Author: admin

See also the pages about the plans for the new layout:

Layout
Landscape and buildings (including semaphore signal)
Wood work, wiring, extended feedback etc.

January 1

Up early. Out for a walk. New Year Concert and Ski-jumping in the Television.

But I also spent time ordering components for decoders etc. from Reichelt and servos for the new turnouts from NiceLED.

January 3

The goods from Reichelt have arrived already.

January 8

This takes time. I have spent the entire day on very little:

I spent all morning buying and collecting a board of 6 mm plywood. For transportation, I had to borrow a trailer. And while having the trailer available, I used it to get rid of the Christmas tree. And then I had to deliver the trailer back again.

I spent the afternoon sawing pieces of plywood for the front shadow station and for the visible track at the front as well as marking the arched pieces for the sides:I am not good at arches. So I have been using my ruler for ever centimeter to draw a dot 4 cm away from the track. But now I am ready for the saw.

January 9

The 4 arched pieces are ready.

NiceLED has still not sent the servos. They are caught in customs after arrival in Denmark.

January 14

It is Saturday, which means a couple of hours for model railroading. So I am back to being the carpenter. I have been cutting the visible track piece from the front shadow station. The plan is to make the visible track detachable:The arched pieces that shall connect the rear shadow station with Skive H are temporarily stored in the hallway. Same thing with the visible front track.

Skive H is supposed to be cut from the piece of plywood that can be seen up against the wall:Now I have come to something where I am unsure how to do it. It is my first time joining two pieces of plywood. I am beginning with the joint between the front shadow station and the arch towards the rear shadow station:I suppose I first have to cut the two pieces so that they exactly fit together:Then join them via a small piece of board on the rear. I am first cutting a piece of board from the old layout and then I drill holes in the plywood for screws:Then i glue and join the pieces using 3,5 x 15 mm screws. The board piece is overlapping the plywood with about 9 cm. It seems fine. I just hope that it is not going to be neither to stiff or to weak. I finished joint looks like this:Next joint is worse. Here, I will join 9 mm plywood to 6 mm plywood, i.e. rear shadow station and the arch to wards Skive H.

I don’t know if I should simply do as with the first joint and then align the difference in thickness by adding plaster or whatever on top of the 6 mm plywood. Or should I put something with a thickness of 3 mm underneath the 6 mm plywood and will that become strong enough?

Again I start by cutting the two pieces to make a perfect fit (except for the difference in thickness:Note that the rear track shall go down towards the front shadow station while the other 4 are going up towards Skive H.

January 15

Continuing the carpentry.

I have assembled the entire lower oval now. It took a lot of time to adjust the arches so there is room for both the upwards and the downward arches at the ends of the rear shadow station.

I ended up joining the 9 and the 6 mm plywood exactly as the other joints. I then have to adapt the thicknesses by adding something on top of the 6 mm plywood later on.

Next project is the crossing between the two shadow stations. Here I want to try out the Piko flex track. I have been cutting the ends of two pieces of Märklin track and putting Piko joints on them to join the Piko track with Märklin track. Here is the result:Besides, I have made 4 strips of MDF, 7 cm wide. They are going to be the foundation of the crossing. The 4 strips are going to be joined in the center:The height of Märklin track is 10,6 mm and the height of Piko track is 4,6 mm. I.e. the height will be exactly the same if I add another layer of MDF underneath the Piko track.

January 16

Even though it is Monday, I managed to get home early enoughto get on with the crossing. I have gotten it all to fit together and I have glued and screwed small pieces of plywood underneath the 4 “corners” where the crossing shall join the rest of the layout:The center is cut to fit and a piece of board has been prepared for the assembling:And the “corners” er as mentioned even more ready:But now it is time for watching TV. It is a hobby and there has to be time for other activities as well.

Last message from NiceLED is that he has been clever enough to ask the customs which documents they need. So now there is hope to see the servos within a week or so.

Next time, I suppose I will order in a shop that has the servos in stock inside the EU. For example Hobbyking. It doesn’t mean that I would advice against NiceLED. On the contrary. He made it very clear on his homepage that the servos were not in stock and therefor the delivery time was unknown. So I could just have ordered elsewhere.

January 17

The MDF for the crossing is done. Only problem is that the MDF is so hard that screws do not go into it, but keep having their heads above the surface. We will see if it becomes a problem once I lay the track:The glue will get time to harden until tomorrow. And then I am ready to rise the rear shadow station to elevation 5 cm. Or rather, I will have to find pieces of wood or similar that provide the right elevation. The final fastening will have to wait until I have been able to do test driving.

January 21

NiceLED has finally received the servos and has already sent them to me.

To do some initial test driving with something similar to the correct slopes, I have put a lath underneath the rear shadow station. It is thereby elevated 1 cm to much, but I will try something out anyway. Good old Märklin 3060 Santa Fe first:As expected, it can do anything. But what happens if I attach 4 wagons to it? And what about the Heljan IC3 train? I also have a locomotive with low hanging snow plows that shall be tested with and without wagons.

Next test: 7 Lima B wagons after the Santa Fe locomotive. No problem. Both pulling and pushing the wagons:The IC3 train seems able to “climb the mountain”. When it can do it, anything can:The IC3 train has not become any more stable than last time I wrote about it. After a few successful rounds back and forth I found courage and increased speed. That made both drive shafts loosen themselves from the boogies. I may be possible to fix with Superglue. But it is not good enough, Heljan.

On the other hand, I don’t think it has anything to do with the layout, so I have just put the IC3 train back into it’s box. After having put the driveshafts back into place, of course. Then we will have to see about the future of the IC3 train. Maybe I will sell it. It is nice and new. And it will probably run fine on a bigger layout without R1 curves.

As mentioned, I have an other locomotive with low hanging snow plows. It runs fine both back and forth. Also with the single compatible wagon I own.

But it cannot pull more than this single wagon. It doesn’t have rubber tires and it only pulls on two axles on one boogie. I have two axles with rubber tires for the locomotive. And then everything is going to be fine, I am sure. There is not room for more than 3 wagons on my layout anyway.

All in all, I will conclude that 5-6 cm elevation is OK and I will attach the rear shadow station using pieces of the lath and a bunch of screws:And the train still runs.

During the evening, I corrected a small problem in JMRI: An other JMRI+ECOS user wondered why he could not transfer locomotive definitions, that he once had uploaded from ECOS to JMRI, back to the ECOS, where he had now by mistake deleted them. And that is of course a point. So now I have changed it so that a locomotive definition can be put back into ECOS provided that the DCC address is not already in use in ECOS.

January 22

I had to test the slopes again. And all of a sudden, the good old locomotive can no longer push 7 wagons. Not even 5. The derail. In return, I got verified that a Lima B wagon is durable enough to fall a meter down onto the floor without any damages.

It turned out that by switching two wagons, I managed to once again push 7 wagons uphill.

And still – with my layout, 7 wagons is without interest. 3 is maximum:I am in full progress to ensure the right elevation all the way round. I am not doing it as thorough as described on stahlbahn.de. So my layout is not going to be easily adjustable in elevation.

Instead, I have calculated where it fits with 1×15 mm, 2×15 mm and 3×15 mm round the arches:
It fits with a57x388 mm lath at the high edge under the rear shadow station, where it is only the 9 mm plywood.

The same lath but on the low edge and supplemented by a piece of 6 mm plywood fits underneath the joints in the end of the shadow station:And the crossing has been raised a bit too:So far, I have only screwed the wooden blocks to the base board but not the plywood to the wooden blocks. I have thought of only attaching the plywood very few places.

That way, it is easy to take everything apart again. And besides, to many screws may serve to transfer noise.

POSTSCRIPT (OCTOBER 2017): IT WOULD PROVE THAT THIS WAS CUTTING CORNERS. FOLLOW DESIGN RULES, AS FOR EXAMPLE MAX. SLOPES OF 4%. MAYBE IT WOULD WORK WITH 5-6%, WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE 5-6 CM MENTIONED ABOVE. BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN EVEN DISTRIBUTION. AND EVERYTHING NEED TO BE ATTACHED FIRMLY SO THAT NOTHING IS LOOSE, SHAKY AND ASKEW.

See also the pages about the plans for the new layout:

Layout
Landscape and buildings (including semaphore signal)
Wood work, wiring, extended feedback etc.

January 23

Yeeah. Finally a parcel from NiceLED. It took “only” three weeks and one day.

Along with the servos, I have also bought a servo tester. It was somewhat expensive (80 kroner, I think). And I could have built one myself, or I could have used my ECOS and a servo decoder. I only need something to center the servos.

A servo tester can be built based on a 555 timer, that I have “in stock”:But it is easier just to buy one – except that I don’t have the correct connector for the battery holder. But it works:I have benn using two wires in the patch cable I bought for experimenting with Raspberry Pi I/O.

January 24

I have made a fine open drawer for the ECOS. I am not sure how happy I am going to be with it, since the ECOS is now very low. But when the layout is not in use, the ECOS is not in anybody’s way like this:

January 27

I have been considering how to handle the crossing in JMRI. I have made a little experiment in Panel Editor, where I simply has been drawing the crossing as two track pieces representing the same OBlock and drawn as a cross:The signal is controlled by Signal Mast logic. And in my experiment I have set the rules so that the “approach-block” must be occupied and the two crossing blocks must be free in order to get green light. It works – at least in the simulator:The mast shall of course not be both source and destination. But it was only a quick experiment.

The crossing actually consists of two pieces of track without electrical connection to each other. I have thought of using that fact to have a sensor for each direction and then add some logix in JMRI to implement an emergency stop if both tracks are becoming occupied. I hope that could prohibit train crashes.

It does not seem that one can turn the layout off from Logix. But it is possible to execute a Jython script. And it is possible to switch all track power off  from Jython. See https://github.com/JMRI/JMRI/blob/master/jython/AutoLayoutPowerOff.py

The entire crossing need to be one block, though. Otherwise, two warrants could allocate the crossing at the same time and trains would potentially collide.

The split into blocks is as a whole being considered, so that I can begin laying tracks:The signals on the drawing are the logical or virtual signals – those to be used by JMRI to make Warrants work. The relatively few physical signals to be placed on the real layout will only be on the visible part of the layout and not all the virtual signals will be represented by physical ones. Some physical signals may even not correspond to a virtual signal. For example there shall be only one entry signal to Skive H from left to right even though there are two logical signals – one for each track.

January 29

I have started all sorts of small tasks. Right now I am preparing to mount the wiring. I wish I had bought connector strips like these for my current sensors:They would make it much easier to disassemble and reassemble if a module has to be taken out for repair. But no need for wining. I will just make some myself by cutting copper wire from installation cable into tiny pieces:And then I have begun the noise dampening.I am almost done with the lower level. Only the front corners and the flex track are still missing:I am gluing the green stuff with wood glue. I have bought a liter. I am trying to use only a very thin layer, but I am still using quite a bit of glue.

January 30

I have started to define the layout in JMRI. I have chosen to use LocoNet Simulator instead of ECOS. That way I can define the entire layout and test signalling without even connecting to the ECOS. It is true that I then have to do “global-search-and-replace” on all sensors when I will start using JMRI with my physical layout. But I have tried that operation before when I replaced IB-COM with ECOS.

Until further, I have defined all Sensors, Turnouts, OBlocks, Portals and Paths. I have done so directly in the tables in JMRI. That is easy. Easier than doing it through tiny dialog boxes in Panel Editor But now comes the hard part, i.e drawing the layout in Panel Editor. I will not – at least initially – draw the layout in Layout Editor too:The tricky part is that there are several icon sets to choose from and not least that Panel Editor is not absolutely flawless. Special attention has to be given to the fact that even though one chooses a turnout and a set of paths in the “insert” dialog, one shall not count on getting what one asks for. One has to right-click several times on each icon and choose “edit” to make the icon represent what it is supposed to. Of course that is an error in Panel Editor. And of course the error can be corrected. But somebody else need to do that.

February 4

Now that the Saturday cleaning is over and done with, it is the time to build servos into the turnouts. I will only make the turnouts that I need right now.

For the purpose, I have sawed tiny pieces of 4 mm acrylic / plexiglass. Two pieces per servo – one 25×28 mm to mount the servo and one 28×10 mm to hold the piano wire into place.

Once more, I have tried using a jigsaw to cut the plexiglass. It doesn’t work. The blade becomes so hot that it melts the plexiglass. And thereby the plexiglass glues itself together again right behind the saw blade. So I am using a manual saw instead. It is not getting pretty. But that doesn’t matter. Everything is hidden underneath the turnouts.

In addition, I have been cutting the servo horns to length, so that there is room for them inside the turnouts. In addition, I have lined up double adhesive tape etc.:Ét voila:I have finalized the noise dampening on the lower level. Tomorrow, I will be laying the track including sawing holes in the plywood underneath the turnouts to make room for servos.

Then plywood for Skive H need to be sawed and mounted using threaded rods. And then comes wiring and electronics.

February 5

I have spent most of the day sawing holes for servos and finding the right track pieces so that isolation between blocks is according to plan. In addition, one of the old turnouts had to have it’s 1 mm piano wire exchanged with 0,6 mm.

But now the first oval is in place:I have spent the last hour of the day soldering the final 6 current sensors for S88-N module #2, which until now onla had 10 current sensors.

February 6

Wiring for the 6 new current sensors is done. Now I only need to test the entire module. But that will have to wait a little.

February 7

I have added blocks 27 and 28 to JMRI according to the track plan above (January 27). It was not easy. There seems to be an error in JMRI Panel Editor so that one cannot create an OBlock without ensuring that the entire layout is interlinked with Portals and Paths.

Or rather: The problem is the exact opposite. One is allowed to save a layout without this coherency. But when the file is loaded during JMRI startup one gets a very long and cryptic error message and no part of the file can be read. I.e. the entire layout is lost.

Luckily JMRI stores a series of backups of the layout file. So I could copy one of these backups and then try again. I managed to get through in the third attempt.

Apart from that, I have started a small series production of 4-servo / turnout decoders:

February 8

I have defined all signal masts as virtual in JMRI. And I have placed the first few in the panel and defined signal mast logic for those.

I will not be coming to the physical signals until a later stage.Right now the only purpose with signals is that SCWarrants need to have signals to run trains.

Work on the servo decoders is progressing.

February 9

All signals are placed on the layout in JMRI. In addition I have been adding block numbers and turnout numbers so that they are visible. Only a small portion of the signal logic is defined.

I have discovered that the guy who originally made Warrants in JMRI has removed my SCWarrants. To say it in the nicest way possible, I am less than satisfied with that. But it looks as if he has been making the original Warrants signal aware, so a test must reveal if I should be happy or mad/sad, i.e. if I have to start over again to make Warrants work on my layout. I have a hunch that at least the functionality with not having to record throttle commands is missing.

It is going forward with the servo decoders. I still haven’t mounted any active components or programmed any micro controllers:

February 11

The last few components are now soldered. Only micro controller programming and wiring is left. But that is going to wait until I have added a board for all the electronics.

In the meantime I have sawed the plywood for Skive H. I just need to glue and screw the three pieces together:

February 12

I was in Bauhaus to buy a few 3×13 mm screws etc. Thereby I can assemble the plywood for Skive H.

Besides, I have at long last added the board for electronics in term of the leftovers of the 9 mm plywood board. I will have to see if it is too thin to screw the electronics into place. But now it is there and I have moved the layout back to the corner where it belongs:In addition, I have been working with a hole saw tomake holes in the baseboard for wiring back and forth between ECOS and the electronics board (or between the front and the back of the layout). And then I have been putting a power rail on the baseboard.

I am considering if I should buy something like this https://www.elvvs.dk/c/ledningskanal-m-slids-3393/ or if I should glue wires to the baseboard, continue with the hooks I used on the prototype or what.

At least, it is not going to be allowed to become a spider web of wires like the prototype.

Late in the evening, I finally found the solution and has now ordered cable binders and a roll of Velcro from AV-CABLES. The plan is to attach all wiring with Velcro. The cable binders is for attaching the electronics thatcannot be screwed. For example the power supply for ECOS.

See also the pages about the plans for the new layout:

Layout
Landscape and buildings (including semaphore signal)
Wood work, wiring, extended feedback etc.

Feabruary 14-16

The only news that is related to model trains is that I have been debating with the JMRI developers – especially the author of Warrants – about why my Signal Controlled Warrants have been removed.

It seems to be caused by a combination of several factors:

• Unwillingness to let others touch “his” code.
• Unwillingness to structure the code by sub-classing instead of pouring it all into one huge mix, which thereby would be doomed to be full of errors and unforeseeable behaviours.
• A misunderstanding concerning what Signal Controlled Warrants is, i.e. multiple adaptations that makes it possible to automate the maximum number of trains on the smallest possible layout, including:
  • Controlled by all signals on it’s way and not only the final signal. This has in the meantime also been put into Warrants by it’s author.
  • Sudden speed changes as opposed to slow speed stepping. The Warrant author claims to have done the same in Warrants. But that has cluttered and complicated the code even more, and I do not trust it.
  • Possibility to run several trains on the same stretch of track one after the other. Even though he sees the point, he does not think that is compatible with his definition of Warrants. I would however not be surprised, if he soon suggests to introduce it as yet another option that will once again clutter and complicate the code and thereby entroduce even more errors.

I have already re-introduced Signal Controlled Warrants in my own copy of JMRI. We will then have to see if the JMRI community wants it. If not, and if anybody reading this are interested, please feel free to contact me. You can easily get a copy and try it out.

February 17

Just reading about how the remote steering of signals and turnouts in Denmark works at DSB or Banestyrelsen or whoever it os: http://www.blokposten.dk/sikr/elek/elek-dsb53-betj.htm – invaluable knowledge n’est-ce pas?

February 19

The debate about SCWarrants continues on Github. More news will follow.

In the mean time, I have started to mount the tracé for Skive H. Those thingies that I am screwing into the wood to get M4  threads to screw threaded rods into are not easy to get straight. But I have almost succeeded with the first five, so the tracé is now where it should be – maybe still somewhat high:

February 21

Skive H has gotten it’s noise damping stuff:

And I am just about to get SCWarrants back into JMRI. But unfortunately not without writing an e-mail in a tone that I am not proud of. It was difficult to get my message about that only simple code with simple functionality is stable enough that I dare trusting my trains to it.

February 25

Today, I have been sawing all the holes I need to run the cabling underneath my layout. So now I am ready to do that.

And SCWarrants have just been merged back into JMRI.

February 26

I have now reached the point where I should in principle be able to run a train around in a circle. But unfortunately only in principle: The track is dirty. Both from saw dust and from grease. Two pieces of track are without power. I don’t know why. And finally two turnouts are in the wrong position, and I have not yet been connecting the decoders.

But I have mounted the most basic parts of the electronics and then some. First my two S88-N modules:

The S88-N-P module is attached to the shelf, where my ECOS is placed.

Testing the new current sensors showed that the highest numbered sensor does not work. I have not done anything to make it work, since I will not be using it right now and since I am going to be needing another S88-N including 16 sesnsors anyway, when I move to the next phase with the Skive – Spøttrup line.

I have also mounted IB-COM and Raspberry Pi plus my Ethernet switch, even though only the latter will be put into use in near future:

I am using velcro tape to hold the wiring into place. I still need to mount many more of them:

February 27

I have vacum cleaned the layout to remove saw dust and used my servo tester to set the turnouts. In addition, I have replaced the isolating track piece, that had by mistake been putting in the middle of a block.

So now my train can go all the way round in a circle. Not much fun in itself. But it means that I by now have reached the point where I once again have a functioning layout.

March 13

I have not been building model railroad for a while. But tonight, I got time to plan the next couple of steps:

I need to make a patch panel, i.e. a group of connectors to connect on one side the programming track and decoders for turnouts and signals and on the other side both command stations – both programming track and main track – as well as sensor 1.

Concerning signal decoders, it is especially the one for the semaphore signal at Spøttrup station. The other signal decoders cannot be programmed anyway, since the power supply part is going to be shared between a number of signal decoders.

I had thought of simply attaching all the connectors to the electronics board by screws directly. But it is not going to be easy to crawl underneath the layout each time something need to be programmed. So instead, I am now thinking that I will attach the connectors to a separate board, which I will then place somewhere easier to get to underneath the layout. It could be either in the rear corner or it could be near to the ECOS.

The other plan is about how to mount the trace for Skive H. I need to place two threaded rods in the front part of the trace and another couple of threaded rods in each side.

I think it is best to place those at the front so that they are right in the middle of two tracks at the ground level and then shorten them so that the upper level is just carried by them, but so that they do not go through the upper level.

The problem is that the track at the two levels combined almost covers the entire area. There seems to be a possibility to place the rods exactly 18 com from the rods at the rear edge of the trace. It is however only just. They ould probably have to be bent a little and they would be very close to the track at both levels. So hence the conclusion above.

March 18

Today, I built the patch panel. I ended up just placing the connectors on the general electronics board at the back underneath the layout.

In doing so, I also brought my IB-COM back to life.

I have not yet connected anything (decoders and programming track) to the patch panel.

March 19

I have given the issue about mounting Skive H without the treaded rod stiking through quite a lot of thought. But the solution might be simpler than I thought. When I made the holes for wires, I produced some wooden cylinders at the same time:

And if I put threads into them, I can even make them adjustable in height.

Et voila! I finally got the mental strength to get on. There is now 10 cm spacing between the two levels:

And I have managed to mount the first two servo decoders, so that all turnouts in the front shadow yard are now operational. And since I have also made both sidings, the entire yard is done.

It seems that I have bought some shitty (i.e. too cheap) connectors for the patch panel. I have to apply violence to connect the first time, and afterwards I had to bend the shield a bit to get proper connection to the decoders.

See also the pages about the plans for the new layout:

Layout
Landscape and buildings (including semaphore signal)
Wood work, wiring, extended feedback etc.

March 21

Great idea about using straws to make sure wiring from an upper level do not interfere with trains running underneath: http://www.niels-modeltog.dk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53:det-ny-svenstrup-h-del-3&catid=5:anlaegsbygning&Itemid=8

And then I have been sawing plexiglass pieces for the next ten turnouts. I managed to use an electrical jigsaw this time. By running it very slowly, by using a fine-toothed blade (meant for sawing in metal) and by attaching a piece of paper-tape where I am sawing, I managed not to melt the plexiglass:

March 23

I am lining up to the next turnouts. And I can see that I probably do not have enough 0,6 mm piano wire. I do however have 2 meters of 0,5 mm wire. So I will have to see if that works or if it is too soft.

And I already forgot how much I was cutting away from the servo horns last time. But luckily, I can just take a picture. The piano wire is in hole 2. The cut is after hole 3:I managed to unpack 10 servos and cut the servo horns to size. Do you know how long time it takes just to pull the servos out of their plastic bags? Answer: Surprisingly long.

March 24 and 25

I only have left to assemble two out of ten turnouts. And to add lanters to the 4 of these that will remain visible.

But now I have neither anymore 0,6 mm piano wire nor any double-sided tape left. I have already assembled one turnout using 0,5 mm wire. It works OK. And I have been to Bauhaus to buy more double-sided tape. It looks like this and is called “ultra strong”:

With this, the last two turnouts have been assembled, so now I have to mark and saw holes for all ten. Since some of the holes are going to be very close to the edge of the tracé, I will have to device some means of enforcing the the tracé. Here is how the markings look like:

It was a really good idea to cut the holes in paper first. A couple of them got wrong, which could be remedied in the paper, but might have ruinex the plywood completely.

March 27

For once, I managed to spend a couple of hours on a normal weekdays evening to saw holes for the new turnouts:

Next steps will be mounting lanterns in the visible turnouts, tracklaying and wiring as well as adjustment of height and slope including supporting the curved parts of the new track.

March 28

I have mounted lanterns in all the visible turnouts. And then I have begun to lay the puzzle that it is to re-use as many of the existing track pieces as possible – including the ones that I have made into isolating tracks by breaking off the contacts in one end.

March 29

I had no energy for modelling today. But I did a bit of detailed design:

About a week ago, I wrote that I had seen niels-modeltog.dk use straws to guide wires underneath the track, so that trains passing underneath would not be bothered by those wires. I still think that is a good idea. OR one could fix the wires using a hot glue gun.

But anyway, I have figured out that since I have bought plenty of velcro tape, I will be stapling a few stripes of velcro underneath the track instead. By that, I am going to get a more flexible solution, where it is also possible to fix the wires for my servos. The connectors would not be able to pass through a straw.

The problem is however that by now, I am perfectly able to fix wires for track and turnouts. But I do not yet know where I am going to put signals and other stuff.

That is why I am considering not to glue the board, but only fix it by a screw in each side – apart from the threaded rods at the front.

But should I also make sure that only a single connector is used to connect all wiring to the board? Naaaarh:

The turnouts are controlled by two decoders for the five turnouts at Skive H and two additional decoders for the eight turnouts at the rear shadow yard, out of which only half are in the detachable board. And each of these decoders must have a connector to connect it to the patch panel anyway. Regarding the turnouts at the rear shadow yard that are connected to a decoder on a different board, they already have a connector too.

So only the track is left. The programming track must also be connected to the patch panel, and therefore equipped with a connector. And I could connect the rest of the track via a small row of cable joints. Thereby, I will be able to dis-mount the board fairly easily, i.e. by disconnecting the cable joints and less than 10 connectors. Remember that it is not supposed to be an everyday operation.

March 30

I have filled Skive H with velcro underneath:

April 1

I have strated laying track at Skive H and the rear shadow yard:

This time, I am using a lot of the small red hyper-expensive (15 kroner for 8, i.e. for 4 joints) plastic things for isolating adjacent blocks of track from one another.

I have previously been bithing that they do not work properly and that it is a lot easier, cheaper and better to simply break off the contact from one piece of track.

But right now, there are many places on my layout, where I would have to be violent against track and turnouts costing a bit too much and that would become harder to re-use later on when I am making my next layout.

And in fact, I have found a fairly good way to mount the plastic things without destroying them. The secret seem to be not to try to mount them on brand new track. I.e. Put the track together and then tear it apart again. Then the contacts seem to be pressed together just enough to be able to mount the plastic thing.

April 2

I have instaled all the Märklin tracks and connected them except for a single turnout. In addition, I have made supports for the upper board in both sides. It lifts the board just enough that a Lima B-car can sneak itself around on its way to and from the lower shadow yard without scraping the upper level, even though the track is closer than they should be. It is recommendable to not ignore the minimum distance between tracks as proposed by Märklin:

Naturally, it took some time. But the only thing tat did not work right away was one of the servo/turnout decoders, which seemed unstable, i.e. all 4 servos kept moving in a seemingly random pattern. I don´t know what the exact problem was, but I tried to re-program the PIC without any effect. Then I rplaced it with a new PIC. And now the decoder works.

The next exiting mini-project is going to be the two pieces of flex track that will complete the lower level.

I have considered if it is worth fooling around with the flex track. The gap can be easily closed with Märklin track:But this would not fit the woodwork that I have already made. And the very tight curves to both sides is the same as begging for trouble. Finally, it would not leave much space to stick my head up underneath the layout and remedy when trains are de-railed. So I will stick to the idea with flex track.

April 3

As preparation for laying the flex track, I need to add an extra layer of 6 mm mdf to make up for the plastic-ballast, that raises the Märklin track 6 mm. I have been cutting some of the mdf, made paper templates for the rest and removed the noise damping material from the area:

April 4

I have been cutting according to the paper templates. I have also been glueing the first side, i.e. the extra layer of mdf is glued on top of the existing layer. It is so thin that I do not have short enough screws to screw it together, so I hope that the glue is enough:

Also, I do not have enough clamps, so I will glue the other side tomorrow.

April 7

Ready to lay the flex track:

I thought I should use copper wire from a piece of installation cable (1,5 mm2, i.e. 1,4 mm in diameter) as the center conductor, but it is too stiff. Instead, I have bought som silvered copper wire from Panduro Hobby. They have different thiknesses. I have chosen 0,8 mm.

Now I wish that jornebanen.dk, where I got the inspiration, had been writing a few details about how he did. Which kind of wire? One long piece or many shorter? What does the rear look like?

April 8

Here is my method:

With regular intervals, there is a small hole in the middle of a sleeper. The holes are probably meant to fix the track using small nails. But I am using them to put the copper wire through. I am cutting a piece of wire long enough to use from one hole to the next.

In the track end nearest to the front shadow yard, I have just bent the wire piece around the sleepers and then soldered them together on the rear of the track. In addition, I have soldered a small piece of wire to the last of these wire pieces:

The rest is done similarly, only that the wire is going through holes in the MDF board underneath. And I am soldering on the underside of the MDF:

Übung macht der meister, as the Germans say.  The first piece of track took a long time to solder, because I had been bending each piece of wire around in a circle, so that it could be soldered to itself at the rear. But that is not what is is all about. Instead I made the pieces a bit shorter on the next piece of track and bent them all in the same direction, so that they were in parallel and ready to be soldered to be soldered together with the next piece:

About the Peco flex track: I can hear an immediate difference in the sound it makes, whwn a train is running on the Peco track compared to the Märklin track. The Peco track is a lot less noisy. I don’t know why. I can think of a few differences:

The Peco track is without the big plastic footing that firmly connects all the Märklin track together and might provide resonance. I could try to either glue the Märklin track to fix it to the board (right now, it is just lying loose without screws or anything), or I could try to make some resonance damping. I have some heavy asphalt-like self-adhesive stuff in big sizes meant to soften resonance in cars, which I could cut into tiny bits and put underneath the track.

The 3rd rail consist of small studs on the Märklin track, whereas it consists of my longer pieces of wire on the Peco. It might mean that the locomotive simply emits less noise from the 3rd rail shoe. This could be determined by experiment, since Peco actually produces a 3rd rail (item number SL-17), that I could buy and install. But I would like to improve my Märklin track and not make my Peco track worse.

April 9

I was at the DMJU (Danish Model Railway Union) exibition in Køge. Many interesting things. But to be honest, I was somewhat disappointed by the quality and level of detail in the club layouts that exibited. But in hinsight, it is only people making it for fun and not to impress others. If that is what one wants, then go to Hamburg and see Miniatür Wunderland.

At the exibition, I noted these things:

Mck exibited red Bn cars, that I got the impression are on their way from the factory in China. In addition, they had a raw and unpainted Bns (i.e. cab car), where one could see a bit about how the light functions are going to work. He told that Mck is going to put a light-kit including a 3rd-rail shoe on the market – maybe this autumn, and that the same thing will be built into the Bns from the beginning.

In addition, they had an early version of the Q-steam-locomotive running. Many people were taking photographs of the nice little thing, even though he underlined that it was indeed a very early prototype – possible with a lot of faults.

Finally, he had an MR/MRD train-set. It was in a wrong color and with wrong LEDs. But no matter that, it absolutely outshined the Lima model that I re-built a few months ago.

Märklin C-track does not have to be noisy. There were plenty of C-track layouts – including one at Märklin’s own exibition, that did not emit much noise. And they were just loose track on top of an MDF board. Maybe because it was in a big room with a lot of noise around? Or maybe because they were using different locomotives? Or maybe I just need to determine what is wrong on my layout?

http://www.mollehem.se/ has some nice Dansih and Swedish signals. He has been smart enough to produce the entire signal – head, mast (which is very thin as it should be) and foot as one PCB. The head is equipped with a pice of plastik at the front that looks like a correct signal to me and another piece of plastik at the rear, that is better described as just a piece of plastik with much resemblence with reality. The mast does not look much like the real mast either, but all in all, it is a nice signal.

For 50 kroner, he also sells servos with a little piece of plastic, that makes them ideal to use with any turnout brand. Finally he sells servo decoders and other kinds of electronics.

Togdillen Was also present with – among other items – IC3 train-sets built from spareparts from Heljan. I asked if they could run and told him about my IC3 train, that I bought from him. He said that I should come to them if it falls apart again, and they will fix it so that it lasts. They want satisfied customers.

Just before bedtime, I managed to edit the XML file into which I some time ago has been defining my new layout. The editing was about replacing the syntax of sensor names from Loconet simulator syntax to ECOS syntax.

April 10

I expected some trouble in getting the layout XML file including its built-in signal logic etc. to work.

But no – no problems at all. It worked right away.

I did however have a few problems in getting Warrants and my Jython scripts to work:

1. One problem was in SCWarrants, that was a bit too eager deallocating blocks to avoid one warrant from prohibit another to run. So eager that the block that was just entered sometimes was deallocated, with the result that the train could stop in the middle of its route.

2. I had to set debounce timers for all ECOS sensors. I have chosen 25 ms delay when a sensor becomes active and 100 ms when it deactivates. There has to be some difference, to avoid problems with a sensor for the block that is left becomes inactive before the sensor for the block that is entered becomes active, thus leading to the detection of a lost train.

3. The function that I made in JMRI for letting a Jython script wait for a warrant to enter a new block did not work correctly every time when a warrant terminated funktion.

I have fixed these minor issues and re-implemented my Jython script for one of my trains, defined buttons to start and stop my trains as well as information fields for the running trains, created SCWarrants for the one train – and spent all day doing so.

And the JMRI fixes are naturally pushed to Github so that they will be part of the next JMRI release.

And now the first train is running pretty stable. The train consists of an old Märklin Santa Fe (3060 for conisseurs) locomotive with the engine rebuilt as a 5-pole DC engine and equipped with an ESU decoder, as well as 3 well-used Lime B-cars. I have uploaded a video here.

A few accidents are happening every now and then, such as a railway car derailing or just decoupling. Or on rare occasions, a sensor is not detected correctly. And then “funny” things obviously happens. But I think the software is as stable as it is ever going to be. Probably, only some kind of duplicated sensor system can really make things more stable.

I can foresee one thing, I need to do pretty soon, if I want to run more trains simultaneously, which I do: I need to make sure that the rear of a train is detectable, i.e. Is equipped with a 3rd-rail shoe so that it draws current. As it is now, JMRI cannot detect the rear of my rather long train, and thereby deallocates a block too soon, making it available for another train to enter. I will probably be saved by the signalling system, since the next train entering the freed block will be given a stop aspect, which JMRI will react upon, but it is not safe.

April 11

One of my turnouts needed adjustment, since the servo was “singing” in one of the positions. This was easy enough, since it was just a matter of changing the CV value in the decoder that controls that particular servo in that particular position.

Another turnout was a bit more challenging. It was one of my 3-way turnouts:

It operates as two independent turnouts. But mechanically, they are not independent, since one of the moving parts is pushing on the other moving part as can be seen on the picture. Again referring to the picture, the outer turnout is closed and the inner is thrown. That is OK. But if I now also throws the outer turnout, the inner turnout is pushing enough on the outer that it does not shift properly, so that trains will de-rail. I tried adjusting CV value the best I could. But it was not enough. I also tried bending the outer turnout slightly, but that was not enough either.

I assume that if one uses Märklins own special decoder (74465), it will not be possible to have both turnouts trown simultaneusly. I have made the same thing using Logix in JMRI. The logix I have made reacts upon the outer turnout being thrown. And the action it takes is to close the inner turnout. Simple and effective. While I was at it, I made the same logix for my other 3-way turnout.

A bit of research shows that it is not the Märklin 74465 decoder, that makes the 3-way turnout function as one turnout. That is a function in the ECOS, which is able to utilize two consequtive turnout adresses combined, if one uses the 3-way turnout icon.

But I cannot use that function in the ECOS, since JMRI does not know anything about 3-way turnouts. In JMRI, one needs to draw and control the two integrated turnouts individually. I.e. My solution with logix seems to be the right one for me.

April 15

I defined warrants for a couple of trains more. But that lead to the greatest of disasters with all cars derailing and crashing deep into a ravine. I have to make my whole train detectable, which means equipping the rear bogie with a 3rd-rail shoe and some current consumption.

Until further, I will just run locomotives without cars. But that is going to become a bit dull.

April 17

It has become spring-time. The driveway is high-pressure cleaned. But I have also been driving trains via SCWarrants.

It was an occasion for a few improvements to SCWarrants (that are not yet pushed to JMRI):

1. I have removed the function that was meant to de-allocate blocks further along the route, if they are occupied by another train. First, it should not be necessary. And second, it has happened on more than one occasion that the function was executed at the same moment as the train was entering the next block, which meant that the block was being de-allocated and occupied by the train at the same time. And thereby the train stopped.

2. Until now, the first allocation of blocks was done in the normal Warrant code, which meant that all blocks were allocated no matter if they are occupied or not. That did not work – especially not now that occupied blocks are no longer de-allocated. The problem is that if one warrant has allocated the block, an other warrant that is supposed to move the train away from that block cannot do so, since it cannot allocate the block that is already allocated to the first warrant. So I have now implemented a very simplified version of this initial allocation: it only allocates the start block.

In addition, I have been fiddling a bit more with debounce timers, because my sensor 17 seems a bit unstable – probably due to dirty track. I have in general increased the timers from 25 / 100 ms to 50 / 200 ms. And for sensor 17, I have set them to 100 / 500 ms.

In addition, I have defined (virtual) signal masts at the entrance to all side-tracks.

April 18

More high pressure cleaning – this time the terrasse.

But I have also made a couple of software improvements:

1. My script to run trains by warrants had the flaw that it re-used the throttle from the warrant itself. This meant that when the last warrant had finished and thereby the throttle had gone, the script failed to turn of lights etc. On the locomotive.

2. SCWarrants will now slow down in the block before the destination block.

3. It can happen that two events are received to tell that the destination block is becoming free. And in that case, a race condition leading to a null pointer exception could occur. That made a thread in the program die. Such behaviour is seldom healthy for a program.

4. If the train doesn’t move (speed == 0), the warrant no longer reacts if the block ahead becomes occupied. It might have been in combination with one of the things, I have corrected, but I had an incident, where my old Santa Fe was yelding nicely to wait for another train that should pass in the crossing in the middle of my layout. But as soon as the other train had finished occupying the crossing, i.e. when the locomotive but not all wagons had passed the crossing, Sant Fe speeded ahead with the result that the two trains crashed and the offended train was damaged. Not good! It must be beacuse the Santa Fe warrant thought that since the crossing was it’s next block, it must have been Santa Fe that entered it. I just don’t understand why I have been unable to provoke the same error again.

5. I have increased the time configured in ECOS to set a turnout. Until now, all turnouts have only had 250 ms to move. I have increased that to 2500 ms or 2,5 seconds. It fits pretty well to the time it actually takes for a servo to move a turnout. And it is the maximum in ECOS.

Besides, I have at long last found out how to disassemble a Lima B wagon. I have “asked” Google numerous times without success. But by squeezing my ugliest Lima wagon carefully, I found out: Roof and windows are casted into one piece. And the sides and bottom in an other piece. So by gently pressing the winws inward, wriggle a bit and so on, it is possible to pull the two parts apart. Use only your fingers. No tools:

This finding could enable me to add interior lights and collector shoe.

April 19

More JMRI improvements:

1. Messages are shown in the window containing the list of warrants when the train runs. I have made these messages specific and relevant for SCWarrants.

2. Editing TimeToPlatform now actually works.

I Have pushed these and previous improvements to Github so that they will become part of the next JMRI release.

April 22

I tried with 3 trains in automatic mode. And it failed miserably. This time because block 11 went UNOCCUPIED even though there was a train in the block. 375 ms later, it went OCCUPIED again. And since the debounce timers in JMRI are set to 50 / 200 ms, it must have been “out” for more than half a second.

I think I will try out 25 / 1200 ms debounce timers. There has to be a resonably prompt reaction when a train enters a new block, but there is no hurry to free a block as the train leaves it. Well maybe when the second last block in a route is left and it has to be determined that the train is into the destination block. But I will have to do some testing about that.

April 23

Houston, we have a problem: See my division into blocks:A typical pattern would be that a train A is positioned in block 21. A is planned for departure “downstairs” via blocks 23, 11, 12 etc.. In addition another train B has stopped with it’s front in block 26 and it’s rear in block 11 and is on it’s way into block 21, but cannot go further due to signal 26-21 showing “stop”.

What will then happen is that train A proceeds past signal 21-23, which shows “proceed”, when it’s warrant become active, but stops as soon as the front of the train is inside block 23 (still with the rear of the train in block 21, so that signal 26-21 shows “stop” and holds train B back), because signal 23-11 shows “stop”. This establishes a deadlock since the two trains are waiting for each other.

The circle is not big enough. I need more blocks and signals. The question is how?

Block 23 and 26 can be split in the middle, i.e. at the edge of turnouts T11 and T15. That will make both trains move a little further. But not enough to get the rear ends out of blocks 11 and 21.

Block 21 can be split in the middle. That might just do the last bit. But it will not look very nice to have train halfway at the platform stopping for an invisible virtual signal. So it will be block 11 that is being split into more than one block. I can do it in the middle and probably solve most cases.

But I can also split it into 3 blocks, so that the middle block consists of 6 track pieces (corresponding to my maximum train length) and so that the turnout + 1 track piece in each end form the other two blocks. I suppose this will give better flexibility, since a waiting train will get fully into block 11.

The target is to be able to run 3 trains simultaneously. I.e. two trains must be able to be waiting to enter the station without blocking the train at the station from leaving.

Ultimately each and every piece of track could be it’s own block. But it must be sufficient if the circle is divided into blocks so that every second block is 6 track pieces long and the other quite short:I.e. I will be needing 5 additional sensors. And I haven’t got 5 free sensors. I only have 4. There is probably no benefit in splitting block 23 as indicated. So I can save the 5th sensor right there.

On the following pictures, the liquorice bits are illustrating the front of three trains. Train A is in block 21, trains B and C are waiting to enter block 21:When train A is started, it has permission to go as far as the block before train C:Then train B can move into block 21 and train C can move forward to wait at the next waiting position:Finally, train A can move on. Either in the back of the queue for block 21 or more likely away via block 12:For this reason, my layout is going to be changes like this:

April 26

I did some measurements on current sensor 32 (the one that has never worked). The S88-N module works OK. But there might be something wrong with the diodes. Either one of them is turned the wrong way around or one is defect. I need to take the entire module out for repairs, if I must use number 32 at some point in time.

April 29

I got the extra blocks defined today. It was quite fast to do the physical part with isolating track and soldering wires.

But the JMRI setup turned out to take longer time. Even though the most annoying errors in the editor seem to have been corrected by somebody, but it took me 3 – 4 hours to re-define a good part of the layout.

And now it seems the there is no more frost at night. That means cleaning and preparing the green house and planting tomatoes tomorrow. And not much model railroading until autumn.

May 9

Even though it is spring, I did a railrod-thing today. I have been at Togdillen to collect my Heljan IC3 train. It has been there for repairs – or rather finalization on behalf of Heljan.

The specific problem was that the drive shafts, which from Heljan’s hands are made of plastic, kept falling off or falling apart. But now Togdillen have replaced them with metal drive shafts.

Until further, it looks good. The train has been running several rounds on my layout without blowing itself up.

The train is a bit noisy. For one thing the collector shoe “talks” somewhat loud and for another, the new drive shafts are not exactly silent either. But it runs. And to be fair, the noise is not much worse than what could as well come from a Märklin locomotive.

May 13

Instead of pulling weeds from the garden, I experimented with automatic train driving.

It works pretty well as long as I only run locomotives without wagons. But I have one train with wagons. And even though the rear wagon is equipped with a collector shoe and actually draws current, it happens quite often that other trains are permitted to move and thereby crash with this one.

I have tried debugging the problem. And it looks very much as if it is not reliable enough with a single collector shoe that is not even placed at the rear boogie.

Another problem is that as trains are constantly waiting for each other, they move in an unrealistic pattern with way to much starting and stopping.

The question is if I really want several trains to run behind each other? Maybe I should only run one train at a time?

On the other hand, it looks good if – just occasionally – two trains could enter Skive H simultaneously (of course from each direction and to each their own platform).

Maybe I should – instead of having SCWarrants carefully trying to free blocks up for subsequent trains – change it so that a train does not start unless the entire route can be allocated and before all turnouts are set? That also means that if just one block is occupied, no part of the route may be allocated. And blocks may not be de-allocated one at a time, but have to be de-allocated in one bulk operation when the train has moved fully into the final destination bLock and the warrant is finalized.

Thinking about it, it may be enough to do the last bit, i.e. de-allocate in a bulk operation. That change can be made by just deleting a single line of code. So I will try it out first.

May 29

The weather was no good, so I managed to implement the bulk allocation and deallocation of SCWarrant routes.

At the same time, I also made sure that all turnouts are set before the train starts to move.

It makes the layout less lively, but it is more realistic that having trains queing up behind each other.

It works great. No more collisions.

I did try the easy fix with only bulk de-allocation. But it didn’t work. Deadlock situations occurred very fast.

June 11

The weather is nice and warm, and I am mostly outside enjoying it. But I could not completely stay away from the railroad. I had to see if I can still run several trains simultaneously.

And to upper the odds a bit, I was putting some Lima B wagons behind to locomotives and ran my Roco train as the third train. JMRI and warrant-wise, it works fine. But the Lima wagons are not 100% reliable. At one time I had a bad derailment accident. And a couple of times wagons decoupled. All in all good. But I need som better (and nicer looking) wagons.

An other irritating issue that I did a little to cope with: Since it takes a while to move a turnout (I have programmed the ECOS to wait 2,5 seconds), since the ECOS only seem to move one turnout at a time and since JMRI/Warrants seems to sometimes set all turnouts along the route twice, it takes some time before a train starts moving. I tampered a bit with the ECOS turnout code inside JMRI, so that if a turnout is already set in its wanted position (JMRI knows very well the position of all turnouts), no command is sent to ECOS. That helped a lot. But I will leave it as prototype code until further.

I also ran my newly renovated Heljan IC3 train. It actually runs pretty stable. It looks as if it can pass the curved R1 turnouts without problems. It gous uphill, downhill, around in narrow curves. But but but. It derails if it shall leave the main track through a “normal” 24611 or 24612 turnout, which is supposed to be R2, but where on my layout the train must continue through an S-curve, which is also R2. I will have to define Warrants for the IC3 train without such S-curves.

Apart from that I have not touched the train since my latest update. I am growing tomatoes etc. And I have been playing with home automation in Domoticz. Se separate page.

June 24

It is midsummer evening tonight. But this is Denmark, so it is raining. So I sneaked myself to define warrants for my new locomotive. But this locomotive seems to require more from the layout than my Märklin and Roco locomotives. It passes the wrong way on at least two of my turnouts. Especially when it runs at fairly high speed, which is the case when it is under SCWarrant control.

When I get the time to do so, I will try to adjust the turnouts. If that is not sufficient, I could introduce a parameter to SCWarrants determining the top speed of the train.

July 7

It was enough to adjust the turnouts. But I think I am going to introduce a factor that reduces the speed of the train under SCWarrant control by a percentage.

The newest things on my layout is a couple of Bn wagons. And the seem to be challenged on my small layout with many turnouts, narrow curves and differences in elevation.

So far, I have been trying to smoothen out the transitions between level track and slopes.

But the wagons keep derailing and decoupling. I suppose I have to check up on both couplings and wheels (AC instead of DC wheels?), turnouts and the details of slopes etc.

Regarding couplings, it seems to be a science in itself: Koblinger – Couplers – Kupplungen.

If I am going to use different couplings, I might as well get some conducting couplings so that I can put interior light in the wagons. And Viessmann’s couplings seem to be a good candidate.

Regarding wagons, I have been waiting for Mck to declare that they are going to produce intercity wagons, i.e. B wagons. I could use a couple of ordinary B wagons, a couchette and maybe a 1st class wagon, i.e. an A wagon.

But but but. Latest announcement from Mck is somewhat uppity. Maybe a bit colored by my perception, they seem to be absolutely not caring about if their products can be used in narrow curves and thereby on small layouts. As long as they look nice in a showcase. So I might have to spend my money elsewhere.

I think it is a strange announcement. But it’s a free country, and they must decide for themselves what kind of products they will make.

However, my trains need to be able to run reliably. And that includes running in the shadow yards with narrow curves, turnouts and other things that are non-prototypical. There is by the way not a single model railway that is prototypical. Not even the biggest clubs. Not even Miniatürwunderland in Hamburg. Model railways are compromises. And that makes it seem strange to me when a model railway producer announces a thing like that.

On the other hand, it must be said that Mck from the very beginning has been emphasizing that they produce correct models. So one might defend them by stating that they choose to live up to just that even though they will loose sale to us who actually want to see our model trains run on our small layouts – and in shadow yards too.

Therefore, I am pleased that there are other who also make very fine models of DSB rolling stock – among them Roco, Märklin, Heljan and Hobbytrade. And quite a lot cheaper than Mck. Maybe not quite as correct models. But more than detailed enough to both run on my layout and to be shown in a showcase.

August 12

I have introduced an adjustable top speed per SCWarrant. But as my previous changes with only starting the train if the entire route of the SCWarrant can be allocated and only free the entire route at once when the train has reached the destination block, I have not yet pushed the changes to JMRI. I will test it better before I do so.

I have also been adjusting a bit here and there to try to get my tracks more level seen across the track. There is also problems with elevation where for example the middle level is a couple of centimeters higher in one side than in the other. So this has to be improved.

But my small adjustments so far has improved the running of the Bn wagons. I.e. They no longer derails every time at the critical spot, which is is downhill through a curve, through a turnout and out on a straight and level track. Before, the track was sloping sideways out of the curve in a varying degree in the curve. Now they are level. And the wagons no longer derails every time. But still too often.

I have not yet been able to get AC wheels for the wagons. They are sold out.

August 20

My track is askew seen across the track:
I think I am going to have to take a few steps back and un-mount the “upper floor”, and to fit the lower level properly and with correct elevation.

Beside that, all track will have to be screwed to the plywood. I have been thinking that the noise would be lower, if the track is not screwed. But since the noise level is significant anyhow, I might as well put those screws in. Who knows: That might dampen the noise.

Right now, there are places where the track is hovering in thin air. One such place can be seen on the pictures above. And if the track is hovering, its elevation and slope is quite random.

Last winter, I thought that “the correct elevation” meant not to tighten anything, but keep it adjustable and then do test driving and re-adjust.

But now I have decided to use mathematics instead and make the slopes as small as possible. And regarding that, there are these problems right now:

1. The elevation of Skive H is 3 cm more than necessary. I.e. I can do with less elevation and thereby smaller slopes. See the NEM 102 standard for H0 model railroads. I am closer to 10 cm than the 59 mm that are required from the upper edge of the tracks:

2. The slope is not even over the approximately 1 meter “long” stretch where it can be distributed.

Don’t judge me and my layout to harsh about the 1 meter. Remembering my layout, the 1 meter shall only cope with half the difference between two levels. So even though the must be 8 or 10 cm elevation difference between Skive H and the lower level, this is distributed on 2 x 4 or 5 cm. I.e. A slope of 4 – 5%. If I can get down to 7 cm, it means “only” 3,5%.

And even though it is much and would be quite absurd on a real life railroad, it is not visible. So don’t worry if you think a model railroad must look “real”: It will not be seen. But it does put strict requirements on my rolling stock that it must be capable of climbing such a slope while also going through an R1 curve containing turnouts.

And precisely that is why there must be nowhere, where the slope is even steeper  because the entire 2 x 1 meters are not utilized to align the difference in elevation.

For that reason, I am now starting all over again by calculating the correct elevations, and then fixing plywood and track firmly so that these elevations become reality.

Then testing, testing and testing, before I go on by building the next level which is going to become the visible landscape as well as the local railroad SVJ and Spøttrup station.

And then there are the “small” parallel projects:

– The detachable – visible – track at the front of my layout including a small siding with room for a warehouse and a freight wagon or two. I already made a piece of plywood for the purpose last winter and I have bought the fittings. I also have most of the needed track. The most exiting thing is if I am able to make the trains run across the points where the track is cut. That is going to be necessary if the track shall be detachable. And besides that will be the prototype for making the landscape divided into modules.

– Interior light in some wagons. For this I need a Roco collector shoe (which is supposed to be reliable and almost silent) and an ESU LED strip with built-in decoder + 2 LEDs for the rear light. I thought such an interior light strip was very expensive. But it is in fact only 130 kroner (which of course is a lot compared to the value of an old Lima wagon). I will have to experiment to find out if I am going to use a collector shoe on each and every wagon or if I should use conducting couplings.

– A showcase on the wall. I have ordered one from vitrine24.de) to place the rolling stock that there is not room for on the layout on display.

– Light in the showcase as well as in the shadow yards. Regarding the showcase, I have ordered some 3 mm adhesive copper tape from China. The idea is to make it possible to turn lights and sounds on while locomotives and wagons are places in the showcase.

So there is enough for the entire winter season without getting started on houses and landscape. Not to mention my aging Faller car (still in it’s box) and a road for it to drive on.

I do however hope that I will manage to make the sceleton for the 3 or 4 modules that shall carry the landscape.

August 22

Vitrine24.de promises a delivery time for 10-12 days. But they did not live up to that. It only took 2 days. So now I have a showcase that I must put on the wall.

But I might put in some LED strips from Jem & Fix first, so that I get some light in the showcase. First I must consider if the light shall come from above or from below. At least I know already the the LED strips shall be in front of the trains:It must be noted that the showcase is absolutely straight. It is just the camera perspective that makes it look crooked.

August 30

The copper tape arrived from China. That must be a new record: 1½ week.

Even though it is raining today, I am not going to get time for model railroads until autumn.

September 9

I managed to glue balsa strips for the LED strips into the showcase.

Now I only need to do the rest.

September 17

I have been gluing wood strips on the back of the showcase to make a few millimeters space for wiring the LED strips.

Besides, I have bought fittings for hanging the showcase on the wall without having to drill holes and set screws through the back, so that those screws would be visible.

With the fittings and can just hang the showcase on two steel nails, which are more than adequate in my Leca/concrete walls.

September 18

I just wanted to note elevations on the track in SCARM in order to prepare the work with implementing those elevations on the physical layout.

But no. The only thing SCARM would do was tell me that my betaversion was obsolete and had to be updated. And so I did. Then I did a lot of changes just to find out that SCARM would not write my file to disk anymore. And at the same time it told me the reason: I had to much track for the free version and needed to buy a license.

There is nothing wrong in the man trying to get a little money out of 7 years work to make SCARM. And a license price of $39 – even with a 15% discount, so the price in september is $32,90 – seems reasonable.

However: If I must pay for the program, then there are other possibilities. I have been testing the program called AnyRail. It seems much more complete, well-documented and easy-to-use. It is slightly more expensive – $59 or €44. But that is little extra within this hobby. AnyRail can also be used as a free version. The free AnyRail version is limited to 50 track pieces, whereas the free SCARM version is limited to 100.

There are also alternatives that are still free. For example XTrackCAD, which is open source with all the pros and cons that follows – for example that it is pretty much undocumented but on the other side possible to change, if I should want to. This program can by the way generate an XML file that can be opened in Layout Editor in JMRI. (The same feature is also available in AnyRail). I don’t care much about that, thogh. I don’t want the same look in Layout Editor as I have on the physical layout and thereby in AnyRail / XTrackCAD.

I don’t have the need to buy a license right now. But when the need arises, I think I am going to buy AnyRail. I want to build my model railroad and not do any more programming right now. And especially not anything so peripheral as a program for drawing track. That excludes XTrackCAD. And I don’t want to spend anymore time to analyze the entire market. So AnyRail it is, unless whatever I am doing with the free version shows that there is anything wrong with it. It is well-documented and reasonably priced. That must be enough.

Maybe the need is coming soon: The tracks are very close in both sides of my layout, where one part is going up and the other is going down (labelled 5,8 cm):In can be improved by replacing a couple of 24130 with 24230 (which makes it necessary to cut the straight 24172 shorter and put joints on it):That will make the curve 3 cm wider. And unfortunately it is not easy to make a piece of plywood 3 cm wider. So I will try to see if I can avoid this change.

September 19

I have been calculating the correct elevation all the way round the curves / slopes, so that all slopes are 4% or less. And it was a fair bit easier with AnyRail than it would have been with SCARM. I managed to only use 48 pieces of track, so the free version (with a limit of 50) was just enough.

AnyRail is almost capable of finding the correct elevation by itself. It can even use three different elevations for the three ends of a turnout. SCARM insists that all three ends need to have the same elevation. And this makes SCARM’s slope calculations unusable for me:And yes: I need to be accurate down to 1/10 of a millimeter in order to ensure that there is no slope anywhere beyond 4%:I don’t think I need quite that accuracy in the real world. If that at all would be possible.

But it shows pretty well, that my work until now has been far to sloppy.

Regarding SCARM versus AnyRail: AnyRail is just better. Much more logical on all points.A thing as simple as deleting a piece of track or moving it around: It is just intuitive in AnyRail. 3D display works far better. Everything is just easier.AnyRail probably also have it’s flaws. I have been trying to draw some rails, then do a print preview in 1:1 (that would use many sheets of paper), then delete most of the track and make another print preview. I had to redo this a couple of times before AnyRail realized that I had deleted the track. But that is a small detail. SCARM is at least as unstable.

It looks as if the are frequent updates to both programs. So I am reasonably sure that real bugs will be corrected fast if one reports them – no matter which program one chooses.

A totally different topic: Tonight I managed to drill holes for the wiring and mounted LED strips in the showcase:The wiring on the back is ugly. So ugly that I will not show it on a photo. There is plenty of soldering and I have smeared the whole thing in glue to fix it and secure it.

With a little luck, I now only need to hammer two nails in the wall, and the showcase is done.

September 20

Now the showcase is hung up. And it has had it’s doors mounted:

September 23

I have hurt my knuckles on my right hand by unscrewing the wood blocks, that I had used to level the layout. The purpose is of course to re-do the leveling to the correct elevation, so that all the slopes become correct. But to remove the old leveling, I had to use tools for which there was not truly space enough, so I came to lift the top level plywood with the upper part of my hand.

I have also been sawing in the edge of the upper part of the curves. This is to ensure that trains can pass the curve even though the difference in elevation between the two levels is decreased.

In addition, I was at LokDoc to buy a few rail pieces – especially some with a larger radius, that I thought would help by giving a little more space for the outer curves when they go under the inner curves. But the actual problem is more that the plywood at the upper level is double thickness because it consists of two pieces joined together at those very spots.

So by now I have a few extra pieces of track. On the other hand, I also bought 4 Fleishmann Profi couplings. So now I am able to do a bit of testing with those.

But I didn’t finish anything. The weather was too fine to stay indoors.

September 24

I have by the use of wood blocks, clamps etc. made an approximate leveling of the layout according to the calculated elevations. Besides, I have fixed the track to the plywood in one side of the layout using the authorized Märklin screws.

And my old locomotive with a string of Lima B wagons can run.

But I have also tried pushing one of the new Bn wagons by hand. It must be a bit longer between boogies than the Lima wagon, since it touches the rails of the next-to-outer curve (at the higher elevation) when it is pushed through the outer curve (at the lower elevation). And we can’t have that leaving marks on my new wagons.

That means that my new R2 track pieces must be used anyway. That is quite easy in itself. But it requires 3 cm more plywood in each side of the layout. I.e. either new plywood from scratch or something else. I have settled with “something else” i.e. gluing a wood strip on each side. I have wood strips from the show case with the exact same thickness as the plywood.

Introducing the R2 curves means that the turnouts in each side are shifted a few centimeters towards the rear of the layout. And thereby it leaves space for also using R2 instead of R1  curves on the front track that is still planned, but not yet implemented. And that is a good thing. It will look better.

The resulting track plan – including elevations – looks like this:The track piece marked 11,47 cm, will be a Märklin track piece cut to length. It was quite easy last time I was cutting such a track piece for joining with the Piko flex track. I just had to add some Piko joints to the Märklin track.

Apart from that, there is still the problem with the joints at Skive H and the lack of free height underneath. The perhaps best solution is to make a new piece of plywood for Skive H without joints at those places. The second best might be to invent an other way to join the two pieces of plywood that I already have. But that will be hard to change, since the joints are glued together and therefor hard to disassemble.

I have been using 6 mm plywood. So I can gain 6 mm. If I lift the entire Skive H 6 mm instead, it will give steeper slopes up to Skive H – about 5% instead of the 4% I am hoping for. And that is not good. But since the outer curve is becoming a tiny bit longer (about 5 cm) and since 4% out of 5 cm is 2 mm, I might actually only have a deficit of 4 mm. Besides, I must be able to cut only some of the joints off and leave the rest to hold the two pieces of plywood together. I think it can all be tweaked.

First and foremost, I need a NEM 102 profile in cardboard. Or rather a NEM 103 profile. 103 is for curves, while 102 is for straight track. I have found this profile that I have printet, glued to a small piece of cardboard and then cut out: http://3modul.horsecreek.dk/standard.html

September 30

I have made the layout 3 cm wider by gluing a wood strip to the side. Or rather two wood strips – one underneath to hold the upper wood strip:

October 1

I bought a set of tiny circular saw blades (the smallest one with a diameter of 16 mm) for my Proxxon. Using that, a chisel and a small hammer I fixed the problem of lacking distance between the two levels at Skive H.

And the outer curves with R2 track are also almost in place. I have been sawing new holes for the servos under the turnouts and I have been cutting the track pieces to length. The thing with Piko joints didn’t work. So instead I have glued the cut pieces to the neighboring track with 10 second glue:As can be seen, I was using the 10 second glue in a rather unorthodox way, Normally, one must use as little glue as possible and then press the two ends together for 10 seconds. But I had to more or less just poor a lot of glue onto the joints. And that may never harden and become strong enough. At least it did not harden in 10 seconds. I broke one of the joints pretty fast because I wanted to install the glued track right away. But the glue was still sticky, so I hurried to press the two ends together for 30 seconds. The other joints broke after a couple of hours. At that time, I glued that one in the authorized manner. So now I hope it is strong enough.

Naturally there is no electrical connection through the glue, so I have been soldering wires on the back across the joints.

The whole thing has now been put back together. Now the elevations must be adjusted again and this time everything shall be fixed with screws.But ohhh no: Testing the feedback system reveals that something has gone wrong during the summer. Only the detection and feedback system only works for some blocks now. I couldn’t find any pattern, so I did a systematic test for all blocks.

It shows that all S88 inputs work fine. But out of the 32 current sensors, only 14 are now functioning. 1 has been defect all the time. It is bad if they only work for a while and then no more. I think I need to find a more stable way of making current sensors.

I have been asking litra.dk what he does. And he has transitioned to a current detector that looks much like mine:The biggest difference seems to be that I do not have the 470 ohm resistor. HE suggest that I introduce that. So that I will.

But I have seen others  use a different optocoupler, that works with current in both directions. And that may be necessary:

October 7

I spent the weekend in Schleswig. At the hotel, I saw a brochure for “the biggest model railway in Schleswig-Holstein open to the public”. I didn’t get to see the railway itself, but in the brochure they emphasized that they have cyclists that really cycle. And that sounds like fun, so I had to find out how that is done. The answer seems to be simple: Pay €159 to buy a set from MagnoRail.

October 11

I have ordered components for more current sensors from China. I.e. I hope the components will arrive before Christmas. This time the current sensors will be based on bridge rectifiers and ILQ620 opto-couplers, i.e. the type that reacts to current in both directions, i.e. AC:I have also ordered what I hope are pretty smart connectors, where a connector is soldered to the printet circuit board and all wires are screwed into another connector, that fits into the first one:Only the printed circuit boards do not seem to be cheaper in China than in Europe. And I already have a few of them in stock.

I have prepared this layout:In the meantime, I will try to find out what is wrong with my old current sensors and try to repair them.

Even before that, I will make a new levelling of heights and slopes on my layout. I have already been making the outer curves softer. I might begin with just small blocks of wood, clamps etc., but I will not be done until every bit of my layout have been tested with the Bn wagons and wood blocks etc. are glued or screwed on the layout.

I have spent a couple of hours on a few findings:

– The derailments happens with the same wagon. If I exchange the wagon with another one, the train can go through the troubled curve. I cannot see what the problem is with that specific wagon. Maybe a fault in the coupling kinematic or in a boogie?

– If I am trying another curve, there are no problems – at least not consequently. Not even with the “problem” wagon.

– There is another curve in the other side of the layout where it is always the last wagon that derails.

– The couplings are not very stable. Especially not uphill. I must try out Fleishmann Profi couplings. I also have to get the train to reverse all the way round. And I have to test both clockwise and anticlockwise.

– I can get the “problem” wagon run through the “problem” curve, if I attach the track with a clamp on a very strategic place. The train has just passed the “problem” curve on this picture, where the clamp is holding the tracks down, so the slopes are correct both along and across the tracks:It is a sign that I am going to have to re-level the entire layout and that I need to attach the track firmly.

At the same time, I need to take a second problem more seriously: I have been using thicker plywood for the rear shadow yard than for the rest of the layout. And the transition is quite rough. Luckily, the joint is only srewed and not glued together, So I can disassemble and then align the thickness:And I also need to ensure that the layout is level all the way seen across the tracks.

Finally, I need to make a safety net below the layout. I don’t believe that one should ever trust 100% that no derailment can occur. And I cannot bear thinking about trains for thousands of kroner plunge a meter or more down on the floor. The safety net should not be a coarse net so that couplings, horns, buffers, antennas etc. could become entangled and break. I imagine some curtain fabric, where I am sewing Velcro in all edges, so that I can easily remove and attach the safety net.

October 12

I have bought a small piece of 3 mm wooden fiber board (masonite) to align between the different plywood thicknesses.

I have also disassembled the layout in one side at the transition point. But now I am no longer sure this is a problem at all:The front part (still green on the picture) is only screwed to the back part. And that is already aligned used some of the green foamy stuff. The alignment wasn’t perfect though, so I suppose that I will exchange it with a bit of the 3 mm board now that I have started. But I don’t suppose it will make much difference.

The rear part (where I have removed the green stuff on the picture) is glued. So I cannot put fiber board underneath the plywood. So I will have to add something on top of the thinner plywood – either extra layers of the green stuff or I might use a grinder to make a piece of the fiber board thin in one end.

The basic problem is however still the ground work where all plywood need to be firmly attached to wood blocks of the correct heights. And as part of that work, I need to find out why the rear shadow yard is askew across tracks even though the base frame is level.

October 14

Two things on my mind today: A comment for the Mck Bn wagons (maybe true for everything coming from Mck?) and a way to measure elevation.

Mck first. I have been really really careful. I have not even been running the wagons at high speed. And I have at no point in time had any wagon tip to the side when it derailed, which they have been doing several times.

Even so it is if all the small fine details are dropping off or break. It might not be all that bad yet, but two things have happened: At each end of a Bn wagon there is a tiny thin, but rather long plastic thing that I think should look like the brake tube or whatever it is, that is on the corner of each real-life B wagon:One such plastic thing got entangled into the coupling on the next wagon and broke. And while I was removing the wagons from my layout to put them into my showcase while I adjust the elevation on the layout, another part fell from one of the wagons. This time a box-like little thing that sits below the wagon. And a third thing that was wrong already when I unboxed the wagons: There is a tiny damper or whatever it should look like on each side of each boogie. One of these are missing.

The Mck models are very fine and very detailed. And for that one is paying extra. But I feel rather bad about the consequence of this detailing, i.e. that the wagons do not seem durable enough to be used. I will even stretch this to the point that the Mck wagons was not the right purchase for me. I am very pleased with the nice wagons. But I am sad that they only seem well suited for staying in the showcase. Maybe I should have bought other wagons that are less detailed but more durable. Heljan maybe? Hobbytrade? Togmodelle?

Heljan wagons are however equipped with many of the same details: But at least they are quite a bit cheaper, so I would become less unhappy if something broke. 399 kroner for a Heljan B wagon. 579 kroner for my Mck Bn. Both prices from  www.nettog.dk.

And now on to the other topic: Measurement of elevation.

Until now, I have been trusting that the base frame that I built about a year ago is totally straight and level. But that is not the case. One corner is a few millimeters lower than the rest of the base frame. And then it is no good to measure with a ruler from the base frame and up to the track. In addition, a ruler is not precise enough to measure differences in elevation between levels.

But this is precise down to about 1 millimeter:

I do like this:

1. Make sure your floor is level. Use a spirit level.
2. My floor is carpeted. Therefor I put a more even surface in the shape of the 3 mm fiber board that I just bought on the floor to have a good surface to measure from.
3. Place a steel ruler underneath the track, where you want to measure. Make sure the ruler sticks a little out over the edge, so that it can be seen from the floor.
4. Put a laser measurement device on the board on the floor and measure distance to the steel ruler. Do a few such measurements.
5. Voila - there you have it. The elevation is shown at the display.

As an example, I have measured 787 millimeters in the front edge of the front shadow yard. The back edge of the same shadow yard is 784 mm. And I can see why: The plywood is not firmly attached to the plywood, so there is a gap of 3 mm at the front. But these 78? millimeters is my elevation 0, since I cannot go any lower without sawing something of my base frame.

I.e., the rear shadow yard that according to AnyRail shall be at elevation 4 cm must then be at level 784 mm + 4 cm = 824 mm.

Skive H shall be at 8,5 cm, which equals 784 mm + 8,5 cm = 824 mm.

It may not be 2 mm error at one spot that ruins the running of a train. But the layout may not be bumpy. And the elevation may not be many millimeters wrong anywhere. That would leave me with a curve sloping across the track or a slope along the track of maybe 5 or 6 % instead of the 4 % that is the intention and which is already pretty steep for a train.

October 15

It was nice weather for gardening today. So I only managed todo the levelling for 3/5 of the rear shadow yard + a near perfect transition between 6 mm and 9 mm plywood in one side of the layout. And tonight I also glued some new green stuff on the transition piece as well as on the new outer curve.

I have attached the wood blocks for leveling firmly with a long screw down into the base frame or a steel angle, where I could not place a screw. The plywood is attached by a screw into the wood block so that it is flat towards all wood blocks and not hovering anywhere.

The important thing is that now I have begun the new leveling. Until further everything fits down to a millimeter according to the AnyRail calculations

October 17

I have decided to place wood blocks for each centimeter of change in elevation all the way round in the curves:
Tonight I got a bit further with the new leveling in the curves. As can be seen on the illustration above, there are places where the middle curve should have an elevation of 4,1 cm whereas the inner curve should have 4,8 cm. But since the two tracks are on the same piece of plywood, they now both are at 4,1 cm. I may have to fix this at some point, but until then, it means that some slopes exceed 4%:I had to go to the attic to find pieces of wood and board and whatever of various thicknesses, so that I can fabricate wood blocks that fits the exact number of millimeters as needed. But now the track is beginning to be fitted tight at the elevation they should be and in perfect level seen across the track.

It takes some time. I have to measure many times and I have to find the right combination of board and wood thicknesses that fits to the millimeter without consisting of to many layers. And then sawing, adjusting, fitting etc. where I keep running to the garage (where I have the saw) and back again to test fit. And if the final measurement reveals a wrong elevation, then is back and start all over again.

The explanation to the derailment may have showed itself already: I had to press down the plywood about 1 or 2 cm in order to get it down to the 4,1 cm. I.e. the slope must have been very steep indeed. If there has been 1,5 cm over a single track piece, it corresponds to 10% with a sudden transition to 0%. In that case, I just don’t understand that the visual appearance was not worse than it actually was.

October 21

I have managed the 4, 5 and 6 cm elevation points in one side now:The 7 centimeter elevation point is somewhat more difficult. I will have to make some more build up all the way down from the base frame, since the plywood is outside (or rather inside) the base frame.

October 22

I have now constructed the 7 cm elevation point in both sides of the layout:I have also done the rest of the rear shadow yard. So I have now only 3 elevation points left to do. 10 down. 3 to go. Objectively it might be somewhat exaggerated, but I find it a beautiful sight to look at the new “columns” carrying the plywood:

October 29

Yesterday I managed to empty the green house for tomato plants. So now I must get time to get the leveling finished.

I have made the exact same wood blocks for the left side elevation points as I did for those on the right hand side. And then I have measured to ensure the result is OK.

Re-iterating the test drives shows that the original problem is solved. I have bought AC wheels for the Bn wagons. But I will begin the test drives using DC wheels. And then I will mount the AC wheels afterwards – just as a safety measure. See this illustration:The problem was that the second wagon derailed when the wagons were pulled out of T14 and into the yellow track.

The other problem is still present:  The rear wagon derails in T10 when the wagons are being pulled out of the blue track and up through T9, T10 and T11. It looks like a mix of couplings or kinematic that do not function correctly and thus forcing the wagon sideways while the wheels are not having the right distance and therefore running up on the top of the turnout rather than through it.

Having screwed the track in the left hand side properly to the plywood and having put AC wheels on the rear wagon, I have succeeded in running some full circles without accidents. It is still as if the coupling kinematic stays in their outer position after the train has come into straight track. And  I have been reading that is a well known problem for at least some Mck Bn wagons: https://www.sporskiftet.dk/forum/modeljernbaner/skala-h0/problemer-med-mck%C2%B4s-bn-vogne?destination=node%2F16789

My dealer has promised me new kinematics, and he should really also exchange them. I don’t feel much like breaking anything in those quite expensive wagons and I cannot see how to disassemble them. The dealer explained that during production, some of the Bn wagons were equipped with faulty kinematics and some were not. But until I get the new kinematics, I might as well try if it is possible to “run them in” and that way maybe make them work properly.

The wagons can now be both pulled one way and pushed the other way round the track. So it is not all that bad. I have however still not dared to run the train at anything but very low speed.

I have not yet tried the Profi couplings either. But that is next on my list, since the standard couplings decouples when the wagons are pulled from T2 and through the crossing towards T16.

Conclusion: Success, even though I don’t quite trust it yet. But in the future, I will always make sure that everything is firmly screwed together and that all elevations are according to AnyRail.

October 31

I have been staring underneath the cars trying to figure out how to exchange the coupling kinematic. I cannot see that. At sporskiftet.dk, I have founda verbal explanation about how easy it should be to take a car apart in order to install interior light. Something with pulling the sides apart and just let the chassis drop out. And then loosen 5-6 screws, which should give access to the bottom. And I wonder if access to the coupling kinematic should not be achieved as well by doing so?

In the meantime, I will be trying out Fleishmann profi couplings. I have purchased enough for one train, i.e. locomotive and three cars. See this good explanation about different couplings (in German): https://www.stayathome.ch/kupplungen.htm

At the moment the train does not derail. But the cars decouple. And after after having inspected them, I have probably turned them back and forth or interchanged them. Before, the back car decoupled. Now, it is the front car that decouples from the locomotive. So maybe it is just one of the standard couplings that is a bit skew?

Next step is Fleishmann profi couplings between locomotive and front car end between the first two cars, but still standard couplings between second and last car. At least it looks more natural with the shorter distance between cars.

With profi couplings:

With standard couplings:

But that must make it impossible for the cars to pass narrow curves without pushing each other from the track? No. See the link above with an explanation about how coupling cinematic works. In fact it seems that cars with standard couplings keep shorter distance than those with profi couplings. Maybe because the standard couplings do not force the coupling cinematic in the position where it increases the distance?

Is everything then as it should be? No. The cars do not derail. And they keep a safe distance even in narrow curves. But even the profi couplings decouple. I think somehow there is too much difference in height of the cars. Maybe the coupling cinematic moves up or down so that difference in height occur between cars? Maybe because the coupling cinematic is not rigid enough? An attribute of profi couplings is that theycan be decoupled just by lifting a car vertically up and out of the train. Nothing is holding profi coupling together in the vertical direction. They are only locked tightly together horisontally.

I have made these photos of the coupling at a place where I have observed decouplings. Even though the pictures are somewhat black in black, a certain difference in height may be observed:The strange thing is that decouplings occur at the middle of a slope and not where flat track becomes sloping track, where I would think the cars would have an angle horizontally. But it more or less fits with the place where the locomotive starts to pull the hardest to pull all three cars up the slope and through a narrow curve. And maybe that makes the coupling cinematic bend a little?

If the problem is due to non-rigid coupling cinematics, some new ones ought to fix the problems.

Or I might have to get a few drawbars. I would rather avoid that, since it would make it hard to get a train on and off the track. I may have to tilt the train one one side and use tweezers to take them apart, when taking the train off the track. And something similar when putting them on the track. Since my train is maximum a locomotive and three long cars, it may be doable without breaking all the drawbars. But it will not be easy.

Lockdoc have these very fine drawbars from Brawa available for 5 kroner a piece (bag of ten). I.e. a quarter of the price for profi couplings. However, I am not sure they look like anything from passenger cars. And the look quite fragile too:Or maybe they look exactly as they should – for passenger cars as well:Alternatively these from Symoba – at 19 kr a piece:Finally there is this more solid looking drawbar from the company Ribu with the number 85505, that I have seen for 2 Euro for four. I have not been able to find them in a Danish shop:Märklin produces a drawbar that can transfer current. However they only seem to be usable in Märklin cars.

It must be possible (but very hard) to wind a thin wire around any kind of drawbar.

Until further, I am waiting for my dealer to deliver new coupling cinematic for the cars.

November 1

The explanation to the decoupling cars can be that the transition between 0% and 5% slope (as described October 17) corresponds to a difference in height of 9 mm from one end of a piece of track to the other, while the track piece behind is flat. That gives an angle corresponding to a heigt difference of 2 mm of the couplings on the two cars on each of the two track sections.

The 2 mm comes from this:

 

 

 

 

En Bn vogn er 24,5m lang. I model bliver det 29,3cm.

Afstanden mellem bogie tapperne er 17,2m svarende til 19,8cm i modelstørrelse, eller ca. en skinnelængde.

Dvs., at det, der hænger ud over tappen i hver ende af vognen, er (29,3 – 19,8) / 2 = 4,75cm, hvilket svarer til 100% * 4,75/19,8 = 24%.

Og 24% af 9mm (højdeforskellen mellem vognenderne) er lidt over 2mm.

En profikobling er ca. 3,2mm høj, så der skal ikke være meget galt med hældningerne på sporet, eller koblingskulisserne skal ikke give sig ret meget, før vognene kobler af.

Så jeg må på den igen og prøve at gøre overgangene mellem forskellige hældninger mildere samt få de 5% hældning ned på 4%. Jeg er ude i marginalerne, så selv små forbedringer tæller.

Se igen sporplanen:Forreste vogn (dvs. alle vogne) kobler fra lokomotivet, når toget kører ind i inderkurven fra toppen af billedet og bagenden af lokomotivet er nået ca. halvanden skinnestykke ind på billedet. Jeg er noget forundret over, at det er lige der. Måske er der en bule på skinnerne? I hvert fald ser det ud til, at den allerførste skinne-ende på billedet skal skrues fast. Den svæver lidt over tracéen.

Men det er langt fra gjort med det. Jeg vendte toget og kørte modsat vej rundt på banen. Og ikke uventet er der op til flere andre steder, hvor vognene afkobler, når jeg kører den vej.

Og værre endnu, så begyndte lokomotivet at lyde rigtig grimt et bestemt sted. Som om det er afsporet. Men det er ikke afsporet. Næste tanke var om gearkassen er gået i smadder. Men dels er lokomotivet kun to måneder gammelt, dels er det kun det ene sted på banen og dels kører lokomotivet, så det kan vel dermed ikke være tandhjulene, der sidder på tværs? Jeg kan ikke umiddelbart hitte ud af, hvad der foregår. Det er ikke i et sporskifte, men i en R2 bue.

Jeg tror jeg må gå tilbage til Lima B vogne og se, hvordan de kører. Der er i hvert fald ikke fejl på kortkoblingskulisser. For sådan nogen er Lima vognene ikke udstyret med.

4. november

For at få bløde overgange, altså undgå “knæk” på skinnerne har jeg tilføjet yderligere en 3 mm træfiberplade til netop de tre opklodsninger, der er markeret med en rød streg her:Hvorfor det lige var der? Tjaeh – resultatet af prøvekørslerne viste, at afkoblinger skete der, så nu må vi se, hvad der nu sker. Der er sikkert tale om unøjagtigheder, selvom jeg troede, at mine lasermålinger var 100% præcise. Men det er så tæt på, at de lange vogne kan køre, så jeg tror, at med disse få mm justering – og måske flere af samme slags, så skal det hele nok lykkes. Foreløbig kører det uden hverken afsporinger eller afkoblinger. Og både med Lima vogne og Bn vognene. Sidstnævnte endda med Fleishmann profi kortkoblinger.

I mellemtiden har jeg smadret et lokomotiv, som jeg fik til at styrte “i dybet”, dvs. ned på gulvet. Herved hoppede den bagerste bogie af og en puffer blev bøjet så meget, så man ikke kan bruge koblingen foran. Det sidste er det værste. For jeg har fået bogien sat på igen. Men jeg tør ikke at forsøge at bøje pufferen på plads. Så knækker det bare. Den må vist en tur på autoriseret værksted:Det får mig til at afbryde al kørsel med dyrt materiel indtil jeg har fået lavet et “sikkerhedsnet” af nogle gamle gardiner, vi har liggende.

5. november

Så er der sikkerhedsnet under banen:Jeg lavede en ramme af 45 x 25 mm klemlister, som manden i Bauhaus instruede mig i er den rette betegnelse fremfor “lægte”. På denne ramme har jeg sat et stykke insektnet fast med hæfteklammer. Insektnettet kostede 59,95 i Bauhaus. Og det er meget nemmere at arbejde med end de gamle gardiner, der ellers var udset til formålet.

Nu er der dermed klar til yderligere prøvekørsler. Det bliver dog ikke i dag.

6. november

Jeg fandt et sted, hvor skinnerne ikke sad ordentligt. De svævede flere milimeter og endnu værre: De var meget nemme at vippe fra side til side. Og jeg har da også set en del afsporinger lige der. Det drejer sig om enderne af flex skinnerne lige der hvor de krydser ind under overetagen i begge sider af layoutet. Jeg har mokket nogen skruer og spændeskiver på, så de hverken svæver eller vipper:Det var ikke supernemt at komme til. Men med en kort skrutrækker og en solid opklodsning af overetagen kunne det lade sig gøre:Nu ser det ud til, at alle afsporings- og afkoblingsproblemer er væk, så længe togene kører forlæns i den rigtige retning med moderat fart.

Men der udestår stadigvæk en masse prøvekørsler i alle 4 retninger, dvs. toget kørende forlæns med uret, baglæns med uret, forlæns mod uret og baglæns mod uret. Og det skal testes både med lav, moderat og høj hastighed.

11. november

Jeg har justeret adskillige steder på banen. Visse steder har jeg lagt en ekstra 3 mm fiberplade i en opklodsning. Andre steder har jeg kun skullet addere et ekstra lag parketgulvsunderlag (ca. 1 mm). Og så var der også lige et sporskifte, der måtte bøjes forsigtigt med en tang. Det kan sikkert ikke anbefales generelt. Men i dette tilfælde virkede det. Endelig har jeg regnet på og opklodset det kryds, der er på tværs mellem min forreste og bagerste skyggebanegård.

Resultatet er, at nu kan mine Bn vogne køre i alle 4 retninger med middel fart uden hverken afsporinger eller afkoblinger. Jeg har endnu ikke vovet at gasse helt op. Men der er nu også meget stærke grænser for, hvor hurtigt togene skal køre på min lille bane. Det virker absolut ikke naturligt at køre særlig hurtigt.

Men man skal jo ikke nøjes med at køre med et enkelt tog. Så jeg har også prøvet med nogle godsvogne. Det går næsten godt. Men der er en enkelt (Hobbytrade) vogn, der afsporer i halvdelen af sporskifterne. Den må nok have hjælp i form af at justere hjulafstand og/eller en opvejning jvf. tlarsen.dk.

Endelig er der Lima B vognene. De kører fint fremad. Og jeg kan såmænd også godt bakke med dem. Men indimellem flipper de ud og afsporer. Sådan er det nok bare, med mindre jeg forsyner dem med Symoba kortkoblingskulisser og muligvis bygger dem endnu mere om. Men det gør jeg ikke. Så vil jeg hellere ofre endnu flere penge på nogle få nye og pænere vogne.

15. november

Godsvognen endte med at få nye AC hjul. Men så kører den også perfekt. Dermed er jeg rimelig sikker på, at banen fungerer. Og så skal jeg have valgt mit næste skridt:

a. Få strømfølerne og dermed computerstyringen til at fungere igen?
b. Bygge et paradespor foran på layoutet?
c. Bygge Skive Vestsalling Jernbane og dermed endnu en halv etage opad?

Jeg har ikke fået ret mange af dimserne hjem fra Kina endnu. De er faktisk først lige begyndt at drysse ind i postlkassen efter nu 40 dage. Så strømfølerne får lov at vente lidt endnu.

Mht. resten af banen, så var det jo planen, at det skulle bygges som aftagelige moduler. Men jeg har fået lidt “second thoughts”:

Dels er der besværlighederne med at få de oversavede skinner til at passe 100% sammen, og dels er der overvejelserne om at få de enkelte moduler gjort solide nok, uden at de kommer til at fylde for meget.

Og dels er der selve formålet med at lave aftagelige moduler:

For paradesporets vedkommende skulle formålet være, at der kan kappes 10 cm af bredden på banen, hvis værelset skal bruges som gæsteværelse. Men det viser sig ikke at være nødvendigt. Man kan sådan set godt sove inde under kanten af banen.

For SVJ skulle formålet være, at man kan komme til at udføre reparationer eller bare at sætte afsporede tog på plads i skyggebanegården. Men det behøver vel ikke nødvendigvis betyde, at selve banen skal deles op i moduler? Det er muligvis nok, at øverste etage i nødsfald (f.eks. hvis jeg på et tidspunkt skal flytte) skal kunne skrues af – lige som jeg har gjort med Skive H – samt at jeg gør selve landskabet imellem skinnerne modulopbygget og aftageligt. Afsporinger kommer jeg under alle omstændigheder til at løse ved at række op nede fra.

Men uanset modulopbygning eller ej, så er første skridt at få monteret noget 12 mm krydsfiner bag på og på siderne, så der er en stabil base at gøre næste etage fast i. Så det kan jeg lige så godt komme i gang med.

25. november

Jeg har ikke rørt banen siden sidst. Undtagen i dag.

Men jeg har tegnet og tænkt. Paradesporet såvel som øverste etage bliver på faste plader. Kun landskabet i midten bliver aftageligt. Største designmæssige udfordring lige nu er at få plads til en vej til min Faller bil. Det bliver vist kun til en enkeltsporet oval-agtig vej. Måske kan jeg få plads til en lille sidevej / et vigespor, så jeg kan få et “sporskifte” også. Men mere er der ikke plads til.

I dag har jeg anskaffet to Heljan B-vogne. De har rygte for at være pæne, men også for ikke at kunne køre i R1 (og vist ikke i noget under radius 56 cm) kurver. Jeg kan bekræfte begge dele. Og jeg kan tilføje, at den røde DSB designfarve har en betydeligt mørkere og mere afdæmpet tone end den skrigrøde, som mine Mck Bn vogne har. Og som jeg husker det og ser det på billeder, så er det altså Mck, der “har ret”.

Der er to ting, der forhindrer R1 kørslen. Dvs. “out of the box” er vognene faktisk i stand til at køre i R1 kurver, så længe de kun bliver trukket og ikke skubbet, og så længe de kun skal dreje til én side. Det sagde i hvert fald mine første prøvekørsler.

Den første og største hindring for R1 kurvekørsel er den ret store generator (eller var det en kompressor?), der sad på den ene side af den ene bogie på en B-vogn. Den kolliderer med en lille tap, der ligeledes fuldstændig korrekt var en del af B-vognene. Det sker, når vognen skal dreje til den anden side i et unaturligt skarpt sving, som en R1 kurve jo unægteligt udgør. Så enten må tappen eller generatoren væk. Tappen skal (hvis man vælger den løsning) skæres væk. Løsdelen kan med en spids pincet hives ud af bogien uden at ødelægge hverken løsdel eller bogie. Så det blev min løsning.

Den anden hindring er koblingskulisserne, som ikke tillader koblingerne at svinge tilstrækkeligt ud til siderne. Jeg oplevede det i første omgang kun, når vognene skubbes, samtidig med at jeg anvender Fleishmann profi koblinger. Men efter at have hevet generatorerne af begge vogne kan jeg nu heller ikke få dem til at køre fremad med profi koblinger.

Jeg skal måske forsøge med bøjlekoblinger. Men hvis det skal fungere ordentligt, så bliver jeg nødt til i det mindste at fjerne de to klodser underneden, der forhindrer koblingskulissen i at svinge ud. Desværre vil det dog betyde, at den lille tynde slange kommer til at svæve frit for neden, hvorved den meget let kan knække. Se mere her: https://www.perfecttrains.com/news/konvertering-af-heljan-b-vognserie-til-r1-koersel/

Det er i øvrigt samtidig opskriften på at skille vognene ad. Den kan bruges, hvis jeg en gang vil male interiøret og/eller sætte passagerer i vognene.