner curve of the SL-E87 has a radius of 30" (762 mm), so you're going to have to use flexitrack to lay a curve of approximately 695 mm radius (ie 762 -67) in your inner circuit so that the two tracks remain parallel, although in practise you could use this piece to transition to whatever track centres you want to use through your station, so the 695 mm isn't going to be critical. For the outer exit track on the SL-E87, which will form your loop, you're probably looking at using a short section of second radius (ie you are cutting a piece of set-track) or just using flexi-track to get to whatever track centres you adopt through the station. I'd be aiming for 51 mm centres through the straight section so that your station takes up as little space as possible. You could go as low as 45 mm (the scaled prototype dimension) since your station is dead straight, but this would require quite a bit of trial and error with your transitions at either end and I think sticking with about 51 mm would be much easier.

Unfortunately, that’s the problem – your spacing needs to be determined by the set-track curves rather than the points. Peco produce two track ranges: Set-track and Streamline. Set-track is primarily aimed at the ‘train set’ market (principally for those who don’t care too much about prototypical authenticity and just want to run trains for fun), whilst Streamline is aimed at those attempting to model something a little closer to the prototype (ie closer to prototype track spacing AND closer to prototype curves). If you stick to one or other track range, then you don’t need to worry about track centres too much, because the points automatically take care of the spacing for you. However, in your case, you’re trying to mix the two track systems and therefore your track centres either need to transition between 51mm at the Streamline point-work and 67mm on the Set-track corners (so the track centres are constantly varying in your straight sections), or you need to adjust your Streamline crossings so that you are using 67mm centres throughout. The reason is that when an item of rolling stock goes into a tight curve, the centre of a coach on your outer track will hang into the space between the two tracks. Similarly, the front end of a locomotive on your inner track will swing out into the same space between the tracks. If you have 67mm track centres, then you’ll be fine (even with 2nd radius curves). However, if you adopt a lesser distance between the tracks (which is what you are doing by working to the 51mm centres produced by your streamline points 5, 6, 9 and 10) then if you run two trains at the same time, there is a high risk of a collision. However, that risk is stock specific (as well as being related to the radius of the curve). If you were to restrict your purchases to say a Class 08 shunter and short four-wheel wagons, then you may be okay with your plan as shown. However, if you were to run say Mark 3 coaches (the type used in the High Speed Train (HST) on the outside track and a 4-6-2 Pacific locomotive like Flying Scotsman on your inner track, then these will collide. You would therefore only be able to run one train at a time – either your outside circuit or your inner circuit, but not both simultaneously. You might be able to find a track spacing of less than 67mm that will work with the stock you plan to run, but you’ll need to find that by trial and error. In essence, buy a couple of second radius curves and the biggest stock you are likely to want to run and then make the appropriate measurements. For measuring centre overhang, you’re looking for stock with the greatest distance between the bogie pivots and for a locomotive, you’re looking for the greatest distance between the front of the locomotive and either the front driving wheels of a steam locomotive or the bogie pivot of a diesel locomotive. You’ll then need to make up a jig to assist you when you’re laying track to your bespoke centres or buy something like the adjustable tool made by Proses - https://houseofhobbies.co.uk/product/proses-hooo-scale-adjustable-parallel-track-tool-20548?gclid=CjwKCAiA4smsBhAEEiwAO6DEjf3_b6T0GGCf7eBDmBlJk8UUVhyJq6SXVIf34i7k7QB05Mg_vi1nZBoCguQQAvD_BwE If you stick with 51mm and 67mm, then Peco already sell a much cheaper alternative - https://peco-uk.com/products/6ft-way-gauge?variant=7435677499426 If your second and third radius curves were 67 mm apart (as they should be), then both curves would start and finish at the same location.(ie they would line up, just like they do at the mid point on your curve). It's the fact that they don't that highlights you have a problem.

The number of platforms is up to you. Below is a snip from Open Train Times https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/edinburgh#LINK_1, which shows the station at Dunbar on the East Coast Mainline. The Up platform (for trains travelling south towards London) is on a loop allowing non-stopping trains a straighter run through the station. For many years there was only one platform and the northbound trains had to cross over the up line to stop. However, a new platform was constructed on the Down line (for trains travelling towards Edinburgh) a few years ago. As you'll note, the layout looks very similar to your plan. That looks better. Station buildings come in all sizes depending on how important the station is. You don't really have enough space for a grand station building, but since your loop can only accommodate a short train (eg a 2-car DMU or a small tank locomotive and a couple of shorter coaches), then you're station building can be much simpler and can easily fit in that space. Yes, I forgot you said at the start you wanted to use Electrofrog points and of course the set-track ones are all dead frog. However, this does throw us back to the issue of the track centre distances that you are using. If using set-track (as you are at your corners), the radii need to be at 67mm track centres. You'll automatically have this spacing if both curves start and end at the same point. However, that's not what you have in your plan - the start and end of your curves have a stagger (the third radius curve starting before the second radius curve). If you're using Streamline (as you seem to be for your point-work) then the spacing that this produces will be 50.8mm (2"). You therefore have two different track spacings - 50.8mm at your crossings, but this needs to increase to 67 mm going into your 'corners'. You'll therefore need to use flexi-track to either make transitions in the centre to centre spacing (eg 50.8mm increasing to 67mm by creating a reverse curve), or cut small sections of track to insert between the two points that make up your crossovers to give you wider track centres on your straights. In general, we try to avoid reverse curves, although the ones you'd be creating would be fairly gentle. Inserting small straight lengths between the points that form your crossovers means that the crossovers will take up more space, which appears to be a problem with your point-work on the bottom side of the layout - there doesn't appear to be aby space to transition between set-track and streamline spacings. One final comment is that you don't look to have a smooth join at point 4 between the point and the innermost circuit.

Your platforms won't fit, as no space has been allowed for them. I think the absolute minimum width for a single sided platform is 6', which means about 1" in 00. For a two sided platform, the absolute minimum platform width would be twice that - ie 2" in 00. In both cases, that assumes that there is no platform furniture. If you want a building or waiting shelter, then the 6' distance is measured from the edge of the platform to the nearest obstruction (ie a building, station seating, lighting columns, footbridge columns etc). If your island platform is to have even a basic waiting shelter, then you're looking at needing a platform that is perhaps at least 3-4" wide. That means that if you're using the set-track standard spacing of 67mm between track centrelines, then you need to more than double this in your station. You're going to need your platform tracks to be at something closer to 150 mm centres to accommodate an island platform. It's worth highlighting that in SCARM, the lines that are being drawn are the rails. These are 16.5mm apart. However, the average item of rolling stock is about 36.5mm wide, meaning that it overhangs the rails by about 10mm either side on the straight (and more on the curves). You've drawn your platforms as though they come right to the rails, but you need to move the platform edges back to allow at least a 12mm gap between the rail and the platform edge and if you adjust what you've drawn, you'll see how unfeasibly narrow your platforms are. Stations take up a lot of space. The three tracks either end remind me too much of Thomas the Tank Engine. The Island of Sodor seemed to have lots of stretches of track with three parallel tracks, but it's not common in the real world. Looking at the operational potential, try moving your finger over your plan to think out all the moments that you'll want to make, in essence trying to draw up a timetable (or movement sequence). That should help you identify issues, but also confirm whether there is enough to keep you interested. If you decide to stick with something close to your current plan, then I'd probably change point 7 to being a curved point, to increase the distance between points 6 and 7. I was happy enough running two coach trains as a child, but I'd be much less willing to make that compromise now (unless I was choosing to model a location where / are trains genuinely short). I don't think you're there yet though.

Thanks - I didn't know that. I was aware that there were several countries that switched from driving road vehicles on the left to the right as a result of World War 2. I understand that it was originally Napoleon Bonaparte who dictated that his troops should keep right and therefore I'd just assumed that when the French came to build their railways that they would adopt the same convention as their road network. The number of countries driving on the right did increase as a result of Hitler and I suppose I never gave it any thought that the railways would have been more difficult to change in these countries. It just shows the importance of research before embarking on a new project. Thankfully I don't have any plans to build a continental European model railway.