Does anyone make a multiple output fixed VAC power supply?

I have the full DCS system and I use Lionel Powerhouse 180's to power my tracks through the TIU. The PH-180 is just an 18 volt power supply (they call them bricks) that takes the 120 volt power from the outlet and reduces it to 18 volts. The only control on it is an on-off switch and a breaker reset button. The PH-180's have very good breakers which help with protecting your trains electronics. Here is a link to the PH-180. MTH also has a Z1000 that I think you can purchase just the 'brick' only. THe breaker is not as good and the power is 100 watts where the PH-180 is 180 watts.

rtr12 posted:

I have the full DCS system and I use Lionel Powerhouse 180's to power my tracks through the TIU. The PH-180 is just an 18 volt power supply (they call them bricks) that takes the 120 volt power from the outlet and reduces it to 18 volts. The only control on it is an on-off switch and a breaker reset button. The PH-180's have very good breakers which help with protecting your trains electronics. Here is a link to the PH-180. MTH also has a Z1000 that I think you can purchase just the 'brick' only. THe breaker is not as good and the power is 100 watts where the PH-180 is 180 watts.

Thanks, this would be another idea but I would still have to buy a few of these instead of having 1 unit to power 4 tracks.

With a 10x15 layout I think you could easily run 2 of your mains from one of the PH-180s. 10 amps/180 watts is quite a bit of power for trains. If you don't have a lot of lighted rolling stock (with incandescent bulbs, LEDS would be probably ok) you might be able to power the entire layout with one PH-180. I would think that two of the PH-180s would be more than enough to power your layout. However, one problem right now is availability. I don't think they will have any available for a little while yet. 

rtr12 posted:

With a 10x15 layout I think you could easily run 2 of your mains from one of the PH-180s. 10 amps/180 watts is quite a bit of power for trains. If you don't have a lot of lighted rolling stock (with incandescent bulbs, LEDS would be probably ok) you might be able to power the entire layout with one PH-180. I would think that two of the PH-180s would be more than enough to power your layout. However, one problem right now is availability. I don't think they will have any available for a little while yet. 

I tried to run 2 of my main lines on 1 output but this caused the DCS to get a little confused and controlling 1 engine caused the same thing to happen on the other track.

What about making my own power supply using doorbell transformers? It would give me a steady 16 volts. I would need to add either a fuseable link or some kid of breaker but I would be able to create an entire power supply for the price of one powerhouse or Z1000

I am missing something. Since you already have bought and paid for two great Z-4000's, that will easily power your entire layout, why would you want to change?? Is there something they can't do for you?

Rod

Rod Stewart posted:

I am missing something. Since you already have bought and paid for two great Z-4000's, that will easily power your entire layout, why would you want to change?? Is there something they can't do for you?

Rod

Great question and very good point. The Z4000's have more than enough power. I'm just trying to simplify the layout and streamline it. So if there's no easy ( or cheap) way of doing this I'm not lost, I do have my 4000's

The doorbell transformers are maybe what, 10-20 watt at the most? At 20 watts that would be 9 transformers to equal a PH-180 or 5 for a Z1000. Then you need to get some type of good breaker or fast blow fuses. I am not understanding the difference between several doorbell transformers or a PH-180 or Z1000? 

Personally I would stay away from the doorbell transformers, I would stick with the Z4000's long before I would use those. 

I haven't used a DCS remote commander for several years, but what problems were the engines having? One thing about the remote commander if I remember this correctly, the engines all have to be the same ID as shipped from the factory so if you command something with the remote commander all the engines will get the same commands. 

If you describe your setup with more detail maybe someone can help to get things working the way you want them? I guess I am not sure I have a clear understanding of exactly what you are trying to do?

There's also the possibility that the DCS signal is getting messed up if the recommended wiring scheme wasn't used with center rail isolation blocks and multiple power drops. A more detailed description of the layout and wiring might help us determine the possible causes for problems.

FWIW, I don't see how it gets much simpler than 2-4 PH-180s mounted to a power station beneath the layout but within easy reach for the breakers. PH-180s should be around $90 when they become available again. Tower Hobbies shows an expected date of late December, but I have no idea how they know that or if it's anywhere near accurate. I was all set to get a Z4000 until I started chatting with RTR12. He's convinced me that the PH-180 is the way to go and I plan to use my Z1000 to just power the TIU and then 1-2 PH-180s to power the Fixed inputs. My layout will be smaller, but it will be capable of running 3 trains unattended and a 4th for me to control. IMHO, the Z4000 is only needed if you intend to use the built-in throttles and I have no intention of doing so.

Industrial transformers. (larger, higher amp doorbell units lol.)

HVAC and supply houses like Grainger would be a start on finding one. Peak voltage limited from 24v to 18v if need be

I think Elliott might be doing that on his monster dream/nightmare layout.

Adriatic posted:

I think Elliott might be doing that on his monster dream/nightmare layout.

My recollection is that Elliott is using banks of three, wired in series, 6 volt industrial transformers to give 18 volts per bank.

Transformer Safety

I would just make one comment on the PH-180 having a very good breaker, as mentioned above.  That is, such a statement is misleading.  The device actually inside is a supervised relay, not a breaker.  It is very fast, being intended to interrupt small overloads that would cause its output to exceed 180-watts, as mandated.  I understand it operates at 10.5 amps being exceeded.  Its internal voltage drop at this amperage would reduce the output voltage a bit below its nominal (no load) voltage of 18 volts.

If the track is shorted close to the PH-180 transformer, the amperage output may rise to slightly over 100 amps (I have calculated 110 amps, but it may be slightly different).  This would be in a worst circumstance of course, such as loosening of the screw that mounts a Pulmor motor to  its power truck.  The screw goes down the third rail like hard chalk on a blackboard, trailing a shower of sparks.  Truly spectacular.  (Large Z transformer on very long, small (#16) leads.)

If the internal relay in the PH-180 interrupts such events, its contacts will be damaged, and eventually the relay will burn open, or weld closed (permanently in either case, and welding can go unnoticed for a long time).  This relay case is only about the size of a sugar cube.

And I'm not sure that typical thermal breakers, with their curves for 120-volt systems, have any quickness at less than 100 amps.  That's where the special output plug on the PH-180 comes into play.  At a minimum, a line-side shed relay should be used to connect the output plug to the track.  The contacts in this puppy are much more substantial than those in the PH-180, yet I think still light enough that sub-cycle operation is possible (i.e. < 1/60 second) . 

To make this arrangement, called cascade protection, work, the relay in the PH-180 obviously must delay somewhat, possibly two or three cycles at maximum expected amperage.  This is called coordination (with the downstream heavier breaker).  Often a circuit in which a capacitor is charged thru a resistor is used, to oversimplify.  Such circuits would be the supervisor of the relay and the downstream breaker.  The alternate choices, variable-voltage downstream devices,  are quite reliable and use supervised MOSFET metal-oxide field-effect transistors in pairs, which are very effective at handling heavy shorts; of necessity these are always their very own very quick protection.

Some factoids, in no particular order:

1.  Thermal breakers for 120v (household supply) include those often mentioned here, such as the P&B (now Cisco? or is that changed again?) X27 or X28 series (I can't recall exactly) have curves (amps vs time to open) similar to your household breakers, at least in the larger 15 and 20-amp sizes.

2.  A recent study of household shorts (extension cords burned off at the outlet) showed that most such had a value between 1000 and 100 amps.  The most significant factor was how far the outlet was from the panel.  In a detached house, the limit is considered about 100 feet (200 feet counting out and back wiring.  And, the wires used for this are copper, #14 for for 15-amps; and #12 for 20 amps.  The resistance of these wires limits the current to the range noted, for the most part.  There is a small amount of impedance added by the breakers.  These figures may be applied to the toy train layout, adjusting for amps, wire size, and distance.

3.  The amps and wire size arrangement above may be extended to smaller wires for toy trains as follows, assuming the distances to be a bit smaller (just my opinion here & also note that regular wire is 60-Centigrade, while most home stores sell 75-C neoprene-jacketed wire as that is often required in rewiring; also the small Lionel wiring in locomotives has been very high-- i05-C, with motors this or higher):

3a. #16-- 10 amps, 12 if higher-temperature wire.

3b. #18--   7 amps, 10 if higher-temperature wire (PH-180 has higher temperature wire).

4. Smaller wires used by accessories and switches should be protected.  Fuses are usually wanted, as breakers below 15 amps are not very accurate unless individually calibrated (as postwar Lionel breakers 5-amp to early 15-amp breakers were).

5. Do not use a single common return wire for two separately fed hot wires in the track supply circuits.  As #18 is about the largest stranded wire practical in the Fahnestock clips of a lockon, consider the use of double lock-ons when appropriate, at drops from feeders, or direct from larger transformers.

6.  In power circuits, the current flow is for all practical matters not compressible.  That is, it is the same for all points in the circuit.  So, assuming that the only likely shorts are derailments, the order of cascaded devices or whether they are in the hot or common wire does not matter.  However, they are customarily placed close to the power supply to also protect against wiring shorts.  Note that a line-side (120v) breaker cannot protect the load side of a transformer.  Any such device is a protection against an internal short only, in the transformer.  Generally external breakers or fuses are avoided in the common returns.  See following.

7.  All transformer commons should be tied together, preferably as close to the transformers as possible, and all transformers phased.  Note that different outlets may be on separate phases as two phases are usual in residences.  In dining rooms and kitchens the two receptacles in a single outlet may be on separate phases, depending on the jurisdiction (usually these are 20-amp circuits).  So phasing should be checked carefully.  The purpose is to prevent the "touch voltage" from exceeding 30 volts.  More than 30 volts is unsafe; without proper phasing, voltages approaching 60 could be encountered.  (The purpose of the ZW was to make a single transformer adequate for most people... a single transformer cannot be mis-phased, all of its common return are permanently tied together, and its outputs are all permanently in phase.

9.  Do not tie the various hot outputs together, as this may lead to the 120-volt plug prongs of a disconnected transformer becoming energized by another active transformer.  Rolling stock with two rollers standing across an insulating 3rd rail pin may connect somewhat different voltages, which can create circulating amperages  and damage transformer(s) if prolonged (implied requirement is 1 minute resistance; but not sure UL tests this).  Try marking such points.

10.  The goal of all the above is to avoid two things-- dangerous touch voltages, and melted thermoplastic wire insulation.  Both are serious matters, as the hazard is serious injury.  So, do not work under an energized layout.    And, it will also help to avoid building one's own transformers, for most people.  

--Frank 

samdjr74 posted:

I tried to run 2 of my main lines on 1 output but this caused the DCS to get a little confused and controlling 1 engine caused the same thing to happen on the other track.

 

 

 

 

 If this is the issue you are trying to solve for, I believe you have another issue than needing 4 separate power sources.  On my small layout, I have 2 loops.  Both loops have TMCC/Legacy, DCS and conventional capability.  I run both loops with 1 post war Lionel ZW.  There is never an issue controlling 2 or even more (with a lash-up) DCS engines using the 1 ZW.

I would start with a factory reset on all of your engines.  Then program (1 at a time) with 1 DCS remote to make sure they all get unique ID's.

I'm not a DCS expert, but is sounds like you have a duplicate engine ID somewhere.  And with a duplicate ID, you will have the same issue with 1, 2, or 4 power sources.

Tony 

Thanks all,

Let me try to answer some of the questions. First I have two lower loops and two upper loops. Each loop is separate from each other physically and electronically. So my trains never go from one loop to another. The wiring layout is very simple as well, right now I have each of the 4 main loops going to a variable control on the two Z4000's. so the lower loops are controlled by the first Z4000 and the upper loops are controlled by the 2nd Z4000. We won't worry about the trolley or monorail as they are on their own transformers.

Now for the problem I have with using 1 Z4000 for the 4 loops. If I double up the 2 lower loops for example on to one variable control of the Z4000 (let's say 2 loops on the first throttle control) the DCS remote commander went pointed to 1 of the infrared devices will actually control both loops, this is not a good thing. Once I separate the two loops from the one throttle control and put 1 loop on each throttle control of the first Z4000 they work independently as they should. So it seems that when I try to use 1 power source for 2 loops the DCS signal is being shared to both loops instead of staying separate.

As far as doing a factory reset on the engines, I can't at my house as I don't have the full blown DCS system, nor do I want it. I like to keep it simple with the current set up. Plus I'm the first owner to all of my engines and when I use a separate power source to each track they work fine with the DCS Remote Commander.

Thank you,

Sam

I agree with Tony V, I don't think the power sources are the problem. I am not an expert on using the DCS remote commander, I will happily defer to others with more experience with using them, but I will give it a try and here is what I am thinking. Your engines all have to be the same ID, factory default. Your remote will control all of your engines if the receivers are within the line of sight of the remote or if you are using them in passive mode to control multiple track loops. 

Do you have a separate remote commander IR receiver/lock on on each loop of track? If so you should be able to control each loop separately as long as the IR signal from the remote can only get to one receiver at a time. As in you would place them in different locations around the track, something like 3, 6, 9, & 12 o'clock positions so you have to aim the remote in different directions for each loop of track. Or maybe some type of shroud around them or something to prevent the remote from getting to all of them at once.

4 loops would be no problem with one power source (or two if needed) with the full DCS system as the engines would all have different ID's and you have to select each one to control it. Unlike the DCS remote commander. The full DCS system is is what I am more familiar with and what I have on my layout.

rtr12 posted:

I agree with Tony V, I don't think the power sources are the problem. I am not an expert on using the DCS remote commander, I will happily defer to others with more experience with using them, but I will give it a try and here is what I am thinking. Your engines all have to be the same ID, factory default. Your remote will control all of your engines if the receivers are within the line of sight of the remote or if you are using them in passive mode to control multiple track loops. 

Do you have a separate remote commander IR receiver/lock on on each loop of track? If so you should be able to control each loop separately as long as the IR signal from the remote can only get to one receiver at a time. As in you would place them in different locations around the track, something like 3, 6, 9, & 12 o'clock positions so you have to aim the remote in different directions for each loop of track. Or maybe some type of shroud around them or something to prevent the remote from getting to all of them at once.

4 loops would be no problem with one power source (or two if needed) with the full DCS system as the engines would all have different ID's and you have to select each one to control it. Unlike the DCS remote commander. The full DCS system is is what I am more familiar with and what I have on my layout.

So I have different IR devices for each track and they are in different locations on the layout. none are in the line of sight of another. Actually the IR receivers are mounted inside buildings throughout the layout and I point the remote through the window of the track I want to control. If I run separate power sources for each track, everything works correctly and all loops work independently of each other.

samdjr74 posted:

 

Now for the problem I have with using 1 Z4000 for the 4 loops. If I double up the 2 lower loops for example on to one variable control of the Z4000 (let's say 2 loops on the first throttle control) the DCS remote commander went pointed to 1 of the infrared devices will actually control both loops, this is not a good thing. Once I separate the two loops from the one throttle control and put 1 loop on each throttle control of the first Z4000 they work independently as they should. So it seems that when I try to use 1 power source for 2 loops the DCS signal is being shared to both loops instead of staying separate.

As far as doing a factory reset on the engines, I can't at my house as I don't have the full blown DCS system, nor do I want it. I like to keep it simple with the current set up. Plus I'm the first owner to all of my engines and when I use a separate power source to each track they work fine with the DCS Remote Commander.

Thank you,

Sam

Sam, apologies.  I read your original post and translated "RC" into remote control, not remote commander.  I'm afraid I have no experience with remote commanders.  

Tony

Tony_V posted:

samdjr74 posted:

 

Now for the problem I have with using 1 Z4000 for the 4 loops. If I double up the 2 lower loops for example on to one variable control of the Z4000 (let's say 2 loops on the first throttle control) the DCS remote commander went pointed to 1 of the infrared devices will actually control both loops, this is not a good thing. Once I separate the two loops from the one throttle control and put 1 loop on each throttle control of the first Z4000 they work independently as they should. So it seems that when I try to use 1 power source for 2 loops the DCS signal is being shared to both loops instead of staying separate.

As far as doing a factory reset on the engines, I can't at my house as I don't have the full blown DCS system, nor do I want it. I like to keep it simple with the current set up. Plus I'm the first owner to all of my engines and when I use a separate power source to each track they work fine with the DCS Remote Commander.

Thank you,

Sam

Sam, apologies.  I read your original post and translated "RC" into remote control, not remote commander.  I'm afraid I have no experience with remote commanders.  

Tony

No worries Tony, thanks!

From what you have said it sure sounds like it should work without separate power supplies to each loop? Sounds like you have everything setup correctly. But, without seeing it I am afraid I am at a loss for anything else to suggest. Maybe someone more well versed in the remote commander operation will chime in here with some more information?

Sam

If I am reading this correctly, you want to run 4 MTH DCS locomotives on separate loops, but at the same time. The remote commander IR receiver is operating in passive mode. The DCS signal that it generates will be present on any track that is connected to the same power supply that the IR receiver is on. So, yes, you need a separate power supply for each loop, as you have done with the two Z4000s.

Oman posted:

Sam

If I am reading this correctly, you want to run 4 MTH DCS locomotives on separate loops, but at the same time. The remote commander IR receiver is operating in passive mode. The DCS signal that it generates will be present on any track that is connected to the same power supply that the IR receiver is on. So, yes, you need a separate power supply for each loop, as you have done with the two Z4000s.

Ok, thanks Keith, so that answers the question as to why I couldn't do it with one power source. It sounds like it's just going to be cheaper to leave well enough alone and keep my two Z4000's. Thanks all for the help.

Above it was stated that there was a different IR device for each loop. I'm not clear on how this would be passive mode? 

rtr12 posted:

Above it was stated that there was a different IR device for each loop. I'm not clear on how this would be passive mode? 

Each loop has it's own IR device specifically for the DCS Remote Commander and they are running in passive mode. I have the IR device connected to a lock-on than I place the IR device in a building on the layout which allows me to focus the remote control on that building and only control that specific IR device with the DCS remote commander.

This might help, this is the remote and IR device I'm using. I have 1 remote and 4 IR devices. The IR device is connected to a lock-on and used in passive mode.

Ok I have it now. From what you said earlier about none of the tracks being physically or electronically connected and each having it's own IR device I was under the impression you were using them each IR individually (power through each IR device) and not in passive mode. Passive mode operation explains the problem.

My thinking was that if you run power through each IR device you could power more than one loop with a single power source. Do you have any way to try that or is it not possible the way you have everything setup with the IR's in the buildings and everything setup as it is?

rtr12 posted:

Ok I have it now. From what you said earlier about none of the tracks being physically or electronically connected and each having it's own IR device I was under the impression you were using them each IR individually (power through each IR device) and not in passive mode. Passive mode operation explains the problem.

My thinking was that if you run power through each IR device you could power more than one loop with a single power source. Do you have any way to try that or is it not possible the way you have everything setup with the IR's in the buildings and everything setup as it is?

 

It's possible to test but not something quick and easy. I would need to get the barrel style plug for the IR device and have the other end as bare wires. Than I could try and connect two IR devices to 1 power source.

I am pretty sure (but not 100% certain) this would work, as it would get the IR receivers out of passive mode, but you might want to wait until someone comes by to verify all of this. Especially if it is a lot of work to reroute things and purchase more parts for a test. And also whether you decide to get another power supply and which one. Wouldn't want to see you go through all that rework on my account and then have it fail.

I have a couple of the remote commanders around here somewhere from starter sets, but I would have to do a bit of changing and rerouting to test them also. I am going to get them out pretty soon though as I have another project I am going to use them for for a constant watchdog signal for my sidings with a nifty little device GRJ & Stan2004 came up with. 

Also, maybe asking about this over in the DCS forum would generate more replies form the more knowledgeable folks around here? Might be worth a try if no one else replies in the next day or two.

samdjr74 posted:

 

It's possible to test but not something quick and easy. I would need to get the barrel style plug for the IR device and have the other end as bare wires. Than I could try and connect two IR devices to 1 power source.

Other than to prove that it would work, is it really worth the effort? You already have the Z4000's, so you're not going to save any money unless you sell the Z4000's and replace them with 2 Ph-180s. When I saw how big the Z4000's were, I started looking for alternative, especially since I have no intention of ever using the throttles. That's when RTR12 started telling me about the PH-180. One thing I'm curious about is how many power feeds you have going to each track. 1?

DoubleDAZ posted:

samdjr74 posted:

 

It's possible to test but not something quick and easy. I would need to get the barrel style plug for the IR device and have the other end as bare wires. Than I could try and connect two IR devices to 1 power source.

Other than to prove that it would work, is it really worth the effort? You already have the Z4000's, so you're not going to save any money unless you sell the Z4000's and replace them with 2 Ph-180s. When I saw how big the Z4000's were, I started looking for alternative, especially since I have no intention of ever using the throttles. That's when RTR12 started telling me about the PH-180. One thing I'm curious about is how many power feeds you have going to each track. 1?

Hi Dave,

Good point, I could probably set up a quick test, nothing too fancy but you're right, is it worth the effort, not sure at this point. I was going to sell the Z4000's if this all worked, but then again as you mentioned, I already have them. When I first bought them they replaced two older ZW's that were shot. The cost of rebuilding compared to replacing with the Z4000's was close considering I got the Z4000's from a store going out of business. However, unlike you, I bought them because I needed the throttles. At the time, my layout was all prewar, very basic except for the occasional whistle in a tender. Recently I picked up a new MTH set with the DCS system and was amazed at how well my trains were running with DCS compared to using the throttles on the Z4000's. That's where this all started.

My power feed for each loop works like this, one power feed coming off the Z4000 going to a copper bus bar, than from there that splits off to 4 lock-on's placed evenly around the loop.

Thanks,

Sam

samdjr74 posted:

 

My power feed for each loop works like this, one power feed coming off the Z4000 going to a copper bus bar, than from there that splits off to 4 lock-on's placed evenly around the loop.

The reason I asked is because I replaced my DCS Remote Commander with a full DCS system (TIU and remote) shortly after I bought the R-T-R set, so I never checked to see if one can run multiple feeds from the IR receiver to the track.

Try what rtr12 suggests.  In passive mode, the two loops are electrically tied together and the DCS track signal from the 2 different Remote Commanders flow into both loops.  So even though you have carefully isolated the Remote Commander receivers so that only one is controlled/active at any time, its signal flows to the other loop.

The Remote Commander has a filter that blocks the DCS track signal from flowing backwards into the power connector.  It is not a perfect filter but it significantly reduces the DCS signal level.  And, curiously enough, that same filter in the other DCS Remote commander will additionally block the DCS signal from going out the other loop.

The full-blown DCS TIU has this same filter mechanism.  By analogy, you can power the two Fixed TIU channels from a single transformer output.  The filter blocks the hi-frequency DCS track signal at the Fixed Output from flowing back to the Fixed Input, across to the other co-powered Fixed Input, and out the other Fixed Output. 

If, as you mentioned, it is inconvenient to re-wire the system and you want to continue using the passive-mode wiring, you can insert your own DCS signal filter(s) as shown.  This will block the DCS signal from roaming into the other loop.  The filter is simple an inductor/choke that blocks the hi-frequency DCS signal while allowing low-frequency AC track power through.  Most DCS guys will recognize this as the so-called DCS 22uH inductor/choke.  It's a low-cost component, maybe $1, and simple to install, but must be "sized" accordingly to handle however much power your loop(s) require.  If you go this route I'll identify suitable parts for you.

Edit: If you power the Remote Commanders through the coaxial/barrel power connector side, you may find these male screw-terminal adapters handy.  It looks like you need 4 of them - here's 5 pieces for $1.50 (free shipping).

Stan, thanks once again. Your pictures are worth a thousand words and your explanation is also much better.

I did not realize the 22uh chokes would filter the DCS signals that way, that is very good to know as well. I thought they were filtering interference coming the other way like from the TMCC stuff or stopping interference from coils and things that were interfering with the DCS signals.

stan2004 posted:

Try what rtr12 suggests.  In passive mode, the two loops are electrically tied together and the DCS track signal from the 2 different Remote Commanders flow into both loops.  So even though you have carefully isolated the Remote Commander receivers so that only one is controlled/active at any time, its signal flows to the other loop.

The Remote Commander has a filter that blocks the DCS track signal from flowing backwards into the power connector.  It is not a perfect filter but it significantly reduces the DCS signal level.  And, curiously enough, that same filter in the other DCS Remote commander will additionally block the DCS signal from going out the other loop.

The full-blown DCS TIU has this same filter mechanism.  By analogy, you can power the two Fixed TIU channels from a single transformer output.  The filter blocks the hi-frequency DCS track signal at the Fixed Output from flowing back to the Fixed Input, across to the other co-powered Fixed Input, and out the other Fixed Output. 

If, as you mentioned, it is inconvenient to re-wire the system and you want to continue using the passive-mode wiring, you can insert your own DCS signal filter(s) as shown.  This will block the DCS signal from roaming into the other loop.  The filter is simple an inductor/choke that blocks the hi-frequency DCS signal while allowing low-frequency AC track power through.  Most DCS guys will recognize this as the so-called DCS 22uH inductor/choke.  It's a low-cost component, maybe $1, and simple to install, but must be "sized" accordingly to handle however much power your loop(s) require.  If you go this route I'll identify suitable parts for you.

 

Edit: If you power the Remote Commanders through the coaxial/barrel power connector side, you may find these male screw-terminal adapters handy.  It looks like you need 4 of them - here's 5 pieces for $1.50 (free shipping).

Thanks Stan, I'm going to try running them in "active" mode. I have a local electronics shop that most likely caries those connectors so I'll stop by there today.

Ok so just a quick update. I had a Z500 power block and the local shop had a 5.5 mm splitter. I was able to split the power to each DCS receiver. However even with the power split and set up as Stan's first diagram the DCS signal seems to be linked. Meaning if I try and control one track and completely cover the second DCS receiver, both trains activate as if I had it wired in passive mode.

Put a 22uh choke between the two transformer sections.

http://www.digikey.com/product...H-RC/M8819-ND/775358

Darn.   It was worth a try.  Apparently the Remote Commander's built-in DCS signal filter is not as "powerful" as the filter built-in to the TIUs.  Anyway, on to plan B.  The inductor GRJ suggests would work, or for a little less money here's one that handles "only" 6 Amps which should also work; after all I think the Remote Commander's are specified to handle only 5 Amps (or something like that) if powered in active mode.  So as before you have two options whether you want passive or active mode depending on what's easier in terms of wiring, cabling, connectors, etc. 

stan2004 posted:

Darn.   It was worth a try.  Apparently the Remote Commander's built-in DCS signal filter is not as "powerful" as the filter built-in to the TIUs.  Anyway, on to plan B.  The inductor GRJ suggests would work, or for a little less money here's one that handles "only" 6 Amps which should also work; after all I think the Remote Commander's are specified to handle only 5 Amps (or something like that) if powered in active mode.  So as before you have two options whether you want passive or active mode depending on what's easier in terms of wiring, cabling, connectors, etc. 

 

 

 

Sounds good, thanks Stan and John!

With the DCS Commander, I see no reason to go in active mode, I always recommend passive mode for them.  I don't like sending amps through that puny barrel connector and the traces on the PCB inside.  Since there's nothing to gain by doing that IMO, I just connect them passive. 

I really thought that should have worked too, so darn again. Hopefully the next method will work for you which it most likely will as you now have both Stan and GRJ to assist.

Also to GRJ and Stan, thanks for the Digi-Key part numbers, added them to my favorite list just in case.