ITG

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

Interesting thread for me to read, mainly because I started out on the automation journey probably a year ago, helped by many of the modellers who are now contributing to this thread. I decided to go for Z21 and iTrain, for similar reason to the OP. Early on, decided to build a small test layout (oval with a passing loop and three sidings, with in total about a dozen feedback sensors). I used a DIgikejis DR4088LN as that was available at the time, (actually, in anticipation of the future proposed larger layout I bought half a dozen pre-owned ones at about half new price) but as I will in future need one more, that is a Yamorc current sensor (perfectly compatible). to @Tallpaul69 I would say, don’t be too long before you jump in, as I found the practice of actually doing it to be easier learning than the theory of trying to understand every nuance on this forum. But then be prepared to expand your horizons, as I found that iTrain far exceeded my expectations once I began to use it. I still class myself as a trainee, but the specialist iTrain forum (available once you have a licence, I think) is always on hand, as is the series of excellent YouTube videos. good luck Ian

As far as I can see, there’s only a single crossover linking the two circular main lines, and that is facing. Some would say trailing would be more realistic. Separately, and possibly conversely, although there is a run round loop on each of the main lines alongside the platforms, if you wanted to run any terminating services which then reverse direction (which does add operational interest), a clockwise travelling train would have to run into the inner platform roads ahead of the station, as it can’t stay on its own side as there’s no easy route back to right road running when it starts it’s return journey. And an anti-clockwise travelling train can only enter platforms/loops on the inner side as well, but then cannot get back to right road running as there’s no crossover. Maybe that’s irrelevant for how you wish to operate, but it’s certainly worth thinking about. ian

In my experience, I’d say that different models (particularly dependant on age) have different types of decoder socket, be they 6, 18, 21 pin etc. but when sourcing an appropriate decoder, they could potentially be any make, as long as they align with the pin configuration. The sound itself may well be added to decoder after manufacture by any of the various retailers who do so, with the sound tailored specifically to a loco class. The loco box will probably be labelled as 6DCC, or 21DCC etc. but of course you may need to add a speaker, although more recent models do come with a speaker pre-installed. Just look in the model railway press, or on websites, and you’ll find numerous providers with several different makes of decoders. Ian

Having returned to the hobby some 5 years ago, and after doing research both in this forum and at exhibitions and retailers, I opted to only ever buy new track, but this was after some blind buying where I soon realised I’d bought secondhand rubbish. On the other hand, I’ve never bought a new loco or item of rolling stock, and have what I’d describe as a 90% success rate. The 10% failure rate I can live with, given the significant savings made versus buying new. Ian edit - ps. Also only buy new electrical equipment which connects directly to mains.

It’s not unheard of for a short to cause the turnout decoders to forget their addresses. Ian

I started with iTrain and a not dissimilar test layout. I note you said ‘at least 6 blocks’ but to my eye, your layout has at least 10. iTrain cannot include a turnout in a block, so you must have: 1 in each corner between turnouts = 4 1 in each siding = 2 1 in each loop section (both straight and curved) = 4 and of course, you have the option of multiple feedbacks in a block for greater accuracy. I guess that’s why you mention a possible 32 feedback sensors? But that’s still a lot more than 10. Ian

900mm is a wide board to reach across effectively unless you have access all round. Ian

To me, that’s better. Main thing I’d question is how you’ve placed the crossovers in the centre section of the innermost lines. Depending on how you wish to use those lines, having the crossovers so far in effectively limits the length of trains standing, if you plan to keep the crossovers clear. Also, trains using one of these crossovers will then be running wrong road with no way of correcting. And whilst the short sidings at the right could hold locos drawing off trains in (only) that top line, you’d then need to move said locos to the other left side sidings to connect them to the other end of a train….. except then they’d be running wrong road as they leave the FY. If the right sidings are purely for loco change, that won’t matter. A few things to ponder….. Ian

I have a similar need at one end of my 8-road FY, each through line splitting into 4. I am using (it’s only part built at present) a mixture of standard SL turnouts located on the curve, some curved SL turnouts and probably may also use an odd one or two of the newly released unifrog (smaller radius*) curved points. The overall intention is to build the turnouts into the curves, rather than into the straights as you have . The exact configuration I found to be trial and error to a degree, as clearly the track footprint as it turns the corner, potentially utilising varying radii, is dependant also on baseboard width in the corners. * I have used the insulfrog set track version of these before, which are an identical footprint. Despite comments to the contrary from some users, I have had no problems whatsoever with running over these. Ian

I too had an encounter with a slug. Just after my newly built (brick construction) railway room was finished, I’d just started the baseboards and there, in an up and down single trail on the walls, was traces of a slug track. Closer examination revealed some tracks on the carpet tiles, again all new. I can only think that it came in with various tools and timber brought in after a long period of garage storage. I laid slug pellets all over the carpet tiles, for about a week. Then hoovered everything up. Never found the culprit dead or alive, and no further problems as far as I can see. Ian

I couldn’t claim to be a font of knowledge on this, but two identical (when manufactured) locos may have very different histories. One could be old, but rarely run, rarely lubricated. Another could be run regularly but looked after in all ways. I would expect the characteristics emerging from these polar opposites to be very different. The inherited frictions and wear would (could) cause different speeds, braking and acceleration - hence different compensating cv profiles.

Your choice, of course, but as one who jumped straight into DCC about 5 years ago, I’d say the principles and building blocks are similar between DC and DCC, so that interim step via DC is probably not as necessary as you may think. Ian

Funny that, my wife bought me a T-shirt with exactly that slogan across it. Wonder what she was trying to tell me? Ian

Mmm, maybe not complicated wiring, but if you choose to electrify 20+ turnout motors (plus track etc) there’ll be plenty of wires running all over under your cork. And surely you’ll have to cut channels in the underside of the cork for the cables, otherwise you will get awkward ridges, often with track running over them - not a good idea for smooth running as wheel/track connections could be weakened. More so with dead frog turnouts if they don’t sit exactly flat. I too don’t want to dampen your enthusiasm, but I agree with @Chimer - this is looking like a fair sized project with the suggested track plan, not a (learning) experiment. Ian

Does this mean all the wiring will be on the board surface? It’s good practice to have several power feeds to the track, rather than rely on rail joiners, although of course, if you’re planning on using the self-isolating features of such turnouts, you’d have to avoid compromising them. Ian

Looking at your design, a fundamental question is do you (your son) want a circuit to enable continuous running. Your end-to-end design obviously doesn’t allow that. Although of course it does support the notion of open access without a duck-under or lifting section. Also it looks like you have a passenger station at one end, and a loco facility at the other. Where do passenger or goods trains run to/from? (Edit, just noticed the small station, but still awkward to run to) Yes, your son can play at trains in/out of platforms, but where from? it’s more usual, with an end to end, that you may have a station at one end, running to a fiddle yard (representing the rest of the rail network) at the other. Imho, the winding nature of your track looks more like a narrow gauge railway, not the mainline era you mention. A good place to look would be one of the Peco plans for small layouts books. Old and maybe over ambitious with small radii etc, but would give you a good starting platform. You should be able to find such books easily on eBay. Ian

I currently use a Gaugemaster auto reverse module. Very easy and straightforward to wire. But on a new layout currently under construction, I will be using the Lodi auto-reverse module, simply because it does not draw any current - important for me as I am using current sensors for block detection. You would be advised to ensure that the reversing section (B to C as you have it drawn) is isolated on both rails, and is also longer than your longest train. Train length may not be an issue if all stock wheels are plastic, but for example, if you have coaches or brake vans etc with lighting, you may be encountering shorts if the train length spans the isolation breaks. ian

Looks a good option. Only possible added option would be to put a short spur (an extra turnout needed) over on far right, so the upper loop line extends, creating a crossover. That short spur would be useful for shunting a brake van into, or holding a spare loco. Ian

It’s a good idea to learn automation on a simple layout. I did similar to learn iTrain. My layout was a simple oval, with a passing loop and a couple of sidings. Now I’m building a larger layout in a dedicated room (5m x 2.3m). My only suggestion re your track plan would be for a run round loop if it can be fitted in. It would add operational interest and a dimension to your automation trials. Ian

I’ve learnt a lot from this forum since I recommenced modelling some 4-5 years ago, so perhaps I’ll throw some of that learning at you. Have you thought about buying laser cut self-assembly boards? They will be closer to the box structure, often with ply bracing. If not going for laser cut modules, B&Q ply is oft quoted as not the quality you may want, and local timber merchants might be better. Marine ply is what I used in areas where I didn’t use laser cut kits. Why start with DC, if your end destination is DCC? I’d say operational flexibility is simpler with DCC, and you may waste money and time going down the DC route only to convert later. (Of course, other opinions are available!). May I say your planned use of Y turnouts does give a slightly odd to look to the track plan in some places. Track spacings look awry, unlEss that’s what you are trying to achieve. And , again with the DC v DCC argument, why buy insulfrogs if you might benefit later on from live frogs, because whilst the latter are perfectly usable with DCC, they bring no benefit. And may bring poorer running. Good luck Ian