Originally Posted by 1942guy:
... I'm done with this thread...
Over and out!
I think the OP has (understandably) moved on.
But as this is a discussion forum, I'll observe that it's the unique combination of requirements that allows a superCap to make for a practical solution.
If the ratio of run-time to stop-time was different, it may have required a battery or something requiring continuous track power with a method to only cut power to the motor.
If the requirement was to keep incandescent bulbs running because LEDs were not perceived to provide the right kind of color or glow, it likely would require a method to cut power only to the motor.
If the traction devices were more than a bump-n-go (bridge-rectifier and DC can motor), and the requirement was to keep not just lights but sound and smoke active, some method to only cut power to the motor would be needed.
If this was a 2-rail application or some configuration where you couldn't use the insulated outer-rail method to control start/stop action, then again perhaps some method to cut power only to the motor would be needed.
In terms of out-of-pocket costs for components, I believe what Dale is proposing would be cheaper that the superCap approach. And I believe there are additional lower cost methods to use continuous track power and cut power to just the motor. But money isn't everything and the original post indicated a pre-disposition to a capacitor/LED solution which is indeed what he got.
So the train has left the station, the ship has sailed, etc.