ITG

Yup, found that by trial and error, but how do I overcome the conundrum? ian

Thanks Iain, I see that, but sticking with the three way, would I be correct in thinking that iTrain may help with route setting to ensure blades move in the correct order? Or is there a wiring trick with MTBs? ian

Hi I've reached the stage now where i'm wiring a Peco threeway electrofrog symetrical turnout, using MTB MP1 motors driven by Yamorc YD8116. The attached photo shows where the 3way sits, relative to other turnouts. I think I'm correct in saying that each of the RH & LH turnouts at the bottom cannot share a DCC address with one of the motors on the 3 way? Please tell me if this assumption is incorrect, and how to configure if so. But, if all turnouts need different addresses, and focusing on the 3way itself, how do I configure/wire the MTBs so they cannot foul each other by opening/closing in the incorrect sequence? I will eventually be using Z21/iTrain, so I guess a possible solution is to create a route, but how else might i do this? PS, I may of course also need help with frog wiring. Thanks for your help Ian

Don’t disagree, but the OP earlier in the thread had asked about spacing for platforms. Fair point, although as it’s the OPs first layout, building in gradients may be a step too far?

the spacing looks wrong to include a platform for the bay and inner circular line, and there’s barely enough space for an outer line platform. As a rough guide, you could plan twice the standard track spacing to allow for platform space. Agree with this comment, although for me that whole area at the bottom of the plan is unnecessarily convoluted. A clockwise inner train cannot access the turnout 14 sidings (so maybe a double slip needed?). A train cannot use the turnout 13 sidings without changing direction back onto the mainline; there’s no access via turnout 12 into the inner loop (relief?) line. I wonder how any uncoupling of goods wagons is intended? Most commercially available uncoupling devices require straight pieces of track, whereas several of the sidings start with curves. I think if it were me using this space, I’d consider a station on one long side and a (maybe hidden) storage yard on the other. Then trains would have somewhere to run to/from. There could perhaps be space for a few sidings for goods operation on the inside.

Also, unless you are building cupboards as part of the board structure, how can you move the board on casters, if there’s loads of stuff stored underneath? And, as stated, how do you actually access a 5’ depth of what (at least in my case!) risks being a junk and clutter mountain!? Ian

You mention various siding lengths, but remember that one can rarely use the full length, both because of clearance limitations as 2 tracks converge, and also you may site a buffer stop which impinges on your available distance. Similarly, there doesn’t seem to be any space allowed for the station you mention. Platforms and buildings mean the standard track spacings won't work. For me, the access to the two separate sidings areas is over-complicated and messy to operate. Eg, you can’t really store stock on the two bottom right sidings, as they are both needed to move trains in or out. As soon as stock is stored there, those 2 sidings are out of operation. Nor can you move stock from one to another, without fouling the main lines. The length of the run round loops (between turnouts 7/8 & 16/17 respectively) look quite short (allowing for clearance as tracks converge). if a train travels from turnout 14, to 9 then 3, how does it return to right road running? It has to make virtually a full circuit, then reverse over the crossover. Sorry, but for me, I don’t think you’re there yet with this plan. ian

Perhaps the OP could explain why opt for a solid board, as opposed to round-the-space available? it has been mentioned earlier.

It can be tough learning and seeking input, which may feel over critical. But it’s well meant, to avoid pitfalls experienced by so many others. Although you describe your latest plan as a “double runaround”, it’s not a conventional twin track circuit. The track spacing is not consistent, and is wider than usual. Do you intend to have a twin track “mainline” feel, or are those two circuits intended to meander separately, albeit following roughly the same path? Why insert the short straights between your x-overs? Peco streamline standard spacing is 50mm (2”) and IIRC set track is 67mm. If you’re using set track turnouts, they should give that 67mm automatically. Your 2.9” is 74mm. Not much difference but in a restricted space that will make a difference. The upper sidings run round loop is again unworkable - no space for a loco at the end beyond the turnout. Both sets of sidings only work with shunting which fouls the main running lines; not prototypical if that’s what you’re aiming for. Trains leaving the sidings have no option but to run “wrong road” for 1/3 of the circuit. I would urge you to draw inspiration from other track plans and layouts, not free track plans or self-made inventions. What you are arriving at is very “train set”, not there’s necessarily any thing wrong with that, but the very fact that you’re on this forum, suggests you are looking for more than that. .

You could scour eBay for a copy of one of CJ Freezer’s track plans books. Many plans will be smaller than your space, often designed for 6’x4’, but this will be advantageous as you’ll be able to expand them to look less crowded. https://www.google.com/search?q=60+plans+for+small+railways&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari

I suggest you try to take this one step at a time, as there’s a lot of questions. Something to first settle on is the track plan. Your design looks tricky to make work, due to the clearance necessary for your bridges, and the resultant required gradients. I’d aim for around a minimum of 70mm clearance, which by the time you have upper baseboard thickness etc, probably means you need rail top to rail top of a little more than that. Gradients are probably best at 3% (1 in 33) at the steepest, but 2% (1 in 50) would be better. So to get 70mm height you need between 2-4 meters. Your track plan doesn’t look like it can achieve those kind of distances. Plus, gradients become more challenging for locos/trains if on curves, which much of your plan would be. Also, what is the purpose of turnout 10. Nothing would be able to use it, as there’s no space to progress beyond it. If it is intended to facilitate a run round loop, is that loop long enough for your required length of trains? Why have the two crossovers in the centre? Both face the same way, both of which, incidentally, are not typical as they are facing not trailing which would be more prototypical. You don’t have to have a separate power supply for turnouts - you could simply separate the two bus wires, meaning they are both fed by the same source, but split at source. ian

I use 3mm cork and/or a 3mm foam-type (can’t recall what it’s called) sheet. Visually it looks better, and I think it reduces noise.

Logically, that’s what I thought. Because the layout is a twin track roundy, (that will be one power district) with inside the oval, a twin track storage through yard which folds back on itself to lead to a reverse loop (all of that being the second power district), the physical location of the feedbacks and each of the 6 or 7 current sensing units, means it’s convenient to have maybe 50 (or so) feedbacks in each of the power districts, and the division fits best with maybe 3 and a 1/2 (of the 16 feeds) in each power district. Hence the wish to split one unit. Time will tell! thanks again Ian

Thanks - as always - Iain. just the one query remaining I think…. Ian

hi, I'm building a fairly large 00 layout (well, it is for me), usingiTrain, with what will be around 100 feedbacks and 20-30 locos (some sound). In discussions with DCCTrainAutomation, (initially around short circuit protection acually), I am taking James' advice to: a) split the DCC Bus between tracks and accessories (mainly turnouts) b) split the track bus itself into two, each nominally half the layout. This resulted in me buying a Roco 10807 dual booster (& power supply). I'm also using a mixture of Digikejis and Yamorc current sensing units. One feedback is in a reverse loop section, using a Lodi reverse loop module (chosen as it does not affect current sensing). I'm not yet at the connecting up stage (track laying not yet complete anyway), and I've had a quick read of the 10807 intsruction book, but I'd like to seek guidance from the good folk on this forum as to exactly how I connect everything up. I think i get the power and DCC connections, but I'm not clear how the loconet cables (which ordinarily would link the Current Sensor units) need to link in. Where do they connect to? To the Z21 or the 10807? If the latter, where? And do these loconet connections span all the current sensor units, irrespective of whether they are fed from track output 1 or 2 on the booster? (I may have more questions on this point, dependant on what the answer is) Also, when using the current sensor devices, which are split into 2 x 8 sections, can one section (1-8) be fed from one track output on the 10807, and 9-16 fed from the other? (I ask this because the physical layout may make this option easier/simpler/shorter to wire, rather than all 16 be fed from one. Attached is a crude pdf showing what I believe is the set-up, but omitting the loconet connections. Thanks for your help Ian Roco booster connections.pdf

Welcome. Do you plan to have access on all 4 sides of this solid board? If not, reaching across will be impossible. Even with all sides access, you need a 3’ reach for the centre, ok for a quick task but a stretch for a prolonged piece of work. Many folk in a garage space would opt for a 2’ board around the outside - any reason why not in your case? I prefer Bachmann, simply due to the better running I’ve found, but I also run Hornby and Heljan locos. Rolling stock pretty much all makes seem ok to me. I’ve recently started using MTB MP1 motors - a definite thumbs up, they have several design features which make installation easier than many other brands. I’d advocate splitting the DCC bus into two, track and accessories (ie turnouts) for easier management as others have suggested. I use 12v DC for uncouplers, with a separate circuit for lighting, though from same power source. Its worth sharing your scarm plans on here - best to get feedback at the concept stage rather than make changes when track or boards are in situ. Ian

Good news. But please, for your own sanity (and indeed ours!) read and understand the instructions BEFORE commencing wiring, and standardise your wire colours. Truth is, by following earlier advice to do so, you’d have saved yourself some angst. Ian

Surely if the brown wire in your 4th photo is the same as the brown wire in the 3rd photo, and the yellows in those same photos are the same in each, it cannot be wired correctly. In photo 4, let’s call the brown wire the lower rail wire; it flows into the YD6016 and out via the yellow wire. So how can the track in photo 3 have brown on one rail and yellow on the other? In electricity terms, your brown and yellow are the same in terms of the usage of YD6016. Of course, the picture is blurred by the usage of red, black and red/black wires as we cannot see how everything connects together. But if I’ve interpreted your photos correctly, the answer is simple. You’ve got upper and lower rail power supplies confused. Ian

If you first wired this single stretch of track without the YD6016, with each of two colours of wire direct to the track. If it works, that proves the simple scenario works. Then cut one wire, and connect one side from power source/command station to the input of the YD6016, and the other from track to the selected output channel of the YD6016. Does the loco then work? if so, does the sensor show occupancy? (If only using a single length of track, you don’t even need to cut the track to prove occupancy works or not. Just lift the loco off, to see if occupancy display goes off. If the sensor doesn’t work, then either it’s programmed incorrectly, it’s damaged by incorrect set up, or it’s faulty. But you need to prove it first. i would say as this simple level, this isn’t really about electronics, it’s about logically following instructions to set up both various devices and wiring connections. To this end, it would help those giving advice, if you drew in colour a diagram, as in common with @WIMorrison, I cannot understand how you have what seems to be black, red, brown and yellow wires connected to the track. And that’s a very rough track break. - are you sure there’s no bits of metal floating about anywhere? good luck. Ian

A key consideration is your reach. Many folk would advocate baseboards of around 600mm (2’) deep, or 750mm max. That leaves a decent space in the centre for the operating well. I’m not familiar with the stations or area you mention, but by the looks of the schematic diagram of Darlington, I’d suggest it would be nigh on impossible to get that in, either in length or depth. You’ll probably need to be considering at least 6 coach/vehicle ECML trains, so in round figures that’s 2m platform length, leaving only 1.77m for the station throat and radii at both ends. At a quick glance, from your diagram, it looks like there’s 8-10 turnouts in line at each end of the platforms. If you used Peco Streamline small radius turnouts at 185mm long each, that’s 1.5 - 1.8metres length of throat at each end. I suggest you get some track plan books, as even though they’re unlikely to have plans of your dimensions, at least it will give some indication of the possible geometry. And/or try Anyrail - the time you spend learning the software will pay huge dividends later on. Ian

Apologies if I misled you. The reason I edited the title with “or is it?” Was because I wasn’t certain. I was confused by the small black plastic separators. That said, I think I bought it advertised as insulfrog, but the frog wires - albeit seemingly cut into two - led me more to thinking electrofrog. It will probably be a week or two before I get round to that part of the layout, so watch this space. Thanks all. Ian

Thanks Grovenor. I edited the title after I’d posted, as I wasn’t convinced it was insulfrog. There is continuity between A, B and the appropriate frog. What confuses me is why A&B are still connected, but C&D aren’t. More so as you’re advising each pair to be joined (if I interpret correctly) to the frog switch. Ie A+B and C+D respectively. Hopefully all will become clearer when I connect up and start switching. Ian

Hi, A little while back, I bought a batch of (allegedly)as new code 100 Peco turnouts, and now the time has come to lay and wire them. One seems to be a modified insulfrog 3-way turnout. I say modified as there are 4 frog-wires hanging below, as though it was a live frog version. Looking at the underside photo below, as appears visually, there is continuity between A & B, but not between C & D. There seems to be plenty of online guidance for live frog versions, but not for a modified insulfrog. I’m assuming that in effect, these modifications if wired correctly, will give similar characteristics with frog power switching (I’m using MTB turnout motors so such switching is inbuilt.) As this is the first 3-way turnout I’ve used, I’d be grateful if someone could advise, preferably with a diagram as to which wire need to go where. thanks Ian

I echo the comments from @WIMorrison. Whilst everybody has to start somewhere, the questions you ask suggest you are looking at this project (ie building a DCC model railway) in a manner akin to picking up a single jigsaw puzzle piece, and trying to work out how it fits……. without (a) having the picture on the box lid and (b) gathering the other jigsaw pieces which fit around it. The folk on this forum are only able to respond to the queries you raise (ie the topics you know that you don’t know about), and the risk is there are many other issues which need considering , but these are in the “ don’t know what you don’t know” list. It’s highly probable that you will need to do some trouble shooting; we all do on a new project, even with several years experience. Without gaining the building blocks of knowledge first, whilst I wish you well, I fear it may become a nightmare for you. Maybe it’s worth delaying completely the iTrain (including detection) side of things, and getting a DCC layout functioning first. Good luck. Ian

Yes, but there is a difference between (1) track sections which are being monitored- these only connect to the bus by going through a numbered contact on the YD6016 and(2) unmonitored track which connects to the bus itself.