Dungrange

I agree that there's no need to be constrained to the Inglenook concept, as long as it's a conscious decision to move away from that concept. I guess the operational concern that I'd have is that the sidings serving your warehouse at the top of the plan can accommodate more wagons than the head-shunt, which just seems to be a single ST-201 straight, so you'll need several moves to get the wagons in and out of the siding. That said, I believe that there were numerous places where the head-shunt was significantly shorter than the sidings it served, so it's not necessarily an unbelievable scenario. Perhaps the need for a larger number of moves is a positive. I'll look forward to seeing how this progresses - I like the concept, but my desire for large bogie wagons means it's not workable with the stock that I have.

The only place that I you could use a three way point would be to combine the two points bottom right. However, you are correct that to use a three way point you would have to move away from set-track geometry as there isn't a three-way point in that range. I believe that Peco's three-way point in the code 100 streamline range is a small radius turnout (nominally 2' curve) and medium radius turnout (nominally 3' curve) superimposed on one another with the heel ends aligned and the position of the switchblades at the toe end differing by the difference in length between the small and medium radius points (~40 mm). The problem is that the streamline range has a common diverging angle of 12 degrees, whereas the set-track range is based around a diverging angle of 22.5 degrees (ie an eighth of a circle). Therefore you can't really mix and match without using flexi-track. I note that your title refers to 'inglenook', although there doesn't look to be any part of this track plan that actually meets that concept, which needs two sidings that can accommodate three wagons, one siding that can accommodate five wagons and a head-shunt that can accommodate a locomotive and three wagons. I think the only suggestion that I could make would be to move the point that's bottom right into the loop, so that the point is situated to the left of the rightmost crossover. This would increase the length of both of your sidings in the bottom right of your plan. The top one would be longer because it would start from the loop and therefore have a extra ST-200 in place of the point and with the lower siding coming off the loop in advance of the crossover, it would be one ST-201 longer. That may therefore allow you to perform the inglenook shunting puzzle on the bottom half of the layout, although it's obviously stock dependent whether you can actually fit the 3-3-5 criteria. Apart from that, I think it looks okay for the space that you have available.

Is the Hornby R965 not an old DC trainset controller? The LS150 is operated by instructions over the DCC bus (track or accessory) from a DCC command station. I think you should be able to operate the Lenz LS150 using Railmaster and whatever you DCC controller is (Hornby Elite?). Are you suggesting using the Hornby R965 instead of the Lenz TR100, which is the recommended power supply for the LS150? I note that the Lenz LS150 manual (https://www.lenz-elektronik.de/pdf/b_11150_def.pdf) states that "AC voltage must be used for the power supply. Do not use a DC supply; this can damage the LS150". It also states that "Max. voltage on AC input 16 V eff" and that "the power of the transformer used must not exceed 45VA in order to guarantee a functioning load protection." I guess to answer your question, you need to look at the transformer that is supplying the input to your R965. Some seem to be supplied with a transformer C912 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-C912-wall-transformer-and-R965-speed-control-lot-1/224357479423?hash=item343cbf73ff:g:UvwAAOSw96ZcG8Gc) which is rated at just 13VA (so may not have enough power), but some seem to be supplied with an R964 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-OO-Gauge-R965-Power-Controller-and-R964-Transformer/133664030633?hash=item1f1eff3fa9:g:f6wAAOSwER1gJ~YJ) which seems to be rated at 75VA (15V x 5A), which means you'd have no functioning load protection and therefore there may be a risk of damaging the LS150. It's also worth checking what the actual voltage output of any supply you intend to use actually is when deviating from the manufacturer's recommended power supply, as some older transformers supply a higher than stated or poorly regulated voltage. I therefore don't know whether you can use the transformer that came with your R965 as the external power supply for the Lenz LS150.

In terms of wiring it up, I'd probably split the layout into two sections with the two ST202 short straights in your loop crossovers being the dividing point with both rail joints being isolated. The top half of the layout would be fed from the left side and the bottom half would be fed between the two points that are toe to toe in the bottom right. I think that would ensure that all turnouts are fed from the toe end. If you plan on having more than one locomotive on the layout at the same time, then you'll need somewhere to isolate one of the locomotives whilst the other is running round. In terms of the track layout, the two sidings in the bottom right seem rather too short to be useful (probably only about 8" maximum between the clearance point and a buffer stop). However, I suppose it very much depends on the stock that you intend to use. In terms of track spacing, I'd expect there to be a little extra space between your warehouse siding and the 'through' line. I'm not sure about North American practice, but in the UK, whilst double tracks would normally have 6' between the running lines, sidings would normally be 10' from the nearest running line, which would provide additional room to walk round the wagon in the siding. I'm not sure that I see a need for the two ST202 tracks that you've placed in the loop crossovers: I'd be tempted to remove these to make the look closer to the through running line and move the sidings away from the running line, but that is purely because I think it would look better rather for any specific operational reason.

Further up thread it refers to track gauges of 9.42 mm and 4 mm - I understand that it is a 2mm finescale layout where the mainline locomotives are effectively N gauge, but the narrow gauge line represents 2' gauge prototypes in 2mm scale, hence the 4 mm track gauge. That therefore places the narrow gauge stock somewhere between T Gauge and Z Gauge, so I can appreciate why trying to fit a decoder in the narrow gauge locomotives is not an option. By comparison, H0e locomotives are huge. I think the confusion probably stems from the fact that the point photographed in the original post is a very fine piece of craftsmanship (or should that be craftswomanship) which may lead you to think that it's 00 and 009.

Whilst I'd heard of Footex, I had to look up both Mystex and Adex, as these aren't terms I am familar with. Where these were inter-regional services, was the same locomotive used for the whole journey, in which case outgoing services would be hauled by a southern based locomotive, but incoming services could be hauled by anything from the nearest originating depot? My search for Adex led me to the Class 40 Wikipedia page, which states "Throughout the early 1980s Class 40s were common performers on relief, day excursion (adex) and holidaymaker services ....This resulted in visits to many distant parts of the network....Regular destinations included the seaside resorts of Scarborough, Skegness and Cleethorpes on the Eastern region, with Blackpool and Stranraer being regularly visited on the West Coast. Much rarer workings include visits to London's Paddington and Euston stations, Norwich, Cardiff and even Kyle of Lochalsh." Whilst it is perhaps unlikely that that there would be many excursions from the northwest of England to North Kent, this would seem like the most appropriate way to accommodate some of the less suitable stock for this layout. I guess the problem is train length as presumably these day excursion services would typically be longer than the length of @Ray Von's platforms.

I think the point being made is that the narrow gauge is not 009, but something smaller than Z gauge. The standard gauge being 2mm finescale (or effectively N gauge) is the DCC railway. It's the smaller than Z gauge narrow gauge railway that is DC.

My understanding is that the NCE PowerCab starter set is a 2 Amp system, so under a short circuit scenario your PowerCab will probably be able to supply something like 2.1 or 2.2 Amps to the track, before shutting itself down, so that is the current that you should be designing for. The NCE PowerCab will have it's own overload protection, but you can set up a circuit breaker with a lower rating - for example, the DCCSpecialities PSX can be set to cut out at 1.27 Amps https://www.dccconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/PSX-Quick-Reference-Guide.pdf.

Voltage drop proportional to the product of current draw and the resistance of the wire, so the higher your current draw, the larger the voltage drop will be for any given wire size and length. The way to reduce the voltage drop is to reduce the resistance of the wire, which means using more strands - ie a thicker wire. Since lots of DCC systems are 5 Amps, compared to typically 1 Amp for a DC controller, this is the reason why DCC requires larger wire sizes. If your layout is to be a small inglenook type layout, with a single locomotive with a DCC system with a lower power output (I think the NCE starter kit is only 2 Amp) then the wire size will be much less critical than it will be if you are planning a larger layout with multiple locomotives and longer wire runs. In general, I'm planning to use 16/0.2 wire as a minimum (ie droppers) and then 24/0.2 for longer runs to track detection units and finally 2.5 mm2 wire for the power bus back to the command station (which can put out 5 Amps). If you are going to be mixing wire sizes, use the larger wires where you'll have the highest current, which will be the output from your command station. However, as above, I don't think of 16/0.2 wire as being 'big'.

I like the history, but wouldn't that make platforms 1 and 2 the electrified lines and platforms 3 and 4 the ones earmarked for closure unless the two lines cross to the southwest of Reculver?

As others have said, the Peco streamline points are intended to be used with flexi-track. The set-track geometry is based around curves being 45 degrees, 22.5 degrees and 11.25 degrees so that you can use whatever combination of double curves, standard curves and half curves you need to make up your desired geometry (which is assumed to be an oval). The set-track point work is designed as a simple replacement for these curves in much the same way as you can do with Brio track: remove a second radius curve and replace with a point. However, all of the Peco streamline track uses a diverging angle of 12 degrees, so just as with the set-track geometry, you can combine a combination of turnouts, diamond crossings and slips to create a prototypical looking formation. However, the track centres are less (2") so that it looks more realistic. You can certainly mix and match Streamline and Set-track, but it will very much be a case of cut to fit. You will however need to be careful with your track centres. If you scale down the prototype, then parallel tracks should be 45 mm apart (centre to centre). However, if you are using train set radius curves, then you need the tracks to be much further apart. This is what drives the set-track geometry - the need to provide 67 mm between parallel tracks (centre to centre). The Streamline point-work is intended to be a 'half-way house': the track spacing is greater than a true scale representation to account for the fact that all model railways use tighter curves than the prototype, but are intended to be used with much larger radii than you get in a train set. The answer to your question is therefore, you need to cut track if you want to mix set-track and streamline.

You can't - you'd need someone with a DCC controller to change it for you, but the default is to allow DC running, so if it's new, it shouldn't be an issue. If it's pre-owned and DC running has been disabled and you don't know anyone with a DCC controller to turn DC running back on, then you can remove the decoder and fit a blanking plate instead. However, it's probably best not to worry for now.

Could one or other of these be used as a parcels depot? I'm thinking Red Star here, although I've no idea if there would actually be any parcels traffic on the line to platform 1, as I'm not familiar with Kent.

I agree with @Geep7 that it is unlikely that the warehouse would be placed on the head-shunt of the run round loop. There would be a home signal to the left of the layout that would control access to the yard (from your fiddle yard). When that signal is cleared, it would mean that the line ahead was clear as far as the next signal, which would be the red light on the buffer stop at the end of the head-shunt. That therefore means that you can't really use the loading dock as you probably intend. I think the only way such an arrangement would be plausible would be if traffic was very infrequent and it was definitely a 'one engine in steam' type layout - ie no class 08 stabled here to do shunting: all shunting would be done by the trip work loco. Sticking with your plan as far as possible, I think I'd bring the main route down the plan a couple of inches, so that you can then fit the run round loop on the top side. Your warehouse could then be served by a spur off the loop (where you have it at the moment), which would be situated parallel but behind the head-shunt of the run round loop. The two siding can remain as they are. What you put in the bottom right corner is up to you, but I'd probably just have a largish industrial building to block the view of the entrance to the fiddle yard.

I'd agree that Excel is suitable for creating a timetable. The last layout that I planned, but didn't build, was going to be a fictional post-privatisation era passenger terminus in central Scotland, but with some off-scene freight facilities. I started by listing destinations for passenger trains and desired frequencies to each and likely journey and layover times. That then meant I could calculate the number of unit that I would require to operate each service. Due to the assumed constraint of a single track branch line, I then arranged the services as arrival, arrival, departure, departure as that would have allowed the single line to be worked more intensively and I then looked at gaps to fit in assumed freight services. I don't think that there is a right or wrong way to go about it, but I'd probably start with the most frequent service and then keep adding services until you run out of fiddle yard space.

As @Harlequin says, your slope is 1 in the horizontal distance divided by the vertical distance (making sure you use the same units). I'd agree that 1:16 is a pretty steep gradient and is likely to cause problems with anything other than very short trains. It's also worth pointing out that if you are trying to raise the track 93 mm in just 1.5 metres, then it's your average gradient that will be 1:16. You will need transitions at the top and bottom of your slope from flat to gradient and back to flat again, which inevitable means that your maximum gradient will be steeper than 1:16. How much steeper will depend on how smooth your transition curves, but the smoother the transitions, the steeper the maximum gradient will be. I suspect that you'll probably end up with a maximum gradient of around 1:13, which is much steeper than a generally recommended maximum of about 1:30. If you do decide you want a gradient that steep, then make sure you test the stock that you intend to run on the gradient first. It's your layout, but personally, I'd try to avoid gradients as far as possible, unless you can achieve something relatively flat like 1:50.

Since you don't have an Accessory Bus, I think the only reason to use Circuit Breakers would be to reduce the number of locomotives that are impacted when you have a short. Without any Circuit Breakers, a short will cause all of your Sound Fitted locomotives to stop making sound and once the short circuit is removed, they will presumably all go through their start up sequence from scratch. If you were to divide the layout into two sub-districts, then only half of your locomotives would shut down. Whether it's worth the expense - probably not.

When wiring points, these should always be fed from the toe or switchblade end of the point. When using Electrofrog points, it is necessary to isolate the 'frog' by adding insulated rail joiners to both frog rails as per the instructions on the packaging. The only exception to this is where you are using DC and the rail from the frog goes to a dead end siding. In such circumstances, the insulated joiner can be omitted and the whole siding treated as though it is just an extension of the frog. In the case of isolated sections, these can just be a simple Single Pole Single Throw (SPST) on-off switch. That is, it is only necessary to switch off one of the rails to make the section dead. With regards the loop, if you just make the feeds to the section you've isolated run through a Double Pole Single Throw (DPST) on-off switch, then you'll be able to isolate a locomotive in the loop / siding. The only problems that I can see with your diagram as shown, is that you will definitely have a short where your twin siding pulls away from the loop when the point is set for the sidings, unless you isolate the frog within the loop (ie there are adjacent red and blue feeds) and you also need a feed at the toe end of the point at the bottom right. Apart from that, I think it should work.

Like you, this is not my industry and I don't even run my own business, but I'm not convinced that I'd be rushing to issue a public statement if I was the business owner of Flangeway. I suspect that I'd look at the fact that I commissioned 4,000 units and I'd sold around 3,500 of these at £50 per wagon before I became aware that there was an issue with the length / scale. I think it's fairly obvious that nothing can be done to rectify the fact that the model is too short. Rather than rush to issue a public statement, I think I'd wait a few weeks and see what the response from the public is. Will 250 models be returned from unhappy buyers, or will 3,000 be returned? As a business owner, I think I'd want to know that, so that I could calculate how much money I stand to lose before deciding on a way forward. @Phil Bullock and @russ p have indicated that they are willing to keep the models that they have purchased despite the models being a little short (and they know that). There will be others, and there will be modellers who are blissfully unaware that there is an issue (and therefore presumably happy with their purchase). What is unknown is what percentage of sales to date have been made to such individuals? If Flangeway wait to see how many are returned, then they will have a better understanding of the answer to that question. I therefore think that if I was the owner of Flangeway, I'd be waiting a few weeks or even months and then issuing a statement to confirm that due to [unspecified] 'production issues' with the first batch of Salmon the next batch of models has been cancelled and that they [Flangeway] will be making [unspecified] amendments to the tooling before a new batch is produced. I'd then highlight that these new tooled models probably wont be available until 2023/24 and that more details will appear on the website nearer the time. Why point out the issues to those who are happy with their models and maybe prompt them to return their models? That would only be more likely to create a cash flow issue. If there are a lot of returns, then the answer would be to reduce the price and see what people are willing to pay. If there aren't too many returned, then just have a 'sale' in a few months to dispose of the models that didn't sell at £50, or as has been mentioned earlier, dump some of them with one of the 'box shifters'. I don't expect a statement from Flangeway any time soon, but perhaps that's just me.

Whilst that is true, how many existing purchasers are going to add to their rake? Perhaps despite the compromised model, there may be enough demand for a further production run, but I don't think I'd be taking the gamble if I was Flangeway. I think I'd simply focus on trying to get rid of as much of the first batch, for as much money as possible. The point that I was trying to make about the lack of demand for subsequent batches is that I doubt anyone who was holding off for a model from the second batch is going to be that interested anymore. I was waiting for the version with the ASF bogies, but if I was willing to overlook the fact that the model is too short, then I'd also be the sort of person who would be willing to overlook bogie details and therefore would simply have bought models from this batch.

I suppose that would be good to know. If the bogies are correct, then Flangeway would only need to retool the deck, whereas if the bogies are incorrect, then everything needs to be retooled - ie nothing is salvageable. I also note that if the wheels on the prototype are nominally 2ft 9 in, then the model wheels should be 11 mm diameter (which would explain why Cambrian recommend 10.5 mm wheels) and that means that @letterspider's assessment above indicates that there was indeed an issue at the EP stage that wasn't picked up.

As has already been discussed in this thread, the answer is no. The prototype wagon should be 19,938 mm over buffers. If you scale that to 00, then the wagon should be about 262 mm in length. If you scale it to H0 then it should be 229 mm (ie 33 mm shorter than 00). @freightliner_bond_57007 posted on Monday that the wagon is 240 mm in length, so while it is 22 mm too short for 00, it is also 11 mm too long for an H0 model. It simply seems to have been produced to an indeterminate scale that is somewhere around 1:83.

Okay, but the prototype wagons are 62' over headstocks, so if your scaling implies a 60' deck, then that would imply that there was an error with the Engineering Prototype (EP) - ie it would be 8 mm too short. I find it very difficult to believe that the EP was accurate but the models from the production batch are not. I suspect that the basic dimensions of the EP were simply not checked by Flangeway when they received the EP and that Flangeway's checking process was limited to looking at the fit of the different parts and whether the model ran okay. It captures the look of the prototype, it runs okay, the fit of the separate components is good, so let's just approve it and get the model into production. I therefore very much doubt that it's a production line issue. It's very disappointing for all of us who were looking forward to these, but I can only assume that the company are gutted as well.

What I don't understand is why those who have stated that they are not happy with the product are waiting for a statement from Flangeway. What do you expect that statement to say and why does that influence your decision as to whether to return an expensive wagon that you are not happy with? I also don't see any immediate 'remedy', so I don't see that as a reason to wait. Surely you are either willing to keep the models or you are not? Mistakes happen, but this is not one that is easy to rectify. It's not a printing issue like a couple of recent Hornby locomotives, where Hornby were able to get a few body shells made with a corrected livery that were available to those who contacted customer services to complain. There isn't anything Flangeway can do to make these wagons okay, bar offer a partial refund to those who have already made a purchase in the hope that they will keep them. The problem that the company has is that they have had something like 4,000 of these wagons produced and they were hoping to sell these at £50 each. That therefore means that they were expecting around £200,000 of income from the sale of these wagons to set against the tooling and development costs that they have already incurred. They therefore need to try to recover as much money as they can from this batch to minimise their losses. It's therefore reasonable that they don't want to shout 'we f'd up - please just send them back to us or you can keep them for a tenner'. They need to try to sell as many as possible at as high a price as possible to minimise their losses. The only remedy is to produce a new batch, but since that will involve new tooling, it will neither be quick (ie more than a year) nor cheap (ie a six figure sum). It might seem easy enough to say that they should just make a statement that a new batch of correct length will be produced in 2022, but being a relatively small company, they probably can't commit to that. Who will finance the next batch? My understanding is that they were intending to use the money from this batch to pay for the production of the next batch which would include more recent bogies and I think also a crane version. If the company has to have a fire sale to get rid of these models, and they have no comeback on the factory because they had an under scale model in their hands in the UK for approval, then it could be years before the company can afford to produce a corrected batch. Presumably the research and CAD work has some value, but it's effectively back to the start on development of a correct length model. Perhaps the closest equivalent I can think of is when Hornby produced their first batch of the MHA Coalfish wagons with the wrong number of ribs on the body. I don't recall Hornby making a statement or recalling the wagons. The magazine reviews were critical and that prompted Hornby to create a new body tool for subsequent batches. However, the first batch of incorrect MHA still turn up on second hand stalls - I've got a couple so that I can scrap the body and fit one of S-Kits replacement bodies to represent the later builds.

You've lost me. These wagons, whilst short for 00, are longer than they would be if they had been scaled to H0. They are therefore much larger than a Salmon would be in TT.