Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#1 Posted : 13 March 2019 23:08:37(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
After having fun with k73 decoders in M-Gleis, I have spent some time thinking how to proceed with digital. In the end I decided to drop the CS3/CS3+ approach in lieu of an approach that I find more appealing and state-of-the-art.

After some browsing and reading I came to the realisation that I already had a quite capable central control unit in the shape of the track box that came along with my MS2. All I needed was some hardware to connect its CAN bus to a computer and run my stuff from there.

In the end, I bought the Startset 3 from CAN Digital Bahn. As to the control software, I narrowed my choices down to iTrain and Rocrail; I am a Mac user so some other alternatives were not attractive.

I have been very pleased with the quality of the pieces I received, although I still haven't got the correct feedback module. From the looks of the modules, one can tell that the makers are engineers, not marketing specialists, but they seem to know what they are doing.

I am particularly impressed at the points decoder WeichenChef 2.1. Each of its four outputs can be freely programmed to any protocol / address one can think of. Moreover, it can recognise the position of the switch / signal and report it back to the system bus. So, I can turn the switch or signal by hand, and all other components will receive a status message of the correct position. This is probably good from robustness angle.

As to iTrain and Rocrail, I have installed both on my MacBook and taken turns running them both. So far I haven't been able to really make a fair comparison because iTrain is quite limited without the feedbacks unlike Rocrail which has the useful feature that feedbacks can be simulated via the computer screen. So, I will try to keep an open mind until I get some more experience.

I must confess, though, that I am tilting towards Rocrail that seems offer more room for sophistication. I also managed to create a test track that iTrain cannot handle while Rocrail can. On a Mac, iTrain looks better, though.

In any case, both pieces of software work very well with CAN Digital Bahn devices. In the case of Rocrail, I found the mgbox library to be more stable than the officially recommended mcs2 library. In addition, mgbox handles mfx locomotives much better.

So far, I have been able to figure out how to make use of these new toys. Eventually, I will certainly face obstacles which require me to appeal for help from others. Please bear with me then.
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 5 users liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#2 Posted : 15 March 2019 22:26:49(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
Perhaps this is old news to this community, but I decided to share what I learned today. Perhaps it is useful to someone.

My CAN Digital Bahn feedback module has not arrived yet, so my progress has been temporarily halted. The pause nevertheless prompted me to get better prepared for the next steps.

Although I have a reasonable amount of M-track circuit tracks, I have hardly any contact tracks which would probably be better suited for a digital setup. Trying to get them from eBay at 6-7 € each would have been tedious, slow, and expensive, so I decided to try to make them myself.

Fortunately, from Stummis Modellbahnforum I found the entry

https://www.stummiforum.de/viewtopic.php?t=150711

which was bang on. My first try was not pretty, but it worked as intended. I went on to make five more.

I followed the recipe exactly except that I chose to remove the entire rail piece from the track before cutting it (with a manual metal saw), as I wanted to spare the track pieces from any unnecessary trauma. Moreover, instead of drilling a hole in the track, I simply routed the cable from the outer side of the rail. Those with power tools will probably do well by following the instructions to the letter. Anyway, I can testify that this method works as advertised.
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#3 Posted : 17 March 2019 20:29:10(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
Now that I wrote the previous entry (which perhaps was not such a great idea), I feel compelled to document for the benefit of mankind a small improvement to the method cited above.

Instead of inserting the connecting cable to the small hole at the top of the rail (which can easily go wrong), I stick it under the rail piece before I heat up the heat shrink. This attaches the cable snugly with the rail.

To route the cable, I use one of the small holes that M track have under the rails. I just need to lower the trackbed also at the frontside of the insulated rail piece to make room for the cable and widen the hole a bit with a small screwdriver. The result is very neat and the cable is nearly invisible.

I promise to return to proper digital stuff in subsequent posts.
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#4 Posted : 30 March 2019 23:13:42(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
My exploration into digital has continued. I received the missing feedback module (CAN Digital GleisReporter deLuxe) and tested it on an M track circuit with the self-made contact tracks. It all worked as expected, although just 8 feedbacks limited the range of automation quite a bit. I was nevertheless pleased with how easy the GleisReporter was to set up and use. An order for two or three further GleisReporter deLuxe units is imminent.

After the feedback experiment I launched another exploration on how far I gan get with M tracks. Specifically, I wanted to test how my turntable (Märklin 7186) could be incorporated to digital use.

As the first step, it was not difficult to figure out how to command the 7186 digitally; the figure below shows my test setup.



The setup uses two universal relays (Märklin 7245) commanded by a k83 unit (60830). One relay controls the clockwise vs. counterclockwise turning direction, the other the start / stop magnet. With the k83 device, this maps nicely to MS2 so that the left buttons command starting and stopping and right buttons the direction of motion. (The same could have achieved with a k84 unit, but I don't have any. Why buy one, when I have the bits that do the same thing?)

In Rocrail, one of the supported turntable controller models (accdec, https://wiki.rocrail.net/doku.php?id=tt-roco-en) matches reasonably well with this setup (although I was first baffled with the addressing mode used by accdec). So far, so good!

Unfortunately, it seems less obvious how to advance beyond this. One obstacle is that the start/stop mechanism of the 7186 is designed for the original use mode where the turntable moves only to the next position. In my test setup, I learned quickly that I must hit the "stop" key on MS2 to disengage the start/stop magnet as soon as the turntable starts to move to avoid power supply problems. This makes the turntable to stop at the next track position, just like the original analog controller. Rocrail can be configured to do the same; thus, the "next track" and "previous track" commands of the turntable can be made to work as intended. However, it is not clear how the others could be implemented.

Automatic use would of course require the integration of sensors for tracking the position of the turntable and the movement of locomotives. To test this realm, I created a small setup in Rocrail, shown below.



Unfortunately, I am still baffled about how the bridge sensors (fb11 and fb12 in the image) are supposed to work. In Rocrail simulation mode, they do not behave consistently. Sometimes they are ignored entirely, and sometimes just the "in" sensor (fb12) is observed, resulting in a "ghost train" in Rocrail nomenclature. Any insight into how to resolve this obstacle would be appreciated!

Otherwise, I can simulate the operation the turntable reasonably well within the limits of the underlying control functionality by clicking the appropriate sensor entities.

The next goal is to incorporate the turntable in higher levels of automation. I am still unsure how that should be done with the concepts of Rocrail. "Routes" don't seem to be the right concept, but neither do "tours" or "schedules". Is this where XML scripting is needed?
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline PeFu  
#5 Posted : 31 March 2019 07:09:36(UTC)
PeFu

Sweden   
Joined: 30/08/2002(UTC)
Posts: 1,208
Originally Posted by: Martti Mäntylä Go to Quoted Post
Now that I wrote the previous entry (which perhaps was not such a great idea), I feel compelled to document for the benefit of mankind a small improvement to the method cited above.

Instead of inserting the connecting cable to the small hole at the top of the rail (which can easily go wrong), I stick it under the rail piece before I heat up the heat shrink. This attaches the cable snugly with the rail.

To route the cable, I use one of the small holes that M track have under the rails. I just need to lower the trackbed also at the frontside of the insulated rail piece to make room for the cable and widen the hole a bit with a small screwdriver. The result is very neat and the cable is nearly invisible.

I promise to return to proper digital stuff in subsequent posts.



Using M tracks, as an alternative to making your own contact tracks, I would recommend the Littfinski current detection module:

https://www.ldt-infocent...doku.php?id=en:rm-gb-8-n

Andreasburg-Mattiasberg Bahn is inspired by Swiss railways |Forum Thread |Track Plan |Youtube | C and K track | CS2 | TrainController Gold V10
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by PeFu
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#6 Posted : 02 April 2019 20:53:34(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
Thanks for the tip, PeFu! I will investigate.

Meanwhile, I have made some progress with my 7186 experiment. I figured out how to implement the "goto track #" command that Rocrail automation uses in its work. All it took was to maintain the current position of the bridge in a global variable and write an XML macro for each target track position that moves the bridge to the desired position with "next track" and "previous track" commands directly supported my control setup. (Probably Rocrail has some sort of internal variable that stores the bridge position, but I haven't penetrated that deeply into its data model.) The current setup is shown below.



With this, I am getting closer to functionality that actually is useful. I don't mind clicking manually the bridge position sensors (sensors fb1 ... fb10) in the image. As locos won't move until I have clicked the appropriate sensor, this actually acts as a safety measure.

Unfortunately, I still haven't discovered a solution to the problem I am having with the bridge sensors fb11 (enter) and fb22 (in). Quite predictably, they work as expected every other time. That is, after Rocrail has driven a loco away from the bridge, the next attempt to drive back will fail because the bridge block does not respond to the sensors. When I back up the loco and try again, the operation works. Clearly, the bridge is left in some kind of unhealthy state after Rocrail has emptied it, a state which is fixed by the failing attempt. Any insight into this issue would be appreciated!

Another mystery that remains unresolved is to convince Rocrail that both ends of the bridge can be used. At the present, Rocrail treats the bridge as strictly one-way, so that locos can only enter and depart from the +-side of the block (from sensor fb11's side). Any hints on how to make Rocrail have a more relaxed attitude would also be appreciated.
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#7 Posted : 04 April 2019 00:30:09(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
I have made good progress with my 7186 experiment today, essentially bringing it to completion.

First, I figured out the root cause of the intermittently unresponsive bridge sensors. Very simply, I had left the tick mark for "embedded block" in the general settings of the turntable on, while still configuring elsewhere the turntable as having an external bridge block. Apparently in this confused situation Rocrail took turns between the two alternatives. After fixing this, the sensors work perfectly in simulation. Reminder to myself: read the fine manual!

This breakthrough enabled me to experiment with further levels of automation, such as sending locos from one block to another with a single command. In particular, I realised that Rocrail schedules make it possible to specify that locos leave the bridge from the opposite end (the minus side). This is of course critical to enable unlimited operations on the turntable.

The caveat is that my control model allows me only to move the +-side of the bridge to a desired track; I cannot move the bridge by specifying where I want to place the minus side. Thus I can only send locos out of the minus-side to tracks that have a companion at the opposite side of the turntable, i.e., tracks 0, 12, 24, and 36 in the figure of my previous post. This obviously limits the usefulness of, say, track 4 as an exit track. Nevertheless, I could get around this limitation by introducing "virtual tracks" only consisting of a (simulated) position sensor at the opposite side of each track that needs to be accessible from the minus side of the bridge.

The last bit that I haven't accomplished is figuring out how locos could enter the bridge from the minus side. Schedules can't achieve this, as it appears that one cannot specify the entry side of a block in a schedule. This facility - if possible at all - would enable every operation of the turntable to be performed in two ways, one or the other being better in terms of bridge movements needed. It seems nevertheless difficult to benefit from this flexibility unless by creating two variants of every schedule and leaving the choice to the user. So I may well leave this item unresolved: even with the present functionality, I can perform any manipulations that a turntable can do.

All in all, this was a fun and educational experiment. It turned out that Rocrail turntables are quite tricky to configure and it is easy to get it wrong. At the same time, the XML scripts and other features of Rocrail turned out to be well capable of creating quite general functionality on top of easily 50 years old unaltered hardware.

The experiment also helped me to make my choice between Rocrail and iTrain. In a tradeoff between more flexibility and tailorability against a smoother user interface, I prefer the first alternative. I cannot see how I could have achieved these results with iTrain.

Edited by user 07 April 2019 01:40:22(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#8 Posted : 06 April 2019 01:29:24(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
I thought I had the 7186 experiment all figured out, but I didn't. It seems that this topic is becoming a kind of learning diary of how to make use of Rocrail's features. Perhaps there are other Rocrail noobs besides me, so I continue the story.

I was prompted to put more thought into this experiment after seeing Rocrail all the sudden move a loco on the bridge from the minus-end. So it can be done! Unfortunately, this phenomenon was difficult to replicate using the half automated mode. Clearly, I did not have the kind of control of the turntable that I was trying to achieve.

After experimenting with schedules a bit more, I came to the realisation that Rocrail needs the help of higher-level control defined outside the scope of the turntable itself. What should happen to a loco that enters the scene from one of the input tracks? How does the choice depend on whether the loco appears head first or tail first? Likewise, when a loco leaves the turntable, should it be reversed, or should it leave in the same orientation as it had on the storage tracks? The turntable itself cannot decide these matters.

At the end I decided to add four additional control buttons to the test scene as shown in the present test setup shown below.



On the right side of the picture with the entering tracks 0 and 4, two buttons control whether the loco should move directly to the storage tracks 16-26, or whether its orientation should be reversed before parking. In the case of the picture, loco BR 74 appears tail first on track 4, so if I want to park it in the same orientation, I select the "Through in" button and guide the loco to the target track by dragging and dropping. Alternatively, if I want to turn it around before parking, I select the "Revolve in" button instead. (Of course, in a real layout I imagine that these buttons would be replaced by some kind of higher-level control.) If I select neither, I let Rocrail to make a random choice. If I select both, all paths are blocked and the loco cannot move into the turntable.

Likewise, on the storage side on the left with tracks 16 to 26, the "Through out" and "Revolve out" buttons control whether a loco should leave a storage track and appear on an outward track in the same orientation it had or reversed.

The test setup also includes a "virtual track" 28 on the opposite side of track 4. As I explained in the previous post, this track serves only the purpose of making it possible to route locos from the minus end of the bridge to the opposite track. The physical device has no real tracks in the +-position, so the block 28 is taken out of play.

The picture actually shows a scenario where the virtual track has just been utilised. In this case, the BR 74 has been routed out of a storage track to track 4 with the "Through out" option in play. To achieve this, the +-side of the bridge has been moved to the virtual position 28, so that the minus side gives access to track 4 and the loco can move there preserving the orientation it had on the storage track.

For aditional flexibility, I could add virtual tracks for every physical track that does not have one (i.e., tracks 16, 18, 20, 22 and 26). This would nevertheless complicate the controlling of the setup considerably, so I have not tried to pursue this path any further.

So, there was still more to study in this experiment. This time, I better not claim it closed and out, as there may be still be further ideas that I haven't had yet.
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#9 Posted : 07 April 2019 01:20:15(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
Yet one more update on the 7186 experiment.

I came to the realisation that while controlling the behaviour of the turntable by enabling and disabling routes is the way to go, the scheme I had devised was still not expressive enough. Therefore, I replaced it with a more general scheme that controls directly access and departure routes of the bridge.



As shown in the figure, the control scheme consists of four "on/off" buttons arranged around the bridge block. Buttons "Enter +" and "Leave +" control whether locos are permitted to enter viz. leave the bridge from the "+" side. Buttons "Enter -" and "Leave -" control similarly the "-" side.

In the scenario of the picture, locos are permitted to enter from the "+" side and leave from the "-" side of the bridge. If I wanted to move BR 74 from track 24 to track 0 in its present orientation, I could drag and drop its image to Track 0. This would cause the "+" end of the bridge to be moved to track 24 so that BR 74 can enter it, after which it can leave the bridge to track 0 from the "-" end. Alternatively, I could first change the control buttons to enable entering from the "-" side and leaving from the "+" side, in which case less bridge movement would be needed. On the other hand, if I wanted to move BR 74 to track 0 in reversed orientation, I could enable either the "Enter+" and "Leave+" buttons, or the "Enter-" and "Leave-" buttons before dragging and dropping.

This scheme seems to cover all thinkable operations of the turntable except turning a loco around by driving it to the bridge, turning the bridge 180 degrees, and driving it back to the original track, this being an operation outside the scope of a single drag & drop. A sequence of two drag & drop operations will nevertheless achieve the desired effect.

After this, I contemplated briefly the idea of optimising the bridge movements a bit further.

At the present, the bridge moves one "next track" or "previous track" at a time; hence it stops at each intermediate position along the path towards the goal. My XML macros control this with appropriate timers.

Nominally, I could replace repeated stopping and starting with continuous bridge movement by engaging the start magnet just at the right moment to prevent the bridge from stopping at an intermediate track, as long as the engagement is short enough to avoid overburdening my power supply. This nevertheless proved to be impractical bordering impossible.

As I don't have real bridge position sensors (and have no plans to install them either), I would have to rely on timers. This is tricky not only because the speed of rotation is variable, but also because the actual geometry of the 7186 is more complex as it may seem at first sight.

Specifically, the device seems to be designed so that one can install two Märklin 7028 Lokschuppen on the tracks 16 .. 20 and 22 .. 26, respectively. To provide enough space for this, the angle between tracks 20 and 22 appears to be about 18 degrees, rather than the nominal 15 degrees. Hence the angle between tracks 12 and 16 is about 27 degrees, rather than 30 degrees, the angular distance between tracks 0 and 4.

(This also means that it is hopeless to try to connect tracks 16 .. 20 with outside tracks; they are alien to the regular M track geometry. Moreover, putting a Lokschuppen on, say, tracks 18, 20 and 22 will be a source of grief.)

This complexity is manageable if I let the bridge stop at each intermediate position, because I can select my timers for the worst case so that they err on the safe side. To enable continuous movement, I should nevertheless model the geometry exactly because there is no safe side to err. This is a mission I am willing to undertake only if someone agrees to pay for it on an hourly wage basis with no guarantee of a satisfactory outcome.

Edit: I checked the Märklin documentation on M track geometry to find that that the angle between tracks 20 and 22 is declared to be 17.5 degrees. I had never really internalised this, even though I thought I understood M track geometry,
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#10 Posted : 13 October 2019 01:12:50(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
The golf season is ending, so I am returning to the model train activity after a small break.

To get going again, I purchased a few more CAN Digital feedback modules, having been quite happy with the quality of their offerings. I thought that a total of 32 feedbacks is likely to be quite sufficient. Now I see that I was mistaken, because the most recent Teppichbahn I have built during the last couple of weeks has used them all up, and I can think of many ways to expand the layout for more fun.

This is how the setup at present looks like in Rocrail:



The small end station on the left side is intended mainly to show off my recently expanded Silberlinge train; see my post in the "Rolling Stock Purchase" thread. Otherwise, the setup has been another exploration into what Rocrail can do. I continue to be impressed, even though the Rocrail facilities for handling the deadlock scenarios caused by the two-way sidetrack leading the the end station seem yet to be somewhat buggy.

I also tried to include my 7186 turntable to the setup, but that did not work - my current 66360 power unit is not enough for the job. I will probably need to add a booster to my shopping list.
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 5 users liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#11 Posted : 13 October 2019 23:33:41(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
The end station of my Teppichbahn is in darkish corner of the room, so I installed an old Märklin 7047 station lamp into it.

Just for fun, I made the lamp digitally controllable so that it is only put on when at least one train is in the station. This is how it looks like:



When the station becomes empty, turning the light off is delayed by 20 seconds for a more graceful effect.
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#12 Posted : 18 October 2019 00:48:46(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
Just to share an experience that may be useful to others, one never knows ...

Suddenly, the "in" contact sensors of the end station of my Teppichbahn ceased working. To fix them, I tried all sorts of things, including rewiring the contact tracks. Nothing helped.

At the end, I realised that I had only tested the sensors with one train, so I took a tank car and tried to fire the sensors with it by hand. Voila! the sensors worked just as intended.

So, the problem turned out to be that the wheels of the car at the front of the train I was first using to test the contact tracks were dirty enough to prevent a proper contact between the rails to take place at this far away corner of the layout. I checked the wheels and indeed they looked susceptible. I cleaned them carefully and tested the original train again. Success!

So it seems a good idea to make sure that the wheels of trains are kept reasonably clean.

Moreover, I am probably close to hitting the limits of my present power supply, and it is not surprising that this kind of a problem shows up precisely in the track section furthest away from the connection to the track box where the margin of error is small. I probably should start worrying about the power supply / distribution issue if I want to extend my layout (which, of course, I certainly do).

Edit: I mention another lesson learned that does not qualify for a post of its own. Namely, I finally figured out how to create station announcements using the Rocrail "speak for block" facility. This is a nice feature that nevertheless is documented quite confusingly in two distinct places of the Rocrail Wiki which seem to leave some parts of the story out. Nevertheless, the feature works as I wished. To my surprise, I haven't yet got bored of the announcements but find that they help me to keep track of what is going on in the setup.

Edited by user 18 October 2019 21:29:06(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#13 Posted : 04 November 2019 00:11:35(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
I have gradually been expanding my Teppichbahn so that by now it has about 48 meters of track, with 14 switches, 13 Märklin 70xx signals, and 40 sensors. In Rocrail, it has 24 blocks. The layout is shown below; it now pretty much fills my living room, hugging the walls and running underneath various pieces of furniture as needed. (Red colour highlights the contact tracks used as sensors. Yellow denotes M track - I wanted to test my self-made contact tracks.)



As may be expected, I have hit the wall with the power capacity of the Märklin 60116 track box I use as the central control - even though it lasted far further than I initially expected. The device can put no more than 2 amperes on the track. With signal bulbs taking a good part of that, I ended up in a situation where I couldn't run even two trains at a time without issues. So, the need to look into power boosting became a top priority.

Fortunately, the topic has been discussed in several threads of this forum, including the redeployment of the Märklin 6604 DELTA-Control as a booster powered by a white 6647 transformer. So, I took out the units I originally bought in 1989 (when I made by first reentry into model trains) and deployed the setup described in the various threads (and elsewhere on the net).

I ended up in a configuration that splits the track in two insulated parts so that the main station (on the right side in the picture) and the shorter side track (on the top) are powered by the DELTA Control and the rest by the track box. With this division, trains will switch from one source of power to the other with some speed, hopefully facilitating a smooth handover. I also installed DIY quick-and-dirty rockers at the insulation points.

As a result, the overall performance has improved - I seem to be able to run at least three trains at the same time. Still, I noticed that while the Delta booster seems to deliver close to 2 amperes power, it does this at the cost of putting perhaps around 15-16 volts on the track, a voltage considerably lower than the desired 18.2 so that trains run a bit slower and some signals are reluctant to do their jobs. I guess this is exactly what one can expect a 32 VA transformer to deliver. Nevertheless, I will study the topic to see if there is a way to trade amperes against volts.

Moreover, I soon realised that I must swap the configuration so that the track box get the job of powering the main station and the Delta booster gets the rest - I need MFX feedback at the main station! This should also help with the timing issues that the Delta unit seems to have - some locomotives seem to act a bit jumpy.

In all other respects, I am quite satisfied with the result. In particular, it was nice to see a long retired piece of equipment recalled to active service again!
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Martti Mäntylä
Offline TEEWolf  
#14 Posted : 04 November 2019 01:41:54(UTC)
TEEWolf


Joined: 01/06/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,465
Originally Posted by: Martti Mäntylä Go to Quoted Post

...
I ended up in a configuration that splits the track in two insulated parts so that the main station (on the right side in the picture) and the shorter side track (on the top) are powered by the DELTA Control and the rest by the track box. With this division, trains will switch from one source of power to the other with some speed, hopefully facilitating a smooth handover. I also installed DIY quick-and-dirty rockers at the insulation points.


I am not sure, if I understand you correctly. But this split into 2 parallel circles sounds you using 2 GFPs at one layout, not splitting into one GFP plus a booster? Whereas I do not know, if the delta control unit is usable as a booster. Maerklin always says, never use 2 independent GFP solutions together in one layout. A GFP is a Gleisformatprozessor and is producing the digital track signal for a layout.

Have you be informed about Maerklins new technical and safety informations?

https://www.maerklin.de/...echnische-informationen/

https://www.maerklin.de/...e/technical-information/





Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#15 Posted : 04 November 2019 04:24:53(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
Thanks for the reply, TEEWolf!

I may have expressed myself too vaguely, but the setup I am using is actually documented by Märklin itself in chapter 6 of the instruction booklet of Märklin 66045 Delta Control 4 f, the successor of 6604. The setup seems to work with the earlier model as well.

I interpret the document to mean that the Delta unit indeed acts just as a booster, and there is only a single source of the digital track signal.

I have browsed through the safety documents you mention. My setup seems to fall within the scope of category 2, so I think I am on the safe side of the safety instructions.
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
Offline Bigdaddynz  
#16 Posted : 04 November 2019 06:07:35(UTC)
Bigdaddynz

New Zealand   
Joined: 17/09/2006(UTC)
Posts: 18,661
Location: New Zealand
Originally Posted by: TEEWolf Go to Quoted Post
But this split into 2 parallel circles sounds you using 2 GFPs at one layout, not splitting into one GFP plus a booster?
Maerklin always says, never use 2 independent GFP solutions together in one layout. A GFP is a Gleisformatprozessor and is producing the digital track signal for a layout


Another example of a term being used incorrectly out of context.

The GFP is a hardware/software component inside a Mobile Station or a Central Station and is used to process and place the track signal on to the track. The correct term to use here is 'Booster', which as it suggests boosts the signal to provide extra power. A booster has a GFP but the GFP is not the booster!

Originally Posted by: TEEWolf Go to Quoted Post
Whereas I do not know, if the delta control unit is usable as a booster.


Of course it can - see the manual Martti posted the link to - page 20.


Offline Purellum  
#17 Posted : 04 November 2019 08:57:49(UTC)
Purellum

Denmark   
Joined: 08/11/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,498
Location: Mullerup, 4200 Slagelse
Cool

Originally Posted by: Martti Mäntylä Go to Quoted Post
With this division, trains will switch from one source of power to the other with some speed, hopefully facilitating a smooth handover. I also installed DIY quick-and-dirty rockers at the insulation points


This is a "dangerous" setup; if the rockers fail you can destroy your MS2 trackbox.

( The output stage of a 6604 / 66045 is two transistors in a push-pull connection; while the output stage of
a MS2 trackbox is 4 transistors in a H-bridge connection. Cool Don't mix those to types! )

10 - 11 years ago I wrote a few articles on the subject of using 6604 and 66045 as boosters with the MS1 BigGrin

They are still here, however the pictures have disappeared, since they were on a now close hosting site.

I would have just one MFX-track, connected directly to the MS2 trackbox and NOT in any way connected to you layout.

Then you could register your locos and manually lift them on to they main layout.

On the main layout, you can have several 6604 / 66045 boosters, and depending on which trafos you're using,
you can also get a higher voltage output - but if all are the same, I don't think you'll need it.

Per.

Cool

If you can dream it, you can do it!

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

UserPostedImage
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#18 Posted : 04 November 2019 14:50:00(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
Originally Posted by: Purellum Go to Quoted Post
Cool

Originally Posted by: Martti Mäntylä Go to Quoted Post
With this division, trains will switch from one source of power to the other with some speed, hopefully facilitating a smooth handover. I also installed DIY quick-and-dirty rockers at the insulation points


This is a "dangerous" setup; if the rockers fail you can destroy your MS2 trackbox.

( The output stage of a 6604 / 66045 is two transistors in a push-pull connection; while the output stage of
a MS2 trackbox is 4 transistors in a H-bridge connection. Cool Don't mix those to types! )

10 - 11 years ago I wrote a few articles on the subject of using 6604 and 66045 as boosters with the MS1 BigGrin

They are still here, however the pictures have disappeared, since they were on a now close hosting site.

I would have just one MFX-track, connected directly to the MS2 trackbox and NOT in any way connected to you layout.

Then you could register your locos and manually lift them on to they main layout.

On the main layout, you can have several 6604 / 66045 boosters, and depending on which trafos you're using,
you can also get a higher voltage output - but if all are the same, I don't think you'll need it.

Per.

Cool



Thanks for the reply, Per!

I actually read your posts while contemplating the use of 6604 for my layout, and they gave me a bit more confidence to try this approach. Indeed, if I had two copies of 6604 / 66045, I would do exactly as you suggest - use the 6604's to drive the main tracks, and limit the use of the track box to the programming track alone. Unfortunately, I only possess one, which alone did not have enough juice to run my trains. Hmm, perhaps I should buy another ...

Just to complete the story, I swapped the duties of the track box and the booster. As a result, I am now getting a higher voltage from the booster than the track box. Whether this is healthy to my locos in the longer run is unclear to me; so far they just run a bit faster on the Delta-powered tracks and seem otherwise happy.

Judging by the readings of the MS2, my rail yard consumed some 1.2 amperes just for the signal bulbs; little wonder that I could not run too many trains. This observation prompted me to insert a separate light transformator. Moving seven signals to its care reduced the fixed consumption to 0.7-0.8 amperes; so, I should now have much more margin for running trains successfully.

Just to make some kind of a point, I deployed my oldest transformator for the light service, the one I got at nine years of age with my very first Märklin set. It seems to do its job well. (I have replaced the power cord, though - the original looked quite dangerous.) The result is a funny mixture of three generations of technology: 60 years old, 30 years old, and contemporary. I find it remarkable that they still work together when needed.


- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
Offline Purellum  
#19 Posted : 04 November 2019 15:14:41(UTC)
Purellum

Denmark   
Joined: 08/11/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,498
Location: Mullerup, 4200 Slagelse
Cool

Originally Posted by: Martti Mäntylä Go to Quoted Post
Hmm, perhaps I should buy another ...


If you can't find a cheap one locally, if you want one, please let me know Cool

I still have brand new and boxed 66045s in stock............ LOL

Per.

Cool

If you can dream it, you can do it!

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.780 seconds.