My benchwork is coming along nicely, soon to start laying some track. Here is the current version of my layout design - HO, 10x20 approx, twice-around with lower level staging, DCC, mostly solo or two-person ops.
Layout design:
Staging:
Now I'm starting to think about wiring. (Remember, I'm a nube - back in the hobby after a 25 year break.)
(EDIT: I originally used the term "DCC blocks" instead of power districts. I made this correction so as not to confuse everyone. Thanks, rrinker!)
I really could use your help with DCC power districts. From what I've read, my main purpose would be to break up the layout for troubleshooting the wiring and short isolation.
Originally I was thinking four power districts - 1 for each town and 1 for staging, protected by light bulbs.
Then I pondered an alternative - protect the whole layout with an actual circuit breaker and 4 SPDT switches to isolate problems.
What do you think - one approach better than the other? Also, any thoughts on 4 power districts - overkill or not enough?
There's also something else that's confusing me. I've read that some who run DCC still wire to deaden tracks (like tracks around a turntable) so that power isn't going to "unused" locomotives. Got me wondering if each staging track should controlled with an on/off switch. Should I consider this?
I tend to over-analyze sometimes. So now I'm back to KISS. It's mostly solo ops and the layout's not that big, right? Protect it with one circuit breaker and just run one power bus each way, half-way around. Wire and test each turnout and section of track as it's laid.
Any comments, suggestions, sharing your thoughts would be most appreciated.
(Any ideas on the track plan itself are always welcome also.)
Dave
4 blocks is probably plenty, if it's only goign to be you and maybe one other operator. But use 4 breakers, not one. You can Also add the toggles to complete power off a section. If your staging is hidden, it might be a good idea to have some sort of arrangement to turn off all but the active track, to prevent accidents. Same with an engine facility.
If you plan to add occupency detection for signalling, you'll need more than 4 blocks. Usually the DCC 'blocks' are called power districts to avoid confusing with signalling blocks. Each one fo the 4 power districts would be broken down into several detection sections. If you have plenty of track feeders this won't be hard to go back and do later, you can cut the extra gaps for the detectors with a Dremel and if there are plenty of feeders already in place there won't be any dead sections after you do that.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
My layout is in a 9 by 23 foot room, around the walls, with an upper level that is 21 feet long. I divided up into 3 power districts. One for the upper level and then split the room down the center the long way for the other two, one on each side. I am also adding block detection and signals. I am using one Digitrax BDL-168 (16 blocks each) for each power district.Hope this helps.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
DMarkerI really could use your help with DCC power districts. From what I've read, my main purpose would be to break up the layout for troubleshooting the wiring and short isolation. Originally I was thinking four power districts - 1 for each town and 1 for staging, protected by light bulbs.
Then I pondered an alternative - protect the whole layout with an actual circuit breaker and 4 SPDT switches to isolate problems. What do you think - one approach better than the other?
Any ideas on the track plan itself are always welcome also.
Texas Zepher I was wondering if the staging wouldn't be better done in reverse of how you have it. That is have the ladders on either end and then connected in the middle. Seems that might be a more flexible arrangement where one would not have to constantly be backing trains in or out and/or constantly fiddling to get them turned and ready for the next operating session.
I was wondering if the staging wouldn't be better done in reverse of how you have it. That is have the ladders on either end and then connected in the middle. Seems that might be a more flexible arrangement where one would not have to constantly be backing trains in or out and/or constantly fiddling to get them turned and ready for the next operating session.
I may be reading it wrong because I'm not familiar with the area being modeled, but it seems liek he has the best of both worlds there, train finishes a run adn heads into an emptry track, to restage it just backs into the opposite side yard track and it's ready to go out again. At least for through trains. Turns would require rearranging at least the loco and caboose. FLip the staging ladders and it woudl be easier for turns but not as convenient for through trains. Got any extra room to squeeze in a couple staging tracks both ways at each end?
The problem I see with putting the staging ladders on the opposite ends is then it would be on the grade, or else the visible trackage would have to be reduced.
rrinker I may be reading it wrong because I'm not familiar with the area being modeled, but it seems liek he has the best of both worlds there, train finishes a run adn heads into an emptry track, to restage it just backs into the opposite side yard track and it's ready to go out again. At least for through trains.
I may be reading it wrong because I'm not familiar with the area being modeled, but it seems liek he has the best of both worlds there, train finishes a run adn heads into an emptry track, to restage it just backs into the opposite side yard track and it's ready to go out again. At least for through trains.
Randy, you are correct. My operating scheme is mostly through freight. I explained it in a thread last fall where I got tons of help on my layout design.
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/140466.aspx?PageIndex=2
rrinker The problem I see with putting the staging ladders on the opposite ends is then it would be on the grade, or else the visible trackage would have to be reduced.
Also correct. I really wanted to stay away from turnouts on the grade.
The only turn I wanted to model was an off-layout paper mill, with loaded pulpwood gondolas going out and empties coming back. I couldn't see how double-ended staging would help with that. The only idea I have on this is two trains in staging, one with loads and the other with empties, to sort-of simulate a turn.
To be honest, I never really thought about a combination of the two.
Back to the circuit breaker topic.. I have a follow-up question if you don't mind. Where's the best spot to locate the dcc base unit and 4 circuit breakers? I was thinking the upper left corner - one bus running left (counter-clockwise) for Marshfield, a second running left to a control panel for staging, one running right to the upper right corner town, the last running right also to the bottom right town. Not sure if this make sense. Any opinions?
You know, it wasn't that long ago that I was thinking my DCC wiring would consist of a couple of thick wires running around under the benchwork and a bunch of thin wires connecting it to the track. This forum has taught me so much!
My layout is 33ftby 28ft, and is three decks, with two major yards and 3 staging yards. My choice of using 4 districts was predicated on how many powered diesels (with and without sound) might occupy a district at a given time. If the district bogs down, then too much diesel, not enough district. Anyway, the top deck is basically one big town, 3 yards, and some mainline to another town where it splits between holding yard and a helix downto middle deck. I have a booster on the major yard, one on the rest of the top deck. Second deck has one major town, small towns, and is a branch line type main. Not as many trains, it rates a booster of its own. Bottom deck has a major staging yard, a couple of minor staging yards, and mostly mainline track. It too has its own booster. That counts up to a total of 4 power districts, 4 boosters, using NCE, 12 gauge power buss and I never have any problems.
Bob
Regardless of where you put the power supply and breakers, you're going to have a bus run of about 34 feet in each direction. I'd probably use #12 wire with that, certainly not less than #14. I would locate the power source closest to the busiest part of the layout, that way the part with the most current load will have the shortest length of bus wire to traverse. Hopefully that coincides with the furthest ditance being one of the lower traffc areas - voltage drop in the bus wire is related to the current drawn, so a 1 amp load at the 34 foot mark might be an unnoticeably drop but 5 amps at the same point might be.
Thanks Randy and Bob for your responses. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this discussion. I do have a few more follow-up questions if you don't mind.
First question relates to terminology. If I have the one power station and four circuit breakers, do I really have one power district and four "sub-districts", or what are these four sections called?
I will go with the power supply on the left side which is the busiest part of the layout. I will also go with 12 gauge wire as you suggest. Now I have a question on the feeders. With a 24" wide layout and the bus wire running down the center, I could have some feeder wires of 12" or even a little longer. I've read that 20 gauge feeders is a common recommendation, so that's my current plan. Is this going to be a problem in general accross the layout, or a problem in particular at the end of the 34' bus run to the opposite corner of the layout?
Last question (for now at least) - For soldered wire connections under the layout, is it common/acceptable practice to leave them exposed? I was assuming I would need to wrap all connections with electrical tape or some other insulating material, but I've seen a lot of examples on the Internet to the contrary. Any advice on this?
Thanks in advance for your continued guidance. (If it weren't for DCC and this forum, I never would've restarted this hobby after a 25 year hiatus.)
Yes, technically speaking the sections powered via a breaker from the same booster are sub districts since they don't have their own dedicated power supply. You see it both ways though, no one has thus far laid down a law and said "it will be so"
#20 for feeders should be fine as long as you run enough of them - as in, to each stick of track, so thereis no relying on rail joiners to power part of the track. The end result will be so many #20 wires in parallel that it's effectively heavier than the #12. And just see Cuda Ken's section on his MRC booster for why the #12 or #14 wire is recommended for longer runs - he had #18 and it prevented his booster from tripping on a short.
I made a project of painting my soldered connections with liquid electrical tape. I didn't do it right away, I ran for a while with bare soldered conenctions. But I also staggered them, so it was nearly impossible for two of them to touch and short out.
Hey, I'm back! Sketched some things out and thought I had a plan. Now I think I'm whacked again on this electrical stuff. Sure could use some more advice from Randy or anyone else willing to help.
My plan is to wire in support of four circuit breakers, but not actually buy them until my layout progresses and loco fleet is developed (which could be a few years). So I would start with just barrier strips, then maybe some toggle switches.
Here is a sketch of how I was thinking of running the busses (12 gauge) for the four districts.
For the staging, I would have toggles to only power one track at a time.
Does this make sense or is there a better way to do this?
Thanks in advance for your help.
DMarker Hey, I'm back! Sketched some things out and thought I had a plan. Now I think I'm whacked again on this electrical stuff. Sure could use some more advice from Randy or anyone else willing to help. My plan is to wire in support of four circuit breakers, but not actually buy them until my layout progresses and loco fleet is developed (which could be a few years). So I would start with just barrier strips, then maybe some toggle switches. Here is a sketch of how I was thinking of running the busses (12 gauge) for the four districts. For the staging, I would have toggles to only power one track at a time. Does this make sense or is there a better way to do this? Thanks in advance for your help.
I power all of my staging tracks. With DCC I can't think of a reason not to.
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
Dmarker,
I am building a layout not too different from yours (HO, 11x15, lower level staging) and have a Digitrax Super Chief with a second booster. Each of the two boosters is connected to a DCC Specialties PS4 circuit breaker set, yielding a grand total of 8 power districts.
I did a lot of research/questioning about the power districts, and ended up with the following split - based upon projected power need of course:
1.- incline from main level to lower level staging tracks. 2. - two lower level passenger staging tracks. 3. - four lower level freight staging tracks.
4. - main level outer mainline. 5. - main level inner main line. 6. "sub-mainline" plus sidings/yard. 7.- Steam loco terminal tracks. 8. - Diesel loco terminal trackage.
The above should work out fine, but its always possible I may need to adjust or add another district. As I am now wiring the lower level, it has become very obvious that good records need to be kept, as well as keeping the wires marked (color coding helps a lot).
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
What I did so that I could add a breaker later was to rie in a heavy-duty terminal strip (found at Home Depot) and put jumpers from the input to the 4 outputs. I used wires, but it's far easier to use the jumper bars meant for these things (although that means 2 strips, one for Rail A and one for Rail B). The overall plan was for the booster to power the input pair of terminals, which would connect to the breaker input. Each breaker output would go to a seperate pair of terminals to which each individual bus line would attach. By jumpering the 'breaker' side I merely connected allt eh terminals together. Remove jumpers, insert breaker, done.
rrinker What I did so that I could add a breaker later was to rie in a heavy-duty terminal strip (found at Home Depot) and put jumpers from the input to the 4 outputs. I used wires, but it's far easier to use the jumper bars meant for these things (although that means 2 strips, one for Rail A and one for Rail B). The overall plan was for the booster to power the input pair of terminals, which would connect to the breaker input. Each breaker output would go to a seperate pair of terminals to which each individual bus line would attach. By jumpering the 'breaker' side I merely connected allt eh terminals together. Remove jumpers, insert breaker, done. --Randy
I've used a similar approach with the heavy duty European barrier blocks from Radio Shack. Now I have all 10 blocks so the only junpers that are in place are where I still feed two bus segments from one breaker.
Hi,
I've also got screw type connectors to use for most all of my power districts. As you wrote, this will allow me to easily split them up if the need for "more power" arises. I suspect my power district that will include the sub-main and all attached industrial sidings and the yard may be a prime candidate. But, as there will typically only be one operator, maybe all will be fine as is afterall.
Your (and my) point is that it is much easier to wire for expansion & changes during construction, rather than after the layout is up and running (been there, done that).
jbinkley60 I power all of my staging tracks. With DCC I can't think of a reason not to.
OK, now this newbie is confused again with this DCC/electrical stuff. I'm not even sure how to pose the question but I think it has to do with "sizing" the system.
With the size of my layout, eventually I would have a dozen or more engines sitting on the layout - seven staged trains and a few engines in the Marshfield yard. However, I'm only planning to support two operators. This means at any given time, I would have 2-5 engines (a triple and a double) running and the rest "unused".
To size my layout, I am looking at amps - correct? If so, is it the engines in use or all the engines on the track?
More specifically - I purchased the MRC Advance 2 (I know some on this forum will cringe, but it seemed like the best fit for me - time will tell), still in the box but I believe it's rated at 3 amps. Given this, do I need toggles to power off unused staging tracks, or do I need power booster(s), or am I good to go?
Again, I appreciate your patience, and your willingness to share your knowledge and experience.
I am wiring in toggles for my staging tracks (1 for the 2 passenger trks, 1 for the 4 freight trks), and also the loco terminal trks (1 for the 2 diesel loco trks, 1 for the 2 steam loco trks). My reasoning is that the locos do take up some power just sitting there (esp. if they have sound), and that power could be needed elsewhere. With you having a 3 amp system, I suspect it makes even more sense for you to do so. Also, I am toggling both wires going to the tracks. Yes, toggling only one should be ok, but I am doing both.
ENJOY,
OK, after a bunch more Internet reading on this last night, this is where I'm at.
Originally, I was calculating total amps required for my layout as 6 engines max times .25 amps per engine, giving 1.5 amp, then double that. So a 3 amp system would be suitable. Idle engines sitting on the track - neglible so they don't count.
But, they need for toggles is really a work-around for insufficient power - amps.
Not sure how to calculate, but I really need more than 3 amps - probably closer to 6 amps?
So, lose the 8 toggles and all that extra wiring for the staging, going back to one bus feeding all of staging. Instead, add more power (grunt here)! The "proper" DCC approach woudl be two power districts - one for staging, one for the upper level - and divide the upper layout into three sub-districts for circuit protection/troubleshooting.
Am I on the right track here, or still way out in left field?
Dmarket,
I too had the same concerns for "more power", originally wanting to go with a 5 amp system and 3 additional boosters. The knowledgable folks on this and the Yahoo Digitrax forums convinced me that I was going way overboard, and that a 5 amp Super Chief with a second booster would be more than enough - especially split into 8 sub-districts via two Psx4 circuit breaker sets.
I am a lone wolf operator (almost always) and typically would run two 4 unit ABBA consists (all powered) and perhaps a switching unit with my free hand.
Having read a lot about the subject (but with little practical experience), I would split your layout into a number of power districts and perhaps add a booster. Or, you may want to replace the Zephyr with a SuperChief later on - but I would sure go with what you have first to assure it is necessary. By the way, Digitrax systems have excellent resale value on Ebay.
Keep us informed, for your "problem" is probably shared by a number of folks.
If I were in your shoes, I would be looking at the maximum working amp requirement at any one time, adding 15% for a safety margin (20% wouldn't hurt), and then adding to that any idling/accessory requirements....including reasonably foreseen ones in both cases.
Two operators are highly unlikely to operate more than one train each, and if we assume that to be as many as three sound-equipped MU'd engines, that would come to about 2 amps per operator. You wouldn't likely have all those MU'd engines pulling 10 car trains, right, so the 2 amps per operator pulling longish trains with three sound-equipped locomotives is a reasonable expectation, including the safety buffer. You now have 4 amps total. Add any accessories that may have to cadge off that power supply, or worse, off the rails themselves.
I have the Super Empire Builder which requires a 5 amp supply, and I would say I am glad to have it, even as a lone operator. If you and a friend are going to be quite active at the throttle, I would expect 3 amps to be skimpy for the total number of sound engines that two operators would want to manage concurrently.
-Crandell
selector If I were in your shoes, I would be looking at the maximum working amp requirement at any one time
If I were in your shoes, I would be looking at the maximum working amp requirement at any one time
Thanks Crandell, you hit the nail on the head. This is what I'm struggling with. For maximum amps, you add the requirements of each individual device, is that correct?
That would mean your estimate of 2 amps for three sound engines equates to .66 amps per engine. Am I thinking right?
What about the unused engines sitting on the track? Most of what I've read says this is negligible, but I've read of some who go through the effort of toggles to power off staging or roundhouse tracks. How do you work idling/unused engines into the calculation for max amps requirement?
Idle locos with decoders do draw some power, but it isn't much. Sound decoders might draw a measurable amount, non-sound decoders, I doubt you could measure the draw without some rather expensive equipment. I haven't seen where anyone publishes the numbers so that you could accurately calculate how much power you need to run those 10 steamers with sound sitting on your roundhouse tracks.
There are a coupel of reasons for the toggles. One is to just quiet things down - although with most sound decoders you can just mute the sound on parked locos using a function key without adding a toggle switch to kill track power. Another is to prevent accidents. If you have multiple locos of the same class, so that they have numbers close together, and someone over ont he other side fumbles keying in the number, they may turn up their throttle, wonder why the loco right in front of them isn't moving, so they turn the throttle up a bit more. In the emantime, they've just run a different loco through the wall of the roundhouse, or put it in the turntable pit, or pulled a train across an open switch in the staging yard.
I think I've got it - here's my plan. (But please, let me know if I'm still off-base.)
Wire the layout for five districts - one for each town on the upper layout, and one for each side of staging. Start with the heavy duty barrier strips, then add proper circuit breakers as need/funds permit.
The PA2 with 3 amps will be good to start with my limited stable of non-sound locos, but will be insufficient if/when the layout is fully stocked with sound locos (atleast a few years from now).
Most importantly, no toggles to individually deaden the eight staging tracks! You guys saved me from going down that wrong path.
Thanks again for your guidance and your patience.
Thanks, Randy, for continuing to help here. I am sorry to be a whole 20 some hours before replying again.
Yes, I think the 0.6-0.1 amp range is not unreasonable for planning purposes with sound-equipped engines pulling heavy loads. The drive trains vary, as do the decoders and their speakers, etc. I think Randy would say to plan for 0.75 amps/locomotive these days.
Toggles can be had fairly cheaply and only need five minutes to wire them into a circuit if you are a klutz like me. As Randy said just two posts back, they have their uses. However, if you are not the absent-minded type and can recall why the noise is deafening in your train room suddenly, using F8 to mute unused engines is a boon....even critical for most of us to enjoy running our layouts. You will find out for yourself that more than three engines within 15 feet at normal volume will be a test. Even then, I reduce my master volume setting on every single decoder by about 40-50% right out of the box. I don't like my wife calling to me that the banana bread is ready to come out of the oven when I have a steamer's bell ringing in the yard...she upstairs and me in the train room in the basement. They can get ridiculously loud and strident.
But, aside from more peace and enjoyment, you get to sort through the individual sounds for two or three different types of engines which is kind of nice. And, from an ecological point of view, all those muted engines mean a greener approach to power usage. Your power supply runs cooler, always a good thing, and you use less electricity that is only going to end up annoying anyway. Finally, you have a solid reserve of unused power at your finger tips.