Control

What kind of systems are you seeking info on as far as radio control or DCC is concerned? Have you ever run with either? How much experience do you have with model railroading?

Why am I asking all these questions? Would be easier to answer if your a model railroader than an electrical engineer trying to build a system.

Bernd

Radio Control

I've done modeling in the past.  Frankly the equipment today was just a dream.  I've spent time reading in detail and I've looked at numerous articles. That helps but I don't have the hands on experience with today's equipment. I have called Ring Engineering and I got facts and not a sales pitch.  I've worked on a design that I believe is interesting and allows for growth. I'm going to start by modeling a two level 8' X 4' rail yard and locomotive service area.  This will be in my office.  The plan will expand into another room where I will have mainline, and manufacturing areas.  I've got the room and frankly I have some wild ideas.   I want to build a layout I can run myself.  What I liked about the radio control is the responsiveness and the reduction in wiring.  What I do have an issue with is the appearance of redundancy because the quality engines I like appear to all come with DCC and Sound.  This means I will purchase the receiver and remove the sound module.  Since I don't have a major investment in DCC I have the option today.  

Railpro

Jim, I have Railpro from Ring Engineering and love it.  I started with DCC but made the switch about 6 months ago.  My fleet is pretty small, so getting them all changed over wasn't too bad.  It works very well and I've had nothing but good experiences.  I changed to Railpro after experiencing multiple problems with Tsunamis and frankly I got tired of spending hours trying to speed match locos.  A couple of things with Railpro that are pertinent to you: The modules can take some thinking to install because of the thickness, and you will still need to wire your layout for power.

If wiring isn't your thing, you can look into battery powered options like NWSL or Tam Valley (I'm pretty sure those are the two).  I don't have any experience with them so I couldn't help you there.  I'm not sure how you would install a battery, speaker, and decoder into a small hood unit but I'm sure people have figured out a good way to do it.

-Kevin

Railpro

Kevin:  Great to hear you've had success with the Rail Pro System. It just seemed to make sense to me.  I fully intend to go this way and hopefully we can stay in touch.  I like you am going to start out modestly and invest as I go forward.  I think the radio control provides for a new level of realism.  

My issue seems to be where to get the top quality locomotives and not have to pay for the sound module I don't want. Appears because of the success of DCC having the sound module as part of the locomotive makes sense for the companies building and distributing them.  If you have any recommendations I sure would like to hear.

Additionally talking with Rail Pro they indicated we're going to see additional products in the near future. They were hesitant to be specific and I can understand that.  

Look forward to hearing from you and may I wish you the very best for the New Year.

Jim Miller

Locomotives

Jim,

I'm into detailing and weathering locos, so I buy cheap locomotives, tear them down, and rebuild them.  If I were to buy new, I'd just buy DC locos and install Railpro and speakers from there.  Athearn, Intermountain, and I think Atlas all offer DC versions of their DCC/sound locos.  They are usually significantly cheaper.  Some of them still come with speaker enclosures, making your own sound install very easy.

-Kevin

Direct DCC.... NWSL and Tam Valley

For locomotives that already have DCC decoders built in, the NWSL S-CAB provides a wireless receiver and transmitter that will run the DCC decoder without any track wiring.  There is also a battery power supply that will recharge from any power on the rail.  With a big enough battery, this system could cover long stretches of dirty or un-powered track.

Tam Valley is also working on a similar direct DCC receiver/transmitter (RX/TX), but without the battery system.

If you want to MU diesel units, Ring Engineering is easier to use than DCC.  If you have a steam locomotive with a large tender, you could probably find room to add a NWSL S-CAB.

Some Athearn Steam locomotives have a wireless remote included.  These are ready to go although there appears to be only one frequency, so you could only run one such locomotive per room... but it would not interfere with Ring Engineering or NWSL radios.

The advantage of using radio control (R/C) is that all such systems are compatible on the same track.  The RX/TX combinations may not be interchangeable, but this is also true of different brands of wireless DCC throttles.  If you add battery power to R/C, you do not have to worry about track power and can run on any track, powered or not.

The advantage of DCC is that it is very available.  The disadvantage of DCC is that it is an 800 pound gorilla that excludes other forms of track power such as standard DC.  DCC locomotives only work on DCC track.  And it is not just any DCC track, the throttles have to be compatible with the DCC base station.  

R/C has made tremendous improvements with the introduction of Spread Spectrum 2.4 GHz radios.  The problems with the old 75 MHz radios have been overcome with the new technology.  I have both radio systems in HO trains, and am impressed by the potential of the 2.4 GHz radios.  Note that different radio frequencies can play well with each other on the same track... no 800 pound gorilla.

DCC is an old multiplex technology that has been outpaced by newer wireless technology.  Perhaps the biggest disadvantage of DCC is that any radical changes to the basic DCC architecture could require replacement of the whole system... base station, decoders, power supplies, and throttles... it is that 800 pound gorilla again.  What could happen is that wireless technology, like Ring Engineering and NWSL, could take off and reduce the market share of DCC to the point that DCC suppliers begin to drop out.  Early carrier control systems like "Astrac" and "Onboard" are no longer supported.  It has also been suggested that half the hobby is still happy with DC technology and reluctant to make that total commitment to DCC... 800 pound gorilla again.  The nice thing about R/C, especially with battery power, is that you do not have to change everything.  R/C locomotives can be introduced as desired, without having to change everything.  And when the-next-big-thing comes along, locomotives can be upgraded one-by-one, without having to change everything.

...

Rick, you should avoid such words about the gorilla if at all possible.

DCC can run DC locomotives on most of the command stations, there's a method to doing it; to say you can't is outright erroneous.  So too is this statement that DCC equipped locomotives cannot run on DC; the standard decoder nowadays is indeed a DC/DCC decoder that can switch between sources.

The main problem with RCC right now is indeed the interoperability issue. Until that is fixed, DCC is and will remain the 800 lb gorilla for precisely this fact:

I can run my Brand W locomotives [Athearn, Bachmann, Atlas], equipped with brand X decoders [QSU, Soundtraxx, Digitrax], on my Brand Y Command Station [Digitrax, NCE], using my Brand Z throttles [smart devices if the command station has JMRI support enabled]. 

This is Huge.

The solution for the RCC manufacturers is simple: their systems Must as a matter of interoperability play well with not only each other but with DCC in mind as a base level operability state.  This is not hard; if Ring had come out first with a LM-1 with X number of locomotives assigned to it, where every locomotive variable is a different throttle-selectable DCC address, and then plugged this decoder into the standard command station [via Loconet, for instance], Ring would have made their product suitable for Everybody in the room. 

How?  Using this device, I could use their throttle to access and run my DCC locomotives.  I may not have all of their operability that comes in a Ring decoder [since Ring uses a 2-Way decoder and most DCC decoders are still 1-way devices] but I would still be able to use One throttle to access my entire motorpool. 

Going one step further, if this slaved LM-1 has the ability to act as a transmitter, and thus communicate with all of my RCC equipped locomotives, and it was JMRI friendly, then I could use my Smart Phone to access my RCC equipped locomotives as I access my DCC locomotives.   Hence, I may not ever buy the Ring power modules or even their throttle, but I would then be buying their "LM-1 Command Station" and happily add their decoders to my inventory.  As it is, no dice.  And this is without even going into their insistence that we are not smart enough to upload our own pictures into their database infrastructure. Sorry Charlie, but a trillion pictures on the internet speaks otherwise!

Instead, they tried to do what every little new guy has tried to do with their new bread-slicing mechanism.  Look no further than MTH and their DCS system to see how that fares over the long haul!! [from what I understand, MTH now makes their decoders more DCC compatible than ever before - this after they insisted they would NOT make their decoders DCC accessible - that turned into "A little accessibility" and now "a lot of accessibility."]  You CANNOT "force" or even "compel" the DCC masses to give up that which works 90-95% of the time!

In the end, you do not move the 800lb gorilla by pretending to be the next 800lb gorilla.  Rather, you find a way to become part of the 800lb gorilla without the gorilla ever even realizing you've added your virus to it's DNA.  If you are incompatible with the gorilla, the gorilla's immune system will wipe you out and then develop antibodies to snuff you out any time you come back.  Sound decoders, for instance, have been successful because they work right alongside non-sound decoders.  If RCC wants to be serious, then they have to find a way to incorporate the pre-exisiting Gorilla into their architecture.

I personally really like where RCC will take us.  My personal issue with DCC is the level of cleanliness necessary for any sort of reliable operation.  As a matter of finishing my test loop yesterday, I pulled up as many locomotives as I could and ran them.  These things had everything from nice nickel silver plated wheels to the grundgiest brass wheels you ever did see.  Without cleaning wheels once, those that could run all ran around the layout without issues. 

With DCC, when the decoder can no longer understand the communication, it shuts off, leaving your locomotives stalled wherever it is.  RCC lifts the communication up and puts it right to the decoder where it needs to be, properly separating our power from our information.  However, whatever steps RCC takes, it MUST work well with the gorilla or it will remain like all of the other fringe technologies that have ever come along.  DCC has it's place: it's Very good for operating in static settings where everything is hardwired, be it switches, crossing gates, or semiphores.

Until the wireless providers learn to work together on one protocol, the ocean will remain very wide and very deep.

You don't really have to buy a built-in sound decoder

Jimbo, I'm another very happy Railpro user. As I started a new layout last year and had no DCC equipment, going with Railpro was, for me, a no brainer. I have wired several very old steam and diesel locomotives for DCC/Railpro, and have had varying degrees of success, most of the problems involve insufficient pickups and older can motors. For the most part my engines run smoothly with a little gear noise.

When purchasing new locomotives you have two choices. Buy DCC ready locos and just plug in your LM-1 using a conversion harness. Adding speakers can be problematic in some locos. There just isn't much room. Also, the LM-1 is slightly larger than most DCC decoders so fitting it in where it will not interfere with the drive shafts can be tricky.

As a second choice, many locomotives with sound decoders and speakers built in are also available with the same drive train, without the decoder and speaker. If you can get the LM-1 and your own speaker installed, I believe you can get the same quality of operation with less expense, and you wouldn't have to waste that expensive sound decoder.

I belong to a club that uses Digitrax DCC and my equipment runs right alongside everyone else's with no interference either way.

Judging by the products Ring has introduced so far, I think we may be able to operate almost every accessory right from the controller in the future. The AM-1 switch module does the job perfectly, and you will soon see a smaller LM-2 module which should fit in many more locomotives, albeit w/o sound. Tim Ring has been outstanding in helping me iron out problems with my older locomotives (and one brand new one as well).

Rail Pro

Al:  Glad to hear your having success with your Rail Pro set up. I agree with you about Tim.  He represents himself well and he answered my questions and made suggestions. I'm  committed to using his products.  Like you said  we'll see modules for many of the processes going down the road.

I live in Atlanta.  Unfortunately I really haven't found a group near by to discuss my designs with. I would have to travel well out of the city to get to what I believe is a well stocked model railroad shop. However, I have talked and viewed a number of great stores on line. I just don't know  about the pricing. I just want to make sure I get to vendors who are competitive and knowledgeable. 

While I've got you on line here is where I'm at.  First I have done some study on framing the layout and I came up with the design where I'm building an "I" beam type truss for framing the first section. This section will be in my office and it will have two levels.  The truss is not only sturdy but requires much less clearance and reduces weight and is really sturdy.  I've seen this type of truss in new buildings and it isn't hard to make since I have the equipment. 

The top level will be a locomotive servicing area.  I have looked at over a dozen service yards and I am working on the track and building layout design now.  The area will be 8' X 4'. This will eventually serve as a staging area where the locomotives will proceed from to the rail yard. 

The lower level will be a rail yard. It will be accessed by a helix that will access the second level.  I suspect as I continue the development of a main line and additional staging areas located in another room (access will be from the office to this area) the second level might very well become storage.

I've also spoke with the people at Fast Tracks and I'm impressed with them as well.  While I've looked at there diagrams for laying out the track design I would invest in a good program for design of a layout if I knew one. 

Enough for now. I want to thank you again for giving me a moment of your time and wish you the very best for the New Year!

Radio Control

There is a lot of activity going on related to radio control (RC) with on-board battery power. I've built two HO locomotives so far, run them on several club layouts and I recently gave a clinic on Radio Control and Battery Power at an NMRA division meeting.

Rather than a discussion on the Pros & Cons of Radio Control vs DCC, I'll just mention some nice features I've experienced using radio control which I find very appealing.

* Simple operation - move stick forward to go forward, move stick back to go backwards. Very nice for switching operations. Can be set up for full stick forward and backward control. There's no programming or CV's.

* No track wiring - saved me a lot of time and money. I don't have to clean dirty track, and even if it's dirty, it has no effect on power or commands sent to the engine. Headlights and passenger car lighting don't flicker.

* Realistic track - track can look like real track, and just as realistic as the fine models being offered today. There's no concern about track insulators, block isolation, plastic frogs or reverse loops. Track design can be as complex as you want, with no effect on train operation or control.

* I can visit, and run on AC, DC or DCC layouts without interfering with ongoing operations. Duplicate units, such as in an A-B-B arrangement, can be readily MU'd. There's no limit to the number of RC engines you can run on a layout. You get excellent train control because of full time visual contact.       

These are a few of the reasons I'm involved with RC. Many new capabilities are being worked on and will soon be made available. I might add I'm personally working on cab operated radio controlled track switching, basic steam and diesel engine sounds, and wireless battery charging.

In addition to this forum, you'll find a lot of discussion about RC on freerails.com. If all goes as planned, I'll be starting a company next year for RC trains. It will be called T&A Trains and we will be focused on making equipment available to model railroaders who have an interest in this method of train control.

If any questions, please ask. I'll post a photo, as soon as I learn how to.

Dan      

Wireless DC/DCC decoder still available

Not sure if this is a good sign but Walthers has marked down the 500-1750 decoder from $89.98 to $52.98 (limited quantity available).  This decoder drops into the PROTO 1000 GP-15.  A wireless transmitter is included to operate the power and sound functions on DC track.  The wireless remote is dedicated to the decoder and would not run anything but the 500-1750 decoder.

This might suggest that full interoperability might not be needed or even desired.  If this type of remote were dedicated and coded like an automobile keyless entry remote, conformity and standards would not be needed.   At a retail price of $89.98, we could afford dedicated throttles.

MU diesel consists open the interoperability issue again.  The 500-1750 decoder automatically switches to DCC when DCC power is detected. While DCC operation does not add to the installation cost of the 500-1750 decoder, DCC operation does require the wiring, base station, and throttles of a DCC operating system.  Interoperability gets to be an issue since NCE throttles do not work with Digitrax systems or the 500-1750 wireless remote.

Anyway, the 500-1750 is a concrete example of where the industry might be going. 

Dan: I will probably have

...

Rick, you seem to be missing the point.

An NCE throttle will not work on a Digitrax layout, BUT

An NCE throttle WILL work with a Digitrax Decoder AND

A Digitrax throttle WILL work with NCE decoders.

You;re basically saying we now need a throttle for each locomotive, or each essentially, each decoder type - so in addition to each decoder I have in my engines, I'd have a Soundtrax Tsunami throttle, a Digitrax throttle, a 500-1750 Throttle, a Ring Throttle, my Smart Phone throttle [which runs everything on DCC through the major DCC players]...wait, WHERE DOES THIS MADNESS END??!

ONE throttle, of my choosing, ALL decoders.  That's the root base line.

Until this specific interoperability issue is worked out, and the various throttles are all about to talk to the RCC decoders, no matter who makes the decoders, RCC is Dead in the Water for the 800 lb Gorilla crowd.  Without the 800 lb Gorilla crowd - be they the DC gorilla or the DCC gorilla, RailPro had might as well be DCS at this point.

Standardize the decoders, unhinge the throttles, and everything falls in place from there.

Radio control

No Power to the Rails

I don't think he is powering the rails. He is using batteries to power the decoders and has "battery" cars to hold them if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure how he MU's locomotives if each one has to have it's own batteries. I like the battery concept though, which seems to end stalling problems due to dirty track and dead frogs.

Radio Controled 2-6-0

I've been playing around with DelTang Rx41d-v5 and the Tx2. I've got three locomotives that will have RC control. Two are finished and the third will be the test bed for battery power for the guys in the "Dead Rail Society".

Interesting chip that Cypress transceiver, on board 8051 computer, memory and all. Then add a Maxum motor driver and your just about there. Been think of developing a chip that has that all aboard on one chip. Guess it's time to fire up the circuit design software and see what I can come up with. Starting to ramble here.

Here's a picture of my second experimental RC locomotive. Need to do a little more research to see if I can miniaturize the board.

Here's what I use to control the engine. A simple $29 transmitter that you can get at almost any hobby shop.

More to come. I've been working on doing a write up on the last steamer with battery control. Stay tuned. Details at 11.

Bernd

Which locos' sound does RailPro support?

Aside from big modern GEs, what other locomotives' sound does RailPro currently support? Their web site is rather quiet on that point.

I've a customer who would consider RailPro, but not if he can't get accurate "off-the-shelf" sound for his first generation diesels.

Questions

I like radio control, with or without battery power, but I have three specific concerns when compared with DCC.

1. Can the required circuitry be condensed into a package comparable to the smallest DCC decoders?  Being a fan of small locomotives, there are a number of situations where I cannot pack a large decoder into the model.  Sound makes things even tighter.
2. Speaking of sound, how difficult would it be to implement comparable sound quality and control?  Sound is the #1 reason I moved to DCC in the first place.  While I do not tend to play a lot (features like coupler clank, brake squeal, conductors talking, etc.) I do like the quality and variety of sounds available on the latest decoders.  Perhaps a radio receiver could be designed to output a DCC signal capable of controlling a sound only decoder?
3. How do you select different locomotives, either individually or as a consist?  I'm standing in front of the roundhouse with 10 engines in front of me and a throttle in my hand.  How do I pick one, move it to the ready track, and then go back and pick out another?  How do I group two or more into a single consist?  How do I hand that consist over to a road engineer?

Also, while if's not likely to be something I plan to use myself (you never know about the future), what options are available for automatic control?  Can an R/C model be stopped and started reliably, for example at an interlocked crossing?

Bernd, your R/C model looks promising.  I'm very interested in hearing how it works, especially in regard to the three questions above.

Jim: Al: Radio Control

Before I respond, I need to mention the most important aspect of what I am doing. I am using 2.4 GHz DSM2 technology! This means I am using an open architecture and can buy existing RC systems and related components from thousands of existing hobby shops, on-line stores and manufacturers. There are also about 1/3 million train items on eBay at any one time.

Jim, power is from on-board batteries and commands are wireless, so I run on dead rails. It's funny that Tam Valley uses a DRS1 part number, which stands for "Dead Rail Society". It's also funny I set out with a goal to use the simplest train control system I could find. So here I am, four years later, researching complicated technologies to gain simplicity.

Al, rather than a "decoder", I'm using a combination 2.4 GHz DSM2 modulated receiver/electronic speed controller (Rx/ESC) on a 12 x 13 mm board with extra outputs for switching, lighting and a sound module.

Batteries are inside the shell of the engines. I'm using Eneloop NiMH AAA cells (long shelf life). AA cells are better (higher mah), but I'll need special framing for them to fit. I'll be installing Li-ion cells (twice+ NiMH cap'y) in a new locomotive (or two) to reach my goal of pulling 8 passenger cars for 6 hours at medium speed. 

Mu'ing can be accomplished if you use the same engines and receivers bound to the same transmitter. This is an OK way for me to operate. At this point, only Railpro can easily tailor an AC4400 to run with a GP9 because of their feedback arrangement.

I hope this helps, and to all, Happy New Year!

Dan        

Radio Control: Photos P1 & P2

Here are some photos of my RC Battery Powered engines.

Follow up

Al:  First let me say I see your "handle" is Pennsy GG1.  For starters I actually operated a Pennsy GG1.  The year was 1955. I was in Grand Central Station waiting to board our train back to Pittsburgh, PA.  My father and I were standing along side a GG1,  Dad talked with the engineer and handed me up to him. He put me in his seat, had me moved the levers and we moved forward then backward.  I then blew the horn.  Our train started to pull out, the engineer dropped me to my dad and we ran to our train!  When we got home he bought me a Lionel O guage GG1 which I still have. I remember this so vividly it could have been 10 minutes ago.  I've also been at the controls of  a Pennsy steam locomotive and and F-7.  The GG1 was the all time high.

Now back to the present. I haven't a clue what your talking about.  I was looking at the power source offered by Ring Engineering and I was looking at Fast Tracks' turnouts and noting the frog can be "managed for polarity by a "juicer" eliminating all problems associated with this type of fixture.  Let me give you the bottom line. I know if you hold the positive wire in one hand and the negative wire in the other you get a shock commensurate with the voltage. That's just about the limit of my understanding.  I understand basic wiring in my home or garage but really that's about it. I'm lost with the acronyms and the technology you refer to.

Radio Control: P1 & P2 (Continued)

The above photo shows my E7A power chassis built Nov. 2011. It uses a Spektrum AR500 Rx, an Associated reversing ESC, an Escap brushed motor, A-Line flywheel and Hobbytown frame and drive components. Original Duracell AA batteries were replaced with AAA cells for a better fit. Parallel wiring will allow connection to an E7B Unit for additional run time. I'm using a Spektrum DX5e 2.4GHz DSM2 Tx for train control for all my RC engines. I built P1 to prove to myself this was all feasible, which it has.

The photo below shows my AMD-103 power chassis (P2) built Jun 2012. It uses a DelTang Rx43d-2-v5 2.4GHz/DSM2 Rx/ESC, an Escap brushed motor, A-Line flywheel and Hobbytown frame and drive components. Power is from 8 Eneloop NiMH cells wired in series-parallel to obtain 4.8v and 4,000 mah gross capacity. I estimate 20% for losses for a net capacity of 3,200 mah. With an average motor draw of 400 mah, I'm expecting 6-8 hours of operation depending on load, grade conditions and if LED lighting is also installed. P2 runs like a dream from crawl speed to maximum speed using stick control. P1 and P2 will become somewhat obsolete when the new Rx/ESC's are introduced powered by Li-ion batteries.

A couple of things....

Since I'm also an RC plane/heli pilot, I have a couple of observations/questions to pose. First of all DSM2 is not the only spread spectrum protocol out there. There are others from other RC manufacturers and even the manufacturer of DSM2 has now replaced it with DSMX.  DSMX is backward compatiable with DSM2 but it was updated because people were losing control of aircraft at very large events. It can become saturated by too many TX's although I doubt that would ever be an issue in a model railroad application.

My question is about the batteries. Unless you are just doing it for proof of concept I can't imagine why you would use NimH cells. A lithium polymer battery has a much better power to weight ratio and can also be charged much faster. You are using Lipo on another train why would you use anything else?

Michael

Answers to Questions

I can answer the first question very easy. Go here: http://www.deltang.co.uk./ David Theunissen of DelTang in the UK designed and manufactures these boards. The first picture in the upper left of the page gives you a size comparison with a finger. The board is no bigger than a postage stamp. looks like I'm going to have to take a picture and post it here. David supplies the boards with wires already soldered on. A plus for those who can't solder tiny boards. The boards are powered with a voltage of 3V to 6V for the Tx. The Rx has a max of only 6 volts. That's one reason Dan uses a 6 volt motor. An add on board, ADD1 or ADD2 can be used to supply both a higher current and voltage. This spring David will be releasing his higher voltage Rx boards. They will take a voltage up to 18 Volts. I'm waiting for those before I do anymore engines. Right now you need to convert the engine to a 6 volt motor and use a board so tiny to boost the amperage to 800 milliamps. I'll post more as I move forward on the last RC controlled steamer.

The second question is one I asked if David could program an Rx so a sound system can be added. I don't think you can do that yet. I've only been at this for about 4 months tops.

The third question I'm hoping Dan can field that question since he's been at it for nearly  four years. Sounds like he's done more research in those four years than I have in four months.

I will start a post on the RC control of the 2-6-0. At present I'm working on the second crane which will be used by NCE on a demo layout. It'll be my first DCC crane project. I also have to finish my first crane too. So many projects so little time.

Stay tuned more to come.

Bernd