# Newbie advice please



## jackson233 (Oct 16, 2017)

Hello,

I am in the beginning stage of my first layout and I settled on a simple 2x4 N-Scale Unitrack plan and am wondering where I should plan to put feeders, assuming I should use more than one?

Thanks,
j233


----------



## nscaletim (Oct 17, 2013)

At least before and after the switches, on each side, and probably half way through the turns. You should probably put insulators between the points the switches meet up at. The crossing sections and between the switches themselves. If that makes sense. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

For a layout the size you have I would connect
feeders on the RIGHT side of the upper crossover
and on the LEFT side of the lower crossover. No
insulators are required unless you are running DC and wish
to have a train running on the inner and another on the
outer ovals. In that case, insulators between the turnouts both
upper and lower. In this situation you would connect the
feeds of the two ovals through DPDT switches so you can
select which power pack controls which oval.

Don


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

The plan shown has no return loop and Unitrack turnouts have plastic frogs,so no insulating joiners should be required.

Feeders to both tracks at both ends would be more than enough.However,additional feeders MAY be needed to the crossover sections if they're not already powered as per Kato's design.

You may wish to run two separate trains independently on the two circles,in this case you'll need insulators to both crossover sections between the turnouts.This is called "block control" and you'd need a second control.This is required for DC running only,not required for DCC.You didn't say wich power you'll be using.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I am the forums poster child for the "you don't need nearly as many feeders as many people install" philosophy. It's a matter of risk mitigation, really. It's long odds that your layout will work just fine with a single set of feeders. And it is possible to add more after construction, if you gamble and it turns out that the universe is against you (or Mr. Murphy pays a visit).

That said, I would go with two sets, one for each track, about 180 degrees opposite one another. Where doesn't really matter since the turnouts aren't power routing.

No insulated joiners are necessary (unless, as Don says, you plan to operate in DC and run two trains independently on the inner and outer tracks), and including them will only complicate matters.


----------



## jackson233 (Oct 16, 2017)

Thanks everyone for your help and suggestions!


----------



## flyboy2610 (Jan 20, 2010)

I would put a pair on the inner loop and a pair on the outer loop.


----------



## jackson233 (Oct 16, 2017)

In the interest of keeping things simple I rethought my proposed 30x48 layout and designed it more like the Unitrack Cedar Falls Junction layout. 

I am going to go with DCC but I am confused with the turnouts' operation. I read on the Digitrax website where the Unitrack turnouts need to have screws re arranged - will making these mods allow me to control the turnouts with the Digitrax ZEPX Zephyr Xtra which is the DCC system I am thinking of or will I still use the Kato switches?


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

Only my personal taste here...I liked the first drawing much better,it has more operational interest.


----------



## jackson233 (Oct 16, 2017)

Hi Jake,

I like it too but am afraid that setting up those double turnouts would be beyond my ability DC or DCC as I struggle to understand how everything works!


----------



## nscaletim (Oct 17, 2013)

The smaller unitrack switches have a power routing screw. For dcc you have to set it to non power routing,the larger turnouts, to my best knowledge( haven't seen the new ones ) do not have that screw and are non power routing by design. If you set them to non power routing, on the small ones it will work just fine with the zephyr. It's what I use, for my original layout, I did use insulators just for safety though. Between the turnouts and spurs. Just my taste for wiring. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

Electrically speaking,both your suggested plans are the simplest that can be.No return loop,no block control with DCC...I say assemble your Unitrack temporarily,set the turnouts to power routing,use jumpers and run a train.Everything should go smooth as silk.

If there should be any problem,don't cut short on your desired plan...tell us what's happening and someone will help you pinpoint and correct what's wrong.


----------



## nscaletim (Oct 17, 2013)

According to what I have read on digitrax, and experienced, you need to set the small switches to non power routing. Otherwise it shorts out the layout like the electrofrogs I had issues with, that you helped me with brakeman. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Honestly, I would go back to your original plan. Even that one is so simple that there is a risk that you will quicly get bored with it.

Don't worry about complexity with the turnouts, and getting them set up for DCC. That's really not a good reason to oversimplify your layout. Getting a layout up and running isn't quite as simple as assembling a LEGO kit, but it isn't rocket science either. You'll be pleasantly surprised how fast you pick it up, and if you do get stuck, there is plenty of help available here.


----------



## jackson233 (Oct 16, 2017)

Thanks again everyone... like usual I may be trying to run before I can walk so I am going to go back to concentrating getting my layout going. 

Surely once I accomplish that my questions and worries will be better founded and with such helpful members here I imagine help will be here.

Cheers!


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

"Power routing" means that the turnout sends power to the diverging track when thrown to this direction.When thrown "main line",the spur is dead unless it is fed with its own feeders wich is useful if you want to park let's say a sound equipped loco and have its track turned off.
Power routing will not create a short unless one of the turnout's exits is connected to an opposed polarity track like a return loop for instance,in wich case insulating joiners are required.

Peco's Electrofrog are a different issue.If you forget to instal insulating joiners to both legs of their metal frog,they will short the layout in whichever diredtion they're thrown.The short comes from the metal frog linking A & B tracks together,not from the power routing feature.Peco's Insulfrog (plastic frog) don't have this issue yet are power routing just the same.

Kato's Unitrack have plastic frog,so being set to power routing shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## nscaletim (Oct 17, 2013)

Kato and Digitrax recommend the best DCC performance with the Unitrack turnout requires that you set each #4 turnout to "Non-power-routing".**

You can do this by*changing the position of*the screw that sets power routing which is located on the bottom of each #4 turnout.* There are two screw adjustments on*a Unitrack turnout, one for making the turnout non-power routing and the other being for setting either*"live" or "insulated" frog (the point where the two rails cross)l* Leave the frog screw in the "insulated" position.

It should be noted that some N-scale Unitrack production has the routing/non-routing connections mislabeled, with the English-language description cast into the plastic base of the track being opposite of what it should be.* If in doubt, use an ohmmeter to determine of the points are set for "routing" or "non-routing".


That's from digitrax site, I am not arguing with anyone, please understand that. I just wanted to show how I got my information, and I will also note, I did over look mentioning the insulated frog screw , which I apologize for doing. I did have an issue with the #4 switches causing a short when they were on power routing, but it might have been due to the issue of live or insulated frog screw now that I rethink that. Either way digitrax and kato say not to go.power routing which was what I was trying to say. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## jackson233 (Oct 16, 2017)

Well obviously I need to read some Train terminology to help me follow what you guys are saying, but I feel like I will be referring back to this thread in the future so thank you.

Using the first layout that I proposed, would it make sense for me to incorporate one of these 'stationary dual decoder' for each of my layouts double turnout points - one for each?

http://www.digitrax.com/products/stationary-decoders/ds52/

I was a bit thrown off by the lack of 'housing' around the decoder - do you just mount it underneath your bench as is?


----------



## nscaletim (Oct 17, 2013)

I am not sure, but I don't think that will work on unitrack switches. I just throw them by hand, as my layout is not large or wide. All the unitrack switches I have seen have a decoder on them, have one that looks like a train one, that has lots of wires. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

nscaletim said:


> I am not sure, but I don't think that will work on unitrack switches. I just throw them by hand, as my layout is not large or wide. All the unitrack switches I have seen have a decoder on them, have one that looks like a train one, that has lots of wires.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


If the Unitrack turnouts come with a decoder, then you don't need one; otherwise, you should be able to wire one in just as you would any other turnout. The brand wouldn't matter.


----------



## nscaletim (Oct 17, 2013)

The unitrack switches do not come with decoders. You have to install them separate and as far as I know only digitrax sales ones that work

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## jackson233 (Oct 16, 2017)

Hello everyone, once again thank you for your suggestions and guidance... I have spent the past few weeks reading a lot and getting a bit of a better understanding in not only terminology and wiring basics, but also in what my expectations are for my first layout.

I will definitely be starting with DCC, N scale and using Kato unitrack upon rigid insulation board, starting with a 30" x 48" layout.

My vision is a simple double oval layout... I want the outer oval to be slightly higher than the inside one as I do not want a tunnel, but instead hope to give the effect/illusion of 'space and distance' as my trains run through a northern environment (ie. Northern NY or Ontario), therefore lots of trees and granite rock cliffs etc.

I still have little understanding of switching yards and how actual railways function, so to ease myself into this hobby as an old guy my goal is to concentrate on the scenery, weathering, etc. and maybe someday expand as my knowledge surely will if I get the satisfaction I hope to from this hobby.

*Having said that, I am still cloudy on the use of turnouts, sidings, crossovers etc. so I have trouble discerning the advantages, errors, or short comings of the 3 proposed track layouts below, mainly in how the differences in connecting the 2 tracks will effect/complicate my simple operation (programming my turnouts etc)?*

Any simple feedback would as always be very much appreciated!

Thanks,
j233


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

The only one of your 3 track plans that is really viable is the first. With the other two, once the train moved from the outer track to the inner one, you would have to reverse it through the turnout to get it back to the outer one.

The other problem is your height differential -- it won't work with the concept you've laid out. Turnouts must be completely level side to side to avoid derailing trains, and trying to make a height adjustment, even of a fractional inch, without a short connecting track between the turnouts, means your turnouts would have to be inclined from side to side.

You're also going to want some sidings. Most people get bored with a train chasing it's tail after a very short time.

One thing you can do to give your trains a sense of "going somewhere" is to put a view block (a low backdrop) down the middle of the layout so that you can't see both sides at the same time.


----------



## jackson233 (Oct 16, 2017)

CTValleyRR said:


> The only one of your 3 track plans that is really viable is the first. With the other two, once the train moved from the outer track to the inner one, you would have to reverse it through the turnout to get it back to the outer one.
> 
> The other problem is your height differential -- it won't work with the concept you've laid out. Turnouts must be completely level side to side to avoid derailing trains, and trying to make a height adjustment, even of a fractional inch, without a short connecting track between the turnouts, means your turnouts would have to be inclined from side to side.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much for your input... I had wondered about that exact thing with having to reverse to change tracks.

Regarding the different elevations... could I not start raising the outer oval along the curve (thinking an inch or inch and a half) after the turnout and start lowering it back after the bridge?

As far as sidings go, with my limited space I had planned to fill the empty middle with a lake surrounded by forest, essentially taking sections of track out of view... ?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

jackson233 said:


> Thanks so much for your input... I had wondered about that exact thing with having to reverse to change tracks.
> 
> Regarding the different elevations... could I not start raising the outer oval along the curve (thinking an inch or inch and a half) after the turnout and start lowering it back after the bridge?
> 
> As far as sidings go, with my limited space I had planned to fill the empty middle with a lake surrounded by forest, essentially taking sections of track out of view... ?


Yes -- if the area with the turnouts is the same height, you're fine. Just remember that a 3% grade -- 3" rise in 100" of horizontal distance -- is steep enough to be problematic, even for our little trains. Keep the grade under that, and avoid abrupt changes in grade; ensure that the transition onto and off of the grade is smooth -- almost impossible to do if the transition occurs at a track joint.


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

jackson233 said:


> Thanks so much for your input... I had wondered about that exact thing with having to reverse to change tracks.
> 
> Regarding the different elevations... could I not start raising the outer oval along the curve (thinking an inch or inch and a half) after the turnout and start lowering it back after the bridge?
> 
> As far as sidings go, with my limited space I had planned to fill the empty middle with a lake surrounded by forest, essentially taking sections of track out of view... ?


If you wanted to use the third layout Kato does make a double crossover in N. You could use that as a substitute for the single crossover and would allow movement between the loops without reversing.


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

That still won’t address the elevation problem between the loops, which as CT Valley pointed out, will not work in that configuration.


----------



## jackson233 (Oct 16, 2017)

CTValleyRR said:


> Yes -- if the area with the turnouts is the same height, you're fine. Just remember that a 3% grade -- 3" rise in 100" of horizontal distance -- is steep enough to be problematic, even for our little trains. Keep the grade under that, and avoid abrupt changes in grade; ensure that the transition onto and off of the grade is smooth -- almost impossible to do if the transition occurs at a track joint.


Is a 2% change more feasible on such a small layout? I was looking at the Woodland Scenic incline/decline kit to give me a 1" or 2" difference.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

It depends on your aims. I would ask you, sincerely, and without judgement, why you want to have this change in elevation. IOW, is it so important that it is worth all the trouble, just to get up to 1.5" and then have to descend again...for no real purpose? If it were up to a warehouse, or a lumber yard, or something, I could see that, but not as part of a loop.

However, from the point of view of engineering, based on what your trains can pull up grades, it sounds like between 1-2" is a practical and reasonable expectation if you would rather keep the grade to below 2.5%. To cross a loop over itself at some point, you'd need a grade quite a bit steeper, and that means the vertical transition curves at either end become all the more important.......................and longer. Thus, they eat up the steady portion of your grade's length.


----------



## jackson233 (Oct 16, 2017)

mesenteria, only for visual illusion and appearance as I hope to block portions of the track with evergreens to break up the 'loop' as I detest tunnels through mountains lol



mesenteria said:


> It depends on your aims. I would ask you, sincerely, and without judgement, why you want to have this change in elevation. IOW, is it so important that it is worth all the trouble, just to get up to 1.5" and then have to descend again...for no real purpose? If it were up to a warehouse, or a lumber yard, or something, I could see that, but not as part of a loop.
> 
> However, from the point of view of engineering, based on what your trains can pull up grades, it sounds like between 1-2" is a practical and reasonable expectation if you would rather keep the grade to below 2.5%. To cross a loop over itself at some point, you'd need a grade quite a bit steeper, and that means the vertical transition curves at either end become all the more important.......................and longer. Thus, they eat up the steady portion of your grade's length.


----------

