 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Scott,
A good question to ask. Assuming you will have two lines/loops, I recomend one
controller on each loop, with a pair (or more) or switches connecting the two
loops. With this sort of layout you can move your trains between loops easily.
It takes a little practice to understand how the switches impact things. In
summary:
1) It's possible, and sometimes desirable, to control both loops with only one
controller.
2) Running both trains with two controllers may cause a short if you have your
switches set wrong or running your trains in opposite directions.
3) Have fun with it. Worst case, you short things out and everything shuts
down until you find the fault. Note: I do not recommend leaving the layout in
a short condition for any longer then necessary to find the short.
4) When you get really good, you'll learn to switch your trains between loops
without stopping anything and do it real time. Of course, this is a good
source of train crashes to, so have fun with it.
Good Luck
Ben Fleskes
PNLTC
Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Greetings All;
>
> I have torn down my current city and am resetting it up for both a
> monorail line and two train lines. I want to have a passenger train one
> as well as a freight line. I have bought 4 train sets, plus a few train
> cars (4558,4559,4563,4565, etc.) I have two controllers, and I don't
> really have any ideas on how to set them up. I have a few questions, and
> I am sure the Lugnet Train guru's can help me:
>
> Can I have two controllers one one line, or not? I would like to have
> the passenger & freight lines connect to some point, but I can't
> remember if this is a no-no or not.
>
> Is it better to have one line, with one controller, or two different
> ones with two controllers?
>
> If anyone has any insights, or suggestions, I would love to hear them!
> Thanks!
>
> Scott Sanburn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Thanks, Ben. I am using Matt D. Bates excellent Track designer program
(I did it on AutoCad for a long time, without much success!), and I am
trying to see if I can get just a simple switch between the two lines so
that the current doesn't short anything out. Thanks for your
suggestions, believe, me, I will have lots of fun! :)
Scott Sanburn
Ben Fleskes wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> A good question to ask. Assuming you will have two lines/loops, I recomend one
> controller on each loop, with a pair (or more) or switches connecting the two
> loops. With this sort of layout you can move your trains between loops easily.
> It takes a little practice to understand how the switches impact things. In
> summary:
>
> 1) It's possible, and sometimes desirable, to control both loops with only one
> controller.
>
> 2) Running both trains with two controllers may cause a short if you have your
> switches set wrong or running your trains in opposite directions.
>
> 3) Have fun with it. Worst case, you short things out and everything shuts
> down until you find the fault. Note: I do not recommend leaving the layout in
> a short condition for any longer then necessary to find the short.
>
> 4) When you get really good, you'll learn to switch your trains between loops
> without stopping anything and do it real time. Of course, this is a good
> source of train crashes to, so have fun with it.
>
> Good Luck
>
> Ben Fleskes
> PNLTC
>
> Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > Greetings All;
> >
> > I have torn down my current city and am resetting it up for both a
> > monorail line and two train lines. I want to have a passenger train one
> > as well as a freight line. I have bought 4 train sets, plus a few train
> > cars (4558,4559,4563,4565, etc.) I have two controllers, and I don't
> > really have any ideas on how to set them up. I have a few questions, and
> > I am sure the Lugnet Train guru's can help me:
> >
> > Can I have two controllers one one line, or not? I would like to have
> > the passenger & freight lines connect to some point, but I can't
> > remember if this is a no-no or not.
> >
> > Is it better to have one line, with one controller, or two different
> > ones with two controllers?
> >
> > If anyone has any insights, or suggestions, I would love to hear them!
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Scott Sanburn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Thanks, Ben. I am using Matt D. Bates excellent Track designer program
> (I did it on AutoCad for a long time, without much success!), and I am
> trying to see if I can get just a simple switch between the two lines so
> that the current doesn't short anything out. Thanks for your
> suggestions, believe, me, I will have lots of fun! :)
>
> Scott Sanburn
Track Designer will not detect shorts created by attaching more than one
controller. It only detects shorts caused by reversing loops.
However, that is a feature that I would eventually like to add to version 3,
so that you can tell TD where the controllers are attached, and which way the
points are switched and then it will show you in the electrical view, which
bits of track are controlled by which controller and whether or not a short
exists.
Matt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
That sounds great Matt, in regards to TD3!
I guess my biggest concern involving the train situation is I would like
to have one switch rail between two lines or different tracks, each
having its own controller. I have a few questions regarding this
situation, I don't want to risk blowing anything up! :(
1) Can a switch exist between two separate lines with two different
controllers?
2) If so, is it possible to run just one controller for one train on the
same line if the switch is going to the other line? (I think it can)
3) Along the same lines, can I have both controllers operating if the
switch is not connecting the two?
4) Lastly, what would happen if I had both controllers running at the
same time with the switch connecting them is active (both would be
connected.)
I can try this, but I thought I would get some expert opinions, because
this will effect how my town is set up! Thanks again for the responses!
Scott Sanburn
Matthew Bates wrote:
>
> Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > Thanks, Ben. I am using Matt D. Bates excellent Track designer program
> > (I did it on AutoCad for a long time, without much success!), and I am
> > trying to see if I can get just a simple switch between the two lines so
> > that the current doesn't short anything out. Thanks for your
> > suggestions, believe, me, I will have lots of fun! :)
> >
> > Scott Sanburn
>
> Track Designer will not detect shorts created by attaching more than one
> controller. It only detects shorts caused by reversing loops.
>
> However, that is a feature that I would eventually like to add to version 3,
> so that you can tell TD where the controllers are attached, and which way the
> points are switched and then it will show you in the electrical view, which
> bits of track are controlled by which controller and whether or not a short
> exists.
>
> Matt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
All,
see my comments below prefixed with 'ben>>'
Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> That sounds great Matt, in regards to TD3!
>
> I guess my biggest concern involving the train situation is I would like
> to have one switch rail between two lines or different tracks, each
> having its own controller. I have a few questions regarding this
> situation, I don't want to risk blowing anything up! :(
ben>> Lego trains seem pretty blow up proof, but I'll keep trying. If I find a
way to blow them up using only Lego pieces, I'll let you know.
>
> 1) Can a switch exist between two separate lines with two different
> controllers?
ben>> Yes. Simply be careful not to cause a short.
>
> 2) If so, is it possible to run just one controller for one train on the
> same line if the switch is going to the other line? (I think it can)
ben>> Not sure what you mean. The train will simply respond to the voltage it
sees. If by switching the switch to the other line, you eliminate voltage to
the part of track the train is on, the train will stop.
>
> 3) Along the same lines, can I have both controllers operating if the
> switch is not connecting the two?
ben>> Yes.
>
> 4) Lastly, what would happen if I had both controllers running at the
> same time with the switch connecting them is active (both would be
> connected.)
ben>> You have essentially connect both loops in parallel with two parallel
power supplies. If the two controllers have opposite polarity you have a
problem, which will cause a fault and stop the motor and possibly damage the
motor if the situation lingers. If both controllers have the same polarity,
both trains will run with an amount of voltage from summing the addative powers
of the two power supplies. Note: since they are in parallel it is not a simple
1+2=3 scenario. The formula escapes me but is a little more complicated.
<snip>
ben>> hope this helps.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Ben,
Thanks Ben. I will try it out tonight. In question 2, I was just saying
if I ran one train around track#1, and had the switch going to track#2
(and not having the controller on, all the trains would be switched
off), would it cause a problem, or would it just be considered another
piece of track to go on.
I will let you know! Thanks again!
Scott Sanburn
Ben Fleskes wrote:
>
> All,
>
> see my comments below prefixed with 'ben>>'
>
> Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > That sounds great Matt, in regards to TD3!
> >
> > I guess my biggest concern involving the train situation is I would like
> > to have one switch rail between two lines or different tracks, each
> > having its own controller. I have a few questions regarding this
> > situation, I don't want to risk blowing anything up! :(
>
> ben>> Lego trains seem pretty blow up proof, but I'll keep trying. If I find a
> way to blow them up using only Lego pieces, I'll let you know.
>
> >
> > 1) Can a switch exist between two separate lines with two different
> > controllers?
>
> ben>> Yes. Simply be careful not to cause a short.
>
> >
> > 2) If so, is it possible to run just one controller for one train on the
> > same line if the switch is going to the other line? (I think it can)
>
> ben>> Not sure what you mean. The train will simply respond to the voltage it
> sees. If by switching the switch to the other line, you eliminate voltage to
> the part of track the train is on, the train will stop.
>
> >
> > 3) Along the same lines, can I have both controllers operating if the
> > switch is not connecting the two?
>
> ben>> Yes.
>
> >
> > 4) Lastly, what would happen if I had both controllers running at the
> > same time with the switch connecting them is active (both would be
> > connected.)
>
> ben>> You have essentially connect both loops in parallel with two parallel
> power supplies. If the two controllers have opposite polarity you have a
> problem, which will cause a fault and stop the motor and possibly damage the
> motor if the situation lingers. If both controllers have the same polarity,
> both trains will run with an amount of voltage from summing the addative powers
> of the two power supplies. Note: since they are in parallel it is not a simple
> 1+2=3 scenario. The formula escapes me but is a little more complicated.
>
> <snip>
>
> ben>> hope this helps.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > 4) Lastly, what would happen if I had both controllers running at the
> > same time with the switch connecting them is active (both would be
> > connected.)
>
> ben>> You have essentially connect both loops in parallel with two parallel
> power supplies. If the two controllers have opposite polarity you have a
> problem, which will cause a fault and stop the motor and possibly damage the
> motor if the situation lingers.
I suspect the short would happen even if the two controllers have the
same polarity, but are set to different speeds. I'm guessing it's the voltage
they put out which increases as you up the speed. If that's the case and
you have the controllers set to different speeds then you're still directly
connecting terminals which will be at different voltages -
effectively creating a short.
> If both controllers have the same polarity,
> both trains will run with an amount of voltage from summing the addative • powers
> of the two power supplies. Note: since they are in parallel it is not a • simple
> 1+2=3 scenario. The formula escapes me but is a little more complicated.
It's quite a bit more complicated. You're right in that you can't just add
the voltages. My guess is that if an effective short occurs because of what
I just said above, then the voltage the trains will see will be the smaller
of the two voltages being applied by the controller (the bit that's left
after the difference has shorted). But then how much current the trains
can draw from that will be different from what they could draw from just
one controller at that voltage, because you're having to combine the
internal resistances of the controllers - which are in parallel.
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I finally got round to having a play with my controllers and my
multimeter.
PUTTING TWO CONTROLLERS ON THE SAME TRACK
-----------------------------------------
Firstly, apologies to Ben, who suggested if you connect two
controllers to the same track, then they'd short only if the
controllers had opposite polarities. Ben was actually correct.
What I actually found was the voltage on the track is the BIGGER
of the two voltages that the two controllers puts out, if they
have the same polarity. If they have opposite polarities, then they
always short out and there's a small residual voltage (about 0.3V)
on the track. I'm a bit puzzled as to what can be going on in
the controllers to cause this behaviour.
Incidently there doesn't seem to be any effect on the speed the train
goes at if you put an extra controller on the track. (I wondered if
there might have been because the controllers could supply more current)
CHARACTERISTICS OF ONE CONTROLLER
---------------------------------
As I suspected the controller supplies a variable voltage. As you move the
speed regulater from zero to the first of the 6 marks the voltage suddenly
jumps up to about 3V. It then increases linearly up to about 9V for the
maximum speed. I say roughly because my controllers, both newish, differ
by 0.2V, so I guess Lego's quality control for this stuff isn't too exact (it
doesn't really need to be).
The motor power unit has a resistance of 8.7 ohms, so at max. speed, it's
eating up about an amp. (or about 9 watts of power).
In more detail, for one of my controllers, the readings were
open circuit voltage with which means
voltage train running internal resistance is
Full power 9.24V 9.04V 0.09ohms
Minimum speed 3.04V 2.99V 0.02ohms
I'm surprised that the internal resistance varies with voltage. I guess
I'll have to go and read up on my basic electronics again to figure out
what's going on.
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
Simon Robinson writes:
> > > 4) Lastly, what would happen if I had both controllers running at the
> > > same time with the switch connecting them is active (both would be
> > > connected.)
> >
> > ben>> You have essentially connect both loops in parallel with two parallel
> > power supplies. If the two controllers have opposite polarity you have a
> > problem, which will cause a fault and stop the motor and possibly damage the
> > motor if the situation lingers.
>
> I suspect the short would happen even if the two controllers have the
> same polarity, but are set to different speeds. I'm guessing it's the voltage
> they put out which increases as you up the speed. If that's the case and
> you have the controllers set to different speeds then you're still directly
> connecting terminals which will be at different voltages -
> effectively creating a short.
>
> > If both controllers have the same polarity,
> > both trains will run with an amount of voltage from summing the addative • powers
> > of the two power supplies. Note: since they are in parallel it is not a • simple
> > 1+2=3 scenario. The formula escapes me but is a little more complicated.
>
> It's quite a bit more complicated. You're right in that you can't just add
> the voltages. My guess is that if an effective short occurs because of what
> I just said above, then the voltage the trains will see will be the smaller
> of the two voltages being applied by the controller (the bit that's left
> after the difference has shorted). But then how much current the trains
> can draw from that will be different from what they could draw from just
> one controller at that voltage, because you're having to combine the
> internal resistances of the controllers - which are in parallel.
>
> Simon
> http://www.SimonRobinson.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Simon Robinson wrote:
>
> CHARACTERISTICS OF ONE CONTROLLER
> ---------------------------------
> As I suspected the controller supplies a variable voltage. As you move the
> speed regulater from zero to the first of the 6 marks the voltage suddenly
> jumps up to about 3V. It then increases linearly up to about 9V for the
> maximum speed. I say roughly because my controllers, both newish, differ
> by 0.2V, so I guess Lego's quality control for this stuff isn't too exact (it
> doesn't really need to be).
I'm not sure I agree that the voltage is variable. People have reported
(via oscilloscope analysis) that it's pulse width modulated 9V instead.
This will read on an analog meter like a low voltage, because it's
taking the average across time.
>
> The motor power unit has a resistance of 8.7 ohms, so at max. speed, it's
> eating up about an amp. (or about 9 watts of power).
How did you measure that resistance? Ohmmeter across an unpowered motor?
I don't think an amp sounds right. You can battery power these motors
for a good long while on 6 AA batteries. I bet the resistance is a bit
higher with voltage applied.
Disclaimer, I'm not an EE, I never could get past Electromagnetic Fields
class. :-) So I could be all wet.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
Stop the FDIC from spying on us! Go to
http://www.defendyourprivacy.com and sign the petition.
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> I'm not sure I agree that the voltage is variable. People have reported
> (via oscilloscope analysis) that it's pulse width modulated 9V instead.
> This will read on an analog meter like a low voltage, because it's
> taking the average across time.
If you have any URL's where people have reported on this, I'd be interested.
> > The motor power unit has a resistance of 8.7 ohms, so at max. speed, it's
> > eating up about an amp. (or about 9 watts of power).
>
> How did you measure that resistance? Ohmmeter across an unpowered motor?
> I don't think an amp sounds right. You can battery power these motors
> for a good long while on 6 AA batteries. I bet the resistance is a bit
> higher with voltage applied.
Yep - it was ohmmeter across unpowered moter. I did think about directly
measuring the current with the motor running, but my multimeter has a
maximum current rating of 0.2A - so the voltage and resistance readings
I was getting were kinda suggesting I'd probably trash my multimeter if I
did that :) If the resistance does increase with an applied voltage, that
might explain why I couldn't get a consistent calculation for the
transformer's internal resistance.
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Simon Robinson writes:
> > I'm not sure I agree that the voltage is variable. People have reported
> > (via oscilloscope analysis) that it's pulse width modulated 9V instead.
> > This will read on an analog meter like a low voltage, because it's
> > taking the average across time.
>
> If you have any URL's where people have reported on this, I'd be interested.
So would I, because it's not true! As I've said this many times, it's plain
and simple variable DC voltage with 6 steps. Look at...
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/train_depot/current.htm
>
> > > The motor power unit has a resistance of 8.7 ohms, so at max. speed, it's
> > > eating up about an amp. (or about 9 watts of power).
Also not true. The resistance of the motor is not enough to determine the
current it will draw because you are forgetting the back EMF generated by the
motor (which depends on speed and load). Again, look at my page.
Matt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Matthew Bates wrote:
>
> Simon Robinson writes:
> > If you have any URL's where people have reported on this, I'd be interested.
> So would I, because it's not true! As I've said this many times, it's plain
> and simple variable DC voltage with 6 steps. Look at...
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/train_depot/current.htm
Your page says you used a voltmeter. That is insufficient evidence. Put
it on a scope.
If we have a PWM voltage with a 50% duty cycle and 10 millisecond period
An analog voltmeter will report the average voltage of 4.5, not 5
milliseconds DC 9V and 5 milliseconds DC 0V because it does not have the
timescale resolution to show that variation. The needle can't move that
fast. Now, I COULD be wrong, but I seem to remember someone reporting
that they did put it on a scope and saw PWM waveforms. Those are rather
striking as they look like square waves.
Put a DC voltmeter on an AC mains (don't try this at home, please, it's
a thought experiment) and you will see 0V. Yet the voltage is going to
110, back to 0, to -110V and back to 0 (RMS) 60 times a second.
While I did not pass electromagnetic fields :-), I DID have 4 years of
vocational electronics in high school and still remember a bit of it.
I will not argue whether this power supply uses PWM or not, as I said, I
don't recall exactly. But I will argue that an analog volt meter is
insufficient to determine if it does or not. So are all but the most
sophisticated digital meters.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
Stop the FDIC from spying on us! Go to
http://www.defendyourprivacy.com and sign the petition.
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Matthew Bates wrote:
> >
> > Simon Robinson writes:
>
> > > If you have any URL's where people have reported on this, I'd be • interested.
> > So would I, because it's not true! As I've said this many times, it's plain
> > and simple variable DC voltage with 6 steps. Look at...
> >
> > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/train_depot/current.htm
>
> Your page says you used a voltmeter. That is insufficient evidence. Put
> it on a scope.
True, I used a voltmeter to generate the data on that page, but I didn't claim
anywhere on my page or previous posts that that was what I used to prove it is
not PWM. Proof is obtained by opening the controller, getting the number of
the chip used and looking it up in a databook. Turns out to be a simple
variable voltage regulator.
Matt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Matthew Bates wrote:
>
> Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Matthew Bates wrote:
> > >
> > > Simon Robinson writes:
> >
> > > > If you have any URL's where people have reported on this, I'd be • interested.
> > > So would I, because it's not true! As I've said this many times, it's plain
> > > and simple variable DC voltage with 6 steps. Look at...
> > >
> > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/train_depot/current.htm
> >
> > Your page says you used a voltmeter. That is insufficient evidence. Put
> > it on a scope.
>
> True, I used a voltmeter to generate the data on that page, but I didn't claim
> anywhere on my page or previous posts that that was what I used to prove it is
> not PWM.
But (pedant mode on) your wording in the post above does make that
implication. ;-)
> Proof is obtained by opening the controller, getting the number of
> the chip used and looking it up in a databook. Turns out to be a simple
> variable voltage regulator.
No fair. :-) That's a white box test. Much more fun to drag out a scope.
OK, I give.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
Stop the FDIC from spying on us! Go to
http://www.defendyourprivacy.com and sign the petition.
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Simon Robinson writes:
> I finally got round to having a play with my controllers and my
> multimeter.
>
> PUTTING TWO CONTROLLERS ON THE SAME TRACK
> -----------------------------------------
> Firstly, apologies to Ben, who suggested if you connect two
> controllers to the same track, then they'd short only if the
> controllers had opposite polarities. Ben was actually correct.
>
> What I actually found was the voltage on the track is the BIGGER
> of the two voltages that the two controllers puts out, if they
> have the same polarity. If they have opposite polarities, then they
> always short out and there's a small residual voltage (about 0.3V)
> on the track. I'm a bit puzzled as to what can be going on in
> the controllers to cause this behaviour.
That is because there is a diode to protect from reverse voltage and the
voltage drop is about 0.3V
>
> Incidently there doesn't seem to be any effect on the speed the train
> goes at if you put an extra controller on the track. (I wondered if
> there might have been because the controllers could supply more current)
>
> CHARACTERISTICS OF ONE CONTROLLER
> ---------------------------------
> As I suspected the controller supplies a variable voltage. As you move the
> speed regulater from zero to the first of the 6 marks the voltage suddenly
> jumps up to about 3V. It then increases linearly up to about 9V for the
> maximum speed. I say roughly because my controllers, both newish, differ
> by 0.2V, so I guess Lego's quality control for this stuff isn't too exact (it
> doesn't really need to be).
>
> The motor power unit has a resistance of 8.7 ohms, so at max. speed, it's
> eating up about an amp. (or about 9 watts of power).
The maximum current is about 0.7A MAXIMUM ( maximum voltage and whell not
turning) with one controller
> In more detail, for one of my controllers, the readings were
>
> open circuit voltage with which means
> voltage train running internal resistance is
> Full power 9.24V 9.04V 0.09ohms
> Minimum speed 3.04V 2.99V 0.02ohms
>
> I'm surprised that the internal resistance varies with voltage. I guess
> I'll have to go and read up on my basic electronics again to figure out
> what's going on.
the internal resistance will vary with voltage apply ( or will look to) because
at full speed the voltage is not realy constant there is a little variation
(ripple) du to the voltage regulator (the box you plug into the wall) that
is near is maximum capacity, and because there is a semiconductor voltage
regulator inside the controller.
> Simon
> http://www.SimonRobinson.com
<snip>
if there is two controller, then you will be able to draw about twice the
current of a single controller or about 1.4A
Martin
Electronic technitian
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On this topic, has anyone ever tried cutting a bit out of the metal
in one of the rails (just on one side) to stop a reversing loop from
causing a short? I've been wondering about doing that, and wondering
how difficult it is.
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
> Track Designer will not detect shorts created by attaching more than one
> controller. It only detects shorts caused by reversing loops.
>
> However, that is a feature that I would eventually like to add to version 3,
> so that you can tell TD where the controllers are attached, and which way the
> points are switched and then it will show you in the electrical view, which
> bits of track are controlled by which controller and whether or not a short
> exists.
>
> Matt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Simon Robinson writes:
> On this topic, has anyone ever tried cutting a bit out of the metal
> in one of the rails (just on one side) to stop a reversing loop from
> causing a short? I've been wondering about doing that, and wondering
> how difficult it is.
Yes. I have. In fact, I have a reverse loop to reverse loop layout.
Its not hard at all. All you have to do is cut the rails (both of them) in 2
pieces of track for each reversing loop. Then, you have a choice: LEGO or
Radio Shack...
You need 2 DPDT switches. (the technic ones, or from radio shack.)
I think Matt Bates has a discription of how to wire it up on his web page
(under projects)
I can help if you want to do it with RS parts, rather than lego ones (it's a
much cheaper way)
James Powell
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
How have you got this working? I sat down and had a long think about
it last night, and played checked out my points with a multimeter
to see which circuits
get broken when you move the points, and I can see that you need to cut the
rail on both sides.
But how do you stop the train from reversing direction as it passes
over the cut and suddenly sees the polarity of the voltage change?
The only way I can think of offhand would involve putting a switch between
the controller and the track which can reverse the connections, and link
the switch to a sensor that activates when the train runs over the cut.
Nasty but I guess doable with electronic components.
Is there a simpler way?
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
James Powell writes:
> Simon Robinson writes:
> > On this topic, has anyone ever tried cutting a bit out of the metal
> > in one of the rails (just on one side) to stop a reversing loop from
> > causing a short? I've been wondering about doing that, and wondering
> > how difficult it is.
>
>
> Yes. I have. In fact, I have a reverse loop to reverse loop layout.
>
> Its not hard at all. All you have to do is cut the rails (both of them) in 2
> pieces of track for each reversing loop. Then, you have a choice: LEGO or
> Radio Shack...
>
> You need 2 DPDT switches. (the technic ones, or from radio shack.)
>
> I think Matt Bates has a discription of how to wire it up on his web page
>
> (under projects)
>
> I can help if you want to do it with RS parts, rather than lego ones (it's a
> much cheaper way)
>
> James Powell
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Cut is such an ugly word...a small piece of electrical tape will open
(disconnect) the circuit. However, if the wheels are on opposite sides
of the
cut/tape then a short occurs again. I think you need two cuts/tapes to
keep the
circuit open.
Chris
Simon Robinson wrote:
> On this topic, has anyone ever tried cutting a bit out of the metal
> in one of the rails (just on one side) to stop a reversing loop from
> causing a short? I've been wondering about doing that, and wondering
> how difficult it is.
>
> Simon
> http://www.SimonRobinson.com
>
> > Track Designer will not detect shorts created by attaching more than one
> > controller. It only detects shorts caused by reversing loops.
> >
> > However, that is a feature that I would eventually like to add to version 3,
> > so that you can tell TD where the controllers are attached, and which way the
> > points are switched and then it will show you in the electrical view, which
> > bits of track are controlled by which controller and whether or not a short
> > exists.
> >
> > Matt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
To all,
I finished the track design last night, (I will post some pictures on
my webpage soon), and decided against doing both lines at the same time
connected. I am willing to explore the possibility in the future,
however. Now, for the monorail tracks. Fun times in lego town tonight!
:)
Scott Sanburn
Christopher Masi wrote:
>
> Cut is such an ugly word...a small piece of electrical tape will open
> (disconnect) the circuit. However, if the wheels are on opposite sides
> of the
> cut/tape then a short occurs again. I think you need two cuts/tapes to
> keep the
> circuit open.
>
> Chris
>
> Simon Robinson wrote:
>
> > On this topic, has anyone ever tried cutting a bit out of the metal
> > in one of the rails (just on one side) to stop a reversing loop from
> > causing a short? I've been wondering about doing that, and wondering
> > how difficult it is.
> >
> > Simon
> > http://www.SimonRobinson.com
> >
> > > Track Designer will not detect shorts created by attaching more than one
> > > controller. It only detects shorts caused by reversing loops.
> > >
> > > However, that is a feature that I would eventually like to add to version 3,
> > > so that you can tell TD where the controllers are attached, and which way the
> > > points are switched and then it will show you in the electrical view, which
> > > bits of track are controlled by which controller and whether or not a short
> > > exists.
> > >
> > > Matt
| | | | | | |
