Transition to Summer

My last post was on April 23rd. A lot has happened since then, but virtually nothing on the iNdoor layout. Except for a little work on the N scale electronics, the past 6 weeks has been a transition to outdoor season.

It all started with a snow storm. Every few years in Colorado we get a pile of heavy snow in the late spring. This one wasn't predicted -- in fact, I'd swapped out my snow tires for all-seasons based on a clear weather forecast less than a week before we got 20". Unfortunately, the heavy snows are hard on trees, and we lost 10 this year. So my first task was to clear that up with a chain saw and a few trips to the slash/mulch site. I also became a forest volunteer for our local community, as it seemed a neighborly thing to do plus I get to learn more about the forest we live in.

Since then I've focused on the front yard. The bridge railings are complete, the red clay pathway is installed, and the waterfall is running again -- this time with the pump and skimmer properly installed. We even have fish and pond plants now. I've started work on the rest of the garden, including planning the track. Yes, this summer I will have actual trains running.

All those are topics for future posts. I'll try to get my posts caught up this week so that I can post in real time this summer.

Switch machine standards

This post describes the procedure and standards I use for installing Tortoise switch machines on the main layout. This is the first of two related posts -- the next post will cover the switch wiring standards.

As I write this I have successfully installed 12 Tortoises on the layout, all driven by Digitrax DS64s. The photos in this post were taken of the last two Tortoises I installed.

This process is not by any means fast. It takes me at least an hour per switch. I don't claim this is the best process, but it works, and it's the product of lots of learning, research, and trial-and-error.

Background: The Tortoise

The normal Tortoise installation position is shown in the picture below, which is copied from the Tortoise instruction sheet:

This photo is a bit hard to decipher because it is in black-and-white, but the components are all there. At the top you can see the switch (they use HO scale in this picture, but the same machine works for N and other scales too). The switch is on top of roadbed, which looks white in this picture, and that in turn is on top of a piece of plywood subroadbed. There is also a shaft drilled through the cork roadbed and plywood subroadbed. The Tortoise is attached underneath the plywood. A non-electrical metal wire, which I will call a "driving wire", links the Tortoise to the switch through the shaft. The driving wire goes through a “fulcrum”, or pivot point, which is piece of plastic with a small hole for the wire near the top of the Tortoise in this picture, then down to a screw near the bottom that holds the wire to the gears. When the gear shifts from one side to the other, the wire is moved and the switch above will move to the opposite side.

This is a simple but cool mechanism. Because of different scales and different thicknesses of subroadbed, the span of the “throw” at the top of the driving wire (that is, the distance the wire covers at the top when going from one side to the other) can be adjusted by moving the fulcrum up and down. The instructions also say that you can substitute a larger gauge wire if you like, and this can be useful in some situations.

Extending out of the bottom of the Tortoise in this picture is a circuit board for 8 electrical connections. The Tortoise is driven by a low DC voltage using the 1st and 8th connections. To “throw” the switch you simply reverse the polarity of the DC voltage being supplied, and that causes the gear to switch sides. Once the gear has gone all the way to one side the motor stalls. It can still receive power without causing problems, and depending on your situation you might want to keep the power constant to be sure the point rails are held against the side rails.

The other 6 connections on the circuit board are linked to two internal SPDT switches, which are switched whenever the main switch is thrown. The most common uses for these are to provide switched track power to the frog rails and to wire lighted indicators for a switch board. I will be using both of these functions, but this post only describes the frog wiring as I haven’t set up the light boards yet.

A sideways installation: concept

I chose not to install my Tortoises as described above, for two reasons. First, you’ll notice the Tortoise sticks out quite a ways under the layout – almost 4” when you consider the wiring attached to the circuit board. I simply won’t have that much available space under the upper deck, nor at certain parts of the lower deck (such as above the power cabinet). Furthermore, even where there is 4" of vertical space I prefer not to have the Tortoise taking up that much head room in the under-layout crawl area.

Second, on the lower deck of my layout there are many places where the thickness of the foam subroadbed plus the underlying plywood is as much as 2 ¾”. This means the driving wire has to be extra long, which is not by itself a problem. But it also means that the span of the “throw” of the end of the driving wire is huge, even if the fulcrum is moved to the absolute top of the Tortoise. Add in the fact that I’m in N scale, and what this means is that with a normal Tortoise installation the “throw” for the wire is 3x the distance needed to move the turnout (switch) from one side to the other. In practice this is still workable, as the wire is bendable. But the downside is the aesthetics. One of the key benefits of the Tortoise is that your switches move in slow motion, like the prototype. At a typical DC voltage the time it takes to move a switch from one side to the other is about 3 seconds. However, when the “throw” span is 3x the width needed to move the switch, what happens is that the switch is moved in 1/3rd the time, or about 1 second, and that means the appearance is way too fast.

Both of these are common problems and thus there are many proven solutions. The Circuitron people even sell special sideways Tortoise mounting kit to address the first problem (but not the second). A while ago I ran across a link to this model railroading news letter where on page 8 the author describes his procedure for sideways mounting. As I studied it I realized that not only was this cheaper than the official sideways mounting kit, it also had the added benefit of addressing the second problem (although that was not the author’s intent) because of the geometry of the two wires and fulcrums.

The procedure I use is copied from his, making adaptations only because I used different materials that were more readily available. After successfully testing this with one switch, I modified the remaining 13 Tortoises that I had on hand as shown in this picture:

My goal in the modification of the Tortoise is to prepare it for an installation that looks something like this, viewed from underneath the layout:


Note that both Tortoises in this picture are mounted sideways. The wire that drives the switch still runs through a vertical shaft in the plywood, but now there are two wires and two fulcrums.
The rest of this post describes how to set up this installation.

Preparing the Tortoise

1) You are going to glue two pieces of styrene to each Tortoise. In preparation, you will file down Tortoise plastic “shell” slightly just to make sure there is a smooth surface to glue to. I first used a hobby file, but then went to a normal sized metal file as it was quicker. The first place you need to file is what will be the “top” of the Tortoise when it is installed – this is the side opposite the side with the gear. You probably have to take off the round sticker that the inspector put on it and then need to file down the “bump” down the middle where the two plastic pieces of shell were joined. Do so for the whole side. The second place you need to file is the side that is the “top” in a normal installation. Again, file down the bump in the middle.

2) For what will be the “top” of the Tortoise you will want to attach a piece of .030” styrene about 2 7/8” x 2 3/4”. This styrene will act as a mounting plate. As per the picture above, you see there is a plate of white styrene attached to the top of the Tortoise with glue, and the plate is screwed to the plywood to mount the Tortoise. I bought some large sheets of .030” styrene in bulk and cut them with a plastic cutter. Thicker styrene can also work – I would not recommend thinner. Once cut, I attach the styrene using common super glue, which dries very fast and holds strong.

3) You’ll need a second, smaller piece of styrene to act as the second fulcrum. In the picture above this is the piece of white styrene at the very left of the photo, attached to the Tortoise very near the plywood, and with the driving wire running through it. For this I used .040” styrene, cut to 1.5” x 1/2"”, and used super glue again to attach it to the Tortoise. It’s a good idea to drill the hole before attaching. I placed the hole in the center, lengthwise, and about 1/8" from the end (widthwise). The hole should be big enough for the wire, and after the hole is made you probably want to tilt the drill at an angle and move it in a circle to provide an angled cut so that the wire can tilt as the switch is thrown.

4) For driving wire some people recommend .025 piano wire. I use 18 gauge wire that I found at the local Michael's art supply store in the floral section. It's intended to serve as a stem for fake flowers, but it's very cheap, is available in bulk packages, is perfectly straight until you bend it, and can be cut easily. It's thicker and stiffer than the wire which comes with the Tortoise, which is an advantage, so I use it for both of the wires in each installation and save the stock wire for some unknown future use. The wire lengths should be cut to fit your installation, with some extra left over just in case.

If you use the thicker wire you'll need to drill larger holes in the Tortoise fulcrum and in the slot where the wire slides into the gear. I recommend buying a small hobbyist hand drill with an assortment of small bits -- you can use this for all kinds of model projects, and the hand drill is easier to control than a power drill. I choose a bit that is exactly the size needed for the 18 gauge wire.

For the gear slot, I use hobby pliers to hold the black plastic gear while drilling -- this prevents possibly damage by pressing too hard onto it. Ditto for when the screw is added. When that wire is in place add the green fulcrum, putting the wire through it.

5) Then you join the driving wires, one each for the styrene fulcrum you added and the green fulcrum that came with the Tortoise. There are many options here, but the easiest I found is to use a short (1/2" or so) length of chunk of retangular, tube styrene available at any decent model train shop (Evergreen Scale Models #259, .250 x .375"). I drill cross holes in each direction and put the wires through. While there may seem to be a lot of slack in this set up, in practice the first wire moves the second like clockwork.

6) For final touches, first add 4 holes to the edges of the mounting piece of styrene and pre-set 4 screws (I use #6, 5/8"). Then I add a label for the switch number. This shows a Tortoise where everything is ready for installation. Note it is upside down and the second driving wire isn't in the picture -- that will get added during installation:


Preparing the Switch

There are three things you need to do to prepare the switch for Tortoise installation (or possibly 1 or 2, depending on your type of track). It is easier if you do these before you install the switch on the layout, but alas I'd already installed these switches, so I had to do these things after the fact.

First, here is an example of two Peco code 55 switches, installed in 2006 and still on the original AMI roadbed:


So here's the modifications that I make:

1) First, I connect a feeder wire to the frog rails. I described this issue with "Electrofrog" or "Live Frog" switches last year. In my case, I had hoped that I could avoid having to make the extra effort to add a separate feeder wire the frog rails, but my experience operating the layout proved that in the absense of a separate feeder wire, the frogs frequently lose power due to dirt between the point and outside rails. You can correct this immediately by cleaning the rail contact points, but on a large layout you have to do this a lot during operating sessions, so it quickly becomes tedious.

Adding a frog wire retroactively to an installed Peco code 55 switch is a challenge, but doable. There is a connecting frog wire hidden underneath the switch. I found that I could access it from the outside rail of the straight route, between the 2nd and 3rd tie from the end. I used an eXacto knife to first cut out some roadbed, then cut the plastic under the rail, and then "dug" a bit into the under-rail plastic until I caught the wire on the end of the knife. I would then pull the wire out just enough for it to be visible. At that point I would strip about 1/2" of insulation off of a 22 gauge solid green wire, bend the end of the wire into a hook, and use it to "hook" the exposed frog wire. Once hooked I'd use small hobby pliers to clamp the wires together, then solder them, then drill a hole in the plywood for the green wire. The end result is a hidden feeder wire connecting to the frog rails on one end and sticking underneath the layout on the other end.

2) Peco switches have built in springs that force the switch to one side or the other. This is a nice feature in the absence of a separate switch machine. However, when using a slow-motion Tortoise the spring needs to be removed.

The spring is located right at the end of the point rails. You will see two metal tabs on the plastic part between the rails that spans two ties. Use and eXacto knife or similar to pry these up, then remove the plastic tab in the middle. Then push the metal tabs down so that you can remove the piece of metal that includes thow tabs. Finally, the spring itself is now visable. Pull it out with hobby pliers or a tweezer. You're done.

3) Finally, you need a hole for the driving wire that will link the switch to the Tortoise. I use the hand drill mentioned earlier. This hole should be in the large tie that drives the movement of the point rails, and I prefer putting the hole in the exact center of the tie between the rails, rather than, say, on the part of the tie on side of the rails. It just seems to work better that way.

First, I use a small drill bit to create a pilot hole, then a larger drill bit that is the exact size of the driving wire. Be very careful, as too much downward pressure can damage the switch.

4) One other thing you'll need is to drill the shaft through the subroadbed for the switch machine wire. I use a 3/8" bit, and am sure to clean the shaft of debris before installing the switch.

Here is a switch which has had all of the above steps completed, and even has a driving wire in the wire hole. At this point the switch machine below is not connected, so the wire has been slightly bent at the top to prevent it from falling through:


Installing the Tortoise

With the switch and Tortoise both prepared we are ready to connect everything up. Depending on the space available underneath this can require some real physical contortion to reach everything. To the degree possible try to provide adequate space and light. I use at least two cheap "clamp" worklights available at hardware stores. It's good to have two to provide lighting from different directions so that you avoid shadows.

1) Prepare the space.

Make sure there is a spot under the layout clear of wires and other obstacles. Here is an example of such a space:


On the left side of the picture you can see the bottom of the shaft for the driving wire, and the wire itself hanging down from the switch. Next to that hole is a white shelf support bar -- because of that we won't be able to install the Tortoise to the left of this shaft, we'll need to do it to the right of the shaft. On the right side of the picture you see the green feeder wire from the frog. In the middle of the picture is the red-and-black power bus. This is near the intended location of the Tortoise, but not in the way.

The Tortoise itself has to be positioned so that the movement of the switch wire is perpendicular to the switch itself.

2) Connect the Tortoise to the plywood.

Here's a picture showing this step completed:


This is a pretty simple step conceptually. Position the Tortoise such that the driving wire is through the styrene fulcrum (see left of picture) and that the fulcrum hole is at the center of the shaft. This gives the wire maximum movement potential -- if the hole is too near the sides of the shaft the you may find the switch doesn't move well. Also make sure the Tortoise is lengthwise positioned in the same direction of the switch itself -- this is to make sure that the wire movement is perpendicular to the switch. Then drill the 4 screws in and you are done.

In practice this is tricky. I usually put in the first two screws manually, at least part of the way, to make sure they go in straight and don't shift the location of the Tortoise. Then I use a power drill on slow speed setting with an extra long drill bit to keep the screws going in straight.

3) Connect the frog wire.

Here is a Tortoise with just the one frog wire attached, not yet soldered:


There are two options for adding wires to the Tortoise circuit board. One is to buy a 3rd party "slide on edge connector" which have wire clips on one side and a slot for the whole unit to slide on the tortoise circuit board on the other side. This is the smart way to do it, as it saves difficult soldering and allows for easy changes later.

So, since that is the smart way, naturally I do it the other way. Mostly out of trying to save money where I can. I solder the connections. Now, this is quite tricky but I've gotten so I do it quickly and reliably. And I figure that if I need to make changes later I can do so at the other, non-soldered, end of the wire.

After I have the Tortoise in place I think of the circuit board as having slots numbered 1-8 from left to right, from the point of view where you are sitting looking at the board directly (as in the above photo). In this case slots 1 and 8 will be used for the switch power from the DS64. I connect those wires last because it is easier to solder the inside slots first. Slots 5-7 will be used in the future for the switch board lights, so I don't talk about them in this post. Slots 2-4 are for powering the frog.

Slot 4 is the frog wire. This is the unswitched side of the connection, as shown in the internal Tortoise SPDT diagram below (taken from the Tortoise instructions):


I'll have more to say about the above diagram on the next step. For now, the point is that slot 4 is always for the green frog feeder wire.

Attaching and soldering is the same process for each wire. First, I strip about 3/8" of insulation from the end of the wire. The wire is then routed through the hole and, using hobby pliers, the wire is bent as shown in the picture above so that it forms a "U" shape and clamps onto the circuit board. You want to have only a small amount of wire extending above the board, and you want to make sure that there is no chance that any two wires above the board will touch each other. Below the board there is a thin, narrow strip metal for connectivity, so you want to run the wire along that metal strip.

Once in place, I use a soldering iron at 40W (the 20W setting doesn't work as well for this application). I place the flat end of the iron blade on one side of the wire and make sure it is touching the circuit board metal strip, then apply solder from the other side of the wire. The whole process takes only a few seconds -- as soon as the solder is applied I remove the solder source and the iron. The solder will tend to bind to the metal, not the insulation between the metal strips, if you are spartan with the solder there should be no shorts yet the connection should be solid.

4) Connect the track power wires

This picture shows the same Tortoise after the track power wires have been connected:


It's not clear from the picture, but the red track wire has gone to slot 2, the black to slot 3. The track wires are connected to one of the terminals on the power bus, as described in earlier posts on wiring standards.

The biggest challenge at this point is figuring out which track polarity goes to which of the two slots #2 and #3. There is no simple rule of thumb. It depends on the orientation of the switch itself and the orientation of the Tortoise. The only solution I found that works is a complicated procedure. I first look at the switch from above and mentally identify which rail is "red" and which is "black". Then I note whether we want the frog rails to be "black" or "red" when the switch is set to the "normal" or "straight" route. In that case the frog rails should be the same polarity as the outside rail from the diverging route.

Then I mentally note whether, in the "normal" position, the switch is set toward the wall or away from the wall. Thus, at that point I might be thinking "switch set toward wall, polarity black", for example.

Then I climb under the layout and position myself so I am looking at the Tortoise from the side of the circuit board. Let's say, from that point of view, that the "toward wall" position matches the left side of the Tortoise. So I will now say, "switch on left side, polarity black".

Now I look at the internal Tortoise SPDT diagram shown above in the previous step. At the bottom of that I have manually drawn in two boxes and a line connecting them. This represents the two possible positions of the switch. The box on the left is filled in, the box on the right is hollow. So what this says to me is that when the switch is on the left, the internal SPDT switches will be in the position shown in that diagram. When the switch is on the right, the internal SPDT switches will be in the opposite position.

And from this, I know that if "left side, polarity black", then if the switch is to the left slide, then slot 4 (frog) will connect to slot 3, so slot 3 should be the black wire.

Then after doing all that I repeat the mental exercise to confirm the result, then I attach and solder the wires.

After doing this for 11 Tortoises I've found it works every time. The only time I made an error in polarity was when I tried to short cut the process with a "rule of thumb", copying the wiring on a nearby Tortoise, but missing a detail so I made an error.

5) Connect the switch power wires

This picture shows the same Tortoise after the power wires were connected to slots 1 and 8:


One thing that might be confusing is that there are two pairs of white power wires -- one coming from above, and another extending below. The reason is that the Tortoise in this picture is one of a pair of Tortoises that drive a crossover. Crossover switches have the unique attribute that they should always switch together. That is, it makes sense only if both switches are set to "diverge" (so that a train can crossover between the dual tracks) or "straight" (so that trains can pass each other on the two tracks). So, in this case we wire the power for both Tortoises from the same DS64 switch slot, saving a switch slot and simplifying the control.

Therefore, the second set of white power wires are hanging down in this photo only temporarily. They will soon be connected to slots 1 and 8 on the paired Tortoise.

6) Connect the Tortoise driving wires

This photo is a repeat of the photo at the beginning of the post, and shows the paired Tortoises all set up:


You'll see that the driving wires are now connected using the piece of rectangular styrene tube. Back during the Tortoise preparation phase I drilled holes in the piece of tube so that perpendicular driving wires could go through both ends. Now the driving wires are routed through the holes.

It's worth remembering that the driving wire which goes to the switch will not be supported from above after this installation is complete. Therefore, in order to prevent it from sliding down and falling out, we need to support it from below, This is done by bending the bottom part of the wire around and using pliers to clamp it onto the rectangular styrene "connector".

7) Testing and tuning

Everything is in place but there is still quite a bit of testing left to do.

The first tests I run by powering up the DCC command station but not adding track power. The first test is simply to see if the DS64 actually drives the Tortoise using the switch address we thought we programed. Note that you may not see the switch actually move at this point (although it's better if you do), however, if you see the Tortoise switch gear move in response to the command then the test passes. If you have paired Tortoises, both must move, and their movement must be coordinated (so that both switches are either diverge or straight at all times). If this fails you need to check that the address is correct and then that the wiring is correct. (Or, if this is the first usage of that DS64, you need to verify that it is getting power and Loconet correctly.)

The second test is to make sure that the DS64 "thrown" and "closed" positions match that of the switch. If not the simple solution is to reverse the two wires that connect to the DS64. In fact, although it is possible to reason out in advance which switch power wire should go to which DS64 slot, in this case it's not worth the bother. I just connect the wires to the two DS64 slots randomly and half the time I end up having to undo and reverse them them -- a process that takes less than a minute. (Note: the reason I don't use the same process for the frog wires is that with frog wires we are dealing with soldered connections and the power test takes longer run.)

The third test is tuning the switch. Ideally as soon as the Tortoise gears starts moving the point rails will start to move from one closure rail to the other -- and get to the other closure rail just as the Tortoise completes the movement. You don't want the point rail to not reach the closure rail, obviously, but you also don't want it to get to the closure rail too soon either, mostly for aesthetics as noted earlier.

One adjustment is to move the green fulcrum on the Tortoise to increase or degress the span of the driving wire movement. The other adjustment is to slightly bend the wire if the switch is favoring one side or the other. This adjustment takes practice, and the first time you try it you may decide you need to start afresh with a new wire after too much bending. However, once you get familiar with the process this adjustment is usually completed and tested very quickly.

Once the switch itself has been tested for correct connections and movement you can remove the top of the driving wire that was sticking out the the switch hole. Thus the switch will end up looking like this:


Note that you can barely see the end of the metal wire in the middle of the switch tie. After adding scenic treatment this wire will be completely hidden.

The final test is the power to the frog. For this you turn the track power on. There are two tests. The first is to see if the polarity is correct. If not you'll probably know as soon as you turn the track on because the frog will short, as the point will be touching the wrong rail. However, just in case the short is masked by some dirt between the point and closure rails, also test with a voltmeter on an A/C setting.

The second test is to make sure the frog is getting power separately from the point-closure rail connection. That is, test to verify that the frog feeder and red/black track power wires you connected to the Tortoise are actually routing power. Using the voltmeter on the A/C setting, first test to see what normal track voltage is between two nearby rails. (For my layout, it's usually 12.6V or so, which is correct for Digitrax on the N scale setting.) Then put one lead on the frog, one lead on a nearby rail of opposite polarity, and manually move the switch so that neither point is touching a closure rail. The voltage should stay the same -- if not the frog feeder connection is either tenuous or non-existent. Throw the switch and repeat again, to verify this works with both polarities.

Now you are done. This post didn't cover the wiring standards or the programming standards for the DS64. I'll cover that in my next standards post.

3 weeks on

Wow, already almost 3 weeks since my post describing my current project, automated switches for part of the main layout. And over 2 weeks since my last update on the project. Well, progress is going well, although the whole project will probably take twice as long as I'd originally hoped. This is, alas, normal for me. I've learned that when working on any project I should double the time I estimate it will take, as that usually is accurate.

So, if we go back to that original post from almost 3 weeks ago, here's where I am on the various tasks in this project:

1) Redoing the wiring for that section of the layout to match the new wiring standards. Completed on March 18th, as noted in the last post.

2) Installing (or in two cases, re-installing) and tuning Tortoise switch machines for 12 switches. 6 of the 12 switches are now in place and running. The other 6 are expected to be fairly straightforward, but they still take almost an hour apiece.

3) Appending feeder wires to the 12 switch frogs, and connecting them to the main power busses through an internal Tortoise SPDT switch. Initially figuring out how to append feeder wire to the frogs of installed switches was a real pain. Eventually, maybe on the 4th or 5th switch, I figure out a simple process. I use an Xacto knife, very fine, sharp, and narrow point, to dig out the underside of the plastic between the 3rd and 4th ties from the end on the outside of the diverging route. Once the plastic is out of the way I can dig out the hidden frog wire. I then link the end of a 22 gauge green wire to the frog wire, tighten the link with needle nose pliers, solder, and use a drill to make a hole for the frog wire under the layout. The whole process takes less time than for me to type this. This has been done for all the remaining switches. Of course, I still have to wire the Tortoise SPDT switches to the track power busses for the final 6 switches, as part of their install process.

4) Ordering one more Digitrax DS64, and installing and configuring two DS64s to drive the switch machines. Because 8 of the 12 switches are in crossover pairs only two DS64s, capable of controlling 8 separate switches, will be needed. All done, but boy it took a lot of research and testing to figure out how to configure the DS64s. More on this later.

5) Setting the standard for DS64 power, and installing a DS64 power bus. All done, but took longer than expected. More on this later.

6) Setting the numbering standards for the DS64s. All done, see comments above.

7) Settling on the method and design of the fascia switch panels. Have tried various materials, but have not settled on the final design. Will do so after all 12 switches are automated.

8) Building and installing 4 fascia switch panels. See comment above.

9) Setting the standard for powering the switch panel lights, and installing the power bus for same. See comment above.

10) Wiring switch panel lights, using the other internal Tortoise SPDT switch. See comment above.

So, lots done, and have learned a ton along the way. Hope to complete by next weekend.

Power District 2

So, following up on the last post, it took 3 evenings of work to complete the rewiring for power district 2, not just 1 evening as I'd hoped.

Although I reused the feeder wires that were already in place everything else was installed from scratch: power bus, terminals, labels, soldered connections, and even two sets of new feeder wires. It was interesting and a bit nostalgic going over wiring that I'd installed nearly 4 years ago when I started on this layout. At the time, in my innocence, I'd used terminals that were 4-6 feet apart and as such had 22 gauge feeder wires that were commonly longer than three feet and occasionally as long as 6 feet. I've since learned that this just won't do -- the maximum lenght of thin feeder wire should be about 2', assuming you have a connection to each rail, and ideally less than that. Power District 2 now meets that ideal.

I'll need to post a map of the power districts at some point. Power Districts 2 and 3 overlap, both covering the lower peninsula and west wall, and slightly encroaching into the north wall. 2 includes the SAMR double tracked main, the interchange yard, the track that connects the SAMR to staging, and the one Union Station approach that is not an auto-reverse district. Power District 3 includes the BNSF double tracked main and the commuter train yard, plus the track that connects this line to staging.

As I've worked through this I've accepted that Power District 1, which covers all three tiers of lower staging, is way too large. I have added a project to my to-do list to convert the middle tier to it's own power district.

I've also had a good conversation with someone from the Digitrax user group who suggests that the PM42, which I'm using for AR, performs acceptably as a power district manager but not for AR. The problem is that it is too slow to react to shorts to be an effective AR. Now, I'm using N, while he is using HO, but I've seen similar comments before. I think that I'll order a PSXR to replace the PM42 on the AR function, but then reprogram the PM42 for 4 power districts. This will need to be done fairly soon as I hope to soon have more power districts on line.

So, what to do next? I still have the same goal stated in the last post, regarding fully automated switching functionality for the SAMR line by end of next weekend. I think I'll try to set up the DS64 circuit. This means establishing the standards for numbering of DS64s, and wiring them for power and Loconet, then setting up two of them (the second one is en route now). After that I'll have the power setup in place for me to test Tortoises as I install and tune them. If all goes well I'll have DS64s in place and two Tortoises working smoothly by end of the weekend.

Towards Automated Switches

My goal is to have complete switch automation for the section of the SAMR line on the main layout -- the only part of the main layout that gets regular use now -- by the weekend after next (March 27th). This will require:

1. Redoing the wiring for that section of the layout to match the new wiring standards.


2. Installing (or in two cases, re-installing) and tuning Tortoise switch machines for 12 switches.


3. Appending feeder wires to the 12 switch frogs, and connecting them to the main power busses through an internal Tortoise SPDT switch.


4. Ordering one more Digitrax DS64, and installing and configuring two DS64s to drive the switch machines. Because 8 of the 12 switches are in crossover pairs only two DS64s, capable of controlling 8 separate switches, will be needed.


5. Setting the standard for DS64 power, and installing a DS64 power bus.


6. Setting the numbering standards for the DS64s.


7. Settling on the method and design of the fascia switch panels.


8. Building and installing 4 fascia switch panels.


9. Setting the standard for powering the switch panel lights, and installing the power bus for same.


10. Wiring switch panel lights, using the other internal Tortoise SPDT switch.

So far I've verified that I can append a feeder wire to the frog of installed Peco switches using the exposed frog wire underneath the switch, and have attached two such wires. I've also settled on the power district boundaries for the lower deck and am about 45% through rewiring power district 2, which is the only PD needed for this project.

I hope to complete the rewiring tomorrow (Tuesday) and then install and tune two Tortoises on Wednesday. This may take longer as I'm trying a new method. I should also send in the order for the next DS64 tomorrow so that I can have it by this time next week.

All in all this is a good goal to have now. It focuses my work on a single, tangible goal (I've tended to be a bit scattered in my efforts lately, as the previous post demonstrates). Furthermore, once done the change will yield an immediate boost to the fun factor of operating the layout. And, finally, once done I'll have resolved quite a few open layout implementation issues, which should speed up subsequent construction.

After this goal is accomplished I'll focus on connecting the middle tier of staging to the main layout.

A Fortnight of Progress

The past two weeks has been busy in terms of model railroading, but I don’t have a huge amount of physical layout evidence to show for it. A lot of what I’ve done has been of the nature of experimentation and learning in preparation for the next layout steps. In addition to my first attempt at ballasting track, here are the activities of the past fortnight:

1) Decoder installations - F59PHI.

I now have the large majority of engines running on the layout. One big task the past two weeks has involved the Athearn F59PHI locomotive. I bought 10 of these about 3-4 years ago for the commuter fleet, and alas aren’t designed for a PNP (plug and play) decoder. Back in 2007 I installed DZ143 decoders in two of them using a procedure from the Digitrax web site. This worked, but not perfectly, and I fried one decoder in the learning process. I resurrected this project a couple weeks ago after my son, while cleaning the wheels of one of them, fried its decoder as well. This was not my son’s fault – my faulty installation left a motor and a power wire too close together, causing the short.

Fortunately, the benefit of all these mistakes is that eventually you will develop better skills in spite of yourself. I now have 5 of the locomotives running with decoders, and I’ve improved the installation process. When I do the next install I’ll take pictures and post the process.

Alas, Athearn just released an updated, DCC ready version of this locomotive, so this process is already obsolete. This reinforces a lesson I’ve learned earlier – which is to delay buying a non-optimal version of a locomotive you want because an optimal version will probably be released in a few years. It also made me resolve to not buy any more locomotives without PNP decoder capability (but I still have 6 non-PNP locomotives in the queue waiting for decoder installs, plus the remaining 5 F59PHIs, so I’ll be doing this for a while longer).

Another learning point is to test/use decoders within a few months of purchase. TCS has had a “no goof” warranty for several years now, which means that within a year they will replace the decoder for any reason, even if you clearly screwed up the installation yourself. Digitrax now offers the same warranty for all their components. This is a really nice policy.

2) Decoder installations – F59PHI HO scale.

I mentioned earlier that I was trying to get my son’s HO Athearn F59PHI working with DCC. This locomotive does have PNP capability, but it didn’t work. After lots of email with the Athearn support people – who were very helpful and responsive – and getting two replacement boards from them I discovered that the problem was a short between the bottom of the motor and the metal frame. Of course, with DCC installs the first rule is “isolate the motor”, but a) this should already be done in a PNP locomotive, and b) my experience is that motor/frame shorts fry the decoder, but in this case all that happened was the decoder didn’t send power to the motor.

Even the Athearn people didn’t deduce this problem from the symptoms. Only after the second replacement board failed in the same way did I take the whole locomotive apart and find the issue. Once found the fix was easy -- some Kapton tape between the frame and motor. Great learning experience. I could have bought a replacement locomotive for a fraction of the cost of the time I worked on this problem, even if you price my hours at minimum wage, but now I have a much, much better understanding of the guts of these things.

3) Motor problems – Kato F3.

Although the F3/F7 locomotive is way too obsolete for the modern time period I model, I have a bunch of them for my museum trains. 3 for the California Zephyr, 3 for the Empire Builder, 4 for the Super Chief, and 1 for an SP commuter train. Like my other Kato engines they all have worked flawlessly except one.

Turns out the motor would not turn unless the armature (the part that turns around) is nudged. I tried many things, consulted with friends who are experts in the area, and asked on-line groups. Learned a ton in the process and was told that the problem is probably a broken wire – something almost impossible to repair. Because a replacement motor is only $26 from KatoUSA I eventually decided to take it completely apart. Learned even more, although I haven’t yet located the problem. I am showing the motor to a friend this week who probably will find the issue right away.
A learning point here is, similar to point (1) above, fully test locomotives shortly after purchase. Because I bought this one in 2006 the warranty has expired, although this had to be a manufacturer defect as the F3 in question had been unopened until I started the decoder install last month.

4) Switch management – control.

Thinking beyond my first ballast experiment I figured that before I ballast around any switches I will need to have them fully configured. Currently I have installed each switch with the manual spring still in place. There is a drill hole underneath to accommodate a switch machine wire, but nothing else.

This is a fairly involved task, and the first part was to figure out the control scheme. I have a DS64 which I mentioned last year, but although I purchased it and read the docs I never tried it out. Well, I set it up in a temporary configuration to control the two installed Tortoises. This allowed me to throw the switch using the Digitrax throttle. I then added a push button to an input circuit, and confirmed that it will be easy to also allow the throwing of switches from a button on the fascia panel. I also worked out the wiring and power approach for the DS64, and sent out a message to a Digitrax discussion group to confirm that this will work. Everyone who responded said I was on the right track, and this in turn led to a few very useful email discussions on related topics.

I also have started the process of designing and building the fascia switch panels, including buying materials to test out the first panel. My intent is to have a single push button to toggle between “closed” and “thrown” positions on the switches, and to have lights indicating the current position of the switch. Long term, one thing I want to do is support “night” operations, which means “lights out” except for layout lights, and that means the switch boards will need illumination.

5) Switch management – Tortoises.

Worked on resolving two outstanding questions regarding the Tortoise switch machines. The first involved the crossover question. Briefly, in the case of a crossover between schematically parallel tracks the two switches are logically linked, in that it never makes sense for one to be closed (i.e. switched so that trains go in the straight, or “normal”, direction) and the other thrown (i.e. switched for the “diverging” direction). Either they both are closed or they both are thrown. This means that in theory you can get by with one switch control for both switch machine, or even one machine controlling two switches.

So, starting two years ago I struggled with trying to get one machine working with two switches. I actually got it working on the layout earlier this year, but it was not very "tuned". After working on a tuning strategy for a while I decided to see just how much money this would save me.

A pack of 12 Tortoises has a street price of $160 plus shipping. I have 19 crossovers, so the potential savings is 19 motors, or about $260. However, there are parts required for modifying a Tortoise to control two switches. My lowest estimate was a parts cost of about $6 per crossover, which is probably optimistic. So the net savings is around $140, or likely less. Given the extra hours required, PLUS the likely additional reliability issues, I finally dumped this idea. I will now buy one Tortoise per switch.

So, having decided that I now need to figure out how to tune each Tortoise to work best with my N scale switches. I think I have an answer, and I'll cover that in a future post when I've tested it out.

6) General Electronics

In many of these topics I've found that I'm getting blocked by holes in my knowledge of electronics. I bought a book on the topic and am studying closely. So far it has helped in several cases.

Confessions of a scenery wimp

I admit it. I'm deathly afraid of doing scenery. There, I said it.

Layouts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 had no real scenery. Oh, I built a few structures. I built a few freight cars for layout 2, and even a scratch built bridge. I've never built mountains, roads, trees, grass, or even ballast (my Dad was responsible for our ballast attempt on layout 1). I've read all kinds of articles and books on the various topics, but it has been a huge struggle for me to start.

Well, here is the first attempt at scenicing the track, with "concrete" ties and ballast:


Still a lot to learn. The ballast surface isn't as smooth as I'd like it (modern class 1 track tends to have remarkably even ballast), the color turned out darker than it started before the glue dried, and the rail side color is brighter than I expected. There are other issues, too, that bug me. I consider it a so-so start but on the positive side I'm now familiar with all these techniques and ready to try again.

I took step-by-step pictures of this process, but given that it didn't turn out as well as I'd like I won't bother posting them. Maybe with my next attempt -- there are a lot of things I'm going to try differently.

George Washington's birthday

Lots of little things have happened since the last post on progress. I made a trip to Caboose Hobbies last Tuesday, on the way to Denver airport, then the kids and I made another trip on Saturday. As the momentum builds on the layout I now have 3 kids with definite interest (the other could not care less, but that's cool, too).

So let's see what has happened in the past week:

1. I built a short test section of scenicked track, using leftover blue foam and a bit of leftover Peco track. In the process I learned a few more things that don't work plus some that do, and now I have a test section that looks decent. I will cover the process I used in a later post after I've completed the ballast for first section of track on the main layout.


2. Started the track scenery work on one section of the main layout. In the process I realized I needed to finalize and document my scenery plans for that area of the layout. You see, you can put ballast on the track, but properly done it will "spill over" onto the track side ground. This means you probably should have the track side ground scenery in place, or at least know what it will be so that you know you won't need to do this. If you start thinking about that you then realize that you should also know the exact dimensions of the right of way, which means you probably need to understand the whole scenic plan for that area. So, I've been making drawings and doing research on prototype rights of way and also of the dimensions of things like streets, blocks, buildings, etc. in similar midwestern cities (Google Earth has a nice tool for getting exact linear dimensions.)


3. Lots of decoder work with Daniel. The big effort has involved his Bachmann 4-4-0 from a train set he got 4.5 years ago, a tiny locomotive with a design not updated since 1979. No one in their right mind would add a decoder to such a locomotive, but we have a cunning plan -- and actually it's working really well. We've taken progress pictures and will describe the process in its own post when we finish. Daniel found a way to isolate the motor from the track pickups without having to take the tender (where the motor resides) apart. We plan to house the decoder in the first box car behind the tender. At this point all is working except we need a permanent solution for the box car to get power from the track. We asked for advice on this at Caboose Hobbiesm but they told us to call on Wednesday when their N scale expert is back.


4. Daniel also installed, with my help, a TL1 decoder in a tender of a Proto 2000 2-8-8-2. I installed a DZ123 in this back in 2005 but the rear light in the tender receives direct power from the track, with a small diode/capacitor light board to make sure the light only was on when the DC power was in one direction. On DCC the light was on all the time. The rear light now is controlled by the DCC F4 function, and Daniel did almost all the work himself.


5. Athearn support has been just great regarding decoder problem with the HO scale F59PHI locomotive that I mentioned last week. They sent us a new board which arrived on Saturday, but unfortunately the symptoms persist with the new board. Sent them a follow-up email this morning.


6. Daniel successfully installed 4 other decoders in various Kato and Atlas Santa Fe locomotives. We can now run the Super Chief train that we got in 2006, tested once on DC, and hadn't run since! Unfortunately, the motors for the F7Bs both are now failing to run intermittently. We've taken them apart and verified the problem is the motor itself. Kato doesn't have a support line like Athearn, Atlas and Digitrax so I'm stuck right now. I'll post a question to an on-line group.


7. We started trying to figure out how to add a decoder to an Athearn 2-8-0. Couldn't find any instructions on line, except a couple comments that it can be done. I bought a TCS M1 decoder at Caboose Hobbies because this is thought to be the absolutely tiniest decoder available, and it does fit under the plastic coal load in the tender if you scrape out some of the excess plastic from the casting process. It looks like wiring up the motor won't be too hard, but the front light appears to be independently powered from the engine's pickup wheels, so I'm not yet sure how we'll wire that from the decoder in the tender.


8. Daniel solved a clicking problem with a Kato F7A locomotive. Found some debris that got caught in the gears above one wheel. Good to get this experience, as we are both gaining confidence in our abilities to address N scale locomotive problems. We are certainly not experts yet, but we're not novices anymore either.


9. Picked up some scenery books at Caboose Hobbies, including one on backdrops that my oldest daughter, Paige, picked out because she is interested in painting them.


10. I also wrote some posts earlier last week while traveling, including a third one on the detailed design (for the freight yard) that is nearly ready for publication.

For the coming week the focus continues to be scenery. The goal is to complete at least the track and track side scenery for the SAMR line -- about 21 feet, double-tracked, with 9 switches. Almost certain not to be completed in one week, but want to have portions that are complete.

Evolution of the iNdoor design, part 2

At the same time that I was using CAD to draft the detailed layout design I also maintained a written description of the purpose of each section of the layout. I archived these descriptions, by date, so they are now useful in reconstructing how the layout evolved.

During the winter and spring of 2006 I worked on the layout design almost every day. My last post showed the layout design as of February 27. By March 3 I had updated a portion of the lower deck design as shown here:


Compared to the diagram in the last post, one difference that is immediately noticable is that there are now text labels for parts of the layout. I would expand on this practice over time with more labels and detailed descriptions within the CAD drawing.

You may note that the E-W main line was labeled "BNSF" and the N-S main line was "CN (Canadian National). The designation of the N-S line has varied over time as the layout concept has evolved. I like the CN railroad, and the layout will definitely feature it, but my current thinking is that the N-S line is owned by the SAMR (municipal railway), with trackage rights for every railroad that services the metro area. Similar to Chicago's Belt Railway.

Looking at the above diagram in more detail you will see that the trackage on the east (left) and south (top) walls has been completely revised. I felt that a scene of the BNSF crossing the main river was a must, but I couldn't figure out how to make it work. My first approach was to somehow try to fit the river in the upper left corner, on the grounds that this would leave more space for the other railroad scenes. Eventually I dismissed that approach, both because the resulting river was too narrow to represent the major, navigable, river that the city history required, and also because the 36" minimum radius meant that the bridge track would have to be at least partially curved, something that would have been avoided in real life.

So, I decided to try locating the river along the left wall. This meant sacrificing some potential industry there, but the resulting track was simpler and cleaner and thus aesthetically more appealing, at least to me. Moreover, the idea that the river would be at least 6' wide (960' in scale) meant that the bridge could be a signature scene on the layout -- if done well it would be something that people noticed first and admired. Then, I considered that immediately above the bridge scene, on the upper deck, was going to be the most active part of the freight yard. One tenet of two-deck design is that you want to balance the areas of intense operator activities, such as freight yards, so that no two such areas are located directly above/below each other. Thus, a river bridge would be an excellent counter-balance to the freight yard above.

All in all I was -- and am -- very happy with the river and bridge concept. For the south wall I decided to include a short (5') commuter station, and the downtown intermodal yard. Again, I'm happy with the location of these items, although the final trackage would be significantly changed from what is shown in the above diagram.

The final note from this March 3 iteration was a comment I wrote to myself about whether to transpose the identity of the main lines. I was concerned that this ostensibly BNSF-focused layout had the BNSF on only one deck. As it turned out, this concern would soon be answered in a different fashion.

My next step would be to address the freight yard design, which is a big enough topic to justify its own post.

Evolution of the iNdoor design, part 1

Previously I talked about the high-level design and the decision to use CAD for the detailed design. After I'd been using the CAD tool for a while I began archiving the design files with the date in the file name for posterity. I'm glad I did this, as these old files help me understand how the design evolved.

Here is a picture of the lower deck design on February 27, 2006, the earliest file save I have a record of:


Grid lines are 1' apart. This is comparable to the high-level design sketch from that earlier post.
At this point in the design process I was still getting used to the CAD tool. I hadn't started using text labels, colors, or providing any details except the outlines of the benchwork and the main track. I also hadn't done much work on staging yet.

Most of the track design at this point was nothing like the final design, but one area that was very close to final was the Union Station on the north wall:


I put a lot of thought into how many tracks Union Station should have. My concept of commuter train operations wasn't as well formulated then as it is now, per the layout concept description I recently posted, but I did know I wanted enough tracks to support heavy traffic and make operations interesting. This was a highly subjective decision -- the sort of thing about which reasonable modelers can disagree. Eventually I decided that 6 tracks would be too few but 8 just enough to give a sense of a busy Union Station.

The next challenge was fitting everything in. Each station platform had to be 10' long, per the maximum passenger train length. Granted, the maximum length for the commuter trains is only 5', but as this Union Station has a long history I couldn't seen any rationale for shortening the platforms from what would have been built in years past. (Reducing the number of tracks from years past does make sense in order to reuse the land, but reducing existing platform length would have had little benefit as the tracks would still be there.) When you then add the need for switch ladders on both sides, plus 36" minimum radius curves at each room corner, PLUS the need to have room for double track main adjacent to the station tracks, it was a struggle to fit it all in.

Fortunately, one question I'd toyed with during the concept phase was whether to have the station be stub (tracks that terminated in the station) or through (tracks that extend in both directions from the station). At that time I studied existing and past Union Stations, and noted that Kansas City had a mix of stub and through tracks, and thought that might be a neat idea. It was important to note that for the modern St Albans Union Station 3/4 of the traffic would depart in one direction -- towards the junction -- so it made sense to me that half of the 8 tracks would be stub ended, servicing only that direction. This would also make operations planning more interesting, as it introduces a new constraint regarding track assignments. Finally, from the design perspective, this meant that the switch ladder on the east side (left in the above diagram) would be significantly shorter, thus giving me enough space to fit everything in.

I've mentioned before that I love the intracate trackwork leading to congested city Union Stations -- not just Chicago but other cities as well. On the east (left) side I used curved switches to save space. On the west (right) side 3 double slips were used to help create a double crossover as the main entrance to the station. This is but a tiny fraction of what is used in Chicago, but it does give the feeling of complicated, congested trackwork that I was seeking.

This next picture focuses on the northwest corner of the lower deck (the lower right of the diagram). Although all of these tracks were redrawn at some point the basic schematic still remains in the implementation today:


The main junction between the two double-tracked lines is shown at the top. One main line is shown going diagonally from the lower left towards upper right (this is the N-S main). The other (the E-W main) may be difficult to identify because there are so many tracks in the picture. The three tracks to the far right in the picture, the ones going straight along the right wall, are the interchange tracks between the two main lines. If you follow these downward you'll see they merge into one, using curved switches in the bottom right corner, and that one track then connects them to the double main line. Although these tracks appear to be right next to the main line tracks, what the diagram doesn't show is that there is a widening elevation difference as the main line gains elevation and the interchange tracks slope downwards.

The elevation difference was because I decided early in the design process that the junction would be a bridge of one line over another, not a level crossing. This was another one of those decisions that required a lot of thought. A level crossing is certainly more interesting operationally. However, given the traffic density for these lines it seems to me that a bridge crossing would have been a requirement -- especially a century earlier when the Union Station would have hosted 40+ tracks and automatic traffic control wasn't even a concept. On the plus side, this gave me a good reason for introducing gentle grades (1% maximum) to add visual variety.

At the same time, I wanted the scene to contain evidence of there having been even MORE traffic in past years. Although both main lines are now double-tracked, the layout will have signs that more tracks were used on the main lines in years past. One example of this is the track which goes from Union Station to the E-W line. You'll see that it connects with the main, but also that two other tracks extend along the main line towards the junction. The purpose of this track is to go from Union Station to the commuter train storage and maintenance yard (on the layout peninsula). There is a dual track for a short distance which serves as a runaround track. These dual tracks are positioned as if they are on the same roadbeds that in years past hosted the 3rd and 4th track of the E-W main line -- back when traffic density justified that many main line tracks.

Perhaps the most interesting item in this diagram is that trains leaving Union Station on this side of the layout have 3 choices of direction -- one toward the E-W main line, and two toward either direction of the N-S main line. The radius for these tracks is tighter than the main line -- one of them actually is set at the 24" minimum radius for slow speed yards. All in all they succeed in providing the sense of an interesting, complex, network of track at the entrance to the Union Station.

There were a number of things that needed adjustment in this diagram, and these would be taken care of in later iterations. The biggest issue was the "S-curves". The back-to-back switches are just not realistic. There needs to be at least one car length between switches to avoid the S-curve problem.

Otherwise, referring back to the first diagram at the beginning of this post, the rest of the track shown for the lower deck would not survive future revisions. On the left side of the diagram you'll see a single track spur from the mainline. The idea here was that this spur would meander through city streets then ultimately end up on a landing along the river, going under the main line, and that the bridge over the river would be in the upper left corner. As I reworked this later I would toss out the idea of having remaining industry along the river as being both inconsistent with my vision for the city, and also a sign of trying to do too much in the space. This last point is purely subjective, but it was the conclusion I came to.

The last point I'll make regarding the lower deck is my decision to include a commuter train yard on the peninsula. Although the track for this yard would be revised, I kept the yard in that location. The question about whether a downtown yard made sense was another one of those subjective decisions. One option would have been to argue that there would be commuter train yards at the suburban ends of each line, where real estate is cheaper and where most trains would originate. This would also allow me to put some sort of interesting industry on the lower deck peninsula instead of a commuter yard. However, I eventually decided that consolidating all maintenance operations in one central location would be a money saver, and thus a likely result of the 1970s consolidation of all commuter railroads in the city, and that the real estate in question would have been available from other railroad uses that the SAMR (St Albans Municipal Railway) would have owned. In addition, the commuter yard operations are turning out to be at least as interesting as those of a freight industry, and have the benefit of being unusual for a model railroad.

So that's where the lower deck design was on February 27, 2006. At that time I'd also done some work on the upper deck, but it was not as far along:


This does roughly follow the high-level design concept for the upper level. The peninsula is used for a branch line, terminating in the railroad museum. The railroad museum concept would later evolve so that it now matches what is described in the high-level design post. There is a commuter station on the right side of this diagram -- that would remain in that location, but only after extensive modification.

There is a first attempt at a freight yard on the left wall, with part of the yard spilling over to the bottom wall. This attempt was entirely unsatisfactory and resulted in a long study of frieght yard design which I'll cover in a separate post.

As a final note in this post, you'll see there is no evidence of staging in either of these diagrams. In fact, there were staging tracks in this version of the design, but they were in separate CAD layers so are not shown. At this point they were very rudimentary. Much of the work over the next several months would be struggling to find a suitable staging approach. This will be part of the discussion in the next design post.

Choosing N scale track: Flex Track and Switches

Edit from the future (2021):  The price situation is very different from what it was when I wrote this 11 years ago.  Peco is no longer at a disadvantage.  Please check your own prices.

Last year I posted an overview of types of N scale track. In this post I'll focus on one type of track in particular: flex track, and the related topic of switches. In theory any switch can be mated with any type of flex track, but in practice there are limitations. For many brand combinations the work to connect the two types of track is onerous and kludgy. You might, for example, connect two incompatible types of track in a few places for, say, a transition from staging to the main layout or from a main line to a branch line, but not as something you'd do for every switch. In addition, there is an appearance question, as certain lines of switches look out of place when connected to certain lines of flex track. The purpose of this post is to cover just those brands of N scale flex track and switches widely available in the U.S. Regarding the below references to track "codes", see my earlier post on that topic. Atlas Code 80. The granddaddy of N scale track, now distinguished from other track lines by its cheap price (good) and unrealistic appearance (not so good). A wide variety of switches are available, but nothing larger than a #6. There is also a wide variety of crossings and sectional track. Some people still use Atlas code 80 because they have experience with it and know it works. Others choose it for staging and hidden track, where appearance is not important. In addition to appearance the common complaint about Atlas code 80 is lack of switch reliability. This can be addressed with certain switch prep procedures, as I've covered in an earlier post, and in addition Atlas has improved the switches in the past couple years. Atlas code 80 can be easily mated with all Peco track. Atlas Code 55. Probably the most popular choice for N scalers using flex track in North America today. This is because it is price competitive with the other options, except Atlas code 80, yet the appearance is much better. There are also a wide variety of switches, crossings, and sectional track available in this line, including a #5, a #7, and a really cool looking #10 switch. Atlas also just announced two curved switches. There are still no slip switches, but given the number of recent extensions of the code 55 line that may change. Criticisms of Atlas code 55 are: 1) the plastic molded "spikes" which hold the rails in place are oversized, 2) because of (1) cars which run the Micro-Trains "pizza cutter" wheels (that is, those with a high flange profile) can't run on Atlas code 55, and 3) although the switches have a nice wire for the frog, it tends to corrode and lose contact, so you still have to add your own frog wire. (See earlier post about frogs and switches.) None of these criticisms are severe. For (1), while the spikes are oversized if you look closely, from a distance it's not noticable. For (2), most people who use Atlas code 55 are likely to use lower profile wheels which avoids the problem. And for (3), this can be taken care of easily during installation. Atlas code 55 mates reasonably well with Micro-Engineering code 55, so some people like to use M-E flex track with Atlas switches. Micro-Engineering (M-E). Micro-Engineering prides themselves on making high quality products, both in terms of appearance and reliability, and that is a good description of their code 70, 55, and 40 lines of N-scale track. They offer these with weathered or non-weathered rail, and with concrete ties for the larger two sizes. They also are the only manufacturer to offer a bridge tie version of their flex track, which is important because bridge ties are very different than normal track ties (roughly twice the tie density, and a different shape). All this variety allows a modeler to include different rail sizes for different areas of the layout, as is typical in the prototype. M-E was historically the most expensive track but that situation is no more. The UK firm Peco raised prices extensively in the 2000s, in part due to the declining dollar, and now is more than 50% higher than M-E. Based on my recent price samples M-E now seems roughly in the same price range as Atlas code 55 flex track (Atlas has also had a few price increases on track in recent years). The only complaint I've ever heard about the track itself is minor -- a few people say it is harder to bend than the other brands. The main complaint about the line of track, other than the price, is that the switch offerings are so spartan: just a #6 switch for code 55 and 70, and if you want a code 40 switch you have to make it yourself. Because of the superior appearance of track but lack of switch choice many modelers use M-E code 55 with Atlas code 55 switches, and the two rail sizes match up reasonably well. However, if you want the epitome of best appearance for your track, the choice is probably M-E plus hand-laid switches, and for that M-E also offers supplies for those who build their own switehcs. Peco code 80. For a while the Peco code 80 line was considered the best choice in track, before the other sub-80 lines were introduced. It is considered somewhat better in appearance than Atlas code 80, and their code 80 switches are considered much more reliable than Atlas code 80. Because the Atlas and Peco rails work well together it used to be common for modelers to use the cheaper Atlas code 80 flex with the better Peco code 80 switches, and some Ntrak clubs still use this as their standard. Peco also offers a wide variety of switches, including the only slip and curve switches in code 80, as well as crossings, sectional track, and even a derail. (Note: there are actually two compatible lines of Peco code 80 track -- the cheaper SEtrack and the more expensive Streamline. I'm only covering Streamline in this review, as SEtrack is very hard to get in the U.S.) Their switches include a "spring" for snapping to one side or the other, which can be removed to install a slow motion switch machine. In code 80 they also offer "electrofrog" and "insulfrog" for all switches. Complaints about Peco code 80 switches are primarily from the American market because the UK N scale standards vary every so slightly from US standards, so that depending on the equipment you run you may have trouble with derailments or, if you use DCC, with occasional shorts. These seem pretty rare, but you do find them mentioned on comment boards, and there are standard suggestions for fixing this problem if you have it. The other issue with Peco, as noted earlier, is that the prices have skyrocketed in recent years and as a result they have nearly priced themselve out of the U.S. market. In HO, Peco has released American-style switches that are considered among the best you can buy, yet they have managed to keep the prices within reason. There have been rumors of a similar line for N scale, but nothing has yet been announced. Peco code 55. This line of track is highly unique, and so it has a longer write-up than any of the other lines. When Peco introduced this line in circa 1990 it was widely considered a huge advancement and the preferred choice for N scalers. Today, most modelers now see it as having been surpassed by M-E and Atlas, but there are still some unique advantages of Peco code 55, so it is not yet completely obsolete. When Peco code 55 was introduced there were a lot of commonly-held concerns about the viability of a small N scale rail. Peco addressed this by using code 80 rail but burying the bottom .25" into the ties. The track itself is very sturdy -- more than any other of the flex track offerings -- and the plastic tie "spikes" or "clips" are prototypically small, as they are used only for appearance, not to hold the track in place. There is a fake rail bottom at the top of the ties, then another one at the actual bottom of the rail. Peco code 55 track comes in wood or concrete, but just wood for the switches (AFAIK no one has yet come out with an N scale concrete tie switch yet). Peco 55 has almost the same large variety of switches and crossings as code 80, but all are "electrofrog". There is also a double-crossover with four built-in switches. Like code 80 the code 55 switches have springs which can be removed for slow-motion switch machines. Proponents like Peco code 55 for solidity, reliability, and wide variety of switch choices (this has become less of an advantage over time as Atlas has expanded their code 55 line). Detractors, and there are many, point to the high cost and appearance issues. Appearance issues start with the tie spacing, which matches a European prototype, not the U.S. The wood ties have a fake wood grain that is much too prominent. The switch mechanisms look nothing like prototype switches. The switches themselves are classified "small", "medium" and "large" instead of the more traditional #4, #6 and #8. This is because they do not follow the common U.S. practice of having the diverging rails go straight through the frogs, but instead are curved for the entire length of the switch. On the plus side, this difference means that the radius used for Peco code 55 switches is much wider than that use for competitive brands, and that the trains motion in going through the switch is more fluid. The "large" switch has a radius of 36", which is very broad (see earlier discussion of curves). But it is yet another deviation from the common American prototype. Finally, there are questions about code 55 switch reliability (there are concerns that the flangeway is too wide, leading to derailments), although there are many users who claim they work perfectly all the time. Given the cost issues Peco code 55 is usually not considered for new layouts any more. But thre are still a few willing to work through the appearance issues who find the variety of switches a compelling reason to choose this option.

Monday, Monday

Did manage to clear my work desk of half-finished projects, as I'd hoped. The last one was finishing up the BNSF decoder install. The problem was simply that one of the motor wires was folded up and subsequently too short to reach the decoder.

Alas, once I got the BNSF dash 8 running it was apparent that the motor squeaked and needs cleaning. Back on the problem log -- but at least a little closer to working.

As a side note, while my son Daniel was doing some math I picked up an old project to convert an Athearn F59 PHI locomotive (in full New Mexico Rail Runner dress) to DCC. I wanted to test the decoder with the NCE tester I mentioned in the last post. Well, decoder is fine, problem is with the Athearn board, so I sent an email off to their help line. We'll see what happens. I'd like to get a small HO layout set up using the Bachmann roadbed track just so Daniel can play with it a few more times before he goes to college.

Best Laid Plans ....

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. -- Thomas Edison

Of course Edison was describing his attempts to invent wonderful things. I'm only trying to find a way to make my track look realistic. But I seem well on my way to finding 10,000 ways of not making my track look realistic.

I suppose I could give up ... but I expect to live with this layout for decades so I'd really like to get this part right.

Part of the problem has been lack of correct materials. I drove around Saturday trying to find Matte Medium ... it's so prevalent in Model Railroad books that I thought I could find it somewhere local at one of the various "hobby" stores, but nada. There are a few other suggested ingredients, but that one was key. Oh well -- I have to fly to visit a customer Tuesday and I'll drop by Caboose Hobbies along the way. Then make another attempt at track scenery later this week.

For what it's worth I did make some progress. I've figured out the measurements, including slope grades, for the track sides and found a really good mix of ballast. And I have a test sample track-with-roadbed-and-subroadbed just waiting for experimentation when I get back from my business trip.

On the plus side I also finally -- and I do mean finally -- got the darn Kato RDC to work with the Digitrax DN143K2 decoder. I bought this for my son for some event -- one I can no longer remember -- in 2005 and first tried to add the DN122K2 decoder (DN143K2 predecessor) back in early 2006. It was a miserable failure. From time to time I've tried again, sometimes destroying the decoder in the process. This is a really nasty installation because the internal electrical connections are so finicky, but yes, today I called my son over, handed him the throttle, and said "see if this works". It worked great, with all the lighting functions, and he spent the next two hours operating trains. Chalk that up to one more experience point with decoders.

Speaking of decoders, I've also been fighting with a DN163A0 for the BNSF Atlas dash 8 -- the first N scale freight locomotive that I bought on that fateful day back in 2002. The lights come on bright and perfect, in the appropriate direction, but the motor just sits there. As part of the debugging process I finally opened up the NCE decoder tesk kit I bought from Mike last year, as an upgrade from the free decoder test kit Digitrax provides with their starter kits. It was a useful exercise. At this point the problem is isolated to the connection between the motor and the decoder. The motor is fine, the decoder is fine. I want to get this off of my work table so would like to resolve it tomorrow.

One other bit of fun -- the Amtrak Superliner cars frequently derail going over one Peco switch, but none of the other Peco or Atlas switches. Occasionally, but not very often, other cars derail on this switch. Naturally this switch is in an inconvenient spot, right next to the box and far from any of the layout sides, so I have to crawl in-and-out frequently during the diagnostic process. The NMRA N scale gauge has been helpful, but not conclusive. I've found that the Superliner cars have wheels that are slightly narrower than the standard, which is why they derail more often than most. As to why the switch causes this I still haven't found the problem. At first I thought it was an overly-wide flangeway between the frog and the guard rail, but I'm not sure that is any wider than other Peco switches. Now I'm focusing on the points, but still nothing conclusive. Another learning experience that will hopefully help later on.

My goal for tomorrow is to clean off the work desk of projects and be fully ready for restarting on the track ballast problem when I get back from the business trip later this week.

Egad, what a CAD

This post is about Computer-Aided Design (CAD) tools for model layout planning. The title actually comes from an obscure, one-act melodrama that is occasionally put on by high schools, more commonly back in, oh, say, the 1970s. Don't ask me how I know that.

I managed to avoid CAD for layout design for a long time. I downloaded a few demo products back in 2003 but after realizing they all had steep learning curves I stuck to graph paper, pencil, erasers, a ruler and a compass.

However, after I completed the high-level layout design and made my first attempt at a detailed staging design I realized that I was going to need CAD to complete this layout. I'd been working at it for about 2 hours when I realized that the approach I was taking simply could not work, and that I'd need to shift the entire track arrangement around. Then it occurred to me that this was likely going to happen many, many times given the nature of what I was trying to fit into the space. A tool that would allow me to shift whole track groups quickly from place-to-place, trying to find the best arrangement, was going to be essential if I was to complete the design in the same decade.

There are several CAD tools available for model railroaders. I'm sure I don't have a comprehensive list but CADrail and 3rd PlanIt seem to be the most popular choices. There is also a free tool from Atlas which apparently is acceptable if you are using their sectional track, and I've heard there is a model railroad version of Xtra CAD somewhere, but it didn't turn up in my quick Google search.

Which is the best? Heck if I know. Like almost everyone else I just picked one, learned it, and since it works I haven't bothered to try another since the learning curve is steep for each tool. I've read a few reviews of the various tools in Model Railroader, but they are careful to avoid making any one tool look better than the others.

So, I picked 3rd PlanIt only because when I tried the demo I was able to locate quickly the templates for the N scale switches I was going to use. Not the most scientific approach, but at least I knew it was going to work for me. I've found it a good tool, but if I had to recommend one now I'd suggest you look at CADrail only because I can't get the 3rd PlanIt people to respond to my emails.

The learning curve is steep even if you are adept at computer use and even have CAD experience, say from home design software. Actually I can't imagine how someone who has limited computer experience could possibly learn this tool on his/her own. Yes, part of the learning has to do with getting used to the concept of working with objects segregated by layers -- only some of which may be visible at a given time -- and part of it has to do with getting used to thinking in three dimensions. But most of the learning has to do with getting used to setting up the track and the connections between the track, including topics like easements, parallel track, and connecting track that doesn't align to the nanometer.

In my case I spent maybe 3 weeks getting the lower deck designed, then did the upper deck over the next 2 weeks, then re-did the lower deck now that I really understood the tool.

And once you are skilled at using the tool you'll find, if you compare notes with another skilled user, that your approach and his/hers are completely different, yet both are effective. This is because the tool has so many options that it's likely no two people use it in exactly the same way.

So, thus far all I've said is that I used 3rd PlanIt to design my layout, I am skilled with the tool, and it took me a long time to learn how to use it. But the real questions are: do I consider it worth the effort, and if so what are the advantages? The answer to the first question is an emphatic yes -- I wished I learned it years ago and saved the time I spent doing smaller layout designs on graph paper. The answer to the second question is that these are, IMHO, the advantages of using a CAD tool:

1. Speed. Once you are adept you can put down the initial version of a track section at least as fast as you can using graph paper. After that is done subsequent adjustments can be done in mere seconds or minutes. You can save literally hours or days with a single redesign effort.
2. Precision of design. On paper, no matter how hard you try to be exact, you can too easily "fudge" the angle of a switch or the radius of a curve, and deceive yourself about the workability of a track arrangement. With CAD what you design is what you get. "Fudging" is only possible if you cheat by, say, forcing two tracks together that don't really fit. If you use the standard connect tools that won't happen.
3. Precision of implementation. CAD allows you to know the exact location, down to 1/32nd of an inch if you like, for a given switch or start of a curve.
4. 3D and overlays. It is a challenge to figure out how elements fit together in a three dimensional space using graph paper. With CAD you can easily select which layers to view, allowing you to see how different elements fit together without distractions from other elements. Futhermore, most CAD programs have 3D views so you can confirm it all works.
5. Precise calculations. Will that siding be long enough? What is the exact slope of this grade? What is the exact radius of this curve? All these and more are quickly answered with CAD, but often can be calculated only approximately, and after a lot of work, with graph paper.
6. Easy printing and sharing of designs. A nice side effect of CAD.

In addition, there are other features of CAD which I haven't used, such as testing out scenic views or actual train operations, which many people find helpful.

The only caution I'd give to someone using CAD is that it really helps if you have experience building from CAD before you decide that your CAD design is "final". This is because CAD's extremely precise calculations can mislead you about how the design will translate to reality. My plans, for example, are calculated to the 16th of an inch. When you start working in your layout room you'll find that real life isn't always like that. Floors aren't always level and walls aren't always plumb (in fact, they usually aren't). The peninsulas you build may not be exactly perpendicular from the wall. You may also find that if you carefully plot two locations of a line from the CAD to your benchwork, that when you extend the line outwards it doesn't seem to correctly line up. In part this is because 1/16th of an inch is really small -- your pen mark may be that wide! You probably will need to check measurements again and again at different locations, and also be prepared to adapt your CAD design slightly based on what you encounter on the benchwork. Once you've done this once or twice you'll take it into account when doing your next CAD design, and leave yourself a little slack room in the design.

So, I used CAD for the iNdoor layout design, and then later for the Garden railroad as well. In future posts I'll describe those designs.