Battery Power & R/C Systems

[AR Wendel]

Greetings.

I'm interested in a system for a garden railroad.  I don't want to clean track which has forced me to battery power (at least until that cold fusion thing comes through) which pretty much necessitates remote control.  Given line of sight issues outside (and the solar system's largest IR transmitter), I think I'm looking at radio control.  Before getting too far into my system comparison, can anyone tell me if I've missed any major types:

Uses standard double axis joysticks (R/C car transmitter):
http://www.rcs-rc.com/
http://www.brianjones.free-online.co.uk/

AirWire / G-Wire – Two compatible systems (900 MHz)
http://qsisolutions.com/products/nce-gwire-procab.html
http://www.cvpusa.com/airwire_system.php

Proprietary Systems (900MHz)
http://remotecontrolsystems.com/
http://www.nwsl.com/S-CAB_Radio_DCC_Control.html

Proprietary Systems (2.4GHz)
http://www.aristocraft.com/Revolution_c_72.html
http://www.remotecontrolthrottles.com/

Proprietary Systems (???Hz)
http://www.all-trol.com/wireless/wireless.html
http://www.locolinc.com/

I've not investigated RF issues at the house.  Cell phones, a 2.4 GHz computer network, and 5.4 GHz cordless phones seem to get along.  I'd prefer a controller that I can feel so not too interested in push-buttons.  Levers, dials (encoders), and sliders for a throttle would be acceptable.  Anyway, are there any types of systems that I've not identified that I should look at?

I'm leaning towards AirWire/G-Wire or the R/C car remotes so I don't get stuck. 

Thanks,
Andy

P.S.  Anyone know who the appropriate person at NMRA to "motivate" to get some type of standard that all the vendors can build to would be?

[Stourbridge Lion]

Andy - Welcome to trains.com!

[cacole]

AR Wendel

P.S.  Anyone know who the appropriate person at NMRA to "motivate" to get some type of standard that all the vendors can build to would be?

The NMRA ignored G-scale for 20 years or more, regarding us as just a bunch of old men playing with trains and not serious model railroaders.

When the NMRA did express interest in trying to set standards for G-scale a few years ago, the G-scale manufacturers told them to stuff it.

 

I use the CVP AirWire 900 system for all my G-scale trains, using Lithium-Ion rechargeable batteries, and have been very happy with it.  Initially I used Gel-Cell batteries at CVP's recommendation, but they were very large and heavy compared to the newer Lithium battery packs.

 

[cabbage]

I originally used 27Mhz -now I have opted for a 2.4Ghz system using std R/C  transmitter and receiver to an ESC. This gives me more flexibility in that if the manufacturer fails I can easily find another... I use FUBA TX with either Dimension Engineering ESC for Gauge '3' locos or Electronize ESCs for 16mm scale locos. Your main problems will relate to "earthing" and "shielding" -the Brian Jones site gives a good run through on the subject.

regards

ralph

[kstrong]

That's a pretty exhaustive list. I'll start at the top of your list and give my take on each system to the best that I can...

2-stick R/C systems:

The new 2.4 gHz technology has breathed new life into this user interface and functionality, as the "glitching" that plagued the older systems has been eliminated. I've used the RCS stuff, and it's very similar to the controls my dad designed in the mid 80s, with a few extra bells and whistles afforded by the updated technology. I'm not a huge fan of carrying around bulky 2-stick transmitters, though I do it for my live steamers all the time. At least the antennas are very short now. You can count on the 2-stick technology to hang around for a long time, even if the particular manufacturer of your favorite flavor of electronic speed control goes belly-up. You can always go to the "next" guy and just plug into your existing receiver. Control flexibility and functionality is limited with these systems, but is adequate for basic throttle, direction, and sound functions. (Bell, whistle, etc.) Make sure the throttle on whichever system is "proportional," i.e., the farther up the stick, the faster the locomotive moves. Some earlier systems used the sticks as "faster/slower" buttons.

Airwire/G-wire

These are probably the most full-featured of the control systems. They're based on the DCC control protocol, which allows you all sorts of control over lights, sounds, smoke, etc. I currently use both of these systems on my home railroad. One caveat: Despite claims of compatibility, that's not 100% accurate. If you're going to use the Airwire receiver/throttle, use the Airwire controllers. If you're going to use the G-wire/QSI combination for the receiver and throttle, use the NCE G-wire controller. It's not so much controlling them that's at issue, but programming them. There are numerous incompatibilities when it comes to programming one manufacturer's receiver wtih the other's transmitter. 

Note that only one throttle in this range is truly proportional with a definite "stop" and "full" position. It's also been discontinued. Airwire's other two throttles and the NCE controller use a digital knob or thumbwheel to adjust the speed. That works almost as well, and when combined with a graphic display of the speed, you can tell at a glance how fast your throttle is set. (Airwire's latest T-5000 has this display, as does the NCE G-wire cab.)

Even though these systems use DCC command protocols, they're still fairly proprietary, so if the companies go away, you're left in the lurch. They've been around for a while, though, and have maintained a good degree of compatibility with legacy products.

900mHz systems

The RemoteControlSystems stuff is a re-build of the old Australian-built RCS stuff that ran in the 27mHz frequency. I've not used this new revision, but used to use the old RCS stuff in the 90s and up until just a few years ago. It's pushbutton control--the longer you push the button, the faster your loco moves. It's not the most precise means to control speed, and slow-speed operations are problematic since you never really know where your throttle is set. But overall, it gives good control for basic operations.

The S-Cab is currently very limited, but has promise. According to their literature, the system supports only two DCC decoders at this time, neither of which are really suited to large scale except for small locos that don't draw much current. Hopefully that list will grow to include large-scale DCC decoders such as the QSI Titan, Massoth, Zimo, etc, but for now, it's a non-starter. I find it hard to believe no one has yet designed a universal on-board receiver/central station combination that can feed any generic DCC decoder. When they do, it's gonna be COOL!

2.4gHz systems

The Aristo Revolution is probably the Chevy Malibu of R/C control systems. It's gonna work very well for probably 80% of all folks who want to control their trains. Range is great, programming is very simple. It's not as full-featured as DCC systems, despite statements in the product's promotional literature, but quite frankly, the typical user isn't going to ever notice those differences. I use this system on my railroad as well as the Airwire stuff, and am hard-pressed to choose a favorite. It uses pushbutton control, but the LCD screen has a back-lit graphic display that shows where the throttle is set. All you need do is glance down and you can see speed and direction. Not quite as nice as a knob, but you get used to it pretty quickly. You are limited to only 6 functions, but they can be sounds, lights, and smoke. The throttle output is pretty universally compatible with most 3rd-party sound boards on the market.

The site the remotecontrolthrottles link takes you to shows the old 27-mHz RCS products that are now out of production. I believe when the product line was sold to the new company, the original thought was to upgrade it to 2.4gHz, but they settled instead on the 900mHz stuff. Regardless of the frequency, the user interface and functionality is the same--rather basic.

??? Hz stuff

I've never heard of the All-trol stuff, but from what I'm reading, it's fairly limited in that if you want sound, you have to use their sound. There's no provision for controlling a 3rd-party sound system. That's problematic for me, since I'm a sound geek. They do (or did in 2007 when the stuff came on the market) offer a G-scale compatible receiver, at least.

Locolink's been around for a while, but at the same time, I don't think they've really made any real advances in that time, either. Their web site is abysmal when it comes to any insight into how the system works and what it can control. I tried it at a convention when it was first introduced, and was luke-warm to it. It did what was advertised, but I found the interface clunky. Certainly very basic control compared to the newer systems out there. I'd love to see them re-vamp the product line.

 

What I'd do first is come up with a list of what you want to do with your trains. Are you looking for a system that will allow you basic control of your trains and perhaps a few sounds, or are you a control freak who wants to be able to control every aspect of the locomotive at the touch of a button? Or somewhere in between? I've used many systems over the 28-or-so years I've been doing battery R/C, and I think each system currently on the market fills a niche somewhere in that spectrum. I've moved on to "bigger and better" systems as my needs have increased, but I'm admittedly on the "control freak" end of the spectrum at this point in time. And quite honestly, don't think you need to pick just one, anyway. Yeah, if you go with multiple systems, you'll need to buy an additional transmitter. Big deal. You'll want a spare anyway for times when you've got multiple engineers running the railroad. (i.e., give the kids/grandkids the "easy to use" throttle for their trains, while you run yours on the second loop with yours.)

Later,

K

[AR Wendel]

OK.  Following up...

<kstone>

I find it hard to believe no one has yet designed a universal on-board receiver/central station combination that can feed any generic DCC decoder. When they do, it's gonna be COOL!

</kstone>

Would you expand on what you mean by this?  Would NCE meet this standard if not for the programing issues with CVP?

Perhaps we should lay down a X-Prize challenge?  I guess I don't understand the manufacturers.  CVP basically has a custom cab designed to work with their soundless decoder / receiver which doesn't seem like a great idea and not terribly different from what others have done.  However, NCE basically took their standard cab and added a few mods to make it work with a special receiver.  If you look at how it is wired, the special receiver is essentially one of their command stations and receivers all in one and shoved into a locomotive.  You switch between command stations (one per loco) rather than switching trains like on DCC.

The NCE approach seems to be something any of the big manufacturers could do.  How hard would it be for Digitrax (to pick on someone) to take their cabs and make them work like this.  (Yes, you can't plug your cab into the loco every time but I think that is just a hold over from the make-it-simple days.)  Is there some complexity to this I'm missing?

While I'm at it, why not have interchangable modules so you can pick 900MHz or 2.4GHz, right?

Oh, anyone in the KC area this weekend might check this out:

http://www.hagrs.com/

Regards,
Andy

[kstrong]

Would NCE meet this standard if not for the programing issues with CVP

No, it would not. The G-wire receiver itself does not overlay the DCC signal onto track voltage, rather just outputs the DCC signal which the QSI board then combines with the track voltage being fed into it separately. What I'm thinking of would be self-contained.

Think of a DCC wireless command station - you've got the power supply, the wireless receiver, and the black box which reads the output of the receiver, translates that to a DCC signal, and combines that signal with the power from the power supply. Miniaturize that. You'd have a board with wires for power input (could be battery or track power), and two wires for the DCC output superimposed onto the power going to the decoder, just like you'd have out of any DCC "big black box." This would be fully NMRA compliant and compatible with whatever DCC device you would ever want to wire to it. I've got an MRC Prodigy Advance2 which could easily be stripped down and fit inside a box car or larger tender, so there's no reason that I can see where this isn't remotely (pun intended--as always) possible.

Airwire's receiver/throttles have a DCC output rated at 3 amps which is almost what I'm looking at, but the board itself is a DCC decoder with its own motor, light, and function outputs. If you were to just strip all that "extraneous" stuff away and have the board with battery in and DCC out, you'd have it.

One of the big European DCC manufacturers had advertised something like this at one point, but it's seemed to have gone nowhere.

You're still looking at a proprietary relationship between the transmitter/receiver, but that'd now be akin to the 2-stick stuff. You'd buy the dedicated tx/rx pair, then because the output is universal, plug whoever's decoder into that. There'd be no reason other DCC manufacturers couldn't offer their own tx/rx pairs in competition.

Later,

K

[AR Wendel]

It seems our gripping has been heard.

http://www.cvpusa.com/doc_center/r4_Converter_2012_flyer.pdf

The bullet point about DCC Decoder modifications I suspect was a shot at Stanton.  Also, only 1.5 amps.  Something higher could be used to run two different DCC decoders on one receiver (I'm thinking F-7's with a beautiful red war bonnet).  Of course, need to wait and see what the reviewers say.

Regards,
Andy

[kstrong]

Cool! At 1.5 amps, it should be good for some of the smaller, ligher locos we have. Hopefully, that's a harbinger of a higher capacity board for larger locos.

Later,

K

[Rick Mugele]

There is the new RailPro system by Ring Engineering that could be worth looking into.  It was not intended for battery power but Ring does not see any problems in using battery power.  This is a proprietary system so it is not known how long Ring will be in business.  It should be noted that control systems that have gone away (Astrac, On-board) were not compatible with DC, DCC, or Battery Power.  Systems like Rail-Lynx and LocoLinc do not use through-the-track signals so they play well with others.

[kstrong]

Cool! Alas, currently only for HO scale, but according to their FAQ, they do intend to introduce a large-scale receiver in due course. Be interesting to see one in operation, especially with a touchscreen interface. Outdoors in bright sunlight that could get a little difficult. Depends on the brightness of the display...

Later,

K

[simisal]

If you want to run battery and 2.4 GHz system, you may want to look at G Scale Graphics. Their system looks pretty good and not too expensive to set up. They use a spectrum (2 stick) system or a pocket fob (garage door opener) for a transmitter. They have assorted components for sale or at least the esc and printed circuit boards available. I'm trying it out right now and think I don't have as many functions as a DCC system but it should be satisfactory for running trains.

[M_Parsons]

There are two elements here:  The Train Engine Controller  and the User Interface.

I believe that just about every DCC Decoder - meaning the Train Engine Piece -- With the exception of the Aristo Revolution -- is interchangeable in that they all will respond identically to dcc radio commands sent through the tracks.  It is the User Interface which differs. 

Just about every manufacturer who makes a DCC engine controller also makes a throttle and command signal generator to put the signal into the track.   Digitrax makes a great radio interface BUT the receiver is linked to the command generator,

Just CVO seens to make a User Interface which can be added to standard DCC controllers that you already have installed or are planning to add.  These are called the "CONVTR" with built in antenna list price $ 99 or "CONVTREX". list price $105.  You run the wires from your Lithium battery INTO the Convtr and from that unit to the DCC controller.  This device adds the DCC signal to the power stream just as if it came over the track.  The device, of course, works only with the CVP and NCE Airwire controllers.

The CVP DCC decoders have the advantage that if you take your engine to someone who has track power they will respond to track signals, such as if someone has a Digitrax system.   Using the CONVTR system you'd need a switch to bypass the CONVTR if you want to get power and signals from the track. 

QSI as a decoder will run from track power and signal or battery power & Airwire signal.  As a sound plus DCC controller I think it is the mose cost effective.  When you add the Gwire receiver the formula gets changed because some folks don't need to pay for or want sound.  You can use a sound decoder of your choice with the CVP GWire decoder/receivers.

I've also used QSI decoder equiped engines with Aristo track powered systems triggering the functions by using a QSI "Engineer" which gets DCC functionality out of DCC decoders on trains running from analog DC power (it overlays the singals).  Unfortuantely QSI has stopped making the Engineer.

If you choose to go with a CVP G3 (the current readio receiver equiped DCC engine decoder) and you want to add sound, you need to check out the output power of the sound only decoder.   The Phoenix unit has lots of power (watts) so you hear appropriate db levels of sound; some of the other less expensive sound decoders output in the neighborhood of 1 watt which may disappoint you outdoors.

I have been impressed by the output wattage of the QSI sound & function decoder which is the only well known decoder with stereo output -- you could run the second speaker leads to a trailing engine which has a motor only decoder and save some money.

I am sure others in the community will have much to contribute on this.  You need to list not only the alternative combinations but what their capabilities are and how they will operate in your environment.  One question you need to ask is what happens if I want to hand control of an engine over to another person in my operating session with his own hand controller.  The imperative of this is that the engine's operating parameters have to be stored IN THE DECODER not in the Controller.  This may be a problem with Aristo Revolution equipment, or at least I think it used to be.

[TonyWalsham]

It is a simple matter to hand over locos fitted with an RCS ESC that uses Spektrum DSM2 2.4 GHz radio equipment.
A plug in external switch is available so that you can rebind the loco to a different Spektrum DSM2 2.4 GHz TX.  The same feature can be used for adding extra helper locos to a train.
There are a number of different RCS ESC's including a Plug'n'Play model for Bachmann Spectrum locos and most AristoCraft locos.

RCS ESC's are compatible with most non DCC sound systems.  We use and recommend MyLocosound and Phoenix P8.