Howdy
I’ve been pondering this one for a while, and I figured I’d toss it out to the rest of the gang. Is using off the shelf DCC viable with radio control and battery power? I like the idea of standardized multi-function controls, sound, lights, all that. Anyone ever done this? Inquiring minds want to know.
Isn’t that what “Airwire” is? The combination of DCC and radio control. If you power it with batteries, isn’t that what you are talking about?
Bob ,
It might be possible , but is it desirable ? It begs the old question–how many locos can YOU handle at one time ? I use R/C and rely on differing frequencies to avoid interference . Given that you can’t handle six at once ,
six frequencies are adequate , all we do is to swop the receiver module between locos --it’s a plug/socket job ,easily accessible 'cos we made it so . Add to that , we use Track power MTS , the much maligned LGB system which I have to say is more than adequate for our requirements . We run live steam alongside (or behind , actually ) our track power stuff , the oil from the steamers gives a lovely protective finish to the track .
I hope that this does not start a tiresome argument about MTS , DCC , Battery and the usual . I use all of them , and have to say that none of them are perfect , some are totally irksome . LGB is not one of them , I shall leave you to guess which is the worst --I am not going to slaughter somebody’s sacred cow .
Mike
There are issues.
One mentiond as “DCC” isn’t.
According to folks at the nmra, about one inch of wire might qualify.
So, you want battery power…signal won’t be track at that point…and to have proper signal transfer means the transmitter is on all of the time…and that frequency is DOA for anyone else to use…
If it is not ALL constant DCC signal upgrade, and some commands, like sound, are momentary, will you be happy with that?
How many discrete frequencies are you going to have assigned to this new system?
The number will dictate the total number of operators, not only at your railroad, but also within range of your transmitter at a show hall…
The real funny part is talking to folks who build DCC decoders, and when they get one back that “don’t work no more”, generally they do…but virtually all have the only item changed being the address.
All the “options” are never touched…
Me?
I want something bullet-proof, simple to operate, without the need for a cheat-sheet in my pocket to remember what button combinations do what…
I want to run my locomotive, blow the whistle, ring the bell.
Other options I do have, but rarely use.
When the running of trains becomes more a question of the technology than the actual trains, I ain’t interested.
I’ve seen it…guys with what they think is “DCC” in their large-scale diesels…concentrating on the buttons, on the “technology”, as to what they can “do”.
No freaking idea where their train is.
You have to walk up to them and ask them if they know, and they jump.
“No”.
You invite them to stop before they wipe out the caboose on the logging train they are approaching at Warp Factor 3.
Also run into it at shows.
The club modules have a lift bridge.
It was mandated that when the double-track lift bridge was open, lights would flash and bells would ring.
So, one of these yay-whos is concentrating on the handhld, making the engineer’s cigar glow off and on, for all we can tell, bridge open, lights flashing, bells ringing, and someone has to reach out and grab the locomotive and hold it 4 inches from the open draw, while someone goes over and smacks the idiot out of his reverie and gets him to stop.
Aarrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
Hi Dave,
Yes, quite true. It all boils down to the “human factor” and it doesn’t matter what control system you use, that factor never changes.
On those decoders which have only the address changed, that is not a surprise - I know some instances where it took the owner several weeks before the engines responded to something different than address 3 . Read a few of the DCC groups and it will be confirmed. 
Hans ,
You are maligning the LGB system with the usual comments about idiots . It’s the idiots’ fault that they can’t operate it , not the MTS . It works , I have it on several more locos than I care to mention . I don’t have problems --and you know my competence level with computers --which reminds me , when did you ever see a computer with adequate instructions ?
Two wrongs do not make a right , but we really should temper our comments about systems with a little tact and decorum . Many people will be put off buying systems that are criticised because they believe what they read , I feel that unless a system is positively life threatening , comments should be tempered with caution .
I have some very strong views about manufactrurers making models in daft scales , but keep them to myself rather than upset some poor bugger who has just spent his life’s savings on something he liked .
The other point , you mention that people have locos stuck on code three (3) --who else would know what you are on about other than someone steeped in MTS ? Why knock it ?
Mike
Oh, yeah, we watch them.
Even on the Bachmann Forum.
I’ve been around the block once or twice, and if someone is unwilling to learn how to do something, and maintain it themselves, what’s the point of a “hobby”?
Mike Morgan said:Mike,
Hans , You are maligning the LGB system with the usual comments about idiots . It's the idiots' fault that they can't operate it , not the MTS . It works , I have it on several more locos than I care to mention . I don't have problems --and you know my competence level with computers --which reminds me , when did you ever see a computer with adequate instructions ? Two wrongs do not make a right , but we really should temper our comments about systems with a little tact and decorum . Many people will be put off buying systems that are criticised because they believe what they read , I feel that unless a system is positively life threatening , comments should be tempered with caution . I have some very strong views about manufactrurers making models in daft scales , but keep them to myself rather than upset some poor bugger who has just spent his life's savings on something he liked . The other point , you mention that people have locos stuck on code three (3) --who else would know what you are on about other than someone steeped in MTS ? Why knock it ? Mike
If anyone is in doubt as to the veracity of my general statements regarding MTS: please send me an email mentioning which portions of my various statement regarding MTS are not factual. BUT, please be precise and deliver the proof.
Now, if you paid too much for a system that underperforms, that is your choice and privilege. As a general rule I’m going on the assumption that discussion boards fill a certain purpose i.e. they provide information for those people that seek information. If the information is incorrect I’m sure I will be corrected pronto quick.
Of course I don’t claim to be perfect, but if it is any consolation I have yet to be corrected regarding the dimensional tables on the equipment reviews. There is a simple reason for that: I actually do the research. Same goes for DCC and if I don’t know, I simply ask.
On that note: I downloaded the manual (German variety) of the MTS3 command station, never hurts to keep up with “what’s new”.
A “lot” of the stuff I know today I learned by reading and asking. And of course keeping my eyes open and my ears perked, so as not to miss too much. 
Oh BTW, I’m one of those utterly boring people who reads manuals; DCC systems, computer (SW&HW), VCRs, DVD players, digital cameras etc. etc. In this house we call it “diminishing the Duhh factor”
On the address 3 bit: anyone who knows DCC decoders of various makes is aware that many (most? all???) of them are delivered with address 3 pre-set. And when you do a factory reset you’re right back there. Nothing to do with MTS as such. As a matter of fact that applies pretty well from ATLAS to ZIMO and to make matters simpler for the rudimentary DCC systems, they are usually preset to 14 speed steps, too.
Decoder manufacturers know that they have to “dumb down” things in order to make them workable without resetting any of the CVs. If they wouldn’t they would get unmanagable numbers of tech support requests. If you like to call those DCC users “idiots” hmmmm … I certainly wouldn’t. They just haven’t absorbed the instructions yet.
Curmudgeon said:
Oh, yeah, we watch them.Even on the Bachmann Forum.
I’ve been around the block once or twice, and if someone is unwilling to learn how to do something, and maintain it themselves, what’s the point of a “hobby”?
Dave,
Precisely!
Back East we used to run a course called “Beyond the Basics”, all the interested parties picked up the brochures at the various LHS.
Three full Saturdays would usually do the trick. Political correctness, as far as model railroading was concerned, was checked at the door and if someone asked about merchandise from mfg ABCDEF he/she (yes! we had a few women in the courses) would get the straight goods. We wouldn’t promote one mfg but would give people several good choices. BTW the hobby shop owners liked our approach, it meant they sold more of the better quality and didn’t need to get aggravated with the “El Cheapo” stuff.
Nothing to do with model railroading, a lot to do with learning: SWMBO and myself are currently taking rowing lessons, not paddling a canoe or a kayak, but rowing one of those 2 or 4 man racing jobs.
I should have gone for that when I was 16 and had the chance; but the way I see it, even 61 isn’t too old!
Obfuscation , obfuscation . I simply asked “why criticise” . "Why knock it " .Verbosity is not an answer .
Mike
Mike Morgan said:Mike,
Obfuscation , obfuscation . I simply asked "why criticise" . "Why knock it " . Verbosity is not an answer . Mike
Very simply and clearly: To save some of the uninitiated both money and grieve.
As I wrote: if you are content with an entry level system at a mid-level price, that’s fine. To each his own!
Hans ,
You have a delightful way of saying things , I enjoy talking with you . Yes , I did realise what you meant , and respect your views . I don’t necessarily agree with you , but it is fun to get a dialogue going ,isn’t it ?
We should try to answer Bob’s query really , I was hoping that we could get more people in on the discussion .
So , back to our corners , and let’s see if we can come up with some easily digestable facts .
Dave made the point about continuous transmission --as usual , he is right ,he knows his stuff does our Dave .
There is a way round it of course , there always is , but the cost would be even more than entry level MTS . It might help if a degree in instruction reading came with it .
A hybrid is possible , but we are now going into the realms of B.Sc. Train Op levels .
No doubt it will come eventually , but unless there is agreement about what is required ( how many trains do you want to simultaneously control ?) , and above all , what constitutes an acceptable operator distraction level ,as again highlighted by Dave , I think it will be a long time a comin’ .
In the meantime , I shall happily plod around with my 22 addresses and all the sound effects I want with MTS , which is not terribly expensive in the UK , and for brain exercise , use my other system (Lenz ) on HO and
On3or30 , and Gfn , and radio on my steamers ,and 1/19 and 1/16 etc . I like playing with things . Which , by the way includes model big rigs --have any of you seen the motors available for them ? There’s one called a
"Truck Puller " and it beats the pants off some of the usual loco motors . .It helps having a diverse approach to modelling . We are trying to put a sound system from a truck into a diesel loco of the gear changing type–it’s all there on the sound unit .
Fun , fun , fun .
Mike
Bob, While not battery useable as it is AC on track. Lionel’s TMCC and railsounds is quite good to my ear. Has all the control features I think I’ll ever need. Unfortunately using it eliminates standard DC powered locos from the track at the same time.
Andre’
Mike,
You wanted less verbosity, you got it!
BTW I’m quite satisfied using one DCC system (ZIMO) for scales from N to LS; if and when I decide to try live-steam in LS it will be using servos operated with a ZIMO decoder. Zimo has had that feature for some time now ;).
Of course I don’t advocate buying ZIMO for really simple applications - that would be financial overkill - but it certainly fits the bill when it comes to running different scales in a more than basic manner.
You’re quite right this here is about Radio DCC, interestingly I never mentioned MTS in my first post. You jumped to the incorrect conclusion with your address 3 comment.
As far as I know CVP’s Airwire 900 is the only one that will work with a NMRA-DCC conforming decoder.
However what isn’t mentioned in the promo-PDF:
a) can the decoder be used for motor control (better control via the CV adjustments)?
b) what exactly is the signal at the NMRA-DCC output (full DCC signal or just sound-relevant component)?
Hans ,
You are asking what seem to be the right questions , I have no experience of the airwire .
Technically it is possible to have a radio controlled dcc system , but there would have to be large investment in an unproven system to make it viable . I think that may slow things down a bit . The immediate worry would be " how
modifiable is it ? " . Can it be fitted to my existing DCC /MTS / DC powered locos . And let us not forget the powering of accessories too . Not very straightforward , is it ? My hybrid systems work OK for me , and include moving road traffic too . It’s fun doing it , but commercially may not be acceptable . The "think and forget what else is happening " problem mentioned by Dave comes to mind . We can but hope . My address 3 comment was deliberate , not everyone has dcc/mts .Now they know what we are on about .
Mike
Bob McCown said:Bob,
Howdy I've been pondering this one for a while, and I figured I'd toss it out to the rest of the gang. Is using off the shelf DCC viable with radio control and battery power? I like the idea of standardized multi-function controls, sound, lights, all that. Anyone ever done this? Inquiring minds want to know.
Airwire 900 sure looks interesting from what I read in the manuals. Of course as always, the devil is in the details. I’m waiting for membership approval on the YAHOO easydcc Group to ask some questions.
Mike Morgan said:Mike
The immediate worry would be " how modifiable is it ? " . Can it be fitted to my existing DCC /MTS / DC powered locos . And let us not forget the powering of accessories too . Not very straightforward , is it ?
Once you pluncked down your money you can modify anything to your heart’s desire, without warranty, of course.
BTW for motor power you need to use the built in decoder, the auxilliary DCC booster is limited to 1A and not protected against overloads or short circuits (hmmmmmmm what will fry in that case???)
Lights and smoke are powered off the Air900 decoder. Whatever else you want to do, you can do with the auxilliary decoder as long as you stay within the 1A limit (use low power relays or power transistors for on-off switching, if necessary).
As far as straight forward goes; one of my acquaintances has a neat garden set-up that runs loop to loop. It is battery powered and control is by a simple center-off toggle switch on the cab roof. Forward-OFF-Reverse, same speed at all times depending on battery condition. Straight forward!
PS One of the first questions will be “What is considered good range with the small antenna?”
DCC is, as I understand it, a voltage that has been modulated with a digital signal, that received aboard a locomotive, is used to both drive the motors, and to operate a “Decoder” that turns other functions on and off.
It works as long as there’s a capacity for the “decoder” to receive signals telling it what voltage to let out, and where.
It’s big strength in the smaller scales is it’s supposed to be universal, or maybe better put, interchangeable. You should be able to put a decoder from any manufacturer into your locomotive, program it correctly, and run it on a track hooked up to anyone’s power station without too much of a hassle.
Its big weakness is that it needs to receive both the power from the track, as its “straight DC” traditional cousins do, but also a clearly understandable digital code … which is why dirty track and other sources of interference play hell with them.
In a battery powered locomotive, the power would come from onboard batteries, and you’d have to have both “encoder” and “decoder” aboard the locomotive, the former to embed the digital instructions in the power by modulating the otherwise “straight line DC” coming from the battery, and then a (presumably standardised) decoder unit to then decode/listen to and then use those instructions to carry out various functions aboard the locomotive. This is where things get a bit strange, as one of DCC’s primary advantages is that the power and the control signal are all together … here that’s only true between the battery and encoder (replacing the “power station”) and the decoder aboard the locomotive … the radio signal between the control the operator carries and the “power station” aboard the locomotive is a whole new animal not found on “traditional” DCC (except as noted in a moment…) because the power station is generally hardwired to the control panel and doesn’t have any trouble getting its instructions to encode and send out.
There are, as folks will be quick to point out, WIRELESS controllers for DCC. These use a radio (or sometimes infared) signal to remove the wire between the controller the operator carries and the power station, allowing them more freedom to “walk around” the layout. An onboard battery/DCC unit would, in essence, work as if the system had one of these, communicating remotely with the onboard “power station” telling it what instructions to send down the line to the decoder with the power… as long as the system was receiving instructions, everything would work the way you’d want it to … and you’d have an engine that did all the things a DCC equipped locomotive would do.
Whether or not having an engine with that many functions is a good idea is a matter of religion and politics, and not really part of this discussion.
There is something more to point out, though, and it’s an issue that the whole concept turns upon. On a track powered DCC layout, the part that makes it work as well as it does is that ONE power station is a clearing house for all the handpieces, and all the locomotives. That’s because ALL the locomotives on the layout get their power and their digital instructions from ONE PLACE. Because we cannot broadcast motor voltage (well, safely) over a Battery/Radio/DCC system, this is IMPOSSIBLE, because as a result, EACH locomotive must now have its OWN power station. This means instead of having remote handpieces that send occasional signals to a power station that maintains power and signal to the whole layout, you in essence have to have a whole independant system for each locomotive … handpiece, power station, and decoder … and none of them will talk to each other. Kind of like building a layout with four parallel main tracks, and installing an independant wireless DCC system (with it’s own power station and wireless controller) on each one. Yes, you can have different addresses on your system, but only for decoders that are somehow hardwired to the power system/batteries in the locomotive … anything with different batteries requires a whole seperate system. Imagine a DCC system that had multiple locomotive functions but only allowed one locomotive on the track at a time and you’re almost there.
There are other considerations, like trying to miniaturize a power station to fit into the locomotive along with the decoder (a normal DCC power station is a very large affair comparatively) and the proximity of the motor, radio, digital signal encoder/decoder, etc. as well as the need to maintain a continuous signal between the handpiece and the power station which, unlike its track powered bretheren, now moves around an area as large as the layout itself, and with different orientations to other controllers, other locomotives, and other elements … it’s not one central power station sending its information out over a network. There’s also the issue of feedback, where the various units would be equipped to send a message back to the controller … easy enough on the track version, but requiring now a two way radio link between the power station on the locomotive and the wireless handpiece… which has all of the issues mentioned here, as well as a size limitation to actually fit into the locomotive shell.
So… possible? Absolutely. Cellular phones do this kind of data transmission all the time as do other “Trunked” radio entities… Of course, building a trunked radio system is no small matter (I know… I operate a somewhat large one every day, and have seen the buildings full of equipment that run it) And of course there are matters of frequency allocation, and other environmental things that go into designing such a system … all of which are relatively straightforward but would likely cost more than the average hobbyist (or perhaps ALL of them) would be willing to pay… and even if they were, it’d be a whole new animal entirely, NOT radio/DCC at least in the way that we know DCC as it exists today. The long and the short of it is, it hasn’t been done yet. Regardless of how it’s advertised, there is no “Battery DCC” system out there that works the same way a traditional track based Digital Command/Control system does, primarily because DCC as we know it is based on ONE power station providing signal-embedded power to all of the locomotives on the system … and until we can figure out how to distribute that kind of power without wires or metal rails, we’re not going to be able to do the same thing DCC does without the track to carry the signal.
End of Ramble … off to work. Hopefully our trunked radio system will behave…
Matthew (OV)
Hi all,
In addition to the CVP Airwire unit, there’s also TrainControl out of Germany which seems to work in a similar fashion. Haven’t read the manuals, yet, but they have an interesting wrinkle by also allowing to interface with a standard DCC system.
More after I read the instructions.
Interesting. Very!!! interesting.
I can’t go into any details yet but RCS has plans to offer an R/C interface that will replicate the equivalent of DCC signals coming from the track and fed directly into ANY!!! DCC decoder.
No time frame yet.
When I am happy with progress made I will be calling for submissions of what the operating requirements will be.
I can say one thing though.
System separation will be by RCS frequency and/or codes address changes. It will not have the capability of emulating DCC adressing.
But!!!
It will have the ability to control many functions plus at will consisting.
G’day Tony,
That is even more interesting!