This question has probably discussed before, but I can't see anything on the forum about it.
So, Insufrog or Electrofrog for DCC?
There is a good bit of information here:
https://dccwiki.com/Turnout (https://dccwiki.com/Turnout)
I don't think it is a matter of which is preferable or 'best' for DCC, but the way in which they are installed and wired. As with any wiring (DCC or DC) it is the potential for shorting out between left and right rails which is an issue.
The article includes some clear illustrations of potential sources of shorts in both live and dead frog turnouts.
Thanks Graham that's really helpful.
As far as I am concerned there is only one answer.
Dead frog points can and often do make 009 locos stall at slow speed so should be avoided.
Electrofrog is the way to go for reliable running in 009 be that DC or DCC.
The shorting out issue with point blades on the back face of wheels is just not a problem and is the same for DC or DCC.
I would also recommend that every point has a frog polarity switch fitted as the blade to fixed rail electrical connection is unreliable.
Again, this is the same issue for DC or DCC.
It should be noted that a DC layout needs less wires connected to the rails than a DCC layout and a DC layout can also use common return wiring for the track, point motors and any other electrical items again reducing the wiring, where a DCC layout cannot as neither of the two wires to the track can be used as common return wires.
QuoteIt should be noted that a DC layout needs less wires connected to the rails than a DCC layout and a DC layout can also use common return wiring for the track, point motors and any other electrical items again reducing the wiring, where a DCC layout cannot as neither of the two wires to the track can be used as common return wires.
I use a common return in DCC (though I do need one for each set of eight blocks connected to my occupancy detector units), and as my point motors are connected only to the track, they do not add to the wiring.
But I do use electrofrogs!
Quote from: Tom Haythornthwaite on January 14, 2021, 15:58
I use a common return in DCC (though I do need one for each set of eight blocks connected to my occupancy detector units), and as my point motors are connected only to the track, they do not add to the wiring.
That is very interesting Tom!
I was always told that you cannot use either of the DCC wires to the track for common return for solenoid point motors or any other electrical items, like signals or street and building lights etc.
Obviously if there is a DCC control unit for every point that would work fine, but if you wanted to combine DCC control with analogue point motor control using common return I was told that it would not work.
As far as I am concerned this is one of the major drawbacks of DCC in that I can not convert any of my DC analogue control layouts to DCC as all the electrics on the layout including one rail of the track use the same common return.
Brian Meldon
Oh dear, I think I have caused some confusion. Sorry, Brian and Tim.
QuoteI was always told that you cannot use either of the DCC wires to the track for common return for solenoid point motors or any other electrical items, like signals or street and building lights etc.
Brian, you are right and I was wrong, but partly because we are on a different track (HA HA HA ..... .... I'll get my coat...) I was being a bit defensive about the amount of wiring required by DCC because it can actually can vary from 'fewer' to 'more'. (Sometimes a lot more.) My unclear point about points (HA HA again) was that I am converting to DCC point motors that are powered by and controlled by the DCC track so they do not add to the number of wires. I didn't mean to suggest that point motors can share a common return with the track.
Sorry, Tim, this is taken quite a branch (line HA HA) from your original question.
Tom
Maybe on a different track (!) but always interesting to hear views and ideas from others.
I'm planning my first ever layout although I've been a member for several years and an interest in 009 for many, sparked I guess like a lot by visits to the Ffestiniog and Talyllyn in my teenage years and a spell on working parties to the Ffestiniog in my early twenties.( I turned seventy last year by the way). However I make no claim to be anything of an expert on railway running so all information is gratefully received.
Thanks to all for the comments, even the contradictory ones. ;D
I have planned from the begining that my layout will be all DCC, I blame a lifetime working in electronics and computers. :-\ ::)
Quote from: Tim Parsonson on January 17, 2021, 09:26
I have planned from the begining that my layout will be all DCC, I blame a lifetime working in electronics and computers. :-\ ::)
Same here :-)
I have found DCC to much simpler to wire up, just power at various places, same as DC, but no need to isolate the siding, so no switches and fewer wires.
I am currently experimenting with driving points using Arduino Nanos, leeching their power off the track to drive servo. I know it is another 10-50mA occasionally but my locos are only 100mA and the controller can do 2A so plenty of headroom.
As for Insulfrogs, then yes they can be a pain, but I plan to investigate stay-alives (capacitors) next, assuming I can get one in my tiny locos alongside the decoder.
Quote from: Stephen Rainsbury on February 16, 2021, 00:40
Same here :-)
I have found DCC to much simpler to wire up, just power at various places, same as DC, but no need to isolate the siding, so no switches and fewer wires........................
As for Insulfrogs, then yes they can be a pain, but I plan to investigate stay-alives (capacitors) next, assuming I can get one in my tiny locos alongside the decoder.
This is not the place for a DC or DCC debate, however with DC the points isolate the sidings, so no swithces or extra wires are needed.
Even with the most simple of layouts , say a circuit with one siding; two wires are needed to power the track with DC but with DCC four wires are required. I do agree that working out the wireing is easier with DCC, but you do need more wires to the track.
(I would also recommend frog polrity switches on every point, but this is the same for DC or DCC.)
In addition on a DC layout every electrical item can use the same common return wire, but with a DCC layout you can not do this.
Quote from: B.Meldon on February 16, 2021, 11:27
This is not the place for a DC or DCC debate, however with DC the points isolate the sidings, so no swithces or extra wires are needed.
Even with the most simple of layouts , say a circuit with one siding; two wires are needed to power the track with DC but with DCC four wires are required. I do agree that working out the wireing is easier with DCC, but you do need more wires to the track.
(I would also recommend frog polrity switches on every point, but this is the same for DC or DCC.)
In addition on a DC layout every electrical item can use the same common return wire, but with a DCC layout you can not do this.
I agree not the place for a debate, but I am curious to know why you would need 4 wires, do you mean in the loco or the track?
Quote from: Stephen Rainsbury on February 16, 2021, 15:42
I agree not the place for a debate, but I am curious to know why you would need 4 wires, do you mean in the loco or the track?
Yes sorry it would be 3 wires with DCC, two for the main circuit and one for the siding. With DC the one for the siding is not required and the point will isolate the siding.
Brian Meldon
Quote from: B.Meldon on February 16, 2021, 15:59
Yes sorry it would be 3 wires with DCC, two for the main circuit and one for the siding. With DC the one for the siding is not required and the point will isolate the siding.
I think that we are just taking different approaches. I wire the sidings in parallel to the main track (or bus) but still think of it as two wires as they all go back to a common star.
Stephen
Quote from: B.Meldon on February 16, 2021, 11:27This is not the place for a DC or DCC debate
Oh, I don't know, Brian, it can be but it'll be a little one sided if it is as it's in the DCC section and unless a DC-er did what I did - accidentally open the thread - they wouldn't even know there was a debate!! ;) :)
Quote from: Stephen Rainsbury on February 16, 2021, 17:53
Quote from: B.Meldon on February 16, 2021, 15:59
Yes sorry it would be 3 wires with DCC, two for the main circuit and one for the siding. With DC the one for the siding is not required and the point will isolate the siding.
I think that we are just taking different approaches. I wire the sidings in parallel to the main track (or bus) but still think of it as two wires as they all go back to a common star.
Stephen
With DC there is no need to wire the sidings at all as the points provide the isolation.
I am talking about the wires needed to be soldered to the rails. You need less with DC than you do with DCC.
Also, DC can use a common return for every electrical item on the layout, including point motors, lights, signals and even the track.
With DCC both wires to the track need to be separate from everything else that does not have some form of decoder.
Quote from: B.Meldon on February 17, 2021, 09:31
With DC there is no need to wire the sidings at all as the points provide the isolation.
I am talking about the wires needed to be soldered to the rails. You need less with DC than you do with DCC.
There is no need to wire dead-end sidings in DCC either. I have seen a number of layouts which rely on on the points to provide a feed to such sidings. However most people (or at least most people I know) attach a wire to every piece of rail. This avoids poor performance due to fishplates not conducting properly, and could be considered good practice in either DC or DCC.
Quote from: duttonbay on February 17, 2021, 09:46
However most people (or at least most people I know) attach a wire to every piece of rail. This avoids poor performance due to fishplates not conducting properly, and could be considered good practice in either DC or DCC.
I agree, fixed layouts can be a pain to get under to fix, and portable ones are more likely to fail due to vibration etc. Its one less thing to think about if a train won't move.
Quote from: duttonbay on February 17, 2021, 09:46
There is no need to wire dead-end sidings in DCC either. I have seen a number of layouts which rely on on the points to provide a feed to such sidings. However most people (or at least most people I know) attach a wire to every piece of rail. This avoids poor performance due to fishplates not conducting properly, and could be considered good practice in either DC or DCC.
The only fishplates I have ever known to fail were the ones on the point blades of the pre-2010 Peco 009 points.
Because of this on one layout we soldered bridging wires on every point. But this is somewhat overkill and it has not been necessary on any other layout!
However, I also have soldered links across expansion joints and every point frog is fed via a frog polarity switch.
That said all my layouts have a solid 1/4 (6mm) plywood track bed with the track pinned down and all the rails pre-bent for the curves, so even on the portable layouts there is very if any little movement apart from expansion with changes in temperature.
I also like to have locos moving about in a siding if I can while somethin is moving on the main line. It takes some people by surprise :-)
One school of thought, popular in the early days of DCC was to use the rails at the power bus around the layout and use it to power not only the locomotives but 'accessories' such as turnout actuators, signals and track circuit (train) detectors, all powered and controlled via the DCC signal on the rails. Hence the need for electrical continuity around the layout without 'dead' sections.
It is perhaps a less popular approach than it was, especially with large layouts where splitting the layout into 'power districts' is sometimes even often advocated.
Another use of DCC power in stock that is not moving is coach lighting (which may have its own decoders and not just be on permanently), brake van tail lights and indeed locomotive lights. Ditto locomotive sound (a plague on all at exhibitions who generate a racket ;) )
Either way, DCC or DC, dead or live frogs I think the consensus is that live frogs are better for 009, especially where short wheelbase locos and limited number of wheels for pickup are concerned.
Quote from: GraemeD on February 21, 2021, 08:49
One school of thought, popular in the early days of DCC was to use the rails at the power bus around the layout and use it to power not only the locomotives but 'accessories' such as turnout actuators, signals and track circuit (train) detectors, all powered and controlled via the DCC signal on the rails. Hence the need for electrical continuity around the layout without 'dead' sections.
The problem with powering turnout actuators via the DCC bus is that if you get a short from running into a trailing turnout set the wrong way, everything stops. You can't fix the problem by changing the turnout, because the DCC system is shutdown waiting for the short to clear. The cure becomes the five-fingered shunt.
Quote from: GraemeD on February 21, 2021, 08:49
It is perhaps a less popular approach than it was, especially with large layouts where splitting the layout into 'power districts' is sometimes even often advocated.
I agree, but for Micro Layouts, especially "planks" it can significantly simplify wiring in a small space ;)
Quote from: GraemeD on February 21, 2021, 08:49
Another use of DCC power in stock that is not moving is coach lighting (which may have its own decoders and not just be on permanently), brake van tail lights and indeed locomotive lights. Ditto locomotive sound (a plague on all at exhibitions who generate a racket ;) )
I would love to add sound, but to me it sounds like a small train close up, not a big one far away, but I think I might have a go with caricature diesels just to say that I tried it (See Father Ted for a better explanation ;D )
QuoteAnother use of DCC power in stock that is not moving is coach lighting (which may have its own decoders and not just be on permanently), brake van tail lights.....
What good low-friction reliable power collection wheel/bogie/pickup arrangements for are recommended for 009? I have some good metal wheelsets that I have bridged with resisters for occupancy detection, but I have not yet brought power up into rolling stock.
QuoteI haven't found anyone that does a reliable, simple and fool-proof set of contacts for 9mm gauge wheel sets yet - let me know if you find one
Thanks Iain!! I hope we or someone does find something good.
Quote from: Tom Haythornthwaite on February 22, 2021, 16:54
QuoteI haven't found anyone that does a reliable, simple and fool-proof set of contacts for 9mm gauge wheel sets yet - let me know if you find one
Thanks Iain!! I hope we or someone does find something good.
Powered wheels are easy, but contacts for unpowered wheels are very difficult indeed in 009. It is all about how light the coaches and vans are. Too much pressure on the contacts and the wheels just do not turn, not enough and they start to lose contact. Even with exactly the right pressure they become dirty very quickly and stop working. Methods like using split axles with pickup through the end pivot bearings are about the best way, but even these tens to get dirty quickly. But these require special wheels, axles, and end pivot bearings. Another way is to use axle sets that are insulated on one side with the contact on the axle, but obviously two axles are needed for pick up from both rails. The new Greenwich wheels are like this with one side live the other insulated.
If you are tempted to make pickups for yourself, slightly springy wire or thin strip such as phosphor bronze is often used. Making contact with the back of the wheel rather than the tread might be better for not getting dirty so quickly and also applying less torque. The rolling stock will need sufficient weight so the wheels 'grip' the rail sufficiently and rotate rather than skate.
There is a nice illustration of making pickups in Nigel Lawton's instructions for his kits:
http://www.nigellawton009.com/20HP_WD_Simplex.html
http://www.nigellawton009.com/20HP_WD_Simplex_build_instructions_V23l.pdf (http://www.nigellawton009.com/20HP_WD_Simplex_build_instructions_V23l.pdf)
http://www.nigellawton009.com/files/MPD18_V3.1_Instructions_-_5-6mm_wheelsets.pdf (http://www.nigellawton009.com/files/MPD18_V3.1_Instructions_-_5-6mm_wheelsets.pdf)