Danemouth - a Seaside BLT

[Danemouth]

Code 100 electrofrog and code 75 electrofrog are electrically identical. Same for insulfrogs.

 

Scott,

 

My only experience with Code 100 was the fiddleyard of the previous version of Danemouth where I needed the 90 degree second radius curve onto the scenic break. I used the small settrack points for the fiddleyard but once I started putting sound in locos I rapidly became fed up with them. That's why the new fiddleyard is code 75 electrofrog.

 

Dave.

 

p.s. At the moment this topic is flagged as "Hot" - well Goodness Gracious Me :yes: :)

[Harlequin]

I don't have much (modern) practical experience of wiring up points and I bow to all your greater knowledge but I have to admit I'm sceptical about some of the accepted practices being discussed here.

 

For example, with an electrofrog point straight off the shelf, the frog gets it's power from the point blade touching the side rail so if it didn't make a good contact you'd expect that entire blade and the frog to be dead - 4-5 inches of dead rail not just a glitch at the frog. Wouldn't you? Or have I missed something?

 

And frog juicers really seem like overkill to me: electronics to detect a "short" and switch "polarity" to the frog almost instantaneously - all to replace a simple switch... Hmmm... (I know "short" and "polarity" aren't quite the right terms for DCC but I hope you understand my point.)

 

No disrespect to you, Dave - you're quite right to do what you know works for you!

Edited May 31, 2018 by Harlequin

[Danemouth]

Phil,

 

My ham fisted track painting is bound to screw things up and make the point blade contact perhaps less than reliable for electrical continuity, the point modifications prevent this happening.

 

These days I have enough experience to wire polarity switching without resorting to frog juicers but in earlier days they were a life saver on 3 ways and double slips. I have two of them and have continued with them over the years.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[St Enodoc]

I don't have much (modern) practical experience of wiring up points and I bow to all your greater knowledge but I have to admit I'm sceptical about some of the accepted practices being discussed here.

 

For example, with an electrofrog point straight off the shelf, the frog gets it's power from the point blade touching the side rail so if it didn't make a good contact you'd expect that entire blade and the frog to be dead - 4-5 inches of dead rail not just a glitch at the frog. Wouldn't you? Or have I missed something?

 

And frog juicers really seem like overkill to me: electronics to detect a "short" and switch "polarity" to the frog almost instantaneously - all to replace a simple switch... Hmmm... (I know "short" and "polarity" aren't quite the right terms for DCC but I hope you understand my point.)

 

No disrespect to you, Dave - you're quite right to do what you know works for you!

Phil, you haven't missed anything. That's exactly right and equally true with Insulfrogs. The only difference is that with Insulfrogs you can bond the blades to the stock rails and not do anything else. With Electrofrogs you have to switch the frog somehow. If you don't want to use a switch the frog juicer will do it for DCC although I agree that it is not an elegant solution. For DC a switch is really the only option.

[Danemouth]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

 

Whoever designed the Peco Bullhead Rail Joiners .... well I've just taken over an hour to fit two joiners to connect two points.

 

These joiners are just over half the length of the standard Code 75 rail joiner and talk about small and fiddly. In the end I had to open them up with the back of a scalpel .

 

I will need to spend time over the next few days working out a better methodology with them otherwise it will take forever just to lay the track!

 

Ah well tomorrow is another day,

 

Dave

 

p.s. If anybody has experience of these joiners and has a useful suggestion it would be gratefully received. Thanks

 

[Danemouth]

Well I give up - with Peco Bullhead rail - I don't have the eyesight or manual dexterity to handle the Bullhead rail joiners, just too fiddly for me and as for joining a bullhead point to a Code 75 FB Double Slip, well forget it!

 

So I've done a deal with L & B and exchanged the Bullhead stuff for the standard Peco  75 FB.

 

Naturally I am staying with the same trackplan and also with the large points - I did debate medium points for about ten seconds and then remembered the flowing curves of the plan, so large points it is!

 

I now need to make rapid progress to get back on schedule.

 

Regards to you all,

 

Dave

[sjrixon]

Bullhead rail and normal code 75 rail joiners worked fine for me.. Code 75 points with a little tidy up and you can hardly tell... (Well almost)

[Danemouth]

Bullhead rail and normal code 75 rail joiners worked fine for me.. Code 75 points with a little tidy up and you can hardly tell... (Well almost)

 

Scott,

 

I have no doubt that my c@ck handedness was a major factor, it was all just too fiddly for me!

 

I have had no issues in the past laying Code 75 FB and now hope to make rapid progress.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[Harlequin]

Hi Dave,

 

That's a great shame!

 

If it were me, I would persevere even if it was tedious and painful to do, on the basis that I would be looking at the permanent way on the layout for many years to come - but you've got to do what's right for you.

 

(Just out of interest, I've got some bullhead track and joiners so I'll have a go at putting together some test pieces when I get time.)

[sp1]

Surely if the tracks glued down you don’t actually need rail joiners?

[Danemouth]

Hi Dave,

 

That's a great shame!

 

If it were me, I would persevere even if it was tedious and painful to do, on the basis that I would be looking at the permanent way on the layout for many years to come - but you've got to do what's right for you.

 

(Just out of interest, I've got some bullhead track and joiners so I'll have a go at putting together some test pieces when I get time.)

 

 

Surely if the tracks glued down you don’t actually need rail joiners?

 

I did spend a couple of afternoons trying the get things to work with Bullhead but it wasn't to be! I found the rail joiners too small and even using the back of a scalpel to open them up they were difficult to fit.

 

I tried using FB rail joiners but they were too long and really did't look right.

 

Given my skill level I would not attempt track laying without rail joiners.

 

In the end I became so frustrated that I knew if  did not switch back to FB I might end up abandoning the whole thing which would be a real pity. I know I can manage FB and now expect to start making real progress.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

[NHY 581]

Nothing wrong with 'normal' Code 75,Dave. It has to work for you after all.

 

 

Rob.

[NHY 581]

Carefully laid and ballasted, it will pass muster.

 

 

R

Edited June 5, 2018 by NHY 581

[Harlequin]

Hi Dave,

 

I posted what I found when fiddling around with Bullhead track here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134764-practical-peco-bullhead-trackwork

[88C]

I am sure that bullhead would look better but if you can't get on with it what's the point(no pun intended). When all is said and done you want a layout that works so that you can enjoy it.

 

Brian

[Danemouth]

Hi Dave,

 

I posted what I found when fiddling around with Bullhead track here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134764-practical-peco-bullhead-trackwork

 

 

I am sure that bullhead would look better but if you can't get on with it what's the point(no pun intended). When all is said and done you want a layout that works so that you can enjoy it.

 

Brian

 

Absolutely correct Brian,

 

Whilst Bullhead looks extremely good, particularly the points I found it fiddly and not as easy as Phil did in his very informative videos.

 

My poor skills just aren't up to the job for Bullhead

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

[Danemouth]

Progress has been made, I've laid the track including rail joiners - this confirms for me that the plan kindly drawn by Phil Harlequin meets my operational needs and indeed it does - that curve, together with Brian BR2975 idea of extending the headshunt through the scenic break has produced some lovely flowing track.

 

Some points  to note;

• The track is positioned roughly, it will be removed for the cork to be laid and the odd kink visible in the pictures will also be removed.  Note that the track for the run around loop has not been joined at the release crossover end for now,
• The scenic break, a Metcalfe Bridge has been moved onto the fiddleyard board - Phil had suggested that, This limits the train length to 80 cm i.e. a reasonable size loco with two coaches
• All the wire that you see is mainly Peco powered fishplates - these have the advantage of hiding my messy soldering - more track droppers will be added when the track is properly laid.
• The two steel rulers in the photos represent the position of the scenic break

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any comments gratefully received - it will probably be Tuesday before I start laying the cork and finalising the track layout

 

Regards

 

Dave

[danstercivicman]

Nice flow

[NHY 581]

Yep. That looks just right.

 

 

This will, I am sure, be a lovely terminus, Dave.

 

 

Rob.

[Andrew P]

Yes very nice Dave, as Dan said, a nice flow.

[Harlequin]

Yes, it looks great.

 

I had a small, 60mm, straight section between the points leading to the bay and the points for the kickback spur so that it was easier to fit the signal box in without the spur having to turn too sharply.

 

Is there enough space between the run round loop line and the goods shed line for the goods line to pass through the shed? (I had the goods shed line spaced a bit further away still, of course, to allow for the peninsula goods platform.)

Edited June 10, 2018 by Harlequin

[Danemouth]

Yes, it looks great.

 

I had a small, 60mm, straight section between the points leading to the bay and the points for the kickback spur so that it was easier to fit the signal box in without the spur having to turn too sharply.

 

Is there enough space between the run round loop line and the goods shed line for the goods shed to pass through the shed? (I had the goods shed line spaced a bit further away still, of course, to allow for the peninsula goods platform.)

 

I did debate that and will give it a try tomorrow,

 

Many thanks,

 

dave

[Danemouth]

I've now added a 10 cm section of track between the two bay points and slightly realigned the main platform, run around and goods siding to allow for the eventual replacement of the current goods store with a pass through line.

 

 

 

The train standing in the platform is two autocoaches (the longest coaches I have) together with a pannier.

 

Thanks again for all your help,

 

Dave

 

 

[Andrew P]

Much better Dave, flows lovey now from the Bay.

[Harlequin]

Hi Dave,

 

It's hard to tell from the photos but the length of track beyond the loco release crossover seems to be long enough to accommodate a King with room to spare. If that's deliberate, fair enough, but if you can reduce that length by pushing the crossover further to the right, then you'd get more room for vehicles to stand alongside the platform if you want it. (I'm thinking about tail traffic added to passenger trains.) If you do move the crossover to the right, leave enough room for an everyday loco to stand clear of the points plus about 50mm for the buffers. It's OK for really big locos to foul the points and be trapped because you can use a pilot loco to remove the coaches in those exceptional cases.

 

Personally, I'd try to have the goods shed parallel with the platform and the station building because it would look a bit more organised and would open up the yard a bit - but it's not a big deal.

 

Looking forward to seeing it develop!

Edited June 12, 2018 by Harlequin