Post by wendtsc on Mar 3, 2014 2:37:14 GMT -8
Yeah, I know there are Yahoo groups for this, but being in a country with a lot of rogue ISP server issues, and ISPs that block access to any social media that's not based in Korea, I often can't access them.
So, I thought I would ask here. I have been working on trying to intergrate a functional ABS/CTC system on my small layout. More than anything, I want realistic signaling. I know many folks who have told me the answer is to sell off my NCE stuff and switch to Digitrax. While loconet has lots of support, I don't like being tied into their centralized way of doing things. I particularly don't like having everything resting on the ability of the Command Station to "keep order" and having to choose between having one cable (which is what I want) but then having throttles, track signal/power, accessories, detectors, and decoders are all jostling for packet time on one bus or if I want to make sure that my throttles can be heard by moving detection and accessories/signaling to another pair of wires, I have to start running at least 2, or more loconet trunk lines under the layout. I want less wires not more, OR to use the unused wire that are already there.
So, enter the CAN bus, AKA OpenLCB, AKA NMRAnet. NCE not too long ago created UTPs designed to use standard Cat5e cables instead of the old phone data cables. Both NCE and Lenz use basically the same wiring diagrams (a pair of wires for the signal and a wire for 12v and one for ground. This leaves plenty of room in a Cat5e cable for more data lines. In fact, NCE even makes mention of a CANbus, but unfortunately the NMRA standard and RP for NMRAnet makes poor choices in how it uses the available wiring pairs and makes its unable to be intergrated into any present DCC system without another completely separate bus, or ignoring the new standards. (Really all these extra bus cables are unnecessary and maddening. If a Navy ship sitting pier-side can have all its communication passing through a single Cat5e cable, then why should I need three cables under my layout to have signals, throttles and detectors without resorting to the lets everyone talk over each other until no one is heard that is loconet.
Despite this, I plan on plowing forward and trying to integrate an OpenLCB (NMRAnet) CANbus into a Cat5e cable that is also carrying the NCE Cab bus. Anyone using Lenz should be able to do the exact same thing if this works. If anyone has any experiences to share I would be happy to here about them.
My first proposal for how to do this would only allow for the OpenLCB to transmit data. Each node would either need its own power or could only get power from neighbors if their is no UTPs in between. If any CANbus powering was used, any UTPs beyond that grouping of CANbus Nodes would need a power boost. In other words, each bus segment could only provide cab power or CAN node power, but not both. Unless the 12 v power required for both could be shared. Here is where anyone who knows about OpenLCB could again be some help.
It would have been great if the NMRA had been able to provide a standard for this as soon as the demand started to become strong. Instead, a lack of a standard has allowed one company to push for their own proprietary standard as the de facto for all those developing signal systems. This leaves those that wanted to wait for an industry standard out in the cold.
So, anyway, let me know what you think of this idea. Again, this is just the first iteration. I hope to find out I can actually mix the power and then all would be good and just.
Also, if any of you wanted to know more about Open Layout Control Buses or those building the equipment, I can provide links. If you have questions about my diagrams here I can answer those too!
Scott
So, I thought I would ask here. I have been working on trying to intergrate a functional ABS/CTC system on my small layout. More than anything, I want realistic signaling. I know many folks who have told me the answer is to sell off my NCE stuff and switch to Digitrax. While loconet has lots of support, I don't like being tied into their centralized way of doing things. I particularly don't like having everything resting on the ability of the Command Station to "keep order" and having to choose between having one cable (which is what I want) but then having throttles, track signal/power, accessories, detectors, and decoders are all jostling for packet time on one bus or if I want to make sure that my throttles can be heard by moving detection and accessories/signaling to another pair of wires, I have to start running at least 2, or more loconet trunk lines under the layout. I want less wires not more, OR to use the unused wire that are already there.
So, enter the CAN bus, AKA OpenLCB, AKA NMRAnet. NCE not too long ago created UTPs designed to use standard Cat5e cables instead of the old phone data cables. Both NCE and Lenz use basically the same wiring diagrams (a pair of wires for the signal and a wire for 12v and one for ground. This leaves plenty of room in a Cat5e cable for more data lines. In fact, NCE even makes mention of a CANbus, but unfortunately the NMRA standard and RP for NMRAnet makes poor choices in how it uses the available wiring pairs and makes its unable to be intergrated into any present DCC system without another completely separate bus, or ignoring the new standards. (Really all these extra bus cables are unnecessary and maddening. If a Navy ship sitting pier-side can have all its communication passing through a single Cat5e cable, then why should I need three cables under my layout to have signals, throttles and detectors without resorting to the lets everyone talk over each other until no one is heard that is loconet.
Despite this, I plan on plowing forward and trying to integrate an OpenLCB (NMRAnet) CANbus into a Cat5e cable that is also carrying the NCE Cab bus. Anyone using Lenz should be able to do the exact same thing if this works. If anyone has any experiences to share I would be happy to here about them.
My first proposal for how to do this would only allow for the OpenLCB to transmit data. Each node would either need its own power or could only get power from neighbors if their is no UTPs in between. If any CANbus powering was used, any UTPs beyond that grouping of CANbus Nodes would need a power boost. In other words, each bus segment could only provide cab power or CAN node power, but not both. Unless the 12 v power required for both could be shared. Here is where anyone who knows about OpenLCB could again be some help.
It would have been great if the NMRA had been able to provide a standard for this as soon as the demand started to become strong. Instead, a lack of a standard has allowed one company to push for their own proprietary standard as the de facto for all those developing signal systems. This leaves those that wanted to wait for an industry standard out in the cold.
So, anyway, let me know what you think of this idea. Again, this is just the first iteration. I hope to find out I can actually mix the power and then all would be good and just.
Also, if any of you wanted to know more about Open Layout Control Buses or those building the equipment, I can provide links. If you have questions about my diagrams here I can answer those too!Scott
