Large Scale Central

The weakest link in electric powered model railroading

David , reading your post from my ever growing armchair , I agree with your first para .

Second para , reduce spring pressure , or as Steve said from his armchair , flatten the hill a bit .

The capacitor store is a good idea , it works very well and the physical size is not that great . A well known trick in older service equipment .

DCC can be costly , certainly more than radio control , so I sympathise .

Mike

PS I think Steve is slipping , I mean what’s cats got to do with tracks/contacts except that their water outlet causes smelly stains and track rot . Or does it clean the track Steve ? I can imagine you walking your layout squeezing a cat over your track . Kills the weeds too .

Written report on my desk by tomorrow please .

David Maynard said:

How come “The weakest link in electric powered model railroading” had to jump right into battery and steam power? I thought, maybe, I was going to get some ideas to help strengthen that link.

Skates are an option, but all of my 4 coupled LGB locomotives have had a skate ectomy. They had to, so that they could climb to the summit with an actual train.

David,

Your problem most likely belongs in the “Layout Planning” category, but since that is another sore point on this forum, together with Standards and a few other tricky topics it’s best not to go there.
OTOH birthdays, flag poles and the snow that hasn’t arrived yet are safe.

BTW which LGB engines are you writing about?

Hmmm… Cat skinning has nothing to do with felines. The term takes its root in mule skinning and refers to operating heavy earth moving equipment, sometimes called “cats,” after a manufacturer of said equipment, Caterpillar, INC.

Separated by a common language, indeed. :slight_smile:

David , let us ignore the discipline of putting one quarter of your post elsewhere , and discuss the continuity problem .

Let us instead give me a belated birthday present by pushing the flagpole over and hitting Hans on the head . Then we can all sit in our armchairs and discuss technical stuff in a friendly fashion , not a schoolmasterly one . Please note that those are replies to the comments by Hans , and it’s rude to ignore people .

I note with interest that my question about slave labour in Switzerland went unanswered .

Mike

Fred Mills, BSc, BS, SD (Hons) said:

Mr. Ames…

“Not Viable”…Why not…even with DCC there are “Wireless options” with some systems, of DCC…or is it that you promote the system that doesn’t have that option ?

On a railroad of the size you have, wouldn’t Battery R/C be more flexible and no more expensive than DCC…and as you Operate, it would be far more user friendly for the operators.

The only thing it would prevent, is anyone without Battery R/C couldn’t run on your railroad…but that would be an inducement to them to buy into New Technology, and not the product you promote…so I guess I may not get an answer…

But I’m sure others might appreciate, and learn from your answer…I’m always open to learning something, even if I’m proven wrong.

Fred

Battery/RC is a very viable solution for most garden railroads. All approaches have limitations and currently the Battery/RC limitations for product in the field is simply not there yet.

Battery technology is getting much better all the time but the internal power source is still large and needs to be charged. I try to keep a fleet of 30 locomotives in service at all times. When I want to run I turn on two power switches located next to the door in our railroad shed. The locomotives are stored in several places around the railroad and I never have to worry about which locomotives are charged and which are not. A battery car is not an option because all the locomotives are used for switching.

The internal backup power source on many of our locomotives are super-caps and they charge rather quickly as soon as the layout turns on. Super-cap technology is also very small and can fit in virtually anywhere.

One basic problem with most RC systems in the market is that are not truly a multipoint to multipoint network. Most users have a throttle dedicated to one or more locomotives. When we operate you never know which locomotive you will be running before you are given an assignment and all throttles can address all locomotives with no need to adjust a switch in a locomotive so select which throttle is in control,

Another basic problem is range. Unfortunately here in the US the FCC has strict limits on power transmission used for toys. This is a real problem with most wireless systems. The only wireless that currently works across our railroad is that used in phones. We do use wireless phones but they do not have all the capability and are not used as much now as they once were.

ESU is developing a droid based system using 802.3. This has all the power and range one desires. Not sure yet if the FCC will allow its use but I suspect it will have no problem.

Stan

Mike Morgan said:

Stan , I don’t disagree with most of what you say , but I am slightly puzzled about “Capacitive Coupling” . Not looking for an argument , just interested .

Mike

Mike

Many years back Bernd Lenz of Lenz GMBH visited our railroad and was very frustrated with the wheel to track electrical problems that presented themselves. Being an inventor at heart Bernd went back to the drawing board and developed Capacitance Coupling

If you consider for a moment what a capacitor is, in its most basic form it is two pieces of metal separated by an insulator.

Brings to mind rail to wheel separated by dirt or oxidization.

The DCC signal is a bi-polar signal which in effect is charging the wheel to track capacitor at opposite polarities at the DCC frequency.

What this means in practice is that so long as the locomotive is powered, the DCC signal will reliably get through. In large scale with our larger wheels I can reliably get the signal to the locomotive until the locomotive is about 1/4 inch off the track.

Hope that helps explain the technology.

Stan

Stan,

Back in the pre-DCC days RELCO sold a unit that used high frequency to “power-bust” the rail-wheel connection i.e. as soon as contact was lost the high frequency would bridge the gap.
It was a great help back in the days when the plastic and metal wheel sets had to coexist on layouts. The plastic wheels did a very nice job to spread the “gook” evenly and the metal wheels had problems picking up current.

Well, I did extensive planning and reworking to get my grade down to 2.5%. Due to the slope of my yard, and the chosen location, that was about the best I could do without extending the loop through Shannon past the allotted plot of land that I was given to work with.

The LGB locos I am talking about are the Chloe, and the little industrial 0-4-0. With skates, the drag was so much they couldn’t make the first turn.Without the skates they run all day with their allotted trains, with no problems.

The LGB Moguls and my USA F3 still have their skates, and they do not seam to be an issue.

It does help to understand your point of view…thank you…but…how much range do you think you need…we have seen a range for dependable operation up to 300 feet, with a Crest 2.4Mh, but what is the point…in operations you always want to be within ten or twenty feet max, not sitting in your Florida room…500 feet away…!!

A Crest throttle as one example, can easily be programmed to run any one of 100 locomotives, just with the push of a button…they also can control all the noise you care to have…!!

Charging self contained batteries is easily done, if you set yourself up to accommodate any number of locomotives…we do it. Even my old technology, Gel cells will operate a Connie, for example for 4 hours, in an operation…so with the newer style batteries, they can do better…even real locos are serviced after so many hours of operation, so 4 hours is plenty for what most crew members want, or can operate, on a Saturday, in LS…

The new batteries also charge rather quickly, compared with my "Ultra dependable Gels…I would change to new batteries, but after 10 years the gels are still thumping along…wonders never cease to amaze me…!!

All my contributions deleted from continual battle with Todd Brody.

You win Todd… you win…

Greg

I am NOT trying in any way to promote the Crest system…it just happens that we have more experience with them up here.

There are other R/C Battery control systems out there, that are probably just as good…or in some minds better.

One basic problem with most RC systems in the market is that are not truly a multipoint to multipoint network.

I have a design prototyped. I’m very close. Or I think so. It works great on the bench. I just don’t have the resources at the moment to finish it off and real world test it.

All my contributions deleted from continual battle with Todd Brody.

You win Todd… you win…

Greg

RELCO… That’s a blast from the past. HF (High frequency) pushed down the track if I remember.

Stan , thanks for the explanation . One of the problems with being an electronics engineer (retd) is looking for smartass ways of doing things . I need reminding occasionally that it does not have to be complicated .

Ross , I still have my Relcos and they still work . Made just up the road in Watford .

Greg , stick with it . If it works and it ain’t broke , etc…

Mike

well, while the headline talks about one problem, meanwhile we seem to have a whole bouket of problems mentioned.
i will not discuss what othrs wrote here, but present my own solutions, where i have them.

i am building an indoors automated layout for eight trains in two directions with steep grades (6%)

  1. conection problem:
    my solution is either a motorized tender connected behind the loco, or connected tender with pick ups. that doubles the pick up spots (and has the side effect, that all trains stop at the same position in stations)
    and i have one gondola equipped with the LGB cleaning scates, that runs in one of the trains.

  2. force on inclines:
    simple, i double the drawingpower by using motorized tenders.

  3. selection of power system:
    for my use it is easyer, just to use a mainswitch, instead of charging ad installing batteries.
    for my knowledge it is easyer to install a bunch of reed contacts, than to program electronics, so my trains activate each other by reeds, instead of being busy i got time to observe my trains or brag in front of visitors.

  4. steam?
    not for me. i am indoors and cheap.

so, it is plain old DC for me. (plus epl steering system)

did i forget something?

oh yes…

  1. being polite or ignore somebody.
    for me this place has become a much more friendly place, since i abstain to read the posts of two of the members here.

well, just my solutions to some of the above mentioned problems.
other’s situations and solutions rightfully do vary.

I would think the same tech demonstrated in the video link below could easily be adapted to large scale DCC. Got this email from a friend the other day.

Hi Guys,

I have posted a you tube video of my Varney Dockside equipped with the keep alive circuit I showed you at Mike’s last month.

To view it go to http://youtu.be/QroOP8E05WM

I would imagine in 20 years, we’ll go through the archives of this forum and say “what was all the fuss about?”

Three things come to mind that are going to shape how we run trains in the future. First, there’s the ever-improving battery technology. Smaller, lighter, and more powerful seems to be the mantra. It might be a tall order to expect commercial products to make the switch from track to battery power in that time–I think “traditional DC” power is simply too well entrenched to just go away. But as we’ve already seen today, manufacturers are going to make it dead-nuts simple to add a battery and 3rd-party controller to the locomotive instead.

Second, there’s the emergence of “Keep-Alive” technology (aka “super caps”) that are already making serious inroads in the small scales as they combat the same track issues we have. Those, too, I think are going to get more and more commonplace–perhaps to the point where we need “live” tracks only on certain key areas of the railroad, allowing the super caps to provide power through reverse loops, hard-to-clean areas (tunnels, bridges), and elsewhere.

But the third–and perhaps most exciting–motivator for change lies in how we control them. As we’re already seeing, the capabilities of Bluetooth, WiFi, and other wireless network technologies is going to make everything we currently have seem archaic. I see the handheld controller (phone, tablet, whatever form it might take) becoming the brains of the operation. It’s not going to control a “little black box” that controls the trains, it will be the “little black box.” Whatever communications protocol the network uses–likely something we have yet to imagine–it will allow the receiver in each locomotive to relay telemetry data to the controller, so it will know the status of all the locomotives on the railroad. I can see miniature cameras mounted in cab windows feeding back live images to a dispatcher’s monitor and/or engineer’s handheld device. There’s also the potential for RFID to provide feedback for automation and other control functions.

I think the decoder on the locomotive will still remain the heart-and-soul of the locomotive, retaining specifics about sounds, lights, smoke, and certain motor control parameters. But I see the paradigm shifting away from the decoder being built to any one specific “standard” such as DCC to one where the compatibility is governed the control software and manufacturer-specific plug-ins or drivers, similar to how we would install a printer on our computer or network today. Take your locomotive to another railroad? You’d get a pop-up on your command screen that says something like “New locomotive detected. Select plug-in or download new.”

I see the potential for the handheld controller we use to take on the form of a cellphone case–something that just attaches to our phones. Maybe it has physical knobs and buttons that then just make contact with the screen, or maybe it’s a separate box that communicates wirelessly to the phone/tablet/whatever. I don’t think there’s any avoiding the emergence of our phones and tablets as being the core of future generations of control systems.

Troglodytes, fear not. I don’t see this emerging technology as being mandatory. As I first wrote, “analog DC” is far too entrenched as the base. I think you’ll always be able to buy a locomotive, plunk it on the rails, apply power, and watch it run. It’s just that each locomotive will have the potential for so much more.

Consider Piko’s new locomotives. They’re sold with DCC-compatible decoders in them, but will also run on “analog DC.” Currently, to take advantage of the full capabilities of the loco, you need to run it on a track-powered DCC railroad. Now, consider this scenario - instead of needing a DCC control system, you would go to the App store, download Piko’s control app, either apply power to the rails or install batteries and you’re off and running, taking advantage of all the bells and whistles the locomotive offers. Already using another control software system? Download the Piko plug-in for your control software, and you’re off and running.

Fun to dream…

Later,

K

I see a problem .
My flip phone

All my contributions deleted from continual battle with Todd Brody.

You win Todd… you win…

Greg