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 oranda  
#1 Posted : 07 October 2020 10:09:35(UTC)
oranda

United Kingdom   
Joined: 21/04/2014(UTC)
Posts: 122
Location: ENGLAND
Do the locomotive decoders contain the equivalent of a network device MAC address, which could help in uniquely identifying each of them?

Currently under the Märklin offering of digital control there doesn't seem to be any way of tracking a particular locomotive as it goes around the layout, or am I wrong?

Does DCC have anything like this?

Offline stockerta  
#2 Posted : 07 October 2020 10:24:17(UTC)
stockerta

Hungary   
Joined: 30/07/2018(UTC)
Posts: 52
Location: Gyor-Moson-Sopron, Sopron
As far as I know, they don't have anything equivalent. Also DCC is one way communication only, from the controller to the chip. The chips just ignore the messages that aren't addressed to them.
Offline H0  
#3 Posted : 07 October 2020 10:38:51(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
mfx decoders have a unique serial number, that's the closest to the MAC address. Some non-mfx decoders also have serial numbers.
Each mfx decoder gets a unique address from the controller.

The bi-directional component of DCC is called RailCom and RailCom+. RailCom can be used to locate locos on the layout. AFAIK this is patented. And AFAIK this patent can be used free of charge, at least with RailCom. Technically mfx could be used to locate locos on the layout, but I think this is not yet implemented.

RailCom supports this. And the ECoS can use this information for automatic operation, e.g. leading freight trains on different routes than passenger trains.
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 oranda  
#4 Posted : 07 October 2020 12:10:59(UTC)
oranda

United Kingdom   
Joined: 21/04/2014(UTC)
Posts: 122
Location: ENGLAND
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
mfx decoders have a unique serial number, that's the closest to the MAC address. Some non-mfx decoders also have serial numbers.
Each mfx decoder gets a unique address from the controller.

The bi-directional component of DCC is called RailCom and RailCom+. RailCom can be used to locate locos on the layout. AFAIK this is patented. And AFAIK this patent can be used free of charge, at least with RailCom. Technically mfx could be used to locate locos on the layout, but I think this is not yet implemented.

RailCom supports this. And the ECoS can use this information for automatic operation, e.g. leading freight trains on different routes than passenger trains.


It would seem to me that identifying and tracking a loco would be a vital element of any future developments in a Märklin rail layout. As Märklin transitions from its analogue heritage, I just hope someone there is thinking of its digital future. So much of the hardware they have invested into is being superseded by new digital and software solutions. Quite a paradigm from their previous business model.
Offline DaleSchultz  
#5 Posted : 07 October 2020 14:20:49(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
The paradigm shift happened in the 1980s, and Märklin provided everything that was needed from a hardware side for a fully functional digital layout system from the start.

Their mistake was not providing proper software. This resulted in screeds of amateurs trying to produce software and which resulted in people suggesting and demanding loco tracking systems because they did not know how to create software that could maintain a state model of the layout. Hardware providers even responded to these demands by providing loco identification systems and brake modules, forever polluting the market with unnecessary complexity.

If you place a loco at point X on your layout, and drive it in direction Y, and you have a sensors at X and Y and the sensor at X goes off and the sensoy at Y goes on, why would you need to identify which train got to Y ? We already know that logically.

More detail here: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com/2006/11/computer-control.html

Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
thanks 6 users liked this useful post by DaleSchultz
Offline hxmiesa  
#6 Posted : 07 October 2020 19:52:11(UTC)
hxmiesa

Spain   
Joined: 15/12/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,519
Location: Spain
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post
If you place a loco at point X on your layout, and drive it in direction Y, and you have a sensors at X and Y and the sensor at X goes off and the sensoy at Y goes on, why would you need to identify which train got to Y ? We already know that logically.

Well, said! -And I know that you have been saying it so many times before... Cool

The culprit seems to be in the brains of "older people", who has never had to program anything. Some of them probably doesn't understand the concept of keeping track of things, or what the words "state machine" means, and what it implies. As long as people still ask basic questions about how to electrically hook up an analogue trafo, they will probably also demand complicated identifying systems which seemingly does it all for them, instead of investing the time to understand and set up the state machine of the various train control systems that now exists.

Hopefully the world is changing though; Now, my youngest daughter has had to go through basic programming of Arduino. That was when she was 14 years old. It was an obligatory class in primary schooling! EVERYBODY is sent through the process nowadays, it seems.
Best regards
Henrik Hoexbroe ("The Dane In Spain")
http://hoexbroe.tripod.com
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by hxmiesa
Offline Tie  
#7 Posted : 07 October 2020 21:36:15(UTC)
Tie

Norway   
Joined: 28/09/2019(UTC)
Posts: 109
Location: Rogaland, Haugesund
👌 I have never found this link earlier. Even as a novise in model railroad I am proud to have managed in cs3 microscopically what daleschulz describe in the link.
In the cs3 events My trains check that a route is free and sets the required tracks/blocks it to occupied, then sets the turnout correct prior to set of. Then sets off. Tracks/blocks are freed for use by other trains as soon as last wagon leaves the track/block. Of course not as sophisticate as in the pc program. But it works and gives me more satisfaction than using a system made by others. The more you manage yoursel the more fun.
TIE
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Tie
Offline DaleSchultz  
#8 Posted : 07 October 2020 21:54:00(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
wow really nice that primary school kids have to learn Arduino! Fantastic!

To be clear at one stage (1989) I also thought that we needed a way to identify trains I thought of barcode labels and readers would be a solution but since then I have learn a lot more about software!

In 1990 I visited Märklin and showed them my software but they said they would not want to get into software.
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
Offline Tie  
#9 Posted : 07 October 2020 22:01:16(UTC)
Tie

Norway   
Joined: 28/09/2019(UTC)
Posts: 109
Location: Rogaland, Haugesund
Much appreciated that such logic is made available. It steers my brain in the right direction when playing with cs3 events and automation.
Offline oranda  
#10 Posted : 07 October 2020 22:35:33(UTC)
oranda

United Kingdom   
Joined: 21/04/2014(UTC)
Posts: 122
Location: ENGLAND
Originally Posted by: hxmiesa Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post
If you place a loco at point X on your layout, and drive it in direction Y, and you have a sensors at X and Y and the sensor at X goes off and the sensoy at Y goes on, why would you need to identify which train got to Y ? We already know that logically.

Well, said! -And I know that you have been saying it so many times before... Cool

The culprit seems to be in the brains of "older people", who has never had to program anything. Some of them probably doesn't understand the concept of keeping track of things, or what the words "state machine" means, and what it implies. As long as people still ask basic questions about how to electrically hook up an analogue trafo, they will probably also demand complicated identifying systems which seemingly does it all for them, instead of investing the time to understand and set up the state machine of the various train control systems that now exists.

Hopefully the world is changing though; Now, my youngest daughter has had to go through basic programming of Arduino. That was when she was 14 years old. It was an obligatory class in primary schooling! EVERYBODY is sent through the process nowadays, it seems.


In programming with variables and constants forming the basic building blocks to sequences of instructions and functions - I can't see why they shouldn't exist within a digital control system.
Offline Purellum  
#11 Posted : 07 October 2020 22:49:09(UTC)
Purellum

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

Originally Posted by: hxmiesa Go to Quoted Post
The culprit seems to be in the brains of "older people"........... Some of them probably doesn't understand the concept of keeping track of things


Has anybody seen my glasses? LOL

Per.

P.S: Sorry, I just found them, they were sitting on top of my head Blushing

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
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Purellum
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#12 Posted : 08 October 2020 00:45:18(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

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

Thanks for (re-) sharing these thoughts! They prompted me to add my minor remarks.

I now own some 40 analog locomotives mainly from the 1960's which I have no desire at all to convert to digital. Still I prefer to enjoy the benefits of the digital paradigm shift that was discussed.

The core of the digital paradigm consists in my mind of three aspects:

1. All devices of the track (switches, signals, etc.) can be operated by a computer.
2. The movement of trains along the track can be traced with feedback sensors.
3. All trains on the track can be individually operated by the computer.

If these can be achieved, a computer can keep track of the state of the entire system in a state model. This enables various levels of automation, just like the entry shared by Dale explains.

For the last 12 months, I have run my analog trains on a digital setup where items 1. and 2. above are satisfied. However, analog locomotives do not directly support the achievement of the third item.

This limitation is not absolute, however. To achieve automation, a fairly universal approach of computer control is to split the track in segments ("blocks") and then use the three facilities mentioned above in a manner that ensures that each block contains at most one train at any time. This means that item 3 above can be replaced by the more modest requirement that

3a. All trains can be started and stopped in any block by a computer.

For this, digital locos are not needed; it is quite sufficient to control individually the track power of each block using appropriate digitally controlled devices covered by item 1.

The most serious limitation that controlling the direction of the movement of analog locomotives is difficult to implement in a robust manner. This nevertheless is a practical limitation related to the way the old reversing units operate, not a conceptual limitation.
- 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 DaleSchultz  
#13 Posted : 08 October 2020 02:50:33(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
Originally Posted by: oranda Go to Quoted Post
In programming with variables and constants forming the basic building blocks to sequences of instructions and functions - I can't see why they shouldn't exist within a digital control system.


Because:

1. They are superfluous.
2. They mislead the programmer to think it OK to send a train somewhere and not track where it is and where it is expected to be.
3. They add additional complexity to an already complex system
4. They are expensive in comparison to simple detectors

Essentially if the system needs to identify a train at some location it means it does not know what the F is going on. If it does not know where each train is already then the game was lost at a previous step and for all it knows, there could be two trains in the same place.

A large dog can also coexist with a digital system but serves no purpose to the task at hand.



Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by DaleSchultz
Offline PeFu  
#14 Posted : 08 October 2020 05:01:40(UTC)
PeFu

Sweden   
Joined: 30/08/2002(UTC)
Posts: 1,208
Originally Posted by: Martti Mäntylä Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post

Thanks for (re-) sharing these thoughts! They prompted me to add my minor remarks.

I now own some 40 analog locomotives mainly from the 1960's which I have no desire at all to convert to digital. Still I prefer to enjoy the benefits of the digital paradigm shift that was discussed.

The core of the digital paradigm consists in my mind of three aspects:

1. All devices of the track (switches, signals, etc.) can be operated by a computer.
2. The movement of trains along the track can be traced with feedback sensors.
3. All trains on the track can be individually operated by the computer.

If these can be achieved, a computer can keep track of the state of the entire system in a state model. This enables various levels of automation, just like the entry shared by Dale explains.

For the last 12 months, I have run my analog trains on a digital setup where items 1. and 2. above are satisfied. However, analog locomotives do not directly support the achievement of the third item.

This limitation is not absolute, however. To achieve automation, a fairly universal approach of computer control is to split the track in segments ("blocks") and then use the three facilities mentioned above in a manner that ensures that each block contains at most one train at any time. This means that item 3 above can be replaced by the more modest requirement that

3a. All trains can be started and stopped in any block by a computer.

For this, digital locos are not needed; it is quite sufficient to control individually the track power of each block using appropriate digitally controlled devices covered by item 1.

The most serious limitation that controlling the direction of the movement of analog locomotives is difficult to implement in a robust manner. This nevertheless is a practical limitation related to the way the old reversing units operate, not a conceptual limitation.


I believe on a larger layout you will have to spend more time on implementing analogue blocks according to 3a, instead of converting your engines with a decoder? You will also restrict yourself from buying decoder-fitted modern engines and getting all the nice functions from them.

Maybe a compromise could be to go ”full digital”, but having a switch for track power that enables analogue mode without block automation as an alternative when running those engines you for any reason don’t want to convert?

Good commercial software packages such as Freiwald’s TrainController keep track of where trains are, but they would be tricky to implement according to your proposed hybrid.
Andreasburg-Mattiasberg Bahn is inspired by Swiss railways |Forum Thread |Track Plan |Youtube | C and K track | CS2 | TrainController Gold V10
Offline hxmiesa  
#15 Posted : 08 October 2020 08:13:36(UTC)
hxmiesa

Spain   
Joined: 15/12/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,519
Location: Spain
Originally Posted by: PeFu Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Martti Mäntylä Go to Quoted Post

1. All devices of the track (switches, signals, etc.) can be operated by a computer.
2. The movement of trains along the track can be traced with feedback sensors.
3. All trains on the track can be individually operated by the computer.
If these can be achieved, a computer can keep track of the state of the entire system in a state model. This enables various levels of automation, just like the entry shared by Dale explains.
For the last 12 months, I have run my analog trains on a digital setup where items 1. and 2. above are satisfied. However, analog locomotives do not directly support the achievement of the third item.
This limitation is not absolute, however. To achieve automation, a fairly universal approach of computer control is to split the track in segments ("blocks") and then use the three facilities mentioned above in a manner that ensures that each block contains at most one train at any time. This means that item 3 above can be replaced by the more modest requirement that
3a. All trains can be started and stopped in any block by a computer.
For this, digital locos are not needed; it is quite sufficient to control individually the track power of each block using appropriate digitally controlled devices covered by item 1.

I believe on a larger layout you will have to spend more time on implementing analogue blocks according to 3a, instead of converting your engines with a decoder? You will also restrict yourself from buying decoder-fitted modern engines and getting all the nice functions from them.
Maybe a compromise could be to go ”full digital”, but having a switch for track power that enables analogue mode without block automation as an alternative when running those engines you for any reason don’t want to convert?

As already said in another thread, I run my trains almost the same way as Martti..

I have the PLC (=computer with electrical I/Os) switch in different voltage settings, from a battery of trafos with different speed-settings. This achieves some kind of "smooth" accelerations. (-of course at the cost of much more cabling and cutting of tracks)

This definetly prevents me from enjoying most digital sound- and light-functions. But it does NOT prevent me from buying decoder-fitted engines!
The cutting of track and extra cabling is "free", compared to the cost of installing a decoder.
I remember that previously, some train-controller systems had support for digital control with analogue running. -But I dont know if that is still so. In any case a home-brewn software control can be part of the fun too...

The time spent on implementing analogue control blocks on a permament layout is just a one-time investment, and not really a problem. The blocks where I have implemented "smooth" acceleration is only where the stops are VISIBLE. Hidden areas and shadow-stations are just cutting the power where the trains have to stop.

Anyway, I strayed off the topic... :-/

Best regards
Henrik Hoexbroe ("The Dane In Spain")
http://hoexbroe.tripod.com
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by hxmiesa
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#16 Posted : 08 October 2020 13:41:46(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

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

I believe on a larger layout you will have to spend more time on implementing analogue blocks according to 3a, instead of converting your engines with a decoder? You will also restrict yourself from buying decoder-fitted modern engines and getting all the nice functions from them.

In any layout, it is a good practice to provide a feeder wire every few meters of the track. In my setup, these wires come from K84 boxes, instead of directly from the transformer. The difference is not large, and in any case it is a one time effort. Of course, I cannot enjoy the benefits of modern digital locomotives with the important exception of load regulation.
Originally Posted by: PeFu Go to Quoted Post

Maybe a compromise could be to go ”full digital”, but having a switch for track power that enables analogue mode without block automation as an alternative when running those engines you for any reason don’t want to convert?

I may eventually experiment with a setup where the source of power of each block can be switched between analog or digital so that digital locomotives and analog locomotives can run on the same tracks, and either only meets track power suited for it. As far as I can foretell, the added value of this approach would nevertheless be quite limited.

Indeed this is now getting a bit off topic, but I think it still relates to the question of what is and what isn't essential for the digital paradigm.
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
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 1.034 seconds.