What are you using for the throttle?

Dear Ken,

I can't say that I'm a "vote with my wallet" user of the systems in question, but I do actively re/test any system I can get my hands on, anytime the opportunity presents itself.

Firstly, lemme ask, what kind of throttle or "human interface" do you prefer? I'm not asking "analog or DCC", but the actual box in your hand that you do something to/with, which translates your body (hand) movements into "go forward at X speed" command.

The reason I ask is, often, choice of control system is significantly affected by whether the "throttle" or human-interface "feels comfy" to the user.

This is relevant to your choice of the TV wireless system, because The TV system transmitter _piggybacks_ on an _existing_ DCC system (and thereby uses throttles you are likely already "comfy with").

Downside, you can't just "buy a TV wireless system and run trains", you still need an existing DCC system to generate the commands the TV system will _transmit_ to the loco...

Now, where the NWSL option comes in, and IIRC TV was considering, was building their _own_ "throttles" which had effectively

- the "human interface"
- a small basic DCC command station
- and the wireless transmitter

All in one battery-powered, "hand sized" box.

Problem, in both NWSL and TV cases, using these "self contained" throttle/transmitter units removes the need for a "normal DCC system front-end", (no problem in that per se, we've actually _removed_ the need for a "source" DCC system to feed commands to the TV transmitter for broadcast),

but effectively _also_ replaces the associated "human interface" throttles you're comfy with, with a entirely different unit. I can't comment on the TV "standalone throttle", having only seen a pre-production prototype at Seattle last year, but the general feel of the NWSL production throttle units is "yuk" (Physical feel overall, small low-resolution linear sliding "speed control", iffy-feel buttons, etc) 

SO, questions arising:

- do you have an existing DCC Command station with associated throttle handsets?

- if YES, are you comfy with it's throttle interfaces?

- If NO, are you aware that you will likely need to obtain a complete working DCC command system (and at least 1x associated throttle/handset/"interface") to generate the DCC commands for the TV wireless link to transmit?

- If you are electing to avoid buying a standalone "front end" DCC system (and attendent throttle design/interface), are you _sure_ you're comfy with the "project box" style throttle handset as offered by NWSL and TV?

- side question, if you ARE comfy with said throttle designs/interfaces, what is the functional difference between the NWSL and TV systems for your application?

Just thinking out loud...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

MRC Remote

No experiance with Tam Valley, but per Prof Klyzir remarks, the MRC remote is compact and easy to use for one-hand operation without having to look.  These are the little remotes that come with Athearn sound steam locomotives and the MRC decoder for the Walthers GP-15.  Much easier to handle than any of the big DCC throttles. 

I too, would like to hear of experience with Tam Valley.

Tam Valley

Ken,

Here's a two links for you to do some research on.

http://freerails.com/view_topic.php?id=5161&forum_id=45&highlight=Tam+Valley

http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/drs1wirelessdcc.html

Bernd

Responses

@ Prof:

I already own and use a Digitrax Zephyr.  While the built in throttle is not the greatest (it's tolerable, very similar to the MRC DC throttles I've used in the past), I really like the ability to use my simple homemade handheld throttle.  It fits my hand well, I can move around with it, and I can use it intuitively.

I've been trying to follow the R/C discussions and products coming on the market, and so far the Tam Valley system looks like it would best fit my needs for the following reasons:

• It can be seamlessly integrated with a conventional DCC operation.
• I am not restricted to one brand or type of decoder, and I can even use decoders which are already installed if I convert models in the future.
• I am not restricted to a single brand of user interface (I'm considering upgrading to an NCE system when I eventually build a new layout).
• It will allow the use of onboard power (batteries, capacitors, etc.).
• If the system is ever taken off the market, I can continue using the models already converted and go back to conventional DCC for the rest (see the first point above).  If the transmitter fails, I can simply bypass/remove the receivers and go back to track power.

Thus, it seems to me that an investment in the TV system is not a wholesale conversion to a new, unique, and proprietary control system.  All of the other systems I've looked at would either require that all locomotives be converted to the new system in order to be used together, or that a separate throttle be used for the ones which have been converted.

@ Rick:

I'm having trouble finding much on the web about the MRC system, especially regarding purchasing and installing it myself, instead of coming bundled with locomotives which I have no interest in.

Is this the remote you're talking about?

If so, It looks less than ideal for my taste.  I'm one of those annoying folks who insist on a knob for controlling speed, and preferably a toggle switch for direction.

I'm also not keen on MRC decoders, especially their sound decoders, having been disappointed in the past.  I do not like the idea of being restricted to one brand of decoder, or one brand of control system.

@ Bernd:

The most informative thing (relative to Tam Valley) I noted on the thread you linked was your comment about radio interference.  That is exactly the sort of thing I want to know before investing.  Is that a common issue, or was it related to a unique (or at least uncommon) set of circumstances?  Also, do both available frequencies suffer from the same issue, or is one more likely to experience problems in real-world settings?

In general:

The locomotive I am considering putting this in is the 55n3 2-4-2 which I'm seriously considering building next.  The larger size (relative to HO) would allow a little room for the required components, and the ability to use onboard power would seem useful in such a short wheelbase model.  There are other, simpler options (TCS with keep alive capacitors, for example), but I thought it might be a good way to get my feet wet with radio control.

Google

I did a google on the 868Mhz. According to Wikipidea there are several uses.

"System that use 868 MHz-band (868 MHz - 870 MHz) e.g. thermostats, fire systems, burglar systems, DIN-transceivers will have more or less difficulty communicating with strong 800 MHz broadband signal nearby"

On the 900Mhz band you'll find this: "The 33-centimeter or 900 MHz band is a portion of the UHF radio spectrum internationally allocated to amateur radio on a secondary basis."

Now can you tell me who will have the strongest signal. Your model railroad controller so somebody in your neighborhood that's an amateur radio guy?

The best frequency is 2.4Mhz spread spectrum that is used by the flyboys. Only thing is no model railroad manufacturer has anything close for model railroad use in this frequency for DCC.

You should be able to make your decision on the above evidence.

Bernd

I disagree, Bernd.

Thanks, guys

That's what I thought as well.  However, I've decided to hold off on the wireless option for now for a few reasons:

• I spent a fair chunk of change on a TCS sound decoder, since that's something I'm sure I'll have a use for and don't foresee any major issues with.
• Tam Valley has stopped selling the system directly, suggesting you go through one of their installers.  That scares me, making me think perhaps there are some issues or bugs yet to be worked out.
• I can't think of a really good reason why I NEED wireless, especially when there are other options which I think should work for my purposes.

I'm still interested in the system and the concept, but I'll hold off for now.  Also, I really appreciate everyone's input on the subject, and I'd love to see more discussion and hear from anyone who's used the system or installed it themselves.

MRH working on a detailed First Look

MRH is working on a detailed First Look of the TAM Valley system and the Northwest Shortline system - both wireless battery-powered DCC systems.

MRC Remote

Ken,

That is the 9 button MRC remote that comes with the decoder for the Walthers GP-15.  The Athearn steam locomotives come with a 6 button remote that is easier to use with one hand and without looking.

I have not had any problems with MRC decoders, but I do not run them on DCC.  They do work well with the little remotes, and play well on DCC or DC layouts when powered by inboard batteries.

Note that MRC bundles the radio with the locomotive or decoder.  Tam Valley refers users to custom installers.  NWSL bundles their system with specific decoders.  It appears that linking DCC decoders to radio remotes is tricky.  There are no standards for DCC radio throttles, and there are no standards for analog radio throttles used by large scale railroads.  This is probably why Ring Engineering kept RailPro out of the DCC jungle.

Watch what NCE is doing in the garden railway market.  There does seem to be movement toward some sort of compatibility between radio throttles, DCC decoders, and sound systems.  The large scale locomotives do have room for various components plugged together.  In HO, we have to wait for bundled components built into the locomotive... or programmable decoders.

Meanwhile, there are no sound systems that will lip-sync the sound and action of working power against brakes.  This lack devalues all control systems.  Very reluctant to invest in anything that falls short.  The MRC remote systems may be regarded as affordable stand-ins.