KingEdwardII

I can agree with that. The attic bedroom I use for my layout has a main area of 10.5 x 8.5 feet, although it's an "L" which makes the 8.5 stretch to 11.5 feet in one corner and lets me fit in a branch terminus as well as a main line junction station. It limits the amount of space for scenery, but I am much more interested in running trains so that does not bother me overmuch. Mike

Phil, But the Kadees look way better than the tension lock couplings that look like nothing that ever appeared on a railway. And the Kadees operate much better as well. If the desire is to have couplings that match the prototypes, then for steam era we are looking at 3-link or Instanter couplings. These do exist for OO (and other) scales in various forms, but they are not popular for a host of good reasons: e.g. https://jamestrainparts.com/shop/couplings/oo-gauge-fixed-link-wagon-couplings/ For me, Kadees seem like a reasonable compromise, with a good ecosystem supporting them (like that Precimodels stuff I mentioned in my last post). Yours, Mike.

Neal, I too am no fan of tension lock - even the more "modern" narrow versions are still intrusive and I find them a pain in the neck to uncouple. I am in the process of adopting Kadees, since to me these seem like the best of the available commercial offerings. Mostly these will be NEM versions, but I have some stock without NEM pockets and I shall probably have to use non-NEM versions with suitable kitbashing engineering to convert them. In the longer term, I want automated uncoupling. This can be done with an undertrack magnet system for Kadees, but there is another system available for stock with suitable DCC decoders from Precimodels: https://www.precimodels.com/en/ ...the idea of uncoupling a loco at any location simply by pressing a Function button on a handheld controller really appeals to me. I can't see that being practical for uncoupling random wagons, but just dealing with the locos might handle the majority of uncoupling for me. Yours, Mike.

Are the 42xx the Hornby models? If so, do you have any problems with the electrical pickups ? Yours, Mike.

Stephen One possibility to consider is using a (much) cheaper Raspberry Pi installation than I am using - say a Pi 4b, with no fancy touchscreen. JMRI runs very easily on the Pi and does not take up resources. I have been able to use JMRI to define all the stuff on my layout - locos and turnouts - and I can use all of those definitions directly from the Engine Driver app. This even includes the graphical panels, although I must admit that the size of the panel displayed on my smartphone screen is a bit small. So I can both run locos and switch points, etc, entirely from my smartphone. With the advantage that I only have to enter data once - in JMRI on the Pi - and I can smoothly move between the Pi screen and the smartphone for any operation. However, now that I have my large touchscreen, I ain't giving it up... Yours, Mike.

Phil, The layout's entirely yours to design, of course, but one observation I have is that the goods facilities for this junction station seem rather sparse. Even a place like Witham, the junction for the single line to Wells (etc) from the GWR main line between Westbury to Taunton, had considerable sets of sidings - and Witham itself is a complete nowheresville (with apologies to anyone who actually lives there) with a claimed population today of only 400 or so. Yours, Mike.

James, Thanks for your observations on full automation and JMRI. I shall investigate JMRI for automation over time. I'm still finishing off turnout control at the moment and signal control will be next up My interest at the moment is more in partial automation, rather than operating a full automated timetable. Such as the ability to select and execute a particular route for a given train. However, I certainly won't shrink from hacking together whatever Java code might be necessary to provide some features that I feel the need for. One item already on my agenda relates to the editing capabilities of the JMRI Layout Panel tool - the lack of an "undo" capability there fails the UI 101 test for me. Yours, Mike.

Ian, Yes, I had a look at DigiTrains app and then came across this on its blog pages: "Over the past year, the DigiTrains application has been completely rewritten. The new App's name is DigiTrainsPro." So, the old DigiTrains app is no longer supported, which makes me less keen. Moving on to the DigiTrainsPro app and its website here: https://digitrainspro.hu/ I read the following: "From the 1st of May, 2020., the use of the full functionality of the application will only be possible with a Premium subscription." Following up on that subscription, it turns out that the cost is €15 for every 3 months. I'm not against paying for software, but €60 per year for something where there is a good free alternative does not appeal to me. Especially in the case where the hard work is being done by JMRI. With Engine Driver, the configuration of the layout, the description of the locos, etc, is all entered into JMRI. Engine Driver piggybacks on that, which I like since it means a single source of truth about the layout and only 1 place to go change things as needed. Yours, Mike

Put simply, this is a case that DCC makes really simple. All that is necessary is to have power droppers to each section of track, plus the necessary insulating joiners to deal with the electrofrog turnouts, and you're done. No need for complex switching arrangements depending on the routing of a train through these sections - just set the points and drive... Yours, Mike.

Penrhos, I think that you need to get someone to assure you that the particular USB-XpressNet module you plan to use will work with the 10764 in the way that you want. I looked and could not find such a combination described anywhere. There are some other Computer-XpressNet interface devices which do claim to work with the multiMaus, but not the one you linked to: e.g. http://www.terdina.net/rails/ Yours, Mike.

Is it just me, or do you find the idea of laying out money for a physical catalog rather quaint in the era of instantly-available free-to-download internet access to information... The Modified Hall does look nice but the £184.95 price is on the high side - and significantly more than the £169.95 price for their 49xx "Stanway Hall". Mike.

How have you done the lights in your lanterns? I ask since I'm contemplating some of those on my stations. Mike.

Blimey - that looks like the complete set of buses for the whole of Devon.

Well, quantum theory says otherwise...

Stephen, I too have a recently aquired DR5000 and I am using it to provide computer control of my layout. I have described my efforts in this direction in these threads: and I think the main thing you need to ask is what you want to achieve. For me, there are the twin goals of a) controlling the physical aspects of the layout (turnouts, signals, etc) via a large touchscreen. and b) controlling locos through a handheld mobile (a smartphone). Longer term, I'd like some automation to allow me to run multiple trains on the layout without me having to pay close attention to all of them. I recognise that this will all take time since I am building my layout from scratch and there is a lot of work to do outside computer control. So far, I have been investigating RocRail and JMRI as software packages and the Engine Driver app on my Android phone - and these enable me to achieve my goals. I also have the Z21 app on the menu for investigation, as mentioned by Iain. I notice that you mention Railmaster - which provides some of these capabilities, but which is tied to Hornby controllers and to Windows PCs. Why did you acquire the DR5000 if you want to stick with Railmaster? Yours, Mike.

Stewart, I didn't need to insulate anything on my County - the tabs feeding the motor brushes are isolated. One thing I did take care of were the unused wires on the decoder - they are at the bottom of the last picture I posted. I insulated the ends of the wires, rather than removing the wires, just in case I ever want to re-use the decoder. Yours, Mike.

Stewart, Yes, if you want a speaker in the loco, I think that hacking a space from the lead weight is the way to go. I contemplated using the tender for the decoder, as is the case for my Hornby King, but decided that it looked like a lot of hard work for the County. Yours, Mike.

Phil, I take the view that in this case, to avoid tears later, it is best to give the unqualified advice - doing lift out joins on curves is a very tricky thing to achieve with success - Nearholmer gives some of the reasons above. I can agree with you that doing straight sections within curves can look odd - which for me is a clarion call to look much harder at the size and placement of the lift out section. I made mine much larger than necessary in order to get the whole curve in while allowing for straight sections on either side. I think that is a price worth paying to get reliable running. I also used dowel cams (as used in kitchen units and similar furniture) to get accurate alignment of the ends of the lift out section, both horizontally and vertically. More work and it means a procedure to fix & release the lift out, but necessary to avoid mismatch of the ends of the rails across the joints. Mike.

Derailments - in a word. Mike.

Sorry, I only just spotted this posting. I have done a similar conversion on "vintage" Hornby County 4-6-0, which has a very similar motor arrangement - so similar that my instruction sheet for the loco covers both County and Castle versions of that era (mid 1990s). Yes, it is a "Type 8 Ringfield motor". It has 2 connections from the wheel pickups - one at the front and one at the rear: Both of these connections need to be disconnected from those tabs on the side of the motor which connect to the motor brushes. Also remove the yellow capacitor. Attach the red wire of the decoder to the rear tab, the black wire to the black wire at the front and then the orange and grey wires of the decoder connect to the two tabs feeding the motor brushes: You will need a physically small decoder - I used a Gaugemaster DCC92 - and you need to pay attention to the lengths of the wires to ensure that they are long enough to enable you to fit the decoder into a suitable space, which for the County was in the front section of the boiler barrel. You can see in my final picture that I have used heat shrink to cover the joins in the black & red wires that I used to ensure that they were long enough. Mike.

I'd like to re-iterate a piece of advice given earlier in the thread. Plan the lifting section so that the track which crosses the joins of the lifting section is straight. Removable or lifting sections where the track crossing the join is curved are bad news and likely to cause trouble - I speak from experience, having made this mistake once. The removable section in my current layout was planned to ensure a length of straight track either side of the joints, even though the overall section involved goes through a 60 degree turn. It works perfectly with no problems. In my case, the removable section is bigger than it needed to be, in order to get these straight tracks in. Yours, Mike.

I use slow-action MTB MP1 point motors, controlled via DCC by means of DR4018 units. These have a relatively low current demand and so there is no need for anything like a CDU. I routinely switch pairs of turnouts together using a single channel on the DR4018 (which means that both points have the same DCC address). It would be possible to switch more than 2 turnouts together, but I don't yet have any instances where this is useful. The MP1 motors have a built-in switch for handling stuff like electrofrog polarity. My approach to route setting is to use computer software driving my DR5000 controller, which has the advantage of complete flexibility. Mike.

I agree. I use the very tactile but very simple approach of a touch screen displaying a panel representing the layout to control turnouts and other accessories. The rats nest of wiring required for the analog approach is something I'm very glad to be rid of. Mike.

I have several curved Peco points on my layout and I've never had any problems with them. The only trouble I had recently was with a diamond crossing which caused some hassle until I realized that it wasn't properly level and needed extra fixings - so I now check all my pointwork to make sure there are no high or low parts which might cause trouble. Mike.

I use 12mm ply, with most baseboards approx 1800 mm x 600mm. My layout is static and in a bedroom, so I have no issues with weight or size to worry about. 12mm also means that the amount of bracing is smaller and more widely spaced and this makes attaching stuff under the boards easier - and makes it easier to plan the trackwork to avoid having point motors and other equipment blocked by the bracing. I selected 12mm mostly because of the need to mount stuff under the boards - mainly the point motors. 12mm enables me to use screws that give good grip. I don't see how I could use 6mm ply and still do this. 9mm ply would work, but the screws would have to be quite short. If I were building a portable layout, the considerations would be very different - but that's not what I have. Mike.