Izzy

Having tried both cassettes and sector plate/traverser options on recent layouts I would now go for the latter every time. Cassettes need less access space for each entry/exit road, but I found I spent far more time swopping them over all the time just to do the simplest moves than actually running the layouts. Absolutely love those EMU's, especially the 309's and their curved windows, brings back such memories of them, particularly in these liveries. Wonderful. Would agree the entry/exit roads need moving up towards the back a bit somehow along with entry access to all platforms, especially when EMU/DMU's are involved. Not quite sure how the track could be adjusted to be arranged as such though. regards Izzy

Here are a couple of shots of my current P4 plank All Saints East (5'x1' + 2'6" fiddle) and the A5 wyes in front of the signal box. You can see the difference in comparison with the standard loco release A5 to the left. Apart from the fact they use my long time construction of just standard plastic chairs on ply sleepers - with no special chairs apart from the slide ones (all that was originally available when Len Newman/Alan Gibson put some of the first ones in my hands) - I don't think they look too bad. The image of those on my previous 7mm layout suffer from tight telephoto compression due to the angle and nature of the shot. I find it's never easy trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot as is often needed with minimum space layouts, all I have ever seemed to build due to lack of space to do anything else, whatever the scale involved! regards Izzy

Pleased it's of interest and help. I would agree with all your thoughts regarding adjustments to improve it and I will play some more with Templot to see what results. Looking at further photos of the 7mm layout I notice I curved the whole design a bit. Currently the point blades are handed in those box files I am creating with wye's, offset to sidings or not the 'main' route. I haven't got around to trying the new method Martin has introduced for making wye's with equal offset blades, which of course the 7mm hand design layout used and helps the flow of the track a bit more. Anyway, here is the box file for above: for Hayfield.box I'm afraid I haven't adjusted any timbering as I always leave this till a plan is finalised. I set the fiddle yard entrance in the middle to allow maximum travel for a sector plate and at least three roads. I think this would remain okay if the top right siding was removed. Neither of the short right hand sidngs are much good really, only able to take about 1 wagon, I just found they helped the look of it all in the 7mm version - disguised the use of wye's - and when shunting to avoid using the fiddle yard exit road and going off scene too much. The lower left siding led to a (working) sand hopper, so this was quite useful (the children - of all ages - used to love this at exhibitions). Curving the top left road for a straight exit might make the whole platform road a bit reverse curvy unless a straight A4/5 is used. All needs a bit of suck and see to discover what results. I'll post any further worthwhile box files generated. regards Izzy

I built a small 7mm layout back in the 90's which used wye's (pre-Templot and hand drawn/designed) and have posted a shot somewhere on RMweb but can't find it so have posted it again here. I hope this is okay. As you say it gives larger radius points but is challenging to get to flow nicely with the reverse curves. It was on two metre length boards, with a third for the fiddle and another 2' 'extra' board past the platform that could be added, so should fit into 4' for P4 (the main station area), but I have had trouble trying to replicate it in Templot using A4.5's and it looks a bit overcrowded and not quite right. I think it should curve slightly through the centre line, like a sagging washing line if you know what I mean. Anyway, here is the screenshot, it might be of interest. regards Izzy

Hi Steve, Thank you for your kind words. Pleased you found the J15 conversion interesting. I am afraid I haven’t considered widening the frames behind the wheels because some decades making P4 locos for both myself and others has led me to believe that often, not enough clearance behind them and thus sufficient side play, leads to poor running and a tendency for locos to jump off anything but a very gentle smooth radius. As a basic requirement I make is for any P4 loco - however big - to negotiate an A5 crossover to ensure no problems arise in use, (I have experienced those built by others that looked the bees knees but couldn’t cope with anything less than a B8), widening the frames may cause such issues (I’ve never stuck to a fixed frame width believing each needs designing/adjusting to suit each particular locos needs) and I don’t think looks wise it would be worth the extra hassle involved. It’s each to his own of course with aspects like this and each model type will benefit differently, especially where RTR conversions are involved rather than kits or scratch builds. Regards, Izzy

My experience with trying to produce corrugated sheets via a screw thread has not been good. Probably my lack of skill but also that the sheet has to be run through at the helix angle of the thread and tends to distort. Izzy

Rather than use a fine saw i now make insulation cuts in c/c sleepers with a scalpel. One cut (at a slight angle is best) followed by another next to it removes a sliver of the copper and produces a gap that is only the depth of the copper and often doesn't show at all after the track is painted. Izzy

I don’t think I have ever bought a magazine to discover what exhibitions might be on in any particular month, even in the dark and distant past before the general public web arrived. I appreciate that even today there are many who form the backbone of railway modelling activities - i.e. are of a certain age (of which I am one ) - who do not use the web to any great extent, and maybe not at all, but when you consider that for many local shows the majority of the visiting public will be local in nature and most probably aware of the show by means other than an advert in a modelling magazine ( flyers, posters, word of mouth, etc), it raises the question of how many ‘ extra ‘ visitors adverts in mags produce. To my mind two extra pages of editorial content is more likely to raise sales and spark modelling interest than lists of exhibitions the reader has no desire/interest/ability to visit. Izzy

As Chris Higgs says American diesels can provide useful parts, which have I believe been used in the past as the basis for producing adaptable length chassis for diesels/dmu's ( TPM models I think). Bachmann USA will ship parts worldwide and this is how I managed to make a chassis for a class 15 when no other option existed, using bogies from a H16-44, the lower half plugging into the worm housing as is now common practice, so just a couple of bits of brass were needed for the basic chassis, the worm housings sandwiched between them. As the outer frames are clip-fit it's easy to replace them with something more suitable. TBH getting a new Farish 24 and popping in some drop-in wheels is the best option all-round for a 24, but when you want something where no RTR exists then it's something to perhaps consider. regards, Izzy

I have had no issues with Co-Co's such as 37/47/66 as well as Bo-Bo's, but something like 40/44/45/46 with their longer wheelbase bogies might prove problematic. I would suggest that using DG's with such tight radius needs to be considered as their design has advantages over other types in allowing coupling on curves and set correctly prevents buffer locking of stock. This is particularly needed with the more modern longer wheelbase carriage and wagons. Izzy

To follow up on Nigel’s remarks re diesels and minimum radius, as he says I have used down to 12” in places. However, this is only in hidden areas, and as many others would also suggest aiming for as large as possible is always best and using transition curves between the min/max radius used is something I would advise to avoid not only how stock runs, but also how it all looks. Other factors are avoiding having any completely straight track - where the layout is circular in nature - and keeping the point work radius to a minimum of about 18” on the inside radius of points, and certainly nothing under 15” as an absolute minimum. There are other tricks that can be used, such as reversing the ‘ handing’ of point blades to assist with travel through pointwork, but this much depends on the particular nature of the track layout. If you want any more advice the just ask. Can’t promise a quick reply as I am in Sydney for a few months over Xmas/New Year on Grandparent duties and the out of sync nature with UK time takes getting used to. Izzy

I haven't to EM, but I have to P4. The details are here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124592-some-rtr-rolling-stock-for-all-saints-east/ The non-standard 2.5mm axles are the main issue, but I would guess that just opening out the wheels b-t-b on the axles will do. I believe there should still be enough of the axle in the wheel bore for it to work with EM. You can get spare sets for the trailing bogie with which to replace the traction tyre ones if you need/want to. Izzy

I'd be interested to know what the individual trimmablle RCD's are that you will be using with the PA2 system. Are these different to the commonly available circuit breakers? Thanks, Izzy

What a great layout thread. Very enjoyable watching it develop as things have progressed, and how 'right' it all looks with the different aspects blending together to produce that typical blue era look many of us will remember. Will echo what has been said about the craftmanship. Thank you for posting about it. Izzy

Yes, is the simple answer. Wireless handsets (plural?), lucky you. Would suggest you obtain some re-chargeable AAA's to use in them with a separate charger. Easier and simpler than having to plug the handsets into the base/command station to charge them - which means you are then tethered to it. Good luck, have fun! Izzy

I have used both analogue and digital servos and AFAIK there isn't any real difference as regards connection or power needs, it's more how they respond to instructions. I don't really know because I have never played with R/C equipment and using servos for railway use has been the first contact I have had, with a steep learning curve in understanding where they can fall down for model railway use, i.e. too much EMF interference etc. I gave up in the end and now just hack servos, (cheaper/easier), but that's another matter. The experts with useful knowledge and advice about servos are usually on the DC and DCC forum pages and might miss this thead as a consequence. Izzy

Thanks Rob, Seems there may be a bit more room in the Hornby 08 above the motor compared to the Bachmann version. The speaker looks to be oblong but smaller than the 40x20's supplied with the latest individual TTS but as I have the Zimo fitted this isn't a problem, but fitting a stay-alive cap unit is an aim and might be. We'll see. Izzy

I'm afraid I have no experience of the Peco boards, but I believe the servos are the common/standard Towerpro SG90 type (which I agree are coarse and noisy, especially when used at slower speeds) so other servos with the normal wiring plug should work. The Hobbyking ones would appear to be around the same basic spec. You may find more info here if you can trawl through it: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/88415-experience-with-peco-smartswitch/page-5 or perhaps someone with the right knowledge will reply. Izzy

Would a centrally pivoted rod/thingy plugged into the two tie-bars move both in opposte direction, closing/opening together? Izzy

I'll be interested to see where they have fitted the decoder and speaker and the size of the latter. The December HM just says it has arrived and gives the basic specs along with a pic. No doubt a full review will be in a future issue. I have squeezed a 3D Zimo speaker into the front of my Bachmann 08 in the hopes this TTS chip will be offered separately in the future, for it does sound good. Izzy

Will sound extremely crude I know, but I would just use a rat tail needle file, whether you want to produce a 2mm slot, or a 2.5mm hole with the centre offset from where it is now ( not sure which it is you want to do). With most the end dia will/can be under 1mm and some will have a more gentle increase in size than others. An ordinary fine grade will cut n/s quite easily, no need for diamond ones, indeed just use slow and easy strokes. I won't ask why you want to enlarge/offset the crankpin hole in a coupling rod.... just to say that if it's because they don't match up to the chassis .... don't. The loco will never run well. Axle and rod centres must always match, however sloppy the fit between them. If I have this all wrong I apologize. Izzy

If your other locos run fine then I wouldn't alter them. Most of my stock, diesels/dmus, have 6-pin CT74/75/76/77's and run just fine on the default settings. The issue with the Jinty, and with my 4F, seemed to be not only the pcb's, but the use of the new coreless motors, which I found needed cv adjustments even after the pcb's were removed. I did try all different flavours of decoder makes I had around - Bachmann/Digitrax/Lenz/Zimo/CT - in the Jinty before going down the removing the pcb route to try and ensure it was really neccesary as they are DCC ready. If you do find that removing it and hardwiring is needed then fitting a stay-alive seems rather a good idea as I have to say I am not impressed with the level of current collection reliability that the Jinty and 4F exhibit. Izzy

Very sorry, forgot to add - you'll see if you read the whole thread - that I found I had to rip out the pcb and hardwire a chip in. Not everybody finds the need to do this it seems, but with all the locos I have that don't have lights installed by default, 3FT/4F/03/04/08 etc I always now rip out the pcb's as a matter of course. This seems neccesary in other scales as well it seems, the capacitors fitted on them causing problems whatever make of decoder you fit. Awkward if you already have a 6-pin decoder......but maybe the settings might do the trick in this case on their own. I do hope so. Izzy

Hi, See my thread here, post #41. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/82934-farish-jinty-2fs-dcc-jinty-update-4f-2fsdcc-conversion/page-2 the motor control parameters are the same for all the various CT's in recent times so the DCX77zDN will I think be no different. cheers, Izzy

The only observation I would make, having in recent years built several small layouts of the size proposed by the OP - indeed my current 4mm layout is a single board 60"x10" with a 30"x 10" FY bolted on - is that the laser cut open box type kit baseboard designs with integral backscene and fascia pelmet are probably made that way to help offset any longtitudinal twisting that can occur when thinner sheet material is used to keep overall weight down to reasonable and manageble levels. I have never used them personally but no matter how many support struts I have used in those I have made myself along similar lines I have found very considerable difference between the use of 9/12mm ply and 4/6mm thickness in this respect, whatever the grades used. So long as you are aware of this and careful when moving the boards around, as well as having a good leg system as support when erected so it all stays flat and not twisted, it is not a problem. Indeed, needing to keep my layouts are light as possible I have now moved to using layered mountboard or a foamcore/mountboard sandwich construction because they are no less strong than the thinner plys, but much lighter, (the layout mentioned is around 5kgs all up). Izzy