Can I adjust scale MPH?

Nope

If MTH is monitors this, the lack of speed matching is something they could and should fix.

Marty,

If MTH is monitors this, the lack of speed matching is something they could and should fix.

I disagree completely.

 

The engines are within 2% of each other speed-wise (1' in 50'), which is definitely close enough for a lashup. The OP's issue is that that neither engine has a front coupler, which is just the nature of the models.

 

IMO, this is by no means anything that MTH should address.

Why not? They sell ps2 upgrades. My ps1 to ps2 gp9 does not match my ps2s that started that way. Its an algorythm that would allow you to match any 2 locos.

Marty,

 

First, working with 2 MTH original DCS engines (PS2 or PS3) in a lashup needs no adjustment other than ensuring that all lashup members are mechanically/physically correct and have accurate speed control parameters in their sound/chain files.

Its an algorythm that would allow you to match any 2 locos.

Second,  the algorithm itself already exists and is incorporated into the engine's software. You would have to know all about a converted engine's speed parameters (gear ratio, driver size, etc.) and have a way to enter them correctly into any adjusting mechanism. How would you propose to do this for any foreign engine that you decided to upgrade?

 

Third, you already have a speed matching ability by tailoring the tach reader tape for any converted engine.

I would do it with a percent offset parameter, from the complicated list you described.
This would allow you to market that you could speed match the competitors locos. Without worrying if thier loco was as consistent. When it isn't you can sell them the upgrade.
Anything that brings more compatibility is good for O gauge. No company can manufacture all the locos, in all the road names that we covet. Because of the variety in speed control and motoring, I doubt a standard will ever be reached. The company that develops the control system that accepts that the variety helps the modeler and hence themselves, would do well.

Locomotives DO NOT have to be perfectly matched for speed to doublehead them!

 

In your case, the "faster" loco will pull slightly harder on the train then the "slower" one...that's all. A 2% difference is barely noticeable.

 

Couple 'em up and run 'em!

I have a similar issue with the engines I have (MTH SD70 and MTH 4-6-0 Steamer), they are off in speeds and will catch each other on the layout, even with the same speed set.  What is odd, it is not always one train that runs faster/slower.  I have a floor based 031 layout that goes out at Christmas.  This year, the trains run closer in speed.  Last year, the layout was more twisty, thus more slip in the wheels and the trains were at least 1 mph difference in real speed.

 

The issue with the request is that there is no external sensor system that can true up location or speed.  The train takes it measurement of speed and distance based on the motor spinning.  If you have looked at the motor, it has the fly wheel with the black and white stripes and sensor to measure motor speed.  Thus there is no way to measure wheel slip or any change in real speed due to rises or uneven track.  

 

To get this to work in real time would be a bit complex, external sensors would be required or some other sensor that could measure actual movement.  For example, a sensor on the bottom of the train that could use the track ties to measure distance for the speed calculation.  Or magnet/infrared/RFID system that can trigger track location to true up speed and location.

 

I am not sure MTH system has the ability for the trains to talk to one another.  Likely, a external controller would be required to poll the trains and then send true up commands.  Seems complex.

 

It would be nice if MTH provided a adjustment to allow for trains to have true up of speed in via the controller.  Seems like a easy thing to add in as it would just be a variable correction factor the engine could apply to its speed control.  That way any delta in operation could be nearly tuned out.  I am not aware of this existing today.    

Marty,

I would do it with a percent offset parameter, from the complicated list you described. This would allow you to market that you could speed match the competitors locos.

Good luck with your dreams!  

 

From a business perspective, model railroading is a competitive business much more than it's a cooperative hobby. Of course, from the consumer perspective, exactly the opposite is true.  

 

The only things that should motivate a company (in almost any industry) is making a quality product and a profit. Satisfying a small number of hobbyists, each with an ax to grind, makes no sense when resources are scarce.

 

The feature that you propose is much more difficult to implement properly than you may imagine and carries a fair amount of expense for which there is little or no return on investment. While this may be "cool" to do, it's not necessarily in MTH's best interests to make their own engines run like their competitor's products, or vice-versa.MTTH wants you to  buy their own engines, on which they make a profit, rather than upgrade kits on which they make a pittance..

 

All too often, individuals in this hobby (and other hobbies as well, I expect), exhibit an "I, me" attitude. They tend to be demanding and have all kinds of reasons about how what they want is what should be done, without any thoughts of the effort or cost involved.

 

If you really want something, do something about it. Write to MTH and tell them what you want. Spitballing here isn't going to accomplish anything.

We need to let this go, but find me the percentage of people that at some point havent wished they could easily mix thier locos. I dont think the advantage is as trival and easily dimissed as you present it. But, I'm not trying to change your perspective. I am simply defending my own. At a time when an industry is evolving, dismissing the possibilities as too hard, is why other companies take the profit you are so focused on.

Especially when you are the smaller company trying to gain market share.

With upgrades, I've had a pretty good track record making custom tach tapes to get the speeds close to matching.  If I'm within 3-4%, I figure I'm close enough.

 

The tach tape has 24 stripes for the "standard" gear ratios.  For MTH upgrades, this usually works well.  If you upgrade a different brand, sometimes you'll find that with the standard tape, the speed is way off.  You can reduce the number of stripes to speed it up, or increase the number of stripes to slow it down.  The only limitation I've encountered is around 35 stripes, the tach reader starts having trouble reading the individual stripes.

 

 

Marty,

 

I "get" where you're coming from. However, when you state...

find me the percentage of people that at some point havent wished they could easily mix thier locos. I dont think the advantage is as trival and easily dimissed as you present it.

...you exactly make my point:

All too often, individuals in this hobby (and other hobbies as well, I expect), exhibit an "I, me" attitude. They tend to be demanding and have all kinds of reasons about how what they want is what should be done, without any thoughts of the effort or cost involved.

Further, John makes a very good case why any additional assistance isn't required in order to make most other manufacturer's engines capable of being lashed up with MTH DCS engines.

I enjoyed the discussion. Thanks for all the input. I put the big boy up front and the challenger backwards at the end. It worked well and the kids loved it. No issues with speed mismatch so far.

Even identical locomotives will space out when they're not coupled, because the 2nd loco will occasionally slip under the weight of the train.  

Listen to Barry.   2 percent is a trivial differential. In fact, I'm surprised that you could measure that small a difference, consistently. These are not machines designed to operate within extremely tight tolerances and specs.

 

And that differential might change over a period of minutes, hours or days.  Think about all the reasons: Differences in wheel slippage, bearing wobble, track gradients and curvature, lubrication, friction, instantaneous voltage perturbations caused by third rail crud, broken-in and warmed-up motors and gear trains, ambient room temperature, and plain old gremlins can contribute to unequal speeds in even two identical locomotives from the same litter.

 

 

Barry,
I'm kinda suprised. You spend so much time making what exists accesable to all. I dont understand why you would scoff at an enhancement that would allow a user to run thier MTH loco with company A loco today and company B loco tomorrow, eitjout having an elite skill set. Many folks wait in vain for the model they want to be produced by the company whose control, they want to use. It's not as if every other scale hasn't embraced this concept. I understand your not being interested, I just don't understand your seemingly vehement opposition. In the end, we agree to disagree .

rccrafters - I am glad you found a solution an appologize for grinding my ax on your flywheel.

Marty,

 

If you were MTH, would you want to encourage a customer to purchase someone else's engine instead of yours?

 

Business is about competition.

1. Well, I can see both sides here.  Obviously, Barry is right as far as the major manufacturer's are concerned, they do this for the money.  Same reason I worked for around 45 years before retiring.  This is the same reason that Lionel doesn't have any Legacy upgrade kits, they don't want to cut into sales of complete locomotives.
2. OTOH, to Marty's point, I see where he's coming from.  That being said, I doubt that MTH is going to take up the crusade however, see point #1.

 

Geez, In all this time I could have printed up a few tach tapes and been done with it 

 

Where's the proof that MTH is the "smaller" company??

Marty,

I dont understand why you would scoff at an enhancement 

Sigh! 

 

I'm not "scoffing", rather, I'm explaining.

I just don't understand your seemingly vehement opposition.

If you think this is "vehement" opposition, you should read some of my other posts!

 

 

In your case, the "faster" loco will pull slightly harder on the train then the "slower" one...that's all. A 2% difference is barely noticeable.

 

An interesting experiment would be to ascertain exactly what is the comparative current draw of these locos is when coupled and running.  Unfortunately, it would require running with shells off and ammeters in the motor circuits.  This assumes both locos use the same motors.\

 

CRH, "designing" & printing can be a laborious process.

My 2 cents...

 

If DCS can adjust volume, smoke volume, and other parameters via the remote control, it would seem to me that a "speed compensate +/-" button would allow it to happen.

 

Just a feature added to the software on the locos and DCS remote... fixed with an update!

 

Much like the bragging rights that MTH uses that allows DCS to control DCS and TMCC, this feature would allow them to advertise, "run your trains speed synced with MTH and other manufacturers' cruise controlled locos"

 

IMHO,

Ed

Ed,

fixed with an update!

I think John's tag line is appropriate as a response...

 

 

Bingo.  As I see it most operators run MU's because that's what prototypes do and it looks cool.  Whether or not they actually pull larger loads efficiently is just a nicety.  Anecdotes of 3-engines pulling 100 cars (or whatever) are fun to read about but I'll bet those 3 engines could individually pull, say, 40 cars each so there is a loss in efficiency when coupled together.

 

Because of the worm gear mechanism in most model trains, you cannot apply torque to the drive wheels and make the motor spin.  This means for mis-matched engine speeds, the two engine "settle" on a common speed by some complex interaction of wheel slippage/skidding/dragging.  A faster engine can only skid a slower engine up to speed which wastes energy...rather than the faster engine speeding up the slower engine's motor and transmission RPM. 

 

As alluded to earlier, it is theoretically possible to add sensors and circuitry to synchronize multiple engines. It is not going to happen. Even for a single twin-motor diesel, sensors and circuitry could be added to synchronize both motors to maximize electromechanical efficiency but, again, it is not going to happen and consumers wouldn't pay for it - they'll pay for a higher Wattage transformer first!

 

On the striped flywheel, there must be an even number of stripes so you could go from 48 up to 50 or down to 46.  That's a + or - 4% speed adjustment so probably not going to help a 2% systemic error.  For finer adjustments, I think MTH would need to get involved.  I just read in another thread that MTH just posted an Advisory bulletin where consumers can upgrade a PS3 engine's functionality via a software upgrade.  As to whether it makes business sense for MTH to provide speed-adjustment for MU operation via a PS3 software upgrade is above my pay grade.

One minor point Stan, Legacy locomotives have back driven gears so you can actually apply pressure to the wheels and spin the motor.  This may also account for the reason that I've never had an issue doing an MU with Legacy locomotives, even dissimilar types.

 

As to adjusting the speed in the software for the MTH locomotive, this is no small feat.  Barry was right on target, it's very easy to imagine someone else doing a task!  MTH speed control now is fairly simple, they take scale MPH and decide how many clicks to spin the motor, easy peasy.  When you start adding a "bias", the speed control gets more complicated.

 

I would disagree, but I am not in position to build it.  I am not so sure it is that hard to be able to increment a speed step for a locomotive. Lets just say + or - 3 SMPH selectable.  Press +1 and the engine in question goes 23smph when commanded 22.  Set until cleared via a factory or feature reset, or direct setting back to 0.

 

While I agree with Arthur that some of this could vary overtime for various reasons, if an engine was consistently 2  or 3smph off you could compensate.  Anything more and you change a stripe.

 

I also think the coupling reduces the effect Stan is talking about.  I don't think a motor drags or slips unless the delta is very large.  One unit may carry a larger load while the other is pushed into the NL direction.  It is a matter of balance only, similar to two generators sharing a load on a buss.  Only when way off does it create a problem.

 

At the same time I agree with what Barry is saying, your asking MTH to build this for fine control for operators who want to operate two engine as a MU but not coupled.  Why not operate together but as individual units.  Use2 remotes if you have to.  Heck can call it couples operation! .  Just figure out the speed delta.  Or lash them even if it is with a rope.  G 

Barry, John,

 

"it's very easy to imagine someone else doing a task!"

 

I'd be happy to work on it myself (as GGG describes), but unless your name starts with a H and ends with an L, it's all a big secret, like...

 

command format for DCS...

 

sound file format to allow us to edit sound files...

 

Just saying,

Ed

 This discussion is entertaining to read. The MTH PS boards do a great job in a lashup of applying the pulling and pushing power. I hope you've all seen this video. The two rail cars in the train have some with small profile flanges that would derail if there was anything out of sync. (the end tank car came with a snapped off Atlas coupler)

http://youtu.be/NrkZo35c08E?li...xZM9pcZwOpkZrcdHggpg

 Now my real discussion would be how come my three G scale engine's boards got there speed parameters scrambled???

The short answer is yes.

Longer answer

Because no manufacturer is making custom shells on demand to meet all of my desires and they know that. They make very difficult decisions about what to run. The easier it is to mix, the more likely I am to play with you. This isn't a competition in the sense of ford/chevy apple/PC, here I buy 1 device and stay loyal to it. It's a hobby where I will mix and match what works best for me. ZYou're competing to be part of my toy collection, not the sole contributor.

At least that's what I do in N scale. I have 50+ N scale locos, but only 8 in O. Sure I can't run more than a few at a time in either scale, but the fact that I can get most every DCC loco to play with every other DCC loco, is a big part of my impulse buys. In O, I buy locos to start young family members in the hobby (MTH is pretty safe there. Aside from them needing a Rudolph replacement for the young, they are pretty safe in my book with regards to RTR quality),  and I but a lot of Rolling stock, from any vendor with a cool car. I am stalled on buying more locos, for myself. Specifically because no one wants me to play with the other guys locos and I'm at a point where I will need to MU to get more on the track. I have a number of N scale shelf queens, manufactured in  the days before DCC compatibility was standard, or because they were poor runners,but pretty. I can't see myself making the same impulse buys in O, because I have learned better. If I can't use it, I will buy something else.

I really want to grow in both scales, over the next um... rest of my life.

 

Note: Since I can only speak for me, I keep using the selfish I, because my dollar is the manufacturers profit. And I choose whether to spend it. You're most likely right - None of the manufacturers will move towards compatibility, but I can hope!

 

I have read your other comments I always try to remember that forum communication is limited and succinct.

 

....... So now i need to really look at Legacy going forward. I wasn't until just now

 

Asto more control gettng more complicated, all the easy things get done before someone asks.

Marty,

 

Aw, come on! I asked...

If you were MTH, would you want to encourage a customer to purchase someone else's engine instead of yours?

... and you answered...

The short answer is yes.

Then you go on to explain, in the long answer...

This isn't a competition in the sense of ford/chevy apple/PC

Really??

 

That's two wrong answers. That kind of thought process puts companies out of business.

 

Can you show me one, non-trivial, example of a successful company that exercises your thought process in the business world?

 

Further, you say...

 no one wants me to play with the other guys locos

Well, duh?! No kidding! They all want you to play with their company's toys!

 

You just flunked "Business 101". Go directly to bankruptcy. Do not pass GO.

Put the slower one in front

Matt,

   I have been waiting the entire thread for somebody to say what you just did, simple fix that costs nothing.  Marty, Barry is right on this, competition & money rule, in the engineering world.  Now if they could make more money buy doing it, complete matching perfect speed, would have been engineered already.

PCRR/Dave

Well it all started with 2 engines that could not be coupled, and I do think that his ultimately what he did.  G

1 non trivial example? DCC.

The N and HO companies seem to be making money embracing a standard. They are all building dcc equipped engines. Even MTH is doing DCC and command equipped. I didn't fail, I'm looking to a possible future. I've worked for companies that didn't look to the future. It wasn't a fun outcome. As Williams is adding Bluetooth to HO, it's only a step until it is in O. This may or may not work out, but they are looking forward.  If someone builds a better tool, while O gauge competes to stay separate..... I never said money did't rule, I said money could be made differently. We'll see how it goes. 

Marty,

DCC

Wrong again!

 

DCC is a technology. Technologies don't make profits or have shareholders. Companies do.

Can you show me one, non-trivial, example of a successful company that exercises your thought process in the business world?

Show me a company!

My solution to problem

 

I put the big boy up front coupled to the cars and put the challenger (slower) one in rear backwards and coupled.Don't know if that is prototypical buy kids loved it.

Consider MTH... they offer DCS hardware that promotes you buying a piece of Lionel hardware, a TMCC or Legacy base.  They will even sell you a cable and give you software to make it easy!

 

Just for the record, I bought my DCS system BECAUSE I could also buy Lionel products, at some point,and control them!  BECAUSE I had a DCS system, I bought a Lionel Legacy SD70 ACE, and a few TMCC speeders (and will surely buy more)

 

Sounds to me like MTH recognizes that they will sell more DCS (and probably more MTH engines) by promoting the fact that they also "play well" with other company's products!  Competitors like Atlas, Weaver, Lionel!

 

As Marty said, "It's a hobby where I will mix and match what works best for me. (MTH is) competing to be part of my toy collection, not the sole contributor."

 

I agree. I doubt that MTH actually believes that train guys will buy ONLY MTH or ONLY Lionel.

 

 

Software?...seems like a waste of time  - Egads! Working on software!  Why would they waste time working on software to support other companys' products?

 

Even worse! Work on software to address a customer need in relation to using their products in a MU environment!  Double Egads!

 

Perhaps we should recognize DCS as a technology, not a product, so it doesn't apply.  I wonder how much MTH makes on TIUs, REMOTES, and TMCC cables?  All that hardware lets you remotely control a competitor's product,  Triple Egads!

 

Betcha they get around to adding Legacy control to DCS someday, given that Lionel has graciously publicized the codes!  More software work!  My! My!  (sorry, don't want to overuse my egads!) What a waste of time!

 

As a software guy, I would suggest that a +/- speed adjust buttons would be no more complex than adding Legacy commands.

 

"If you were MTH, would you want to encourage a customer to purchase someone else's engine instead of yours?"...

 

YEP! by marketing DCS and promoting the fact that I can run Lionel engines, they have successfully encouraged me to by a Lionel (where a similar engine in MTH didn't exist). 

 

All of this has made me a big fan and buyer of MTH.  As a customer of MTH, suggesting some simple software fixes is not unreasonable! 

 

Ed

 

ps. Does MTH have shareholders?  If not, I guess they not a company!

Ed,

 

I realize that you're just trying to be clever and amusing, however,. for the benefit of some who may think that you're actually serious...

... they offer DCS hardware that promotes you buying a piece of Lionel hardware, a TMCC or Legacy base.  They will even sell you a cable and give you software to make it easy!

That's not the case at all, as I'm sure that you're aware. You have the cart before the horse.

 

This is MTH promoting a feature that typically those that already have Legacy or TMCC are likely to utilize. if someone wants to purchase a Legacy or TMCC set, they certainly aren't going to do so based on the strength of this DCS feature.

I wonder how much MTH makes on TIUs, REMOTES, and TMCC cables? 

I understand that you're attempting to be clever, however, I'm certain that you realize that the objective is not to sell more DCS sets, rather, it's to sell more DCS engines.

YEP! by marketing DCS and promoting the fact that I can run Lionel engines, they have successfully encouraged me to by a Lionel (where a similar engine in MTH didn't exist). 

Nonsense.

 

You buy what you buy simply because it's an engine that you just want to own. The fact that you can operate it with DCS doesn't affect the decision-making process whatsoever.

Does MTH have shareholders?  If not, I guess they not a company

LOL!