ONLINE
STORE
"ASK THE BACH MAN"
FORUM
PARTS, SERVICE,
& INFORMATION
CATALOGS AND
BROCHURES

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 22, 2019, 07:29:54 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Please read the Forum Code of Conduct   >>Click Here <<
+  Bachmann Message Board
|-+  Discussion Boards
| |-+  HO
| | |-+  turnouts on ho track power both sides
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: turnouts on ho track power both sides  (Read 9147 times)
lgtrains

View Profile
« on: January 04, 2015, 10:49:04 PM »

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
Logged
Jerrys HO
Guest
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2015, 11:05:19 PM »

they are not power routing, you would have to use block control.
Logged
lgtrains

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2015, 11:11:46 PM »

how is that done, I read that you need to cut power , what is the easiest/best way to do with eztrack, 
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 11:32:54 PM by lgtrains » Logged
Irbricksceo


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2015, 11:37:31 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.
Logged
jward


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2015, 12:16:51 AM »

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
Logged

Jeffery S Ward Sr
Pittsburgh, PA
Irbricksceo


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2015, 12:28:12 PM »

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.
Logged
Irbricksceo


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2015, 06:48:17 PM »

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.
Logged
Len

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2015, 06:30:35 AM »

"Outside influence" = Scenary pin dropped across the track; setting a Kadee #205 metal coupler height gauge on the track with power applied; etc.

Len
 
Logged

If at first you don't succeed, throw it in the spare parts box.
lgtrains

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2015, 08:12:18 PM »

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
Logged
jward


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2015, 01:24:40 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.
Logged

Jeffery S Ward Sr
Pittsburgh, PA
Irbricksceo


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2015, 02:16:47 AM »

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.
Logged
jbrock27

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2015, 08:05:48 AM »

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 Embarrassed)   
Logged

Keep Calm and Carry On
rogertra


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2015, 09:02:05 AM »

Common rail.  Only way to go to avoid problems.  Why else would every book and magazine article say the same thing?

Cheers.

Roger T.
Logged

Len

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2015, 09:35:53 AM »

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
Logged

If at first you don't succeed, throw it in the spare parts box.
jbrock27

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2015, 12:23:43 PM »

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.   
Logged

Keep Calm and Carry On
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!