Just a question I have been pondering. Why is there so little info on 3 rail DCC. Surely someone has installed a decoder in a 3 rail loco and used DCC?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I didn't even know 3 rail DCC was a thing until I checked this post.
That could a contributing factor. I thought DCC was exclusive to two rail.
I would say the other factor is DCS/Legacy/ERR coming with locomotives already. It's kind of like PC coming with Internet Exploder back in the day.
Some of us are working on it now. Stay tuned. Traditional DCC has a few adherents in three rail but that only works with the exclusion of TMCC an DCS. The recently released Blunami DCC will work together TMCC and DCS. I think you see a few more coming on board when they see its capabilities.
Pete
Lots of reasons. Originally in the 1990s and thereabouts, the availability of high amperage DCC equipment was scarce and manufacturers of DCC had little or no interest in three rail O gauge, a much smaller market than HO and N, as examples. Lionel developed TMCC to be compatible with the high amperage AC open frame motors used historically and currently (in the 1990s) in their three rail locos. MTH developed DCS for similar reasons apparently. MTH did include DCC in many of their PS3 (edited 
) locos beginning in the first part of the 21st century so they could operate on two rail O gauge layouts. Two rail O gauge is an even smaller niche market than three rail, so once again, DCC manufacturers had little incentive to develop products specifically for O gauge, two or three rail.
Since all of the current production of three rail locos have TMCC/Legacy/LionChief/Bluetooth or DCS (Protosound 3), there isn't much motivation to spend more money on DCC for most hobbyists, except for those who like to tinker with such things. No motivation on the part of hobbyists means a tiny market, at least at present.
@Norton posted:Some of us are working on it now. Stay tuned. Traditional DCC has a few adherents in three rail but that only works with the exclusion of TMCC an DCS. The recently released Blunami DCC will work together TMCC and DCS. I think you see a few more coming on board when they see its capabilities.
Pete
Can you send me a pm with any info you have on installing the Blunami into a 3 rail loco?
Neil Young (Liontech) was one of the pioneers of command control for 3-rail. I think he came up with TMCC circa 1994 because at that time, there was no off-the-shelf DCC solution that would operate amp-hungry Pullmor motors in the electrically noisy AC track environment. It worked well enough that Lionel began "bundling" it with severaly new top-line locomotives. So although proprietary, it became a quasi-standard. Especially when Lionel began allowing competitors to offer TMCC in their trains as well.
DCC doesn't care how many rails are on the track, but I doubt that it would operate a Postwar motor very well. At a minimum, I think the motor would need to be isolated from chassis ground (outside rails.) If you have only new can-motored stuff, DCC should work great. The main roadblock to using it is the initial cost of the command base, handhelds, etc. Also, the effort of installing a decoder in each loco. If Lionel and MTH offered their locos "naked" (i.e., with no electronics in them) and for a lower price, DCC would be a very viable way to go, as long as you aren't interested in running your train at a club, or someone else's house.
For this reason and others, I like the "direct R/C" options better than DCC. With direct R/C, there is no command base. Just a receiver in the loco that modulates track power to the motor, and a hand held controller or phone app. This is exactly how Lionel's LionChief works. I also know of three aftermarket options: AirWire, RailPro, and Blunami. With a small "helper circuit" to condition the track power going into the decoder, you end up with a loco that will give you individual control on ANY layout. Hope this helps!
A bit off topic, but what I am curious about, if anyone knows, do any of the other scales control, using DCC or other systems require the use of Smart devices? I couldn't find any substantiating evidence that they do; and if that is accurate, then it appears both Lionel and MTH are alone in "pushing" consumers in that direction, ostensibly due to the high cost of making handheld controllers, e.g., DCS and Cab II.
@Mad_Liver posted:Can you send me a pm with any info you have on installing the Blunami into a 3 rail loco?
I have exactly ten days experience with Blunami and DCC. I can tell you its easy to get the motor, sounds, headlight and rear light going. Reading “War and Peace” would be easier than finding info in the manual and the Blunami manual is one of the better ones out there.
If you are thinking about it I would suggest just getting a diesel version and just jump in.
Pete
@Landsteiner posted:MTH developed DCS for similar reasons apparently. MTH did include DCC in many of their PS2 locos beginning in the first decade of the 21st century so they could operate on two rail O gauge layouts.
Say what? PS/2 never had DCC capability, that was added with the PS/3 board package.
DCC is a control system. It is not tied to any scale or number of rails. You just select your loco receivers (decoders) based on the amperage draw of you locomotive. You can little tiny ones rated at .5 amps that will fit in an N scale loco and large ones rated at 8 amps that will fit in an LGB size loco. Most of the decoders are rated 2-4 amps. 2 amps is generally considered plenty for HO. Many older O scale locos draw 2.5-3.5 amps so you need a 4 amp decoder. I think a lot of the newer stuff in O draws less than 2 amps under load.
I know for sure of one using DCC in 3 rail and has been for years. He is a member of my round robin group and models the Western Maryland. I think I have heard of another loco guy doing 3 rail DCC but not sure.
@Paul Kallus posted:A bit off topic, but what I am curious about, if anyone knows, do any of the other scales control, using DCC or other systems require the use of Smart devices? I couldn't find any substantiating evidence that they do; and if that is accurate, then it appears both Lionel and MTH are alone in "pushing" consumers in that direction, ostensibly due to the high cost of making handheld controllers, e.g., DCS and Cab II.
Three of the larger DCC systems out there, Digitrax, MRC and NCE all have the good old hand held remotes. I believe there are at least a couple of other DCC systems as well, but don't recall the names or much about them. I think at least some of them may have 'optional' smart device apps.
I'm not a DCC user, but have always had some interest in it. It's becoming a bit more tempting the last few years with the discontinued remotes and unobtainable DCS and Legacy control systems.
More to the point, DCC is an open communication protocol.
I have been running DCC on my 3rail layout for several years starting first with BlueRailDCC and more lately with Blunami. The results have been excellent. The DCC capability in speed control, lighting and sounds is superb. There is an enormous amount of installation advice and technical data on DCC available on-line. The latest Blunami version from SoundTraxx has 4 amp capability which should handle Pul-Mor motors. The BlueRailTrains engineered Blunami app has built in shortcuts which makes operational adjustments easier than ever. Worth trying.
It is time for DCC to be the 3 rail standard like every other gauge!
@Paul Kallus posted:A bit off topic, but what I am curious about, if anyone knows, do any of the other scales control, using DCC or other systems require the use of Smart devices? I couldn't find any substantiating evidence that they do; and if that is accurate, then it appears both Lionel and MTH are alone in "pushing" consumers in that direction, ostensibly due to the high cost of making handheld controllers, e.g., DCS and Cab II.
As rtr12 stated Digitrax, MRC and NCE all have the good old hand held remotes.
There are others, but the good thing about it is that (like Santiago said) DCC is open source so any of the systems can be used to control any installed DCC decoder. It doesn't matter if it is SoundTraxx, TCS, Lenz, Digitrax, ESU, etc. That helps prevent what it going on right now with Lionel and MTH with discontinued command controllers going for blood money, real or unreal shortages, and waiting for new systems (mostly WiFi) to finally appear (subject to ticket scalping).
Moreover, for less than $100 you can make your own DCC control system using DCC++ or DCC++EX and readily available arduino based modules and lots of instruction all over the internet. They use the open source Decoder Pro and JMRI. Readily available WiFi modules make them wireless and you can use either the Engine Driver (Android) or WiThrottle (Apple) app to run the locos.
John
3R DCC is very interesting. It offers better sound and is not proprietary to any one manufacturer. There are two major downsides: (a) the cost of converting a large loco inventory and (b) the incompatibility of Pullmor motors with DCC decoders currently available.
The curious twist on this is the Blunami product, which can provide Bluetooth control of a suitable can-motored loco without a DCC power source, yet incorporate the normal DCC decoder functions. Most implementations of this, to date, use "dead rail", e.g., rechargeable lithium-ion batteries in the loco as the power source.
My Blunami card arrived today. It will be installed in a Weaver Baldwin Sharknose diesel. The key to making this work on 3-rail, AC-powered track is to determine the degree of filtering and regulation needed in an onboard AC-DC converter (glorified rectifier), as the Blunami card cannot be powered directly from AC track voltage. I will examine this in detail, since Soundtraxx could not provide me with a maximum 120 Hz ripple specification for the card's power source. If my pilot project is successful, I will probably convert my several pre-TMCC/DCS dual-can-motored diesels to Blunami/DCC (well, to the extent that their motor stall currents do not pose an overload problem for the Blunami card). My two can-motored steamers' motors have a stall current well above the Blunami 4A limit, so they aren't conversion candidates.
I'm also looking at Blunami in the context of my club's S-gauge travel layout, for control of American Models and S-Helper locos. Motor stall current is far less of an issue in S-gauge.
An enormous benefit of the Blunami smart device DCC app is the set of shortcuts to adjusting CV's. When I first encountered DCC, I was impressed by the huge number (close to 300) of adjustable CV's (short for Configuration Variable). I set up a logbook so I could keep track of the various settings. The Blunami app has greatly simplified CV adjusting which is one of the more complicated aspects of DCC. If you prefer, you can still adjust individual CV's via the app.
We S gaugers who purchase Lionel Legacy engines are apparently fortunate. All S gauge Legacy engines beginning in 2013 are DCC compatible.
Before all you 3 rail O gauge operators jump into the DCC pool be aware there is currently no way to fire electrocouplers with DCC. In S gauge that is not a big issue since most DCC operators replace the truck mounted electrocouplers with body mounted Kadee's. That works in S because most engines/tenders now have pads for mounting the Kadees. It also works because the minimum track radius made in S is the equivalent of O-54. We can run 40' to 50' freight cars with no problem but not passenger cars. I doubt anyone can run body mounts on O-31 track. I found the minimum radius to use body mounts on passenger cars (21" for O gaugers) is the equivalent of O-84 with generous easements.
If the electrocoupler is replaced with a standard high rail KC then no problem.
@KarlDL posted:3R DCC is very interesting. It offers better sound and is not proprietary to any one manufacturer. There are two major downsides: (a) the cost of converting a large loco inventory and (b) the incompatibility of Pullmor motors with DCC decoders currently available.
The curious twist on this is the Blunami product, which can provide Bluetooth control of a suitable can-motored loco without a DCC power source, yet incorporate the normal DCC decoder functions. Most implementations of this, to date, use "dead rail", e.g., rechargeable lithium-ion batteries in the loco as the power source.
My Blunami card arrived today. It will be installed in a Weaver Baldwin Sharknose diesel. The key to making this work on 3-rail, AC-powered track is to determine the degree of filtering and regulation needed in an onboard AC-DC converter (glorified rectifier), as the Blunami card cannot be powered directly from AC track voltage. I will examine this in detail, since Soundtraxx could not provide me with a maximum 120 Hz ripple specification for the card's power source. If my pilot project is successful, I will probably convert my several pre-TMCC/DCS dual-can-motored diesels to Blunami/DCC (well, to the extent that their motor stall currents do not pose an overload problem for the Blunami card). My two can-motored steamers' motors have a stall current well above the Blunami 4A limit, so they aren't conversion candidates.
I'm also looking at Blunami in the context of my club's S-gauge travel layout, for control of American Models and S-Helper locos. Motor stall current is far less of an issue in S-gauge.
Karl, I am using a less than $4 DC-DC 5 amp switching convertor to power my Blunami with a full wave bridge. Amazon and the bay have many more low dollar options. I set it to 18v but the Blunami will handle up to 26v.
Coupler and synchronized smoke working now. Almost time to pour the epoxy as we say.
One of the purposes of this exercise is to see if a DCC engine will run on the same track at the same time as TMCC/Legacy and DCS engines.
Pete
Attachments
Videos (2)
@BOB WALKER posted:The latest Blunami version from SoundTraxx has 4 amp capability which should handle Pul-Mor motors.
They handle Universal motors with three leads?
John back in the very early 2000s, I researched the idea of installing a high amp Zimo/Lenz DCC decoder in a postwar Hudson. The stumbling block wasn't the current draw or the wound-field motor. (As it turns out, it's not hard to make a universal motor "look" and behave like a permag DC motor, electrically.) The challenges were: (1) the motor had to be insulated from chassis ground. (2) The Zimo MX64 decoder I was planning to use made use of back-EMF speed control. Even though I had been pretty impressed with the Hudson's Pullmor motor for conventional operation, the dealer warned me that the speed control algorithms were set up for multi-pole DC motors and wouldn't give satisfactory performance.
The other stumbling block was the sheer economics. Buying a DCC base, 8-amp booster, hand-held, etc., would have been a big investment for just one loco. The proposition of converting to DCC is like Lay's potato chips. You can't have just one! That's why I've been advocating some of the "direct R/C" options. As long as the input voltage is properly conditioned, any of these should run right alongside existing TMCC, Legacy, and DCS locos. And maybe better on large club layouts where wiring and signal strength create challenges for the OEM systems, as long as the engineer is willing to walk with his train.
- Wanna run DCC on 3 rail AC powered track with your DCS and TMCC systems? Get a BlueRail board and operate it with the Blunami app.
Now that I'm Deadrail, I'm no longer concerned about track power for myself. So no AC to DC converter needed on my other locos.
I have one Blunami board installed and am expecting another any day.
Ron
I can't think of any DCC systems that require use of a Smart phone or similar Smart device? I know some manufacturers - like Bachmann in some of their starter sets - have engines with DCC that can be controlled with a Smart device. But as far as I know, they work fine with any regular DCC system like Digitrax, CVP, NCE, etc also.
@NJCJOE posted:It is time for DCC to be the 3 rail standard like every other gauge!
While I agree wholeheartedly in theory, I think that ship sailed long ago. Most of us are in too deep for it to be feasible to retrofit our locomotives.
I like the Blunami / dead rail concept - something to look at going forward. Unfortunately, my understanding is that it is only accessible via a phone or tablet. Really prefer a dedicated remote with actual knobs and buttons.
Blunami/DeadRail is today's most advanced operating concept for model trains. Oddly enough, it's really not all that difficult to install. In addition, it's not all that expensive. The results are captivating.
@AmFlyer posted:...Before all you 3 rail O gauge operators jump into the DCC pool be aware there is currently no way to fire electrocouplers with DCC...
Not entirely true for O scale. I have seen these DCC controlled KD couplers and actually own a few pair. I have not installed them yet, but may soon. They are fully DCC controlled.
https://www.precimodels.com/en...s/9-dcc-uncouplers-3 and video
Also there is another company making HO scale DCC controlled couplers that don't look as bulky. Reading further on their website, this company is developing for O scale also. https://www.smart-coupler.com/home-eng
Wow! That is really neat!
That's another reason I prefer DCC over the proprietary systems. The ability for users to come up with innovative ideas to improve how we run our trains without any fear of legal action.
@AmFlyer posted:
...Before all you 3 rail O gauge operators jump into the DCC pool be aware there is currently no way to fire electrocouplers with DCC...
I have zero experience with DCC on the rail but believe it shares the same capabilities as Blunami. Firing electro couplers turned out to be very easy just by adding a relay to one of the Function outputs to handle the higher current required. In my case I used track power through the relay to open the coupler. The pulse is quick enough so that the coil doesn’t overheat even though the voltage is double what they are typically driven by. By changing the CV value of the Function output to that of the Coupler sound, the coupler opens with the coupler clank.
FWIW many years ago a friend built an On3 passenger train with DCC fired scale electro couplers. He wound his own coupler coils so the current did not overload direct connection to the decoder. Each coupler had its own address.
His train took home a first place award at a national narrow gauge convention.
Pete
Attachments
Videos (1)
Well if DCC has electrocouplers...I'm suddenly a lot more interested in converting. I've had the impression that DCC lacks electrocouplers, great quality sound, and smoke/bell/whistle features I get with Legacy/PS3. Maybe my impressions are wrong?
@BillYo414 posted:Well if DCC has electrocouplers...I'm suddenly a lot more interested in converting. I've had the impression that DCC lacks electrocouplers, great quality sound, and smoke/bell/whistle features I get with Legacy/PS3. Maybe my impressions are wrong?
What is different about DCC is its not quite plug and play for three rail. It has a number of programable outputs that you can configure but you won’t find a pair of connectors on the board that you just plug a coupler into like PS3 or ERR. You have to build that. By the same token you can do the same for swinging bell, whistle steam, coal load draw down of just about any feature currently available just by adding the mechanics.
Pete
Not only could this increase interest in DCC but this may increase interest in converting to more prototypical Kadee couplers. For me the negative to Kadees was the stationary magnets.
My grandchildren have post-war, MPC, TMCC, LionChief, PS-1, and PS-2 engines. Though I readily run this type of equipment my son-in-law finds it difficult and confusing when trying to operate all of this at their home. It looks like DCC may finally be the answer and something that will not be obsolete in the foreseeable future. If prices come down I will seriously consider converting their equipment to DCC, using AC track power, since their favorite feature is remote coupling/uncoupling.
As a side note, they received two sets of Lego trains this past Christmas, they are really nice too! Maybe someone out there knows if they are DCC too.
Currently there is no off the shelf way to operate Lionel electrocouplers with DCC. It has been done by using a relay actuated by the decoder. As pointed out above there are Kadee electrocouplers that work directly with the DCC decoders. S gauge Legacy engines have built in pads for mounting Kadees, do O gauge engines also have them? The S gauge Legacy engines smoke features (smoke and whistle steam) are accessible with DCC. Many S gaugers have smoking engines (not Legacy) that use WOW 5A decoders. The sounds are far better than Legacy sounds after all the CV's are set. This can all be done in O gauge, just some of the features require custom work.
MTH lists DCC as a feature of their PS3 engines and front & rear couplers are listed as DCC features in their catalogs. I've never tried any of my MTH PS3s with DCC so I lack any actual experience with it.
The reason there is so little info on DCC is that this is a three rail O gauge forum and there are very few people using DCC in this environment, largely because no one is making equipment for DCC specifically targeted to three rail operators, in general. What you've learned from this thread is that DCC in various forms can be a rewarding adventure for hobbyists who like to tinker. Not that there's anything at all wrong with that. But it's not, at present, for those who want everything ready to run and without tinkering . Unless you are in two rail model railroading where it's relatively well developed and comparatively a piece of cake.
In partial reply to the above question, a DCC Command station can send out around 8K bits/second. Long pulses are zeros, short are ones. The frequency will vary from 5kHz to 9kHz depending on the information sent and how close the setting is to the max or min values of the Configuration Variable.
@Hudson J1e posted:That's another reason I prefer DCC over the proprietary systems. The ability for users to come up with innovative ideas to improve how we run our trains without any fear of legal action.
I hear ya but ...
Legal action? Against a single individual?
99% of the time legal action is only against corporate entities, largely competitors or prospective competitors. No one is going to sue you for tinkering. It's not worth the effort to get a cease-and-desist order against an individual, unless you intend to go into business with your stuff.
This forum always has been, and still is, literally chock full of people who could get sued under this definition of problematic. As far as we know none ever have been, not one*, and as we can well see they generate useful, creative and innovative ideas every day.
Mike
* Someone will probably find a way to make me eat crow over this statement, but at least we'll find out if such a lawsuit has ever been raised.
@Mellow Hudson Mike Mike, I should have worded my statement differently. I agree with what you are saying but if I had the know how to make boards that could take DCS or Legacy commands and control a motor and I started selling them for half the price of a retrofit kit I certainly think I would be hearing from those who own the patents. I won't say any more because I have derailed this thread enough.
