Bob, you mentioned only four wires, two for each track. Do you simply run the trains in two loops or do you operate multiple trains on a loop? I am envisioning being able to use sidings so that trains can meet or pass each other. Or branches where one loco can be switching while another loco or consist is operating on the main. - Earl Henry, Nashville In a message dated 2/5/2013 2:48:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Ah, yee of little faith! As far as our group is concerned, we have been able to get things running quiet well since moving to DCC and even since we went half that way for a couple of years. Our biggest scare was always using our two crossovers--haven't had any problems in a long time. When we were straight DC, it seems that we normally started out with dead shorts. Worse yet we couldn't find a reason for them! We generally solved the problem by disconnecting one set of those connector plugs and then things worked--so we just wiped our heads in relief!. We had made some black boxes with rotaries to route power to cabs--I'm not certain if they ever worked. After the 'really old guys' refused to crawl under the layout, I sort of took over--we tossed the 'cab boxes', we got rid of the 'control lines' that paralleled the power lines. Now we have just four wires, two for each track so the chances of cross wiring is reduced in those early morning coffee-less setups. Now Peter Vanvliet has added some electronics for our Y modules that replaced many dpdt switches, allowing generally smooth running trains. Fingers are now crossed for our setup in a couple of weeks. Bob Werre On 2/5/13 2:16 PM, dondew228 wrote: We had command control back then.... it was Don T's or Don D's brains! The many hours I spent under modules because the systems did not work is still a problem today. When people do not wire their modules correctly.... DCC will not work either. So nothing has changed really.... except maybe the need for those magnificent control panels that several people built. Since I have not yet seen any modular S layouts built with several visiting modules along with host modules in any of the crazy configurations we made in those days, I am not convinced that these days... are any simpler. And the problem with trying to use different systems (Lenz vs NCE vs etc) on the same layout makes me believe that we simply replaced one kind of confusion with another one. We did not have that problem way back then.... ha ha Just my 2.75 cents... --- In [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) , "Bill Lane" wrote: > > David, > > > > The S-Mod wiring system was designed in the mid 80s well before anything > digital or command existed. It is rather flexible to have modules placed in > any order. The "restrictions" are rather minimal unlike N Trak with > mandatory track placement standards. > > > > Of course the "Two Dons" are free to comment here! > > > > Thank You, > Bill Lane > > Modeling the Mighty Pennsy & PRSL in 1957 in S Scale since 1987 > > See my finished models at: > _http://www.lanestrains.com_ (http://www.lanestrains.com/) > Look at what has been made in PRR in S Scale! > > > > See my layout progess at: > > > _http://www.lanestrains.com/My_Layout.htm_ (http://www.lanestrains.com/My_Layout.htm) > > Custom Train Parts Design > > _http://www.lanestrains.com/SolidWorks_Modeling.htm_ (http://www.lanestrains.com/SolidWorks_Modeling.htm) > > PRR Builders Photos Bought, Sold & Traded > (Trading is MUCH preferred) > > _http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRphotos.xls_ (http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRphotos.xls) > > ***Join the PRR T&HS*** > The other members are not ALL like me! > _http://www.prrths.com_ (http://www.prrths.com/) > > _http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRTHS_Application.pdf_ (http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRTHS_Application.pdf) > > Join the Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Lines Historical Society > It's FREE to join! _http://www.prslhs.com_ (http://www.prslhs.com/) > Preserving The Memory Of The PRSL >
