bluetooth battery power for o guage ?!!!!!

A G gauge engine will run for 4 to 5 hours on a single full battery charge during shows on the G&O railroad.  These are engines with radio control and a full sound system.  The battery will last longer than the person running the train.  

The key is to fully charge the battery before the show.  The biggest problem we have with battery powered engines is a person bringing an uncharged engine to the show and then expecting to charge it in a few minutes.  It takes several hours to fully charge a battery.  I usually charge my engine overnight on the day before I plan to run it.

I think that battery power with radio control is an exciting idea.  It may become the primary model engine power in the future.

NH Joe

I just read the article with interest this week.  I hope this does take off for O gauge.

I just met the person who wrote the article at our TCA Western Div meet today. The battery will last about 2 hours, and takes about 3 to charge. You can run more than 2 engines at a time on the same track. He converted a Williams GP and switcher. He gave our club a demo running it from an Ipad and Iphone. The  board was designed for HO, but he is developing a higher amp board for larger O scale engines/equipment.

Bob

thank you for your feedback.  This could bring 2 rail O gauge back into popularity with it's added realism.  I did not find the 3rd rail objectionable but a lot of railroader and modelers do.  I do interactive train based displays for public museums and depots and use 2 rail for that purpose.

    There are lots of little annoyances the battery can help overcome, it's a matter of preference really; lots of pros and cons in the big picture though, from convenience, right down to our environment and resources.(I'll skip that, and save the good for last, so here comes the "blast"...

  A cord ensures I run a train, not ever waiting on a charger, I know that's annoying from dealing with RC in the past.... or not, because it wasn't charged. And that's super annoying when you want to have fun NOW.   Tools or toys it doesn't matter, I buy just about everything I can on this basis: cords before battery.

Oh, emergency flashlights! But there are my oil and gas lamps to back those up too

So at each display, it will require attention by an employee about 3-6 times a day when new, increasing over time...?   If you do go that route, try powering enough track to keep the battery at, or very near full charge all day, all night. Some insurance policies may not like overnight changing fyi. (Though every EXIT sign does it, lol)

You will still need to clean wheels and track unless you like derailing. The batteries slow it some, but dust still goes from us to the air to the rails to the wheels to the Q tip.

  I don't get how a phone controller is better than any other controller, it fully escapes me, and though I think on it, it always come up a downgrade. With a separate controller I can use my phone and run trains at the same time, and never need to look down at the screen to ensure my finger is on a control because on a normal remote, I can feel the controls.  (And fyi touch screens don't work well for everyone's skin, I needed an assistant to work on cash registers, and can't dial my own phone sometimes today on a month old device).   And how about the device charging! Break out an extra dedicated charger and two more devices. (In Use , charging, & a backup too).

Interesting, but not a game changer imo. Nor is the idea totally new, you'll find lots of threads here on both BT and batteries. Freerails site is all about battery and RC too fyi.

But if it really appeals to you on a personal level, go for it and have a blast. That's why we do this. Tough job, but win me over too.

Personally, I just don't see the fascination with a device controller at home. (I also only see command control remotes as a way to troubleshoot with throttle in hand trackside...old schools fine and sounds annoy me after a bit anyhow)

 I do see a way to be highly guest interactive by BT, though I'm not appealed by it, or know if it is being done just yet. But if a guest wanted to, a timed BT connection to THEIR phone to control (any) display would grab interest and build rep. I'm sure.

  In fact the concept combined with common ads and data mining (cookies etc.) could be another income base.

   One day they'll pry my dead fingers off the handle of one of my Lionel transformers....I hope. (All built before I was too )

Smoke is an Achilles heal.  Run time drops significantly.  It is an alternative, but none of this has to do with how many rails on the track.  You can run 2 rail with AC, DC, Battery to rail.  I do not think you will get a battery in a 44 tonner as an example.  It has its advantage though, but when you look at what Lionel is doing with interactive layout and engine control with automatically triggered features, I am not sure how battery engines fit in, unless you get them down to the size of  9V battery.  No room in the engines with out gutting all that.  Plus you still have a powered layout for switches and accessories.  I do still believe it is a niche system that is perfect for some folks and how they run their trains.

Would you really gut a $1200 to $2000 Lionel or MTH engine to add a battery and control system with simple features.   Now you could add an aux car or tender with a battery in it with a tether to power the Legacy or DCS system in the engine.  That would be easy and has been done for at least a decade for some operators.  G

This is something I would like to try for my conventional engines.  We have an Atlas ALP-44 that would be extremely challenging to upgrade to PS3.  There is just not enough room since there is a large sideways motor.

Since this NJ Transit engine will most likely only pull NJ Transit passenger cars, it would be really easy to put a very large battery in the passenger car with a tether.  If charging is an issue, simply have 2 battery tender cars.  One on the charger and one on the track.

I was thinking, for operators, you might also be able to put a battery in the engine and the exact same battery in a tender car and have them tethered in parallel.  This would enable the engine to run by itself or create a much longer run time if the batteries are wired in parallel.

Many folks wire their layouts to run multiple ways, i.e. Conventional, DCS, Legacy, TMCC.   While some might want to jump into the pool and convert 100%, I just see this as another alternative to running trains on my layout.

If you visited the BlueRail web site you will also note that one does NOT have to use batteries.  You can use track power as well.  So you can add a form of command and control to your conventional engines.  They are supposedly coming out with a more robust board for "O" gauge.

Have Fun.

Ron

Glad to note that my article created so much interest. For the record, battery power is an option, not a requirement. In my work with BlueRail Trains, I ran both AC and DC track power as well and it performs just as well. The version of bluetooth that BlueRail is using is the new low energy which means that the board requires very little power. This means that almost all of the battery power is used for motor and lights, which makes battery operation that much more efficient, but not absolutely necessary. For locos with limited space, I located the board and the battery in a trailing car like the dummy A unit of an ALCO AA pair or the tender for steam. BTW, because the BlueRail board uses controlled PWM, low speed performance is quite good.

I want to thank Bob Walker for showing up at the TCA Western Division meet and letting us run his engines. I would like to make one just because. I was impressed by the low speed performance. Ease of use was amazing and I really liked how an engine is locked into one user so no confusion in engines being accidentally commanded from some one else. Here are a couple of pictures from yesterday.

After doing some study I wonder if a bridge rectifier would work to get the AC track power up to the board without overstressing the board and if so which one?

Here's a couple more pictures from yesterday, one is the screen, thew other is one of the two loco's he was running.

Steve

I am thinking I could put a BlueRail board in one of the Dorfan converted engines that Steve and I have done with the Williams motors and a bridge rectifier......

MTH had batteries just to support sound and later DCS and many adopted BCR (no battery) as did MTH in PS3 and now Blue Rail with a battery that powers everything is all the rage. 

I'm in the niche product camp.  I can see the allure of battery operation, but I do so love my smoke, and lots of it.   I don't know if I'd be nearly as happy with my Lionel Vision Line Big Boy if you took the four smoke units out of it!

A low power home brew unit for smoke , though likely anemic in production should be pretty easy. I've seen single AA battery toy trains that puff smoke, and run for hours. The fluid is a water and vegetable oil solution, the element is a single delicate nichrome wire, the puff by bellows on a cam.

Duel batteries, or super cap and battery? Battery in cars for long haul, super cap/small battery in the engine for run arounds, etc. where power use is much lower, might be a feasible combo. Tethering by truck/ wheels/ track and isolated couplers, maybe body mounted KD? This could allow many battery cars to charge, say on a 3rail siding, full charge cars connected by switching in a new car, and dropping the empty prototypically. Still plenty of room in the loco/tender that way for sounds etc. A cap should be able to smooth the iffy connection from the couplers, the loco recharging off the cars as needed during running.

Regulating voltage, the cars might be 24v, the loco 12v making recharge in the loco fast and full.

(Still gripping my plastic throttle )

Now build me a device with a few buttons and "it's on". Just a few

Speculation, but I think the MTH battery use was chosen for the clean power they provide, I.e. to isolate the sounds circuits better and need for certain steady voltages. They tend to be used for memory retention on some chips too. Didn't some early trains need reprogramming after a battery died or jumping batteries to change one? That would be why.

Adriatic posted:

The fluid is a water and vegetable oil solution, the element is a single delicate nichrome wire, the puff by bellows on a cam.

Uhh... Thanks, but no thanks!   I'm afraid I'm addicted to the smoke production of modern fan driven units, I'm not going back to puffers.

Imagine some more! Imagine ONE STANDARD for the wireless remote control all two rail and three rail O Gauge trains! All manufacturers could use it! Then compete on the quality and features of engines.

Hey, a guy can have dreams, no?

Just dreams Mike.

No smoke, throw away  MTH or Lionel electronics, then spend nearly $200 on new electronics.  If you start with conventional locomotives like WBB, I suppose it makes sense. However, as far as I know the blue rail boards are not yet robust enough to power most O gauge trains.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Adriatic posted:

The fluid is a water and vegetable oil solution, the element is a single delicate nichrome wire, the puff by bellows on a cam.

Uhh... Thanks, but no thanks!   I'm afraid I'm addicted to the smoke production of modern fan driven units, I'm not going back to puffers.

Ok so YOU will run six battery cars

(It was still neat the little battery op thing had smoke )

It might make sense to clear up some issues that have been discussed. Bluetooth loco control and battery power are two entirely different and independent modes of operation, so let's separate the two. The BlueRail Trains board provides flawless control of a loco at distances up to 100 feet. The board uses carefully controlled PWM to which can motors respond very nicely. It can also control four auxilliary functions. When operating, there is two-way communications between the loco and the iPad/iPhone. It can be powered from the track. It was originally designed for HO and has some current limitations, but a higher power version is in the works. It's main feature is that it uses a control system that younger people are growing up with and also steps around that track signal propogation issue.

Battery power for OGauge is a completely different subject. The newer batteries make this mode more realizable than ever before, so why not look into it?  I chose to do both because the BlueRail board is the newer low-energy version which means that almost all of the battery power is available to run the motors and lights. One of the areas that needs work is to simplify the recharging and we are looking into a number of approaches.

Hope this clarifies some points.

Hi Bob,

     For whatever reason, Bluetooth seems to threaten some OGR forum members, and their confusion is deliberate.  Keep up your good work and forward thinking! 

Take care, Joe.

Joe Rampolla posted:

Hi Bob,

     For whatever reason, Bluetooth seems to threaten some OGR forum members, and their confusion is deliberate.  Keep up your good work and forward thinking! 

Take care, Joe.

Well, whenever "forward-thinking individuals" frame such advances with the implication that they could (or should) sweep through the industry and displace support for the way the majority of participants were doing things for many years...

..."I find this article very exciting. If this is developed for three rail O gauge, the(n) good by(e) 3ed rail, track power, and a number of other things we have grown to accept...

... not just existing side-by-side, but completely pushing the existing methodologies out of the market, I can see where that would produce consternation among folks who have a large investment in equipment now being categorized as "obsolete", and would face a great deal of difficulty should "the new way" become "the only way".

I'm sure the 1:1 scale railroads felt the same way about the positive train control mandate when Congress first started making noises about it. (except that one actually was forced upon the industry.)

---PCJ

Joe Rampolla posted:

Hi Bob,

     For whatever reason, Bluetooth seems to threaten some OGR forum members, and their confusion is deliberate.  Keep up your good work and forward thinking! 

Take care, Joe.

   

I'm not threatened by it.  While I might find it interesting to a point, (same with battery power) I see no compelling reason to jump on the bandwagon.

I felt the same way with DCC.  Many of the same arguments were being presented pro/con back then.  While I eventually added DCC to my (S Scale) railroad and it is sorta neat, I still run my conventional DC stuff more and have done few DCC conversions.

Rusty

Joe Rampolla posted:

For whatever reason, Bluetooth seems to threaten some OGR forum members, and their confusion is deliberate.  Keep up your good work and forward thinking!

Threatened?  Hardly.   I just don't see standing myself on my head to adopt a technology that as of now doesn't offer the features and convenience that I'm already enjoying.  I like to keep an eye on it as it evolves, but it's certainly not there now. 

You mistake reluctance to take a step backwards for confusion, but I suppose that's deliberate also.

You guys are taking this way too personal.  I don't recall anyone saying this system was going to replace DCS, Legacy, TMCC, conventional or any other system you like and enjoy.

It's just another alternative for those that might want to try it.

Have Fun.

Ron

Actually Ron, I think Joe was taking it too personally.   Truthfully, when the O-gauge size BT board is available, I'll probably get one and give it a go.  I'll use track power to run it, but it'll be kinda' like a Lionel LC+ locomotive.  However, I don't feel the burning desire to jump in with the pioneers at this point.  I like to keep up with the technology, but I don't need to be ahead of it.  Right now, the battery technology in particular, doesn't offer what I want.  In the future it might.

Remember: You can pick out the pioneers, they're the folks with the burning wagons.

BOB WALKER posted:

 

Battery power for OGauge is a completely different subject. The newer batteries make this mode more realizable than ever before, so why not look into it?

 

Sure look into it but this subject keeps coming up on this forum yet I only know of one person who posts here that has actually ripped out the electronics in his locomotives and is using battery power. One person! That's it!

In my opinion, the biggest pro to Bluetooth/battery power is you don't have to clean the track or get any short circuits but it ends there. Transformers? I already have more than I need. They are a one time expense and they are paid for. A Command Control System? Bought and paid for already. No pro there for me. Rip out the center rail? Nope. Already did that. No pro there for me.

I am not threatened by it either but I feel that the cons out weigh the pros by a lot especially in 3 rail because one of the biggest pros is that you can remove the center rail. Well, most 3 railers are collectors/operators meaning that they have more locomotives than they can run on their layout at any given time. If they rip out the center rail then they can't run any of their locomotives!!! They would have to rip out the electronics of their entire collection which would be costly and a lot of labor. Also since battery power is not desirable by the majority of O Gaugers (at least at this time) their collection would decrease in value. (yeah I know trains aren't worth much anymore but they would be worth even less) Perfect example: I read Bob's article and I thought it was well done but did you guys also read Ed Boyle's article on Digital Electronic Grading? In it he talks to Wally Myers and Wally mentions all the pros to Bluetooth/battery power but after that he says, "I don't intend to change." Why? Because he likes the third rail. Sure some guys would want to get rid of the third rail but then you have the problems I pointed out earlier. I believe Wally is not alone in his feelings and is representative of the majority of 3 railers.

Wally mentions young people coming into the hobby possibly getting into the Bluetooth and battery power. Let's take those young people: They are just getting into the hobby and most likely don't have a big budget for it. So they go somewhere, a LHS or a train show and buy a locomotive. Then instead of getting it home and running it they have to rip out the electronics and buy the new boards from Bluetooth which aren't available at the LHS. So they have to order the boards, wait for them to come in, and then install them before running their new locomotive. I just can't see a lot of people doing this. Especially the young people in our instant gratification society we have today.

Yes, I know I that Bluetooth can be run from track power but then all you are doing is changing from one command control system to another and while the Bluetooth system may be more reliable than Legacy/DCS when it comes to signal propagation (I don't know that it is--it may or may not be) the user will be losing many features and devaluing their collection. Again you have the expense and labor of changing Command Control Systems.

Many O Gaugers like the sounds we get in our locomotives. Some of them sound quite realistic. So it is good-bye sounds that Lionel or MTH put a lot of time into making sound good for generic sounds where every engine will sound the same. Maybe things are different now but I looked into a very similar system to this over 10 years ago and that's how it was then. So yes the technology is here but it does not seem to be growing in popularity in our hobby by leaps and bounds.

Think there are no electronic Standards in 3 rail? Guess what there are absolutely NO STANDARDS in Bluetooth/Battery Power in any scale! So once you choose a company you are stuck with that company. Imagine if that company should go out of business? (I know, not likely but could happen) Now you have to get boards from a different company. Well, your current controller will not talk to those boards so now you must buy the second company's controller. And don't forget, it may not be often but every once in a while a battery will go bad and will have to be replaced.

I am sure that there is a small percentage of O Gaugers that would be interested in this system. They probably have a very small collection of locomotives and so it wouldn't be costly to change over. Maybe they are On30 or On3 guys or maybe they have a small 3 rail layout and only a few conventional engines. For them it is a viable choice. For the typical O Gauge guy with an overflowing collection of locomotives it just doesn't make sense.

I have said it before and I will say it again. When MTH or Lionel starts to offer their locomotives with Bluetooth/battery power installed from the factory (or with a least a connector that one could add a battery or bluetooth board) along with their sounds then that's when this system may increase in popularity. Until then it will stay a niche system that only a very small percentage of O Gaugers use.

Last but not least, I am NOT knocking anyone who wants to go with Bluetooth/Battery Power. Hey if that's what makes you happy and you can afford the expense and labor. I say go for it. I, like Wally Myers, will not be changing over to another command control system.

Hudson J1e posted:

Yes, I know I that Bluetooth can be run from track power but then all you are doing is changing from one command control system to another and while the Bluetooth system may be more reliable than Legacy/DCS when it comes to signal propagation (I don't know that it is--it may or may not be) the user will be losing many features and devaluing their collection. Again you have the expense and labor of changing Command Control Systems.

I've run LC+ on the NJ-HR layout, which should have a similar range as BlueTooth signals. I got stuck in a few places where I had to quickly run to the location closest to the locomotive to get the RF signal back and get underway again. I've also run BlueTooth equipped sound on a much smaller layout and have sound dropouts of the signal as the sound system got farther away from the BlueTooth signal source. OTOH, I can run a TMCC or Legacy locomotive flawlessly around the entire NJ-HR massive layout without a single signal issue, so clearly you may be assuming facts not in evidence in suggesting that BlueTooth might be more reliable than TMCC/Legacy. 

I won't comment on DCS as I'm still struggling with signal on our club layout.

John, I am assuming nothing. I said, "It may or may not be.[more reliable]" I don't know.

Clearly your experience provides one less pro in favor of Bluetooth/Battery Power.

I agree Phil, perhaps just bad wording on my part.

No worries John. Thank you very much for your real world input.

I find it very interesting that you had some drop outs on a smaller layout. One might expect problems on a gigantic layout like the NJ Hi-Railers but I would have thought the system would be bulletproof on smaller layouts. Correct me if I am wrong but you were using the Lionel system right? and not the Bluetooth system mentioned in the article? Or do they use the same technology?

The BlueTooth transmission is the same for any BlueTooth device, however there are different classes of BlueTooth.  I don't believe most phones are using Class 1 capability, so the range will be limited.

My Samsung Note 4 has BlueTooth 4.1, which has a range of 30 meters, and that's under ideal conditions. Not exactly a long range signal.

A lot more information on the Wikipedia BlueTooth Page.

   Threatened, maybe ? I guess "Good bye 3rd rail and accepted standards type intros" shouldnt be easily taken as menacing?

March on and leave the wounded behind ? Lol

   The only threat feared here is more or less over. Buying new items today, and basically is paying for options I don't really care for.   The companies eyeballing this tech are the last low cost makers using the KISS philosophy, and so imo, look likely to be also eventually upping the mininum tech and therefore prices as others have to make the eventual profit more off the tech vs the model. That might kill off the few remaining alternatives that might fit my needs from being at what I would feel is an appropriate price otherwise.  I hope I'm wrong.

   And i still don't "get it", but you do. So if I spout, note I also throw my crappy ideas out there and hope somethings helps the op. too. Batteries would fall into that category.  What I'd like to see for controls too.

    Unintentionally applied exclusion thru drastic change often seems implied during an enthusiastic post. This DID start as being exclusionary though was likely just being over enthusiastic. Fun can do that

I will chime in here.  I have a friend who I have been helping build his 2-rail O scale layout for a while and have looked at purchasing a 2-rail O scale locomotive that I could run on his layout.  Of course I can run his equipment and don't really need to purchase a 2-rail locomotive, but then after reading about BPRC I decided to research the possibility of having a locomotive that would run on his layout and my 3-rail layout.

The victim: my K-Line Plymouth locomotive.

I have replaced/re-gauged the wheels with Atlas 36" 2 rail freight wheels.  These wheels have slightly deeper flanges then RP-25 O scale wheels and will navigate my Atlas 3-rail layout (including a couple sections of Lionel tubular rail).  This solves the physical issue of running a piece of equipment on both of our layouts.

Since 2-rail and 3-rail track systems are completely different electrically, I need something to power and control the Plymouth independent of power systems.  In this case it's DCC vs. TMCC.  The BlueRail technology seems to be the right fit for me with a battery on board.  The motor in the Plymouth is comparable to an HO locomotive (and the stall current is well below the 2 amp limit on the control board), so really any kind of HO BPRC system would work here, electrically and fit under the hood.

I will be rebuilding the body shell from blueprints to a 1922 Plymouth that my local club has so there will be no issues with reusing the die cast body shell and having interference with the Bluetooth signal.  I will use the frame, and let me tell you,  K-line did a great job painting it!

Switching on both layouts will be accomplished with Kadee 806 couplers.  These couplers will mate to "the claw" on my layout and the Kadee couplers on my friend's layout.

I know this is a very small niche to be in, but I'm glad there is technology that will support my decision.  I'm getting ready to purchase the control system as I have finished testing the drivetrain on both layouts (with a 9 volt battery).  If anyone is interested in this, I will start another thread. 

Larry

ps. My apologies to anyone who takes offense with me "destroying" the K-Line Plymouth.  In my defense, I'm glad I opened it up - the smoke unit was suffering from zinc rot.

That's a cool application, having it able to run on both layouts is pretty neat.

It seems that there are two major issues at play here:  

The first was addressed above, but I'll repeat it anyway, While bluetooth technology makes battery power a more practical option, battery power and Bluetooth are two seperate, distinct, technologies, and while they can be used together for those that want to, there is no need to do so to gain the benifits of one or the other.  You could run Battery power TMCC if you wanted... Not sure about DCS, as the signal is transmitted through the track power.  

The second issue is the capabilities of BlueTooth it's self.  It seems people think that the limited functions  from a smart phone are all this technology can do, to which they are mistaken.  The only real short coming of bluetooth being used for model trains is that the max range is going to be limited... unless the system was designed for and implemented signal repeaters.  

I think most people associate Bluetooth with running a train from your phone, and while that is an option, you can use bluetooth without a phone at all.  Bluetooth is simply the name of the encoding system used over 2.4GHz wireless radios, and is at least the most common, if not the best such system.  Other similar radio protocols would be Wifi, or on the very simple end, LionChief plus, or using the same radios, Microsoft and logitech wireless keyboards and mice.  

As to having to "rip out" the electronics in engines, I'm unsure why this would be the case , at least in most TMCC locomotives.  One could design a replacement R2(4)LC board that pops into the same socket and uses bluetooth communication instead of the 455K track signal, preserving all of the engines functions.  

I guess it comes down to understanding that there is a difference in the implementation/apparatus, the user interface, as it were, versus the underlying technology.  A TMCC system, if fully exploited is capable of sending 65,536 unique commands.  In practice it can make use of much less.  Legacy improves on this with  about 4 times as many commands available to the system, plus multi-word commands.  A single data packet over bluetooth contains at least 4 billion bits of information, and the standard packet size of 32 bytes is a 1 followed by about 70 zeros of information.  So, while the current implementation of bluetooth for trains has limited features, the technology it's self is practically limitless in the features it could operate.  Add to that that bluetooth is self error correcting, meaning that if the information sent isn't received perfectly it knows there is a problem and can act on that.  Also, each device will have a unique id, meaning there is no chance that multiple clubs will have overlapping signal issues, or such.  

The only downside to this tech that I can see is the "short" range that may be a problem for large club layouts and the like.  This could be solved very easily with range extenders, though this may require a bit of additional programing to implement.  

All told, Bluetooth (or any other digital, error correcting, 2.4GHz radio for that matter) is just flat out superior to an analog track signal.  It is only the apparatus that is lacking in features, not the underlying technology.  

JGL

P.S. That Legacy system everyone loves so much: yeah, the thing talks to and provides all those functions with a simple 2.4GHz communication from the remote to the base, you're already using a dumbed down version of bluetooth if you run Legacy.  

JohnGaltLine posted:

You could run Battery power TMCC if you wanted... Not sure about DCS, as the signal is transmitted through the track power.   

Well... yes and no.  Most TMCC motor drivers are triac based, and they require AC to function.

This may have already been answered.

Can I use more than one remote (device with the app) to control a single engine at the same time?

This is big plus on a club layout that has multiple operators all controlling the same set of engines as they make their way around.

H1000

JG: Glad you reiterated the separation of battery power from control system technology.

My tests showed an operating range of over 100' with the BlueRail system which uses the newer smart bluetooth. We checked this out and confirmed it at a recent TCA meeting.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

JohnGaltLine posted:

You could run Battery power TMCC if you wanted... Not sure about DCS, as the signal is transmitted through the track power.   

Well... yes and no.  Most TMCC motor drivers are triac based, and they require AC to function.

I'm not gonna say it would be drop-dead simple to get TMCC to run on battery power, but it could be done a couple of ways.  The simplest thing that comes to mind would be to use a 555 timer and a MOSFET or power transistor to briefly cut power every 1/60 of a second, to allow the Triacs in to cycle off as normal.  

Touching on something from earlier in the thread, it would require an overhaul of the design in use, but one could use a system similar to that used in electronic cigarettes to more efficiently produce smoke for battery power.  While it would still put a significant draw on the battery, you can get some impressive volumes of "smoke" out of these devices.  

A vape "mod" such as the one used in this video runs off of an '18650' type battery, typically 3.6 volts and rated for 3000mAh.  set up to produce these massive amounts of "smoke" such a battery will drain fairly quickly, but is the tiny volumes needed for an O scale smoke stack, even this small battery will probably last quite a while.  

JGL

JGL, you're basically replacing most of the electronics in the TMCC locomotive.  In that case, I guess you could make it work, but it's not a simple thing for most folks to do.

Yes, I'm sure I could make it happen, I just don't have any real incentive to do so.

Not to argue the capabilities being better, but I wasn't aware the present systems were lacking so much there was drastic need for imediate change to get away from well established systems of a similar nature.

Ongoing, only the mfgs like the proprietary systems we have, but the BT doest guarantee open source either. So what's the point?Being universal like DCC is whats needed.

Outside of the tech folks that know it well, blue tooth just another buzz word thrown around for sales purposes. If the old systems aren't taxed to their limits yet, again what's the point?

So you can say "mines better because I used my phone"?

Bah, humbug!   But ok, Do what you like, but understand why your doing it also. and at this point imo its the ads that push an untapped superiority creating the "need", not a lack of functionality. Riding this bandwagon may be profitable for the OP from this same push, but presently train tech seems pretty adequate as is and one remote replacing another not a game changer, just a brand changer. I'm sure Lionel has plans to jump in too if needed, but so far they havent, so ask yourself why. IMO its because they see no real advantage either. When the sales support it, and the consumer demands it we'll see it.

I'll have to add an AMEN to that.  I'm keeping an eye on BlueTooth and battery technology, but today they don't offer what I want in a product.  For the same reason I don't own a hybrid or electric powered car, no value added for me.  I keep my eye on the technology as at some point I suspect they may be the right choice.  When that day comes along, I'll sing a different tune.

FWIW, when the higher current BlueTooth boards come available and I can figure out how to get decent sounds with the package, I plan on building one up, just to get a bit of experience with the technology.

I have been looking for a BPRC system, probably will not be Bluerails although I have not ultimately decided.  I do not like local sounds coming out of the controlling device, I want them out of the loco, I do know I could do a bluetooth connected 'sugarcube' speaker but i am concerned about fidelity and connectivity there.  I would also like a tactile device for the throttle/controller.  They are also not ready for O gauge yet, and I sent them some questions via their contact form several weeks ago and no answer. 

Having the sound come out of your handheld is low class, what does anyone else viewing the layout hear?  That's just one of the reasons I also don't feel they're really ready for prime-time.  Interesting technology, but not quite yet.

There is a company that I'll bet will utilize the sound capability of BTin time. If I'm not mistaken they have a stand alone room system that can be controlled by device. If the future data stream contains both signals, and I think it can, that would change the game, but only slightly. It still has to outperform the sounds at hand to call it a big game changing improvement. That recording quality is the "rock" that the present systems are building on already. Which format these great recordings are delivered by, or where they are reproduced near redundant, it's the quality that counts.

Which reminds me of the the 32bit CD/mp3 fiascos  the public fell for on so called higher quality sound. They bought some noise reduction, and convenience, at a loss of fidelity from thd original recordings. I kept my analog and bought 64bit if I could. At 64bit you need a super sharp ear to tell. 32 bit is crap with half the reference points, that's why audiophiles still like analog today and vinyl is making a small comeback. But 32b was more profitable so it would have taken the public to "push back", we didn't because we weren't informed enough and wanted to ride the tech bandwagon "oh my CD is better than the old way"...not

I too am interested in any new control methods for our O gauge trains. The more options, the more folks in the hobby, and if it works that way we are all better off with more selection and new products to choose from. I am perfectly happy with my DCS and Legacy systems for now and everything is working really well here with no problems, so I don't plan on switching anytime soon.

However, like GRJ and some of the others have stated, I would certainly be interested in trying out anything new that becomes available such as the Bluerail products and maybe batter power as well. I want to get a DCC system someday as well, just to try out and learn more about it all. Not planning on switching to DCC either, but you never know when something will come along that really gets your attention.

Here's a crappy 3 min video of my Williams E7 with the BlueRail board, battery, and a Gems wifi/bluetooth 2" speaker installed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEd2Y09RAWI

and photos:

Still getting over 2.25 hours of run time, even with the speaker assembly wired into the onboard system (using a 9.6v, 2000Mah NiMh battery).  The Gems had a single cell LiPo battery which I removed.

The Gems-type circuit board can be made smaller, there's an on/off switch, 2 jacks, a LED, and microphone, and a volume control "knob" that could be eliminated (and use the Ipad controls).  A rectangular speaker would make it possible to install in other locos.

I did have to insert a 5v voltage regulator (8605), which Bob Walker helped me get my head out of that dark place, in order to install it, thanks BobW!!!

Been running BPRC for over 1-1/2 years now.

Bob D,

I am guessing the 5V regulator is for the Gems board?

Can you explain what you mean by the Gems board could be made smaller?  Is it an off the shelf board?

How do you like the sound compared to other sound systems, if you have them?  Proto sound?  TMCC included sound?

Do/did you have a different controller to compare/contrast the android/iphone control?

Thanks.

Helmut, yes, the 5v reg is to "protect" the Gens board from the 9.6v battery.  I figure since the Gems speaker assembly was being charged by a 5v source, a 5v reg would be the thing to use to get the voltage down to a safe level.

When I say the Gems board could be made smaller, I mean the components necessary for sound would end up having a smaller board than the round one shown.  I suspect there's very little in the way of what's needed for the wifi/bluetooth signal.

I've been thinking about installing the Bluerail board in my RailKing NW2, but there's very little room for a 2000 or 2200 Mah battery.  A smaller (1000 Mah or even less) battery could be used on this switcher without degrading it's ability to perform it's tasks.  I don't need 2+ hours run time on a switcher.

I bought the entire speaker at Target for $5, I haven't been back to see if they have more but I would like to get a couple more if they have them.  Hopefully Bluerail will incorporate a wifi/bluetooth speaker as an plug-in accessory in the future.

I think the sounds are as good as the sounds on my ERR boards that I got a couple of years ago, not as good as current Lionels or the sounds coming from my Atlas F3, but I think those use better quality speakers.

The Bluerail system gives me (for diesel) horn, bell, diesel rumble, couplers, brakes (release and squeal), and fans.  The bell doesn't die off like the bells in the DCS/PS2 or TMCC systems, but I can live with that.  I'm not big on sounds anyway, so what Bluerail is offering is enough for me.

I only have the Ipad for controlling my Bluerail equipped engines (3).  My other BPRC engines (10) use the RCS Australia/Deltang systems.  I have 3 separate transmitters I can use for these systems, 1 for freight, 1 for passenger, and 1 for switchers.  It's very simple to move control from 1 Tx to another, it's called binding.

I still have 4 engines with TMCC and 2 with PS2.

Bob D,

Thx.  That install is in an O gauge loco, yes?  If so, I thought that the Blue Rails boards were not able to handle the current for O gauge yet?

Helmet, yes, it is an O-scale engine.

Dave Rees at BlueRail said to give it a try and let him know how the 2amp board faired with the higher current motors.

I have had a few times where the board shut down, but Dave and Bob Walker provided enough guidance to adjust some of the internal settings to get things moving.  Dave or BobW can explain these settings better than I can.

This is the only engine out of the 3 I have with the BlueRail board installed in that has 2 motors, the other 2 had similar issues, but not as often and even easier to adjust for better running.  The higher amp board that is proportedly being worked on will fix these issues.

Thx Bob.  Yes I understand it will fix but I was anxious for info and submitted a request and have had no reply - 3-5 weeks later.  So I am wondering what that board was and if it was in a O gauge.  I am only doing steam, so it might work there as most have only 1 motor.  This might be great as an interim solution for a Christmas loco.

What falls out first upon battery drain? Top speed I assume.

What kind of amperage are you pulling through the boards with the two motor unit. Is the board shutting down on a peaked draw like a hard fast start or after continous running builds heat?

Options are great; exclusionary change, not so great

Adriatic posted:

What falls out first upon battery drain? Top speed I assume.

What kind of amperage are you pulling through the boards with the two motor unit. Is the board shutting down on a peaked draw like a hard fast start or after continous running builds heat?

The speed stays consistent then the engine slows and stops, every BPRC engine I have seems to get approx 2.5 hours of run time on a charge.

I have no idea about the amperage, have never really measured stall current.  Every shutdown experienced happens at startup, trying to start too quickly, train or no train makes no difference.  Haven't noticed any heat issues.  Adding the sound system into the mix doesn't seem to have affected current draw or run time as of now.

My other BPRC engines (using the RCS/Deltang gear) have been running with no problems, but the Rx65b is rated for 3 amps vice 2 for the Bluerail board.

They were guesses. Its not the shutdowns I anticipated.

  It sounds more like a failed link attempt and need for a reboot. Fairly common with initial start up on the non train BT accessories I've used.  Not a big deal really if that's it. Off then on again and away you go?

I expected an overdraw shutting it down since amperage seems to be at the heart of worry.

Sound processing uses very little power normally, its the amp/driver circuits that will draw hard. ie The speaker size, ohms, and watts needed for volume.

Bob  My install is in an old Atlas F9, its track power however ( DC ), Im quite pleased!  Ive also set up a Williams SP GS4, but I believe Im having the same start up issues you mentioned, I was thinking of the Pittman motor as a replacement with ball bearings and rare earth magnets to help with the start up current, I would love to hear what Bob Walker and Dave advised.

I like your speaker set up, this was my thinking too, but I was going to use a buck converter to get my track power down to power the Bluetooth speaker. Ive used them with my Deltang receiver - ESC combos, they work grate.       cTr...( Choose the Right )

Stephen,

Sounds like it ought to work.  I had an 8605 handy so I used it.  I had a bunch of 8606 v/r's but didn't want to push things.

I think we're pushing things with this 2 amp board, but Dave Rees wanted me to see what would happen.   I didn't mind being one of his test subjects and it's been fun in the process.

I just "dressed-up" the wiring in the E7, in between 4 phone calls.  Had to cut/resolder some wires and with the interruptions wasn't sure if what I had done was going to work or fry the board.  Glad to report all went well (except I had to cut out some wall stiffeners inside the shell because I relocated the speaker).

The sound from the Bluetooth speaker is surprisingly loud and good quality.

Stephen, I think gearing would be more of a concern than the type of motor, but if you have a better motor I'd say give it a shot.

One problem - we dont run all of our trains all the time - so I would think keeping them charged and batteries in good condition might be an issue. Hard to just bust one out of the collection and run it if you have to charge the battery.

Roving Sign posted:

One problem - we dont run all of our trains all the time - so I would think keeping them charged and batteries in good condition might be an issue. Hard to just bust one out of the collection and run it if you have to charge the battery.

Energizers site says a NiMh battery will lose 20-50% of its capacity in 6 months if not recharged, I don't worry about it.  With the number of engines I have there's always a few that are ready to go.  If the battery craps out while running, I treat it as if the engine ran out of fuel and send in another to take over.  It happens, but it's not worth getting my panties in a twist.

If I feel the need to run a particular engine, I usually know when it was charged last, I even keep a log.  The simple thing is to plan ahead.

Big news of the week - 

"The other big exciting project BlueRail has been absorbed in is creating the technology for our bluetooth protocol to communicate with DCC and sound decoders. We think this is a worthwhile direction that opens the door to many possibilities. I didn't want to manufacture more boards or products until we built a bluetooth to DCC bridge, and we are on the verge of having that working. I receive many emails about narrower, smaller and higher amperage boards. I felt it wisest to resist the temptation to quickly put out another board until DCC was under our belt. All future boards will benefit from this, and I hope the hobby will as well. I will post more details on YouTube and the facebook page."  - David Rees

i did get this email blast a couple days ago.  this has possibilities - it is just taking so long.  and the requests for info through their site go unanswered (at least in my case it did) which is unfortunate.  the largest issue i have with this whole technology is sound through the controlling device - it should come from the locomotive (yeah - i know it can be worked around with a bluetooth speaker device - but that will not fit in all locos).  i also cannot find anywhere what/how many sounds are actually available.

this info blast did not also say if it could be added to sound decoders or just control decoders, not how it would work.  most wireless addons seem to require require boosters?  hopefully that will not be necessary.

hlfritz posted:

i did get this email blast a couple days ago.  this has possibilities - it is just taking so long.  and the requests for info through their site go unanswered (at least in my case it did) which is unfortunate.  the largest issue i have with this whole technology is sound through the controlling device - it should come from the locomotive (yeah - i know it can be worked around with a bluetooth speaker device - but that will not fit in all locos).  i also cannot find anywhere what/how many sounds are actually available.

this info blast did not also say if it could be added to sound decoders or just control decoders, not how it would work.  most wireless addons seem to require require boosters?  hopefully that will not be necessary.

Not to call you out, but did you read the email?  

It says - right there in the text -  communicate between bluetooth board and sound decoder.  Sound decoders are loaded with sounds. They produce those sounds in-loco.  Problem solved.

As for contacting David, i emailed him yesterday and got a response less than an hour later.  Try responding to the email blast.

JACOBPAUL81,

Thx. for that - the sound decoder part was entirely missed by me.  I only recalled DCC.  I am aware of how sound decoders work and where the sound comes from in that case - and yes that would resolve one of my largest issues with this stuff.  It is great news, I just wish there were timelines.  I am pretty ready to start working on my 'stuff', and I need to choose a RC technology pretty much now.

It is also not normal to reply to an email blast and get a response - they usually come from a 'do not reply to this email address', but when you send an email via an information request form on the web site it is normal to get a response.

I do not mind being called out when wrong.  I appreciate you calling my attention to what I missed!

" the largest issue i have with this whole technology is sound through the controlling device - it should come from the locomotive (yeah - i know it can be worked around with a bluetooth speaker device - but that will not fit in all locos)"

I dont see fitting it where sounds exist alread being an issue. And if the speaker and amp board dont fit,  the sound at the device as an option sure beats nothing. Transmitting to a stand alone system yet another option.

A blue tooth receiver itself can be very tiny. Amplifying takes up more room than processing today. And no matter what you need a control board of some type for ANY system,  and then ALSO amplification of the sounds.  I dont see an issue where sound exists already.

The DCC option is a smart move in a way,  but higher amp boards are needed to do this scale much justice.  Get them supporting very high amps and you might even develop some PW conversion fans. 

Adriatic posted:

A blue tooth receiver itself can be very tiny. Amplifying takes up more room than processing today. And no matter what you need a control board of some type for ANY system,  and then ALSO amplification of the sounds.  I dont see an issue where sound exists already.

The DCC option is a smart move in a way,  but higher amp boards are needed to do this scale much justice.  Get them supporting very high amps and you might even develop some PW conversion fans. 

Connectors...No matter how small the board there's always some kind of wiring that takes place.  Diesels aren't so bad but until we get all the electronics buried inside a steam engine boiler we'll have to deal with connectors.

The Deltang-based boards are rated for 3 and 6 amps, hopeful BlueRail will get boards at the same rating soon.

You can control a BlueRail board using the App and a wireless controller like the SteelSeries Nimbus, but I can't find one under $45.  Of course I think that it still has to go thru your IOS device.

Bob D,

did you actually hook all that up?  it seems the Bluerail board and the Nimbus are redundant as they are both bluetooth receivers?  Also, an Android should be able to connect to the Nimbus, it is just the api calls might not be there to do anything with it?

Ribbon cable and connections come in micro variety too. Even less space if you pigtail wire right to a board by solder. Pigtails allow the space a plug would occupy to be  moved to a more convenient area too. But regardless,  if sound was already there, there should be room to swap the new  into place.  They fit sounds into ho all day long no issue,  the only real difference should be the size of the amplifier section to drive a larger speaker for better/louder sounds.

  The amperage used by O, is  the only good reason for needing a larger control board than ho. The motor power sections need larger components that have the amp ability , the processing section could be basically the same in all scales.

If they can put command and sound in an N scale, put a blue tooth set the size of a hearing aid in my ear,  and make an i-watch,  there isnt much excuse for having to say "darn, no room in my O scale". The blame in the large size there, is on the mfgs. Imo. Also with small size comes great frustration in mod and repair,  so Im not wishing micro on everything,  just small is fine if it fits. Save the micro for just micro-spaces if possible, maybe propriety processing too.

  There is usually way more room in a tender, and a loco running without one;, pretty rare. Im curious about the trend of insistance in placing sound boards in the engine now. Factory assembly convenience? Sure there is more room with can motors, but its still very tight compared to the tender. Other than not liking tethers, I cant seem to come up with a good explanation for not using that tender space as we once did. The motor processing in a loco makes sense, but not sound packages being there too. You need the tender for a decent speaker anyhow,  and it still seems roomy compared to the boiler to me. Tether wire could be very light with the sound amp in the tender too.

I think Nimbus Steel is an Apple focused product.  Ive never been a Mac or i-fan, and thats being nice... and short. But that game controller does have real buttons if I recall, so a good suggestion. And aimed directly at me too! Thank you.

A former tech, Ive seen many cooked board traces and componants alike. So  I always go overkill on amp handling now,  and 6a might get a single PW motor motor going  fine,  but a dual pulmor motor would tax its limits.  A well run one,  more so. Id guess 10a or even 12a might be needed to handle some startup peaks there. I know it was mentioned in a thread (here?) but I dont recall if 6a rating would be the constant or peak max.   I have more than one single motor pw engines that run just over 3a and peak around 5.5a during a hard start,  so I think the concern for a pw twin motor is still somewhat valid. (but it is getting closer to that high bar it seems.  Eg,  I was very surprised to learn Dalee had a 12a board.  I think that is just an eunit,  but still beats the nothing made yesterday, and a pulse width board added to it, is still always possible too. Price? I Didnt look because at 12a, its really the only option outside of a mechanical unit anyhow, and my plans involve "flat" anyhow.

I'm currently running my WbB E7 (with 2 can motors) using the existing BlueRail 2amp board and for the most part it runs fine, like I said earlier, Only problem I sometimes see is at startup.  I have no idea what the stall speed is.  I think a 3amp board would work.

I use the Deltang-based 3amp board in my Williams brass 4-8-4 and with 4 aluminum cars for a total of 22 pounds.  I also pulled all 15 of my passenger cars with it and had no problem.  Anything with a DC can motor will probably work, but those older Lionel motors may give problems.

If I was one who had a few shelf queens...this would be a good way to get them back into service.

I received by BlueRail board in the mail yesterday and it was really easy to install and interact with in the app (I have an iPhone).  I'm powering it with a 9 volt battery.  There wasn't any documentation on their website in using a 9 volt and I wanted to test it out since the 9 volt powers the motor without the board.  I may get a lipo, it really depends if a 9 volt meets my needs.

I am very happy with the board and how well it responds to their app.  I plan to clean up the wiring and build a shell for the Plymouth later.  

I suspect powering it with a disposable battery will get really expensive in a hurry!

I agree with GunnerJohn - I would not want to do this with a 9V battery (and in my case not with anything Apple! but to each his own ).

I think you will get far better usage and lifetime with a lipo, even a removable.

  Yah, yah... 

The 9 volt battery is a test to see how much run time I can get out of it.  It is also the same battery I was using before I got the board.  The motor in the Plymouth is the size of an HO one and I would not be able to get away with using a 9 volt in a regular locomotive.  

Time will tell.

Larry

Larry,

that is a plymouth switcher?  K-line type?  (sorry - cannot see youtube at work) there is room inside for that board and battery?  would you mind taking some pics and posting or sending?  i would appreciate it?  i have been pondering one of these for quite a while and it always looks like no room in them.

Helmut,

Yes, it was a K-Line Plymouth switcher.  I gutted it, put new Altas 2-Rail 36" freight wheels on it and repainted the frame.  The board fits between the mounts for the body.   I'm not sure if having the battery under the board will be too tall for the original body.  I think the battery would fit in the cab, but will need to measure it out.  I plan to 3D print a new one since the original is diecast and it gives me an excuse to try something new. 

Larry

thx Larry!

If you take the smoke unit out, there's quite a bit of room in the Plymouth, it takes up pretty near the whole body forward of the cab.  OTOH, I'd hate to lose the smoke, that's a cool feature in something this small.

Larry,

Check out the FreeRails forum:

http://www.freerails.com/

Someone over there may have already done this.

I usually get my batteries from All-Battery:

http://www.all-battery.com/index.aspx

but I use 2000Mah NiMh and 2200 LiPo batteries in my engines, leaning more towards the NiMh these days, mainly for standardization.  You'll also need a charger, plus any on/off switches and a charging jack if you want to charge it inside the engine.

Depending on the gearing, 9.6v can run just about anything at a good speed.  I get over 2 hours run time and it takes that long to recharge them (DON'T fast charge!!!)

If you don't think you'll need 2+ hours run time a smaller battery should do you well, and be cheaper too.  I've found All-Battery also sells on Amazon and/or Ebay and is usually cheaper and free shipping.  They give sizes for their batteries so you can make a mockup of the battery and see if it fits before you buy.

Thanks for the info Bob!  

Larry