ITG

It’s Peco code 100 streamline current version. I’ve now discovered DCC concepts do a pack of varying height mounting brackets for the magnets so have ordered some to see how I fare. Am I right in thinking the WS Incline packs for a 4” climb at 2% include the start and finish components mentioned. The feedback and ideas from all are most welcome.

Thank you, The Johnster . A well thought through explanation of the factors to consider. I’m just wondering whether you have any advice as to how best to achieve a smooth transition at start and end of incline. I will be using the Woodland Scenics 2% foam incline, set upon 9mm ply lower baseboard. (Courtesy of White Rose Baseboards) I can see that it would be all too easy to end up with level and then suddenly into the start of the 2%. How’s best to get that upward curved transition? And similarly the curve transition at the top as it flattens out? Ian

34B - D, Interesting you say about Powerbase on top of sleepers, because a fair run of my gradient will be on hidden track, so appearance wouldn’t matter. For that matter, I guess one could ballast on top of the metal Powerbase to hide it on exposed track.

Hi, first, let me say, I realise the best answer is not to have an incline in the first place! But, I have now and I will have in the future. Glutton for punishment! Seriously, on my first layout as a returner with 00 gauge DCC, I’ve learnt so much by making mistakes, and I now feel ready to ditch and start all over again. Lots of reasons for that, not least baseboard issues. Currently, I have a 3% incline with curves up to a terminus station. Generally, my Bachmann diesels are ok up it with 3-4 coaches (all I want due to platform size etc), but the Bachman steam generally aren’t. (Most of my locos are Bachman) I installed DCC Concepts Powerbase strips, and the associated magnets on a 4-6-0 Patriot, but as it stands, that didn’t have the desired effect. I’m pretty sure it’s because the magnets mounted on the underside of the loco are just too high - they need a spacer between chassis and magnet mounting bracket. There is space, but I’m concerned about clearance of electronic uncoupler ramps elsewhere on layout. Now, going forward on new layout (just waiting for modular baseboards to arrive), the gradient will be less at just 2%, and I will also be able to ease the tightness of the curves. I have also just ordered some Liquid Gravity weights, although haven’t yet explored how/where to mount in each loco. so, things I could do with feedback upon are: 1. Experience of using DCC Powerbase with 2% gradient, or other 2. have locos generally needed spacers for the magnets, and were there any clearance problems? Or do they fit at right level generally? (Am I unlucky with the Patriot dimensions?) 3. how easy is it to fit/site, and what impact does it have, if using Liquid Gravity (or other weights). thanks in advance Ian

Absolutely obvious with benefit of hindsight. Ordered a mix of lengths on eBay. Thanks.

Please see photo. I use servos, eachdriven by a Circuit board, for electronic uncouplers. The servo and the board are linked by a three-core cable, fixed at one end into the servo, and with a plug at the other, which push connects onto 3 pins on the board. Because the board contains adjustable controls for rise, fall and duration of uncoupler use, I’d like to have these boards nearer the underside edge of the baseboard, thus making access easier. So I think the easiest way of doing so might be to buy extension leads with a plug and socket at either end. But I don’t what they are called (if they exist), hence google doesn’t help much! I only need lengths of 6-9 inches. Anyone know a name, or even better, know of a source?

Because of ease of obtaining, as well as simplicity of connections/installations, I have just taken delivery of a reversing camera and screen, complete with everything except the power supply, for a total of £15.99 including postage. What’s not to like? Certainly worth trying. I already had a suitable power supply. Tested it and looks fine, but layout not ready for installation. thanks for the suggestions.

Is this more due to varying wheel profiles, rather than the set track points themselves or the wheel base, as mentioned by op? i do have a few settrack points and don’t suffer derailments although I did either rewheel or dispose of some older stock I had acquired before I realised the problem.

Although I will be running DCC, I think the question which I need help for is more a general power issue, hence fingers crossed this is the most appropriate place to ask. just waiting for the new baseboards to arrive, and then my new layout will be underway. It will contain a twin track circuit, with the inner one having a reverse loop across it diagonally. This reverse loop will travel across a removable bridge section, which in effect dissects the central operating well. The plan is that whilst working on the layout, with bridge removed, I can have easier access to and fro. When operating, the bridge will be in situ, as my position will be more static. I will be using a DCC auto-reverse loop module, through which the track bus power runs to power the whole reverse loop, which is some 2m long, including the 0.75m bridge section. How can I wire up the power to the bridge, so that if the bridge is not in position, the train cannot reach the yawning chasm and drop to the floor? In other words, the two approach ends of the reverse loop need isolating in some way, so that when the bridge is not connecting them, those approach roads are dead. I’ve read of somehow wiring each rail up from a different approach direction, but not clear how that actually works, or if the presence of a reverse loop module complicates that. I’m guessing there are both complex and simple answers to this, so I would like to draw on the experience of others.

WIM, yes, I don’t use the two types of connectors (Wago and terminal strips) together. Just two different options for different circumstances.

I too like the Wago connectors, but also these on amazon, with ready made slot-in links for combining several https://www.amazon.co.uk/JJDD-Position-Pre-Insulated-Industrial-Instrumentation/dp/B07S3L9KVQ/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2PV0X7GMKFY4T&dchild=1&keywords=jjdd&qid=1589899070&s=diy&sprefix=Jjdd%2Cdiy%2C146&sr=1-2

Probably not critical, but the frame can not be both 4” or 12.5 cm.

On a similar theme to that raised by Harlequin, maybe you should get to the bottom of why all the DCC chips appear to have failed? Not having functioning locos is a pretty big turn-off, and tempting to “bin and restart” when you haven’t been near the layout. Possibly a case of “baby out with the bath water!” In the space available, there could be quite a difference in what could be achieved with a layout in 0 v 00 - not that that should put you off 0, but more that you should distil your thoughts about what you want from the layout, and then perhaps determine how best to achieve that. bTW, I’ve just opted for modular kit built baseboards, in my case to overcome my own carpentry shortcomings. Ordered but not yet received, but impressed with the many conversations I have had with the supplier. But they are relatively expensive, but then so was my current layout baseboard when it took time, money and isn’t fit for purpose! Good luck.

Izzy & Crosland, I do indeed have a Prodigy Advance 2, and reading Izzy’s 2 posts alongside Crosland’s has made me think somewhat. The earlier posts in this thread were making me lean more towards CBs than switches. Now I’m not sure. Could anyone enlighten me further, particularly re the use of the PA2 in this situation, and whether that means switches are better? Or maybe someone could post a wiring diagram of what the distinction is (if any) between daisy-chaining and what I assume to be in parallel. thank you all.

Well, all I can say is that I have been very impressed by the functionality and flexibility of DCC. Personally, I could never go back to DC, but I did have the benefit of starting afresh, so I had no added cost of converting multiple DC locos. (Though did have to buy anew!) i have found slow running (shunting etc) much better than I ever did all those years ago. Can’t say that is entirely down to DCC, although a visiting friend or two has also commented favourably compared to their DC layouts.

Ah great, thanks RFS and jpendle. I didn’t have the Cobalt instructions in front of me when I posted. Presumably they would have indicated the different terminals. any idea about the Gaugemasters? Although when I root them out, maybe that is on instructions.

Thanks all. Very helpful. Finally, be careful of using the built in frog switching feed from many DCC point motors using this arrangement because this will be fed from the DCC input to the motor which is incorrect if you haveseperated the busses - you would then be feeding the accessory bus into the track negating the benefits of separating them. re the comment above. I have a mixture of DCC Concepts Cobalts and Gaugemaster digital point motors. The former, I understand, have built in frog feed switchers and the latter (on current layout and planning to do similar on future one) I have added Gaugemaster frog juicers. For each of these cases, if I separated the track and accessory buses, how would I then wire things to get the benefit of the separate circuits? Or couldn’t I? ian

Just about to start (when baseboards arrive) new OO layout, approx 11’ x 7’. It will be double track circuit (including reverse loop on inner circuit with auto-reverse module) with two-way fiddle yard, with long single track branch gradient up to 3 platform mid-size terminus with goods/loco facilities. I’ve been using DCC on previous layout and quite happy with how I’ve approached it, except that I have read plenty of comment about creating separate power districts, which I didn’t do on the earlier layout. I realise the main benefit of so doing is all about isolating track sections when fault finding etc. Or is there any other reason? so the questions I have are around Pros and cons of how many different districts? All point motors are DCC. 1. Keeping the point motors fed by a separate bus? If so, is that two separate sections, being one for terminus station points, and another for Mainline and FY? Or one as a whole. 2. Each main line circular track separate? Or combine the two? 3. The branch and terminus separate? If so, where should the break best come - immediately outside station, or immediately where branch junctions from main line. I’m conscious that some of the above permutations would result in a significant increase in the length and number of bus wires under the boards. So want to get the best compromise. Finally, on how to do this. Am I right in assuming it’s a single + & - feed from power unit, into a set of switches, with outputs then forming each bus? Any recommendations on type of switches? thanks Ian

The L makes more sense, if only because a 4’ square board is difficult to reach across, meaning you need to allow access space on all 4 sides - this the overall space consumption looks more like 8’ square.

Well, I’m no died in the wool expert, but have followed a similar rebirth to you, albeit my gap was 50 years. I started again 18 months ago with OO DCC using a mixture of code 100 streamline and settrack for tighter curves. So here’s a few things I’ve learnt.... Code 100 is the popular choice, with such as code 75 being a more prototypical rail profile. One issue to consider re this choice is if your older stock (may have ‘coarser’ wheel standards) may not like running through code 75 points. Indeed, I found some older stock didn’t like my code 100 points. Code 100 streamline (flexi) is entirely compatible with settrack 100, but the former gives extra choice between live and insulfrog points, and indeed types and shapes of points. I think most folk would say you are likely to get better running with live frog points, simply because of the avoidance of plastic running lines (ie the dead frog). Using DC points control will not have any effect on converting loco power to DCC. The multiple dropper connections to the power bus is good practice for both DC and DCC but has more benefit for DCC with its ability to control locos independently, and indeed for running stationary sound /lighting locos. If you create isolating sections for dc, then they should be ok for DCC, except that you would probably leave them permanently on. in overall terms, that is a large layout, so it might be worth starting with a small element of it, to gain experience en route as it were. Good luck.

So, some photos of the planning test. (Note - they are posted upside down - whoops!) These two photos show an assembly, with what will be the correct size cross piece (240mm) attached to a 4-way junction at each end. The vertical lengths are not the ones I will be using which will be cut to achieve a baseboard height of 150mm above the lower board. I haven’t ordered those yet, as it makes sense to complete all the calculations first, to order once in bulk. Each of the verticals will have a ‘foot’ of some kind, probably adjustable to allow fine tuning. I am planning on a vertical support every 300 -500mm, dependant to some degree on avoiding track below (ie curves in corners), so I won’t order these until lower level track is in situ. With the upper board being 600mm wide, there will be 3 lengthways runs of tubing; one along each long edge, and one to sit in between, which will in fact be supported by a vertical leg on the outer edge of the lower board, ie a little under 300mm from the wall. Because the Upper board is wider than the lower board, the outside support legs will be a different length, as it will be supported by cupboard surfaces underneath the whole layout. i am planning on self-tapping countersunk screws into pre-drilled undersize holes from baseboard 9mm ply into the aluminium tubing below. Hence so important to ensure the joiners sit flush with aluminium tube, which they do.

Hi ISW, the main reasons I ordered sample lots was because I wanted to be sure of the dimensions of the two types of adjustable feet (Because I am wanting to align baseboard height with both height above a lower baseboard and also using a batten already mounted on the wall), and to ensure that the push-in joining sections were completely flush with tubes. As I am only planning on using this frame system for the upper board (3500 x 600mm), I am really only at the stage of testing the concept. So the sample bits I ordered were only those I could be sure I’d want. The lower board, under this upper board, is only 300mm wide at narrowest point, with 3 or 4 parallel tracks. So, allowing for push-in joiners, I calculated the aluminium crosspiece supports would have to 240mm long, plus 25mm each end connector. That way, they bridge the lower tracks (calculated using full size print off Anyrail) but sit inside the 300mm width of lower board. That meant I got 10 x 240mm lengths from the standard 2500mm length. i will add a photo or two in this thread, but it will only be a test, rather than in situ. happy for you to pm me for further detail. ian

I’m planning on using Aluminium Warehouse’s Easyfix system, which has the advantage of multiple types of connecting blocks, which themselves are exactly the same profile (25mm) as the square section tubes themselves. I am planning on providing ‘leg’ support for each junction. I’m planning on working out all the horizontal and vertical lengths, and using AWs cutting service to ensure exact lengths. I have already ordered and received a sample lot for which I already knew the required lengths, and they are very accurate.

Must be electro frog if OP has quoted part number SLE correctly. So seems to me they would be for frog switching (ah - just seen Jamie’s post)

To add to my earlier post, I omitted to mention wheels. When I started up about 18 months ago, I did buy a number of pre-owned rolling stock items. Some of these were early Hornby/Triang/Mainline/Airfix etc, and I did experience issues with some of these items going through various Peco points, not just settrack curved ones. So i can’t attribute such problems to the curved points specifically. All of the problem rolling stock was either sold or re-wheeled - problem solved. The op may wish to factor in wheels as well. Just a point of clarification - when I said in earlier post “Hornby points spring clips” what I actually meant was Hornby spring clips on Peco points. Not Hornby points themselves.