[rant]I've been watching DCC technology kinda sorta. I'm not a hardware engineer, but it seems that with the available technology that the DCC companies would figure out that computers would revolutionize what we can do with train control. DCC would be a must have. They would make lots of money providing all sorts of cool electronics.
But it seems like they've been doing everything to give us the best technology of the 1980's. I mean how long did it take us to get a USB interface from a single company. Computer control is still in the black box stage.[/rant]
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Chip,
Given that most MRR companies are small enterprises, I'm sure that the makers of DCC systems and components just don't have the extra revenue to invest in product development like we'd like for them to. And I'm sure they also stick with proven but older technology to keep the costs down; both for them and for us.
Unlike cell phones, small, niche markets don't necessarily encourage investor's willingness to take risks to raise capital for developing the "latest and greatest" technology - especially in our present economy situation. Hence, look at the pre-order stance that most locomotive manufacturers have taken lately.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Im already driving trains straight from the computer with JMRI and a Digitrax Loconet supported by a third party USB interface.
Plenty advanced for me. Keep in mind all things run on Binary. 8 bits. On and Off. and lots of them. You can say that the lamp on your ceiling is a one bit operation. lol.
1980's advanced tech means can motors, dual flywheels and all wheel pickup.
The next step will be a wireless antenna inside the locomotive instead of signal through the track.
The main problem is that when the NMRA DCC Working Group met to establish their DCC Standards and Recommended Practices, DCC was in its infancy so only the very rudimentary CVs were set as standards and RPs.
Sound decoders and all of the other gee-whiz DCC devices that are available today were not even dreamed of at the time, so every DCC manufacturer is left to their own devices to use whatever non-standardized CVs they want to use.
Over the years, different hardware interfaces such as the Sprog, PR-1, PR-2, NCE's USB Interface, etc. have been developed to fill a niche market, and JMRI has attempted to upgrade and improve Decoder Pro to work with most of these devices.
But as others have said, there isn't enough demand for the DCC manufacturers to risk their businesses investing in a very costly hardware or software development process that is likely to be a money loser.
Falls Valley RR wrote:The next step will be a wireless antenna inside the locomotive instead of signal through the track.
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.
SpaceMouse wrote: Falls Valley RR wrote:The next step will be a wireless antenna inside the locomotive instead of signal through the track.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.
When I first heard about DCC, I thought that's how it worked! Then I found out about the square wave signal in the track and thought WOW! That's dumb!! I showed it to an electronics engineer friend of mine and he said the same thing. With the new remote control technology out there I can't believe no one has done this yet.
As far as the computer automation goes, it's something I'm not really interested in. I'd rather spend the money on better locos and cars. I want to run trains, not computers. We talk about OP's layouts vs. Railfan layouts. If you take a perfectly good OP's layout and automate everything, aren't you just turning it into a Railfan layout??(food for thought...)
A completely software controlled solution is possible, but you will still need the hardware to 'amp up' the signals to go to the track. A H/W solution is usually faster(no massive overhead like a full blown OS). The current DCC systems like Digitrax and NCE do have a computer interface capability either by USB or a serial interface. There is available software to 'run' your railroad if that is the direction you want to go. Myself, I just use Decoder Pro to talk to my Digitrax system and do all of my decoder programming that way.
Much of the current DCC technology is based on cell phone tech, it is just communication of 'packets' of information. Locobuffer-USB is the 'interface of choice' between modern PC's and Digitrax Loconet. You can always buy a 'USB to serial' adapter to get to an older NCE system. I would suspect that any new systems might have USB as standard. Then again, a lot of folks are using older 'serial' interface computers of the 'train computer'....
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
loathar wrote: As far as the computer automation goes, it's something I'm not really interested in. I'd rather spend the money on better locos and cars. I want to run trains, not computers. We talk about OP's layouts vs. Railfan layouts. If you take a perfectly good OP's layout and automate everything, aren't you just turning it into a Railfan layout??(food for thought...)
There are uses for computer automation that don't interfere with operations. 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.
SpaceMouse wrote:There are uses for computer automation that don't interfere with operations.
That's how I see it as well. Having computer control does not, in my mind, mean that one is no longer running trains. I can see plenty of potential for using a computer with a layout without using it exclusively to run the trains. I certainly don't see the computer taking over my layout to the extent that I am no longer running trains. The idea of letting the computer handle behind the scenes staging while I do other things is interesting but I am not so sure I am ready to hand control over to the computer. The computer crashes enough on it's own, I don't think I want to give it a train to crash too!
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.
Sounds like you've got an idea there. Now its time to put your money where your mouth is. If you want it then spend the time, money and effort to develop, market and sell it. If you firmly believe that such an invention is needed then develop it. Be an entrepeneur, take the risks and reap the rewards.
SpaceMouse wrote: [rant]I've been watching DCC technology kinda sorta. I'm not a hardware engineer, but it seems that with the available technology that the DCC companies would figure out that computers would revolutionize what we can do with train control. DCC would be a must have. They would make lots of money providing all sorts of cool electronics.But it seems like they've been doing everything to give us the best technology of the 1980's. I mean how long did it take us to get a USB interface from a single company. Computer control is still in the black box stage.[/rant]
The technology, software and hardware, is available right now. There is hardware for interfacing with a computer, look at Dr. Chubb's C/MRI system and his new Sunset Valley Lines. Software is available to completely automate control, operations etc. The issue becomes cost. Consider needed to have block detection on every block, i/o devices to interface with the computer, the abiility to detect not just every locomotive, but possibly every car on the layout. The cost continues to grow until it becomes unrealistic for an individual to do completely.
jktrains wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Falls Valley RR wrote:The next step will be a wireless antenna inside the locomotive instead of signal through the track.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. Sounds like you've got an idea there. Now its time to put your money where your mouth is. If you want it then spend the time, money and effort to develop, market and sell it. If you firmly believe that such an invention is needed then develop it. Be an entrepreneur, take the risks and reap the rewards.
Sounds like you've got an idea there. Now its time to put your money where your mouth is. If you want it then spend the time, money and effort to develop, market and sell it. If you firmly believe that such an invention is needed then develop it. Be an entrepreneur, take the risks and reap the rewards.
I've been an entrepreneur all my life. I've owned more companies that I've held jobs. But alas I can only do one or two at at time. Yes, I believe this one will make money, but for someone already with the facilities and market connections. I'm pretty well established where I am and it makes no sense to change now.
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.
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.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
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
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
Or they could be rechargeable batteries that get juiced by plugging in your track.
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?
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.
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
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************
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.
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************
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.
SpaceMouse,Is such a receiver going to be accurate to within 0.5"? Through walls, tunnels, and multiple levels?
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************