RobinofLoxley

You can get draught excluder fixings for gaps like that. Dont ask me where.... Back to the OP (4 hours ago not 8 years), you dont tell us how much of the garage space the layout takes up, sounds as if it must be free standing. In which case it might be possible to have two sets of garage doors - the outer set have to be centre opening which wouldnt be great for security, but inside it might be possible to have a second set that opens inwards. Depend show often the car has to go inside as to what degree of fitting of the inner doors would be appropriate.

Interesting job but the question is whether two motors or more would foul each other if fitted to back to back or side by side points. Some workshop there, is that a small furnace up the back?

Joseph states that he is going to operate in a very specific way. Of course it has implications for the layout design, because a large multi line multi train layout would be very hard to run this way. My guess is that he is going for long runs through scenery - it could even be a single track line.

One persons complexity is another's simplicity. It depends where your skills lie. I cant see any complexity in motorising a point, but there has to be a reason to do it.

Well, you said that you were going to have a helix going to a fiddle yard I assume below existing track level. Basically the track or tracks leaving the helix are an opportunity. You have thought so far about a fiddle yard, I am just alerting you to the possibility of continuing the track from the helix onwards on its own boards set about 8cm lower than the baseline of the main board level, and slightly in front. Much more complicated from a carpentry perspective and scenery elements are required to link the two levels. You don't have to do anything about it except to think about the provision for it, whatever you decide to do.

It seems to me that if you have a helix bottom right taking the tracks on the left down to a fiddle yard that you will have quite a lot of train storage as the depot already has 7 tracks. Maybe you have a lot of stock already - personally i like to see my stock out on the layout. Given that you are intending to have a helix what is stopping you from having a natural lower track in front of the shown plan - you have good access for it. Could 'disappear' into a tunnel under the station. I also notice that the plan is based on setrack apart from one point. Have you done this because you already have the track? Otherwise I would replan it in streamline to see what happens - there are pros and cons and Im not recommending either one particularly. I did a similar exercise recently and was very surprised with the outcome.

I don't know where to find it (the link) but somebody somewhere put a railway all round the top of the house representing the line from Oban to Glasgow with all stations between modelled. Remember that with automation the relationship between model size and operability has been completely changed. I would also caution you that as someone building a loft layout in a U shape with 8M legs that there has to be a tradeoff between the amount of laid track and the amount and standard of buildings and scenery that can be contemplated over a medium timescale. I've noted that a lot of large layouts one can find aren't even fully ballasted. Large layouts also diverge more from prototypical. But do get creative with the layout plan you owe it to the space. Don't go with Freezer principles designed for a fraction of the space. Just saying

That is an odd plan, even without any indication what lies beyond. Whether its 6" squares on N or 1' on OO, the longest platforms exceed 7 feet. A train that long implies a substantial set of sidings or yard off the visible plan. If the siding at bottom right is really just a headhsunt, as implied by the point set-up bottom left, it doesn't need to be as long as that. I think that the row of houses is far too long, again restricting the track run at the bottom. A terminus with 5 tracks allowing access to and from every platform is always going to be a complicated beast.

Soldering takes a certain amount of practice. Apart from any issue with the temperature of the iron tip, if the solder itself is (relatively) high melting point its much harder to work anyway.

Referring to the above, if you replace the crossing between points 11 and 9 with a single or double slip you would appear to be able to do away with almost everything to the right of the slip. But that wouldnt personally have been my starting point if I was asked how to improve what is basically a good track plan.

Unfortunately in Czech both positive and position translate to words starting with 'poz'. Doesnt happen with all slavic language variants. But since the 'poz' refers to alternatives/switches 1 and 2, aren't they more likely to mean position 1 and position 2, not positive 1 and positive 2?

We can look forward to hearing how the layout was updated in due course

The layout advice made me smile. I nearly appended something to my last post along the lines of "Good job the OP put this question where he did, if he put in layouts and track plans the whole Minories crowd would be on it like a flock of seagulls".

So the best answer to the original question is that since activities inside the loop arent affected by it, leave the loop with the longest track section available which is from the points 5 to 8.

I think the train length only affects any part of the train that draws current/is detectable. So its only the loco unless you have carriages fitted with resistors for example so they can be detected

I was going to say the same thing from a differnt perspective. The two rails actually meet at a slight angle - look at the alignment of the sleepers on each rail adjacent to the join. They need to be parallel, which will happen when the rail ends are the same length. The inner and outer curves dont seem to be maintaining gauge, which if the outside rail is at the 450mm radius, is going to be very difficult; possible if its the inside curve thats at 450. I have no experience with the track clamps but provided you are atempting to maintain the tracks parallel aroud the curve maybe some track gauges would be a good idea. I have found them invaluable but I am working to setrack clearances and I dont know if they are available for other spacings; I would assume you get guages for Peco Streamline which is tighter than setrack.

So this is my first blog post. I returned to the hobby about 5 years ago and built a make-mistakes-and-learn DC layout using mostly the 25 year old track and rolling stock from when the kids and I put track together on the loft floor. The first layout had highs and lows. I built the main station across the centre of the loft and carried the main running lines outside the further of the two A frame structures, both of which resulted in massive access problems and were the main reason I decided to dismantle and rebuild. So that was the lows; the highs were that I got 4 trains in motion at once, two main line and two yard and shunting activities. I had a lot of fun with the electrics. I built up the track base and rolling stock mainly through auction purchases. Just a choice. So at dismantling time I had 12 BR steam locos, either ex GWR or LMS, running through my main station which I imagined as Wolverhampton High Level rebuilt in the 1950’s not the 60’s to justify both kinds of stock running through what would have been purely LMS infrastructure. There aren’t many public domain photos of the old station and from the ones that I could obtain, I had to do some guesswork; as far as I know there still isn’t a Signal Box plan of Wolverhampton published. So I had two island platforms and a through line between, so 5 tracks. Only later I found that actually there were three through platforms plus the through line, what I saw as a continuous run was actually 2 short platforms, probably goods and shed access. But you can’t actually see that from the photos. So the same station plan was transferred to the new track plan mistake and all, and forms the central, through station of a Terminus to Terminus plan with the possibility to run past both, and back to the through station. So it’s a roundy with 2 Terminus stations or an end to end with a roundy bit. I designed it with automation in mind, yes I'm going DCC, based on a free track plan. I will post the layout next time. Below are some general views of my baseboard building in the loft. You get used to all the timberwork in the way, after a while. What I have to do is prefabricate each board section, with several checks of fitting, a bit like a Tailor. Each baseboard sits on blocks screwed to the timberwork frame of the loft. There will be 23 individual sections plus two bridging sections at the chimney end that join the two sides together. I am at board 6 at the moment. I have prewired each board with two buses, and a distributor feed for connecting droppers to the power bus. They will form a daisy chain. I hope no soldering underneath!

Although it isnt what you want to hear I think the majority opinion here would be against using Seeps on a double slip.

Im sure that is true. However a lot of my layout choices have been determined by the structure of my loft, which has A-type frames every 60cm and a space only about 1.5M wide down th centre. My track mostly will run between the two angled struts of the A-frame which are themselves about 60cm apart at the height I am building. In my trackplan I have five signalboxes in logical locations and should be able to develop signalling around those; I should add that I am not looking for a prototypical approach.

Placing and integrating signals is going to be massive challenge for me. One thing at a time however

I am constantly deceiving you as to my level of understanding of blocks and feedbacks

Most likely iTrain.

Yes Ive realised that from looking at the track plan. My project is C 1960 using all steam and therefore I have to plan for loco switching in stations. I have planned for three blocks per track on station lines. Similar in most sidings that are dead end, either 2 or 3 blocks depending on siding length and likely use.

If its already on here I will find it, thanks Alan are we talking Hufeisental, thread from 2015 from your link?

Which as why I was curious as to how Alan manages with 100, as I have the impression the layouts are of comparable size.