Wiring advice please

[08-362]

Hello, I'm hoping I could get some advice on wiring up my layout. I've attached a rough diagram to give people an idea of what I have so far.

I'm starting with DC as I'm still fairly new to model railways (this is my first layout) but if it's not too much more difficult I would consider wiring for DCC, to convert at a later date when I'm more familiar with the hobby; the points are all electrofrog. I'm aware that the two ovals will need to be isolated but I don't know where I would need to put further rail insulators and track feeds. The numbers indicate point motors, paired motors share the same number and I intend to set them up to move together through the use of CDUs. The loop on the left is the fiddle yard, the right will have a single-line station.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Douglas

/media/tinymce_upload/0e3cfd8062a8bb3bb4139c895be6a897.png

[RDS]

Hi Douglas

If you are just starting out, my view would be - go straight to DCC.  The wiring is far more simple.  It will be just a single connection of 2 wires to the layout you have decribed.  You can then drive your Loco's wherever you want.

 

I don't use Electrofrog points myself, so I cannot comment on how they affect things but with 'normal' Hornby points you would not need any isolators at all.

[trainlover23]

 Buy the Peco Shows you how booklet Wiring the layout part 1 all you need to know for a quid. It is easy to read and understand and well illustrated . As for DCC do your own thing you DO NOT have to go DCC from the start

[Chrissaf]

As RDS has stated. The wiring is actually simpler with DCC than with DC for your particular layout design. Particularly as it is complicated by the inclusion of Electrofrogs that need more wiring considerations to be taken into account than self isolating Insulfrogs. My personal view (I guarantee others will disagree), but I would definitely have Electrofrogs in place of Insulfrogs. Even if the wiring of Electrofogs is more onerous, the benefits in my opinion out-way the disadvantages.

.

If you are adamant that you want to go first to DC before going (if at all) to DCC later. Then follow the wiring guidance on the PECO Electrofrog installation guide. You can download the guide here

.

http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Instruction%20sheets/HO-OO%20Electrofrog%20Turnouts.pdf

.

I have taken some extracts from the PECO wiring guide and applied them to your proposed layout design and added notes of clarification to assist you. See drawing below. If you right click the drawing, then subject to the browser you are using, you should see a view full screen option. Note also the inclusion of insulated joiners at point ' e ' as well as ' i ' & ' j '. In your case position ' e ' on the PECO diagram is at the top of your inner loop, not the bottom, and to the left of the siding point on your inner loop.

.

/media/tinymce_upload/1ec5c70ada28b9340ac2d274cddd09dc.jpg

.

 

[96RAF]

As I have been DCC virtually from day 1, I have never understood why a passing loop (lay-by or bus-stop, call it what you will) needs to have IRJs. I have only ever used normal metal rail joiners and never had any problems as unless points clips were installed the points themselves switched track power on/off to the loop. One end point set to the loop route powered the layby and the other point set to  mainline powered that section up to the other end point.

[Chrissaf]

You have to take into account how Electrofrogs work. An Electrofrog would normally have insulated rail joiners located on the two V rails of the point frog. Thus they don't actually switch power into the track route the same way Insulfrog points do. In a 'Passing Loop' if you placed a pair of insulating joiners on EACH point frog V rails, then the inner rails between the two points would be electrically dead track. But by not fitting a pair of insulating joiners on the V's of both points, but instead placing a SINGLE pair of insulating joiners in the middle of the track section (i.e positions ' i ' & ' j '). The 'dead' section of track is eliminated. If you did away with the insulated joiners altogether, then you would get short circuits when points were in certain switched position scenarios.

[96RAF]

I shouls also have said insulfrog only as well, so I have never had to delve into the electrickery frog scenario.

[Chrissaf]

08-362,

I would add, the wiring diagram in my drawings are optimised for DC. If I was wiring for DCC, I would be taking a slightly (marginally) different approach to make all the track live all the time. I would even consider switched power Electrofrogs. Now is the time to make the DC / DCC decision, so your layout and wiring can be optimised for your chosen control method.

[Fishmanoz]

And here was me thinking electric frogs were only a problem with mechanical princesses.

[08-362]

Thanks for the response everyone.

I have a paper version of the guide Chrissaf referenced, as I have all the track I need and there was one in with each point I'd bought. It turns out I also have the Shows You How trainlover23 mentioned, among a load of reference material I was given by a member of my local club.

After looking through both sets of material and trying to translate the information into something relevant to my layout I've amended my diagram, though it may still be wrong. The green circles are where I think I would need to put power connections, and the red lines where I need to put at least one insulating joiner but I may put them on both rails at each point for simplicity's sake unless it's not entirely necessary, for example the outer rail of the outer oval could do without insulators in my mind because there are no interruptions.

Comments and criticisms still welcome.

/media/tinymce_upload/b23af3ecad257666f6ebafb35d8e88a3.png

[Chrissaf]

Looks in essence to be generally in compliance with PECO's recommended guidance for DC working as far as I can tell. I am assuming that being DC there will be two DC analogue controllers. One controller connected to the 2 outer loop Green circles and the other controller connected to all the other Green circles (5) that are on the inner loop.

.

If and when converting to DCC at some later date, then you will need to take the wires from the two controllers (assuming two at this stage), join them together (making sure that they are the right way round) and connect both sets of power distribution wires to the output of the same DCC controller (only one track controller is allowed in DCC).

.

Optionally but recommended for DCC working.

.

Only if you convert to DCC at a later date. Three more power connections can be added, one connection (Green circle) to each of the two sidings off of point number 6 to power the two sidings. Powering the sidings will also require insulating rail joiners to be added to the two rails leaving the frog towards the sidings of point number 6. Also an additional insulated joiner on the frog of point number 5 on the siding side of the point, plus a power connection (Green circle) to the toe end of point number 6 (the toe end of point number 6 is the side of the point connected to point number 5).

.

I suggest this mod as being optional as the layout will still operate on DCC, but certain track locations (sidings for example) will have no power when the connecting point is against it (i.e. point 5). So if you had locos with lights or sound parked on them, you would lose those functions when the point is switched away from the siding.

.

The other weakness of the design being initially DC and possibly DCC later on is that all the power on the points is reliant on the physical contact between the moving switch rail and the static stock rail. PECO Electrofrogs can be wired differently to power the frog via a switch (linked to the point motor) and include additional power connections on the points that eliminate that particular weakness of needing clean physical contact between rails. Being initially DC, means that you cannot incorporate that wiring strategy (shown in bold) into the layout at this stage because you need the point to switch the power through the point in a DC layout design. I stress that this is a design consideration of using Electrofrogs and doesn't particularly impact the use of Insulfrog points, so these comments will not be relevant to those users using Hornby points with DCC digital point clips fitted.

[dadad]

Hi there,

 

for problems like this Brian Lamberts pages may be a good place to start http://www.brian-lambert.co.uk/ also "getting started with track extension packs" in these pages on this forum may be usefull.

 

John 

[Augustus Caesar]

It's the mechanical princesses that have the problem with the electrical frogs Fishy... they find them shocking!!!

 

Enjoying the discussion as I will be using electrofrog too simply because they are less complicated and offer up much more... but then again, each to their own.

[Chrissaf]

08-362, perhaps I should have added this comment earlier, but I compliment you on the detail included in your posted questions. The detail shown in the included drawings makes answering them a pleasure. I also compliment you on the amount of research you have done in preparing your questions. You seem to have a more than basic understanding of electrical circuits that is rarely seen on this forum.

.

Well done.....

[08-362]

Hi Chris, thank you for the compliment. I've always found graphics and similar visual media help when explaining things and it has been said that a picture speaks a thousand words. Something I've read a lot while looking into model railways is to plan everything out before you dive in head-first.

Yes I will be using a twin-track controller on my layout, there is a second hand Gaugemaster one at my local club which I have my eye on. Because it also has an accessory connection on the back, I believe I can use that to power the CDUs for the points; that's something else explained in the shows you how guide I have, which I will need to read further into. Lighting will be powered separately, at this moment in time I'm considering using Woodland Scenic's system because of the flexibility it provides.

I can't remember if I'd said before but my layout is actually N gauge rather than OO, but all the knowledge is universal and the principles are largely the same regardless of scale. That said I would have limited acces to some of the features granted by DCC such as light and sound, especially the latter as provision for these features is far more restrictive than in OO (I do have an article somewhere showing how sound was installed in a Farish Fowler 4F but that looks to be still beyond my capabilities).

I've also been posting the same query on another forum; from the advice they've given there plus rereading the Peco guide I've simplified my diagram to just five connections and needing eleven rail breaks, I've attached this new diagram./media/tinymce_upload/065141436f7e91f4604a447ca29b1929.png

I've also decided to stick to DC for this layout: I'm new to model railways and some of the skills needed (soldering, etc) I only have at entry-level. It was for this reason from the start, that I wanted a relatively simple layout which still had some interest to it. I will leave DCC for a future layout when I have more experience, etc.

[Yelrow]

08-362, contrary to  popular belief, there is life outside DCC, and whilst i have put a toe in the water, am very much a DC purist. In my view, there is more pleasure in a DC layout, as anything you find at a car boot/ fair/ ebay etc, will normally give hours of pleasure, without resulting to Soldering irons, decoders and wiring complications. For  Stretching the mind, DC wiring is in fact more complicated.  I use Gaugemaster, Morley, and Hamment and Morgan controllers, with my layout. john

[Chrissaf]

The new revised drawing looks relatively OK to me (but see comments further below). As you say, assumption was made that you were modeling OO, but everything in the answers would be relevant to N as well.

.

I believe there may be some minor operational issues with the revised design due to the use of Electrofrogs. For example, say a train is on the outer loop going clockwise and it is at the 9pm clock position. Whilst it is still to the left of the insulating joiners at the 12 o'clock position it is vulnerable to loosing power if point pair 2 are thrown. Similarly the outer loop 3 o'clock position will loose power if point pair 3 are thrown. Remember in DC, the point is used to switch power into the route that they are switched to. In the way that you have implemented your design, you do need to keep the insulated joiners at the 12 o'clock position because the points are Electrofrog.

.

Of course a different view could be applied to the outer loop limitation I have documented above. It could be looked at as a designed in feature. Say two trains are on the outer loop tail chasing. You now decide to pass one of the trains over the crossover onto the inner loop. Now the train that is going to stay on the outer loop could be held in the dead section of outer loop track until such time as the crossover points are restored to return power to the dead section.

.

As said, the limitation is one of layout operation. In one scenario it is a negative limitation, in another scenario it is a positive limitation. The choice is yours to make.

.

The rails of points 2 & 3 will need to be kept very clean. All power going to the outer loop is reliant upon the physical side contact areas of the moving switch and static stock rails. A minor consideration but worth mentioning.

.

A TIP regarding post preparation. I can see in your last reply where you have placed carriage returns and probably would have been expecting paragraph line gaps to appear in the posted text the same as they appear in the edit box whilst you're writing it.

.

As you have discovered the forum software, for some completely unexplained reason, has stripped out the carriage return and deleted the line gap between paragraphs. Yet my posts have line gaps showing. When creating your post in the edit box window, use TWO carriage returns. The first one will be stripped out by the forum software, but the second one will stick and be displayed. Hope that helps for future postings.

[08-362]

Looking back I see what you mean with the carriage returns, it looked fine while typing but they were taken away while the post was approved. Maybe it has something to do with when I put in the picture.

 

Re the break in the outer oval, I hadn't considered that, only thinking that in reality it could go anywhere in the oval. What I might do is similar to my earlier diagram: isolating both rails off of the frogs connecting to the outer oval and put in an extra power connection just for that rail somewhere in the oval, I wouldn't need a second connection for the outer rail as that is uninterrupted.

 

I'm hoping to keep the track well maintained, especially around the points for the reason you've given. Tomix have produced a track cleaning car for N gauge much like Dapol's OO one, I'll look into that as well as something for the point blades and other general solutions.

[Chrissaf]

The carriage return issue is just the way this particular forum software works. The first one gets stripped regardless of whether there are images in them or not.