I am setting up a track, and have not had one in many years, the problem that I am having is that I wanted to put an extra turnout with a short track to be able to switch up trains , but when doing so I get power to both tracks I have a manual and a power, don't they shift power when you shift the track , it is set up in a oval with a y turn out. I thought setting this up for my grandson was going to be fun, frustrating
they are not power routing, you would have to use block control.
how is that done, I read that you need to cut power , what is the easiest/best way to do with eztrack,
You need to electrically Isolate it. One way would be to remove the rail joiners on the divergent end of the turnout and/or one end of the siding then replace them with insulated joiners. Or you can cut through one rail. Be advised that BOTH rails need to be isolated in otder to have to different directions of travel at once. Then, attach a feeder wire to the siding through a switch (electrical) to turn it on or off.
Quote from: Irbricksceo on January 04, 2015, 10:37:31 PM
You need to electrically Isolate it. One way would be to remove the rail joiners on the divergent end of the turnout and/or one end of the siding then replace them with insulated joiners. Or you can cut through one rail. Be advised that BOTH rails need to be isolated in otder to have to different directions of travel at once. Then, attach a feeder wire to the siding through a switch (electrical) to turn it on or off.
brick,
would suggest that you read up on block wiring before you try to give advice to others on a subject you don't understand......
for the record, with ez track and other track with insulated frogs on the switches, it is only necessary to gap one rail for each block (section) you want to control. this is called common rail wiring, all gaps must be on the same rail, and the other rail is used as a common return. it is similar to the way your car is wired, using the chassis as a ground or common return, and all control circuits come off of the positive side of the battery.
the following book, published by atlas, describes in detail how this works using modular components to control the tracks.
http://www.atlasrr.com/Images/Books/12%20Wiring%20Book%20Cover.jpg
Trust me, I do know about block wiring. IT is safer to isolate both rails especially for two directional travel (since the current polarities will be opposite) and it provides protection from outside influence. Considering it is almost no extra work, I say do both rails, its easier.
Lets say a short occurs on either side A or side B from something, be it a locomotive with damage, something left across tracks, a wiring issue down below, ect. By keeping segments completely isolated, you can troubleshoot much easier. Its how I did it when I used block control on my previous set up. I say, if somewhere down the line you might have an easier time by making one more cut today, go for it.
"Outside influence" = Scenary pin dropped across the track; setting a Kadee #205 metal coupler height gauge on the track with power applied; etc.
Len
thanks for the advise, that is what I thought , I always like to get different opinions to make sure I am attempting to do it the best/easiest way possible. I thank you for your responses, and I understand both "trains" of thought, pun intended. Thanks again for your time
Quote from: Irbricksceo on January 05, 2015, 11:28:12 AM
Trust me, I do know about block wiring. IT is safer to isolate both rails especially for two directional travel (since the current polarities will be opposite) and it provides protection from outside influence. Considering it is almost no extra work, I say do both rails, its easier.
you just proved my point that you don't know what you're talking about.....
for the record, having two separate power packs controlling different blocks with a common rail return poses absolutely no electrical problems. the polarity of each one with regards to the other is irrelevant, because the only point of connection between them is the common return. a similar concept is often used in electrical devices where you have both positive and negative power supplies sharing a common return. the common rail system has been tried and true practice for at least 60 years in model railroading, and greatly simplifies wiring. the only exceptions which must be insulated on both rails are reversing sections such as turnback loops and wyes.
as a matter of fact, the only practical reason I can think of to insulate both rails is if you want to install a signal system, where the signal blocks do not necessarily match the track blocks.
there is no repeat no advantage to gaping both rails on a dc layout.
Look, I see what you are saying and while you are TECHNICALLY correct, I still say gap both. I'm not stupid, I've ready many many books, articles, and papers on electrical circuits as a hobby. But Complete isolation is minimal extra work for a much better system. sure, it might work without it, but considering it is so easy, why not double gap when it simply makes two smaller systems.
Keeping things as simple is often best but in this case you can make two completely separate areas which, again, COULD make things simpler down the line, for almost no extra work. It is up to the OP how he wants to proceed and you certainly can have your opinion and suggest it however I ask that you not discount mine for being different when it works perfectly well.
Not at all saying you're wrong Brick, but I will be employing Common Rail wiring myself when I get to that stage of my layout. It is counter intuitive that if you don't have the direction switches in the same direction on the 2 (DC) power packs you are going to have problems, but you will not with Common Rail. It is made easier too when using Atlas turnouts bc they are non power routing.
But before I get to the wiring, I have to figure a solution to solving the look of ties and rails "flying in midair" between the Atlas bridge piers I am using. I really like the Atlas pier set, but never gave thought to the look of the sections of track between the piers (doh!!). I know the easy solution would be to replace the pier set with Woodland Scenics foam risers, but don't really want to do that. I was thinking of cutting some styrene sheets to glue to the underside of the ties between the piers, then painting all plastic, grey, to make it look like concrete. I am open to suggestions. (My apologies for what may be viewed as a thread hi jack attempt :-[)
Common rail. Only way to go to avoid problems. Why else would every book and magazine article say the same thing?
Cheers.
Roger T.
Because most of them were written before DCC became common place, and "that's the way it's always been done"??
For straight DC block control, with no plans to use DCC in the future, 'Common Rail' is fine, except for wye's, reverse loops, and turntables. On the plus side, it cuts down on the number of wires that have to be run, and some cost, while allowing the use of Atlas control switches designed around 'Common Rail'. On the minus side, on a larger layout you have to be careful to keep track of which rail is 'Common' to prevent shorts. Some early DCC power supplies don't like it much. It makes it harder to set up DCC power disctricts if you decide to make the switch. And it can make it harder to trouble shoot some DCC problems if you can't completely isolate both rails in a section of track.
If the plan is to eventually switch to DCC, or use DCC from the start, I would gap both block rails from the start. It's easier to do it while building, than to retrofit gaps and feeders later. Pluses: As the number of locos needing power grows, it makes it much easier to set up seperate power districts. And it makes troubleshooting electrical problems much easier. Minuses: Uses a bit more wire, and stops the use of certain Atlas power controllers that were designed for 'Common Rail' layouts.
There are pros, cons, and advocates on both sides of this issue. But it's your layout, so you get to decide which way to go.
Len
Thank you for all that info Len. I would like to mention something about the WYE. I have employed one before, that did not utlize the WYE in the traditional sense in that it was not used to send the loco back to the track it started from, but going in the opposite direction. The way I used it, did not change the directrion (clockwise for example) that the loco ran in. Am I correct that using a WYE in this sense, would not result in it being as one of the exceptions that you listed?
Thank you again.
Even with the scenario you suggested, wyes still need to be isolated. Draw a wye, with both rails, on a piece of paper. Start on one of the "mainline" rails and follow it up one leg of the wye to the common section. Now follow that same rail down the other leg to the "mainline". You'll find your on the opposite rail of the "mainline" from where you started, essentially connecting the two mainline rails together electrically. That's called a short, which is not a good thing, and has nothing to do with reversing the direction of the loco.
Len
Okay, but that never happened in the way that I employed it. Perhaps I did not adequately describe how I did??
And just in case it makes a difference, this is an Atlas WYE I have been talking about. I will add this as well; I basically used it in place of using a turnout; it just fit better for what I was doing, than a turnout.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about a full blown wye using three turnouts or wyes.
If you're just using the #4 Wye as a turnout, then no, gaps aren't needed unless it's a situation you'd gap with a standard turnout.
Len
Quote from: Len on January 08, 2015, 01:02:03 PM
Sorry, I thought you were talking about a full blown wye using three turnouts or wyes.
Nope. That is why I took great pains to describe how I was using the WYE and mention specifically that I was not using the WYE in the traditional sense. I am glad you got back to me and confirmed this-there is no good reason to not double check on something you think is proper against what others know :).
Now if I could get some suggestions on my bridge pier issue, that would be great ;).
Are you using the piers for an over-n-under arrangement, or to create a level "trestle" across a valley? It makes a slight difference in the solution.
Len
Yes on the over/under, but not in a figure 8. I have 2 AHM trestles I have put together that form the "bridge" and to either side of the bridge, the piers go progessively down until they reach table level. I have curves (mostly 18"R, a couple of 22"R) in this. The track then finds it's way back under the bridge.
Thank you Len for your help.
Quote from: jbrock27 on January 08, 2015, 06:47:04 PM
I have 2 AHM trestles I have put together that form the "bridge" and to either side of the bridge, the piers go progessively down until they reach table level. I have curves (mostly 18"R, a couple of 22"R) in this.
jim-
The appearance of those crossties floating free in the ether has always bothered me, too.
-- D
I know Doc. I got the term I used to describe them, from something you wrote at one time. :D Should have given what that look would be, more thought, but did not unfortunately...
jb,
you can get some plastruct I beam sections and glue them under your track, trimmed to fit the space between the piers.
I think I remember you mentioning that sometime before as well Jeff. Thank you. I will look for those.
Great minds think alike. You can take what jward said a bit further using sheet styrene to make a deck between the piers. It's simpler to do than to describe, but the steps are pretty straight forward. Just remember support decks are straight, even when holding up curved track.
1. Place the longest car/loco you've got on your 18" curves and measure the overhang of the car. This would be at the middle of the car on the inside of the curve, and the ends on the outside of the curves. Do the same for your 22" curves. If you plan to get something bigger later on, track down the measurements and make a mock-up to check overhang for clearances. Write down the numbers for future reference.
2. Deck Width: Add up 18" curve inner overhang, 18" curve outter overhang, 1-1/4" tie length, plus 1/4" for safety to get the total deck width. For consistency, use the same width for your 22" curves. Only the overall length will change between 18" and 22" curve spans.
3. Deck Length: Measure the straight line distance from the center of one end of an 18" curve to the center of the opposite end. Do the same for a 22" curve. Take one pier and measure the width of the little clip that holds the track in place on top. Subtract this number from the end-to-end track measurements you just did. This is your deck length, measured from width center at one end to width center at the opposite end.
4. Lay out, making sure to mark the center-line, and rectangles of sheet styrene to the width and length measurements you figured out above for the 18" and 22" curves. Make the length a bit longer than you want to end up with, because the ends will be angled when done.
The next step is easier if you have one of these gizmos:
(http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/productImages/1000/5f/5fbd2ff8-f20b-4a21-92c8-aebdf582b48b_1000.jpg)
5. Using a protractor and straight edge, mark lines that pass through the end center points at a 15deg angle (half of the 30deg arc of the curve) for 18" curve decks. So you end up with something looking like roughtly like this:
-----------------------
__\ ____________/___ Center Line
\ ___________/
For 22" curves the angles on the ends should be 11.25deg, to match the 22.5deg arc of those curves.
6. Cut your decks out of the styrene sheets, then put track and deck in place on the piers to test fit everything. Adjust length as needed.
7. Once the deck is okay, you can remove to add the Plastruct, or whoever's, girders underneath, and whatever girders or guardrails you like on top, and paint to suit. Once dry, install and you're good to go.
Len
Excellent! Thank you as well Len. If I have any questions about this, I will get back to you.
**I have checked and do not have that gizmo (above).
You can get the protractor 'gizmo' at just about any hardware or home improvement store. They're less than $10.00, and the metal edge is handy for scribing plastic with an X-Acto blade.
But like I said, it makes things simpler to have one, but it's not essential. You can use a regular plastic protractor and ruler to lay out the basic deck size and shape on poster board. Then cut out the poster board to use it as a template for laying out the decks on styrene sheet.
The key points to remember are the 18" curve deck ends are 15deg angles, the 22" curve deck ends are 11.25deg, and the 22" curve decks are longer than the 18" decks.
Len
I definitely like the suggestion of a metal protractor, another good suggestion. I use a metal ruler now for trimming styrenne. I picked it up at Walfart.
Interesting that the 22" decking will be longer than the 18", as the 18" track is about 3/4" longer than the 22". I will also note that I have already soldered several sections of the curves together, a combo of 18 and 22, for 2 reasons: 1) I don't have to worry about continuity 2) It was done to make it much easier to slide the piers up and down the track w/o worrying about the track separating at the track joints. On the other hand, I don't know how having done that, it will or will not make this part of the project more difficult ???
The mixed curves shouldn't matter, just use the right deck piece between piers under each curve section. That's where making poster board templates for trial fitting can come in handy.
And your right, individually the 18" curves are a bit longer than the 22". I was tired, and thinking about the size of a 90deg turn using 18" curves vs using 22" curves when I wrote that.
Len