!!

Not Registered?

Welcome!  Please register to view all of the new posts and forum boards - some of which are hidden to guests.  After registering and gaining 10 posts you will be able to sell and buy items on our N'porium.

If you have any problems registering, then please check your spam filter before emailing us.  Hotmail users seem to find their emails in the Junk folder.


Thanks for reading,
The NGF Staff.

Author Topic: The Train Shed Project  (Read 25238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Innovationgame

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 26531
  • Posts: 535
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2016, 12:29:26 pm »
There are 44 points on my proposed layout.  Because I will be using DCC, it is possible to simplify the switching by grouping the points together in different combinations to form routes.  The points will be connected to the main track via Digikeijs DR4018 decoders, eight points to a decoder and the points will be numbered from 01 to 44.  To create the routes, I first had to record which points connected to which storage loop and which direction the points had to be switched to access that loop.  I have numbered the Up loops 01 to 08 and Down loops 11 to 18.  I have numbered a few other parts of the layout as follows:

19 - Goods Loop
20 - Branch Runarounds
21 - Branch Main
22 – Branch Access
23 – Goods Reset
24 – Milk Loop

I will be using a Gaugemaster DCC-02, which has a limit of 31 routes and 8 turnouts (points) per route, so it was essential to ensure that each storage loop could be accessed by no more than 3 turnouts because some of the station locations required 4 turnouts.  For each turnout, I mapped the loops that would be affected by it as shown below.  “1” shows a turnout set to straight on whereas “2” shows it set to turnout.  “0” indicates “don’t care”.


Once the basic mapping had been achieved, I then had to construct the reverse map to show which turnouts (points) would be required for each storage loop and in which direction.  This was achieved by transposing the columns and rows of the map.  I have shown the result below. 


I have already shown the routes required to operate the timetable, so it was simply a case of mapping the loops onto the routes to produce the Route Map for the points.  For example, Route 3 runs “out” from loop 01 to loop 11, which means that Points 09, 10, 11, 17, 18 and 19 are all set to “1”.  The Route Map is shown below.


Well, that just about completes the technical bits about operational planning.  I hope it wasn’t too boring and that at least some members got something out of it.  Before I go, I have one more picture to show you.  Many layouts have bridges on the layout.  However, not many have a BIG bridge in the garden (not really) just behind the train shed.  I thought you might like to see the location of the train shed.

« Last Edit: August 26, 2016, 12:35:17 pm by Innovationgame, Reason: To Add Picture »
With kind regards
Laurence

Offline cornish yorkie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1282
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2016, 12:55:18 pm »
 :hellosign: Many thanks for all the fascinating planning, not quite at this stage but maybe one day. As a aside is that the Tamar Bridge?
regards Derek.

Online Innovationgame

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 26531
  • Posts: 535
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2016, 08:09:28 am »
:hellosign: Many thanks for all the fascinating planning, not quite at this stage but maybe one day. As a aside is that the Tamar Bridge?
regards Derek.

It's actually the Humber Bridge. :beers:
With kind regards
Laurence

Online Chris Morris

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 537
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Ridgacre Branch & Little Aller Junction
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2016, 08:48:30 am »
Going back to code 55 and code 80 my observations are as follows.
Maybe it's because I'm in my 60s but getting joiners onto code 55 track is a big pain. It is of course something you only do while building the layout. Code 80 is much easier to join.
Code 55 looks better.
You only get dead frog points in code 80. Live frogs are much better for slow running but wiring some track formations with live frog points can be technically challenging.
I've really not found any difference at all in the running. I don't have much old stock or any minitrix or Lima. The old Poole Farish coaches run fine on code 55.
The two codes can be joined together.

Offline Chris in Prague

  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 24400
  • Posts: 8636
  • Country: cz
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2016, 09:24:10 am »
Although of a similar age, I have to admit that I have not had any problems fitting normal rail joiners to Code 55 track. (Insulated ones are a bit more difficult). However, being short-sighted, I have excellent close-up vision (without glasses).

Code 55 track certainly looks much better and live frog points are, indeed, much better for slow running. The extra wiring is not such a big problem. There is plenty of online info. and friendly advice from NGF members. Having someone skilled with a suitable soldering iron who has practised on scrap track (because of the ease of melting plastic sleepers) is a big help though.

Online Innovationgame

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 26531
  • Posts: 535
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2016, 12:28:13 pm »
I originally decided on Code 80 because that’s what I used the last time I built an N gauge layout some 30 years ago (I don’t think Code 55 was about then).  I note that Peco Code 80 Electrofrog is available, specifically SL-E395Eand SL-E396, so live frog running, which is what I plan, should be no problem with either Code rail.  I have no objection to using Code 55 in principle, although the difficulty of fitting rail joiners might be an issue.  I would want to fit insulated rail joiners to the frogs so that I can switch polarity without any risk of a short circuit.  If it’s possible to electrically isolate the frogs from the connecting rail reliably and maintain smooth running without an insulated joiner that would solve that problem.  Also, I am thinking of using joiners between baseboards so that the baseboards could be separated, for instance, to transport the layout to another location.  Again, if reliable alignment for smooth running can be achieved without joiners then Code 55 would seem to be the answer. :help:

I notice that Peco Code 55 points all have a detached sleeper at each exit from the points.  Is there a particular purpose for this and can it present problems when laying track? ???

My short sight has deteriorated to the point that I now need 3.0 dioptre reading glasses, but I hope I will be able to see clearly while wearing them.  :doh:
With kind regards
Laurence

Offline Chris in Prague

  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 24400
  • Posts: 8636
  • Country: cz
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #36 on: August 27, 2016, 01:04:17 pm »
Good afternoon, Lawrence. The Peco Code 55 points all have a detached sleeper at each exit from the points to be placed under the rail joiners once the track is laid as, in order to fit the rail joiners, there can be no moulded sleepers, unlike with Code 80.

Offline newportnobby

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+52)
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • N Gauge Society Number: 21962
  • Posts: 24261
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #37 on: August 27, 2016, 01:13:44 pm »
I prefer code 55 as it looks better and is easier to work with. The points especially are more useful to me as the smallest point in code 80 is a 'medium' whereas the smallest point in code 55 is a 'small' (I hope that makes sense) and, space being at a premium for me, anything that allows me longer running lines is a Good Thing.
Like Chris I have found no difference in fitting fishplates to either code although the insulated rail joiners (IRJs) can be a pain ::)
I have found no issues with joining boards as I lay a length of flexitrack across the 2 boards and then cut the track with Xuron cutters which, to my mind, give a much smaller cut than using a razor saw.
Rather than fit fishplates on the join I prefer to have a wired connection, even if just using a piece of pluggable choc block. My boards are connected with bullet dowels and toggle catches sourced here (excellent service).......
http://www.stationroadbaseboards.co.uk/menu_fittings.htm

Hope this helps a little

Offline Greybeema

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 22399
  • Posts: 990
  • Country: england
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #38 on: August 28, 2016, 08:37:22 am »
Hi Lawrence,
Your assumption re DCC is correct. When you set up your loco you can set upper, lower and mid speed.  If mid speed is set in the middle the. The 28 or 126 steps will be evenly distributed. 

So for example on my layout all trains are set for a max speed of a scale 60mph.  So step 126 = 60 therefore step 63= 30 mph etc..  As you correctly say once you have set up acceleration and deceleration it's just a matter of cranking up to speed and watching it accelerate.

There is a little catch I will point out though.  On my layout there is not enough space between the storage siding and the front of the layout to complete full acceleration so a train starting from rest in the storage siding is still accellerating through the front of the layout or put another way - you are applying the breaks to stop it before it reaches top speed. 

Personally I have no problem with this but some might..
:Class414:
Worlds Greatest Suburban Electric - Southern
(Sparky Arcy 3rd Rail Electrickery Traction)

My Layout on NGauge Forum:- http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=12592.msg154278#msg154278

Online Innovationgame

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 26531
  • Posts: 535
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #39 on: August 28, 2016, 08:56:48 am »
There is a little catch I will point out though.  On my layout there is not enough space between the storage siding and the front of the layout to complete full acceleration so a train starting from rest in the storage siding is still accellerating through the front of the layout or put another way - you are applying the breaks to stop it before it reaches top speed. 

Thanks for the comments.  I have planned the time to accelerate and decelerate as 20s which means that for the intermediate and express passenger trains the distance required to accelerate and decelerate is about 1.8m (about 300 yards in scale distance).  Fortunately, I have been able to plan sufficient space for the trains to reach almost full speed before coming into view and for the back of the train to be almost out of view before deceleration begins.  As Far as the intermediate passengers are concerned, they can be at full speed for the whole of the straight part of the track prior to the curve before the station, still leaving room for 60 cm of coasting at 10mph along the platforms.  The slower trains require less distance, so there's no problem at all.
With kind regards
Laurence

Offline newportnobby

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+52)
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • N Gauge Society Number: 21962
  • Posts: 24261
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #40 on: August 28, 2016, 09:55:36 am »
And there was me thinking digital was the future. With DC you just do all that with a turny knob thing! :P ;)

Offline NeMo

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23720
  • Posts: 1997
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #41 on: August 28, 2016, 10:33:20 am »
And there was me thinking digital was the future. With DC you just do all that with a turny knob thing! :P ;)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: DCC is a stopgap technology. Like diesels in between steam and electric locomotives!

The weak point in all layouts is the contact between the rail and the loco. Break contact with either one of those two rails and the loco stops. The ideal scenario is to have power on board the loco, just as with any radio controlled car or aircraft, and use a wireless system to control the loco. Then the rail can get as dirty as you want without affecting performance.

Yes, I know some DCC locos have capacitors that can hold a bit of electrical charge. But that's not really the same thing at all!

Cheers, NeMo

Online Snowwolflair

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 25174
  • 2mm Association Number: 4194
  • Posts: 1283
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #42 on: August 28, 2016, 10:51:26 am »
And there was me thinking digital was the future. With DC you just do all that with a turny knob thing! :P ;)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: DCC is a stopgap technology. Like diesels in between steam and electric locomotives!

The weak point in all layouts is the contact between the rail and the loco. Break contact with either one of those two rails and the loco stops. The ideal scenario is to have power on board the loco, just as with any radio controlled car or aircraft, and use a wireless system to control the loco. Then the rail can get as dirty as you want without affecting performance.

Yes, I know some DCC locos have capacitors that can hold a bit of electrical charge. But that's not really the same thing at all!

Cheers, NeMo

That's a superficial view.  DCC is a signalling system and just happens to be track powered.  DCC chips today can be powered from an on board battery, and DCC signals can be sent and received by radio, its available but incredibly expensive and hence not popular.

The problem is also knowing in advance which loco you want to run and have it charged.  For a big collection or at a show the battery management becomes a nightmare.

On gauge 1 radio and batteries is fine but not N - even if you could squeeze the parts into an N loco body.

Offline NeMo

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23720
  • Posts: 1997
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #43 on: August 28, 2016, 10:59:12 am »
Indeed @Snowwolflair, and I don't disagree that radio control, on-board powered N-gauge is impractical.

But my view isn't "superficial" -- which implies I haven't thought about this and my view can be dismissed by anyone with any knowledge.

Obviously the technology isn't there yet. But if you were given the choice between a loco that had its power onboard and one that didn't, but in all other regards the two were equally available for use at a moment's notice, which would you go for?

Speaking personally, I'd be delighted to never have to clean my tracks again, worry about wiring points properly, or any of those other things we have to do because of the way current is delivered to our locos.

I bought my little girl a Maerklin 'MyWorld' train set that has infrared control of an HO-scale train that contains disposable batteries. Lights and sounds are controlled by the same handset that controls speed and direction. Yes, it's basic, but it works AMAZINGLY well, and makes DCC look temperamental and unreliable, even if DCC is (obviously) able to provide many more options.

Cheers, NeMo

Offline newportnobby

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+52)
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • N Gauge Society Number: 21962
  • Posts: 24261
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: The Train Shed Project
« Reply #44 on: August 28, 2016, 11:02:24 am »
Come on, guys, I was only being flippant. I know that DCC, like garlic bread, is the future.

Sorry, Laurence, for hijacking your excellent thread :-[

 

Please Support Us!
April Goal: £55.00
Due Date: Apr 30
Total Receipts: £65.00
Above Goal: £10.00
Site Currency: GBP
118% 
April Donations


Advertise Here