RobinofLoxley

Based on the original CAD plans the main platforms are seriously long - about 6 feet. But no train even half that length can negotiate anything to the right of the station, as shown they fall off the end of the layout before clearing the last point. So either you have short trains in very long platforms, or something has to happen at the right hand end to enable trains to come and go, a traverser or something. I tink there may be quite a few flaws in the propsed layout to the left of the station, but given the quality of what we can see, its very hard to tell. This one could run and run...

That seems a bit harsh to me. The US has a continental landscape where railways run through deep valleys and high mountain passes. The trains even used to get attacked....... We have bucolic landscapes and pretty looking villages with plenty of trains to nowhere branch lines and masses of archive photography to recall them. Hence our choice of scenery

If you have access to a PC you could consider downloading the demo version of Anyrail. A big help with dimensions generally. You can make plans for individual board sections to stay within the 50 track piece limit. Never worry about imitation.

Actually the only issue I have had with Seeps was unrelated to the function - I blocked the travel with ballast somewhat carelessly. I have 40 Pm's now, and will have 56/57. So testing other designs will be a necessity. But that wasn't really what my post was about.

In a way this is back to front. I have a whole load of solenoid points that I may or may not use when I convert to DCC. You have created a way to continue to use the stuff you already installed, inserting relays to be able to drive them from the Command centre, whereas I am going to control them direct through the Command control centre without needing the relays. The whole point of the Command centre for me is that you can junk all the DC stuff like the diode matrix. I'm sure it worked perfectly. The other aspect of course is that my approach will be more costly as relays are pence and a separate control unit to run the solenoids is tens of pounds.

I guess not what you wanted to hear, but Anyrail has this feature. Totals up the length of all track types separately as you go.

This is why I am rebuilding. I want my layout to be trouble free and at the moment it is anything but. I am in my late sixties now and don't want to be crawling under the layout in 10 years time. I noted while wiring reverse loops and sidings with separate power supplies via droppers that locos always started straight away on such sections, but in point-isolated sidings this almost never happens. As I will have longer track runs I will have to buy at least 1 box of flexitrack for the new layout and one consequence will be not quite so many droppers. I am also preparing to have blocks and feedback locations defined and will be wiring accordingly.

For throttle control in the future I can foresee voice activated throttles when the control is through a smartphone as the structure is already there. I have a few examples in industry already where the interface of an industrial control system is partly this way (for example an operator is not at the console when an emergency occurs, but can activate a stop through a headset). Just saying.

I am a newcomer to DCC as well and just gleaning all the info I can from people here. One comment made very strongly is that continuity of power supply is critical and must be supplied direct to every turnout and most track sections.

People sometimes forget but in a tight space use of first radius curves may be possible - I think some of the locos you might use like a 25 or possibly a 20 with the wheels they have may be able to navigate them. Opens up some more possibilities.

Woud you consider droppers soldered to fishplates adequate?

Thank you again for the suggestions. David, it may not have been obvious but the left hand terminus was elevated in the original, and the high level track carries over the lower on a bridge, not cross-overs. I am not keen to run track under the terminus as it will be completely walled in, makes me a bit nervous, although I did consider it. I like the suggestion for the points at top right, coming off the inside rail, i.e. not crossing, and I have added these to one of my plans as a strong possibility. However it complicates the reversing loop area, which I am keen on. There had been some other changes too from the original which I hadn't posted up. In fact, your suggestion would be a pretty good iteration of the original trackplan. I have posted a new file showing where I am. The vertical bars represent no-go areas for point motors due to baseboard edges. Thats why the sidings at top right are the way they are. Also I am preserving the 5 track arrangement of the through station as it corresponds loosely to my real world reference. And after posting I notice that one or two mods are missing from this version. I am saving variations and if I modify the wrong file I'm in a mess....

I just put acupuncture in as a search term here, and nothing popped up except Chinese medicine.

I am slowly getting the hang of DCC having spent hours literally reading the threads here, so a big thanks to all who contributed. I have designed a layout, when I start to build it I am going to wire it in blocks from the start. Now I think there should be a pattern to it, if any considerations of how many decoder devices might have to be fitted to read every block are ignored. It seems to me that the key component considering what a 'Block' should be, is the point. This is distinct from signalling blocks but the territory is very similar, except sidings might not be signalled where as for full locating capability, every one would need its own detector. My question is what to do at the interface between blocks, which will usually be a point. To isolate the individual blocks, IRJ's are needed, so firstly, would it be good practice to use IRJ's on each rail every time? The detector only needs one rail (I am talking current detectors only here) but is the performance better if IRJ's are on both rails. Secondly, which parts of the point would be isolated. There are three track feeds to every point, if all three are isolated, then the point rails will need their own power feed which might be an inconvenient thing to do. So you have to feed either both sets of track at the vee end or one set at the switch end. You could choose to set the IRJ's one track piece away from the point on on or all connections, leaving a hole in the track plan with no detector. Of course the system in most cases will know which way the point is set, and on a preset route will see the Loco disappear from one detector, and after an interval, re-appear on another one beyond the point. My layout would also have blocks with points connected to each other with one track element in between. Points in a row will have one side with continuous power and the other side powered from the feeds on the (assumed) siding, so in this case a block would be achieved by putting IRJ's in the non continuous side? I hoe this makes sense. So how have people done their own layout, and why? Sorry if its a big question....

Do you think your article is still as valid today as when written in 2008? Industrial electronics is supposed to bea rapidly moving environment.....

Thanks for the support there. I was already a bit further on than the last posted trackplan, having fixed one terminus. I have now fixed the other one as well., and removed the redundant facing crossover too. I will have to work out something useful to do with the points. I take your point about the operability of the 'template Keith. However I will have a lot of options as I don't have the pinch points at the access to the terminus stations. The only thing that is still bothering me are the reversing loops. The current plan has two, but neither of them are particularly close to the stations so the locos going to and from the loops will 'block' other operations. But as Im going DCC probably running with Itrain I see this just as a challenge.

Ah, track pins and pilot holes, not a good idea at all. Thanks for the information.

So you mean 9mm OSB is denser than 9mm ply? Its all wood so its hard to see how that can be. But density normally confers superior mechanical properties. I am asking because I am about to rebuild and my table area will be 30M squared. OSB is about half the price of ply at the same thickness and the difference will be £150 or thereabouts

Thanks Keith. Quite right about that cross-over, it would have found its way to the front at build time. I wasn't 100% sure which way I needed to go with that, but I have existing RH crossovers I can use. Generally about the well, fortunately I am quite slim!! I have some room to increase it at the lower end, but that is an area reserved for building a station frontage. I have updated the design there to be similar to my existing layout where the track runs are similar to Wolverhampton High Level, c 1960, my ploy to justify having BR Midland and GWR stock on the same layout (took my cue from Pete Waterman and Leamington spa). In the upper left of the well there is space to increase the cut-out area there, and the station is raised, which will make it easier to access. Its not ideal, but moving it lower down forces a very unnatural look to the station approach. Yes, I havn't got run-arounds. They only work for the paired central tracks anyway. As I will be going to DCC my plan is to disconnect the arriving loco, pull the train out with another one. I usually have 5 coach trains and in that left hand terminus that will be tight. On the existing layout, my main station is the Wolverhampton type, but lying transverse across the loft with the approach tracks outside the trusses, in effect on a big bridge. Too much to crawl under, long term. I did it to have seven coach trains. Big goods and loco storage behind it. No-one has commented yet about the overall scheme being a bit modern image looking for 1960. Its partly forced on me by the loft itself.

As an add-on to this thread, no-one mentioned OSB board. Could it be used? In my case the main panels will be cut on a table saw so splintering shouldnt be an issue. As for the dimensional stability of plywood, I'm a bit surprised at some of the reported outcomes here, as any trip to timber merchants you can find whole pallets of plywood sheets already warped in the warehouse.

Thanks Keith I found that out from another thread. Actually its a pity the site doesnt support Anyrail files in any way. As an update I have settled oon the dumbell design with ongoing mods that I will post in due course

Do any guidelines exist anywhere, or would it be a case of coming here with a specific equipment list. I am some way off the installation of accessory decoders anyway.

For someone contemplating going into DCC this is the nightmare. Wiring stuff up, having it not work, and having no idea why not.

OK I now need to fess up to a bit of idiocy. I assumed that Insulfrog was a generic term for DC era points lacking the extra connectors required that are present specifically in Peco Electrofrog points. Most of my points are actually Hornby, which explains why I didnt have the reported problems. To be fair to me, this distinction is often not made, because I suppose people assume that everyone knows. Much happier this morning as one big task has crossed itself off

Yes you are right. Typical modern house. I find the presence of the trusses a challenge, but you get used to them.