Have I fallen into a trap?

[Michael 0701]

Good afternoon, new member and all that.

 

I am not new to model railways but new to bigger than an oval and a siding…..

I designed and built my rather space constricted 00 gauge railway (6'x4') to get as much movement and variety as I could, I am happy with the layout etc but I fear I have fallen down a bit of rabbit hole.

I needed a new controller and settled on the Morley Vortrak Zero Ten Controller (the 4 track controller), it’s great, super smooth control and looks cool, very retro.

 

But since I have found out as others on this forum have stated, off is not actually off but is a shade of grey…..  So I have had to put insulators between the 4 track circuits marked on my drawing a & b (between the points connecting tracks 1 and 2) and at c and d (as decreed by Morley or there will be a plague of Locusts etc befalling me and my 5 year warranty).

So unless I use my one very modern loco (pickups on the one bogie and even then it sometimes stalls) all my other older and slower locos stop dead on the cross over (unless I run them at full tilt and even then 90% won’t get over….) until the 00 gauge hand of God gives it a nudge (how realistic)  Morley states one only needs to match the speed of the 2 controllers but as it isn’t a common return it’s never going to work (so why say it?)

I have thought about putting an isolating switch on each circuit, but to move a loco say from circuit 1 to circuit 2 it would be:

Stop loco, isolate circuits 1 and 2, change points, energise circuit 2, move loco, stop loco, change points, reenergise circuit 1.  

If I forget and change points without isolating, pop, if a loco fouls the points and possibly moves them, pop….  Have I dug myself a bit of a hole?

Thank you in advance for any help but bear in mind I can’t solder to save mine or anyone else’s life….

 

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Michael 0701

[imt]

Welcome, at least you are almost there towards getting your problem addressed.  BUT, and I am sorry to do this to you but this has nothing to do with Layout Design etc.  So there is a hole you have faallen in! Can I suggest you will get more attention and help if you ask the Moderators to move this to the Power and Control section under Electrics (non DCC)

[Barclay]

Forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick but I think this would be the same for any system where you have a number of circuits operated by a number of controllers. The only satisfactory way of operating such a system is to isolate all 4 circuits completely from each other, but, each circuit can be switched to any of the controllers. So, you are moving from one circuit to another - switch both to the same controller. To do this each circuit would need to be fed from a 4 way double pole rotary switch. This is what we always called 'cab control'. I have done it myself but only with 2 circuits so was able to use a double pole double throw toggle switch. A train needs to move into the goods yard, so you switch the yard to the main line controller. Once in, it can be switched back to the yard controller and the yard can be shunted independently. 

 

Common return I never really understood (electrics is not my strong point) but this way will certainly work.

[Junctionmad]

Depending  on the design of the controller , it is possible to “ speed match “ both dc controllers , in theory , allowing a loco to cross from one circuit to another , this assumes that the polarity of both sections is the same , ie a consistent wiring strategy is followed. 

 

However it is always less then satisfactory and there is always a point where the loco is potential paralleling both controllers together and some controllers cant handle this 

 

this results in speed changes , jumps , and stops etc 

 

switching the track sections to the controller, known as DC cab control, is about the only practical way to handle multi controller implementations , the idea being that only one controller is activated for all the track route/sections need for the train to complete its journey .  The situation can become complex , and can be further complicated should you want to incorporate interlocking to prevent users from assigning a track section to more then one controller at a time. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Junctionmad

[kitpw]

Michael 0701 - there is a useful explanation of basic model railway electrics at http://www.eastbank.org.uk/circuits.htm - not least an explanation of "common earth return".  I used the notes to wire up 'Swan Hill' which is arranged for operation by four controllers, in my case, separate controllers (I'm not familiar with the Morley controller you refer to).  From experience with my father's OO gauge layout, started in the 1950s, I remember the problem of going from one controller zone to another and trying to set the controllers to suit... it was never very satisfactory.  I set up Swan Hill with a few relays which allocate contollers to control zones - it wasn't difficult to do.  The relays are triggered by the points which allow exit and entry to different areas: I use point servos actioned by DPDT switches: one of the ways operates the point servo (via a Megapoints controller) and the other way goes to the relay coil.  So, for instance, when a point is set to allow a movement from a siding to a main line, the siding controller is automatically switched 'off' and the main line contoller takes over the siding until the point is set normal again when the status quo is restored.  The layout is wired common earth return and to my surprise, it all seems to work: locos proceed smoothly from one controller zone to another without any alarms on the way. The track diagram for Swan Hill is at https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/23850-signalling-swan-hill/ which shows the layout and explains some of the electrics in the context of signalling (I don't like having to get under the railway to do any wiring so all wires come back to an accessible junction box - there is a picture of it - so it looks much more complicated than it actually is).

 

Kit PW

 

[Gordon A]

I suggest you move your power feed for the inside track from its current position to between crossovers a and b.

The next change is to put an isolation gap where the inside track power feed was.

 

As it is donkeys years since I have used rtr points I suggest you

a) Need an isolation gap between the crossovers a and b in the outside track.

b) For just the inner and outer circuits you could fit a double pole double throw switch to the power supply for each circuit. That way you could select when using a cross over one controller to run both circuits, then at the flic of a switch return the two circuits to independent control, not forgetting to reset the crossover.

c) Learn to solder - a very useful skill.  

 

Gordon A

[Tony Cane]

There is another possible reason why locomotives do not cross the gap between one controller and another.

If the locomotive has pick ups on one side and the tender on the other side then it will never cross the gap except at high speed.

This is often found on older tender drive locomotives, and is indicated by the tender coupling having a brass pin which makes contact with a spring fingers on the other part.

 

The basic "cab control" systems as already recommended is your best option.

[Michael 0701]

Thank you all for your answers and advice, very informative and helpful.  I have spent the evening reading around Cab Control on this site and Brian Lambert et al and I am still a little (quite) lost.   My initial aim was to keep this as simple as possible but this seems to have gone a little off plan.....    I fear I don't have the skills for this, I think a return to the drawing board may be in order.

 

[ikcdab]

It's great when things run of at tangent and get complicated.

Nice controller, but prob over the top for what you need. 

Anyway,  you have it now.  Just make sure that each controller section is totally isolated from the others. Nothing else is required, except for direction and speed matching when a loco goes from one section to another.

[Junctionmad]

15 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

It's great when things run of at tangent and get complicated.

Nice controller, but prob over the top for what you need. 

Anyway,  you have it now.  Just make sure that each controller section is totally isolated from the others. Nothing else is required, except for direction and speed matching when a loco goes from one section to another.

As mentioned , this “ may “ work , but often doesn’t 

[RJS1977]

14 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

 

 

switching the track sections to the controller, known as DC cab control, is about the only practical way to handle multi controller implementations , the idea being that only one controller is activated for all the track route/sections need for the train to complete its journey .  The situation can become complex , and can be further complicated should you want to incorporate interlocking to prevent users from assigning a track section to more then one controller at a time. 

 

The simplest way round that is to have a rotary switch on each track section, which can switch any one (but never more than one) controller to that section.

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, Michael 0701 said:

Thank you all for your answers and advice, very informative and helpful.  I have spent the evening reading around Cab Control on this site and Brian Lambert et al and I am still a little (quite) lost.   My initial aim was to keep this as simple as possible but this seems to have gone a little off plan.....    I fear I don't have the skills for this, I think a return to the drawing board may be in order.

 

The KISS principle often doesn't work! While it sounds fantastic, sometimes you get far better results from something a little more complex. Cab Control is one and of course it only needs to be done properly once.

 

Note you don't need each cab (controller) to access each section, it can be greatly simplified by limiting which cab, has access to what sections.

For example, the one normally assigned to running the outside loop, doesn't need access to the 2 sets of sidings, but does the inner loop. I hope that makes it a little easier to understand.

[RJS1977]

Of course the secret is where possible to start off with something simple and work up. So, on a double track continuous run layout, lay the outer oval (and pointwork) first, get than running and working, then the inner oval, and gradually build up in complexity.

[Michael 0701]

Again thank you for your helpful comments.  I have finally got my head around adding a toggle switch between tracks 1 and 2 to control circuit 2 with controller 1 and not needing to alter the current insulating joiners locations.   But I struggle to work out controlling 3 and 4 with say controller 2, without over-complicating it and running the risk of things going pop.....  a rotary switch befuddles me.  I sucked at electronics and the principles in school, I am more of a "big" engineer lol....

[kevinlms]

5 hours ago, Michael 0701 said:

Again thank you for your helpful comments.  I have finally got my head around adding a toggle switch between tracks 1 and 2 to control circuit 2 with controller 1 and not needing to alter the current insulating joiners locations.   But I struggle to work out controlling 3 and 4 with say controller 2, without over-complicating it and running the risk of things going pop.....  a rotary switch befuddles me.  I sucked at electronics and the principles in school, I am more of a "big" engineer lol....

It's actually quite simple.

 

For Block 3 (area if you like), you need a toggle switch (more commonly known as a Double Pole, Double Throw DPDT) to connect to either controller 3 (default) OR controller 2.

For Block 4, you need a toggle switch to connect to either controller 4 (default) OR controller 2.

 

For these switches, the middle 2 wires go to the track, with the left pair (or top depending on orientation) to one controller, the other pair to another controller.

 

There isn't actually much to go wrong, since you have the gaps in the right places - give it a try.

[Michael 0701]

Hi all.  Again thanks for your input and help.  So I've had a stab and in conjunction with my current layout (above) will this do the trick?

 

[kevinlms]

7 minutes ago, Michael 0701 said:

Hi all.  Again thanks for your input and help.  So I've had a stab and in conjunction with my current layout (above) will this do the trick?

 

Yes, that will do fine.

 

The only addition I'd make is to use switches with centre off, so you can park a train.