Harlequin

Thanks for everyone's insights. The issues are: Compression into a reasonable length for a model (and in fact even as drawn it wouldn't fit into the space available to me). Compromise - how much compromise is acceptable? By moving the goods sidings access out of the runaround loop it makes the sidings much longer than they could otherwise be and allows the layout to be a bit shorter. Here are the critical lengths and positions: The only way I can see to reduce the length further is to reduce the length of the goods sidings, which I really don't want to do (David!). Note that by placing the engine house/signal box beyond the return of the runaround loop it can be pushed close to the running line (instead of close to the loop, as in the prototype) thus shaving 50mm off the width of the baseboards (assuming simple rectangles). Rule 1 applies but I wouldn't be happy if everyone viewing the layout said, "Urgh, what have you done to Moretonhampstead?". In a parallel universe, I can imagine a GWR permanent way engineer turning up at Moretonhampstead station and saying, "What cowboy laid that? He didn't understand the Board of Trade rules properly!" and revising the arrangement. I completely understand the point raised that the diamond crossing is a fundamental aspect of Moretonhampstead. That's why I changed the name of the revised design and why, maybe, the idea isn't feasible at all in the compressed state I'm striving for! Hills: Yes! One the the attractions of Moretonhamsptead is that it is/was set in very open countryside.

I could give you chapter and verse on maths errors and rendering glitches at high zoom factors but, you're right, they're not really such a problem for most people. It's just my personal and professional interest. It is sometimes useful to zoom in very close to make sure things are lined up but you really aren't going to see the glitches in normal use. Since printing at real size involves quite a high zoom factor then, yes, some of these artefacts might become visible but they don't affect the accuracy of the line for track laying. I've found that Adobe Acrobat Reader has a very good tiled printing feature and so for track layout I'd recommend exporting your design as PDF and then printing it from Acrobat Reader. It's quite easy to work out the scale factor needed and the results are very accurate. Note that there are bugs in Acrobat Reader that cause worse printing glitches than the drawing programs sometimes show on screen (urgh, always bugs to be fixed) - but again, they're not really a problem for track laying.

How about a bust of Pallas just above your chamber door? ;-)

The round line ends help to ensure there are no gaps when things are snapped together, which can appear at high zoom factors due to tiny maths errors in the drawing programs. (Er, in Xara Designer, anyway...) But I take your point (haha!) - maybe the snapping positions are still not clear enough in the point templates. I'll have a think.

I was instinctively going to say "no, not suitable" but thinking about it, OSB might be OK. I have used it extensively in the construction of my house and workshop. As you say, it's rigid when fixed to a frame and surprisingly moisture resistant - especially OSB3. I'm not convinced it's lighter than ply when used alone and you'd probably have to use 12mm OSB in place of 9mm ply and support it every 400mm to avoid warping. Regarding the insulated floor panels, why not put the foam side up? That would solve the problem of the rough surface, might remove the need for track underlay entirely and might be a really good surface to model on! OSB does have rough edges that tend to flake with repeated handling so you might have to clad the edges. Having said all that, you can't beat birch ply - it's a really lovely material to work with.

I was looking for a Devon branch line terminus prototype recently and came across Moretonhampstead (which is quite near me, as it happens). I too asked the question, why is the goods yard access arranged that way because it creates some difficulties in a model and that's when I found this topic. Interesting answers, thanks. I've done a bit of doodling, trying to compress and rationalise the station for modelling while retaining it's essential character. The current idea omits the crossover - is that sacrilegious or sensible? What do you think? (Click to enlarge) The buildings are just indicative at this stage. The idea would be to use Peco OO Bullhead track - so large radius points throughout with one of them having to be trimmed slightly to reduce the turnout angle.

Hi Mike, Your top-right corner looks quite similar to something I drew recently: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110147-kings-tawton/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2913648

Thanks Iain. Good questions. I'll do some more when I get time and when I've learnt a bit about the screen recording software. There are lots of ways to get the lines the correct distance apart. The spacing is 51mm (the closest whole number of mms to 2inches) and Peco have arranged things so that any two straight OO Streamline points joined as a crossover will give that spacing. So one way is to get the spacing is to form a crossover, as in the video, and then join tracks to the points. Another way it to draw a guide rectangle, set it's width or height to 51mm then snap lines to it. (Then delete or hide the rect when you're finished). And another way, if you lines are exactly horizontal or vertical is to look at the X or Y position on the page and add or subtract 51mm. For curves, if you know one of the radii then you can draw circles of that radius +/- 51mm as a guideline and then fit the line to it. Or, for compound curves, draw a guide circle of 51mm diameter and drag it along between the two lines, adjusting them as needed to keep the spacing. When radii are small you may have to increase the spacing to ensure that the overhangs of long vehicles will pass each other.

Here is my first attempt at a "mini-tutorial" video: http://youtu.be/Q0R1DjOgUUo?hd=1 I might do more explaining other procedures that I commonly use when drawing up designs.

In a Cakebox? ;-)

Hi Kevin, When/if you've got the time, could you explain some of the design techniques you used to make the layout "photogenic"? I think we need a masterclass if we're going to aspire to your levels of modelling and photography!

Crewlisle is one of the most densely-packed, multi-level layouts out there and fits in a roughly square space (8.5ft by 7.5ft). At best you've got 14ft by 6ft to play with by my estimation, reducing to ~4ft width near the window. That favours a more linear layout and even that will significantly impact on the usable space in your kitchen. I hope that Graham Nicholas is not going to too much effort in creating a track plan for you. Edit: To further explain what I'm saying: It's fine to use layouts like Crewlisle as inspiration for individual elements of your design but no single layout is going to provide a pattern that you can use directly. Furthermore, you've seen just about every possible design now and all the possible elements (circuits, end-to-end, termini, through stations, fiddle yards, sidings, kick-backs, passing loops, crossovers, reversing loops, turntables, etc, etc...) so there's very little to be gained by extracting yet more track plans from people. Measurement to the nearest 5mm would be better and some photos of the room.

A DCC auto-reverser could be wired like this: (The green cross-marks are isolators and the green tracks are powered by the auto-reverser.) We have to assume that the inner and outer roundy-round lines use the same convention for wiring "polarity" and so if you follow one of the rails around either of the reversing loops in this diagram you will see that "plus" would meet "minus". So there is an electrical reversal here and that's why some sort of reversal control is needed. (I know that DCC doesn't have "polarity" or "plus" or "minus" - I'm just using those terms to illustrate the point.) As "34*" said, this is a case where DCC makes life much easier.

If the layout were DCC (which the Grandkids would love because of the sounds and the lights) then an off-the-shelf DCC auto-reverser could probably be used and, if so, that would allow continuous running through the reversing section of track with no manual switching (i.e. just drive the train through any route you want). It is usually recommended that the reversing section is long enough to hold the entire train to avoid the possibility of accidental shorts and that might be tricky to achieve with the designs shown above - but it might be easy. Just needs to be thought about... Edit: I "forgot to use the subjunctive..." ;-)

Hi, A couple of things occur to me: If you abandoned the top fiddle yard beyond the station you would have more scenic room. So you could move the station further to the right, make it a terminus, and so have a longer single track run through countryside. And in fact that would help fix my other slight concern, which is the "kink" in the curvature of the tracks and platforms. (And rationalising down to one fiddle yard might be a good idea, anyway?) What is the purpose of the siding beyond the headshunt? What size are the grid squares?

I take it to mean that every modeller has the right to decide for him/herself where he or she draws the line between making things and buying things. In fact, that could be seen as one of the "Rules", and might be useful in defusing a few arguments!

I found this sage-like quote from C J Freezer recently: I do not subscribe to the theory that it is somehow better for a modelmaker to rely solely on his own resources, making every item in his own workshop [snip]. In pure model engineering, where construction is the object of the exercise and the pleasure lies in the work involved, the idea makes sense, but where, as in a model railway, the question of operation arises, then short cuts via the cheque book or credit card have very considerable validity. "Model Railway Signalling" Page 60.

OK, somebody is going to say it, so it may as well be me, while I'm here: The whole point of the Minories design is that it has two running lines entering it. A single track throat will not be a Minories plan, just a station throat.

Hi Ed, Well, that just raises even bigger questions: Why do you want a layout that you will only visit once every 3 or 4 months? Is that a realistic goal? (I would like to have all sorts of nice things in my life but I know they're not realistic so I don't waste my time or other people's asking how to achieve them.) How will you possibly find the time to build it? It will take decades to get to the stage of having any track laid at this rate! What really is the driving force behind this request-for-help topic? Come on, Ed. Think it through and if you still think it's realistic give us some positive proof that a layout really will get built.

If you're interested, I have created a PDF file containing the actual-size centre-line geometries of all Peco HO/OO Streamline turnouts and crossings with all their product codes here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/?p=2874563 They have all been checked against Peco's downloadable templates and their intended use is for layout design in Illustration software.

Ed, It's been several weeks since I suggested that you do the most basic operation required in designing your layout: Measure the space available. Neither guessing nor estimating from a low-res bitmap are good enough. You haven't posted that basic information here yet so how can we possibly help you? Are you just hoping that someone else's plan will have all the items on your wishlist and will magically fit into your kitchen?

Woah! That's a controversial question! Peco have stated for years that the large radius Streamline points are "60inch nominal radius" but they simply cannot be. All their straight points have the restrictions that they must give 12degrees of turn and 2 inches of spacing if any two points are joined to form a crossover between parallel tracks. According to those rules, if you apply some basic maths you can calculate that the maximum possible radius is 45.76in (i.e. a nominal 48inches) and that would make sense within their range: Small points: 2ft radius (nominal) Medium points: 3ft radius (nominal) Large points: 4ft radius (nominal) I think the quoted "60in nominal radius" is just a silly mistake that they have propagated throughout the years and are unwilling to change now.