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.
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.
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.
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.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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]
[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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Chip,
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
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...)
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.
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.
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.