Cholsey & Moulsford (Change for Wallingford)

[The Stationmaster]

On 28/09/2022 at 12:05, Nick Gough said:

Beyond the turnout, in the bay, I will have to fit a length of plain track leading up to the buffer stop:

 

Before I can cut the track to fit I need to determine the length and position of the buffer stop:

 

There are at least a couple of GWR kits on the market but, unfortunately, the websites don't give the dimensions so I will put this on hold for now.

Probably Lanarkshire Models BS14 or a BS 13 (which I think is the one in those photos).  Unfortunately pictures of them are not currently  coming up on the Lanarkshire Models website

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

Yet another turnout glued in place:

 

This time in the up relief to complete the crossover:

 

I found this one a bit fiddly as I tried to position it, over the glue, with insulated rail joiners between the two turnouts. Peco recommend using 'N' gauge insulated joiners with bullhead OO. 

 

However, trying to negotiate the latest turnout into place, over the sleepers of the adjacent line, I could not get the (tiny) joiners into the right position to slide into place.

 

I gave up, removed the joiners, and aligned the connection as accurately as I could, leaving a small gap to prevent shorts:

It seems to be okay.

 

I have two more turnouts to place in the up relief here, either side of the crossover, but that will wait for another day!

With a careful cut to part of the included wiring on the Peco bullhead points you don't need to use insulating rail joiners between points connecting running lines as there is already an insulated gap just clear of the 'frog' casting.

[Harlequin]

15 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

With a careful cut to part of the included wiring on the Peco bullhead points you don't need to use insulating rail joiners between points connecting running lines as there is already an insulated gap just clear of the 'frog' casting.

 

In fact, do you need to cut anything if both turnouts are Unifrog? They should just connect together using conducting joiners without any problems. Link cutting is only needed if you want the turnout to self-isolate.

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Harlequin

[Tallpaul69]

Hi Nick,

I know you have got the bit between your teeth on tracklaying/point installation, bur will you be tearing yourself away to get to the Marshall Arena next weekend?

Ironic to have a Model Railway Show on a day the 12inch to the foot trains are on strike!

Cheers

Paul 

[The Stationmaster]

11 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

In fact, do you need to cut anything if both turnouts are Unifrog? They should just connect together using conducting joiners without any problems. Link cutting is only needed if you want the turnout to self-isolate.

 

Are you sure Phil?  if you leave in the links to what are described in this sketch as 'frog rails' (weird name🤪) they will always be live to the through stock rail on the other route through the point - however the point is set.  In other words they come in the packet wired as shown in the coloured sketch.

 

 

 

Thus at a crossover joined by metal rail joiners the two running lines will not be electrically separate from each other.  On a double line layout with trains moving in opposite directions on the two lines joined by the crossover you will surely get a clash of polarities (even if you have common return wiring) if you are not using DCC.  Therefore you need - in this case - to insulate one running line from the other if you are running on CD.

 

Points leading to dead end sidings are different and need no insulated joiners in the route leading to the siding but the siding will remain live unless a switch is provided ot the point is converted to live frog operation with the frog rails connected to the frog and not to any other rail if you are using DC.

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

48 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Are you sure Phil?  if you leave in the links to what are described in this sketch as 'frog rails' (weird name🤪) they will always be live to the through stock rail on the other route through the point - however the point is set.  In other words they come in the packet wired as shown in the coloured sketch.

 

 

 

Thus at a crossover joined by metal rail joiners the two running lines will not be electrically separate from each other.  On a double line layout with trains moving in opposite directions on the two lines joined by the crossover you will surely get a clash of polarities (even if you have common return wiring) if you are not using DCC.  Therefore you need - in this case - to insulate one running line from the other if you are running on CD.

 

Points leading to dead end sidings are different and need no insulated joiners in the route leading to the siding but the siding will remain live unless a switch is provided ot the point is converted to live frog operation with the frog rails connected to the frog and not to any other rail if you are using DC.

 

 

 

 

It would be very unusual to have the sense of the rail polarities different on the parallel tracks, whether DC or DCC or even if the parallel tracks are in a double-track roundy round. Thus you should almost always gets this:

 

So in the middle of the crossover it's always red to red and black to black. Only the blue parts change polarity in Unifrog turnouts, of course.

 

If this crossover was in a DC double track roundy round layout, the direction switch on the controller would set clockwise or anticlockwise for both tracks, not forwards and backwards.

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

10 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

It would be very unusual to have the sense of the rail polarities different on the parallel tracks, whether DC or DCC or even if the parallel tracks are in a double-track roundy round. Thus you should almost always gets this:

 

So in the middle of the crossover it's always red to red and black to black. Only the blue parts change polarity in Unifrog turnouts, of course.

 

If this crossover was in a DC double track roundy round layout, the direction switch on the controller would set clockwise or anticlockwise for both tracks, not forwards and backwards.

 

But on a double track roundy one track would be for trains running clockwise and the other for trains running anti clockwise. so the train are running in opposite direction which would surely reverse the polarity of one set of rails.   The circuit above fully links the two tracks electrically so they cannot be separately controlled.  Ok for DCC but not for DC

[Harlequin]

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

But on a double track roundy one track would be for trains running clockwise and the other for trains running anti clockwise. so the train are running in opposite direction which would surely reverse the polarity of one set of rails.   The circuit above fully links the two tracks electrically so they cannot be separately controlled.  Ok for DCC but not for DC

 

Yes and No... 🙂

 

In a DC double track roundy I think you'd keep the "polarity" of the rails the same way round in both tracks so that you can drive across the crossover without having to reverse the polarities of whole sections of track. So from a polarity perspective, there's no need to isolate.

 

But, given that you almost certainly want to run trains indepently on the two circuits, then yes, you would want some isolation in the crossover. That could be done with isolating joiners or by snipping the links between the outside rails and the "turning frog rails", as you suggested, Mike, and then using normal joiners. But that's only needed if there’s a section break in the crossover OR the polarity of the rails is different on the parallel tracks.

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Harlequin

[Nick Gough]

I have to say that layout wiring is not my strong point, at the moment, - certainly not multi-year set ups. So thanks for all the advice.

 

I am running on DC using a Gaugemaster Q type four-track controller with two separate output feeds for each line. Each line control has a speed knob and a 'forward-off-reverse.' Consequently, because each adjacent pair of tracks (main & relief) operate in opposite directions, I have wired them in opposition, to suit the controller labels. Each of these four tracks complete a circuit via the 'hidden' storage sidings.

 

Having read up on it, my understanding was that I would need to isolate the connection at any crossover between tracks. As this particular crossover is glued in place I am reluctant to remove it to make any adjustment to the wiring.

 

I have the two running crossovers, between the main and relief lines, to complete now I have the diamond crossings. Peco's instructions for these say that they should have isolated joiners on each rail end since the whole unit remains live.

 

I have to connect the up relief to the branch, which will be on a separate controller. Presumably this connection will need isolation?

 

I was also planning to isolate the goods yard from the running lines since this has separate connecting lines from the two relief lines, with a type of changeover switch as necessary?

[Nick Gough]

9 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Hi Nick,

I know you have got the bit between your teeth on tracklaying/point installation, bur will you be tearing yourself away to get to the Marshall Arena next weekend?

Ironic to have a Model Railway Show on a day the 12inch to the foot trains are on strike!

Cheers

Paul 

Sadly, I won't be able to visit GETS this year Paul, since we will be away next weekend.

 

It looks like my next show will be Warley.

[Neal Ball]

On 05/09/2022 at 17:54, Nick Gough said:

I have created, what I believe to be, the basic shape of the roof for the main building:

 

The large rectangular hole, on the left, is for the skylight/ventilator above the gentlemen's urinals. The other two holes for chimneys:

 

There is a third chimney which, according to the drawings and photographs, would be positioned above the inside corner between the main central section and the wing containing the gentlemen's facilities:

 

This appears to be in the location I have marked with an orange square:

 

However, this position would appear to cause a blockage to the valley between the two roof profiles.

 

Have I done something wrong or would there be some mitigation for the rainwater flow in this situation?

 

The drawings I have don't have a plan view of the roof profiles.

 

I’ve just spent a very entertaining half hour catching up on the build Nick. 
 

Your buildings are looking amazing, puts my humble efforts in the shade!

 

Well done, can’t wait to see the finished buildings…..with perhaps a Castle thundering through.

 

4 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

…..

It looks like my next show will be Warley.

Interesting, I started to think about Warley yesterday as well.

 

My last model railway exhibition, would also have been Warley pre-pandemic.

 

I also started looking at a possible road trip for 2023…. But that’s another story!

[Harlequin]

8 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

I have to say that layout wiring is not my strong point, at the moment, - certainly not multi-year set ups. So thanks for all the advice.

 

I am running on DC using a Gaugemaster Q type four-track controller with two separate output feeds for each line. Each line control has a speed knob and a 'forward-off-reverse.' Consequently, because each adjacent pair of tracks (main & relief) operate in opposite directions, I have wired them in opposition, to suit the controller labels. Each of these four tracks complete a circuit via the 'hidden' storage sidings.

 

Having read up on it, my understanding was that I would need to isolate the connection at any crossover between tracks. As this particular crossover is glued in place I am reluctant to remove it to make any adjustment to the wiring.

 

I have the two running crossovers, between the main and relief lines, to complete now I have the diamond crossings. Peco's instructions for these say that they should have isolated joiners on each rail end since the whole unit remains live.

 

I have to connect the up relief to the branch, which will be on a separate controller. Presumably this connection will need isolation?

 

I was also planning to isolate the goods yard from the running lines since this has separate connecting lines from the two relief lines, with a type of changeover switch as necessary?

Hi Nick and Mike,

 

I must admit that I hadn’t taken the idea of wiring the running tracks with opposite polarities seriously. Is that a common way of wiring double track DC roundy round layouts? When you want to cross over, how is that handled? What about more complex moves?

 

Unfortunately the research I was just about to do into this has been kiboshed because my computer has died and this iPad is just too restrictive for doing much serious work.

 

Edit: After a stressful hour-and-a-half I got my PC back by uninstalling the last Windows feature update from one of the emergency rescue screens. Phew!

 

I was hoping that @Brian Brian Lambert's site might say something about opposite wiring for double tracks but I couldn't find anything. However, I can see that "Cab Control" would allow for movements across the various sections by performing the polarity reversal within the cab control wiring.

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Harlequin

[Nick Gough]

4 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

I’ve just spent a very entertaining half hour catching up on the build Nick. 
 

Your buildings are looking amazing, puts my humble efforts in the shade!

 

Well done, can’t wait to see the finished buildings…..with perhaps a Castle thundering through.

 

Interesting, I started to think about Warley yesterday as well.

 

My last model railway exhibition, would also have been Warley pre-pandemic.

 

I also started looking at a possible road trip for 2023…. But that’s another story!

Thank you for your kind comments Neal.

 

I too look forward to getting them finished though the arrival of my new slip, crossings and turnouts has caused a bit of a distraction. Not to mention other absences - as I type, now, alongside the bank of the river Duoro, with vintage trams passing by.

[Nick Gough]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I must admit that I hadn’t taken the idea of wiring the running tracks with opposite polarities seriously. Is that a common way of wiring double track DC roundy round layouts? 

I couldn't say for definite - as I mentioned I'm no expert in wiring, but it was the only way I could see to do it with the Gaugemaster set up.

 

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

When you want to cross over, how is that handled? What about more complex moves?

The advice I have read is to take the controllers for both tracks up to the same speed setting, although one will be switched to 'Forward' and the other to 'Reverse', as appropriate.

 

Last year I wired a Gaugemaster two-track controller to my grandson's expanded Hornby layout on the same principles. The facing crossover on that worked fine doing this, so I was reasonably confident it won't go 'BANG' this time.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Nick and Mike,

 

I must admit that I hadn’t taken the idea of wiring the running tracks with opposite polarities seriously. Is that a common way of wiring double track DC roundy round layouts? When you want to cross over, how is that handled? What about more complex moves?

 

Unfortunately the research I was just about to do into this has been kiboshed because my computer has died and this iPad is just too restrictive for doing much serious work.

 

Edit: After a stressful hour-and-a-half I got my PC back by uninstalling the last Windows feature update from one of the emergency rescue screens. Phew!

 

I was hoping that @Brian Brian Lambert's site might say something about opposite wiring for double tracks but I couldn't find anything. However, I can see that "Cab Control" would allow for movements across the various sections by performing the polarity reversal within the cab control wiring.

 

Have a look at cab control Phil - no doubt an explanation is lurking on the 'net somewhere.  Basically it means that you need a separate controller for each running line on which you plan to run trains simultaneously but the clever(er) bit is that you incorporate switches to allow a controller to take over more than one line at a time - thus the switches are line based and not controller based.

 

So if you want to cross from the Down line via the Up line to the yard the rotary switches (the best way) for the Down line, Up line and yard are all arranged to select the same controller.  in other words the system is based on selecting which controller will control which section of line.  The key to getting the best out of the system is to very carefully work out your basic areas of coverage for each 'cab' which means that you have to think out your operating patterns before you start wiring the layout.  This is the big difference from DCC because you have to think where your section etc breaks will be as each area of control is effectively discrete.  But it also means that each area of control has to be separated from adjacent ones by breaks in both rails because it is possible that the polarity will differ between them.

 

The basic polarity of the feeds to each section remain constant - the +ve wire always goes to the same relative position of running rail as does the -ve wire.  But what happens is that when a train needs to reverse and run in the opposite directin the polarity is reversed in the controller and that reverses  the polarity in the running rail.

 

In more sophisticated version of cab control - such as various versions of linked section control - you can also use feeds from signals, or basically from the switch that works the signal, otr points to do some selection for you.  This can allow some sophisticated sort of movements which almost parallel what can be done with DCC but getting there requires a lot more thought than simply using a pair of wires with constant polarity in the rails.  Try watching the Grantham layout at an exhibition - it is DC with some very sophisticated circuitry.

Edited October 1, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[Harlequin]

42 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Have a look at cab control Phil - no doubt an explanation is lurking on the 'net somewhere.  Basically it means that you need a separate controller for each running line on which you plan to run trains simultaneously but the clever(er) bit is that you incorporate switches to allow a controller to take over more than one line at a time - thus the switches are line based and not controller based.

 

So if you want to cross from the Down line via the Up line to the yard the rotary switches (the best way) for the Down line, Up line and yard are all arranged to select the same controller.  in other words the system is based on selecting which controller will control which section of line.  The key to getting the best out of the system is to very carefully work out your basic areas of coverage for each 'cab' which means that you have to think out your operating patterns before you start wiring the layout.  This is the big difference from DCC because you have to think where your section etc breaks will be as each area of control is effectively discrete.  But it also means that each area of control has to be separated from adjacent ones by breaks in both rails because it is possible that the polarity will differ between them.

 

The basic polarity of the feeds to each section remain constant - the +ve wire always goes to the same relative position of running rail as does the -ve wire.  But what happens is that when a train needs to reverse and run in the opposite directin the polarity is reversed in the controller and that reverses  the polarity in the running rail.

 

In more sophisticated version of cab control - such as various versions of linked section control - you can also use feeds from signals, or basically from the switch that works the signal, otr points to do some selection for you.  This can allow some sophisticated sort of movements which almost parallel what can be done with DCC but getting there requires a lot more thought than simply using a pair of wires with constant polarity in the rails.  Try watching the Grantham layout at an exhibition - it is DC with some very sophisticated circuitry.

 

Thanks, Mike. Yes, all this was beginning to dawn on me as I thought about it... A DC controller will inherently "reverse the polarity" when it needs to. I was coming at it from a DCC perspective and not at first realising that this was a crossover between DC running lines - and moreover, a section break.

 

 

So Nick, your method of matching speeds and passing the loco from one controller to the other will work fine but it means you have to take some care to set matching speeds every time your crossover and then remember which knob will slow the loco down at the end of the move.

 

"Cab control" would overcome this and allow you to drive your loco through arbitrary sections from the one controller but it requires more sophisticated wiring.

 

DCC would simplify the driving even further (no section switches or cab control knobs and to some extent simpler wiring) BUT you would have to be comfortable with complexity in a different area - fiddling around with programming decoders. Maybe this is an area your Grandson would be interested in! DCC brings other good things like individual loco behaviour, active braking and sound.

 

[Neal Ball]

DCC would certainly make it easier - at least as far as the electrics go.

[checkrail]

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

DCC would simplify the driving even further (no section switches or cab control knobs and to some extent simpler wiring) BUT you would have to be comfortable with complexity in a different area - fiddling around with programming decoders. Maybe this is an area your Grandson would be interested in! DCC brings other good things like individual loco behaviour, active braking and sound.

DCC would indeed simplify things operationally.  But the potential complexity Phil mentions can be avoided.  Yes, with DCC you can program different locos to behave in different ways, use sound, program braking etc.  But you don't have to!  I find DCC great for the operations I want to carry out, such as dropping off and retrieving through coaches, which can involve crossing up, down and branch lines in one manoeuvre.  I'd hate to have to mess about with two or more controllers and various section switches to do this sort of thing.  The complexities Phil mentions are for the birds as far as I'm concerned - I've never got my simple head round them.  (Maybe one day?) But I love the fact that from my hand-held wireless controller I can drive any loco onto any part of the layout without any other switching to worry about (other than route setting of course - also done from the hand held).  And I drive my trains directly as one would with a DC controller, starting, stopping and increasing or reducing speed as I wish - though I tend to use the + and - buttons more than the knob.

 

John C.

[Nick Gough]

38 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

DCC would certainly make it easier - at least as far as the electrics go.

I can see that it has its advantages but having bought a new Gaugemaster Q a few years ago, without putting it into service until recently, and with the number of locos I would have to chip, I am reluctant to change at the moment.

[Nick Gough]

What I can't get my head round, with DCC, is how easy it would be to run four through trains simultaneously on four tracks with the need to keep inputting codes. This is fairly straightforward to do with my Gaugemaster Q and its four separate control knobs.

[RJS1977]

Three Very Important Passengers at Wallingford Station today (photo CWR):

 

 

(I already have Churchill on my Wallingford layout, but when I do a web search for a 4mm scale Princess Elizabeth, I get something completely different....)

[Neal Ball]

8 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

What I can't get my head round, with DCC, is how easy it would be to run four through trains simultaneously on four tracks with the need to keep inputting codes. This is fairly straightforward to do with my Gaugemaster Q and its four separate control knobs.

I would say very easy… you would need to watch the amount of amps you are drawing, but that goes for any system.

 

You would “select” the loco (input it’s number, as all the characteristics are stored), with the same ease as switching the section on if it was DC. 
 

The loco would then take the road and go round for as long as you wanted….. stopping automatically if you had something like an auto brake installed. (I don’t use this…for Henley I don’t see the need).

 

I use the Gaugemaster Prodigy, as well as an iPhone (which uses a simple JMRI app), meaning I can easily drive two trains at the same time.

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

I would say very easy… you would need to watch the amount of amps you are drawing, but that goes for any system.

 

You would “select” the loco (input it’s number, as all the characteristics are stored), with the same ease as switching the section on if it was DC. 
 

The loco would then take the road and go round for as long as you wanted….. stopping automatically if you had something like an auto brake installed. (I don’t use this…for Henley I don’t see the need).

 

I use the Gaugemaster Prodigy, as well as an iPhone (which uses a simple JMRI app), meaning I can easily drive two trains at the same time.

 

Yes. It helps us GWR modellers that our locos already have 4 digit codes fixed on their sides in cast brass. 😁 So when you want Lode Star to run, you enter 4003 - all very sane and rational. (A tiny bit of programming is required to give locos their numbers.)

 

Most (all?) handsets have a way to quickly switch between running locos without entering the full number.

 

As @Neal Ball said, it's also possible to have several "throttles", some of which can be (free) apps on whatever phones or tablets you have available if your DCC controller has a wifi option.

 

There's one further option: If you run JMRI (free again) on a computer you can have 4 "throttle windows" open on the screen. True, there's no physical knob to turn but I find the mouse wheel is very pleasant to use in this context.

 

@checkrail is correct that you only need to go into decoder programming as deep as you want. It's very simple to set up acceleration and deceleration on locos (the same method on all makes of decoder). Locos start away smoothly, Large Prairies get up to speed quickly, express locos might take a bit longer and things like older 4-4-0s slowly gather themselves to get going.

 

[Nick Gough]

It's interesting to hear more detail of how to operate with DCC.

Somehow though I don't think my mobile phone would be much use with it:

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

There's one further option: If you run JMRI (free again) on a computer you can have 4 "throttle windows" open on the screen. True, there's no physical knob to turn but I find the mouse wheel is very pleasant to use in this context.

 

Ooh, a mouse wheel - I haven't worked a 'puter with one of those for longer than I can remember😇

 

Signed Uncle Mac