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 H0  
#1 Posted : 23 December 2013 16:14:05(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
The Test Setup
I used two C track circuit tracks with a 24188 between. I ran various locos across this test track at speed step 1 (exceptions are indicated) of the best protocol support by the decoder.
The freeware PaTacho was used to measure the time required for each test run.
PaTacho automatically calculates the scale speed (prototype speed in km/h) and the values were recorded manually.
Each loco ran 8 times forward (left to right) and 8 times in reverse (right to left).
Some motors are not really symmetric, leading to higher speed in one direction. So for each loco I look at the result for forward only, for reverse only and also for all test runs. If loco is faster in one direction this is not held against the decoder.
The locos ran single without load. The same test track and the same configuration was used for all test runs.

This test does not indicate whether a loco runs smooth or jerky or whether the transition from standstill to running is smooth or jerky.
This test does indicate how strict a decoder can control the speed of a loco.

Highly interesting for me are results of otherwise identical locos with different decoders.

Expectations
Expectations are that an excellent decoder will manage all test runs within +/- 5% of the average speed. Up to +/- 10% will be allowed for good decoders.
Variations larger than 10% are considered lack of load regulation.

Results

The test roster included three Märklin Ludmillas: One with factory factory-installed fx decoder, one with factory-installed mfx decoder (sound decoder), one with user-installed ESU V4 LokSound decoder. As all three locos share the same cheap three-pole can motor, I was very interested in the results of the comparison of these three locos.
The fx decoder does not allow load regulation parameters to be configured. The mfx decoder was used with the factory-default settings. The ESU LokSound decoder was used with load regulation parameters I set after a few test runs (these may not be the best parameters though).

Ludmilla fx (factory-installed)
Forward
2,33 2,28 2,24 2,21 2,21 2,21 2,2 2,21
Average 2,23625 Min 2,2 Max 2,33 Max/Min 5,91% Max/Avg 4,19% Min/Avg -1,62% STDABW 0,045961941
Reverse
2,4 2,38 2,35 2,34 2,32 2,31 2,3 2,31
Average 2,33875 Min 2,3 Max 2,4 Max/Min 4,35% Max/Avg 2,62% Min/Avg -1,66% STDABW 0,036030741
Total
Average 2,2875 Min 2,2 Max 2,4 Max/Min 9,09% Max/Avg 4,92% Min/Avg -3,83% STDABW 0,066282225


Ludmilla mfx (factory-installed sound decoder)
Forward
2,36 2,47 2,83 2,45 3,21 2,52 2,69 2,25
Average 2,5975 Min 2,25 Max 3,21 Max/Min 42,67% Max/Avg 23,58% Min/Avg -13,38% STDABW 0,30681544
Reverse
2,85 3,01 3,27 3,46 3 3,09 3,04 3,86
Average 3,1975 Min 2,85 Max 3,86 Max/Min 35,44% Max/Avg 20,72% Min/Avg -10,87% STDABW 0,326091573
Total
Average 2,8975 Min 2,25 Max 3,86 Max/Min 71,56% Max/Avg 33,22% Min/Avg -22,35% STDABW 0,435377231


Ludmilla ESU V4 (user-installed)
Forward
1,55 1,56 1,56 1,57 1,57 1,57 1,57 1,57
Average 1,565 Min 1,55 Max 1,57 Max/Min 1,29% Max/Avg 0,32% Min/Avg -0,96% STDABW 0,007559289
Reverse
1,56 1,56 1,57 1,57 1,57 1,57 1,56 1,57
Average 1,56625 Min 1,56 Max 1,57 Max/Min 0,64% Max/Avg 0,24% Min/Avg -0,40% STDABW 0,005175492
Total
Average 1,565625 Min 1,55 Max 1,57 Max/Min 1,29% Max/Avg 0,28% Min/Avg -1,00% STDABW 0,006291529



Another interesting test field: three Köf II and one Ka. I presume they all have the same motor.
I have to assume that two Köf II and the Ka have been made in China while the latest Köf II probably was made in Hungary. Looking at the motor will void the warranty, so I can only look at the test results.

Tm 34 SOB (60901 with DIP switches, Speed step 2/27, loco did not move at speed step 1)
Forward
4,19 4,24 4,21 3,97 4,17 4,18 4,16 4,06
Average 4,1475 Min 3,97 Max 4,24 Max/Min 6,80% Max/Avg 2,23% Min/Avg -4,28% STDABW 0,088761317
Reverse
3,82 3,79 3,75 3,74 3,74 3,74 3,74 3,74
Average 3,7575 Min 3,74 Max 3,82 Max/Min 2,14% Max/Avg 1,66% Min/Avg -0,47% STDABW 0,030589447
Total
Average 3,9525 Min 3,74 Max 4,24 Max/Min 13,37% Max/Avg 7,27% Min/Avg -5,38% STDABW 0,211360671

Köf II Wiebe (PIC)
Forward
2,37 2,37 2,37 2,37 2,38 2,37 2,38 2,37
Average 2,3725 Min 2,37 Max 2,38 Max/Min 0,42% Max/Avg 0,32% Min/Avg -0,11% STDABW 0,0046291
Reverse
2,48 2,48 2,49 2,49 2,47 2,45 2,47 2,47
Average 2,475 Min 2,45 Max 2,49 Max/Min 1,63% Max/Avg 0,61% Min/Avg -1,01% STDABW 0,013093073
Total
Average 2,42375 Min 2,37 Max 2,49 Max/Min 5,06% Max/Avg 2,73% Min/Avg -2,22% STDABW 0,053774219

Ka mfx (ESU)
Forward
0,84 0,85 0,85 0,85 0,83 0,85 0,85 0,85
Average 0,84625 Min 0,83 Max 0,85 Max/Min 2,41% Max/Avg 0,44% Min/Avg -1,92% STDABW 0,007440238
Reverse
0,83 0,83 0,84 0,84 0,83 0,84 0,84 0,84
Average 0,83625 Min 0,83 Max 0,84 Max/Min 1,20% Max/Avg 0,45% Min/Avg -0,75% STDABW 0,005175492
Total
Average 0,84125 Min 0,83 Max 0,85 Max/Min 2,41% Max/Avg 1,04% Min/Avg -1,34% STDABW 0,008062258

Köf II mfx (Märklin)
Forward
3,34 3,34 3,33 3,33 3,32 3,26 3,34 3,35
Average 3,32625 Min 3,26 Max 3,35 Max/Min 2,76% Max/Avg 0,71% Min/Avg -1,99% STDABW 0,028252686
Reverse
3,39 3,4 3,4 3,44 3,44 3,43 3,43 3,4
Average 3,41625 Min 3,39 Max 3,44 Max/Min 1,47% Max/Avg 0,70% Min/Avg -0,77% STDABW 0,020658793
Total
Average 3,37125 Min 3,26 Max 3,44 Max/Min 5,52% Max/Avg 2,04% Min/Avg -3,30% STDABW 0,052265349


Here are the results for the new Lollo Märklin 37740, Loco of the month - and for me the biggest disappointment this year so far.
Lollo 37740
Forward
4,41 3,83 2,98 4,3 2,96 4,53 3,06 3,15
Average 3,6525 Min 2,96 Max 4,53 Max/Min 53,04% Max/Avg 24,02% Min/Avg -18,96% STDABW 0,689715262
Reverse
3,38 2,76 4,43 4,26 3,39 4,42 4,45 4,43
Average 3,94 Min 2,76 Max 4,45 Max/Min 61,23% Max/Avg 12,94% Min/Avg -29,95% STDABW 0,663497228
Total
Average 3,79625 Min 2,76 Max 4,53 Max/Min 64,13% Max/Avg 19,33% Min/Avg -27,30% STDABW 0,670431453


Conclusions
The comparison of the three Ludmillas (different decoders, but probably same type of motors) confirms what I expected from eyesight: the fx decoder controls the speed of the loco pretty well (within +4.92%/-3.83% of the average). The ESU V4 beats it slightly (+0.28%/-1.00%).
The bronze medal goes to the Märklin mfx decoder (excellent load regulation, all test samples were within +33.22%/-22.35% of the average). Not even two orders of magnitude worse than the winner of the gold medal ... (do I sound sarcastic?)

The comparison of the four Köf II/Ka (different decoders, but probably same type of motors) leads to slightly different results: the new Märklin mfx decoder controls the speed almost as good as the ESU mfx decoder (but is about four times as fast at speed step 1 out of 126). The programmable fx decoder (PIC decoder) is also slower than the new Märklin mfx decoder and achieves slightly better results (reverse speed is higher than forward speed, but I don't blame the decoder). Results for the 60901 decoder vary a bit more. But the worst decoder out of these four still shows good results (+2.23%/-4.28% forward, +1.66%/-0.47% reverse).

The Lollo Märklin 37740 stands alone in this test field. I'm so disappointed about this loco that I started this test series to get figures that show her weaknesses. The transition from standstill to speed step 1 is very jerky with this loco (which you cannot tell from the test results shown here) and the speed at speed step 1 varies a lot. She runs smoothly at a speed that appears to be constant - but each time I start her she runs at a different speed.
The eight forward samples fall within +24.02%/-18.96% of the average, the eight reverse samples fall within +12.94%/-29.95% of the average. For the total of 16 test runs, this gives +19.33%/-27.30%.
The fastest forward test run was 53.04% faster than the slowest run, in reverse it was 61.23%.
This is not what I call excellent load regulation. She runs pretty fast at speed step 1 - the average is close to 4 km/h.


Today I tested five BR 101 models from Märklin. All five should have the same motor, but came with different factory-installed decoders: 60901 with DIP switches, fx PIC (programmable decoder), ESU mfx, MäTrix mfx with and without sound.
I also tested one BR 120.0 with factory-installed ESU OEM decoder and another BR 120.0 which has an ESU LoPi v3 instead.

Here are the results after 23 test series with 21 locomotives:
Locomotive (Decoder), Variation of speed, Scale speed (km/h)
Lollo 37740 (DCC ESU LoPi 4 (default values)) 0,31%, 3,22
BR 101 37397 (fx PIC) 0,34%, 5,98
BR 101 37399 (mfx ESU) 0,41%, 3,63
Ludmilla 36423 (DCC ESU LoPi V4) 0,48%, 1,57
BR 101 60901 37391 FS2 (fx DIP (speed step 2/27)) 0,48%, 10,36
Köf II Wiebe 36820 (fx PIC) 0,51%, 2,42
120 004 37537 LoPi 3 (ESU LoPi v3) 0,58%, 3,49
BR 101, 37370 (mfx Sound Trix) 0,82%, 3,59
Ka 36810 (mfx ESU) 0,89%, 0,84
Köf II 36827 (mfx Trix) 1,04%, 3,37
E 17 37061 (mfx Trix) 1,35%, 2,90
BR 216 mfx 37748 (mfx OEM ESU) 1,44%, 2,96
BR 216 PIC 29710 (fx DIP) 1,83%, 5,74
120 002 37538 original (fx OEM ESU) 1,94%, 4,10
Tm 34 SOB 36803 (Speed step 2/27) (fx DIP) 2,16%, 3,95
BR 101 37390 (mfx Trix) 2,34%, 2,95
Ludmilla fx 36420 (fx PIC) 2,52%, 2,29
Trix ES 64 U2 with MLD (mfx Trix 60942) 4,99%, 3,06
BR 101 60901 37391 FS1 (fx DIP) 7,28%, 1,05
BR 216 DIP 37744 (fx DIP) 7,87%, 1,24
Ludmilla mfx 36424 (mfx Sound Trix) 17,14%, 2,90
BR 103 37573 (mfx Sound Trix) 17,28%, 2,93
Lollo 37740 (mfx Sound Trix) 21,47%, 3,80

Remarks:
The best results were achieved with the Lollo 37740 with a temporarily installed ESU V4 decoder; the worst results were achieved by the same loco, but with the factory-installed decoder.
The new mfx decoders are listed as Trix decoders because they return the manufacturer ID 131 which is Trix. The slow speed control of these decoders varies a lot: the best result was achieved in a BR 101 with DCM (0.82% variation), the worst result was the Lollo with 21.47% variation. All results greater 10% came from the new mfx sound decoders (and smaller values are better).
I tested the BR 101 37391 twice: once at speed step 1 where it ran very slow (around 1 km/h), but not smooth and once at speed step 2 where it ran very smooth, but rather fast (around 10 km/h).
You cannot tell the smoothness from the table above. Personally I'm very impressed by the performance of the Ludmilla with the ESU V4 decoder: it ran smooth at a constant and rather slow speed.
The Köf II with the Trix mfx decoder was nearly as constant as the Ka with the ESU mfx decoder - but the Köf II ran four times as fast (and constant running at slower speeds is more impressive IMHO).

Edited by user 26 December 2013 21:11:10(UTC)  | Reason: More results.

Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 13 users liked this useful post by H0
Offline Janne75  
#2 Posted : 23 December 2013 16:31:31(UTC)
Janne75

Finland   
Joined: 23/03/2012(UTC)
Posts: 2,550
Location: Finland
Tom,

Thanks from VERY precise test results. I can believe your test results as I don't think also that Mfx decoder has near as good and stable running as older fx decoders or ESU decoders.

PS. It seems like you have also "too much" free time now Wink , but you use it very well ThumpUp . I will be waiting for further test results. I hope that you take also other motor type locos than can motors to your tests.

All the best and Merry Christmas!

Regards,
Janne
Märklin H0 digital layout. I have analog and digital H0 Collection. Rolling stock mostly from era I, II, III and IV. Märklin 1 gauge beginner.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Janne75
Offline H0  
#3 Posted : 23 December 2013 17:03:07(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: Janne75 Go to Quoted Post
I hope that you take also other motor type locos than can motors to your tests.
I still want to do some more test runs with the 6090 DCM. Maybe my class 101 locos will be guinea pigs for that test.

Now there are results for 8 locos in the first post.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by H0
Offline TimR  
#4 Posted : 23 December 2013 18:07:50(UTC)
TimR

Indonesia   
Joined: 16/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,752
Location: Jakarta
That's a great post, Tom...

The Lollo test result looked to be pretty disappointing...
Granted, some users may find that there is no problem with the loco, but then again, it only proves poor/inadequate quality control...

For me this only justify that MFx (ever since they gone in-house) had been the type of decoder to avoid.

Now to recall,
Load control issues of MFx decoders was not such a big problem in the early days, but only when you have..... an SDS model....
.. since decoder's load control will always be disabled on SDS loks,
we won't be able to tell the difference between the quality of those early gen in-house Marklin MFx decoder and an ESU V4 decoder..

But no matter the decoder, you'll ALWAYS guaranteed to get silky smooth running quality from Speed 1.

Alas, to take out SDS, is to expose MFx of its many problems....
Well, Marklin sure get what they pay for.
Now collecting C-Sine models.
Offline RayF  
#5 Posted : 23 December 2013 18:41:31(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Hi Tom,

Thanks for your methodical testing.

I've just been running my 37441 Lollo, and by watching very carefully I noticed a slight unevenness in the running at speed step one, which could have been due to the long train it was pulling. I did not notice any inconsistency in the minimum speed when starting and stopping a few times, and the mimimum speed always seemed to me to be about walking pace. This is higher than, for example, the Br221 3782 I have on the track at the same time, but is still acceptable in my eyes. The Br221 with a 60902 decoder and 5 pole DCM motor was smooth but made groaning noises at speed step one (probably needs a drop of oil).

My conclusion is that your test results show a worse performance for this type of loco which I can partly confirm, but not to the degree you observe in yours. Either you have an unusually bad example or I have a particularly good one. Either way, it shows that somewhere in the production of this loco there is a variation in tolerances that needs to be addressed. Whether it is in the motor, the gears, or the decoder is not obvious to me.

I've always had a suspicion that the 6090/60902 decoders were the smoothest made by Marklin (including ESU imports). Perhaps you can extend your tests to check this out?

Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
thanks 5 users liked this useful post by RayF
Offline mbarreto  
#6 Posted : 23 December 2013 19:09:46(UTC)
mbarreto

Portugal   
Joined: 18/02/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,257


The tests you are doing are great. Thanks a lot for sharing. One interesting test, but it would take a lot of work, was to use
exactly the same decoder with different types of motors (for example a fx decoder with a can motor, a coreless motor and a 5 pole DCMmotor) and the reverse, exactly the same motor with different decoders. What you are doing is close to this and easier to do anyway.

According to your tests, ESU decoders seem to have a great load regulation and that is important to know.

Sometimes motors with the same P/N have different behavior, specially the cheap ones, but in the test you do for each loco you are using always the same motor, so that doesn't apply.

Best regards,
Miguel
Mostly Märklin H0.


thanks 1 user liked this useful post by mbarreto
Offline H0  
#7 Posted : 23 December 2013 19:28:41(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
As far as possible I used Märklin locos with factory-installed decoders and always with factory-installed motor.
I test the locos with the default settings from the factory. There are reports that some of the new locos run better with modified decoder settings - that might be something for further tests in the future.

For the time being I expect Märklin to assure that the decoder settings are optimal and that the motor and gear are flawless.

Maybe I'll send my test results to Märklin and ask them what they think about it (I've had bad runners come back from Göppingen unmodified with the remark "matches the series standard" and so far I fear they'll tell me the same about my Lollo).
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by H0
Offline biedmatt  
#8 Posted : 23 December 2013 19:42:07(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
I've been thinking about a test too. The only way I can think of to test how smooth a loko is would be with a rolling road and one of those tachometers you can install to measure the (instant) speed of a drive wheel. A loko could be run for a fixed amount of time and the high and low RPMs then compared as a percentage of high to low. What I do not know because I do not have a rolling road is whether it makes a difference if the loko is under no load. I would think it would and the greater the load the greater the variance, but that would need to be proven. Can you create a load on these rolling roads?
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline jeehring  
#9 Posted : 23 December 2013 20:02:51(UTC)
jeehring


Joined: 25/09/2003(UTC)
Posts: 2,786
Location: ,
this kind of test would have been more convincing if you tried 3 decoders on a single locomotive model.... and if you did it with another central like the Marklin CS2 too. (test with 2 centrales)
this test shows the behavior at speed step 1 . Not more.
Please could you give the references of the 3 models : 36xxx ?
Offline H0  
#10 Posted : 23 December 2013 20:36:05(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: jeehring Go to Quoted Post
and if you did it with another central like the Marklin CS2 too.
With CS2 you cannot see which speed steps the locos are running at. Not the best controller for tests like that. And the locos do not run better with a CS2.

The Ludmilla with the V4 decoder has a NEM 660 socket, the Ludmilla with the factory-installed mfx decoder has no NEM socket (NMRA socket instead) and the Ludmilla with the fx decoder has no decoder socket at all.
Things would be much simpler if all Märklin locos had NEM sockets.

I could try an mSD Spezial instead of the ESU V4 decoder in the converted Ludmilla. But which load regulation settings shall I use?
I could try the default settings for "DC soft" motors.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline jeehring  
#11 Posted : 25 December 2013 15:25:57(UTC)
jeehring


Joined: 25/09/2003(UTC)
Posts: 2,786
Location: ,
Originally Posted by: jeehring Go to Quoted Post
....Please could you give the references of the 3 models : 36xxx ?


....I quote myself to repeat my question in a different way
There were around ten or a dozen of Marklin Ludmilla , which Ludmilla model have you been using for each decoder, please ?
Offline H0  
#12 Posted : 26 December 2013 21:13:01(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: jeehring Go to Quoted Post
Please could you give the references of the 3 models : 36xxx ?
Added the ref. numbers and some more results to the first post.

Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by H0
Offline kbvrod  
#13 Posted : 26 December 2013 21:26:53(UTC)
kbvrod

United States   
Joined: 23/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,597
Location: Beverly, MA
Hi all,
Tom,I think tests like that will really help the nuts,er,folks here!BigGrin Thank you!
Funny,I just finished installing a TCS M-1( http://www.tcsdcc.com/public_ht...le/M-Series/M-Series.htm) in a FL 4155,no CV changes and smooth as silk.Thanks again for your efforts!ThumpUp

Dirt (yes it weathered,.....Sneaky )

Offline river6109  
#14 Posted : 29 December 2013 01:59:59(UTC)
river6109

Australia   
Joined: 22/01/2009(UTC)
Posts: 14,635
Location: On 1965 Märklin Boulevard just around from Roco Square
Tom,

your tests indicate, running consists could damage decoders-motors over a long period of operation.

John
https://www.youtube.com/river6109
https://www.youtube.com/6109river
5 years in Destruction mode
50 years in Repairing mode
Offline biedmatt  
#15 Posted : 29 December 2013 05:16:16(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
I used to be agravated that I had to replace the MFX decoders with ESU V4s so I could run my lokos with DCC. Your tests, the greater adjustment range in sound file volume and the ability to easily create sound projects makes me much less agravated.
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline river6109  
#16 Posted : 29 December 2013 05:39:23(UTC)
river6109

Australia   
Joined: 22/01/2009(UTC)
Posts: 14,635
Location: On 1965 Märklin Boulevard just around from Roco Square
for me ESU decoders came just at the right time onto the market and the new mfx system wasn't for me not being able to program them. I think ESU has gone to far with the different program options and Märklin locos with 5 pole motors are just not being set properly with the automatic program option.

I must make the time to set up a testing track with the ECoS and press function 1 and the loco will run down the track and automatically set its perimeters to its right setting.


John
https://www.youtube.com/river6109
https://www.youtube.com/6109river
5 years in Destruction mode
50 years in Repairing mode
Offline DaleSchultz  
#17 Posted : 02 January 2014 22:38:09(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
good work!

The first thing I did back in 1989 was to graph the speed steps of the 6080 decoder.
I also found forward and reverse differed so I had to add reverse speed step calibration to my software.

I also found that as the loco warms up its speed increases.

http://layout.mixmox.com/1/ICE_speed
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
thanks 4 users liked this useful post by DaleSchultz
Offline H0  
#18 Posted : 07 January 2014 23:39:36(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Hi all,

some new results from today.

Someone said the CS2 would be the best controller for such tests. So I tried the CS2 today.

The first test was with an ITL 285 (#36653, TRAXX hobby loco with mfx and sound). With the CS2 the results were almost OK (speed varied about 11 % during 16 test runs).
For comparison I then tried a TRAXX hobby loco with fx decoder. I ran very jerky with the CS2. I aborted the test, disabled mfx in the CS2 and tried again. Some test runs were still jerky, leading to a lower average speed on that runs. Speed varied about 3 %, not bad - if it hadn't been very jerky at times.

I kept that loco, but tried an MS2 this time. Speed varied less than 1 % this time. And remember: hobby loco with hobby three-pole motor and hobby decoder.

Still using the same loco, I now tried the good ole CU 6021. Speed varied by about 1 %. And with the CU 6021 this loco achieved the lowest speed.

Then I tried the Intellibox, still with the same loco. Speed varied by about 2 % here.

Then same loco, but with CS1R. Track voltage (as displayed by the CS1R) was 19 V, my standard setting. Speed varied by less then 0.5 V.

Since with the CU 6021 I achieved the lowest speed, I concluded that the speed depended on the track voltage - higher voltage leads to lower speed at speed step 1. So I set the CS1R to maximum voltage (it now displayed 20.8 V) and tried again. Variation was now about 1 %, but speed was considerably lower.

Now same loco back to the CS2. I reactivated mfx and gave the CS2 a re-boot. Now the speed varied by about 8 %, several of the test runs were very jerky.

Now I went back to the ITL 285 and also tried this loco with some other controllers.
With MS2 the speed varied by about 19 %.
Then with CS1R and mfx, the speed varied by about 22 %.
Then another test run with the CS2, speed now varied by about 18 % (first test series of 16 runs with the same loco and the same CS2 had a variation of only about 11 %).
Back to the CS1R, but now mfx was disabled and test was conducted with MM protocol. Speed varied by about 30 % this time.

It should be noted that the speed of the fx loco was around 3 or 4 km/h while the speed of the mfx loco was around 6 or 7 km/h. Stable speed at lower speed levels is more impressive.

Neither CS2 nor MS2 display the current speed step as a figure. With both controllers I gave the locos a single notch on the speed knob from standstill, assuming this should be speed step 1 (very likely with the MS2, but I'm not sure about the CS2).

Remarkable result of this test: the fx loco ran jerky with the CS2 while it ran fine with the other controllers. Maybe Märklin should address both the load regulation of the new mfx decoders and the output signals of the CS2 TFP (track format processor).

A test series (16 test runs) takes a considerable amount of time, but with only 16 samples the lowest and highest samples may still be far from the highest or lowest possible values. But the order of magnitude is still significant.
I did two test series with the ITL 285 and the CS2 - speed varied by 11 % in the first series and by 18 % in the second series.

Once again the hobby loco with the hobby three-pole motor and the fx decoder achieved much better results than the mfx-equipped loco with the same type of motor - especially if the tests conducted with the CS2 are excluded (as the fx loco ran jerky with the CS2).

I'd say the three-pole motors are better than their reputation - and the mfx decoders have to take a bigger share of the blame for bad performances.

I attach a table with some details. The percent values show the variation forward, reverse, and total and the prototype speed in km/h.
H0 attached the following image(s):
table.png
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 4 users liked this useful post by H0
Offline Danlake  
#19 Posted : 08 January 2014 06:38:42(UTC)
Danlake

New Zealand   
Joined: 03/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,571
Hi Tom,

Thanks for doing these types of testThumpUp

I have long awaited some benchmark testing of the products we buy so we can compare and make an informed decision about our purchases.

I am by no means an expert but have done some speed profiling with PC software and have few concern regarding the accuracy of the results.

As I understand the actual track length you use for measuring is about 29 cm and the loco’s are running at speed step 1?

Generally you would get more accurate results with a longer distance between the 2 triggers (circuit track in your case). You are comparing speed over a short distance and the inconsistence in when the software actual register the puls from the circuit track will skew the results compared to doing it over a much longer distance.

Also I am not sure if running a loco at speed step 1 has much to do with load regulation? I would imagine this has more to do with the actual performance of the engine and its gearing. At speed step 1 the engine is rotating very slowly and any slight obstruction in gearing etc. will influence the result (random reults).

As I understand load regulation has more to do with consistent speed when load is increased or decreased of the loco (e.g. when climbing up a hill and running down again)? The decoder sends a command to engine – then listen – if the engine is not doing as told it will send a signal to correct it? When running at speed step 1 we are not really exposing the loco to any change in load?

I would suggest a longer track length with e.g. a climb and running the engine at medium speed, where the engine will be exposed to an actual change in load. I believe this will give a more accurate comparison of load regulation performance, if that is want we want to compare?

Brgds - Lasse
Digital 11m2 layout / C (M&K) tracks / Era IV / CS3 60226 / Train Controller Gold 9 with 4D sound. Mainly Danish and German Locomotives.
Offline Janne75  
#20 Posted : 08 January 2014 08:20:39(UTC)
Janne75

Finland   
Joined: 23/03/2012(UTC)
Posts: 2,550
Location: Finland
Thanks Tom for doing these tests. This one is offtopic, but it became in my mind when reading your posting. I sometimes very seldom put my analog locos on my digital layout tracks and they run then with relatively high speed. But there is much difference how they do it on the upper layout with CS 2 60214 and lower separate layout with 6021 Control Unit. With CS2 60214 many of them run very jerky, but not all for some reason. The same locos run on analog tracks with normal transformer ok. And the same locos which run very jerky with CS 2 60214 run with consistent speed on lower digital layout with 6021 Control Unit. There seems to be some kind of pulsing signal to analog locos and also for example my turnout lanter lights blink with very fast frequency. I don´t know the reason for this, but I just wanted to write this here if it has something to do even with your loco tests? I mean difference with CS 2 and 6021 Control Unit?

Regards,
Janne
Märklin H0 digital layout. I have analog and digital H0 Collection. Rolling stock mostly from era I, II, III and IV. Märklin 1 gauge beginner.
Offline H0  
#21 Posted : 08 January 2014 08:53:10(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: Danlake Go to Quoted Post
As I understand the actual track length you use for measuring is about 29 cm and the loco’s are running at speed step 1?

Generally you would get more accurate results with a longer distance between the 2 triggers (circuit track in your case). You are comparing speed over a short distance and the inconsistence in when the software actual register the puls from the circuit track will skew the results compared to doing it over a much longer distance.
I started these test series because I noticed that the new mfx-equipped locos sometimes start with an abominable jerk (sometimes with a small jerk, sometimes jerkless) and then continue to travel at varying speeds.

The jerk is just a short moment of inconsistent acceleration. I found no easy way to measure that yet.
But I can easily measure the average speed of the loco across my test track.

At speed step 1, we are talking about times of 25 through 100 seconds! I use an old MS-DOS PC that does nothing else but poll the circuit tracks a few thousand times a second. I've been using this test configuration for years now.
In the beginning I even connected the circuit tracks to two PCs at the same time. For short intervals (fast locos), the difference normally was 0 to 2 ms.
A PC clock can be expected to be off by 30 seconds a day, so you have to allow 1 ms difference for each 3 seconds of measured times. And the results of the two PCs were only few milliseconds apart, as expected.
Good locos will give results that vary very little. I have no doubt about my measuring equipment.

As said before, running at speed step 1 is the biggest challenge for load regulation. I tried to make it simple (no grade, no curves, no load).

I made the tests because I noticed with my bare naked eyes that the speed at step 1 was not consistent. And maximum speed 60 % above minimum speed can be noticed.

The real problem: unsmooth start from stop to speed step 1 => I cannot measure this easily. Tried something with a video camera, but evaluating the videos takes a lot of time.
Another observation: locos that sometimes start jerky also have varying speeds when cruising constantly at speed step 1 (yesterday I also made a testrun at speed step 2 of 27 using MM protocol and the variation was still rather huge; the minimum speed at speed step 2 of 27 was lower than the maximum speed at speed step 1 of 27).

I takes a good motor or a good load regulation to start a train from a stop without jerk. Märklin now sell locos with cheap motors and homemade mfx decoders that lead to locos that start jerky.
The hobby locos (BR 185, 285, ER 20, Ludmilla) run fine with fx decoders, but not with mfx decoders. Same problem with e.g. BR 216/218 (with the small difference that these locos have RRPs of 250+ Euros).

Locos that start jerky are intensively discussed on Stummi's Forum. This finally led to the initiative to send Märklin an open letter about their motor and decoder problems.
It seems only few users here notice the jerks when locos start or care about the jerks. But more users care about cheap motors in high-price premium models.

A loco that starts smoothly (without jerk) at 1 km/h scale speed looks much better to me than a loco that starts with a jerk at a minimum speed of around 7 km/h.

Only one company sells locos that have these abominable jerks out of the box - and only since they introduced cheap decoders in 2009 and combine them with cheap motors since around 2011.
I know now how to avoid these jerks.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by H0
Offline Danlake  
#22 Posted : 08 January 2014 09:22:15(UTC)
Danlake

New Zealand   
Joined: 03/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,571
Hi Tom,

Ok – I understand better now what the test is about.

I fully agree that a smooth start and subsequent steady running is very important.

Looks pretty clear that it's best to stay away from these models...

Brgds - Lasse
Digital 11m2 layout / C (M&K) tracks / Era IV / CS3 60226 / Train Controller Gold 9 with 4D sound. Mainly Danish and German Locomotives.
Offline H0  
#23 Posted : 08 January 2014 10:23:27(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: Danlake Go to Quoted Post
Looks pretty clear that it's best to stay away from these models...
Or time for Märklin to improve the decoders - or use better motors while the decoders are not on the level.

Not all customers have problems with the new locos, so maybe it's profitable for them even if they lose a small minority of critical customers ...
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline RayF  
#24 Posted : 08 January 2014 11:43:55(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Yes, there will always be some people who who will put up with Jerks.
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
Offline mbarreto  
#25 Posted : 08 January 2014 15:18:50(UTC)
mbarreto

Portugal   
Joined: 18/02/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,257
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Danlake Go to Quoted Post
Looks pretty clear that it's best to stay away from these models...
Or time for Märklin to improve the decoders - or use better motors while the decoders are not on the level.

Not all customers have problems with the new locos, so maybe it's profitable for them even if they lose a small minority of critical customers ...

I am impressed your test results. Specially the different behavior of decoders dependent upon the controller station.
Märklin needs to go to a higher standard in decoders, for sure.
Motors are not so critical, but better motors assure better results. I still prefer the SDS and I don't understand why some 2 rail people don't like it.

About controller stations I am a bit surprised between the differences of CS2 and MS2. A little out of topic I also never accepted the light flickering of 6090 decoders in the Central and Mobile Stations. I know it can be solved getting the outputs in other points of the PCB, but that is not acceptable.

I think it was better to standardize a benchmark like yours, but preferably more elaborated with ramps, to which decoders conform (or not).
Also controllers should have something similar, but that is maybe not so easy because DCC is already a standard and MFX is proprietary.

Once more, thanks Tom for your tests and also for let us know the results.


Best regards,
Miguel
Mostly Märklin H0.


thanks 3 users liked this useful post by mbarreto
Offline H0  
#26 Posted : 08 January 2014 18:01:06(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Light of locos with 6090 decoder show little flickering with CU 6021, Intellibox, or CS1R. I can live with the little bit of flickering that remains.
With MS2 or CS2 the flickering is much stronger. This shouldn't affect driving locos.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by H0
Offline rbw993  
#27 Posted : 08 January 2014 18:34:44(UTC)
rbw993

United States   
Joined: 19/08/2008(UTC)
Posts: 954
Hi Tom,
Any chance the flickering and maybe some of the "jerking" are related to the power supply? Is the CS2 using a switched mode supply and the others using conventional transformers?

Best regards
Roger
Offline H0  
#28 Posted : 08 January 2014 19:08:50(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
The CU 6021 and Intellibox need a transformer (AC). MS2, CS2, and CS1R use switching-mode power supplies.
The flickering occurs with any power supply (as all controllers convert AC to DC internally).

The difference is the track signal that the controllers emit (polarity must switch at short intervals to prevent flickering). With MS2 and CS2 there must be longer intervals without polarity change that lead to "heavy" flickering.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by H0
Offline jeehring  
#29 Posted : 08 January 2014 20:00:48(UTC)
jeehring


Joined: 25/09/2003(UTC)
Posts: 2,786
Location: ,
Originally Posted by: mbarreto Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Danlake Go to Quoted Post
Looks pretty clear that it's best to stay away from these models...
Or time for Märklin to improve the decoders - or use better motors while the decoders are not on the level.

Not all customers have problems with the new locos, so maybe it's profitable for them even if they lose a small minority of critical customers ...

Motors are not so critical, but better motors assure better results....

don't forget one thing : at low speed 3 pole motors tend to stall easily when voltage drops (or with voltage cuts/micro cuts),... more easily than 5 pôles motors.
The main shortcomings of 3 poles motors are felt at low speed, principally.
Offline H0  
#30 Posted : 09 January 2014 15:59:42(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Hi!

Two more results.
I tested my ESU Class 66 loco.
The results in km/h were 8x 2.84 km/h forward, 2x 2.84 km/h and 6x 2.85 km/h in reverse. I think for ESU locos I have to change the display to three decimals. LOL
For the ESU loco I also analysed the timings in seconds (forward between 31.112 and 31.151 seconds, in reverse between 31.014 and 31.140 seconds).
Either calculation puts the ESU loco on #1 in my charts with the most stable speed at speed step 1.

The other loco was the Märklin Insider model 37915 (03 1001) with new mfx decoder and motor with bell-shaped armature. A very good result, #4 in the charts.

I also gave my Piko V 200 a test run. Speed was 0.56 km/h at speed step 1. The slowest loco I've tested so far. Time for my 29 cm test track was nearly 158 seconds, so it would take more than one hour to make a complete series of 16 runs. I cancelled the test series with the Piko loco as I don't have time for that today. That's the factory setting - for normal use I'd increase CV 2 to get a speed of about 3 km/h at speed step 1.

Didn't test any Zimo decoders yet.
H0 attached the following image(s):
table2.png
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by H0
Offline H0  
#31 Posted : 09 February 2014 15:00:06(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Hi!
This quote is from a different thread, but I think I should answer it here:
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
Yes, Tom made some tests that show that a couple of his newer locos had inconsistent speed at speed step one. Sometimes the loco could go as much as twice as fast as other times (100% variation). [...]

The locos run at about walking pace on speed step one, and that's what I want to see. Am I offended that the loco did a lap one time in two minutes ,and the next time in one? Do I have the patience or the inclination to sit there and time them?
The inconsistent speed at speed step 1 is a minor issue for me. It would not prevent me from buying a loco.

But locos that fail to start moving smoothly without a jerk are a significant issue for me. And so far I assume that both problems have the same origin: a sloppy, faulty load regulation that prevents locos from starting without a jerk (not even the jerk is consistent, but most of the time there is a jerk) and also prevents them from running at a consistent speed at speed step 1.

It's a big issue for me that my former MRR main supplier now favours profit over quality in an extent that leads to poorly running locos.
Locos still run better than Delta locos or Piko locos with AnDi decoders. But Märklin locos with an RRP of € 280 run worse than Piko locos with an RRP of € 120.
Now guess where my 2014 pre-orders go ...

A new feature coming to the CS2 soon: a "macro recorder": you run a loco manually, the CS2 records what you are doing and can replay it later. Great feature - and obviously it works better if locos have consistent speed.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline franciscohg  
#32 Posted : 09 February 2014 15:17:10(UTC)
franciscohg

Chile   
Joined: 10/07/2002(UTC)
Posts: 3,265
Location: Patagonia
Well, today, coming back from work, i did test the only loco i have so far with a "cheap" motor, it is a BR 81 from a starter set that i have got to fit Telex coupler on it, so i have fitted a LP on it, at factory settings, the running at speed step 1 is very smooth and constant and previously did not noticed any loss of pulling power compared to my 81 with 5 pole engines fitted.
To me that brings us to the already stated point, perhaps the problem is not the motor, but the combination of motor + decoder, if so the problem could be easily solved by improving the decoders wich may become only on doing a firmware upgrade.
If so, perhaps we will need to force the re-union of Goeppingen and Ulm......Crying
UserPostedImage German trains era I-II and selected III, era depends on the mood, mostly Maerklin but i can be heretic if needed XD, heresy is no longer an issue.. LOL
Offline H0  
#33 Posted : 09 February 2014 15:28:18(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Yes, the problem is with the mfx decoders only. I hope a firmware upgrade will solve the issue. For decoders sold separately, the firmware upgrade can be done with the CS2 (60940, 60942, 60948, 60949 etc.).
Locos with pre-installed mfx decoders however will have to go back to Göppingen - or at least their decoders.

No problems with my mfx-free TRAXX and Ludmilla locos. Only TRAXX and Ludmilla locos with factory-installed mfx decoders or converted with 60948/9 run too bad for my taste.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
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 1.256 seconds.