Monks Ferry: a layout for the Grandchildren.

[jonte]

Taking a break from the electrickery quagmire, thought I’d check out how a prospective additional crossover might pan out. Here drawn in luminous green felt tip on more lining paper and placed over the plan :



Hmm …’A good twenty inches’ as the actress said, it would be a bonus to operation, but whittle down train lengths considerably.

Ordinarily, the consequence wouldn’t be as drastic at a good six inches or so shorter, but of course, the Setrack gaps to facilitate smooth operation of trains on tight curves, rather stretches the construct out a tad. The only good point is that the generous platform lengths available as the plan stands - which in my book are a bit too dominating of the layout as a whole - would be brought to book, and as a bonus not make the station roof appear as ‘short’.

Now, as mentioned before, expected train lengths of only a loco and two carriages would still be on the table, although this would only be for the case for the two longer platforms ( the tape measure reads an available length of track of 3’ max), but unfortunately, the suburban service bays would be a little ‘too’ foreshortened. I could still operate a 2 car Bil, or so I reckon, but my venerable M7 push pull service might not be too enamoured with the arrangement.

Might have to leave be.

Who said this was fun

jonte

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

The reverse loop module would sit here on the inner outbound rail. As an aside I'd be inclined to move the isolators on the outer inbound rail further back (ringed) to provide a train length headshunt for the crossing without the 'perceived' fear of crossing the isolators.

The actual wiring of the reverse loop module between the DCC command station and track will depend on the DCC system and the reverse loop module chosen.



Why not use two double slips to save space? apart from the £££s.... and geometry.

 

[jonte]

The reverse loop module would sit here on the inner outbound rail. As an aside I'd be inclined to move the isolators on the outer inbound rail further back (ringed) to provide a train length headshunt for the crossing without the 'perceived' fear of crossing the isolators.

The actual wiring of the reverse loop module between the DCC command station and track will depend on the DCC system and the reverse loop module chosen.

View attachment 202220

Why not use two double slips to save space? apart from the £££s.... and geometry.

View attachment 202221

Dave

That makes total sense

I know you’re a busy guy so I really appreciate the time taken to help me out. Many thanks.

I’m not quite sure I follow you about the siting of the two double slips or their arrangement - do you mean leave the curved crossover In place (both curved points), or just one and replace the nearer ringed one ?

Sorry to be so obtuse. I’ll try and draw it out on some scrap to try and fathom it.

Thanks again, Dave

Jon

 

[Lyndhurstman]

Hi @jonte

MN... Merchant Navy...
I think Dave's suggestion is to replace the 4 points you have in the 'additional' crossover configuration (the two red ovals) with slips. Replacing the two that have their heel ends together would save some space but - as Dave says - have the adverse effect on bank balance


Cheers

Jan

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

The other possibility is to move the curve points (red) back round the curve a bit and slot in two straight points (cream). The green is the original station stuff. It does mean one platform is shortened by a point length so to speak.

What ever you do there will be some cutting and jiggery pokey to get the setrack to fit. This is drawn on Anyrail using Peco setrack.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

I’m not quite sure I follow you about the siting of the two double slips or their arrangement - do you mean leave the curved crossover In place (both curved points), or just one and replace the nearer ringed one ?

Sorry to be so obtuse. I’ll try and draw it out on some scrap to try and fathom it.

Thanks again, Dave

After drawing the above using simple points I wouldn't bother with double slips on the grounds of expense, non-matching geometry and they are awkward to wire up (or at least used to be, plus I'm so used to RocoLine ballasted track where the frog polarity switching is all built in - even in the double slips!)

 

[jonte]

Hi @jonte

MN... Merchant Navy...
I think Dave's suggestion is to replace the 4 points you have in the 'additional' crossover configuration (the two red ovals) with slips. Replacing the two that have their heel ends together would save some space but - as Dave says - have the adverse effect on bank balance


Cheers

Jan

Hi Jan

Ah, I see

Many thanks on both counts

Jon

 

[jonte]

After drawing the above using simple points I wouldn't bother with double slips on the grounds of expense, non-matching geometry and they are awkward to wire up (or at least used to be, plus I'm so used to RocoLine ballasted track where the frog polarity switching is all built in - even in the double slips!)

I’m indebted to you once again, Dave, and am astounded by your many skills

Many thanks,

Jon

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

I know you’re a busy guy so I really appreciate the time taken to help me out. Many thanks.

No problem Jonte

I'll be even busier now the division I work for in an International company has just been taken over by one of the current tenants of the Port of Liverpool Building. I think I'll be spending more time travelling twixt Leeds and Liverpool!

 

[jonte]

No problem Jonte

I'll be even busier now the division I work for in an International company has just been taken over by one of the current tenants of the Port of Liverpool Building. I think I'll be spending more time travelling twixt Leeds and Liverpool!

Excellent news!

We’ll be pleased to have you

Jon

 

[jonte]

@Yorkshire Dave :



Thanks again, Dave.

Jon

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

Looks okay from here ....

All is lost is a point length on the platform but at least you can 'access all areas'. Better designing it in now rather than dig everything up later.

 

[jonte]

Looks okay from here ....

All is lost is a point length on the platform but at least you can 'access all areas'. Better designing it in now rather than dig everything up later.

Absolutely, Dave

As mentioned, the platform lengths were already generous enough in length that the odd foot or less exchanged won’t make a great deal of difference overall, with the benefit of ‘access all areas’

Jon

 

[jonte]

I’ve been doodling and pontificating once again, tinged with the usual dose of indecisiveness.

You see, this was intended as a DCC controlled layout from the start, as per my previous creations, Monks and unnamed BLT.

However, to continue the habit in this case would involve either buying several chips for DCC ‘ready’ locos of the fleet, and/or hardwiring several of the un-DCC ready rest; not a big deal in modelling terms, but ‘ups’ the cost considerably. Factor in a host of non-kettle type trains to purchase that the children will recognise, and a decent AR and, well,……..

So I got to thinking about good ol’ DC running with one of the more recent ‘better’ controllers available and priced ‘not’ at a Kings’ ransom to boot.

The problem - isn’t it always the case - with this scenario is simple: how d’ya get round the rigmarole of getting round a loop; a reverse loop an’ all? Okay, it’s not really a problem, but having to say change a point; stop a loco in its tracks; throw a DPDT switch; change another point; start loco; throw switch on controller governing direction………row locks, I say! Okay, we can leave out the point changing in my case, but thought I’d throw it in for dramatic effect

But I did a bit of digging, especially on Mr. Lambert’s page, and decided to get to the bottom of these darned loops once and for all.

First off, I’ve discovered there are essentially two types of reversing loop, of which, mine is of the second:

Single (tear drop shaped) loop, at top of badly drawn diagram below;

Double (‘U’) shaped loop shown at the bottom of my attached scribble (I reckon this is what David was referring to yesterday with his mention of two loops ).



Incidentally, in relation to the lower diagram (my set-up), this is usually shown with two controllers attached: controller 1 at the entry to the loop; controller 2 at the exit, as this is usually the scenario of say an UP line changing to a DOWN line exiting the loop. Here, I’ve shown both operated by just one controller.

So, once I’d familiarised myself with the type of loop and how it works in relation to DCC, I interrogated the ‘net to find a simple ‘use and fit’ method for DC that’s as near to simple as an AR is for DCC. Here, Mr. Lambert not only endorsed what others had suggested,but went the extra mile and drew it out; to you sir, I’m extremely grateful.

And the solution: a thingy called a Bridge Rectifier, represented by the green diamond shape on each of the above diagrams.

In practice, all that’s involved, is that once the train has fully entered the insulated area of the loop, the direction knob/switch is reversed while the train is still moving, such that when it leaves the loop, it’s heading in the right direction. As a bonus, these things are only pennies to purchase and a doddle to wire up. The only downside is that the train can only ever traverse the loop in a single direction, but as I’ve designated up and down lines on my set-up, this is not an issue.

Leaving loops alone for a second, the age old problem of providing umpteen isolation points, especially around the station site, raises it weary head (say isolation points at the end of platforms for instance), but even on my previous DCC operated layouts I’ve employed these as belt n braces (as one who’s easily distracted, once realisation sets in that your expensive steed is racing towards the buffers, panic ensues and instead of switching the knob to turn down the power……..). So I could live with that.

Finally, I’ve always been fascinated by the idea of Cab Control, and I’d still like to see if I could do it, donned in pleated tweed trousers, of course, replete with tank top, shirt and tie.

That said, I’ll probably just fork out on an AR and warm up the iron in preparation for a production line of hard wiring.

But then again, where’s my pipe and pocket watch?

jonte

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

To DCC, or not to DCC, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of dual model railway control,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles......

(with apologies to Will S )

I like the idea on being able to operate both DCC and 12v DC Analogue on the same layout and can only speak from personal experience. Personally I'd either stick with DCC if you've started investing in it.

My conversion to DCC operation was about 20+ years ago and I haven't looked back since. Every layout I now design and build is purely for DCC operation which eliminates complex wiring and banks of section switches so it doesn't resemble a national grid distribution panel. In addition I have faith in my DCC system (Lenz) and operators so I don't even have isolating sections - insulating rail joiners are only used on point frogs where necessary . However, I do maintain a 12v DC Analogue controller for testing and running in locos to ensure all is OK before installing DCC decoders.

The major headache for me with a dual DCC and 12v DC Analoge control is the wiring has to suit the latter - complete with it's national grid distribution board - and a master switch will be required to switch between the DCC and 12v DC Analoge feeds. This starts to create an issue with the reverse loop........

The reverse loop bridge rectifier cannot be used with DCC control therefore if you switched from 12v DC Analogue to DCC operation with a dual control layout you would have to completely switch out and isolate the bridge rectifier and switch in the DCC reverse loop module.

However, all is not lost as all of the DCC to 12v DC Analogue control switching can easily be achieved with a 3 position multi wafer (four wafers) rotary switch** [DCC - OFF - 12v DC Analogue]. The DCC wafers control the DCC track feed and reverse loop module; OFF - a neutral position with everything off so the DCC and 12v DC Analogue contacts to not inadvertantly meet and the 12v DC Analogue wafers control the 12v DC Analogue track feed and bridge rectifier.

And the end of the day the above is only my experience and thoughts. It's horses for courses and just settle on a control system you're comfortable with .

Now just waiting for the future developments of your layout.


**I built up (and wired) the rotary switch from wafers for my portable DCC test and program board (ESU decoder tester, ESU and SPROG 3 decoder programmmers and Roco command station) enabling me to switch the inputs and outputs between them so only one item is on at any one time.

 

[jonte]

Masterful stuff once again, Dave (@Yorkshire Dave )

I’m grateful for your thoughts on this fundamental issue.

Despite my tongue in cheek approach, I really do take it seriously and need to decide one way or t’other, so thanks for sharing your experience with me

In all honesty, I’ve been leaning on the direction of DCC if for no other reason, as you quite rightly stated, I’ve already invested in it, despite it being a bog standard Bachmann EZ Command.

cheers again,

Jon

 

[Roger Pound]

Finally, I’ve always been fascinated by the idea of Cab Control, and I’d still like to see if I could do it, donned in pleated tweed trousers, of course, replete with tank top, shirt and tie.

That said, I’ll probably just fork out on an AR and warm up the iron in preparation for a production line of hard wiring.

But then again, where’s my pipe and pocket watch?

jonte

Jon,

Joggers and a soft collared shirt are fine for the job. Forget the pipe - it just gets in the way and the pocket watch is no good unless you are timing the job !

You know I am very old school and a committed analogue-ist and all this dcc thingy is over my head, but I do know there have been many types of gizmo available that deal with reverse curves without stopping to throw a switch for a long time - one of which you have discovered, I see. Just consider the cost of chips and hard wiring your locomotive stock - it ain't cheap ! Another point is that the trainee drivers you will have will delight in having switches to throw and points to change......!

I would just say remember the KISS strategy and avoid this situation - - which makes a migraine seem like a walk in the park.

Roger

 

[jonte]

Hi Roger (@Roger Pound )

Like Dave’s post before, your words are music to my ears, especially the KISS (the final ‘S’ being an apt description of me )

I really would just like to drop the trains on the track and ‘off we go’. And it’s not just the children who like flicking switches; the more the merrier, Roger Perhaps I’ve inadvertently answered my own question, Roger

Why am I so bl**dy indecisive……..

Looks like nothing’s off the table, hey

Now where’s my joggers.

Jon

 

[David Waite]

Hi Jonte
Sorry for being so late to reply our Internet had failed on Friday and Saturday it became so slow nothing worked correctly so I gave up it was all good yesterday but we had to go out for the day, anyhow it looks like Dave has sorted it for you and came up with the same solution as what I was going to suggest regarding the position of the Loop Module. Me being me I did play around with your track diagram to see what I could come up with but keeping your track work pretty much as is and altered yours slightly to make it a single main line with reversing loop same as you have and added a branch station but kept the double track look from the station even though its a single main line but has the branch running parallel with it to a terminus branch station .
David.

 

[jonte]

Hi Jonte
Sorry for being so late to reply our Internet had failed on Friday and Saturday it became so slow nothing worked correctly so I gave up it was all good yesterday but we had to go out for the day, anyhow it looks like Dave has sorted it for you and came up with the same solution as what I was going to suggest regarding the position of the Loop Module. Me being me I did play around with your track diagram to see what I could come up with but keeping your track work pretty much as is and altered yours slightly to make it a single main line with reversing loop same as you have and added a branch station but kept the double track look from the station even though its a single main line but has the branch running parallel with it to a terminus branch station .
David.

‘Morning, David

Most of kind of you to get in touch again, David.

I realised there were issues your end, so to speak, as I know you’re a regular visitor, for which I’m extremely grateful, so no worries there, David. Thanks anyway for taking the trouble to explain, and pleased that the fibre optics are doing their job once again.

Glad to learn that you’re in agreement with Dave, not that I doubted his greater knowledge than mine for a moment, but it’s reassuring to know we’re all on the same page

Your interpretation of the plan sounds interesting btw. The only addition I was going to make - and something I was considering last night - was a small (runround?) loop at the far end, perhaps for storing a loco or two-car set, just to delay their immediate return to the station, if that makes sense?



It would just require the use of two more curved points so that it leaves and rejoins the mainline on a curve, although it would add about another six inches or so to the design. The extension in itself wouldn’t prove too much of a problem, being an open-frame type design to accommodate the top tier station as this is, but would have added to the expense of the build in as much as having to buy extra wood for the baseboard top which comes in handy sheets of 8’x4’, had it been a classic flat boarded train set. The only issue in this scenario, is how would it affect the wiring of the reverse loop?

Anyway, David, many thanks for you valued interest one again.

Jon