Jump to content
 

My First & Last Layout Project - Physical Progress at Last!!


cctransuk
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

In Johns case there seems to no protection against switching a track section onto multiple controller busses AFAIK 

 

Surely, by having the DC supply for each track section switched between the two controller circuits via a single pole, two way, centre off switch; with common return to the transformer / rectifier, it is not possible for a track section to be connected to more than one of the two controller busses?

 

..... or am I missing something basic?

 

John Isherwood.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Surely, by having the DC supply for each track section switched between the two controller circuits via a single pole, two way, centre off switch; with common return to the transformer / rectifier, it is not possible for a track section to be connected to more than one of the two controller busses?

 

..... or am I missing something basic?

 

John Isherwood.

There was a mention of 7 busses ! 
 

I agree for two controllers after that it gets a little more complex 

 

I note you mentioned 2 controllers only but layer you said 

 

 

I think that the way forward is to use 'chocolate block' connectors to support the seven bare copper buswires, 

Which I took to mean 6 potential controllers and one common return 

Edited by Junctionmad
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Junctionmad said:

There was a mention of 7 busses ! 
 

I agree for two controllers after that it gets a little more complex 

 

I note you mentioned 2 controllers only but layer you said 

 

 

I think that the way forward is to use 'chocolate block' connectors to support the seven bare copper buswires, 

Which I took to mean 6 potential controllers and one common return 

 

Seven busses, yes.

 

2 x 2 for the two low voltage AC feeds and returns to the two plug-in controllers / rectifiers; 2 for the two low voltage DC outputs from the two plug-in controllers / rectifiers; 1 for the low voltage DC common return from the two plug-in controllers / rectifiers; total 7.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Seven busses, yes.

 

2 x 2 for the two low voltage AC feeds and returns to the two plug-in controllers / rectifiers; 2 for the two low voltage DC outputs from the two plug-in controllers / rectifiers; 1 for the low voltage DC common return from the two plug-in controllers / rectifiers; total 7.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

OK, I have a question for you.

Based on compiling in my mind a description of your plans. I understand that you intend to run 2 pairs of bus wires around the layout carrying the 2 lots of AC power around the layout. This will enable you to plug in the controllers at any of 4 pairs of sockets located around the layout.

Assuming that one will be primarily for the inside tracks and the other for the outer tracks, how do you intend to prevent yourself from plugging both controllers into the inside or outside set of sockets, at the same time?

 

Probably the easiest way to make it impossible to do so, is to use different plugs and sockets, for each set so that you can't, accidentally or otherwise. Especially important if you have occasional users operating the layout.

 

I do suspect that over time, you won't use the 4 pairs of sockets and prefer to just leave the controllers in two particular sockets.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

OK, I have a question for you.

Based on compiling in my mind a description of your plans. I understand that you intend to run 2 pairs of bus wires around the layout carrying the 2 lots of AC power around the layout. This will enable you to plug in the controllers at any of 4 pairs of sockets located around the layout.

Assuming that one will be primarily for the inside tracks and the other for the outer tracks, how do you intend to prevent yourself from plugging both controllers into the inside or outside set of sockets, at the same time?

 

Probably the easiest way to make it impossible to do so, is to use different plugs and sockets, for each set so that you can't, accidentally or otherwise. Especially important if you have occasional users operating the layout.

 

I do suspect that over time, you won't use the 4 pairs of sockets and prefer to just leave the controllers in two particular sockets.

 

I have ordered 4-pin XLR audio plugs and sockets for connecting the controllers to the baseboards - I prefer these to DIN plugs as they lock into the sockets.

 

Each controller will be clearly marked, on the controllers and their plugs, as A or B, with the sockets also clearly marked accordingly. As there will only be one of each controller available, and as I don't forsee anyone operating the layout unsupervised; (I'm not a MRC member); I don't anticipate problems.

 

The availability of local control points will be useful when problem-finding.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I see, I didn’t think you wanted to move the controllers around , as this can’t be done while trains are moving , unlike walk around control in dcc 

 

a radio controlled dc handset would save a lot of wires and connectors 

 

something like this http://www.micronradiocontrol.co.uk/rc_model_rail.html

 

where the receiver unit wasn’t actually mounted in the loco but into the baseboard wiring would remove considerable wiring and so forth  

Edited by Junctionmad
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

Ah I see, I didn’t think you wanted to move the controllers around , as this can’t be done while trains are moving , unlike walk around control in dcc 

 

a radio controlled dc handset would save a lot of wires and connectors 

 

I see no need to move controllers whilst the train is in motion; the relevant controller will be plugged in at the most convenient operating position for that movement.

 

I will be sticking with good old 'steam' DC control by wires. A broken wire can be traced and seen, but a radio handset that won't 'talk' to the controller would be beyond me. For the same reason, I won't be going anywhere near DCC !!

 

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about your localised panels, while I can understand while you're doing it, and in some locations there is probably a benefit in doing it to a degree, I think having everything on a board fed through switches on a localised panel is likely to create further complications.

 

Take the parallel sidings at the top of your plan. The pointwork for these sidings is on one board, the majority of the length of the sidings is on another board.

 

On a (very) permanent layout, the usual way of doing this would be to lay the tracks directly across the board join. The fan of sidings is fed from the left hand end and the sidings are isolated or energised by the position of the points, either directly through the point blades, or indirectly through accessory switches on the point motors. The disadvantages of this are that you need to cut through the tracks if you need to move the boards and you can only work on them from underneath.

 

On a portable layout, the sidings would be cut at the board join. The fan of sidings would be fed from the left hand end again, and the sidings on the other board would be connected via a jumper cable with a plug and socket. The boards can be separated and if necessary turned on one side to work on.

 

What you appear to be planning to do is to have the sidings on the other board each fed separately through its own switch. Not only will this require a lot of extra switches. but it would be easy to forget to switch a section on when changing the points and thus have a loco suddenly stop for no reason.

 

What I'd be inclined to do would be to have an unpluggable jumper cable connecting the two boards to power the sidings, but with a local panel for any isolating sections (e.g. where you are going to have a loco at the buffer stops while another one comes in and takes the train away.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On 03/09/2020 at 20:14, RJS1977 said:

What you appear to be planning to do is to have the sidings on the other board each fed separately through its own switch. Not only will this require a lot of extra switches. but it would be easy to forget to switch a section on when changing the points and thus have a loco suddenly stop for no reason.

 

What I'd be inclined to do would be to have an unpluggable jumper cable connecting the two boards to power the sidings, but with a local panel for any isolating sections (e.g. where you are going to have a loco at the buffer stops while another one comes in and takes the train away.

 

The operating principle that will be used on this layout is that the operator will plug either controller A or controller B into the nearest socket to the intended movement; and switch each of the sections required for that movement to his controller - identified by colour code from a track plan. The train movement will then take place, and then the section switches will be returned to the centre, off position. I would agree that there will be quite a bit of section switching, but short sections can be advantageous when trouble-shooting.

 

Where it will be necessary to isolate locomotives - such as in the centre station road, where banking locos are held - switched isolating gaps will be cut in the supply rail. Again, these isolating switches will be sited on the appropriate board edge.

 

Perhaps I should mention that the front, operating edges of all boards will consist of 40 x 40mm. white electrical trunking : -

 

1566314665_40x40trunking.jpg.f12fa58bf41b80aebec61996092eedd8.jpg

 

 

All local section toggle swiches, isolating toggle switches and point mechanical control / frog polarity slide switches will be mounted onto the upper surface of the trunking, and the removeable capping strip will give access for wiring and maintenance.

 

As this will be my first and last major layout, it has been designed from the outset with ease of construction and maintenance in mind. A centralised, all-singing, all-dancing control panel may have appeal for the younger enthusiast, but I need, and will increasingly need, a simple and easily maintained system.

 

What I have designed is essentially eleven small layouts which abut each other, each with their own local controls. Power will be supplied by  what are effectively ring mains - one AC and the other DC. Wiring within each board will be simple, straight runs from the ring mains to the board edge and back to the rails. Point control will be by similar straight(ish) runs of stainless steel wire in PTFE tube, and the baseboard edge operating slide swiches will both throw the point and switch the frog polarity.

 

All very old school - but simple, robust and tried and tested. Being based on one end of Evercreech Junction station, I will be able to run (sort of) prototypical trains to a (sort of) prototypical timetable - or, just watch the trains go by; (I've loads of stock that has no business whatsoever to be seen at Evercreech Junction)!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

 

Edited by cctransuk
Link to post
Share on other sites

While everyone supports “, but I need, and will increasingly need, a simple and easily maintained system.” ,  the primary function that makes a system maintainable is to build one that doesn’t need much maintenance . This means quality wiring , good robust connectors ( no nasty chocolate blocks etc ) and professional wiring installs 

 

for example I’m the designer of our big club O gauge , lots of complexity ( 50 MERG CBUS ( can bus) modules ) , DCC etc etc , it’s done 6 exhibitions and the total electrical maintenance over two years was one broken wire ( our diagnostic system identified the culprit in a few seconds ) 

 

like u propose we install all the electronic modules , electronic frog switching modules , signal servo & point modules in a “ conduit “ that is an integral part of the baseboard . 120mm high , running all the way round the inside of the layout ( a big roundly roundy ) ( which comprises 16 baseboards ) 

only 6 wires run between each board carried on a 3 pin XLR and a 4 pin XLR.  We have around 1000 metres of wire ( were it not for the electronics we’d have over 5km ! ) 

 

Hence whether you build a mimic panel , or a distributed system or whatever , if it’s well built , it’s maintainable 

largely because it won’t need much maintenance . 

 

I recently spent considerable time “ debugging “ a large loft OO layout, huge unreliability due to poor cheap chocolate blocks , spaghetti wiring and confused thinking . It self generated  all its own maintenance issues 

Edited by Junctionmad
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

 Point control will be by similar straight(ish) runs of stainless steel wire in PTFE tube,

 

Hi John,

 

Could you share a bit more detail on your wire in tube? Tube size, wire size, type etc?

 

Thanks

Andy

 

PS - I'd try avoid chocolate block connectors. The screws work-harden the copper wire and it is no longer "elastic" at the point of contact. After a while the connection is no longer gas-tight. Ultimately corrosion sets in and the connection fails.

 

You might get barrier strip connectors that have a captive metal plate between the screw head and the wire. That spreads the load over a much greater length of the wire to prevent it deforming and hardening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AndyID said:

 

Hi John,

 

Could you share a bit more detail on your wire in tube? Tube size, wire size, type etc?

 

Thanks

Andy

 

PS - I'd try avoid chocolate block connectors. The screws work-harden the copper wire and it is no longer "elastic" at the point of contact. After a while the connection is no longer gas-tight. Ultimately corrosion sets in and the connection fails.

 

You might get barrier strip connectors that have a captive metal plate between the screw head and the wire. That spreads the load over a much greater length of the wire to prevent it deforming and hardening.

+1 , Re chocolate blocks. That’s exactly what happens. Over time the wire then loosens and causes intermittent connection issues. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm puzzled by the universal dislike of chocolate blocks, and the perceived problems. I have, I estimate, somewhere in the region of 400 screw connections in my house in mains sockets, lights, distribution boxes etc. If the screw terminal was such a problem why aren't these failing all the time, and should the electricity supply industry be using them?

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AndyID said:

Could you share a bit more detail on your wire in tube? Tube size, wire size, type etc?

 

Not with any confidence that it will work - because I've never tried it!

 

However, for what it's worth, I am looking at : -

 

https://www.rapidonline.com/reely-high-quality-steel-spring-wire-0-5mm-x-1000mm-51-1577

 

&

 

https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/cable-sleeves/1789508

 

Now it may be that the PTFE tube is too close in internal diameter to the diameter of the wire - in which case I will go up a size in the tube.

 

Comment from those experienced in this form of point actuation will be welcomed - it's very much 'suck it and see' at the moment!

 

What is clear is that purchasing the materials this way, rather than buying the branded Mercontrol product, is much cheaper.

 

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 03/09/2020 at 21:30, cctransuk said:

Perhaps I should mention that the front, operating edges of all boards will consist of 40 x 40mm. white electrical trunking : -

 

 

 

All local section toggle swiches, isolating toggle switches and point mechanical control / frog polarity slide switches will be mounted onto the upper surface of the trunking, and the removeable capping strip will give access for wiring and maintenance.

 

Expanding on this subject, below is a diagram of what I envisage : -

 

850416978_POINTACTUATION.JPG.f60a399d34986275ad7ab30e1460bd03.JPG

 

I am hoping that, once installed, this mechanism will enable minor adjustment to be made to the point throw from the baseboard edge, rather than from beneath the baseboard.

 

Section and isolation switches will also be installed into the upper surface of the trunking, providing easy access to the wiring connections via the removeable front capping of the trunking.

 

We'll see in due course if this system works in practice!

 

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, cliff park said:

I'm puzzled by the universal dislike of chocolate blocks, and the perceived problems. I have, I estimate, somewhere in the region of 400 screw connections in my house in mains sockets, lights, distribution boxes etc. If the screw terminal was such a problem why aren't these failing all the time, and should the electricity supply industry be using them?

 

 

Hi Cliff,

 

Same here :)

 

The difference is that most of those fittings are designed to work with solid copper wire that fills a large percentage of the aperture and the screw bears on quite a large area of the wire. Typically we don't tend to use that sort of wire on our layouts.

 

So I suppose you could use chocolate blocks on a layout but only if you use wire that's appropriate for the connector. Alternatively brass ferules could be soldered or perhaps crimped on the ends of the wires but that seems like a bit of a pain.

 

Cheers,

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Not with any confidence that it will work - because I've never tried it!

 

However, for what it's worth, I am looking at : -

 

 

Hi John,

 

I was hoping you had cracked it :)

 

I'm at a similar stage. I have some PTFE tube but I'm not sure what would be the best wire to use with it. I'll let you know how I get on.

 

In my case the drive is coming from a servo but in some situations I want to be able to mount the servos at the front edge of the baseboard (see previous comment regarding knees.)

 

Cheers

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, AndyID said:

 

Hi Cliff,

 

Same here :)

 

The difference is that most of those fittings are designed to work with solid copper wire that fills a large percentage of the aperture and the screw bears on quite a large area of the wire. Typically we don't tend to use that sort of wire on our layouts.

 

So I suppose you could use chocolate blocks on a layout but only if you use wire that's appropriate for the connector. Alternatively brass ferules could be soldered or perhaps crimped on the ends of the wires but that seems like a bit of a pain.

 

Cheers,

Andy

 

I will be using the smaller size of choc. block, and large diameter bare copper wire for the busses, so I'm fairly confident that the screws will bear on a high proportion of the wire diameter.

 

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, cliff park said:

I'm puzzled by the universal dislike of chocolate blocks, and the perceived problems. I have, I estimate, somewhere in the region of 400 screw connections in my house in mains sockets, lights, distribution boxes etc. If the screw terminal was such a problem why aren't these failing all the time, and should the electricity supply industry be using them?

 

My experience of them is from a club I joined a few years ago. Before then I used D plugs & what I have seen of choc blocks has urged me to continue with D plugs. It may largely be a case of how they have been used, but these are the issues I have seen with them:

 

Because they are cut to requirements, chocs seem to be cut to what is needed at the time they are fitted. Anything extra then requires a 2nd connector or replacement of the original with a larger one. (& you can guess who do got the job of re-wiring a layout which got extra lighting installed

It also means that a connector will only fit 1 board. For our large continuous layout, this meant that each one of 10 board connections used a unique connector. Setting it up made me cringe.

By comparison, a smaller layout which I had wired with D plugs had 3 inter-board connections. I think the most connections between 2 boards was 14, but because D connectors are available in 8, 15, 25 & 37 way, I chose to use 25 way. This gives me plenty of spares for extra connections which were never really planned, like signalling, building lights etc. The connections leads are all identical, so each lead can be used for each connection.

 

Chocs use crimp connections. I prefer solder because it is continuous metal & the plug.socket is usually a better quality connection (D's are available in varying levels of quality).

Most times we set up the layout, a connection got slightly snagged & removed from its screw terminal.

On more than one occasion, the plug was connected one pin to the left or right. This could have been remedied with guide blocks but that is extra work.

I accept that these are user error, but in a club there are many potential users, some more careful than others, so everything has to be as robust as possible.

 

Chocs are also 3+ times the cost of D connectors, even when the D's have hoods, which I always use so if the cables get snagged, the entire plug gets pulled by its securing crimp.

I have used D's on the last 4 layouts I worked on (2 of my own & 2 friend expo layouts for a friend). I have yet to have a failure.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

My experience of them is from a club I joined a few years ago.

 

Thank you for your experiences - however, I think that we are talking apples and oranges here.

 

I will only be using choc. blocks for one purpose - supporting the seven heavy duty, bare, copper bus wire at the rear of each board; they will not constitute a means of electrically connecting one wire to another. I have some of the choc. blocks in stock already, and the balance is on order. The connections between the bus wires and the jumper cable plugs and sockets will be via soldered tag strips.

 

Connections between the bus wires and other equipment - controller, switches, etc. will be via soldered connections at each end.

 

The layout will not be dismantled once erected, (until it is demolished after my demise), and the jumper cable connectors will only come into play if it is necessary to isolate a board for fault-finding purposes. To all intents and purposes, the layout will be permanent, and fixed together as a single unit.

 

Electrically, the layout will be purely solder-connected; no mechanical connections will be used within electric circuits other than high quality, professional plugs and sockets.

 

John Isherwood.

 

 

Edited by cctransuk
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 04/09/2020 at 21:02, cctransuk said:

....the seven heavy duty, bare, copper bus wire at the rear of each board ....

 

I am thinking that these should be 2.5 sq.mm. (0.8 mm. dia.) solid copper wire, as found in 2.5 mm. twin and earth cable.

 

However, this would involve stripping insulation off over 100m. of cable.

 

Can anyone point me at a source of sensibly priced; (ie. comparable with buying and stripping twin and earth cable); 2.5 sq.mm. bare solid copper wire?

 

Thank you in anticipation.

 

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • cctransuk changed the title to Cab Control - Now Copper Wire Sources
3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I am thinking that these should be 2.5 sq.mm. (0.8 mm. dia.) solid copper wire, as found in 2.5 mm. twin and earth cable.

 

However, this would involve stripping insulation off over 100m. of cable.

 

Can anyone point me at a source of sensibly priced; (ie. comparable with buying and stripping twin and earth cable); 2.5 sq.mm. bare solid copper wire?

 

 

 

Sideways solution.  Wire strippers like these will bare a section of wire in the middle of a cable, allowing a joint to be formed.  

 

https://www.toolstation.com/ck-automatic-wire-stripper/p42984?store=CU&utm_source=googleshopping&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=googleshoppingfeed&gclid=CjwKCAjwkdL6BRAREiwA-kiczKVWh0OXvGjlumTjLHQZiTFOeFxUxlV3-JL8QXypS9isQnISHg9TvRoCECYQAvD_BwE

 

 

- Nigel

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nigelcliffe said:

Nigel,

 

I have something similar, from Gaugemaster, thank you.

 

However, it seemed silly to pay for plastic insulation that I'd send to landfill, if it were possible to buy bare copper wire.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I am thinking that these should be 2.5 sq.mm. (0.8 mm. dia.) solid copper wire, as found in 2.5 mm. twin and earth cable.

 

However, this would involve stripping insulation off over 100m. of cable.

 

Can anyone point me at a source of sensibly priced; (ie. comparable with buying and stripping twin and earth cable); 2.5 sq.mm. bare solid copper wire?

 

Thank you in anticipation.

 

John Isherwood.

 

You won't have to worry about voltage drop :)

 

Try googling 12awg copper or 12ga bare copper. There are lots of online suppliers in the US but maybe not in UK.

 

(Bare copper is available in home improvement stores here as it's used for ground in conduits but that probably does not apply in the UK.)

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...