to Skipgear: You want to know how I think the wiring change was for DCC operation. Good question, I read it in the Ntrak Newsletter. Go to the Jan/ Feb 2004 issue and on page 2 under the title of "DCC on NTRAK Layouts" you will find this: "...XXXXXXXXXX of the North Raleigh NTRAK club and several other interested NTRAKers are working up well researched details that should help all NTRAKers in getting a DCC layout up and running." Then in the Nov/Dec 2005 issue this: "The group that was formed to study possible changes in the NTRAK wiring and connector standards, have settled on a plan that keeps the original wire sizes and Cinch Jones two pin connectors, that have been used since the 1970’s as the standard. At the same time, they have approved a set of guidelines, in the form of a RP to be used on new or refurbished modules that will make it easier to have reliable DCC control of trains in large NTRAK layouts." Do you see analog DC mentioned? Does that sound like they had the analog DC users in mind? Then you ask what exactly was my objection anyhow. Please read the first paragraph of my post above then read the third paragraph. Basically I said that the "solution" was no solution. Even the DCC people will tell you that voltage drops are a fact of life and cannot be eliminated. Heavy wire will not eliminate them. It will only reduce the need [and cost] for power boosters. That reduced cost will be paid by all Ntrakers most of whom will see no benefit. It is in Post #16. Also, while you may be using high quality wire on your layout I can assure you that the average guy will use what he can afford and you end up with situations that Prof. Sharkman described at the NTS show where a whole power district of twelve gauge wiring suffered from voltage drop due to cheap wire. But Hey, it was 12 gauge wire. So the "solution" was no solution. The real solution was more power boosters and smaller power districts.
The 12 gauge wire is not as effective for DCC as it is for DC. What you end up with is a high level of reactance that causes the dispersion function of the wire to to degrade the signal quality, and then depending on the quality of the copper, you can easily have a much shorter run than one would expect before the harmonic extinction event happens. This is on top of the resistance of the wires so the situation can degrade very quickly.
As David just restated, the 12 gauge helps DC more than it does DCC. This is not a "let's dump on the DC guys" issue. The object is to help eliminate as much voltage loss as possible for both DC and DCC. The bigger wire solves the voltage drop issue for both. 12 gauge actually hampers DCC not because of voltage drop but because of signal loss. The RP is not a cure for "JUST" DCC users. It has helped our layout run much better on both DC and DCC. It is an effort to make the connections between layouts more reliable and be able to build larger, more reliable layouts. You avoided the question posed: All you have stated so far is that you think it is a conspiracy against the DC only folk. Give me a real reason as to why you think it is a bad move? Here are my reasons why I think it is good.... Cheap 12 gauge wire is still better than cheap 16/18 gauge zip cord. If they would have recommended high quality 16 gauge that David is referencing, then the price would have been higher to update. What was done was in the interest of cost. Cinch Jones connectors cost more than the Anderson power poles and are becoming harder and harder to find, not to mention they are 50's technology. Most of the Cinch Jones connectors installed on modules now are worn out anyhow and due for replacement. I know the ones in our club were junk. We are still in the process of replacing power poles. Our issue is getting the remaining club members to show up for work sessions so we can replace them. The club bought Power Poles in bulk, along with a spool of the wire, and will update the members modules at no cost just to get everything up to snuff. I have used Power Poles in RC cars since the late 90's and they are still usable today. It is a reliable connection system unlike the worn out Cinch Jones connectors that I am accustom too. Adding heavier gauge wire just makes things even better. Replace your Cinch Jones with Power Poles or make adapters and be done with it. I doubt anybody will have issue with your wiring unless it causes a problem at a layout.
On a purely pragmatic note, our HO module group initially adopted the 12-gauge-and-Powerpole standard. But they eventually backed off from 12 gauge to 14 gauge, because it was too difficult to find wiring parts (barrier strips, etc.) that worked well with 12-gauge wire. Ironically, that list of didn't-work-well parts included the Powerpole connectors themselves. It's exceedingly difficult to get all the strands of a 12-gauge stranded wire into the 30-amp connector, and with some brands of wire the insulation is too fat to fit into the shell without trimming. Dropping back to 14 gauge avoids these issues. Our N module group (not an NTrak group) uses Powerpoles with 18-gauge wire, but we're DC-only and our layouts are relatively small.
Apparently you are not reading what I posted. I said the reason for the change was not to help DC people. Analog DC was never on the radar. This was perceived as a DCC problem from the get go. It wasn't until after the decision was made that something to the effect was said, "Oh it will help you DC guys as well." But like I said This was NO SOLUTION and that was admitted by everyone. Unlike the powerpole connectors this change did not benefit everyone it just raised everyone's cost. The only possible benefit was to the mega layouts like Derby Express or Chantilly that are set up once, maybe twice, a year and possibly to a handful of clubs who have both the space and the modules to set up large layouts on a more frequent basis. But for the average guy running DCC in his basement there was no benefit because the goal was to increase the length of the power districts in these mega layouts so more trains could be run in the larger space. No, I answered this question. You just didn't see it. I said, " This "solution" is no solution." There will still be voltage drops. The goal was not to help DC people at all. They were, at best, an after thought. The goal was to increase the length of the power districts on the mega layouts so more trains could be run. The irony is that not only is this not a solution to the voltage drop issue but it will have little, if any, effect on the number of trains that can be run because you have a set number of feet of track limited by space and/or the number of modules. It doesn't matter what that total number is because you can't increase it. So how you divide it really doesn't matter. You can cut and serve a pie in two pieces or 10 pieces. You don't increase the size of the pie. The only difference is with the ten pieces you have to wash 8 more plates and forks and those pieces are smaller than the two pieces. So in a layout like Derby Express which had something like 702 modules and 3800 feet of track, you could have 100 power districts with 38 feet of track or you can have 38 power districts with 100 feet of track. Obviously you can have more trains occupy the 100 foot power districts but you only have 38 such districts. You will have less trains in the smaller 38 foot districts but more districts. The point being that it doesn't matter how you cut the pie its still the same pie. So what did you gain? The only thing was you saved money on power boosters and passed that cost on to everyone else. Wow you really didn't read my post did you. Did you really read what I said about the CJ plugs. They are not the issue here. The change to Powerpoles benefitted EVERYBODY because CJ plugs were becoming harder to find and in some parts ofthe world down right impossible. No other industry was using them and Ntrak did not present itself as a large enough market to justify their continued manufacture. They were, as I said in my prior post, a dinosaur. So the change and the resulting benefits was good for everyone. Notice I also said that with the Powerpoles there was a decrease of 30% in the voltage drop. That is very significant because it now means that DCC power districts could be 30% larger. There would be a corresponding benefit to DC operations too. So simply put, Powerpoles = GOOD; 12 gauge wire = BAD.
What does the guy running in his basement have to do with anything? He can use his own standards. I'm not sure about this "handful of clubs" but the 3 or 4 clubs I have run and worked with including the one I am a part of are large enough to consider this an advantage especially when the 2-3 of the clubs combine their layouts for a couple shows around here. So status quo and crappy wiring that limits you to small layouts is good? Huh? You are talking in circles. If the layout is larger, you can run more trains, period. Our club has never ran into issue with lack of ability to run trains. Our only limitation is space. As the layout get's larger, we run more trains. The pie keeps getting bigger so we take advantage of it. You are looking at this from a very small point of view. What about the other clubs that have the room to run multiple trains. Our club is not huge but we can usually put together somewhere between 16-20 modules for a layout. A big show can be upwards of 30 when we invite other clubs to bring a few modules down with them. We can easily run 3 trains per line with multiple loco's per train so voltage loss is very important. 6-10 loco's on one line can really put a load on the wiring. I caught the part that you agree with power poles. I still don't understand why you are so anti 12 gauge. It can't be the cost. On a 4 foot module you need about 25' of wire (4 6' runs). I just checked, and a 100' roll of good quality 12 gauge speaker wire is around $30-40. That works out to about $10 per module. I'm sure within a club environment, somebody can share a spool between modules to help save all some money the spool. Heck the 1000 foot spool was $120. That brings the cost down even farther if you can use all that up. Our club president bought everything the club would need in one bulk batch. It costs us $15 per module (the cost of a new freight car) to upgrade to the new standard. If you are not going to set up with other clubs, or at major events, then who cares what standard you use. If you never plan to join in with others, then what does it matter? If you do plan to set up with others then that is what the "standard" is for, so that connectivity is garunteed. There is really no point to this anymore. I will happily build my modules to conform to the new standard while the rest of our club is busy updating their modules. The standard is an advantage to us and we welcome it. Enjoy.
I can understand there is no advantage in 12 gauge wire in the range limit of high frequency data used to control the locomotives. However, the locomotives each draw power from the square wave to convert to DC to turn the motor. The rectifier does not care how ragged the square wave is like the decoder does. When running lots of locomotives and lighted passenger cars in each power district, is there an advantage to the 12 gauge wire over smaller wire to handle the raw power consumption?
...add to that the fact that DCC decoders are immune (to one extent or another) to waveform distortion (again, up to a point). Absolute DCC waveform fidelity is not required. The trumpets can sound like oboes, but the band marches on.
Russel, Allow me to answer your question. 12 gauge wire has no advantages over 16 gauge wire for lengths of 100 feet or less from the feed point in either direction. What really matters the most is the quality of the wire used and how carefully the wiring is done. This is actually more important that wire gauge, but no one really wants to discuss this. It is better to use 12 gauge to hide the effects of poor wiring. For more than 100 feet in either direction, 12 gauge may offer a little less restivity, but that is at the expense of a substantial increase in reactive power leaked into the harmonics. This is the general trade off for any wire gauge size. If the reactance is low then the lower resistivity of 12 gauge will be fine and it is a good trade off. The one argument I do not understand is that one about the cost of the wire. This is like having a sports car, but only using bald passenger tires. In the DCC world, there are so many things that needed to be taken into consideration. The carrier frequency, this is the fundmental frequency of the system for Digitrax it is about 10KHz. The pulse or packet repetition frequency, how often the packets are repeated. The packet modulation frequency or index, this is for the stretching or compression of the pulse widths within the packet (This would be the DCC command) and finally the pulse width itself has frequency content, higher frequencies are created by the squareness of the corners. All of these must be combined to see how many frequencies are affected and the power used by each frequency. Add up all the power that is greater than 10KHz and that is the reactive power. The reality is that there is no one solution to this. It is more dependent on the power district plan or the layout plan and its localized complexities. This is just the analysis before tracks and feeder wires and turnout frogs. When you add the track elements things change dramatically in a reactive sense. Here are a few scenarios: Simple track - no turnouts or other track elements, 12-16 gauge will work as long as the quality is there. 16 gauge quality wire is cheaper than 12 gauge quality wire, and will still perform better than 12 gauge pig wire. With the simple track model, it would depend on the length of the tracks as to the right choice of the wire. If you want to run more than 100', go with the 12 gauge. Less than that you can easily get the performance desired with 16 or 14 gauge. Complicated track - this would be with a few turnouts over the length for a siding or a crossover. Here is where the reactance of the heavier wire starts to hurt because the turnouts add to the overall reactance of the environment. Here you can go almost to the same as the Simple track, but as you add more turnouts the length starts to shorten. An example of this is a Ntrak module set I built that is 28 feet long and hosts a passenger station with 4 terminal tracks. As is, due to the complexity of the track and the amount of track being powered, this set is a self contained power district. It uses 16 gauge wire and 22 gauge feeders, has 22 turnouts and a couple of crossings. Very Complicated track - the best example I can think of is a classification yard. The size of the yard that is meaningful is the overall length and then the number of ladder tracks. Any yard that has more than a few ladder tracks and 12 feet or longer should be setup as its own power district. The reasons are multiple from an operations standpoint with derails etc. But from an electrical perspective, all of those turnouts and devices create a lot of potential issues that may propagate to the next modules. For that reason alone, Complicated track sections should be their own power districts. But complicated track can also be where you do not have something easily distinguishable as a yard. In these cases a ratio of turnouts to total track length would be a better guide. Sort of the #turnouts per foot or something. We will look again at the module set above. For the passenger set, the total amount of track is 188 feet of track and 32 turnouts. In this case we have an average of 5 feet per turnout. So perhaps something like 12 feet per turnout or less is very complicated using this example. And something like 13 to 40 feet per turnout would be complicated. With one turnout nper 100 feet, you may even call this simple. The point is as the complexity of the track work increases, so does the adverse effects of the reactance. Probably too much here, but I wanted to explain as best I could.
I understand about the degrading of the DCC signal, I was just curious about the straight raw power load used by everything from car lighting to motor current. Anyway, I must confess that when I built our new 20 foot 9 track yard to run across the middle of our layout I used some high quality 16 gauge speaker wire and Power Poles. There were just too many wires and I got a good deal on a whole spool of wire. I figured that for the yard, not on the main line, it did not matter. I still have about half the spool. I guess all modules upgraded from now on will get the same.:thumbs_up:
[Inkaneer] "The irony is that not only is this not a solution to the voltage drop issue but it will have little, if any, effect on the number of trains that can be run because you have a set number of feet of track limited by space and/or the number of modules. It doesn't matter what that total number is because you can't increase it. So how you divide it really doesn't matter. You can cut and serve a pie in two pieces or 10 pieces. You don't increase the size of the pie. The only difference is with the ten pieces you have to wash 8 more plates and forks and those pieces are smaller than the two pieces. So in a layout like Derby Express which had something like 702 modules and 3800 feet of track, you could have 100 power districts with 38 feet of track or you can have 38 power districts with 100 feet of track. Obviously you can have more trains occupy the 100 foot power districts but you only have 38 such districts. You will have less trains in the smaller 38 foot districts but more districts. The point being that it doesn't matter how you cut the pie its still the same pie. So what did you gain? The only thing was you saved money on power boosters and passed that cost on to everyone else." But the layout is not larger only the power districts are. The layout remains the same size The power districts become larger but there are fewer of them. So you cut the pie [the layout] into two big pieces [power districts] instad of four small pieces [power districts]. How does that increase the size of the pie [layout]? Two things here. If 6-10 locos but a load on the wiring how then does adding more locos help reduce the load? Put it another way; with thirty modules you have a layout [assuming 4' straights and 4' corner of 36' x36']. Now in that 36 feet of each side let's say you can run 4 trains per track. So 4 trains per track times three tracks = 12 trains per side times 4 sides = 48. So 48 trains can be run on that layout. Now let's say the entire layout was just one power district. So you have 48 trains in one power district. That power district is 36'+36'+36'+36'=144 total feet in length. Okay? Now let's say we keep the layout at 36 X 36 144 total feet] but we make each side its own power district so we now have four power districts each of which is 36 feet [the length of each side]. Okay? Still with me? Okay now. Again, same as the first one, in the 36 feet of each side we can run 4 trains on each of the three tracks track or 12 trains per side which is also the power district. So each power district has 12 trains and there are 4 power districts. Once again there is 48 trains on the layout. Increasing the power districts size does not increase the layout size. It just reduces the number of power districts. The layout size remains the same but the power districts are smaller. So if any club, like yours, wants to run with fewer power districts then I say let your club pay for the additional power boosters rather than transfer that cost onto everybody else. Your correct, it isn't the cost of the wiring. Hopefully this is the last time I have to say this, The "solution" [12 gauge wiring] is no solution [it does not increase the total number of trains on a layout]. All it does is reduce the number of power boosters needed [even that is now questionable] thereby possibly saving a very few clubs money but transferring that cost to everybody.
Why are you so worried about mulitiple power boosters??? We run 3 Digitrax Superchiefs, one for each line, (we don't run a mountain district). The three Chiefs are run off of one heavy dudty 25A 12V power supply. The Aristo DC throttles that we can switch to on each line, get their power from the same power supply. We have never had issues with needing more power districts, only a little bit of voltage drop on the back side of the layout with the old wiring which is getting better as we replace and upgrade things. In an effort to cure the voltage drop before the upgrades, we created a second feeder from our power station to connect to the other side of the layout to help boost things. It was done with the same 12ga wire that we are using for the module upgrades, as the old wiring was getting unreliable.
This thread will continue forever because Inky will never be statisfied. At least not until he does not have to pay for new wire on his modules. You see he has been raising this argument on one or more forums since 2005. Early on he was against the whole RP. Powerpoles and cable size. He said it was for needed by DCC people only. It was pointed out to him that the wire and connector change would be cheaper then even replacing just the Cinch Jones plugs on a module. At some point, Inky must have needed some new plugs and found that the Powerpoles were much cheaper then Cinch. All of a sudden he was OK with the new connectors but still was dead set against upgrading the cables. There was even a threat to bring legal action against any club or convention organizer who would dare to turn away his modules if the wiring did not meet the new standards. He would be damaged because of the expense to haul modules to a convention in a far away town. Then there was Mr. Cicotti's feeble argument a couple of years ago about how much heavier the modules would be with that large wire. It was around that time the same committee was looking at a workable solution to the 120VAC powerstrip problem. First thing we did was to tell every NTRAK'er to remove any 120VAC wiring and boxes on their modules. That killed this extra weight issue with the bus wire because we shaved some weight off the modules when the powerstrips were removed. Trade the powerstrip and cable weight for the that added by using larger gauge wire. At this time a four plug male/female set of CJ's will set you back $34 from NTRAK. An 8 pair set of Powerpoles cost $11. Total savings to change from the old to the new is $23. Now if the wire has to be changed, the cost will go up. Powerworx will charge $22.52 for new 12 ga wire. Enough to do that four wire set. That would bring the whole tab for upgrading to the new standard to $33.52. I've even given him real figures that our club was spending less then $20 per four foot module to change out the cable and connectors. Chet wants that extra $9 in his pocket. He argues this extra $23 should not bear on those that do not run DCC because decreased voltage drop will not benefit DC runners. He continues that DCC runners should be made to bear the expense of their choice. Simply buy more Boosters at a cost of $200 for each station and increase the number of power districts. Leave the module owners alone. What this really boils down to is Chester's resistance to spend some money upgrading his modules. He wants to save the whole $23 and not give any back to the NTRAK effort. Dropping the whole RP/standard completely and returning to the original standard would piss him off too because he'd still be out that $23 every time a new module was built or plugs needed changing. Another of his ongoing arguments is that this cable increase is only needed for large milti-club mega layouts. Well that's what the NTRAK standard is for. If a club or individual will never join their module(s) to another person or club's module, why use a standard? So even for a couple of small layouts to be joined together, both clubs would need to bring DCC equipment to the show in order to run DCC on the combined red line. That means his club would only be able to join with clubs who have the same type of power and control. My club owns only Lindsay throttles for DC operation. We wouldn't be able to join with any other club that couldn't provide Lindsays for their share of the layout's red line. To join with say the T.R.A.I.N.-Trak club we would need to agree on whether to use Lindsay throttles or Aristo's (which we don't have). Now let us be able to increase the length of the DC blocks because of the reduced voltage drop and maybe we have enough analog stuff to to the layout. To date, Chester has started this topic on two groups. This one and the ntrak yahoo group. this was mentioned in the original post here. He also tried to hijack a thread on the RailWire but actually managed to kill the thread instead. Martin Myers President Baltimore Area NTRAK
So essentially, by adding the second power feeder you solved the problem by cutting the layout into two power feeds while retaining one power district. You employed one alternative solution to the problem and probably the cheapest one in using a second feeder. Using a power booster would be another way to do it. but power boosters are not cheap. Now if you want to use larger wire on your modules that is your perogative. No one says you have to use only 18 gauge stranded copper. It was only a minimum standard. Heck, you could use #1 gauge if you wanted to. But you might find it hard to locate any Powerpole connector to fit it.
Not really that hard http://www.powerwerx.com/anderson-powerpoles/powerpole-sets/pp180-red-black-180-amp.html ten seconds to find. Ain't the internet great.
Ya know this whole arguement is pretty much a mute point. I do think the larger wire is a little overkill, but I can understand why the change has been made. The New powerpoles are a great idea, something that is a lot more reliable and more accessible to members. Extra weight? Are you serious? I highly doubt that anyone would really know the difference. The change has been made, they are not going to go back to the old standard to keep a handful of bitter Ntrak-ers happy. I don't have a module, Yet. I am debating if I want to go N trak, Ttrack, Bend track, or some other standard. Right now I am actually leaning towards 2 modules, A N trak module stand alone, and my Ttrack module that is part of a small layout I am planning. Regardless, I say if you want to continue, make the changed, and just live with it, or start your own off shoot of N trak using the crusty old connectors, and all the other old trashed standards.
DCESharkman, I’m glad you brought this up because I twisted my feeders between modules not because I wanted some electrical magic to happen but only because I wanted to keep the wires orderly. I’m not an electrical engineer, but I have attended some courses on transmission lines many years ago and I only remember enough to be dangerous. It accrued to me after I did this that I probably should have pulled out my old school books and tried to calculate this out, but it was already done. Anyway, I have two circuits one is a twisted #10 stranded for the track power and the other is #12 twisted for my turnout control circuit. I have 46 turnouts. I twisted up the #10 wire with my drill without thinking about it and then when I started the #12 I thought maybe I should lighten up on the twists. I’ve been wanted to ask about this for a while, but did not know how until you mentioned it. You say it caused problems and now I’m wondering if I should untwist the wires. What do you think?
If you are using DCC, the twisted wire could cause problems. Especially on longer feeds. It is one variable. If you are just DC it does not care one way or another. If you are not having problems I would not bother untwisting it.
Thanks, i am using DCC. I haven't really had a chance to test it all out yet, but I guess I'm going to pull them apart right away. Thanks again.
Ok, I decided it would be better to just replace the cables with straight ones and I will probably use the twisted feeders for my O scale layout. So now I’m concerned about the power cables to my DCC control Cards. I have 8 of them and they are all twisted pair cables. I guess I need to replace them as well.
