All three legs of every turnout. I have in the past made every rail joiner a terminal joiner for power feed with good results, worked great on two different layouts. If I were doing this, there would be 3 sets of feeders per turnout, even if that is only a tiny straight section between each one - there would still be feeders on both sides of that short straight section. Yes it seems like a lot but it ends up absolutely bulletproof, there is not one single rail joiner that passes power, and even the short sections have feeds from either side. It's not much work, really - I just sit at the bench for an hour and make up joiners with feeders, in an hour I can whack together a good supply of them and just keep a stockpile so as I lay track I can just keep on rolling.
The alternative would be to solder it all together, in which case I would add a feeder at the far left before the first turnout, then one feeder pair between each turnout, and one set of feeders on each diverging route. You may be able to get away with more soldered track because you ahev a climate controlled space for the layout and shouldn't have to worry too much about humidity caused expansion and contraction fo the underlaying support structure.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I'm looking for advice to placing track feeders for this section of track (it's part of the hidden staging track ladder). This track is one occupancy detection zone. The turnouts are Peco code 100 insulfrog and there is about 1" of track between turnouts.
How many/where would you locate track feeders?
Thanks.
Modeling an HO gauge freelance version of the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line and the Utah Railway around 1957 in a world where Pirates from the Great Salt Lake founded Ogden, UT.
- Photo album of layout construction -
Carl 425,
No, it's not purple but light amber. It is a conductive anti-oxidizing product that is used in the mrr hobby primarily as a rail treatment to minimize wheel-rail arcing and reduce the need for frequent track cleaning to maintain conductivity. There have been several online threads about such use from which I learned; they persuaded me to try it. In the 30 months of operation I previously mentioned, I have yet been required to do an overall cleaning of the track. After reading about its properties I decided to use it on my rail joiner connections as well as the rail tops although the threads had not specifically suggested that.
Essentially, it is applied in a very thin coat, allowed to sit for 24 hours then "excess" wiped away, leaving an almost invisible coat. It is recommended that one then run each of their motive power over the layout to both better distribute the material and to deposit it on the wheels. I bought a small container in my LHS; a very little bit goes a very long way.
Its active ingredient is apparently one that is used industrially to protect electrical connections subject to corrosive conditions. Perhaps that same ingredient is in the product you use.
Dante
danteNo-Ox
Is that the purple stuff I put on my battery terminals in the boat? I never thought of using it on the railroad.
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.
I did not mean to imply that I had somehow suspended the laws of physics. By the phrase "full voltage" I meant that there was sufficient voltage at the end of the spur to fully operate the loco.
Regarding voltage drop, the distance from the end of the spur to the nearest pair of feeders is actually about 14' as the current flows. The current travels via 2 power-routing turnouts, a DCC-friendly double slip turnout (2 sets of points), 3 full lengths of flex and 3 short sections of flex. There are 8 pairs of rail joiners en route, none soldered but all treated with No-Ox (joiners between flex sections on curves elsewhere are soldered to avoid kinks). Total voltage drop over the 14' is 0.5 volts.
P.S. Before I constructed, I tested the rail joiner connection treated with No-Ox to see if the No-Ox somehow interfered with the ability to solder the joint in the future. It did not.
In a roundhouse/turntable situation, you may indeed only have 1 feeder per stall track, but in a yard with longer tracks you may want more than 1 feeder. In that case, you would run a sub-bus connecting all the feeders for that yard track, and then put the toggle between that sub bus and the main bus.
As for rail joiners, yes, they are there more for mechanical alignment than anything. ANd still it pays to not use loosey goosey ones that have been previously used multiple times, since not only is there poor electricla contact, the loose fit also fails to keep the rails as aligned as they should be. A slight variation is generally not going to cause problems except in one case - where one rail projects inside the other. If that happens int he direction of travel, the next rail being inside the previous one can catch wheel flanges and cause derailments - this would be one of those cases where going the opposite direction causes no problems at all, and only when the train goes in the direction where the flange can catch the protruding rail will there be any issue. This is almost always mentioned when mixing rail sizes, such as using a smaller rail for a siding - the top and inside edges have to match, the rest doesn't matter. As long as you have a smooth path along the inside and top, one rail can stick outside the other one by as much as it wants - picture an extreme, Code 55 mated to Code 100. The Code 100 is almost twice as big, but it will be a reliable joint as long as the top and inside match. Sighting along that, there will be almost half the mass of the Code 100 projecting below the bottom of the Code 55, and a good bit of width on the outside. A little goofy looking, but prototypical, and as long as the top and inside edges match, completely reliable.
BigDaddySo the toggle would be between the bus and the feeder?
Rich
Alton Junction
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
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.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
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?
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 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.
Randy:
Yes, I absolutely understand the need for feeders too.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
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!
Interesting point about using fresh rail joiners for final assembly. Makes sense.
Thanks
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.
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.
rrinkerIt's not THAT bad.
http://www.dccwiki.com/Voltage_Drop
http://www.wiringfordcc.com/trakwire.htm
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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