Alan Kettlewell

Here's another with some movement on the big helix captured ..

Here's a couple of short (poor quality) videos of my H0 layout showing several helices. It's a U shaped layout with three sets of helices to take trains between three different levels. The radii and gradients were carefully planned using some basic maths and spreadsheets, the smallest helices mainly used Peco radius 2 and 3 set-track curves - set-track is much preferable over flexi-track for these curves. One end of the layout features a helix built above another helix - then it was all buried in a mountain - it was good fun working it all out and building it. As for capability of trains - well the continental H0 diesel and electric locos would easily handle 10 or more coaches up there, but the steam locos were far less capable and could only pull 5 or 6 coaches up at best. But given the restriction on steam locos it all works flawlessly. For double track helices, where possible I designed it so the rising gradient was on the outside ie on the largest radius. The first video shows early testing during the construction so the helices can be seen. The second video is from when the large helix at the end was covered with mountainous scenery There's a link to the layout thread below but I should add that I've discontinued building it now in favour of working on a new 0 gauge layout. Cheers ... Alan

Just realised we've hijacked James' thread - sorry James ...

What software are you planning on using?

Ah, I forgot about train stacking. Train Controller has a nifty feature that allows automated storage of several trains in a single block so that reduced the number of blocks a bit. I use it in the storage yards. The feature is called 'line up in a block' and is handled by special formulae in the stopping distances. Basically as a train departs the block, all the other trains stored in that block move up to fill the space. Quite clever really and saves on the number of contacts required.

No worries. Since those plans in my thread were posted I added a further section for a narrow gauge mountain track - so a few more blocks got added. It might be worth adding that I didn't do any shunting manoeuvres with the H0 layout - it was a 'watch the train go by' type of layout so I only needed blocks at the stations and in the storage yards - plus a sparse number out on the running lines just to keep the trains separated. This happily provided up to 5 or 6 trains moving at any one time - quite enough for me and I definitely needed a spare pair of eyes to watch it all. Cheers .. Alan

Hi Robin, Not quite sure why the number of blocks surprises you. I can provide a schematic track plan from Train Controller if you wish. The plan can be seen in my H0 layout thread but perhaps hard to find wading through 30+ pages, but happy to oblige if it helps understanding, t'would only take a minute. Cheers ... Alan

Some blocks have two detectors - ie momentary contacts (reed switches) - particularly useful if a block or section is bi-directional. On long runs of track there may be just one block to control that whole section, which could be up to 20ft. Most block sections are a minimum of the longest train length which is about 8 ft. except for the loco shed area where there are six short blocks to store the locos. The 'passing contact' method for train detection is probably the leanest in terms of equipment required - additional hardware, and wiring, will be required for the occupancy detection method. Cheers ... Alan

Thanks Iain, a compliment indeed and appreciated. I'm into my next project which is 0 gauge where I plan to take automated operation even further with automatic shunting, uncoupling etc. It'll be a much simpler layout but equally challenging to get the auto shunting and automatic forming up of trains to work! Cheers ... Alan

I find it most interesting to see how fellow modellers build their DCC layouts for automatic train control and what equipment they use. To the uninitiated it must seem like a minefield. There are of course several options to choose from and a variety of equipment to achieve it. I got into this about 15 years ago and have built several automatic layouts since then, the latest, but now discontinued, effort is shown in the link at the foot of my post. Regarding train tracking, a consideration which bears a cost factor and varies the degree of complexity, is whether to opt for block 'Occupancy Detection' or 'Passing Contact' feedback. A while ago I chose to use the much simpler 'Passing Contact' feedback method using reed switches in the blocks (in the track) and magnets under the locos. I have not regretted this decision as I find it quite adequate for fully automatic control. My layout is a fair size housed in a purpose built shed 29 x 14ft, about 300 yards of H0 track, 3 hidden storage yards with about 40 trains. One complete circuit round the layout is about one scale mile. I haven't found it necessary to use the perhaps more robust method of 'occupancy detection' nor do I use feedback on the turnouts or indeed the Railcom feature as I find Train Controller takes care of all train tracking effortlessly. I have much respect for fellow modellers who take a more belt and braces approach than I have so the purpose of this post is just to show that there are different ways of skinning this particular cat - and I appreciate there are many pros and cons of the various methods - each to their own and all that. For interest and comparison, I've listed in the table below the range of equipment used on the layout: Cheers .. Alan

Hi, Glad to see you're getting to grips with all this DCC malarkey. I just thought I'd pipe up and say that there's no need at all to do what you mention above to see how reproducible a stopping point is under computer control. Automatic control software does this exceptionally well and this is one of its great features. I've been building automated layouts for years now and can say that stopping distances can be down to a couple of millimetres - BUT - a lot will depend on other factors such as perfectly clean track and wheel pickups on the loco, loco maintenance and the running capabilities of the motor and drive mechanisms is also a factor and load on the train. Basically if all running is perfect then there's no reason the computer program won't stop your train at exactly the same spot each time. In the software I use - Train Controller - you can additionally specify simulated train weight which affects deceleration which can be a factor in stopping point - however the program takes care of all that, decelerating the train over a distance to stop at the correct spot regardless of load. Below is a link to a short video I did a while back showing a loco which has been decelerated and is being brought to a stop by Train Controller. I have set it to stop with the loco's mid point at the tip of the old paintbrush I've placed across the platform surface. You can also specify in the the software that the train will stop at the front, at the rear, at it's mid point or at any given distance from the front or rear of a train. This is useful where, for example, you want to stop under automatic control and detach (or attach) a brake van or split a train at a certain point. So, rest assured friend, automated control software will take of these things for you. If you're ever up North Yorkshire way and it's safe to do so - pop in and see all this for yourself. Video link: Cheers .. Alan

I love my Roco Z21. A 3.2 amp system with wireless control, operated using your smart phone or a tablet - I use both. Friends can join in too using their own smart phone or tablet. With it you can also draw your layout plan on screen if you wish, and operate turnouts and accessories by touch control - but you don't have to, that's optional as a conventional mimic panel can still be used. There are numerous connections allowing connection of a host of different handheld units if required, supports feedback control, accessory decoders and even secondary DCC systems, also supports additional boosters if you need more power than the 3.2A provided. All in all a very robust bit of kit that just works. Cheers ... Alan

Hi Duncan, Glad you sorted it. I just wondered by if by chance you gave it an address between 100 and 127. Some DCC chip manufacturers regard this range of numbers as falling in the two digit range while others regard it as in the four digit range. Therefore this range of addresses can be problematic with some systems. For this reason I avoid these numbers. Just a thought (although a tad late now!) Cheers ... Alan

Hi Ade, A good question. With or without Train Controller that is always going to be a tricky situation as, I'm sure you're aware, the sound loco may delay pulling away whilst the non sound loco will want to get going straight away. I have not actually tried it however it is possible to adjust CVs so that one loco will require a higher starting voltage than the other. Such a technique woukd require a lot of trial and error but there may be better answers than I can give. I think to get more info about DCC it would be better to head over to the DCC questions forum. Fair warning though, you might get a sore head .. some of those threads can get highly technical - and controversial! Enjoy the journey though as there's a whole new world to learn about. Cheers... Alan Edit - oh we are in the DCC questions forum - doh.. Sorry.. but anyway, other threads will be worth a read too.

A good answer above from John P and directly addresses your question. I could not answer this in regard to the Z21 as I dont set up consists with it. My consists are set up up by Train Controller so it's the software that setsnup the CVs and does the consist controlling and not the Z21 directly. I can say that control on all ascents and descents is faultless, subject to all DCC decoders being BackEMF enabled. I have a few double headers pulling 8 coach trains and equivalent length goods trains, all flawlessly. Cheers ... Alan

Thanks for the replies. Yes of course I've used the programming track to set up - my system is the Roco Z21 (which is set up on my H0 layout down the shed) and I also use a Roco Multimaus system attached to a yard of track on my workbench up in the house - although with the Multimaus system you can only write to a chip but not read. In addition I use the ESU decoder tester. A strange thing is that there was no apparent failure on the Z21 programming track. I can get a response when sending read and write commends to the chip when fitted (the usual small movement of the motor) but when it comes to driving there's no response at all. And the chip has not blown as I can still get it to run the motor when I disconnect the (red) decoder lead from the chassis and attach it to a croc clip from the track power (as mentioned in the opening post). It also runs ok when attached to the ESU tester. However, let's struggle no further as it looks like a motor terminal is in contact with the live chassis and the solution is to do some surgery to isolate it/them from the chassis - which is probably not worth it for this old loco. The friend who I'm doing this for agrees and has decided to abandon the attempt and to put it back up for sale as a DC loco. Thanks again for all the helpful replies. Cheers ... Alan

It seems there is. On the left terminal I get a reading of around 20 to 28 ohms.

Ah yes I see, thanks. It's very close but not touching - but just in case, I've put a bit of black tape over it. Cheers .. Alan

Hi giz, Could you elaborate a bit ie where do you mean? Although this is a just a photo taken at some point during proceedings intended to show the chassis I'm working on - it's not necessarily representing the issue when under test as the wires have been off and on as I've tried all sorts of things. Thanks.

Hello, Having been fitting decoders to all sorts of locos for about 15 years or so I've found one that has stumped me. I'm fitting a decoder for a friend's 4mm kit built J39 (unknown kit but fairly old I reckon). This one is powered from pickups on the wheels on one side and via the chassis on the other. Fairly straight forward - or so it should be, and my range of chip fitting experience includes the old split chassis locos so usually I know what I'm doing (usually!) When connected to DC it runs quite nicely, however when the decoder is fitted it will not run. NB - to save a ton of questions: I've serviced it so all contacts etc are spick and span, it runs well on DC, the chip has been tested on my tester, the decoder address is confirmed as set to #3. Following the procedure ie disconnected the motor terminals from the track feeds - attached orange & grey to the motor terminals, black to the wheel wipers side and the last one, the red, I attached to the chassis, connect to the DCC controller - Nothing! Now if I disconnect the chassis connection and power that one lead directly with a croc clip attached from the track - then it runs nicely. So the issue seems that I can't get power to the chip via the chassis connection - although, as stated, when on DC power this works fine. Hmmm.. As far as I can tell I've done it by the book and the only thing I can think of now is that the motor is not isolated from the chassis. If so, then I'm stumped as to how I might do that as the axles running through the pinion gear are live from the chassis. So, am I attempting the impossible - or just been plain old stupid? Grateful for any knowledge that can be thrown my way from more experienced decoder fitters. Cheers .. Alan Edit - the chip is a Lenz standard V2.. The J39 - the brown wire on the right connects with the wheel wipers .. tuther one to the chassis.

Hi Michael, Thanks for your comments and yes it is a bit of a shame when enthusiasm for a layout runs dry. No further health problems either touch wood. Half of it is still up but I'm uncertain if I'll continue with it. A big put-off to dismantling it is that I'll have to remove and sell off all that good quality continental H0 stock. Regarding helices, I used 5mm rodding for the supports and for the track base I used 6mm MDF, which I certainly found to be strong enough. I rationalise that the thicker the track bed is the steeper the gradient needs to be for each turn of the helix. Having said that, as I ran mainly diesel and electric locos, they will handle gradients far better than steam locos will. The steam locos I have will haul about 5 coaches up, whereas the diesel and electric locos will manage 10 or more effortlessly. To make the spirals I started by cutting out 4ft outside diameter 'donuts', which is about the minimum diameter to fit Peco setback 3rd radius curves. A double track would be a 2nd radius inside a 3rd radius which worked well - I found settrack is far better and more robust than attempting to use flexitrack - which anyway is hard to line up the joints on such a curve. Oh and also I made them so the tighter, inner curve was always the descending line. Anyway, good luck with the project - helices are an interesting challenge and a nice combination of handyman skills and mathematics - got to get the maths right. Cheers ... Alan Ps - the remaining half of the layout can still be seen if you're ever up North Yorkshire way.

Job done. I made the required tool with the aid of my trusty Dremel. Thanks again for the help - appreciated. Cheers ... Alan

Excellent responses - many thanks indeed. Cheers ... Alan

A little help please. I'm not familiar with 4mm loco kits (my kit building knowledge is with 7mm). Anyway I'm helping out a friend to determine the cause of a loud squeal which I've identified is coming from the gearbox, which I'd like to take off. Could anyone please identify these wheels on a 4mm loco? And what tool is required to get them off or should they just screw off? Many thanks. Cheers ... Alan

and another ...