Castle Aching

[nick_bastable]

 

beware sitting on fences can lead to splinters

 

Nick

[St Enodoc]

The phrase was probably the result of a personal response to pre-Raphaelite dames and should have been rendered as "wholesale rigor"....

 

But yes, if there had been steam railways in 16th Century Florence, then the movement would have had no problems with the subject (pausing to imagine a p-R take on Friths "The Railway Station"...).  At least there would be more detail, and a more accurate rendition of pre-grouping liveries!

Given Frith's and the pre-Raphaelites' mutual dislike that would be somewhat unlikely. Perhaps Turner's Rain, Steam and Speed would be a candidate?

 

There must be a computer application somewhere that can change an image from one style to another...

Edited September 28, 2017 by St Enodoc

[Shadow]

Given Frith's and the pre-Raphaelites' mutual dislike that would be somewhat unlikely. Perhaps Turner's Rain, Steam and Speed would be a candidate?

 

There must be a computer application somewhere that can change an image from one style to another...

 

There's an app for Android systems called Prisma that lets you do just that.

[Donw]

It amsue me how things swing from view to view on this thread one moment we are arguing about the choice of interlaced or through timbers next we are talking about mangling Peco turnouts. When I drew the track plan it was based on a previous sketch and had a nice flow to it. I have endeavoured to keep that flow. To me the fact that flexitrack usually lacks the detail of the keys in the chairs, or the sleepers are a scale 8ft 6in rather than the 9ft  more common in pre-group days are things that only become apparent when the eye moves in close. Distorting the track geometry to fit in proprietry turnouts would be something that shouts at you entering the layout room. I think a nice flow to the track would complement the wonderful village. I am not a scale pedant and I have seen some excellent layouts using Peco points but these tend to dictate the flow of the trackwork. I believe putting one's efforts where it will do the most good.

There is also the question of rail height the old track would be lighter rail so I would expect the FB track to have lighter rail. One can obtain lighter rail but if code 75 rail is used for both the difference in heights due to the chairs of the bullhead will make the FB look lighter. I would consider code 100 track to look too heavy with victorian engines.

 

On the subject of wiring the basic DC wiring is not difficult. Yes one has to switch the crossing area on live frog turnouts but the alternative dead frogs can be a problem with short wheelbase early engines.  The thing with DC wiring is once one introduces a second engine there is a need to create sections deciding where to make these sections can make a lot of difference. Say you plan to run an intensive service where an arriving train will stop and a fresh engine will back on while the passengers alight and board allowing the train to depart rapidly instead of running round typically the arriving engine will follow the train as it departs and wait at the end of the platform  for an appropriate signal. The sections must cater for this. A bit of experience with operating other peoples layouts is quite useful in learning what sort of difference it can make. DCC would add to the cost so while I would ensure the wiring could be used with DCC (once our host's fortunes change). The real advantage of DCC is it renders the subject of sections redundant although some are useful for fault finding there placement hardly matters.

On the subject of turnout operation I find the Tortoise type the easiest for the novice as they are basically self adjusting only needing rough adjustment when installed. However these are expensive and the extra work could make quite a saving. 

 

Don

[Hroth]

 

beware sitting on fences can lead to splinters

 

Nick

Not wanting to appear indelicate, but

1. With Victorian clothing, there's a fair bit of padding between the bum and the splinter
2. Its to be hoped that the shape of the rail she's sitting on is due to the natural curve of the wood and not from deflection...

However, I'm willing to volunteer to assist in splinter removal, in the right circumstances.......

[Edwardian]

It amsue me how things swing from view to view on this thread one moment we are arguing about the choice of interlaced or through timbers next we are talking about mangling Peco turnouts. When I drew the track plan it was based on a previous sketch and had a nice flow to it. I have endeavoured to keep that flow. To me the fact that flexitrack usually lacks the detail of the keys in the chairs, or the sleepers are a scale 8ft 6in rather than the 9ft  more common in pre-group days are things that only become apparent when the eye moves in close. Distorting the track geometry to fit in proprietry turnouts would be something that shouts at you entering the layout room. I think a nice flow to the track would complement the wonderful village. I am not a scale pedant and I have seen some excellent layouts using Peco points but these tend to dictate the flow of the trackwork. I believe putting one's efforts where it will do the most good.

There is also the question of rail height the old track would be lighter rail so I would expect the FB track to have lighter rail. One can obtain lighter rail but if code 75 rail is used for both the difference in heights due to the chairs of the bullhead will make the FB look lighter. I would consider code 100 track to look too heavy with victorian engines.

 

On the subject of wiring the basic DC wiring is not difficult. Yes one has to switch the crossing area on live frog turnouts but the alternative dead frogs can be a problem with short wheelbase early engines.  The thing with DC wiring is once one introduces a second engine there is a need to create sections deciding where to make these sections can make a lot of difference. Say you plan to run an intensive service where an arriving train will stop and a fresh engine will back on while the passengers alight and board allowing the train to depart rapidly instead of running round typically the arriving engine will follow the train as it departs and wait at the end of the platform  for an appropriate signal. The sections must cater for this. A bit of experience with operating other peoples layouts is quite useful in learning what sort of difference it can make. DCC would add to the cost so while I would ensure the wiring could be used with DCC (once our host's fortunes change). The real advantage of DCC is it renders the subject of sections redundant although some are useful for fault finding there placement hardly matters.

On the subject of turnout operation I find the Tortoise type the easiest for the novice as they are basically self adjusting only needing rough adjustment when installed. However these are expensive and the extra work could make quite a saving. 

 

Don

 

The flow of Don's track layout is something that I would not do violence to with proprietary points. 

 

If I can get these points built, the flowing track will give the layout its essential character.

 

I did print out some Peco Code 75 templates for comparison - and I am satisfied they could not achieve anything like such a naturally flowing and realistic appearance in this case.

 

The SMP plain track is Code 75 BH.  The lightest FB rail I have is also Code 75.

[BG John]

It amsue me how things swing from view to view on this thread one moment we are arguing about the choice of interlaced or through timbers next we are talking about mangling Peco turnouts. When I drew the track plan it was based on a previous sketch and had a nice flow to it. I have endeavoured to keep that flow. To me the fact that flexitrack usually lacks the detail of the keys in the chairs, or the sleepers are a scale 8ft 6in rather than the 9ft  more common in pre-group days are things that only become apparent when the eye moves in close. Distorting the track geometry to fit in proprietry turnouts would be something that shouts at you entering the layout room. I think a nice flow to the track would complement the wonderful village. I am not a scale pedant and I have seen some excellent layouts using Peco points but these tend to dictate the flow of the trackwork. I believe putting one's efforts where it will do the most good.

I totally agree, and was just stirring it putting an alternative suggestion that might help if handmade track proves too difficult!

 

On the subject of wiring the basic DC wiring is not difficult.

There's also radio control .

 

Rapidly collects hat and coat, and dives behind the nearest parapet.

[Caley Jim]

1. Design and print out track layout.  Done
2. Lay plain trackwork in a layout. Done
3. Build points: Just leave a couple of copperclad sleepers to do and demonstrate soldering them into place.....

Since all the trackwork for Kirkallanmuir is long completed and I have no plans to build any more, can i offer instead 6 CR mineral wagons which have still to be painted?

 

1. designed the etch artwork

2. built the kits produced from this

3. will provide a series of photos of the painting in progress (when I get the round tuit for carrying that out|).

 

 

Pretty please???

 

Jim

[Donw]

Since all the trackwork for Kirkallanmuir is long completed and I have no plans to build any more, can i offer instead 6 CR mineral wagons which have still to be painted?

 

1. designed the etch artwork

2. built the kits produced from this

3. will provide a series of photos of the painting in progress (when I get the round tuit for carrying that out|).

 

DSC_0574.JPG

 

Pretty please???

 

Jim

 

Very nice Jim. You have been modelling for a while now and have acquired and honed your skills. The photo is a good example of what can be achieved but one has to take the first steps.

 

Don 

[Donw]

The flow of Don's track layout is something that I would not do violence to with proprietary points. 

 

If I can get these points built, the flowing track will give the layout its essential character.

 

I did print out some Peco Code 75 templates for comparison - and I am satisfied they could not achieve anything like such a naturally flowing and realistic appearance in this case.

 

The SMP plain track is Code 75 BH.  The lightest FB rail I have is also Code 75.

 

As I said I think the code 75 will do nicely. I think that picture of your train laid out on the track plain is more eloquent than my words about a flowing track plan.

 

Don

[Caley Jim]

Part of me simply does not believe that I can construct a working point.  However, I have no choice but to try and (eventually) succeed, so another part of me says, if I have to build a point, it might as well look like a point that had to be built; this is just a case of a different sleeper arrangement, how much harder could it be?

When I decided, in my early 20's, to switch from Hornby Dublo 3-rail to 2FS the first piece of track I built was a 2ft radius turnout, on the basis that if I couldn't make that work, there was no point (sorry) in going any further.  At that time I had no knowledge of turnout design and simply drew 2 straight lines 9.5mm apart and then used a trammel to draw tangential curves to these from a common centre.  I equipped myself with a set of gauges and set about it, being methodical and meticulous in not moving on to the next stage until I was certain everything up to then was correct.  The resultant turnout served as the end of the run round on Connerburn (and still does, though the layout has been in storage for over 7 years).

 

What I'm trying to say is the turnout construction is not rocket science.   Be methodical, gauge accurately and you will be surprised at what you can achieve!  I would say that the satisfaction from successfully building your first turnout is only surpassed by seeing your first loco chassis propel itself along!

 

Jim

 

PS,I wish I could churn out buildings the way you can, James.  To me they are akin to a necessary evil!  They seem to take me forever.

[Edwardian]

 

What I'm trying to say is the turnout construction is not rocket science.   

 

Of course, you're right, and I realise the fear is greater than the danger.

 

Besides, this is rocket science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro

 

 

 

 

PS,I wish I could churn out buildings the way you can, James.  To me they are akin to a necessary evil!  They seem to take me forever.

 

Whereas, I get quite excited by our rich native stock of buildings, and not just those in Norfolk ...

[nick_bastable]

so you can wear your latest suit while winding your new pocket watch as the contractors  paint the room as your wine comes to room temperature

 

Nick

Edited September 28, 2017 by nick_bastable

[James Harrison]

so you can wear your latest suit while winding your new pocket watch

 

Nick

 

I resemble that remark....

[Regularity]

I am not a scale pedant

 

I am, but only where my own efforts are concerned.

Well, not quite. I prefer to see that someone has actually thought about their standards (in every sense) and set them, and worked to them. The consistency and careful application of workmanship are much more critical than the actual standards, although I reserve the "right" to not like them!

 

Put another way, I would rather see well-laid Peco Streamline code 100 "universal" than poorly laid P4.

On the subject of wiring the basic DC wiring is not difficult. Yes one has to switch the crossing area on live frog turnouts but the alternative dead frogs can be a problem with short wheelbase early engines.

 

A degree of springing/compensation can help with pickup, but the ideal is to pick up from as many wheels as possible.

With DCC, however,the use of storage capacitors (stay alive and keep alive) means that dead frogs should not be an issue.

The thing with DC wiring is once one introduces a second engine there is a need to create sections deciding where to make these sections can make a lot of difference. Say you plan to run an intensive service where an arriving train will stop and a fresh engine will back on while the passengers alight and board allowing the train to depart rapidly instead of running round typically the arriving engine will follow the train as it departs and wait at the end of the platform  for an appropriate signal. The sections must cater for this. A bit of experience with operating other peoples layouts is quite useful in learning what sort of difference it can make. DCC would add to the cost so while I would ensure the wiring could be used with DCC (once our host's fortunes change). The real advantage of DCC is it renders the subject of sections redundant although some are useful for fault finding there placement hardly matters.

 

Good advice.

 

There are cheaper scalable options, based on things like the Sprog and Raspberry Pi, but these require more cost by way of understanding, which may be daunting to some. Also, some of the cheapest loco modules are not very reliable.

[Donw]

I am, but only where my own efforts are concerned.

Well, not quite. I prefer to see that someone has actually thought about their standards (in every sense) and set them, and worked to them. The consistency and careful application of workmanship are much more critical than the actual standards, although I reserve the "right" to not like them!

 

Put another way, I would rather see well-laid Peco Streamline code 100 "universal" than poorly laid P4.

A degree of springing/compensation can help with pickup, but the ideal is to pick up from as many wheels as possible.

With DCC, however,the use of storage capacitors (stay alive and keep alive) means that dead frogs should not be an issue.

Good advice.

 

There are cheaper scalable options, based on things like the Sprog and Raspberry Pi, but these require more cost by way of understanding, which may be daunting to some. Also, some of the cheapest loco modules are not very reliable.

 

A layout where a lot of the loco stock is short wheelbase may suggest every loco would need a keep alive fitted would this be easier than using live frogs? Fitting springing or compensation to proprietary loco chassis is a lot of extra trouble and expense although it may be worthwhile if you have the skills. When I worked in 4mm some 30 years ago much of the commercial stuff ran poorly adopting EM meant you sorted out the wheels etc and usually improved the running. Commercial stuff seems to run much better these day so that particular benefit may be less today. 

 

Don 

[St Enodoc]

It amsue me how things swing from view to view on this thread one moment we are arguing about the choice of interlaced or through timbers next we are talking about mangling Peco turnouts. When I drew the track plan it was based on a previous sketch and had a nice flow to it. I have endeavoured to keep that flow. To me the fact that flexitrack usually lacks the detail of the keys in the chairs, or the sleepers are a scale 8ft 6in rather than the 9ft  more common in pre-group days are things that only become apparent when the eye moves in close. Distorting the track geometry to fit in proprietry turnouts would be something that shouts at you entering the layout room. I think a nice flow to the track would complement the wonderful village. I am not a scale pedant and I have seen some excellent layouts using Peco points but these tend to dictate the flow of the trackwork. I believe putting one's efforts where it will do the most good.

There is also the question of rail height the old track would be lighter rail so I would expect the FB track to have lighter rail. One can obtain lighter rail but if code 75 rail is used for both the difference in heights due to the chairs of the bullhead will make the FB look lighter. I would consider code 100 track to look too heavy with victorian engines.

 

On the subject of wiring the basic DC wiring is not difficult. Yes one has to switch the crossing area on live frog turnouts but the alternative dead frogs can be a problem with short wheelbase early engines.  The thing with DC wiring is once one introduces a second engine there is a need to create sections deciding where to make these sections can make a lot of difference. Say you plan to run an intensive service where an arriving train will stop and a fresh engine will back on while the passengers alight and board allowing the train to depart rapidly instead of running round typically the arriving engine will follow the train as it departs and wait at the end of the platform  for an appropriate signal. The sections must cater for this. A bit of experience with operating other peoples layouts is quite useful in learning what sort of difference it can make. DCC would add to the cost so while I would ensure the wiring could be used with DCC (once our host's fortunes change). The real advantage of DCC is it renders the subject of sections redundant although some are useful for fault finding there placement hardly matters.

On the subject of turnout operation I find the Tortoise type the easiest for the novice as they are basically self adjusting only needing rough adjustment when installed. However these are expensive and the extra work could make quite a saving. 

 

Don

Take a look at LNER4479's Grantham - The Streamliner Years topic to see how Peco points can be modified to flow with the track. He also wrote it up for the Modeller (last year sometime, I think).

[uax6]

Sorry I've been away for a couple of days (nursing a hole in my gum where a wisdom tooth once was, and getting over the anaesthetic reaction!) but I'll wade in with some comments.

 

The DC/DCC argument. Now bare in mind that I have a working strowger telephone exchange at home, so am used to lots of complicated relays and the odd electronic item, but I will always steer clear of DCC. Reasons:

• DCC was designed for use on American railroad models. Why? Well it was to allow the prototypical situation of having more than one loco (maybe upto 6) per train. This of course is on model railroads that typically are about 10 times bigger than most UK layouts.
• Both systems use two wires. One is economical with its wiring, the other is typically more wire intensive. But, and here's the rub (as they say), DCC isn't quite as easy as two wires, as you will still need to run these two wires around the whole layout, with sections that are isolated, and with circuit breakers. DC wiring can be complicated too, but if you drop a clanger and get your wiring wrong, the worst that is going to happen is that you will get a short circuit which will operate the cutout on the controller, not blow the chip on the loco at vast expense.
• For butchered early locos, they are very small. Finding the space for the chip will be difficult at best. Also will you be able to get the correct chuff noise? I find all this sound stuff a gimmick and frankly distracting. And blooming expensive.

For any terminus to fiddleyard layout controlled by one person, DCC is uneconomic. If you are scared of wiring a layout in straight DC, then adding the complications of a black box containing smoke (aka a DCC chip) into the mix is a daft idea, likely to cause frustration and wallet empting..

 

I recently made a crossover in bullhead on copperclad. It has interlaced sleepering and was my first attempt. I was dreading building it, but by going at it slowly it has turned out well.

One thing though: Don't do the three sleepers close together thing that lots do and that peco do too. It looks odd and spoils the look of the track. Make the tiebar a normal sleeper, just sand the sleepers back so that it is thinner than the others, so it can slide easily (and don't glue it up with the ballast!) and bobs your uncle.

 

Also for droppers, solder your droppers to the underside of your track, not the side! with your templates you know where your track is going, so drill some holes under the rails and then you can drop the wires through these holes, and you will never see the wires. If you are not confident with an iron, replace a sleep with a bit of copperclad. Solder that to the rails, and then drill and solder to the copperclad. This will be a tad more noticeable, but after making pointwork you shouldn't have an issue with soldering a few droppers on!

 

Andy G

[Edwardian]

Sorry I've been away for a couple of days (nursing a hole in my gum where a wisdom tooth once was, and getting over the anaesthetic reaction!) but I'll wade in with some comments.

 

The DC/DCC argument. Now bare in mind that I have a working strowger telephone exchange at home, so am used to lots of complicated relays and the odd electronic item, but I will always steer clear of DCC. Reasons:

• DCC was designed for use on American railroad models. Why? Well it was to allow the prototypical situation of having more than one loco (maybe upto 6) per train. This of course is on model railroads that typically are about 10 times bigger than most UK layouts.
• Both systems use two wires. One is economical with its wiring, the other is typically more wire intensive. But, and here's the rub (as they say), DCC isn't quite as easy as two wires, as you will still need to run these two wires around the whole layout, with sections that are isolated, and with circuit breakers. DC wiring can be complicated too, but if you drop a clanger and get your wiring wrong, the worst that is going to happen is that you will get a short circuit which will operate the cutout on the controller, not blow the chip on the loco at vast expense.
• For butchered early locos, they are very small. Finding the space for the chip will be difficult at best. Also will you be able to get the correct chuff noise? I find all this sound stuff a gimmick and frankly distracting. And blooming expensive.

For any terminus to fiddleyard layout controlled by one person, DCC is uneconomic. If you are scared of wiring a layout in straight DC, then adding the complications of a black box containing smoke (aka a DCC chip) into the mix is a daft idea, likely to cause frustration and wallet empting..

 

I recently made a crossover in bullhead on copperclad. It has interlaced sleepering and was my first attempt. I was dreading building it, but by going at it slowly it has turned out well.

One thing though: Don't do the three sleepers close together thing that lots do and that peco do too. It looks odd and spoils the look of the track. Make the tiebar a normal sleeper, just sand the sleepers back so that it is thinner than the others, so it can slide easily (and don't glue it up with the ballast!) and bobs your uncle.

 

Also for droppers, solder your droppers to the underside of your track, not the side! with your templates you know where your track is going, so drill some holes under the rails and then you can drop the wires through these holes, and you will never see the wires. If you are not confident with an iron, replace a sleep with a bit of copperclad. Solder that to the rails, and then drill and solder to the copperclad. This will be a tad more noticeable, but after making pointwork you shouldn't have an issue with soldering a few droppers on!

 

Andy G

 

Andy, I have no ambitions to attempt DCC for CA.  I will have a variety of locomotives of differing heritage.  A number might struggle to house a chip. 

 

I don't see any particular advantage to DCC for this layout.  I had a layout my father built in the attic.  I found operating a series of isolated sections perfectly simple (wiring them in the first place is what confuses me!). 

 

Sound would not be a great advantage because, as you say, I am never going to match the various prototypes.  All my locos will have prototypes, but, to my knowledge, no one ever recorded a GE T7 or a Cornwall Minerals Railway tank engine! 

 

In short, I think DCC would be a significant and insupportable additional expense offering marginal advantages, if any.

 

In other circumstances, e.g. South Devon mainline with frequent banking and piloting, I would be keen to explore DCC.

 

Earlier in this topic, I was advised against one engine in steam.  As the WN is currently conceived, CA is the southern terminus of the WN's mainline, GE and M&GN trains reverse there for the coast, and the station will have three branch lines sending traffic hence.  The mainline will be single track, with passing places. 

 

CA has only a single platform face, and no bay, but it seems to me likely that, at busy times, two trains might be seen at CA, as the shed road will allow a loco at the  platform road to run round even where the loop is occupied by stock from another service.  Generally, however, I image it would be a case of a quick succession of trains in and out; mainline services have the ability to pass each other further up the line and the branch trains peel off to their respective destinations. 

 

There is no head shunt, so the yard would need to be shunted from the mainline while a passenger train at the platform remained isolated.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Edwardian

[Donw]

Sorry I've been away for a couple of days (nursing a hole in my gum where a wisdom tooth once was, and getting over the anaesthetic reaction!) but I'll wade in with some comments.

 

The DC/DCC argument. Now bare in mind that I have a working strowger telephone exchange at home, so am used to lots of complicated relays and the odd electronic item, but I will always steer clear of DCC. Reasons:

• DCC was designed for use on American railroad models. Why? Well it was to allow the prototypical situation of having more than one loco (maybe upto 6) per train. This of course is on model railroads that typically are about 10 times bigger than most UK layouts.
• Both systems use two wires. One is economical with its wiring, the other is typically more wire intensive. But, and here's the rub (as they say), DCC isn't quite as easy as two wires, as you will still need to run these two wires around the whole layout, with sections that are isolated, and with circuit breakers. DC wiring can be complicated too, but if you drop a clanger and get your wiring wrong, the worst that is going to happen is that you will get a short circuit which will operate the cutout on the controller, not blow the chip on the loco at vast expense.
• For butchered early locos, they are very small. Finding the space for the chip will be difficult at best. Also will you be able to get the correct chuff noise? I find all this sound stuff a gimmick and frankly distracting. And blooming expensive.

For any terminus to fiddleyard layout controlled by one person, DCC is uneconomic. If you are scared of wiring a layout in straight DC, then adding the complications of a black box containing smoke (aka a DCC chip) into the mix is a daft idea, likely to cause frustration and wallet empting..

 

I recently made a crossover in bullhead on copperclad. It has interlaced sleepering and was my first attempt. I was dreading building it, but by going at it slowly it has turned out well.

One thing though: Don't do the three sleepers close together thing that lots do and that peco do too. It looks odd and spoils the look of the track. Make the tiebar a normal sleeper, just sand the sleepers back so that it is thinner than the others, so it can slide easily (and don't glue it up with the ballast!) and bobs your uncle.

 

Also for droppers, solder your droppers to the underside of your track, not the side! with your templates you know where your track is going, so drill some holes under the rails and then you can drop the wires through these holes, and you will never see the wires. If you are not confident with an iron, replace a sleep with a bit of copperclad. Solder that to the rails, and then drill and solder to the copperclad. This will be a tad more noticeable, but after making pointwork you shouldn't have an issue with soldering a few droppers on!

 

Andy G

 

The 2mm modellers seem to be able to squeeze decoders in so it shouldn't be too hard. While I accept your logic that simple DC is fine for a Terminus to fiddle yard layout. It doe have more advantages if you have two people working a station and as layout grow and get more complex the advantages grow. If start DCC on a simple layout adding a decoder when a new loco is added the extra cost is manageable. However if one has acquired say a stud of ten locos and then decide to change to DCC you face a steep bill and quite a bit of work.

I have worked layouts sharing the operations with others and with DC section switching and noted how often people leave section switches thrown so when making another move elsewhere a loco left parked starts to move. I have also seen people throwing switches trying to find the right one. You have to learn the system and be disciplined.

 

Don

[Nearholmer]

I really can't imagine CA being "one engine in steam", which is a seriously low-capacity way of operating a piece of railway of any length, and would be a bit of a pig to implement with converging routes.

 

I know that I ask this about once a month, but can we have a map aga in, please? I keep forgetting where the three routes into CA converge, and can never find the map. What I'm wondering is whether the point of convergence is within 'station limits', or whether the junction has a block post.

 

DCC: my personal bias if building something like CA from scratch would be to opt for a system that allows for individual control of locos, possibly a battery/radio system, rather than DCC, because there is something strangely magic about seeing two locos moving independently in such an environment ...... one train arriving, while a loco wheezes slowly along a loop, that sort of thing. Little things please little minds .....

Edited September 29, 2017 by Nearholmer

[TheQ]

quote"I know that I ask this about once a month, but can we have a map aga in,  please?" unquote"

 

One Map to an AGA

[ attachment=906100:Aga_Masterchef_xl1.png]

Edited September 29, 2017 by TheQ

[Hroth]

quote"I know that I ask this about once a month, but can we have a map aga in,  please?" unquote"

 

One Map to an AGA

[ attachment=906100:Aga_Masterchef_xl1.png]

Nice to see the 7mm scale AGA in print!

[Northroader]

There's a map post 297, page 12, but I fancy rather a lot of water has flowed out of the Wash since then.

[Regularity]

The big advantage of DCC in my experience - and this also applies to radio control (battery powered, or via the rails) is the ability to more easily simulate operations at a terminus where two or more engines might be active at any one time.

 

Two particular examples come to mind.

At a terminus, a pilot loco is used to move the stock of an arriving train to another platform, or maybe carriage sidings. The train loco would not usually remain close to the stop blocks, but would slowly move up the platform. This is possible with section switches et al on DC, but with DCC it is a lot easier.

Shunting in a moderately sized goods yard, which also has to accommodate arriving and departing goods trains, is eased considerably as there is no need to move locos unnecessarily just to find a convenient isolating section, or throw a turnout against it. This also applies to arriving goods trains if there is more than one available reception road, or trains don't always fill the road(s), where an arriving train runs to us not determined by where the isolating section is, but by where is convenient.

 

If only one engine is to be moved at a time, then DCC appears not to offer much benefit, but I would argue that if more than one is going to move, or there is a need to be able to "park" a loco wherever is most convenient at the time, then DC rapidly becomes constraining.

 

That said, DCC offers benefits even on the simplest layout. Firstly, with a constant voltage supply, pickup is better. Secondly, even a small stay alive capacitor means that any dead spots (dirt, etc) are not a problem. Thirdly, the quality of motor control of almost all loco modules is as good as the very best DC controllers. Fourthly, it is possible to improve the performance of engines by tweaking a few of the configuration variables (not difficult, just fiddly and a little arcane if you don't use something connected to a computer).

The last point is optional, but these all combine to provide superior running.

 

For my son's train set, not that he is interested in trains anymore, we had a very simple system provided as a complete set by Bachmann. An oval of track, a siding, a few wagons and two rather simple industrial engines, to which we have added a couple of fumes (one of them mine) which have had basic TCS decoders fitted and also a "slave" controller, so that we could run two trains at once. The controllers themselves have the usual speed control, and ten push buttons for selection and functions. Press another button to activate selection, and select the loco/unit. Press the activation button to return to normal operation and drive the train. Lights, if fitted, can be switched on and off using the function buttons. Furthermore, one train can be left running round the oval and another selected for dome shunting. If a problem arises, hit the emergency stop.

 

Wiring wise this really was two-wire: from the master unit to the track. Everything else used Hornby's spring clips on the set track points. (Aside from what came with the set, we used Hornby track, as it is better made and the joiners are tighter.) Whilst it is best and recommended practice to install a couple of heavy gauge copper wires under the layout and connect each rail to the correct bus-bar with a short connector, this all worked fine as it was, even on a double track layout plus goods yard assembled on the dining table at intervals. The current required here was small, and nickel silver rails are a pretty good conductor of electricity.

 

At this point keyboard warriors will be jumping up and down saying that this is bad advice, to which I would say, read what I said: this is neither best nor recommended practice. But hey, it worked, and with such a simple set, there is no reason why it shouldn't work. Actually, it worked very well.

 

Don:

I agree that live frogs will make for better running overall than dead frogs, but then again so do finer track standards and compensation. In the context of 00 universal and a fear/dislike of wiring, then Peco dead frogs, with only a short dead section, are worth considering. Well laid, they are unlikely to cause much of a problem: back in the day before I built my own track, I found there to be very few problems due to pickup with RTR stock, and relying on the point blades to switch polarity whilst also not recommended worked perfectly well.

In order of reliability of power-related performance plus looks over crossing vees I would suggest the following hierarchy.

1) On board battery power, or indeed clockwork(!), on whatever track is in use;

2) Overhead or third rail pick-up, with both rails providing a common return, on whatever track is in use;

3) DCC with stay alive capacitors, and a short completely dead section encompassing the length of the wing rails, most likely on handbuilt points, but ready made could be adapted;

4) DCC or DC using live frog turnouts;

5) DCC with dead frog turnouts, using a small stay alive capacitor;

6) DC with dead frog turnouts.

 

Only number 6 is likely to cause any direct problems, and as I said, if the track is carefully laid, then although possible, this should not be a regular occurrence.

 

I have not done (2), but am in the process of converting some locos for option (1) - at my usual glacial pace - and (3) is a hypothetical for me, but 4-6 are all within my experience, with the order of reliability as stated. (But I am talking about 100% versus 99%, in terms of hesitancy of running.)

 

In short, live frogs are better than dead frogs, but as with everything, it is a question of balance: dead frogs are much simpler for wiring, and dead rails are even simpler and better!