R. T. POTEETNow that we have mastered sound I feel that the next advancement in model railroading will be smell. Envision, if you will, a 75 car train of coal hoppers descending Cajon, brakes squealing, blue smoke drifting out from under the cars straining against the pull of gravity with the all invasive odor of hot composite material. Each car will have on its trucks a smoke and odor generator. My rendering plant and stockyards will certainly limit the number of visitors to my layout!
Now that we have mastered sound I feel that the next advancement in model railroading will be smell. Envision, if you will, a 75 car train of coal hoppers descending Cajon, brakes squealing, blue smoke drifting out from under the cars straining against the pull of gravity with the all invasive odor of hot composite material. Each car will have on its trucks a smoke and odor generator. My rendering plant and stockyards will certainly limit the number of visitors to my layout!
That would be great. I've already come up with a good way to get that Brick / Sulfur plant smell, and its pretty cheap. Just hard to regulate...
jwhitten Phoebe Vet A lot of people have made an issue of the inability of those small speakers to reproduce the rich base and volume of the real thing. I'm curious, do you really want that kind of sound filling your house and train room? I want to feel the floor rumble and the walls shake... but not upset my wife upstairs... is that so much to ask ??? :)
Phoebe Vet A lot of people have made an issue of the inability of those small speakers to reproduce the rich base and volume of the real thing. I'm curious, do you really want that kind of sound filling your house and train room?
A lot of people have made an issue of the inability of those small speakers to reproduce the rich base and volume of the real thing.
I'm curious, do you really want that kind of sound filling your house and train room?
I want to feel the floor rumble and the walls shake... but not upset my wife upstairs... is that so much to ask ???
:)
If the racket keeps her out of the train room then it sounds like a good idea to me! Can you imagine the uproar if she wanders into the train room and catches me reading my copy of Porno Stars Monthly? And, heaven forbid, that she should blunder onto the receipt indicating that I charged $1,092.84 at Choo Choo Chucks; lands-a-goshen, she might even begin sneaking a look at my credit card billing statements! And you thought Kobe Bryant had troubles? my better half has been eyeing a $995.00 diamond bracelet at Wal-Mart for over a month now. Do you know how many Kadees $995.00 will buy.
Yes Sir!; sound is the only way to go!
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
With current technology, it wouldn't be all that hard to divide a layout into blocks, and have a detector to detect the current of an engine being in the block, and have the detector then turn on a large speaker located under that block of track hooked up to a sound system.
It wouldn't be as precise as a speaker in the engine, but the sound would "follow" the engine around the layout, and would allow more deep bass sounds like chugging and diesel rumble. Maybe a system where bell and horn/whistle sounds came from a small speaker in the engine, and the chuff or diesel rumble sounds coming from the large speakers under the layout would be best??
wjstix With current technology, it wouldn't be all that hard to divide a layout into blocks, and have a detector to detect the current of an engine being in the block, and have the detector then turn on a large speaker located under that block of track hooked up to a sound system. It wouldn't be as precise as a speaker in the engine, but the sound would "follow" the engine around the layout, and would allow more deep bass sounds like chugging and diesel rumble. Maybe a system where bell and horn/whistle sounds came from a small speaker in the engine, and the chuff or diesel rumble sounds coming from the large speakers under the layout would be best??
Your expressed ideas have great merit, however, there are some complications involved with your proposals and some rather elaborate expenses can get involved.
If audio quality and fidelity is of prime importance to you then an under-the-layout speaker system is going to be much more efficient than those dinky little speakers we mount in our locomotives. You may not want to go this far into this fidelity-to-prototype but if you do you are going to have to go to the expense of a great number of speakers to create the illusion of the sound of a locomotive -- or locomotives as the case might be -- advancing around the layout. EXPENSE! We will have to come up with some kind of onboard generator for our system to be able to detect the locomotive -- or locomotives -- involved and this is going to have to be coupled to some kind of a microprocessor which will tell our sound generating system things such as type of locomotive and prime mover involved as well as the type of air horn with which this particular unit is equipped. EXPENSE!
Handling one locomotive -- a steam engine -- which under normal circumstances is going to be a single entity -- or even a lash-up of similiarly equipped diesel locomotives -- presents few problems . . . . . but what happens when we have dissimiliarly equipped locomotives as we are likely to have with diesels, an EMD and an ALCO as a for-instance. Currently our onboard electronics generates the sounds associated with a specific unit; our diesel comes rumbling by and at a road crossing we lay on the horn. Our onboard system modulates -- or beats as they at least used to say -- the horn sound onto the base sound of the unit. When, for instance, we have these dissimiliar locomotives we are presented with the problem of having to beat two separate sound entities into one speaker. Theoretically we can modulate in infinite number of sounds into one modulator but there is an EXPENSE! involved with the creation of a sound generator for each composition of locomotive -- think for a minute of the number of prime movers and the number of air horns that might be involved -- we are going to run on our layout as well as with the electronics involved which will enable us to do this. Again we revert to some kind of microprocessor control . . . . . and that EXPENSE! word rears its ugly head. The larger the layout the more speakers and the larger number of modulator units will be involved -- and that microprocessor is going to require some programming to turn our system on and off at an appropriate time . . . . . . . . . . when do we want our ears to be able to detect an approaching train or to cease detecting a retreating train? With this in mind we have to have some sort of automatic volume control so that at the appropriate time our speakers will fade in or fade out as is appropriate for a given circumstance. Additional EXPENSE!
All this can be done but, as the old Italian immigrant said that his first lesson upon arriving in America was "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!"
R. T. POTEETwjstix With current technology, it wouldn't be all that hard to divide a layout into blocks, and have a detector to detect the current of an engine being in the block, and have the detector then turn on a large speaker located under that block of track hooked up to a sound system. It wouldn't be as precise as a speaker in the engine, but the sound would "follow" the engine around the layout, and would allow more deep bass sounds like chugging and diesel rumble. Maybe a system where bell and horn/whistle sounds came from a small speaker in the engine, and the chuff or diesel rumble sounds coming from the large speakers under the layout would be best?? Your expressed ideas have great merit, however, there are some complications involved with your proposals and some rather elaborate expenses can get involved. If audio quality and fidelity is of prime importance to you then an under-the-layout speaker system is going to be much more efficient than those dinky little speakers we mount in our locomotives. You may not want to go this far into this fidelity-to-prototype but if you do you are going to have to go to the expense of a great number of speakers to create the illusion of the sound of a locomotive -- or locomotives as the case might be -- advancing around the layout. EXPENSE! We will have to come up with some kind of onboard generator for our system to be able to detect the locomotive -- or locomotives -- involved and this is going to have to be coupled to some kind of a microprocessor which will tell our sound generating system things such as type of locomotive and prime mover involved as well as the type of air horn with which this particular unit is equipped. EXPENSE! Handling one locomotive -- a steam engine -- which under normal circumstances is going to be a single entity -- or even a lash-up of similiarly equipped diesel locomotives -- presents few problems . . . . . but what happens when we have dissimiliarly equipped locomotives as we are likely to have with diesels, an EMD and an ALCO as a for-instance. Currently our onboard electronics generates the sounds associated with a specific unit; our diesel comes rumbling by and at a road crossing we lay on the horn. Our onboard system modulates -- or beats as they at least used to say -- the horn sound onto the base sound of the unit. When, for instance, we have these dissimiliar locomotives we are presented with the problem of having to beat two separate sound entities into one speaker. Theoretically we can modulate in infinite number of sounds into one modulator but there is an EXPENSE! involved with the creation of a sound generator for each composition of locomotive -- think for a minute of the number of prime movers and the number of air horns that might be involved -- we are going to run on our layout as well as with the electronics involved which will enable us to do this. Again we revert to some kind of microprocessor control . . . . . and that EXPENSE! word rears its ugly head. The larger the layout the more speakers and the larger number of modulator units will be involved -- and that microprocessor is going to require some programming to turn our system on and off at an appropriate time . . . . . . . . . . when do we want our ears to be able to detect an approaching train or to cease detecting a retreating train? With this in mind we have to have some sort of automatic volume control so that at the appropriate time our speakers will fade in or fade out as is appropriate for a given circumstance. Additional EXPENSE! All this can be done but, as the old Italian immigrant said that his first lesson upon arriving in America was "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!"
Most of us have a personal computer, so the "microprocessor" issue is relatively easy to solve. Of course maybe not all of us have a PC in the train room. But an old PC is easy and pretty cheap to acquire so that's not a huge problem.
Sound is likewise not a huge problem. A decent (el-cheapo) sound card these days can typically provide 8 channels of sound (7.1 - seven speakers, one subwoofer). The older ones can generally do 6 channels (5.1, five speakers, one subwoofer). The older still 4 or 4.1 channels. But lets' go with the newest, they're not expensive.
You will need speakers and amplifiers. If you're hard core, go to the Macintosh & Klipshorn section and we'll see you back after you've emptied your wallet. Everybody else just pick up some el-cheapo amplified speakers. Doesn't matter if they're mono, stereo, quad, 5.1, 7.1, or whatever. Just buy enough to cover all your channels. A quick trip to Newegg (or your fav) can pick it all up plus shipping for $50 bucks or so (more if you want).
Divvy up the speakers at about 2-3 foot intervals around the layout. It would be best to do them in an identifiable pattern relative to the sound card output, but that's not absolutely required, since the computer will treat them as individual channels anyway. Make one or two of them subwoofers.
If your layout is larger than what 8 channels can cover, feel free to add additional sound cards and amplified speakers. Most PC's can technically take up to 4 sound cards (some can take more), but not all motherboards can physically accept that many expansion cards. So you would definitely need to check out your equipment first to be sure.
Note that everything to this point is off-the-shelf technology, and CHEAP too.
---
The first (above) part is the easiest part. It all exists as commodity hardware. The next steps are trickier because-- to my knowledge-- there are no "freebie" sound processors to do what we want. (The key phrase is "to do what we want").
There are lots of freebie or shareware sound processing systems. But 99.9999% of them are geared toward home music recording or reproduction, or similar (theater sound, church sound, etc).
The most interesting element of that environment that would be useful to us is the "sound mixer". There are freebie/shareware mixers that are available that let you route sounds from one input (including internal *synthesized* or *wave recording* inputs) to any output AND to adjust the volume on any of those outputs. And you can have multiple synthesize or wave file inputs (as in *many*-- how many depends on the particular software and computer operating system limits, but generally more than enough for our purposes). "Wave files" (I'm using the term generically) are pre-recorded sound clips. You may already be familiar with them if you have QSI or similar sound modules. They're the clips that have bells or whistles or chuff-chuffs or whatever on them, that get played and mixed together to give a locomotive (or anything else) a "sonic persona".
This means that the SOFTWARE components to handle the spatialization and volumetric aspects also technically exist. They are just not adapted to our hobby.
The last bit is a litte harder to deal with but not impossible. There are a number of technologies that could be employed or adapted to handle train location and identity.
RFID, for example, could easly identify every element of a train from the locos to the caboose. I have already experimented with RFID as a model railroad concept, and so have the real railroads for that matter. Its easy enough to put an RFID tag on an engine or rolling stock. In fact, one type of tag (the "grain of wheat" tag) looks like one of those firecracker antennas that go on top fo the diesels for many railroads. Other tags look like little labels about 1/2" square-ish. Other tags are larger. Some look like key fobs. And there are other types. The point is that it *IS* possible to get a tag on every piece of equipment without much cost. The trick is finding the tags. They can be had though for $0.25-1.00/each-- $1.00 is typical for one. $0.25 (or less) is typical for a large volume (several thousand).
With RFID you would need RFID readers at periodic locations around the layout. People already do this wirh signalling, so that concept is not new. Plus with a little head-scratching you could probably incorporate the RFID information (loco, car identiy info) into the signalling or switching scheme as well. (As a side comment, it would probably be cool to have an RFID-assisted hump yard...) RFID readers can range from $15-65 bucks or so, depending on the complexity, range, interface, etc. You can also get some very long range versions (tens to hundreds of feet) and use them as well. They are of course more expensive.
Another possibility might be to just rig up cameras around and let the computer "watch" the layout. This is not as complicated as you might think-- within limits. Assuming you're using el-cheapo cameras of the "usb/web" variety, you're probably looking at $10-20 bucks each, and if mounted high, they would have a pretty large view of the layout. But don't look for resolution-- their resolution pretty much sucks. Not bad if you just want to watch, but you won't be able to identity train numbers or things like that from any sort of distance. There is already freebie software out there that can identity objects in motion and generate coordinates and vectors. And we're also assuming you're layout isn't going anywhere, so the location of the tracks is already known anyway. Its just a matter of detecting a train on the track and figuring out its speed, direction and its components (locos).
If you were to combine RFID and camera technologies, the issues are even easier. Equip everything with RFID tags, scatter some readers at key points (choke points) and cameras up above or at "best" locations for train spotting. Doesn't matter if its the best location for *you* to watch the trains, just that the computer can see them. The RFID readers/tags would establish identity and rough location information, while the cameras could establish a more precise location. (This is called "sensor fusion" btw, in case you're interested :)
You could also use 'transponding', as has been pointed out here before. Each loco has some electronic element, probably built into its DCC decoder circuitry, that transmits its location back to a central location. There are some problems with this-- first and foremost, how do you *actually* determine distance and vector from the listener (we'll assume just one for now). Presumably you would declare the DCC controller to be "the listener" and then use "electronic echo-reflection" technology to determine distance to the controller-- but that only tells you the *wire* distance and not "as the crow flies". So my guess is we're not looking for rescue from that quarter any time soon.
However, the loco *could* sport another type of transponder. Perhaps infrared or ultrasonic, that something external could pick up-- like maybe those cameras we just got through talking about. Most cameras are sensitive up into the infrared spectrum. (Wanna see? Just grab your TV remote and your digital or video camera and point the remote at the camera, push a button, and take a picture. Those "lit up spots" at the tip of your remote are infrared lights).
A suitably-equipped loco could transmit a beacon that three, four or more cameras could discern and triangulate. (It would require some good initial positioning and calibration though-- that would be a tricky part). Furthermore, the loco could modulate the beacon to include identity info as well-- beacon number would probably be best and most universal. It could then be looked-up on the computer to correlate it with a train and consist.
You could use other methods-- such as that already available to use with block signallaing. It would convey less information-- just approximately train position, and maybe direction. Probably not speed and no identity. But it would be another input that could be sampled to assist in the overall location of trains. It doesn't have to be just *one* method.
The hardware and rudimentary software to do all of the above, already exists in freebie/shareware form.
Finally we get down to the tricky part-- putting it all together. That's what's missing. I have seen some attempts at doing it. None of them get it exactly right. And then there are professional systems for use in museums and such-- but I haven't even been able to find out who the companies are that make those, much less the cost (I presume it would be very costly, considering the typical customer). And then there are *video games* (which can be had in the freebie/shareware variety just fine). A lot of new-fangled video games do 99.999% of everything that's needed including generating the sounds, mixing them together to create a sonic environment, do the sonic-location part to establish a three-dimensional space (four if you include echos), controlling the volume levels and apparent source points-- they do it all except manage actual, real computer sound hardware in the way we'd like to see it managed-- i.e, following a train around a train layout.
But, most of what's needed there likewise already exists.
So in putting it all together, its the "putting it all together" that's mostly needed. Taking each of these various elements, working out the kinks, and then putting them together to achieve this application.
If anybody's got (serious) bucks and wants to partner up, let me know-- I'd be happy to talk more about it.
tomikawaTT A high percentage of my running (all of it, right now) will be on track that isn't intended to be visible. How do I explain the huffing and puffing coming from an area where the only visible train is powered by a diesel-hydraulic? OR, how would I arrange the sound to operate only when the locomotive is on visible track? Most of the problem is that I fire and forget trains headed into the netherworld (hidden staging and thoroughfare trackage.) As has been noted, if one or a few locos are sound-equipped they make it painfully obvious that the rest aren't. Converting a large roster to sound in one fell swoop would flatten my bank account, not to mention trying my patience. Just my . Other opinions are legitimately different. Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with catenary motors that sound like their prototypes and steamers that don't)
Just my . Other opinions are legitimately different.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with catenary motors that sound like their prototypes and steamers that don't)
A couple of thoughts here. For the first one, I got a taste of this yesterday when I was doing a layout tour. On the layout there was a long hidden section that was behind a thin layer of plaster hillside. You could hear the locomotive behind it. One obvious option is to hit F8 when it enters the tunnel. On my own layout I don't have this problem because my mountain is layers of pink foam, which deaden the sound and so it is more realistic, in that you don't hear the locomotive until just before it exits the tunnel.
For the second item, I am not seeing the exact issue. In a consist, you really can't tell the difference much, at least when you run two with sound and one without. For locomotives sitting idle, it may be quiet whether it has sound or not. That depends upon how you left the sound locomotive. I don't leave my entire fleet idling but I may have 2 -3 sets of locomotives idling around the layout.
My 2 cents
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
In the natural history section of a museum I visited recently where a woodland area and life sized models of birds insects etc had been constructed, an endless tape - in reality it's probably well digitized, broadcast from several strategically placed speakers the sounds of the forest.
I was thinking that perhaps, for those who like sound, but want something that is more of an audio over-view, a recording of the sounds of particular places on a layout may be something to consider. A large layout could have several listening stations while a smaller one could produce many different sounds relating to the elements featured on that sized layout.
I haven't given any thought to this idea past this point - maybe it would work, maybe not.
Bruce
jwhitten, admittedly there are probably a considerable number of off-the-shelf materials that could be used to set up one of these under-the-roadbed speaker systems. But as I mentioned if audio quality and fidelity is high on the list then cheap is probably not going to feed the bulldog. To some people there is an impassable gulf between adequate and excellent; probably there are enough off-the-shelf components to satisfy that individual who would be content with an "adequate" system -- that individual who wants excellence in his audio reproduction may find the going just a mite more expensive.
Your idea of RFID hold considerable merit; one RFID chip I remember reading about is smaller than the period which will be found at the end of this sentence. That chip has a 128 bit processing memory which should be enough, with the proper coding structure, to store the information of locomotive number, prime mover type, whistles, bells, etc.
The big problem comes with figuring out a way to program the chip with that information. Conceivably this RFID chip could be a component on our installed engine decoder and could be programmed simultaneously with the decoder itself. When a train is detected at a certain point that microprocessor interrogates the decoder and processes the feedback from the RFID chip. It -- the microprocessor -- would then process that information and proceed through the process of generating the proper sound associated with that particular locomotive. At each detection point certain gates are opened while others are closed and the program moves the train down the track. However the big problem with this involves the expense of the equipment designed to program that 128 bit memory; the expense of that ain't for the faint of heart.
The RFID chip is, of course, an RF transmitter in itself but of such low output that that Inverse Square Law comes into play. With that in mind the best place for an RF detector would be in the roadbed and the RFID chip would not be mounted on the decoder board but rather on the frame -- or at least the underside -- of our locomotive. Detection of the train could be done with something as basic as those old standby magnetic reed switches. Again, however, unless something passed me in the dark, we are left with the expense of the equipment necessary to code the chip.
There is in this the possibility of business -- an I will install and code your RFID chip for $20.00 -- business.
Enjoyed your posting!
By the way, how's the South Penn coming along?; don't remember a progress report of late!
R. T. POTEETjwhitten, admittedly there are probably a considerable number of off-the-shelf materials that could be used to set up one of these under-the-roadbed speaker systems. But as I mentioned if audio quality and fidelity is high on the list then cheap is probably not going to feed the bulldog. To some people there is an impassable gulf between adequate and excellent; probably there are enough off-the-shelf components to satisfy that individual who would be content with an "adequate" system -- that individual who wants excellence in his audio reproduction may find the going just a mite more expensive.
The point of my post is that its possible to do the external sound / loco synchronization thing, and to do it on-the-cheap. The parts and pieces exist but there hasn't yet been someone with the time /energy / dedication to pull it all together for our hobby. If I were independently wealthy (or had some serious cash backing) I'd be happy to give it a go. But like most of the folks here I have to work for a living :)
I think in your statement above you are really talking about two things--
One: The ability to provide external sound synchronization to augment the on-board loco sound that's available right now.
Two: Sound fidelity.
I think we agree on the direction of item one so let's tackle item two:
There are a lot of people who can tolerate the on-board loco sound, as tinny as it is, and it works fine for them. There are probably a lot of people who don't care too much if it sounds like an EMD or an ALCO as long as it sounds "train-ish". And for them it would probably be enough to have several canned loco sounds they could select from that would allow their locos to sound somewhat distinct from each other, have different whistle and bell sounds, pop-off valves, radiator filling, etc. So that it would sound "train-y".
Then there are people who would like a little more. Regardless of how "correct" the sounds are, they're small and tinny coming out of that little tiny speaker stuffed into the locomotive. They don't care so much if the sounds are "more accurate" or not, if only they had a little more definition-- fluffed-out a bit more with some punch and some bass. They probably don't want the room to rattle and shake all the time, but it would probably be nice if it *could* once-in-awhile. And they'd probably be willing to spend a few hundred more bucks to get it (possibly more).
Then there are the purists. They want "historically accurate" sound. They want to hear the rods clanking and the exact right hum or chug-chug or whistle or whatever it is that they remember. [Sounds are there for two reasons-- to add "life" to the loco and environment, and to stimulate memories from the past-- presumably a "happy time"]. Even for this group though, as long as the sounds come out reasonably well-represented with full-frequency range and decent volume envelope, they would probably be happy with the external speakers.
And to point this out again, you're welcome to go to the Macintosh section to pick your audio components if you got the bucks and nothing better to spend it on. But the output from the speakers isn't going to be appreciably better than the original equipment used to record the sounds on. Plus there's the clean-up needed (filtering and editing) of the sound. The quantitization as its digitized to meet some small memory size, etc. The sound coming out of the speakers has already been futz'd with considerably so I'd be skeptical of how much "fidelity" one could really expect anyway. But, that said, there will always be that last group of people who will pay "whatever it takes" to get whatever it is they want, or think they're getting-- they gotta have "the best", whether it really is or they just think it is.
Some of those amplified speaker systems for computers sound pretty darned good. As good (or better) than my home stereo of not too many years ago. Or my theater surround system (and I have a high-dollar one). I get better bass and reproduction, sure, out of my theater surround, but my computer surround "ain't nothin'", if you know what I mean. You can get all of the same dolby/whatever decoders for the computer. You can get simulated spatialization (if you want it) and lots of other special-effects sound processing, you can do sound equalization, normalization, etc. All in the computer. A lot of that stuff comes with the sound card these days. Its just built-in. You have to go out of your way to turn it off actually.
You're right though-- no "purist" is going to be satisfied with an el-cheapo solution. But if you ask me-- my personal opinion-- it has more to do with it being "el-cheapo" than "purity" for most of 'em.
R. T. POTEET Your idea of RFID hold considerable merit; one RFID chip I remember reading about is smaller than the period which will be found at the end of this sentence. That chip has a 128 bit processing memory which should be enough, with the proper coding structure, to store the information of locomotive number, prime mover type, whistles, bells, etc. The big problem comes with figuring out a way to program the chip with that information. Conceivably this RFID chip could be a component on our installed engine decoder and could be programmed simultaneously with the decoder itself.
The big problem comes with figuring out a way to program the chip with that information. Conceivably this RFID chip could be a component on our installed engine decoder and could be programmed simultaneously with the decoder itself.
Yes, you're right. However you're overlooking one obvious point-- why bother with stuffing all that information into the onboard RFID chip? Just get the el-cheapos that have a serial number built-in. You're gonna have external computer processing *anyway*, why not simply let the external computer look-up the serial number and recall the rest of the loco's information? Its a trivial task, and if you have gone as far as bring a computer into the layout room, why not use something like JMRI to assist and augment operations (not take over, just assist)? [http://jmri.sourceforge.net] Plus its free :)
By going with the simplest RFID concept, you also permit yourself to use the cheapest variety-- the 125kHz stuff. Its been around the longest and the tags and stuff are the cheapest to acquire. And they are the smallest easily available in general use. The big problem with RFID stuff is the antennas. You can make the stuff really small, but then you have to pump in a lot of power to activate them. Or you can have larger antennas and use less power.
The principle leader in the RFID industry is retail inventory control and loss-prevention. Those folks have some serious cash between them to throw at the problem-- Walmart most in particular. And yet while they want the smallest and cheapest they can get. Most of the time they settle for serial numbers, or systems (like the 13MHz stuff) that can store a little bit of data-- a "k" or two. But the ones that store information are generally a half-inch or so square. Or made in a credit-card sized "smart card" or into a key fob. You can also get them in rolls of labels that require a special printer (you can program the tags with a cheap writer though and just leave them blank).
The military is the second largest (or maybe its vice-versa-- whichever, military and retail drive the science). They are the ones that are the most concerned with super-small size. "Smart dust"-- at the near-nano level. They can embed it into nearly anything. Or fly over something and disperse it like an aerosol. Or at a crowd of demonstrators so they can "read" people they pick up later and find out if they were part of a specific incident. That sort of thing. Plus general asset tracking, shipping, etc. The more usual stuff. Military logistics is an enormous undertaking. Having RFID embedded into everything would be (already is) a huge help. And the military doesn't care too much about the power aspect. If it takes more power-- whatever-- okay.
Also- please don't think that RFID can do the whole job by itself. It might *theoretically* be able to, assuming higher-powered readers (more expensive) that also contained technology similar to GPS-- think of the readers as "satellites" and the RFID tags as "GPS" units. Its not exactly the same-- the tags are generally passive or nearly-so, not counting the data-transmission aspect. There *are* tags that contain small microprocessing power, but as of right now, those are esoteric and not in the mainstream. In the future that might be more possible, but not really so much now.
So you would have to augment your "position finding" system with some other methods, such as I suggested in my previous post. There are probably other sensing tactics that could work or assist. I didn't talk much about infrared, for example. But in many cases, these overlapping elements are simply redundant, or are only needed in certain specific instances where another method isn't practical or available. RFID and video, IMO, would be the easiest and cheapest way to go at the moment, with a little help from more traditional sensors (track, IR, etc) in certain cases.
R. T. POTEET When a train is detected at a certain point that microprocessor interrogates the decoder and processes the feedback from the RFID chip. It -- the microprocessor -- would then process that information and proceed through the process of generating the proper sound associated with that particular locomotive. At each detection point certain gates are opened while others are closed and the program moves the train down the track. However the big problem with this involves the expense of the equipment designed to program that 128 bit memory; the expense of that ain't for the faint of heart.
When a train is detected at a certain point that microprocessor interrogates the decoder and processes the feedback from the RFID chip. It -- the microprocessor -- would then process that information and proceed through the process of generating the proper sound associated with that particular locomotive. At each detection point certain gates are opened while others are closed and the program moves the train down the track. However the big problem with this involves the expense of the equipment designed to program that 128 bit memory; the expense of that ain't for the faint of heart.
The problem with the above statement is that it requires a ton of RFID readers, since that's what's doing the locating. In my proposed system RFID isn't strictly even required. Video could do the main job. But the RFID is useful for establishing identity information. The cameras can pick out moving trains okay, but have no way of correlating them (except circumstantially) to any specific train / consist. But if you sprinkle some RFID readers around at key locations-- choke points, for example, as I suggested previously-- the trains aren't going to hop off the tracks and sneak around the RFID sensor (at least I'd wager not ;) So once you've identified them *somewhere* and there aren't too many opportunities for confusion (like in a yard, say), the video system can handle the rest, for the most part. Another thing the RFID aspect would do in my setup would be to "verify / confirm" now and then that the video / computer still has the right train identified.
Beyond that, the RFID stuff would be really handy in other ways around the layout. I eagerly look forward to playing with it some more. There's a lot of neat stuff you can do with it. IMO though, the biggest issue at present is getting small tags cheaply. You have to buy them in large quantities. Of course folks could go together to make a larger order. That's a time-honored way of solving that problem.
R. T. POTEET The RFID chip is, of course, an RF transmitter in itself but of such low output that that Inverse Square Law comes into play. With that in mind the best place for an RF detector would be in the roadbed and the RFID chip would not be mounted on the decoder board but rather on the frame -- or at least the underside -- of our locomotive. Detection of the train could be done with something as basic as those old standby magnetic reed switches. Again, however, unless something passed me in the dark, we are left with the expense of the equipment necessary to code the chip.
Yes, this is an issue, but not a big one. When I originally started playing with RFID stuff and trains, it was with my G-scale trains. For one thing the trains were physically bigger and easier to work with, with respect to the tags that are easily available. For another I wanted to establish the limits of what would work comfortably. The readers usually claim about a 5-8 inch sensing range. I've found that to be a pretty comfortable number-- maybe even up to 10 inches. Which if you think about it-- even in G-scale-- is enough to go up through the roadbed, through the track, across the short distance from the rails to the bottom of the car, through the car, and finally to an embedded tag of some sort.
For me I was using the 13MHz smart cards-- which have a *smaller* sensing distance even than the 125KHz stuff, which is typically 2-3 times that of the 13MHz stuff. My experiments demonstrated that either technology was sufficient for our purposes-- and in fact might well be overkill and _problematic_ in HO scale-- too much range. You want to be able to sense what is exactly on the track above (or beside) you and not the adjacent track or the one above (or below) the track you're interested in. With layouts that loop and turn back, hidden trackage and whatnot, that's not as outlandish a consideration as you might think.
Collisions (reading more than one tag at a time) is generally built-into the system and handled by software. It won't "hurt" the system. But it can be confusing if you *think* you know what you're sensing (identifying) but really don't-- i.e., I *think* I am sensing trains on the track just above me, but in reality I'm doing that *and* sensing the trains on the tracks 2-1/2 inches away to either side of my target track. (such as might be found on a yard or a double-track mainline, for instance).
These problems are not insurmountable. You can use hardware tricks ("tin foil", etc) to adjust the "beam width", and again to isolate tracks, etc. And of course if you're using video-- a second, different type of sensor-- and an external computer doing the processing, the computer is already going to have a consist list anyway and between the three will be able to make a final determination with a very good probability of success (correct-ness).
R. T. POTEET There is in this the possibility of business -- an I will install and code your RFID chip for $20.00 -- business.
Definitely. Not to mention equipment sales.
There are also going to be some cool "DCC" improvements too-- (I would be willing to enumerate them to a DCC mfgr for a fee and a percentage-- hint, hint ;) -- that are really going to knock the socks off what we have today. Improvements that are already feasible (even practical) and able to be shoe-horned into the processing ability of the existing decoders, though sadly not able to be retro-fitted to existing decoders. Whether the ideas come from me or someone else-- doesn't matter. Some bright spark will think them up eventually and the decoders will evolve some neat new tricks.
R. T. POTEET Enjoyed your posting! By the way, how's the South Penn coming along?; don't remember a progress report of late!
Aye yi yi! You just had to ask, didn't you?
(sigh)
I am in the doldrums, but not from a lack of enthusiasm-- I have had a number of, let's say: "debates" with the "railroad commission" regarding track warrants and geography. Every time I think I get it nailed-down she-- er, I mean they-- get pouty and glare at me (ever been glared at by a room full of pouty commissioners? It's not a pretty sight let me tell you! :) So that's one aspect. Not the biggest one though.
As you probably remember, I have built the benchwork and torn it down several times. Even though lumber is expensive, what happens after the lumber is even more expensive, so I'm determined to get it right before I get into the real (expensive) consumables. The last time was back in January. I had it built and even some test (read: play) track laid (pinned) down on pink foam. I had spent a lot of time thinking about what I wanted and what I built was *very nearly* it.
And as I ran trains around for awhile there kept being something "not quite right" about it-- I couldn't put my finger on it right away. And then it dawned on me what was missing. Even though I have a lot of room already, the feel of the track plan wasn't giving me that "long mainline run" feeling that I really, really want. And no matter how I surveyed it, I couldn't see getting everything I want into the benchwork area I built. It needed two improvements-- so I sat back and thought about it for several months-- right on the edge of going forward and maybe making a "big mistake" or else tearing it all down and doing it yet again-- which is a lot of work.
So I finally came to the conclusion that I *do* want those two things-- a long center peninsula down the middle of the room (about 25 feet or so, two-sided), and to double-deck the layout, at least about half of it. I have to leave the other half single-decked (higher up) to permit other family uses. And then of course came the next logical question-- where does the track go? Now that I have a new peninsula and two decks to work with-- what do I want? What is my layout and geography, etc.?
I have worked it out, more-or-less, and am pretty much satisfied with my new answers. Still the South Penn, no difference there. But the geography will now (easily, happily) cover Harrisburg PA (not actually modeled) to Pittsburgh PA (I don't *think* I'm going to model any of it, but I'm holding my option open on that). And connecting to the Montour RR, just underneath of Pittsburgh, in addition to all of the others I've identified previously.
It took me awhile to "see it", how it laid out geographically-- but after awhile it all came together and fits perfectly. My only remaining questions are two: what to do with the top deck over the center peninsula, and how to shoehorn a large-ish yard *and* climbing about 10-12 inches or thereabouts into a single 20-25 foot distance with about a 6-8 inch depth (I might be able to go deeper-- but that will entail more wrangling with the commission).
But I'm also concerned with how much space the peninsula takes up in the room. At the upper part of the room I don't care. I've already claimed all that space. But in the lower part of the room I'm trying to be sensitive to other family needs and limit how much I encroach with the center peninsula. Its the longest leg of the layout so I'd like to place a decent yard there, and some industries, etc. It would be *nice*, but I guess optional, if I could get another yard on the backside of the peninsula. But its competing with the need to gain serious elevation. I could use a helix I suppose, but that's a large box that's not very attractive-- plus the curve that I get if I don't is a *beautiful thing* to behold ! A definite photo-spot on the layout, even with the understanding that it will have to be part of the gate for the exterior door. I've figured out how to handle it, if I can get the elevation, so it will be scenicked and operate properly (easily) as a gate.
And the last issue-- mostly false-- is money. Since I haven't been building I've been acquiring ;) I need to stop doing that and channel the money into benchwork supplies. On the upside, I think I've finally acquired about all of the locos and most of the rolling stock I think I need. I need about 1000-1500 more cars, but I know exactly what I want and where to get them, and just need to "work the plan" (read: budget) to finish picking them up. So now my attention is nearly 100% ready to turn to acquiring hydrocal and sceniking supplies. Probably some more track too.
And I need to get up off my butt, get over to the big box store and buy lumber. This time though I think I'm going to try out rolls of nylon flashing as back drop material.
John
Most interesting discussion. I knew it could be figured out. Once you get a central computer involved, and get the tomfoolery out of the locos, many things become "simple". In the parallel hobby world of slot car racing, a PC is now part of the requirement for "serious" racing, so I'm used to that already. Which brings up another point:
The general rule for wide application and adoption of PC use in the hobby environment is that the necessary software should run on older, earlier generation machines, so that people's otherwise-discarded computers can find a permanent home in the layout room. This is a major cost-cutting tactic, which would broaden the market (and as a sidenote, running on a Mac as well as a PC would further broaden the market).
Another point to ponder is that the cascade of new technologies tends to render older technologies obsolete and useless. I (and others) hesitate to commit to big-dollar investments in systems which last only a few years, as new developments are rarely backwards-compatible. Blue-sky, clean slate systems design is great fun on a discussion forum, but my opinion is that as much as possible of existing technology (read: the consumer's monetary investment) should be worked into our great leaps forward. In that regard, retaining existing decoders and tinny in-loco speakers might be a good thing, provided it is worked into the design as a supplemental feature, not a basic requirement.
Robt. LivingstonMost interesting discussion. I knew it could be figured out. Once you get a central computer involved, and get the tomfoolery out of the locos, many things become "simple". In the parallel hobby world of slot car racing, a PC is now part of the requirement for "serious" racing, so I'm used to that already. Which brings up another point: The general rule for wide application and adoption of PC use in the hobby environment is that the necessary software should run on older, earlier generation machines, so that people's otherwise-discarded computers can find a permanent home in the layout room. This is a major cost-cutting tactic, which would broaden the market (and as a sidenote, running on a Mac as well as a PC would further broaden the market). Another point to ponder is that the cascade of new technologies tends to render older technologies obsolete and useless. I (and others) hesitate to commit to big-dollar investments in systems which last only a few years, as new developments are rarely backwards-compatible. Blue-sky, clean slate systems design is great fun on a discussion forum, but my opinion is that as much as possible of existing technology (read: the consumer's monetary investment) should be worked into our great leaps forward. In that regard, retaining existing decoders and tinny in-loco speakers might be a good thing, provided it is worked into the design as a supplemental feature, not a basic requirement.Now, I'm off to the woodpile to work on next winter's heat. Thanks for the discussion.
Now, I'm off to the woodpile to work on next winter's heat. Thanks for the discussion.
You mention older PC equipment-- one of the points I didn't make is that Linux runs great on older hardware and most of the relevant "free" stuff is available under under Linux or runs in a Java-based environment which can be set up on pretty much anything handy. Linux of course is free. So that's a very cost-effective way to go if you can't afford anything else. (I use Linux for almost everything anyway, so its second nature to me). All of the JMRI stuff, for example, runs fine on that platform.
Your second point about retrofitting existing installations-- my suggestions about RFID tags and IR Beacons can easily be fitted / retro-fitted to most any locomotive at trivial cost, even assuming full retail-- a buck a loco (or car), and much cheaper in quantity. An IR beacon would be a really useful for location and identification since the video camera is sensitive to it and can pick it up without anything additional. And if the IR beacon is sending out a serial number (unique Id) it can be looked-up in the computer just as easily as RFID. The benefit to RFID however is that its easy and pretty-much cheap enough to outfit every loco and bit of rolling stock for complete identification of anything traversing the rails. That ability is not strictly necessary for everything. But it would make it easy to identify locos for consisting, making sure every car that goes in a tunnel comes out on the other end, and other useful things on the layout. And since the logic occurs in the external computer for those types of functions, there again is nothing required to retrofit the loco except an RFID tag.