imt

Maybe true of Peco Code 75/85 (I wouldn't know) but certainly not true of Streamline 100 as they don't supply ELECTROFROG versions, they only supply insulfrog versions.

From this and previous reporting, it's very easy to come to the conclusion that Croydon tram drivers going to sleep is something they do all the time. I am beginning to think that there may be more to it than just that. Might it be shift patterns, atmosphere in the cabs, lack of stimulation - I know not what. It isn't just one driver as far as I can tell (though really what do I know?). I do hope we get some clearly thought out investigation and reporting soon, because it must be worrying the bejabers out of passengers, drivers and their employers!

It's not essential. This is a small country station on a single line, probably operated one engine in steam and if not by token block of some sort. Shunting on the main line would be quite normal since freight was usually handled around passenger workings. That doesn't mean to say that on your layout you cannot design it how you like and run it the way you choose. As above. Small country station so there wouldn't be much need for signals. The signal box would sit near the largest concentration of points or alternatively where convenient for token exchange on a single track branch and where the signalman had a good view of what was going on. Signals cost a lot of money to install maintain and operate, and various companies had different ideas for what they would do, and what they wouldn't bother signalling. Since it seems to be based on a real ststion maybe looking at things like this would help: https://www.signalbox.org/branches/kw/minehead.htm in which I quote " The signalling on the railway remained relatively unchanged from the day of reopening until 1990. ". I also note that it was a token operated station. You might also find some diagrams on The Signalling Record Society - here http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwe/S767.htm is a small copy of the signalling layout BUT this is for a dual line version from circa 1909 I believe. There seem to be a goodly supply of signals, which probably would not have been there for a single line station.

Well here are my thoughts and an amendment or two to your plan, which appears below but which I have also returned by email. It's better that this is shown here so other helpful comments can be made on it. A: This is the extra line which allows simultaneous moves in and out without conflict (but see below). Its just 2 extra points and a couple of ST230. I have used an ST201 which would need cutting back or a piece of flexitrack substituting. This greatly increases the simultaneous movements possible and (I think) looks even better. B: You need to consider the length of your locos for the siting of this crossover, remember you need space for a buffer stop and clearance for the loco to uncouple, run forwar and then run round. The single 201 is probably enough for most diesels, but not for tender steam locos. You need to do some measuring and checking of the lengths of typical motive power and stock you will be using. On my layout I get a Class 37 and 5 MK1 carriages into 170 cm. I have numbered your platforms from the top. You do need to balance these with Fidddle Yard siding lengths - there is no point haveing one significantly longer than the other. Your FY sidings 1, 2 and 3 are 175cm. They should give you a diesel and 5 coaches, maybe 6. C: Your platform widths were generous - I have used 2 * ST202s here and on Platform 1 just to show how that still gives you scale 20ft wide platforms. D: Your inner curve (Up) was a Radius 1 here - definitely a no-no. I found two other short curves that were like that too. These curves are 3rd on the outside and 2nd on the inside, you will need to do a bit of fiddling to get proper connection here - use flexi track like you have already in some places. E. Zomboid's point about hiding the second set of crossovers (essential to get free access to all FY roads so don't remove them!) is that they wouldn't be there on the real railway - you could put some kind of scenic break here: a bridge or something. You will need to reconsider your scenic treatment now anyway. F: This is a key clearance point. If you want to run a long train in to P1, simultaneously with one leaving P2, the END of the incoming train must bebeyond this point to avoid collision if the outgoing train is heading for FY1 of FY2. Not disastrous at all, but you need to bear that in mind for your operating sequence/timetable and with train lengths. G: I have moved FY1 inwards so that you can use Peco Locolifts to handle your motive power. Leave one at the head end of a FY siding and the loco can run in easily, you can decouple it and carry it to the other end for a quick turnround without actually handling the loco (much safer!). H: The board needs to be wider now OR just drop this outer line and put the push back sidings on 6. You have a magnificent set of FY sidings, but I don't think you need the last one. Now back to my earlier point - this is your layout, do it the way that pleases YOU. Hope this helps you.

I was unable to send you my suggestions in Anyrail as this software would not accept the file type. You seem to have done very well without them! Looks better and the curve into the station is more sweeping. The only improvement could be Pacific 231G's high intensity update to the throat. Your board divides look OK EXCEPT for the one at the head of the fiddle yard as it goes through a point! Don't do it! It would be better if joints were away from points entirely. You need to think carefully what you want to achieve with the joints - are that for a regular full strike down and rebuild, or for occasional clearing out of a guest room etc. That will set the parameters on how many joints and how well they need to be made. You may need some careful negotiation with the domestic authorities to decide how big it can be and how much needs to be demount-able. Best of that is restricted to the fiddle yard really. Your idea of having multiple ways to rebuild trains is a good one, and you have the space to have several approaches which will increase operating interest. If you want me to look at it further I have PMed my e-mail address to you, but don't stop posting here or you will lose access to lots of good advice.

Yes it looks as if I am the one that cannot count. I think that IF the OP wants to take this further there is scope as you point out. It would be good to ensure a balance between the platform lengths and the FY siding lengths, and I don't have time to do it and he might not want it anyway. For my money the ladder should be equal either side of the two main lines - i.e. 3 either side, that gives plenty of scope for simultaneous movements. There may be scope for the Pacific 231G amendment for the special 3 line throat. The only bad bit at the moment is the entry into P4 and maybe a long point there would help if there is room. The first lead off echoes his entry to his TMD and other traffic area. But as you say there may be scope for redesign there if he wants to, I just kept it as it was.

Herewith a very quick attempt on a Minories throat using Hornby Setrack. The objective of such a throat formation is to cut down the "S" bends and side to side movements of stock entering and leaving a station. It also uses all straight points. It looks good and it has a purpose - but it takes space. Maybe you can look at this and perhaps it will help you, perhaps not. I have put a couple of lines on to show how the arrangement impacts on your available space. I like your layout as it stands, and if you do too change nothing! I have sent a PM with the Anyrail file (look at the envelope icon in the top right of your screen. If you want help PM me yours and I'll try to incorporate the two. Oh no i haven't - this daft system won't let me - sorry.

First and essential point: Rule 1 - it's your layout do it like you want to. Zomboid's suggestion about a single line was one I though about too. My reason for rejecting it was that I have something similar but smaller with only 2 platforms, a single line and a 4 road FY using DCC - space constraints. BUT when I have friend(s) in we can still run a pretty intensive 120 move day on it. I'd love your space and if I had it I'd run an intensive service on it since it's really a passenger only layout. For example the "third way" of turning trains is to attach a new loco at the outer end from the TMD, pull out the train and then run the loco at the head of the platform back to the TMD (or onto another train). The other two, are loco run round crossovers and the pilot pull out of one platform and push back into the same or another - your "Inverness" approach. Many early station designs actually had arrival and departure platforms. The pulling out of the stock could include the pilot taking empty stock to the (off scene) carriage sidings (i.e. the fiddle yard!). This can be hectic fun with 4 platforms if you have the pairs of hands and use DCC (not essential but its easier to have multiple loco moves in my experience). In my opinion, getting multiple in/out moves is about doing the changes I suggested to the FY (or something similar) and balancing it a bit more between the dual lines. That shortens the platforms a little but increases operational variation. As to the comments about Minories, you can get the flavour from http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78492-minories-holborn-viaduct/ at post #12. I am not sure that it would help much on Setrack points. I'll have a go if I get time. Have fun.

I would advise taking out the crossovers at the end of your fiddle yard and using the money to buy some Peco Loco Lifts, you can use them to lift (and turn) a loco from one end to the other, saves space and physical handling of locos. Also you have 7ft platforms and only one FY siding capable of holding that length of train? You also might like to think about if you are doing this "Inverness" style shunting that you would be drawing out the stock onto the Up (right hand) line. If you are doing that why the crossover between the middle two platforms? The way you have it at the moment would mean that a 5/6 coach train would foul the crossovers at the head of the fiddle yard meaning you could not run in a train on the down line simultaneously EXCEPT from the single extreme left hand FY siding. I would suggest that you shorten the platform lengths by a few inches, move the FY sidings right and insert another long siding to the left. You would then chop off your current 5th siding and move the 6th with the DMU pushbacks left and all your FY sidings would be able to take 4'6" long trains as a minimum (at least 3 coaches and a diesel loco) and your longest two would be able to hold probably 5/6 coaches and loco. As to what to do with the bottom two lines in your station, try milk unloading for your town, post/parcels, Motorail (if appropriate). Many main line stations had such things at various times - there are threads on this site about all of them - just search. If you don't understand what I am saying PM me a copy of your Anyrail file and I'll do the suggested changes. You are doing well, and this could be a nice layout to operate an intensive passenger timetable with some added specialist freight to add some extra interest. With Hornby/Peco Setrack curved points use a 20 (15,16) or similar to avoid the possible stuttering of short wheelbase locos over them.

Sorry for this silly question - really for a signal engineer I guess. Is it just down to route proving order, or is there a specific order to lighting a junction indicator before/after the clear aspect on a signal - or is there a way of actually doing it simultaneously? Having stared at some for some time I really am unable to tell, there is one on the T&W metro near me which I swear lights the PLJI first then the clear aspect. I have found a way of doing it simultaneously using Train Tech signals for my layout - but I wondered why/how the 12"/foot systems worked?

I have sent a PM to you on this subject which may be of interest. In case you don't know look at the top right of the page and you will see an envelope, click on it.

I think I'd do the same thing with the cattle dock. That is move the point on the middle road left to meet a single(?) slip to the cattle dock and right to the mileage. More room for mileage or maybe restore the side/end loading facilities. The crane needs to take a walk leftwards too? You are developing a cracking narrow station there which may well inspire others with not much space. About the only thing left to make space is to narrow the distance between the middle and platform road to "standard" 6ft (45mm?) and widen the gap to the goods road that way, but this means some butchery on the points (which look like standard Peco?). Whether that would be worth it is debatable.

Yes there are lots of plans I like too - but haven't built. Sorry for repeating myself - but are any of these plans what YOU want. What objectives do you have in building a layout. Some people don't like passenger trains so build marshalling yards or diesel depots or similar, others want several stations because they like to run timetables, some like scheduling goods trains using load cards. There are hundreds of ways to scratch your itch. In the end it is no good just looking at somebody elses's plans. Nobody can decide what YOU want for you. By all means randomly pick a plan and build it. I can almost guarantee that halfway through you'll want to change it, and then that won't work, then you'll get frustrated and give up after an expensive dive in and out of this hobby. If you really don't know what you want maybe buy some set track and play with it for a while whilst you work out whether you like this hobby at all.

David is not known for his diplomacy on this site - that's all rather brutal but true. I really would advise you look at other sources of plans before you go further. You have a goodly amount of space with which to play (pun intended) and you need to think out what you want to do much more clearly. For starters, a fiddle yard needs to be proportionate to the traffic you are going to run, so I'd think you would want at least a loop on each side of the the through tracks - gives you an ability to store/build one train whilst another comes in/out. Another is that sidings generally need headshunts - if there is room. I would think you have room. you also need to think where the flows of traffic will be coming from/going to so you can align your track plan to those directions. Railway tracks tend to be laid that way for a purpose. I don't know the track plan you refer to, but trying to be polite, you are off again: moving to a new plan without thinking "what do I want my railway to do, where is it, etc. There are lots good plan books about which should help in getting good ideas. Honestly, as many of us have learned from bitter experience, rather like woodwork - measure twice cut once - you need to think twice and build once!

Two threads that might get you started are: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/101522-how-much-oo-gauge-can-i-fit-into-12x8/ http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/105163-rmw-layout-track-design-worked/

Well, a few thoughts for starters. Firstly there are all sorts of red warning tags from AnyRail to indicate curves are too tight, pieces don't join etc.- not important as you plan things out but you need to keep in mind that this is a rough sketch produced on a computer and not an accurate plan. Some of the lines are too close together as well. How big is the space around this layout - can you reach bits - such as the fiddle yard from the outside? Usually the advice is never to have a board more than 2 feet deep unless you have all round access. What are the other features? A station? A goods yard? A quarry? Why are they there, what traffic do you see your railway carrying? What era is it set in - 1930's steam, modern, something in between? There is lots of other advice on this forum about planning a layout and what to think about. I would suggest you list your objectives and decide your must have's so you can ensure that your layout meets your expectations. If this isn't drawn from your ideas, but just a quick plan from a friend then you may find you get tired of it pretty quickly.

Seconded - my 03 (small wheelbase 0-6-0 diesel shunter) will not perform well enough on Peco medium Streamline with live frogs whilst my 08's are OK. I simply wouldn't try an 0-4-0. That doesn't mean you shouldn't, but be aware. I certainly use unadulterated electrofrogs - just remember to use insulating rail joiners on the frog

I have two. In both of them everything passes through OK, except that (in my case) my 08s sometimes stutter and can lose sound connection. They ain't perfect but they gave me extra space, and the occasional hiccup just has to be accepted (in my case anyway). Edited to add: I think that "stay alive"s might fix it - but I have neither the skills nor the eyesight to fix them.

That may be good advice for the OP since he has a lot of wiring already so doing it your way may help him, but it does sound as if he has a DCC bus already - he doesn't specify which or what. On the other hand I cannot see why if anybody already has the bus wiring why they would want another - and different? - bus structure. I know the "two wires" fallacy about DCC has some people foaming at the mouth, but if there is a bus there why use anything else, especially since there are plenty of off-the-shelf accessories that use it. I can see that you are someone who has the skills and the dexterity to use the MERG stuff, and it is good that the OP gets varying advice so he can pick what suits him. The rest of us will need to stick to what we can buy which works with what we have got - in my case DCC Concepts Cobalt motors and Train-Tech signals which all works off one bus and for which you can use a variety of control systems. The OP mentioned NCC controls using Mini-panels - which is where I came in.

My ignorance showing again! I have looked it up and you are right, they are switches. My only problems with the DCC Concepts stuff are 1) though excellently designed and engineered it costs a lot, control for those 12 points is £120 (plus some other bits and pieces) - beautiful but too expensive for me (though as they said that's only £10 on top of the point motor cost); 2) you have to set all the points in a route yourself - easy with their clear layout - but not what I and some others want to do; and 3) no signal control (the killer for me). I have talked to them about macros, but there is nothing on its way nor do they seem to want to call NCE macros - for which a protocol exists - but I quite understand that they want their stuff to be widely useable with as many flavours of DCC system as possible. The NCE stuff is in a way sad. It works reliably and does what it says on the tin. It's just showing its age (like me I suppose). The Mini-panel will do shuttle control - not that I have tried it - but the instruction set is there.

I think "newbryford"s stuff at post #15 is a fine example of the wireman's art, and a good demonstration of what you can do with Cobalt Alpha display gear. The only problem with it is that is shows you how points are set, but gives no help in setting them - so display panel and not control panel. Mick mentions Lenz - so I guess that that equipment is used to control the layout. I think the OP and others would probably love to know HOW. The problem with NCE stuff is its 10 years old and has not moved on. The capabilities of the mini-panel are stuck in 2007 and the basic idea could have been enlivened with a better and more capable processor by now. Now if there was something similar but better .................

I think you are doing yourselves down a bit there. The OP is drowning under wires (strangling himself in wires?) and is seeking a better way forward. There are 2 ways that I know of - a glass control panel on a PC sending DCC commands and a physical switchboard of some kind. I think it's quite right to put both those options forward as they are valid. I think he has begun to twig there are better ways of achieving the control he wants and reducing the wiring nest. This IS achievable without a computer. Despite having 50 years in the computing industry I personally find the computer based products opaque, long winded and non-intuitive - though there are plenty who disagree with me. I chose the buttons and macros approach using NCE Mini-panels and it has worked for me. I have sent him a description what I did and of how I did it. Maybe a good description of how the same kind of thing was achieved in other ways would be helpful.

You are quite right. Macros can provide most of what you want, and the PowerCab only has 16, so something bigger like the PowerPro with 256 macros is much better if you have a bigger layout. The PowerCab is sufficient for mine but I can recognise the limitations. The point about using a Mini-panel is that you can use a single button push on a layout mimic board to call a macro - saves remembering macro 36 controls the crossover to the right of the station platform etc. And you only need the fabled 2 wires to link all this to your layout! You can then go on (if you want to) to setting whole routes through the layout (and fiddle yard?) by pushing a single button, and this can include setting the correct signals. Even more value from your 2 wires! I survived for a long time on simple PowerCab macros and they gave me a level of control and great fun. Its just that I am now moving on and up a level and I suspect that's what the OP wants too.

PM on the way! Not sure I understand your question there. You can control accessories (points, signals) and locos using the Mini-panel (MP). However you can also call PowerCab macros to extend the things you can do. I use a button press to set a route then set the signal - so multiple points and signals change for ONE press. It would depend how you set it up. Edited here to add: I read that again properly. Looking at your diagram you have 2 stacks of 4 lines in your fiddle yard. You would only need 4 buttons for each stack, and you could program things so that the one button set the route through the yard - that is the appropriate switching of the ladder of points at each end. This would require either a macro set up in your PowerCab called by the MP after a button press or explicit instructions in the code you put into the mini panel. Remember if you give the points the same DCC address at each end of the loop it is easier. You do need to start thinking differently from the one lever one point/signal approach. This is single button route setting!

I am working hard at the moment to automate my layout using NCE mini-panels - note the plural. I need 2 for what I am doing and that (as far as I have found out so far) is the maximum you can use on an NCE PowerCab system. I am using the Mini-panels for the logic, and the NCE Power Cab macros to control much of the switching of points accessories. In parallel I am trying to write it up, as I agree there is very little on this forum about detailed use of the NCE stuff. It has been suggested that I should see if BRM might want it for an article. Happy to PM the current state to you if you would like it - it MAY help. I am using a "drive to signals" approach to save putting indicator lights on the panel. I thought about the Alpha-mimic but I really don't need it, nor do I have room in my control box for much more electronics. I too find it hard to understand the ins and outs of the Alpha stuff - but they really are helpful on the phone and by e-mail, as opposed to NCE from whom I have not ever got a reply. The problem with the Alpha stuff is is is one button one accessory, and no scope for macros or for calling NCE macros. I decided the Mini-panels gave much more scope for waht I wanted to do.