Below is a picture of a layout I'd love to make. I used red lines to show where I'd put insulaters into separate the tracks. In this case, I was wondering if I could simply wire the two yards and the main track. I know I'd need multiple feeders to help provide power, but I'm just trying to see if I have the basic idea of it. So a minimum of 3 feeders could be wired due to the 2 wyes? Thanks.
The N scale section of my website is now uploaded with a lot of various things. Check it out: www.CarlettaTrains.com
You've got the isolation right. In an ideal world, you would only need 3 feeders, as you've said, but this is not an ideal world. Lots and lots of feeders are called for. The yard areas should each get their own autoreverser.
I would insulate 1 rail of each of the terminal tracks in the upper right and connect them through toggle switches instead of feeders from the bus. This will let you power down the trains in the terminal. It's not necessary, but I've found that I like to shut down sound engines and lighted passenger cars when they're "off duty."
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
You also have two reversing sections, so some provision would be needed to control them.
Edit: Never mind. I see that Mr. B. mentioned that in his reply.
Along with Mr. B's advice, making those three area's separate power districts, would help tremendously when trouble shooting a electrical problem and not shutting down the whole layout.
Take Care!
Frank
zstripeAlong with Mr. B's advice, making those three area's separate power districts, would help tremendously when trouble shooting a electrical problem and not shutting down the whole layout.
Further to Frank's comment, if your intended DCC system can produce enough power for everything, you can then subdivide its output into "subdistricts" off the same main booster. In my case, I have 2 reversing loops (each with yards within) and a teeny mainline between them. I connected the 5A PowerPro NCE output to 3 "subdistrict" circuit boards. Consulting with Tony at TonysTrains, I found I just needed a simple circuit board for each, a OG-CB for the main and a OG-AR for each reversing loop. These were not expensive, around $30-$35 each I recall. I found it valuable to consult with Tony (or someone like that) as there are more elaborate circuit boards available but he was able to advise what my situation might use as well as what sophistication I didn't need.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
The only caution I have is that if you have two trains running in the station at the top of the plan, one going to the top track and one going to the side track, they could create a conflict and seriously confuse your reversing module. Won't affect the lower wye as you can't use both legs at once.
--David
KisNap, you must have a perverted definition of "simple".
That track plan is anything but simple, including the reverse loop wiring and gapping.
One thing that I would encourage you to do and that is to stop thinking about how few feeders you could get away with and start thiking about how many feeders to add to ensure an uninterrupted flow of current.
Turnouts have a way of interrupting current flow, resulting in stalls on the finished layout. If this were my layout, I would be a pair of feeders on every end of every turnout.
Rich
Alton Junction
Now that you have shared with us more of the track diagram, how about a diagram of the entire layout. I am curious what is going on to the left of that double track in the upper left of your most recent diagram.
Is the turnout at the bottom leading into that lower yard really necessary? Trains can reach the yard from that upper turnout as well as exiting the yard to the station tracks above or to the portion of the layout to the upper left. Trains exiting the lower yard via the lower turnout cannot reach the upper left portion of your layout. Or, so it seems.
Thanks everyone for the great inforamtion. I know I'll need many feeders in order to ensure smooth operation, but I just wanted to see if I had the mast basic understanding of how the wiring would work.
The image is an image of the full layout. This is going to be a commuter layout and the two tracks in the upper left are for a maintenance facility. The tracks in the lower right will be an industrial area. I still need to make some changes to allow for a long CSX coal train I have, but I'm pretty happy with the overall with appearance with the tracks leading to the station in the upper right. That portion will be a trimmed down version of the NJ Transit (ex-Lackawanna) station in Hoboken, NJ.
I plan on having 3 stations on the mainlines that will replicate the stations in Allendale, Waldwick, and Ridgewood NJ. I wanted a third line that had more curves to it for freight trains, but I don't see how I can work it into that space. I don't want any grades on the mainline, but I wouldn't mind having some on a freight train line. It's a pretty large layout I'm hoping to build for a home layout (in my opinion). I'm open to any suggestions of how I could get a third line in there while leaving room for the stations and other buildings and houses.
KisNap The image is an image of the full layout. I plan on having 3 stations on the mainlines.
The image is an image of the full layout.
I plan on having 3 stations on the mainlines.
Also, what is the size of the footprint? Is it 10' x 12' ?
Correct. The layout is 10' by 12'. The main portion being 12' x 4' with the two offshoots being an additional 6' x 2'. The stations are in the picture below withthe platforms shown in green. The smallest station and the station on the right side of the mainline are track level platforms with the station in the bottom left being a raised platform. The option to add a picture is not available for me in this post so I'm trying to have it appear using HTML. The link to the picture is below if you'd like to check it out. The station in the yard is also near track level.
<p><imgsrc="http://i795.photobucket.com/albums/yy238/KisNap/FullLayoutWithStations_zps257949d8.jpg"alt=" "/></p>
http://i795.photobucket.com/albums/yy238/KisNap/FullLayoutWithStations_zps257949d8.jpg
Don't depend on track joiners.
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
KisNap, here is your track diagram.
So, the big loop is essentially a double mainline.
That being the case, the suggestions already made by others to make the top and bottom yards the reversing sections is a good one. If you use PSX-AR units, these two reversing sections can be their own power districts as well.
For your freight line, have you thought of running it at a slightly different elevation, at least part of the way, so it can be over or under the commuter line? I have subways on my HO scale railroad, which essentially gives me a very close (3-inch spacing) double-deck layout.
Between the levels I have horrendous 5% grades. But, the only things that typically climb them are trolleys, and they manage that slope with ease. When I do bring out the subways (Life-Like/Walthers 4-car trains, one powered) they also easily deal with the climb.
Hi Richg. What do you mean when you say don't rely on track joiners? Do you mean on them to conduct power efficiently?
I thought if having a freight line at a different elevation with smaller graders, but I couldn't think of a way to get it to look natrual within the rest of the layout. The 2 mainline tracks will not have grades which means the terrain around them will have different elevation as is seen in real life in northern Jersey.
Rail joiners a merely a friction fit, and over time loosen up. Loose connections make for poor electrical conductors. SO while on Day 1, your layoout may run with just 3 feeders (one for the mains, and one from each reverser to the yard and switching areas), eventually you will start having problems with trains stalling or slowing down as the connections weaken through the joiners. The solution is to have multiple sets of feeders all over the layout - ideally no section of track should have its only source of power be through some unsoldered rail joints.
I'm in the "solder some but not all" rail joints camp, even though I have been using fairly stable materials like extruded foam. Others solder EVERY rail joint with no problem. What I tend to do is solder two pieces of flex together before making a curve so that there is no possibly weak join in the middle of a curve, which can cause kinks. IN HO that's 6 feet of track, less what gets cut off to make the ends even. This gets a feeder in the middle. Where the joiners are no soldered, every section of flex track ges a set of feeders. I also make every rail joiner a feeder I solder feeder wires to them en masse at the workbench so I have a stock as I work on tracklaying. This has worked reliably for me on 2 layouts now, soldered curves plus every joiner a feeder, even after going through and painting the rails, including the joiners. For turnouts liek Atlas where all rails are always powered, they end up with 3 sets of feeders, one on each leg, and I have never had any problems with stalling. Other makes of turnouts, like Peco Electrofrog, require gaps on some rails, but immediately past the gaps should be feeders for the next section on beyond the turnout.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Kind of off topic but I have a stupid question:
If all track is connected to a single main power bus, what is the purpose of installing insulated joiners between track? It is all on the same circuit anyway.
bdasa Kind of off topic but I have a stupid question: If all track is connected to a single main power bus, what is the purpose of installing insulated joiners between track? It is all on the same circuit anyway.
But if there are no reversing sections or wyes, are they still necessary? For example, an around-the-room continuous loop layout with spurs or sidings only.
bdasa But if there are no reversing sections or wyes, are they still necessary? For example, an around-the-room continuous loop layout with spurs or sidings only.
A reversing section is one example, but other examples would include occupancy detection, power districts, and signal systems.
If you have a simple layout without reversing sections, separate blocks, or power districts or other , there is no need for insulated rail joiners.
KisNap What do you mean when you say don't rely on track joiners? Do you mean on them to conduct power efficiently?
What do you mean when you say don't rely on track joiners? Do you mean on them to conduct power efficiently?
Not only can you not rely on rail joiners to pass electricity efficiently, but in some cases not at all. I saw this first hand years ago when I visited a friends house in California and he had a layout which had problems with dead spots in his track, and he would slide rail joiners around to restore power.
Could DCC Wiring Be This Simple?
q so to Answer the above question, your wiring could be simple if you soldered all your rail joints except where gaps are required. Otherwise, it's not so simple. On my layout, since I'm not soldering many of my rail joints, I'm connecting wires from the main bus to the rails in many places.
The glory of DCC isn't that it necessarily simplifies your wiring job a lot, but what it does simplify is the control of the trains, in other words, no block wiring where you control the trains by feeding power to certain blocks through a control panel, which is more complicated.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 KisNap What do you mean when you say don't rely on track joiners? Do you mean on them to conduct power efficiently?
That said, I have had plenty of failures with unsoldered rail joiners after gluing down ballast. The glue gets between the rails and the rail joiners. In those instances, I have had slide the rail joiners back and forth with a pair of snipe nose pliers to restore contact.
riogrande5761 ...to Answer the above question, your wiring could be simple if you soldered all your rail joints except where gaps are required.
Well, yes, but...
A circuit of soldered rail will work, but it's not going to be as good as a bus-and-feeder system. A bus is typically a heavy copper wire, while track is nickel-silver. Copper is a much better conductor of electricity, and provides a superior path vs. a segmented and soldered stretch of track of the same length.
Best practices would be to use both a bus-and-feeder and soldered rail joints. In my case, I solder my rail joints for a good mechanical connection, to keep rails from shifting and developing kinks. Mostly I just solder rail when I'm connecting flex track on a curve, because that's where physical kinks develop.
And this is another simple "best practice" that bears repeating: Color code your wiring. I use red for the "outside" rail and black for the "inside" all around my layout, both feeders and buses. It greatly simplifies things.
Even more so in N scale because the rail is even smaller. It is somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that most N scale locos draw less current than an HO loco, and the amount of dropped voltage is directly proportional to the current drawn. Best to use a heavy bus wire and frequent feeders to avoid any problem.
Yes, this is exactly like DC - despite some who may say then never ran more than 1 set of feeders to a block, or those Atlas track plans that show only 1 feeder per block and usually only one feeder for the entire one side of the rails (common rail, where only one rail is gapped and supplied with feeders). It may work at first, but eventually there will be problems. You CAN get away without soldering any track joints - IF every piece of rail between any pair of joiners has a feeder run to it. With flex track this isn't really all that bad - effectively one set of feeders every 3 feet or so. But you absolutely do want a reliable and non-mechanical path for power to every part of the layout for the most reliable operation.
richhotrainAs far as I can recall, in my 11 years in the HO scale side of the hobby, I have never had an unsoldered rail joiner fail to carry the electrical current from one rail to another - - - with one major exception described below. That said, I have had plenty of failures with unsoldered rail joiners after gluing down ballast. The glue gets between the rails and the rail joiners. In those instances, I have had slide the rail joiners back and forth with a pair of snipe nose pliers to restore contact. Rich
Exactly, so if a modeler plans to leave his track without any ballast etc. and just run it "out of the box", then electrical connection may not be much of an issue using standard rail joiner for electrical continuity, although if there is corrosion, you might have a bad connection rarely. I'm re-using track I stored for some years which is in very good condition but has had a bit of corrosion here and there I had to clean off.
FYI, the layout I remember as a teen was ballasted and completed and the friend had dead spots where there would be no power. So my point stands.
The bottom line is, in theory, DCC wiring is simple, but if you want to have a high reliable factor, you need to provide lots of power drops and/or solder lots of connections.
MisterBeasleyriogrande5761 ...to Answer the above question, your wiring could be simple if you soldered all your rail joints except where gaps are required. Well, yes, but... A circuit of soldered rail will work, but it's not going to be as good as a bus-and-feeder system.
...to Answer the above question, your wiring could be simple if you soldered all your rail joints except where gaps are required.
A circuit of soldered rail will work, but it's not going to be as good as a bus-and-feeder system.
I fully agree. I was just pointing out that DCC is simple in theory, but not in practice. There are less than simple things that need to be done to make electrical reliabilty and fault tolerance a part of the design.
In my careers as a geologist and IT professional, we also have things called "best practices"; I agree could be considered a best practice in DCC wiring is installing a power bus and using frequent drops. Thats exactly what I am doing - using a solid wire 14 AWG bus, and running 18 AWG solid wire feeds to my track. In my case I'm doing drop to approximately every other flex track joint.
Yes, indeed. If it seems all experienced model railroaders think this way, it's true. Because, if you only run a few feeders and depend on rail joiners for conductivity, your trains won't run reliably, you'll get frustrated with them and you'll never get to be an experienced model railroader.
MisterBeasley Yes, indeed. If it seems all experienced model railroaders think this way, it's true. Because, if you only run a few feeders and depend on rail joiners for conductivity, your trains won't run reliably, you'll get frustrated with them and you'll never get to be an experienced model railroader.