|
Re: How to set up locomotive
wirefordcc
Lloyd,
Do you have a Zephyr or a Chief? (I assume since you had your system for a while, you don’t have an Evolution.)
You said you don’t know how to set up a locomotive on your system. Do you know how to power up your system and use it?
Do you still have the manual?
Allan Gartner WiringForDCC.com
|
|
|
|
Re: DCC Meters
Mark Gurries
On larger layout without a load, you will see the track voltage go up the further you get away from the DCC system or booster powering the track. The is voltage ringing (spike) on the DCC waveform created by the layout wiring that confuses the meter into reading a higher voltage than what is actually there. The use a of a ten scope is good in that one can visually ignore the leading edge voltage ringing (Spike) and focus on the flat portion of the DCC waveform for the reading. The advantage of having a resistive or locomotive head lamp load is it consumes the voltage ringing/spike by absorbing it. Your presented with a much cleaner reading. To check for voltage drops in the wiring, you will need a large lamp load such as offered by an 12V automotive lamp.
|
|
|
|
Controlling HO DCC system
Lee Phillips
Can anyone tell me if you can control HO DCC using MTH PCS ?
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HO DCC system
wirefordcc
The MTH DCS system cannot control DCC locomotives.
Some MTH locomotives can be controlled either by MTH's DCS or DCC systems. All the MTH locomotives I own are like that. Allan Gartner Wiring For DCC
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling MTH DCS system
Gary Chudzinski
I have an S gauge MTH F-3A/B set. It has the latest DCS version The DCS system leaves a lot to be desired in terms of operating on my NCE DCC system Layout! Many of the functions operate differently and often the locos do not move when first turned on until I reinitiate the consist function, even though the audio and lights operate. There is a significant incompatibility that I doubt will ever be resolved. Some friends have stripped the DCS decoders, in favor of DCC decoders, from their HO and S locos. MTH detailing, however, is very nice in both scales!
Gary Chudzinski
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling MTH DCS system
Richard Gagnon
That has been a common discussinion for some time in the Trains.com forums. Not very compatible.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Monday, May 27, 2019, 7:43 PM, Gary Chudzinski <chudgr@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HO DCC system MTH ?
No
Apparently however - it is the other way around, with the ESU ECoS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJDefT8Udck I discovered that some DCC Decoders will not fully function even on their own brand (Digitrax to Digitrax Zephyr vs Chief) as some CV's are interpreted differently, but could work effectively that is equally with the ESU ECoS. ==== Now it's time to tell me this can't possibly be, as all DCC Systems created under the Banner of the NMRA were created equally so. Q' Pla ! :)) Mark
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HO DCC system MTH ?
Don Vollrath
The 'banner' of the NMRA governs only the DCC signaling interchange to the track and a few particular CVs for normal but minimal operation. From there each manufacturer is free to invent and define what the plethora of other possible CVs actually do and how. So it is not surprising that one needs to carefully read and understand the manual for each brand and type of decoder to determine how to get it to function like you want. Ditto with the variety of DCC control systems. Some are more versatile or limited than others. But your command station and programming method still needs to work in concert with the design of the decoder. DecoderPro exists to help make it somewhat convenient and sense of it all.
DonV
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HO DCC system MTH ?
PennsyNut
Back in the dark ages, our USGovt chose to force the auto mfgrs to standadise the shift quadrant on auto trans to put neutral between drive and reverse. Do you remember that? Well, the NMRA made a feeble attempt to standardize DCC. But the mfgrs apparently think they have better ways of doing things. IMHO I don't see why they do! What is wrong with setting reasonable standards so that we, the poor people (and I refer to the majority of modellers) can purchase a command station and a decoder and expect them to work together. It's bad enough that the decoders are different, but now we have DCS from MTH and it is sole proprietary. Heck even the 3-railers have Lionel and MTH also. And all we have to do is: Refuse to buy MTH. And they will get the message. If their sales drop, who know what they might do? Maybe go away! This business of forcing us to purchase additional equipment to change CV's? Need a booster to change some. Sorry for my rant.
Morgan Bilbo, new to DCC
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HO DCC system MTH ?
Lee Phillips
I agree 100% Shame the computer people don't get it either Lee
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:25 AM PennsyNut <pennsynut@...> wrote: Back in the dark ages, our USGovt chose to force the auto mfgrs to standadise the shift quadrant on auto trans to put neutral between drive and reverse. Do you remember that? Well, the NMRA made a feeble attempt to standardize DCC. But the mfgrs apparently think they have better ways of doing things. IMHO I don't see why they do! What is wrong with setting reasonable standards so that we, the poor people (and I refer to the majority of modellers) can purchase a command station and a decoder and expect them to work together. It's bad enough that the decoders are different, but now we have DCS from MTH and it is sole proprietary. Heck even the 3-railers have Lionel and MTH also. And all we have to do is: Refuse to buy MTH. And they will get the message. If their sales drop, who know what they might do? Maybe go away! This business of forcing us to purchase additional equipment to change CV's? Need a booster to change some. Sorry for my rant.
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HO DCC system MTH ?
whmvd
THing is, development doesn't happen in a way that helps your view of it. There isn't a standards body that sets standards, after which everyone starts building the same stuff. What happens is that stuff gets developed, and the standards body comes in afterwards looking at raising the best and most consistent practices to a standard, but: the non-standard stuff already exists, ie being sold, and can be very good. Just not compatible. You are very right in manufacturers getting the message whenb people vote with their wallet. Problem is, a lot of those votes come in before the customers are well enough informed to buy what's best for them. Ah, economics. You can't beat economics, but sometimes you might want to. Wouter
On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 16:25, PennsyNut <pennsynut@...> wrote: Back in the dark ages, our USGovt chose to force the auto mfgrs to standadise the shift quadrant on auto trans to put neutral between drive and reverse. Do you remember that? Well, the NMRA made a feeble attempt to standardize DCC. But the mfgrs apparently think they have better ways of doing things. IMHO I don't see why they do! What is wrong with setting reasonable standards so that we, the poor people (and I refer to the majority of modellers) can purchase a command station and a decoder and expect them to work together. It's bad enough that the decoders are different, but now we have DCS from MTH and it is sole proprietary. Heck even the 3-railers have Lionel and MTH also. And all we have to do is: Refuse to buy MTH. And they will get the message. If their sales drop, who know what they might do? Maybe go away! This business of forcing us to purchase additional equipment to change CV's? Need a booster to change some. Sorry for my rant.
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HO DCC system MTH ?
Morgan and all....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udyy2gQyNso Listen to this carefully about people going off in many directions. and NOT being Focused. ==== Apple was like this circa 1997 with Open Doc...a program which was NEEDED for a Macintosh 9500 computer to get onto the internet... but it didn't work. I know > I stupidly took a On Line History Class which I could not complete....Cause of Open Doc not being compatible with JAVA. But I digress... What the NMRA essentially did with DCC is Non Sequitur. Yes, a Volunteer Organization which did set BASE Standards of Handshaking Code. Then by allowing the many manufacturers to develop their own proprietary codes...put the DCC (American) Market in disarray... They created Committees which don't actually talk to one another. This is NOT the first time the NMRA has done this. Read down to Question #5 ..... http://www.railwayeng.com/rrhints.htm and Yes the answer. Two Committees which for political reasons were allowed bad management. Here's the video...Trying to speed match a train while being shackled to two other guys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okl8ESz01SY ====== If you follow NMRA specifications at 100%....Your layout will fail. Which has been good for me ...Cause I buy defunct/failed layouts often at 10 cents to the MSRP+ Dollar. Instead use for example BNSF or UP specifications and give a look see to the European World of DCC. My apologies, if this seems like a Discussion...but I felt an answer to all these woes should be spoken. :)) Mark ================================ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_R5fK73Eaw I created a NOMAD Headquarters Building for my N Scale Layout....Based on this Model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6214TMDJf4 The National Organization of Modelers and Ardained Designers. (NOMAD) Cause...The way you guys write about some of these guys, you would think they are ordained by God. Are you Ordained (Ardained)? But I know for a fact some John Armstrong designs maybe good at O Scale but they don't work in the confines of N Scale., There are some decoders in this world...Which simply do not work on any DCC System even their own to the praises their Advertising Department bestowed upon them. But i no longer care...I standardized with ESU.
|
|
|
|
Betwixt and Between Layout - I have seen the Elephant
Hello all... Probably two simple Districts, joined at the operating twin Bridges which do lower and raise.
|
|
|
|
Re: Betwixt and Between Layout - I have seen the Elephant
Don Vollrath
Mark,
Are the two bascule bridges joined together when closed at a center pier? If so that would be an ideal place to use a centering pin on one side and a V shaped mating part on the other to ensure mechanical rail alignment as the bridges close. Make the V shape mechanism alignment adjustable as a precision and tight fitting is required, particularly for N scale. Either way... If a train is wanted to traverse the boundaries between two supposedly separate layouts without any DCC electrical interference or interruption, both layouts and the bridge tracks themselves between layouts must be running in DCC sync. This means that somehow the DCC control signaling on both layout halves must be the same whenever the bridge(s) are closed. You could use ONE central DCC controller to operate both layout halves. Each layout then simply becomes a separate 'booster district'. No electrical issues at all. You can use relays or switches to temporarily turn DCC power boosters to one layout side or the other OFF when wanted for servicing. Take your pick of controller brands and models. As discussed earlier if you insist on using two separate DCC controllers, with separate boosters, it may be possible to use a relay to flip the DCC layout power source to the bridge tracks from one DCC layout side to the other as a loco travels over the bridge. [Requires which-way direction logic info] But remember to coordinate the loco address and speed setting between to the two DCC controllers to prevent loss of loco control. However, all instantaneous settings must be the same on each layout for a smooth transition. A central computer (or a single DCC controller operating both layout sides) can be used to do that. Re-read the simple solution above. One alternative is to jump to direct radio controls with DCC power on the rails. See RailPro by RingEngineering. https://www.ringengineering.com/RailProVideosPage.htm These units steal loco operating power from the rails and can be used simultaneously with DCC. However each RailPro loco moving over and between separate DCC layouts is essentially radio controlled by 'their' operating box. Somewhat impressive but of course works with only their equipment. An interesting way to swap cars between layouts. Not sure how to power bridge tracks and not cause interference with DCC power boosters on each end. Re-read the self imposed complications above. Not sure how RailPro receiver/decoders will fit into N scale. Another alternative would be to skip DCC altogether and use DC. But again the adjustable DC voltage on each side as well as that on the bridge tracks must be the same voltage and polarity for a smooth transition. All of the older DC layout track district/section and controller/throttle issues will still be there. DonV
|
|
|
|
Re: Betwixt and Between Layout - I have seen the Elephant
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 01:21 PM, Don Vollrath wrote:
Don, Thank you for responding.... Are the two bascule bridges joined together when closed at a center pier? No not yet > But I have considered it; as I believe it may have once been a possibility in Northern California due to the way current were on our many inland rivers prior to 1932, when they began in earnest to dig them deeper for Sea Going International Shipping. As I understand mud would swing from one side of a river to the other side...So having a Pier in the middle with two Bascule Bridges to either side...Depending on how the mud moved? Yes a possibility. === To wit a Swing Bridge was installed by the Central Pacific in Sacramento, as they built up their peer there. The location is very near the California Railroad Museum of Today. ==== So... Another possibility and actual probability is to also have a Lionel Swing Bridge on a interchangeable plank which is to swing out of the cabinetry. A variation on the 23 Skidoo Street Bridge. A railway line is to come off a tall Helix, cross under a stairway and then meet at 23 Skidoo. ====================== Not sure you noticed but the trackage for each layout is basically a simple single oval which with no turnouts. Then the Tracks simply meet over The Bridge with double track and continues to the next single oval. The whole array is simply one large circular track. I am basically in a State of Rebellion over our whole hobby as Toy Like, Blithe and Un-Operational... Plus, there are moments when I feel either guilty or saddened even anxious that I have purchased so many defunct/Failed layouts. I am determined that this one functions at 100% even without a single Double Crossover. :)) Mark Eventually I will do a Bunker/Hitler Parody/Rant about Specifications and toy trains with plastic wheels. Everybody who still crawls over the top of their layouts to push their toy trains along...Please leave the Room ! http://www.secretcitytravel.com/berlin-march-2014/albert-speer-nazi-architect-berlin.shtml Their model of Germania has always seemed to me to be N or perhaps Z Scale.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_(city)
|
|
|
|
Re: Betwixt and Between Layout - I have seen the Elephant
Don Vollrath
Mark,
If "the trackage for each layout is basically a simple single oval which with no turnouts. Then the Tracks simply meet over The Bridge with double track and continues to the next single oval. The whole array is simply one large circular track" as you say... It makes more sense than ever to take the simple route of using ONE command station and two separate booster districts, or even a single booster and several circuit breaker power districts. Use twisted pair feeder bus wiring and RC filter/snubbers along the way (every 30 ft or so) to minimize long run issues. Please keep your not DCC related topic rants to a minimum. DonV, co-moderator.
|
|
|
|
Re: Betwixt and Between Layout - I have seen the Elephant
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 02:20 PM, Don Vollrath wrote:
RC filter/snubbers? Thanks Don...
|
|
|
|
Re: K.I.S.S.
PennsyNut
I sincerely want to thank each and everyone that responds. Just so we all enjoy this wonderful hobby. As for CV's, I always advise to stick with the basics. Why bother with CV29 until you actually need it. I program 4 digit loco numbers all the time with the simple method. And I firmly believe that newbies need only CV 3,4,5,6 to get a loco running the way they want. CV 2 is optional. As are most of the other CV's. IMHO. And this may not be the last word. LOL
Morgan Bilbo, new to DCC
|
|
|
|
Divide or not
andymsa2
hi all,
last night i installed my dcs240 after some initial issues it's working ok now. The issues was it was shutting down imeadiatly with 4 beeps indicating a short. There was no short the shutdown was caused by inrush current. I was surprised at this considering its able to provide at 8 amps, and the current demand is at half of the 8 amps available, I increased the short circuit shutdown time which resolved this, the supply power is the ps2012 so this is up to the job and the current draw is around 4.5 amps which will increase. I should add the dcs240 only powers my signals which are digital and als provides power for the electronics of the accessory decoders. A DC supply provides power for attached accessories. now I have given an explanation of how I got to this question, I am wondering should I drive the dcs240 to near to at least 3/4 of its full power output, I have wondered if to divided this power with my old dcs100 in booster mode of course. i look forward to your thoughts andy
|
|
|
|
Re: Divide or not
Mark Gurries
Inrush current has no numerical value because there are a lot of variables.. But in all cases, it will exceed the current draw of just about any booster made. The question is how long does it draw this current. If it exceeds the rating of the booster longer than it shutdown timer will allow, the booster will shutdown. This problem is no new. This same EXACT problem happened when sound decoders made their appearance. The more sound decoder were added to the layout, the worse the inrush current go until the booster could not support it and shutdown. Today most DCC circuit breakers are design to deal with the high inrush current problem when there is a short circuit. Recovery problem solved. To your question, should you drive the DC240 harder. I understand that changing shutdown increased the inrush capability, but Digitrax has no specification. This is the same question as “ How many more sound locomotive can I add to my layout". Every time you add another signal controller, the inrush will go up some amount as you need to charge the capacitors on each additional signal board. As you keep adding more, at some point your problem that you just solved will reappear. So it is not how much steady state current draw you can you push, it how much inrush current can the booster support. There is no valid answer because there is no specification nor DCC standard for inrush in which one can use figure the answer out.
|
|
|
