Chuffnell Regis

[Gedward]

1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

I have come to believe that in many cases, less is more.

 

5 minutes ago, Graham T said:

The idea of a big open space is becoming more and more appealing

 

That was the solution I came to with Bovey Tor.

[Graham T]

I made myself a little tool for track cutting today, and am pleased to say that it works a treat - nice, straight cuts with the razor saw.

 

 

So, you know what this means - yes, I'm ready to start laying some track.  Which will be fun, if a little daunting.  And I'm sure will lead to yet more changes in the layout plan!

 

It also means lots of questions too, naturally.  The first issue is to figure out the wiring, which I must confess I don't have the faintest idea about.  I'm going to get myself a DCC system, but don't know which one, so any recommendations would be gratefully received.  I've also picked up that the two-wire myth of DCC is perhaps not quite to be believed...  So I'm thinking of soldering a pair of wires to every length of track and every point (which are all Peco electrofrog, if that makes a difference - which I think it does!)

 

I also need to get some point motors, and am pondering either this one from Gaugemaster, or else the Peco PL-1000 (which costs twice as much).  As ever, any thoughts, opinions, advice, or recommends would be very welcome - thanks!

[Alister_G]

Graham, others will have differing opinions, but here's my penn'orth.

 

I can highly recommend the NCE Procab for a DCC controller, I find it intuitive to use and it has the ability to be expanded in the future with extra controllers, a power booster and computer control if you so wish.

 

Yes the DCC = 2 wires is a nonsense in practice, but your idea of a pair of droppers to each section of track is good. If you are using electrofrog points they will require some modification before fitting, to make the best and most reliable use of them, although they will work out-of-box.

 

Both the Seep motors from Gaugemaster and the twistlock PL-1000 require very accurate marking out and installation, or they will not work reliably, any deviation from the centre line of the turnout tiebar will mean that the point may not throw properly.

 

In addition, if you are using the Seep, the length of throw for the Seep is larger than a typical Peco point. If you are using the built in switch to change the frog polarity, this means that it won't necessarily switch when the point is fully over. To compensate for this, you will need to stand them off from the baseboard a bit as you need to allow some flexibility in the operating rod, to ensure that the switch is fully operated.

 

I have no experience of using the PL-1000 but I believe similar applies as far as positioning goes.

 

I personally use the PL-10, which attaches to the underside of Peco points (both Code100 and Code75). This removes the need to accurately position the motor with respect to the turnout, but means you have to cut a hole in the baseboard large enough to allow the whole motor assembly to pass through. I normally fit a piece of thin plasticard between the turnout and the motor large enough to hide the hole.

 

Hope this is helpful,

 

Al.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Alister_G
More thoughts.

[chuffinghell]

8 minutes ago, Alister_G said:

I personally use the PL-10, which attaches to the underside of Peco points (both Code100 and Code75). This removes the need to accurately position the motor with respect to the turnout, but means you have to cut a hole in the baseboard large enough to allow the whole motor assembly to pass through. I normally fit a piece of thin plasticard between the turnout and the motor large enough to hide the hole.

 

Hope this is helpful,

 

Al.

 

I used the pl-10 and an accessory switch for the frog switching

 

but I also use the mounting plates and the holes in the mounting plates are slotted for adjustment each hole is slotted at 90 degrees to each other giving ‘a little’ adjustment in two planes

 

I just drill quite a big hole in the baseboard (bigger than actually required)

 

 

However, Al’s method sounds like a simpler and easier way to get the motor in the correct place first time round

[Alister_G]

Further thoughts:

 

To facilitate reliable turnout operation it is well worth investing in a Capacitor Discharge Unit (CDU) which provides a much stronger pulse to each point motor than you would get just using a normal power feed.

 

And to change the polarity of the electrofrogs, I have ended up using the Gaugemaster DCC80 Autofrog instead of switches on the point motors. They work very reliably and do actually only require 3 wires, one to each track feed and one to the frog. There are no moving parts, and so are unlikely to wear out or get dirty, unlike point motor switches.

 

Al.

[chuffinghell]

18 minutes ago, Alister_G said:

And to change the polarity of the electrofrogs, I have ended up using the Gaugemaster DCC80 Autofrog instead of switches on the point motors. They work very reliably and do actually only require 3 wires, one to each track feed and one to the frog. There are no moving parts, and so are unlikely to wear out or get dirty, unlike point motor switches.

 

Al.

Not having to mechanically throw the switch sounds like witchcraft but also a brilliant bit of kit! very useful to know, thanks Al

 

The peco accessory switch doesn’t look like it’s going to be very reliable (or last very long)

 

 

[chuffinghell]

It’s not a myth! for DCC you only need two wires....

 

 

....on each individual piece of track 

[chuffinghell]

As Al said, electrofrog points for DCC require a slight modification

 

 

 

The latest electrofrog points have a bridge wire that is simply cut to create the ‘break’ shown above

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by chuffinghell

[MrWolf]

I used the PL-1000 twistlock type motors. I found them very easy to fit using the provided template, though I drilled a 9mm hole under the tiebar centre rather than 6mm. 

They are actually quite forgiving and there's a fair bit of tolerance in the moving parts. I connected five to a CDU and they all work with a very positive action. They are designed to piggyback a polarity switch too.

 

The only problem I have had has been with the build quality of some of the pointwork that I have not experienced before.

 

 

Sorry about the lousy photo, but it shows how simple these are.

[Graham T]

10 hours ago, MrWolf said:

I used the PL-1000 twistlock type motors. I found them very easy to fit using the provided template, though I drilled a 9mm hole under the tiebar centre rather than 6mm. 

They are actually quite forgiving and there's a fair bit of tolerance in the moving parts. I connected five to a CDU and they all work with a very positive action. They are designed to piggyback a polarity switch too.

 

The only problem I have had has been with the build quality of some of the pointwork that I have not experienced before.

 

 

Sorry about the lousy photo, but it shows how simple these are.

 

UFOs!!!!

[Graham T]

13 hours ago, Alister_G said:

Graham, others will have differing opinions, but here's my penn'orth.

 

I can highly recommend the NCE Procab for a DCC controller, I find it intuitive to use and it has the ability to be expanded in the future with extra controllers, a power booster and computer control if you so wish.

 

Yes the DCC = 2 wires is a nonsense in practice, but your idea of a pair of droppers to each section of track is good. If you are using electrofrog points they will require some modification before fitting, to make the best and most reliable use of them, although they will work out-of-box.

 

Both the Seep motors from Gaugemaster and the twistlock PL-1000 require very accurate marking out and installation, or they will not work reliably, any deviation from the centre line of the turnout tiebar will mean that the point may not throw properly.

 

In addition, if you are using the Seep, the length of throw for the Seep is larger than a typical Peco point. If you are using the built in switch to change the frog polarity, this means that it won't necessarily switch when the point is fully over. To compensate for this, you will need to stand them off from the baseboard a bit as you need to allow some flexibility in the operating rod, to ensure that the switch is fully operated.

 

I have no experience of using the PL-1000 but I believe similar applies as far as positioning goes.

 

I personally use the PL-10, which attaches to the underside of Peco points (both Code100 and Code75). This removes the need to accurately position the motor with respect to the turnout, but means you have to cut a hole in the baseboard large enough to allow the whole motor assembly to pass through. I normally fit a piece of thin plasticard between the turnout and the motor large enough to hide the hole.

 

Hope this is helpful,

 

Al.

 

13 hours ago, Alister_G said:

Further thoughts:

 

To facilitate reliable turnout operation it is well worth investing in a Capacitor Discharge Unit (CDU) which provides a much stronger pulse to each point motor than you would get just using a normal power feed.

 

And to change the polarity of the electrofrogs, I have ended up using the Gaugemaster DCC80 Autofrog instead of switches on the point motors. They work very reliably and do actually only require 3 wires, one to each track feed and one to the frog. There are no moving parts, and so are unlikely to wear out or get dirty, unlike point motor switches.

 

Al.

 

12 hours ago, chuffinghell said:

As Al said, electrofrog points for DCC require a slight modification

 

 

 

The latest electrofrog points have a bridge wire that is simply cut to create the ‘break’ shown above

 

 

11 hours ago, MrWolf said:

I used the PL-1000 twistlock type motors. I found them very easy to fit using the provided template, though I drilled a 9mm hole under the tiebar centre rather than 6mm. 

They are actually quite forgiving and there's a fair bit of tolerance in the moving parts. I connected five to a CDU and they all work with a very positive action. They are designed to piggyback a polarity switch too.

 

The only problem I have had has been with the build quality of some of the pointwork that I have not experienced before.

 

 

Sorry about the lousy photo, but it shows how simple these are.

 

Thanks all for the replies - I'm a bit staggered!  Clearly I still haven't actually decided about anything, but the thinking at Chuffnell Regis right now goes something like this ...

 

• DCC, using the NCE Procab (and I do like the idea of only needing two wires - hahahahaha)
• CDU(s?) for the point motors
• Probably PL-1000 point motors; I could cut holes in the baseboards, but don't particularly want to; just drilling through from above with a template sounds simpler.  And if they're Peco motors then they should work perfectly with Peco points, right?  (Ahem...)
• Red/black droppers from every point and stretch of track

 

And I need to sit down with the track plan, wrap a wet towel around my head, and try to figure out how to knot all the electric string together.

[Graham T]

It probably says something about how my brain works that I'm not entirely comfortable drinking my coffee out of this mug.

 

[Gedward]

7 minutes ago, Graham T said:

 

 

 

 

Thanks all for the replies - I'm a bit staggered!  Clearly I still haven't actually decided about anything, but the thinking at Chuffnell Regis right now goes something like this ...

 

• DCC, using the NCE Procab (and I do like the idea of only needing two wires - hahahahaha)
• CDU(s?) for the point motors
• Probably PL-1000 point motors; I could cut holes in the baseboards, but don't particularly want to; just drilling through from above with a template sounds simpler.  And if they're Peco motors then they should work perfectly with Peco points, right?  (Ahem...)
• Red/black droppers from every point and stretch of track

 

And I need to sit down with the track plan, wrap a wet towel around my head, and try to figure out how to knot all the electric string together.

 

I absolutely dreaded this part of the project. Had numerous running problems with my last layout too. But I can vouch for the NCE power cab. Am very pleased with it.

[Graham T]

All this talk about electrical wizardry sent me scuttling back to my comfort zone, and I added the roof and vent caps to the engine shed.  I still need to add the ridge tiles and flashing.  And with hindsight, I probably shouldn't have put the bargeboards on before the roof...

 

I won't add the doors until I actually position the shed on the layout, as I'll no doubt break them off if I put them on before then

 

[Alister_G]

That's coming on a treat, nice job.

 

Al.

[Graham T]

Thanks Al.  I know it started out as a kit, but I think it's probably fair to call this pretty much scratch built now.

[Graham T]

I'm a bit ashamed to say that I haven't made any tweaks at all to this - but a GWR layout has to have one (I suspect it's a Rule?)

 

 

It won't stay completely untouched though, I will probably at least add some door hinges from plastic strip, and a padlock.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Graham T

[MrWolf]

It can all get a bit daft with customised pagodas. There used to be some really good kits for them. Nowadays it's hack what you have!

 

 

 

[Stubby47]

Another option

 

[chuffinghell]

1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

It can all get a bit daft with customised pagodas.

 

Agreed!

 

 

 

 

 

[Graham T]

Damn, now I'm starting to feel the pressure!

[Graham T]

1 hour ago, Stubby47 said:

Another option

 

 

Lovely photo!

[MrWolf]

37 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:

Agreed!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I wasn't going to name and shame you officially, but it's out there now... 

[chuffinghell]

31 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

 

Well I wasn't going to name and shame you officially, but it's out there now... 

 

Well yes that’s true  but Stu AKA @Stubby47 has taken his to another level and very nicely done it has to be said

[MrWolf]

Indeed he has, I was looking at it with thoughts of - I don't need one, but I might build one.

It's one of those models that an entire layout could grow from.