Joe Staten Island West
deleted
Alton Junction
Randy, I am beginning to realize the problem with my question.
When I rewired the Model Power signals, I used 2-leg bi-polar LEDs.
The Tomar signals are using a pair of 2-leg LEDs, one red and one green.
So the white wire on the Tomar signal is actually the connection for the other leg of each LED combined together. Duh.
I withdraw the question.
Rich
But which power wire of the Tortoise would you wire it to? The power leads of the Tortoise change polarity. It can be done but you need 2 extra regular diodes. It actually would work for a bi-color red/green LED with 2 leads, with one polairty it is red, the other it is green. You could wire that in parallel with the Tortoise motor leads. Or in series - in which case no resistor is even needed, but series LEDs glow dimly while the Tortoise is moving and then brighten when it stalls, so the effect may not be desireable for on-layout signals. You could use your existing signals this same way, but you'd have to reqire them so the red and green LEDs are back to back (anti-parallel) rather than having a single common plus one wire for each color.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I was recalling this thread this morning as I was installing some signals on my layout.
I have a pair of Model Power signals that I bought when I first got into HO scale modeling about 10 years ago. The signals were wired with a red incandescent bulb and a green incandescent bulb. The signals looked ridiculous, so I rewired them with Miniatronics 3mm bi-polar red/green LEDs. As a result, each signal had two wires extending from it. I added resistors and wired each signal up to the two power wires on the respective Tortoise. These two power wires from the Tortoise connect to a DPDT which in turn is wired to a DC power pack.
That got me to thinking. I have a fairly large number of Tomar Industries signals on my layout. Each is wired to a Tortoise, using not the power terminals but rather the switching terminals. A third wire from the Tortoise is wired to a DC power pack, and the common (white) wire from the Tomar signal is wired to the other terminal on the DC power pack.
My question is, why not just wire the Tomar signal to the two power terminals on the Tortoise and skip the additional wiring altogether.
This is generally true, but then again not everyone uses Tortoises. Most stationary decoders for solenoid motors incorporate a capacitor discharge supply to prevent suddenly draining loads on the DCC power, but on average they will still cosnume more power than one driving a Tortoise. How much more? Well, since most people seem to go for the overkill on their system anyway, it may not be enough to make a difference. But if you are running a large layout with multiple operators and coming real close to the 5 amp of a typical booster, adding stationary decoders for accessories may tip you over the edge to needing more power.
Were it's NOT overstated is the idea of using the DCC bus to run structure lights and so forth. This really is a large waste of power. Not only are we talking 30ma or more for a bulb, there is an inrush current issue with incadescent bulbs plus the electrical characteristis fo the light bulb can distort the DCC signal if a significant number of them are employed. I realize no one has said they were doing this, and for good reason - it's a REALLY bad idea. Some of the "why does anyoen even attempt this" goes WAY back to the first book I ever read that talked about the first (or at least, first well known) commercially available command control system, the GE ASTRAC. In the COmplete Book of Model Railroading, author SUtton mentions the fact that since your rails will have constant power int hem, they are a convenient palce to tap off power for building lights and other accessories. NO NO and NO. For things light building and street lights, that are simply on and off, and have no real reason to operate from DCC commands - it's a huge waste of the booster output to run them. Accessory decoders for devices that actually need to respond to DCC commands - well, there really is no choice. You need a decoder to listen and respond to commands.
rrinker If you use Tortoise switch motors, 3 amps can power over a hundred with stationary decoders.
I think that the concern that using track powered stationary decoders to throw turnouts is somehow robbing power from the train is a bit overdone.
If I remember correctly, the Tortoise draws less than 0.020 amp when being held inposition. So if my math is right that means you can power 50 of them with about an amp. In my opinion, a railroad having that many turnouts will likely be very large, and will probably have multiple boosters in operation anyway. Assuming those turnouts are spread around the railroad, the effect on any one power district would be minimal.
The exception would be if all 50 of those turnouts were located in one yard. In that particular case, then I could see that a separate power supply might be beneficial.
Like Mister Beasley, I operate most of my turnouts from a series of four control panels spaced around the layout by flipping DPDT toggle switches. For a few turnouts, I use manual ground throws.
The only advantage that I see for using stationary decoders to control turnouts is that rare instance where you need to access a remote turnout when you are nowhere near it.
It all depends on what you want to do overall. It's not all negastives to using stationary decoders, you do get some benefits and features, if if those things are important to you, then it makes sense to implement them and add an additional booster if necessary. It's not nearly as bad as it was, there are accessory boosters from places like Tam Valley that are relatively inexpensive. They are realtively simply, in that the input is the track signal from another booster, there is no throttle connectivity for any system, and no command station capability at all, but they do cease output when the signal is lost so they don;t broadcast junk. But they work with any system to add an additional 3 amps or so that can be used to create an accessory power bus. If you use Tortoise switch motors, 3 amps can power over a hundred with stationary decoders. Just connect this booster between your existing one and your circuit breakers, that way a track short won't shut off the accessory bus.
My servo controls are mounted along the fascia, so I have no control panel, whereever you are, the switch control is right in front of you. But since they are stationary decoders as well, if someone wants to 'play disptacher' they can use JMRI to control all the turnouts. Basically, it can work both ways. In the future, when I build a bigger layout that will actually have signalling and CTC operation, I plan to have it set up so that the mainline turnouts under CTC control cna be locked out by the dispatcher, so pushing the fascia buttons will do nothing unless the crew calls the DS and gets permission to operate manually. They will then be unlocked and become available. The off the main turnouts will always be available for local crews.
It's completely a matter of personal choice. I have dozens of turnouts, and I run every one of them from control panels with toggles, no DCC involved at all. I agree with Randy - it's too cumbersome to be pushing buttons on the DCC throttle to do something as simple as controlling a turnout, and makes it much harder to push more buttons to get back to running the trains.
But, I can see the other argument, too. I have to return to the panel to throw my turnouts, which could be awkward in a walk-around environment where you're following your train.
For my carfloat terminal area, I plan to double-up the control panels and have two options, one near the terminal for local control and one back on the other side of the layout for through traffic.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
So, is it better to avoid or minimize the use of stationary decoders?
There's that, too. A simple AC power supply is cheap. DCC is not, so save the DCC power for train running. Nice thing about Loconet, there are accessories that get their power from a simple AC or DC source (cheap) but get the signal for commands from Loconet, so you cna have system integrated devices without using valuable DCC power to run them.
...and, to go further, if you do use the DCC system to control the turnouts via switch motors, from where will those motors get their current if you don't have dedicated power to them separate from the demands of the decoders? IOW, the power must come from the DCC system; not ideal. You would have to add a booster or two here and there if you have a lot of motor activity going on at any one time, or else get used to shorter trains and slight grades.
Crandell
Well if you are going to control things via JMRI that presumes some sort of link between the computer and the layout. I use Digitrax so it is pointless to add another control system when I can just communicate turnout commands and blokc occupancy and signal settings all via the same Loconet that my throttles and booster plug in to. But if you are sending control information to the DCC system then the turnouts need to respond to DCC commands, which means stationary decoders.
rrinker Just because it is possible to get DCC accessory decoders to control the turnouts does not mean you need to do so. In fact, regardless of the brand of DCC system, it seems awkward to me to use the DCC system to line the switches vs the obvious button or toggle right there. Switching back and forth between train driving and turnout control is somewhat cumbersome on all DCC systems. Now, if you go all fancy with dispatcher-controlled turnouts and a control panel for the dispatcher, either a physical CTC like panel or a virtual on in a computer program like JMRI or RR&Co, that's a little different.
Just because it is possible to get DCC accessory decoders to control the turnouts does not mean you need to do so. In fact, regardless of the brand of DCC system, it seems awkward to me to use the DCC system to line the switches vs the obvious button or toggle right there. Switching back and forth between train driving and turnout control is somewhat cumbersome on all DCC systems.
Now, if you go all fancy with dispatcher-controlled turnouts and a control panel for the dispatcher, either a physical CTC like panel or a virtual on in a computer program like JMRI or RR&Co, that's a little different.
Randy, in what way is it different? Can you extend that argument a little further?
Yes. That is not "mixing" AC and DCC. The two cannot be on the rails together, but running wires to your switch motorss fromt he control boxes and wiring the control boxes to the AC output of your old power pack is not putting AC on the rails. There's generally no need to change things with your turnout motors when changing the layout to DCC. Just because it is possible to get DCC accessory decoders to control the turnouts does not mean you need to do so. In fact, regardless of the brand of DCC system, it seems awkward to me to use the DCC system to line the switches vs the obvious button or toggle right there. Switching back and forth between train driving and turnout control is somewhat cumbersome on all DCC systems.
If the switch motors/actuators are designed for AC, yes, and only if that AC current cannot get to the rails themselves. In other words, yes to a switch motor for moving the points rails. NO to the rails at the same time as DCC, which is what the locomotive decoders would be sensing.
Is it possible to mix AC power With DCC,I would like to power my turnouts with the existing AC transformer is that possible to do,my DCC system is NCE.
Thanks
ripgp30