ITG

Hi

At only 28” wide, there is insufficient width to accommodate a 180 degree turn, so you are limited to a shunting or depot type plan. Unless you can add a removable plank to house a fiddle yard.

As it’s your first attempt, whatever you do, I’d recommend treating it as a short term experiment that allows you to make mistakes and learn as you go. Very few people get it right first time, so just accept it maybe short term , and that versions 2, 3, 4 etc are only around the corner.

Ian

4 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

The 8116 could be fed from the accessory bus for both signal and power. There is good reason not to feed it from track power, since if you get a short which trips the track power, this would also disable the 8116 and so also the point motors. If the short was caused e.g. by running a train through an incorrectly set turnout, this would make it harder to correct the problem.

 

You can also feed the 8116 power from a separate power supply (e.g. 12V DC) - bear in mind that this power is used to actually drive the MP1 motors, so needs to provide enough current to drive them.  However, the MP1s only draw around 150mA while operating and switch off at the end of travel, so do not place a large burden on the power supply (in contrast to solenoid motors).

 

Yours, Mike.

Thanks Mike, our posts crossed, I think.

So it makes no difference to the suggested connections in the manual, of linking the two inputs, even if using separate buses. That’s what I thought, and have done.

Ian

10 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

The 3 wires which power the MP1 should come from the 8116 decoder.

 

If you are providing frog power through the switch in the MP1, then this switch should be fed track power.

 

Yours, Mike.

Thanks for the response.

Based on the image, the top three should link to the track power, with the third one down being the frog wire. That’s what I thought, and have done. The bottom 3 are connected to the Yamorc switch decoder, again as I’ve done.

so now just need to clarify how best to connect the two inputs on the Yamorc unit, signal and power. The provided diagrams indicate the two can be linked together, so one and the same. But there’s no mention of a scenario of using separate track and accessory buses.

Ian

On 19/12/2023 at 18:46, WIMorrison said:

Ian

 

It is actually a really simple solution - and one that I use myself 😉

 

a) create 3 busses

b) connect one bus (accessory) directly to the Z21

c) connect one bus to power district A

d) connect remaining bus to power district B

e) Connect CANbus cable between booster and Z21.

f) optionally, but recommended set up booster NOT to forward short circuits to Z21 (uncheck box)

g) optional, but recommended set up boosters NOT to use same voltage as Z21 (uncheck box)

h)  optional, but recommended activate auto-inversion (important for dual boosters, but of wiring is correct should not be required)

 

 

When wiring turnout motors take the switching power from the accessory bus, and, importantly, take the switching power for the frog from the appropriate power bus (A or B).

 

The reason for having different track and accessory voltage is that most turnout motors will work better on a voltage lower than the track and this allows you to have different voltages. I use 13v for accessory bus and 17v for track bus.

 

It really is that simple, the one 'gotcha' to watch for is accidentally crossing between the power districts which need to be completely separated from each other with full isolation between the two districts.

 

EDT - forgot to say that the Loconet bus goes from and to to the Z21, not the booster.

I’ve finally got round to the point of connecting the electrics, using the connections as defined by @WIMorrison above. I’ve now realised I have another query, relating to the use of Yamorc 8116 switching decoder and MTB MP1 turnout motors.

1. There are two inputs on the Yamorc unit, Power and Signal. Which of the buses (track and accessory) do I use for which input? Logically I think the accessory bus for the signal (as that’s providing the ‘switch’ command, and the track bus for the power (as that’s the power being switched for the frog). Or is it the accessory bus for both connections?

2. what is the source of the power connection on the MP1? Track or accessory? I think track but a confirmation or clarification would be most welcome.

thanks

Ian

Another vote for MTB point motors, but I also agree with the idea of focusing on the shed build before buying any more track.

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

26 minutes ago, Holby Railway said:

at the moment the intention i still to begin dismantling as soon as possible, but the way things are at the moment that will not be until April too many things going on, i thought it would be easier to get help, but it seems i misjudged the MR Community, i was once told appeal for help to the wider community you will have more offers than you know what to do with

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

5 hours ago, Holby Railway said:

looks like im gonna selll up then

 

nobody anywhere willing to help, thanks guys

 

HCR is no more......

But have you tried the local clubs as suggested?

3 hours ago, Holby Railway said:

Boards are fixed, they are more like shelves held up by brackets, everything under the boards can be moved, Station 1 is slightly more difficult in that it on a windowsill, built up (dont know how) underneath is accessible but the front of the board (blanking boards) need to be unscrewed for access then replaced, control is by switches, a box has been built (i do not have pics) and as far as i know the box is already prepared, switches in place and wired in, power will be provided by the controller, and has been tested once to be sure all was in working order, some adjustments to the railway may be possible to accommodate motors, but that is not something assessed so far - whoever does it, will be able to say what needs to happen or not as it goes, and will find everything easily discussed and then any issues can be resolved, they will find that much groundwork has been achieved so far but now things have reached a halt

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

3 minutes ago, JohnR said:

I see from the reports that the expected margin of the sales is just 15% - seems low to me

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

9 hours ago, chiefpenguin said:

It would help people understand/appreciate what was involved if you posted some images &/oe details such as type of motor/poiny above/below board stc.

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

30 minutes ago, AndrueC said:

Thanks @ITG. To be honest I'm still uncertain whether I want to go with current sensing. My layout is at an advanced stage and the thought of cutting track concerns me. I might yet decide to go with spot detection instead although of course that means yet more wires under the board. It also raises some questions of efficacy. My layout's running is straightforward though - just tail chasing - so I'm hopeful that it will be more amenable to spot detection. Once you know a train has gone into a block you'll know it'll eventually come out. The only exceptions are the sidings and I'm going to have spot detection there anyway so that the computer can 'reset' it's knowledge of position when a train parks up.

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

On 20/02/2024 at 13:30, AndrueC said:

(in which case a lot of sections might already be isolated sufficiently because of the turnout frog)?

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

On 19/02/2024 at 18:47, WIMorrison said:

I think you use iTrain? If not ignore this comment.

 

You create a switch on the flap which you connect to a 10k resistor (depending on feedback units in use) and then create an action within iTrain that looks for that feedack becoming active. When it becomes active you use iTrain to make the block (or blocks) unavailable and iTrain will stop any trains crossing the flap until you put it back down.

 

I have set up several people this way.

@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.

13 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

I think you use iTrain? If not ignore this comment.

 

You create a switch on the flap which you connect to a 10k resistor (depending on feedback units in use) and then create an action within iTrain that looks for that feedack becoming active. When it becomes active you use iTrain to make the block (or blocks) unavailable and iTrain will stop any trains crossing the flap until you put it back down.

 

I have set up several people this way.

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