Harlequin

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.

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.

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.

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/

Why are you not going to plan the layout on paper or on a computer first?

Are your iPad and iPhone connected to the same WiFi network?

@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?

Will do.

@Peak Adapting a real world plan isn't simply a matter of looking at a map and scaling down what you see. It's a complex recipe of measurements, compromises, trade-offs and sheer practicality. If you're careful you can compress track plans (shorten the lengths of parts selectively) and still keep the essential feel of a place. The same is true of simplifying a station plan. Leaving things out helps with compression because turnouts are removed and what's left can be pushed together but when doing that you have to be really careful not to affect the basic operation of the station. Station plans can be curved or even partially hidden to fit them into a room. Finally, ask yourself whether you can really afford the time, commitment and money to complete a large complex station.

All "Lake" colours are difficult for modellers because they were somewhat translucent and so the final appearance depended on whatever colour was painted underneath. To reproduce them accurately you need to know the whole painting scheme, most notably what the undercoat colour was, then how many coats of Lake were used and how many coats of varnish. (The railway companies liked Lake colours because they had depth - they looked "fancy".) RTR manufacturers hopefully do their research and pick a composite colour that they think is the best match but there are a lot of variables involved...

You seem to be missing an important distinction. No one is saying that current Lais decoders are pirated. Early versions were allegedly pirated but the current ones are not. Either the design has been revised sufficiently or an agreement was reached. The qualification "allegedly" has strong circumstantial evidence, which many of us choose to take at face value. Indeed, there are people reading this thread who saw the 2015 TCS statement. Many people who accept the commonly understood version of events choose not to do business with Lais as a matter of principle. You owe it to readers of your "DCC on a shoestring" proclamation to inform them that the Lais decoders have a controversial history, whether you believe that history or not, because that controversy is undeniable.

I was not keen to remove and replace the body too many times (!) but as far as I can judge, the body makes very little difference to the sound whether an enclosure is used or not. I think that's because it's such a big volume with relatively flimsy sides (from an audio perspective). I'll send you the STL if that's any use, or I can print one and send it.

Here's a video comparing the sounds with and without the speaker enclosure. I'm not making any great claims about this - you can hear a difference but it's not earth-shattering. Sound haters don't need to comment, thanks. I know the sound is a bit weedy.

The Hornby version has a slightly dodgy firebox but, yes, it's a pretty good loco even allowing for the age of the tooling. I might still get a Dapol version but I'll wait to see what they're like this time before committing.

For all the flaws of the Hornby 28xx, it does at least have the black parts painted black and a firebox top that doesn't make it look like a hunchback...

Hmmm, I love the old twenty-eights but I'm about to cancel my pre-order for a Dapol 28xx because I have no faith that they will get them right! Too many mistakes on recent items.

Readers of this thread might have missed this important update about bolections on the Twin Cities livery versions:

I have one word to say to that: Bolections. 😉

Hi "Olive" 😄, From your description it sounds like a very usable building. If you can insulate the cavity (take advice on whether that might cause damp problems) then you wouldn't need to insulate the walls internally. That would give you more room and make it easier to fix the layout to the walls. The garage door would need something semi-permanent built inside the opening to seal it up from drafts and insulate that end of the space. The roof structure needs to be insulated and the internal surface sealed to the internal wall leaf to stop drafts from blowing under the eaves and into the space. BUT make sure that the roof timbers themselves are still ventilated and can "breath". Again take advice. A simple wood frame in-filled with insulation boards and covered in OSB on the floor will make that a bit warmer to stand on. It doesn't matter if the floor's not level because you will level the baseboards independently. When creating the floor frame you might want to allow for baseboard legs to extend right down to the concrete for good solid support.

It's less than 24 hours since you posted photos, way too soon to give up! Give it time and try to contact a local club, as advised.

It's true. You can modify them if you want the "Rolls-Royce version" that addresses some potential problems but it's not compulsory and out of the box they will work fine 99.9% of the time.

Underframe details are often visible when vehicles are running on embankments and the viewpoint is slightly below. Seeing the correct gubbins in silhouette makes the view more realistic.

Sorry I used the wrong term. I meant passive radiator.

Thanks Mike, Most DCC speakers are supplied with sealed enclosures. Some have bass reflex ports passive radiators but they are still sealed. Have a look at YouChoos speaker catalogue, for example. In the Hifi world both sealed and ported speakers are used.

That's what the internet says about hifi speakers but empirically I think a sealed enclosure makes the sound louder when used with the typical miniature speaker we're using.