ITG

9 hours ago, EasternO said:

I think you found what I thought was missing from these long spurs. I played around putting a runaround on different spurs and I think I've found the best one. What do you think?

 

 

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

10 hours ago, EasternO said:

I downloaded Anyrail to see what I could come up with using the track already I own. This is the best I could do. It's not quite doing it for me but the positive is that all the points are on the centre board. I plan on making 3x 1m boards or buying some floating shelving.

 

The basic aim is still the same, to learn automation. Each length of track will be electrically split into two sections and each point. I'll eventually use a spare Raspberry Pi I have to shuffle trains from one siding to another.

 

 

 

I would be very happy indeed if somebody could come up with a better design or more interesting design. I may be able to stretch to one more point, or if I could find one cheap enough, a double slip.

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

Hi

not sure of your time lag, but by comparison I drifted away from a dad-influenced/supported involvement the the hobby when I discovered girls, Lambrettas and beer (maybe 16 years old) to return about 4 years ago in mid sixties.

I had no stock or equipment, and that gave me licence to start afresh. Research led me to jump straight in with DCC. A no brainier for me. Would I have felt confident in converting old locos to DCC at that stage? No.

Would I have wanted to add that how-to-convert learning on top of learning DCC itself? No.

Would I have considered anything for track/turnouts other than code 100 streamline? No.

But only you can assess where you start from, how confident you feel etc. I’d lean towards walking before running.

but good luck

Ian

Ruston 65, a slightly outspoken comment. Not at all ignoring all the helpful attempts by others, but reading the various suggestions trying to resolve your dilemma, and your responses, I have to say I think there’s a real risk that the chicken and egg are confused about what comes first!  It’s not at all clear (at least to me) what exactly the source of the problem is. Suggestions have included insufficient power sources, wrongly placed power source, faulty turnout contacts, wrongly placed insulated rail joiners, too many IRJs etc. And because you’re reacting to each idea, what’s lacking is logical problem solving by eliminating each possible cause in turn.

If I was in your position, and seeing that your layout is temporary, I would simply lay a straight piece of track (A) leading to a turnout, and then a piece of track (B & C) leading from each diverging track of the turnout. Put your single power supply on A, and run a loco up and down B and C in turn. Note what happens. Now try it with IRJs on B & C, and again note what happens. Then change the turnout for a different one, and repeat all the above. Build the layout up slowly, adding section by section and test each section before adding the next one.

The main reason I suggest this is that you will be gaining an understanding  of how (isolating) turnouts function, and where power flows. It may well be your problem lies in the basics, but you need to understand and identify that. A layout of this type should not be causing you this grief. But your expectations may be unrealistic unless you understand how to achieve them. Time spent now will pay benefits later on.

Good luck.

Ian

Looking at the radii of the helices, I’m guessing 00?
I like complicated track plans, so I get what you’re trying to do here. But I do think the plan is somewhat challenging, in that you have a number of turnouts on the lower and upper levels that are at more than arms length - if a derailment or stall happens, it’s going to be in those areas. And I’m guessing that you won’t want to be popping in and out of those helix centres too often.

I considered helices on the layout I’m building currently, but decided against it, not least because of the area they take up, and the access difficulties they can pose. It’s a bit tricky trying to work out where the tracks actually flow to/from on you plan, or at what gradient, so can’t really comment on those two aspects.

I’m sure others will add their tuppence worth, both endorsing and disagreeing!

good luck

Ian

Hi,

size of board could be a consideration in terms of reach. What scale? How big are the boards?

ian

Hi,

on my under-construction layout, I’m unable to avoid a few (Peco 00 code 100 streamline) turnouts where it’s not possible to mount the motor under the board (my preferred method).  This is generally due to baseboard (laser cut flat pack ply) bracing being in just the wrong place. I have mostly solenoid motors removed from previous layout. It seems to me I have a couple of options.

1. I mount the motor under the board but not directly under the turnout tiebar. So I’d need to use an extended cranked rod below the board.

2. I mount the motor above the board, and try to disguise with a building etc (maybe not necessary in storage yard area), and presumably attached the rod end to the ‘pimple’ on the end of the tie bar. As I am using 3mm cork over all the surface, I could cut a slot to house the horizontal rod out of sight.

I’d be grateful for thoughts on the two options, and any other ideas. And what to use for the rod? And how to attach to the ‘pimple’?

thanks

Ian

You can power the point motor from DCC track power, though there are downsides to do so. What you don’t mention, and I cannot see in your photo is a decoder. If you are using the DCC power, then to throw the point motor, it has to have an addressed decoder if you wish to use the DCC controller.

Ian

Just now, ianly said:

Thanks for the information regarding the inclusion of feedbacks for the turnouts associated with the storage lanes. All turnouts will have their own pair of feeds from the track bus in any case. However, I'm not clear on whether each needs to have its own independent detector or that they can be grouped with a single detector as denoted in attached diagram of the turnout fan. That is, each of the turnouts in the blue group can share a single detector, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Following guidance on the iTrain tutorial videos, I’m planning on feedbacks on a fan of turnouts, all  connected to the same sensor. In contrast with sensors within a block, no section length is required. The current sensor thus indicates when a train has left the previous feedback (block). But I understand you can use a feedback in a single turnout, but it would be somewhat uneconomical to do so for, say 3 turnouts which are all part of the same fan. My own approach for your scenario would lead me to think of one feedback on the three blues, one on the three yellows (facing same way) and one on the three greens.

Again, I myself am still learning, but looking at the extract of your track plan, I think you could include the lengths of track leading into these fans within each overall feedback. But not the uppermost blue/green/yellow turnouts.

Ian

I don’t disagree with above comments about interest value of the suggested layout, but as I’m also at the start of using iTrain, I’d suggest adding feedbacks to the fans of turnouts at each end of the storage yard. Otherwise, there are long undetected sections, which may impact on the accuracy of trains stopping in the storage roads. Additionally, it would make sense to have at least two feedbacks in each of the storage roads.

Ian

Hi,

just started building/track laying/wiring my layout, intended for using iTrain with DIgikejis and Yamorc current sensors. I’m using live frog turnouts, with a variety of methods of powering the frogs, including GM frog juicers (already in possession from previous layout). On this previous layout, without iTrain and sensors, I have been used to powering the frog juicers with feeds (red and black) from anywhere on the track bus.

A thought now occurs…. On the new layout, I have some turnouts (or sequence of turnouts) that I wish to have feedback sensors for. I think this means that the frogs for these turnouts need to be powered from within the same power feed link as the turnouts themselves, and thus to the correct sensor unit. As opposed to the general track bus which is used to power turnouts which do not have feedback sensors.

Could someone confirm that my assumption is correct please?

Surely, if I do otherwise, and power frogs from the general track bus, there will be a break in current sensing, as locos pass over the frog?

thanks

Ian

14 hours ago, Ruston65 said:

Alright, so let's say I remove the wires entirely that are underneath the frog, would that make it work? I'm not really bothered about all the wiring and stuff like that, really I'd just like it to work so I can switch engines between loops

No, that will make no difference at all. I’m afraid you have to engage with the electrics, in order that you can “switch engines between loops” as you say. You either have to use the option of powering the frog, or leaving it dead. Either way, you’re going to need additional power feeds elsewhere on the layout.

You say this is a stop-gap layout until you build something bigger. Isn’t it worth truly getting to grips with how you want to electrically run the proposed big layout, by mirroring the set up first on the small layout?

Ian

23 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Thanks Ian. 

In my particular circumstance it's a little easier as the FY is simply behind the backscene. So the cameras can be set quite high up and pointing downwards. 

Andy

That’s good news, but I suspect you may need to find an angle which works, as if mounted too vertically above, you may only be able to see train / loco roof views, which may not be sufficient to identify.

16 hours ago, AndyB said:

Can I ask those who've used cameras whether this was sufficient to see which way points were set?

Or did you double down with LEDs on the mimic panel? Noting the switch direction is also a visual / haptic cue. 

 

For me, I also had (for all turnouts on the layout, not just those in the storage yard) a mimic panel with LED indicator lights, so didn’t need to see directions set. My storage yard was 150mm below the upper board - ample space to mount the small camera at an angle to view down the roads (although of course that could depend on how many roads for the width of view of the camera to cover). But I suspect that to see many turnouts, bearing in mind the angles of location versus camera view will by definition all be different,  you would struggle to clearly see many, because the camera wouldn’t be high enough above the tracks to provide the necessary perspective. Unless you had multiple cameras mounted pointing more directly down towards said turnouts.

Ian

My end cutters have arrived, so I’ll be putting them to use within next few days, report to follow.

thanks to all who responded.

Ian

Hi,

on my now defunct layout, I used lorry reversing cameras, purchased from eBay complete with small screen. They came with integral LEDs to illuminate the area. The area was for storage roads, not for fiddling. Hence no need for uncoupling.

plus points - small, easy to fit, run off 12vdc, easy to mount both camera and screen, cheap

minus points - back to front screen display (as it’s a reversing camera), small screen

Would I use them again? Yes, if in similar circumstances.

But, my new layout will use current sensors, using iTrain computerised control.

Ian

28 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Without checking, the overall space is as large as that of @ITG (I think..).

The space I allowed for the width (ie diameter) of the reverse loop ended up being just enough to accommodate R2 curves. I used two 1200x450mm boards side by side (so 900mm for the diameter ) plus I added a narrow shelf extension at the widest point, just to safeguard  against stock falling off. So thus some 950mm in full. I did intend initially to have a double track loop (ie R2 & R3) but decided those extra few mms ate up too much of the room space.

Because my entry/exit to the reverse loop are via twin tracks (as opposed to converging into a single track), I needed to allow slightly more length before the two tracks become parallel again as they exit the hidden area.

The following comments are not necessarily to describe my own layout, but more to illustrate that there can be a significant difference between what’s possible/practical in theory and which may not be so in practice.

Referring back to my earlier post in this thread, as I said, I had considered (then aborted) how best to build in ‘internal’ storage sidings inside the reverse loop. For me, it wasn’t viable, and that may be at least partially due to a combination of (a) my actual physical space constraints and (b) the operational implications (ie mainly needing to then reverse trains out from these sidings on to visible running lines). To paint the picture - if only to add flesh to the bones of alternative views - these running lines exit the storage loops, and turn through 180 degrees and drop down at 2% from 50mm above datum to datum , running parallel to and in front of the main station (which sits 90mm above datum). By the time, these running lines get to the reverse loop they are at datum, as is the loop itself. They enter a tunnel into the reverse loop (under that end of the main station), immediately prior to which I’m hoping to find space for a small through station (No loops etc)

Hence,  reversing trains out just doesn’t seem right. Also, the height clearances (for access) are acceptable for a turnout-free reversing loop, but not so for tracks that may require greater levels of access.

So, as @Annie says, works ok in a virtual world, but very different for at least some actual layouts.

Ian

Thanks all. I’ve decided to try the end cutters as recommended by @fulton and @DCB, now on order.

never thought of the approach suggested by @Enterprisingwestern although I also note and empathise with the subsequent comment by @Bernard Lamb

1 minute ago, WIMorrison said:

You use the YD6016LN in exactly the same way as you use the DR4088LN-CS units. and can daisy chain them together. Keep a DR4088LN chain to 8 or less units because the Loconet can cause issues above this number.

 

 

Thanks, as I thought, but wanted to check before finalising purchase.

I have 5 of the DIgikejis DR4088LN current sensors but as I build the layout I realise I want a few more feedbacks than the 80 this gives me. Given the demise of DIgikejis, if I add one or more Yamorc YD6016LN units, do I still use the loconet cable connections to link all 6 (or more) continuously together? If not, how would I do this? I’m not actually planning to enable Loconet at the onset, it maybe something I get to later.

thanks

Ian

2 minutes ago, fulton said:

I use a simple pair of side cutters, be careful of the piece that could fly off. 

Isn’t it tricky to get the cut accurately horizontal and virtually flush to the tie bar surface, due to the angle you have to hold it above the rails?

A simple question, I think. With a point motor mounted below baseboard, what tool do folk use to cut the metal rod which protrudes through the tie bar above the board? It seems far easier to get the length right if doing after fitting, rather than measuring and cutting it beforehand. I’ve tried using a Dremel (well, copy of) but the cutting disc is awkward to get horizontal between the rails (00 gauge) to enable an accurate horizontal cut. I’ve damaged a tie bar or two trying to get an accurate and near-flush cut.

thanks

Ian

That’s a lot of track in a confined space. My own experience suggests Anyrail (only programme I’ve used) is a little optimistic concerning what will fit where. Be careful that the theoretical plan doesn’t lead you down a garden path, although I guess you could just cut out a siding or two. As has been mentioned, are you sure about using R1 curves?