Hornby Points ALL LIVE Spring Clips

[LGGVW]

Hi,

I understand that because Hornby points are not all live, they have to be made so for DCC layouts, using the spring clips from Hornby [Item Code: R8232 - DCC Electric Point Clips].

I found however that for people still learning - just like me - it is not clear where and how to fit them into the points. I digged quite a bi around, and produced the following pictures, which might be useful if they are correct. It would be helpful if our Forum "Gurus" could confirm the positioning is correct:

/media/tinymce_upload/3fd72e15b8f29056a17c3f2fcfa364ab.png

/media/tinymce_upload/15c7183786af23fbe41f17f1a8642fb4.png

/media/tinymce_upload/2132b55f1cc2e2c6e38c5390caeb8cc9.png

 

Thank you.

Best regards

[2e0dtoeric]

That is correct, VW, but be wary of any that are a bit of a loose fit. They have been known to start arcing under load, making the track rail hot enough to melt the plastic!

[LGGVW]

Hi Eric,

Thank you for taking the time to confirm this for me.  😀

Yes, I am aware of the issue with overheating. 

I wonder whether it would be better placing segments of flexible tinned copper stranded cable where the clips would be, instead. Just tin the tips with a bit of solder, bend them to a dog leg shape and solder them to the rails?

I am planning to set a Power Bus up and distribute power evenly across the whole track layout, via Power Districts created via these modern circuit breakers. Maybe with an extra Booster, but I am not sure about the latter, because it adds a fair bit to the initial set up cost. I haven't decided yet how to attach the drop-ins from the Power Bus to the rails. Solder them to the Power Bus, I think that has to be done, but attaching to the rails... Hmmm... I thought of biting the bullet and buy enough Hornby DCC Power Clip Sliders; then it is just a case of drilling the board at the right places, pass the drop-in cables through, attach them to the Power Clip Sliders and insert them under the rails. In fact, it would help avoiding polarity dislexia, so long as I keep inserting the red cable and the black cable always in the same slider positions.

Kind regards

[Chrissaf]

Apart from being rather unsightly, the R8242 DCC Power clips are a potential fault liability. It is much better to solder the dropper wires directly to the rails (outside or underside but not inside the rails). Soldering to Nickel Silver rails is child's play. Nickel Silver accepts solder really easily.

.

With regard replacing R8232 DCC Point clips with soldered braid. Since you have already stated that you will be installing an evenly distributed DCC Bus then soldering braids would be an unnecessary overkill. If you have a BUS installed, then you don't need DCC Point clips. One or the other, not both together. Therefore, if you need a short term solution because you will installing the BUS later, then use the R8232 clips initially, but remove them when the BUS is installed. Apart from which, replacing R8232 DCC Point Clips with soldered braid in the manner that you have described, would entail soldering on the inside of rails. Blobs of solder could impair the flange of the rolling stock wheels. You should only solder wires on the underside or outside of rails.

.

With regard Power Districts and Circuit Breakers. Unless your layout is going to be huge then that is probably overkill too. Remember each power district needs to be electrically isolated with Insulated Rail Joiners (IRJs) at strategic locations. Power district design needs a lot of planning.

.

In fact, would it help avoiding polarity dyslexia, so long as I keep inserting the red cable and the black cable always in the same slider positions.

.

No it wouldn't.....because if you insert the power clip on the other side to the track compared to clips located in other parts of the layout, you have to reverse the wire connections to eliminate short circuits. This drawing below explains (this drawing is an extract from my downloadable PDF at the top of the General Discussion sub-forum).

.

/media/tinymce_upload/181aa6ebf5aac6c43fed5d62f67b4a7d.jpg

.

As you can see, the polarity of the attached wires is subject to the location of the clip on the layout track, because the clips are not electrically symmetrical.

.

 

[Fishmanoz]

If I could just add my rule of thumb on power districts - unless your layout takes up both car spots in your double garage, you are unlikely to need power districts.

 

In initial planning though, it is easy to future-proof your layout by setting up districts then joining them to a single controller.  Just ensure that all track crossing between districts have IRJs fitted and that they have separate power buses, and you are done. 

[LGGVW]

Good Afternoon  😀

 

Thank you both so very much for the advice, for the time you dedicate to helping others which I greatly appreciate.

 

My planned layout is not huge, but is generous, as I have a free room for it. It is based on the 13/14 layout in Hornby's Track Plans Edition 14. I initially considered 11/14 but it poses arrangement problems in the room.

 

Here it is:

 

/media/tinymce_upload/ee5a3cb9573eb7c76c1c85b58d55a348.jpg

 

In the Hornby Logo top right corner, there is some extra space for a small town/village. And in the inner corner occupied by the Track Sections List, there is a square space for town/village no. 2. Thus there will have to alterations in the plan above as seen, as stations will be reduced and/or moved, etc. But overall, this is the Base Plan.

 

Now the question is whether this constitutes a large enough plan or not, to form Power Districts, or as you both suggest, it is large but not huge, and thus not requiring Power Districts.

 

At the moment, I have a Digitrax DCS52 ZEPHYR Express, a Xmas surprise I wasn't expecting at all, along with a few Hornby lovely surprises, the DCC Ready Flying Scotsman pack and another 2 shunters.

 

So the "bug", which had been dormant since my teenage days, woke up at 54 y/o, suddenly and with a vengeance  😆, much to the amusement and pleasure of my family, especially the other half, who now keeps buying me bits and pieces for encouragement. This is fun, gentlemen...  😳

 

Again, thank you both for the kind input.

 

Best regards

[pd91223]

Looks a great layout. Do you have access all the way around - or very long arms! - in case of track problems or derailments, especially on left & top sides?

[walkingthedog]

pd9 is correct. That is a wide layout and will require access from all sides. Anything over 3ft is a long stretch especially once scenery is added. You reach across and end up with a building hanging on your pullover.  😮

[2e0dtoeric]

If you want to go OTT, you could have FOUR power districts on that plan. One for the left/right ovals, one for the up/down ovals, and one each for the MPD and the station areas.

[Rog RJ]

Looks likely to have some very steep gradients to the left of the turntable.

[Fishmanoz]

Eric, why would you suggest that 4 power districts might be appropriate.  What would 4 achieve that 2 or even one wouldn’t on such a layout?

 

Rog is right about gradients too, in fact he doesn’t go far enough.  The Hornby trackplans suffer from 3 major shortcomings.  The first is gradients, in fact many will tell you not to use them at all or that only vary gradual inclines, like 2% or less should be used.  Then others will say they work fine on their layouts.  At the very least before committing to a layout including gradients, set up test gradients and see how your trains perform on them. 

 

The second problem is the use of tighter curves than your trains can negotiate. You pretty much have to avoid radius 1, and 2 can be problematic as well.

 

The third problem is points. Hornby layouts use standard points, often close together such that they lead to risks of derailment.  Express points are better given their gentler curves and, particularly for DCC, electrofrog points with frog switching are best practice.  Hornby only make insulfrog. You might do some more research on this.  Chris has covered this extensively in the forums recently. 

 

Remember that as well as giving you ideas, Hornby are looking to your needing the most of their products that will fit in the space you have available and sometimes diverge from best practice in suggesting to you how to do so.  I’m not saying don’t use their trackplans, certainly use them for ideas but also do some testing on some of their specifics to ensure you get good running before final commitment to a particular layout.

[LGGVW]

Dear All,

 

Thank you for all the comments, this is all very helpful and your input is invaluable for someone who is just slowly returning to the hobby, after a hiatus that lasted since my teens. I'm 54 now! Eeeek...  😆

The snapshot does not show but there is a "corridor" around the whole layout. It's not wide, but just enough to pass narrowly and access all areas of the layout.

The project is to build the boards with Medite Flame Retardant MDF Euro-Class B FSC® Certified FR MDF (EN 13501-1), 18mm thick, 2440mm x 1220mm, pre-cut to 1220mm x 1220mm, although cut measurements are still dependant on what the Hornby 4th Radius curve diameter is, I need to check that.

I don't like gradients either, to be honest. I have to adapt that layout, so there is one level, but I reckon I will have some problems with the joining tracks in some areas.  😀

[LGGVW]

I agree with "Fish" in regards to using the layouts as a starting point, but adapting them. I actually like Hornby track. It is well priced, seems sturdy enough and there is plenty of shapes to pick from.

I am not familiar with other track brands. And I can't make my mind up about why it is so important to have live frogs. I thought that the Hornby spring clips make the whole point live electrically, thus minimising the non-live frog issue?

Hornby track is well laid out on the site, easy enough to understand and know what to get, etc... I think they have put a lot of thought into that. I must admit, the other day I popped in to the PECO website and I ran a mile just after 10 minutes trying to figure out what I should get. What a confusing website! My apologies, I don't mean to be "naughty" in my comments, but I genuinely was more confused when I departed from the PECO site than when I arrived.

[Chrissaf]

Then others will say they work fine on their layouts.  At the very least before committing to a layout including gradients, set up test gradients and see how your trains perform on them.

.

Total agreement on doing some gradient testing first before committing to building the gradients for real.

.

The full Electrofrog implementation with live switched frog polarity improves slow running across the point. It also completely eliminates the possibility of shorts being generated by wheel 'back to back' measurements being out of spec on the rolling stock. Both of these reasons is why many use Electrofrog points.

.

I thought that the Hornby spring clips make the whole point live electrically, thus minimising the non-live frog issue?

.

Electrofrogs have nothing to do with any comparison to Hornby DCC point clips making a point live. The statement in the quote above is not factually correct.

.

.....and there is plenty of shapes to pick from.

.

Peco track has far more track geometry options than Hornby.

.

I popped in to the PECO website and I ran a mile just after 10 minutes trying to figure out what I should get. What a confusing website! ...................................but I genuinely was more confused when I departed from the PECO site than when I arrived.

.

I can understand that. The recently updated new Peco website is in my opinion a 'step backward' compared to the old one it replaced. Navigation of the site is now dire.

.

However this previous post of mine will assist you to understand the Peco track numbering scheme and the differences between them. Armed with the information in this post you will be better placed to know what to search for on the Peco site.

.

https://www.hornby.com/uk-en/forum/another-b2b-question/?p=1/#post-202055

.

This post will explain in detail about Electrofrogs (third post down on the page).

.

https://www.hornby.com/uk-en/forum/electrofrog-points-and-dcc/?p=1

.

To make navigating the Peco website for Peco track parts a little easier I have created some direct links:

.

Peco ST Code 100 Track Parts

https://peco-uk.com/collections/peco/setrack+100

.

Peco SL & SL-E Code 100 Track Parts

https://peco-uk.com/collections/peco/100+oo-ho-16-5mm

.

Peco SL & SL-E Code 83 Track parts

https://peco-uk.com/collections/peco/oo-ho-16-5mm+83

.

Peco SL & SL-E Code 75 Track Parts

https://peco-uk.com/collections/peco/oo-ho-16-5mm+75

.

 

[LGGVW]

Hi Chris, good to "see" you  😀

No gradients for me, I'm afraid. I like the odd tunnel, and the odd bridge over a sunk area like a cutout into the board to lower the depth, then build a basin using the cutout and closing the sides with flexible material and finish the basin with landscaping the newly forme water area, that's fun. But it makes no sense for me to build something like a roller coaster lol...

Best

[LGGVW]

Incidentally, Peco track has far more geometry options than Hornby.

 

I believe you. I just didn't understand how to get around their site and figure out what's what...  🤔

[Chrissaf]

Bumping thread to bring my later edit (in post timed at 13:54) to the attention of LGGVW. My edits should help with the navigation and identifying track parts. Re-read the whole of my reply as other later edits were made too.

.

PS - When reading the linked post in my edit just remember that Peco ST track parts copy Hornby geometry and are Insulfrog points just like Hornby's. Electrofrog points are only available in SL-E part numbers.

[walkingthedog]

I would recommend using 9 or 12mm ply instead of MDF. Much nicer stuff.

[RDS]

I agree with WTD regarding plywood rather than MDF, although I use 18mm ply lined with 9mm Sundeala Board, which makes it easy to push the track pins in.

[Fishmanoz]

On layout design, may I recommend SCARM or Anyrail as the way to go. These allow you to do detail design including whether it really fits together, what actual track you need from full track libraries (remember the different geometries Chris has mentioned on Peco) and also handle flexible track which is  almost a must on real layout design. 

 

And have you come come across the Hornby track geometry pdf which will solve your 4th radius problem?  It’s on this website.

[LGGVW]

Bumping thread to bring my later edit (in post timed at 13:54) to the attention of LGGVW. My edits should help with the navigation and identifying track parts. Re-read the whole of my reply as other later edits were made too.

And excellent thread bumping it was too... I scoffed the whole thing and am currently digesting, as there is plenty there. Thank you. I understand better this Peco system, actually. Now, why can't Peco come up with something clear like your explanation?

I digged about as well and have ordered a couple of books on Peco stuff. After your texts, I felt it would be wise to dig deeper into their stuff.

[walkingthedog]

I always thought Peco did explain their products very well. 

[LGGVW]

@ RDS & WalkingTheDog,

I like ply too, marine especially, I thought that MDF would offer better rigidity though, hence my choice. I must say I prefer 18mm, simply because it improves on the rigidity of the boards. Total thickness is going to be 23mm in the end, because I intend to line the upper surface with cork 5mm sheeting [fine grain], it comes in rolls and cuts easily to size. The outer perimeter gets an all-round edge leaving a 5mm lip above the surface level.

It is on the heavy side, though but I don't mind that. I prefer it sturdy, sitting in these legs:

/media/tinymce_upload/72552fbeb89b72d54683c016089435f5.PNG

It should look good when it is done.  😉

[LGGVW]

On layout design, may I recommend SCARM or Anyrail as the way to go. These allow you to do detail design including whether it really fits together, what actual track you need from full track libraries (remember the different geometries Chris has mentioned on Peco) and also handle flexible track which is  almost a must on real layout design. 

And have you come come across the Hornby track geometry pdf which will solve your 4th radius problem?  It’s on this website.

Never heard of SCARM before. I have AnyRail, very easy to learn and it looks like it does the job really well. This is the bit I am at ease with, because I work in IT.

For the project management, I was thinking about Railmaster but I know now I can't, because I have a Zephyr Extra system from Digitrax, so I opted for iTrain instead. I saw it working recently and it seems stable and reliable.

I will have a look at the Geometry, haven't found it yet, simply because I haven't looked yet. Probably during the weekend, when I have more time for just myself. Monday to Friday are hellish usually lol  😆

[RDS]

@LGGVW

Please let us know how you get on with iTrain.