 | | | | | |
I have completed a draft explanation of how I implemented DCC into LEGO
Trains. This is the system/technique that we used at the latest
WWW.WAMALUG.ORG show. If anyone is interested, it can be found at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cook_thomas/
Please feel free to comment and criticize. It is only a draft, and I
suspect it will be changing frequently for a time being.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Tom Cook writes:
> I have completed a draft explanation of how I implemented DCC into LEGO
> Trains. This is the system/technique that we used at the latest
> WWW.WAMALUG.ORG show. If anyone is interested, it can be found at:
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cook_thomas/
>
> Please feel free to comment and criticize. It is only a draft, and I
> suspect it will be changing frequently for a time being.
Hey, cool! The message count for the .trains group has reached the 45xx
range. Tom, you just posted message #4558!
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.trains, Tom Cook writes:
> > I have completed a draft explanation of how I implemented DCC into LEGO
> > Trains. This is the system/technique that we used at the latest
> > WWW.WAMALUG.ORG show. If anyone is interested, it can be found at:
> >
> > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cook_thomas/
> >
> > Please feel free to comment and criticize. It is only a draft, and I
> > suspect it will be changing frequently for a time being.
>
> Hey, cool! The message count for the .trains group has reached the 45xx
> range. Tom, you just posted message #4558!
And poor Mike, his post on Remote Points is #4561, I hope that doesn't bode
ill for the future of LEGO Train automation (i.e. I hope we don't see
juniorized automation).
Hmm, and message 3225 (one of the best current train sets) is a post of mine
about Metroliners...
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I'm just spouting off... but one thing about the way DCC was implemented
by Tom that struck me was.... why not allow multiple motors to be
controlled by one receiver? I admit I only skimmed it.
Suppose that in addition to modifying motors to install DCC receivers
(call them masters) we also modified motors to cut the connection
between the motor and the power pickups on the wheels, but LEFT the
motor actively connected to the power connection on the top of the motor
casing... (call these slaves)
Now, a slave can be powered by whatever power appears at its top
connection point.
That could be a DCC master which is driving motor control/power voltage
onto ITS top connection point, or it could be an on board RCX.
In fact, if TLC does something with trains and RCX's as is rumored, and
if they give it some thought, they may GIVE us slaves without us having
to make them.
Wouldn't that be cool?
Now, what am I missing? Is there soemthing about how the wiper assembly
and the top connection points work that precludes this?
If someone commercializes DCC LEGO I will no doubt make a purity
exception and get it. But my locos use multiple motors and I don't want
to use two receivers per loco. Waste of channels, waste of receivers,
waste of money.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> I'm just spouting off... but one thing about the way DCC was implemented
> by Tom that struck me was.... why not allow multiple motors to be
> controlled by one receiver? I admit I only skimmed it.
>
> Suppose that in addition to modifying motors to install DCC receivers
> (call them masters) we also modified motors to cut the connection
> between the motor and the power pickups on the wheels, but LEFT the
> motor actively connected to the power connection on the top of the motor
> casing... (call these slaves)
>
> Now, a slave can be powered by whatever power appears at its top
> connection point.
>
> That could be a DCC master which is driving motor control/power voltage
> onto ITS top connection point, or it could be an on board RCX.
...I actually had a similar idea to this. But rather than input/output
thru the top plate, just run a normal small jumper up thru the top
part. On a master engine, the decoder would power it and the motor at
the same time (leaving the top plate to power lights or whatever). if
the tail was not needed to power a slave, it would just clip to the
motor and not interfere with things. It should be possible to power a
slave motor thru its top plate (I think I tried this with a battery
box, but I could be remembering the old basic motor boxes), so it
shouldnt involve too much internal surgery to make it not be powered
by the wheels...
...IMHO, I'd love to see a single set of metal wheels to do the pickup
from the track (ie, no motor) then leads off the top to power
slaves/lights/internal lights/whatever... That way we could put the
'master' wheel set on, say, a metroliner car and use the lights
setting to just light up the inside without needing a motor there
too... but that's just a dream :-)
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
At 01:20 AM 3/5/00, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> I'm just spouting off... but one thing about the way DCC was implemented
> by Tom that struck me was.... why not allow multiple motors to be
> controlled by one receiver? I admit I only skimmed it.
>
> Suppose that in addition to modifying motors to install DCC receivers
> (call them masters) we also modified motors to cut the connection
> between the motor and the power pickups on the wheels, but LEFT the
> motor actively connected to the power connection on the top of the motor
> casing... (call these slaves)
that won't work with the current setup, since the upper power connection is
controlled seperatly from the speed - that way the lights don't dim when
you slow down the train. (which is cool on it's own). Perhaps it's
possible not to do that, and then I think your idea would work - but I
don't know that much about the DCC, only what I could understand from Tom.
> If someone commercializes DCC LEGO I will no doubt make a purity
> exception and get it. But my locos use multiple motors and I don't want
> to use two receivers per loco. Waste of channels, waste of receivers,
> waste of money.
well, maybe it's a waste of money/receivers, but you _can_ put multiple
motors on the same channel, we did it in some of the larger motors.
:)
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Dan Boger wrote:
> that won't work with the current setup, since the upper power connection is
> controlled seperatly from the speed
Drat. We really need two outputs, one constant and one controlled, and
two inputs, one constant and one controlled.
> well, maybe it's a waste of money/receivers, but you _can_ put multiple
> motors on the same channel, we did it in some of the larger motors.
Right. I knew that. I just remembered it AFTER I pressed the send
button. Sigh. Thanks for the reminder though
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > Suppose that in addition to modifying motors to install DCC receivers
> > (call them masters) we also modified motors to cut the connection
> > between the motor and the power pickups on the wheels, but LEFT the
> > motor actively connected to the power connection on the top of the motor
> > casing... (call these slaves)
>
> that won't work with the current setup, since the upper power connection is
> controlled seperatly from the speed - that way the lights don't dim when
> you slow down the train. (which is cool on it's own). Perhaps it's
> possible not to do that, and then I think your idea would work - but I
> don't know that much about the DCC, only what I could understand from Tom.
It depends, do you want lights or to run a 2nd motor slaved to the first? You
wouldn't run over the 1 A limit, since you would have (C 25 Ohms/motor, 25/2=13
ohms circuit, 9/13=less than 1 amp). You should NOT try to run 3 motors
connected to the same reciever, at least, not if it is a 1A reciever.
The only way that I can see to manage to get lights and be able to slave the
motors would involve trying to get a 2nd connection inside the motor, at the
other end. (Idea for Lego, but not so easy for the rest of us!)
James P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
James Powell wrote:
> > > Suppose that in addition to modifying motors to install DCC receivers
> > > (call them masters) we also modified motors to cut the connection
> > > between the motor and the power pickups on the wheels, but LEFT the
> > > motor actively connected to the power connection on the top of the motor
> > > casing... (call these slaves)
> >
> > that won't work with the current setup, since the upper power connection is
> > controlled seperatly from the speed - that way the lights don't dim when
> > you slow down the train. (which is cool on it's own). Perhaps it's
> > possible not to do that, and then I think your idea would work - but I
> > don't know that much about the DCC, only what I could understand from Tom.
>
> It depends, do you want lights or to run a 2nd motor slaved to the first? You
> wouldn't run over the 1 A limit, since you would have (C 25 Ohms/motor, 25/2=13
> ohms circuit, 9/13=less than 1 amp). You should NOT try to run 3 motors
> connected to the same reciever, at least, not if it is a 1A reciever.
>
> The only way that I can see to manage to get lights and be able to slave the
> motors would involve trying to get a 2nd connection inside the motor, at the
> other end. (Idea for Lego, but not so easy for the rest of us!)
>
> James P
Actually it is rather easy to do that. I've done that for my RCX Train.
Unfortunately I didn't take picks of my working on the motor but I've got some pics
of the completed item.
http://www.akasa.bc.ca/tfm/lego/trnmot12.jpg
This image shows a second wire coming out of the motor just below the aux port. The
aux port now supplies power from the track. (This feeds into my RCX) then the
second wire runs to the Output port on the RCX. If you were to make an external DCC
unit you could wire it up the same way. This way, lights stay on all the time and
powers any items you wish and you have full control over the motor.
It's simple to do, open the motor and put electrical tape over the tabs that press
against the motor.
Then solder wires onto the little eye tabs coming out of the motor. It's that easy!
(Just make sure you pass the wire around any moving parts...)
Dean
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Actually it is rather easy to do that. I've done that for my RCX Train.
>
> Unfortunately I didn't take picks of my working on the motor but I've got some
> pics of the completed item.
>
> http://www.akasa.bc.ca/tfm/lego/trnmot12.jpg
>
> This image shows a second wire coming out of the motor just below the aux
> port. The aux port now supplies power from the track. (This feeds into my RCX)
> then the second wire runs to the Output port on the RCX. If you were to make
> an external DCC unit you could wire it up the same way. This way, lights stay
> on all the time and powers any items you wish and you have full control over
> the motor.
That is a different way, I was thinking of having the plates replace the other
end of the motor...just realized that that wouldn't work, because then you
wouldn't have anywhere to mount the coupler.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
James Powell wrote:
> > Actually it is rather easy to do that. I've done that for my RCX Train.
> >
> > Unfortunately I didn't take picks of my working on the motor but I've got some
> > pics of the completed item.
> >
> > http://www.akasa.bc.ca/tfm/lego/trnmot12.jpg
> >
> > This image shows a second wire coming out of the motor just below the aux
> > port. The aux port now supplies power from the track. (This feeds into my RCX)
> > then the second wire runs to the Output port on the RCX. If you were to make
> > an external DCC unit you could wire it up the same way. This way, lights stay
> > on all the time and powers any items you wish and you have full control over
> > the motor.
>
> That is a different way, I was thinking of having the plates replace the other
> end of the motor...just realized that that wouldn't work, because then you
> wouldn't have anywhere to mount the coupler.
>
> James
Exactly. I was at first going to mount plate on the side, below the aux port. But
it was such a bear to get exact that I just decided to use a wire and glue it in
place. It was nerve racking working on a $40 motor but quite simple looking back.
Last night was my first run with my RCX train. (It's now Yellow and black. I
swapped battery covers with my Scout. Pics soon) It worked VERY well. It could pull
over 15 cars at level 5. Having the lights on all the time is just incredible. I
can see how DCC will take right off...
Dean
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, James Powell writes:
>
> > Actually it is rather easy to do that. I've done that for my RCX Train.
> >
> > Unfortunately I didn't take picks of my working on the motor but I've got • some
> > pics of the completed item.
> >
> > http://www.akasa.bc.ca/tfm/lego/trnmot12.jpg
> >
> > This image shows a second wire coming out of the motor just below the aux
> > port. The aux port now supplies power from the track. (This feeds into my • RCX)
> > then the second wire runs to the Output port on the RCX. If you were to make
> > an external DCC unit you could wire it up the same way. This way, lights stay
> > on all the time and powers any items you wish and you have full control over
> > the motor.
>
>
> That is a different way, I was thinking of having the plates replace the other
> end of the motor...just realized that that wouldn't work, because then you
> wouldn't have anywhere to mount the coupler.
>
> James
Don't mount the coupler on the motor. Attach it to the frame of the loco
(with a turntable allowing it swivel)and extend it out a bit. Of course, this
only works well when the train extends a bit further than the motor, but a
6x28 plate won't allow that, but an 8x54 plate will.
Mike
| | | | | | |
