Help needed

[Roger P]

Hi, I'm returning to OO modelling after a 25yr layoff, just bringing Hornby track & trains out of storage. I want to get going with an 8x 4 set up friendly to grandchildren. I've no idea now on wiring, apart from the idea of a DC bus in blocks. I have 4 DC controllers, and unsure about how to wire/isolate points etc. I'm toying with the idea of DCC, but think it will be more cost effective to stick with DC to start with. I don't have any electric points. I'm handy with a soldering iron! Thanks for reading. I'm thinking of this type of layout, unless anyone can suggest anything? I'd ideally like to run three trains independently but have no idea how to achieve that 

Edited November 14, 2023 by Roger P
Update

[rogerzilla]

If you use normal insulfrog points, there is no special wiring except for using plastic fishplates (aka IRJs) in the middle of any crossovers between ovals.  Then wire each oval to its own controller.

 

The sidings will only be powered when the points are set into them.

 

If a train straddles a crossover and picks up current from two controllers, it doesn't matter - it still works.

 

You can use a bus and droppers for more reliability as the layout ages, but mine works fine after 9 years with one feed per oval.

[The Johnster]

Three trains independently, one on the outer circuit, one on the inner, and one shunting off the loop in the middle, no problem.  Even a fourth set of movements off the turntable.  How many grandanklebiters?  I'm guessing the idea is to have a train for each to operate, possibly with grandad in the mix as well, the play value being when you want to move trains from one operator to another through the crossings, requiring co-operation from everyone to avoid collisions.  Might be a good idea to move the middle sidings towards one side or other to be within easier reach of the 'biters, especially if they are leaning over tracks on which trains are running in loose-sleeved wooly jumpers, go on, ask me how I know this!

 

I'd advise having a think and establishing a policy sooner rather than later when it comes to DCC; I'm a bit worried about your 'cost effective to start with' idea.  If you continue with DC and decide later on DCC you are in danger of acquiring so many locos that converting them all to DCC in one hit may be expensive, but of course the cost is a factor even if you do it now.  I'd say the advantages are worth it if you can afford them, but this is a very personal decision and a factor may well be that the 'biters are able to learn more about the basics of dc electrical wiring and control from the layout than the somewhat automated 'click on this and that happen but we don't really care much about how' aspect of DCC.  Either way, the sooner you make this decision and stick to the decision you've made, the better.  Having a DC layout where motorising points and such is put off because there is a vague intention to convert to DCC at some time indeterminate in the future may not be satisfactory and lead to a compromised DC layout...

 

 

[ITG]

An 8x4 board needs access all around it, even for adult arms, let alone shorter child’s reach. Your photo is described as “the type of layout” under consideration - I assume that’s not the actual layout proposal? The first task is to actually define your own track plan. If a plan of the type shown is  not permanently erected, how do children ever set it up - it’s likely an lone adult would struggle with two 4x4 boards, and even four 4x2 boards with track, wiring, scenery etc would be a task. If it needs a full set up every time use is intended, there’s a risk that it will all seem too much trouble, and the layout will be under-used.

Depending on space, I’d recommended a board around a room, rather than a solid mass in the middle - is that possible? Some info on the space available, and what other usages it has, would help people make informed suggestions.

 

As for the DCC v DC debate, I admit to bias, as I returned to the hobby after a long gap, but did not have the ‘tug’ of pre-existing DC equipment, so opting for DCC for me was a no-brainer. I agree with @The Johnster saying make a clear decision now. Vaguely thinking about changing to DCC later will cost money and time, as will doing it now. The only difference is, if you buy and use more DC items now, the cost of conversion to DCC will increase further.

 Seeing your honest self-assessed comment about knowledge and skills re wiring…..

23 hours ago, Roger P said:

I've no idea now on wiring, apart from the idea of a DC bus in blocks. I have 4 DC controllers, and unsure about how to wire/isolate points etc.

… there is an argument that it would be a good idea to start smaller than you’re proposing. That is, a single controller and get it up and running first.  Jumping in without understanding fully what you need to buy, how to use it etc, is only going to cost (possibly wasted) money.

 

As one who doesn’t have to think about running multiple trains through different (DC) controllers, I must admit to not knowing for sure, but logically I’m not sure I understand ……

14 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

If a train straddles a crossover and picks up current from two controllers, it doesn't matter - it still works.

How can that be unless the two controllers are set to exactly the same direction and speed?  With different operators, that doesn’t seem easy to do. Surely, if a train controlled by controller A is going forward at 60mph (equivalent) and it passes to controller B set at reverse 20mph, there’s going to be a problem. 
Ian

 

[rogerzilla]

Well yes, the two controllers have to be set in the same direction, but it doesn't cause a short or anything.  It's also when you find out 50% on track 1 of a Gaugemaster DS is not necessarily the same as 50% on track 2!

[Roger P]

Thanks to all 3 of you who have replied, all helpful thoughts. Some responses to those ideas....base size, I'm hoping to make most use of the track I have, and have a board that can be taken down. We have a summerhouse with about 9 x 7 floor space, and a glass top table that would do for support, so just need to start with a base board. I thought 8x4 would max what I can achieve. I would like to get a three train circuits, but now slightly confused after last conflicting comments on a DC option. I've made a mock up of the layout shown, have most of the track apart from points. Track cleaning has already expended one track rubber on less than half the layout! 

[RobinofLoxley]

Is the inside loop first radius? Looks as though it must be. Modern stock often wont go round it as curve radius is too tight. Mainly locos affected although coaches may lock buffers.

[ITG]

3 hours ago, Roger P said:

We have a summerhouse

Extra care may be needed as the temperature fluctuations and damp/humidity may play havoc with smooth running. Unless it’s all insulated and heated.

[Chimer]

I'm uneasy about the "sort of" return loop created by feeding the turntable from two directions (5 o'clock and 7 o'clock in the pictures).  I think I would just feed the turntable from 5 o'clock and use the 7 o'clock road just for the sidings / terminal platforms.  And (no surprise to some!), for DC I would recommend cab control so two circuits can be switched to the same controller when you want to pass things across.  Much better than trying to get two controllers to agree!  Pretty simple switchery, pictures available on request .....

 

Edit: oops - I meant turntable from 7 o'clock and sidings from 5 o'clock, sorry!!

Edited November 15, 2023 by Chimer

[DCB]

It looks good if used with heritage 1990 and earlier era Hornby.  I had one for Triang Transcontinental stock and it was great fun.   I think the key is keeping to the original stock.  Even 1970s Arfix and1980s Mainline won't like that 1st Radius curve but until around 1990 Hornby would cope with sub 1st radius Triang Standard track around 13" radius.  Likewise the old Triang and similar vintage controllers have  an "Off" position which makes them electrically dead, isolated when the knob is at zero. You can just wire one to each loop if you like, it's no big deal if two are connected to the same track, you just pop the overload cut out if they are set wrong. Not rocket science but some electronic controllers, Morleys and the like, DONT have a dead off position. I can't help thinking some serious rationalisation would be needed for 2000 era stock and DCC.  Taking out the inner part loop, which would spoil it.
If you want to move on , to DCC code 75 track modern stock I would suggest selling this on eBay as really the board is too narrow  to do much with when 18" radius is the minimum  and I find 3rd radius 19.5 ish radius to be a more realistic minimum so I would go with 5ft wide with an operating well in the middle.   For now I would enjoy it. There is a lot of fun to be had racing 0-4-0s around a double track oval, watching Frying  Scotsman fly round on three pullmans, in my case topping and tailing Transontinental single ended diesels as a quasi HST lights blazing in a darkened room...  

[Roger P]

Hi all, I get the comments about tight inner radius which suggests I may need a rethink on layout and size. I also like the sound of cab control, and would like to know more about that. The summerhouse is insulated. I'm thinking that having a demountable layout so it doesn't have to remain there permanently would make sense.

If I don't go with an 8 x 4 what other options would make sense where there's about 9x7 floor space? I can think an L shape could work.

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Roger P
Finish text

[Chimer]

OK, Cab Control ... with apologies to those who have seen this pic before.

 

This shows 3 circuits (or other electrically separate sections) with 2 controllers.  If you want to use 3 or more controllers, you would need to use multi-way rotary switches instead of the simple double-pole double-throw switches shown here.  The basic idea is that if you want to shift a train from one section to another, you switch both sections to the same controller and drive across the insulated section break (in your setup, over the crossover between the circuits).  Note that while the whole point is that you can connect more than one section to the same controller, you cannot (even by mistake!) connect two controllers to the same section simultaneously.

 

The lines going off to the right from DPDT2 just represent the possibility of having multiple feeds to the same circuit.

 

There now usually follows an argument about whether it's better to use single-pole switches and a common return, and therefore less wiring.  I just happen to like it the way I've shown, which I think is completely bombproof ....

Edited November 16, 2023 by Chimer

[RobinofLoxley]

I just wondered RogerP since you have track to acquire, and four DC controllers, how you might use them and came up with this 'thing' below. The outer loop is fourth radius, which fits nicely on the board, with possible power feed locations indicated A-D. This is the minimum as a layout that relies on fishplates to carry power is going to have quite a few dead zones.

Apart from the fourth radius, I also made liberal use of R610's to extend the length to the maximum and facilitate what I have done in the central area; if building it you most likely get some flxitrack and cut pieces twice the length of a R610 to do the same job.

 

Using controller D you can shunt independent of anything else happening. Inside the loops is a rather eccentric station arrangement.

 

[ITG]

23 hours ago, Roger P said:

Hi all, I get the comments about tight inner radius which suggests I may need a rethink on layout and size. I also like the sound of cab control, and would like to know more about that. The summerhouse is insulated. I'm thinking that having a demountable layout so it doesn't have to remain there permanently would make sense.

If I don't go with an 8 x 4 what other options would make sense where there's about 9x7 floor space? I can think an L shape could work.

 

You could consider a 2’ wide board all around the room, meaning the short side of the room would give you a 3’ centre well (plenty) and the long side  would be 5’ long. This shape would give space for you and grandkids to move around. boards for this would best be 4’x2’ for easy movement, but that does mean several such boards. That said, if you were considering an 8x4 board to be movable, this too would probably need to be 4 of 4x2 boards anyway. This centre operating well gives a better perspective, as trains can go out of sight. It would also allow larger radii. Also 2’ wide is easily reached over.

But you may need to consider doorways - where are they in your available space?

re an L shape (which is another option). That would mean your grandkids (and you, for that matter) can not just watch trains circling if you wanted to. May depend on how old your grandkids are, as to if this is a consideration.

Ian

Edited November 17, 2023 by ITG
Mistype

[The Johnster]

I'd very strongly support Ian's 2' wide around the room idea, which has several advantages over the 8x4 solid board and only one disadvantage to my mind.  Let's do the bad news first; the doorway(s).  If the door opens inwards you will need to have a removeable section to allow entry to/exit from the room, and as it's in a summerhouse there may be two of them!  If they open outwards then the boards can be left in position across the doorways as a duckunder, but I'd advise being able to secure such doorways from inside the room to prevent other members of the family bursting in and derailing an express...

 

Now the good, or at least better news:-

 

. There will be room for larger curves; 2nd radius for the inside loop.

. The 'biters will be able to reach across more easily.

. There is room in the corner spaces for engine shed, sidings, &c, so that the 'biter operating the outside circuit has more to do than watch a train go round.  Curving the inside circuit towards the inner edge leaves room for some sidings off the middle circuit as well, and creates space inside the inner loop for more; play value everybody happy.

. The 'biters are going to get older, and if they maintain their interest will eventually want a more 'realistic' layout that gets away from this sort of trainsettery, which is exactly what you need while they are at the train-racing ages but...  If they lose interest, you will probably want to progress the layout yourself!  The round-the-room boards are more adaptable to other trackplans, and highly amenable to both the terminus-fiddleyard format or the through station-through fy.  Hill scenery is easily built up supported by the room walls.

. This format is very much more amenable to the concept of a demountable layout.  An 8x4 board is a sizeable and awkward lump to handle even before you put delicate models on one side of it and vulnerable wiring on the other, and you are by your own admission at grandparent age, so it will become more of an awkward lump as time passes.

 

A summerhouse is not the ideal location for a model railway it must be said, though.  You will need to work on heating for the winter and ventilation for the summer, and keep condensation to a minimum.  Summerhouses usually have a lot of windows, and you will need blinds for these, which will help with the climate control and help the security of the layout by keeping prying eyes off it (sadly, we live in a world where summerhouses are easily broken into by people who have no interest in the amount of damage they cause).  

 

I had a teenage layout in the loft of my parents' house, the loft being 'converted' by Buffalo Bill Enterprises PLC, aka my dad.  He insulated between the rafters but didn't bother with the roof supports, with the result that extreme cold in the winter and extreme heat in the summer tore the layout apart, and the dust was a major problem!  Model railways don't like either, but the dust shouldn't be an issue for you.  There will be a temperature range, and you won't be able to eliminate it, but the blinds, white in summer to reflect heat changed to black in winter to absorb it, will help, and minimise the effects. 

[rogerzilla]

One issue with the original layout is that it can't go against the wall, because you won't be able to reach manually-operated points at the back.  I did my 6×4 with all the points on one side.

[RobinofLoxley]

On 17/11/2023 at 10:31, rogerzilla said:

One issue with the original layout is that it can't go against the wall, because you won't be able to reach manually-operated points at the back.  I did my 6×4 with all the points on one side.

I failed to take any of that into account!

 

However, in a summerhouse I cant see anything laid around the walls being viable. Lay on a board or two boards, lay on edge when not in use.  I have cut the plan back so that the table top, which is what we are talking about, is about 7 x 4, which can be placed up against one short side leaving 18 inches front and back and about 2 feet at the side. Tight but its temporary in my view.

 

 

 

[Roger P]

Just a big thank you for all the updated comments on different configurations and layout options, and a lot for me to think about! Many thanks for your time and consideration. Roger

[DavidB-AU]

Even a 6x4 needs access around all sides (that's a similar size to a double bed) so the actual amount of floor space you need is closer to 10 x 6. You're better off using all the floor space you can manage (even if it's not the whole room) and putting the access/operating space inside.

 

I would strongly suggest looking at the Heart of Georgia layout and adapt the track plan, although it's really only suited to single track. When you take into account access space it takes up no more room than a solid 8x4. It also has much gentler curves, a realistic run of main line and much more scope for realistic operation. It's no harder to construct than a solid board and it has the advantage it can be dismantled when not in use.