Although this has become a discussion about battery powered and wireless that really has nothing to do directly with DCC. The wonder of DCC over other command control signals was that the signal IS the power. Other command control systems had a separate power and control signal. That caused problems. So if there is battery power on-board, then there is no need to transmit the power through the rail, then there are much more efficient protocols for transmitting wireless digital signals. Also the public wireless spectrum is going to get reall crowded in the next few years. Everything wireless is going to have to spend most of its time filtering signals from other devices. Wireless model railroading might have to purchase their own spectrum.
To the DCC topic, no one has pointed out that DCC research came to a grinding halt for what, almost 4 years, due to the MTH law suites. I know that Soundtraxx was working on (maybe now has again) a system that tracked the trains and transmitted sound to the appropriate located speakers to follow the trains. People who are are forgiving of MTH overlook this major impact of their frivolous legal shenanigans. Who knows what cool projects totally lost traction, or were totally shelved and/or forgotten because of that?
fwright wrote:Zimo tends to get forgotten in all the ... discussions.
Art
Thanks for posting some of the Zimo capabilities. I don't really know much about the system because so few (at least forum posters) seem to own Zimo and report their experiences. Zimo tends to get forgotten in all the Digitrax and NCE discussions.
Fred W
SpaceMouse wrote: ....It might be nice for instance to be able to send a train to staging and let the computer exchange it with the next train, park it, and record its location so that you can contnue ops without managing the offstage exchange.
....It might be nice for instance to be able to send a train to staging and let the computer exchange it with the next train, park it, and record its location so that you can contnue ops without managing the offstage exchange.
For over 15 years we have been doing a lot more than what you ask for here, with ZIMO hardware and STP software.
Not only can you have full layout automation as with most other "large" DCC systems, which includes occupancy indication and loco number identification but also location dependent function control (i.e. have a loco blast the horn automatically at specific layout locations, automatically uncouple from a train, which includes unloading the couplers first etc.). Naturally you can reserve certain sidings for specific engines or group of similar engines for automated hidden staging etc.
A common argument against computer controlled layouts is that you are no longer the engineer and are forced to sit on the side watching trains go by. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least when compared to a ZIMO system!
This system has some unique features that will never force you to just watch trains, unless you want to. On the contrary, because of these features the system becomes a truly interactive system even when under computer control: One of these unique features is the ZIMO "signal controlled speed influence" (a.k.a. HLU method). With this feature, the computer can never increase an engine's speed (this is important!), only decrease it. This has the advantage that while the computer operates your layout you can still have direct control of any number of trains. Since the computer cannot increase the engine's speed you can still be the engineer and operate your train with your cab according to the speed limits indicated by signals. The computer will set the routes and signals for you while you control the train. However, if you do not slow down or stop the train as directed by the signals the computer will do it for you; CTC with an effective collision avoidance system.
Now, if that is still not what you consider "playing the engineer" you can simply override the computer. For this reason, the ZIMO cab has a "MN" button for manual engine control. When this button is activated for the active loco address on your cab, that engine will ignore all commands coming from the computer and obeys your cab only. This works with consists and any number of trains, not just one! The other trains on your layout remain under computer control. With the "MN" button engaged you can drive past "red" signals at any speed and cause a crash, if that is what you want to do. While this could indicate an engineer "sleeping at the wheel", it is however a very useful feature. Consider a train that has been guided automatically into a station and now sits in a stop section, signal on "red". You want to remove some cars from the train with a switcher engine. Problem is, once you drive with the switcher into the stop section it will also come to a stop due to the stop command applied to this section, making it impossible to reach the end of the train to remove the cars. By simply pressing the "MN" key on the cab you can drive in and out of the stop section without any other changes on the layout or computer (i.e. switching the main signal to "green" first and back to "red" when finished with shunting). There is also no need to first let the computer know that you want to control an engine manually. There is no need either to enter engine numbers in the computer. The system reads out engine numbers as soon as you place the engine on the track and displays it in the correct location on the screen.
Regards,
ArtZIMO Agency of North Americahttp://www.mrsonline.net/
grayfox1119,Wake me up when it gets here.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
ereimer,Um, that's not happening. If you run out of juice on the mainline, you aren't going to be putting a "rescue" engine on the train to get you to the nearest engine facility...unless you want to drag it the whole way. Since most model railroad locos have worm drives, they can't be towed without power.
Sorry, but the only way to "rescue" a battery powered loco with a worm drive is to pick it up and carry it to a recharging station. This sounds like anti-fun to me.
SpaceMouse,I don't think you have any idea of the accuracy required for a "GPS" set-up for a layout to indicate block detection. Tracks in HO scale can be as little as 1.75" apart. And in N scale, it's much less. In order to get two trains past each other on double track, this "GPS" system would have to be able to safely track each loco with a variance less than an N-scale NMRA Gauge is large.
Also, it has to be able to penetrate all kinds of obstacles...otherwise one would have to have at least two receivers for every location that would be covered for triangulation.
Next point is...what about expansion and contraction of the layout? How badly will that effect the "GPS" sensors? I know one person who can't put a bridge down across his aisle in the winter...but in the summer he can. If the layout expands that much, will this "GPS" be able to compensate...or will you have to be constantly reprogramming your layout?
As for the "GPS" plusses and minuses:How is sound going to be any better than DCC?How are you going to have better control than DCC?How is this more realistic than DCC?
I grant you it'd be less maintenance because you wouldn't have to clean track. However, the downside is that you'd run out of battery power constantly provided anyone can invent a battery with enough voltage and amperage that lasts long enough that can fit in an HO or N scale loco.
Sorry, SpaceMouse, but this kind of "pie-in-the-sky" idea is what anti-DCC'ers use as a constant excuse: "I'm not buying DCC because something will come along in 5 years (or 10, or 15) that will be better and DCC will be abandoned!" Hooey. DCC has been around for 20 years and is an NMRA Standard...it's not about to be replaced any time soon.
This can easily be turned around. Most model train users have no idea on how to run a company.
Some people just like to be heard ranting.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
I won't argue about the quality of radio direction finders, but if you have one, and the track plan, you have triangulation.
Block detection, and be found with the same one transmitter and the track plan, assuming it is accurate.
I figure WiFi is safe, but garage door openers are another story. I've never known anyone to have problems with radio control on a layout. I suppose it is possible.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse:
Throughout my life, I have often been an early adopter of new technology. You know, one of those people who pays way too much for something because it is new and not yet mass produced. I bought my first computer in the 70s, I had my television sound going through my high fidelity sound system long before anyone had heard of "home theater". I even had quadraphonic. How many people in here even remember that early attempt to go beyond stereo? I was one of the first professional photographers in Charlotte to change from film to digital.
But I am still not convinced that radio is the technology of the future in model railroading. Radio direction finding is complicated, imprecise, and expensive. At this point in time, radio direction and range finding requires triangulation, thus multiple base transmitters. Every item to be controlled will require at least a receiver, some will require tranceivers. Each of those requires a power source. (more batteries?) Optical or magnetic block detectors and signal systems add more complexity. Then you need to address security of the signal so that your neighbor cannot interfere with your ability to control your trains. The frequencies available for unlicensed public use are crowded.
I'm sure a few people will eventually adopt it, but I have serious doubts that it will ever be common.
While I can see some advantages, It looks from my perspective like the problems to be overcome outweigh the advantages.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Paul,
No more or less than current radio control. Putting in additional receivers here or there is going to be a lot less problem than wiring and programming block occupancy.
You can eliminate a lot of issues by programming your track plan into your computer.
Any system will have problems and workarounds. The plus side for battery/radio control is very high. Better sound; less maintenance; better control; more realism.
just imagine , your steam engine pulls onto the service track under the coaling tower and a magnet under the engine throws a reed switch turning the recharger on for your batteries . a minute later you've got enough of a charge to run around the layout a couple of times untill it's time to take on coal or water again . if you forget to stop and fill up you run out of power out on the mainline , just like you would if you ran out of coal or let the water level get to low . now you need a helper engine to come out and get you , and the dispatcher isn't going to be too pleased
sounds like fun to me .
you diesel folks can substitute appropriate refuelling stations . you'll also need bigger batteries so you don't need to stop as often
SpaceMouse,Is such a receiver going to be accurate to within 0.5"? Through walls, tunnels, and multiple levels?
Paul3 wrote: jfugate,If you don't have power through the rail, then you also don't have dependable block detection, working signals, etc.It'd be one thing for a home layout, but for any club what would be the point?Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
jfugate,If you don't have power through the rail, then you also don't have dependable block detection, working signals, etc.
It'd be one thing for a home layout, but for any club what would be the point?Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
If you had a a receiver that could detect the direction of the signal, why would you need block detection. You'd always know where the engine/train was, even on the move.
Joe:
Thank you. That answered my question about what is the advantage.
So I guess all you need to add to address my only complaint is powered tracks in the yard so that trains not running can be charging.
Spacemouse:
I'm sorry, I apparently phrased my post less than diplomatically, since it sounded like I struck a nerve. It was not my intent to sound sarcastic. Please accept my apology.
And if you don't have to power the track, you don't have to wire it, cut gaps, worry about DCC friendly turnouts, install short management, don't have to create booster districts or buy boosters ... and dirty track is no longer a concern! You could paint the railheads of a seldom used spur a rust color, for instance.
In other words, 80%-100% percent of the under-the-layout electrical infrastructure goes away, at a significant savings in cost and effort to install and maintain. Not having to be concerned with dirty track alone could revolutionize the operations side of hobby.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
You don't have to power all the track. Nor do you have to power it all the time. You just need to charge the batteries.
All 'm saying is that if there is an advantage to batteries and radio control, you don't have to have the limitation of changing the batteries. You can charge the batteries with little effort.
You don't have to create an obstacle that doesn't exist.
I believe the post said battery POWERED locomotives. If you are going to use powered track then what is the advantage of adding the range limits, expense, and complexity of radios in each one. Why not just send the signal through the track?
Maybe I'm just not understanding. What is the avantage?
Phoebe Vet wrote: cacole wrote: There was a very brief news item in Model Railroader in early 2007 about a man who had developed radio control, battery powered locomotives for HO scale, using what the article described as "modified decoders." The article was too brief to be of any real value, and didn't even hint at how much money and time he had invested.Yea, that's what I have dreamed of:Starting my ops session by changing all the batteries in my locos.
cacole wrote: There was a very brief news item in Model Railroader in early 2007 about a man who had developed radio control, battery powered locomotives for HO scale, using what the article described as "modified decoders." The article was too brief to be of any real value, and didn't even hint at how much money and time he had invested.
There was a very brief news item in Model Railroader in early 2007 about a man who had developed radio control, battery powered locomotives for HO scale, using what the article described as "modified decoders." The article was too brief to be of any real value, and didn't even hint at how much money and time he had invested.
Yea, that's what I have dreamed of:
Starting my ops session by changing all the batteries in my locos.
Or they could be rechargeable batteries that get juiced by plugging in your track.
SpaceMouse wrote: Enzo Fortuna wrote: Falls Valley RR wrote:I will be upgrading to full duplex wireless on Digitrax when it becomes availible without any worries.Me too (if works for Europe as predicted) and as me most of "wired" friends!But, just as brain stimulation ....- have read about a French company have a decoder with Bluetoth interface... This means you can use your mobile phone to run your trains (in a 5 meters range: the "only" limitation)That's "cheap" and "effective" !- 'till when I need to use "pencil" or "magnets" to uncouple cars? CheersEnzo Fortuna http://xoomer.alice.it/enzo_fortuna/Home.htm There was a guy at my old club that used to control his train on the Digitrax System with his Palm Pilot.
Enzo Fortuna wrote: Falls Valley RR wrote:I will be upgrading to full duplex wireless on Digitrax when it becomes availible without any worries.Me too (if works for Europe as predicted) and as me most of "wired" friends!But, just as brain stimulation ....- have read about a French company have a decoder with Bluetoth interface... This means you can use your mobile phone to run your trains (in a 5 meters range: the "only" limitation)That's "cheap" and "effective" !- 'till when I need to use "pencil" or "magnets" to uncouple cars? CheersEnzo Fortuna http://xoomer.alice.it/enzo_fortuna/Home.htm
Falls Valley RR wrote:I will be upgrading to full duplex wireless on Digitrax when it becomes availible without any worries.
Me too (if works for Europe as predicted) and as me most of "wired" friends!
But, just as brain stimulation ....
- have read about a French company have a decoder with Bluetoth interface... This means you can use your mobile phone to run your trains (in a 5 meters range: the "only" limitation)
That's "cheap" and "effective" !
- 'till when I need to use "pencil" or "magnets" to uncouple cars?
Cheers
Enzo Fortuna
http://xoomer.alice.it/enzo_fortuna/Home.htm
There was a guy at my old club that used to control his train on the Digitrax System with his Palm Pilot.
And you can longer purchase the Digitrax component for a PalmPilot nor can you purchase the software. Digitrax stopped producing and selling the part since there was alck of demand for it. The software is no longer availble either. An excellent example of a company investing the resources into a product which they believed there was a demand for, the purchases never materialized and the product is no longer produced and the software company went under. I have the complete package and recall calling Digitrax tech support about which PalmPilot the system would work with and they told that it was no longer being produced, supported, or updated for new version of the PalmPilot. I like it, it work great and was a look easier to use, select locos, and consist that than DT100.
Phoebe Vet wrote:I'm perfectly happy with a speaker in the loco, but I would love to be able to add a couple of remote sub-woofers to improve the fidelity.
Indeed. There's a good thought.
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
Wireless is into everything on computers.
The Router next to my desk has the ability to find other computers with wifi with some range, in fact it's disabled because of local college war drivers who are cutting teeth on unsecured wifis. I should know, I learned the same thing they did in class.
Reliable? Yes. Power? Not so reliable. Where we are I run a battery on every machine because the national grid has the tendancy to feed dirty power and sometimes none at all. Until solar is on my roof, I have to make do with what I have and keep wireless to a minimum.
I will be upgrading to full duplex wireless on Digitrax when it becomes availible without any worries.
Falls Valley RR wrote:The next step will be a wireless antenna inside the locomotive instead of signal through the track.
SpaceMouse wrote:I've been saying that is needed for years. You do that then you can take the sound out of the loco and put it in a stereo system where it belongs. The sound "follows" (via sterophonic sound) the loco through the layout. Program in your track plan and all you need is the one receiver to locate the loco on the track through triangulation.