jfugate wrote:Here's the schedule I've been given ...CLINIC - JOE FUGATE - DCC: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLYTUE, July 15: 2:30 PMSAT, July 19: 1:00 PM
Here's the schedule I've been given ...
Hey Joe, I sure wish I was close enough to come but Canada is a little remote I think. I'll be looking forward to seeing the video! Thanks for all you do for the hobby!
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
jfugate wrote: I plan to present an updated DCC clinic with all the latest info at the NMRA National in Anaheim this year.
I plan to present an updated DCC clinic with all the latest info at the NMRA National in Anaheim this year.
Joe do you know what day you'll be giving this? I would love to come down and hear you give it live.
ratled
Modeling the Klamath River area in HO on a proto-lanced sub of the SP “The State of Jefferson Line”
Also just a heads up ... believe it or not, this forum clinic is now 3+ years old!
I plan to present an updated DCC clinic with all the latest info -- now from 15 years of experience with DCC -- at the NMRA National in Anaheim this year. And if you can't make it to Anaheim this year, I'll be posting a free video of the entire clinic on the internet ... just watch my layout web site for the URL (my layout web site link is in my signature).
Thanks, guys, for your kind words about my DCC forum clinic and posts.
Yes, the BlueLine loco idea sounds good in theory, but it creates such headaches that I've decided no more BlueLine locos on the Siskiyou Line. They sound nice, but they're not *that* nice. If you want a particular BLI BlueLine model, see if they offer it in a decoder-less version.
Otherwise, as much as I hate to say it, plan on replacing the dual decoder arrangement with some other all-in-one sound + motor decoder.
Joe,
Your comment:
"In theory, the going with a cheaper sound-only decoder seemed like a clever idea. But the complexities of dual-decoder locos, even when things work right, is bound to create a support nightmare."
JMHO, but at some point in the development process BLI must have decided to shorten time to market by eliminating a human factors study. When they had prototypes that the house engineers and technicians could make work they should have called in randomly selected model railroaders and asked them to participate in a clinic. The BLI people would have observed how easily or how difficultly clinic participants were able to get the engines up and running(if at all) as they should. Based upon posts here it would seem that doing this step would have sent BLI engineers running back to the "drawing board" to come up with a solution that was more consumer friendly. I'm obviously speculating here but somewhere along the line BLI's existing process failed them. A manufacturer can be praised for thinking outside the box but in the end the consumer's acceptance or rejection of that innovative thinking determines whether the praise is truly justified.
Again, thanks for your continued postings they probably have prevented a lot of short word fueled frustration.
Jon
selector wrote:I am a fan of BLI. However, Joe, I am afraid I am right behind you on this. I had hoped it would be a wise move and a decent success for all DC users and for BLI, but it doesn't seem to have turned out that way. Too bad.
I hope it's OK that I agree with both if you to. I'm a huge fan of BLI and when blueline came out I thought that would be great. But the problems with programming them have really turned me off. I got two Blueline Mikados on order but I'm considering cancelling them. It's such a mess with two decoders and my guess is that a lot of people is like me. They rather play with their trains rather then fiddling with decoders to make them work.
I hope BLI drops the project and goes back to normal DC or DCC engines.
Joe, a huge thanks for your DCC clinics. They are a huge help.
Magnus
Thanks Joe for the reply. I knew you would have a simple answer. As I have already used a lighter AWG wire and have a moderate size layout I'll just leave it the way it is but adopt you method in the future.
Thanks for the time you have spent on this and other threads. I think I speak for everyone when I say we all appreciate you sharing your knowledge and experiences.
Bob
Don't Ever Give Up
I use 18 gauge wire for my feeders and I try to keep my feeders under 3 feet. Wire that's 18 gauge is pretty big, I think you could even use it as bus wire if your bus run was 10 feet or less, so a feeder of 3 feet is nothing.
The terminal strips allow for easy debugging and helps organize the wires. As to whether or not they introduce more "points of failure" or "points of electrical resistance" as you are suggesting -- that's not a concern. Their effect on the circuit is minimal and the need to organize your wiring for easy debugging is far more important.
All you have to do is get one mystery short and you'll see the value of the terminal strips. You can connect and disconnect feeders at will until you find the problem. Without the terminal strips you would be getting out the wire cutters ... not good!
Hi Joe,
I'm confused about having terminal strips for track feeder wires. This seems contrsdictory to having feeder wires as short as possible, no longer than a foot. Am I missing something here. This post has given me a lot of good ideas and I'm sure more to come as I am in the process of wiring my layout.
thanks,
luvadj wrote:Joe;Thanks for this most informative thread and it's combined posts...DCC is on my short list of things I'd like to see for the layout in '08, and this thread contains a great deal of info that will help me in my selection, prurchase and installation of a great DCC system...
Thanks for this most informative thread and it's combined posts...DCC is on my short list of things I'd like to see for the layout in '08, and this thread contains a great deal of info that will help me in my selection, prurchase and installation of a great DCC system...
You're welcome! Wow, it's hard to believe this thread was started 3 years ago!
I'm working on an updated DCC clinic for the NMRA National this summer in Anaheim -- I'll try to get some of the updates posted online somewhere one of these days ... and if you're among those who will be attending the convention, come up and say hi!
Joe;
Bob Berger, C.O.O. N-ovation & Northwestern R.R. My patio layout....SEE IT HERE
There's no place like ~/ ;)
Thanks for the kudos, guys. Nice to hear that my posts are helpful.
As to sound in locos, my latest experiments are with the new Digitrax SoundBug. Since I put sound mostly in dummy units and then add them to a consist to give the whole consist a sense of having sound, I'm intrigued by the SoundBug since it's less than $40 street price, and it comes with a speaker (no enclosure, though).
You can add a SoundBug standalone just by wiring it to the two track feeds in your loco. I'm also curious about the PR2 programming capabilities.
However, adding a SoundBug to a loco with an existing motor decoder could be just the BlueLine dual-decoder problem all over again. I'll be reporting on the results of my experiments, so stay tuned.
One thing that interests me also is finding an inexpensive way to add a programable sound decoder to a caboose and adding train sounds to it. Imagine if you crack the throttle and then you hear a rumble as the train starts to move, and as you increase the throttle, the cadence of the rumble increases. Also imagine some random wheel rumble or flange squeal as the train rolls along.
As you decrease the throttle, imagine some car rumble from coupler slack being removed, and brake squeal sounds.
I think inexpensive caboose train-sound decoders could add yet another fun dimension to running our model trains!
Hi Joe
Firstly, thanks a million for your forum clinics, especialy the scenery one on your website, worth its weight in gold!
Ive read every page of this one and everything is clear except the last 2 or 3 posts on the BLI problems. Im starting to wonder if i have the same problem with a T55 sound loco that refuses to program on the main or service'.
I contacted Digitrax and they suggested i try programing on the main (i already tried that) and reset to factory defaults (also done that and ive managed to get the address back to '3') BUT it still refuses to 'listen'. BTW, im using decoder-pro.
Digitrax have now gone very quite and dont answer, maybe they have finished for christmas, maybe my second enquiry about the whereabouts of their "NCE application notes" have been lost in their spam filters, i dont know
This is the first post i wrote about my woes on here a few days ago- http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1295130/ShowPost.aspx
After its factory reset, i have managed to stop it leaping forward an inch but i still cant alter sound levels or motor voltages.
Right now im begining to wonder why i ever bothered about sound loco's as ive also got a QSI example that plays up, although this can and will probebly be fixed by a PowerPax.
I thought all this stuff was suposed to be to an NMRA standard
I need a lie down then im off back to my trusty Athearn Tunnel Motors, with their trusty NCE decoders!!!
In theory, the going with a cheaper sound-only decoder seemed like a clever idea. But the complexities of dual-decoder locos, even when things work right, is bound to create a support nightmare.
I suspect BLI's decided that this experiment was a bad idea, and the fact the BlueLine decoder had some additional bug issues has served to only complicate matters.
I also suspect people who aren't reading the fine print are startled to find out they still need a motor decoder for their new BlueLine loco, so the "great price" high evaporates very quickly with these locos!
Because of the recent post about BlueLine decoder programming headaches, I thought it was time to bump this thread back to the front.
I've also added some more BlueLine decoder programming insights here at this link.
IMO, BLI is living to regret the BlueLine dual-decoder experiment, and I don't expect them to repeat it very soon. It's created a support nightmare for them, and my guess is they won't be doing any more such dual-decoder locos.
If you've got your eye on a BlueLine loco, save yourself some grief and get the decoder-less version. Then put a nice SoundTraxx sound decoder in it -- you'll be a lot happier.
BLUELINE DECODER PROGRAMMING TRICK
Yes, as mentioned in a previous post, the trick is to make both decoders have the same 4-digit address, but have different short addresses in CV1. Before we get into the details of the technique, here's what I do to make sure no other loco on the layout has address conflicts with the short address.
BACKGROUND - LOCO ADDRESSING DISCIPLINE
First, I keep track of the last two digits of the loco numbers of all my locos in an Excel table. This is important because I run almost all locos on my 1980s SP layout in consists, and consists can only be two digits (yes, you can also do consist numbers from 100-127, but who bothers with that ... 01-99 is simpler). If I have more than one loco with the same last two digits, I just make sure all of them but one is in the middle of a consist. I also make sure no loco ever ends in 03 on the end of a consist, since that's the number all new decoders come set to, and could cause problems when programming a brand new decoder.
Next I make sure all locos routinely use 4-digit addresses. My new NCE system lets me address consists using the 4-digit addresses of the end locos, although it also asks me what the real two-digit consist number is, and I pick the last two digits of one of the end locos as the consist number. I know I won't have any conflicts because I kept track, remember.
NOW, THE DUAL DECODER PROGRAMMING TRICK
Let's say my BlueLine loco number is 4411. Here's the process I use (all done with programming on the main unless otherwise stipulated):
1. Put the brand new BlueLine locomotive on the track with no motor decoder in it yet, just the pre-installed sound decoder.
2. Set the long address of loco 3 to 4411.
3. Put 06 into CV29 of loco 4411, just to make sure the decoder is still using the short address. Remove the BlueLine loco from the track temporarily.
4. Install the motor decoder into a different loco temporarily and put it on the track.
5. Set the motor decoder to long address 4411 and short address 11.
6. Put 06 into CV29 of loco 4411, just to make sure the decoder is still using the short address.
7. Move the motor decoder into the BlueLine loco and put the BlueLine loco back on the track.
8. Now I can program loco 11 (the motor decoder) with whatever CV settings I want, and program loco 3 (the sound decoder) with what ever CV settings I want.
9. Once I'm all done and am happy with the settings, I put something like 34 into CV29 of loco 11 and in loco 3. This sets both decoders to loco address 4411, and now they act like one decoder.
This has the significant advantage that programming CV19 to form a consist goes to *both* decoders. I can make and break advanced decoder consists with my command station (which is doing it by programming CV19) and know with confidence that both the motor decoder and the sound decoder will be in the same consist and will respond to functions sent to the CV19 address.
The trick to me is to use different short addresses. Have the motor decoder with an address of 03 and the sound decoder an address of 04 but assign them both the same long address. You need to assign the different addresses before placing the two decoders together in the one loco. When you need to program one decoder or the other (using 'on the main' programming - not programming track) simply program cv29 to use the short address - then each decoder has a seperate address. When you're done simply program cv29 in each decoder back to using the long address. This will work provided that no other locos are also set with 03 / 04 as their current address.
I've used this method with a soundtrax DSX / NCE motor decoder combo in the past with success so it should work for the Bluelines...
Regards
Tim
jfugate wrote: ...and that's to forget using the whole less-than-adequate CV15/CV16 locking scheme and to use a trick that I'll describe in my next post.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
BLUELINE DECODER PROGRAMMING WOES
If you have purchased one of Broadway Limited's new BlueLine series locos and are trying to run it on DCC, then you have learned the loco only comes with a sound decoder and that you need to add a *second* decoder to the loco to control the motor.
BLI took this route to economize on the loco price, saving the cost of a motor decoder. The problem is now you have two decoders in one loco and the CVs overlap just a bit -- so you can't independently set the CV values in one decoder without also setting that same CV in the other decoder -- unless you use some sort of decoder locking technique.
The NMRA came up with a scheme using CV15 and CV16 to implement "decoder locking". First, you need to have only one decoder in the loco to start with (the sound decoder in this case), then you set CV16 to some number like 2 (the recommended standard "unlock" number for a sound decoder). Then you set CV15 to the same value (a 2) and that unlocks the decoder. Once you're done, you set CV15 to some other number, like zero, and that locks the decoder again.
On a locked decoder, the only CVs you can set are CV1 (the short address) and CV15 (the unlock code). All other CVs, including CV8 for decoder reset, are locked and cannot be changed.
Next, you put the motor decoder in, and set CV16 to 1 (the recommended unlock number for a motor decoder). Since the sound decoder is now locked, the 1 you put into CV16 only goes to the motor decoder, so you're good. Finally, you set CV15 to 1. This will set CV15 to 1 in both decoders (remember CV15 is one of the two CVs you can still change in a locked decoder).
Since CV16 is 2 in the sound decoder, CV15 (which is 1) does not match CV16 which is 2, so the sound decoder remains locked. However, CV16 in the motor decoder is 1, so setting CV15 to 1 unlocks the motor decoder and you can program away to your hearts content.
Decoders shipped from the factory have a zero in CV15 and CV16, which means the decoder comes unlocked -- since CV15 and CV16 match (they're both zero).
There is one big problem with this whole scheme, however. You can't program CV19 in a locked decoder, so making your sound decoder part of an advanced decoder consist with your command station doesn't work! The sound decoder is locked, so the sounds won't respond to your consist. Yet if you unlock both decoders, you can quickly have a mess on your hands with the CVs that overlap.
There is a way out of this mess -- and that's to forget using the whole less-than-adequate CV15/CV16 locking scheme and to use a trick that I'll describe in my next post.
cmrproducts wrote:Mark ...If I have to be accurate I just go out and hop up on the real thing and run it!BOB H – Clarion, PA
...
If I have to be accurate I just go out and hop up on the real thing and run it!
BOB H – Clarion, PA
The concept of the virtual reality cab / real layout compositing would require a very sophisticated control system and tremendous computing power to work properly. I would think that it would be very easy to run models in the "traditional" sense (using a hand-held throttle) if you can be electronically placed in the virtual cab as the engineer via the VR headset and tactile sensing / input gloves.
Some groups operate with two-man crews when they have enough people - engineers and conductors/brakemen I think is how duties are usually apportioned (correct me if I'm wrong). Imagine that you're the engineer part of the team - you basically sit in a chair in the corner, where crude physical loco control mock-ups are mounted in the appropriate locations. You slip on your sensor gloves and drop the VR headset (with stereo headphones and dual retina projectors) onto your head, and suddenly you're in the cab of the loco you're taking out on the layout, with the cab and sounds computer generated (except the conductor's - your crewmates - voice, which also comes over the headphones, electronically matched to the position of your head so that his voice comes from the right direction), and the view out the windows is the view of the layout from the model cab camera. You are now immersed in the composited simulation, and for all intents and purposes are scale size, running the locomotive in a fully prototypical manner (except for the temperature and smells in the cab, maybe).
To me, that possibility is exciting (especially since I'll probably never get the chance to run the real thing)! But maybe I'm just a little weirder than your typical model railroader...
On the other hand, in fifteen or twenty years we may see the first (and probably very expensive) such systems beginning to appear. Maybe DCC will someday be enhanced with what we might call VRC - Virtual Reality Control. If so, I hope I'm still around to see it!
As for the radio issues at shows - consider that if no one is actively pressing a function button, changing speed, or changing direction, the Digitrax system isn't sending ANY signal, not even a carrier - it is silent.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Brunton wrote: Interesting thoughts, Bob! Which system replicates the real thing? It can't be NCE - my throttles have no Johnson Bar, brake, reverse OR throttle levers! It's certainly missing the plethora of valves in a real steamer! No diesel controller levers as well! If you know of a system that is realistic (not just pushing buttons or turning knobs / thumbwheels), I'd sure like to know!!!Actually, I wrote a conceptual article (essay, really) about a system that WOULD replicate the real thing with a high degree of fidelity. It was published in Model Railroader in March 1992. It was based on a combination of virtual reality and in-loco cameras, using a computer to composite the two together to immerse the operator in the cab (visually and aurally, and someday maybe even olfactorally). With what's been done with VR and the increasing power of the PC, the first such systems may only be fifteen years or so off.
Interesting thoughts, Bob! Which system replicates the real thing? It can't be NCE - my throttles have no Johnson Bar, brake, reverse OR throttle levers! It's certainly missing the plethora of valves in a real steamer! No diesel controller levers as well! If you know of a system that is realistic (not just pushing buttons or turning knobs / thumbwheels), I'd sure like to know!!!
Actually, I wrote a conceptual article (essay, really) about a system that WOULD replicate the real thing with a high degree of fidelity. It was published in Model Railroader in March 1992. It was based on a combination of virtual reality and in-loco cameras, using a computer to composite the two together to immerse the operator in the cab (visually and aurally, and someday maybe even olfactorally). With what's been done with VR and the increasing power of the PC, the first such systems may only be fifteen years or so off.
I remember that one - have the issue, actually. i think the visual aspect of it is available now, although perhaps not un HO and smaller unless you have megasbucks for cameras the view through fiber optics. The control side -well if you model modern diesels with the desk-type controls, you can do it. No real reason you couldn't build up a steam loco mockup, but the feedback might be a bit complicated. Oh yeah - you can do first gen diesels too - rememebr the article about the guy who build a mock up F unit cab in his basement?
Brunton wrote: simon1966 wrote: Look at all the grief that folks have had over the years with NCE radio systems. Radio issues? What radio issues? My NCE system has been wireless from the start. I have never had any radio issues. I can do every single function wireless that I can with the throttle plugged into the system. Is that an issue? Having to "plug in" to acquire a loco is just stupid (to me). But I guess that comes from a uni-directional wireless, right? NCE's wireless has been duplex from the start, and finally other vendors are starting to catch up. Care to explain some of the "grief" NCE wireless users have gone through (I'm not being snide. I'd like to know, since I've never heard much about it)? simon1966 wrote:So does it matter next week that it took a PowerCab user 10 more minutes to set the thing up compared to a Zephyr?It took me only fifteen minutes to hook up my PH Pro system, and that was mostly spent reading the installation instructions. Is NCE's entry-level system more difficult to install than their full-up system? I plugged in a couple of cables, hooked two wires to the track power cables, and plugged into the wall. I was off and running! A bit later I popped batteries into the throttle, screwed on the antenna, and plugged in the receiver. Again, off I went! The most time-consuming thing, again, was reading the manual to find out how to turn the throttle on and off. Is the PowerCab more difficult than this?
simon1966 wrote: Look at all the grief that folks have had over the years with NCE radio systems.
simon1966 wrote:So does it matter next week that it took a PowerCab user 10 more minutes to set the thing up compared to a Zephyr?
I fail to see how this is not the case with Digitrax as well. ALL the manuals start off with a very simple explanation that says connect these two wires to your track, cinnect the throttle to this socket, and press the following keys to start running a train. Other than system-specific names for the terminals and buttons on the throttle, it reads exactly like the first pages of the NCE manual. Where it diverges is AFTER the basic getting started part, the Digitrax manuals, well, the Super EMpire Builder and Super Chief manuals anyway, diverge into a detailed button by button explanation of what every button on the DT400 does. Useful and required information if you want to do more than just run trains, but perhaps overwhelming. A better organization would be by function rather than just list every button - ie, these are the buttons you press to program a CV value, these are the buttons you press to create and break up consists. This would eliminate paging back and forth through that section.
Yes, the Digitrax manuals could stand some improvement, but the basic "I've never used one of these before" section is pretty much identical to the others.
Mark
While replicating the real engine would be fun (OH for about 10 min) operations is why most probably build a layout.
Now by operations I mean watching the train run between towns. Switching out the cars, etc.
Duplicating all of the functions of an engine (steam or diesel) would be more believable if it would let you experience the actual operation of the engine. Right now there only 3 ways of doing that:
1. The real thing – which I can relate to and has no comparison to any model, ever!
2. A model control system – which for the most part is static (the operator never moves – goes back to the old days of DC control from the control tower.
3. Computer simulators – both home and railroad use for engineers. And again they are static you just set and watch the screen, you really don’t go anywhere.
But with all of them you are alone in the process of operating.
While some modelers enjoy the actual movement of the train (effectively watching from the air) and walking along with the train. Doing switching (which the engineer does not do in real life – the brakeman/conductor do).
So which would one prefer just sitting around working the Johnson bar, turning valves, blowing the horn – or – actually working all of the jobs of a railroad – engineer – brakeman – conductor.
Which model railroading does! – The real thing doesn’t nor does any simulator – You can only do one thing at a time!
I would prefer the model aspect!
I have been and done the other!
Now using a keypad to control all of the engine functions goes back to – Am I running the engine or am I model railroading (as in doing all of the various things that a railroad does)
If I am running the engine then that is all I do, not all of the others. If you try and do the others then you are going to spend a lot of time pretending you are one or the other. I don’t need to be all that accurate – because I only have a model that will never replicate the real thing as it is a scaled down thing.
The only way to try and duplicate the real thing is to work the real thing. Which is what most modelers wish they could do. So either you are an engineer or you are a conductor because as you try to get more accurate your focus gets narrower and narrower and you soon lose site of the overall fun of the modeling.
This is what I see with those that get into the super accurate cars or engines – the other parts of the layout begin to suffer and are lacking. While I never will get into the super accurate stuff (as I have way too much to build) I am going to have fun doing what I do.
Here is a company that has had a stab at a DCC system that is more realistic.
https://secure.ztccontrols.co.uk/core/ShowImage.asp?id=50
I don't think ZTC was even mentioned in the thread, but they are a real DCC manufacturer with a different approach.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum