You know what would be nice? The ability to have DCC functionality on a standard DC layout.
Sure, you can run a DCC loco on a DC layout, but it behaves like a DC loco. It would be nice to be able to independantly control several locomotives at different speeds and directions on a DC layout.
Impossible? True, nobody currently makes such a product. (Or is there something out there I don't know about?) But I suspect it isn't far off.
Here's how I visualize the system working. DC track power would be turned to full on. Each loco has a DCC decoder with a wireless receiver/transmitter built-in. Control of each loco would be maintained with a wireless handheld unit which communicates over the air directly to each decoder, thus eliminating the need for a DCC power station.
Basically what I'm talking about is sending commands to the decoder over the air rather than through the track.
What this would accomplish is a way to have DCC functionality on ANY standard DC layout! No re-wiring, no new power stations, no turnout modification. I mean, the only reason we need a DCC power station is because the power station has to be able to send commands through the track power. But if we communicate wirelessley with the decoders themselves, we eliminate the middleman, and can have DCC functionality on a DC layout.
This would be useful if you want to run DCC at a club which has just DC tracks. It would also be useful if you have a DC layout and don't want to bother with the logistics involved in converting track power to DCC. And for new layouts, all you would need is a no frills power supply that delivers a constant voltage to the track. No knobs, no control bus wires. Just output filtering and overload protection.
Ideally such decoders would also be made to be plug and play compatible with current "DCC Ready" locomotives.
The only barrier I see to this right now is the cost involved in making decoders with the required level of miniaturization. But given enough time, I don't see why we can't have an all in one board that works as a decoder, sound module and receiver/transmitter all in one at a size small enough to fit in most HO scale locomotives (and eventually N scale). I mean, NCE now has a ultra tiny 1A 4 function decoder which is .34"x.56"!
How far out do you think this is?
davidmbedard wrote: This has been covered many, many times before. The limiting factor is battery technology. I am sure someday we will get there, but for now, I am happy with DCC.
This has been covered many, many times before. The limiting factor is battery technology. I am sure someday we will get there, but for now, I am happy with DCC.
Hold up, I didn't say anything about batteries. The decoder inside the loco is still powered by track power. But it's DC track power. DCC functionality is enabled by sending the command signals wirelessley over the air as opposed to through the track. But the track is still the main power source. It's just not the communication bus.
By putting the power in the tracks, you do get rid of the battery problem.
At that point, you've gotten it down to a solvable problem. In large scale, it could be done tomorrow, if not sooner. It's not out of the question in HO, N will be trickier. There will be issues of getting a clean signal to the receiver in each loco, between the interference form the motor, and everything else around the layout, the transmission system will have to be pretty robust.
One thing I'd say is that if you can put full time DC to the rails, putting DCC there instead is not a big leap. You don't have to make a bunch of wiring changes. So I'm not sure the benefit is as great as you might hipe.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: say is that if you can put full time DC to the rails, putting DCC there instead is not a big leap. You don't have to make a bunch of wiring changes. So I'm not sure the benefit is as great as you might hipe.
say is that if you can put full time DC to the rails, putting DCC there instead is not a big leap. You don't have to make a bunch of wiring changes. So I'm not sure the benefit is as great as you might hipe.
The main benefit is in the RR club environment. In my club we have a DCC side, but we also have twice as much DC track as DCC track. I for one would love to be able to run on the DC side while somebody else does switching operations on the same track. The thing is, we have several members with DC locos and no intentions of going DCC any time soon. So if those of us who are DCC want to operate on the DC lines (with DCC functionality), we need something like this to make that possible.
Of course, ideally, such a decoder would also work fine with power provided by a DCC system. But the commands would still come from over the air transmissions, with any data coming from the track ignored. That way those of us who are already DCC don't have to switch back to DC power to work with the new system.
DanLW wrote:DC track power would be turned to full on. Each loco has a DCC decoder with a wireless receiver/transmitter built-in. Control of each loco would be maintained with a wireless handheld unit which communicates over the air directly to each decoder, thus eliminating the need for a DCC power station.
It also sounds a whole lot like wireless CTC-16, PMP-112, Railcommand, and probably others. All of those pre-DCC systems have a constant DC voltage applied to the rails and then the "control signal" is sent in separately. Rail Lynx uses infrared wireless.
The DCC signal isn't optimized for that sort of thing and other protocals would be better. I mean, that is the wonderfullness of DCC, that the power and command ARE THE SAME SIGNAL. In my opinion that is why it won the "which command system to standardize on" war. Splitting out the power from the signal eliminates that particular primary advantage of DCC. If the industry were to move to this sort of system there would need to be a new and better command signal standard created just for this purpose. The big issue would be the part of DCC just a few people are just now beginning to explore, that is, bi-directional signals (transponding if your Digitrax). Some of the features this allows will be a lot harder with wireless.
DanLW wrote: I for one would love to be able to run on the DC side while somebody else does switching operations on the same track.
I for one would love to be able to run on the DC side while somebody else does switching operations on the same track.
Sorry. No can do. When he stops his switcher, no track power, so your loco stops too. (or vice versa)
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
gandydancer19 wrote: DanLW wrote: I for one would love to be able to run on the DC side while somebody else does switching operations on the same track. Sorry. No can do. When he stops his switcher, no track power, so your loco stops too. (or vice versa)
... And you are back to running wires and toggling switches from block to block between the non-radio/radio trains. So you're not gainning much. Now if you get it to run on batteries !...
UpNorth wrote: gandydancer19 wrote: DanLW wrote: I for one would love to be able to run on the DC side while somebody else does switching operations on the same track. Sorry. No can do. When he stops his switcher, no track power, so your loco stops too. (or vice versa)... And you are back to running wires and toggling switches from block to block between the non-radio/radio trains. So you're not gainning much. Now if you get it to run on batteries !...
if you use batteries the system is remote or radio control and has been around for years. what was proposed innitially was almost that, but using the rails for power instead of carrying batteries. it seems a bit of a mix of systems to gain nothing new. another almost pointless option would be to have batteries onboard and use the track power ( IF there is any at the time ) to keep the batteries charged. so it is effectively radio control, but if you run it on a DC or even DCC layout, any track power is just a bonus for the batteries. obviously it would need to pass through the relevant electronics/rectifier to give a suitable charging current/voltage. all that aside though, if the layout was full DCC, who's going to change the points for you as your tranny won't have the option!!? back to problems rather than a good idea for advancement of loco/ layout control. there is a system called 'clockwork' that alleviates many of the issues with electrics and radio signals!! get onboard the band wagon quick cos it's going to be HUGE once bachmann and kato hear about it.
I disagree. The big problem with DCC is that sending the signal through the track was inherently a very bad idea. We all know that track gets dirty.
With the DC power at a full 12 volts, the dirty tracks problems is lessened considerably. I have no way that I can convert all of my DC locomotives to DCC. But I would be happy to put receivers in a few at a time that could be operated on the existing DC powered trackage.
It would offer a third very viable alternative for those of us for which converting to DCC is not an option. And never will be.
You run the risc of having your prised DC, non-radio, engine roll on to the full 12V section and take flight off the layout before you even realize what happend.
I don't find it is a good idea.
BigRusty wrote: I disagree. The big problem with DCC is that sending the signal through the track was inherently a very bad idea. We all know that track gets dirty. With the DC power at a full 12 volts, the dirty tracks problems is lessened considerably. I have no way that I can convert all of my DC locomotives to DCC. But I would be happy to put receivers in a few at a time that could be operated on the existing DC powered trackage.
you say that DC at 12 volts lessens the dirty track issue, but DCC is at 12 - 20 volts at over 3 amps depending on the system and settings!! so the low voltage at the rails that causes hiccups in DC is even less so in DCC, it even lessens the effect of voltage drop through loose fishplates. and at the end of the day, who wants to be running on dirty rails? when the muck transfers/builds up on the wheels it wont matter in it is the cleanest track in the world with 30 volts DC, it won't run well.
BigRusty wrote: I disagree. The big problem with DCC is that sending the signal through the track was inherently a very bad idea. We all know that track gets dirty. With the DC power at a full 12 volts, the dirty tracks problems is lessened considerably. I have no way that I can convert all of my DC locomotives to DCC. But I would be happy to put receivers in a few at a time that could be operated on the existing DC powered trackage.It would offer a third very viable alternative for those of us for which converting to DCC is not an option. And never will be.
In fact, sending the signal thru the track is much more reliable than doing it via radio, and less expensive to boot.
No one coverts all their engines at once. You take you existing layout and add a toggle switch, so that you can run DC when you want to, and DCC when you want to. I converted to DCC five years ago now, I still haven't converted all my engines to DCC!! BTW, even after you get all your engines converted you may still want DC available for test-running and breaking in of new engines.
Remember that virtually all DCC decoders have an option that allows you to also operate the engine on DC...in fact more and more engines are coming to market with decoders that work either way factory-installed.
As noted, 14V AC is the normal power on the track now for DCC, so the idea of DC 12V keeping the track cleaner won't wash...so to speak!!
Of course it's a given that all locos on that section of DC would have to be wireless DCC equipped. Which wouldn't be a problem at the club I go to since the DC side has 4 separate independantly controlled loops.
One good extra option would be two wires that would carry a translated standard DCC data code so that you could run a separate "standard DCC" sound decoder off the wireless one. (also powered by track power, of course)
It is a given that DCC the way it is now is indeed cheaper. This just allows people to take their trains to the DC layout and have DCC functionality. But if the club in question doesn't have more than one DC loop, then there could be heads butted over who gets to use the layout since both DC and DCC locos can't be used on the same track (while maintaining DCC functionality)
wjstix wrote:Remember that virtually all DCC decoders have an option that allows you to also operate the engine on DC...in fact more and more engines are coming to market with decoders that work either way factory-installed.
True, but those DCC decoders behave as DC locos. Any DCC functionality is lost while they are on DC track. Which is fine until you want to start doing two different things with two or more [DCC enabled] locos on the same DC track.
It looks like from the replies here, such a system would have to work both wirelessley and through track data, possibly with a CV value which determines which is used and which is ignored. The one key thing with this system is that for it to be accepted it would have to be 100% backwards compatible with current NMRA DCC standards.
You can't share a DC power pack with DC and DCC trains because the DC train uses variable voltage for control. If you're using multiple packs with block wiring then you can dedicate one pack to the DCC trains and use the block toggles with it and some system of control such as wireless. But you could also plus in your DCC power pack, booster, etc in place of that DC pack and toggle the blocks to it, wireless is not needed. In fact you could do this with however many power packs you're layout is equipped to handle with each one having a different system - DC, DCC, ASTRAC, AC, etc. - and just toggle each layout block to the appropriate power/control system.
Enjoy
Paul
IRONROOSTER wrote: You can't share a DC power pack with DC and DCC trains because the DC train uses variable voltage for control.
You can't share a DC power pack with DC and DCC trains because the DC train uses variable voltage for control.
See above post. It's a given that it would be one or the other.
If you're using multiple packs with block wiring then you can dedicate one pack to the DCC trains and use the block toggles...
Which is all well and good until you take your trains to a module or club that doesn't have DCC power. With the system we're discussing all you have to do is ask for a track (assuming the club has multiple independant loop tracks), put your stuff on it and begin DCC operations on their DC track. That way you could run two trains in different directions (assuming the layout is equipped with a siding to allow passing) or run your train while you do some switching on the side.
BigRusty wrote:With the DC power at a full 12 volts, the dirty tracks problems is lessened considerably. I have no way that I can convert all of my DC locomotives to DCC. But I would be happy to put receivers in a few at a time that could be operated on the existing DC powered trackage.
DanLW wrote:With the system we're discussing ... (assuming the club has multiple independant loop tracks), ... (assuming the layout is equipped with a siding to allow passing)
I think it can come any day now. All prerequisites exists. For example radio systems, miniaturisation and massproduction. I think the only reason is there is no one that have seen a big enough market.
R/C model airplanes, boats and cars have been around for several decades and the transmitter/receiver system is very advanced now. In the low price end you can buy a R/C car for around $10 (car transmitter and receiver).
When it comes to miniaturization compare a cell phone from the days when DCC was young with a modern cell phone! The new cell phone is not only MUCH smaller it also contains a camera and a musicplayer. Some of them can even communicate over Internet.The size limiting factor for a cell phone is that so far we need a keyboard and a display.
I don't think a R/C locomotives will solve all or any conversion problems. As mentioned before you cannot apply full power on the rail and at the same tim have an ordinary DC loco on the track. On a DCC layout you can run it without problem if the loco has a rectifier in the driving system, I think that will be the case to eliminate polarity problems.
You still need som solution to the reversing loop problem. I think such a new system will have boosters for supplying power to the rail and give short circuit protection and also include auto reversing function.
Such a new system need to be standardized so I think NMRA should start thinking in these terms (maybe they already have).
DanLW wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: You can't share a DC power pack with DC and DCC trains because the DC train uses variable voltage for control. See above post. It's a given that it would be one or the other. If you're using multiple packs with block wiring then you can dedicate one pack to the DCC trains and use the block toggles...Which is all well and good until you take your trains to a module or club that doesn't have DCC power. With the system we're discussing all you have to do is ask for a track (assuming the club has multiple independant loop tracks), put your stuff on it and begin DCC operations on their DC track. That way you could run two trains in different directions (assuming the layout is equipped with a siding to allow passing) or run your train while you do some switching on the side.
Sorry, I jumped to problem solving because I don't think what you're talking about will be made.
The problems I see are:
The decoder will be more expensive since you have to add wireless receiving, some kind of auto detect to determine which system you're operating on, and possibly some components to deal with DC power instead of AC power. Since wireless DCC has already gone in a different direction that won't be an attraction. This will result in low demand which will prevent economies of scale and further increase the price. In the end I don't think a manufacturer will see this as a viable opportunity.
The installation may be more complicated. With the motor, metal engine frame, and for some locomotives a metal body you may need to add an external antenna for reception.
Some layouts may have dead spots under scenery, other tracks etc. which may further limit usefulness.
It's an interesting idea, but not one I expect to see.
But, hey, if you can get enough people to ask Digitrax, NCC, etc. for it, maybe one of them will take a shot at it.
Good luck
Texas Zepher wrote: DanLW wrote:With the system we're discussing ... (assuming the club has multiple independant loop tracks), ... (assuming the layout is equipped with a siding to allow passing)??? These two assumptions seem to be opposite each other.
Our club does indeed have four independant DC loop tracks which run parallel to each other throughout the entire layout. (Actually, 2 in parallel on one section, and 2 more on a separate section) There are also sidings available which allow for passing. We also have a 5th DC track in HOn3.
I suppose brass locos would indeed be unable to function with wireless DCC unless there were an external antenna. But that just wouldn't look right. So it would be limited to all the plastic housing locos out there.
As far as dead spots under scenery, that shouldn't be an issue unless aluminum foil was used in constructing the scenery. I know that wireless video game controllers will work in rooms which are separate from where the console is located. And they're just working off roughtly 3V. Wiimotes - the controllers for the Nintendo Wii game console - use 2 AA batteries) This system would have 12V of power available for the in loco RX/TX. (actually, 36 theoretical watts of power assuming a 3A power supply - much more than is needed to reach the maximum 1/4W that the FCC allows without a license)
As for the handheld unit, 2 AAs would work. 4 would be better to extend battery life. Optional controlers could also be sold that use more batteries for those with ungodly huge layouts.
MRC had so called remote transitters that activate sounds etc. You held antenna close to the track close to the engine.
DCC is a signal. DC is totally something else the two cannot work well.
Wireless introduces other issues such as building materials, signal coverage etc.
All of you nay sayers probably thought DCC was too farfetched 20 years ago.
I have been modeling HO gauge since when it operated on 6 volts. What progress has been made since then.
Electronics technology has been advancing exponentially for over 3 decades.
If there was a demonstrated market for r/c control of individual locomotives on 12 V DC track, there would likely be product available in the forseeable future.
When some greedy techie counts how many DC locomotives there are in operation today just begging for this, work will start tomorrow.
Believe me. It will make the DCC market pall by comparison.
locoworks wrote:surely it is cheaper and easier to put a $10 dollar chip in every loco rather than a radio reciever and electronics?? if you are in the larger scales in a garden i can see how RC control and batteries or even constant voltage in the tracks is good, but not for HO/N stuff on club layouts. DCC is pretty much the maidens prayer in loco control. if it could cook and iron who'd be married? ( thats a chauvanistic joke by the way )
I could bring up the idea of adding a DCC and switch system to the layouts in our club which are purely DC. But I kinda doubt it would fly, especially with the DC only guys. As long as there are modlers who will not switch to DCC there will be a need to have DCC functionality on track that doesn't have a connection to a DCC power source. In a club environment, at least.
The main problem is stuff on the track. The solution would be to just energize the mainlines and not the yards with DC voltage. When switched over to DCC, everything could be energized. But you'd still have to watch out for the odd loco left on a siding. I could see how many would think that having a DC/DCC switch on such a large layout would be an accident waitng to happen to the odd DCC loco sitting on track which suddenly gets energized with DC power. At worst the decoder fries because it was an older one that doesn't like DC. More likely the loco runs away and crashes into something.
All,
Welcome from DownUnder.
The following link may also be of interest
http://www.geocities.com/OzDCC/artpub.htm
Bob Backway is, (or was), the Australian representative on the NMRA DCC Special Interest Group. His 'system' uses existing track controlled DCC system, or 12vdc or AC or batteries
regards
John L
BigRusty wrote:If there was a demonstrated market for r/c control of individual locomotives on 12 V DC track, there would likely be product available in the forseeable future.
Texas Zephyr wrote:-
Didn't anyone read my first post on this thread? Such a system already exists. It is called RailLynx. It has been available for a very long time, probably even a decade.
Sorry Texas...
The original question was about DCC.......
RailLynx http://www.rail-lynx.com/tech_info.htm does not describe itself as a DIGITAL command control system.
RailLynx is also not "radio control", it's infrared control.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Paul3 wrote: RailLynx is also not "radio control", it's infrared control.
Exactly. I can see an IR system being very clunky to operate. I have enough problems with remotes for AV components. I'd hate to be trying to stop my train while frantically trying to get the IR cab pointed at it just right. For IR to work right I'd imagine it would require a ton of IR recievers and repeaters mounted all over the place.
DanLW wrote: Paul3 wrote:RailLynx is also not "radio control", it's infrared control.Exactly. I can see an IR system being very clunky to operate. I have enough problems with remotes for AV components. I'd hate to be trying to stop my train while frantically trying to get the IR cab pointed at it just right. For IR to work right I'd imagine it would require a ton of IR recievers and repeaters mounted all over the place.
Paul3 wrote:RailLynx is also not "radio control", it's infrared control.
One big issue with radio control is that it requires bandwidth. One can use the already over used public spectrum, or get a sub-license to use someone elses, or spend big bucks to license some from the government. What did Sprint just pay ... 3 billion for a piece? Then there is the issue with the public spectrum being different frequencies in different countries. Example - CVP wireless throttles can't be used in Europe.