# May I ask a really stupid Qestion?



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

I marked this one toxic, because I'm sure it'll get violent before long, but I'd really like a civil discussion and a rational answer.

I'm used to HO scale. I've been modelling for years, I've got friends who model, I keep up with the publications, and I've built a number of layouts. I will eventually be installing DCC there. I have just started my adventure in large scale, and have not yet decided how to control it. One day I'm definitely going DCC, the next it's AirWire, then RCS, then DC track power, etc. So that's where I stand, in case anybody is interested.


Now, on to the question. Most current HO and N scale models come either with a DCC decoder already installed, or have either an NMRA 8-pin socket or a replaceable circuit board so that a decoder can be dropped in easily. Of course, there are plenty of examples of older models that are difficult to convert, but I am not aware of any *new* model released in the last several years which does not support DCC. On the other hand, the large scale manufacturers seem to be unwilling or unable to do the same for us.


Why?

Look inside almost any HO scale model of recent vintage. Somewhere there is a circuit board which connects the wires from the trucks to the wires to the motor. It usually also has some diodes and/or resistors to properly power the headlights. Some of these boards have flat tabs with holes, where the bare wires are slipped and covered with little plastic caps. Others have an 8-pin socket, with a simple dummy plug to bridge the appropriate contacts. When I want to install a DCC decoder, there is usually one designed to fit the locomotive in question, completely replacing the (very simple and very inexpensive and now completely redundant) circuit board. If not, there are decoders available which connect perfectly with the socket. The whole thing just works. It usually takes longer to disassemble the model, or to program the decoder, than it does to figure out how to install it.


Of course, there are a few different plug designs, in order to fit ever smaller spaces, but they are all identical electrically, which is the main point. _*The decoder interface is standard. *_ The locomotive does not do anything special - the decoder does it all.


Why is this not the case in large scale? Why does any manufacturer (and I'm not picking on any one in particular here) need to have circuitry, super sockets, etc.? Why cannot we have a simple 8 pin plug, connector, edge card, solder tabs, screw terminals, or _*something*_, to which _*any*_ control system could connect and function properly?


Is there some technical reason for the current mess? I understand the polarity issue, but a simple DPDT on the motor leads would solve that, or DCC decoders can be programmed to run backwards without the need for any extra components.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

I forgot to mention this...

Aside from the general price increases that seem to have affected everything in the hobby, I have not noticed a significant rise in locomotive prices that can be attributed to having some form of DCC socket in every model.  In other words, for those who do not want DCC, they are not paying extra to get the ability to have it later. I get the impression that some of the fancy electronics installed in some of the newer large scale models, most of which might be replaced, depending on the user's choice of control system, _*is *_significantly increasing the price.


Is that true, and if so, why?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

A number of reasons. 
The dcc crowd has not been as successful in getting folks to use dcc with track power in all outdoor situations for a number of reasons. 
There are a HUGE number of control and sound systems that do NOT conform to any pre-set plug or socket arrangement. 
Current draw. 
One of the reasons the screw terminals were proposed. 
You cannot use a small socket with a locomotive that draws 5 amps or more. 
Smoke shall emanate. 
Space. 
Look at the inside of your H0 locomotive. 
Blow the entire thing up to some LS size, including the socket. 
Now, envision where one would place batteries. 
One of the reasons I do what I do is that: 
A) I need space for batteries. 
B) I need to ensure components are protected as well as I can do it from water. 
C) I don't trust someone else's electronics, plugs or sockets. 
D) I and my customers use equipment, either control or sound, that as a rule does not plug into any socket. 

I could, in some instances, do that, but the customer DEMANDS I gut them first. 
I like to use control equipment that, if overloaded, simply shuts down, and does not "blow up" when the VA rating is exceeded. 

I am currently not using Lithiums. 
I checked. 
Do you know how much a $1M Insurance Policy costs, and how far it would go if some yay-who burns his house down? 

There was a really neat report on the AC forum a while back, with pictures of the aftermath. 
I know folks with exploded (swelled to case failure) cell phones using Lithiums, and not interested. 

NiMH were a problem at first, and I would not use them until the charge technology caught up with the battery technology. 
It has, and now I do. 

Case in point, the latest C-16 from Aristo. 
Has some AC plug-and-play unit, with a bunch of switches hanging through the floor of the tender, and a HUGE speaker. 

I removed the speaker, and the socket assembly, re-wired, new speaker, got RCS, Phoenix, speaker, on/off/ volume, charge jack and programming port, along with 14.4V of Sub "C" cells into it. 

Don't have to worry about it blowing up, melting, overheating. 

Customer is happy as a pig in.....oh, wait. 

Next case in point, the Couch (Davenport). 
Has a much smaller socket, similar in design to the H0 units you are mentioning. 

To do that, with radio, battery, and sound, requires that the socket and the BIG board it mounts to goes away. 

Next, the latest Porter from Bachmann. 
Huge cast iron weight, BIG board (but no socket). 
It all goes away, they 14.4V, RCS, speaker, Phoenix, switches and all, fit. 

If all you want to do is plug in a decoder, hey, go for it. 

You are then limited to running on dcc powered layouts. 

With on-board battery r/c, you can run anywhere, even on live steam railroads with shorted drivers, and down the hall at a Convention with no track. 

Have you seen these Ames Super Sockets yet?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By DKRickman on 04/25/2009 1:34 PM
I forgot to mention this...

Aside from the general price increases that seem to have affected everything in the hobby, I have not noticed a significant rise in locomotive prices that can be attributed to having some form of DCC socket in every model. In other words, for those who do not want DCC, they are not paying extra to get the ability to have it later. I get the impression that some of the fancy electronics installed in some of the newer large scale models, most of which might be replaced, depending on the user's choice of control system, _*is *_significantly increasing the price.


Is that true, and if so, why? 

_*Yet, the Consultant claimed no increase in cost, that the electronics will not add to the price at all.*_
_*Really?*_

_*The design, circuit boards, components, assembly, are all for free?*_

_*That is why so many folks asked for the locomotives "bare".*_

_*Accucraft has screw terminals on their latest.*_
_*Hartland has screw terminals on their latest.*_
_*Yet, the same Consultant claimed the Manufacturers would never go for screw terminals.*_

_*I do belive the Consultant had no interest in promoting or advising screw terminals, as it did not fit into his game plan.
*_


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

Make life simple: 

DCS















gg


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

I've installed DCC in about 45 locomotives, 9 of them HO. The large scale locos mostly have some sort of sound system and used decoders dating from the late 90's to the present. DCC installs in large scale locos are pretty easy mostly due to the huge expanse of volume available. I've also done 4 battery/RC installs, two of them are hybrids that have BOTH DCC and battery/RC. 

None of the HO locos were newer than 1990 (some date from the late 1950's) so NONE of them were "DCC compatible." Installing wired decoders didn't take very long in any of them. None of them would be considered "difficult" installs. The biggest problem was keeping the wires away from the flywheels for locos that had them. 

There is a sort-of-standard socket for large scale, the one that Aristo and Bachmann use. It is a lot beefier than the 8 pin HO socket but it is still good for only about 3 amps, after that, melted plastic. There are only 3 decoders (2 Digitrax and one QSI) and maybe 3 radio receivers (one shipping Aristo, one RCS and one not yet shipping Aristo) that can use that socket. 

Some of the newer Bachmann locos have screw terminals or a 12 pin socket to allow easier installation of DCC. Most recent Aristo locos have a 12 pin socket. USAT has none. LGB uses their own custom interface that fits a custom designed (and expensive) decoder. 

For those not using batteries, the internal electronics supplied with some locos can be retained, but with little functional value as the decoder handles most of what the board did. For those using batteries, the boards usually have to go to allow room for the battery RC stuff. 

Then there is the issue of track or battery power. It's a case of "name your poison." You will either be doing track maintenance or battery maintenance but there are support tasks required either way. Track power works fine in some areas, most layouts here is SoCal are track powered and run fine. Track power doesn't work worth squat in other areas, so battery RC gets used. 

It is not all that hard to do DCC or battery/RC installs in large scale locos. The easiest way is to gut the supplied board and wire up the loads that remain. In locos with a socket, the socket is often inside and the loco has to be opened anyway. This is usually more difficult than in HO (spread the shell, the guts drop out) as it often involves many screws and several chunks that have to come off sequentially. A few locos have the socket arranged so that it is accessible from the bottom or from under a coal load in the tender. These are a piece of cake when using a decoder that will work in the socket but these are a small minority. Locos that are more than a few years old will not have a socket at all, it's a cut and solder job. 

Also, large scale locos can often use far more functions than small scale stuff. Even the socket only supports front and rear headlights, the rest would have to be wired anyway. Most decoders don't have sound integrated so that a second DCC or analog sound board would have to be integrated as well. No standard for that either. 

HO sound decoders are woefully lacking in sound volume and are pretty close to useless. I've used the DSX (added a 5 watt amplifier), an SFX0416 (hopeless for large scale, used it in HO) and and SFX064D (very marginal for large scale, I use it indoors where it works barely well enough). The LokSound V3.5 with a 40mm speaker is the best of the bunch that I have tried, it makes barely enough volume for use outdoors. Most sound systems intended for large scale do 2 watts or more. 

Another problem is that one major large scale manufacturer (Aristo) makes their own radio gear which DCC competes with. They've paid lip service to DCC but it has been a problem as they keep changing the connections to their "socket." Virtually every loco that comes with it is a little different. Digitrax and QSI (and I think RCS) have had fits trying to keep their gear working in Aristo sockets. 

USAT locos tend to draw enough current that even the socket that Aristo uses (and I think that Bachmann uses also) can't handle the load. QSI has gone to the trouble of replacing the ENTIRE switch board with an integrated sound decoder. This has also caused them fits because there are at least two mechanical versions of the switch board and at least three different lighting configurations (track voltage, 12 volts and 5 volts) in various models. 

LGB, in their infinite wisdom (as far as that got them) elected to reinvent DCC itself with their MTS system. The decoders are custom plug ins and the early ones even operate functions differently so their interface is COMPLETELY different that anybody else. 

None of the large scale manufacturer's seem to have any vested interest in a common system. Each (except USAT) was selling their own command gear for their own stuff and NONE of them seem(ed) to agree about anything. Further, I don't think that any of the survivors really understand DCC. This observation is based on the truly stupid things that the all seemed to do. 

MTH uses their own completely different system, DCS, in their own stuff. 

Hence, our current situation where we usually gut the things and keep the shells and mechanisms. Then we wire them up the way that they ought to have been wired in the first place.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 04/25/2009 1:52 PM
_*Yet, the Consultant claimed no increase in cost, that the electronics will not add to the price at all.*_
_*Really?*_

_*The design, circuit boards, components, assembly, are all for free?*_







It is my impression (based on very little real knowledge, admittedly) that the one-size-fits-all bare bones circuit board in most current small scale models has the advantages of mass production, faster assembly, and a single form factor common with the decoders in models so equipped. Perhaps the sheer volume of HO and N, compared to large scale, might make a difference on those factors.

As to your other points;
First, I put this in the DCC forum mainly because it relates to my previous DCC experience. The point was not specifically related to DCC in large scale, but rather to control systems in general.

Second, I was not really suggesting that a large or complicated board needs to exist in every engine. Rather, it would seem to me that it would benefit everyone, including the manufacturers, to have a single standard interface design. Pairs of terminals for power in (track, battery, on-board generator, telekinetic transfer, or whatever), power out (presumably to a motor, but again, whatever you like), front and rear headlights, and perhaps a speaker and chuff sync switch would be all that are required. Assuming a common ground, that's 9 terminals. A row of screw terminals would be great. Ideally, they would be positioned in such a way that some models at least could use a single board which simply slips into place. Properly designed, that board could be used for a vast array of models, and could be track power, battery, DCC, AirWire, DCS, or any other control system desired. The point is that, as the NMRA discovered many years ago, standards and interchangeability make modellers happy, and happy modellers buy more toys.

At least, I would.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

http://www.mylargescale.com/archive/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48949&SearchTerms=Proposal

BTDT (and, no, that's not something obscene) 

Boy, is dealing with Archives fun.
Did you know there are exactly 4 topics in Public Forum, and zero in Radio/Battery?


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Dear Mr Rickman. 

Good luck in trying to convince Stanley (Mr DCC) Ames and others of your noble ambitions. 
He (with the assistance of Bachmann) came up with a set of proposals for just such a universal socket. Wired back to front of the existing AristoCraft socket. 
Mr DCC published those proposals for consideration by anyone who was interested. Including some of us in the industry. Only problem was, those who were asked to co-operate were to be sworn to secrecy, and to hurry up, as the poposals had to be voted upon by the NMRA within a very short time frame. 
Some of us were a bit curious as to why the haste, but could never get a straight answer from Mr DCC. 
Ultimately the socket was never approved by the NMRA. The whole subject got dropped once it was past the deadline where such approval could be used by the manufacturer in their advertising. 
I don't know an awful lot about DCC so George, who usually has the best take on this, has defined precisely where the subject of a standardised socket remains today. 
Sockets and pins are not suitable for much over 3 amps at the sorts of voltages we use in Large Scale. Much better to have properly laid out and labelled screw terminals for anything higher than 3 amps. 

I would like to reiterate RCS/EVO is willing to co-operate with any organised push for just such (sensible) standards but not with secrecy clauses and a time frame "gun" held to our head.


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

It would be good.... but the manufacturer's don't show much interest in it. They do it the way that THEY want and we rip it out or work around it.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think that the Aristo socket will continue... and eventually Lewis will use the other row of pins for lights and maybe sound. 

I hope Bachmann will think carefully about the socket, and consider space issues, since it seems many NG people run batteries and need all the space they can get. Specifically, making a very large single board that has a socket (desirable) and a bunch of spread out real estate that could be somewhere else (not desirable in my opinion). 

It would be great if USAT would "socketize", but they do have everything hooking up to the main board with plugs, so, while not a single socket, it's about a 5 minute job it replace their main board with another that has the same sockets. Making an adapter board for USAT to have the Aristo socket on it would be pretty simple. 

I can hardware stuff pretty easily, I have a background in electronics, but for many people, cutting wires, soldering, and even moving stuff around is not desirable. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

George, Greg: 

I noticed when doing my "consideration" on DCC systems that a lot of the high current decoders are equipped with wire pigtails instead of pin plugs like their smaller cousins. I assumed that this was a function of the higher current required to operate larger locomotives. 

If that's true, wouldn't a screw terminal arrangement make more sense for most of the commercially available decoders anyway, and not have the current problems? (I mean electrical current ... I know that reads funny if you're not hearing it out loud.) 

Matthew (OV) 

Oh, and PS. How does the QSI overcome the current issues, operating through the pin plugs?


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/25/2009 6:06 PM
I think that the Aristo socket will continue... and eventually Lewis will use the other row of pins for lights and maybe sound. 

I hope Bachmann will think carefully about the socket, and consider space issues, since it seems many NG people run batteries and need all the space they can get. Specifically, making a very large single board that has a socket (desirable) and a bunch of spread out real estate that could be somewhere else (not desirable in my opinion). 

It would be great if USAT would "socketize", but they do have everything hooking up to the main board with plugs, so, while not a single socket, it's about a 5 minute job it replace their main board with another that has the same sockets. Making an adapter board for USAT to have the Aristo socket on it would be pretty simple. 

I can hardware stuff pretty easily, I have a background in electronics, but for many people, cutting wires, soldering, and even moving stuff around is not desirable. 

Regards, Greg


Greg, you hit the nail here... 


If this large scale train hobby is to hit the average guy on the street, it need to be simple, appealing and enjoyable. Just like any other consumer item/product or hobby. Naturally there are those who want to reconfigure and rebuild. Only normal. Think of the guy who buys a car to "drive" and the other guy who buys a car to "modify". No difference. 

As soon as the hobby train manufacturers figure this out, they may see an increase in business.... 


I'm taking a duh approach on this one. 



gg


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

Greg, the SD45, which was the first out of the gate with the socket, WAS ALREADY wired for sound on the other 10 pins. They were just never used by anybody and the wiring has disappeared in later locos. 

Matt, most of the larger decoders DO use screw terminals for the higher current connections. The DG583S is one I used many times. The older DG580L had heavy wires attached, but it was a piece of junk for other reasons. The NCE D808 and some older Lenz and Zimo decoders have screw terminals. There are probably others as well.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually, the higher current ones typically have screw terminals... 

NCE D808 - all screw terminals 
ESU Loksound XL - all screw terminals 

There are more I believe...; 

I think screw terminals are fine, although a soldered wire and a heavy duty pin connector is probably electrically better, screw terminals really do not have as much contact area. 

The QSI uses the Aristo socket layout. There are 2 pins each for track, so the current handling is doubled there. 

Depending on who you talk to, the pins are good for 3 amps or 6 amps. In reality I think they are adequate, and there have been no failures yet on Aristo locos. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/25/2009 6:59 PM
SNIP
I think screw terminals are fine, although a soldered wire and a heavy duty pin connector is probably electrically better, screw terminals really do not have as much contact area. 

SNIP
Regards, Greg 




Actually a connection between tightened down screw terminals and the wires will make *MUCH* better contact than relying on spring pressure alone, like the current sockets do.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/25/2009 6:59 PM
I think screw terminals are fine, although a soldered wire and a heavy duty pin connector is probably electrically better, screw terminals really do not have as much contact area. 

Regards, Greg 

_*Try running THAT past your electrician!*_
_*Ever look at your breakers?*_
_*Wires are to SCREW TERMINALS.*_
_*If you main box is going to fail, it's the blades where the breaker presses in that the problem will be.
*_


----------



## paintjockey (Jan 3, 2008)

I think you answered part of your question with one of your statements. 

"Now, on to the question. Most current HO and N scale models come either with a DCC decoder already installed, or have either an NMRA 8-pin socket or a replaceable circuit board so that a decoder can be dropped in easily." 

The key word is NMRA. The NMRA changed (read: forced) the smaller scales to conform to a standard. Large scale has no standard. Well, it does but not one that any one dealer will conform to. Just look at couplers. They can't agree on couplers, do you think they're gonna make compatable electronics? The problem is if they all conformed to "scale" standards that the NMRA proposes it would make alot of large scale equipment obsolete. If your equipment which you collected over the years no longer worked with anything that was on the market, what would you do? I know most people wouldn't start over, they would run what they have and stop buying new. Large scale, compared to the other scales is a very small part of the hobby and I think that move would devastate it. 

So, with electronics, if you want to run one system alone with no converting, you run one brand of trains. Unless it's Bachmann who installs "new" & "better" stuff in each loco they produce, so even most of their own equipment isn't compatible. For most people, who choose not to run plain DC, it is typically easier to just tear out what's inside and install your own stuff. 

To answer your question of why? I would have to say arrogance, greed or just plain stupidity.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

.....or all of the above.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Both Tony and TOC missed the part where I said heavy duty. 

Tony, the pins and connectors on the Aristo socket are not in my opinion, anywhere NEAR heavy duty. It's easy to say what I would want, something good for 10 amps at a whole bunch of degrees above ambient, self wiping, in something that is glass filled. 

TOC, I think I gotcha on this one... remember heavy duty? look at the BACK of your breaker box! your breakers connect to the bus bars with heavy duty blade type connectors... nice and heavy duty... 

Yep, do not take me the wrong way... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/25/2009 9:13 PM

TOC, I think I gotcha on this one... remember heavy duty? look at the BACK of your breaker box! your breakers connect to the bus bars with heavy duty blade type connectors... nice and heavy duty... 

Yep, do not take me the wrong way... 

Regards, Greg

*Go back and re-read it.*
*I said if it's gonna fail, it will be the blades.*
*Beat ya to it.*


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yep, teaches me to write a reply while the wife is bugging me to go for a walk... 

color me "got"... ha ha! 

Although, I have seen more failures from loose screws than the back part of the blades, but it was people leaving them loose... 

Well, I'm going to crawl back into my hole now! 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/25/2009 9:13 PM
Both Tony and TOC missed the part where I said heavy duty. 

Tony, the pins and connectors on the Aristo socket are not in my opinion, anywhere NEAR heavy duty. It's easy to say what I would want, something good for 10 amps at a whole bunch of degrees above ambient, self wiping, in something that is glass filled. 

TOC, I think I gotcha on this one... remember heavy duty? look at the BACK of your breaker box! your breakers connect to the bus bars with heavy duty blade type connectors... nice and heavy duty... 

Yep, do not take me the wrong way... 

Regards, Greg


Actually you said heavy duty *pins*. Not heavy duty blade wipers. Big difference.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

OK, so I not only dug a hole, I used a steam shovel to make it deep! 

Since I'm part way to china now, want me to go all the way and bring back more sockets? Super or not? 

ha ha.... 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Only if you can make them do the sockets correctly.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm turning around now....


----------



## steam5 (Jun 22, 2008)

On track guys, model trains are fun. 

With all my DCC installs I gut all the electronics; I just find it easier myself. I don’t want a company to waste to much time on electronics but that my opinion, manufactures have to do there best to keep all there customers happy. 

I think my method is in the minority so I just put up with it. But some nice screw terminals would be nice, and a few spare circuits between the loco and tender (on a steamer) for sound reed switches and other things would be good to. 

Alan


----------



## Bill Swindell (Jan 2, 2008)

I also remove all of the original electronics in my battery-r/c conversions. It's easier to work from scratch than to try and figure out how to use the existing electronic boards. It also gives me more room inside the locomotive.


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Wow you are not at the computer and a new thread explodes, I don't know if everything has been saidt and I am repeating some items but here are some of my remarks:

While the idea of a universal plug might sound like a good idea (e.g. Easy after market installation, customer freedom/choice of after market products) I have already found within one manufacturer too many limitations with their standardized interface. LGB has the standard electronic board which are non DCC in their engines. The EasyDCC replacement board allows to quickly have an installation in conjunction with a ZIMO Decoder and TrueSound DCC decoder. However, especially with the RhB engines this doesn't cover all of the rules for lighting, Panto operation, cabin lights and so on. So with now 20 functions available I prefer to wire to a intermediate screw terminal to which I run the pin-outs of the ZIMO decoders and the internal wires to the other end. This creates flexibility which is needed to adapt to the various different engine behaviours ands capabilities.

The industry can't agree to a standard plug, let alone where the F keys should be used for F3 Pantograph 1, F4 Pantograph 2 - oh maybe someone wants decouple on F4, oh wait what about station bell, wheel squeaking..... the list goes on.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

How did I know this would get "interesting"?









What got me thinking about the whole mess was the discussion on another thread about the various activities, real and imagined, of one Stanley Ames, and the frustrations that people have with Bachmann. It just struck me that the simplest way to solve the problem would be to create a basic universal standard which would serve equally well for all applications. The way I see it, all you have to have for a basic standard are power, motor, and headlights. Make it beefy enough to handle 5 amps. 10 amps if you really want to go nuts. Just define it. Pins 1 & 2 are power in, 3 & 4 are to the motor, 5 & 6 are the front headlight, 7 & 8 are the rear headlight. Even numbered pins are positive when running forward. There. now, everything else can be extra if you like, but at least those things can have a standard polarity and arrangement. Now anybody can make a control board which easily connects, either directly or by wires. Every locomotive will have at least the capacity to move in the correct direction and power its lights.


I know, that's asking a lot. But wouldn't it be nice? Wouldn't it be great if a manufacturer decided to make something SIMPLE like that, and openly publish the design for others to use? Tony, you know more than most of us about this subject - would it make any real difference if there WAS such an industry standard? It sure seems to me that it would, but maybe not. Of course, there's no real glory in doing something like that, but who gets into model railroad manufacturing for glory anyway?


And as far as backwards compatibility, I don't really see the issue. I've seen 60+ year old models with DCC decoders in them. Couplers get replaced all the time. I can only imagine the resistance to the creation of the small scale wheel & track standards, but look what it has done for the hobby. Once the conversion is complete, the benefits are well worth the hassle.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Did you follow the link I posted? 
In the archives. 
The screw terminal proposal one (you named him) seems to have claimed would never be accepted (see: Accucraft, Hartland, so far), and the guess is it was never passed to any manufacturers for comment. 

When I talked to manufacturers, most were for screw terminals in LS, and provided equipment with pigtails to go INTO screw terminals. 

The data is out there. 

All you have to do is do a little digging and reading. 

When I ask if folks have followed this, and they say yes, and yet they have no clue, it is obvious to the most casual obesrver that haven't. 

You recall the "moderated" entry? 

I have the capability to submit links to all the necessary data to prove the point via links. 

Second one (after the screw terminal thread): 

http://www.largescalecentral.com/LSCForums/viewtopic.php?id=8336


----------



## veejo (Apr 16, 2009)

I love soldered connections. They have lower resistance than screwed or clamps, or other attachment methods, does't suffer from corrosion, or viabrate loose. That is if it has been soldered properly. As to standardised cabling, as long as it comes with a circuit diagram I'm happy, and it it came with solder lugs, that would be better. Yes I'd rather fit my own decoder as I might spend the extra $5 on a decoder, the the manufacturer might want to save $5 and fit something to meet a price not a standard. But yes, I'd love to see something standardized, like in HO/OO and N scale, and I'd be happy to accept it, if it was standardized. But manufacturers love to save money, or differentiate themsleves and sell based on features.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

One thing you should take into acount when soldering with ROHS compliant pcb's!! 
The early ROHS compliant pcb's require a lot more heat to make a good solder joint with lead free solder. If the person soldering uses that extra heat for too long the pcb's solder pads will likely separate from the pcb's.


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Isn't that the truth.







I also recommend the "right" temperature which leads to a temperature controlled soldering iron. 1-2 "shot" PCBs and you have already the ROI for that device.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

From my experience how many times you apply heat to the same pad is factor too. 
Perhaps lately the pcb makers have started using a glue that sticks the copper traces to the fibreglass that can handle higher temperatures bettr.


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, seems to me the reason LS doesn't do it is because they have NO CONCEPT of HOW to do it.
In HO the concept is simple.
[*]First - Take all the wire from the lights, motors, fans, smoke units and other gizmos, and wire them to a CONNECTOR. [*]Second - Make all the bulbs, smoke units, motor, etc work on track voltage, add resistors for LEDs or diodes for directional lighting. [*]Third - Attach to the CONNECTOR a jumper (Dummy Board) that ties all the lights, motors, fans, smoke units and other gizmos to the track. [*]Fourth - PUBLISH the connector configuration, in HO and N there are actually several different standard ones that the NMRA has approved. Use a NMRA standard or publish your own connector configuration if none of the NMRA ones are suitable for the particular loco. Most often, the published configuration is just included in the manual that ships with the loco. [/list] 
That's it!
What about Battery, RC or other control systems? 
Again follow the lead in HO. There ARE R/C systems similar to the Arito TE available in HO. Athearn, for example makes several locos that come with their own little R/C hand-held controllers to operate the lights, sounds and control the loco speed while the loco is on ordinary analog DC track. Some HO locos come in either R/C or DCC versions. My N Scale Big Boy even has a dual function card that runs on RC/DC or DCC. The CONNECTOR can be used not just for DCC but any control system that can be wired to the CONNECTOR and fit in the loco.

The important part of understanding the CONNECTOR is that it:

Separates the electrical parts of the loco from the rails. (and each other)
The electrical parts must be able to withstand the track voltage used by the scale without burning out (N=12, HO=16, G=24)
 This does not mean that the lights and other features have to be 12, 16 or 24 volts, For example, you could use and LED and a resistor, or a 5 volt bulb and a resistor. You could even use a one volt bulb and a diode so the bulb comes at an voltage above one volt yet not burn out the bulb when the voltage is full on. Likewise, you could put a bridge rectifier in the motor circuit so the motor does NOT start turning until the power applied to it exceeds 1.2 volts. The important part of this is that all such circuits go BETWEEN the motor or lights and the connector.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST......


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Sorry I had to continue the reply due to the length limitation of the MLS editor...

Nor does this prevent the manufacturer for adding all sorts of features or controls. The dummy board, which normally is just some jumpers, can be upgraded by the manufacturer to include any of the following they think their buyers will pay for:

[*]Diodes for directional lighting. [*]Flashers for ditch lights. [*]Switches or switch harness to disable some functions like smoke or motor. [/list] They could also add their own proprietary control system for things like R/C, Infra-red, auto collision, or computer control. There is no limit to what sort of board they could replace the Dummy Board with. Even their own DCC decoder or some other proprietary decoder. As long as their replacement card is capable of supplying track voltage to the lights, motors and other gizmos via the connector.

Bachmann totally failed to understand the basics of plug and play. The K27 Dummy Card, for example, had the control circuits for lighting between the connector and the lights. The lights were not powered by the connections to the lights, but instead, a bridge rectifier on the Dummy Board. Naturally, when the dummy board was removed, the lights, smoke and sound triggers all failed to operate, even if DC voltage was applied to the pins designated for them. Worse still, Bachmann included CONTROL CIRCUITS in the wiring of the loco rather than on the dummy card or replacement control card. While, they claimed that they based the interface on the Aristo/Digitrax DCC plug and play interface, they obviously never checked to see if their conglomeration of randomly placed components were compatible with the very decoder the Aristo interface was designed for. To this day, the the DG583AR decoder will shut down most modern DCC systems if plugged into the Kay. Bachmann never tested their interface with the very DCC decoder it was supposed to be based on. Worse, they never provided a fix for this error, and despite questions directed to the Bachmann have not corrected the error on subsequent locos like.

B0B


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

RIGHT ON BOB! 

Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By bobgrosh on 04/28/2009 10:30 AM

Bachmann totally failed to understand the basics of plug and play. The K27 Dummy Card, for example, had the control circuits for lighting between the connector and the lights. The lights were not powered by the connections to the lights, but instead, a bridge rectifier on the Dummy Board. Naturally, when the dummy board was removed, the lights, smoke and sound triggers all failed to operate, even if DC voltage was applied to the pins designated for them. Worse still, Bachmann included CONTROL CIRCUITS in the wiring of the loco rather than on the dummy card or replacement control card. While, they claimed that they based the interface on the Aristo/Digitrax DCC plug and play interface, they obviously never checked to see if their conglomeration of randomly placed components were compatible with the very decoder the Aristo interface was designed for. To this day, the the DG583AR decoder will shut down most modern DCC systems if plugged into the Kay. Bachmann never tested their interface with the very DCC decoder it was supposed to be based on. Worse, they never provided a fix for this error, and despite questions directed to the Bachmann have not corrected the error on subsequent locos like.

B0B

Maybe when my eyes crossed I misread something.
But, SOME things SHOULD be separate.
Like flicker drivers.
And power supplies for optical chuff circuits.

On the Oscar (Meyer), all is on the main board, and IF you want to use decent sized batteries (or speaker, or whatever) and remove the Ames Super Socket Version II, you lose optical chuff drivers, flicker drivers.

The interface should provide power points for these drivers.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I suppose if the Working Group had been operated in an open, forthright manner, with all inputs bundled and passed along to manufacturers instead of filtered for the desires of the "leader" of the working group, AND if there had been an actual List of Requirements published (or even generated), other than someone's own agenda, maybe it would have worked and the locomotive would have been the "hit" it deserved to be.


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

A hit?
Yea I suppose so. I would have three of them instead of only one.

You may remember me asking on the bachmann forum if it was truly plug and play. Due to physical limitations, I was unable to convert a fist run shay to DCC. It was just to heavy, big and delicate for me to be able to convert.

After being convinced by Bachmann that the Kay was indeed plug and play, and that it could be converted without lifting the Kay from the rails, I pre-ordered 1 from each of three different places. Five hours after the first one arrived, I discovered that the Kay wit a decoder caused my boosters to shut downjust as somone else on theis forum had reported two day earlier. I canceled the orders for the other two, paying a restocking fee on one of them.

It took me three months to get the Kay running. And I had to impose on others to lift and turn the darn thing dozens of times, even after making a cushioned holder for it. 

I worked steadily on it and eventually came to the conclusion that the only way to successfully install a complete system with all the features I normally have, was to gut the loco and hard wire it. Up until I realize that there was no way to modify the botched electronics, I had still held out hope or re-ordering the other two Kays.

When the mallet was announced, I asked on the Bachmann forum if the problem had been fixed for the Mallet so that I could plug in a DG583ar decoder. I even explained the exact CAUSE of the problem. I got a rely from the Bachmann that he would look into it, but despite several follow-ups from me, the answer was never given. From the published pictures, it is obvious that they used the exact same circuits and will have the exact same symptoms. What a shame, I really would have loved to have a couple of those mallets. 

Frankly, I will not be buying any more Bachmann's. Of any Kind. Ever.

I used the money from the two Kays to buy three LGB Forneys instead.

Well, I might someday.
Like if TOC got some new loco from Bachmann and absoluely raived about how easy it is to install anything. Yea, That might do it. If TOC tells everyone that there is absoluetly no need for anyone to send him this new loco from Bachann because it is PERFECT. OK, then I'd wait a while and see if somone runs that new loco on track power for a solid month and it just keeps running. That might convince me.

I'm not holding my breath.


Oh, My Kay,
After shimming the CW's, 
and then replacing them with Bachmann provided new ones, 
and then replacing those with the originals with shims, 
and gutting all the boards and 21 feet of wire, 
and building new electrical pickups,
and modifying the tender trucks so they don't short out,
and building my own DCC socket, 
and glueing together the tender shell, 
the Kay runs beautifully. 

As long as I don't try to back it through an LGB R3 turnout. Until I can upgrade the turnouts, the Kay sits on the shelf next to the two Shays.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Pickups?
We don't need no....oh, wait.

There was another issue. I had removed the parts, sent them in with a full description of the land mine waiting, and shortly thereafter someone (who shall remain nameless) caused Philly to sever all communications.

The wires to the driver pickups.

From the circuit board under the flywheel.

They fit through openings (like small tunnel portals) between the upper frame and lower frame, then go to the circuit boards above the pickups.

Of all the units through here, over half of the wires were not in the little grooves.
Rather, smashed flat between the two frame parts, so hard you could see the strands of wire through the insulation.
I remove the wires to "clean" it up.
Hopefully they'll get that fixed on the second run....whenever that is.

At least you knew when I wrote the reviews what you were getting into.

Apparently, two people weren't happy about that.

Oh, and Bob, for a cradle........just use the Styrofoam.
Loco in box, put top on, flip over, lift the bottom off, and it's supported.

You ever try to remove any of the components from the loco circuit boards?

I did.


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 04/28/2009 1:54 PM
Pickups?
We don't need no....oh, wait.

There was another issue. I had removed the parts, sent them in with a full description of the land mine waiting, and shortly thereafter someone (who shall remain nameless) caused Philly to sever all communications.

The wires to the driver pickups.

From the circuit board under the flywheel.

They fit through openings (like small tunnel portals) between the upper frame and lower frame, then go to the circuit boards above the pickups.

Of all the units through here, over half of the wires were not in the little grooves.
Rather, smashed flat between the two frame parts, so hard you could see the strands of wire through the insulation.
I remove the wires to "clean" it up.
Hopefully they'll get that fixed on the second run....whenever that is.

At least you knew when I wrote the reviews what you were getting into.

Apparently, two people weren't happy about that.

Oh, and Bob, for a cradle........just use the Styrofoam.
Loco in box, put top on, flip over, lift the bottom off, and it's supported.

You ever try to remove any of the components from the loco circuit boards?

I did.

Yep, a wire from the right side driver arrived shorted to the frame. I drilled some holes and found a new path and used rubber coated test lead wire to replace those.

More insidious were the wires from the tender trucks. They run through very small holes in the truck crosspiece and then through very small holes in the bolster. Both sets of holes had sharp edges rotating the trucks as the loco enters a curve cuts the insulation. Both the truck part and the bolster part are METAL and grounded to the frame. Mine actually started shorting out before I even put the Kay on a curved track.

I had to drill them out, and file them smooth. I then replaced the wires with rubber insulated test lead wire, and added Teflon sleeves to the holes in the metal parts and secured with rubber cement.

OH! Bye the way, the supplied diagram shows the front and rear trucks connected together by two wires and then connected to the tender circuit board. Had they actually built it that way then a derailment which causes a two or more wheels on both trucks to touch opposite polarity rail would be handled by the wire. Unfortunately, the wire on the drawing is NOT on the tender. Instead, having opposite polarity on the same side of the two trucks resulted in the full current of the power source being handled by some really small lands on the mother board. 

TRY USING A SOLDERING IRON TO REPAIR THE RESULTING BURNT LANDS ON THE MOTHER BOARD.

I did.

Oh yea! I soldered current limiters into the filter circuit. changed the surface mount resistors so I could use bulbs in the marker lights. I did a fair amount of soldering to alter the smoke box flicker bulbs to drive them from the decoder. I totally rewired the optical chuff circuit. It is scattered over four different boards. I got it so it would work with Phoenix and Soundtraxx without the hack they did with the transistor (which didn't work at higher speeds anyway and was still erratic at best when there were other locos on the rails (DCC)).
Later, I riped out all that junk, even the optical chuff which I replaced with reed switches inside the cylinders.I guess I must have soldered something on just about every board in the Kay. While it is not an impossible task, I have 30 years of experience with soldering computer components, and the right equipment. 
Still, even I had problems with the lands lifting (aside from the ones that burned out on the mother board in the tender). I can only imagine the problems the novice would have with a ten dollar iron from Radio Shack.


As to the Styrofoam, I just wasn't able to lift the Kay out of it to work on it. I resorted to three boards, some screws and a large piece of felt tacked to the boards to form a cradle.

If you remember, the reviews didn't get published till AFTER I was already in to deep to turn back. You were writing cryptic stuff about "some loco" on a forum I did not frequent. At one point I actually raised a stink on the Bachmann forum because there were references to the fact that the problems I was having and some solutions were already known but but nobody at Bachmann would tell me where to find the information. Some people took it as an attack against you TOC, it wasn't, I just wanted to know why Bachmann wasn't passing the information on to the Kay users like me.

All the time I worked on the Kay, I kept wondering, why didn't they have someone with at least a 1 year course in basic electronics to design their circuit. My sons at age 12 turned out robots with better electronics. My Granddaughter, at age 10 built a robot using a stamp microprocessor after completing a training manual for the stamp from Radio Shack. At times I wondered if I should just give her the Kay and let her build all new circuits for it. I bet they would have at least worked.

Really, A generic interface is just so darn simple. Why can't these LS train companies just listen to common sense. For Bachmann, there is no excuse. After all. They make HO and N scale locos with decoders and with plug and play. If I'm not mistaken, they even sold some HO scale locos with R/C installed instead of DC or DCC.

B0B


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I was, in an earlier life, a NASA-Certified solderer. 
And, even I lifted tracks, as you did. 
Imagine the average hobbyist? 

My "agreement" with them, going back 12 years or so now, was that any "fixes" went past them first. 
One of the "fixes" they did differently was the driveshaft on the Climax. 
I did (and still do) find the deepest plunge, scribe the shaft, remove the shaft, and file the "ears" off until it just rotates smoothly in the socket. 

Their "fix" was a square plastic piece, with a hole in the middle, that slid over a pin on the end of the shaft. 

Good stuff, except when you derail without end steps, and that little black plastic thingie gets ejected halfway across the yard. 

At least I am no longer bound by that agreement. 

And, they have their "expert" consultant (or Technical Advisor). 

So, all is well. 
All is well. 
Reminds me of a scene in "Animal House".


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

[No message]


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

There ya go. 
I know somebody that looks like that, too.


----------

