Subject:
|
Re: Low-tech & low cost controls
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 May 2002 16:27:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
559 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Rick Clark writes:
> Pedro Silva wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have been devising a layout for my train collection to be displayed
> > in but suddenly I came across a number of problems:
>
> Funny you should mention.
>
> I just this month gave a 10 minute talk to my train club on the merits
> of electrical block control. Perhaps I can help out.
>
> > #1 - Multiple locos mean low speed for each of them (*Very low*);
>
> True.
>
> > #2 - One controller unit *alone* is really boring (same speed for all... yay...;
>
> True.
>
> > #3 - Long lines tend to be "slow" - how is this usually solved?
>
> Additional feeder wires every 25-100 ft or so should reduce the
> electrical friction that is causing the power loss. Experiment with what
> works best.
>
> > #4 - Modifing engines is a real hassle (and *expensive*, around here);
>
> True.
>
> > #5 - Remote controlling an entire layout from a single place seems really
> > cool, but extremely difficult to do (is it really?)
>
> It depends. If the entire layout is a single loop, then maybe not so
> hard. If it's multiple, independent loops, also not such a big deal.
>
> > So, now I'm after your personal experiences in the domain "low-tech, low
> > cost solutions" for train controls. Ideally, I'm tring to control a maximum
> > of 6 locos, in a *considerable* amount of track sections (each one tends to
> > be small though, something like 16 straights in length).
>
> A pic of your layout would be helpful here. If you have a single loop
> with multiple, isolated track sections, then there may not be a simple
> solution. Are you trying to operate trains like a DCC system, but
> without the DCC?
>
> > I know I'll need more than one controller unit, but *what is the minimum*?
>
> Not sure I understand the question. Let's put it this way:
> * If you want to control 6 trains on one loop, you only need one controller.
> * If you want to control 6 trains on 6 loops, you'll need 6 controllers
> (one for each train).
> * If you want independent control of 6 trains on one loop, you'll need 6
> controllers, plus a lot of semi-complicated wiring (called "electrical
> block control").
There's also a way to use only one controller to run at least two trains,
but both are at the same speed. While probably not what Pedro's looking
for, it leads into more complicated electrical block control. Here's a
folder with an example:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=17296
The electrical diagram shows how to use two switches and one controller (at
a set speed) to have alternate and simultaneous action on two loops. If
switch1 is used to divert train1 onto a siding, and while on the siding,
it's switched to an opposing straight position. That stops the train by
isolating power from the controller.
Train2 just chugs away on it's branchline until stopped by changing the
position of switch2 from curved to straight. That position cuts the power
from the controller and stops the train. Control of the points is via
motors connected to RCX outputs, and the RCX is commanded through its remote
control. Coordinating the two trains so that they don't collide on the
cross tracks is kinda cool. Others have posted their automated designs with
motor driven polarity switches for this, and that gave me this more
simplified idea.
There's also a normal view of the layout in that brickshelf folder to give
you a sense of actual track geometry and such.
> > Is it possible to connect two or three in such a way that the same CU runs
> > more than one section of track, but each section in a separate fashion?
>
> If I understand you correctly, then no. The speed controller will send
> the same number of volts to as many sections as it's connected to.
>
> > How should I do insulations? Would a thin piece of scotch tape be enough?
>
> Yes, but I wouldn't use tape, as it can leave a sticky residue. I've
> found that a small piece of paper is quite effective. Put it between the
> track connectors, clamp them together, then tear away the excess. The
> isolation is virtually invisible.
Yes, that works like a charm. It's invisible, so I have to keep track of
where I have the isolations during setup.
> > Where should I connect the points (and other accessories, why not)? Is it
> > best to use a separate CU for these?
>
> No need to use a separate Controller for the points, since they lose
> power when switched away from the mainline. Accessories should have
> their own power though. Also, you may want to isolate a switchyard and
> power it separately.
Switches can be used in the isolation scheme.
> I get a sense from your questions that you would like to control
> multiple trains at different speeds on a single loop (like a DCC
> system). This is not practical using standard LEGO wiring systems. If
> this is what you want, and would like to delve into the complexities of
> electrical block wiring systems (which are inexpensive compared to DCC),
> let me know, and I'll relay what I've learned on the topic.
>
> On the other hand, on a large layout, you could easily fake it, and it
> would still be impressive. See how this sounds:
>
> Imagine two loops, with half of one connected to Controller A, set to
> speed 3; half of both connected to Controller B, set to speed 4; and
> half of the second loop connected to Controller C, set to speed 5. When
> the train in one loop hit the dividing point, it would slow down. The
> other train would speed up in the same way. Now expand that idea into
> more loops, add an electrically isolated switchyard or two, and by golly
> you've got some real action going on.
I like that - in my example, you could add isolation and more controllers to
provide that effect. I think I'll have to do that!
> Well, I don't know if all that will help or not. If not, post back, and
> I'll try again. ;-)
I think we'd love to hear more wisdom from you on the topic, Rick.
Thanks,
Ed
LUCNY
> Rick Clark
> PNLTC
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Low-tech & low cost controls
|
| In lugnet.trains, Ed McGlynn writes: (snipped) (...) This one, I have put to work so far in my current layout. It's the easy part, I think... (...) But how will the TS reach the inner loop, if the switch in the center is set to straight? Shouldn't (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Low-tech & low cost controls
|
| (...) Funny you should mention. I just this month gave a 10 minute talk to my train club on the merits of electrical block control. Perhaps I can help out. (...) True. (...) True. (...) Additional feeder wires every 25-100 ft or so should reduce the (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
8 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
|
|
|
|
