Dungrange

I suspect that the answer lies in the couplings. An end to end type layout normally requires a lot of coupling and uncoupling whether for shunting, running round or loco release, which I'd suggest is less that ideal in this scale. Fixed rakes will be easier, which points towards a continuous run type layout.

I understand your rational, but unfortunately, it wont really work in practise with your plan as drawn. Your top tunnel portal is shown on a section where you have standard double track centres. That therefore means that as you move into the curve you only have a few millimetres of clearance between the end throw of whatever is on your inner circuit and the centre overhang of your longest bogie stock on the outside circuit. There won't be enough space to fit a representation of a rock cutting. If you really need the tunnel to be at that part of your layout, then it would be better to have a double track portal at the top of the plan and possibly two separate single track portals at the lower end. If you want a short section of rock cutting, then it would be easier to achieve this by staggering the two tunnel portals so that in the bottom right corner of your plan, the outer track remains in tunnel until closer to the station, while the inner track emerges from the tunnel earlier and you'd then have cutting between the tunnel portal and the station at a location where your tracks are. The issue is that you won't have a good view of the cutting from the front of the layout, but it would be possible to swap the tunnel portals, so that you have the tunnel portal for the inside track closer to the point for your return loop and the other roughly where you have shown it at the moment. This would tend to make the right end of your through station look more like two single track lines rather than a double track section of track.

If you look at @McC's parts diagram from 11 July above, we're talking about part 17, which sits between the die-cast wagon and the containers. It's not something special to the barrier wagon pack.

That looks marginally better, but I still don't think you have the required clearances between your two continuous runs at the entry to your goods yard. The parallel tracks at the top where you have your facing a trailing crossovers are presumably standard set-track clearances (67 mm) and you need to maintain this spacing all the way around your curves otherwise the end throw of a locomotive on the inner circuit is likely to hit the centre of a coach on the outer track. Whilst there may be scope to reduce the spacing by a few millimetres depending on the stock you plan on using, it still looks a bit tight, so make sure to check when you start track laying. Your return loop now means that your access area will have to shift to the right, so whilst that can still fit, check that it will still allow you to reach everywhere required. With regards the new terminal station, this would be operated such that you need a locomotive sitting in one platform and you'd drive your train into the other platform. You'd then use the locomotive to shunt the coaches to the other platform to release the inbound locomotive (ie it will perform the shunt release for your next inbound train. If your rational for including two platforms was to have two passenger trains in the terminus station at the same time, then you'll need somewhere else to stable your shunt release locomotive. You could do this by using one of the sidings in the goods yard for locomotive stabling, but ultimately it depends on whether your interest lies more to the shunting of goods stock or the running of passenger trains.

If it provides what you are looking for - great. I note that you effectively have two continuous run circuits, but that it won't be possible for you to run trains on both simultaneously because the two circuits are too close to one another in the top left of the plan to accommodate the entrance to your goods yard. At the radii that you're using you really need at least 60 mm between your track centre lines. I think that this is something that you should probably look at trying to address, even if that means you have to shorten the sidings by a few inches to get the geometry to work. I can see how you'd operate a freight train between the goods yard and warehouse/industrial sidings, taking one of several routes between these start and end points. A train can be stabled at either point. However, I'm less sure that I understand your proposed passenger train operation. Effectively there is no place for them to go, so they can only run round one or other of the ovals stopping at the station. The issue is that there is nowhere to store these passenger trains other than leaving them sitting in the platform and of course if that's where you stable a passenger train, then it limits your options for the routing of a goods train. Personally, I think I'd be tempted to get rid of the Loco Sheds (unless you plan to buy a lot of locomotives and not much else) and create a single platform terminus at this location. You can then run a passenger train out and back from this location, which can stop at your through station as many times as you want, but you have somewhere to stable that train that doesn't get in the way of running on your continuous run circuits / return loop arrangement. Given that I can't envisage the above plan being able to accommodate more than about three trains on the layout at the same time, the locomotive facilities seem a little excessive. If you want locomotive stabling facilities, a single track up by where I've suggested a terminus could probably be accommodated and you could also probably add a small sub-shed in the bottom right corner if desired.

Doh! Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I did read the instructions on that link previously, but never noticed the rather obvious "Not for DC, Analogue" in a box at the top of the page!! That therefore confirms that if I want to accommodate the ability to run DC, then these would need to be disconnected first. I haven't started track laying yet, so it will be a while before I actually get to wiring anything other than droppers, but I need to think about how the grander wiring scheme will look sooner or later.

I agree that this looks better. My main concern now is how close your track centre line seems to be to the edge of your baseboard. You'll need an absolute minimum of 1" from centre line to edge of the baseboard but I'd try to work with about 1 1/2" as a minimum and 2" would be better. Looking at the plan, it appears that the edge of the sleepers are on the baseboard edge. I also agree with the point above about creating a non-passenger platform in your station. At the moment, it's clear that a passenger train can depart from any of your four platforms, traverse your circuit of track in either direction and arrive back at the station. You'll then need to use another locomotive to shunt the coaches to another platform to release the locomotive that has just arrived. That is prototypical enough. However, it's less clear how you would operate the freight trains from the sidings in the middle of the layout as a departing freight train would pass through your tunnel and arrive in what is currently just a passenger station. If you have a non-passenger siding at this location, then you have somewhere for your freight train to go. Again, the goods engine would have to be shunt released.

The minimum size of the operating well, will depend on how big you are. I suggested 18" square above as that's the minimum space that I could squeeze into, but I'd probably prefer something closer to 22" square. However, if you're quite large then you need to design the operating well around you. Possibly best to measure across your shoulder blades to give you a figure to work with.

Okay, your plan is not ideal for the space available, as the wall along one edge means that there is an area of your track plan where you will not be able to reach. In general, don't plan to be able to stretch more than two foot from the baseboard edge, although if you're reasonably tall or the layout is set quite low, then you can probably stretch about 2' 6" (750 mm) with relative ease, but three foot would be an absolute maximum if you're both tall and the layout is low. That means that there is an area at least two foot by one foot, but potentially as big as four foot by two foot that you simply won't be able to reach if something derails (and it will). On your first plan you have a scissors crossover and the access to your two sidings in that area. I think you'll therefore need to consider some form of central operating well, or at least an access hole that's around 18" square into which you can gain access. If you go with @Chimer's suggestion of a return loop (which I quite like, although it doesn't give you a continuous run if that is important to you), then you'd create the access hole in the centre of the return loops. Unfortunately, if this becomes the operating well, then your tunnel will be behind you, which may not be what you are looking for.

A scissors crossover is what you have drawn, which effectively comprises four points and a diamond crossing. However, much more common would be a crossover made up of just two points and these can either form a facing crossover or a trailing crossover depending on whether you are using left hand or right hand points. Left hand points will give you a trailing crossover and right hand points will give you a facing crossover in the context of a double track line, where trains drive on the left. In your period, trailing crossovers would be far more common. Effectively, a scissors crossover is a trailing crossover overlaid on a facing crossover. What @The Johnster is suggesting is that you replace the scissors crossover with a facing crossover followed by a trailing crossover. There are a number of advantages to this approach. Firstly, you still need the same four points, but you no longer need the diamond crossing, so it reduces the cost. Secondly, although two separate crossovers will use up more length, it would allow you to move the two parallel tracks closer together, which helps if your curves are rather close to the baseboard edge. It is also likely to be more prototypical, as the real railway tended to only install scissors crossings where they were essential due to space constraints.

Try thinking through how you intend to operate the layout to judge whether it provides you with what you are looking for. My main comment is that the sidings to the left of your image are all rather short - the usable length is less than the length of the track, as I'm assuming you will add buffer stops and you need about three to six inches at the heel end of the point to allow the adjacent sidings to be used. Of the six sidings, the lower ones don't look as though they will accommodate more than a small tank locomotive or maybe a couple of private owner wagons but not both at the same time. I'd therefore be tempted to get rid of the curved point and the lower of these sidings, so that you create a single longer siding that can accommodate a train that is perhaps three feet long (ie a locomotive and three bogie coaches). The loop at the station is also very short. Again, you need to measure the distance between the heel end of the two points and subtract around six to 12 inches to provide the necessary clearances for a run round manoeuvre and you'll find that you are not able to run round more that a single coach. If you're looking to use the loop as a passing loop, then you'll be restricted to very short trains. The stationary train when two pass will probably have to a rail-car or one coach DMU in more modern times since I doubt you'll be able to accommodate a locomotive and coach unless it's a tank locomotive and a four or six wheel coach. I'd be tempted to try and move the point-work for the loop onto the curve if possible. As for the tunnel, I'd be inclined to keep the track through the tunnel level and ensure that you have access to whatever derails in the tunnel. I'm assuming that you have access to all sides: it's difficult to stretch more than two feet to sort a derailment.

Most of the time I will be the only operator. However, the layout will be able to be dismantled and could, at least in theory, be taken to an exhibition, where I'd probably have two or possibly could accommodate three operators. I was primarily looking at including a Circuit Breaker so that I can have a separate Accessory Bus, so that overrunning a set of points and causing a short wont shut down the Command Station and the Accessory Bus. However, I take your point about the difficulty of leaving something running whilst dealing with an incident, so a single PSX may be more appropriate than two or three. Okay, I think this answers my question. Looking at the instructions again, I see you are correct - there is no separate power supply to the board, so the electronics on it must be powered from the DCC Input on terminals J1-3 and J1-4. Consequently, it doesn't seem like a good idea to vary the voltage across these terminals, so if I want to be able to connect a DC controller, it looks as though the Circuit Breaker (or Breakers) need to be disconnected as well as the Command Station. That also points to minimising the number of PSX boards, as high current multi-pole switches seem to be rather expensive.

I'm currently building what will be a continuous run DCC layout in my attic. I'm planning to include a couple of DCC Circuit Breakers (possibly the DCC Specialities PSX) between my DCC command station (the 5A Sig-na-trak ACE2) and the track bus(es). However, I'd also like to be able to unplug the DCC Command Station and plug in a DC controller for testing, running in and just to be able to run some locomotives that I'll probably never convert to DCC. My question is therefore could I pass the 0 - 12V DC voltage through a PSX without damaging it, or when looking to connect up a DC controller, would I also have to also disconnect all DCC Circuit Breakers? I'd plan to include a switch to ensure that it wouldn't be possible to have both DC and DCC connected to the layout simultaneously, but whilst a DPDT switch would suffice if it was placed between the Command Station and the circuit breakers, I'd need a 4PDT, or 6PDT switch if I was to adopt the same approach with two or three PSX boards adding an extra two poles for each PSX. I wouldn't be looking for the PSX's to work under DC (because I'd probably only be feeding 0.5A to the layout), just that they wouldn't be damaged. Any thoughts?

From my own perspective, I think there are two reasons here. At the time of the first survey, I was scheduled to be operating a layout at Model Rail Scotland at the end of February 2021. I had no intention of looking to attend an exhibition before then, but I felt comfortable enough with exhibiting that far into the future with the trajectory of reducing new cases and deaths being announced each day. As such, when I completed the survey the first time, I selected January / February 2021. However, Model Rail Scotland 2021 has now been cancelled and therefore, whilst I'd maybe still be okay with an exhibition at the end of February 2021, I doubt that I'll actually attend an exhibition that early, so I opted for March / April 2021 instead. My response of slipping into the next category is obviously being repeated by others. However, some of that may be due to the cancelling of other exhibitions, so once we know one is cancelled, we look to the date at which the next exhibition we might attend is normally scheduled and ask ourselves if we think we'd be content to attend that exhibition that may still go ahead. However, as has been said, it's a difficult question to answer because respondents are trying to guess from the information available to them when the number of cases in their region will be low enough for them to consider it 'safe'. A couple of months ago, at a national level, the number of new cases and deaths being announced each day was falling and it's possible that many assumed that trajectory would continue. However, we've seen in recent weeks that the number of cases and deaths has stopped falling and therefore the point at which the number of new cases / deaths drops to say single figures, is clearly moving further into the future. We're also seeing an increase in cases in other parts of the world due to reopening of the economy and trying to factor in the same likelihood here. It obviously makes it very difficult to plan the timing of a show.

Personally, I'd add a crossover in the lower station, so that a train from your elevated terminus can cross over into the inner (anti-clockwise) circuit, otherwise your trains from the branch will be running in the wrong direction on the outer track. The same is true for a train from the bay platform / loco shed at the lower station - you don't have a crossover to get to the inner circuit, albeit this is slightly less obvious as that part of the layout is hidden. Whether or not you have enough siding space depends on what stock you have, but there is not a lot of non running lines to stable stock, so I'd think you're probably limiting yourself to three or four trains. Try thinking through your operating sequence to ascertain whether the proposed plan will provide you with what you're looking for.

Not having a Prodigy unit, I don't know why this doesn't work because it sounds as though it should, but some DCC command stations differentiate between short address 33 and long address 0033. I assume you are using consistent address lengths on both the programming and main track outputs?

How do you know that there isn't a short? It sounds as though the command station is detecting a short circuit, which implies that there is a short circuit somewhere (and there would still be a short circuit if you were using DC control instead). Unfortunately, without seeing your track plan and where you have installed insulated rail joiners, I can't advise where that short circuit is. Clearly, if you only have two wires to the track then the problem is most likely somewhere in your configuration of points where you should have an insulated rail joiner but don't and therefore a particular combination of points set a particular way causes a short circuit. You've indicated that you have a DC controller, so you could always try disconnecting your Prodigy entirely and connecting a DC controller to the same two wires. Whether you need to disconnect the Autofrogs, I don't know, but they could be the source of your short circuit if the frogs aren't properly isolated.

In "real" railway practise a trap point is installed such that it will deflect a vehicle away from the line that it is intended to protect. In the majority of cases that will probably be into the cess on the left side. The trap point could be a single switch blade like the type Peco produce, but it could also be two switchblades (ie half a standard turnout) or a full turnout, sometimes even with a buffer stop or sand drag. In many locations a separate trap point isn't required if another turnout that say provides access to a head-shunt provides the same protection. I believe this is known as 'flank protection'. However, the situation you describe here is one where you don't want to deflect a vehicle to either the left or the right because the trap point needs to protect the lines running either side. This therefore requires a "wide to gauge" trap point, which has two switchblades that move in opposite directions, so that the vehicle will derail in a straight direction. You'd have to build this yourself as I don't think there is a ready to lay version on the market - certainly not in the Peco catalogue. As for why trap points are often omitted from model railways, I suspect that it's a combination of the fact that many train set modellers simply don't care too much about prototypical accuracy, a lack of knowledge regarding where they would be required, coupled with the fact that they take up space and cost money for little perceived benefit. However, if you are aiming for prototypical fidelity, then they should be represented. All of our club layouts have non-working representations of catch points.

I doubt that it would be a new installation on mainlines today because three aspect signalling, which can display a red aspect on each signal, is more flexible and provides more capacity for running trains. However, I understand that two aspect signalling still exists across many parts of the network, particularly on lightly trafficked secondary lines, where the existing semaphores were almost replaced like for like with colour light signals in a piecemeal basis. If there is no need to increase the line capacity, then there is no need to update the signalling and what was installed many years ago can remain. There are even a few semaphore signals left on the rail network.

That looks to be a problem with the sample that Accurascale used for the first image on their website. See - https://accurascale.co.uk/collections/pfa-2-axle-container-flat-wagon/products/pfa-container-wagon-p The top images shows one with a slightly warped insert (which I believe is used to hold the container above the wheel flanges), the middle image shows a wagon with the insert missing, and the bottom wagon is fine. Interestingly, when the wagon was turned, the warped inset was removed (or fell off).

I think the problem is that you are referring to a Limited Edition pack that was produced by Bachmann for Model Rail and the chances are that somewhere in the original contract there would have been a clause that would prevent Bachmann making further models. If not, then what was sold as a Limited Edition would no longer be as limited. I think the only way round that would be to produce a coach pack that is different in some way from the Limited Edition version - eg it's a weathered pair.

Is it something to do with F0 and F1 on your command station having these as 'momentary' rather than 'latching' functions. I believe on most command stations you can set individual function keys to be either momentary (ie when you press the F key the function will activate for however long you hold the key down) or latching (where you press the F key to turn the function on and then press it again to turn it off). This would be the same for all locomotive decoders irrespective of brand and resetting the locomotive decoders wouldn't change your command station settings.

I note that the length of these is 325 mm over buffers, but what is the length between the pivot points on the bogies? I'm just wondering how the overhang on these wagons compares to say a Mark 3 coach (which is 210 mm between the bogie pivots).

It was clarified up thread that they are same price as the ones with containers and I paid £69.95 for my set without containers.

Yes, it's disappointing that Model Rail Scotland 2021 has been cancelled, but it's not entirely surprising. In previous years, the first payment of the hall hire charge was normally due about seven months in advance of the show (ie the end of July), so the decision as to whether or not to commit to the 2021 show needed to be made now. In this instance the venue informed the show organisers that they couldn't commit to the booking on the planned dates, which has effectively forced the cancellation of the show. As the Nominated Member for my club, I voted in agreement with the proposal to cancel and hope that AMRSS Ltd can put on a great show in 2022 instead.