Is it time for a new way to control and power our trains?

Scott, if I read your post correctly, you are (in effect) asking for some standardization in a future command control.

The answer, my friend, comes down to $$$.  Standardization in the O gauge world has been resisted by those with proprietary systems (major investments and sunk costs in these).  DCC is a standard, largely due to the efforts of the NMRA.  It works very well in HO and N.  It is not as successful in our world.  

I think you are correct to doubt the viability of DCS going forward for the long term.  Unless the DCS technology is part of a re-constituted MTH-like company, I don't see it surviving as a standalone. 

It's always dangerous to predict the future, but here goes:

1. Assuming MTH closes its door in June 2021 without a successor, DCS survives standalone for 1-2 years.
2. ERR board sales will increase as 3-railers read the writing on the wall.  PS1, PS2, and PS3 owners convert to TMCC.
3. Lionel, in response to #2, achieves consciousness and offers Legacy upgrades to 3rd party engine owners.  (Maybe this is already occurring, I don't know)
4. LionChief+/2.0/etc. dominates the low-end and starter set markets.
5. Several "universal" control systems based on the expired DCS patents and clean-room reverse engineering emerge permitting PS2/PS3 locomotives to run under Legacy control.

That's it for now.  The crystal ball has gone dark again.

George

I was thinking the same thing. I feel like in 20 years, track power will only be reserved for PW stuff, and everything else will be on batteries. If you don't run PW, you don't even need a transformer except for accessories and maybe a battery charging track in a spur or yard. (I say PW because all the early generation electrical tech from MTH and Lionel probably won't last another 20 years).

But the new battery locos could be 100 percent insulated from track, allowing operation of conventional and battery at the same time. Miniature radar or laser units mounted to the front end of consists can keep spacing! And... Not joking... Let Alexa or a smart unit control them. (I know you old farts will grumble, but that kind of instant control via voice command is expected by youngsters these days and could keep us relevant). That would allow instant control from anywhere in the room, no handheld device required!

Who wants to start an evolution train control company with me? (Half serious?)

I'm in wait-n-see mode.  I'm going to make sure I have spares for anything that I value.

@Jeff_the_Coaster_Guy posted:

I was thinking the same thing. I feel like in 20 years, track power will only be reserved for PW stuff, and everything else will be on batteries. If you don't run PW, you don't even need a transformer except for accessories and maybe a battery charging track in a spur or yard. (I say PW because all the early generation electrical tech from MTH and Lionel probably won't last another 20 years).

But the new battery locos could be 100 percent insulated from track, allowing operation of conventional and battery at the same time. Miniature radar or laser units mounted to the front end of consists can keep spacing! And... Not joking... Let Alexa or a smart unit control them. (I know you old farts will grumble, but that kind of instant control via voice command is expected by youngsters these days and could keep us relevant). That would allow instant control from anywhere in the room, no handheld device required!

Who wants to start an evolution train control company with me? (Half serious?)

That's great Jeff!  Alexa and Siri running our trains, awesome.  That is until they decide that we jeopardize the mission.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARJ8cAGm6JE

Hard pass.  I'll keep my CAB-1, thank you.  Oh, and get off my lawn while you're at it.      

George

I was bouncing around an idea in my head for conventional locomotives with sound. The theory I was operating under was a small low-voltage/low-current inverter fed from an R/C battery setup to feed low-voltage AC into the locomotive's board. Don't know if this can be done, but I thought I'd write it down before the idea died of loneliness.

@G3750: you're not the target market I suppose.

Although the idea of a rogue intelligent train layout is very funny. What shenanigans might the computer get up to!

By the way, it's not your lawn. The government promised it to Disney in exchange for some targeted campaign funds. And since I'm a subcontractor for Disney, looks like you need to take your old-*** CAB whatever trains off MY lawn! 

There are some fairly advanced systems out there.

AirWire has a controller that talks directly to the engine, which itself is powered by a battery.  One of the local 3-rail guys has gone to this exclusively on his layout, even to the point of removing some center rails.

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

There is another system called RailPro with direct controller to engine communication with no need for a TIU, Legacy Command Base or whatever.  This one can run on track power or battery.  I've run with this one (with track power) on an HO layout and it worked well. 

https://rcsofne.com/ring-engin...eless-train-control/

One REALLY cool feature of this system is that when engines are consisted (or lashed up, sorry Rich), the decoders in the engines talk to each other directly and the engines speed match themselves to the leading unit in the consist.  I saw this work.  The layout owner took 3 diesels that ran at different speeds.  He set up a consist with them.  The engines started a little sluggish at first, only for about 6 inches or so (while the decoders adjusted themselves) then the engines smoothed out and ran great together.  The owner said they will stay this way, whether run later in the day or a week from now, until the consist is dissolved.  We could use a feature like this in 3-rail for sure.

If you're just running conventional with batteries, you can probably power the sound with DC.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I'm in wait-n-see mode.  I'm going to make sure I have spares for anything that I value.

Ditto, I’m heavily invested in Legacy and To lessor extent DCS.  I’m not interest in spending large amounts of money to convert to some new system that may or may not get accepted.

I'm happy with what we have now. Not crazy about the battery idea. I understand that the future will bring change. More power to it. But for me the idea of having to charge your train is not enticing right now. If you forget to charge your train you have to wait an hour before you run it. So if you have 200 locomotives sitting a month not being used than what?. Just my 2 cents. I'll stick with electric power

I think Lionel will lead the way to new methods. They do a good job of maintaining the ability of past Lionel products working with their new systems. Perhaps DCS will be included next time around.

From my experience there is enough equipment out there to keep us running for a very long time. Any kind of replacement would have to be universal, modular, and easy to install and use while still being cost competitive. Hard to do these days.

So I’ve been looking at this too. Arduino is a real contender in my mind. 

https://arduinorailwaycontrol....arduino-train-garden

This set up uses battery but I don’t see a reason you couldn’t use the rectifier ( and maybe a capacitor battery) the bluerail people put here:

http://bluerailtrains.com/2017...rail-ac-track-power/

As for the cost -  there are Arduino clones for cheap $$. You can get a nano for about six bucks. Get this shield motor controller ( 10amp and there are 30 amp dc controllers too.) https://www.robotshop.com/en/c...-arduino-shield.html

You’re now at 16 bucks. Get a Bluetooth card ( another $3 for a clone  , this one is $20 ) . https://www.robotshop.com/en/h...luetooth-module.html

Steve ( at Arduinorailwaycontrol) has opened his code. 

The bluerail guys show a $10 option to add sound. https://youtu.be/lB4HT-_9jFQ

  So buying high dollar, you’re at about $80 a train. Low dollar about $30 a train.

Here’s a good clone site https://m.banggood.com/Geekcre...LEAQYASABEgLesvD_BwE

I'm fine with TMCC/LionChief and as long as I can buy the occasional new locomotive/accessory/operating car with one of these, I'm good.  Have a few Legacy and one PS3 loco, but haven't bought into either system yet.  Haven't bought anything Williams for over a decade because it is all conventional, not that there is much variety. Happy with the TMCC Atlas, K-Line and 3rd Rail equipment I have. Battery powered has its positives, but don't see the need when there are 120V outlets throughout my house .  Bottom line is track power and TMCC/LC/LC+ don't need much improvement for me. 

If I get around to it, will finally get the MTH Explorer to work for my PS3 loco, or will convert it using ERR or, maybe, who knows, LC+ some day. Then I can sell my Explorer on Craig's List for $2,000, at least. (That's meant as humor).

@AGHRMatt posted:

I was bouncing around an idea in my head for conventional locomotives with sound. The theory I was operating under was a small low-voltage/low-current inverter fed from an R/C battery setup to feed low-voltage AC into the locomotive's board. Don't know if this can be done, but I thought I'd write it down before the idea died of loneliness.

Every train made (with some extremely rare exceptions, like Barber Coleman motors in the prewar Zephyrs made by Western coil and electric) has a motor that will run on DC, so there is no need for a miniature inverter.

@RoyBoy posted:

Every train made (with some extremely rare exceptions, like Barber Coleman motors in the prewar Zephyrs made by the small company that Consoli bought out) has a motor that will run on DC, so there is no need for a miniature inverter.

The inverter was to drive the sounds. Probably not worth the effort, though, given there are DC driven engine sounds now.

I'm in agreement with Jeff and olstykke as we should be looking forward towards updated systems that make more sense today than using last century technology.   

The systems that both of these gentlemen demonstrated with the various links shows how we can improve upon this hobby using technology that doesn't need to be very expensive and simple to use.

Imagine building a very large layout without having to run miles of wiring to get to constant feed everywhere.  Only your switches would need some way of being controlled and even they could possibly be done very economically as well also.

We need to continue to push upon the envelope and move forward in all things if we are to improve upon our standard of living.   This is how we got here in the first place so why stop?

All of us know that in reality the Circuit Board's in the systems made by MTH and Lionel or anyone else will one day fail catastrophically and identical replacements won't be available. 

What do you do then?

I have a friend that has converted about 20 Lionel / MTH engines to batteries and DCC using the AirWire system.  My friend tells me that the AirWire system is basically a NMRA standard DCC system that uses a radio signal from the controller directly to the engine.

To convert a Lionel engine, you basically need to install an antenna, a AirWire radio receiver, and a DCC board.  He also installs a battery with a charging port and battery charging board.  AirWire makes all the needed components.   This system allows operators to do everything that is done in other scales with DCC.  There is one exception, he hasn't found a way to operate the remote control couplers.  I believe this is more of power issue than a capability issue.  A fully charged engine can run for 4+ hours before it needs to be recharged and a partially charged engine can run for 1 to 2 hours.  At my model railroad club almost no one runs an engine more than a hour even during shows.  

He has also found a way to use AirWire with the MTH PS-3 system.  He does the standard battery installation, and a AirWire antenna and receiver attached to the PS-3 board.  (Remember that PS-3 has DCC capability.)  This allows him to run PS-3 engines using the AirWire system.  PS-1 and PS-2 engines that do not have DCC capability need a conversion just like a Lionel conversion.  

The last time I spoke to my friend, he was working on a way to use track power instead of batteries with the AirWire system.  I expect to see him this Saturday and find out how this going.

The big down side to either the Lionel or MTH conversions is the cost.  A Lionel conversion might be $200 + with a MTH PS-3 conversion being slightly less because you don't need to buy a DCC board.    

I have looked at the RailPro system.  It claims to be more advanced than DCC because the technology is 20 years newer.  It probably is more advanced and may be easier to use.  Again, the biggest drawback is the cost.  It appears that converting to RailPro costs just about as much as an AirWire conversion.

Also, converting to AirWire, RailPro or another system always has the possibility that the company will go away.  I never thought that MTH would just close.  

Frankly, I am happy with TMCC/Legacy/LC+.  Those systems usually run fine almost all of the time.  

I am frustrated with MTH PS-2/3.  I and my friends get too many engine not found, engine not on the track signals, etc.  I would rather charge a battery and have a reliable running engine than deal with those problems.  That said, I have a lot more MTH engines than Lionel because I really like the features that MTH provides such as the flashing lights on GE EVO diesel.  

 I  think that battery power is the future of the hobby.  This will alleviate many issues including dirty track and for the 2 rail folks reverse loops and loss of power on switches.  Maybe someone will start making 2-rail engines with batteries that can get around an O-31 curve.  This may revolutionize both the 2 and 3 rail hobbies.  

NH Joe

@AGHRMatt posted:

The inverter was to drive the sounds. Probably not worth the effort, though, given there are DC driven engine sounds now.

Electronics are actually mostly DC. The first thing that happens when AC hits the boards is it is converted to DC. Even an AC control board is likely a dc board controlling a dc relay(etc) with isolated points to pass the AC to an output.

Your TV to trains, more DC innards than AC really.

Time??? No.

If there is anything that it is time for, it should be to pause and do some real R&D on what the HOBBY needs as opposed to what "exclusive" system a manufacturer wants to have for "their" trains (and expensive retrofits for other brands). As a conventional runner, I have no horse in this race, but I'm always left with a reeling head as to how many people here buy these expensive trains whose electronics burn-out within a year with no replacement parts available. 

@Scott R posted:

 I don’t think switching to DCC is the answer, at least not one I am thrilled about.  DCC is now decades old technology.  Time to move on in IMO. 

 

I disagree. I have over 20 DCC locomotives (some are MTH which are DCS/DCC) in O scale and there is NO WAY that I am retrofitting all of those locomotives to another Command Control system. What about the HO guys who have double or triple the amount of locomotives I have? Are you going to tell them they have to retrofit all of their locomotives? I don't understand this logic of "well the system is old so let's throw it away and get a new system." First of all DCC is a STANDARD! That is important. Any manufacturer can make a locomotive and and it will work on any DCC system. Second, it WORKS and it works well for me in O scale. Third, third parties are allowed to develop add ons for the system without fear of a law suit. Yes, DCC has it's cons as do all the Command Control systems. Fourth, DCC isn't that much older than TMCC or DCS.

While I do agree some form of RC Command Control will probably happen in the future what kind of compatibility will there be? As of right now there are no RC standards. If you use a receiver from two different companies you will need two different hand held controllers. And what if one of those companies goes out of business? This is why standards are important, IMHO. My vote for the future is that whatever it is, it follows some sort of standard. Technology is changing faster these days than it did 19 years ago when DCS was invented. In 10 years from now will you be saying the same thing: Let's trash Lionel's Lion/Chief because it is old technology? I hope not.

If retrofitting a locomotive cost $20 I would be more open to it but at approximately $150 each and all the work it takes I just have not interest in it. If others in our hobby or in this thread want to retrofit their locomotives that's their decision but you can count me out.

@artyoung posted:

If there is anything that it is time for, it should be to pause and do some real R&D on what the HOBBY needs as opposed to what "exclusive" system a manufacturer wants to have for "their" trains (and expensive retrofits for other brands). As a conventional runner, I have no horse in this race, but I'm always left with a reeling head as to how many people here buy these expensive trains whose electronics burn-out within a year with no replacement parts available. 

Extremely well said.

@artyoung posted:

If there is anything that it is time for, it should be to pause and do some real R&D on what the HOBBY needs as opposed to what "exclusive" system a manufacturer wants to have for "their" trains (and expensive retrofits for other brands). As a conventional runner, I have no horse in this race, but I'm always left with a reeling head as to how many people here buy these expensive trains whose electronics burn-out within a year with no replacement parts available. 

That's a great sentiment, but who's to "pause" and do real R&D?  Dreaming up a completely new system, and then getting it to be universally accepted is a very tall challenge, one that's unlikely to succeed.  It's great to espouse these ideas, but unless there's some deep pockets ready to actually follow through, that's all they'll ever be, ideas.  There are tons of different schemes already in place for command control, radio battery control, DCC, DCS, and of course TMCC/Legacy.  You have to come up with something with truly universal appeal to even have a shot at a long term future.

Let's be frank here.  The only remaining Big Dog in the arena, Lionel, has absolutely no incentive to standardize on a universal open architecture command system, so they're certainly not going to support the effort.  Even if someone did come forward with such a system, Lionel sure ain't gonna' embrace it.  Since they're by far the biggest dog in the kennel, they're going to have it their way until someone knocks them off their perch.

If such a universal system were to surface, it will take years, and probably decades, if ever, for it to truly capture the majority of the market.  I suspect I will probably not be around to see it, so I'll keep muddling along with TMCC/Legacy, hopefully DCS, and dabble in the radio control battery powered stuff.

Another point that seems to be overlooked, who's going to produce the actual trains that are incorporating this new command system?  O-gauge makers are drying up like puddles in the desert, trying to start an expensive venture like a new manufacturer is not for the faint of heart.

When I come back in my next life, let me know how the story ends.

BTW, I have yet to experience the issue of burnt out electronics with no parts to repair it.  And I'm yet to hear about the new "universal" command system is going to avoid parts obsolescence any more than the current systems do.

@Hudson J1e posted:

I disagree. I have over 20 DCC locomotives (some are MTH which are DCS/DCC) in O scale and there is NO WAY that I am retrofitting all of those locomotives to another Command Control system. What about the HO guys who have double or triple the amount of locomotives I have? Are you going to tell them they have to retrofit all of their locomotives? I don't understand this logic of "well the system is old so let's throw it away and get a new system." First of all DCC is a STANDARD! That is important. Any manufacturer can make a locomotive and and it will work on any DCC system. Second, it WORKS and it works well for me in O scale. Third, third parties are allowed to develop add ons for the system without fear of a law suit. Yes, DCC has it's cons as do all the Command Control systems. Fourth, DCC isn't that much older than TMCC or DCS.

 

Exactly right.  DCC is a standard.  That means that manufacturers agreed and publicly committed to provide basic functionality across all systems and decoders.  Each manufacturer is free to provide additional features and enhancements, but a common set of operations function across all platforms.  Implementations of DCC in the 3 rail world probably aren't as robust as they need to be, but the concept is sound.  And as a counterpoint, Hudson J1e reports that DCC works fine for him, so my statement may not be accurate. 

DCC is an open standard.  Again as Hudson J1e points out, there are no legal roadblocks to innovation.  Lionel's decisions to license TMCC to 3rd parties and to put the TMCC codes into the public domain were sheer genius.  At one fell swoop, they created a much larger market for their system and opened the door to innovation.  IC Controls, Z-Stuff, ERR, Digital Dynamics, TrainAmerica - all of these companies and their products originated from that one brilliant decision.  In that regard, TMCC could be considered a de facto standard.

As I said earlier, it comes down to $$$.  Retrofitting a fleet of locomotives for any system is not a cheap undertaking.  This is precisely why MTH's attempt to convert HO modelers to DCS went over like a lead balloon.  

George

My only thought on new stuff happening is that I hope Lionel dosent rest on its laurels like it did before mth showed up and we had competition in the market. We know what having only 1 top manufacturer in the game can produce.  Nothing new or exciting. 

I agree with those that believe the uncertainty surrounding the future of MTH has made TMCC the default industry standard.  I am happy with the Legacy operating system.  In terms of innovation, I wish Lionel or some aftermarket company would develop a battery kit for 3 rail engines.  I would love to run remove the pick up rollers from my Legacy engines, install a battery and run on 2 rail track.

@T4TT posted:

I agree with those that believe the uncertainty surrounding the future of MTH has made TMCC the default industry standard.  I am happy with the Legacy operating system.  In terms of innovation, I wish Lionel or some aftermarket company would develop a battery kit for 3 rail engines.  I would love to run remove the pick up rollers from my Legacy engines, install a battery and run on 2 rail track.

If you run DC through a rectifier you just get...the same DC, right?  So what prevents you from just buying a 12VDC (or whatever voltage you should use) battery and hooking it up directly to the board where the track roller wires input the AC power?  I would think that wouldn't hurt anything, right?  The hardest part would be getting access to a recharging port so you could recharge somehow (and perhaps isolate the charger from the board). 

@G3750 posted:

Implementations of DCC in the 3 rail world probably aren't as robust as they need to be, but the concept is sound. 

Not sure why you think this.  DCC is very sound in any gauge.  I also run DCC 3R O.  There are several manufactures that make decoders just for O.  In fact I have converted a Lionel conventional locomotive with one such decoder.  It runs worlds better, incredible slow speed, excellent sound, expanded features over Legacy or DCS.  I plan to convert most of my conventional locomotives to DCC.  I can switch my layout between TMCC/Legacy and DCC.  Because it is an open standard it is very robust and feature rich.  I like ESU's decoders as they allow for completely custom sounds.  There's even a forum member that has developed for personal use PCBAs that allow him to keep smoke and remote couplers on his locomotives as he converts them to O.  As for price, the LokSound L decoder is between $100-$130 depending on where you buy it, and that gives you full sound and curse control.  Price wise it bets both ERR and PS3 upgrades.  I wouldn't just write DCC off just because it's 'old'.  I looked more into it because it is old, and still being expanded, so it's got the greatest ability to be the command system that will outlive us all.

That said, I love my Legacy locomotives, and any time I want a new locomotive the first thing I do is see if I can find one from Lionel with Legacy.  But I'm also looking forward to the future in how I can run the trains I have for as long as possible, and at the moment DCC seems to be the best option IMHO.  It can run off rail power or battery power, it can use a traditional cab style controller or radio waves.  You can even completely automate with a computer.

@sinclair posted:

Not sure why you think this.  DCC is very sound in any gauge.  I also run DCC 3R O.  There are several manufactures that make decoders just for O.  In fact I have converted a Lionel conventional locomotive with one such decoder.  It runs worlds better, incredible slow speed, excellent sound, expanded features over Legacy or DCS.  I plan to convert most of my conventional locomotives to DCC.  I can switch my layout between TMCC/Legacy and DCC.  Because it is an open standard it is very robust and feature rich.  I like ESU's decoders as they allow for completely custom sounds.  There's even a forum member that has developed for personal use PCBAs that allow him to keep smoke and remote couplers on his locomotives as he converts them to O.  As for price, the LokSound L decoder is between $100-$130 depending on where you buy it, and that gives you full sound and curse control.  Price wise it bets both ERR and PS3 upgrades.  I wouldn't just write DCC off just because it's 'old'.  I looked more into it because it is old, and still being expanded, so it's got the greatest ability to be the command system that will outlive us all.

That said, I love my Legacy locomotives, and any time I want a new locomotive the first thing I do is see if I can find one from Lionel with Legacy.  But I'm also looking forward to the future in how I can run the trains I have for as long as possible, and at the moment DCC seems to be the best option IMHO.  It can run off rail power or battery power, it can use a traditional cab style controller or radio waves.  You can even completely automate with a computer.

Will the curse control feature work elsewhere?  It might come in handy when dealing with my teenager's messes...

Keep in mind that  E-Unit. PS1, QSI, TMCC, DCS, LEGACY locomotives all have conventional control comonality. 

Therefore the Z4000 along with the remote is my way of control!

I have a robotic "battery powered" vacuum cleaner that finds its charging port.  It seems a battery powered engine on a track could do the same thing when it needs to be charged. So battery powered engines are going to come about hopefully in this lifetime.

  Times have changed.  There are way more can motors in use today than when the whole command game began.  DCC boards weren't able to retro into postwar because the amp draw would cook many of the readily available components of years ago. They couldn't handle some big can motors either.

It's really only semi recently that the mfgs began to step up that capacity. (5ish years)

Lionel was really one of the few that did produce higher amp products for the open frame motor.

Releasing TMCC kinda bit them with the whole K-line theft issue. I bet it would have been an easier court battle for Lionel if they kept closer guard of it from square one. So I "get" why they aren't fans of open source systems or sharing ALL they could with us, before we ask (we will ask, they know that)

Keep in mind that NOT everyone has the capability to modify their locomotives like the FEW electronic experts on this thread. Battery power, RC, DCC, etc are all fine if you have the ability and knowledge to adapt those systems into your existing equipment. Many do not.

@AlanRail posted:

I have a robotic "battery powered" vacuum cleaner that finds its charging port.  It seems a battery powered engine on a track could do the same thing when it needs to be charged. So battery powered engines are going to come about hopefully in this lifetime.

 

I have a bit of a tree hugger streak. Batteries are bad news.  Getting better, but bad news.    Even fossil fuel has a smaller overall carbon footprint than batteries today.   Electric cars aren't helping anyone but L.A. at this point. But it is helping advance the tech and I think we can see the apex of that hill now. So; soon?. Maybe.

Not everybody wants to hack up 150 or so engines to make them all run with DCC either.

@AlanRail posted:

I have a robotic "battery powered" vacuum cleaner that finds its charging port.  It seems a battery powered engine on a track could do the same thing when it needs to be charged.

 

Assuming the turnouts are set properly.

Rusty

There may be a large segment of the market that wishes to keep things simple. We live in a digital world and its refreshing to own something that operates with simplicity. For myself I believe that the existing control technology is more than enough.

I love legacy/tmcc and even dcs.   However i’m jealous of the options and variations dcc has to offer.   I don’t want to see any current systems abandoned but i’m ready for the options of dcc and welcome them.   I think it’s time for standardization.   I think everyone would benefit.  We all have invested more than we’d like to admit and i just want the best possible product/features for it.   Maybe it’s time for the hobbiest to step up and find a way.