jamespetts

Thank you for your thoughts/replies. I have not yet had an opportunity to try iTrain, but will try to remember to post when I have had a chance. As to Joseph's idea - that looks interesting, but I do not think that it would really be suitable for my needs, since it would, from what I understand, curve around and get in the way of the shed door, not enable me to enjoy looking at the trains in the platforms or the platforms themselves (apart from one end of them), and it is also unclear what this would be solving. Joseph - can you elaborate on why you think that this would be preferable overall? This also seems to use extremely tight curves in the hidden part of the station area.

Thank you for your feedback. According to this structure gauge, platforms should be 11mm away from the nearest rail. The gap between the rails on one side of the platform and the other in this plan is 100mm, which leaves space for a 78mm wide platform without altering the plan (the current narrow platforms are too far from the edge of the track according to this structure gauge). Either the Peco or perhaps freelance platforms would seem to be approximately correct in width in that case.

Thank you for your replies: that is most helpful. You are correct in surmising that the fiddle yards are not intended for routine manual re-formation of trains, but for storage and automated dispatch. As to the platform widths being marginal, can you elaborate? Is the issue the widths of the platforms themselves, or the track spacing between the platforms? If the former, is the issue one of authenticity or practicality, and, if practicality, may I ask what the nature of the issue is? I should note that the platform widths are based on the widths of the Hornby platforms (which I do not plan actually to use) as these were the only platforms made available with SCARM for me to get an idea of spacing. I do not think that these platforms are unduly narrow, are they? Joseph - I am not entirely clear on why you think that a layout to this plan cannot fit in the space available in circumstances where it has been planned to scale - can you elaborate? Do you think that there is something wrong with the scaling in the plans, or that there is some specific practical problem with this particular plan? If the latter, can you elaborate on what it is so that I can understand the issue and seek to remedy it? I should note that I am not intending to produce a faithful model of Paddington specifically, which I imagine would not fit into the space, but rather a plausible main line terminus with Underground elements that can have Paddington-like (and also St. Pancras-like and perhaps King's Cross-like) operations of express and local passenger trains and through freight and suburban passenger trains to the Underground network. The original plan did have an arrangement similar to Bishop's Road, but I removed this as I could not fit this into the space without very steep gradients, track and complex trackwork and shunting movements (to change steam for electric traction) at the back of the board that might be difficult to reach. I should very much like to be able to represent this element if possible, but I cannot think of a way of doing this within the space. As to the low relief idea, I believe that this has been raised before, but this would appear to require, in effect, a circular layout (although I am still not really clear on how this would actually work; would you be able to elaborate, perhaps with a sketch, so that I could get a better idea?), and I should rather not have a hatched entrance to the shed, but one that retains clear access. I also rather like the idea of seeing the locomotives at the ends of the platforms, and seeing the full rakes of carriages in all their glory in the platforms, which would be hidden rather by a low relief arrangement. I have also been giving thought to the idea of a small and simple practice layout beyond simply laying test tracks on which, unlike the earlier N gauge idea, I could use (some of) the same stock; perhaps London Underground station, or something in south Wales. However, I am loathe to create a layout that I know would have to be dismantled in a short time (which would not be the case for a simple test track, as it would retain its usefulness and be small enough to store easily). If it were not for the dismantling issue, it would be quite an attractive idea. If anyone has any ingenious (or even straightforward) suggestions (not involving pulleys or the like) in this regard, I should be most grateful. The trouble is, of course, that the larger layout would leave very little room in the shed for anything else aside from a work bench, which would be permanent.

Junctionmad - thank you for your further thoughts. As to the fiddle yards - I had separated them in order to reduce conflicts on entering the fiddle yards. Without separate fiddle yards, I imagine that I should need more cross-overs at the right-hand end, which would take more space, and thus leave the actual fiddle yard sidings (unless there is an ingenious way of doing this efficiently that I have not thought of?). As to isolated sections, I was not referring to the analogue/cab control concept of having separate sections each of which can be set to one of several analogue controllers; rather, in order to create blocks for the DCC block occupancy system (together with RailCom) to identify which blocks are occupied (and what is in each occupied block). From what I understand, the wiring for these is that each section where occupancy needs to be detected separately needs to be connected with insulated joiners, and the power feed for each such section wired through a separate block occupancy/RailCom module, which then feeds back to the main DCC controller so that the occupancy of each block can be detected separately. This actually seems to be quite similar to your approach (and lots of people seem to have the same view about not trusting fishplates). I had wondered about fitting DCC decoders to brake carriages/vans, but is identifying rolling stock (as opposed simply to knowing whether there is any on the line) really very useful? that may depend on the extent to which I wish to automate carriage shunting, I suppose. In relation to SMP/Marcway, I was not thinking of building points from kits; but Marcway sell quite a wide range of pre-built points, and I was considering those. In relation to the vertical separation between upper and lower levels, the plan is to use a helix as already discussed at some considerable length: it would not be possible to get more than about 150mm otherwise, and that would not be enough for proper access. The idea is that, aside from the helix and the descent to it on the upper level, both upper and lower levels would be completely flat. Incidentally, I managed to get some of my old model railway equipment down from the attic this afternoon to test it. Findings so far are that my old Gaugemaster analogue controllers and matching transformers still work, but that my old Hornby track (and a spare length of code 100 Peco Streamline track) is very dirty and, as to the former, in quite poor condition. I tried to get some of my old locomotives to run on it; an old Hornby LBSCR E2 tank would barely move; it has probably suffered from being stored in a garage between 2001 and 2015. A Bachmann V3 did slightly better, but was very intermittent, probably because of the dirty track, and derailed frequently. With the possible exception of the E2, if I manage to get it working again, which might well be suitable for use on the City Widened Lines section, I suspect that the amount of work required to make my older locomotives (all of which I had attempted to detail myself at age ~11/12 and had not done a very good job of it in many cases, with things being worsened by poor storage in the meantime) work effectively is not worth the value of an equivalent secondhand model of the same locomotive, not least because I had cut all the couplers off to use realistic scale screw couplings, which look splendid (and would look even better had they been fitted to a higher standard), but are not suitable for automatic coupling/uncoupling. On the subject of automatic coupling/uncoupling, many of my older carriages (including some GWR Collett carriages of the sort that would now be part of the "Railroad" range; given the Hornby has not to date released a buffet car in the high detail Collett range, the buffet car that I have in the set is more or less as good as can be had ready to run even now) I had not got around to modifying, and are still largely in original condition, with their original couplers. I tested those with an old spring uncoupler that I found in the attic, and was pleased at just how reliably that the automatic uncoupling of those tension lock couplers actually works: not once in all the times that I ran the carriages over the unit did the carriages uncouple when being hauled, or fail to uncouple when slack. Mechanically, this system is very reliable, but it does look ugly. I have heard that the Gaugemaster TLU is more easily disguiseable (as it drops away when not in use), although that requires more wiring. Others, I understand, use transparent plastic, which is less obtrusive. At least the principle of automatic uncoupling seems to be sound and reliable. The lovely Harrow Models Q38 set was in a more complete condition than I recalled, both cars being painted, albeit only one having transfers applied, and that only to one side. I will need to acquire two of the seating inserts that Radley Models sell for them and use these, as well as fitting glazing and painting the drivers/cab interiors fully, but they are otherwise complete, only then needing to be DCC fitted (although how that would work with the interior is another matter). In any event, those old Gaugemaster controllers (or one of them at least) will be good for the analogue portion of the test track, so that is good to know.

Would that be too small, do you think?

A very interesting plan. That is probably not how I should do it because of my preference for reversing loops and for more carriage sidings (as Oxford actually had - the station was on the edge of the town), but it does look good. Thank you for sharing that. I should note that I am uncertain as to whether it will be practical to build this in the shed in addition to the other layout, but I shall have to see what the position is when the shed is more advanced.

Chard, yes, on the basis of The Stationmaster's suggestion, I increased the number of fiddle yard sidings on the main lines by 2. Do you think that there might be some benefit to removing the auxilliary sidings and adding an access hole at the centre of the upper reversing loop? I am not sure how accessible that that would be, however.

Thank you for your thoughts. In terms of the storage yards, I can see that having only 5 roads for fast trains might be a difficulty. I have now revised the design to allow for 7 roads on the main lines without reducing the number of roads for the relief lines: . (I have not reproduced the lower plan as this has not changed). This has increased the width of the base boards over the storage yards to 900mm from ~800mm previously, but should at least allow for a more useful number of fast trains to be stored. The new fiddle yard roads are shorter than the others, but the shortest can still take a 7 carriage train, and there were quite a few shorter express trains on the Great Western (and indeed the Midland). Apropos the carriage sidings, from my understanding, all long distance trains in Paddington around this time and for many years afterwards had the stock taken to the carriage sidings for servicing between arriving and departing, albeit the suburban trains were serviced in the platforms. Note that the relief lines have double loops as well as three roads of auxilliary storage for shorter trains used infrequently (e.g. the locomotive coal train). As to the N gauge layout, I can see that this is fraught with difficulty: a layout that is not at least semi-permanent I can see is not likely to be workable. I will have to re-assess whether a semi-permanent layout (albeit demountable for working on it, as it would be too high for working) after the shed is built. This is a great pity, as I should like to have had such a layout and it might have been sensible to have had something to work on pending the availability of Peco Bullhead slips and crossings. In relation to the test track, what might be sensible is to have two pairs of parallel lines each with crossovers, one set with the Peco bullhead and one set with SMP/Marcway, the former wired for analogue and the latter for DCC. This would give me a useful comparison for testing the different types of track, as well as giving a good analogue test track. I have also just taken some of my old stock/controllers/Hornby track down from the attic so that I can begin to test things on the floor until such time as the shed has been constructed. In relation to setting up routes, I can see that setting up 55 inbound routes and a similar number of outbound routes might take a fair while, but this does not seem to be an insurmountable task. I have downloaded the free version of iTrain, and I will have a go when I have a spare moment at configuring things to see what setting up routes is like. Compared to some of the year-long projects on Simutrans-Extended (and fantastically difficult things such as adding multi-threading to software that was not designed for it from the outset and which has to keep in exact synchronisation over the network - this took many months of intensive work to get right), setting up a few hundred routes seems comparatively straightforward. Shady - I am definitely planning on going to that exhibition. I will have a look out for the MERG stand! That seems as if it might be most useful. Woodenhead - brandishing insults is utterly inappropriate, and it is positively reprehensible to repeat the falsehood that I have ignored advice. You have (it seems to me quite deliberately) ignored the point that I have repeated many times over, which is that I have had conflicting advice, and in many cases, when I have pressed some of those who have given some of that conflicting advice for more detail, that has been met by aggression and a deliberate failure to provide the very detail that the people in question would have had to have known in the first place if their advice were to be credible. I am well aware of what items cost, that the shed is not yet complete and that Peco Bullhead slips and crossings are not yet available. It is a prefabricated design, and will be ready in April. It will probably be the early summer before I can start building things, and the first project will be the test track, and I will have to have baseboards built. By the time that all that is done, there is a good chance that that the Peco Bullhead slips and crossings will be available. If not, I will have to consider alternatives, such as SMP track and Marcway turnouts (which is what I was considering using in any event before I learnt about the new Peco Bullhead track). It is frankly bizarre that you should see the need to call me "deluded" and merely repeat in vague and general terms what others have also stated in vague and general terms and about which I have repeatedly asked for specifics without in many cases any meaningful response (and where I have had a real specific, practical response, I have modified things as necessary). Edit: Incidentally, of course I appreciate the risk that I will run into difficulties with this project, or that it will take too much time to complete, or that various aspects will prove not to be workable; but I am equally aware of the risk that a smaller, simpler project would be perpetually unsatisfying. In order to make a rational, informed decision, I have to weigh the risk of one against another.

Thank you for your suggestions. I am not sure about curving the main part - it is harder to get the pointwork aligned on curved track. As to the branch fiddle yard would connecting this not cause more conflicting movements? The plan is to run only DMUs on the branch line.

Thank you both very much: that is very helpful. As to the N gauge layout, I do want to build such a layout in its own right (because it would represent the period that I remember as a boy; I have no special connexion to N gauge per se, but the smaller gauge enables me to fit more of what I want into the available space more easily), but would abandon it in favour of this OO gauge layout if both could not sensibly fit into the space. Does anyone have any views on the issue of a demountable N gauge layout that could be stored underneath the OO gauge layout when not in use? As to the heights, that is an interesting observation, Junctionmad, especially from someone so tall. Is it just the weight of the O gauge stock that persuaded you to reduce the height to 1.3m, or do you think that you would have done so even with lighter, OO gauge stock? 1.1m would give a separation of 350mm with the lower level, which may well not be enough. 1.2m would give 450mm, which is probably closer to a sensible distance. That would allow a demountable N gauge layout to be at 1,450mm, or a permanent N gauge layout with the same 450mm separation at 1,650mm. That would be quite high: acceptable for viewing for a tall person (I am 6'1), but would probably need a stool for handling anything. A stool would probably be fine for handling stock, but would not be acceptable for working on the layout, so a layout at such height would have to be demountable in any event, I should imagine. Incidentally, in relation to the height, I am told that the windows (on the lower wall on the diagram) are 1.0m off the ground. I presume that they open outwards. Without knowing the exact design of them, it is difficult to know exactly how this might impact on the design of the upper level fiddle yards. Looking at the website of the shed people, there does not appear to be any windowsill or protrusion on the windows, and I presume that they open outwards, so it might not be too much of a problem (and, as for UV issues from sunlight, these windows will face north). I do wonder whether the idea of building the N gauge layout first may well not be workable after all, as discussed on the thread relating to that layout; I wonder whether it may be better instead to build a very simple test track (three tracks, two connected to one another by a crossover, all about 1.5m long, the third track being connected to an analogue controller) to practise track-laying skills rather than trying to build an entire practice layout, and then looking into the N gauge layout at a later time if that seems to be practical. I should very much like to have the N gauge layout one day (in this shed) if at all possible. Thank you for the DCC related tips: that is most helpful. I was indeed planning to use DCC rather than analogue control (and not to use very limited level separations as in the picture shown: I do not think that that would work for this layout very well): I imagine that wiring a layout of this size in analogue would be insane (imagine all those unreliable relays!). I had also researched and was planning to use RailCom and to divide the layout into power districts, and had planned to wire this for RailCom based block detection at the outset (incidentally, does anyone have any views on the resister-on-axle method of block occupancy detection for unpowered stock?). The bus suggestion is most helpful; I was thinking of using either Lenz or ECoS controllers (as they are both compatible with RailCom). The idea of not having to take more than 8 wires from each area to the central control point is definitely appealing. I am imagining that quite a few different isolated sections for block detection would be necessary (each of the station platforms split into two sections, quite a few discrete and small areas in the station throat to allow multiple non-conflicting movements, multiple isolated sections on the long roads in the fiddle yards, multiple isolated sections on each of the engine shed sidings, etc., to allow multiple locomotives to stand in the sidings, and so forth). Have you any recommendations as to a sensible number of power districts for a layout of this size? Perhaps one for the platforms and station throat, one for the engine shed, one for the carriage sidings, one for the approaches and upper reversing loops, one for the relief fiddle yards, one for the main fiddle yards, one for the City Widened Lines, one for the Inner Circle, one for the City Widened Lines (east) storage and lower reversing loop, and one for the Inner Circle (east) storage and Inner Circle and City Widened Lines (west) storage? Or is that too many; would one for the upper station/engine sheds, one for the carriage sidings, one for the upper fiddle yards, one for the lower main area and one for the lower fiddle yards suffice? Do I get the impression that the wiring takes considerably longer than the track laying itself? I should imagine finding the electronics aspect of this rather enjoyable: as I have mentioned before, one of my other (transport related) hobbies involves computer programming. As to AutoCAD Electrical, this appears to be an expensive piece of software aimed at professionals. (Indeed, it appears to be available only for rent rather than for sale - a model of software distribution that I find fundamentally objectionable). Is this really necessary for model railway design? David - as to "breeds of Crap Trax", may I ask what you include in that category? One alternative to Peco that I was considering was SMP/Marcway, although the difficulty is that SCARM does not have the geometary for this, so it is hard to plan for it. Have you any views on this particular sort of track? The advantage of it might be that it is available now, whereas there is currently an unknown time before the Peco Bullhead slips and crossings become available (which was one of the attractions of attempting the N gauge layout first; and this remains a possible reason to do it in that sequence). Also, the nagging doubt about tracks being too close together - may I ask to what part(s) of the layout that this relates? Is this the platforms, the fiddle yards, the station throat, the reversing loops or the curves at the left hand edge? In relation to operations, my own taste/interest is not satisfied merely by seeing trains go past in scenery (although that can be interesting to look at for a minute or two): what interests me is the intricacy of operations, and terminus operations in particular I find most interesting, which is why I designed a terminus in the first place (and why, when designing the N gauge layout, even though that is a through station, it is designed with terminating locomotive hauled trains in mind as in Oxford in the 1980s). I deliberately omitted freight facilities on both layout plans as freight interests me less, but there is opportunity on both for freight to pass through (here, on the City Widened Lines; on the N gauge layout, on the main line). Having to shunt arriving terminating trains is the whole point (or, at least, most of the point) of this layout (and why I planned a degree of automation from the outset, as doing this by having to change every set of points manually and drive all the locomotives manually would obviously be too much for one operator, although I can imagine that having a realistic lever frame setup for the station throat and realistic signal communications with a fiddle yard operator, etc., would be most fun for perhaps 3-5 operators; but that is not what I am planning). The joy will be in selecting the appropriate locomotive and rolling stock for the next timetabled outbound journey from multiple potentially suitable locomotives/sets of carriages (or writing an algorithm to do this), setting that all up for each train, and then watching it all play out with beautiful real scale models. That is the main design purpose of this layout. (Incidentally, are my carriage sidings flexible enough for these purposes?).

Thank you for your replies: that is most helpful. Here is a version with the suggested changes made: In relation to the size of the layout, I designed it thus because, if I were going to have a second layout, I wanted it to be a layout that I should actually want to use and and should enjoy using. Something very simple is unlikely to be satisfying for me. I could, perhaps, revert to the other idea of simply building a test track as a practice run before attempting to build an actual layout? That could be a simple 1.5m long strip with three tracks, two connected to one another by a crossover at one end, and the other, separate, track, being connected to an analogue controller so that I can have an analogue track for testing purposes? Incidentally, has anyone any thoughts on the issue of level separation and disassembly? This is probably the more important issue in deciding whether to build this layout at all or not. I realised last night that this layout is wider than the plan is for the lower level of the OO gauge layout to be high, so it would not be able to be stored under the OO gauge layout turned on its side: it would have to be stored flat on the floor, which would take up the whole space underneath the OO gauge layout. Indeed, the previous design would have actually been wider than the OO layout at the left hand end so that it would have stuck out and been liable to damage when on the floor. I have amended the design to narrow it at the left hand side, which should not cause scenic difficulties if we imagine the station building (and possibly car park) at the right hand side, and just platforms on the left. Any thoughts on this issue would be most helpful.

I have been considering the height separation issue further. The advice as I understand it is, for a multi-deck layout, to have the lower level at a comfortable sitting height and the upper level at a comfortable standing height. Re-measuring my study desk (which is at a very comfortable sitting height for me), it is closer to 750mm high than 800mm. If I were to have the boards of the N gauge layout made so that they were modular and could be divided into three sections, mountable either on the wall above the OO gauge layout or on free-standing trestles, the height separation between the N gauge layout and the upper level of the OO gauge layout would be less critical, as the N gauge layout could simply be removed when operating the OO gauge layout. The N gauge layout could then be portable. On the basis of that, the following heights seem to be possible: OO gauge lower: 750mm OO gauge upper: 1,300mm (550mm separation) N gauge: 1,600mm (300mm separation) This then allows a 550mm separation between upper and lower decks of the OO gauge layout, while allowing a 300mm clearance to the N gauge layout when it is in place, which should be plenty to clear signals and overall roofs (indeed, 250mm may well be enough, allowing me either to raise the upper deck of the OO gauge layout by 50mm or lower the N gauge layout by the same amount), and reach into the upper level of the OO gauge layout should then not be an issue as the N gauge layout could be removed entirely when the OO gauge layout is in operation. This would then allow me to practise making a complete layout on a simpler project than this planned layout and also allow me to have a portable layout, and one that represents the railways as I recall them growing up, as well as one that is operationally distinct (being a through station) to this project. The 550mm separation between the OO gauge levels would only have to be accessible from a sitting position, where reaching rather further with less clearance is easier than from a standing position. My concern about this, however, is the amount of time and effort that it might take to set up and break down the N gauge layout every time that I want to use it. I know that someone else on this thread had a non-permanently installed layout. I wonder whether anyone who has a layout that has to be set up to use could comment on whether this is likely to be feasible? Edit: One possible concern in building a fairly substantial layout before the OO gauge layout is that I notice that Hornby have discontinued the GWR Collett carriages (the good ones, rather than the Railroad ones) in the shirtbutton livery, which is the perfect livery for the era that I am modelling. These carriages have a very poor secondhand availability (both in this livery and the earlier 1920s GWR livery), suggesting that, once remaining stocks dissipate, it will be extremely hard to get hold of these for quite a number of years until Hornby (which I understand is in some financial difficulty and has been reducing its product ranges) decide to produce some more (the same seems to be an issue for the Dapol HST in N gauge, of which I am going to need several for the N gauge layout). The Collett carriages are likely to be the most important of the long-distance carriages on this layout, and so quite a few of them will be needed. The non-brake thirds are particularly difficult to get hold of: only two online retailers have any left, albeit both of those currently have quite a few - for now. On the one hand, I am considering stockpiling as many as I am likely to need (which I could least run around my floor, on such test track as I may build in the shed, or, assuming that I do join the MRC as I plan, on their test oval in the interim, I suppose); but on the other hand, this seems inefficient, and I might alter my plans once I get the other layout underway (if this is indeed what I do first). Any thoughts on this issue would also be welcome. Edit 2: One advantage of waiting before working on this layout (and working on the N gauge layout first) would be that the Peco Bullhead crossings and slips should be available in due course, which would then enable the entire scenic area of this layout to be built with Peco Bullead rail.

I have now redrawn the design for this in SCARM according to the recent suggestions: I have also reduced the total width from 900mm to 860mm by reducing the dead space at the back. In terms of the heights of this and the other layout, a possibly workable plan may be to have this layout modular and mountable either on the wall or on trestles. The layout could be divided into three sections at 1040mm, 3000mm, and 5790mm (those all being axes which bisect no points). This would then allow the layout to be broken down and stored when not in use. This would, in turn, allow a much smaller separation between this and the upper level of the OO gauge layout than might otherwise be possible; it would also allow easy access for wiring and work by mounting single sections on a trestle at once. The heights could thus be as follows: OO gauge lower: 750mm OO gauge upper: 1,300mm (550mm separation) N gauge: 1,600mm (300mm separation) The N gauge layout would be quite high at 1,600mm, but would be narrower than before, and things at the back could be reached with the use of a stool. The highness would be less of a problem with working on the layout, as it could be dismantled. Also, the separation between this and the OO gauge layout would be less of an issue, as they would not be intended to be used at the same time. Can I ask - is this feasible? I notice that a number of members describe having dismantl-able layouts, and this seems to be a common theme. Does this make sense as an idea, or is the amount of work involved in setting it up and breaking it down excessive? I should hate not to be able to go ahead with this layout (it would be very useful to practise modelling on a smaller layout before starting on the large OO gauge plan (which might need modifying in light of experience gained doing this), and it would be splendid to be able to model the railway scene as I recall when I was a boy. Thoughts on the new track plan and the practicality of the modular arrangement would be much appreciated.

Gordon - thank you: that is helpful. My apologies for the earlier error with your name. Clachnaharry - can you elaborate? Grastairs - there is nowhere suitable in my house for adjustable shelving like that. I am very particular about keeping the interior in Edwardian style/condition as closely as is practicable in modern times. I do not know yet whether that sort of thing would work in the shed (i.e. whether the walls will take a layout) or whether I will need free-standing shelving. Thank you for the suggestion, however: if it were possible, it might have been quite useful. Chaz - that is an interesting thought. That seems to be closer to the test track suggestion that I had had from the person at The Model Railway Club last week. I have had conflicting information on the relevance of skills acquired by working in N gauge to OO gauge. Wiggoforgold - thank you for your thoughts. I had thought about trying to build a section of the OO guage layout to start with, but the trouble is that the only potentially suitable thing for those purposes would be the lower level station, and that is probably not a good place to start because much of the stock that I should need for that would need to be made from kits, whereas the upper level stock would be ready to run. The plan was to see whether I am any good at kit building, and, if not, have the lower level stock built for me by kit builders, but I should rather have a go at doing them myself first. Mike - I definitely plan to start trying to build something, and realise that this will be very important and that I may well (but also may well not) have to revise my plans substantially when I do so begin. However, I cannot do much until the shed is built as there is not really space in my house (discounting the loft, which is not really suitable) for anything other than a temporary floor layout, which I may well try to set up soon. It was necessary to plan in some detail to see whether it was necessary to alter the specifications, and, indeed, I have had to alter the specifications on account of the plans. I have now finalised the specifications for the shed, and will be paying the deposit early next week. There is no harm, and much benefit, to planning and gathering as much data as I can in the meantime, however.

Thank you for that demonstration - that is most useful. The tallboy in my bedroom is ~155cm high, albeit not as deep to allow for good comparisons. However, imagining attempting to work on trackwork at that height suggests to me that 150cm is probably a little too high. It is very difficult to work out sensible heights without having a better idea of a the necessary minimum level separation between the upper and lower levels, however.

Ahh, I see. That is an interesting idea. Perhaps if the N gauge layout transpires to be impractical, this might have to be considered. However, do you think that a demountable/portable N gauge layout with a 25cm separation from the upper level of the OO gauge layout might be workable? I should hate to give up on the idea of the N gauge layout, not least because that gives me the chance to model the railway scene that I remember from childhood, and something a little different (viz. a through station) to that modelled in the OO layout.

Dagworth - my apologies most sincere: I confused your name with Denbridge. I was referring to Denbridge's claim that I am a "fool" in that remark. My question to you was how long that it takes you to set up and break down your layout - I should find it very useful to know that. In posting the above, I did not realise that replies continued on the following page, so I post further replies here. Peter - people are being "quarrelsome" by stating in strident and accusatory tones that I am "rejecting advice" (in cases where their advice has conflicted with that of others and where I have tried to find more information to decide which advice is most likely to be accurate) and made derogatory personal comments, as in Denbridge's last post. I am aware that the suggestions come from those with modelling experience. That is why I am taking them seriously (and have revised my design no fewer than 6 times on account of those suggestions). It is totally inappropriate to direct personal criticism towards me merely because I have not unquestioningly deferred to specific people's advice in circumstances where that advice conflicts with other advice, also from people with modelling experience. Gordon - I am very interested in knowing as much detail as possible about the potential pitfalls of various aspects of layout design. I have revised my design accordingly. I did ask you some questions about the measurements of your layout that you had had difficulties with - do you have records/a recollection of this, or is this information no longer readily accessible to you?

I had wondered about making the N gauge layout portable - but the trouble is: where would I set it up to run it? Would it work above the upper board of the OO gauge layout, I wonder? I suppose if I put it there, I should only need enough clearance (25cm? 30cm?) so that the boards cleared the scenery, without regard to ease of access of the OO gauge layout. Whether even this works depends on what a sensible level separation between the upper and lower levels of the OO gauge layout is, and I have found it extremely difficult to get any useful information on this topic. If the minimum separation is 70cm, then, with the lower level of the OO guage layout at 80cm, the upper level would be at 150cm, meaning that the N gauge layout would have to be positioned at at least 175cm (with a 25cm separation between it and the OO gauge layout) above the floor, which strikes me as a little high even for me, and I am quite tall. If, conversely, the height separation between the upper and lower levels of the OO gauge layout needed only to be 60cm, then the upper level could be at 140cm and the N gauge layout at 165cm, which would still be high, but workable. Another issue might be how easy that it will be to set it up and put it away again: if this is too much work, having to do this every time that I wanted to use the N gauge layout would make it impractical. How long does Bow Locks take to set up and break down, may I ask? Dagworth - personal attacks are utterly inappropriate and positively improper.

Dagworth/Andi - thank you for that suggestion. That was the original idea of the N gauge layout, but the difficulty is that that might prevent there being sufficient level separation between the tracks on the OO gauge layout, and I will not really have anywhere to put another layout if not at a higher level than this one in the planned shed.

The Stationmaster - the idea is for the lower level to be 800mm off the floor. Zomboid - I have no idea what people's motivations are for being unnecessarily quarrelsome. As I have stated before, the plan is exactly to test emprically the extent to which a helix is workable. Denbridge - I have no idea what you mean by "supported [my] plan". People with experience have specifically contradicted some of the claims that you and others have made about helices and level separation, which appear to be the only remaining reasons that, in respect of the latest versions of the plans, you cite for there being any difficulty. There is a video on Youtube the link to which I provided showing a steam locomotive haul 8 carriages up a helix. Generalised statements that the whole plan will not work are worthless: I (or anyone in my position) can only usefully engage with specifics as to precisely what the threshold is between what will and what will not work in any given respect (and you must know what that threshold is to be able to make a credible claim that any given design is on the wrong side of it).

Chris - there is a fundamental difference between a thing being not quantifiable and a thing being difficult to quantify. As already explained clearly, the relevant matters (curve radii, gradients, level separation, etc.) are inherently quantitative things. Also, none of those things are particularly hard to quantify. That a thing is difficult to quantify makes it all the more important to try to quantify it when the quantity of that thing is, as here, precisely that which makes a decisive difference to whether something worthwhile is achievable or not. As to "refusing to accept advice", I have had conflicting advice (both here and elsewhere), all from people who are experienced with modelling. It is positively perverse to berate me for not accepting one set of advice when other advice has conflicted with it. What on earth do you imagine that you will achieve by doing that? I repeat again, since it is plain that you have not understood (or have purposely chosen to ignore) what I have written before on the topic: no amount of aggression will persuade me to defer unquestioningly to anyone. Ever. Indeed, the more aggression, the more that I am liable to be very suspicious of advice from the person being aggressive, and for good reason. If I take advice, it is because the person who gives it has provided a good explanation for why it is good advice in the light of all the other information that I know about the topic, and in the light of any conflicting advice received from other sources. What on earth do you think that you are achieving by trying to have an argument with me? I have made it plain beyond all doubt that I will never - ever - unquestioningly defer to anyone; and I have also made it plain beyond all doubt that I am receptive to specific, practical, empirical advice. It is thus a waste of time for anyone to demand that I accept anything. It is definitely not a waste of time to give me specific, practical empirical advice; indeed, I have, as is overwhelmingly apparent, accepted a large quantity of such advice and modified my plans accordingly. Please stop wasting everybody's time with non-constructive quarrelsome comments. As I have had to state repeatedly because it has (improperly) been ignored repeatedly, that I am not unquestioningly deferential does not mean that I am not receptive to specific, practical advice and information.

Thank you all for your feedback. David - thank you for the suggestions apropos the engine sheds. I have revised them as suggested, as appended in the attached revised plan. Incidentally, the text in your post referred to a revised plan of the lower level, but I could not see that; was that an error? Denbridge - thank you for the photographic demonstration - that is very useful. It may well be that I either have to abandon the N-gauge layout idea entirely (which would be a shame, but I do not want it to interfere with this) and increase the level separation between upper and lower considerably, but I will have to consider this further after some testing. Chaz - this advice was given much earlier in the thread, and my original plan was to build an N gauge layout before starting on this one, but given the level clearance issue, I am not entirely sure about that. One suggestion that has been made is for me to build a test track with 1-2 sets of points to familiarise myself with track laying, wiring and ballasting, so I might attempt that. I am not quite sure where I might store an entire layout if not above the one planned here. In relation to layout design being quantifiable, the claims that people are making are, by their very nature, quantitative claims (i.e. that something is too complex, that the gradients are too steep, the radii are too tight, the level separation is too little). In so far as these claims are meaningful, let alone true, it is logically necessary that those specific elements of layout design are indeed quantifiable. Indeed, it is obviously the case that curve radii, gradients, helices and level separation and their effect on accessibility and model train traction are by their very nature quantitative things. It is no use making inherently quantity-dependent assertions then, when pressed for details, falsely stating that the things in question are "not quantifiable". Edit: Incidentally, the revised plan did not attach for some reason, so I have uploaded it to my server again. It is here:

Junctionmad - I am not familiar with the word "cellotaoec", and an internet search for that word returns no results. Can you elaborate on what this is? Given that you use Templot, incidentally, do I infer correctly that you build your own custom track? I have not much used general CAD software (I have used 3d modelling software, but that is rather different); do you know of any links to resources as to where I can usefully find information about how best to use this for wiring planning for model railways? May I ask - does anyone else plan wiring using CAD software? What problems do you find that this tends to avoid? A spreadsheet for wiring numbers is a very interesting idea - I shall bear this in mind. As to getting my whole torso into a space, I am trying to think of a way of testing this. I have tried using underneath my desk, but that is 800mm high above the ground (this gives access with room to spare). Perhaps I could measure underneath my bed and check whether that is a good proxy? That might be useful, although its usefulness might be limited owing to the lack of separation from the floor. Incidentally, I just checked using SCARM, and there are no points or crossings more than 825mm from the edge of the baseboard on this plan (and most are within 700mm of the edge of the baseboard), not counting the edges that are along walls, of course. I will not be deferring to others unquestioningly no matter how many times that you or anyone else insist that I do so. The number of people who hold a view is not relevant to whether it is true. If there is an actual video of somebody driving a train hauled by a model steam locomotive in OO gauge successfully up a 3rd/4th radius helix with 8 carriages, it really does not matter how many people insist that it cannot be done with 6 carriages: I will be extremely sceptical of any such view unless those people are able to produce empirical data that are more probative than the video. So far, none have done so. Moreover, the more that people insist to the contrary of what is contained in what is extremely probative evidence without providing at least equally probative contrary evidence, the more that I have good reason to be very sceptical of anything else that those people claim without providing high quality independent evidence.

Dagworth - can you elaborate on what exactly "full and clear access" is? Are you referring to a particular degree of distance from the edge of the baseboard to the back of the baseboard? Are you referring to vertical separation between multiple levels? Without being able to quantify this, I am really not in any position to do anything meaningful about it. Incidentally, putting things in capital letters will not persuade me. It will make me less likely to accept what you are claiming, as I have found (through your favoured experience) that people who, when pressed for detail or explanations, respond by emphatically repeating the original point without detail or explanations usually do so because they are unable to provide detail or explanations because their claims are unfounded. In relation to testing helices, I may yet do that - whether I use those specific piers I am not sure, but I have not dismissed the idea of testing gradients/helices at all.

Junctionmad, there is no reason to believe that there can be no middle ground between, on the one hand, a full 3D mock-up, and, on the other, just providing some (even approximate) quantification of the specific constraints to which you implicitly refer. I have asked specifically about the extent of level separation necessary quite a number of times now, and have had no clear response (and such responses as I have had have been inconsistent with other sources, and I have not had, despite asking, any explanation of why the views of those expressed here should be preferred to other sources). There is repeated reference to "hidden track". Every time that this is referred to, I point out that there will be very little track that is hidden. Every time that I do so, this is totally ignored, and a few posts later, reference is again made to "hidden track" without reference to what I wrote previously. Do you think that track is "hidden" merely because it is on a baseboard below another level? If so, does this depend on the height separation? If not, that is absurd. If so, what degree of height separation makes the lower level "hidden", and why this number in particular? Again, as to the helix, I have had (and specifically referred to, with links) conflicting information on this. Instead of trying to engage with the conflicting information, you and some others appear to do no more than demand in positively aggressive tones that I unquestioningly defer to your view. I will not unquestioningly defer to anyone's view about anything, ever. It would not be rational to do so, especially in the face of conflicting information. I will consider people's views and the reasons for them and make an independent judgment based on those reasons and such other information available to me about the underlying merits of those views. If you want to persuade me that your views are correct, you will only succeed in doing so by providing a specific empirical and reasoned basis for doing so. The more that you demand that I accept that you are correct without doing so, the more that I will be wary of taking anything that you say seriously. In terms of planning wiring and point motor access, what sort of planning had you in mind? For example, what do you think that planning point motor access entails? Do you do this for your own layouts? If so, it would be helpful to have a description of what you do. Likewise the wiring - do you mean a schematic wiring diagram, or a geographical plan of wiring runs? I was considering preparing a schematic wiring diagram at some point, but I think that I will need to know more precisely how some of the components work in order to do so in a useful way. Again, do you do this for your own layouts? If so, it would again be helpful to know the techniques and systems that you use for this. Edit: Incidentally, it really is very important from a practical perspective to understand precisely the reasons that it is asserted that the lower level will not work. If the problem is the vertical separation between that and the upper level, this can be solved by abandoning the N gauge layout if necessary and increasing the vertical separation (although, of course, I will need to know to a reasonable degree of precision what degree of vertical separation is necessary in order to implement that degree of vertical separation). If the problem is the helix, then this can simply be tested empirically; if this really does not work, then the layout would not need very great changes to separate upper and lower levels as some have suggested, but it would seem silly not even to try when this can fairly easily be changed after the fact and when the information as to whether it is likely to work is conflicting.