© Henk Funk, 2005
It takes time
Making choices is always difficult, especially if you’re starting
an adventure where many need to be made. On top of that all these decisions
are interrelated and interdependent and at first these relations are utterly
unclear.
My starting point was really basic; I want to start with modelrailroading!
Fortunately one can bring some more structure to it than that.
Essential is the distinction between what you want and what you can.
If you think about the process logically the following topics can be distinguished;
Available space, Theme, Scale, Rail-type, method of driving, automation
with PC and finally the result of the design process; the final plan!
Space
Considering the available space is essential to start with. Of course, the
more the better but realistically you need to make compromises. Claiming
the living room was not an option the other members of the family could
agree with so in the end I have a room on the attic of 3.3 by 4.5 meters,
effectively it is 3.3 by 3 as at one side the roof is sloping down. Luckily
I can use the area below the roof for the shadow-station so that there is
still a respectable surface available for the visible plan.
Just point at picture below for an overview.
Theme
I didn’t, and still don’t, have any fixed ideas about the theme.
The general idea should be a lay-out where things happen and one that will
not be boring soon. Trains should appear and disappear in an unpredictable
pattern and direction.
This can best be achieved in a landscape with some hills as you can then
make a good variation between visible and invisible track.
The above clearly disqualified The Netherlands for a total lack of available
hills (imagine Amsterdam on a mountainside!!). Another essential ingredient
is availability of material, rolling stock and houses etceteras. In Europe
Germany is clearly the country with the most choice and massive availability
of stuff. The Deutsche Bundesbahn it is then!
Within reason one should also choose a period for the lay-out, steamlocs
next to 300 km/hr ICE-trains is a bit silly. An interesting period is late
III early IV (1950-1970) as many things are possible then without abusing
reality too much.
Also there is a lot of choice in material for this period both new and second-hand.
Scale
Actually this was the easiest choice using this reasoning; I want a lay-out
with sufficient train movement and things happening, ergo so you need quite
some track to accommodate that but space is at a premium.
H0 (1:87) is then quickly discarded as that scale simply requires too much
space. Z (1:220) is also ignored, as that is too small for any adjustments
and has a too limited choice in materials. Scale N (1:160) it is then, widely
available and sufficient choice in materials.
As an illustration the same
lay-out in the various scales:
Extra Information
A recent poll on Beneluxrail
showed the following uneven
distribution in scale usage
(approx. 2,500 people
responded).
H0 -- 64%,
N -- 27%,
Z -- 2%,
rest - each less than 1 percent.
Rails
A topic where a beginner makes “wrong” choices very easily.
I say wrong because mostly the first choices in this area are based on insufficient
information or unawareness of the options.
It’s only human that as soon as you’ve decided on the scale
you want to see something actually driving. Off you go to the store and
go for a starter kit, usually a Minitrix or Fleischmann box.
I fell for this as well, as I didn’t like the fixed ballast under
the Fleischmann track I ended up with a Minitrix starter kit. In the following
year I bought some extra track and turn-outs for a bit more expansive test-track.
So far so good, but when I started thinking about a bigger lay-out and,
just by accident, saw a few Peco
turn-outs I noticed a few disturbing things:
• Minitrix is very expensive (Fleischmann too)
• Minitrix and Fleischmann are not very realistic
• Rail height is not on scale at all
• Turn-out radius are far too small to be realistic
Did some extra research but concluded in the end that the Peco code 55 material
is by far the prettiest on the market and on top of that also one of the
cheapest.
Especially the latter was very surprising and it became really interesting
when I found The
Signal Box on the web. This UK-based retailer is approximately 20-25%
cheaper than prices with retailers in The Netherlands. However, do note
that their prices are in GBP.
Through Marktplaats (kind of e-bay in NL) sold all my Minitrix track and
for only a few Euros extra ordered Peco track with Signal Box. A week later
I received their shipment.
Are there no disadvantages to Peco then? Yes
there are;
All track between turn-outs is made through flexrail which is more complicated
to position. See also the Tips area.
The Peco switch motors are extremely current-hungry, even the most economical
one (PL10W) needs 2-2.5 ampere! There are not that many switch-decoders
that can deliver this. One of the root causes is the fact that the spring
in the switch goes very heavy, this is good for the electric contacts but
requires very strong motors. On top of that these motors are also very noisy.
To me it’s clear that Peco is still in a pre-digital era as far as
the electrical parts are concerned.
Do be careful, Peco has 3 different ranges of
N-scale track:
Set-track which is very ugly and aimed at little
kids, code 80 which is the predecessor of the
beautiful code 55 track.
Additionally there are Insulfrog and Electrofrog versions of switches. This
indicates if the frog is electrified or not. Electrofrog is to be preferred
as this provides a far more reliable traffic across a switch by locs with
only 2 or 3 axes. However, it does mean slightly more complex wiring.
PDF-file with Peco
code 55 range.
Controlling the track
This was a topic that required a lot of thought and research. It’s
complex and you need to have it right first time to avoid major disinvestments
at a later stage. Additionally I’m not much of an electro-techie.
Basically there are 3 choices
Additionally the option of automation with a PC needs to be considered
as well. You might not want to do this immediately but one needs to take
it into consideration.
Analogue was discarded almost immediately, control options are not that
big and herefore a bit boring. One could build and add all sorts of additional
electronics but then it is quickly not the cheapest option anymore and certainly
not flexible.
Also the mixes of analogue and digital I discarded, mainly because I don’t
have enough skills in the electronics arena but secondly prices are not
that competitive against fully digital to warrant a choice for such a control
version. Do note as well that very often the mix-versions have a very limited
audience.
Conclusion was therefore to go for fully digital. But I was still not there
as digital is a confusing topic and then I’m very polite. See the
digital chapter for an extensive introduction
to digital model railroading.
Next step was to select a control-unit.
The DIY versions I skipped for earlier mentioned reasons. I have a problem
with the control-units from the main manufacturers as these tend to be very
expensive, only support a single protocol and I do not like to be stuck
with a single vendor. That doesn’t leave much choice but luckily the
Intellibox from Uhlenbrock is a very good choice. It ‘speaks’
all the main protocols (DCC, Selectrix and Motorola), has build in PC interface,
booster and two turning knobs for controlling locs manually.
Although some retailers suggest that driving multi-protocol
can create problems I have so far not encountered any.
Do suspect them a bit of wanting to push you into a solution
that generates more profit on the long run.
In the end I have the following configuration:
Loc-decoders: DCC and Selectrix
Occupancy reporters: S88-bus (LDT, Conrad and Viessmann)
Current-detection: DIY
Switch-decoders: DCC and Motorola from LDT, Viessmann and Lenz
Using the Computer
From the start I wanted to be able to run my lay-out by computer. Although
a computer should not be required to run the trains. The last part was also
a big element in the choice for the Intellibox.
Choosing an application to automate the lay-ot was very simple: Koploper
made by Paul Haagsma. Apart form the graphical appearance it is superior
to all commercial applications. Koploper is for free! You need to register
with Paul but that’s it. I pity those who don’t speak or understand
Dutch because the will have to spend 250 Euro’s or more applications
with similar capabilities like RailRoad
& Co.
And start al over again . . . .
Like any other design process is creating a good lay-out an iterative process.
The one day you sketch something and the other you are dissatisfied and
need to start all over again.
It is to be recommended to show your ideas to more experienced railroaders
and ask their criticism and advice. The folks on Beneluxrail have been very
helpful in this process.
A summary of the choices as described in earlier sections:
= Scale: N
= Digital: Intellibox and Koploper
= Protocolls: DCC, Motorola and Selectrix
= Rails: Peco Code 55
= Period: III-IV (’50 – ’70)
= Landscape: hills with a bit more rough area on the edges
= Lay-out: U-shape
= Size: Main plan: 315 wide, legs 220 and 195 long, Shadow-station: 330
x 70 cm
Using all this I worked out the plan as shown below. I think it's a plan
where there’s enough variation and enough opportunities for trains
to disappear and appear again on an unexpected place. Did create 3 ‘turning
loop’ situations in the process but that can be resolved with a DIY-module.
The city (Marburg) is named after my eldest doughter Maartje and the village
(Anfeldt) after my youngest Anneke.
Will this be the final version? Well let’s see if it survives the
building process, probably not!
