ITG

21 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

For a passing loop, the other critical dimension is to leave some space at the points, so that trains don't sideswipe each other.

Also, a mistake I made with loops within stations is not allowing enough end space beyond any uncoupler ramps of any kind. That is, the first (or last depending on you look at it) coach/wagon coupling position needs to be such that the vehicle end is not so close to a curve (or part of point curve) on adjacent track. Otherwise, overhang of vehicle on that adjacent track can foul the parked vehicle.

As I am now getting close to starting my second layout, I’m keen to avoid the mistakes (learning opportunities) I made on the first one (which only had an 18 month life, because I always saw it as such a learning experience).

One fundamental change this time round is changing the baseboard material and construction method, from poorly framed home made sundeala to professional modular ply framed boards. This means I can assemble, lay and wire track in sections in the garage, before taking each into the railway room in the house. Last time I tried to do so much upside down soldering on my knees! Plus, ‘afterthought’ ideas (like infra red sensors to check hidden track occupancy) were a devil to install - this time I hope to be forewarned and better planned. Note that I have no intention of moving this layout once in situ, the modular approach is purely to use professional boards and to enable easier early stage layout building)

so, my questions are these:

How do I sequence the order of doing things? I can layout the entire set up (8 boards of manageable varying sizes, totalling 3.5m x 2m around central operating well) first in the garage, lay the track, wire it, take a board at a time into the house and reassemble .

How much do I do in the garage? Fix track down? 
Or is it better to take each assembled board indoors,  lay/wire track inside (I can still turn board upside down)?
But whichever option, there comes a point when (a) track across baseboard joins with have to be put in place & (b) electrical connections (DCC track bus etc) across joints need making. If two adjoining boards each have track fixed, how do I place that linking track piece? (Manoeuvring room for rail joiners etc)

Or is it best to cut exact length of linking track section and just drop it in, with no rail joiners? If so, recommendations as how to do that?

I’m hoping that the undoubted experience which oozes from this forum will jump in and offer ideas and suggestions, as it has on other specifics I’ve asked. Thanks in advance.

Just a short comment re any plans to reuse the track in the future. I used double sided tape to hold track on Powerbase plates, and also the plates onto cork on an incline. It did stick pretty well, but I’ve just lifted it to create a new layout, and the tape was very difficult to separate cork from plates. It required a prolonged soak in meths to remove the adhesive. Less of an issue to be fair removing from the underside of track.

For bus/dropper connections, I’ve used Wago connectors. Just google them. Easy and reusable, and take multiple wire gauges.

1 hour ago, WIMorrison said:

@chilly, you have just purchased a z21 and you can therefore create a mimic diagram using the z21 application - it doesn't make sense (to me) to create a hybrid when you have everything you need  in your hand already.

 

If you didn't have a z21 already then there *may* be a different discussion, but you have it therefore the z21 route is, I consider, more sensible and less prone to failures and operational issues..

I’ve been following this thread, as I too am planning a new layout. That said, I am a committed fan of DCC, and I too was wondering what the advantage is of adopting a DC points operating system linked to a touch screen mimic panel, when that very thing is part of what DCC can do. I’m not familiar with z21, although from what I’ve read, it seems impressive, not least with the way it can create digital screen mimic panel. It’s certainly making me think about options for next steps.

2 hours ago, jpendle said:

You don’t say which DCC system you will be using.

If, for example you use a Roco Z21 then you don’t need a point numbering/ addressing scheme as point and signal control is done from a mimic diagram or through route setting.

 

Regards,

 

John P

Thanks John, it’s currently a Gaugemaster Prodigy Advance 2.
As an alternative, I’m exploring using JMRI to construct an in-screen mimic diagram, and to operate points from there.

But that’s an interesting suggestion you make about the Z21; I’m not averse to changing systems if that in effect kills two birds with one stone.

I take it you use Z21? Can you suggest an useful thread or source of info so I can get an overall understanding.

ian

Nigel,

in case it makes it easier, here attached is a 'line' version of the png file, for which I also doubled the pixel intensity (if thats the right word!)

Thanks JF, I joined the RocRail forum, and got a similar response from there. 
 

That said, I’m at a stage of ‘nothing ruled in nothing ruled out’ thinking, which includes possibly changing my DCC system. So you never know.  Nevertheless thanks for your help.

A virtual beer to you, Nigel.

2 hours ago, JimFin said:

 

Looks like you may have made progress but if still seeking an alternative, RocRail is worth a look as Nigel said

 

Their method of creating a screen control panel is almost identical to AnyRail with defined objects for track points and accessories. Once you have set up your panel, each element has a fairly straightforward dialogue box to assign the appropriate values. Point, uncouplers, signals, lighting etc all follow the same path.

 

Full automation is possible as is web based control from tablet / mobile phone etc. should you want to go that direction in the future.

 

It also allows external commands which I use for sound effects by bluetooth to a remote speaker. View of my simple control panel below. the "stray" point icons for track and workshop run the servos for the loco shed doors, need to get round to changing those icons -  but for the moment - they work!

 

 

All the best with your project.

JimFin, I’m having a scan through the RocRail introductions, and when checking supported devices, I didn’t see Gaugemaster (or MRC ) Prodigy Advance 2 on there. Does Rocrail work with that?

ian

JimFin,

that looks interesting and seemingly simple. I shall have a ponder. Thanks.

Hi again Nigel,

here is a PNG of the lower level only. Not that it will matter, I'm sure, but I have omitted the higher level terminus which sits above the 'hidden' tracks along the upper wall, and also cut off the bottom-left incline approach to this station.

The parallel tracks across the diagonal board are the staging/fiddle yard.

Good luck, and again, thanks for your help.

Vistisen - any ideas and suggestions are most welcome. I read nothing as a plug, only as suggestion and advice. I shall read and digest.

Thanks Nigel, you’re quite right in that the Anyrail import did go into Layout Editor.

I will take you up on your kind offer. The layout points areas break down into 3 areas, being terminus station, double-ended staging yard and main line (crossovers and loops etc.) So it should be straightforward to decide upon one corner of it. In fact, as the track plan for the terminus is still under final tweaking, it may be helpful to leave that off for now.

back soon.

Nigel, thanks. You have helped me previously with my first steps towards JMRI. 
How possible is it to import Anyrail track plan to JMRI? I seemed to recall I did manage that, but then couldn’t work out how to convert the imported identities of a turnout so that JMRI recognised them, and/or they related to my DCC turnout numbering. My memory is a little vague apart from recalling I didn’t succeed in what I was trying to do.

That said, I will look again at your suggestions.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, they say. That might be where I am at, but definitely also not knowing what I don’t know.

Here’s the circumstances......

1. I restarted in this hobby about 18 months ago, building a first layout for many years. For me, some aspects I got right (opting for OO, choosing DCC, live frogs, etc) and some things wrong (baseboard material and construction).

2. So I am just preparing to start all over again, using professionally built modular Boards and trying retain my ‘right’ choices, and correct/improve/develop the less right ones.

3. I will continue to use DCC for points Control (30+ points), but I do find it ‘user-unfriendly’ to use only my GM PA2 to control point switching (plus of course loco driving), really due to the need to keep switching functions between loco control and accessory control. So I have dabbled with the set up of JMRI purely for the purpose of points control, using a track plan with an on screen mimic panel. TBH, I found JMRI a bit clunky, a factor brought more into consideration, as I cannot see myself using much of its other myriad functions and purposes. And haven’t succeeded in getting an aesthetically pleasing representation of the plan on screen.
4. I have DC servo uncouplers, for which I have a physical mimic panel, and am concerned that having points switches and indicator LEDs all on this physical panel as well, may make the whole thing too busy, and a spaghetti of wiring.

so, the question really is.....

What other options might I have for an on screen control of points? I don’t mind investing in software but obviously don’t want to waste money on something that doesn’t tick the right boxes?

And might there be other computerised functions, which are not on my radar? I’m not really at the stage of sitting back to watch a computer move trains around.

Any other relevant thoughts most welcome.

PS Edit - I’m not averse to changing the Prodigy if ther are benefits in compatibility with other systems.

JimFin, I’m using both Gaugemaster PM10D and DCC Cobalt point motors, each with built in decoders, so I think the blocks of 4 issue doesn’t apply. On the current layout, I just numbered them as I laid and connected each point, so there is a kind of natural sequencing to it. But as I’m starting all over again (having learnt so much about every aspect of this hobby on my first layout for 50 years), I’m trying to be a little more considered in my planning ahead, and less impatient to get something running. Hence the question.

6 hours ago, Chilly said:

Thank you for your ongoing patience.

 

The track is set in my mind (thanks Chimer 4 track station) it is looking like 2-3 controllers 1 each for the lines and 1 for the sidings if I have understood this.

 

And then we are back to the dreaded system, Gaugemaster Advance 2 looks good but Digitras DS52 also and if we are at DC points running it which I like the idea of as it something different and separate and does not need decoders looks good. 

 

Thanks Chilly  

The question of how many controllers is surely directly related to the likely number of operators you will have. If you’re likely to be a solo operator, you can start with a single controller.

Picking up Chimers point about automated gizmos, there are plenty of options on the market for sensors which can bring a train to a controlled gradual halt at a road end. That then mitigates the responsibility of managing multiple locos On a single person/controller basis.

Soon to start laying track for new layout, which will have some 30+ points, split between those on a twin circuit (eg crossovers, loops etc), those in a double-ended fiddle yard, and those in a terminus station (about half of the total number).

I’m just pondering how best to sequence the number identifier for each point for DCC.

Perhaps for the circuit, start somewhere and go clockwise?

But of particular interest is how to number in the terminus:

- numerically from throat to end in a linear fashion (or the other way), or, 

- linear into the main platform roads from throat, and then linear again from throat into bay/ goods yard etc (ie two parallel sets of linear numbers).

Or number in blocks, eg all the twin track crossovers are 11 upwards, fiddle yard are all 20 something, terminus all 30 something  (even if that means some numerical gaps)

I’m only asking from a practical viewpoint, as obviously the number is only an identifier, but which way is easiest to recall? how do other folk do it?

DCC systems can operate multiple locos at once through a single (but you can have multiple if you wish) controller. Select loco 1, and set it going at speed x on up track; select loco 2 and do likewise on down track; select loco 3 and shunt yard. Stop loco 3, to bring loco 1 into platform, etc.

Incidentally, same principle applies to DCC points whilst operating locos.

The challenge is, if one doesn’t have a continuous run (to let locos 1 & 2 circle), juggling control between locos in time to avoid crashing through the platform end. That’s where multiple controllers could help, but then of course one needs multiple people to operate the layout!

I probably should have said that I don’t plan on ditching the 20+ Gaugemaster digital point motors I already have. The dilemma is do I install under track or under baseboard? And then the questions of pins/rods.

I’m still very much a learner, but that photo of a point does not look like a current model electrofrog. It’s got a small plastic part. This is a current electro frog.

and second photo is current insulfrog.
could that be a contributing factor?

Hi, still working my way through various planning considerations, whilst awaiting delivery of Whiterose modular baseboards. I’m also ordering various components I will need, which is getting trickier as many suppliers are out of stock.

I am now pondering how best to mount point motors.

My soon-to-be-dismantled layout has used (largely) Gaugemaster PM10D DCC fitted, mounted attached directly to the underside of the Peco Streamline track. I found these worked well, and although one has to cut a sizeable hole in the baseboard for the point motor workings, it makes the fixing very precise - because it clips into the slots in the track.

So, do I repeat this, and thus make large holes in my pristine new baseboard? Or do I fix motors to underside of baseboard, which means a much smaller hole purely for the movement of the pin? This potentially makes alignment trickier, or does it? Are there any other pros or cons I haven’t thought of?

And an additional factor is that the pins which drive the tie bar will all now be too short, for under baseboard mounting. I know GM do sell replacement pins, in packs of 5, (most if not all places out of stock) but just wondering if one can buy longer lengths of this rod, and self-cut to size? Problem is, I can’t measure the diameter of said pin/rod as they’re all installed in current layout.

I could be patient and wait until I dismantle, and/or wait until GM packs are in stock again, but I’m trying to plan a (retired) work schedule for the new layout, and I’d prefer to avoid thumb twiddling whilst waiting for parts.

I suppose I’m hoping someone will throw in a factor (in response to this posting) which will help me decide (a) how to mount and (b) a source of rod if necessary. Or even just be patient!

The lower design is very similar to my soon-to-be-started layout, albeit you won’t be as tight for space as I will, as I am in 00 in 11’6” x 6’6”. My terminus is not based on the Minories template, and will, to many, seem over busy but I want it to feel that way. Mine is just a single track to the station, and I’m still toying with making the circular track just single as well. But the basic premise of being able to enjoy trains circling, ability to reverse whole trains and multiple shunting operations all appeals, and is where it seems there is similarity in our intentions. I too am aiming for a 1:50 gradient but it needs to virtually circle the whole room to attain the necessary clearance. I plan to have the upper level 150mm (virtually 6”) board above the lower. My upper board will be framed with 1” aluminium tubing framework so as to try to find the right balance between strength and low profile, because the incline has to start below the upper station board.

one key difference is that I plan to have my fiddle yard on the opposite wall to the station, so it isn’t actually obstructed by the upper board, although maybe you have access all round. My layout is basically 2’ wide boards surrounding a central well. I’ve called it a fiddle yard, but as I don’t plan on doing much fiddling, it’s per phase more of a staging yard to hold trains off scene.

My reverse loop will span and bisect the Operating well, on a removable girder bridge, so as to allow easier access whilst building the layout.