Your DCC system
- Thread starter 28ten
- Start date
S
Simon Dunkley
Guest
I have an NCE Powercab. It is very much a two-wire system - two wires come out and go to a few lengths of test track, on which sometimes is found a Bachrus rolling road.
As an entry level system for sub 0 gauge, I think it cannot be beaten for ease of use and all round thoughtfulness.
I also have Decoder Pro from JMRI, but have yet to play with it!
My son (5) has a Bachmann E-Z command DCC that came with his train set - an oval of track, a siding, two wagons, a DCC controller, two DCC fitted locos and all for less than 100 quid!
This is rather limited, but basically we press button 1 to alter the settings for the steam loco, and button 2 for the diesel. The other loco will continue with whatever it was doing (including standing still) until you switch back to it. So, we play a game, where one loco is set running, and my son has to learn to control the other one. Sometimes the aim is to catch up, some times it is to be almost caught, but never so that the locos couple. This is great fun, and more importantly he is learning some useful hand-eye coordination.
That is probably the best demonstration of what you can do simply with DCC that you cannot do with DC. Everything else is an extra.
The extras I like are, in this order:
sound;
control of lights;
the ability to set the control curve so that all locos run at the same speed for a given setting, thereby proving that it doesn't really matter what sort of motor you use, it is how they are controlled which is important.
Computer control/monitoring of layouts does not interest me. Likewise I prefer to treat DCC as a way of controlling the locos, and point and signal control is a separate function to me, as it is on the real railways.
As an entry level system for sub 0 gauge, I think it cannot be beaten for ease of use and all round thoughtfulness.
I also have Decoder Pro from JMRI, but have yet to play with it!
My son (5) has a Bachmann E-Z command DCC that came with his train set - an oval of track, a siding, two wagons, a DCC controller, two DCC fitted locos and all for less than 100 quid!
This is rather limited, but basically we press button 1 to alter the settings for the steam loco, and button 2 for the diesel. The other loco will continue with whatever it was doing (including standing still) until you switch back to it. So, we play a game, where one loco is set running, and my son has to learn to control the other one. Sometimes the aim is to catch up, some times it is to be almost caught, but never so that the locos couple. This is great fun, and more importantly he is learning some useful hand-eye coordination.
That is probably the best demonstration of what you can do simply with DCC that you cannot do with DC. Everything else is an extra.
The extras I like are, in this order:
sound;
control of lights;
the ability to set the control curve so that all locos run at the same speed for a given setting, thereby proving that it doesn't really matter what sort of motor you use, it is how they are controlled which is important.
Computer control/monitoring of layouts does not interest me. Likewise I prefer to treat DCC as a way of controlling the locos, and point and signal control is a separate function to me, as it is on the real railways.
S
Simon Dunkley
Guest
Your DCC system - the one I want!
Thinking aloud (and repeating thoughts expressed elsewhere both by me and others) and knowing it is technically possible, but not being sure exactly how, how about this idea for the next stage in DCC?
Conventional control systems apply 0-12v DC over the rails, and any trains not isolated respond to this and they move. The rails supply power and control, as a single combined form of energy.
DCC has a constant voltage for the purpose of power, and superimposes on this an encoded command signal which is received by all locos, but is ignored except by those to whom the command is directed. This is all done over two-rails, which serve the dual purposes of providing power and of conveying the command signal. Most wireless DCC systems remove the tether between the base station and the individual control units, but the loco still receives both power and control over the rails from the command station. What is really need is the separation of the both the power and the command signals from the rails.
Now, there are some interesting alternatives, such as Locolinc, CVP's Airwire900 and from the UK the Red Arrow system. Locolinc is a proprietary system, and that's about that, really: if the sound you want is available in DCC but is not supplied by them, you cannot have it. Airwire900 is great, but like Locolinc is not suitable for use in the EU/UK due to the frequencies it uses. Red Arrow requires line-of-sight for commands, and a receiver on the loco which is visible to the transmitters. They all have the right idea: battery supply of power and wireless transmission of the control signal, but none of them interface with DCC. Plus if everyone turned up with one of these systems at a model railway exhibition, we might get haywire rather than airwire as it is unclear (to me, at least) how they "pair" the control units to the locos. Much closer to the ideal is the do-it-yourself approach of the Aussies, with the concept of DWiDCC (Direct Wireless DCC) but again, this is using radio frequencies. Both DWiDCC and Locolinc point out that one could use the track to provide a trickle charge for the on-board batteries - when it came to reverse loops one would simply have a dead section longer than the longest loco, and point crossing vees simply do not need wiring up at all. (And the power provided could double-up for track circuiting purposes.) With recent advances in battery technology and higher-efficiency motors, powering locos via on-board batteries is entirely feasible - as Red Arrow demonstrate. These systems are all, in their own ways, brilliant and yet. You also do not need heavy gauge wire to provide the power - and it can be a simple "ring main", or more usefully, restricted to areas where locos/units stand, i.e. sidings (MPD, carriage, or fiddle yard)...
...and yet, why, instead of this direct-to-loco control via radio frequencies, can we not have a simple bluetooth setup? After all, the technology seems ubiquitous.
What I have in mind, is an interface which plugs into my DCC command unit, providing both transmission and receiving bluetooth functionality. This makes the base station a key unit with overall control (there could still be a programming track or output plug if so required). Throttles can be tethered to this, or could plug into a bluetooth transmitter/receiver unit. And for locos a high-capacity battery with high-efficiency motors and a simple bluetooth receiver/transmitter, which superimposes the DCC command signal over this before feeding into any NMRA-compliant DCC decoder you care to think of. There is an unused CV for loco modules, CV11, which was designed in for this sort of purposes. Set it to zero, and in the absence of any new commands, the module will continue to carry out the last command issued to it. Practically speaking, this means that the command station need only send out signals when something has been changed: it does not have to be "always on".
If provided as a series of bluetooth components, for the base, throttles and locos (and accessory decoders - why not?) the system is independent of all others, and anyone can then turn their tied down system into something really revolutionary.
So, if anyone out there interested in DCC knows enough about blue tooth to make this work, please, please design a prototype and let us know about it!
[Edited to make links work]
Thinking aloud (and repeating thoughts expressed elsewhere both by me and others) and knowing it is technically possible, but not being sure exactly how, how about this idea for the next stage in DCC?
Conventional control systems apply 0-12v DC over the rails, and any trains not isolated respond to this and they move. The rails supply power and control, as a single combined form of energy.
DCC has a constant voltage for the purpose of power, and superimposes on this an encoded command signal which is received by all locos, but is ignored except by those to whom the command is directed. This is all done over two-rails, which serve the dual purposes of providing power and of conveying the command signal. Most wireless DCC systems remove the tether between the base station and the individual control units, but the loco still receives both power and control over the rails from the command station. What is really need is the separation of the both the power and the command signals from the rails.
Now, there are some interesting alternatives, such as Locolinc, CVP's Airwire900 and from the UK the Red Arrow system. Locolinc is a proprietary system, and that's about that, really: if the sound you want is available in DCC but is not supplied by them, you cannot have it. Airwire900 is great, but like Locolinc is not suitable for use in the EU/UK due to the frequencies it uses. Red Arrow requires line-of-sight for commands, and a receiver on the loco which is visible to the transmitters. They all have the right idea: battery supply of power and wireless transmission of the control signal, but none of them interface with DCC. Plus if everyone turned up with one of these systems at a model railway exhibition, we might get haywire rather than airwire as it is unclear (to me, at least) how they "pair" the control units to the locos. Much closer to the ideal is the do-it-yourself approach of the Aussies, with the concept of DWiDCC (Direct Wireless DCC) but again, this is using radio frequencies. Both DWiDCC and Locolinc point out that one could use the track to provide a trickle charge for the on-board batteries - when it came to reverse loops one would simply have a dead section longer than the longest loco, and point crossing vees simply do not need wiring up at all. (And the power provided could double-up for track circuiting purposes.) With recent advances in battery technology and higher-efficiency motors, powering locos via on-board batteries is entirely feasible - as Red Arrow demonstrate. These systems are all, in their own ways, brilliant and yet. You also do not need heavy gauge wire to provide the power - and it can be a simple "ring main", or more usefully, restricted to areas where locos/units stand, i.e. sidings (MPD, carriage, or fiddle yard)...
...and yet, why, instead of this direct-to-loco control via radio frequencies, can we not have a simple bluetooth setup? After all, the technology seems ubiquitous.
What I have in mind, is an interface which plugs into my DCC command unit, providing both transmission and receiving bluetooth functionality. This makes the base station a key unit with overall control (there could still be a programming track or output plug if so required). Throttles can be tethered to this, or could plug into a bluetooth transmitter/receiver unit. And for locos a high-capacity battery with high-efficiency motors and a simple bluetooth receiver/transmitter, which superimposes the DCC command signal over this before feeding into any NMRA-compliant DCC decoder you care to think of. There is an unused CV for loco modules, CV11, which was designed in for this sort of purposes. Set it to zero, and in the absence of any new commands, the module will continue to carry out the last command issued to it. Practically speaking, this means that the command station need only send out signals when something has been changed: it does not have to be "always on".
If provided as a series of bluetooth components, for the base, throttles and locos (and accessory decoders - why not?) the system is independent of all others, and anyone can then turn their tied down system into something really revolutionary.
So, if anyone out there interested in DCC knows enough about blue tooth to make this work, please, please design a prototype and let us know about it!
[Edited to make links work]
28ten
Guv'nor
Picking up on Simons post, IMHO the problem for modellers in larger scales is that DCC has been developed for HO and battery power is not really practical. I am totally with the bluetooth concept, or even an adhoc network. All it needs is an 8 gig Ipod touch, wifi router and a receiver in a battery powered loco, but the cynic in me thinks that manufacturers would be less keen on the idea as they would sell fewer handsets and peripherals :scratch:
S
Simon Dunkley
Guest
It is not so much cynicism as economic reality, at the moment.28ten said:
Most DCC manufacturers have invested heavily in their systems, and need to see some return on their reseacrh and development budgets, especially as I imagine that economic conditions being what they are, demand is below their forecasts of five years ago.
However, for the dedicated hobbyist with an interest in electronics and model railways, a system such as I described is entirely feasible. The Bodmin GWR layout which is controlled via Red Arrow uses PP3 batteries to power the locos. OK, they are RG7 powered, but even so it shows how small the battery can be.
Phill Dyson
Western Thunderer
I too was impressed with Bodmin and Red Arrow etc. This "self-powered locos" idea is definitely the way I would like to go; for one thing I envisage it would make garden lines much easier - more akin to the larger "live steam" gauges where the track is just that - guidance for the train wheels.Jordan said:
Once a really decent workable system comes along, of course, then I'll be able to complain about it being too expensive for me to afford...
In the meantime, I can honestly claim that I have always used digitally operated points...
... by using my fingers to operate the rod, lever or whatever... :lol: :lol: :lol:
/gets coat....
[/quote:165mrg38]There is of course conventional radio control, but I'm not keen on using AA or PP3 type batteries with slow charge times or having to constantly handle models to remove them for charging , R/C with a charge possibly picked up from the track would be nice :scratch:
Phill :wave:
S
Simon Dunkley
Guest
Yep, requires line of sight. Not a good idea - Bodmin has lots of IR leds placed above it.CME & Bottlewasher said:I too like Bodmin - it's great
It uses Infra-red though, as with the current 'remote' Digitrax throttles at the moment, so no good for garden usage. Dad's H&BLR is battery and live steam and the rails, as you say just guide the trains, - makes life a lot easier
Depends on the frequencies: US and EU reserve different frequencies for R/C, which is another factor in favour of 2.4GHz and Bluetooth.
I presume you are referring to the Crest-Aristocraft Train Engineer? Right concept, but tied down to their system only.
As for health issues, maybe, but the key thing with radiation is usually the energy behind it as much as anything else, so bluetooth is probably OK as it is low power.
The thing is, there are CVs in DCC which change the way the modules operate, so that instead of constantly checking for a new command, the last command remains active until a new one is sent. This means that bluetooth signals only need to be sent as and when something is changed - just as with a TV remote. This cuts down immeasurably on power consumption and the amount of radiation, if that concerns you.
Ressaldar
Western Thunderer
Hi all,
just picking up on this new thread - as I have posted in the Layout section, I have just purchased a Digitrax system and have today ordered the ply cut to size for the baseboards and delivery is stated for tomorrow!! So hopefully next week I shall be assembling the boards and then take things from there. I n the meantime, the manuals and Nigel Burkin's book make great - if short lived, bedtime reading.
regards
Mike
just picking up on this new thread - as I have posted in the Layout section, I have just purchased a Digitrax system and have today ordered the ply cut to size for the baseboards and delivery is stated for tomorrow!! So hopefully next week I shall be assembling the boards and then take things from there. I n the meantime, the manuals and Nigel Burkin's book make great - if short lived, bedtime reading.
regards
Mike
Phill Dyson
Western Thunderer
The trouble with live steam & diesel smoke generators IMO is you get 12" to the foot smoke or clag :scratch:adrian said:
Phill
Dikitriki
Flying Squad
Gulp :?
Heyside DCC switchover planned for Monday afternoon, chips with everything.
Still, a snifter at the local at lunchtime should help.
NCE Power Pro Plus 10 amp system - to cope with all the bl**dy Heljan stuff. I really like the handsets actually, genuine one-handed operation with knobs to twiddle for speed, rather than buttons.
My slightly longer term vision is to computer control the 2 sets of fiddle yard roads on the main loops, leaving me with the branch and yard to play with. If I could then organise a shuttle service from the branch to the bay, I could just sit back and watch, leaving Heyside to operate itself. The possibilities are enormous.... that's where TheSnapper comes in
Watch this space Tuesday morning, or should that be 'mourning'
Richard
Heyside DCC switchover planned for Monday afternoon, chips with everything.
Still, a snifter at the local at lunchtime should help.
NCE Power Pro Plus 10 amp system - to cope with all the bl**dy Heljan stuff. I really like the handsets actually, genuine one-handed operation with knobs to twiddle for speed, rather than buttons.
My slightly longer term vision is to computer control the 2 sets of fiddle yard roads on the main loops, leaving me with the branch and yard to play with. If I could then organise a shuttle service from the branch to the bay, I could just sit back and watch, leaving Heyside to operate itself. The possibilities are enormous.... that's where TheSnapper comes in
Watch this space Tuesday morning, or should that be 'mourning'
Richard
Scale7JB
Western Thunderer
CME & Bottlewasher said:
Hi CME, I reckon the Lionheart sounds good because of the chip.. they use ZIMO chips as do I in the K2 and now the J39, and will probably never use anything else I reckon.. Yes they are a bit pricey for sound, but everyone that has head my K2 always comments on it being the best sound they have heard by far.. If it helps, I read on the Zimo forum that the cheaper MX620 is going to be available again towards the end of this month.
Dikitriki said:
Don't forget the malt vinegar and a nice slab of cod with that!! Best of luck... Have you wired all the main feeds to the track from the power source yet ? If not the main wires should be intertwined with each other for each supply to prevent interference of the DCC signal. The Square wave of the signal must be kept as clean as possible to prevent any damage being caused to the chips themselves..
JB.
S
Simon Dunkley
Guest
They are a bit pricey (but worth it!) for everything, aren't they?Scale7JB said:
The problem with sounds is that often they are quite specific to particular locos, for example a 24 does not sound the same as a 25 to the "trained" ear. How compatible with other sound software systems are Zimo modules? I am wishful fo rthe ability to upload sounds intended for the Loksound into the Zimo decoder, via Lokprogrammer software.
I expect this is completely impossible, but as a long shot, it is worth asking.
Scale7JB
Western Thunderer
Something I need to get in the very near future is the Zimo MXCDECUP module that allows you to move the sound files around on the chip, but also far more excitingly allows you to upload your own sounds to the chip.
Pop out with your MP3 or WAV recorder and get your sounds. Chop them up into shorter segments. Assign them a code and then upload them to the chip.
Can't wait to have a go myself!!
JB.
Pop out with your MP3 or WAV recorder and get your sounds. Chop them up into shorter segments. Assign them a code and then upload them to the chip.
Can't wait to have a go myself!!
JB.
Dikitriki
Flying Squad
Hi
We had a good day yesterday getting to grips with DCC, after fortifying ourselves with a very pleasant pub lunch first
Under TheSnappers watchful gaze, and Clive's verbal abuse, I first chipped an Austin 7 - Lenz gold and power 1 - and then sound chipped (Howes) 10001. The sound is amazing, though I'm not convinced Lady Dikitriki is as taken with it as Clive and I am. The NCE system worked fine, except that on one of the handsets the speed button seems to work only intermittently. Also, while the sound is great, the running of 10001 is now lousy, though I suspect that may be the need for a wheel clean
I now have to work out how to adjust everything to my satisfaction, so a steep learning curve lies ahead, but I am now happy to chip away unsupervised. I feel I have taken my first tiny steps in the DCC darkness. So, the outer loop is DCC only, and as we chip more locos, the transformation will be complete.
Richard
We had a good day yesterday getting to grips with DCC, after fortifying ourselves with a very pleasant pub lunch first
Under TheSnappers watchful gaze, and Clive's verbal abuse, I first chipped an Austin 7 - Lenz gold and power 1 - and then sound chipped (Howes) 10001. The sound is amazing, though I'm not convinced Lady Dikitriki is as taken with it as Clive and I am. The NCE system worked fine, except that on one of the handsets the speed button seems to work only intermittently. Also, while the sound is great, the running of 10001 is now lousy, though I suspect that may be the need for a wheel clean
I now have to work out how to adjust everything to my satisfaction, so a steep learning curve lies ahead, but I am now happy to chip away unsupervised. I feel I have taken my first tiny steps in the DCC darkness. So, the outer loop is DCC only, and as we chip more locos, the transformation will be complete.
Richard
S
Simon Dunkley
Guest
Hi Richard,Dikitriki said:
I strongly recommend SPROG II and JMRI Decoder Pro: works easiest with a rilling road on the bench, but no reason not to connect it up to the layout, or two or three yards of track. The software (which is freeware) comes with the Sprog II, and it is only ?50. Once you get things worked out for a specific type of motor, you can then use this as a base for everything with the same specification, tweaking to suit differing wheel diameters and gear ratios if you wish.
Is 100001 dual motored? Are they in series or parallel? It could be that the BEMF circuit is controlling one motor, and then the other, but not both at once.
Simon
Dikitriki
Flying Squad
Hi Simon
10001 is dual motored and wired in parallel. Top speed is also very low, but I guess that's into the CV settings to sort.
Scale7JB also strongly recommended the Sprog 11 when I had a chat to him at Telford, and given the number of locos we need to chip, it seems a very modest investment.
Richard
10001 is dual motored and wired in parallel. Top speed is also very low, but I guess that's into the CV settings to sort.
Scale7JB also strongly recommended the Sprog 11 when I had a chat to him at Telford, and given the number of locos we need to chip, it seems a very modest investment.
Richard