It's a nice enough design but unless you can modify it to suit your requirements without having gradients that are too steep I would stick with a single-level layout. The gradient in the plan appears to be about 1 in 27 which I think is far too steep for all but the shortest trains even with traction tyres. You will get more enjoyment from a reliable single-level layout than an unreliable two-level one.

One more problem with the track plan is that it is in someone's imagination! The pointwork from the station throat (bottom right) to the sidings shows six pionts in series. With a medium radius point being 8.5 inches long, that means point array length of 51 inches, not the approx 3 feet shown!
Even in some track plan books, not enough room is allowed for pointwork. The best way of planning is to put actual track onto your baseboard roughly into the position you have in mind. You will be surprised at how quickly your "big" baseboard dissapears and how little you can get into 10 x 7.
Don't be tempted to use "settrack" points to save space; not many locos will go through them.

Good point Tony (sorry about the pun:)). I wonder if it started life as an N-Gauge trackplan?

Yes John, more than likely!

thats not all that bad mate and actually looks alot more reasonable to do than the other one!, with the crossovers it was merely a case of finding something that would actually link together, when using the medium points for some reason it would work (when you bear in mind im going to be using flexitrack rather than set track in many places).

You make a good point about the multi layer which was something i was concerned about from past experience, infact when we last tried it about the only train that would actually make the climb was my old triang britannia (now that was a beast!). I have noticed the newer engines still lack the power of the much older stuff (but they do look so much nicer!).

I think i might move the points on the left hand side as thinking about it they are on the flip section, not a great idea.. i can just see my cousin rushing in and flip it up without even thinking about the trucks on the siding, reminds me off the time he drove my royal scot off the table (btw anyone know a place i can get a replacement body :( ).

Anyways thanks for all the imput here, i think you have saved me some time and money!

I got one of those for Christmas about 50 years ago. It came in a set with three Pullman coaches. I thought it was brilliant but as you say, compared with today's models, they were pretty basic.

Don't know if this idea would help (and I don't really know if I should muddy the waters, given my all too infrequent visits here these days :D ), but if space is a problem, I've always been quite partial to the idea of just modelling the platform ends of a station, with a tunnel exit/entrance at the other end. You could use the intervening space as a fiddle yard and disguise the front of the intervening space with low relief houses/ townscape etcetera. It doesn't really solve the problem of train length, but the extra sidings which could be added would help a bit with stock storage.

I'll leave the regulars to think about the details!

Should be able to visit with a bit more regularity after my last essay goes in...10th December. :)

Hi Trev,
Have I missed something? It sounds like you've been doing some studying.
(apologies for going OT but I'm nosey:))

well sadly we didnt endup working on this over the weekend, i had the joy of having my appendix being removed instead, good fun and great timing :(

Sorry to hear that Mark. Your grandfather is obviously a very versatile chap;)