shady

Oh yes so I had a brain fart , (I was switching back and forward from typing in terminal windows). I notice that you continue to attack the person , because you cant attack the argument, but given all you can contribute is one line putdowns and links to reports that you clearly don't understand (even if you ignore the fact they are hopelessly out of date) , I suppose I should not expect anything else. If you actually read ALL of the 2nd report (not just the conclusion) you would have seen that the author stated that for Both PV and wind farms Lithium Batteries are the better option for electrical energy storage. You would also have understood that his entire premise was based on the amount of energy required to manufacture the storage medium V the amount of energy stored and returned over its life cycle (which have since vastly improved for lithium batteries), perhaps you could remind us all how much energy is required to make a Lithium battery pack that has already been made ? (clue its a very round number). I know you seem to thing the energy that is presently curtailed due a lack of end user is free , but as soon as you have more than one customer prepared to pay for that energy it will cease to be free , if the customer using batteries can afford to outbid the customer using hydrogen , because the battery customer can return 3 times the amount of electricity for every unit initially stored, which one do you think will survive long term ? (to say nothing of the fact that the battery customer can have a smaller initial capital outlay in the first place). You then seem to think that just because you can use Hydrogen to make other fuels that makes everything alright, yet you accuse me of being dogmatic !!!!!! I have no reason to be fixated on any particular form of renewable/alternative energy generation or storage method (either electrical or other), I will use what is the best available/cost effective at the time. 30 Years ago I only used Lead Acid Batteries or Nicad , currently I use a mix of Lead Acid and Lithium , if I am still alive in 30 years time who knows what I will be using, but I seriously doubt it will be Hydrogen. I suspect I will go back to producing Bio-diesel at some point in the next few years , but will use a more suitable feedstock. If people are clinging to the hope that some how Hydrogen is going to save cheap long distance aviation , they are going to be disappointed. here is a couple of more recent links, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210401-the-worlds-first-commercial-hydrogen-plane https://singularityhub.com/2021/01/03/scientists-just-created-a-catalyst-that-turns-co2-into-jet-fuel/ It would be decades away at best before we would even have anything like sufficient "free" energy to produce "Green wash hydrogen". If you divert electrical energy (that with a little thought can actually be used ) from the power grid to produce "green wash hydrogen" , but in doing so force the grid to burn Gas/Oil/Coal to meet its needs , just how green is the hydrogen? Sadly the UK, like other countries suffers from politicians liking sexy sounding solutions that they do not personally understand, so various plants get built for "local jobs" Et Cetera , They never seem to ask the question "if the idea is so viable , why does it need government money or tax breaks before it can be made to work?" There are a few battery chemistries in development that might have great promise IF ALL the claims can be met , but I will wait until someone can show me a real world working example that is economically viable to be used at scale before basing any plans on using them. But, best ignore me as I don't know what I am talking about, have no actual real world experience and obviously never speak face to face (pre covid) with either scientists or others that have practical experience either.

If you actually read all of that report , it does not come to the conclusion that you state (in fact the exact opposite) and even worse in the six years since it was published battery technology has improved and is still expected to improve . The battery packs will be built for EV's anyway so any energy used in their manufacture is a sunk cost. The "problem" of providing energy dense fuels for flying can be solved much more simply by not flying. (You might wont to do the energy calculations of just how much excess electricity you would need to create the fuel for even one jetliner flight from say the UK to the USA, but you wont like the results.) If we move to a net zero carbon world there are far more important and useful processes for any hydrogen produced by electrolysis than to enable humans to jet around the world (making fertiliser, so we can grow food for people to eat would rank a lot higher in my view) , I suspect that if that was the only source of fuel for flying, then military aircraft use would be deemed more important than civilian. That is even if you accept that we somehow have this abundance of renewable energy in the first place, which we don't at present , what we do have is a failure to balance our energy usage patterns to better use our renewable energy generation. Too put it simply at present we can choose to use money/manpower/resources to either build complex and inefficient electricity to hydrogen to electricity storage systems (that will spend most of their time out of use ) or use the same money/manpower/resources to build more renewable energy generation capacity. Whilst using the ever growing EV fleet to help act as our buffer storage. (we will have to"tweak" the national grid and educate people on usage patterns , but we have to do those anyway) At the end of the day you are free to believe in whatever sudo-science or sales pitch you want , just be prepared to wait a very very long time before the magical hydrogen solves everything world appears (maybe after we have fusion power that is too cheap to meter). I will leave this by politely saying that in future before you insinuate that people don't know what they are talking about , you might won't to make sure that you have a good grasp of the subject matter.

Indeed , if it was not for the slight fact that his whole argument was based on ever falling Electricity and Gas prices (his predictions on that are just a little bit off). Producing hydrogen by electrolysis for industrial use is one thing (we might switch to that regardless of the cost), using the process to produce hydrogen , compressing the hydrogen , transporting or storing the hydrogen to then either burn for heat/ road transport or to create electricity whether by a fuel cell or not is a good way to spend a lot of money. (DfT are fully behind it, which should tell you something, mind you if you are are firm getting paid loads of money why care). Perhaps you could tell me how its possible to start with one kWh of energy (electricity) use it to create (at best) 0.8 kWh of energy (hydrogen) then compress/store/transport that energy as hydrogen and end up in a situation (in the UK for energy storage or road transport) where the energy usage and/or cost of energy/usage is better than simply transporting the original one kWh of electrical energy in the first place?(transporting electrical energy is much more efficient). Even if you store the energy in a battery to use later it is still more efficient. If you use the electrical energy for heat it is more efficient than burning the hydrogen in a boiler for heat. (The government want to ban all boilers and have us all move to heat pumps anyway). Sorry but the laws of Physics and Chemistry trump economists and politicians every time. A proper smart grid , with the corresponding smart gadgets i.e. EV's that only request to charge when their is an abundance of electricity or export electricity when its required/cost effective to do so (unless the end user has set it to either charge or hold charge because they have a journey in the morning and need X miles Range) . You can load shed heating and hot water heating to some amount as well , same with refrigeration/freezing . Given that we are going to switch heat/water/transport to electricity anyway why build expensive extra infrastructure. You could build twice the renewable generating plant in the first place rather than waste money/resources on hydrogen as an energy store.

I am not against EV's as for a lot of people they work fine and for some workout cheaper than ICE and they will have a very important part to play in the UK's future transport needs and the current "early adopters" are creating the demand the drives research and development that we will all hopefully benefit from in the future. What I don't like is the holier than holy attitude that some EV drivers take over none EV drivers , who can not also accept that not everyone has the same usage pattern as they do. The sarcastic expression of "Range Anxiety" does not help matters , I have been known to reply in kind by stating that fortunately I am still able to do the simple arithmetic that I have been able to do since 3 or 4 years old so do not suffer from range anxiety , but merely correctly conclude that currently EV's (that would be within my budget range) can not cope with my current requirements, though I fully expect that in the future this will change. I have also pointed out that some of "their green journeys" were actually no where near as green as mine as I have just walked or cycled. Personally I still prefer older vehicles , my "daily" driver is only 28 years old and see no reason why it can not last another 20 years , it only cost a few grand , it does not depreciate , I can repair and service it myself. Obviously it cost's more in fuel to run, but it would take me decades to make an overall saving by buying a new EV and the journeys I do would be very difficult/ require more stops or stops at places other than where I desire. I was frequently making a round trip of 320+ miles , with no option to charge at origin or destination and none of the miles were on the motorway. Diesel and Jet A fuels are likely to be available for quite some time, as unless someone comes up with some major breakthroughs we wont be replacing 40+T HGV's or jet airliners with EV equivalents in the near future. Hydrogen and in particular "Green Hydrogen to "store" electricity "" is an answer looking for a problem , but the problem usually has simpler solutions. One potential source of batteries is the EV power pack, both whilst still in the EV and as 2nd use of "range insufficient" ex EV battery packs. For large grid systems we don't need to use lithium or complex batteries as size and weight are not so important. Large scale storage of compressed Hydrogen does also have safety considerations , whilst large lithium battery fires can be "impressive" nothing like as impressive as the same quantity of usable energy stored as compressed Hydrogen going bang. The UK's grid as it currently stands WILL have problems if we all move to an electric only/manly energy use , EV's are not the main problem (they could be part of the solution) , its the plan to phase out gas/oil boilers (and eventually ovens) and replace with all electric space and water heating and cooking in areas where the combined load's were never originally anticipated. The last "mile" is an issue, whilst most(but not all) homes have a 100 amp supply, it is assumed that the average usage is only 1/3 of that. Nothing is insurmountable though , but just not as straight forward as some politicians would have people believe. Actually generating the required level of electricity on a cold damp January evening , when large numbers of homes will all want heating, showers, cooking and EV charging at the same time might prove interesting at times. The current new build nukes wont even be enough to replace the existing and recently closed nukes, let alone the closed coal powered stations. The large Hydro storage (they use more electricity to pump the water back up overnight than they generate at peak load times) relied on a surplus base overnight generating capacity (our original nuke fleet ) that might not be so readily available when needed the most in the future. Whilst obviously the most sensible solution is to reduce the amount of energy actually required , this does not sound very sexy so always seems to be the last option considered. We could decide to spend billions properly insulating as many homes as possible , rather than finding ways to generate and store the electricity that will be lost as heat as it leaks out of homes. We could decide to lower speed limits , even have different categories of vehicles , some for local use only , some for longer use only. We could then make vehicles lighter and more energy efficient, whilst not having to worry about high speed crash worthiness. Most likely we will be moving to actually smart meters (not the crap that go by that name at present) and everyone being charged a constantly variable rate based on current actual demand V available generating capacity. Those that can afford to change their usage patterns and/or export electricity at certain times will do well, some of the poor and some of the less fortunate who can't /won't/don't change their usage patterns will get a nasty surprise.

Lots of things "work" as long as you don't have to actually consider the cost either financially or in actual energy used.

Because the sensible solution is to actually capture the energy , large scale grid battery storage will beat hydrogen every time. Not to mention the "small saving" of not having to build a complete country wide infrastructure for dealing with hydrogen.

I remember going to bury on a Sunday in the early eighties and all of us (unofficial oxford coach tour) just walking round as it was deserted (we did not know if the juice was live , but made sure we did not find out!) . Think we spotted all the 504's that day.

in the 1980's sometimes the last Wick/Thurso to Inverness would go round the rose street curve and be propelled into Inverness station , assume this was "unofficial" and a time saving measure if the train was late or the crew in a hurry to get home!

l know that any air braked loco could haul one or more 4tc units as a normal loco hauled service and 33'1 and 73'1 could be used in push pull mode. l was wondering how this worked with pairs of loco's , if the pair was made up of 33'1 or 73'1 would the 2 locos need to use their 27 way conectors to work in push pull mode or could they use the blue star multiple between the loco's and the 27 way conector between the loco nearest the 4tc and the 4tc? If the later then could any blue star loco be used as the outer one of the pair and still be driven from the 4tc? Shady

Just unpacked my mini rake of 18 that arrived yesterday. Had managed to resist , but the 40% off made resistance futile. Very impressed with the quality , please do a rake of cartic 4's as I can sell one kidney , but please never even think about doing any MGR HHA's as I will need the other kidney.

With at least some 4 funtion decoders it is possible to have directional front lights (ie headlight and marker lights) directional tail lights and directional cab interior lights. You have to except the limitation that the tail lights and or the interior cab lights can only be switched on when the front lights are on, but thats acceptable to me. I know this works as I did a test install in a Lima 50 , from memory it worked with lenz standard and the hattons cheap decoders. I suppose you could sacrifice the interior cab light and have a choice between left or right side tail light, but l would need to dig out my diagrams to confirm that. Unfortunately I am currently living in temp rented accomodation and all my model railway and electronics stuff is in boxes in a mates loft so not easily accesable. I am certain l still have a test set up on a breadboard in a box , within a box in a loft. Shady

Things that would put me off doing the large N gauge as well as the large OO guage , you might give each a totaly different weight ie from zero to infinite 01) the cost, a) financial b) Time 02) The practicality a) Whilst I can visulise the N in the shed on trestles before any work starts on the OO , I cant visualise how you can set the N up on trestles whilst the OO is in place b) whilst the N could be supported from the walls and set up above the OO , unless designed into the shed , there might be conflict between where the N needs support and where it can be supported. c) Whilst b can be done , the danger of damage to both the N and the OO if you slip whilst setting up/putting in place the N Boards. d) Because of C don't even think about any form of lifting mechanise (I can visulaise the scene of distruction and almost hear the scream of dismay) e) Whilst you can have boards that can be set up/dismantled quickly , dont underestimate the time to pack/unpack all the stock , set the trains up on the track connect all the wiring together , run tests etc, on any layout of the size you propose in N this will be counted in hours rather than minutes , if that means you are unlikely to use it very often is it worth the extra complexity. 03) Experiance a) it is true that some skills will be transferable betwwen N and OO , an argument can be made that if you can do the wiring for N , then OO should be easy (especialy inside Loco's and stock) I would say practice on OO first. b) With an OO test setup you can add point motors/servo's detection methods that you will actually use in the large layout. c) As you plan to have your baseboards built for you , how can you plan where the braces/support structures will/can go before you know the actual size and location of these in relation to the track.(especially for complex junctions) (if you are planning on having someone else design the boards rather than built to your plan , the cost will be astronomical and due to the complexity the outcome uncertain) 04) Compatability a) any stock purchased for testing can be run on the "final" layout. As you live in/near London I would sugest that you go to the exhibition at Ally Pally on 24/25th of this month , look at the layouts, as you want automation visit the MERG stand (consider joining MERG, even if you dont plan to use any of their modules, the back catalogue of advice would be useful and the cost inconsequential) (caveat I am a member of MERG ) next bit of advice is dont take your credit card with you !!!!! I was hoping that some of the simple tests that myself and others had suggested would have enabled you to reach your own conclusions re the width of base boards etc , (I take my hat off to Dagworth as his photo's are a prime example of how a picture is worth a thousand words). Shady

Most if not all of us will have built a layout in a pre existing space , and most of us will have wished that space was slightly different and been forced to change our plans to meet the fixed dimensions. I say that because some would say build the shed first , then plan the layout . If I had a blank canvas and could tweek the dimensions of the layout space , then personaly I would try my hardest to check that any must have feature would both fit in and work before I fixed on the dimensions. If I was building your plan the main areas that I would want to test out first would be. 1) How wide is the widest station board , am I very confident that I can rescue/uncouple a loco from stock at the rear few platforms .(I am assuming that any automated uncoupling system has not worked on this occasion and of cause the station is full of other trains) If I cant be sure of reaching over to the back , is it possible to design the shed so that a window (or maybe a flap similar to a burger van ) can be opened to enable access , accepting that this will reduce both the security and possibly the weather tightness it might make all the dfference. 2) on the very rear lines how long is there from the start of the gradient to the point that the roof of the train has to be lower than the base board and any braces and or wiring looms , it looks very tight. (if I build a helix the start will be able to do one complete circuit , before having to go under anything) 3) When a train has fallen off inside the helix how do I rescue it ? I cant come from above as the station is in the way , due to the nature of the winding tracks on a helix I doubt I can reach in from the side. Can I crawl under the lowest part. (my own plan would require that the lowest part is high enough so that I can lay on my back on a mechanics crawler to get inside the helix without any danger of hitting my head on anythng sharp as I am not confident that I can design a lifting section on a helix) 4) It seems to me that the layout success hinges on whether your preferered steam engines , will happily and repeatably traverse the combination of points and curves in green. I dont know the answer to that as I dont run steam and only ever use set track curves in testing set ups , but I would make sure I did before I had the shed built. If not worse case the shed and boards are built , the tracks down and I find out that only 6 or 7 coach trains work , if I had known that at the start would I have built 12 coach platforms ? , would I have changed the plan / the shed dimensions or the scale. My gut says that the shed won't be wide enough to do what you want (in OO), I hope that I am wrong. If a salesperson gives me a verbal assurance , that there will be no problem with a product and of cause we can deliver it on such an such a date , easily get round or through an obstacle and the final dimensions will be x y z , experience has made me cautious on how strongly to accept that assurance. I do get your enthusiam , and the burning desire to be doing something towards your goal , but your layout will depend on the results of your tests , also be aware that even though someone else will be building the shed and someone else will be building the boards, you are very likely to have to do some DIY yourself and this will require some tools and maybe some practice before you are happy with the results. Shady

Hi , having seen your various posts re your old childhood layout and proposd new layouts in either OO or N I thought I would try and offer some points to consider. First off I am well aware that the written word does not always come across in the same manner as if spoken, so pleae dont take anything that follows as being in a negative vibe as its only ment to be helpful. ( I am currently in the early planning stages of a large , hopefully OO 1980s diesel layout myself, but only to be built after I have moved again(which hopefully will be my last move))( The complexity police will have a heart attack when they see my plans!) If I was in your postion I would first try and consider the following (not neccesarily in any particular order) 01) Which time period interests me the most,1930's steam or 1980's diesel (even if you ignore the cost of two sepeate timescales , where will one be stored , Do I have the space?) 02) How much space is realisticly availably verses the length of trains I want to run. 03) Am I welded to either OO or N, if not which works best given the answer to 02) (I am almost welded to OO due to the size of my existing stock) 04) How long do I expect to remain at my current House as any large layout will take years rather than months. 05) Given the answer to 04 , how important is it to me to dedicate a large part of my current house/garden and my time/money to building a large layout at my current house. 06) How will my plans effect the saleability / price of my current house in the future. ( I wont care too much with my next house as they will have to drag me out kicking and screaming to an old folks home!!) 07) How easy will it be to dismantle the layout if I move (even if to only recover the points/motors/servos/automation equipment etc) Having considered the above I would then decide on an area of the house /loft/ garden to use for my own version of the rainhill trials. If not possible/advisable to use the loft/garage (is there a garage??) I would consider one or more cheap gazebo's / frame tents etc to create a cheap temp covered area just for the testing during the summer. Lidl/Aldi at times also do sets of tables that could be used as temp baseboard supports. Living in a small terraced house without? a garage consideration would have to be given to how I would store any of this before/after use? Purchase a box or 2 of flexi track and an array of complete circles of the various radius track 1-4 from either peco/Hornby/Bachmann etc and if possible consider shinohara as they do up to 36" radius in OO. Various sets of pre built inclines (eg woodland scenic in OO) , a few loco's and enough stock to make up at least the longest/heaviest trains required on both the flat and on inclines and a starter set of the dcc concepts Powerbase. Then conduct tests to see what is possible on the flat both straight and curved and the same again on various inclines both with and without the powerbase magnets.You really need enough space so that the full train can clear the incline at both the top and the bottom, ideally a full circle/oval that goes up onside and down the other. Unfortunately the only way to confirm that something will work is to test it first, no 2 loco's will perform identicaly even out of the box new. Stock probably needs it' s back to back adjusting and reaming to help with free running (metal wheels are also better than plastic). I would also want to test how long trains perform through a test set up of any complicated junctions etc (if any move require a train to be pulled in more than one direction at the same time over points curves etc thats likely to cause problems) If wanting to do automation , I would need to set up test boards to confirm which method of changing points / detecting trains etc etc would be used .(the placement of points and their motors/servo's need to be considered when working out where the baseboard supporting braces go). The amount of complex wiring between detectors/sections/points/signals/lights in buldings/ etc etc should not be underestimated and some free space under the base boards will be required for all of these. Also remember that just because a train will go up an incline or through a complicated junction once or trigger a detector, does not mean that it will always do so, this is where the benefits of a roundy roundy test track really come into play , if a train can be left doing circuits including an incline and or complex junctions/detectors again and again , you can build up a record of the probabilty of it doing so or alter the train or track until the probability is acceptable to you.Note if planning on lighted coaches then any pickups will increase the drag , even on the flat 12 coachs x extra drag could change what is or is not viable. Gets some boards or shelf units etc and try different widths at different heights , experiment on how easy it is to reach over a board of say 3ft at different heights to rerail/couple/uncouple a train, now place a track at the front of the board with a train on it and repeat the experiment without touching the front train , try placing boxes inbetween (imaginary buildings) and try the experiment again. If you want multilevel set up two boards and experiment with reaching inbetween the boards over trains to get at the rear tracks (simulating a lower fiddle yard). The above might seem like a waste of time and money , but if the stock is what you really want then it can be used in the future , any track can likewise be reclaimed and the experaince and knowledge gained will be priceless. Imagine how you would feel if you spent tens of thousands of pounds and 5 or more years building/having built for you a large shed and layout only to findout that what you really want wont work or would work better if only that brace/point/curve was in a different place or the shed was 6 inches wider or longer. Last summer I had a very heath robinson test track in the garage set up on not level Lidl metal self units, a bench and temp props. it was approx 6 foot x 16 foot oval using 25mm insulation board and snaped off poundland cocktail sticks to hold the track and inclines in position (drawing pins hold the track much better , but obviously dont work with magnets on loco's!!) . I then tested various old stock on standing starts on a 2% incline (predominantly on the straights) and was plesently suprised to find that a single weighted and magneted lima hst power car could start a full 8 length train and a weighted and magneted mainline 56 could start a 32 mgr train even without its traction tyres. What I also discovered that whilst I could always go up the inclines ok ,as I use 3 link couplings on loco's and wagons coming down the mgrs had a habit of buffer locking and derailing , and various hauled stock suffered the same problem (obviously only between the loco and the first coach). Modern built diesels and some old lima diesels would start load 12 airfix mk2's with ease. The next set of tests require a wider area , which other projects have prevented at present. (I would not recommend my heath robinson set up to anyone, better to have a more stable test area). My future tests might prove that 3 links are a no no with gradients on curves, I will be disapointed if that is the case , but I would rather know and change my plans accordingly before building a large layout. Having confirmed what is and what is not possible, confirming that I had the money to build/have built a shed that wont make it difficult to sell the house in the future, I would go for the longest and widest possible, remembering that under the permitted development rules I can only use 50% of the plot before needing planning.I might even look into the possibility of having the two/three boundry fences replaced with walls that could be used as the backs of a U shaped shed with a removable section to cross the U (would allow use of the garden in the centre). (the chances of getting 3 sets of neighbours to agree is probably very slight and if I had to pay someone to build the walls if might be prohibitaly expensive, but still cheaper than moving in London!!). Assuming I was going for 7.5 x 2.5 metre shed in the back garden , I would ask the builder for clarification on how the cement/concreate for the base is going to be brought through the house. (my only experiance is either mixing by spade for a very small area or having a shute straight off the mixing lorry, with a group of mates and wheel barrows to shift it quick, neither of which are likely to be practical here). Is it possible to get a small cement mixer through the house to the rear garden? I might ask the electrician to comment on how best to get the mains into the shed and whether provision is best put in before the cement/concreate is poured or if he prefers to put the armoured cable protection through the wall after the shed is built. (in either case I would need to check that this instalation did not conflict with placement of my boards/framing and that the main off switch/consumer unit will also be very easy to access. I would then consider how usefull or how inconvienient windows would be , if any windows were to have a limited space before a high fence , how much light on how many days of the year would they allow in,where would this light shine, would that help or hinder. As I would only want the windows to be openable from the inside (for security) , how easy will it be to reach over the boards (when stock, buildings etc are in place) so that I can open them, the same to be considered with blinds or other coverings. Will the heights of any windows interfere with my plans for baseboards or their supports. (my personal experiance with workshops/garages/sheds etc would suguest that each window can be more of a hinderance than a help, and I doubt that I would have any , prefering to rig up lighting that was where I wanted it, when I wanted it at a brightness level that I wanted, A number of intake and extration fans would deal with the ventlation that was controlable by me regardless of the weather) For such a large comittement of both money and time I would want to be able to use this as much as possible so insulation , heating and ventilation would be a must, things that people overlook with insulation are that no matter how much insulation you have it only slows down the transfer of heat it does not stop it and if you completely seal a room (not that any british builder seems to have ever mastered that anyway!!!) every human inside will be breathing out water vapor all the time they are inside it , hence the more modern use of vapour barriers (must be on the warm side of the insulation). The better the seals on the room (I doubt that any shed will be well sealed as first built) the greater the importance of controlled ventilation as the water vapour needs to be removed else you will get mould/rot. A dehumidifier could also be considered. How much insulation , well more is better than less but what type of insulation is the builder planning on using as 20mm of one type might be less effective than 10mm of another type, I would try and use at least 50mm of kingspan/celotex/recticel PIR boards in the walls and ceilngs cover that with a vapour barrier and then line with probably 5mm marine ply. This does give another problem as neither 5mm ply or insulation boards will be usable as load baring supports for any shelves or baseboad frames , so yet more planing on how your internal stud famework is constructed and marked/recorded so that it can be located later on (if required). If possible I would use 100mm and at a push I would use 25mm (50mm is not 2x 25mm price). (Due to issues with supply of one of the chemicals,currently PIR board pricing and availability are variable).Before designing the internal framework and insulating I would consider(consult the electrician) on where and how the mains supply wires are going/ where are my sockets going to be. There are pro's and cons to both hidden and surface tunked wiring , but again plan how that would effect placing baseboards or supports (if hidden record and photo the placement before the ply lining is put in place) There is nothing wrong with boards filled with track , each person gets to decide what they prefer for themselves. If I was in your position once I had decided on either N or OO I would build the layout that I wanted, if I decided that I did not have the space for what I really wanted , I would build a compromise or alternative but in the same scale as my final ambition so that the same stock could be used later, and with as many of the features that my long term plans require , so that any experiance will be easily transferable to my long term plans. I remain to be convinced that building a completly different type of layout in a different scale will help as much towards your final plans. I have extreme doubts that it is viable to plan and build 2 large layouts in different scales in the same shed, one is going to get in the way of the other. If the shed is 8 foot wide (what is the true internal measurment after the insulation and lining) I have doubts on the abilty of large OO trains hauled by steam engines to repeatably and reliably treverse radius small enough to allow you your prefered U shape. If you want automation then reliabilty is the key , for me that means that the minimum radius (as dictated by your experiments) has to be adhered too even in the off scene areas. If anything the harder it will be to get to a piece of track to rescue/ rerail a train the greater the level of extra leeway built into the radius/incline/junction. If considering multilevel , then the baseboards need to be constructed so that one or idealy both levels are removable , even if this means undoing many fixings. If any board cant be removed then you can practically guarantee that is where an electrical problem will arise. Lying on your back soldering upwards is not recommended , doing so whilst supporting yourself above a lower level that is only a few inches below the top level will be practicaly impossible. Shady