Train Identification

[Junctionmad]

Quote

But Railcom still uses the same physical feed wires according to your last statement (my bold), I want to physically separate the two systems as well as separate them in software / data.

Railcom , uses the track and the DCC traction wiring to get the data back to the Railcom decoder ( from the on board loco encoder )  , from the decoder onwards , its entirely separate  from the DCC system . whats the advantage in having a separate feed from the track upto the point of decoding . I see no specific engineering advantage 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Junctionmad

[Nigelcliffe]

As St.Simon says he's using Digitrax hardware, RailCom gets a bit more complicated.  It is possible to get a short cutout into a Digitrax track signal (enough for identifying a single loco/decoder within a detection area), but not the long cut-out.    The long cut-out can do a bit more, but probably not needed for just train ID.   To generate the cutout requires third party hardware either before or after the Digitrax track booster(s).  

 

I have a Digitrax command station, and have the hardware for cutout and decoder identification all working. 

 

Nigel

[Junctionmad]

The only issue with channel 1 only is two loco per section can’t be identified 

[St. Simon]

On 13/02/2020 at 13:23, Junctionmad said:

Railcom , uses the track and the DCC traction wiring to get the data back to the Railcom decoder ( from the on board loco encoder )  , from the decoder onwards , its entirely separate  from the DCC system . whats the advantage in having a separate feed from the track upto the point of decoding . I see no specific engineering advantage 

Hi,

 

The reason I want to keep them separate to ensure that any fault on either system won’t bring down the other system (the most likely is a fault on the signalling preventing me from controlling the trains). I know that this might not happen, but I help with a layout that does it’s signalling and DCC on the same wiring, and there seems to interference between the two, so I don’t want to run the risk!

 

Simon

[Junctionmad]

There is a valid point where dcc is used to control things like points and signals. I don’t like or use dcc ever for that 
 

but block detection and train identification generally requires the traction control to be operational to be much use  

 

so Railcom ( for example ) doesn’t mean the signalling or point control has to be done with dcc at all 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Junctionmad