ITG

A motor needs some control and communication to make it work. In effect, all motors could be said to be DC. To use with DC power, they need a button or switch to trigger them. With DCC, they need a decoder and a method of commanding the decoder, usually your DCC system. Some turnout motors come with a decoder built into the motor casing, others not so. For the latter, there are single accessory decoder (eg Gaugemaster) or multiple decoders in a single unit, which can switch several motors. Then there’s also the question of how to switch frog polarity, the 3 most common options being a frog juicer (which kind of causes a mini short circuit to switch polarity), a switch built into the motor unit (most if not all MTB MP models) or the multi decoder unit may also have built in polarity switches.

Better to use too heavy rather than not heavy enough, so you can still use.

I’ll answer in bite sized chunks….. If you are planning on block detection, you need a method of such detection. There are various options (eg light detectors, which use infra red sensors to detect when a train passes) but what many folk use is ‘current sensors’. In other words, each block of track (isolated on one rail at both ends) is fed by power via a current sensing unit (Yamorc and others make these). Typically, these current sensing units will support 16 separate blocks. The current sensing unit as a whole is fed from the track bus, and feedback given via the DCC system to show (usually) on a screen when that block is occupied. This occupied state is shown by the current draw being detected - hence the term current sensing. The current draw could be the loco motor itself, but also coaches with lighting etc will cause a draw.

If, as said in your first post, you’re fairly new to all this, the layout you describe sounds pretty ambitious. I’m still building my first ‘proper’ layout (I’d been using DCC for a few years previously) using block detection and computer control (iTrain) but I first both developed my learning and tested concepts by building a simple oval, loop and couple of sidings to ensure I grasped the basics. If you plan to use block detection, that will have a fundamental impact on how you wire the layout. I’d certainly advise getting that wiring in place, even if you don’t initially use block detection (assuming you plan on current sensing, as you mention Yamorc etc). You also need to consider how many “live” locos you foresee on the layout, as that may affect the required power supply, and how you set that all up. I have a Roco dual power supply which will respectively power separately the two halves of my layout, effectively one half being the main station and approaches, the other being storage roads, reverse loop etc. The Roco Z21 will drive just the accessory bus. Theres a lot of sense in keeping your track bus(es) separate from your accessory (ie turnout motors) bus so you can still move turnouts even if a derailment causes a short. (Believe me, it will happen!) You don’t have to run other accessories (lights etc) off a DCC supply; I use a separate 12v dc supply for both electronic uncouplers and lights. But you could use DCC, it’s just that you will then need more decoders. In fact, you could even run turnout motors off dc, but either way, the frog changing needs to be run from the track bus. Ian

I meant to add that it may be helpful to ask the mods to move this thread to the DCC section, as you’ll probably get more responses there.

Your best bet is to pick the brains of James at DCCTrainAutomation, as he is the importer of Lodi, Yamorc and the MTB point motors. I suggest though that you define clearly what you want to do with your layout, as there’s an element of horses for courses in the choices. I’ve no connection with James, other than a satisfied customer. I’ve found him to be willing to chat at both exhibitions and on the phone, but maybe best to pre-book a slot if you think you need time. From my own experience, I’d say you can’t go wrong with MTB MP point motors - easy to fit, easy to adjust, above/below board, realistic action, reliable. But there is a whole range of them - will you be using live frogs which require switching? Will you want to link signals to them? Etc. I have Yamorc turnout decoder units (YD6116 IIRC?) and YD6016 current sensors, but Lodi reversing sensor. Why mix and match? Because those products do what I want them to. Eg, the Lodi product draws zero current (virtually unique as far as I could see) - essential if you wish to link it to a current sensor. BTW, the main man behind Yamorc used to design products for DIgikejis who have ceased trading. It isn’t that the former has taken over from the latter. I don’t know all the answers let alone all the questions but you need to specify what you’re trying to do first. It seems to me that you can spend little or lots on DCC but much of what’s on the market in the UK is not as newly developed that from Europe, so it’s interesting all three of those products you mention are not home grown in UK. Many folk will rightly point out that actual decoder prices and qualities vary significantly - but again, depends on budget and intentions as to what suits the individual. Good luck Ian

Interesting suggestion, thanks. Any good idea, thanks. in practice, the exact angles and directions of the running lines will be finalised when I lay a few pieces of wood around to get a 3D visual setting. At the moment, I have fixed - but easily unscrewed if need be - just the main line board (bridge?) section in place, which is parallel to the room wall at the rear of the work surface. So the branch line could be skewed across it on a bridge. It feels like that would give a more random, less geometric perspective. Ian

As others have said, only you can decide the balance of your time versus your money, ‘cos that’s what it comes down to. You could try part exchanging your 00 stuff for N stuff at a reputable dealer; that may slightly ease the gap in the financial equation. ian

Fair point. Here's the end of the layout room/board to a reasonably accurate scale. the width of the section shownn is approx 2.3 metres. On the left are three track levels: Blue - reverse loop at zero datum which runs under all that corner, and eventually comes parallel to itself to join via a storage yard on the other side of the room. Green - twin track main line leaving station (not shown) at +90mm datum, which falls as it goes across the end of the room - via the potential bridge section in question - to +50mm Red - branch which is climbing from the left from approx +140mm to +180mm, again via the bridge area in debate. The grey shaded area is the workbench top which actually sits 100mm below the level of the reverse loop, so the tracks at each end of the bridge section, and the dual level bridge itself all sit above the work surface. The point A at which there are tracks crossing (some hidden) at three different levels could be tweaked a little by changing the radius of the branch. Point B is where the main lines and branch at their respective levels cross the doorway, via either a lift-out or hinged section(s). The actual tunnel mouths where the main lines disappear either side of the bridge could be juggled with, to bring them further away from the bridge itself, but of course, the purpose of the tunnels at those points is to hide the sharper R2 & R3 curves. So, to the bridges. It could be either a double decker type bridge, although the opposing gradients of main line v branch could be tricky; or two separate bridges. Or, the main line could sit on a retaining wall, with a branch bridge above it. (Note - the workbench is actually an old kitchen worktop which is a swirly/mottled, dark blue/grey/green colour, which, could be interpreted as a water surface. Not that I am proprosing to model it as such, just that if ever the workbench is clear of tools and rubbish, it will to some degree blend in. I wonder if that helps clarify, or muddy the water further? Thanks Ian

Thanks everyone. That’s a lot of ideas and examples. I agree that making it look right could be tricky, which is why I asked for real life info and photos. It may be I take the easy way out and simply hide the main lines below, behind a retaining wall (removable so I can get at the tracks when needed). The main lines to the left and right of this area curve inwards, and will be hidden in tunnels anyway, to disguise tight bends. So the topography would seem to work whether I go for the twin-level bridge approach or hidden mainlines. But I’m not quite at the point where I need to decide as I’m still constructing the basic woodwork around the area. My main concern is trying to be too ambitious to a level above my pay grade of modelling capability. Ian

Thanks for the tips, Mick. I have just two Yamorc 6016LN-CS units, as well as 5 (previously in my possession) DIgikejis DR4088 similar units. These 7 units will be daisy chained by the appropriate cable. I’m not using any S88 units. (So that should avoid your point 1) Because the 4088s needed to be sequentially numbered, I’ve continued that pattern with the 6016’s, so that’s ok for me. (Point 2) I’ve never left the USB cable in place. (Point 3) As for points 4 & 5, we’ll see!

Hi, I’m planning to have a twin track mainline, and a single line branch above/behind it, running parallel across an area of my layout which will be above the wall side of my workbench area. Hence very limited scenic treatment - in fact I had considered this possibly being non-scenic. Initially, the branch line would be behind (and above) the main lines, but it occurs to me I could save some space (and thus slightly increase the depth of my workbench area) if the branch was directly above the mainlines. The simple option would be to hide the mainlines (maybe box them in with removable access sides) but I wonder about having an archway type bridge so the main lines/passing trains are visible through the arches. The length of this section in 00 scale is just under a metre. The mainlines themselves sit about 175mm above the workbench surface, falling slightly left to right, whereas the branch is 100mm above the mainline, but falling in the opposite direction (I have checked clearances) Is there a prototype for this kind of parallel bridge arrangement, or wouldn’t it happen? I suppose it doesn’t have to be arched, but as I have lift-out girder bridges further along crossing the doorway, I am reluctant to over-populate with bridges all the same type. Any photos anyone?

3’ wide boards around the room are just about reachable across for maintenance and re-railing etc, but the diagonals across the corners will be somewhat testing to reach across. My recall of Pythagorus theory suggests that diagonal will be 4.25’. I’d be tempted to reduce that depth to either 2’ or 2.5’. Don't forget to leave sufficient space for a work surface somewhere. What height will you mount the boards at? And how will you access via the doorway? Ian

Surely better to advertise in the Gold classified section, as you seem to be a Gold member? Ian

I had a duck under on the previous now dismantled layout. Although the room was 75% trains, various household paperwork files were also stored there, and I found that it presented a barrier to keeping them neat and tidy. “Oh I’ll just throw that in there for now” rather than actually entering the room to open the right drawer to file it. The lift up or hinged section is my effort to keep neat! And also to enable easy walk in to do quick train jobs. Ian

Thanks, but I’m not sure that’s what I’m after. That kind of hinge lifts the door (in the carpet example) vertically in the plane of the (vertical) door itself. So surely if used as a hinge on a horizontal lifting section, the effect of this hinge would be to move that section inwards or outwards, not vertically? Unless you can convince me otherwise. What I’m after, and hence the reference to kitchen/bedroom cabinet hinges, is a horizontally mounted hinge which lifts the opening section vertically. But thanks, I’m fast becoming an amateur student of hinges!

As I hinted at in my original post, those kitchen cabinet hinges come in many different configurations. I suspect the model used by @jcm@gwr is one that actually lifts the hinged surface away from the fixed base. (Not all similar hinges do that). Thus, that lift away keeps the rail ends apart, as they separate as they open. I think these hinges are used for upward opening doors, as used, for example, on bedroom bridging units, rather than vertically opening kitchen cabinets doors. Or they maybe those used on corner unit doors, which are double hinged. i can feel a visit to a small independent kitchen fitter is needed to identify the right version. Ian

Just returning to this still currently ‘live’ (well, it is for me anyway) topic, as I’m not near the layout at the moment, I’m idling away time by researching a few things. That leads me to ask - has anyone used kitchen cabinet type hinges for lifting sections? I know there are many different types dependant on the cabinet door in question, but it seems there are some that lift a horizontal door away from the frame. Would this be suitable therefore for lifting a flap away from the rail edge as it opens to stand vertically? My thinking is that these hinges have various adjustment options which may allow me to ensure the alignment of the tracks is sound, in both horizontal and vertical planes. The advantage of using such would hopefully be that the hinges could be mounted below rather than above the flap/baseboard level. I could still use dowels for perfect alignment if necessary. And if anyone does think these hinges might work, what on earth are they called amongst the myriad of different versions? ian

It’s slightly unnerving as I browse through this thread that, living in Peterborough, I regularly cross over Crescent Bridge (I’m not banned) and nor does my (real) belly get in the (real) way. The layout takes me back… running behind the cottages was St Leonard’s St, where the (much smaller than the Great Northern Hotel) George Hotel lay, location of a dingy yet atmospheric disco bar in the late 60s. I suspect it (the disco not the George) wasn’t there in 1958 (how would I know? I was 6). A gang of us used to catch trains to Manton Junction (near Oakham?) to spot different trains. Time moves on, and nowadays a gang of us catch trains to Twickenham to watch scrums and rucks rather than trains. Sadly, the Great Northern, whilst still there, is a shadow of its former self, as it ‘recovers’ from recently becoming a government allocated asylum seekers temporary residence. A Waitrose store lurks nearby. Bit every time I read this thread, and see the photos, I can ignore real world progress. Changing anything may shatter the illusion, don’t you think? Ian

As I use tension locks (too much trouble to change to other on a lot of stock) I have found the Heathcote Electronics servo operated uncoupling ramps to be effective. As with all static type devices, the downside is being able to uncouple only in that specific location, but I haven’t really found that too much of an issue. i did modify the Heathcote standard offering, which uses bent steel rods to push up the ramp, to firstly two inline plastic or wood rods/tubes. Two inline (ie an inch apart along the track centre) because one connects to the servo and the other is simply a guide to keep the ramp straight in line with rails. I then amended this with experience on the under construction layout to using two square section brass tubes, one inside the other. Being square, the rise of the ramp stays true to the rails alignment. Control is via a push button, powered by 12v dc. Ian

I agree with the idea of any correctly installed and wired electrofrog Peco turnouts, but would also add have a look at the various MTB turnout motors. Easy to install and adjust, plus reliable. No connection other than etc. Ian

I think I’d call it “lightly landscaped”. As I said, the actual two (or one if they are co-joined as one) flaps will both be girder bridges. I can live with one being higher than the other - not prototypically impossible I guess. The room is 50 miles away from my day-to-day location so much thinking and planning occurs ‘here’, with doing over ‘there’. So I need to test and visualise some of these ideas and suggestions. Because these towers will sit higher than the bridge base, they will probably need to be disguised buildings, I guess. I could accept paste table hinges if they sit beneath the “surface” (ie the base of the bridges), as the surface is the landscape per se. The door opens outwards, so no risk there. I was the beneficiary of a slight conflict between the builder and the wife (mine, that is, not his). The new train room is built as an extension on the outside wall of the existing lounge. Wife insisted she didn’t want the doorway opening into the lounge, which was, of course, the opposite of what I wanted to hear. But when she saw the recess of the door due to the thicker outside cavity wall in which it sat, she asked the builder to hang it the other way round, thus hiding the recess. He said the simple way of so doing was to have it opening into the lounge, and she said ok. Result! Just proves sometimes you have to be patient, and not proactively pick battles you can’t win. Fate plays a hand. Ian

That risk of damage is why I’m not really thinking of a downward hinged flap. Ian

Thanks, very impressive engineering and carpentry. I particularly like that hinge configuration. thanks Ian

Probably because it’s such a good idea and execution! I will have a closer look at this idea, but I’m not sure it would work in my location. If I hinged it on the left, when open it would impact on my seated area adjacent to the workbench. Although maybe if I closed it, trains could circulate whilst at the workbench. If I hinged it on the right, it will form a barrier to walking into the operating well area. I’ll have to check the ergonomics. thanks Ian