Dungrange

Of the covered wagons, which of these liveries is still in existence (or were still in existence around ten years ago)? The first post has a photograph dated 2014, but the wagons look so dirty that it's hard to tell what the original livery was. Obviously whichever version I decide to buy, it will need a lot of weathering.

I'd like the edge to be as unobtrusive as possible. I'm busy assembling some laser cut baseboards from Tim Horn and these come with a front fascia similar to the above, except I got Tim to cut them 25 mm (one inch) above the baseboard. For the fiddle yard, that up-stand is to stop a train accidentally derailing and falling to the floor, but in the scenic part of the layout, I plan on profiling the edge a little and then plastering the scenery up to it. Most of our club layouts are the same.

I don't think the advert choice is that specific. If you visit a few websites looking for a garden shed, then Google will add its 'garden' category to your profile and then when you subsequently visit a site like RMWeb, the Google ad server will look at your Google profile, detect that Google thinks you have an interest in gardening products and will show you a random advert, possibly for a garden shed or some similar product, based on the types of product you have previously looked at (and were presumably interested in at some point in time). Since Google will only add the interest to your profile after you have considered buying something, it makes sense that you will subsequently see an advert after you have made your decision. The product supplier has only bought an advertising package with Google to place their advert in front of say 100,000 visitors to various sites. They are not going to try to ascertain whether or not you are or have been a customer for a particular product. What Google are trying to do with the data that they hold on you is to put what are hopefully more relevant adverts on your screen (as opposed to irrelevant adverts) and from the advertisers point of view, put their advert in front of the right demographic. For example, knowing that I am a 45-54 year old male, Google will probably choose not to show me adverts for women's sanitary products!

I'd agree with the above, that interior and exterior lighting should be kept on separate preferably switched circuits, so that you have some control over what is turned on and off at any particular point in time. Otherwise you will just have two scenarios: all lighting on and all lighting off. However, although interior and exterior lights would preferably be separate circuits, they don't need separate power supplies.

If you go to one of these adverts and click the little X in the top corner, Google will close the add. You can then select "stop seeing this add" or "Why this add?". If you select the later option, then you can view what Google thinks your add preferences are. You should see something like the page below. Therefore Google thinks I'm a 45-54 year old male (which is correct) and then lists categories of websites that I've visited or things that I have searched for or styles of music that I have listened to on Youtube. All of the adverts that Google serves up will be assigned to one or more of these types of categories and if Google assigns a category to an advert in my profile, then it will be one that I may be shown. The details for me shown below has a category called "Education", so therefore Google may choose to show me adverts from The Open University. If you don't want to see a particular category of advert, then you can select it and delete it from your Google profile. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a 'model railway category'

Good luck. One point (no pun intended) that I note is that the two central sidings on the right hand side are quite short. The Peco ST201 is about 13" in length. If you affix a buffer stop at the end so that you don't drive off the end of the baseboard then the length of these sidings will be shorter, which will probably make them too short to accommodate larger locomotives such as a Class 60, Class 66 etc and still have sufficient clearance to use the other siding. However, if by 'modern' you mean Class 08, Class 20, Class 26, Class 33 etc then they are probably long enough.

Deleting search history and cookies won't stop an advert being displayed - it will only stop a relevant advert that you might be interested in being displayed. If there are no model railway cookies in your browser because you have deleted them, then you will at random be shown ladies dresses or solar panels. If you leave the cookies and history, then you should, in theory, get less annoying adverts.

That looks fine to me, but I think you are missing a black feed on the third track from the bottom on the right hand side. That is, in the centre of your diagram, you have an SL-E91 with an insulated fishplate at the frog end (which is correct) but you then need a black feed somewhere on the lower rail of the ST200, SL-E91, ST201 combination.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "perfect" layout and what some like, others don't. I suppose that one benefit of being a member of a model railway club (if there is one nearby) is the opportunity to dabble in different scales or gauges should one so choose. I'm only really interested in 00, but if I wanted, there is nothing to stop me buying an 0 gauge locomotive to run on the club layout. There is also the opportunity to adopt different types of operation: we have a continuous run layout and a few end-to-end layouts. Depending on the layout that we have erected, I can run trains at speed (on the continuous run layout) or shunt the goods yard on another layout. That helps to provide a bit of variety - it's like having several layouts to choose from. As for a home layout, I've read many times about the need to avoid being too ambitious, which is probably good advice. In theory, that means that you are more likely to finish the layout. In my case, designing a small layout, meant a small terminus that was undergoing some engineering works. This would give me the excuse to have some locomotive hauled trains and engineering wagons breaking up what would otherwise just be shuttling a few DMUs back and forth. However, I found I wasn't making much progress and whilst I could say "I don't have the time", the reality is that I was just wasting what free time I do have on RMWeb!! The truth is, I wasn't sufficiently motivated to actually 'get on with it'. I have a lot of stock that I knew I would never be able to operate on such a layout and in my case it was the chance offer of a continuous run layout that prompted me to reconsider my plans for an end-to-end terminus. The layout that our club was offered, but I thought of acquiring because the club wasn't too keen, was too big for the space I have available (and it also turned out to be P4 rather than 00). However, I felt 'disappointed' that it wasn't to be and that made me realise that to some extent I'd like to sit back and watch trains go by - long trainloads of containers and other bulk freight. I then heard on here that Mick Bryan was selling his New Bryford layout and watched several videos of the layout on Youtube. I thought of buying it, but again, it was slightly too big for the space that I have available, but I realised that whilst I'm not keen on tight 'train set' radii, it is possible to hide the tightest curves and so I am currently building baseboards for my own interpretation of Mick's layout. My layout will be slightly smaller (though I'm only taking about 6 - 9"), but I'll still try and incorporate the half station and adjacent rail distribution warehouse, which should allow me to run pretty much what I want. Whether it will be 'perfect', I have no idea, but I am more motivated to 'get on with it'. Some modellers seem to build excellent little cameo or micro-layouts, but these are not really for me - I wan't to see a train running at speed. Anyway, I hope you find whatever plan gives you the motivation to make a start.

I'd prefer to use a real location or combination of real locations as inspiration over copying what someone else has done, because there is a chance of simply copying their mistakes. Well, some people do build layouts based on a particular location at a particular point in time. However, you can copy the way the real railway does things without making an exact replica of a particular place - that is, follow prototypical practises. My own railway will be a figment of my imagination, but I hope when it is finished it will look like it could have been a real railway. As an example, railway lines are normally either: Single track - ie passenger and freight trains operate at relatively low frequencies in both directions on the same piece of track. This means that the line is signalled for bi-directional working. Double track - ie passenger and freight trains will use the left most track for operating in one direction and the other track for their return journey. Each track is usually signalled only for operation in one direction. These would usually be referred to as 'up' and 'down' lines. Quadruple track - these are usually arranged something like 'Up Slow', 'Up Fast', 'Down Fast' and 'Down Slow'. Express trains will tend to operate on the 'Fast' lines and local passenger and stopping goods trains will use the 'Slow' lines. It's a bit like the railway equivalent of a dual carriageway! However, apart from the fictional lines on the island of Sodor, railway lines comprising of three parallel tracks are rare. I'm not aware of any three track lines like you are proposing (ie 'Up', 'Down' and 'Goods'), but there may be somewhere. The layout you now have will allow you to run three trains round and round at the same time. If that is something that you want to be able to do, then fair enough. If not, I'd ditch your goods line and make goods trains use your 'up' and 'down' lines in exactly the same way as the real railway would do. As for the station, you appear to have what I assume are two unidirectional lines on the outside and a bi-directional line in the centre. The issue that I have with the station is that you have a platform on both sides of the train sitting in your middle line. Again, there may be an instance where this occurs, but it is not normal railway practise. Stations to to either have an island platform where the 'up' and 'down' lines pass either side of a single platform, accessed either by a footbridge or subway, or would have the 'up' and 'down' lines side by side with a platform on either side. If the station was busier, then it may have additional platforms, but in general, I would expect two lines in between platforms. As for the top part of your plan, I don't see anything wrong with the idea of having loops on both your 'up' and 'down' lines. The real railway has plenty of loops alongside a double track line. Generally these are used by goods trains, which will be diverted into the loop to allow a following passenger train to overtake and then they will continue on their journey. In some places, loops are also used by stopping passenger services to allow non-stop express trains to overtake. I'd forget about the sections for now until you finalise a track plan that you are happy with. Try and envisage each train that you plan to operate and 'drive' your finger around your plan to make sure that you can operate it the way you want. If you are happy with your plan, then that is really all that matters.

I'd very much doubt that Flangeway are monitoring this thread, so comments are probably best sent to them directly. However, I note that the photograph that you link to is relatively recent (the straps are marked DB Schenker) so is this perhaps something that has changed since the 1980's? The sides of these boxes look as though they have three planks, so perhaps the original doors did as well. They may have rotted and just been replaced with a wider single plank more recently than the original condition being represented. That's just speculation on my part, but you'll probably need a few older photographs to be sure that they have got it wrong (if indeed they have).

I have exactly the same question as the original poster. I note when reading the data on the PSX it states "Very Low Voltage Drop: Total breaker on resistance is less than 0.060 ohms, so the PSX has a very low voltage drop even at high currents. Better than detectors that use a diode voltage drop". Does anyone know whether the NCE EB1 has similar resistance / voltage drop characteristics or if it uses a diode to drop voltage? I couldn't see that information. For the PSX, I'm assuming with a 5 Amp system drawing the full 5 Amps the potential difference across the output terminals to the track will be less that 0.3 volts less than the track voltage output by the command station.

I feared that this project would never see the light of day since progress with CAD seemed very slow, but it's great to see that the model has now got this far. I'm not really looking for 1980's versions - I'd primarily like the more modern version with ASF bogies. One with a rail crane would also be great, but I'll have to invest in a couple of the first release just to make sure that Flangeway have the cash flow to produce the versions that I really want. I agree that a RTR Salmon is long overdue - it's been on my wish list for years.

Welcome. There are plenty of people who do say a lot but don't actually contribute much, so I wouldn't worry. Besides, I often learn quite a bit from knowledgeable responses to someone else's, so called, stupid question. I'm also building a modern era DCC layout, so it will be interesting to see how your layout progresses. Good luck

If you are looking to monitor a particular position rather than movement, then some form of infra-red detector would seem to fit the bill. Something like the IRDOT from Heathcote Electronics - https://www.heathcote-electronics.co.uk/how_infra_red_model_train_detection_works.html. Effectively an infra-red beam is broken when something passes over it and the LED lights up.

Following up on my last post, to me your track plan looks more 'train set' than a model of a railway that might actually have existed. That's okay if that is what you want, and there is nothing wrong with that if you do, but it is very difficult to envisage how you would operate the railway in a prototypical manner and if you can't do that, signals are at best a decorative feature. As such, I'm not sure why you want block detection, unless you are looking for computer control or some form of automation. If that is the case, then your sections need to based on the sequence of moves you envisage and where you need to detect a train to trigger the next action. For example, assume that you have a passenger train sitting in the terminating platform (the olive line). The only way for the train to depart is via your light blue section in a counter-clockwise direction. You can run the train between the light blue section, the light green section and the pink section, but you're always going to be travelling in an anti-clockwise direction. There is no way of returning to where you started unless you were to stop and run round somewhere. There is more than one place that you could do this, but at most points it would probably look very much like abandoning the coaches in the middle of nowhere. The most obvious such place to run round is perhaps by leaving the coaches on the light blue curved section immediately below your 'goods yard' and then running round on the light green line that is on the other side of the 'goods yard' but that doesn't seem realistic. I can only envisage that you would intend to run the train from the terminal platform to one of your other two platforms in the same station and then use the other circuit to run round (eg leave the train on the light blue platform and use the pink and light green sections to run round). You can then use whatever combination of these sections you choose to get back to where you started. However, this points to all of your sections being bi-directional single track lines that just happen to be very close together. You don't appear to have a more normal 'up' line and 'down' line. For a train leaving your goods yard, you have to travel on your light blue section in a clockwise direction (the opposite direction to a departing passenger train) and it appears that you can run round the layout several times using the pink, light green and light blue sections but always in a clockwise direction and then at some point you have to stop and propel the train back into the same siding that you left from. There is no scope to run goods trains in an anticlockwise direction and if you do (one you've built your extension), you'd end up locking the locomotive into your goods yard and you'd have to release it by shunting the train to the other siding using a second locomotive. If you want to use block detection (which isn't cheap) then you need to consider what you want to achieve. Generally you would have a block on the approach to a signal and then a new block past the signal, say in the station platform. You would then set up some logic circuit such that if the section in advance of your signal were occupied (ie a train is already in the platform), then you would be unable to clear the approach signal. However, the position of the changes in section could be era dependent and if you are using current detection then you'll need to have lighting or fit resister wheel-sets to all of your stock. In the current era, which is my area of interest, the signal aspect would generally change from green to red as soon as the front of the locomotive passes the signal because it would be controlled automatically by track circuits. This means that the boundary between detection sections needs to be close to the signal as the change in aspect would be based on detection of the leading axle. However, back in the steam era, the signalman would generally have taken longer to return the signal to danger because he'd be doing so manually, so you either need your section break further from the signal, or make the reset of the signal, controlled not by the locomotive entering the next section, but by the brake van (with it's resistor wheel-set) exiting the section. The problem is that I can't envisage where you'd actually want to locate signals or what else you want to use block detection for (eg indicator lights on a panel).

Yes, you can put all sections on one DCC bus. There is no need for a separate power supply for each section. However, if you have a short somewhere (ie you overrun a set of points that are set against a train) then the command station will shut down if the trip current is reached and all trains will stop. This might be what you want, but sometimes on larger DCC layouts or those using DCC Sound, it is preferable to split the layout up so that a short on say the down line will only stop trains on the down line and trains on the up line can continue to run uninterrupted. This is because it would be the power district or sub-district circuit breaker that would trip rather than the cut-out in the command station. This doesn't necessarily mean multiple boosters, but would require a circuit breaker for 'parts', 'areas' or 'sections' of the layout depending on what name you want to use to refer to these power districts. If the sections that you are proposing are for train detection and signalling, then the definition of where you are going to have detectors needs to be related to how you propose to signal the layout. Therefore you need to think, if you have a detector on the pink section, what do you want to happen when that is occupied. This probably means that you need to divide some of your sections up, so that, for example, your system checks that the block ahead is clear before a signal can be cleared. The problem with the track plan as you have drawn is that it's not particularly prototypical and therefore probably difficult to signal in a convincing manner. It's not very clear which lines are uni-directional and which are bi-directional. The loco-release part of the olive siding in your station looks very short. This needs to be at least the length of the locomotive that you intend using on trains running into this platform. At the moment, I'm doubtful that you could accommodate anything more than an 0-4-0 tank locomotive.

When "34theletterbetweenB&D" suggested a head-shunt for the maintenance yard, I think he was suggesting something like: This head-shunt would be part of your orange section and fed from the point where the toes of two turnouts meet (ie where the one you have drawn meets the one I have added). I don't think it's necessary for you to have run round facilities in your maintenance yard. The head-shunt simply allows the transfer of stock from one siding to another without fouling your mainline. Whether you need a run-round on the olive siding in your station depends on what stock you are using. If this will be operated by multiple units then there would be no need for a run round. As has been said, if the layout is to be DCC then it technically doesn't need any sections - it should all be live. You could divide it into two power sub-districts so that something can continue to run on one half of the layout if there is a short on the other, but the sectioning you have drawn is more appropriate for a DC cab control layout. If you were going for DCC sub-districts, I'd be tempted to go with 1) Pink and Green; and 2) everything else. You can have more if you want, but each DCC power sub-district needs its own circuit breaker, so cost becomes an issue if you want the number of sections you have shown.

Agreed, and if the layout is operated by a club with a dozen or more members who may form the operating crew at an exhibition, which ones do you design for: the tallest club member or the shortest? Also, whilst it doesn't matter for an end-to-end layout, for a continuous run layout, the operators need to gain access to the central operating well and that often means ducking under the layout at the start and end of each shift. Obviously this is easier if the layout is higher and much less so, if a lower track level were adopted. The more able bodied operators are probably more able to crawl under a low layout, but this could be difficult for more elderly or less able bodied club members. Ultimately there is no right or wrong answer as there are a large number of competing parameters to define 'best'. Some layout heights will suit some viewers more than others and those at either end of the height (or eye level) spectrum will tend to find fewer layouts at an exhibition that are at or close to their desired height.

There sure is - that description sounds just like me. I did have plans for a fairly contemporary fiddle yard to terminus layout, but I seemed to get bogged down in thinking about the operating potential (or lack of) and imagining a timetable and how I could justify some other stock and not actually making much progress with construction. However, like many people, I like to see trains run at reasonable speed and shuttling multiple units between fiddle yard and platform just didn't excite me enough to get on with the construction work. Being offered the chance to buy a second hand continuous run layout made me realise that is what I want and I have therefore decided to scrap my previous ideas and build a continuous run style layout based on my interpretation of Mick Bryan's "New Bryford". It will be bigger that my previous plans and means accepting curves that are tighter than I would have liked, but I'm far more motivated to build this and am currently building baseboards. I think if you can get the right plan, then you'll get the motivation to get on with it.

I think that is a good idea and perhaps information that should be provided for all layouts to all exhibition managers. I agree with earlier points made that if it weren't for the general public paying admission to visit a model railway exhibition, then there would be no model railway exhibitions. However, the converse of that is that there also wouldn't be any model railway exhibitions if it weren't for the many individuals who give up their free time to exhibit their or their club's layout, sometimes on several weekends each year. Yes, exhibitors are usually paid expenses such as fuel costs and van hire to attend exhibitions, but they are not paid for their time. Generally they give up their free time to exhibit their layout because they 'enjoy' exhibiting. As such, I don't think it is realistic to expect someone who is six foot six tall, who prefers standing when operating because of back problems, to have to set their layout three foot from the floor just to ensure that all layouts can be viewed by small children, wheel chair users and those with dwarfism. The paying customer clearly needs to be 'entertained' if they are to keep attending model railway exhibitions, but equally, if exhibitors are not 'comfortable' when operating their layout, then they are unlikely to be so willing to give up their free time to exhibit and if because of that there are insufficient layouts available to exhibition managers to make an exhibition viable, there won't be any model railway exhibitions for anyone. That's primarily why operator comfort needs to be considered every bit as much as the needs of people in wheelchairs or tall people who have difficulty bending down.

I wonder how many layouts at exhibitions are only ever operated at an exhibition and never used outside of an exhibition hall? In my case, I'm building my home layout such that it will be able to be dismantled and exhibited, so it won't be a 'home only' layout, but equally I don't plan to worry to much about the audience, when and if I come to exhibit it, because I don't really view it as an 'exhibition layout'. A couple of our club members have taken their home layout to a local exhibition on behalf of the club and therefore I think it's fair to say that I think the height should be designed to suit them.

Yes, I got the same, an advert in Andy's post, although in my case it was for Honda.

I think these are very important points and are something that some layout operators seem to forget when they chat to their mates or fellow operators at an exhibition without ensuring the frequent movement of trains. Those who are watching are generally there to be entertained and whilst it may be prototypical, they don't actually want to see the hour in the middle of the day when there was no activity on the branch line on the shunter was in the local pub having his lunch. They want to see a train arrive at the station and another train depart before they move on to viewing the next layout. However, layouts of any height can provide that enjoyment to a section of the population. I think what is important is that an exhibition manager books layouts that have a range of operating heights so that there is something for everyone: some layouts with a low operating height that appeals to children and those in a wheelchair and some layouts with a higher operating height that may be appreciated by those who are six foot tall. That's why I agree with Clive's point below. It's not possible to make a layout that can be viewed by all in comfort. The tall person can bend down, the child can be lifted up, but if you want to take account of those in a wheelchair then you'd have to go with a lower height. Ultimately, I agree most with Clive's point that I have highlighted in bold. An exhibition provides an opportunity for someone to come along and spend five or ten minutes admiring something that has possibly taken its builder several years to construct. The subject matter of the layout, whether that be scale, era or whatever won't appeal to all, so the fact that it isn't necessarily comfortably viewed by all shouldn't be a major problem. I therefore think that comfort for the operator should be the main driver in determining the height of each layout. Since operators vary in height, so to should their layouts and therefore sometimes children will have to be lifted up and sometimes tall people will have to bend down. As long as the exhibition provides variety, there shouldn't be a problem. Public enjoyment should be met by operating the layout well and in a professional manner.

The Exactoscale sleeper bases are designed for use with code 82 rail, which is effectively scale height for flat bottom rail. Code 75 rail is scale for bullhead rail. On the prototype where bullhead and flat bottom rails meet, the top of the rail heads align, but there is a step at the underside of the rail, which I would try to replicate. I haven't actually got that far, but it is my intention to mix code 75 bullhead rail in some sections with code 82 flat bottom rail on the mainline. Unfortunately, at the moment I can't say anything other than that is my intended approach.