Pardon my crude drawing, but I have "wired" both mainlines in phase, as I believe Gary has done.
I used red and blue to represent the rails, but in this black and white drawing, I simply noted B for blue and R for red. I drew circles where opposite polarities meet. Those require isolating the two reversing sections.
However, if the two mainlines are wired in opposite polarity, as represented by the letters B and R in parantheses, there are no reversing sections, since B connects to B and R connects to R in the circles.
What, if anything, am I missing?
Rich
Alton Junction
If they were in phase there would be no conflict between the inner and outer loop and there is. has nothing to do with robert's diagram. The op's diagram shows red meeting black, thus a need for reversing sections. reverse the wiring on the inner loop and no such conflict exists. Trace the rail marked red at the bottom of the inner loop,(bottom left of the diagram) which would be the outside rail at that point, follow it up clockwise along the blue line and to the turnout leading to the outer loop,(forget any markings on the blue rail) at that point it conflicts with the black rail of the outer loop. Change the inner loop and no conflict exists anywhere.
Using the sketch that Rich just drew shows the same thing. Follow the rail marked "R" in his sketch from the bottom of the inner loop clockwise up the far left track and to the connection with the outer loop. That is where red meets black, or as Rich shows circles to show the same thing just not at the point where the track meets the outer loop. Change the phase of the inner loop and there is no conflict, and the circles disappear everywhere as there is no reversal of loco direction. the loops are currently not in phase.
Curious as to why you are all working so hard to confuse the Original Poster, who already solved his problem? Trying to re-wire the two adjacent mainlines in opposite phase would be a huge project for almost zero benefit with DCC.
My unsolicited advice would be to declare victory here and move on to help the fellow attempting to liquify his HO locos with an LGB power pack.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama Curious as to why you are all working so hard to confuse the Original Poster, who already solved his problem? Trying to re-wire the two adjacent mainlines in opposite phase would be a huge project for almost zero benefit with DCC. My unsolicited advice would be to declare victory here and move on to help the fellow attempting to liquify his HO locos with an LGB power pack.
floridaflyer Using the sketch that Rich just drew shows the same thing. Follow the rail marked "R" in his sketch from the bottom of the inner loop clockwise up the far left track and to the connection with the outer loop. That is where red meets black
Using the sketch that Rich just drew shows the same thing. Follow the rail marked "R" in his sketch from the bottom of the inner loop clockwise up the far left track and to the connection with the outer loop. That is where red meets black
richhotrainI already made that suggestion.
Umm ... so you could act on it?
cuyama richhotrain I already made that suggestion. Umm ... so you could act on it?
richhotrain I already made that suggestion.
Sorry to offend you or anyone else. I'll depart as suggested.
No Rich your sketch, showing the current setup has points of conflict between red and black, that means that the loops are out of phase. If they were in phase there would be no conflict, and the circles disappear and the layout would run without the need for any AR's to correct conflicts because there is no reversal of loco direction. Reverse the leads on the inner loop and you are good to go.
doug
Maybe this is a matter of semantics, Doug, or maybe I shouldn't be using the term 'in phase'. But what I have been saying all along is that the two mainlines are wired the same way. If you look at the mainlines at the top of the diagram, blue is on top and red is below blue...........on both mainlines.
cuyama Sorry to offend you or anyone else. I'll depart as suggested.
[quote user="richhotrain"]
Woops double post.
Well, I guess we agree but, with all due respect, I am not exactly sure what you just said about what would constitute the two mainlines being in phase.
With both loops in phase there would be no conflicts, putting the red on top of the inner puts everything is phase and eliminates conflicts. They would be in phase if the same rail remains the same color anywhere on the layout, putting the red in top of the inner does this.
Define 'in phase' if you will.
richhotrain Define 'in phase' if you will.
OK, I think this really is a matter of semantics.
I will stop referring to the mainlines as 'in phase', but here is what I see as a concern. The two mainlines are best wired the same way, what I had been referring to as in phase. Although that wiring protocol does result in the creation of two reversing sections in Gary's layout, it is how he has wired it and, more importantly, it simplifies the later addition of crossovers should that be desired.
I agree Rich. wired as it is would make a crossover between loops seamless, but would still require the two original AR's. If he changed the inner loop wiring the 2AR's go away but a crossover would now require a AR and a reversing section of some design. Looking at the photo that the OP provided, he may already gave a crossover between loops that is not on the diagram. Waiting for an answer from Gary as to identification of 2 LH turnouts that appear to connect the loops. But that is yet to be determined, and may be nothing. My recommendation to Gary was to leave the wiring as is and use the 2AR's.
Thanks for all the replies, ideas and perspectives. Believe it or not I learned a lot from this thread.
Thanks to all, and to all a good night
Gary