mlehman PakunaMatata Adopting a new digital control standard would be a long, drawn out process, and would be very costly. On-board chips would not only need to be compatible with their own standard, but would need to be fully compatible with DCC and DC, as neither of the latter technologies are universally adopted... Yep. Any new control technology needs to be compatible with DC and DCC or it's dead in the water commercially as anything more than a niche product. I also question the idea that price is a factor in the "obsolesence" of DCC or that this cost is holding the hobby back. It's probably slef-defeating, but so often that comes up in the context of someone dreaming about their 50 loco motive power fleet and, golly, it's going to be expensive to put decoders in all of them. I suppose, but not as expensive as buying all those locos. Shrink your expectations to a more normal size and suddenly the hobby becomes much more affordable. That's one of it's best features, as you can dial in affordability in the hobby to fit any size budget.
PakunaMatata Adopting a new digital control standard would be a long, drawn out process, and would be very costly. On-board chips would not only need to be compatible with their own standard, but would need to be fully compatible with DCC and DC, as neither of the latter technologies are universally adopted...
Yep. Any new control technology needs to be compatible with DC and DCC or it's dead in the water commercially as anything more than a niche product.
I also question the idea that price is a factor in the "obsolesence" of DCC or that this cost is holding the hobby back. It's probably slef-defeating, but so often that comes up in the context of someone dreaming about their 50 loco motive power fleet and, golly, it's going to be expensive to put decoders in all of them. I suppose, but not as expensive as buying all those locos. Shrink your expectations to a more normal size and suddenly the hobby becomes much more affordable. That's one of it's best features, as you can dial in affordability in the hobby to fit any size budget.
About the future of DCC vs any new system, I think we agree.
I also agree that the cost of DCC is not a factor, any new system would likely be just as expensive.
The price of DCC is not holding the hobby back in any way, but I'm not sure I understand your last thought about the price of decoders vs the size of one's loco fleet?
DCC or no DCC, we all have to decide how much we can afford to spend on this hobby - then we decide how we want to spend it.
A long time ago, I set down on paper the ideas and goals for my dream layout. A very specific set of operational and modeling goals, with some flexiblity as to layout size and shape, but generally requiring what most consider a "basement empire", even though mine is actually located in a 950 sq ft room above my garage.
The plan calls for lots of mainline, double track, 1950's class I operation, with CTC and signals as well good display operation of multiple trains.
At a point in my life when this goal was within my financial means I begain working on the layout and purchasing the required "parts", including a somewhat predetermined roster of locos to meet the desired operational goals. The 25-30 trains in staging require about 120 powered locos.
When DCC came along I carefully considered the costs vs benefits, actually, I did that twice. Both times I decided the the features it would add did not justify the cost - FOR ME. I surely was not going to start over and arrange my layout goals around using DCC - or sound.
Yes, even basic decoders for 120 locos would be big investment, and sound decoders would more than double my locomotive acquisition costs. I could aford it if I wanted to - but I do not value the features I would gain to the tune of that much money - especially considering my dislike for onboard sound, and the fact that onboard sound is not really compatible with the idea of 5-8 trains running at once in my view.
Purchasing locomotives - well, my fleet of locos, recently expanded to about 135, has a dollar cost average purchase price of around $100 each - so any decoder represents a significant increase in its cost. You and others may be buying $500 DCC/sound equiped locos, but not me. Nearly all my locos have been bought new, or NOS, in the last 20 years. I only have a few carryovers from my earlier modeling.
Having been in the hobby for 40 years, done lots of stuff, but also narrowed in on what I really like, if I could not build the current layout, or something close to it, I'm not sure I would stay in the hobby.
But I'm surely not going to settle for less locos to be able to afford DCC - others will think differently.
Sheldon
Sheldon,
I'm pretty certain you've got things well planned. My comment was not intended to reflect on the DC vs DCC choice. It was aimed at those whose planning and expectations are out of step. They've got one budget, but two budget's worth of needs and can't seem to reconcile the two. I'm sure if you needed DCC, you'd likely adjust your purchasing decisions to match reality.
After all, who can blame the DCC mfgs for actually expecting to be paid, just like loco makers? Yet, some folks want to blow the whole budget on locos and then complain that proves decoders are overpriced and is thus the reason they can't seem to enjoy the hobby.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
This is all beginning to remind me of the ongoing SNL skit, Coffee Talk with Linda Richman. Talk amongst yourselves!
It is one of those threads where an OP tosses a proverbial bomb in the theater and leaves while the audience is left behind to suffer the consequences.
Rich
Alton Junction
mlehman Sheldon, I'm pretty certain you've got things well planned. My comment was not intended to reflect on the DC vs DCC choice. It was aimed at those whose planning and expectations are out of step. They've got one budget, but two budget's worth of needs and can't seem to reconcile the two. I'm sure if you needed DCC, you'd likely adjust your purchasing decisions to match reality. After all, who can blame the DCC mfgs for actually expecting to be paid, just like loco makers? Yet, some folks want to blow the whole budget on locos and then complain that proves decoders are overpriced and is thus the reason they can't seem to enjoy the hobby.
OK, you have just described half the people in this hobby who buy stuff ona whim and then complain about prices - I get it now. Not sure the OP was really addressing the cost of DCC that much, but OK.
My profession as an industrial real estate broker allows me to enter restricted rail yards and stand next to running diesel engines that are really enormus in size , when moving they actually vibrate the adjacent land even at slow speeds, the sound in my opinion cannot be duplicted to the extent of reality mentioned in your post, if it could we would not be scale modeler's any longer.
Not withstanding how far DCC has advanced over the past 20 years I don't think much of having to learn brain racking computer technology and experiencing inevitable programing frustration for what should be an enjoyable pastime operating our layouts using DCC. Darryl
dstephensonI don't think much of having to learn brain racking computer technology and experiencing inevitable programing frustration for what should be an enjoyable pastime operating our layouts using DCC
ironically, many modelers enjoy the "techie" part of modeling and want to be on the "bleeding edge" of technology.
but it's an appropriate blend of technology, human factors and economics that results in a successful advancement of the state of the art.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I don't find DCC to be difficult at all, although I am not into all the fine tuning and computer assisted operation. Matter of choice. When I restarted building a layout after 15 years of no railroading, I had almost no stable of locos so the cost of a retrofit was nil for me. As far as sound, when my models start shaking the ground when they move then I'll consider that the sound is less than the real thing. Until then I'm generally happy with the sound produced. Believe DCC will be around for a while with improvements made as time goes by. Understand completely Sheldon's thought process in determining that DC was the way to go for him.
Any system aiming to compete with DCC or to succeed it has to offer a substantial added value over DCC in terms of functionality or cost. Even with that, it will be quite difficult to gain a measurable market share, as DCC has become an industry standard - world wide!
Frankly, I don´t see any feasibility in such a venue.
Not that we did not have this discussion before
As Wangrow learnt the hard way, having the hardware is only part of the equation. You also need software to make it all work. That is the part that can sink you.
It amuses me that the OP talks about VR as if it is a widely adopted technology. It's still in its infancy and its developers are scrambling to figure out what, aside from gaming, the technology could be used for that a sufficient number of consumers might pay for.
I have a difficult time picturing a bunch of people wandering around a model railroad layout wearing those cardboard holders with cell phones in them. Why build the layout at all when you can create the whole thing in VR software on your computer?
I think the porn industry is probably a better bet for VR than model railroading.
Strength in diversity!
Gosh, everybody. Didn't mean to generate a storm of brown stuff. Yes, DCC works very well, and yes, it serves its purpose.My point was that computer technology is advancing rapidly because of its volume. DCC is a niche technology, and is not likely to advance as rapidly. Does wireless computer technology need to be programmed? Of course. Somebody will do it. Today's $5 processor will become tomorrow's $3 processor... and it will have more features and use less power.
VR? Of course it's not ubiquitous... yet. That said, I'd really like to have people boarding my trains and manhandling my brake wheels.
DWilde1 DCC is a niche technology
!?
DWilde1... and it will have more features and use less power.
what features would you want in a new system that you would be willing to replace your investment in DCC with?
Features? The Internet of Things is already developing positioning systems that will locate devices within millimeters. That supports VR, among other things. I want compute that is so cheap I can put them in every car and remotely operate the couplers so that switching becomes possible without the magnets Kadee developed more than 50 years ago that require unrealistic moves to remotely uncouple.There's a lot more that is possible, and I can't imagine it all. :)
DWilde1 Features? The Internet of Things is already developing positioning systems that will locate devices within millimeters. That supports VR, among other things. I want compute that is so cheap I can put them in every car and remotely operate the couplers so that switching becomes possible without the magnets Kadee developed more than 50 years ago that require unrealistic moves to remotely uncouple.There's a lot more that is possible, and I can't imagine it all. :)
So, basically, you are wanting to automate just about everything on your layout and operate it from your smart phone or computer? I could be wrong but - to me - that sounds like you're going to spend more time looking at your smart phone or computer monitor than your layout?
Some automation is and would be cool. Too much though would end up being visual overload (like most TV programs these days, which I don't watch) and needlessly complicated and distracting.
I think adages like "Less is more" and KISS are just as applicable to MRRing as they are to a number of things in life. But...if that boats your float? - Go for it.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
It will be interesting to see if you can cram the necessary electronics and mechanical needs into each car (a flatcar should be a real challenge) for the "next generation" uncoupling.
Joe
DWilde1,To use movie terms, you're trying to add digital visual effects (passengers getting on, etc.) to practical effects (the models) but without the benefit of post-production. It can't be done, unless you can come up with a Star Trek Holodeck.
What you can do is create a virtual world like MS TrainSim and add more and more details until it's a perfect copy. You can set up a full day's work for every user with a MMO-type set up, with folks being engineers, brakemen, conductors, towermen, dispatchers, passengers or hoboes. I can see that happening, but that layout will still only be on a computer. It won't actually exist in "Real Life"(tm).
Again, remote-control couplers are impractical. If you really want 100% realism, then you really should check out Proto:87 modeling and things like Sergent Couplers before wishing for pie-in-the-sky features like remote-control couplers. You might as well wish for working air brakes, loco sanders, flange greasers, and steam lines.
Paul A. Cutler III
Paul3 DWilde1,To use movie terms, you're trying to add digital visual effects (passengers getting on, etc.) to practical effects (the models) but without the benefit of post-production. It can't be done, unless you can come up with a Star Trek Holodeck. What you can do is create a virtual world like MS TrainSim and add more and more details until it's a perfect copy. You can set up a full day's work for every user with a MMO-type set up, with folks being engineers, brakemen, conductors, towermen, dispatchers, passengers or hoboes. I can see that happening, but that layout will still only be on a computer. It won't actually exist in "Real Life"(tm). Again, remote-control couplers are impractical. If you really want 100% realism, then you really should check out Proto:87 modeling and things like Sergent Couplers before wishing for pie-in-the-sky features like remote-control couplers. You might as well wish for working air brakes, loco sanders, flange greasers, and steam lines. Paul A. Cutler III
Every sim has its limits. ALL of them. The biggest drawback with graphics is they all look cartoonish. Give me HO scale and DCC anyday over the best simulator.
ANy sort of enclosed car, it's not really a problem, and has been done over and over already. Flat cars and others like imtermodal spine cars and gons without a load will be very hard to incorprate the required mechanism for remote uncoupling. It's not the electronics size, it's the mechanical bits needed to open the knuckle.
And yet it still is hugely impractical. DCC or some direct readio system, it still needs a way to individually address the specific car AND which end you are "pulling the pin" on. Unless you further automate the whole operation, to where the "throttle" is a full tablet that includes the switch list and all that so it 'knows' where to make a cut when you are at a certain location, it's going to be cumbersome.
I totally agree, if you want the realistic operating experience, you can't beat the Sergent couplers. Unlike any sort of electronic gizmos, they operate exactly like the prototype, anywhere you need to spot a car.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Since the topic of on-car remote uncoupling came up, I was thinking about the topic a bit...
Using the general design of the Sergent coupler, a "nano size" solenoid could be used to lift the metal locking ball and thereby unlock the knuckle. An extremely small, barebones DCC decoder could be designed to fit between a pair of wheelsets, where it would pick up power and control signals.
The control system is another challenge. Decoder address slots would start filling up and many freight cars have more then 4 digits, which likely will require roadnumber to address mapping. A simple solution could have you dial in the decoder address and toggle the function on/off. A fancy system could have nice user interface with a switch list and roadnumber listing.
Well, I don't expect to see any of this happening anytime soon, so I will get back to the main topic here.
Regarding the IoT, I would greatly prefer that running trains does not involve connectivity/lag issues, privacy issues, or security issues.
CGW121,What I meant was that someday it's going to be possible to create a VR world that is realistic. It's certainly far more likely for that to happen vs. holodeck technology.
Randy,Imagine trying to use a tablet/phone to run your train that also holds the switch list that uncouples the cars? And I thought I had my hands full with car cards.
big daydreamer,At my old layout, I had over 300 freight cars and 50 passenger cars. At my club, we're well into 1000 cars physically on the layout, with over 1600 locos registered to the members. How much button pushing can one do in one ops session? My operators are barely able to remember how to MU some locos together. I can only imagine the joys of watching the guys trying to select every freight car to uncouple it. Meanwhile, that bamboo skewer or Kadee magnet is right there...
Paul3DWilde1, To use movie terms, you're trying to add digital visual effects (passengers getting on, etc.) to practical effects (the models) but without the benefit of post-production. It can't be done, unless you can come up with a Star Trek Holodeck. What you can do is create a virtual world like MS TrainSim and add more and more details until it's a perfect copy.
This is an important point.
The Filosophy Phriday theard asks an important question that's relevant here. At what point do you draw the line in using computers in model railroading? For me, I'm OK with computers so long as they enhance my efforts to model, i.e. how does a computer augment the 3D, 1:87 world I'm creating?
If you want a model railroad, then build it.
If you want a game or VR, then build that.
Trying to do both together seems a good way to fail to satisfy scratching either itch -- it'll please few and be criticized by many in ways that will ensure no one's really happy with it.
And if you think combining a 3D layout and VR will work to satisfy YOU, then you should do it to suit your tastes -- and report back to us when you have something useful and concrete.
big daydreamerSince the topic of on-car remote uncoupling came up, I was thinking about the topic a bit... Using the general design of the Sergent coupler, a "nano size" solenoid could be used to lift the metal locking ball and thereby unlock the knuckle. An extremely small, barebones DCC decoder could be designed to fit between a pair of wheelsets, where it would pick up power and control signals. The control system is another challenge. Decoder address slots would start filling up and many freight cars have more then 4 digits, which likely will require roadnumber to address mapping. A simple solution could have you dial in the decoder address and toggle the function on/off. A fancy system could have nice user interface with a switch list and roadnumber listing.
That's where using wifi really shines, Big D. Through some simple-but arcane computer magivc called Netork Address Translation Daemon (NATD), I can have my own private network with 255*255 communicating units. I have seen images of mote compute engines coming from Intel Labs that are as small as the sharpened end of a graphite pencil (4 mm^3). Solenoitds are getting tinier, too, and there are other techniques like memory wire that also have promise. This is my first approach to the problem. My On30 is set in 1887 and I need to simulate link and pin couplers. That'l happen with tiny coils and electromagnetism, but your approach would work fine for AAR knuckes. I have a TechShop membership, so I have the workshop to do it in.
Paul, VR (or actually Augmented Reality) is coming. SOmebody will make the effort to make this possible, whether for mixed-mode gaming, iinduustrial usage, or architecture. Intel has a shipping product (being built into products as we speak) called RealSense that is a combination camera and infrared planar depth sensor. WIth a tablet, you can measure a distance or size an object. It's still crude, but it's coming. Somebody will open-source a framework and somebody else will adapt it to modeling, and somebody else will create the libraries of people and trees and whatnot.I fully agree that it's each modeler's prerogative to choose what direction to go in and what to be happy with. I'm also assembling an On30 mixed train caboose from a 1960's article. The original was board-by-board, but I'm using a laser and 3DP and CNC to speed things up and make the frame out of metal for weight.What floats your boat? Mine is floated by a lot of things, including daydreaming. I like to build, I like to operate, and I like to stretch my brain.
tstageI think adages like "Less is more" and KISS are just as applicable to MRRing as they are to a number of things in life. But...if that boats your float? - Go for it.
To be sure, Tom. Let me be clear, nobody has to move an inch here. I admire Ben King's modeling whee he worked for 40 years on a little layout that was, if memory serves, less than 7' x 12' in size. Took great stills of it, too. I like to dream big, and I enjoy working small. The big stretches my brain, and the small intricate patience of tech-assisted scratchbuilding helps me survive the day-to-day pressure of my job.
You want cheap uncoupling? How about 80 skewers for $1.59 http://www.target.com/p/80-pack-bamboo-skewers-room-essentials/-/A-12665386 ? That's 2 cents/skewer. About the only way you could get less expensive is for some store to pay you to take them off your hands. I don't care how cheap computer power gets, it's not going to be cheaper than that. An added benefit is that there's no work to install the things. Remove a skewer from the packet and it's ready to use. If you really want to automate things, use all the cheap electronics to build a robot that will fetch a skewer for you so you don't have to get off your duff.
As for the Internet of Things, I am less than enthralled with the idea of some joker hacking into my refrigerator, washing machine, dryer or any other appliance for that matter. We have appliances that are still straight electro-mechanical devices. They're old, they still perform the tasks for which they were designed and nobody can screw around with them unless they're actually physically present.
Rube Goldberg would have a field day if he could be resurrected.
Andre
Better yet, 1:87 humanoid robots that can perform the actual tasks that 1:1 crew members do. That's what I want. I want the micro-engineer to pull up to a switch while the micro-brakeman drops off the engine, unlocks the switch, throws it and then waves the engineer to proceed into the siding..........
hon30critterhon30critter wrote the following post 9 days ago: DWilde1 Sorry, Jim, but DCC is a dinosaur. That may be true, but don't forget that dinosaurs lasted somewhere around 700,000,000 years. That means that DCC will still be around for another 6,999,999,975 years!ClownSmile, Wink & GrinLaughLaugh Sorry, couldn't resist. Actually, I'm rather happy being a dinosaur. I think it is much easier on the brain. No offense intended. Dave
Wow, I can't believe that no one else caught this.
Sorry to say Dave, but 250 million years is more like it. Still far longer then DC or DCC. Longer then any thing now or before.
But, yes Dave I do agree with you. Maybe for those up and coming 40 year olds, all of Jim's ideas may come into play, but, at my 67 years my DCC is more then adequate. As far as sound goes. not a big deal.
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
DWilde1VR (or actually Augmented Reality) is coming.
If I'm understanding what you are talking about (and since I'm a dinasaur there is no guarantee), I think it may already be here. There was an article in the local newspaper (you do remember what that is, correct?) today showing riders on a roller coaster wearing virtual reality headsets.
They could fly along with Superman. It was synch'd with the movement of the coaster so as Superman dove down, the coaster dove down. And when Superman soared upward the coaster did the same thing. I guess it would not be much of a leap to do similar with a model train.
Look. Up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a plane. It's DWilde's new VR Train Game.
Ho, boy...Un-reality TV taken to another level. Again, I don't want to be staring at a monitor or TV screen to operate or enjoy my layout.
It is probably possible to build a Bluetooth receiver module that outputs a digital signal complatible with a DCC loco controller. So there is an evolutionary path, so to speak. Power would still flow thru the rails, but the digital info would got by radio.
The _potential_ advantage is that it could be made upward compatible with DCC, but offer other modes or operation, including two-way communication.
Another _potential_ upgrade option would be to shift to either stepper motors or brushless DC motors. While it is not technically trivial, both offer a motor-speed feedback signal, so that you could tell the train in absoulte terms how fast to go. A scale 12 MPH, or a scale 60 MPH, or whatever.
Last, even if we continue to power thru the rails, the use of a small battery to "smooth out" the power would be a useful addition to smooth operation. The battery would not have to be large, only big enough for seconds or minutes of operation. Just enough to de-glitch the power feed. A big capacitor might work as well.