jamespetts

Thank you very much for your feedback. The area immediately next to the door on the long side is intended to be the work bench area, so I want a window there. Do you have any recommendations for window size/placement on the rest of the long wall? I do not want the place to be like a bunker! Perhaps blinds would be the thing, or curtains, possibly?

This is a graphic of the proposed appearance of the shed sent by the shed people.

Thank you for your thoughts. There seem to be three main strands to the points that you are making, if I have understood correctly, viz.; (1) the proportion of the layout covered in track (irrespective of absolute size or complexity); (2) the resource commitment required for a layout of this degree of complexity; and (3) the need to acquire experience on something simple before progressing to something complex. Taking these in reverse order, the third point I do take - it is just a matter of thinking about how to approach things with a larger layout in mind. One possibility is, as outlined above, something that could fit into a larger layout, although that does then require planning the larger layout to see how it would fit in first. Another is building something totally different (a branch line, perhaps, or even an N gauge layout set in relatively modern times; although how useful would N gauge experience be for an ultimate OO gauge layout?). The other possibility is a very temporary floor layout, but I am not sure how useful that that is really likely to be in terms of modelling experience. As to the second issue, this is more difficult to balance/calibrate. I have looked at the videos of the McKinley Railway, and that is four or five times the size of what I am after, and it is in the process of being extended. This chap seems to have had a substantial thing, too. Can anyone give me any idea how to predict the time that laying and wiring any given amount of track is likely to take (e.g., "I made layout X (link to picture/track diagram), and I estimate that it took a total of Y hours to lay the track and X hours to do the wiring)? Once one has the track laid and wired, one can at least enjoy operating the layout and adding scenery can come later (and one can start with the basic scenery such as ballasting, platforms, engine sheds, etc., and then move onto more purely decorative items in due course). The scenery is the sort of thing that one can consider as the long tail of the project - something that is never truly finished and on which one can always do a little more as and when one feels like it; but the track plan and the wiring have a definite completion state before which the layout cannot operate and after which it can and can be satisfying to an extent even without scenery. (I must confess, I am quite looking forward to the wiring/computer control aspect - one of my other hobbies, also transport related, is computer programming - for years, I have been, and am still, working on a fork of the open source transport game "Simutrans" (the fork being Simutrans-Extended), having, for example, spent some time adding realistic railway signalling (everything from time interval to moving block) in recent years, so am used to thinking about computer control logic, and it would be splendid to apply this to something practical that moves in the physical world and looks splendid; I am also keen to set up a work bench and have a go at kit building and even 3d printing/modelling, although I have no idea whether I will be any good at these things, especially the fine painting, and am watching with interest developments in colour 3d printing, which seems to be not quite ready for model railway use yet). In relation to the parts, here is a parts list generated by SCARM: I make that 109 sets of points/crossings/slips in total, including those in the scenic and non-scenic areas. As to the proportion of the layout that is covered with track, this seems to me to be more of a matter of individual taste/changing fashions more than one of practical difficulty. In so far it is just an issue of taste, I am happy with having a largely track dominated layout as my interest is really in interestingly intricate operations rather than watching trains go by, so long as what is actually there looks real enough (there is nothing wrong in principle with assuming that the areas that one has chosen to model are that slice of the imagined reality being created that contains the railway and not much else). That is not to deprecate some of the beautiful layouts that have large quantities of excellent scenery - I am sure that many who frequent these forums have seen the amazing S&DJR layout that somebody has managed to build in O gauge(!), and the wonderful recreation of the landscape and those lovely little purple flowers - those are truly works of art (quite literally, in my view). But that is not the only way of doing it, and there is no reason in principle that one might not be happy with something where scenery, while still present, is a rather secondary thing to the track itself. However, I should like to make sure that I have correctly understood - is the density (as distinct from the absolute amount) of track likely to be a problem with construction and maintenance? Likewise, is the length of platforms likely to be a problem in and of itself (I notice that even the McKinley Railway had platforms long enough for only 8 carriages, which is interesting - that seems to be considered a long train in model railway terms), distinct from the point that some may consider that length of platform to be an uninteresting use of space? It would very much help me to be able to separate problems that fall into the "too big generally" category from those that fall into the "impractical in any event" category so that I can have a better understanding of what sort of solution is necessary. I can see the possible issue with the number of platforms: the width of that side of the layout as planned over the full set of platforms is 1.1m, 20cm longer than what has been given as the maximum recommended reach width of 0.9m. However, a 1m width is required for a twin track loop back at a minimum of a 438mm radius, so this does constrain the width somewhat at the points where such a loopback is needed. Indeed, the number of platforms comes from taking the width necessary for the underground loop-back on the terminus side, and fitting in as many platforms as could be fit into the width at that point, which ended up with a total of 13 (not including the split suburban platforms). As to the fictitious terminal station, that was rather what I had in mind with the original attic track plan (attached for reference), which I named "Maryington" as a portmanteau of Marylebone and Paddington (and the small station being "Pudding Lane" as I like pudding). As will be noted, I made an error in my previous message: this design had 9 platforms including the suburban platforms, not in addition to them. A reason that I moved away from that idea is that I liked to have an idea of how the (fictionalised) terminus fit into the national railway network and where the trains leaving it might be going to so that I could have a timetable with, e.g., the 12.04 to Oxford or the 11.30 to Penzance, etc.. It is harder to do that with something perhaps more abstract - would a train from Maryington be going to Swansea or Sheffield? In any event, thank you again for all of your help. I have not made up my mind yet what to do (or even actually committed to having a shed installed, although I have now got a proper quote for one), but the more information that I have about the issue the better that I will be able to decide what I ultimately want to do, when and in what order.

Thank you all very much for your replies: that is most helpful. Again, I will respond to some of the more specific points before moving onto the more general issues. Firstly, in relation to the number of operators, that is not an issue in itself, since I had stated in the original post that I was interested in computer automation. Secondly, as to the curve radius, I made sure to set a minimum curvature in SCARM of a 438mm radius, which equates to a second radius curve. None of the track in this plan has a lower radius than 438mm. Small radius Streamline points are specified for the hidden areas, but all of the scenic areas use only large radius points; likewise, the tight curves, apart from the depot, are all in non-scenic areas (denoted by green/yellow on the plan), so looking akin to a train set is avoided by that expedient. Thirdly on the specific issues, the gradients were not intended to be used with the long trains: the idea was for them to come into the terminus on the flat, the gradients being used by trains descending into the LT lines, which would generally be shorter trains. As to the idea that suburban trains are shorter than long-distance trains, this varies by region; I know that some places have very long commuter trains (all the former Southern network into London, for instance), which are just as long as the main-line trains on that route, but I was interested in Great Western, where 5 (sometimes strengthened to 6) was the normal number of carriages in suburban trains. I should also note that the plan did specifically provide for a 1.1m wide workbench (notice that the baseboards are longer on one side than on the other side for this reason). In respect of Jonny777's comments, my plan was perhaps a little unclear: the blue lines are intended to be electrified, not at a different level: the difference in level is intended to be represented by the two different layers, so some of the blue lines would be visible on the lower through station, which was planned to be visible from the side even though it is underneath the terminus (it is intentionally close to the edge of the baseboards to be more visible). As to the turntable, I could not find another way of fitting it into the space available. I do not think that I could sensibly build just the blue (i.e. electrified) parts of this specific planned layout: the plan is loosely inspired by Paddington (hence the main and relief lines separated by use rather than direction, the short suburban platforms, the extra long platform at the southern end, the Hammersmith & City dive-under at the Western end and the tunnel beyond the Eastern end then joining with other Underground tracks from a different direction, etc.), and the blue parts denote electrified (fourth rail) lines; the suburban platforms are mixed use for terminating trains and those continuing into central London, and there were many trains that were operated by being steam hauled into Paddington and then changing to an electric locomotive at that point for their onward journey (and the same in reverse). I do not think, therefore, that the Underground lines in isolation would be workable here. However, turning to the more general point, I do see considerable force in the point that, if I have not done much of this recently, I really need to get a feel for how to do it and what is achievable by building something smaller scale before considering a larger scale project, so that I can have a better idea of what is feasible, and that doing so may well avoid what might transpire to be costly mistakes, as well as not postponing the enjoyment that might be had from such a project until a very large and complex thing has been largely completed. One thing that I am considering, although I am not yet sure how this might work, is to build a more interesting version of the lower level station in the plan first, and then consider later a possibly simplified version of the upper level of the plan. One of the main constraints in the vertical spacing which I can see being problematic is caused by the need for the lines going underground to do so at two points: firstly, to rise from the dive-under at the western end, and then descend again into the eastern end. An arrangement in which only one of these inclines is necessary means that the whole of one side might be used as an incline, allowing twice the vertical separation. Certainly, I am very attracted to the idea of a small layout that could then be incorporated into a larger layout at a later time, and share the stock, or at least much of it; but if I am to do that, I will need to know what will actually fit into the eventual larger layout, and therefore to plan that in detail, too. I note with interest the comment along the lines of "more Marylebone, less Victoria": when I was contemplating a layout in the attic, I had designed an entirely different plan, but incorporating some of the elements here (long platforms - there only long enough for 10 carriages, Underground lines serving separate platforms at the non-terminus end of the station and then a separate further Underground station beyond a scenic break, the additional distance being simulated by the trains automatically pausing in the intermediate tunnel for the amount of time that it would take to traverse the several kilometres to the next station, and an engine shed and carriage sidings) which I had called "Maryington" as it was inspired by a sort of cross between Paddington and Marylebone. That had 9 platforms plus the two suburban platforms, and was still very intensively covered with track, although I later realised that some of the curves on that plan were of the same radius as first radius curves and would have been too tight for much of what I wanted to use there in any event. One possible difficulty with a Marylebeone inspired layout is a relative lack of ready to run stock used on the Great Central - from what I found out when I looked into the matter, the LNER largely continued to use old GCR locomotives and carriages on the line. In particular, there is a lack of suitable suburban passenger engines and carriages. As to using all of the space, the reason that I did this was because space, especially linear space, is notoriously the most significant constraint in railway modelling. Thus, a layout that can take full advantage of the available space is one that will be less constrained than one that cannot. We all have our own preferences as to what compromises to make, of course, but I find unrealistically short trains and tight corners in visible parts of the layout to be particularly unsatisfying, which is why I designed the plan attached to my first post to have the corners mostly behind the scenic break, and to have long platforms and carriage sidings. In terms of simplifying/redesigning, it would help me to know a little more about some of the constraints within which I ought to work in order to achieve something workable. The maximum width beyond which it is difficult to reach items is useful to know (900mm was suggested; I am fairly tall (6ft 1) and thus have fairly long arms, so might 1m be workable). Several have mentioned the time taken to lay track; can anyone estimate how much track can be laid in a given amount of time? In terms of wiring, is there a maximum density of some sort which can sensibly be expressed numerically that it is preferable to observe to avoid unworkable wiring? I am definitely keen to have some sort of main line terminus with a mix of suburban and long-distance workings, carriage sidings and an engine shed (subject to having a go with a smaller layout first which might hopefully fit into the larger layout in due course to gain experience). Perhaps reviving the Maryington idea for a larger space might work, and have the suburban lines shared with the Underground (as on the LTSR), reducing the number of lines coming into the station, and also reducing the number of platforms, perhaps. In one sense, I am rather tempted to buy a small train set with DCC (and the higher quality stock), set it up on my floor and see how that works out (and test various DCC control options), but I will need to know that I will not be buying stock that I will ultimately not be using, which, in turn, involves planning what I actually will be using. That also has the difficulty that I suspect that one cannot set up point motors without fixing track to baseboards (or else the motor might move instead of the point blades), so testing the wiring and control of these things might have to await a shed in any event. One other thing on which I am keen in the longer term is to be able to model what is probably my favourite period of railway history, the Edwardian period. This has to be a long-term project, as I will need to acquire the skill to build stock from kits/3d prints, as there is not enough ready to run stock available from that era, but I should ideally want a layout that could equally plausibly be set in the 1930s (so that I can use my lovely old Harrow Models Q38 cars - albeit they were not called Q then, of course) and, with a change only of stock (and perhaps one or two strategic and easily removable scenic items such as road vehicles), have it represent the period circa 1910. In any event, thank you all for your various replies: it is most helpful. I am definitely leaning towards the small then large approach, but need to think carefully about (and would appreciate anyone's thoughts on) how the one might best relate to the other to avoid duplication (I am especially keen on the idea, surprisingly seldom exploited in railway modelling from what I can tell, of having two separate stations on a layout, separated, not by a scale distance, but a scenic break and a computer controlled pause to simulate the scale time to traverse the distance between them, the smaller station being suburban in nature and the larger station a main line terminus; so this gives the somewhat obvious possible solution of starting with the suburban station; but how best to do that is another matter entirely).

I have been spending some time of late using this software, having bought the registered version. I find it most useful for planning layouts, but I have a little constructive criticism of the user interface in some respects which I hope that it will be helpful if I share. Firstly, it can be very difficult to find the exact point at which track will align. When track needs to align other than by being dead straight (which is easy), it is often necessary to make the most minute movements of the mouse to move the (flexible) track to the exact position where the red arrow turns green and allows a connexion to be made. Possible solutions include the ability to hold down a key to reduce the amplitude of movements or snapping to a known alignment more readily. Secondly, it would be useful to have more keyboard shortcuts - for the measuring tape, for example, and for layers. In Blender, layers can easily be selected and de-selected using the main number keys - a similar system would be very helpful here. Likewise, rotation of elements with keyboard input alone would be helpful: the Blender way of doing it is simply by pressing "r" and then typing in the rotation angle in numbers. Thirdly, it can be very awkward interacting with the "no selected start point" dialogue: if one accidentally presses the space bar when one has no start point selected, one gets a dialogue box with this error message which one then has to clear in order to do anything else, which can be extremely awkward and take a great deal of unnecessary effort. Fourthly, the undo tool does not take into account selections. Suppose that one selects a large number of track pieces and then moves them, but one moves them to the wrong place. CTRL+Z will undo the movement, but it will also undo the selection at the same time, so, if one wants to move them again, one would have to select them all manually again. That can be very laborious. Again, Blender has an excellent way of dealing with this: all selection/unselection actions are simply treated as separate undoable steps. This approach would be extremely helpful in SCARM (the large number of undo steps available in SCARM is already a good feature). Fifthly, there is no easy way of showing what type of track is already selected, so, when I press the space bar, I do not know whether I will be getting some straight track or a turnout/set of points.It would be helpful if the last selected piece of track would be highlighted in the menu on the left somehow. Sixthly, the colours for track is a useful feature, but it can be difficult to remember which colour that one has recently used as the colours do not have easy to remember names, there is no way of saving the colours, and there is no "recently used colours" list. Seventhly, it would be helpful to have an option to constrain the angle of track and other objects to 45 degree increments. Finally, although I think that this has been raised before; it would be very helpful to have geometary for Marcway points, as the geometary for these is, I understand, quite different from that of Peco points. In any event, I do not mean to be overly negative - there is much to like about this software and I do not regret having paid for the registered version, but it would benefit greatly from some UI improvements. I hope that this feedback is helpful.

Thank you all for your thoughts and feedback - that is most helpful. To deal first with two of the more specific points before turning to the general point about scale/size: the difference in length between the main line and suburban platforms is intentional: the suburban platforms are 1,500mm long (not including ramps), which equates to 114m at 1:76, which is the same or a similar length to many London Underground stations (e.g., Edgware Road on the Bakerloo line has a platform of exactly 114m in length, and many other Underground platforms are of similar length). This should suffice for a six car EMU, or a five car locomotive hauled train. The main line platforms vary from between 4,000mm (304m at 1:76) and 3,700mm (281m at 1:76), which again is broadly realistic for a main-line terminus (some are even longer, but there is not space for any such thing here). Secondly of the more specific points, I think that I mentioned above that I did want to use computer control/automation for the layout. Thirdly on the more specific points, I do have a little stock from my younger days: it is mainly from the 1980s, with an eclectic mix of steam era and (then) modern era stock; however, there is not a great amount of it. It does include, however, some of those lovely old Harrow Models Q38 stock cars that I do especially want to be able to use. As to the more general, and perhaps more important point, I can see the potential difficulty of a more complex layout. The issue is that there is nowhere at all in my house that I can sensibly fit even a small model railway at present (hence the shed plan). The ideal solution, of course, would be to build a smaller portable railway in the house and then only have the shed built if that does not satisfy on its own (and have the ability to use some of the same stock between the two, perhaps), but that is not an option for me. I did consider building a layout in the loft, but ruled that out after looking into it (and reading the topic on loft issues on this forum). If I am going to have a shed built for a model railway, I cannot sensibly have a small shed and then later upgrade to a larger shed without wasting a huge amount of expense, so, so far as the building is concerned, the only option is to start with as a large a shed as I may desire in the long-term that can sensibly fit into my garden. The 7.7 x 2.9 (internal 7.5 x 2.5) shed appears to be correct for that. If I have a shed of that size, it then seems to make sense to have a model railway that takes full advantage of that size, which is what I have tried to do here. It would be silly, after all, to have a 7.5m x 2.5m space and build a small branch line terminus in N gauge in it. Then there is the question of what things interest me - I am very keen on modelling something that includes (but is not limited to) the London Underground, which practically rules out N gauge (which I did spend some time considering, especially when I was thinking of building in the more limited space in the attic). I also prefer the operational intricacies of a terminus station to a layout in which most trains just enter and leave again (with or without stopping at an intermediate station). This also has the advantage of allowing more to fit into a space (by not needing two sets of turns/fiddle yards or alternatively a doughnut shaped layout which requires a hatch or duck-under to access). Adding all of those things together (a relatively large available space, a preference for including the Underground and a preference for a terminus station), the natural end product seems to be a model representing a London terminus station - which is, of course, a rather large thing. The use of the Underground also suggests a multi-level design (and I seem to recall desiring a layout answering to that description when I was a child). That is the thought process that has lead to the plan that I posted above: I tried to design a layout that would incorporate all of those elements and fit into the space that will be available. I am not too concerned about the relatively limited space for scenery (that is a matter of preference, of course) so long as what is there looks reasonably realistic in itself, but ease of construction and maintenance is perhaps more of an issue. I can see the advantages in many ways of starting with something fairly straightforward that can be got up and running in a relatively short time. A real difficulty is how this short-term aim might be reconciled with the longer-term aim of having a layout that conforms to the elements of interest that I outline above. After all, it ultimately takes considerably more time and expense to build two layouts than it takes to build one layout. The idea of a layout that can provide for future expansion is interesting - but I am not sure how that might be achieved in this instance.

Having made some decent progress with planning a shed to put a new model railway in (provisional internal dimensions: 2.5m x 7.5m), I have been planning a possible layout to go in it. The plans from SCARM are attached (two plans as it is intended to be a two level layout, featuring both a main line terminus and a bit of London Underground sub-surface line). The first plan shows the lower level and the second the upper. The lines are colour coded as follows: white: running lines (non-electrified); blue: electrified lines; red: sidings and yards; and green/yellow: fiddle yards/scenic break sections. It is loosely inspired by (but not intended to be a model specifically of) a real London terminus station, and I should be interested to know whether anyone can guess which one. It is intended to be set in the pre-nationalisation period, and possibly be able to run in different eras (1930s, 1910s) just by changing the rolling stock/motive power. At an earlier stage of planning (when I was imagining an attic layout in a smaller space), I had even wondered whether I might be able to operate the layout with a different set of stock for different railway companies, but I am not sure how viable that this is at this stage. This is planned using the geometary for Peco track (as that is the best available in SCARM at present). I have used only the large radius points, slips and crossings in the scenic sections (although small and medium radius points are used in the fiddle yards) with the intention of being able to use Peco Bullhead rail once the slips and crossings become available (the shed is unlikely to be completed until April, and the baseboards therefore some time after that, so they might well be available by the time that I come to lay track). I did want to use OO finescale track, and the other option that I have been considering is the Marcway points and SMP track (I do not think that my time or skill currently extends to making my own points, and I should rather something reliable and relatively straightforward at this stage so that I can have trains up and running in a relatively short time; I do admire the skill of those who do make their own, however). I am aware that the Marcway points use a different geometary; I am not yet sure which is preferable for my purposes. Any thoughts from those who have used SMP/Marcway products would be appreciated. It is intended that the main line platforms and carriage sidings should be able to take a rake of up to 12 coaches plus a locomotive at either end (the in-bound locomotive and the out-bound locomotive). (Do I have enough roads in the carriage sidings?) Being a large layout, I will not sensibly be able to drive all of the trains myself, so I intend to automate it, so I have set up the spirals with the intention of allowing easier automatic running. I have not yet completed the design of the lower level fiddle yards. I have left space on the lower right hand side for a workbench of up to 1.1m width. One possible issue is that, in order to maintain a gradient of not more than 3% (and even that is steep by my understanding, although only relatively short trains will run on the gradiented sections), I have only been able to get a separation between the two levels of 138mm. I worry about how this might interfere with wiring access for the upper boards, and wonder whether some sort of removable lower part, and/or a lower part with a hole in the middle might be a good idea. I had also wondered whether the lower level "Pudding Lane" section could be made to be entirely removable and be able to accommodate separate, portable fiddle yards, but I have no idea whether this is practical. I have no skill whatsoever in woodwork, and am considering engaging professionals to build the baseboards (but should like to build the rest of the layout myself). I had initially thought of using a local carpenter who had previously worked on skirting boards and curtain poles in my house, but I suspect that a specialist model railway baseboard builder would probably be preferable. I know that DIY is the tradition for model railways, but I should rather not get the baseboards horribly wrong and make a mess of the whole thing. Can anyone recommend a good baseboard builder? In any event, I should be very grateful for feedback on this first draft of my layout plan. Are there any obvious flaws? Have I got the geometary wrong? I know that the track is kinked in some places, but I cannot find any other way of making what is required for the operations that I want fit in the space using only the large radius points, crossings and slips. Might there be some potential to do something more interesting with the lower level station whilst bearing in mind the clearance issues discussed above? Please bear in mind that I have not done any railway modelling since I was about 13, so might well not be as up to speed as some of the more veteran modellers with especially the practical aspects of modelling. Thank you in advance for any thoughts that anyone might have.

I think that I now have a resolution apropos the shed. The Building Control officer replied this afternoon: When I checked with one of the shed providers (Homestead), they confirmed that they would take responsibility for applying for the requisite Building Control application. An individual from the shed people is attending to-morrow to look over my garden to assess the site. I have provisionally decided on a 2.9 x 7.7m shed, giving an internal area of 2.5 x 7.5m.

I e-mailed the Building Control people yesterday evening and am waiting to hear back.

If your building has the 1m clearance and is no more than 30 sq. m., then it seems as though the building is exempt; but my garden is so small that it will be difficult to fit a building with a 1m clearance in it. (I must confess, I had until now confused the 1m clearance for the Building Regulations with the 2m clearance required for buildings of over 2.5 meters in total height to be exempt from planning control; a 2m clearance would be totally impossible. A building with a 1m clearance could be 2.6m wide if it were right in the middle of my garden, which is 4.6m wide, so might be just about possible, but would not be ideal in many ways; if complying with the Building Regulations really does just mean having the walls closer than 1m to the boundary treated with fire retardant, then it might be better simply to comply with the Building Regulations, in my case at least, than to try to secure exemption).

Thank you: I had already found that particular resource. The relevant part is: What I am currently considering is a building of circa 7x3m (21 sq. m.) situated on the boundary and built of wood, so the Building Regulations do apply in this case. What I am trying to find out is precisely what is required to comply with the Building Regulations in that case.

Thank you for noting that. Nothing regarding any Article 4 directions were found when the searches for my property were conducted before I bought it, but thank you for pointing this out all the same. Incidentally, I have just had a call from one of the various garden building suppliers, who believes that, for buildings under 30 sq. m., only Part B of the Building Regulations apply, meaning that fireproofing the building is sufficient. I have asked him to e-mail me the details of where that is found in the regulations so that I can be sure that this is correct - if so, it would mean that a larger range of wooden structures are able to comply with Building Regulations than might otherwise be the case, including some of the less expensive buildings.

I do not think that a shipping container would quite be the look that I am going for in my garden. As to the loft, I have already diiscarded that idea: see above. I am awaiting the local authority's response to the e-mail that I sent regarding building regulations and what a single storey wooden outbuilding within 1m of the boundary of between 15 and 30 sq. m. and containing no sleeping accommodation would have to do to comply with those regulations.

A shipping container? Goodness, that does not seem like a very inviting prospect. I have written to a number of companies offering various types of buildings, from the more expensive bespoke buildings to the cheaper prefabricated buildings, and all of them seem to have different requirements about whether they need side/rear access and how much space that must be left (for constructional purposes, rather than for planning or building control) around the edge of the building. Many of them seem confused by building regulations issues (confusing them with planing, and in some cases confusing what is required to comply with the regulations with the criteria for exemption from the building regulations), so I have written to the local authority's building control department to request clarification on the issue. It may well be that fire retardant and good insulation are all that is necessary for the building to comply. I have also inspected my electric meter cabinet, and I notice that all of the wires are not chased into the wall, but rather run down inside a hollow edging box next to the front door until they reach the floor, when they are taken under the floorboards, so hopefully it will not be necessary to cut into any of my walls in order to get a supply to the back garden straight from my consumer unit, which I think has some spare circuit breaker slots, if I recall correctly.

Interesting suggestion apropos the crane - I had not thought of that (and nor have the people whom I have e-mailed from various suppliers of garden rooms).

I have no plans on ever having any children, so that is not an issue that I am likely to encounter.

Thank you for your thoughts. I should prefer to have an independent garden building than an extension because I like to keep my house in as close to original period condition as possible, so a completely separate building in the garden adds additional space without interfering with the house itself in any way.

Thank you all very much for your help: that is most useful. I am currently considering a slightly larger outbuilding (still within the limit of what does not require planning permission) running along the right hand flank of the garden, measuring perhaps about 3m x 7m externally, with the long dimension along the length of the garden. This would give me a good length for a layout (long and thin being more useful for model railways than square, real railways also being long and thin), and would have the added benefit that there would be no need for me to move the washing line or remove the lovely mature tree at the end of the garden, and I should retain the full length (albeit not the full width) of the garden available as an outside space. If I then had the door in the short side facing the house, this should enable a good sized layout to run in a C shape around the other walls of the room, as well as enabling the easiest access from the house/conservatory. A 7x3m size amounts to 21 sq.m., which is in the 15-30 sq. m. bracket for building regulations, meaning that it either needs to comply with building regulations (which apparently are mainly concerned with fireproofing in this context), or be built from a non-combustible material. The research that I have done so far suggests that the prefabricated "log cabin" buildings are not really suitable for this purpose. That leaves either concrete sheds which are by their nature non-combustible (not ideal in appearance, but can be dressed up to look respectable; but I cannot find any of a good size) or the more expensive building regulation compliant garden rooms. Has anyone here any experience of either type of shed/room? As for electricity, I note that it is preferable to have a line taken directly from the consumer unit. I recall that the electrician who rewired the house in 2015 mentioned something about putting in provision for better wiring in the kitchen, which is at the back of the house, when I come to refurbish that, but I cannot recall the details now. I am not sure whether that might help - but I am very, very, very keen indeed not to have to have any cutting into walls in the main house, or any sort of surface wiring (except in the kitchen and conservatory), as I had the main rooms (including the hallway where the meter/consumer unit are located) meticulously redecorated in period style in 2015, and the colour of paint used on the Lincrusta panels in the hallway had just been discontinued when the decoration was done (the decorator being able to find some new old stock), so there is no way of redecorating it to the same specification again. In relation to whether I am sure that I actually want a layout - I do not think that anyone can eliminate all doubt about one's future state of mind. I know that I am quite keen on having one now. However, I rather like the idea of a garden hobby room aside from the layout plans in any event: it had never really occurred to me before looking into this that I could have in effect a large additional room on my property for a relatively modest price that does not interfere in any way with the structure or decoration of the existing house. I barely use the garden (really, only for the washing line), and think that a room of this nature would be, for me, a far better use of the space than having lots of garden. It also has the potential to add value to the property (probably doubly so if it is a building regulations compliant structure that could be used as sleeping accommodation, subject to planning permission). There is another hobby related thing for which such a building would be likely to be useful: I have in my loft an old Stuart stationary steam engine and boiler plant that I bought/put together with my father back in 2007/8 and which I have not run since circa 2008 which I should like to get going again, but it is too awkward to get it from the loft and there is nowhere other than the loft at present to store it. As to what the neighbours might think/say, I suspect not a great deal: I live in an area that, at present, is largely inhabited by tenants on short lets. I suspect that the area may very slowly be improving (a run-down pub' not far from my house has recently been converted into a trendy hipster pizza bar), but it may well take 5-10 years for this to take effect fully, by which time my planned garden room will have become a long-standing fixture and the people who remember what it was like before it was installed long gone. In any event, thank you all again for your help - it is much appreciated. If any of you can comment on the electrical/decorative issue, or have experience with concrete and/or building regulations compliant outbuildings, I should be very grateful for feedback/insights.

Splendid, thank you for all your help: that is most useful. Pictures would indeed be appreciated. Pheaton, can I ask: in having the electricity installed, did the electricians have to cut into the wall or run surface wires from the consumer unit in the house?

Excellent - thank you very much for all your help.

Splendid, thank you. Does the shed/cabin/outbuilding need to be made of especially strong wood to be secure enough?

Splendid, thank you. Does anyone have any thoughts on model railway shed security?

Ahh, I see - not quite the same index of comparison. I am not really very talented in the DIY department - I can probably just about manage track laying for a model railway (although I am seriously contemplating getting a carpenter to build the baseboards), but I think that building a shed is not really my thing, so will have to get one made. Prefabricated sheds do seem to offer potentially good value for money. I remembered that one of my friends had one installed a few years ago; I have just looked up her pictures of it on Facebook, and I note with interest that she has a prefabricated wooden shed (fully insulated with concrete base and electrical supply, clearly to a good internal standard) installed quickly even though she has no rear access. The pictures show large panels being delivered by lorry, so they must have fitted through the house somehow. Does anyone here have any experience of this?

I had not spotted all of these replies when I edited my post above having read the long loft thread and realised that the loft is probably not the place for a model railway given that all the people who have some professional understanding of the topic recommend strongly against it, for some quite specific reasons relating to the ability of roof joists to carry a live load. Perhaps, given that the loft issue has been exhausted on the other thread, it might be sensible for this discussion to focus on the world of sheds. Thank you very much to those who have given shed-based replies. After reading the loft thread, I went out and measured my garden, which looks like this: From the rear fence to the centre of the smaller paved circle is 3.5m, and to the edge nearest the house of the smaller paved circle is 4.2m. The width between fences is 4.7m, but I will need to leave an extra allowance on the right hand side as there were formerly two fences along that side, the nearest of which was removed when my garden was refurbished, and was also probably the fence along the correct line of the boundary between mine and my neighbour's property, so I do not wish to risk having to demolish any outbuilding as may have been constructed if the owner of neighbouring house wishes to re-align the fences. The inside width of the bedroom in the house (which is the full width of the house) is 4.3m, so that might give a good idea of the achievable inside width of an outbuilding. Thus, if I were to have a shed at the back of the garden terminating at the middle of the current small circle of paved stones or at the edge of that circle nearest the house, I could have a room with more space than there is in the loft for a layout. To do so would sacrifice some garden space, which is a shame, as I only had the garden refurbished last year. I was planning on putting a herb garden at the end in the spring. Perhaps I could have some herbs next to the outbuilding. The washing line is also a potential issue; I only had that installed last October, too. Perhaps I could move the far pole to be the same distance from the house, but the opposite side of the garden, as the other pole, and have both lines terminating on the shed? LBRJ - thank you for that information. That seems a little more encouraging than the figures that I have seen so far. The 14ft x 8ft shed (4.6 x 2.6m) is similar to the size that would fit in the garden (perhaps wider and not as long). Do the people whom you know have a website with examples of the sorts of shed that one could have installed for that sort of price (and can that sort of price be obtained in London)? Also, does that include a concrete base? Does anyone have any views on whether a timber outbuilding is preferable to a brick/concrete outbuilding? How effectively can one secure an outbuilding? Thank you again for all of your replies. Edit: Also, can anyone give any insight on how one might have such an outbuilding installed if one lacks rear access?

Ah, thank you: I had not spotted that thread for some reason, even though I did try to search for loft topics before I posted this, only finding one from 2012 for some reason. I will look through that thread with interest now. In the meantime, one thought had occurred to me, which is that the sort of silver foil insulation used in the first of the videos to which I linked does not on the face of it seem entirely consistent with what one would normally think of as a "residential room". In any event, even if I were wrong about that, the invariable consequence of detection of a violation of building control is an enforcement notice; if stapling insulating foil to my rafters turned out to be a violation of building control, all that I should have to do is remove the foil, suggesting that the risk of building control issues relating to this sort of insulation is, in practice, minimal. Given that insulation appears to be one of the main impediments to loft usage, this is potentially significant. In any event, I shall go and read the thread that I missed - no doubt, there are some useful insights there. Thank you for directing me to that. Edit: That was an interesting thread. There appear to be real issues about the structural capacity of the joists to carry a "live load" which I had not earlier considered in detail. As a result of that, I have dug up the building survey that I had done when I bought my house in 2014. It contains the following passage, On that note, what experiences do people have with model railway outbuildings?