Tallpaul69

Hi Pete, Iain, and other readers of this thread, As consisting is not an urgent need even when my layout is built, I think I will put it on the back burner for now! I have only had the NCE a week or so, thus it is early days! I might try standard (or old style as NCE term it) consisting, but as I will mainly need it for top and tailing trains when I run modern eras, it is not urgent. Next thing to try is altering the CV3 and 4 on the locos chipped so far to see what adjusting the acceleration/deceleration does for them! Then I might get onto adjusting the volume of some of the sounds on the sound fitted locos, but this will probably get left until the second sound fitted loco is collected in a week or so. Best regards Paul

Too True! I tend to steer clear of what I term the "Market Traders" at exhibitions and talk to the people I know or whose reputation is good. Also I am good at resisting impulse buys!! I probably will spend very little tomorrow, I will just talk to people and watch the running of relevant layouts.

So having decided to go for DCC, how did I get going? I have kicked off with an NCE Power Cab. Having seen good comments on this controller on my "To DCC or not" thread, and as my local model shop is a stockist and can give me help and support, it seemed a sensible way to go. I am taking things one step at a time, initially I bought one chipped loco, a brand new Hornby TTS Castle (I like Castles!). I expect that sound will by the cost be limited mainly to shunting and slow moving locos, where I think it will be most effective. Chipping is not something that I feel confident to try myself, so I am happy to pay the charges to have it done for me. So I have an existing 56xx tank being sound chipped and collected three chipped locos yesterday. They are a Hornby 08, a Bachmann Pannier and a Hornby Castle. All are fitted with Zimo non sound chips. These locos were chosen to explore facets of DCC:- The Castle to compare with my TTS Castle - I have third Castle which might soon get a sound chip. Further to the above, I have received information which says that the HCC Castle (amongst others) was the Airfix 1979 body on a Dapol 1985 Chassis. The shunters to compare diesel and steam shunters under DCC. Later a similar pair will get sound chips, again for comparison. The panier is also non DCC ready, so I get a view of hard wired against socketed chips. So today, I got a view on setting up loco addresses, and also see how the above locos run on my test track. I have now completed the readdressing of the three locos recently chipped, and am pleased to say it was not difficult. They all work fine. I then got overconfident and decided to try pairing the two shunters in what the NCE manual calls a consist. This was not difficult, but the problem I have is that I can't work out and the manual doesn't help on how to stop the locos working in a consist and return them to working against their individual addresses. When I call up the individual addresses and advance the throttle, they just don't move? Any help on this would be appreciated? I am also off to Ally Pally this weekend to gen up further on the possibilities. Best regards Paul

So having decided to go for DCC, how did I get going? I have kicked off with an NCE Power Cab. Having seen good comments on this controller on my "To DCC or not" thread, and as my local model shop is a stockist and can give me help and support, it seemed a sensible way to go. I am taking things one step at a time, initially I bought one chipped loco, a brand new Hornby TTS Castle (I like Castles!). I expect that sound will by the cost be limited mainly to shunting and slow moving locos, where I think it will be most effective. Chipping is not something that I feel confident to try myself, so I am happy to pay the charges to have it done for me. So I have an existing 56xx tank being sound chipped and collected three chipped locos yesterday. They are a Hornby 08, a Bachmann Pannier and a Hornby Castle. All are fitted with Zimo non sound chips. These locos were chosen to explore facets of DCC:- The Castle to compare with my TTS Castle - I have third Castle which might soon get a sound chip. Further to the above, I have received information which says that the HCC Castle (amongst others) was the Airfix 1979 body on a Dapol 1985 Chassis. The shunters to compare diesel and steam shunters under DCC. Later a similar pair will get sound chips, again for comparison. The panier is also non DCC ready, so I get a view of hard wired against socketed chips. So today, I got a view on setting up loco addresses, and also see how the above locos run on my test track. I have now completed the readdressing of the three locos recently chipped, and am pleased to say it was not difficult. They all work fine. I then got overconfident and decided to try pairing the two shunters in what the NCE manual calls a consist. This was not difficult, but the problem I have is that I can't work out and the manual doesn't help on how to stop the locos working in a consist and return them to working against their individual addresses. When I call up the individual addresses and advance the throttle, they just don't move? Any help on this would be appreciated? I am also off to Ally Pally this weekend to gen up further on the possibilities. Best regards Paul

I would like to find out what the Western Region used around 1960 as a substitute for the 3 car AEC Railcar set comprising two single ended cars and an intermediate corridor coach. One of the two of these was stationed at Reading and while it mainly worked in the Reading-Newbury area it did do a morning run empty from Reading to Slough, and in service, from Slough through to Newbury. This is my interest in the unit. Clearly it had to be serviced, and possibly sometimes broke down? If, so what was used to substitute it? Doubtless as time went on there were class 117 3 car DMUs at Reading in sufficient numbers to cover the duty? But c 1960, towards the end of the steam hauled trains between Newbury and the Thames Valley Line what was used? I think it unlikely that anyone will make a ready to run 00 version of this set, so short of cannibalising, or finding someone to cannibalise, some Lima single car units, I need to find a substitute for this unit! Any ideas? Many thanks Paul

Thanks for your positive replies, Guys. I have kicked off with an NCE Power Cab. Having seen good comments on this controller on my To DCC or not thread, and as my local model shop is a stockist and can give me help and support, it seemed a sensible way to go. Chipping is not something that I feel confident to try myself, so I am happy to pay the charges to have it done for me. Collected three chipped locos yesterday. They are a Hornby 08, a Bachmann Pannier and a Hornby Castle. All are fitted with Zimo non sound chips. These locos were chosen to explore facets of DCC:- The Castle to compare with my TTS Castle - I have third Castle which might soon get a sound chip. However, I have received information which says that the HCC Castle(amongst others) was the Airfix 1979 body on a Dapol 1985 Chassis. Thus the Castles are not mechanically the same! The shunters to compare diesel and steam shunters under DCC. Later a similar pair will get sound chips, again for comparison. The panier is also non DCC ready, so I get a view of hard wired against socketed chips. I have now completed the readdressing of the three locos recently chipped, and am pleased to say it was not difficult. They all work fine. I then got overconfident and decided to try pairing the two shunters in what the NCE manual calls a consist. This was not difficult, but the problem I have is that I can't work out and the manual doesn't help on how to stop the locos working in a consist and return them to working against their individual addresses. When I call up the individual addresses and advance the throttle, they just don't move? Any help on this would be appreciated? I am also off to Ally Pally this weekend to gen up further on the possibilities. Best regards Paul

Thanks for this Chimer, Yes, going down rather than up has a number of benefits. As you say it is easier to make it disappear. The main problem to get over is access. It would be necessary to run the branch so that its fiddle yard was at the front of the area below the main fiddle yard rather than the back. I think that it might be necessary to run the branch all the way round at a lower level so as to terminate under the front of the "Lower Thames Yard" goods yard? Maybe Phil can draw out the possibilities? Running the branch on the level is where I started with my drawing "Partly Maidenhead", the only difference being that the branch was in the inside rather than the outside. One of the problems with everything on one level is that of fiddle yard siding/loop space, and the yards capacity. Lower Thames Yard has only just about enough space to run a realistic service on the min line and branch, bearing in mind that the "Branch" was really more of a single track main line! While I can get away with running the same express through a number of times to portray different expresses, you do really need a variety of trains (expresses, stopping trains, suburban trains, pick up freights, fast freights), and a few trains peculiar to the line to give it its unique flavour. Partly Maidenhead got round the space problem by the branch being round and round and only having one branch yard. However that yard had more kickback sidings than the two branch fiddle yards here in Lower Thames Yard, so would probably be more difficult to operate. Again, perhaps Phil can draw your idea out? Glad someone has contributed some different ideas, how about some others, please folks? Best regards Paul

Phil, Thanks for your thoughts on my last posting, lets leave the loop labelling as it is for the moment. Re the occupation of the loops and mains within the fiddle yard, I need the minimum of two trains in each one unless I am leaving the up and down mains free for trains to continuously circuit while I am doing complex shunting in the yard. Hopefully I can also squeeze in a few minimal trains to vary the running. One further unique train I have yet to work out how I am going to portray is the use of a 3 car GW railcar set for an empty morning run Reading to Slough, and then a return trip Slough to Newbury. In real life this was the only one of these sets in the area, it spent the rest of the day between Reading and Newbury. The possibilities are either to run two single GW railcars with a coach in between, or try to find out what was used when the set was being serviced or had broken down, and see if that can be modelled!. I will try asking the question in the Prototype section of the forum! At worse, it will have to be another class117 DMU! If I can find a satisfactory consist then I might work a second trip in the early evening into the timetable, perhaps instead of the umpteenth circuit of the Class 117 DMUs or of one of the expresses! Re the Reading-Princes Risborough parcels , your thought about it moving from fast to relief is a good one. I wanted to try to avoid running it round several times to preserve its unique status. Re the Oxford-Slough Fish, I think it is getting to the stage when I need to decide the "overnight" occupation of the loops and mains and also how the reversing of the up trains to down trains might work. Then I can see what waiting locos etc. need to be in sidings in area A1-A3 to B1, and see if the "Fish" can be fitted in there. It might also fit into one of the long loops with two other trains, but the tricky bit is working out which freights the fish vans will run anticlockwise round on their return trip to Reading with, and then how they get shunted to come together! I think we should try to avoid more fiddle yard cross overs, as you say they impact the timetabling, and the capacity of the loops. There are bound to be compromises to think round between which trains can be stored one behind the other, and which trains best use the differing loop lengths. I do find timetabling satisfying so this will not be a chore. Best regards Paul

Glad you got the uploading sorted Phil! Re the points on the latest plan:- DMU loop using the red option and some of the entry curves into the storage loops adjusted to improve clearances.- Looks good Branch kickback storage siding reduced to just one (because even another short one made the bench space so small as to be pointless). OK Compensated for single kickback by extending Branch storage siding 4 around to K3. That extra length and the points ladder should give you enough room to shuffle the locos in the kickback. Great, I think that works. Can we relabel the down loops to reflect the changes in use?? I suggest:- Current loop3 becomes down main Current loop 4 becomes loop3 Current down main becomes loop 4 Also, I have two trains cycles that identify the area but which I am struggling to find accommodation for part of their routine:- 1) a) 5.40am Parcels - Reading to Princes Risborough via Maidenhead and High Wycombe - arrives clockwise in Lower Thames Yard at 6.00am, runs round and proceeds up branch.- OK, there is space in the Terminus yard during the day, but the problem is holding siding for train overnight. Train splits during day in terminus yard and vans return to Lower Thames Yard on three different passenger trains. -Fine no problem. b) Vans assembled in Lower Thames Yard to form 8.10pm Maidenhead to Reading parcels- departs anticlockwise to overnight holding siding-see a) above The consist of this train is peculiar to it so would prefer not to use the standard clockwise parcels, as that will make several circuits during the day. The overnight to be stored consist of this train is 2 bogie parcels vans+ lwb parcels van + 5 swb vans. This might be held in the lower branch yard, but as present configured, can only access up main via the crossing at 6L to 7K which is inside scenic area. Could this crossover be moved anticlockwise so it could be just inside tunnel(?) and not scenically visible (without altering the L4-L5 crossover). 2) Oxford to Slough Fish and parcels via Reading. There is no return of this train so the fish vans dropped in Lower Thames Yard need to return anticlockwise in another freight. This is how in real life they got to meet the specialist empty fish van trains from Swindon at Oxford. This is quite a short train (6vans =brake) which might be squeezed into the Lower Branch Yard, but the crossing to the up main is the same problem as for the Reading Parcels above. Otherwise can we squeeze a siding for this train in K1- L2? There may be alternate answers, so I am open to suggestions? Best regards Paul

Glad you are able to give your Castle etc. a good run, and liked the results. Even when my layout is built in 12ft x8ft round and round, my locos will need more than 2 circuits to equal your run! I have a Grange to be sound fitted, so I will be interested in your results. I will also be watching the snooker, but I'm afraid it will be on TV! Enjoy your trip. Cheers Paul

I think the NCE Manual suffers from being written for states side consumption! It took me a while to figure out the "toggle" action. I think we expect everything to work like our TV controllers, and the NCE doesn't! By the way Les, if you have yet to do so, don't forget to send in your registration for the NCE so you get free software upgrades. I thought it might not be beneficial here in the UK, but an answer to another thread highlighted that they do send out upgrades etc. to the UK. Best regards Paul

Thanks Cravensdmufan (I prefer class 117s!) I will soon start on my diesel fleet, so I will come to you for advice, especially in the case of DMUs! The rough plan is to do one diesel and one steamer each month plus 2-3 non sound fitted. I agree with you about the benefit of sound is most on slow moving/shunting locos. However, I can see that this might change to doing less per month but all sound fitted. I might be able to progress to fitting some of the socketed items myself, so I will be looking at my fleet to decide which is the least important one to have a go at! If I can do some myself, then I can either get more done more quickly, or reserve some funds to have the older items that have no socket done professionally. I have promised a contact who also has the same loco, that when I get my 56xx tank back with sound I will try to do a video. If I manage it I will post it on here and might do one of the Castle as well! Best regards Paul

For the moment, having only started on my DCC adventures last week, when I purchased a NCE Power Cab controller and a Hornby TTS Castle, I am a novice, but I thought that over the next few months I would share my experience of TTS and other sound fitted Locos. I have set up a 6ft long test track, comprising three sidings, a straight track, and then three more sidings facing the opposite way to the first three. I have also given three locos I already had to my local model shop to be chipped. One is a 56xx tank, which is DCC Ready, and will be sound fitted. The second is a pannier tank, which is pre DCC ready, and will have a non sound DCE Concepts chip fitted. The third is a loco powered Castle, and this will also have the DCE Concepts chip. Longer term I aim to fit sound to more of my locos, but cannot afford to have them all sound. My feeling is that I will benefit most from the sound in locos that are working hard at slow speed. I think that locos that speed through the main line of the round and round 12ft x 8ft 00 gauge layout that is currently being planned, will not demonstrate much benefit from sound. So the initial job is to test this theory. Initial impressions of the TTS sound have been good. In such a short track it is difficult to form an opinion about the exhaust sounds of the Castle, but most of the spot and loop sounds, seem accurate interpretations. However, I think I will want to play with the relative volumes of some sounds. It will be interesting to see if I find benefit from the ability of the 56xx to play 4 sounds simultaneously against the 2 that TTS can reproduce. The quality of the sounds will also be interesting to compare. So I will update everyone once I have had a chance to try out the other chip fitted locos. Best regards Paul

Good Afternoon Phil, and any others watching this thread. In this post, I am just dealing with my point 1) in my earlier post:- I think a through loop is the best answer and taking on board your comments (below):- The red option would reduce Storage loop 2 from 3.35m down to 2.54m. The magenta option would reduce Storage loop 3 from 3.83m down to 2.08m. A red to red loop would be about 2.5m long and a magenta to magenta loop would be about 1.9m long. (All lengths ignoring clearance between tracks close to the points.) I would go with the red option as the magenta option gives shorter loops and also leaves the right hand end of loop 3 ( in squares K2, L2, and L3) unused if the DMU loop is to be accessed from the right hand end. Not keen on the idea of spurs off a double slip, I think that would be asking for derailments!! Will post further about the branch fiddle yards, but I do think a useful compromise, to allow some useable bench space, on the kickback sidings in squares B2-E2 would be to lengthen the siding currently ending in square D2 by curving it round beside the down main. I know the curve would have to start quite early to maintain the 2ft minimum radius, and might look a little odd, but I think that is acceptable in a fiddle yard. Then I would shorten the lower siding just to hold one loco. I suggest this because it looks like the order the locos return to the yard in the evening is not the order they need to be in for the next morning! Hope this makes sense? Many thanks Best regards Paul

Good morning Phil, Thanks for your continued good work ! Firstly, good idea to have grid labels, it makes it a lot easier to refer to things! I understand what you mean about free bench space! I think extending the yard head shunt through to A3 is useful for moving stock on/off the layout. With regard to what the up and down through lines are called, you are correct that they owe more to the real life relief lines than the main lines. However, while you and I will know what we are talking about if we call then the reliefs, other readers less familiar with the real location might get confused! I think I have three areas to look at the timetabling for:- 1) DMUs and use of a middle loop or my suggested sidings. 2) The working of the B2 to K2 branch yard, and also related to this:- 3) The working of the A1- J1 Terminus yard. I do know that the siding ending in D2 would have to hold at the start of the day 3 tank locos, two 61xx and one pannier. In the real world these all left Slough shed early morning. The pannier worked through to Twyford, shunted there and returned through Maidenhead to Taplow c 08.00 The first 61XX arrived at Maidenhead c5.30 to pick up the set of coaches from the carriage siding (ends at D8), and left Maidenhead for Paddington at 06.00,The second 61xx arrived at Maidenhead c6.20, and took the branch to Bourne End to pick up a set of coaches(i.e. from the Terminus yard), and left for Paddington c7.30. There was also another pannier that arrived at Maidenhead from Slough LE c09.00 and shunted until early afternoon. I have yet to timetable where this comes from. It cannot be the first pannier because that passes through Maidenhead for the branch with a goods from Taplow while the second pannier is in the yard shunting! So this might have to start from the siding D2 as well. I will probably come back to you on my 3 above points in a couple of posts, as doing it all in one go might get too long and complicated, certainly for anyone except you and I who might read it! Best regards Paul

Hi Everyone, As you may have seen from my last entry in my thread "To DCC or not?" I have decided to go for DCC in my 00 gauge 12ftx8ft round and round layout, based on a 2 track WR main line, branch junction, and yard. The layout track plan will be a compromise because while the main focus is on a 1960-62 era scene in the lower Thames Valley west of London, I have, and wish to run, from time to time, locos and stock from a number of periods up to c2016 (when electrification infrastructure spread into the area). I want to run singlehanded, a fairly intensive timetable, which I have generated from what I consider are the interesting movements from the 1960 WTT, coach and locomotive diagrams. So, I think I need eventually, to have a touch screen mimic diagram. Initially my DCC equipment will be used on a small end to end test track, that I am setting up in my workshop, which is separate from the dedicated railway room. Having set the scene in this first post, next time I will share the details of the equipment I have bought. Best regards Paul

Hi Guys, Having made the decision to go for DCC, I think this thread is done. It has served its purpose, so I will start A NEW ONE to kep everyone up to date on how it goes and to ask questions that are bound to come up! Thanks to all for their contributions even if some did wander a long way from my original question and 00, my gauge of choice! Best regards Paul

Hello Phil, Managed to do a little work on the plans:- The branch yard at baseboard level, needs capacity for an additional train. I think we might need to take the fiddle yard side of the baseboards out to 2ft wide to get in another siding to the branch yard, then run the kickback off the new siding. The new siding would need to hold a 61xx tank plus 3 suburban coaches plus another 61xx getting out of the kickback. Alternatively, the current outside siding needs to be longer to take a 61xx tank + 3 suburban coaches and a second train of a 56xx 0-6-2 tank and 10 standard length wagons? I guess this means a corner piece of baseboard at the right hand side? On the subject of the supports for the terminus board, there will be good room for those near the room door. If we fit in the DMU loop as two sidings buffer ends either side of another support, it is just the right hand end of the terminus board without a support. I know you said that a DMU siding would shorten the loop it feeds off, can you work out the length that the existing loop would then be and the lengths of the then 2 DMU sidings? Many thanks Paul

Not sure if the 14xx referred to is 00 or 0? SO:- For the sake of clarity can I suggest that SOMEONE starts an O Gauge version of this thread which will leave this one for OO as was the original intent? Many thanks Paul

Yes, the waiting is over! My D601 arrived this morning. Looks as good as I expected, well done to Chris and Co for persevering! Anyone know if there is a sound file around for this? If not, I can wait, modelling so often has to be a patient game! Cheers All, Paul

So no Class 117s until later in 2020? This does give me longer to save! Thanks for the posting. Cheers Paul

Thanks for the kickback on the high level Phil, trouble is, I now need one on the branch yard on the low level! I may be a bit quiet until after the week end , there are a few things going on with the domestic and family fronts. Thanks for your continued efforts, Best regards Paul

Sorry Phil, The detail of the above is almost totally meaningless to me as I am not familiar with all the different pieces of equipment you mention! Am I alone in thinking that I need this broken down into a number of smaller messages?? Surely the choice of equipment is driven by the initial performance of the layout required, any longer term performance objectives, cost, and personal preference of the layout owner such as whether knobs, sliders, thumb wheels or curser on a computer screen are preferred? For me, my layout is trying to replicate a busy mainline. I want simple control operation, so that for example, a goods train can be set in motion from a goods loop quickly after a fast express has passed through then be followed by another on the line in the other direction. So I do not want to have to punch in umpteen codes to set a loco going, I want to drive it, and I need points and signals to have easy route setting! Cheers Paul

Thanks Phil, Answering your points:- I didn't explain myself very well, the kickback you suggest is what I was trying to suggest! 1) I understand your thinking. Another way round the supports along the front of the terminus board might be at the positions you suggest for the supports to have beams running under the terminus board out across the full width of the main fiddle yards ending in vertical members fixed to the edge of the main boards? I think we need some help from the baseboard construction experts on the forums. If we don't get a response on this in a couple of days I will post a separate thread on the baseboard forum and hopefully get some help that way? I take your point about the points and the potential reduction of the loop length. I need to do some more detailed fitting of the trains into the loops. 2) I will leave the baseboard level branch yard with you. It might be that this can also provide the DMU loop, by combining two functions, so your existing right hand loop end would stay, with a connection at the left hand end and a run round plus sidings. If we can get rid of the terminus board supports, might moving the loops over to make more space at the front of the baseboard create enough space for the DMU loop and the branch lower yard as I suggest above? 3) I suggest we leave the loco sidings on the "to do" list for the moment until we have finalised everything else. I need to think about how I want the baseboards just inside the door to be. I quite like the free space I had there on "Partly Maidenhead", which also reduced the distance to duck under! "Lower Thames Yard" it is then! Re the points on the terminus board:- as this will not be scenic I was thinking in terms of surface mounting point motors. Good idea asking others to pitch in, I'm surprised no one has, apart from one or two comments. As you say, there is more than one way to do most things, and there is always a danger in getting tunnel vision. Best regards Paul

I am thinking of using curved points to lengthen fiddle yard loops on an 00 layout. I seem to remember seeing comments that suggested Peco curved points were better than Hornby ones? Has anyone personal experience of these two types of curved points or of any other manufacturers that offer points of similar radii? Many thanks