ATLANTIC CENTRALTo me, running a buswire under all my track, and connecting my track to it every 6 feet is a ton of wiring - yet that is what all the DCC "experts" recommend - dispite the fact that I have seem lots of medium sized DCC layouts work fine without all that.
Yes, but I think this happens because of other choices made. If all track was soldered together, then it would act as sort of a bus wire itself...no need for all of the feeders. In my case, wiring feeders is simply precautionary in that turnout failure, which is rare, could cause a break in the signal, either the embedded circuit within the turnout gets compromised or the points contacting the stock rail gets compromised. I don't mind the physical installation of wiring...kinda fun actually. It's designing circuits and then troubleshooting those curcuits should they get compromised...or adding something to it later down the road..is the no fun part.
I think if all track is soldered, DCC only requires two wires, like DC. Its the other choices that make things more complex.
ATLANTIC CENTRALSome people like using smart phones and computers to control their trains or layouts - DCC fits into that. I don't like touch screens, I like real buttons and switches...
I consider that to be Change just for Change sake. I can't figure why one hand held device that you touch is better than an other as long as the ergonomics are the same. Like TV Remotes, I like dedicated controls for specific appliances.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd I still think most new people should go DCC, especially if they plan to get involved in the social side of the hobby.
Yes.
ATLANTIC CENTRALReal railroads go to great effort and expense to avoid two trains trying to occupy the same space at the same time. A well designed DC system can simulate that at little or not additional cost to the whole control system - with DCC most people are just driving around willy nilly - of course there are no lives at stake on our model layouts.
Yes. Real railroads have large "blocks". Plenty of space in between trains. Layouts that involve a lot of frantic toggle flipping to control the track so the trains don't crash simply means to me that the layout is too small for what the modeler is trying to do, IMO.
Some things like modeling engine servicing or a large passenger terminal are going to be complex by their nature, but generally, complex layouts are a function of trying to cram too much into too little space.
- Douglas
DoughlessI consider that to be Change just for Change sake. I can't figure why one hand held device that you touch is better than an other as long as the ergonomics are the same. Like TV Remotes, I like dedicated controls for specific appliances.
Kato makes a cell-phone controlled DC throttle that I am very interested in.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Doughless I use bus wires, my layout has isoleted blocks connected to the bus. It makes trouble shooting a short or malfunction much simpler. Each block has its own circuit protector, that I feel is better than relying on only the dcc protection. ATLANTIC CENTRAL To me, running a buswire under all my track, and connecting my track to it every 6 feet is a ton of wiring - yet that is what all the DCC "experts" recommend - dispite the fact that I have seem lots of medium sized DCC layouts work fine without all that. Yes, but I think this happens because of other choices made. If all track was soldered together, then it would act as sort of a bus wire itself...no need for all of the feeders. In my case, wiring feeders is simply precautionary in that turnout failure, which is rare, could cause a break in the signal, either the embedded circuit within the turnout gets compromised or the points contacting the stock rail gets compromised. I don't mind the physical installation of wiring...kinda fun actually. It's designing circuits and then troubleshooting those curcuits should they get compromised...or adding something to it later down the road..is the no fun part. I think if all track is soldered, DCC only requires two wires, like DC. Its the other choices that make things more complex. ATLANTIC CENTRAL Some people like using smart phones and computers to control their trains or layouts - DCC fits into that. I don't like touch screens, I like real buttons and switches... I consider that to be Change just for Change sake. I can't figure why one hand held device that you touch is better than an other as long as the ergonomics are the same. Like TV Remotes, I like dedicated controls for specific appliances. ATLANTIC CENTRAL And I still think most new people should go DCC, especially if they plan to get involved in the social side of the hobby. Yes. ATLANTIC CENTRAL Real railroads go to great effort and expense to avoid two trains trying to occupy the same space at the same time. A well designed DC system can simulate that at little or not additional cost to the whole control system - with DCC most people are just driving around willy nilly - of course there are no lives at stake on our model layouts. Yes. Real railroads have large "blocks". Plenty of space in between trains. Layouts that involve a lot of frantic toggle flipping to control the track so the trains don't crash simply means to me that the layout is too small for what the modeler is trying to do, IMO. Some things like modeling engine servicing or a large passenger terminal are going to be complex by their nature, but generally, complex layouts are a function of trying to cram too much into too little space.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL To me, running a buswire under all my track, and connecting my track to it every 6 feet is a ton of wiring - yet that is what all the DCC "experts" recommend - dispite the fact that I have seem lots of medium sized DCC layouts work fine without all that.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Some people like using smart phones and computers to control their trains or layouts - DCC fits into that. I don't like touch screens, I like real buttons and switches...
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And I still think most new people should go DCC, especially if they plan to get involved in the social side of the hobby.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Real railroads go to great effort and expense to avoid two trains trying to occupy the same space at the same time. A well designed DC system can simulate that at little or not additional cost to the whole control system - with DCC most people are just driving around willy nilly - of course there are no lives at stake on our model layouts.
DonRicardoGenerally, complex layouts are a function of trying to cram too much into too little space.
Yes sir!
I have wanted to make a large post on what I learned about large basement layout operations when I lived in Nashville in 1985/1986, but I have never put it all together.
In short... I learned what I would need for large operations, then I built a huge N scale layout that incorporated all my ideas, just to find out that operations come with a bunch of hurdles I had not anticipated... even with all that planning and experience.
DonRicardoI use bus wires, my layout has isoleted blocks connected to the bus. It makes trouble shooting a short or malfunction much simpler. Each block has its own circuit protector, that I feel is better than relying on only the dcc protection.
Yes, precautions invite complexity. But you didn't need to do that to get DCC to operate.
SeeYou190Lifelong DC user here... I always tell people to ask themselves these three questions: 1) Do I have a large collection of DC locomotives that would be difficult/expensive to convert to DCC? 2) Do I have the depth of knowledge to build, maintain,and troubleshoot a DC control system by myself? 3) Can I live without sound? Unless you answer YES to all three questions... Go with DCC and do not look back. -Kevin
I always tell people to ask themselves these three questions:
1) Do I have a large collection of DC locomotives that would be difficult/expensive to convert to DCC?
2) Do I have the depth of knowledge to build, maintain,and troubleshoot a DC control system by myself?
3) Can I live without sound?
Unless you answer YES to all three questions... Go with DCC and do not look back.
I totally agree with Kevin, but would add another qualifier.
4) Does my track plan have reversing loops or wyes that I will be running trains through without stopping? The smaller the layout, the more important this becomes.
If the answer to #4 is yes, you need DCC (and autoreversers).
Fred W - who still uses DC on small home layouts, and DCC at the club.
SeeYou190 DonRicardo Generally, complex layouts are a function of trying to cram too much into too little space. Yes sir! I have wanted to make a large post on what I learned about large basement layout operations when I lived in Nashville in 1985/1986, but I have never put it all together. In short... I learned what I would need for large operations, then I built a huge N scale layout that incorporated all my ideas, just to find out that operations come with a bunch of hurdles I had not anticipated... even with all that planning and experience. -Kevin
DonRicardo Generally, complex layouts are a function of trying to cram too much into too little space.
Don put his comment inside the quote box, so it looks like he typed what I actually wrote. Good to see that you agree.
I would be interested in at least hearing the major hurdles that you discovered.
DoughlessI would be interested in at least hearing the major hurdles that you discovered.
Sorry I misquoted.
The biggest hurdle was finding enough operators that could be depended upon to show up.
In wargaming, if fewer people show up, you just shrink the game, or take down a few tables.
Operating a large layout with 20 staging tracks at each end requires a quorum. My layout had to have at least ten, thirteen was OK, and I never even had the CTC functional. I was lucky if seven showed up.
Also, every operator loved to point out everything that was either difficult or non-prortotypical. That became tiresome.
Part of the problem was I had the biggest operational layout in SW Florida, by a long way. Much bigger than the clubs HO scale layout at the time. Many of these people had never seen an operating session like I attended in Nashville, and had no idea what it could be like.
It was a bad experience.
Operators... if you need them to run your layout you better be good at the difficulties of people management.
They can all simply go home and play with their own trains all alone if they do not like your operations.
fwrightTotally agree with Kevin, but would add another qualifier. 4) Does my track plan have reversing loops or wyes that I will be running trains through without stopping? The smaller the layout, the more important this becomes.
That is very true.
I designed my next layout so that the one "reverse loop" area will be required to be switched in both directions. The first reversal of train movement will be with the reverser for that track section.
To me, the operation will be seemless while I am playing, but the train must stop.
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL To me, running a buswire under all my track, and connecting my track to it every 6 feet is a ton of wiring - yet that is what all the DCC "experts" recommend - dispite the fact that I have seem lots of medium sized DCC layouts work fine without all that. Yes, but I think this happens because of other choices made. If all track was soldered together, then it would act as sort of a bus wire itself...no need for all of the feeders. In my case, wiring feeders is simply precautionary in that turnout failure, which is rare, could cause a break in the signal, either the embedded circuit within the turnout gets compromised or the points contacting the stock rail gets compromised. I don't mind the physical installation of wiring...kinda fun actually. It's designing circuits and then troubleshooting those curcuits should they get compromised...or adding something to it later down the road..is the no fun part. I think if all track is soldered, DCC only requires two wires, like DC. Its the other choices that make things more complex. ATLANTIC CENTRAL Some people like using smart phones and computers to control their trains or layouts - DCC fits into that. I don't like touch screens, I like real buttons and switches... I consider that to be Change just for Change sake. I can't figure why one hand held device that you touch is better than an other as long as the ergonomics are the same. Like TV Remotes, I like dedicated controls for specific appliances. ATLANTIC CENTRAL And I still think most new people should go DCC, especially if they plan to get involved in the social side of the hobby. Yes. ATLANTIC CENTRAL Real railroads go to great effort and expense to avoid two trains trying to occupy the same space at the same time. A well designed DC system can simulate that at little or not additional cost to the whole control system - with DCC most people are just driving around willy nilly - of course there are no lives at stake on our model layouts. Yes. Real railroads have large "blocks". Plenty of space in between trains. Layouts that involve a lot of frantic toggle flipping to control the track so the trains don't crash simply means to me that the layout is too small for what the modeler is trying to do, IMO. Some things like modeling engine servicing or a large passenger terminal are going to be complex by their nature, but generally, complex layouts are a function of trying to cram too much into too little space.
Completely agreed.
Now a few more thoughts about the various comments from everyone.
"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.
NO reasonably well designed DC layout I have owned or operated on was intended for that.
If the layout is truely large enough for two or more operators, it needs some sort of progressive cab selection process whereby each operator makes sure the block he is about to enter is a) available, and b) assigned to his throttle before he gets there. Other operators do the same - OR - this job is handled by a dispatcher. And if the layout is properly designed the dispatcher is not a "frantic toggle flipper" either. Trains move seamlessly around the layout, often with minimal "cab assignment".
The cabs get assigned to the blocks, the blocks don't get assigned to the cabs......
And there in lies part of the problem. People think about this from the wrong perspective.
On my layout, mainline interlockings are two or three separate blocks - but there is not one pushbutton or toggle switch for those blocks - they are assigned automaticly based on turnout position.
So just think, in the average "block toggle scheme" I have just eliminated half of the "block toggles". It's getting less frantic.....
Reverse loops? What are they and why would you have one? This is of course retorical.
There are no reverse loops on the double track mainline of my ATLANTIC CENTRAL. They serve no good purpose. The mainline is a large twice around double track loop with hidden thru staging and the viewers and operators are inside the loop.
There is a wye, to a stub end staging yard, it allows whole trains to be turned, it obviously allows trains to leave and enter that staging yard from both directions.
Otherwise, East is always East, and West is always West.
And that is the other thing you have to do on a DC layout is think in terms of moving east or west, not forward or backward. From anywhere you view my layout, to your left is West, to your right is East. This makes life so easy for new people.
If you follow these design principles layed out above, DC is easy to operate - not always easy to wire.
Next topic - if you design a layout only for group operating sessions you will be disapointed as Kevin found out.
That is why my layout is designed for everything:
So there you have it, a layout designed for ALL types of operation.
And I could replace my AristoCraft wireless DC throttles with DCC - but would only gain a few small features and would actually loos at least one feature.
So yes, too many layouts are poorly designed and owners have unrealistic operational expectations and DCC makes those layouts work better than they can be made to work with DC.
If I hand you a throttle to a train on my layout, and there is a disptacher on duty, you will be able to make a complete loop around the layout without flipping one toggle, or even pushing one button except the ones on the trottle - FASTER, SLOWER, EAST, WEST, EMERGENCY STOP.
Where is that any different from DCC?
Even without a dispatcher, a trip around the mainline and thru the staging will require you to push a maximum of 14 buttons, spaced out over 9 tower panels as you walk around the 420' long mainline.
How many buttons are you pushing just to get control of your loco in DCC? And then how are you controlling your turnouts?
Again, all the new people should use DCC.
So a lot of this comes down to layout design, modeling goals, available space, desired train length and type, degree of interest in prototype operations like signals and CTC, and your own available skills and budget.
One last thought - cell phones or touch screens in general - I hate them, I don't trust them when operating my trains becuase I am not good at using them. Nor do I care if I ever become good at using them.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL"frantic toggle flipping"
My controls have evolved quite a bit.
SGRR 1: Too many toggles, too many control options. The control panel looked like the dashboard of a 1988 Cadillac Allante. It was too hard to run trains.
SGRR 2: Operators had to use a rotary switch to select the cab. On the mainline if the next block was assigned to the same cab as the current block, a signal would be green.
SGRR 3: Never had a control panel.
SGRR 4: Single cab, no block toggles. The only toggle switches controlled turnouts, and this was the best.
SGRR 5: In its final configuration it had four throttles, and in theory could support four operators. Unfortunately, the room could not fit four operators. Thus, only one mainline throttle was used and all the cab selectors stayed on "CAB A" all the time. Turnout position selected cabs for blocks in the yard limits. This worked perfectly.
SGRR 6: Will have control similar to what was used on SGRR 5, not a single cab selector switch, only turnout control toggles. Turnout position will determine cab selection in designated blocks.
So: I have moved completely away from "frantic toggle flipping", and my controls do not control the track, they control the trains.
I think too many people only have ever seen poorly designed DC control systems, or worse, the Atlas control components.
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
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
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL "frantic toggle flipping" ........ So: I have moved completely away from "frantic toggle flipping", and my controls do not control the track, they control the trains. I think too many people only have ever seen poorly designed DC control systems, or worse, the Atlas control components. -Kevin
ATLANTIC CENTRAL "frantic toggle flipping"
........
Exactly, at this point I think most people who have been in the hobby less than 10-20 years have never seen a good DC control system.
Depending on the needs and goals, just like Wayne's layout, or yours, or mine, or IDRick there are different solutions that work great.
I don't think many people understand this one simple concept in DC - by one means or another, it is easy to turn off the power to a section of track that is not in use by using turnout position. If the turnouts leading into or out of that track are not aligned for that movement, the track is dead.
So any loco parked on that track is dead - why does seem to be a big deal for people?
Like you Kevin, I have been wiring reverse loops to require the train to stop for 4 decades now. This gets back to the East-West concept I talked about above. Talk about frantic toggle flipping, what about frantic turnout throwing in DCC while the train is "in the loop"? No thanks.
Again, I will repeat, new people should go DCC. Why do I keep saying this? Most are going to want sound, (even though it drives me nuts in 10 minutes). The locomotive choices are slowly becoming more DCC oriented. It is a flexible system that does not require advance planning, so it can grow or not grow with their needs.
But the lack of "toggle flipping" and running two trains within inches of each others are not valid reasons in my opinion.
And I don't see anyone speaking up to tell me how they manage more than one train on the same track route except for Wayne doing it on DC to amuse the grandchildren.....
And to remind and inform those who don't know, I have operated hundereds of hours on DCC layouts and seriously considered it on several occasions. But for me the small benefits I would gain do not justify the cost or the work.
I would need:
Since what I have works for my needs and is paid for, changing is a non starter at this point.
And I don't want to hear that I would not need all that at once. I'm not a newbie, I'm not altering my plans for my layout or its operation, I don't "dabble", I'm "all in" or not.
New people should choose DCC... but not for the reasons typically given.
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.
Tprail 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.
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.
Why do you think that? There isn't even any real difference in the wiring. Still two wires from the power source to the tracks. Wiring reversing sections is the same. Controlling frog polarity from a switch machine is the same. Still need isolated blocks for detection for signaling or grade crossings controls. The only real difference, and it does eliminate a lot of effort and wiring, is replacing the DC cab selection mechanism, be it toggles, rotary switches, or relay-based systems, with the DCC throttle bus.
As 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. The control system played no role in the design or building of my layout.
AEP528Eventually I will simply disconnect that power pack and connect the DCC system. The control system played no role in the design or building of my layout.
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.
SeeYou190 AEP528 Eventually I will simply disconnect that power pack and connect the DCC system. The control system played no role in the design or building of my layout. 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. -Kevin
AEP528 Eventually I will simply disconnect that power pack and connect the DCC system. The control system played no role in the design or building of my layout.
And I know at least a dozen people who did that with no issues, no buss wire, no extra drops. Of course all there rail joints within each block are soldered.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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!
Oops, I stand corrected. Sorry.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.