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.   

Whatever is developed today...will be obsolete tomorrow.  That's the way electronics is.

You guys seem to want something that will last forever.  DCS (and TMCC) was the end all for 3 decades, now MTH will be gone soon.  I've tried to look at DCC, but the reams of paperwork necessary to get it going (same could be said about DCS, TMCC was fairly simple) just seem to be too much trouble.

Even the BPRC system I used will become obsolete (may already be), until then I'm going to enjoy running my trains on battery power.  RC planes and cars go thru the same cycle, but they simply pop the old unit out and slap the newest generation in, it's really that simple.

I'm glad I went BPRC 5 years ago and never looked back.

@Bob Delbridge posted:

Whatever is developed today...will be obsolete tomorrow.  That's the way electronics is.

 

Depends on what the desired use is.  All my PW trains run 100% and are ridiculously simple and reliable.  No they can't do the fun stuff that the PS locos or TMCC do.  But it is almost undeniably a technology that is NOT obsolete.  And it's 100 years old.

What kind of technology can be invented that will be the next open-fame AC motor and mechanical E-unit?  I don't know, but I bet something someday will be invented.

Perhaps, as someone stated above, conventional operation with minimal bell and whistle sounds, is indeed the "standard" which already includes TMCC, DCS and Legacy locos. The obvious electronic wizards (NO disrespect intended) on this thread have largely customized  their equipment beyond the capabitities of most of us in this fine hobby and that works for them. My point is there is currently no, and likely will be no, universal control system for the O gauge hobby. What works for you as individuals is the bottom line.

@Jeff_the_Coaster_Guy posted:

Depends on what the desired use is. 

What kind of technology can be invented that will be the next open-fame AC motor and mechanical E-unit?  I don't know, but I bet something someday will be invented.

The next step is more efficient brushless can motors with ball bearings.

Rusty

No. How many ways to do we need to make toy trains go in circle? We have too many as it is it. We just need to get on the same sheet of music. Fortunately the NMRA developed a standard to follow. Just because it is old doesn't mean it is not useful anymore. I haven't heard anyone in any scale that uses DCC complain about not having enough control over their trains, sounds or layouts. Really, what is to be gained by coming up with another control option? What do you want to do with your trains that any system on the market doesn't allow? How is powering trains with batteries an improvement or advancement? Having been in RC for a while I can say that all batteries do is give you limited run time, the chore of charging them and replacing them when they fail and you have to add some more equipment to contain them in or add a battery module to your layout. I don't see that as better.

Excellent points, Mike.

One more point: Having tried DCC with my LGB digital locos, that system has it own set of "bugaboos" and is not without unintended consequences!

This is actually one of the fairest battle of the eras I can recall. Tons of good points on both sides.... though I'm not ready to "roll" with Rusty yet, lol.

LGB  Nice but most of the euro techs seem to have incompatibility down to a fine art.

@mike d  Some folk HATE track issues, wiring, and cleaning. Others like outdoor running and rusty dirty track is inevitable unless you go with very pricey metal for rails. They also need much more track as a rule.

So I can see the appeal for some folk. But the rest of us indoor, non-copper fearing Felix Ungar's are content, I agree.  (Felix was a clean freak on tv/film you young whippersnappers).

The situation I encountered with so-called "universal" DCC was this: I was advised to and tried a PIKO DCC system with several LGB digital locos only to find that the LGB proprietary DCC system had several non-mesh issues with the PIKO DCC system. Some functions worked while some cancelled out others! So frustrating, my dealer thankfully gave me a return credit on both the PIKO system and the LGB digital locos. Universal, NOT!

BTW, I am also an indoor "Felix" operator of both conventional standard gauge and conventional LGB and PIKO. I am not averse to voltage-fed copper wire, brass track and tinplate track! 

@Tinplate Art posted:

The situation I encountered with so-called "universal" DCC was this: I was told and I tried a PIKO DCC system with several LGB digital locos only to find that the LGB proprietary DCC system had several non-mesh issues with the PIKO DCC system. Some functions worked while some cancelled out others! So frustrating, my dealer thankfully gave me a return credit on both the PIKO system and the LGB digital locos. Universal, NOT!

In America, the system is very universal.  In Europe, they have a few different standards.  Too bad your exposure to it was with some weird foreign stuff  

Brendan

@Mike D posted:

No. How many ways to do we need to make toy trains go in circle? We have too many as it is it. We just need to get on the same sheet of music. Fortunately the NMRA developed a standard to follow. Just because it is old doesn't mean it is not useful anymore. I haven't heard anyone in any scale that uses DCC complain about not having enough control over their trains, sounds or layouts. Really, what is to be gained by coming up with another control option? What do you want to do with your trains that any system on the market doesn't allow? How is powering trains with batteries an improvement or advancement? Having been in RC for a while I can say that all batteries do is give you limited run time, the chore of charging them and replacing them when they fail and you have to add some more equipment to contain them in or add a battery module to your layout. I don't see that as better.

All batteries do?  You missed one. No more track cleaning. Actually you missed a few. No more voltage drops or dead spots. In fact batteries would almost be like going full circle back to wind up trains, but with sounds and lights and smoke. As for run time, how long ago were you in RC? Batteries have changed a lot and will continue to get better.

@Will posted:

Batteries have changed a lot and will continue to get better.

That's an understatement and a half. And, excluding how beneficial today's battery tech would be on its own, battery tech in the next 10 years is going to make exponential leaps.

All the things @will posted are true, PLUS

- batteries can run the same equipment on 2 or 3 rail interchangeably without issues

-no wiring glitches and birds nests of terminal blocks, block wires, etc. How big is that all by itself? And would allow much greater flexibility to change track plans organically without being tied to insulated blocks, switch locations, etc.

-you would easily be able to power a locomotive  for 10 or so hour long sessions without recharge using the battery tech that will be available in 10 years. Recharging could be as simple as parking on a dedicated spur with a smart charging circuit.

-no more damaging shorts across rails. No more voltage spikes due to flaky source juice.

I suspect that the"electricity through the tracks" was just the best solution available to engineers in the 1930s when contemplating making their small trains run around. I bet if we showed Lionel techs today's batteries back in 1946 they would immediately abandon 18VAC through the tracks. At least, they would have if they were smart. Power distribution through a 2 or 3 rail bus for an application like trains is just so... Last century. 

Edit: another data point: there is a currently active thread where a member can't get his GP7 to run in command mode and there's an utterly ridiculous (unironically serious) discussion about the merits of taping aluminum foil to the underside of elevated tracks to fix something called "ground plane interference". Really? We gotta tape tin foil to random parts of our layouts just to run an engine around in a circle? C'mon, if the benefits of getting rid of all sorts of current through tracks isn't obvious, I don't know what else to say. 

What Jeff the Coaster Guy said!

It's been over a decade since I got out of aircraft RC. I still have a couple of cars. I am fairly certain the batteries are about the same size these days and that run times are still about the same. With electrics getting popular I do know that battery tech did improve but there aren't any planes or cars running for much longer than they were in the past.

There is no perfect solution, each power source has it's pros and cons and I am just not buying the battery is the best way to power trains mantra just yet. I am sure battery tech will improve. Only time will tell if it gets to the point where it is practical to power a layout. As far as tracking cleaning goes, sorry, that isn't going away. Wheels don't get traction on oily/greasy track and if you are going to use track sections to charge batteries then your track has to be clean.

@Mike D: I haven't operated a large layout ever, but my understanding about track cleaning was that it's usually done to reduce problems with conductivity between pickups, ground wheels and track,  and not usually because of a loss of traction (save for the random times you accidentally spill some oil on the rails). So batteries would significantly reduce time associated with cleaning tracks.  Tracks could be completely rusted and still work fine (maybe opens up more chances for modeling old Rusty yards and spurs that still can be used?)

And I'm not an RC person, but I do have to follow tech somewhat and I've spent some time with battery manufacturers. Your assertion that batteriy capacities haven't significantly changed in the past 10 years is simply incorrect. Maybe RC had been slow to adopt new technologies (and given the content of this thread, not surprising), but believe me batteries are worlds different today.

A 2000 Mah, 9.6v, NiMh battery gives me 2.5 hours of run time. Takes 2 hours to recharge at 1A/hr. Been over 5 years now and None of the 18 battery powered engines I own have quit working and no batteries have needed replacing.

I’ve gone close to 9 months without recharging some of the batteries and they still had enough juice to run for 10-15 minutes. I keep a charge log of when each engine goes on the charger, at one time I was running trains daily so I had to charge them frequently, past 2 years not as much (other hobby got in the way).

I’d trade having to charge a battery any day over the troubles I had with DCS and TMCC (and reading the Bible’s on them) and I honestly didn’t have anywhere near the issues some of you guys have had.

The Deltang system I use doesn’t have smoke or sound, but the BLueRail units I was using had sound. It came out of my Ipad but it was there. Plus, with the help of Bob Walker, I was able to install a Bluetooth speaker in all 3 of the engines that had the BlueRail board install. Made the sound a lot louder and it came out of the engine vice the Ipad. There’s some YouTube videos showing the Weaver RS3 and Williams E7 that had them installed. Also put it in a Bachmann G scale 4-6-0 Annie.

 The new BlueRail/DCC boards have sound, not sure about smoke and are rated for higher amperage than the ones I have.

Jeff, I still clean my track, although not nearly as often, maybe once/year. I do try to clean the wheels on the engines and rolling stock more often.  Engines are easy, just put them upside down in a cradle, turn on the transmitter, then receiver, and start cleaning.

Jeff, I did not assert that batteries haven't improved in the last decade. I actually stated that I know it has improved. I am just not seeing the significant change you assert has occurred during that time. Batteries and battery packs are basically still the same size and have similar capacities. I am an Avionics Tech. I deal with batteries regularly. Believe me when I say I haven't seen any real change in aviation batteries in the 26 years I have been doing this. Weight is critical in an airframe. If there was a way to get a one pound battery to do what a 30 pound battery can you better believe those 30 pounders would be gone in a flash. If you look at a power tool battery pack today, it is about 2/3 the size of a pack from a decade ago and it only lasts a little longer under use before it requires a recharge. I don't see that as significant. The only way I am going to run a multiple powered unit consist with a few dozen cars in tow with today's batteries is if I place a Schnabel behind the locos with an Optima yellow top on it. Not really practical. The OP asked if it is time for a new way. I stand behind my original statement. No. You are speculating about what batteries may like a decade from now. While you may be correct and batteries may be advanced enough later to be practical for trains, that simply isn't the case now. I get the feeling that you and Will are seeing me as closed minded or stuck in the past. That is not the case. If battery tech improves enough to be practical at some time in the future, I am game. Another issue is that the control boards are going to have to get smaller also to allow a battery of sufficient capacity to fit. The space available for batteries right now is only enough for a 9V.

@Tinplate Art posted:

BTW, I am also an indoor "Felix" operator of both conventional standard gauge and conventional LGB and PIKO. I am not averse to voltage-fed copper wire, brass track and tinplate track! 

I wouldn't be able to resist pulling that "corded" wood train if it was near enough 😂

Corded...pull.

Corded...wood.

Corded...electric

I keep pitching um, and You keep missin' um.Pay attention Son.

I build up to Oscar level anymore really, but do clean like Felix once able. It used to be easier.  I was being dramatic to contrast, not trying to poke anything but dimples into a smile

On the other hand, I am amazed at the slender, long-life Lithium battery in my 2014 Samsung Galaxy S5 cellphone which has been recharged thousands of times, has been dropped maybe half a dozen times and still provides needed power to my device. True, we are talking MA here and not AMPS, but I am impressed with the resilience and small size of this Lithium battery. What about the ability of a sport model Tesla to accelerate to 150 mph in a matter of seconds? How many pounds of batteries are necessary to perform such torque? Have these not gotten smaller, lighter and more powerful for their use in such high performance vehicles?

Priced a Tesla lately?

Also, batteries are made of substances which are not easy to get, refine, put together, or dispose.  Also many can cause cancer.  

Batteries and capacitors are nowhete where they need to be in terms of costs.  

Nevertheless, battery technology has advanced and has been more commonly and successfully used among G gaugers combined with RC. Interestingly, cosmologists have learned that Lithium was formed third after the elements Hydrogen and Helium after the Big Bang, hence their position in the Periodic Table. Hopefully, used Lithium batteries can be recycled so as to reduce pollution.

This (new control system, including battery operation) WILL happen.  It's only dependent on battery technology offering safe, recyclable, rechargeable packs of enough capacity. The 2.0 amp (2000 mAh) average draw of a locomotive means today's RC packs  would run your train for up to an hour.   2000 mAh might be enough already- now to  find the space for them in a locomotive and/or tender already crowded w/ circuit boards!   

The radio control (2.4 gHz) technology is there already, used in RC cars, boats and planes.  With that will come the smaller hand held controllers (the Lion Chief ones already exist as do the larger Legacy and CAB-1).

So, what is the barrier to the widespread launching of this "dead rail" technology??  As always- "the market".  IF the two major manufacturers' sales totaled something like $200 million a year, is/was that enough of a market to support what will be for a time a second product line?   And- we cannot forget that the vast majority of model train sales is in HO and N- and today's batteries in a suitable size to those do not offer enough capacity, I don't believe.

What will happen (I think) is that if/ when the technology is released, WE (those in O using powered rail) will simply adopt it - after all powered rail COULD e a part of the new system, used for switches or recharging).  And something has to power our lighting and accessories.

All will be OK in time.

Give me an ozone belching ZW...works every time....

You all may want to consider the NEW "T.I.S." RC boards. Very simple and almost bullet proof.  

http://lbrenterprisesllc.homes...m/UP-GRADE-PAGE.html

Dave

1. I like the BlueRailDCC design. I liked it when word came out a few years back that Bachmann was going to be integrating it into their trains. 

2. For those who do not like Battery discharge/recharge times. It would be a simple matter to keep "live" tracks but have it feed a battery charging circuit instead of directly providing power. 

3. The last time I checked, there is no patents on how the motors/lights/speakers/etc are connected to either DCS or Lionel Command-Control-Of-The-Month systems. Opportunity for someone to come up with Plug and Play Bluetooth receivers of track or battery power designs. 

@Mike D posted:

Jeff, I did not assert that batteries haven't improved in the last decade. I actually stated that I know it has improved. I am just not seeing the significant change you assert has occurred during that time. Batteries and battery packs are basically still the same size and have similar capacities. I am an Avionics Tech. I deal with batteries regularly. Believe me when I say I haven't seen any real change in aviation batteries in the 26 years I have been doing this. Weight is critical in an airframe. If there was a way to get a one pound battery to do what a 30 pound battery can you better believe those 30 pounders would be gone in a flash. If you look at a power tool battery pack today, it is about 2/3 the size of a pack from a decade ago and it only lasts a little longer under use before it requires a recharge. I don't see that as significant. The only way I am going to run a multiple powered unit consist with a few dozen cars in tow with today's batteries is if I place a Schnabel behind the locos with an Optima yellow top on it. Not really practical. The OP asked if it is time for a new way. I stand behind my original statement. No. You are speculating about what batteries may like a decade from now. While you may be correct and batteries may be advanced enough later to be practical for trains, that simply isn't the case now. I get the feeling that you and Will are seeing me as closed minded or stuck in the past. That is not the case. If battery tech improves enough to be practical at some time in the future, I am game. Another issue is that the control boards are going to have to get smaller also to allow a battery of sufficient capacity to fit. The space available for batteries right now is only enough for a 9V.

I yield the area of battery expertise to you and Jeff. I only responded to your original post which was " all batteries do is give you limited run time, the chore of charging them and replacing them when they fail." I thought I'd point out the positives. As for track cleaning, occasional wiping for traction vs. regular cleaning for conductivity? Not really comparable.

I think the big positives that Jeff pointed out are eliminating all that wiring under the layout and the ability to change track layout easily. That alone is a game changer. Not to mention transformers. That's a lot of money saved. Think of Christmas and floor loops with no wire.

Certainly if we can fly planes with batteries, which require small, light batteries, O gauge trains should be no problem. I agree with Mike Wyatt, that this is driven more by market than anything else. The market just isn't big enough to underwrite new technologies. One of the positives of MTH closing up is it may give Lionel, or some other start up the time and freedom to work on this. Just pure speculation.

BlueRailDCC has a 3 A continuous / 5 A max board that can be powered with AC or DC track power or battery for O and S gauge trains.

@Greg Nagy posted:

 

2. For those who do not like Battery discharge/recharge times. It would be a simple matter to keep "live" tracks but have it feed a battery charging circuit instead of directly providing power. 

 

 

That is exactly what I do in my HO gauge battery powered Bluerail locos.  Bluerail boards are in the Bachmann locos.  The early Bluerail boards were bluetooth only.  I have one of the new DCC ones on order.  I am not sure if they require a DCC decoder to work.  If so, that makes the cost go up, especially if you want sound.  The Bluerail boards are already $95+  

Brendan

@Tinplate Art posted:

On the other hand, I am amazed at the slender, long-life Lithium battery in my 2014 Samsung Galaxy S5 cellphone which has been recharged thousands of times, has been dropped maybe half a dozen times and still provides needed power to my device. True, we are talking MA here and not AMPS, but I am impressed with the resilience and small size of this Lithium battery. What about the ability of a sport model Tesla to accelerate to 150 mph in a matter of seconds? How many pounds of batteries are necessary to perform such torque? Have these not gotten smaller, lighter and more powerful for their use in such high performance vehicles?

A 85kWh Tesla Battery weighs 1200 pounds and contains 7104 Lithium-ion battery cells in 16 modules wired in series.

Rusty

WOWSA! That be a heavy and heavy duty power source! Also pricey I am sure! Does that Tesla battery require a cooling system? Fans?

For what it's worth, all LiPo batteries sold for R/C car, boat and airplane usage state "do not charge unattended." Small but not zero chance of a fire.  This is true with wall AC systems too, for electrical fires, but most of us don't want to live without light, heat, A/C, refrigerator, coffee maker, etc. .

I think it will be many decades, if not longer, before battery powered O gauge trains are produced by Lionel or whoever is still around in 2050.  This is still a tinkerer's approach to the hobby, or less than 1% of all hobbyists, if you consider a train around the tree person a hobbyist, and I do.  So have fun, but don't expect it to be mainstream, for many reasons.

As much as I enjoy three rail, for the look itself and the fine associated memories, I can see no reason we haven't switched to all battery. It would eliminate dead spots, and one could finally crawl over switches.

The battery pack could fit in the tender, or a second tender, which is prototypical on large steam power. How many of us run trains for hours and hours anyway? What do you all think?

RTR off-the-shelf battery powered O gauge trains likely will not be a reality anytime soon. Custom modified by end-user will probably be the norm for the near future. There are many battery/RC options (mostly for G scale trains) which can be adapted by talented and creative electronic folks in O gauge.

I am afraid we are building a tower of babble with so many standards that it will be difficult to take your trains to a friends house and clubs will have to be established that are dedicated to a specific control system. I have over 100 locomotives and most are stuffed with electronics particularly steam locos. No possible way to add a battery so assuming the new tech would be much smaller in order to make room for a battery that means I would have to rip out thousands of dollars worth of control systems to update my fleet. If you have five or ten locos great you can change systems every year. Not to forget that batteries have a shelf life so are we going to change them every five or so years and pray they don't leak.   All this in the face of a diminishing market shall we divide that market more ?         j 

@Atlas O dad posted:

As much as I enjoy three rail, for the look itself and the fine associated memories, I can see no reason we haven't switched to all battery. It would eliminate dead spots, and one could finally crawl over switches.

The battery pack could fit in the tender, or a second tender, which is prototypical on large steam power. How many of us run trains for hours and hours anyway? What do you all think?

Just curious.  Are you an operator?  Or a loop runner?

During operating sessions I have gone over an hour with one engine switching cars in/out of sidings from the yard. Most switches were powered with the controls trackside (Z-1000s back then).  Most uncoupling was done by electromagnets, but we could switch to kadees.  I'm building my current layout the same way, so there are already wires everywhere.

So I guess I'm asking during operating sessions how do you handle lots of switching movements?  All manually?

Thanks.

@Atlas O dad posted:

As much as I enjoy three rail, for the look itself and the fine associated memories, I can see no reason we haven't switched to all battery. It would eliminate dead spots, and one could finally crawl over switches.

The battery pack could fit in the tender, or a second tender, which is prototypical on large steam power. How many of us run trains for hours and hours anyway? What do you all think?

It would also eliminate the need for the center rail, except for prewar and postwar and other vintage operators ( Which I guess will include the contemporary collectors of today) The only advantage to the third rail was wiring.

@Jeff_the_Coaster_Guy posted:

 

I suspect that the"electricity through the tracks" was just the best solution available to engineers in the 1930s when contemplating making their small trains run around. I bet if we showed Lionel techs today's batteries back in 1946 they would immediately abandon 18VAC through the tracks. At least, they would have if they were smart. Power distribution through a 2 or 3 rail bus for an application like trains is just so... Last century. 

 

Actually, if I remember correctly, the original product Joshua Cowan Lionel produced in 1900 was a flat car with a battery powered motor, interestingly enough.  I vaguely recall he did that because in 1900 a lot of people still did not have electric service in their houses so this made sense. 

It was initially a wooden gondola which utilized an actual open cheese box for the body and it was mounted on a cast iron frame with a motor. Later versions had metal gondola bodies. It was intended as a movable display for merchant's windows and it was powered by early dry cell batteries.

Cowen initially even offered equipment for wet cell batteries which required mixing concentrated sulfuric acid with water! YIKES!

Battery technology is rapidly advancing, there are a bunch of improvements to battery technology that are well beyond the LiPo technology that are being developed that will increase the power /weight of batteries and also decrease the charging times. Take a look at cordless tools and the difference these days is staggering, they have replaced a lot of corded tools even among pros, because they can do the job. Run out of juice? Swap out the battery pack while the current one charges. With cars, the distance they can go is longer and longer and charging times have dropped, there are cars coming on the market that aren't exotics that may have a range of 300 miles and be able to get an 80% charge in 15 minutes (there also are claims of batteries that can go 300 miles and be swapped out in 90 seconds, would be kind  of like swapping a blue Rhino propane tank, though I put that with a 200 mph carb back in the 1970s, until it actually hits the market). 

I haven't looked at the RC world, I don't know if the batteries they have there now are better than they were 10 years ago, but the answer to that may be that they don't have much of a need for higher density batteries, or the people who provide them don't have any reason to change, not the first time if that is true. Before Tesla came out with his car, the US auto industry was claiming electric cars were not practical, that they would be nothing more than a golf cart, until suddenly someone showed they were either deluded or outright lying *shrug*). FYI Tesla is no longer an expensive play toy, they are selling 500,000 cars a year in the US, that is not a small amount. 

And if the battery is easily swapped out, might make running trains more realistic, if you had a battery the size of an SD memory card you plug into a slot on the engine or tender, if an engine's battery is running down, means you would have to pull the train over, swap the battery with a charged one, and go one, simulating a water stop on a steam engine or perhaps a planned stop.

The real question is will the makers of trains switch over to battery technology? That is a million dollar question, there is no reason you can't  integrate battery technology with control technology like DCS, DCC or Legacy or Lionchief, but it depends on whether they see a market for it and it is worth switching, will they sell enough to justify the cost of switching power, and I don't have an answer for it.  It doesn't mean powered rails will go away, some will be happy the same way they are with conventional control today, but it could eventually be where engines will be dual power the way they are conventional/cc today. 

Let us not ignore air powered track switches.  John

Those very early trains built by JLC used battery power, but the batteries were external from the train and still connected to the track. In the days before rural electrification, many household things were powered by a setup of batteries and a small generator kept in the basement or a shed outside the house -- battery power is far from new, but the high power density of modern batteries is largely a 21st century development.

@Will posted:

I think the big positives that Jeff pointed out are eliminating all that wiring under the layout and the ability to change track layout easily. That alone is a game changer. Not to mention transformers. That's a lot of money saved. Think of Christmas and floor loops with no wire.

Just to point out that I don't do "all that wiring" right now.   Legacy-Lite and DCS on the rails, and LionChief+ or DCS in the locos, with two wires to the tracks (two power drops due to resistance).  I am powering my FasTrack turnouts in command control - no control wires, and they take power from the constant voltage on the rails.

This part of the future is already here!

One still needs enough transformer power to run everything, and power blocks are advised for large layouts.  I have two CW80s ganged together for my small layout, and the power roll-back when a short happens works very well.

But its not yet cheap, the command control turnouts are expensive, and then there is the cost of the command control systems - a one-time purchase so far.

I appreciate the earlier comment that we already have an open standard when Lionel released the TMCC codes.

There is an example from computer processors:  the original PCs had 8-bit processors, and now we are at 64-bit processors with hyperthreading and all sorts of cool internal stuff.   You would be amazed at the gymnastics Intel designers have gone through to allow a 64 bit processor to understand and run 8-bit instructions internally.   So the point is, an open standard, even if designed years ago (Intel from the 1970s) , can be maintained through many evolutions into the future.  But, this is expensive: Intel has deep pockets and can support dozens of engineers working for years to develop multiple generations of technology- beyond Lionel's reach to do quickly (a long delay between TMCC and Legacy).  

I am not saying TMCC is the "gold" standard.  Just pointing out that we already have some of the pieces of these desired future systems right now.

The battery issue is interesting:  One idea I find intriguing is to have battery powered locos that have 3-rail pickups and can recharge when running thru or standing on 3-rail track, otherwise 2-rail battery power for the rest of the layout.

I am surprised and delighted with the current level of interest in new R/C systems and battery power. For the past few years I have been working with companies who have introduced new R/C products and have found them to be fine additions. One of these is the new BlueRailDCC product which is quite unique and performs well. On the subject of battery power, I have been very active and if recalled, I built the first battery powered LionChief. My articles on battery power in the December 2016 OGRR and the April 2020 LCCA magazine have drawn a lot of attention. Finally, for Android users, there is a system out there that I have used.

DCC, TMCC, and DCS are all a step up from the legacy control systems.

The next step after DCC, TMCC, and DCS requires a more sophisticated control system with a 2-way radio link, specifically a mesh system so multi-point control is possible.

I have been working on this concept for a couple of years and am almost ready to release the products. I know many will not be interested, but in order to go to the next level, new hardware is required. The goal is as prototypical as possible, including realistic control interface with a simulated locomotive cab; prototypical, real-world motion physics; and interface to a central control system.

The design goals include operation from track power including AC, DC, and DCC, or power from an on-board battery. Automatic battery recharge will be added in the future. Mixing of trains using legacy power and control with my system is allowed so investment in existing hardware is not lost.

Some additional details are available on my website, www.scaledautomation.com.

My business is a startup with limited resources so all feedback is welcome.

Based on my experience with other rechargeable battery devices, I'm not ready to go that route with my trains.  What I would like to see is "keep alive" circuitry (like non-flickering car lighting circuits but more powerful for motive power) assuming that reliable capacitors (or other components/circuits that could do the same job) can be found that will have a long service life. 

I like the direct communication of Lion Chief from the remote to the locomotive without an intermediate device putting a signal into the track.  I feel a robust, full-featured (including electro-coupler control) direct communication system would make an attractive alternative to all the current indirect systems that talk to the locomotives through the track.  By full featured, I do not mean a remote that also operates switches and accessories and other miscellaneous functions outside of locomotive/train operation functions.  I don't feel the need for that.  

@Landsteiner posted:

For what it's worth, all LiPo batteries sold for R/C car, boat and airplane usage state "do not charge unattended." Small but not zero chance of a fire. 

I also fly small unmanned aircraft systems (drones), both quadcopters and fixed wing, and we have had three LiPo fires among our small group since I joined about two years ago, two while charging and one in the air.  The one that failed in the air caused a small brush fire where it crashed, but we had plenty of fire extinguishers (keep several handy if you use these batteries).  I keep my LiPo batteries in a fire safe bag when not using (Amazon has several types-don't go cheap).

I own three different battery operated aircraft and each one has its own proprietary (and expensive) battery*.  If you are looking for standardization, include batteries.

*Mostly due to the need for proper weight and balance, not really an issue with a model train.

I’ve enjoyed and appreciated the many perspectives offered in this thread.  What is clear to me is that many aspects of a new way to control and power our trains are already here, to include battery power.  I still can’t help but to wonder how the market, and the technologies, will evolve with many thousands of MTH engines out there now stranded with current DCS technology.  If DCS lives on in some form it will necessarily be an aftermarket retrofit, but that market is ripe to be addressed by other innovators as well.    

I think an aspect that hasn’t been emphasized is the fact that many different control and power options can happily co-exist on a layout.  Battery power and conventional or DCS/Legacy can all be operated at the same time on the same rails.  Introduction of new technologies does not mean a necessary immediate retrofit of an entire fleet.  I also do think that the expense will scare hobbyists away from new technologies.  The same was said about DCC in the HO communities 20 years ago, yet DCC thrived. 

Regardless of the exact approach, some key features will be important to me:

1. A User interface that is intuitive, adaptable, and upgradable. Controlling trains via an app on a device fits that bill for me.  Its been 15 years since I tried DCC.  While I understand its benefits when it comes to features and commonality, I hated the user interface.  I have no interest in programming CVs or using function buttons to operate features.  IMO, the DCS wifi app is so much more intuitive and fun to operate.
2. Some form of RF direct interface to control the engine, rather than sending signals through the rails.
3. Option to transition to battery power rather power my engines through the rails.

Interesting that 2. And 3. would allow elimination of the center rail. I grew up with AF trains and loathed Lionel for what I considered the “toylike” 3-rail track.  Ironically, now in my late 50’s, I’m all in with the endearing nostalgia of O-scale 3-rail trains.  Even with battery power I’d want to keep the third rail!

@Jeff_the_Coaster_Guy posted:

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

It's called "Load Compensation" by ESU, and yes, it is active in AC conventional operation as well.

As for battery powered trains, I have newer LEGO trains and they are all battery only.  I hate it, so they almost never get run.  Taking batteries in and out, keeping them charged, and limited run time have all been enough for me to never accept that on my O gauge trains.  The day they stop selling track powered locomotives is the day I stop buying trains in this gauge.

When I can run sound, smoke, whistle smoke, etc. and still have reasonable run-times, I'll consider battery power.  Yes, they also have to have convenient recharging.  Truthfully, keeping track power at least on a siding would be good, use that to recharge the locomotive.

Just more toxic materials which ultimately end up in a landfill.  Which necessitates another recycle program and a core charge.     My nephew now in engineering school is preaching that all batteries must have a return value to keep them out of landfills.  Not sure that I disagree.                   j

The hidden price of electric cars.

There are LRT trainsets which are hybirds.  Most of the time they run off the overhead.  But sometimes they run on trackage without an overhrad wire.  So they have rechargeable batteries to get over the gap, charged while under the wirr...

Our overhead is the third rail.  How about a small battery to get the train over rough spots using stored in the locomotives.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

There are LRT trainsets which are hybirds.  Most of the time they run off the overhead.  But sometimes they run on trackage without an overhrad wire.  So they have rechargeable batteries to get over the gap, charged while under the wirr...

Our overhead is the third rail.  How about a small battery to get the train over rough spots using stored in the locomotives.

 

That already exists in the form of super capacitors used as "keep alives" for both sound and motor power.  Batteries have also been used to keep sounds from cutting out over dirty track or switches.

Brendan

Three-railers aren't the only O scalers experimenting with battery power; two-railers are doing it, too. The three-rail guys share much the same concerns. Also, unlike three-railers, they can't run analog and many DCC locomotives on the same track at the same time.

Plus, there's another factor: many of them would like to set up outdoor trackage, particularly those lacking the wide open spaces needed for articulated steam locomotives and full-length heavyweight and streamlined equipment.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

The hidden price of electric cars.

Along with the carbon footprint of generating all the electricity needed to charge batteries.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

George

Alas, everything in life is a tradeoff or compromise. We make choices and deal with the consequences, both negative and positive.

I do not consider battery power or radio controlled trains new technology.  I had tube radio controlled and battery powered boat in the 1950s.  Of course there were radio controlled planes too.  There was no need to have radio controlled or battery operated trains then as they were operated in the basement.  The radios are smaller and the batteries have more capacity now but not new control technology.

Lets get more creative.

Charlie

@Choo Choo Charlie posted:

Lets get more creative.

Plasma beam control?  Time travel?  Maybe you could give a hint of what you'd consider "more creative"?

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Plasma beam control?  Time travel?  Maybe you could give a hint of what you'd consider "more creative"?

Miss H. Granger's wand?

George, we don't want to vaporize them, just control them!  Put away the Phasers!

"Is there a new way to control our trains?"

Yes, and it works really well with no learning curve. I used this new method just yesterday, - I pulled and pushed the ZW's levers with my left hand and instead of my right. The trains ran great !

Big no-go for me on the batteries as a required power source, for many of the reasons already covered.

I'm mostly a command runner, though I do have conventional trains I run as well.

For Lionel TMCC/Legacy, I've always been fine with the optional battery, as for command operation, it doesn't affect much.  It doesn't hinder operation in any meaningful way (to me) if the battery is not there.  The only modern Lionel engine I own that has ever had a 9v battery installed was the Century Club GG1, and only because Lionel decided to install one at the factory for some reason.  As soon as I learned that, it was removed.

For MTH, I don't recall them highly advertising the fact that there was a battery inside required for successful operation in the early days of PS1.  I'm sure it was always covered in the manuals, but it was probably a while before those first batteries came to start to no longer be chargeable and needed replacement.  Limited catalogs back then certainly did not have a rechargeable 9v battery shown in the accessories section of the catalog.  And it was later in PS2 when such a concept as the external charging jack came about so you could charge without being on the rails or opening up the engine to remove the battery and charge it with a separate charger.

I accepted the battery as a necessary evil once I knew about it for the MTH trains, as I felt the value of play  with DCS (or even PS1 - I still love some of the specific sound effect sequences built into things like the Shay) was enough of a benefit that tolerating the battery (knowing it would eventually need replacement or a BCR) was worth it.  I don't feel it's a coincidence that MTH (finally!) migrated away from the battery with PS3.  (nor is it a coincidence that the BCR units that preceded PS3 became so popular as a replacement for the rechargeable batteries for MTH trains).  A large percentage of the public who bought these trains saw the battery as a big negative.

Without digging too deep into the technical differences in amp-hours, charge times, etc, it seems to be pretty clear that batteries can be readily implemented for anything that is just electronics with a bunch of relatively low power draw processors and such processing all the 0s and 1s.  (cell phones, tablets, etc - though obviously there are also analog RF and display circuits involved, but not any/many motors).  Anything producing enough power to provide mechanical motion (at least where there is significant weight and therefore some torque required) seems to be either limited in run time per charging session  (RC car examples provided) or extremely expensive to produce the technology (Tesla example).  I don't want my trains to increase in cost proportionally the way the cost of a Tesla compares vs. a Chevy or a Ford . 

Seeing the reference to a battery the size of an SD memory card seems extremely ambitious to have enough power to move a train.   I'm just thinking out loud here about the number mentioned for the Tesla battery.  It looks like a Tesla weighs between 4000 and 6000 pounds (depending on model) with the ~1000 pound battery.  Scale that percentage to an O Gauge engine weight.  Not likely to ever fit in the size of an SD card.

I know technology evolves, but I've seen too many "gotchas" with various battery tech over the years to get excited for batteries anywhere they are not necessitated (necessary for things like cell phones, cameras or portable radios, of course).  Years ago it was the Ni-Cad "memory" effect (probably made worse with "quick chargers" (quick back then was 5 hours instead of 15).  Then more recently (maybe even current) for NiMH batteries, there comes a time when they just no longer like to be charged.  I use some digital cameras that (thankfully) use standard AA size batteries, but I've had many AA batteries that just eventually give out and no longer play nice in the battery charger.  Charger decides that there is something it doesn't like about the battery and it won't even start the charge.  Not the end of the world since it's standard AAs that are readily replaceable, but still not optimal.  (and I'm pretty sure there is no way I've exceeded the advertised number of recharging cycles).

So if O Gauge trains ever come about that use a primary power source of a battery instead of the rails, I will not be buying, no matter how cool the train itself may be.

-Dave

Electronics in and of itself has provided enormous benefits to model railroading. It has offered countless improvements for engine control, accessory animation and layout track control. The question of battery powered engines is a separate issue. Battery powered engines with current battery technology is a reality, but not something that is universally acceptable. Each modeler should use their own judgement as to what operating and power mode they prefer based on the best available information.

Just saw the comment about airplane batteries on page 2.  Yep, not much has changed in aircraft batteries.  We are still using 1930s technology, because FAA approval is required.

A few pilots are using something called "EarthX" - I have no idea what that is, but it is significantly lighter than the lead-acid approved batteries.

We are still using ignition systems off of Case tractors, even though Case is no longer building tractors.  And don't even ask about fuel injection.  I hate hot starts.

Back to trains - I have been proven wrong already, so I will do it again: I predict that an inexpensive R/C battery powered toy train will be available in quantity by 2025.  It will revolutionize 3-rail.

The following is, of course, an opinion:

While a replacement electronic control system will certainly be eventually required when DCS, or key portions of it, are no longer supported, this option will certainly not be feasible for those people with more limited means, primarily financial.  Hence, I think in the future there will be a lot of non-working locomotives, primarily Railking, that will be available economically, many if not most of which will have defective [ or non-defective but mis-programmed, etc ] electronics.  Running on "conventional " will not be possible for many of these -- but what would be possible would be to strip out all the electronics, leaving just the DC can motors to be wired in series or parallel.

Now, feeding DC onto the track will give the operator direction and throttle control.  Horn and whistle would be a fixed 'sound block' or two.  Yes, one would have to have some electrical block control for multi-train operation, but an alternate-action on-off pushbutton discreetly mounted on each locomotive would enable it to be isolated independently.  The biggest "problem" would be lights, but developing a few standard packages [ diodes, resistors, zeners ] for the different lighting voltages sounds doable without anything expensive or proprietary -- true, it wouldn't be constant lighting, but that's OK under the circumstances. 

A person could build a pretty nice and above all economical model railroad -- as distinct from the current [ hah ! ] standard for a toy train layout -- using the above approach.

It's still a great time to be in 0 gauge !

Best, SZ

That sounds like standard 2-rail.  Additionally, you could pitch the E-unit and use DC for reversing.  Tried and true - I still use it.

I am willing to go battery/RC on one locomotive - I do not run much; just enough to make sure my locomotives work smoothly.  I am not rushing in . . .