Jump to content
 

"Hawkesbury" - the engine shed area is no more.....


halsey
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
On 25/11/2019 at 14:37, halsey said:

Question for DCC users ………………...

 

I assume power feeds to the sidings can just be short runs around points and not multiple main feeds from the main controller

How many main feeds and where to.

 

 

As I've said, I'm not a DCC user but can answer this one, as the answer partially applies to DC anyway …..

 

Yes they can be.  But more often people will run a pair of heavier-than-average wires down the length of the layout ("bus wires") and use short lengths of normal wire ("droppers") to link from the bus wires to each piece of track.  There are little gizmos called "suitcase connectors" that simplify connecting the droppers to the buses.  There are no "main feeds" as such - a true fanatic would have droppers to every piece of track, not trusting the fishplates to conduct electricity.  As a minimum, I would suggest you must feed: each platform road; both main lines somewhere each side of the removable section; the goods headshunt, either side of the curved point; the turntable approach; and every siding that you want permanently alive even with points set against it.  

 

If you did want to sub-divide the layout electrically (into "power districts") to make it easier to track faults, each power district would require a separate pair of bus wires.  You could create 3 sensible districts by using IRJs on the two crossovers between the up and down main lines, and the two (less obvious) crossovers between the inner circuit and the goods/loco sidings complex.

 

Good luck!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Chimer said:

 

As I've said, I'm not a DCC user but can answer this one, as the answer partially applies to DC anyway …..

 

Yes they can be.  But more often people will run a pair of heavier-than-average wires down the length of the layout ("bus wires") and use short lengths of normal wire ("droppers") to link from the bus wires to each piece of track.  There are little gizmos called "suitcase connectors" that simplify connecting the droppers to the buses.  There are no "main feeds" as such - a true fanatic would have droppers to every piece of track, not trusting the fishplates to conduct electricity.  As a minimum, I would suggest you must feed: each platform road; both main lines somewhere each side of the removable section; the goods headshunt, either side of the curved point; the turntable approach; and every siding that you want permanently alive even with points set against it.  

 

If you did want to sub-divide the layout electrically (into "power districts") to make it easier to track faults, each power district would require a separate pair of bus wires.  You could create 3 sensible districts by using IRJs on the two crossovers between the up and down main lines, and the two (less obvious) crossovers between the inner circuit and the goods/loco sidings complex.

 

Good luck!

 

Noted - but I thought DCC involved less wiring...……………………………??

 

When you say run a bus wire the length of the layout do I assume in this case you mean one around the (outer?) circle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 16/11/2019 at 10:40, DavidCBroad said:

I agree, see top of my sketch.  Also linking the canal siding to the yard, effectively having a goods loop rater than a bay with sidings off it might allow two trains to run while you shunt the yard.  Otherwise looks good and capable of proper railway like operation.

 

 

Hi David

As you may have seen the layout plan has been finalised - I wonder if you might like to engage with the current DCC wiring debate as I found your diagrams very useful and clear to work with last time - thanks

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

a true fanatic would have droppers to every piece of track, not trusting the fishplates to conduct electricity.

Whether and how you apply ballast affects this. On my little layout I went for droppers on every section of rail except two short lengths which relied on the joined, and it worked fine until I did the flood with diluted PVA ballast method, at which point those rails were of course dead...

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, halsey said:

 

Noted - but I thought DCC involved less wiring...……………………………??

That’s half true. You need the same droppers in both cases but with DCC you can run a “bus wire” all round and you don’t need to bring wires back to switches on a control panel, so a few less wires for DCC. However, Point motor wires may still need to come back to a control panel.

 

So in the end it doesn’t make much difference!

 

Quote

 

When you say run a bus wire the length of the layout do I assume in this case you mean one around the (outer?) circle?

Yes. You just need to route a pair of substantial cables around to get close enough to the dropper wire positions so that the dropper wires aren’t too long, say 1ft maximum.

 

You can connect branches off the bus (and branches off the branches) and the main bus can be a complete ring if you want - the topology doesn’t matter.

 

What cable you use for the bus depends on how you want to connect the droppers to it. For my little test layout I used B&Q speaker cable. It’s flexible, multi strand copper with a red orientation mark along one wire. I then wired the bus and the droppers together in chocolate blocks, which work ok if you make sure the wires are inserted and gripped properly. They allow mistakes to be fixed easily but I don’t think they are best practice - not permanent enough and maybe affected by corrosion.

 

The dropper wires can be much thinner than the bus wires.

 

You’ll get lots of alternative suggestions!

Edited by Harlequin
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halsey said:

 

Hi David

As you may have seen the layout plan has been finalised - I wonder if you might like to engage with the current DCC wiring debate as I found your diagrams very useful and clear to work with last time - thanks

I am not quite sure which is the final track plan.  However I would have a number of "Power Districts" or sections even with DCC for fault finding.   Its much easier to switch half a dozen switches off to pin point the fault to a few yards of track and half a dozen points than to have no clue what so ever where the fault causing the whole damned lot to pack up is.     Which is the Final plan?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

I am not quite sure which is the final track plan.  However I would have a number of "Power Districts" or sections even with DCC for fault finding.   Its much easier to switch half a dozen switches off to pin point the fault to a few yards of track and half a dozen points than to have no clue what so ever where the fault causing the whole damned lot to pack up is.     Which is the Final plan?

 

CHIMER - Monday's (last plan) - may not have the extreme right passenger siding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 25/11/2019 at 14:04, Chimer said:

Thanks Zomboid, you're reading my mind perfectly ….. please hide that siding and the running lines on the left hand side Julian, even if only behind a wall, 180 degree turns in plain view destroy the illusion …..

 

Right, here we go …… for reference, platforms are numbered from the inside, so P1 is the inner loop and P4 the bay.

 

386096744_h5jpg.jpg.3551c769c788b4463674709b0f389a09.jpg

 

Freight operations (inner anti-clockwise "up" circuit): train arrives at platform 1.  Draw wagons to be dropped off into headshunt, then shunt into home yard as required.  Draw wagons to be picked up into head shunt, reverse onto rest of train, depart .  Canal sidings are a pig (deliberately) as the parked train blocks access - wagons for there will have to be left somewhere in home yard area to be shunted down by the station pilot loco once the train has cleared, similarly wagons to be picked up from there will need to be brought into the home yard before the train arrives.  During shunting, passenger ops can continue using platform 2, with train held there when freight departs.  After departure, freight train moves off scene left and reverses into hidden siding, allowing passenger ops to continue.

 

Freight operations (outer "down" circuit): none, except that I have added a long lie-by siding on the right hand side where a freight train could sit awaiting the chance to do a quick circuit pretending to be the reverse trip working (which wouldn't use our yard).  This siding can be left in plain view!!


Passenger ops (mostly as set out earlier): A down train (arriving at platform 3) can continue or terminate - if it terminates, the coaching stock can be worked into the carriage sidings, or the train can immediately depart in the up direction over the left-hand trailing crossover, with either the same loco having run-round the train or a new loco from the stabling roads.  Same options for an up train using platform 2, plus the possibility of the stock from a terminating train being worked across to the bay platform to await a later down departure (more work here for a station pilot).  Less options from platform 1, due to the position of the right-hand crossover.

 

Stock list: 

Count | Description                      
------+----------------------------------
    3 | Peco SL-86/186 Curved Right
    2 | Peco SL-87/187 Curved Left
    3 | Peco SL-88/188 RH Long turnout
    5 | Peco SL-89/189 LH Long turnout
    5 | Peco SL-91/191 RH Small turnout
    1 | Peco SL-96/196 LH Medium turnout
    5 | Peco ST-226 Setrack curve no2 dbl
    1 | Peco ST-230 Setrack curve no3 Std
    6 | Peco ST-231 Setrack curve no3 dbl
    1 | Turntable, diameter 12.000
    0 | 1184.154 HO Flex Track      

 

There are a couple of radius 3 set-track curves lurking in the canal sidings, otherwise they are all hidden.

 

The other questions;

 

Start with the throats, fiddling to achieve the smooth curves through platforms 2 and 3 (at 48" and 50" radius).  Not pretending this will be easy ….. there is more flexibility elsewhere.

 

Are you using electrofrog or insulfrog points?  If electrofrog, and if you want all tracks live permanently, regardless of point settings, you will need IRJs on every frog rail (but not isolating switches) and feeds to every siding.  With insulfrog, no absolute need for IRJs, although you way wish to use them to break the layout up into switchable sections (maybe up, down and yard) to help with faultfinding.  But you will still need feeds to every siding if you want, e.g., diesels to still make funny noises when parked in a siding with the point against it.  If you don't want that, and are happy to rely on fishplates and point blades for continuity, wiring can be much reduced.  But many people on here swear by having a feed to every separate track.

 

Polarity is not an issue.  Make the rail nearer the operating well positive (say red) and the far rail negative (black), or vice versa, and all will be well.

 

I leave the questions about wire diameter and the turntable to those who have actually used DCC.

 

Over to you!!

 

Just noticed you slipped in an extra passenger siding extreme right hand side - I may not do that as I would like a little more space on the edge of the baseboard top (inner) right corner

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, halsey said:

 

Just noticed you slipped in an extra passenger siding extreme right hand side - I may not do that as I would like a little more space on the edge of the baseboard top (inner) right corner

 

I did mention adding it, I think - it's meant to be a lie-by siding for a down freight, so you can occasionally run a goods train in the other direction to the up freights you are shunting - entirely omittable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Julian,

 

David makes a good point about dividing the track into separately switched sections rather than the one "bus" feeding everything. (Technically, they would not be "power districts" - DCC Power Districts each have a separate power supply or "booster".)

 

It means a bit more wiring, however. Your DCC controller would feed into a switch panel and then from each switch out to a separate "bus" for each section.

 

The sections might be:

  1. The two main circuits
  2. The goods yard
  3. The loco shed
  4. The carriage sidings

You'd have to decide where to use insulating rail joints to separate the sections from each other.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Julian,

 

David makes a good point about dividing the track into separately switched sections rather than the one "bus" feeding everything. (Technically, they would not be "power districts" - DCC Power Districts each have a separate power supply or "booster".)

 

It means a bit more wiring, however. Your DCC controller would feed into a switch panel and then from each switch out to a separate "bus" for each section.

 

The sections might be:

  1. The two main circuits
  2. The goods yard
  3. The loco shed
  4. The carriage sidings

You'd have to decide where to use insulating rail joints to separate the sections from each other.

 

 

I need to think/review - I'm disappointed that having committed to £££'s to DCC it isn't actually saving any wiring that I can see...……………...I'm still switching sections, still fitting insulated joiners and still wiring/looping feeds.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Well... DCC is not about saving wiring, despite the popular myth. It's about making the locos more driveable and more indvidual.

 

You can give locos different acceleration and deceleration characteristics. So big locos pull away slowly and little shunters can zip around in the yard.

 

A loco with a good sound project and lights really comes to life. For diesels you get things like clunks and rev drops when changing gear, horn blasts and idling sounds when standing. Old steam locos do things like wheezing when they start off, giving a toot when they pass and cruising into the station with just valves spitting when you lift off the regulator.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, halsey said:

 

I need to think/review - I'm disappointed that having committed to £££'s to DCC it isn't actually saving any wiring that I can see...……………...I'm still switching sections, still fitting insulated joiners and still wiring/looping feeds.

 

It simplifies wiring design, but doesn't necessarily reduce it. Though you could quite successfully just connect the whole lot up to a single circuit and it would work just as well - what that would do is make any fault finding you may have to do a nightmare.

Personally I would go for a 3 segment design - inner track, outer track and goods yard. But you can do whatever you like.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, halsey said:

 

I need to think/review - I'm disappointed that having committed to £££'s to DCC it isn't actually saving any wiring that I can see...……………...I'm still switching sections, still fitting insulated joiners and still wiring/looping feeds.

 

 

The bonus is you don't need to think about sections when you're actually running the layout - they just help with fault finding if things go wrong.  So if you're getting an unexpected short, you switch sections off one by one until it goes away, then you know where to look for it.  If I was designing the wiring to operate the plan to its full potential using DC, I would have six sections on each main circuit - two in the platform road, one for each throat, and one for the main line either side of the removable section.  Plus one for the loco sidings, one for the goods yard, one for platform 1 and one for platform 4.  So 16 sections altogether, each able to be switched to one of probably 3 controllers.  Each loco siding would need to be split into two, although that would be done with simple isolating switches rather than creating more sections, and I might also want to isolate the ends of some of the other sidings so I could park locos there too.   Whereas with DCC, if you want to move a loco, you just dial it up and move it.  I'm almost convincing myself to change over now ….

 

"Only two wires needed for DCC" is about as true as "£350m for the NHS" - you've still got to get the electricity to every part of the layout, there's just much less need for switchery - and therefore for working out in advance everything you want to be able to do.  And I reckon you only need 8 IRJs to create the 3 sections I (wrongly) called power districts …...

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

DCC generally needs a lot more wires than DC, A lot more drilling and soldering, droppers for  every point and every few yard lengths, or to every single length of track if you listen to some people.   Check out the "Crewlisle" layout as he has a lot of experience of DCC.     I believe its the power of DCC controllers often 4 amps, against around 1 Amp  or less for DC which leads to the need for so many dropper.  My experience is 00  point blades and fishplates can't conduct more than 1 amp reliably so an alternative load path is required..

 The wiring theory is simpler in some ways with DCC especially when using  Frog Juicers which replace complicated relays arrays you need on DC Diamonds etc which are absolute sods to wire up,  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

So on the basis of forum comments/advice that DCC is easier with less wiring (which is really important to me due to my physical issues) I have invested £450 to date and now find its going to involve switched sections insulated joiners and bridging with soldered wires across every fishplate and every point to make it fully live and not blade dependant - all of which I understand but why didn't this come out before.

 

I have a few days to (re) consider before I want to move on and still have all my DC equipment (except the locos I have sent off for conversion) but DCC isn't looking like the way to go now esp as all this wiring has got to be above boards.

 

I am genuinely not complaining here and continue to appreciate everyone's input but I am simply confused as to what to do as I don't want to carry on with DCC and regret the associated physical issues which will spoil the whole experience for me 

 

I don't know how to formally move this topic (if I even should do so) but as my other dedicated DCC topic has different people engaged in it I have slightly duplicated this question/dilemma on there just to get other DCC user comments as I do feel a bit lost...…………..

 

:(:(

Edited by halsey
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

This is very frustrating because you could have worked all this out and made life much easier for yourself if you had taken your time and planned things better!

 

I think it would be possible to do a simple DCC electrical installation above the boards, relying on fishplates and point blades, without a bus or any switched sections. You will always need some IRJs.

 

Wiring aside, DCC is wonderful but you do need to be willing to get to grips with some IT to make the most of it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both systems have their pros and cons, but for my money DCC is conceptually simpler and offers better functionality. 

 

You really don't have to go mad with it, and in my experience it depends what else you do how much of this "dropper on every piece of rail" is actually necessary. If you don't paint the rails or use the PVA flood method of ballasting then the rail joiners will be much more reliable than if you do.

 

The simple fact is that if you build the track plan Chimer designed then there's going to be lots of wiring either way. It's the nature of large or complex layouts. A simpler conceptual design with less switching and more flexibility if you go DCC, but not a significantly different volume of it. And much less in the way of insulated joiners.

 

Or you could go dead rail and have radio controlled battery locos. (Probably not actually a viable option...).

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly this tends to happen a lot. 
 

DCC does NOT need all those things. It can use them, and many of them might be a good idea (opinions vary widely), but don’t let “experts” suggest you must have them. 
 

Many people happily run DCC with just the two wires, just like the adverts tell you it can be done. 
 

Feel free to pm me if you want a quiet (off-line) chat about it. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halsey said:

So on the basis of forum comments/advice that DCC is easier with less wiring (which is really important to me due to my physical issues) I have invested £450 to date and now find its going to involve switched sections insulated joiners and bridging with soldered wires across every fishplate and every point to make it fully live and not blade dependant - all of which I understand but why didn't this come out before.

 

I did wonder why no-one seemed to challenge the "DCC needs less wiring" myth when you first raised the possibility of using DCC a few weeks back. However, having no experience of DCC myself I chose to keep schtum on the grounds that I couldn't possibly offer any evidence to justify a skeptical viewpoint, I'd be relying solely on what I'd read elsewhere.

 

Be that as it may, given that you posted on 21st November that you'd decided to go DCC and ordered the kit, I believe that you may still have time to return it under the Consumer Contracts Regulations.  You have 14 days from the date you received the goods to inform the supplier that you no longer want them, and a further 14 days to actually sends the goods back.  You will have to pay the return postage but you would be entitled to a full refund of the cost of the goods and the basic cost of delivery to you in the first place ("basic" cost means that the seller is only obliged to refund their standard delivery cost - if you paid extra for e.g. next day delivery, they don't have to refund the extra amount).

 

Given the amount of money involved, and the fact that you are still swithering about whether or not to stick with the decision to go DCC, you might even decide it best to cancel the current order anyway.  At least you'd only end up out of pocket by a couple postage costs (i.e. the return postage, and postage on the new order) if you do eventually decide to go DCC.

 

The above is just a reminder about your legal rights, given that you may be about to change your mind about your expensive purchase.  As I stated before, I cannot usefully comment on the actual pros and cons of DCC vs DC.

Edited by ejstubbs
Typo and a bit of polishing
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

This is very frustrating because you could have worked all this out and made life much easier for yourself if you had taken your time and planned things better!

 

 

 

Sorry I simply don't agree - surely if you don't know anything about a subject you ask...……………………………..and my entire career was built around planning things to get the best results.

 

The boards and layout plan (which is where all the time has gone so far) is excellent and couldn't have been done in isolation - your own input being invaluable and appreciated every time I open the door.

 

So the required track is now purchased the boards are done the "raw" backscenes are nearly complete and all of this is a success and achieved by asking for advice.

 

Now having the luxury of choice (DCvDCC) with no decision irrevocably made as I haven't laid anything - the degree to which the wiring requirements seem to have increased exponentially with every post is/was just making me draw sharp intakes of breath not because or the wiring per se but my now overstated physical constraints.

 

I am still very much inclined to stay with DCC but it clearly isn't going to be the journey I was expecting.

 

If nothing else I hope through this forum others who are on the same fence will gain early knowledge through this topic 

 

BFN

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

OK - moving on ………………………………. so I can start track laying

 

 

What (pre) wiring can be done on the workbench (points??how??)

Where do I need to place isolators and feed(s) - crude marking on the plan would help me

Is it possible to solder the fishplate joint successfully rather than bridge it with wire?? What about heat issues

If I'm going to do this much soldering I might by a new iron - any recommendations??

 

 

continuing thanks back to doing something now...…………...……..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
43 minutes ago, halsey said:

 

Sorry I simply don't agree - surely if you don't know anything about a subject you ask...……………………………..and my entire career was built around planning things to get the best results.

 

The boards and layout plan (which is where all the time has gone so far) is excellent and couldn't have been done in isolation - your own input being invaluable and appreciated every time I open the door.

 

So the required track is now purchased the boards are done the "raw" backscenes are nearly complete and all of this is a success and achieved by asking for advice.

 

Now having the luxury of choice (DCvDCC) with no decision irrevocably made as I haven't laid anything - the degree to which the wiring requirements seem to have increased exponentially with every post is/was just making me draw sharp intakes of breath not because or the wiring per se but my now overstated physical constraints.

 

I am still very much inclined to stay with DCC but it clearly isn't going to be the journey I was expecting.

 

If nothing else I hope through this forum others who are on the same fence will gain early knowledge through this topic 

 

BFN

 

 

I didn't say it was wrong to ask for advice.

 

I meant that if you had planned more thoroughly and taken more advice before you actually built or bought anything you could have done things differently. Specifically, you could have built the baseboards differently so that access under and reach over was easier.

 

Anyway, what's done is done. All the best.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...