Junctionmad

Derekl, thanks, yes I have my chairs mixed up what I was talking about was the chairs hold the V and the associated wing rail at the nose. I cant see this being done well in purely functional chairs, what I plan to do is follow the societies digest on C&L components and solder up the wing and V rails to 0.6mm copper clad and then stick these to the appropriate nose timbers and surround them with the most suitable chair ( even the correct p4 chair cut down to 00-SF) ( yes I know 00, but that is for this layout ) dave

What I meant was based on the Scalefour notes on build track with C &L components Given that I can't buy bridge chairs that are correctly setup for 1mm flange ways. My idea was to follow the scalefour advice and prefabricated the frog ( v and wing rails ) as a soldered pieces , held by 0.6mm " stretchers" these are then glued down to the sleeper and semi functional chairs added outside. Are you suggesting holding the V and the wing rails solely in cutdown plastic functional chairs. As for gauge wars , I got banned from that thread , so can't say any more. , that's what I get defending Martins reputation , anyway no discussing moderation Thanks again John

Ron Ron Ron Rather then picking through your reply to me Railcom is there today , it's implementation is scare primarily because the layout integration software to make use of loco supplied information isnt easy to setup. Automation can be readily achieved without any loco comms , as demonstrated by JMRI and R & R train controller software Bluetooth is just a communications methodology , any layout automation will be situated in an attached computer, and that's likely to be an attached high horsepower permanently powered computing device. On the subject of smartphones as throttles , I don't know if you have ever used in anger a iPhone throttle app , I've extensively played with WiThrottle and there are serious drawbacks with smartphones. The first is lack of tactile feedback, forcing you to constantly look at your phone , and secondly , the lifetime of the battery , continuously running an app and comms. Both mean , that I suspect, as I did, any serious layout operator will prefer to a dedicated throttle with tactile controls. Let's deal with costs . In any meaningful layout, the major cost of DCC is tied up in decoders, especially if sound equipped, this is likely to be similar for Bluetooth, Since specialised decoders are still required. Further more , as the layout must be DC fed, you still need power supplies , district cutouts , frog switching , short circuit protection, reversing loop switching and all the other bits that make up a track powered layout. Many parts of this are already built into typical DCC controllers. These would have to be provided separately in a Bluetooth layout, negating much of the cost advantage of a " free" if unsuitable smartphone throttle. Today a fairly high end DCC system , with integrated power supply , automatic short circuit protection , and separate tactile throttle can be had for under 150 quid. I suspect not much will be really saved by going to Bluetooth On the question of technology , Bluetooth is around since 1994 , it's hardly whizz bang . It has serious limitations when you try and control more then a few channels. There issues with interference , and session drop out too. On layout sound, I agree, it has the potential to be far superior to sound integrated into the decoder. But , Bluetooth offers nothing in that regard. The layout is fixed and doesn't benefit from wireless communications. Proper layout sound is very complex , really requires train location feedback to work , it's requires a considerable piece of software complexity to make it all hang together. Bluetooths ability to merely transport sound data is irelevsnt in that solution. DCC is not legacy technology , pulse coded information on wires is all the rage , your car couldn't function without it. DCC is updated regularly , as is witnessed by the new layout bus specifications just released . New DCC devices appear regularly and with increasing sophistication and decoder become more integrated and cost effective To summarise , Bluetooth is rather like Hornbys Zero 1. Attractive to the very entry level " kids toy train set " , one or two locos and an oval of track , as it offers cab control at a low entry level cost. As a serious contender for reasonable size layouts , typically seen, it's a dead end technology. As a wireless technology it's largely been surpassed by wifi , which is now as cheap to implement at silicon level , with far superior technical advantages. Hence DCC over wifi would be a far better future possible solution. It's multi channel restrictions mean it will never be a serious contender. Wireless communications to 00 gauge locos will have little traction , until we have workable battery solutions ( or maybe inductive coupling ) , if we can implement dead rail systems , then wireless control ( of whatever type) then becomes very suitable. Regards Dave

Thanks John Coming from a copper clad and non functional chair background , I'm currently getting to grips with all the special chairs and especially how to fabricate bridge chairs etc. The fabrication of the track , I'm very comfortable with. My current view , in advance of building a complete turnout , in plastic. Is to pre fabricate the common crossing and wing rail and solder it together on 0.5 to 0.6mm brass, this is then stuck to the plastic sleepers and finished with a combination of functional and non functional chairs, I agree with you re bridge chairs , I'd like to represent them , and as you may also have noticed elsewhere. I'm a fan of trackwork. I'll report back Dave

Thanks again John . I've messed around with plastic and functional chair construction , I'll now try in earnest Dave

Thanks John , very useful , I'll order up enough exactoscale plastic bits to do a few turnouts and try my hand Do you find you can solder droppers , tie bars etc , without the whole thing melting I assume you build the common crossing and wing rails as one unit with thin copperclad and then glue this to the plastic sleepers. ? Thanks again Dave

John I was wondering what your view is on using C&L full thickness plastic timbering and fn tonal chairs to build 00-SF turnouts I presume I'll have to cut up chairs because of the lack of 1mm crossing and check chairs. Is this practical. To date I've used copperclad and played with ply and rivet. But I just want to match C & L new full thickness flexi , so considering full plastic timbering Would it be viable to produce irregular diamonds in the same way. ? Thanks Dave

Firstly , due to Bluetooth streaming , only one audio stream can be supported , a single loco solution is not a solution Secondly it needs to be in the loco. Thirdly , most of the cost of DCC sound is the licensing assisted with specific loco recordings. The actual decoder is not the source of much cost. Bluetooth is simply an alternative communications method , that all . As I said before , wifi to the loco would be far better ( more throughput , better addressing schema)

It should be pointed out that today railcom , available in more then 6 manufacturers decoders , fully supports two way communications AND is part of the current NMRA DCC standards In practice two way comms doesn't actually bring huge benefits, as most uni-diectional DCC layouts demonstrate The fact is today , if you want bi directional DCC and use it to receive loco speed . Diagnostics , and decider ID, for track occupation , then all that can be done by remaining within DCC Bluetooth is merely an alternative way of doing the same thing. It brings very little to the market and adds complications without any benefit My reaction to this piece , is what I call " microprocessor do wonder " , ie wild claims of what the technology " might" be capable of Currently using DCC railcom , diagnostics can be returned , IF a manufacturer of DCC decoders decided it was useful. To suggest that Bluetooth streamed sound to say 20 locos is practical is not supported by Bluetooth itself. You are extending the technology into areas that it wasnt designed to go Bluetooth simply is an alternative method of communicating with a model loco. Given that power collection , with current battery technology , continues to be via rails , it offers very little benefit , other then being " different " Today an enthusiast can build a DCC system from a kit very simply , for about £30 , the whole spec is in the public domain Elements of Bluetooth are not in the public domain, especially specific manufacturers interfaces I would also say you are very uninformed as to the totality of DCC and what's available , that's over a dozen controllers , numerous add on bits, And there is a DCC point motor ( cobalt ) Bluetooth , other then being a bit more whizz bang , offers very little , and in fact adds unnecessary complication This leaves aside the issues of interference, throughput, multi channel issues associated with Bluetooth In reality , it's more likely in time that Wifi will be used direct to the loco not Bluetooth . To me that a far better system , then the inherent compromises that exist in Bluetooth Dave ( embedded systems engineer )

I think it's great this locomotive is back in service. I don't think it matters one wit if it's Triggers Broom , it sure still will sweep the floor and that's all that matters.

Thanks , yes I just realised that the wheels are only in 110. So yes my question became moot. 00 is narrow for 5,3" , but I've too much plain track to build lots of 21mm

I don't quite understand that layout. It will require all goods to use the platform to run around to free the loco. If you have a passanger train standing in that platform , how will goods trains access the goods sidings. ? It will require the head shunt to have a pilot loco there to free the engine At least the original layout while slightly over complex didn't suffer from this

Gordon, As a long time lurker on this thread. Could I say that you seem to suffer from "paralysis by analysis " and all these " suggestions " you receive from well meaning respondents just serve to distract you. Just stick to the original plan. Perfection is the enemy of good. At the end of the day it's an 00 gauge model railway. I dearly hope you get to the stage of something running, given the beautiful work you have built in the past and then destroyed. Personally I would completely ignore the siren call of the Internet forums and just plough on. It may not be perfect ( see previous cliche ) but it will spur you to continue if you get a basic setup running Good luck Dave

personally I find using one of the many layout design software a great help, especially ones that have the track components that you are using already built in . Ive used any rail, trak3 and SCARM, all have advantages and dis-advantages The great thing is that you can see what really works in the space, too many times on paper I seem to think I can squzze in x amount of track to then be roundly abused of that notion what I put it into a track layout program

Thanks Martin

This is a serious question not a flame, can anyone comment on the suitability of 00-Sf to accept proto 87 USA HO wheels. Will I get wheel drop. ? . I building some 4mm bogies for Irish GM diesel models and since they used 40 inch wheels, these are difficult to get this side of the pond. But 45" Proto 87 HO wheels scale very close in 00. Thanks

Hi any comments on the cameo2 , would you buy it or the Curio , I'm looking at both Dave

These are known as " suitcase" connectors, use a good brand like 3M and ensure you remain within the wire sizing specifications. If you do they are a good idea, most trouble with these is a function of cheap brands and improper wire size by selecting the correct ones, you can get different " run " and " tap" wire dimensions, with 18 AWG ( 1mm) taps and 10-12 AWG for the " run", this allows you to avoid the very inefficient and poor chocolate block connector shown. 3M calls then "tap and run connectors" in the scotchlok product range for example, there are many others, avoid the " junk" in the local auto parts shop

I just don't see the point of Bluetooth control, if you still must retain traction power via the rails. Bluetooth control is a solution looking for a problem , in my view. Nor would I pick Bluetooth as a rf transport. Way over complex for what's needed.

Ive said it elsewhere, - clever bear......

in practice the run line would be a good bit less as Nimh discharge is not linear, and varies also with discharge rate . Battery powered locos in under 00 gauge are a ways off, Ill be getting 500km from my electric car first before you'll see batteries for 00 and smaller as suitable

Usually in my experience , because there is a desire to " get trains running " to maintain enthusiasm Dave

Thank you for that. My own exhibition viewing has tended to focus on p4 layouts as I'm a closet p4 wanabe. I built considerable amounts of copperclad to BRSMB back in the " day ". I had formed a few that with C&l kits being to DOGA fine , it must have demonstrated a move to such a standard, but it seems I'm mistaken. Dave

Indeed. What has bedevilled 00-SF debates has been the persistent criticism of the " standard" by one or two people, who seem to put such criticism into every thread of 00-SF topics , much to the annoyance of the actual practical practitioners of 00-SF. Often the perspectives so advanced are related to US HO standard which have no relevance. Despite making their objections clear they persist in communicating them. Within the adherents of 00-SF there is little disagreement, with a few posts/debate on gauge transition etc. most of the threads, have been full of people who use 00-SF to good advantage trying to combat the couple of people that persist in trying to run it down. Dave

Well ask your questions and I'm sure many will try and answer. But be aware as you can tell there are disagreements about some of the semantics !! In essence it's quite simple , build turnout formations to 16,2 gauge with 1mm flange ways , which gives better looking 00 gauge track , with some benefits to the smooth running of kit ( iie narrower ) wheels. In general the combination of reduced gauge allows a narrow flange way but retains the ability to accept RTR back to back Either transition the gauge to 16.5 to use commercial flexi-track or remain completely within 16.2mm for all track There's nothing more really to be said ( well we have yet to discuss sleeper length and spacing compromises !!! )