Auto Shuttle
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (Brian @ 16 Oct 2007, 12:44) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi all
There are many auto shuttle modules made for conventional DC layouts, but does anyone know of such a module for DCC layouts. i.e. running into/out of a terminus platform or even auto reversing in a siding off stage etc
![]()
The ESU Ecos, Fleischmann Twin-Centre/Uhelnbrok Intellibox at least have a shuttle feature - doubtless there are others. Then, of course there is always the possiblility of using computer control.
There are many auto shuttle modules made for conventional DC layouts, but does anyone know of such a module for DCC layouts. i.e. running into/out of a terminus platform or even auto reversing in a siding off stage etc
The ESU Ecos, Fleischmann Twin-Centre/Uhelnbrok Intellibox at least have a shuttle feature - doubtless there are others. Then, of course there is always the possiblility of using computer control.
Hi
Thanks for the names etc.
However, aren't they all control consoles rather than 'bolt on' modules?
![]()
I already have a control system, I just would like to be able to run a shuttle - DME or similar out of the terminus platform and retuning back from a hidden siding.
I don't want the expense of pc control either.
![]()
Are there any automatic modules that do this in DCC? There are plenty for DC.
Thanks for the names etc.
However, aren't they all control consoles rather than 'bolt on' modules?
I already have a control system, I just would like to be able to run a shuttle - DME or similar out of the terminus platform and retuning back from a hidden siding.
I don't want the expense of pc control either.
Are there any automatic modules that do this in DCC? There are plenty for DC.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
It could always be done using a NMRA braking module & relays/detection for example, but AFAIK no one makes a module "ready to use" - I'd like to be proved wrong on this one because it would be very useful for an upcoming project.
Joined
·
7,397 Posts
I haven't heard of a DCC module which will do this. To the best of my awareness to do this in DCC will require an S-88 and a system which has software to run shuttle trains such as ECoS or Fleischmann twin centre, Intellibox.
Aren't the Lenz BM1 etc just braking modules using asymetric DCC? As far as I know they don't allow for a set stop over time and then reverse the loco and send it back to the other terminus like the shuttle feature.
Aren't the Lenz BM1 etc just braking modules using asymetric DCC? As far as I know they don't allow for a set stop over time and then reverse the loco and send it back to the other terminus like the shuttle feature.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (John @ 16 Oct 2007, 20:53) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Lenz produce the BM1, BM2 and BM3 for this purpose, I believe.
You still need some form of train detection & as Neil says there is no provision for "standing time", yes you can use a delay timer as well, but it's just not that simple.
Don't forget that not all decoders support asymetric braking which the Lenz modules use.
You still need some form of train detection & as Neil says there is no provision for "standing time", yes you can use a delay timer as well, but it's just not that simple.
Don't forget that not all decoders support asymetric braking which the Lenz modules use.
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
You said:
You still need some form of train detection & as Neil says there is no provision for "standing time", yes you can use a delay timer as well, but it's just not that simple. Don't forget that not all decoders support asymetric braking which the Lenz modules use.
*** This discussion, plus the other thread related to the problems of railcom and lenz braking when lit passenger trains bridge gaps, are common in one thing - they clearly indicate the inadequacy of all current supposed" special features" such as railcom and related features.....
To me, the discussion highlight several BIG problems with the "DCC DREAM". No current offering is really effective, and assymetric braking and railcom in particular are to me quite flawed in their concept and extremely limited in their ability and speed of evolution.
(1) such things should NOT require track gaps or track-influenced devices to operate, as they will NEVER work properly for the average modeller until we have accessories that are totally track and decoder indepenent.
(2) we shouldn't need to become "one brand dependent" for decoders
(3) results shouldn't be compromised by our choice of rolling stock - ie lit passenger stock.
My vision:
all accessories have their own "bus" and can communicate with each other and with a DCC system of any brand.
optical or similar detector is passed. Detector 1 identifies the train and broadcasts a command to the command station saying "loco xyz is approaching the signal at speed step 75 - slow it and stop at signal x until detector two is triggered and clears the signal
or maybe
detector 1 passed, accessory tells command station to slow and stop at station. triggering accessory 2 which waits for a set time then tells the command station to reverse the loco and slowly accelerate to line speed.
or
detector 1 passed, accessory tells command station to slow and stop at station. triggering accessory 2 which then changes the turnout and tells train 2 which is waiting to slowly accelerate and proceed
etc etc...
the key things to me (1) NO TRACK GAPS or track dependent detectors (2) NO special decoder brand needed as the accessorys simply tell the command station to act (3) easily configurable / self addressing (4) universal in brand to brand application (ie, not dcc-bus dependent, works with every brand)
QUESTION
The above is a very simple example of how I believe DCC should be able to operate simply in a no hassle way for users. what is YOUR dream?? How about spelling out the scenario for your ideal "I wish my DCC system could....." operating system dream??
Richard
DCCconcepts
You still need some form of train detection & as Neil says there is no provision for "standing time", yes you can use a delay timer as well, but it's just not that simple. Don't forget that not all decoders support asymetric braking which the Lenz modules use.
*** This discussion, plus the other thread related to the problems of railcom and lenz braking when lit passenger trains bridge gaps, are common in one thing - they clearly indicate the inadequacy of all current supposed" special features" such as railcom and related features.....
To me, the discussion highlight several BIG problems with the "DCC DREAM". No current offering is really effective, and assymetric braking and railcom in particular are to me quite flawed in their concept and extremely limited in their ability and speed of evolution.
(1) such things should NOT require track gaps or track-influenced devices to operate, as they will NEVER work properly for the average modeller until we have accessories that are totally track and decoder indepenent.
(2) we shouldn't need to become "one brand dependent" for decoders
(3) results shouldn't be compromised by our choice of rolling stock - ie lit passenger stock.
My vision:
all accessories have their own "bus" and can communicate with each other and with a DCC system of any brand.
optical or similar detector is passed. Detector 1 identifies the train and broadcasts a command to the command station saying "loco xyz is approaching the signal at speed step 75 - slow it and stop at signal x until detector two is triggered and clears the signal
or maybe
detector 1 passed, accessory tells command station to slow and stop at station. triggering accessory 2 which waits for a set time then tells the command station to reverse the loco and slowly accelerate to line speed.
or
detector 1 passed, accessory tells command station to slow and stop at station. triggering accessory 2 which then changes the turnout and tells train 2 which is waiting to slowly accelerate and proceed
etc etc...
the key things to me (1) NO TRACK GAPS or track dependent detectors (2) NO special decoder brand needed as the accessorys simply tell the command station to act (3) easily configurable / self addressing (4) universal in brand to brand application (ie, not dcc-bus dependent, works with every brand)
QUESTION
The above is a very simple example of how I believe DCC should be able to operate simply in a no hassle way for users. what is YOUR dream?? How about spelling out the scenario for your ideal "I wish my DCC system could....." operating system dream??
Richard
DCCconcepts
Joined
·
10,020 Posts
I think my DCC Dream would be closely aligned with Richard's.
In the meantime, I've not given up on ABC just yet. There's a Zimo MX620R waiting at my local sorting office for me to pick up tomorrow morning. So by the end of tomorrow evening (that's Thursday GMT) I will either be quietly content or rather depressed.
David
In the meantime, I've not given up on ABC just yet. There's a Zimo MX620R waiting at my local sorting office for me to pick up tomorrow morning. So by the end of tomorrow evening (that's Thursday GMT) I will either be quietly content or rather depressed.
David
Joined
·
7,397 Posts
Some very good points there Richard. I must admit I haven't really seen the point of using assymetric DCC as a braking module, at leat not in the context of my layout. Hassle versus benefits really don't weigh up. With the s-88 shuttle I have self contained activity which looks after itself, whereas even if the train does stop at a signal with assymetric dcc I am still going to have to get involved by restarting it so I may as well have stopped it too for all the trouble it is.
A good point Richard made is QUOTE (1) such things should NOT require track gaps or track-influenced devices to operate, as they will NEVER work properly for the average modeller until we have accessories that are totally track and decoder indepenent.
These things are getting a bit complex for the average modeller, it's not easy trying to get your head round some of this stuff. The DCC manufacturers should try to make things a bit more clueless freindly.
QUOTE QUESTION
The above is a very simple example of how I believe DCC should be able to operate simply in a no hassle way for users. what is YOUR dream?? How about spelling out the scenario for your ideal "I wish my DCC system could....." operating system dream??
My wish list is for something that came up on another thread. How about ESU ( or anyone else for that matter) making additional touch screen panels for point control which could be linked back to the ECoS ( or any other system) so that several remote control panels could be utilised around the layout in the same fashion as DC control panels? Fancy having a go at these Richard?
![]()
A good point Richard made is QUOTE (1) such things should NOT require track gaps or track-influenced devices to operate, as they will NEVER work properly for the average modeller until we have accessories that are totally track and decoder indepenent.
These things are getting a bit complex for the average modeller, it's not easy trying to get your head round some of this stuff. The DCC manufacturers should try to make things a bit more clueless freindly.
QUOTE QUESTION
The above is a very simple example of how I believe DCC should be able to operate simply in a no hassle way for users. what is YOUR dream?? How about spelling out the scenario for your ideal "I wish my DCC system could....." operating system dream??
My wish list is for something that came up on another thread. How about ESU ( or anyone else for that matter) making additional touch screen panels for point control which could be linked back to the ECoS ( or any other system) so that several remote control panels could be utilised around the layout in the same fashion as DC control panels? Fancy having a go at these Richard?
Joined
·
10,020 Posts
QUOTE So by the end of tomorrow evening (that's Thursday GMT) I will either be quietly content or rather depressed.
Well that didn't last very long and it's all my own fault for being in too much of a hurry. I plugged in the MX620R into a "handy" open chassis I've been working on and didn't bother to secure it to anything. I read a few CVs on the programming track and then drove the loco forwards an inch or two. Doing that, "bounced" the decoder against the valve gear. There was a brief hiss and the command station shut down with a short. Remove the decoder - no short. Plug in decoder - instant short. (I didn't do the unplug / plug on a "live" track, I'm not quite that dumb).
So it looks like I've toasted the decoder by shorting out the contacts on the back. I don't know if the valve gear is live or not. I don't know which upsets up more; having to wait yet again for a working decoder or the monetary loss. I think it's the time more than anything. I have this Royal Scot and half written review...
It will probably be Monday before I get to try for another barbeque.
David
Well that didn't last very long and it's all my own fault for being in too much of a hurry. I plugged in the MX620R into a "handy" open chassis I've been working on and didn't bother to secure it to anything. I read a few CVs on the programming track and then drove the loco forwards an inch or two. Doing that, "bounced" the decoder against the valve gear. There was a brief hiss and the command station shut down with a short. Remove the decoder - no short. Plug in decoder - instant short. (I didn't do the unplug / plug on a "live" track, I'm not quite that dumb).
So it looks like I've toasted the decoder by shorting out the contacts on the back. I don't know if the valve gear is live or not. I don't know which upsets up more; having to wait yet again for a working decoder or the monetary loss. I think it's the time more than anything. I have this Royal Scot and half written review...
It will probably be Monday before I get to try for another barbeque.
David
Joined
·
7,397 Posts
QUOTE (dwb @ 19 Oct 2007, 04:07) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well that didn't last very long and it's all my own fault for being in too much of a hurry. I plugged in the MX620R into a "handy" open chassis I've been working on and didn't bother to secure it to anything. I read a few CVs on the programming track and then drove the loco forwards an inch or two. Doing that, "bounced" the decoder against the valve gear. There was a brief hiss and the command station shut down with a short. Remove the decoder - no short. Plug in decoder - instant short. (I didn't do the unplug / plug on a "live" track, I'm not quite that dumb).
So it looks like I've toasted the decoder by shorting out the contacts on the back. I don't know if the valve gear is live or not. I don't know which upsets up more; having to wait yet again for a working decoder or the monetary loss. I think it's the time more than anything. I have this Royal Scot and half written review...
It will probably be Monday before I get to try for another barbeque.
David
I was a bit worried that I could have done the same due to the lack of space inside. I put a Lenz Gold in mine and never had a chance to test it until yesterday. As you appreciate it was a bit of a squeeze and I was a bit concerned that it may be in contact with something electrical. Fortunately it works fine and I got away with it.
So it looks like I've toasted the decoder by shorting out the contacts on the back. I don't know if the valve gear is live or not. I don't know which upsets up more; having to wait yet again for a working decoder or the monetary loss. I think it's the time more than anything. I have this Royal Scot and half written review...
It will probably be Monday before I get to try for another barbeque.
David
I was a bit worried that I could have done the same due to the lack of space inside. I put a Lenz Gold in mine and never had a chance to test it until yesterday. As you appreciate it was a bit of a squeeze and I was a bit concerned that it may be in contact with something electrical. Fortunately it works fine and I got away with it.
Joined
·
10,020 Posts
QUOTE I put a Lenz Gold in mine
I consider that quite an achievement. I've had the body off my Scot once and I'm not looking forward to doing it again. The tales of difficult A3 conversions are still ringing in my head, and I've my own A3 also on the waiting list.
David
I consider that quite an achievement. I've had the body off my Scot once and I'm not looking forward to doing it again. The tales of difficult A3 conversions are still ringing in my head, and I've my own A3 also on the waiting list.
David
Joined
·
7,397 Posts
QUOTE (dwb @ 20 Oct 2007, 03:03) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I consider that quite an achievement. I've had the body off my Scot once and I'm not looking forward to doing it again. The tales of difficult A3 conversions are still ringing in my head, and I've my own A3 also on the waiting list.
David
I'm not going to pretend it was easy. It wasn't at all. It will only go in one way, so that is having the thickest part of the decoder to the front of the boiler with the thick part facing downwards. Getting the body off was a bugger, even before introducing a decoder into the situation. It isn't A3 territory though. I do know what you mean though. I wanted one of the new Britannias and have heard they are similar to the A3's to install a decoder into. This put me off so I didn't buy one.
David
I'm not going to pretend it was easy. It wasn't at all. It will only go in one way, so that is having the thickest part of the decoder to the front of the boiler with the thick part facing downwards. Getting the body off was a bugger, even before introducing a decoder into the situation. It isn't A3 territory though. I do know what you mean though. I wanted one of the new Britannias and have heard they are similar to the A3's to install a decoder into. This put me off so I didn't buy one.
Joined
·
90 Posts
QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 17 Oct 2007, 15:43) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>QUESTION
The above is a very simple example of how I believe DCC should be able to operate simply in a no hassle way for users. what is YOUR dream?? How about spelling out the scenario for your ideal "I wish my DCC system could....." operating system dream??
Richard
DCCconcepts
Hmmm
![]()
good question. That's got my brain working this morning
![]()
My ideal would be some DCC specific track system that would have some sort of sensor discreetly built in to say every 6th sleepers which could then feedback exact loco position to the command station through the track bus.
Points would also have a similair sensor system identifying their position through trackbus feedback.
Signal position would also be be fedback through the trackbus.
All Locos would have a sensor, manufacturer fitted, which in conjunction with the track sensor feedback the loco position to the comand station. This could optionally be added to each piece of rolling stock by adding wheel pickups and a small amount of electronics.
Each sensor would be given a unique address allowing each and everyone of them to interact with each other. The track sensors would be able to recognise each individual loco (rolling stock) as it passes and feedback the loco address to the command station. The human opertaor wouldn't need to know any of the sensor addresses as they would automatically map the layout to a self creating mimic panel on the command station, each sensor could then be selected via a GUI and programmed individually as required with signalling interlocks or braking points etc.
The DCC command station would be a modular unit starting with a basic unit similair to the ecos to which you could upload software feature packs (at a cost) to enable the various advanced features such as computer control interface, route control, discreet mimic panels, advanced loco positioning , signalling etc.
In my dream a system like this could be programmed to do just about anything from basic operation through to full automation and to add features you would simply purchase the software feature pack for your controller and program appropriately. You would never need to add additional wiring, any extra hardware such as throttles or mimic panels etc would simply plug in to the command station and be enabled via a software deature pack supplied with the item.
Anyway it's all a dream and maybe it will come one day but not without a significant buy in and development effort by all the manufacturers working with each other to completely rework the DCC specs and standards.
![]()
Sorry if i've not explained it all terribly well
![]()
Have a good day
Mark
The above is a very simple example of how I believe DCC should be able to operate simply in a no hassle way for users. what is YOUR dream?? How about spelling out the scenario for your ideal "I wish my DCC system could....." operating system dream??
Richard
DCCconcepts
Hmmm
My ideal would be some DCC specific track system that would have some sort of sensor discreetly built in to say every 6th sleepers which could then feedback exact loco position to the command station through the track bus.
Points would also have a similair sensor system identifying their position through trackbus feedback.
Signal position would also be be fedback through the trackbus.
All Locos would have a sensor, manufacturer fitted, which in conjunction with the track sensor feedback the loco position to the comand station. This could optionally be added to each piece of rolling stock by adding wheel pickups and a small amount of electronics.
Each sensor would be given a unique address allowing each and everyone of them to interact with each other. The track sensors would be able to recognise each individual loco (rolling stock) as it passes and feedback the loco address to the command station. The human opertaor wouldn't need to know any of the sensor addresses as they would automatically map the layout to a self creating mimic panel on the command station, each sensor could then be selected via a GUI and programmed individually as required with signalling interlocks or braking points etc.
The DCC command station would be a modular unit starting with a basic unit similair to the ecos to which you could upload software feature packs (at a cost) to enable the various advanced features such as computer control interface, route control, discreet mimic panels, advanced loco positioning , signalling etc.
In my dream a system like this could be programmed to do just about anything from basic operation through to full automation and to add features you would simply purchase the software feature pack for your controller and program appropriately. You would never need to add additional wiring, any extra hardware such as throttles or mimic panels etc would simply plug in to the command station and be enabled via a software deature pack supplied with the item.
Anyway it's all a dream and maybe it will come one day but not without a significant buy in and development effort by all the manufacturers working with each other to completely rework the DCC specs and standards.
Sorry if i've not explained it all terribly well
Have a good day
Mark
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Join the discussion
