B McG
-
Posts
95 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by B McG
-
-
Following on from this thread I took the plunge and pre-ordered an NCE SB5. A while ago I bought a PSX1 short protection board and have been mulling whether to get a PSX4 to complete out the 5 power districts or whether I should go with 5 x EB1 v1.1. I'd be interested if anyone can recommend which would be the more suitable.
The other thing at the moment is that neither seem to be available in the UK, so if any alternatives are out there I would be interested to hear!
Cheers
Bryant
-
1 hour ago, AndrueC said:
I have a much smaller N-scale layout (2x1.5m) and with 7 locos idling, three LEDs, LED controller and three turnout motor controllers I'm at 0.56 amps. Back when I only had the locos I was at 0.28A. So on that basis if I had 50 turnout motors (which with mine would mean 25 controllers) I'd be looking at over 2A before I even put a loco on the track. Now my controllers/motors are a different make to yours but it suggests to me that at 2A there's nothing wrong with your wiring. It's just a big layout and you need to add one or more boosters.
But there are different ways of going about that so hopefully someone with more knowledge can chime in.
Oh, but I have to ask: Are you using the original PowerCab cable? I bought a longer one and that caused problems. If you don't have the PowerCab booster then all your power is going up to the handset and back again and a standard replacement cable is going to cause problems.
Thanks for this, it's all too clear that the number of points with juicers is clearly the issue when I have only 2 amps to play with.
I bought my powercab back around 2011 with all the original accessories. It served my 7 by 12 garage layout well before I upscaled beyond the power it could supply!
-
25 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:
5A is what the power supply is capable of delivering. It will only supply what the individual components collectively draw.
Assuming that the juicers collectively draw 2A, then this only leaves 3A for everything else. Only what is drawn from the loco on the point frog will actually pass through the juicer supplying it. You could theoretically have a loco which draws more than this, but the same loco would already be overheating your wiring & rails (& if you rely on rail joiners for conductivity, they would likely be glowing by this point).
Really big thanks for that! I am a bit naive when it comes to electrics, but this advice really helps. As I only will be running a maximum of three locos the SB5 will be plenty. I spoke with the wife who's happy for me to get an SB5 in the next couple of months along with short protection.
I like what you are doing on your layout to a skill level beyond what I am currently capable of. I hope you've had the time over the Christmas period to work on it!
-
1
-
-
Thanks for responding. The layout I'm building is 19 by 10 feet and based on 20 mAmps and I won't have the power budget to run that many, as I suspected. The powercab picture was with a DCC loco at rest on the track at 1.98 Amps with the storage roads unhooked! Little wonder when I connected the storage roads in that the power supply would trip every few seconds when I went above half throttle.
I'm more relaxed about point motor control, I have a separate power supply to run the point motors along with a couple of CDU's.
I'm not sure I could use a 5amp SB5 though as looking at the gaugemaster BPDCC80 frog juicers spec sheet they are only rated for 2 Amps. A major rethink may be on the cards!
-
Good evening and Happy New Year to you all.
Since last year I have been building a largish layout in a 20 x 11 shed in my back garden. I haven't long got all the track down and have been wiring the droppers in the main bus. For each dropper I've been fitting these every 1.5 meters on average (based on my previous experience on my dismantled garage layout) with all pointwork isolated and with it own droppers. I have been using PL-81 Peco power feed joiners for ease and simplicity of fitting, then soldering on on the ends some 18awg wire which then attaches to the connector block which in turn has power supplied by the main bus. For the main bus I used solid core 13amp rated electrical cable. I have separated the layout into 5 separate power district as shown in the attachment.
I had 70% of the layout wired in when I started to wire the droppers in the main bus feed for that power district (no.3) on the upper level storage roads when the problems started. After wiring each point in I would run a loco to test it was working as expected. When I had the first fan of points wired in it was that this point that when I ran a loco above half speed the controller would reset, and it was clear something was tripping. Thanks to gathering some tips on here I activated the amperage feature on my powercab (until now I didn't know about that!) to discover the layout was drawing 2 amps which is on the cusp of the controllers capability.
So I humbly ask for advice on this on the basis there is no such thing as a stupid question. Firstly I think I've made a significant mistake firstly by using so many PL-81's on the layout. Also it's my first experience with using gaugemaster BPDCC80 frog juicers on each point. My line of thinking is that with both the cumulative effect has increased the current draw to the point where the controller will trip.
In terms of remediating the situation would I be right in ditching the power feed joiners and soldering on 18 gauge droppers directly? Also am I right in thinking each frog juicer draws 20mA?
Thanks in advance for any replies received.
-
41 minutes ago, Dagworth said:
The "aux" connections are additional function outputs, not Keep Alive connections.
Labelled as "power" as opposed to logic level function outputs, they can drive LEDs etc. directly without amplifier circuits (although resistors will be needed for LEDs as usual)
Andi
Much obliged, thanks for the assistance!
Cheers
Bryant
-
Hi All,
The reason for this post is for some advice as a newbie to fitting DCC sound. I'm about to start the process of converting all of my locos to DCC sound and this is the first one I've attempted. I recently bought a decoder & speaker from a well known shop and on opening the package was initially somewhat puzzled.
I didn't expect to see three extra wires and after consulting the Loksound guide, the pink and light green are Aux 3 and 4, and the purple one is Aux 2. I suspect Aux 3 and 4 are for a stay alive, however I'm unsure what Aux 2 is used for. Can anyone advise me on what these are for? (also see pictures attached)
If Aux 3 & 4 are for a stay alive, would the best thing to do would be to heat shrink the ends of all three wires prior to installation?
Finally a thanks to this forum in separate topic for the handy tips in how to shoehorn a speaker into a early Bachmann class 20. Very handy that, at least I'm part the way there!
Cheers and thanks
Bryant
-
As a lurker I was so impressed with what he had achieved, far beyond my skillset. Really thinking of him and extending my prayers to his family that he makes this through.
-
4
-
1
-
-
Hi Paul,
I figured it out, I think I have a better solution that might work for you. I set everything at medium radius points and there are no curves under 90 cm (other than the slips and curved point inside radii) and each storage road will take an eight coach train. You'll need a single slip on the left hand storage entrance to enable bidirectional entry / exit and I tried to avoid reverse curves where I could. The compromise will be a reduction in the scenic area, but I don't think it will be much. Please feel free to PM me if you want the XtrackCAD file.
Cheers
Bryant
-
1
-
-
Hi Paul,
Hope you are doing well. I've attached what my current solution is, since my last post it has subtly changed to use a diamond on the bottom left and two medium points rather than a single slip. I designed mine at 91cm minimum radius except on a single 86cm off scene. I deliberately kept the radius as wide as possible as I would be running full length of passenger stock.
Looking at you plan, I do like how you've approached it, looks like you have a similar space to me. Are you intending to run full length stock on your layout? This may have a bearing with regard any sharp curves into points and the increased risk of derailment. Also have a think about your curved points and the double slip on the right fiddle yard entrance, my experience has been hit and miss using them as facing in a fiddle yard. As a trailing point I never seemed to have a problem. The other thing to consider is on the top right where the 3 way may be a weak link with respect to the sharp curve into it and road 7 being on a reverse curve.
Regarding your operating well, have you access to all the areas of your layout? Without access to the top side of the fiddle yard it looks around a 1.6 meter stretch which I suspect may be a stretch to far! When I designed mine I worked out 1 meter was the most that I could comfortably stretch and the only place I went beyond 1 meter was because I kept access at the top left corner.
Thinking it through I'll take a look at your entrance to your storage roads on the both sides on XTrackCAD to see if it's possible to unlock more space there. Can I assume that there is a platform on the right on the edge of the baseboard on the up Doncaster line before they diverge into the storage roads?
Will be back in a bit!
Cheers
Bryant
-
Welcome aboard! If you are to avoid tight radius curves you'll definitely need that optional fill. If you were to use part of the 12 x 128 as a fiddle yard you should be able to squeeze in 6 lines using medium radius geometry.
-
On 08/02/2021 at 14:05, Keith Addenbrooke said:
My final thought is about time? How much time do you have for layout building (I know and have benefitted from the amount of time and attention you invest in helping with layout design)? It's stating the obvious to say any large layout in this space would have a significant impact - but I'd worry that any large, unfinished or part-build layout in this space could really start to take over everything, for a very long time.
Just some thoughts - hope they help, Keith.
I ran into the same issue on two previous layout iterations both in a bedroom as well as a garage. In both instances it became a PITA, I had difficulty opening the windows in the bedroom as well as losing space for an office and a guest room. As we have no through access through the sides of our house the next layout in the garage eliminated one way of bringing in items meant for the garden at the rear. At the start of building the base for the model railway shed last summer I had to hand carry all the materials through the lounge and dining area. It wasn't long before the garage layout was dismantled to give me through access. The OP may want to think about a shed as an option to preserve the living space in his home. With insulation, an armoured cable for electricity supply and an oscillating fan heater it's quite a nice place to have for a hobby!
-
Absolutely top work there, love the dockside. I can only hope I get close on my attempt at a similar harbour scene!
Cheers
Bryant
-
1
-
1
-
-
Thanks all for useful tips help and advice. My 20 x 11" shed got delivered last November and since then I've insulated it and boarded it and had electrics fitted. In the Christmas period I also started on the framework to support the ply boards. Big shout out to Class 26, without the shed tip I couldn't have hoped to get this project running without blowing the budget!
In the end two things emerged from the plan. I decided to keep the running lines (Cheers Chimer!) in front of the storage and I really wanted a double junction at the end of the station. So I sacrificed 3 roads in the upper storage yard and planned in 4 more storage lines on the lower level from the branch line 17cm lower with a run round loop. The goods yard was modified for a reception siding and the good shed was moved the other end and the engine shed and refueling was also moved too. I also went with Davids idea of a lift out section, however if my wood working skills are up to scratch and scenery allows I'll hinge this. I ended up with two bays for motorail and also parcels / newspapers, I could in theory use a single slip to enable a DMU to reverse out onto the opposite running line. For the branch I had my heart set on a harbour scene and worked it in so that there is a fleeting resemblance to Weymouth. It pretty much planned out now, it took me months of fiddling to get here so it's a final roll call for any feedback...
Without further ado here's some screen shots and pictures. From previous photos in the thread I did a lot more in the than just build a base for the new shed, and yes we have a bar in our back garden that we built in 2019! (Very handy for lockdowns 1,2 & 3!)
-
2
-
-
Here's a link that may be of use to you. It's my go to resource for old track plans:-
Cheers
Bryant
-
12 hours ago, lezz01 said:
As you can see the map and the photos do not match so I'm going with the photos.
Now if anyone has any plans or photos of this area please feel free to post them here as I will be very grateful for any information anyone has be that photos, drawings and plans or just general information of the shed and quay branch.
You may want to reference this site for a track plan to scale:- https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=16&lat=51.99666&lon=-2.15521&layers=168&right=BingHyb
Settings to use are OS 25 Inch 1892-1914 accompanied with bing hybrid. It's my go to for historic maps.
HNY!
-
1
-
-
Thanks for all the advice, after a some thought I decided I shouldn't skimp on such a vital part of the layout build. After a fair amount of searching on google I found a relatively local business and enquired about some sheets of birch ply. https://www.daviestimber.co.uk/products/BIRCH-BBBB-GRADE-PLYWOOD/P100049 Given the apparent shortages of building materials I was delighted to find that they had some in stock and I was really pleased with what I received for what will be a 19" x 10" size layout. I'll look at starting a thread when I start laying track in the New year.
Cheers
Bryant
-
Hello everyone,
Hope you all are doing well in the run up to to the festive season. In this post I am hoping to gather some opinions regarding the choice of a baseboard surface. On my previous layout I suspect that I may have used 9mm eucalyptus plywood as my baseboard surface (from Jewson) but I'm not 100% sure as it was nearly 10 years ago when I started construction. Since then I dismantled the garage layout in favour of a larger shed in the garden that in the new year will be the home of a new layout. I'm aware that most on here recommend birch plywood but thought I would ask whether anyone has used eucalyptus ply on their layout and what their experience was with it? I did find a single post of someone that did use it but that is probably too small a sample size!
If the majority of recommendations still is to go with Birch has anyone had experience of using this business? https://sheetmaterialswholesale.co.uk/sheet-materials/hardwood-plywood/birch-plywood/
Regards
Bryant
-
It makes you wonder how many takes were made before that video was released. Consisting that many locos and the potential of derailments would have been a nightmare with that much rolling stock!
-
On 08/10/2020 at 11:57, DavidCBroad said:
The lack of a RTL curved diamond makes junction trackwork on a curve a pain hence the plan I drew.
I know it is possible to alter a diamond and curve it to a degree by cutting the ties (usually 3rd to 4th of each connection) that link the sleepers on the track underside based on my experiences of modifying a code 75 double slip.
As a caveat I'm not sure how much flex there will be available in a diamond using this technique, if the OP has an old one to spare it may be worth trying this and seeing how much curve is possible. Then there's also the potential issue of maintaining trouble free running.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Chimer said:
That custom pointwork certainly looks great, as to whether it's possible I couldn't say .....
Regarding the double slip on the left, it looks as though anything reversing into the yard from the down main would be going straight across the slip, so maybe no need to worry about the radius?
Two other thoughts, feel free to ignore as they might require major surgery:
1. Wouldn't the more likely route from the up main to the branch have the facing point in the left-hand throat, and use the loop platform? And therefore .....
2. Wouldn't it be good to have a direct route from the loop platform to the branch that doesn't conflict with the down main? So the right-hand throat could be hugely simplified ..
.... at the cost of all branch services running via the loop. In case it's not clear in the pic, that's a single slip giving you a trailing crossover.
Cheers, Chris
Thanks for the advice Chris. You've given me idea for using a similar arrangement on the other end of the loop to get access for freight from the up line to the branch. Genius!
Apparently the point work is possible to construct, but not by a relative novice like me. I made an enquiry with a chap on e-bay who also has his own YouTube channel who can build these to 51mm track centres. Now there is no need to, all I need to do is acquire a couple of single slips.
Cheers, Bryant
-
2 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:
A scissors and a bit as drawn can be cobbled up from Peco streamline points, slips and short crossings suitably hacked about as I did a similar one 30 odd years ago, however its very difficult to keep to a 2" track spacing, I'm not sure whether I managed it or not but it was a lot narrower than the usual 2 X 2" spacing of a scissors made from out of the box streamline.
The vast majority of at sort of trackwork would have been culled by the 1970s .
As I understand the plan the way the Branch converges with main without an option to run into the loop platform would have been extremely awkward and time wasting. as branch and down main trains can't arrive together. I would add a chord line from branch to Down side loop platform and not bother with the scissors.
Thanks, that does make sense, perhaps more so if the branch feeds into the goods loop where directly ahead is the head shunt. I've attached what I've what have in mind based on everyone's feedback. Getting freight from the Up onto the branch could be done with a facing point cross over on the main line in the area of the red box.
-
1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:
Hi there,
My issue with your plan as drawn is that, in terms of prototypicality, you've got unprotected shunting going on at the left-hand end of your station (assuming that the island platform road is intended for passenger trains?)
Apologies for not being very adept with computer drawing, but I've shown two possible alternatives. Both would require some juggling about of the geometry but they result in an arrangement where you can be shunting back and forth and making movements on the depot, independent of trains moving in and out of the island platform road which is how it would typically be configured on the prototype. The first option is probably the better one if you can make it work.
Ouch, I missed that! Thanks for showing me the error of my ways. What you've suggested makes perfect sense.
-
1
-
-
Hi All,
Hope you are all doing well. In a previous thread with help and feedback from a number of members I'm have a more or less finalised design of the storage yard I have planned.
Regarding the scenic section I also nearly there too, however I have a couple of quandaries which are highlighted in red. Currently curved points are used to enable a movement from the loop to enter the up main. I'm potentially looking at getting a custom piece of track made to enable entry onto the up main line and to also allow enter from the up onto the branch within the top right red box area. The second attachment details the type of track work I am thinking of being made. My thinking over this was to allow an increase of the lower platform length so that it could handle 10 BR mk1's and to enable some curve relaxation on the top right. Also my experience of Peco curved points when used facing with a 10 coach train has not been reliable as I would like. The question is whether this arrangement would also look plausible in the 1970's if there was a constraint with space or whether I should stick with the curved points.
Also I'm mulling over whether to use a double slip with regard the goods yard entry and the head shunt. I'm not 100% sure due to the sub 30" radius of the slip and have had some not so great experiences on a previous layout with longer length goods trains, particularly when the rake was being pushed. I'm open for advice on whether to go for it or stick with the two medium radius points.
All feedback gratefully received,
Cheers
Bryant
A challenge to all Anyrail and layout design wizards
in Layout & Track Design
Posted
Hi Duncan,
Challenge accepted and I've had a crack at this. I've managed to squeeze together a 4 track oval, just! The operating well is 2.5 feet by 5 feet which is probably somewhat tight for two young ones. I did manage to get the consett ore set in their at the bottom left corner, again this is a tight squeeze, also the gradient up could make for some interesting running as I think you'll need a 5% incline. Some of the set geometry, especially with the diamond on the top and the point from the main line into the goods area next to the platform was interesting to say the least. Suffice to say flex track will be needed in sections, also there won't be enough space for a full width platform at the bottom.
Given the constraints I think a three line circuit is more realistic for the space you have. If one of your flock is happy taking turns in shunting you'll have more space and more area to have further sidings and operational interest. Either that or have an independent high level line or two! Just a thought as rule number one applies. 🙂
Hope that helps you, all the best in your endeavors,
Cheers
Bryant