| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a "Dog Bone"
> > configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a length of staight track)
> > with some sort of RCX style control to work the switches and power going
> > through the loops. • [snip]
> I'm working on that very thing for the new GMLTC layout. I've got it pieced
> together (no pun intended!) in my head, it's just a matter of programming
> the RCX and give it a whirl. If I'm thinking of everything correctly, it's
> a simpler solution than you might think!
After I had build my first reversing loop, I discovered it was possible to
operate such a loop without te need for setting the switch. Ofcourse this
requires that you always run through the loop in the same direction, but you
probably want to do this anyway to keep the automated control simple.
In the original version of the reverse loop, the "inside leg" rail between
the switch and the isolated section was unpowered until you operated the switch.
To avoid this problem, make only three isolation points instead of four. The
omission of the 4th isolation point on the "inside leg" rail near the switch
allows this leg to recieve current comming from the isolated section.
The train "klicks" trough the switch without any effort (it's pushing the
springy points open)
This setup works very smoothly, it has been tested rigorously on our club
meetings, by children operating it for 5 hours constantly. Now, even when
the train is running, you're able to reverse polarity on the main track,
just as long as the motor is within the isolated section. This should be
feasable with an automated control also.
Greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
|
|
| |
I think this is an excellent idea and will add it to the LUGNET trains FAQ
I'm working on. If you see posts you think are excellent ideas, feel free to
cross-post them to .faq.
Thanks
Cary
"Manfred Moolhuysen" <moom@nospamchello.nl> wrote in message
news:G9DpBp.JHv@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > > I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a "Dog • Bone"
> > > configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a length of staight • track)
> > > with some sort of RCX style control to work the switches and power going
> > > through the loops. • [snip]
> > I'm working on that very thing for the new GMLTC layout. I've got it • pieced
> > together (no pun intended!) in my head, it's just a matter of programming
> > the RCX and give it a whirl. If I'm thinking of everything correctly, • it's
> > a simpler solution than you might think!
>
> After I had build my first reversing loop, I discovered it was possible to
> operate such a loop without te need for setting the switch. Ofcourse this
> requires that you always run through the loop in the same direction, but • you
> probably want to do this anyway to keep the automated control simple.
>
> In the original version of the reverse loop, the "inside leg" rail between
> the switch and the isolated section was unpowered until you operated the • switch.
> To avoid this problem, make only three isolation points instead of four. • The
> omission of the 4th isolation point on the "inside leg" rail near the • switch
> allows this leg to recieve current comming from the isolated section.
> The train "klicks" trough the switch without any effort (it's pushing the
> springy points open)
> This setup works very smoothly, it has been tested rigorously on our club
> meetings, by children operating it for 5 hours constantly. Now, even when
> the train is running, you're able to reverse polarity on the main track,
> just as long as the motor is within the isolated section. This should be
> feasable with an automated control also.
>
> Greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
|
|
|
