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.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
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.
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.
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!
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!!!
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!
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...
Bob Berger, C.O.O. N-ovation & Northwestern R.R. My patio layout....SEE IT HERE
There's no place like ~/ ;)
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...
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!
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,
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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).
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”
Here's the schedule I've been given ...
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
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!