Schooner

Wow! Might be early days, but seems like you're off to a very positive start. I'm sure you've come across this already, but in case it's of interest this is the freight-generating system used on David Hyde's Deresley, not unrelated in approach: Yum Interested party over here!

Just realised I predicted the size of this three months ago with my first post here, before I'd started putting the bits together. There's something slightly irritating about that, like when Mary Poppins' reflection winks back at her...

Too kind Titanius, I hope it proves diverting ...mind you, I seem to have missed the mark on one vital aspect of the "little empire" premise... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Post cleared to make room for one with useful information in it Text moved into post above...

Hi Mike, Thanks for taking the time to have a look and share your thoughts - much appreciated - and you're quite right, it's totally impractical On 1) Well noted! I started off with the idea of a little empire, on which most storage could be on scene...but with this behemoth I quite agree that significant off-stage storage would be vital. To this end I've thought that fiddle yards would take up a goodly amount of the available space between the scenic faces of the hollow square that forms the basic layout, roughly as above. Given what the lines need to do in that void, it would be 4-6' wide for most, if not all, the run - lots of space for storage*. I forgot to mention, but for this version if it's not copied off a map then it's not scenic and will be hidden from normal view This should hide the more cheat-y elements, excuse some tighter radii etc...? *the trackplan of which I feel nowhere near qualified to even contemplate starting to begin to wonder about how to think about tackling... 2) It's of some reassurance to me that those were exactly the fag-packet distances I came up with too! To build at scale would not only be prohibitively excessive on several levels...but I also have doubts on whether it would be any fun at that kind of size, even ignoring the ratio of maintenance time to playing time. Might it not feel a bit too much like work, with someone else getting all the excitement somewhere out of sight? 2mm would be one way forwards, but not one I'm naturally drawn to. With a little more messing about with the geography, a bit of modeller's license and a measure of compression**, I think runs of 40' and 50' for in- and out-side would be possible...and maybe desirable. Still vast and intimidating, but something that it feels might just be within the realms of possibility, more manageable to operate and more enjoyable to own, without losing too much of the sense of trains coming from and going to places on the layout with real purpose. **about the same 30-40% as I'd use for train length, where 6ish carriages would represent a prototype length of 9-12 etc Anyway, thanks again for taking it seriously enough to respond! It's nice to have an excuse to think through it all again Schooner

Just to round this thread off: I think I've come to a natural stopping point in arranging all these pieces into self-contained system. A practical layout it is not, but it has been fun to mess about with The 'final' Grand Plan I'll attach below, and I've started a new thread in the Pre-Grouping forum as a place to start collating all the other information that I'll need on prototypes, WTT, wagons, signalling, water tower design, local sheep marking etiquette etc etc etc now that the layout design bit is drawing to a close. So, you thought previous versions were ridiculous? Check this out...! Cheers and gone! Schooner PS. Forgot to say, but this time the map copies represent the scenic sections and all light grey represents non-scenic track behind back scenes/under scenery etc

The best housekeeping format feels like fewer but often-edited posts. Expect changes This one is just a general introduction to a burgeoning Western empire... Don't panic! I'm not going to build it! Time: 1905-1915 Place: North Somerset/West Wiltshire; South Devon Lines: GWR London - Bristol; Bathampton branch; Reading - Taunton; Exeter - Plymouth; Kingswear branch; SDJR Bath - Templecombe (Bournemouth) Reason: Fun, and provide a bit of a distraction from the real world The playing with my jigsaw of bits of geography (all taken from period 1:2,500 OS maps, courtesy of old-maps.co.uk) has been, and still is, and gently enjoyable process. However, I should stop at some point and feel I'm probably about there: it's pretty coherent, covers just about everything I could ask of it...and I've run out of junctions! This means it's time to move on, for which I would benefit from a place to collate information. As a layout, I can't imagine it ever being built whole (at least in the physical world; digital perhaps) but would like to keep the idea of the whole system alive so that as and when life provides an opportunity to get back into modelling in a meaningful way I'll have plenty of the legwork done, can pick a section that suits current constraints and get cracking! That won't be for some little while though, so plenty of time for meandering digressions My work keeps me on the move a lot, so I'm over-reliant on the internet both for gathering and keeping track of learnings. I'm reaching the point where I look up the same thing repeatedly because I've forgotten details and haven't put it somewhere safe, so I'm hoping to use this thread as a place to draw together and hold useful titbits, photos, links to external websites etc...and perhaps benefit from having it reviewed by those more experienced and knowledgeable than myself (anyone at RMWeb!). I'm hoping to upload a fair few pics, none of which (at least initially) will be mine - I will credit as best I can where they're not watermarked, but will happily take advice if there are norms I unwittingly breach. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S'pose I better start with a quick bit about the plan above, and the ideas behind the layout in general: In the plan, everything stolen off a map is meant to be scenic, and to some degree (as yet undecided really) representative of the actual place. Everything that's a light grey line is out of sight, the wings and flies of this Western theatre, to allow the rest of the network/country to be faked as required. The whole lot is representative only, and thought has so far really only gone in to the arrangement of the pieces of the puzzle, not trackwork etc An awful lot left to work out, but I feel the bones are now in place. EDIT: With the belated realisation that off-stage could be below-stairs, as it were, all the non-scenic layout should be viewed as a very movable feast! As for the idea behind the whole thing...ummmm...well... ...I thought it might be fun to focus my daydreams of returning to railway modelling one day on a particular project. I settled on Avoncliff at a time when the stone yard was still busy and the canal in at least functional repair, for reasons that I'm sure will become relevant at some point, but I'll gloss over for now. ...then I thought that as Bradford on Avon is not far away, nor a large station, it could lend both charm and operational interest to a (already large, at about 12-15' a side in my head) L or U shaped layout... ...but if I went for a U, then three sides surely equals three areas that could be modelled...so perhaps Bathampton junction could be referenced... ...but although Bathampton is aesthetically pleasing, as a station/yard it doesn't add a lot not already covered by B-O-A, so perhaps I keep the junction but actually model Bath... ...and Bath goods yard... ...and Westmoreland stone yard, to provide the Ying to Avoncliff's Yang... ...and I just sort of forgot to stop... The locations chosen all fill nebulous criteria to varying degrees: personal resonance geographical relevance operational independence and inter-dependence smaller prototypes (with a hope of being able to keep more closely to them; and if Trowbridge has a shed, turntable, storage roads, coal and water, then what would one gain from Laira?...and I just prefer them what I think of as 'fudge factor' - of being able to represent other places (hello Frome) ideally had a suitable station close to a point of scenic or operational interest (B-o-A has Avoncliff; Kingswear has Noss etc) so that it provided options (for scenic breaks; operational variety, functionality and narrative integrity; splitting the uber-layout into smaller chunks, to have viable layouts as small as 5 feet; places for trains to run past or to, depending. There might've been a couple more things I thought this 'primary and secondary location' thing helped, but if I've stopped caring what they were I don't see why you should have to start! have useful curves nearby I could nick to join the whole lot up whilst keeping the spirit of each area...and kept a reference for landscape/back scene handy! ...also, some of them just appealed and later turned out to have other benefits (looking at you Midford section of the SDJR, with your pleasing contrasts to the Bathampton branch) It is entirely possible that, were this layout ever to be built as shown, I would aim for faithful replicas of the real world...but equally likely that they could provide [nothing more than] inspiration to fill the requirements of the area - 'port', 'small industrial siding', 'engine shed' and so forth. The latter approach lends itself to a 'proper little empire', which would be a more achievable aim in a smaller space, I think. I see myriad benefits to choosing the early 1900s, which again I'm sure will become apparent as we go on. I have a bit of a thing about both maritime history and, for want of the a better phrase, 'industrious countryside' - the surprising productivity of places that now seem timeless rural idylls, supported by the most amazingly intricate logistics and support networks. Mix that lot together, and here we are! What a load of guff... Cheers Schooner

What a pleasure it's been to spend the last hour or so catching up with your build, Chuff! Not remotely connected to the SDJR thing I logged into RMWeb to check, but so much more fun: there is a joy to be had from just looking at your work. Mind you, a part of me dies a little with each photo...the quality of your modelling, the precision and skill you demonstrate across the board will forever be beyond me Bloody well done so far mate, you can be very proud of your layout and your work. Can't wait to see what's next! All the best, Schooner

Less is more, absolutely! Although mileage varies, and who's to say what 'right' is but the owner, it seems your preferred ratio of landscape to layout is close to mine Might I ask a couple of cheeky questions? what are your (plural!) thoughts on convex vs concave running lines in relation to baseboard edge? I'm wondering as much about the impression of distance and viewing options as any practical considerations. would you mind sharing any of Mr Rice's other ingredients for ML modelling happiness? Got main lines on my mind, but I'm currently operating in a book-free environment, which hampers learning opportunities somewhat... Looking forward to seeing the next iteration of Hannet Purney Cheers, Schooner EDIT: Not that it really matters, but it seems to me that 'right' lies in the direction of something that looks like it was laid out by Mr Brunel but acts like something designed by Mr Freezer. As ever, compromise reigns supreme but if one manages to tick both boxes then tea and medals time!

Thanks for the swift and helpful response, and the *agree* As it happens, I was referring to the Dovetail Games offering rather than N3V's Trainz in hope of a comparison...but no matter as you've kindly confirmed my general impression that whilst each has devotees, Trainz offers more to a route builder. As a result, it's downloading as I type. Looking forward to getting to grips with it Cheers, Schooner

Very nice! Sem (or, indeed, Annie or anyone with an opinion), two quick questions if I may: how would you rate TS2019's route editor, and how would you rate its utility as a layout-planning tool? I ask because I'm in the (very) early stages of thinking through an (over) ambitious layout and was hoping to use a digital facsimile as a testing/proving tool at some point, but I'm unsure if this is a viable process... Cheers, Schooner

That's been my song of 2019, by a margin. Also a decent melody to whistle, particularly if a couple of people about the place recognise it Best wishes to all in the community facing tough times Schooner

Sometimes the *like* button isn't enough: Exceptional work on your inspirational layout, Martin. Please accept my congratulations for finishing the trackwork, it's some achievement and must be a great feeling, and my envy...for everything All the best for the works to come, Schooner

Not much time for SCARM, or much detailed thinking at all really, recently. That's not stopped me messing about with ideas for the overall layout of the thing. So far I seem to be strolling down two distinct avenues, one I've started thinking of as a 4mm approach, the other 2mm...I think you'll see why in a moment. Note: I've not drawn baseboards or back-scenes in a bid to improve clarity. Light grey line is intended to show non-scenic sections, thick for double and thin for single track (apart from outside Teignmouth Station, which I've just notice should be double track to the scenic break!). Hopefully it is apparent where these would be, but please do ask if not and I'll do my best to draw them in a useful fashion. The 4mm version currently looks something like: This intended to show the relationship of the respective areas (not as trackplan!) for a home layout running around the edge of a large room, with a peninsula in the middle. Bath (station, goods and stone yards), for example, would almost certainly be significantly compressed to allow some space between it and Bathampton, which itself could well just be the junction and a refuge siding rather than a close model of the prototype. Box likewise could, space depending, just be the tunnel entrance and I wouldn't be disappointed. Still a large layout, but please do season the above with a pinch of salt, it's currently just a picture It seems the main circuit is fairly settled now. This is where the idea for a systemic layout formed, and the run with which I am most comfortable - it maintains a good level of coherence (both geographic and up/down), varied operations and traffic and is all set in glorious, industrious, countryside. It is the 'main stage' in my head: local goods and passenger services being the normal cast, with guest appearances from GWR mainline, named and special services (being stored in and run from the fiddle yard, representing London, departing from the 'top' for normal running, 'bottom' to mimic the diverted route). Express services get to stretch their legs between Bath and Frome on the 'Western' section, potentially not calling at either, whilst stopping services can run a decent shuttle between Bath and Frome via Bradford on Avon. A steam railmotor could use the same route but call at Avoncliff and Bathampton, if modelled. Plenty of scope for freight workings along the same routes, with industries in the various towns needing served, and Avoncliff stone yard/sidings providing both visual and (gentle) operational interest. There has been a recent addition to this section, in the form of the engine shed from Trowbridge being bolted on to Frome Junction. This is because I felt that whilst there is, potentially at least, decent enough stock storage on the layout (particularly at Bath and Frome Junction sidings), motive power was somewhat limited by the single sheds at Bath Goods and at Frome, which didn't seem to allow for much more than a station pilot and a tank engine or two. Trowbridge Shed presented itself as geographically handy, but also small considering full suite of amenities and tying in well to the 5 or so roads of the sidings at Frome Junction. The trackwork for this area will require some serious consideration, but is a headache for another day I'd welcome feedback on options here, however. The more difficult run, by far, is that to Kingswear. A straight run would be difficult, as a key feature is the descent of the line into the terminus. The lack of starting altitude meant coming straight off Frome wasn't (to my mind and skill-level) achievable. Most sensible then might be a purely scenic climbing run from Frome out along the peninsula boards...but I'd also love to be able to model docks large enough to justify a couple of dock tank engines, and have been eyeing up Teignmouth for some time - as with Trowbridge, it's a small version of a 'proper' prototype. The above is an attempt to crowbar a section of the Teign in to the layout, with a helix (not actually shown on this version, sorry) to gain the height necessary for all the viaducts down the Dart at Maypool and Noss. Frankly, trying to have both the rivers Teign and Dart represented may well be too much, but I'm greedy and have plenty of time to mess about with options. All suggestions welcome! I've attempted to deal with some of these difficulties in another version, which I think could only really be achieved in 2mm, and so I have started to think of it as such. This would be viewed from the outside for the 'Wessex' bit, and the inside for the Devon sections, with a back-scene between back-to-back sections on the three sides: This is very much the Kitchen Sink version! I love the idea of it, dislike the complication and have reservations about whether it's even worth spending time thinking through the practical aspects - is it all just too much? It provides so many options, but would it ever be possible to take advantage of them? The 'Ersatz Radstock' bit bottom left is to try to merge the fact that the branch leaves Frome as the GWR Radstock branch, but crosses over the GWR main line West of Bath as the SDJR into Bath Green Park. I'm inclined to think of it as SDJR only, swap the realism for variety, and not worry about representing that the two lines come together at Radstock...but perhaps there is a way...? Hopefully the general gist makes itself apparent through the various routes available, and the knowledge that the left-hand fiddle yard is intended to represent Bath Green Park, Bristol, Cardiff and 'the South West' as well as Weymouth and Bournemouth; the right-hand fiddle yard to represent London (all of it ), as well as Newton Abbot, Plymouth and Penzance. Excuses to run GWR, and SDJR are there, and LSWR too if just thinking of the scenic runs through each country's countryside... That's plenty for now, should've stuck with bullet points...! Thanks for your time, all feedback very welcome and all thoughts invited Cheers, Schooner

Some potential ports of call for the above (although slightly biased to earlier, smaller, and sail-powered traffic) in the West Country: 'Proper' docks: Teignmouth (tidal) and Exmouth (locked) Rail-served quay: Topsham and Calstock Rail/river served industries: South Hams Brickworks and Morwellham Quay (copper mine) 'Scenic' quays: Kitley All are smaller prototypes for the services they offer, and all could take further compression if desired. Couldn't agree more with the general gist of this thread - it would be lovely to see the same accuracy on the water as on the rails - and there's been some really interesting information so far. Looking forward to more! Cheers, Schooner

I enjoyed every line of that post, drmditch, thank you!

To keep the conversation only tangentally related to railways: The collier brigs were, by this point, particularly bad - just about everything to do with them was awful. Their route was both treacherous and busy, with the overwhelming majority of vessels wrecked or run down (although notably the Brotherly Love served 114 years before she was lost to collision). No trade-wind relaxation period like the deep sea merchantmen, or the occasional easy cargo like other coasters. Competition, primarily from screw colliers rather than the railways, kept wages stagnant for 30 years and kept the boats at sea (removing the traditional lay-up period in January and Febuary when the North Sea is at her ugliest), whilst driving down crews from the traditional reckoning of c.5 men and a boy per 100 registered tons (most brigs being around 200-300 tons). Indeed, a Board of Trade report concluded that undermanning was the primary cause of loss of life in the trade. Deck cargos became the norm in a bid to improve profitability, despite being effectively illegal, worsening working conditions and having a detrimental effect on stability. Very few jobs at sea in the days of sail had much to commend them, but the life of collierman was, in a word, pish.

It's funny, and I couldn't put my finger on why, but previous versions of H-P just didn't seem to have the Harlequin sparkle that exists even in some of your sketch layouts (eg 'L-shaped blank canvas' on this board)... ...now it does! Love the premise, love the plan, double slip (I can see main line access to branch platform being handy) an' all PS: Is that your cunning plan for disguising the main line exit to the West - to lose it in the woods? I've wondered why that doesn't seem a more common approach, seems ideal!

Hi Justin, thanks so much for those! I hadn't seen either in detail before, and I really enjoyed the Youtube video yesterday and look forward to a proper read through The North Cornwall line this evening Even on the back of a quick scan of the thread I learned that it possible to have a large home layout intended to be viewed from the outside. Never crossed my mind that a circuit wouldn't (fundamentally) just run around the walls, and this has opened up a new approach... Still don't feel like I've found the answer for how to join up the system in a convincing and coherent fashion, but it's fun trying! For interest (?), it's looking like Churston and Brixham are loosing out in favour of Teignmouth (potentially just the docks with main line running behind), with the 'network' looking (after a two-minute knock-up) something like: LSWR and SDJR are just a thought to increase variety and interest - if they were to be included, these are the lines I think they'd run. Re scale: yeah, it's a tough one! I'm hoping to get through a lot of the planning without having to choose 2mm feels like the most sensible choice: it allows for a lot of layout in any given space...but I have some reservations, mostly to do with my perception of 2mm (being small and, although no less beautifully detailed, perhaps lacking heft) and concerns about the extra pressure it would put on my modelling skills! I need to spend more time with 2mm to see if these feelings still hold true and to what extent. My abilities (or wallet...) will just have to step up! 4mm has benefits in RTR options, 'easier' modelling etc etc but it does make the whole project significantly more intimidating! Part of the answer to this may lie in the digital world. Once I'm reasonably settled on how each station works and how they fit together, making a version within a train simulator of some sort feels like a good idea. This should (I think?) enable a proof-of-concept run. Is this approach viable do you think? Thanks again for the great suggestions Schooner

Absolutely agree - it was done to keep the parts number down as I'm only using the trial version of SCARM. Once I know my way around the software well enough, I'll ditch the N gauge track marking the canal and will be able to show the intended double track throughout, and hopefully flesh out the fiddle yard itself Previous post edited for clarity.

Morning all, Just a little update - not a lot to show as I'm mostly just faffing around trying to broaden my awareness a bit so that I least I know where to start looking for information*. I have made some initial primitive forays into SCARM so thought I might as well share and learn from any feedback, and the 'grand scheme' layout has developed slightly. Following the general idea to work out each main feature section of the uber-plan as an individual layout, I thought I'd start with the simplest trackplan...although perhaps most complex scenery...so here's a first crack at a layout based on Avoncliff: This shows the area as it was in 1887 - a little earlier than my proposed period (1905-1915), but by 1901 the stone yard tramway had been reduced with only the siding (in the above) remaining...and I wanted a little more functionality. As the area is now, looking South-West: and North East: The plan: What a waste of 20'x10'! Please forgive the lack of geographical/scenic features - and the use of N-gauge track to mark out the canal - they are still on my To Learn list for SCARM. There are, as I'm sure will be immediately apparent, some idiosyncrasies. I do most of my thinking about the layout late in the evening, which has some risks attached, and I don't have the knowledge to deal with issues like how to model both sides of a valley, encourage views along as well as across the layout, deal with the 'left-in right-out' curves etc...nor the imagination to really work it out! Any suggestions gratefully received Some points, from left to right across the layout as they come to mind: general note - due to using the trial version of SCARM, non-scenic trackwork is representative only. It should be double track all round etc general note 2 - baseboard and backscene to be curved, rather than the sharp angles shown. Laziness on the author's part... general note 3 - backscene itself a bit of a tricky one, but I think it might make sense to make it a little deeper and show the start of the hill behind the canal and leave it at that, rather than have a backscene board. LH scenic break - based on Dundas Aqueduct (?) stoneyard sidings currently use a single slip so it's possible to run around the siding as nec. If part of a larger layout I would quite like this to be a simple crossing, to encourage light-engine workings to and from the siding. stoneyard tramway layout an attempt to maintain the functionality of the prototype, but give a little more flexibility with the gradient and compression. Headshunt for delivering stone to 'main' yard for cutting, dressing etc, siding for loading on to the railway. Tramway was in reality horse-drawn...but I would love to lay it in 009 and have the option of a 'coffee pot' shunter (as used by one Corsham-area quarry), maybe up to a cab-less Hunslet...as long as... Gradient is a pretty savage 6% between yard and aqueduct...is it too much to even think about using a locomotive for this? The trains will be made up of no more than 3 wagons (think Bachmann's slate wagons). Canal wharf and tramway siding on the S side of the valley could be for the occasional load of stone out and coal in and that's what I'd aim to model, but I've yet to read anything definitive for this period. Cassettes to be used for quarry traffic (I think I should update the layout plan to more closely match the real thing here, with the break halfway down the loop to give more flexibility in this regard) Traffic for the halt was, I believe, largely railmotors. Traffic on the branch was pretty varied and included diverted express workings, but I would love to find timetabling information to improve my very scanty knowledge RH edge of the baseboard to include weir and watermill for distraction and masking the track exit Oddness at the RH end due to my wanting the track to turn away to the South, partly cos that's what the real view looks like, partly to provide a little more interest as there's only a straight run between, partly to avoid it looking so much like an oval I'd anticipate this end beyond the scenic section to be covered to the line and height of the 'backscene'. That's probably plenty for now! Thanks for your time, if you have a thought on any of the above please do share - I'd like to hear it all! Cheers, Schooner ps. Would a new topic in a relevant sub-forum (Pre-Grouping perhaps?) be the place to collate information I've found, and raise questions? I'm aware that lots of things I'd like to learn about are not strictly related to layout design... *work means frequent moves at short notice, so sadly books aren't a valid option for me. Internet-based research is great, but has risks. I'd appreciate any pointers.

Amazing to see the plan becoming reality...what a project!

For potential inspiration, Bradford-on-Avon (1924 1:2500 OS, courtesy of oldmaps.co.uk): 1930's GWR; relief main line; comparatively small station and goods yard (though recently extended, I prefer the more compact previous trackplan - as per 1901 OS - but horses for courses); river crossing (single span) and refuge siding...seemed to chime with your proposed plan Marsh. Signal box placement might be of interest, although the points arrangement is rather different. Anyway, thought it might be worth sharing Cheers, Schooner

A study of rural types and impromptu tea shop visits? All sounds very Withnail... Here, hare here, Schooner

Thanks for all the good links, I enjoyed those and all very useful I hadn't intended to come across as so rude about US-style room-fillers - horses for courses, and some of the modelling is staggering, not to mention commitment etc! I find it interesting that I can look at something like the wonderful NM&SG layout plan, which is at least as involved as any other 'room-filler', and smile...but so many of those large American layouts generate the opposite gut feeling. Perhaps just a familiarity thing...? Anyway... As for my personal level of compromise - I would be happy to call the layout 'complete' once it had functional track running through passable scenery and had at least one train to run. Once one can play trains, it is a case of improvement and refinement rather than creation. Is it possible to ever 'finish' scenery, or rolling stock rosters...?! I'm sure there will always be a corner for an interesting cameo, or an interesting wagon that could be found space... Absolutely! For example, the below was a major inspiration for thinking of a West Country systemic layout: ...where Westwood Quarry can be seen to supply both rail via the Avoncliff sidings and canal via a small quay on the South side of the river, which itself had been used as a major transport artery for centuries... In this uber-layout in my head, the stone being seen loaded onto narrowboat at Avoncliff would be unloaded at a trans-shipment dock - probably based on Gloucester (though I've often thought Teignmouth would be a good starting point, or even little Topsham quay) possibly squeezed in under and around 'Bath' station, perhaps. I love that a vessel could've sailed across the world's oceans, then made it's way right up a river and canal network, to be met by a fleet of railway wagons, narrow boats, lighters, barges, coasters and, not least, blokes with barrows, and dray teams which then sent the contents of her hold into every nook and corner of the country; and the same process in reverse of course. To read of London-strawberry-logistics (in the Castle Aching and Strand threads in the pre-Grouping forum) makes one realise just how involved transport of goods used to be, and what an efficient (if boring) process it has become. Also what an interesting set of layouts with interesting running programmes could be based on those supply chains... As we're here, might as well share this pic of Gloucester Docks in the 1880's because I like it and it perfectly illustrates (or would if the rail network were more prominent in it), how many networks came together at these docks: Cheers, Schooner

Very true...and yet (perhaps oddly given my proposal) I've never found their style appealing - single line, tight radii, lots of vertical stacking, vast fiddle yards...all in all very 'busy' trackplans with little room to breath, and unattractive. I appreciate the sum total of my proposal is large and complex, but each station is comparatively small and simple (while, I think, having enough storage to largely do away with off-stage storage), and the lines between them are not convoluted to try create track length where there is space for none, but straight(ish) runs through the available space. A luxury of dealing in imaginary space for now, but not something I would change Oh for The Vale of the White Horse! Some kind of hidden storage is nigh-on essential...but I'm keen to keep it to a minimum. Most trains should have jobs to do at various locations on the layout where there will be space for them. A yard to represent London would be useful, but the 'South/West' in generic sense is represented by the scenic run from Bath round to Frome (trains head into the West from Bath, arrive from the South into Frome) in the proposed plan and neither requires nor generates traffic. Workable, or proper wishful thinking? Thank you, I'll have a proper look at this option...though remain unconvinced about the date Is this a good thing? Makes it harder to illustrate the logistics network that held the country together, which is something I would love the layout to touch on... I may well be misinformed, I am certainly under-informed, but I thought outside framed locos gave more scope for mechanism than their inside-framed brethren, and certainly were not particularly harder to build? As for boring, I cannot see how the period that very reasonably allows for the staunch-if-dull designs of Armstrong, elegance of Dean, or the revolution brought about by Churchward to be represented could be dull or repetitive. Likewise a period where the passenger livery changed three times; passenger stock saw a move away from 4- and 6-wheelers to bogie coaches of several designs, clerestory and non; increasing regulation on wagon design came into effect but (I believe?) PO wagons in particular had a long period of grace to conform leading to much variety...and that's just GWR! If a change of location, or judicious application of Rule 1, allows then there are several other distinct and distinctive railway companies in the South West. So, I thought there was an awful lot of variety in the period, certainly more than the 30's, but I would love to hear the counter argument Thank you for your thoughts, it's really helpful to cross-check why I'm thinking of this area in this period, and what about the layout I find attractive or not! Cheers, Schooner