Fidle yard dilemma?

Many thanks for all the comments on my new layout. I've now decided to
stick an extra board on for the sidings, making it a rather fat 'L'
shape.

Trouble is, my layout dicates where this board had to go, and it's not
ideally positioned for the correct direction of travel (thanks Chris for
pointing that out). I have a 6ft x 6ft main layout, with a 45"x12" board
to the bottom right (my shed dimensions really only allow this).

Although I'm primarily building the layout for operational interest, I
would also like to add *some* scenery, and the separate sidings would
free some space on the main board.

My plan allows for a twin main line, two loops off the inner main line
for the station, and a third inner 'branch' line. The idea being I use
the outer line for an express, the inner main line for a commuter, and
the branch line as a small rural service.

Fred pointed out my poor use of 'kickbacks', so I'm now concious of
using these. However, to make the best possible use of the sidings
board, I need to take the branch line off the express line, but it would
be in the wrong direction for use of the sidings. I can shorten the
loops a little, and bring the sidings off in the right direction, but
this makes them much shorter, and I have to use a kickback to make any
use of this for a long train.

My options are to sacrifice the length of the loops to improve the
sidings usability, possibly even losing the inner loop altogether, or
just run the trains the wrong way (does that really matter if the
overall effect of the display is good?).

Cheers.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

In article <1i2ci5i.142qna3paogtdN%wildrover.andy@googlemail. com>, Andy
Hewitt <wildrover.andy@googlemail.com> writes
>Many thanks for all the comments on my new layout. I've now decided to
>stick an extra board on for the sidings, making it a rather fat 'L'
>shape.
>
>Trouble is, my layout dicates where this board had to go, and it's not
>ideally positioned for the correct direction of travel (thanks Chris for
>pointing that out). I have a 6ft x 6ft main layout, with a 45"x12" board
>to the bottom right (my shed dimensions really only allow this).

The bottom right facing which way?
>
>Although I'm primarily building the layout for operational interest, I
>would also like to add *some* scenery, and the separate sidings would
>free some space on the main board.
>
>My plan allows for a twin main line, two loops off the inner main line
>for the station, and a third inner 'branch' line. The idea being I use
>the outer line for an express, the inner main line for a commuter, and
>the branch line as a small rural service.

When you mentioned the extra board, and the facing, I had a couple of
ideas but thought I might have said enough already.
They both involved getting that extension board to connect to the inner
loop.
http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/...6x6layout6.jpg

Cutting right across the two main lines with a pair of diamonds would do
it. (for example, where you currently have the level crossing) and would
be less un-prototypical. If the extension is lower right, it looks like
it would mean turning all your existing track work through 90 degrees.

Alternately put the fan of sidings 2"+ higher, and use a bridge and
long curving line to connect to the inner loop.
It would probably cost you one half-loop, the right hand innermost, the
left hand red line going further out nearer the blue line, to give the
longest incline.
But that, replacing the brown sidings, would give you your scenery space
to the upper-right. A siding or two could then be added off the inner
loop by the bottom station, as well, facing towards the level crossing.

>
>Cheers.
>

--
Chris Brown, Emett fan. See http://www.picturetrail.com/emettplus

Chris Brown <chris@x-track.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <1i2ci5i.142qna3paogtdN%wildrover.andy@googlemail. com>, Andy
> Hewitt <wildrover.andy@googlemail.com> writes
> >Many thanks for all the comments on my new layout. I've now decided to
> >stick an extra board on for the sidings, making it a rather fat 'L'
> >shape.
> >
> >Trouble is, my layout dicates where this board had to go, and it's not
> >ideally positioned for the correct direction of travel (thanks Chris for
> >pointing that out). I have a 6ft x 6ft main layout, with a 45"x12" board
> >to the bottom right (my shed dimensions really only allow this).
>
> The bottom right facing which way?

Sorry, not clear was it. I walk into my shed, and the 6x6 layout is in
front of me, at the back wall, with the larger panels front and back,
and the small panels left and right the siding panel is on my right,
nearest the entrance.

> >Although I'm primarily building the layout for operational interest, I
> >would also like to add *some* scenery, and the separate sidings would
> >free some space on the main board.
> >
> >My plan allows for a twin main line, two loops off the inner main line
> >for the station, and a third inner 'branch' line. The idea being I use
> >the outer line for an express, the inner main line for a commuter, and
> >the branch line as a small rural service.
>
> When you mentioned the extra board, and the facing, I had a couple of
> ideas but thought I might have said enough already.
> They both involved getting that extension board to connect to the inner
> loop.
> http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/...6x6layout6.jpg

Ah, I should perhaps have updated that, sorry, I actually have that
layout with the front at the top, and the sidings board is to the upper
left on that picture. Either way, that probably makes little difference,
as it's a square layout anyway.

> Cutting right across the two main lines with a pair of diamonds would do
> it. (for example, where you currently have the level crossing) and would
> be less un-prototypical. If the extension is lower right, it looks like
> it would mean turning all your existing track work through 90 degrees.

I had considered that too actually.

> Alternately put the fan of sidings 2"+ higher, and use a bridge and
> long curving line to connect to the inner loop.
> It would probably cost you one half-loop, the right hand innermost, the
> left hand red line going further out nearer the blue line, to give the
> longest incline.
> But that, replacing the brown sidings, would give you your scenery space
> to the upper-right. A siding or two could then be added off the inner
> loop by the bottom station, as well, facing towards the level crossing.

Hmm, I had though of raising the sidings too, but my little 0-4-0 loco
(I have yet to enhance my loco collection) is bloody awful at any kind
of incline, so I was trying to avoid that - I think the turns are a bit
tight on this size layout. Of course, I could detach carriages and use a
shunter, or even double head it I suppose.

This is my latest redesign (now using correct orientation):

http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/.../onelevel2.jpg

I'm still not happy with the kickbacks, but it's this or I could take it
off the R/H side, and run the line anticlockwise, and simplify the whole
thing entirely. It'd probably be less un-prototypical than using two
sets of diamonds.

Sorry to be a bother, but as this is going to be a fixed layout, and
sceneried, I want to get the plan right first.

All the best

Andy.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

Ah, the race is on then, to get my layout back in commission before
my bro-in-law gets his fixed. Damn! I am halfway through
replastering a wall, where am I going to find the time to get
started on that 27' x 17' tailchaser I've been dreaming of for my
railway room? A station platform long enough for a prototypical
express in 00 is the main aim here :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy, you know? <uce@ftc.gov> wrote:

> Ah, the race is on then, to get my layout back in commission before
> my bro-in-law gets his fixed. Damn! I am halfway through
> replastering a wall, where am I going to find the time to get
> started on that 27' x 17' tailchaser I've been dreaming of for my
> railway room? A station platform long enough for a prototypical
> express in 00 is the main aim here :-)
>
> Guy

Aha, I wondered if you'd get a kick start now ;-)

Well, I have a base board, and some track down, but it'll all have to be
lifted again to prepare and landscape the boards.

At that size, surely you could go to 'O' gauge? :-)

How's Michael's arm BTW? Not too sore I hope? :-(

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:56:23 +0100, wildrover.andy@googlemail.com
(Andy Hewitt) said in
<1i2diit.18h25hcynguoN%wildrover.andy@googlemail.c om>:

>How's Michael's arm BTW? Not too sore I hope?

He passed his Grade 4 horn exam with 2 marks short of a merit
despite taking it before the break was even diagnosed, and by the
Friday he off to band because the cast meant he could hold the
instrument again. Kids!

Cast is off now and he's in Belgium and France with the Scouts.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy, you know? <uce@ftc.gov> wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:56:23 +0100, wildrover.andy@googlemail.com
> (Andy Hewitt) said in
> <1i2diit.18h25hcynguoN%wildrover.andy@googlemail.c om>:
>
> >How's Michael's arm BTW? Not too sore I hope?
>
> He passed his Grade 4 horn exam with 2 marks short of a merit
> despite taking it before the break was even diagnosed, and by the
> Friday he off to band because the cast meant he could hold the
> instrument again. Kids!

Indeed, much betterer than a whingy girly ;-)

> Cast is off now and he's in Belgium and France with the Scouts.

Good stuff. Please convey our well done's though.

See you in a couple of weeks.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

In article <1i2db36.urrbsm1lll9ozN%wildrover.andy@googlemail. com>, Andy
Hewitt <wildrover.andy@googlemail.com> writes
>e:
>
>Sorry, not clear was it. I walk into my shed, and the 6x6 layout is in
>front of me, at the back wall, with the larger panels front and back,
>and the small panels left and right the siding panel is on my right,
>nearest the entrance.

http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/.../onelevel2.jpg
>
>
>Hmm, I had though of raising the sidings too, but my little 0-4-0 loco
>(I have yet to enhance my loco collection) is bloody awful at any kind
>of incline, so I was trying to avoid that -

With a minimum clearance bridge you should be able to get at least 1 in
50, possibly 1 in 60.
>
>I'm still not happy with the kickbacks, but it's this or I could take it
>off the R/H side, and run the line anticlockwise, and simplify the whole
>thing entirely.

Yes, that set along the front edge is not nice at all.
Doesn't the pair of pints to the inside loop at the front need to be the
other way round? Otherwise you have two sets facing the same way on the
inner loop.

Does that long siding upper right work on the board? It looks too close
to the main line in the drawing.

>It'd probably be less un-prototypical than using two
>sets of diamonds.

I'll bow to the experts on that. I don't think so, even though I'm
thinking more about operation, prototypical or not. If you can deliver
trains to the inner loop, you can decide from there which main line and
which way round they need to go.

I think there's room for a nice junction there bottom right, with a
diamond or two, to give really good access.

What are you using to draw these? I could do my ideas in pictures
better than describe them, perhaps.

Or where are you? I'd love to come round and fiddle with track pieces.
(I'm about to demolish my own garden railway. Last train ceremony next
weekend?)
>
>Sorry to be a bother, but as this is going to be a fixed layout, and
>sceneried, I want to get the plan right first.
>
No, this is right. Make as many mistakes and refinements on paper as
possible, before correction becomes much more troublesome.

>All the best

>
>Andy.
>

--
Chris Brown

Chris Brown <chris@x-track.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <1i2db36.urrbsm1lll9ozN%wildrover.andy@googlemail. com>, Andy
> Hewitt <wildrover.andy@googlemail.com> writes
> >e:
> >
> >Sorry, not clear was it. I walk into my shed, and the 6x6 layout is in
> >front of me, at the back wall, with the larger panels front and back,
> >and the small panels left and right the siding panel is on my right,
> >nearest the entrance.
>
> http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/.../onelevel2.jpg
> >
> >
> >Hmm, I had though of raising the sidings too, but my little 0-4-0 loco
> >(I have yet to enhance my loco collection) is bloody awful at any kind
> >of incline, so I was trying to avoid that -
>
> With a minimum clearance bridge you should be able to get at least 1 in
> 50, possibly 1 in 60.

OK, a possibility I might try out.

> >I'm still not happy with the kickbacks, but it's this or I could take it
> >off the R/H side, and run the line anticlockwise, and simplify the whole
> >thing entirely.
>
> Yes, that set along the front edge is not nice at all.
> Doesn't the pair of pints to the inside loop at the front need to be the
> other way round? Otherwise you have two sets facing the same way on the
> inner loop.

Yeah, you're right there - oops!

> Does that long siding upper right work on the board? It looks too close
> to the main line in the drawing.

Not sure, I haven't enough track to build outside the loops yet. Looking
at the layout, it *should*.

> >It'd probably be less un-prototypical than using two
> >sets of diamonds.
>
> I'll bow to the experts on that. I don't think so, even though I'm
> thinking more about operation, prototypical or not. If you can deliver
> trains to the inner loop, you can decide from there which main line and
> which way round they need to go.

Yes, I think with this size of layout, operation is likely to be
paramount, at least if it's going to have any interest operationally.

> I think there's room for a nice junction there bottom right, with a
> diamond or two, to give really good access.

OK, I'll have a play about with that then.

> What are you using to draw these? I could do my ideas in pictures
> better than describe them, perhaps.

I'm using the RailModeller software on the Mac, it has all the pieces
already stored, and they just click into place.

> Or where are you? I'd love to come round and fiddle with track pieces.
> (I'm about to demolish my own garden railway. Last train ceremony next
> weekend?)

I'm in Scarborough.

> >Sorry to be a bother, but as this is going to be a fixed layout, and
> >sceneried, I want to get the plan right first.
> >
> No, this is right. Make as many mistakes and refinements on paper as
> possible, before correction becomes much more troublesome.

Aye, that was the general idea, and why I thought investing a little in
the layout software was worthwhile.

Cheers.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

Andy Hewitt wrote:

> This is my latest redesign (now using correct orientation):
>
> http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/.../onelevel2.jpg
>
> I'm still not happy with the kickbacks, but it's this or I could take it
> off the R/H side, and run the line anticlockwise, and simplify the whole
> thing entirely. It'd probably be less un-prototypical than using two
> sets of diamonds.

I'd be worried about the siding on the right hand side. While two
vehicles might work when side by side, I think you'll find they'll get
clipped as the one on the main comes off the bend. In fact, I'd be
worried about the line on the left being too close to the wall too.

What I'd do with that space (and that approximate plan), is remove the
right hand siding entirely, and centre up the oval so there is equal
clearance either side.

Then I'd change the sidings at the bottom so I could get a loop, as follows:

Head right and up from the word "front", find the R604, and replace that
with a right hand point. The 'free end' of that will be a headshunt -
R600+R609+something sounds good (use whatever will fit in the space).
The siding slightly outside this will need straightening up a bit.
Go further right from this modification, and find the two R605s which
turn down onto the extension board. Change these for R607s. One of these
can come from the siding we just straightened.

Due to all three of these modifications moving the sidings to the right
a bit, we should have space to replace the R606 on the end of the inner
most siding with an R605. It will now connect with the other R605, and
form a loop. This means we can run round, and do all sorts other stuff
in there. Personally, I'd take the siding to the right of the loop
(we'll only have space for one now, not two) off of the lowermost R607
(change it for an R606 and another right hand point), and fit a kickback
with a left hand point from here going north. I wouldn't be tempted to
connect this to the outer oval in a triangle - that'd require
interesting wiring, and also create a facing junction.

I'd draw this out but a) PSP doesn't like your track diagram (if I
scroll around on it, it crashes) and b) it's one in the morning, and I
should be asleep...

James Moody
--
aka: Major Denis Bloodnok | (¯\
ICQ: 7000473 | \ \ /¯)
http://www.vsr.org.uk | \ \___/ /
No more can they keep us in | |/ _)| )
Listen, damn it, we will win | ( (|_| )
They see it right, they see it well | \ /
But they think this saves us from our hell | |====|

	#1
Andy Hewitt	Fidle yard dilemma? Many thanks for all the comments on my new layout. I've now decided to stick an extra board on for the sidings, making it a rather fat 'L' shape. Trouble is, my layout dicates where this board had to go, and it's not ideally positioned for the correct direction of travel (thanks Chris for pointing that out). I have a 6ft x 6ft main layout, with a 45"x12" board to the bottom right (my shed dimensions really only allow this). Although I'm primarily building the layout for operational interest, I would also like to add some scenery, and the separate sidings would free some space on the main board. My plan allows for a twin main line, two loops off the inner main line for the station, and a third inner 'branch' line. The idea being I use the outer line for an express, the inner main line for a commuter, and the branch line as a small rural service. Fred pointed out my poor use of 'kickbacks', so I'm now concious of using these. However, to make the best possible use of the sidings board, I need to take the branch line off the express line, but it would be in the wrong direction for use of the sidings. I can shorten the loops a little, and bring the sidings off in the right direction, but this makes them much shorter, and I have to use a kickback to make any use of this for a long train. My options are to sacrifice the length of the loops to improve the sidings usability, possibly even losing the inner loop altogether, or just run the trains the wrong way (does that really matter if the overall effect of the display is good?). Cheers. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

	#2
Chris Brown	Re: Fidle yard dilemma? In article <1i2ci5i.142qna3paogtdN%wildrover.andy@googlemail. com>, Andy Hewitt <wildrover.andy@googlemail.com> writes >Many thanks for all the comments on my new layout. I've now decided to >stick an extra board on for the sidings, making it a rather fat 'L' >shape. > >Trouble is, my layout dicates where this board had to go, and it's not >ideally positioned for the correct direction of travel (thanks Chris for >pointing that out). I have a 6ft x 6ft main layout, with a 45"x12" board >to the bottom right (my shed dimensions really only allow this). The bottom right facing which way? > >Although I'm primarily building the layout for operational interest, I >would also like to add some scenery, and the separate sidings would >free some space on the main board. > >My plan allows for a twin main line, two loops off the inner main line >for the station, and a third inner 'branch' line. The idea being I use >the outer line for an express, the inner main line for a commuter, and >the branch line as a small rural service. When you mentioned the extra board, and the facing, I had a couple of ideas but thought I might have said enough already. They both involved getting that extension board to connect to the inner loop. http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/...6x6layout6.jpg Cutting right across the two main lines with a pair of diamonds would do it. (for example, where you currently have the level crossing) and would be less un-prototypical. If the extension is lower right, it looks like it would mean turning all your existing track work through 90 degrees. Alternately put the fan of sidings 2"+ higher, and use a bridge and long curving line to connect to the inner loop. It would probably cost you one half-loop, the right hand innermost, the left hand red line going further out nearer the blue line, to give the longest incline. But that, replacing the brown sidings, would give you your scenery space to the upper-right. A siding or two could then be added off the inner loop by the bottom station, as well, facing towards the level crossing. > >Cheers. > -- Chris Brown, Emett fan. See http://www.picturetrail.com/emettplus

	#3
Andy Hewitt	Re: Fidle yard dilemma? Chris Brown <chris@x-track.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <1i2ci5i.142qna3paogtdN%wildrover.andy@googlemail. com>, Andy > Hewitt <wildrover.andy@googlemail.com> writes > >Many thanks for all the comments on my new layout. I've now decided to > >stick an extra board on for the sidings, making it a rather fat 'L' > >shape. > > > >Trouble is, my layout dicates where this board had to go, and it's not > >ideally positioned for the correct direction of travel (thanks Chris for > >pointing that out). I have a 6ft x 6ft main layout, with a 45"x12" board > >to the bottom right (my shed dimensions really only allow this). > > The bottom right facing which way? Sorry, not clear was it. I walk into my shed, and the 6x6 layout is in front of me, at the back wall, with the larger panels front and back, and the small panels left and right the siding panel is on my right, nearest the entrance. > >Although I'm primarily building the layout for operational interest, I > >would also like to add some scenery, and the separate sidings would > >free some space on the main board. > > > >My plan allows for a twin main line, two loops off the inner main line > >for the station, and a third inner 'branch' line. The idea being I use > >the outer line for an express, the inner main line for a commuter, and > >the branch line as a small rural service. > > When you mentioned the extra board, and the facing, I had a couple of > ideas but thought I might have said enough already. > They both involved getting that extension board to connect to the inner > loop. > http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/...6x6layout6.jpg Ah, I should perhaps have updated that, sorry, I actually have that layout with the front at the top, and the sidings board is to the upper left on that picture. Either way, that probably makes little difference, as it's a square layout anyway. > Cutting right across the two main lines with a pair of diamonds would do > it. (for example, where you currently have the level crossing) and would > be less un-prototypical. If the extension is lower right, it looks like > it would mean turning all your existing track work through 90 degrees. I had considered that too actually. > Alternately put the fan of sidings 2"+ higher, and use a bridge and > long curving line to connect to the inner loop. > It would probably cost you one half-loop, the right hand innermost, the > left hand red line going further out nearer the blue line, to give the > longest incline. > But that, replacing the brown sidings, would give you your scenery space > to the upper-right. A siding or two could then be added off the inner > loop by the bottom station, as well, facing towards the level crossing. Hmm, I had though of raising the sidings too, but my little 0-4-0 loco (I have yet to enhance my loco collection) is bloody awful at any kind of incline, so I was trying to avoid that - I think the turns are a bit tight on this size layout. Of course, I could detach carriages and use a shunter, or even double head it I suppose. This is my latest redesign (now using correct orientation): http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/.../onelevel2.jpg I'm still not happy with the kickbacks, but it's this or I could take it off the R/H side, and run the line anticlockwise, and simplify the whole thing entirely. It'd probably be less un-prototypical than using two sets of diamonds. Sorry to be a bother, but as this is going to be a fixed layout, and sceneried, I want to get the plan right first. All the best Andy. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

	#4
Just zis Guy, you know?	Re: Fidle yard dilemma? Ah, the race is on then, to get my layout back in commission before my bro-in-law gets his fixed. Damn! I am halfway through replastering a wall, where am I going to find the time to get started on that 27' x 17' tailchaser I've been dreaming of for my railway room? A station platform long enough for a prototypical express in 00 is the main aim here :-) Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

	#5
Andy Hewitt	Re: Fidle yard dilemma? Just zis Guy, you know? <uce@ftc.gov> wrote: > Ah, the race is on then, to get my layout back in commission before > my bro-in-law gets his fixed. Damn! I am halfway through > replastering a wall, where am I going to find the time to get > started on that 27' x 17' tailchaser I've been dreaming of for my > railway room? A station platform long enough for a prototypical > express in 00 is the main aim here :-) > > Guy Aha, I wondered if you'd get a kick start now ;-) Well, I have a base board, and some track down, but it'll all have to be lifted again to prepare and landscape the boards. At that size, surely you could go to 'O' gauge? :-) How's Michael's arm BTW? Not too sore I hope? :-( -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

	#6
Just zis Guy, you know?	Re: Fidle yard dilemma? On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:56:23 +0100, wildrover.andy@googlemail.com (Andy Hewitt) said in <1i2diit.18h25hcynguoN%wildrover.andy@googlemail.c om>: >How's Michael's arm BTW? Not too sore I hope? He passed his Grade 4 horn exam with 2 marks short of a merit despite taking it before the break was even diagnosed, and by the Friday he off to band because the cast meant he could hold the instrument again. Kids! Cast is off now and he's in Belgium and France with the Scouts. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

	#10
Major Bloodnok	Re: Fidle yard dilemma? Andy Hewitt wrote: > This is my latest redesign (now using correct orientation): > > http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/.../onelevel2.jpg > > I'm still not happy with the kickbacks, but it's this or I could take it > off the R/H side, and run the line anticlockwise, and simplify the whole > thing entirely. It'd probably be less un-prototypical than using two > sets of diamonds. I'd be worried about the siding on the right hand side. While two vehicles might work when side by side, I think you'll find they'll get clipped as the one on the main comes off the bend. In fact, I'd be worried about the line on the left being too close to the wall too. What I'd do with that space (and that approximate plan), is remove the right hand siding entirely, and centre up the oval so there is equal clearance either side. Then I'd change the sidings at the bottom so I could get a loop, as follows: Head right and up from the word "front", find the R604, and replace that with a right hand point. The 'free end' of that will be a headshunt - R600+R609+something sounds good (use whatever will fit in the space). The siding slightly outside this will need straightening up a bit. Go further right from this modification, and find the two R605s which turn down onto the extension board. Change these for R607s. One of these can come from the siding we just straightened. Due to all three of these modifications moving the sidings to the right a bit, we should have space to replace the R606 on the end of the inner most siding with an R605. It will now connect with the other R605, and form a loop. This means we can run round, and do all sorts other stuff in there. Personally, I'd take the siding to the right of the loop (we'll only have space for one now, not two) off of the lowermost R607 (change it for an R606 and another right hand point), and fit a kickback with a left hand point from here going north. I wouldn't be tempted to connect this to the outer oval in a triangle - that'd require interesting wiring, and also create a facing junction. I'd draw this out but a) PSP doesn't like your track diagram (if I scroll around on it, it crashes) and b) it's one in the morning, and I should be asleep... James Moody -- aka: Major Denis Bloodnok \| (¯\ ICQ: 7000473 \| \ \ /¯) http://www.vsr.org.uk \| \ \___/ / No more can they keep us in \| \|/ _)\| ) Listen, damn it, we will win \| ( (\|_\| ) They see it right, they see it well \| \ / But they think this saves us from our hell \| \|====\|