Anything else that will do what the DRC300 promised....?

Thanks Cliff! Sorry I didn't make it to Salcott yesterday, too much work on with the post-Xmas rush... ah, the joys of running one's own business, great in many ways but when the orders are piling in, they have to be done....! Fingers crossed for the February meet.....

Interesting that he now has 3 UK-based users; wonder if they saw it here? I'm planning to get some Tam equipment from Muns as soon as it arrives with him, and will most likely use a Tam transmitter hitched to the output of my 1200Z for use at home (so I can still use my Navvies for the actual control) but may well consider an S-Cab too for "going visiting".

Now to decide which couple of locos I use as test-beds for battery conversion..... I'm leaning towards having everything onboard where possible rather than using trail cars as you have, so I'll need plenty of space - I guess that makes my Harzkamel the best candidate for the first experiments at least. Very glad that I can follow on your coat-tails as you've done most of the basic proof-of-concept work! ;)

Jon.
 
Thanks for posting the photos Cliff.
Apologies for asking the next question as the answer may seem obvious from what has been said before...

Am I correct in assuming that the Stanton Powercab sends the DCC signal itself to the Tam Valley RX and wouldn't need the Tam Valley TX or the extra power supply as it is RC already? Or am I being a bit thick (more than likely).
 
beavercreek said:
Thanks for posting the photos Cliff.
Apologies for asking the next question as the answer may seem obvious from what has been said before...

Am I correct in assuming that the Stanton Powercab sends the DCC signal itself to the Tam Valley RX and wouldn't need the Tam Valley TX or the extra power supply as it is RC already? Or am I being a bit thick (more than likely).
Click to expand...

Apologies for jumping in and answering for Cliff, Mike - but the quick answer is "Yes" (to your technical question, not to whether you're being thick.... ;) )

Jon.
 
Cliff George said:
Yes Jon it works straight out of the box. You have to ask for a special order 869MHz version.

Neil charged me $139.00 for the cab, which is the same as for the 916MHz version + $15.00 for postage. Very reasonable of him I thought. At the exchange rate at the time I sent him just less than £100.00. I did get stung for about an additional £20.00 for the parcel farce admin fee and VAT. It works out quite a bit less than the modified power cab, mostly because there is no need to buy a Tam Valley transmitter or battery.

The power cab is a lot more capable, but the S-CAB does the job as well. Used it yesterday at Salcott and it worked very well. I will probably be there at the next winter meet if you are interested in having a go.

Apparently more than one S-CAB can be used at the same time even though the frequency is the same because it turns off when it isn't transmitting messages.

Interestingly Neil tells me that although I was the first to ask for a 869MHz version there are now 3 users in the UK!

http://www.s-cab.com/
Click to expand...

I have been looking into options for wireless DCC for many months and have also followed this thread with interest. I have looked at the Tam Valley products and have communicated with them. In this they have confirmed that interference between two people using their solution is very likely. The view expressed here is that the S-CAB option is less likely to interfere because it only transmits in short bursts. This I can follow. However, what would happen if two users at a garden meeting had S-CABs and their locos happen to be set to the same DCC address. How would the system sort out which S-CAB is controlling which locomotive? What seems to be missing is the binding technology provided by the 2.4GHz DSM2 radio systems. I recognise that there is a cost in switching to this, but the benefits are so clear to me. I read on another forum that the NCE G-wire solution is no longer available. I wonder if they have finally recognised the limitations of the 900MHz and 869MHz radio systems. Dare I hope that they will be the first main steam DCC supplier to move to 2.4GHz.

David
 
davidarf said:
........ However, what would happen if two users at a garden meeting had S-CABs and their locos happen to be set to the same DCC address. How would the system sort out which S-CAB is controlling which locomotive? .......

David
Click to expand...

Well, the problem would be exactly the same as if two people turn up at a meet using "conventional" track-powered DCC, and both had locos on the same address - either one would have to change their loco address, or they'd simply have to take turns in running their locos! ;)

At open garden days I've been to, it's quite common to simply ask "Is anyone else using address 12, before I put this on the track?".

Jon.
 
Sorry Cliff and Jon, I made a mistake in my last question post as I mentioned the 'Stanton Powercab' when I really meant the NCE Procab 'R'

So here is the question that I really meant to ask.......

As the NCE Procab 'R' is a central station and also is wireless, will it work like this:

Track is dead

In loco: a DCC decoder, a Tam Valley RX, battery and DPDT switch

For Control: NCE Procab R sending wireless DCC info through Tam valley RX to DCC decoder

OR are the NCE wireless protocols not going to be compatible with the Tam Valley RX?
 
I'll have to leave Cliff to answer that one, Mike - the only obvious thing I can think of is whether the Procab R is available in 869 MHz? If not, then it won't be UK/euro-legal......

Jon.
 
It would be nice if that would work Mike but it isn't going to.

Firstly NCE Procab 'R' is only a cab and not a command station. It speaks NCE proprietary language to their command station, not DCC.

Secondly it works on a frequency of 916.?MHz which wont work with the Tam Valley 'euro' frequency and is illegal here (as Jon has already said).

NCE did make the G-Wire wireless cab, which would have at least spoken DCC but they have stopped making that now.

I did email them the other day suggesting they should make a version of the G-Wire cab that would work with the Tam Valley Rx instead of the unavailable QSI one but I didn't get a response. >:(

I suspect that the hardware for the G-Wire Cab and the Procab R is exactly the same, but the software is different.
 
Thanks Cliff, I am totally in the zone now!

Looks like your rewired version of the Power Cab with the TamValley TX is the best 'independent' way to go to be able to take DCC enabled kit (plus Tam valley RX) to run on any other dead-railed layout.
It would also enable already DCC-ed locos to have individual command on a DC layout...........interesting tail chasing after a 'standard' DC loco could be entertained just like having a normal RC one in play.
 
beavercreek said:
........
It would also enable already DCC-ed locos to have individual command on a DC layout...........interesting tail chasing after a 'standard' DC loco could be entertained just like having a normal RC one in play.
Click to expand...

Yes, once you've switched off the pickups in your loco via the DPDT switch, it will be totally independent of any power (or lack of) running through the rails - they can be completely dead, or running DC, or even DCC (OK, in the latter case there would be little point in your loco running on its batteries, but there might be some unusual times when this would have an advantage). Dirty track, stalling on point frogs..... all these should, in theory, become things of the past...... :)

And yes, I know that many people on here already have these advantages with their various on-board RC systems, but not with seamless total control over an already-installed sound decoder AND full capability to switch back to track-powered DCC (or even DC) when necessary!

I think we may at last be zeroing-in on RC-DCC Nerd-vana..... ;)

Jon.
 
Thanks David for your useful contribution.

davidarf said:
I have been looking into options for wireless DCC for many months and have also followed this thread with interest. I have looked at the Tam Valley products and have communicated with them. In this they have confirmed that interference between two people using their solution is very likely. The view expressed here is that the S-CAB option is less likely to interfere because it only transmits in short bursts. This I can follow. However, what would happen if two users at a garden meeting had S-CABs and their locos happen to be set to the same DCC address. How would the system sort out which S-CAB is controlling which locomotive? What seems to be missing is the binding technology provided by the 2.4GHz DSM2 radio systems.
Click to expand...

I hear where you are coming from but I disagree there is anything missing. DCC on rails is a protocol that broadcasts to all decoders, the decoders decide which messages to discard and which to act on depending on the address in each message. In essence this is exactly the same as happens with DSM2/DSMX where receivers on the same frequency receive everything but only act on messages they can decode as for them. RF is a distinctly broadcast orientated medium.

It would be good if DCC was slightly more sophisticated and be able to automatically allocate a unique address for each engine and not rely on manual configuration as it does now. The binding in DSM2/DSMX is basically this feature.

I agree that DSM2/DSMX can seek out the least congested frequencies and this could be an advantage in a noisy environment.

However I think what we have at the moment will work and I don't think anything will change much any time soon.

davidarf said:
I read on another forum that the NCE G-wire solution is no longer available. I wonder if they have finally recognised the limitations of the 900MHz and 869MHz radio systems. Dare I hope that they will be the first main steam DCC supplier to move to 2.4GHz.
Click to expand...

I'd guess that the RF part they used became obsolete and also that they got fed up waiting for the QSI receivers to become available again.

I emailed them to suggest they modify the G-Wire cab to work with the Tam Valley receivers.
 
Cliff
Many thanks for your comments. The sharing of ideas, opinions and experience is one of the great strengths of this hobby. I will continue to monitor this thread for further ideas and look forward to reports on the use of the Tam Valley/ S-CAB solution.

I agree that this is probably the closest that we are likely to get to a "plug and go" wireless DCC solution for large scale in the short term, and that my hopes for a better solution may be over ambitious, particularly given that the main stream DCC manufacturers seem seem to have their heads buried firmly and very deep in the sand.

Regards

David
 
Blinking 'eck - 8 pages and hardly any thread drift. I think that just shows that there truly is a market for this type of device.
 
[quote author=stockers link=topic=299347.msg339983#msg339983 date=1421271937]
Blinking `eck - 8 pages and hardly any thread drift. I think that just shows that there truly is a market for this type of device.
[/quote]


Oh heck Alan....here we go....

I want THIS remote control!

remote control.jpg

accuspeed20.jpg

remote control 3.jpg
 
and this guy

DSC05128 (Medium).JPG

is controlling this train of empty stock from the carriage sheds.

DSC05129 (Medium).JPG
 
Today I received a shipment form Tam Valley so the Dead Rail System components are now available from my web store....

http://www.gardenrailoutlet.co.uk/dead-rail-system
 
muns said:
Today I received a shipment form Tam Valley so the Dead Rail System components are now available from my web store....

http://www.gardenrailoutlet.co.uk/dead-rail-system
Click to expand...

Interesting Mark. Is the transmitter distance really 50 feet? I was hoping for rather more.
 
whatlep said:
Interesting Mark. Is the transmitter distance really 50 feet? I was hoping for rather more.
Click to expand...

Peter,

I lifted the spec and blurb from the TVD site. The Hi Power receiver indicates 300ft at best. I'm not sure if the 50ft relates to "other" devices using the ISM band or the DRS Tx. I have not yet cobbled together a test rig to find out. Maybe I will have to go for a walk down the road with a receiver lash-up to see how far I get before it looses the signal!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom