Using a 'programming track'.

[Mallard60022]

At risk of starting another interesting 'discussion' I need to ask the following. If I've missed a previous question on this I am sorry.

Is it a wise idea to use a programming track to set up loco's or is it OK to 'do it on the main' (as mentioned in Powercab's blurb)?

To clarify; the loco's I am going to be getting are:

out of the box, new DCC Sound loco's (this sounds easy enough to deal with on Powercab and would seem as if 'doing it on the main' would be OK as long as no other loco's on the tracks);

pre run DCC sound loco's from other layouts (can't quite work out what to do here but can find out some more next Friday - can't wait that long );

loco's that will be DCC/ DCCsound fitted by a professional fitter at my specification.

I have no intention of trying to fit chips myself at this stage.

Many thanks

P @ 36E

[muns]

I prefer a programming track but do ocoasionally "program on main" to make some minor adjustment. If you want to change a loco address then this should be performed on the programming track,

 

Programming on the main is normally targeted to wards a specific loco id and thus should not affect other locos on the main at the same time unless they have the same address that is.

[michaelp]

Yep, service track for me as well, mine is on a refuelling road so any CVs get changed when the loco is 'taking on fuel'

[Crosland]

At risk of starting another interesting 'discussion' I need to ask the following. If I've missed a previous question on this I am sorry.

Is it a wise idea to use a programming track to set up loco's or is it OK to 'do it on the main' (as mentioned in Powercab's blurb)?

Either is OK, with two caveats:

 

Some systems/decoders will not allow the address to be changed on the main.

 

Decoders cannot generally be read on the main, you can only write to them.

 

Andrew Crosland

[dasatcopthorne]

If you use the programing track, the Powercab will read the chip's CVs and tell you what they are set at(make a note)before you alter them. If the alteration is not good, you can return to the previous settings.

 

Dave

[amdaley]

I would always put a new loco on the program track first no matter where it came from or how new it was.Things can often happen during transport.Make sure everything is ok. After that you can program it where ever you like but as others have said the only way to read back is on a program track.

[Mallard60022]

Yep, service track for me as well, mine is on a refuelling road so any CVs get changed when the loco is 'taking on fuel'

 

 

Yup. Thanks very much chaps.

michaelp, that fuelling line sounds like a great idea. There is scope for either converting something or adding something like this on the layout. However I'd be paranoid about forgetting to isolate the track.

I think I understand the requirements of the set up for this Prog Tk and there is a gismo that NCE do specifically to wire up a Prog Tk. Not sure about that though as I've read the horrors of switching the Prog Tk live at the wrong time! I'll have to study that option very carefully.

I'd already thought I might make the Prog Tk an isolated 'gated siding' with a gate closed before the 'gap' so a loco could/should not breach the gap. I'd then just place a loco on there when doing reads or whatever. The siding would be purely 'scenic' but could have (say) some wagons on it most of the time.

How does that sound?

P

[michaelp]

The gated siding sounds like a great idea, as you say you can have a few wagons being stored on the sidings or make the siding a c&w repair road.

I am using Dynamis so I don't need to worry about switching over to service track mode then back again, I just need to make sure that my locos pass over the insulated fishplates then read or write to CVs.

 

Michael

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

However I'd be paranoid about forgetting to isolate the track.

 

 

I use an isolated siding and a multi position switch. The command station usually has a separate connection for the programming track so my multi position switch switches DCC track power, programming, DC power and no power at all. Thus I can run DCC locos on normal service, switch over and programme them or switch to nothing to use a Lokprogrammer.

 

I use the DC power for initial testing of new unchipped locos. The siding is long enough to test the locos on their wheels but I do have a rolling road as well.

 

Programming track does need to be about a metre long as the loco often moves with each command sent.

[Oldddudders]

I'm lazy and forgetful. Therefore my programming track is completely separate from the layout, rendering its use not only foolproof but even pratproof. That said, I make very little use of it. Ops Programming/Programming on the Main with Digitrax works well for almost everything, and only recalcitrant locos & grumpy decoders need to be put on the PT for a good talking-to. I don't often find a need to read values unless the loco is already playing up. POM is essential for setting up sound levels, starting voltage and acceleration/deceleration rates in my experience. In about a dozen years of using POM (and see my opening remark!) I have never managed the fabled nightmare of re-programming every loco on the layout, and I remain sceptical that this is actually possible.

[amdaley]

I'm lazy and forgetful. Therefore my programming track is completely separate from the layout, rendering its use not only foolproof but even pratproof. That said, I make very little use of it. Ops Programming/Programming on the Main with Digitrax works well for almost everything, and only recalcitrant locos & grumpy decoders need to be put on the PT for a good talking-to. I don't often find a need to read values unless the loco is already playing up. POM is essential for setting up sound levels, starting voltage and acceleration/deceleration rates in my experience. In about a dozen years of using POM (and see my opening remark!) I have never managed the fabled nightmare of re-programming every loco on the layout, and I remain sceptical that this is actually possible.

 

I would only think its possible if every loco on the layout at the time had the same address,very unlikely.Perhaps this fable was invented by someone who doesn't like or understand DCC

[Allegheny1600]

I would only think its possible if every loco on the layout at the time had the same address,very unlikely.Perhaps this fable was invented by someone who doesn't like or understand DCC

It just shows how little certain things will sink in with people (me!) - it has never dawned upon me before that this MUST be the case!!!

Phil, I suspect you know already with your comment about fitting chips yourself (as in, hardwiring?) but one of the main advantages of using the programming track is the lower voltage available. This should prevent the release of the magic (expensive!) smoke from the decoder - there have certainly been occasions when I should have used the programming track, instead! Ha, ha, ha!

John E.

[Adrian Wintle]

I would only think its possible if every loco on the layout at the time had the same address,very unlikely.Perhaps this fable was invented by someone who doesn't like or understand DCC

 

It is possible that some older command stations implemented PoM by doing 'blind' writes as they would on the programming track. Otherwise I'd agree - bulk reprogramming shouldn't be possible.

 

My programming tracks* are physically separate from the layout.

 

*N and OO, both by the layouts and in the workshop (4 total).

 

Adrian

[Crosland]

I have never managed the fabled nightmare of re-programming every loco on the layout, and I remain sceptical that this is actually possible.

It's not possible with POM, unless

 

1. You accidentally send service mode programming commands instead of ops mode ones, or

 

2. you are using a budget system that claims to do POM when what it means is it does service mode programming on the main track.

 

Andrew Crosland

[kevinlms]

Yup. Thanks very much chaps.

michaelp, that fuelling line sounds like a great idea. There is scope for either converting something or adding something like this on the layout. However I'd be paranoid about forgetting to isolate the track.

I think I understand the requirements of the set up for this Prog Tk and there is a gismo that NCE do specifically to wire up a Prog Tk. Not sure about that though as I've read the horrors of switching the Prog Tk live at the wrong time! I'll have to study that option very carefully.

I'd already thought I might make the Prog Tk an isolated 'gated siding' with a gate closed before the 'gap' so a loco could/should not breach the gap. I'd then just place a loco on there when doing reads or whatever. The siding would be purely 'scenic' but could have (say) some wagons on it most of the time.

How does that sound?

P

 

 

Here is a way to wire it up AND have a red LED to warn you when in program mode.

 

http://www.nmra.org....am%20Track.html

 

Kevin Martin

[Ravenser]

I'm lazy and forgetful. Therefore my programming track is completely separate from the layout, rendering its use not only foolproof but even pratproof. That said, I make very little use of it. Ops Programming/Programming on the Main with Digitrax works well for almost everything, and only recalcitrant locos & grumpy decoders need to be put on the PT for a good talking-to. I don't often find a need to read values unless the loco is already playing up. POM is essential for setting up sound levels, starting voltage and acceleration/deceleration rates in my experience. In about a dozen years of using POM (and see my opening remark!) I have never managed the fabled nightmare of re-programming every loco on the layout, and I remain sceptical that this is actually possible.

 

 

I'm afraid it's possible. In fact it's how I found my NCE Autoswitch was doing nothing bar generate a high pitched whistle. Change loco (actually DMU) address to 101 . Select unit 101. Turn knob slowly. 4 locos /DMUs start moving.

 

The Autoswitch has now been removed and a DPDT switch installed instead. The programming track is fed directly through and isolated from the rest of the layout by insulated fishplates. The traction buses are wired to the DPDT switch which is connected to the panel . When programming , switch off thelayout - fortunately you can hear the Tortoises shut down and back off

 

The real issue for me isn't that I might reprogram every loco - that happens only if you change the loco address. The real issue is that any programing signal can scramble the settings on the MERG points decoder. That means dismantling the layout and reprogramming the MERG decoder with fly leads before the pointswill work again. I believe Lenz LS150s have the same vulnerability

[96701]

I use a Digitrax Big Boy, and have the same set up as Ravenser except my point decoder is a DAC10, and I managed to reprogram it because I forgot to switch it off when I programmed a new loco decoder.

[hollywoodfoundry]

One of the advantages of using a programming track is that many DCC command stations incorporate an additional resistance in the feed to the programming track in order to be able to program easily. The decoder in the locomotive 'answers' the programming instructions by placing the locomotive's motor across the track to provide a load that can be detected by the controller. This resistance also limits the amount of current that can be drawn by the model, and this helps protect the deocder and model if there are wiring errors or shorts.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Here is a way to wire it up AND have a red LED to warn you when in program mode.

 

http://www.nmra.org....am%20Track.html

 

Kevin Martin

 

Thanks for posting that Kevin. You beat me to it.

This is the only way I'd wire up a programming track if it's to be connected to the rest of the layout. Otherwise it has to be a completely separate piece of track.

If the programming track has to be part of the layout (siding or loop etc) then a switchable dead section(s) is a must IMHO.

 

Brian Lambert has a slightly better version of that diagram on his DCC guide........... Programming Tracks with Iso section.gif

 

.

[Edwin_m]

I don't think anyone has specifically mentioned it, but presumably the issue with having the programming track as part of the layout is that if the loco being programmed bridges the joiners onto the main layout, then potentially everything out on the layout will be re-programmed too?

[Ron Ron Ron]

Edwin, that's why it's recommended to use the arrangement mentioned above by Kevin (post 15) and repeated by myself (post 19).

If a correctly wired, switchable dead section of adequate length is used, it's impossible to bridge the gap (provided there isn't a long through-wired train being placed across it - e.g. an MU) and it's impossible to operate the programming track output if the programming track and dead section is electrically switched to the main layout.

 

Simply isolating a programming track from the rest of the layout by a couple of IRJ's is a total NO NO.

 

 

.

[Nigelcliffe]

I don't think anyone has specifically mentioned it, but presumably the issue with having the programming track as part of the layout is that if the loco being programmed bridges the joiners onto the main layout, then potentially everything out on the layout will be re-programmed too?

 

With some systems yes, that is the risk. Those systems are ones which shutdown the mainline power when programming.

 

With some systems, no, the risk is MUCH WORSE. You bridge the programming to mainline, and "pfffff". You destroy your command station's programming track outputs as you put layout power into them. This is so easy to do by mistake, it only needs a couple of wagon wheels to touch the isolation breaks or a loco to be driven over the breaks. ( A friend did this to his Gaugemaster Prodigy recently, it had to be posted back to Gaugemaster for repairs).

 

 

 

Personally, I don't like "programming sidings". There are too many risks which need protecting against silly mistakes. Instead, use a completely independent length of track. No switches required, no risks, no hassles.

 

 

- Nigel

[Ron Ron Ron]

........This is so easy to do by mistake, it only needs a couple of wagon wheels to touch the isolation breaks or a loco to be driven over the breaks. ( A friend did this to his Gaugemaster Prodigy recently, it had to be posted back to Gaugemaster for repairs).

To be perfectly frank Nigel, your friend deserved what he got. IMHO that sort of arrangement is asking for trouble.

Simply isolating with a pair of IRJ's is a far worst corner cutting exercise than not wiring points properly, with the much more serious consequences you mentioned if it all goes wrong.

 

.

[JZ]

I programme everything on an isolated track, mounted on a shelf about 12" above my fiddle yard. Everything is programmed with a Sprog II and then can be put on the layout and checked.

[Alcanman]

Hi,

 

I have a small shunting layout with only 1 loco being used at any time. I use an NCE Powercab which I've bought after reading

lots of positive reviews on RMWeb.

 

Do I need a seperate programming track or can I use the 'programming track' on Powercab or 'programming on the main', with the 1 loco placed on the layout provided

there are no other locos on track?

 

I've found the Powercab to be excellent for slow running.

 

 

thanks,

 

Mal