Suzie

Is it me or the way that I'm looking at the various images in the last few posts? The Kadees may look neater than tension lock but the ones in the pictures don't seem to provide much closer coupling than tension locks...

I converted for two reasons:-

1. The small tension locks supplied with the wagons do not work properly (because they are small). Tension lock system is designed to be rigid and rigidly fixed to the stock to work reliably, and the 'D' needs to be wide to cope with coupling on curves. They had to be replaced anyway to get the coupling performance I was used to with rigid big 'D' tension locks.

2. Appearance. If I have to change the couplings I might as well change them for something that looks nicer than the tension locks.

Kadees might not be prototypical for these wagons, but they do look a lot better than the tension locks. How close you can couple is all about the buffers. I am not keen on replacing the buffers with sprung ones to get closer coupling as it is not too important to me (I am used to seeing wagons a long way apart because I only ever see model ones!)

#16 has been discontinued, they recommend either #146 with a 252 gearbox or a #36. 

I did sign up to the Kaydee forum and ask what the replacement was when I first heard that No16 were discontinued, but Kaydee banned me from the forum for being foreign before I got an answer! I understand that the No16 was intended for bogie mounting where space is tight, so I will have to look at the alternatives for future conversions.

Here is one of my ZKA Limpets with a No16 Kadee fitted. This is an example of a Bachmann wagon with an incorrect height NEM pocket:-

The No16 makes for a neat installation on these wagons because there is no need for surgery:-

You just unclip the NEM pocket, drill and tap a hole for the 2-56 screw, and then assemble (a bit of a fiddly task) and screw on the No16 with a cut down 2-56 screw.

The nice thing is it leaves the wagon to be easily returned to its original condition with the NEM pocket at the wrong height should you want tension locks again.

Ian

There is no "Pulling apart" as you put it. I think that your reviews are very good, the problems are of a very minor nature and I don't think you should change the way you review significantly. As you say the review should be about what you use and discuss what you like or don't like - there is no need to quote the manual for features that you have not used - anyone that has used 'Programming on the Main' (or operations mode programming) will know that the E-Z Command does not have it regardless of what it says in the manual.

I commented because I think your idea has considerable merit, and you have set a good example of how to do reviews that are useful.

A peer is in this context is someone just like you (not someone that sits in the upper house!) A peer review can be done by anyone else who has that system to check that there are no inconsistencies or errors in the text and that language used cannot be misunderstood. We all use language slightly differently, that does not make it wrong but it can be misleading and need clarification as to the actual meaning perhaps with qualification.

I am saying that whoever posts the review locks the thread so that it does not get filled with discussion, and that as you have recommended the discussion is elsewhere. It is your review and the subjective content is yours and yours alone, and that is the point of the review, but facts should be correct - one error will instantly make the whole review suspect and unhelpful, and it will not be given the value it deserves.

Keep up the good work!

If anyone is submitting a review to the thread it might be worth getting it peer reviewed first so that there are not any errors in it. Anyone can have opinions, and mention of ways to get around limitations are useful to potential buyers as well, but incorrect or misleading information should not be there and will be challenged.

Perhaps a more useful way of doing it would be to post each review in its own locked thread which can be updated by the reviewer (or moderator) if required, with a reference to a discussion thread, and keep a master sticky thread with links to the threads. Otherwise once there are thirty or so reviews in the thread it will become unnavigable! I think the reviews so far are on the whole good and will be a useful resource for newbies before they post the inevitable "Which is the best DCC system?" question. 

A very good review (I have one too so concur with most of what you say). All I can add really is that for a small layout with a limited number of locos its ease of use makes you not want to upgrade. Being able to put the pictures by the buttons and having a button for each loco is a feature not found on any other system.

Might be worth adding a few corrections to this:-

...Can't be upgraded...

Bachmann have a booster available to increase the current, and add-on slave controllers (E-Z Command companion) which you mentioned are available too and you have already mentioned the wireless interface.

...it can't read or write CV's but will allow locos fitted with a decoder to be re-addressed by using PoM or programming on the main...

Programming on the main is a very different thing that means you can leave all the locos on the track when programming. What you get with the E-Z Command is service mode programming of just CV1 to a value between 1 and 9. The manual is wrong/misleading on this matter.

...You can do a consist but both engines have to be set to the same address, never tried this so I can't say how effective this is...

There are two methods to do consisting, either:-

• Set both to the same address (which can be done by the E-Z Command) as you describe.
• Set CV19 to an address between 1 and 9 (which has to be done elsewhere using an external programmer such as a Sprog or another command station).

Both methods work. The CV19 method is jolly handy if you want to run a visiting loco that has an unsuitable address and you don't want to reprogram the address.

Think about using a No16 as well, these can often be fitted in to tight spaces especially on Bachmann wagons with the fishtail NEM pocket at the wrong height. They just have a single central screw for mounting and can easily be fitted with a 2-56 plastic screw in a tapped hole. 

What are people using for switching frogs? microswitches or frog juicers?

If operating live frog points with servos alternative products are available that incorporate frog switching:-

Switchpilot servo with extension

Signalist SC2

It is a feature of the decoder, some better decoders give you a function to switch off the inertia, and the function number varies.

The 36-552 is a bit old fashioned by today's standards so you can expect some motor noise with it, especially on a loco with a good motor. It is probably the best of the really cheap decoders so if you can put up with its limited performance and functionality you should be very happy with it - I have quite a lot of them and have never had any problem. It is made by Lenz and just rebadged by Bachmann so you can understand why the quality is a little better than most of the other cheapies.

You do not have to use the same decoder in all your locos, so you might like to try the 36-552 first and if it is a bit noisy buy a Zimo instead which will cost twice as much but you cannot get better and it will do the better quality locos justice.

Presumably the BGs were on boat trains from Harwich?

I recall seeing quite a few trains top and tailed with an 86 on each end during the turquiose era, would they have used a BSO in these no-DBSO sets.

Hythe is well worth seeing. It looks even better in the flesh and is the best example I have ever seen of a 'railway in the landscape' rather than the other way round.

Trying to book an international rail ticket today and finding that Clacton does not feature as an international destination (Colchester is as far as you can get) reminded me of the olden days when looking for a Clacton or Walton train at Liverpool Street one would have to look at the Inter-City and continental departure board and find amongst the Harwich boat trains and the Norwich. Did other stations have similar anomalies where half the departures on the board were neither to a city or a continental departure point?

Runaways are usually down to intermittent DCC signal getting to the decoder - whether pickup problems, intermittent shorts, dirty wheels, etc. Disabling DC mode and making sure that the decoder times out on no signal you should see that behaviour change to a more stuttering behaviour. Using a decoder which supports asymmetric braking should get round the problem because they can decode the DCC data under very poor conditions. Something like a Zimo might be worth considering for your troublesome locos, the MX621 is about the same size as the DZ123 or the MX623 is a bit cheaper if you have a bit more room.

I think we need CompareTheServo.com!

Based on four points with DCC control and including frog switching and excluding the servo and bracket, I make the per point cost something in the region of:-

Peco Smartswitch =( £11.64 + £23.27) / 4 + £8.42 = £17.15

ESU Switchpilot    = (£25.38 + £25.38) / 4              = £12.69

Signalist SC2        = £47.00 / 4                                = £11.75

Add around £2 to this cost for the servo and with no microswitch to mount you can just screw the servo to a couple of blocks of wood in lieu of a bracket.

Some of these prices compare very favourably to using a slow motion stall motors with a DCC accessory decoder (I will let someone else give the price of that solution) and all have the advantage of highly reliable relay switching of the frog. You can of course make further savings by using a microswitch to switch the frog at the cost of a more complex installation procedure and probably the requirement of a proper servo bracket.

Much of the cost advantage of servos in this scenario rely on the servo controller being integrated with the the DCC decoder, so if you are not DCC there is less cost advantage with going servo.

It might be nice if JMRI had a driver for this board. The protocol is really simple and using JMRI on a Raspberry Pi (or PC) you could use a JMRI mimic panel remotely on a tablet/phone/etc. via Wi-Fi and the Pi could talk wireless (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or Zigbee) to the relay module making use of the feedback to show the state of the relays (and therefore the state of the points and signals).

It could form the basis of a control system for a modular layout with minimal wiring which might be attractive eliminating an accessory bus command station and accessory decoders.

I suspect the biggest complication might be having a lot of separate wireless connections if a lot of these modules were in use, perhaps there might be use for a Pi or Arduino app to consolidate the multiple wireless connections to several boards into a single interface.

It will be important to use feedback in any automation app. because the relays return to state '0' when the unit is powered on, and the power for the tortoises will need to be the same source as the power to the relay unit to be able to maintain point position in the event of power failure (trains will need to be moved clear of any points before power can be restored). It is a shame that they do not have an option for a module with latching relays.

I suspect it should be possible to use JMRI running on a Raspberry Pi to achieve this as a turn-key system. Just fix under the layout with no need for a big PC

If you can make do with the letters available in hex (A-F) for the second digit there are (or at least were) hex dot matrix displays available that will take a 4-bit code. Using the 4-bits multiplexed with four enable lines you might be able to make an interface to an 8-output accessory decoder to drive a 9A99 type display.

It is all down to what people want to do of course. Other modular standards do include an accessory bus (Free-mo or NMRA-BR for example), and the cost is £5 per module including the interconnect cable for a pair of 4mm banana plugs connection (halve that for a terminal module, add 50% for a junction!)

I did not miss the point, I just facetiously used the example as the extreme! An accessory bus (AC or DCC) powered CDU kit is available - this has been done before.

Central or distributed power from a cost point of view is about the collective cost. If there are only three modules that use power, a £50 collective cost for running the power bus through all the eleven modules does not stack up (three PSUs will be cheaper), but I suspect there will be a lot more modules that need power as the format becomes popular as I am sure it will.

Adjusting an LZV100 to be a booster might sound surgical but it can be done in under a minute, and it takes just as long to put it back to LZV100 mode after - significantly less time than changing the lithium battery! Once you are shown how to do it you will understand.

Suzie, a central 'power bus' still retains the aforementioned issue: if there's a short in one place, the whole lot stops working. Besides, what's so different (advantageous) of stringing up a big, heavy power bus with a heavy transformer and fixed voltage and a string of smaller, EU approved, power bricks which are perfectly rated for the job the owner want it to do? You still need to string up a power cable, just not the low voltage sort

 

So no, IMO that extra pair of wires is not doing the modular concept any good, because you'd oblige every module builder to put it in, even if he (she!) doesn't need it at all. And buying separate colours is expensive if you can't use the advantage of scale! (I know, I did. Buy in bulk, that is )

It is a poor state of affairs if the accessory bus gets shorted!

In the future it can be more than just a power bus, allowing wireless control of points, signals and turntables from a tablet through a command station as well as feedback if Railcom is used.

The cost of installation of a through bus is not high, 4x coloured socket and 4x coloured plug are £4.28 from Rapid, add a bit of 2.5mm² cable and it all costs less than a fiver.

The savings for some module owners who will no longer have to install half the equipment recovered from Battersea Power Station will make it all worthwhile.

Having the bus will encourage module owners to make their modules more interesting I am sure with the odd animated J. R. Hartley casting away and lets not forget that working windmill on top of the tunnel that would otherwise be a static exhibit.

Can you let me have more information about this please, as that might be a useful option for us to have. 

It is very easy, open the front panel of the LZV100 by removing the four screws, disconnect the cable which joins the two PCBs together, refit the front panel. The CDE output terminals have now become the input terminals to the booster section and you just connect them to to CDE terminals on the command station. You probably will not want to connect the E terminal because that is the one that propagates the shutdown when a short occurs. Don't forget to connect the T terminals (on the UVJKT connectors) together as well if you have not commoned one of those terminals already.

But you still need to power it with a bigger dcc system...

... or a second DCC system or booster that is co-located with the main system. Boosters are not always that hard to come by, there are a lot of people that have Lenz command stations that can be used as boosters for example.

CDUs and end cut-off point motors and similar only use power intermittently and most other uses will be low power. If using banana sockets you retain the flexibility to just plug in a local AC supply if required when running in a meet that does not have an accessory bus.

Specifying an extra pair of banana sockets at each end of the module, a 2-wire link and 2-wire jumper does rather future proof the specification.

Specifying an accessory bus with a couple of extra (different coloured) banana sockets on both ends of the modules would have made life a whole lot easier and saved having loads of extension leads trailing around...

For Great Western colour light signals:-

"A pictorial record of Great Western Signalling" ISBN 0 902888 08 0

Suzie, you have left off many isolation breaks that are essential 

No I have not. The OP stated that Insulfrog is to be used which are self-isolating. All the feeds are on parallel tracks so they never need separately isolating from one another.

Wiring is quite simple when you plan it correctly.

Hi BobM

This is my take based on your requirements:-

It is a very complicated layout that ideally will occupy four or five operators (up, down, relief, yard and pilot) and would make very good use of cab control, but if there is just you...

I have shown three main feeds, if you have just one controller feed them via a 3-way rotary switch or similar. The black feeds can all be a common return and if you are using a common return the green link can be a common return feed too.

The ends of the platforms have isolating sections. The orange feeds can be via isolating switches either from the common return if you are using one (easy and less wiring) or from the adjacent rail the other side of the break.