rynd2it

This is track bus only, no accessories. Two 4' X 2' baseboards, 009 simple layout. I'm using MERG Ezybus for accessories using Cat5e cables, can I use a Cat5e pair for the track connection?

Thanks for all the replies but the original question stands. Do I have to use the heavy wire from the Power Panel to the baseboard?

Everywhere I look it recommends using a wire size of at least 16/.02 for the track bus, some places twice that size. However, does that wire size need to be that big right back to the DCC power panel - I'm using an NCE starter kit with the Power Panel which has RJ45 plugs for the controller and a small PCB connector on the back for the track connections.

12 minutes ago, Nile said:

It matters if you are using DCC as you will get a short circuit. It could also affect DC control if the track is powered at the time.

The blades need to be bonded to their respective stock rails to get good continuity and to prevent shorts from oversized wheel flanges. Therefore you have to isolate the frog. Modern Peco points already have this done but these are old ones

18 hours ago, Nile said:

Some thoughts:

a) In my experience servos are strong enough to throw the points with the spring in place.

b) I'd make a connection to the tie bar on the surface, maybe a short length of wire-in-tube or similar to where the servo can be mounted, or connected to.

c) I wouldn't make any changes to the point, just wire up the frog and switch it electrically.

If I switch the frog I'll have a dead short as both blades are connected to it. The frog has to be isolated. Servos mount under the baseboard and I think I have a way to remove the spring but I will see how it works with it in place

I have inherited an 009 layout which has the track already laid down. I intend to operate the points with servos and have run into a couple of snags

a)   I cannot remove the springs which lock the point blades, these are old points and the access to the spring is underneath. Can I leave the springs in place when using servos?

b)   The person who laid the track did not drill any holes for the point operation. I have tried to drill from the bottom up after drilling a tiny pilot hole through the hole in the tie bar. I have had limited success by placing a No 10 scalpel blade under the tie bar to stop the drill bit which is marked with a depth gauge of white tape. Anyone got another solution?

c)  The points are all electrofrog but being old the frog is electrically connected to the switch blades. I don't want to rely on blade contact with the stock rail for continuity so I'm thinking cut the blades one sleeper away from the switch blade pivot and then bond the blade to its stock rail and have a frog switch for polarity. Is this the right way to go?

Thanks in advance

David

Ok, thank you for the help

Ah, I was fine until you wrote that. I'm not exactly sure what the inductor is although I can probably find the capacitor.  What effect do they have on the running and what exactly am I looking at?

Thanks for that, any tips or traps to look out for?

I did do a search on this item but didn't find anything. Anyone added DCC to one of these locos?

Thanks

David

I will have to totally rewire anyway with a heavier wire for the buss. The stock rail/blade contact is never reliable so I would add jumper wires if I can isolate the blades from the frogs, dead frogs would help for once. 

I agree with you on the heritage idea but as I just did one I was thinking about creating a working line this time

Thanks for the input

Actually the last 009 I worked on was a heritage line which provides great scope for running just about anything you want. 

I also thought about reversing the sheds and sidings 

Thanks for the input

I rescued an 009 layout from being dumped with a view to one day finishing it. 

It has two baseboards 4' x 2' and all the track is laid with some very rudimentary wiring and the backscene supports are will fixed down. The immediate plan is to mount it on folding legs, repair any damage to the track and get something running. I am undecided on DC or DCC and I have yet to closely examine the point frogs etc to see if this will influence the decision. This is my continuing lock down project to allow me to run some trains just keep me from going totally stir-crazy

Here's the basic track plan and one idea I have been mulling over.

I'd appreciate any comments and/or ideas for a period, style, industries etc; it's basically a blank canvas but I'm not looking to change the track plan, just use it.

12 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Bit of lateral thinking .  Traverser has 4 usable roads, blue is pushed all the way one way, orange the other,   Couple of spurs added behind scenery beside tunnel entrance.  Train arrives, Traverser moves to align with a spur, (needs 2 spurs as only 3 roads align with each spur).  Loco uncouples runs onto spur. Traverser moves to align spare road with spur. Loco runs to  other spur. Traverser aligns train with loco and loco pushes train back slightly and couples up. Traverser re aligns with exit road.  Simples.  No big hand, no broken handrails.

Interesting idea but challenging to get all those tracks to align properly especially at the baseboard join . I'll plot it all out with Templot and see how it fits. Thanks

5 hours ago, TheQ said:

Fine, we're all in 6  person Bubbles , so most nights there is a group at the club.

I'm in Fridays as usual,  John on his O gauge layout, Brian,  Hazel and Chas on Herrington which is all but finished and a Layout that was recently gifted to the club.. It's tired so needs some scenic renovation but it looks generally a good layout. 

 

Clive has withdrawn from the club due to ill heath.

 

The big storm we had Friday / Saturday led to trees down all over the place and the power going off in many areas, we could hear something sliding on the clubhouse roof in the wind which suggests there is roof damage..

Sounds great, best wishes to all and if they want to know what we are up to there is a new Facebook group 1687 Model Railways.

Thank you all for the input, very helpful indeed. Now to my drawing board to work out which ideas to use and how.

41 minutes ago, TheQ said:

I'm wondering if you had a slot the length of the traverser underneath in the supports and a pin  from the traverser dropping into it. You could pull out the other end to 90 degrees, slide the pin end from one end to the other then slide the traverser back into place. There not being space for a proper rotating traverser..

Hello Q, is all well at the BMRC these days?

David

Of course, but it would be good to switch ends every now and then

Yes, it's just a rough outline for now

Thanks

I quite like that idea, thanks. I will have to make my own as I am modelling in EM gauge, needs some research.

I'm planning a GWR branch terminus layout based on Faringdon and I am thinking about the fiddle yard. To keep expense and complexity down and provide maximum storage space I have decided a traverser of 5 roads is probably the way to go. 90% of the locos are going to be typical GWR pannier tanks which just need to change ends on the train but I also have a Dean Goods so I would like to be able to turn it round. I want to minimise the BHS (big hand in sky) and physical handling of the stock but I need a train length of 3 coaches or 10 wagons plus loco. All has to fit on a 4'  x 2' baseboard.

I see the issues as needing a headshunt to decouple the loco and run it round the train but this implies a headshunt of about 10" at each end leaving only just over 2' 4" for train storage. One solution might be to have one headshunt on the scenic board disguised by a cutting and a bridge but it would need to be long enough to hide any 'shunting' movements.

Any other ideas please?

14 hours ago, melmerby said:

I have two of these DRCs

One is the recent Dapol# version which comes with lighting already in place so there is little to set up.

The other is an original Lima version*. I have fitted interior & cab lighting but not yet marker lights.

 

*It's got a replacement Black Beetle motor bogie in place of the awful Lima pancake motor.

# the Dapol one has the option of using a (dummy) tail lamp in place of the red rear light

I have just obtained a replacement motor for the Parcels version and I'm also adding DCC, the Hornby is DCC ready. And then converting to EM gauge as well.

I did find a good link for head codes:

http://www.uksteam.info/gwr/hcodes.htm

so two whites would seem appropriate for the Hornby and maybe a single white for the parcels DRC.

On 31/08/2020 at 21:47, melmerby said:

The one by the logo is red, AFAIK all others are white.

The white lights approximate to normal loco headlights although the DRCs are usually depicted with the outer pair lit (express passenger).

(I suppose some workings could be considered stopping trains and may need a different lamp arrangement alight)

 

Which period are you depicting?

Under BR the normal practice seemed to be a standard oil lamp for the tail, rather than using the electric lamp.

 

e.g.

https://zenfolio.page.link/iBGHi

 

https://zenfolio.page.link/iXcMx

 

That's very helpful, thanks. My model period is likely to be immediate pre or post- WWII, so still GWR, and the two railcars I have are the later ones, not the original streamlined one. One of them is the Express Parcels - I'll check the head codes for that one.

Thanks

David

15 minutes ago, melmerby said:

The white lights always show to the front, a red light to the rear in direction the unit is travelling (either way)

 

 

 

 

Yes, I know that but which of the middle lights are used to indicate red, the lower one by the logo or the one above the windscreen?

22 minutes ago, melmerby said:

There isn't a "rear", both ends are the same.

There is an A end & a "B" end because the internal layout isn't symmetrical but the cab ends with the lights are the same.

Yes, as I said above.

But how were they used?