Older Locos (up to 30 years old) and electro frogs + DC layout

[Mitche01]

Hello all, 

 

I have been research into DC and electro frog points, I am confident I will be wiring them to switch polarity  using a frog polarity switch. What I cannot find though is information on older locos and how they can transfer between tracks that have 2 separate power supplies. I have tried to draw this out - and just wanted to have any feedback or indication on how the wiring could be done either with common returns or some other method I am not aware about.

 

I have looked through he Brian Lambert stuff but it is not so clear for me so was hoping for some advice on those that have done this (Old Hornby/Lima stock to be ran).

 

NOTE - there will be multiple feeds from each controller on to the tracks - so my diagrams may show only one feed on the "wrong" side of the frog, but there will be feeds on both sides (which is switchable on and off) and to the point itself. This is just for the specific question on how will the locos work over this type of point layout.

 

EDIT - Also worth noting - most of the points will be between the tracks that are controllerd by a guagemaster Model Q, on crossover will be onto a branch line that has a model D running it.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Mitche01

[Pete the Elaner]

Having dedicated controllers for each circuit & having to 'hand off' a train from 1 to the other is something I moved away from several years ago. If the controller fails, you're left with a dead circuit until you can replace it, but I also don't like speed matching between 1 & the next, although I never actually had a problem with it.

 

My preference is to wire each circuit to a DPDT switch & choose the controller from this. When running a train from 1 section to the other, you can switch both circuits to the same controller then once it has cleared the first circuit, this becomes free to switch back to the other controller. If a controller fails, then you can drive the whole layout from the remaining one.

It requires a little more wiring than direct from controller to circuit, but it is a lot more flexible.

 

[Mitche01]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Having dedicated controllers for each circuit & having to 'hand off' a train from 1 to the other is something I moved away from several years ago. If the controller fails, you're left with a dead circuit until you can replace it, but I also don't like speed matching between 1 & the next, although I never actually had a problem with it.

 

My preference is to wire each circuit to a DPDT switch & choose the controller from this. When running a train from 1 section to the other, you can switch both circuits to the same controller then once it has cleared the first circuit, this becomes free to switch back to the other controller. If a controller fails, then you can drive the whole layout from the remaining one.

It requires a little more wiring than direct from controller to circuit, but it is a lot more flexible.

 

 

Thank you for your comments Pete.

 

This does sound intriguing and certainly would get round the problem of the older locos with off set pickups from Front and Rear bogies as per my question.

 

I suspect the wiring will get reasonably complicated as I have a 4 track running so each controller has to be able to access all 4 tracks? Not to mention the branchline (which is also connected at a station).

 

I guess a matrix of switches that can turn controller A to E on and off lines 1-4 and branch would be the way to do it.

 

so best get to drawing up the circuits!!

[Barclay]

I too would recommend this method, known as 'cab control'. 2 pole 6 way, or even 10 way, rotary switches are readily available if you have more than 2 controllers. Then each circuit can be set to whatever controller you need.

[Mitche01]

 

I am guessing something like this controller network would do it - each switch could be set to allow all tracks to work off each controller

[DCB]

The 

8 hours ago, Mitche01 said:

Hello all, 

I have been research into DC and electro frog points, I am confident I will be wiring them to switch polarity  using a frog polarity switch. What I cannot find though is information on older locos and how they can transfer between tracks that have 2 separate power supplies. I have tried to draw this out - and just wanted to have any feedback or indication on how the wiring could be done either with common returns or some other method I am not aware about.

 

There really is not any guaranteed way for a train to transition from one controller to another at a reasonable speed,   There are specific wheezes which work with specific controllers but the same wiring will cause other controllers to burn out.  The old Lima diesels and some Hornby Ring Fields, with staggered pick ups tend to stall if the isolators aren't staggered, and the later ones put on a sudden burst of speed as loco takes power from two controllers simultaneously. 

The only way for a smooth transition is to have both up and down lines connected to the same controller.    I use rotary switches and I can switch the Up main line to A,B,C or D controllers, and the Down to B,A.C or D.  In practice I can switch between adjacent switch positions A and B so quickly the train barely jerks as long as both controllers have similar settings on the control knobs, but normally I change with the train stationary.  With insulfrogs I have connected two circuits without isolators and had both controllers connected at the same time.  That Kills MORLEY controllers, and possibly other electronic ones but 1960s Triang are fine.  The again I use two controllers on the same track for my 5 loco lash ups on the holiday layout.

As regards the diagram there isn't much point having a single crossover unless there are sidings or dead sections to park the other train when the first is changing from inner to outer.  My sons little layout  had a crossover like yours which we could never use as we had nowhere to store the other trains.

 

[Mitche01]

20 minutes ago, DCB said:

The 

There really is not any guaranteed way for a train to transition from one controller to another at a reasonable speed,   There are specific wheezes which work with specific controllers but the same wiring will cause other controllers to burn out.  The old Lima diesels and some Hornby Ring Fields, with staggered pick ups tend to stall if the isolators aren't staggered, and the later ones put on a sudden burst of speed as loco takes power from two controllers simultaneously. 

The only way for a smooth transition is to have both up and down lines connected to the same controller.    I use rotary switches and I can switch the Up main line to A,B,C or D controllers, and the Down to B,A.C or D.  In practice I can switch between adjacent switch positions A and B so quickly the train barely jerks as long as both controllers have similar settings on the control knobs, but normally I change with the train stationary.  With insulfrogs I have connected two circuits without isolators and had both controllers connected at the same time.  That Kills MORLEY controllers, and possibly other electronic ones but 1960s Triang are fine.  The again I use two controllers on the same track for my 5 loco lash ups on the holiday layout.

As regards the diagram there isn't much point having a single crossover unless there are sidings or dead sections to park the other train when the first is changing from inner to outer.  My sons little layout  had a crossover like yours which we could never use as we had nowhere to store the other trains.

 

Thank you for the feedback. I am going to go with being able to switch controllers over to cover 2 tracks for smooth movement. 

 

the diagram was just for explanation. my actual layout will have 4 tracks plus one branch. there will be cross overs staggering across all tracks.

[kevinlms]

7 hours ago, Mitche01 said:

Thank you for the feedback. I am going to go with being able to switch controllers over to cover 2 tracks for smooth movement. 

 

the diagram was just for explanation. my actual layout will have 4 tracks plus one branch. there will be cross overs staggering across all tracks.

You don't need to give all controllers access to all blocks or sections. You only need to give access to those sections that require it. A station (or signal if you wish) stop is a good way of doing some controller swapping without the train moving.

Say a train has gone into a platform, by temporarily switching that track (normally controller 2) to controller 1. While it is stopped, you switch the controllers so controller 3 is connected to track 2 and drive it away on controller 3.

Hopefully you can see that there is no value in giving controller 1 access to the track normally controlled by controller 3. A case of simplifying things.

I do hope that makes sense.

[APOLLO]

On my loft layout I run new locos and old Hornby Dublo locos 50 odd years old, and everything in between. Analog Guagemaster 4 track controller. I have no problems whatsoever crossing over from one controller to the other, set both about the same speed & direction, they all sail over the two insulated rail joiners between points. 

 

Brit15

[ikcdab]

I imagine all DC layouts with more than one controller have this issue and there are multiple ways of solving it. On my own layout I have a crossover on a double track main line leading to a branchline.  This then has three controllers, up and down main and the branch.  I solved this by considering the crossover and branch junction as a single unit.  When the road is set for the branch, relays switch everything to the down controller.  This happens automatically and is switched by the turnout switch. When the road is set for the up and down main, things revert to individual controllers. On the branch I have a handover section which is wired to two controllers but either operator can take control and switch it to their controller ( think stair and landing light with switches top and bottom).  It is reasonably complicated wiring but not that bad and the relays work like a dream. I can post wiring diagrams if you want them, just say.

Ian

[Mitche01]

24 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

I imagine all DC layouts with more than one controller have this issue and there are multiple ways of solving it. On my own layout I have a crossover on a double track main line leading to a branchline.  This then has three controllers, up and down main and the branch.  I solved this by considering the crossover and branch junction as a single unit.  When the road is set for the branch, relays switch everything to the down controller.  This happens automatically and is switched by the turnout switch. When the road is set for the up and down main, things revert to individual controllers. On the branch I have a handover section which is wired to two controllers but either operator can take control and switch it to their controller ( think stair and landing light with switches top and bottom).  It is reasonably complicated wiring but not that bad and the relays work like a dream. I can post wiring diagrams if you want them, just say.

Ian

Hello Ian,

 

Thank you for the input, I would very much like to see your wiring diagrams. that would be helpful.

[Mitche01]

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

You don't need to give all controllers access to all blocks or sections. You only need to give access to those sections that require it. A station (or signal if you wish) stop is a good way of doing some controller swapping without the train moving.

Say a train has gone into a platform, by temporarily switching that track (normally controller 2) to controller 1. While it is stopped, you switch the controllers so controller 3 is connected to track 2 and drive it away on controller 3.

Hopefully you can see that there is no value in giving controller 1 access to the track normally controlled by controller 3. A case of simplifying things.

I do hope that makes sense.

Hello Kevin,

 

Thanks for your input, 

 

Actually as I have 4 main lines and a branch line - there is a chance I may take a train from the branch line all the way to the 4th line across all the lines. So it makes sense for me to allow all controllers to connect to all lines.

 

Thanks, Simon

[ikcdab]

5 hours ago, Mitche01 said:

Hello Ian,

 

Thank you for the input, I would very much like to see your wiring diagrams. that would be helpful.

Hi Simon, well you asked for it! Here is the control panel, so you can see what we are talking about. Its the left hand junction, the single lead one I am discussing here. The right hand double junction works on similar principles. 

You will see that Foxhole junction is a double track main line, a crossover and a single lead to the branchline. There are three controllers, the up and down main lines and (on a separate panel) a controller for the branch line.

 

The route selection is by the rotary switch on the left. When selected, this uses a diode matrix to set the turnouts as required. So selecting "down branch" throws all three turnouts to allow a train from the down main to access the branch. In this case, the down controller can run a train over the crossover and onto the branch.  "Up branch" only sets the branch turnout. "Up/down main" leaves all turnouts normal.

 

The rotary switch has two sets of contacts - one set throws the turnouts and the other set throws relays to change the polarities and switches the power feeds to the relevent controllers.

You will see that the crossover and branch lead are a self-contained unit - ie the rails are broken in all tracks at either end. The diagram below shows things set for the up/down main. The power from controller one is taken from feed F, via relay R2 feeds B and via relay R1 feeds A. If you follow the routes, you will see that feed G supplies D and C, feed H supplies E.

 

You can ignore the relays connected to the signals, this circuitry means that the relevant signal clears when the route is set. You cannot have the main starting signal off when the line is set for the branch.

 

 

Here is the situation when the line is now set for the up/down branch. If you follow feeds F and G, they now go nowhere and controller 1 has been disconnected. H (controller 2) now connects to B and D and J connects to E, C and A. This then allows controller 2 to drive a train through to the branch.

 

 

 

 

For completeness, here is the settings for up branch/down main and you can follow the connections.

 

 

With this solution, there is no manual switching required. All the operator has to do is to sel;ect the route required with the rotary switch and the relays do the rest and connect the power supplies accordingly. Hope this makes sense, let me know if not.

Ian

Edited February 7, 2023 by ikcdab

[Mitche01]

Thank you Ian, That is great information. Not too difficult to follow.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Mitche01

[AndyID]

If you have not already, you might want to look at this.

 

https://www.brian-lambert.co.uk/Electrical_Page_1.html

 

And there is no need to use double-pole switches at section feeds. All that does is increases the complexity and reduces the reliability. In the event that you do want to transfer a loco between two controllers "on the fly" it also makes it more likely that it will stall.

[DCB]

On 08/02/2023 at 04:06, AndyID said:

If you have not already, you might want to look at this.

 

https://www.brian-lambert.co.uk/Electrical_Page_1.html

 

And there is no need to use double-pole switches at section feeds. All that does is increases the complexity and reduces the reliability. In the event that you do want to transfer a loco between two controllers "on the fly" it also makes it more likely that it will stall.

There is a very good reason to use double pole switches  at section feeds, it's because on complicated layouts it greatly simplifies the brain work of designing the wiring.  I made the mistake of using  single pole switches and common return and ran into some very weird problems. Dead shorts mainly    I had to change to more or less permanent return which is like common return except some sections (running clockwise) have the positive rail switched and others the negative rail.   It would have been so much easier to use paired wires from double pole switch to the track that since then I have been switching both rails. 

 

On 07/02/2023 at 06:54, APOLLO said:

On my loft layout I run new locos and old Hornby Dublo locos 50 odd years old, and everything in between. Analog Guagemaster 4 track controller. I have no problems whatsoever crossing over from one controller to the other, set both about the same speed & direction, they all sail over the two insulated rail joiners between points. 

Brit15

.You must have some connection between the tracks other than the insulated fishplates, or be going very fast and coasting across.  If you can get a train across slowly there must be an additional connection somewhere, it may be connections within the Gaugemaster or perhaps  ou do not have any locos with pick up on the loco one side only and the tender pick up on the other side only.  I tried several middle aged two traction tyre Hornby tender drive locos and early Lima, Western / Warships across from the outer main on controller B to the inner main on Controller A and all stopped dead when the last wheel on the leading bogie, or tender, or loco leaves the outer and doesn't restart until the leading wheel on the trailing bogie or tender etc touches the inner track.  Ones with pickups both sides of a bogie or loco are fine, Early Hornby tender drive 6 traction tyre and later Lima with extra pickups are fine.    The check is to put power on both controllers the same direction and to check for a voltage reading from left rail behind the isolator to right rail beyond the isolator or vice versa.  If you can get a reading there must be an additional connection somewhere.   I can't get one, my controllers are single units and my wiring is not common return

[AndyID]

6 minutes ago, DCB said:

There is a very good reason to use double pole switches  at section feeds, it's because on complicated layouts it greatly simplifies the brain work of designing the wiring.  I made the mistake of using  single pole switches and common return and ran into some very weird problems. Dead shorts mainly    I had to change to more or less permanent return which is like common return except some sections (running clockwise) have the positive rail switched and others the negative rail.   It would have been so much easier to use paired wires from double pole switch to the track that since then I have been switching both rails.

 

 

It makes the wiring much, much simpler, not to mention making the layout more reliable. And If you follow a very simple set of rules you will not have any problems. If you are having to do a lot of brain work you are over-thinking it.

 

The only time you have to be careful is with reversing loops but they are not complicated at all.

 

I've been using common-return on layouts for over sixty years and I've never had a problem with it.

[kevinlms]

On 12/02/2023 at 14:04, AndyID said:

 

It makes the wiring much, much simpler, not to mention making the layout more reliable. And If you follow a very simple set of rules you will not have any problems. If you are having to do a lot of brain work you are over-thinking it.

 

The only time you have to be careful is with reversing loops but they are not complicated at all.

 

I've been using common-return on layouts for over sixty years and I've never had a problem with it.

Nothing inherently wrong with Common Return. Where people get into trouble with it, is trying to use one power supply to 2 or more controllers, as soon as you do that, you are asking for trouble. Even if unintentional.