Triple loop and two controllers?

[amszterpeter]

I have completed my layout plan; well, except for a few minor last minute details. In summary: I have a layout that is conceptually three concentric loops electrically isolated. I have all Kato power and controllers, as well as Kato Unitrack. My plan is to use one controller for the outer loop, the second one for the inner loop, and switch between the two controllers on the middle loop, essentially sharing it. In the good old days I would simply install a DPDT switch from the two controllers and the output would go to the center loop. However, I can't find a similarly functioning switch in the Kato catalog; I am trying to stick to Kato components only. I would hate to have to improvise a solution if there is a ready made one provided by Kato. I am sure I am missing or overlooking a simple solution.

Any and all suggestions and ideas are much appreciated in advance. Thank you.

 

amszterpeter

[kvp]

Afaik only Tomix has a dpdt power feed selection switch. But you can rig together a nice solution with two Kato on-off switches and two 4 pole morse relays. Just wire them up to cut power both in off/off and on/on states by routing controller 1 through on/off and controller 2 in off/on states.

[katoftw]

A triple splitter cable plus 2x on/off switches?

[kvp]

A triple splitter cable plus 2x on/off switches?

That would allow both controllers to be on and shorted together.

[inobu]

Based on your requirements

1. I have a layout that is conceptually three concentric loops electrically isolated.
2. I have all Kato power and controllers, as well as Kato Unitrack.
3. Use one controller for the outer loop,
4. Use second controller for the inner loop
5. Switch between the two controllers on the middle loop
6. I am trying to stick to Kato components only.

Solution

 

Utilizing Kato 20-230 and 20-231 Double Track Single Switch with dual control of the switches both controllers can utilize the Orange line. These switches can utilize the power routing function.

 

Added feature with individual control of all 4 switches

• allows for the isolation control via the switches
• Functions as siding 
• Each Line can reach into the other main line.

 

 

Specialized dispatching measures and precautions must be adhered to in order to prevent electrical shorting between controllers.

 

Inobu

Edited August 27, 2016 by inobu

[kvp]

Kato turnouts are non fully power routing and only isolate/switch the frog side rails. On top of this, the double track crossovers always maintain isolation between loops, regardless of the selected direction.

 

http://www.sumidacrossing.org/ModelTrains/TrackandRoadbed/KatoUnitrack/UnitrackSwitchesEtc/

[inobu]

Kato turnouts are non fully power routing and only isolate/switch the frog side rails. On top of this, the double track crossovers always maintain isolation between loops, regardless of the selected direction.

 

http://www.sumidacrossing.org/ModelTrains/TrackandRoadbed/KatoUnitrack/UnitrackSwitchesEtc/

 

I think you should re-evaluate the proposed solution.

 

As per your link you provided read further down and you will that the 20-230 and 20-231 is a SINGLE cross over not a DOUBLE cross over. It also utilizes the #4 switch which has screws to change the power configuring. One of the configurations is designed for DC operation and supports power routing.

 

The 20-230 is a Double Track Single Crossover and 20-210 Double Crossover. I know this type of configuration will work as I used it years ago with #4's.

This is my old test layout and it has 2 controllers like the OP outlined. The only difference is the yard shares a main line in the center,

 

A large percentage of my responses are based on thing I have done myself and if not. I do it and post the results.

 

 

 

 

Inobu

Edited August 27, 2016 by inobu

[amszterpeter]

Thank you all for the suggestions, especially "Inobu" and kvp.

I should be able to figure the rest out.

amszterpeter

 

PS. I am just curious: kvp - Tudnal magyarul is korrespondalni? Annak ellenere hogy ide jottem 1957-ben, meg egy kicsit emlekszem.

[inobu]

No problem.

 

Inobu

[kvp]

Inobu, just measure your double track single crossover and you'll see the difference... (also the two #4-s solution is not short safe, like the relay less double on-off switches)

 

ps: irtam egy uzenetet...

Edited August 27, 2016 by kvp

[inobu]

Inobu, just measure your double track single crossover and you'll see the difference... (also the two #4-s solution is not short safe, like the relay less double on-off switches)

 

ps: irtam egy uzenetet...

His entrance criteria was he wanted to use Kato components. If you take the per-cautions it is not an issue. It is no difference than turning a switch and causing two trains to collide

 

I posted a image of the very layout with that configuration. Had no problem because the safety measure were adhered to.

 

 

Inobu

 

it's no different this this. You take precautionary measure to do this to insure things don't short out.

Edited August 27, 2016 by inobu

[katoftw]

How much would all that cost? Say versus a $40 third controller with isolated crossovers.

[inobu]

How much would all that cost? Say versus a $40 third controller with isolated crossovers.

The objective is not to add a third controller but to allow two controllers to operate a middle line using Kato components. Although the configuration is costly it provides an extended level of control. The two operators can actually change engines, passenger and freight cars if they wanted to.

 

The enter criteria did not stipulate cost.

 

Inobu  

Edited August 27, 2016 by inobu

[katoftw]

Jeez.  Sorry for asking a question.

[inobu]

Jeez.  Sorry for asking a question.

Huh? Nothing to be sorry about. The additional controller wasn't in the criteria. (scratching head)

Inobu.

[katoftw]

Suggestions and ideas were part of the criteria.

[inobu]

Suggestions and ideas were part of the criteria.

Here is the criteria (cut and paste)

 

My plan is to use one controller for the outer loop, the second one for the inner loop, and switch between the two controllers on the middle loop, essentially sharing it. In the good old days I would simply install a DPDT switch from the two controllers and the output would go to the center loop. However, I can't find a similarly functioning switch in the Kato catalog; I am trying to stick to Kato components only. I would hate to have to improvise a solution if there is a ready made one provided by Kato.

 

20-230 and 231

 

 

Inobu

 

This horse is glue now.

Edited August 28, 2016 by inobu

[amszterpeter]

 

The above scribbling is the schematic diagram of my Ome-sen. It consists of two concentric, continuous ovals, connected to each other by a single 20-231 #4 Right crossover.

The outer oval is connected to the branch line by two sets of #6 turnouts, 20-202 and 20-203 respectively. The diagram show these five turnout; there are two more turnouts on the branch line at higher elevation, but they are not relevant here electrically. I am showing Feeder 1 from Controller 1 for the branch line and Feeder 2 for Controller 2 for the outer loop. My question is where and how I should set the feeder and the two inputs from the two controllers to the inner loop. (I was thinking insulating the inner loop at the crossover and at both sets of turnouts.)

Any suggestion would be most welcomed.

Peter

 

PS Trying to resurrect the horse.

Edited August 29, 2016 by amszterpeter

[kvp]

If you just want to add a 3rd feeder, i would put it right below feeder 2. On the other hand, i would like to ask about the service pattern of the layout, mainly train movements. It would be possible to use only feeder 3 and feeder 1 and if you replace the double track single crossover with two #4-s, it would allow both the inner loop and the branchline to drive the outer loop, depending on which turnout pairs are thrown.

 

ps: It's very easy to make an error, so maybe isolating both loops and the branchline would be more safe

[amszterpeter]

 

 

This is the rough schematic using Anyrail software.

Some detail, feeders, wiring, etc., omitted and the rail objects abbreviated due to the 50 piece limit imposed by the software. (The free version anyway.)

Edited August 30, 2016 by amszterpeter

[inobu]

Peter,

 

Sorry, I've been away but I'm back. I see you have Anyrail and you got it going. Great. 

 

This is a different design where Controller 1 has to reach across Controller 2 to get to the inner loop. With this configuration you must use the crossing that Kato has (20-300 and 20-301) and move 20-230, 20-231 to the north side of the layout. That way Controller 2 can reach into the inner loop. 

 

The key is making sure that the feeders complete the loop. That is the only way without using external switch boxes.

 

 

the curves are 20-120, 20-140 and 20-070 (little jointer) 

 

Inobu

 

As KPV has iterated a few times. You must make sure that you don't short out the controllers. You have to manage the switches 100%

Edited September 1, 2016 by inobu

[amszterpeter]

Thank you Inobu.

I have a couple of weeks to build the frame and base for the railroad.

When finished, I will have a trial with "live" components as I have all parts but two switches to add. 

I will report the resulting test run with pictures.

Thanks again

[inobu]

No problem.

 

Inobu

[kvp]

Actually redesigning a layout to solve a simple wiring problem is a strange approach. The result depends on the builder. Imho solving the original problem is more elegant than suggesting something completly different. In this case the original station looking area is lost and the double track single crossovers still don't power route (regardless of any screw settings) across the built in isolators.

[amszterpeter]

I do appreciate all ideas and consider them carefully.

After spending last evening looking at Inobu's design, I tend to think that my original station area layout is the way to go.

The layout will be built for my son and grandson, both of whom prefer "just running trains."

The actual operation of the railroad has the following objectives:

1. The inner loop is used exclusively for running a train continously, either a Chuo-sen EMU that I have or perhaps a 485 unit that I may aquire in the future.

2, The outer loop or mainline will be shared by the Chuo-sen mentioned above and a two car Kato Tsurumi/Ome-sen unit that I have bought last month.

3. The branch line will run the Ome-sen unit as well as freight, mainly hoppers to and from Okutama.

4. In summary: Controller 1 is the workhorse, running the branch line and the outer loop. Controller 2 will run the inner loop with an occasional excursion to the outer loop mainly to move a consist.

5. For visitors and for my son/grandson I will run one train on the inner loop and another on the outer loop.

6. The branch line is mainly for me to do a little "operation" by moving the cars around when alone.

Returning to Inobu's design, I believe that the four turnouts between the inner and outer loops at the bottom are unnecessary. In addition only a single crossover is required where Feeder 2 is indicated.

My next step is to build the frame and the base. Once completed, I will actually layout the components and run trials before firming up and finalize the layout.

I intend to post a WIP (work-in-progress) set of photographs.

BTW Building scenery was always a favorite part of my railroading in the past and I plan to spend the most time doing it on this layout as well.

Cheers.

Peter