ITG

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.

I don’t know whether something is being lost in descriptive terminology, but you certainly shouldn’t have your track powered all the way round by wires directly from the Z21. Only the unmonitored sections should be connected that way. Every section (ie inside two rail breaks) where you want to detect trains should have a ‘yellow’ wire, each one being connected to a numbered terminal on the YD6016. have you studied the diagram posted by @WIMorrison?

Only the droppers which link to the non-detected track sections (eg turnouts) direct connect between bus and rails. The other droppers connect respectively to the numbered terminals on the side YD6016.

The dropper wires and the feedback wires are one and the same thing, where they are in a block. You don’t need a dropper wire in addition to the feedback wire, on any one piece of track. It’s the bus which feeds the detection device. If you have pieces of track (maybe turnouts) which do not have detection (sensors), they too are fed from the bus, but NOT through the sensor. In other words, if using a single sensor unit, the bus will split into (1j the power to the sensor and (2) power to the non-feedback track.

Assuming I’m reading your intentions correctly, you only need a single dropper on the ‘inside the cuts’ section if you’re using current sensor detection. The detection occurs when a loco passes into the block, and whilst it remains in the block. Doesn’t matter at what point the actual dropper is connected. Of course, if that block consists of several pieces of track, it’s good practice to have a dropper on each track piece, but then you’d connect them all together below board to form only a single wire back to the sensor unit. But of course, you may need rail breaks (in one or both rails) on the inside rails of turnouts. But this is nothing to do with detection, albeit in some track formations, those breaks can also serve as being the start/end of a detection block. Note there is (can be) a difference between a block and a feedback section, as you can have two or more of the latter inside the former. Ian

Steve, it’s not clear when you say “a brown and a yellow at each end” whether you mean inside the block (ie inside where you’ve made the rail breaks), or outside it. I’m also not clear if you have 2 feedbacks in this block, or a single one. A picture would tell a thousand words. In its simplest form, in any one block you only need a single wire from the rail with a break, to the current sensor. (This assumes that multiple pieces of track in this block, each with individual droppers are all connected to become effectively a single dropper). If you have two feedback sections within a block (meaning there will be an extra rail break between the two which form the ends of the block), then of course you’ll need a dropper within each feedback section. Ian

Could you mystery component be a stay alive unit? DCC Concepts sell these https://www.dccconcepts.com/?s=Stay+alive Ian

Hopefully an easy answer for those with experience. I’m building a layout, eventually to use iTrain. Track detection will mainly be by six DR4088LNCS units, which I programmed a while back, allocating feedback addresses 1-16 (unit A) 17-32 (unit B) etc. These will of course be connected by loconet type cables. Now I’m at the wiring stage, my question is - do I need to connect these DR4088s in sequential order, ie with A, then B etc? Or doesn’t the order matter? (I realise I could always re-programme them, but I was trying to get ahead of myself a while back, when I couldn’t actually get on with wiring). The significance is that I will have a lifting section, so it makes sense that I do not need a loconet cable across this baseboard join. By starting with the right DR4088 in the right place (if I need to), I can avoid such a join. I also have an equivalent Yamorc unit, but I haven’t programmed that yet, so feedback addresses can be decided later. thanks Ian

You could consider a 2’ wide board all around the room, meaning the short side of the room would give you a 3’ centre well (plenty) and the long side would be 5’ long. This shape would give space for you and grandkids to move around. boards for this would best be 4’x2’ for easy movement, but that does mean several such boards. That said, if you were considering an 8x4 board to be movable, this too would probably need to be 4 of 4x2 boards anyway. This centre operating well gives a better perspective, as trains can go out of sight. It would also allow larger radii. Also 2’ wide is easily reached over. But you may need to consider doorways - where are they in your available space? re an L shape (which is another option). That would mean your grandkids (and you, for that matter) can not just watch trains circling if you wanted to. May depend on how old your grandkids are, as to if this is a consideration. Ian

Extra care may be needed as the temperature fluctuations and damp/humidity may play havoc with smooth running. Unless it’s all insulated and heated.

An 8x4 board needs access all around it, even for adult arms, let alone shorter child’s reach. Your photo is described as “the type of layout” under consideration - I assume that’s not the actual layout proposal? The first task is to actually define your own track plan. If a plan of the type shown is not permanently erected, how do children ever set it up - it’s likely an lone adult would struggle with two 4x4 boards, and even four 4x2 boards with track, wiring, scenery etc would be a task. If it needs a full set up every time use is intended, there’s a risk that it will all seem too much trouble, and the layout will be under-used. Depending on space, I’d recommended a board around a room, rather than a solid mass in the middle - is that possible? Some info on the space available, and what other usages it has, would help people make informed suggestions. As for the DCC v DC debate, I admit to bias, as I returned to the hobby after a long gap, but did not have the ‘tug’ of pre-existing DC equipment, so opting for DCC for me was a no-brainer. I agree with @The Johnster saying make a clear decision now. Vaguely thinking about changing to DCC later will cost money and time, as will doing it now. The only difference is, if you buy and use more DC items now, the cost of conversion to DCC will increase further. Seeing your honest self-assessed comment about knowledge and skills re wiring….. … there is an argument that it would be a good idea to start smaller than you’re proposing. That is, a single controller and get it up and running first. Jumping in without understanding fully what you need to buy, how to use it etc, is only going to cost (possibly wasted) money. As one who doesn’t have to think about running multiple trains through different (DC) controllers, I must admit to not knowing for sure, but logically I’m not sure I understand …… How can that be unless the two controllers are set to exactly the same direction and speed? With different operators, that doesn’t seem easy to do. Surely, if a train controlled by controller A is going forward at 60mph (equivalent) and it passes to controller B set at reverse 20mph, there’s going to be a problem. Ian

Update… I tried simply driving a track pin through the centre of the ramp (I tried both plastic and wooden lollipop stick) and inserting this in the brass tube, along with a dollop of fairly standard superglue, both in the tube and around the underside of where the pin penetrates the ramp. Worked fine, it’s a solid join. But, another couple of problems to iron out. Firstly, the inner brass tube and outer brass tube seem not be be sufficiently engineered to slide perfectly through; it slides through part way, but then sticks. This may not be a huge issue, as I’m testing with some 20cm lengths, whereas the actual length of the outer section embedded in the baseboard will only be maybe 2cm. So will just have to ensure I use the friction-free sections. Secondly, I found the friction was made more so because the pressure in sawing the tube to the right length distorted it’s square section slightly. Back to the drawing board… Ian

Mmm, seems like I can use thinner wire than I was planning. I have some multi strand and ribbon, so I’ll use one of them. thanks both. Ian

If I may resurrect this thread….. Apart from using MP1s on a simple test layout (for learning iTrain), in which I wired a couple independently/directly to DR4018 (driven by Z21), I’m now setting these up for the first ‘proper’ time on a new layout build. I note earlier comment in this thread about using the common positive in a daisy chain or star format, rather than run each such wire back to the DR4018. To check my understanding, where would this common +ve start? There are 8 such outputs on the DR4018, so could it be any one of those? And then to the first MP1, then second etc? (Or in a star). Obviously, the pos 1 and pos 2 wires need to independently go to DR4018, but without the common +ve, it’s one less wire, 8 times over. thanks Ian

For the new layout under construction, I’m planning on changing the way I construct remote uncoupling ramps (00). I have used servos to lift small plastic or wood ramps, and whilst they work reasonably well, I’ve found they need two tubes in line underneath the ramp, one linked to the servo and the other to stop any twist as it lifts - obviously any such twist causes derailments. Instead of using round section plastic tube (sized to fit between sleepers), I now plan to use square section (3.96mm) brass tube that is fixed, with 3.2mm perfect fit brass tube inside it which the servo lifts. Being square, there should be no twist, and thus only a single tube per ramp. The question is how I secure (glue) the rising hollow brass tube to the ramp, which in theory could be either brass, plastic or wood (lollipop stick). Probably wish to avoid brass ramp if possible as reluctant to have a conducting material sitting between the rails. Being hollow (well, unless I can find right size solid tube for inner), there’s a limited surface area to bind to the ramp. ideas please. Ian

Not sure if these people would help with supply and cutting to size, they boast an extensive cutting service. Never used them, but did consider for baseboards at one point. https://www.stokeferrytimber.com/services/ Ian

MDF can often warp under its own weight if it’s stored stood up, rather than laid flat, so have you actually checked it is flat? Most of my boards are either 9mm or 12mm ply, but I’ve got a couple of bridging bits of MDF, and it’s notably harder to push track pins into. I note you use glue, but I mention this as an indication of how difficult it is to work. The other thing to consider is how you mount any surface (ply or MDF if you do go ahead) on the kitchen units. I thought about doing just that, but was dissuaded by advice on RMWeb that to do so would likely result in difficult to access undersides, either for initial wiring or trouble shooting. So I decided to mount my boards on freestanding legs above the kitchen units. These units were mounted on casters so that I can wheel them out of the way if I need underside access. ian

I’m sure there are various methods, many of which may depend on whether you (a) use set track or flexi and (b) are prepared to cut track. I have cut the rails of the last piece to exact size required, and trimmed back the sleepers at one end so that I can slide the rail joiners back along the rail. Then connect the other end, drop the last connecting end in, and align the rails. Then slide the rail joiners along with pliers to make the connection. Lastly, locate the spare sleepers back under the rails for visual reasons. job done. Ian

Might be obvious, but track still laid on a board is generally not worth much, as the chances of anyone having exactly the same space to house a board is low. Most such collections I’ve seen tend to be significantly overpriced imho. Several retailers offer an online valuation will at least give you a ball park figure. Good luck.

The example given by @idd15 is very similar to how I did with my modified approach from the Heathcote product on the now dismantled layout. I found I did need two rising rods to ensure no twisting. I’m hoping if I use a square tube fitting inside a slightly bigger square tube, that I then may be able to only use a single hole through the baseboard. As @ColinK says, I also tried the Gaugemaster solenoid type but I too found there was slight twisting. Ian

The idea of square section tubes is a good one. On the Heathcote product as supplied, it needs two side-by-side (at 90 degrees to track) thin steel piano wire rods to keep the rising uncoupler platform parallel to the tracks. On some of mine, I modified that to use two plastic tubing rods in a straight line parallel to the track. Same reason. But maybe a single square section rod within another would not be able to twist as the servo raises the platform. I may have a closer look at this when I get round to re-installing these uncouplers on the new layout build. Any thoughts on suppliers for the square section rods? Ian