ntpntpntp

Loose or wet ballast first and then laying the track on top is a really bad idea. Your track needs to be on a supportive flat surface so it's not bowed in the vertical plane at the track joints. There's a reason the vast majority of modellers ballast after track laying :)

There is a general rule when wiring up a model railway layout: always feed the power into the "toe" end of a formation of pointwork, meaning the blade end. That way your power can feed up through the point blades into the sidings. In the first instance I would suggest you need a feed to each main oval somewhere in the area of the level crossing, or at least on the left hand side of the ovals in your photo. A second feed on the right hand side of the outer oval will also help with powering the crossover. Don't forget to have isolating gaps between the points of the crossover, to keep the two ovals electrically separate. I agree you will need to consider how you're going to control polarity reversal that may occur due to the Wye formation created by the turntable. Under DC the typical approach would be to completely isolate both tracks which lead into the turntable and add a separate feed via a cross-wired double pole double throw (DPDT) switch. Do you actually need to connect that two road shed on the top right of the main main board to the turntable? If you forego that connection then there's no polarity problem, and without the point in front of the shed you have a longer usable siding.

I've been ballasting N gauge points for decades. If your method of ballasting is the traditional "grit and dilute PVA" technique then ballasting pointwork is no different, just take more care when brushing ballast into place: always brush away from the point blades and tiebar area and out of the frog and checkrail flangeways, and use a small pipette to accurately apply just enough dilute PVA to the ballast between the sleepers and keep it away from the tiebar.

Some Peco flexi track and a point to have a play around with. I have some ideas, though not much space to accommodate even more layouts in the house :)

Yup, I knew them as Super 4 to System 6 adapters, I used a few of those back in the 70s. I liked the chunkiness of Super 4 track grinning I had some older Series 3 track too from the sets that Dad bought in the 60s.

Empirical evidence says otherwise, and the difference is known and understood amongst N modellers who use the stuff :) Actually some of my code 80 measures at 78. Peco will naturally say it's totally compatible but the difference has always been there. Anyway it's not a major issue unless you're keen on totally smooth joints grinning

Thin spread of of PVA works fine. I have to ask why cover the entire board? That's just a total waste of time and material in my opinion, you're making everything totally flat and unrealistic as a base for the track and scenery. I use thin cork strip under trackwork to create a shoulder for the ballast and a nice surface for gluing the track down, not for any sound-deadening qualities.

@hobby yeah it's a common understandable misconception, indeed I thought they were both code 80 back in the 90s until I actually measured and found it to be 83 for the "55" rail. It's not a high step between the two and some folk just tolerate it (or maybe don't notice grinning ) but I don't like it so I avoid joining the two on any scenic trackwork. (hmm I added an image to my previous reply and that post has disapppeared, maybe being moderated?) RDS mod note: ALL images are moderated and therefore do not appear instantly.

I've been using Peco code 55 in N since the 90s. It is code 83 in total height (I've measured it with digital calipers) which is why you get the slight step in rail height when you join it to regular code 80. Some people don't care, some people file the top of the rail (very bad idea in my opinion as it damages the rail head). I found tapping with a hammer and block of wood to deform the rail joiner reduced the step, but generally I only interface the two types at baseboard joints (no rail joiners).

Peco TT:120 track is code 55, Hornby is code 80. So it's exactly the same situation as with Peco N track which use the same rail codes, ie. the joiners should work to connect the two types (unless the Hornby track has a wider foot than Peco) but there will probably be a very slight step in the rail head because code 55 rail is actually code 83 total height. Yes old Triang TT3 stock runs on Peco 55 TT:120 without grounding *but* I found I needed to open out the back-to-back measurement by about 0.5mm to get through the Peco frog/check rail clearances comfortably. That's no problem with rolling stock but a bit more work on the old Castle classs I had to hand. I did notice the old wide loco wheels shorting across the Peco V rails beyond the isolated Unifrog. I don't expect any problems at all with the new TT:120 models on Peco track. I have no problems with my Continental TT examples.

I don't think it's a big deal if the gearing ratio is appropriate. Yes 5 pole motors may be a little less "coggy" when running slow but a decent 3 pole motor can give perfectly good performance. I have probably 300+ Continental N gauge locos, a very high percentage of those are older models with 3 pole motors and run very smoothly at slow speeds. I have no big concerns, let's just see how the TT locos perform when they arrive.

Ah... the good old days of wandering into a Triang/Hornby stockist and purchasing various bits and pieces from the spares trays :)

The prototype/sample photos I've seen online show Tillig TT couplings in NEM pockets. I believe the NEM pocket used for TT is the same NEM355 as that for N, but obviously with a different coupling head. I may be wrong but it also looks like the pocket may be set further back from the bufferbeam than it is for N, so might not be possible simply to fit N Rapidos, EZ-Shunts or Hunt couplings as the shaft would need to be longer? Personally I'd like to see a NEM355 compatible tension-lock coupling that would couple with the old TT3 range - just for old times sake accepting that the scales will be different :) Perhaps a project for my 3D printer once we have TT:120 stock to play with and compare coupling heights etc.....

I certainly find the step noticeable. I'd never apply a file to the rail top, causes too much damage. I did find that if necessary you can simply use a wood block and hammer to tap the rail down, deforming the joiner slightly and removing the step. However as I use code 55 on the scenic parts of the layout and code 80 only on hidden trackwork/fiddleyards the interfaces naturally occur at baseboard joints anyway :) I expect I'll go the same way with a TT layout if/when I get round to building one.

Having gone back and looked properly at my confirmation email it does seem to have taken the standard price and not taken off the discount despite listing it as a line item. It also shows the VAT as a line item but at least it hasn't actually added that to the total (it shouldn't as the standard price is inclusive of VAT isn't it?) Quite confusingly laid out, VAT should be shown elsewhere (not as a line item) if it's only for info and not to be included in the calculation. The order details on my account page also show as the standard price not the discounted price. As long as Hornby only charge me the discounted price when the order is shipped it won't be a problem, but it is confusing.

Fortunately it worked correctly for me last night, it applied the discount and that shows in the email confirmation too. I only ordered one set which was above the free delivery threshold so didn't observe any postage calculation issues.

So the same as the N code 55 then. Must admit I'd not looked closely at piccies of the Peco TT track, but now you mention it yes it is the same "double T" rail section. Interesting. I've used the N code 55 since the 90s. If Hornby are indeed using code 80 then there'll be the same slight step in the rail top if you try and join the two codes together (the "double T" rail is actually more like code 83 at full height). On my N layouts I only ever mix the codes by alignment at baseboard joints - no joiners used.

Those of you who have joined the club and pre-ordered, did the 15% discount show anywhere during the purchase process? To answer my own question: taken off at the checkout stage :)

Anyone know the rail code Hornby are using for their track? I presume it's code 55 like the Peco TT:120 track?

Those of you who have joined the club and pre-ordered, did the 15% discount show anywhere during the purchase process? I'm still mulling over which set to order but I will definitely buy something. We have a little of everything from T to 3.5" gauge in our household :)

Ooooh... just noticed that as well as having had the bogie sideframe loose in the box, mine's also got a crack in the roof at the same end 😢/media/tinymce_upload/4eabb5005c21a322dfa21154eb5937a7.JPG I shall ping customer services....

Mine's arrived right in the middle of DPD's estimated slot so that's fine 😀 Looks nice, not tested it yet but when I removed the loco from the packaging the power bogie sideframe moulding was loose / unclipped with the middle wheels free in the box ☹️ It doesn't worry me particularly and I've sorted it out, I know this can happen sometimes and I have decades of experience servicing model locos, but for someone else it might have been a bit disconcerting. Now just waiting for the N gauge version to be completed by another well known firm 😉