RobinofLoxley

you misunderstood me... the point is that while a dmu might get round the proposed layout, nothing else would

The actual space requirement for what was originally drafted, plus the loop section mentioned, is approx 2.6M by 1.6M. Ignoring any issues of layout planning and concept for the moment, does the OP realise this size is already too much for a single baseboard, and unless there is access to all four sides, there will be areas that will be very hard to reach. The loop would have to be completed using three curved turnouts each side if the four roads each side are to be utilised. After that I would add that WCML stock wont get round it except for the odd 2-car dmu. There are a number of first radius track elements included in the plan that cant be used. So if this is the size available, the question is what would fit on it. The width dimension of 1.6M is tricky because it really needs an access area/operating well in the middle. Below is a layout suggestion that illustrates what is possible, call it size and style only. Its from another thread, and it may even have been a steam era thing. Gives about 800mm platform length, could be longer.

Cockfosters also has three platforms and as I mentioned before, the central platform was often worked as rhs (looking from the ticket office) out lhs in at busy times. Of course the depot tracks cross the running lines and Ive no memory of the pattern for that; I dont recall a crossover arrangement like Morden for the operating lines.

It sounds to me as though a twin track approach is needed. A basic layout to get all the stuff running and get used to the quirks of modern RTR, DCC electrics, etc, plus a shunting plank (I have an oak laminate floorboard) to build something more exacting.

I suggest moving this to layout and track design.

This is as I was 6 years ago. I built a layout in the space I had, which is a loft, using track and stock from when the kids and I used to set up on the floor and run trains. Old point motors. It was a bit of a diversion, apart from some coaches I would have been better off starting from scratch, looking back on it. Building a fully DCC layout now.

Thank you. There are none drawn on the @RCP design but I assume they show on the template its based on. Its a thing with the chosen size that its just on the boundary where a central well starts to become an option, whereas on 6x4 it cant really be done.

Personally the only time I used a Y was at the entrance to a 2-road shed where it looked appropriate. You can convince yourself something looks OK when you built it yourself! The other thing about using a mix of setrack and streamline is that setrack is designed to run on a separation of 67mm or thereabouts whereas Streamline runs on 50mm which is more scale appopriate. However, as @The Johnster has pointed out, its hard to curve flexi to R3 or less, much better to use the right setrack curves and make the necessary adjustments using very short pieces of cut rail to increase the separation slightly where Streamline has been used. A particular example would be a cross-over of 2 streamline turnouts. I am 100% with @Nearholmer on using an interior space for operating even if its a bit tight - better to feel inside the layout. To get an example of this I have just cut down an existing plan I did on another thread. Using some setrack turnouts. By no means perfect as its hard in Anyrail to get the bespoke curves exactly as you want them. A first radius curve has sneaked in, but as it sits between two seconds the impact isnt felt. It fits the original space, but is intended to split lengthways. The coloured section is the location of a possible lift out section - it looks small but at thigh level most people dont need that much space to sneak through. The lift out would make the baseboards in 3 sections of course.

Just checking... there was a mention of eves (eaves) usually means roof space - those boards work OK? The Y turnouts look really awful on the plan. Usually tracks run parallel, even on small track plans. I dont think Y turnouts even exist on the real railways ?? Dont design a track plan to use whats in your box. A mixture of turnout specs isnt the best idea though it will work, of course. Depends what you are running but you might have a bit of trouble getting stuff through the St245 - SL-97 crossover.

Yes I winged that one it is 3 dB not two; however a reduction of 10 dB is a reduction of 90percent. My impression of cork Vs neoprene was night Vs day

Decibels are a log scale. Noise doubles every 2 dB. But both values are very low.

It's isn't in itself stretchy however the backing tape, once the release paper is peeled off, is. So stretch becomes a problem - I used to get annoying gaps caused by it. Maybe faulty technique was involved. I would have done better without the tape gluing track sections to it but the ballasting result was really good I have to say. I wasn't impressed at all with the commercial offerings hence what I did - I bought 30cm wide rolls of it. I had a lot of track!! Direct from the supplier RH Nuttall.

Absolutely correct wet haddock and all. My new layout with its folded dumbbell configuration has straight-ish runs of about 18 feet, total length of each dumbbell arm is about 22 feet including curves, but stations take up almost half the available length in order for the platforms to be longer than 5 mk1's plus a King or Duchess. At this length they look proportional on the layout. The through station can take 7 Pullman's and a 'preserved' A4 but it looks very oversized on the forced curves at each end (before I put in any view blockers). Pete Waterman's Avanti stock looked proportional in the cathedral with a 60' run. 8 cars but they are long. Was there last week.

On my previous layout I used 5mm closed cell neoprene sheet with one side having sticky back tape on it. I ballasted the sticky side having stuck the track to it. The foam was tricky to use, probably easier without the tape in fact. For noise suppression it was extremely effective. Probably very good for component life on the locos too. But for the second layout I switched to a 2mm foam of a different kind that was easier to handle and gave adequate noise suppression. Ask if you want supplier details.

Lol David. I have the full version but I dont need to join up the dots illustrating a point of principle, namley there was enough space to connect the two sections. The question mark is just a siding, so that a train running round to one of the left hand sidings can shunt back into it to release the loco. There's plenty of room to vary the Minories as you point out, I thought it was sufficient to show that it fits, and there are options associated with it such as platform length. The OP talked about 1920's so shorter stock and locos, quite ideal for it as drawn. Actually I cropped the original myself, by mistake. But the dots have been connected.

You see the colour difference. I painted everything even the frogs. If I use a rubber on the track the colour is then the same.

I'm not convinced those storage lines under the helix really work. I know the stock is smaller, your fingers might be thicker..

Had you posted this as a query I could have given you some pointers. I completely agree they need painting; I experimented off-layout, first i used Revell 94 gold which was a good match to my code 100 track quite a bit of which is old and its more 'yellow' than the newer stuff. It looked perfect on polished track but once the track had dulled a bit the gold looked a bit too bright. Adding some railmatch 294 silver to the gold was better. Eventually I will make a batch large enough to do every turnout but Im not ready to do that yet.

I can see it now 'Tonbridge West Revisited' In this particular case, it might be possible for the door access to double as access to the back of an extensive goods yard, which is what Tonbridge West is..

The original wasnt at all practical in my opinion. The helices take up so much of the upper level space there isnt much operating room left. On the lower level most of the space isnt totally visible to an operator due to the level above it. I think thats a plan that should be buried. Taking the remaining 4 x 2.4 space, you can think about 80cm depth of baseboard in some areas but for operating there must be a decent space left, so in some areas the baseboard width will need to be 60cm to allow 1.2M x 1.4M to sit in. If you want some storage you can go up or down from the main level; how much clearance is required depends on the width of that storage, and how much intrusion into the visual impressions from the main level that you are prepeared to tolerate.

It may inspire or not but there's an exhibition layout of tonbridge west https://www.keymodelworld.com/article/tonbridge-west-yard-oo-gauge-model-railway

Based on what you have drawn getting into the helices is a non starter never mind the dodgy knees. What are the garage dimensions? Modern image meaning currently operating stock or slightly older?

My opinion relating to Minories type layouts is that the terminus is great but its what happens at the opposite end that is tricky; most Minories themed layouts finish up with a lot of on scene additions because the basic premise is quite limited and requires a traverser or cassettes etc. The low level station as drawn is really a BLT - take away a platform, add a run-around; with three options from the fan of sidings as shown though one could lead out to a cassette etc. So I wondered if it was possible to connect the two parts of the plan so that the Minories part could share some sidings with the loop part. I know that the original concept has essentially 2 railway companies and basically I'm playing with an idea here. I'm not sure if 5cm is enough separation for N but I wanted to establish that the gradients were do-able, which at less than 2% everywhere, they seem to be. I'm very familiar with the location btw. The track I have doodled is a bit grim being full of tight curve warnings - these can be ironed out, I was bodging a mix of codes. What was essential was to have the two slips so that a train leaving the station, which is pure Minories, can run into a siding and the coaches be reversed into the long siding on the right to free the loco. There no loco turning shown yet. The train could run round, although thats not the point. Its a long way from the original but before any track has been laid theres no harm in speculation... (Anyrail has removed some track on the RHS but I hope its clear enough as it is)

Bit of a hiatus in my layout construction but the constrained setting, a loft with many a frames has resulted in everything being on scene or will be when finished. I will have those miniplatforms etc for the carriage sidings.

Grim. No slips at least not in my version of anyrail