If you want to use ESU with constant distance ABC, give yourself as long a standard braking distance as you can design in to the layout. I'm sure if I'd have built this layout (and the other one the stock is shared with...) with triple the braking distance I did, these decoders would probably pass muster. Double the distance and they might be tolerable, at least in lower speed trains. But I'm too space constrained to dedicate that much distance for braking unfortunately.
I've fitted all 40 of my locos with ZIMO decoders which I've found excellent in all respects. As you've found, the ABC function is reliable and consistent at all speeds. Using Decoder Pro with a Sprog, it's easy to set up all of the numerous CV's for ABC and everything else without having to know any CV numbers. These full featured non-sound decoders are fantastic value for money. I paid £19 or £20 for all of them, and they knock other similarly priced decoders into a cocked hat! Highly recommended.
When you can get them, you'll find Zimo decoders are currently around £24 ish. Still a good deal, but apparently near impossible to get hold of at the moment.
I expected it to work, too. However, this isn't like the previous chip I tried -- this one is clearly trying to do the right thing. It just isn't up to the standard I've come to expect from Zimo.
Yes, in both locos. I also tried hand-tuning the Class 25. It was a bit better with the hand tuning, but never what I'd consider good. I concluded this procedure was unique to ESU for a reason -- because no-one else's motor drive is poor enough to actually require such a feature.
Hola, como estas ? Me gustaría contarte mi experiencia con decoder, ya que he probado de casi todas las marcas. En primer lugar, si le grabas los parámetros de la esa locomotora al decoder ESU que pones, todo va a funcionar mucho mejor, teniendo el lokprogrammer, hace que todo se muy sencillo ya que eso es en lo que piensa Esu. Yo tengo programado de esu, de zimo y de piko. El de Piko es muy bueno, muy intuitivo, el de Esu es espectacular pero no tan lindo como el de Piko, el de zimo, es horrible !!
Looks like someone at ESU might have got their maths wrong or used an inferior stopping control technique. It should work fine but only if a) a linear ramp is used, and vitally during stopping - b) the inertial energy of the motor and flywheel can be fully dissipated in the drive train losses and c) the driving wheels do not skid. So brake (linear ramp to a halt) too fast and you will hit problems b) and c) and overshoot any calculated stop point. I would always start with lower speeds first then work up. So try sat 20, 40, 60, 80 and then 100% and see where you start to hit overshooting issues. If you set too short a stop distance then of course you set yourself up for overshooting your target as well as poorer positional resolution (think number of bits per mm the maths in the chip has to work with during deceleration) - the longer your stopping distance the better chance you will give yourself for repeatable performance (assuming the maths and control algorithm in the chip works properly). I cannot help but think you were approaching far too fast for too short a distance, how about trying say three times longer and seeing if ESU works as expected then. Do the ZIMO or ESU give any minimum stopping distances to guide their customers in getting up and running without the problems you are encountering? Hope helps, best regards Stephen
I was really expecting this one to work too. The manual said all the right things, and showed loads of configurability. I assumed it would be straightforward. On the distance issue -- if I'd encountered this issue early on, I may have been willing to rip everything apart and re-build at double the braking distance, which I'm confident this chip would have handled, at least in the 4-CEP -- the brake rate from full speed at double the distance would be the same as from half speed, and it matched half and quarter speed at this distance already. However, a) I'm up to about 40 of my own locos/units configured, plus 40 block sections wired to this standard so far across two layouts, and everything with a Zimo chip in it is fine at this braking distance. And b) there are places in the design of particularly the Club layout (which is set up the same way and where these trains also run) where double the braking distance wouldn't physically fit in the section. The braking point would be before the start of the section, the other side of a junction -- and then only apply if the points are set one way. That would significantly complicate the logic. If it was *necessary* we'd solve this problem -- but every Zimo chip we have handles it fine, so it's clearly not necessary. As far as operating speed goes -- I'm not planning to run trains at maximum scale speed all the time, it looks wrong with the curve radii that I'm using anyway. This is more intended as a safety net for manually driven trains than it is for nice looking automation. It's worth it for preventing my easily distracted 10yo from wrecking a pair of £250+ locos accidentally should he not be paying attention at the critical moment. At least, I tell myself it's for him ... but I'm sure it'll save me from myself at some point too. I might in future try putting the ESU chip in one of my Bachmann 150s. With a prototypically lower top speed of 75mph, they may handle the braking better. However, both of mine are early 150s with heavy metal chassis and twin large flywheels, which doesn't sound like the best case. Still might be worth a try though, particularly given that it seems like the great Zimo shortage of 2022 is a thing across Europe too, not just the UK. Regarding tuning at a low speed first -- with Zimo I agree. Tune the low speed behaviour first to get the length right, then try at high speed. There's a CV to tune should you need to reduce stopping distance at speed to compensate for any mechanical overrun. Without this feature though, tuning at the highest speed is necessary because overruns must be avoided. There's nothing that can be done should slower entries stop short.
@@DongitsModelRailway I didn't realise you were so successful at 40 engines with Zimos in - that says it all and allays the issues I raised. That's a massive sample size - clearly the ESU implementation is dramatically inferior. Good that the Zimos do exactly what you want - in particular keeping your son on the right side of you with that safety net - well done!
