# Newbie with questions (YAY!...right?)



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

Hello all - I have for you today, a free bunch of annoying newbie questions, that I hope you can assist with - (feel free to sigh and shake your head). 

I am embarking on my first ever layout - first ever "train set" really, and following the recent "train show" finally decided to build a layout like I've always wanted. I'm new to trains, but not new to modeling in the grander scheme, so I'm not totally without some skill / reference, but I do have a bunch of newbie questions - thanks for your help...

*Build details:* HO scale, generally a 6' X 10' "space" (exact form TBD) planning a fun home set - not intended for winning awards of moving around. 

1) Rather than asking for "the best" track (which is probably subjective) Which HO track would you suggest that offers a good mix of A) ease of use B) flexibility to create interesting routes C) Realistic, but fundamentally reliable? I have for example a bunch of Bachmann EZ-Track - but I'm not sure it is going to allow me to be creative with routes and may lack some realism - perhaps that can be remedied with scenery, or am I wrong, and EZ-Track is fine? 

2) How do I know which engines will couple to which carriages? Is there a standard most use? I see interesting engines and carriages on eBay or at the shows, but how do I know if they are compatible? Is there a "Best / Better / Good brand in HO, ones to avoid?

3) Is there anything to consider in track or engines when looking at "controllers". All I have is a rotary dial that says "Faster / Slower" meanwhile, at the shows - most layouts are run by a NASA computer and portable handhelds. I think I'd like to be somewhere in the middle - good control, ability to access multiple tracks and layout "features" - but I don't need to go super high-end either, and ease of use is big too. Do I need to plan my track, engines and layout features (lights and such) to be compatible with the control system?

4) Are there different HO technology standards that I need to pick from? For example, in the slot car world there is the standard classic analog system, but also new digital systems - Both are fine, both work, but neither is compatible with the other. Not all digital systems are alike either, cars from one will not necessarily run on another system and the track is different as well - So, before you even start a layout, you've got some technology choices to make - does any of this ring true for model railroads?

I'm sure I'll have more questions in the future, but to get me started, those are the main ones I came up with. Thank you for the help and advice. 

Allan.


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

Treozen said:


> Hello all - I have for you today, a free bunch of annoying newbie questions, that I hope you can assist with - (feel free to sigh and shake your head).
> 
> I am embarking on my first ever layout - first ever "train set" really, and following the recent "train show" finally decided to build a layout like I've always wanted. I'm new to trains, but not new to modeling in the grander scheme, so I'm not totally without some skill / reference, but I do have a bunch of newbie questions - thanks for your help...
> 
> ...





> 2) How do I know which engines will couple to which carriages? Is there a standard most use? I see interesting engines and carriages on eBay or at the shows, but how do I know if they are compatible? Is there a "Best / Better / Good brand in HO, ones to avoid?


Locomotives and cars, manufacturer doesn't matter much for compatibility. The couplings included do, but pretty much everything produced over the last 10-15 years now includes semi-realistic "knuckle" couplers that are all pretty much compatible.

Older train-show finds may have older style couplers that aren't compatible, but it's usually fairly easy to replace them. Kadee sells all sort of knuckle couplers - the #5 is their standard, #148 is the same but with an integrated wire spring for easier installation. #58/158 are a smaller size head version of the 5/148. Everything else are variations for special applications.



> 3) Is there anything to consider in track or engines when looking at "controllers". All I have is a rotary dial that says "Faster / Slower" meanwhile, at the shows - most layouts are run by a NASA computer and portable handhelds. I think I'd like to be somewhere in the middle - good control, ability to access multiple tracks and layout "features" - but I don't need to go super high-end either, and ease of use is big too. Do I need to plan my track, engines and layout features (lights and such) to be compatible with the control system?


You'll want to look for these terms:

- DCC or DCC/Sound included
- DC

DCC is "Digital Command Control"
DC is the old analog "direct current"

Some DCC decoders (over-simply, the computer "chip" inside the locomotive) are "dual mode" and may actually run on straight analog DC current, but it'll take a higher voltage to get them to move.

Some DCC can run an analog DC engine on address 0, but it's not necessarily recommended and not all current systems still support this.

If you're keeping with an analog controller, you're looking for DC versions of engines.



> 4) Are there different HO technology standards that I need to pick from? For example, in the slot car world there is the standard classic analog system, but also new digital systems - Both are fine, both work, but neither is compatible with the other. Not all digital systems are alike either, cars from one will not necessarily run on another system and the track is different as well - So, before you even start a layout, you've got some technology choices to make - does any of this ring true for model railroads?


See DC vs. DCC above.

If you go DCC, all DCC decoders* are compatible with any DCC system. However the components of the system itself (command station, throttles, radio base stations, boosters, what not) are not interchangeable. So your system will all be from one provider like Digitrax or NCE, but any engines will be compatible.

*Except MTH. MTH is weird and does their own thing. They have their own digital system called DCS which is not DCC. Their decoders are mostly compatible with DCC, but there are some quirks and I don't think that other DCC decoders are compatible with DCS.

There's also another system called RailPro which is a different sort of digital system and also not DCC standard.

DCC is the common standard for digital command control systems today though.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

EZ track and other similar track on roadbed
systems limit you to what track accessories that
brand offers. Most of us prefer nickle/silver flex track. It
comes in 3 foot sections and can be bent or cut
to fit your own track plans. You'll need a razor
saw or Dremel cutting wheel. Atlas and Peco and
one or two other brands offer flex. Code 100 is
the most popular but code 83 is more realistic.
Any brand will be satisfactory. 

Peco and Shinohara turnouts are highly recommended. Atlas
less so. There are two types of turnout motors:
Twin Coil (solenoids) and Stall motor (DC motor
slowly moves points). 

There is a panel switch to control turnouts as well
as the panel and trackside signals made by
Stapleton. Their 751 can be ordered for either
type of motor.

You'll also want a small 25 or 30 watt soldering
iron, resin flux and resin core solder.

There is a vast difference between the old DC power
system for trains and the new DCC (digital command
control). With DCC two wires from the controller, as a bus, power your entire layout. No blocks or panel switches
needed.

You can run 2, 3 or more trains at the same time and
have individual control of each from your command
unit. Each loco has a 2 or 4 digit number as an
'address'. You can push a button to control train B
after you get train A running. You can even have
one going clockwise as the other goes counter clockwise
on the same track.

AND THE LIGHTS DON'T DIM WHEN YOU SLOW OR
GO OUT WHEN YOU STOP. The track is continually
powered with around 14 volts modified AC that also
carries the digital information from the controller
to decoders in each loco.

The four major brands offering DCC systems are
Digitrax, NEC, MRC, and Bachmann. Any DCC loco
can be run by any of those systems. All are quality
built and dependable. All are full featured but the
Bachmann lacks capability of fine tuning decoders.
The others can.

Some DC locos can be operated on a DCC layout
but it is not advisable. The AC track power can
damage the DC motor if left idle.

Decoders from Digitrax and NEC are recommended.
It's a simple plug in installation if you have a DCC READY
loco. Otherwise you would solder wires from the
decoder to the motor and lights. Decoders come with
easy to follow instructions. The usual cost is somewhat
less than 20.00 per unit.

Don


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Welcome aboard!*



Treozen said:


> Hello all - I have for you today, a free bunch of annoying newbie questions, that I hope you can assist with - (feel free to sigh and shake your head).
> 
> I am embarking on my first ever layout - first ever "train set" really, and following the recent "train show" finally decided to build a layout like I've always wanted. I'm new to trains, but not new to modeling in the grander scheme, so I'm not totally without some skill / reference, but I do have a bunch of newbie questions - thanks for your help...
> 
> ...




Allan;

Welcome to the forum! 

First; we are not annoyed by newbie questions. Helping new people to get started is one of the main goals of this forum. We like answering newbie's questions and answer them often. Please don't feel the least bit "guilty" about asking for information. That's what we do here. One thing that is slightly taxing is answering basically the same questions for many people. That just comes as a natural part of the"job" here, but one thing I have done is to compile a lot of basic information in some pdf files so that I can give the same info to multiple people with out re-typing the entire text each time I'm asked for help. I have attached some of these files below. Browse through them if you wish to. 

It looks like the others have answered most of your questions, so I'll just add my own product recommendations based on the goals you outlined. 

Track:
I recommend flex track from any of theses brands. Peco, Micro Engineering, or Atlas. Flex track is literally, physically flexible, and can be used as straight track, or bent to any desired curve. The roadbed track like Bachman's EZ-track, or Kato's Unitrack do limit you somewhat in the choice of curves and other shapes available. They are also the most expensive of the three types of track available, roadbed, sectional, and flex, track. Flex is the least expensive type. There are also different "codes" of track available. Practically speaking these codes which translate to the height of the rail in 1000ths of an inch, are only about appearance. An HO-scale train will run equally well on code 100, or code 83 track. The smaller code 83 is simply closer to scale size, and therefore looks more realistic.

Turnouts: (aka track switches)

Peco turnouts are simply the most ruggedly constructed, reliable, and least likely to give you problems, of any commercial turnout. Shinohara, and Micro Engineering turnouts are also very good. Atlas "Custom Line," and particularly Atlas "Snap Switch" turnouts are pretty much bottom of the barrel in quality.

DCC vs traditional DC:

If you plan to ever run more than one train at a time, go with DCC. It is much simpler to wire, easy to use, and has the option of sound onboard the locomotive. 
Among the different brands of DCC control systems I recommend the NCE powercab. It's relatively inexpensive, full featured, yet easy to program and operate, and the entire system is contained in one small hand-held unit. Two wires from controller to track are all you will need.

Locomotives:

Kato, intermountain athern they are all good runners right out of the box. There are more expensive brands, but usually the difference is the amount of detail, not running reliability.

Cars/Carriages:

Whatever you like that will handle the curves and turnouts you choose. Long passenger cars, long modern freight cars and long locomotives will work better on #6 turnouts and 22" or larger radius curves. Shorter cars and locomotives will handle sharp 18" radius curves and #4-#4.5 turnouts better.

Couplers:

Use whatever brand knuckle couplers come on your cars. If they fail, replace them with Kadee/Micro-Trains couplers. They are simply the best couplers made.

good luck;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:

View attachment WHERE DO I START 3.pdf


View attachment Choosing a Scale.pdf


View attachment All AboutTurnouts.pdf


View attachment 1 How to build a better first layout.pdf


View attachment 2 How to build a better first layout.pdf


View attachment 3 & 4 How to build a better first layout.pdf


View attachment 5 How to build a better first layout.pdf


View attachment 6 How to build a better first layout.pdf


View attachment Model Railroad Terminology 2.2.pdf


View attachment MODEL RAILROADING ON A BUDGET.pdf


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Treozen said:


> I am embarking on my first ever layout - first ever "train set" really, and following the recent "train show" finally decided to build a layout like I've always wanted. I'm new to trains,...


Okay, go slow. That's my advice. Don't spend a dime until you have some really strong convictions about where to start your development...and evolution. Things will change for you, but the more you learn now, the less you will have to undo/get rid of on eBay later.



Treozen said:


> *Build details:* HO scale, generally a 6' X 10' "space" (exact form TBD) planning a fun home set - not intended for winning awards of moving around.


Excellent! That will come much more pleasantly and easily as you master the basics and add new thinking and details to your layout and its operations.



Treozen said:


> 1) Rather than asking for "the best" track …


The answer depends on what you want to do with it. A simple 'roundy-round' is best done with what you already have. If you have something a bit more 'refined' or 'complicated' in mind, can you make what you possess work, even with some modification to the track plan so it will all work...with EZ-Track? Can you live with it, even if for just a few months while you do more thinking? Nothing is cast in concrete here, so you can always rip it up and start over, particularly with EZ-Track. With ballasted flex track, much harder....



Treozen said:


> 2) How do I know which engines will couple to which carriages? Is there a standard most use? I see interesting engines and carriages on eBay or at the shows,...


Fortunately, most current suppliers pay more than mere lip service to the standards published by the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA), which makes and sells a very handy must-have track and coupler gauge that also doubles as a gauge for side and overhead clearances for the scale you are using. Sold at all hobby shops, including on line. Do get one right away...ignoring my first warning about spending money. 
Order it as part of your first order or in-store purchase. You'll use that one item more than any pair of pliers, cordless drivers, or straight edges.

But, no matter what you purchase in the way of rolling stock, unless it's a private sale or something picked up at a train show from a seller, the newer stuff will all be compatible in terms of rolling capabilities and in coupling between cars.



Treozen said:


> ... Is there a "Best / Better / Good brand in HO, ones to avoid?


Not really. NIB (New in Box) from a reputable dealer/importer is going to be more easily exchanged than trying to hunt down the pimple-faced kid at a train show who sold you his great uncle's stuff at bargain prices. But a good modeler will find a way to repair items that need modification so that it will fit into a set of rolling stock he already has that work well together.



Treozen said:


> 3) Is there anything to consider in track or engines when looking at "controllers". All I have is a rotary dial that says "Faster / Slower" meanwhile, at the shows...


What you have is a variable DC voltage power supply for non-Digitally Command & Control (or DCC) locomotives. It should still work if your locos are not DCC. But all locomotives on the track system will run in the same direction, even when you turn one around, when you power the rails with DC voltage. With DCC the decoder/chip interprets your throttle commands and makes the engine behave like the real thing, even when two or more locomotives are sharing the same contiguous length of powered tracks. Much more realistic and simple, although DC can be made to behave almost as well with a lot more complication.


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

Lots of answers to your questions already.
So I'll offer questions.

You used the word carriages, are you living in Europe, Far East, South America, North America?

You posted in HO, will you build in HO or OO or HOn3?

Will you buy old or new rolling stock and locomotives?

Do you intend to run any 'toy like' equipment?


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

Thanks everyone for the responses. I also read through each of the PDFs - lots of valuable material there, I'll refer back to them for sure. 

*Based on the feedback, Here is what I'm thinking:*

I want a DCC-capable set-up, likely controlled via a Digitrax or NCE system, running through Atlas or Peco flextrack, using Peco turnouts. I'll need space, sufficient to accommodate #6 turnouts and 22" radii curves to allow for longer cars and locomotives. Despite the attraction, I want to avoid the "duck-under" layout and instead craft a layout that offers access and a design that can at least somewhat replicate the workings of a true rail line / yard. Generally, I wont need to worry too much about couplers, as the majority are likely to be compatible, or replaceable. 




Dennis461 said:


> Lots of answers to your questions already.
> So I'll offer questions.
> 
> You used the word carriages, are you living in Europe, Far East, South America, North America?
> ...


Answers to the questions:

1) North America, Washington State. BUT....I'm an import from Scotland, so.....seems my "scottishness" leaked out...

2) Plan to build in HO. I actually liked the On30 setups as well, but HO seems like a simpler place to start, and at least right now, makes little difference to me between the two. 

3) Both, probably. I have a few right now, but there are older DC units. I gather I can install a module to make them DCC-compatible. I will probably get at least one native DCC locomotive, just to eliminate an extra complexity to start - but my Father-in-law has some older HO engines and I'd like to get them working again. 

4) I'm not sure what "toy-like" equipment means in this instance, but I would guess the answer is no. I'd like to have lights in buildings, street lamps, possibly lighted cars and other city-space objects. If I can find motorized props (cranes, machinery, mill equipment) that looks authentic enough, I'd use them, but nothing gimmicky or that detracts from the "scene". I'd like to get my layout to a good degree of interesting detail, understanding of course that as my first attempt, I'll likely fall short as skills build.


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

*Toy like*

Toy like for me is some of the low end trains we see around Christmas time. People buy them use them once and to the attic they go. The locos tend to run really fast, making it difficult to use wit good slower running locomotives. Wheels are not very free wheeling, older Tyco, AHM, Bachman. Wheel flanges are generally too tall to run on code 83 or code 70 track.

I have a fleet of older Rivarossi locomotive that cannot run on code 83 track. They also seem to have very little weight to them and wheels spin going uphill.

Read everything. Plan your layout well, and also setup a simple transformer-engine-rolling stock to test your track as you build it.

Oh, good luck welcome to the forum, what do you need to get started?


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

Dennis461 said:


> Read everything. Plan your layout well, and also setup a simple transformer-engine-rolling stock to test your track as you build it.
> 
> Oh, good luck welcome to the forum, what do you need to get started?


For sure, I'm in research mode - I want to do this well, but I'm also trying to steer clear of getting overly focused on every detail - which I've been known to do. This project needs to be enjoyable - I'd rather get it mostly right and enjoy the process, than analyze everything to death and end up hating it...or worse....not even starting. 

As for what I need to get started, I think its basically:

1 - I need to get hands-on with this Flex Track. I want to see how it works, how it connects, find out its limits and opportunities. I've only ever had the kit-style EZ-Track, so I need to see what flex track can do and what options it will give me 

2 - I need to determine a basic "build space and shape". I have 8' X 9' "reserved" for train space - so not huge. Technically I could extend the long end out further, provided it wasn't also the full 8-feet wide - I have 20' that direction, but the space has other uses - so if needed I could go perhaps 10 - 14' on the long end, but not at 8' wide. I know that I'd like a passenger line and a freight line, and for each, something that makes sense for why they exist - so a village and train station, coal mine and lumber yard - I'm not really sure yet if I can fit all that in along with a rail yard in a 8' X 9' area. Anyway - I need to get to a shape that fits in the space, is accessible, and can accommodate my layout aspirations while allowing for appropriate turn outs, passing areas, curves and loops. 

3 - I need to pick up an appropriate DCC control system and then set up a temporary rail system that I can use to test engines, grades, curves, etc - see where the limits are before building. 










My Father-in-law dug out his old HO stuff and will donate to the cause - Its a forgone conclusion that the track will not work (mostly missing, broken or EZ-Track style) and the Locomotives are, well, perhaps as old as the real thing - none will be DCC - compliant, but perhaps I can convert them. Worst case, they'll look good as rail yard decor.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Welcome to the hobby! You've gotten great advice so far, and I won't rehash it, except the bit about asking newbie questions. Bring 'em on! The more, the merrier. The only wrong way to deal with a newbie question is not to ask it.

I will add a couple of observations. First of all, 6' x 10' space really isn't a lot, especially if you include a table top jn the center (and most of us have a little trouble reaching the center of a 6' table at a height of 42" (tall enough not to kill your back when you work/ operate on it). 30" is about it for reach. But there is a better solution: make a narrower layout around the perimeter of that space, with a "cockpit" in the middle. This will also give you more room for broader curves.

Secondly, consider investing in some track planning software -- not the free junk from Atlas and other track manufacturers, but ones that have full libraries of track available. There are free versions of these, two, but for me, I like to support the efforts of the folks doing the work. Most programs offer a free trial version. Beware the ones that emphasize 3D modeling: they add a lot of complexity to the software, and don't really help you visualize the track plan any better. My personal preference is Anyrail. Everyone is different, but I find it easier (and less expensive) to do my planning electronically, so I can make sure I have a design that will do what I want it to without buying and laying track. It's also easier to "assemble" virtual pieces than real ones. 

Finally, in case it isn't clear, use of sectional / roadbed track allows you to play with the layout configuration on the fly. Flextrack has to be fastened down, and once laid, is more or less permanent.

Good luck, and keep the questions coming!


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

CTValleyRR said:


> Welcome to the hobby! You've gotten great advice so far, and I won't rehash it, except the bit about asking newbie questions. Bring 'em on! The more, the merrier. The only wrong way to deal with a newbie question is not to ask it.


Thanks! This is a hobby where there's more to it than it appears. 



CTValleyRR said:


> First of all, 6' x 10' space really isn't a lot, especially if you include a table top jn the center (and most of us have a little trouble reaching the center of a 6' table at a height of 42" (tall enough not to kill your back when you work/ operate on it). 30" is about it for reach. But there is a better solution: make a narrower layout around the perimeter of that space, with a "cockpit" in the middle. This will also give you more room for broader curves.


Yea, its not huge. The space is more like 8' X 9', with possibility to extend the long side to around 10 - 14'. It may be worth noting that the entire space is usable for the "table" itself - there is ample space at least on two sides to walk around - this is in a basically open floor plan basement of around 1100 sqft, I'm just limiting the dedicated build space due to doors and other uses. That said, I completely get your point - I'm trying to figure out the best shape for the space - My reach is pretty good (6'1 with 35" arms...lol) but still, looking for an easy shape to work with. 



CTValleyRR said:


> Secondly, consider investing in some track planning software -- not the free junk from Atlas and other track manufacturers, but ones that have full libraries of track available. There are free versions of these, two, but for me, I like to support the efforts of the folks doing the work. Most programs offer a free trial version. Beware the ones that emphasize 3D modeling: they add a lot of complexity to the software, and don't really help you visualize the track plan any better. My personal preference is Anyrail.


I just got the free trial of Anyrail before responded, lol. 

Allan.


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

*Im...Moderrated......*

I posted replies to the two comments above - don't want you to think I'm ignoring anyone, but both posts are ..."under Moderation" I posted a picture in one, so, that's probably why....unless I'm an evil spam bot and nobody told me.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Treozen -- I approved the posts. Sorry about that ... sometimes, new members have auto-limits imposed on their first few posts. Should go away with a few more on your end.

All -- EXCELLENT info / dialog above. Stuff like this is what makes this forum GREAT ... a really helpful exchange of info, especially to get new people into the hobby.

Well done, gang ... well done!

TJ


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

tjcruiser said:


> All -- EXCELLENT info / dialog above. Stuff like this is what makes this forum GREAT ... a really helpful exchange of info, especially to get new people into the hobby.
> 
> Well done, gang ... well done!
> 
> TJ


I agree - thanks very much. I've joined a few (hundred) forums over the years and its nice to get advice without an argument breaking out.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Treozen said:


> .. its nice to get advice without an argument breaking out.



What do you mean by THAT??!




:laugh:


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

mesenteria said:


> What do you mean by THAT??!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL - :laugh:


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

OP wrote:
_"I have for example a bunch of Bachmann EZ-Track - but I'm not sure it is going to allow me to be creative with routes and may lack some realism - perhaps that can be remedied with scenery, or am I wrong, and EZ-Track is fine?"_

EZ track should work well enough. I like Kato Unitrack, myself -- looks a little better. Very easy to set up and to reconfigure when needed.

Regarding dcc control, I like the *Roco z21* wifi system (runs with any smartphone or tablet), but in this forum, it's kind of an "outlander". Everyone else will recommend Digitrax or NCE or something like that. But go to YouTube and watch a few videos on the z21 to see how it works. After using it, I could never hack one of those wired systems with a ton of buttons and no display.


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

J.Albert1949 said:


> EZ track should work well enough. I like Kato Unitrack, myself -- looks a little better. Very easy to set up and to reconfigure when needed.


I'll look into it. 



J.Albert1949 said:


> Regarding dcc control, I like the *Roco z21* wifi system (runs with any smartphone or tablet), but in this forum, it's kind of an "outlander". Everyone else will recommend Digitrax or NCE or something like that. But go to YouTube and watch a few videos on the z21 to see how it works. After using it, I could never hack one of those wired systems with a ton of buttons and no display.


Hmm, that does sound interesting, I'll look it up. Course, my luck will run so that my phone is out of power when I want to run the trains, lol.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

MRC and Digitrax both offer plug in modules that allow the use of Android and Apple devices as throttles.

The tendency of people who adopt niche products like the z21 is to assume that if everyone would only try them, they'd all agree that they were superior. That's really not the case. Interface is a very user-specific experience, but for me, I often run trains without looking at the throttle, so the tactile feedback offered by buttons and dials is important to my user experience. A touchscreen display just doesn't cut it for me. I've tried graphic interfaces (Dynamis) and looked at the z21. Dynamis failed, and the z21 doesn't offer me any compelling reason to switch, nor, frankly does it jump out as a markedly superior system for first time buyers.

Bottom line: there's a reason the z21 is an "outlander", and it's not ignorance. if the user experience with the z21 offers you something extra that sets it apart, go ahead and get one, but if it's simply a question of what devices you can use as throttles, that not a compelling argument. In that case, I'd stay away from the niche product and go with one of the more established brands (MRC, NCE, Digitrax) that have better support networks in North America.


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

CTValleyRR said:


> If the user experience with the z21 offers you something extra that sets it apart, go ahead and get one, but if it's simply a question of what devices you can use as throttles, that not a compelling argument. In that case, I'd stay away from the niche product and go with one of the more established brands (MRC, NCE, Digitrax) that have better support networks in North America.


The advantage I have right now, is that I've no idea how any of the DCC control options work, and I have in fact never even seen them, except in the hands of operators at the shows. So I have no frame of reference, bias, or preconceived notions around what features are deal-breakers and which aren't. I plan to dig into the options in detail, though right now I can't even decide what track to use, lol. 

Without knowing anything about any control system, here are the things I presume I'd like to see. 

1) Intuitive, needs to be simple to use - Fun over complex function

2) Should give quick, reasonable access to the features (sounds and other DCC module capabilities) and make the running of the line smooth, rather than cumbersome - i.e. if the system is too complicated, picky, requires too many actions for a simple track-side reaction or becomes such a time-sink that eventually you don't even bother with anything other than basic "move the train" -this would not be the system for me. 

3) Should support all current DCC capabilities that are likely to be found on locomotives and track "props". I've no idea what this includes but my guesses would be: Train sounds, smoke boxes, movement direction and speed, module control of turnouts and possibly other animated props (cranes, house lights, street lamps). 

Thanks, 
Allan


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

I can't speak for other systems, but the NCE Powercab uses very few keystrokes for its menu driven operations. CV programming is as easy as a few button presses and can be done on the fly, on the main track, or a programming track.

Sometimes the most difficult part for me is finding out what the manufacturer CV's are for a given sound decoder. Decoder CV's used some TRIX/Märklin locomotives must be some State secret because they are difficult to find depending upon the card and they are not included with the locomotive paperwork. But that is a subject for another thread.

I would imagine most manufacturers try to make their products easy to use, but I can only speak for NCE. I am quite happy with its use and performance. It does what I want it to do and that is, getting into the programming of the decoders. Momentum, start and stop speeds, motor control, brake squeal, wheel squeal in curves, individual volume control for certain sounds, engine load and unloading, etc.

For you, it will allow you to program turnout controls and other accessories as you see fit.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

OP, it is nothing but flex track for me. You can even model the little wiggles often seen in RL.


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

Nikola said:


> OP, it is nothing but flex track for me. You can even model the little wiggles often seen in RL.



I'm torn really. Everyone seems generally onboard with Flex-Track, and I can see why, but its also not the best "complete beginner-friendly" solution, especially in getting the curves right. I've watched countless youtube overviews and there is a learning curve to get flex track right. I am wondering if I can't take some of that complexity out by using sectional track, for the curves at minimum. 

I'll be challenged by many things - scenery, layout, controller choices, track design, etc - eliminating flex-track's learning curve sounds appealing from the bottom of the mountain I need to climb ;-) I haven't decided yet though - still working on how to best use my space.


----------



## flyboy2610 (Jan 20, 2010)

Using sectional track for the curves and flex with the little 'wiggles' is most certainly an option. Any track newly laid straight will soon have minor irregularities just due to settling, expansion, and contraction.
Given your list of requirements for DCC, I would second the recommendations for the NCE Powercab. Bachmann is a nice easy to use system, but you cannot program or tweak the CV values from it, something you will soon be wanting to do to get the locomotive running the way you want it to.


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

CT wrote:
_"Bottom line: there's a reason the z21 is an "outlander", and it's not ignorance. if the user experience with the z21 offers you something extra that sets it apart, go ahead and get one, but if it's simply a question of what devices you can use as throttles, that not a compelling argument. In that case, I'd stay away from the niche product and go with one of the more established brands (MRC, NCE, Digitrax) that have better support networks in North America."_

I strongly disagree.

If I had tried dcc with one of the "traditional" products (I'm thinking of that NCE device with all the pushbuttons), I would have quickly become disenchanted with the entire process. Too much button pushing, and even trying to program a loco number would have become a demanding experience.

Using a graphical interface such as the Roco (other manufacturers are probably similar) makes things like this dead-simple easy.
Changing engine numbers on the z21 is literally a _"3 second exercise":_
a. put engine on track
b. tell z21 to read the existing number
c. existing number is presented
d. enter desired number (0-9999)
e. hit program
f. done.

What does one have to do to change from a default number to, say, a 4 digit number on an NCE handheld -- if you don't know the CV codes to use?

For me, the "z21 experience" (probably similar to other wireless/graphic controllers) vis-a-vis the "traditional" dcc controller experience is like "Macintosh v. MS-DOS".
(that's why I've been a Mac user for 32 years)

The OP writes:
_"The advantage I have right now, is that I've no idea how any of the DCC control options work, and I have in fact never even seen them, except in the hands of operators at the shows. So I have no frame of reference, bias, or preconceived notions around what features are deal-breakers and which aren't."_

As I said, go to YouTube, and watch how the z21 works.
You don't even need to buy one to see for yourself.
Just download the free z21 app and try it on any iOS or Android device.
You can use the "demo engines" already there.
They won't run YOUR engines, but you'll still see how it works.

Take a little time to check out ALL the options available, before you commit yourself.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

J.Albert1949 said:


> CT wrote:
> _"Bottom line: there's a reason the z21 is an "outlander", and it's not ignorance. if the user experience with the z21 offers you something extra that sets it apart, go ahead and get one, but if it's simply a question of what devices you can use as throttles, that not a compelling argument. In that case, I'd stay away from the niche product and go with one of the more established brands (MRC, NCE, Digitrax) that have better support networks in North America."_
> 
> I strongly disagree.
> ...


Well you've pretty much confirmed what I was already saying: there really isn't anything to distinguish the z21 from the other systems out there -- my MRC Prodigy wireless functions exactly the same way with the exception of the fact that it walks you through the variables that one would commonly desire to change, and you enter the value that you would like. 

Everything else is just the peculiarities of the interface, not the features of the system. It is, as I have repeatedly said, a matter of personal preference, not inherent superiority. Any time you start your rebuttal with "If I had to..." you already know that you're just describing what works for you, not what is an absolute, inherent "best". The z21 is obviously a format that resonates with you, and not with me (I am a dedicated DOS and Windows user, so that might tell you something).

And THAT'S the message for the OP -- TRY the various systems and pick the one that suits him best. I'm NOT telling him not to try it. I'm saying he needs to get the devices in his hands and actually use them to make the best decision.


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

J.Albert1949 said:


> CT wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If there is one skill I have, its comparison shopping! 

I found this youtube overview, and I must say, its compelling. 
https://youtu.be/eOSfbwdzwy0?t=9

One of the standout features that, ok not really a "control" is the ability to overlay a driver cab (with functioning controls) over the video feed from a camera - granted you'd need a loco with a camera, but pretty cool to see your layout through the cab of the train. 

I liked the set-up, seems very easy. I also liked that it is natively wireless and portable - no cords or need to "plug in" as you move around the layout. Everything seems very simple to do -from adding locos to changing the CV values, etc. 

I do think you'd need a dedicated tablet - you can run it on your phone but I know my phone would never have enough power by the end of the day to run the screen for a few hours while I worked with the layout - To say nothing of losing your phone, replacing it or wanting to make a phone call in the middle of a freight run . 

More things to check, but I'd say z21 is in the running anyway.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

How is flex track hard? Fasten/connect one end, form the shape you need securing it as you go, trim to length and done.

That is one of a million ways to do it.

Don't let youtube overcomplicate simple things, as youtube is wont to do.


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

Nikola said:


> How is flex track hard? Fasten/connect one end, form the shape you need securing it as you go, trim to length and done.
> 
> That is one of a million ways to do it.
> 
> Don't let youtube overcomplicate simple things, as youtube is wont to do.


This thread is starting to look like my grandmothers sowing box. Thread all over the place and cannot find the ends.

Flex track can be hard to lay down if a person is not too mechanically inclined. The other point to consider is cutting the rail ends cleanly to make up for the different rail lengths as you curve it. Could be a nightmare for a beginner without a good imitation Dremel tool. Rail nippers do not leave a clean enough end IMHO.


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

Nikola said:


> How is flex track hard? Fasten/connect one end, form the shape you need securing it as you go, trim to length and done.
> 
> That is one of a million ways to do it.
> 
> Don't let youtube overcomplicate simple things, as youtube is wont to do.





Dennis461 said:


> This thread is starting to look like my grandmothers sowing box. Thread all over the place and cannot find the ends.
> 
> Flex track can be hard to lay down if a person is not too mechanically inclined. The other point to consider is cutting the rail ends cleanly to make up for the different rail lengths as you curve it. Could be a nightmare for a beginner without a good imitation Dremel tool. Rail nippers do not leave a clean enough end IMHO.


I'm the sort that measures twice, and still cuts it wrong. I've built some pretty decent stuff, but the "oops" scrap pile is often quite large. I have a decent modeling background (cars, planes boats...not Magazines or fashion week in Paris) but whenever there is a requirement for precision in exact cuts, radius curves, and or "measuring" ...I know myself well enough to order extra and expect to be frustrated.....whether that's a 2x4 or a piece of Flex Rail. Although I'm certain I could work with the Flex Rail (and still might) the beginner advantages of something like sectional track or Kato's Unitrack, are attractive. 

I've scratch-built working windshield wipers on 1/25 scale, and a fully operable convertible top frame for a 1/8 scale ford - detail and I are acquainted  but I also know my frustration points and those things that will sink a project before it gets started. Track layout, and making sure I get the right curves and that everything lines up and meets point-to-point, is going to be all of that twice over with flex track, particularly given that my layout will involve curves and loops, rather than a switching design. 

I'm not saying I wont use Flex track, or that I disagree with the consensus on its use, only that I may need to start simpler and take out some of the variables. I've seen several Youtube videos on Kato Unitrack for example, which after some touch up and ballasting, looks really pretty good. 

Allan.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

Treozen said:


> I'm the sort that measures twice, and still cuts it wrong. I've built some pretty decent stuff, but the "oops" scrap pile is often quite large. I have a decent modeling background (cars, planes boats...not Magazines or fashion week in Paris) but whenever there is a requirement for precision in exact cuts, radius curves, and or "measuring" ...I know myself well enough to order extra and expect to be frustrated.....whether that's a 2x4 or a piece of Flex Rail. Although I'm certain I could work with the Flex Rail (and still might) the beginner advantages of something like sectional track or Kato's Unitrack, are attractive.
> 
> I've scratch-built working windshield wipers on 1/25 scale, and a fully operable convertible top frame for a 1/8 scale ford - detail and I are acquainted  but I also know my frustration points and those things that will sink a project before it gets started. Track layout, and making sure I get the right curves and that everything lines up and meets point-to-point, is going to be all of that twice over with flex track, particularly given that my layout will involve curves and loops, rather than a switching design.
> 
> ...


With your skills flex track is a slam dunk. Remember it is not flex it, mount it and hope it fits. It is curve and fasten as you go - and you can even use straight pins to make it easy to tweak if needed. You end up exactly on the money because the last cuts are exactly where they need to be.

Don't overthink it and let it scare you. Anyone who can model working w/s wipers or convertible top can do flex track in their sleep.


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

Nikola said:


> With your skills flex track is a slam dunk. Remember it is not flex it, mount it and hope it fits. It is curve and fasten as you go - and you can even use straight pins to make it easy to tweak if needed. You end up exactly on the money because the last cuts are exactly where they need to be.
> 
> Don't overthink it and let it scare you. Anyone who can model working w/s wipers or convertible top can do flex track in their sleep.


Yea, I know - I should just commit and then figure it out. Course, right now I'm still trying to design a layout. I came up with what I thought was a good one, then realized I hadn't made the operator cut-out big enough.... I guess I don't have 4ft arms. I'm wondering if I can put a 14' X 8' set up on wheels so that I can roll it out when working on the far side..lol.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

Treozen said:


> I'm wondering if I can put a 14' X 8' set up on wheels so that I can roll it out when working on the far side..lol.


I think that is a great idea. I try to put everything on wheels.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Been done, works well*



Treozen said:


> Yea, I know - I should just commit and then figure it out. Course, right now I'm still trying to design a layout. I came up with what I thought was a good one, then realized I hadn't made the operator cut-out big enough.... I guess I don't have 4ft arms. I'm wondering if I can put a 14' X 8' set up on wheels so that I can roll it out when working on the far side..lol.


Treozen;

No need to lol. Actually this is an old, and proven, idea. Think about a simple 4' x8' layout set against one, or often two, walls. How does the intrepid modeler get access to the far side(s) ? With that size layout, he usually drags it along the floor, dumping every car and loco off the track, and at least a few off the layout, in the process. 

Make the layout much bigger than 4'x8' and moving it alone can be difficult/impossible depending on the size, and weight. Heavy-duty casters, equipped with toe operated brakes, make it easy to move. The brakes keep it from moving accidentally if you bump into it. One source for casters at reasonable prices is www.harborfreighttools.com Something to think about.

have fun;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

traction fan said:


> Treozen;
> 
> No need to lol. Actually this is an old, and proven, idea. .... Heavy-duty casters, equipped with toe operated brakes, make it easy to move. The brakes keep it from moving accidentally if you bump into it.


Well that pretty much settles it -The depth of the operator inset was really messing with just about every layout I tried, so this is a good solution. I suppose now I need to wonder if I should keep at least a 3'x3' inset in the front 1) Enables the layout to surround you 2) adds / forces some interesting track 3) will enable reach to most of the layout, limiting the times when you need to roll the entire thing out. 

Things to think about.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Treozen said:


> Well that pretty much settles it -The depth of the operator inset was really messing with just about every layout I tried, so this is a good solution. I suppose now I need to wonder if I should keep at least a 3'x3' inset in the front 1) Enables the layout to surround you 2) adds / forces some interesting track 3) will enable reach to most of the layout, limiting the times when you need to roll the entire thing out.
> 
> Things to think about.


Treozen;

Go to www.harborfreighttools.com type "casters" in the search box at the top center of the page, and check out item # 96408 That's the kind of caster I was talking about. It's rated at 120Lbs.capacity. ea. Unless you're building something very heavy, it should work. If you use four casters, each one would have 1/4th of the total weight. Six casters divide by six, etc.

And yes, 3) "enabling you to reach most of the layout." alone, would sell me on the operator inset.
There is no such thing as "too much access" to a model railroad. "Too little access" however, is all too common! 



Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

OP wrote:
_"I do think you'd need a dedicated tablet - you can run it on your phone but I know my phone would never have enough power by the end of the day to run the screen for a few hours while I worked with the layout - To say nothing of losing your phone, replacing it or wanting to make a phone call in the middle of a freight run"_

When I first got started with the z21, I used an OLD Samsung "Galaxy player" (not a phone, just a phone-sized music/app device running a VERY old version of Android). Although the version of Android couldn't be upgraded, and it wasn't useful for much of anything else, the earlier version of the Roco z21 app _downloaded and ran on it perfectly._ That impressed me quite a bit.

However, I soon found that I wanted the option to have TWO loco controllers up-and-running "side-by-side" simultaneously. Dead simple if you use an iPad or Android tablet. Although I'm a "Mac guy", I don't care for iOS, so I picked up a refurb Samsung S2 Android tablet for a good price and that's now my control platform for the z21. If I turn on the old Galaxy player as well, I have THREE controls running.

But... you can change from loco to loco so quickly "on the fly" with the z21 app, that I normally run my "third engine" or "fourth engine" right from the tablet.
A simple "finger touch" is all that's required, the changeover is _literally instantaneous._
No entering engine numbers, etc.
Just... .touch the image of the engine you want, and "it's live".
I have about 7-8 locos entered, touch any one to run.

You can control your "points" (switches) the same way, see the YouTube videos.

Since you can download the z21 software, you can get a preview of how everything will work BEFORE you lay your money down. _How many other systems offer that option?_

Something to be aware of:
There are a few dealers here in the USA that sell the "black" Z21 (upper-case "Z"), but it costs considerably more, and really doesn't offer things that I would need.
The white z21 (lowercase "z") is much more affordable, but I've found the best way to buy one is "from overseas".
I got mine from "dmtoys.de" (Germany) for 99 Euros + 10 Euros shipping to USA. But they seem to have sold out of them.
A possible place to look:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/ROCO-Fleischmann-10825-z21-start-Digitalzentrale-470/401132519431
Paypal will do the currency conversion for you.

Streamlined Backshop here in the USA sells it, but the cost is more:
https://store.sbs4dcc.com/Roco51293z21StartSetDigitalModelRailwayControlSystemDCCCommandS.aspx
(I didn't mind the extra wait buying from Europe, and the lower cost made it worth it)

You would also need the companion TP Link router:
https://store.sbs4dcc.com/Roco10814z21WiFiPackage.aspx
(this comes pre-configured with the Roco unlock key). I bought from this URL.

Both of them probably come with the German-style power block which has a Euro type plug.
You can buy cheap plug converters from China on ebay, but I didn't like them, so I got my own power blocks.
One for the router -- cost was about $8 from ebay
And I got this one for the z21 itself:
https://www.powerstream.com/AC-A0407.htm
(I bought the "middle-priced" one)
_(but again, you can still use the plug converters if you wish)_

So... I had to "assemble the system" by buying my components from here and there, but the result was worth the effort.

I was "out of model trains" for 40 years, while I worked as an engineer "on the big trains".
I came to the concept of dcc with no "pre-conceptions" or biases, as it were, towards any one system in particular.
So... I had to do some investigating on my own.
After doing so, I homed in on the z21 system as the best blend of "ease of learning" and "usability".

Being an older guy, not particularly "electronically-inclined" (but I still do ok), the z21 system went together so well, that it made me "a convert".

As CTValley mentioned, some folks just like to use a control that has a "control knob".
No problems, Roco sells their "MultiMaus" wired controller:
https://store.sbs4dcc.com/Roco10813Z21WiFi-MULTIMAUS.aspx

But the graphical interface of the Phone/Tablet paradigm is as preferable to me as would be "Windows to DOS". Essentially, there's no comparison.

In a Windows world, I remain a Mac guy. Discovered "the advantage" 32 years ago.
In a "handheld controller world", I'm a "tablet-control" guy.
The differences are just as stark. I would have struggled with a "traditional" dcc control system.

The z21 just _"makes it all easier"_ for me.
I'm sure the other graphical systems offer similar advantages, but unlike some of them, the z21 setup blends "power" in with the graphcics.

It's what I like, and I'll continue to recommend it.


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

Well, I finally completed my track prep. Selections:

1- Peco Flex Track
2 -#6 Peco turn outs 
3 - Minimum 19 5/16 radius curves (A compromise between space and accommodating mid-length locomotives and carriages. Locomotives will likely include 0-6-0, 2-8-0, 4-4-0) 
4- Simple layout, no spaghetti routes, generally large loops with room for a few industries and a rail yard
5- 14 X 7 layout, entire thing on wheels for access to the far side.
6 - Not a prototype layout, a fun layout, but that has tried to at least make some sense as to why and where things are. 
7 - built-in expansion options (I have another 8 feet to the left, but not usable right now)
8- Inspired by, but not modeled after, the Pacific Coast / Great Northern Railroad as it ran though Washington (Black Diamond) 
9- Yet undecided on DCC controller, but likely Powercab or Z21

I've attached my guide plan - likely things may change as I get building, but this is the guideline.

KEY

- GREEN - Freight line
- BLUE - Passenger line
- GREY - Shared rail yard 
- A, B & C: Industries. B is likely a logging camp, A and C, small mines. 
- D: Area for Coaling & Water tower. Possibly an ash dump too
- E: Track that goes to another city (expansion option) 
- F: Passenger stations / platforms
- G: Engine house area 

Where is the turn around you ask? [shows hand, mimes picking up train and turning it] I tried a few options and didn't like any - trains in this build go one way, unless the giant hand of the basement gods intervenes. Thanks for all the help getting started!


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

Looks like a pretty good plan to me but I'm known for the "No Plan™" plan.

Have fun with it.

Magic


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

Curious, how far apart do you plan for Yard layout track spacing?
My 1.75" spacing was fine for years. Recently picked up (gift) a Rivarossi articulated and it hits my whistle markers and dwarf signals.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Very interesting layout. Lots of continuous operating and
lots of switching opportunities.

However...I would remove the several turnouts you
have in the yard and use just one 'ladder' track to
access the yard spurs and connect the two ovals. Use
the one you have. That
way you have more usable trackage in your yards.
Believe me, you'll need car storage room...you'll be
surprised at how fast your car fleet grows.

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

My gut feeling about that is that you have some significant reach issues at several places on that layout. Just reaching the middle isn't that big a deal, especially if there is no track there and the only time you have to reach in is when you're making that scenery. As you've designed it, you may have to reach in to uncouple things at the very limit of your reach. That's a recipe for disaster -- your arm vs. everything underneath it on the way in, and your ability to manipulate an uncoupling tool of some kind while reaching in. Even if you have remote uncouplers, you will still be faced with the need to get in there fairly frequently.

The other issue, as Don identified, is operations. It looks like you've placed sidings and turnouts, especially in the yard, where they will fit, or just because you can. As designed, I don't think things will flow very well. You will have an awful lot of back and forth moves just to move things around. Outside of the yard, consider those blue tracks in the middle. How will you bring a new load of box cars (or whatever) to the industry on the right center, especially if there are empties on the track already that need to be pulled? Trace this out with your finger and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

Dennis461 said:


> Curious, how far apart do you plan for Yard layout track spacing?
> My 1.75" spacing was fine for years. Recently picked up (gift) a Rivarossi articulated and it hits my whistle markers and dwarf signals.


Thanks for the feedback - answers / commentary:

@ Dennis461: Sorry I can't help with the spacing, to be honest I used whatever automatic spacing the Peco track determined when connecting the turnouts. I tried measuring, but its hard to get it precise - it looks to be around 1 7/16, so a touch tighter than 1.75. Its one of the things I expect to adjust when i'm working with the physical materials. 

@ DonR: - I tried several (5 I think) different yard approaches, even trying pre-designed Peco yards to see what I could make work. My current idea is that all track to the right of the main turnout ladder is storage, and track to the left is for engines and access to the commuter line. I added a few extra turnouts to give myself options,though I do see how parking carriages on the spurs renders them unusable, I guess my thought was "better have the option, and not be able to use it, than not have the option". Still, based on your thoughts I made a few modifications that freed up a bit more storage space. I think (hope) it will be ok - The train length on this layout is unlikely to exceed 3 - 4 feet. 

@CTValleyRR: At a table height of 36", I have a "scenery accommodating" reach of 36", while still having some ability to manipulate the cars / locos. If edge scenery is shorter than 3", that reach grows to 44", with a lean. The entire layout will be on wheels, so the only struggle will be the passenger platforms (blue middle line) and there are no plans to couple or decouple on that part of the track - I hope to only reach my limits (pun intended) when something goes horribly wrong at Buckley Station. Its imperfect, but I may have to use a grabby tool and deal with the occasional annoyance, if it means the layout is otherwise a better system. 

My real concern is that all of the switch work occurs at the back, which will not be easily doable without pulling out the layout each and every time - it will probably result in me staging cars in the yard for effect, but never actually changing what the locomotives are running. I know its probably a bad thing to say, but I'm generally more interested in the overall model, than I am in running like a real railroad - Which has me wondering if I should bother with the complexity at all - I'd be as well running a DC loop, for all it may matter in the end. ;-). I am working on an alternate with better access, but it may require me to reduce down to 18" curves....


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Looks OK, except*



Treozen said:


> Well, I finally completed my track prep. Selections:
> 
> 1- Peco Flex Track
> 2 -#6 Peco turn outs
> ...




Treozen;

Your track plan looks OK but I'm going to apologize in advance for all the criticism that follows. I hope you will take it for what it is, Advice from a guy who's "Been there, done that" to a new guy who has not.

It appears that the yard, with it's multiple turnouts, is in the back; against the wall. Yes, I know you will have casters, and can roll it out. I also know that Peco turnouts are very reliable. However, on any railroad, turnouts are the piece of track that needs the most maintenance. Always more than any other piece of track. Reading back through this thread, I see that you are aware of this "distant turnouts" issue.
Also a yard is fun to operate. It's where much of the most interesting action takes place.

You might consider flipping your whole track plan "upside down" so that the yard is in front, near your operating cutout. Trying to operate a yard from a distance of four feet, or seven?, is very difficult at best. How did you plan to uncouple cars way back there? There are magnetic uncouplers available, but you really need to be able to see them close up during the uncoupling action. The other common way of uncoupling is to insert a pointed stick into the couplers and part them manually. This would not be possible with the yard far away. 
Operating a yard at a long distance is also a lot less fun. If the yard was in front, you could see what your train is doing, uncoupling, pushing cars into the various tracks, etc. Another advantage would be that the yard's many turnouts could be operated manually, which would save you the cost of many switch machines. $$$

Speaking of saving money, and aggravation, I agree with the others that your plan has too many turnouts. Deleting all but the truly necessary turnouts will also save plenty of money. Good turnouts, like Peco's don't come cheap! If the need arises more turnouts can be added as they are actually needed, rather than building in a bunch of them, that may, or may not, get used someday.

Also some of your turnouts seem to be placed either randomly , or in an attempt to see how many reverse curves can be designed into one yard. Remember the famous K*I*S*S principal "Keep It Simple Silly" (I didn't want to call you that other 'S" word. :laugh It would be both mean, and untrue. You're just new.)
It applies just as much, and as truly, to track planning as it does to any other human design activity.

Even using Peco's excellent turnouts, trying to back a train along a twisting "snake trail" of multiple reverse curves is asking for operating problems.
I am a firm believer in simple yard ladders because I've seen too many derailments on complex ones. (Including some that I built myself, when I was new.)
I have three simple ladders on my layout, and no complex ones like the one in your yard plan. None of my yard ladders requires a train to pass through the diverging route of more than one turnout, and there are no reverse curves. This simple design works very well.

Speaking of simple, for a brand new modeler, building his first layout, I respectfully submit that you have possibly "bitten off more than you may be able to chew." Your present plan will take years of work, and many dollars, to complete. Perhaps you could build it in stages. Build the freight line first, and add the commuter, and passenger tracks later; in small, simple, stages. There is also the possibility, that during those years of construction, your satisfaction with this design may fade, as you gain more knowledge and experience. This is quite common, but it's also often frustrating, and expensive. Some modelers just give up after attempting too much, too soon.

I also agree that the layout you have is much too deep. Mine has a standard depth of 16" and nowhere is it more than three feet deep. I wouldn't count too much on reaching over a deep layout set close to the floor. Sooner, or later, you're likely to fall onto the layout and probably damage it, and even hurt yourself, in the process. There are reach over ladder/dollies designed to help with this too deep layout problem, but the umpteenth time you have to roll it into place, and climb up on it, you're not likely to be happy about it. Designing a thinner layout , set at a better height, is a much better solution in my opinion. 

If you decide to keep your present design, here's another bit of advice for that circumstance. You might consider adding a ridge of hills, or dual-sided backdrop down the center of the layout to break up the view of the train running in very obvious circles. Usually I recommend doing this along the longer dimension of the table. In your case that would have it running from left to right, and thereby completely blocking your view of the whole rear half of the layout. Not good!
So, it might work better if you built that hilly ridge running from the operating cutout back to the rear side of the layout. Then the right side of the layout could be one town, and the left side a different town. The train then would be traveling from one place to another, instead of visibly chasing its own tail.

I think you said that both the back, and one of the sides, of your layout were butted against walls. Is that correct? If it is, then building the dividing ridge/backdrop on a sharp diagonal might be better. On one side you could see town 'A', On the other side you could see town 'B'. From either side, you would be able to see half of the track, sidings, structures, Etc. at the rear of the layout.

I'm assuming the 19-5/16 radius on your list is in inches. Feet would be a trifle large, & centimeters on the tight side. :laugh:
The locomotives on your list (possibly excepting the 2-8-0 consolidation) are actually pretty small locomotives. They should have no trouble traversing those curves. The eight-drivered consolidation may have a set of "blind" drivers. (No flanges on those wheels) If that's the case, then it may well be OK on your curves. That is still a pretty tight curve for HO-scale. (It would be fine for N-scale though.) If you ever plan to run bigger locomotives, you may need broader curves. The Pacific Coast Railroad, that you're modeling, probably didn't have any bigger locomotives though.

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

traction fan said:


> Treozen;
> 
> Your track plan looks OK but I'm going to apologize in advance for all the criticism that follows. I hope you will take it for what it is, Advice from a guy who's "Been there, done that" to a new guy who has not.


Absolutely, no point in posting if you don't want feedback! In the same vein though, I always like to remind folks that while advice is always welcomed, sometimes its not followed, and that doesn't mean it wasn't good advice, only that sometimes its good to carve your own road, even if it is unnecessarily up hill 



traction fan said:


> It appears that the yard, with it's multiple turnouts, is in the back; against the wall.....a yard is fun to operate. It's where much of the most interesting action takes place.
> 
> You might consider flipping your whole track plan "upside down" so that the yard is in front, near your operating cutout. Trying to operate a yard from a distance of four feet, or seven?, is very difficult at best... ....Operating a yard at a long distance is also a lot less fun. If the yard was in front, you could see what your train is doing, uncoupling, pushing cars into the various tracks, etc. Another advantage would be that the yard's many turnouts could be operated manually, which would save you the cost of many switch machines. $$$


I absolutely agree - and its been driving me nuts. The problem is that if the yard is to be at the front:

1) I need to get rid of the 2X3 operator cutout, which worsens access to the rest of the layout. Maybe I can get a workable yard bent round the cutout, I'll give it a shot. 

2) The front side of the layout is shorter than the back for access to the larger areas of the room. This means the yard and attached rail lines will be too long, I can shorten them of course, but the yard gets awfully small - again, I can give it a shot and see how it looks. 




traction fan said:


> Speaking of saving money, and aggravation, I agree with the others that your plan has too many turnouts.....Also some of your turnouts seem to be placed either randomly , or in an attempt to see how many reverse curves can be designed into one yard....


Not randomly, and not looking to add anything unnecessary. I looked at many, many yard designs and, again due to space, I needed something long but narrow, yet with enough space for cars and rail yard "things". The design used was actually stolen (basically) from Peco's own array of rail yard designs. That the reverse curves (which I assume are the connected turnouts) may cause running issues, is of course a new one to me, so I'll either test that, or go a simpler route, though again, with trade offs for available space. 





traction fan said:


> Speaking of simple, for a brand new modeler, building his first layout, I respectfully submit that you have possibly "bitten off more than you may be able to chew."


With all respect, if I had a dollar for every time I heard a variation of that, I'd be able to hire a crew of real railroad engineers to design my layout, and monitor their progress from my yacht in the Caribbean. I have not been successful at everything I've tried (see riding motorcycles) but I'm a decent judge of my capability - this layout would be a challenge, much will be new, but anything less, would be uncivilized  - and should I fail, it will be following maximum effort and a test of my talents. I'd rather fail having left nothing on the table,than to succeed only in failing to push the envelope. I won't bore you with "the stuff I've done" but this effort will join a list of "big bites" - whether its a success or not, remains to be seen. You could very well be correct, I know I might fail, but trying is half the fun. 




traction fan said:


> Your present plan will take years of work, and many dollars, to complete. Perhaps you could build it in stages. Build the freight line first, and add the commuter, and passenger tracks later; in small, simple, stages.


Building in stages is certainly the plan, but I always like to know where I'm going. I like to understand the goal, even if there are multiple parts to getting there. Secretly though [don't tell anyone] I would like to get the track down and tested first. 





traction fan said:


> I also agree that the layout you have is much too deep. Mine has a standard depth of 16" and nowhere is it more than three feet deep. .....Designing a thinner layout , set at a better height, is a much better solution in my opinion.


I thought 36" was a fairly standard height...no? The lack of access is a concern for sure. I put together a "solution" attached, but I know the swing / hinged bridges have their own issues. 

Thanks for all the feedback, I will give everything serious consideration. Layout access, positioning of the rail yard, and rail yard design being a key focus.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

With that staggeringly huge layout and all of that room I would suggest you consider two main lines. Continuous running is so much more interesting with multiple trains. I believe that your current track plan, which indeed is quite interesting, would easlily accommodate the adjustments needed to double up on the main line.


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

OP wrote:
_"My real concern is that all of the switch work occurs at the back, which will not be easily doable"_

You said it.
YOU'D BETTER RE-THINK THIS (shouting is intentional).

Any area where lots of switches and "switching" is involved should be within EASY reach -- for uncoupling, and RE-RAILING.

Looking at your graphic in post 45 above, you should flip that 180 degrees.
The yard should be "in the front" and the cutout should be "to the rear".
Things will go MUCH BETTER that way.

I'm also wondering how you're going to keep a large table/benchwork like that all "on wheels". Moving it in any direction is probably going to involve a lot of "flexing" and resultant problems from that...


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Treozen said:


> @CTValleyRR: At a table height of 36", I have a "scenery accommodating" reach of 36", while still having some ability to manipulate the cars / locos. If edge scenery is shorter than 3", that reach grows to 44", with a lean. The entire layout will be on wheels, so the only struggle will be the passenger platforms (blue middle line) and there are no plans to couple or decouple on that part of the track - I hope to only reach my limits (pun intended) when something goes horribly wrong at Buckley Station. Its imperfect, but I may have to use a grabby tool and deal with the occasional annoyance, if it means the layout is otherwise a better system.
> 
> My real concern is that all of the switch work occurs at the back, which will not be easily doable without pulling out the layout each and every time - it will probably result in me staging cars in the yard for effect, but never actually changing what the locomotives are running. I know its probably a bad thing to say, but I'm generally more interested in the overall model, than I am in running like a real railroad - Which has me wondering if I should bother with the complexity at all - I'd be as well running a DC loop, for all it may matter in the end. ;-). I am working on an alternate with better access, but it may require me to reduce down to 18" curves....


If you're constantly bending over a 36" high layout to do switching operations, your Chiropractor will be your best friend. Your wallet and your back might not be so happy.

But yes -- the yard area being all the way at the back is exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Treozen said:


> Absolutely, no point in posting if you don't want feedback! In the same vein though, I always like to remind folks that while advice is always welcomed, sometimes its not followed, and that doesn't mean it wasn't good advice, only that sometimes its good to carve your own road, even if it is unnecessarily up hill
> 
> ...
> 
> Thanks for all the feedback, I will give everything serious consideration. Layout access, positioning of the rail yard, and rail yard design being a key focus.



Yes, please keep that firmly in mind as you respond to people's comments and suggestions. You are, by your own admission, a newbie with a lot of questions. The good folks here are offering you our advice, based on our own experiences, good and bad, over the years. It goes without saying that we're not saying it to put you down or discourage you, but to give you the benefit of our collective (and often hard earned) wisdom.

Of course you don't have to take our advice, and in the end you will have your own reasons for doing what you do; we don't need your explanations for what you decided, unless you are seeking further clarification. When you push back on advice, or hint that it's unneeded (your response to traction fan suggesting that you may be biting off more than you can chew), it sounds ungrateful at best and rude at worst. How many people do you think we've seen become discouraged with the poor operating qualities or massive complexity and expense of their layout and just give up. We'd like to make sure you go into this eyes wide open, so that it's something you continue to love and your enthusiasm grows with your skills.


----------



## Treozen (Jan 22, 2019)

CTValleyRR said:


> When you push back on advice, or hint that it's unneeded (your response to traction fan suggesting that you may be biting off more than you can chew), it sounds ungrateful at best and rude at worst.


Expert in track design and rail roads you may be, but your perspective on a rather mundane expressed difference of opinion, is woefully flawed. To judge my response as "ungrateful at best and rude and worst" defies all reasonable logic, period. 

Anyone asking for feedback, should expect to receive feedback that challenges their thinking, and anyone that gives feedback, should expect to have such feedback itself examined and countered, where appropriate. Let me remind you that in the specific section you are referring to, Traction fan was providing feedback and perspective on my capabilities relative to the design, not any specific unique element of model railroading. His commentary was a fair proposition, but one that reasonably lacked some important perceptive, which I provided - and in a way that yielded more that a little room for me to be wrong, despite my general confidence, in respect for Traction fans point. How you reached an "ungrateful at best and rude at worst" conclusion, is baffling. 

That you have brought this, without warrant, to the level of a personal criticism, tells me that this thread has clearly run its course, teetering on the edge of classic forum nonsense, and will no longer serve any creative nor inspirational purpose. I will continue to think on the constructive feedback provided by others, but will will not reply further. 


Allan.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Allan

As has been mentioned, you really put the
couplers and trucks of train cars to the test by backing
through a series of 'S' curves such as occurs
in your yard. I see that a ladder track would be
difficult to fit in the space you have for your yard.

How about moving the yard into the middle of your
table, let the continuous run track be above it. Then
you have room so you can design a true ladder track that eliminates the 'S' curves. Since you plan an loco service area AND
a car storage or sorting yard you may need two ladders.

Don


----------



## Stan D (Feb 1, 2019)

Treozen said:


> I agree - thanks very much. I've joined a few (hundred) forums over the years and its nice to get advice without an argument breaking out.


 So much for that.

As a fellow newb, I'd like to see how this turns out(the layout, not the commentary). I'd point out, (as another experienced forumite) that with text, tone is difficult to judge. Catch yer breath, then come on back.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Good solution*



Treozen said:


> Absolutely, no point in posting if you don't want feedback! In the same vein though, I always like to remind folks that while advice is always welcomed, sometimes its not followed, and that doesn't mean it wasn't good advice, only that sometimes its good to carve your own road, even if it is unnecessarily up hill
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------

