maxman Doughless then a reversing loop would be needed. Wiring that would be the same for DC or DCC. Sorry, but I don't believe that this statement is correct.
Doughless then a reversing loop would be needed. Wiring that would be the same for DC or DCC.
Sorry, but I don't believe that this statement is correct.
No, it isn't correct as typed. The signal still has to be managed to run correctly at the correct time. An auto reverser would be installed.
The overall point I was trying to make was that the proposed Central Midland trackplan is not just a two wires to the track type of a trackplan whether its DC or DCC.
- Douglas
Hi Everyone,
Douglas, Guy, your thoughts are well taken. As I read everyones responses, I see a lot of talent and experience on this forum and look forward to tapping into it as I get started. Sheldon, I have gathered the MR issues you listed and getting ready to start reading thru the articles.
Tom
ATLANTIC CENTRALNothing prevents DCC users from simply flipping a toggle switch for the mainline while the train is in a reverse loop section, just like DC.
When I was operating layouts and DCC was new... either autoreversers were not available yet, or the layout owners chose not to use them.
A DPDT reversing toggle was used on the reversing section just like we were all used to.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
A few suggestions from someone who has a medium sized layout built for operating and scenic realism:
1. Take some time with your track plan. The plan you are suggesting is designed to shoe horn in as much as possible in a small space. If you like to do scenery – you need a plan that has more open areas in it. The other issue with this plan is that it requires steep grades and sharp curves to make it all fit in a small footprint. Both of these elements can cause more operational headaches and they take away from realism.
2. Since you have a larger space available, consider that building single level benchwork over a larger area is much easier than building multilevel benchwork in a tight area… By having a bigger single level footprint, you can have broader curves and gentler elevation changes or not at all…and…. you have space for scenery!!
3. Take a look at the John Armstrong book – Realistic Track Planning – a great treatise on layout design. He has a few ideas in that book that can help you feel more confident to design your own layout. You might also check out Lance Mindheim – he has some great ideas for simple layouts that offer lots of features.
4. RE DCC – If you ask modelers to name the best innovations in model railroading over the last few decades you find in survey after survey that DCC is among the top responses. Consider that there is a reason that most of us in the operations world switched to DCC more than 20 years ago now…. BTW: While I enjoy sound, that is not the primary reason to go DCC…..It is all about independent control of locomotives in the same block. In my mind the biggest headaches in the DCC world are – wiring decoders in locomotives and managing shorts. There are work arounds to these issues but they are a source of aggravation with the system… Having said that, DCC was a game changer for myself and many modelers….. Check it out for yourself and see what you think…
Welcome back to the hobby…I do believe that this is the “golden age” – lots of developments over the last 40 years that I think you will enjoy…
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Well, with DCC you can use an auto reverse unit, but you don't have to. Nothing prevents DCC users from simply flipping a toggle switch for the mainline while the train is in a reverse loop section, just like DC.
Sheldon
Tprail Sorry about not being more clear about having 3 trains on the layout. I would only be running one at a time. I would only run one, than park it on a siding then bring out another to run. The third one would be at the engine house. Since I will be using a turntable I would be able to change them out,turn them around. I was thinking DCC would make it alot easier. And yes,I totally agree on the atlas track layouts, and there was never much room for doing scenery which is what I like. I do have nice little basement where I could build a large layout but I just want to keep it small enough to have fun.
Sorry about not being more clear about having 3 trains on the layout. I would only be running one at a time. I would only run one, than park it on a siding then bring out another to run. The third one would be at the engine house. Since I will be using a turntable I would be able to change them out,turn them around. I was thinking DCC would make it alot easier. And yes,I totally agree on the atlas track layouts, and there was never much room for doing scenery which is what I like. I do have nice little basement where I could build a large layout but I just want to keep it small enough to have fun.
That is the way most single operators operate "multiple" trains. Its actually one at a time.
You have just told yourself that all you need to do is install a few power kill switches....household light switches...that would kill the power to any track that you might want to park a train on.
Or you can simply use power routing turnouts for all sidings and spurs.
If you want to turn a parked loco without having to restage/turn it it by hand, then a reversing loop would be needed. Wiring that would be the same for DC or DCC.
Turning trains can be complex. Parking trains isn't.
(In the diesel era, locos don't have to turn, they just run long hood forward in the other direction. And in modern diesel era, they use two locos mu'd at the rear so the lead loco is always running short hood forward. Like a A-A or A-B-A set of F units in the transition era.)
Like Sheldon said. Keep it simple, not complex.
I think that Atlas trackplan looks pretty complex. Trackplans designed in those days were sort of in the same genre as those electric race car sets, in this case the train could take all different sorts of combinations of paths over the layout...reversing loops and wyes on the mainline, complex.
But I'm not advocating DC. I think DCC is the way to go, but the wiring is going to be not much different either way for that trackplan, IMO.
Hello all,
I think the OP has a lot to think about and there have been a lot of options provided. I have one of those Atlas track plans (Berkshire Valley lines) with modifications. It's the same layout that my Dad and I built in the 1980's. Scenery has been redone multiple times, but the bones are the same. It is basically an out-and-back track plan - trains leave the yard, two trains run on the mainline with one throttle, a siding and a crossover make a train reverse, back in the yard it goes. It is toggle switch controlled but it is very easy to use. There are two sidings but I don't use them. Why? I just don't operate in that manner. I prefer to make up a train, send it out and break up the incoming train. Works for me. I really just like watching trains run.
DCC is very cool. That being said, I did ask myself the three questions from above and was able to answer Yes to all. My operation as described above doesn't warrant more than two operators (its usually just me) and the mainline is set and forget. I have a lot of DC locomotives that have been detailed and I don't want to mess with them. I use metal wheels on brass track (track was gleamed, soldered joints with track feeders, I rarely have to clean, to each their own), which provides enough sound for me. Plus, to me, sound is a novelty that gets old very quickly.
For me, it's DC. I'm a lone wolf modeler with a small layout so I just don't see the need. But to each their own. I think the biggest advice I would give is start small and don't go crazy buying a bunch of locomotives and other things. You'll just get frustrated and then sell it at a loss.
[quote user="Tprail"]
I am starting to get back into the hobby again after a 40 plus yr pause due to life's priorities. Just a little back ground on me. My last operating layout was the Ho Railroad that Grows, lot of fun building but issues running it. I was going to start the Atlas Central Midland but life had other plans, so my question is to everyone who stayed with it is, do I start over with Dcc or stay with Dc because I think it will impact how I go about building the layout. I know it's probably been asked alot already, but it looks like this hobby has change al0t.
KISS...Keep it simple, stupid! Wise words! That Midland Atlas plan was designed by Atlas to sell a lot of track and switches.
I would suggest a double loop to start with, adding as time budget allows, and throw the Atlas plans out. A double track offers a lot of opportunities for multiple trains, continuos running and also swiching.
Leave a good bit of room for scenery, whether industries, towns or buildings, with perhaps a creek/river, or a dock side area needing a trestle or bridge for added interest...maybe tunnels too.
A good way to break a run up is with depressions that can hide one train for a section while showing another on a different level.
But what ever you do, slow down, relax and practice some easy going, and do some research on other layouts. And before securing your track and switches, run some of your trains over them to see it they operate properly, it's easier to remedy any trouble spots this way rather than fixing after your layout is completed.
Check Pinterest too.
Thanks Sheldon, I will check out those MR issues. I still have a copy of Mallery's book "Trackwork Handbook" I bought back in 1977 also a very good book. I will keep an eye out for his other books.
Tom,
OK - recommended reading:
Model Railroader - June 1973 - Chesapeake & Alleghaeny RR - just because it is an interesting layout that I ws involved with 40 plus years ago, and it is still around today. DC powered with a simple block control system that forces each operator to be responsable for the two blocks he is using. The article does not get into the control system, but I can explain a bit here.
Three mainline control panels are side by side. Rather than toggle or rotary switches, each panel has a map of the layout. Each block has a plug in jack on the track diagram. When you plug a pin into the jack, your throttle has control of that block. It is your job to not plug in when some else is in that block. - you only get two pins - well, we use to let newbies have three pins....
The two turnouts that control the two reverse loops can be thrown by the operators at the control panels or the dispacther. The rest of the mainline turnouts are controlled only at the separate dispatchers panel.
Check out these articles:
Model Railroader - September 1968 - page 40 - An article on how relays and switch machine contacts can select the correct power feed for some sections of track automaticly.
Model Railroader - February 1974 - page 66 - Operation by Zone Control - 1st in a series by E A Ravenscroft on his MZL control system. This system is one of the foundations of the system I developed and use today.
Model Railroader - April 1974 - page 68 - Layout Control in the MZL System - part two of MZL control.
Model Railroader - May 1974 - page 62 - Master panels in MZL control - part three.
Model Railroader - October 1974 - page 66 - Indicating where trains are, the final description of MZL control.
If you can find them somewhere, "Electrical Handbook for Model Railroads - vol. 1&2" by Paul Mallery. Two of the best books on DC model train wiring, both in terms of practical info and understanding more advanced theory.
I am not suggesting that you build Ravenscroft's MZL system, it is just a great place to start in understanding alternate approaches to DC control.
So as not to overwhelm, check out this stuff, see if you can find Paul Mallery's books, and I will post more tomorrow.
Thanks Wayne, It's those little details that bring a layout to life,nice work. Is that Peco track? I am thinking of using it for my layout or Micro Engineering.
TprailQuestion for doctorwayne, What is the depth of your layout with turntable that's pictured? I never thought about a turntable so close to the edge of the table like you have. There is alot going on in that length of your layout I like, I wish I could zoom in on the pic, not to be a copycat but, there's alot of inspiration in that pic.
Your kind words are much appreciated, Tom.
If you click on the photos, they will enlarge for a better view...
I'll see if I can dig-up some photos of the turntable that you mentioned, but also some of the other turntable that's on the partial upper level of my layout, too.
The layout along this wall is just a tad under 31" deep, from the fascia to the wall. I was planning to make a 90' turntable, but space restrictions limited it to an 89'-er.The turntable is a block of wood, mounted on the shaft of an electric food mixer, with parts from some Atlas bridges glued to the sides of the wood. The turn-table is manually operated by my fingertip.
I've also mounted some electrical switches on the layout's fascia...
...which allow activating or killing power to the tracks leading to and from the turntable.
The bottom of the turntable pit is the 3/4" thick piece of plywood that I cut-out to create the turntable pit, while the pit wall is a simple piece of 1/8" thick Masonite.
Here's the turntable removed...
There's another turntable on the partial upper level of the layout, but it's made from a Walthers kit, also non-powered....
...it will also be finger-powered, but I need to add some brass or copper tubing to the shaft, so that I can install some piano wire to act as wipers to control the rotation of the turntable, which is currently rather sloppy.
Wayne
Hello again,
Sheldon I will be looking forward to your suggestions. Question for doctorwayne, What is the depth of your layout with turntable that's pictured? I never thought about a turntable so close to the edge of the table like you have. There is alot going on in that length of your layout I like, I wish I could zoom in on the pic, not to be a copycat but, there's alot of inspiration in that pic.Also has any body used that paint on traction stuff? I have to replace the bands on my locos as they are all dried and coming apart, the spares are just to old to take a chance.
Thanks,
Tprail Hi Everyone, My posts are delayed a bit so bear with me. First, thank you Doughless for posting a pic of the Midland, that's where I was heading, I was looking forward to the bench work but the wiring made me pause. If you find a pic of the Ho Railroad that Grows by Linn Westcott that was my last working layout, fun to build, but issues to run. So you can see where I came from and how I am thinking getting back in. It looked like DCC was the way to go, but after going over Sheldon's replies, I realized maybe there is another way to work with DC. So that's why I am here, to listen to eveyone's thoughts on DCC. Even though I am only building a small layout, everyones replies are helping alot. So until I get passed the new guy status, my posts will be a little late. Sheldon, yes I do have access to the MR archives so please let me know about any issues I should take a look at. Tom
Hi Everyone, My posts are delayed a bit so bear with me. First, thank you Doughless for posting a pic of the Midland, that's where I was heading, I was looking forward to the bench work but the wiring made me pause. If you find a pic of the Ho Railroad that Grows by Linn Westcott that was my last working layout, fun to build, but issues to run. So you can see where I came from and how I am thinking getting back in. It looked like DCC was the way to go, but after going over Sheldon's replies, I realized maybe there is another way to work with DC. So that's why I am here, to listen to eveyone's thoughts on DCC. Even though I am only building a small layout, everyones replies are helping alot. So until I get passed the new guy status, my posts will be a little late. Sheldon, yes I do have access to the MR archives so please let me know about any issues I should take a look at.
Ok, I will post some recommended reading later when I get home.
Meanwhile, think about this idea, build a slightly larger layout with a similar amount of trackage total as the proposed layout, but by doing that the trackage will be more spread out, you can use larger curves, and have room for scenery.
This is a big theme of mine, large and complex are two different things.
Larger but simpler makes for a better layout, with much better scenery.
If you take a look at my layout plan above, the benchwork is very deep,3-4 feet in most places, with just the double track mainline running thru the scene.
I will post more after work today.
IC_Tom I keep reading here and on other forums, "You can't operate more than two trains at once, anyway." Or, "no one really tries to operate more than two trains." "Frantic toggle," that's a new one, but describes me about 50 years ago after building my first Atlas plan layout. I thought all the passing sidings meant you could actually run two trains at once, but only if you were fast enough on the toggles! I found out quickly after building that first layout it was all a pipe dream ... unless you really had a double track main. So let's mention that - a double track main. Then let's add a double track main with two levels. Everyone wants more than one level these days (well, almost everyone!). Then say you have a friend or two who likes switching and maybe someone else in charge of an engine terminal/roundhouse/turntable. After building that double-decker with double-track mainlines, you just want to see the trains run by while you and your friends are working the yard. Add it up. It can get to 6, 7, or 8 going at one time. Are any of you operating two at the same time? Most likely - not! Are there more trains running than just 2? Absolutely! Even by myself, I can easily see running 4 or 5 trains at the same time. I may not be controlling more than one or two at a time, but the DCC system can easily handle it.
I keep reading here and on other forums, "You can't operate more than two trains at once, anyway." Or, "no one really tries to operate more than two trains." "Frantic toggle," that's a new one, but describes me about 50 years ago after building my first Atlas plan layout. I thought all the passing sidings meant you could actually run two trains at once, but only if you were fast enough on the toggles! I found out quickly after building that first layout it was all a pipe dream ... unless you really had a double track main.
So let's mention that - a double track main. Then let's add a double track main with two levels. Everyone wants more than one level these days (well, almost everyone!). Then say you have a friend or two who likes switching and maybe someone else in charge of an engine terminal/roundhouse/turntable.
After building that double-decker with double-track mainlines, you just want to see the trains run by while you and your friends are working the yard. Add it up. It can get to 6, 7, or 8 going at one time. Are any of you operating two at the same time? Most likely - not! Are there more trains running than just 2? Absolutely!
Even by myself, I can easily see running 4 or 5 trains at the same time. I may not be controlling more than one or two at a time, but the DCC system can easily handle it.
So are some of those trains are on the same route?, what stops one from catching up to another?
So DC or DCC, I'm not doing that. BUT, my 420' double track continious mainline (see track plan posted earlier in this thread) has cutoffs that turn it into 4 loops roughly 210' each, with no train crossing the path of, or being on the same route as another.
And then there is a single track branch line with a hidden continious connection.
While those five run, three more switching operations can operate on other trackage.
It can be powered by DC or DCC.
But with operators, two trains east, and two trains west, will be able to travel around the whole 420', disappear into staging, be replaced by another train, pull into the visible yard, get a power change, etc, etc, etc.
And I don't need DCC to do any of that.
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL "frantic toggle flipping" - I have heard of this but never seen it in 55 years in this hobby. First, I will go back to my earlier comment - I can only "operate" one train at a time. I can watch some other train travel on a dedicated route while I operate my train. I can operate my train while SOMEONE ELSE operates their train. But NEVER in 55 years, on any size layout, of mine or built by others, have I ever tried to "operate" two or more trains at once and thereby have to reassign cabs to different blocks while managing two throttles. Right. When discussing this, we need to distinguish between how one operator operates his layout, or if a layout is designed for multiple operators. To me, multiple trains at one time says multiple operators. The thing is, how often do you see layout plans or read discussions that talk about wiring a 5 x 9 layout, or any spaghetti bowl layout, for multiple locomotives? Which has to mean, its wired for multiple operators. Has it ever been common in the hobby to have three operators standing around a 5x9 layout operating it at the same time? I've never understood why a layout would be built for multiple operators (aka multiple trains at once) if the person was going to be a lone wolf operator.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL "frantic toggle flipping" - I have heard of this but never seen it in 55 years in this hobby. First, I will go back to my earlier comment - I can only "operate" one train at a time. I can watch some other train travel on a dedicated route while I operate my train. I can operate my train while SOMEONE ELSE operates their train. But NEVER in 55 years, on any size layout, of mine or built by others, have I ever tried to "operate" two or more trains at once and thereby have to reassign cabs to different blocks while managing two throttles.
Right. When discussing this, we need to distinguish between how one operator operates his layout, or if a layout is designed for multiple operators.
To me, multiple trains at one time says multiple operators.
The thing is, how often do you see layout plans or read discussions that talk about wiring a 5 x 9 layout, or any spaghetti bowl layout, for multiple locomotives?
Which has to mean, its wired for multiple operators.
Has it ever been common in the hobby to have three operators standing around a 5x9 layout operating it at the same time?
I've never understood why a layout would be built for multiple operators (aka multiple trains at once) if the person was going to be a lone wolf operator.
Well, what about trains operating on separate independent loops of track?
Even on small layouts, not everybody is into just switching cars.
In fact, while I like operations and switching cars as ONE aspect of model railroading, if I did not have the room for mainline modeling and continious running - I might be out of this hobby.
I like display running as much as I like a good opps session.
I like being the President of the railroad, or just being a rail fan, as much (or maybe more) as I like being the engineer.
My new layout will "disply run" five 35-45 car trains, and I can still "operate" 70% of the switching part of the layout while those trains run.
Doughless OP is talking about building an Atlas Central Midland layout and wiring it for DC to run three locomotives. Sounds complex to me. Good luck and enjoy!
OP is talking about building an Atlas Central Midland layout and wiring it for DC to run three locomotives. Sounds complex to me. Good luck and enjoy!
Well the way I read his separate comments, the combined idea of three trains moving at the same time on that layout is not completely expressed or clear.
And not very practical at all.
I have responded to his most recent post with my thoughts.
Tprail Hi Everyone, I have been going over everyone's responses and there are alot of good points made on a switch to DCC. However, after going over Sheldon's responses a few times, I had to stop and rethink my approach to getting back into it again. Yes, I am starting over but with old school thinking and methods, and yes, wiring was my biggest concern. I have only done wiring by the methods used at the time,are there new ways of doing a DC layout. I have not looked at any of the wiring books printed today, have things changed? I'm only going to use 3 locomotives on the layout. Can I build a DC layout while allowing for a change to DCC capabilities in the future? Does that make sence? I don't want to waste time and money now, so now I am considering going DC with provisions for DCC, dose that sound like a good approach? Tom
I have been going over everyone's responses and there are alot of good points made on a switch to DCC. However, after going over Sheldon's responses a few times, I had to stop and rethink my approach to getting back into it again. Yes, I am starting over but with old school thinking and methods, and yes, wiring was my biggest concern. I have only done wiring by the methods used at the time,are there new ways of doing a DC layout. I have not looked at any of the wiring books printed today, have things changed? I'm only going to use 3 locomotives on the layout. Can I build a DC layout while allowing for a change to DCC capabilities in the future? Does that make sence? I don't want to waste time and money now, so now I am considering going DC with provisions for DCC, dose that sound like a good approach?
Tom, I think because of your newbie status I am just seeing this post.
I don't know when you were in the hobby last, but advanced and better approaches to DC control go all the way back to the 1940's and much of the great work in this area was done in the 60's and early 70's.
When you say three locomotives, do you mean running separately at the same time? As in three separate trains?
Honestly that is not sensable or practical for a layout that small even with DCC.
Two trains, on two dedicated loops of track, which can connect for various other train movements is a much better approach to lots of action on a small layout.
I don't have a scan of a drawing readily available to post, but I will try to describe my first layout - designed and built for me by my father.
The layout was L shaped, using two 5x9 platforms for a total size of 14' across the back, and projection out 9' on the right side.
There were two independent loops of track that did not follow each other. One loop was completely flat on the platform, the other had grades up and over the other route. They appeared as double track only in the area of the L projection on the right side, and near the inside of the L the parallel routes were connected by a double crossover.
The layout, revolutionary at the time, had a hidden staging siding for each route behind a plaster mountain the streached all the way across the rear 14" length.
The flat route also had a visible passing siding in another area of the layout.
So a train could run continiously on each route, in the same or oposite directions.
And one train could be parked on a siding, and the other train switched onto that route thru the crossover. Three trains could say on the layout at all times and their route, or appearance from staging in the mountain could be alternated.
Now, hope you are following all this.
The only blocks were the two separate loops and the six track sections making up the three sidings. And there were NO BLOCK TOGGLES needed.
When a train was in a siding, and the two turnouts were aligned to the mainline, the train in the siding had no power. When the turnouts were set to the siding, the portion of the main next to the siding had no power. It was all done with contacts on the switch machines.
So you could stop a train in the mountain next to the one parked in the siding, throw the turnouts, and then the one in the siding could come out and take the place of the first train.
And, in fact, I will not try to explain how without a couple diagrams, but this was actually done blind. By throwing just the turnout farthest from the approaching train, it would enter the "siding area" but stop on its own before it reached the other turnout. Then you throw the second turnout, and the other train can now proceed. It did depend on some things that are not the same today, although it can still be done.
Sounds like magic for a 12 year old in 1969. The two hidden sidings were about 9' long, or a locomotive and 12-14 cars - not bad.
I can recommend books and articles from mags like MR - do you have the MR online archive?
My suggestion to you is forget Atlas track plans, which are just too much track in most cases. Think more about what you would like to model, both in terms of scenery and train activities, and start reading books like "track planning for realistic operation".
Then worry about DC or DCC later.
Oops, I stand corrected. Sorry.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL"frantic toggle flipping" - I have heard of this but never seen it in 55 years in this hobby. First, I will go back to my earlier comment - I can only "operate" one train at a time. I can watch some other train travel on a dedicated route while I operate my train. I can operate my train while SOMEONE ELSE operates their train. But NEVER in 55 years, on any size layout, of mine or built by others, have I ever tried to "operate" two or more trains at once and thereby have to reassign cabs to different blocks while managing two throttles.
Tom, YES you can wire a layout for DC and later convert to DCC. The vast majority of DCC users started in DC and converted. The devil is always in the details... Provide us with a bit more information:
How many trains will be operating at one time?
How many operators?
Will any locomotives be "parked" in a yard or on a siding?
Will you be using power routing turnouts?
It is easiest to wire a DC layout for only one train operating at a time. That's what I did. I have multiple feeders to the track (a feeder to each rail at approximately 6 ft intervals) and I set up two isolated sidings where I park locomotives at a fueling center. The isolation was simply made with insulated plastic rail joiners and separate feeders to that siding. Power is ON throughout the layout and can be turned on/off at the two "park" sidings with a separate on/off toggle switch for each siding. I do not have power routing turnouts and no reversing loops. Switching the track to DCC operation would be done in minutes (replace DC powerpack with the DCC power supply and switch two park locomotive track sections to on). There are additional setup steps for the DCC system with varies by company.
The DC wiring gets more complicated with multiple trains running at one time, power routing, and/or reverse loops.
TprailCan I build a DC layout while allowing for a change to DCC capabilities in the future? Does that make sence? I don't want to waste time and money now, so now I am considering going DC with provisions for DCC, dose that sound like a good approach?
AEP528As I'm building my layout, I'm using a DC power pack and engine to test the trackage and wiring. Eventually I will simply disconnect that power pack and connect the DCC system.
SeeYou190SeeYou190 wrote the following post 4 hours ago: This is a very valid point. The only thing most people did in the early days of DCC to convert a layout was to switch all the throttle selectors to "CAB A", flip all the power switches to "ON", and replace Cab A with a DCC Command Station.
Good luck.
-Matt
Returning to model railroading after 40 years and taking unconscionable liberties with the SP&S, Northern Pacific and Great Northern roads in the '40s and '50s.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL NorthBrit Nothing complicated here this side of the pond. Three independent controllers. Everything DC. 1) Clarence Dock & Goods Yard plus part of Main Running Lines. 2) Crown Point Yard 3) Leeds Sovereign Street Station plus part of Main Running Lines. If three operators available - one for each section running trains in their area. If two operators available then generally only two areas are operated. If one operator is available (Me) the running of trains is at a gentle one locomotive at a time following it around the layout. Simple and enjoyable David David, that is a time honored solution that works very well on small to medium sized layouts Ed Ravenscroft, a pioneer in the hobby, built on that concept to build his very sofisticated DC system he called "MZL Control". But at its core each "zone" had its own pair of dedicated throttles to allow passing moves of thru trains while retaining the simple operation like you have. A number of the features he developed are used in my Advanced Cab Control system. Sheldon
NorthBrit Nothing complicated here this side of the pond. Three independent controllers. Everything DC. 1) Clarence Dock & Goods Yard plus part of Main Running Lines. 2) Crown Point Yard 3) Leeds Sovereign Street Station plus part of Main Running Lines. If three operators available - one for each section running trains in their area. If two operators available then generally only two areas are operated. If one operator is available (Me) the running of trains is at a gentle one locomotive at a time following it around the layout. Simple and enjoyable David
Nothing complicated here this side of the pond.
Three independent controllers. Everything DC.
1) Clarence Dock & Goods Yard plus part of Main Running Lines.
2) Crown Point Yard
3) Leeds Sovereign Street Station plus part of Main Running Lines.
If three operators available - one for each section running trains in their area.
If two operators available then generally only two areas are operated.
If one operator is available (Me) the running of trains is at a gentle one locomotive at a time following it around the layout.
Simple and enjoyable
David
David, that is a time honored solution that works very well on small to medium sized layouts
Ed Ravenscroft, a pioneer in the hobby, built on that concept to build his very sofisticated DC system he called "MZL Control". But at its core each "zone" had its own pair of dedicated throttles to allow passing moves of thru trains while retaining the simple operation like you have.
A number of the features he developed are used in my Advanced Cab Control system.
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
Return-loop wiring would need to changed, but that's not a big deal. Really, the biggest issue is converting old DC locos. In my case, I converted those that were really worth it. A few were left as is, and run on the 00 address, which rarely happens. Most went to the junk box for parts. I find that the Atlas and BB Athearns from the late '70s and 80's are worth saving because of their simplicity and ruggedness. The newer models really look nice, but they are fragile.
Simon