Large Scale Central

Radio powered DCC

Electronics Power and Sound
#41

Hi, Tony.

I’m sure that you know that i was only teasing with that “or sumpin…”.

I’ve thought long and hard about what would be the best way to control locomotives outside, and came to the conclusion that DCC is the best way to go. That is what I use for my On30 layout inside. My 3-rail O-gauge indoor layout has a form of ACC by MTH that works very well. The only fly in the ointment is dirty track, and we folks out of doors have more than our share of that. Even the cleanest of outdoor tracks are too dirty to effectivly carry the signal. The idea of smoke signals is beginning to sound appealing.

I’m guessing that you have thought of a work-around. I’d love to know what that is, but I also know that I will just have to wait until it comes out.

Cheers.

Steve

#42

Even the cleanest track is too dirty? I guess my layout does not read forums.

DCC decoders 10 years ago used to be very sensitive to dirty track. That’s pretty much history now. I run DCC outdoors, never clean track, and run when the track is wet. I use NCE. I have not heard of any undue sensitivity to dirty track.

Now some of the currently available DCC sound decoders are still sensitive, they will reset their acceleration sounds. The latest sound decoders are smarter than that, like the Tsunami.

When I level track, I leave the train running around the loop to watch it as it goes over the spot I am working on. When the train passes, I dump ballast, sweep it out of the tracks, hit it with the hose to wash the dust off and help settle the new ballast, then the train comes by and I look.

No problems.

One great thing about DCC is you can mix and match. You can use various power supplies, you can use any manufacturers decoder, etc. You do still have to match the controller to the command station, which generates the commands. There is no common data bus that controllers can share between manufacturers.

I was not aware the MTH system was sensitive to dirty track, was running ok outside at the Queen Mary.

If you are in San Diego some time, drop by and try out my setup, I think you will see it runs fine outside.

(by the way, I’m not trying to enter the which is best debate, just to say DCC outside is a viable option with the current systems available)

Regards, Greg

#43

I have to say I agree with your hypothesis , Greg .
My LGB stuff does not suffer if the track is mucky , the Lenz system I have on HO stuff has never given a problem ,clean or dirty .
Radio powered dcc is a good idea , but I do wish the MTS /DCC knockers would knock it off and try positive promotion and not "slagging off the opposition " style promotion .
Do not forget , R/C DCC is not here yet , beware the pitfalls of knocking before you enter–your pet R/C may be very embarrassed .
I also use R/C and will probably go R/C DCC --unless I am put off by the negative promoting .
Technically , pulsing the feed to a circuit overcomes dirt problems to some extent --don’t use the argument that it is only High Frequency that does that , remember that a square wave contains an infinite number of frequencies .
There is a UK company selling a very successful "track cleaner " that uses that very principle .
Mike

#44

Greg and Mike.

I well understand the capabilities of DCC and in warm dry climates, such as SoCal, DCC can be effective.
Of course I know of various DCC systems scattered right across the USA and Canada.
However!
If track powered DCC is so wonderful for everyone, why is it that a certain very large DCC manufacturer, (nudge nudge, wink wink …), is looking into the possibility of direct R/C communication with regular on board DCC decoders as one way of overcoming the resistance to DCC in Large Scale outdoors?
A decent R/C - DCC interface = bigger choice for consumers.

It will totally eliminate the need for any track power at all.
No more expensive command stations or boosters to buy. Still, that could be a downside for the DCC manufacturers. But hey!!! what is a wrong with a bit of competition lowering the total cost to LS’ers.
The attendant expenses can often be utilised to pay for the onboard battery R/C instead.

#45

Naturally . Tony , you miss Britain out of the equation,and promptly carry on knocking .
Why ? If your planned system is as good as forecast , you will have the world beating a path to your door . The free advertising you are getting from this thread will see to that , I am sure .
My MTS works ,and so does Lenz ,in wet old Britain where the fallout from a motorway gives a good coating of atomised rubber .
You are doing the wrong thing . old chap , People get weary of hearing the same drum banging .
Advertise by all means , tell us what 's good .You seem to be trying to make a market by putting people off , try
putting your one side by side with MTS or DCC and show which is best . Then I might start to be persuaded . Until then , I shall start saying it is an unproven system with unknown faults .
You don’t think that’s right ?
Mike
ps I get the impression some folks got frightened by a wicked dcc witch when they were young .

#46

It is really good to see and read an intelligent and civilized discussion on DCC, and R/C/Battery. I do hope with respect, for each other, it will stay this way.

As my contribution to this thread; I must bring attention to an aspect of the subject that hasn’t been addressed. The supportive infastructure of DCC, is more than the black boxes; it is a lot of wiring, and power feeds, to say nothing of bonded rail joints or the use of expensive rail clamps. To say nothing of the isolation of track sections for reverse polarity…etc. etc.
There is much more to disuade me from DCC than just the small problem of dirty track.

I may be a bit different from the average Large Scaler. I DON"T collect locos. I only stable the locos needed to operate my railroad. So the cost of 6-8 R/C Battery systems is not a great burden, especially, as I don’t need or want smoke, noise or light features.
I also have a pike that is over 1000 feet in length, featuring a point to point operation. I at one time did use track power, and had all the supporting wire that was needed to feed the maze of track. Just to maintain the track in good operating shape, without even looking at the wiring; was enough.
I can get away with any kind of rail, and just buy the least expensive type; be it Aluminium, Brass, steel, or NS. I’d even use a good plastic rail if it was available.
After doing a quick check of all costs involved, and taking into consideration the operating time I need from each loco; the battery/RC is the system that wins hands down for me.
I live in Eastern Canada, and weather is also taken into consideration.
I also work on a pike in “Sn3”, which uses a complete DCC system, with great success (Indoors), so I’m completely open minded, and enjoy the good things about each system…including; in the right situation;an old style “Block control”.

I do look forward to the future use of DCC decoders, as part of a system that can be non track power dependent. This may be the system of the future, in my mind.

 BUT......"We ain't there yet", and as in all other high tech stuff in this world,  it could be just around the corner, and outdated two days after we get it.

I'm also interested in the future of "Battery Technology"....there is a long awaited hope for a "Plastic" that can be poured into a mould "Like the coal load in the tender of a steam profile loco" and except a large Amphour charge......this would be the cat's meow.

I heard a few years ago that Kader was working on this…

Anyhow.....lets keep sharing good thoughts on this great topic, and at the same time; stay positive in our suggestions and attitudes.

Thanks, guys…

#47

Mike,
With respect.

Have you any idea how big some of the garden Railroads are in the USA and Canada?

There is a big difference between maintaining a smallish one or two man outdoor RR compared to RR’s that operated by 12 - 16 operators. Weekly in the summer.
Battery R/C was and is the only option for many.
Whether it is RCS, Locolinc, Airiwre or Crest.
Sure it can cost more for multiple locos. Bit it need not to with careful planning from the start.

I have nothing against DCC.
Quite the contrary.
Blending DCC technology with battery R/C technology so that the result is compatible with ANY DCC decoder is going to be a good thing.
For everyone.

You choose to stick to DCC. That is cool with me.

#48
Mike Morgan said:
Radio powered dcc is a good idea , but I do wish the MTS /DCC knockers would knock it off and try positive promotion and not "slagging off the opposition " style promotion .
Oh dear! ;) :)
Mike Morgan said:
Do not forget , R/C DCC is not here yet , beware the pitfalls of knocking before you enter--your pet R/C may be very embarrassed .
Mike Morgan said:
You seem to be trying to make a market by putting people off , try putting your one side by side with MTS or DCC and show which is best . Then I might start to be persuaded . Until then , I shall start saying it is an unproven system with unknown faults .
Mike,

Have you checked out (as in read the manual) the Airwire system? That sure reads like R/C DCC in the manual that I downloaded.
Adding an aux. sound decoder i.e. Tran, will fit the bill for what I had in mind (was wishing for???)

BTW there also is an Airwire Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AirWire/ I’ll be asking my usual “dumb” questions over there, soon. :slight_smile: Seems like there is a sizeable variety of applications on that group.

On those “unknown faults”, is that as opposed to the well known faults of the LGB-MTS system?? Just asking!?! :wink: :slight_smile: :smiley: :smiley:

#49

Tut tut,Tony , bringing up that old chestnut again.
Big railway , 15 operators .
My Old MTS controls 22 different engines . It does it on big layouts–try looking at some of the German and Swiss ones . I suppose the track is cleaner in De and CH . I have two MTS systems , how many will that control ?
Come on man , sell it by superiority . Tell me where it is better–BETTER .Any fool can say this works ,that doesn’t.
My R/c , which I really enjoy , frequently gets harmonic interference from passing aircaft . Are you going to prevent that ? Tell us how --I can tell you how to diminish it .Or sheer power break through from close proximity . It is a radio transmit and receive system after all . A police radio upset my truck the other day admitted it was in the road with the pc but it can catch you out .
With my r/c ,borrowing the 9 channel versions from our trucks and bots , we can get up to 15 functions so far ,but as usually we only want whistle usually , we are not going to run into problems .
Nah , don’t over flog it mate , just quietly beaver away feeding out scraps on how it has an advantage . I am NOT knocking your system , I would encourage it from mountain tops —but this democratic (non political ) forum needs a balance ,the shrill knockers need opposing .I shall do so if necessary–someone should .
The range issue of r/c is my next subject .
Mike

#50

Hans ,
No , not read it , I hope it says it’s good and not that everyone else’s is crap . I would be interested , just the same as Tony’s ,we must encourage developement of these new things ,which may broaden our horizons .
Mike

#51
Mike Morgan said:
Tut tut,Tony , bringing up that old chestnut again. Big railway , 15 operators . My Old MTS controls 22 different engines . It does it on big layouts--try looking at some of the German and Swiss ones . I suppose the track is cleaner in De and CH . I have two MTS systems , how many will that control ? Come on man , sell it by superiority . Tell me where it is better--BETTER . Mike
Mike what kind of a LGB-MTS do you have that can run 22 engines at the same time??? AFAIK it may address 22 (23) engines but it can only run 8 at the same time, since even the MTS III can't handle more than that.

In short; a large layout on which 12 or more engineers each control a separate train is not in the LGB-MTS cards.

Tell me which large German and Swiss layouts are you talking about?? And do they run the NA (NorthAmerican) practice of one train = one operator?? If they do, I’m even more interested!

Ooooops before the acronym police clobbers me; “AFAIK” means “as far as I know”. :wink: :smiley: :smiley:

#52

Hans ,
I have two MTS controllers . My track will be section switched from two independent halves . I did a trial of it , it works ok , but I have to add , I did not do it for 16 fat controllers . There were other reasons which I am still working on . I have far , far more than 44 locos , but–here’s a clue --not all from the same railway .Or even the same gauge .And remember ,some are radio controlled . So there is the potential to flood my garden with operators . Then you would not see the track . So I don’t .
As to the location of the continental layouts , I shall have to go through my videos .
Mike

#53

Mike,

The big advantage of DCC is supposed to be a larger number of engines running all at the same time under control of several people (one operator per engine; MUed consists count as one engine just like on the proto).
Yes, I know that’s something for those with a large, well designed garden layout i.e. operators can walk along with the trains without getting in each other’s way.
It seems quite obvious that battery R/C DCC will fit the bill just like battery R/C does at present. Of course with the advantage of cleanliness of rails being less important. :wink: :slight_smile:

#54

Greg, I’m pleased to learn that DCC has advanced to where dirty track is no longer important. I must admit that my one experience with DCc was several years ago. I’ll give DCC another look.

This is an interesting discussion, but I fail to see where Tony has done any real bashing of the opposition. I guess after following American politics, I am inurred to bashing. :wink:

Let’s keep this going, I’m learning a lot. Just remember to talk slowly so I can follow the conversation.

Steve

#55

Good to see the post was edited.

I love it when folks in SoCal claim what works there works in the rest of the world.

I recall going round and round with a bloke in Torrance about that.

Boy.

Oh, and Tony isn’t talking about DCC signal through the rails or track power…

#56

Tony was not the one doing the knocking , he wouldn’t do that . Gentle nudging maybe , but knock ? Nah . I agree we should keep this dialogue-dichotomy ? going , as long as it is kept to “you can do this with… " and not " this thing is crap compared to…”.Negative marketing is a two edged sword , and can spectacularly backfire .
I would like to think that Tony will produce a system that will have the big boys quaking in their boots . He needs our support for this , and that is not gained by rubbishing–one word out of place could destroy any hope of Tony doing it , and some big bugger picking it up . Other people read this forum without posting , they are the ones to watch . I would be very cautious of LGB fanatics . I collect LGB , and that very fact upset someone on another forum . Just because he was no longer "mr lgb " LGB is good , or I would not have it . But to defend it against the indefensible is stoopid .
So let’s discuss , point out good bits , say what the system ideally should do , work back from that to something achievable , and above all at the end of it , buy the stuff . In the meantime , use the existing , whatever you use , note its good points --if you feel very strongly an email is better than splashing controversy over the pages .
Now behave , or you’ll get demerits and I shall confiscate all your Playboy mags , I desperately need strang …
Mke

#57

By golly , Mo-reese dun it agin, sent some of the bestest strang y’ever clapped yer old eyes on . Wish I could get to where it’s keppit , ah’d be in paradahs .
Mahk , a mite shook .

#58
Curmudgeon said:
Good to see the post was edited.

I love it when folks in SoCal claim what works there works in the rest of the world.

I recall going round and round with a bloke in Torrance about that.

Boy.

Oh, and Tony isn’t talking about DCC signal through the rails or track power…


Hi Dave,

Remember that song “It never rains in SoCal…”??? :wink: :smiley:

If I read/guess correctly - DCC signal transmitted via R/C, to be decoded by any standard NMRA-DCC compliant/compatible decoder, powered by battery - that would be even cooler! :cool: :cool: :cool:

#59
Steven Featherkile said:
Greg, I'm pleased to learn that DCC has advanced to where dirty track is no longer important. I must admit that my one experience with DCc was several years ago. I'll give DCC another look.

This is an interesting discussion, but I fail to see where Tony has done any real bashing of the opposition. I guess after following American politics, I am inurred to bashing. :wink:

Let’s keep this going, I’m learning a lot. Just remember to talk slowly so I can follow the conversation.

Steve


Steve,

Dirty track is still a problem with DCC, from N scale to Large Scale. The same applies for dirty engine wheels!

Depending on the decoders and the system used there are band-aids or solutions in Large Scale. :wink: :wink: :slight_smile:

#60

At the HO club where I have advanced from guest to prospective member, dirty track is a huge problem. They have to clean their track before each operating session to ensure that the 'trons get through. I suspect that the art has advanced somewhat in the 8 or 9 years since I last gave it a serious look, however.

Steve