I have built several layouts over the years not only for myself but for others and I personally would not use Peco small radius Streamline points on a layout. The Medium ones are a nice compromise between large and small. A friend had a BL Powerline loco that was converted to body mount Kadee couplers and it would not go though the curved side of a small radius point with something coupled to it, it would derail everytime. He thought it was a faulty point but it would traverse it alone though but only just. So in the end I bought him a medium radius point and replaced it. It takes up a little more real estate on the board for sure but now he can run into this siding with no problems at all now. Anything longer than a Bl type of loco though will require going up to a large radius point though! Those small radius points are only good for small wheelbase rollingstock. It is better and one other thing I did find out was that Electrofrog points are miles better than Insulfrog points if you run small wheelbase or small pick ups on locomotives. No stalling with the Electrofrog points like you get with the Insulfrog ones at times!

They take a bit to get used to being laid though you have to stop and think before laying them, just in case you get something wrong, but once you get it right and remember it, you should have no problems at all.

Odd, my conversion of 4' x 8' is 1220 x 2440, hence my earlier ribbing of a certain article series co-author (and my suspicions of the response whenever I might see him next.).

I believe the BL/G is probably the latest modern loco I'd run on this board and I didn't know about the radius restrictions on the 38 and R class, as they're on my wishlist, now I'll have to add more four wheel stock to it and think of a different appropriate steam engine.

Currently, there's only three Insulfrogs (doubleslip, point & 3-way) in use, everything else is Electrofrog. Ayep, I have an Electrofrog 3-way that's yet to be wired up correctly, but I've had minimal issue running trains through most sections after adding more power track feeds. I suspect that AWG #22 single strand hook-up wire is insufficient for DCC power bus usage.



http://youtu.be/gJ0QAD2_4M0 (rerun of a previous train)



http://www.youtube.com/embed/5LscNy4pokw

I finally tracked down a copy of Small, Smart & Practical Track Plans and I think if I had it and the recent Hornby Magazine Design manual before I assembled the baseboard, thing's would've been done a lot differently. For starters I'd be using the baseboard design from Iain Rice's Hollow Run Railroad, used some of his trackplan element's from that design and from some others I've seen and ran from there.

I think I've gone a bit overboard in acquiring some Cobalt s-levers to operate some solenoid point motors that I'm using on the 3-ways as there's probably a less wiring & soldering intensive method of doing the job.

It seems to be a thing with me; I get a little bored and divert my limited creative energies to trains (and yes the middle of the board is filled by Mt. Junk)


The end result of this bout of a wiring kludge is, half a six-pack of S-levers operating a PL-11 powered crossover and a three-way, leaving me with three levers for the same present on the other half of the board and wondering -amongst other thoughts- if I should use cat 5/6 cables to control PL-10 & 11 solenoids.

Just as I think I've got things mostly buttoned down, I generate a new think. My new one is grain->flour related - how to get 4 to 6 GJX(F) grain hoppers to fit down a siding in a certain area.
My first idea was:


My second was:


Testing both of those reinforced the fact that four of said hoppers just fit on a length of uncut flex and the headshunt ends up crossing the main, has me thinking that maybe adding some vertical could be an answer, but that gradent's going to be interesting.

Got talking to the Yanks. Their suggestions, nix the runaround, move the mill and siding, make the mill siding six hoppers long plus engine but only have three in there at time and keep the other three in a nearby siding.

Going from this:


to this:


The process of doing this revealed that the couplers used in some Auscision products dislike magnetic uncoupling, I need to fit more uncoupler magnets in order to minimise the number of shunting moves, and that I really need to label or do something to how I control the points.
I mean I put the bits together and I'm still getting confused on what switch controls what on the double slip.
Yes, it makes sense to me.

Had some more thoughts and adjusted the sidings more


I removed the kink and basically straightened them. I think where that kit box is, a 50' goods shed and platform will fit, though I'm tempted to do a US thing and put an industry there instead, if I do it'll be something scratch-built as I doubt a suitable kit exists.

However, I think I should do something about this: