If you follow any of the Dead Rail forums, most guys are claiming an average run time between 1-1/2 and 2 hours on a full charge.
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
RRR_BethBr One of my particular interests in the time I was away from the MR hobby has been RC flight - a hobby that has been entirely transformed in the last 15 years by (primarily) lithium batteries, brushless electric motors, and spread-spectrum radio technology. I'm curious; is model railroading taking notice? Is there a(ny) movement towards battery-powered, radio controlled trains in popular indoor sizes (HO, in particular)? I'm imagining a layout that needs no track wiring, no reversing circuitry, no hunting down shorts and wiring faults underneath the benchwork and scenery. I haven't started the conversion to DCC yet, and I'm of half a mind not to bother. The potential for R/C just seems... better. Am I alone in this thinking?
One of my particular interests in the time I was away from the MR hobby has been RC flight - a hobby that has been entirely transformed in the last 15 years by (primarily) lithium batteries, brushless electric motors, and spread-spectrum radio technology.
I'm curious; is model railroading taking notice? Is there a(ny) movement towards battery-powered, radio controlled trains in popular indoor sizes (HO, in particular)?
I'm imagining a layout that needs no track wiring, no reversing circuitry, no hunting down shorts and wiring faults underneath the benchwork and scenery.
I haven't started the conversion to DCC yet, and I'm of half a mind not to bother. The potential for R/C just seems... better. Am I alone in this thinking?
Right now I'm not on board with the idea. Last time it was discussed a few months ago, it was apparent that the cost per engine was well, cost-prohibitive, if you had more than a small collection of engines. I think I recall it was in the neighborhood of $60 per engine so if you have a large collection of say over 100 engines, and actually many people do, then 6 grand (per 100) is the kind of money most of us simply can't manage to afford, even over a couple years, to convert to "dead rail" operation. Sure, it's not cheap to convert a fleet of 100 engines over to DCC either but if one bought in bulk, it would be about 1/3rd the cost or roughly $2000 - that could be managed by many much easier over a couple years time. So basically a major difference cost difference for many, enough to easily be a deal breaker - unless you are one of the few where money is no object. Then by all means...
I have to comment on the "dead rail" moniker in the title as others have. It sure seems logical to have live rail so that the system can allow loco's to charge batteries from the rail than have to pull them off and plug them into some power station some where when the batteries are discharged. Of course, then that begs the question as to why not stick with DCC and use a keep alive circuit so engines can easily cross dead spots and never loose power. Keep alive is, from what I read, still less costly per engine that "dead rail" radio control batter operated engines.
There does sound like there could be potential for battery operation with radio control in the future when the techology progesses to the point it is more economical for folks with sizable fleets of engines. For those with small collection, it's probably more affordable even now. Will it see wide spread use like DCC is? Maybe, but probably not for some years.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 I have to comment on the "dead rail" moniker in the title as others have. It sure seems logical to have live rail so that the system can allow loco's to charge batteries from the rail than have to pull them off and plug them into some power station some where when the batteries are discharged. Of course, then that begs the question as to why not stick with DCC and use a keep alive circuit so engines can easily cross dead spots and never loose power. Keep alive is, from what I read, still less costly per engine that "dead rail" radio control batter operated engines. There does sound like there could be potential for battery operation with radio control in the future when the techology progesses to the point it is more economical for folks with sizable fleets of engines. For those with small collection, it's probably more affordable even now. Will it see wide spread use like DCC is? Maybe, but probably not for some years.
Good point. It seems to me that the advantage of dead rail is that reverse loops and wyes can be unpowered, and threfore not wired. Less complexity. But to take locos off of the layout in order to charge them, multiple times a week perhaps, than simply taking the time to wire a reverse loop or wye correctly would cost a lot of time in the long run. To devote power to an isolated charging track would be more complex, since the operator would have to find a way to rotate the locos on and off that track. It would be easier to have the whole layout powered, except for the complex parts. As someone said above, it seems like we are just moving the complexity of what we do from place to place.
As for your second point, I have a simple layout with a small collection of locos. Athough it would be less costly for me to convert to dead rail, I have no interest in it. My layout runs fine now, and if I have to relocate, I'll build the same basic layout. Since I already use wireless DC and DCC, I don't need to change-up what wirelsess device I use...like going from a wireless throttle to a smart phone. No advantage for me.
Also, since tech companies love to make thier phones obsolete every so often, when I have to buy a new smartphone just to make a phone call, will I have to redownload my layout app too?
Perhaps I'm too ignorant, but how often would my current layout app become obsolete? Would it always be able to run on my current phone or will I have to "upgrade " the app every so often?
I like the idea of my wireless throttle being a layout-only tool.
But people like to dabble or are downright fascinated with technology, so the experience of conversion to different systems may be enjoyable for them. And kids want to do everything via smart phones, so advancing the technology is certainly a beneficial thing for Bachmann and others to try.
As a person who is not the least bit interested in technology, as being strictly an end user of it, I did not add DCC until DCC offered onboard sound...a completely different and new feature that DC could not competently (IMO) execute.
If dead rail or battery power can offer a NEW FEATURE that DC or DCC cannot, then I might be interested.
- Douglas
DigitalGriffin The power density just isn't there for any realistic run time. Even if you took out all the chasis weight and replaced it with lithium you wouldn't have a realistic run time. 14 Watts is a lot for an little battery to supply over a long time. Sorry just the way it is.
The power density just isn't there for any realistic run time. Even if you took out all the chasis weight and replaced it with lithium you wouldn't have a realistic run time. 14 Watts is a lot for an little battery to supply over a long time.
Sorry just the way it is.
Doughless riogrande5761 I have to comment on the "dead rail" moniker in the title as others have. It sure seems logical to have live rail so that the system can allow loco's to charge batteries from the rail than have to pull them off and plug them into some power station some where when the batteries are discharged. Of course, then that begs the question as to why not stick with DCC and use a keep alive circuit so engines can easily cross dead spots and never loose power. Keep alive is, from what I read, still less costly per engine that "dead rail" radio control batter operated engines. There does sound like there could be potential for battery operation with radio control in the future when the techology progesses to the point it is more economical for folks with sizable fleets of engines. For those with small collection, it's probably more affordable even now. Will it see wide spread use like DCC is? Maybe, but probably not for some years. Good point. It seems to me that the advantage of dead rail is that reverse loops and wyes can be unpowered, and threfore not wired. Less complexity. But to take locos off of the layout in order to charge them, multiple times a week perhaps, than simply taking the time to wire a reverse loop or wye correctly would save a lot of time in the long run. To devote power to an isolated charging track would be more complex, since the operator would have to find a way to rotate the locos on and off that track. It would be easier to have the whole layout powered, except for the complex parts. As someone said above, it seems like we are just moving the complexity of what we do from place to place. As for your second point, I have a simple layout with a small collection of locos. Athough it would be less costly for me to convert to dead rail, I have no interest in it. My layout runs fine now, and if I have to relocate, I'll build the same basic layout. Since I already use wireless DC and DCC, I don't need to change-up what wirelsess device I use...like going from a wireless throttle to a smart phone. No advantage for me. Also, since tech companies love to make thier phones obsolete every so often, when I have to buy a new smartphone just to make a phone call, will I have to redownload my layout app too? Perhaps I'm too ignorant, but how often would my current layout app become obsolete? Would it always be able to run on my current phone or will I have to "upgrade " the app every so often? I like the idea of my wireless throttle being a layout-only tool. But people like to dabble or are downright fascinated with technology, so the experience of conversion to different systems may be enjoyable for them. And kids want to do everything via smart phones, so advancing the technology is certainly a beneficial thing for Bachmann and others to try. As a person who is not the least bit interested in technology, as being strictly an end user of it, I did not add DCC until DCC offered onboard sound...a completely different and new feature that DC could not competently (IMO) execute. If dead rail or battery power can offer a NEW FEATURE that DC or DCC cannot, then I might be interested.
Good point. It seems to me that the advantage of dead rail is that reverse loops and wyes can be unpowered, and threfore not wired. Less complexity. But to take locos off of the layout in order to charge them, multiple times a week perhaps, than simply taking the time to wire a reverse loop or wye correctly would save a lot of time in the long run. To devote power to an isolated charging track would be more complex, since the operator would have to find a way to rotate the locos on and off that track. It would be easier to have the whole layout powered, except for the complex parts. As someone said above, it seems like we are just moving the complexity of what we do from place to place.
Doughless Good point. It seems to me that the advantage of dead rail is that reverse loops and wyes can be unpowered, and threfore not wired. Less complexity. Also, since tech companies love to make thier phones obsolete every so often, when I have to buy a new smartphone just to make a phone call, will I have to redownload my layout app too?
Good point. It seems to me that the advantage of dead rail is that reverse loops and wyes can be unpowered, and threfore not wired. Less complexity.
Firstly, if folks are averse to complex wiring, you can still have live rail to charge loco's with battery packs, but just dead rail the reverse loops which give some fits and have power to the easy to wire mainline sections, that way trains can get power over much of the layout, enough to keep batteries charged. I suppose it doesn't have to be all dead or all live, in a battery operated engine environment.
As far as the smart phone upgrade merry go round, thats seems to be driven by the whole mindset of "You gotta" or "I gotta" have the newest shiniest highteck phone with all the latest bells and whistles - the charge led by Apple and Android to feed their huge billion dollar money making machine. No one has a gun to our heads - we can get a smart phone and use is for more than one or two years, more like double that and be fine.
As an aside, I saw a BBC interview with one of the migrant's from Siria or one of those area's, a man in his late 20's or early 30's who had landed in Sweden and was talking about what he stated to be the "typical" migrants aspirations - which consisted getting a nice apartment, luxury car like a BMW or Mercedes and an the latest Apple Iphone. I was like, you come from a war-torn 3rd world existance, and you've bought into the American materalistic high status mentality! It made me shake my head and feel very sad that this is what "it all" boils down to now. You get those 3 or 4 things - thats the end game and then you've "arrived". Heck, I've lived most of my life happy to just have a reliable used car, a decent place to live in a safe neighborhood and I only recently got an inexpensive smart phone recently because I could save money using wifi connections much of the time. Yet these people come from violent, war-torn third world back grounds and thats what they have to achieve to be happy. *sigh*
Apologies about the rant but this whole I gotta get the latest smart phone every year or two seems to be something certain companies have rather successfully brainwashed a large part of the population and bilking even poor people into a mentality that they all have to have these very expensive "precious" gadgets to stroke and many really can't afford but give lots of money away willingly just to have their head bend down at every spare moment. Different world, thats for sure. I asked one co-worker in my IT department how much he spent a month on his smart phones (for himself, his wife and one child) and it was $250 a month!!! My wife and I were paying Verizon ~$80/month with two dumb cell phones and now that we have inexpensive smart phones with a pay-as-you-go plan, we probably spend less than half that, around $30/mo. since we can use Viber and Skype to call with Wifi service at work and home.
I hear you. I have Meto PCS (T-Mobile) and have 4 phones with unlimited everything, $100 a month for the 4 and no added charges and a promise from the CEO that he will not raise rates as long as he is boss, all 4 are smart phones and cost less than $75 each. I have matched bar for bar on a long road trip with Verizon on an Apple (my sisters phone who was with us), same everything!
rrebell I hear you. I have Meto PCS (T-Mobile) and have 4 phones with unlimited everything, $100 a month for the 4 and no added charges and a promise from the CEO that he will not raise rates as long as he is boss, all 4 are smart phones and cost less than $75 each. I have matched bar for bar on a long road trip with Verizon on an Apple (my sisters phone who was with us), same everything!
rrebell, thats pretty good for 4 smart phones unlimited really. I would like to have an unlimited but I don't really need it right now - we don't burn much minutes on the cell towers at all, and can use the wifi connections for calls from work or home. I have a daughter in a private college (for 2 more years) eating 43% of my take home pay (I didn't have money set aside for her college), so when my wife added her son to our insurance we had to find ways of cutting monthly costs to help off-set some of it. We went to T-mobile which has a, get this, $3/mo pay-as-you-go for 10 minutes or 10 texts, then you pay 10 cents when you go over, which we surely do, especially my wife for her work. But even with that we spend maybe $30/mo now vs. $80 before and only really need to use the internet on wifi at home or at work for services which require it like skype or viber, or occasionally something else. I think if we both needed unlimited talk/text, we could get it for well under what I was giving Verizon before I finally cut their service.
I'm glad this topic has generated so much interest and discussion! My original post was purposfully broad. as I didn't want to restrict the scope right off the bat.
My perspective is as someone re-joining the hobby, who has not made a substantial investment in any of the current control technologies (eg: DCC or proprietary alternatives), but with a modest collection of 'legacy' DC HO equipment.
The interest, for me, is in running a train like a real railroad would. To that end, DC block power always seemed 'wrong'. DCC is a lot better in concept, but the sensitivity to wiring issues and reversing/shorts is a distraction, and the control signal is still running through the tracks, which means the whole layout must still be powered.
Radio control opens up the possibility of de-powering areas that provide complex wiring issues, though I rather like the idea of keeping power in some areas as a charging curcuit - if done properly, you could provide nearly unlimited run time with very modest battery capacity. A heavy 'keep alive' if you will, and with the control signal divorced from the rails, the unpowered sections wouldn't provide an operational problem.
I think it is true for most of us that we want to run model trains like a real railroad would. I expect some of our "DC camp" folks might beg to differ that they can't run model trains like real trains - you "poked the bear" there!
But personally I agree with you about DC blocks - from a long time ago, I didn't like the idea of having to control trains through power blocks which is what attracted me to DCC, as well as many others too I'm sure. And of course we can run DCC wirelessly now which gives a pretty complete feature experience - especially if you add other features like sound, turnout control etc.
I agree, issues like sensitivity, power loss, shorts etc. are definitely something we would all like to be without so there is an advantage to total wireless and removing dependancy for signal and 100% power from the rail. Keep alive goes a long way toward dealing with the worst issue, temporary power loss at a modest cost. Of course the deal breaker for many, especially those with limited budget and large rosters is cost - period. Many of us simply can only look and say, "thats nice" and look at the moths fly out of our wallets and just say "some day". In the mean time we work with the best we can afford.
This has been an interesting topic to follow.
It may be three or four years before I can build a layout, and even then, it will be a small switching layout. My thought has been to wire it for conventional DC, maybe use toggles to be able use DCC. I am still not sold on DCC, even though I have several decoder equipped locos and a full DCC system.
I am sure that battery powered systems will become common in HO. Not sure that I will want to make the switch; as I really don't want to invest in another different technology when the existing stuff works just fine.
I'm also enough of a techophobe that I will never run trains with a phone. As I tell my kids and my wife; a phone is a phone is a phone, I will use it to communicate with them, and that's it. If you whippersnappers want to watch movies, surf the web, etc., go ahead. Get off my lawn....
riogrande5761I think it is true for most of us that we want to run model trains like a real railroad would. I expect some of our "DC camp" folks might beg to differ that they can't run model trains like real trains - you "poked the bear" there! But personally I agree with you about DC blocks
But personally I agree with you about DC blocks
I don't mean to denigrate those who choose to stay with DC; after all, it's all I've ever used to power my trains too. But, for realism in operations (sound, fine speed control, lighting functions, independent and consist control of multiple locos, etc) it's hard to argue it's the best option out there, even now.
I'm not convinced a touchscreen is the best way to control trains, but in a lot of other ways the new BlueTrains/Bachmann EZ App bluetooth system looks almost exactly like what I'm wishing for. Direct command control to the loco, independent of track power (DC/DCC/battery). Potentially all the functionality of DCC, plus more due to the increased bandwidth of BT 4/LE. Really interested to see where that goes.
I won't have a layout for another couple years either, enough time to see if the BT option goes anywhere, I suspect.
riogrande5761 As far as the smart phone upgrade merry go round, thats seems to be driven by the whole mindset of "You gotta" or "I gotta" have the newest shiniest highteck phone with all the latest bells and whistles - the charge led by Apple and Android to feed their huge billion dollar money making machine. No one has a gun to our heads - we can get a smart phone and use is for more than one or two years, more like double that and be fine.
Yeah, I'm not trying to make a statement with my comments, I really just wonder that if my throttle is tied to my smartphone, what happens when I change smartphones for other purposes? Would the layout app move to the new phone seemlessly? Is the changeover simple or is there an abundance of fiddling just to get back to the point I was?
And what if the smartphones move beyond the tech of the layout app, like a new computer being unable to run an older version of excel etc...
As it seems now, there are a lot of risks with tying my layout throttle to a device that I use in every day life. For me, there has to be a clear advantage for it to be a deal maker.
I am not personally vested emotionally in DC but there are a lot of folks here who are - even to the point of having a DC only thread and yes, many argue vehemently about each side and have their reasons. I just mention it because there are those who would "argue it's the best option out there" for them. I know you feel strongly and have reasons for making the rather definite statements, but well, nuff said... I'm more of a spectator when it comes to the padded room arguments between the DC/DCC crowd but it can get pretty passionate! =D
I'm not convinced a touchscreen is the best way to control trains...
I definitely do not prefer touch screens for control - for me I like the tactile feedback or feel of a mechanical knob for controlling train speed at least. Even though Digitrax is can be more techie and some say harder to work than NCE, I still wanted controllers with displays and regular rotary knobs so thats what I bought over 15 years ago. Since then I have had opportunities to get my hands on the NCE controller and the thumbwheel is pretty good too. Main point being, knobs and buttons are to me just superior for controlling things.
DoughlessYeah, I'm not trying to make a statement with my comments, I really just wonder that if my throttle is tied to my smartphone, what happens when I change smartphones for other purposes? Would the layout app move to the new phone seemlessly?
No worries, it's all good! It just seemed like a good chance to have a "world has gone to heck in a handbasket" speech! =P Good point about changing smart phones. I would hazard as long as you change to a same O/S smart phone, you could probably use the same app - e.g. if you are uing IOS or Android or Windows 8, if you stay with the same OS on the new phone, probably you can reload the app and keep going. But versions sometimes come into play just like on computers etc.
Basicaly if you go for DCC ready, you can go DC, DCC or the new stuff (not new realy, just getting to the plug-n-play point though). Second if there is demand, there will be a stand alone throttle for the system by Bachmann but their object was to get people into it as cheap as possible. Last note Bachmann seems to go non priority on a lot of stuff, that is why the other company is not restricked from selling decoders.
I'm a newbe and yet to get my first "engine". Wow, a lot of great comments here. Kinda reminds me of film cameras going digital. So should my first "engine" be a rail inspection truck with flashing lights that I can drive off rail too?
Interesting The NMRA does not seem to have weighed in on this issue.
My perpective is that now having several locomotives and an NCE powercab it is unlikely that I am going to change to dead rail anytime soon. Even if I did it would not be until standards are drawn up for wireless control.
As for smartphones I have no problem with downloading an app and using it as a throttle. Even if the phone I am using becomes obsolete I can still use it as a standalone thottle. It need not be a functioning phone anymore.
Joe Staten Island West
Cvp makes a battery board based on thier large scale version. It.is designed for live rail charging. So all.the switches and complicated track can be dead. While the rest can be live. Makes it usefully battery saver on grades. Drawing off track power.
The battery wireles. Isn't new. Been a large scale thing for years. Cvp finally.figured out how to package it for smaller scales. Just like.they brough dcc cost down and flexibility with the rail coming in the early 90st
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
I have a Garden railroad that is totally dead rail using CVP. Wouldn't change a thing with it. I know they came out with a small wireless decoder for HO, battery would probably have to be put in a trailing car.
Cowjock
Didn't relise Cvp had entered the market. I see wireless becoming an add on to DCC as I have just seen the first DCC couplers come online at a reasonable price, about $8 a car for the kits.
http://www.cvpusa.com/airwire_micro_decoder.php
joe323Interesting The NMRA does not seem to have weighed in on this issue.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
Batteries have a limited number of charge/discharge cycles and their power density drops with age. The wall socket is always 120V.
Alan
Freelancing the LK&O Railroad
That may be but the money you save in wireing ect., it should be a wash. Big bonus of battery is no track cleaning or gaping to worry about.
cowjock,$89-$95 for the CVP decoder? Yikes. And they're .6" x 2.4" x .25"...twice as long as a $20 Digitrax DH126D decoder. What's the range? How long will they run between charges? They don't mention that.
DigitalGriffin,Actually, Bernard Lenz gave his DCC protocol to the NMRA. The NMRA now "owns" it, and has improved upon it several times over the last 25+ years. But otherwise, yep, it's a free and open standard that anyone can use for free.
Battery tech will have to do the same thing for wide acceptance...and come up with a sub-$20 solution for locos. Even DCC didn't take off after the NMRA got the spec.'s. It took the sub-$20 decoder to really launch DCC.
7j43kShould you choose NOT to use the rails to charge the battery--essentially dead rail, signal detection is very simple. You do it like the real railroads.
Yes, which is DC on the track. A wheel shorts the circuit and de-energizes a the relay in the relay cabinet....
https://www.google.com/search?q=railroad+track+circuit&biw=1438&bih=719&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5sLzExYjSAhXj5YMKHRXlDbYQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=_ZXf8BstT8d3jM:
So you are back to powering the track...which you needed to do before, except you just spent $80 per locomotive, to eliminate wiring and track cleaning, which you will need to do anyway if you want signals. This assumes you want to do it like the prototype. Optical detectors are a different story.
Unless you want Equipment Defect Detectors, which I believe are actually optical, both in model and prototype.
My point is there is more here than just train control. And like DC, DCC isnt going away. There is too large a customer base, and there are too many limitations to batterypowered radio/bluetooth. As was previously mentioned, there will not be a standard for this until someone makes one open to use by anyone (re:Lenz and their DCC protocol), so yes you are stuck with whichever one manufacturer you choose. I would need to see a price point of $30 per locomotive and a battery that lasts 3+ hrs and fits into a 44ton or Plymouth switcher (without an attached car) before I would even think about it. And even then I probably still would still not do it (re-batteries have a limited cyclic lifespan).
I asked Bachmann if I could consist their Blurail locomotive with my DCC locomotive. They said no. I informed them politely that their product is useless to me and would not be purchasing their Blurail offerings.
Surprisingly I don't think anyone in this thread has mentioned this yet, but the Tam Valley Depot has developed a clever method of dead rails. Basically you take your existing DCC system, and you plug in a wireless transmitter in parallel with the DCC signal that broadcasts the DCC signal through the air.
Then you take your DCC locomotive and install a wireless receiver that takes the airborne DCC signal and feeds it into the decoder. Power comes from a small battery that gets charged by the rails.
The nice thing is that you can ease yourself into it. If you have an existing DCC layout and locomotives, they will still function normally. You can gradually convert the locomotives one by one. Any new track you lay can be (mostly) dead rail. All you need is the occasional section of live rail to give the battery a boost and the train can run indefinitely.
The pre-built components are a little pricey but if you're willing to DIY the electronics, it shouldn't be too expensive. For a token $5 they sell the exact instructions that you need to assemble everything.
speedybee ... Any new track you lay can be (mostly) dead rail. All you need is the occasional section of live rail to give the battery a boost and the train can run indefinitely. ...
...
Any new track you lay can be (mostly) dead rail. All you need is the occasional section of live rail to give the battery a boost and the train can run indefinitely.
This sounds odd to me, or maybe just wishful thinking, or perhaps not very clear thinking.
What confounds so many of us is that our trains stutter, stall, stop, or the sound cuts out, or some other indication that power to the decoders is just that much too intermittent...no matter how we wire our rails. I know this isn't such a big deal in DC, but in DCC it's terrible, and it severely detracts from being able to enjoy the experience of playing with our trains. If it were not such a problem, why would we have this 'solution' thread proposing that we eliminate power to the rails entirely?
So, if continuity, or reliable pickup, or some other characterization of the problem IS the problem, and we need power to the rails to charge a 'buffer' of sorts, the battery, why would we try to eliminate feeding those rails...at all? It seems to me that the battery will need almost constant charging in order to keep up a healthy voltage, especially during demanding haulage, so it should be in contact with, and getting charge from, energized rails throughout the system. That is to say, most of the rails, not just a few selected ones here and there, should be offering the charging system some voltage to keep the battery as close to fully charged as possible. If the power goes out, I would want a fully charged battery so that I can play for maybe 20-30 minutes, not one that is down to half its capacity.
I am not in disagreement that we should rethink our approach to running trains. Something has to change to improve reliability if DCC is going to be the way for the foreseeable future. Unless we can include robust batteries that permit us to run trains for up to an hour at a time between charges, we need to charge constantly...not intermittently. Constant recharging means wiring our rails pretty much as we already do.
selectorWhat confounds so many of us is that our trains stutter, stall, stop, or the sound cuts out, or some other indication that power to the decoders is just that much too intermittent...no matter how we wire our rails. I know this isn't such a big deal in DC, but in DCC it's terrible, and it severely detracts from being able to enjoy the experience of playing with our trains. If it were not such a problem, why would we have this 'solution' thread proposing that we eliminate power to the rails entirely?
I have never had these problems. I followed best practices in wiring. For my club layout we have invested in CMX cleaning cars, running 70% isopropyl alcohol on a 1 drip every 10 second cleaning. The only loss of power occurs when someone derails and/or collides with another train. This is 99% of the time a user or manufacturing defect vice wiring problems. I will probably invest in one once my new layout is built.
Also if you never clean your track, but rely on short powered sections to charge your locomotives, your train will pick up dirt on the non-powered section and drag it into the powered section. So you need to clean track anyway. (Anecdotal evidence due to some people not cleaning their track on their modules, wheels get dirty, dirt moves around layout on wheels, gets deposited where it wasnt before).
Thing is, I DON'T have these sort of problems. And I don't own any of those fancy-schmacy track cleaning cars, either. Nor do any of my locos have a keep alive device attached, other than what may have come witht he decoder, which doesn't keep the motor going anyway. My goal is always to be able to run a loco slowly and not have the headlight flicker - an LED reacts even faster then the sound or motor drive. There is no smoking allowed in my house, which probably helps. My last layout was in a spare bedroom, so the environment was fairly clean to begine with, but the one before that was in an unfinished basement - open ceiling joists above and unfinished cement walls and floor, and still no problems keeping trains running without sound hiccups and jerky action.
What am I doing different? I do paint the rails to kill the shine on all but the top. The only time I use a track cleaner is after painting to clean any stray paint off the railhead. I keep loco wheels clean using paper towels and alcohol. I do not run so much as ONE car with plastic wheels, everything gets metal wheelsets before it ever sits on the rails. I use every rail joiner (except where an insulating one is needed) for feeders. I DON'T solder all rail joints, but I will solder two pieces of flex together, then have a non-soldered joint, then the next two pieces are soldered, etc.
So what's different? Why do so many people seem to have issues with stalling and hesitation? Is it just that people who don;t have problems don;t post about it, so we are really looking at a skewed result? I don;t think I do anything 'out there' in terms of wiring - never used common rail, even with DC, but otherwise pretty standard stuff. Is it a difference between DCC systems? I don;t have problems on the club layout and that lives for weeks or months between shows in unheated trailers. The only issue is with older modules that use connector track pieces, even when new joiners are justs, those short sections often have no power, but the actual track on one of the sections, not so much as a flicker although there they DO run a multi-car cleaning train with solvent and a couple of different wiper cars. Usually when they bring out the cleaning train, I haven't been having any issues with my trains, and I think the people that ARE having problmes are just running over those short connectoor tracks. Also no plastic wheels allowed on the club layout, either. In both cases (my home and club), the DCC is Digitrax. Does that make a difference? I really doubt it.
I really wish I could tell exactly what I do differently than someone with a lot of problems. Because if I had a way to fix it, I could pay for my hobby by implementing my methods for people, or maybe writing a book about it.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.