ITG

The trouble is the towers will take up space, and the branch line runs pretty close to the wall, probably 4” off it, so not much space for towers, or even flatter based hinges. Hence my thinking about below board hinges. Yes it is. Thanks for all the other observations - all things on my “concerns “ list but it’s reassuring to hear someone else share the same views. Ian

I’ve kind of boxed myself in, as I’ve been working around the layout room, knowing sooner or later I would need to confront/construct the lifting section across an outward opening doorway. Now I’m getting close to that point. There are 3 parallel tracks crossing the doorway, all level; a twin track main line and a branch line which sits some 150mm higher than ( and behind) the main line. I have twin track and single track girder bridges, which (with a short extension of mounting board underneath each) will be long enough to bridge the gap. So to the questions…. 1. Because of the narrowness of such bridges, I’d rather not have to widen one end to mount appropriate surface hinges, either side of the tracks. I seem to recall seeing mention of a layout on RMWeb that used hinges which were mounted below the baseboard, but still opened upwards. I think some kitchen cupboard style hinges do this, but don’t know what they are called, or if they are accurate enough. Any ideas anyone? 2. Do I create two separate lifting bridge sections, one for the mainline and one for the branch? Or do I connect together the 2 bridges at the ends, by way of the mounting board, so that they lift together? Or will that bring complications with the different heights at each end, for either the hinges or the other end? 3. of course, I could simplify matters to make the bridges complete lift out sections, not hinged. Is that a better solution given the restraints? As always, your wisdom and ideas most welcome. Ian

Presumably you’re talking about DCC Concepts products? Ask them for guidance - I’ve found them very helpful. Ian

Ah, cracked it. I had downloaded the wrong link. Just need to test it, when I’ve got to wiring that part of layout. thanks Ian

Thanks Iain, but I'm clealry not in the right place yet. This is the link I found on DCCTrainAutomation website: Windows Driver: https://ftdichip.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CDM212364_Setup.zip which then gives me set up.exe file CDM212364 but I cannot find any programme files. Clicking on the demo on DCCTA website just shows the following (see photo) but if that is a route in, the 'save changes' button is greyed out. Any ideas where I'm going wrong? Ian

Hi, scratching my head on this. I have a new Yamorc YD6016LN detection sensor (for use with iTrain annd Z21) and I need to configure the numbering for the feedbacks. There are various guidance videos showing how this can be done with a USB link to a laptop. But the videos I’ve seen all start with the graphic of the unit displayed on the screen. I cannot find what to do to get to that position. I have the Yamorc unit connected to my laptop by USB lead, the laptop can see it as a connected device, the green light on the unit is flashing, but how do I actually get the graphic on the screen? I’ve downloaded what I assume is the setup.exe, which installs, but then what? any help appreciated. thanks Ian

First question must be about the garage. Is it, or will it be, insulated and dry? Is it to be a dedicated room or multi-use? A garage as it is, isn’t the greatest house for a layout. Most garages need work on them, in effect a conversion. Otherwise, you’ll find it a challenge. I’m fortunate to have a dedicated room, but need to build layout boards and lay/wire the track in my garage (my room is 50 miles away!). I find it inconvenient and uncomfortable to be working in garage, particularly at this time of year. Ian

I’ve no experience of unifrog so cannot comment directly, but I understand you can use straight out of the box. However, I would assume they are effectively ‘insulfrog’ in that condition, so you’re not getting the same outcome as electrofrog, namely what many would say was better running. This may depend on what you’re running. Diesels with pick-ups in each bogie may not be affected, but short wheelbase (0-4-0 or 0-6-0 or similar) may stutter (or even stall) when negotiating dead frogs. If operating DCC, particularly sound, this stutter/stall may be more noticeble. So, in summary, what you called extra wiring may be worth the effort. Ian

A wider board (a) makes it easier to fit in gradual curves and (b) enhances the scenic perspective of ‘railway in the landscape’. Certainly 2ft enables easy reach. A central operating area imho gives a better view of trains, as they do go out of your sight, giving a sense of a journey. How will you use your storage yard? Purely to hold complete trains? Or to actually ‘fiddle’ (ie hand shuffle locos and rolling stock to dissemble /reassemble trains)? The answer may dictate where you operate from to give that close at hand access. For me, I’d want a greater goods rolling stock interest of some kind - as it stands it looks very passenger orientated.

In your original drawing, looking at the scale measurements of the room, you could consider slightly wider boards (except maybe the bottom board), which in turn may give more scope to avoid the straight track appearance, and to curve some aspects. On the new plan, that does look better, but what will you do with the triangular space behind the station? Reach and access would be tricky if you placed any track there, or indeed to make it purely scenic. Ian

No experience of 0 gauge but I find the MTB range of motors are exceptionally easy to fit and adjust, and work perfectly. The throw is adjustable so shouldn’t be any issue with blades not aligning. Ian

Take a look at this below. Now this is only a suggested option, as I think it very much is your choice. Upside - you gain a run round loop which adds operational interest. Downside - you lose siding storage space because those two sidings become part of the runaround capacity. The red turnouts are those I mentioned in the earlier post. A goods train could draw in via the blue line, and the loco could uncouple and be released by crossing the red turnouts, and then either shunt the train itself, or return to shed. If the latter, shunter then arrives at other end of train to do its work. Sometimes that arriving train may just be loco and brake van, which has been stored in other sidings. If its pulling it, it will need to run round it to then get it to the rear end of an assembled ready-to-depart train. By having those red t/os on the centre two lines, the run round loop becomes much longer (accommodating longer trains) than it would if you opted for where I’ve shown alternative options of green t/os. By using the inner (blue) track to park the train when running round, it avoids blocking t/o 15. But, the downside of having longer train capacity is that sitting on that blue track may block t/o 18, although the shunted train can draw right back to t/o 1 without fouling the main lines. (Remember red or green turnouts are options - not suggesting you have more than one run round) Makes no difference - their construction is identical but I’m not sure if all point work is available in concrete. May depend on era modelled. Well, carpentry isn’t my forte but I suggest it’s better to design and construct the frame at the onset rather than cut parts. And btw, remember that if you’re using underboard turnout motors, you will need to design the framework in such a way that motors sit clear of any battens A uniform crisscross of battens is unlikely to work unless you’re very lucky. Of course, you could selectively use above-board motors. Some types lend themselves to disguise better than others but you still have to find space for the motor and it’s disguise (line side shed etc). There’s a limit to how much scenic treatment you can give it, as that lifting surface would need to be robust enough to stand opening/closing. Buildings would be vulnerable, so open land of some kind better. But unless it’s a cricket pitch or bowling green, the flatness won’t look right unless you first lay (at least) slightly undulating surface (paper mache, plaster cloth, etc). The dropper track joiners are really standard rail joiners with a short section of dropper wire pre-soldered on. They (imho) stand the same risk of not being a electrically sound joint as normal rail joiners, and it also potentially means another electrical connection below the board if that standard wire length isn’t long enough to reach your bus wire. You need to plan your wiring routes below board as well as the track above! Before you actually get going on this project, I’d recommend getting a plank of wood, and lay and connect a couple of pieces of track and a turnout, all as a practice run. It’s likely to save time and money later on. Good luck Ian

When you actually get the track laid, you may be able to get away with slightly wider than 68mm, but even so that equates to 17’ real world so aesthetically it should be ok, I’d have thought. Only other comment - which I have suggested before - would be too retain one run round loop in that central yard. It adds a lot of operational interest when assembling trains. It could even be between the centre two sidings which would mean the loop being a lot longer as it stretches around the bend (albeit blocking other turnouts when in use). But you would in effect lose storage space. Another thought - unless you’re absolutely wedded to using mostly set track, if you use flexi track where possible, you could save yourself a lot of droppers and resultant connections, eg, the lower siding from turnout 18. That looks like 3 track pieces, whereas using flexi would be one. Multiply that up all over, and it’s a significant reduction - and in cost as well. I would still use set track on the tight curves in the corners, as flexi can be tricky to bend that tight without getting a kink (generally at a join). You could consider making that RH access well fill the available space; it would ease access significantly when track laying etc. If you really wanted to ultimately make it scenic, wouldn’t be too tricky to make it like a hinged scenic lid, which lifted or dropped . If so, maybe better to hinge on the right or bottom, as access is likely to be trickiest along the top side (assuming you normally operate at the bottom). Ian

Mmm, 2.3” is 58.4mm, yet Peco set track spacing is 67mm (track centres). I hope that 8.6mm difference doesn’t prove critical in clearance terms.

A dropper on every track piece is belt and braces, which imho is worth doing. If you don’t, and then find a poor connection across rail joiners, it can be a real pain to have to add retrospective droppers. Of course, the more set track you use (as opposed to flexi), then that’s likely to cause more droppers required. Plus of course more rail joiners at risk of failure. Remember, when doing initial track laying and adding droppers etc, it would be massively beneficial to be able to lay the track ,and then stand the board upright, so you can easily access the underside. Wiring a board above your head whilst crouched below is no fun. Tbh, I shop all over the place, which in this day and age is driven by pricing and availability, and the combination of the two. My advice would be call one or two, and don’t just rely on online ordering. You want to find a retailer that not only sells, but also offers support and advice. I’m a satisfied customer of Digitrains, DCC Train Automation, Coastal DCC, Trains4U and lots more…. But these have all been buying specific bits I want at that time, not a whole start up quantity. Of course, there’s also the option of buying at an exhibition, but it’s probably doubtful everything you want will be there. Ian

Without wishing to send the OP back to square one, I do prefer @RobinofLoxley suggestion. Mainly for reasons outlined previously about the two internal run round loops and the lower edge turnout / crossing formation. @Cliff M - why are you concerned about wrong road running relative to Robin’s suggestion? Note the replacement of the diamond crossing in your plans with a slip in Robins. If a shunter doesn’t push, it will find itself trapped at the buffer ends, unless of course there is a run round loop somewhere. But the main benefit of having such a loop is that the arriving train can draw in, and the loco can be released by running round the loop. Then the shunter arrives at the tail of the train to do its work. But it’s not essential for this, as obviously if the arriving loco is trapped, if there’s sufficient space (headshunt or lead-in line) the shunter can release the said loco by drawing the entire train back, before starting its shunting work. For flexibility, I quite like the notion of one loop - it was two I found somewhat unnecessary.

I should add I’m a great fan of Wago connectors instead of terminal blocks. They do help but being so easy to use and add ad hoc, maybe encourage randomness. https://www.wago.com/gb/electrical-interconnections/discover-installation-terminal-blocks-and-connectors readily available from outlets such as Screwfix and in various sizes. I wonder - do people generally line up droppers on multiple parallel tracks so they are in a straight line? Or spread them so as to avoid congestion of connections?

I’ll be interested to see the ideas. I too am in the birds nest of spaghetti school! When using multiple droppers, how does one best predetermine the length of them to support neatness and efficiency (of length) to connect to the bus? And, with different wires (bus, accessory bus, frog wires, lighting etc) installed at different intervals as the job unfolds, how best to tidy them together and fix to baseboard? Ian

Set track radii come in 4 sizes, but many manufacturers state their locos should be run on minimum radius 2, which is 438mm to track centre. This represents approx 17.25 “ so you’d need a surface width of twice that plus a bit. To be safe, I’d say 3’6” which is way above your 2’. Even radius 1 is 15” (again to track centre) so I’d say near on impossible to do what you’re suggesting. Bending flexi track to less than 12” radius would be difficult without kinks, and even then, your locos may not negotiate it. Ian

Final thoughts as requested…….. Its much better than the earlier versions. Personally, I’m not sure why have the two run round loops in the central sidings area; I’d be inclined to have a single loop, and then repurpose the other two tracks as dead end sidings. For me, as said previously, I find the section of turnouts and crossings at the bottom to be over complicated, in access to and transition through to the innermost road. But, hey, it’s your railway so at the end of the day, it’s personal preference. Good luck Ian

Best to do that as a safety precaution to lessen risk of trains falling off the board.

Do you not need to address the matter raised by @Dungrange regarding track spacing? As he says the spacing is dictated by the use of Streamline turnouts (not a bad thing imho) but set track curves are designed with a greater track spacing? The re are two potential issues with this. 1. the narrower track spacing on curves risks some stock with a significant overhang colliding if two such trains pass on the curve? In my experience, this isn’t black and white, both because it’s stock type dependant and because…. 2. the actual track laying on the baseboard may not perfectly align with the Anyrail/Scarm virtual layout (note the comment about track alignment near turnout 4) It is 1. Above which is the greater concern - you don’t want to get track laid only to find some stock won’t negotiate it. The obvious way to test this is to build a temporary twin track 90 degree test curve to see what does or doesn’t overhang too far. Ian

That does look better, but…. 1. if you moved the station loop turnouts outwards, and used other handed ones, the bend of the turnout would become part of the curve, giving (a) less of an ‘S’ wiggle and (b) a longer loop 2. what radii are those innermost curves? Many current locos do not like first radius, so I’d recommend avoiding them. 3. How does a train get from outer to inner mainline? The only connection is via the diamond crossings at the bottom, and they give no access to that inner circuit (ie now the middle of three circuits). 4. The use of the diamonds is clumsy. There is no route for a train to access the innermost circuit or sidings, if it’s travelling on the middle circuit, other than by backing up via t/o 4. ( edit - now noticed turnout 8) 5, replacing the diamonds with slips (single/double?) may solve some of the above, but it’s still a rather untypical track layout at that bottom side. Ian

Thanks all. But having slept on it - or not, as I lay awake pondering it - I think I shall take @WIMorrison advice in his first response, to use two separate crossovers with respectively right and left hand turnouts. I have the space to do so, and it does simplify matters with both wiring and shared addresses. I simply wasn’t confident that I could achieve the operation I was hoping for, because of the risk of the three way failing to operate because of incorrect sequencing of the blades movement, and/or (if addresses were shared with the other turnouts), the fact that to get the three way in the right position, another turnout may have to switch, when I didn’t want it to. One less conundrum to frazzle my brain! I can use the three way turnout elsewhere, where it is not linked to two crossovers. Ian

I’m happy to invest in the necessary kit - given the two other crossover turnouts and the two motors required for the 3-way, how many, and which, which would need to have the two microswitches, in order to facilitate correct throws without fouling? And do you know of a wiring diagram suitable for this particular scenario? thanks Ian