How to 'future proof' a DC layout

[cabbie37]

I've had a look through the many threads in this forum but haven't been able to answer my question. I am planning a small layout that, for a number of reasons, I will build in 'normal' DC format. I would like to (probably) move to DCC in the future and would like to ensure I don't build in any 'gotchas' that would get in the way of making that move..

 

Any advice or suggestions would be very welcome. Track choice will almost certainly be PECO Code 75 electrofrog as I was able to snap up a large number of brand new points recently at a very advantageous price...

 

I'm quite happy to be told that route is not possible should that be the reality of the approach..

 

many thanks

 

Hugh

[Nigelcliffe]

Wire it carefully, using "best practise" advice for electrofrog turnouts to change the frog polarity.  (Brian Lambert's site is a good source of advice for wiring).  

 

Use reasonable wire cross-section for all main feeds from control panel into layout.  Short wires to track (and frogs) can be lighter (thinner) wire.  

 

Don't use the frog polarity to isolate a siding/junction (ie. extending the frog power into the siding) if there is any possibility of a loco being left in the the track switched by the frog.   Instead fit a separate switch for the siding (switch could be associated/attached to the frog if you have an easy way to convert it when changing to DCC).     If you have a siding which isolates when the blades of turnout moves, then in DCC, any loco would be "off", which would then turn off sounds and lights.  
This sort of cascaded isolation in DC can cause DCC problems through junctions;  whilst changing turnouts the track beyond the junction may go "on/off".   This will cause a sound loco to go dead then restart (not nice).      So, best avoid doing it, and instead ensure that track power to plain track for DC use is switched/isolated via different methods.  
(Cascaded isolation works really well in DC, saves a lot of switch panels and wiring, often means track is "self isolating" based on turnout position.   But has problems when converting to DCC  ).  

 

Ensure there is a method to turn on all track sections, either with switches, or connections underneath to make the conversion from DC with section switches to DCC with all-track live.   Connections underneath rather than via a control panel would be theoretically better, but with a small layout this won't matter.    

 

And that's it.   There is no "magical DCC wire"(*).  

 

 

(*  though I can sell you a $100 special audio green marker pen to make sure your CD's play better  ).  

[Dungrange]

There is no difference between DCC and DC wiring, apart from the fact that section switches and isolating sections are not required in DCC.  Just wire as per good practise in DC and then when you want to switch, unplug the DC controller, turn all the sections on and then plug in your DCC command station.

 

The only point worth highlighting is to avoid using the thinnest of wire.  7/0.2 'layout wire' is rated at something like 1.4 Amps, which is okay for most DC controllers, but a bit on the light side for a DCC command station that may be rated at 3, 4 or 5 Amps.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Dungrange

[Buhar]

It's not a huge step to convert DC to DCC. Feeds to every length of track, frog polarity switched with the movement of the point blades.  Then all you would need to do is set all your DC section switches to live and you're good to go.

 

If you have your section switches accessible you could hard-wire them out, but keeping them could be useful for fault finding.

 

If it's a small layout you don't need to think about power districts and there's probably not a reversing loop involved.

 

Given you will already have had to sort frog polarity and any diamond crossings there's no need to think about frog juicers.

 

Alan 

 

 

[MyRule1]

I have just worked on a layout:

 

That started as DCC

Converted to DC

Reconverted to DCC

Taken back to DC

 

As the other posts have pointed out it's not too difficult. The main planning concerns how many trains at he same time you need to run on the the DC layout. If it's just one then the wiring is simple as all tracks can be live from a single source, which can be DC then DCC. If , on DC, you have passing loops, dual lines, sidings where you leave loco's etc.. then you need isolated areas with separate feeds and this was where the first conversion from DCC to DC took time, these had to be made and feeder cables inserted.

 

The other two conversions were easy as it was just a matter of using connectors between various wires.

 

Three lessons I learnt:

 

Use two colour cables: red for one DC feed and black for the other, this layout had all red cables!

Label all your cables so you know what feeds what.

Avoid common return on the DC layout. It may save time and wire but stores up issues for the future.

 

The layout I referred to above is not mine but my own layout is switchable between DC and DCC so all the points made in posts in the thread apply.

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

2 hours ago, cabbie37 said:

.........I am planning a small layout that, for a number of reasons, I will build in 'normal' DC format. .........

 

I'm just wondering Hugh, what is ""normal DC" ?

Is there an "abnormal"", or unusual DC" ?

 

Some good advice and points made above.

Don't skimp on wire gauge and wire up the point frogs properly.

Colour code the wiring, using different colours from the track power, for other purposes, like point switching and accessories.

Do not use Relco or other types of so called electronic "track cleaners" with DCC.

 

With a bit of simple planning, the switching for DC operation can easily be just turned on to make all tracks live for DCC operation.

Just remember to completely disconnect and remove the DC controller or DCC system, when switching back from one type of control to the other.

 

 

.

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, cabbie37 said:

 

I'm quite happy to be told that route is not possible should that be the reality of the approach..

 

 

Happily, this is far from the case.

I wired a friend's exhibition layout for DC using many sections, just like I would do for DCC. He later donated it to my club where I was asked if it can be converted to run on either. No problem at all. It is even possible to switch the entire layout from DC to DCC at the flick of a er, switch!

 

I cannot add much to any of the previous responses (which agree with each other & are all excellent) except to say that I prefer to wire a DC layout with smaller sections which makes it compatible with DCC anyway. The drawback is a little extra wiring to switch sidings on & off manually rather than with the point, but this has benefits:

You can see the siding is live by looking a the panel.

When on DCC, you can isolate sections of the layout if you want to program a loco.
You are not relying on feeding power through excessive lengths of rail (Nickel silver is a relatively poor conductor compared to copper wire) or through many rail joiners, so this makes the method more scalable if you ever work on a big layout).

The smaller the section, the easier fault finding becomes although you will find faults are less common anyway.

You cannot easily electrically split 2 sections which have been connected together at rail level. But you can easily join 2 sections below the board which have been isolated at rail level.

[brossard]

Number one:  take dropper wires from EVERY piece of track and connect to a buss.

Number two:  Don't use rail joiners for track power.

 

I used 22 gauge wire for droppers and other functions.  18 gauge (speaker wire in my case) for the buss.  Yes, devise a colour code for your wiring and stick to it.  I chose green/black for DCC power.

 

Another vote for Allan Gartner:

 

https://www.wiringfordcc.com/

 

Nice thing about DCC is you don't actually need a control panel if you use accessory decoders for your turnouts.  I have momentary push buttons on both sides of the fascia.  The layout can be operated from either side.

 

My first layout many moons ago started off as DC.  I laboriously made a control panel for the turnouts and block sections.  It wasn't long before having trains stop suddenly because I forgot to turn on a block pi**ed me off and I converted to DCC.  My mistake there was selecting Digitrax.  All my mates to a man hated Digitrax.  The club settled on NCE as a standard and that has been great.  I haven't looked back.

 

John

[cabbie37]

Thank you all for your really helpful replies. I am much encouraged by them. The web sites mentioned, neither of which I knew, are proving to be very helpful and have provided a lot of reading (though I must be honest, the number of embedded ads in the Gartner site I am finding difficult to wade through..)

 

The other thing that struck me is the number of manufacturers of systems that now seem to exist since I last looked at DCC, some years ago. I am very much taken by the technology aspect but look at the move from DC to DCC as walking before I can run and hope that adopting DC in the first instance, for me as someone with very little experience, will enable me to iron out simple problems first before moving to DCC at a later stage..

 

Thanks once again for all the advice, it is much appreciated...

[ITG]

11 minutes ago, cabbie37 said:

I am very much taken by the technology aspect but look at the move from DC to DCC as walking before I can run and hope that adopting DC in the first instance, for me as someone with very little experience, will enable me to iron out simple problems first before moving to DCC at a later stage.

Your choice, of course, but as one who jumped straight into DCC about 5 years ago, I’d say the principles and building blocks are similar between DC and DCC, so that interim step via DC is probably not as necessary as you may think.

Ian

[Michael Hodgson]

I just like to would point out that "DCC layout" can mean merely that traction is provided by DCC, whilst point control and other accessories are controlled conventionally, or it can mean the whole lot is controlled by DCC. 

 

So if you do convert from one to the other, you can convert the track feeds and locos separately from altering your accessory control.

 

I've yet to meet anyone who has found a reason to do so, but it of course also possible to use DCC accessory control whilst keeping the track on DC !

 

3 hours ago, cabbie37 said:

 

The other thing that struck me is the number of manufacturers of systems that now seem to exist since I last looked at DCC, some years ago. I am very much taken by the technology aspect but look at the move from DC to DCC as walking before I can run and hope that adopting DC in the first instance, for me as someone with very little experience, will enable me to iron out simple problems first before moving to DCC at a later stage..

 

I would advise against that.  If I were starting from scratch I would go straight to DCC, although the cost is higher, so that could be an issue for some modellers.  It's not just the controller cost, every DCC loco needs a decoder.  If you also want sound effects, that decoder costs even more.  But layout wiring in many ways is easier to understand than DC.  As has already been pointed out with DCC you don't need all the sectioning or cab control methods that you use with DC if you want to control multiple locos on the layout, so it's simpler.

 

With DCC you can work on the original selling point of "only two wires" (although that is rather misleading in practice for a number of reasons) to the track.  This may well be sufficient on a small layout.  Red wire to one rail, black to the opposite.  But currents tend to be larger which is why thicker wire is needed, and there is more trouble relying the conduction through on rail joiners, which is why mutiple droppers are recommended. (This does also help on a DC layout).

 

DCC still faces the problem of a short circuit if you have reversing loops or triangles where trains can come back facing the other way.  With DC you would handle that through your sectioning; with DCC you use an auto-reverser module.

 

Some local clubs have layouts that are wired for both DC and DCC, so that one group of members or the other can use their own stock on the layout - but not both at the same time.

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Coming late to the hobby 20 years ago, in my late 40’s and more seriously in my early 50’s, I had no legacy investment in DC equipment, other than a couple of train-set controllers, so I went straight in to DCC from the beginning, although I kept the DC capability for playing with and test running a large collection of non-fitted locos.

Much later on I purchased a Gaugemaster Model D controller, but it’s used purely for testing locos on my rolling road and length of test track.

 

I would second the others and recommend just getting on with it and going straight into DCC.

 

NMRA DCC has been around for nearly 30 years and mainstream for about 20 years, even if the UK hobby was a bit slow in taking it up en-masse.

It’s every bit as “ conventional” or “ traditional” as DC control these days.

 

 

.

 

[brossard]

I will vote for going straight to DCC here.  Two wires are all that's needed?  Well, that's probably an oversimplification although true for a board with a piece of plain track.

 

On the subject of using DCC for track power and DC for things like point motors.  I'm leery of that.  My first layout, converted from DC to DCC had a DC control panel with toggle switches for Tortoise point motors.  At a show years ago, I recall one of the point motor toggle switches failed which was scary.  We were able to jury rig a new one.

 

Keep it simple IMO, and the way to do that is to use DCC throughout.

 

Our club layout used to have the ability to switch a section to DC for times when members wanted to run a non DCC loco.  If you're going to do that be careful that non DCC locos don't get on to DCC track.  I fried a motor once.  The club layout is being extensively refurbished and enlarged (because bigger is better, right?) and there is a debate about whether the new layout will have the ability to have DC sections.

 

John

[Jeff Smith]

I built a dcc layout some years ago and wired all the sidings to be permanently powered.  I very quickly found out that driving into an incorrectly set point resulted in a short with controller cutting out!  Mine had no sound but could be embarrassing on a sound equipped exhibition layout!

[brossard]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

I built a dcc layout some years ago and wired all the sidings to be permanently powered.  I very quickly found out that driving into an incorrectly set point resulted in a short with controller cutting out!  Mine had no sound but could be embarrassing on a sound equipped exhibition layout!

 

True, I've had that as well.  A fact of DCC life.  If you use accessory decoders, some have a feature that detects an approaching loco and will change the turnout.  I haven't got that but I did install two short protection boards (PSX-1).  One dedicated to track power and the other to accessory and other power.  The benefit of these is to act as circuit breakers protecting the DCC system against shorts.

 

John

[Ron Ron Ron]

4 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

.........I've yet to meet anyone who has found a reason to do so, but it of course also possible to use DCC accessory control whilst keeping the track on DC !      .....

 

 

Yes, this is entirely possible.

With more than a handful of points (and possibly signals), the wiring for DC operation of these alone, will be a daunting prospect for many and usually will involve a lot of wiring back to the control panel, or whatever.

 

It is quite easy to keep DC for train control, if you don't want DCC for your locos and have all your points and signals running off a stand-alone DCC arrangement, such the DCC Concepts Alpha system.

That way you could operate the points and signals from a mimic or other control panel, a bank of switches, or a lever frame set up, where the buttons, switches or levers, all connect through a mini box of tricks (a DCC encoder). 

The encoder circuit module can be housed underneath the control panel, resulting in just a single pair of wires running out to the layout's DCC accessories, either directly, or via an accessory bus.

This would save an enormous amount of wiring, in exchange for the relatively more expensive, extra cost of the appropriate bits of kit.

 

e.g. 20 points with 40 wires back to the panel (possibly 60 or 80 wires with panel LED's), replaced with just 2 wires.

 

 

.

Edited September 23, 2023 by Ron Ron Ron

[cabbie37]

Further thanks for all your imput. The case for going straight to DCC is quite compelling, it would seem. The reason I had shied away from it was the additional work and cost of chipping my locos But then I read...

 

16 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

I built a dcc layout some years ago and wired all the sidings to be permanently powered.  I very quickly found out that driving into an incorrectly set point resulted in a short with controller cutting out!  Mine had no sound but could be embarrassing on a sound equipped exhibition layout!

 

(which I dont quite grasp but I'll get there) and realised that was much I had yet to really understand. So plenty of study required yet before I take the plunge

 

Thanks once again for all your comments...

[WIMorrison]

Driving into a turnout that is set against the train will cause a short on a DC layout in the same way.

 

It has been said many times, and to repeat - there is no difference in wiring between DC and DCC and a properly wired layout will operate irrespective of the power source. There is additional effort needed if wiring for DC in that you need to add isolation switches to switch power off on specific areas of track, however with DCC you do not need to switch anything off and you leave these switches 'on' all the time (or remove them).

[MyRule1]

20 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I've yet to meet anyone who has found a reason to do so, but it of course also possible to use DCC accessory control whilst keeping the track on DC !

I did that on my previous layout.

 

I purchased a Hornby Railmaster setup when it first came out as it reduced the entry cost of DCC (including accessory control) down to a reasonable price and I had a redundant PC to run it on. At that time I had very few loco's which were DCC ready, so converted the couple that were. The 8 points on the layout were DCC operated.

 

I liked being able to operate the points from a panel but totally disliked controlling trains via a mouse. So I decided not to proceed with converting the loco's to DCC and ran the layout on DC still retaining  DCC panel control of the points.

 

Fast forward to today with a house move, retirement and a change of era for the layout. All the loco's for my layout are DCC chipped and I have a entry level controller. However this does not have accessory control  so points are DC or hand controlled.

 

 

[Jeff Smith]

4 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

Driving into a turnout that is set against the train will cause a short on a DC layout in the same way

Yes, true, unless like all of my DC end-to-end layouts, the sidings are powered by point switches.  This, in DCC was a new phenomenon for me.  Even at crossovers, with the need to use isolating rail joiners, the loco just stops unless the second point is set correctly, but does not short the controller out.

[WIMorrison]

You can operate DCC using the turnout blade to power the siding as some people do with DC, however using the blades to power the sidings (or track after the turnout) is notoriously unreliable and prone to failure, especially when showing at exhibitions. This is why it is a solution that has started to go by the wayside and even with DC people power the frogs from external switches and run separate feed to the track after turnouts which necessitates that use of insulated rail joiners, something I was doing 50 years ago.

 

 

[Jeff Smith]

Hugh,

Going back to your original question and the extension as to whether you will at some time in the future go DCC - here is my experience and some questions you might want to ask yourself:-

 

I built a DCC roundy layout for DCC equipped Bachman On30 RTR and bought a Digitrax Zephyr - track and wheels needed to be cleaned just as much as for DC which surprised me considering the much higher A/C voltage.  It worked as well as DC but to be quite honest did not give me any advantage over DC except when having two or more locos in the same siding etc.  I can see the advantages if you were for example modelling an MPD or double heading but for a modest layout, unless you already have DCC equipped locos, questionable.

 

An advantage often claimed for DCC is simpler wiring - just one feed needed! - not so unless you are relying on fishplate continuity and accepting point switched sidings.  I would say that proper and reliable wiring for DCC is almost as complex as for DC.

 

Some chips are dual function and are said to work on both DC and DCC - yes, but not well on DC.  So if you switch to DCC you need to budget for the controller and all the chips and modify all the locos you want to operate.  Incidentally I bought the Digitrax Zephyr because it has a DC option but I didn't run much DC stock with it as they buzzed quite alarmingly!

 

Anyway, I'm sure I will get some flack but this is my experience - I sold the layout but still have most of the stock and one day may build another On30 layout, but my P4 and O-16.5 layouts are strictly DC!

 

 

[NBL]

I would go straight for DCC control, if you have enough of your locos chipped to allow you to operate as you want to when the track is down.

 

For me any layout I build has 3 area that I pay utmost attention to...

 

Framework

Trackwork

Wiring

 

Every piece of track should have its own feeds linked to a main bus.  Don't rely on fishplates for anything but alignment and isolation at frogs.

 

Colour code the wiring too, it can be a right pain to fault-find otherwise.

 

Use wiring that can cope with the maximum amps that your controller can deliver.

 

You don't need to buy a top of the range DCC controller, but some of the budget ones should be avoided.  I'll sing the praises of NCE Powercab all day long, I've had mine 15 years or so with never so much as a glitch, however I am a basic DCC user, switching lights on and off and consisting is the limit of my use, I'm not interested in sound.

 

 

 

 

 

[brossard]

12 minutes ago, NBL said:

I would go straight for DCC control, if you have enough of your locos chipped to allow you to operate as you want to when the track is down.

 

For me any layout I build has 3 area that I pay utmost attention to...

 

Framework

Trackwork

Wiring

 

Every piece of track should have its own feeds linked to a main bus.  Don't rely on fishplates for anything but alignment and isolation at frogs.

 

Colour code the wiring too, it can be a right pain to fault-find otherwise.

 

Use wiring that can cope with the maximum amps that your controller can deliver.

 

You don't need to buy a top of the range DCC controller, but some of the budget ones should be avoided.  I'll sing the praises of NCE Powercab all day long, I've had mine 15 years or so with never so much as a glitch, however I am a basic DCC user, switching lights on and off and consisting is the limit of my use, I'm not interested in sound.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I pretty much agree and this reiterates my remarks from earlier.

 

DCC can be as simple or as complex as you want to make it.  There are plenty of suppliers clamouring to sell you gadgets, I mostly ignore them.

 

I have gone for sound for my 0 gauge locos, it adds a lot I think.  I did dabble in sound for 00 but, given the cost of the sound decoder system wasn't far off the price of a loco I wasn't consistent.

 

John

[newbryford]

On 23/09/2023 at 11:41, Michael Hodgson said:

 

 

I've yet to meet anyone who has found a reason to do so, but it of course also possible to use DCC accessory control whilst keeping the track on DC !

 

 

 

 

I do know of a layout that uses battery power for the locos and digital (DCC) for point control.

 

There's no reason why one couldn't use digital point control on a layout that has clockwork powered locos.