rrinker Data packet collisions should be no more an issue than they are for any other wireless system. The radio units use all sorts of methods to transmit multiple conversations on the same frequency, plus the band they operate in actually uses a spread spectrum method so they really aren;t communication on one single frequency. This is proven technology that has been in use many years.
data collisions shouldn't be a problem for a "system" designed for use with multiple transceivers, where there is some central device scheduling use of the band (time division) or using more sophisticated methods to spread the signal out across the bandwidth available (code division such as CDMA).
these are proven technologies that are very well "thought out".
DCC is the time division type.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
In fact should I venture into G scale at my new house, I will almost certainly use battery power and radio control, because I don't want to have to deal with constantly cleaning track that is exposed to all weather. Plenty of room even for old-tech batteries in G scale, which is why it's been around for years.
There's no reason it can't be done with HO today with current Lithium Polymer batteries. The battery for my RC Quadcopter is insanely small and light and runs 4 motors, the radio, and electronic gyro for 15-20 minutes lifting itself in the air. The key is - the motors are coreless can motors, AND they are NOT 12V motors. Motor speed is controlled by a PWM circuit driven by the radio, this is how it turns, banks, moves off in any direction, and goes up and down. The insistence on retaining a full 12V motor is more of a restraint then the battery technology.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Mark
The G Scale guys have been running batteries for years!
So this is MAINSTREAM?
Super Capacitors are the new Batteries!
Just because YOU want Battery power doesn't mean everyone else does!
BOB H - Clarion, PA
I seem to recall a lot of similar arguments many years ago from all the "old hats" about this new DCC concept. Too high tech - it'll never fly ....
As far as signals go, I have visited a lot of layouts, and a very small percentage of them had a functioning signal system. Myself, I have a completely functional, bi-directional signal system that is completely independant of any track power. Works equally well with DC or DCC. Not everybody is on the same page, I'm sure it will appeal to a lot of people. There's even a forum dedicated solely to wireless / battery power model railroading.
Just because YOU don't want it, doesn't mean it ain't gonna happen.
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
cmrproducts Mark R. Then we would have no wires to track - no more turnout shorts, reverse section wiring, etc.. Old sidings could be rusted over as there would be ZERO problems with track pick-up. You could even abandon all track cleaning ! Mark. I suspect the lack of track wiring will do little to stop the Copper Mine that is under most layouts Signals, Sensors which rely on track power to detect the engines, turnout controls, house wiring etc - etc And as for cleaning track - I have YET to need to clean my track since 2003 when I Metal Polished the track and with over 4000 feet of track this is something I was worried about BUT ! I am still waiting on the need to have to reclean the track! I am amazed at the number of Modelers that have so much track cleaning problems! But I am thankful that my Cleaning Problems are over So Battery power would be the last thing I ever would go to! The rechargable Battery technology is NOT any where ready for things like this. I can't keep the rechargable batteries in my FRS radios to last more than a year And I know that the batteries we would end up using in our HO engines would be way more expensive that what is on the market now and Probably not last any longer So why would one want keep spending money to constantly replace these batteries While this does sound like a great idea NO TRACK POWER PROBLEMS - the Battery cost would be far more costly in keeping them recharged between sessions! And there is NO Way I would have a bunch of them sitting around on a charger all of the time when I am not in the basement! With over 60 engines - that is a lot of power going to keep the batteries ready to goat a moments notice! When I leave the Train Room - EVERYTHING is OFF! While it is a great think piece - I believe the SUPER CAPACITOR has a lot more potential with the ability to recharge in minutes instead of hours. And there is no wearing out or taking a set as the current batteries do! There is a Yahoo Group deticated to exploring this concept! If they can get this thing figured out - Batteries as we know them today are a thing of the past! BOB H - Clarion, PA
Mark R. Then we would have no wires to track - no more turnout shorts, reverse section wiring, etc.. Old sidings could be rusted over as there would be ZERO problems with track pick-up. You could even abandon all track cleaning ! Mark.
Then we would have no wires to track - no more turnout shorts, reverse section wiring, etc.. Old sidings could be rusted over as there would be ZERO problems with track pick-up. You could even abandon all track cleaning !
I suspect the lack of track wiring will do little to stop the Copper Mine that is under most layouts
Signals, Sensors which rely on track power to detect the engines, turnout controls, house wiring etc - etc
And as for cleaning track - I have YET to need to clean my track since 2003 when I Metal Polished the track and with over 4000 feet of track this is something I was worried about
BUT !
I am still waiting on the need to have to reclean the track!
I am amazed at the number of Modelers that have so much track cleaning problems!
But I am thankful that my Cleaning Problems are over
So Battery power would be the last thing I ever would go to!
The rechargable Battery technology is NOT any where ready for things like this.
I can't keep the rechargable batteries in my FRS radios to last more than a year
And I know that the batteries we would end up using in our HO engines would be way more expensive that what is on the market now and Probably not last any longer
So why would one want keep spending money to constantly replace these batteries
While this does sound like a great idea NO TRACK POWER PROBLEMS - the Battery cost would be far more costly in keeping them recharged between sessions!
And there is NO Way I would have a bunch of them sitting around on a charger all of the time when I am not in the basement! With over 60 engines - that is a lot of power going to keep the batteries ready to goat a moments notice!
When I leave the Train Room - EVERYTHING is OFF!
While it is a great think piece - I believe the SUPER CAPACITOR has a lot more potential with the ability to recharge in minutes instead of hours. And there is no wearing out or taking a set as the current batteries do!
There is a Yahoo Group deticated to exploring this concept!
If they can get this thing figured out - Batteries as we know them today are a thing of the past!
Data packet collisions should be no more an issue than they are for any other wireless system. The radio units use all sorts of methods to transmit multiple conversations on the same frequency, plus the band they operate in actually uses a spread spectrum method so they really aren;t communication on one single frequency. This is proven technology that has been in use many years. Being able to use stock radio transmitters and receivers is something that is actually a great benefit - no matter how many model railroaders adopt such technology, it's a tiny blip compared to people using other WiFi devices. But if you can use those modules produced in the millions for model railroading, it keeps the costs down.
This is all great for controlling the locos. Now what about signals? You still will need some way to put a signal on the rails, and have the rails divided into sections so you can tell where each train is. THIS is the source of most of the wiring under a layout, as Bob says. DCC with no dignsl even on a really large layout? A bus or 4, running under and connected tot he rails with feeders. 4 bus runs, 5 sets of gaps, nothing more. Pretty simple wiring, far fewer gaps than any sort of DC control system. But now rather than a resolution of only 1/4 of the layout, you will need more gaps to break the rails up into reasonable size detection zones. Each detection zone needs a sensor, and gets connect to the main bus. And all feeders in a given detection zone not connect to that detection sub bus. Suddenly there are a LOT more gaps, and a LOT more wires. Direct radio to the loco is not going to change that. So unless direct radio can do more, or costs less than DCC, I don;t see a major switch, at least for anyone who plans to have operating signals.
rrinker I do have to laugh a little at accurate steam sounds - there are a few running steam locos around, if you model one of those, then you should be able to get accurate sounds off the actual loco - but even then they may not have their original whistles or bells. For others where there are no preserved examples, the best you might be able to do is the proper whistle and bell as even though the locos were logn ago scrapped,
That's one great advantage of modeling Colorado narrowgauge -- most of the sound files could be updated annually, if you wanted to go to the trouble. With few exceptions, there's at least a loco with the correct wheel arrangement and general class available to record from.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
The beauty of systems like the Tam Valey set-up - besides being able to use off-the-shelf decoders - is that they are also readily acceptable to battery power. I strongly believe that's the next step in the technological advancement.
i think there need for a central controller to avoid data collisions. you might be more interested in a phone app interface to a Digitrax system. I think it would be unnecessarily expensive to add wireless to each decoder rather than use the electrical connection the track provides.
DCC, like ethernet and many other methods of communications, sends that same information to all end points and each end points accept the information addressed to it. The endpoints then wait to be told when they can transmitt or there is some form of collision detection and retransmission such as in Ethernet.
The thing is, even the Tam Valley system is proprietary on the handheld to radio receiver side. What he did was design his radio receiver to just output NMRA DCC signals so you just attach it to any decoder. The NWSL S-Cab seems to do the same but requires a decoder modifications, you CAN use whatever decoder you want but it's s special order modification.
I do have to laugh a little at accurate steam sounds - there are a few running steam locos around, if you model one of those, then you should be able to get accurate sounds off the actual loco - but even then they may not have their original whistles or bells. For others where there are no preserved examples, the best you might be able to do is the proper whistle and bell as even though the locos were logn ago scrapped, someone may have the whistle off one and have it hooked up to oen of the runnign steam locos for a special occasion. The chuffs and so forth almost have to be generic because there jsut aren;t runnign examples of every potential loco. I'd rather modern recordings of close to same size working locos than some odl grainy recording of the actual thing. TCS has done great with the WOW Sound decoders, with proper load-based chuff control and drifting - sounds really good in every example I've heard so far.
I think Tam Valley is taking the right approach in that you can use any off-the-shelf DCC decoder. To create a proprietary system is really going to limit your marketability.
Cacole,
What is so 'accurate' about Ring Engineering's steam sound file? The Mantua Pacific is a model of a B&O P-7 'President' class 4-6-2. I doubt if anyone has good recordings of one to build a correct sound file! I have heard the GE FDL sound file from Ring, and it sounds good. What steam sounds are available at this time?
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
To add to Randy's comments about the Ring Engineering RailPro system, I have installed it onto a Mantua 4-6-2 Pacific steam locomotive and run it on a DCC powered layout. You do not need Ring Engineerings's DC power supply if your layout is already DCC.
Ring's sound files for the Pacific are much more accurate than those provided by some of the DCC sound decoder manufacturers.
I can run my Pacific on the club's DCC layout with direct radio control of the locomotive and no problems at all with any interference between it and NCE radio throttles. The only drawback to their system is that only their receivers/decoders can be used, and they are slightly larger than a DCC decoder.
There are a couple of systems out there for this right now. None are strictly compatible with DCC, or with each other.
Ring Engineering's uses their own receviers in the loco, and DC on the rails.
NWSL's S-Cab system uses DCC decoders witht he radio receiver, but requires either the decoders they offer or conversion to work with their system. They can use any power source on the rails and use batteries for power, with recharging when there is track power. You can run both regular DCC locos and S-Cab locos at the same time as DCC to the tracks is fin for a power source.
The one from Tam Valley will work with any existing DCC decoder in the loco. It also works with existing DCC locos.