Dungrange

Is this to fit between the wagons in each five wagons set to replace the stupid internal coupling that Dapol supply? If so, I'll have some.

I don't agree with the above statement, but I do agree with the one below. A 'proper' standard should define a series of target dimensions and a set of tolerances or acceptable variance on these target dimensions. It really doesn't matter whether the target dimension is a maximum, minimum or intermediate value. However, anyone claiming to work to a particular standard should be targeting the target (or recommended) dimensions and I would argue that anyone who consciously targets a dimension to be anything other than the stated target dimension is not actually working to that standard. Therefore, if the NMRA HO recommended flange-way gap is 1.22 mm, then anyone consciously targeting a different figure (say 1.00 mm) is not working to the NMRA HO standard. A 1.00 mm flange-way gap may lie within the acceptable tolerance levels of the NMRA HO standard, but that is not the same thing. If a different target value is being pursued, then the modified standard should, I believe, have a different name. What I would expect is that if it were possible to manufacture a turnout and wheel set exactly to the recommended figures (ie with a tolerance of +/- 0.00 mm) then all of the dimensions should work together perfectly and it seems that the NMRA HO 'standard' does not meet this basic requirement and as such I'd consider it to be a 'flawed' standard and one that is in need of modification. It would therefore be more accurate if the title of this thread where changed to 'fixing the flawed NMRA HO track standards for use with 00'. For example, ignoring the tolerances (which are required simply because it is impossible to consistently manufacture items to an exact dimension) the following should always hold. Track Gauge (16.54 mm) = Flange-way Gap (1.22 mm) + Check Rail Gap (15.42 mm) = 16.64 mm = FAIL (Error = 0.10 mm) Track Gauge (16.54 mm) = Flange-way Gap (1.22 mm) + Span (14.15 mm) + Flange-way Gap (1.22 mm) = 16.59 mm = FAIL (Error = 0.05 mm) As you've said previously, the numbers don't lie: the NMRA HO standards are flawed. This therefore means that all manufacturers who are purportedly following the NMRA HO standard are not necessarily all following exactly the same standard because the NMRA HO standard is clearly flawed. Should a manufacturer target getting the track gauge and flange-way gap right and accept lower values for the check rail gap and span, or should they target the track gauge and span and get narrower flange-ways, or another of combination of dimensions? It is clearly impossible to meet all of the NMRA recommended values. Ultimately, the errors and inconsistencies in the NMRA HO standard are reasonably small, and therefore the values that must deviate from the recommended values (depending on the priorities of an individual or manufacturer) will generally still lie within the quoted tolerances, but clearly the NMRA HO standards need to change if we are to achieve the dream of 100% reliability and 100% interchangeability. I agree with this and the NMRA HO standard clearly doesn't work perfectly. To get it to work, one or more of the NMRA recommended values has to be ignored. There is also a difference between changing a critical distance and changing a tolerance. If a standard is properly written, then I should be able to tighten all tolerances and still have 100% compatibility. However, the same doesn't hold if I change the critical dimensions. The problem is that I'm interested in how Peco have interpreted the what seems to be a flawed NMRA standard for their North American HO scale code 83 track range. I'm aware of 4-SF and have a set of 00-SF track gauges from C&L, which I intend to use to hand build turnouts on the scenic part of my layout. However, I was hoping to use a number of Peco's North American Code 83 points in the fiddle yard and want to know if these are compatible. From 4-sf.uk the Check Rail gap is specified as a MINIMUM of 15.2 mm and with the NMRA HO standard specifying a range of 15.37 mm to 15.6 mm, this would seem to be okay. The Span is specified as a MAXIMUM of 14.25 mm and with the NMRA HO standard specifying a range of 14.10 mm to 14.20 mm, this would also seem to be okay. Obviously the flange-way gap is greater under the NMRA HO standard, but then so to is the track gauge, so I don't see that as an issue.

I may not be understanding the table above, but it seems to imply that the HO standard permits a flange-way gap of between 0.89 mm and 1.27 mm with a recommended figure of 1.22 mm. The problem is that if you were to construct a turnout of 16.50 mm gauge with 0.89 mm flange-way gaps, then you'd need a back to back dimension greater than 14.72 mm to allow a wheel set to pass through, so since this is greater than the maximum back to back figure in the above table, that would imply that these tolerances don't all work together properly. Looking at it another way, if you were to set the track gauge to the minimum figure of 16.48 mm and the back to back at the maximum figure of 14.61 mm then the flange-way gap would have to be at least 0.94 mm to produce a working turnout, not the 0.89 mm quoted above. This is the minimum that could be achieved, but only if the gauge is at the minimum end of the tolerance range and the back to back dimension at the maximum end of the range. Ideally you would not design operation based on values at the extreme end of the tolerance spectrum. However, even the recommended figures don't seem to align. Surely the recommended value for the flange-way gap plus the recommended value for the check gauge should be equal to the recommended track gauge? 1.22 mm + 15.42 mm = 16.64 mm, which is not the 16.54 mm quoted. To me these figures seem to be inconsistent or incorrect. Furthermore, most UK ready to run stock does not seem to come with a recommended back to back dimension of 14.55 mm - I think a distance of nominally 14.4 mm (not sure what tolerance) seems to be the norm, which while within the above range, seems to be very close to the lower bound figure.

The ones that I purchased are allegedly 1:75, which is an architectural scale. I avoided the ones labelled as H0, as these are likely to be nominally 1:87.

I wouldn't say they look particularly Chinese, but the moulding isn't that detailed, which I suppose is the reason they seem fairly nondescript. The pack I have will largely be fitted in buildings along with lights, so all I really need is a human shape to convey the room being occupied when the lights are on. Modelu figures are too expensive for that purpose. If you get painted ones, the painting is usually very poor and can't really be described as anything other than partially painted. Cast them in yellow plastic and you have Chinese people, the ones that are a more 'flesh' coloured plastic are perhaps meant to be European, but the ones I got often only had one colour of paint on each figure - ie a woman's skirt was painted bright blue, but the rest of the figure was just yellow plastic. If you're lucky, there will be a tiny dab of paint on the top of the head to represent hair, but it's just as likely to have run across the face. Therefore be prepared to repaint them yourself.

I'm not knowledgeable on the subject of banana vans, but model railway manufacturers will produce what they think will sell, whether it is realistic or not. Many of those buying wagons, especially children, do not care about prototypical accuracy and something that provides a splash of colour among what is otherwise generally grey and bauxite coloured wagons is likely to appeal to a sizeable proportion of the toy train market. That said, even if no banana van was ever actually painted yellow, it is possible that there is a drawing somewhere that was produced for promotional purposes that showed a yellow van (a liberty taken by the artist for advertising purposes). Hornby have announced that they are producing the LNER W1 'Hush hush' in LNER Green - a livery that the real locomotive never carried. Why? Well, I believe that a cigarette card was produced showing an LNER Green Hush Hush, so that's a good enough reason and it may be a more appealing colour to those who are simply buying a novelty.

Okay, let's try a diagram. You will need four pairs of feeds, which is probably what you have at the moment. I've shown these with red and black triangles. The important point is that they are located at the 'toe' end of your turnouts or points. You'll also need insulated rail joiners in both rails at the crossovers. I have shown these using blue bars across the track that needs to be isolated. That is a total of eight plastic joiners to separate your four track sections. Now if you buy four Double Pole Double Throw (DPDT) switches (these can be toggle switches or slide switches depending on your preference), you will find that they have six terminals on the bottom. Run two wires between Feed 1 and the centre pair of terminals on DPDT 1. Run two wires between Feed 2 and the centre pair of terminals on DPDT 2. Run two wires between Feed 3 and the centre pair of terminals on DPDT 3 and finally two wires between Feed 4 and DPDT 4. Then wire the left pair of terminals on all four DPDT switches to the output from Controller B and wire the right pair of terminals on all four DPDT switches to the output from Controller A. To operate your central sidings, you then use switch DPDT 1. If it is to the left, then you use Controller B to drive and if it is to the right then you use Controller A to drive. DTDT 2 will control which controller to use for your inner circuit, DPDT 3 will control which controller is connected to your middle circuit and DPDT 4 will control which controller is connected to your outer circuit. What this means is that you can use either controller to drive anywhere on the layout just by selecting which controller controls each section. Is that any clearer?

I agree that the internal coupling system is a poor design. I think I've got three of these sets, but nowhere to run them until I get my layout built. However, I wasn't impressed with the coupling when running them on a club layout: there was a tendency for wagons to come apart under tension. I'll need to research what others have done once my layout is operational.

Very, nice, but the join in the barrel on the tender is quite obvious. Does the top push down a bit further?

I'm assuming that you are looking for the red and green lines to be straighter. If that is the case then I think you're looking for lower values for the first 40% of the CV table before gradually returning to your higher end values. I note that these currently rise in steps of three, so I'm going to suggest you go for steps of two up to the 40% mark and then jump up in threes and then fours. Current value New Value 10 10 12 12 15 14 18 16 21 18 24 20 27 22 29 24 32 26 35 28 38 30 41 33 44 36 47 39 49 43 52 47 55 51 58 55 61 59 64 63 67 67 75 75 80 80 85 85 Thereafter just leave your values unchanged.

Welcome to the forum. The simplest way to drive a train from your outer circuits to your inner circuits is simply to set both controllers to the same speed setting and drive the train through the crossover. The downside of this is that you need to ensure that the speed and direction is set correctly on both controllers, otherwise the train will speed up, slow down or jump back and forward at the crossover. The step up from this is to use what is known as 'cab control'. With cab control you wire each circuit through a Double Throw switch. The common goes to the track with the left and right positions going to your two controllers. This means that if the switch is set to the left, then your left controller is connected to the track circuit and if it's set to the right, then your right controller is connected to the track. For the layout above you would have four switches, one for each coloured circuit and you could use either controller on each section. If you are using what is known as 'common return' wiring then you only need Single Pole switches, but otherwise you'll need Double Pole switches. You'll see these sold as, for example, DPDT meaning Double Pole Double Throw. Double Pole means that you are switching both wires and Double Throw means that there is two positions (which is what you need for two controllers). With regards insulated rail joiners, the number of these that you require depends on whether you are using live frog or dead frog points (Electrofrog and Insulfrog in Peco speak). Assuming you are using Insulfrog points, then you'll only need insulated rail joiners in the centre of each of your crossovers to create your four separate track circuits. However, if you are using Electrofrog points, then you'll need to completely isolate your frogs (more correctly called common crossings). With regards track feeds, you should always feed points from the 'toe' end of the point, which is the one where the point blades are. The other end with the two divergent tracks is normally referred to as the 'heel'. Brian Lambert's website is usually highlighted as a good resource for beginners - which might help with your understanding - https://www.brian-lambert.co.uk/Electrical_Page_1.html

Nah. That's just the use of N gauge figures that makes it look that way.

I don't think there is a relay built into the NCE BD20, but it has an output that can switch a relay. The DCC Concepts website has a link to the NCE product manual - https://www.dccconcepts.com/manual/nce-owners-manual-bd20-block-detector/ , which you might want to have a quick read through before phoning Coastal DCC (or your chosen supplier - Coastal DCC was just the first link I got when typing into Google). Basically, you pass your track feed through one of these devices and when something is sitting in the section drawing current, the BD20 detects that current draw (as long as it is more than a few milliamps) and passes out a low voltage signal that can either be used to light an LED on an indicator panel or act as a switch to change a point motor or activate a relay.

Okay, assuming your signals are designed to operate at DCC track voltage (ie +15V or whatever your system puts out), then I can see how you could connect the lead from one LED to one rail, the lead from the other LED to the other rail, and the common anode or common cathode to the frog. In theory only one of these two LEDS will have a potential difference across it and therefore only one will be lit. However, LEDs are designed to work at about 3 volts, so you'll need appropriate resistors in your circuit. Adding in the need for a detector is where things start to become more complicated (and expensive). You can buy either location occupancy detectors such as Heathcote's IRDOT (InfraRed Detection of Trains) - http://www.heathcote-electronics.co.uk/heathcote_product_index.html or you can buy current sensing devices such as the BD20 from NCE - https://www.coastaldcc.co.uk/products/nce/bd20-block-detector. If you're looking to detect a train anywhere in a track section, then I think it's a current sensing device that you're looking for. The NCE BD20 is not the cheapest option if you need lots of train detection, but if you're only looking for one section, then I think it is the cheapest option. If the layout is more complicated than you've shown, then look at Digikejs - https://www.digikeijs.com/en/digital-model-railway-accessories/model-railway-feedback-modules.html (prices vary depending on whether you need LocoNet or other feedback protocols) - but the per output price is less than the NCE BD20. Another alternative would be the Digitrax BDL168 - https://www.coastaldcc.co.uk/products/digitrax/feedback/bdl168-loconet-occupancy-detector, but I don't see what benefits the BDL168 offers to justify the higher price compared to the range of Digikejs products. Once you've decided on the block occupancy detectors that you plan to use, it should be easier to determine what you require for the rest of the circuitry. In fact, the instructions that come with your chosen occupancy detector probably has a wiring diagram for what you are trying to achieve.

That logic looks fine for a two aspect signal, which only has one proceed aspect: green. If the block ahead is occupied or the points are set against the train, then the signal will display a red aspect. Therefore the only condition on which a green aspect can be displayed is if the block occupancy shows unoccupied and the points are set correctly. What are you planning to use for your block occupancy detection? You've also shown a wire to the common crossing on a turnout, but are you planning for this to actually be connected to the wiring of the frog, or to a micro switch or switch contacts on a point motor?

I'd have thought that 12 mm wheels would have been more prototypical, but if they don't make for a free running model, then you probably need to go for smaller diameter wheels, unless you can get 12 mm wheels with a finer flange. I found this thread on building the Genesis Kits version and it does refer to 10.5 mm diameter wheels both in the photograph of the instructions and what the builder said he used.

I think you're right and I suspect that the reason may lie in how and why people get involved with the hobby. For some people it seems to start, often at a young age, with an interest in the real railway, with time being spent at the local station or sneaking into the local engine shed. For some, that even leads into working in the rail industry. For those for whom an interest in the prototype comes first, I think the move into model railways, particularly as an adult, is often driven by a desire to recreate the atmosphere of a particular place at a particular point in time, whether that is reminiscent of the time they spent at the line-side as a lad, or at some other time during their working life, whether that was on the railway or not. I think there is quite a few people like that on here. However, a great many of us came to this hobby, including myself, courtesy of a train set under the Christmas Tree from Santa Claus. To a child unfamiliar with the working practises of the real railway, ignorance is truly bliss. If you don't know very much about the real railway, then you can quite happily run trains from different periods in history and different geographies side by side. It's very much Rule 1 and you can run what you like on whichever track you like. Trains don't need to be driven in a prototypical manner and you don't need to worry about the use of trap points or whether signals convey the correct meaning to the driver. You don't need to worry whether the locomotive and rolling stock have compatible braking systems or the train is marshalled correctly. The focus is simply on having fun playing with model trains. Children are often very good at using their imagination and can easily ignore the fact that the real Flying Scotsman was more than a two coach train and they can pretend that although their two coach train has passed under the same bridge 27 times, it has actually gone under every bridge between London and Edinburgh. Obviously we all grow up, but I can understand why many adults want to try and recreate the fun that they had when they were younger. The principal difference being that they often have more money now than they did as young boy. Whether that leads them to want a scenic model railway or a large train set probably depends on whether their initial train set led to an interest in the real railway or not. In my case, looking through my first Hornby catalogue prompted me to seek to learn more about the different periods in history from the early railways, through grouping to nationalisation and from stream power to diesel and electric traction. Whilst some people have a very loco centred interest, I tend to find details of prototype operation the most interesting, in particular timetabling and signalling, but also the loading and marshalling of freight trains. Unlike those for whom an interest in the prototype came first, I'm much less interested in recreating a particular place at a point in time, but I want a railway that, whilst fictional, can be operated in a prototypical manner and looks like it might plausibly have existed. However, had I not developed an interest in the working practises of the real railway (even although I don't work in the industry), then I can see how the desire simply for the dream train set that I thought about as a kid could remain. The problem is that since we are all different and want different things for different reasons, it can be hard to design someone else's dream model railway. Well done for taking this challenge on.

Further up thread there is a list of typical formations that Accurascale provided, which should provide some guidance. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/british-fuels-up-for-sale-1617057.html indicates that Cawoods was a subsidiary of British Fuels, which was being spun off from British Coal in 1995. I think the re-branding of some containers from around 1996 was in preparation for a further spin off of the Cawoods business as a management buyout.

In that case, an e-mail to Oxford Diecast would be more likely to be read than a post on here. I did e-mail them with a couple of suggestions (wants) a couple of years ago and did get a reply.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/classifieds/ The problem is that I think you need to be a Gold Member to sell through the site. For the rest there is Ebay.

Well there are plenty of other ways of doing it - it depends on how complicated you want things to be and whether you want a commercial product or a do it yourself solution. If you want your DCC Controller (Railmaster / e-link) to be able to change colour light signals, then you need an accessory decoder of some form to interpret the DCC command and change the state of the signal. The Train-tech product looks to be a relatively simple and cheap solution, so what does it not do, that you want to be able to do? The Digikeijs DR4018 would allow you to control more signals - https://www.digikeijs.com/en/dr4018-16-channel-switch-decoder.html or a combination of signals (including three and four aspect signals) and points. However, I think you manually set each signal state because it's effectively just 16 switches. Heathcote (http://www.heathcote-electronics.co.uk/heathcote_product_index.html) do a range of signal controllers for different types of signals, most of which can be linked to their Infra Red Detection Of Trains (IRDOT). The Sig-na-trak SIGM20 Automatic Signal Controller allows you to control more signals and to set up some form of basic interlocking (ie you code the conditions under which signals are forced to red) - https://www.signatrak.co.uk/products/layout-automation-and-accessory-control/sigm20-signal-controller. However, I don't know if your Routemaster / e-link has LocoNet capability. You'd also need to have feedback from your point motors and add block occupancy detection to get the most out of such a set up. There is then the option to run the Java Model Railroad Interface (JMRI) on a computer (laptop or Rasberry Pi) and use that to control all of your signalling needs by computer control. Again, I'm not sure what the capabilities of your Routemaster / e-link are in terms of computer interface. If you'd prefer a do it yourself approach, then I'm sure that the Model Electronic Railway Group - MERG (https://www.merg.org.uk/) offer kit alternatives, which you assemble yourself, but you need to be a member to purchase these and be good at soldering the components to a printed circuit board (PCB). All you are effectively doing is soldering up your own accessory decoders (which is what the Train-Tec product is). Whether a do it yourself option is more cost effective or not depends on the number of accessory decoders that you require.

I'm not sure that I quite understand your problem. Do you have isolated joiners in both rails that form your crossover? Are you feeding both sections from the toe end of the point (ie there is a feed to the top section on the left and a feed to the bottom (platform) section at the right? Does the locomotive go dead as it passes over the insulated rail joiners in the crossover? If that is the case, then I'd suggest that your feed and return wires are the wrong way round on one of your sections and you're causing a short as the locomotive bridges the gap.

I think you're right about the feather referring to the access to the Blindswell opencast. The Signalling Records Society (https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/archivesignals/brscot.php) have the signal layout at Prestonpans as it was in September 1977, which was the date at which the boxes on the line were closed and control transferred to the Edinburgh Signalling Centre. Neither signal EA568 nor EA572 has a feather at that time, but then the site at Blindswell didn't open until 1979. The feather must have been added at that time. The notes for the 1977 re-signalling refer to a ground frame at Cockenzie controlling the signal routes to the sidings, which seems to be subsidiary signals on EA568 and EA572 and a Ground Position Light Signal EA834.

I can't help, but you are not alone. The Edinburgh and Lothians MRC are also looking for new premises at the moment. Although we have not yet been formally asked to vacate our current premises, we understand that our landlord has plans for development. We're therefore sitting with an expired lease, paying rent until our landlord gets the planning permission he's looking for. In the meantime, we're looking around for somewhere else. Our current club room is about half the size you're looking for (~ 800 square feet) and all I can say is that there doesn't seem to be much on the market in the Edinburgh area of the size we're looking for, for less than about £6,000 per annum, which we'd struggle to afford unless we get a few more members (and that's working on the fact that the committee have the authority to double the subscription rate - a motion from last year's AGM). The few places we have found have been let very quickly - sometimes even before someone has been able to take a look. The ones that haven't been let so quickly, is usually because they have something wrong with them: like in need of a new roof. Good luck with the hunt and hope you find somewhere soon. You have a deadline, which we don't yet have.

Effectively a traverser is just like a drawer. The Station Road Baseboards link in your post above is to nothing more than sets of drawer runners. The issue is that the wider you make a drawer, or the longer you make a traverser, the greater the likelihood of the traverser skewing between the two sets of runners. The closer you are able to place the runners, the easier it should be for both of these to move together and I suspect that is why the default lengths on the Grainge and Hodder website are 600 mm, 900 mm and 1,200 mm. A bespoke longer unit won't necessarily solve the problem - it's more likely to make it worse. What Gordon created in the photograph above is effectively two 1.4 metre long traversers joined together end to end - ie two sets of two drawer runners. The problem is of course that since it was designed for eight coach trains these are perhaps still longer than desirable and perhaps it would have been better to have had three three-foot traversers joined end to end (ie using an extra couple of drawer runners). Weight is of course the other issue and drawer runners are sold for different weights of drawer and contents. However 16 locomotives and 128 coaches will weigh quite a lot and is perhaps getting up to the capacity of the drawer runners used. If you were to purchase two of the Grainge and Hodder traversers, then I would assume these should each on their own operate smoothly. The issue is making sure that both of them operate at the same time, which would mean adding something to what is provided in the kit. That could be a timber of metal bar fixed along each edge (as long as it doesn't drop below the height of the frame) or something rigid that fits over the top of the edge pieces (provided it's not too thick or you'll reduce the width of the traverser). I think that is the approach that I would take, but then my layout doesn't need a traverser and my previous plan, which did, isn't being built.