Managing expectations...

Dear Shannon,

As an Aussie exhibition layout builder and exhibitor for over 2 decades
("Swans Crossing", "Leigh Creek", "Red Stag", "Muskrat Ramble" "Nine Mile", "Toorong", "Stringybark Creek", "Corrimal", "Brooklyn : 3AM", et al),
there are a few things about the situation you describe which concern me.

- Exhibiting is not for the faint of heart, it's equal parts sprint + marathon + survival-of-the-fittest.
(and involves soooo much more than just rocking-up at the venue for a couple of hours to run trains!).

- X2 for building a multi-module show layout

- x2 for building it as a club
(Many Gunnas and few Do-ers,
many forceful opinions not-founded-in-fact,
not enough leadership or consensus to achieve a practical and usable, let alone enjoyable result)

- "... Powering the whole layout in DC while offering each of 15 members the opportunity to control his own train ..."
is technically do-able, as long as all 15 members do not want to drive their individual trains simultaneously...
(is there anywhere on the QLD rail network with a "15 track wide racetrack" configuration?)

In short, let's nail-down and quantify what the 15-clubmember's "expectations for the layout" are before we go making any "100% commitment, can't turn back" decisions...

Backing-up a bit, what is the actual theme/mission/primary-purpose for this layout? Is it:
- To accurately depict (within group-agreed-tolerances) a given prototype location/operation?
- To depict a plausible "could have been" given prototype location?
- To present "something that looks railway-like"?
- To act as a "skill-building" opportunity for the club-members?
(IE unlikely to be suitable as an exhibition layout)
- To act as a "15 lane/route racetrack" so every member can just "turn up and run their trains" whenever they feel soo inclined "without anyone getting in my way to telling me what to do"?
(with the full understanding that such a layout is unlikely to successfully depict any prototype railway location or operation from anywhere in the world)

For the sake of this discussion, if you can answer and flesh-out the details of the above questions, that will at least give the collected-brain-trust some context on which to frame their
"which control-system would be most-appropriate,
and what positives/negatives an analog solution might present" responses...

Assuming a typical "club-owned show layout", I suspect you're aiming for a "staging round the back, long plausibly-prototype scene out the front" oval type thing. The number of main-lines running thru the scene are the obvious limiting-factor as to "how many trains can freely run at any given moment". Onstage passing loops allow a train to seek "temporary refuge" out of the way of the "main-line parade", but arguably cannot be counted as "running" while they are in-the-loop (the owner/operator may well have a throttle in-hand, but cannot go-anywhere until "the main is clear").

Equally, a big multi-track (parallel) thru-running staging yard allows places for trains to be placed-on/removed-from the layout, ready to fire, but may not satisfy the owner/operator who "just wants to drop-train-on-track-and-run as they feel led" (I don't have to answer to anyone, I'm a clubmember and I should be able to run My Train whenever and Wherever I Want To...")

SO, lots of Deep Questions to think-about and Answer before anyone starts  building anything...

In the meantime, to answer your questions:

The "Anderson" connectors
(which are what exactly? Never been-aware of seeing these in Aust, at least not at any Jaycar I've ever visited?)

provide power for the "track buss" which parallels the physical rail-pairs.

The "2 pin trailer connector" is meant as an "accessory power buss", a seperate source of XX Volts for powering anything "not track-power-related".
(Presumably could be control related EG IR detectors and turnout-control circuits,
OR
Not-Mission-Critical stuff like structure lighting, trackside sound modules, animation motors, etc)

In a "Analog powered layout", the "Accessory buss" could well be 16VAC or similar, to provide INPUT power to analog throttles (or walkaround analog throttle plug-in points), wherever they may be around the layout.
(16VAC IN --> Throttle --> Track power OUT --> Respective "Track buss" or "Block Buss")

"Powering the whole layout" is as easy as:
- obtaining a given 16VAC PSU or suitable amperage,
- plugging that PSU into the "Power Buss" (I've "repurposed" the "Accessory Buss") which is continuous around the layout

Therefore, any throttle (or other circuit) which is connected to the "Power Buss" will receive 16VAC when the PSU is plugged-in and turned-on. (Of course, this requires someone to "do the calcs" and establish what the current-draw in amps of the layout will be, and how-brawny that 16VAC supply needs to be).

The bigger issue of "individual control" is that the common 16VAC is feeding n throttle circuits,
where each of the n throttles has it's own "track out",
and all of those n "track out" wires then need some way of being connected N> 1 to any given desired section (block) of track...

...My head's starting to hurt,

- 1> n (PSU> Throttle power distro),

- into n> n (n Throttle track-out> n Block busses)

- into n> 1 (n block busses> single given track-section/block)

Can you see how, while it's possible,
the ammount of wiring (esp jumping accross section joints),
and switchgear (which may be either "distributed" around the sections of the layout, or corralled at a central "power-control" point),

completely echoes the "user interface pain" which lead to the development of DCC?

NB that the complexity of the wiring and switchgear is also significantly determined by the layout track-arrangement. As above, there's little point having 15 "assignable analog throttles" if the capacity for "simultaneously running trains" is limited to, for example, a scene which has only 2-continuous mainlines...
(The recent show-circuit arrival "Murray Bridge" is a gorgeous rendition of a SA mainline scene, but with only 1x thru-track "main line", it's limited to "one train operating at a time", no matter how many staging-tracks there are, or how many throttles are "plumbed in").

...and I'd have to ask, what draws you (or the club-members) to "EZApp" (aka "BlueRail" http://bluerailtrains.com )?

Yes, there are "direct-to-train" control systems available,
which would appear to allow "each club-member to run their own train" 
(on any form of rail-power, DCC, analog, whatever...as long as there's some form of volts at rails, the train will run)",

- DelTang (Battery or rail-power with direct-to-loco radio control)
http://www.deltang.co.uk/trains.htm

- RailPro by Ring Engineering
https://www.ringengineering.com/RailPro.htm
/>
- BlueRail (aka EZApp) 
http://bluerailtrains.com/

but these are just "other possible solutions" to the problem, not a "magic bullet",
("Normal" DCC using NCE, Digtrax, or even JMRI/WiiThrottle will allow "each clubbie to run their own train" too!).

What most "direct to train" command systems will oblige each modeller to do, is:
- install an appropriate receiver module in each loco
($$$, time, skills x how-many-locos-to-be-equipped)

- obtain and wrangle enough "throttle handsets" to run the trains,
inc handling Wireless range/frequencies/swamping and "battery charging/changing regime".
(most contemporary systems use a Droid or iWhatever phone/device, so the argument is "most people have a suitable hardware device that can be used as a 'throttle' in their possession already"),

- and most-importantly, esp for older modellers,
is whether the rank-n-file clubbies are willing to use a primarily knob-less, button-less, touch-screen-only interface... (Lemme save you the suspense, no, many of them are not....)

...oh, and we've gotten a long way away from the perceived "simple analog control" the gathered club-members were first thinking (romantically reminiscing) of....

SOOO, assuming you're still reading,
I strongly reccomend proceeding as-follows:

1- Firstly, establish what the layout is actually required to do
(see the "what's the theme?", "why is it being built?", and "what do the individual club-members expect to get-out-of-the-experience?" questions at the top of this post)

2 - Second, offshooting from the 1st, establish what the there and trackplan is of the layout
(both "onstage scene" and "staging", speaks to "simultaneous train movement" capability of the layout, and thus what the chosen control-system has to deal with).

3 - Then, after working out the "needs and design parameters" of the proposed layout,
establish what kind of $$$ and Electronics appetite the collected club-members have.

(Having spent AUD$x00s on their locos and rollingstock,
how much are they willing to spend to achieve "every owner gets to run their own train" on the track-arrangement proposed?
Furthur, if a solution such as "RailPro" takes their fancy,
who in the club is willing/able to perform the required receiver installations?
and what's the comparative-effort vs installing "normal" known decoders and DCC gear?).

3a - and their preferred "throttle human-user interface"? 
(Are they OK with Touchscreens, or do they demand knobs and buttons/switches?
Does chosing a given solution force them into using a given "throttle handset" format?)

I hope this helps, happy to discuss furthur once we have more of "diagnostic info" to work from...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr
Sydney, Aust

PS if "Analog control" is still the true front-runner, then it's worth noting that "tethered walkaround" throttles can be built quite cheaply (AUD$10 for the circuitry components, AUD$30 all-up inc 4-wire 10metre long tether),
and is going to allow much better "exhibition crowd interaction" and "operator gets to view and enjoy running their train thru the scene" operations than using "fixed-position" throttles...

"I can't seem to get my head

  That's why they invented DCC... :> )  DC cab control requires dividing the layout into blocks so each block can be assigned to any throttle. The more blocks and more throttles needed the more complicated the wiring becomes so at some point DCC becomes cheaper and much simpler. Block control is fully explained in many old publications , I'd recommend reading up on the disadvantages of DC before writing off DCC.....DaveB

No analog...

Well, if you're actually making Freemo modulles to standard, then DC is NOT an option. , The standars specifices DCC for control, From  the docuent at http://www.free-mo.org/standard#5

As for the Anderson Powerpoles, N-trak moved to those almost 20 years ago. There are multiple advantages to them over other connectors, not the least of which are the ease of color-coding the plugs, and the fact that they are sllf-cleaning.

You can get them from Anderson directly (usually yht least expensive way) and there are compatoble connectors available from Digikey and Mouser.  They're considered the standard for Ham Radio REACT (volunteer emergency communications) people.

Check and see WHICH connectors Freemo specifies. In N-Track, they spec the 15 or 30 amp contacts and housings. . You can f ind them here:. Note that it is NOT necessary to use their racheting crimper to attach the contacts to the cables, but it does make life easier.

a throttle for each section

presumably you understand that DC control is commonly done by breaking the layout into blocks and having the ability  to connect a block to a specific throttle.      I had never read about doing this on a modular layout.   Not sure you noticed in your link to  http://www.free-mo.org/standard#4 that i mentions the used of DCC, which i read you said is not a feasible option.

on a small layout, Atlas switches can be used to connect either of two throttle to any block.  Block switches must be thrown before the loco enters the block so that the same throttle continues to control the loco.   And the block can be neutralized after the loco exits it unless it expects to return to the block shortly.

on a large conventional, non-modular layout, the atlas scheme is not feasible.   One approach is to break the layout into sections controlled by a tower.  the tower has multiple (> 2) throttles that can be connected to multiple blocks controlled by that tower and adjacent to other towers that can be connected to in coordination with the adjacent towers.

An engineer will move (maybe run) from tower to tower as he uses a throttle on one tower to control a train in that section of the layout, and then coordinate the handoff to the next tower.   Presumably the engineer moves to the next tower which can take control of a shared block by connecting a throttle on that tower to the adjacent block the loco in currently running in.

there may be no engineers, just tower operators that manage multiple trains as they pass through the tower area.

this doesn't sound trivial.   but I think you would be required to do something similar

your modules will need to be grouped into sections composed of one or more modules that are controlled by a particular throttle.    I can't imagine not having shared blocks between sections.   Presumably a shared section can be wired similar to house light controlled by two switches.    Similar to what I described above, a member would control his train in a particular section with the shared block connected to the throttle in that section.   Before transitioning to the next section, the engineer makes sure the shared section is connected to that section.

When the train enters the shared block to the next section, the engineer moves to the next section, configures the throttle in the next section for proper direction and approximate speed before connecting the shared block to the throttle in that section.   This, of course, repeats from section to section.

if the modules allow trains to pass one another, an additional throttle and circuitry is hneeded.   Presumably you can see why DCC make modular layouts easier to wire.

with only 15 modules, it doesn't sound feasible for all 15 members to be operating their trains at the same time.   It may make sense to operate in pairs with one engineer taking over for the other as trains move between sections.

good luck

I understand Dave

You're not wrong, I know the use of DCC would simplify many things , however  the members just dont have the money to convert up to ten or more locos to dcc as well as no one has experience in installing  a decoder etc.

While I don't see the need for a member to run more than three different locos at an event thereby keeping costs (decoders) down, most seem to want to show off a larger collection LOL

@barr_ceo

Sorry if I didn't make this clear in my post, we do NOT intend to operate on any other clubs layout, therefore interoperability is not needed except within our own club layout, This would allow us to run with DC rather than DCC and not screw with other systems

The free mo std was suggested as a general guide to connecting modules via locating pins,  height of benchwork ,  rather than a must do it exact or get arrested  thing. I personally prefer the concept of DCC and will try hard to get that implemented. Just means the membership will have to wait longer to build  as the electronics need upgrading first

"I know the use of DCC would

  It might be possible to  control DC blocks wirelessly now days but I don't know if anyone has thought it out given the ease of DCC use. A wireless DC block control could certainly simplify the wiring needs and lower the cost...DaveB

Cost of decoders

Many Thanks for that info

Many Thanks for that info Prof Klyzlr I'll pass that on at the next meeting. Believe me everyone I am a very strong advocate for going straight to DCC and recomending the members only convert 2 main locos each to dcc from dc  to save costs and slowly as we grow upgrade more  I do appreciate all the feedback and suggestions

And what you are saying makes

And what you are saying makes real sense, Dave, in all but extreme cases it is easier, practical and possibly cost efficient to go DCC