DCC - Am I missing something here?

[Anonymous]

HO - 8 X 12 L shape Double Main, Two Yards

When I got my track laid on my Mains on my new layout, (River Rat Junction RR) I dug out my old Command 2000 and my old Diesels, connected two wires to the track and away I went. Everything runs like a charm.

The last time I used the Command 2000 and the decoder equipped Locos, were about 6 or 7 years ago on a layout about twice this size, with a huge yard! and I still only had two wires connected to the track. Also ran like a charm!

Now everybody talks about running a Bus and feeders all over the place, every 3 feet etc etc. Is this really necessary. Are we trying to make it more complicated than it really is? I don't understand!

Appreciate your comments, Thanks, DON

[Anonymous]

I think the idea is to make it bulletproof, and avoid having to find faults later. Eventually arail joiner gets loose, or the points on a switch get a little sloppy, and things start to have trouble, and finding it will be real hard. A little extra work up front, and there should never be a problem.

[Adelie]

Without getting into the weeds, the DCC signal (not the power) is somewhat fragile, hence the need for feeders every 6-10 feet. Assuming the bus wires are the correct gauge for their length, they are a much better conductor of the signal than the rails. Rail joiners are a factor, dirt on the rails, the rails being open to interference, etc.

The strange part of DCC is that the locomotive might well just keep on running if the DCC signal has weakened between feeders, and the only way to notice it would be to try to change something (speeds, come to a stop, change the headlight status, change directions, etc.). The locomotive can just keep on humming along, essentially not "hearing" the command and not responding. If it was going 40 scale mph, it continues to go 40 scale mph despite the fact you want it to slow to 20.

If power "degrades" some it is not a big deal since the locomotive is not drawing that much. But when the signal "degrades," the ability to control the locomotive is lost.

[Anonymous]

I had an interesting thing happen when I first ran my Digitax system.I also figured 2 wires seemed to work fine .About 10 feet away from my connection point I had a shinohara switch which shorted the tracks if hooked up wrong.Well the short occurred ubut wasn't strong enough to trip the system's internal breaker.The system ran poorer as it overheated and I realized my problem before any harm was done.After cooling down it was fine but I thiink we should appreciate the manufacturer's instuctions...
Charles.

[Adelie]

The "quarter on the rails" test works pretty well to tell you whether or not you need more feeders. If you put a quarter (or any coin or metal object that will cause a short) across the rails and the booster does not squawk, you need more feeders.

[dehusman]

Even if you have a DC layout you should have feeders every 6 feet or so and a bus for the DC block. Relying on rail roiners to carry a good connections is a risk.

Good electrical practices are good electrical practices.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

I forgot to mention that I do solder all my rail joints with the exception of the turn outs. But I crimp these joiners good to make sure I have a good solid connection.

I didn't soldered the turnouts in because eventually I am going to install torttioses switch machines on all of them and eventually I am going to up grade to a Zepher because I want to run Sound locos.

Just taking my time and enjoying what I am doing!

Thanks, DON

[Anonymous]

I agree with these posts, and electrically it makes sense to have multiple feeders. This will prevent slow or dead spots in the future. A lot of times after doing ballast work in the roadbed the rail joiners will become corroded and the feeders are then VERY necessary.

[CraigN]

I'm building a new layout right now, and I am putting feeder wires on each section of track, even if it's only inches in lenght.

I feel, better safe than sorry.

[oleirish]

I just read all the DCC info you guys put out,now one of the reasons I went to DCC is to cut down the wireing mess with DC /analog ,you know blocks an all that stuff.But it sounds like you have more wireing than before! I understand the bus system. Right now I only have a temp layout 34"x8' so one feader seems fine.But allso have a DC/DCC switch on my control panel.So far I only have two DCC engines.I used feeders on my old analog systeam allso.But at the time that was a large train layout.

[rrinker]

Even if you set up multiple power districts, it's STILL less wiring than before, simply because you don't have to run it all back to a control panel and have a few additional miles of wire connecting all the block toggles.
It's also best to distibute your boosters, so if you have a large layout with 2 boosters, you put one at a location, run bus wires from it under the layout. Where that bus stops, you put the other booster and continue on. For sake of example, a long 100' layout, the ideal booster locations would be a 25' and 75'. 25' of of bus would come both directions from each booster, providing full coverage with the shortest possible wiring runs.

--Randy

[Anonymous]

Irish,

The real savings in wires comes when you compare standard DC layouts wired for multiple cabs and blocks. The cabs require rotary selectors for each block as well as direction toggles etc.....The number of wires is staggering when you have a system using say, four cabs. One guy I know still uses this system and must have spent years wiring it all up. DCC doesn't need to worry about cabs and the ever famous line, "who has my block" may slowly fade into history??? Check out cab control in standard DC and you will see what I mean.

[Adelie]

Even though I am using block occupancy detectors, it is still simpler than if I had to wire this beast with block control.

[oleirish]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Trainnut1250

Irish,

The real savings in wires comes when you compare standard DC layouts wired for multiple cabs and blocks. The cabs require rotary selectors for each block as well as direction toggles etc.....The number of wires is staggering when you have a system using say, four cabs. One guy I know still uses this system and must have spent years wiring it all up. DCC doesn't need to worry about cabs and the ever famous line, "who has my block" may slowly fade into history??? Check out cab control in standard DC and you will see what I mean.

[:)]I with you on this.
JIM

[rrinker]

Especially older stuff on various forms of cab control like the articles by Linn Wescott in MR in the 50's and 60's. Amazing methods of control, but take a gander at the wiring involved - MILES of it, and relays, all to make it easier to run the trains. And you STILL had to flip switches, just not as many with the more sophisticated methods. I'm an electrical engineer and following those diagrams sometimes is almost an exercise in futility. DCC is MUCH MUCH easier. You don't really have to know what's going on 'under the hood' to use it.

--Randy

[Anonymous]

OK you talked me into it. I'll run a short bus and some feeders!!! You scared the hell out of me with this Block and cab control and miles of wiring back to toggles etc.etc.

Won't kill me to throw a little wiring under the table! lol

Thanks, DON