Re: sparking/electrical problem with Peco points



gppsoftware@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Greg,

This is a problem I just don't have because I don't rely on switch
blades as the switching mechanism for exactly the sparking reason.

OK, so you are overlooking the obvious in your supositions as to
Elliot's problem.

No, I am always aware of it as an issue.

And yet you offered advice towards a fix that have no positive effect on
that situation.


It will do exactly the same thing if you turn on the isolating switch!

No! If a loco is parked somewhere, you switch off the isolating
section. That way, if any turnouts are changed while another loco is
moving, there is no risk of other locos springing to life.

It's not a problem to me as my turnouts are switched from end-point to
mainline in sequence.


Sure, but I was asking why you would want to convert to DCC! ;-)

I think you mean't 'wasn't'. But since you write the above, where do
you want me to start ?

Anywhere you like, but I think we had better change the subject line :-)

In DC you drive the track and anything which is on it, moves.

Great - just like British and European prototypes!

In DCC,
you drive an individual loco, that loco and no other loco, irrespective
of what else is on the track. This in itself is a huge benefit.

It's also slotcar toy like.

All the
time you are relying on turnouts to isolate locos, you have to
compromise your operation in order to keep locos away from each other.

Podssibly, but it's not a huge compromise and certainly not as great as
some of the DCC compromises.
(in specific circumstances)

Personally, I prefer a much more reallistic operation where the control
system does not impose such limitations and that is one of the many
reasons I use DCC.

It's the reason I don't use DCC.

Isolation of sidings in DCC is really not recommended because
loco/train lights go off as does sound (accptable in a fiddle yard, but
not on the scenic section of a layout) - DCC has a constant track
voltage present.

Yes, I know that - so does PWM DC.


Relying on turnouts to switch sidings on/off in my view is not good
practice.
Why?
Unreliable switch blade contacts.
I've already stated i've gone thirty years without that problem - when does it start?

Well you are lucky. I've seen it on numerous club layouts and my very
early attempts - it is fairly common.

Incompetency! It would be even worse with Code 75 track!


In DC, everything springs to live in the siding when you change the turnout
That surely is the whole point of changing the turnout!
(or do you randomly change turnouts just for the hell of it?)

Yes, you do want the siding to liven up, but what about the loco
sitting at the far end of the siding - a very common operating practice

That's one of my DC system limitations - if I want to park a loco I need
to be able to isolate it in a loco sized (switchable) block.
Block switches are cheaper than decoders and have a longer lifespan.

? Using your approach that loco will always spring to life...

Only if I'm stupid enough to link an in use controller that specific
track block.

with but then
of course, you don't put a loco at the end of the siding in the first
place because your control system compromises your operating methods so
you don't do it.

Huhh??? Of course I place locos on the track - it's specially designed
to be electrified on a system compatible with my locos!

But this issue is resolvable in DC by using an
isolating section.

Sure, and on a short siding the electrical switching is done through the
facility inherent in the Peco turnouts, the facility you claim must be
eliminated!

That way you can have two locos in the same siding
and at the same time, it can stop locos springing to life when turnouts
are changed.

Do you always leave your controllers set at full speed when you're not
using them???
My circuitry is arranged so that only the route required is connected to
whichever controller is linked to it.
There is the point of the Peco turnout switching system, only the route
selected is electrified.

No, I don't change turnouts randomly - I use a fully computer
controlled and fully interlocked system with IECC panel route setting:
http://www.gppsoftware.com/ssi

As do I - with the exception of "IECC" which is an unknown abreviation
to me.

But don't forget, while you and I might have high standards of
operation, a lot of people/clubs do not - have a look at any
exhibition.

Please!

Because they don't have isolating sections, they change turnouts one by
one until they get the route the want. In the mean time, the odd loco
may have sprung to life.

The image of chimpanzees banging at typewriters to imitate Shakespeare
spring to mind!


I don't break the switchrail bonders and I don't have an electrical
problem - what am I doing wrong??? =8^O

Well let's put it this way, your wiring isn't properly protecting from
shorts. It would only need one out-of-gauge wheel set or wide wheel
tread to cause shorts all round your layout on every live frog turnout.

Why would I have out of gauge wheelsets???
My wheels have coned treads - I remember puzzling over a Kleinbahn brand
shunter that did activate parked locos as it crossed live frogs - my
standards aren't high, but they are standards! ;-)


That is the exception to my 'no switches' block wiring. It's an awful
lot cheaper than buying a DCC controller and a hundred decoders!!!

So what is 'no switches block wiring' ? Complete areas wired to one
controller ?

My aim was to eliminate ALL block switches and controller selection
switches from my control panel - I can't quite get there but I'm close.
No, each controller is linked only to it's required route.

Personally, I prefer the simplicity of wiring and far more reallistic
operation afforded by DCC.

Sure, but realisim in operation was why I reverted to DC block control.

To my mind, all the time I spent originally wiring my layout for DC,
together with all the switch gear and wire was dead money.

Certainly but instead you spend vastly more on DCC componentry - I'm
poor so I have to live with my own system.

Now the layout is wired for DCC all of the switchgear has disappeared
as has 2/3 of the wiring - the cost of all the gear should have been
invested in something useful like decoders in the first place and
cost-wise, I would have been level!

The maths didn't work for me - layout wise, and the DCC loco control
didn't work for me in regard to signalling and staging yard wise.

Those are the breaks!

Regards,
Greg.P.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DCC - why not?
    ... DCC, it is how you handle it on the railroad. ... they've got enough switches to run every member's locos. ... most DCC layouts use the loco number as the decoder number. ...
    (rec.models.railroad)
  • Re: DCC and the geriatric modeller.
    ... As soon as the loco encountered a mucky piece of track the ... controller flicked through 11 back to 03 and the loco casually rolled ... to this unit I hit upon the idea of painting the frog point rail ... These generally happen when the decoder can't see valid DCC data, ...
    (uk.rec.models.rail)
  • Re: RANT: DCC Decoders
    ... How is a DCC control system going to report location? ... apparently is that it has only one block, so any given loco could only ... forwards info to main controller. ...
    (uk.rec.models.rail)
  • Re: DCC and the geriatric modeller.
    ... As soon as the loco encountered a mucky piece of track the ... controller flicked through 11 back to 03 and the loco casually rolled ... to this unit I hit upon the idea of painting the frog point rail ... These generally happen when the decoder can't see valid DCC data, ...
    (uk.rec.models.rail)
  • DCC and the geriatric modeller.
    ... When I got the first loco to move on a test track it was like the ... Having read that Peco insul frog were fine for DCC ... controller flicked through 11 back to 03 and the loco casually rolled ...
    (uk.rec.models.rail)
Loading