Sheldon,
First, I should explain that I did work the steam excusion business and now work as a BNSF engineer, so my view is colored by 1:1 steam and diesel lovomotive operation. As a model railroader, I think about some of the challenges and joys of 1:1 railroading that have not yet been scaled down for model railroading. In addition, Bill Darnaby made a wonderful description of a train order meet with steam locomotives (Model Railroad Planning 1995, pg. 58). "You can actually hear the engineer bringing his train under control as it approaches the west end of Avoca siding." This engineer must be prepared to stop since his train has no authority past the west end of Avoca until the opposing train is in the clear. If the engineer simply comes to a stop, then time and momentum will be lost. If the engineer comes in too hot, he will end up like Casey Jones going through the back of the opposing train if it is not in the clear. The trick is to set some air and keep working steam to keep the train stretched. If the opposing train is not in the clear, the throttle can be closed and more air set to bring the train to a quick stop. If the way is clear, the brakes are released and the throttle opened to get back up to speed. There is a lot of satisfaction in being able to accomplish this, and more drama than simply turning the knob or pushing the button to make the train stop on a dime and give you nine cents change.
And I do not blame anyone for not liking DCC sound. Sound systems are not yet able to "lip-sync" the dramatic action of an Avoca style meet.
Meanwhile, I do enjoy the two-button throttle on the radio remote that controls my Athearn HO Challenger. I have the hot lead to the main circuit board routed through a jack so that a battery car can be plugged in. On battery power, performance is flawless and "good enough" until something better comes along.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Rick, at the end of the day our models are powered by electric motors and our wheels don't have any brake shoes being applied to them. So, from where I sit, slowing is reducing the power to the motor, speeding up is increasing the power to the motor - no mater how it is accomplished. As you might remember from previous conversations, I am a DC operator. I use Aristo Train Engineer wireless radio throttles. I feel that the push button operation of a throttle is more realistic than a "speed knob". And, with the Aristo throttle, even at the lowest momentum setting which Aristo considers "none", there is a "ramp up" and "ramp down" time to all throttle setting changes. In my view, this provides for very realistic locomotive movement and behavior, without the added complexity of extra knobs, levers or settings on the part of the operator. I did not always feel that way, in fact I played with the Aristo throttle quite a bit before committing to them for the layout. While a limited few modelers may want to sit in a chair with what simulates a control stand, most do not. Most people in the hobby today seem very tuned in to the walk around idea, and most seem to prefer simple over complex. In fact much of the resistance to current DCC systems is the overly complex nature of many of the user interfaces currently offered - like the 32 button, two knob, no off switch?, Digitrax throttle. For me operation is about a lot more than just operating the loco - it is about operating a small section of a whole railroad - so even with a crew of people, simplified operation of both the trains and things like CTC, makes operation easy and fun, but still very realistic to the viewer and to the operator - at least in my view. So please explain exactly what is is you want someone to develop? It would require new user interface equipment (throttles) and that would be expensive, especially for what is likely a limited market. I'm not switching to DCC in any case, especially since I have no interest in sound. If direct radio ever becomes "stable" enough with small enough receivers I would consider it. But the nature and quality of the user interfaces would be very important. Sheldon
Rick, at the end of the day our models are powered by electric motors and our wheels don't have any brake shoes being applied to them.
So, from where I sit, slowing is reducing the power to the motor, speeding up is increasing the power to the motor - no mater how it is accomplished.
As you might remember from previous conversations, I am a DC operator. I use Aristo Train Engineer wireless radio throttles. I feel that the push button operation of a throttle is more realistic than a "speed knob". And, with the Aristo throttle, even at the lowest momentum setting which Aristo considers "none", there is a "ramp up" and "ramp down" time to all throttle setting changes.
In my view, this provides for very realistic locomotive movement and behavior, without the added complexity of extra knobs, levers or settings on the part of the operator. I did not always feel that way, in fact I played with the Aristo throttle quite a bit before committing to them for the layout.
While a limited few modelers may want to sit in a chair with what simulates a control stand, most do not.
Most people in the hobby today seem very tuned in to the walk around idea, and most seem to prefer simple over complex. In fact much of the resistance to current DCC systems is the overly complex nature of many of the user interfaces currently offered - like the 32 button, two knob, no off switch?, Digitrax throttle.
For me operation is about a lot more than just operating the loco - it is about operating a small section of a whole railroad - so even with a crew of people, simplified operation of both the trains and things like CTC, makes operation easy and fun, but still very realistic to the viewer and to the operator - at least in my view.
So please explain exactly what is is you want someone to develop? It would require new user interface equipment (throttles) and that would be expensive, especially for what is likely a limited market.
I'm not switching to DCC in any case, especially since I have no interest in sound. If direct radio ever becomes "stable" enough with small enough receivers I would consider it. But the nature and quality of the user interfaces would be very important.
Sheldon
Rick Mugele The technical improvement of the Blunt circuits was that the brake functions did not cut out the throttle control like the TAT circuits do. This allowed the throttle to be partly "open" when the train brakes were applied. While this was the best practice to control slack action in the days of steam and the caboose, there does not seem to be much interest in "stretch braking" simulation for model railroading. DCC decoders do not provide for working the throttle against brake simulation. Again, we might wonder why Linn Westcott ran so far with the idea of perfecting model railroad control... and then just stopped. And why does this not interest DCC decoder designers? In discussions of the great "Who's Who" in model railroading, we might wonder about how far the innovators can go. Can we keep up?
The technical improvement of the Blunt circuits was that the brake functions did not cut out the throttle control like the TAT circuits do. This allowed the throttle to be partly "open" when the train brakes were applied. While this was the best practice to control slack action in the days of steam and the caboose, there does not seem to be much interest in "stretch braking" simulation for model railroading. DCC decoders do not provide for working the throttle against brake simulation. Again, we might wonder why Linn Westcott ran so far with the idea of perfecting model railroad control... and then just stopped. And why does this not interest DCC decoder designers? In discussions of the great "Who's Who" in model railroading, we might wonder about how far the innovators can go. Can we keep up?
Actually, Steve Hatch (Railway Engineering) has worked with the Tsunami decoders to tweak the CVs to get a push button brake (I believe with Digitrax throttles) simulation. Details were recorded a while back in the HOn3 Yahoo group.
As far as realistic simulations of braking action on grades - at the most basic, a controllable brake system is needed in the caboose. This would be possible in DCC with a decoder controlling the addition of friction to the caboose's rolling. The practical limitations would be weighting the caboose sufficiently so the wheels just didn't slide when the brakes were applied, yet keeping the caboose light enough to avoid stringlining issues.
Free-wheeling engine drives would be the next step, and very dangerous in more normal model railroad operations. I had a Lionel spur gear drive steamer that would free-wheel down a 5% grade if there were enough free-rolling cars behind it. The lack of control - shut the power off and the train keeps going downgrade - is most disconcerting. And it leads to floor diving if the grade ends with a curve close to the edge of the table.
my thoughts
Fred W
Linn Westcott did much work to perfect smooth realistic control of analog DC locomotives. Early on, Westcott was working to perfect the constant speed performance that is now achieved with BEMF in DCC decoders. While working on this problem, "It was Paul Larson who suggested he would rather have the train slow when going uphill so the operator is forced to give it more throttle as on an actual railroad. Likewise, when coming down one should be forced to use the brake to prevent excess speed." (MR, Feb.1962, page 62) Linn did provide load adjustments to allow for this sort of action with the True Action Throttle (TAT). Later, MR did a diffinative presentation of realistic control and simulation of train "Airbrake Valve Action" (MR, Aug. 1968). This included Dennis Blunt's plans for a half size brake stand, with circuits to simulate the action of the train brake valve and the independent engine brake valve. This was a great presentation which raised the bar for realistic model railroad operation. Oddly, seven months later Linn published plans for the TAT IV which did not include the Dennis Blunt brake action. This presentation was much more subdued than "Airbrake Valve Action" and we might wonder what became of the enthusiasm for this "brake through" in realistic control.