mightbe

What is your job? (No, it's not an irrelevant question.) I ask because you seem to think layout design is quantifiable. (It's not, I'll tell you right now.) The design is poor for reasons other than helix, the hidden track, the access, the clearance, the gradients, the radii, the fiddle yard, and the multi-level set up. Those are just the red flags, if you will. You have quite a comprehensive list of things wise modellers avoid, as has been said. Given the extent to which the above influence the fundamental design, there's no point in listing things to be corrected or improved at the surface-level. Earlier, I suggested starting from a blank canvas, as we all do things better the second time 'round. This is still sensible advice, but I think more time should be spent analyzing others' layouts first. This will show you what works and what doesn't, as well as tipping you off to the subtler common practices of design. EDIT: If I may, an analogy: A middle-aged man approaches a local piano teacher about beginner's lessons, "I've never really learned properly, no lessons or anything like that," he said. The teacher agrees and a time is set up to meet. The man has listened to hundreds of CDs, Argerich, Rubinstein, Gould, the lot, and feels he is well acquainted with piano repertoire. At the first lesson, he greets the teacher with a big smile and the two take a seat at the piano. The teacher asks if the man has ever played before, just for fun, and he replies "Yes!" suddenly pulling a book from his bag. Without a second's delay the man starts to play. It's a Chopin ballade, the first, in G minor. Not wanting to offend the man or crush his spirit, the teacher very politely decides to not speak and to let him get to the end. Before she had the chance to say something the man asks, with total seriousness, "Now what did you think about the ritardando I added at m. 67; was I maybe just 5 beats per minute too slow? I want it to sound like Rubinstein's."

I don't say this to be mean, but the crux of the problem seems to be that you have no basic grasp of how successful model railways are designed or indeed how to design from the ground-up, rather than just executing a series of small permutations on a given theme. The flaws of the layout are thus fundamental (largely), not a matter of inches here and there. That is what I and everyone else have been getting at with all this "conflicting data"; the degree of unworkability depends on perspective, but the consensus remains that the plan isn't workable. (On the other hand the N gauge layout and its fiddle yard in particular look quite decent; by no coincidence it has now been through experienced hands.) My advice for this layout is to go back to a clean canvas and try it again; that usually helps since you know roughly what the goal is but have the freedom to do it better.

Gordon and Chard laid themselves bare, with admirable honesty and pathos, admitting to missteps and addressing the fundamental flaws common to their failed projects and the proposed design. Now we're back to asking about trivialities and trivial numbers. Well, since you know best.

Have you ever seen a helix in the context of a North American layout? Because of your approach here, trying to tuck it under a station with minimal clearance, I think not. Here's a description: Helices are fairly common in North America; let even more layout fit into a huge space. They can often be found in corners, near utility areas, or in the middle of a peninsula. The average size of a layout with a helix is typically 250 sq feet at least (usually in the environs of 400 sq ft), and actually become more common the larger the layout is. (That is the scale of things here.) Helices are usually designed such that the gradient does not exceed 2% (1 in 50 as would be said in the UK), requiring a fairly large radius of about 30". More severe gradients can be found on such layouts (almost never more than 3%), usually on sections of dead-straight track. Helices are almost never obstructed from above, at least not by anything that isn't removable (such as a hillside), and often they are designed so that a person can stand inside them for maintenance and cleaning. If a "standing" arrangement is impractical, a helix is usually unobstructed from most or all sides, again with generous access from above. I urge you to compare the above with what you have. You helix is: 1) tightly radiused (if your layout is designed 'by numbers' 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, your curves are too tight--doubly so for a helix) 2) steep as all get-out 3) covered by an immobile and immense mini-Paddington 4) obstructed from 2 sides, arguably 3. 5) designed into a layout that is probably not large enough to justify it Quentin

The platform in question is the 5th from the top. There's a single slip that needs to be a double slip. Everyone has been trying to help but you keep rejecting sound, well-founded advice--a charge raised and denied multiple times--usually on the basis that you haven't been presented with "the data". This dogged insistence on empiricism is counterproductive, and you needlessly challenge decades of practical experience. The path has already been well-cleared, and yet there's a question mark around the perceived negativity. As for the helix-- you've posted a link showing a heavy, six-axle diesel going up a very tight helix but you propose a layout set in the 1930s. It's a comparison between apples and root vegetables. It's also worth bearing in mind that your helix goes the "wrong way" insofar as the shallower gradient is descending while the steeper gradient is on the ascent (the linked helix goes the 'better' way around). Quentin

I'm not sure you need to quantify it; I won't pin a number to it. It's going to take a long time, full stop. And that's if it is completed. One can hope but there's no guarantee. (The majority of layouts go unfinished, and a much higher percentage of ambitious one-man projects. Gordon S--whose woodworking, engineering, track laying, and design skills are evident to all who visit his thread--has had to restart Eastwood town many times, and it's a much more straightforward layout than what you propose. Will it be finished? I hope so and wish Gordon the very best! He has the skills and accumulated experience to do it. You, with respect, do not. Even accounting for the differing approaches, I suspect this layout will take at least twice as long as any prediction could guess [without major revisions, rebuilding, or anything like that].) The fiddle yard is looking better aside from the inexplicable diamonds and the way they 'feed' into the scenic layout. I think you can get away with a single mass of storage tracks there and far less bizarrerie in getting trains to and from the correct tracks. To remind you, there seems to be a profound lack of flow to the left end of the platforms. I feel you could cut a pair of platforms and wind up with a better and more realistic station. As a side note, in the quest for an optimal layout you've made your station less realistic--it wasn't common for every platform to be 100% interchangeable until much later in the 20th century. Slow and Fast could have their own platforms, and there were usually a few platforms that could only do arrivals or departures, just not both. Quentin EDIT: To Harlequin, I suspect the gradient begins ASAP after the junction. I don't know if that's enough space to dip 3.5" but it's possible.

If you've never built a layout, why are you trying to figure out how long it takes to do xyz? You might stop work on one thing and move to another, or spend months working out how to achieve abc. It's not a linear process, and definitely not something you can calculate. I can build a P4 turnout in 2 leisurely days, yet at the moment I only have one finished turnout on my test track and part of a slip. Why did I stop? Haven't had the time. You can't plan on future enthusiasm or time commitments. Quentin

I'll be more blunt: the Peco platforms are hideous. You'll come to agree I'm sure, I just want to dissuade you early on from willfully creating visual blight on what is effectively half your scenic layout. Even if you included them and replaced them, that's money wasted and you're left with unrealistically regular 'holes' to fill. Look up historical OS maps of these stations--the platforms are quite irregular in width and the number of tracks between them, as well as the curvature of threading platforms into the throat. Your station looks very modern by comparison, and I struggle to visualize the early 1930s. (on the length of platforms, don't forget that a 12-coach train in ** 1934 was a good deal shorter than 12 Mk1s. Better to do it right the first time. It'll take several years before you need to actually build them anyway, and you'll doubtless be more pleased by the resulting appearance of the station. (Which is why I've been asking for something I can work from to show you precisely what I mean.)

Earlier someone made the laughable suggestion that helices were unheard of in model railroad design until 25 years ago. Perhaps in the UK, but in North America helices have been common since people have been building layouts. That said, they're a massive pain and that's even accepting that most HO helices are 30" or more in radius. My real comment was this: You've posted a scarm file. I don't use scarm. Can you post a version of the layout plans with a grid and then tell us what that grid is? I think most of what you want can be accomplished somehow. And I believe it can be done attractively and sensibly. Quentin Ps. Hornby/Peco platforms are not the way forward. If you're building a layout of this scale I can only hope you would want better.

I'm fairly confident I could put together an 8-9 platform station with junction and throat largely as shown, just in a more attractive way that gets you visual breathing room. As stated above, the plan is largely sterile. Can you indicate the dimensions of everything?

I actually just changed it to remove the double slip (there was only one), see the diagram in the post above you. As for more complexity, it's justified complexity. There is a sensible reason for it to be laid out as shown, in other words, as your previous plans for the fiddle yard seemed to sprawl and wind unnecessarily. I substantially reduce the amount of "dead" or minimally-used track. As for your original intentions, there are some major drawbacks. You're enormously limited in what can go in and out at the same time. 1 arrival and 1 departure. My plan allows twice that, making it twice as flexible, in addition to permitting fiddle yard access for "looping" and reversing trains equally, which is good if you just need to shuffle stock around. EDIT: My apologies for momentarily taking it down, I thought I'd made a grave error but I guess not! The only downside is that it's no longer possible to effectively change which yard the train was in without going through a reverse loop (as would happen if adding a loco to the rear of a train in the bidirectional line)

Of course it's advantageous; it's functional, it does what you want, and does so with a minimum of that ill-defined complexity. It won't magically create space that wasn't there before. Reversing loops take up an inordinate amount of space; this really is the minimum. Do note what I did with the fiddle yard was actually very different and somewhat elegantly integrated into the reversing loops. At the moment all your storage is on the counterclockwise side. For the arrangement to work optimally you really must separate the fiddle yard in two, as shown. (As a side note, you've created a nasty reverse curve in the reversing loop; it should be slackened somewhat, as I have also shown) Quentin EDIT: I have revised the diagram to formally separate the two fiddle yards. Just for fun, I added up the lengths of storage space. Even though it has one less track, the red side came out on top (by a small margin).

Complexity can be a tally of tandems, slips, and scissors if you like, but that's reductive way to look at it. A better metric is to judge the relative utility of such formations in context. "Is it worth the expense?" is the question real railways ask constantly. In Victorian and Edwardian times, companies were a little more free with their money and devised some seriously complicated trackwork. As the 20th century progressed, the view shifted to achieving maximum function with minimum outlay. Track is rarely laid willy-nilly. Essentially, anything more than a regular turnout must be a justified expense. So if I see a lot of slips, tandems or even turnouts (depending)--I consider what their being used for, whether the space taken up is being used efficiently, and what consequences there might be if various parts of the formation were simplified. (By the 1980s, rationalization efforts took this to its logical extreme in Britain.) If I judge that there's too much waste and not enough utility I rethink the formation. Even fiddle yards should be treated with a certain stinginess. I justified the cost of 3 turnouts (plus the difference in cost between a 4th and a double slip) on the basis that I could make the middle road bidirectional, letting a block of vehicles arrive from one direction and return in the other. I didn't have to though, as the bidirectional road might be unnecessary depending on need. Always look to see what can be trimmed back. The real railway will eliminate a nifty bit of track from a design if it'll only make a marginal impact on operations. There isn't money for luxury. Quentin

Why have you done the reversing loop like that? That's so much unnecessary track. I shall edit this post shortly with a diagram of what I mean, which is really far less convoluted. Quentin EDIT: As you can see, I've divided the fiddle yard into clockwise and counterclockwise (red and blue, respectively) for simultaneous departures and arrivals, with a bidrectional road in the middle. I've also designated the running lines (saturated colors). Those are diamonds at the bottom left and right; there is one double slip in the mid right, to direct the flow from the reversing loop into the correct side of the yard.

I have no idea what you tried to do there in the middle of the layout, it's quite complicated and not what I was getting at. Use the ends of your oval as most of the return loops themselves. To piece it together, draw an oval. Now connect the top left to the bottom right and/or vice versa. There's your return loop(s). Operationally, you have much untapped potential. I only see passenger moves planned, and even then the carriage sidings are just 'there' and won't contribute much to the overall operations since they are quite literally visible storage. My concern is that it's lots of fixed formations going to and fro (which is fine if the layout is just a terminus) without any provision for goods, industry, etc. It's about as bland as a layout of this scale and concept could get, since even the branch is operationally neutered by choosing to depict it literally. The facing turnouts everywhere also strike me as a bit odd. I'm just a bit confused by the whole thing.

It's definitely simpler, as others have said! Because it's such an easy fix--you can definitely simplify the reversing loop situation (since it seems to vital) without losing any functionality. Just connect the two sides of the oval with a diagonal. The turnout on the scenic side can be off-scene. I'm a bit concerned about the layout's operating potential, it's a lot of straight track and passing trains but that's just part of the territory of modelling HSTs in the 80s. If you could work in an industrial area of some sort and maybe reduce the number of through platforms from 4 to 3 you could see a lot of varied stock on the layout at any one time. To return to something from the previous thread though--just because 9" is possible in N, that doesn't make it advisable. (That's equivalent to 18" in 00.) 15-18" is a better minimum radius in N for reliability. You can make the ends of the layout wider than the middle to accommodate this (dogbone layout), since you already have pretty good access to the ends of the oval. Quentin

I'm inclined to disagree; there's a time and a place to step in and say "People have been here before; they weren't as happy with it once they got going. Here are some tips to avoid potential disappointment." Conventional wisdom is there for a reason; I think of it like distilled information that exists to maximize success and satisfaction. And in this case it saves a substantial amount of time and money.

I don't think it's been answered; the reason people might think you're using settrack points is because even large streamline points are only 44" radius (with a 60" substitution radius), which is vaguely industrial in prototype terms. They're fine enough when used sparingly but the ladders make them look tight--bearing in mind that the slips are 24" radius.

The 30" minimum radius is still *very very* tight for what you propose, even if it isn't scenic. Your carriages will literally be dragged off the track at anything lower. 48" radius is much more reliable and looks decent enough if approached with transition curves and an organic flow. I believe everyone has stated, with varying degrees of tact, that this layout is unworkable in its present form. Some have even suggested that it's ridiculous. I won't be offering a dissent. It's essentially a 4x6' train set expanded to senseless proportions, and looks every bit as terrible as that description sounds. 1) it's cramped. Why? You have such a nice space, don't build a layout that needs twice as much room. Right now it's dense and claustrophobic, and not in the good way. 2) it's oppressively angular. Why? Those long, straight platforms do the layout no favors. The storage yard is the most fluid and relaxed bit of track on the layout. 3) it has no sense of proportion. Why build 12' platforms for a room 24' long? My living room is 14' long, and I couldn't imagine how dull and boring it would be to have straight platforms for anything like that length. Besides, the storage yard tracks aren't even half as long. The gradients are out of whack too. Gradients in general are the cause of much grief; many wide modellers avoid them entirely. I hate to be such a downer, but I implore you to study existing layouts, sensibly sized ones, before proceeding with either the mainline terminus or the newly proposed one. My advice for a studying layouts is to look only at layouts that are smaller than what you plan to build. That way when you finally do put pencil to paper you're able to fit everything in. Quentin

I would make it a single platform station personally, with minimal structures as others suggest.

Even though the linked plan is for Parsons Green, thank you for alerting me to Putney Bridge! An unusual layout for sure. (Because this photo reminded me, I did consider turning the bay platform into a through platform, to let a 3rd rail service continue regardless of which of the two platforms was being occupied by a terminating Underground service) Quentin

The wording wasn't great I must concede, but I think it was understood that the 4th rail continued as far as the terminating station. Still, it's an improbable scenario: a 4th rail line briefly joining a 3rd rail line only to terminate at the next station. Richmond and Wimbledon popped into my head this morning actually, though as you say the platforms are separated. Quentin

Did such a place ever exist, where through platforms on a 3rd-rail line were also used by terminating 4th-rail services? I was playing a bit of Variations on a Theme of Freezer in Anyrail earlier, trying to come up with a compact station-in-a-hole type design. When I started it was meant to be an SR, 3rd-rail Minories. It's since evolved into a through station with a bay platform. For my own amusement I decided to also make it an Underground terminus, as if it were part of a lengthening scheme that hadn't been (or wouldn't be) completed. This is what I came up with. The layout/setting is fictional; I'm imagining the scene looking a bit like Kensington High Street, just with a mix of SR EMUs and Underground stock (note the facing outside slip): And for some context here's a schematic, with the junction shown as being at the next signal box down the line. Red is LU 4th-rail, blue is SR/BR 3rd-rail, and purple is where the two coincide: (Please ignore the signals, I know not what I have done.) One of the curious implications of this arrangement is the bidirectional middle platform, with 3rd rail departures in one direction and 4th rail in the other. (In practice I imagine most Underground services would arrive in the bay platform.) I know there are some stretches of the Bakerloo and District lines that overlap with 3rd rail NR track today, but I can't recall any historical overlap between SR's electrified lines and the Underground other than the side-by-side setup at New Cross Gate (until 2007?). I'm not limiting responses to Southern electrification, any company or location would do. My query is this: Did the Underground ever have such a terminus--temporary, "temporary", or permanent--at any point in its history? It vaguely puts me in mind of Kensington Olympia, but "vague" is the operative word. Quentin

I think this plan is more balanced than previous efforts, and I like the diving branch. I disagree, however, with the placement of the storage yard relative to the single-track situation. It seems like a needless complication, whose "operational interest" will prove to be an operational hinderance. A more sensible solution could be to move the storage to the other side of the layout, creating a total scenic void such that you have unobstructed access to the potentially complicated pointwork. (Disguising the scenic breaks however you like, perhaps tunnel portals for the branch line"s" and rising embankments for the double track.) This would also help the branch feel like two separate ones, and you even have the option for storage underneath the loco storage area. Quentin

If you desire, sure. But it would be completely unnecessary and would unduly clutter things. My priorities, were I adapting the above plan, would be to flesh out the two goods yards and remove one of the platforms on the BLT (it's also worth noting that the headshunt there is superfluous: shunting would occur on the running line with signalling to accommodate). "Rule 1 applies" but there's an oft-forgotten Rule 2: make it good, whatever it may be. Quentin