Transformer Advice

[chrisb74]

I'm looking for some transformer advice, if anyone can assist. I've just been gifted a Gaugemaster Series UQ four-track panel controller, but as I've only ever used simple, single track controllers with wall mounted transformers, I don't have a transformer to power it. My question is what would be my best option to provide the requisite power? Is there a transformer on the market that would meet my needs? I can't envisage having any more than two locos in motion at once, and could do with a 16v AC output to power point motors on my proposed layout. Any advice is greatly appreciated 👍🏻

[jpendle]

Gaugemaster sell 2 suitable transformers.

 

https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/gaugemaster-gmc-uq.html

 

John P

[Nigelcliffe]

1 hour ago, jpendle said:

Gaugemaster sell 2 suitable transformers.

 

https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/gaugemaster-gmc-uq.html

 

John P

 

Hmm...  Gaugemaster's information is a bit suspect, for their own products..

The UQ four-track controller needs four independent power sources.   So, that's either four of the small WM1 power-bricks, or two of the cased-in-metal M1 transformers (the M1 has two independent outputs). 

 

The instruction sheet says two of the M1 cased transformers - that's what they use in the fully-assembled version with a mains plug.   

 

 

If only wanting two-tracks, then only power half of it, and ignore the other two knobs.   
Which means one M1 cased transformer, or two WM1 bricks.   The M1 would be fine for running point motors, the WM1's might be marginal.   

 

Unless budget is really tight, get the M1.  

 

- Nigel

 

 

[chrisb74]

1 hour ago, Nigelcliffe said:

 

Hmm...  Gaugemaster's information is a bit suspect, for their own products..

The UQ four-track controller needs four independent power sources.   So, that's either four of the small WM1 power-bricks, or two of the cased-in-metal M1 transformers (the M1 has two independent outputs). 

 

The instruction sheet says two of the M1 cased transformers - that's what they use in the fully-assembled version with a mains plug.   

 

 

If only wanting two-tracks, then only power half of it, and ignore the other two knobs.   
Which means one M1 cased transformer, or two WM1 bricks.   The M1 would be fine for running point motors, the WM1's might be marginal.   

 

Unless budget is really tight, get the M1.  

 

- Nigel

 

 

Thanks for this mate. I'd like to independently power four separate sectors of track, i.e. two main running lines and two sidings srctions, but can only imagine having two trains running at once e.g. one left running on the loop while I mess about with something in the sidings. Therefore, as I don't fancy buying multiple transformers,would I be able to use one M1, splitting the two outputs between the four controls? I'm thinking one feed powering bothe the looped main lines while the other one feeds the two siding sections.

[kevinlms]

58 minutes ago, chrisb74 said:

Thanks for this mate. I'd like to independently power four separate sectors of track, i.e. two main running lines and two sidings srctions, but can only imagine having two trains running at once e.g. one left running on the loop while I mess about with something in the sidings. Therefore, as I don't fancy buying multiple transformers,would I be able to use one M1, splitting the two outputs between the four controls? I'm thinking one feed powering bothe the looped main lines while the other one feeds the two siding sections.

No, it's bad practice to share transformers between controllers.

[chrisb74]

8 hours ago, kevinlms said:

No, it's bad practice to share transformers between controllers.

Cheers for the reply. Can I ask why it's considered bad practice? If only one of loop 'A' or loop 'B' is going to be active at any point in time, why can't they share a common power feed?

[cliff park]

Consider a crossover from, say,  one loop to another. You set both controllers to the same speed and drive across. But as it crosses it at some point it will be contacting both controllers, effectively connecting them together, short circuiting them back through the common transformer winding. With separate transformer windings each supply 'floats', even with common return.

[chrisb74]

34 minutes ago, cliff park said:

Consider a crossover from, say,  one loop to another. You set both controllers to the same speed and drive across. But as it crosses it at some point it will be contacting both controllers, effectively connecting them together, short circuiting them back through the common transformer winding. With separate transformer windings each supply 'floats', even with common return.

As you may gather, I know very little about electrics! Humour me - if insulated rail joiners were used between the two turnouts that formed this crossover, would that solve this issue, or would the powered bogie on the loco bridge the gap? Alternatively, if I used conventional rail joiners and left the controller speed on the 'receiving' loop to zero, not increasing it until that loop had been isolated from the other by switching the points back (using insulfrog points), would that be OK? As you may be able to tell, I'm not keen on purchasing multiple transformers...😁

Edited February 2 by chrisb74

[Nigelcliffe]

Chrisb74's various running suggestions are between "won't work" and "could damage stuff".  

 

 

 

As buying two M1's is considered too expensive, and only two trains running at any one time,  I come back to the "only use half of it". 

 

With the four sections of track, put the wiring feeds for each to a Double Throw Centre-off switch.   This selects between the two controllers in use.   Thus, you can drive any section of track with any of the two controllers in use.   If going between two sections, you just set the two switches to the same controller.   If wanting to isolate a section, set the switch to the centre-off.   

 

This could be done with either:

- Single Pole switches, and "common return" wiring (name one rails, eg. "outside" as "common", and all wires to that rail come together, and go to one side of both controller's output,  the other rail goes via the switch).  

- Double Pole switches, and swap both rail feeds between the two controller outputs.   

 

Suitable switches will be two or three pounds each.  Look for " on - off - on " to indicate the centre off position, and the words "on" must NOT have brackets around it, ie. NOT " (on) - off - (on) " as that indicates a switch which has to be held in position.  

 

Some people have difficulty getting their heads around "common return", even though its been standard practise for 60+ years on model railways, and its recommended in the Gaugemaster instructions for their controllers.  

 

 

- Nigel

Edited February 2 by Nigelcliffe

[chrisb74]

6 hours ago, Nigelcliffe said:

Chrisb74's various running suggestions are between "won't work" and "could damage stuff".  

 

 

 

As buying two M1's is considered too expensive, and only two trains running at any one time,  I come back to the "only use half of it". 

 

With the four sections of track, put the wiring feeds for each to a Double Throw Centre-off switch.   This selects between the two controllers in use.   Thus, you can drive any section of track with any of the two controllers in use.   If going between two sections, you just set the two switches to the same controller.   If wanting to isolate a section, set the switch to the centre-off.   

 

This could be done with either:

- Single Pole switches, and "common return" wiring (name one rails, eg. "outside" as "common", and all wires to that rail come together, and go to one side of both controller's output,  the other rail goes via the switch).  

- Double Pole switches, and swap both rail feeds between the two controller outputs.   

 

Suitable switches will be two or three pounds each.  Look for " on - off - on " to indicate the centre off position, and the words "on" must NOT have brackets around it, ie. NOT " (on) - off - (on) " as that indicates a switch which has to be held in position.  

 

Some people have difficulty getting their heads around "common return", even though its been standard practise for 60+ years on model railways, and its recommended in the Gaugemaster instructions for their controllers.  

 

 

- Nigel

I appreciate this is probably like talking to a child, but bear with me 😁. Rather than switching out track sections, would a system work whereby feed 'A' from the transformer ran to an on-off-on switch, the outputs from which ran to the two controllers which subsequently provide power to the inner and outer loops? Feed 'B' could follow a similar path, eventually terminating in the two sidings sections. In my mind, I could then run a loco from the outer loop onto the inner loop via an insulfrog-point crossover without fear of short circuits, as this system would not allow both loops to be fed power simultaneously. Or am I talking out of my hat?

[jpendle]

28 minutes ago, chrisb74 said:

I appreciate this is probably like talking to a child, but bear with me 😁. Rather than switching out track sections, would a system work whereby feed 'A' from the transformer ran to an on-off-on switch, the outputs from which ran to the two controllers which subsequently provide power to the inner and outer loops? Feed 'B' could follow a similar path, eventually terminating in the two sidings sections. In my mind, I could then run a loco from the outer loop onto the inner loop via an insulfrog-point crossover without fear of short circuits, as this system would not allow both loops to be fed power simultaneously. Or am I talking out of my hat?

Please don't do that!

 

Sell the UQ, and use that money plus the money you save on buying a transformer and get yourself a Gaugemaster Q instead. 

 

Regards,

 

John P

[Nigelcliffe]

8 minutes ago, chrisb74 said:

I appreciate this is probably like talking to a child, but bear with me 😁. Rather than switching out track sections, would a system work whereby feed 'A' from the transformer ran to an on-off-on switch, the outputs from which ran to the two controllers which subsequently provide power to the inner and outer loops? Feed 'B' could follow a similar path, eventually terminating in the two sidings sections. In my mind, I could then run a loco from the outer loop onto the inner loop via an insulfrog-point crossover without fear of short circuits, as this system would not allow both loops to be fed power simultaneously. Or am I talking out of my hat?

 

May work, or may be a disaster, I don't fully understand what you're proposing.    And doesn't save anything.  

 

 

The earlier proposal is four switches,  not dozens of them.   You must already have the wires as you're proposing to connect one controller to each section.    So, wiring is a matter of connecting up four switches to the existing wiring, and those switches to two of the controllers.   

Each switch is:   Switch "up" for Control A,  "down" for Control B, or "centre" for Off.   
Four switches, either controller can control anything or anywhere.  

 

 

( There's an similar switch arrangement for four controllers, but it goes back to needing two M1 transformers...   And that does seem to be overkill for the available running spaces  ). 

 

 

- Nigel

 

 

 

 

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, chrisb74 said:

Rather than switching out track sections, would a system work whereby feed 'A' from the transformer ran to an on-off-on switch, the outputs from which ran to the two controllers which subsequently provide power to the inner and outer loops? Feed 'B' could follow a similar path, eventually terminating in the two sidings sections.

 

Yes, I think that works (to a point) provided you are using Double Pole Double Throw (DPDT) switches (ie switching both wires simultaneously).   You're just using two switches to control which of your four control knobs can be used at any one time.  However, the 'cab control' system that @Nigelcliffe highlights is much more flexible as one of your control knobs could be used to drive a train anywhere on the layout without stopping.  That is, you could drive it from the sidings to the connecting loop and then to the other loop without any issues.  You just need to ensure that the required track section switches are all set for the same controller.  

 

The issue with the method that you are proposing is that when a train leaves your sidings (powered by knob 1) when you get to your first loop, it will then need to be controlled by knob 2.  As it crosses your join between these two sections, it will either speed up or slow down (depending whether the speed on knob 1 is lower or higher than on knob 2).  Alternatively, it will bounce back and forward if you accidently set the two direction switches wrongly.  However, with a bit of practise, it should work okay (ie set both controllers at the same speed and same direction for the pass between one controller and the other).

 

Where the method you're proposing falls down is passing a train between your two loops.  Because you're proposing that only one or other of these can be used at the same time (because they are both powered from the same transformer winding), you can't drive a train across the gap in a realistic manner.  You'd have to drive the locomotive through the crossover and then it would come to a halt once you were over the insulating joiners.  You could then throw your switch and use the other controller.  I'm not sure that stopping is particularly desirable, but perhaps you could live with that or with a bit of skill you could learn to throw the switch as the locomotive crosses the gap (provided of course you had set up the other controller to a similar speed and same direction in advance).  However, the one problem that you wouldn't be able to overcome without the hand of God, would be if you have any locomotives where the pickups on one side are on the locomotive and the pick ups on the other side are in the tender (I'm thinking 1980s Hornby models here).   With such a locomotive, it would stop once the locomotive passed over the insulated joiner and throwing your switch would do nothing, because the tender wouldn't have made it over the gap.  The hand of God would become your only solution for these locomotives.

 

I'd therefore follow the diagram that @Nigelcliffe has provided above, as it's the better solution.

[chrisb74]

5 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

Yes, I think that works (to a point) provided you are using Double Pole Double Throw (DPDT) switches (ie switching both wires simultaneously).   You're just using two switches to control which of your four control knobs can be used at any one time.  However, the 'cab control' system that @Nigelcliffe highlights is much more flexible as one of your control knobs could be used to drive a train anywhere on the layout without stopping.  That is, you could drive it from the sidings to the connecting loop and then to the other loop without any issues.  You just need to ensure that the required track section switches are all set for the same controller.  

 

The issue with the method that you are proposing is that when a train leaves your sidings (powered by knob 1) when you get to your first loop, it will then need to be controlled by knob 2.  As it crosses your join between these two sections, it will either speed up or slow down (depending whether the speed on knob 1 is lower or higher than on knob 2).  Alternatively, it will bounce back and forward if you accidently set the two direction switches wrongly.  However, with a bit of practise, it should work okay (ie set both controllers at the same speed and same direction for the pass between one controller and the other).

 

Where the method you're proposing falls down is passing a train between your two loops.  Because you're proposing that only one or other of these can be used at the same time (because they are both powered from the same transformer winding), you can't drive a train across the gap in a realistic manner.  You'd have to drive the locomotive through the crossover and then it would come to a halt once you were over the insulating joiners.  You could then throw your switch and use the other controller.  I'm not sure that stopping is particularly desirable, but perhaps you could live with that or with a bit of skill you could learn to throw the switch as the locomotive crosses the gap (provided of course you had set up the other controller to a similar speed and same direction in advance).  However, the one problem that you wouldn't be able to overcome without the hand of God, would be if you have any locomotives where the pickups on one side are on the locomotive and the pick ups on the other side are in the tender (I'm thinking 1980s Hornby models here).   With such a locomotive, it would stop once the locomotive passed over the insulated joiner and throwing your switch would do nothing, because the tender wouldn't have made it over the gap.  The hand of God would become your only solution for these locomotives.

 

I'd therefore follow the diagram that @Nigelcliffe has provided above, as it's the better solution.

Thanks David - I think between you and Nigel, I'm finally starting to grasp this!

[chrisb74]

6 hours ago, Nigelcliffe said:

 

May work, or may be a disaster, I don't fully understand what you're proposing.    And doesn't save anything.  

 

 

The earlier proposal is four switches,  not dozens of them.   You must already have the wires as you're proposing to connect one controller to each section.    So, wiring is a matter of connecting up four switches to the existing wiring, and those switches to two of the controllers.   

Each switch is:   Switch "up" for Control A,  "down" for Control B, or "centre" for Off.   
Four switches, either controller can control anything or anywhere.  

 

 

( There's an similar switch arrangement for four controllers, but it goes back to needing two M1 transformers...   And that does seem to be overkill for the available running spaces  ). 

 

 

- Nigel

 

 

 

 

I don't want to speak too soon, but I think I'm finally starting to grasp this - the diagram helped enormously, thankyou! I assume I'd need to use insulated rail joiners between each section? Also, can you clarify what type of switches I would require? I'm still struggling to get my head round poles and throws...

Edited February 2 by chrisb74

[Dungrange]

11 hours ago, chrisb74 said:

I'd need to use insulated rail joiners between each section?

Yes

 

11 hours ago, chrisb74 said:

can you clarify what type of switches I would require? I'm still struggling to get my head round poles and throws...

Poles - refers to the number of number of wires / circuits that you are switching.  Throws - refers to the number of 'on' positions that the switch has.

 

A switch labelled On - Off would be called Single Throw.  A switch labelled On - Off - On would be called Double Throw, because from the Off position, you can move it in two directions.

 

The simplest switch is a Single Pole Single Throw (SPST) switch, which has just two terminals on the base.  All an SPST switch can do is make / break a single circuit.  A Double Pole Single Throw (DPST) switch would have four terminals on the base.  It would do exactly the same as a SPST switch, except it makes / breaks two circuits at the same time (eg live and return).  You can also get 3PST and 4PST switches that would do exactly the same thing, but make / break three or four circuits.  The more poles the bigger and more expensive the switch tends to be, so although you can get large numbers of poles, they're not common.

 

All of the switches in @Nigelcliffe's drawing are double throw switches (ie one way connects to controller A and the other to controller B).  You could use either Single Pole Double Throw (SPDT) or Double Pole Double Throw (DPDT) switches.  The choice is really whether or not you plan to use common return wiring.  If you connect all your, say, outer rails as a common return (eg black wire), then you only need SPST switches to switch your feeds (eg red wire).  However, if you're not using common return wiring principles, then you'll need DPDT switches and you're switching both the inner and outer rails at the same time.

 

Once you want larger number of throws, you're into rotary switches, so you can get for example three pole, four throw variants, which is what you could use if you had two transformers and were using all four control knobs.

Edited February 3 by Dungrange

[DCB]

8 hours ago, chrisb74 said:

I appreciate this is probably like talking to a child, but bear with me 😁. Rather than switching out track sections, would a system work whereby feed 'A' from the transformer ran to an on-off-on switch, the outputs from which ran to the two controllers which subsequently provide power to the inner and outer loops? Feed 'B' could follow a similar path, eventually terminating in the two sidings sections. In my mind, I could then run a loco from the outer loop onto the inner loop via an insulfrog-point crossover without fear of short circuits, as this system would not allow both loops to be fed power simultaneously. Or am I talking out of my hat?

See  # Nigelcliffe  for the basic wiring.    Then add switches  from each of his  four on off on switches to more switches which feed individual sidings or sections of track you may wish to isolate.   My main control has 4 switches  feeding  Up Main, Down Main Up sidings and Down Sidings    Each switch can connect its section to any one of 4 controllers.   Even my continuous run has six isolatable sections.   So I can run Up and Down expresses and shunt Up and Down sidings simultaneously,or could if I was an octopus with four arms .   I can also run from Up to Down sidings by setting all4 section switches to the one controller and isolating the other trains on isolated sections.
Where I differ is all my controllers are separate   2 have hand held units  nd are at the main station,2 others are away from the main board.    

4 knob units are great for professional model railways operated from a central control point, but its difficult for two people to use ne simultaneously and for that reason  I don't even like twin units, I am always twisting the same knob.

DC wiring is a lot less complicated than trying to draw the wiring diagram, just work from basic principles

[kevinlms]

8 hours ago, jpendle said:

Please don't do that!

 

Sell the UQ, and use that money plus the money you save on buying a transformer and get yourself a Gaugemaster Q instead. 

 

Regards,

 

John P

No need to sell the UQ, you are unlikely to raise enough to buy a transformer and a Q as well.

 

Just use the UQ, but only wire up the 2 outside controllers, as per Nigel Cliffe's diagram. By selecting the two outside ones, it's harder to chose the wrong controller.

[Nigelcliffe]

This is the Common Return version of wiring:  

 

 

It is VERY IMPORTANT to have a consistent rail-side for the return (black),  so as a loco moves around the layout, the same side of the loco is always on the return (black) rail.     If not sure, start at one power connector, and select one rail as "return" (black).  Follow that rail around until you get to another power feed, and mark the same side as "return/black".   Keep doing this tracing for every power feed.   (For a circular layout this results in the "return" being "inside rail" or "outside rail" - doesn't matter which, so long as you're consistent).  

 

Isolated rail breaks only needed in the switched rail (green),  but most would put isolators on the return (black) as well.   

 

 

And, yes, this does all work,  you can have a loco in Sidings-1 on Control-A  going in the opposite direction to a loco on Inner Loop on Control-B.  

 

 

 

Kevin's suggestion of using the outer control knobs on the QS seems very sensible;  much more likely to grab the "correct" control knob.   

 

 

 

DCB suggested adding additional on/off switches for sub-sections.    
This shows two additional on/off switches for the "Sidings 1" area.   The first feed (A)  has power all the time from the main on-off-on switches,   the other parts (B,  C)  are individually switched with an additional on/off switch.  That would allow a locomotive to be isolated in either B or C,  whilst another locomotive worked the other parts.  
Similar on/off switches could be used for other sections as required.  

 

 

 

 

[chrisb74]

I cant thank you guys enough for all your advice - it's really helped clear things up. I'm going to go down the cab control route, using the outer two controls of my UQ, and I'll use SPDT switches as I'm going to wire the layout using a common return. All I've got to do now is build it...

On 02/02/2024 at 17:34, Dungrange said:

 

Yes, I think that works (to a point) provided you are using Double Pole Double Throw (DPDT) switches (ie switching both wires simultaneously).   You're just using two switches to control which of your four control knobs can be used at any one time.  However, the 'cab control' system that @Nigelcliffe highlights is much more flexible as one of your control knobs could be used to drive a train anywhere on the layout without stopping.  That is, you could drive it from the sidings to the connecting loop and then to the other loop without any issues.  You just need to ensure that the required track section switches are all set for the same controller.  

 

The issue with the method that you are proposing is that when a train leaves your sidings (powered by knob 1) when you get to your first loop, it will then need to be controlled by knob 2.  As it crosses your join between these two sections, it will either speed up or slow down (depending whether the speed on knob 1 is lower or higher than on knob 2).  Alternatively, it will bounce back and forward if you accidently set the two direction switches wrongly.  However, with a bit of practise, it should work okay (ie set both controllers at the same speed and same direction for the pass between one controller and the other).

 

Where the method you're proposing falls down is passing a train between your two loops.  Because you're proposing that only one or other of these can be used at the same time (because they are both powered from the same transformer winding), you can't drive a train across the gap in a realistic manner.  You'd have to drive the locomotive through the crossover and then it would come to a halt once you were over the insulating joiners.  You could then throw your switch and use the other controller.  I'm not sure that stopping is particularly desirable, but perhaps you could live with that or with a bit of skill you could learn to throw the switch as the locomotive crosses the gap (provided of course you had set up the other controller to a similar speed and same direction in advance).  However, the one problem that you wouldn't be able to overcome without the hand of God, would be if you have any locomotives where the pickups on one side are on the locomotive and the pick ups on the other side are in the tender (I'm thinking 1980s Hornby models here).   With such a locomotive, it would stop once the locomotive passed over the insulated joiner and throwing your switch would do nothing, because the tender wouldn't have made it over the gap.  The hand of God would become your only solution for these locomotives.

 

I'd therefore follow the diagram that @Nigelcliffe has provided above, as it's the better solution.

Thanks David - I think between you and Nigel, I'm finally starting to grasp this!

[cliff park]

Make sure to get centre off switches. A simple SPDT is just a changeover, either A or B, not centre off.

[chrisb74]

On 01/02/2024 at 20:32, Nigelcliffe said:

 

Hmm...  Gaugemaster's information is a bit suspect, for their own products..

The UQ four-track controller needs four independent power sources.   So, that's either four of the small WM1 power-bricks, or two of the cased-in-metal M1 transformers (the M1 has two independent outputs). 

 

The instruction sheet says two of the M1 cased transformers - that's what they use in the fully-assembled version with a mains plug.   

 

 

If only wanting two-tracks, then only power half of it, and ignore the other two knobs.   
Which means one M1 cased transformer, or two WM1 bricks.   The M1 would be fine for running point motors, the WM1's might be marginal.   

 

Unless budget is really tight, get the M1.  

 

- Nigel

 

 

Just picked up an M1 for £19 inc postage on eBay 😊

[Nigelcliffe]

5 minutes ago, chrisb74 said:

Just picked up an M1 for £19 inc postage on eBay 😊

 

Well done.  As they are a fairly heavy small metal brick, that's very little after posting costs.    

Add some decent on-off-on switches and you're in business.