Possibly this discusion could be old, and I cannot seem to reference anything close to current. As in larger scales, has there been any advancement to date on nicad rechargable battery controls for HO or possibly smaller scale locos?
The pure logic and simplifacation of a system whereas all locos are battery powered remotely through a hand held throttle totally free of track wiring and cleaning except for turnouts and signaling is to me quite interesting. I could visualize runnning trains for hours and then parking on a "recharging" track for the next run. With today's advanced rechargeable battery technology, this no longer seems like science fiction and larger scales already are using this system for outdoor running.
Non- model railroad visitors who could become new model railroaders when visiting my pike....and then after seeing the immense amount of wiring under the bench, seriously consider taking up another hobby.....even when I explain that most of the wiring is to power turnouts and signals.
Now with such a system, wiring frogs, reverse loops, and other such electronic necessities for basic operation would go into model railroad history and lore. Of course this would appeal greatly to non-electrical background types and older almost extinct types such as myself, but could high tech savy millenials become interested being that now it seems that the current state of the art techonolgy is the driving force bringing them into the hobby?
If I personally were asked to invest in such a system.... and if well designed and with a good marketing plan... I'd listen.
Any thoughts,
HZ
Howard,
This has been bantered about a number of times previously here on the forum.
While I do think there are some interesting and nifty propositions that battery technology could add to the hobby, I think it's more realistically practical for larger scales (i.e. S, O, and G) rather than smaller scales (i.e. HO, N, and Z). And, no matter how "great" battery technology may become in the near or distant future, I'm really NOT interested in the additional expense of the batteries; nor the retrofitting of them in my current roster of nearly 40 locomotives; nor the cost and bother of replacing them when (not if) they go bad.
I thoroughly enjoy DCC so I'm not against progress or trying new things in the hobby. I do think, however, there comes a point where technology's incessant siren-song to "make things simpler" or "better" really ends up having the opposite effect. Where you draw the line for yourself is an individual decision and batteries are on the other side of the line for me for my HO-scale layout.
Same goes for tablet- or cellphone-based wi-fi throttles for operating a layout. Staring at a flat-screen that requires two hands and two eyes just to change speed loses it appeal for me when I can do that one-handed with my current throttle without needing to even look at it.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Seems to me the batteries could fit in a substantial pedestal/centipede style tender, or in a reefer, or combine, or any type of car trailing the tender, or maybe the car next to a B unit. It would need an engineered coupling, or else be permanently linked via a wire harness, but perhaps it would be a small price to pay for on-board power.
I think this topic has been discussed back and forth and sometimes even with some heat to it.
Of course, there is a lot to say for a different way to supply the necessary juice to the motors of our engines, other than using the two rails we use these days. "Dead Rail" has a lot of advantages - no wiring and literally no cleaning of track and wheels. However, the devil hides in the detail of charging the batteries. Do you have to take them out for charging or can the remain "on board". How easy is either way performed? Is there going to be a standard plug for charging the batteries? I guess there are more questions to be asked that I can think of at the moment.
Frankly, I don´t see that future coming soon. As long as there are no standards for battery operation established, people will most likely stay with the "old and proven". Look how long it took (and still takes) to roll out DCC!
tstageI do think, however, there comes a point where technology's incessant siren-song to "make things simpler" or "better" really ends up having the opposite effect. ... Same goes for tablet- or cellphone-based wi-fi throttles for operating a layout. Staring at a flat-screen that requires two hands and two eyes just to change speed loses it appeal for me when I can do that one-handed with my current throttle without needing to even look at it.
the drive to apply new technology isn't always successful. Sometimes the right pieces aren't all available. Eventually the right combination of ideas solves the technical problem, is economical, ergonomic and intuitive to use.
Howard ZaneThe pure logic and simplifacation of a system whereas all locos are battery powered remotely through a hand held throttle totally free of track wiring and cleaning except for turnouts and signaling is to me quite interesting.
using dead rail requires solving two problems: fitting both battery and the charging circuits into the model and the radio circuit to control it. Using modulated track polarity minimizes the communications circuit in a DCC decoder and is probably a key concept that made DCC successful.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
OK, let's say that engineers/scientists come up with a battery that never requires recharging. Even then, you still need a layout - - benchwork, track, signals, structures, landscaping, etc. And you still need a lot of money to buy the motive power and rolling stock. My point is that there is a lot more to model railroading than just a power source.
Rich
Alton Junction
Sir Madogthere are no standards for battery operation established
This is a major hurdle. Without standards, most manufacturers will not build it into their locomotives. Already there are competing control systems to DCC that are non standard such as RailPro. But you have to convert everything yourself. MTH finally got smart and made their Protosound 3 system compatible with DCC (only reason I bought one), but their stuff costs more.
Next problem is cost. This requires a radio receiver, battery receptacle plus batteries, charging controls, etc. Either the user installs or pays for this. For 1 or 2 locomotives probably okay, but for 20, 50, 100 cost becomes significant.
Next problem is space - sure you can probably fit this into the larger engines, but what about 4-4-0's and other small steam and diesel engines. Not everyone will want to run a dedicated boxcar behind their engine (and of course that adds to cost and complexity).
Finally, for indoor layouts this doesn't really solve much of a problem. Personally, I never clean my track in S scale and have no problems running DCC locomotives on track that I have had for over 10 years. DCC wiring without signalling is pretty simple - there are products for dealing with reversing issues in DCC and polarity change in frogs if live frogs are used.
So (for indoor layouts) I don't see this becoming anything more than a novelty product for those who enjoy tinkering with it.
Paul
IRONROOSTERSo (for indoor layouts) I don't see this becoming anything more than a novelty product for those who enjoy tinkering with it.
I believe Howard suggested that with dead rail, track wiring can be simpler even on small layouts because there's no need to worry about reverse sections or powering frogs.
Personally, I already see things headed that way, especially for HO and larger. I'm a bit surprised by some of the negativism in some of the responses to your post considering that such dead rail systems are already commercially available. Batteries keep getting smaller along with the radio controllers necessary to control the batteries. Charging thru the rails or thru a discrete plug on the locomotive seems pretty straight forward. I think that clean track and electrical conductivity is more of an issue for modelers in the smaller scales than some people claim. I know it is an issue for my DCC layout. I think DCC/battery hybrid systems might happen too. A recent NG&SLG article described a dead rail modular layout in On30.
Google Dead Rail or Stanton or Tam Valley to see what people are already doing. I believe RailPro is also capable of being operated by battery. I agree with you Howard, and I am starting to listen to what is being marketed in this area too.
A few thoughts, but first a disclaimer:
I am a "sideline" fan of both dead rail and direct radio, mainly because I have never believed that "one size fits all" when it comes to controlling model trains.
That said, in HO I see more of a future in direct radio with powered track than dead rail.
Direct radio reduces or eliminates much of the under layout wiring currently associated with DCC on large layouts and would replace it with several medium sized power supplies - think one power supply for each power district. The lack of need to send the control signal over the rails also means we could foret a lot of this multiple power drop stuff - since many DC layouts run just fine with only one power drop for large sections of track (at least with soldered rail joints....)
Assuming direct radio receivers could get down to the price of DCC decoders, direct radio could lower costs measurably on large layouts and reduce/simplify construction time and cost of the under layout wiring infrastructure.
Signaling and turnout control - as much as I consider signaling and CTC "necessary" parts of this hobby, fact is most people do not. Lets take a poll, how many of you have a signal system or plan to build one? Not many hands going up.......dead rail does not reduce any needed wiring if you do want signals/CTC or even simple turnout controls - but manual turnouts remain very popular with walk around operators.
Cost and difficulty - well I will agree with the crowd here. The hobby has changed, if there is no industry standard, and no RTR locos with these systems, they will never see any large useage - it has become a "ready to run" hobby.
I think dead rail and direct radio are here to stay - but so is DC and DCC........
Still happy with my fully intergratered Advanced Cab Control DC with CTC, working interlockings, signals, one button route control, colision avoidance ATC, wireless radio throttles, limitless redundant turnout control locations, and constant lighting that supports walk around or "dispatcher" operation - lots of sizes for everyone.
DCC has little programed brains in the trains, I have wires and relays "programed" under the layout. The "operator interface" experiance for the engineer is amazingly similar.
Sheldon
It is very doable now and will be even better in future. What most people who are not into battery tecnoligy fail to note is the breakthoughs have already been made but no company including big names like Tesla want to bite the bullet yet and that is because new battery improvements are happening at a far faster rate than Moores law, like every 6 months or so. That means that if you start production, you will be outdated in just a few years, not near enough time to recope your expences (why do you think they built the gigafactory, it was not built to build todays car batteries even though a small portion is being used for that now). You can get a Bluerail system going for under $200 including charger but there are many systems out there for half that. Running time is about 2hr max but in reality, how long do most of us run a single engine and remember that battery tecnoligy is ever changing and will jump at some point.
rrebellIt is very doable now and will be even better in future.
No company is going to take the risk to make a specific battery for this application. You have a finite number of customers, say 200k world wide (there are other model railroaders, but they are going to stay with DC, DCC, AC, or DCC-direct radio/blutooth etc. They are going to buy at the most 3-5 locomotives a year (probably more like 1 or 2). Many of them have a fixed income.
If a company manages to make a battery that has a very long cyclic life, and is capable of several hours of at capacity discharge, and recharges quickly, there will be little to NO sales of replacements. Its already a small market that is subdivided into many different control systems.
There is a specific amount of energy that you can fit into the finite space that HO and smaller scales have.. you mentioned Moore's law....
Google Moore's law and you will find that within 10 years the ability to cool the transistors in an integrated circuit will reqire more energy than can flow through said tranisitors. Kind of like there is a limited number of times you can fold a piece of paper.
rrebell(why do you think they built the gigafactory, it was not built to build todays car batteries even though a small portion is being used for that now)
Tax break...
rrebell Running time is about 2hr max but in reality, how long do most of us run a single engine
4-8 hrs a day for 3 days straight, under full load conditions, electricity in building is shut off at night.
rrebell remember that battery tecnoligy is ever changing and will jump at some point.
And model railroading is a huge industry that will see millions a year in battery sales... yeah probably not... so we will have to wait until someone puts an off the shelf battery into a locomotive.
And I still wont buy it. Because the battery (likely) wont exceed the life of the LEDs in the locomotive, so I will still have to take the thing apart.
For HO scale model trains...its a solution in search of a problem.
gregc IRONROOSTER So (for indoor layouts) I don't see this becoming anything more than a novelty product for those who enjoy tinkering with it. I believe Howard suggested that with dead rail, track wiring can be simpler even on small layouts because there's no need to worry about reverse sections or powering frogs.
IRONROOSTER So (for indoor layouts) I don't see this becoming anything more than a novelty product for those who enjoy tinkering with it.
My small layouts don't have reversing sections and I have never needed to power a frog. 2 wires to the layout and I'm done - small layouts are pretty simple with DCC. Much easier than fooling around with batteries, recharging, replacing, wiring recharging track(s), modifying locos, etc.
IRONROOSTER gregc IRONROOSTER So (for indoor layouts) I don't see this becoming anything more than a novelty product for those who enjoy tinkering with it. I believe Howard suggested that with dead rail, track wiring can be simpler even on small layouts because there's no need to worry about reverse sections or powering frogs. My small layouts don't have reversing sections and I have never needed to power a frog. 2 wires to the layout and I'm done - small layouts are pretty simple with DCC. Much easier than fooling around with batteries, recharging, replacing, wiring recharging track(s), modifying locos, etc. Paul
And maybe the biggest irony of DCC is the fact that its reduced wiring benefits are maximized by small layouts with manually throw turnouts. As layout size and complexity increase, the wiring needs excelerate on a curve that puts them nearly equal to any complex DC system, especially if signals, CTC, turnout controls, redundant control panels and such are thrown into the mix.
NevinI'm a bit surprised by some of the negativism in some of the responses to your post considering that such dead rail systems are already commercially available.
Nevin,
And I'm equally amazed that if one doesn't jump on and embrace the next wave or craze of technology you are quickly labeled with "negativism".
As mentioned, one has to determine what's important to them and move in that direction to achieve those goals. I hardly ever experienced a probelm with clean track and/or electrical conductivity on my layout so why should I spend additional money to fix a problem that I never had? That's not being negative; it's being practical.
For me - battery technology creates more problems and issues now and down the road than the technology that I'm currently using. Should they come up with a battery/charger/decoder that I can easily retrofit and maintain in any of my nearly 40 HO-scale locomotives at low-cost, I might consider it. Until then I'm perfectly content to stick with current technology (no pun intended) that works quite well for me.
So, change for change sake isn't always the best and wisest path to take for everyone. Embrace certain aspects of new technology if you desire to do so but don't label those with "negativism" who choose not to for sound and practical reasons.
Howard,I fully believe we will see a control system similar dead rail in the future and I believe we will not be using AA batteries.
I believe the "battery pack" will be similar to this:
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/accessories/batteries-chargers/play-and-charge-kit
What gave me this idea is the battery reminds me of a fuel tank.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
There is another tack that has not been explored, at least in this string. The current discussion presupposes a DeadRail (let's just make it a single word as representing a class) that is based on battery technology developed to serve existing motors and gearing systems. I recognize immediately that I'm introducing an expansion of MR technology in at least two additional areas (motors and drive mechanisms), but the discussion is rather speculative anyway.
What I'm suggesting is that motor and gearing advancements to date have been at least partially based on the presumption of the amperage that can be delivered through the rails. Justifiably so, I suppose. And, frankly, if we want to simplify a shift to DeadRail, let's avoid the additional time and expense of redoing virtually everything unseen in our engines. But again, we're largely dreaming here.
May I propose that if Deadrail for HO and smaller finally gets off the dime it will do so along with significant changes in the links between the batteries and the drivers. Think of the transistions that are being made to hybrid and all-electric vehicles. They have required extensive changes in drive train design and technology.
I'm with Zane at the close of his intial post: if it can be done I would also get it a listen.
John
tstageSo, change for change sake isn't always the best and wisest path to take for everyone. Embrace certain aspects of new technology if you desire to do so but don't label those with "negativism" who choose not to for sound and practical reasons.
Well said, Tom.
Simple - just run your layout on time table and train orders. All ground throws. That's the only real way to reduce the amount of wiring.
Distributed systems like Loconet, CMRI (using the newer style nodes), or the new potential with LCC can reduce the number of LONG wire runs, as you locate the controlling device near the controlled device, so all those wires going up the signal mast only have a short way to go, and some sort of standardized cable connects the controllers together, leaving only the track power bus and this signal line to extend around the layout.
I'm rolling my own now, but previously I considered just using the Loconet from my Digitrax system - however NOT ever considering the Digitrax devices for this, because they are just too centralized. 16 block detection zones in one device means 16 heavy bus lines running out around the layout - and unless it's a small layout, there will be more than 16 blocks, so keep multiplying. For the number of outputs (32 signal heads plus other stuff), their signal controller is pretty inexpensive. But outside of a complex junction, where would you have 32 signal heads all nicely in close proximity? That means long runs of the flat 10 wire cable used to connect the controller to the signals. More clutter. A simpler controller, with fewer outputs, designed to control just one interlocking would be located at that interlocking with only short wire runs to detectors and signals. There actually is a trend towards the prototype way by some, in which you have the equivalent of field plants all connected back to the main CTC machine via a simple 2 wire cable.
The total number of wires, if you chose to implement signalling and detection, doesn't go down. 3 color signals need 4 wires per signal head, there's just no way around that. The best we can hope to do is keep those wires short, and instead of dozens of wires spanning the underside of the layout, have just a few. Thre are some new wireless options that I considered but I don't want to be that much on the cutting edge and build all my nodes to use wireless and then find out it didn't work. But that's another options, totally elminating the long wire runs except for the track power.
Dead Rail with TT&TO operation can be wire-free, but if you want to have signals and/or CTC, even if there is no need for power in a track bus, there still need to be some wires to detect locos and rolling stock entering the detection zone. Face it, model railroading will always need SOME wires, somewhere.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
When I was planning on and designing my first huge addition to my home to expand the layout, I interviewed several contractors. They all had the same line....it cannot be done, but if you insist....it'll cost this much more. That same type of regressive thinking I see in some of these replies. In my design business prior to my selling ....if I had an employee tell me reasons why something could not be done, I'd ask him to come up with one good reason why he should keep his job another day. This kind anti-whateverisim is the reason whey much of a lot of stuff today dwells in the gray area of mediocrity.
About the addition, I did find a builder who found ways how my designs would work and then some. He got the job and built the next addition nine years later....all within budget and top quality.
I know this subject is old, but with some good old fashioned progressive thinking, look and try to imagine how the hobby would grow!!!
Howard Zane When I was planning on and designing my first huge addition to my home to expand the layout, I interviewed several contractors. They all had the same line....it cannot be done, but if you insist....it'll cost this much more. That same type of regressive thinking I see in some of these replies. In my design business prior to my selling ....if I had an employee tell me reasons why something could not be done, I'd ask him to come up with one good reason why he should keep his job another day. This kind anti-whateverisim is the reason whey much of a lot of stuff today dwells in the gray area of mediocrity. About the addition, I did find a builder who found ways how my designs would work and then some. He got the job and built the next addition nine years later....all within budget and top quality. I know this subject is old, but with some good old fashioned progressive thinking, look and try to imagine how the hobby would grow!!! HZ
Howard, as per my reply earlier, I am a fan of this and similar ideas.
There is no question it can be done, my question, like a few of the others, is to what advantage or end?
If your primary goal is to recruit more people into the hobby, than repectfully I will disagree that it will do that, and I will leave the conversation because I am not in the "we need to recruit more people" camp.
One of the backbones of this hobby for many years was operational compatiblity and some reasonable level of backwards compatiblity.
As each day of sound, DCC, DCS, dead rail, direct radio, etc marches forward we are loosing that. And to some degree that is OK, but it actually becomes a roadblock to some entering the hobby, as much as it is an incentive to others.
I am very happy that I own most all the model train locomotives I want, now that new DC locos are disappearing......
If your goal is better operation at lower cost with easier construction, then I agree there is a place in the market for dead rail and direct radio.
BUT again, one size does not fit all and DC and/or DCC are not likely to be obsolete even in the lifetimes of our grandchildren.
I'm not being negative, I'm being pragmatic. This is a small market in the big scheme of things. A market not likely to grow based on current cultural patterns.
Maybe a good project for you. Buy out Railpro or Revolution, hire me and Randy to take it to the next level, we can intergrate a solid state version of my signal system, turnout control and CTC into it, and give Digitrax a run for their money.
That is the real answer, one fully intergrated, plug and play, expandable system with every option. Making it a great starter for a 4x8 that never becomes obsolete and that is modular for all goals and types of operation.
This would take Apple or Samsung about 15 minutes if there was enough money to be made..........
Until then, I'm sticking with my Aristo Train Engineer throttles and my relays.......
I love change when it is really better, I would not go back to my 63 Chevy as a daily driver, but I hate change just for change sake.......
If once size fits all were possible then there wouldn't be dozens of different Android phones and at least half a dozen different iPhone models.
There's definitely no money in it for model railroading - and I would still say even if someone didn;t care aboout how much money they lost on the venture, a one size fits all, from the most basic of 4x8's to the barn size layout of Ken McCorry, is still not really feasible. Here's why.
What sort of modeler are you? Freelance, anything gooes, realistic or not? Proto-Freelancer, anything goes as long as there is prototype plausibility (lumping a lot together here), or absolute protoype modeler where everything has to be exactly the way your railroad did it?
And what era? While there is some commonality in signal aspects, it wasn;t until more reacently that there are truly uniform rules across multiple railroads, with things like UCOR and NORAC. Model the 1920's and this thoeretical system would have to cover almost as many different possibilities as there are railroads, plus the simple operating modes for those who don't want any signals.
There have been a lot of advances in things like software defined networks, but still nothing that will automatically configure all aspects of a topology, and readjust as new devices are added, without SOME amount of human-driven setup. I don;t expect we'll see such things in my lifetime, nor even tat of my kids. It;s certainly a goal worth working towards, and should it happen in some related field such as networking and telecom, it very likely could eventually trickle down to hobbies like model railroading. But that is a LONG way off.
Randy, completely agreed...
Elon Musk on "battery breakthroughs":
http://bgr.com/2017/08/04/elon-musk-tesla-battery-research-breakthrough/
Make me a HO scale Plymouth ML-8 switcher (with sound) that will run for 6 hrs with no loss in pulling capacity. No box car battery tender.
Batteries have their place. Its not in my locomotives (would be nice to add pickups to my intermodal cars to power the sound units in containers, vice having to lug around a bunch of 9volt batteries).
Also your onboard radio/bluetooth (battery or DC or DCC) has to comply with 47 CFR part 15.
I like my wires. Wires have mechanical connections. Wires don't loose their charge overtime and have to be replaced (one time cost). Wires can be plugged into one of Elon Musk's big wall battery packs and solar panel, and/or possibly 20kw diesel generator (because reasons)...about as close to battery powered as my trains will get.
Am I a regressive thinker, sure, why not. If regressive thinking is defined as being a practical person, then yes.
Can you run trains with battery powered radio control, yes, but the only guy I know who does it specifically is developing the technology because he says he doesnt like cleaning track. He can get several hours out of a 4-6-4, but it is semi-permanently attached to a 72' baggage car...
ATLANTIC CENTRALAristo Train Engineer
I know someone who uses one of those. It takes a bit to get used to, but once you get the hang of it they are quite a bit of fun. If I had switch to DC, I would prefer those over a power pack anyday.
Howard,DeadRail will never become the majority control system for our HO hobby for the same reason why DC will never go completely away: money. Batteries cost more money than DCC & DC. Because batteries have a finite life, batteries will need to be constantly replaced, costing even more money.
Let's compare that to DCC. Imagine how well DCC would be received if we had to change out the decoders every 5 years or so. Few would've converted. I have been using DCC since 1999 and still have some DH120's installed and working almost 20 years later. No battery will match that.
I have over 100 locos. Even if replacement batteries were just $5 ea., I'd still have to invest $500+ every 5 years or so just to keep my trains running. Sounds like a non-starter to me. That's provided, of course, that the battery is still available.
Then there's the utility of it. With battery-powered trains, one has to charge all the batteries in advance of using them. Want to use a different loco than the ones you planned on? Come back in 30 minutes or more...if they take a charge after sitting for several years.
As for your business, I hope you kept people around that told you something can't be done. Disasters tend to result otherwise (see: Hyatt Regency walkway collapse).
BMMECNYC ATLANTIC CENTRAL Aristo Train Engineer I know someone who uses one of those. It takes a bit to get used to, but once you get the hang of it they are quite a bit of fun. If I had switch to DC, I would prefer those over a power pack anyday.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Aristo Train Engineer
I love them, and I did considerable testing and research years ago before commiting to them and designing a control system around them.
But actually, the control system I use would work with any of several other wireless DC thorttles that have been made over the years, including any of the current direct radio systems or the latest version of the Aristo products now sold under the Revolution name.
http://www.revoelectronics.com/
I use a DC Advanced Cab Control system with CTC. With a dispatcher on duty, your experiance as an engineer is much like DCC. All you do is run your train and obey the signals. No "block toggles" to throw, etc, etc.
Even without a dispatcher, you can walk around with your train and control turnouts and power routing with just the push of a few buttons at local panels as you walk along with your Aristo throttle in your hand.
For my 135 loco fleet, way cheaper than DCC.
Disclaimer - no sound in my locos, don't like it........
I'm quite aware of the problems of "dead rail" operations. This topic came up during the Timonium show this weekend. I listened to several sides of the discusion which I found interesting. There is not a chance in **** that I'd give a thought to converting my roster to something other than the NCE system I currently have and enjoy quite a bit. I did agree that possibly if this technology were on the market, it could be a draw for the electrically intimidated and high tech challenged.
Many visitors to my pike are in awe and most definitely become intimidated at the thought of doing something like this kind of wiring, even though they could see themselves becoming model rails. Note: I did not do the electronics, as I'm am not allowed beneath the bench.
What I am to electronics, Vlad the Impaler was to liberal thinking. Credits go to Geren Mortensen, Keith Albright, Joe Moltz (now deceased), Sam Talbot and others who helped string bus wires and such.
Batteries ? We don't need no stinkin' batteries. (as predicted by John Ford in that MR film Treasure of Sierra Madre)
It will be Virtural Reality: a headset you put on and suddenly you are in a drone, flying along side a steam engine on Howard's layout, then you change memory cards and you are next to a diesel on Horseshoe Curve.
An Op session will take place via the Internet. You won't have to buy beer and snacks. No more benchwork or engines to buy, just download a UP Big Boy or a Shay and load it into your simulation.
Does this appeal to anyone on this forum? Probably no one, but the younger generation will willingly walk into a mall fountain clutching their Iphones. They will accept VR model railroading in a heartbeat.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley