imt

Maybe true of Peco Code 75/85 (I wouldn't know) but certainly not true of Streamline 100 as they don't supply ELECTROFROG versions, they only supply insulfrog versions.

From this and previous reporting, it's very easy to come to the conclusion that Croydon tram drivers going to sleep is something they do all the time. I am beginning to think that there may be more to it than just that. Might it be shift patterns, atmosphere in the cabs, lack of stimulation - I know not what. It isn't just one driver as far as I can tell (though really what do I know?). I do hope we get some clearly thought out investigation and reporting soon, because it must be worrying the bejabers out of passengers, drivers and their employers!

It's not essential. This is a small country station on a single line, probably operated one engine in steam and if not by token block of some sort. Shunting on the main line would be quite normal since freight was usually handled around passenger workings. That doesn't mean to say that on your layout you cannot design it how you like and run it the way you choose. As above. Small country station so there wouldn't be much need for signals. The signal box would sit near the largest concentration of points or alternatively where convenient for token exchange on a single track branch and where the signalman had a good view of what was going on. Signals cost a lot of money to install maintain and operate, and various companies had different ideas for what they would do, and what they wouldn't bother signalling. Since it seems to be based on a real ststion maybe looking at things like this would help: https://www.signalbox.org/branches/kw/minehead.htm in which I quote " The signalling on the railway remained relatively unchanged from the day of reopening until 1990. ". I also note that it was a token operated station. You might also find some diagrams on The Signalling Record Society - here http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwe/S767.htm is a small copy of the signalling layout BUT this is for a dual line version from circa 1909 I believe. There seem to be a goodly supply of signals, which probably would not have been there for a single line station.

Well here are my thoughts and an amendment or two to your plan, which appears below but which I have also returned by email. It's better that this is shown here so other helpful comments can be made on it. A: This is the extra line which allows simultaneous moves in and out without conflict (but see below). Its just 2 extra points and a couple of ST230. I have used an ST201 which would need cutting back or a piece of flexitrack substituting. This greatly increases the simultaneous movements possible and (I think) looks even better. B: You need to consider the length of your locos for the siting of this crossover, remember you need space for a buffer stop and clearance for the loco to uncouple, run forwar and then run round. The single 201 is probably enough for most diesels, but not for tender steam locos. You need to do some measuring and checking of the lengths of typical motive power and stock you will be using. On my layout I get a Class 37 and 5 MK1 carriages into 170 cm. I have numbered your platforms from the top. You do need to balance these with Fidddle Yard siding lengths - there is no point haveing one significantly longer than the other. Your FY sidings 1, 2 and 3 are 175cm. They should give you a diesel and 5 coaches, maybe 6. C: Your platform widths were generous - I have used 2 * ST202s here and on Platform 1 just to show how that still gives you scale 20ft wide platforms. D: Your inner curve (Up) was a Radius 1 here - definitely a no-no. I found two other short curves that were like that too. These curves are 3rd on the outside and 2nd on the inside, you will need to do a bit of fiddling to get proper connection here - use flexi track like you have already in some places. E. Zomboid's point about hiding the second set of crossovers (essential to get free access to all FY roads so don't remove them!) is that they wouldn't be there on the real railway - you could put some kind of scenic break here: a bridge or something. You will need to reconsider your scenic treatment now anyway. F: This is a key clearance point. If you want to run a long train in to P1, simultaneously with one leaving P2, the END of the incoming train must bebeyond this point to avoid collision if the outgoing train is heading for FY1 of FY2. Not disastrous at all, but you need to bear that in mind for your operating sequence/timetable and with train lengths. G: I have moved FY1 inwards so that you can use Peco Locolifts to handle your motive power. Leave one at the head end of a FY siding and the loco can run in easily, you can decouple it and carry it to the other end for a quick turnround without actually handling the loco (much safer!). H: The board needs to be wider now OR just drop this outer line and put the push back sidings on 6. You have a magnificent set of FY sidings, but I don't think you need the last one. Now back to my earlier point - this is your layout, do it the way that pleases YOU. Hope this helps you.

I was unable to send you my suggestions in Anyrail as this software would not accept the file type. You seem to have done very well without them! Looks better and the curve into the station is more sweeping. The only improvement could be Pacific 231G's high intensity update to the throat. Your board divides look OK EXCEPT for the one at the head of the fiddle yard as it goes through a point! Don't do it! It would be better if joints were away from points entirely. You need to think carefully what you want to achieve with the joints - are that for a regular full strike down and rebuild, or for occasional clearing out of a guest room etc. That will set the parameters on how many joints and how well they need to be made. You may need some careful negotiation with the domestic authorities to decide how big it can be and how much needs to be demount-able. Best of that is restricted to the fiddle yard really. Your idea of having multiple ways to rebuild trains is a good one, and you have the space to have several approaches which will increase operating interest. If you want me to look at it further I have PMed my e-mail address to you, but don't stop posting here or you will lose access to lots of good advice.

Yes it looks as if I am the one that cannot count. I think that IF the OP wants to take this further there is scope as you point out. It would be good to ensure a balance between the platform lengths and the FY siding lengths, and I don't have time to do it and he might not want it anyway. For my money the ladder should be equal either side of the two main lines - i.e. 3 either side, that gives plenty of scope for simultaneous movements. There may be scope for the Pacific 231G amendment for the special 3 line throat. The only bad bit at the moment is the entry into P4 and maybe a long point there would help if there is room. The first lead off echoes his entry to his TMD and other traffic area. But as you say there may be scope for redesign there if he wants to, I just kept it as it was.

Herewith a very quick attempt on a Minories throat using Hornby Setrack. The objective of such a throat formation is to cut down the "S" bends and side to side movements of stock entering and leaving a station. It also uses all straight points. It looks good and it has a purpose - but it takes space. Maybe you can look at this and perhaps it will help you, perhaps not. I have put a couple of lines on to show how the arrangement impacts on your available space. I like your layout as it stands, and if you do too change nothing! I have sent a PM with the Anyrail file (look at the envelope icon in the top right of your screen. If you want help PM me yours and I'll try to incorporate the two. Oh no i haven't - this daft system won't let me - sorry.

First and essential point: Rule 1 - it's your layout do it like you want to. Zomboid's suggestion about a single line was one I though about too. My reason for rejecting it was that I have something similar but smaller with only 2 platforms, a single line and a 4 road FY using DCC - space constraints. BUT when I have friend(s) in we can still run a pretty intensive 120 move day on it. I'd love your space and if I had it I'd run an intensive service on it since it's really a passenger only layout. For example the "third way" of turning trains is to attach a new loco at the outer end from the TMD, pull out the train and then run the loco at the head of the platform back to the TMD (or onto another train). The other two, are loco run round crossovers and the pilot pull out of one platform and push back into the same or another - your "Inverness" approach. Many early station designs actually had arrival and departure platforms. The pulling out of the stock could include the pilot taking empty stock to the (off scene) carriage sidings (i.e. the fiddle yard!). This can be hectic fun with 4 platforms if you have the pairs of hands and use DCC (not essential but its easier to have multiple loco moves in my experience). In my opinion, getting multiple in/out moves is about doing the changes I suggested to the FY (or something similar) and balancing it a bit more between the dual lines. That shortens the platforms a little but increases operational variation. As to the comments about Minories, you can get the flavour from http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78492-minories-holborn-viaduct/ at post #12. I am not sure that it would help much on Setrack points. I'll have a go if I get time. Have fun.

I would advise taking out the crossovers at the end of your fiddle yard and using the money to buy some Peco Loco Lifts, you can use them to lift (and turn) a loco from one end to the other, saves space and physical handling of locos. Also you have 7ft platforms and only one FY siding capable of holding that length of train? You also might like to think about if you are doing this "Inverness" style shunting that you would be drawing out the stock onto the Up (right hand) line. If you are doing that why the crossover between the middle two platforms? The way you have it at the moment would mean that a 5/6 coach train would foul the crossovers at the head of the fiddle yard meaning you could not run in a train on the down line simultaneously EXCEPT from the single extreme left hand FY siding. I would suggest that you shorten the platform lengths by a few inches, move the FY sidings right and insert another long siding to the left. You would then chop off your current 5th siding and move the 6th with the DMU pushbacks left and all your FY sidings would be able to take 4'6" long trains as a minimum (at least 3 coaches and a diesel loco) and your longest two would be able to hold probably 5/6 coaches and loco. As to what to do with the bottom two lines in your station, try milk unloading for your town, post/parcels, Motorail (if appropriate). Many main line stations had such things at various times - there are threads on this site about all of them - just search. If you don't understand what I am saying PM me a copy of your Anyrail file and I'll do the suggested changes. You are doing well, and this could be a nice layout to operate an intensive passenger timetable with some added specialist freight to add some extra interest. With Hornby/Peco Setrack curved points use a 20 (15,16) or similar to avoid the possible stuttering of short wheelbase locos over them.

Sorry for this silly question - really for a signal engineer I guess. Is it just down to route proving order, or is there a specific order to lighting a junction indicator before/after the clear aspect on a signal - or is there a way of actually doing it simultaneously? Having stared at some for some time I really am unable to tell, there is one on the T&W metro near me which I swear lights the PLJI first then the clear aspect. I have found a way of doing it simultaneously using Train Tech signals for my layout - but I wondered why/how the 12"/foot systems worked?

I have sent a PM to you on this subject which may be of interest. In case you don't know look at the top right of the page and you will see an envelope, click on it.

I think I'd do the same thing with the cattle dock. That is move the point on the middle road left to meet a single(?) slip to the cattle dock and right to the mileage. More room for mileage or maybe restore the side/end loading facilities. The crane needs to take a walk leftwards too? You are developing a cracking narrow station there which may well inspire others with not much space. About the only thing left to make space is to narrow the distance between the middle and platform road to "standard" 6ft (45mm?) and widen the gap to the goods road that way, but this means some butchery on the points (which look like standard Peco?). Whether that would be worth it is debatable.

Yes there are lots of plans I like too - but haven't built. Sorry for repeating myself - but are any of these plans what YOU want. What objectives do you have in building a layout. Some people don't like passenger trains so build marshalling yards or diesel depots or similar, others want several stations because they like to run timetables, some like scheduling goods trains using load cards. There are hundreds of ways to scratch your itch. In the end it is no good just looking at somebody elses's plans. Nobody can decide what YOU want for you. By all means randomly pick a plan and build it. I can almost guarantee that halfway through you'll want to change it, and then that won't work, then you'll get frustrated and give up after an expensive dive in and out of this hobby. If you really don't know what you want maybe buy some set track and play with it for a while whilst you work out whether you like this hobby at all.

David is not known for his diplomacy on this site - that's all rather brutal but true. I really would advise you look at other sources of plans before you go further. You have a goodly amount of space with which to play (pun intended) and you need to think out what you want to do much more clearly. For starters, a fiddle yard needs to be proportionate to the traffic you are going to run, so I'd think you would want at least a loop on each side of the the through tracks - gives you an ability to store/build one train whilst another comes in/out. Another is that sidings generally need headshunts - if there is room. I would think you have room. you also need to think where the flows of traffic will be coming from/going to so you can align your track plan to those directions. Railway tracks tend to be laid that way for a purpose. I don't know the track plan you refer to, but trying to be polite, you are off again: moving to a new plan without thinking "what do I want my railway to do, where is it, etc. There are lots good plan books about which should help in getting good ideas. Honestly, as many of us have learned from bitter experience, rather like woodwork - measure twice cut once - you need to think twice and build once!

Two threads that might get you started are: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/101522-how-much-oo-gauge-can-i-fit-into-12x8/ http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/105163-rmw-layout-track-design-worked/

Well, a few thoughts for starters. Firstly there are all sorts of red warning tags from AnyRail to indicate curves are too tight, pieces don't join etc.- not important as you plan things out but you need to keep in mind that this is a rough sketch produced on a computer and not an accurate plan. Some of the lines are too close together as well. How big is the space around this layout - can you reach bits - such as the fiddle yard from the outside? Usually the advice is never to have a board more than 2 feet deep unless you have all round access. What are the other features? A station? A goods yard? A quarry? Why are they there, what traffic do you see your railway carrying? What era is it set in - 1930's steam, modern, something in between? There is lots of other advice on this forum about planning a layout and what to think about. I would suggest you list your objectives and decide your must have's so you can ensure that your layout meets your expectations. If this isn't drawn from your ideas, but just a quick plan from a friend then you may find you get tired of it pretty quickly.

Um? Er? Are you sure you are measuring this right? EM scale? Measured on an enlarged but unscaled copy of your diagram the narrowest part of your upper platform is 5mm and the 30cm square actually is 38mm on my piece of paper which means (I think?) 5/38 * 30 = 3.9cm or about 10ft? Your 2 road engine shed is about 9.5cms. Nice plan - do it in N and it will be fine.

Well I'll have another go, but remember this is not proper expert advice, just what I have picked up. There are signallers and S&T engineers around here - I guess they might scream if this is too off the wall. The way you have it designed, the site for a signal outwards from the yard would be where you have a fence (I think) just beyond the point into the flask loader/unloader. It would be at least a three aspect signal (red, yellow, green) since you should not show a green in this situation if the next signal could be more restrictive. I don't know whether your main line would be 4 aspect or not, but the exit from the loop should be at least 3 (see rule above). I think technically you have another problem in that you should have a trap between the yard and the main lines and the nuclear siding should not be used in that way. As to the need for shunting the yard, well we have a problem. You have no head shunt for the upper fan of sidings and you have no loco run round within them. It's OK for the flask train coming in on the up line since it can just set back, but what about anything else? How do you get a loco to the other end for shunting? How does the flask loco get to the other end? Your idea of a "helper" was good in that it can draw wagons off and shuffle them around. There isn't a lot of space here to have an inward and outward siding and there is no head shunt to give your helper much room. One approach is to say all traffic only arrives and leaves in one direction - goods yards on rural lines were quite often like that relying on larger yards either side to handle trains so they were best arranged for the little yard. I doubt whether you want to do that: SO the only solution is to shunt using the main line as the headshunt. There isn't a need for shunt signals inside the yard, once in and the points locked for the main line, movements would be hand signal controlled by a responsible person on the ground - lets call them a shunter (human not diesel/mechanical). However if you need to shunt onto the main then you would need a PLS on the exit signal because such movements must be controlled by the signalling system. You would shunt using the UP line since that already has a signal with a PLS on it (see last post). If you used the down line you would effectively stop all traffic because you are going to and fro across the up line too. The difficulty with your design is that even shunting on the main you have a problem, that of reversing direction. A solution would be further trailing crossover towards the top of your diagram and changing your single left slip into a right one which would help by making a loop on the main line - which would need shunt signals! - which would allow a loco to run round a short train and get to the other end to pull back onto the down line and then propel into the sidings. But this is a whole new ball game, with some changes to signalling, as would be moving the loop you have from the down to the up line so it can provide the run round. Sorry, it's the old joke about going to Limerick - I wouldn't have started from here. Please don't get upset or put off. It's your layout do it your way - it doesn't have to be prototypical. As you can see, there are lots of things to consider when designing your layout, especially if you want prototypical signals and operations.

Seconded - my 03 (small wheelbase 0-6-0 diesel shunter) will not perform well enough on Peco medium Streamline with live frogs whilst my 08's are OK. I simply wouldn't try an 0-4-0. That doesn't mean you shouldn't, but be aware. I certainly use unadulterated electrofrogs - just remember to use insulating rail joiners on the frog

I have two. In both of them everything passes through OK, except that (in my case) my 08s sometimes stutter and can lose sound connection. They ain't perfect but they gave me extra space, and the occasional hiccup just has to be accepted (in my case anyway). Edited to add: I think that "stay alive"s might fix it - but I have neither the skills nor the eyesight to fix them.

Look, this is your layout so do it so it feels good to you. But I don't think the railway would have done it like that. Not that I am in any way expert, just what I have learned from discussions with the professionals on here and elsewhere. Since the experts haven't pitched in yet - here goes. Firstly, not very likely that an 08 would be left waiting in between movements - flasks move one a month sort of thing. You wouldn't send an 08 round from a depot with no other purpose than to wait for a short while since you would find it blocking the main line - top speed 25 mph IF the driver hadn't eaten recently!. Much more likely that the train loco would be expected to look after itself. I'm not too well acquainted with nuclear traffic, but I had the impression that it was dual 20s, but maybe its just that they just got hooked up back to back and never changed. This looks plank size, 8' by 1' sort of thing, so you don't have huge amounts of space. I think that the loop, if there was only one, would be on the sidings side (up side) where it could be more useful in the movements that are needed there. If you have room why not 2 loops? You could think of having the sidings used for engineering traffic too, which would add interest and might give a reason for another loco hanging around? The flask trains come in from somewhere, and return there (full in, empty out) - so (say) in on the up line back on the down since that is the way the points are designed. How are you going to get the loco to the head of the outgoing train without a loop? Presumably that is where the 08 came in? As to signals, I doubt whether you would see much in reality except for the signal (3 aspect?) on the sidings controlling the exit to the main line and the one on the loop. The traffic entering the yard would probably be brought to a halt, and then be signalled in on a PLS (Position Light Signal - shunt signal on the main signal post), but probably a few hundred meters from the toe of the points since, when there is traffic out of the yard there would need to be some safety margin, or any traffic might be held at the signal prior to this one - on the whole the timings would probably be such as to avoid that problem anyway. The entry to the loop on the down side would be a feather (Junction Indicator), with some sort of approach control towards it to slow diverging trains down. That signal might just appear top right, but again is likely to be further off. Hope that helps - wait for the posts telling me I'm wrong (and hopefully why)!

Signalling is a lot about what traffic you envisage and how that might be handled. Your layout as far as I can see only allows entry/exit from the down line, is that what is intended? If you want to access the up line you either need another crossover somewhere (a single right slip on the entry to the yard) or are you relying on a crossover from down to up "off stage" at the bottom of your diagram? If you had the slip you could set back to down and then go forward into the loop. I guess you may need to run round using the loop in order to get the loco to the right end for setting back into/shunting the yard. How do you see traffic entering the yard? One way might be diverted into the down loop, pull forward onto down main and set back into sidings. You could even break the incoming train up in the loop, but then you should think about traps at both ends to protect the main line - maybe not if the wagons are air braked? Others more expert will tell you what would be prototypical. Given your layout for the yard I'd be fascinated to hear how you intend to shunt wagons in/out of the heavy lift area? You are going to need to use your passing loop quite a lot to get the loco to the right end I think. Is this just an odd trip run from some larger yard elsewhere, or do you intend to break and make up trains - and if so where and how? Signals will be needed to facilitate the movements of traffic to/from the yard and to protect the main line traffic from those movements, especially if you are doing a lot of toing and froing to the loop.

That may be good advice for the OP since he has a lot of wiring already so doing it your way may help him, but it does sound as if he has a DCC bus already - he doesn't specify which or what. On the other hand I cannot see why if anybody already has the bus wiring why they would want another - and different? - bus structure. I know the "two wires" fallacy about DCC has some people foaming at the mouth, but if there is a bus there why use anything else, especially since there are plenty of off-the-shelf accessories that use it. I can see that you are someone who has the skills and the dexterity to use the MERG stuff, and it is good that the OP gets varying advice so he can pick what suits him. The rest of us will need to stick to what we can buy which works with what we have got - in my case DCC Concepts Cobalt motors and Train-Tech signals which all works off one bus and for which you can use a variety of control systems. The OP mentioned NCC controls using Mini-panels - which is where I came in.

My ignorance showing again! I have looked it up and you are right, they are switches. My only problems with the DCC Concepts stuff are 1) though excellently designed and engineered it costs a lot, control for those 12 points is £120 (plus some other bits and pieces) - beautiful but too expensive for me (though as they said that's only £10 on top of the point motor cost); 2) you have to set all the points in a route yourself - easy with their clear layout - but not what I and some others want to do; and 3) no signal control (the killer for me). I have talked to them about macros, but there is nothing on its way nor do they seem to want to call NCE macros - for which a protocol exists - but I quite understand that they want their stuff to be widely useable with as many flavours of DCC system as possible. The NCE stuff is in a way sad. It works reliably and does what it says on the tin. It's just showing its age (like me I suppose). The Mini-panel will do shuttle control - not that I have tried it - but the instruction set is there.

I think "newbryford"s stuff at post #15 is a fine example of the wireman's art, and a good demonstration of what you can do with Cobalt Alpha display gear. The only problem with it is that is shows you how points are set, but gives no help in setting them - so display panel and not control panel. Mick mentions Lenz - so I guess that that equipment is used to control the layout. I think the OP and others would probably love to know HOW. The problem with NCE stuff is its 10 years old and has not moved on. The capabilities of the mini-panel are stuck in 2007 and the basic idea could have been enlivened with a better and more capable processor by now. Now if there was something similar but better .................