Why are we running our trains with outdated technology?

I am sure we are all bored with this topic, but just curious, as a person running outdated technology, is there a post somewhere that could enlighten people like me that this is what is required to update? Do I need a masters degree in electrical engineering to tackle a project like that? Will we have to live on hot dogs for a few months to afford this stuff? How bout what does this new stuff do except let you walk around your layout with a clicker? Sorry remote control.  Heck what do I know, I clean track for a living!

Did it ever occur to anyone that a lot of people would like to do some updating but have not got the slightest idea who to talk to, or where to start? Or would a topic like that just be too boring.

We do need to be updated.  But updating should include more user friendly set up and controls.  After setting up my big boy as my first venture into legency control, I realized that it should be a lot easy.  The legency reminds me of my first handheld cell phone, the motorola brick. After looking at pictures legency is bigger. 

My son is a electircal engineering working for the air force, and I was talking to him about doing some things for model railroading but he thought the market would be to small. That could be the reason not much is happening. I was hoping for a drone to fly over the layout. 

I’m curious as to what would define the most updated technology in O Gauge?

Is there a difference between radio control and wifi?

If so…

Has there ever been a completely wireless (except for power to the tracks) radio control system for O Gauge?

Would a wifi system offer the best options?

Which would constitute the most updated technology for prototypical operation?

Would a wifi or radio control still allow manufacturers to screw up the simplicity with proprietary operating programs?

TinMan and rboater

You fellas are onto something.

It does take awhile for the current technology -especially USAF to trickle down to us.

Yep we are a small market but consider what Neil Young has done for the hobby and he is also a "Tech-no" geekish guy who has propelled the hobby and still does. 

Overall I think we are in good hands.

User friendlyness and ease of operation are key factors as well as price that is why I believe Lion Chief and Lion Chief+ came on like gang busters !!!

Tin Man I like what you said at the end of your post. I consider myself a "Joe Average" hobbiest who wants it simple too. I DO appreciate the "high end" electrical fellas as they have saved me from making serious mistakes, in addition when you post questions on this FORUM these same people will walk you through whatever issue you have step by step in very easy term. I am eternally gratfull for them all as they are to a man very generous with their time and help!!

Hang in there!!

We all have budgets to justify to the "WFO"(wife financial officer) no matter what level of our incomes.

Frank Sinatra and Mandy Pitankin both talk about it in their videos!! Mandy's story was the funniest and one we ALL can relate too

Tinman, first you need to decide Lionels TMCC/Legacy or MTH's DCS system?

1) Lionel buy a Cab-1L system or the 990 Legacy system

2) MTH buy the DCS TIU and Remote

Both have pretty detailed setup directions. Plus their websites cover a lot.

With DCS you probably should also by Barrys book

Lionel had one in the early postwar period. Can't remember what it was called off the top of my head, but if I remember there were some patent issues with it.

As for the rest of the question, Lionel has one wire that goes to the track with the other signal coming via the air and ground wires in the room or on the layout. DCS passes the signal via the layout power wires. Not sure if either meets your definition of wireless or not.

The current talk about WiFi is pretty much a way to have a Computer  iPad, iPhone or Android device be able to talk to the command base just like your CAB-2 or DCS controller do now, the signal to the engine will still be delivered to the engine via your base. There is no direct communication via WiFi to the engine

Who was it that the voice command setup to run a train simply by speaking into a microphone?

Also, speaking of radio control and cutting edge technology, check out the tin plate forum and see a radio controlled clockwork locomotive! 

That was a third party item, not sure who it was. They come up on eBay from time to time. Everyone says they where not that great.

With the iPhone (iOS) voice integration it may not be that far of a leap to make iCab voice compatible. 

"Siri,  Blow my whistle"

"Siri, start up my Big Boy"

"Siri,  Blow my whistle"

"Siri, start up my Big Boy"

Are we still talking about toy trains?

You nailed it! I don't care about another persons trains either. The real reason for this thread is some just like to toot their own horn on how great their trains are compared to others. Am I allowed to say this??

I agree, with todays technology there should be better options in these engine that would require minimum change to anyones layout, without huge increases in price.  As I noted on the thread recently, "what do you think of Lionel's new catalog", I want to see easier/better technology in these engines without have to add this piece of track, with this power cable and with this wifi module.  I will probably never use LCS, but Ive got it in my engines like it or not just in case. LOL

Lets face it, welcome to capitalism at its best.  I can't invent the next thing so I should probably keep quiet.  However, wish I could be that 3rd party who invents the next best thing, at least to push Lionel along like MTH did. Then Lionel would probably buy me out and we would be right back where we started.  Capitalism at it's best.

I still love the hobby, just a quick rant.

Beau

and everyone

As you said if it were not for MTH , Lionel might have been just a memory.

This is where capitalism shines, by sitting on past accomplishments.

I'll always remember the FORD motor company that producded same old same old cars crappy quality that rusted out.

THEN come the Japanese, and Germans with quality cars

THEN Ford gets Jackie Stewart(Racing car driver) and they started carry about quality, now look what's going on. American cars are pretty darn good never thought I'd buy American again but recently bought JEEP.

I was typing too fast. Sorry for all the mistakes above.

It's a new breed at the "helm" at the model train companies, I think we have yet to see the best yet. I like watching the Trainworld Utube videos Kennie Bianco produces, he has the execs from many of the manufacturers come on and talk about their products and they occasionally will talk about the future. They ALL seem to be exploring ways to exploit new and PROVEN technology to incorporate into our hobby.

I ask myself this question and then answer it when I pay more to upgrade a Proto engine to Proto2 than it would cost to just sell the Proto one and buy the upgraded version.  I'm beginning to lean toward the simpler systems like TMCC, which seems to be more robust and reliable, albeit with fewer features, than the new technologies.

quote:

Lionel had one in the early postwar period. Can't remember what it was called off the top of my head, but if I remember there were some patent issues with it.

I have a feeling that for most folks, the Lionel electronic sets (1946-49) would not have fit the description of "Has there ever been a completely wireless (except for power to the tracks) radio control system for O Gauge?"

The User still had to control the speed of the locomotive with a transformer. The electronic control did the reversing unit, whistle, and couplers. The signals were transmitted through the track. I have owned a number of those sets, and seen a couple more. They were all very finicky, and did not work reliably. Of course, by the time I was trying them, they were over thirty years old. They may have worked a lot better when they were new.

The scene is Christmas Day, 2014. Two little cousins,( 9 & 11) who received trains from my wife and me in the past, had received something very new from their father, a Tyrannosaurus Rex, seen here INTERACTING with one of the boys. The T-Rex is looking up at him BECAUSE he is addressing it.

It seemingly responds to his voice, to the ATTITUDE of HIS VOICE, scurrying away in retreat, or glaring at him with eyes that change color according to the dinosaur's perception of the speaker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or it marches up to him if it appears pleased with his tone of voice (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) "chirping" and growling all the while.

Here, it has begun to react - and is facing - that car coming into the room and headed toward him..

Here it is, still retreated to the protection of the adult's legs above it, and it is reacting to the remote-controlled car rushed into the room by the brother, and everybody else in the room is reacting to the dinosaur's reactions and interactions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The trains are waiting downstairs, alone, but still loved. For now.

Put that in your smoke-fluid, my fellow hobbyists, take a deep breath of the future which is here, now, and put on your thinking-caps. Eh? The intensity of the boy's focus and facial expression as he works with his new toy speak volumes. Interaction felt, to me, like it was key - and crucial - to the success of this mechanical toy. I wonder if you would agree with me that such technology has implications, once imaginations are applied further, for our train hobby.

P.S. We gave the brother with the car a remote-controlled helicopter (promptly taken out side, flown above a neighbor's garage and yard, and promptly crashed into a tree) and a Williams PRR passenger car (to expand his present train), which he grabbed, upon opening the wrapping, to his chest, as if it were a precious baby, smiled full-face, and cheered aloud. We gulped and were speechless. It was, indeed, a merry day.

FrankM

Tmcc, dcs, and legacy are all radio control operating on various frequencies.  Tmcc and Legacy transmit at 455KHz, which is in the range just below AM radio.  DCS, If I recall correctly uses 27MHz, or maybe 49 MHz. which was the predominant range in 80's and 90's  era RC control.  

Most modern wireless communication is in the 2.4 GHz range, which allows for much more data to be sent.  For example the connection between a legacy Cab-2 and the base is at this frequency.  

 What is the difference between Wireless and Wifi?  Well, wireless includes anything that uses radio control, where as Wifi is a fairly complex industry standard for how to send the information.  Wifi, bluetooth, both use the 2.4 GHz radio band.  What makes them special is the error correction and security encoding.  Think of it this way, simple wireless is like sitting down and sending a message over the telegraph.  You have to convert the message into morris code, tap it out, then the guy at the other end has to copy down the dots and dashes, and convert them back into text.  Then he must repeat the entire process back to the original sender to make sure there were no errors.  This is a lot of work for both men.  In wifi or bluetooth the technology does the work for you.  Instead it would be like handing a message to the telegraph operator, and trusting him to get the message through.  

Added to that that these signals are encoded, so you can have hundreds or thousand of messages flying back and forth, and each one will only go where it is supposed to, without ever mixing in a word or two from someone else's message.  

 The primary advantage of wifi over bluetooth is cost.  Bluetooth is a proprietary system, anything that uses it must pay for the rights, where as Wifi is open source, and anyone can make their own systems that use it.  Bluetooth is better technology, but for me, the cost doesn't justify the benefits.  For example, a class 1 (100 meter range) bluetooth transceiver for prototype work costs about $90.00, where as a wifi board with three times the range can be had for as little as $2.75.

As for the manufactures, wifi is open source, public domain technology, however they could still encode the data in such a way that it would be difficult for third parties to talk to the trains, if they wanted to.  

I know I didn't answer everything, just the topics I have information to contribute on.  

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones."

--John Maynard Keynes

best,most reasonable comment i've seen on this subject.-jim

I have been following this topic, and as a technological (I think

that is the right word) neanderthal I have come to this conclusion,

if it works do not change it.

I had great distress with the new Lionel ZW's (TMCC) of the last

few years.  One circut board after the other blew out after three

years of good operation.  When told it would take months to 

acquire these boards from China, or Mars, my patience ran out.

When I discovered by trail and error that I could run TMCC which

I like, with only a Command Base, PowerMasters and two 180 bricks,

well I was like Columbus finding the new world.

I have been using this set-up for three years without one problem.

The thought of going Legacy has occured, but has passed.  Someday

I will go for it, but for now give me TMCC, it works.  I can run anything

that is three rail.  Marx, MTH, WBB, you name it it runs.  

The comments above are very informative.  I identify with the guys

who keep it simple.  For the guys who are into this high tech, and

can deal with it, I envy you, my mind does not work well with

technology.

I have no idea how far this technology will take us in this great

hobby, but some comments above about WYFI hit home, my wife

purchased a WYFI printer for this computer last year, and since

then nothing but problems.  When she tries to get it to work,

I swear the street lights blink on and off.

This has been one great topic, love the comments regarding it.

Many thanks,

Billy C 

A ZW or Type V with 2 wires connected to a lockon works everytime for me.

Hi JohnGaltLine,

     I am a little confused.  I see all over the internet where the Bluetooth boards are about $5 on average (I just bought 3), and the apps to control them send a simple string of ASCII characters from a tablet, smartphone, or computer via a Bluetooth terminal app, and some of these apps are free.  I don't see where Bluetooth is more expensive than Wi-Fi.  What am I missing?  And with Bluetooth, there isn't a router involved.

Thanks!

Take care, Joe.

The less expensive bluetooth devices dont have much range. Only 10 to 30 feet. Wifi easily gets you 100 ft or more. Its the long range bluetooth devices that are expensive. 

Also, for the most part, bluetooth devices are strictly one-to-one. 

But wifi devices can form a network and become one to many. Which in most cases require a wifi router but technology is available to allow many wifi devices to form a self meshing network without the need for a router. 

Another form of wireless data transmission is called Xbee (and also ZigBee). These can also form self meshing networks and can have longer range than bluetooth. 

Bluetooth, wifi, and xbee all use the 2.4GHz frequency band. 

But because of the different protocols used, they speak different languages. 

Bluetooth is good for small devices like connecting your headphones to your ipod. 

Wifi is great for computer networks and things that require an IP address for network and internet communication. 

Xbee (and ZigBee) is somewhere in between. 

All this techno-talk and I yet to hear one good reason to give up my tethered conventional DC or wireless DCC throttles...

Rusty

Hey conventional operators!

The Jan/Feb 2015 issue of Raspberry Pi Geek has an article that is specifically for controlling CONVENTIONAL LIONEL TRAINS. (How about that! )

The article talks about using a Amtel ATmega164P micro controller chip (basically an Arduino) to control a bank of relays for automatic block control. 

Hi Flash,

      Thanks for the info and clarification!

Take care, Joe.

Great discussion. As an EE with several patents I don't think the technology is outdated as much as somewhat misapplied. For those of you who are interested in a really simple and inexpensive wireless control system, let me know by email and I'll send you the details.

Good Evening,

I have no desire to ever use my iPad or iPhone to run my trains. TMCC is fine for me!  

Regards.

Swafford

Flash here seems to have covered this pretty well, and in a lot less words than I would have likely used.  

**

I'm going to have to take a look at that.  My father and I used to run switches and blocks off a commodore64 back in the day, and we loved it.  HOWEVER, I get the feeling, I don't know from where, that most of the conventional runners here are not very interested in plugging their blocks into a Rasp.Pi.  I haven't decided if I'm just going to stuff an old tower under the board or use a R.Pi for my interface just yet.  

Just because you can use an Iphone doesn't mean you have to.  Myself, I prefer the cab-1 for most things.  The TMCC system is really quite good, I'm just a little disappointed that Lionel dumbed down what it really can do.  I suppose an extra 28 loco's, switches, and accessories really isn't going to be missed by most users, but the ability to send much more information to the trains is already there, just not allowed by the two digit limit on addresses and the single digit commands from the keypad.  

"Not enough books focus on how a culture responds to radically new ideas or discovery. Especially in the biography genre, they tend to focus on all the sordid details in the life of the person who made the discovery. I find this path to be voyeuristic but not enlightening."  --Neil deGrasse Tyson

Very nice treatment of the various RF wireless systems and the control systems available to us modellers. Keep in mind that no matter what control system is used for block control, the system still needs to know where the trains are located on a real time basis. So train detection is an integral part of any design.

So are you adding capability or just altering the technology used to give you the same capability?

A PW train was remote controlled.  Via wires to a track carrying AC and DC voltages.  That same PW train was than remotely operated by a CAB-1 and Power Master.  Same train capability but what changed was a walk around remote control, plus some improved capability of the transformer with a boost and brake control.

Once TMCC and DCS added to the engine, the engine capability grew.

There is a lot of new tech in current trains, especially Lionel.  MTH is using some of the latest micro miniature circuit components on boards, but what has this changed?

So I am not sure the premise is fact.  Just because there is new tech, doesn't mean it provided new capability for the train or it's operating system. Stuff that does, is incorporated over time.

But this is small business, small market.  Probably the largest group of this market, puts the trains away when the Christmas Tree comes down in Jan.  The most vocal is the folks on this forum.

Tell me the capability improvement that your tech will give me.  I don't care that your using 2.4ghz versus 900mhz if there is no difference in how my trains operate.  I am not highballing a train down the street, it is going in circles in my spare bedroom.  G

They could take the approach of not changing anything externally and just work on what goes inside.  They can stop making the command systems so large that you can barely fit them in some locomotives.  If we are talking about just giving us command control whether it be DCS or Legacy there is not need to have multiple modules to have sound and control.  I used to play a lot of video games when I was younger and the games systems would start our really large but the companies streamlined the systems making less than half the size of the original.  The don't need new technology they just need to shrink it down and make it so we don't need to be a technician to install it.  You'll never get a universal system unless it's from a third party which isn't gong to happen unless one of makers of HO command control want to throw their hat into the O gauge ring. Maybe the companies should take a break from retooling anything and concentrate on what they have and shrinking it down.  If anyone has ever tried to install a PS 2 upgrade it was tedious and ridiculously complicated.  I run everything and the companies I think are selling themselves short buy not simplifying their components and sell locomotives that can be upgraded later like HO.  If they simplify to plug and play like HO and use the same components in their locomotives that they do for upgrades someone might not hesitate to pick up that locomotive knowing they can upgrade it easily later and not want to kill themselves for those of us that have no skill for this type of work.  Lionel already uses a third party for their command and sound systems so they already have a R&D section who spent time developing Lion Chief and Lion Chief Plus systems.  I am not a huge fan of technology or change so let me keep my systems and just change what's inside.  Almost everyone even some of you tech haters have a computer in your pocket everyday.

 Does anyone know how many or an estimate of how many O gauge railroaders there are? I am out here in So Cal where most are HO or smaller.

GGG makes a good point here.

Range needed varies with user but is not going to exceed a hundred feet in most cases.

Some like one Remote , Some like the other. I have both DCS and TMCC. The Club I'm in runs Legacy and DCS. I prefer the DCS because I like the extra capability it offers when determining actual usage of an engine.

The big red knob IS easier to use than the thumbwheel but then I lose the actual speed DCS gives me. Legacy offers a nice Whistle slider and Brake that DCS lacks but the remote seems large and cumbersome to me.

Were I more motivated I'd be mapping the commands from my DCS Remote and making my own remote combining the best features of the 2 systems.

Since that will take numerous days to just decode the data and then much more time to design, program and build up a new unit I'll just work on my Layout and use what I have.

RRaddict:

You point is valid but you forget the cost of designing and producing an all new system for modular generic input.

And while I agree the systems could be smaller and fit in more engines, MTH recently sized PS2 down a lot to PS3.

Also, Why would the 2 biggest companies in O want to let people buy a competing system and plug it in their Engine when they each sell a full command control system?

HO engine makers were forced to go that way by the massive competition in that market, O does not have that.

And to be honest I'm not impressed by DCC at all. DCS has far more functions.

Posted by GGG:

"Tell me the capability improvement that your tech will give me.  I don't care that your using 2.4ghz versus 900mhz if there is no difference in how my trains operate.  I am not highballing a train down the street, it is going in circles in my spare bedroom.  "

1. Low cost. Not a big deal for most people that are currently in the hobby, but a surprisingly big deal for people that may be thinking about getting involved.  

2.  Cross platform compatibility.  Want to use a Cab-1?, Cab-2?, a custom built control board that lets you run like conventional, but with access to all the features?  Want to use a computer to click on where you want your trains to go, and it will do it for you?  No, it is not for everyone, but it is for some people.  

3. Unlimited operable features.  Again, not for everyone, but having expandability is nice.  

4.  Built in error correction.  two way communication between loco's and command system in digital allow locos to always do what they are told without worry of interference.  

To add to the comment:  "I don't care that your using 2.4ghz versus 900mhz if there is no difference in how my trains operate.  I am not highballing a train down the street, it is going in circles in my spare bedroom.  "

The frequency of a transmitter has nothing to do with how fast you run your trains.  Low frequencies travel through obstacles(walls, mountains, etc.) better, but don't allow much information across.  ex, AM radio.  High frequencies do not do as well going through objects, but are mostly used in short ranges where it doesn't matter.  2.4 GHz is currently the industry standard for sending vast amounts of data.  (Side bit of trivia, 2.4GHz is the frequency that microwave ovens operate at, which is why the FCC left it unregulated. )  

The short answer:  If you are happy with how your trains work, you don't need anything else.  If you think what you have costs too much, or is not easy to use for different manufactures, or you would like more options for control,  you may want to think about what other options exist.  

"If we did all the things we are capable of, we would literally astound ourselves."  -Thomas A. Edison

I have 2 engineering degrees, I understand that.  Don't focus on highballing (a railroad term), focus on down the street.  The distance part.

So really what you are after is cost savings and compatibility.

That really has nothing to do with old tech and new tech.  Frankly, old tech should be cheaper.  A DVD is about $30 now, when a VCR was $600 when it came out.

Marketing keeps the cost of an old tech high.

You have some nice ideas, but you still have to integrate it.  Merging a bunch of COTS items doesn't give you better capability.  Don't underestimate speed control, sound control, integrated smoke control.

Anyone can put an electronic device together that turns on or off a function such as a light or a coupler.  PWM of a motor and other sounds and such require programming.

By the way, MTH PS-2/3 is two way communication.  Lionel chose one way.  MTH engines can tell you when maintenance is due, status of charging system, run time and distance.

You need to build the device that is 1.5" by about 3" that does all the capability now resident in a train to meet MTH Tech.  Plus the New PS-3 can control far more lights than a real locomotive has.  So tech has gone past the needed requirement already.

Also, take a MTH COORS train,  The engine can talk to cars in the consist and make them do things on command.  It is already built in, just need the idea genius to come up with new features to do.  The tech can already do it.   G

How does 2.5 x 2.25 inches work for you?

Its about $25. 

It will need a h-bridge motor driver but can do PWM, drive LEDs, play sounds (needs a speaker), connect to bluetooth, connect to wifi, connect to internet, display a GUI, connect remotely through SSH, connect to a camera, connect to a TV, display HD video, play music, play movies, play games, teach children programming, and quite possibly save the world.

Raspberry Pi is amazing, but really far more "computer" than you need inside a loco.  I'm partial to this:  

Dimensions: 0.7x1.3" (18x33mm)

Cost: $10 in local hobby electronics shops, but as low as $2.57 on ebay from china, if you don't mind waiting up to 4 weeks.  

I agree. 

The Raspberry Pi A+ is way more power than is necessary in a toy train. But i like the idea of having all the hardware, software, control logic, sounds all contained within a single device. That way any device (computer, tablet, phone) can connect to it without the need for a special app. Just a free app that allows connection through SSH. 

This way all the magic is contained within the locomotive. No base or interface unit necessary. 

Its just one of a hundred ways to control model trains. Not really better or worse than anything else. 

Sorry Flash, It is too wide for a narrow diesel.  So it can pwm a motor drawing 2 amps?  Handle a stall at 5amps? 

How much does the programming cost?

If this is about cost the subject needs to change.  How do you know the board MTH and Lionel make don't cost $20.  They price them to a market, not based on a set profit ratio of what they cost. 

Again, put this all together and drive everything in a mock train and total the cost.  Then tell me what the capability improvements or operating differences are.

At this point, all you are showing me is you swapped one electronic device for another. Or you controlled your train via wifi vice a transmitter.    G

This only has 16KB of memory.  The first PS-2 was 1Meg, then 2meg.  PS-3 is 4meg.

Also looks like flash memory is too small also.  I think you are underestimating the programming and memory requirements to operate the current modern train.  PS-2 board has 2 processors and a separate memory chip.  Far more capability then this board.  G

I don't think either of them can drive a smoke unit??

If you want cheap motor drivers go with DCC...but then there's that pesky radio controlled throttle/command station/power booster to buy...at a cost of $700.00 for a 10 amp version without a power supply.