# can one DCC Massoth reverse loop module operate two reverse loops



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

I have been gradually DCC-ing my layout but am keeping the option of DC track power for the locos that are not or will not be chipped for some time. The layout is in three totally separate non linked sections and all sections can be powered by either DC with a Aristo Elite/TE system or DCC from a Massoth 1200Z central station. A BIG rotary multipole switch exists for each section for DC or DCC operation.

One of the sections is a long shuttle line that is going to become a dumbbell line with two reverse loops, one at either end of a single track connecting the loops.
I have looked at the Massoth 8157001 reverse loop module as it can work with DCC and DC track power. The wiring needs are different for the different track power sources but that can be overcome with a good rotary multi-pole switch.

My questions are: If using the 'shorting circuit detect' mode.......

1) *If just using DCC,* *can one reverse loop module (Massoth 8157001) operate both loops*. I will only ever have one train (with maybe two loocs in it, on the that line at any one time so no fear of a short happening in the second loop as a train 'trips' the module in the first loop). This train would always go in one direction around the section.

2)* If just using DC,* *will I definitely need two modules (one for each loop)*. As said above, I would use a multi-pole switch to change everything to the different DC track power needs needs for the module from the DCC wiring (this includes a necessary dedicated power supply for the module when in DC mode). This would also mean that I would have two reverse loop modules to be used in DCC mode as well.

Due to space constraints it is not possible to just have the section dog bone shaped with a connecting track out and to open loops at either end. So that is why I am going down the auto reverse loop pathway.

I hope there are some of you who have been in a similar situation and could throw some practical experience wisdom on this.

Mike


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

If you wire it up for reverse loops in dc, such as is done using the LGB EPL system, this should also serve your dcc needs with no further complications or need for dcc modules at all.

The EPL system prevents a short circuit, regardless of the format that the power is delivered in.


----------



## Treeman (Jan 6, 2008)

Greg, DCC is a digital control system that allows control of multiple locomotives on a single track. The signal and power come thru the rail.


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 02 May 2013 12:15 PM 
If you wire it up for reverse loops in dc, such as is done using the LGB EPL system, this should also serve your dcc needs with no further complications or need for dcc modules at all.

The EPL system prevents a short circuit, regardless of the format that the power is delivered in.

I have looked at the EPL system and it is a good solution but have decided that, for ease of use I have plumped for the Massoth module as the answer in my particular case.

So I still need to know the answers to my original questions from any experienced users of the Massoth module.


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

If only 1 train is on the track, a single reversing unit could work as long as a train (read any metal wheels) only crosses 1 end at a time. The loops at each end would be tied together and the main line would reverse upon the train crossing the insulated gap. 

If 2 trains are on the track, they could be crossing gaps at the same time and cause a short.


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

Mike: 

I would not use a single reversing loop module for both loops, sooner or later you will forget and end up with 2 trains on the track and the inevitable happens. Secondly, Using the Massoth module in short circuit detection mode isn't optimal, short circuit detection is supposed to be a backup mode for track contact or sensor-track mode which do not rely at all on short-circuit detection. 

Mohammed 
http://www.massothusa.com


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The vast majority of DCC autoreversers work in short circuit detection mode (with some additional "intelligence" about the amount and duration of the short circuit) and they work fine. 

In the DCC community, short circuit detection is favored over sensors or more insulated sections. It's a simple and inarguable fact by just seeing what is used. 

I do understand that using the insulated sections allows the Massoth unit to function on DC, which for people that must have DC autoreversing is a boon. 

But it's unfortunate that the Massoth unit does not work optimally in the mode most favored by the DCC community. 

Greg


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 03 May 2013 09:45 AM 
The vast majority of DCC autoreversers work in short circuit detection mode (with some additional "intelligence" about the amount and duration of the short circuit) and they work fine. 

In the DCC community, short circuit detection is favored over sensors or more insulated sections. It's a simple and inarguable fact by just seeing what is used. 

I do understand that using the insulated sections allows the Massoth unit to function on DC, which for people that must have DC autoreversing is a boon. 

But it's unfortunate that the Massoth unit does not work optimally in the mode most favored by the DCC community. 

Greg 




Say what!!!!

Mohammed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Written in clear, simple English. Sorry. 

Email me privately if you are having problems understanding I'd be happy to explain each sentence, although there are only 4 of them. 

Greg


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

Greg: 

Your English is OK, I was questioning the substance not the form. 

Mohammed


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Hi mohammed
Does the Massoth autoreverse unit work fine in short circuit mode or not?


Given that I would *neve*r have more than one train on my dog bone/dumb-bell section, would just one Massoth autoreverse module be fine for both loops? Would it be wired exactly the same as for one loop?

If I want to operate the section with DCC or DC (and bearing in mind the extra switching of connections to do this) will I definitely need two modules?


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

Hello Beavercreek: 

The Massoth reversing loop module works perfectly well and effectively in short circuit detection mode, it can handle up to 15Amps. 

in DCC mode, one module would do the job for both loops if you never have more than one train on the track. You would wire it exactly as you would a single loop. 

Since separate transformers are required for loop sections in analog mode, you would definitely need 2 separate modules in analog mode. 


Mohammed 
http://www.massothusa.com


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Hi Mohammed

Many thanks for adding clarity to my request.
If I do continue to have the option of DC on the 'dumb-bell' section and have two reverse-loop modules for the DC operation. ( and will have the switching system for changing sensors, power transformer off etc to use DCC) will it be okay to have the two modules operating under DCC or is it best to 'null' one module completely when in DCC?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Mohammed, since the moderators saw fit to delete my other post, would you explain to me, either on the forum or privately why: "Secondly, Using the Massoth module in short circuit detection mode isn't optimal" 

As expressed above, this goes contrary to my experience. 

I just want to know the limitations (or advantages) of this product. Until I understand it I could not recommend it without reservations. 

Since you are a dealer for Massoth, it surely seems that you would know the answer. 

Moderators: We do indeed have the right to question anything ESPECIALLY product claims made by a dealer. 

Greg


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Hi Greg

I am not in any way answering for Mohammed as he can do that for himself about the module.
But...A lot of G scalers over here use the Massoth module, with a good many in short circuit mode for DCC and have had no problem at all. In fact a very few have said that the 'non-short circuit' sensors can add another problem (if breached with water, debris etc etc).
One or two have said that the sensors can also be 'insensitive' but they also have said that it could be down to their wiring!
Obviously, if using DC, the sensors *have* to be used.

The reason for my original question was due to the fact that I want to add the complexity of possibly being able to run DC or DCC on the same 'dumb-bell' section. This is due to the legacy of all my locos being DC to begin with ( I have now chipped about a quarter of them).
The complexity of the 'change-over' switching from DC wiring to DCC wiring to the module (and the on/off of the dedicated transformer for DC running) is starting to make feel that it is not really a good idea as one day perahps I will forget that the far-end module is switched to DC (with its attached transformer) and shove DCC power though it.

So I think that rule 1 will prevail here...'Keep it simple' and I will go for just DCC on the 'dumb-bell' section and make sure that all of the locos that use the line are DCC-ed .


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Let me try my hand at this, since I wrote a review on this particular circuit a few years ago and talked to the folks at Massoth about its various pros and cons. 

As was explained to me by Massoth's distributor at the time, any time there's a short circuit, however small and momentary, there's an electrical arc. That electrical arc causes pitting in the wheels. Over time, those pits cause problems with electrical pick-up. (We all probably know that, but it's background info as explained by Massoth.) Massoth considers that to be a bad thing, thus them viewing any unit (including their own) operating in short-sensing mode as not ideal because they feel the entire method is flawed when compared to their non-shorting solution. It has nothing to do with the Massoth unit not working as well in the "short-sensing" mode. When I did the review, I tested it under both conditions, and the unit performed reliably and as advertised under both conditions. 

Now, I don't run track power or run on track-powered layouts that use short-detecting auto-reversers, so I can't speak to how pronounced that problem may be. It could be one of those cases where you ask 10 people and get 12 opinions. It could also be that because the Massoth system is not mainstream, there are few people who have used both to be able to draw a long-term comparison. So, take that for what it's worth... a manufacturer seeing a problem they feel needs to be addressed (arcing and pitting) and designing a product which addresses it. If you don't feel it's that big of an issue, then use the short-detection circuit (on this or another product) and be happy. 

I _am_ curious as to wiring a double-reverse-loop with only one controller. Are you just wiring the two loops in parallel? When I wrote the review, I was given the impression you needed one box for each loop. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks "beavercreek"..... "over here" refers to the UK? (Just curious). 

What you stated is consistent with my experience, so when Mohammed stated that it was "not optimal" I wanted to learn why. I clearly understand when people believe that not creating a short seems on the face of it to be more "gentle" or better, but the way modern DCC autoreversers work, this is such a short time that no harm from a "short" is caused. 

Kevin, I've indeed heard that "logic" but it turns out from a practical (meaning what the real world results are) that the arcing from just normal operation happens far more often and for longer periods and causes far more wear. (Check George Schreyer's site on his findings on USAT locos and pitting) 

I would suppose that the explanation you (Kevin) got would be the same Mohammed has, but I do consider him very well versed in Massoth and would love his corroboration. 

Yes, you can use one autoreverser for multiple reversing "loops" (which don't really have to be in the shape of a loop)... as long as you don't try to autoreverse from 2 different locations at one time. 

So if you had a layout with 5 loops and a train that was no longer than any one loop, then you would be fine, since switching "polarity" on the loops with no trains affects nothing. (they are all insulated from the "main" and each other, so the only possible interaction comes from a metal wheel bridging the insulated gap). 

Regards, Greg


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Thanks once again Greg and also to you Kevin.


I have come to the conclusion from the info from you and Mohammed and input from over here (yes it is the UK, Greg) that one reverse loop on short-circuit detection mode and DCC can 'feed' as many 'loops as you want as long as you are running one train that fits in between the 'break' sections of any one loop.

It is my complicating the issue, by wanting the option of DC operation on the section as well, that has thrown a fly into the ointment. This DC option would mean a definite use of the sensors but in a different wiring pattern than when using DCC (as you know, short circuit mode does not work in DC). I have now looked into this even more deeply. Although it is perfectly feasible as long as the wiring pattern is switched when changing the power source, it does leave open the possibility of making a large mistake and unleashing the 'magic smoke' from small OR large components! 
So I am going with only DCC on my 'looped' section. The section is really a meandering point to point single line with spurs joining along its length and a 'new' loop at either end.
It is a little ironic that I had already got the main section of my layout DCC-ed with the option of being easily switched to DC and I had determined that the point to point shuttle (now changing to be the reverse looped section) was going to be last to be DCC-ed but now it is a necessity to make it so....hey ho.
For info:
LGB have had a short-circuit (no sensors) reverse loop module in the market for some time 55080 (ironically made by Massoth as is nearly all of LGB electronics) and it has had a good press even though the response time was a little longer than the new Massoth unit (which is also available under the LGB name 55081). This 'older' unit did cause pitting of the wheels under long usage so maybe that knowledge has 'overhung' the newer modules although they are much quicker at detecting shorts (better not use them in Hawaii then).


Mike


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think you could do the "sensor" (additional insulated section) method on multiple loops, just a heck of a lot more wiring. 

Also, I don't know the price of the Massoth module, but here in the states you could buy something a lot less expensive for dcc, and it might be the same price for 2 of them. I use my autoreversers right at the boundary of the "loop" if possible, minimizes wiring, just 4 wires, can be one foot long each... really helps if you don't have lots of independent feeders. My home layout has all independent feeders so I can put the autoreversers anywhere, but for most people, running another long feeder "home" to an autoreverser is a pain. 

I did not catch if wiring run lengths were an issue, and I'm only assuming that the track is outdoors. 

Anyway, good luck in the endeavor! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Yes it is outdoors and the distance from the far loop to the 'control centre' is fairly long so the use of two modules makes it a lot easier as they can get their power from the track nearby and sit in a building. I have just managed to get hold of two modules (used) for about £ 75 (approx $105).
The track plan is no way near scale and is also not up to date but gives the general idea of the layout. The Arrow head to Beaver Creek shuttle is the one being converted to DCC and the ends changing to reverse loops.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Very nice! 

Thanks for sharing this! 

Looks like a lot of fun. Excuse me if you posted elsewhere already, but pictures of the layout? 

Thanks! 

Greg


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

Posted By East Broad Top on 17 May 2013 12:13 PM 
Let me try my hand at this, since I wrote a review on this particular circuit a few years ago and talked to the folks at Massoth about its various pros and cons. 

As was explained to me by Massoth's distributor at the time, any time there's a short circuit, however small and momentary, there's an electrical arc. That electrical arc causes pitting in the wheels. Over time, those pits cause problems with electrical pick-up. (We all probably know that, but it's background info as explained by Massoth.) Massoth considers that to be a bad thing, thus them viewing any unit (including their own) operating in short-sensing mode as not ideal because they feel the entire method is flawed when compared to their non-shorting solution. It has nothing to do with the Massoth unit not working as well in the "short-sensing" mode. When I did the review, I tested it under both conditions, and the unit performed reliably and as advertised under both conditions. 



Dead-on Kevin. 

Mohammed


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

Posted By beavercreek on 17 May 2013 12:03 PM 
But...A lot of G scalers over here use the Massoth module, with a good many in short circuit mode for DCC and have had no problem at all. In fact a very few have said that the 'non-short circuit' sensors can add another problem (if breached with water, debris etc etc).
One or two have said that the sensors can also be 'insensitive' but they also have said that it could be down to their wiring!


Beavercreek: 

Personally, I would use the modules in a mixed operation mode involving both sensor-tracks and short-circuit detection. In mixed mode, which I consider optimal, when sensor tracks fail to work properly due to contamination or corrosion, short circuit-detection comes into play and serves as backup. 

I am not in favor of using a single module for multiple loops, I strongly recommend using 2 separate modules for you layout for whichever operating mode : DC or DCC.

Mohammed


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Hi Mohammed

Many thanks for you input in this thread.

By 'mixed' operation, do you mean wired both for both sensor and 'short circuit' . Obviously the module's internal jumper has to be either 'closed' or 'open' depending ton the method being used.


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

Posted By beavercreek on 18 May 2013 10:56 PM 
Hi Mohammed

Many thanks for you input in this thread.

By 'mixed' operation, do you mean wired both for both sensor and 'short circuit' . Obviously the module's internal jumper has to be either 'closed' or 'open' depending ton the method being used.



Hello Beavercreek:

You are welcome. By mixed operation, I do you mean wired for both sensor track and short circuit detection. Of course, you would need to set the internal jumper for short circuit detection.

Mohammed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I had the same confusion, according to what I read: 

open means short circuit detection 
closed means sensor track or magnet/reed switch detection. 

There's nothing I saw that said remove the jumper for both. 

I guess you should also buy the 8157001 kit with the insulators, short track lengths and hardware. 

It also appears that the short one inch "sensor" sections are isolated and thus do not supply power to the loco (of course they cannot or they would cause a short) 

So you now have 1 inch dead spots in the rails, it must be tough on locos that don't have a lot of pickups, like an Atlantic. 

Greg


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

Beavercreek: 

Contact Mark @ http://www.gardenrailoutlet.co.uk, I know he will be happy to help. 

Mohammed 
http://www.massothusa.com


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

So you now have 1 inch dead spots in the rails, it must be tough on locos that don't have a lot of pickups, like an Atlantic. 
No tougher than a switch frog; in fact, shorter than most. The "dead" section of rails on the Massoth unit is 1". By comparison, the "dead" frog on my Train Line 45 1600-equivalent switch is 1.5" long. My Aristo 5' radius switch frog is 2" long. Sunset Valley #6 - 2.25" long. (I don't have a 2' radius switch handy to measure.) If your locos don't stall going over your switches, they're not going to stall going over these sensor sections. If you're particularly OC about it, you can lop off about 1/4" of the rail section without modifying the plastic clamps, closing your "gap" to 3/4". 

Frankly, if your loco's pick-up is so poor that it stalls on a 1" electrical gap, the problem isn't the track, it's your locomotive. For a 1" gap to stop a large scale locomotive, it would have to be picking up from only one axle. If that's by design, then it's a poor design and anyone with half a brain would add pick-ups in the tender or any other available axle for improved performance. (Certainly anyone doing a DCC install in such a locomotive would do so since you've already got it disassembled and gutted.) If the loco's electrical pick-up is simply flaky, that's still an easily-remedied design flaw--either by beefing up what exists or adding new pick-ups to other axles. That, and if you're running DCC, many current-production DCC decoders allow for some level of "keep-alive" circuitry to combat dirty track or intermittent contact. Even if there were no possible way to add more electrical contacts to the rails, you could add electronics to allow your loco to keep moving in the event power is lost. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Most "closer to prototype" switches have live frogs with no dead spots. I'd suggest you look at the Aristo #6, USAT #6, SVRR, Llagas creek switches and revise your thinking. 

And yes, clearly you are a battery guy, not all wheel pickup is perfect all the time, so for good operation manufacturers have wisely chosen multiple wheel pickup, but small 2 axle locos, rail trucks, etc cannot be helped. 

Have not seen any rail trucks with a tender lately. 

And please, don't try to educate me on DCC, local energy storage can keep the microprocessor alive but cannot power motors for anything but mere fractions of a second. 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Ideally, all switches would have powered frogs. That's not the reality. The point is that there are plenty of switches in widespread use that don't, and people run their locos over them all day long with track power with no power drop-out issues, even with moderately short wheelbase locos and "dead" frogs a long as 2.25". If you can run over a 2.25" gap and not lose power, you can run over a 1" gap and not lose power. 

As I apparently need to frequently remind you, how I run my trains on my backyard railroad is not reflective of how I run trains elsewhere. Whether I'm doing product reviews, decoder or sound installs, repairs, or just want to slum it and run a diesel once in a while, I have my shelf railroad (DCC and traditional track power) and the club railroad out at the Colo. RR museum (traditional track power) to accommodate my various whims. I have a Bachmann hand-car, which is probably the smallest 4-wheel track-powered critter I've encountered. Mine stalls on the frogs of my Aristo 5' switches. It walks right over a 1" unpowered gap in the rails without missing a beat. (I used Scotch tape to simulate the gap.) Sure, 4-wheel locos are more susceptible to dirty track. That goes without saying. But there are always ways to "cheat," be it sliders, a trail car, or _something_ if pick-up is especially problematic. I used to model HOn30, so I've had my share of experience in tweaking flaky "critter" type locomotives. Old MR and RMC back issues are chock full of "how to" articles to that end. 

In terms of the Keep-Alive systems, I'm very surprised that the TCS and Lenz systems didn't come to mind for you. I can't for a moment believe you don't know about them. By the manufacturers' accounts, they are most certainly capable of handling motor voltages for more than a fraction of a second. In the small-scale world, they're capable of running a loco for anywhere up to 15 seconds. (See *TCS's web site*). For large scale, the Lenz *"Power 3" USP system* is rated at up to 8 seconds at 1-amp current draw. (It's compatible with QSI's Titan, not just Lenz's Gold decoders.) Stan Ames promotes a *"hybrid drive"* that use battery backup with the Lenz Gold decoder. With that, you can run as long as your batteries will let you. If I recall correctly, you were part of a conference call with Stan, Herr Lenz, and me when a discussion of this technology came up a few years back while we were working on another project. 

But even if we accept your premise that the "keep alive" systems are only good for a fraction of a second, how far does a train travel in such short amount of time? At a scale 60 mph (88' per second), a 1:29 scale train travels 36" in one second. I think at that speed, the ability of a keep alive circuit to carry the train through a 1" gap would be more than adequate. Even at a very sedate 10 miles per hour, the train travels 6" in one second. Unless it's a very low-capacity keep-alive capacitor--which kind of negates the whole "keep alive" thing--I think you're still well-covered. And--again--this is only an issue if your electrical pick-up is abnormally abysmal. In any other case, a locomotive would never even know it went over a 1" dead section. 

Bottom line, there's no reason to poo-poo this method of reverse loop control over a 1" gap in the rails. From a practical standpoint, it's simply not a concern. And if you happen to have an entire fleet of flaky locomotives, then just move the jumper to the other position and use the short-detection method. From a performance standpoint, both methods will work equally well. Of course, if your locomotives are that flaky, you better have live frogs on your switches, or the loco will never even reach the sensors.  

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, now you want to do physics with me in terms of how fast the train travels to prove that your 1 inch dead gap is ok. 

And your shelf layout is a substitute for years of running powered trains, and debugging problems for many others? 

Forget it. You'll lose. Remember your review on the Aristo Connie? 

I do. 

This thread now qualifies for my signature. 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

No, I don't need to "do physics" to prove anything. I merely need to run my little Bachmann hand car back and forth on my track, and observe it as it stalls on my frogs, but reliably rolls right over a 1" piece of Scotch tape over the rails to suggest that a 1" gap in electrical pick-up is a non-issue for all but the quirkiest of trains we run in the garden. That hand car is my benchmark for quirkiness, given its short wheelbase and light weight (and the resulting dubious track pick-up). If that makes it through, there's a _very_ high probability that everything else will. The math and physics is theoretical, and exists only to illustrate how a "keep alive" circuit--even one that's not very good at its job--will theoretically be adequate to cover a 1" gap at all but the slowest of slow speeds. For concrete proof, we'd have to test mathematical theory with physical components, and not rely on manufacturers' statements of capacity. There are many times when mathematical theory and practical experience don't agree. (But I maintain that it's still a very safe assumption that if a "keep alive" circuit has a stated duration of 8 seconds, there's enough of a margin of error to where a 1" gap wouldn't remotely be a concern.) 

My shelf railroad isn't a "substitute for years of running powered trains, and debugging problems for many others," it's the _result_ of doing so. I started out running track power on aluminum rail in the back yard for 5 years prior to converting to batteries, in addition to running on track power at many other venues prior to building that railroad and also since that time. Nowhere is it written that experience is gained solely through what you run on the home rails. My shelf railroad--by design--has unpowered frogs, out-of-gauge switches, dead spots, etc. It's a "test track" that's designed to simulate conditions typical of what I see and operate on in others' garden railroads (albeit sans the twists and grotesque kinks). That way, when I write a product review, or someone calls or e-mails with a problem, I can better see what might be going on and how a loco will perform on railroads whose owners aren't quite as OC with track quality as I am. With all due respect, there's not a whole lot about track power that requires decades of daily devotion to comprehend. Most folks can read a chapter on the subject in a book and come away with enough knowledge to have problem-free operation for years to come. 

And I also remember the Consolidation review. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I provided you specific measurements of individual wheelset attributes, NMRA/G1MRA specs, how they define "gauge," and how those specific measurements I supplied meet those requirements. Since I wrote the NMRA's standards for large scale wheels and track, I hope you'd agree that I have a pretty solid grasp of how they work, and what would cause a wheelset to be deemed "non-compliant." That you don't want to apply those standards in this case (or honor my request to update your web site with this data) is not my problem. You and I (and Aristo) agree that the fillet is overly large, and in cases where performance is compromised, that should be the first place to look at making improvements as Paul Burch has done (and Aristo has done with their re-designed wheel profile, though I don't know if it's gone into production). I will add that the review sample has been running reliably since the first time I set it on the rails. 

Later, 

K


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 20 May 2013 11:31 PM 



but small 2 axle locos, rail trucks, etc cannot be helped. 

Have not seen any rail trucks with a tender _lately_. 

Greg 


Then maybe it's time that I post them again.


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

Heck even the Bachmann Gandy Dancer can have a "tender"!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I did not need to update my web site with YOUR data, your data is in a thread RIGHT HERE on MLS. And I will resurrect the thread and and further point out your findings. And your data PROVED that the gauge of YOUR Aristo Consolidation was OVER 45 mm.... the width of the track. Which is consistent with all other measurements of that locomotive and the fact that it was widely reported the loco was walking right up out of the rails. Oh now Paul Burch is a hero? And I'm the bad guy? And we had the same findings on our locos, as well as 4 other people I contacted. Well Aristo was plenty mad at him. Unfortunately I don't want to turn down the wheels and remove the plating since I run track power. Do you want me to embarrass you with your own posts? They are right here on MLS. I'm going over to that thread and making a pdf of it before someone changes it. Take your words back, how DARE you accuse me of not putting accurate data on my site. The only other person who has ever accused me of that is Lewis Polk when I pointed out the flaws in his power pickup system.... what a coincidence. Greg Elmassian Posted By East Broad Top on 21 May 2013 12:17 PM 
No.... And I also remember the Consolidation review. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I provided you specific measurements of individual wheelset attributes, NMRA/G1MRA specs, how they define "gauge," and how those specific measurements I supplied meet those requirements. Since I wrote the NMRA's standards for large scale wheels and track, I hope you'd agree that I have a pretty solid grasp of how they work, and what would cause a wheelset to be deemed "non-compliant." That you don't want to apply those standards in this case (or honor my request to update your web site with this data) is not my problem. You and I (and Aristo) agree that the fillet is overly large, and in cases where performance is compromised, that should be the first place to look at making improvements as Paul Burch has done (and Aristo has done with their re-designed wheel profile, though I don't know if it's gone into production). I will add that the review sample has been running reliably since the first time I set it on the rails. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, no need to "embarass me" with my own post. Here are the numbers, copied directly from the thread in question. These are the exact raw numbers I measured from the axles on the review sample that I asked you to post on your web site. After you seemed to get confused by my earlier measurements which--admittedly--left a little grey area, I figured it best to simply measure the individual attributes and use the NMRA's definitions to prove my point: 


*Actual measurements taken:* 
Flange thickness (T) = 0.082" 
Back-to-Back (B) = 1.560" 
Wheel Width (N) = 0.270" 
Flange Depth (D) = 0.105" 

*Extrapolated measurements (per NMRA definitions): * 
Check gauge (T+B) = 1.642" 
Wheel gauge (T+B+T) = 1.724" 

Note: consistent with NMRA RP-25, the flange measurement is taken to be just the flange itself, not to include any kind of fillet. 

Fillet radius - approx. 0.050" 

All measurements are within NMRA standards with the exception of flange thickness, which exceeds standards by only .006". The fillet radius exceeds the NMRA's recommendation of .020" - .030", but since it's only a recommendation, technically speaking it's not out of compliance. I'll definitely agree that the fillet is unusually large, and that given these other dimensions, the wheel rides on the fillet itself as opposed to the tread. 


That's what I posted, and that's what I asked you to post on your web site instead of the confused numbers which led you say showed the gauge was wider than the track. 

As you can see, based on those numbers, 

Track gauge (45mm) = 1.772". 
Wheel gauge = 1.724" 

Differece: .048" 

Wheel gauge is _less_ than track gauge, thus in compliance with G1MRA/NMRA standards. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

You appear to be operating on the premise that the fillet is part of the flange, thus you take that into consideration when determinging the track gauge. I can see how you could make that argument, and if you were to add .100 (2 times the fillet measurement), the wheel gauge would exceed the track gauge. 

However, the NMRA, G1MRA, and the prototype do _not_ consider the fillet to be part of the flange. When I write reviews, I must have a concrete set of standards and definitions against which to compare models if I'm going to make a claim that something is "out of compliance." Since the NMRA and G1MRA definitions do not include the fillet, I cannot in my evaluation. As I stated, I agree that riding on an overly-large fillet isn't ideal, but I can't support a claim that it's out of compliance. 

You're welcome to disagree, but those are the standards and definitions against which I review models. 

Later, 

K


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Hey Kevin and Greg.... You both have an immense store of knowledge and experience and I have been very grateful for your ideas and info on other occasions butI would hate to see you fall out over my inquiries about auto reverse loops.


I have seen short 2 axle locos running through the Massoth 'dead zone sensor sections' with no problem at slow speeds. The locos were things like the LGB 0-4-0 caterpillar diesel, Bachmann railcar and a MDC 'hustler'. These locos were not running with trailing power cars.
I have now got two of the Massoth modules and will wire them up, as Mohammed suggests, with both the sensors and short circuit wiring. I will set the jumper to give sensor operation first and if there is any problem with contamination, moisture etc I will switch over the jumper and use it in old and dirty short circuit mode.
Here is a plan of the section of the layout that will be 'auto-reversed'. I will also have a DC only auto-shuttle rigged up (in fact it is a bit like it is at the moment. It will be DCC-ed with a Massoth feedback module to allow auto shuttle under DCC.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

No worries. If Greg and I aren't in disagreement over _something_ at any given time, it's a sure sign the Cubs are going to the Series.  

I like the rail plan. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

beaver..... my signature has become operational for this thread.... sorry.... private email will be fine...


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Hi Kevin and Greg

Thanks for the comment on the plan Kevin. This section is one part of my layout (I posted a plan of the whole rig back on page 2 of the thread). 
Although I am DCC-ing the three sections ('mainline', shuttle/reverse loop and the quarry sections) I am keeping the option of DC operation on all three. 
This is due to my roster of locos only being partially chipped and also my friends who like to bring over their DC locos to run on my layout and although I could run the locos on address 0, I prefer just switching over to good old DC power.

Greg it is no problem having your signature. I have one over on the UK GScaleCentral forum but I was wondering how I create one over on this forum?

My name is Mike although 'beaver' is also fine ... ;-)


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Mike, 

To build your signature, go up to the top where it says "Members," and scroll down to "Member Profile." 

Once there, on the very right-hand side, under the search window in what looks like 6-point type, there's a heading that says "my settings." Click on that. 

That gets you to a page where you can set your various settings. On the left hand side of that window is the menu of various preferences. Go down to "Forum Preferences." 

The top block there is a window to build your signature block. Mine is coded in HTML, but to be honest, I haven't touched mine in a very long time and we've upgraded the software a few times since I built it. I don't know if you _have_ to build it in HTML now, or if you can just type something, or use BBC forum coding like we use to type posts or what-have-you. If you have trouble, ask in the "Web Site Questions" forum. SteveC and Dwight are probably the two most tech-savvy moderators here, and should be able to get you going (if no one else chimes in to help). 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

so I see my post above has had parts removed... censored...

I am not allowed to post that "there is not enough room for two egos on this thread" ???

So I am off the thread, and my signature being operational means that too much acrimony on the thread and you need to email me to continue the conversation 

WTF? 

I can be accused of all kinds of things by a moderator, but cannot make this simple statement? 

Kevin, if you wish to engage me as a non-moderator, then you cannot delete posts as a moderator to make yourself look better.

I'm off this thread because you are now an expert in track power and DCC ... and I don't agree with you, and you jumped in to defend a way of doing things that is in the gross minority of DCC... AND you are deleting my posts/content...

I paid to be on this forum and I demand equal treatment.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, I'm going to do something I rarely do... agree with you and apologize--publicly. 

For whatever reason when I read your post yesterday, I did not read your "two egos" comment as being in the same nature as my Chicago Cubs comment. I took it as a personal attack on me, not a light-hearted comment about both of us. Because I took it as a direct personal attack, I deleted it. In the context in which I read it, I would have done that regardless of who the comment was aimed; it wasn't just because it was a debate between you and I. Having said that, I--certainly of late--have made it a conscious point _not_ to meddle with contentious threads in which I am involved--to make sure I maintain that separation between moderator and participant. I ignored my own personal policy in this case. 

Ever send one of those e-mails that after you hit "send" you think, "Probably should not have done that..." 

You and I both know we get tend to get our blood pressures elevated by the other on a routine basis. And it's human nature when that happens to do things that if you were sitting in the movie theater watching yourself, you'd be yelling "You blithering idiot!" at the screen. 

So, I apologize, and I will return to my should-be-common-sense policy of recusing myself from my duties as moderator in threads where I am in a contentious debate. If there is a comment made where I think you are out of line, I will do precisely what you do--hit the "alert" button, leave it to the other mods to make the call, and live by their decision. That is the fair way to do business, and in the heat of the moment I didn't act fairly. 

We--as moderators--strive to make MLS fair and equitable for all involved. We are human, and we don't bat 1000. This was a strike-out. My mind wasn't where it should have been. 

***** 

But I have to ask... what's wrong with defending a way of doing something that's "in the gross minority of DCC" if it works? DCC itself not too long ago was in the gross minority of large scale; it's only because proponents such as yourself defended it that others--like me--have come to see the benefits of it and have embraced it ourselves. And the hobby is much stronger for it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 23 May 2013 10:31 AM 
***** 

But I have to ask... what's wrong with defending a way of doing something that's "in the gross minority of DCC" if it works? DCC itself not too long ago was in the gross minority of large scale; it's only because proponents such as yourself defended it that others--like me--have come to see the benefits of it and have embraced it ourselves. And the hobby is much stronger for it. 

Later, 

K 

Still is. The other day at an OCGRS Club meeting I asked how many families run DCC. With 50 families in the club and about 35 people at the meeting, there were two. Track power was still the majority and batteries chimed in with about half that many.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Nothing wrong with discussing ANYTHING in my opinion, done intelligently and fairly and respectfully. 

Todd: the gross minority of DCC autoreversers, not DCC itself... 

Kevin: There's reasons that the short detecting autoreverser is widely accepted, mainly because it works and is simpler and thus intrinsically more foolproof. 

When someone "champions" a different or new technology, I'm interested to learn about it. When someone champions a technology that has been around for years and is NOT widely accepted, then I'm REALLY interested to hear why... it's rare that the entire DCC community "misses the boat" on technology, especially a fundamental component like an autoreverser. 

(As an aside, there are very few DC capable autoreversers, so the Massoth unit definitely has a niche) 

The 1 inch gap makes a difference just like your plastic frogs (but I would love to talk you into all metal frogs, but you don't NEED them ), these gaps makes consistent power pickup more tenuous. 

With constant motion, not all wheels pick up at all times on any loco... the contact patch is small, dirt and "black stuff" accumulate, etc. 

The real bottom line is putting a 1 inch gap near other gaps like frogs is just not really good for nice smooth reliable running, or slow running. 

Unfortunately, you will see that the typical location for the gaps is indeed right next to a switch. 

If there were significant disadvantages to short circuit detection, then the majority of DCC users would have moved on. 

When Mohammed talked about "optimal" I wanted to know how that was judged/evaluated. 

It's true I'm very sensitive to DCC misinformation... When I started in large scale about 10 years ago, I was told that DCC does not work outdoors, it does this and it does that.... Luckily I relied on a few really knowledgeable individuals not only for answers, but to help investigate the "old wives tales" about DCC that were never true or are no longer true. This is the reason I really want to understand and also to not spread misinformation, because I was subjected to a lot of misinformation, and had I listened I would have done something different... and for my wants, DCC is still the best choice. 

Thus my "dogged" determination to get the most accurate data, and really question information that does not match my experience. 

But I agree, let's keep it factual and not personal, and maybe we can also both keep our responses to shorter "pieces" and maybe we can break down the larger topic to smaller "bite sizes" and hopefully find agreement on them. 

Regards, Greg 

p.s. and next time I'll put a really big smiley when I make fun of BOTH of us!


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Kudos Kevin. Having been in the position a few times myself down through the years of having to make a public apology, I know it isn't the easiest thing to do... but it's the right thing to do, and I respect you for having what it takes to do it. I tip my hat to you sir.


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

Greg: 

what do you mean by "gross minority"??? 


Mohammed 
http://www.allaboutlgb.com


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 23 May 2013 12:46 PM 
Nothing wrong with discussing ANYTHING in my opinion, done intelligently and fairly and respectfully. 

Todd: the gross minority of DCC autoreversers, not DCC itself... 

But I agree, let's keep it factual and not personal, and maybe we can also both keep our responses to shorter "pieces" and maybe we can break down the larger topic to smaller "bite sizes" and hopefully find agreement on them. 

Regards, Greg 

p.s. and next time I'll put a really big smiley when I make fun of BOTH of us! 

No, DCC itself.


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Wow lads you are certainly more feisty over here than back in UK.
I do have to say that you are also quite adamant about your positions taken on certain things.

I have only been G scaling since near the end of 2006 and have gradually taken on the body of knowledge that I have gleaned by access to web sites and forums, books, mags, seeing first hand operation or trying things for myself.
The knowledge from forums and certain websites has been integral and important for my progress though all things DC track powered and also now into DCC.
Without your direct or indirect input, I would have had a harder time learning this wonderful hobby.

But....although I really like this forum and think that the content is very informative, I must say that there are a few folk on here who seem to love a...ahem...'discussion' ....and if a member might make a wrong statement or support a certain way of doing things then they had better be prepared to be shot down or taken to task quite forcibly.

Now this feeling on my part, might be to do with the little sensitive flower that I am and not appreciating that US forums are a little more robust that our UK ones!







That is not to say that we do not have disagreement about things on our forums, it is just that we do not tend to get so heated...after all it is really just big boys playing with big toys............... I am running for the bunker and have closed the heavy atom bomb proof door


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

Really Beaver ? I suppose you haven't watched a session at the House of Commons lately ? 





Cheers,
Victor


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Okay Victor, you have me there...but I did say 'forums'.....but perhaps parliament can be considered as a form of old Roman forum










Mike


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 23 May 2013 07:46 AM 
Mike, 

To build your signature, go up to the top where it says "Members," and scroll down to "Member Profile." 









Many thanks Kevin.
I have manged to get a signature up and running. You were correct, it is still in html

MIke


----------



## High Ball John (Jan 26, 2009)

Hello Mohammed,

Please could you clarify for me your recommendation that Beavercreek Mike should use two separate reverse loop modules for DC operation for his dumbbell style layout?

In DC operation it is the main line section that is connecting the two loops that is reversed and not the loops themselves. The part I am having extream difficulty understanding is how two different modules can control one common section of track without short circuiting when one of the modules decides that a reversal is needed. I can see how one reverse loop module would work, but not two.

Thanking you in advanced for your time in answering my question.


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

Hello John: 

This is the statement to which your are referring : "Since separate transformers are required for loop sections in analog mode, you would definitely need 2 separate modules in analog mode". 

When using the Massoth Reverse loop module for automatic operations in analog mode, reverse loops must always be operated in the same direction, sensor tracks or track contacts must be used, and additional diodes may not be used. With the main line and each of the 2 loops powered by a separate transformer and a single train always running in the same direction there is no chance for a short circuit. 

Mohammed


----------



## High Ball John (Jan 26, 2009)

Yes that is the statement I was referring too Mohammed. Thank you for your answer.

Let me put my question another way.

A train is travelling down the main line between the two loops. Power is being provided to the main line via the two reversing loop modules. Both modules are providing power with the same polarity. They must be otherwise the there would be a short circuit and everything would stop. The train enters one of the loops, at the loop exit the sensor track detects the train and the reversing loop module changes the polarity of the power it is providing to the main line. The reversing loop module at the other end of the line is still providing power with the original polarity. There is now a short circuit and everything stops.

Why is my statement not true?


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

John: 

Since te train travels in the same direction all the time, you can choose the polarity of the loops (positive on the inside for the left loop, and negative on inside for the right loop, always opposite one another). When the train exists the left loop, the main line would end up positive on the right and negative on the left (relative to direction of travel). As the train approaches the right loop, the polarity of the main line matches that of the right loop, no short. As it exist the loop, the polarity of the main line changes again and now it matches the polarity of the left loop and no short when it gets there. This could go on like that indefinitely or so I think. 

Mohammed


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By mbendebba on 16 Jun 2013 06:13 PM 
John: 

Since te train travels in the same direction all the time, you can choose the polarity of the loops (positive on the inside for the left loop, and negative on inside for the right loop, always opposite one another). When the train exists the left loop, the main line would end up positive on the right and negative on the left (relative to direction of travel). As the train approaches the right loop, the polarity of the main line matches that of the right loop, no short. As it exist the loop, the polarity of the main line changes again and now it matches the polarity of the left loop and no short when it gets there. This could go on like that indefinitely or so I think. 

Mohammed 

That's the way it works for DC, but not for DCC according to Greg. Of course this statement had me scratching my head but if Greg says that this is the way it works in DCC... 
" I think the comments that you can only have one train in ANY of the 9 loops come from people who really do not understand DCC. 

It's really simple... you sort of have a "main line", and then a reversing loop... the reversing loop, not the main line, is reversed in polarity when going in or out of a reversing loop. 

Therefore it's really simple to understand that no reversing loop would affect any other one or any other train."

So if I'm understanding Greg correctly, the polarity of the loop changes when the train enters the loop, as need be if it creates a momentary short across the sensor and again when the train is leaving the loop and the train is oblivious of the polarity change and keeps moving the direction it was moving in. When the train crosses the boundary, the polarities have already been made to coincide to eliminate a short.


----------



## mbendebba (Jan 22, 2011)

Toddalin: 

you are correct, In DCC the polarity of the loop is reversed, that of the main line is left unchanged. 
When using the Massoth module in sensor track or track contact mode, what goes on in one loop, has no bearing on any other loop (provided of course that one is not using a single module to manage more than one loop). When using the Massoth module in short circuit detection mode, with multiple loops, what goes on in one loop, does have bearing on the other loops. Thus, only one loop at a time may be used.

Mohammed


----------



## High Ball John (Jan 26, 2009)

Posted By mbendebba on 16 Jun 2013 06:13 PM 
John: 

Since te train travels in the same direction all the time, you can choose the polarity of the loops (positive on the inside for the left loop, and negative on inside for the right loop, always opposite one another). When the train exists the left loop, the main line would end up positive on the right and negative on the left (relative to direction of travel). As the train approaches the right loop, the polarity of the main line matches that of the right loop, no short. As it exist the loop, the polarity of the main line changes again and now it matches the polarity of the left loop and no short when it gets there. This could go on like that indefinitely or so I think. 

Mohammed 

Thanks again Mohammed, 
Yes I understand that when the train is detected at the end of a loop working in DC mode the reversing loop module will try and reverse the polarity of the main line so that the polarity of the trains loop and the main line are the same allowing the train to pass between the two without problem. What I don't understand is that the reversing loop module at the other end of the line is providing power to the same main line but which now with the opposite polarity to that being supplied by the local loop module.


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Hi HighBall John and Mohammed


Although I thought that I had this all figured out from the previous posts in the thread I am not so sure now.

May I ask these questions, I know that I have asked them before but it is just to clarify in my little brain...?: Remember I will only ever be running *one train* on the whole 'double reverse loop' line
*When in DCC mode only:*
Will one module be able to control both the loops, one at either end of a single line? 
Will this operate with 'sensor' mode or only with 'short circuit' mode? 
Does the one module need to be wired to both loops or does it just 'work' even though not wired to the other loop?....(I take it that the module needs to 'see' a short circuit in the other loop to operate so perhaps this has answered the question before).
If this is the case, is there any problem with using only one module (length of connecting line, track continuity issues etc etc).
As my loops are quite a distance from each other would it still be best to have two modules, one for each loop?

F*or DC mode only:*
Two modules are definitely necessary and each module has to be wired opposite polarity to the other. ? 
To help me get my head around it ...if you followed a single rail from inside one loop, along the connecting line and into the other loop, that rail would have a positive 'in' connection inside one loop and the rail would have a negative 'in' connection inside the other loop. The other rail of course would have the opposite connection.
The connecting line (between the loops) wiring has to be the same for both modules?
The modules have to be wired together in some way?


I have the loops made and they are ready for connection 
I am going to try straight DCC first and then if successful, possibly experiment with the 'major' switching setup to allow the option of DC use). It is good to learn to walk before running and falling flat on ones face!


----------



## rogerb.e (Jun 21, 2013)

The Massoth Instructions say it can, but as i have now had 2 Massoth 'Reversing Loop Modules' which did not work, but a replacement LGB Module, made by err Massoth? does, who knows !


----------

