LastspikemikeI'm not advocating replacement of DCC. I point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in "coding".
curious what type of modern software system you might be suggesting? (is your background in software)
DCC users don't need to know how to code, they need to understand configuration options described in CVs.
and DCC only describes the electrical signals on the track, not the user interface which you may be referring to
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Lastspikemike I'm not advocating replacement of DCC. I point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in "coding". I have a two BLI, a paragon 2 mikado and a paragon 3 pacific. I note that the pacific is very sensitive to the slightest voltage drop out while the Mike is not. My understanding of DCC, limited as it is, is that the main power is not a true AC but it does differ from the control signal and that both sets of power are transmitted down the rails concurrently. The decoder picks out the control signal and also converts the pseudo AC into DC (I guess "rectifies" is the term) with the variations in voltage required to control motor rpm. The power is phased and the alternating aspect is alternating the voltage in tiny amounts but not the polarity. So, the technical problem solved economically by DCC in the 1990's was standardizing the technology required to deliver power and the control signal down the same two conductors, which effectively froze development of the supporting software.
I'm not advocating replacement of DCC. I point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in "coding".
I have a two BLI, a paragon 2 mikado and a paragon 3 pacific. I note that the pacific is very sensitive to the slightest voltage drop out while the Mike is not.
My understanding of DCC, limited as it is, is that the main power is not a true AC but it does differ from the control signal and that both sets of power are transmitted down the rails concurrently. The decoder picks out the control signal and also converts the pseudo AC into DC (I guess "rectifies" is the term) with the variations in voltage required to control motor rpm. The power is phased and the alternating aspect is alternating the voltage in tiny amounts but not the polarity.
So, the technical problem solved economically by DCC in the 1990's was standardizing the technology required to deliver power and the control signal down the same two conductors, which effectively froze development of the supporting software.
You must stop thinking in terms of Analog DC.
The DCC signal is not AC. Never was. It looks like this: DCC Power. The waveform is the data and the power are combined.
The decoder picks off the pulses from one rail, at full voltage, so there is no mistake which logical state the rail is in at that point in time. It takes the pulses and routes them through a rectifier to provide power for the microcontroller and the motor.
The motor is driven using full voltage PWM. There is no phasing or polarity needed, the motor's drivers determine speed and direction by their switching sequence.
How did the standardisation of the control/power signal on the track lead to stagnation in the software?
Decoders and throttles have advanced enormously since the mid 90s as the microcontrollers became more powerful and the components got cheaper.
Television wasn't frozen in the 1950s. If it was, we would still have monochrome sets with a small CRT. Many engineers of the day would consider today's 4k televisions witchcraft. They considered the bandwidth needed for video to be excessive.
LastspikemikeI point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in "coding".
I'm not clear on what you mean.
I know absolutely nothing about coding or computer languages.
Yet referring to a one page sheet containing commands (since I don't remember them), with two or three buttons pushed on my handheld control, I can change virtually hundreds of different commands to my locomotives.
What am I missing by using this primitive software? What am I missing by using a handheld control rather than a laptop or phone? Why should I worry how easy or difficult it is to access?
York1 John
Whereever did you get the idea that DCC uses an AC power source with a DC control signal superimposed? That's actually opposite what most pre-DCC command control systems used - steady DC power with an AC pulse superimposed.
The DCC power IS the signal - full amplitude, there is no little tiny signal to pick out from the noise of brushed DC motors operating.
Wayne - as I said, sound on DC is just a non-starter,. I think it was a silly idea to even bother - and I'm sure I'll get plenty of responses that "I do it allt he time, it works fine". The only people I can imagine are actually satisfied witht he way sound locos work on DC are those who don't know any better. It's pretty simple - the electronics need around 5 volts to operate. The only way to get 5V or more to the loco on DC is to turn up the throttle. Unless a loco is relatively poor quality, by 5-7 volts, it should eb moving. However, if a sound loco behaved like that, it would be moving, with no sound since the voltage is high enough to turn the motor but not run the sound electronics. So they are set up not to move until a relatively high track voltage, leaving enopugh for the electronics plus some dead band because not all (more like most common) DC throttles aren;t particualrly precise, so a dead band is necessary to allow you to actually stop the thing but keep the sound going. Only once the voltage gets above that point does it start moving - but at 7-8 volts, you're already 2/3 of the way to full throttle. So you have a limited range of control for the sound loco to go from stopped but making noise to running full speed. And any other locos, without sound, at 2/3 throttle are probably already going faster than is realistic. If you want sound, go DCC, period. There are workarounds, like the MRC Tech 6, but when running that sound loco, it's using DCC, and when running a DC loco, you're now using the MRC pack and not that nice PWM DC throttle.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Well from someone on the fence still about DCC, I can tell you this. Pro's about DCC, sound (love that feature), two or more trains on same track and no turning off a side track just so the main engine can be used. Con's, much more fussy and prone to damage from operator error. Also DCC can be way more expencive than DC but has powered frog options that are much better and better automatic y controls for those that have that type of trackwork, These things have to be done manually in DC but can be done.
Lastspikemike In computing terms DCC is already seriously outdated. The NMRA standard has proved to be a double edged thing, as these standards often turn out to be. Using Function keys isn't even convenient for actual computer work. DCC still requires some understanding of the concept of programming at the level of the bit. It isn't necessary now to run power as an AC mimic and the control signal as DC piggybacked on the same wires. Each locomotive only needs a variable DC voltage throttle and wireless link. The rest of the DCC control software isn't necessary at all. The iPhone throttle is just the thin edge of this technology wedge. The problem is the heavy financial investment made when NMRA governed DCC got started in the 90's which, unfortunately, could not look far enough down the road at that time. Changing over to bluetooth or Wifi LAN software now would be very expensive but ideal. Recall that the Windows 95 era is contemporaneous with the currently valid NMRA DCC....
In computing terms DCC is already seriously outdated. The NMRA standard has proved to be a double edged thing, as these standards often turn out to be.
Using Function keys isn't even convenient for actual computer work. DCC still requires some understanding of the concept of programming at the level of the bit.
It isn't necessary now to run power as an AC mimic and the control signal as DC piggybacked on the same wires.
Each locomotive only needs a variable DC voltage throttle and wireless link. The rest of the DCC control software isn't necessary at all.
The iPhone throttle is just the thin edge of this technology wedge. The problem is the heavy financial investment made when NMRA governed DCC got started in the 90's which, unfortunately, could not look far enough down the road at that time. Changing over to bluetooth or Wifi LAN software now would be very expensive but ideal. Recall that the Windows 95 era is contemporaneous with the currently valid NMRA DCC....
rrinker There really aren't that many DC controllers using PWM - if you use a more common DC power pack or power supply for DC, then the motor only decoders work perfectly fine on DC, as intended. Sound is another story....
The only DCC loco I've run on my layout was a BLI Mikado that I detailed and painted for a friend. While it ran not too badly, the sound feature would cut-in and out, as if it were re-setting itself. Perhaps that had some influence on my disinterest in sound, but after almost 40 years in a steel mill, sound isn't an attractive feature.The throttle upon which I finally settled, (mentioned in my previous post) is a DC throttle with an adjustable PWM output. I power it from the AC terminals of a MRC Controlmaster 20. I haven't bothered adjusting the throttle because the trains already run the way I want them to run, as-is. The manufacturer is located about 20 minutes away, and stands behind his product, so if service is required, easily done.The throttle offers very precise control, and easily handles multiple locomotives pulling heavy trains on rather steep grades. Fits my requirements completely.
Wayne
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I understand. And if my layout goals were different, I might pick DCC. Sheldon
I understand. And if my layout goals were different, I might pick DCC.
Sheldon
agreed, to each their own ...
There really aren't that many DC controllers using PWM - if you use a more common DC power pack or power supply for DC, then the motor only decoders work perfectly fine on DC, as intended. Sound is another story, but that has everything do do with basic physics and the compromise needed to get sounds on DC before the loco is baralling down the tracks. Non-sound decoders don't have this limitation.
You can;t please 100% of the people 100% of the time. It's unfortunate the a full voltage DC PWM signal looks enough like the DCC signal to confuse many decoders, but the sheer number of DC modelers affected is very small. But when it's you - it seems like a huge 'mistake' on the part of manufacturers. Not all DCC decoders are confused by this - but even the ones that aren't, I suspect if you put a decoder-equipped loco on the rails with the throttle at a very specific non-zero speed setting, it could still confuse them.(if the pulse width were just so)
wvg_ca ATLANTIC CENTRAL Every person and every layout is different. Without signals, without CTC, with only a few locos, DCC is way less expensive and way more flexible than any kind of advanced DC. But that is apples and oranges. Sheldon i don't run block contol, [don't have to] or signalling [don't want to], , or ctc [whatever that is], .. and only maybe 4 or 5 locos at the same time ... only a couple with sound ... It's just so much easier with far less to go wrong..Bonus!
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Every person and every layout is different. Without signals, without CTC, with only a few locos, DCC is way less expensive and way more flexible than any kind of advanced DC. But that is apples and oranges. Sheldon
Every person and every layout is different. Without signals, without CTC, with only a few locos, DCC is way less expensive and way more flexible than any kind of advanced DC.
But that is apples and oranges.
i don't run block contol, [don't have to] or signalling [don't want to], , or ctc [whatever that is], .. and only maybe 4 or 5 locos at the same time ... only a couple with sound ...
It's just so much easier with far less to go wrong..Bonus!
Like Sheldon, I'm not a fan of on-board sound, even though I run only one train at-a-time and am a solo operator. It just doesn't sound real to me, at least for steam. I've operated DCC on friends' layouts, and don't have any quarrel with it, but it has nothing to offer me that plain ol' DC can't do. In fact, if someone were to offer me complete installation of a DCC system, including decoders (sound or not) in all of my three dozen locomotives, for free, I wouldn't take it...simply because DC does everything I want or need.
This isn't a "Which is best contest."...I'd say more like which is most suitable for each individual.
The only complicated (to me, anyway) wiring on my layout was when I was using a variety of throttles from different manufacturers, but since I settled on one, that wiring is no longer used.
Lastspikemike I cannot help but notice a deep historical interest displayed by many contributors to this forum. Dual mode decoders are very, very good. Older decoders do not work well in DC only mode. Of course a sound decoder needs 7+ volts to start which leaves only 5-7 volts range to vary the speed. Duh.
I cannot help but notice a deep historical interest displayed by many contributors to this forum.
Dual mode decoders are very, very good. Older decoders do not work well in DC only mode.
Of course a sound decoder needs 7+ volts to start which leaves only 5-7 volts range to vary the speed. Duh.
One more thought Mike, as someone who has been in this hobby a long time, and who knows lots of others who have been in this hobby a long time.
Yes, things do change, manufacturers work on problems, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. But I'm not trading in 54 years worth of models, or even the last 20 years worth, to have the "latest thing".
This hobby was orginally build on interchangeablity of products.
DCC would have been a better product if they had done like all the other command control systems, and said you are either all in or all out.
DCC has been around a long time now, and still has not become "universal". That fact alone makes a statement.
Have you ever used a dual mode decoder with a pulse width modulated DC throttle like the Aristo Train Engineer?
Trust me, they don't work.
Full voltage pulse width modulated DC sets DCC decoders nuts.
wvg_ca i looked at both when i was making my layout, 15ft by 16ft .. DCC was less work AND less money, sold!
i looked at both when i was making my layout, 15ft by 16ft ..
DCC was less work AND less money, sold!
DCC for large layouts with large loco rosters is expensive, and all signaling solutions layered over top of DCC are just as complex and expensive as any DC signal solutions.
DCC offers no particular advantage for detection, signaling, CTC or advanced route control of turnouts.
With my particular set of operational goals, DCC would only provide a few additional features beyond my current system. And in fact I would loose a few features. And it would require purchasing and installing 130 decoders.
I'm not anti DCC, I logged lots of hours on the DCC layouts of my friends, I get it.
But those few features are not worth the work or expense for my personal goals.
I am anti sound, at least when it comes to onboard sound in HO on a large layout with lots of trains running at the same time.
Just another reason why I don't need DCC or any other command control system.
ATLANTIC CENTRALdual mode decoders are joke when it comes to DC operation.
I completely agree.
The dual mode decoders need to be removed if you are going to stay with DC operation.
On my beloved Bachmann 2-8-8-4 I accidentally glued the tender shell on, and I cannot get to the decoder to remove it.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Lastspikemike All the new DCC locomotives come with dual sound decoders that run just fine in DC mode with useful sound effects.
All the new DCC locomotives come with dual sound decoders that run just fine in DC mode with useful sound effects.
Obviously your idea of "just fine" is different from mine.
Needing extra voltage, or turning the throttle up half way before the train moves is not "just fine".
But most dual mode decoders will not run at all on my DC throttles.
I use DC throttles with full voltage pulse width modulation speed control and most dual mode decoders, sound or otherwise, simply do not work, the loco sits there and vibrates.
dual mode decoders are joke when it comes to DC operation.
ATLANTIC CENTRALGood sound, one train, intimate viewing of that one train, I might be all in for sound.
My layout is planned for several different operating schemes to maximize play value.
One of these schemes is simply a single switch locomotive, like the NW-2, working the car float. That is when I would use the Kato sound system.
At other times, it would not be appropriate.
I have a 4 pole 3 throw break-before-make rotary switch to select which throttle set-up controls the local. It can be Kato wirless, panel control, or tethered walk-around.
For different operating schemes different controls would be appropriate.
Bayfield Transfer Railway You know, I KNOW how Progressive Cab Control with relays works. Not only did I read all the MR articles on it from back in the 50s and 60s, I was a member of MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club for seven years, and they implemented PCC on their layout.It is neither simple nor easy. If Sheldon has the knowledge to implement it, good for him. But to push it as something any modeler can do is just errant nonsense. It's like saying to play the flute you blow in one end and move your fingers up and down.
You know, I KNOW how Progressive Cab Control with relays works. Not only did I read all the MR articles on it from back in the 50s and 60s, I was a member of MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club for seven years, and they implemented PCC on their layout.It is neither simple nor easy. If Sheldon has the knowledge to implement it, good for him. But to push it as something any modeler can do is just errant nonsense. It's like saying to play the flute you blow in one end and move your fingers up and down.
First of all, I know what Progressive Cab Control is too, and that is not what I use.
I use a CTC/TOWER CONTROL version of MZL Control developed by Ed Ravenscroft, and partly based on Bruce Chubb's original relay based signals and CTC, adapted by me for use with Aristo wireless throttles (or any similar base station radio throttle).
The system uses a number of different ideas suggested by Ravenscroft, Malory and others to provide a simple user interface for DC.
There are no block toggles, turnout control is "one button" route control, which automatically routes track power correctly thru interlockings, reducing the number of block command inputs by half.
It allows full walk around operation by operators with no more buttons or switches than DCC with track side turnout controls.
OR, it provides a complete CTC experiance with a dispatcher on duty.
Cabs are correctly and automatically connected to the proper route with the push of one button to clear the next signal to green.
If an operator runs a red signal, his train simply stops, he will not enter trackage controlled by another throttle.
The Aristo Train Engineer wireless throttle provide smooth speed control using the same pulse width modulation technology as is that used by a DCC decoder.
Turnout and cab selection/CTC assignment buttons are redundant on local tower panels and the main CTC panel.
Detection shows train locations on the CTC panel and overhead panels around the layout for operator reference.
Maybe a lot to build, but easy to use.
I never suggested it was for everybody, in fact I said DCC was likely the best choice for most people.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
Same here, DC, DCC or whatever, no touch screens for me. It needs to be one handed without looking at it.
I can hold my Aristo Train Engineer wireless throttle in one hand and speed up, slow down, change direction, and apply the emergency stop without ever looking at the throttle.
A touch screen device would be a step backward in terms of ease of use.
If you are guest operator on my layout, and we have a dispatcher on duty, your user experience is easier than DCC. I hand you a throttle and say there is your train.
The throttle has five buttons, easy to identify by feel - FASTER, SLOWER, EAST, WEST, EMERG STOP.
You just make your train go and obey the signals.
The dispatcher sets your route and clears your signals.
All done with "old school" tech.....
LastspikemikeChanging over to bluetooth or Wifi LAN software now would be very expensive but ideal.
Not to me, it wouldn't. I'm with Paul. I can operate the speed steps of my "outdated" Power Cab throttle without even looking at the buttons...AND one-handed. I couldn't do that with a touchscreen throttle.
Advancements in technology don't always make for improved MRRing experience.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Lastspikemike,Yes, DCC is old tech. In fact, it's older then you think. It started back in 1989 with Bernard Lenz and Marklin, was investigated by Stan Ames in 1992, and was proposed as an NMRA Standard in 1993. Which means it's more equivalent to an IBM 486 running Windows 3.1.I use computer keyboard function keys all the time when I'm using programs that use them. You don't need to know bit programming for DCC. That's why they have charts. In 20 years of using DCC, I have never added up bits to figure out, say, CV29 values beause I use the chart.
You said, "It isn't necessary now to run power as an AC mimic and the control signal as DC piggybacked on the same wires."
Um, no. That's not how DCC works. It's a square wave AC signal, with the length of the wave determining if it's a 0 bit or a 1 bit. With DCC, the power is the signal. DC is not piggybacked on anything.
What about lights, sounds, and functions like brakes?
Personally, I don't like touch screen controls for a throttle. If I have to look at the throttle to control my train, it isn't worth it for me. I use a switcher way too often, and I want to watch my train couple up to another car or spot a car to be constantly looking at my touchscreen throttle.
EDIT: for future readers going through this thread, the initial premise was that LocoFi was using 'the same' 8-pin connector as NMRA standard DCC. They subsequently comment in this thread (about 6 pages in) that their connector is NOT NMRA plug-compatible ... by that, I assume they mean it will not mechanically fit; that the connector tracking is different, and the two will not mate. This should be confirmed by the reader before they get further into the trash and treasure that the rest of this discussion holds...
LastspikemikeIt isn't necessary now to run power as an AC mimic and the control signal as DC piggybacked on the same wires.
Meanwhile, in my opinion, a proper 'replacement' for DCC, whether dead-rail-based or not, needs to follow the Vail model of evolution in the Bell system as it evolved. Relatively simple overlays, glue logic, and emulation can provide compatibility with the great mass of older equipment and know how, and it will run even if no more than thunked in a corner of what a modern ultra-low-power processor and radio setup provides. That in turn allows different paradigms of operation to work -- as preferences -- on a newer system.
Some of us want the locomotive to accelerate as soon as throttled up, others (including ESU) only when the prototype has 'developed power' to move the train. This shouldn't be a global setting, but it should likewise provide a locomotive owner no surprises when he plunks his programmed engine on any layout as a guest. To make a complex system 'just work' like a competent walled garden takes much more than careful programming... but we've learned quite a bit since Win95 was deprecated.
One thing that will be interesting is DC compatibility; another will be to see if the not-too-difficult 'fix' for using both kinds of 5e four-pair Ethernet cables interchangeably in the same modem or switch gets applied to 'inconsistent pinout' ...
Sheldon,I had to take down my layout because it was in the basement of my parent's bookstore. After 25 years of ownership, my folks decided to retire and close the business in 2014. The bookstore basement was a former commericial space, too, so was well lit, had HVAC, and about 90% finished with a tile floor, drywalled, etc. (the back corner didn't have a ceiling). I always knew I'd lose the space someday, but I knew that for years I would have a great layout space and it seemed foolish to waste it.I still have every wood piece of my layout; all the wood is stacked inside my shed at home, and all my track is stored in the basement. But I don't want to build a layout in my basement due to the dirt floor cellar and fieldstone foundation, and while I do have an nice upstairs attic that can turned into a layout room, it's full of 80 years worth of family stuff.
Besides, I'm still a member of one of the largest model railroad clubs in the USA, the South Shore Model Railway Club in Hingham, Mass. with our 10,000 sq. ft. building. If I didn't have the club, I would totally feel the pressure to build a layout again.
There was a sort of cottage industry in DCC alternatives back when DCC was pretty firmly entrenched but the decoders still had to be separately installed and few if any locomotives came DCC equipped. I think as long as there are garage tinkerers there will be ideas and systems floated that have their positive points and maybe even genuine improvements and some curious customers will buy in, but it is tough to dislodge a proven and accepted method which has become entrenched.
One that interested me at the time was an outfit called Signal Research which was DC and block control but a system which supposedly "learned" your layout and assigned power to blocks (and turned it off to other blocks) more or less automatically. So if I understood it correctly the array of toggle switches would not be needed - a "black box" took care of everything, all the blocks.
There were several threads about it at the time on these Forums, one of which is this one
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/3657.aspx
I read everything I could get on the subject of the Signal Research Trainmaster (it was reviewed in Model Railroader but the review was sketchy and it was not clear from reading it that the reviewer had actually installed it on a layout) and contacted the company via email but I could never get a straight clear answer to some pretty basic quetions, one of which was, OK if this is a DCC alternative just how do multiple operators run multiple trains?
I have been around long enough to recognize that DCC is highly unlikely to be the "last" power/control system in model railroading, any more than the compact disc proved to be the last word in recorded sound (despite claims at the time that it would be). A buddy of mine has gone whole hog into RailPro and extols its superiority to DCC at every opportunity (before that he was into RailLynx and Dynatrol). I hope for his sake that RailPro exists as long as he needs it to exist for support and new locomotives etc. But at this point in my model railroading life I am confident that DC and DCC are going to remain available options for as long as I am a potentialy customer, and thus they are the two realistic choices, with the rest being for others to explore.
Dave Nelson
Kevin,
Good sound, one train, intimate viewing of that one train, I might be all in for sound.
But that does not satisfy my other modeling goals.
6-8 trains moving at once, no matter how low the volume, or how big the space, just turns into a din to my ears, especially when you throw in some humans trying to talk over it all.
If I wanted the one train intimate experiance, I would model 1/4" two rail.
ATLANTIC CENTRALWell first off, I'm not interested in anything that uses a smart phone as a throttle, so that leaves me out.
I used to feel the same until I saw/heard Kato's sound system for their DC throttle set-up. The Smart Phone throttle worked good, and it solves my desire for a wireless throttle and a good sound system I can run through a 100 watt amp with a sub-woofer.
Sound that sounds real, can shake the room, a wireless throttle... and no locomotive modifications.
They have a sound card that goes with my Kato NW-2, so that is convenient.
Of course, my train room is small enough that a stationary powerful sound system makes better sense for me than on-board sound.
I am sold.
Paul, I know that you can do ATC with DCC, for me it is a free feature built into the design of the cab control and would work without the detection or signaling, it requires no extra cost or effort.
While I bought some of the relays on the secondary market, many were purchased new, bulk, directly from a manufacturer/importer, as well as my lighted push buttons. I also had relay boards custom manufactured.
Where DCC gets expensive is decoders for larger fleets of locomotives, you had 30, I have 130. Even at $20, that is big additional expense - and that is one of the main things I am offended by when this comes up - the idea that I should/could do with less locos so that I can have DCC. $2000 buys a lot of wire and widgets.
Because I don't/have not bought locos with sound and DCC, and only bought a few with DCC only, the cost of my sizeable loco fleet is pretty low - dollar cost average about $100 each. And it is all nice stuff, Proto, Genesis, BLI, Spectrum, Intermountain, etc.
Do you know how many times someone has said to me "you don't have to convert all you locos at once" - if I had a dollar..........
My investment in track is similar to yours.
You had three throttles, I have, and would want/need 8-10 throttles. I get the buddy thing with the extra throttles. Not something I would rely on. I can display run six trains at once. I like display running as much as "operation". Guess I need my 10 throttles so I can have a few people working the yards while trains display run on the main.
Like so many people consider sound and/or DCC essential, I consider detection and signaling essential.
I completely agree DCC is the best choice for most people, and most people have no interest or ambition for signaling or CTC. Many people have no interest in display or casual running, I do. Different goals, different needs.
Most of my "wiring" is done on the work bench. My double track mainline on the new layout will be over 400' with thru staging for 30 trains. I don't need feeders every 9 feet. The trains run fine with one feeder per block, typically 30 to 60 feet.
If I may ask, why did you take you layout down?