Skip to main content

A recent post noted use of these eMylo RF systems.  In checking them out, it seems they present a simple approach to reduce wiring  and enhance capability for DZ-1000s.  For roughly $5, one of these can be located at each switch and enable remote DZ-1000 switching.  I operate with  LC+ and also use the kindle apps for Lionel bluetooth and DCS, so I don't use the hand held remotes.

As I wire my new layout, this appears to be a big time saver and provide capability to control  switches all over the layout.  Has anyone tried this?



Attachments

Images (1)
  • mceclip0
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Certainly a good price.  My only reservation is that the PT2264 chip these systems use is a hard-wired address, it's not programmable like the 1527 Learning Code chips.  As long as you can live within the limitations of six switches, these should work.  If you buy two of these systems, it appears that they'd have conflicts as the remotes would drive multiple relays.

The following claim seems bogus if they're really using the PT2264 chip.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • mceclip0
Last edited by gunrunnerjohn

Good catch, that detail on the chip is beyond my pay grade.  As usual, the English  details from the seller are confusing too.  For my layout, it would be good to have two independent groups of six but that may not be in the cards.   I plan to search youtube to see if anyone has posted something.  The fall back is a 15 unit one for basically the same price as (2) of the six unit ones.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • mceclip0

hokie71 6 channel remote

Certainly a good price.  My only reservation is that the PT2264 chip these systems use is a hard-wired address, it's not programmable like the 1527 Learning Code chips.  As long as you can live within the limitations of six switches, these should work.  If you buy two of these systems, it appears that they'd have conflicts as the remotes would drive multiple relays.

The following claim seems bogus if they're really using the PT2264 chip.

Depends on one's definition of "flexibly configured".  The product info says the Encode type is "Pads".  In the context of 2264 transmitters, this means there are solder pads in the transmitter module that set the transmitter's identifying address.  The inset photo is not of a 6 channel transmitter as I could not readily find a photo but shows the pads method on a 4 channel transmitter.  You apply blobs of solder to adjacent pads to set the address.  Presumably, since 2 transmitters are provided, the manufacturer applied solder blobs in the same pattern for both so they transmit the same identifying address.

The product info says the Receiver does have "Intelligent Learning" and the product description suggests the manufacturer already "taught" the receiver module the identifying address of the 2 transmitters.

Note the cryptic comment at the bottom of the product description.  If you buy many kits and HOPE FOR INTERFERENCE...

What I think this means is you may want more than 2 transmitters that each have the same identifying address.  In other words you WANT "interference"!  Kind of a funny way to put it but it tells me upon request they can insure the solder blobs in the transmitters are all in the same pattern.   It also suggests they make some attempt to change the address between kits so if you and your neighbor buy this same system, they will not interfere.

If you later buy just a replacement transmitter you might have to open up the transmitter and insure the solder blob pattern matches your original transmitter(s).  I say "might" because many "Intelligent Learning" receivers can be taught to act on commands from different transmitter addresses.

Note that the receivers will need a source of DC - it looks like 12V DC for what you show.  If wiring simplification is the issue, I suppose there is some consideration as to whether you have a single 12V DC bus running around the layout...or whether you locally regulate Accessory AC or whatever to 12V DC with an AC-to-DC converter module at each relay receiver module.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • hokie71 6 channel remote

Interesting, that is certainly a mix of low tech and high tech- solder blobs, who knew? 

Good point on the last paragraph, seems the simplest is a 12VDC bus with suitcase connectors or similar.



Note that the receivers will need a source of DC - it looks like 12V DC for what you show.  If wiring simplification is the issue, I suppose there is some consideration as to whether you have a single 12V DC bus running around the layout...or whether you locally regulate Accessory AC or whatever to 12V DC with an AC-to-DC converter module at each relay receiver module.

The receivers looked kinda' sealed, so I am wondering how easy they made it to configure them.   In order to do the configuration Stan is talking about, you have to modify both the transmitters and receivers.

Here's some remotes using the same family of chips, the PT2262 & PT2272 with the same addressing scheme.  The arrows point to their address programming jumper fields.  For these, you have to solder a little jumper to either the High or Low bus bar next to the address pins.  As shipped with all the pins floating, they're all addressed the same.

RF Remote PT22x2 Address Jumpering

Attachments

Images (1)
  • RF Remote PT22x2 Address Jumpering

The receivers looked kinda' sealed, so I am wondering how easy they made it to configure them.   In order to do the configuration Stan is talking about, you have to modify both the transmitters and receivers.

...



There are PDF instructions that show how to program or re-program the receiver so that it pairs (learns the address) to the transmitter.  The instructions state you should engage a professional electrician!   I'd think a professional electrician would wonder if they were on Candid Camera...

professional electrician

Attachments

Images (1)
  • professional electrician

Note that it is the transmitter that has the older 2264 solder-blob technology to select the identifying address.  The receivers have the newer "intelligent learning" technology that has built-in support for the older/legacy 2264 code method.

As I understand it, if you buy the ~$30 system, the 6 receivers have already been taught to recognize the address of the 2 supplied transmitters.  In other words, someone at the factory pressed the one-button in the receiver to put the receiver into Learn mode.  Then they pressed a button on the transmitter so that the receiver could Learn the transmitter's address.  Then they repeated this for the other 5 receivers.  Then they confirmed that the 2nd transmitter had its solder-blobs in the same pattern.

I think he's good to go and comes down to how fast he wants it vs. how much to pay.  This configuration (two 6-channel transmitters and six 1-channel receivers) is available from many sources...Amazon, eBay, etc..

Last edited by stan2004

You've hit the nail on the head.  It's the conundrum of solving today's problem vs. tomorrow's problem.

I'd be happy if we can establish (or not) that the ~$5/turnout wireless solution is an "appropriate" technology that works at all!  That was hokie71's original question.

I was thinking we need to walk before we run.  But to your point, if hokie71 wants to pony up $70 for the 15 channel system he found...and in the end only uses 6 channels as originally proposed...then we have a ~$10/turnout solution.  Another one of those "first world" problems.

Thanks to Stan and GRJ for a masterful and expert analysis- I had no idea what I did not know.  This has certainly shed light on my question.  You guys have lived up to and exceeded your outstanding OGR reputations.  I owe you each several adult beverages at .... York?

Relative to the "first world" problem, it turns out my current track plan is close to using 15 switches.  It is at about 75% track laid status and there are now 12.  If I don't use the last few, of course, we all need a few extra doorbells and  LED strings around the house too.   I will sleep on it and my natural inclination is to start with 6.  However if I get the 15, no chance for the "interference"  issue I my want and will need to hire a licensed electrician if it happens.

BTW, was that an amazing instruction sheet or what?

@BOB WALKER posted:

As is well known, I am a fan of wireless remote loco control. A while ago, I built a wireless system for several of my turnouts which worked well. However, on balance, I am not sure there is any reasonable rationale for controlling turnouts this way vs hard wiring. Opinions?

Bob, As you figured, in my case the reason is to avoid a spider web of wires to the DZ-1000 switches (adding to the existing spider web I have going).  Plus, based on the running plan, the switches need to be in several places, compounding the problem.

@stan2004 posted:

You've hit the nail on the head.  It's the conundrum of solving today's problem vs. tomorrow's problem.

I'd be happy if we can establish (or not) that the ~$5/turnout wireless solution is an "appropriate" technology that works at all!  That was hokie71's original question.

I was thinking we need to walk before we run.  But to your point, if hokie71 wants to pony up $70 for the 15 channel system he found...and in the end only uses 6 channels as originally proposed...then we have a ~$10/turnout solution.  Another one of those "first world" problems.

Well, a simple relay module will control Fastrack switches just fine, they don't seem to mind if the switch (or relay) stays closed indefinitely.

The other good thing about the 15 switch solution is you only have one remote to tote around.  I do all my switches with the TMCC system, so I just need one of the CAB1L or Legacy CAB2's handy and I can control all my switches and run the turntable as well.

Add Reply

Post
OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
330-757-3020

www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×