Insulators, DPDT,blocks,spools of wire,powerpacks etc…etc…
sounds like alot of work for a small layout,
This is just my opinion but that Bachmann EZ command sounds
pretty good for $59 bucks [:D][:D][:D]
bill
Yes it does seem like a lot of work! I hope to make the most of it though…I just can’t justify spending more money on decoders, etc. when I already have most of the supplies I need (I just bought two DPDT switches yesterday- one is going to be for a wye track later)
This has become a very interesting and informative thread. Thanks to all!
Gluefinger: WC’s suggestions will work; but, I suspect that, in the long run, you will prefer the flexibility of a little more complexity (which will require a few more toggles). But, before we get to that, a few words on the track plan itself:
Your diagram appears to be showing yard on both sides of a two-track main. A real railroad would try to avoid such an arrangement, since such would oblige switchers continually to cross the main (and tie it up) to get from some yard tracks to others. Real railroads would try to locate the yard either on one side of the main or have the two main tracks temporarily separate so that the yard was entirely in the middle. The yard then could be fed by a lead (or leads) itself connected to the main, somewhat like this:
__/
______________ _/ /
\ \ _/ /
\ \ _/ /
\ __________ \ _/ /
__ _________//
In this arrangement, the yard splits the main, so that both eastbound and westbound trains can be served by it.
Now, on a scratch sheet of paper with the above sketch, number your turnouts starting at the top, left to right: 1;2;3 (eastbound main); 4,5 (westbound main); 6 (yard lead); 7 (yard feed/eastbound arrival-departure); 8 (double slip switch-yard feed); 9 (westbound main); 10 (yard lead #2/westbound arrival-departure; 11 (runaround/westbound arrival-departure); 12 (double slip switch-yard feed); 13 (yard ladder); 14,15,16,17, (yard ladder); 18 (caboose track); 19, 20 (yard ladder
Well, gentlemen, there is a problem with my diagram, because with the MR Forum set-up, what you see is not what you get, but I will try to redraw it to make it come out right.
I screwed up my original drawing too- should be a one-track line, and I forgot to add in an extra switch. When it was first built, the prototype yard was part of a secondary main, but now it’s just a very crappy branch line. There were formerly 10 tracks in it! There was only one siding north of the “main,” and the rest was south of it. Since a new yard was built west of here in 1996 and a lot of industry along the line has left town, much of the yard was torn out. I was planning to model this yard as it appeared with the one northern track, and 3 southern tracks.
Nobull, I like your ideas very much! They make me wi***he prototype yard was built with more operations-mindedly [^]…Can I use most of the feeder/isolation ideas for a one-track line as well? I do kind of like the one yard track away from the others though, it throws the proverbial wrench into the well oiled machine.
I went down to the real yard and shot a couple photos- they aren’t great, but I didn’t wait around for great lighting/composure. In the first shot, you can see the northern siding, the “main” (branch), the one remaining southern siding, and the grassy area is where the former other 8 tracks were (now overgrown). In the second view, you can see the switch where the former 3rd siding came off. (And there were many more)
The weirdest thing about this yard, is the fact that there were no engines or cabooses parked here. Engines were laid over about 2 miles east near the coach yard, and headed up to this (The “Farm Yard”) to switch.
Hope this new info doesn’t ruin the whole plan…[sigh]
I see I have the second-page format here, think that was the problem (I was at the end of the line!).
First, your question: Assume you had a one-track oval. Now, try and hook the two power packs to it. Easy: Run the feeders to the center poles of the DPDT and the end poles each to the respective pack, just like WC advised. Now, let’s leave the curves single and cut in passing sidings and yards or industry on the straights. The feeders would go on the curves, before the point ends of the main turnouts. Here, you would have a four-block main (two curves and two straights, which for an internal yard in effect have the north rail and south rail splitting to surround all the complex work in the middle.
Another try at my diagram, this time collapsing into single track (since I have more room):
/ \ \ / / \ ____
___///
____/ /
\ \ _/ /
\ \ ____________________________________/ /
\
Well, another no-go, and I give up (Model Railroader needs to redesign the system so that what we see is what we get).
--------------
--------------
--------------
Try this: switch the font to a non-proportional font. I used Courier above and it seems to line up, at least in preview. We’ll see after I post this for real.
–Randy
Sorry, Randy, but font is not the problem. On an extended diagram, the program adds or chops off portions of main line and arbitrarily adds or subtracts them to the next line, moving everything on the next line forward or backward as the case may be, and this error becomes magnified with every additional line of type representing railroad. The result is a mess one cannot anticipate ahead of time.
I just answered an e-mail from someone else who tried but could not decipher the spaghetti. I’ll repeat here a portion of what I told him:
The WESTERN end of the plant looks something like this:
south
________________________________________________________________________ EBM
//_________________________________/ WBM
___________/ / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _/
___________/ /
__________/ / wbm
_______/ /
________// _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
WBM
north
&c. Of course, the ladder can have as many classification tracks as fit in the available space. Now, follow the westbound main EAST to the point it diverges to the northeast, around the yard; go straight instead. The next turnout is a double slip switch which connects the eastbound main to the eastbound arrival-departure and the yard, and connects the westbound main also to eastbound arrival-departure and the yard.
Finally, the dotted trackage was not in the original diagram: If t
Well that one looked ok.
The problem really is proportional spaced fonts. Lots of the same character often get scrunched together and throw off the alignment. Other forum software has a {fixed} tag which allows you to fully space text and have it all line up as expected, but apaprantly this one does not. Oh yeah, SPACES in proportional fonts are murder Try lining stuff up in a word processor using spaces - doesn’t work. Tabs do. Or using non-proportional spacing.
–Randy
For whatever reason, the publishing wizard had no opportunity either to truncate lines and shift them down a slot or arbitrarily ignore spaces and just pile everything together; however, when I tried to do the eastern end, even though short enough to fit otherwise, MR’s publishing wizard decided the spaces were irrelevant and bunched everything back together again.
Can’t win them all!
Gluefinger: I’ve assuming your restraints on both time and finances are rather rigid. Lemme continue from there.
In re yours of 18 June 2005, using a DPDT switch resolves the question of how your locomotive(s) get power. When the yard is “assigned” to the yard power pack, the mainline locomotive does not go into the yard. PERIOD. When the yard is “assigned” to the mainline power pack, it becomes electrically all one “block”. The DPDT switch can be set only one way or the other and it’s impossible to have the two power packs “cross-feed”, short-out, or whatever. DO NOT use a common ground between the power packs. This can result in a 24 VDC potential in the track - which you don’t need - not nohow !!! (So much for all those imaginary “buggywhos”).
Nobillchitbids is completely correct in his comments, even if his schematics do come thru a bit garbled. The single track “yard” on the “opposite side” of the mainline might also be viewed as a mainline passing track with all movement there controlled by the mainline power pack. This puts a very nice passing track on your mainline and greatly expands your operating possibilities. Might not be your first concept, but it’s your model railroad and on this you can do just as you like (By the way, thanks for the great photos.)
Nobullchitbids yard “system” is also completely prototypical, but it might be a bit more that you want or need. Again, it’s your model railroad. The CB&Q - BN - BNSF - Illinois RailNet - ONMITrax (pick your era) have switched LaSalle-Peru Illinois with basically no more tracks than you have there. Yes, they are a bit longer !!!
Might be well to take a more complete look at the requirements of DCC. Nope, I ain’t got DCC, but from what has been published in MR:
Tstage is right. Power busses & track feeders are very important. For every piece of rail on the top of the layout there should be a piece of 14 ga. wire (power bus) below the layout. There’s a recommendation for a track fe
Some closing notes on common rail:
IF you have one of those power packs which provides two throttles off of ONE transformer, e.g. an old Model Rectifier Dualpack, THEN you cannot use common rail; however, IF you are using two SEPARATE power packs, each with its own transformer, then the common-rail scheme does NOT result in pyramiding of voltage values. This is because each power pack in effect operates as an independent circuit, and all you are doing is providing a common ground. Like WC says, because only one of the packs can be connected to a particular block at once, it never can have more than 12 v. of potential no matter what is connected to the common rail. Think in terms of batteries: A wire from positive of battery “A” to negative of battery “A” makes a circuit; but, a wire from positive of battery “A” to negative of battery “B” does nothing unless the positive of battery “B” also is connected to the negative of battery “A.” In the Dualpack, this connection exists; in separate, independent power packs, it does not. Yes, they both are plugged into the wall; but, the secondary currents are induced, not direct, so there really is no connection.
The principal problem with common rail is selecting which rail to be “common” – you want the rail which requires the fewest number of gaps in it for purposes of control. This allows the common to be gapped instead for signaling, crossing gates, occupancy detection, whatever.