OnBoard had the same issue that many of the other early command control systems did - the control signal was of low amplitude, superimposed on the propulsion power. The only other pre-DCC system I'm aware of that worked at all like the Lenz/DCC system was Hornby Zero-1. The full amplitude of the control signal was also the power in that system.
Never fear, were it not for the input of US manufacturers like Digitrax and NCE, we'd be stuck with just 14 speed steps. And 99 locos max. NMRA DCC isn;t exactly Lenz, it's slightly modified to better fit the needs of north amaerican modelers.
Actually, back in the day, I was pulling for the CVP RailCommand system - that was keith's latest update to the CTC-16 type systems and it offered many of the things DCC would offer, like a seperate 'function' control of the loco's headlight. And it too was a fraction of the cost of Lenz command control. Plus it was available as kits or as fully assembled systems. Those were the days, back on CompuServe's Trainboard forum, arguing the merits of various command control systems and which should eb adopted as standard by the NMRA. Not so coinidently, I had a box of parts gathering at home as I planned to build a CTC-16E for my home layout. I had been sold ont he idea of command control after reading the chapters on Astrac in Sutton's Complete Book of Model Railroading, but this was the first I had the skills and the money to actually follow though. Things happened around then and I ended up being away from the hobby for a few years, when I came back, DCC was going strong so I jumped right in.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
If I remember correctly, Keller was not sharing the signal protocall or signal frequencies so other manufactures could build decoders for locomotives. Each system would use their own decoders and not interchangable with other systems in developement. The NMRA was smart to go with the Lenz protocal. If it were not for interchange of decoders DCC would have been dead before it had a chance. Lenz may have lost a good portion of the DCC market by sharing the protocal but all of us are better for it.
I just wish the NMRA went a little further and opened up the throttle buss protocal. I would love to use my Lenz LH90 engineers throttle to control trains on other systems. Making limited control engineers throttles interchangable would be cool.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
I had one of their systems. Still do, but it is packed up. If I remember, the track power was a constant DC. The signals to the locomotive decoders/receivers were the standard telephone tones transmitted through the rails. This was the limiting factor for the number of locomotives. Each receiver had its own settings and they could not be changed. When the DCC standard system specs came out, Keller was kind of mad, as any other manufacturer would have been at the time, and the product died. There are still a few dedicated users of the system, and there is a Yahoogroup for it, and also a sales group for it where units and parts come up occasionally. I think I remember reading that Keller himself passed away some years back.
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.
I came across the Keller OnBoard control system ad from the Dec 1984 MR the other day. I was impressed with the description of their product, and then I read about their having been one of the two (Lenz being the other) final contenders for the DCC standards which were written in 1990-92 time frame. I saw a pie chart that showed Keller's system was about 1/4 of the purchased market at the time.
So: Given the American origin of this product, what made it less attractive than the German Lenz system that was finally adopted as the basis for DCC product standards? Based on market share, both were of equal presence in the early 1990s, although the Lenz product was better known in Europe.
What then happened to Keller- did they pursue other electronics control product lines, or???????
Facsinating bit of "what-if" to contemplate.
Cedarwoodron