Denbridge

Read my posts never said anything of the sort!!

Another point to consider. Where is the underground stock for the proposed era going to come from? this would only be achievable through Kit and scratch building. Even a very simple plan as suggested would require a minimum of 2 trains. Is there the skill set/will to build these. And James original plan will require 20 or more sets.

James, the main problems with your design, as I see it are as follows ( lets disregard how much you are trying to cram in). I curves. Off the shelf steam locos simply will not haul the length of trains you require. 2. The helix simply will not work in the area you have. The gradient, combined with the set track curves will cause the same problems as above. 3. Access. There id far too much track under the high level. A potential disaster area, dealing with derailments and maintenance/repairs. 4. there is a disproportionate amount of hidden track feeding a small viewing area. If you were to abandon the low level, you could move the whole terminus back towards the wall of your shed. Getting rid of the through roads also removes a double junction. With only a small amount of redrawing, you can increase the radii of the mainline approach to the terminus, using curved and tandem turnouts, making it all flow better.You may still have some issues with the return loop, bottom right, but since this is in the hidden fiddle yard, there is no requirement for trains to operate at the slower speeds of the scenic area. The other point to note is that some of the fiddle yard roads are too short to be of any use, but that is easily overcome. I honestly feel that these changes would give you a workable, achievable layout.

The point many have been trying to put across is that the plan simply will not work. Off the shelf steam locomotives simply will not haul the kind of trains envisaged on radii this tight, and that is not even considering the impossible helix. If he was going Modern image with Diesels driving on multiple axles he would be in with a shout. but not with steam. And has been said, the lower level is a disaster waiting to happen through access problems alone.

I think I'd have a coronary if I totalled up how much I've spent on this hobby over 40+ years. HaHa. However the main thrust of the various posts isn't to put James off of his ambitious plan, it is to try and convince him that it is effectively unworkable, assuming it ever got built.Off the shelf Steam locomotives, even modified, will simply be unable to pull the kind of trains he wants on radii and gradients he proposes to adopt. I would hate to see him spend so much money on a lame duck.

I can sort of agree, though a reasonable estimate for this layout would be around 3 1/2 to 4 grand for the trackwork alone. Then add the cost of point motors/servos, wiring etc the price is astronomical and the baseboards haven't been factored in. Then IF it was ever built, the amount of stock required to do it any justice would come into the tens of thousands assuming off the shelf products. Even a 2nd hand 12 coach rake of good quality coaches with a good steam loco, say a castle, would be around 250 quid minimum, and more likely double that. so, just 10 mainline trains eats up somewhere between 2500 and 5000 quid and still nowhere near the requirements of this plan.

I have no wish to be negative. I've tried to offer advice based on hard won experience on many layouts, over more than 40 years, mistakes and all. Tight curves and gradients are a show stopper on any layout with mainline pretensions. Access is another. Plus, probably 90% of complicated layouts attempted by solo builders never get finished, usually by virtue of the amount of work, realisation that the design does not work in practice and most importantly the cost factor. There are some very large and successful layouts, but when you study them, they are usually, in essence, basically simple in concept. All on one level, sensible curves etc, etc. Roy Jackson's marvellous Retford is a case in point. Yet even as experienced as Roy is, he had to rebuild one area of this huge layout. Why? Because he had to include some gradients. These were very shallow by most standards, but he had to make them even more gentle to allow his trains to negotiate them and bear in mind most of his loco's are kitbuilt and therefore have better tractive effort than modern RTR.

the helix won't work. Radii will be too tight.

I still feel the lower level is pointless and will cause more problems than it can warrant. Having so much hidden track to serve a very short scenic area is really both a waste of effort and a potential disaster zone. If you were to just concentrate on the upper level, sorting out the design faults, you could potentially have a very good and interesting layout.

Is that 'bit' of the turntable the Pit?

Normally, I'd totally agree regarding rolling stock. However, looking at releases over the last few years, nothing is impossible, however unlikely. the manufacturers and commissioners of models are finding pre group sells well. Though as always any coaches would inevitably be only a representative selection. Usually missing vehicles required to make an authentic rake.

some points you may consider regarding Euston. It would give you a lot of ideas of what is practical if you read through the posts, find the size of the layout and double the measurements. Also of note is his tightest radius, just under the 4mm equivalent of 3' radius. Also, his motive power will all be diesels and electrics, which are always more powerful than steam.

There are currently two LNWR locos available in RTR, both by Bachmann. The Super D and the coal tank. Currently the only rolling stock would have to be sourced from kits. However, by the 1930's the ratio of LNW locos and stock would be very much reduced with much more Derby and Stanier designs handling traffic.

I give up. I forecast that should you follow the path you seem keen on, within a year you'll either opt for something more sensible or there'll be a lot of stuff hitting ebay

You may also consider that, aside from operating limitations, any mainline with curves much under 3' radius looks faintly ridiculous and toy like. Especially with the need to space the lines further apart to set track distances.

The thing that jumped out at me as needing toning down was the coupling loop. Great pics as always though

Congratulations Tony. Richly desrved

The sensible option is to build a sensible layout using decent radius curves and not fill every square inch with track.

My under construction layout has a maximum capacity of 8 coaches. When laying out the design I carried out some tests. On level track none of the RTR GWR 4-6-0's as bought were happy with 8 coaches on a 2' 6" radius curve. All slipped to a greater or lesser degree. On a 3' radius the were all pretty happy, though a couple didn't like starting a stationary train on the curve. This was on level track. I will add weight to mine, but even then I doubt they would be too happy with 10-12 coaches on similar radii. Fortunately for me, most of my loco's are built from kits or scratch and are easily up to pulling big heavy trains.

Ken Northwood built seriously heavy and powerful locomotives. Not a good comparison at all really

having a change of gradient in the short distance between the slip and the crossover is a disaster waiting to happen. This plan is not only too crammed and ambitious it is effectively unworkable. I implore you to set more realistic goals before you shell out 8 grand or more on just baseboards and track to end up with a pig in the poke.

To run the kind of trains you envisage you should be looking at 2'6" as a bare minimum radius and preferably more. This isn't an arbitrary figure but one gained through experience. Too be quite frank though, I would seriously suggest you pull back on your ideas. You are trying to cram far too much in the space you have. Even in a larger area it would be seriously unrealistic for one person to build, let alone to finish and maintain. You could still get a decent version of your concept, but one simplified. It would also look better and more importantly be achievable.

As I said, it is not just gradients. The proposed layout is using tight curvature effectively set track. Most modern RTR loco's will balk at getting long trains round them, even on the level. Again, my under construction layout has the main area on the level, 3' minimum curve max 8 coaches and many RTR struggle to pull a train while on the curves and that is 3' radii. I can get round this by using predominantly my kitbuilt stud, adding weight or rebuilding ready made, and in extreme cases building new chassis. I realise though, that option is not always open to many modellers.

I have a branch on my under construction layout. The maximum length that would be using it is 4 and occasionally 5 coaches. Since part of it is on a curve, I found after experimenting, that i had to run the gradient over 7' in order for RTR GW and Southern 4-6-0's to happily negotiate it. Said branch is only rising 3 1/2 inches and the curve is a tad under 3' radius. Fortunately most of my loco's are heavy kitbuilt, but I also wanted to be able to use a few RTR loco's.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong regarding gradients. Most RTR locomotives struggle on all but the gentlest of grades. Add curves into those grades and they'll simply slide to a hault. 10-12 coach trains would be impossible. In fact, I doubt most would even haul them on the flat with the radii being considered here.