Keith Addenbrooke

23 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The run round would also allow the branch passenger set to run round without bothering the station pilot, so it serves another useful function.

That’s how it looked to me - I think the run round is just about long enough for a two coach train (with a tank engine that fits the secondary station and generates minimum sideswipe as it runs round).

It does very much like a CJF system (a high compliment)

43 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

 

Well here is my first try at something that I think may be of use.

 

The top section with the red tracks is the fiddle yard behind a backscene and the single track station. At the other end is CJF's best, Minories with a couple of extra sidings to make goods trains between the three places possible.

Hi Chris, I had to count the squares to check it’s only 16’ long - always a good sign if a layout looks bigger than it is.

I like the way you’ve added a engine release crossover to Platform 3 at Minories, making it more like a bay to serve the secondary station - I know there are no crossovers in the original theory, but I think balancing the facilities like this could makes the whole system work more coherently.  

I also like the way that angling Minories opens up the possibilities on the right hand side, something else I’d not thought of.

Keith.

9 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

The station facing Minories, "through the looklng glass" as it were, has a different set of problems to solve (assuming it's also double-track).

 

For instance the inbound track will naturally turn to be closest to the platforms. (In Minories the outbound track is closest to the platforms, of course). This is a problem for parallel running because all outbound trains will have to cross the inbound track.

 

So a design with similarly fiendish simplicity will be needed, and it should be called

Seironim

 

So I googled Seironim to see what it means, before I realised...

24 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

I like the idea of having the two stations and one or two fiddle yards. Personally I would do Minories as one of the stations and then have a single track station in front of the Fiddle Yard with the junction in full view. I think a double track line from Minories to Fiddle Yard with the branch to the second station being single track. I am going to have a play with AnyRail and see what I come up with. I may be a while!

Nice idea - I’m afraid I don’t know anything about the railways around London to know what an outer station feeding a commuter terminal like Minories would look like, so I’ll be interested to see what you come up with (of course, it doesn’t have to be London).

26 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

This is the kind of junction I was thinking of.

Basically a 4' hidden section between the two stations.

 

If nothing else it provides shunting necks that don't run from one terminus to the other, though if two people are operating then clearly there's collision potential.

 

It's not really a specific Minories thing though, you could do it with any two track termini. In fact one could be single track, in which case this would be a bit shorter.

 

It's something I'd consider if I had the space and wanted to build a terminal station, as I tend to think of a FY as a bit of a waste of space for a home/ single operator layout, as you'd be at risk of spending most of the time fiddling, which isn't my idea of fun.

A neat and elegant solution (much tidier than my suggestions).  Simultaneous movement is easy as long as one train is going right to left, station to station, and viewers would have no idea there are additional hidden sidings behind the stations.

I suppose you could further fool the punters by extending the kickback siding from Minories in front of this hidden section into some kind of industry / quayside feature (popular with CJF), so there’s a second reason for the extended hidden section (distracting attention from the junction reason).  Just a thought.

Keith

7 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

No, because you can keep the Minories part as originally designed, and off stage you have the option of running to the cassette/ fiddle track or the other station.

Got it - which is why it needs a bit more space.  My first thought was that it would like two junctions next to each other, but if I’m following the thinking, would it be as if there was a junction a couple of miles down the line, but the mileage in between has been eliminated (and hidden)?

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Does this count as a Minories?

I've taken @Keith Addenbrooke's American passenger idea and developed it into this:

Clearly you're not folding this in half...

 

The idea is that Tracks 1 and 2 are where the trains run to/ from, and then a local station switcher (no idea what the correct terminology is, but a station pilot in UK terminology) takes the train and sorts it out ready for departure in PCSTs A&B. Train engines retire to the engine terminal, where if they're single-ended and need it there could be an off-scene turntable, or they could run round the loop to simulate turning on the wye. The balloon loops are Peco R3 and R4, which most modern US stock should be fine with (generally they say 18" radius on the box, but I only own a single passenger car, so I don't really know about those). The two balloons are where the trains would wait until they're needed next, you wouldn't really need a lot of stock to operate this as the main action would be breaking down and reforming the trains with the baggage car at the head etc. I suppose if there really is a wye then the whole exercise is a bit pointless as they'd just take the train round it, but let's just brush that one aside.

 

Most switches are #6s, there's a Y and a #5 in the engine terminal area, but I didn't really design that bit, just plonked some track down to represent where it would be.

I think there could be a pinch point where the Westbound and Eastbound Main lines become one?  I’m not sure if there’s a way of avoiding that while retaining the drill track (which is a good idea for switching full rakes of passenger cars), unless you add a third line to the Eastbound approach (on the outside, which becomes the Drill Track), so the Main Eastbound Line is still double track?
 

I had a look at a Wye and I think it came out at 6’ sq. with a sensible radius, and that was before adding the requisite train length beyond it to make it useful - which is now moving towards Basement Empire territory.

2 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

If doing that kind of thing then I'd just have a larger hidden bit so the junctions can be fully hidden.

Fair point, although it could be argued that would be a further departure from the spirit of the Minories concept?

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'd say not, simply because trains cannot depart from 2 and 3 for A without running wrong line.

Ah! You‘ve got me - quite right.

I've had a quick look at some options for the "Second Terminus" and "Hidden Fiddle Yard" option.  I've tried to adhere to Harlequin's description of the essential elements of a Minories as best I can, while seeing what extra operation I can get, with minimal adjustments  (all doodles in Anyrail):

Fig 1: adding a Second Terminus: "Suburban Station":

(Sorry, pictures no longer available)

I've cut short the platforms, but tried to have the same operation at the Second Station (it uses a single slip in the entry throat for convenience and variety):

1.  Trains can arrive or depart from either Platform (here called 4 or 5 to avoid confusion)

2.  A loco stabling point is included for the same kind of operation, and so rakes of coaches don't have to be shunted out of the platforms at either station, as noted in earlier posts today. 

I should have moved the Scenic Break a bit to the right so light engines at Minories can move from the Loco siding to Platforms 2 and 3 without appearing at the second station, sorry. 

A Suburban Service can be operated, although for simultaneous train movements there are limitations - running a Down Service from Minories Platform 2 or 3 while running and Up Service from Suburban Station Platform 4 is difficult other than using single or possibly 2-car DMU's, and at very low speed.  I'd expect both trains to need to stop for the signals to clear and route be reset.

Fig 2:  Adding a hidden Cassette Fiddle Yard A behind the Suburban Station:

(Sorry, pictures no longer available)

Inserting a single slip at the entrance to Minories means I don't introduce any new Reverse Curves at Minories, and it is a trailing point for Up trains, but every train movement between the Fiddle Yard Cassette A and any Platform at Minories uses the Up line at some point, which basically rules out any simultaneous train movements if the Fiddle Yard is 'in play.'

Fig 3:  Double Junction

(Sorry, pictures no longer available)

Using a second single slip means Down Trains can depart from Minories Platform 1 for the Fiddle Yard Cassette A while an Up Train comes from either platform 4 or 5 at the Suburban Station towards Minories, where it could be signalled into Platforms 2 or 3.

I would suggest that this has now introduced additional operating options and flexibility, but there are now four lines out of Minories.

Fig 4: Double Fiddle Yard

(Sorry, pictures no longer available)

Adding Fiddle Yard Cassette B behind Minories takes the idea further.  A double scenic break is now suggested (probably a town scene).  I can now run a Down Train from Fiddle Yard Cassette B to Suburban Station Platform 4 while running an Up train from Suburban Station Platform 5 to any one of the three Platforms at Minories.

Or: a Down Train can run from Minories Platform 1 to Fiddle Yard Cassette A while running an Up Train from either Platform 4 or 5 at the Suburban Station to Minories Platforms 2 or 3.

With a bit more space between the stations and some careful planning, it could be made to look as if a train taking the branch lines ought to reappear at the other station.

As an exhibition layout it could be quite entertaining - but I'd stick to single Cassette Fiddle yards to keep "off-stage" action to a minimum, and I'd want multiple operators, even though it's still a small layout by exhibition standards.

A further line could complete the X by joining Fiddle Yards A and B so a train could depart, reverse, wait, then reappear at the other station without handling, but there's a risk that too much of the operators' attention gets taken backstage.

Is this still Minories?  Although I have introduced slip switches into the station design, I think most other requirements remain unchanged: routing through the parallelogram and simultaneous operation (with limitations) remains.  Keith. 

5 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

You could get almost as much added "play value" by just adding one fiddle yard, even just a single cassette, behind one station. 

A common feature in American model railroads is to do just that, pretending the cassette represents another railroad that interchanges with your principal line - it means there’s no need to try and hide the junction with the track going offstage.

It adds variety and play value, exactly as you say.

14 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Why so?

 

Mike.

A key thing is whether you want to retain the capability* of Minories for simultaneous arrivals and departures.  I have a series of doodles that explores this, which I can hopefully post later.  If that capability is desirable, it will impose a minimum limit on tracks.

* I suppose that gets to the heart of the philosophy behind this thread: what does the Theory of General Minories require? (Could discuss, would rather draw).

In terms of well known model railways that have this kind of operation - but don’t necessarily owe anything to Minories, Bradfield Gloucester Square springs to mind: Station to Sector plate, Station to carriage sidings (in front of sector plate) and reversing from the sector plate back into the fiddle sidings.

Keith.

Hi Pete, from the photo it looks like you’ve got a good inventory of Streamline track and points (and some track spacing gauges) ready to get off to a flying start when you get home, as well as some boards just waiting to be built on.

From the photo and the draft plan, it looks like an engine shed scene / Motive Power Depot may also be something you’re interested in - there are some great layouts where that’s either the main focus or a key element if you want to go down that route (and there’ll be folk around who can help design one to fit your GW / mixed steam-diesel preference - NB: I’m not one of them).

Three things I hope may be helpful if I can pass them on:

1. Don’t worry -  the people on the Forum are enthusiasts who want to see you enjoy the hobby - as well as knowing loads about the subject.  There’s some good advice in the posts above already for example.
 

2.  When it comes to planning, I’d really support the view that “less is more.”  Having a simpler plan with room to breathe (ie: making good use of Streamline track), can be the key to sustaining interest throughout the build phase and afterwards - from what you say, you want this layout to last.  It looks like you’re already set up to build a nice layout - building something that may look less convoluted on paper may turn out to be more enjoyable too, and bring the day when trains are running a bit nearer.

3.  Keep that fridge / freezer well-stocked with suitable refreshments when you get home.  Have fun, Keith.

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

I really do like Mr Beet’s terminus!

 

Very “operable”, and uses the space to the maximum. Looks like the sort of thing for clockwork locos to me, so that little kickback might be a ‘winding bay’ for a turnover engine.

 

Before I largely gave-up on garden railways because it always seemed to be dark and raining when I got time to play trains, I schemed-out a mobile terminus to go on the lawn myself. The idea was something akin to a very low market-stall barrow, which could be put away in the garage, and would have track at a suitable height to mate with my fixed garden line, which is on a wall around a flower-bed, about 18” higher than the grass.

 

 

I did wonder if lessons with Mr. Beet might begin and end with a platoon of students either side lifting and carrying the station to and from wherever it was stored - the board looks fairly solid?

I suppose a 'winding bay' could be seen as the early equivalent of a DCC programming track. Plus ca change...

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Obviously it does work with right hand running as all tracks can get to all other tracks, but it's it optimised, or would it be better mirrored?

I did wonder about this but, as my added schematic now explains, I’ve actually assumed bi-directional running on each entry / exit track (one the Eastbound leg of the large Wye, the other the Westbound).  To stay within the 1’ width for the track I didn’t show them diverging on stage - this will also help with the fiddle yard as they come in together.

As this is a theoretical exercise, I confess I liked the way I can compare this treatment of Minories directly with others on this thread by keeping it the same way round - I may have missed any earlier in the thread that point the other way (radical!).
 

I’ve kept the longer Track 1 for mainline trains next to the Station building, which also seemed to make sense.  The Commissary Track is next to Track 1 as there’s no raised platform, and it’s assumed with my shortie trains that that bit of Track 1 is where the head end cars are spotted, so passengers aren’t getting on to Track 1 trains there.  I didn’t put in a train shed, although it would be worth trying out a cardboard mock up to see if it helped disguise the length of the trains - I think I prefer to see all the cars, esp. if I have an observation car at the end of the train made up with a very mixed consist.

My main reservation about Minories (from a couple of pages back) is that the platforms seem to point away from the tunnel - this no longer applies when I take out the high-level platform, which is one reason this appeals to me.

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

 

For an exhibition layout I think it's fine to use tricks like missing out the final crossover but for a home layout I want to operate it fully. I've looked at a few single track throats and this O gauge one by an E.A. Beet* from MRN in 1947 was quite appealing. particularly if the bays are lengthened. I'm not sure what the kick back siding from the upper bay was for.

 

To retain operational capability, an option might be to have the scenic divide (I’m thinking a bridge) across the middle of the throat, so the first crossover (looking at a plan left to right) is on the scenic station side and the second (which is most likely still visible under the bridge) is actually in the fiddle yard.  This one pair of crossovers then has to serve both the station and fiddle yard tracks.  I guess it would need bi-directional signalling for both tracks for it to work?  Not sure if it would be as much fun in the long run?

Interesting photo - looks to me like the kickback was used as a loco stabling point, perhaps for a station pilot to work the bay platforms?  The kickback Good Sidings could be shunted from the loop, so Beet has two types of station in one (either side of the central platform).  For educational purposes this may have been intentional, I guess.

On 10/06/2020 at 08:42, Zomboid said:

Interesting idea. I'm not sure how such things were operated, but I'd expect most trains would arrive and be taken away for servicing by a switcher. If you're representing transcontinental trains then a turntable or return loop is probably necessary unless you want to spend the whole time handling your passenger cars, as the baggage cars were always on the front and the observation cars at the rear, and they along with single F units need turning. These days of course they actually use balloon loops and wyes to reverse the whole train (check out Miami Amtrak on Google earth, you'd get laughed out of the exhibition if you showed up with a model like that).

 

Obviously it does work with right hand running as all tracks can get to all other tracks, but it's it optimised, or would it be better mirrored?

 

But you could authentically run very short trains. I'm sure I've seen things like an Alco PA, a baggage car and a single coach forming some kind of passenger train.

Hi Zomboid, thanks for the replies - the photo is perfect: exactly the right train for this layout, both in terms of length and mixture of cars.  To explain my comments on operation better I should have included a schematic as well.

I have assumed all long-distance trains back in, having gone past a large Wye before reversing into the station.  Head end cars therefore are always at the front and can be switched out and engines are always pointing the right way - depending on the size of fiddle yard, there would be scope for switchers to pull out complete consists to go to the coach yard for cleaning between turns as well as switching operations on stage. I didn’t plan a fiddle yard, but it should work with engine cassettes so motive power can be swapped around, but part of the efficiency of operating this model is that I don’t need to turn stock or engines.  But it’s also why the kickback wouldn’t work other than as a stabling point - engines should never get beyond the cars.

As I understand it, trains backing in would have a brakeman on the rear platform with a valve operated extension to the brake hose.  I need an HO scale figure in position to make this look plausible - who’d then need to get off before a train departed.
 

With all trains backing in, track laying would need to be well above my usual standard though!

While I don't need a Minories, the positioning of Pacific231G's French Station building gave me an idea for a US Minories using the Walther's Union Station Building.  Using Peco Code 83 Track I can get the throat into a 4' length and the whole plan onto an 8' x 1' board, though I've kept a 2' board width to include the Station Terminal.

Assuming 12" for an 85' Passenger Car and slightly less for an engine, then Track 1 ideally needs to be 5' long, for 4-car + Engine Trains.  Buffer locking disappears, though throw over is a problem with such long cars, but I'd need an extra foot in length to go to #8 switches even if just for the 'back-to-back' right hand switches.  Sticking with #6 switches for the station throat I can just about fit it all into 8' if I trim 0.75" off my end pieces (making Track 1, which is for Transcontinental named trains 59.25" long - if I have a single F7 as my power I should be OK).

Track 2 is for local and commuter trains, while head end baggage and mail cars are switched out to Track 3.  I have swapped the Engine Track over to the kickback, as I couldn't figure out how to switch the head end cars if I put the REA or Mail station there.

This gives me room for a Commissary to service dining cars and Pullmans to add to the operation.  There is no freight traffic - this is a downtown Union Station.  If I imagine it as a stub-end terminal where long-distance trains back in under the watchful eye of a brakeman then I don't have the problem of engines getting trapped, even if it will look unusual to my UK eyes.

I could be tempted.

Keith.

2 hours ago, sb67 said:

 

It's strange, putting it next to the greenhouse it looks massive! 

 

I think the brick hut is just a bit too big to go near the entrance, there's not a lot of room for anything to drive in.

All goes to show how well you’ve created the illusion of space on the model - we’re all looking at it and thinking there’s more space than there actually is.  Knowing this, I’d be inclined to keep the brick building at the front of the layout - where it’s it’s OK for it to be a bit bigger, and to keep the sidings free for unloading.  
I suppose it begs the question as to whether there would be some kind of small gatehouse on a yard like this?  Sorry, creating more work.
 

(I have started building a small layout - unfortunately I discovered today that some track I stuck down at the weekend didn’t stick - I think the wooden weight I was using had warped so wasn’t actually holding down the track in places at all...)

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Having come up with a slightly modified throat that works for my stock I've come to what may be an insurmountable problem. The room I have available is 4m long and the throat fits comfortable into 1 metre, giving 1.5m for both the fiddle yard and the platforms. However, the minimum train I think I can believe in is a loco, a fourgon D (passenger brake van normally on the front of French rapides in Ep III) and four coaches. Unfortunately, with all but my shortest locos that seems to be 1.65m which is just too long. Unforunately,  I can't use an L because of the position of the door and airing cupboard.  T

he answer may be to have a half metre extension to the basic two metres with all the pointwork and station buidling with an optional one metre version to set up where there's more room - like downstairs-  and do the same with the fiddle yard. A two metre long train would be fine.

My experiments continue and here is the main 2m section laid out on  two boards (not the actual boards- this is a very useful folding board for trying out plans) 

 

I laid out the modified throat on the centre of the boards so I could test it with pairs of coaches

but here it is mocked.

All the track are  square to the boards at each end so extensions could be plain track. The two sidings

would come to the end of the main board entering a goods shed in the final foot or so to act as a view blocker to the fiddle yard entrance and an overall roof the length of the station building plus thhe usual overbridge may hide the shortness of trains.

Anyway this is a train that would fit fairly easily

Just for fun I laid out a train you should recognise. 

If you've seen Murder on the Orient Express (the Movie) the loco is different but the surprisingly short formation of baggage car, sleeper, restaurant car and Pullman is what you were admiring.

53 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

You pretty much have the same situation I had which led to the design for the Sheffield District Railway version with the two point long approach. I was willing to sacrifice the facility to arrive and leave from all platforms in return for a 4-6-0 and 5 bogie carriages. I was able to keep the station at 8ft in total and only had to extend the space in the fiddle yard (yet to be decided) from 4ft to 4ft 3ins. 

Such a shame!   Like t-b-g I wouldn’t compromise on train length any further - as you say, it’s believable.  The other problem is that the train will only travel a very short distance whatever you do: a 1.65m train on a 4m board only has 0.7m “travel space” left.

I have seen some very effective micro-layouts that deal with this problem by keeping the focus on the action at the concourse end of the platform (I’d want to keep that lovely station building as it is too).  The two basic options seem to be:

1.  Redesign the throat so it’s not Minories per t-b-g and / or:

2.  Move the scenic divide forwards so the second crossover disappears under your bridge (or whatever) and is in the fiddle yard.  It then depends on your preferred type of fiddle yard - in micro-layouts, cassettes are very popular, can you steal back any space there?
 

Taking redesign a further step forwards, you could also have multiple entry points from your fiddle yard, thereby doing away with more of the points (may be better than narrowing the station by taking out tracks).  Just a thought, Keith.

As a bit of an aside, but relevant to the topic I hope:

On a different thread I posted yesterday a rough sketch of a possible layout concept.  For convenience I doodled it on a computer using Anyrail, but I wouldn't pretend it was any more accurate than a "back of an envelope" preliminary sketch drawn with a blunt pencil.

But because I'd drawn it on a computer, it somehow looked worse than if I'd posted a pencil sketch, even if it was actually probably more accurate (the points fit).

I guess my eye / brain expects a computer drawn diagram to be accurate, but allows me more leeway with a pencil sketch, when it's actually how I'm using the tools (whatever they are) and what I want to achieve in the time I have that makes the difference.

Not a new point really, but something I proved to myself yesterday that can be relevant when looking at plans - as The Stationmaster said a couple of months back, it's the stage of the process that should set my expectation, not the tool I use.

I do still have a pencil sharpener as well as a PC.

Keith.

On 08/06/2020 at 06:43, sb67 said:

I've had a re-place with the hut. 

 

I think it looks way too big here. It dwarves he shed and greenhouse making me question the size of the hut, even though the size was measured from a magazine article. Or are the shed and greenhouse too small? 

 

 

I do like it here, add assorted junk and stuff and I think it's ok. I'm not too sure about the brick hut though as it's so close to the baseboard edge.

 

 

Having suggested it might be an idea to try the tin hut on the grass, I agree it looks good by the bridge - weirdly, it looks smaller there (I guess it is because the bridge is big, while the greenhouse is small?).  Thanks for sharing the photos, Keith.

Looking again at the doodle I described earlier (photo no longer available) my lunch break curves did look rather embarrassingly rough after I'd posted them in public, sorry, so I did a bit of tidying up (second iteration no longer available).

If I did my calculations right, the minimum radius on the outside branch line was still at least 30", and for the inner main line 24" - I had to use Flextrack to achieve this, not because I'm particularly pushing it but to compare with Setrack layouts.  As Zomboid noted, there's a case for mixing them if you already have Setrack and are happy with it (my own layout plan uses Setrack end curves and Streamline points).

Unfortunately I'd deleted my original file so this was a re-creation: again, it was only a concept sketch that would need a lot of refining, tidying up and checking before it could be used for anything - although I've knocked this out on a computer for convenience, it is no more than a rough pencil sketch in terms of accuracy at this stage - the 21st Century "back of an envelope." 

I put the main station flatter across the South side of the layout this time, to give a bit more scenic space on the East end where your high level town is suggested, but developed the connection between the single line goods branch and the main lines a bit more.

In concept I treated an outer goods line more like two branch lines that head off in either direction from the main station - my assumption is that using DCC you can run three trains simultaneously (one on each line), rather than trying to switch trains between lines, which this plan doesn't really allow for.

Because there is more space for goods sidings on the outside of the running lines, I put them there.  The immediate disadvantage is that they're harder to reach.  Making the operating well larger would help, and is something I'd look at anyway, but it may be that this all means this isn't the type of idea you're looking for.

Keith.

Hi Mike, I've had a bit of a gap at lunchtime, so jotted down some thoughts.  There are others much better qualified and experienced than I am to help develop and refine your ideas and come up with something really awesome - I can only really offer some pointers which may help, and I do know what it can feel like to get stuck trying to decide on a plan to build!

There's some good stuff in the two level suggestion you've put together - the scenes make a lot of sense, which could help sustain interest, and you've not overstuffed the West End with track.   It also proves the point Zomboid made that keeping the levels separate fits the space.

One thing to note: from a UK railway operating perspective, where trains usually run forwards on the left line of a double track, the two pairs of goods sidings would have to point the other way in order to be shunted by trains going past.  In practice, they don't tend to be shunted directly off the main running lines, for safety reasons as well as operational ones, which is why there's a lot of information about headshunts around if you want to explore that area.

You've obviously been looking at your options for a while, so please forgive me if what I've noted down is stuff you thought about ages ago.

I went back to first principles to get my head round your space (your photos really helped).  One idea that used to be taught in American Model Railroad Track Planning was "planning by squares" in which your space is redefined according to the space needed for a double track right hand curve.  There's been a real step change in UK model railways over the past twenty years or so, so although Hornby (etc) used to make trains that would comfortably go round 15" curves (approx. Radius 1), the better quality rolling stock we can now buy is much happier on wider curves (in Setrack language, Radius 3 and 4 - standard Setrack Points still use Radius 2).  If I sketch a double track curve using Radii 3 and 4 I basically need a 2' square.  This makes your space 6 sq. by 4 sq.  As you say at the start, not that big (and not as big as it may look as empty boards).

I also looked at train length.  It's worth measuring your longest locos and coaches (especially as more modern coaches get longer).  Assuming a coach is about 10" long, then your three coach plus loco train is 40", and a four coach plus loco train is 50".

For a passing loop, the other critical dimension is to leave some space at the points, so that trains don't sideswipe each other.  The curve of the track also affects this.

As you already have boards and some rolling stock, one simple eye test you could do would be to compare a train running along in a straight line with one on a gentle curve - the kind of curve you can get with Flextrack.  The gentle curve can look a lot more realistic, and for that reason is often favoured.

As you already have boards and coaches, you could mark out a curve of any radius you want using string and place a train on it to see what a difference it makes, and what you're happy with.

It may well be that I've not shown anything new in all this - they're just some of the tricks I've used to get me past a sticking point so i can enjoy planning instead of finding it frustrating!

I hope it helps - will watch for progress with interest, Keith.

Thanks for posting the photos - they give a really helpful insight and explanation.  As mdvle has already explained, a Forum such as this can throw up many ideas - more like a conversation, less like an exam (there’s no one right answer).

The baseboards look really well made, so it looks like getting something going so you can try things out might be the priority, rather than aiming for a fully finished solution before you start.

If you take Zomboid’s suggestion, which sounds really interesting, one way to approach it would be to have a plan where you can build the first level, then add the second level later - either as intended or changed completely.  It does take some time to build a model railway, so you may want to have some operating along the way.

My alternative idea, for a four track line, can either be built as one four-Track loop (bit plain, but you get to see trains pass each other), or with two pairs of double track lines on one side of the layout, coming together at a larger junction station on the other side.  It’d be an easier build (it could be flat), but the space needed for junctions might mean the trains have to be shorter.

The horseshoe idea you suggest is a good one - it can work really well visually.

It looks like your track is currently Setrack - are you happy to use Flextrack, which will give vastly more scope and it does look much better (I speak from experience as I have both, although - as mdvle notes, we all have our preferences).

If I get a chance to do a doodle later I’ll post it up, but may be a bit busy today, Keith.