Newbie question. All the videos show wiring a single short feeder to the bus, which is convieniently located right beneath the track. What do you do for track heavy areas, yards and industrial sidings where there are lots of shorter tracks & turnouts, more or less side to side? Terminal strips?
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Use whatever works for you. I've used terminal strips in some areas, crimped multiple feeders into barrel connectors with a single, larger gauge wire crimped in the other end, etc. In a yard area with lots of parallel tracks I have even used a pair of brass rods perpendicular to the tracks, with feeders soldered onto them (Similar concept to what Lion uses for his busses).
Because rail joiners can not 100% be relied upon to pass electricity to adjacent tracks, I prefer to have mulitple drops to a bus wire which connects to the DCC station. In my yard I have probably between 15 and 20 drops - but also because some turnouts are insulated Shinohara or Walthers by Shinohara, I have extra drops for those areas too. They are wired directly into the bus right now through Scotchlite suitcase connectors although I could splice in a terminal strip at any point in time if need be.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
You could run sub-buses from a terminal block to the yards to keep the feeders short in length.
Another way, as on my layout, is to use 14 ga. wire for the bus, 22 ga. feeders for the track, and 18 ga. wires to connect the feeders to the bus. To keep the feeders short in length, I run multiple feeders into a pigtail with the 18 ga. wire directly under the yard tracks and then connect the 18 ga. wire to the more distant bus.
Rich
Alton Junction
I go back and forth on whether or not I'll ever implement detection, but I am wiring for it and running feeders through the detection coils. The black wire of my bus is connected to the track every 6 feet or so. For the red, I run a 16gb wire to within 3' of each end of the block (a yard track in this case). I connect it to the main bus in the middle. This connector goes through the coil and drops connect to the rail every 6'. The red rail is gapped, rail joiners are soldered.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Hi,
Given that feeders are typically 20 or 22 gauge and buss lines are 12-14 gauge, the ideal set up is to keep the thinner feeder wires as short as possible - say 12 inches. And of course you want them connected to every siding and main about 4 feet apart (works for me). So where you have congested areas of sidings or whatever, a "sub-buss" as previously alluded to will work just fine.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Several have mentioned it, but it's important: Every segment of rail should have a feeder. Don't rely on rail joiners by themselves for that.
That said, where a gap is not needed, shorter segments of track can be joined by soldered rail joiners. They're just as good as a separate feeder. Keep in mind that it's important to have a nonsoldered joint with a little play in it every once in awhile to help account for expansion and contraction (not so much for the rail itself as for the underlying roadbed, etc.) It's also the case the nickel-silver rail is less conductive than copper wire, so don't depend on this to replace feeders, rather as a way to improve track integrity mechnically while eliminating feeder overkill.
I use the 22/18/12 gauge step up in wire sizes as others have mentioned. However, I rely mainly on the lowly wire nut for connections. If your layout isn't portable, they work just as well as terminal strips, etc. They also make it easy to change and modify wiring as you go.Did I mention cheap and widely available? Yeah, that, too.
If there are a lot of feeders in a small area or you add more later, sort them out and get a bigger wire nut. Alternatively, if things get too dense run a short sub-feeder to the nearest connection and start another group of wires on the next wire nut.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
mlehmanI use the 22/18/12 gauge step up in wire sizes as others have mentioned. However, I rely mainly on the lowly wire nut for connections.
I'm in the same camp with Mike on this one. At most joints where the 18 gauge "sub-buss" meets the 12 ga. main buss I add 1 or 2 extra wires a foot or two long and cap them off.
Then it is an easy task to tap into them if needed at a later time, like just a few days ago when I wired a HexFrogJuicer on some main line frogs the tie-ins were already there.
I recently got some of these "lever-lock" type connectors but have not put them through their paces to form an opinion on them.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/25x-Terminal-Block-Lever-Auto-Wire-Connector-2-Pole-Cable-Clamp-Nuts-Reusable-/400911652085?hash=item5d583254f5:g:GM4AAOSwv0tVQo2x&vxp=mtr
Good Luck, Ed
Thanks guys. I understand the need for feeder, which was prompted my question. I'd like things to look neat and organized and you've given me a couple good options.
My last layout I made the mistake of no expansion joints. Good judgement comes from bad decisions.
Changing course, what about 'Lectric Frogs? I understand they are not live in DCC 'friendly' turnouts, but there are a lot of threads devoted to making them hot. Not to alienate anyone or get this thread deleted, but the fans of Peco turnouts are quite loyal. The length of the turnout is appealing, as it the quality.
The price less so, but if I go with Peco I have a choice of electric or not. Are the isolated Peco frogs convertable or should I go with electric, or should I not worry about it. My imaginary prototype is a early diesel RR where an RS-3 is the biggest motive power. Peco has a crappy website BTW.
BigDaddy Are the isolated Peco frogs convertable or should I go with electric, or should I not worry about it. My imaginary prototype is a early diesel RR where an RS-3 is the biggest motive power. Peco has a crappy website BTW.
Are the isolated Peco frogs convertable or should I go with electric, or should I not worry about it. My imaginary prototype is a early diesel RR where an RS-3 is the biggest motive power. Peco has a crappy website BTW.
The Peco web site leaves a lot to be desired.
The Peco Insulfrog has a plastic frog so it cannot be powered. The Peco Electrofrog is metal and it is live but it needs to be isolated to avoid shorts. If you have small wheelbase locos, and it sounds as if you do, the Electrofrog provides the assurance of locos making it across the frog without stalling.
No experience with Peco, but gotta agree with Rich here: Feed the Frog if you plan on smaller locos. This is especially so if they will be operated singly, rather than MU-ed.
Hi Henry:
If you are going to use Peco Electrofrog turnouts make absolutely certain that you are buying the latest models. Peco has made several improvements to the Electrofrogs in recent years that make powering the frog a breeze. In fact, all you have to do is clip out two bridge connections to the frog to electrically isolate it. The rails are already gapped and the newer ones even come with feeders already attached to the frogs. The older models do not have all of these features and the process of powering the older frogs is a pain in the....
Unfortunately Peco didn't do anything to identify the turnouts with the improvements. The only way to consistently identify whether or not a turnout has the improvements is to look at the back of the turnout or ask the vendor, and they may not know. The gaps can be seen easily. The feeder wires are bare silver coloured leads folded across the back of the turnout. Packaging is not a reliable indicator. The newer turnouts come in a plastic sleeve whereas the older ones come in a cardboard box, but even then, not all the plastic sleeve packaged turnouts have the frog feeder attached.
This is what the rail gaps loof like. The jumpers have been cut:
Here is what the frog feeder looks like:
In addition to cutting the bridge connections, there are a couple of things that can be done to improve the reliability of the Electrofrogs. One is to add jumpers between the point rails and the closure rails.
Here is an excellent resource for understanding the process:
http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches.htm
Here is a picture of how I am adding the jumpers:
Yes, the Peco web site isn't very good. They didn't even have the track code in their turnout listings! I actually sent them a message stating exactly that. Much to my suprise, I got a quick response from them explaining that a new web site is under construction. We shall see!
Hope this helps.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
BigDaddyAll the videos show wiring a single short feeder to the bus, which is convieniently located right beneath the track. What do you do for track heavy areas, yards and industrial sidings where there are lots of shorter tracks & turnouts, more or less side to side? Terminal strips?
Big Daddy,
Before you spend considerable time and effort feeding every rail or nearly every one, consider your particular layout and construction materials and methods. Remember that except for locations that will be inaccessible, you can always add feeders if over time the layout develops a need for more. It's easy to drill a small hole next to a rail, drop a feeder and attach it to the bus and rail. You can also solder joiners later if they prove to loosen or otherwise lose electrical conductivity (or add jumpers between rail ends). Basically, I installed feeders to sections of track without power because of rail gaps at frogs of certain power-routing turnouts. Probably the longest total run of track without a feeder is about 12'.
I use Walthers/Shinohara Code 83 flex and turnouts. I also use their track joiners which are a much tighter fit than the typical Atlas joiners. I also treated each end of rail with No-Ox before joining. Another factor is the layout environment. Is it subject to signifcant swings in temperature and humidity? Although my layout room has a controlled environment, I painted all the wood benchwork, the plywood and Homasote sheets that comprise the bench top (all sides and edges) and the Homabed roadbed to minimize moisture absorption.
The layout voltage is uniform throughout. I cannot claim 20 years' successful experience, but the layout is fully operational for almost 30 months without a power problem. Admittedly, the track is not yet ballasted or painted. So far so good; I shall see how it performs over a longer time. However, as I said before, I can always add feeders and/or solder joiners.
Dante
P.S. If you use so-called DCC-friendly turnouts with isolated frogs, that does not mean that you must add extra feeders to the turnout rails-only the frog is unpowered. That could be okay if your locos have pickups widely-spaced enough to span the dead frog. If not, you can power the frog by various means discussed in other threads. (I use Frog Juicers.)
danteBefore you spend considerable time and effort feeding every rail or nearly every one, consider your particular layout and construction materials and methods. Remember that except for locations that will be inaccessible, you can always add feeders if over time the layout develops a need for more. It's easy to drill a small hole next to a rail, drop a feeder and attach it to the bus and rail. You can also solder joiners later if they prove to loosen or otherwise lose electrical conductivity (or add jumpers between rail ends).
I have to disagree with this advice. The "you can always add feeders later" argument implies that there is no extra effort to do it later. You cannot ignore the time you spend diagnosing the problem that leads you to determine that you need an extra feeder.
To add a feeder to a finished section you need to clean the paint off the rail, remove some ballast, drill a new hole, run the wire, solder the wire to the rail and bus, repaint the rail, fix the ballast and clean up the sawdust from the drilling - all with great care so you don't damage anything else. Have you ever tried to clean sawdust out of finished ballast and scenery?
It is also significantly faster to install one more feeder when you have all the tools and supplies out and the soldering iron hot, than it is to round it all up later to do just one. Remember what we learned about Henry Ford and his invention of the assembly line. You may have better skills than me, but I could install at least a dozen feeders on a naked layout in less time than than it takes to do one after the section is finished.
And... you know that rail joiner is going to fail when the NMRA convention bus stops out front for the layout tour.
danteThe layout voltage is uniform throughout.
Have you tested 12' of track without a feeder under load?
danteSo far so good; I shall see how it performs over a longer time.
You also need to remember that the advice that has been consistently offered here is based on the experience of folks who know what is required to keep a model railroad running well FOR A LONG TIME. I can put together an oval of sectional track on the floor and after it's run for 30 minutes declare "so far so good".
Carl425,
Please note that I stated a specific set of conditions applying to my layout that has been successful "so far." Others are certainly free to make their decisions based on their conditions and druthers. And yes, I have tested 12' of track without a feeder under load and found full voltage. To make sure my info is current (no pun intended), I checked (under load) the far, dead end of a spur fed only via a power-routing turnout.
I observed a much more dramatic example of a layout that successfully defies conventional wisdom at a hobby shop in Florida. The DCC layout is probably 70-75' long comprised of a double track dogbone mainline with occasional spurs and sidings. The owner told me that there is but one set of feeders approximately 30' from one end of the bone. He runs a train continuously that operates with no variation in speed or any hesitations.
danteI have tested 12' of track without a feeder under load and found full voltage.
Congratulations on having defeated physics. Multiple sources report the voltage drop of code 83 nickel silver rail at a 2A load to be .170 volts/foot (roughly equal to 28ga wire). 12 feet of track is 24 feet of rail so you should have seen a drop of about 4 volts.
It's not THAT bad. The resistivity of nickel silver is about 19x that of copper, but the effective area of Code 83 rail is fairly large - the .083 dimension is greater than the diameter of #12 wire and I'nm too lazy this morning to pull out my micrometer and calculate the approximate areas of the head, web, and base and add them all up, but it should be closer to #20-22 wire. That would be about a 1 volt drop at the far end of 12 feet of track with a 2 amp load. Now if it was just one loco, that's going ot be way under 2 amps, so far less than 1 volt drop so it 'works fine'.
The issue with not running enough feeders isn't really the rail - it's the rail joiners - that's where power loss occurs because of poor connections. Starting with a higher, and constant, voltage in DCC helps too, unless you are trying to run full throttle. You won't really see the voltage drops as much. Prime example:
I set up a 4x8 simple oval with Bachmann EZ Track. It had 4 power feeders, equally spaced acround the loop. This was run with a DC power pack. Lights didn;t flicker, indicator a total loss of power, but locos, even modern very efficient ones (I measured my Bowser DS4-4-1000 as drawing only 25ma when running!), would slow down between feeders. This was only a temp test track so I didn;t care too much, but 4 feeders should have been plenty - when I was a kid our temporary holiday time HO 4x8 had TWO feeders to the main, right in front of the control panel and then across the way on the other long straight of the oval, and I never had problems. Then, when I built by 8x12 DCC layout, I put feeders in while I laid the track, but I did not yet have the power bus run underneath. Once I got the first loop complete, I attached my Zephyer to one pair of the feeders - and trains ran perfectly fine around the entire thing. Joints on curves were soldered, but none of the ones along the strights were, they were mostly turnouts - the plan is on my web site under the old old stuff at the bottom. No visible slowdowns, it worked fine, even after painting the sides of the rails. I did run #12 for a power bus and hooked up all the feeders, but the initial testing seems to say it will work. The differences between the smaller 4x8 test loop, it was Atlas flex track, so fewer joints, some of which were soldered. Still, the furthest point from the Zephyr was way more than 12 linear feet of track.
I'm not saying it's OK to leave it like that - eventually something would loosen up from wear and power losses would occur, particularly around turnouts. Being Atlas turnouts, I had a set of feeders on all 3 legs of every turnout - a practice I continued on my last layout, which allowed me to run even my smallest loco (not super small - a Bachmann 44 tonner) over the Atlas #4 turnouts without powering the frogs. I installed a wire to power each frog, but after the first few had no stalling or even blinking light issues, I never hooked any of them up. Even if it means two sets of feeders only inches apart, every turnout had feeders on all 3 legs. This would laso work with peco Insulfrog, but there is no way to power the Insulfrog frog in case it becomes necessary, and I'm not sure even the 44 tonner would run over larger size dead frogs - the 4 1/2 of an Atlas #4 isn't very big, but a #6 or a #8 - it would probably get stuck unless the frog was powered. Peco Electrofrogs cannot be powered in the way I did with Atlas, at a minimum the two rails diverging from the frog need gaps to block any feeds past that point, but if the frogs are powered, those rails will be energized with the correct polarity and there should be no dead spots. I'm planning to use all Peco on my next layout, having picked up some Peco 83 flex and turnouts to examine and I like the quality very much.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinkerIt's not THAT bad.
http://www.dccwiki.com/Voltage_Drop
http://www.wiringfordcc.com/trakwire.htm
Not that the numbers there pretty much prove the skin effect is meaningless for DCC. Zero difference from DC to DCC frequency with a 4 digit LCR.
Pretty much matches up - ONE loco at the end of 12 feet of code 83 track - 1 volt or less drop. Note also his measurements are a true length of track. If someone solders a pair of wires to a 12 foot strip of track and the puts a loco on the far end - it's not quite a full 12 feet the current has to travel. To test it accurately you'd need to either have more than 12 feet of track, or use heavy guage clip leads (to prevent any significant futher drop) and clip them to the very end of the 12 feetof track and then to the load. Which would net the results from Allan's test.
Notice also the pargaraph about connection resistance. That should include rail joiners as well as terminal strips and lugs - same thing happens there. I mitigate it as much as possible by using only fresh rail joiners on the final assembly - the loosey goosey ones from multiple uses I save for trial fitments where is makes sense to be able to slide the track on and off easily, and then once it's ready to go in for good I put a fresh never used set of joiners on.
rrinkerI mitigate it as much as possible...
Randy's point is sort of the happy medium here. Sure, you can go to great lengths to ensure there's never a chance of a power drop-out. Or you can ignore the potential problems entirely.
If your luck is like mine, you'll be OK most of the time. How much extra you do beyond that is up to you, but there's eventually a point of diminishing returns.
Beyond final assembly with fresh joiners, something I like to do also, Randy's example of going ahead and running the frog feeder drops even if you don't hook them up is another good one. It's trivial to wire the drop if it exists. But it's a major pain to add a drop in some places (in tight to frogs is one) and even harder to conceal them if you do it after the fact. So it's a wise use of time to solder on one more feeder for the frog when building trackwork. There might be an issue or two later with one turnout and all that needs done is hook things up for the frog to be hot.
One things for sure, if you err on the side of too little effort to get it right when you build, then you better be good at trouble-shooting. I do OK with that, so don't worry a lot about things like terminal strips and labels and such, although I do use labels where confusion might exist. I can look on top, look underneath and then sort things out based on the type of wire used, etc. Others might find themselves very frustrated trying to do that and should avoid it in their own work, being neat, documenting everything, and labelling it all.
As Randy suggests, once you learn to mitigate, then it's easier to adjust your priorities based on experience and do the work you feel is important and skip over what is just overkill for you application. Choose carefully in order to save major future aggravartion, as well as time in the present.
Randy:
Interesting point about using fresh rail joiners for final assembly. Makes sense.
Thanks
Still doesn't mean you don't have to use feeders - I do go back and hook up all those feeders so none of the rail joiners are actually needed.
Though for testing - using solid wire for feeders, I often just wrap them around the bus wire and go back and solder them later!
Yes, I absolutely understand the need for feeders too.
I have come to realize that rail joiners are just that - - - rail joiners. They are used to join rails and not to ensure electrical connectivity from one rail to another.
Sure, if the rail joiner is tight enough, there will be electrical connectivity but, over time the rail joiner loses its tightness and the electrical connectivity is lost. Even if feeders are soldered to the bottom of the rail joiner, electrical connectivity is not assured over time, a lesson that I have learned time and again.
The only way to ensure electrical connectivity is to solder a feeder wire to each and every section of rail. Yes, I have cheated on that rule and placed feeders every 6 feet, even every 12 feet and got away with it for a while. But, for long term reliability, you have to solder feeders to every section of rail. There are no two ways about it.
OP here, a very educational thread for me. My future layout is going to start with a 28" x 6-8' yard/industrial switching area. It's never going to be an around the room empire. I am never going to need multiple boosters and power districts.
These are newbie assumptions, correct me where I am wrong. Using toggle switches for blocks in DC was relatively simple and one could have parked loco's in a lot of places, which reduced physical handling: wear, tear and oops. Introducing toggles would compromise the purity of the DCC wire gauge/resistance that one strives for, no?
How many DCC locos do you have on the track when you power up the layout?
BigDaddy OP here, a very educational thread for me. My future layout is going to start with a 28" x 6-8' yard/industrial switching area. It's never going to be an around the room empire. I am never going to need multiple boosters and power districts. These are newbie assumptions, correct me where I am wrong. Using toggle switches for blocks in DC was relatively simple and one could have parked loco's in a lot of places, which reduced physical handling: wear, tear and oops. Introducing toggles would compromise the purity of the DCC wire gauge/resistance that one strives for, no? How many DCC locos do you have on the track when you power up the layout?
I agree, a properly installed toggle switch should cause no problems. Very little resistance, they're either open or closed. They aren't necessary with DCC, but as Rich noted they're still handy. In particular, in case of a problem, they can isolate the track involved and help with troubleshooting.
BigDaddyHow many DCC locos do you have on the track when you power up the layout?
A bunch, in this case because I run a mostly LED-equipped fleet and have considerabl staging. Your concern may have to do with sound-equipped motive power, which can draw a load just idling. Keep the volume low and that will dramatically lower that base load, which is yet another good reason to tone that down from the usual default setting, LOUD!
In any case, for a switching layout the size of yours, you're unlikely to have so many locos on the track that it will be a problem unless you're modeling an engine terminal or something where lots of locos would be found in that size of space.
BigDaddySo the toggle would be between the bus and the feeder?