Dennis,
Streetcars like that … ah, the simple life! :lol:
Mind you things have progressed in the traction department, those old clangers are a perfect memory for those who haven’t had the benefit of riding some modern traction. 
Every time I get back to CH I’m flabbergasted at the progress since those old clangers, public transit is a very fine thing!
Yes HJ , it just so happens that here where I live , there was a lot of public transportation available , a 100 years ago !
When the subject of high gas price , or public trans comes up , I fill them in on what was right here 100 years ago , and the young people ask what happened , who messed that up ? Oh well , it sure cost a lot now to put back what once was !
Thank goodness for all the workers who donate all their time to keep the old machines running , like at the IRM in Illinois , AND OTHER PLACES AS WELL !
The Swiss are sharp , hydro electric dams and electric trains useing the power , kinda really ahead of the curve , for a long time .
Tim, sorry to make such a late reply to your excellent idea, but here it is:
Yes a system where power and a simple, SINGLE communications “wire” of fiber optic is an EXCELLENT idea.
Unfortunately, it would add additional cost that the manufacturer could not justify. Also one minor problem is that you still have to cleave the end of a fiber optic cable perfectly and polish it, and the cables are still a bit fragile.
But, it is a logical progression. I own 2 cars that do exactly what you have said. Both cars have a fiber optic “ring” that interconnects various control modules. The idea of a ring allows redundancy in case one connection is severed.
(Actually this has been used in computer networking for many years, most ATM networks (not ATM cash machines) are of this construction)
I do disagree that " Manufacturers are unconcerned with additional cost as it is borne by the consumer "… they are always worrying that they might cut their own throats with additional cost. Adding $50 to the manufacturing cost ($100 to street price) seems to be within the “consumer threshold of pain”
One cool thing… I believe that there is a benefit that you have overlooked (and several others have commented on here), having a DCC “connector” does bring the connections to the rails, motor, lights, etc. to a connector that makes it easier for EVERYONE. I’d much prefer having a connector to hook to than unsoldering wires, and them all coming to a common location.
I do agree that a bunch of wires between the loco and the tender is unsightly and a pain.
Regards, Greg
I had a lengthy posting made up for a new topic, but saved it for now.
Parts of it discussed screw terminals.
One helluva lot smaller than the boards we are seeing, no “nmra” approved plug and socket, unscrew one side, remove the jumpers, stick your wires in, tighten the screws.
For what it’s worth, just to do it, the first K I get my hands on will be gutted.
If these bags and boxes of cut-and-throw electronics were worth anything, I could retire.
As far as unsightly wires, well, when you put the polarity switch in the tender, that adds two more wires to the plug than what I need.
I know how to bundle those wires under the floor to look like water, oil, and air lines.
You ever look between cab deck and tender on a real steamer?
Funny.
Real steamers with tenders never had a “wireless drawbar”.
That’s good to know Dave. What tips can you give to make these wires look more politically correct?
(I’ll have to pay more attention to photos of the prototype)
Regards, Greg
I just put a plate over things and you can’t see the wires at all.
Let’s see, if I put the stuff in the tender, I need just 6 wires, right? (3 pairs for motor, chuff, and headlight). So, if inside the tender, I had screw terminal strip with 6 screws , I’d be all set. I could go with 2 more for the rear light, but I’m guess I could easily find those wires.
I’m not sure why it has to be more complex than that. Pretty cheap, too.
Just my opinion, but be aware that this comes from one guy pushing the NMRA, Bachmann and Aristocraft into solving a non-problem. This is promulgated by his desire to have the easiest install possible in support of a few folk’s digital electronics (not model RRing) hobby.
Pretty disgusting, when there are much simpler ways to solve the problem, including doing nothing. We are all going to have to pay the price. That price includes comparatively large space requirements, small added direct cost, some complexity in wiring and added work for us ‘unwashed masses’ to get rid of what we don’t want or need. All to save the digital electronics guys from having to use a screwdriver. BUT, if you are among the limited number of digital electronics hobby folks, the 24 pins, extra wiring and open space are there to install whatever version of the Cray supercomputer is currently in vogue with that crowd.
Just one example of a problem created by this: The socket and area required occupies over 7 cubic inches. Since this was proposed, I’ve looked at my small locomotives, including my Climax, Porter, and 2T Shay. No room for this “industry standard” socket. The originator uses the LGB Forney as evidence that small locomotives can support this installation. I don’t have one to examine, but going from memory, it’s definitely not my idea of a small locomotive!
As to having up to 24 wires bundled between the locomotive and tender, it might look OK on your Big Boy. Way over done on a 2-6-0. Impossible on a tender equipped Porter.
I have some other serious concerns as to what is going on in the commercial discussions behind the scenes. I don’t have any direct information, so will save them for later.
Happy RRing,
Jerry Bowers
Jerry, good points!
As far as the interface is concerned it remains to be seen how much it will cost (additional cost) and how many mfgs will actually use it. So far not a word regarding USAT, let alone any of the Euro crowd, having plans.
OTOH if the interface as such is “reasonable” (now there’s a flexible term!) it will make things easier in as much as it saves time to install whatever simply by having designated pins. Then the question will be, will all the mfgs use the same routine or will they have a “unique” pattern.
So again it will be, we shall see!
PS wouldn’t it be nice if people actually disclosed what their precise connections to organizations and companies etc. are. That guerrilla marketing by the back door is such a load of crap! Of course that is strictly my opinion!
HJ: Thanks for the comments.
Saving time for the installer / installation of something I don’t use, need nor want isn’t helpful, no matter how easy it is. Doubly so when it consumes over 7 cubic inches of already tight space!
I am still trying to understand how a single 24 pin socket will actually be used for what I see as the most common installations currently done by many real model RRers and operators. It’s claimed that the 5.1 cubic inches reserved above the socket is for the “control system”. As I see it, this is an attempt by one member of the DCC community to make the plug equipped DCC controls the defacto standard, and screw the rest of us.
Think about the variety of units many of us prefer and use now: 1) Track or (internal / external) battery power by individual choice; 2) A commercial R/C, DC or DCC control unit of individual choice; 3) A commercial sound system of individual choice; 4) Other items such as firebox flicker, lighting control, etc, again of individual choice. Where and how are all these going to plug into this single 24 pin socket?
The answer is: They won’t! Since I doubt each small manufacturer will provide something that can / will plug into the appropriate ‘parts’ of the socket, and if we want to continue to be able to individually choose our components, wire distribution will still be required. That means this socket and its attendant large amount of real estate becomes merely a wiring distribution point, requiring the purchase and use of an adapter plug for “easier installations”.
I believe the thinking of the prime proponent is that individual component choices will be replaced by a single board supplied by the DCC manufacturers such as Lenz, QSI, Massoth, Digitrax and others. This controller will integrate the “approved” versions of Direct DCC, DCC, CVP Airwire, Hybrid Drive, Low Current DCC, sound, flicker, lighting and / or any auxiliary controls deemed by that supplier to be required or desired in order to make the locomotive work. One size fits all. Goodbye to the small manufacturers and to mix and match installations.
Since the locomotive won’t work without something plugged into the socket, the locomotive manufacturers are being counseled by the prime proponent to just buy into the DCC for everyone idea. We have already seen the edge of this, where Bachmann forces us to pay $100 extra for a DCC system if we want certain paint schemes on some of the 3T Shays. Just wait until this DCC standard is the only choice.
One recurring theme is “If you don’t want it, just cut it out”. How about "If you want that stuff, just put it in your locomotives and leave mine alone.
HJ said:If even some of what I am hearing is true, this is a very big concern!
PS wouldn't it be nice if people actually disclosed what their precise connections to organizations and companies etc. are. That guerrilla marketing by the back door is such a load of crap! Of course that is strictly my opinion!
Happy RRing,
Jerry
Jerry,
I hear you.
My comment on the interface is mainly concerning the standardized socket. Mounting those sockets (pins) on a small PC board with a standard pin-out as listed in the NMRA proposal PDF would be “not bad”. If OTOH “they” expect to have all that room available as listed in order to fit all the “stuff” where “they” expect it to go … yeah sure!
BUT if this flies I’ll use the J1 and J2 idea, if only for very easy troubleshooting and a few other advantages that I can see. Yes, all of that for DCC.
I’m not understanding why people are getting their shorts in a twist. Aristo locomotives have had the plug in them for several years. If you are running a straight locomotive, there is a jumper that goes across the plug that’s factory installed. If you want DCC or something that’s DCC compliant, you remove the jumper and plug in your DCC etc. and off you go. If you want to use a battery car, flip the battery/track switch as you have always done and plug the thing into your car as you have always done. If you want to do a Dave Goodson style install, gut the puppy and install what ever. At least in the Dismals the addition of this DCC compliant plug is really minimal…a couple bucks. Below is the plug in the Dash 9. It’s located on the board that holds the various switches under the roof of the locomotive. Remove the green strip and plug in your board of choice. Aristo’s 75mh TE is compliant and plugs in there.
I doubt if the plug adds any significant amount when added to a board that already exists. If you are running mining critters…Hmmmm the plug is bigger than they are…
Most of them only have an off-on switch. I would think that on very small locomotives one would use an HO or O scale DCC setup.
Actually for me this whole thing is quite humourous.
Just two weeks ago, I finally "Gutted" my second Connie. I had put it off for over a year, and having forgotten what I did on the first one; I think I actually did a better job on the second.
My railroad doesn’t require Class lights. I don’t do “Noise”. I don’t do smoke. I seldom run at night and model an age where headlights were not shining during daylight hours. Cab lights would not be on at night to prevent interference with night vision.
Together, this means that I really only need two wires from the tender to the locomotive.
To answer most people that would argue with my methods; Ill say that if I want to show that the train is an “Extra”; I’ll put white flags on the loco. I do leave the headlight connected to the power wires to the motor. (Very simple on the Connie as the wire to the headlight already has the diode, or whatever in line on one of the power wires to it. Just wire it properly for the headlight to be on in forward motion)
The tender wiring is so simple. Just the two wires from the batteries to the receiver, and the two wires from the loco, to the appropriate terminals on the receiver. If you want the back-up light; just run the two wires to the receiver where the loco wires are hooked up. Oh yes; don’t forget to remove that little PCB board from the end of the motor; or you will suffer “Dave’s revenge”, or a bit of magic smoke !!!
To do all this took me about half an hour. I now have a loco that performs flawlessly, quietly, and dependably.
I know I’m probably in the minority, and can’t speak for anyone else. But; I’m hard pressed to enjoy the thought of buying a loco with a whole bunch of PCB’s, in it along with smoke units and speakers; which I will never use.
I know that in the manufacture of all these models today and in the future; standardization is the only way to go, for cost saving reasons.
It is too bad that those of us that are pleased with the simple, and basic aspects of our hobby; always seem to have to pay the price for others, to jam every bit of crap into a loco for some of the most unrealistic reasons.
I’m very happy to see a few intelligent people questioning all this high tech stuff being foisted on the unsuspecting public. I’m also enjoying the humour I get from some of the answers.
By the way Stan; those lights on the loco are “Classification lights”. NOT markers.
To be believed, you have to learn the correct terminology !!! I know, Stan, it’s easy to forget some of these small details, so you are forgiven; but you must look out for spreading wrong information that some of the newbees may pick up while following your preconceived wisdom…
Fred Mills said:In fairness, the misnomer is so pervasive that the two terms have become almost synonymous. Detail part manufacturers even call them "marker lights," so that certainly doesn't help to dispel the technical discrepancy. Purists will mutter under their breath that one who calls the lamps on the front of a locomotive "marker lights" is clueless, but they will also know exactly what's being talked about.
...those lights on the loco are "Classification lights". NOT markers...
It’s not unlike “G gauge.” Technically it’s incorrect, but we all know what is meant by it.
Later,
K
Kevin Strong said:Fred Mills said:In fairness, the misnomer is so pervasive that the two terms have become almost synonymous. Detail part manufacturers even call them "marker lights," so that certainly doesn't help to dispel the technical discrepancy. Purists will mutter under their breath that one who calls the lamps on the front of a locomotive "marker lights" is clueless, but they will also know exactly what's being talked about.
...those lights on the loco are "Classification lights". NOT markers...It’s not unlike “G gauge.” Technically it’s incorrect, but we all know what is meant by it.
Later,
K
Kevin Strong said:Fred Mills said:In fairness, the misnomer is so pervasive that the two terms have become almost synonymous. Detail part manufacturers even call them "marker lights," so that certainly doesn't help to dispel the technical discrepancy. Purists will mutter under their breath that one who calls the lamps on the front of a locomotive "marker lights" is clueless, but they will also know exactly what's being talked about.
...those lights on the loco are "Classification lights". NOT markers...It’s not unlike “G gauge.” Technically it’s incorrect, but we all know what is meant by it.
Later,
K
Just make sure you don’t call them marker lights in a review.
If the detail part mfgs call them marker lights … well … I guess they’re not so hot on details, are they?
BTW I’m surprised that none of the sailors have piped up yet, isn’t there a naval term for those, too? :lol:
Must be my lack of knowlege, but I was under the impression that the ‘marker’ lights on a locomotive were called ‘classification’ lights and the ‘marker’ lights on a trailing ‘end’ car were called ‘marker’ lights. the trailing end car lights denoted the end of the train and the loco classification lights denoted whether the train was running singly or there were following trains which made up the one service. This would occur when more than one train was required due too many passengers for the available seating on one train only.
Tim,
On the PRR they use to have both marker & classification lites on steam locos… The marker lites were on the corners of the loco so you could see it in the night… Classification lites were up high, on the side of the boiler… The lights called ditch lites are just that, they lite up the ditches… They cross point by 7 degrees, right lite for the left ditch & left lite for the right ditch… But mostly they are for finding the loco by people crossing the tracks, they do not look like a motorcycle now… By the railroads choice they can flash with the horn… Most railroads do not run classification lites now because it is more lites to keep working, equals less maintence…
This may seem silly, but you can buy screw terminal blocks on .1" centers. Couldn’t you get 2 strips of them, shove them in the sockets and have your screw terminals? Or in worst case, a small piece of perf board to span the sockets?
Regards, Greg
Greg Elmassian said:
This may seem silly, but you can buy screw terminal blocks on .1" centers. Couldn't you get 2 strips of them, shove them in the sockets and have your screw terminals? Or in worst case, a small piece of perf board to span the sockets?Regards, Greg
That certainly works if we are forced to have the Stan Ames proposed DCC socket in the locomotive in the first place. It actually looks to me as if, in many applications, there won’t be room to accommodate R/C, sound and batteries from separate manufacturers without first removing the ‘forced DCC for all’ socket. Your terminal strip suggestion is a possible solution, but probably won’t be of much use after the ‘forced DCC for all’ socket is removed in order to create space for non-DCC aftermarket R/C, sound and accessory controllers.
Among my objections to the ‘forced DCC for all’ proposal are:
The space a manufacturer must leave for the DCC socket and controller.
The requirement that users purchase some kind of DCC controller or adapter board as part of the locomotive. The locomotive won’t run without something in the new ‘standard’ 24 pin socket.
The absence of ability to plugin a variety of non-DCC after market sub-systems after I have paid the price in terms of space and dollars. Only DCC is supported by the required additional ‘socket’ / ‘controller boards’, and then only the ones that adopt the ‘forced DCC for all’ standard.
The suggestion that we (the great unwashed non-DCC using masses) just add on to the ‘forced DCC for all’ socket or cut out what we don’t want or need rings hollow. How about if DCC users just add on what they do want or need?
I believe it is inappropriate to complain about a proposed solution if one does not address alternatives. I suggest the following: A simple ‘standardized’ solution could be provided by the addition of a single two wire connector between the locomotive’s power pickups and the locomotive’s internal power distribution. If the plug is not polarized, it could even provide a place to correct the polarity without a switch. Want to just run what you bought? Put it on the track: No additions or programming required. Don’t want to use the OEM stuff that came with the locomotive? Just disconnect this single 2 pin plug and plug it into whatever you want (DCC, R/C, sound, etc.). Want to use batteries, a fuel cell or nuclear power? Just connect it to the other side of the power connector. Two pins and no arguments, 'cause it doesn’t add unnecessary complexity to the locomotive.
This low-tech solution won’t directly increase the sales of DCC so is probably not acceptable to the primary DCC promoter, but it does solve the standardization problem without adding a bunch of stuff many of us don’t want.
Happy RRing,
Jerry
Greg,
Paul Norton has a screw terminal block that he uses, but the pins are for a PC board… You could buy pin sockets & solder them on to get the length you need… Lot of work though… I would take his board & use it in non-Aristo locos… You would have to cut some traces to get what you want… This would let you use a QSI or Digitrax DCC decoder or Aristo’s R/C unit… Paul’s info can be found @ www.ovgrs.org…