Brand new to Railway modelling, Bachman? DCC Digitrax DCS52 Zephyr Express and more?

[Dungrange]

What is the space between the second and third tracks on the left of your plan?  It looks a bit narrower than the spacing that you have elsewhere formed by two points with an ST-203 in between.

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, Cliff M said:

Just to add for The johnster, the inner shed I thought could be for the shunter only, I might well reduce it to one track or have two sheds, one for the shunter and one as a cleaning wash shed.

I will be operating the layout primarily on my own so that's another reason I am going for the Digitrax DCS 52 controller as I think I will be seated most of the time. Do you use certain retailers?

 

Ah, the mist clears.  But it is more likely IMHO that the pilots (shunting engines) would be housed at the servicing point shed in the top left corner.  In practice, they would be left overnight in the sidings out in the open, only coming back to the shed for fuel, lubricant, and coolant, but it's a nice complicated occasional move, and lots of fun...

[Cliff M]

Yes, that pinch point looks narrow but is 2.2 in I have now reworked the curves slightly to give 2.3 in. The outer track to the second track gap is 2.4 in. at that same point.

I will think about what to do with the sheds etc, I think I'll have just one line in the top left and two in the shunter area though.

 

Your thoughts on retailers?

 

Also is it necessary to have a dropper on every piece of track or is it every so often, measured out, on a layout like this?

[ITG]

31 minutes ago, Cliff M said:

Also is it necessary to have a dropper on every piece of track or is it every so often, measured out, on a layout like this?

A dropper on every track piece is belt and braces, which imho is worth doing. If you don’t, and then find a poor connection across rail joiners, it can be a real pain to have to add retrospective droppers. Of course, the more set track you use (as opposed to flexi), then that’s likely to cause more droppers required. Plus of course more rail joiners at risk of failure.

Remember, when doing initial track laying and adding droppers etc, it would be massively beneficial to be able to lay the track ,and then stand the board upright, so you can easily access the underside. Wiring a board above your head whilst crouched below is no fun.

 

31 minutes ago, Cliff M said:

Your thoughts on retailers

Tbh, I shop all over the place, which in this day and age is driven by pricing and availability, and the combination of the two. My advice would be call one or two, and don’t just rely on online ordering. You want to find a retailer that not only sells, but also offers support and advice. I’m a satisfied customer of Digitrains, DCC Train Automation, Coastal DCC, Trains4U and lots more…. But these have all been buying specific bits I want at that time, not a whole start up quantity.

Of course, there’s also the option of buying at an exhibition, but it’s probably doubtful everything you want will be there.

Ian

Edited January 6 by ITG
Added info

[ITG]

36 minutes ago, Cliff M said:

Yes, that pinch point looks narrow but is 2.2 in I have now reworked the curves slightly to give 2.3 in. The outer track to the second track gap is 2.4 in. at that same point.

Mmm, 2.3” is 58.4mm, yet Peco set track spacing is 67mm (track centres). I hope that 8.6mm difference doesn’t prove critical in clearance terms.

[Cliff M]

ok, I'll rework the left side and re-post. Thanks 

[Cliff M]

So how about this? The distance from the outer track center to center, to the middle track at that left-hand middle pinch point starting at point no. 6 is now 70mm. from the middle to the third track it's now 78 mm and from there to the inner fourth it's now 72 mm.

I've lost a little height from the smaller platform which is now 68mm in a space between the tracks of 100mm. Would this smaller platform look ok scale-wise at 68mm or does it need to be wider?

I have also changed the loco sheds and renumbered the points. 

[ITG]

16 minutes ago, Cliff M said:

I've lost a little height from the smaller platform which is now 68mm in a space between the tracks of 100mm. Would this smaller platform look ok scale-wise at 68mm or does it need to be wider?

When you actually get the track laid, you may be able to get away with slightly wider than 68mm, but even so that equates to 17’ real world so aesthetically it should be ok, I’d have thought.

 

Only other comment - which I have suggested before - would be too retain one run round loop in that central yard. It adds a lot of operational interest when assembling trains. It could even be between the centre two sidings which would mean the loop being a lot longer as it stretches around the bend (albeit blocking other turnouts when in use). But you would in effect lose storage space.

 

Another thought - unless you’re absolutely wedded to using mostly set track, if you use flexi track where possible, you could save yourself a lot of droppers and resultant connections, eg, the lower siding from turnout 18. That looks like 3 track pieces, whereas using flexi would be one. Multiply that up all over, and it’s a significant reduction - and in cost as well. I would still use set track on the tight curves in the corners, as flexi can be tricky to bend that tight without getting a kink (generally at a join).

 

You could consider making that RH access well fill the available space; it would ease access significantly when track laying etc. If you really wanted to ultimately make it scenic, wouldn’t be too tricky to make it like a hinged scenic lid, which lifted or dropped . If so, maybe better to hinge on the right or bottom, as access is likely to be trickiest along the top side (assuming you normally operate at the bottom).

Ian

[Cliff M]

5 hours ago, ITG said:

Only other comment - which I have suggested before - would be too retain one run round loop in that central yard. It adds a lot of operational interest when assembling trains. It could even be between the centre two sidings which would mean the loop being a lot longer as it stretches around the bend (albeit blocking other turnouts when in use). But you would in effect lose storage space.

 

Great thanks, Ian. Very sound advice. Also thanks for pointing out the left side curves being too close and the tip to put the board on its end when wiring after laying the track. I am glad that the smaller platform will be ok. 

I would be very interested if you could just detail and describe what you mean by this idea of retaining one run round loop maybe by naming point numbers etc to give me where it would run or what existing track could be extended. Perhaps send a drawing?

I do get your point about the number of pieces of set track. I will have a good look and try to reduce them.

BTW I am using wooden flexi, should it be better to use concrete?

Yes, the access well I am still thinking about it. I am concerned about cutting through the framework underneath making things less rigid to produce a larger workable hole. Do I just reconnect the cut frame edges to the nearest support around the outside of the well?

If I made it scenic, do I just stick grass or whatever directly to the 9mm ply top surface, or do I need to cover the ply with something first?

So see if I've got this right. I will loosely lay the track, after it's all connected I will introduce 3 mm cork underneath and then fix it to the board and make all necessary droppers and holes and holes for the point motors. Do you recommend soft soldering the droppers to the track or have you ever used the Peco dropper track joiners that do not need soldering?

I can then put the board on its edge and wire everything up. I can then apply power and test and troubleshoot. 

What do you think?

 

[ITG]

13 hours ago, Cliff M said:

I would be very interested if you could just detail and describe what you mean by this idea of retaining one run round loop maybe by naming point numbers etc to give me where it would run or what existing track could be extended. Perhaps send a drawing?

Take a look at this below. Now this is only a suggested option, as I think it very much is your choice. Upside - you gain a run round loop which adds operational interest. Downside - you lose siding storage space because those two sidings become part of the runaround capacity.

The red turnouts are those I mentioned in the earlier post. A goods train could draw in via the blue line, and the loco could uncouple and be released by crossing the red turnouts, and then either shunt the train itself, or return to shed. If the latter, shunter then arrives at other end of train to do its work. Sometimes that arriving train may just be loco and brake van, which has been stored in other sidings. If its pulling it, it will need to run round it to then get it to the rear end of an assembled ready-to-depart train. By having those red t/os on the centre two lines, the run round loop becomes much longer (accommodating longer trains) than it would if you opted for where I’ve shown alternative options of green t/os. By using the inner (blue) track to park the train when running round, it avoids blocking t/o 15. 

 

But, the downside of having longer train capacity is that sitting on that blue track may block t/o 18, although the shunted train can draw right back to t/o 1 without fouling the main lines.

(Remember red or green turnouts are options - not suggesting you have more than one run round)

 

 

13 hours ago, Cliff M said:

BTW I am using wooden flexi, should it be better to use concrete?

Makes no difference - their construction is identical but I’m not sure if all point work is available in concrete. May depend on era modelled.

 

13 hours ago, Cliff M said:

Do I just reconnect the cut frame edges to the nearest support around the outside of the well?

Well, carpentry isn’t my forte but I suggest it’s better to design and construct the frame at the onset rather than cut parts. And btw, remember that if you’re using underboard turnout motors, you will need to design the framework in such a way that motors sit clear of any battens A uniform crisscross of battens is unlikely to work unless you’re very lucky. Of course, you could selectively use above-board motors. Some types lend themselves to disguise better than others but you still have to find space for the motor and it’s disguise (line side shed etc).

13 hours ago, Cliff M said:

If I made it scenic, do I just stick grass or whatever directly to the 9mm ply top surface, or do I need to cover the ply with something first?

There’s a limit to how much scenic treatment you can give it, as that lifting surface would need to be robust enough to stand opening/closing. Buildings would be vulnerable, so open land of some kind better. But unless it’s a cricket pitch or bowling green, the flatness won’t look right unless you first lay (at least) slightly undulating surface (paper mache, plaster cloth, etc).

 

13 hours ago, Cliff M said:

Do you recommend soft soldering the droppers to the track or have you ever used the Peco dropper track joiners that do not need soldering?

The dropper track joiners are really standard rail joiners with a short section of dropper wire pre-soldered on. They (imho) stand the same risk of not being a electrically sound joint as normal rail joiners, and it also potentially means another electrical connection below the board if that standard wire length isn’t long enough to reach your bus wire. You need to plan your wiring routes below board as well as the track above!

Before you actually get going on this project, I’d recommend getting a plank of wood, and lay and connect a couple of pieces of track and a turnout, all as a practice run. It’s likely to save time and money later on.

Good luck

Ian

Edited January 7 by ITG
Added photo

[Cliff M]

That's great Ian. Very helpful. I'll put some thought into where the frame wood lands and as you say try to design it around the track ditto the point motors. As I am using MP 1s etc some may have to be on the surface and then disguised.

I will include the red suggested point as I can see this adds to the interest and involvement.

 

I really appreciated all your input.