jamespetts

Interesting - how many carriages can the I3s pull?

Interesting. It is difficult to find good information about these and in particular what they were actually doing in the mid-1930s, even though I own two books on Southern carriages.

This is unfortunate. May your internet recover speedily.

Gosh, the week-end already. It only seems like a week since the last one.

Interesting, thank you for this.

Interesting - a shame that that has closed down.

I posted rolling stock and fiddle yard occupancy/capacity computations earlier in this thread for the Moorgate version of this layout plan; here are the equivalents for the Aldgage version; first of all, the rolling stock requirements: Then the start of day for the 1939 guise: And finally the start of day for the 1957 guise:

You had your own ISP...?

Revised version of the Aldgate based layout, closer to the layout of real life Aldgate (albeit using Peco track) and with a slightly revised fiddle yard design

May I recommend Zen as an ISP? It is always worthwhile having a reliable ISP.

I approve of 3D printing.

Looking at this further, since I should not want to leave aside the idea of a narrow gauge layout entirely, 009 Micro Modeller's suggestion of a fold-away layout has much to recommend it. I have therefore computed how much space that a small portable layout would occupy stored on its side underneath the baseboards of the N gauge layout, and worked out that I can fit a 2.2m x 0.4m layout, on two baseboards, into that space and behind some of the furniture intended to fit under this layout (currently in another part of the shed whilst I work on the wiring of the N gauge), which space would otherwise go unused. Here is the resulting plan: It is a relatively basic design, intended to represent a north Wales slate railway in the 1890s. It will probably not be built for a while, so I intend to use the forthcoming Peco/Kato Ffestiniog railway locomotives for the main line section, plus one of the forthcoming Bachmann quarry Hunslets for the quarry spur. It is unfortunate that nobody yet produces models of the Ffestiniog Railway bogie carriages. The basic idea of this layout is that it is at the inland end of a slate quarry to port railway, serving the town associated with but ~2 miles away from the slate quarry; the line to the quarry diverges from the line to this town station a little way further down the tracks, but there is then also a direct line from the quarry to the town station used for (1) quarrymen's trains in the morning (possibly - nobody produces the quarrymen's carriages and I wonder whether quarrymen would simply walk 2 miles rather than take the train for such a distance); and (2) slate for use in the town. There is no space for carriage sidings, which are presumed to be at the port end of the line, and the engine shed is intended to be a secondary shed intended to house engines that run the first trains from the inland town/quarry to the port. The grey line represents the baseboard join, and the blue line represents the divide between scenic area and fiddle yard. The intention is for the layout to be able to be either automated, at least as to main-line movements, or run manually using a lever frame on the fiddle yard board. The signalling system is intended to be based on that of the Ffestiniog railway of this period, using the tall double armed station signals with a staff and ticket system, plus point position indicators, which are likely to have been used at the junction between the main line and quarry spur. The intention is to simulate this signalling system accurately in the automation software.

I have been prioritising work on my N gauge layout recently, so have not progressed this a great deal until very recently, when I noticed that the Bachmann Johnson 1P had become available and nearly sold out at the same time. Being somewhat reluctant to buy the three of them that I should need for the 1921 guise of this layout, I have looked at this concept further and produced an alternative design, based not on Moorgate, but on Aldgate. The plan follows: I have not yet got as far as producing the detailed schedules as above for the Moorgate version of the layout. Here are some 3d views from SCARM: Looking westwards from the platforms Looking eastwards towards the platforms and the diverging route for the Metropolitan (Hammersmith & City) line to Whitechapel. This track plan is functionally identical to the actual post 1938 layout at Aldgate, but is not exact of geometry and dimensions, so this station would be a pastiche of, rather than an exact recreation of Aldgate, and I should retain the "Pudding Lane" name for this version. There are various advantages and disadvantages of the Aldgate version of the layout: the new Aldgate version is a little simpler and will be easier to build; the old Moorgate version will have a more interesting variety of rolling stock, with a mix of main line and Underground/Metropolitan Railway services; the old Moorgate version will require more and more difficult to obtain/build items of rolling stock (e.g. 1906 stock for the Hammersmith & City services with complex lining and legends not available in transfer form for the 1921/1922 guise); the old Moorgate version will allow the sort of intensive terminating kick-back working that can be quite interesting, albeit mainly and possibly only in the peaks; the new Aldgate version has much more fiddle yard capacity compared to the number of trains needed to work the services, reducing the possibility of conflicts that would make setting up a workable timetable in the automation software difficult; the new Aldgate version has a unique and interesting feature in the form of the junction for the Whitechapel/Aldgate East line integrated into the station throat, as in the real Aldgate; the new Aldgate version has a track plan that is functionally identical to the real track plan at Aldgate such that it should be possible to run a real timetable without alteration; the old Moorgate version would be more suitable for operation by two people (one for the widened lines signalbox and one for the Underground signalbox), making social operation, including over the internet, more viable; the new Aldgate version has the most interesting part (the station throat) in a more accessible place than the old Moorgate version; and the new Aldgate version does not allow for any pre-1938 guises, but may be more suitable for later guises, as, unlike Moorgate, the track layout at this station has changed little since the 1938 rebuild. The fiddle yards have had to be reoptimised for the new version, with extra space being made available for fiddle yards for Metropolitan line services, there being sufficient fiddle yard roads for 2x F stock, 2x T stock and 2x Dreadnought locomotive hauled trains on top of Circle and Metropolitan (Hammersmith & City) services. As to era for the Aldgate version, I am thinking 1950s or possibly even late 1940s, although a 1938/1939 option would allow me to run the Pullman carriage if ever I build one; but the 1950s would be more straightforward whilst still giving an interesting variety (including, if before 1952, the "H" stock, formerly 1913/1921 stock). At present, the Aldgate version seems the more attractive, but, since it is likely to be a while before I start building it, my views may change again before I commence. However, I should be interested in people's considered views on the operating potential of this layout compared to the Moorgate version, the latest revision of which I show below: The track plan in full 3d view, looking eastwards towards the station from the direction of Aldersgate St. (Barbican) 3d view, looking westwards away from the platforms towards the direction of Aldersgate St. (Barbican)

I am afraid that I cannot make anything useful of suggestions if the information is very incomplete, which is why I ask questions. The suggestions about the wire layout in particular cannot be parsed so as to be able to be accommodated in the space that I have available, and I simply do not understand what you meant about additional boards or how those would relate to the layout baseboards. I do not think it in the least unreasonable to ask for a link to the source for highly technical information of this nature.

I am not sure that I follow - where do you envisage that these separate boards would be in relation to the layout? How would they be secured? As to short circuits, I am afraid that I do not follow the reasoning here - that a high resistance connexion to the track can in theory mask a short does not negate the importance of having wires with the capacity to take as much current as the booster can give (so as to prevent a fire hazard), nor does it explain why it is important that the booster, rather than the DCO, should cut out. I have tested the DCOs with the 7/0.2 wire, and they do in fact all trip when shorted with the equivalent of what you call the "quarter test" - you can even see this test being done in the video. Do not forget that the 7/0.2 wire goes only from the dropper to the occupancy detector. 16/0.2 wire is used between the occupancy detectors and the DCOs, and 32/0.2 wire from the DCOs to the booster. In relation to the LocoNet cables, do you have a link to the posting?

That is a delight.

Thank you both for your thoughts. As to stopping trains in any given short, given that the DCOs provide feedback to the computer, it would not be hard for me to configure them to pause the automation whenever a short occurs if I find that this is necessary or desirable. The other reasons for maintaining DCOs remain. As to the suggestion that 7/0.2 is inadequate for droppers, can you elaborate? In what way is it inadequate given that it exceeds by a 0.5A margin the current rating of the DCOs? What is the current rating of the "small stiff copper wire" that you use? Do I understand correctly that this will have to carry a maximum of 5A on your layout before the booster will cut out? Do not forget that not all short circuits are a dead short; it is possible to have a resistive short that draws a lot of current but not enough to trip the breaker in the booster (e.g. a resistive short drawing 4.5A). If this should exceed for an extended time the current rating in any of the dropper wires in the section(s) in which the resistive short occurs, then this is a serious fire hazard. As to drilling multiple horizontal holes, I am not sure how this would deal with wire routing issues - can you elaborate? I am not sure that I understand where the holes would be drilled, how these would fit around the existing circuit cards or how the wires would relate to them. Do you mean holes for passing wires through from quadrangle to quadrangle or holes for mounting P clips to take wire runs? If the former, these holes were put in by the people who built the layout. I do not have equipment to drill holes this large. If the latter, there is simply insufficient vertical space to get in two stacked wire runs plus circuit cards with the circuit cards having enough space on both sides for connexions, and that is without considering the fact that servo mounts are often right next to the structural members dividing the quadrangles in a number of places, making wiring runs along the tops of the quadrangles impossible. As to the suggestion apropos wire runs, that is interesting, although I note that no data are cited and this does not appear to be official documentation. I will nonetheless note the need to twist the cables, as, as noted above, I do not have space for multiple parallel wiring runs separated by a distance.

It was disappointing for at least one of your viewers, too - I hope that your internet is feeling its usual self again by next week.

Yes, indeed, the BR version has condensing, but not the MR version. Perhaps Bachmann will produce MR liveried condensing versions in the future, as worked over the Widened Lines; but that is highly uncertain, of course.

I am sorry if I have misunderstood: I have found it quite hard to follow in places, especially as in your earlier post this evening you wrote specifically about the amount of wiring, whereas you now state that you are referring not to the amount of wiring, but rather its layout and the amount of other hardware (seemingly the DCOs). I am not entirely sure that I understand the suggestion that it is always sensible to stop trains on other parts of the layout while a short circuit occurs; it is not clear that this should necessarily be the case (especially as the running is automated, and thus intended to be unattended in any event), and could be quite disruptive. Trains can quite easily be stopped manually either on the computer using the "ESC" key or with the emergency stop buttons in various locations around the layout. Also, as previously written, being able to track the fault giving rise to a short down to an area one seventh the size of the whole layout makes fault finding vastly easier than it might otherwise be. It is difficult to see why this latter advantage alone does not outweigh the relatively modest amount of additional wiring to which the DCOs give rise - can you elaborate? The DCOs also have another important advantage. The booster's output is 3A. The DCOs are each set to 1.5A. The dropper wires used are all 7/0.2, and thus rated at 2A. Upstream from the DCOs, I use much thicker wiring (32/0.2), rated for 4.5A (and I also use 16/0.2, rated for 4A between the DCOs and the occupancy sensors). The 16/0.2 wire is too thick to solder neatly to the rails, but the 7/0.2 is a good thickness. Using the DCOs, I can use the 7/0.2 wire to the track and ensure that it is protected from ever conducting a current in excess of its rating; otherwise, should a fault condition occur on the layout causing a section of track to draw just under 3A, the 2A rated wires might overheat without the booster registering a short circuit, which, if left unchecked for long enough, could cause a fire in the flammable wooden baseboards and thus be very dangerous. (This latter point, incidentally, is based on advice given to me by a club member who worked in process control/automation in the oil and gas industry for decades; this issue seems to be poorly understood among railway modellers). The use of DCOs thus allows the safe use of 7/0.2 wire whilst still allowing locomotives in all seven districts between them to draw up to 3A, so long as not more than 1.5A be drawn in any given district. a As to the organisation of the wiring, the difficulty is the limited amount of space under the board to run the wires; it is difficult to see how there could possibly be space for totally separate wire runs for different types of wires. If there is a better way of organising the wires that will not enormously increase the workload and will fit into the space available, do let me know so that I can consider it for future projects. As I wrote above, your wiring is very neat, but it is difficult to see how I could replicate that given the density of trackwork that I have and also the different hardware that I use. In relation to LocoNet wires being run next to other wires, may I ask whether there is any literature on this that I can study to understand this issue more thoroughly from a robust, empirical perspective? This is not a suggestion that I have seen before, and it is not written in the manuals for the LocoNet products that I use, so far as I recall.

I am having great difficulty in following your reasoning. Why does having multiple droppers in a section mean that the amount of wires in HO will be the same as in an equivalent N gauge layout? What you write is somewhat ambiguous - you write that it "can" be the same. Of course, it is possible for a given N gauge layout to have the same amount of wiring per square meter than a given H0 gauge layout; but that does not negate the fact that, all things being equal, any given N gauge layout will tend to have more dropper wires per square meter than any given layout of a larger scale. Can you clarify exactly what point that you are trying to make to what end here? I am unclear what one is supposed to take from what you have written on this subject. As to boosters and cutouts - I have only one booster on this layout, as N gauge locomotives draw less current, so use the DCOs instead to separate the layout into districts rather than boosters. Again, can you clarify what point that you are ultimately trying to make here and to what end? As to the level of complexity relating to occupancy, I am afraid that I do not understand what you have written on the subject. Are you trying to claim that the wiring on my specific layout could be simpler with no loss of function? If so, then I suggest that you have insufficient information to make that judgment (as demonstrated by the lack of any clear explanation as to precisely what specific wires can be omitted from my specific layout with no loss of function). If you simply mean that a different layout with a different scale and a different density of track may well have fewer wires, then that is no doubt true, but I do not understand what reason that you have for posting this. Can you elaborate? I am afraid that it is extremely unclear what you are trying to achieve by these posts - it would help if you could explain your purpose in posting much more clearly. At present, you appear to be coming across as insisting that my specific layout ought to have been wired differently without having any real understanding of how it is currently wired and why it is wired thus, and not being able to give any clear explanation of what specific things ought to be different and for what specific reasons that those specific things ought to be different, which comes across as irrationally hostile. Is this what you are trying to suggest, or do you mean something else? If something else, what is that something else, exactly? If I have misunderstood your intention, my apologies: but I am really struggling to understand what the purpose of your posts this evening is.

The amount of track will affect the number of wires as each occupancy section must have its own pair of droppers going to the occupancy detector. The more track that one has in any given area, the more sections that there are in that area, and thus the more wires that there will be. The smaller the scale and gauge, the more track that will fit into a given area for any given track layout normalised as to scale, and thus, all other things being equal, the smaller the scale, the greater the number of dropper wire pairs in any given area of baseboard that one will have. Certainly, there are not enough wire colours for all the sections on this layout. The District Cut-Outs are not completely necessary in the sense that the model railway can run without them, but it does make it an awful lot easier to know approximately whereabouts that a short circuit is and for that short circuit to affect only part of the layout rather than all of it. Also, these add relatively little to the amount of wires. Of course, the whole wiring could be simplified drastically without occupancy detection - but then there would be no automation. As previously written, it is a matter of balancing function with the additional work involved - just like the extra work in things like weathering and detailing models or any other sort of modelling.

That looks lovely and neat. How much track is there on top of these baseboards? The more track, the more wiring necessary. In N gauge, of course, there is room for more density in any given area. Can you elaborate on this? I am not sure that I understand to what you are referring. Which colour/types of wires do you mean here?

I am not sure that I entirely follow - the wiring is there in order to perform a function. Whether that function is worth the work involved in building and maintaining it is a matter of individual preference. What specific functions would you remove in order to reduce the amount of wires by what amount?

A complex question indeed; my planned layout requires exactly 3 of these, preferably of the condensing type, not represented in the current model.