And therein lies the beauty of electrical power over batteries and dead rail - - - the issue of maintenance over the power system. Once the layout is wired, there is essentially no further maintenance of an electrical power system. Not so with dead rail.
Rich
Alton Junction
Never mind.
Mike.
My You Tube
SPSOT,"Dead Rail" will never be a majority or even a significant factor in the smaller scales (HO and smaller) for one very simple reason: batteries die and will need replacement. One can make batteries small enough, one can make them powerful enough, one may someday be able to make them last enough for multiple hours of operation, but you'll never get them to last for decades.
I've been in the hobby "seriously" for almost 30 years (gulp...how'd that happen?). I own approx. 150 locos, some of which I have had for 25+ years. If I expect to be in the hobby for another 30 years (which would be nice), how many times would I have to replace all the batteries in my locos? Say they each last 5 years and cost $10 ea., that means that I can expect to pay $9000 in batteries in the next three decades (provided none of them blow up and burn down my house) just for the locos I already own.
And what are the odds that, 10, 20 years from now, the batteries one needs to replace will even still be available in the same size/voltage/amperage and form factor as they are now?
It's different in the larger scales. They generally don't own hundreds of locos like we do in the smaller scales. They also have the cubic volume to make batteries an easy fit and the real need for batteries as being outdoors, cleaning track is a real pain.
IMHO, the real "future" in the smaller scales is better capacitors. I can see direct radio control becoming a "thing" (like Ring Engineering), but I can't see more than a tiny fraction of smaller scale layouts going to a complete "dead rail" technology.
SPSOT fanthen replace the stock decoder with a RailPro one and sell the stock one to get some money back.
Mike
riogrande5761 Probably. The cost of equipping 100+ engines with RailPro would be expensive at $60 a pop, but with DCC decoders, much less, especially because some already have decoders.
Probably. The cost of equipping 100+ engines with RailPro would be expensive at $60 a pop, but with DCC decoders, much less, especially because some already have decoders.
I would disagree, I find RailPro to be cheaper based on my reasearch. RailPro’s LM-3, their basic “decoder” it just $60, and their LM-3S sound decoder is $100. Soundtrack Tsunamis and LokSound Selects, todays high end sound decoders, are always $100 plus. I figure I could save money by buying DCC ready engines and pluging in the RailPro decoders or buying DCC equipped locos so I don’t have to add my own speaker and then replace the stock decoder with a RailPro one and sell the stock one to get some money back.
On course this is my plan, and I wouldn’t spend the time doing that if I had been using DCC for years and hade 100 or so DCC locos. I can understand the views of a lot of those who would not do what I would do. It’s much easier for me because I just got in to the hobby and can count all my locos on one hand! And none of them are likely to be on this future/fantasy layout I keep dreaming about...
Regards, Isaac
I model my railroad and you model yours! I model my way and you model yours!
Battery size is the biggest obstacle right now. That may change, it's all a matter of what kind of workable (enough energy storage, easily recharged, not prone to burning up or catching fire, etc) chemistry can be developed.
Standardization is another big one. There are several competing but incompatible products onthe market today This is akin to the pre-DCC command control days. There were many choices, usually one man band operations. Just before the DCC standards were adopted, this had sort of filtered out to only the top companies were left. But still, brand A did not work with brand B, you couldn't take your locos to a friend's house unless they used the same system.
A power car behind the loco - might work for steam, but for anyone into serious operations, and using diesel locos, this will never fly. Requiring a specific car to always be right behind the loco flies in the face of prototypical operation. MU, where there is a dummy loco, that would work, at least in cases where the prototype used multiple units on the train being modeled.
Another thing to consider is signaling. With DCC and power in the track, all we have to do is detect a current flow and know if a car or loco is in a block. To accomplish this with deadrail, there will still need to be some sort of power in the rail. Point detection with photodiodes and the like is not a good substitute for block occupancy, just like block occupancy is not a good way to control point devices like crossing gates.
And we're probably still going to want power pickup through the wheels, to charge the batteries. No one is going to want to constantly pick up their locos and/or remove the shell to charge the batteries.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
SPSOT fan I personally plan to wire my future (perhaps fantasy) big layout for DCC, but use mainly RailPro radio control locomotives with both track power or batteries. But that’s just me, and I’m a minority I’m sure!
I personally plan to wire my future (perhaps fantasy) big layout for DCC, but use mainly RailPro radio control locomotives with both track power or batteries. But that’s just me, and I’m a minority I’m sure!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Well Dave, you have certainly got something right, we can’t predict what the next thing will be, both in our hobby and everywhere else!
When DCC was new I thought it would be a long long time, many decades, before it became dominant. Installation of your own decoders for example - now it seems obvious that engines come factory equipped with decoders but back then it was just taken for granted that that was something you did yourself (perhaps because that was also when you took it for granted that installation of knuckle couplers was something you did for yourself. Nobody was going to do it for you!).
One reason why I thought it would take a long long time for DCC to dominate was that it was incompatible so completely with what "everyone" had. It seemed almost like a step backwards to lose compatibility like that.
Things changed faster than I ever thought they would. I have no idea if battery powered "dead rail" is the future of the hobby or just an interesting notion for the dedicated few. It too is somewhat incompatible with power throught the rails systems (DC or DCC) and for that reason again my hunch it would take a long time to express its dominance if indeed it ever does. But I was so wrong before that I would now say, if dead rail is the way of the future it will happen faster than we think. But I will go out on a limb and say that if it means having to have a car holding the batteries permanently coupled to the locomotive, that is too much of step backwards in realism and flexibility to make a go of it. It has to be self contained in the locomotive, whether a Big Boy or a 0-4-0T.
Actually there is precedent in model trains for rapid changes and I should have remembered this when DCC was new. The change to 12 volts from 6 volts happened almost in a flash after WWII. The circumstances were perfect: there had not been new motors made for trains during the duration. Moreover for those who still used car batteries to power their layouts, I believe they made they switch from 6 volts to 12 at about the same time. The stars were aligned ...
Meanwhile, I am reminded that our friends the British went much further than we ever did with beautiful scale clockwork trains that had more sophisticated speed governors than our speed-demon Marx wind-up trains ever did. And Hornby has or had small scale (OO/HO) live steam.
Dave Nostradamus Nelson
I must say that I don’t think we will see large, completely dead rail layouts anytime in the next 20 or 30 years. Nonetheless I think the technology is very close. Batteries (and I’m not talking your AA and AAA batteries, I‘m talking the kind of stuff in RC airplanes and such) are small enough to fit in the fuel tank of a locomotive (I have seen it done on YouTube). Also electronics are small enough, think of the size of our decoders.
I know many people will be slow to adopt new technology, that’s just how we humans are. There are many DC users today 20+ years after DCC’s introduction.
My worry is standardization of this tech. Developers are going to be hesitant to let go of their patents, and without that the NMRA can’t do much in terms of standard if they don’t.
I don't think the size of the batteries is an insurmountable issue. The batteries don't absolutely have to be in the locomotives. Larger batteries with enough power to haul full trains could be installed in freight or passenger cars, with smaller batteries in the locomotives to allow for running light.
The question is how do you charge the batteries? Having the track powered would seem to be the easiest solution and the wiring doesn't need to be quite as complex as what is required for DC or DCC operation. Not all the track needs to be powered. There would be no reason to power frogs, or perhaps even reversing loops for that matter. As long as the units carrying batteries can get enough time on powered track to keep them charged, theoretically they should run forever.
There might still be the requirement for a lot of other wiring for things like switch machines or signals, but those elements are not essential to running a layout.
The bottom line of course is who's going to buy it? Even if the decoders were cheaper than DCC, you still have to buy a bunch of batteries to go with them. I can't see batteries becoming cheap enough to make the whole system less expensive than a DCC system.
Right now if I was in the industry I would be concentrating on keep alive development. The current keep alives have some challenges with size and operational logic, i.e. preventing derailed runaway locomotives from charging across the layout and into the abyss, and the keep alives interferring with programming.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I agree, niche for the foreseeable future. It has been discussed further at some other locations but MR mods will probably delete my post if I link them here.
I don't see it happening for some time either in terms of it becoming a viable option for many of us, especially those with a good size fleet of engines. Those with a small fleet may probably find it useful sooner than the rest us because the cost per engine is rather high.
In fact it could maybe recharge it while the train is running. To me, it would make sense to not have the rail dead even with batteries because the engines could recharge the batteries from the rail, logically. Especially in the near term if batteries have limited run time.
In fact it could maybe recharge it while the train is running.
To me, it would make sense to not have the rail dead even with batteries because the engines could recharge the batteries from the rail, logically. Especially in the near term if batteries have limited run time.
Well, I won't see it. And if it does develop into something that is viable, with batteries, and such, I'll be stickin with my Digitrax. I'm not going to reinvest a bunch of money all over again.
I'm 70, so I'll be staying with what I have.
For the up and coming model railroading set? that can't get enough of new technology, You go for it if you must. Have fun!
Battery power requires at least 2 things I can think of:
Smaller powerful batteries. Currrently the smallest battery operated trains are plastic locmotives with 2 cars on plastic track - i.e. toys for the kids. For model railroading you need batteries powerful enough for a locomotive and 30-50 cars. And it needs to run for a couple of hours or have a fast recharge or very easy change out.
Standards. This could be the current standard dcc with a standard radio setup attached to dcc or something else. Without standards manufacturers will not include this in their RTR products. Withour RTR this remains at best a niche market.
One advantage of battery power is that you can probably use it with an existing system if the recharging system doesn't give you problems with the power on the rails. In fact it could maybe recharge it while the train is running.
Cost is another issue. While it may save some wiring costs, in the beginning you have to sell it to folks who have already wired their layout for something else. Plus most are layouts are small and wiring is not a big cost. The new system has to be cost competitive with a dcc locomotive.
Oh and don't forget that while you're squeezing in the battery you still need space for the speaker so you have sound. And weight so the locomotive can pull a bunch of cars.
I don't really see this happening because it doesn't really solve a big problem. Wiring for DCC on a small layout is pretty simple and not much more complicated on a larger layout if power is your only requirement. Signaling detection and wiring will still be needed as well as wiring for switch motors, lights, etc.
So while this is interesting I think it remains at best a small niche in the hobby. Useful for outdoor large scale layouts and a curiosity for indoor smaller layouts.
Paul
Oh boy, I have the honor of replying first to what could prove to be a contentious thread if the previous threads on the subject are any indication. But, I will start out nice.
The future of model railroading? Maybe yes, maybe no. Deal rail, in theory has several advantages over electric power. No wiring has a lot of appeal. No special requirements for reverse loops since there is no polarity in the traditional sense. But once a layout is wired, the objection to electric power pretty much goes away.
The real issue with dead rail then becomes battery power. As you point out, smaller, more powerful, batteries need to be developed to fit into smaller scale locomotives and a method of recharging the batteries becomes the issue. So, what's worse? Wiring a layout for electrical power at the outset or the ongoing maintenance of battery power?
The other issue that I see is the marketing and acceptance of battery power once a system is successfully designed for smaller scale model railroading. The younger generations getting into model railroading would be likely to readily accept it, but the older guys, especially those with existing layouts, are likely to be less accepting.
I am not about to launch into the hobby is dying argument, but the popularity of model railroading going forward is an issue that potential developers will have to deal with. How much demand would there be for battery operated layouts if the hobby is, indeed, in decline.
That's my two centa. I look forward to the comments of others.
I mentioned on another tread the idea of having a dead rail layout on another tread and I thought it would be interesting to start a thread dedicated to the topic
Dead rail layouts would require two things, first a way of controlling locomotives through radio control. These already exist, RailPro is one example of which I am more firmiliar, and the RailPro ”decoders” are not much larger than most DCC decoders. I have also seen some other systems that use Bluetooth, though those decoders are usually larger.
The second thing we would need would be batteries that are small enough to fit in a locomotive. I’ve seen people fit batteries in locomotive fuel tanks but I think we will need smaller batteries if we are going to equip small switcher with battery power.
Battery power dead rail is already widespread in G scale, and I think it’s going to be the future of our hobby. Once we get smaller remote control molecules and batteries I think dead rail will become more common in smaller scales like HO or even N.
Go ahead and add your opinions and ideas below on the topic of dead rail and what you see in the future in terms of model train control. I’m interested to see what people think!