Recieved in my E-mail this morning.
http://www.on30guy.com/
Bernd
New York, Vermont & Northern Rwy. - Route of the Black Diamonds
protolancer(at)kingstonemodelworks(dot)com
Interesting turn from a major player in MRR electronics. One comment was that "sales didn't justify the investment." Thing is, the initial investment was already sunk and at least an initial run produced and sold. More likely, the numbers didn't add up to produce the next run. Could be a problem finding the right partner to build it, but more likely was indeed a sales issue -- they just weren't selling them fast enough to justify producing them again.
I've been a dead rail skeptic for two reasons: the need for improved battery technology and the way it's being sold by some enthusiasts as the end of DCC. Batteries will take care of themselves. But the investment and reliability of DCC will likely keep dead rail a niche product. There is its immediate future, whatever happens over the next century. For that, I really like the idea of deadrail as an alternative and hope that development continues to produce practical products.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
The real story here is compatition, there is alot in what is at this time a nitch market. People who don't follow the dead rail scene, don't relize how many players there are but as you can see, they are starting to drop out, reminds me of the early days of DCC but in the end two to three players emerge to dominate (sorry Crest is not among them, always thought they would be).
No surprise. It took command and control systems over 30 years to get to where there was an NMRA standard. It then has taken another 15-20 years to be used by maybe half the hobbyists.
So I see dead rail as being in that early stage of proprietary trial and error development. Then it may be develop into a standard if it advances the hobby. But I doubt it. I think we'll need some major technology advances that can be adapted to model railroading before this becomes more than a tinkerer's subhobby - and those advances may take us in a whole new direction that we don't foresee now.
Paul
We don't know if it's a happy eventuality or an unhappy one for TAM. Depends on what they make of it in the end.
Why am I not surprised?
Dead rail will remain an orphan, as long as not one of the big players adopts this technology and pushes it forward. However, why should any manufacturer invest into a technology, which has little to no benefit over conventional, rail powered command control systems, and still has a number of yet to solve technical issues attached to it?
I see dead rail as an after market product for a few, technology driven aficionados. After all, model railroads seem to be rather stationary, unlike your mobile.
Another reason for Tam Valley dropping the DRS is that it can not be sold out side the US because of the frequency used, 916MHz 896MHz.
I assume same goes for the Stanton S-Cab. The S-Cab uses a frequency of 916.48 MHz.
In a thread on Model Railroad Hobbist forum a member contacted Tim Ring of Ring Engineering. It was said that Ring Engineering's RailPro model train control system is not certified and does not comply for importation to Canadian or foreign markets. It is only certified for the US market. This was back in 2011 and may have changed by now.
Many modelers use the terms Blue Tooth and WiFi control. The frequencies used by these devices are as folows:
Bluetooth operates at frequencies between 2402 and 2480 MHz, or 2400 and 2483.5 MHz including guard bands 2 MHz wide at the bottom end and 3.5 MHz wide at the top. This is in the globally unlicensed (but not unregulated) industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) 2.4 GHz short-range radio frequency band.
5 GHz WiFi channels & frequencies. As the 2.4 GHz band becomes more crowded, many users are opting to use the 5 GHz ISM band. This not only provides more spectrum, but it is not as widely used by Wi-Fi as well as many other appliances including items such as microwave ovens, etc.
I use Deltang R/C. I have three steamers using the 2.4MHz Deltang recievers. I can run the engines on AC, DC, or DCC powered rails.
I'm also working on using 3 volt micro motors with gearing and 6 volt motors with gearing for powering engines using batteries. Still working on designs at the moment.
There are always tradeoffs though - 6GHz is much shorter range and even MORE blocked by large bags of mostly water, ie human beings, in the signal path.
The 900MHz band actually has the longest range of all 3 options - alternatively this means you can use less power but get equivalent range.
As for Duncan, he probably sells more Frog Juicers in a week than DRS components in a month, so probably not worth the manufactuering costs to keep making the DRS. Not to mention all the other goodies like the various servo controllers. I doubt dropping DRS will hurt in the least, it was just something else he had interest in and turned into a product.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
The biggest market for dead rail remains in Garden Railroading and does not require fancy minaturized equipment, and so goes supply and demand.....
I can still buy a Revolution radio throttle and some big rechargeable batteries and put them in ny G scale trains.
DCC has only has a small share of the large scale market, mainly with Airwire from CVP.
Again, if anything ever puts a dent in DC and DCC useage in small scales, it will be track powered direct radio. Track power provides detection, unlimited run time, etc.
Direct radio does reduce layout infrastructure........
Sheldon
Keep-alive electronics that fit into HO-scale engines are relatively new, and I think they also may be fixing some of the things that make dead rail desireable. Nobody has perfect track work and perfectly clean track and wheels, but with keep-alive circuits "pretty good" will now be sufficient.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Sheldon,I agree with regards to the size of the equipment (especially battery size) as the reason for dead rail's success in large scale applications. I think the other major reason is that large scale layout owners tend to have only a few large scale locos.
I've never met a large scale modeler who owns more than a dozen locos. Meanwhile, in HO scale, I know modelers that own over 100, 200, even 300 locos. Even I have over 100 HO locos. It's a lot easier to justify the time and expense of deadrail (installing, charging, & replacing batteries) for ~10 locos vs. 100+ locos.
I dunno about direct radio reducing layout infrastructure very much. My 25'x50' layout was a DCC Zephyr, a radio receiver, a half dozen throttle panels, 200' of paired 14AWG wire, 200' of phone cable, a bunch of hook-up wire, and a few throttles. If I had used, say, RailPro, I'd still have the 200' of 14AWG wire and the hook-up wires, and then use their track power supply and their throttles. All I would really eliminate is the DCC radio receiver, the DCC throttle panels, and the phone cable.
That's...not a lot.
IMHO, what direct radio needs to do is be 1) Cheaper and 2) an NMRA Standard so that there's 3) More than one company making it.
Paul3 Sheldon,I agree with regards to the size of the equipment (especially battery size) as the reason for dead rail's success in large scale applications. I think the other major reason is that large scale layout owners tend to have only a few large scale locos. I've never met a large scale modeler who owns more than a dozen locos. Meanwhile, in HO scale, I know modelers that own over 100, 200, even 300 locos. Even I have over 100 HO locos. It's a lot easier to justify the time and expense of deadrail (installing, charging, & replacing batteries) for ~10 locos vs. 100+ locos. I dunno about direct radio reducing layout infrastructure very much. My 25'x50' layout was a DCC Zephyr, a radio receiver, a half dozen throttle panels, 200' of paired 14AWG wire, 200' of phone cable, a bunch of hook-up wire, and a few throttles. If I had used, say, RailPro, I'd still have the 200' of 14AWG wire and the hook-up wires, and then use their track power supply and their throttles. All I would really eliminate is the DCC radio receiver, the DCC throttle panels, and the phone cable. That's...not a lot. IMHO, what direct radio needs to do is be 1) Cheaper and 2) an NMRA Standard so that there's 3) More than one company making it.
First off, I agree with all your points to a degree.
Layout infrastructure - Being a DC user, I have never needed a "track buss" or multiple power feeds to a given electrical section (block). I'm not sure direct radio would require a track buss for most layouts.
DCC seems to suffer from signal problems, which the track buss/multiple power feeds seem to correct.
So with signaling they all need a lot of wire, without signals direct radio might really be the "two wires" like DCC "promised".
Mr B commented on keep alive and clean track, also problems I have not had with DC.
Disclaimer - I have always soldered my rail joints and powered my frogs.
So on that count dead rail is a solution in search of a problem.
But I agree, without a shared open platform, none of these other systems will go very far.
Still very happy with Aristo radio throttles, Advanced Cab Control, Dallee inductive detectors and relay based signals..........I push less buttons than the average DCC operator.........and have miles of wire..........
I aways thought dead rail was a bad idea since you would have to charge those batteries up and then put the engine back in service.
It seems better to have a live rail to charge the batteries but the batteries would still run the engine and the radio would still control it independant of a signal through the rails.
But, as some have pointed it, it may have been a solution in search of a problem. DCC with a keep alive of sorts should generally take care of typical problems like dead frogs or dirty spots on tracks for those who don't go the extra mile to clean track and power frogs.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Does dead rail have to be conductive?
Rich
Alton Junction
I am not smart enough to understand why one should wire the track to have live rail for charging the batteries in a loco and bluetooth or R/C to control it. For my little brain, this smell like a technology driven into the wrong direction.
I agree, Ulrich. I assume that dead rail would normally not need to be conductive unless you want to recharge the batteries through the rail.
So, if the batteries are recharged independently of the rail, then I assume that dead rail need not be conductive. Is that right?
Well, that´s what the name implies, doesn´t it? There is no need for batterie operation when you´ve got live rails.
Sir Madog Well, that´s what the name implies, doesn´t it? There is no need for batterie operation when you´ve got live rails.
It makes more sense to have a keep alive installed - less room and hopefully less expense per engine. Perhpas a hybrid of the dead rail system, only it will not be dead rail actually.
Not everything technically possible makes sense - this is what I get out of this discussion. As I said earlier, model trains are somewhat stationary, unlike a mobile phone or tablet PC. Dead rail makes a lot of sense where conductivity is difficult to maintain - like a garden railway, but not in HO or even a smaller scale.
richhotrainSo, if the batteries are recharged independently of the rail, then I assume that dead rail need not be conductive. Is that right?
What sort of material would make good non-conductive rail? I'm not sure. Plastic in any form that is close to scale will either be fragile or way expensive. Other than that, not sure what would work. Remember that rail needs to maintain gauge and the rail itself, any distortions and you're back to running on the ballast...but that IS possible with deadrail...so maybe just eliminate rail entirely and use decals or sticky printed stuff to lay down a virtual track?
Mike, I didn't really have any alternative material in mind. I just found it interesting that it may be called "dead rail", but it still relies on traditional metal track, and most metals are excellent conductors of electricity.
As far as no need for wiring with dead rail, this is not entirely true since wiring would be required to charge batteries from the rail, and wiring would be required to run DCC-equipped locomotives on dead rail.
mlehmanso maybe just eliminate rail entirely and use decals or sticky printed stuff to lay down a virtual track?
Wouldn´t it then make sense to eliminate the train together with the rail? I think that´s already available. It´s called a train simulator - ideal for the folks, who can´d do any carpentry, wiring, landscaping a.s. Doesn´t make a mess of the place and requires no storage! No more discussion about DC vs. DCC/DCS, or Bachmann v. BLI. No derailments, no short circuits, no smoked decoders and - no fun!
You still need conductive rail if you want to have track circuits for signalling...
even if it's not otherwise energised - but it would have to have some power source to sense the current drop. This isn't anything at all like new technology, real railroads were doing this even before the vacuum tube was invented.
It's only a short stretch to say if there is already power in the rails, why not use it for something.
Frankly, this whole keep alive thing I think is blown way out of proportion. I now have one loco that has a pickup wheelbase no longer than a standard freight car truck, that one may indeed need a keep alive, powered frogs or not. But up til now, my smallest loco, a Bachmann 44 tonner, has had no issues crawling over even unpowered frogs - powered frogs would be a no brainer. Larger locos also had no problems running at creep speed for multiple laps with no stalling. I don;t see the point in putting keep alives in everything, and of course the type of equipment that can benefit the most from it has the least room. The club layout is significantly less reliable, mostly due to those olde rmodules with loose fitter sections interconnecting them. Even some larger all-wheel diesels have problems with that, but the issue is not poor pickup by the locos, it's poor track design.
As for DCC signal - I've never had an issue. I do in the end have a heavy bus with lots of feeders, but I also like to start runnng trains ASAP, so this often starts out with the proverbial 2 wires and everything actually works just fine. SInce that worked, it was no suprise that it STILL worked when the feeders were simply twisted around the bus, not soldered or otherwise solidly connected until I got around to soldering them all.
Being in narrowgauge, conductivity is often thought of as an issue. But generally my HOn3 ocos operate about as reliably as standard gauge. There is nothing that a keep alive can do, other than run over inadvertent "dead rail," that good standard practices usually address very effectively.
Every piece of rail either has a direct feeder or, in a few cases, is soldered to a rail that does.
Every turnout has a hot frog that has its polarity properly aligned in the process of aligning the points.
All locos have pickup on every wheel or as close to every wheel as is practical.
I use - sparingly - CRC 2-26 as a contact enhancer.
Even this little critter usually does surprisingly OK...
Probably no room for a keep-alive, but a few here have added sound. Don't see how shoehorning a battery and radio receiver in would work at the present time, although there may be a solution some day. But many smaller locos will prove quite a challenge to convert to dead rail even once the technology fits the average HO road-switcher.