Great!

I knew this video already and it's amazing. The idea with Raspi and JMRI sounds good, probably much better than an Arduino which I already thought at.

Via software a lot of nice features would be possible - coasting, notching up and down without the need to manually pushing some function keys, ...

There should be an easy way to select the DCC address of a locomotive.

I would skip the gauges and instead add another break, alternatively usable as train brake or dynamic brake.

This whole thing shouldn't be too big and heavy, it should be usable hand held if wanted.

And I would use one on my layout!

Pre-orders?

I would love to have this throttle to enhance the experience further. Having the gages give the appropriate info would add that much more to the experience. This way an engineer would have to wait for the air to build up before departing and think carefully about braking and holding to a safe speed downgrade.

I know the numbers would be very small or the need for a shared/toggle through digital read out would be needed. Just thinking out loud.

If it is tethered and hanging from my neck like a proto loco remote it might not seem to cumbersome once everything is added to resemble the prototype.

:-O!

I'd LOVE one of these, either pre-built, as a kit, or as a parts/build list/instructions. What about using the gauges with micro 7-segment LED number readouts to show the active DCC address?

Mike in CO

semi scale throttle

I would be interested in one for my Raritan River Railroad switching layout. I have seen the you tube videos of the full scale F unit control stand and if I remember correctly RMC ran an article about a 1/4 scale steam cab interior by Jack Burgess in mid to late1970's. MR had an article with plans for a throttle and brake stand in the 1960's. I think that the portable aspect makes it very appealing. Keep us posted please.

For steam too, please

I've been thinking along similar lines, but for steam.  I did start thinking about a Pi, which might yield a nicer tactile experience, but would be expensive.  Where I wound up is that you could 3-D print a cover for a smartphone, with the appropriate toggles, levers etc.  These would all get conductive rubber tips on them to interact with the smartphone screen.  You could then display gauge faces through holes in the cover.

For the steam engine, I also see a separate controller for the fireman.  

It would be great to see Iowa Scaled Engineering take the lead on killing the knob!  

I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes.

This the most interesting

This the most interesting concept that I have seen in a long time.  Thanx!!!

Interesting concept. I would

Interesting concept. I would like to see it available so it could work with the different systems with out JMRI being tied to the layout. Wireless and or plug for all the following, MRC, Digitraxx, CVP, and NCE. I would also not have an issue with it being fairly large say the size of a tablet. It would likely sell well by being a universal throttle allowing folks that travel around the chance to operate on lots of layouts. It looks like it could be much better than the existing throttles available. I also like the idea of the dials actually displaying information. Also an emergency stop button and the key pad interface for selecting and programing. The e stop need not be prototypical but something to stop a runaway for what ever reason.

Color me interested!

I'm all for it! I say "DROP

 "DROP THE DIAL-"

I say "drop the dial, grab the handle!" should be your marketing slogan.  There is a LOT of potential here. I'll just rapidfire my initial thoughts, and I'll figure out how to make it work with my ancient Digitrax DCC... somehow...I't be worth it to me to have a more realistic experience.  I don't have a JMRI hookup as of yet, but this would push me over the edge on that!  

I would suggest that if you base it off of the one in the video that is shown, and additionally in your proposed schematic that you flip flop the locations of the 3-position reverser and  the Brake toggle switch so that the "Brake" toggle switch be located directly below the "idle" (coast) setting for the 8-notch throttle.  That way you could just thumb the throttle handle down to idle and be hitting the brake at the same time with the 2nd joint of your thumb, instead of having to idle/coast and find the brake switch. The brake switch should actuate the same direction as the throttle going down (so in this instance, both the throttle and brake should go left to right, so that throttling down increases the "Brake").

In the real world (Since I use these things in my profession as a locomotive engineer) in switching it's a 2 handed operation for sure. With the left hand feathering the independent brake as I'm throttling down with the right hand...but in the interest of one-handed (and really, that means thumb-based operations). I'd go with the spring toggle "independent" brake right below the throttle handle...and also, while the reverser key is on the bottom part of the control stand, the throttle and brake handles are used a lot more than the reverser (with the "Feathering" of the brake on/off and throttle up/down to make safe couplings).

I'd also be willing to skip the "air gauge display" to have the engine number/decoder address there instead (like the older digitrax small throttles that have the rotary knobs to dial in the number.  

If you need access to pictures of control stands, so that you can get the right "Feel" for the badge plate lettering and fonts, Just drop me a line, I have lots of detail shots I've taken over the years...

My appetite sufficiently is whetted

PI Engineering

May I suggest you check out P.I. Engineering's division that developed the raildriver:

http://raildriver.com

It is compatible with JMRI.

Lose the fake dials.

The decorative "dials" would be pretty "unexciting" and more of a detractor.  A scale mph readout would be an interesting addition, locomotive current draw would be another to consider.  Of course the selection (and display?) of the address would be very nice, as others have pointed out.  And it does seem that another brake (switchable(?) as suggested earlier) would really be necessary for the immersion effect of driving a train.

Definitely Interested!!!!

Dear Scott, Michael,

Having been inspired by the same YT clip some years ago,
and wrestling with the joys(???) of Android coding to get a JMRI/NCE conversion solution for a prototype Cattron Theimeg "AccuSpeed" bellypack unit

I am very interested in another-way to close the airgap between "Tactile User Interface" (TUI) and JMRI.

A few thoughts, If I may.

- If wireless, the handset is going to require some form of onboard battery power source. Aim for a significant runtime between charges, and integrated charging (plug in a USB cable?) directly to the handset.

- Whether the gauges are some form of "needle gauge", a simple LED, or a digit display, 
the interface solution does indeed require both GPI (Human> System INPUT) and GPO (System> display/feedback OUTPUT) capability.

FWIW, If GPO was not required, a NCE MiniPanel or similar could probably achieve all the "Throttle INPUT command interface" required (I'm an NCE user),

but the desire to make the solution:
- wireless
- have appropriate GPOs
- and cross-DCC-system-compatible
is what kept pushing me down the 'Droid route

FWIW, if the underlying GPIO capabilities were sufficiently flexible, the selfsame RasPi interface could possible act as a platform on which to connect a "normal" throttle Tactile User Interface (TUI),
IE a speed-knob and reversing switch.

Much as such an interface has taken a bashing in recent times, a solution which _could_ support such a TUI would have far-wider applicability to a much-larger range of modellers,
(commercial success),

and could well overcome the major-hurdle many have to deploying "JMRI/Engine-Driver" throttle systems on their layouts. As has been said many times to modellers purchasing their first DCC system,
"...if you don't like, don't feel comfy with, or can't understand/user the throttle handset,
then no matter how powerful it is, the DCC system in question is not-for-you..."

- The Throttle is actually 9 logical and physical position, Notches 1-8 Plus IDLE. This is important when mapping a "notched throttle" TUI electrically to the 28-speedstep range of the typical DCC command/protocol

NWBatman overcame this "maths connundrum" by mechanically indexing the physical Throttle lever thru 9 detented "notches", to a potentiometer which matched that of the donor NCE CAB04p pot. This means that in NWBatman's case, each physical "notch" of the TUI throttle lever may not be a perfect-multiple of NCE-cab-buss "speed steps", and neither might the full 0-notch8 "throttle lever range" match the DCC-spec 0-28 speed-step range-of-values. However, because the loco decoder is speed-curve-tuned to the throttle output range, everything works as the TUI (throttle handset) implies it should.

- While a prototype has a "mid position" on it's reverser handle, the DCC protocol and decoder logic does not.
A decoder is always either in Fwd or Rev mode. Minor detail, but something that can mess with your head when trying to assilimate "proto controls" <> "model command protocol".

- Having the Brake as a slider or spring-switch is logical in terms of assimilating a tactile physical control to the DCC "Push-ON/Push-OFF" way a CAB0x / UT4 brake button works. Translating that to a 2-position level can be done, but opens the possibility of switch-bounce or "power-on initialised TUI state" causing the "Left = Brake Release, Right = Brake ON" functions to become inadvertently reversed...

That there is no explicit "Brake ON" and seperate "Brake OFF" command in either the DCC at-rail protocol,
or the typical decoder's firmware headspace makes this tricky to overcome... (not impossible, but tricky).

This is why in the NWBatman example YT, he has to "brake twice" repeatedly.
- First "brake application" = Brakes ON
- Second "brake application" = Brakes OFF
- If the brakes are "not in the state you want them in" right now, brake-again to toggle state.
(This is not logical to a prototype engineer with a 26NL airbrake stand,
where "Release" IS Always "Full Left",  
"Emergency" IS Always "Full Right",
and there is NEVER a case where the Lever-Direction<> Action relationship can be flipped...)

- With some simple(?) manipulation of the Maths performed by the RasPi, before it transmits to JMRI,
It may well be possible to actually simulate a (Release, Set, Emergency) "3 position brake lever" operation.
(IE have a physical 3-position "Brake Lever", it appears to make the loco operate as if it has 3-brake positions,
but the intermediate maths is doing some "interpolation" to git-it-done inbetween).

- For the Cattron Bellypack implementation, there is no "Headlight" controls on the pack. The prototype instructions for settng up a loco for Remote operation state that all things such as Headlights should be configured in-cab _before_ the Operator heads-out with the Bellypack to start the shift.

This may be procedurally important, because it gives justification for the model RRer "control stand" user to have to stop by the JMRI "Power desk" (Motive Power Hostler's desk?)
and have the loco "assigned to the throttle",
rather than being able to "assign a loco to the throttle" themselves?

- Despite not having a "Headlight" control/switch, 
what the Bellypack _does_ have is a 3-position switch which acts:

- Off
- Bell
- Momentary Horn

IE you can switch from "OFF" to the centre-position "Bell",
but to blow the horn you then have to "momentary push" the switch _beyond_ the "Bell" position to the "Horn" position,
and the switch spring-returns to the "Bell" position when released.

- As far as physical handset form-factor goes, IMHO NWBatman had the right idea. NCE, Digi, and many other US-based DCC manufacturers have had much success with the "pack of cigarettes size" handset in a "buddy-throttle" format. If the aim is to simply(LOL) replace a generic rotating knob-and-buttons TUI with a semi-proto-inspired set of Levers, then follow NWBatman's example and enjoy

In contrast, European DCC systems abound with "two handed throttle units" (B'mann Dynamis, ESU ECoS),
and seriously, How Many North-American modellers do you see consciously opting to use them, esp in "walkaround layout" situations?

Maybe it's because I'm based not-in-Nth-America,
but I get a far-wider "sample size" of Modellers <> systems-in-operation comparison opportunities down here,
(IE there are actually a significant number of Euro-made DCC systems in "live-fire use" here), 
so failure-to-pickup-and-use-a-2-handed-throttle surveys cannot be simply put down to "yeah, but no-one hereabouts uses such systems",

and the maths still holds up. If the layout is a "walkaround with your train" configurations,
a "single-handed" handset TUI the size of a CAB0x or UT4 is the "throttle of choice" for the majority of modellers.

Furthur, I totally take the point that Bruce Kingsley is running a "near scale size" controlstand in his half-a-F-unit cab, and so too are numerous Trainz and MSTS fans 

However, equally, those applications:
- explicitly do not expect "fully mobile walkaround-with-one's-train" capability,

- generally do not perform the kind of "Local Switching" which requires significant and frequent manipulation of the controls to perform (If it ain't easy to use, and you have to use it often/frequently/time-critically, then you're going to become a grumpy old model RRer rather quickly...)

- and in Bruce K's case, have prompted the parallel development of on-loco camera feedback
Indeed, it could be argued that Bruce K's application is more about "replicating the incab experience of a prototype locomotive" rather than "building a prototype-esque/inspired throttle for a model railroad".

Upshot: the Givens and Druthurs for Bruce K's F-unit Cab-Project are markedly different from Scott's "Improved interface to actually operate with" proto-esque throttle.
Different Missions, with different physical/TUI requirements, requiring different approaches.

...Apologies, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic....

Anyway, given Scott's initial starting-point inspiration (NWBatman YTs),
and stated aims,
I think a Cab0x/UT4 sized "semi-proto control stand" throttle handset is a very do-able idea...

I can't wait to see how this develops...
(and with the proven track-record of Michael and the ISE team,
I'm sure it'll be amazing... ).

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

I think...

...The idea has merit...however a few points.

Any throttle MUST be usable with one hand. This means using your left thumb for most people. Some functions that are not used often such as reverse, headlights and bell can be done with the other hand but throttle, brake and horn should all be one thumb operation.

The eight notch throttle may be fine for the prototype but models just don't run like the prototype without lots of fiddling. Make the throttle a continuous pot so fine control is easier.

How do you change locos. On my small layout I have no problem with a dedicated throttle per loco but on the big layouts I operate on this would be a hastle. If you want to keep the "prototype" feel and not have these controls visible maybe put them on the side or back with a looking switch (sliding toggle?) so that they can't accidently be activated when being held.

I like Rene's Idea but the problem is that every model seems to be a different size. This system could remove the problem with my third point as it could be a swipe screen on the phone.

Looks harder to use

than a UT4 ?  and probably costs more??   If I was looking for another throttle the thing I'd  be interested in would be  one that could run the trains from hand signals cause that's what I used to like watching the crews do ........DaveB

Thanks, Graeme

Good points and much appreciated because there is always things to consider as the control stand gets developed. 

I’m not sure I totally agree with the one-hand principle. I understand where you’re coming from, ie: the ability to have your right hand free for uncoupling and other tasks during operation, but it is possible to operate efficiently with using your second hand to move levers, etc., and still do the other tasks well. 

Also, having detent incorporated into the throttle handle does not negate smooth control. One can program their decoder to respond many different ways whether there is detent or not. But for some prototype modelers, like me, including a detent is very important because it has the feel of a real locomotive throttle. Otherwise, why not simply have a knob. Just my opinion, but I think the detent is a requirement.

Changing engine numbers is still to be determined. I’m sure there is a good workaround. 

Thanks to everyone who’s commented so far. For those who may be lurking, please feel free to state your opinion because it is valued. 

The viability of a semi-realistic diesel control stand throttle?

I very much like the idea and with the new super inexpensive computers like Pi, very possible.

From a physical issue, take a look at the Dynatrol throttle still available.  I owned this years ago.  The FULL FUNCTION CAB fit nicely in the hand.  It had a separate handle for engine brake and a button for service (train) brakes.  

Bruce Bowie

Huron, OH

It seems to me that we want

It seems to me that we want it all. We want to replicate a prototype experience but we want it all to fit in the palm of our hand and be operated with a thumb. I don't think we can have it both ways. A realistic reproduction of the engineer experience will require some size. We can miniaturize but only to a point. I like the OPs design and with some tweeking could be exciting. I do like the idea of the displays showing something useful like loco numbers or speed, although speed is very difficult to determine because you have to have some sort of feedback from the locomotive. 

Yeh buddy!

I like the idea of a proto-controlled locomotive and I really dig Bruce's setup. That control stand is the bomb, wish I knew Bruce. I like the thought of having to "maintain" your speed, instead of just setting the dial and watching it run. There will most likely be a learning curve on such a control, but I think one could derive more pleasure and satisfaction, feathering the throttle, setting the brake and getting the "feel" of actually controlling the locomotive.

Beltpack

I also like the thought of a beltpack based on the current prototype for RC switchers (granted, I model the present day-ish). Something tells me that would be a much easier controller to produce, at least at first. Although, that's not much different than operating with a standard DCC throttle, just with prototypical buttons and switches.

Mike in CO

Been waiting for this one

This would be sweet to have. Surprised someone has waited this long to come out with this kinda throttle.. Bring it..

beltpack

Levers on the side

I would love to see this, but it needs to be a reasonable cost. 

I would suggest having the throttle and brake levers on the side where they can be operated one handed. Of course this would mean it would be right (or left) handed. The light control is not that important, nor is the horn, simple buttons for those, but the levers for throttle and brake are the key to the design, get that right and the rest I can live with! You do have to have some way to enter the loco address.

Of course I would want a steam version as well, although there was a lot of variation in throttle and valve control with steamers.

Reasonable cost?

Brent, 

What in your opinion would be a reasonable cost? 

What do other’s think would be a reasonable cost? 

If the throttle was put on the market it would most likely be in kit form to keep costs down, but we are very interested in modeler’s thoughts on cost because demand for something like a control stand may not be that great.

Weighing in on cost

I have found this thread, and the other two currently exploring this idea, very exciting. My interest is steam so the handheld would have to have so ability to customize or reconfigure from notches to a Johnson bar, for example. 

A "reasonable" cost for a kit, IMHO, would be in th $50 range or assembled not to exceed $150. 

My G&D's would include that it be wireless, with a standard RF or Bluetooth transmitter, and have levers for throttle, reverse / Johnson bar.  Niceties would include light switch, bell & whistle controls, brakes for engine and train separately, injector, fuel, and water valves (potentiometers?). 

Neil E

Things to consider regarding cost

Just a few points before others weight in on "reasonable" cost:

• The throttle is meant for diesel operators. There are no plans for a steam version. Sorry.

• The demand for a throttle such as this will most likely be VERY limited, so one needs to think in terms of a custom product which usually demands a higher cost. A higher cost would most likely be palatable to those who really want  the control stand feel and experience. 

• A rough estimate on parts is already in the $100 range and this doesn’t include continued development, fabrication, and some sort of reasonable profit. This idea is totally cottage-based, we are not a company or manufacturer, although we both run our own businesses. So, my initial thought would be (and don’t hold me to this) the cost would probably be in the $300-$400 range (or roughly the cost of two sound equipped diesel locos). 

Again, this is not something that will appeal to hundreds of modelers. 

I hope these points don’t cut the vine at the root, but we need to be realistic up front.