Denbridge

And 18" equates to 36" in OO

Phil, nice work. Hopefully James will now realise why the Helix won't work. James, You have made great strides with improving what has the potential to be a good design. If you now realise the Helix won't work, you have the potential to make it even better.

Depends a lot on the Era and the time of year. In the mid 30's some summer trains would load to 15 coaches

I've been building a couple of SE finecast chassis recently. Both 'Chad' and Iain Rice appeared on etches. I must have sub consciously linked them. My apologies.

I still have shudders thinking about some of the Jidenco monstrosities I've built. Nowadays I'm fortunate. If I need a set of frames I can machine exactly what I want on the Mill

As you will note, I have moved the engine shed to the far corner of the layout. I was concerned about reach/access distances, but, by altering the station throat layout and moving the lower level station back, I have been able to achieve the recommended 900mm front to back reach distance in the engine shed area. This has allowed for a slightly larger engine shed and one with more direct access to the station throat without conflicting with the carriage sidings. How do you address reaching the furthest tracks at the terminus end? Especially once platforms, canopies Lamposts etc are in place, you risk a demolition job just doing track cleaning (which can't be reliant on track cleaning gizmo's. Track at terminal ends gets more dirty, simply because there is less movement on it) And no matter how well laid the track is, you will get derailments. 400+mm is a hell of a REACH. As you will note, I have moved the engine shed to the far corner of the layout. I was concerned about reach/access distances, but, by altering the station throat layout and moving the lower level station back, I have been able to achieve the recommended 900mm front to back reach distance in the engine shed area. This has allowed for a slightly larger engine shed and one with more direct access to the station throat without conflicting with the carriage sidings.

I've just looked at the etches for a finecast 'P'. Those are by 'Chad' and they have "Modeltec for SE Finecast" on the etches. Hope that helps to clarify the Designer.

From the way you describe it, those are inexcusable design errors, seems even the fundamental dimensions are wrong.

Endoscopic cameras You'd certainly get some great views. I believe they are even available for mobile phones. I doubt the quality is great though.

Isn't 'Chad' Iain Rice? I didn't realise he'd passed away

The redrawn plan is certainly a great improvement, but aside from other issues, you still have the impossible helix. The gradient to get it under the terminus on the first level drop will be impossibly steep, combined with a radius that is far too tight, no amount of weight and powerbase magnets will help. In the space you have available, I just don't see how you can ever make this aspect work. Another point that may be worth considering is motor and drive train wear. Modern models are notoriously fickle. a trawl of the internet will show hundreds of tales of woe. You may well be asking too much of the models you buy, with expensive consequences.

I mentioned in a previous post that I have a gradient on my Branch. Though my kitbuilt locos manage this with ease, purely out of interest, I yesterday ordered a pack from powerbase which I'm going to install. Once laid, I'll post some comparisons with off the shelf locos with and without magnets. From some of the feedback i've read around the internet, it may or may not be as good as claimed by the manufacturer. Regarding timescales, turnout count is not in anyway a reliable form of measurement. There are far more aspects to building a layout than laying points. Laying cork (or whatever) and creating a perfect roadbed is time consuming. Laying plain track can take a surprising amount of time if you want to get it right, then there is ballasting, now THAT takes forever to do a proper job. The list goes on. though in the case of Kings X the build time also includes rebuilding and improvements.

I've not built a flatiron, but your experience surprises me. I've always found finecast etched chassis to be excellent. Though I guess every range will have a black sheep.

There is actually a fair bit of scenery. Yes it is track heavy in the Terminus and yards, but a fair bit of scenery on the layout as a whole. It also has a lot of operational interest. Suggest you look at the full thread and the dozens of videos. Not my cup of tea, but the design and construction is impressive.

That extra 3' makes all the difference There are also a load of videos on YouTube. I've been following this layout with interest for some time. Points to be noted as potentially helpful is that his minimum radius (apart from the Moorgate loops under Kings X appear to be between 2'6" and 3' certainly on the main running lines. His gradients are fairly shallow, using the length to achieve them, mainly avoiding them on curves. He runs trains of up to around 8 coaches, at least, with steam very successfully. A great layout

Hi James. I know you think that I am being deliberately critical, but I'm not. I'm simply trying to help with what is achievable. Your shed problem is not the length, you have plenty of that, it is the width. you have a bit under 9' width which most would consider tight for a main line layout (10+coaches)with 180 degree curves. In the same space, you are trying to cram in not 1, but 2, 180 degree curves at the RH side of your plan. I'm sorry if you think I'm being anti, but i firmly beleive you are trying to square the impossible circle by trying to get a quart in a pint pot.

I'm extremely happy that SE Finecast/Branch lines have taken on the Nu-cast range. I built many of their kits over the years and, though clearly dated, I invariably found them a good starting point to a reasonable model. Judging by the pictures of the released and updated 2021 pannier tank they look set to be significantly improved. I'm heading over to see Dave once the weather improves to buy a pannier .

Interesting that CJF keeps coming up. What isn't picked up is that most of his plans were designed around trains of only 4, maybe 5, coaches

Congratulations to the CF team on your well deserved award. I've watched this grow since the earliest days, both at shows and in the modelling press. A layout that just gets better and better. Well Done

regarding servos. I use the megapoints boards, only three wires from the panel to the 1st servo board, 3 to the next, etc. each board controls 12 servos. He also does frog switching boards, but I use microswitches. As a guide to time, I installed 6 yesterday in a little over 1 and half hours, working underneath the layout. Including wiring the frogs. Check out his website.

A suggestion I would make is to look at forums for USA layouts where double deck and indeed triple deck are common place. You will find that most have at least 2' of separation between levels to allow for access and maintenance.Also, usually the upper deck is generally considerably narrower to enable access to the rear of the boards. You will find some good advice on forums like these. Also I've seen some multi level layouts on Continental forums, which seem to have a similar ethos to the americans, but for me at least there is the language barrier on those.

For what it's worth, the temporary curve I've laid is a 45 degree at around 22 inch radius with a straight ever side. the test rake is 12 Hornby latest colletts which are very free running. So far I've tried 5 off the shelf modern generation steam loco's as follows 1. Bachmann Hall. At a scale speed as would be approaching a Terminus (A) managed 7 before slipping.At Toy Train Speeds, say a scale 90mph (B) managed 10 2. Hornby Castle (A) 10 (B)12 3. Hornby S15 (A) 8 (B) 10 4. Hornby Hall (A) 7 (B) 9 5. Hornby N15 (A)9 (B) 11 Also an old Airfix tender drive with the horrid mechanism awaiting rebuilding managed all 12 in both cases. On the layout proper, the tightest curve is into the goods reception at around 32" (just measured) All loco's managed 10 at scale speed, the S15 and Castle all 12.

If you have read this thread, I HAVE justified my claims using my under construction layout to carry out tests. I have also said I'm laying a temporary curve to carry out further tests, though that seems a waste of time. So don't criticise AND SLAG ME OFF WITHOUT BEING INFORMED. THE ONES WHO NEED CENSORING ARE THOSE ENCOURAGING WITH NO PROPER EXPERIENCE OF THE PITFALLS . Usually the whole point of asking for advice is to avoid making the mistakes others have made. I can assure you, I've made some howlers in 40+ years of building model railways, so i'm speaking from experience, some of it, in my younger days, frankly heartbreaking to waste so much effort.

Fair enough James. You ask for advice from people, yet when you receive it, you decide to ignore it. Several extremely experienced modellers have tried to guide you, but you insist you can do it. I wish you all the luck in the world, though sadly I firmly believe you are heading for a very big (and expensive) disappointment.

The old tender drive mechs are certainly more sure footed. But did you run these at say a scale 20mph as would be the case leaving and entering a terminus? As an experiment, I'm currently laying a temporary curve of the tightest radius that will fit on a virgin piece of baseboard to test the (relatively few) Modern rtr steam loco's to see how they perform. I'll let you know.