Amazing Radio Control - the future of Model Trains?

Going to York?  Stop by the RCS America booth in Orange Hall.  Batteries, RC, ...it's already available for trains.  I installed one in an LGB engine....Excellent!...and no worries about track cleanliness/oxidation!!! 

 

It's a-comin'!....slowly.

 

KD

It is being researched. I think I wrote a thread about it a year or so ago.  A number of HO companies have played around with totally self contained RC trains. No power to the track, all on board lipo's and RC unit via a ipad. Makes Legacy and TMCC look old. Two rail track, no power, no blocks just like trains run in real life. It's coming my friends!

R/C + battery model railroading has been around for a while. I'll not convert.....but it is promising. The G scale guys have had it the longest because the size required....but now it's available for all but maybe N and smaller......for now. 

This all looks really great.  Perhaps, a hopeful sign is that the first piece of equipment shown is in Lionel orange and blue colors.

 

What I don't understand is how are the battery requirements going to be met.  If you are running a decent size consist for a half an hour are you going to have to buy a Tesla and remove the battery to put in your engine.  Also, without track power how are you going to light up passenger cars?

Alan

Lionel magnetic gantry cranes, operating coal loaders, log loaders, milk cars, etc.

 

Lionel did it first. 

 

(Albeit not RC controlled and not as smooth in operation as these are)

The nice thing about the R/C Battery train is you won't have to convert your layout.  You will be able to run your RC Battery train on the same 3 rail track along side your Postwar, TMCC, Legacy and DCS trains if that is what you wish.

 

Several years ago I hooked up a Williams engine to one of my RC airplane receivers and speed controls.  I placed a lipo battery in a gondola behind it.  I did not have sound or reverse, but it was fun to try.  The systems they have now which are made for trains are outstanding. 

 

I have video of the Williams engine.  I'll try to dig it out.

 

Ron

 

There is one purposed system were the locos are battery powered R/C controlled but track has a constant 12-16 volts that charges batteries and run other items. But dirty track and polarity do not hamper running trains. Kinda hybrid system. 

What I don't understand is how are the battery requirements going to be met

The Lipo's they have now are outstanding.  You will be able to run trains for quite a while depending on the size battery.  On the "test" I talked about above I used a 3 cell (11.1 volt) 2200 mah battery and ran the train at a consistent scale speed around my layout for 40 minutes.  It's really all dependent on throttle management as we say in the RC Airplane world.

 

For sheer convenience, I would place the battery in a separate car other than the engine.  When the power winds down... swap out the car with another battery car and you are back in business.  Trains with their own fuel.

 

Ron

 

Will everyone just rip up their 3 rail track?

Probably not... I hope this technology will eliminate comparability issues and burnt boards...

I guess I'll have to dig out my old Tesla books on wireless power transmission.

What about these batteries that come with some power tools that will recharge in 5 minutes......not a 100% full but enough to finish a project etc. 

Think of a fueling station on your layout, much like real world, were a section of track would charge batteries in 5 minutes. That might add another level of real world.....our trains would need refueling! 

Radio Control... with no batteries or track power! 

 

They're out there.

http://www.remotecontrolthrottles.com/

 

 

 

Here's a smaller scale system.

 

http://www.s-cab.com/

 

 

I'm all for radio control and batteries...however, I don't think that battery power can support smoke units.  Wouldn't one need a separate battery just to power a smoke unit?

 

If so, please let us know.

 

Steve

I think LC+ is just the beginning. 

I can't believe how long ago this was... 2008.  My basement walls are finished now and this layout is gone.

 

As mentioned above this is a standard Williams switcher engine.  I put electrical tape on the pickup rollers and tied in a receiver, speed control and battery in the trailing gondola from one of my RC planes.  I used a Spekrum 2.4 radio.  There were no sounds.  I added them in post production.

 

This was just for fun.  The Williams engine was upgraded to PS2 now.

 

Pardon the goofy movie.  I had a new movie camera and was bit of a ham.

 

Ron

 

The technology is here: we just choose not to update our thinking.

 

I'm all for this because I hate wiring.  There's a lot of other advantages also.

 

 

One of my co-workers was just showing me a video of an HO engine he had done that to yeserday.

He said the works were about the size of his thomb.

I Loved the video... very funny.  

 

Much discussion over the years on the freerails forum on "deadrail".

Followed immediately by the crowed that doesn't want the batteries to have to be changed or charged, so some guy invents this new system with powered rails that recharge the batteries as it is used! 

 

How much did we learn about electricity, track planning, wiring, building layouts and hooking up operating accessories as kids?  Now we want it to run out of the box on the hardwood floor without track?  I think they have those trains too, but they tend to be plastic.

 

Everything has it's place.  The outdoor large scale guys have had this for quite a while.  Where it is very useful.  They also make O scale RC systems.  You probably can get 2 decent sized 12V packs in series or parallel in a large steam tender.  It is out there so you can upgrade your engines and do this.

 

Heck, The large scale guys remove the guts of the TIU and install it in a large scale car powered by a battery and run PS-2 engines via DCS outdoors with no power pack.   G

I better start selling off my locomotives so I can invest in the new battery powered stuff.

 

Ron, thanks for the video; very, very funny!

Thanks for sharing the video, and for the other examples of battery operated trains.  Having been into RC 1/10th scale cars and RC planes for 15+ years, I am glad to see where RC trains have come already.  I can see a hybrid layout as a real possibility to integrate what we have now with the battery versions. The idea of what Ron said about having the batteries in a separate car that can be swapped out is the way to go - reminds me of the RC10 off road "enduros" we used to have where we ran for 30 minutes and had to pit for battery swap-outs. Yeah, this one could cost me, but bring it on.  

So what is the difference between the RC frequency and the radio frequency from the rail to the onboard TMCC / Legacy antenna?

 

Why can we just broadcast the 455 KHz frequency in the room, rather than through the rail?

 

GRJ?  Please correct me...

 

Thanks,

Mario

I think Lee makes a good point, as he often does.   With LC and LC+ Lionel is already into radio control and more than half-way there.   The next step is to add battery power to LC and LC+.

 

I would like to see the hybrid battery with track power.   This will extend the running session before the battery runs down, and perhaps the battery can be recharged from track power.

 

Perhaps this could eventually allow the capability for 2-rail O using LC+battery.   No need for the third rail, return loops and such simply need to be electrically blocked to prevent short circuits - dead spaces in the track so a loco or car does not bridge opposing polarity track sections.   The RC+battery will not care about polarity of power on two outside rails, so no power reversing would be needed.   The LC+battery equipment could have a switch for either 3-rail or 2-rail.   Rolling stock would need to be converted to be 2-rail, so as not to short out the two outside rails from the wheelsets - both Atlas and MTH make 2-rail.   Sounds like a fun alternative, if Lionel were to go this way I would build a modest test layout to play with.

 

 

Add powered sidings to recharge batteries.

Ron - I think you put the Williams switcher RC video on the wrong post.  Didn’t you mean to put it on the “silliest thing about the hobby” post?

Battery tech would have to come a long way and the batteries would have to be easy to replace before I would even think about it.  We have lots of LEGO trains, all of them since LEGO went from rail power to RC control and battery boxes.  My son and I drain the batteries quick, and swapping the batteries out is a royal pain.  So more often then not they get pushed around the track.  Because of this, I would never want my layout to be RC/battery operated.  3 rail makes track power wiring so easy too (Come from N because of that.).  I like TMCC/Legacy because of the one remote to rule them all.  The only LC stuff I'll own is the Thomas stuff, and that's for my 2 year old so that he leaves my Cab-2 alone.

Ron - I think you put the Williams switcher RC video on the wrong post.  Didn’t you mean to put it on the “silliest thing about the hobby” post?

 

Yeah, I know.  My son even said to me yesterday, "You're putting that video online?  Ooooo Kaaaay!"

 

He's got to be an old soul at 12.  I told him I'd upgrade his Thomas to PS2.  "No Thanks."  I told him I'd make it a battery train.  "Nope", he replies.  Then I told him I'd buy him a new Lion Chief Thomas to replace the old one.  Then he says, "I like the one I have".

 

Smart Kid.

Ron

 

 

Ken, it's simple to ignore polarity and charge the batteries regardless of what's on the track, a bridge rectifier solves that issue.

 

Speaking of, I just got my May, 2015 issue of model railroader and, on the front cover:

running trains with batteries and radio control!

When I look at some of the wonderful layout folks have, and my own desires to have operating accessories, remote decoupling tracks, lighting, etc...   Why would having a battery train be desirable, when I want all those electrical accessories anyway?

 

PW folks have an aversion to batteries.  More modern like BCR.  So how large is the market for O gauge battery trains?  Will they leak, what will the cost be, what is the advantage?  When people say this is the future of model railroading, for who?

 

I think it is a niche, not new, and the folks who needed it most already have it.  Outdoor railroads.

 

Also, most electric trains have about 10amp max internal.

 

You need special safety switches/breakers in trains with 24V DC batteries capable of sourcing 30 or 40amps on a short internal.  You start welding and fires at those amperages.

 

I guess if the demand is great enough Lionel and MTH might build it, but Lionel has made battery trains, and they are considered the toy end of the Train Toy hobby.

 

 

 

 

I did this with a Williams switcher and the boards available from Crest Electronics ( Aristo Craft Trains )

 

This is the installation of the Train Engineer Revolution Receiver and DC board

This is a tether that I had installed   I have since installed a smaller connector

 

This was the original Lithium Ion battery I did the testing with   Since then John S made a drop center flat car that we put a 19.2 volt Drill battery into   We needed the low clearance to make it through the subway tunnels  

We use this engine to basically pull track cleaning cars through hard to get areas

 

 

Hmmm for someone like me who has an aversion to electricity, this might be a good possibility!

I like the idea of the remote (transmitter) talking directly to a receiver in the engine. Whether it's battery operated  or battery operated with a charging system from the track makes no difference to me.  The Airplane guys transmitter has a great range(at least 1/2 mile) and could never figure out why the dcs remote 's range was only  around 50 feet.  No tiu, no command base. now we get into switches and accessories. what happens with them ? I don't know. 

This is exactly what I like about all the construction vehicles.  There is direct control from the operator to the vehicle via a radio signal.  There is no Legacy controller, TIU, etc., between the vehicle and the operator.  They are all running together in close proximity without interference.  The steering, dumping, shovels, etc., all work.

 

I don't care if power comes from batteries or a constant voltage on the track.  In fact, I think that constant voltage track power is better than battery power.  It is always available.

 

What I think we need in O gauge is reliable control of the engines wherever they are on the track.  I don't feel that either Legacy or DCS give positive engine control - especially over longer distances such as on a garden railroad.  At least this has been my experience.

 

The new Lion Chief Plus system seems to a step in that direction.  I bet a VL Big Boy controlled by a Lion Chief Plus system that includes all the bells, whistles, smoke and disappearing coal load of the current BB would be a runaway best seller.

 

Joe

Batteries are rapidly improving, in large part because of the growth of electric vehicles, not just Tesla, and as battery technology is improved to increase the range and power of batteries (and charging time) for cars, it is going to come down to other products, the technology is basically the same whether the batteries are in a Tesla or the reported Apple car, or your train (basically, the difference is in the number of cells). So what people are saying is very true, some on here are posting as if it is 30+ years ago and we are talking Ni Cad technology, ask the RC guys about what the LI batteries in electric RC planes are like, the difference is staggering. 

For cryin' out loud guys I'm still learning how to use my legacy system.  Please slow down a little bit.

For those who like 3-rail track, which should include all on this forum, battery power and R/C is useless, because it eliminates the one feature of your hobby that sets it apart.  That is, when battery power becomes the norm, the center rail will be retained for nostalgia only, and might start to seem silly.

 

It is coming, for much the same reasons that TMCC, DCS, and DCC have taken over - better control, smoother operation, fewer insulation headaches.  Fusing is not particularly challenging; we have to do that anyway.  Circuit breakers are cheap and reliable.  Battery size is still a problem, but I am going to guess that over the last decade the outside dimensions have been cut more than in half, and we should see a bit more shrinkage in the next couple years.

 

All of that is opinion, of course.  I have not yet converted anything to battery power, although my giant AC-8 is anxiously awaiting such a conversion.  I could stick a car battery in its tender.

I have a friend who designed a board to interface with TMCC on batteries , about 2 hr run time , we sent a letter Lionel , they said nice idea but it won't work , my NASA engineer friend has had it made for over 3 yrs . Only thing the track is for is the signal for TMCC

Still need the compelling reason to add the cost to the engine for the battery?

Were are in the phase of the hobby were train prices can't go up, so manufactures fine ways to cut cost making the item so profit still grows.

 

What is the Big Bang in this were the consumer say Yes I will pay $50 to a ?? more for that battery operated train because?

 

2 Railers and DC power, so tell me how much smoother a battery train runs over that?

 

I get the rail/wheel/pickup loses.  But the tech is good enough that it isn't much of an issue.

 

The only advantage I see is the hobbyist who likes to redo a layout frequently. Or the portable/outdoor types.  ust lay track no wiring.

 

I think the big money seems to be in the larger more permanent but always expanding layouts.  Battery is just another maintenance and weight consideration to that group.

 

So as always, where is the largest customer base.  That is where Lionel and MTH would go.  The small cottage industries supply the rest.   G

The only advantage I see is the hobbyist who likes to redo a layout frequently. Or the portable/outdoor types.  ust lay track no wiring.

 

That's because you like three rail track.  There are others who have gone to great lengths to make the center rail smaller, or to convert it to studs, all because they are not interested in the insulation difficulties of two rail.  For many 3-railers, the advantage will be better looking track.  For two railers, fewer short circuits, less hassle with dirty track, and way smoother operation.  I think, in balance, it will make our model trains far more realistic in the end.

This is a complete and total nonsense thread about a technology that almost no one will want or adopt.

 

Shoot it and put it our of its misery.

I've been experimenting with this for about a year. I have retrofitted 3 old MTH Premier PS1 locomotives to DCC Battery Power with the Air Wire system from CVP products. I installed sound boards from Soundtraxx. So far I am pleased with the results.I put the battery pack in a MTH Express reefer so I don't have to buy a battery for every loco.I am using Lithium Ion 14.8 4400MA-Hr. The AirWire system is proven technology and they're based out of and made in Texas.

 

http://www.cvpusa.com/airwire_system.php

 

 

The technology will improve over time. My plan is to convert my locomotives one by one when their TMCC or DCC boards fail. 

 

No, because the only advantage of battery is no wiring.  Self contained DC.

 

Plenty of alternatives to 2R or 3 rail track AC or DC.  MTH has AC power HO 2 rail boards now based on Marklin model.

 

Battery or no battery has nothing to do with track selection in my mind, though it makes it easier to use just 2 rail.

 

Boomer, I have posted about CVP quite a lot when folks start talking about LC+ and RC trains.  Again, this is out there.  AC, CVP and other have been doing this in G and even O for a while.

 

As an example I used a 7.2V power pack from an RC car in my MTH Premier PS-1 J.  This was a decade ago.  12V motor that is optimized around that voltage.  Now a days with 12V and 14 volt power pack you can do all this.  Probably could buy a $39 RC car at Walmart and use it to drive a train forward and reverse at various speeds.   G

 

 

 

 

I also want to be able to run O gauge outside and not have to worry about track. I have experimented with using Gargraves Stainless and pulling up the 3rd rail. I encased the wooden (Insect and weather prone)ties in a slurry of kitty litter and liquid epoxy. Looks great and right now I have a few trial pieces that have been sitting out in the Arkansas weather since last summer. 

That heavy equipment operating in the opening video is cool.......and expensive. I checked one site, and a small dozer is a bargain at about $1300. Those excavators run $5600-$7800. These are made in Germany.

 

I'm no expert at all, but I sure didn't think battery technology was near the point where it has the necessary power/longevity/size combination for significant O gauge train operation. R/C cars and airplanes (the larger ones that are run more rigorously and for longer periods of time -not the small, lightweight stuff with 5-6 min. operating times - run on fuel. I imagine there's a reason for that. A scale diecast steamer with a string of 20-30 cars is a very heavy load - hard to believe there's a small battery available that could keep that consist running for an hour.

 

The idea mentioned by some of constant recharging using track power is an interesting one, though. 

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

 

"Television won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night."

Darryl Zanuck, executive at 20th Century Fox, 1946

 

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

 

"Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet's continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse."

Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995

 

"Two years from now, spam will be solved."

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, 2004

 

"But what...is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

 

Etc., etc., etc....blah, blah, blah.

 

Hey, you're in good company!

 

 

When my layout starts, I turn up the throttle on each loop and let the trains run until I shut them off. If I have to go forward or reverse this feature is there. I don't know what all the fuss about remote control is, but on a display layout like mine with little switching, it may lessen the wiring task, but doesn't get you very much. I don't say this sarcastically but can someone explain to me why I would need anything other than conventional?

Oh contraire...Boomer system w /lipo technology i could embrace easily.

Hmmm..... 

 

You mean the idea of a train, its locomotive, having its own on-board power source to propel it?  You mean the track rails not carrying electrical power from which the train/engine is able to move?

 

Radical.

 

 

 

P.S....One more time....   Going to York this month?  Stop by the RCS America booth in Orange Hall.  

 

P.P.S....I have no skin in their game....except that I bought one of their systems.  It works.  And as others on this forum have testified using other components/systems, it worked for them, also. 

 

Oh yes, and BTW, if you have a GOOD full-line LHS nearby that has expertise in RC items...particularly drones and RTF/ARF airplanes using battery power...stop by for a chat/demo. 

 

Oh, and consider this....as well as the hobby industry has exploited new battery technology commercially, there is yet a higher level of performance out there utilized in less commercial applications.  Call it 'the next generation'.

 

Go ahead.  Cling to your paradigms.

 

Not me. That lipo technology sucks.

Doesn't LC+ still get its power from the track and isn't each engine bound to its own handheld?

 

The battery powered RC systems that I've looked at

 

http://www.rcs-rc.com/pages/home

 

are independent of track power and can bind multiple engines to a single transmitter.

 

I recently bought an old Weaver 3-rail RS3.  I've already converted it to 2-rail and the next step may be using this RC for control being I don't have a current system set up to run it, other than a DC power pack.

The neat thing is, even if it becomes the norm, you do not have to convert, or pull up the third rail, or anything.  Nobody will force you to go battery power.

You have put forward an inappropriate analogy using cherry picked quotes.

 

The examples you cited are of what were groundbreaking technologies, each of which affected a very large segment of society.

 

Radio controlled battery vehicles (in the hobby context) are no longer in this category and as related to this application will have no large impact on society.

 

Apples and oranges comparison.

 

Running toy trains on batteries seems somewhat of a step backward.  Changing and charging batteries seems an unnecessary inconvenience.  

 

Will clockwork motors be the next new "trend" in this hobby?

The folks who seem to vehemently disagree with battery RC make it seem like someone will take away your transformer and Lionel and MTH remotes if battery trains become popular. 

 

Relax folks... it's just another way to do it.  That does not mean it has to be the only way.

 

Ron

 

Some of the replies on this post absolutely amaze me.  I can not put into words how ashamed to be part of the community some of the posts above make me.  

There is an easy answer.  For your operation, conventional works just fine.  Now, if you wanted to run your New Delta Lines like the old Delta Lines ran, complete with time table (and I think train order) operation, complete with switching, then the equation changes.   Command control, and then radio command control, while not entirely necessary, sure does enhance the ability to switch, and in both cases, simplifies and / or eliminates wiring.  Command control did more to enhance my enjoyment of the hobby far more than any other single technological development.  Sound is right behind that. 

 

I model in HO, but still have some of my O scale three rail stuff to run at a couple of local layouts since ditching the trailer railroading.

 

In my HO world, I jumped straight into Dynatrol when I started my layout in 1987.   Found out DCC was a far better system, so I converted to DCC in 1996 (I had to change about 14 decoders at that point).  Nineteen years later, in HO, DCC is still the way to go (IMHO), but once battery technology and the associated electronics gets even smaller, I'm sure that battery power will make DCC, DCS, and TMCC obsolete. 

 

I tired of pushing handles on a ZW about 43 years ago.   

 

Regards,

GNNPNUT

Battery power for trains may be all but inevitable. I have several self designed battery powered RC trains running on my layout and their operation is as smooth as velvet.

Tell us more - what kind of link?  What kind of battery?  Did you design your own receiver?

Same feeling here. Some folks just their "kicks" poking fun at and criticizing discussions about new ideas. They should just keep their un-constructive comments to themselves and move along. This is an interesting thread to some of us.

Why inevitable.  Electricity becoming obsolete?  Is a chemical battery a better source of DC power than a electrically converted and smoothed infinite DC power source?  What land fill will all these chemical batteries be deposited into?

 

I only comment  on this post because it was declared the newest or future of the hobby.  Those are strong statements considering all the various ways this hobby is practiced.

 

They all have pro and cons.  Your circumstance dictate which pros you need and which cons you can't have.

 

Just don't present this as the all pros and no cons solution to model railroading.  G

I don't think rc is necessarily the only future, given that conventional
control is still here 80 years + after the e-unit, it is unlikely that that
is going anywhere.Lionel and Mth I am sure would love to find a way to get
people to have to buy their cc rigs and not support conventional,but it
hasn't happened.

I think technologically some of the posters against rc,about the batteries
being weak,lasting only a couple of minutes,are mistaken.An rc airplane is
different than a train,weight is a big factor there,and gas engines have
the same problem as batteries,so they need to be light,so time of
operation is gonna be limited,a train doesn't have that,space is more the
consideration.

I hear the same thing in car circles about electric vehicles,sneering how
it will never replace Detroit iron and the like,how they are tree hugger
cars and so forth. The reality is that car companies have gotten
serious,and battery and fuel cell tech is moving forward,and in the not so
distant future gas powered cars are going to be in decline (in large part
because tech companies,other than the auto industry suits with their cozy
relationship to ExxonMobil and such,can't kill it). It is like those who
tell me about the good Ole days of cars you fixed with pliers and a
screwdriver,didn't mention how often you had to repair them or hunk them.

I don't think rc is going to take over per se, the hobby is too
diverse.Like with the move to scale equipment vs post war semiscale,it will
be a part I suspect.For rivet counters,It is more true to prototype having
the power source on board.

For the train companies,gets rid of command bases and power bricks and so
forth.

For users,no wiring, no special reverse loop wiring,no issues w dirt on the
rails or worries about signal strength in the rails,star wiring,and a
layout underside that looks like the flying spaghetti monster.

I think lc+ shows another reason,that there are people out there who would
like to do command control but don't want the complexity of legacy or dcs.
An rc system could offer for example something like an SD card you plug in
the engine that allows it to be controlled. Rather than having to program
in engine numbers and such,you have a card that is engine1,engine2,etc.
Many of us don't have huge collections or layouts,so for running we may
only use a small number of engines,and unlike lc+ it allows swapping the id
card.

I don't think rc will take over or necessarily become big,but it has
potential.From what I understand Lionel is surprised at the popularity of
lc, I think it has captured the audience that wants command control but
doesn't need (litetally) all the bells and whistles of current cc systems.
On Apr 5, 2015 9:51 AM, "O Gauge Railroading On Line Forum" <alerts@hoop.la>
wrote:

Is this your personal opinion or do you actually have facts to back up your statement?

Back in March 2004 I saw a radio-controlled "G-gauge" loco where the motor power was supplied by a battery in the car immediately behind it at the Fort Washington PA East Coast Hobby Show. They were using dcc for loco control. A brief summary was published in Train Collectors Quarterly Vol. 50-3 page 19.

 

The company was CVP Products. Their website is: www.cvpusa.com

 

Ron M

 

Whether it's battery or track power ,  I would like to  see the remote talk directly to the engine 's receiver..  Just think of all the wiring issues disappearing . (except for switches and accessories.)

I like the idea if the batteries are in the locomotive. I'm not pulling a special battery car.

 

Clem

To me the ongoing balkinization of control systems is a problem,   Setting aside the pros and cons of individual systems, the fact that we have so many different incompatible systems is a real waste.  I wish I did not have to have two command control systems to run both Lionel and MTH equipment.  Bachmann may add a Bluetooth system and maybe we will also get RC, all on top of conventional and Lionchief and some DCC.  I believe that if this could be standardized the total benefit to all (including manufacturers) would be great.  An analogy is the early days of computers when each manufacturer had software that would run only on its own equipment.  Software standards were created across manufacturers and the totally of the software world grew greatly. 

 

Bill

 

I agree with you Clem, that is what would need to happen to get me on board, in HO or O.  For me, than means it needs to fit into an EMD SW or ALCo S switcher on the diesel side, and at least a USRA 0-8-0 on the steam side (but would prefer the flexibility to have it fit in an 0-6-0 with a slope back tender).  

 

This technology constantly evolves, and will progress to this level soon enough.

 

Regards,

Jerry 

 

Hogwash!  What it eliminates is the function of the 3rd rail, not the rail itself, just as you state in the last sentence above. If you like the look, keep it, if not, remove it. Some might like RC better.

 

Simon

Thank you for all the information everyone posted in this thread. Are any of the battery systems (links) posted in this thread backwards compatible on existing DCC layouts? If I were to get a battery control system & convert the few locomotives I have to run off the battery, charged from the track or having a separate battery car, could I take those converted locomotives to any club that has contemporary DCC systems like Digitrax & run them along with typical DCC-equipped locomotives? I have bought Atlas-O Gold locomotives & MTH Protosound 3.0 locomotive since they can run on my DC powered track but also give me the option to run them on DCC layouts if needed? Do any of these battery power systems that flexible?

I have a 2-rail temporary loop on my basement floor. I am getting tired of the DC power pack I have been using for years due to the limited features & I am looking into getting a DCC starter set. This battery power seems even better for my needs.

These are just my opinion,

Thanks,

Naveen Rajan

Here is a nice free download of "O Scale Resource" magazine that has a great article on battery operation.  It is the March / April 2015 edition.  Can't beat the price.   

 

Home Page:

 

http://oscaleresource.com/

 

March / April 2015:

 

http://oscale.uberflip.com/t/6...the-o-scale-resource

 

Regards,

Jerry

 

Hi Clem! 

Installing the battery in a the locomotive,tender or dummy unit in a consist is ideal. I am still experimenting with this and I don't want to make to big an investment in an experiment that might go nowhere so I have the batteries in an express reefer for now. I am not going to abandon Legacy and DCS and convert 450+ locomotives. I've only converted three that had bad boards.

 

My interest in radio control with onboard batteries is purely for outside running.I envy the large scale guys who can do this. I bought three 1 gauge live steamers a couple of years back and tried them out.Alas,they are just too much trouble and extremely fussy so I sold them.

 

Have fun at York!

My posts are indeed hogwash.   Mostly they are opinion, and here I simply find the concept of interest.

 

My problem with O Scale is the inaccurate track gauge.  I have implemented cures for that.  If I were in 3-rail, I personally would have a serious problem with the track appearance, and a mild problem with those flanges.  If I were in 3- rail, I would simply convert to 2- rail.

 

I can assume that most here are in 3- rail because they like the looks of 3- rail track.  There are no rational reasons for them to consider 2-rail or battery power or any combination.  Three rail works fine for such folks.

 

Battery power may always remain a curiosity.  For those above maintaining that it is useless, you may in about five years start a thread called "told you so" and name me specifically.  The problem is, I won't care, since opinions are non- binding.

 

This is a little like religion, except that I really don't care who holds the same opinions that I do.  Choose to believe that batteries will never work in model trains.  I applaud your choice, but disagree.

 

 

Nice to hear from you Boomer  

 

Clem k

How many major manufacturers in any gauge presently offer this technology as a significant part of their product line for the serious hobbyist?  How many have announced plans to adopt it in the foreseeable future?  Is there a sufficient demand or viable market for it now or in the future?

 

Will either Lionel or MTH use this approach after each spending considerable money and effort on their own track powered command systems?

 

Will there ever be a battery system that can adequately replace the role of mains powered transformers, and would it be economically viable to market on a large scale?

 

 It seems a very narrow niche product at best.

The answers to those questions are unknown at this point in time. However, some Garden Railroads are using the technology and there is an article in the current issue of Model Railroader about this very thing. There are modelers in HO and O who are doing it.

 

So to say it is a complete and total nonsense thread about a technology that almost no one will want or adopt is a bit of an overstatement at best.

I only think one person said that, other have pointed out the middle road.  A few say this is better than anything else and the future for all.  (I embellished a little, but that is about what was said).

 

NO one seems to disagree that this is being done and has value to some.

 

Those that say this is new, discredit those that have been doing this for a decade or more. CVP, AC, etc..  Same applies to LC+

 

CVP is RC based with DCC code.  Doesn't care if it is powered from the rail or a battery pack, frankly, MTH PS-2 board doesn't care either.  It is rated for 22VAC or 24VDC.  So power the red and black wires with the power of your choosing.  If you chose battery in the engine, you can run the train on any hard surface, track not required.  Steering is optional.

 

I don't have G layout, so when I finish repairing battery trains, I just put them on the tile floor and test them out for motion, sounds, etc....

 

G

Lots of passionate discussion. Like everyone, I ran conventional first. Then I tried TMCC. As a EE, I thought a direct remote to loco based receiver system made more sense, so a few years ago I built one that worked just fine and had a bill of materials under $60. Lionel agreed and brought out LionChief which is catching on. Then I added battery powered operation and the results were really nice, especially for portable demo setups where you might not have AC power. To solve the question of where to put the battery, I put it and the R/C electronics in the dummy unit of an Alco AA setup. BTW, run time between battery recharging has never been an issue. So now I run all three modes and each has its pluses and minuses. Take your pick.

This post was about controlling trains with RC - not about batteries.  Lionel's new Lion Chief system is already there.  Hopefully Lionel will announce a VL Lion Chief engine soon.

 

Bachmann introduced its Bluetooth train control system at the last York meet.  So in answer to your questions about manufacturers adopting RC control both Lionel and Bachmann are there.  Can MTH be far behind?

 

Bachmann is especially important because they are a major player in gauges from G to HO.  They are also worldwide.  Read the British and European model train magazines.  Bachmann makes everything.  They own Williams in our O gauge world.  I could see an off the shelf battery powered Williams O gauge train with Bluetooth control in the next few years.  

 

The problem with battery today is that the modeler has to install it him or herself.  This is similar to DCC fifteen years ago.  You had to take an engine apart, isolate the motor, install the decoder and then program the decoder.  Only the most dedicated modelers were willing to do this.  

 

I believe that factory installed battery power will be a best seller once it comes to market.  It can be done with trains if it can be done with airplanes and construction equipment.  I believe we will see it soon.

 

Joe 

It's nice to see that someone agrees with my long term perspective on battery power for trains. The eventual marketplace will offer something for everyone and their respective needs and skill levels. We have basically arrived at the point where electronic control of our trains is here and now. Once this occurs, the sky is the limit and protesting is a waste of time.

Someone? A lot of us agree with you.  And protesting is allowed - I kind of like to see others' perspectives.  Sometimes the amount of passion is a surprise.  The blood boils when someone else suggests that batteries are coming.

 

Nobody knows for sure, but look what happened to those ubiquitous hand drills - I don't think anybody is buying the kind that needs an extension cord, at least for normal work.

I've been working on this for awhile....and right now I intend to convert a couple Williams E7's  with the miniAirWire900 by CVP products. They are well known in G - and the 'mini' version for the smaller gauges is about 1" x 2".  While there would be plent of room in an E7 power A unit, the E7-B units are perfect for additional  battery packs.

 

http://www.cvpusa.com/mini_airwire_convrtr.php

Nice looking stuff.  Makes me want to explore this further. This should definitely fit into some smaller O scale stuff, even with a sound decoder.  The package, even with the battery pack, looks to be smaller than the TMCC SAW boards, EOB, and the earlier ERR stuff.  

Regards,

GNNPNUT

Well, I keep reading about this stuff. Here on this thread, in MR, from bob2 so I guess the technology will get here sooner or later. I just hope that MTH and Atlas will continue to offer trains as they do now because I have absolutely no interest in converting my entire fleet of 20 something locomotives to RC/battery power or paying extra for a receiver and battery that I don't want. The MR article said conversion cost is between $60-$210 per locomotive. Now I know what some will say: "You don't have to convert all your locomotives--just do one or two." Nope, sorry I will not do that. Why? because one of the things I like about DCC is that I only have one remote to control any of my locomotives. I don't want two or three remotes.

 

And FYI there is no STANDARDIZATION between any of these cottage industry RC/Battery systems. So unless one sticks solely with one company you are going to have to have more than one remote. I'm sure there will be some people that won't be bothered by that and that's fine.

 

One thing I do agree with and it is what I thought way back when I was a 3 railer in the late '90s with TMCC is that why have the signal go from the remote to the command base and then to the track where it is emanated and must be picked up by the antenna in the locomotive? Way back then I thought to myself why not just have the signal go directly to the locomotive? Seems simpler and more reliable but I guess the technology wasn't available back then.

 

In no way I am I knocking the RC/battery or hybrid system. Just saying that I have no interest in it. Anyone who wants this technology I say go for it and enjoy yourself.

 

As bob2 says ALL OPINION.

The technology was there for direct rc (as opposed to using the rails as an
antenna),I suspect it was because they had already developed using the
rails for the railscope camera system and used the same tech for this.

I do think that both dcs and legacy using the rails is idiotic,but of
course with installed base out there not likely to go away either.I suspect
that rc will be more in the vein of lc+,maybe,rc will be the low end,with
limited commands (dcc might be the base,since it would be limited) and dcs
and legacy will be the high end.
On Apr 6, 2015 11:06 PM, "O Gauge Railroading On Line Forum" <alerts@hoop.la>
wrote:

 

My theory on this, which I talked about in another thread a while back, is simple cost.  When TMCC was released, the 455KHz was the cheapest option for a "reliable" signal.  Several years later MTH used (I've read 3.27MHz and 10.7MHz in various places, not sure which is correct.) which by that time cost about the same as the tmcc radios. I'm not exactly sure when DCS came out, but I thing it was early in the 2000's by which time the 2.4GHz band was only just gaining traction and was still fairly expensive.  If you were into computers at the time you may recall when wireless cards cost well over a hundred dollars.  By the time Legacy was released the cost of these very reliable transceivers was fairly low, around $10-15, however when a 455KHz receiver was about a dollar it still wasn't time to jump ship to the newer tech.  I also think that keeping backwards compatibility played a role in this, as the the 455KHz signal was just fine for adding the one extra byte of data Legacy uses.  I'm sure someone tossed around the idea of switching to a direct to Locomotive transmitter, but they were likely shoved into a hole somewhere for a couple of years until LionChief was released.  Now, in quantities of just one unit 2.4GHz transceivers are about $1.20, and about half that in very large orders.  I would be very surprised and very disappointed if the next generation command system uses a track signal.  

You do realize that for some of those drill when the battery finally dies the battery style is obsolete, or the replacement battery cost more then a new drill?  I have first hand experience with both.  The batteries for those drills, if you use them don't last but about 3 years.

 

But again, the portability was the driver.  But if I am doing detailed precision drilling, am I using a battery operated drill press?  It is large doesn't move anyway, so the electric motor works fine.  Last decades. 

 

All these blanket statements of why it is better or coming, but no one has specifically spelled out a list of reasons why that clearly show that Electric trains fall short.

 

I have given some.  Portability and need to run trains were electricity is not available or not convenient (outside), though in the slot car days we used car batteries to power the track.  Since we needed DC anyway.  G

 

I'll take my shot at why there are advantages to the rc model of Control
(better is a relative word,better comes down to what a person likes).

-limited wiring for power and command control needed (obviously,lighting
and accessory wiring and switch machines would still be there)

-limited to no worries about dirty track,power drops and the like (battery
powered rc,obviously)

-none of the issues with signal strength,overlapping signals from adjoining
sections,the need for signal boosters or repeaters,the whole ground plane
nonsense w tmcc/legacy

-digital rc technology is ubiquitous and constantly improving,with digital
transmission data loss,corrupted commands and so forth are rare,and the
tech is rock solid.Don't believe me? Satellite transmission is all digital
these days,private dish like dish TV are digital....tmcc and dcs are 1990s
technology and are improving it

-potentially set the stage for third parties to break the stranglehold
lionel and Mth have with their incompatible control systems. Big if,but if
they face the threat of an open system based around rc technology,could
force change (not saying it will,but could) a la dcc,a super dcc so to
speak.

The problem with lc+ is it is kind of like what IBM did with their
products,to not challenge legacy they made it somewhat brain dead,in that
it tethers an engine to a,specific remote.Of lc allowed setting engine
addresses (could use a simple pairing mode setup like Bluetooth uses),a lot
of people would buy the lower cost lc engines and be happy w the basic
functions,and wouldn't shell out bucks for the legacy controllers and the
engines.....

I would hope the next generation would be rc,with or without
batteries,wouldn't be hard to make the r
Engines dual mode,pick up signals from rc or through rails (so current Gen
users wouldn't be screwed),but I wouldn't hold my breath,legacy and dcs
tech is fully sunk costs and Lionel and MTH are making pretty much the
difference between cost of production and wholesale price on their cc
units,and their mode is probably to bleed what they can out of the current
tech until either they have no choice or sell the business.
On Apr 7, 2015 8:48 AM, "O Gauge Railroading On Line Forum" <alerts@hoop.la>
wrote:

All these blanket statements of why it is better or coming, but no one has specifically spelled out a list of reasons why that clearly show that Electric trains fall short.

 

Really?  Notwithstanding the post after this quote, the advantages of battery power have been listed several times.  Number one is the total elimination of the need for a center rail.  Number two is the need to clean tracks and wheels.  Number three, related to #2, is smoother operation.  Number four, for two railers, is the elimination of pesky short circuits (although a short circuit can prevent an expensive derailment).  I am sure more have been listed in this thread.

 

The disadvantages of battery power can be listed too - Need to recharge.  Size. Run time. Same as with my hand drill, but the cord style stays on the shelf while I have Makitas everywhere.  Actually, same disadvantages as the Tesla and ugly Chevy Volt.  Wish I had a nice Tesla.

On battery power, the merits of a fully battery powered system have already been pretty well covered.  What I'd like to see is a hybrid system.  I thing someone mentioned doing that in a post above, but it would be nice to have onboard battery to keep constant speed and move over dead spots while charging from the track.  It may not be needed for most of us, but it wouldn't hurt anyone.  

 

As for the problem with hand drills, some of the problem is in user choice.  My 10 year old one+ and craftsman drills still use compatible batteries today, and that was the reason I chose them over higher end name brands that used tool specific batteries.  Also, you can open the case on any of the old batteries and replace the actual cells with ones from any of the big battery warehouses.  

 

If I were, today, going to build a battery design for use in a locomotive I would use duracell pre-charged rechargeable AA's  with 2.2 Amp-hours of power and the ability to hold a charge for half a year easily, they are the best, easy to get battery on the market.  Other brands offer similar product, but in my experience the duracell are the best, followed closely by rayovac.  I use these in all my camera equipment, and have a set that was put into service in 2009 that works perfectly today, with hundreds of charge cycles.  

 

The important thing to remember is r/c battery systems aren't the final word on model train control.

 

Just as Conventional AC, Conventional DC, DCC, DCS, TMCC, Legacy, LC, LC+, Bluetooth or Apps aren't.

 

 

Rusty

It's gratifying to find how many advocates there are for my long term perspective on battery powered trains. BTW, I did build dual power (battery & track) into my RC design.

Bob, Not really until some recent post.

 

No need for center rail has nothing to do with any type of power system.  2 rail exist with AC, DC, Battery, Solar power, you name it.  SO it is not specific to Battery powered or RC.

 

I agree with wiring, and power transmission through tracks.  Track still needs to be clean though, I am sure you still lubricate trains, and traction is needed, but I would concede it will require less maintenance.

 

Battery charging, replacement, internal differences will be cons to some.  Folks that don't like to do maintenance won't like it, or like that they have to periodically charge their train.  You still can have electronic failure, and now you add battery maintenance issues.

 

Some guys put constant chargers on the remotes because they don't want the inconvenience of changing rechargeable batteries.  About a 10sec affair for a DCS remote, but it does effect continuity of operating trains.

 

John, the average guy doesn't want to build a battery pack, nor has the spot welder to make up a pack.  Having replaced batteries for customer, it is an expensive case.  Manufacture batteries are quite expensive,  I spent several hours searching for alternatives that I did find, but rating and size to fit matter.  IF a manufacture choses to have a custom battery squeezed into an O switcher lets say.  You will be at their price mercy unless you have skill and equipment to make your own battery pack.

 

I did just that for an old Mikata, but it was unique obsolete design.  Glad your Craftsman is still produced, but tell me you can't get a new one with higher voltage battery with new tech on sale for a little more than the cost of a new battery pack  G

 

 

While I agree with you for the most part, at this time the 19.2volt is still the standard for craftsman, and 18volt for One+.  The batteries have gotten better, with LI-Ion types now the standard, but each of the major players in tools came to the realization that changing the design was bad business.  if you need all new batteries for a new tool, you have no reason to stick with their brand, where as if all your tools use the same battery, you are quite likely to keep loyal to one brand.  

 

As for the difficulty of finding a battery for a proprietary design, that is why I mentioned the AA's.  Double A batteries are not going anywhere, and with clever battery compartment design you can fit a lot of them into some small and odd shaped places.  

 

 

Just for the record, battery packs for RC hobby use come in a huge array of voltages, capacity and sizes. It was easy to choose the pack I used (9.6v, 2000mah) and it fit nicely when mounted. The battery choice was a non-issue. Designing and building an efficient RC  wireless control circuit was much more involved.

I think it's great to have another control option like R/C and batteries for our trains gaining popularity, which it seems to be doing per a couple of recent articles in the model railroad publications. It adds to the diversification of the hobby and will hopefully appeal to more people which will benefit us all. 

 

Everyone is always worried about the decline of the hobby, this is just one more way to get people interested. Instead of condemning it, we should be promoting it as a way to grow the hobby. Although I think our control systems are evolving, I don't see any one

system taking over and doing away with all the others. I think we will have plenty of options for control and how many rails we want to have for some time to come.

 

Don't know if I will try R/C and batteries or not? I think LC & LC+ was a good idea on Lionel's part and will add to the growth of the hobby, but I am not yet convinced I want a LC set or a LC+ engine? I do like the idea of having it all this available though, sure adds a lot of choices. I currently have DCS and Legacy and have been considering trying to add DCC, I like the NCE systems. I know sone don't like all the different systems, but the variety of having all these different control systems is a big draw for me. 

Here's my post on the 3RS forum of my BPRC MTH Railking 2-8-0:

 

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/t...olled-bprc-mth-2-8-0

 

Enjoy!