wasdavetheroad

Mmm! I have just started building a prototype of a tension lock hook lifter  using servos. early tests prove the concept works for 00 scale wagons and bogie coaches. to allow the coupler to work as normal I have used some polyester sewing thread to give a flexible connector between the servos and the coupling hook extension. I bought my servos from Micron Radio control

http://www.micronradiocontrol.co.uk/servo.html

I think I will start a topic when I have done more testing and learn how to make some simple video of the stuff working

It will be in the radio control section because that is what I use but no reason why DCC should not work as well.

That looks really good. what volts does the motor need and does it come with the gearbox?

17 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

I just built the wall up against mine and boxed in all the sticky-out bits as per your own later idea. I screwed it shut from the inside first and built the stud wall on a couple of courses of engineering brick with DPC on top. I hadn't thought about wasps nests though - I didn't seal the door to keep some ventilation (no chance of stopping water getting under the door so best to make sure it can get out again) - time to find some sort of wasp-proof breathable filler !

do you get a lot of sun on the door? If you do it will get roasting in the cavity and those little buzzers won't like that. I left a gap under the door as well, glad I did it as we had rain of biblical proportions that flooded through the garage, at least it had a means of escape. I have since constructed an enormous flood barrier 2 inches high!

Before you build your stud wall secure the door to the walls with metal brackets to enhance security and screen any largish gaps to stop wasps etc building a nest in the void behind the stud wall. It is probably best to have some trickle ventilation anyway

13 minutes ago, Vecchio said:

On continental railways you find several companies offering DCC uncoupling, they are all done by means of a small electro magnet direct in the coupling. Roco was offering some shunters with this feature, but there are also companies like Krois offering electromagnetic couplings which fit into a NEM pocket.

Of course this is not tension lock, but I am sure it would be possible to make something similar for tension lock couplings.

Servo in the loco: Zimo allows this feature since a long time in some of their decoders, I have a loco which does both, electromagnetic couplings and moving the pantograph via servo. I have a small video about that which I can link later, and this is what DCC is for me. Functions which were not possible with DC.

Vecchio 

Thanks for the info. Electro magnets might be in the project as well as you can buy really tiny ones. I will take a look at the continental ones

5 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

 

I would assume you are using servos to control points , Ive I had tuppence for every badly fitted servo install with poor wiring , too ling a servo lead and no understanding or care in relation to ground loops, servo power and load dumping Id be a rich man 

 

servos were never designed for the way the average user tries to use them in a model railway , they work very well, but you have to understand how they consume current, and how the high impedance drive input is very susceptible to interference 

 

Once you appreciate the technical issues , the problems go away 

 

The issue is that people see servos as cheap point  motors without any understanding of the technical issues involved when they are used in a model railway . The merg forum is full of advice and shows how NOT to use them , sadly many dont understand or only learn after they have made the mistakes 

 

 

That's useful to know, I am just starting an on vehicle uncoupling project and hope to use servos

I see the future for model railways control like this, a 'decoder' which;

uses DCC protocols for commanding the loco etc if that is what the market wants

is user switchable to receive its commands via the track or via radio

for power seamlessly auto switches between the track or onboard battery (consider it a stay alive)

will recharge the battery from the track if needed

With this there is no need for any rivalry about which system is best You can run pure DCC with track power or run pure BPRC with battery power or run hybrid DCC/BPRC with considerably simplified track wiring. Your choice

4 hours ago, Crosland said:

 

Not really, you just use different motors.

The RC batteries I use can have fully charged voltages of 4.2, 8.4, 12.6, 10.8 using single cells wired in series. Nominal voltages are given as 3.7, 7.4, 11.1 etc.  The batteries all lose voltage as they discharge, a single cell starts at 4.2V and falls to 3V which is considered as discharged. Voltage regulators are very useful if you want or need a constant voltage and essential if you want to consist.. The RC style batteries as used for model trains are not stressed in use or recharge as they are when used for model planes or drones.

1 hour ago, Junctionmad said:

 

Firstly I’ve yet to see 100 radio controls cars being controlled by a radio system , yet I can see it being done by DCC 

 

secondly , however you dice the technology , at present, it’s simply not possible  to find a battery small enough , at a reasonable price, and powerful enough to fit into a small outline OO engine. , battery tech is limited by physics and moves much slower then electronic tech. It could be years away if ever. Powerful enough for what?

 

Secondly, radio tech to control a model railway is a far greater challenge then a few RC cars , you have to have a fully addressable radio system , capable of supporting a very wide address range , then you need standards to ensure cross compatibility , then you need allocation spectrums to ensure  that dense installations ( say at an exhibition) can all work reliably. ( for comparison see WiFi Alliance documentation and standards ) BPRC systems which use the 2.4Ghz band either use Bluetooth technology or spread spectrum technology such as DSM2 or DSMX which make them extremely reliable in dense environments. as I understand it any reliability problems at large exhibitions is that the whole 2.4Ghz band is saturated, in which case your smart devices will be having problems as well

 

This leaves the issue of how to implement points and signals and power accessories , a solution BPRC has failed to address at present , because the majority of wiring in a DCC layout isn’t track wiring at all. I have a BPRC transmitter that can control 60 points using servos 

 

the main manufactures won’t “ go in that direction” , because the technology is immature, l the demand is niche and uncertain , the battery size issue remains a formidable technical hurdle and the issue of point, signal and accessory control remains undecided , it’s nothing to do with selling you expensive control systems , because let me assure you , a comphrensive multi channel BPRC solution will be significantly dearer then current DCC. BlueRails first board cost £80 and they only made a small number of those.. Imageine the price in a large scale production run. It had 2 way coms, light, sound etc etc. The App to control it all was free

 

when NMRA look at standardizing BPRC, maybe then it might be worth looking at , I won’t hold my breath however 

1 hour ago, Junctionmad said:

This is what annoys me about the DC versus DCC debate , this is a false truth being promoted as truth and it’s a big lie . ( see current political debates for similar stuff ) 

 

DCC allows you to move locos around your layout with the freedom of the protypes , locos can be stopped and parked anywhere , movements can take place with other locos on the same track section BPRC does that 

 

for example station pilot operations , attaching and detaching double headers and bankers , attaching or removing  stock at the end of trains , stabling locos close together , like the real thing BPRC does that

 

yes , a complex sectioned DC layout CAN APPROACH , certain aspects of that prototype like freedom of movement , but only in a certain geographical area of the trackwork, where the isolation breaks and section feed breaks have to be carefully positioned to enable the move. If loco or train sits outside that section or straddles two sections , tough , you can’t perform the move in DC you can perform those moves in BPRC

 

however ,in DC ,  where any sort of reasonably complex trackwork is involved , to achieve certain levels of loco movement can result in miles of wiring , interlocked sections and what not.  You only have to look at how DC cab control gets real complex real fast to see the issues , DCC has no additional complexity no matter how many locos you wish to control and where no need for any track wires for loco control in BPRC

 

instrinsically ,  dcc drives the loco from its cab , DC CAN NEVER do this , it’s just not technically possible BPRC does it

 

hence , while DC operation on a circle of track on your sitting room floor , may be similar to the same thing with DCC l it’s simply a false premise to put forward as a general comment. 

 

Dave 

1 hour ago, Junctionmad said:

BPRC , which is an aside to this topic , is a niche product at present . It’s not possible at present to get realistic Li-ion batteries into small OO tank engines I converted a smokey joe! and the like , never mind the radio system , it’s hard even fitting DCC chip what's a realistic Li-ion battery?

 

the second thing is that BPRC brings very little that   DCC cannot already do, and currently BPRC is a good bit more expensive then DCC no track wiring needed, avoids the weak point of DCC and DC, the wheel track interface

 

the third thing and most important is the is no standard for BPRC with several manufacturers promoting incompatible systems, until a standards body of one form or another gets involved , BPRC will remain a niche product , suitable for a very small number of specialized applications ( larger scale garden railways and the like ) there is a ready made standard, Bluetooth

 

the  fourth is no BPRC company has shown scaled up control solutions , say for 200 locos or more , large scale accessory control etc BlueRail Trains, 100's of locos possible

 

all this technology is essentially to get around powering the rails , yet for most reasonably built layouts operating on nickel silver track indoors , pickup isn’t really an issue. it seems to be an issue with lots of posts on here, no track wires is so much easier

 

BPRC is not a viable alternative to DCC or even DC at present , what does viable mean?  and you are joking about DC the technology shows promise , but many technology solutions fall by the wayside over time and I suspect without significant progress in battery tech how big a battery do you want? hybrid battery/track power has already been released BPRC will remain a niche player 

When I was checking out consisting for my radio controlled locos ( I want some locos to double head) I checked out how they did it in the old DC days. In simple terms it will be fine if the locos don't have wheel spin or skid. On DCC wiki they suggest speed matching within 10% will be fine. I have a pair of Hornby 2P 4-4-0's which can double head and they had a difference of about 5% out of the box. Of course with DC the two locos will run slower with a given controller setting.

For me the advantage of DCC would be simpler layout wiring and much better control of the individual locomotives, you are driving the loco, not the layout. As I model the late 50's/early 60's I have no need for lighting and as I have music or the radio playing no need for sound either.

I disassembled my extensive DC n-scale layout several years ago and moved to 00 scale. As I had played around with radio control I followed that option, however if I had decided not to use radio control I would choose DCC rather than DC simply because of less wiring and more realistic control of locomotives.

Here is cab control and common return, the SPDT is the key.  SPDT means single pole double throw. If I remember correctly each controller needs its own transformer.

This should work for 2 operators

Even easier would be to use some chocolate box connectors that plug into each other. " connectors with the prongs make the token key and there are a pair of connectors for each operator to plug the 'token' into

How far apart will your 2 operators be?

You could use a token key, each operator has a switch for the final track feed to the central section. This switch is operated by 'inserting' the key. To pass control switch OFF and pass the key to the other operator who uses it to switch ON. Some mechanical jiggery-pokery to ensure the key can only be removed or inserted if the switch is OFF might be needed, or you could trust each other!. A slide switch would be easiest.

Here is a good guide to servicing a Lima pancake motor

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=servicing+a+lima+diesel+loco&qpvt=servicing+a+lima+diesel+loco&view=detail&mid=4D20ACD6E32F295868464D20ACD6E32F29586846&FORM=VRDGAR

You can also fit a CD type motor inside the Lima motor casing

I find the Dapol wagons perfectly acceptable for how I run my layout and I have over 100 of them but very few Bachmann or Hornby. I don't notice the brake levers/blocks at a couple of feet on a moving train and the other main issues can be fixed. Reasonably priced packs of 20 wheelsets allows replacement of wobbly wheels and there are fixes for the floppy couplers and loose coupling hooks. They are reasonably priced at about half the cost of a Bachmann or Hornby model and even cheaper if you buy the unpainted version and paint them yourself. We are lucky that Dapol produce them as there is very little available from Bachmann/Hornby for the 1950's and early 60's. If I wanted to have a 30 x 16 ton coal wagon train tough cos they are not available. My Dapols chassis is too long so the train is 5 inches longer than it should be but I don't notice that. Maybe I find the suspension of disbelief easier than some and that helps in our miniature world full of compromises.

These are works in progress extended and modified Metcalfe kits with Scalescenes papers

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 1:11 PM, davetheroad said:

I have a lot of Dapol wagons and agree about the floppy couplings being a problem, the hooks can also fall out at awkward moments. The original tension lock had rigid bars, any flexibility needed came from the hook so I tried some mods on a Dapol wagon.

 

 

 

 

I first made a height above rail gauge, I think the top of the coupler bar should be 8.5mm above rail top plus or minus 0.2mm. I then glued a 5mm spacer between the top of the coupling box and the chassis. This gives a bar height of almost 8.5mm and removed all the vertical flop. There is still a little side to side movement but that can be cured with a little rubber cement. To cure the loose coupling hooks I glued and trimmed  a short length of 4x1mm Evergreen strip to the top of the coupling so the hook still moves freely but can't pop out.

 

 

 

 

 

After so many decades why have manufacturers failed to adopt standards for the profiles of the coupler bar and hook?

 

 

 

 

 

5mm spacer between top of coupler box and chassis plus 4x1mm strip added to top of coupler flush with box

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the finished job

 

 

 

Oops, that should be a 3mm spacer between the chassis and the top of the NEM coupler box. Actually nearer 2.8mm