ITG

But couldn’t you check that without lifting the point by testing continuity between blade and frog?

Can you clarify between exactly which two rails do you get no continuity on that point? I am thinking that if modified correctly, and with no frog power applied, it is correct that you get no continuity. Because that section of the point is isolated - it has the IRJs at one end and the modification cuts (underneath) at the other - hence can be no connectivity from either north or south of the point, meaning that the identified section has no continuity. The continuity flow will be via the physical connection of the point blade and the rail, In one set direction and depending of course in which direction the point is set. Are you finding that every other point behaves differently? Another afterthought- are you meaning the frog wire and the Cobalt controller are connected? As are the R & L to the controller? Try disconnecting all these controller connections. Ian

That surely means the modification to that point must be different to all others, as one assumes you have no feed at all to that indicated point section. The fact that point section behaves differently electronically to all others suggests some inconsistency in those mods. Did you cut through the under point link wires cleanly? Did you cross-connect the rails to blades? Where is the frog wire at this juncture? As you have not yet connected point motors and/or frog juicers etc, presumably it is just hanging below the board?* might be helpful to illustrate your point mods exactly. Another thought - when you broke up the underboard wiring into sections for continuity testing, did any of those sections NOT contain any points? Because if a section was without points, and yet still showed continuity across the two rails, you must have something pretty fundamental awry, which can only be track/dropper wrong way round or dropper/bus wrong way. And when breaking up those sections, was your testing in sequential order, starting with the first section starting from power source? Unless they’re all wrong somehow. * NB just subsequently looked at your underboard photo again - what are the green (?) wires and where do they go?

First, I guess is calculate the incline %. Do you have to reach a minimum height for clearance purposes? If so, how much running length have you got to achieve that height? Remember, that it is the underside of the upper level which is your clearance level - the track height may well be a few mm above that? And rail height of your lower level will be a few mm above board level. How straight will your incline be? If on curves, what radius? Friction is greater on curves than straight inclines. How long are the trains you intend to run, and what will you be pulling with? Older locos deliver better traction, but of modern models, diesels seem better. The planning and calculations stage is undoubtedly where you must start. A relatively easy way of achieving a consistent incline is by using Woodland Scenics Inclines and risers - preformed polystyrene flexible inclines.

.......... it will stop beeping when I reach where the short circuit is. Well, yes, (and hopefully not teaching you to suck eggs) but only if you first disconnect underboard cable sections into ‘bite-sized’ chunks. Apologies if obvious, but just wanting to save you a lot of wasted time!

Tbh, I don’t know as I’ve not yet used/bought/downloaded them. I suspect they cannot actually be textured by printing, but maybe by DIY treatment after printing.

Really an alternative way of proving what has already been Said above, but if you have a Multimeter, try testing for continuity across left and right rails. Likely this will give a positive continuity as that in effect is the short you have in your wiring, but if you are able to sectionalise the wiring, then retest continuity, sooner or later you’ll find the error. Doubt it can be anything to do with not yet fitting Cobalts. As an aside,I had a short, but I had already connected my ADSX point decoder Unit and motors (comparable to your Cobalts being connected I guess) and my short was caused by omitting to modify the underside of one Peco electrofrog point - thus causing the frog Power switching capability of the ADSX to conflict with the unmodified frog.

Not used them yet, but the shop link below produce a huge range of brick and stone sheets, downloadable/printable at home, so probably more economic for a large quantity. I have them on my possible shopping list for a (probably) brick retaining wall. https://www.3dk.ca/product-page/ts009-textured-stone-wall-sheet Ian

No, but by having the reversing section so short between points 6 & 8, surely that severely limits train length, as quoted by newbryford@.

Not sure exactly what caused it, but when I tried to run two locos simultaneously through my reverse loop in such quick succession that one was exiting the loop as the other one entered, I got a short. I use an auto-reverse module rather than two autofrog devices, but on that experience, you may have to be careful with a (second) loco passing over a point into the reverse loop zone, when a first loco is moving in the sidings.

A maximum steepness incline of 3% is usually recommended, but 2% is better. The issue arises on curves, because of lateral friction. I suspect you wouldn’t be able to do much of an incline on a train set oval due to the combination of restricted length and sharp curves. And getting the transition from flat to start (bottom) and finish (top) of incline is also important.

Not long before I packed away my stock ready for a complete layout rebuild, a Bachmann 4-4-0 loco suddenly forgot its designated address, and defaulted back to 3. (This May have been due to a temporary track short, but the impact wasn’t identified as such at the time). With the impending pack-up, I just left it as it was, and it ran (as far as I can recall) ok on 3, though I think it may have lost some of its speed settings, as it seemed faster than before. Some months later, and now I’m running trains again, this loco has become a very erratic runner. It’s speed alters, and it suddenly goes fast for a few seconds, then slows. It can be very juddery. This loco was bought pre-owned but seemingly had very little use, and I assume has the original Bachmann decoder fitted. I use a Prodigy Advance 2. I haven’t tinkered with it at all yet, as I’m still very much learning my way around the hobby. So I’d be grateful for any tips as to what next. I haven’t yet tried to Re-programme it, mainly because I haven’t found it necessary to do so to any of my locos, as they’ve all been purchased pre-owned and run fine as I inherited them. So I want to be confident I’m on the right track (no pun intended!). thanks Ian

Thanks to all who responded. Some suggestions of brands I’d never heard of, so plenty to consider. Seems like the Dapol gets a fairly lukewarm reception, which is why, I guess, you do see a fair number for sale on eBay.

I returned to OO after a multi-year gap, and a trap I fell into in my first layout, was a mismatch between the amount of locos and rolling stock I had gathered, and the amount of track space to ‘store’ them, be that either platform roads, goods/carriage sidings or (hidden) storage sidings. And then still have room for the layout to ‘breathe’. And leave head room as you acquire more stock. Hence, although you said “I want plenty of scenery, at the expense of any kind of fiddle yard. I've drafted a couple of hidden sidings in the scenic section, and think that will be sufficient” you may need more than you think. Best to have under-utilised space (for now) than have to squeeze in extra sidings etc later.

As I have a fair run of track (storage loops etc) of my OO layout below an upper board, I’m wondering about buying a track cleaning wagon of some type. As it will be purely for this purpose, I’m not concerned about prototypical appearance, or even if it’s clearly based on USA version. I’ve read a few mixed reviews of the Dapol one, and note that the CMX model is highly regarded (so it should be at some £250!). What is your experience? Has anyone tried the Bachmann model? Or the Proses car? Thanks

Could you not also move at least some of the other crossovers (on the right hand two lines in your photo) along slightly, so that you could also use my suggestion of one point in the pair being the other hand, so as to smooth the snake effect? I appreciate not all all could be designed that way, as I doubt there’s sufficient space, and then still be able to maintain the sequencing of all the crossovers across all 4 tracks.

I actually modified the Heathcote ones. As they come, they comprise a servo, control board and piano wire and see-through plastic sheet. The ramp (plastic sheet cut to size) is pushed up/down by the piano wire, itself attached to the servo arm. I experimented and felt I wanted a little more ‘robustness’, so I changed the piano wire for dowel rod and the plastic for a lollipop stick, cut to size. In fact, I used two dowel sections, one driven by the servo, and the other serves to keep the uncoupler ramp in alignment with track centre, otherwise it can swing a little. The control board (as provided by Heathcote) allows options for setting the start point of the uncoupler, the finish height when raised and the duration of how long it stays up (ie time to move loco forward). The photos (One below board, one above) below give some idea. The lollipop stick is yet to be painted a dark brown grimy colour, and the dowels are predrilled and secured by a track pin and glue. The challenge I’ve found is that of course as the servo arm rises, it also arcs through a slight lateral movement, as well as the intended vertical, meaning that it tries to move the vertical dowel out of true. But if the holes through the baseboard are slightly (but accurately so) too large, there is sufficient play to allow for this. Note my incorrect holes nearby! Ignore point motor and autofrog device in photo.

What I was suggesting does not involve curved points. Taking the top right crossover as an example what you have is something akin to example A below. You could instead opt for example B, using one point of the opposite hand, which then means you do not have the S bend coming round the curve, and thn through the crossover.

It looks like it may be possible to smooth some of the S-snakes by changing the outermost RH/LH points on the top and bottom lines, for Opposite-hand ones, and moving them out a little so that they are built into the approach curves.Doing so wouldn’t alter the sequencing of the various x-overs but would smooth the entry routes.

Thanks guys, penny is dropping now. I’m using DCC Concepts ADSX turnout motor switches on the second part of the layout (upper level terminus), and instructions on those do state that it is possible that one would need to reverse the frog polarity wires connected to the DCC bus. It was that in a way that confused me, as it got me thinking maybe the Autofrogs (on first part of layout) would also be similar. Now I belatedly appreciate that although the frog polarity task is the same for both devices, the way they do it is completely different. Hence my concern was off target. one lives and learns.........

Hi as a relative beginner, I’d like to check my understanding on the effect of using Gaugemaster autofrogs with motorised Peco live frog points. Logic suggest to me that if using a multimeter on these points, I should see an indication of DCC voltage between the outer rail of the point, and the frog section, only in the direction the turnout is set to. And conversely, no voltage on the other rail exit? And of course vice versa when the turnout direction is changed. Its not that I have a particular problem with locos negotiating points (apart from one - see below), but on checking the one troublesome one, it then led to me checking others, and I’m not getting the results I might have expected. What would you expect to see? (Note that turnouts are modified by snipping the link underneath, and using IRJs on the two frog exit rails). That then leads me to wonder if the terminals on the autofrog device have a right/wrong way round ( ie a +ve and a -ve) or doesn’t it matter? Incidentally, one turnout, when switched to ‘turn’ is a problem for one loco - a class 08 shunter,, so a short wheelbase. It stalls at slow speed. No other loco does, and the Class 08 is fine on other points. I’m not unduly concerned as it’s highly unlikely that the Class 08 will actually venture over that point. But this particular turnout is one of those that does not give me the readings I expected. thanks for any help. Ian

There’s also the added cost to consider with N. I guess one could debate whether individual items are more expensive (as an 00 user, I’m only an N spectator) but if you use the added space with N to make the track plan more complex, that’s more track, more points, more point motors(?) , etc. Unless you were pretty disciplined in your planning, and managed to maintain lots of wide open spaces.

Probably a little obvious but does this happen when the loco is running in same direction through the point but opposite way round? Or indeed, what happens when loco runs through point in opposite direction? The answers may give some clues....... In my limited experience, and not with this loco, but when an odd loco didn’t like a point that others were ok with, (but others points and this loco combinations were ok) I found on a couple of occasions, the issue seemed to be the point was not sitting quite flat - I’d managed to lay it with a slight twist, due to untrue baseboard.

Following this thread with interest, as I will soon be attempting my first ever efforts at ballasting. I think I’ll play around with a piece of dummy track on a board first. When it comes to ballasting points, how exactly do folk keep the tie bar area clear of stray ballast? Is it possible to mask it in any way? I have underboard point motors, with a 10mm hole for the point rod movement in tiebar. Any tips for approach on that area?

That’s not my experience of Anyrail. Maybe it depends on settings, but my pieces of track, or track combinations, snap together with a visual indicator of when properly connected. I agree practice helps, and it’s not always easy to align the angles of tracks to baseboard edge. Should add that I don’t consider myself an expert, just someone who has learnt From the YouTube videos and discovery through experimentation.