To DCC or not?

[WIMorrison]

2 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Still not as easy as a twidly knob.

I find that pressing the button and then being able to use the full 270 drag of rotation for a significantly reduced speed range is positively advantageous when shunting, and the ability to stop, start and run a loco every time at SpeedStep 1 which is a scale 2km/h for my layout because it has full track voltage applied at all times is  absolutely amazing.

[Andymsa]

7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Read things as you like, all I said it was a DCC operated layout and  I didn't get the hang of the inertia control.

Just one of the selling points of DCC is you can drive them like a real train. I have driven real locos, all be it on drive experience days not for a living but I didn't find it like a real loco.

 

Likewise I found the Gaugemaster  P and DS equally challenging, and I worked for Gaugemaster many moons ago trying to sell them. 

 

Inerta on model trains is nothing like driving a real train, I certainly have experience at the real thing. The only comprasion would be like having a real train and just shutting off power and coasting to a stop without using the brake.

 

that said personally  I turn off cv 3/4 so no inerta.

[Andymsa]

8 hours ago, Dungrange said:

Andy,

 

I agree that there are plenty of alternatives when it comes to point motors and also accessory decoders to control them.  I was only highlighting the Cobalt ip because effectively the same motor comes in two forms.  I think that the DAC20 is only capable of controlling eight Tortoise, which means that the cost per output is actually just over £8 or around twice as much as the difference in price between the Cobalt ip Analogue and the Cobalt ip Digital.  The difference is of course that the DAC20 provides feedback via LocoNet, whereas the Cobalt ip Digital does not, so perhaps you end up with a slightly better solution at a similar overall cost (if going DCC).

 

Yes the dac can do 8 tortoises, but the dac can also be set to 16 outputs for lighting, relays ect using solenoids point motors it could be possible to have 16 of them, I'll have to try that at some time. The cost difference comes more into line when you factor cost of cobalt to tortoise. 

[Bucoops]

Back in my days of "playing trains" on a preserved railway, the hardest part of stopping in the right place wasn't inertia as such but the delay on vacuum brakes. Made things very interesting.

[Andymsa]

15 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

Back in my days of "playing trains" on a preserved railway, the hardest part of stopping in the right place wasn't inertia as such but the delay on vacuum brakes. Made things very interesting.

 

Remember vacuum very well, although just thought there is a better comprasion to inerta a lose coupled train, now they do take skill to stop

[Tallpaul69]

18 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

I wasn't aware of the "master-plan" -  a lot of people seem to end up  acquiring large and rather mixed collections for the Promised Day, which is what I'd sort of suspected.

 

I've got some idea of where you're coming from , as I've ended up with 3 sets of stock for different periods on my own layout. At the same time I suspect I've partly ended up making a rod for my own back.

 

So I'm going to quibble slightly with the master-plan. I can see you've worked on a concept of stepping 15 years through history, with "contemporary" bolted on at the end.

 

From my own experience I think 5 suites of stock is too many and will simply become an unmanageable burden . I've found I'm struggling to keep on top of 3 much smaller suites (about 10-12 items of traction each) , plus the rather different stock for my boxfile

 

I started with 2 periods . I was involved with a club project which was post 2000, and I wanted a lifeboat for the stuff I'd inevitably acquired in connection with the project. And my personal main interest was 1980s BR , so that was the second period.

 

The post-privatisation period became defined as the period of the Central Trains franchise (to end 2007) because I have quite a few items in Central livery

 

The BR period is 1985 -90, because I wanted a blue Cravens DMU (withdrawn 1985) and 153s (converted 1990) to be able to make up DMU formations in multiple. Effectively this is a Corporate Blue/ Sectorised mix, as the 80s were

 

And along the way I decided I could have a not-especially-authentic steam era (nominally c1958) so that the various out of period kits and RTR locos I'd somehow acquired could at least be used from time to time, rather than mouldering in boxes

 

That has resulted in a lot of work building carriages - 3-4 sets plus a short parcels train has taken a lot of modelling time, and they're nothing more ambitious than plastic kits. Obviously the BR Corporate signage etc - though fine for 1985-90 , and 2000-7 , is quite wrong for 1958 when red enamelled plates would have been everywhere

 

The layout's been exhibited 3 or 4 times as 1980s BR - and if I'm honest it may be 3 years since I last had a proper post-privatisation operating session. The fact that the layout is portable and blocks up the sitting room doesn't help, admittedly.

 

I fear your 5 period master-plan may prove too ambitious in practice. If you are considering scaling it back, then I can't see a great difference between the two post-privatisation periods, so consolidating these to one, with 50 items of traction, covering a particular franchise period (or transition) would be an obvious first step

 

1962 has zero cross-over with any of the other periods . Nothing from this period can be used with any other period. (And the signage and setting was very different)

 

On the other hand a lot of the stock from your 1977 period might well still have been running in 1992, and some of it would still have been in Corporate Blue. You lose unfitted stock at the end of 1983, and vac fitted freight stock by the end of the decade, but in the mid 80s you can run Sprinters , Pacers HSTS and 58s alongside traditional freight wagons 

 

If you were to consolidate 1977 and 1992, with the option to swap in some early stop /swap out some late stock to flex the period , at around 50 items , you would still have nearly all of what you want (Surplus "late " items might go into the post-privatisation fleet. There was still a 153 in BR Regional Railways livery as late as 2008)

 

This might compress the fleet down to 3 periods (Steam/diesel, BR, post-privatisation) and about 140 items (40 + 50 + 50). It would make everything much more manageable , and presumably the non-DCC Ready locos would be more suitable for the cull. At the same time , youd still have nearly everything offered by your original master-plan

 

(That said, given the period many of these may be Bachmann 158s, Turbostars and Voyagers , which are decent models. I have to admit that mine have been running for a decade without lights - reinstating the lights after fitting decoders is one of the jobs on a very long list that I haven't got around to... They also need 2 or 3 decoders per unit to operate the lights - which adds to the cost of DCC)

 

In the context of the WR main line in the Thames Valley, I'm sceptical that a separate 1977 period is justifiable for the sake of a token blue Western and a few unfitted wagons- which I assume is the logic. It would make more sense to aim for c1984-6, to incorporate 59s on Foster Yeoman aggregates, and a mix of blue/grey and InterCity liveried HSTs as signature items, though clearly they cannot be scale length. I couldn't quite cram a scale length HST onto 16' x 12' for the club project. Vac fitted stock could still run.

 

Admittedly this isn't quite consistant with Cl 165 units, (introduced 1990) but I think one compromise that will need to be accepted is a slight "smearing" of eras, with 165s taking over from Modernisation Plan 117s and 121s, a mix of blue/grey and InterCity HSTs, 59s but a few older vac braked goods. All things the spotters would have seen in the period 1985-90 - but some of them missed each other by a couple of years

 

Turbostars, Voyagers and 158s are not relevant in that setting - but Bachmann Networker Turbos pose exactly the same DCC issues

Yes,

I agree about the blurring of the eras! Economics may force some rationalisation as one of the attractions of DCC for me is sound, but there is little money for that even over several years, so some assets will, reluctantly, have to be liquified! 

 

To make 1962 work for my prototype, I have to reduce or hide the infrastructure. So there is no station, thus no station furniture signs etc. The signal box went in the early 70s so  it is removed except for 1962. The signals went colour light in 1963 except the branch, so the 5 branch signals may be non working in 1962, then removed and working colour lights plugged in for later eras. Yes, the detail of the colour lights altered over the years, so I just have to avoid letting any signalling experts view the layout. I can live with the compromise. I am going to cheat by having a couple of steam specials running excursions in the non steam eras. I have to be careful with the c2016 version to ensure I keep it before the overheads and the resultant infrastructure changes kicked in!

 

Best regards

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

18 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

A simple question - with this huge amount of locos and stock how will it be taken off and on the layout?

 

I have a friend with an exceptionally good layout that is mid-1950s 99% of the despite him possessing massive amounts of wonderful stock and locos from other eras sitting on the shelfs and display cabinets - his layout is also in an 8x10 shed.

 

The reason you ask? because it takes him so much time to move everything on and off despite having large amounts of it stored in cassettes for 'easy' transfer.

 

Might this be worth thinking about?

Yes, it is a factor that I have already planned for.

Firstly, I don't intend changing eras frequently, possibly every 3 or 6 months.

Secondly I am fortunate in having a racked storage area next door to the railway room.

Lastly such a changeover cant be rushed, you have to accept that it will take a week or two to do the changeover. You cant rush these things. You also ned to have a written script otherwise you get in a muddle.

 

Best regards

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

17 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hi Paul,

 

I said this topic made me uneasy because it reminded me of another about a year ago where the OP was overambitious, unrealistic, and held critical information too close to his chest. The participants gave their best advice openly and generously but the OP ignored it or gradually revealed that it was not applicable in his case while continuing to demand more input. It spiralled down into a bad place.

 

I assume that you posted the designs in "Nearly Slough" and "Partly Maidenhead" because you wanted useful, practical feedback. We were simply telling you what we thought the flaws were and how you could address them but both topics ended without resolution. I hope your new layout designers have produced something sensible for you.

 

I still find it odd that you can't post the new designs for your own layout but, fair enough, you have given reasonable explanations for what you're doing so I look forward to seeing and hearing more about developments when you can reveal them.

 

BTW: double-heading, etc, are not the primary advantages of DCC - they were just presented as some of the things that DCC can do because of it's inherent advantages.

 

Good Luck!

Phil,

the reason I didn't post anything further on Partly Maidenhead is that I was told very clearly by a number of folk on the forum that I MUST go away and draw a plan up in exact scale, because if I did so I would then find that what I was looking for was totally impractical.

Many thought I should settle for a simple track plan, because, they said, if you get bored with that, why, you just plan and build another one!!

No thank you.

I did gave the drawing a try, but I don't have a good set of drawing instruments neither do I have a track drawing software, and don't see the point of spending a lot of time learning the ins and outs of such a package to produce one layout drawing. I concluded my efforts were a waste of my time.

 

So I used the time to send my drawing with an outline of my requirements to a dozen builders.

While waiting for their replies, I put together an enquiry package which I then sent out to those builders who expressed interest.

I am now waiting for their estimates which from chatting to them last week, I expect to receive within the next two weeks. I have already have from some of them draft layout drawings which with a little adjustment should be able to meet my needs.

 

I may well post the drawing on the estimate that I settle on onto the forum. 

 

Best regards

Paul 

[Tallpaul69]

16 hours ago, Dungrange said:

Paul,

 

I understand what you are saying.  Many individuals build relatively small shunting layouts because that is all that they have space for at home.  However, such layouts don't suit everyone and if you want a bigger layout and don't have the space, it is perhaps natural to join a model railway club.  Club projects tend to be what many individuals would like to have at home but don't have the space for and being able to run your own stock on a 24 ft long layout is great.  It's one of the reasons I'm a member of my local club.  This can therefore present exhibition managers with two 'pools' of layouts - small layouts owned by individuals and large layouts owned by clubs.

 

However, there are layouts on the exhibition circuit that are not much bigger than your 12 ft by 8 ft.  The difference is that at an exhibition, these layouts are probably not operated single handed.  The reason for that is simple - the exhibitor is trying to 'entertain' the public and that generally means running as many trains as possible.  In theory there is nothing to stop you starting a train on your up line, starting another train on your down line and then shunting a train on your branch line while the others run non-stop.  However, for exhibition purposes, it's probably easier to have three separate operators.  Exhibiting can be tiring, especially if trying to control multiple trains simultaneously for eight hours.

 

Is the plan that the layout will only ever be operated by you, or are you likely to want to have friends round for an operating session?

Hi David,

The layout is just for me. will be demonstrated to friends and family (none of whom are railway or modelling enthusiasts). So the compromises have just to be what I can live with!

I understand why exhibitions are what they are, and I was stating facts, not suggesting they or the operators should change to accommodate my likes cos if they did most exhibitions would be a financial failure!!

I was just picking up on a comment that I should look at exhibitions (now let me think, what have I been doing on Saturdays for I don't know how many years!) . Sorry must not be picky they were only trying to help!

 

Best regards

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

18 hours ago, Philou said:

Hi chums,

 

I'm with Paul on this regarding stock and I'll hold my hand up to having loadsa trains for 'the' layout. The one thing I did was to realise', as another poster said above, that my vintage stock (early H-D and 1970s Hornby plus a bit of Airfix and Mainline) just does not cut the mustard in quality nor standard compared to what is available off the shelf at the moment. It will not be converted (and I shan't sell it on either as the old stock was bought or given when money was tight and I happen to like it anyway).

 

However, having been retired for a while and money being a little freer, I have fallen into bad ways (again) and have replaced my old stock with near-enough the same items!!! So, in a similar way to Paul, I did think of running periods: Steam (1900 - 1960s), the modernisation period (1950s - 1960s), the latter as I have a soft spot for the odd and quirky diesels (Fell anyone?).  Then I went and bought some very modern stock last week .................

 

The point was made above - if you want to run 'periods' nice, if you have the stock to do it, but what about everything else? The station signboards, the buildings, even things like platform lighting. The stations I want to model have all changed over the years so much so that one no longer exists and the other is devoid of its buildings. I know Rule 1 always applies, and unless Paul just wants something to run, I now realise it is important in its own way if you want your stock to run in a particular period, that everything ought to be in context.

 

This thread has made me think more seriously about what I want out of my layout - perhaps Paul should too (but go for DCC anyway ).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: Sorry if it seems I was hijacking - but the comments above have made me rethink regardless of the DC/DCC angle.

Hi Phillip,

Glad someone agrees with me.

If you choose your location carefully you can run multiple eras without the changes in infrastructure being too much of a compromise to live with.

Mind you I am lucky(?) in not having a crowd of knowledgeable friends to come round and say " You know that after year x they stopped using y and started using z!"

 

So one of the worst problems I have to tackle is the reduction in sidings over the years. My solution is that they will be covered in the modern eras by removable flat plates (car parks) and removable buildings. This will work provided you take care over the seams between the edge of the modern structures or landscape and the baseboard or trackside.

I still have to hide the points that are redundant but this can be done with small lineside items. It helps that my layout will be mounted high so that I am looking at the track etc at a low angle ,not at maybe 60degrees, when the points particularly are more of a problem to hide.

Best regards

Paul

[Art Dent]

9 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

I find that pressing the button and then being able to use the full 270 drag of rotation for a significantly reduced speed range is positively advantageous when shunting, and the ability to stop, start and run a loco every time at SpeedStep 1 which is a scale 2km/h for my layout because it has full track voltage applied at all times is absolutely amazing.

 

Agreed.

 

Here is a short video clip showing two of my 08 shunters crawling along.  It takes them a good 5 minutes plus to do one loop of my 6 x 4 ft oval test track.

 

 

Art

[WIMorrison]

That works out a scale 5 km/h - quite fast

[Art Dent]

LOL!

[Oldddudders]

10 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

I find that pressing the button and then being able to use the full 270 drag of rotation for a significantly reduced speed range is positively advantageous when shunting, and the ability to stop, start and run a loco every time at SpeedStep 1 which is a scale 2km/h for my layout because it has full track voltage applied at all times is  absolutely amazing.

Not least because that same decoder, placed in a different class of locomotive, could readily be adjusted to have a completely different set of characteristics. I regard CV adjustment as giving each loco its “personality”, and learning how to set up a loco to suit a particular role is one of the joys of DCC. But even without that, the chances are that factory settings will suit those who are less critical.  

[Ravenser]

4 hours ago, Art Dent said:

 

Agreed.

 

Here is a short video clip showing two of my 08 shunters crawling along.  It takes them a good 5 minutes plus to do one loop of my 6 x 4 ft oval test track.

 

 

Art

 

Hornby or Bachmann 08?

[peach james]

So, the originator of this intends on a layout with a loco density factor of about 0.75 locos/sq ft.  (that's based on getting 68 sq ft of table into a 96 sq ft room...)

 

DCC seems to make more sense than DC at those kinds of densities.  It also implies given the "60 turnouts" that the layout will be approaching 1 turnout/sq ft.  Which definitely approaches Spaghetti Junction levels.   

 

I think you are trying to cram too much into too little space.  DCC would help quite a bit in this case- it does mean that you can get locos stored nose to tail.  But this sounds...excessive.  If you had a MPD as the focus then I can see managing 24' of storage track(s), perhaps as high as 36', which would give you enough space to store 30-40 locos, and have 2 running.  Given that you want a station, that will substantially reduce the amount of on line storage that I can see being possible.  I could be wrong, but hey...

 

I would use DCC for traction power.

I would think about using DCC for stationary decoders.  If you want interlocking, then it is an easy approach to use for making said interlocking.  I would not use DCC for stationary decoders if you are not planning on automation or interlocking, it doesn't advance as much as the costs.  Although, if someone else is building the panel, it may be cheaper to fork out the 400-500 pounds for the gear and let them do it "their way"

 

I would seriously look at trimming the # of loco's & units you are planning on using.  40 seems excessive to me, based on what I need for my own layout.  (I have less than 16 locos on a layout that runs through 720 sq ft.  I own about 30 locos that are DCC equipped total).  

 

Again, some of this is very subjective.  The way you have phrased this has not been easy for us to suss out what you are trying exactly to do.

 

James

 

 

[shiny]

On 27/02/2019 at 15:35, Vecchio said:

" I vote lock"

 

So if somebody askes the community for help and when people are giving unfortunately more than advice but also starting discussions between each other we should lock the thread ?

 

Do we need a minimum requirement in practical layout design, electrics, control systems and so on to be allowed to write here?

 

There is always the ignore this topic function - if you think it is not right for you - use it.

 

Kick in the pants received and understood.

That wasn't the intent of my post - but it sure looks like it was.

Apologies to all.

 

[shiny]

22 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

If people stayed with the theme instead of going off on their own pet sagas of their own choice of equipment, we would all be a lot better off!

 

Half the people who answered this didn't get the basics of what I said in what I thought was a short clear initial statement.

 

Giving them more facts and a track plan that they wont understand unless I include the two page" why the layout is wanted how it is shown on my sketch" that was sent to potential suppliers, which I suspect few would bother to read, would be a waste of time!!

 

Cheers

Paul  

 

Serves me right for posting in a rush.

 

Yes, I said lock the topic. I didn't explain myself though. My bad, and i apologise if it caused offence. Although, to be fair - you did the same thing yourself. I also have a life outside this forum - as do you!

 

I do believe that I had taken the time to read fully and made an effort to offer advice. No "pet sagas" here, just responses to your Alan Sugar summary - which were as brief and concise as I could make them. And some other comments prior to that. All of which was based on information that you chose to share up until that point in time.

 

You had some definite misunderstandings in your summary though, which would affect any future decisions about your layout - and the cost to you. Nothing wrong with getting it wrong - that's how most of us learn: crawl walk run. But if you're already at the stage where you're about to sign on the dotted line and hand over the equivalent of a small family hatchback - then it seems sensible to understand what you are - and just as importantly  - not paying for.

 

"Half the people who answered this didn't get the basics of what I said in what I thought was a short clear initial statement." Perhaps so. But you also omitted some important details in your initial clear statement. Such as you weren't building it yourself, you weren't chipping the locos yourself, and then revealing a week into the discussion that it is probably someone else's design. Those kinds of things do affect the advice you are likely to receive. I did take the time and effort to read your posts, and those of others on this thread, and I responded appropriately. Using the facts that were to hand at the time. Not really our/their fault that our responses were based on incomplete information, and a lot of "lively" discussion has sprung up based upon incomplete information. The responses are generally useful, granted - but in the context of your railway, and the shift in (perceived) requirements - some is no longer relevant. The thread is getting choked up with noise if you can't make use of any of it.

"Giving them more facts and a track plan that they wont understand unless I include the two why the layout is wanted how it is shown on my sketch" might be a little harsh towards those genuinely trying to assist. Rule #1 applies here: your railway, your way - and those who don't like it will drop out. However, others will continue to provide useful input.

 

I think I seconded the "show us your track plan" request, but if it isn't your track plan to share - then it is totally understandable why we haven't seen it. It would have helped though. Probably. Although a "fag packet" drawing would have given us a rough idea of the amount of work involved in wiring your layout for DC (which seemed a good place to start) without breaking any contractual agreements or copyright rules. Even a rough sketch of the mimic board that you expressed a desire to have would help. I think some on here are smart enough to figure out enough of the basics without demanding your life story - and smart enough to ask when they don't understand something. But for some of the things you have expressed a desire for - automation, for example - some explanation from you is essential in order to achieve it.

 

You did start this thread - which you titled To DCC or not? - questioning advice you were given about building and conversion costs, and later revealed that the advice had probably come from one of the companies tasked to build it. You didn't come right out and say it, but the inference is most definitely there. Most builders do appreciate a customer whose project is well thought out and researched, because they know exactly where they stand. If there are gaps in the requirements presented by the customer, the builder will either make assumptions or provide suggestions based on his professional opinion. The question you raised in your OP could look like you were questioning his judgement, otherwise you would not have asked that question in the first place. None of us knew that at the time, because you did not disclose that information until page 4 or so. It illustrates one of the pitfalls you asked for, that a decision shouldn't be made without all of the facts to hand, and that you should also consider whether your question properly conveys your intent.

But also try to look at it from your builder's point of view. He gives you advice based on your apparently specific brief, and then you question that advice in an internet forum. You haven't mitigated it by asking how you could make aspect xyz of the railway cheaper or do it differently, nor have you enquired into any of the quite useful suggestions on the thread that could offer you with an "out". You have simply allowed the thread to crash along on its own merry way.

That builder looking at this thread and remembering the conversation with you might be wondering: "what next?" Misunderstandings lead to errors lead to blame. And if he were to learn later on that he is competing against eleven other firms for your business, he may decide that the job simply isn't worth the hassle. I am not suggesting that this is the case - but that is how it could look. I've been there - it is not a happy place for the contractor - or the customer. You have told all twelve contractors drawing up proposals that eleven of them won't get the job, right?

 

It is clear that you do need to bolster your understanding of some aspects of the hobby, you have pointed that out that yourself. And that is not intended as a sleight towards you. Read the responses to your Alan Sugar post to see what I mean, because if the summary you created is salient to your railway - then it is important to learn more about those things before you commit yourself to a hugely expensive or misguided course of action. I am not suggesting that you should or must do these things. It just works that way for me because it helps in my decision making and financial planning. Nor am I saying that you shouldn't be allowed to post questions because you haven't passed some sort of entry test! Heaven forbid - if I ever become that kind of modeller - please take me round back and shoot me.

 

I did suggest that you abandon this thread, but I also failed to qualify that. And was quite rightly taken to task for it.

Instead you think about opening new discussions to concentrate on stuff that you can learn more about - and deal with that. Break the task up into easier to digest chunks instead of creating a forum monster and giving yourself a headache through information overload.

For example: You asked about mimic with stud-and-probe. Open a thread about that instead, find out the many different ways it can be done - and how it can be translated to your 12x8 roundy-roundy within your ability. Whittle it down to something you can work with - it is required research after all. MERG is probably out of the question due to your eyesight, but there is still DCC and Alpha mimic (and more) to explore. And you can use that without converting any trains - probably at a fraction of the cost you were quoted. But as I have already mentioned that twice previously in thread, I won't try to force my opinion upon you again. it is up to you what direction you do take. It is your train set after all.

 

I, for one, am not asking you to join any kind of weird railway cult, nor do I have any desire to tell you how to do things. Some may be more forceful in how they express their opinions - but none of their opinions are without merit, even if you disagree vehemently. My own advice has tended to avoid suggesting xyz kit, except MERG - until I realised it was out of your zone, so rather I have modified my advice to be less technical and product specific and more along the lines of broad concepts that you might want to explore.

 

However, if you do solicit comments and advice, then commentary and advice are what you shall receive. If you are selective about what you choose to share when soliciting advice, and the working parameters are subsequently changed - then be prepared to accept criticism that the goalposts have been moved. If the goalposts are seen to be moved, then some will quite justifiably regard their time as having been wasted. The advice of posters on here might cost you nothing, but it often comes at a cost to those taking the time to answer your queries - their time is worth something to them - even when the time and advice is given freely.

 

"Giving them more facts and a track plan that they wont understand.. ..which I suspect few would bother to read, would be a waste of time" I disagree. The majority of us would have attempted to help as much as possible - myself included. Short of going round to your house and building the entire thing for you - which I won't do - I think the the 290-odd responses so far are testament to people's willingness to help you out. Granted that some haven't read much, but most certainly have. It certainly doesn't make it easy to keep up if the thread is allowed to roam out of control and break off on tangents related to matters that are being discussed in response to your query but outside your interest. It is your thread - take control of it. But also remember that yours is not the only thread - many posters are trying to keep on top of multiple threads - so they will rely on succinctness and adequate information in order to avoid misunderstandings.

 

Having just found your track plans on three other threads you started on the subject. It was quite illuminating, and having read the conversations with those who did offer constructive advice - I can understand why sharing the track plan or other details is a highly contentious issue for you. If you think it is a waste of time publishing it - I am not going to argue with that. It is a real shame that the advice and assistance of some highly experienced and competent modellers turned out to be of no use whatsoever. Modellers who, from what I can see, went to some effort - including drawing partial track designs and creating track templates to help avoid running express trains on 1st radius curves, offered advice about track centres, reach distances, buffer locking and the perils of scaling up track plans verbatim - which had the stars aligned - will doubtless help others avoid those design pitfalls along the way.

 

At the end of the day if you consider it easier to ask twelve separate firms to design a track plan than it would be to invest in a school compass set or sink a few hours learning some design software and trying to figure out how to squeeze it all in yourself - that is up to you. After all, it does take up a lot of time and paper if you let it. If design and planning is not your strong point - then that is certainly one way to get the job done. Especially if you intend to run trains to prototypical timetables and still emulate the track layout of Slough or Maidenhead or similar Western Region mainline station in OO within a 12x8 area. I can imagine it would be quite a challenge for anyone who attempts that. Definitely beyond my design abilities for sure!

 

None of us want to see you fail in your endeavour, neither do we want to see you waste a ton of money on something you don't need or want. Nor do we want to see you get ripped off along the way.

 

Anyway, this beer won't drink itself. Or maybe it will.. I'm only adding noise now so I'll sign off and wish you good luck with your project.

 

[St Enodoc]

17 hours ago, Bucoops said:

Back in my days of "playing trains" on a preserved railway, the hardest part of stopping in the right place wasn't inertia as such but the delay on vacuum brakes. Made things very interesting.

You were lucky you didn't have to use the Westinghouse with triple valves!

[Clive Mortimore]

I too have visited Tallpaul's proposed layout threads, like Shiny has done to get a clearer view of what Paul is after.

 

They seemed very ambitious for the space. Since they have been posted there seems to be a change from 1950s WR to a much wider time period for the specification, not that matters much. 

 

I still think without a track plan all the advice given by us is a waste of time because it cannot be applied to anything tangible.

 

I am not sure even if you were to spend a fortune on having someone build your railway and chip all your locos that you would enjoy the end result. Have you considered another way of spending the kids expected inheritance.

[Andymsa]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

You were lucky you didn't have to use the Westinghouse with triple valves!

 

Been there and done that:)

 

[Pete the Elaner]

11 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I too have visited Tallpaul's proposed layout threads, like Shiny has done to get a clearer view of what Paul is after.

 

They seemed very ambitious for the space.

 

I see what you mean, although a lack of link to the layout thread made it a pain to find.

The plan reminds me of layouts in my youth: Lots of track before dad fills every conceivable gap with even more, much of it from the bin because it was broken in the first place which isolated half the layout for good. It put me off the hobby for several years until I designed something with purpose.

 

Careful design to decide exactly what I want to achieve & how I want train movements has helped me to build something much more satisfying. I am getting there but I am finding the results much more satisfying.

[RAF96]

I agree with Pete -  if a layout of any size cannot be ‘worked’ then it is unfit for purpose and one loses the will to play. Just having a load of tracks on the board does not make a practical working layout.

 

I use SCARM to design plans and there is a train sim built in which allows you to run a train around your plan to see if it works and hence has play value. Very often I find a mirror image of a plan works better than the original, maybe a result of me being left handed.

 

DCC or DC also plays a big part in if a plan can be made to work from a track that is all powered or powered by isolated blocks methodology.

[Art Dent]

11 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Hornby or Bachmann 08?

 

Both Baccy 08's.  One in BR Black with 'Cycling Lion' No. 103050 and one in BR Green with 'Lion & Dartboard' No. D3963.

 

103050 has a hard-wired Lenz Silver whilst D3963 has a TCS M1 micro.

 

Would like to put sound in them - but where as I want to keep the cabs free.

 

Art

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I too have visited Tallpaul's proposed layout threads, like Shiny has done to get a clearer view of what Paul is after.

 

They seemed very ambitious for the space. Since they have been posted there seems to be a change from 1950s WR to a much wider time period for the specification, not that matters much. 

 

I still think without a track plan all the advice given by us is a waste of time because it cannot be applied to anything tangible.

 

I am not sure even if you were to spend a fortune on having someone build your railway and chip all your locos that you would enjoy the end result. Have you considered another way of spending the kids expected inheritance.

 

Agreed.

 

What the OP evidently wants is the WR main line in the Thames Valley - a 4 track main line, run largely by HSTs

 

I was once in a position of coming up with a concept for a 16' x 12' space. I very rapidly concluded that a main line with full length InterCity sets in squadron service simply couldn't be done, even with 2+7 HSTs . Frankly things involving 2 x 4-car EMUs in squadron service couldn't be done either . The only way forward was to drop back to Cross Country for the main line services , as a service operated by 4-5 car Voyagers could be done  and 2 x 3 car EMUS (as W.Yorks and Strathclyde ) could be managed . (I may add that we had the huge benefit of having the fiddle-yard completely re-schemed by a professional railway civil engineer, which doubled capacity. We still couldn't quite fit a 2+7 HST in there without fouling something)

 

Short, non-scale length formations are inevitable. That is not necessarily a killer for a home operational layout

 

What leaps out and hits me here is the concept of  4 suites of stock (1977 , 1992, 2007, 2016 ) each of which requires a separate fleet of HSTs, built up over many years. I have a mental vision of boxes and boxes of Mk3s piled high....

 

The older HST models with ringfields didn't have great tractive effort, or adequate pickup ,and they didn't have lights. I have been struggling to install DCC on an elderly 3 pole Hornby ringfield hardwired, so I have strong feelings on the point.

 

Upgrading a pair of such powercars is going to cost 2 decoders , possibly 4 function (one in each power car) Express Models lights at £20 a pop , a lot of work, to install. I reckon the bill will be at least £100 per HST set , without tackling the inadequete pickups and lack of grunt. 

 

If you work with the current Hornby powercars , the bill will be 2 decoders and a plug-and-play installation using existing lights, maybe £55 per set, with better performance.

 

So if the OP is going to have to sell stock to fund things, I'd start by compressing the HST fleet to two sets - BR 1980s and post -privatisation, focussed on any current Hornby power cars he has , and trying to cull  vintage Lima and Hornby power cars , to minimise the need for upgrade work.

 

At least Lima 117s don't need lights.....