Junctionmad

oops sorry about that .

i was more wondering, if you would consider using PECO 00 with its differing sleeping , ( length and spacing ) with PECO HO concrete sleeping on the same layout ?, would it not cause a visual clanger , i.e. 00 track and HO track true , thats a good point. I suspect the point work is already in the making any way,

would you consider mixing PECO HO concrete track with new PECO 00 bullhead, surely the sleeper differences would draw unwarranted attention , where it would be great would be to mix it with say , Exactoscale concrete bases etc

I dont think that PECO will gain much ground unless they bring out a comprehensive range of turnouts. The visual difference between its announced 00 bullhead and its existing FB product line, mean that very few people are going to buy it , unless they are prepared to make their own 00 points to match, which almost by definition , the potential purchasers won't want to do that. Using the PECO 00 track work and mating it to, for example , its HO streamline product range, would actually be visually worse then just using existing PECO HO track. It would be similar to suggesting that SMP or C&L flexi be connected up to PECO HO streamline points, technically yes, visually its a clanger well , as Martin as outlined in detail the track is very close to 00 track dimensions from C&L and SMP, the rail is lifted 0.5mm up off the sleeper etc. The fact is PECO have obviously examined the competition and know what market they are addressing. dave

well , it remains to be seen. I think PECO are moving to ensure that the british outline 00 track doesnt get out from under them , as many have said they tend to respond when they see a potential for competitors emerging. I suspect they will ensure the point work is better then current HO streamline, again to ensure that it doesnt leave an opening for competition. It will be good for the availability of better 00 track work at presumably more a competitive price point, bad news for those that felt they might have a march on PECO in finer scale 00 dave

jeepers Andy , you had me going for a minute dave

no , sleepers are spaced at 9.3mm and are 31.7mm long , very similar to C&L and SMP etc ( source Martin Wynne)

because of capital constraints. injection moulding produces cheap parts , but has expensive tooling costs to take a large proportion of the market , they will need a comprehensive set of turnouts

what what did he say ? dave

so its not proper bullhead , more like raised flat bottom , is that right Dave

I welcome this announcement, even if I find it strange that no point work was considered at launch. I suspect it's an announcement to head off competition. Personally , I shall continue to support C& L , even for plain flexi, especially now as their wonderful 00 fast track based think sleepered version is available. Dave

as a last resort, buying a SPROG2 so as to programme the cobalts may be a solution

thanks Quentin Dave

Appologies Gordon for this diversion In a typical DCC layout you will use a power supply to generate both DCC track signal and say a DC feed for layout use ( often 12v). The track DCC signal is either (a) unipolar AC, where each track pulses goes from 0V to DCC track voltage , in effect creating a track AC voltage that swings about track voltage /2 or a bipolar feed where the voltage on the tracks swings +- around gnd. The unipolar supply is more popular as the circuitry is simpler The key thing is ​neither rail of a DCC system is at 0V. both rails are " power rails". there there is no layout 0V reference at a DCC track. So you can common DCC derived DC power from DCC track signals,( assuming you always maintain correct polarity) but not include in that common , the layout 0V derived unless that DC supply which generated that was truly floating , which few mains derived DC supplies are. so the answer is , you can get a short or not depending on the exact makeup of the DC supply ( and the DCC supply ) if you wish to discuss further perhaps a PM and I can sketch it , or Ill post it on templot club , rather then clog up this thread , in MERG designs for example, to be safe, the lines are connected via optocouplers to ensure separation of grounds dave

Note that this method may or may not cause a DCC power short, it depends on how the DCC signal is being generated dave

much confusion abounds, ultimately in a DCC layout the track power is referenced to 0V, which is referenced to the layout GND, however each side of the DCC , may be unipolar around half the track supply voltage or bi polar around 0V. since neither track is at 0V, its cannot be commoned with anything that is 0V. you can of course have a single AC transformer that supplies both the DC layout power and DCC track power. ( via different regulators ) The issue sometimes comes , when you derive accessory power by re-rectifying the DCC AC voltage to create a local DC power supply, in that case a new local 0V is created and again can not be commoned with the system 0V a 0V line is only 0V with reference to its associated supply voltage, the actual 0V line could actually be at 100s of volts in reference to some other 0V. 0V and GND are the same, GND and Earth are not the same , earth can and is used to establish a common 0V ( GND) or it may not be ( i.e. fully floating) hopefully thats as clear as mud

I think this would be a very suitable kickstater project , Ive been involved in contributing to an essentially crowd sourced wagon project , and is been implemented via DJM, its surprising what can be raised from a relatively small group of people I wouydl say that merely taking the project to the stage of a good set of scaleable 3D drawings might be enough to get people to " invest" , I know I would dave I wish it the best of luck

I know this was true up till a certain point in history , but is it still true today, or even recently ?? are there are guards to spot anything these days ? dave

The main failing of the Everard Junction signalling is the assumption that a train which has passed the signal exits the block ahead, because it simply uses a timer to restore the signal through the various aspects to green. In reality this is an illusion of signalling, easily defeated by stopping the train in the section ahead if I was to go to all that bother I would place sensors ahead to detect the passage of the train out of the section , in fact because signals are close together on a model railway, you can often use the next train detector as a feedback for the previous signal dave

hi gordon In software engineering, the accepted approach until the last 10 years ,was " top down " design. essentially you built a whole specification before you cut any code. This was found to be a poor way to design systems as the spec constantly needed changing and was constantly revisited and often the actually coding was pushed further and further away and allocated less and less time, leading to massive overruns and software that didn't meet the customers needs. Today , in software design , we have the combination of "agile" and test driven development , I often call it bottom left hand corner design!. Here you only define small pieces and build them as simply as possible. The key is to cut code as quickly as possible and get something running , so that the specifiers can see the real thing as quickly into the development as possible ( I'm simplefying this a bit obviously ) The code is the minimal required to meet the " test" , at no stage do you add features that are not at this point needed, You then constantly return and refactor the design as it builds, replacing code with better implemented solutions , that still meet the same test Today large projects couldn't be completed without agile development methodologies , especially whare large teams are used The key takeaway, is that large complex overarching detailed theoretical planning, is actually a hinderance to project completion you plan a little, build a bit, test, refactor/rework and continue just a useless tuppence worth dave

great description of plastic slippered turnout construction, Im about to start a layout with the same idea, somewhat bigger, around 40 turnouts !!! can I ask what the blue turnout unit connected too the brass welding rod is ? what did you use for the tie bars at the blades of the turnouts regards Dave

Gordon, I'd ban you from templot and tell you to lay track paralysis by analysis and all that The goal is to make the little plastic trains go round and round :D dave

well I suppose we can go round and back discussing various aspects of a hypothetical bluetooth cab control system. We havent really seen anything yet. it should still be pointed out that even an average layout will have to wired up as for DCC to enable track powered bluetooth to work, that means plenty of additional wiring on the issue of pairing , in practice with Bluetooth and the current protocol stacks in smartphones, this means you have a pairing and connect and disconnect time. I dont see how that will be over come as you need to switch from controlling one loco to another and then say switch to 5, 10 or 15 points and signals. Ive done a fair bit of bluetooth development and I dont really see how some of the limitations are going to be over come with the present smartphone bluetooth stacks

It's worth pointing out that today you can use smartphone based throttles on a DCC system via JMRI and interface that to many DCC controllers out there. It works well too. This is an open published ( albeit badly documented ) protocol and anyone can write throttle apps for it. I can see Bluetooth, or maybe wifi, having a niche market in the toy train end of the business, but to suggest Bluetooth could be used to control a large number of simultaneous channels ( devices , ie locos, points , signals , accessories ) without further electronic concentrators is to assign a complexity to Bluetooth that doesn't exist. There are further issues with cab to cab handover , ( stealing and sharing ) and how you integrate things like track occupancy detection, layout status etc ( since you have no centralised control ) Bluetooth is attractive to companies with no established DCC system investment as it offers them a way to offer very entry level cab control without having to compete against existing DCC suppliers. The use of an iPhone as a throttle facilitates this low cost model. It's worth noting that you can buy a SPROG DCC controller very cheaply , ( as cheap as a decent layout supply ) , and hook it to a readily available laptop ( or via free JMRI to an iPhone ) hence building a very cheap system. ( I will accept its not intuitive for outright beginners ) There is much wrong with DCC, but as a layout cab control system it can act as a basic entry level , right up to very large complex layouts, something that Bluetooth( direct throttle to loco systems ) cannot technically handle. Note that there is no patent issue over railcom. Railcom plus is a different issue. The main issue with railcom was Digitraks decision to go with its own proprietary transponding system , rendering railcom as primarily a European system. I have a railcom solution and it does what it says on the tin , but in reality unless you have certain layout automation desires , you don't need bi directional communications ( with the exception of decoder programming ) Bluetooth will be a niche entry level solution and will remain so, in my opinion. This will be especially true if there is no open source or standards applied. At present the loco command interface over Bluetooth is either open or standardised. ( merely making a Bluetooth connection is not the same thing ) There is by the way , some advantages to having a high speed data link to the decider ( by whatever means ) this would allow programming decders , especially sound decoders , to be completed quickly and directly from a PC/ smart device. Hence a DCC deoder with integrated Bluetooth would actually be quite useful. Dave

Thanks John. Will revert after I order a few more bits from Pete and try my hand , I really appreciate you and Dereks advice Dave