Jump to content
 

Harlequin

RMweb Gold
  • Posts

    5,498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Harlequin

Profile Information

  • Location
     West Devon
  • Interests
    Professional programmer; amateur designer, gardener, self-builder, railway modeller.

Recent Profile Visitors

17,244 profile views

Harlequin's Achievements

14.7k

Reputation

  1. Yep, I agree. The instructions look like a very conservative update of the previous code 75 version. They could at least have provided separate DCC and DC instructions. I don’t think that would have been too confusing.
  2. The discussion here is specifically about unifrog slips and whether they can be laid with metal joiners before you have decided whether to power the frogs or not. The big advantage of unifrog turnouts is that they can be laid in that way and I’m a bit suspicious of Peco’s diagram above because it doesn’t show the electrical breaks within the part which are fundamental to the unifrog concept.
  3. Tonight on Channel 4 at 8PM: George Clark's Remarkable Renovations Series 3 Ep 5. "It's full steam ahead in Gloucestershire, as Marcus and Kathryn convert a derelict railway goods shed. Can they transform it into their dream family home?"
  4. The first Dapol large prairies gave some people problems because the rear pony truck was too highly sprung and didn't have enough travel. So it tended to lift the drivers off the track and that was amplified on track that wasn't perfectly level. Dapol say they have fixed this for the next batch, which includes the old square drop-ended 31xx that would be perfect for hauling M&C toplights if it has good traction this time. But will they paint the black parts black or grey on this new batch???...
  5. Yes, BUT... If you rely on the track joiners to transmit power around the entire layout it might be unreliable because they might be loose, they might tarnish. It's recommended to have a few power feeds in strategic locations. Because the layout will be DC if you ever want to run a second loco you will need a way to isolate one while you run the other. Yes. Yes.
  6. That's a backwards step, I think, but hey it's a step in the process. The formation at the bottom doesn't look realistic. The sidings are still too short. The tracks bottom right are too close together so that long vehicles will hit each other. The platforms are a bit odd because the island gives you two platform faces so what does the third, inner one do? When you say "fold line" are you thinking about the two boards being hinged in some way? Have a look at "GW Adventure" in my track plans album because it's similar to what you're trying to do and might give you some ideas. There's a tree-line ridge along the centre to create two different scenes and give trains somewhere to go to and come from, as someone talked about above. It could be done in Code75 but not bullhead because it uses curved and short turnouts.
  7. Sorry but I don't understand what you're driving at. The frogs are isolated in the double-slips in the same way and are the only parts that need to change "polarity". All the outgoing rails are permanently wired. Obviously if the frogs are wired up and switched they will be at different "polarities" to the some of the adjacent rails but the routes set by the points will have the correct "polarity" throughout. This is getting a bit Off Topic and DCB's notes about wiring up Unifrog turnouts for DC might confuse the OP.
  8. The rail breaks are built into the turnout. The frog and the wing rails are isolated from the main rails: So out of the packet there's a very short un-powered section a bit like Insulfrog but it's metal and can be switched via the attached dropper lead.
  9. Hi @Outrunn, I agree with the concerns above about the tightness of radii in Code75 bullhead but I'm sure it can be done if you're careful. You need to stagger any rail joins in the curves and hold the track securely in position so it can't develop any kinks. For that reason it might be better to glue rather than pin the track (and that saves all the anguish of trying to drive tiny pins into the baseboard). The platforms set against the most tightly curving parts of the track mean that they will have to be set significantly back from the track if you intend to run any long vehicles. Might look silly. One siding and the whole engine shed area have facing connections to the running line. In the steam era this would have been avoided wherever possible. In a single track line with a passing loop the connections would trail into the appropriate side of the loop. In this respect the plan would be better if it were mirrored left-right or top-bottom (but not both!) - but that would make the shed more difficult to operate so a more radical rethink might be needed. To be sure you have enough room in the engine shed area it might be worth placing the required elements on the plan: Shed, ash pit, somewhere to store ash, coal stage/platform, water. Will you rely on those modeltech rail aligners to align the boards, not just the rails? They don't look very strong and since they will overhang the edge of the boards, especially where track crosses the "fold" at an angle, they will be prone to damage. The traditional solution of board aligners and flush cut track seems safer to me. Unifrog turnouts on DCC: No need for any insulating joiners. Just remember to take the frog wire down through the baseboard when you lay them and then you can decide on/implement the frog switching later. Remember that Cobalt point motors will require some depth of framing below the board surface to protect them. BTW: Did you notice there's a subforum specifically for this sort of question? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/forum/66-layout-track-design/ Ah well, never mind.
  10. The problem I see with that is that the flying junction takes one line to the inside but then immediately has to crossover to the outside again with another flying junction. So it looks a bit artificial and the diverging double track lines never really become true double track. You probably have the same misgivings. There's also the issue that of the 6 circuits only 4 can be left running unattended at any time because of the shared quad lines on the left. Maybe that's not really a problem, though. So here's an idea: Move the FY to the left. The quad track runs around a generous curve on the right After the flying junction bring the double track diverging lines together so they are true double track for a while. Maybe run them through a small station on the south side (see Bowes Park on google maps). Maybe the quad track runs through a tunnel, like the prototype, allowing the double track line to cross over it to the outside less obtrusively. This is optional. Then run the quad track main line and the double track line into the FY on the left, and crucially, resolve the double-track's inside/outside state in the fiddle yard by having another hidden flyover to get one line back where it started.
  11. It would be a good idea to do some research about layout design, then. There are hundreds of books and magazine articles on the subject. There's a special area of the forum for layout design here: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/forum/66-layout-track-design/
  12. Why are you not going to plan the layout on paper or on a computer first?
  13. Are your iPad and iPhone connected to the same WiFi network?
  14. @Peak I notice that you haven't responded to the discussion here, apart from asking another unanswerable question. How much space have you got to make your layout? Are you going to use an existing room, or a garage or are you going to build something to suit?
×
×
  • Create New...