Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

"Feed every piece of rail" - what's practical?

13155 views
44 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: lavale, md
  • 4,677 posts
"Feed every piece of rail" - what's practical?
Posted by gregc on Monday, March 19, 2012 6:47 PM


Even in his article in "Realistic Reliable Track", Andy Sperando suggested not to takes his words too literally.   But while I don't plan to use rail joiners,  I have no qualms about electrically joining adjacent rails with short pieces of 22g wire across the joints.

The question is how long a section of rail, or sections of rail with soldered wired connections
should be fed by a feeder wire? 

thanks

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Bedford, MA, USA
  • 21,481 posts
Posted by MisterBeasley on Monday, March 19, 2012 7:09 PM

I feed every other piece of rail, at least.  If I'm using short pieces, I solder the rail joiners so they effectively become one long piece of rail.  You don't want to depend on loose rail joiners for power distribution, but soldered ones are pretty reliable.

Your track bus should always be the primary carrier for your track power.  Even with feeders on every piece of rail, most of the power should flow through the bus to the track further down the line.  This gives you the least voltage drop and the best performance.

It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse. 

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Metro East St. Louis
  • 5,743 posts
Posted by simon1966 on Monday, March 19, 2012 8:20 PM

I believe that on my layout the longest run would be a pair of feeders in the center of 3 pieces of 3' flex track that are soldered together with rail joiners.  Not saying that this is right or wrong, but never had a problem with power.  Every section of my track has either a solder connection to an adjacent piece of track or a set of feeders.

Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 6:59 AM

 Worst POSSIBLE case on my layout is the same as Siomon's - a feeder soldered to the center of a pair of soldered together sections fo flex track. But EVERY one of my rail joiners, except for the insualted ones between power districts, is a feeder. I make all of my joiners feeders - don't buy the Atlas ones, or you'll go broke. That means for example, that a turnout has 3 pairs of feeders. I have no stalling or pwoer loss issues, and no problems even after painting and ballasting. In a situation where the insulated joint landed between pieces of flex with the only feeders beign at the opposite end of each piece, I cut The flex back and used two short filler sections. Each filelr is soldered to the flex with feeders, then there are insualted joiners between the fillers. Overkill? Perhaps, ebcause everythign ran fine with just one pair of feeders powered for testing, but with every joint powered I will never have a problem, and it's really no bother to do this - I make up dozens of feeder joiner pairs at the bench and keep them in a drawer in my tracklaying cabinet. The joienrs are all fresh, I have a small collection of extras used for test fitting whuich have loosened up through repeated use, but the ones with the feders attached are fresh and tight and don't go in untilt eh track is ready for final attachment. I liberally apply paint around the joiners so no shiny bits show, so if the paint is goign to wick into the joiner, it surely does do. The tigth conenction of a fresh joiner prevents loss of contact when doing this, and nothign changed after applying ballast and spraying it with alcohol and then alcohol/glue mix. Second layout using this technique, never a power problem.

                      --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 5,449 posts
Posted by mobilman44 on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:05 AM

Hi!

I've had layouts for decades, but built the first DCC layout 3 years ago.   I did a lot of homework, and realized that electrical contact was a extra important for good DCC operation.   So, I put in feeders every 3 to 4 feet, and on all dead end tracks (no matter how short).  As the layout is 11x15 with a lower staging area, and "track intensive", it certainly was a lot of feeders to attach.  

And, to complicate matters, I put in 8 power districts as well - each with its own breaker.  

I won't minimize the effort, although doing it "mass production" style made it easier.  But the final result has been that the trains (and many sound systems) work beautifully, and I am happy with the results.  The extra effort paid off.

To make a point, here is something I realized this a few months ago..........   There has been a lot of talk on this forum over the years about feeders.   But never have I seen it written that someone was sorry they put in "too many" feeders.  

ENJOY  !

 

Mobilman44

 

Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central 

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 12,897 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:42 AM

Here is an alternate view on the subject:

DC or DCC - solder all, or most all of your rail joints.

ESPECIALLY those on curves and in areas of short setctions of track.

Been doing this for 40 years, and my father did it for 15 years before me, solves most of these problems.

I run DC, and have track sections (blocks) as long as 30'-40' with one feeder - no voltage drop or power issues.

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:51 AM

As a general principle, I do favour ensuring each contiguous length of rail gets its own feeder.  However, if one can solder effectively, and joins another length of rail to a first one by soldering the feeder, and if one at the same time solders a feeder at that junction, you effectively feed only three feet in either direction...as Simon and Randy have suggested.  Said differently, the electrons need to go no more than 3' from the fed point.  In our hobby, that is most acceptable.

However, there are times when it requires one to take the time to feed one segment by itself, regardless of its length, also suggested.  Sometimes you must leave a gap, meaning the rail one one side of the gap will be dead unless you power it individually.

It only takes a few minutes drill the roadbed, bare some feeder wire ends, thread them, kink the one end against the rail web, wrap the other around a bared bus or sub, and you can do those things while the soldering iron/pencil heats safely nearby.  Get several such feeder pairs prepared in an area and solder them all up at the same time.  It works, and things move along.

Crandell

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 11:18 AM

 On my previous layout, I only soldered flex track on the curves. This time I've takento solderign every other pair - so the two pieces in a curve are soldered, then the next piece is NOT sodlered to those, but the 4th piece is soldered to the third piece:

------||--------|-------||------

where || = soldered joint with feeders and | - plain joiners (with feeders attached)

Probably overkill, as with the soldered joint with feeders, the max distance from a feeder would be 3 feet with no joints. But, this way I should never ever have to go back and add more feeders. Using a foam base plus being in a mostly climate controlled room ( I tend to not set the heat as high nor set the air conditionaer as low as inthe main living space  bit it is an insualted and carpeted room), I shouldn't have any issus with expansion and contraction and it might be safe to sodler every joint, but with different materials and/or more variation in temperature and especially humidity I would advise caution. Also, I don't like the idea of ever soldering a turnout in palce - if any piece of track is going to need to be replaced, it's a turnout, if something breaks beyond the ability to repair in place. A soldered one will require a bit of work to get out, and then put back in place. Removal is easy - just cut through the rail, but what about reinstallign it, or installign a new one? Unsoldered, it's simply a matter of sliding the joiners back and lifting it out.

                --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: Colorado
  • 4,075 posts
Posted by fwright on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 5:54 PM

gregc


Even in his article in "Realistic Reliable Track", Andy Sperando suggested not to takes his words too literally.   But while I don't plan to use rail joiners,  I have no qualms about electrically joining adjacent rails with short pieces of 22g wire across the joints.

The question is how long a section of rail, or sections of rail with soldered wired connections
should be fed by a feeder wire? 

I have never used rail joiners with handlaid track.  But I soldered a 24 gauge magnet wire to each piece of rail before I spike it down.  I then tied these wires to a 16 gauge common rail bus under the layout, and to a block terminal strip for the DC block wire.  This was quite sufficient, but I only run single engines in a given block.

By using jumpers across the rail joint, you are using the rails as your bus wires.  Although nickel silver has a much higher resistance per foot than copper, the size of the rail cross section makes up for a lot of the higher resistance (assuming you are not using code 40 rail).

The voltage drop is going to depend on how much current you are drawing through the rails on a given set of feeders.  DCC doesn't like more than about a 5% voltage (0.7 volts) total drop; DC can easily handle 10% drops. 

The quarter test is considered a good test of whether or not you have too much resistance for DCC.  I would experiment with how many lengths of jumpered rail you can go before the quarter test fails.  FWIW, the quarter test using the overload on a DC power pack is equally valid.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W   

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 5:27 AM

Do as I say, not as I do !

I solder the rail joiners on all curves.  I add feeder wires to rail joiners at the ends of all turnouts.  I add feeder wires to rail joiners every six feet of straight track.

So what is wrong with that?

Soldering feeder wires to rail joiners is fine assuming that the rail joiners make constant and full contact with the rails.  But rail joiners can loosen over time.  Ballasting glue can and does get between the rails and the rail joiners.  Don't ask me how I know.

On my next layout, I will solder all rail joiners on curves and those rail joiners will have feeder wires.  I will solder all rail joiners on every piece of straight flex track (i.e., every 3 feet) and those rail joiners will have feeder wires.  I will add feeder wires to every rail joiner at the end of every turnout, although I will not solder the rail joiners to the turnouts.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:58 AM

 I just haven't had that problem. Even the paint and glue has no effect, it gets int he open space but neither seems to expand as it dries which would have t happen for it to force the joiner open. 2 layouts now, and LOTS of running, if anythign's goign to loosen the rails up, it's a constant parade of trains. Once the rail is painted and balalsted, that pretty much glues the joiner in palce too, it woudl take a lot to make them move and get loose. Maybe because I use foam, so the base never moves with changes in temperature or humidty? Or the caulk used for the track and roadbed, which allows things to shift slightly without stretching the rails?

 All I know is it works, and works well. So well that I can get a new loco, go into the train room for the first time in a month, put it on the rails, and it runs. Perfectly. No doropouts, no blinking headlight. No track cleaning - ever.

                      --Randy


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 12,897 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:00 AM

A friend and fellow modeler, who is by chance an NMRA Master Modeler, has a 30 plus year old layout that is about 15 x 40. It was obviously originally built and wired for DC block control. It is now DCC.

He converted it to DCC by simply connecting his existing block feeders into groups, connecting the groups to ciricuit breakers and connceting the circuit breakers to a base and one booster. He has not added feeders "every three feet". Most of his rail joints are soldered, most of his track hand layed.

His average "block" length is likely 15-20 feet.

His layout runs flawlessly on DCC, just like it did on DC.

I have not done the math, but I suspect a piece of code 83 rail has at least the cross section of a #12 wire, maybe even twice that. So even with slighly increased resistance over copper wire, your rail is likely just as good a "bus" as your bus.

But what do I know, I'm just an electrical designer with a pickup, some guns, and little trains without brains.

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:04 AM

 If rail was round, the .083" of Code 83 would fall between #12 and #11 wire. Since the width is less than the height (usually) it's probably more like between #12 and #13. Over a 15-20' run, #14 wire is plenty sufficient for a bus run with no noticeable voltage drop, thus 15-20' of Code 83 rail is also plenty sufficient, allowing for less conductivity than copper but larger size than #14.

                  --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Fullerton, California
  • 1,364 posts
Posted by hornblower on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:39 PM

I try to add feeders for every three feet of track.  Thus, every length of flex track gets feeder wires.  Where I have multiple short lengths of track adding up to three feet or less, I will solder the rail joiners of those pieces of track and add feeders to that composite length of track.  Yes, its a lot of soldering but I only do it once for each length of track. 

Hornblower

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • From: Perry County PA
  • 7 posts
Posted by Perry County train man on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:56 PM

I run DC on my HO rail way and wired every 3ft just in case I decide to upgrade.

  • Member since
    August 2011
  • 805 posts
Posted by narrow gauge nuclear on Wednesday, March 28, 2012 3:51 PM

For DCC most of the responses are right on.  I have commented on this before in other such posts.

This from me an electronic engineer by profession and the model railroad engineer by hobby.  I run HOn3 and formerly HO but all might benefit regardless of gauge.

1.   I run 12 gauge solid copper buss feeders under the layout.

2. I tap in off the buss feeders in the middle of each 3 foot length of flex track and also in the center of any isolated shorter run on a spur or siding.  

3. I feed off the buss feeders directly to all switches as needed.

4. By Kirchoff's circuit laws, you can almost halve your resistance at most any point, electrically, by soldering rail joiners provided they don't work loose, if the above procedures are rigidly adhered to.

In the above given advice, the absolute greatest distance of N.S. rail that has to be traversed by the buss electricity to reach any engine is only 18" with virtually little or no effective reistance to the DCC power or signal.

This is why the largest practical buss wire MUST be used based on the actual current required by your worst and most power hungry engine's motor.  O and G gaugers might consider #10 solid wire.  I realize that most HO folks use 14 gauge buss wire.  But I still choose the overkill of #12.  (belt and suspenders)

Richard 

Richard

If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed

  • Member since
    May 2002
  • From: Massachusetts
  • 2,899 posts
Posted by Paul3 on Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:39 PM

I would not solder every rail joiner.  Expansion and contraction of the layout alone should cause second thoughts on that.  Not to mention the pain in the rear part of trying to remove & replace switches, diamonds, and other pieces of track.  Soldering on the curves is one thing, but every rail joiner?  You are asking for trouble if you do.

Dropping feeders every 3 feet?  Definite overkill.  I drop feeders every 9 feet and have no issues related to that.  I would recommend that one drop jumpers across every rail joint so that every piece of rail has a wired or soldered connection going to it.

One thing that should also be brought up is redundantcy.  IMHO, soldering a feeder to every piece of rail, while overkill, is still a single point failure system.  IOW, any one failure of solder joint or bus connection will knock out your track power.  One would be better served by jumping every rail joint with soldered wire connections and adding feeders every so often.  That way, if you have one solder joint failure, you still have power to the rail.

Paul A. Cutler III

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 12,897 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:41 AM

Paul3

I would not solder every rail joiner.  Expansion and contraction of the layout alone should cause second thoughts on that.  Not to mention the pain in the rear part of trying to remove & replace switches, diamonds, and other pieces of track.  Soldering on the curves is one thing, but every rail joiner?  You are asking for trouble if you do.

Paul A. Cutler III

I have never had a problem in over 40 years of soldering all my rail joints in each electrically isolated track section, typically 12 to 20 feet in length. And now days I always use plastic rail joiners for section gaps, not just gaps in the rail.  I may "be asking for trouble", but it has not shown up yet.

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: S.E. Adirondacks, NY
  • 3,246 posts
Posted by modelmaker51 on Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:09 PM

I also have soldered every rail joiner and in 25 years on this layout have never had a problem. My drops are about every 10 feetish connected to a 12 g buss, also no problem. We often run 10 to 15 locos (in several MU lashups) about half with sound all powered by an NCE 5amp system.

As far as removing turnouts, it's quite simple and no more of pia than unsoldered ones. You just take a dremel and cut the turnout out at the rail joiners. With a nice hooked dental tool, it's just a matter of heating the ends of the rails and pulling off the leftover joiners. Trim the new turnout to fit the space, slip on some joiners, slip it in place and resolder the joiners. It took me longer to write this than it takes to do it. I've only had to replace one bad turnout on my layout in 25 years, but I've had to move some due to design changes.  All the ones I've used were built to last.

Jay 

C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1 

Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums 

  • Member since
    January 2012
  • 80 posts
Posted by Rangerover1944 on Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:55 PM

If you skimp on not soldering feed wire to every piece of rail or at least solder some connections on rail you don't feed you will be sorry down the road. Where I didn't feed wire, I solder the butt joints using about a 1/4" piece of bare wire accross the joints, on the outside of course.  Corrosion at the joints will cause it to fail if you only use rail connectors and especially after ballasting. I have to leave some gaps on my rails because of temperature changes. I didn't think I would, but what a difference from winter to summer I see in the gaps that I made for expansion and contraction. Glad I did that!  We don't, at least I don't, like to go back and do it right after all the scenery and ballast are done, then find out we have a power loss on sections of track 5 years from now! NO FUN in that because we were in a hurry or skimped on it. Track laying, aligning switch's, and wiring are the most critically important fundamentals of trouble free performance, be a perfectionist when doing track and wiring!      Jim

  • Member since
    January 2012
  • 80 posts
Posted by Rangerover1944 on Thursday, March 29, 2012 11:29 PM

Funny how I've never heard anyone say " I have a problem because I put too many feeder wires in". However I have heard of some who soldered all their joints and it buckled in the heat of summer. Depends on the climate/environment where you live. Also where you have your layout, like perhaps in the attic with no aircondioning in a Cape Cod style house. Could cause a problem I suppose!

Jim

  • Member since
    August 2011
  • 805 posts
Posted by narrow gauge nuclear on Friday, March 30, 2012 1:28 PM

If you run DCC and not DC and if you have a heavy gauge buss wire pair running under the table as DCC recommends and if you connect to the center of each 3 foot section of flex track, every switch and every smaller, isolated piece of track, then rail joiners are absolutely superfluous in any electrical sense.  They will serve only to mechanically align the rail ends.  There would be no need to solder them at all unless you are doing so for curve stability.

Richard

Richard

If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Friday, March 30, 2012 2:16 PM

And if you ballast, you don't even need the joiners; the ballast should do an excellent job for alignment.

I maintain that soldering a feeder at the junction of a pair of flext track lengths, say to a joiner, covers a multitude of problems, including limiting the work of laying and powering track reliably.   The proof should be in the utility over time, and so far that has worked for me.

  • Member since
    July 2007
  • From: Pottstown PA
  • 1,039 posts
Posted by rdgk1se3019 on Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:49 PM

I have a feeder at just about every section of track or every other joint.

Dennis Blank Jr.

CEO,COO,CFO,CMO,Bossman,Slavedriver,Engineer,Trackforeman,Grunt. Birdsboro & Reading Railroad

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 12,897 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Saturday, March 31, 2012 4:44 PM

selector

And if you ballast, you don't even need the joiners; the ballast should do an excellent job for alignment.

I maintain that soldering a feeder at the junction of a pair of flext track lengths, say to a joiner, covers a multitude of problems, including limiting the work of laying and powering track reliably.   The proof should be in the utility over time, and so far that has worked for me.

Crandell,

Your approach is the most common sense I have read since this thread began. I realize over kill never hurt anything, but DCC or not, every three feet is overkill. Your every six feet is still likely more than needed, but seems much more practical from a labor standpoint.

I know I will be scolded for this, but once again, it all sounds like a lot more than two wires to me.

I refer all who are offended to my original post in this thread where I discribed a friends layout, originally built DC, now converted to DCC, still only fed with one drop to what was eash of his "blocks", typically 12' to 20' in length - his layout runs flawlessly on DCC, just like it did on DC.

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:08 PM

 Like I said, I put power to all my feeder drops. Work? Guess it depends onw hat you call work. It's pretty easy and efforltess, really.

 Like I ALSO said, on both layouts now, my initial tests were done by hooking up exactly one pair of wires. Two wires. Things ran great, no slowdowns, nothing. I STILL don;t have all the feeders hooked up on my current layout, and there are no dead or slow spots. I only recently got around to connecting a few ont he farthest side of the layout, mainly because I want to get it all done before attaching the fascia panels.

 Even for a DCC layotu with signalling, if you are smart and use a distrubted block deection system instead of one that requires you to run all the wires back to some central point, there will always be less wiring than for any sort of DC system that allows multiple train operation. MZL is only 'simpler' if you decide not to treat the DCC command station and decoders are the black boxes they are. If you consider the electronics inside - then yes, it is WAY beyond switches, contacts on switch motors, and maybe a few relays. But looking at just the sheer amount of wiring - there's far less in DCC, even if you do put feeders every 3 feet. It's one pair of wires, around the layout, with short feeders connected to it. Even allowing for block detection, it needn't get any more complex than that. And if that is complicated - you picked the wrong hobby, perhaps static models would be a better choice.

 I really haven't seen anyone serious about DCC say "Oh yeah, just 2 wires". Train sets with loops of sectional track don;t work very well with just two wires, and no one claims DCC is some magic that can fix this. In fact more often than not the actual saying is, if it doesn't work well on DC, it's not going to work on DCC either. Which truth be told is rather on the overly conservative side because unless you are using DC with things like PWM and BEMF, you CAN improve runnng performance by going to DCC, to a certain extent. You can't cover up severe faults in the mechanism but the little ones can be smoothed over particularly with BEMF

                   --Randy


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 12,897 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:31 PM

Randy,

I know that what I do is EXTREMELY complex, and requires way more wires than even the most "overkill" power fed DCC layout -

BUT, my wiring is complex because signaling, detection, signal interlocking, cab control, colision avoidence, turnout control, CTC and wireless radio throttles are all intergated into one infrastructure.

Many of which are features that require extensive additional infrastructure with DCC.

I agree that any system needs a distributed power system, and I believe DCC should have lots of power districts and sub districts on seperate circuit breakers - because 5 or more amps at 16 volts can be dangerous.

My whole system is "distributed" around the layout to minimize length of wire runs - the throttle bus for the mainline throttles being the longest and only "layout wide" wiring.

BUT the "every three feet or less", "every piece of rail" thing just cracks me up.

And to me, it is the same work to hook up 50 pair of wires to same the bus or 50 pairs of wires to 50 control points on relay boards. The "thinking" work is not done under the layout on my DC system any more than it is with a DCC system - its called planning.

Still soldering all my rail joints in each electrial "section".

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    August 2011
  • 805 posts
Posted by narrow gauge nuclear on Monday, April 2, 2012 1:23 PM

I can sort of see that if you have a large pike or pre-exisitng mega empire in DC and decide to go DCC that hooking to the center of every 3' section would be a task that would seem a never ending adventure.  Plus, on many long built roads, scenery and very unhandy locations would abound such that boring the small holes would be a task, and in some instances, doing a decent soldering job might be nearly impossible.

So if you have a pre-existing road in DC and have no real running problems in DC then whatever seems to work so far as buss tap feeders is concerned is certainly fine.  If problems should crop up, you can address them individually.

However, for all new builds in DCC, it would be rather silly not to just wear the belt and suspenders by tying into the center of each 3 foot piece.  No need to solder the joiners.

I am lucky as I build in narrow gauge.  A single track main only.  No rail yard at all with the biggest yard being a three strip siding group.  All depots have only a single siding off the main and only one or two 8 car length passing sidings on the entire road. No turntable, just two wyes are  planned 

Richard

Richard

If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 12,897 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Monday, April 2, 2012 4:21 PM

narrow gauge nuclear

I can sort of see that if you have a large pike or pre-exisitng mega empire in DC and decide to go DCC that hooking to the center of every 3' section would be a task that would seem a never ending adventure.  Plus, on many long built roads, scenery and very unhandy locations would abound such that boring the small holes would be a task, and in some instances, doing a decent soldering job might be nearly impossible.

So if you have a pre-existing road in DC and have no real running problems in DC then whatever seems to work so far as buss tap feeders is concerned is certainly fine.  If problems should crop up, you can address them individually.

However, for all new builds in DCC, it would be rather silly not to just wear the belt and suspenders by tying into the center of each 3 foot piece.  No need to solder the joiners.

I am lucky as I build in narrow gauge.  A single track main only.  No rail yard at all with the biggest yard being a three strip siding group.  All depots have only a single siding off the main and only one or two 8 car length passing sidings on the entire road. No turntable, just two wyes are  planned 

Richard

Tell me, what do you do with all the short, 8", 14", 3",etc, etc, pieces of track that are created as you spot turnouts in their desired locations? Do you feed each of them seperately?

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Monday, April 2, 2012 5:44 PM

 Depends on how short. I needed a filler section to reach between two pieces of flex, right where I planned to gap the rails between power districs. My solution was to solder a short filelr section from an Atlas assortment to each adjoining piece of flex, effectively making a section fo flex track 3 feet 2 inches long, and putting the insulating joiners betwen the short pieces. Thus maintaining ever section of flex being fed from each end. I keep waiting for my layout to fail like everyone seems to insist it will since I feed power through the joiners, but it hasn't yet, despite multiple coats of paint, alcohol spray, and diluted glue getting all over the rails and joiners.

                         --Randy


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!