rodshaw

Ooh, that sounds neat. I knew there had to be an electronic solution. And I think I have the necessary components to hand. Which way does the diode have to point in relation to the LED?

Each frog is wired to a microswitch and the polarity is changed via a pushrod, as in this upside-down photo:

I have two live frog turnouts facing each other, separated by insulating rail joiners. If the points are set in opposite directions, so that their respective frog polarities are different, a loco going over the insulated joiners from one turnout to the other obviously produces a short circuit. This isn't a real problem because my DCC system just shuts down and I can easily change the points to the right direction and re-start. But my question is - can I wire an LED into the circuit to come on as a warning if the points are incorrectly set? The way I see it, any wiring connecting the turnouts so as to turn on this light when the polarities are opposite will itself produce a short circuit. The only thing I can think of is to have four LEDs, say two red and two yellow, two each for the different polarities, so I know the loco can proceed if the two same-coloured LEDs are lit. Or am I missing something?

With the Friday evening session to do, I imagine the Wakefield show can be a bit of a marathon for exhibitors!

Here are a couple of photos showing the fiddle yard attached to the main board. It's 20in. long, or half as much as the layout itself. I've designed it as a sector plate, so the length of wood the track is resting on swivels at the back end to swap between two tracks if need be. (The track in the photo isn't fixed down yet.) The gap at bottom left is to accommodate the post for a lighting gantry, as yet to be built. Also on view are the legs for the fiddle yard and layout, they are simply in the form of an upside down table and the baseboards just rest on them. This way I can easily get underneath the layout if I need to.

I decided to re-vamp the track layout and incorporate a run-round. In fact I haven't really lost anything because the run-round doubles as a siding when switching, to compensate for the siding I've ditched. Before: After, with positions of potential industries marked: Not sure yet how this is all going to go, but I'm thinking of incorporating some street running, maybe even having a road running all along from top right to bottom left.

I certainly agree that today's top market locos and stock are over-engineered. And over-priced. Who wants umpteen fiddly parts to fit when many of them aren't even seen? And (if you're into DCC) who wants going on for 40 different sound effects when all you really need besides the engine noise are lights, a horn and a bell? But people obviously buy them, and get great enjoyment out of them. Some pre-order and will pay top whack as soon as the models appear. So it's horses for courses, at least nowadays you can model what you like. Your layout doesn't have to look like all the rest, that's up to you. I like to see old layouts at shows and they are always fun but for me, the old models of the 60s and 70s are too crude, particularly in mechanical terms, and so are the track and scenics that went with them. The Hornby Railroad type products are just about right (or would be, if I still modelled British outline). But, back in the 60s, and harking back to this topic's title, TT-3 and the like were the state of the art and no doubt some found them too refined. There were probably many ageing modellers at the time lamenting the passing of tinplate, clockwork and gauge 1, because they were more fun!

That blue diesel is very nice, as was the whole layout. There was also a 'proper' 3mm scale layout at the Leeds show, it has been doing the rounds for some time. For sheer play value though, you can't beat the Tri-ang!

During the last couple of months I've managed to get the track laid and wired up. There are some obvious sleeper gaps that need filling. The two Peco turnouts are live frog. I have isolated the switchblades from the frog and bonded them to the stock rails for reliability. So the Peco frogs have to have their polarity changed by a switch, as with the hand-built turnouts. The track is fixed with N gauge track pins, which I may take out when it's ballasted. Underside views showing the wiring, turnout levers and how I work the microswitches. I have made the wooden dowels a tightish fit through the baseboard holes, packing them with bits of cardboard, which makes sure they stay set in place when the points are changed:

I agree about the 3mm Society sleeper length and that neither option is ideal. I think it's got to be the Peco, it pretty well matches the turnouts anyway. It's more pleasant to work with than the Society track too. After painting and ballasting I'll have forgotten all about it not being quite right. I will assemble it all anyway and wire it up to get some trains running. If I decide I can't live with it (unlikely), I will give my Paypal account another battering and get an alternative. The layout is so small that switching to another option won't take long. Thanks all for comments.

The very good reason that I don't have any and don't propose to buy any. I don't know whether Tillig or Kuehn are prototypical for the US - they look ok - but I do have lots of Peco and 3mm Society track, which I can live with. As Velotrain pointed out, I've discovered that for an industrial area, prototypical tie spacing can be wider (up to 2ft 6in or more), so the track I have could be used unmodified. All my turnouts are live frog. I daresay Tillig do live frog too but to my eyes those brown plastic dead frogs and check rails spoil the effect somewhat.

This conversation might be fun but is probably best avoided: Her: It's either me or the trains! You: Chuff! Chuff!

As to track, here's a picture of some options. From left to right: Peco HOm unmodified; same with sleeper spacing reduced; 3mm Society track unmodified; same with sleeper spacing reduced. Any views on which is best?

Having sold my HO switching layout Yorkford, PA to a good home, I've decided to stick with US outline for my next layout but to try something in TT. This mock-up on cardboard is 40 inches by 10 and the finished thing will be about the same, maybe a little deeper so the track isn't too close to the front edge. The somewhat bashed-around and well-used track shown is from the 3mm Society, with a mix of Peco and hand-built turnouts. I may go for Peco HOm track instead for a more uniform look, but either way I think the sleeper spacing needs reducing to make it look more prototypical (see next post). There will be some industrial low relief buildings across the back, and industries in the spaces to left and right, with maybe a scrap yard and a team track. A road will run diagonally somewhere from back to front. Trains will enter and leave the layout via a fiddle yard at right. In fact, it's a mini-Yorkford without the run-round. Only a limited range of American TT is available. The stock in the picture (detailing parts yet to be added) is from different European manufacturers but all ordered from Zeuke in Holland, and very nice it is too. TT is also available from Lok-n-Roll and Shapeways. It's not cheap - but that's a good way to stop me buying too much! The loco in the picture is by MTB and has an NEM651 DCC socket. I'll be converting it and any other locos I get to DCC and will probably get sound from a couple of under-baseboard MRC sounders I have left over from Yorkford. The idea is to end up with another layout to take to shows, possibly with interchangeable backscenes for giving my British 3mm stock a run-out. But we'll see how that goes, I said it before with Yorkford and it never happened. Smoking factory chimney (again) for spectators to operate is a must! Ideally I'd like the buildings to be 'proper' 3D, from styrene etc., but to avoid too much scratchbuilding I'll probably go for some card kits. That's the plan anyway...

Some very nice models on here. I've just ordered three TT (1/120) items from Shapeways - anyone else got these, or dealt with these shops? https://www.shapeways.com/product/8JSJ9UHK4/mack-flatbed-tt-scale?optionId=2797332 https://www.shapeways.com/product/C6B79R56C/1-120-1x-1977-ford-thunderbird https://www.shapeways.com/product/42S9HGRVN/1-120-1x-1972-ford-ranchero The Madaboutcars items were originally in pairs but when I said I only wanted one of each, the guy there made them available as single items. Marvellous! (Edit - just to point out they are for an American-themed layout).

Looking back with nostalgia to the 50s and 60s is one thing...but the first layout I made, in any scale, in 2000-2001, has a very quaint look to it now and could almost have been made in 1960. Yes, it was 3mm scale and featured a lot of Tri-ang and Bilteezi. It was a bit of a mish-mash and in the last picture you can just see some continental TT interlopers... http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/newsforyou/briargate.htm

You mean it's the next big thing..?

There is a theory that multiple universes exist, some possibly like our own but with subtle differences. In one of these universes, imagine TT did become the next big thing and eclipsed OO. There would be lots of RTR TT on sale from Hornby and Bachmann, discounted by Hattons, and OO would be a niche market reserved for those who think TT is too easy or too small. There would be a 4mm society with a membership of about 1000, and a retailer called 4SMR. Then there would be another universe where N was eclipsed by TT instead, and another where OO, TT and N all have about 33% of the market each. And there would be bound to be at least one universe where 3mm scale is the norm, and another where 2.5mm or 1:120 caught on instead.

It was built by one R. D. Dimmock and exhibited by Taylor & McKenna.

The article does say these standards are identical to the OO gauge ones 'except for the matter of gauge'. Back-to-back is 10mm, flange depth 0.75, wheel thickness 2.5, flange thickness 0.5, wing rail gap 1.5 and check rail gap 1.25. It also keeps mentioning a company or brand called Hub, who manufactured track bases, wire & tube etc., and the layout is referred to as a Hub layout.

The January 1958 Railway Modeller featured another TT-3 layout, the Harlesden and West Dulwich Railway by R. D. Dimmock, with liberal use of Bilteezi buildings. It was described on the front page as 'A fine-scale TT-3 railway'. The track was hand-built and the article says, 'What has been proved...is that all TT wheels (with the exception of Rokal) will work on fine-scale track laid to prototype principles'. There is a diagram showing the standards to use. The same issue announced the release of the Tri-ang TT Windsor Castle, with an ad pricing it at 49/6 for the loco and 6/5 for the tender. According to an inflation calcuator this would be about £62 today for both. June 1962 had a feature on adapting an Airfix breakdown crane for TT. Interesting that the magazine called layouts 'systems' then.

You might be able to buy a decent kit-built loco from 3mm Society second hand sales, just to try out and get a feel for it. I modelled in 3mm scale for over a decade, using the Society 12mm gauge track. I didn't mind the gauge compromise and I got to find out that there are many excellent 3mm modellers who don't, some even say they can't tell the difference when the track is ballasted. When I got bored with Tri-ang I tried a few kits. The wagons were excellent, but I had trouble with all the loco kits I tried - missing and badly fitting parts, sourcing from multiple suppliers to get a finished product, etc. Some of the kits are shot down from 4mm scale and the instructions have measurements for that scale. But I'm going back over 5 years, and might just have been unlucky (or inept). I did end up eventually with finished locos, but it put me off somewhat. I'd never have considered 14.2 because I'd probably have got myself into even more of a mess with the finer tolerances. I did manage to make some 12mm gauge hand-built points though, using the Peco ones as a guide. If you can solder and measure carefully you can do it. I'm actually revisiting TT, but it will be American outline, with 12mm gauge being just right. I'll probably end up making a few freight car kits in this scale, but my locos will be RTR. And no doubt I'll be giving my Tri-ang a run out too! I still have a soft spot for it.

One way to get Tri-ang compatible points is to make them yourself. This is a set I made last week, my second, having made a left-hand one a couple of years ago. Not as traumatic as I'd expected. I simply used the home-made jig shown in the second picture, made from card on a balsa wood base, and a home-made track gauge, also from card. To file the point blades I just used a small file and held the rail down firmly on a wooden board. (The top point blade does go a lot closer to the stock rail than shown in the photo). Some of the sleepers still need a bit of trimming. I can't remember where I got the rail from now, it may be Peco or it may be 3mm Society. My Tri-ang locos and stock go through ok, as does the finer 3mm stuff. Only took me a few hours altogether. Not the finest engineering maybe, but at some stage hopefully they'll be painted, covered in ballast and actually used!

I also found the Peco curved point problematic with Tri-ang loco wheels. An unexpected problem I had with Peco track was with just one of my Tri-ang locos, a Jinty, which for some reason has deeper flanges than the others, maybe a very early model. The flanges just touch the little pips on the chairs, causing the loco to bobble very slightly and occasionally stall. Needless to say this happens on all Peco track, not just the points. I daresay the pips could be cut or filed off, or the flanges filed down a bit. I'm a bit wary of messing the wheels up though.

A few glitches discovered and fixed in the last few days - if anyone has installed it, it would be an idea to uninstall and start again.