Where to put the breaks?

[The mechanic]

Hello all,

The new layout is coming on well but.I have a bit of a conundrum.....

I have attached a rough schematic diagram that shows the track layout (both rails) of my main station. I use LGB standard trackwork. The station limits are joined by two loops that run around the edge of the garden. #1 is linked to #1 and #2 is linked to #2. I feed 12v-18v analogue DC at the ponts shown by the feed symbols.

Now, I know that the cross overs need isolating, but I am asking you kind people, where is the best place to put them in order to avoid additional switching and track power feeds?... I really want to reduce these to the absolute bare minimum thereby having the operation pretty "automatic" and "idiot-proof" (or should I say male Sixty-something-proof?) if at all possible?

Each loop will be operated on an independent "one engine in steam" principle.

I feed the layout via two hand held first-edition Train Engineers ( one per loop) that are commonly fed by a 24v/ 30amp stabilised power supply located indoors. Which is OK when the two loops are running independently, but at some point (no pun intended) I will need to run-round and/or shunt the two sidings. If I am using a common power supply for the TEs, there is short circuit potential at the crossovers where metal wheels can bridge isolating track joints? I am open to using diode-protected section breaks if this is feasible to avoid this scenario (however, my head cannot handle this sort of "electrickery")

I welcome your suggestions and opinions on this


Dave

 

[PhilP]

Are you intending to 'always' run both loops in the same direction?

As shown, both loops will be running clockwise or anticlockwise..

Perceived wisdom is to have a crossover track long enough to hold the longest train you will ever run.
You then feed this section from a switch associated with the point allowing access to this piece of track.
You only ever have one point switched to the main line. - Either the one you are coming from, or going to..
You have to pause, isolate the incoming, then operate the outgoing point.

If you want to run each loop in opposite directions, then you already have a greater level of complexity to worry about.

PhilP

 

[Rhinochugger]

Yep one of those crossovers need to run the other way

EDIT - no, I looked at it too quickly - carry on.

 

[Greg Elmassian]

Will wait for answers to Phil's question, but It would seem silly to force both loops to always be in the same direction, because you have to back up to enter the sidings. (sorry Phil!)

So, you want the easiest wiring AND the easiest operation? Usually one balances the other... like you want cheap or good? can't have both.

insulate the crossover parts so you never have to stop mainline power if you switch anything.

But all you have to do is match polarity at the crossovers if transitioning between loops.

You can put some LEDs across the insulated joints and if they illuminate then you know the polarity is NOT matched...

Now, if you run constant track power, you don't need ANY insulators. Why not go that way? Track powered remote control. The new Revolution Train Engineer is just one of the many possibilities.

Since you have no reversing loops, why not go that way?

 

[The mechanic]

Are you intending to 'always' run both loops in the same direction?

As shown, both loops will be running clockwise or anticlockwise..

Perceived wisdom is to have a crossover track long enough to hold the longest train you will ever run.
You then feed this section from a switch associated with the point allowing access to this piece of track.
You only ever have one point switched to the main line. - Either the one you are coming from, or going to..
You have to pause, isolate the incoming, then operate the outgoing point.

If you want to run each loop in opposite directions, then you already have a greater level of complexity to worry about.

PhilP

Hi Phil,

Both loops are Bi directional and as I say are run one-engine in steam. The reason being that this is to give the illusion of a junction station with four lines feeding it. There will be an island platform within the loop so I cannot realistically lengthen the cross overs. I accept that running on one loop will have to stop to allow crossover running.

Dave

 

[The mechanic]

Will wait for answers to Phil's question, but It would seem silly to force both loops to always be in the same direction, because you have to back up to enter the sidings. (sorry Phil!)

So, you want the easiest wiring AND the easiest operation? Usually one balances the other... like you want cheap or good? can't have both.

insulate the crossover parts so you never have to stop mainline power if you switch anything.

But all you have to do is match polarity at the crossovers if transitioning between loops.

You can put some LEDs across the insulated joints and if they illuminate then you know the polarity is NOT matched...

Now, if you run constant track power, you don't need ANY insulators. Why not go that way? Track powered remote control. The new Revolution Train Engineer is just one of the many possibilities.

Since you have no reversing

 

[The mechanic]

Hello Greg,

Hmm, ,I kind of like the LED idea. I accept that there will be some isolating breaks in the trackwork. I will not go the dcc route as my pension cannot justify the expenditure for decoders etc. given that I will run live steam and battery RC on the same layout. The original TE handsets although considered "ancient" by some, work perfectly well for my loco requirements. Don't really need to drive a Rolls Royce when a mini will get you to the same place!

Dave

 

[dunnyrail]

To cover you

Hello all,

The new layout is coming on well but.I have a bit of a conundrum.....

I have attached a rough schematic diagram that shows the track layout (both rails) of my main station. I use LGB standard trackwork. The station limits are joined by two loops that run around the edge of the garden. #1 is linked to #1 and #2 is linked to #2. I feed 12v-18v analogue DC at the ponts shown by the feed symbols.

Now, I know that the cross overs need isolating, but I am asking you kind people, where is the best place to put them in order to avoid additional switching and track power feeds?... I really want to reduce these to the absolute bare minimum thereby having the operation pretty "automatic" and "idiot-proof" (or should I say male Sixty-something-proof?) if at all possible?

Each loop will be operated on an independent "one engine in steam" principle.

I feed the layout via two hand held first-edition Train Engineers ( one per loop) that are commonly fed by a 24v/ 30amp stabilised power supply located indoors. Which is OK when the two loops are running independently, but at some point (no pun intended) I will need to run-round and/or shunt the two sidings. If I am using a common power supply for the TEs, there is short circuit potential at the crossovers where metal wheels can bridge isolating track joints? I am open to using diode-protected section breaks if this is feasible to avoid this scenario (however, my head cannot handle this sort of "electrickery")

I welcome your suggestions and opinions on this


Dave

For your ‘idiot proof’ needs you will need 6 isolating fishplates where I show them. To move between tracks using this system the only option is to have both controllers set for the same speed and direction thus driving a train through with no issues. Further more I would suggest you orientate your handsets to your operating position thus setting left and a train will go that way, right that way. So when running trains in both lines one will be the opposite direction to the other. But when using the crossing both will be the same.

 

[The mechanic]

Hello Greg,

Hmm, ,I kind of like the LED idea. I accept that there will be some isolating breaks in the trackwork. I will not go the dcc route as my pension cannot justify the expenditure for decoders etc. given that I will run live steam and battery RC on the same layout. The original TE handsets although considered "ancient" by some, work perfectly well for my loco requirements. Don't really need to drive a Rolls Royce when a mini will get you to the same place!

Dave

To cover you

For your ‘idiot proof’ needs you will need 6 isolating fishplates where I show them. To move between tracks using this system the only option is to have both controllers set for the same speed and direction thus driving a train through with no issues. Further more I would suggest you orientate your handsets to your operating position thus setting left and a train will go that way, right that way. So when running trains in both lines one will be the opposite direction to the other. But when using the crossing both will be the same.
View attachment 312422

Hello Jon,

Thank you for your reply, Yes, I had thought of this solution before posting. For years I have been used-to PECO OO gauge "electrofrog" points, switched sections, etc. Moving outdoors, I just wanted something with minimal "electrickery" and potential things to go wrong. These LGB points whilst being built like a battle ship in comparison to what I have used before physically, are a different animal electrically as they do not use the point blades to switch the feed direction.

The only "improvement" that I could see on the diagram is to fit each track feed with a DPDT switch or relay which then would allow either controller to feed the entire layout. I would then have to stop and isolate one train whilst allowing the other to use the run round, controlled by one controller . This would save a lot of "controller juggling". It would mean having to dive into the garage to flip the DPDT switches though.

I am inclined to do this as I intend to run live steam and battery RC which obviously will not be effected by track power.

Dave

 

[PhilP]

You could use RC to switch the relays?

Later, you could possibly use this for points / signalling?

PhilP

 

[dunnyrail]

Hello Jon,

Thank you for your reply, Yes, I had thought of this solution before posting. For years I have been used-to PECO OO gauge "electrofrog" points, switched sections, etc. Moving outdoors, I just wanted something with minimal "electrickery" and potential things to go wrong. These LGB points whilst being built like a battle ship in comparison to what I have used before physically, are a different animal electrically as they do not use the point blades to switch the feed direction.

The only "improvement" that I could see on the diagram is to fit each track feed with a DPDT switch or relay which then would allow either controller to feed the entire layout. I would then have to stop and isolate one train whilst allowing the other to use the run round, controlled by one controller . This would save a lot of "controller juggling". It would mean having to dive into the garage to flip the DPDT switches though.

Dave

Yes that would be the equivalent of Cab control used much in the 60’s. I built a layout for a friend and the complete layout had that for up and down lines with 2 termini and 2 through stations. One could when setting up the cabs at each location (we used rotary switches) drive from one terminus Paddington to Penzance from the Penzance controller. Another guy could do the reverse option from Paddington. In that lines instance lots of wiring but very satisfying to work. Yours will be much easier.

 

[The mechanic]

yes- cab control, my OO layout is wired in this way, but uses the aforesaid Electrofrog PECO points.
I like the idea of rc switched DPDT relays! ..... I won't then have to keep diving into the garage when I need to switch the supply. I think there may be spare functions on the original TE to do this? Although I am not 100% certain.


Dave

 

[dunnyrail]

yes- cab control, my OO layout is wired in this way, but uses the aforesaid Electrofrog PECO points.
I like the idea of rc switched DPDT relays! ..... I won't then have to keep diving into the garage when I need to switch the supply. I think there may be spare functions on the original TE to do this? Although I am not 100% certain.


Dave

Surely with a small line like this you could manage an outside switch box located in a building? A removable 1/2 roof or rear would allow access during running. No mains just the switches.

 

[The mechanic]

Surely with a small line like this you could manage an outside switch box located in a building? A removable 1/2 roof or rear would allow access during running. No mains just the switches.

I agree in part but the layout of my garden is such that the wiring exits my garage (where the transformers etc are housed), runs down the wall and is soldered straight onto the trackwork which runs along the back of the outside garage wall. It would therefore be easiest for me to have any switches and/or relays situated inside the garage with the electrical equipment. They would have to be physically situated somewhere along this wiring "run" anyway. There is no 240v AC outside at all.

Additionally, my Son has a small line similar to this one which uses a couple of toggle switches to operate a triangular junction. We have found that over time, no matter what you do, there is always some degradation due to corrosion / damp / dirt /poking fingers, etc. They also encourage the dog to "nibble" at the rubber covers, So I just wanted to avoid them if at all possible, and maybe increase overall electrical reliability.

I have a couple of DPDT relays spare rated at 10Amps. To switch them, I have found a couple of cheap RF "fob" switches (for garage doors etc) that could provide a quite neat solution to the switching problem.


Dave

 

[Gizzy]

Only just seen this and I would go for the solution that Dunny suggested for DC operation.

I have a similar set-up on my line with a scissors crossover but because I am DCC, no isolation is required and wiring is just a single feed for all tracks.

Much simpler....

 

[Greg Elmassian]

DCC wiring definitely more simple. Luckily he has no reversing loops.

But he wants DC and no decoders in the locos... so being able to isolate the 2 loops is necessary.

The LED between "sides" can point to improper polarity, but of course you will also want to somewhat "match" throttle settings when transitioning between "loops"

Greg

 

[The mechanic]

DCC wiring definitely more simple. Luckily he has no reversing loops.

But he wants DC and no decoders in the locos... so being able to isolate the 2 loops is necessary.

The LED between "sides" can point to improper polarity, but of course you will also want to somewhat "match" throttle settings when transitioning between "loops"

Greg
[/QUO

I wholeheartedly agree with you Greg that DCC is simpler but its cost to me is prohibitive!..... AND Is it really railway modelling??.... I've always held the view since I bought a Hornby ZERO 1 setup in the early eighties (which I was not that impressed with and part- formed my views towards DCC), that there comes a point where DCC becomes the hobby and the railway modelling takes second place!..... Time and disposable finances are finite and we must use our allocation to do our own things. people may disagree with me, but thats their choice.

Anyway, all things considered, I think I am going to use a version of good old-fashioned cab control Greg! (As post s #11 to #14 incl. above)... With the number of locos that me and family have, need something that will work for all without having to take out a second mortgage!

Thanks for all the input folks!

Dave

 

[Paul M]

AND Is it really railway modelling??...


Whilst I agree with you re the cost, and I don't use it, it is definitely modelling. It's just a different aspect of the hobby. There's one large layout on the exhibition circuit that although it has scenery, it's sole aim is to show computerised running, certainly not my cup of tea, but I wouldn't say it isn't modelling

 

[The mechanic]

AND Is it really railway modelling??...


Whilst I agree with you re the cost, and I don't use it, it is definitely modelling. It's just a different aspect of the hobby. There's one large layout on the exhibition circuit that although it has scenery, it's sole aim is to show computerised running, certainly not my cup of tea, but I wouldn't say it isn't modelling

Sorry to cause any disagreement, but as I state above "people may disagree with me, but that's their choice". To me, DCC as a "modelling activity" cannot be compared to the construction of say, a finescale locomotive or a super-detailed station building under the activity of "railway modelling". DCC is merely a potential way of making models move and I can do that with analogue DC just as easily!

Sorry but that is my view.

Dave

 

[Greg Elmassian]

I agree, DCC is just one of many options for controlling trains. Modelling it is not in my opinion. For me, I use consisting and multiple trains per "loop" so I needed it. (I cannot run battery with my requirements).

Greg