Scalefour Forum

Simon_S wrote:
Heljan motors seem to be very inefficient, I've measured my 47 drawing 1.5A.

Ugh. Much sparking too?
You must have to clean your track very often!

Paul Townsend wrote:Ugh. Much sparking too?
You must have to clean your track very often!

12 wheel pick up and a very heavy loco so no sparks, just a motor that prefers making heat to torque

I am not familiar with Heljan locos, but just out of curiosity, have you checked the drive train for problems, and that one or more pickups are not in the wrong place(s)?

Had to scrap a Heljan motor, it only had two speeds, stop and full. Replaced with a Canon.

I must be lucky then. My Heljan Class 35 I converted with the Ultrascale Wheels is the slickest loco I think I have ever owned...like seriously. Never had anything better I don't think.

Noel wrote:I am not familiar with Heljan locos, but just out of curiosity, have you checked the drive train for problems, and that one or more pickups are not in the wrong place(s)?

I have; everything is fine mechanically and electrically, it runs very well. The problem is purely the motor; it could be poorly specified for the application but I suspect it's just cheap c**p. It's not a problem for the light use it will see if I ever complete the layout it's supposed to run on.

Simon_S wrote:

Will L wrote:In the good old days of open frame motors some of them could draw up to an amp, but modern motors are much, much less thirsty. You'll get nowhere need 5 amps.

Heljan motors seem to be very inefficient, I've measured my 47 drawing 1.5A.

Hum, I'd suspect the magnet isn't living up to its name. But fear not, it will all melt soon and you'll be able to replace it with something better.

Will L - The Motivational Hope Machine.

-

Also I have heard that some early Heljan engines expanded and split in two.

ClikC wrote:

Knuckles wrote:The main reason DCC appeals to me beeides less wiring

That right there, is the number one lie of DCC.

If you talking an 'OO' set track 6x4, then yes. For any other type of layout, DCC will likely have the same as, or more wiring than an equivalent DC layout.

Nope. You see the point motors on New Street are controlled by locally mounted decoders. There are 5 sections in total, 4 for track and one for other stuff. Basically 10 bus wires.

Imagine all the isolation sections I'd need, add in all the signals (about a half dozen functions per head so at least 13 wires in a double headed signal and 2 wires per point motor. Now feed all that wiring back to some sort of giant control panel somewhere and you can see just how much more wiring I'd need crossing baseboard joints. I can run the whole layout with less wires than I'd need to run a single signal!

Cheers

Jim

Fair enough Jim. Although I think the square cube rule law starts to come into play with layouts as big as yours.

I'm allergic to DCC for point control, which I blame squarely on owning one too many 'digital' synthesizer's. Knobs > Menus. If I was tackling something like BNS, I'd probably opt to make each layout board have its own microcontroller to cover point and signal control, with just an Ethernet cable from each back to a hub and then over Ethernet to a microcontroller based control panel. Although an AS-Interface style system also appeals.

Regards

Matt

ClikC wrote: If I was tackling something like BNS, I'd probably opt to make each layout board have its own microcontroller to cover point and signal control, with just an Ethernet cable from each back to a hub and then over Ethernet to a microcontroller based control panel. Although an AS-Interface style system also appeals.
Matt

Shameless plug here for Merg CBus which uses Canbus like your car for this job and can interface via Ethernet to PC or RaspberryPi etc

ClikC wrote:Fair enough Jim. Although I think the square cube rule law starts to come into play with layouts as big as yours.

I'm allergic to DCC for point control, which I blame squarely on owning one too many 'digital' synthesizer's. Knobs > Menus. If I was tackling something like BNS, I'd probably opt to make each layout board have its own microcontroller to cover point and signal control, with just an Ethernet cable from each back to a hub and then over Ethernet to a microcontroller based control panel. Although an AS-Interface style system also appeals.

Like I have installed on Coldfair Green, which is a small branchline layout.

LocoNet based, a technology with a 15-20 year history. Local microprocessor units for turnouts, signals and level crossing movement. Local control buttons where required. Networked together to a push-button panel which has LED indication of state of track and signals. And links to optional computer screen(s), smartphones. And, should someone want to do it, the DCC handset will also operate everything.

Its considerably less wiring than a "conventional" panel with similar capabilities.


MERG's CBus system will do similar things. As will some other methods.



- Nigel

Paul Townsend wrote:Shameless plug here for Merg CBus which uses Canbus like your car for this job and can interface via Ethernet to PC or RaspberryPi etc

Hi Paul.

I'm aware of MERG's CBus, but not being a MERG member, and not currently having a layout to worry about, I've not done a great deal of thinking on the subject.

nigelcliffe wrote:Like I have installed on Coldfair Green, which is a small branchline layout.

LocoNet based, a technology with a 15-20 year history. Local microprocessor units for turnouts, signals and level crossing movement. Local control buttons where required. Networked together to a push-button panel which has LED indication of state of track and signals. And links to optional computer screen(s), smartphones. And, should someone want to do it, the DCC handset will also operate everything.

Its considerably less wiring than a "conventional" panel with similar capabilities.

MERG's CBus system will do similar things. As will some other methods.

- Nigel

Hi Nigel.

I've not seen Coldfair Green in the flesh yet, but it does sound like you've achieved a lot of what I would like to.

The problem with any current 'off the shelf' system, then becomes how well it may or may not integrate with RC.

Regards

Matt