Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Introduction:
 
I’ve been a longtime ‘reader’ of RMWeb, with only a few postings so far. But now it’s time for me to post about the 00-gauge layout I’ve been planning for a while.
 
I’ve not got a lot of experience at this kind of thing, and this will be my first (and probably only) layout that I’ll build. However, during the last 30-years or so I’ve been involved with the building of a number of ‘real’ metro systems and high-speed lines in the Far East so I’m well-versed in the necessary aspects of trackwork planning, design, procurement, construction, and testing.
 
My plan is to practice on the storage / stabling sidings areas, where I can make mistakes and learn from them as I go. I’m also a member of a local model railway club, so I have them for additional assistance and advice.
 
Ian

 

The Basics:

 

 
The Train Room:
 
I have a space of roughly 4m by 3m to use, and all of that space is usable because the window / radiator is in an alcove and the entrance door is in another recessed alcove.
 
Era:
 
The layout is to be based on the mid-1970s using BR blue diesels (a few ‘large logo’ will be permitted) and all TOPS numbered.
 
Location:
 
The layout is to be based on the south end of Burton-on-Trent station, extending to the Leicester Line Junction where the line to  Leicester (doh …) branches off.
 
Ian

 

Rolling Stock (00-gauge)

 

 
I amassed quite a collection of locomotives and carriages back in the early 1980s, mostly from Lima, which remained in store until last year. I’ve spent the last year or so ‘upgrading’ my rolling stock (a job that is still a long way from being finished):
 
Carriages: Replacement couplings (Kadee), replacement windows (SE Finecast)
Locomotive: DCC fitting (hard-wired), replacement couplings (Kadee), replacement windows (SE Finecast). In addition some have been re-motored using CD-player motors (there’s a Youtube video about it), and I’m also fitting headcode & rear lights where I can.
Wagons: Replacement couplings (Kadee)
 
I’ve also bought a number of secondhand items in the last year to supplement the fleet.
The whole layout will be DCC to which end I have an NCE PowerCab controller. This will require ‘upgrading’ to provide a larger current / ampage in due time.
 
Ian

 

The Layout

 

 
Track:
 
The track layout is based on that shown in the book “British Railways Layout Plans of the 1950s – Volume 16” by John Swift.  Some ‘simplification’ at the Leicester Line Junction was found to be desirable! 
Strictly, the layout had been simplified by my timeframe of the 1970s, but I want to retain the ‘old’ layout operations, in particular the Burton to Leicester DMU service that ended in the mid-1960s and the extensive brewery traffic.
 
Station Structure:
 
Again, by the mid-1970s the station structure had been vastly simplified to that currently in existence. Victorian splendor reduced to a bus stop. However, I’m keeping the original LMS station design (Rule 1 applies).
 
Ian

 

Layout Plan - Requirements

 

 
I want a roundy-roundy layout, because I like the idea of trains continuously passing. However, I don’t want to ‘see’ them all the time on the scenic area of the layout as that gets a little boring and risks ‘tail chasing’. I’m therefore planning a ‘folded-eight’ (I think that’s the right term … I wait to be corrected!) on two levels, with inclines in between.
 
I did originally look at using helixes, but they take up a lot of space, especially when you need two of them for a round-roundy style layout. Hence I’m planning inclines.
 
The scenic area is to include areas for shunting and a representation of the Burton refueling point. I’d like to ‘squeeze in’ the original roundhouse buildings that contained the turntables, but I think space is against me 
 
Ian
Edited by ISW
title update
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Layout Plan – Drawings

 

Finally, I get to the actual layout Drawings / Plan upon which I would appreciate some advice / comment / suggestions.

 

As you can see from the Drawings below, I’ve taken the time to draw up the whole layout to scale. I’m hoping this will aid with the actual construction and tracklaying as I can print out relevant areas (on numerous A4 sheets stuck together) and build ‘over’ the printout.

 

The Drawings are by no means ‘complete’, with the majority of the ‘scenery’ not currently shown. The brewery building and associated sidings could also do with ‘improvement’. At the moment it’s more of a placeholder. The station and associated road bridge also needs a lot more work to realise a good representation within the limitations of the connecting tracks passing underneath!

 

There are some Notes and a Legend of the Upper Level drawing that provides a little more information about the track layout parameters.

 

Upper Level: Datum 0mm, with 100mm fall in the ‘loop’.

post-27436-0-63633100-1525625505_thumb.jpg

 

Connections: Two connecting inclines, one of 3-Tracks and other of 2-Tracks.

post-27436-0-62160400-1525625507_thumb.jpg

===========================

post-27436-0-68064300-1525625510_thumb.jpg

===========================

post-27436-0-01759300-1525625513_thumb.jpg

 

Lower Level: Datum -350mm, all level

post-27436-0-22270300-1525625515_thumb.jpg

 

Finally, a 3D representation of the Upper level so that you can see how / where the Connection inclines are introduced.

post-27436-0-79396400-1525625517_thumb.jpg

 

What do you think?

 

Ian

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian, Looking good, do you have any pictures of the current setup i.e have you built any benchwork? The era you've chosen is great and will give you a large scope on the operations you can replicate however with the majority of your stock being Lima or from the 80's, I'm curious about the code of track you have chosen. From the 3D rendition of the layout, we can clearly see what you plan to achieve however I'm not sure about the radius you have chosen for the curve next to the window, I would personally do one continuous curve from the station throat to the Leicester line junction instead of the straight track in between the curves. Of course that's only a track plan so it will probably be different in its real form. Looking at the station, I see there are two lines adjacent to the platforms, are these for locomotive stabling and stock? Looking forward to new updates, cheers.

 

Rory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian, Looking good, do you have any pictures of the current setup i.e have you built any benchwork? The era you've chosen is great and will give you a large scope on the operations you can replicate however with the majority of your stock being Lima or from the 80's, I'm curious about the code of track you have chosen. From the 3D rendition of the layout, we can clearly see what you plan to achieve however I'm not sure about the radius you have chosen for the curve next to the window, I would personally do one continuous curve from the station throat to the Leicester line junction instead of the straight track in between the curves. Of course that's only a track plan so it will probably be different in its real form. Looking at the station, I see there are two lines adjacent to the platforms, are these for locomotive stabling and stock? Looking forward to new updates, cheers.

 

 

 

Rory,

 

Thanks for chipping in with some comments. There has been no (zero ...) progress with benchwork or any construction for that matter. I'm keen to get the 'design' all sorted out before committing to timber. Once the track layout is 'finalised' I'll get around to designing the benchwork. I want to have 'lift out' sections that I can work on outside of the 'train room' (eg: outside in the sunshine!) and avoid working / soldering underneath the layout. Given the 2-layer approach (350mm apart) there isn't that much room to get ones head in!

 

The track will be Peco Code 100. Yes, I know 'boring' but with all my Lima stock, complete with cheese cutter wheels, I can't go to Code 75.

 

The curve radii are as stated in the Notes on the Upper level drawing. I used 572 / 639 / 706 / 773mm as that's simply 4th / 5th / 6th / 7th radii. It could easily be any sensible radii, but I had to start with something. I'd like the minimum to be 600mm, but it gets a bit tight in places. Anyway, it sounded good to start with 4th radius ...

 

At the window, to change the 2-curves into a single curve would cause the remaining tangent points to move into the turnout / crossover areas. By using transition curves, the small straight bits will probably be hard to see, and I plan to put a large building in the way (scenic block) in the form of the 'brewery' complex.

 

The sidings next to the station platform are for wagon stabling. I've several photos of the area (from the interweb) that show wagons. All loco stabling will be at the fueling point.

 

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds great, as for using code 100 track you could always space out the sleepers to give the track a more prototypical look. It may be time consuming but it's worth it. I used to use the set-track measurements but found 90 degree curves to be unrealistic in some circumstances so opted for the more prototypical way of just laying the track and letting the curve flow, although set-track is a space saver, it should be used sparsely to avoid similarities when looking at your layout as a viewer/operator so it's something to consider, thanks.

 

Rory 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rory

 

Although I designed the layout with settrack radii it will be built with flexitrack. This will be essential to get the correct alignment at the transition curves and give the correct 'flow' of the alignment.

 

As to respacing sleepers .... I can see the visible advantages but will need to do a trial to see just how much of a pain it is to do! I will start on the storage area so will not need to respace initially.

 

Ian

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents,

 

The gradients I've used in the layout (to get from the upper to lower levels) range from ~1.9% to ~2.5%. This calculation probably omits any vertical curves at the start / end and so will be a little steeper. These gradients also include curves of ~572mm radii, although I do have scope / space to increase this if necessary.

 

I'll be using exclusively diesel locos (no kettles ...) of varying ages ranging from 1980s Lima (with 'traction tyres') through to newer Bachmann Class 25s and 47s, all under DCC control. Typical loads will be 6-coaches or similar length freight.

 

Question is; are these gradients suitable or do I have to make them less steep?

 

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been busy 'updating' the layout in software to add those 'features' I intimated in the original posting. The MPD has been added and space found to include a couple of breweries and associated sidings. However, one brewery might get replaced with a set of exchange sidings instead. The brewery line mirrors the old Bond End Wharf line by passing under the mainlines to the south of the station. Due to space constraints (we all have those ...) the MPD can only be a 'reflection' of the actual layout, although I did find space to include the Fuelling Point and a building to represent the original LMS buildings containing two turntables.

 

Upper Layer (updated):

post-27436-0-09860100-1533581125_thumb.jpg

 

I've also made a start on the baseboards, or at least the framework to support them. Each baseboard is planned to be removable to permit underside wiring (I'm not a fan of soldering 'against' gravity ...) and to give access to the far-flung corners, which will be otherwise inaccessible.

 

I still have some amendments to do at the station. After some research (with thanks to the HMRS at Stanwick Junction) and the purchase of 'A Pictorial Record of LMS Architecture' by Anderson & Fox I have a much better understanding of the 1883 station layout and its size. So I need to amend the platform width to 60ft and with that the tracks passing through the platform.

 

Hopefully, I'll be able to post some photos of the baseboard progress later this week ...

 

Ian

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian

 

The plan looks a good one ,if thought I’d seen this plan before ,you showed me it up at club one Tuesday night

Will be following

Regards

 

Brian

Thanks Brian. Will be a while [1] until I get to building the mainline (upper level). I need to build and install the storage sidings / fiddle yard (lower level) first followed by the 'ramps' between the levels. This has always been a 'long term' project.

 

[1] - Definition of While: At least a year

 

Baseboard support construction in progress at present.

 

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question, if I may, about baseboard painting and underlay:

 

I'm using 12mm plywood for baseboards with ~50mm deep battons on the uderside. Since the layout is indoors the plywood should not be affected by delamination due to moisture.

 

I was going to paint the upper surface, probably grey. Might not bother painting the underside though.

 

However, I plan to use 3mm 'vitrex' underlay (for wood and laminate flooring) from Homebase instead of cork (see photo below). 

 

3mm Foam underlay (apologies as it's rotated):

post-27436-0-62249200-1535134703_thumb.jpg

 

Does anyone have any experience with 3mm foam underlay, good or bad?

 

Is it best to paint the plywood and then glue the underlay to the paint, or glue the underlay to the plywood and only paint the exposed areas?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this thread, looks a great layout plan Ian, will follow with interest.

 

On the subject of Lima loco motor replacement with CD drive motors, does this produce a noticable difference in sound/performance?

 

Regards,

Martyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this thread, looks a great layout plan Ian, will follow with interest.

 

On the subject of Lima loco motor replacement with CD drive motors, does this produce a noticable difference in sound/performance?

 

Regards,

Martyn.

Martyn,

 

Oh yes it does .... The CD motor has many more 'poles' than the Lima motor, resulting in a much smoother operation, particularly at slow speed. they will happily creep along on the lowest of speed settings. They are also noticeably 'quieter' in operation.

 

As I always add DCC control at the same time, I don't have much idea of how a DC operated version would run, but I would anticipate the same, better, performance. As the CD motor is not rated for the full 12v, DCC operation gives me the opportunity to fiddle with the CVs to reduce the current ('top speed') to something more representative.

 

I also add lighting to the front and rear (headcode, & rear red lights), and installed SE Finecast windows. After all that work, my 'old' locos start to become 'presentable', as well as saving me a small fortune in costs from not buying new replacements! You may notice my money-saving methods on the baseboards as well (posting still to come ...).

 

I only wish I could re-motor the ageing Mainline class 45s I have as well ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseboard Supports - Adjustable Feet

 

Over the last few months I've been busy building the baseboard support frame and the baseboards for the 'lower level' of Burton-on-Trent south. As I want to be able to individually remove baseboards (to work on the underside ...) I needed a support framework 'separate' from the actual baseboards.

 

To allow for levelling of the layout (it's on 20 support legs) I needed a simple adjustment method. And one that was cheap ...

 

What I did was to drill a hole into the foot of the support, hammer in a 'tee' nut (M8 in my case), and then get some M8 bolts welded to large 'repair' washers. The M8 bolt / washer then simply screws into the foot of the support leg, giving ~+/-20mm of vertical adjustment. See below:

 

Adjustable foot components:

post-27436-0-46263500-1536769290_thumb.jpg

 

Adjustable foot assembly:

post-27436-0-76902100-1536769417_thumb.jpg

 

So far this has worked quite well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseboard Connections

 

As I have explained in previous posts, Burton-on-Trent south is being built on a number of smaller baseboards to allow easy (? - we shall see ...) removal and replacement of individual boards.

 

This means I needed a reliable method to join the boards together with good alignment.

 

I looked around RMWeb at various methods, but many of them seemed to involve specialised 'clips' or 'cabinet makers dowels'. My carpentry skills don't extend to such 'details' (or expense ...) and so I took a different approach.

 

The method I came up with uses an M8 bolt with washer, a steel sleeve, and an M8 'tee' nut. All very 'cheap n cheerful'.

 

As my baseboards (see posting later) have only 44x18mm timber bracings / surround, I couldn't drill the necessary holes with the assembled baseboards temporarily held and aligned together, there being inadequate space for the drill. Therefore, I simply removed the 2 timber bracings at the baseboard join (the baseboards are only screwed - but with lots of them and very long screws), and aligned them how they will be once assembled.

 

Then it was a simple matter of drilling a 9.5mm hole through the two clamped timbers (slowly increasing the hole size in 1 ~ 1.5mm steps). Into one timber I hammered in the M8 'tee' nuts, and to the other I hammered in the 8mm sleeves.

 

[The 8mm sleeves I made from 10mm outside diameter stainless steel rod (1m long) I bought at Homebase for a few pounds by cutting ~15mm lengths and filing them smooth]

 

The sleeves are a nice tight fit on the M8 bolts, with negligible movement.

 

Baseboard connection components:

post-27436-0-94962900-1536770425_thumb.jpg

 

Baseboard connection assembled ('Tee' nut side):

post-27436-0-10860100-1536770423_thumb.jpg

 

Baseboard connection assembled (M8 bolt side):

post-27436-0-94778100-1536770419_thumb.jpg

 

I used 2 of the above connectors at each join. It didn't seem necessary to extend to 3 anywhere.

 

Having now assembled all 10 baseboards, I can say that the method does work and the alignment is spot on. The baseboards have been assembled, disassembled, and re-assembled without problem, so I'm well chuffed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martyn,

 

Oh yes it does .... The CD motor has many more 'poles' than the Lima motor, resulting in a much smoother operation, particularly at slow speed. they will happily creep along on the lowest of speed settings. They are also noticeably 'quieter' in operation.

 

As I always add DCC control at the same time, I don't have much idea of how a DC operated version would run, but I would anticipate the same, better, performance. As the CD motor is not rated for the full 12v, DCC operation gives me the opportunity to fiddle with the CVs to reduce the current ('top speed') to something more representative.

 

I also add lighting to the front and rear (headcode, & rear red lights), and installed SE Finecast windows. After all that work, my 'old' locos start to become 'presentable', as well as saving me a small fortune in costs from not buying new replacements! You may notice my money-saving methods on the baseboards as well (posting still to come ...).

 

I only wish I could re-motor the ageing Mainline class 45s I have as well ...

Thanks for the info Ian, the CD drive motor is something I'm toying with trying at some point, possibly in my Class 126 DMU.

 

Nice work with the leg adjusters too. I have found using bolts for joining boards together is ok but the holes are prone to wear through removing and reassembly over time (I also use M8 bolts and wingnuts); I have added home made dowels (brass rod) inside brass tube through each board join to keep the alignment right on Crinan which saves a lot of messing around with visual checks when setting up at shows. Although if only used at home for occasional board removal you shouldn't have any problem.

 

Thanks,

Martyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work with the leg adjusters too. I have found using bolts for joining boards together is ok but the holes are prone to wear through removing and reassembly over time (I also use M8 bolts and wingnuts); 

Martyn,

 

I'm hoping the steel 'sleeves' I used with reduce / eliminate this wear problem. Fingers crossed ...

 

Strange thing is that at the model railway club I attend, they actually 'recommend' some movement in the joints, as this ensures you have some 'leeway' at assembly to get the rails properly aligned. Mind you, their experience is from years of exhibiting, not a home layout.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseboard Supports

 

Work has progressed somewhat on the supporting timber for the baseboards. Because I'm planning a 2-level layout, this means the support system has to accommodate both levels.

 

After some 'research' I decided on a simple system of support posts and a level framework. All the individual timbers are screwed together (I went through a lot of screws ...) and incorporates my 'cheap n cheerful' adjustable support feet.

 

This method does lend itself to those of us without extensive woodworking skills, or equipment, using only butt joints. I built it all with only:

  • workmate (bench)
  • circular saw
  • speed square
  • tape measure
  • power drill
  • some clamps

The location(s) of the cross-members was dictated by the track layout (on both levels), as I obviously don't want turnouts across a joint. Eventually, I managed to get the individual baseboards down to 'reasonable' sizes, or at least ones I think I can lift alone.

 

The support system can be seen under assembly below:

 

post-27436-0-91309700-1537200798_thumb.jpg

 

post-27436-0-45264600-1537200783_thumb.jpg

 

Because of the simple design, the supports were actually quite unstable (wobbly ...) during assembly. I could have added some more diagonal members to the supports to improve matters, but I wanted to leave the space underneath as clear as possible to allow easy storage of boxes. However, as planned (?), once the whole assembly came together, it became rock solid with no movement at all.

 

The completed assembly can be seen in the merged photo below. Note that the timbers actually are straight (honest Guv'), and the 'defects' are simply artefacts from the photo merging process. Much as I tried I couldn't get a better merge.

 

post-27436-0-69744600-1537200819_thumb.jpg

 

In case you are wondering, the 'risers' to the supports are there to support the upper level and the up / down gradients.

 

Next, it's onto the baseboards themselves ....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseboards

 

For the lower level of the layout (see postings above to explain the levels) I needed a total of 10 baseboards in a 'rectangular donut' shape (if that's even a 'thing' ...).

 

I originally thought about using 9mm ply, but in the end went with 12mm plywood. I'm glad I did as the offcuts make good 'bracing' pieces, and the 12mm width is more than adequate for attaching side-on with screws.

 

The plywood I had cut to size, but kept all the offcuts. Once cut these fit in the car.

 

All the external bracing is 44x18mm stripwood, which I bought in packs of 6 in lengths of 2400mm (these just fit in the car).

 

Attaching the stripwood to the underside of the plywood edges proved to be the hardest part. The plywood is not 'flat' and the stripwood is not 'straight'. In the end, I had to clamp the timbers together, with a timber block on the inside (that I knew had a nice 90-degree angle). With the clamps not too tight I used a hammer to 'persuade' the stripwood into the correct position. It was nice to see the plywood drop flat and the stripwood align with the side of the plywood. Once in place, I screwed them together with 4mmx50 screws (No.8 x 2") at roughly 25cm centres. I usually did each side in 3 parts; end, end, and finally the middle. It was easier this way than trying to align / clamp the whole length in one shot. There was no movement after that.

 

I did wonder about gluing as well, but by the time the screws were in place it was already very solid.

 

At this point the edges of the plywood were flat, but not the rest of it. Time to add some bracing. I cut some 44mm wide strips from the plywood offcuts and drilled 30mm holes at 50mm centres through the bracing (to lighten the timber & provide wiring routes). Holes were omitted where I planned to screw the bracing to the plywood. Screws were installed, again at about 25cm centres.

 

To connect the individual baseboards together, I used the method explained in my earlier post http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/133913-burton-on-trent-south-some-progress/?p=3297847

 

This entailed removing the 2 timber frame ends from the baseboards to do the drilling and attaching the 'tee' nut and inserting the metal sleeve. Then it was simply a matter of re-attaching them to the baseboards.

 

By now the baseboards looked like this:

 

Topside:

post-27436-0-52448700-1537367051_thumb.jpg

 

Underside:

post-27436-0-57245600-1537367070_thumb.jpg

 

Once all 10 were completed, they were moved into position onto the baseboard supports and bolted together. Yes, the bolts all lined up! Okay, one was a bit of a problem, but that was due to 'dicky' threads on the 'tee' nut, which I then replaced. With them all in place it looked like this:

 

post-27436-0-88323000-1537367207_thumb.jpg

 

Again, sorry for the 'warped' perspective, but it is hard to get the whole room into a single photo! Merging several photos is the only way.

 

Now I knew that they actually fit together, I had to remove them all again in order to get them painted / sealed. I went with a nice grey undercoat from Wilko (I'm sure others are just as good). I only painted the top and sides. I left the underside unpainted as it will be indoors anyway. The paint is only to stop any water ingress from above.

 

Paint:

post-27436-0-76652100-1537367454_thumb.jpg

 

Watching paint dry ...

post-27436-0-20090900-1537367489_thumb.jpg

 

All the baseboards are now painted, and are back in position on the baseboard supports. They are currently undergoing an impromptu 'load test' with all my boxes placed 'on' the baseboards instead of being under them. This leaves the floor clear for a little light hooving ...

 

Next will be a small 'diversion' to build a short 'test piece' to try out the method for the gluing the foam to the baseboards and installation of tracks & a turnout. Better to get the method right before I start installing on the actual baseboards!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian, I hadn't seen your layout thread until today.

 

Subscribed now. It's looking good - nice neat construction and great drawings ;-)

 

Looking forward to following your progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian, I hadn't seen your layout thread until today.

 

Subscribed now. It's looking good - nice neat construction and great drawings ;-)

 

Looking forward to following your progress.

Phil,

 

Will try to keep updating on the layout in the coming months - no promises though! I wanted to get the baseboards (lower level) finished before the winter set in so that I had plenty to do over the winter nights. At least that target was met with plenty of time to spare. All the woodwork was carried out in the outside garage. Not fun the winter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Practice Layout

 

What with me being a bit of a beginner and all, I thought it appropriate that I build a bit of a practice layout to try out all my proposed ideas, theories, and construction methods.

 

To that end I used some second-hand track and turnouts, that I had to hand, to build the following layout.

 

post-27436-0-86426700-1540744946_thumb.jpg

 

As I am planning to go DCC, I plan to provide power to each and every section of track; and with 12 baseboards in Burton-on-Trent South that's a lot of track feeding. So, the practice layout needed to replicate this 'complexity'. The wiring would there be:

 

post-27436-0-02024100-1540744729_thumb.jpg

 

And that's without the power to the turnout servos (to also operate the microswitches for frog switching). Still, if I can't do it on a practice layout, then I stand no chance on the main layout!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Practice Layout - Built

 

Following on from my previous posting, and as if by magic, the practice layout is built:

 

Top Side:

post-27436-0-75559500-1540745769_thumb.jpg

 

Underside:

post-27436-0-19764300-1540745784_thumb.jpg

 

The underside is much more cluttered due to me adding the servos and the MegaPoints controller cards (and associated power supply).

 

However, at least 'most' of the construction methods went according to plan. Lessons learnt were:

  1. Don't put PVA glue under the switches! Bad idea. Took a lot of manually operating the turnout to get the switches 'un-stuck'.
  2. I only drilled pilot holes for the switch operating mechanism, thinking I could 'open these out' from underneath, the idea being to try and keep as much of the foam intact as possible (to prevent ballast falling through). Hmmm, well this was 'possible' but too much of a faff. In future I'll drill the full hole from above.
  3. I drilled only 6mm holes under the toe of the switches for the operation. This is 'enough', but only if your drilling is very accurate. Mine wasn't and I needed to open out one a bit.

I can't complain though, it did go mostly to plan and I did learn a lot from the experience, which was the main purpose!

 

And, yes, it does actually work! Trains move smoothly through the crossover.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Practice Layout - Some Details

 

Servo Installation

post-27436-0-69941700-1540746576_thumb.jpg

This turned out really well, with the ability to pre-assemble the servo and microswitch before installing under the baseboard. I just need to get the wires the right way round on the microswitch! Took me two attempts.

 

Turnout Power

post-27436-0-21071700-1540746592_thumb.jpg post-27436-0-16506300-1540750257.jpg

This worked out as planned. One simple veroboard to provide the power to two turnouts (red / black power + green to the frog).

 

Track Power & Baseboard Jumper

post-27436-0-76482700-1540746605_thumb.jpg post-27436-0-82205600-1540750247.jpg

This makes it easy to connect / disconnect individual tracks from power in cases of 'testing'. Also, the board can be made as long as needed for more tracks. However, the barrel jack plug / socket was not such a success. It's large and clumsy to install. Am looking for a suitable alternative.

 

MegaPoints Network & Power Supply Jumpers

post-27436-0-74410000-1540746634_thumb.jpg

This needs tidying up, and I'm looking at combining the DC power bus jumper with the MegaPoints power jumper (both are ~12v) and so a 4-way cable looks a good idea. That would leave the Network jumper (3-core) as a separate item.

 

The MegaPoints boards were fairly easy to set up to. I just followed the YouTube video and got it all working as it supposed to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Servo + Microswitch Installation

 

In case anyone is interested in the servo installation method used in the previous post (and who have not looked in the MegaPoints Controller forum), here is a drawing of the installation:

 

post-27436-0-46106900-1540751980_thumb.jpg

It uses the MegaPoints Controller 'recommended' aluminium channel from B&Q (other suppliers may stock ...) with my modifications to integrally support the microswitch (for frog power on electrofrog turnouts) and to 'clamp' the servo into the channel to prevent [? - we shall see ...] it coming loose. Currently, the servo is rock solid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work and a really beautiful technical illustration, Ian!

 

I'll be very interested to see how you get on with Megapoints and your servo mountings.

 

I watched some demos at the Megapoints stand at Taunton today and they were very persuasive. I might have to change my plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.