I nearly had a wobbly moment ...

[Robin2]

I am the sort of person who likes starting things more than I like finishing them. Also I don't have much space - about 1200mm x 400mm. My latest idea is to make one of those "rabbit warren" types of layout using n-gauge track and an as-yet-undecided scale. This is partly insipired by Hobbiton End and Laurie Calvert's space age railways.

 

I bought a Kato 4-wheel chassis and it runs beautifully on clean track. I also have some small DCC decoders and a Hornby Elite and a PC program that can control the Elite over a USB cable - none of which has been used for ages. So I was seriously thinking of making this a DCC system.

 

Luckily, while lying in bed last night I remembered that track based power would require lots of wired connections, regular track cleaning, gizmos to deal with reversing loops and still no guarantee that the hand-of-god would not be needed.

 

BPR/C to the rescue. The DCC stuff can stay in its drawer.

 

Phew.  That was a lucky escape

 

...R

[davetheroad]

I too get wobbly moments, not that RC does not work but that I lack the precision to make a neat installation. The insides of my locos are horrific!. I have a large 00 scale 2-6-4 tank loco that I know is convertible but would need special battery sizes. I am deep into scenery and building construction at the moment but want to revisit my installations to tidy them up

 

On a somewhat related topic BPRC has gone a bit quiet lately. Deltang continue to extend their range and the stuff works, however they are essentially the only provider in the UK, at least for me.

 

BlueRail's first board showed considerable potential and I look forward to the new smaller version, if it is ever released. Their web site says watch summer 2018 but that has gone. Promised new product from Protocab has failed to arrive as well and with their existing stuff very expensive and woefully under specified IMO I could imagine little progress there

[Robin2]

The insides of my locos are horrific!.

If they work and nobody can see the inside why does it matter? 

 

Deltang stuff is not cheap either when compared to a DIY job. But I could not make and sell anything at a lower price.

 

...R

Edited October 4, 2018 by Robin2

[Regularity]

Promised new product from Protocab has failed to arrive as well and with their existing stuff very expensive and woefully under specified IMO I could imagine little progress there

I am still waiting for the “Concentrator”, promised for 2013. To my mind, having this centralised command system is key to maintaining order with the confines of a U.K. exhibition, otherwise people will be picking up locos on other layouts, and unscrupulous members of the public will be driving locos from the wrong side of the barrier.

 

There is much which is good around the design, and I appreciate what they are trying to do, but I think it a pity that they didn’t concentrate on a reduced number of components, viz:

 

A loco board which combined power management and the reception of commands via WiFi, combining these to produce a DCC signal over two wires , for plugging into a standard DCC module;

A combined base station/transmitter/WiFi hub, or code to run on something simple like a tablet, combined with JMRI, to create a base station. (The concentrator.)

 

This would build on the existing market, and provide a simple conversion route (similar to the Tam Valley DRS) that was more plug and play.

 

Maybe also a really nice controller, a bit like the http://www.protothrottle.com, but in two versions: one for U.K. diesels, and for for steam, with easy to access controls for regulator, reverser, (train) brake and whistle, arranged to make the driving experience more like the real thing, and to dynamically alter some of the CVs to modify the sound profile to further enhance the operation of really well programmed sound modules, such as Paul Chetter’s Designs.

[Robin2]

One of the benefits of BPR/C ...

 

My very crude train (wires sticking out everywhere) is now running on very crude track so I can see if I am getting the effect that I want. At this stage the track is mostly second-hand bits of Peco setrack many of which are just joined to each other by a single fishplate.

 

And plastic frogs don't cause any problem.

 

...R

Edited October 4, 2018 by Robin2

[davetheroad]

I am still waiting for the “Concentrator”, promised for 2013. To my mind, having this centralised command system is key to maintaining order with the confines of a U.K. exhibition, otherwise people will be picking up locos on other layouts, and unscrupulous members of the public will be driving locos from the wrong side of the barrier.

 

There is much which is good around the design, and I appreciate what they are trying to do, but I think it a pity that they didn’t concentrate on a reduced number of components, viz:

 

A loco board which combined power management and the reception of commands via WiFi, combining these to produce a DCC signal over two wires , for plugging into a standard DCC module;

A combined base station/transmitter/WiFi hub, or code to run on something simple like a tablet, combined with JMRI, to create a base station. (The concentrator.)

 

This would build on the existing market, and provide a simple conversion route (similar to the Tam Valley DRS) that was more plug and play.

 

Maybe also a really nice controller, a bit like the http://www.protothrottle.com, but in two versions: one for U.K. diesels, and for for steam, with easy to access controls for regulator, reverser, (train) brake and whistle, arranged to make the driving experience more like the real thing, and to dynamically alter some of the CVs to modify the sound profile to further enhance the operation of really well programmed sound modules, such as Paul Chetter’s Designs.

Does Protocab use the 2.4Ghz band? If it does the controller should have a unique identifier code and loco receivers should, once bound to that transmitter, only obey commands from it. That is how my Deltang gear works. Binding a receiver to a transmitter requires physical intervention, in Deltangs case, switching the receiver on, waiting for the LED to flash rapidly, then switching on the transmitter while holding down the bind button. I suppose there are ways of hijacking and mimicking the transmitters identity code but that would have to be a deliberate act involving specialist equipment.

 

there could be situations in large very busy exhibitions where the 2.4Ghz band was saturated with traffic, especially as smart devices can use the same radio band. Dozens of people streaming video over their phones might do it. That saturation would of course affect all traffic including use of concentrators etc.

 

Rule of thumb for large very busy exhibitions,

 

Get there early

Have all your locos bound before you get there

Switch on all your transmitters as soon as you get there so they have all the bandwidth to select their operating frequencies from

Consider using higher power transmitters

Consider using more secure transmission protocols such as DSMX rather than DSM2 (DSM2 devices hop between 2 different frequencies, DSMX hops between many different frequencies.)

[Regularity]

I believe it is the 2.4GHz band.

 

I am thinking of layouts with three or more operators and say a dozen or more locos to select from. From what Dave at DT told me a couple or do years ago about his Selecta version, you could have a loco bonded to two different controllers, and each controller can only take over a loco when it is not running. That’s good, and if I could use such a system to send a command signal to an onboard DCC decoder, via a board which included a PIC running DCC++ and battery/power management, I would be very happy. I think that is more a case of me learning some programming and basic circuit design with Arduinos.

 

However, when you get beyond two operators, and the need to interchange which loco is run by which operator, then you start to need a small, simple central hub.

 

Here is an example scenario, based on an exceptional layout I get to play with.

 

The layout is about 30’ long, consisting of a single track terminus with ancillary features such as loco depot, goods yard and harbour extension. It also has a subsidiary line running into it from a small fiddle yard. It is possible, in theory at least, for up to six locos to be moving at any one point in time (hostling in the mpd, trains arriving/departing into the two platform roads, two different parts of the goods yard being shunted, and the harbour extension also in use). The points and signals are hand operated from a lever frame or ground levers as appropriate. The “main line” continues to a junction station which includes up and down loops on the main, connected to the main fiddle yard, plus a second small fiddle yard for the branch line. Allowing for the fact that movements are occurring down at the terminus, there could be a branch line train arriving/departing/running round, or the pickup goods engaged in shunting (but not both) or trains departing on the main and the branch. I.e. two more locos in use.

 

In theory, then, up to 8 locos could be in use, although this is highly unlikely.

 

As well as the lever frames, there are control panels for the usual DC operations: it is possible to drive a train straight through the junction station on any route from the terminus panel. Typically, there are 3 operators at any one time:

Junction/branch;

Main terminus (plus subsidiary) passenger traffic plus mpd;

Goods yard plus harbour line;

A fourth operator if available usually takes over the harbour.

There are four DC controllers.

 

You could have one radio controller per loco, but since the lever frames are operated by the drivers, operation tends to be from relatively fixed positions with the receiver of the train driving it. A controller for each loco means that these would have to handed over, which leads to operators tripping over each other.

 

The solution to this with onboard battery power is a centralised box, which really need be nothing more a Raspberry Pi running JMRI, to which are bonded the locos and some controllers, which could be purpose built, proprietary or mobile phone based. The box would be used primarily to handle the binding of locos and controllers and the allocation of one to the other. Since DCC/JMRI already exist, it can be created easily and act as a conduit via WiFi for the command signals using DCC protocols, but it could be a simpler system which simply managed the allocation of locos to controllers, with the command signal being broadcast directly from controller to loco until the controller presses a button to release the allocation of assigned loco, at which point the box puts the loco back into the pool of unassigned locos. The box would also act as a private network for binding, as per running JMRI.

 

Such a simple system would be inifinitely expandable, and got those using their DCC system to control turnouts, etc, then there is no reason why the black box could not be connected to an external booster either directly or via WiFi.

 

What I am suggesting is a small base DCC system built around the RPi, making use of it’s facility for booting straight up into headless mode and JMRI, with a small board on each loco/accessory booster/accessory decoder, which manages battery level monitoring, voltage step up, and charging, and takes the transmitted command, blends it with the power, and outputs directly to a DCC decoder via a standard plug.

 

Alternatively, the command signal could be the same as currently sent via DT (motor voltage, based on regulator and inertia simulation settings) plus a few other triggers for functions (e.g. lights, whistle/horn, Westinghouse pump) which are processed in the on-board powerboard as it is running DCC++ for that single decoder.

 

This are not far removed from what Protocab is doing, but foes not rely on a proprietary protocol, and can be added piecemeal to an existing system running DCC, retaining existing decoders, etc.

 

I am aware that there are other solutions and some disadvantages with what I suggest. What I suggest is a simple way to combine DCC with on-board battery power. Please, no comments on the advantages of other ways of doing this, if of the supposed technological dead-end that is DCC. DCC is well established, has an agreed set of non-proprietary protocols, and will be around for a long time. Other wireless solutions, although sometimes simpler (direct control, etc) and although often more advanced (being based on technology which was too expensive/technical/bulky when DCC was first evolving), don’t have that key non-proprietary protocol.

[Robin2]

A while back I wrote a PC program that could control my Hornby Elite DCC device (because the controls on the Elite are awful). Because the PC program was a web application it could also appear on my smartphone. On either screen I could select a loco and control it, but I could not select a loco that was already selected. A user had to release a loco before another could select it - which seems logical to me.

 

Subsequently I evolved the program to work with Deltang wireless devices - reprogrammed using the Arduino system.

 

And more recently I have been using Arduino system and cheap nRF24L01+ 2.4GHz transceivers. The nRF24s can operate on any of about 50 different channels (frequencies) and can have over a billion different addresses - so it would be very unfortunate to discover another person able to control my train.

 

...R

[Regularity]

And more recently I have been using Arduino system and cheap nRF24L01+ 2.4GHz transceivers. The nRF24s can operate on any of about 50 different channels (frequencies) and can have over a billion different addresses - so it would be very unfortunate to discover another person able to control my train.

 

I would like to learn how to do that - I am fairly computer literate, and have been so since 1982 - but need to find a site or a book that can get me up to speed without getting bogged down in lingo too early, but also without dawdling at a phenomenally slow and patronising pace. I also understand basic electronics.

 

Any recommendations?

[Robin2]

Any recommendations?

 

Maybe have a look at this Simple nRF24L01+ Tutorial.

 

See this Thread for some modules I built using an Atmega Attiny 1634, an nRF24L01+ and a Pololu DRV8833 motor driver. I have also used a ROHM BD621xx motor driver which is smaller but has a max of 7v. The DRV8833 has a max of 10v so can work with a 2S LiPo which should be sufficient for a nominal 12v motor. I think there is a higher voltage version of the Rohm chip.

 

The Loco in that link has a low-voltage motor that works with a 1S LiPo.

 

...R

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Robin2

[Regularity]

Thanks for that.

 

In the first post of the referenced thread, you say

Because the nRF24s use SPI to communicate with the Arduino they must use Arduino pins 13, 12 and 11 (SCK, MISO and MOSI).

 

What do the abbreviations SPI, SCK, MISO and MOSI represent?

[Robin2]

What do the abbreviations SPI, SCK, MISO and MOSI represent?

Gimme a break. That is stuff for Google.

 

Or the Arduino Reference section.

 

...R

Edited October 5, 2018 by Robin2

[Regularity]

That was my point about lingo/jargon.(Edit: And being new to this, didn’t know that these were such basic terms, and so easily found.)

 

What Arduino reference section, where?

 

So, given that your thread failed to serve as a basic starting point for a beginner, perhaps you - as someone who must be an expert in this field, for I can see no other basis for such a condescending response - can provide a more suitable reference for an intelligent tyro who wishes to get to grips with the possibilities you promise?

Edited October 5, 2018 by Regularity

[Robin2]

I would like to learn how to do that - I am fairly computer literate,

My comments were based on the fact that you told me you are a competent user of computers rather than a raw novice. For programmers Google is more natural than food.

 

There is a huge amount of advice on the Arduino Forum including a Reference section in the Resources link at the top of Forum page. You can download and install the Arduino IDE (programming system) and study the many examples included in it without actually having any Arduino hardware. However I suggest that you get yourself an Uno board to start with.

 

If you have more questions about Arduino programming it seems more sensible to pursue them on the Arduino Forum where you will get the benefit of many more experts.

 

...R

Edited October 6, 2018 by Robin2

[Regularity]

Thanks: that’s useful.

 

Computer literate, yes, but not Arduino/PIC literate, and very little experience with I/O pins and similar. It’s the terminology which casuses most problems: took me a while to understand things like “sketch” (why not call it a program?) and “shield” (why not call it a circuit board?) Now, I do know that they are given those names to help make it clear that they are Arduino-specific, but to the newcomer, well, it’s like wondering what DC, DCC, BPRC etc are all about to someone new to model railways - and let’s get nowhere near 00 vs H0!

 

And yes, I use google a lot, too (I use code as part of my profession, not as my profession), but also have reference manuals and user guides to which I refer. Just wondered if there was a simple reference with an explanation of basic terms and abbreviations.

[Robin2]

 took me a while to understand things like “sketch” (why not call it a program?) and “shield” (why not call it a circuit board?)

With those two I agree with you.

 

 

Just wondered if there was a simple reference with an explanation of basic terms and abbreviations.

The problem is that everyone has a different set of things they need explanations for.

 

Spending a few hours reading through Threads on the Arduino Forum is IMHO a good way to become more familiar with the stuff. Don't limit yourself to reading what is obviously useful to you because then you may miss something that you did not know would be useful.

 

Arduinos are programmed using C/C++ and there are probably thousands of online tutorials. Just be aware that most C/C++ programming is intended for PCs with operating systems and tonnes of memory. I use the CPlusPlus website for reference.

 

I am not a C/C++ expert, I only use it for Arduino programming because I have no choice. I prefer Python or Ruby.

 

...R