Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Picking up on just a few recent posts. 

 

With regard to the point changing in LB's fiddle yard, the control panel is effectively a 'mimic' of all the roads, with a stud for each one.One just touches the electric pencil on to each appropriate stud, and (Seep point motors willing) the point changes. One has to do each one in turn, but it does give the discipline of checking every point has fired. 

 

On Stoke Summit, we employed a diode matrix. Other than being able to spell it, all I can say it was a board full of wire and diodes adjacent to a vast CDU. All one did was touch one stud for each individual road and every point for it fired - at once! In some cases this could be up to ten in one go. 

 

Of course, no layout I've ever been involved with uses DCC (nor ever will). My reasons (prejudices) have been aired before, but does the DCC control of points/roads/crossings/signals, etc mean using the same device for controlling the trains - a sort of tablet with buttons on or (can you believe it), mobile phones? Since I find it difficult to single task, that, if true, sounds a recipe for chaos to me, for no real railway runs in that way. 

[St Enodoc]

Picking up on just a few recent posts. 

 

With regard to the point changing in LB's fiddle yard, the control panel is effectively a 'mimic' of all the roads, with a stud for each one.One just touches the electric pencil on to each appropriate stud, and (Seep point motors willing) the point changes. One has to do each one in turn, but it does give the discipline of checking every point has fired. 

 

On Stoke Summit, we employed a diode matrix. Other than being able to spell it, all I can say it was a board full of wire and diodes adjacent to a vast CDU. All one did was touch one stud for each individual road and every point for it fired - at once! In some cases this could be up to ten in one go. 

 

Of course, no layout I've ever been involved with uses DCC (nor ever will). My reasons (prejudices) have been aired before, but does the DCC control of points/roads/crossings/signals, etc mean using the same device for controlling the trains - a sort of tablet with buttons on or (can you believe it), mobile phones? Since I find it difficult to single task, that, if true, sounds a recipe for chaos to me, for no real railway runs in that way. 

Tony, you can work points and signals via DCC in just the same way as with an analogue layout. Levers, switches, push buttons or electric pencils are all possible, although the detailed arrangements are of course different. For example, in my storage loops I use push-buttons for route setting in a very similar way to what you did on Stoke Summit. Instead of a diode matrix I use something called a Mini-Panel to determine which points are thrown by which button (up to five at a time in my case). The big CDU is replaced by small CDUs that are integrated with the accessory decoders for each of the points.

 

Personally I think that there is enough to do controlling trains from the handsets - particularly if you are using sound - without using them to operate points and signals as well.

[coachmann]

Personally I think that there is enough to do controlling trains from the handsets - particularly if you are using sound - without using them to operate points and signals as well.

You're darn right. 

[Hroth]

 

 

Personally I think that there is enough to do controlling trains from the handsets - particularly if you are using sound - without using them to operate points and signals as well.

Totally agree!  On my new Super BLT(Minories), the trains will be driven using a hand controller and the points/signals controlled by a computer/JMRI/Sprog 3 combination.  Admittedly I'll be using both on many occasions, but there will be a clear division between controlling the layout and controlling the trains on it.

 

It also means that because there's a complete separation between traction and infrastructure, shorts due to derailment won't have a knock on effect on route setting and signalling.

[thegreenhowards]

Picking up on just a few recent posts. 

 

With regard to the point changing in LB's fiddle yard, the control panel is effectively a 'mimic' of all the roads, with a stud for each one.One just touches the electric pencil on to each appropriate stud, and (Seep point motors willing) the point changes. One has to do each one in turn, but it does give the discipline of checking every point has fired. 

 

On Stoke Summit, we employed a diode matrix. Other than being able to spell it, all I can say it was a board full of wire and diodes adjacent to a vast CDU. All one did was touch one stud for each individual road and every point for it fired - at once! In some cases this could be up to ten in one go. 

 

Of course, no layout I've ever been involved with uses DCC (nor ever will). My reasons (prejudices) have been aired before, but does the DCC control of points/roads/crossings/signals, etc mean using the same device for controlling the trains - a sort of tablet with buttons on or (can you believe it), mobile phones? Since I find it difficult to single task, that, if true, sounds a recipe for chaos to me, for no real railway runs in that way.

 

Tony,

 

The answer is that you can do it either way. It is possible to do the lot using the handset, and I think you need to handset to programme the points if you're using digital decoders for them, but, once set up, you can get them to fire using separate kit or the DCC controller. The attraction of the digital route for my fiddle yard, is that you can program a number of points to fire at once using what's called a macro. This sounds very similar to your diode matrix, but, I hope, much simpler to wire and set up.

 

My intention is to see if it works on the handset, and once I've got it working to my satisfaction to invest in a DCC concepts panel to fire the points for each fiddle yard road. The scenic area points are analogue controlled with a mimic panel and Peco stud and probe. As I said yesterday, I'm using to layout to try different techniques and learn what works for me.

 

Andy

[Clive Mortimore]

Hello Tony

 

I helped operate Rowntrees Sidings layout and they have the routes programed into the system and all you do is select "Route" on the handset and then which one you want. All worked very well..................my planned layout will be studs and electric pencil.

[96701]

I've had a go with DCC and quite like it. It is possible to draw a track diagram on a computer screen and I'm lucky enough to have a son who can put a touch screen on a monitor {ex shop stuff), so the nett result is that I was able to tap on the screen to either change one point at a time or tap one icon to set a whole route. Such flexibility without having to build and draw a control panel is the way for my next layout.

[glo41f]

Gosh this topic is getting highly technical. (I am writing as one who is having great difficulty getting the polarity to change correctly on some points I have built using copperclad sleepers in a vary restricted area so much so that I am one step away from binning it all!)

 

May I say how much I am enjoying the esteemed Mr Downes' contributions. They make me laugh and that is most welcome on these dark days.

 

The recent pictures of LB are just great and it is becoming the sort of model that I would love to have albeit in the wrong scale for me.( No disrespect - I just could not see the smaller stuff.)

This was emphasised by a visit to a local exhibition yesterday where there were some wonderful examples of modelling if you were a seagull!  For the life of me I cannot see why we get upset over correct brake gear etc when all we see is  the tops of locos and rolling stock. It is not always possible to bend down to see the detail either if the show is crowded.

 

Martin Long

[96701]

Sounds like you have a very tech-savvy son there, 96701!

 

It's making me wonder whether my Dad could rig me something similar when he returns from Dubai (he's a computer person.... I don't really know what he does to be frank!)

 

Nevertheless, touch screen DCC, or indeed touch screen control for railways in general sounds like an interesting way to go as you can trace a route and follow it, though I suppose it detracts from the enjoyment and involvement of actually 'driving' the train with a conventional controller and point switches.

 

Alex

What my arrangement actually does is completely split the signaller from the train driver. Signaller can sit in front of the touch screen, train driver has a hand controller. Each decoder can have different acceleration and deceleration curves which makes driving more challenging. All the driver has to be aware of is where the emergency stop is on the handset. It's all practice, and sometimes trains run into points set against them and everything stops, but I just accept that as part of the learning curve.  

 

This is the first touchscreen that Tim got for me. It is a former Electronic Point of Sale (EPOS) screen bought secondhand off ebay. The software is JMRI Panel Pro, and tapping on an individual point end changed it, but also tapping on the dots at the ends of the sidings set the points from the headshunt to the siding.

[Tony Wright]

Gosh this topic is getting highly technical. (I am writing as one who is having great difficulty getting the polarity to change correctly on some points I have built using copperclad sleepers in a vary restricted area so much so that I am one step away from binning it all!)

 

May I say how much I am enjoying the esteemed Mr Downes' contributions. They make me laugh and that is most welcome on these dark days.

 

The recent pictures of LB are just great and it is becoming the sort of model that I would love to have albeit in the wrong scale for me.( No disrespect - I just could not see the smaller stuff.)

This was emphasised by a visit to a local exhibition yesterday where there were some wonderful examples of modelling if you were a seagull!  For the life of me I cannot see why we get upset over correct brake gear etc when all we see is  the tops of locos and rolling stock. It is not always possible to bend down to see the detail either if the show is crowded.

 

Martin Long

As always, Martin, many thanks for your comments. 

 

The high-tec' observations bewilder me, too, though I'm grateful that people post comments regarding such matters. I'll stick with what I know and understand and (in most cases) can fix if it goes wrong. 

 

 

Like replacing point motors if they go wrong (as can be seen, there are lots of them), though it's best as a two-person job. A corner of the control panel (built by Rob Kinsey) is just visible. And, in case anyone should ask (though why, I don't know), the curtains have not been washed since their picture was last taken. 

 

Thanks again for your praise of Little Bytham. In putting together my piece for the RM, it's occurred to me that LB has been over 40 years in the making. That's not to say we started its construction in the '70s (though the oldest loco I made which still runs on LB is 45 years old, and some carriages are well over 40!), but it's taken me that time to build all the stock I need and for the 'ultimate dream' to become reality. As alluded to already, I'm immensely gratified that such a capable team has put it all together, all working together, helping each other and, most importantly, doing what they're best at. Though one are two things are the result of commission, most has been achieved by the wonderful process of bartering - my making locos in exchange for items, assisting in making DVDs, taking photographs, producing portfolios, etc, etc.

 

When I look back now to the early '80s when I first wrote for the model mags (though I had a letter published in the early '70s), I remember listing three things most important to me in creating a layout, these being (as far as I can recall, because I can't find the article): 1. ECML. 2. Prototype-based and. 3. I had to build it myself. In some ways, the last point was the most important to me because I couldn't be involved in a constructional hobby where I didn't do a large part of the modelling myself. I use the word 'was' because my approach has now changed (for the better) because of pragmatism and teamwork. 

 

 

The teamwork which created a scene like this. Though I can nail a loco/carriage together with some certainty, compared to the likes of Bob Dawson and Ian Wilson's architectural work mine isn't even in the vernacular. However, Bob now has a portfolio of pictures and Ian has several locos. A similar scene to this one appeared in the MRJ article and in my Crowood book, but this area is just about complete now. Many observers think the earlier view is one of the best model railway pictures I've ever taken, even though it's only the signals which indicate that a railway is near.

 

 

And looking the other way. As well as the teamwork aspect, shots like this (though there is a twitch of Photoshopping) show (at least to me) how much Little Bytham 'breaths'. Why? Because I have the space for us to model it to (almost) dead scale length and width. Cram too much in and realism is reduced in my view, in the same way that it's compromised if the model 'footprint' is far smaller than the prototype to scale.

 

 

'Seagull' views, though useful in giving an overall picture are hardly 'realistic'. One of the things I've tried to do with my model railway photography is to take 'realistic' views, like this. Yes, the under-gauge nature of (even finescale) OO track is very evident, but the teamwork still 'works', at least in my opinion. Bob's 'box certainly looks the part alongside Norman Solomon's lovely track. I made the loco (which Ian Rathbone painted) - it's on a running-in turn, by the way - and made.modified the train. Others' work is in the distance, but what I'm quite pleased with is the point rodding, now actually looking as if its linked to (some of) the points. Though rather fiddly, I quite enjoy soldering the MSE bits together now, just doing a bit at a time.

 

Please keep the comments on all aspects of modelling coming.  

Edited September 17, 2017 by Tony Wright

[t-b-g]

I have always thought that building an operating model railway is about far more than getting the correct loco pulling the correct carriages at a good scale speed on a layout.

 

I see more of these highly technical layouts, operated by laptop or mobile phone and all I think is how far away from the real thing it is. Unless you are modelling the relatively modern scene, most real points and signals were operated by pulling a lever.

 

As it is relatively easy to replicate this, either with mechanical rods and cranks or by using the lever to work a motor, then why I can't see what benefit or extra realism a touch screen brings.

 

I am not anti technology and I am even submitting this post via a wireless internet connection on a tablet. I just don't want to spend my model railway operating time sitting at a screen and keyboard. I do enough of that in real life and operation of a layout is, to me, an escape from the modern world.

[bbishop]

So I have a Lenz system on Höchstädt that controls the stock and the points.   I have a mimic control panel that is plugged into the Expressnet.  As a back up, I have Lenz 100 (the push button controller) that requires four prods to change a point.  We use Lenz 90s (the knob controller) to operate the stock.  Simples - minimal wiring - but the worry is that if anything went wrong, I'm bu99ered.

 

So I'm planning Höchstädt zwei (aka the last great project) and I'm seriously considering a reversion to analogue and using Peco point motors.

 

Bill

[Tony Wright]

I have always thought that building an operating model railway is about far more than getting the correct loco pulling the correct carriages at a good scale speed on a layout.

 

I see more of these highly technical layouts, operated by laptop or mobile phone and all I think is how far away from the real thing it is. Unless you are modelling the relatively modern scene, most real points and signals were operated by pulling a lever.

 

As it is relatively easy to replicate this, either with mechanical rods and cranks or by using the lever to work a motor, then why I can't see what benefit or extra realism a touch screen brings.

 

I am not anti technology and I am even submitting this post via a wireless internet connection on a tablet. I just don't want to spend my model railway operating time sitting at a screen and keyboard. I do enough of that in real life and operation of a layout is, to me, an escape from the modern world.

I'm with you on this point, Tony - I'm the bloke mentioned in the recent MRJ editorial (as if nobody knew). 

 

As I've said before, the actual operation of a model railway interests me less than the building of it (with a team). I never operate LB by myself (other than to just run some trains round), though it is fun to run the sequence with mates. Introduce a computer to operate it and I wouldn't have any operators at all, mates or not!

[96701]

I'm with you on this point, Tony - I'm the bloke mentioned in the recent MRJ editorial (as if nobody knew). 

 

As I've said before, the actual operation of a model railway interests me less than the building of it (with a team). I never operate LB by myself (other than to just run some trains round), though it is fun to run the sequence with mates. Introduce a computer to operate it and I wouldn't have any operators at all, mates or not!

Tony, my computer merely replaces the control panel. Locos are still driven through a handset, and the MERG CBUS system will allow as many handsets as you wish, so you could have a driver take a goods train into a loop whilst another driver takes the Yorkshire Pullman past it on the fast line. The signaller now operates the points and signals and allows the first driver to continue on their way with the goods train. 

[Jesse Sim]

I don't like the idea of using a computer to control everything. I have a DCC system, but all my point work is in the traditional (analog) method. I find that having a computer to run everything takes away that realistic feeling. You are not in control, the computer is in control. There is no 'running session' feeling, you're just turning a laptop or iPhone on and clicking 'GO'. 

 

It could just be my youth, the excitement of properly playing trains. As i said all my point operating is analog, so will my signals. My layout Brighton Junction, has no station, no goods yard, no engine shed or a bus on a bridge. However, it does have track flowing through the middle, with some lay by sidings and a junction. LESS IS MORE, with nice flowing hills, (when i get to the scenic section), to bury the railway in its natural landscape. Now, as a young man, (21), i like the idea of; changing the points to bring a stopping goods into the down siding. Then walking back to the fiddle yard, selecting the Express, changing the points and signals for her to romp through. Then changing the points again to allow the  humble goods train to depart, crossing over the junction back onto the mainline. While this all takes place, i am moving from one side to another, flicking point motors and signals, punching the loco number in, whilst trying to step around all the sh*t on the floor! NOW, that seems rather boring you might think, but to me that is running the railway! Feeling like i am the 1:76 scale signalman sitting, having his coffee in the signal box. 

 

I attended my first meeting/running session of the BRMA (British Railway Modelling in Australia), the owner, who i think i may be able to call a friend now, considering i almost saved a nice set of BR coaches from toppling to the floor, has his railway running by the same method as myself. but a larger layout. I do believe John's points are DCC operated, correct me if i am wrong if your reading this. Now, if his layout was operated by a click of a mouse, the people that came to the running day, about a Dozen, would have found it boring. Perhaps not boring, but more wishing we had the control. That is what the day consisted of, everyone walking back and forth operating different trains under the protective eye of the owner. 

 

Now that too me is a running session, actually playing trains and not sitting back and staring at a computer screen. 

 

As i always tend to ramble, hope everyone gets my point in that, well my opinion really. 

[Jesse Sim]

Now Sir, i think i went pretty well in that post. I don't see any grammar mistakes, be kind if you find some! 

[St Enodoc]

I don't like the idea of using a computer to control everything. I have a DCC system, but all my point work is in the traditional (analog) method. I find that having a computer to run everything takes away that realistic feeling. You are not in control, the computer is in control. There is no 'running session' feeling, you're just turning a laptop or iPhone on and clicking 'GO'. 

 

It could just be my youth, the excitement of properly playing trains. As i said all my point operating is analog, so will my signals. My layout Brighton Junction, has no station, no goods yard, no engine shed or a bus on a bridge. However, it does have track flowing through the middle, with some lay by sidings and a junction. LESS IS MORE, with nice flowing hills, (when i get to the scenic section), to bury the railway in its natural landscape. Now, as a young man, (21), i like the idea of; changing the points to bring a stopping goods into the down siding. Then walking back to the fiddle yard, selecting the Express, changing the points and signals for her to romp through. Then changing the points again to allow the  humble goods train to depart, crossing over the junction back onto the mainline. While this all takes place, i am moving from one side to another, flicking point motors and signals, punching the loco number in, whilst trying to step around all the sh*t on the floor! NOW, that seems rather boring you might think, but to me that is running the railway! Feeling like i am the 1:76 scale signalman sitting, having his coffee in the signal box. 

 

I attended my first meeting/running session of the BRMA (British Railway Modelling in Australia), the owner, who i think i may be able to call a friend now, considering i almost saved a nice set of BR coaches from toppling to the floor, has his railway running by the same method as myself. but a larger layout. I do believe John's points are DCC operated, correct me if i am wrong if your reading this. Now, if his layout was operated by a click of a mouse, the people that came to the running day, about a Dozen, would have found it boring. Perhaps not boring, but more wishing we had the control. That is what the day consisted of, everyone walking back and forth operating different trains under the protective eye of the owner. 

 

Now that too me is a running session, actually playing trains and not sitting back and staring at a computer screen. 

 

As i always tend to ramble, hope everyone gets my point in that, well my opinion really. 

Jesse, one of the joys of BRMA (and most clubs/associations for that matter) is that we are all friends!

 

You are correct as far as the points in my storage loops are concerned. They are operated by route-setting push buttons connected to an NCE Mini Panel. This is programmed so that each buttons activates a command to operate the points needed for the route in question. The command is sent through the DCC system to a decoder for each point, which converts the command into a pulse for the solenoid coil and also changes the frog polarity. Nice and straightforward.

 

On the scenic sections, the points and signals will be operated, electrically, through Modratec interlocked lever frames at each station without using the DCC system. The drivers and signalmen are different people and the drivers have to obey the signals as there is no other way to avoid collisions. That's how I like to operate a model railway, although I know that others have different preferences.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, Jesse did indeed save the day when a close-coupled rake of sleeping cars became derailed perilously close to the baseboard edge...

[t-b-g]

One further aspect of the operational side that hasn't been mentioned is the nature of the relationship between the operator and the layout.

 

Somehow, touching a screen, perhaps on a wireless system, makes the operator more remote from the layout. Perhaps the ultimate is the true mechanical system where points and signals are worked from a "frame" of some sort. On Buckingham, there are no actual levers but they are represented by wooden sliding blocks, each with a small brass knob on the top. These work both the mechanical operation and the electrical switching. The brass knobs are gently polished because they have been in use for many years and there is an element of the history of the hobby about it as I think of the people who have pulled those same levers over many years.. Some of the sliders are a bit stiff in their sliding action and quite a few have little quirks. If you push lever 9 right back in, sometimes the switch doesn't work properly. You need to work hard to pull 39 as it is really stiff. 43 doesn't go all the way back into the frame but works the signal and the electrics well enough. You have to hold 48 over as there is not enough friction to hold it against the return spring.

 

Overall, the relationship between operator and layout is taken to another level. You get to "know" the layout. You sense the levers as you pull them and you feel the tension in the cranks and the signal operating strings as you pull the "levers". I have heard real signalmen saying similar things about their work. "Such and such a lever is a beggar and you really have to yank it over" or suchlike

 

There is a tactile, "touchy-feely" aspect when you are operating it that no amount of high tech computer operation can ever get close to.

[Atso]

Now Sir, i think i went pretty well in that post. I don't see any grammar mistakes, be kind if you find some! 

 

Jesse, you've got a typo towards the back end of the second paragraph in the first of these two posts - you've hit the '*' key instead of 'i'! 

 

I'm a fine one to talk though as I'm forever making typos! Despite proof reading to extremes, I also seem to have to go back and edit something!

 

Personally, I think that a model railway should try and emulate the operational styles of the prototype. For a steam era model, this would mean that, in an ideal world, the signals and points should be mechanically operated with interlocking. However in reality is this possible and practical? I think that the answer is both yes and no. For a smaller layout (i.e. say a 10' by 10' room), I think it could be perfectly possible to have mechanical operation - although this could be interesting operating across baseboard joints, especially if the layout is frequently dismantled. Larger layouts would definitely benefit from some kind of electronic arrangement (and all fiddle yards in my book) to save having to walk around too much.

 

Just my opinion on this subject and don't bother asking me if I'm subscribing to my own opinions - I might have to admit to being a hypocrite!  

 

I'm not a fan of DCC myself but more from the point of view that I don't think I'll ever be able to afford to buy chips for all the locomotives I own (and plan to own!). I can see some of the benefits towards driving locomotives, scale acceleration and braking requires pre planning but it can be a bit of a bind and unrealistic if you're having to brake a train to stop in a fiddle yard while it is still partly visible on the scenic section of a layout - conversely watching every train still accelerating when entering the scenic section of a smaller layout can also seem unrealistic - especially when the layout is representing a section of a long stretch of mainline. From my own very limited experience, properly set up it seems to work well but I'm still not seeing the advantage of operating points using DCC as I think, as others have stated, it takes something away from the realism.

I'm not a fan of DCC myself but more from the point of view that I don't think I'll ever be able to afford to buy chips for all the locomotives I own (and plan to own!). I can see some of the benefits towards driving locomotives, scale acceleration and braking requires pre planning but it can be a bit of a bind and unrealistic if you're having to brake a train to stop in a fiddle yard while it is still partly visible on the scenic section of a layout - conversely watching every train still accelerating when entering the scenic section of a smaller layout can also seem unrealistic - especially when the layout is representing a section of a long stretch of mainline.

[coachmann]

I only fitted point motors because I was filming train operation, but I have to think twice before throwing a lever. While I cannot see me ever going back to flicking points over with a finger, there is a lot to be said for mechanical linkage to manual point levers at the edge of the baseboard. Similarly, there were no advantages from re-wiring points so that the frog was electrically fed without relying on the switch blade making contact with the stock rail seeing as non of the unconverted points have ever let me down. I followed theory to no gain!  

 

Those who computerize their model railways must feel it is the best way forward and no doubt a lot of this is due to their age if they are used to modern ways of doing things. I keep an eye on modern developments and dip in where I consider something is an improvement on the past. This is why DCC and sound are on my layout.

Edited September 18, 2017 by coachmann

[Barry O]

Having been involved in the design, build, test and delivery of some pretty complex Control Systems in my career I like dcc for use "driving" the locomotives as I can programme their response. While dcc operation of points etc are some peoples cup of tea I would stick with the old fashioned point motors using levers, buttons or flick switches.

 

Its horses for courses.. no one has to be forced to use systems they don't like (or understand) - which is part of the fun in railway modelling.

 

Baz

[APOLLO]

Over the pond "Model Railroaders" do operation very much like the real thing. Many large layouts have a Dispatcher to control train running via a CTC machine. He (she) doesn't run the trains, but decides which train goes where and when. The CTC machine (Centralised Traffic Control) are based on the real thing - and operate the points / signals / routing. This is Bruce Chub (electronics wizard) and his home made "Sunset Valley" railroad CTC machine.

 

 

 

The operator talks to the various "engineers" via telephone or walkie talkie (layouts are sometimes huge). They take operation very, very seriously. Freight car waybills, train orders you name it. It's all bit overboard for me though - I just like to run trains, I also hate switching (shunting), just occasionally splitting trains and re-forming them to add variety. I operate very much the same on my OO loft layout.

 

Brit15

Edited September 18, 2017 by APOLLO

[robertcwp]

This is one of my two control panels (one for each side of the layout): 

P1040226s by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

Designed nearly 20 years ago jointly with Brian Kirby, who built it all and wired it. The rotary switches enable any one of the six controllers to drive anywhere. Points have a two-way switch and firing button to discharge the Gaugemaster CDU. Individual isolating sections are either on/off or on/off/on, the latter where lines can be fed from two different rotary switches, mainly in the fiddleyard (other panel). Lights show which way main line and station throat points are set, although the switch position also does that. The one thing I would do differently is have separate frog polarity switching rather than rely on the Peco points. I don't have much trouble with them - they just need a clean - although some of the springs have weakened somewhat from 17 years of operation.

[micklner]

This is one of my two control panels (one for each side of the layout): 

P1040226s by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

Designed nearly 20 years ago jointly with Brian Kirby, who built it all and wired it. The rotary switches enable any one of the six controllers to drive anywhere. Points have a two-way switch and firing button to discharge the Gaugemaster CDU. Individual isolating sections are either on/off or on/off/on, the latter where lines can be fed from two different rotary switches, mainly in the fiddleyard (other panel). Lights show which way main line and station throat points are set, although the switch position also does that. The one thing I would do differently is have separate frog polarity switching rather than rely on the Peco points. I don't have much trouble with them - they just need a clean - although some of the springs have weakened somewhat from 17 years of operation.

 

I think I have a headache !!    Thank god my layout is small !!

[Enterprisingwestern]

This is one of my two control panels (one for each side of the layout): 

P1040226s by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

Designed nearly 20 years ago jointly with Brian Kirby, who built it all and wired it. The rotary switches enable any one of the six controllers to drive anywhere. Points have a two-way switch and firing button to discharge the Gaugemaster CDU. Individual isolating sections are either on/off or on/off/on, the latter where lines can be fed from two different rotary switches, mainly in the fiddleyard (other panel). Lights show which way main line and station throat points are set, although the switch position also does that. The one thing I would do differently is have separate frog polarity switching rather than rely on the Peco points. I don't have much trouble with them - they just need a clean - although some of the springs have weakened somewhat from 17 years of operation.

 

 

It would be soon much simpler with DCC, you only need 2 wires dontcha know?

 

Mike.