Dungrange

What radii are you using? I've seen plenty of scale length trains on exhibition layouts, but they generally don't use train set radius curves.

That is a good point that is worth highlighting and perhaps requires further explanation, just in case it's not obvious. With the Hornby points, the curved part of the point is a 22.5 degree segment of a circle, so you could effectively join 16 of them to form a full circle of second radius track. However, when placing the Hornby points in a crossover formation, this means that the stock turns through 22.5 degrees before turning back with a curve of opposite hand (in the direction of travel). The two points used to form the crossover are the same hand. Changing to the Peco streamline turnouts, the diverging angle is just 12 degrees, so when trains are driven through the crossover formed from Peco streamline, they are following a much smoother path, which of course looks better. Therefore, whilst you could still use a mix of Hornby and Peco streamline points in the station area, you'd need to ensure that where you have a crossover or other formation, that you use the same track throughout. For example, all of your junctions and run round loops could be Peco streamline to get smoother geometry, but you could use a spare Hornby point in your sidings where the diverging angle doesn't need to be consistent with anything else.

In an aesthetic sense, there is not a huge difference between Peco and Hornby track, but you will need to ensure that if you're mixing them, that you use the Peco Code 100 range. The Code is the height of the rail in thousandths of an inch, so with Code 100 the rails are 0.1" high. That is the height of the Hornby rails. That is a bit over scale (scale track would be Code 75 for bullhead rail or Code 82 / 83 for modern flat bottom rail). It would be possible to lay the station using closer to scale track and Peco produce transition sections, but if you want to use some Hornby track in the station area, then I'd recommend using Code 100 track throughout. With regards track centres, scaling down the prototype, two tracks should be a little under 45 mm apart (albeit that is a minimum) and the Peco Streamline range uses a track spacing of, I think, 2" (ie 50.8 mm). However, whilst this places the tracks slightly further apart than in the full sized railway, it's much more realistic than the 67 mm spacing from the Hornby set-track geometry, which is determined by the need to avoid stock traversing R1 and R2 curves coming into contact. Using streamline geometry would allow you to fit a little more in and should also look more realistic (especially for the relatively straight track on the panhandle).

There is - fourth post.

I don't really see the Bachmann E Z Command Station as being particularly suitable for DCC sound. Assuming we are talking about this https://www.Bachmann.co.uk/product/e-z-command®-control-centre/36-501 the specification states that it has 8 function buttons, which is a long way short of the 29 functions used by some sound projects. Eight function buttons is enough for basic DCC decoders where you only need to turn lights on and off but you'll not be able to access all of the sounds on a decent DCC sound decoder using the Bachmann E Z Command Station. I think you need to consider this before looking at Boosters. I can't really recommend a Command Station because they are personal choice and I only have one, but I chose the Sig-na-trak ACE2 https://www.signatrak.co.uk/products/ace-dcc-controller-accessories/dcs2044-ace-15-48 because it is relatively straightforward to use and all functions are accessible from a single menu. Although I use it for 00, it is a 5 Amp system, so would be suitable for 0 gauge as well.

No, I think you're okay with the MTB1, although I've never used one. The instructions (https://www.mtb-model.com/files/produkty/MP1-setup_CZ_EN_DE.pdf) state that "there is a 1-amp switch SPDT contact with ressetable thermal protection fuse set to 0.5A short-circuit protection on the point frog". Looking at the wiring diagram, this switch appears to be completely separate from the power to the motor, so provided terminals f1 and f2 (the top two) are connected to the stock rails (which will be fed from your 'Track bus') and the next one down is connected to the frog, then the frog power should be taken from the 'Track bus', which means you retain the advantages of having separate buses for track and accessories.

Go with Iain's suggestion above. Yes. The first of these is normally termed an 'Accessory bus' and all that is connected to it are your accessory decoders and the point motors that they control, plus anything else that you want to add such as operating signals or building lights (if you want to have these switchable from the DCC system). The second, via a circuit breaker is a separate 'Track bus'. It passes through the circuit breaker so that if there is a short on the track, only the 'Track bus' will shut down and you can continue to operate accessories connected to the 'Accessory bus'. The only thing potentially worth highlighting is frog wiring. Some point motors such as the Cobalt Digital IP has a frog output, which if connected to the frog, means that it would be powered by your 'Accessory bus' rather than the 'Track bus'. However, that is overcome by just using one of the other switches wired up to connect to the frog and stock rails. It is of course still possible to split the 'Track bus' as I suggested earlier, but you definitely don't need three boosters (ie two track power districts and an accessory bus). However, splitting the track bus could help with fault finding (ie if you can switch half the layout off, then it should be easier to find a fault).

If you need a booster, I'd split the layout such that the terminus on one wall is powered by the main unit and the terminus on the other wall is powered by the booster. Whether you make the boundary between the two power districts half way between or include the up line in one and the down line in the other is up to you. That would be governed by where you put double insulated rail joiners (ie separate both rails of both lines) to split the layout in two. I think the z21 is a 3 Amp system, so assuming you're locomotives draw 0.5 Amps each whilst running (modern stock normally uses less current), that will be 2.0 Amps and if you operate 4 MTB1s simultaneously (0.15 Amps each during operation) whilst the four locomotives are running then that would take you up to 2.6 Amps, so I think you should be okay without a booster. The question is of course whether you'll have anything else that is drawing current -eg DCC Sound locos idling away, coach lighting in several rakes, resistive wheelsets for automatic train detection. If you think there is a chance that you may need to allow for a booster, then add the insulated rail joiners suggested above at the build stage, but only buy the booster once you've ascertained that you actually need it. I suspect that the answer is that you wont.

Yes, that's the scenario that I was envisaging. The goods facilities at the actual terminus further up the line have shut (you are modelling the post-Beeching era) and the passenger service frequency has been reduced to say three DMU services per day (morning, lunchtime and evening). It's a section of the network under constant threat of closure. However, the station that you are modelling is still a little busier and in addition to the through DMU services, there are a couple of additional passenger services (mid-morning and mid-afternoon) that are sometimes operated by a second DMU and sometimes loco hauled. There is still a daily goods service, albeit the station is perhaps not as busy as in its heyday. However, it's at least retained its rail services for now.

I've not seen these before, but it looks as though you can use them either as standard terminal strip connectors where each circuit is separate ie 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all for joining separate wires or if you use the continuity strips, you effectively tie all of the poles together on one side to create an earth block. That would therefore mean that you'd use two of these. One would use a red continuity strip and connect all the positive wires together and the other would use the black continuity strip and connect all of the negative wires together. I could of course be wrong, but that's what they look like to me.

The problem with that as a plan is that you have R3 and R4 curves at standard set track track centres, but you are introducing a difference in the vertical elevation, which will require a carefully positioned vertical curved wall between the grey and green tracks. The radius of that wall will need to be large enough to avoid the end throw of stock traversing the R3 (grey) track, but if the top of the wall extends above the level of the track on the R4 (green) track then the radius of the wall needs to be small enough to avoid the centre overhang of a coach on the R4 track. I think it would be difficult to get the position of that wall correct and get it to look okay in a scenic sense. However, all layouts are a compromise and it depends on what @Reg81 wants most from his railway. Personally, I think my preference is the layout that @Zomboid posted on 2 October. With regards the new 'not quite a fiddle yard', I suspect it would be difficult to use this as a fiddle yard because it would be difficult to couple and uncouple stock on the curve, but since part of @Reg81's plan is to operate a DMU service, the terminus could be changed such that although most services would terminate at the modelled station (ie the loco hauled ones), a single track could continue under a bridge into this space which could store a DMU. It would then be possible to operate an occasional through service in addition to those that terminate.

In my opinion, the plan above is a step backwards, but it depends on what you want most - a trainset (ie the oval part) or a model railway (ie a station that can be made to look and be operated reasonably prototypically). Second radius curves have a radius of 438 mm (17 1/4"), which is measured to the centre line of the track. That therefore means that the distance between the centrelines of the front straight on the oval and the rear straight is approximately 34 1/2". You'll then have around 17 mm (3/4") from the centreline of the track to the edge of the sleeper both at the front and rear of the layout, which means that the edges of the sleepers will effectively be at the edge of the board (ie the edge of sleeper to edge of sleeper dimension is almost 36"). That could work (although I wouldn't advise it) for a layout where you have access all round, but not for a layout against a wall as you have no clearance for the swing of stock as it enters the curve. Stock going along the rear straight will be almost rubbing against the wall. A 36" wide baseboard is simply not wide enough to accommodate a continuous run and it's too wide to stretch across to deal with a derailment at the rear of the layout. Personally, I wouldn't advocate taking the centre line of your track any closer than about 2" to the wall or edge of the baseboard, so I'd see a baseboard width of about 38" as the absolute minimum that you could get a second radius oval on. Ultimately, any continuous run layout needs some form of access hatch in the centre unless access can be arranged from all (or at least both long) sides.

What are "the likes and expectations of the younger people" and how do you know what will interest the people you hope to attract to the club? My own club doesn't seem to have a particular problem attracting younger modellers, as we've had a few join us in recent years and we now have members ranging in age from 18 to 80 with at least half of members under 60. In fact I had an enquiry in the last month from another 18 year old looking for information on becoming a club member. Sadly, we can't hold meetings at the moment due to lockdown restrictions, so attracting new members will have to wait for now. However, we have one member in his late 20s who models the pre-grouping era and we also have two members (one in his early 20s and the other in his late 30s) who model the BR Steam era. All of these guys are modelling a period from before they were born. Therefore something like a modern DCC diesel era layout wouldn't necessarily attract these "younger people". It's fair to say that we have a couple of members for whom such a layout would appeal, but my point is, that not all younger people have the same interests or expectations. Personally, I think the idea of building a layout for members that you don't have is crazy, especially at this time when funds are tight. I can appreciate that you may need to build a smaller layout for exhibitions (assuming they return at some point) and that you should consider a subject that differs from your existing layouts (so will require different stock), but I'd still choose a project for which there is currently at least some interest for in the club, otherwise where is the motivation for building the layout going to come from? Could some of your members get interested in a secondary interest of a few of your other existing members? Within my own club, we have several members with an interest in narrow gauge, but also German, Swiss and Austrian prototypes as well as some industrial railways. In fact the only prototype I can think of that no-one seems to be interested in is North American models (which were popular in another club I was previously a member of). Would it be worthwhile considering either a dual era layout or one with two track gauges, so that it can interest more than one group? I think the way forward lies not in replacing income, but adapting your expectations to the new 'normal'.

A single slip is just the same as a double slip but missing one of the curved routes of the double slip. It's no different to a pair of individual turnouts and a diamond crossing.

Yes, the shunter will be the person on the track. When wagons are being propelled into the siding, there will be a need for him (or her) to step to one or other side of the line. That's why although an up and down line may be separated by the 'six foot', there will normally be 'ten foot' between the running lines and the sidings and whilst two sidings may only have 'six foot' between them, they were, I understand, normally arranged in pairs so that for each siding, there was a 'ten foot' spacing on one or other side of the siding. This means that the shunter would be expected to step into the 'ten foot' rather than the 'six foot'. In the case of a siding that is adjacent to a locomotive shed, the requirement for the shunter to be able to step aside would still exist. If you only have one siding, then arguably, he could step away from the locomotive shed (in which case you could perhaps move the siding closer to the shed) - ie treat it as a wall and use a minimum of 20 mm. However, if you have two parallel sidings at standard track spacing, then clearly the shunter would be expected to step towards the shed and there would need to be enough space for him to do so safely. The problem is that the definition of being able to do so safely will have changed over time. Giving someone two foot in which to stand was probably considered more than adequate (maybe even generous) by some of the early railway companies, but accidents would result in changes in health and safety practises and as such more space would be demanded nowadays - I believe that the current requirements are online at www.rssb.co.uk. Therefore as @Harlequin has stated above, you really need to look at requirements for the company that built your line and would apply to the period in which you are modelling if absolute accuracy matters to you. However, for most people, the typical dimensions given in the diagram you posted are probably good enough to allow most people to build a plausible layout. At the end of the day, we don't really need to consider the safety of 1:76 scale plastic people.

I don't know the answer to this specific question, but I think it's fair to point out that these are MINIMUM dimensions. Therefore, where there is perceived ambiguity, if you go with the larger figure, you won't be wrong, whereas if you go with the lower figure, you might be. Thinking of first principles, the minimum distances were specified for reasons of both safety and economics. In the case of the parapet on a viaduct, there is a need to minimise the cost of the structure, so keeping the wall as close to the track as possible to minimise the deck width makes sense. What are the hazards of using 20 mm? Where is the space for a track worker to stand clear of a passing train? What is the risk of a passenger putting their head out of the window and being decapitated by said wall? In the case of viaducts, the lack of lateral clearance necessitated the introduction of small recesses above the piers where it was possible for someone to stand. In the case of passenger's heads, that wouldn't be an issue if the top of the wall is below window height. If the wall was higher, then it would likely be higher for a reason, usually to retain an earthworks slope in cutting and the diagram you posted shows a larger distance in this case - ie 27 mm. This should be enough to remove the risk of decapitated heads, as that distance is measured at the bottom of the wall and retaining walls slope backwards, so at window height you probably have closer to 30 mm, which is the quoted distance for bridge piers. As well as removing the risk of decapitating people leaning out of the train, that would probably also be enough to allow a track operative to stand with their back against the wall, albeit I wouldn't want to stand that close to a high speed train. It probably won't be allowed these days, but probably was in Victorian times. Therefore, I'd probably go with the 30 mm distance between the centreline of the track and the wall of the loco shed on the basis that: Even if your railway company permitted a lower figure, allowing more than the minimum would not be wrong; It allows space for the driver or fireman to look outside the locomotive clear of the loco shed wall; and it provides some space between the locomotive and shed wall in the event of someone on the track needing to step out of the way. As for coaling stages and goods platforms, I see no reason why they would be any further from the track than a passenger platform, although the sides of the loading gauge are not vertical, so if the platform is higher, then arguably, the goods platform may be very slightly further away, but we're probably talking about less than 1/2 mm in model form, so not worth bothering about.

Will the location of the layout allow access from both sides? One reason why two foot (600 mm) wide baseboards are popular is that it is easy to reach across from the front of the layout to the back-scene. 1000 mm is too big a stretch for most people. It's also worth highlighting that layout height has an impact on how far you can stretch, but the typical limit of stretch for most adults would be somewhere in the region of 750 mm (2' 6") to 900 mm (3') with lower layouts being easier to stretch over.

I think the other difference is that without the bay platform, the second train would have to be a locomotive length shorter, so that the front of the locomotive stops before the clearance point of the crossover, whereas with the first train the locomotive only needs to stop such that the front coach is clear of the clearance point. If the second train is the same length and the platforms are also the same length, then in would be necessary to detrain the passengers and then set back a locomotive length to permit the run round.

@jhock If you need details of the signalling, look at https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/archivesignals/brscot.php and scroll down to 1987. Click on the '1987' before 'Inverness Phase 2 commissioning' and it will take you to a Special Notice, the end of which has a track plan showing what is controlled by the Inverness Signalling Centre - ie where all the signals are and what type of signals. This would presumably be as things were at the start of your time period, but the Freight Depot and No 1 and No 2 sidings adjacent to Platform 1 (the old Motorail terminal) most likely disappeared at some point in your time frame. I was aware that the remains of the harbour branch had been used for coal, but I don't recall ever having seen a train there at the times I visited the station. The Safeway trains were a bit after my time there, but I do recall having been told that's where they were unloaded. The signal plan referred to above, shows how the former Harbour Branch was connected in 1987.

It appears that there were some small track changes in the mid-1980s in advance of re-signalling in 1987, which is when the Inverness Signalling Centre opened (https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/I/Inverness_Signalling_Centre/) so I think the signalling would be fairly constant over the suggested period 1990 - date.

Okay, Google Translate translates the word 'Baw' as 'Dirt' and the word 'Ddwr' as 'Water'. I could therefore assume that if you put the two words together you'd get 'Dirt Water', but for some reason Google Translate thinks 'Baw ddwr' translates as 'Water fouling'. Ask it to translate 'Water fouling' into Welsh and it gives 'Baeddu dŵr'!!!! However, give it the English phrase 'Water dirt' and it does produce 'Baw Dŵr' as the Welsh equivalent. Interestingly, there seems to be various alternative spellings that translate to water and I note that Wikitionary refers to ddŵr as being a soft mutation of dŵr (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ddŵr#Welsh). I don't know why I care, because I have no intention of calling my layout Dirtwater, although Foulbrook sounds better, even if it has a similar meaning.

I think it depends on how accurately you want to replicate Millburn Yard, which depends on the space that you have available. I used to live in Inverness in the 1980s and on the whole, I'm tempted to say that not too much has changed, but some things have. Back in the 1980s there was no container yard being used by DRS to load Stobart rail containers. Unfortunately, I can't remember what was there - perhaps just a couple of overgrown sidings. The container loading is now clearly visible from Morrison's car park, but of course the supermarket and the adjacent extension to the Eastgate Shopping centre didn't exist back in the 1980s - I think they were both built in the early 2000s. There was however at that time Motorail loading facilities in Inverness station to the south of Platform 1, which have now gone. I seem to recall that what remained of the Harbour Branch was still extant back at that time, but I think was rarely used - I'm not sure if that is still there and connected to the rest of the network. However, looking across towards Millburn Yard from Millburn Road, I don't think there has been radical changes to the track layout that would preclude you forming a plausible dual era layout. I doubt that there is much signalling within the yard itself and I can't recall when semaphore signalling was replaced with colour light signalling.

I guess a lot of these on-line translation tools are not that great when we stray away from commonly used words. Going back to the Welsh 'Y Bawddwr', if I split 'Bawddwr' into 'Bawd dwr' (with a space), then Google Translate gives me 'The Water Thumb'. 'Y' being Welsh for 'The' and 'dwr' being the Welsh for 'water'. That would suggest to me that the origin of the name is perhaps derived from the shape of the watercourse or it's position relative to the other watercourses in the area.

Strangely enough, I don't get that translation, or at least not on Google Translate. https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=Bawddwr gives me the English 'Baddler'. If I change the Welsh to 'Y Bawddwr', which is the actual name of the River being discussed, I get the rather unhelpful 'The Bawddwr', which looks like no translation at all (https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=cy&tl=en&text=Y Bawddwr).

That's pretty much how I see things too. In our club, member subscriptions generally cover our overheads (rent, electricity, water charges and insurance) and the income that we get from attending exhibitions and the sale of donations is normally used to fund new layouts, tools etc - the things which could be considered discretionary spending. Obviously, we have lost the latter two income streams for the moment, but since the club isn't open (although bubbles of two is a possibility, Scottish Government restrictions preclude larger meetings), we're also not building new layouts and thus incurring these costs, so the priority is simply to be able to pay the bills so that the club is still around when things improve. Our electricity bills are also lower. My own club owns virtually no stock. What runs on our club layouts at exhibitions is almost exclusively owned by our members. Club layouts are built based on the shared interests of a group of members, so in general, each layout that is built can be stocked by several different individuals and if a signature locomotive or type of rolling stock is required, one of the members will generally buy the required stock themselves. It's only the layout (baseboards, track, wiring etc) that are paid for from club funds and the costs are spread over a number of years depending on our income. I suggest that you'll need to either slow the rate at which you build layouts or ask the members to contribute more.