To DCC or not?

[WIMorrison]

5 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Hi Clive

The layout is not yet built, hence the question!

Cheers

 

Can I suggest that when you build it you wire it with an expectation of implementing full automation in the future, if not immediately? Wiring the droppers on one side back to a central point, or several (16 wires as group) and fitting insulated rail joiners now where there is potential for feedback sections will not cost much effort now and it will have no effect on the manual layout operation but it will make a massive difference should you decide to go for automation at a later date.

 

You should also implement 2 busses, one for the track and one for accessories with the track one protected from the accessories by a short circuit projection device such as a booster, EB-10, or PSX-AR? This will enable you to change point if (when) you over-run into a point set the wrong way removing the need for the hand-of-God to move the loco away from the point which has caused the short circuit. using a booster your large layout would also ensure that the track and accessories both have sufficient power to operate properly

 

[MikeHunter]

I was faced with this decision about 4 years ago, when I bought a DCC wired layout off eBay. The options were convert the layout to analogue or my stock to DCC. I had quite a large collection (though not 200 locos). Following advice on RM Web I took the plunge and went DCC, using the NCE Power Cab. Its so much more rewarding to operate than DC, that I've never looked back.

 

It isn't a cheap option, and I've had to sell some of my less convertible locos, but my advice would be bight the bullet and go for it!

 

You have to factor in the cost of a chip when buying a new loco. I've hardwired a couple of none - DCC ready Bachmann Jinties, and if I can manage it, it can't be that difficult!

[Junctionmad]

I would caution considering wiring a layout for dual DC and DCC , unless you have a very trivial track diagram , to some extent you get worst of both worlds as you have to install isolating sections , multiple dc controller feeds and section switching , not to mention running points and signals via DC with all the attendant wires and switches , None of which are necessary in DCC. If you wire for DCC and try and operate DC , you get none of the benefits of a properly isolated and switched DC layout. 

 

Far better to decide and take the plunge or not. 

 

I personally don’t like the use of DCC for signal and point control as it’s not a two way bus , ( which is why the NMRA have developed a separate layout bus spec ) . I prefer to switch my points and signals using a conventional mimic panel , but I use a layout bus ( cbus ) to remove all the dc wiring normally needed and to make feedback easy ( confirmed point movement , track occupancy etc ) 

 

you can approximate this with DCC accessory decoders , and use graphical control systems like JMRI or virtual  mimic panels in DCC controllers like the Z21or the ECoS system. Typing in DCC accessory codes to switch points and signals gets real old real fast and is a major pita 

 

dave 

Edited February 21, 2019 by Junctionmad

[Ravenser]

23 hours ago, Corbs said:

We are currently building a large and ambitious home layout, originally intending to run it on DC as all the stock is Analogue. The task of wiring it all up was not only daunting, it was scary.

Eventually we bought an NCE powercab each and some cheap decoders from eBay (£10 each) it’s like a night and day difference. I was wiring in the DCC bus yesterday and we were up and running multiple locos in no time, flicking back and forth between them with ease.

Wiring issues are now easier to trace, too, as there are fewer of them!

For me, DCC is the way forward for large locos, I will probably continue to convert small locos or locos that have limited pick-ups to Battery Power/Radio Control but that’s not for everyone.

You would not regret it!

This is the big advantage , and the potential benefits in time and functionality are huge. If you're going to go DCC , do it when you build a new layout...  (Yes nearly all of it can - in theory - be done with DC . But the quantity and complexity of wiring required to implement the equivalent in DC puts it out of the reach of 98% of the hobby. Unless you have a professional electrical background and plenty of time, it won't happen) 

 

But it comes at a cost - decoders for 200 locos will cost between £3000 and £4400 . Accessory decoders are currently about £6 per output - so another £400 for 60 points /15 signals

 

And if 50% of the locos require hard-wiring, then that is a very substantial commitment in wiring in itself . Some of them will prove pigs to do. Some of them won't work. You say you run 5 periods / 5 suites of stock. That's a big commitment : I struggle to get on top of three suites of stock , which are less than half the size, what with kits to build, installations to make, lights, weathering, detailing....

 

The reality is you'll focus on the DCC Ready items of 2 suites of stock , start tackling the locos that need hard-wiring in those two suites, hit the awkward ones  ... After a long haul , you'll start to conclude you're never even going to start converting the  fifth suite of stock... And anything unconverted can't run.

 

Are you going to accept that?

 

 

30 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

I would caution considering wiring a layout for dual DC and DCC , unless you have a very trivial track diagram , to some extent you get worst of both worlds as you have to install isolating sections , multiple dc controller feeds and section switching , not to mention running points and signals via DC with all the attendant wires and switches , None of which are necessary in DCC. If you wire for DCC and try and operate DC , you get none of the benefits of a properly isolated and switched DC layout. 

 

Far better to decide and take the plunge or not. 

 

I personally don’t like the use of DCC for signal and point control as it’s not a two way bus , ( which is why the NMRA have developed a separate layout bus spec ) . I prefer to switch my points and signals using a conventional mimic panel , but I use a layout bus ( cbus ) to remove all the dc wiring normally needed and to make feedback easy ( confirmed point movement , track occupancy etc ) 

 

you can approximate this with DCC accessory decoders , and use graphical control systems like JMRI or virtual  mimic panels in DCC controllers like the Z21or the ECoS system. Typing in DCC accessory codes to switch points and signals gets real old real fast and is a major pita 

 

dave 

 

 

Wiring for both DC and DCC is definitely the worst of all worlds - all the cost of DCC , all the work of DC , double work in some areas. Insisting on dual capability strikes me as the way die-hard DC adherents seek to negate the benefits of DCC - and then argue that it has none. (My old club seems to have gone that direction - driven by the "DCC? wouldn't touch it with a bargepole" members)

 

The size of layout / size of fleet you are talking about will require a full-fat system - the Powercab delivers only 1.1 - 1.5A , and stall motors on 60 points will take 0.6A to 0.8A  on their own. Sound locos can draw up to 1A per loco

 

You could make the whole thing a single electrical section - but its a bad idea - one short anywhere stops everything. I would suggest 2-3 sections for the layout, plus a separate section for the points/accessories. . If the total current draw is safely under 5A you could simply have one supply , split into 3 sub-sections via fast-acting circuit breakers. If the current draw is  over 5A , you'll need to go for several "power districts" , each controlled by a satellite command-station called a booster, with its own transformer

I 

[Alan Kettlewell]

Here's another approach.  You could build your layout for DCC, but keep one track or circuit isolated and wired for DC.  This way you could take a phased approach to converting your 200 locos to DCC, and importantly, spread the cost whilst continuing to enjoy seeing your analogue locos run around until they too get converted.  

 

It would be very simple later to convert the DC track to DCC, or you may decide to keep it as DC.  

 

Cheers ... Alan

 

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by Alan Kettlewell

[Simon G]

I note what JunctionMad and Ravenser have said about wiring with dual DC/DCC, but I choose not to entirely agree with them!  They are correct in that it is some extra work in the original wiring, but I reiterate that when done properly, it allows you to run either DC or DCC locos.  This has been a significant bonus at the MRC for members wanting to test and run DCC locos, when we dont otherwise have a DCC layout.

[WIMorrison]

Dare I suggest that if the OP isn’t confident about whether to wire for DC or DCC then trying to wire for both DC and DCC is a recipe for disaster. I also believe that it would be a retrograde step to contemplate such an over complicated nightmare.

[Silver Sidelines]

On 20/02/2019 at 17:25, melmerby said:

...

The major problem with non-DCC ready locos is, as has been mentioned, space as there quiote often isn't any or enough.

I haven't yet read to the end of this thread but space is a MAJOR issue if you need to add lead ballast to some of your models to get anything like half decent traction.  I do acknowledge that this is probably only a steam age issue and that for those of you modelling Modern Image it can just pass you by.

 

Ray

[Art Dent]

3 hours ago, Simon G said:

Paul,

 

one suggestion for you is to have a layout switchable between DC and DCC.  This is what I am building at present.  It does require a bit more thought, but will give me all the operational facility that I want, and it means that I don’t have to chip all my locos.  My MRC has already done this and it works well, as long as there is a certain discipline when switching between the two, especially in isolating or removing DC locos prior to switching to DCC.

 

Hi Paul,

 

To add my two pennyworth to the above suggestion, I wouldn't.

 

I had a simple DC double-track oval with two crossovers and two sidings with several isolating sections so that I could run locos into and out of the engine shed whilst a train was standing in the station or to run a second loco into the engine shed without affecting the first.  This was built in the 1990's for my son (now 30 years old).

 

When I restared my interest in model railways, just over three years ago now, I wanted to have this old layout switchable between DC and DCC so that I could use it with my 3 y.o. grandson wth my old DC locos or as a test track for my new DCC equipped locos.

 

The layout runs OK under DCC as all parts of the layout are powered all of the time, but when trying to run under DC there are problems - mainly because the permanent DCC track feeds cause unintentional DC shorts.

 

No doubt if I ripped out all of the present wiring and tried a 'blank sheet approach', I could make the old layout fully switchable and controllable for both DC or DCC operation, but frankly, it isn't worth the effort.

 

So, the split-chassis DC locos (some mainline and some Bachmann 'Super detailed / Blue Riband' models remain in their boxes and the few locos I have bought with my grandson in mind now have their own DCC chips.

 

Others my find that dual DC/DCC operation works for them, but unless this is something you were already considering, I'd just go DCC - you won't regret it.

 

Finally, I can recommend the NCE PowerCab system (around £140).  I had a Gaugemaster Prodigy Express (around the same price or slightly cheaper) but the NCE system is so easy to use and far more capable imho.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Art

Edited February 21, 2019 by Art Dent

[Corbs]

For us, about 90% of the fleet will require hard-wiring. Out of the 3 locos I’ve converted so far, only 1 was plug ‘n play (which was the second one I did), but the others were not hard to do. I understand that split chassis will be harder but most things can be overcome with care and research. Everything that can be remotored with cheap and readily available modern mechanisms will be, in any case (I have both mazak rot and careless kids to thank for the parts donors!).

[Philou]

Oh go on, go on, go on, go on - you know you want to!

 

I wouldn't consider doing DC and DCC - just too much hassle. If you really want to run some 'old' stock, have a separate circuit (or a shunting plank - why not?) for your DC stock. I bit the bullet and abandoned the thought of converting my really old stock (about 50-odd locos) and I've gradually replaced them over the last 5 years with their modern equivalents (about half so far have 'sound').

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[shiny]

As a recent returner to the hobby and being somewhat skeptical of DCC, I have to agree that DCC is the way to go. Compared to driving trains on DC - it is in a completely different league. And like some of the other posters - I've dabbled with computer control of DC before better solutions such as DCC became available - never again.

 

There is some very useful and informative advice here, but I feel that I should mention something that might be obvious to everyone else but has only been said once so far; Converting your 200 locos along with point motors and signals to DCC will not make the problem of not having a mimic/control panel go away. You still need a way of controlling your layout.

 

Apologies if I am repeating other advice, but I should also point out that digital control and DCC are not the same thing. There are two separate issues here: controlling the layout, and controlling the trains. The line does get blurry sometimes - especially where DC and cab control becomes involved - but there is (or perhaps should be) a definite separation of concerns.

 

DCC is great for driving trains, and does it well - but that is all it was ever intended for. It can control other stuff as well - which is nice. However DCC is over 20 years old and there are far more capable systems available to control the electrics of the layout that are light years ahead of what was practical even 10 years ago.

 

Regardless of whether your locos are DC, DCC, live steam, battery - or 200 wind-up Thomas the Tanks - you still need a method of controlling exactly how those trains get routed from point A to point B. For the intended size of your layout - a track diagram is a necessity.

To operate the points you could:

Draw a mimic diagram on the back of a fag packet and type the ID code of each individual accessory into a DCC throttle. Expect to get fed up very quickly indeed.

Purchase a top-of-the-range DCC controller offering some kind of mimic function. Would you have to purchase an entire ecosystem from the one manufacturer, and will it support other functions?

Design your mimic on a computer and control it using something like JMRI through an appropriate USB adapter. Purchasing a cheap big screen just for your mimic is definitely worth considering. Works equally well on DC or DCC. Very expandable and allows things like mobiles to be used as throttles. Can also interface with some DCC controllers.

Go old school and build a mimic (or several smaller ones) with the one-wire-one-accessory approach that used to be the only way of doing things until technology caught up. Forget cost - worry about complexity - and cable bundles as thick as your arm.

Build your own digital mimic board from the kits that are available. This is actually far easier and cheaper than people realise. If you can work a drill and a soldering iron - you can build a digital mimic board.

 

The word digital always seems to scare people away, but oddly enough - it is far easier than doing it the old fashioned way. Don't worry too much about jargon like protocols, multiplex, clock speed blah blah blah. As long as you stick with similar kit and your plusses and minuses are connected the right way round - there's not much else to it. You're not building a computer kernel or designing complex circuitry - all of the difficult stuff has already been taken care of and all you need to do is assemble and connect the kits to suit your requirements.

You can link all of your accessory controllers together using the one long bit of wire - exactly like plugging extension leads together. There's 3 or 4 wires coming out from under your baseboard controlling every single point motor, signal, isolated section and whizzy gadget on the layout - what's not to love about that? It doesn't particularly matter what is in those wires TBH, as long as they can be connected to something that will control it all.

 

Although I consider DCC to be the "business" for driving trains, I can't rate it as highly for things like controlling points or signals etc. Out-of-the-box, DCC doesn't provide feedback about things like point settings or signal aspects, nor is it suited for building mimic panels - so you still need a separate method of achieving this. Also there is the added temptation to run accessories from the track power bus. If a track fault or short circuit occurs (a loco running over a point frog for example) - everything connected to that track will stop working. Points could stop part way and you would have absolutely no idea until your train falls of the track.

 

Consider joining MERG and trying out some of their kits, they cover pretty much everything you could possibly need for an average model railway - and are surprisingly cheap. Don't be put off by the website - send emails and ask questions on the forums if something doesn't make sense.

To drive costs further down think about using servos as point motors, I saw somewhere on the forums that using a servo with a MERG board works out about half the price of an equivalent PECO point solenoid. i don't know how accurate that statement is - but I'm inclined to believe it is far better value. Even better that most units can communicate two ways, you can control stuff - and still get feedback using a single board. That alone is a good foundation for interlocking and route setting; you can supplement it with diode matrices to set a route with one button if you wish - or use a computer. Or do both.

 

If you do go DCC, consider retaining the isolated sections in the design - they can be used for occupancy detection and signalling, or plain old track protection. If you prefer not to make use of them right away it is far easier to simply wire them up semi-permanently anyway and undo than it is to retro-fit later on.

 

I was probably in the same position as you not so long ago, collecting locos and stock to run on my planned railway - but with no clear plan after that until I committed to a track design and took it from there. It was designed over a year ago and spent the next 12 months or so being refined and researched on how to get it to do what I wanted before even thinking about starting the build. The plans underwent several major changes because of what I learnt - but I don't consider any of that time as wasted. I am only as far as building baseboard 6 out of 10 at the moment - but know exactly how the rest of it should progress, exactly how many detectors, wires, servos and circuit boards. I have around 150 signalling blocks designed in and took my time reaching that stage - so if I dive in without planning and get it wrong - it is going to cost me a fortune.

 

Don't rush into anything, take time to discover and learn. Download and read the manuals before committing to any big purchases - read the forums to gauge other people's experiences and ask questions. It is a huge learning curve to take it all in - but you don't have to - just do it a bit at a time. Plan it all out - pick a direction but be prepared to change those plans when you discover a better way of doing something. Listen to advice - but take some of it with a pinch of salt. Many of the posters on the forums have considerable expertise and have gone ahead and done it before you and I - some simply add noise. You'll soon figure out whose ideas to shamelessly steal plagiarise regard as best practice in any given area. A few of the names that have posted on this thread represent a good cross-section of the talent on these forums and are worth following, learning more about how each has reached their own solutions is definitely a worthwhile exercise.

You have a solid start already - a firm track plan and signalling design. Maybe start by building yourself a little plank with a couple of points to try out a few different control methods discussed here, then see how feasible it is to duplicate it 60+ times on the main layout?

 

If you do install DCC in your loco fleet(s), avoid hard wiring the decoders and fit sockets wherever possible. It doesn't involve any more work than hard wiring does - but will save a lot of time, money and  frustration down the line.

 

Downsides to DCC? Not many.

Downsides to separate digital layout control? Not many.

 

Deus Ex Lurkius

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by shiny
spalling mystiques

[Junctionmad]

I’d double down on my view of dcc/dc layouts. Yes often the politics in clubs forces this type of ridiculous decision. ( I know as I just lead the team that created our new club test track in N, code 75 , code 100 and O and all of it was dual wired with dcc and dc duplicated controllers etc. 

 

However for a home layout it’s quite frankly madness.

 

to get all the benefits of DCC you need to integrate the points and signals into the system , this removes tremendous amounts of wiring and baseboard interconnects and their resultant complexity and potential failure modes ( note I am avoiding the issue of whether dcc should only be used for traction control and a layout bus used for accessory control ) 

 

retaining all this and adding section isolation , maintaining mutiple controllers etc , all madness. 

 

The fact is comverting 200 locos will most likely be a long multi annual task ( as will building the new layout in the first place ) so the likehood is the “ low hanging fruit” conversions will be done during the layout build phase 

 

then you can take your time and spread the budget over a couple of years which is what would happen naturally , it’s likely, unless they all have sentimental value !   That you’ll be buying and selling locos etc during that period anyway so you can tailor the purchases to DCC 

 

with DC you will repent at leisure about all the missed opportunities and advantages of dcc. 

 

dave 

Edited February 21, 2019 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

Note that on dcc with proper dropper wiring to track it’s an easy upgrade to isolate those track sections subsequently to add  occupancy detection etc 

 

this is is not the same as DC isolation sections because in this case these sections have to brought back to a switch 

 

HOWEVER , unless this type of “ elektrikery “ floats your boat , do not add “ features “ that you’ll never actually use , all it does is add time and cost that gets wasted 

[Simon G]

22 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

I’d double down on my view of dcc/dc layouts. Yes often the politics in clubs forces this type of ridiculous decision. ( I know as I just lead the team that created our new club test track in N, code 75 , code 100 and O and all of it was dual wired with dcc and dc duplicated controllers etc. 

 

However for a home layout it’s quite frankly madness.

 

 

The "ridiculous decision" of the club DC/DCC was in fact an entirely sensible decision, based on lack of both space and finances to create a new DCC layout.

 

As to my "madness", many of my family and friends would agree with you!  It is, however, what I have chosen to do, and have merely offered the suggestion to the OP as a potential solution.  It has some advantages and some disadvantages and for me the former outweigh the latter.  If my own finances permit, I may ultimately decide to chip my 40 odd DC locos and go fully DCC.

[Penrhos1920]

4 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

I personally don’t like the use of DCC for signal and point control as it’s not a two way bus , ( which is why the NMRA have developed a separate layout bus spec ) . I prefer to switch my points and signals using a conventional mimic panel , but I use a layout bus ( cbus ) to remove all the dc wiring normally needed and to make feedback easy ( confirmed point movement , track occupancy etc ) 

 

 

dave 

 

I use merg cbus as an accessory bus but I can't get it to do feedback without lots of extra modules and other bits.  Ok I left merg a couple of years ago and I know they had a new system, called atbus I think, that would do feedback.  Have they integrated the two?

[WIMorrison]

1 minute ago, Penrhos1920 said:

 

I use merg cbus as an accessory bus but I can't get it to do feedback without lots of extra modules and other bits.  Ok I left merg a couple of years ago and I know they had a new system, called atbus I think, that would do feedback.  Have they integrated the two?

 

Every time I have looked at MERG stuff I have been glad that I stuck with conventional DCC, they seem to want to make it complicated and enjoy showing how impressively complicated you can make it with their 'demo' boards.

[WIMorrison]

I’m sure your comment made sense to you when you wrote it - great pity that the sense has been lost when it was posted.

[Izzy]

To get back to the OP’s original question I would look at it this way. 

 

Putting decoders into 200 locos will cost at the very least around £2,000 as a very conservative ballpark figure. Probably more, and of course all depending on the suitability of conversion of any of them. Could easily be 2-3 times as much. So very hard thinking required re ‘do I need/want all these’.

 

And all this will do is remove the need for isolating sections, nothing else. Do I think it’s a great advantage? Yes, without doubt one of the main benefits of DCC control of locos, and of course control will be better.

 

But... some means of operating the points and signals will still be needed. Either as it is carried out now, whatever that is, manual/electrical via mimic panel, or via DCC - with all the cost implications of that.

 

Easier in the long run to go DCC overall, probably. Less costly? Highly doubtful. Quite possibly quite considerably more, depending on what is chosen. 

 

Izzy

 

 

 

 

[Corbs]

To achieve anything, one must invest a mixture of time and money. How much the mixture is weighted either way varies. Generally things that take less time cost more money.

[Neil]

It seems that the weight of opinion here is for dcc and as we're in the dcc section of the forum that's perhaps only to be expected. However this opinion might not fully represent the hobby at large, those happy with dc may well have caught the title, shrugged their shoulders at another dcc dilemma and moved on without comment.

 

My local modelling mates all use dcc and so I bought a couple of locos, chipped them and went along to play trains. I had planned on my new garage layout being built to the same standards using the same dcc system to ensure maximum compatibility. Having the chance to try out dcc at friends was a bit of a blessing because after the initial enthusiasm/novelty wore off I started to notice some aspects which I wasn't happy with. The first was that some of my locos (by now I had chipped a few more) ran worse on dcc. There's a slight sense of disconnect too as though the directness of the control has been softened, like driving a car with play in the accelerator and spongy brakes. Fault finding is harder with dcc, there's all the stuff that can go wrong with dc overlaid with all the dcc stuff that has its own particular sensitivities. I used to be a telecoms electrician so fault finding isn't a problem but it does take longer with dcc as there are more possible sources of trouble. It's a fallacy that dcc requires less wiring than dc, apart from loco stabling sidings. In fact on a large layout this is probably balanced out by the need to run bus wires and connect to the track at regular intervals.

 

You'll probably guess that plans for my garage layout have changed and it's now going to be dc controlled. This is my choice and I recognise that others will have other views on the subject but I thought it worth while pointing out the factors which have influenced my decision to stick with dc.

[Oldddudders]

16 minutes ago, Izzy said:

But... some means of operating the points and signals will still be needed. Either as it is carried out now, whatever that is, manual/electrical via mimic panel, or via DCC - with all the cost implications of that.

Implementing DCC for train control does not demand DCC control of points or signals. I have a fair-sized walkaround layout and such functions are very simply controlled from local switches on the layour facia. The faff of dialling up a point number to throw it quickly palled, so I have only a handful of those, and all can be worked by the simple local switch. MERG and others no doubt make mimic diagrams etc possible, but it isn’t an integral part of opting for DCC. DCC can be virtually whatever you want - but few people who have enjoyed a successful implementation will want to revert to DC. 

[RedgateModels]

As I've said before, if you want best of both worlds with DCC point control try the Traintronics TT300 slow acting motors. They have DCC built in but can also be operated by an external push to make switch. I use them on Fourgig East, it's great to be able to set a route using the handset and a macro to fire off two or three points and signals etc but for a quick change if you are next to the button you can just press it and go

 

They are not cheap though ....

[melmerby]

14 minutes ago, Neil said:

 Having the chance to try out dcc at friends was a bit of a blessing because after the initial enthusiasm/novelty wore off I started to notice some aspects which I wasn't happy with. The first was that some of my locos (by now I had chipped a few more) ran worse on dcc. There's a slight sense of disconnect too as though the directness of the control has been softened, like driving a car with play in the accelerator and spongy brakes.

Slow response to accelerator, spongy brakes?

Sounds more like the real thing to me.

 

BTW that actually seems more like problems with the kit than DCC itself, especially as you said they ran worse.

I can have instant start stop or gradual acceleration/deceleration depending on how things are set up.

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by melmerby

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, RedgateModels said:

As I've said before, if you want best of both worlds with DCC point control try the Traintronics TT300 slow acting motors. They have DCC built in but can also be operated by an external push to make switch. I use them on Fourgig East, it's great to be able to set a route using the handset and a macro to fire off two or three points and signals etc but for a quick change if you are next to the button you can just press it and go

 

They are not cheap though ....

And the two I bought both gave up after 2 years, the clutch mechanism which allows them to slip at the end whilst putting enough pressure on the microswitches ended up slipping too much.

Result is they never switch off and dont stop "motoring" at the end of travel.

The board from one of them, complete with it's motor now controls my traverser.