Benchwork - Wiring - adding elevations

@mike g. posted:

Hi John, sorry I haven't commented for a couple of days. The hinges look great and very clean! I do have one thing to point out and think if it is not a problem then that is fine.

If you look at the hinge pins through the photos you will see in different photos the pins are sticking in different distances I don't know if that end of the bridge slides back and forth side to side, but if it does the easy fix would be to center the bridge so you have the same amount of pin on each side then just make a stop pin that you mount to the outside of the hinge. They do a lot of that with Heavy equipment just to keep pins in.

If its not a problem, just forget everything I just said and Remember I think things look great!

Mike, great eye for detail! Great idea using a stop pin.  The pins are tight on the hinge that connects to the ground, and enough play on the other hinge to rotate the bridge up. Both base hinges are positioned so the bridge has only 1/8" latereal movement. That said, the pins are not secured and could slip out over time and use. Two options I considered was to use 1/4-20 bolts as pins with lock nuts, either at each hinge or possibly one spanning both hinges. Second option was to make the hinges with one side of the hole closed, there by not allowing pin to slide out of hinges. I'll see over time how they behave and if I detect the pins moving out of place then stop pins or another solution will need to be used.

Again Thanks for the input and idea, I would not have thought of stop pins!

@Central Terminal Jeff posted:

The revised plan does look very plain - like ‘why does the tunnel exist?’  The original has more impact.  I agree with GRJ’s comment about access from the underside.  Just move or adjust the elevated track supports to make sure your supports leave you room to reach up to help when things go wrong.  Thankfully CSX Al had thought about that beforehand and had no issues retrieving my MTH C&O M-1 Turbine after its “notorious” pilot truck hung up on a grade change on the hidden 15 foot section of his layout.

You may want to move the tunnel portals towards each other by a few inches so you turnouts at each end are clear of them for maintenance.

Keep posting as the ideas and information are great.

The elevated section will hopefully be the coal mining area. The HO track is for "coal mine" carts. Also looking at putting in someplace to load coal on to railroad cars. So the concept is a mountainous terrain with railroad hauling coal out of the area. So any track that goes under will be difficult to access. I like Gunrunner John's idea on removable panels, but now I may need to hire a professional for that work. Sorry I didn't give more details as they are important items I did not include. Right now things are still in planning stage and all options are open and welcome.

Morning John,

I didn't want to overstep my bounds with my other post, and I knew if it came up you would have a way to fix it! In relation to most of the other folks here when it comes to model train I am really new as I only got my first train about 7 years ago as a gift from my grandson!

Just remember it is a new learning experience, but most of all it is to be mostly about fun!

John,  that lift bridge came out great.

To your track plan. Now that I see the black line is a mine track things are a little clearer. Looking at your benchwork. Are you putting a plywood deck on top of a plywood deck to create the tunnel ?

I like the first plan better. I just like long tunnels. If you cut the plywood supporting the tunnel trackage in a cookie cutter method and raise the elevated tracks with risers. You should be able to duck under the benchwork and reach up through the joists for access.

The purple portion of track that has a turnout just to the entrance of the tunnel. Maybe consider moving everything back further. The curved turnout looks to be a reach if you have a derailment or needs maintenance.

The spur track that’s in green. Is that going to serve an industry ?  Maybe that could be straightened out.

if your still considering the first plan with the longer tunnel. I really don’t think you will have a derailment problem. One thing with a long tunnel with roadbed and trackage right above it. If you like to run smoke. The smoke really has no place to go. It seems to settle on the track. I had an open house many years ago. Guests brought engines to run and most ran with the smoke on. I have a long tunnel under one section. Will hide a 25 car train. After the open house I worked on the layout for a number of weeks. Finally ran some trains with constant stalling. The track was all slimey  under there. Out in the open. Not so bad.  The other thing with tracks passing over the tunnel portion if you run TMCC. you could have ground plane issue. You may not have an issue in testing. But at some point you may come across an engine that has an issue with it. Might be worth planning ahead rather than have to crawl in there later.

Enjoy reading your progress. The bridges you guys are building are really cool. My layout has a lift out to access the furnace. Over 4 feet. I started using that area as a workspace. It was easy to duck under 30 years ago. Not so much now.  Thought of changing it out for a lift up type but because of the high height of the layout and length of the bridge it just won’t work.

@dave c.  You stated:

The bridges you guys are building are really cool. My layout has a lift out to access the furnace. Over 4 feet. I started using that area as a workspace. It was easy to duck under 30 years ago. Not so much now.  Thought of changing it out for a lift up type but because of the high height of the layout and length of the bridge it just won’t work.

But if you use the actuator as I, Mark and John use and set limit switches on the bridge you can still have the bridge raise a fair amount so you dont have to duck under as much! Just saying as we get older any help staying closer to up right can help! LOL

@mike g. posted:

Morning John,

I didn't want to overstep my bounds with my other post, and I knew if it came up you would have a way to fix it! In relation to most of the other folks here when it comes to model train I am really new as I only got my first train about 7 years ago as a gift from my grandson!

Just remember it is a new learning experience, but most of all it is to be mostly about fun!

I have no bounds so it is impossible for you or anyone to over step. I welcome all help and ideas. For having been into trains for only seven years you sure do help a lot of people out! I would not have thought to do a powered lift bridge if you hadn’t done it and generously gave all your details

and you are again correct, having fun is the key!

@Dave_C posted:

John,  that lift bridge came out great.

To your track plan. Now that I see the black line is a mine track things are a little clearer. Looking at your benchwork. Are you putting a plywood deck on top of a plywood deck to create the tunnel ?

I like the first plan better. I just like long tunnels. If you cut the plywood supporting the tunnel trackage in a cookie cutter method and raise the elevated tracks with risers. You should be able to duck under the benchwork and reach up through the joists for access.

The purple portion of track that has a turnout just to the entrance of the tunnel. Maybe consider moving everything back further. The curved turnout looks to be a reach if you have a derailment or needs maintenance.

The spur track that’s in green. Is that going to serve an industry ?  Maybe that could be straightened out.

if your still considering the first plan with the longer tunnel. I really don’t think you will have a derailment problem. One thing with a long tunnel with roadbed and trackage right above it. If you like to run smoke. The smoke really has no place to go. It seems to settle on the track. I had an open house many years ago. Guests brought engines to run and most ran with the smoke on. I have a long tunnel under one section. Will hide a 25 car train. After the open house I worked on the layout for a number of weeks. Finally ran some trains with constant stalling. The track was all slimey  under there. Out in the open. Not so bad.  The other thing with tracks passing over the tunnel portion if you run TMCC. you could have ground plane issue. You may not have an issue in testing. But at some point you may come across an engine that has an issue with it. Might be worth planning ahead rather than have to crawl in there later.

Enjoy reading your progress. The bridges you guys are building are really cool. My layout has a lift out to access the furnace. Over 4 feet. I started using that area as a workspace. It was easy to duck under 30 years ago. Not so much now.  Thought of changing it out for a lift up type but because of the high height of the layout and length of the bridge it just won’t work.

Thanks for the support! I am now leaning back to cookie cutter. That whole area should be a coal mine with coaling building etc. And consensus is for a longer tunnel. Great info on where the smoke goes, er or doesn’t go! Maybe a small exhaust fan would help keep the tunnel track clean? And what could be done with the possible TMCC issue? I have zero experience with TMCC or dcs for that matter

thanks Dave

John, here’s a link that discusses the issue and has a link to more detailed info.

https://ogrforum.com/...c/154307984502402758

Thanks Dave, the provided link explains it better than I can. I only had 1 TMCC engine early on with no issues. Purchased a second one a year later and had a stalling issue in one spot for a couple of feet. The Forum had the fix and I was up and running. I had some bare copper wire and placed it above and a ways beyond the problem area. Held it up with some clips. I used solid copper as I didn’t want it to sag. I put curves in the wire which probably weren’t necessary. Soldered a piece of hookup wire onto it and ran it to the outlet.

Looking at your track plan. It was sort of similar to mine with the tunnel portion passing under multiple tracks. My engine would stall right under this area. It ran pretty much under the 4 tracks.

Thank you both Dave’s for the solution to a potential problem. It appears the wire extends the antenna ground TMCC uses for communications. So I will run with the tracks in question and also in the yard area if needed.

Looking at many posts on this forum about tmcc signal and the need for outside rails to be connected I came across a video from Lionel. I Just watched that fantastic video from Lionel on TMCC and Legacy signal basics. He goes into why and how to implement ground planes to eliminate cross talk from adjacent tracks and how to use capacitance coupling for isolated outside rail. I hope it is ok to post the link here to that video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ-hiIvPxVs

Well worth the 23 minutes to view. This has given me some ideas on the best practices for powering my layout.

Now I am looking for practical experience to help me answer an important question that came up through this research. Lionel advocates bus wiring, MTH advocates star wiring. Planning to run both Lionel and MTH engines on the same layout, what has experience shown to be the best or least worse setup?

I can only vouch for my own experiences. My track was down long before DCS. I have all Gargraves and Ross. Other than the last phase that is basically a turntable and staging yard. All buss wired. A 12 gauge buss runs pretty close to following the track around the layout. I used Automotive primary wire. There are 4 mainline blocks. 2 TIU channels cover the 4 blocks. EVERY 3 ft section of Gargraves has 14 gauge feeders soldered to the buss. I alternated the outside rail drop each section. There is a common ground. Only the track itself connects to it.  Every turnout has an 18 gauge drop from every isolated rail. No toggle switches or any complicated wiring. Just a few relays with 12 VDC  power through Tortoises to change rail polarity. Has 10’s everywhere. MTH engines can be added from anywhere and can even be on the same channel with a powered TMCC. There are 2 other TIU’s that are used. Turntables and yards. The layout takes up a space of about 24X48.

This is just my conclusion on how to wire. Use a good quality wire of the proper gauge and keep it simple. Do your hard thinking when you run into a problem and test as you go along. Try to get one loop of track running first even if your turnouts go to nowhere. I think it’s important right off the bat to see something run. Also after you make additions keep checking what you previously have done.

The only issue I had early on was with TMCC. One of my 2 engines had a ground plane issue where tracks passing over it inside a tunnel. An easy fix with a few feet of wire to form a ground plane.

Clearly, the least risk will be if you use star wiring as TMCC/Legacy won't care at all.  Many layouts use MTH DCS without star wiring successfully, but typically better results are obtained using star wiring.

The late Dale Manquen wrote a fairly extensive paper on TMCC operation and details of the signal propagation.  It conflicts with much of the folk lore surrounding how the TMCC signal is transmitted and received.  Sadly, his website is no longer active to share this very useful document.

We run mostly Lionel controlled with Lionel remotes but use DCS to control MTH, turnouts, accessories, lighting, etc thru 6 AIUs in a star wiring pattern. Turnouts are Tortoise. The layout has three levels, is “under construction”,  and the left side which will contain most of level 3, has minimal level 2 and 3 track installed.

The right side is 2 level and tracks pass over level 1 in a lot of places. So far no ground plane problems. We can reach under the layout fairly easily and have run some copper wire where we can’t.

It appeared to us that if we wanted to run MTH and Lionel together, we would need to use star wiring. It works but “least worst” seems to be a good description.

Feel free to e-mail us with any questions.

If this is going to turn into a ground plane discussion, would someone in the know please comment on the practicality of making tunnels with Woodland Scenics Shaper Sheet (heavy duty aluminum foil backed by cotton batting like material) and the likely effect on signal strength. We have installed one which works fine and are doing two more this afternoon. Yes, we have seen Mike’s excellent video twice.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

The late Dale Manquen wrote a fairly extensive paper on TMCC operation and details of the signal propagation.  It conflicts with much of the folk lore surrounding how the TMCC signal is transmitted and received.  Sadly, his website is no longer active to share this very useful document.

You can still get access to Dale's website and content through the Wayback Machine.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...om/trainfacts/?p=691

Within the Machine, his internal hyperlinks will work or you can change the page number at the end of the URL.

Also watched the video. I understand every layout is different. I also understand the video to say if you had a multiple track yard, installing ground plane wires between each track is a good idea.

The current build of TPRR2 will have parallel mains and a section with a lower level yard. The levels separated by about 8 inches vertical distance.  At least 8 parallel rails in the yard and 4 on the upper. I run both DCS and  TMCC.  I had no issues with my previous 9x13 layout. The new one is 12x12 but has more parallel running track side-by-side and over each other.

I would rather install the ground planes now, rather than later if this is going to be an issue. Maybe yes or maybe no does not seem like a good answer. For the 3x8 foot section, stapling chicken wire or aluminum screen to the underside of the upper level might be workable.

Comments appreciated ... Jeff     Maybe I should stick with DCS ... naw nothing like an engineering challenge! 

@Bill Webb  seems to me the WS tunnel material would work great if you run a wire from it to ground - of course now that I am an expert after having watched a 20 minute video  

@Bruce Brown posted:

You can still get access to Dale's website and content through the Wayback Machine.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...om/trainfacts/?p=691

Within the Machine, his internal hyperlinks will work or you can change the page number at the end of the URL.

Excellent, I didn't realize it was still available.  Here's the link, this is something that I believe to be much closer to the truth.

TMCC Signal Basics by Dale Manquen

GRJ thanks for the additional link to the original article.  Hard to find this information among all the chaff on the internet. Had no clue about the TMCC signal and potential problems. 

Ok to sort things out, I will use star wiring as GunrunnerJohn points out,  TMCC/Legacy will not care. I need to read Dale's information a couple of times to totally grasp his information. It has a lot in it for sure. Which may trash the following work...

I have also set up a test track using two 37" gargraves wood tie tracks with insulated outside rail with capacitance coupling per the Lionel video. soldered connections between the hot transformer wire and the first track then soldered the two center rails of the tracks together. The remaining outside rail goes from transformer "U" to a soldered connection on outside rail, then these outside rails are soldered together. Also installed TVS's, one at transformer output, one at track input and another at end of track. So voltage drop due to track to track resistance should be negligible and the outer rails should radiate TMCC signal equally as if they are hardwired together. Put a train on track and started to run it up the track and it controlled a little rough. By rough I mean, the engine would creep and have some speed jerks, certainly not as smooth as the MTH units I have tried with DCS. I did notice the sparks under the center rail rolllers and will attempt to clean them, but also order replacements as they are probably 60 years old and were highly used 60 years ago with lots of ZW power. Two projects going in parallel are This one on a larger scale, using layout track as test bed which will wait until test track is working and tests out perfectly. And cutting roadbed from sheets of homosote that I have. Now to get my table saw to angle properly...

Working on laying track to give myself a visual of the layout in real life. I am not good at seeing a drawing and realizing how it will look in real life. So some of the track is down and it has spawned several ideas. One has me adding a siding for a trolley run through town. Moving the double track bridge to accommodate the roundhouse area with more room for small structures and added dimensions. It also has showed some of my foolishness with heights of track and being practical with scenery actually fitting in the small space I have designed. Will be using some cookie cutter on raised area's, But the yard area seems to be good with just flat plywood. I'll take some pics later on.

John, I’m glad you are making some headway. I agree, when building, sometimes you get better ideas and surely see where there are miscalculations from the drawing.

So I haven't been on much due to family matters. Daughter is moving back from Conn. and that has taken a lot of time to find a place to live etc. I have been getting a couple hours each morning to finish laying track down to give me a reality visual of the plan. I have made many small changes, and will put them back into scarm so I can see how bad the grades are on the elevations. I did 3D print some track spacers for parallel tracks. 3.5" , 4.24" , 4.5" which helps me keep things straight, along with an 8' aluminum straight edge. Used them in the yard area a lot! Will be physically moving our daughter next weekend, so not much will get done, I'm sure of that, on the other hand, we get to see our daughter a LOT more frequently! which makes it all worth it.

John, the spacers are a good idea.  That is good your daughter is moving back.  I hope all goes smoothly.

Hello All,

Daughter is moved back from Conn. and is settling in her new home. Great having her back for sure. Now I can finally get back to my layout, which I can't remember where I left off, so starting back is first finding where I left off. Reassessing where it stands, has me recalling I was placing track according to scarm drawing and having a reality view of how it will look and function. With that said, I put as much track down to give me a reality check on layout design and functionality. Here are pics of what it now looks like and I am disappointed a bit on the look/operation or maybe just not seeing the potential in the finished product, not sure which it is...  Please comment on any thing to change, alter, replace, remove etc. It appears next step is to cookie cutter the track that will be elevated or maybe if I have enough scraps, I could elevate the tracks with those so I can change things if better ideas are presented. Thanks for looking and all comments are welcome as always.

more pics

and some more pics

I will try to get the scarm drawing posted. Unfortunately I have been doing all my computer work on an Apple OS, and the scarm drawings are on and old Dell windows 7 OS. Which makes it cumbersome at best working on the two different platforms. More out of convenience than anything technical, wish scarm was mac compatible

Don't know what that pipe is in the corner of your last picture, but because you "benchworked" it solidly closed, you can bet something will eventually go wrong with it (Murphy's Law!!).  I would strongly recommend you rebuild that corner to a swing-out pie-shaped module so that repairs can be effected without ruining the corner of your layout.

Chuck

@PRR1950 posted:

Don't know what that pipe is in the corner of your last picture, but because you "benchworked" it solidly closed, you can bet something will eventually go wrong with it (Murphy's Law!!).  I would strongly recommend you rebuild that corner to a swing-out pie-shaped module so that repairs can be effected without ruining the corner of your layout.

Chuck

That is a radon vent pipe which I was hoping on having a hill/mountain over that is removable for pipe access. I am not sure how to do a pie shaped swing out module. Any help is appreciated. Thanks John

John, I’m glad your daughter is settling in. Laying the track out was a good idea.  That’s a lot of track!!
I don’t know how to handle the accessibility to the pipe, in the off chance it needs work.

@Aegis21 posted:

That is a radon vent pipe which I was hoping on having a hill/mountain over that is removable for pipe access. I am not sure how to do a pie shaped swing out module. Any help is appreciated. Thanks John

In Bill Barrett’s book there is a section on doing swing out structures; along with a lot of other good information.

Jay

@Mark Boyce posted:

John, I’m glad your daughter is settling in. Laying the track out was a good idea.  That’s a lot of track!!
I don’t know how to handle the accessibility to the pipe, in the off chance it needs work.

Thanks Mark, Maybe too much track...

@Tranquil Hollow RR posted:

In Bill Barrett’s book there is a section on doing swing out structures; along with a lot of other good information.

Jay

Thanks Jay, I will look that book up.

Here is the Scarm File

@Tranquil Hollow RR posted:

In Bill Barrett’s book there is a section on doing swing out structures; along with a lot of other good information.

Jay

I found a book by Jim Barrett "Building A  Layout" Is that the one you are referencing? Thanks John

That’s the one John.

Jay

@Tranquil Hollow RR posted:

That’s the one John.

Jay

Thanks!

My thoughts on the pipe maybe to have a removable mountain to hide the pipe and then beable to remove the mountain when and if the pipe needs to be worked on. It will also allow me to access the back/unreachable section in that area. Anyone have thoughts on this idea? I did get Jim Barrett's book which is fantastic, btw Thanks for leading me to it.

Does anyone have Layout changes, improvements alterations to help make the layout more interesting from either just running trains or railroad operations standpoint? I am having trouble with "Main Street" To me it seems there are too many tracks and not enough room for street, buildings, and scenery. I may be worrying over something I am just not seeing yet. Again being  this is my first time making a large layout (something other than a Christmas tree oval) it is hard to envision the diorama's .Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks in Advance John

John, I don’t see how a swing-out would work. The aisle there is only 3’ wide and there’s at least 2’ of framing/decking to the pipe from the left. If you swing it out, it’s just going to block the aisle. My suggestion is a 2x2’ or 2’x3’ removable module that can be pulled out and moved out of the way. Since that’s only a vent pipe, chances are it’ll never have to be replaced/repaired, but you do need access to that back area for maintenance and dealing with problems if you put a spur there.

When it comes to track vs landscaping, you need to decide how you plan to operate. Are you really going to use those 2 double-crossovers and spurs? Or can they be simplified into just a couple of spurs to service whatever facilities you put there? If you put a large mountain around the pipe, how are you going to landscape that spur? What it going to go along the spur that goes in the other direction.? There’s no room for buildings, just faux building or painted buildings in the wall. That same for the spurs along the aisle. The biggest problem is a lack of specific buildings to see how things could fit. We filled those areas with track to show what could fit, but that always depended on what building you eventually decided to out there. Now it’s time to forget about those spurs and see how you want your city to look along the mainlines. Once you have that, then you can decide what spurs to keep.