The Future of DCC

[ericboone]

I don't see control of a turnout from a controller, at least in its current form, as very intuative either. Maybe with a PDA controller, a graphical station diagram might do the trick, but a simple diagram control panel can't be beat for intuativeness.
I do plan on controlling every turnout with DCC and a switch machine as the mainline I will model is CTC controlled. However, I do plan on have some form of turnout control on the fascia. Having switch machines (and controlling toggle switches or buttons) tied into the DCC system does give a lot of flexibility and allows for changes to be made in software rather than in hard wiring.
Having Microsoft Train Simulator like PDA controller is not for everyone. Some have said there is no market for it. I agree it will be somewhat of a niche, but model railroading is full of niche manufacturers. Many of the makers of software for model railroading appear to be either home based side businesses or have other non-model railroad product line. Someone will make an MTS type PDA controller as the hardware technology is already present and only the software needs to be written.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JerryZeman
I've started to integrate other DCC features into my railroad on my double deck extension, specifically the use of Switch-It switch machine decoders, ..., and the Switch-Its are controlled directly from the hand held.

I'm underwhelmed with the experience so far. The advantage is I have greatly simplified the wiring required, and I haven't had to manufacture three new control panels for the extension. The disadvantage is the railroad becomes more difficult for new operators to learn, and the NCE throttles need to be tethered to reliably control the Switch-It decoders. I may end up rewiring the extension in the future and go back to the tried and true control panel.

I've been waiting for some feed back on this. I have never understood the twitter over controlling turnouts from the locomotive controller. It always seemed like a lot of extra button pushing switching back and forth between turnout/locomotive/next turnout/locomotive.....I've always though it seemed much more like playing a video game rather than running a railroad, but never actually met/talked anyone who had done it on a scale large enough to be significant.

[rrinker]

Jerry, you hit on exactly why I changed my mind and decided to NOT go with Switch-Its to control my Tortoises. Turnout control fromt he DCC controller, regardless of the brand, is not very intuitive, and if I was goign to have to put pushbuttons on the panel anyway, then why waste the money on the Switch-It when a $4 circuit can do the same thing minus the DCC connection that I wasn't going to use anyway?
On the other hand, I fully comprehend the various forms of Cab Control invented over the years - and would NEVER use any of them, not with DCC so readily available. I've never operated on a layout using DC block control with walkaround controllers, but the idea of flipping all those toggles ahead of and behind your train just does NOT appeal to me. I want to run my train, not worry about turning the block on before I get there and resetting it for the guy behind me. And if you do it RIGHT, it really saves nothing over the cost of DCC - by doign it right I mean NOT using low-current rotary switches to handle track current, but use them to control relays that have contacts rated for that stuff. We had that at a club I used to belong to, but because of the pain of wiring and the expense of all the relays and stuff, blocks were a lot bigger than they should have been for proper operation - two trains had to stay WAY too far apart. It was fine for open house continuous running, but never would have worked for a proper operating session. perhaps that's why we never HAD proper operating sessions..

--Randy

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by joecool1212

Here is one for dynamic breaking, going down hill with a long train, power set to 0 put the direction switch in reverse, dont apply power and the train slows quicker. Works well for the very free rolling GP 9 I have. Joe A.

Anything that puts a load on the motor.... I have a Stewart F7 that under DC full power would cost a LONG way - and generate enough power to light the headlight LED while doing so! Drop a short across the rails while it was coasting though - instant stop!

--Randy

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JerryZeman
As far as operating my models with a PDA like device, complete with a cab appropriate to the locomotive being controlled, no thanks. I have that already, in something called Microsoft Train Simulator. Works pretty great too for a $40.00 simulator once proper physics are downloaded and installed, and a whole host of other freeware and payware is installed. Considering the low cost, this simulator does a very respectable job of conveying the feeling of operating a locomotive, boredom and all.

Extend this thought. There is no reason the camera's in the locomotive couldn't send input to MTS and use it to control the DCC trains.

QUOTE:
Transponders in every car? No thanks. Its bad enough that lower cost kits (Intermountain and Red Caboose) are getting harder and harder to find, and high end rolling stock can set back the purchaser $25.00 per car plus in HO (assuming no discounts). I really don't need transponders for every car, I am, after all, modeling 1952.

Ship-it functions integrated into the control system? I'll pass. I'd be happy just being able to figure out the current version of Ship-It that I have. I was all prepared to say the heck with it, and just use the four sided waybills with hand printed out data with car cards printed out of Ship-It car cards, but my buddy finally figured out what is required to get it to work, after playing with the program off and on for the last six years. .... I can't say that my experience with Ship-It has been pleasurable to date.

You are not alone here but that's the underlying point. With transponders in every car interfacing to the computer, it knows where the cars are on the layout (and whether they are loaded, loading, or unloaded) so the operational software becomes 95% easier. Plus it can operate in several modes, in addition to the normal train schedule mode, operation could be driven by industry demands sort of like "Railroad Tycoon" game. Much more interesting for the dispatcher who then makes up the needed trains on the fly. Since the computer also knows the location and movement of cars it can rate the operating sessions on all sorts of interesting metrics. I can imagine the clubs call-out-board being based on engineer & switchman's performance.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

One one hand, I don't see the DCC protocol going anywhere, because it has been too entrenched now to radically change. But onthe other hand, after takign the time to read all the related NMRA dociments, there are MANY things int he DCC protocol that are needlessly complex because of the need for compatibility between the original Lenz, 2-digit addressing, and the 4 digit adressing, as well as the original 14 speed steps, and 28/128 speed steps. A 'clean sheet of paper' design would be far simpler and a lot more efficient in terms of packet lengths required to do the same thing.

Exactly, the original DCC was almost obsolete before it got into common usage. Sort of like the original DVDs that can't be played on any of the new players. Anything digital becomes obsolete very quickly.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

While I agree with the notion that power to the track will soon become the "old" way to do things, I don't agree that the DCC protocol will go the way of the dinosaur.

The DCC protocol is a great protocol to use for sending messages to a computer controller in a locomotive. I see DCC becoming the protocol used to send commands to self-contained wireless locomotives that don't take power from the track. In fact, it's already available for G scale, see the Airwire demo video at:

This is just what you are talking about, and it uses the DCC protocol to support completely self-contained loco control. The demo video is fun, I like to call it, "look Ma, no track!"

Well, that just doesn't make sense. The whole point of DCC was the integration of the power and computer signal into one. Previous systems (CTC-16, OnTrack, Lynx) just had power on the track and a carrier control signal over the top of it. In fact Lynx WAS (is?) wireless infared. In these systems the problem was the train could have power but loose or confuse the signal. With DCC, if it has power it has signal - that is the genius of it. So with this "no-track" scenario DCC is an albatros.

If the power doesn't neet to be transmitted, why not just use a much more efficient and common computer protocol? There is no reason this "wireless" train couldn't use simple SMTP or IP protocol on a 802.11a/b/g, WiFi. Why pervert DCC into something it was not designed for, especially when there are much more robust and mature technologies out there? I suppose perhaps they could just be using the "DCC" name as a marketing recognition thing to attract model railroaders to their product?

[joecool1212]

Here is one for dynamic breaking, going down hill with a long train, power set to 0 put the direction switch in reverse, dont apply power and the train slows quicker. Works well for the very free rolling GP 9 I have. Joe A.

[JerryZeman]

Interesting thread, and I have fought off the urge to jump in, as I feel that sometimes I suffer from tunnel vision, and an not willing to readily accept "forward thinking".

I'm quite happy to run my railroad with DCC in it's current form. My locomotives do not have sound, but they run reliably, with great speed control.

I've started to integrate other DCC features into my railroad on my double deck extension, specifically the use of Switch-It switch machine decoders, and Power Shield circuit breakers. My whole extension is wired without control panels, relying solely on the Power shields for short circuit protection (no toggle switches to isolate blocks), and the Switch-Its are controlled directly from the hand held.

I'm underwhelmed with the experience so far. The advantage is I have greatly simplified the wiring required, and I haven't had to manufacture three new control panels for the extension. The extension got up and running a lot faster. The disadvantage is the railroad becomes more difficult for new operators to learn, and the NCE throttles need to be tethered to reliably control the Switch-It decoders. I may end up rewiring the extension in the future and go back to the tried and true control panel.

As far as operating my models with a PDA like device, complete with a cab appropriate to the locomotive being controlled, no thanks. I have that already, in something called Microsoft Train Simulator. Works pretty great too for a $40.00 simulator once proper physics are downloaded and installed, and a whole host of other freeware and payware is installed. Considering the low cost, this simulator does a very respectable job of conveying the feeling of operating a locomotive, boredom and all. I'dn rather see the computer based simulators advance to satisfy that lust for realism, rather than incorporate it into my model activities. And the only thing that I feel that MSTS really needs to improve for a more realistic experience is the physics, and, for modern power, incorporation of the HOTD (head of train device).

I'd just as soon stick with my DCC hand-held throttles, and railfan while I drive. The realism aspect on my railroad comes from the operating sessions that I just started holding, incorporating TT and TO operation, train registers, and the fun that comes associated with it.

Transponders in every car? No thanks. Its bad enough that lower cost kits (Intermountain and Red Caboose) are getting harder and harder to find, and high end rolling stock can set back the purchaser $25.00 per car plus in HO (assuming no discounts). I really don't need transponders for every car, I am, after all, modeling 1952.

Ship-it functions integrated into the control system? I'll pass. I'd be happy just being able to figure out the current version of Ship-It that I have. I was all prepared to say the heck with it, and just use the four sided waybills with hand printed out data with car cards printed out of Ship-It car cards, but my buddy finally figured out what is required to get it to work, after playing with the program off and on for the last six years. Hopefully, he can get my railroad up and running in the program. I can't say that my experience with Ship-It has been pleasurable to date. Seems like the guys with hand printed car cards and waybills are having just as much fun, maybe more, than I am.

A whole host of gimicks to make the physics of the model act like the real thing? No thanks to that too. How many people have a half to three quarter scale mile of track to stop their now prototypical acting train? And I really don't want to "enjoy" the momentum effects. I have purposely programmed momentum out of all of my decoders, as I feel it keeps them from starting / stopping as smooth as they can without momentum.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the advancement of model train control. I already ditched Dynatrol eight years ago for DCC, if something better comes along, I'm interested. But I don't see that on the horizon in the near future (10 years). I'm 46 years old now, and I'm hoping that over the next 20 years that I will have operated my railroad enough that it is worn out, and the locomotives and rolling stock are pooched. At that point I can step back and evaluate the state of the art, and determine how / what I want to model for the last 30-40 years of my life. [:D]

My guess is that control systems won't be radically different that what they are today. And that would be fine with me.

regards,
Jerry Zeman

[chutton01]

No reason DCC could not be replaced, and quickly, in the near future.
Say a cheap wireless drop in replacement is created (perhaps a small, capsule size for adding to non-dcc locomotives, and with an adapter for DCC plug equipped locos - at a price of 15 or 20 US dollars (I did say cheap - OK, start off at 50). Range of over 100m, none (or very little) suseptibility to interference. Soon all locos come with this 'new Digital' standard controller, and bang - DCC is dead.
As for power, I loathe the idea of using todays batteries because, quite frankly, they are among the most expensive sources of power http://www.batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-51.htm. Future, better battery tech developement seems somewhat stymied right now (although breakthroughs are always possible), so perhaps other sources (microturbines anyone - http://fhapgood.fastmail.fm/microturbine.htm) will be the future direction.
Of course, running out of power during an operation session or club show really, really sucks - I think we can all agree on this. And since we don't have powered steerable scale Diesel Tanker trucks (or coal trucks) to refill our drained engines, I like the idea of rechargable batteries (which is less expensive a power source than non-reusable ones) being recharged periodically by powered track segments (but I can be convinced of other options, except expensive non-rechargable batteries that die in the middle of an operating session - i.e. today's batteries).
Of course, anything is better than slaming the fist on the layout benchwork to nudge a balky loco over a dirty section of track...

[rrinker]

You might think that now, looking at PC vs Mac, but the original Mac was one HECK of a kludge, wheras the original IBM PC design was quite elegant in its simplicity, plus the fact that it was done on the sly without the knowledge of IBM brass at the time. Don Estridge and his team were absolute geniuses, and amny point to Don's unfortunate early death as a factor in the subsequent bloat in PC design, ie the failed IBM PS2.
I don't deny that extending the existing protocol with true wireless and so forth will likely attarct a big following. And it really is too late to 'start over', anything from here out will HAVE to remain backward compatible. But technological change comes far slower to model railroading that it does in other places anyway. Witness the basic design is well over 12 years old now, yet you can still operate that old equipment on a modern layout. Or the popularity of the CMRI system, now over TWENTY years old (although there are modern design principles employeed in the latest series of cards - but the commucation and software interface is still EXACTLY the same).
Don't get me started on Rail-Lynx. I have to say, it's a contributing factor in me leaving the club I belonged to. The thought of installing the receiver sensor by having to drill a hole in my models never apealled to me, although I understand it sort of works if you put it in the cab area as well. They still use it at this club, and I get there at the annual open houses to see the progress, and I notice that a) most of the running trains for the open house are NOT equipped with a Rail-Lynx receiver and b) the ones that are, even in wide open spaces, they sometimes have difficulty getting reception from the controllers. No thanks, I'll stick to DCC.

--Randy

[jfugate]

Don't underestimate the power of entenched standards as compared to "cleaner, elegant, and better".

Look at the PC versus the Mac. In terms of shear design and elegance, the Mac ought to win hands down. Yet the PC, with all its circuitry complexity and bloat, hangs on and maintains the lead.

From a marketing perspective, branching off to wireless, self-contained DCC would be to people an evolutionary step and more likely to be embraced whole-heartedly as an add-on.

A revolutionary break into something totally new will be seen more as "I gotta throw away everything I have now ..." and too radical of a change -- whether it's true or not.

Look at RailLynx. A very nice, powerful, and elegant system. Will run on top of any DCC or straight DC system. But it remains a niche player, even though it is clever and very cool. It's too different to be considered "mainstream".

[rrinker]

One one hand, I don't see the DCC protocol going anywhere, because it has been too entrenched now to radically change. But onthe other hand, after takign the time to read all the related NMRA dociments, there are MANY things int he DCC protocol that are needlessly complex because of the need for compatibility between the original Lenz, 2-digit addressing, and the 4 digit adressing, as well as the original 14 speed steps, and 28/128 speed steps. A 'clean sheet of paper' design would be far simpler and a lot more efficient in terms of packet lengths required to do the same thing.

--Randy

[jfugate]

While I agree with the notion that power to the track will soon become the "old" way to do things, I don't agree that the DCC protocol will go the way of the dinosaur.

The DCC protocol is a great protocol to use for sending messages to a computer controller in a locomotive. I see DCC becoming the protocol used to send commands to self-contained wireless locomotives that don't take power from the track. In fact, it's already available for G scale, see the Airwire demo video at:


http://mymemoirs.net/model-train-show.php

This is just what you are talking about, and it uses the DCC protocol to support completely self-contained loco control. The demo video is fun, I like to call it, "look Ma, no track!"

[CNJ831]

Not to rain on anybody's parade but I think Brakie is closer to the truth than most DCCers would like to hear. DCC has been around something like a decade now. yet, I have seen no major poll or survey to indicate that it is employed by more than 20%-25% of hobbyists after all that time. The majority of longtime modelers are still DC oriented and unlikely to change in the near future. Most of the potentially unique features DCC might offer/be desired in the future according to posters here are items that would honestly appeal to only a very small percentage of modelers. It is unlikely that most would ever be offered commercially because of this very limited demand.

Like Brakie, I see in the hobby's future the advent of systems no longer requiring powering of the track in any fashion. Instead, the locos will be self-powered and operated by wireless remote control and much sooner than you think. As long as power is obtained through the track or signals carried therein, there remain too many problems. With the amazing technical advancements we are seeing elsewhere in self-contained power systems, ten years from now I expect DCC (and DC as well) will likely be nothing more than a memory among model railroaders.

CNJ831

[BRAKIE]

Now let's look at the other side of the coin..Shall we?
I suspect DCC like all of the other great controllers of the past will fade into the sunset only to be replace with a better control system that will not require decoders and perhaps not even wire to the track..There is no doubt this will happen within the next 5-7 years as the DCC market begins to stabilize and drop in sales except for decoders..
Of course I have no idea what this system will be..But..Know this..DCC will be replace as technology demands it just like the old VCR and older and bulkier camcorders.

[chutton01]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

I think he means TRULY wireless. As in, no power in the track, no wired cab controllers, completely self contained. They have it for G scale, saves having to try and keep track clean when it's outdoors, there's an RC receiver in the loco and a battery to run it.

Yes, you are pretty much correct.
Wireless, switchable throttles (like cell phones or something), and self-powered locos (either periodic recharging like my powered segment ideas, or microturbine generators, or whatever). OK, so perhaps I'm a bit behind the curve there, sorry.

[rrinker]

I think he means TRULY wireless. As in, no power in the track, no wired cab controllers, completely self contained. They have it for G scale, saves having to try and keep track clean when it's outdoors, there's an RC receiver in the loco and a battery to run it.
With advanced capacitor technology like in those min RC cars, it's getting near possible in HO scale now - yeah, those mini cars you charge up on the controller and then drive around for a while, do NOT have a rechargeable battery in the car, it's a large (value) capacitor! Amazing..

--Randy

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chutton01

Hmmm, well I've stated my preferences before, andthey are somewhat similar to what you guys posted above...

1.) Wireless individual locomotive control (you know it's coming)

Please expand this thought. I don't understand, I thought we had that...?

[pedromorgan]

i cant wait to see a decoder with synchronised sound and smoke. seuthe smoke machines are very realistic and with a fan added can simulate diesel plumes and steam exhaust. that would be fantastic.

i like thi idea of having moving vehicles on my model roads. perhaps this isnt dcc and deserves its own heading but i have already seen layouts with trollybusses and busses going round following wires under the street but apart from th trollybusses (with their pickups controllable from the overhead wires in exactly the same way as railroad locomotives) control is very basic and requires full time operators. i would like to see trams trollybusses cars and busses all automated and interlocked to allow us to have realistic road traffic whilst allowing us to gt on with the real task of running our trains. because they would be automated and have to run from batteries they coud automatically go to a recharging station hidden somewhere where small strips on roadway make contact with small bits of copperclad on the bottom and it would wait there untill it had recharged and go off on its travels.

i would also like to have a decent mechanism for raising and lowering pantographs on demand and uncoupling (kadee/sommerfeld)

Peter

[chutton01]

Hmmm, well I've stated my preferences before, andthey are somewhat similar to what you guys posted above...

1.) Wireless individual locomotive control (you know it's coming)
2.) Throttles which allow you the degree of control over the loco you want, from the equivalent of a Lionel throttle to complete reaction to grades, loads, braking levels, sounds, etc.
3.) These throttles of course will have LCD (or future equivalent) screens displaying the scene from the locomotive's 'Engineer's' point of view. (and yes, it swivels when the locomotive is reversing)
4.) Battery/Flywheel stored energy hybrids - probably a rechargable battery which absorbs power from live powered track segments set a few metres apart - powered track need not be continuous, as the battery recharges from these segments, and it solves the problems of dirty track (well, it alleviates that problem a bit) and reversing loop shorts. I like the idea of self-recharging batteries from those live power segments, as it is a pain if you loco dies from a depleted battery (kinda like why hybrid vehicle technology is taking off while pure-eletric vehicles are languishing). OK, maybe microturbine generators will do, but I'm still not convinced
5.) Control those accessories! I know you can do this now in a fashion, but small, dirt cheap drop-in DCC (or, again, future equivalent) allow you to do it for lots of cool things - imagine the throttle LCD screen showing you the various moments of freedom for a crane so you can tap and direct the boom/hook/ movement and elevation.
6.) Remember SPUDS - now, micro-spuds - self contained motor/gearing/controllers/power source in, what?, Thumbnail size? - Hook it in - bam, finally we get self-powered controllable trackmobiles (yes, with rubber tired steering and the ability to go off track for a period of time). People who like RDCs, Brill Doodlebugs, EMUs, DMUs etc, will also have a field day.
7.) And, whether you want it or not (and many many not), the ability to be controlled via a network device so that the entire layout can be pre-programmed (in the dispatching sense, not the software engineering sense) - great for club and module displays (I think this have been around in some fashion since the late 1970s - however, this is more of a plug and play deal - hook up a network device to the layout, the software scans everything, creates a map of track (while only some segments are powered, every segment is addressable as to its nature, location, and length) , switches, locos currently on the layout, hell rolling stock even (nano-EDI tags?), and gives you, the operator, a inventory and a schematic of what's available, where it is, what it can do, and where it can go.

[ericboone]

Texas,

I think the things you discussed are dead on. Since the amount of data the decoder is able to send back is somewhat limited, several of the things you mentioned either could or should be simulated at the command center and throttle. I agree with you that so much more can be done. The technology is there. I'm not talking about far out things here. It is just time for a manufacturer to step up. Shoot, if I was a computer programmer, I could do most all of this now.

Eric

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericboone

I think the near future holds some exciting advances in DCC train control and operations in general. I hope some manufacturer or group could make these a reality.

Whoo hoo, someone thinking forward. About a two years ago on rec.railroad I got involved in a rather heated discussion with some people who thought DCC was the ultimate that could never be inproved upon. They of course were still twittered just because they could run multiple locos on a single track. I pointed out that that technology wasn't new just standardized now, and how primative the current system was. When the flames started and they challenged me to describe ANY way DCC could be improved upon I posted an 80 point response. I wish I would have saved that list somewhere because I had some really neat ideas in it. Many of them were enhancements along the same thoughts as you included in the original message on this thread. A decoder on every piece of rolling stock, perhaps even on every axle. Feedback from all sorts of things about the locomotive, on not only engine load, but drawbar tension, rpm, temperature, scale speed, simulated fuel load & consumption, sand, water, air pressure in the brakes. Then add digital video from all sides of the locomomtive so a remote throttle booth could enable the engineer to "see out" of the cab.
I imagine throttles that look more like a real loco cab rather than just something to increase the voltage.

On the other hand I disagree greatly with MR editor on what constitutes an ideal "digital" locomotive (editorial Aug 2003).

[Anonymous]

I think someday the computer will overtake all forms of train control, with sofware tech. being what it is, only a manf. willingness to spend the money on development of such things will limit the scope of how far it goes.As for me I just hope it doesn't happen to fast.I like having my hand on the throttle,I like the cruise.I don't want to become a computer programmer just to be able to enjoy all the features that i might buy a perticular engine for,or build a layout based on the computer i have avail. I do not mean to say that for the computer savy this would not be a great thing. Just my three cents worth.

[foxtrackin]

I hope they come up with a better way to uncouple cars. I am builting a large classification yard and want to be able to built trains in a more realistic way. I am hoping to do this with dcc and not have to do know so much with my hand.

[simon1966]

The company I am working for is starting to use BlueTooth technology for wireless control and interface with some ambulatory medical devices. Class 1 BT devices have 100 meter range, so would be great for model RR use. Off the shelf OEM bluetooth circuits are very compact and inexpensive and can support high data rates. It would be neat to see bluetooth enabled wireless technology for throttles.

[Anonymous]

Just think of the days when DCC becomes the standard and is included in every train set.

[FThunder11]

If it was all affordalbe, i think thats an awsome idea

[rrinker]

I often thought it would be possible, at least in O scale and larger, to equip a caboose with a free-rolling gear drive with something like an open-core motor that wasn't powerful enough to actually move the train, but to provide some resistance to the movement - thus, a brake. The locomotive would have spur gear drive, or a double worm, so that if pushed the motor would turn, not slide the wheels. Again a coreless type motor would be used, and power applied in the reverse direction would act as a brake. Thus to actually stop a train, or hold it back on a grade, would take some work on the part of the engineer to apply the brakes enough to maintain speed. Could be interesting - and entirely possible electronics-wise with DCC.

--Randy

[IRONROOSTER]

The really neat thing about all the these features will be that we can turn them on and off as we desire.
Enjoy
Paul