ITG

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

Although my time served and experience on iTrain are limited, I’m confident from feedback from other users and the videos/instruction guides that this is entirely feasible. ITrain gives you the choice for each individual train as the degree of automation you determine, ranging from zero (ie manual) upwards. I have thought through how I would integrate the two. I’ll try to give what I see as an example of my potential movements. Others may think of a better example but consider this… A (manually driven) loco is marshalling wagons across 3 sidings, and using a loop (B) off the main line to order them, by ongoing uncoupling/running round etc. Two (automated ) trains are using the main line, and one makes an automated stop in loop A (parallel to loop B). This automatically forces the second train to take loop B, so shunting must stop, and indeed clear loop B (or stop*) If the shunting loco is continually running to and from the 3 sidings (with no sensors), iTrain will regularly be ‘surprised ‘ by this intrusion, as it doesn’t know where the shunter is until it hits loop B, by which time the second main line train is heading for loop B. What iTrain does is reserve blocks ahead for routes, and so can manage potential conflicts, buts it’s effectiveness to do so will be much weakened by locos arriving into blocks if it doesn’t know where they’ve come from or going to. And if there’s no sensors, that info to enable that calculation will be missing. *or iTrain will stop the second automatic train, because it can see the shunter in loop B (even if manually controlled). But if that shunter is not quite in loop B ( but still in an un-sensored siding), iTrain won’t know of the approaching conflict. Yes, you could resolve it manually, by taking manual control of the second train, which imho, negates the idea of automating them in the first place. I agree. But ultimately the automated trains and manual trains are likely to use the same track blocks as they move from/to being shunted to/from the commencement of their journey on the main lines. To me, it’s that transition and overlap (between both trains and track sections) that demand sensors everywhere. BTW, my twin track main line roundy, with sidings and a branch line, is likely to require some 90 sensors, so 6 or so units. Ian

I’d echo the earlier comments that it’s well worth putting sensors all over the layout, right from the onset. Maybe not on turnouts, although I plan to have some ladder strings of multiple turnouts with sensors to improve accuracy. I can only speak from my trainee stand point when it comes to iTrain, but the integration of manual and automatic running is so easy, that to set off by limiting flexibility by not having sensors all over, would, imho, be a mistake. If part of the layout is supported by sensors, and part not, one could say that this is in effect limiting the boundary between automatic and manual to a fixed point(s). My idea is to be manually shunting and organising stock, but (as in real life) having to pause and vacate tracks to allow (automated) trains to pass, or, indeed, vice versa with automated trains needing to pause until I’ve cleared a passage through. This would be somewhat messy if the opportunity for the interface between the two (or more) potentially conflicting routes had to be defined by where a sensor was or wasn’t. With the best will in the world, I think you will find the usefulness of the iTrain videos is magnified, once you actually get some track down and start implementing. If it’s a relatively simple test layout, is it not possible to build this on laser cut kit boards, and do it yourself? Or at least get help locally? By passing the whole lot over to a layout builder, there’s a risk your understanding might be weakened because you haven’t had to think it through yourself in a practical sense. For example, on my test layout, I started with a single feedback in each block, but then modified a couple of blocks to have two feedbacks, which paid dividends in stopping accuracy. Ian

Ah yes, i recall now I think he said something similar to me…. Albeit a few months back! I guess there are two ways of doing this. The height/duration adjustments needed could still be done on the supplied board, and then one would need a simple on/off trigger via a DCC command/decoder. or, maybe the whole control board could be replaced by DCC commands. For the former, I think decoders similar to those suitable for solenoid point motors which deliver a quick ‘switch’ might be ok, as if the rise and duration are preset by the ‘DC’ board, the incoming ‘switch effect’ would be all that was needed. Please post any progress you make as I’d find it helpful Ian

Whilst I haven’t yet tried to connect the uncouplers I use to DCC (I’ve previously used them via a 12v DC push-button on track layout panel), I’m pretty sure it can be done, as all you’d be doing is replacing the push button with a DCC command via an accessory decoder. http://www.heathcote-electronics.co.uk/uncoupler_oo_gauge.html in fact, I think I may have asked Heathcote about doing this via DCC some time ago, but as I’m building a new layout, I haven’t yet got round to considering how I’m going to deploy these same uncouplers. in DC mode, there are adjustment controls on the circuit board to fine tune (a) the height and fall of the ramp and (b) the duration of the rise. I’ve found them to work well, and will be considering how to use DCC on this build. Might be worth calling Heathcote as I’ve found them helpful. I’ll be interested to see what evolves on this thread. Ian PS. I too will be using Roco Z21 and iTrain on new layout.

My test layout was about 7’ x 4’, simply because I had laser-cut baseboards to hand (bought secondhand) which I could assemble to that size. I used set track for the end curves. You would be able to construct a good learning test layout on 6x4. The boards I used (actually each 1200mm x 450mm) then were reused in my bigger layout - or will be - it’s still under construction. It’ll be a challenge to remember what I’ve learnt re iTrain due to the time lag! But I found it very useful to follow a three-step approach. 1. watch iTrain video 2. replicate that iTrain video exactly on screen 3. apply the principles of that video to my own layout then move on to next video. I didn’t get to the end of the range of videos, just really far enough to be confident that I understood the practical and physical requirements. Eg, pros and cons of having two feedbacks in a block, feedbacks on multiple turnout sections etc. Ian