If the two loops are connected at the top of the photo, I believe that the two loops, being wired opposite, would mean that the crossover would not cause a short but would require the original AR'S in the original positions. If all the loops were wired the same it would cause a short at the crossover but the original 2 AR's are not needed. OP said the track has been that way and worked with DC. Problem is I'm not sure he and I are talking about the same thing. I'm not set in stone about this theory.
doug
rrinker If that's an Atlas crossover the frogs are all insulated and it should be fine. On looking at the overall plan, is the main line bus lines were swapped on the one loop, then there are NO reverse sections at all. The direction of the train around the loops never changes if you follow it around, it's just that if the red feeder is on the inside of the inner loop, then it needs to be the outside of the outer loop (looking at the top part). There then are no shorts on either of those cutoffs. Unless at some point there are crossovers added between the two loops. Then we are back to actually changing the direction of travel of the train and they will be reverse loops no matter how you wire it. --Randy
If that's an Atlas crossover the frogs are all insulated and it should be fine. On looking at the overall plan, is the main line bus lines were swapped on the one loop, then there are NO reverse sections at all. The direction of the train around the loops never changes if you follow it around, it's just that if the red feeder is on the inside of the inner loop, then it needs to be the outside of the outer loop (looking at the top part). There then are no shorts on either of those cutoffs. Unless at some point there are crossovers added between the two loops. Then we are back to actually changing the direction of travel of the train and they will be reverse loops no matter how you wire it.
--Randy
Yes, this pretty much sums up what I've been saying when I butted into this thread. Keep in mind that my idea is only one possible alternative to what the OP could have done differently if he did things differently. I'm not suggesting that he rush in with a broadaxe and make radical changes to his layout. Even if he did, there would almost certainly be trade-offs later on down the line, particularly if he is still adding stuff to his track layout that doesn't yet show up on his trackplan sketches. I would suggest, however, that Gary check each and every one of the red/black dots he uses to identify rail polarity on his sketches. There might be some small little tiny discrepancies.
And to be clear, I have no objections to auto reversers. They are useful and reliable pieces of equipment that are readily available and reasonably priced. I have two on my current layout that I salvaged from my previous layout and from the one before that. I got them from Tony's Train Exchange about 15 years ago, and they work as well today as they did when brand new.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
nm
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
After rethinking the situation I believe the way you currently have the inner loop wired you would be ok. You have a mixed bag, leave the wiring the way it is and the crossover is fine but the 2AR's are needed. Change the inner loop wiring and the crossover becomes a short and would need an AR and reversing section of some sort,but the other 2AR's are not needed. In my view I would leave the wiring the way it is and use the 2AR's per your original plan.
Ha, I could be wrong too! I don't think there is a short because it was working on the old DC Layout. Let me check the wiring.
Gary
Thought I had an answer but think I am wrong so I edited out
I really hate to ask but does anythint change (Related to the reverse loops) if I add 3 more switches on the upper mainline.
This is there now but i have not connected the switch machines.
The track going off the picture (bottom right) is the upper loop that comes arround to the ferry yard and the diagonal in the center. On the same level you an see a track curving off to the left toward the top of the pic. That connects to the diagona. So as you can see there are three turnouts and a crossover.
floridaflyer Rich, I just don't see where the rails have a point of opposite polarity. I do see that if you take the rails as marked in the diagram as red and black there will be a point where black meets red. But by tracing one of the rails as outer, I do not find a point where outer meets inner. And the saga continues
Rich, I just don't see where the rails have a point of opposite polarity. I do see that if you take the rails as marked in the diagram as red and black there will be a point where black meets red. But by tracing one of the rails as outer, I do not find a point where outer meets inner. And the saga continues
Rich
Alton Junction
I agree Moe, change the polarity of the inner loop and the need for an AR goes way. Easier to do the inner loop by itself rather than the outer loop and the tracks marked in blue. Or leave things as they are and use the AR's
Robert,
Based ont he sketch where you show how you wired each rail you defenetly have a short. However, you probleme will go away if you are able to rewire one of the main lines to reverse the polarity from what you show, not with a reverser but physically. On the other hand, you can use a reverseron the crossover track in the center of the diagram. Please note that your polarity marks, on the upper left crosover are different on both sides of the curve.
Moe
floridaflyer Rich- the way I see it is that the inner loop is wired opposite of the outer loop thus the need for the AR's. If he changed the phase ( polarity) on the inner loop he would not need the AR's. You are right though, this has been an adventure.
Rich- the way I see it is that the inner loop is wired opposite of the outer loop thus the need for the AR's. If he changed the phase ( polarity) on the inner loop he would not need the AR's. You are right though, this has been an adventure.
The whole issue of reversing sections, or reverse loops, is interesting and often challenging. As this thread demonstrates, there can be reversing sections - - or not - - depending upon how the layout is wired. And when there are reversing sections, they can be located differently depending upon user preferences.
A double ended dog bone with a center crossover between two mainlines is a good example. Do you treat each end as a reverse loop and wire it up that way using two auto-reversers or do you treat the double mainline as a single reversing section, requiring only one auto-reverser?
As I say, interesting stuff.
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.
ROBERT PETRICKI hope Big Daddy Henry doesn't think I'm attacking him.
Like changing the wiring of the mainline, that thought never crossed my mind.
Gary since you have the mainlines wired and bought the reversers, I wouldn't change the wiring just to make if more ....efficient if that's the right word.
Finding reverse loops is a challenge to me and I didn't know the a dual frog juicer could serve as an AR. So I think many of us learned something from the thread.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Thanks for the reply. Wish I would have had this info before I wired the whole layout.
Actually Robert you cleared up a wiring method that required two AR's when in actually none were required. We went off in left field while an actual analysis of the track plan would have come to the same conclusion you did. Well done. (Granted the second diagram didn't help) OP has the option of leaving the wiring as is and use the AR's or changing the polarity of some of the wiring and not use the AR's. His call.
gdelmoro Robert I don't seem to understand, If you look at the wiring there is a short without an AR. Note that that each single line on the drawing represents 2 tracks with one wired to the Black bus wire and the other to the Red. Both mainlines are wired the same with the black and red wired on the same rails throughout the dogbone. Prior to the switch that leads to the center diagonal you can see that the top rails of each mainline connect to the black bus wire and the bottom to the red. When you pass the switch they are reversed. Coming around the loop off the top right and then up the diagonal from bottom to top there would be a short since the red feed and black feed would connect to each other. The same occurs with the bus connections off the main (top center) the track rails are wired the same as the main (Black on top rail Red on bottom) when it reconnects to the main they cross again with the black connecting to the red. another short. What am I missing?
Robert I don't seem to understand, If you look at the wiring there is a short without an AR. Note that that each single line on the drawing represents 2 tracks with one wired to the Black bus wire and the other to the Red. Both mainlines are wired the same with the black and red wired on the same rails throughout the dogbone. Prior to the switch that leads to the center diagonal you can see that the top rails of each mainline connect to the black bus wire and the bottom to the red. When you pass the switch they are reversed.
Coming around the loop off the top right and then up the diagonal from bottom to top there would be a short since the red feed and black feed would connect to each other.
The same occurs with the bus connections off the main (top center) the track rails are wired the same as the main (Black on top rail Red on bottom) when it reconnects to the main they cross again with the black connecting to the red. another short.
What am I missing?
Hey Gary-
I apologize for adding confusion to a discussion that already solved the problem of the OP. And, as it turns out, the problem was not related to the AR at all. It involved those old lighting wires inadvertantly left attached to the rails.
I knew I should not have re-opened the discussion. But I saw something about the track geometry that I found interesting. You are right . . . as things are wired right now, the ARs are necessary to change polarity in the rails. My idea was that if things were wired differently from the start (particularly the two mainlines), you would not need to have installed ARs at all.
It was never my intention to criticize what you did or to somehow impose how I would do things. I never intended to imply you should re-wire anything. It was purely an idea to discuss that track layout geometry and track wiring go hand-in-hand. I'm sorry for the intrusion.
And, while I'm apologizing, I hope Big Daddy Henry doesn't think I'm attacking him. He has always shown patience and consideration toward me.
When I get home, I think I'm gonna ballast track for an hour or so. The self-imposed punishment might do me some good.
For now forget the red/black indicators on the plan. Pick a track and call one rail of that track the "outside" rail, follow that rail with the curser, (when doing this I always repeat "outside" to myself to stay on course) and you will find that the outside rail of the track you are following always remains the outside rail regardless of which way you go.
I do no see any reversing loop. I cannot get an engine to reverse direction regardless of which pass i take. The key , I think, is to recognize that the outer rails of the red and blue tracks and the "inner rail of the yellow track should be the same polarity. I hope this helps.
Will be electrical short if wired + rail as shown. Reverse + & - on yellow and there will be no short. If crossovers are installed between red and yellow they will need insulated joiners between switches and "reverse loop" wiring will be required.
Dtrak3 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
ROBERT PETRICK richhotrain ROBERT PETRICK Two questions: 1) Does anyone understand why I requested the two yellow mainlines be re-painted? and 2) Does anyone understand the significance? This is not a joke, and I am not trying to start an argument. These are serious questions. Robert Robert, with all due respect, what are you talking about? Rich Apparently the answer to Question 1 is no, and the answer to Question 2 is also no. There are no reversing sections on this layout, there is no need to wire it as if there were, there is no need to cut isolation gaps in any rail, and there is no need for any auto-reversers. The two mainlines form independent closed loops. They are completely isolated from each other despite being parallel and in such close proximity for their entire length. And those blue lines everyone keeps calling reversing sections are not reversing sections. They are crossovers that move traffic from one loop to the other and back again. If wired correctly, there would be no conflicts regarding polarity. I'm sorry for pointing this out. Robert
richhotrain ROBERT PETRICK Two questions: 1) Does anyone understand why I requested the two yellow mainlines be re-painted? and 2) Does anyone understand the significance? This is not a joke, and I am not trying to start an argument. These are serious questions. Robert Robert, with all due respect, what are you talking about? Rich
ROBERT PETRICK Two questions: 1) Does anyone understand why I requested the two yellow mainlines be re-painted? and 2) Does anyone understand the significance? This is not a joke, and I am not trying to start an argument. These are serious questions. Robert
Two questions: 1) Does anyone understand why I requested the two yellow mainlines be re-painted? and 2) Does anyone understand the significance?
This is not a joke, and I am not trying to start an argument. These are serious questions.
Robert, with all due respect, what are you talking about?
Apparently the answer to Question 1 is no, and the answer to Question 2 is also no.
There are no reversing sections on this layout, there is no need to wire it as if there were, there is no need to cut isolation gaps in any rail, and there is no need for any auto-reversers.
The two mainlines form independent closed loops. They are completely isolated from each other despite being parallel and in such close proximity for their entire length. And those blue lines everyone keeps calling reversing sections are not reversing sections. They are crossovers that move traffic from one loop to the other and back again. If wired correctly, there would be no conflicts regarding polarity.
I'm sorry for pointing this out.
Dtrak2 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
Dtrak1 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
Big Daddy, I only used DC to clearly show the lack of reversing section. If DCC were used it could mask the fact that the loco on the yellow track was indeed moving in the same direction as the other two locos.
Rough crowd this morning.
You changed the rules on me. DC ? It was always a DCC layout. However I did not appreciate the cleverness of it, until you mentioned it.
If it were my layout I would have an internal crossovers or two between the main lines, but it's not my railroad and that would be changing the rules too.
Honest question, do people wire dual mainlines in opposite orientation? One might be in my future, but my old layout did not have a dual line. I suspect they don't because if the wanted the same cross overs that I would, they would have reversing loops. For me there would be an inevitable feeder left-right mixup.
We were given the wiring red/black orientation in Gary's 1st pic. I didn't know we were allowed to change that but I agree Robert with the wiring he suggests, Gary could do without reversers. Gary it sounds like you have some work to do.
Gary that top left green switchback siding in your 1st pic is a S curve and it will be real hard to work, S curve or not.
BigDaddy I still need convincing. I believe if you put 3 engines, one at each track, at point B, all facing right and run them around the track to point C. Two of them will be facing nose to nose. Do the same thing at point A with the engines facing left. Run them to point D and two of them will be nose to nose. Paint all the engines red on the left and black on the right. That represents the how the track is wired. When you get to points C & D in my examples, you are in conflict. Changing the subject, the smaller font text I had saved in wordpad and copied it to this post. How do I make it the same size as other text? Format makes bolder bigger or smaller but not normal.
I still need convincing.
I believe if you put 3 engines, one at each track, at point B, all facing right and run them around the track to point C. Two of them will be facing nose to nose. Do the same thing at point A with the engines facing left. Run them to point D and two of them will be nose to nose.
Paint all the engines red on the left and black on the right. That represents the how the track is wired. When you get to points C & D in my examples, you are in conflict.
Changing the subject, the smaller font text I had saved in wordpad and copied it to this post. How do I make it the same size as other text? Format makes bolder bigger or smaller but not normal.
Hey Henry-
Your point about placing three engines at Point B is correct. The one that causes the nose-to-nose conflict will always be the one placed on the yellow main. There is, however, one passing siding (shown on the original sketch, but not here) that might allow a daring Casey Jones saw-by maneuver to resolve that conflict, but it would need to be timed very carefully.
Because of the geometric arrangement of the layout, traffic on the yellow main and the orange main will always run in opposite directions to the other, and placing that third engine at Point B facing the same as the other two will cause a conflict. That is the thing that makes this layout actually pretty clever and perfect to operate in a DC environment: it makes trains appear as if they are reversed without actually doing so; crossing over to the other main accomplishes that. Trains should always move in one direction (that is, clockwise on one mainline loop and counter-clockwise on the other). And if the 0-5-0 places a train differently, that nose-to-nose conflict will occur within a minute. But what you described is not a reversing operation; it is a placement of trains.
You mentioned (in a PM) about painting cars red/black. I understood what you meant. Using your above example . . . Instead of three cars, use only one. Run over the entire layout along every course you can imagine. You will see. Plus, you will see that you can never get the thing turned around. I made a sketch showing the actual red/black rails and it shows this. Once again, I am physically separated from my AutoCAD computer. Later on, I will get that sketch and send it along.
In the meanwhile, you can do another experiment if you don't mind. Take a bare naked track plan and place red/black indicators as follows: 1) start with one mainline and assign red/black tags in any orientation, 2) mark both blue crossovers to match the first main, 3) then mark the other main to match both the crossovers. The orientation of the tags for second main will be opposite those of the first. This is not a problem, electrically. Do not mark both mains in sequence together at first. They are not related and are not compatible. That is where Gary made a (perfectly honest) mistake. There will be no conflicts.
I believe that if you run the three engines starting a point A and run them left, using one DC power pack, the locos on the blue and orange will go left and the one on the yellow will go right, turn the loco on the yellow so it is facing forward and and when they arrive at points C or D they will all be facing the same direction. I agree with Robert there is no reversing section. The second diagram threw a monkey wrench into things.
Deleted