Where's the short?

[gdelmoro]

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 

[floridaflyer]

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.

[richhotrain]

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.

Rich

[floridaflyer]

richhotrain

Define 'in phase' if you will.

 

[quote user="richhotrain"]

Define 'in phase' if you will.

 I was posting as you wrote this. In phase would be the same rail remaining the same color anywhere on the layout. Refers to this layout without reversing sections. A reversing section would change things especially in DC

doug

[richhotrain]

Define 'in phase' if you will.

[floridaflyer]

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.

 

 

doug

[richhotrain]

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.

Rich

[floridaflyer]

Woops double post.

 

 

doug

[floridaflyer]

[quote user="richhotrain"]

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.

Rich

 And there in lies the problem. To be in phase the blue rail on the outer loop should be on top and the red rail in the inner loop should be on the top. Bottom line there is no reversal of loco direction thus there should be no need for any AR's, but there is. Put the red on the top of the inner loop and it all goes away, The blue rail will always be the blue rail, and the red will always be red anywhere on the layout with everything in phase with no conflicts

[richhotrain]

cuyama

Sorry to offend you or anyone else. I'll depart as suggested.

 

Byron, I'm not offended - - more bemused than anything else.

Rich

[richhotrain]

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.

Rich

[floridaflyer]

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

[cuyama]

Sorry to offend you or anyone else. I'll depart as suggested.

[richhotrain]

cuyama

 

 

richhotrain

I already made that suggestion.

 

 

Umm ... so you could act on it? 

 

Hey, you could do the same. And, you could have offered some substantive advice along the way.

[cuyama]

richhotrain

I already made that suggestion.

Umm ... so you could act on it? 

[richhotrain]

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

 

So, Doug, do we finally agree that with the mainlines wired in phase, there are two reversing sections?

Rich

[richhotrain]

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.

 

Hey, that's not fair. I already made that suggestion.  

[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]

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.  

[richhotrain]

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

[BigDaddy]

 I was going to end my last post with "Stick a fork in this thread, it is done"  I guess not.

The original sketch showed both mainlines wired in phase and I'm not sure why there is so much uncertainty about that.  

Robert's scenario was a what if the wiring was different.  I think that has confused some people into stating for a fact that the are wired in opposite phase, they are not.

    Now an insider has revealed that there is secret track we did not know about.  I'm wondering what the guy who is trying to run his HO train with a G scale transformer hasn't told us.

  That piece of track with the rerailer is danger close to the edge of the layout.

 

   

[floridaflyer]

richhotrain

Gary, back on Saturday when I first read your initial post and saw that very first diagram, I drew the track diagram as a two-rail diagram, using red for one rail and blue for the other rail. I assumed without thinking further about it that both mainlines were wired the same way (in phase with one another). When wired that way, there are two reversing sections.

After this thread took an entirely different turn, suggesting that there were no reversing sections, I went back to my two-rail diagram and reversed my assumption as to one of the mainlines. Wired that way, there are no reversing sections.

If you have solved your problem and eliminated any shorts, then I don't really see any need to continue this thread. 

Rich

 

[quote user="richhotrain"]

Gary, back on Saturday when I first read your initial post and saw that very first diagram, I drew the track diagram as a two-rail diagram, using red for one rail and blue for the other rail. I assumed without thinking further about it that both mainlines were wired the same way (in phase with one another). When wired that way, there are two reversing sections.

After this thread took an entirely different turn, suggesting that there were no reversing sections, I went back to my two-rail diagram and reversed my assumption as to one of the mainlines. Wired that way, there are no reversing sections.

If you have solved your problem and eliminated any shorts, then I don't really see any need to continue this thread. 

Rich

It's the other way around Rich. If the loops are in phase no reversing sections are required, As they are wired opposite, two reversing sections are required. There are no reversing sections and if the wiring on the inside(Robert's yellow loop) were reversed the whole layout would be in phase. The need for the reversing sections is caused by the opposite wiring of the orange and yellow loops, there is no reversing of the direction of the loco. I do have another question about the loops connecting but am awaiting more information.

 

 

doug

[floridaflyer]

Gary, that is not true, the inside loop is wired opposite of the outer loop, thus the need for reversing sections, If both loops were wired the same there would be no need for two reversing sections. While I have you, are the two loops connected at the top of the layout by turnouts that are not on the schematic? Your photo shows two LH turnouts at the top of the straightaways located next to a coil of white wire, are these a connection between loops?  

[richhotrain]

Gary, back on Saturday when I first read your initial post and saw that very first diagram, I drew the track diagram as a two-rail diagram, using red for one rail and blue for the other rail. I assumed without thinking further about it that both mainlines were wired the same way (in phase with one another). When wired that way, there are two reversing sections.

After this thread took an entirely different turn, suggesting that there were no reversing sections, I went back to my two-rail diagram and reversed my assumption as to one of the mainlines. Wired that way, there are no reversing sections.

If you have solved your problem and eliminated any shorts, then I don't really see any need to continue this thread. 

Rich

[gdelmoro]

richhotrain

Wow, this thread has taken all kinds of twists and turns.

If you go all the way back to Gary's initial diagram, he presented a layout with two auto-reversers and the gaps to isolate the two reversing sections controlled by those auto-reversers. That could only mean one thing, and that is that the two mainlines were wired "in phase" with one another. So, the problem was analyzed using that assumption.

If the two mainlines are wired with polarities of one mainline opposite the polarities of the other mainline, then there would not be any reversing sections. But, that was not the situation presented to us.

What we still don't know for sure is which way Gary's layout is wired.

Rich

 

 

BOTH Main Linse are wired the same. I followed the MR recommendation of taking an old box car and painted a Black mark on one side and a Red mark on the other to make sure I had the correct rails connected to the correct Bus wire.  If you look at the original layout schematic you can see that both Mainlines follow the same wiring scheme. The same rail on both Mainlines connects to Black and The same rail on both mainlines connects to Red.

Maybe I don't understand what's being asked?

[floridaflyer]

Randy, using the photo that the OP provided as a reference ( photo is about 12 posts back), at the top of the two straightaways there are two LH turnouts that appear to connect the two loops. They are located next to a visable coil of white wire to the left of the turnouts. These turnouts are not shown on any plan diagram. Question,  if, I repeat if, this is the case and the two loops are wired opposite, it would not cause a short? But if both loops were wired the same it would cause a short?  OP has said that the turnouts have been there for a while and worked on DC. 

But given the twists and turns of this thread, I'm not really sure of anything. 

[richhotrain]

DSchmitt

 

 

rrinker

Now if there are any other crossovers between the two mains - then yes, you end up with reverse loops, but if the only two connections between the double mains are those outside cutoff tracks, there are no reverse loops and it's all just a matter of wiring the main line feeds the right way 'round and it will work with no reversers.                           --Randy

 

 

I spent hours drawing arrowsand + signs  on copies of the plan to finally figure that out.  Funny how such a simple plan can be so complicated to figure out the wiring. 

 

It's not complicated if you draw it as a two-rail track diagram and use a different color pencil or pen for each rail. When you do that, you can spot a short wherever two sections of track join with rails of opposite colors.

Rich

[DSchmitt]

rrinker

Now if there are any other crossovers between the two mains - then yes, you end up with reverse loops, but if the only two connections between the double mains are those outside cutoff tracks, there are no reverse loops and it's all just a matter of wiring the main line feeds the right way 'round and it will work with no reversers.                           --Randy

I spent hours drawing arrowsand + signs  on copies of the plan to finally figure that out.  Funny how such a simple plan can be so complicated to figure out the wiring. 

[rrinker]

 Adding the crossing just changes where the two 'loops' connect to the main. Instead of <left loop turnout>--<right loop turnout> the crossing just makes it <left loop turnout>---<right loop turnout> if I am reading the plan and seeing the turnout and crossing in the photo correctly. He's using Atlas turnouts and I am assuming an Atlas crossing, which are continuous power straight through each branch. Having the tracks cross with insulated frogs in the crossing changes nothing, the electrical plan is identical with or without the crossing.

 It's tricky because in neither case do the loop tracks cause the train to reverse direction of travel ON THE SAME MAIN. However, a train running left to right on the inside loop taking the track diagonally down to the right past the ferry yard will end up running right to left - but on the OUTSIDE loop, not the one it left. Likewise, a train going right to left on the outer loop (or - the plan as drawn without the crossing, coming off the right hand single track) going around the left hand singel track will emerge going left to right - but on the INSIDE loop. Without the crossing, the schematic of the 'reversing sections' simply forms a continuous loop. WITH the crossing, it forms a twice around continuous loop - you can;t go from one 'reversing section' to the other, you have to make an extra lap around one of the double track parts to get around to the second single track part because of the crossing.

 The overall plan is just a figure 8 with two cutoffs that are NOT reversing. Unfold it and draw it out (although it makes the cutoff tracks really awkward looking - but in a schematic who cares if it looks like a 2" radius curve.

Now if there are any other crossovers between the two mains - then yes, you end up with reverse loops, but if the only two connections between the double mains are those outside cutoff tracks, there are no reverse loops and it's all just a matter of wiring the main line feeds the right way 'round and it will work with no reversers. 

                         --Randy