I am cautiously writing this post because I’m don’t want to be the impetus for any heated debates or bad mouthing of anything or anyone…

…But, I’m looking for a suggestion for future RC/Battery products to install in some current engines. I currently use two manufacturers and both work just fine. But I’m wondering if there is something different out there that you’d suggest. I don’t want to name what I have or who I’ve worked with in the past so if you are interested in helping me please email me and I’ll be happy to let you know where you are.

Sorry for the cryptic post…but I just want some advice on a direction for the future.

thanks,

Richard

[email protected]

Richard,

There is “something different out there”. Check out Railpro from Ring Engineering! http://www.ringengineering.com/RailPro.htm

They have recently released a Large scale module which you can purchase from Don Sweet https://www.rcsofne.com/ring-engineering-railpro-wireless-train-control/

I’ve been looking at this problem for a while, holding off buying any new stuff, and I still don’t have a good feeling about anything out there. We (as a hobby) have been burned multiple times in the past by companies dropping a product line, or changing it, or over-promising. You spend multiple hundreds of dollars on systems and in a few years parts are unavailable. Ideally, I’d like an open, standards-based system like DCC, but for over-the-air. In track powered DCC you can buy a system from here, throttle from there, accessory decoders from somewhere else, etc, and (within some limitations) mix and match to your hearts content. And if company X suddenly doesnt support their decoder, its no big deal because if I need a replacement, I can get one from anywhere else, and it will work with my system. I’d LOVE to see something like this for RC/Battery.

Thanks Dan…as a matter of fact I spoke with Don Sweet a little while ago and got some much needed answers regarding my current equipment as well a suggestion for the future. I very much appreciated his openness and look forward to doing business with him in the near future. I appreciate the suggestion of the Rail Pro equipment and will take a look.

Bob, I completely agree with your dream of a streamlined RC/Battery that is open and standards-based. As a recording musician I have always appreciated what MIDI has done for the digital music world. While it’s not always perfect it does tend to make things a lot less complicated and typically works. I think we will always have issues with companies developing something but then stopping it’s support or further updates.

Richard

The AirWire approach is to use standard-compliant DCC, transported over a wireless connection. This approach has a lot of benefits, as compatible products could easily be developed (and have existed in the past). The weakness is the actual wireless implementation, which is quite crude by contemporary standards. If someone were to develop a Wifi-based DCC-compliant system, it would be a lot more versatile (multiple throttles without frequency management, etc.). This, I think, is the true benefit to the RailPro system. All of the throttles and receivers happily co-exist in a mesh, and the user doesn’t have to think about it.

Personally, I like to build my own devices, so AirWire still makes the most sense for my needs. But if that weren’t the case, I’d probably be looking at RailPro.

I only played with the RailPro throttle for a few minutes, and my only complaint was the lack of physical, tactile buttons. I don’t want to have to look at the throttle and use a touch screen to blow the horn. The MU setup is amazing, though.

Richard what might help others is what is it do you want out of any system that you end up using? There are systems out there and sadly fewer then there use to be but I think it comes down to what do you want that system to do or how it should function for you.

As for myself I am with Dan in that I am currently converting to RailPro on my engines now. Like Bob I was concerned as systems seemed to be going away and support was stopping but seeing as RailPro was a small scale system first that is used a lot I had less fear about them just disappearing so hence why I made my decision. I have also talked with the owner of RailPro and he seems very open to further developing new capabilities and sounds. He is already creating new sound files for large scale since we are able to fit speakers with greater sound range and fidelity. Also pushing him to add to sound library as well as needs more files in the steam realm.

Eric Reuter said:

I don’t want to have to look at the throttle and use a touch screen to blow the horn.

Eric, The throttle is a physical knob. From the FAQ on their site:

We found that using a touchscreen for a throttle was unacceptable. The problem is that you needed to be looking at the screen to adjust the speed accurately and the feel was poor at best. You need to be looking at the train engine to properly connect couplers etc. This is why we included a real knob on the RailPro controller. So you can have your hand on the speed control knob and still be looking at your train. What is the point in having a controlling device that is not actually a good throttle?

Also, by default the horn is in the lower right corner of the screen so you can easily hit it without looking.

Dan Gilchrist said:

Eric, The throttle is a physical knob. From the FAQ on their site:

Yes, there is the one knob. I would be nice to have a few buttons, though. To each his own!

I actually don’t have the Handheld yet. I didn’t want to invest that kind of cash until I saw the G scale module. I’ve been using the $30 USB transmitter so my mouse wheel is the throttle control!

That’s pretty neat. One thing that is high on my list is a JMRI -> AirWire adapter. I almost have it together.

While we are talking about controls, has anyone tried MTH control system in large scale? If the DCS can be installed in a locomotive, the TIU would take the place of the train engineer and like the track down at the museum, it could be powered and all trains could be powered and controlled independently. At least it seems practical.

So, some interesting comments on this thread.

Bob, go “deadrail”…

1. you can pick any DCC decoder, any manufacturer

2. there are several “radio systems” available. They are different, but you can keep the decoders in the locos and worst case change out the receivers.

3. If you stick with a 900 MHz system, you may have some interchangeability with a few radio systems, like airwire.

Eric, the “convrtr” from AirWire is not where they started, they started with their own receiver & motor driver, and some limited support for DCC sound cards. The Convrtr is pretty recent, where all it is is a radio and a DCC booster to drive any DCC decoder.

The reason I’m stating this is because the larger installed base of AirWire is the original design, and if you say “AirWire is like this” it’s not true for them and most of their customers. Don’t get me wrong, CVP is finally seeing the light… there’s no price advantage to a sound only DCC decoder any more.

Ron, MTH requires a tachometer strip on the motor output, usually a flywheel. DCS conversions are tough, the electronics are large and relatively expensive. The only plus for someone just starting out is that the latest version of electronics supports DCC reasonably well.

I’ll just stick my head up carefully here and say I have a Android Phone to DCC board in beta, I hope to have it finished up by ECLSTS. A couple of folks from LSC are helping me test and I’ve got a couple of facebook folks tinkering with it too. I’m shooting for a $75 price point with DCC, less if you just want servos or ESC control. The apps are free on Google Play

I’m not going to open source the firmware in the board but I am ok with releasing the interface specs so you can talk to it with a Raspberry Pi3 or write your own Apps.

I converted this little beat up loco over the xmas break to use my board:

https://youtu.be/tBwEAYrR8jc

It’s bluetooth, right?

And it must be a form of “deadrail” so what radio transceiver and interface to the DCC decoder are you using Martin?

Greg

Greg - Check out Martin’s stuff here: http://blueridgeengineering.net/ His board uses an xBee Bluetooth radio, drives three servos and has a DCC output plus two logic outputs. The DCC output can feed an amplifier board to drive a standard decoder. I’m testing with servo outputs and logic, but want to pick up a cheap sound decoder to play with.

I thought that I had worked my way through this process and made a long term decision on what control system to use. My recent exposure to DCC sound decoders while exploring options for Martin’s system that I am beta testing has really opened my eyes to what I am missing especially when it comes to diesel sounds. I began with the original Aristo 27Mhz train engineer powering my track. I looked hard at track powered DCC, but decided against it. I then began experimenting with battery power by moving the trackside receiver into a trail car powered by a drill battery. This convinced me that battery power was where I wanted to go and I developed a sound/control/power trail car that could be used with many of my locomotives. From there I slowly moved on to self-contained battery-r/c locomotives. I chose to use the Railboss Hobby system because it utilized a 2-stick radio that I already owned. Lots of folks dislike the 2-stick system, but I like it because of the tactile feedback. Unfortunately, as seems to always happen, the system I settled on was discontinued and replaced by something different. I still have enough boards in stock to last me a few years, but I am starting to look at what’s next. And that looks like it will be some form of DCC using on-board power and an RF link. What system I don’t yet know, but that is where I’m headed.

Isn’t this stuff supposed to work with DCC and make it wireless? The only problem I see with this is the 3 amp limit. I seem to recall that USAT and other draw 4 to 5 amps?

http://deadrailinstalls.com/TamValleyOrderForm.cfm

I’m in the same boat Jon. For years I used the old RCS elite throttles and a Sierra sound board. The new sound boards are amazing, and I would like to use something different. The other driving reason for me to go DCC is the future possibility of using Proto Throttle.

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/25866?page=1

Yes, notice I use the word “deadrail” …

Yes, the guy who owns that company, which bought the Tam Valley “deadrail” products lives a few miles from me, and we have set up a meeting, I want to see where he is going, plus actually want to get involved. I’m not going battery myself, but many of my friends want to, and I will probably make at least one unit, like a track cleaning car with all the bells and whistles. I also have been to the owner of Tam Valley’s place and see his equipment and actually have had some custom stuff done.

Even though there is no radio standardization, basically these guys are transmitting unmodified DCC protocol over the air. Since DCC has a certain amount of redundance and error correction built into the protocol, this works OK. It’s not the way an engineer would do it (wireless), but since the data rate is so low, and when DCC was invented it needed to be super robust, it works wirelessly.

Now the benefit is that if you do not modify the DCC protocol at all, basically if you us a 900 MHz radio at one end, and another at the other end, on the same frequency, it will work, regardless of manufacturer.

So, by keeping it simple, there is the possibility of interchangability between systems on the same frequency and using the same underlying RF protocol. The 900 MHz stuff is just raw 1’s and 0’s of DCC data, if you use Xbee, there is an underlying protocol, which looks like a form of Zigbee.

Anyway, I believe this is a great direction for battery people. As you may have seen, the Precision RC site has a “DCC” version of their Train Engineer. Details will be forthcoming, but I do believe it is Zigbee on 2.4GHz deadrail.

Hope this is a bit informative.

Greg

Greg Elmassian said:

Even though there is no radio standardization, basically these guys are transmitting unmodified DCC protocol over the air. Since DCC has a certain amount of redundance and error correction built into the protocol, this works OK. It’s not the way an engineer would do it (wireless), but since the data rate is so low, and when DCC was invented it needed to be super robust, it works wirelessly.

This is exactly what AirWire does. It would be great if they used the same frequencies, deviation, etc. I have all that mapped out, so if the information would be helpful, let me know.

Eric

I am by no means an expert on battery controls or DCC for large scale , I do own an Airwire setup and have it installed in two locomotives and it works fine for my needs.

however, I probably would not convert any more locomotives over to battery until someone makes them operational from my iPad.

After just getting into and dabbling a little bit in O-Scale I can easily say the most fun I have had operating trains in years is with the MTH DCS Wi-Fi setup. It’s so simple to operate even a big dummy like me can get all the functions to work on my Locomotive without having to carry around my operating manual like I have to using my Airwire controller.

whomever makes the next best system for large scale had better make it easy to operate or don’t bother making it at all.