ITG

Hi now the woodwork has started on my rebuild, I’m planning a lifting section across an outward opening doorway. There will be three level parallel tracks crossing it, consisting of the two main lines at +50mm (versus datum) and a branch line at +200mm. So a 150mm difference in level. I plan on all tracks crossing the baseboard joins at 90 degrees. So I guess two options. 1. a single lifting section with two different levels 2. two separate lifting sections, each at the respective level. Any thoughts which? What are pros and cons? If 1, what impact does that have on how hinges are mounted, and clearance at track ends as section is lifted/closed? thanks. Ian

Thanks all. I’ve been busy today dismantling the old layout, and guess what? I discovered I’d used a few dead frog (forgotten about) Streamline turnouts and all I’d done to them was add Hornby clips. And actually I don’t recall any running problems, other than operator error. That said, it was my intention to not use any dead frogs on the new layout, but a space issue identified in planning forced me to reconsider with the potential use of a set track turnout. Hence this query. I’m still pondering options. The turnout in question would be on a reverse loop of 2nd radius curves, with the straight route being to a couple of storage roads. If using a Streamline turnout, it just pushed the whole balloon loop out slightly, but it’s debatable which option I go for… a Slightly bigger loop with live frog, or smaller with dead frog. I may not make the decision until tracks are being laid, but it’s handy to prepare for options. Ian

Hi, although I normally use modified electrofrog turnouts on my DCC layout, I need to use the tighter radius of a set track turnout in a hidden storage area. In an effort to avoid potentially poorer running over a dead frog turnout, I’m thinking I could modify it to to keep the respective blades and the inside exit rails (from the V) permanently live. Thus I wouldn’t be relying on blade contact to transmit power. There shouldn’t be any need for frog power switching as the frog itself would still be dead. is my logic correct? Has any one done this or similar? thanks Ian

Ah, I see. So I guess you may have to rely on the ballast material to give it an appropriate colour, as opposed to the underlying colour acting as a base. I’m rather hoping to find something with a ‘stiffness’ similar to cork, and that could easily paint. May have to be cork! ian

Thanks. I assume therefore this stuff is stiff enough to sit flat on its own. It looks like some similar flimsy stuff (although mine was black) I tried once, although I don’t think it was 2.5mm thick. And it takes paint ok?

Browsing through old threads on the subject of underlay, I saw that at one point you used something from Globe Packaging, but not the 6mm thick stuff mentioned here. Was it this or similar? https://www.globepackaging.co.uk/1500mm-x-120m-roll-of-jiffy-foam-wrap-2-5mm-foam-thickness.html 6mm does seem somewhat thick? ian

Thanks. Am I correct in assuming you say “non adhesive” to allow easy removal for re-use or error correction? What do you use to secure it to baseboard and track? Ian

Does that mean you do not ballast on top of the cork? Ian

Thanks, I’ve ordered a trial pack but would be interested to see a photo or two, please. How does the process you describe work for turnouts? I assume it’s easy enough to cut and shape the foam, but does the same approach to ballasting still apply? ian

Hi I’m about to start a new layout. Track plan is sorted, and some (laser cut ply) baseboards obtained. On my previous 00 layout (which was my first for 50 years!), I mostly used 3mm thick cork sheet as underlay, although I also experimented with some form of closed cell foam. Some of this foam was like a cloth material in that it was too floppy - maybe too thin? And I also tried a purpose-made (for railway modelling) strip of a better foam material, self-adhesive on one side. The new layout is on new boards in a new larger room, so I find myself wondering what to use as track underlay, and then whether to cover the whole board in it. I’ve read about using vinyl floor underlay, which comes cheaper than hobby stuff. So what’s the variety and range of current thinking? I then need to consider ballasting. My previous layout sidestepped that (or I did!) and never did do it. Tbh, I’m a little daunted by the thought of ballasting a twin track mainline with station, reversing loop and storage yard, all in a 5m x 2.4m room. My main interests lie in electronics (this new layout will be computer controlled) and running trains. I like scenery, but am probably at the general impression end of scenic expertise (eg Metcalfe buildings). I suppose I’m asking the impossible - how can I get an acceptable appearance for ballast and track bed, without what seems a risky process of jamming up my turnouts, double slips etc? Is there a compromise? Or not? thanks for any suggestions on either question - underlay and ballast. Ian

You may be fortunate to source a DR5013, as it has been reported on this forum Digikejis have filed for bankruptcy. Certainly in UK, their products are very hard to find. I too needed a reverse loop module capable of working with detection, and found this. https://www.dcctrainautomation.co.uk/lodi-ksm-reverse-loop-module-for-digital-railways.html Not yet set up, so cannot comment, but it came highly recommended, for use with current sensing detectors. When I purchased it, James at DCC Train Automation knew I was using iTrain, and thus very likely to be using some stock with current draw, be it lights or resistors. No connection with the retailer other than satisfied customer. I have no hands-on experience - yet - with the scenario you describe, so will be interested in any responses. Ian

I agree. I’m not sure there is another effective way of wiring the reverse loop with that track plan. Could you not make that short length of track longer by extending where it joins the (existing on yellow) circuit much further north. That way it should house a full train length, and thus the reversing section could be on that single line. Imho, unless you can run trains non-stop through a reversing section, you may as well have polarity switches which have to be thrown whilst the loco is static. But - and this may not be an issue for the OP - doesn’t it mean that an arrival would come via the double track, but depart via the single track, and vice versa, in order to reverse the train to get back to the station. Unless, the whole train was fiddled in what I assume is a fiddle yard. There is some comparison with a layout that I’m about to begin construction. I have a roundy, but with a through station disguised as a terminus (2 through lines pass under the station building, plus run round loops and terminating roads), and a double junction off the roundy, to a storage yard which continues on to a reverse loop. Thus back to the storage yard, and back onto the roundy, and return to station. Ian

That’s is what I’d suggest, although there’s a twin track to consider, which presumably adds complication, as you could presumably have a train on each track, at different stages of the transition through or past the polarity change. I therefore think I know what the problem may be, but necessarily yet got to the solution! Ian

You could consider DCC but in conjunction with software such as iTrain or JMRI etc. The manoeuvres you mention are but some of the options possible. But you wouldn’t need to worry about diodes and voltage drops. Even if such an computerisation is not an immediate priority, planning ahead for such might influence your choice of DCC system at the onset. Depends on where your ultimate aspirations lie. Ian

Great thanks. A very similar scenario to what I’m planning. Although I think I will be able to provide vertical support under the incline board. I was wondering about using threaded rods (as used in many commercially produced helices) to achieve the incline and twist. After all, the 90 degree rising turn is in effect pretty similar to a quarter of a helix. I would still provide some batten strength as well, through which the rods would go. Ian

Thanks. Encouraging to know that 10mm thickness still flexes sufficiently. I am still a little way from the practicalities of actually doing this task. We now have access to the refurbed property (not sleeping there yet as waiting for furniture items delivery). After a day struggling with assembling flat pack wardrobes which have warped whilst in storage, this baseboard task somehow doesn’t seem as daunting as it did! Ian

Yes, that’s in effect what I’m planning to do. But I’ll have 5, maybe 6, DR4088s, so that’s why I’m looking for a 10 or 12 switch block, mounted near the Z21. I get what you’re suggesting, in mounting the switches near the DR4088 which by definition will be spread around. Just thought my idea might be neater, although the amount of cabling is the same. I found this…. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004358025410.html?pdp_npi=2%40dis!GBP!￡ 20.84!￡ 9.38!!!!!%40211b600416814601189987065e38df!12000028891069931!btf&_t=pvid:68944547-0e5e-4812-a2d6-9571e8cd8182&afTraceInfo=1005004358025410__pc__pcBridgePPC__xxxxxx__1681460119&spm=a2g0o.ppclist.product.mainProduct Although it’s also fused. And 10amp would be too high to be of use. I suppose I could change the fuses, but would they serve any real purpose?

I’m planning a DCC layout with several current sensors for train detection, and because I therefore will have to split the power feed bus on one rail into probably 6 to 10 feeds to independently connect to each of the detection devices (DIgikejis DR4088 or similar), to me it makes sense to put a switch into each of these split feeds so as to isolate whole areas of the layout to aid troubleshooting etc. Anyone know of a 10 or 12 switch block with a single input, so as it makes the whole assembly neater and more compact than having several separate switches? thanks Ian

Thanks @RobinofLoxley I was pondering the idea of keeping the curve flat. To do that, and manage the space by lengthening the straight section (2%) inclines, I’d need to reduce the inner of the 3 tracks to R2 (and other two accordingly). In itself not an issue, as it will be hidden. I’ve toyed with the opposite idea, of increasing radii as much as possible, to ease the incline around the curve. But I would then need to twist the base, and probably as suggested by @DCB, use 2 separate bases to allow the necessary twist. I’m assuming that if something like 6mm ply was screwed to secure cross-battens at the correct heights, that it would twist slightly to allow the required incline, which could be around 1.6-1.7%. Because the boards I already have (a set of 7 laser cut ply/ply-braced which I bought secondhand ) being only 450mm wide, I have little option but to extend them by say 250mm. Although it means I wouldn’t have an already existing board surface to build on, it seems better to do this on the wall side, because: 1. Can secure to wall for added support 2. Can start with open-top level cross pieces, which themselves can be at slightly different heights 3. the ply board should have enough flex in it for the transition between level and incline 4. I can then twist the corner piece as described above, or keep it level as you suggest. tbh, I won’t really know until I start by setting up the 1200x450 mm boards, but, as I’ve hinted before, not having access to the space at present, is keeping me focused on planning. (BTW, access to the property is middle next week, although I’ll be on other DIY duties for a while. So almost there!) Ian

Thanks DCB, a good point about the curved incline. I think (on Anyrail) I can get radii around the 90 degree inclined turn of the three tracks of 750, 800 and 850mm, which allows for the level storage road yards sitting inside them. Makes sense to use separate bases for the single and double track, and to allow for ‘twist’. On my current layout (soon to be dismantled to provide track etc for the new one), I have a 2% incline around R3 curve, using Woodland Scenics inclines, and experience no running issues at all. Most of my stock is Bachmann, produced in last 20 years max. But I do accept that the twist across 3 tracks introduces a different consideration. Using WS inclines for three tracks, which only need to rise 40mm at that point, would be an expensive way of doing it. Ian

I’m a fan of laser cut ply boards. Do you actually need to separate the two scalescenes boards? I only ask as there may be more economical options if you bought the 800x290mm board as a single item? There are plenty of other laser cut board providers, albeit you may struggle to find an off shelf option at 290mm. But 300mm may be available? Ian

At late stages of design and close to early stages of building a 00 round the room layout. I have some professionally built 6mm laser cut ply boards (with own legs) each 1200x450mm (48”x18” approx). I’m thinking that two/three of these will house a visible 8 road through storage yard, which junctions off the twin main line that continues to run behind the yard. The 8 storage roads sit nicely on the 450mm wide boards, and so I need to add boards behind them, next to the wall. But after the junction, the main lines and a branch line need to rise at max 2%, so need a minimum of some 200-250mm width, allowing for a little separation from yard. These three lines then need to go round a 90 degree turn in the corner, so the bend will also need to be inclined. I’m looking for suggestions as to how best to construct this extra board, which starts level and rises. Options could be: 1. Battens attached to existing board and wall for a level extension, and build incline on that. 2. As 1 above, but actually make the added board sit at the required incline. Would the battens be level and risers lift the board, or would the battens themselves be sloping? 3. use shelf brackets attached to wall, with no actual connection to existing board, either level (like 1 above) or inclined (like 2 above) Any other thoughts? I may have some usable MDF I could use for this extension, or maybe buy some more ply. thanks Ian

There are various suppliers (not model railway specialists) who provide ready cut smaller pieces of all thicknesses of ply. Try googling ‘ply offcuts’. Not particularly cheap but you do get perfectly sized laser cut boards. You can then make bracing support yourself.

Actually not true about tending to use MDF. I have a number of laser cut boards from two different suppliers, and both are birch ply. One has a top surface of 6mm ply, the other 9mm. Both are very sturdy, with ply framework, and lightweight although the 6mm one is obviously more so. I would recommend exploring such options. Another possibility, which I also used, is 25mm square section aluminium tubing for the bracing, instead of conventional wood battens. This was on another area of board where I had insufficient clearance to use the laser cut boards with deeper sides. So my main intention was for strength where if I had used only 25mm deep wood, I feel I risked more twisting than with the aluminium. Worked fine. And fairly light. Ian

Thanks all, some good and varied approaches. Another planning box ticked.