Newbie Question - DCC/Computer Control

[toolongtoremember]

I have just read the whole of this thread, it was very interesting. 

 

I have used a DR5000 command station, DR5088RC block detection units and DR4018 point control units. Control software chosen is iTrain 5 Pro. I liked the price point for one, and the fact I don't have to rely on a USB dongle to make it work like Train Controller (Imagine turning up to an exhibition and setting up the layout to find the dongle has stopped working!).   

 

My points are powered by MP5 point motors, which are a little bit more powerful, and have two outputs; one for the frog, the other for detection of state. 

 

I used MP1 point motors on my n gauge layout. They worked just fine. 

 

I think the golden rule of block detection and RailCom which nobody has mentioned yet, is to keep wire lengths as short as possible. Especially between the DR5088RC and the track.

Otherwise you may get phantom signals appearing, which really screws things up. Try to keep all the detection local, then transmit that over the loconet or which ever system you use to the command station. I had this issue with Weston Parkway my N gauge layout, and as soon as I localized the block detection, all the issues I had went away. 

 

As for my choice of hardware, it was the simplest to wire up and implement of all the options I looked at, it just happens to have RailCom which is a great feature and I use regularly as my layouts are exhibition layouts and have to be taken down and set up. Way, way faster to set up with RailCom telling iTrain where my trains are, rather than me doing it on the laptop before I can run them.    

 

Below is my latest works:

 

 

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, toolongtoremember said:

I think the golden rule of block detection and RailCom which nobody has mentioned yet, is to keep wire lengths as short as possible. Especially between the DR5088RC and the track.

Otherwise you may get phantom signals appearing, which really screws things up. Try to keep all the detection local, then transmit that over the loconet or which ever system you use to the command station. I had this issue with Weston Parkway my N gauge layout, and as soon as I localized the block detection, all the issues I had went away. 

 

What is your definition of short?  If I have a feedback that it 12' long, then I'll probably need something like eight droppers (due to baseboard joins and expansion gaps).  I think all of these  droppers need to be connected together before they can be connected to the DR5088RC (ie there is only one wire from the track to each feedback on the DR5088RC), so I was assuming that means even if the DR5088RC is located close to the end of a 12' long feedback, it still means that I'd have some relatively long lengths of wire.

 

Did you originally have all of your DR5088RC modules mounted together near the command station?

[Dungrange]

6 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

much of this discussion, certainly the latter parts, is specific to the use of TrainController.

 

I guessed that.  To be honest, I'm not convinced I'd purchase TrainController, but @Wordsmith whose thread I seem to have hijacked might.

 

On 09/12/2020 at 18:41, WIMorrison said:

A friend recently approached me to help him automate his layout but with one major proviso - he wanted to be able to shunt and make up trains himself and run then from the goods yard to the storage yard.

 

This sounds a bit more like me.  I enjoy operation, so I want to be able to drive and shunt trains myself.  However, I would like a working signal system (where the signal can only be pulled off if the route is set and the section of track ahead is clear) and I'd also like a mimic diagram that shows which sections are occupied.  That therefore means installing block occupancy and although full automation doesn't appeal to me too much, partial automation, where software can run a train on the mainline while I shunt is of interest, hence my own questions.

 

21 hours ago, Andymsa said:

 As you can see from all the replies we all have our various methods and there is no one way to do things that’s the beauty of these programs there is more than one route to achieve the same objective.

 

I see that - I had hoped that there was maybe a standard / recommended view or best practice irrespective of the software chosen, but it doesn't look like that's the case - I guess I need to think a bit more about my objectives.  For now, it's probably best if I install too many insulated rail joiners rather than not enough.

[toolongtoremember]

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

 

What is your definition of short?  If I have a feedback that it 12' long, then I'll probably need something like eight droppers (due to baseboard joins and expansion gaps).  I think all of these  droppers need to be connected together before they can be connected to the DR5088RC (ie there is only one wire from the track to each feedback on the DR5088RC), so I was assuming that means even if the DR5088RC is located close to the end of a 12' long feedback, it still means that I'd have some relatively long lengths of wire.

 

Did you originally have all of your DR5088RC modules mounted together near the command station?

 I had installed DR5088RC units every 12ft, across baseboard joins using plug connectors. Wire length I have gone for now, no feedback has wire over 40cm long. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by toolongtoremember

[Andymsa]

21 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

I guessed that.  To be honest, I'm not convinced I'd purchase TrainController, but @Wordsmith whose thread I seem to have hijacked might.

 

 

This sounds a bit more like me.  I enjoy operation, so I want to be able to drive and shunt trains myself.  However, I would like a working signal system (where the signal can only be pulled off if the route is set and the section of track ahead is clear) and I'd also like a mimic diagram that shows which sections are occupied.  That therefore means installing block occupancy and although full automation doesn't appeal to me too much, partial automation, where software can run a train on the mainline while I shunt is of interest, hence my own questions.

 

 

I see that - I had hoped that there was maybe a standard / recommended view or best practice irrespective of the software chosen, but it doesn't look like that's the case - I guess I need to think a bit more about my objectives.  For now, it's probably best if I install too many insulated rail joiners rather than not enough.

unfortunately your right about the differing opinions we all have and you have not even touched on the i-train V Traincontroller debate. Both programs have plus and minus points, I use TC but I do have I train myself also but I won’t say anything about that as I’m not an experienced user of the finer detail of it and how it works in the real world. WImorrioson uses I train and is very experienced with it and has done in conjunction with another user a very good set of videos.  I will try to give a balanced view, both will do the same basic things that your after. Where the differences are is when you drill down into the more advanced features of these programs they have different approaches. For me an important feature is, with TC train images are shown in the block or text, I-train only shows text. Only you can really decide which program is best for you and I recommend downloading both to try out. I will point out that TC is now quite expensive compared to I-train and this may be a factor for you. And the let’s just say the developers have very different attitudes towards there users, those in the know get what I mean. If I was buying a program now I would most likely go I-train, and before it is asked I have I-train this is a very long term project I am working on to switch programs but these types of programs have very step learning curves and I just not got enough time to devote to two programs at the same time as well as redevelopment of my layout. Both programs have now got very good you tube videos which takes a lot of the mystery out of the black art of automation. There are so many other things that can be mentioned that it could get into which is best argument, I have done my best to be balanced in my view so the advice is download both and try them out before committing to one.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

 

 

 

 

I see that - I had hoped that there was maybe a standard / recommended view or best practice irrespective of the software chosen, but it doesn't look like that's the case - I guess I need to think a bit more about my objectives.  For now, it's probably best if I install too many insulated rail joiners rather than not enough.

A very sensible approach as you can always connect two (or more) insulated sections to one detector. Adding extra insulators after tracklaying is not easy.

I have actually gone completely overboard and insulated both rails of each section/ point/ crossing on my trackwork, even when it wasn't necessary.

I use RS-8 block detectors and the terminal strips on them allow 2 wire connections to all track, even though one feed is common.

 

As a recommended view/best practice of doing things, each of the software programs has the ability to arrive at a desired result via different paths.

[RobinofLoxley]

I would appear to be travelling along the same track as you, Dungrange. I have the same idea for some functions to be left to me to run manually while  a degree of automation is also possible. The layout principle sounds similar too, with a Terminus to Terminus design that also allows circuit running.

 

I have been taking advice about how to organise the building of the layout to avoid mistakes of preparation, so that I have to dig something up in the future owing to negligence while doing the basic layout  building. I have put a lot of insulated joiners in place for both Terminus lines and sidings, most of them will have three separately detectable sections and at least one uncoupling zone. I will be mainly steam and therefore stuff has to be turned (via loops).

 

I dont think having too many sets of droppers and so on is really an issue. I started track laying very slowly, as my first layout had very few droppers and building this way  required learning, but once I got going I was able to speed my processes up a lot due to repetition and skill building. Unless Im mistaken, occupancy feedbacks arent dedicated but simply signal the presence of something (hopefully lol) , so can be moved around if you wire appropriately, and new feedback modules introduced or removed depending on demand.

 

On the debate about iTrain or Traincontroller, I sided with iTrain after reading as much public domain stuff as I could find here and elsewhere, bearing in mind that a lot of stuff about these items (Andy) is not on public forums and discouraged from being so. I took that view that both were capable systems and in the event that something significant I required was not offered, all that I would need to do was wait, as updates would almost certainly resolve it. However, I concluded that to be the case for iTrain but not so sure for Traincontroller. Having seen in my working life some very eccentric decision making in owner-managed companies I was completely put off Traincontroller in fact. Otherwsie, for Itrain the presence of the tutorials was a big plus, and for Traincontroller the higher price a bit of a minus but not a killer (in the context of the overall cost of the layout build).

 

Also Andy I think it would be pretty difficult to compare two offerings at the depth needed unless you were already very familiar with the general principles involved in each. Having gone into one in depth I think it would be doubly hard to set working principles aside and not be influenced by them while trying to work out another set of control principles to the same depth. If that makes sense...

[melmerby]

46 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

 

On the debate about iTrain or Traincontroller, I sided with iTrain after reading as much public domain stuff as I could find here and elsewhere, bearing in mind that a lot of stuff about these items (Andy) is not on public forums and discouraged from being so. I took that view that both were capable systems and in the event that something significant I required was not offered, all that I would need to do was wait, as updates would almost certainly resolve it. However, I concluded that to be the case for iTrain but not so sure for Traincontroller. Having seen in my working life some very eccentric decision making in owner-managed companies I was completely put off Traincontroller in fact. Otherwsie, for Itrain the presence of the tutorials was a big plus, and for Traincontroller the higher price a bit of a minus but not a killer (in the context of the overall cost of the layout build).

 

 

I think most would probably agree that TrainController has the edge over iTrain regarding overall functionality in the respective top versions.

However that comes at quite a considerable extra cost and the margin has grown in the last few years, also some of those extra functions many users will possibly never use.

 

The eccentricities of Herr Freiwald's management of TrainController are fairly well known and It could influence which way you go, if price isn't a constraint.

Certainly if I was starting afresh I would likely not choose TrainController because of that (and the growing price differential).

 

I'm stuck with TrainController and not young enough to start afresh with something new!

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by melmerby

[Dungrange]

On 27/04/2021 at 20:49, melmerby said:

I have actually gone completely overboard and insulated both rails of each section/ point/ crossing on my trackwork, even when it wasn't necessary.

 

Is there any point in that?  That's what I originally thought about doing, but, as far as I can tell, all current sensing block occupancy detectors work by sensing the current in only one rail, so as long as I'm consistent and aim to detect current in my 'red' feeds then it means I don't need insulated joiners between the 'black' feeds.  However, if there is a good reason for including additional insulated joiners, then I'm happy to do so.

 

On 27/04/2021 at 20:30, Andymsa said:

 you have not even touched on the i-train V Train controller debate. 

 

I've seen these 'debates' - including some of the early posts in this thread.  To be honest, I was hoping to leave that decision to a later date, as most of my expenditure over the next couple of years is likely to be locomotive decoders, point motors and accessory decoders.  I don't anticipate running trains for quite some time, let alone have a fully automated layout.  For me, automation may never happen, but I don't want to lay all of the track and then have to rip it all up if I decide that I want to go that way.  Cost would be a significant consideration when choosing software but I appreciate that I should try both, be clear on what functionality I actually want and then buy whichever provides that functionality (and if they both do - buy the cheapest).   For that reason, I suspect that I'd be more likely to chose i-Train.

 

4 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I have the same idea for some functions to be left to me to run manually while a degree of automation is also possible. The layout principle sounds similar too, with a Terminus to Terminus design that also allows circuit running.

 

Perhaps, except that I won't have any passenger stations - just a fiddle yard and a scenic section.  I'm also modelling the post privatisation period.  Most of my passenger trains will therefore be multiple units and I envisage the train starting in the fiddle yard, running anticlockwise round the layout as the up service into the same fiddle yard loop and then running back in the clockwise direction to form the down service.  That therefore means that I don't need separate multiple units for the up and down directions and I only need one loop in the fiddle yard.  It's that sort of activity that I could see benefit in automating.  However, there wouldn't be a need for uncoupling and precision stopping.

 

The main activities on the scenic portion will be freight trains that serve either an oil terminal on the down side (inspired by Dalston in Cumbria) or a distribution warehouse on the up side (similar to Brunthill in Carlisle).  These are the trains that I want to run and shunt myself.  These would involve uncoupling, but that's not what I'd be looking to automate (or at least not at this time).

[Andymsa]

13 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

Is there any point in that?  That's what I originally thought about doing, but, as far as I can tell, all current sensing block occupancy detectors work by sensing the current in only one rail, so as long as I'm consistent and aim to detect current in my 'red' feeds then it means I don't need insulated joiners between the 'black' feeds.  However, if there is a good reason for including additional insulated joiners, then I'm happy to do so.

I always cut both rails where there are isolation joints, this is mainly for fault finding if I need to. Up to now I have not needed to do any fault finding. Also another reason if you introduce a new power district or even relocate the boundary of a power district where both rails need to be cut between districts.

[Nigelcliffe]

10 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

[ on automation software]  I've seen these 'debates' - including some of the early posts in this thread.  To be honest, I was hoping to leave that decision to a later date, as most of my expenditure over the next couple of years is likely to be locomotive decoders, point motors and accessory decoders.  I don't anticipate running trains for quite some time, let alone have a fully automated layout.  For me, automation may never happen, but I don't want to lay all of the track and then have to rip it all up if I decide that I want to go that way.  ......

 

 

If you think there is a chance you may want to use automation at some point in the future, I recommend you use something now to just prove the basics of blocks, stopping trains and other simple movements.  That might be one of the entry-price (or even evaluation versions) of commercial software, or one of the free packages.  Just to prove functionality of your track devices.    Otherwise there risks a "gotcha" some years down the line when you've omitted something which could be easily dealt with now. 

 

That's very different to deciding between the main commercial vendors.    ( I'd also say that the hardware to automate a layout is more expensive than the software  ).  

 

 

 

 

[WIMorrison]

The chorally to Nigel's statement, which does make sense, is that in a few years time the market will be different - new products will be around, existing products may have gone and some products will be significantly more capable than they are now.

 

However, the principles of feedbacks, blocks and turnouts will not change, although there is one potential new kid coming along that does away with these completely - but it has yet to be proven on capability (and price!).

 

What I am saying is that you shouldn't make a decision on product A, B or C now, however familiarity with the 4 main players might help you.

[melmerby]

On 27/04/2021 at 20:49, melmerby said:

I have actually gone completely overboard and insulated both rails of each section/ point/ crossing on my trackwork, even when it wasn't necessary.

I use RS-8 block detectors and the terminal strips on them allow 2 wire connections to all track, even though one feed is common.

 

10 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

Is there any point in that?  That's what I originally thought about doing, but, as far as I can tell, all current sensing block occupancy detectors work by sensing the current in only one rail, so as long as I'm consistent and aim to detect current in my 'red' feeds then it means I don't need insulated joiners between the 'black' feeds.  However, if there is a good reason for including additional insulated joiners, then I'm happy to do so.

 

 

As all lengths of track have seperate droppers for both rails it's just as easy to feed those droppers as a pair from the RS-8 occupancy detectors and as has later been pointed out if you split your layout for different boosters, the rails need to be isolated.