ITG

Having followed these trials and tribulations with sympathy, I’m wondering can you not take your locos to a friend’s layout or a model shop for a test? That would then rule in or out one aspect. Similarly is there no one nearby with a DCC loco to bring to your layout? Or anyone with an alternative control unit? ian

Good idea, but the question of what gauge of wire is used where still exists. Dropper gauge or bus wire gauge all the way back to the feedback module, or did you have a join somewhere between dropper gauge and bus gauge? By the looks of your photo, that wire seems fairly thick, so may be bus wire gauge all the way between track and module? ian

Whilst I can/will work this out when I need to do this job, I’m just thinking ahead, not least so I buy the right quantities of the right colours. And thus wondered how others may have done this. Here’s what I need to achieve. The layout is some 5m x 2.4m, and a fairly complex track plan. I will be running iTrain and a Z21, with current sensing block detection. At a quick calculation, there could be some 80-100 feedback sensors, linked to either 5 or 6 DIgikejis or Yamorc 16 channel feedback modules (FM). Now obviously, there aren’t 80-100 different colours, but the size of the layout and spread of sensors means I probably only need 16 colours, ie a batch of the 16 feeding each FM. So with, say, 6 FMs equally distanced around the internal perimeter of the 600-700mm deep round-room board, there could be gaps of 1-2 metres between FMs, with the resultant length of wire between rail and FM. So I’m thinking that each feedback (or multi if more than one in a block) uses dropper wires of a specific colour, which runs back to the FM, and then the DCC bus feed from Z21 to the FM is standardised as red. But that means (most of) these dropper wires will be longer than the customary straightforward DCC dropper. But if I use the heavier typical bus wire (32/0.2) as these droppers, will that be unsightly or ungainly where it’s soldered to the rail? If I mixed the wires, by using the normal dropper wire and then connecting it below baseboard to the coloured bus wire (and thus on to the FM), then isn’t that an (almost) unnecessary extra connection failure risk? Any guidance or suggestions from past experience most welcome. Ian

Do take time to learn about the different functions and tricks of Anyrail, as well as actually planning a layout. I’ve found there are so many useful facilities which bring a better looking geometry and a plan more aligned to what you actually lay on a board. Good luck Ian

I’m afraid I don’t know the answer but two things that may help you get the answer…. 1. why not edit your title “just help” to something like “cannot open xml files on RMWeb” as then your problem will be much more visible 2. I suggest you add details of what kind of device (laptop, iPad, android phone etc) and what browser (chrome, safari, etc) to the content of your thread. That said, this website suffered a huge crash a little while back (cannot recall when but last year sometime) but one effect of it was to render many photos inaccessible to everyone. Can you see photos which were added in the last few weeks? Good luck ian

Ah, I see. I’d been using the uhlenbrock, as I’d seen in a DCC Train automation video. I’ll try that in next day or two. thanks.

Interesting. I was considering getting a multimaus, simply because sometimes it’s just easier to hit a button! Is that saying that one could have turnouts numbered 1,2,3 AND sensor devices also numbered 1,2,3? Even though, when using the Z21 app, you need to have the turnout appropriately numbered to programme the start point of the 4088? Hadn’t heard of this, so some research needed. Thanks again for your help. Ian

Not sure whether best to post this here, or in DCC section. I recently dismantled a small “learning” layout, mainly to gain experience of iTrain, using Z21 with DR4088 CS sensors. This test layout only needed 10 sensors, so didn’t utilise the Dr4088’s full set of 16. Although still much to learn, I gained enough knowledge of the basics, to begin to move onto the longer term goal of a larger layout, in a different room - hence the test layout had to go. As I can’t yet start the new layout, I thought I’d get on with some prep work, one such task being addressing the feedbacks in the DR4088s (I have 5 in total, so 80 sensors). I was hoping then all 5 would be ready, so then I could just replicate in iTrain later when constructing the new layout. So, as I don’t yet know the final layout plan and it’s blocks and feedbacks, I thought I’d simply use the Z21’s track icons to address the feedbacks, utilising the addressed/numbered turnouts to programme the first DR4088. I used 1001 onwards, and tested a range of the numbered feedbacks Z21 sensor tracks, including 1, 2 and 15, 16. All fine when tested with a loco on a short (couple of ) pieces of track. I then turned to the next DR4088 (having disconnected the first one), and tried to programme 1017 onwards - but couldn’t get it to work. I had track power, the ‘sensor active’ light flickered on the DR4088, but the Z21 track section didn’t light. So I thought I’d retrace my steps, which resulted in the first DR4088 not working, even though it had an hour previously. Can anyone suggest what’s going on? Do the DR4088s need to be linked to programme? Do they remember the programming when disconnected? How would you suggest I approach this? I don’t find the way in which sensor numbers are programmed particularly intuitive, and I saw one video which suggested one could use the Z21 Maintenance Tool to do so. Would this be better? thanks Ian

The only other comment I’d add - but not necessarily what you may want to hear - is that the way you describe what you’re after seems to vary between specifically ‘test’ and a more normal approach to layout building. For example, a bridges or cuttings. I suspect that whatever you design for learning/testing purposes will not meet your needs for an ongoing layout. Probably best to accept that, and separate the two stages of your progress. After all, much of your track, wiring, etc will be perfectly reusable a second time. re DMUs, that does simplify the need for any run rounds or shunting, but be careful that your needs don’t evolve if everything is based on DMUs with track and automation designs not suited to loco-pulled trains. Ian

I’ve tried the approach you’re describing, of building a small test layout solely for the purpose of learning automation, in my case iTrain. I learnt a lot, so in that case it helps. I had a simple oval, with a passing loop and 4 sidings, of which 2 were facing and 2 trailing. Depends what you plan to run, I guess, but I wonder if you should have a run round loop in one of your stations, to specifically cater for arrival, uncouple , reverse, etc manoeuvres. Although length looks limited, as a crossover will eat space. The station throats look complicated - I assume the use of double slips is to allow certain platform roads to be accessible for both arrivals and departures, and then to/from each running line in the oval. An aspect which is difficult to judge on your plan is if you are planning to automate using blocks and feedback sensors, is how long are the blocks? In iTrain, it’s recommended the blocks are longer than the longest train stopping in them. And blocks shouldn’t include turnouts. The length of single track at the bottom doesn’t look very long, and I assume that in itself may be a block? Might be worth marking your proposed blocks out. Ian

Interesting and workable idea, thanks.

Well, I've had a go at sketching out the through station. In fact, I've used the trackplan from my existing layout, but stretched to utilise the additional space, and changed the terminus into a through station, really by extending the terminating lines under a higher-level buildings/forecourt (shown as the yellow area) to become part of the roundy twin track. Of course, I may not actually use this design, but I wanted to see what was possible. It all fits what I'm aspring to.... multi-platform busy station, access to multiple platforms from various approach lines, run-round faciltiies for terminating trains, decent sized goods yard and some loco faciltiies. But now considering what additional other suggestions have been made..... I could (potentially) fit in additional lower level exchange platforms on the orange lines which lead to the reversing loop (to which incidentally, I've added a storage loop), as shown at B. This would allow trains to stop there, then move into the hidden loop to pause, before returning later. But such platform(s) - if I added them would be on a 2% incline, access by steps/lift from the higher station. And / or I could add a branch platform at A. I've adjusted the gradients so that the blue branch line stays at +50mm height for 1.4m, the same as the main station, and then climbs onwards around to the branch station. But this does compromise the uppermost track of the station, as this was intended to be a goods loop, allowing shunting, run-round for and access to the goods sidings. If I added the extra branch platform, is it feasible that one side of said platofrm would serve the branch, and the other would be used for access to the goods yard? Maybe by doubling up as a parcels platform. As always, thoughts most welcome. Ian

Might encourage more responses with a thread title which signals what you’re after.

Thanks for the comments. On yesterdays version, the two tracks were parallel up to where they diverged for the reverse balloon. As I’m planning on using iTrain, automation of the type you suggest is on the menu. Because of the clearance issues, I think I may need to return to the parallel lines concept (which is what music fans may think Blondie had in mind some years back), but I’ll certainly explore if adding platforms is viable. They would have to be on an incline, as those two lines drop from 0 on the left to 60mm below on the right, with the yet-to-be-added station sitting +50mm, or max clearance of 110mm. A gradient of 1.7% although I may be able to ease that slightly, by reducing clearances. Ian

Ah, belatedly thought of a glitch with teh concept of pushing that upper front line back under the station board. Alhough by the time it crosses directly under the through mainline tracks, the clearance is around 100mm, to the left of that, the (orange dotted hidden) line is rising back up to datum 0. So, about a metre to the left of the current underpassing as shown in the plan, that clearance is only 80mm, so is the final point at which that line can be 'under' the upperboard. More tweaking required.

Good call, @RobinofLoxley. I've adjusted the uppermost of those two lines back under the station board, and smoothed the curvature of the reversing loop. (but see * below). The gradients and minimum clearance levels all still work. Not yet added extra storage lines under the station, not least because although there's sufficient clearance to run trains, at the moment, there's no hidden turnouts (and thus reduced likelihood of derailments or electrical problems). Adding storage lines may compromise that. I'm thinking that line running along the front will be backed by a retaining wall, made removable by velcro strips, so if I need to access the now hidden line behind it, I can do so. (the reversing balloon itself is 60mm below storage yard level, so max clearance at that end is 110mm). Additionally, this hidden line at 1.7% drop to the balloon means any storage roads would be on a slope, so ok for pure storage (including loco) I guess. *I'm still torn between the smoother reversing loop, and the fold-down version illustrated in previous posts, as the fold-down version is made simpler by track crossing at 90 degrees - which of course in some ways sits better with more curves to get the right angle. I haven't experimented with this (yet) but the branch and twin main lines rise at the same rate up to that top left corner (50mm above storage yard level). Then the station remains level at 50mm, whereas the branch continues to climb, currently at 1.7% round to the bottom right corner at +145mm, then levels across the hinged section to the branch station. So two thoughts to achieve your idea of an interchange: 1. continue the incline further across the hinged section to allow more length for the incline at that end and/or 2. as branch trains will be short, I could flatten the branch section behind the thru station (even possibly with a high level platform) and then increase the incline beyond that point, maybe to 3%. I shall doodle. Yes, my next step will be to draw out the station. I am willing to accept 4 coach trains + loco, and all storage roads will accept at least that. Two things I have in mind: 1. as the left hand end of the station will go under the station building/forecourt, there could be hidden, imaginary platforms beyond that point, so only part of the stationary train will be visible. So subject to storage roads, I could potentially run slightly longer trains. Although I accept I may wish to factor in cross-overs to enable run-rounds for terminating trains. 2. my current layout is 3.5 m long and along one wall is a 4-platform high level terminus (60 cm wide board) whose terminating end also goes under a high level building/forecourt (albeit with not quite enough space to achieve the 90 degree turn necessary for similar feature in a through format) . Along this 3.5m wall, I also have squeezed in a small goods yard (3 roads) and goods/parcels run round loop, and a 3 road loco facility. The only bit of this that I find 'tight' is really the length of goods roads. So I'm hoping that the extra 1.7m length I have in the new room will allow me to address not only the through station bend but also ease the goods facilities. But I totally accept, the proof is in the eating. So more doodling. BTW, the extension (of which the new train room is part) is now only about 3 weeks away from completion... meaning planning edges ever closer towards actual reality. Well, after wardrobe building, bathroom fittings fixing, picture hanging etc. Ian

Another evolving version of my possible plan. Still with the reverse loop in the top corner, but (I think!) I've simplified the plan a little. I also took some inspiration from @Harlequin trackplan for @Newbie2020Lyneworth and Millhampton, specifically the idea of a branch line (blue) leading off the storage yard, encircling the entire room, and a branch station (the pink line at the bottom) sitting partially above the storage yard. The difference is that I've incorporated my (orange) storage yard in the twin junction tracks which lead to the reversing balloon, which itself sits below the through station (the pink lines at the top). Neither station is drawn in, apart from the running lines. Gradients are limited to 2%, radii min 2nd radius but where used, mostly hidden. The orange twin tracks between the storage yard and the reverse balloon, I'm thinking will be open, running on a falling incline in front of the through station. Simialrly, the blue branch could climb behind the station. Will look busy, I know, but lots of on-scene movement. The through station I plan to have operational functionality as a terminus station, with the through lines (top left corner) disappearing under a high level station building and forecourt. But that will also give me the option of watching trains circle. Departures from the terminus-cum-through station can circle a number of times, then enter the storage yard, and ultimately reverse direction; or branch DMUs /short goods can access the branch, and return to cross over the single slip on returning to the main line; or pause in the short spur opposite the storage yard. This plan has probably got more visible running and better access to the storage roads than earlier deliberations. Gradients appear simpler to construct. Any thoughts? Ian

Never used it, but then again as a relative beginner never used conventional ballasting techniques, but how about sanding rolls from such as Screwfix or Toolstation. Different grit ratings. Inexpensive. Cut to size and shape. https://www.toolstation.com/hiomant-alox-sanding-roll-115mm/p23914?store=P3&utm_source=googleshopping&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=googleshoppingfeed&mkwid=_dc&pcrid=&pkw=&pmt=&gclid=CjwKCAjw_MqgBhAGEiwAnYOAeuSzKrOA0tYqSP9SLyFfigBEtgWqNMWTFsD9HQsdGwunuLd5LRIpfxoCdqoQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds anyone tried it? Ian

Yes, I did give this glue a go. It did work fine, although I can’t now recall what specifically I used it on. But I’m not sure it was easier to use, or better as sticking, than other suitable (for job in hand at the time) glues I had at my fingertips at that point. Well worth a try, and I probably would use again at some point. Just not such a significant success that I’m wholly committed to it. ian

Remind me - is the lift our bridge on the level, or so there a gradient over it? If the latter, did that represent any particular challenge in getting trouble-free running over the track joins? Ian

As I’m at the early stages of learning all about computer control, and indeed the physical requirements such as you refer to, I’m not going to attempt to answer. But I’ve found the iTrain forum particularly helpful….. if, of course, you plan to use iTrain. There’s also an excellent set of some 70+ YouTube videos. Whilst neither of these resources is specifically set up to answer the layout design queries you mention, I’d say the more you understand the (any) software, the more you’ll gain knowledge about physical components like blocks, sensors etc. Good luck. Ian

Maybe a little more info will help. When you say the train passes from outer to inner, that sounds like it’s two turnouts arranged as a crossover? In which direction is the train going through the turnouts, when it stalls? Where are your power feeds? Do you know if you are using dead or live frogs? A diagram would help, showing all this. Guessing, it sounds like maybe you have isolating turnouts and the power feed in such a place that by definition, no power is getting through, when the turnout is set in a particular direction. Or the turnouts are not laid flat, which means a loco pick-up wheel is leaving the track at a critical point, as another pick-up wheel traverses the dead (plastic) frog (the V in the turnout). Other aspects to the answer to this problem may depend on how many locos and controllers (DC or DCC?) you are planning to use simultaneously, as that will affect the solution. Ian

Been thinking about the merits of moving the reversing loop in to the top right corner. A factor in locating it in the centre, near the doorway, was that it would have allowed access to the loop, if below an upper board, from 2 sides. Whereas siting the rev loop in a corner really limited access to only one side. But what if I made the 'loop' baseboard - or part of it - hinged so that it could fold up/down to allow access into the corner when needed. Or left in a folded position when layout not in use, to allow more floor/access space generally. Plan 1 shows the orange loop sited east/west, and the storage yard would then be on that same upper wall. Thus making the yard straighter, and thus potenially longer. Plan 2 shows the orange loop on a north/south basis, with tracks running to/from the storage yard which would still be located on the bottom wall (original room layout). On both options, I think gradients can be worked out, as the jucntion point back to main circuit could be moved accordingly... I think. These options could be workable with either a terminus or through main station..... again, I think. Pink baseboard areas are fixed, yellow are hinged. J = track joint (at 90 degrees) , H = hinge. The grey twin track around the outside is part of the twin track circuit. Having the rev loop in that corner makes the whole operating well , and access to it, less squeezed. I now need to redraw the whole plan to see how either option fits in, but still maintaining other core features and aspirations. Ian

On Dragons Den last night was a product called Fixits, basically bio-plastic lollipop sticks which, when warmed, can be shaped and moulded to any shape. They were demonstrated as being a glue-type fix for broken household items, but could be used as cable-clips, or potentially any one of of a number of different modelling tasks. They come in various colours, and will take acrylic paint. Smallest pack costs £9.99, but there is a discount of 20% currently on some packs. (Not the £9.99 starter pack) Just wondered if anyone had stumbled across them previously, and used them? https://www.fixits.com/ i might invest the small amount required, although at this point, not sure what I need them for. Ian

As I now understand it, the second reversing loop bridge could simply be a diagonal across the corner.