Just Wanna Play .... My concern remains how to charge lithium batteries without setting fire to them.
.... My concern remains how to charge lithium batteries without setting fire to them.
LOL a tour thru a dead rail loco facility....
ya got your sand, water, coal, ash pit, and USB C charging port.
PMR
PS: and solar panels on the roof of coaling tower and roundhouse.
PM RailfanLOL a tour thru a dead rail loco facility.... ya got your sand, water, coal, ash pit, and USB C charging port.
Hello All,
Just Wanna PlayThat diesel I ordered off eBay turned out to be a fraud. No circuit board, either E-Z App or DCC. Just a plain ol' analog engine with a missing coupler and two broken drive trains. I'm returning it, with prejudice.
ARRRGGG!!!
With this emerging technology I doubt that there are many reputable items available on the used market- -as you have unfortunately experienced firsthand.
I just checked out the Bachmann website...
Parts, Service & Information > Order Parts > E-Z App Boards
Bachmann lists three E-Z App boards for purchase:
My presumption is the difference in the E-Z App decoders is the sound files, other than the obvious one installed in the steam tender.
Having no experience with this technology I can't presume how to wire these boards.
Despite your experience with the Bachmann Forums, I have had great luck with their customer service and repair department.
I'm sure they could walk you through an installation into a "DCC Ready" (motor isolated) locomotive.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
I purchased and installed the FT/F7 board. Put it in a Hornby Network Southwest locomotive. Once I figured out the contacts on the circuit board installation was straightforward. Two contacts for track power, two contacts for the motor. Successful on the first try.
Biggest issue was just finding space for the board. It is long. I had to cut away some interior detail to make space.
My experiments with E-Z App to date have been encouraging. Very little in the way of puzzling and frustrating techno-obstiance. Simple operation controlled by simple and intuitive commands. No programming!
Now if only Bachmann could offer some smaller circuit boards.
I've become discouraged about the future of Bachmann's EZ-App. Not that there is anything wrong with the iPhone app, but there doesn't seem to be any follow-on to Bachmann's hardware.
Bachmann offers three boards as 'spare parts' on their website. But I'm not seeing any indication that E-Z App is gaining a market. It seems to be a marketing failure and Bachmann isn't inclined to pursue it further.
Given that, I am getting serious about the alternative system being developed and promoted by Hornby -- their HM7000 system. Hornby seems to be promoting HM7000 much more actively. I have just pre-ordered 6 of their R7321 decoder boards, which are anticipated to be available "summer 2024".
The R7321 boards have a 6-pin disconnect. Not designed for a soundboard, which suits me just fine. List price is 31.99 Pounds Sterling, which is currently equivalent to US$38.86. That is the least expensive Bluetooth hardware I've found to date.
Yeah, I'm going to have to wait on this. But my layout has been out of action for a whole bunch of years now, so I guess I can wait a little longer.
Sad about the Bachmann system though. They got so many things right in their designs. Maybe it will gain traction eventually. But I'm now betting Hornby will get there first.
I don't think you can say they "failed" at something that they didn't try to do. As far as I can tell, Bachmann has never tried to sell the E-Z Ap as a system. I don't recall ever seeing an ad for them trying to get people to buy E-Z Ap decoders to install in their non-Bachmann engines for example. They offer some engines with the E-Z Ap, engines mostly aimed at beginners as a way to encourage them to buy Bachmann products.
As explained before, the future market for a "new" control system is almost zero.
The advent of DCC with sound and high quality RTR models has brought a new type of modeler to the hobby who is often not very inclined to install decoders, build rolling stock kits, etc.
This group likes plug and play and it has been delivered. And as a group they don't seem to be having much trouble navigating the world of DCC.
And again, by all accounts 35-45% of modelers are still using DC - some with advanced systems while others feel no need for DCC because they have adapted a small, simple view of the hobby. For example self type switching layouts with only one loco moving at a time.
"simple" to use is different for everyone. My Advanced DC Progressive Cab Control is simple to use, but requires lot of detailed planning and construction for each layout - not simple for many people.
Best of luck.
Sheldon
I see DCC systems as reminiscent of IBM Personal Computers pre-Windows. Does anyone remember MS-DOS? PC folks were fully wrapped up in it, wishing for nothing better until Apple came along and introduced a graphical user interface. Even then it took most of a decade before IBM/Microsoft caved and introduced their own graphical interface, Windows.
Pardon my deja vu. DCC is 1990's technology. Here, 30 years on, it is time for an update.
A graphics interface is a necessity for today's computers and the internet. A necessity for operating your trains & layout? Nope - not even close; nor a fair comparison.
While some folks may like using sliders and screens, I like to keep it simple with my DCC throttle and tactile buttons. I can generally operate one-handed speed, direction, horn, bell, headlight, and emergency stop - all w/o needing to look at my simple two-line LCD screen. I couldn't do that with a phone-based interface; nor would I want to.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Just Wanna Play I see DCC systems as reminiscent of IBM Personal Computers pre-Windows. Does anyone remember MS-DOS? PC folks were fully wrapped up in it, wishing for nothing better until Apple came along and introduced a graphical user interface. Even then it took most of a decade before IBM/Microsoft caved and introduced their own graphical interface, Windows. Pardon my deja vu. DCC is 1990's technology. Here, 30 years on, it is time for an update.
DCC is a communications standard. A graphical interface has nothing to do with the DCC standard. It in no way defines what the user interface should look like.
If a DCC manufacturer decides to spend the money on software and hardware to create a GUI and display for their system, it is up to them to do so. A number of the European brands already do.
There is also software available to configure decoders which runs on your computer with a GUI. All it has to do is connect via the throttle network to your DCC system. Unfortunately, it must also speak the language of the throttle network, as the DCC Standard does not define the throttle network.
DCC only defines what is on the railhead. What era your throttle belongs in is a decision made by its maker.
I find it intriguing you call yourself 'Betamax'. After a videotape standard that, though technically superior, got shunted onto the siding of video history? Seems appropriate here. No offense, please.
Probably one substandard design feature of the NCE DCC system I experimented with is that two-lines of text on the remote control. That and the number of function buttons.
I suppose once you've had maybe thirty or forty hours of practice you can internalize all the commands and their hierarchies. But with a touchscreen interface there is simply more bandwidth. Less time climbing the learning curve and -- importantly -- less sliding back down the forgetting curve.
I can compare it to riding a motorcycle. If you are going to ride, you HAVE to ride. You must ride regularly to maintain your skills.
There is a whole lot less danger involved if your model train operating skills get rusty, but the principle is the same. After a while sliding down the forgetting curve you need time and practice to get up to speed again.
Having a graphical user interface gives you so much more bandwidth. You aren't faced with that MS_DOS..;
C:/
...prompt staring at you out of an otherwise blank screen.
Forgive my strained analogy. It is late. Back to bed.
Just Wanna Play I find it intriguing you call yourself 'Betamax'. After a videotape standard that, though technically superior, got shunted onto the siding of video history? Seems appropriate here. No offense, please. Probably one substandard design feature of the NCE DCC system I experimented with is that two-lines of text on the remote control. That and the number of function buttons. I suppose once you've had maybe thirty or forty hours of practice you can internalize all the commands and their hierarchies. But with a touchscreen interface there is simply more bandwidth. Less time climbing the learning curve and -- importantly -- less sliding back down the forgetting curve. I can compare it to riding a motorcycle. If you are going to ride, you HAVE to ride. You must ride regularly to maintain your skills. There is a whole lot less danger involved if your model train operating skills get rusty, but the principle is the same. After a while sliding down the forgetting curve you need time and practice to get up to speed again. Having a graphical user interface gives you so much more bandwidth. You aren't faced with that MS_DOS..; C:/ ...prompt staring at you out of an otherwise blank screen. Forgive my strained analogy. It is late. Back to bed.
The problem with touch screens is that you have to look at them.
I want to be looking at the trains.
I control my trains with these - excuse the picture quality.
The trains are controlled by five buttons that can be identified by feel:
FASTER - SLOWER - EAST - WEST - EMERGENCY STOP
Much easier.
Why does this nonsense continue? If there are people, and seemingly a lot of people, who like the idea of using phones for throttles and graphical UIs, why do any of you naysayers care?
Seriously, why?
The repeated postings and constant negativiy make it appear that you feel somehow threatened by them. Is your self-confidence really that low?
Oh, and by the way, railroad engineers don't watch their trains. They don't railfan. They're paying attention to the controls and the tracks ahead.
The real problem is that people expect their phones to do it all, dosn't always work well. What I didn't like about the easy app is the sound came from my phone and not the train, also missed the dial too but the sound was the deal breaker.
AEP528 Why does this nonsense continue? If there are people, and seemingly a lot of people, who like the idea of using phones for throttles and graphical UIs, why do any of you naysayers care? Seriously, why? The repeated postings and constant negativiy make it appear that you feel somehow threatened by them. Is your self-confidence really that low? Oh, and by the way, railroad engineers don't watch their trains. They don't railfan. They're paying attention to the controls and the tracks ahead.
Alton Junction
AEP528 Why does this nonsense continue? If there are people, and seemingly a lot of people, who like the idea of using phones for throttles and graphical UIs, why do any of you naysayers care? Seriously, why? The repeated postings and constant negativiy make it appear that you feel somehow threatened by them. Is your self-confidence really that low?
And why do you care what the so-called "naysayers" say? Do you feel somehow threatened by them? Is your self-confidence really that low?
I thought the conversation - for the most part - has been fairly civil. It seems to me that it's been the main proponents and those who have a preference for graphic interfaces who have been the ones most aggressive about the topic so far.
It's okay to express an opposing position. That's why it's called a forum. Leave the pot stirring for the kitchen...
jjdamnit Hello All, NVSRR NCE is a larger club and layout system not suited for what you have. Not surprised by your results. What you could have used is something like digitrax zephyr or bachmann easy command. Simple dcc systems more for beginners and small layouts like yours. I don't understand the presumption that NCE is unsuitable for smaller pikes. My HO pike is a 4'x8' with no way to expand due to the dictates of "She Who Must Be Obyed." I began with DC block wiring. From my personal experience- -it was a nightmare trying to run two trains with block control and two (2) cabs. As has been said... "It was like trying to play the piano with boxing gloves."
NVSRR NCE is a larger club and layout system not suited for what you have. Not surprised by your results. What you could have used is something like digitrax zephyr or bachmann easy command. Simple dcc systems more for beginners and small layouts like yours.
I don't understand the presumption that NCE is unsuitable for smaller pikes.
My HO pike is a 4'x8' with no way to expand due to the dictates of "She Who Must Be Obyed."
I began with DC block wiring.
From my personal experience- -it was a nightmare trying to run two trains with block control and two (2) cabs.
As has been said...
"It was like trying to play the piano with boxing gloves."
Amen to that. I read every Atlas layout book before deciding on one, so that I could run two trains at a time. Only thing, Atlas never mentions that you have to park one of those trains in the passing sidings while you run the other train. Trying anything else results in disaster.
It's the reason I'm building a double-track main, even though I'm now using DCC - no more rude surprises after all the work.
I have pre-ordered six each Hornby HM7000 6-pin Bluetooth loco modules. They are listed for 31.99 British Pounds each. In US Dollars that currently totals about $235, or $39 each, give or take. Expected delivery is sometime summer 2024.
The main reason I got in line for these modules is it appears Hornby really is committed to rolling out, promoting and supporting their version of Bluetooth control. Given my long and happy history with Hornby's ancestoral Zero-1 system I'm willing to give them a chance to sell me on HM7000. It doesn't hurt that they will apparently be the lowest-cost option.
Looking into their control interface, Hornby is planning to offer a whole ton of sound effects, for which I currently have no interest whatever. I crave simplicity, remember? At least for now. In a couple of years, well, who knows?
It is a shame that Bachmann's E-Z App and Bluerail's system aren't getting more traction. They had such promise.
If Hornby comes through for me then my next job will be to integrate some kind of keep-alive, or even a dead-rail setup. I'd dearly love to leave behind all the issues with intermittent wheel-on-rail contact.
Please note that I am not interested in what the vast majority of model railroaders are doing with their DCC systems. I'm taking my own path here.
It should also be noted that any of the new Bluetooth systems can operate on a DCC layout, or even an analog layout. They only suck up power from the rails, completely ignoring the DCC control signals, using their own independent and non-interfering wireless control. If I ever want to run one of my Bluetooth locos on a DCC layout there shouldn't be any issues at all.
Just Wanna Play I have pre-ordered six each Hornby HM7000 6-pin Bluetooth loco modules. They are listed for 31.99 British Pounds each. In US Dollars that currently totals about $235, or $39 each, give or take. Expected delivery is sometime summer 2024. The main reason I got in line for these modules is it appears Hornby really is committed to rolling out, promoting and supporting their version of Bluetooth control. Given my long and happy history with Hornby's ancestoral Zero-1 system I'm willing to give them a chance to sell me on HM7000. It doesn't hurt that they will apparently be the lowest-cost option. Looking into their control interface, Hornby is planning to offer a whole ton of sound effects, for which I currently have no interest whatever. I crave simplicity, remember? At least for now. In a couple of years, well, who knows? It is a shame that Bachmann's E-Z App and Bluerail's system aren't getting more traction. They had such promise. If Hornby comes through for me then my next job will be to integrate some kind of keep-alive, or even a dead-rail setup. I'd dearly love to leave behind all the issues with intermittent wheel-on-rail contact. Please note that I am not interested in what the vast majority of model railroaders are doing with their DCC systems. I'm taking my own path here. It should also be noted that any of the new Bluetooth systems can operate on a DCC layout, or even an analog layout. They only suck up power from the rails, completely ignoring the DCC control signals, using their own independent and non-interfering wireless control. If I ever want to run one of my Bluetooth locos on a DCC layout there shouldn't be any issues at all.
I'm glad that you have found something that looks like it will meet your needs and wants.
And given the differences in modeling styles between the US and Europe, I am not surprised that Hornby would be the one to offer such a product.
I go my own way on control systems as well. With an advanced DC system that uses wireless throttles.
I have no interest in onboard sound, but plenty of interest in signaling and CTC. My system is very easy to use, you would problably like using it.
But from what you have posted thru this whole thread, you would not want to have to build it, it requires planning and wiring, a fair amount of both.
Let us know how the Hornby system works out.
Overmod PM Railfan LOL a tour thru a dead rail loco facility.... ya got your sand, water, coal, ash pit, and USB C charging port. Or sling a Qi-style coil under the locomotive or attached 'battery car' tender, and strategically spot the charging coils under coaling towers, in front of water towers, etc... when the scale coal gates open or the spigot drops, the power turns on.
PM Railfan LOL a tour thru a dead rail loco facility.... ya got your sand, water, coal, ash pit, and USB C charging port.
Or sling a Qi-style coil under the locomotive or attached 'battery car' tender, and strategically spot the charging coils under coaling towers, in front of water towers, etc... when the scale coal gates open or the spigot drops, the power turns on.
And yet dead rail sounds so uncomplex.......
- Douglas
Doughless Overmod PM Railfan LOL a tour thru a dead rail loco facility.... ya got your sand, water, coal, ash pit, and USB C charging port. Or sling a Qi-style coil under the locomotive or attached 'battery car' tender, and strategically spot the charging coils under coaling towers, in front of water towers, etc... when the scale coal gates open or the spigot drops, the power turns on. And yet dead rail sounds so uncomplex.......
Yes, the whole issue of charging dead-rail batteries does complicate things. I see it as the last technical barrier to having a bullet-proof power system.
One thing I have thought of is using expendible (not rechargable) batteries. Your basic Duracell or Energizer batteries. How many hours of operation could you get out of, say, a 9-volt battery or two? It would be interesting to find out. You might have to have a dedicated battery car to hook up behind your loco for this setup, but maybe that wouldn't be all that impractical.
How many hours of operation would be acceptable? Two hours? Four hours? Can we get there from here?
But if you are going that route rechargable batteries might make more sense. You could have a small fleet of battery cars that could be recharged on or off the layout from rails.
Charging off-layout could have the attractive feature of being safer. The whole charging operation could be carefully timed and controlled to prevent overcharging.
Charging on-layout, during operation, would have the advantage of only charging while you are running your trains. If a battery catches fire you are on-site with your fire extinguisher to save the day.
But maybe the answer is to avoid using lithium batteries. Nickel-Cadmium batteries have been around for decades and have a superb safety record. They aren't as energy-dense as lithium, but maybe we can trade-off some energy-density for safety.
There may be other kinds of rechargable batteries that could be more suitable. But like I said at the top, I see battery tech as the last technical barrier to a bullet-proof power system. There might be battery tech already existing that would be simple, safe and practical enough. Maybe just a little bit of research and experimentation will get us there.
rrebell Doughless Overmod PM Railfan LOL a tour thru a dead rail loco facility.... ya got your sand, water, coal, ash pit, and USB C charging port. Or sling a Qi-style coil under the locomotive or attached 'battery car' tender, and strategically spot the charging coils under coaling towers, in front of water towers, etc... when the scale coal gates open or the spigot drops, the power turns on. And yet dead rail sounds so uncomplex....... Not really but the batterys have been the proublem but that is gradually being fixed, their cost has come way down over time and their capacity has gone up. For charging their seem to be two camps, charge via a port or charge from rails.
Not really but the batterys have been the proublem but that is gradually being fixed, their cost has come way down over time and their capacity has gone up. For charging their seem to be two camps, charge via a port or charge from rails.
I was mainly joking about the types of installations being suggested.
But to a broader point, electronics aside, there are many model railroaders who believe that they should never touch the locomotives by hand, let alone take them off the rails (as a matter of nonmaintanence or repair).
Personally, I would simply take each one to the nearest outlet (adapted) and charge each loco when needed. Assuming they would have a port like a cell phone.
But if that is philisophically verboten to some, I would think that running the charge over the rails overnight would be the least complex way to charge the batteries. Installing ports all over the railroad or even in engine servicing (is that how it would be done?) seems like a more complex step to me.
While I understand the appeal of dead rail, I would MUCH rather install a decoder than batteries. Batteries have a charging life span so would need to be replaced eventually, which means dismantling the locomotive. While I might have to reprogram a decoder, that doesn't require taking anything part.
Well, being a DC operator, and never having all the track conductivity issues people seem to have with DCC, I don't see the point of dead rail.
My theory is that with any direct radio conncection to a decoder, and power on the track, it would become just like DC where electrical pickup isses seem to be less of a problem.
From what I have seen, DCC seems way more sensitive and I wonder if it is more about a disruption in the communication signal rather than a true loss of power in many cases?
I have said for years eliminating the signal on the rails would be the next important evolution in command control, no matter what kind of communication protocal is used.
To quote Montgomery Scott, "The fancier the plumbing the easier it is to stuff up the drain."
When it comes to control signals how much and how fast is what matters.
I was involved in the development of Ethernet. An important part of that protocol is continuous error-checking. If two devices start broadcasting at the same time they recognize their signals are interfering. They stop, take a random delay time, and then try re-transmitting. Usually the difference in their delay times allow them to re-transmit without interference.
Does DCC have that much intelligence? Can it detect when, for whatever reason, its signals have been corrupted? RFI? Wheel-to-rail discontinuity?
I don't know what Bluetooth has in way of error-checking, but I'm willing to believe it has something pretty robust, since the wireless data space is awfully full these days.
Wheel-to-rail discontinuities probably account for most issues. Loss of connection will mean loss of signal. That is obvious. But any break in the circuit will also generate sparks, and sparks are the ultimate electronic noise generators. Good reason to go dead-rail.
Just Wanna PlayIf two devices start broadcasting at the same time they recognize their signals are interfering. Does DCC have that much intelligence? Can it detect when, for whatever reason, its signals have been corrupted? RFI? Wheel-to-rail discontinuity?
DCC packets are only generated by one source, the command station which are then conveyed to the track thru 1+ boosters. there is no possibility of multiple senders.
speed packets are repeatedly sent to handle corruption as well as intermittent loss of power (i.e. dirty track)
each DCC packet includes an error detection byte
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregc Just Wanna Play If two devices start broadcasting at the same time they recognize their signals are interfering. Does DCC have that much intelligence? Can it detect when, for whatever reason, its signals have been corrupted? RFI? Wheel-to-rail discontinuity? DCC packets are only generated by one source, the command station which are then conveyed to the track thru 1+ boosters. there is no possibility of multiple senders. speed packets are repeatedly sent to handle corruption as well as intermittent loss of power (i.e. dirty track) each DCC packet includes an error detection byte
Just Wanna Play If two devices start broadcasting at the same time they recognize their signals are interfering. Does DCC have that much intelligence? Can it detect when, for whatever reason, its signals have been corrupted? RFI? Wheel-to-rail discontinuity?
And yet DCC still seems to be more sensitive to dirty track than DC based on my 56 years of experiance including about 15 years of frequent running of DCC on a number of large layouts.
I don't claim to know the answer, I just know that for me dirty track, stalling, etc, has never been much of a problem on my layouts, yet I have seen first hand the problems some seem to have with DCC.
Problems that prompt "keep Alive" circuity, endless track cleaning, etc.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd yet DCC still seems to be more sensitive to dirty track
of course if power is lost for a long enough time for the processor to reset, it's going to take time to reboot and then wait to receive the speed command
the error detection byte makes it is less sensitive to packet corruption because of dirty track.
Thank you, gregc, for directly answering my question about DCC error checking.
And thank you also, Atlantic Central, for your observation about DCC sensitivity to dirty track.
I can't claim anything but the briefest experience with DCC, but I had many years with Hornby's Zero-1, and more than enough frustration with loss-of-contact due to dirty track and dirty wheels.
I never understood where the crap that built up on loco wheels came from. All I knew is it built up over time and had to be removed periodically. I used a Dremel tool and wire brush to clean it off. But it wasn't long before it built up again.
I assumed that imperfect contact between the loco wheels and the rails was generating sparks and some kind of electro-chemical reaction was generating the crud. But I was amazed at how much material built up with no clue as to where it was coming from. Sparks generate ozone, which is super-reactive. Was ozone eroding the nickel-silver rails? Was it also generating crud on the rails themselves? Good gosh, I dunno...
I thought about installing electrical brushes that made direct contact to the rails, bypassing the wheel/rail interface. I never did that, but I did install brushes that wiped on the surface of the loco wheels, bypassing the axle/frame interface. A bit better contact I think, but it didn't reduce the crud worth mentioning.
I read about a system that used high-voltage pulses to punch through oxide/crud in the wheel/rail interface. That sounded promising. If you have enough voltage that does work. With mains power (110 or 220VAC) it definitely does work. That's why we don't have to have our household outlets cleaned periodically. Again, something I thought about but never tried.
I am afraid as long as we have to use the wheel/rail contacts to pass power and/or control we're going to have issues. Dead rail avoids the power problem entirely. Keep alive, either battery or capacitor powered, seems to be a workable alternative. Bluetooth may be reliable enough to cure the signal error issues.