Making a start in 7mm for the first time : Now Dominion Dock Goods - Layout update

[Robin Gristwood]

 

Great suggestions Chris, thanks. The trial with the No More Nails was successful. Track sticks to foam and foam hasn't disintegrated. I did think of using a PVA type glue but thought it might be weakened when ballasting and adding ground cover as I tend to use alot of diluted PVA for that.

 

I'm on holiday at the moment so cant post a photo. That also means I won't be able to get to Telford either, but Greek islands do have their own attraction.

 

More progress planned when I get back.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Robin Gristwood

[railwayrod]

Greek islands do have an attraction. You could have taken a wagon kit with you to occupy your time instead od sitting on the beach getting browned off lol.

 

Rod

[muddys-blues]

Hi Robin, good to see another 7mm newbie as I am, and I must say you look like you are enjoying the ride.

 

Best regards & best of luck

Craig.

[Robin Gristwood]

Back from holiday and all ready to carry on with this project.

 

My HO US layout uses NCE Power Pro DCC. I want to use DCC and sound in O gauge too. But I didn’t want to disconnect it all to use it on this micro layout.

Luckily I have a PowerCab handset that I use on the main layout. So I bought the power pack and panel to be able to use the PowerCab handset on the new layout.

 

Whilst using foam makes the layout a lot lighter and stable with no chance of warping, it does have its drawbacks. Holes need to be dug out of the foam to accommodate the panel.

As the foam surrounds the electrics, even though it is running on 13.5v input, I’m sure it will not help it if it is running hot and there is no place for the heat to go.

 

I’ve got it working now, and its very satisfying to run my Heljan Class 20 up and down on just a length of track on DCC and hearing the superb sound from South West Digitals LokSound XL v4.

I’m still trying to work out whether I need to add any resistors between the lights before connecting them to the DCC board. That's why I haven't put the body back on yet.

 

The Heljan instructions say that to convert to DCC, “simply remove the PCB and replace it with your chosen O gauge decoder. No need to cut or do anything else to convert your model into DCC”

But I don’t want to blow the LEDS as there are really difficult to get at and replace.

 

If anyone can help me with information that I’d appreciate it.

 

I’ve undercoated all the track I need ready to paint it. Another drawback of using foam is that grey primer spray paint eats into the foam. So track will be painted away from layout before being glued to the foam.

I haven’t cut any track yet as I haven’t fully decided on the length of each siding, but the track plan is pretty fixed now that the sector plate is made.

 

I’ve used the facility of the Peco point to switch the frog polarity using their microswitch in the coffin box over the tie bar. The point has been wired for DCC so the switch rails do not rely on contact with running rail for power now.

Again the foam causes a problem as I have had to dig out a small channel under the point to accommodate the wiring from the micro-switch to the frog and running rails.

 

 

Once the track is painted I can finalise the siding lengths and wire it up and start playing testing running the wagons and locos. Then I can glue down the track and start the ballasting. That's when it really feels like I have got a new layout to work on.

 

I have to say that I haven't done anything on my American HO layout since I've started on this project. O gauge seems to have that effect. I was warned by others that this would happen.

 

 

 

[railwayrod]

I've got a feeling that the American layout will come to an end fairly soon as once bitten by the O gauge bug everything else looks small. When you decide that the bigger scale is for you the HO stuff can be sold to raise funds for the bigger scale.

 

Rod

[switcher 1]

......or just trade it for American 0 gauge.

[Robin Gristwood]

Its been nearly three months since I posted an update on here.

I’ve been carrying on with the micro-layout, changed the track plan somewhat and fixed the track to foam with No More Nails as can be seen below.

 

 

I also finished the sector plate track. I thought I would use this as a bit of a test bed.

Track was painted and ballasted, and I tried out static grass on the embankment to see how what length fibres are needed to achieve desired effect.

After a bit of experimenting I used the mix recommended by Giles of this parish, a selection of 4mm and 6mm with some longer lengths added to the mix.

 

 

 

I also bought myself a nicely finished little Class 02 shunting diesel, yes, I know the number is wrong for an 02. I will change it and remove the front handrails as well in time.  

I’ve fitted it with a sound chip and a capacitor. I’m using an 03 sound chip that I bought to go into a DJH 03 starter kit that I have got as well.

 

I used a pasting table to set up the layout and started to test the trackwork with some stock. Hmmm.. one step forwards to steps back.

 

It was now that I realised that foam was maybe not the best choice for this micro-layout. Trying to align the sector plate track to the layout proved difficult.

The height of the rails was the problem. Even with chocking up the base and wedging various bits of card under both the layout and sector plate extension.

But there were other issues as well that have persuaded me to not continue with the micro-layout.

I wasn’t happy with the look or the running of the single Peco point. That coffin in the middle looks horrible and the drop in the vee is not acceptable to me, having run my HO layout on Fast-tracks pointwork.

I bought myself a C&L A5 Turnout in a bag kit.

The biggest reason though is actually that I want to build a full size O gauge layout now.

 

So I have sold the last of my US HO stock today.

 

I have been working on a trackplan, but its not finalised yet. I know it will be set in mid-sixties, so I can use the stock I have at the moment.

No hurry yet to get the plan finished as I still have to dismantle the old layout.

 

I want to make up the C&L turnout, but I'm not sure if I need to go down the 31.5mm gauge route for the pointwork?

I've been looking through various layout topics and blogs on here, without a great degree of success, to see if I can find out whether a standard C&L turnout built to 32mm with 1.75mm flangeways suffer from wheel drop in the vee or not?

Obviously it will be much easier to use the ready-built common crossings available from C&L in future, but not if using them causes wheeldrop.

I don't want to sacrifice the kit to build it to 32mm just to find they do drop.

 

Can anyone help me with this dilemma?

[hartleymartin]

One cheat you can use is to glue a layer of styrene inside the bottom of the flangeway so when a wheel goes through the crossing the flange is supported instead of letting the wheel tread drop into the gap.

[Giles]

I've recently built three points to 31.5mm, and the wheel drop at the V has massively reduced to being almost non existent. No regrets here.......

[3 link]

I think the best thread that deals in some depth with the wheel drop problem and also gauge width is Richard Lambert's Heyside, there is a wealth of info on both subjects and it is also a vast thread so you will have an enjoyable time reading through it.

 

As for myself, I have also built my turnouts to 31.5, but 32mm should be fine especially on the larger turnouts, this wheel drop problem is mainly because Peco had to set a standard to cater for the masses and for a large amount of differing width wheel and flange sizes.

 

Martyn.

Edited December 24, 2015 by 3 link

[chaz]

I wasn’t happy with the look or the running of the single Peco point. That coffin in the middle looks horrible....

 

I agree with your comment about the coffin - really spoils the look of a Peco point. It can be removed quite easily - even if you have to do it the hard way (with the point laid and ballasted) as I did on Dock Green.

 

The photo compares before and after - for more detail on what I did go to page 14 of my Dock Green topic - link below.

Edited December 24, 2015 by chaz

[81A Oldoak]

I agree with your comment about the coffin - really spoils the look of a Peco point. It can be removed quite easily - even if you have to do it the hard way (with the point laid and ballasted) as I did on Dock Green.

 

The photo compares before and after - for more detail on what I did go to page 14 of my Dock Green topic - link below.

 

If the point is in a facing position to passenger traffic on a running line, you can hide the coffin under a facing point lock cover, which is what I suspect the coffin is intended to represent. I use thin sheet brass cut and bent to shape and pinned to the sleepers as can be seen in this photo. My points are handbuilt. In due course, I will add simulated rodding to the points and add a boardwalk along the fron of the signal box.

[Simond]

I'm a total convert to 31.5mm.

 

From a careful reading of pros & cons, there is no reason not to adopt 31.5, unless you want the full S7 experience, which, if you're starting from scratch, might well be a logical direction to take. But as I have a bunch of FS pals, and want to be able to run their stock on my tracks, and vice-versa, and as I have quite a lot of stock, and I'd like to use 6' minimum main line curves, conversion to 33mm is not a realistic option for me.

 

Track gauges from Debs (search on RMWeb) and components from C&L.

 

All normal 0 gauge wheels will work with it, no wheel drop, looks better. What more could you want?!?!

 

(Marty, the "infill" method works, but isn't prototypical, and is sensitive to different manufacturer's wheels. An alternative is a filler material like blu-tak, plasticine or putty, which allows for a transition ramp, but IMO it doesn't look the part, unless you're into cast steel crossings and FB rail)

 

HTH

Simon

Edited December 24, 2015 by Simond

[hartleymartin]

The infill method is a compromise. If I build my points I make them 31.5mm and narrow the crossing flangeways to avoid wheel drop. However, I have a supply of Peco points set aside for my layout project (I acquired them cheaply when the Aussie dollar was hogh against the UK pound) and intend to make use of them.

[Simond]

Me too - I have several Peco points in the cupboard, and some old Marcway too - they'll get used where if doesn't show, probably the fiddle yard. The homebuild variety will be for the scenic bits.

 

I do think an opposed pair of Peco crossovers are a sort of "approval test" for locos - if they'll cross over left to right & vice versa, without hesitation, or deviation and with plenty of repetition, then the chassis is probably OK

 

Best

Simon

[3 link]

I agree with your comment about the coffin - really spoils the look of a Peco point. It can be removed quite easily - even if you have to do it the hard way (with the point laid and ballasted) as I did on Dock Green.

 

The photo compares before and after - for more detail on what I did go to page 14 of my Dock Green topic - link below.

If the point is in a facing position to passenger traffic on a running line, you can hide the coffin under a facing point lock cover, which is what I suspect the coffin is intended to represent. I use thin sheet brass cut and bent to shape and pinned to the sleepers as can be seen in this photo. My points are handbuilt. In due course, I will add simulated rodding to the points and add a boardwalk along the fron of the signal box.

I agree that solves the problem of "The Coffin" and if you also have a lot of FPL's, but the main problem in my opinion is the wheel drop which really detracts from the viewing side of things. I noticed long wheel based stock seemed to really rock across the crossing, much more so than the usual 9' or 10' wheel base rolling stock.

 

Martyn.

Edited December 24, 2015 by 3 link

[Robin Gristwood]

Thanks for the advice on adapting Peco points, but I’ve decided they are not the way to go and C&L turnouts is the best option for me.

 

From what I’ve seen and read on here it looks like that 31.5mm gauge turnouts offer both the best running quality and improved appearance that I am looking for.

I will have to get myself some 31.5mm gauges.

 

I don’t fancy having to build all the plain track too, so can I still use C&L 32mm gauge flexitrack as well?

At what point can I join the flexi to the slightly narrower turnout?

[3 link]

I don’t fancy having to build all the plain track too, so can I still use C&L 32mm gauge flexitrack as well?

At what point can I join the flexi to the slightly narrower turnout?

Yep you can still use the C&L 32mm flexitrack with the 31.5 turnouts, that 0.5mm extra width is so easy to blend in without noticing the differing gauge. I personally blend it in between the blades and the vee, but saying that most of my turnouts being on a curve are around 30" to 36" long. If you are building say an A5 or a B6 turnout it would probably be best to put the transition before the toe of the turnout.

 

Martyn.

Edited December 27, 2015 by 3 link

[Simond]

Martyn

 

This is a good thought - I had taken the view that the transition from 31.5 to 32 would be "outside" the template, but I can see no reason why the transition could not be between blade and crossing, thus giving a little more clearance between the blade back and wheel.

 

Thanks

Simon

[81A Oldoak]

It is indeed. I shall try it when I start building points for Cwm Bach's successor.

[Robin Gristwood]

Yep you can still use the C&L 32mm flexitrack with the 31.5 turnouts, that 0.5mm extra width is so easy to blend in without noticing the differing gauge. I personally blend it in between the blades and the vee, but saying that most of my turnouts being on a curve are around 30" to 36" long. If you are building say an A5 or a B6 turnout it would probably be best to put the transition before the toe of the turnout.

 

Martyn.

 

Apologies for another "newbie" question, but if I build C&L turnouts to 31.5mm, does that mean I can't use the C&L template to build them?

[Simond]

Robin

 

I've never used a C&L template, but I have used Templot ones.

 

I can see no reason why the template wouldn't work (though asking Martin Wynne of Templot (try the Templot & hand built track SI forum on RMWeb) might be advisable as he knows much more than I in these matters) as long as you have the right gauges.

 

The template shows you where to put the timbers, and the lengths for the various rails, but the gauges set, well, the gauge...

 

Good luck, and post pictures!

Best

Simon

[martin_wynne]

Apologies for another "newbie" question, but if I build C&L turnouts to 31.5mm, does that mean I can't use the C&L template to build them?

 

Hi Robin,

 

This will work ok for ordinary turnouts, but not for diamond-crossings and slips.

 

31.5mm templates are a fraction shorter than 32mm templates. This can be fudged for ordinary turnouts, but if you try it for diamond-crossings and slips, the two V-crossings will be too far apart, making it impossible to align the rails between them correctly.

 

But there is no need to use 32mm templates. 31.5mm (0-MF) templates can be easily printed from Templot, which is free to use:

 

info:  http://templot.com

 

download:  http://templot.com/downloads/download.htm

 

user forum:  http://85a.co.uk/forum/

 

Martin.

[Simond]

Told you he knows more than me

 

Best

Simon

[Giles]

Likewise, in the same way that Martyn has suggested, I just fudged my transition from 32 to 31.5 within the point length with no problem, and they certainly look better.....