Which slow action point motor?

[Mantagt]

Having abandoned my loft layout I am building a new layout in a more accessable spare room. Base boards are built, half the track laid and running with RM, Elite and solenoid point motors on DC.

 

For the second half I'm looking at using DCC slow action point motors driven by E-Link as controller b. The Cobalt IP DCC seems to fit the bill, is this a good choice? I have searched the forum but only come up with older posts refering to the earlier version and has raised a couple of questions. I assume as track power is from the Elite, frog polarity will have to use the second switch, as switch one appears to switch the e-link power and would cause a short. The voltage range of the newer motors is higher so is it still recommended to use a resistor to drop the voltage to slow the motor.

As I could be looking be using 20 slow action motors any advice will be most welcome before I spend a good bit of my pension. Thanks in advance.

[Chrissaf]

The Cobalt IP DCC seems to fit the bill, is this a good choice?

.

I think it is....

.

I assume as track power is from the Elite, frog polarity will have to use the second switch, as switch one appears to switch the e-link power and would cause a short.

.

You only use frog polarity switching on Electrofrogs. For example as made by PECO. Hornby do not make Electrofrog points. Since, Hornby do not make Electrofrog points, then if you are using Hornby track, you are then correct that the first Cobalt IP switch would best be left unused. You are correct in that the first switch in the Cobalt IP outputs one or other of the DCC power legs towards the frog (Electrofrog). That is the whole point of them and they are designed that way. If wired correctly with proper Electrofrog non-Hornby points, the Electrofrog is totally isolated from the surrounding track. If wired correctly and using proper Electrofrog points for which the first Cobalt IP switch is designed to operate. Then there will not be any 'short circuit'.

.

PS - The second Cobalt IP switch (plain metallic contacts) is designed to operate either a layout signal or a point position indicator on a mimic panel. Typically lighting LEDs. It was never intended to be used for Electrofrog polarity switching.

.

The voltage range of the newer motors is higher so is it still recommended to use a resistor to drop the voltage to slow the motor.

.

It is not recommended to use a resistor in any part of the Cobalt IP point motor circuit.

.

[Bulleidboy]

I think Chris has said it all. I have eighteen Cobalt iP's and they work well (a little noisy). Mine are powered from the track bus, and are wired for both DCC control from my Elite, and from toggle switches (sprung to centre OFF) - toggle switch operation mainly - takes too long to punch in numbers! I am not familiar with E-Link. All points are electrofrog and wired accordingly.

[Yelrow]

RAF, is your man for accessory running with Elink. He uses it the way you want to, as controller B.  No doubt he will post. John

[Mantagt]

Thanks for the replies. All my track is peco with electro frog points and solenoids with accessory switchs to change polarity. The new section will still be powered by the Elite but the point motors by E-link, as these are different power supplies I am trying to figure out how to wire the frogs, electrics are still a dark art to me.

 

The reference to resistors comes from the older posts as a cure for the ''clunk' at the end of the motor travel, and one post inferred the instructions recommended a 400 ohm resistor, which is ok but surely reduces the voltage for anything connected to the motor such as signals. As I say I'm trying to get things clear in my head before committing myself.

[Bulleidboy]

As I have already said I do not have E-Link, but the frog wire attached to the Peco point goes into terminal three on the Cobalt iP, and then of course is powered according to the direction of travel. I also have a Dapol operating semaphore signal operating from one of my Cobalts (more to come), this has it's own 6v DC power supply, and the two yellow switch wires go into two of the connectors on the Cobalt - there are nine connectors on a Cobalt iP - the only problem I have encountered with this, is that the signal only seems to operate on every other push of the toggle switch - I have tried DCC operation from the Elite, but get the same result.

[Chrissaf]

The new section will still be powered by the Elite but the point motors by E-link, as these are different power supplies I am trying to figure out how to wire the frogs, electrics are still a dark art to me.

.

Ahh Yes......I see now.....yes in that scenario you can't use the first Cobalt IP switch (SW1) to switch frog polarity. If you did so the two DCC Controller BUSs would be connected together when metal wheels bridged the Electrofrogs. These two DCC BUSs MUST remain totally isolated from each other in all circumstances, else you risk damaging the controllers.

.

If you did go ahead with using Controller B (eLink) for the Cobalts, you are going to be forced to use the metallic change-over contacts (SW2) of the Cobalts to switch frog polarities. The change-over contacts of the Cobalt will have to connect to your Elite track DCC BUS, whilst the common of the change-over goes to the frog.

.

/media/tinymce_upload/5640ed6b328527fec61163579f0e871f.jpg

 .

Remember if you get a short on the frog when a loco traverses the frog. Then reverse the wires of the Track DCC BUS input to the change-over contacts [4 & 5] of SW2.

[Fishmanoz]

Question which occurs to me is why would you use a separate bus and controller with electrofrogs when it gives you this complication, including a higher than otherwise risk that you will end up with the 2 DCC supplies shorting between them.

 

I suppose the answer is you keep all the current from the Elite for locos, not that you would expect the motors to be ever drawing that much collectively, and you can still switch your points to clear a fault on the track bus which has caused the Elite to shut down. 

 

Then it depends whether you prefer the simplicity of the single bus v the flexibility of 2. 

[96RAF]

Despite the recommendation from John (yelrow) that I am your man, I see Chris has covered it comprehensively.

I do indeed use Elite as contr A and eLink as Contr B via RM but without the added complication of electrofrogs or even slo-mo point motors.

Rob

[Mantagt]

Thank you Chrissaf your drawing is exactly what I needed. I will place an order, lay some track and see how I get on.

To answer Fishmanoz's question. The track plan is a continuous loop, the first half is a fiddle yard and shed area where I can 'play' for hours shufferling my collection of locos just using the Elite and mimic panels. The second half will be a scenic station area operated by RM in hopefully a more prototypical way. So yes I am making things more complicated but I think the end result will be worth the effort.

Thanks for all the replies. Things are a lot clearer now.

[Fishmanoz]

While there are some benefits to the 2 buses and controllers (I gave you 2 advantages), it is possible for the Elite to handle all of this partly through RM and partly via its knobs, or all knobs or all RM for that matter.  You don’t have to use the eLink on a separate bus to achieve what you want.   Clearly Rob sees an advantage with his 2 controller setup, but many others run quite complex layouts with a single bus and controller.