RobinofLoxley

You need a lot more room to create enough separation for a lower level. You have to be able to get your hands in, and reach, etc.

The critical questions, firstly, posed by @Harlequin what have you planned for a fiddle yard? Somehow trains need to leave the scene, be exchanged or something, and return. Second, you havnt mentioned scale, or any baggage of old stock being carried. If you havnt allowed space for a fiddle yard you could consider a smaller scale. More difficult and time consuming to construct buildings, and more of them to make, due to the smaller unit size.

No stay alives and no sound locos. A man after my own heart.

Well fwiw I have worked to the original dimensions. My personal cheat was to start from a turnout at the rhs end, not the plain curve (why not) allowing two headshunts to the right of the border - in theory those can be offscene, for example going into a tunnel, although I wouldn't advise. Its already been mentioned that the real issue is that going round the inevitable loop the front end of any train that is going to reverse into any siding so the loco can run straight out again, is going to appear some distance onto the main scene. I have tried to mitigate this firstly using those shunts, which could go to the rh end of the layout in theory, and second, by having sidings where a loco can uncouple from the front of the train and another take all or some of the stock the other way. Some of those shunts are at funny angles using setrack bits. Obviously the entire space could be filled with shorter and shorter sidings but maybe you would like a dockside scene there? I used short turnouts (sl-91 and 92) but they dont save a massive amount of space really. Its an advantage that for DCC operations just the setrack half circle needs a reverser and that's it.

The key dimension is the fit of the R2 curves - dead fit on the originally specified board.

Just a couple of points relating to the above Was going to query if your stock was going to tolerate R1 as makes a big difference having 2 loops possibly, or 1 You have already changed the depth of the plot to fit your plan. Not much point people drawing up plans if you do that. Just saying.

I don't think this fits taking 2nd radius curves as a reference they're right on the limit so only first radius will fit inside

In practice there would be quite a lot of bracing for that but we can pretend it's self supporting for now. Funnily enough a return loop for Minories is a 'Thing' I'm sure a few people have looked at. These things are all dimension critical, a few extra mm here and there can make or break. You didn't specify track code..

Don't want much do you? Is that a single track approach or are there 2 as the other end certainly has 2 😂

Every case is individual. You dont say if the stock is from new or acquired on the second hand market. Some models and indeed whole brands have had specific issues. I am still in the process of switching to DCC although the layout is, some of the stock is unconverted. But all of it runs better on DCC; I have control over the speed range not just belting round at 100% on DC. As Phil says, make of decoder is important, if you bought locos 'fitted' you may need to change some. I use Zimo, and while I may have blown a decoder due to my own mistakes, actually running the locos is brilliant.

One thing that might be useful to increase the individual section lengths within the plan would be to include 3 way turnouts in place of 2 single turnouts in sequence. Below is an example, not a contribution to a track plan, its just an extrapolation from C. It looks to me as if some of the track sections are too short to be useful otherwise; dont know what happened as I 'posted' this yesterday and it promptly disappeared. A nod to @Schooner of this parish who has the knack of using 3-way turnouts in the right locations

OK @schooner this is getting complicated with having to make constant referrals to the many plan versions now littering the last 2 pages of the thread. Firstly I completely understood the freight situation - its been mentioned here many times, I just wondered if you had a grip on how large a goods facility you were specifying by having 4 roads. Imagine that building, complete with classical greek embellishments, astride your layout. On the orientation of turnouts, there are 2 areas we have mentioned, at P1, where I would prefer to have the loco spur separated for aesthetic reasons - that long line looks wrong to me, just a personal opinion, but it does call into question whether P1 is now a regular passenger platform (not in your script) or milk/parcels (which is). For P5, you know how you want the scheme to work in terms of movements, but just looking at the plan as it is, goods arriving to p5 will need the loco to draw up past the turnout so isnt in a position to 'escape' until the rest of the train is moved. It might well be propelling goods into the dock line but if not it will be trapped in some situations. If it is released, its next move can be to shunt something out of the goods depot, which seems a highly likely scenario to me.

I would say that the spur is put on P1 so that it, and the associated facilities that are clearly shown on the original drawing of the plan posted on P123, are at the rear of the model from the viewers perspective. There's room off P3 but that would put the spur at the front of the model. Of course you can put in any number of spurs but it wouldnt be Minories then (ducks fearing incoming)

Well @Schooner how long have you got? Firstly then, how do you envisage the goods depot operating? Without the room to swing a cat between the lines, how does anything get unloaded, and then, where does it go? I also cant devine your intentions to the right of the the Goods Yard where 4 lines run across it. I also dont know what is happening at point A, and may well not need to. On the previous page of the thread, there was some discussion about the orientation of the turnouts at the left end of platform 5. Like @Flying Pig I think they should be the other way around. As a general observation, making a version with two fully operational platforms would definitely alter the balance between the original fast turnround urban terminus concept with no frills, and your more diverse idea which is more of a generalist terminus. You will keep more operations on-scene and have fewer fiddle yard transitions, perhaps.

Work in progress.. I think that extending the loco shunt to be a long multipurpose line, the longest in the plan in fact, doesnt work for me. Better to retain the coaling point as a short spur but have P1 accessed via a turnout. Then do you really want the yard activities in front of the station? Then the biggie - what are you doing offscene? Large fiddleyard?

How were these imgaes created if you dont mind me asking....

Part of the reason is simply good practice, part is the avoidance of risk. Your proposal and the reverse loop 'tutorial' aren't identical. In yours it would be easy to produce unexpected short circuits without some protective measures.

All those curved on the rh end of the station need to be replaced with flexitrack sections to smooth them out and reduce the platform curvature, which leads to large gaps being needed to accommodate the overhang of coaches. Combined with the use of appropriate gauges you should be able to maintain parallel tracks in that area.

Not like that. The module is wired to opposite ends of the same loop as you have it. Switching occurs between a section where the power doesn't need to be switched such as the station section and one that does, i.e. a loop There is a requirement for insulating joiners on the four turnouts and individual power droppers as well if DCC is used One or two suggestions about the track plan might be forthcoming too

Diesels that have four wheel bogies will probably get round but six wheels where the centre set has to displace relative to the end wheels might not. It depends how much movement they have. This is what you have experienced. So steam locos beyond 0-4-0 might be risky for the same reason. The derailment happens when the wheels can't move in line with the track and just climb out. If you had space to insert even quite short sections of straight track in between the curves the situation would be improved a lot. Applies to both loops.

In case you hadn't noticed there was a bit of a thread in the scale specific section -2.5mm, some waffle about 'majories'

One thing if you watch Charlie bishop on utube with the graphite block is that he rubs about 200 times too much on a small area and then says - look at all the dust. Ditto with a very worn track rubber. Science it isnt

To operate a loco on a track requires a source of motive power and a signal to guide the source. The signal can be carried by wire or not, or a mixture. So you have certain options that will always be there. Cost and reliability will be important but also legacy. Thinking a certain solution is going to be simple robust and cheap is likely to be wishful thinking. Batteries are a good example. A lot of people have recently fitted stay alive in the form of capacitors to keep locos running over dead spots and I can see a rechargeable battery onboard doing a better job, but being charged through the track. Can you imagine running an exhibition layout on rechargeable batteries?? (Only)

Can you spray this or do you brush it on. I wondered what the result would be if you put a brushed overcoat onto a standard 80gm copy paper inkjet printed. I have used spray varnish exactly as per this thread but I'm not satisfied with the results

In any open marketplace there will always be competing systems. Cant get in a stress about this, or even care about it.