Subject:
|
Re: Low-tech & low cost controls
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 May 2002 21:28:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
499 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.
I will, thank you. BTW, is it possible to use a regular wire (non-LEGO) to
make tests? Later I'd replace it with the real stuff, but in order to test
faster I may need to use this procedure (if it is possible, what are the
specifications of the suitable wire?)
> > #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.
Interlocking loops may be the best description, but I really don't know. I
tend to have a loop in every station (4-5), connected by double track to the
"main" loop.
> > 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.
I will try to e-mail you a .tdl document later.
> 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 guess so. I intend to "simulate" a DCC, with pure improvisation. I believe
I can achieve this with a clever use of logic, but so far I was unable to
come up with a good solution :-(
> > 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").
I want independent control *of each section*. This would mean, for instance,
that I can have 6 trains running in a total of 20 isolated sections, in
which 10 differnt people can control 2 sections each (this seems to me a
good idea for interactivity in a meeting).
With this system, the controller in section "A" indicates the controller of
section "B" that a train will enter his line at "x" time, and the "B"
controller will have to manage his section of track until he passes the
train on to controller "C".
> > 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.
Well, that I know; what I meant was to have a "standard" voltage for a
number of sections where little *speed* control were needed, but "on-off"
control might be required.
Picture a 3 large independent straights where the trains might go full
speed, having each her own de-acceleration section where the trains might be
controlled "manually" (the straights themselves would have only an emergency
off switch). All three straights might be controlled by one CU set to full
speed, linked to each of them separately with the safety switch. For the
de-acceleratin strips, another CU might be used by a different controller
(but this last part I admit I have not fully thought so far)
> > 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.
Goodie! :-)
> > 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.
So far I only have a draw-bridge. I was afraid I might need that separate
power source... :-(
> 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).
A single loop, maybe, but with isolated sections. The control would be done
by section, not by engine.
> 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.
I'd like to know more about the rationalization of *any* kind of control.
The simpler for the job in hand, the merrier :-)
> 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.
Yes, that sounds just like it!
What else have you got on the subject?
> Well, I don't know if all that will help or not. If not, post back, and
> I'll try again. ;-)
Thanks Rick, it has helped me a lot!
What I need now is visual schemes to see how it works (well, a picture is
worth a thousand words ;-). I'll make my own layout in Track designer, and
mail it to you then, so that you can tell me what you think.
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Low-tech & low cost controls
|
| (...) <snip> (...) 20# wire from Radio shack works fine. Also, for quick prototyping, use small alligator clips. they can by clipped on the ends of sidings, or in loops, pressed horizontally into one of the four slots on each side of the track. (...) (22 years ago, 18-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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
