(Click the image to open a larger version in a new window)
The green markings show where power breaks will be introduced with switches to isolate locomotives beyond these locations - namely, at the buffer end of each platform, loop and in the shed road. The latter will have two breaks allowing up to three locos to be stored at any one time (whether there will ever be a needed is another matter although two is likely).
As far as I can see, turnouts 'F' and 'G' must be electrically (and operationally) interlinked so that there is no possibility of a short-circuit developing. I can't see any other potential problem areas. From a prototype operational point of view, I'm not sure also whether 'B' and 'C' would be interlinked to avoid potential accidents! It also makes sense that the main power feed is automatically switched to the shed road when point 'C' is switched to the shed road.
While I'm not yet 100% sure what all this wiring and switches will look like (i.e. how exactly I'll construct it all, connect the power to the rails - including across rail joins etc.) I do anticipate that the electrical switches for each turnout will be linked directly to the point motors, obviating the need for a seperate switch and eliminating the possibility of further accidental short-circuits. I believe the Fulgarex point motors have two built in auxilliary switches which makes them ideal, as well as the fact that their slow motor-driven action (as opposed to the more forceful solenoid type motors from manufacturers such as Peco) is a lot more forgiving on delicate hand-built pointwork! Also, the Fulgarex is apparently smaller than Tortoise motors and slightly cheaper. the only possible drawback I'm aware of is that I've read that the throw of a Fulgarex motor is about 10mm which is a lot more than the actual throw of a turnout. I'm not sure if there has to be some sort of compensation built in or whether the extra distance is taken up by play in the mechanism???