Amazing Radio Control - the future of Model Trains?

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joe 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

Regards,

GNNPNUT

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

As bob2 says ALL OPINION.

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Rusty

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

Bob, Not really until some recent post.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Enjoy!