Track Plan 12th Edition Layout 7 HELP

[Ralphy5]

I am new to DCC and want to build and transform the Track Plan 12th Edition Layout 7 to having the option of using either the Elite Controller and when more experienced use the E Link. I have purchased both.

I have both the track Master which has this layout and Rail Master which doesn't?

I also purchased a reverse module, power booster and accessory decoders, but am not sure where to put them.

Does anyone know how to do this.  Example where I need to put Isolation pieces , Reverse, Power, Booster ect to the various parts of the Layout.

PLEASE HELP ME

Best Regards,

Ralphy

[RB51]

Hello Peter - welcome to the forum. Don't worry someone will be able to help. I suspect though that some folk, like me, dont have access to the track plan book you are discussing. Can you post an image?

 

Being new to the form you will be restricted on the number of posts you can make for the first 24 hours and any image you can put up will need to be moderated. However, you will be able to read all posts made in reply. If you cannot post an image just at the moment can you have a look here (sorry cannot make it a clickable link)

 

http://www.freetrackplans.com/Hornby-Plans.php

 

- and tell those of us without the book if the plan you have in mind is one of those listed? R-

[Chrissaf]

Peter, welcome to the forum.

.

A picture tells a thousand words, so here are two thousand words.

.

The first image shows that you could have run the whole layout from a single Elite controller and still used RailMaster (RM). The Elite is totally compatible with RM and does it more reliably too. Some users have had issues with eLink. The Elite allows the two control knobs to be used simultaneously with RM in real time. Movements of the Elite control knobs can be fed back into RM and move the RM throttle sliders on screen in synchronisation.

.

/media/tinymce_upload/57519409427cf1215f570e4ad5da316d.JPG

.

This second image shows how you can make use of the second controller (eLink) to run your accessories. As well as making use of your current investment (since you have already purchased both Elite & eLink) the 4 amp power supply of the Elite can be totally dedicated to running locos. The 1 amp power supply of the eLink can then be dedicated to running Accessories (1 amp is far more than enough for Accessories). 

.

/media/tinymce_upload/2b381618a0480f3b0fa1e6fdd36010eb.JPG

.

Both images show how to deploy a Reverse Loop Module (RLM). Without seeing your proposed track layout we cannot confirm whether a RLM is actually required or not in your plan. I have included a reverse loop definition in the drawing that might help you decide whether you do or not.

.

You may have purchased the 'Booster' unnecessarily. Very few domestic layouts need one, they are just not large enough. 'Boosters' are usually referred to more frequently in USA model railway literature. Once the size and design of your 'Track Plan' is shown to us, we would be in a better position to advise further on 'Booster' connectivity. As Roger said above, if you can match your proposed 'Track Plan' from the book with the 'Track Plan' listed on the web site Roger gave the link for, then we can all see the web site version. Unfortunately, the web site doesn't use the book track layout numbering scheme. You could alternatively post a 'screen capture' of your proposed track plan taken from your TrackMaster application.

[RB51]

@ Peter

 

Here is the web-site I referred to earlier, now as a clickable link.

 

Free track plan website.

 

R-

 

 

[Ralphy5]

/media/tinymce_upload/57cf717e55b3205426766fac7357ca9a.jpg

[Ralphy5]

Hi Roger and Chris,

First thankyou for your very quick reponse,advise and help. Chris the pic info is fantastic.

Guys I have posted a scanned copy of the layout which is from the  Hornby Book R8140 so hopefully it will be posted soon.

I trust that should be of assistance in helping me. 

Again thankyou very very much with your help, it really is appreciated, as no one here knows about DCC in my local area. I am disabled and unable to travel very far, and have had  a lot of trouble understanding it all from the internet.

Kindest regards,

Peter ( From Brisbane Australia )

[RB51]

Whilst we're waiting for moderation to occur Peter - I imagine you have looked at websites such as this one. Obviously my geography won't be as good as yours. R-

[RB51]

Crikey Peter, that's adventurous. Would I be correct in thinking that you have had DC layouts previously? Not that it matters, except to understand your skill levels a little.

 

I forgot to mention in my earlier posts that we have quite a few Australian members on here, so perhaps one of them might know a bit more about clubs in your State.

  

I think you will find you have reached your post level  - 3 only in the first 24 hours.

 

R-

[Fishmanoz]

Peter, Roger and Chris, I have the track plan book but have been out for the evening so only just have had the chance to get back.  For Roger and Chris, the book has little more info except it colour codes the track pieces and tells you how many of each piece is needed.  It tells you nothing about power connections, IRJs needed or what makes up the RLs.

 

Chris, now you can see an RLM is needed, in fact while I've yet to get my head around that area to be definitive about exactly how to view the RLs and their isolated sections, I'm pretty sure two will be needed for flexibility in operating the RH loops.

 

Peter, Roger has used the word adventurous.  I'll go a little further and say that before I attempted to build this, I would be doing some testing on functionality.  The things I'd be checking would be first the inclines as you'll find the recommendations on here are for a much lesser gradient than in this layout using standard Hornby inclined pier spacings.  Then I'd be making sure the curved points work without derailing locos and carriages as configured,  then also derailing on the standard points.

 

Then in Chris's diagrams, I personally see little point in splitting the DCC control into track and accessories.  I'd keep with the simpler writing.  And yes use the Elite and put the eLink in the bottom drawer (next to the Select if you have one of those).

 

This layout does not need a booster as such, nowhere near big enough for that.  However, as it needs two RLMs, the booster can be used as the second one as it does polarity switching just like and RLM.

 

I'll think more on the RLs and come back with ideas tomorrow if no one else does.  You will only need IRJs for the idol;aged sections in those, not elsewhere.

[Fishmanoz]

Sorry, in first line of 3rd last para, writing should be wiring.  Then in last para idol;aged should be isolated.  Couldn't edit those as they are hidden under the editing buttons (still not fixed Adam).

[Chrissaf]

Peter,

.

This is my stab at identifying an appropriate RLM connection plan. Your proposed track plan has more than one potential reverse loop in it, further complicated by a WYE section (the triangular part at location D&C). The reverse loop plan I have devised requires only one RLM to be fitted, but this in itself gives an operational limitation, see further below.

.

I ask my peers (particularly Brian AKA Flashbang, Rob and Fishy) to review my plan and highlight any errors that I might have missed or made, or if they have a better plan, then please document it.

.

/media/tinymce_upload/736c1b6d284f5b572e458a5b16adeb35.jpg

.

Operational limitation. There is one requirement that is common to ALL Reverse Loop sections of a layout. When you have a RLM protected track section, only ONE train (I don't mean a loco, I mean a train i.e a loco PLUS attached rolling stock) can enter or exit a protected track section at one time. By all means you can have more than one train occupying a protected section, but only one train at a time can cross over the insulated rail joined (IRJ) track pieces i.e. locations marked A, B, C & D on my modified drawing. If for example a train is crossing over the IRJ @ A. The RLM will be switching the DCC track power phase to accommodate it, if whilst the train at location A is still in the process of crossing position A, another train starts to cross the IRJ at position C, then it is possible that the RLM will be trying to switch the DCC signal to the opposite phase of that required for train A. The RLM will potentially get into a rapid switching oscillation, maybe shutting down to self protect. 

.

The complexity of your multiple reverse loops means that you have four potential crossing points A, B, C & D to monitor when running your trains. You must only allow a train to traverse each of these four locations one at a time. This is the area of my plan that I would like my peers to review as requested above.

.

The second technical requirement (for the same reason as described above) is that any RLM protected section must have a track section longer than the longest train operating on the layout. If the RLM protected section is shorter than the train, then the leading loco may be trying to cross the exit IRJ, whilst the rear of the train is still crossing the entry to the RLM section. Note: It is also the metal wheels of the rolling stock as well as the locos that bridge the IRJs that have the potential to create DCC short circuits (short circuits is what the RLM is protecting the layout against).

.

There is a third technical design consideration when designing RLM sections. You shouldn't create a design where a loco traverses from one RLM protected section into a second adjacent RLM protected section. Multiple RLM protected sections should be separated by a section of fixed DCC phase track i.e track powered directly from your DCC controller.

.

The Hornby R070 Turntable. The R070 is long in the tooth now and has been around a long time. The design of it is suited to a DC analogue layout, but needs modification to be used on a DCC layout. This is because on a DCC layout the power to the track is 'always on' and as the R070 TT bridge rotates there is an area on the rotation arc where a short circuit occurs. The modification removes this 'short circuit' potential. Search the forum for R070 you will find many posts on the topic.

.

Power Booster. A power booster would be complete overkill for a layout of this size. Given the complexity of the RLM requirement, then the added complexity of trying to incorporate isolated sections for a 'Booster' as well just because you have one already purchased to hand is IMHO (In My Humble Opinion) not worthwhile pursuing.

.

EDIT: I spent such a long time creating and editing this reply, that I have only just seen the intermediate replies that have been posted in the meantime. I see that Fishy is going to potentially come up with a dual RLM design. So I suggest waiting and seeing what alternative scheme he comes up with, then you could chose the best one that suits your needs better.

.

PS - That is a complicated layout for a novice. The other comment (already made by Fishy but reiterated by me) is that when these plans were originally produced, locos were heavier. Modern lighter locos may just sit there with the wheels spinning on the gradients. Been there and got the T shirt I'm afraid.

[Chrissaf]

PS - The other point Fishy made is also true. The Hornby curved point crossovers on the right hand side of the layout are notorious for modern (lighter) rolling stock derailments. Many forum posts have been dedicated to this issue, it comes up time and time again.

[96RAF]

I would have to spend some time going round the circuits with a wagon colour taped on one side to check there aren't any more reverse loop tracks outwith those spotted by Chris, before I would dare offer opinion.

 

Rocrail has the facility to plot every possible route on a particular track plan and it would be extremely useful if someone could right up some software to automatically plot reverse loops In a similar manner.

 

I agree with others that serious consideration must be given to the gradients as the transitions from sloping to flat are right on some points and/or diamond crossings and these areas are fraught with problems at the best of times. It may be preferable to have the gradients half and half, i.e. Instead on having most of he track at board level and the elevated section higher, you could plan an open trackbed that had the lower level and the higher level at equal 1/2 pitch around a notional mean level.

[Chrissaf]

Rob's half and half approach to gradients, is exactly the solution I came up with on my own layout. I found it an admirable and workable compromise solution. It would be fairly easy to accommodate in Peter's track plan as the green highlighted track could dip down below mid board level on the left hand side of the loop as much as the upper gradient rises over it. Thus the vertical gap at the position of crossover is effectively doubled giving rolling stock clearance, but each individual gradient is halved.

[Fishmanoz]

That's some really good info here for you Peter.  I have some more to add and I'm going to work backwards through what's been said above.

 

I'm going to start by stopping skirting around the fundamental problems with this layout.  I would not build it.  It's fine for ideas but the detail is fraught. I'd only have inclines at half the gradient Hornby pier spacings suggest, no more than 2% on the curves, I'd have no curved points and points on the mainlines would be express points, not standard.  Then I'd also be thinking about what many say on here about Peco track having some advantages over Hornby (sorry Adam).  Then if you design that way, you can't use Trackmaster (I'd be interested to know if this design actually connects up properly with Trackmaster) but there is better design software out there too.  SCARM (free) and Anyrail (paid, but worth it in my view) come to mind.  These programs have libraries for all track brands, do some clever stuff designing with flexitrack and also plot inclines well.

 

What's been said about half up/half down inclines is really about getting longer runs to reduce the slope and a matter of where you think your origin/baseboard level is.

 

I'm now going to stop and post this, then my next will be about RLs.

[Fishmanoz]

On RLs, I like what Chris has suggested but think the limitations he has suggested would significantly limit operational flexibility on this layout, so some improvement is needed.

 

First though, let's be clear what an RLM does and that is to switch the polarity (or phase) of the DCC signal whenever it detects that opposite polarity/phases have been connected together, effectively meaning there is a short circuit.  So when a train runs into an isolated section, bridging over the IRJs at multiple points along the train, it switches the polarity inside and outside the isolated section to match.  Then when the train leaves at the other end, and given it's in an RL situation, it's necessary to switch it back at that point.  Now you can see two things.  First, if the section is shorter than the longest train, it will go berserk trying to switch back and forth as each wheel set at each end bridges the IRJs, and second do similarly if 2 trains try to enter/leave at the same time.

 

Now Chris, thanks for pointing out about not connecting 2 isolated sections directly to each other, each with an RLM.  Hadn't seen this pointed out before, and took me a while to realise why - when a train bridges the IRJs between them, both will try to switch the phase/polarity with a possible result that no match is achieved, just a lot of switching.  To stop the potential for both switching as a train crosses, the track between them must, in general, also be longer than the longest train.  There are situations where this won't be so, and they would involve having points in the unstitched section that would preclude a train bridging all 3 sections at the same time (think about it).  All 3 at the same time involving 2 RLMs is the problem that must be avoided.

 

Looking at Chris's isolated section in detail, C and D are close enough together that you won't 2 trains crossing at once.  But a the same time as a train is crossing either, you could also have one crossing at A or B or both, so the green section must be configured differently to avoid that.  You may be able to do that with one isolated section, simply by moving A and B back towards C and D, the closer they are, the less the likelihood of 2 or more trying to cross at the same time, keeping in mind the longer than the longest train factor.  If you try to split this section into 2 though, you actually have to split it into 3 sections, all longer than the longest train, and I doubt you'll find enough room on the layout to do that.  Maybe someone can though?  I think it can only be done having a shorter unswitched section involving points as I said above.

[Fishmanoz]

Towards the end of my 3rd para, replace unstitched with unswitched.  Again this word is in an area of my post I can't get to to edit as editing buttons are in the way.  I only noticed the second time I used the word that iOS autocorrect had thoughtfully, or not, changed it for me.

[Chrissaf]

Now Chris, thanks for pointing out about not connecting 2 isolated sections directly to each other, each with an RLM.  Hadn't seen this pointed out before, and took me a while to realise why - when a train bridges the IRJs between them, both will try to switch the phase/polarity with a possible result that no match is achieved, just a lot of switching.  To stop the potential for both switching as a train crosses, the track between them must, in general, also be longer than the longest train.

.

In reality, the fixed polarity/phase section of track in the middle between two RLM protected track sections only needs to be longer than the longest loco.

.

Let me explain. All the wheels on each side of a loco are potentially connected together due to their pick up arrangements. Thus as long as the fixed polarity/phase section of track in the middle between two RLM protected sections is longer than the longest loco, there is no likelihood of the entry and exit of this fixed polarity/phase section being electrically bridged at the same time.

.

It doesn't matter if the rest of the train bridges this fixed polarity/phase section of track, precisely because this section in the middle between two RLM protected sections does have a fixed polarity/phase (being permanently wired to the DCC output of the controller). Now as the metal wheels of the rolling stock pass over this fixed polarity/phase section of track.

.

The RLM isolated section behind the train will switch relative to the fixed section of track in front of it. The RLM isolated section in front of the train will switch relative to the fixed polarity/phase track section behind it. Thus the two RLM isolated sections react independently and relative to the short fixed polarity/phase section in the middle.

.

As far as the RLM themselves are concerned, they only see each metal wheel on the rolling stock as being an individual switching trigger. Having the fixed polarity/phase track section in the middle, even if shorter than a train, stabilises the RLM switching action.

.

The revised drawing below incorporates Fishy's suggestions regarding splitting the RLM protected sections into 2 and moving B closer to C&D.

.

/media/tinymce_upload/ff59b561d80cc6d9d6018f2c3f8c5d04.jpg

.

Alternatively, his other suggestion was just to keep the single RLM #1 protected section, but condense into a smaller area. In other words the RLM section enclosed within the B, C, D & E area, negating the need for RLM #2.

.

In both options, the B, C, D & E protected RLM area needs to be longer than the longest train (loco + rolling stock behind it). As does the A, F section of RLM #2.

.

My take on the alternative suggestions.

.

Now that I have seen the options in drawing form. Personally, I favour keeping a single RLM #1 protected section, but just make it smaller to mitigate the risk of two trains entering / exiting the RLM protected section at the same time.

.

I would also move IRJs B, C & D a little closer to the points compared to what is shown in the drawing. That way you can have trains stopped just short of the points waiting for the longer section of track towards postion E to become clear if already occupied. The IRJ at E could then be moved a little further forward towards A to compensate for the shortening of track at B, C & D to maintain the minimum length criteria.

 

[Ralphy5]

Dear Fishman, Chris, Roger and RaF96,

My wife just came in as I’m typing this reply to find my eyes full of tears. I told her they were tears of joy. I just can’t believe there are still such wonderful people out there ready to selflessly help out others.

I was an International Airline Captain flying all over the world for over 30yrs when I was assaulted by a passenger one day on a flight from Hong Kong to London. As a result I was hospitalised for nearly 18 months and due to a number of complications and 13 operations later, now find myself several vertebrae and disks short and on 4oo mg of Morphine a day due to Chronic Pain. Being recently now disabled I'm housebound and as such have thrown myself back into this wonderful hobby of trains to fight of my depression. So my wife and I really want to thank you all, from the bottom of our heart's for all your time and help you have shown with me on this new challenging project.

So yes Roger, it is an adventurous project, and I’ve had a DC layout for just over 40 yrs I’ve collected items from all over the world during my travels and have just pulled apart my old set of many years for the new one.

My son has built me a new 3600mm * 1800 mm table and my idea was to put this plan, make it DCC, in the middle of the board and have a separate single track for DC around it. Outside that I am putting my old Triang series 4 track (I know the cleaning is a terrible task all the time), but I have some vintage stuff I want to keep for old time memories.

Roger thank- you for the club info and I will try and get to them when my wife has time to drive me there.

Fishman and Chris, WOW you guys are amazing. I shall take your advice on board and put the Booster and E Link in the bottom draw with my Select, for the time being. I'm currently in the throes of converting the Hornby Turntable to DCC so will now certainly  use the  forum here as you advised in finishing that. I'm thinking about giving that away and using my old Walthers 90' one instead, which could be easier in the long run.

 I will certainly take your advice regarding the inclines of 2 degrees by building the set up to a 50/50 situation which would also allow me to set the Walthers turntable in if I go that way.

I certainly can see many hours of testing the track first for derailments etc. a real challenge.

Chris I think I have a small grip on your excellent modification from Fishmanoz’s extensive hard work. But coming from a DC background where I soldered each track joint and had power all over the place ( many hours that took with droppers ect ). I am little unsure of where I put power to the various parts of the track.

 I have been told you only need it on one section, but I feel this layout might be a little more complex. I know I put the Hornby clips on all the frog’s points, and if understand as you said, I need to bond the two section’s in the middle between the two RLM protected sections, and then permanently wire them to DCC output of say the Elite.

So do I need power anywhere else? For e.g. the sidings after the turntable?

 What do you guys advise me to do?

Well it’s quite late here in Brisbane, so I’m off now and will carefully digest in detail all you have kind fully given me tomorrow.

Again thank you all so much for all your help.

Kindest regard’s Peter

[RB51]

That's what this forum is for Peter - glad to have helped with my little bit. I'll leave the clever stuff to the experts and wish you well. R-

[Chrissaf]

Peter, that has got to be one of the most heart warming thank you posts that I have ever seen on this forum from anyone. Like you, we are just enthusiasts sharing our knowledge with anyone who wants to listen to us. It is the kind of post (not only the thank-you, but also the original question) that makes answering these posts so rewarding for us too.

.

With regard to your supplementary question about DCC distribution wiring. I personally, would always recommend a DCC BUS, where thin wire droppers are soldered to the outside edge (or underside if installing droppers at time of track laying) of the rails and dropped down through the baseboard to connect to a thicker pair of wires loosely twisted together (about 3 or 4 twists per foot). If enough droppers are provided, then the need for DCC point clips is eliminated**. In my view you can never have too many droppers, my own layout has a dropper on each individual track piece so no power is reliant on a metal fish-plate rail joiner. But many consider my extreme approach to be overkill.

.

Note** there have been posts on the forum relating to DCC point clips glowing red hot and melting point plastic at worst, or just dropping power through them at best. Adding extra droppers past the points can eliminate this potential failure weak spot (i.e. removal of point clips is possible as they become redundant).

.

I use 24/0.2mm wires for the DCC BUS and 7/0.2mm wires for the droppers. The 24/0.2mm wires connect to the Track A&B output terminals of my Elite (with RailMaster). My Accessory Decoders also T into my 24/0.2mm DCC distribution BUS as well. The method for connecting the droppers to the BUS is predominantly personal choice. Some solder and tape up. Some use screw down terminal strips, Some use solder tag strips, Some use crimps. If you've put droppers in your previous DC layout, then you probably have a personal choice of your own. One thing to note though, unlike your previous DC wiring, the DCC BUS is high frequency digital square wave of about 12 to 16 Khz frequency. Twisting the BUS wires as described earlier is really beneficial in helping to prevent DCC signal transmission issues later.

.

Obviously with a Reverse Loop section of track to also contend with, you would need two BUSes, one for the 'main track' and one for the 'RLM protected track' section. The 'Track' side of the RLM would connect to the 'main track BUS' whilst the protected side of the RLM would connect to the 'RLM protected track section BUS'. I would personally also put droppers on each individual siding, but the sidings (slips) leading off from the TT may need careful thought as the exact powering method will be dictated by the method deployed for the TT DCC modification i.e will all slips on and off the TT be individually isolated and how will the TT rotating bridge be DCC powered.

.

The main consideration, as I see it, for modifying the TT and the slips, is are you planning on having any 'Sound' locos. For the loco engine 'Sound' to be idling when the loco is stationary on a TT slip and/or TT bridge, the track needs to have DCC voltage on it.

.

This web page for modifying TTs might assist.

.

http://www.brian-lambert.co.uk/DCC%202.html#Turntables

.

Brian is a forum member who contributes on here under the user name Flashbang. In general, his web site is the font of all knowledge referred to many times by replies to questions posed on this forum. It also has a section on installing BUSes. Don't be put off by the complexity of many of Brian's web site drawings and diagrams, he is covering multiple topics DC, DCC and everything in-between, trying to be all things to all people. In essence, the wiring required for DCC can be very simple indeed or as complicated as you want to make it.

.

One tip about installing droppers, since you have experience of installing droppers on a DC layout, I am sure that you are aware that it is critical to maintain wiring consistency (in DC you would use the term polarity, but a DCC signal does not have polarity it has phase) as you wire around the tracks.

.

Given your proposed track plan is complicated with a few loop backs (hence the need for an RLM), then maintaining this wiring consistency will need a lot of concentration. An aid that can help, is to place a small wagon with a bit of tape on one side. For the sake of explanation let's make this tape RED and you are using RED and BLACK wires for your BUS. Now as you push the wagon round the track, whenever the wagon stops to install a dropper, install the RED wire to the rail on the RED tape side of the wagon. As you push the wagon through points and cross-overs and as long as you never lift the wagon off the track, then the RED taped side of the wagon will always be the RED wired rail.

.

The one exception to that, is when traversing the wagon through the RLM protected track section. You may well find that the RED rail crosses over to the other side and faces a BLACK wired rail where they both meet at an Insulated Rail Joiner (IRJ). This of course, is perfectly expected and the reason why the RLM is required in the first place.

.

I would also place a multi-meter across the DCC BUS measuring ohms (or better still with a continuity buzzer built in). Thus, as each dropper is connected to the under-board BUS, you can check to ensure that no inadvertent short circuit is accidentally introduced. Trying to back engineer to find a short after the event is looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

 

[Chrissaf]

Point of clarification to my last reply (edit window now expired). If you should install a second RLM, then that second 'protected track section' will need its own power connections (BUS) to its RLM, making three in all. But as I said before, I favour a condensed single RLM protected area design approach, only needing two power BUSes, the 'main track' and the RLM 'protected track'.

[Chrissaf]

One further comment. I have just noticed that in the earlier reply you stated relating to your previous DC layout, that as well as deploying droppers you soldered each individual track joint (fish-plates presumably). This should be avoided. It gives no slack for temperature expansion & contraction and could result in track alignment being affected or at worst buckling. DCC needs a consistent reliable signal, any alignment errors in the track could potentially introduce glitches in the ability of the loco to see clean error free digital signals. DC power is more forgiving and less prone to issues as a result of tiny intermittent breaks in power.

[Fishmanoz]

Good heavens Peter, that's a pretty horrific story you have there.  And I'd mimic Chris in saying it's really gratifying to get such a heartfelt response to our posts and also agree that helping others on here is certainly what I enjoy.

 

Chris is certainly going well with his other info for you.  I'd only add that "I agree with keeping the RLM situation simple.  What you do need to do though is be clear about how you will operate your layout so you understand whether the single isolated section will limit how you want to operate.  Also remember, you can use that booster as the second RLM if you decide to go that way.

[Fishmanoz]

PS.   Have to say it - go the Blues on Wednesday night!