ITG

Much depends on what you’re trying to achieve. To my eye, that looks rather train-setty in appearance. Three issues for me: 1. Platform arrangement is unusual, with one track between two platforms. 2. Have you already purchased the double slips? Their usage in the plan is again unusual. 3. I still think you’ll find the sidings too short for any kind of meaningful use. Not withstanding point 2 above, have you looked at the book 60 Plans for Small Railways? It’s old, and you’ll find them on eBay for a few quid, but it will give you inspiration. There are many 6’x4’ plans which you could expand slightly. Of course, the 4’ width is always going to limit your radii, and I personally would use set track for the curves, which means probably opting for code 100 throughout. Ian

Those top right sidings and headshunt seem very short. By the time you allow clearance adjacent to the turnout, there’s not going to be much space for stock. The type of coupling planned may also affect space if it requires any kind of ramp, as these generally need to be on a straight, reducing useable space still further. Will you have access around all 4 sides of the board, as 4’ is a long way to reach for track laying, maintenance, scenery building and re-railing? Ian

That’s a little harsh. As has been said, what you are asking is a not insignificant task. Modellers have families and other interests, as well as their own modelling. As mentioned above, this is several days full time workload. Add in travel to and fro (unless they happen to live round the corner), and it’s probably even longer. Better that people are cautious and understand the scale of the task before over-committing, as it’s clear your previous helper did. ( An offer of 108 locos converted to DCC for £50 total - that is the stuff of fantasy!) I’d urge patience- modellers are not all on this forum every waking hour, it may take a few weeks to catch someone’s eye. Even if you sourced professional help, and were prepared to pay for it, that doesn’t mean those people don’t have an existing workload and order book. Good luck anyway. Ian

But have you tried the local clubs as suggested?

The combinations of all the mentioned factors (fixed boards, pre laid track, board joints, type of motor etc) suggest this isn’t a job for an odd day. The need to assess each point location and its own peculiarities concerning the various factors, and then to implement the solution doesn’t indicate a production line approach; rather a solve and fix one at a time approach. I can’t help but feel your best bet, as mentioned previously, is to approach your local club, as if they have the will, they can share the task amongst more than one pair of hands. Some club members may not have much space for their own layout at home, and thus may welcome the opportunity to have a go. Again, I wish you well, but as I’m some distance away and am working on my own layout at present, time is not on my side, so, as they say in Dragons Den, I’m out. Sorry. PS. An after thought…. I wonder if an alternative point motor would ease the accessibility and effectiveness of the task. I’m thinking MTB MP1s. They may, in my experience, be easier to fit above board, and the way in which a rod from the hidden motor to turnout can be shaped may also help disguising. But they aren’t cheap. Sorry if that’s way off your agenda, but hopefully worth a mention. Ian

Another key question or two, which will define the nature of the task. Are your baseboards fixed in position or removable? If removable, how big are the baseboards? If fixed in position, are the cabinets etc below the baseboards removable? These matters will go a long way to determine if it’s possible to easily access to (a) be able to fit below the board and/or (b) hide wiring and possibly rods if fitting above the board. If the task becomes fitting above the board, then as indicated above, wiring will still ideally be below the board, but also how are the visible point motors to be disguised in an already existing layout. Do any of the location for said motors conflict with underboard bracing or other cabling etc? Had you thought how to control these motors? Switches? Mimic panel? Where would either be located/mounted? It’s important to define what the task actually is, as whoever helps needs to be clear about what is expected. I don’t want to throw cold water on your plans, but I personally would not want to fit 20 odd motors below the board IF the baseboards are fixed. It’s quite some job, of being bent under looking upwards to some time. But good luck. Ian

Operating margin usually means after all costs, but before tax. Not that I have a clue on what the norms are in this industry. Ian

I agree. People’s experience may be specific to gauge/scale, DC v DCC, solenoid v slow switch etc, under v over board. A few clues may help to motivate potential helpers if they know they would be working on familiar ground. I hope you find someone local, or what about trying the local club? Ian

The layout in question is now dismantled, but I’m pretty sure that my sound locos passed through my reversing loop, powered by a Gaugemaster auto reverse unit. Ian

I’m sure it’s been said before, but when critiquing the realism of loco sounds on a model railway, not only is there the comparison of model versus real, but there’s also the comparison with a silent (ie non-sound) loco. Obviously it’s all down to personal choice, but surely the silence of a non-sound loco is further away from realism than the effects of a sound-file generated one, even if it is “thin” (or any other adjective). I run both steam and diesel sound locos (along with a number of non-sound ones) and without any doubt, when family and friends visit, the main talking point is the sound, and how it is perceived as realistic by my small cross-section of the ‘general public’. As for myself, I do not consider myself to be any better than average when it comes to accuracy and realism of my modelling, and thus continually accept my own compromises, so I can certainly live with ‘averagely accurate’ sounds, as being better than none at all. But I enjoy it all, and that surely is the point for every modeller, whether that’s sound or silent. Ian

I suggest a quick test would be to reverse your wiring, to see if that supports the solenoid switching the opposite direction. If that’s successful, that would seem the motor is ok. Do this without the motor in situ so there are no chances of any physical impediment preventing the throw. That at least would narrow down the possibilities. A photo or diagram of your wiring may help diagnosis. Ian

You’d certainly need a second & third power feed on the top plan, otherwise no power for the headshunts. Also, depends on how many locos you are planning to control/drive simultaneously. (Although of course you’d need a second controller). From a plan perspective, both plans imho look a little train set in character, which if modelling based on real locations may be a contradiction. Using flexi track and skewing track so it’s not parallel to baseboard edges and not so symmetrical would bring more realism. Ian

On the now dismantled layout, I did use a few (just 3) Heathcote Electronics infra red IRDOT sensors to simply sense when a hidden storage rod was occupied, just to light an LED panel light. Worked ok, but a little fiddly to install under track between sleepers, and some tweaking necessary dependant on surrounding surface proximity and light level. These could link to automation software. As you say, this type of option wouldn’t be without more wiring, but then pretty much all options will. Ian

Well, I wish you well, but as someone who is mid-jump from a simple twin-track roundy with high level branch in 00, in 11’x6’ (so 34’ room and layout perimeter) to a new space of 17’x 8’ (50’ perimeter), with a more complex track plan, I can tell you, it is challenging and time consuming. By this I mean the multi discipline tasks of woodwork, electrics, track laying etc. before you even get to scenery. When I think that your N plan of 20’x12’ equates to at least 40’x24’ (so theoretically 128’ perimeter) in 00, that is almost 4 times my old size and 2.5 times the new one, there is no doubt that you’d be advised for this to be a looooong term plan before any trains are seen running. These mathematics are simplified - and thus probably understated - as one should also consider baseboard area not just room perimeter. Good luck, fingers crossed for you. Ian

I’m just finding my feet with automation via iTrain. I decided to scrap the then existing layout, and start again with automation, but that’s at least partly due to a bigger space becoming available. Nevertheless, with a scenic layout and underboard access required for at least some of the rewiring necessary, I wouldn’t have fancied modification! There is a risk in your assumption about sections (ie blocks) already being isolated due to frogs being isolated. Many current sensor units actually will run multiple feedbacks, eg Yamorc unit runs 16. But (I’m pretty sure) all the 16 in this instance need to be the same ‘polarity’, ie either the ‘red’ or ‘black’ wire. The problem with assuming your isolated turnout frogs are ok, is, with turnouts being different ways round on the layout, some of those currently existing isolators will be on red, some black. So not quite as simple as at first seems. My suggestion would be to use your layout plan to draw up a ‘virgin’ electrical-cum-track plan diagram to find the ideal configuration of blocks, feedbacks, breaks etc. Of course, you’d need to do some research and study to learn what is optimum in your chosen software.Then see how much difference there is between the ideal and the compromise-based-on existing plan options. Ian

I can confirm that load may affect the flash. I had a tardis type police box with a flashing light. It worked fine, until other lights in the same circuit were also on. Then it stopped flashing to remain on constantly. This suggest to me that the voltage or power dropped under load, so presumably similar would happen if an incorrect power supply were used. Ian

@WIMorrison can I just check, never having ventured into the world of resistors before? Is this what I’d need? https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/through-hole-resistors/0131895?cm_mmc=UK-PLA-DS3A-_-google-_-CFS_UK_EN_TE_Whoop_PO4700202468-_-(GB:Whoop!)+Passive+Components-_-131895&matchtype=&pla-302166681338&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAuNGuBhAkEiwAGId4am1NOFkI4cJsJpcQj-oNTRFK5iyvX5VUh5kxo7tR2peTKRP5lWIgOxoC3QsQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds with a push-to-break switch ( so when bridge is in place, there is no circuit)? And how is the wiring done? Power via cable from current sensing unit to one side of switch, cable from other side of switch to resistor, and then where? Back to current sensing unit? Help much appreciated. Ian

You’ll find a few options here. http://www.heathcote-electronics.co.uk/heathcote_product_index.html

Thanks all for many potentially workable solutions. Thanks Iain. Yes, I am on the way to using iTrain. I’m using DIgikejis DR4088s and Yamorc YD6016 current sensors, so one of those two units will be relevant for what you suggest. Are either workable for this use? I assume this switch/resistor is simply linked to one feedback contact on the unit? I haven’t graduated to using actions yet but will cross that bridge (no pun intended!) when I get there. No risk yet of trains plummeting as nothing is yet running, except on the iTrain screen. (Latest query awaits (probably your) attention on iTrain forum - LOL) Ian

Hi, I have a lift-out bridge section over a doorway, and forgot (despite planning to do so - doh!) to wire it such a way that the track section either side of the lift-out section is ‘off’ when the removable section is not in place; obviously to prevent trains plummeting into the gap. i could go back and redo, but it occurs to me to ask if there’s a cut-out device which I could place in line to the power feeds to the track sections either side of the bridge, which needed to be reset to ‘on’ if the overall DCC system had been switched off. Thus, I would need to switch on the DCC system, and then flick a switch to re-power the either-side sections. This reduces the likelihood of a plummet significantly. I think it would be easier to place such a device in the dropper wire than rewire the bridge. Any ideas? ian

Well done on getting into the hobby, and constructing your first layout. Railway modellers vary in their tastes and preferences from what could be described as “playing trains” to serious working replicas of prototype locations. The latter often includes running the right authentic dated stock and models of actual buildings. There is no right or wrong ideal - it’s your railway! I guess you’re at the former stage, judging by the photo. But everyone starts somewhere, often with set track and the restricted geometry that brings. For example, the track spacings are too big, but have to be for some rolling stock to cope with the tighter than realistic curves. Compromises have to be made, and as this is your first attempt, I suspect you’ll have subsequent layouts which both provide a learning platform for you and on which your modelling aspirations and capability will grow. Is your track fixed down? I ask as it appears to be directly laid onto the baseboard - modellers often use a cork bed, with or without real granular ballast laid to replicate the real thing. Many would say “avoid gradients” on first layouts, but you appear to have overcome this challenge, albeit the space available has made them somewhat steep! As for advice, that’s a huge topic! Best to be more specific about what you are trying to achieve, and what hurdles you encounter. Ian

This is what I suspect you’re looking for….. Probably a good start point, but tests on your own layout may well be necessary. Have you tried the pencil taped to the sides of long vehicles (eg coaches) to draw a line which will give an indication of the overhang on any curved sections? Ian

I’m afraid that’s not much better than your original stab. It all looks too random with little purpose, almost as though the track has been thrown up in the air and landed there - sorry! But it’s best to get it right at this stage, rather than regret and lots of wasted time later. The goods yard area is very unusual - not easy to shunt. The carriage sidings are not long enough to hold a rake of any reasonable length. It looks odd having the appearance of a twin main line in the station, but that which is then diluted to look anything but across the lower part of the plan. From a realism perspective, how will fuel, drivers, etc reach the diesel depot - it’s completely cut off by track? I’m guessing you’ve already purchased the numerous turnouts, and the plan feels like you’re determined to use them all? Less would be more. There’s just too much going on in here. As others have said, try to get hold of some track plans books, and adapt smaller ideas to your dimensions. Keep at it - it will come right. Ian

Well, I’ve purchased and started to use iTrain last year, and tbh, the decision regarding iTrain v Traincontroller was a no-brainer based on what I could only call less than positive feedback from those more knowledgable than me, concerning the customer/user support relationships of TC. (As described in this thread, and elsewhere). Whilst there maybe some swings and roundabouts in capability/ functionality, as a new user, I did not wish to invest in a product where it seemed the supplier made it difficult to buy, and therefore I worried, also difficult to get support. My limited but positive experience of the iTrain support forum tells me I made the right decision. (No connection other than etc…) That’s exactly what I did - thoroughly recommended. Good luck Ian

I think you’re correct. I started with (still have) a Prodigy Advance2 but graduated to a Z21, not least to provide detection capability.