Subject:
|
Re: Even more Wow!! for your buck!!! was Re: Woo Hoo!!!!! (part deux...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jun 2003 21:26:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1082 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Brian H. Nielsen wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Regarding reverse loops and DCC I seem to recall that it's possible to
> > > automate them so you don't have to cut gaps that the motor has to coast
> > > across
> > >
> > > See this track diagram
> > >
> > > http://members.shaw.ca/sask.rail/dcc/loop.html
> >
> > I'm not up on DCC, but with normal track it is normally done by having the
> > loop divided into 2 power blocks,
>
> That diagram is divided into two blocks. One for the approaches, and one for the
> reverse loop itself. That's standard wiring, been done that way since I was a
> wee lad, there's no need to divide the reverse loop itself into two blocks.
>
> With conventional control (for example the old ATLAS line of components) you
> reverse the loop block to match which way the train enters and while the train
> is in the block, you reverse the approach block.
Okay, yeah, my memory of what I too used to do years ago got cross-wired.
Then I guess I don't understand the set-up that is causing his need for a gap
to be crossed. Is it a DCC related issue or simply him not reversing the
polarity of the approaches while in the loop?
Brian H. Nielsen
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
