Newbie question on DCC

[OgreMike]

Hello OgreMike,

Heck of a railroad you're eyeballing for your first venture! But, if you've been interested in model railroading for over 50 years, then hopefully you're old enough and wise enough to know what you're getting into with this particular layout!

Pulling out the ol' Custom-Line King Size Plan Book, and refreshing my memory for a little bit, I would say that if one disregards the yard trackage for the time being, then the main layout all of a sudden doesn't look so insurmountable. Actually, looks like a pretty cool layout that would be fun to operate. Definitely old-school, though. And I hope you wouldn't plan on ever moving again, as it would be pretty tough tough to get out of a house if you ever needed to move.

If I were going to build this layout, I'd forget the sectional track and use all flex track, and solder most of the joiners (insulated rail joiners at the reverse loops, of course). Fewer rail joints that way. But, I have plenty of experience with flex track, and you may not.

I personally like and use an NCE DCC system on my home layout and club layout. NCE is very user-friendly in my opinion, and was easy to learn on (a big help for me at the time). There's other good systems out there also. dave1905's advice on a brand (post #6) is quite worthy of consideration.

As far as wiring the layout for DCC, this is what I would do: I wouldn't worry about power districts. It's not THAT big of a layout. Looking at the layout schematic in the book, it's really just a big dog-bone with a reverse loop at each end. Get two auto-reverse loop modules, one for each reverse loop. Then, in OVERLY SIMPLISTIC terms, from you command station run two wires to the left loop auto-reverser. Run two wires to the right loop auto reverser. Then run two wires to the trackage in between the loops. That's it! Pretty easy, eh?

Well, you'll actually be running more wires than that. BUT, due to all the turnouts, they will be nothing more than jumper wires to make sure all the tracks receive power. If you really want to do power districts, that wouldn't be hard to do either. I'd probably go with 4 districts - each reverse loop, the main layout in between the loops, and the yards. Or you could have even a few more, that would be totally up to you.

As far as turnouts go, I'd probably just use Atlas powered turnouts on the mainline along with their little electrical switches. And any other places maybe a little far to reach. And just go with hand-throw turnouts in the yard and any other close-by turnouts.

Well, that's my advice, hope it's of some help. Good luck with whatever you end up doing.

Hey again Mixed Freight. As I examine the layout scheme for the OPL, it seems to me that there are actually a total of 4 reverse loop situations . . . the two end loops on each end of the mainline are two of them. But what about the two crossovers on the mainline just above the yards? These would cause a reverse loop situation also were a train to crossover to the other side of the main, agree? If so, don’t these two crossovers need to be wired appropriately? Let me know, any and all! Thanks!

 

[dave1905]

There is a big difference in how you wire things DC vs DCC when it comes to a dogbone design.

If you wire it like an oval, with the outside rail all around the oval being + then yes, you will have problems with crossovers. If you wire it like it is a stretch of "double track" where the "top" rail on both tracks is + and the "bottom" rail on both tracks is - and there is a reversing loop at each end, then you won't have problems at crossovers.

For those of us who only have the diagram on the Atlas site to go from, it is pretty had to figure out how the track actually is arranged in several areas.

I would suspect the Atlas wiring instructions are more along the lines of the big oval design and will probably not be at all helpful.

Also feeders, the wire from the rails to the power bus, are generally in the 18-22 ga. size, not 16 ga. You can use 14 or 16 as the bus and then drop 18-22 ga feeders down to it.

 

[Iron Horseman]

If you wire it like an oval, with the outside rail all around the oval being + then yes, you will have problems with crossovers. If you wire it like it is a stretch of "double track" where the "top" rail on both tracks is + and the "bottom" rail on both tracks is - and there is a reversing loop at each end, then you won't have problems at crossovers.

Hmmm, Once again guessing at the track arrangement in the upper right, that would end up something like this (image below). Is this what you intended dave1905? I like it. That really simplifies the crossover(s) issue.

The only thing I see is if two trains are running side by side (going same direction on double track mainline), and they come around the lower loop into the red section. If they both proceed to the double track red side (right) such that one will have to stop to let the other overtake it, there is no problem. However, if the one train takes the left turn so as to pass the other going the opposite direction, both trains will be trying to enter the reversing section needing different polarities at the same time. One or the other would have to stop until the other is totally into the reversing section.

If one attempts to fix that problem by making the outer-loop red area shorter, then it starts getting into the issue of not having the reversing section long enough to fit a whole train into. I see one solution to that would be to move the gaps in the red section from the point side of the split to the frog side. Make the inside reversing loop its own reversing section (pink in 2nd image below). That would require three auto reversers. Still better than 4, and no crossover headaches.

 

[OgreMike]

Thanks again Iron Horseman and everyone else for all the great ideas here. Quick question: if I want to test my soldered connections on a section of track with my multimeter, what range of volts/amps should the multimeter show on a 12 foot section of track, standard DC powered by an old school AC to DC transformer?? Thanks to all who answer.

 

[Iron Horseman]

Thanks again Iron Horseman and everyone else for all the great ideas here. Quick question: if I want to test my soldered connections on a section of track with my multimeter, what range of volts/amps should the multimeter show on a 12 foot section of track, standard DC powered by an old school AC to DC transformer?? Thanks to all who answer.

hmmm, I replied to this the other day and it seems to have vanished.....

You do not want to measure amps on a non-loaded circuit. It could blow the meter. With a loco the amps will vary up to 2 amps depending on the loco, sound, and how much it is pulling. I consider 250 ma to be normal for a modern HO engine.
These are not generally regulated circuits, so the high unloaded volts can range pretty high usually 15-16. That will drop when an actual loco is applied to more like 12-13.5.

And a side note. If you are really going to be using DCC, it would be in your best interest to get/make a meter designed for DCC. I have the RRAMP Meter by DCC Specialists.

 

[OgreMike]

hmmm, I replied to this the other day and it seems to have vanished.....

You do not want to measure amps on a non-loaded circuit. It could blow the meter. With a loco the amps will vary up to 2 amps depending on the loco, sound, and how much it is pulling. I consider 250 ma to be normal for a modern HO engine.
These are not generally regulated circuits, so the high unloaded volts can range pretty high usually 15-16. That will drop when an actual loco is applied to more like 12-13.5.

And a side note. If you are really going to be using DCC, it would be in your best interest to get/make a meter designed for DCC. I have the RRAMP Meter by DCC Specialists.

Thanks for the input and advice Iron! I’ll definitely mull it. I just did my first ever track feeder solders, and I was trying to measure the electrics to get an idea of their quality. I ran an engine with a basic DC hookup and it appeared to work fine.

 

[OgreMike]

Thanks for the input and advice Iron! I’ll definitely mull it. I just did my first ever track feeder solders, and I was trying to measure the electrics to get an idea of their quality. I ran an engine with a basic DC hookup and it appeared to work fine.

Another question for anyone: should crossovers between EB and WB on a mainline be handled as a reverse situation? Believe the answer to be yes. The OPL Atlas layout I’m building has two crossovers along the EB-WB mainline just above the yard. Both are for EB to WB (ie, both involve two 6L turnouts put together at the turnout section). I’m thinking to just isolate the two turnouts from each other and use a simple reversing module like an AR1 to handle either one. Comments please!

 

[Iron Horseman]

Another question for anyone: should crossovers between EB and WB on a mainline be handled as a reverse situation? Believe the answer to be yes. The OPL Atlas layout I’m building has two crossovers along the EB-WB mainline just above the yard. Both are for EB to WB (ie, both involve two 6L turnouts put together at the turnout section). I’m thinking to just isolate the two turnouts from each other and use a simple reversing module like an AR1 to handle either one. Comments please!

Well.... yes you would also have to isolate a chunk of the main line (one train length) for a reversing unit as I originally suggested with the green and blue sections in the diagram on the first page of this discussion, OR wire differently as Dave1905's message above. His way you don't need any insulated joints or ARs for the crossovers, just the loops as in the last diagram I posted.

You cannot just isolate at the turnout crossing, you would have to choose some section of each of the EB and WB main lines (Once again something like the green and blue colored sections). Otherwise it could be attempting to change the polarity at the same time as another train on the layout. That would have unpredictable results.

 

[PowrCab]

Again, I had a 35' X 5.5' one end, to a 90Deg curve to 10' area with an interchange and yard, a peninsula at upper of a switchback/point to point HO fictitious bridge route 'altitude helping service' RR, running sometimes 3 trains at a time, hither and dither..I did solder 2-3, 3' flex sections while they were straight out end to end so that bending them to form a curve left no kink in the track curvature. Near all the rest of the RR's track was un-soldered, relying only on good tight joiner connections, and never ever did it lead to disappointment..Do leave some gaps between facing rail-heads for expansion/contraction, or you can wind up with bowed/bent/skewed/twisted rail needing replacement (ugh!) !!
If later on a track area calls for soldering, then, solder it ! Otherwise, again, first see what happens before doing all that possibly redundant, work.

 

[OgreMike]

Hmmm, Once again guessing at the track arrangement in the upper right, that would end up something like this (image below). Is this what you intended dave1905? I like it. That really simplifies the crossover(s) issue.

The only thing I see is if two trains are running side by side (going same direction on double track mainline), and they come around the lower loop into the red section. If they both proceed to the double track red side (right) such that one will have to stop to let the other overtake it, there is no problem. However, if the one train takes the left turn so as to pass the other going the opposite direction, both trains will be trying to enter the reversing section needing different polarities at the same time. One or the other would have to stop until the other is totally into the reversing section.

If one attempts to fix that problem by making the outer-loop red area shorter, then it starts getting into the issue of not having the reversing section long enough to fit a whole train into. I see one solution to that would be to move the gaps in the red section from the point side of the split to the frog side. Make the inside reversing loop its own reversing section (pink in 2nd image below). That would require three auto reversers. Still better than 4, and no crossover headaches.

View attachment 157169
View attachment 157170

Hey again Iron and Dave. I’m re-reading your posts about how to handle the mainline crossovers on the OPL, and now I think I’m getting it. So what Dave is saying is that for this layout (which is just an extended, folded dog bone with a potential reverse loop at each end) is that you should wire all the parallel mainlines just short of the loops on each end with both the right side rails (for example) as + and with both left side rails as - (or vice versa). In this way, you ALWAYS incur a reverse loop at each end of the layout which is simply handled by your AR-1 or equivalent auto reversing circuit, am I correct? But going thru a crossover on the parallel mainline gives you the same polarity on the other parallel track as you had on the first. So no problems. Larry Puckett advocates for this method in one of his videos on how to handle crossovers. Makes sense now. And Iron, I like your idea about possibly setting up TWO reverse loops on the lower end of the layout to allow for passing trains to go by one another. So am I understanding this right? Comments most welcome. If I can manage to get a photo or two of the layout progress so far, I’ll try to post them. I might add that I’ve found a few glitches in the Atlas plans for this layout, both in the framing and in the trackwork. WRT the track plan, the last sweeping curves of the two parallel mainlines on the upper level call for both of these curves to be 22” radius. Yet, the physics of this dictate that no two semicircles of the same diameter can fit inside one another. But somehow the plan says the inner mainline circle begins inside the outer circle (also supposedly 22” radius) and yet somehow the inner mainline never crosses over the outer mainline with the same radius . . . Not gonna happen! Anyway I called Atlas about this, and they did say that yes, the inner mainline semicircle on the upper level ( upper right of the foldout track plan) should indeed alternate 18” then 22” pieces on the inner line to allow it to turn inside the outer line. In short, it’s a misprint. WRT the framing, I guess there are always a few practical tweaks that one has to apply to get something to fit in or to work. Thanks! Looking forward to hearing back from you all!

 

[Smudge617]

Hey again Iron and Dave. I’m re-reading your posts about how to handle the mainline crossovers on the OPL, and now I think I’m getting it. So what Dave is saying is that for this layout (which is just an extended, folded dog bone with a potential reverse loop at each end) is that you should wire all the parallel mainlines just short of the loops on each end with both the right side rails (for example) as + and with both left side rails as - (or vice versa). In this way, you ALWAYS incur a reverse loop at each end of the layout which is simply handled by your AR-1 or equivalent auto reversing circuit, am I correct? But going thru a crossover on the parallel mainline gives you the same polarity on the other parallel track as you had on the first. So no problems. Larry Puckett advocates for this method in one of his videos on how to handle crossovers. Makes sense now. And Iron, I like your idea about possibly setting up TWO reverse loops on the lower end of the layout to allow for passing trains to go by one another. So am I understanding this right? Comments most welcome. If I can manage to get a photo or two of the layout progress so far, I’ll try to post them. I might add that I’ve found a few glitches in the Atlas plans for this layout, both in the framing and in the trackwork. WRT the track plan, the last sweeping curves of the two parallel mainlines on the upper level call for both of these curves to be 22” radius. Yet, the physics of this dictate that no two semicircles of the same diameter can fit inside one another. But somehow the plan says the inner mainline circle begins inside the outer circle (also supposedly 22” radius) and yet somehow the inner mainline never crosses over the outer mainline with the same radius . . . Not gonna happen! Anyway I called Atlas about this, and they did say that yes, the inner mainline semicircle on the upper level ( upper right of the foldout track plan) should indeed alternate 18” then 22” pieces on the inner line to allow it to turn inside the outer line. In short, it’s a misprint. WRT the framing, I guess there are always a few practical tweaks that one has to apply to get something to fit in or to work. Thanks! Looking forward to hearing back from you all!

This is not a criticism, more of an observation, would you mind using the return key occasionally, it's a bit hard for some of us oldies to follow you when we keep on loosing our place in your one long paragraph while we try to follow what your saying.

 

[Iron Horseman]

I’m re-reading your posts about how to handle the mainline crossovers on the OPL, and now I think I’m getting it. So what Dave is saying ..., am I correct?

Yes, sounds like you are understanding this.

And Iron, ... setting up TWO reverse loops ...to allow for passing trains to go by one another. So am I understanding this right?

Yes, sounds like you are understanding .

I called Atlas about this, and they did say that yes, the inner mainline semicircle on the upper level ( upper right of the foldout track plan) should indeed alternate 18” then 22” pieces on the inner line to allow it to turn inside the outer line.

Yes they have a sequence that ends up being equivalent to a 19.5" radius curve. Sometimes the train looks a bit like it is duck walking through. Flex track can be your friend here to get a nice smooth curve. Never understood why Atlas didn't make a 20" radius curve to go exactly between the 18" and 22"s.

If you can find it, a company called Hornby makes a 19.8 radius curve section (they call it a radius 3 part number R609) that would work well. A potential problem there is they make them in 45 degree sections.

 

[Smudge617]

Yes, sounds like you are understanding this.


Yes, sounds like you are understanding .


Yes they have a sequence that ends up being equivalent to a 19.5" radius curve. Sometimes the train looks a bit like it is duck walking through. Flex track can be your friend here to get a nice smooth curve. Never understood why Atlas didn't make a 20" radius curve to go exactly between the 18" and 22"s.

If you can find it, a company called Hornby makes a 19.8 radius curve section (they call it a radius 3 part number R609) that would work well. A potential problem there is they make them in 45 degree sections.

Hornby track is quite cheap, you can simply cut the track at the desired length to get the angle you require, or a section of Flexi-Track is also an alternative.

 

[OgreMike]

This is not a criticism, more of an observation, would you mind using the return key occasionally, it's a bit hard for some of us oldies to follow you when we keep on loosing our place in your one long paragraph while we try to follow what your saying.

Hey smudge! I hear ya! Will do in the future!

 

[OgreMike]

Hey smudge! I hear ya! Will do in the future!

Hornby track is quite cheap, you can simply cut the track at the desired length to get the angle you require, or a section of Flexi-Track is also an alternative.

Thanks again Smudge, Dave, and Iron. Another question for anyone/everyone . . . What’s the best way any of you know about to attach roadbed to plywood and then track to the roadbed? The small Atlas tacks in the layout kit I received are simply too difficult to work with. Frustrating

 

[Iron Horseman]

What’s the best way any of you know about to attach roadbed to plywood and then track to the roadbed?

I use what is called "matte medium" from art supply store for both. I used to use wood glue but I discovered it becomes brittle over time (>12 years) in this situation and the track starts "snapping" off the roadbed. I tried Mod Podge once. Didn't like it, but don't remember why.

The small Atlas tacks in the layout kit I received are simply too difficult to work with. Frustrating

You mean the really short straights? Try using a needle nose plier to grab the rail and start one side a tiny bit, then the other side.

 

[D&J RailRoad]

Some of the finer points of glue are important to understand for your particular application.
When glueing a hard surface that hard setting glue won't actually soak into, to another surface, the hard surface will stand a good chance of breaking loose from the glue. Basically, hard to hard without a penetrating grip, unless of course the glue completely encapsulates the surface.
The application of track to roadbed should be done with a flexible setting glue or caulk. A caulk gun will be more efficient in applying the adhesive rather than an eye dropper. A tube of Goop won't go very far.
A hard setting glue, i.e. Liquid Nails can be used for the cork roadbed to plywood application. It seeps into both surfaces.
Using spikes for you track will be a challenge. You'll end up with track that looks like a siding behind an old Sears store. It takes a bit of talent and prior experience to keep the track straight and level with each spike. With adhesive, you can make adjustments to the track before it sets up. With spikes, ya have to pull em back out then drive them again and hope the track didn't shift with each hammer strike. Some folks might be experts at spiking. Me, I tried it and didn't like the looks. I've been disparaged by two who claim that spiking is the only way to do track and that it's easy if ya know how. Well good for them, but looking at their track, I'll stick with adhesive.

 

[OgreMike]

I use what is called "matte medium" from art supply store for both. I used to use wood glue but I discovered it becomes brittle over time (>12 years) in this situation and the track starts "snapping" off the roadbed. I tried Mod Podge once. Didn't like it, but don't remember why.


You mean the really short straights? Try using a needle nose plier to grab the rail and start one side a tiny bit, then the other side.

Can you please elaborate on “matte medium “? Never heard of it. Thanks Iron!

 

[OgreMike]

Some of the finer points of glue are important to understand for your particular application.
When glueing a hard surface that hard setting glue won't actually soak into, to another surface, the hard surface will stand a good chance of breaking loose from the glue. Basically, hard to hard without a penetrating grip, unless of course the glue completely encapsulates the surface.
The application of track to roadbed should be done with a flexible setting glue or caulk. A caulk gun will be more efficient in applying the adhesive rather than an eye dropper. A tube of Goop won't go very far.
A hard setting glue, i.e. Liquid Nails can be used for the cork roadbed to plywood application. It seeps into both surfaces.
Using spikes for you track will be a challenge. You'll end up with track that looks like a siding behind an old Sears store. It takes a bit of talent and prior experience to keep the track straight and level with each spike. With adhesive, you can make adjustments to the track before it sets up. With spikes, ya have to pull em back out then drive them again and hope the track didn't shift with each hammer strike. Some folks might be experts at spiking. Me, I tried it and didn't like the looks. I've been disparaged by two who claim that spiking is the only way to do track and that it's easy if ya know how. Well good for them, but looking at their track, I'll stick with adhesive.

Thanks for this advice, D&J. So Liquid Nails is good for the road bed. Can you be more specific on what adhesive you use to secure the track? Thanks!

 

[D&J RailRoad]

Thanks for this advice, D&J. So Liquid Nails is good for the road bed. Can you be more specific on what adhesive you use to secure the track? Thanks!

Yeah, any caulk that dries flexible.
Another tip on gluing track down. Someday ya might want to lift the track for a better design or salvage. If ya just slather that caulk as wide as the ties you'll have a job of lifting the track. If you only lay down a narrow bead out at the end of the ties on each side, you only need to cut that to lift the track.