Dungrange

No - just a toy - but of course we can all use our imagination and pretend that it represents something that is real. 16.5 mm can be whatever you want it to be - we just don't all agree what that is!!!

I agree that not all 00 track is a model of 4' 1 1/2" track - just this particular range. Up until now, Peco 00 Streamline track has effectively been a model of 4' 8 1/2" standard gauge gauge track. That is, the assumption is that 16.5 mm = 4' 8 1/2" and you scale everything from that. That effectively gives you sleepers that are too narrow and too close together for true 4mm scale so that all the track components are in proportion to the gauge. This effectively gives you the H0/00 Streamline ranges that we are all familiar with. In many ways, it's 00 modellers who insist that their track accurately represents standard gauge track that has led to Peco producing the same standard for so long. To use your analogy of a short coach, if a 60' coach that is supposed to be 240 mm long is compressed onto an under frame that is only 224 mm long by making all of the doors and windows slightly narrower, but still retaining the same number of doors and windows, then you effectively have a coach that has been designed as though it were a 60' coach, but which isn't quite to the stated scale of 1:76.2. That may be a nice model, but would probably draw criticism that the windows were too narrow (ie not the correct proportions) etc. That would be consistent with the way in which the existing streamline range was designed and it has received many of the same criticisms that the sleeper spacing was wrong. However, for this particular range, Peco seem to have designed every element of the track to 4mm scale - ie rail height and profile, sleeper width and spacing and since each component of the model (which is what track is) is at 1:76.2, that therefore means that this particular range is an accurate scale model of 4' 1 1/2" track. There is nothing to stop individuals pretending that is really 4' 8 1/2" gauge to match the prototype that they are modelling - it's up to individuals how they want to think. Many won't care. That is, the new range of track is more analogous with taking a 60' coach and removing one compartment or one window to create a 56' coach that has windows and doors that are the correct dimensions - just not enough of them - and making a model of that on your 224 mm under frame. It's still not right, but in my opinion, it would look less odd when mixed with scale length coaches because the windows on the 56' coach (even although no such prototype may have existed) would match the windows on the scale 60' coach. In the same way, I think this new range of track is better, because the sleeper spacing etc better matches the rolling stock that sits on it.

The IOR seems to imply that the chip is made by International Rectifier (IR). The 'O' seems to be a logo rather than the letter O https://www.elnec.com/en/support/ic-logos/manufacturer-description/?manuf=International+Rectifier+%28IR%29 I'm not sure about the rest.

I'm currently de-branding a Bachmann 158 in Wessex Trains livery to represent a unit later in its life (ie after some were transferred to other operators around 2007). Unfortunately, when removing the branding, I have also removed some of the silver livery. Can anyone advise of the best paint match to the 'silver' colour that Bachmann use? I don't want a full re-spray - just touch up before weathering. Also, the doors were re-painted a lighter and more pink shade in the latter part of their lives. The Bachmann model represents the earlier colour scheme. Again, can anyone advise as to a good representation of this colour?

The sad thing is, that's true.

That's a great description of the stock on my layout. That's why I want track to match.

No, I understand all the points that you have made - without taking offence! Why have Peco decided to start with a large radius point? To me that is obvious: having decided to produce track with timber width and spacing to 4mm scale, the obvious outcome will be point-work that will tend to accentuate the fact that the track gauge is under scale more than Peco's previous ranges (when sleeper spacing and track gauge are in proportion). The best way to mitigate that will be to use longer point-work. I'm not sure that a short turnout will look particularly good, but I think peco have made a shrewd move in producing large radius points first. If they'd started with the small radius points, I think that there would have been more negative criticism that there will be when we actually see the first production turnouts 'in the flesh'. Hopefully there will be some reviews of the new points as soon as they hit the shops. Hopefully they will be favourable.

Reading this thread, It's not hard to see why it has taken Peco so long to produce this range of track as there are too many people looking to take offence when none is intended. Anyone who wants an exact scale model of track at 1:76.2 will be modelling in S4. Those that are willing to accept some compromises but want something as close to scale as possible will model in either P4 or EM depending on what compromises they are willing to accept. In P4 the flange gaps are too big and EM introduces an error in the track gauge with even bigger flange gaps. However, commercial 00 track is targeted at those of us who are committed for one reason or another to a track gauge of 16.5 mm. Most of us know it's wrong, but life is short. Not all of us have the time, money and skills to hand-build S4 track-work and convert every item of rolling stock to an exact track gauge. However, any manufacturer of 00 track has to make a choice when designing a product and there are really only two options. The first is to create a scale model of 4' 8 1/2" gauge track, where all dimensions are scaled in proportion to the track gauge. That is, since the gauge is only 87.5% of what it should be, the sleeper width, length and spacing should be scaled by the same amount. This effectively results in H0 scale track and is the approach that Peco have taken for many years. One of the advantages of this approach is that is has 'the longer look', as there will be more sleepers in a given length of track. In isolation, it should also be a more accurate representation of true 4' 8 1/2" gauge track. However, for this new range of track, Peco seem to be working on the principle that if 00 modellers 'accept' that the track gauge is wrong (ie it's only 4' 1 1/2") then modellers can have everything else, such as rail height, sleeper width and sleeper spacing all correct and in proportion with the 4 mm scale rolling stock that pass over it. To me, that is a great improvement over trying to create scale 4' 8 1/2" track for me to run my inaccurate 00 rolling stock on. However, I see nothing wrong with anyone highlighting what this product is; a 1:76 scale model of 4' 1 1/2" track. That is what it is and that is what I want.

Okay - I think I agree with that. If the book is to be accessible (ie one that can be understood by the average layperson), then it's probably best to be brief.

Thanks - that's what I thought. I think the key point is the section I've highlighted in bold. Since there is no fixed signalling provided, I think it should probably fall out of scope. However, lines that are designed for bi-directional operation on a regular or normal basis (ie single track branch lines and the like), should definitely fall within the scope of Simon's book. Reversible signalling is a term that I've never heard of before and seems to be more of a grey area. If reversible signalling has infrastructure associated with it, then perhaps that should fall within the remit of Simon's book depending on how common such arrangements are. That is, Simon's chapter on working of single lines (7a) could highlight the key differences between Reversible signalling and full bi-directional working if appropriate. What I don't know is whether Reversible signalling would be common on the types of layout that most of us try to create, which is where Simon should focus his teaching.

Is "Singe Line Working" the term used for bi-directional working on one line of a multiple track formation due to disruption or engineering works on the other line(s)? If that is the case, then I agree that it's not really relevant to the location of signals and other infrastructure, which is what i think most modellers require information / guidance on and what I think your book should cover. I'd therefore agree that this should probably be highlighted as being out of scope. Also, make sure that all of your acronyms are explained on first use. I hate reading reports that I have to try and figure out what LOR, IECC, ROC, etc might mean. They may be obvious to those in the industry, but not clear to the layperson. Although I know some of the acronyms you've used (ECS, LED, TCB, SPAD, etc) there is no guarantee that all of your readers will know all of them. When writing reports and even some e-mails at work (because they are often forwarded to others), I usually work on the premise that someone won't know what some of the acronyms that are obvious to me mean and therefore write them out in full. I usually tell the graduates that work for me that I want something that they think their grandmother would understand!

Yes, I think the code change from PFA to KFA occurred around 1990 or thereabouts, so I'm assuming the PFA you have ordered will be in 'as built' condition. I don't know how long it would have taken to change the TOPS code on each wagon in the fleet, but I would assume most, if not all, would have been coded KFA by the time BR was privatised in the md 1990s.

We'll it's your railway, but my first comment would be why two engine sheds? In general I'd expect an engine shed to either be located at the end of a branch line (which will stable a locomotive that operates an early morning outbound service) or at a junction (possibly providing motive power for both the branch and the mainline). As drawn it looks as though this station is in the middle of a single track branch, so why would locomotives be stabled here? If you want an engine shed, then there will also need to be facilities to service the local engine (coal, water, ash pit etc). You haven't stated a time period, but I would expect some form of goods yard; most stations had some provision for handling freight until the end of steam. This station doesn't seem to have any facilities apart from a single siding. What is the siding for? Why was this railway built: what earns the line the revenue that it needs to survive? Give a bit more thought to the type of traffic that you wish to operate. The two loops in the middle seem rather odd to me. On a single track branch line, the purpose of a loop is to allow one train to pass another travelling in the opposite direction. As you've drawn this, it looks as though all stopping services have to crossover into the top loop to access the platform. Why? The only reason for doing this would be so that a stopping passenger service could be brought into a loop to allow an express train to pass, but you're not going to have such a scenario on a single track branch line. I can't see a reason for providing two loops like this on a single track line and I'm not aware of any such prototype location. Signals are located in the positions that a driver needs to receive an instruction from the signalman, whether that be to slow down (because the next signal is at stop), stop or start the train, or undertake a shunting move. However, I think you need to think a bit more about the trains that you will operate before trying to signal your track plan.

As I've not yet chosen a DCC system, I can't advise on the hardware side, but to fully automate such a layout, may require a significant number of detectors, which could come with a significant cost if using proprietary detectors. For example, the Digitrax BDL168 Loconet Occupancy Detector that I've been looking at (but which I don't think is compatible with your Lenz system) costs £135 to monitor just 16 sections (http://www.digitrains.co.uk/ecommerce/feedback-items/loconet/bdl168-loconet-occupancy-decoder.aspx)- that's at least £9 per block section and that only detects the presence of a train. I'm not looking to automate my own layout but use blocks to lock the signalling and confirm that a route is both set and clear before the signal can be cleared (and once its cleared, none of the points can be changed). What I hope to achieve is that before I can clear a signal, I have to check that track circuits A, B and C are all unoccupied and points 1, 2, and 3 are all set correctly. Therefore in terms of placing the track circuit blocks, these have to tie in with what I am trying to achieve. I don't want to try to drive a train from platform 3 that will clip the front of a train standing in platform 2. Therefore the boundary between the track circuit that I want to drive across and the track circuit for platform 2 has to be sufficiently far from the heel of the turnout to ensure that it 'proves' that the path is clear. In prototype signalling practise, this point seems to be known as the clearance point. Effectively measure back from the point that two vehicles would just not touch, both the overhang from the front of a train to the leading axle (which is what is being detected) and add an appropriate safety clearance distance. The same principle should apply to automation, insofar as you don't want your PC software to drive a train into another train and therefore your PC will require the same information. You will therefore have to think about what you may automate and what information the PC software will require (with regards the positions of trains). For sections of track away from junctions, I'd say your blocks should be defined by your signal positions, just like on the real railway. You will have a signal set at yellow (caution) and a track circuit joint just beyond this signal. Once the train has passed the signal and entered the block, you need to set the automation up so that the train stops before you reach the signal set at red (stop), with the end of that track circuit being just beyond the signal (but either at or before you get to the clearance point if there is a junction). For the control of the signals, I'm currently looking at the SIGM20 Signal controller fro Sig-na-trak (https://www.signatrak.co.uk/products/layout-automation-and-accessory-control/sigm20-signal-controller) to confirm that it achieves what I want to achieve, but as this seems to use Loconet, again, I don't think it will work with Lenz. However for £54 this only automates the signal sequences and not the trains. That is, the yellow signal will turn red as soon as the track circuit in front of it becomes occupied but you'd require other software to actually cause the train to brake. I'll follow this thread, but doubt I can contribute anything more.

Well, it's certainly one of the contenders that I am looking at, but a very different driving experience from the ZTC. I like the touch screen, what seems like intuitive navigation and I find reasonably easy to operate when I have tried it at a couple of exhibitions. I also like the easy access to all 29 functions from a single panel and the fact that these functions can be named (which should make them easier to remember). The hand held units are a bit basic in terms of functionality, but feel reasonably comfortable in my hand. However, although I've been shown the capability to assign locomotives to the handsets, I've never tried that out when I've had a play. However, if I was operating at home, I'd probably just drive from the touch screen and rarely use the handheld.

Don't just dream. If you can afford the ZTC and that is what you really want (which I think is the case), then buying the NCE may not be the correct choice for you, even if it may seem the more logical or rational one. You have to buy the one that will make you happy - the one that ticks your boxes. The one that you will enjoy operating. Spending £150 on the NCE Power Cab and then wishing that it had a ZTC style interface doesn't sound like a route to contentment. The ZTC system may be £300 more expensive, but that's only the cost of two locomotives these days - do you need any more, or do you, like many of us, already have a few too many? Is compromising the user experience you desire for a couple of extra locomotives worth it? Looking at comments on the ZTC, it looks as though past releases have had issues and many feel that it is overpriced for its functionality, but those who actually own a ZTC seem to like it and I think the driving experience is its main selling point - which is what attracts you too. Whilst, the ZTC may lack some functionality that is available in other systems in a similar price bracket, if you are not going to use the greater functionality, what is the point in having it? What is the point of having to sacrifice the driving experience that you desire for greater functionality that you don't think you will need? Ultimately, not all decisions are rational. Whatever you decide, I hope you make the choice that will make you happy.

As someone who hasn't yet committed to DCC, but is thinking of doing so, I tend to read these type of threads on RMWeb to see what replies are given. The advice offered by the more knowledgeable contributors is usually always the same - play with a range of controllers from one of the specialist retailers and pick the one that suits you best. Ergonomics is an important factor in picking a controller. It has to feel right in the way you want to use it. From reading these threads on RMWeb, the NCE Power Cab would seem to be by far the more popular of these two models, but that may simply be because many people cannot afford to spend nearly £500 on a controller. I've seen the ZTC controllers that you are looking at at several exhibitions, and if that is the interface you like and can afford, then I see no reason why not to buy it. However, I've never looked at the ZTC with any view to purchasing it largely because of its price, which is beyond what I am willing to pay, and I think other controllers in that price bracket tend to have functions that are more popular. Perhaps you should just read one of the threads on the ZTC 611 such as http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/70359-ztc-611-updated-controller/ to see what others think of it and then make up your own mind.

I haven't received my Realtrack Class 156 yet, but my understanding is this is precisely how Rapido are doing it - small motors mounted in the bogies under each vehicle. The demo version of the Realtrack 156 at various shows over the last six months of so shows full interior detail within both cars and from speaking to Charlie at a couple of shows I am informed that is why the unit requires two DCC decoders: one in each car, because each of the two cars are powered independently.

Although I'm not interested in computer control of a layout, I'd like to create a representation of working Token Block signalling and although I've not yet thought too much about how I want to achieve that, I'm tending to think a software solution may be the way to go. I'd therefore be interested in any updates from those who have tried this before - no-one has posted on this thread in two years. Is that good or bad? In my case, I'm not bothered about a lever frame. As I'll be using colour light signalling, I envisage the use of momentary push buttons to set a route. Whilst I could wire up a switch to change a few points and clear a signal, it's the 'checking' part that I see an arduino as a possible solution. Basically I'd like to press a button and a 'system' first checks that there are no conflicting routes already set (ie it would check that certain signals were at red). It would then check that various track circuits are showing as unoccupied. This would be to ensure that points are not thrown under a moving train. Having confirmed that no conflicting routes are signalled, these routes do not have a train on them and the path that I want to set is clear, the system then throws the required points. It would then check that the required points have thrown and clear the signal. I'd also want to relay this information back to a control panel that has lots of LEDs (around 38) that will indicate the way each set of points is lying, what signal aspects are showing at each signal and which track circuits are occupied. Finally, once the train has started moving and occupies the next track circuit after the signal, this will be set back to red automatically since this is something i often forget to do when operating our club layout. Does an arduino sound the best way to achieve this, or are there any alternative solutions worth looking at? The number of pins available on an arduino may be an issue, although its been suggested that there are ways to overcome this. The interlocking only needs to consider four points, seven signals of varying types and probably 12 track circuits. There would probably be eight route setting switches. Any ideas welcome.

It's probably also worth pointing out that some older stock that is fitted with what the manufacturer refers to as a NEM pocket doesn't actually comply with the NEM standards and the pocket is mounted too high. This creates problems with fitting Kadee couplings, as it will not be possible to use the NEM versions (#17,#18, #19 and #20). Bachmann were particularly bad when they first adopted interchangeable pockets, but they seem to have got the design of these 'spot on' on their newer releases. I agree with Harold, that you should probably assume that modification will be required for a sizeable proportion of your intended stock.

I'm also confident that Simon can write a much more readable text than the IRSE, although to be fair to the IRSE, the document is not intended to be an easy read for a layman and as Simon points out has to take into account different practises from across the globe. Unfortunately, this makes it cumbersome and lacking in detail in relation to current UK practise. I was only really only highlighting this document with regards the contents page (ie the subject areas covered and the order in which they are covered). Despite the IRSE documents lack of readability, it does have a couple of figures which presented the clearest details I could find on fouling points and clearance points (p19) and I now understand the concept of an 'overlap' from the description in the glossary. It's not all bad.

Simon, I'm not sure what others think, but in my search for information on signalling matters, I came across an IRSE Exam Study Guide titled "Signalling the Layout". You may be aware of this, but if not it can be found at http://www.irse.org/membership/membersdocuments/IRSE%20Exam_Module%202%20Study%20Guide_v1.0%20FINAL%20052016.pdf It strikes me that your contents page could be very similar to this. The IRSE document itself isn't particularly easy reading for a railway modeller with only a passing interest, but the overall content seems appropriate if presented in a more easy to read format with more or better diagrams. Many sections have an 'activity' which is either to research how something is signalled in your area or to work through an example such as calculating headways. Clearly within your book you would need to simply state how Network Rail would do something (ie you are presenting your research of your own organisation) or alternatively present worked examples rather than asking questions. You could then have some worked examples as to how what the reader has (hopefully) learned can be applied to a model. One point that is possibly worth making is that a lot of model railway books on signalling cover multiple aspect signalling on plain line reasonably well (ie I can understand it), but are usually a bit short on detail when it comes to the specifics of signalling junctions and station approaches, which is where I think the gap is. Few railway modellers have the space to model working block signalling properly, so it would be more useful if you were to focus on signalling around stations or freight facilities, where shunting and / or other permissive moves may be required, as this is what we railway modellers tend to want to represent. The method of calculating the headway and signal spacing would be interesting from a general knowledge point of view, but perhaps less useful to your target audience. Anyway, I look forward to seeing what you hope to cover.

Okay - I'm not yet a DCC user, so I may be wrong, but my understanding of consisting was that each decoder had its own unique address (in CV1) and then when forming a consist, the command station automatically writes the consist number to each of the decoders in the locomotives or multiple units that are consisted. Therefore, when running in a consist, a locomotive or multiple unit will have that consist number stored in CV19. When the consist is cancelled, then the value in CV19 is cancelled (ie set to zero). However, I think it should be possible to either universally reset all units in the consist to have CV19=0 (by killing or deleting the consist), but I think it is also possible to just remove the first unit from the consist. That would mean that the one unit consist at the rear could either be addressed by it's unique address (in CV1) or its consist address (in CV19). When reassembling, you would then be adding the first unit back to the consist address. I'm assuming that it is quicker to add a unit to an existing consist because the command station should only have to issue one write command to CV19 in the locomotive or multiple unit that is being added. Apologies if this is incorrect, but I'm looking at DCC, with consisting being an important reason for considering the switch. HTH!

I've still to make a decision on my first DCC system, but in answer to the above, I'd say: small terminus: principally DMU and light engine movements (no more than two simultaneous movements) no - other than increasing the distance to fiddle yard. ease of use (ie switching between locomotives), DMU, loco and coach lighting functions and possibly sound No with regards computer control of rolling stock, but maybe with regards route setting (although I'd prefer this on a physical control panel) Yes - I want to build working Track Circuit Block signalling with a control panel that indicates which track circuits are occupied. So, any suggestions? Of the systems that I've tried for ergonomics, I think the Sig-na-trak ACE2 is possibly my favourite principally because it seems easy to use (ie relatively intuitive) and it seems easier to access all 29 functions than any other system, since they are accessed from a single screen and can be named (rather than having to remember that Function 16 is announcement about the units destination). Pressing multiple buttons to get an unnamed function that I have to remember doesn't seem too appealing. Where I'm undecided though relates principally to whether I need a DCC system to control the signalling / route setting, or whether this can be achieved by a standalone electronic / computer system that sits between push buttons on a control panel and analogue point and signal control. As such, I'm still at the stage of trying to specify exactly what I want.

Okay - I think that the penny has finally dropped. The trap points will normally be in the trap position (ie to derail a freight train). Therefore, any arriving freight train that fails to stop at signal DG108 and crosses the track circuit boundary GLA / PCD (thus activating track circuit PCD) will not actually foul movements into and out of Platform 3 (assuming the closure rail of the trap point remains at least 11' 2" from the closure rail of the adjacent point at all times) because the geometry of the the two lines are parallel. That is, if the trap point was extended to become a standard turnout accessing a platform 4, it would be permissible to have a train arriving at platform 4 and one departing platform 3 simultaneously because standard track centres are retained throughout. Therefore it seems reasonable to accept that the same rules would apply in this situation. I guess that the only question this raises is whether my track circuit PCD should be split between the trap point and the point that forms the rest of the crossover. What I now need to understand is, if a freight train has passed DG108 at danger and has stopped on the trap point, movements in and out of platform 3 should clearly be prohibited (because track circuit PCD is occupied). However, should movements in and out of platform 2 also be locked? To give a proceed aspect at signal DG107, it must be necessary to check the occupancy status of track circuit PCD to ensure that whatever occupies Platform 3 is clear of the fouling point, but this means that in relation to movements in and out of Platform 2, it is not possible to tell whether occupancy of track circuit PCD is a hazard (unit in Platform 3 in advance of the fouling point) or an unimportant occupancy (because a freight train has overrun DG108). I'm therefore tempted to assume that the trap point needs its own track circuit. If this is occupied, then movements in and out of Platform 3 are halted, but movements in and out of Platform 2 can still take place. Is that correct? It's interesting that you are undecided as to whether the trap point in the bay platform may have been retained. My original thinking was that the bay platform would have been trapped in NBR / LNER days as empty coaching stock and possibly NPCS may have been stabled here. Moving forward, I initially assumed that it would be retained in the rationalisation because it would cost money to remove it and I may use Platform 1 to stable a Tamper or MPV. However, there would also have been a cost in retaining it, insofar as there would have been a requirement for another point motor and its inclusion within the electrical interlock alongside the ongoing operation and maintenance costs. I'm not clear whether the balance of these costs would have been in favour of retention of removal. However, I understand that today Network Rail would undertake a risk assessment that would effectively conclude that it wouldn't be required and therefore I have swayed towards its removal. However, I'm assuming that railway vehicles have better brakes in the 21st century compared to what may still have existed in the 1970s and therefore the result of any risk assessment at that time may have been different. I'm also assuming that there probably wasn't the same formal evaluation process in BR days and the choice as to whether to remove or retain such a trap point may have been made by the Engineer responsible for the job and may therefore vary from place to place. Setting aside the probability of whether or not it was retained, the benefit of its removal is one less point motor, but against that I'm keen to include these sort of details (even if it is just retaining some of the old timbers when the trap was plain lined).