Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Tony,

It sounds like LB does not use a single common return across all circuits.  Hungerford was initially wired with a single common return across both track and accessory (points, signals, uncoupling magnets)  circuits.  When we decided to install DCC in the goods yard the first thing we had to do was separate out the common return in the yard from the rest of the layout.  Had we not then the DCC command station would have been damaged by its interaction with the analogue power sources through the common return.  

 

Whilst this might appear to make it complicated for anyone operating the layout, my colleague Mike Evans responsible for wiring the layout, eliminated operational complexity by using the setting of the points into the yard to control whether the track feed in the yard was connected to the DCC or to the up or down main line controllers.  The system has been 100% reliable.  The DCC has been further sanitised by providing a controller with a traditional centre off knob to control speed and direction.  We therefore get the benefits of DCC with almost no additional complexity for those operators who prefer traditional analogue control systems.

 

Clayton will take the lessons learnt from Hungerford to the next level so that any part of the layout (up main, down main, station yard, or fiddle yard) can be operated under either DCC or analogue at the flick of a switch.

 

Regards,

 

Frank   

Good morning Frank,

 

LB is wired for common return throughout (though the points and signals are entirely independent). 

 

Though the analogue control is not switched off, it isn't used at the same time as when a DCC-fitted loco is running.

 

Accepting my dimness, is common return not really suitable for DCC?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, sandra said:

Tony,

Thank you for visiting yesterday and for bringing Geoff West’s stock. Can you also thank him on my behalf for loaning the stock, I’ve already converted the “Norseman” to EM gauge and tomorrow I’ll work on the “Tees Tyne Pullman”. The photographs are very good and do capture the sheer size of the layout. Also I’ve altered the incorrectly facing BR crest on the A1 60123  “H A Ivatt“, I would guess that Roy did that deliberately to see if anyone noticed, you did but I didn’t.
 

It was very kind of you to lend me the various locomotives, you’ll have to let me know if the Hunslet diesel shunter can be painted and does Tom want to finish the Deltic, for although slightly out of period it would look great if  It was completed.

 

I will have to investigate the operation of the “Queens Boards” bracket, but as you know I’ve still an enormous amount to learn about the operation of Retford’. 
 

Robert Carroll very kindly brought some coaches which he had converted to EM gauge, these ran amazingly freely and my Bachmann D11 which I’ve converted to EM but done nothing else to managed to pull 17 coaches of these coaches round the entire layout. The locomotive ran without coupling rods but the motor drives all 4 driving wheels, I do wonder if this may be the future for steam outline locomotives,

 

I hope you enjoyed your visit and I hope you can visit again soon, there is lots to do!

Sandra

It was my pleasure, Sandra,

 

It's only during the last couple of visits that I've scrutinised Retford's locos and stock at really close quarters.

 

Tony Gee is right in saying that Roy didn't want some items photographed because they were very old and/or not 'up to standard', and I appreciate that. But, as you suggest, he was not beyond deliberately putting in the odd 'blooper', just to see if anyone noticed. 

 

It required a camera for us to see that some of his Pacifics were running as 4-6-0s, and I'm sure he'd have chuckled at folk not realising it. I noticed the wrong-facing BR lion on 60123's tender because that was the side I was going to photograph. 

 

Were you able to alter the wheelsets in the manner I suggested? 

 

I'll check with Tom when I see him about the Hunslet and the Deltic. There used to be a prototype Deltic on Retford - a re-gauged Bachmann one. I wonder what happened to it? Does anyone know?

 

Meanwhile, I'll have a go at making a big telegraph pole or two and complete that J6. 

 

It is a pleasure and privilege to be involved (in a small way) with Retford. Roy was one of the greatest influences in my own modelling and I wish now I'd have gone down the EM path all those years ago. Still, I can build some EM chassis to go underneath my OO locos and have the 'best of both worlds'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Chamby]

20 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Frank,

 

LB is wired for common return throughout (though the points and signals are entirely independent). 

 

Though the analogue control is not switched off, it isn't used at the same time as when a DCC-fitted loco is running.

 

Accepting my dimness, is common return not really suitable for DCC?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

DCC uses a common supply as well as a common return.  The whole system is constantly ‘live’ as, in lay terms, it is the chips which turn power on and off within the loco’s and accessories in response to the digital commands.

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I think sound would add a lot to the shunting of the trip freight and a little to the stopping services, for the non stops I agree with you.

I'm sure you're right, Andy,

 

However, there is the little matter of practicalities. Even assuming that I'd ever adopt DCC (which is even more unlikely than the most-impossible thing anyone on earth can think of!), when you say 'add a lot' that would also have to include 'add a lot' to the cost. Let's assume that sound is only fitted to those locos which work the pick-ups and the stoppers (it's accepted that the locos which just bowl through don't need it because their own mechanical sound is sufficient). In most cases, these are the smaller locos where any available space left in the boilers is packed with ballast - and even I can tell when a tender chuffs! So, a major modification to fit speakers? 

 

The there's the practicalities of costs. A rough estimate gives me some 40 locos which work the services mentioned - the tanks, 0-6-0s, 2-6-0s and 4-6-0s and so on. What's a Decent DCC sound decoder cost? No thank you.

 

I'm sure sound has its place, but it's way down on my list of priorities (in fact it isn't even on the list). Though I concede that diesel sounds sound realistic, I've yet to hear a steam sound which convinces.

 

As has been said many times, each to their own. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

5 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

DCC uses a common supply as well as a common return.  The whole system is constantly ‘live’ as, in lay terms, it is the chips which turn power on and off within the loco’s and accessories in response to the digital commands.

Thanks Phil,

 

Though I'm still 'lost'. 

 

I wish I understood electrickery, but are you saying that common return is better for DCC-operation? I've always used common return for all the layouts I've been involved with (analogue, of course) and I assumed it was (literally) common practice. 

 

Regards,

 

Confused of LB. 

[thegreenhowards]

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm sure you're right, Andy,

 

However, there is the little matter of practicalities. Even assuming that I'd ever adopt DCC (which is even more unlikely than the most-impossible thing anyone on earth can think of!), when you say 'add a lot' that would also have to include 'add a lot' to the cost. Let's assume that sound is only fitted to those locos which work the pick-ups and the stoppers (it's accepted that the locos which just bowl through don't need it because their own mechanical sound is sufficient). In most cases, these are the smaller locos where any available space left in the boilers is packed with ballast - and even I can tell when a tender chuffs! So, a major modification to fit speakers? 

 

The there's the practicalities of costs. A rough estimate gives me some 40 locos which work the services mentioned - the tanks, 0-6-0s, 2-6-0s and 4-6-0s and so on. What's a Decent DCC sound decoder cost? No thank you.

 

I'm sure sound has its place, but it's way down on my list of priorities (in fact it isn't even on the list). Though I concede that diesel sounds sound realistic, I've yet to hear a steam sound which convinces.

 

As has been said many times, each to their own. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I realise that there isn’t a ‘snowflake in hell’s chance of you adopting DCC and nor would I recommend it for LB - too many kit built locos (which are more difficult to convert) and too few trains which would benefit. I was just sticking up for the benefits of DCC sound. One day I’ll work out how to demo my little J50 to you - all the clanking and reversing lever sounds are really rather convincing.

[landscapes]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Phil,

 

Though I'm still 'lost'. 

 

I wish I understood electrickery, but are you saying that common return is better for DCC-operation? I've always used common return for all the layouts I've been involved with (analogue, of course) and I assumed it was (literally) common practice. 

 

Regards,

 

Confused of LB. 

Hi Tony

 

I am finding this latest discussion fascinating and very interesting as well.

 

On Haymarket I have to make a decision whether I go for DCC or Analogue?

 

Having so many locomotives in a small space with an MPD Layout I thought DCC would be more appropriate and easier to manage loco movements 

 

I will be interested to see what other members say.

 

At the moment wiring and DCC to me is like brain surgery I have no idea on the subject and what to do, some serious research is definitely reacquired.

 

Regards

 

David

[thegreenhowards]

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Phil,

 

Though I'm still 'lost'. 

 

I wish I understood electrickery, but are you saying that common return is better for DCC-operation? I've always used common return for all the layouts I've been involved with (analogue, of course) and I assumed it was (literally) common practice. 

 

Regards,

 

Confused of LB. 

Tony,

 

A common return for track power as you describe it is best practice for both - DCC has a common ‘out’ as well. I think the problem with Hungerford was that they used one common return for track, signals and everything else. This meant they couldn’t just separate the track for DCC. Not something you’d need to worry about - nor anyone who use solenoid point motors because as I understand these use AC and couldn’t have a common return with the track.

 

Andy

[Chuffer Davies]

17 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Phil,

 

Though I'm still 'lost'. 

 

I wish I understood electrickery, but are you saying that common return is better for DCC-operation? I've always used common return for all the layouts I've been involved with (analogue, of course) and I assumed it was (literally) common practice. 

 

Regards,

 

Confused of LB. 

Hi Tony,

Common return in itself is no more significant for DCC as for analogue.  In fact it could be said that DCC is the ultimate manifestation of common return with both the supply and return wires being wired in common to every part of the layout.

 

The point which I failed to make clearly is that a DCC command station must not have any connections to an analogue supply.  Failure to ensure this is likely to result in terminal failure of the command station.

 

Frank

[jamie92208]

10 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Tony,

It sounds like LB does not use a single common return across all circuits.  Hungerford was initially wired with a single common return across both track and accessory (points, signals, uncoupling magnets)  circuits.  When we decided to install DCC in the goods yard the first thing we had to do was separate out the common return in the yard from the rest of the layout.  Had we not then the DCC command station would have been damaged by its interaction with the analogue power sources through the common return.  

 

Whilst this might appear to make it complicated for anyone operating the layout, my colleague Mike Evans responsible for wiring the layout, eliminated operational complexity by using the setting of the points into the yard to control whether the track feed in the yard was connected to the DCC or to the up or down main line controllers.  The system has been 100% reliable.  The DCC has been further sanitised by providing a controller with a traditional centre off knob to control speed and direction.  We therefore get the benefits of DCC with almost no additional complexity for those operators who prefer traditional analogue control systems.

 

Clayton will take the lessons learnt from Hungerford to the next level so that any part of the layout (up main, down main, station yard, or fiddle yard) can be operated under either DCC or analogue at the flick of a switch.

 

Regards,

 

Frank   

That's exactly what I plan to do with the coal yard on Green Ayre. It's wired two wire DC like the rest of the layout at the moment but has it's own power feed. I have no intention of converting the rest of the layout but was very impressed with the slow speed shunting on another layout I helped run at Warley one year. The plan is to have one 1F tank engine converted to DCC and for it to be captive in the coal yard. The feeds would be switched by the entrance points, as in Hungerford and the incoming and outgoing coal/empties would be brought in and taken away by a layout loco.  Would it be helpful if the parking spot for the DCC tank were to be on an isolating section.

 

Jamie

Edited August 25, 2020 by jamie92208

[Chuffer Davies]

5 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

A common return for track power as you describe it is best practice for both - DCC has a common ‘out’ as well. I think the problem with Hungerford was that they used one common return for track, signals and everything else. This meant they couldn’t just separate the track for DCC. Not something you’d need to worry about - nor anyone who use solenoid point motors because as I understand these use AC and couldn’t have a common return with the track.

 

Andy

Hi Andy,

Hungerford uses solenoid point motors on the scenic section and yes these are wired into the common return as are the Tortoise point motors in the fiddle yard.  

 

I'd add that because we use a Capacitor discharge system to operate the point solenoids they operate on DC rather than AC.

 

Frank

 

 

[Chuffer Davies]

3 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

That's exactly what I p,an to do with the coal yard on Green Ayre. It's wired two wire DC like the restvof the layout at the moment but has it's own power feed. I have no intention of converting thecrest if the layout but was very impressed with the sliw speed shunting on another layout I helped run at Warley one year. The plan us to have one 1F tank engine converted to DCC and for it to be captive in the coal yard. The feeds would be switched by the entrance points, as in Hungerford and the incoming and outgoing coal/empties would be brought in and taken away by a layout loco.  Would it be helpful if the parking spot for the DCC tank were to be on an isolating section.

 

Jamie

Hi Jamie,

Long time no see....

With Hungerford it is only the reception road in the goods yard that gets switched between analogue and DCC.  In your case if it works out you can do the same then the yard engine can be parked away from the reception road so will not become energised when the train is shunted into the yard on the analogue controller.  Otherwise you will need an isolating section for the yard engine.

 

On Hungerford it is the pick up goods engine that comes in on the train and shunts the yard.  They run on the main line analogue controller until they arrive in the yard and then once the points are reset the DCC supply is automatically established.  We have four DCC fitted loco's capable of operating the pick up goods services.

 

Regards,

 

Frank     

[Tony Wright]

8 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

A common return for track power as you describe it is best practice for both - DCC has a common ‘out’ as well. I think the problem with Hungerford was that they used one common return for track, signals and everything else. This meant they couldn’t just separate the track for DCC. Not something you’d need to worry about - nor anyone who use solenoid point motors because as I understand these use AC and couldn’t have a common return with the track.

 

Andy

Thanks Andy,

 

I'm beginning to understand, though faculties continue to crumble. 

 

At the risk of sounding simplistic (which I'm good at!), why would anyone wire points/signals/etc., into the same common return system as the power to the track? I've always understood it's best-practice to separate the functions. It smacks of operating everything on a DCC layout from just one 'tablet', with no separate controls for operating the points and signals. The complete opposite of the real thing, at least during the periods most of us are modelling.

 

Though LB has common return, it's divided up into 17 separate sections - four for each of the main running lines and one for the goods yard. All can be operated via cab control, meaning any of the four controllers can work any (or all) of the sections. I believe this is standard practice, and it's one I understand. What it means, of course, is that if a fault/short occurs, where it is can be detected very easily, and isolated if necessary. Is this the same as DCC 'districts'? I've seen some DCC-operated layouts (one huge one at a show) where there were no separate sections. A short occurred, and the whole thing was totally-inoperative. For the duration! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

A stall motor such as a Circuitron Tortoise is probably fine using the same Common Return as the track.

 

I can recall having problems when the Common Return is used for solenoid motors such as the old HM3. The sudden extra load could be seen in jerky operation of the loco. I think that this is because although we think of it as feed and return, the return effectively becomes the supply for either the up or down line on a double track layout.

 

So I have always wired with two Common Returns: one for the tracks, one for point/signal motors.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[jamie92208]

15 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Jamie,

Long time no see....

With Hungerford it is only the reception road in the goods yard that gets switched between analogue and DCC.  In your case if it works out you can do the same then the yard engine can be parked away from the reception road so will not become energised when the train is shunted into the yard on the analogue controller.  Otherwise you will need an isolating section for the yard engine.

 

On Hungerford it is the pick up goods engine that comes in on the train and shunts the yard.  They run on the main line analogue controller until they arrive in the yard and then once the points are reset the DCC supply is automatically established.  We have four DCC fitted loco's capable of operating the pick up goods services.

 

Regards,

 

Frank     

Thanks Frank, food for thought there. I will have a think and when I have duly thunk will let the matter rest for a while as there are other things to do first. I will no doubt progress the matter on my layout thread and not cluter up this one.

 

It's good to talk as the advert used to say.

 

Jamie

[dibateg]

I went with DCC after operating Geoff Taylors Barmouth Jn. It's a personal choice and neither system is right or wrong, at least I don't have to wire up section switches. It's been designed so that one line can operate as DC for visiting locos. I find it easier to select a loco on the handset and drive it than play roulette with section switches. Signals and points will be controlled from a traditional control panel. I like the added dimension of sound and it probably works better on a smaller layout than a main line one. Having a sound decoder in each loco is not cheap - nor are 7mm kits and accessories anyway, so I incorporate the cost of the decoder in to the whole cost of each build. However, there is still plenty of wiring, this is just the  three power feeds:-

 

Talking about building locos, I've built most of mine, but I'm not averse to buying anything that will fulfil my requirements - I wouldn't live long enough to build everything. I bought this K2 some time ago and it was already a Colwick allocated engine. It's going through a minor refurb to add detail and some minor damage. It's nicely made and hand lined and cost about a third of what it would have cost me in parts and time to build it.

 

I think you have a couple of K2's on Bytham Tony?

 

It's really good to see the pictures of Retford and to know that it will continue to develop. Having visited a few times, I didn't notice the lack of details, it was the overall view that that set the picture. I'm glad I don't live closer, as I'd be itching to get involved and I have enough on my plate....

 

Regards

Tony

 

[Michael Edge]

I first used DCC on Herculaneum Dock when the Overhead Railway was added, simply because I couldn't see any practical way of wiring this up with conventional sections. In the long run another benefit appeared with the ability to add automatic colour light signals (powered from the DCC track supply) with the addition of two connecting wires along the structure.

The next step was to convert the dock railway system to DCC, the expected benefit was more reliable running with full voltage on the track all the time - and all with very small locos.

Nothing was changed in the wiring apart from severing all the connecting lines to the CLC, this wasn't an operating problem since locos never cross these, only wagons are propelled across. The control panels simply had all their sections switched on.

That's where it has stopped, the main line part of the layout will remain DC. Since the graphite revolution running reliability has been all but perfect and there is very little difference between the two systems - I'm not really  interested in sound (all the locos on the dock system should have continuous bells!) and I find shunting almost impossible with any deceleration delay (and no brakes).

Adapting the fiddle yard to Wentworth Junction produced some complication at the ends since parts of it connect to the DCC part of HD, this meant adding two changeover switches at one end (these will need some sort of locking system) and a different connection in the plugs at the other.

One of the biggest benefits of DCC on the dock system was the ability to leave locos anywhere but this part of the layout is not signalled, all trains ran visually. The big disadvantage is that the operator needs to know the identity of each loco and there's no way of seeing what's inside the loco shed. This isn't much of a drawback with the dozen or so locos involved here but it's an enormous problem on Carlisle with more than 200 locos, any of which might be 100ft away.

Noting Frank's comments above about banking operations on Clayton, I don't think DCC is really feasible here - it certainly isn't on Wentworth Junction. On WJ all down trains must be banked so any one (or more) of 5 or 6 banking locos have to be matched with any of the train locos running in that direction. The complications of setting up and using the DCC "consist" system for this would be totally impractical and otherwise you would need another operator/driver for each banking loco. The simple solution of running all the locos (and there might be four per train on the Worsbrough) off one controller works very well in practice.

The DC/DCC debate so often turns into a matter of almost religious heresy, I just use whatever works best in the situation.

[bbishop]

I am an agnostotheist in the DC verses DCC debate.  My British layout is a simple BLT and is wired live.  I can switch off power to three zones and the points are manual using sliding switches.  I have operated it in the British Railways era using  DCC.  It is in storage at the moment and if I ever resurrect it, then it would be in the Southern Railway era using DC.  It won't be an issue that only one locomotive can be operated at a time.

 

My German BLT is wired for DCC.  This is pretty much a given, as all Spur Null stock is produced as DCC only and it would be retrograde to isolate the chip and lose all the facilities that it provides.  The points are also DCC and can be operated through the controller although I prefer separate controllers for points and locomotives.  There is a risk I could lose an address or worse but I accept it for a layout of this size.  Incidentally this is the layout that Jamie operated at Warley.

 

I'm building two Spur Null layouts at the moment.  The big one is in abeyance because of Covid, but I am using anologue points and signals because of its size and complexity.  The risk of a DCC point losing its address is just too great. 

 

The other one is committed to the Guildex small  layout competition.  It was planned as a method of hiding one of the fiddle yards on the big layout and so requires remote point operation.  The layout is DCC but I am using Peco points and just happened to have some spare Peco point motors - so what the heck.

 

Final point.  Tony mentioned the "Bucks Hill incident" at Warley.  It is good practice on a DCC layout to be able to isolate every locomotive in the fiddle yard(s).  I use cassettes.  Bill

 

 

[t-b-g]

I have operated good DCC layouts and bad DC ones and vice versa, so I know those who say that one or the other is "better" is talking rubbish!

 

The operating system on Buckingham is the best I have seen. A complex terminus, DC, with virtually no section switches. The correct controller is connected to the track via a switch on the signal controls.

 

The wiring on the layout looks like a spider web because of all the changes over the years and the added complication of the Automatic Crispin but the principle is really simple. The supply to a platform is through a number of home, starter and shunt signals, all wired in parallel. Pulling a signal puts the right controller to the track. Pulling a starter signal puts the power to the next station, (Grandborough), pulling a home signal allows Buckingham to drive it in and the shunt and calling on signals put the Buckingham controller on but leave an isolated loco at the buffers.

 

Apart from a few isolating switches in the loco shed and the ability to switch yards to a second controller so you can shunt on that while you arrive and depart on the main lines, which we seldom use as one operator driving two trains in a terminus at the same time often ends badly, you set the points and signals and turn up the controller.

 

It is very clever and I have never seen anything better in terms of wiring design for a layout with lots of complex moves.

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

Quite a lot of large DC layouts (including one I have regular dealings with) seem to have a separate common return for each of the running lines. I've never been quite clear what the benefit of that is on a purely "roundy-round" set up,

 

However, I used to be involved with TMRG (thankfully not in a electrical role) and when Bath Green Park was first constructed, it joined on to the old 4-track main line layout via a double track triangular junction, then used two of the continuous lines (and their associated storage roads) as large reversing loops. Add in four-way cab-control and you need loads of additional changeover contacts and relays to make it all behave.... 

 

I remember the two electricians burning much midnight oil to make everything work without the operators having to do anything complicated.

 

In theory/principle DCC uses "just" two wires, but in such a case all that gear would still be needed to prevent the two wires getting connected together, unless it were replaced by some equivalent digital switching boards.

 

John

[Tony Wright]

37 minutes ago, bbishop said:

I am an agnostotheist in the DC verses DCC debate.  My British layout is a simple BLT and is wired live.  I can switch off power to three zones and the points are manual using sliding switches.  I have operated it in the British Railways era using  DCC.  It is in storage at the moment and if I ever resurrect it, then it would be in the Southern Railway era using DC.  It won't be an issue that only one locomotive can be operated at a time.

 

My German BLT is wired for DCC.  This is pretty much a given, as all Spur Null stock is produced as DCC only and it would be retrograde to isolate the chip and lose all the facilities that it provides.  The points are also DCC and can be operated through the controller although I prefer separate controllers for points and locomotives.  There is a risk I could lose an address or worse but I accept it for a layout of this size.  Incidentally this is the layout that Jamie operated at Warley.

 

I'm building two Spur Null layouts at the moment.  The big one is in abeyance because of Covid, but I am using anologue points and signals because of its size and complexity.  The risk of a DCC point losing its address is just too great. 

 

The other one is committed to the Guildex small  layout competition.  It was planned as a method of hiding one of the fiddle yards on the big layout and so requires remote point operation.  The layout is DCC but I am using Peco points and just happened to have some spare Peco point motors - so what the heck.

 

Final point.  Tony mentioned the "Bucks Hill incident" at Warley.  It is good practice on a DCC layout to be able to isolate every locomotive in the fiddle yard(s).  I use cassettes.  Bill

 

 

Thanks Bill,

 

It was at Railex (Aylesbury) where I saw the non-working DCC layout.

 

I thought it best not to mention the actual layout's name; if nothing else to be fair, for I've seen it running (well) since. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Chuffer Davies]

6 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Noting Frank's comments above about banking operations on Clayton, I don't think DCC is really feasible here - it certainly isn't on Wentworth Junction.

 

The DC/DCC debate so often turns into a matter of almost religious heresy, I just use whatever works best in the situation.

 

Hi Michael,

Yep I understand that on WJ what I'm proposing for banking would be messy.  Not so on Clayton though.  We will likely only have one banked train and for this we will have two dedicated locomotives and so we will only have the one DCC consist to set up. 

 

Of course we make all these clever plans and then reality comes along and makes fools of us.  When I/we actually got round to testing the practicalities of banking trains on Clayton we set up an experiment with a goods train borrowed from Hungerford and my two prototype build  J7's one with the 16/20 cube motor you had previously recommended to me and the other with a 16/24 coreless motor.  Despite these contrasting motors the two locomotives (running on analogue) are so well matched that the train ran up the gradient and round the layout without any problem.  Indeed the match was so good that close study of the three link couplings in the 34 wagon train indicated that the first 17 wagons were being pulled and the remaining 17 were being pushed.   

 

This is a link to the video I posted on the Clayton blog which recorded our experiment:

 

As to your final statement I agree totally.  DCC is just another tool in the arsenal when all is said and done.

 

Frank

 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Chuffer Davies
train borrowed from Hungerford not Clayton s originally stated.

[St Enodoc]

33 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I have operated good DCC layouts and bad DC ones and vice versa, so I know those who say that one or the other is "better" is talking rubbish!

 

The operating system on Buckingham is the best I have seen. A complex terminus, DC, with virtually no section switches. The correct controller is connected to the track via a switch on the signal controls.

 

The wiring on the layout looks like a spider web because of all the changes over the years and the added complication of the Automatic Crispin but the principle is really simple. The supply to a platform is through a number of home, starter and shunt signals, all wired in parallel. Pulling a signal puts the right controller to the track. Pulling a starter signal puts the power to the next station, (Grandborough), pulling a home signal allows Buckingham to drive it in and the shunt and calling on signals put the Buckingham controller on but leave an isolated loco at the buffers.

 

Apart from a few isolating switches in the loco shed and the ability to switch yards to a second controller so you can shunt on that while you arrive and depart on the main lines, which we seldom use as one operator driving two trains in a terminus at the same time often ends badly, you set the points and signals and turn up the controller.

 

It is very clever and I have never seen anything better in terms of wiring design for a layout with lots of complex moves.

 

 

It is indeed a great system Tony and it inspired me, when I was much younger, to try to separate the roles of driver and signalman. I managed to develop something similar using GPO key switches (8-pole 2-way) to cascade each track feed through the point and signal switches and connect it to the controller that was at the receiving end of the move. It worked on a trial basis but DCC came along before I needed to install it on a big layout (fortunately). It would still have needed a few isolating switches at specific places to hold locos of course.

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

At the risk of sounding simplistic (which I'm good at!), why would anyone wire points/signals/etc., into the same common return system as the power to the track?

I can't answer that! I use DCC for trains and analogue (or manual) for everything else.

[Barry O]

34 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

 

Hi Michael,

Yep I understand that on WJ what I'm proposing for banking would be messy.  Not so on Clayton though.  We will likely only have one banked train and for this we will have two dedicated locomotives and so we will only have the one DCC consist to set up. 

 

Of course we make all these clever plans and then reality comes along and makes fools of us.  When I/we actually got round to testing the practicalities of banking trains on Clayton we set up an experiment with a goods train borrowed from Clayton and my two prototype build  J7's one with the 16/20 cube motor you had previously recommended to me and the other with a 16/24 coreless motor.  Despite these contrasting motors the two locomotives (running on analogue) are so well matched that the train ran up the gradient and round the layout without any problem.  Indeed the match was so good that close study of the three link couplings in the 34 wagon train indicated that the first 17 wagons were being pulled and the remaining 17 were being pushed.   

 

This is a link to the video I posted on the Clayton blog which recorded our experiment:

 

As to your final statement I agree totally.  DCC is just another tool in the arsenal when all is said and done.

 

Frank

 

 

Over the years I have seen (and undertaken ) banking of trains on Leeds Victoria (Leeds MRS layout built in the late 1970s onwards), DC,  Crystal Creek (Ian Morris USA HO layout) DC, Shap (graham Nicholas) DC then have been privileged to have a drive of Wentworth Junction (again DC). I am a supporter of DCC but don't see the need to go DCC just for one banked train! If you use the Digitrax DT400 type double controller in one hand set it would be OK (no need to consist)..

 

Shap uses DCC - as in Duette digital (ie knob turned by fingers) Control.. A bit of experimentation now sees the banked freights showing a balance point in the train where the 3 links go "!slack"

 

Mike Edge has omitted to mention that going DCC on the MD&HB has meant we can send trains along  under the dockers umbrella from one end of the layout to the other with complete confidence. If @Trams and Locos Andy  and myself are operating this is known as the "from me to you ..from you to me".. no longer do we worry about having to switch dc power sections on..The use of graphite has also helped a lot..my Avonside was cleaned about 3 years ago and still works well on my test plank.

 

Baz