Date   

Re: Two Programmers

Simon Brown
 


This can done with care.

I’d consider either DPDT switch but make sure it breaks before makes. 

A more elegant solution would be to use DPDT toggle and have it switch multiple relays.
1 for DCC track power to all sections (when in un mode)
1 for Programmer power (connects programming track to programmer)
2 for  dead sections (primary) of rail adjacent to the programming track and then also the main line (secondary). (switches off the track power to these sections when in programming mode) Might be able to get away with one for both but chances of current leak are much increased if only relying on one relay for controlling the primary and secondary dead sections at either end

basically it’d look something like this, gaps are gaps and filled with styrene to prevent closing up/shorts

__________  ______  _____  __________  _____  _____  __________
__________  ______  _____  __________  _____  _____  __________


Where the above represents from left to right:
main line secondary dead area, primary dead area, programming track, primary dead area, secondary dead area, main line

All gapped and all switched on or off via the relays when toggle thrown,

Why two dead areas - well this eliminates a loco travelling front the main and bridging the main to dead section and having possibility of loco bridging the daed area and programming track.

These daed areas need to be long enough so that the longest consist you have cannot  force its way across the gap(s) as if it did the chances of blowing either the programmer and or your DCC system are pretty high.

To be truely safe this might represent more space than you can allocate so perhaps an off layout programming track is a better bet.

HTH

Simon
Melbourne Australia


Changing normal direction.

Marc Malnekoff
 


I have a pair of Proto 2000 GP-9s that were set up to run long hood forward. They have version 7 chips in them.

I can't remember which CV needs to be changed to make the short hood the correct forward position. It has been a long time since I have worked with them.

Marc Malnekoff

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


Re: Qsi chip upgrade

litespan46
 

Need to buy the version 7 chip first . Hard to find

Gene gleason

On Nov 27, 2017, at 9:56 PM, thomasthetrainengine@gmail.com [QSIndustries] <QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I have a Qsi steam version 6 chip from 2006 in a BLI paragon HO Locomotive. I was wondering if I obtain a QSI programmer, can that chip be flashed with the latest firmware and if so, where to get the firmware file. Or do I need to pursue purchasing a chip upgrade first, then do any upgrades beyond that. After a firmware upgrade, is there any other software that has to be loaded - particular sound files and if so, where do I find those. Forgive the ignorance of my questions. Know not much about QSI. Very familiar with DCC and other manufacturers.

Thank you,
Tom Wilson

------------------------------------
Posted by: thomasthetrainengine@gmail.com
------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links



Re: Qsi chip upgrade

kelly dorf
 

Hi:

The short answer to your question, is "NO", you need a version 7 upgrade chip, and then you will be able to use a Quantum Programmer. Please contact me off list, and I will arrange an upgrade chip.

Kelly
QSI


---In QSIndustries@..., <thomasthetrainengine@...> wrote :

I have a Qsi steam version 6 chip from 2006 in a BLI paragon HO Locomotive. I was wondering if I obtain a QSI programmer, can that chip be flashed with the latest firmware and if so, where to get the firmware file. Or do I need to pursue purchasing a chip upgrade first, then do any upgrades beyond that. After a firmware upgrade, is there any other software that has to be loaded - particular sound files and if so, where do I find those. Forgive the ignorance of my questions. Know not much about QSI. Very familiar with DCC and other manufacturers.

Thank you,
Tom Wilson


Qsi chip upgrade

Tom Wilson
 

I have a Qsi steam version 6 chip from 2006 in a BLI paragon HO Locomotive. I was wondering if I obtain a QSI programmer, can that chip be flashed with the latest firmware and if so, where to get the firmware file. Or do I need to pursue purchasing a chip upgrade first, then do any upgrades beyond that. After a firmware upgrade, is there any other software that has to be loaded - particular sound files and if so, where do I find those. Forgive the ignorance of my questions. Know not much about QSI. Very familiar with DCC and other manufacturers.

Thank you,
Tom Wilson


Re: Two Programmers

Jay Beckham
 

I have a safety section on both sides of my programming track.

 

Jay Beckham

 

Building a large O Scale layout in Berkeley Springs, WV.

 

Our Yahoo Group: Join: jaysoscalelayout-subscribe@... (The model railroad)

 

View my Blogs:

http://jaysoscalelayout.blogspot.com/

 

Weight Watchers Rock!  Week #24  Lost To date: 36.0 Pounds  Weight Watchers Rock!

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: QSIndustries@... [mailto:QSIndustries@...]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 7:50 PM
To: QSIndustries@...
Subject: [QSIndustries] Re: Two Programmers

 

 

If metal wheels bridge the gap between the main dcc track power and the rails activly powered by the QSI programer, you will have a blown programmer without question.  Of course if the programer leads go through a switch and the switch is open, no problem.  


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Two Programmers

adam starr
 

If metal wheels bridge the gap between the main dcc track power and the rails activly powered by the QSI programer, you will have a blown programmer without question.  Of course if the programer leads go through a switch and the switch is open, no problem.  


Re: Two Programmers

kjlovesya
 

Hypothetical situation:

  Someone uses the programming track to read a decoder.   It turns out something is wrong with the locomotive and the loco is removed from the main/programming track.   The operator forgets to throw the 4P2T toggle back to 'main' (so the output of the booster or the QSI programmer is still live on the programming track).

  Someone else is running a train on the layout and lines the track switch for the track that also happens to be the main/programming track, but does not notice the power toggle is set wrong.

   What happens when the metal wheels of the locomotive cross the gap between the 'safety' section of track and the programming track?



KJ


Tis the season for trains

kelly dorf
 

Now that Thanksgiving is behind us, and most of us have had their fill of turkey, its time for some serious model railroading. Dust off those idle trains and get busy. And don't forget, QSI is here to assist. Titan - U's, Quantum Engineer's, and Quantum Programmers are in stock at QSI.

Email us at qsindustries224@....


Kelly

QSI


Re: Two Programmers

Tom in Texas
 

I always use a 4pdt switch so I can kill the power to the adjoining portal section or sections while using the programming track

Tom in Texas


Re: Two Programmers

peteski7
 

Switch-wise I don't see any problems.  I would use the first switch to select NCE or QSI programing, then feed the output of that switch to the 2nd switch which would be for programming or ops.

But keep in mind that if you accidentally place a loco across the gap between your programming section and hard-wired mainline DCC (one truck or wheelset on the main line and the other truck or wheelset on the programming section) then you could theoretically blow up your programmers.

Having warned you, friend of mine also uses a section of his mainline with a DPDT switch for programming and he has not had any problems. His section is fairly long and no mainline locos are anywhere nearby it when he is programming.

Peteski

---In QSIndustries@..., <james@...> wrote :

I have a programming track on the main. With the use of a DPDT toggle I have safety sections on
both sides of the programming track. The input comes from the NCE command station. I am thinking
about adding an additional DPDT toggle, so I can use either the programming output from the NCE
command station or the programming output from a QSI programmer attached to my computer.

I don't think this is any problem unless someone knows a reason otherwise.

Jay Beckham



Re: Two Programmers

Jay Beckham
 

Can’t because the programming track is on the main line.

 

Jay Beckham

 

Building a large O Scale layout in Berkeley Springs, WV.

 

Our Yahoo Group: Join: jaysoscalelayout-subscribe@... (The model railroad)

 

View my Blogs:

http://jaysoscalelayout.blogspot.com/

 

Weight Watchers Rock!  Week #24  Lost To date: 36.0 Pounds  Weight Watchers Rock!

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: QSIndustries@... [mailto:QSIndustries@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 2:53 PM
To: QSIndustries@...
Subject: [QSIndustries] Re: Two Programmers

 

 

Hi Jay,

  I always try to plan for the accidental.   In your case I'd add spring loaded MOM toggles so that Main track power is only on the programming track section and the safety sections when you absolutely want it.   When the toggles are at rest, no main track power is present.   When either toggle (one for each end) is activated, the safety section and programming track are powered by the booster.  That way, you won't accidentally blow the output of the programming track or the QSI Programmer.


KJ


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Two Programmers

kjlovesya
 

Hi Jay,

  I always try to plan for the accidental.   In your case I'd add spring loaded MOM toggles so that Main track power is only on the programming track section and the safety sections when you absolutely want it.   When the toggles are at rest, no main track power is present.   When either toggle (one for each end) is activated, the safety section and programming track are powered by the booster.  That way, you won't accidentally blow the output of the programming track or the QSI Programmer.


KJ


Two Programmers

Jay Beckham
 

I have a programming track on the main. With the use of a DPDT toggle I have safety sections on
both sides of the programming track. The input comes from the NCE command station. I am thinking
about adding an additional DPDT toggle, so I can use either the programming output from the NCE
command station or the programming output from a QSI programmer attached to my computer.



I don't think this is any problem unless someone knows a reason otherwise.



Jay Beckham



Building a large O Scale layout in Berkeley Springs, WV.



Our Yahoo Group: Join: <mailto:jaysoscalelayout-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
jaysoscalelayout-subscribe@yahoogroups.com (The model railroad)



View my Blogs:

<http://jaysoscalelayout.blogspot.com/> http://jaysoscalelayout.blogspot.com/



Weight Watchers Rock! Week #24 Lost To date: 36.0 Pounds Weight Watchers Rock!


Re: What are the engineers at QSI working on?

peteski7
 

Upset? No. Just puzzled.  I asked a specific question about a possibility of QSI producing a smaller (physically) decoder and you chime in saying that QSI is most likely working on new . . . hardware.

But like you said: whatever.
Peteski


---In QSIndustries@..., <steven_lansing@...> wrote :

Are you upset about my comment or something? Not sure why that would be the case,but whatever.



Re: What are the engineers at QSI working on?

Steven Lansing
 

Are you upset about my comment or something? Not sure why that would be the case,but whatever.


On Thursday, November 23, 2017, 7:33:56 AM EST, peteski7@... [QSIndustries] wrote:


 

Really  Steven?
My question was very hardware-specific (there was no mention of anything else).

I was specifically asking for a smaller QSI decoder (yes, hardware) to fit into smaller N scale (and H0n3) models. I really like QSI decoders and I would install them in more of my models if they only fit.

Peteski



---In QSIndustries@..., wrote :

My guess would be that they are more focused on hardware at this point.Making more versions of the Titan decoders to try and re-coop their investment into QSIS.


On Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 7:39:20 AM EST, peteski7@... [QSIndustries] wrote:
 

This is a very good subject. :-)

I was meaning to post something like that myself, but my interest is slightly different.

My first encounter with a QSI Revolution decoder was in a Walthers N scale 2-8-8-2 loco which had a factroy installed sound decoder.  It was a love at first sound!  The perfect cam-less chuff synchronization with the drivers was something I have never seen - and so was the quality of all the sounds.

Ever since that time I have been hoping for a release of a smaller N scale (or H0n3) version of the QSI decoder. For a while a smaller decoder was announced on Josh's QSI site but then it disappeared. I spoke to Josh few times (in the QSI booth at the large model train show in W. SPringfield, MA) inquiring about the N scale size decoder. He said that the problem with making a smaller (N scale) decoder was the size of the QSI's custom IC (the brains of the decoder). He said that there was some talk about developing a smaller IC which would be suitable for smaller size decoders, but that has not happened as of yet.  And now Josh is out of the picture anyway.

Is there any possibility that a smaller version of the QSI decoder will be produced to fit in N or H0n3 models?  In those smaller models there is no need for stereo sound, so a decoder with the capabilities of the Revolution decoder would be quite satisfactory.

Peteski


Re: What are the engineers at QSI working on?

peteski7
 

Really  Steven?
My question was very hardware-specific (there was no mention of anything else).

I was specifically asking for a smaller QSI decoder (yes, hardware) to fit into smaller N scale (and H0n3) models. I really like QSI decoders and I would install them in more of my models if they only fit.

Peteski


---In QSIndustries@..., <steven_lansing@...> wrote :

My guess would be that they are more focused on hardware at this point.Making more versions of the Titan decoders to try and re-coop their investment into QSIS.


On Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 7:39:20 AM EST, peteski7@... [QSIndustries] <QSIndustries@...> wrote:
 

This is a very good subject. :-)

I was meaning to post something like that myself, but my interest is slightly different.

My first encounter with a QSI Revolution decoder was in a Walthers N scale 2-8-8-2 loco which had a factroy installed sound decoder.  It was a love at first sound!  The perfect cam-less chuff synchronization with the drivers was something I have never seen - and so was the quality of all the sounds.

Ever since that time I have been hoping for a release of a smaller N scale (or H0n3) version of the QSI decoder. For a while a smaller decoder was announced on Josh's QSI site but then it disappeared. I spoke to Josh few times (in the QSI booth at the large model train show in W. SPringfield, MA) inquiring about the N scale size decoder. He said that the problem with making a smaller (N scale) decoder was the size of the QSI's custom IC (the brains of the decoder). He said that there was some talk about developing a smaller IC which would be suitable for smaller size decoders, but that has not happened as of yet.  And now Josh is out of the picture anyway.

Is there any possibility that a smaller version of the QSI decoder will be produced to fit in N or H0n3 models?  In those smaller models there is no need for stereo sound, so a decoder with the capabilities of the Revolution decoder would be quite satisfactory.

Peteski


Re: What are the engineers at QSI working on?

Steven Lansing
 

My guess would be that they are more focused on hardware at this point.Making more versions of the Titan decoders to try and re-coop their investment into QSIS.


On Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 7:39:20 AM EST, peteski7@... [QSIndustries] wrote:


 

This is a very good subject. :-)

I was meaning to post something like that myself, but my interest is slightly different.

My first encounter with a QSI Revolution decoder was in a Walthers N scale 2-8-8-2 loco which had a factroy installed sound decoder.  It was a love at first sound!  The perfect cam-less chuff synchronization with the drivers was something I have never seen - and so was the quality of all the sounds.

Ever since that time I have been hoping for a release of a smaller N scale (or H0n3) version of the QSI decoder. For a while a smaller decoder was announced on Josh's QSI site but then it disappeared. I spoke to Josh few times (in the QSI booth at the large model train show in W. SPringfield, MA) inquiring about the N scale size decoder. He said that the problem with making a smaller (N scale) decoder was the size of the QSI's custom IC (the brains of the decoder). He said that there was some talk about developing a smaller IC which would be suitable for smaller size decoders, but that has not happened as of yet.  And now Josh is out of the picture anyway.

Is there any possibility that a smaller version of the QSI decoder will be produced to fit in N or H0n3 models?  In those smaller models there is no need for stereo sound, so a decoder with the capabilities of the Revolution decoder would be quite satisfactory.

Peteski


Re: A Stay Alive for QSI?

jack_houck
 

Hi Marcus,

I do thank you for your offer to help with wiring a Stay Alive circuit into my Atlas HH600 locomotive but in the interim I have visited with a chap who is well versed with Version 9 QSI boards and he showed me how to wire it for a Stay Alive and I must say it now performs admirably with absolutely no stalls or hiccups.

Regards,

Jack 


Re: Connector size

Tom in Texas
 

Thanks for the quick response. I will get back to you after the holiday.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving,

Tom in Texas

1661 - 1680 of 19227