DCC control of points

[The Fatadder]

As mentioned in my Brent thread I have been giving serious thought to converting from conventional control to DCC.

 

There are four benefits I am aiming to achieve,

> Reduction of wiring, in particular the avoidance of very long runs of wire from the fiddleyard points.

> Enable potential for future automation

> greater flexibility of control, I like the idea of being able to control from my iPad walking around the garage.

> future intergration / interlocking with the signalling

 

All motors are Tortoise

 

At present I have been looking at the NCE parts, noteably the mk2 switch 8. I also like the look of their button board and mini panels giving the option to connect real switches.

 

So I would welcome any advice from people using this sort of set up. If eventually expanding to the button / panel will it still would in parallel with a computer?

What is the best control software compatible with iPad? (And does it allow full interlocking)

 

I think I will need either 3 or 4 decoders (it depends if the fiddleyard points are independent at each end)

 

The plan would be wire in the decoders now, maybe along with integrating a cheap / free app / computer programs

 

Then as the layout progresses, progressively add the switches (I am thinking peco levers) and upgrade the software

[Nigelcliffe]

Big missing matters - what DCC system are you proposing to use to drive the turnouts ?    From that we get to what systems can be interfaced back to the iPad, and possible software solutions (almost certainly that's JMRI as it will let you build proper interlocking to UK methods). 

 

Top of your Brent thread suggests a ZTC system, and I've no idea how well or badly that interfaces to computers.  I know its nominally Xpressnet (aka Lenz), so theoretically there is some interconnect.  But no idea if such connections really work.  

 

An alternative would be a dedicated to turnouts DCC system, and some of them can be fairly cheap.  For example a Sprog would do it (with an attached computer), or there are more DIY minded methods for even less using an Ardunio and the DCC++ software on the Ardunio.    From those, via a computer running JMRI (could be a cheap/small Raspberry PI) and then on to an iPad for display.  

 

 

 

- Nigel

[Phil S]

I have made use of the flexibility of the Lenz LS150 in its numbering of its six outputs - any output and any number, and programmed in-situ - which allows changes to be made as a layout develops. It only handles ac outputs for solenoid-style motors, but can be adapted with 2 diodes for slow-motion motors like Lemanco's/Fulgarex.  This allows me to minimise wiring in the physical layout, whilst having a numbering system which fits in best with  the overall logic... Nowadays there are other decoders with this flexibility too.  Single decoders can also be of benefit where it avoids wiring crossing boards - obviously most important on portable multi-piece layouts. (The 'extra cost'/per output being offset against the smaller or non-existant connectors across a board join etc.   Equally another considertation is power feeds .... on my latest portable layout, I changed from the LS150 which required  a separate 16Vac supply, to the TranTech CDUs which had the same addressing flexibility, but also powered themselves from the dcc accessory bus without it being a problem because the energy is taken over several seconds of charging time. Colour light signals can now simply be added with TrainTech dcc, or similar makes for overseas layouts - previously these required wiring back to a 4x steady-state output module...and power supply.

I also use the Multimaus family which swaps easily between loco and accessory control - as does the newer generation of tablet - which I can now use with a Z21 ... but I'm awaiting the new wifi Multimaus to avoid flattening my phone batteries!  . and because I use 'glass box' computer screens to display the track (and offer touch screen routing - as your planned tablet) I'm happy with the 'more basic' nature of the dedicated and comfortable to hold handset.

Your final aspirations of automation are where the wiring may tend to reappear with a vengence !! - as to CONTROL rather than simply  DISPLAY, requires feedback from many positions around the track .... and this can add another bus fed from 'feedback' modules with 8 or 16 inputs.... whereas a 'feedback module' of 1 or 2 inputs connecting to the bus would help keep the wiring 'managable'.  Again this will be more inconvenient when feeback locations (track detectors etc) want to cross board joins .... better to have only the bus wiring cross board to board.

[The Fatadder]

Thanks

 

Should have added that the primary control (of trains) is via a powercab

[Nigelcliffe]

Thanks

 

Should have added that the primary control (of trains) is via a powercab

 

In which case, advice changes a bit...   For switch panel input, you need the NCE "MiniPanel".  This accepts push button inputs to trigger actions which can be "throw turnout" (amongst many other things).    For medium term computer interface, you need the NCE USB interface to a computer, then computer running JMRI (could be a Raspberry Pi, or something larger), and wireless link to iPad. 

 

Full interlocking - depends if that includes trains occupying track.   If you want track occupancy, then you need inputs from the track (possibly NCE AUI device, I've not checked it thoroughly) to feedback to the computer.  

 

 

- Nigel

 

- Nigel

[RFS]

The NCE Switch8 also has the flexibility of addressing its 8 outputs individually and it's much easier to do on the newer MK2 version.  Furthermore the MK2 has the option of using an external power supply rather than consuming DCC power.  This might be useful if you have a lot of turnouts that might consume too much power. Each Tortoise takes about 16ma when in stall mode. I use a Lenz LZV100 system, with a separate dedicated LV102 for the turnouts so that power is not taken from the LZV100 by the turnouts. In addition they are configured so that a short circuit on the LZV100 only shuts down its internal LV102 booster and not the command station function or the separate LV102 booster.  This allows me to still be able to change turnouts when a short occurs on the track.

 

One other consideration with the NCE Switch8 is that it does not support Railcom, so Railcom needs to be disabled on the command station used to control them.  Otherwise they don't work.

 

Although the LS150 can be used with Tortoises, it will operate them serially and not in parallel like the Switch8. If you set the switch time to, say, 3 seconds then it will take 9 seconds elapsed to change 3 turnouts on the same LS150 - a long time in model railway terms. And once the turnout has been changed, it drops power so will need to retain the turnout springs in place for Peco points, for example. The Switch8 keeps the motors powered in stall mode at all times.

[The Fatadder]

On the switch 8 (mk2), can you drive a pair of Tortoise off one output? I'm thinking crossovers...

[RFS]

On the switch 8 (mk2), can you drive a pair of Tortoise off one output? I'm thinking crossovers...

 

Indeed you can. I have a complex station throat with a number of crossovers, and the Switch8 MK2 there actually has 15 Tortoises connected to it - 7 crossovers and one single.  No problems at all.

[melmerby]

I woould agree about not using LS150s for stall motors.

OK in the short term but plan to replace them later.

 

I started with solenoids (mostly Seep) controlled by LS150s

I found the combination to be less than 100% reliable, which when using automation is a must.

I changed to Tortoises controlled by the LS150s which were 100% reliable but painfully slow if you were operating a long sequence of points.

I now have all Switch-8s and Switch-Its which have proven 100% reliable in operation.

(I did try a couple of Cobalts with the switch-8s which I found at the time to be inferior to Tortoises.)

 

My points are controlled by a separate DCC system to the train operations so power consumption in not an issue.

 

 

 

Keith

[newbryford]

I woould agree about not using LS150s for stall motors.

 

 

I now have all Switch-8s and Switch-Its which have proven 100% reliable in operation.

(I did try a couple of Cobalts with the switch-8s which I found at the time to be inferior to Tortoises.)

 

My points are controlled by a separate DCC system to the train operations so power consumption in not an issue.

 

 

 

Keith

 

The LS100 is a better bet for stall motors - the output can be set to continually on.

 

Switch8s have a low rated power output stage that can struggle to cope with the slightly higher current draw of a Cobalt.

 

Another decoder option is the DCC Concepts AD-8FX. Very capable of driving two slow action motors from one output.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[melmerby]

 

Switch8s have a low rated power output stage that can struggle to cope with the slightly higher current draw of a Cobalt.

 

Cheers,

Mick

The Switch-8s didn't struggle with the Cobalts, the Cobalts I had (still have!) are noisier than a Tortoise and one regularly sticks at one end, the other occasionally.

Switch-8s manage a couple of Tortoises on one output without a problem, I have several wired that way, so one Cobalt should have been fine.

 

Cheers

 

Keith

[norman]

The LS100 is a better bet for stall motors - the output can be set to continually on.

 

Switch8s have a low rated power output stage that can struggle to cope with the slightly higher current draw of a Cobalt.

 

Another decoder option is the DCC Concepts AD-8FX. Very capable of driving two slow action motors from one output.

 

Cheers,

Mick

Hi

I've used 6 Lenz LS150s with a combination of old H&M and Peco  solenoid and Tortoise for several years now and found them reliable.

Norman