Lichfeldian

I haven't been on RMweb for some time, but having logged on, I find the page swamped with adverts and a particularly annoying video loop, initially of wildlife and then of a motorway camera scene. Despite cancelling this video, it keeps coming back. When I joined, I recall one of the reasons for subscribing was to get advert free access, so what's going on now please?

What is the correct way to wire a pair of back to back Peco points forming a crossover between fast and slow lines on a DCC system, so that they change together on one switch and the frog polarity changes together? As the points are back to back, is the wiring to change the frog polarity the normal way round on both points or does one of them have to be the opposite way round? Thanks.

Thanks. I was just trying to keep the cost down for a first foray into sound by using the TTS chip, for when the layout is finished and DCC connected.

I have the middle grade Hornby P2 - fully lined but without DCC fitted. As Hornby now produce a separate TTS sound chip for this loco, is it a straightforward fit please? The fitting instructions in the instruction sheet show a location for a DCC sound chip in the tender and an ordinary chip in the loco, but presumably these are either/or?. However, I know the DCC fitted version has a wired plug and socket between the loco and the tender which mine doesn't have, so does that mean the DCC ready and DCC fitted are wired differently? Regards and thanks.

The only drawback with using domestic wiring is that I want to keep the track buses in red and black colours to match the colours of the original thinner cable, which I will use as droppers. I have therefore bought some red and black 17A car spotlight wiring cable from Halfords, as recommended on a You Tube video I saw recently. Unfortunately it only comes in 4m reels, so is a more expensive option. But then nobody ever said that playing with trains is a cheap hobby!

Many thanks for the advice chaps. What has been said is the way I was reasoning the problem, but it has been very helpful having other people's experiences to crystallise my thoughts.

Further to my earlier post, the layout I am working towards will be run on DCC, but as I don't currently have any DCC locos, I will have to chip all those that are DCC ready. Unfortunately, I also have a number of older locos, some are the dreaded Bachmann split chassis and one or two are old tender drives. I know that even these can be chipped, but with a level of difficulty that is currently beyond my abilities and there is also the issue of cost and the time to do them. I don't want to risk damaging the locos by running them on DCC power, therefore, I was thinking that to start with, I would operate the layout in dual mode, depending on which locos are in use. All the books say not to do this, but why? Surely it should be possible to just switch over the power supply from DC to DCC and back again? I can see there would be a difficulty with DCC wired points, as they would no longer be self isolating in DC mode, but if there is only one loco in operation at a time, or I put in a few isolating sections, what would be the problem?

The layout will be a double track circuit of my attic, plus a passing loop at the station, with two sides of approx. 16' and two of 4'. There will be a goods loop leading to a goods yard/shed and sidings behind the station plus a turntable feeding a loco depot and also a short branch line. It seems as if I'm going to have a lot of spare wire, as I can't take it back now. It seems a bit of a misnomer by Guagemaster to describe it as Layout Wire, if it is not of sufficient capacity.

I have just obtained two 100m reels each of Gaugemaster red and black 7x0.2 Layout Wire (BPGM11) intended to be the DCC bus wires of a layout I am beginning, which will be operated on a Sig-na Trak ACE2 5A DCC system. It is much thinner than I was expecting and having read on here that some people actually use thick 15A household wiring cable for a DCC bus, I'm concerned that I have bought wire that is inadequate for the purpose. I'm not knowledgeable about electrical principles, so before I go too far, could anybody please confirm whether the wire I have is suitable for the job or not? Many thanks. Lichfeldian

The red used on 1990s Vauxhalls also faded badly, as on our Calibra at the time.

Did the LNER use these cranes? If so, it seems odd that Bachmann has produced them in the liveries of the other companies, but not the LNER. If they did, I don't feel inclined to attempt repainting of such an expensive model into LNER livery, so might Bachmann bring one out in the future?

OK - having digested the various postings, it is clear that the original CJF plan does not have much fidelity to prototypical railway practice, although I think it would look attractive in model terms. Even without much knowledge of real railway operations, I can see the potential for head-on collisions on the centre road is an obvious risk and therefore would be a problem on safety grounds. I'd assumed that signalling systems would be in place to prevent it, but on reflection, I suppose human error by drivers or signalmen could overcome these since, in the steam era, there was no ATC system except on the GWR. Thank you Stationmaster for the obvious amount of though you have put in, which you posted while I was in the middle of typing this. I don't quite follow everything you say about the revised layout of the points without having the layout in front of me, but I will give it some further thought. I can't upload a plan as I haven't got one - I have been mocking up the layout on the base board with the track sections I have already, and Peco's paper templates for the rest. If I can draw it out on paper, I will try and upload. I will definitely change the middle road to the main through line, but I was thinking right to left, retaining the point and single slip into the upper bay platforms as a link from the main line to the bays and the branch that I have added where the sidings previously accessed the turntable and coaling point. The lower of the three centre roads will then just become a platform loop for stopping trains, with a trailing exit back out on to the middle road. Although this platform is effectively an island, I hadn't intended the lower face of it to be an operating platform - I was thinking of these two lower loops as being part of the goods facilities. I will also add some trap points, if I can. I've now found a picture on line of a wide-to-gauge trap and while I don't think anyone makes one, it might be possible to build a non-working thing that would sort of look the part. I think what I will end up with is a layout that won't be properly prototypical, but not as glaringly wrong as the original version. Although the trains are 1930s LNER, this is just because they appeal to me and I am not trying to replicate any particular location or actual LNER operating practice. Regards. Lichfeldian

Thanks for the responses. In reply to The Stationmaster, I had already substituted a single slip for the double slip accessing the bay platforms to the right. Would this be OK on a through line? I have also deleted the turntable and used the exit to it and the coaling stage from the bay platforms as the start of a single track branch. However, it is a tad disappointing to discover that the whole basis of the plan is non prototypical! I'd assumed that as it was produced by a railway modeller of significant note in his day, that it would be reasonably authentic. I must admit that trap points issue hadn't occurred to me and although Peco do produce them, I don't recall seeing them commonly fitted in model layouts, perhaps for reasons of space. Not being familiar with "real" railway practice, I don't know what a "wide to gauge" trap would look like. I had rather liked the plan as being a bit different and I'm reluctant to start yet again on another plan. I could easily replace the three way point with the successive right and left points, as on the original plan, although they would still be facing points of course. I do know that the old railway companies tried to avoid them, but again this seems to something frequently seen on model layouts. Otherwise, how could platform loops be laid out? What other alterations could do to make it more prototypical? What other use could the centre road have?

I new to this forum and am at the start of creating a layout in my loft after years of dithering and false starts. As I have sufficient length and width for it, have roughed out a design based on Tresco in C J Freezer's PSL book of track plans. I know some regard these as rather old hat now, but the station layout in Tresco is a bit different from the usual, in that it has a central bi-directional loop line between the platform tracks, allowing freight trains or expresses to by-pass stopping trains. I have simplified the plan a little, particularly at the left hand end where (if you have access to the plan) there is a complicated collection of intersecting points and crossings that I couldn't seem to translate from the lines on the plan into actual Peco Streamline track pieces, without it becoming impossibly large. Another simplification I am considering, is replacing successive right and left hand points at the right hand entry to the station controlling the split from two to three through tracks, access to a slip point to the right and to a back platform loop to the left, with a three way point to save space. My question is: prototypically, would a three way point be permitted on a through main line, or were these only found in sidings, etc? A second question (which ought to be on the signalling queries part of this forum - sorry!), is how would this 2-3-2 track formation be signalled in the 1930s LNER steam era please? I'm guessing that a fully prototypical scheme would probably be too complex to create in the space available, but I would like to have some arrangement of signals (initially non-working) that would look reasonably true to life, if possible. Could anybody advise on either or both of these please? Regards and thanks. Lichfeldian