Thanks for all the input Group
Dave, my apologies for not answering your earlier question.? As far as I can recall, the CVs that fail are random.? I clean my programming track and loco wheels with electronics grade isopropyl alcohol (99.9% pure anhydrous, it says).? I DID find the wheels on this centipede to be somewhat covered in almost a shipping oil, have been cleaning with a sheet of paper towelling soaked in the alcohol laying on the track, then running the loco over it by hand (read that somewhere in the group archives). Maybe I need to clean it some more, even though I worked at it for about 30 mins.? Also, your comment about the long connecting leads is certainly valid - when I cut out the extensions per Ken Cameron's advice and went straight from the PTB-100 to programming track things improved immensely.? Really the only reading errors I saw this last round after upgrading to 4.17.4 and removing extensions was the 127 short address read and the change to short address preference in CV 29.? Everything else was just 308 errors no acknowledge from loco.? And yes, I did not have the "confirm CV writes" checked - thanks for that tip Mike Heintzman.
Dave and Marc, I'm beginning to see that there's no hard and fast way to set up these roster files.? I'm a retired engineer (no, sadly not a "real" one, just a mechanical engineer) and a bit of a perfectionist, so I'll probably clean, clean, clean and proceed carefully with these BLIs and try to read them all.? After reading John Reinhardt's success with a Sprog 3 I'm toying with getting one.? I don't know why I'd need that much current on N scale either, but why introduce another variable going to a Sprog 2.? There's none where I live but I could certainly order one, just that I'd have to set up another profile and I only did that once probably about 8 or 10 years ago.
Thanks again to all
Tim Lux
