A possible, but complex, 'universal' wiring technique....TRIAL BALLOON

I'm guessing this would have been more suited for the Electrical forum, but that's water under the bridge.

This seems very complex for a questionable gain.  Why do you think you need power control for every two feet of track?  Also, I'm guessing that your concern with signal degradation is well founded, the 3.27mhz DCS signal will probably be degraded running through a couple hundred toggle switches!

The cost is high, the utility is questionable, and the prospects for it working problem free are dubious. Also, having the DCS engines start up in conventional mode and having to take extra steps to turn them off seems to detract from the utility of the technique as well.

I don't want to rain on your parade, but I see this as the answer to a question that shouldn't have been asked.

Phil;

I think what you want is possible but it is very complex.  Try reposting your question on the DCS forum.  I'd be willing to wager that you will get quite a few answers.

Sounds simple to me and it should work to solve the problem.  The cost would be a dollar or two for each switch, and the home run/star layout for DCS is substantially preserved, while maintaining control of the siding for conventional operation when desired.

Phil,

I agree with John. This scheme is way over the top to solve a simple problem. Further, a string of toggle switches only needs one noisy one to mess up the DCS signal big-time. Even if you had each toggle controlling a track section as a "real" siding, instead of as a string of track pieces, you would be weakening the DCS signal through a great many splits.

The only issue you really have to deal with is the interference with the DCS signal by some, but by no means all, of your TMCC or Legacy engines. A much more cost-and-time-efective solution is to insert a 22 uH RF choke in line with the offending engine's pickup rulers. (This is discussed of page 152 of The DCS O Gauge Companion 2nd Edition.)

As for being able to maneuver engines around each other, you would be best off segregating your conventional engines from those that are command controlled. Then, stack the command controlled engines on sidings any way you like, since each one is individually controlled.

If you like, the conventional engines can then use the original scheme that you proposed, as long as you don't put a DCS signal into those sidings.

We use something similar at the club for the staging yard, except it's for whole trains.

Get good toggle switches and you should be fine. I would tie the individual toggle switches to a terminal block and straight to the track segment. That way you only have a single toggle switch between your TIU source and the track.

I agree with John and Barry. You solution to your perceived problem is way over the top. Listen to somebody that knows dcs better then most of us and that's Barry. Please re-think this because IMO what you are attempting to do is a waste of time and money.

I will add that it would be far better to use relays right at the tracks to switch the power and control them with your toggles.

DCS works better without running it back and forth to switches.

And Barry is right, that many splits in the signal will degrade it severely.

You will need several TIU's to drive that many sections. VERY Costly.

Hi,  Barry's solution is your probably your best answer.  I keep the conventional engines on different sidings from my command control engines on my layout.  It works out fine.  I can only run one conventional engine at a time anyhow the way my layout is wired.  I can run 4 command engines at the same time.  This requires four operators which I seldom have.  I can't get more than 4 people in the layout room anyhow.  

I haven't had problems mixing MTH and Lionel command engines on the same track.  Perhaps I have been lucky so far.  All of my sidings are controlled by a single toggle switch.  I turn the power off to each siding when I am not running on a train on the siding.  

Joe

Matt,

I would tie the individual toggle switches to a terminal block and straight to the track segment. That way you only have a single toggle switch between your TIU source and the track.

Depending upon how many sidings we're talking about, that could cost a lot of money for TIU channels. The typical pre-Rev. L TIU channel can be split about 12-14 times on a terminal block before one encounters DCS signal reduction.

A Rev. L channel can handle more splits, however, I don't have an upper limit number because, at 18 splits per channel, I haven't encountered a decrease in DCS signal.

Between this thread and the Lee Wills thread about his track problem, I'm developing a major headache.

Too many folks try to "over-engineer" this hobby, thereby making it far more complex, time consuming, and costly than it ever needs to be...regardless of whether one runs conventional or digital command control.

Hi Phil, I'm glad to read that you have given this alot of thought. I agree with the others who say this plan is a little to much work to solve your problems.

As for the switch idea Barry made a very good point about noise. But, that said I have thought about this question as well but in no way to the complexity of your scheme.

I am considering a STAR plan, as was suggested by MTH from the beginning of DCS. But, with my idea each block would go through a DPST switch off of each leg of the star, with no more then one switch per leg. The negative on one pole and the positive on the other.

My logic in this is to keep the Go/Return balanced between negative and positive. Also if you do get a bad switch it will probably only effect the engine on it's block. 

As for your conventional engines they should come off of one of your variable poles of your TIU using the same plan as I mentioned above.

In any case, I'm thinking about a small yard with only a few switches and I'm not to sure that it would not create more problems then it's worth. Mechanical switches can be a real question mark when dealing with any kind of signal through them.

What ever you decide to do good luck, have fun and keep us posted.

Mario, for your scenario, I like Russell's suggestion of relays right at the track connection, less cabling and less likely to be noisy than switches I'd expect too.  You can run small (cheap) wire to the relays as well.

Good idea John, I think that's the way I'll go. What I spend on relays I'll save on wire, almost.

But it dose make things alot simpler.

I just got another idea that makes relays a better idea, I bet I could drive them through my AIU. Command Control baby!

Oh yea, Thank's to you too Russel.

You sure could drive them using the AIU.  If you had a Lionel SC-2, you could drive the track directly, it'll handle 15 amps.

Re "noisy toggle" -   I assume that is referencing a problem toggle.  What does that mean, ie, poor toggle contacts, etc.  I ask as I have one section where the signal goes south and I am now wondering if it could be the toggle.

Sorry for horning in on your thread.

Thanks,

Ed

Hi Ed, when we are talking about a noisy toggle we mean the contacts in the switch it's self. Sometimes the contacts can be fine for a DC, or 60 cycle AC current but a little slop or dirt can really hurt a data signal. That is why switches like relays come in diffrent types of contacts, gold, silver even platinum. Some may be rated for high current and others may be rated for high frequency. But, what I was talking about was mainly the potential slop in a hand thrown mecahnical switch.

Can they work in this application? Of course, but not as well as relays because the relay is right near the block in question and it's closed electrically, that is a much faster and smooth operation. 

As far as your question about your switch; take an alligator jumper and use that between the terminals of the switch. This will by-pass the switch contacks and if your problem persists then you need to move on to other causes. If it works then the problem is with your switch, install a relay in place of the switch.

gg1man - Thank you for explaining it and for the tip on how to check it.

Phil -Again, sorry for side-tracking your thread.

Ed

Allen wrote: "Too many folks try to "over-engineer" this hobby, thereby making it far more complex, time consuming, and costly than it ever needs to be...regardless of whether one runs conventional or digital command control."

I dont run command or dcs or tmcc or.....  as I posted in another post, I almost finished an electrical engineering degree.  I was always employed in the the cabling industry. I LOVE MASSIVE BUNDLES OF WIRE!!  if I were to have it my way I would have a "Termination" room just for the sole purpose having all my relays and home made logic circuits in one area. I could find it almost as fun to sit in the door way of such a room looking at (and listening to) all the relays and wire and watching the logic status LEDS flashing about as fun as actually watching the trains.  

Yep, I need to get a life!! RW

Ryan you made my day

Right on Ryan, I love doing the same thing. Sometimes when I take a break at work I can picture a relay circuit I'm working on in my mind and when I get home I can't wait to change the drawings to see if the idea works on paper. When a plan comes together and works it like seeing a train emerge through a tunnel portal, I just never get tired of it.

O-guage..........O-verengineer............O-verthink........ O-well.......I guess its a break from the "poor QC" threads. Funny how these things come in waves.

RELAYS! and JUMPERS! and CABLE ROOMS!  O-MY!

Al

Chuck:  Good idea.  I did re-post it there.

Matt:HELP!  Please elucidate, as I don't quite understand your response. Please include the appropriate comments re: Barry's suggestion below in response to yours.

Mario & Matt: [Where] can I get a "high quality" toggle that will better pass "data signals"?