[neil_s_wood]

At the BRMA convention in Adelaide on Saturday there was discussion on DCC and how it is impacting on the hobby. A conclusion which was part of the presentation was that DCC could never take the place of the control panel. While I disagreed with this I thought about it for a bit and concluded that there are a few people I know who have DCC and do not intend to use it for point and route control as they prefer the control panel..

When asked, out of between 50 and 100 people, there were only three of us who used DCC to control their points. I did wonder if this was the same elsewhere and if relatively few people choose to use DCC to control their points and routes?

In regard to the control panel, which is very popular here, there are DCC equivalents such as the on screen touch control on ECoS and the Veissmann GBS system. Do the forum members think that using DCC for points and accessories is a non-starter? Or are there others out there who think that it is the way to go?

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (markw @ 15 Oct 2007, 15:59) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi Neil

If you're after taking a bit of a straw poll here i'm afraid i'm not going to be much help. I have to sit on the fence and can see both sides point of view.

I am involved in building a new exhibition layout with a bunch of mates that is going to have only dcc control of locomotives. Point control, route control and signalling are all going to be run conventionally at the beginning but with an eye on introducing DCC / computer control at a later stage. My mates are seasoned modellers with conventional control layouts but are pretty much DCC virgins so don't feel terribly confident with the technology at the moment. So a decision was taken on three points, the first being cost, the second Knowledge and the third Time.

Being an ECoS and RR&Co owner, for my own layout i intend to go the whole hog and DCC control pretty much everything possible. I don't have the time constraint of exhibition dates already booked for mid 2008. On my layout i can spread the cost and learning curve over as long as i like and then through a process of demonstration to my mates i'll be able to (hopefully) transfer the acquired knowledge, familiiarity and confidence in the technology both to them and the exhibition layout over the next couple of years or so.

So. personally i'd go for DCC every time but my 3 mates are pushing back against it for the time being. That's a 1:4 ratio and in my opinion is probably a fairly true representation of where most of the modelling community lies. As new generations of modellers progress through the hobby this will change. DCC has been around for about 30 years in one form or another and it's only the past 3 or so years where it is even beginning to become anywhere near close to mainstream. Down at the club, there are still looks of absolute terror from most of the members when i hook my ecos up to the club layout for a DCC session.

Mark

Hi Mark,

that pretty much sums up my experience. I noticed that the pro dcc community was very much a minority when there was a show of hands but when it came to DCC control of anything else I felt pretty conspicuous. There were only two others in the room.

Neil

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (Makemineadouble @ 15 Oct 2007, 17:36) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>With previous layouts my decision in the past has been to use conventional control panels over DCC control for turnouts. The reason for this has been:
1. Cost there is no doubt the DCC control is more expensive.
2. localised control, placing a control panel at the area on a layout where localised control is required is more convenient. The alternative is return to your
centralised DCC control such as the ECoS and then switching to the turnout control screen, and then making the necessary change. Hardly convenient on a
large busy layout.
3. An alternative is to wire for DCC turnout control and use a combination of the two methods, or hand helds with a localised turnout diagram/matrix. This is
probably the method I will use in the future, where localised control remains in the future.

There is no doubt that currently DCC control of turnouts is far more expensive, and this is the reason why folks remain with conventional control.
If using RR & Co you have to add the cost of a suitable laptop. I personally would prefer to operate a larger layout with a crew, and have the interface of friends, with convential control panels, than than singley and have a laptop as a companion. At the end of the day this is a hobby and it's got to be fun, interesting and perhaps challenging, rather than having some centralised computer doing all the work.

This seems to be the concensus.

I was going with DCC as my layout isn't very big 15' by 9'. Over here people tend to have very big layouts and as MMaD says you have many freinds over to help operate and have several localised control panels. There's one guy here whos place we run trains at who has over twenty people operating trains and points at any one time. This is a pretty fun activity as we use a schedule and signalling techniques. If we used DCC we would all be standing around drinking tea and watching someone else operate them.

My layout is a bit small to have any more than one or two other people running trains so it's not that practicle to do this with mine. I suppose I also want to get as much out of my DCC system as possible after having forked out for it. The DCC option certainly isn't cheap.

I have thought about this a bit over the last couple of days and I don't see that on a very large layout DCC is an option unless you use computer control. Which, as previously said is a lot more money or have several central station or ECoS's located around the layout which is a lot more money too.

 

[neil_s_wood]

One of the things I have noticed here, which is the same as the original discussion at the convention, is the assumption that a system with a numerical code for the points would be used. I would agree that this system is cumbersome and in all honesty more trouble than it is worth for any size of layout. What I was thinking of was a system like ECoS or Veissmann commander would have a visual display with names and pictures for points or routes. This would negate the need for scrolling through numbers and allow easy access to the point control screen. This makes the process easier although still only really practicle for a small to medium sized layout.

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (Ian @ 17 Oct 2007, 12:42) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Nov06 I replaced the laptop with an Ecos which allows point control,route setting and a lot more.
I still use my Lenz system connected to sniffer port of Ecos which gives me full walk around etc .
How do I identify each point? Most point motors(Peco) are surface mounted. Getting to old to be crawling around under layouts trying to fit point motors.
Over each p/motor is a small scratch built hut. Each hut is numbered corresponding to DCC accessory number. Those very few p/motors that are attached under layout has post with number on a disc attached adjacent to point. Which means that all points are easy to identify.
The rule on my layout is such that all points must be set before starting train. I have seen many disastrous mishaps occur on DC analogue layouts(control panels) because points were not changed quick enough in front of a moving train.
My main lines are blocked with thru the rails block detection which operate signals which must be obeyed by operaters at all times. My points are slowly being fitted with ground signals to show which line is set.
I use Lenz LS150 accessory decoders which allows op of six(6) points per unit. I have found that operating two points(cross over) wth LS150 is not a problem.
So for me, the more I can operate with DCC the happier I am.
Happy DCCing
Iansa
Hi Ian,

I am using an ECoS too and have also tried using Peco point motors through an LS150. I got pretty poor results so I tried them through an LDT s-dec-dc which is about 50/50. So I am now switching to Tortoise as I get 100% success. Are you using Masterswitch or anything to supplement the LS150 and peco points?

Oh I noticed that the lift bridge thing was very popular in Adelaide. They were very well done.

cheers Neil

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (Ian @ 17 Oct 2007, 18:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi Neil, as stated in last post I have no trouble operating Peco points with LS150. Two points in tandem(cross over), no problems.
Lenz suggest max 16v ac to power points. I bit the bullet and tried 18v ac. That was 4yrs ago. Have not destroyed any LS150's yet.
No, I am not using any Masterswitch's or anything to supplement LS150 and Peco points. As they say," it works for me".
The lift bridge on my friends garden tram layout is aprox 4ft long and goes up/down in total horizontal position. It is raised by a 240v motor which drives a chain mechanism each end.
The whole thing is activated by a TCS function only decoder which in turn fires a series of relays which then turns the motors on/off.
Re Ecos, I have not tried shuttle mode yet. Which is the best detector for this?
I am leaning towards the Litfinski.
Happy DCCing
Iansa
Hi Ian,
as it stands at the moment the LDT is your only option. There are problems with the Veissmann 5233 as it cannot be the last or only one in the chain and the other options are for motorola. The LDT RM-GB-8 is the go, the other LDT one requires reeds. If your interested I put some info on this subject in my blog.

cheers

Neil

Coming back to the control panel thing, I wonder whether having remote point control panels is the go for DCC as it seems that the control panels are an area that is currently missing?

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (Ian @ 18 Oct 2007, 16:09) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thanks Neil, the LTD RM-GB-8 is what I was thinking of.
The control panel thing is an interesting subject. Controlling points etc with DCC is something the jury will be out on for some. Others won't have a bar of it and people like me will embrace it and enjoy operating layouts with it.
Re control panel for DCC operated points. The Ecos has already got one. The only thing missing is a track schematic.
I think most programs, RR&CO, Kam Industries have schematics. Even the cheaper Zug DCC program has track schematics that allows operation of points.
Happy DCCing
Iansa
No worries Ian,

In regard to the ECoS control panel; what I was thinking was that you could have slave units which had the point control screens which could be connected to the ECoS as remote point operation units as a DCC alternative to the control panel. These could be lower cost as they would not require all the software of the central ECoS unit. Just an idea so that a layout can be operated with many people rather than just one..

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (72C @ 20 Oct 2007, 19:24) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Are you aware of the fact that Peco introduced low-amperage turnout motors for use with DCC? I had problems moving crossovers with Roco decoders until I replaced the turnout motors with the latest version. Easy to spot- they are green rather than brown.

Please explain the use of ECos?
I have used the low power Peco snap action motors with limited success and am looking at various ways to improve their performance such as masterswitch thicker wire tec.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "explain the use of ECoS" but in the context of this thread I would use the route panel screens on the ECoS DCC controller to change the points rather than a analogue DC control panel.

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (John @ 22 Oct 2007, 04:54) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Dear All,

Another approach would be to build your own control panel using PanelPro and then you just point and click to set routes, signals or individual points. This can be fully automated or not, as you wish. It's open source and free to download and play with.
Does this require a computer? It looks like it does.

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (72C @ 22 Oct 2007, 17:36) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Limited sucess? If you add Peco's microswitch, they are almost fool proof. The latest copy of RM provided some handy hints and tips on installation but it really is down to the ability of the person installing the motors (which applies to all motors)

To a very limited degree that is true but only in the sense that a beginner may not instal them correctly.

I have found that even Peco point motors controlled by DCC which once worked well will suddenly not work well five minutes later for no apparent reason. They are very tempramental and unreliable with DCC without a supplementary device. A lot of the time they twitch rather than switch.

If it is "really down to the ability of the person installing the point motors", as you allege, then please explain the existence of Master switch, CDU's and Peco's Microswitch to supplement the peco point motor? Why would they be neccessary then if it was purely down to the ability of the installer? If this was true there would be no market for rectification products. As Brian says once you have reached the cost of adding masterswitch or microswitch then you would be as well getting a Tortoise or Tillig motor which are 100% reliable (well they are for me).