Subject:
|
Re: Even more Wow!! for your buck!!! was Re: Woo Hoo!!!!! (part deux...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jun 2003 18:41:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
687 times
|
| |
|
|
All these polarity-switching solutions presume only 1 train. If you've
got 3 trains, and each of them is hitting a block boundary at the same
time, you're going to have a short no matter what you do.
Best solution for DCC is to get your insulated sections exactly the
right length and not have more of them than necessary.
Jeff E
"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, rather than one as in the above diagram. With
> 3 power blocks you can always switch the block the train is heading toward to be
> compatible with the block it is in so there is never a gap to cross. Once the
> engine has crossed into a new block the trailing block is free to be changed and
> there is time to set the leading block.
>
> I'm sure you know all that, it's an old technique, but wouldn't that work
> here? Or is there something about DCC which prevents using it? Or does DCC
> somehow reduce the number of blocks needed, thus simplifying the layout?
>
> Brian H. Nielsen
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
