Hills of the North - The Last Great Project

[Sasquatch]

13 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

but otherwise this is about as neat as it gets for me.

(Bare wires have since been taped)

Modesty should never be underrated. Neat by anyone's standards I should think!

[Enterprisingwestern]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

No comment.

 

Me neither!

 

MIke.

[aardvark]

Irrespective of the number of wires, or the degree of neatness thereof, my head explodes at the scope of what you're creating.  Nevertheless, I continue to follow and watch in awe, all the time trying not to dribble down my shirtfront.

 

Well done that man.

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

I bet it works without having a computer interface, mobile fone app, needing to write a curriculum vitae, and all the other stuff one needs for 2 wire extra "C".

 

Plus I bet it was fun wiring up.

[LNER4479]

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

No comment.

Aah ... I didn't realise you had dead frogs and changed points by hand on the MCR.

[Clive Mortimore]

 

16 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

And the view from underneath, after several hours work with the soldering iron. The right hand motor of the slip has yet to be connected up (no need until the carriage shed tracks are laid, although the associated frog switch is wired), but otherwise this is about as neat as it gets for me.

(Bare wires have since been taped)

 

 

At one point in my life, and thankfully only a short time, I was an assembly inspector at Marconis and ..............................

[St Enodoc]

22 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I bet it works without having a computer interface, mobile fone app, needing to write a curriculum vitae, and all the other stuff one needs for 2 wire extra "C".

 

Plus I bet it was fun wiring up.

Exactly the same on the MCL.

 

11 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Aah ... I didn't realise you had dead frogs and changed points by hand on the MCR.

For a double slip, driven by two analogue Cobalts, I need (for each motor) 2 to change direction and 3 to switch the frog, making 10, plus 2 to power the stock rails so 12 against your 16. It soon adds up!

[PaulCheffus]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I bet it works without having a computer interface, mobile fone app, needing to write a curriculum vitae, and all the other stuff one needs for 2 wire extra "C".

 

Plus I bet it was fun wiring up.

Hi

 

Two wires eh

 

Underside of part of my DCC layout 😃.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Exactly the same on the MCL.

 

For a double slip, driven by two analogue Cobalts, I need (for each motor) 2 to change direction and 3 to switch the frog, making 10, plus 2 to power the stock rails so 12 against your 16. It soon adds up!

In fact, I've sort of double counted as the frog wires were pre-wired in two halves, being joined once installed (easier than trying to get at the terminals on the PL-13 from underneath) so even less difference. The only real difference that I'm happy to cede to DCC are the wires for the individual track isolating sections - can't argue about that.

[ian]

As I've said before, DCC just needs two wires. Two very long wires cut into lots of shorter pieces...

[St Enodoc]

7 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

In fact, I've sort of double counted as the frog wires were pre-wired in two halves, being joined once installed (easier than trying to get at the terminals on the PL-13 from underneath) so even less difference. The only real difference that I'm happy to cede to DCC are the wires for the individual track isolating sections - can't argue about that.

Fair enough! In fact I use droppers for attaching wires to the rails, so that's another 4. Shall we settle for an honourable draw?

 

1 minute ago, ian said:

As I've said before, DCC just needs two wires. Two very long wires cut into lots of shorter pieces...

Yep - as I've often said, multiples of two wires.

[5BarVT]

3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

The only real difference that I'm happy to cede to DCC are the wires for the individual track isolating sections - can't argue about that.

Except that when one goes to train detection (being a signal engineer etc etc) when you need two wires per section PLUS all the fancy bits.

Good job I enjoy wiring!

Paul.

[Michael Edge]

Most of my layouts are DC controlled but two parts of Herculaneum Dock are DCC - The Overhead Railway was indeed just two wires until I added the signals. All the points are sprung except for one which is hand worked - after adding the TrainTech signals (which work off the DCC bus) one more wire each side was needed linking them together to make them work automatically.

[manna]

G'Day Folks

 

One wire, a thousand wires.........................Nope, not doing that !

 

manna

[thegreenhowards]

I don’t wish to stoke a DCC vs DC war, but it’s fair to say that if one wants to keep wiring down DCC enables that. This is the underside of our club layout, Smithfield, under construction. At this stage only the main lines into the station had been laid so the wiring was for a two track approach with two double slips and one ordinary point. The black wire heading up and the droppers on the right are for the goods yard which had not been finalised at that stage, but you get the idea.

It is built with two wires between boards. The current is carried by the clips which hold the boards together. So there is no inter board wiring required when setting up which saves time when we set up to run on a club night. This was part of the design brief. The points are controlled by hand using DCC concepts point rodding, so the only wiring for them is droppers and one frog juicer per frog (I.e. two for the double slip).

 

So, DCC can dramatically reduce wiring on the layout if you put your mind to it. I fully accept that the trade off is extra wiring in the locos!

 

Andy

 

 

Edited August 13 by thegreenhowards

[Jol Wilkinson]

I don't see how this really justifies the the claim that DCC simplifies wiring. Are hand operated points DCC? Some DCC "improvements" come at a cost. Frog juicers can be expensive so what is the real benefit (microswitches operated from the point rodding is a cheaper alternative). 

 

A control bus system such as available from MERG or Megapoints would appear to provide the only effective way of really reducing the number of control and feed wires in a system.

 

I stick with DC for a number of reasons, one being that I have very good DC controllers (Pentrollers) and all my locos are built to run smoothly with good pickup performance. When DCC was first introduced, decoders were generally to large to fit in small pre-group locos. Even with today's much smaller decoders, installing them in my fifteen or so locos would be something of a challenge.

[PaulCheffus]

32 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

I don't see how this really justifies the the claim that DCC simplifies wiring. Are hand operated points DCC? Some DCC "improvements" come at a cost. Frog juicers can be expensive so what is the real benefit (microswitches operated from the point rodding is a cheaper alternative). 

Hi

 

Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding in your post. You don’t have to use Frog juicers on DCC you can still use the switches on the points as in my photo.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, PaulCheffus said:

Hi

 

Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding in your post. You don’t have to use Frog juicers on DCC you can still use the switches on the points as in my photo.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

Paul, I'd go further. You don't have to use anything on DCC except powering the track.

[thegreenhowards]

7 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

I don't see how this really justifies the the claim that DCC simplifies wiring. Are hand operated points DCC? Some DCC "improvements" come at a cost. Frog juicers can be expensive so what is the real benefit (microswitches operated from the point rodding is a cheaper alternative). 

 

A control bus system such as available from MERG or Megapoints would appear to provide the only effective way of really reducing the number of control and feed wires in a system.

 

I stick with DC for a number of reasons, one being that I have very good DC controllers (Pentrollers) and all my locos are built to run smoothly with good pickup performance. When DCC was first introduced, decoders were generally to large to fit in small pre-group locos. Even with today's much smaller decoders, installing them in my fifteen or so locos would be something of a challenge.

I wouldn’t claim that hand operated points are anything to do with DCC, but frog juicers make it very simple to power the frogs when hand operating. They’re actually very good value - about £5 each from Gaugemaster when I bought them (ref: DCC80). 
 

I was trying to show that it is possible to dramatically simplify the layout wiring with DCC…even if some people choose to go for more complexity. I detest inter baseboard wiring as it always seems to play up at exhibitions, so I was determined to eliminate any such wiring.

Andy

 

[LNER4479]

7 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I don’t wish to stoke a DCC vs DC war ...

 

At some risk ... but, for what it's worth:

 

I'm not a complete DCC 'jungfrau', having wired up one layout for DCC operation and currently in the throes of building another (Doncaster LNER). From what little I've picked up so far - and as alluded to above - a 'fork in the road' decision appears to be whether one uses DCC to change the points etc or whether you install a more traditional control panel. With the former, DCC really does become 'two wires' technology, especially if using DCC enabled motors (such as Cobalts), lending itself to ipad style control; with the latter, the amount of wiring required can easily come close to that of a DC controlled layout, lending itself to the signalman and driver approach to operation.

 

Personally - and this is only a personal opinion - I find the whole concept of ipad control of a layout a real turn off, especially for a traditionally signalled, steam age railway. But that's just me. Maybe we're the last generation that feels an affinity to the steam age railway? What will the whole DC vs DCC debate look like in 30 years time? Will there even be DC in 30 years time? Who knows? Who cares?(!)

 

HotN is resolutely DC and will stay that way.

 

Glad that 'boring' old wiring up is of interest notwithstanding!

[BoD]

6 hours ago, PaulCheffus said:

Hi

 

Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding in your post. You don’t have to use Frog juicers on DCC you can still use the switches on the points as in my photo.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

On a small shunting/yard layout I have the locos are all DCC but the points are all wire in tube operated by slide switches which also switch the frogs.  Not quite just two wires, but was that ever a serious sales pitch?  Was it actually ever claimed?

 

It doesn’t matter which way you choose to go, or which combinations you choose, if your layout works for you, end of story. Enjoy it.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

16 hours ago, BoD said:

... was that ever a serious sales pitch?  Was it actually ever claimed?

 

 

Yes, and somehow this image has entered the collective folk memory and become some sort of semi-religious artifact...   

 

 

The 1979 Hornby catalogue.  And a legend was born.

[St Enodoc]

37 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

Yes, and somehow this image has entered the collective folk memory and become some sort of semi-religious artifact...   

 

 

The 1979 Hornby catalogue.  And a legend was born.

The NCE PowerCab manual also shows just two wires going to the track - see page 2:

 

https://ncedcc.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/200498789

 

And you know what? It's true!

[BWsTrains]

Reminds me of first layout I built this millennium, which was for me to learn on and share with young grandchildren. It was just like that but with several more sidings.

 

My 7 year old grandson could control three locos at the same time, one in each direction while shunting in the yards. All managed with the cheapie Hornby "Select" and yes..... just two power wires (and well tightened rail connectors + insulfrogs!)

Edited August 14 by BWsTrains

[LNER4479]

Anyhow ... Irrespective and notwithstanding 

 

The relay board now up and running. 18 levers in the frame; board designed to take 12 relay panels. 4 double pole relays on each; 96 switching options in total. Some levers will be doing more switching than others. They'll be laid out in rough numerical order so you can see here the panels for levers 1-4, plus part of 5 (rest of it'll be on next panel). Wiring has commenced, as you can see.

 

Those relays for the points work off the PL-13s. This is the underside of the three-way point. The right hand one is just localised frog switching; it's the left hand one that's linked to the relays for crossover 4. Can you see the twisted blue/white wires leading away to the left off the bottom PL-13 terminals? The other connection is the common and is linked to any other PL-13s in the vicinity (connection top right), with just one wire needed to go back to the panel.

 

SO - when we reverse lever (point) 4 ...

 

... it switches the requisite number of relays like so.

 

And bringing it all together, the 4F negotiates said crossover 4 ... albeit with only 2 of the planned 6 relay connections wired up so far.

 

Just to prove there's a bit of thunks gone into this, here's the plan for the connections on each lever ... already subject to a few alterations/additions!

 

The above is basically the same system as fitted on the Grantham control panel which - I think - works OK. Importantly, it's a system I can understand and work with. I'm hoping to have at least learnt a few lessons from the former and work them in here.

 

Or maybe not, as the case may be ... ?