Jump to content
 

New to DCC, all the questions you never wanted to hear .....


PMW
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
27 minutes ago, Dagworth said:

I put one feed per rail per approx 4ft baseboard, not one for every single piece of track. I always solder all my rail joiners. I've had precisely ONE rail joint fail to conduct in the 20 years I've been DCC.

 

I don't solder my insulating rail joiners.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dagworth said:

I put one feed per rail per approx 4ft baseboard, not one for every single piece of track. I always solder all my rail joiners. I've had precisely ONE rail joint fail to conduct in the 20 years I've been DCC.

 

Andi

I had been wondering, as I am in the planning stage, about doing exactly this. There is comment around about corrosion affecting rail joiners long term that is bypassed if the track is effectively soldered into longer sections, a bit like real railways. I thought about making up track sections that would correspond with the blocks for detection purposes. This would be for track runs of some length.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Budgie said:

 

I don't solder my insulating rail joiners.

I had one of those appear to conduct once though - couldn't work out why a rail that should be dead was live, turned out that the brass screws at a rail end across a baseboard joint had both made contact with the alignment dowel! Took quite a while to work out what had happened.

 

Andi

 

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Dagworth said:

I put one feed per rail per approx 4ft baseboard, not one for every single piece of track. I always solder all my rail joiners. I've had precisely ONE rail joint fail to conduct in the 20 years I've been DCC.

 

Andi

I only solder short lengths onto longer lengths, all long lengths have a separate dropper, which allows for expansion/contraction, which I get.

 

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

PMW,

 

Almost every reply I read in the DCC question forum seems that I am learning a foreign language with all these new gizmos which have appeared since 2008 when I converted from DC to DCC.  I am sure many replies frighten prospective converters to forget it!  As I have stated below, none of my point solenoids or live frogs have any type of polarity switching. The only 2 polarity switches on the whole of my layout are 2 Peco PL-13 slide switches mechanically linked to the point tie bar on my live diamond crossing.   I wrote the comment below in reply to a similar question 2 weeks ago on another forum.  It might make you simplify your requirements & save you lots of money but still allow you to operate how you want.  Also, I have never bothered to solder any rail joiners to the track & have never had an electrical failures due to this.
 

 

"Very interesting forum, except that anyone trying to decide whether to convert to DCC will be confused by all the jargon used & so called complications.  Someone once said that all you need to do to convert from DC to DCC is to change your controllers, fit decoders in your locos, allocate their address & open all your isolating switches!  Probably not that simple but I converted my 2.6M x 2.3M three level exhibition layout 'Crewlisle' back in 2008 using the Lenz LH90 with the LZV100 command centre control system.  Almost prehistoric by today's offerings!  However, with usual Lenz  DCC equipment quality, it has worked without any problems & has attended 7 exhibitions.  Since then I have added two DCC Supplies PSX-1 Circuit Breakers to split the layout into two districts one controlling the high level & the other controls the main baseboard & reversing loop.  So that if a short is detected on the high level & shuts down, the main baseboard is still operating normally. 

The layout itself is 47 years old & half of the 30 Peco Code 100 points are fitted with the old style primitive small cylindrical Peco solenoids which still work OK.  The remainder are controlled with a few of the newer Peco PL-10 solenoids & the remainder mechanically by use of 1.5mm wire from the inside of the operating well.  All solenoid operated points are operated from a CDU & by the simple but reliable Peco studs mounted on mini track diagrams on the inside of the operating well.  Some of the point solenoids also operate colour light signals via simple Peco PL-13 slide switches. Yes, I agree they just operate by 'slamming' over with no frog polarity changing switch but to upset the purists further, the only two polarity switches on the whole layout are to change the polarity of the live diamond on the double junction, converted from an Insulfrog diamond.  They are both simple Peco PL-13 slide switches operated by the junction point.
 

All of the old Insulfrog points & diamond have had their plastic frogs removed & fitted with hand crafted brass ones.  The rest of the points are normal Peco Electrofrogs (not the Unifrog versions).  None of the points have polarity switches for their frogs & all my points rely on good electrical contact between the stock rail & moveable rail.  The number of failures I have had I can count on one hand.  They were not important & only happened once at an exhibition.
 

DCC can be as simple or complex as you want to make it.  With DCC I can run upto 4 trains simultaneously which I have sometimes managed at exhibitions with 2 operators.  Anyone trying to decide whether to convert to DCC, I can send you a copy of my article 'To DCC or not to DCC?' which appeared in Model Rail in October 2008."

 

Peter

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

We ran our newly converted (large = 40' x 20') O gauge layout with just one feed to a single track oval around the perimeter. We also managed four Heljan diesels running on it with just a single NCE PowerCab.

 

We eventually fitted droppers to most track sections but only because the over enthusiastic rail painter couldn't stop the paint from running down into the rail joiners and electrically insulating them!

 

My mate has just relayed the garden section of his O gauge layout without droppers - he's linked each rail to its neighbour with both rail joiners and a soldered wire bond which will allow the rails to expand & contract as the weather dictates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, Ray H said:

My mate has just relayed the garden section of his O gauge layout without droppers - he's linked each rail to its neighbour with both rail joiners and a soldered wire bond which will allow the rails to expand & contract as the weather dictates.

Bonding the rails together like that turns them into a bus in effect. Should work reliably forever. Easier to do neatly in larger scales. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Ray H said:

 

 

We eventually fitted droppers to most track sections but only because the over enthusiastic rail painter couldn't stop the paint from running down into the rail joiners and electrically insulating them!

 

 

If the joiners are making good contact, paint shouldn't be able to get between the surfaces and insulate them.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

What a fascinating series of posts, as good as a pre-prandial snifter on this Sunday in covid lock down sort of! 

 

Luckily I came late to railway modelling so was able to jump straight in via Hornby Select and peco point changers.  Then after a couple of years was confident enough to progress to NCE powercab.  Also became obsessed with one cable round the boards so all points now moved by Cobalts , some 50+.  With these you have to get polarity the right way round or the loco just stops dead!  A friend of mine said to me that he uses switches because he likes pulling them.  Well that chimed with me too.  But push buttons though, as I got the DCC Concepts Alpha Swiches package.  So far have got one board done with about 15 motors and 8 Dapol signals.  (My gosh, the costs don't half mount up!) .  The main line termimus I run by the hand cab itself plus the use of carefully picked macros- only 16 with power cab. 

 

Biggest problem in future apart from cost that I am aware off is adding new electronic bits which need a different cab number as NCE seems to only allow 3. Having yet figured a way round this yet.

 

Though not the OP,  thanks to all the contributors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Changing the Throttle/Cab number of an NCE PowerCab/Procab is reasonably straight forward.

 

Turn the power supply to the PowerCab off* & unplug said PowerCan from the PCP panel. Switch the power back on with the PowerCab still not connected.

 

Press and hold depressed the Select Loco button of the PowerCab and whilst doing so plug the PowerCab's lead back into the PCP panel and then let go of the Select Loco button.

 

The screen should show the present Cab Number of the PowerCab with the cursor flashing. Type in your new Cab Number and press Enter. Press the ESC key to escape the rest of the questions.

 

Your Cab should now have a different number until you change it again.

 

I believe there is a limit on the range of numbers you can use so I'd stick with 2, 3 or 4 if you're only planning to have a couple of Cabs.

 

* not strictly necessary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just by way of illustration. My friend has a large OO gauge fixed layout , 18by 12 , multiple levels all code 100 insulfrog 

 

it was DC with conventional isolating sections etc. He connected the dcc feed to the track and closed all the section /isolating switches 

dcc working fine now ( nce ) for several years 

 

is it best practice dcc wiring , god no. Does it work , absolutely 

dcc does not require u to do anything special if U don’t want to. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Junctionmad,

 

Welcome to the 'Keep it Simple & Practical DCC Club'.  It is good to know there are other modellers like myself who do not fit electronic gadgets just because I can (see my comments on the 9th October about converting my DC layout to DCC).  I thought I had heard it all until someone mentioned about soldering all their rail joiners.  Why make work for yourself when if it is installed correctly to start with you can have trouble free running for years to come?  How many queries have you read in this 'DCC Forum' about polarity problems with all 'singing & dancing' point motors, something is not working & similar questions?  The more electronic gizmos you fit, the more chance you will eventually get a problem from them.

 

Once more, my layout is 47 years old & I have been DCC since 2008 with no real problems.  It has attended 22 exhibitions, 7 of them since going DCC.

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 09/10/2020 at 10:07, Oldddudders said:

Bonding the rails together like that turns them into a bus in effect. Should work reliably forever. Easier to do neatly in larger scales. 

 

What rail material?

 

You need to look at the resistance compared to copper bus wiring and satisfy yourself that it will be reliable when overloads or shorts occur. It's not necessarily a good idea, especially on large layouts.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Crewlisle said:

Junctionmad,

 

Welcome to the 'Keep it Simple & Practical DCC Club'.  It is good to know there are other modellers like myself who do not fit electronic gadgets just because I can (see my comments on the 9th October about converting my DC layout to DCC).  I thought I had heard it all until someone mentioned about soldering all their rail joiners.  Why make work for yourself when if it is installed correctly to start with you can have trouble free running for years to come?  How many queries have you read in this 'DCC Forum' about polarity problems with all 'singing & dancing' point motors, something is not working & similar questions?  The more electronic gizmos you fit, the more chance you will eventually get a problem from them.

 

Once more, my layout is 47 years old & I have been DCC since 2008 with no real problems.  It has attended 22 exhibitions, 7 of them since going DCC.

 

Peter


Am following this thread with interest but balance is needed about soldering rail joiners. There maybe those who have had trouble free running not soldering but equally there are those who have had issues. When I installed a complex station approach before I ballast I test run it for a time, part of that process includes initially not soldering and I have one problematic location in this station approach because the rail joiners is not soldered yet. But it’s not making work for yourself but guarding against glue/ paint getting into the rail joint as-well.  
 

As to polarity problems these questions are mainly due to lack of understanding and are generally resolve here.  I have 260 points all fitted with those all singing electronic gizmos and not one issue, but because as you say the chance is increased of a failure the more you install such devices is not a reason not to install them. You say you had no real problems over 47 years but you have had them, all layouts will have issues at some point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking about EITHER soldering all joiners OR droppers on every track piece? Or both?

 

If you’ve soldered dropper wires to every piece of track and hooked it all up to bus wire of an appropriate csa... soldering rail joiners as well seems like huge overkill to me, and stops the rails from being able to expand and contract.

 

If you’re not an experienced “solderer” you can get away with lovely big blobs of solder under the rail to “weld” the droppers on and make sure they’re 100% secure and conducting, all hidden by ballast afterwards.

 

Neatly soldering rail joiners requires a slightly higher skill level if you’re new to it.

 

Either option is time consuming, and if you simply enjoy the process then absolutely, knock yourself out.


And of course in a thread like this the context varies hugely - converting old layouts vs building new, investing lots of time and money vs the least amount to get you running trains.

 

But in the context of a new layout that will be built to last forever, I’d say “simply” putting droppers on every length of track and using unsoldered joiners with a mm or two gap for expansion seems like the most reliable investment of time IMO. 

 

Someone please tell me if I’m missing something!

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

1 hour ago, GWL said:

Are we talking about EITHER soldering all joiners OR droppers on every track piece? Or both?

 

If you’ve soldered dropper wires to every piece of track and hooked it all up to bus wire of an appropriate csa... soldering rail joiners as well seems like huge overkill to me, and stops the rails from being able to expand and contract.

 

If you’re not an experienced “solderer” you can get away with lovely big blobs of solder under the rail to “weld” the droppers on and make sure they’re 100% secure and conducting, all hidden by ballast afterwards.

 

Neatly soldering rail joiners requires a slightly higher skill level if you’re new to it.

 

Either option is time consuming, and if you simply enjoy the process then absolutely, knock yourself out.


And of course in a thread like this the context varies hugely - converting old layouts vs building new, investing lots of time and money vs the least amount to get you running trains.

 

But in the context of a new layout that will be built to last forever, I’d say “simply” putting droppers on every length of track and using unsoldered joiners with a mm or two gap for expansion seems like the most reliable investment of time IMO. 

 

Someone please tell me if I’m missing something!

What I am getting through here is that the objective is to have very high reliability. That doesn't just mean power supply to the trains but if you are looking to any level of automation, all the peripherals, particularly detectors. I am teasing out answers as I go by asking questions that may or may not be silly, which is how we got onto soldering fishplates; it was in the context of avoiding having a dropper on more or less every rail. I would say that only for detection purposes might it be necessary to have every rail separate from its neighbour,  but in most situations it won't be (necessary). The extra detectors introduce more precision in positioning (in terms of feedback to the CAB or to the computer supervising). But then you might have a long run of track where the only requirement is to know if there's a train in it or not. Then you might have 1 dropper only if you were confident of the integrity of the rail joint itself, which in turn is a function of track laying expertise.

 

It makes a difference what kind of track, too. I will re-use a lot of setrack when I rebuild my layout, and there are a fair number of short R600's for historical reasons and they might go back on the layout. But someone else might be building with exclusively flexitrack, covering metres with few pieces, and there you might consider 1 dropper per track section completely reasonable.  Also, someone building a branchline scenario with more emphasis on realistic modelling and operations than I am, might have so few track sections that putting a dropper on each is hardly a problem. My new layout plan is hardly super large but as it has about 500 track segments if I use all my old stuff, I might be justified in welding sa few short sections together.

 

I did exhale a bit when I was told I needed to fully isolate every point and power feed each part of it, but now I get why, I will just have to get on with the soldering.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

What I am getting through here is that the objective is to have very high reliability. That doesn't just mean power supply to the trains but if you are looking to any level of automation, all the peripherals, particularly detectors. I am teasing out answers as I go by asking questions that may or may not be silly, which is how we got onto soldering fishplates; it was in the context of avoiding having a dropper on more or less every rail. I would say that only for detection purposes might it be necessary to have every rail separate from its neighbour,  but in most situations it won't be (necessary). The extra detectors introduce more precision in positioning (in terms of feedback to the CAB or to the computer supervising). But then you might have a long run of track where the only requirement is to know if there's a train in it or not. Then you might have 1 dropper only if you were confident of the integrity of the rail joint itself, which in turn is a function of track laying expertise.

 

It makes a difference what kind of track, too. I will re-use a lot of setrack when I rebuild my layout, and there are a fair number of short R600's for historical reasons and they might go back on the layout. But someone else might be building with exclusively flexitrack, covering metres with few pieces, and there you might consider 1 dropper per track section completely reasonable.  Also, someone building a branchline scenario with more emphasis on realistic modelling and operations than I am, might have so few track sections that putting a dropper on each is hardly a problem. My new layout plan is hardly super large but as it has about 500 track segments if I use all my old stuff, I might be justified in welding sa few short sections together.

 

I did exhale a bit when I was told I needed to fully isolate every point and power feed each part of it, but now I get why, I will just have to get on with the soldering.

Completely understood, and in your case where you’re likely to be reusing track for future layouts you’re right, it would be ridiculous!

 

From my perspective of building a layout where my priority is ultimate reliability, I can justify my time taken “dropping” every piece of track as for me that is the most reliable option. Plus I never intend to take the track up again.

 

It all comes down to the priorities of your use case, time, money and patience, ultimately!

Edited by GWL
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont expect to relay the layout again, after the rebuild over the coming winter. I might do a more table top project in the future, but I think it will be 5 years to finish all the scenery etc. I have another hobby inthe summer.

 

Since I am heading down the fully automatic route I dont dare cut any corners.

  • Friendly/supportive 2
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...