Newbie Question - DCC/Computer Control

[melmerby]

I wouldn't consider JMRI unless you are prepared to invest a lot of time & effort to get it to do what you want.

Everythings there but not in such a nice friendly way like the two commercial programmes (TrainController & iTrain)

RocRail IMHO is better looking but lacking in overall operability.

I feel that overall TrainController has some extra functionality over iTrain but that comes at a cost and I wonder how many would actually use it.

I started some years ago with TC 7 which defintely was the bees knees and I have upgraded so I am more or less wedded to it.

Starting from new now would be a more difficult choice.

 

[grriff]

I don't find JRMI too difficult but it can be frustrating. I bought a SprogII on ebay (£30) and linked it to JRMI on a spare lap top to use on a small layout. I think it's given me a system far better than those costing several hundred pounds.

[WIMorrison]

Just now, grriff said:

I don't find JRMI too difficult but it can be frustrating. I bought a SprogII on ebay (£30) and linked it to JRMI on a spare lap top to use on a small layout. I think it's given me a system far better than those costing several hundred pounds.

 

It will certainly have given you a different system, but better or even far better is not a term that I would have used.

[grriff]

I'm comparing it with my neighbour's NCE system which cost several £100. With JMRI it's far easier to see and modify all the CV values, easier to select and change locos and I can use a smartphone to control - all for £30 (plus spare laptop and 5v power supply).

Edited November 3, 2019 by grriff
insert quote

[WIMorrison]

2 minutes ago, grriff said:

I'm comparing it with my neighbour's NCE system which cost several £100. With JMRI it's far easier to see and modify all the CV values, easier to select and change locos and I can use a smartphone to control - all for £30 (plus spare laptop and 5v power supply).

 

It sounds like you are replicating the standard physical handset based DCC control with a glass throttle based control which isn't really Computer Control which is synonymous with automation meaning that the control of the layout is undertaken by the computer without human intervention. The definition I use is;

 

The ability to safely and synchronously operate trains, signalling and accessories automatically thus providing the perception of multiple operators managing the layout.

 

This doesn't appear to be what you are doing and wouldn't constitute computer control.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, grriff said:

I don't find JRMI too difficult but it can be frustrating. I bought a SprogII on ebay (£30) and linked it to JRMI on a spare lap top to use on a small layout. I think it's given me a system far better than those costing several hundred pounds.

 

51 minutes ago, grriff said:

I'm comparing it with my neighbour's NCE system which cost several £100. With JMRI it's far easier to see and modify all the CV values, easier to select and change locos and I can use a smartphone to control - all for £30 (plus spare laptop and 5v power supply).

You are not automating the layout at all

For that you need much more than duplicating the functions of a DCC handset.

 

IMHO the best part of JMRI is Decoderpro which is a great way to manage your loco settings but is not computer control of the layout.

 

[grriff]

41 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

 

It sounds like you are replicating the standard physical handset based DCC control with a glass throttle based control which isn't really Computer Control which is synonymous with automation meaning that the control of the layout is undertaken by the computer without human intervention. The definition I use is;

 

The ability to safely and synchronously operate trains, signalling and accessories automatically thus providing the perception of multiple operators managing the layout.

 

This doesn't appear to be what you are doing and wouldn't constitute computer control.

Agreed, but it's a good starting point to slowly (and cheaply) move towards computer control. My intention is to use MERG modules to gradually automate.

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, grriff said:

Agreed, but it's a good starting point to slowly (and cheaply) move towards computer control. My intention is to use MERG modules to gradually automate.

We usually get that sort of response everytime someone asks about DCC.

Not everyone wants to build their own DCC equipment, some want to be able to buy their kit and use it straight away.

 

[Nigelcliffe]

5 hours ago, grriff said:

Agreed, but it's a good starting point to slowly (and cheaply) move towards computer control. My intention is to use MERG modules to gradually automate.

 

OK, but I strongly recommend you think about your desired level of automation. 

 

If your eventual aim is that the automation means a computer will be driving some trains, correctly following signals, track occupied, etc..  Then that requires some good software.  Commercially, the two main contenders are TrainController and iTrain.    If you want JMRI to do this, you'll get into the "hairy scripting and code" bits pretty quickly.  Fine if that's your interest, but it's nothing like either of the commercial offerings.  MERG's hardware works fine with JMRI. 

 

Both TrainController and iTrain have no support for MERG CBUS hardware (MERG's bi-directional system and MERG's DCC system).  So the MERG hardware is no use if wanting either of those software packages.    MERG accessory decoders will be ok, because they are just accessory decoders.   

 

If your aim is only computer signalling, and computer reporting of track occupancy, then JMRI is excellent at that, the support is good.   But that's a step away from automated running.

 

So, with the above information, think about your end aims.

 

 

- Nigel  (have done a fair bit of JMRI contributions over the years, though I'm not a primary code writer ).

[grriff]

Nigel

Thanks for your advice. My main aim (at age 71) is to keep my brain cells in operation by using electronics to control a model railway, starting simply at first with 'manual control' through a computer and developing this until full automation, or my brain cells fuse (probably the latter). I have some knowledge of electronics and coding (BBC micro:bit and Acorn Atom!). Hence I am quite happy to use MERG kits and JRMI. My general impression of trying to understand electronics for model railways is that it isn't easy. Most websites assume you know much about the subject before starting. However, the MERG book, 'Electronics for Model Railways' by Davy Dick https://www.merg.org.uk/ebook.php is very good.

[melmerby]

BTW you can run JMRI on a Raspberry Pi if you really want minimal.

[Wordsmith]

Hi all – a bit of thread resurrection going on. A change in job role, Covid 19 and a few other problems got in the way.

 

So, to reiterate, my intent was to do a bit of railway modelling when I retire in about 2 ½ years, the aim being to build a steam age, computer-controlled N scale DCC layout. Before then I have a 4 ft x 2 ft baseboard with the intent to just lay some track and learn the technical side of it. I have a couple of locos plus carriages, wagons, track, points, etc to play with. The full-scale layout comes when I retire…

 

So, I need to buy a control station and other electronics to wire up a test layout. After re-reading this thread, watching up a few videos and doing some other research on the internet I came up with the following – everything coming from Digikeijs (https://www.digikeijs.com/en/) as they seem to do almost everything I need and get good reviews.

So, to start, I would need to buy:

• DR5000 - DCC multi-bus command station as the nerve centre
• DR4018 switch decoder to control points
• DR5088RC feedback module for track occupancy – which is Railcom capable

That lets me control locos and points, plus get feedback on what track sections are occupied. Enough to work out the basics of electrical wiring and so on. Cabling uses LocoNet.

 

I will also need RailCom to tell me what’s where – track occupancy just tells me that section is occupied. I have (for example) a Dapol Schools class to play with, but as yet, I’m not sure whether the decoder is RailCom capable.

 

Software wise, I’m planning to JMRI a try. I know some commercial software does more, but this is a retirement hobby and a good excuse to learn the Python scripting language. JMRI will probably stretch my mind a bit more than commercial software – hence me wanting to play with it. If I can’t get JMRI to do what I want it to, I can always give the commercial software a go.

As a first move, I plan to build a basic layout on my 4 ft x 2 ft baseboard, probably starting with do more than a circle of track with a passing loop and siding to work out the basics. Then I’ll remove that and add a more complex track arrangement and so on. At the same time, I’ll build a few dioramas to get my hand back in on the scenery side.

 

So, does this make sense? Thoughts and feedback welcome.

 

Then I dent my credit card...

 

Cheers,

 

Wordsmith

[melmerby]

3 hours ago, Wordsmith said:

I will also need RailCom to tell me what’s where – track occupancy just tells me that section is occupied. I have (for example) a Dapol Schools class to play with, but as yet, I’m not sure whether the decoder is RailCom capable.

 

Wordsmith

I'll answer just that for now

Both iTrain and TrainController know where locos are, they track them and memorise the location once you have told them the starting position.

 

What Railcom allows you to do is just place a new loco, wagon, coach etc. on the track and Railcom will transmit it's identity to the software (as long as they have a Railcom sender, either in the decoder or as an add-on)

Most of the best European decoders (Lenz, Zimo etc) have Railcom as standard, many others don't, however you used to be able buy separate add on Railcom senders to fit to any vehicle with a decoder.

LRC 100.pdf

 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by melmerby

[BromsMods]

8 hours ago, melmerby said:

Most of the best European decoders (Lenz, Zimo etc) have Railcom as standard,

.......as do most of the TCS range of decoders......

[WIMorrison]

9 hours ago, melmerby said:

I'll answer just that for now

Both iTrain and TrainController know where locos are, they track them and memorise the location once you have told them the starting position.

 

What Railcom allows you to do is just place a new loco, wagon, coach etc. on the track and Railcom will transmit it's identity to the software (as long as they have a Railcom sender, either in the decoder or as an add-on)

Most of the best European decoders (Lenz, Zimo etc) have Railcom as standard, many others don't, however you used to be able buy separate add on Railcom senders to fit to any vehicle with a decoder....

 

 

 

Another advantage of Railcom is that if you 'play' with the trains without the computer control system active - e.g. using a hand throttle then the software will be able to automatically fix the position of train when you switch the software back on. Without Railcom you will need to ensure that the position and direction of the trains on the layout and the software match each time you switch the software on if you have moved  anything.

[melmerby]

2 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

 

Another advantage of Railcom is that if you 'play' with the trains without the computer control system active - e.g. using a hand throttle then the software will be able to automatically fix the position of train when you switch the software back on. Without Railcom you will need to ensure that the position and direction of the trains on the layout and the software match each time you switch the software on if you have moved  anything.

If I 'play' with the trains as you put it, I leave the software running so there is no problem (especially as the computer is always on whilst I'm in the railway room, usually streaming/playing music), therefore the trains carry on being tracked. (Only works with certain DCC systems though)

[RFS]

1 hour ago, WIMorrison said:

 

Another advantage of Railcom is that if you 'play' with the trains without the computer control system active - e.g. using a hand throttle then the software will be able to automatically fix the position of train when you switch the software back on. Without Railcom you will need to ensure that the position and direction of the trains on the layout and the software match each time you switch the software on if you have moved  anything.

 

What about turnouts? If you've changed these with the software not running it won't know their correct positions when you restart it. Besides, without the software running the only way to change turnouts is from the throttle which is a tedious business. So I will always have the software running so that I can change turnouts easily with mouse clicks. 

[Andymsa]

1 hour ago, RFS said:

 

What about turnouts? If you've changed these with the software not running it won't know their correct positions when you restart it. Besides, without the software running the only way to change turnouts is from the throttle which is a tedious business. So I will always have the software running so that I can change turnouts easily with mouse clicks. 

I am like you I generally run the software all the time, but I’m going to introduce a startup process to throw all points if any have been changed when software not running

[WIMorrison]

Andy

 

iTrain will do this automatically on startup for you and it has another option to always set route therefore I never need to worry about turnout positions - and I can honestly say that I have never had a turnout or train in the wrong position irrespective of what I have done in offline mode.

 

I can also play with the layout plan offline and iTrain will correctly position all trains when I connect it because of Railcom. Turnouts don’t present an issue for the reasons I mention above.

[Andymsa]

13 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

Andy

 

iTrain will do this automatically on startup for you and it has another option to always set route therefore I never need to worry about turnout positions - and I can honestly say that I have never had a turnout or train in the wrong position irrespective of what I have done in offline mode.

 

I can also play with the layout plan offline and iTrain will correctly position all trains when I connect it because of Railcom. Turnouts don’t present an issue for the reasons I mention above.

that’s interesting about turnouts I had not found that. But I’m not doing much with software at the moment as I am about to embark on a big update on the layout. It will give me two extra stations and more storage sidings.

[Nigelcliffe]

3 hours ago, RFS said:

 

What about turnouts? If you've changed these with the software not running it won't know their correct positions when you restart it. Besides, without the software running the only way to change turnouts is from the throttle which is a tedious business. So I will always have the software running so that I can change turnouts easily with mouse clicks. 

 

That's another huge "it depends".   

 

If, for example, one was using LocoNet based turnout devices, then they are automatically queried at command station powerup.   So, the computer not knowing the state if it was turned off isn't an issue - it can be queried at any time.  

 

On many systems, the throttle turnout commands would be monitored by the software, so as long as the software is running, it can see changes.   Plenty of systems allow for local physical panels which then send turnout instructions into the command station, or computer - changing turnouts without a computer does not require tedious throttle actions.   

 

At the other extreme where the software has "no chance":  if using turnout accessory decoders with local button input (quite a few on sale which do that), then, unless additional feedback devices for turnout position are fitted, the system will not be aware of a user changing them, even with computer running.  

 

 

[Wordsmith]

Thanks for all the comments. Opinions appear divided, so I guess an ounce of practise is worth a ton of theory. I'll buy the Digikeijs stuff and see how I get on.

 

A couple more questions if I may?

 

1. Some steam locos come DDC ready, but not fitted. How difficult is it to fit the decoders to such loco's? N gauge ones are fairly small.

 

2. Are these addon kits - such as this from Langley models - practical propositions in N gauge? I can envisage needing to work under a magnifying lamp, but it would extend the range of locos outside of the 'ready to run' range.

 

https://www.langleymodels.co.uk/awd1/index.php?route=product/product&path=208_219&product_id=5072

 

Cheers,

 

Wordsmith

 

 

[melmerby]

I would think the "practical proposition" rather depends on your skill level & finger dexterity.

Even with 00 some decoder fits are fiddly and others are a doddle.

If the decoder is a reasonably easy fit with the original chassis it shouldn't be too difficult when a replacement body is being used.

 

With N you are also limited to the choice of decoders due to the size.

00 locos often use N size decoders where space is limited, with N you could be struggling for space on some of the small locos.

Mind you there are even smaller gauges where decoders have been fitted.

 

[Nigelcliffe]

2 hours ago, Wordsmith said:

Thanks for all the comments. Opinions appear divided, so I guess an ounce of practise is worth a ton of theory. I'll buy the Digikeijs stuff and see how I get on.

 

A couple more questions if I may?

 

1. Some steam locos come DDC ready, but not fitted. How difficult is it to fit the decoders to such loco's? N gauge ones are fairly small.

 

2. Are these addon kits - such as this from Langley models - practical propositions in N gauge? I can envisage needing to work under a magnifying lamp, but it would extend the range of locos outside of the 'ready to run' range.

 

https://www.langleymodels.co.uk/awd1/index.php?route=product/product&path=208_219&product_id=5072

 

 

Qu1  - in most cases of modern designs of locos, fitting decoders is simple, just a matter of plugging them in.  Even in smaller steam locos in N.   

In a few cases (eg. Farish diesel shunters 03, 03, 08) its a "hard wiring" job, which depends how much faffing you're willing to do, though in most of those cases there are documented examples on the internet.  

One small ready-to-run maker, Union Mills, is more awkward to convert than Dapol/Farish/etc..   But people do manage to convert them. 

 

Qu2 - in my view they're between "not very good" and "worse".   The specific example you have is typical:  a 40 year old casting of middling-to-poor quality to fit a chassis which ceased production ~20 years ago. The body castings may or may not fit:  its a bit random on "casting shrinkage" (or "lack of quality control").  When you've tracked down a chassis, its moderately awkward to convert to DCC (possible, but not dead simple).   
The market for development of new examples of such models has dried up - they are no where near the quality of ready-to-run stuff now made, and the way ready-to-run is now manufactured (finite batches produced in China, rather than a constant stream of same items from a UK factory) there isn't a supply of available chassis units as spares to fit under bodies.   
There are few makers offering 3D printed bodies which are a bit better, but suffer from the same lack of chassis availability, and also are low in weight (so low adhesion).    
If wanting to build your own locos in approximately N scale, then go to 2mm Finescale, and the 2mm Scale Association where there are a moderate number of absolutely stunning kits available, but require significant effort and learning of skills to build - there's 34 episode video series on how to build chassis for a Jubilee loco on the 2mm Website (a weekend of full-on binge watching to get through the videos !) 

 

One of the limitations of N is available locomotives - compared to OO the available ranges is low, because the market for N is a small fraction of those buying stuff in OO.  Diesel coverage in N is pretty good.   There is some acceptable quality steam, but you'll have to live with what's available. 

 

 

- Nigel

[RobinofLoxley]

1 hour ago, Nigelcliffe said:

 

Qu1  - in most cases of modern designs of locos, fitting decoders is simple, just a matter of plugging them in.  Even in smaller steam locos in N.   

In a few cases (eg. Farish diesel shunters 03, 03, 08) its a "hard wiring" job, which depends how much faffing you're willing to do, though in most of those cases there are documented examples on the internet.  

One small ready-to-run maker, Union Mills, is more awkward to convert than Dapol/Farish/etc..   But people do manage to convert them. 

 

Qu2 - in my view they're between "not very good" and "worse".   The specific example you have is typical:  a 40 year old casting of middling-to-poor quality to fit a chassis which ceased production ~20 years ago. The body castings may or may not fit:  its a bit random on "casting shrinkage" (or "lack of quality control").  When you've tracked down a chassis, its moderately awkward to convert to DCC (possible, but not dead simple).   
The market for development of new examples of such models has dried up - they are no where near the quality of ready-to-run stuff now made, and the way ready-to-run is now manufactured (finite batches produced in China, rather than a constant stream of same items from a UK factory) there isn't a supply of available chassis units as spares to fit under bodies.   
There are few makers offering 3D printed bodies which are a bit better, but suffer from the same lack of chassis availability, and also are low in weight (so low adhesion).    
If wanting to build your own locos in approximately N scale, then go to 2mm Finescale, and the 2mm Scale Association where there are a moderate number of absolutely stunning kits available, but require significant effort and learning of skills to build - there's 34 episode video series on how to build chassis for a Jubilee loco on the 2mm Website (a weekend of full-on binge watching to get through the videos !) 

 

One of the limitations of N is available locomotives - compared to OO the available ranges is low, because the market for N is a small fraction of those buying stuff in OO.  Diesel coverage in N is pretty good.   There is some acceptable quality steam, but you'll have to live with what's available. 

 

 

- Nigel

A bit more off topic, but this was exactly where my research took me five years ago when I had to decided whether to build in my loft with the OO stuff I had, or throw it away and build from scratch in N. My loft and its space would have been more suited to N but it was the restriction on running stock in steam that decided it. I had the idea to build a layout based on where I lived  as a boy in London near the GNR, but I found that there weren't the A4's etc available as there are in OO; not that i built the idea, as  based on OO as it needed more space than I had.