RC Control

Another product line to bookmark:

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

 

Why bother with RC when you can use something like this: http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/...drs1wirelessdcc.html

 

It uses existing DCC/Sound decoders which have become quite good.

That is ultimately what I plan to use. I already have EasyDCC from my n scale layout so being able to keep it and use it is a huge advantage for me. I am going to pull the soundboards from my 3 rail engines and replace them. I have a Lionel SD70ACe with a bad board so that's no big deal for it. To have to replace the boards in my MTH PS2 and 3 engines hurts though since they sound so good. I may try to see if I can get around removing the PS3 board but the Ps2 boards will definitely have to go.

The late Joe G. mentioned something about the Tam Valley system and there was something that didn't "fit" and he went to the Stanton S-Cab for part or all of what he needed (I'll have to go back and read his posts about it to confirm).

 

The issue I have with most of the present RC systems made for O/G scale is they're just about as expensive as the current systems we use (TMCC/Legacy/DCS).  Ed Reutling has shown it can be done with cheaper, readily available, and swappable/universal systems that are already in use in the RC car/truck world and cost less than the systems made for O/G.

 

Has anyone tried fitting a G scale RC system (like the ones that come with Bachmann sets) into an O scale engine?  Can you even buy the complete system as a separate item?  Bachmann's RC system may be a cheap ($) way to go, but since when do we have to have the most expensive item money can buy just because we're O scale?

 

I'm just throwing darts here and trying to hit a target, by no means am I an expert in all things RC (although I used to fly RC planes back last century).

There's only 2 things that really bug me with our O scale trains, 1) is that we STILL use AC (especially when all modern engines have DC motors in them) and 2), we rely on the momentary contact of dirty rails to transmit our signals.

 

RC/battery control would do away with both these "bugs".

For me, a huge benefit to onboard battery power is that I enjoy hand laying track but I hate wiring. I don't need to worry about insulated track sections, blocks, powered frogs, etc.

I was just thinking, doesn't the MTH DCS remote commander open a door for remote battery control??           Stephen    (cTR...Choose the Right)

Although R/C may come to be in the future there is no way I would tear out the legacy electronics in my steam engines Or diesels for that matter. 

 

I can't ever see R/C becoming main stream until one of the major manufactures  embrace  it fully And that is not going to happen any time soon.

 

If at all it will become a  niche industry for those willing to do it but as a main stream way of running trains, not going to happen.    

I don't know about MTH, but Lionel has done RC/battery sets in the past, so never say never.  After all, the current systems are really "Radio Control" systems anyway and use the track for power instead of a battery.

 

I'd like to see them yank the AC side of the equation, along with the sound/control systems (gotta be a burden as far as $$$ to them), and offer engines with a DC motor and lighting circuit.  In addition, they could install a plug much like DCC does now so that "niche industry" (or their own if they chose to keep their fingers in the pie) RC/battery electronics could be a simple plug&play feature.

It (full battery power/remote control) may come to O gauge...someday…but I sure wouldn't advise waiting around for it.

 

For now, if it interests you, give it a try in Large Scale.  Those folks have been using BP/RC for years.

I would find much pleasure in a simple and basic switching layout with a few of my three rail locomotives running on hand-laid, "hi-rail" style, two rail track with RC control. Sound and remote couplers are not a biggie for me. The future of RC I feel will be full on DCC with on-board battery power. The simplicity of the system, which appeals most to me, will then be lost!

 

My 2 cents only.

 

Rick.

Rick, sounds just like what I'm looking for

As critical as I am about 3 rail track, I'd have no problem running O-27 equipment on 2 rail track.

Maybe I'll just ask a stupid question,,,,,what does all this have to do with "3-Rail SCALE" modeling?

This is the most likely place to be discussing how to get rid of the center rail.  Two- railers have already done it, and I suspect the tinplate crowd really does want to retain the Lionel look.

 

That said, your point is well taken - 3- rail scale is dedicated to realism using 3-rail track. Says so up in the definitions section.

Good point, but still, what does "RC Control" have to do with 3-Rail SCALE MODELING????

We don't have a Hi-rail, O27, and traditional 2-rail O gauge section of the forum.

Well this 3-Rail SCALE Forum isn't it either. How about the just plain old 2-Rail Forum?

 

Then there is always the Electrical & Wiring Forum.

The 2-rail forum is the 2-rail SCALE forum.

Yes it is, but since you all are discussing a CONTROL SYSTEM, just what difference does "scale" have to do with it, no mater HOW MANY RAILS THERE ARE?

I am a 2 rail scale guy and come recently to 3 scale to see whats up as the difference is rail and not the scale. I am very interested in the RC as it will free me from having to wire the layout except for street and building lights and switch power. Don't like blocks or reverse loops, dead spots on switches, and worry about dirty track that leaves the loco really jerking. So, if anyone here or there has done the transformation, please speak up as we want to know how and where it fits into ones O scale engines. my only association with RC was paying for my sons RC cars and airplane controls 2 decades ago. I remember them having battery packs of 4 batteries hooked together and their charger. But that was then and it is now and hopefully we have come a lot further by now.

What fun!  We are discussing a way to pull the center rail.  There is no point in discussing pulling a center rail on the 2- rail forum.  It is not an issue there.

 

One could always go 2-rail with insulated wheelsets, or to use stud rail the way Fred proposed, or perhaps to go overhead wire.  This really does look to me like the most appropriate forum for this discussion.

What fun!  We are discussing a way to pull the center rail.

 

Well, not exactly, at least I wasn't aiming for that.  RC/battery control could be used no matter how many rails the track has.  If a person wanted to pull the center rail that's up to them, but not necessary.

 

If the admins want to dump this, go ahead.  But if all we do is talk about how to fix pilots and add Kadees this is going to be a short-lived forum.  Other than a few photos I've seen no other worthwhile topics.

 

Here I was thinking us 3RSers had a place where we could discuss anything we wanted to without interfering with the toy train guys and the 2-railers.  How stupid of me to think we had such a tight knit clan of fellow modelers

 

Surely the new Lionel remote "Thomas" series is R.C. As it already runs on DC power, just put a battery in Annie and it's done.

Well, if we are talking about radio control on three rail track, then for sure this is the correct forum.  You could have the Lionel look, and still have the advantages of battery power. What were those advantages again?

 

One of the big deal advantages of 3-rail track is that you guys do not have to worry about short circuits between wheels and underbody or brake shoes, or from car to car.  The center rail cures a whole lot of 2- rail problems.  If you go battery and R/C, then keeping the third rail will be appearance only.

There's battery power and RC control and they may or may not be related.  To me they are and the number of rails is irrelevant.  For me the track must be cold regardless of the number of rails.  

 

Wiring and cleaning of track and putting up with flickering control, sound and lights is just off my to do list.

I totally agree

 

Ed Reutling has shown us what is possible with off-the-shelf components, that's what I have in mind, unless one of the makers can offer a cheaper alternative.

 

I have a 1/6 scale M5A1 Stuart tank with RC, weighs a ton.  I'm going to open it up and see how big the circuit board is to see if it can be put into an O scale engine.  I've had it open, but can't recall how big the board is (the tanks uses a 12 volt motorcycle battery for power).  The transmitter had left/right turn, forward/backward, speed, turret rotation, and 2 buttons for firing a machine gun and the main cannon.  I'll have to do some research to determine what kind of speed control was used and what frequency the radio is.

 

Here's a rather comical video I just found of it:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoJeYoSWfVk

Regardless of the number of rails and arguing about where this post belongs I think this is a good discussion. I have been an RC modeler almost as long as I have been in model railroading (30+yrs). I have often wondered why our trains seem to lag behind the innovations in electronics that were happening in RC. In fact, it was RailSounds and TMCC that really got me going again in O in the early 90's. I was more interested in HO at that time, but the sound, smoke, and easy of control of Lionel's latest products really hooked me.

 

Straight RC control with no sound isn't what I am talking about. That has been a possibility for a long time now. Personally I don't want to go that route. I want to retain all of the sound and multi-train control that I have today, just power it from an internal battery.

 

Today there is no longer a technical reason for the 3rd rail. Obviously it is still going to allow us to run legacy (not Legacy) O gauge trains the way we always have. But I don't think there are many in 3RS that wouldn't give up the 3rd rail if it was possible.

 

That's why I would like to see someone develop a battery powered system that could be installed in OEM as well as aftermarket to facilitate running them on any number of rails. The reason that the smaller scales are in the lead is that they have standards that they follow. It wasn't that hard to just use the DCC socket and insert a radio receiver to get the DCC signals over the air. Our problem in 3RS is of course that we have two big players with proprietary control systems. In that regard, 2 rail guys with DCC sockets or straight DC are actually in a much better position today because they can just use a system like I posted above. The late Joe G. was on to something very good IMHO.

 

I look forward to the day when I can rip out all of my 3 rail track. I'm going to keep asking the big guys for it. Maybe they will deliver someday? If not I may just get tired of waiting and rip out their electronics and replace them with something like Joe G. did.

The above post is so well written it bears repeating.

RC Control, even though, it has some great advantages, is just not going to happen. Not even in 10 years.

 

The first reason is because it is not offered installed by any of the major importers of O Gauge as David1 mentioned.

The bigger reason for no RC is somewhat similar a reason as to why 2 rail has not grown in popularity by leaps and bounds. Your asking a guy who may have 30, 40,50, or even more locomotives to rip out the electronics if they are not compatible with RC/Battery or add the RC/Battery components. Add it up what that will cost and you have your reason. Even if it only cost $50 a locomotive to switch over to RC/Battery control, which I am sure it won't be that cheap, for a guy like me with 30 locomotives it will still cost $1,500. I'm betting the average O Gauge enthusiast would rather spend that money on more engines or rolling stock than electronics. Yeah, for someone like Fred with a small collection of locomotives it makes sense but there are a lot of guys in this hobby who have large locomotive collections. When I go to York or other 3 rail shows I watch what other guys in the hobby do and people like me who want things to look realistic are certainly in the minority. It's like bob2 said on another thread. "Other than the cost of conversion, there is only one reason for three rail track, and that is you like the appearance." I agree. I believe if hobbyists in this gauge were really bothered by the center rail they would find a way to get rid of it.

 

Johnnyspeed wrote:

"That's why I would like to see someone develop a battery powered system that could be installed in OEM as well as aftermarket to facilitate running them on any number of rails."

 

There is a reason that no one is developing this system you want and the reason is there are just WAY too few people that want it. Do the research yourself and then ask yourself:Would I invest, in what I would guess will be a heck of a lot of money, into this system? Will I get a return on my investment? Guaranteed you won't do it.

 

I remember when I first got into 2 rail 12 years ago. I used to go to the 2 rail show at Wind Gap, PA. One time there was a guy there selling one of the RC systems mentioned in this thread. He had it installed in a Weaver FA. It ran great and sounded great. He was there a total of 2 times and then to my knowledge never came back. At least I never saw him again. Why? Because it didn't sell that's why! At least not to O gauge they didn't. I'm sure they make sufficient sales to G gauge enthusiasts to stay in business.

 

Like Allan said:

"It (full battery power/remote control) may come to O gauge...someday…but I sure wouldn't advise waiting around for it."

 

Me neither. I am going ahead with my plans for a layout using the technology available to me right now. And if I am wrong and RC does come to O gauge in a big way I won't be buying it because I am certainly not going to spend all that money and put in all that time and effort just so I can remove the wiring I would have already installed in my layout.

 

I always get in trouble when I generalize, even if I tag it with "Opinion" - but here goes.

 

I have only 2 rail non- sound, non- command locomotives ( except for that Hudson).  Most do not even have headlights.  I believe most 2- railers are the same as me, with respect to power and electronics, but unlike me, I believe a large percentage simply do not have large loops of track, let alone layouts.

 

That may be why the 2- rail market for R/C is not particularly viable.  The 3- rail market apparently has no need at all for R/C - if it did, it would not be 3-rail any more.  I agree that the proprietary systems are working just fine, and nobody will soon be yanking the electronics out of Lionel or MTH products.

 

Still, I think a viable battery powered R/C locomotive will be a reality in a decade.

Our problem in 3RS is of course that we have two big players with proprietary control systems.

 

And all it would take is a plug&play socket so that the original control system could be unplugged and a new, battery operated system could be plugged in.

 

Actually, if I was Lionel or MTH I'd be taking a second look at the expense of those proprietary systems and asking myself if they're worth all the trouble of keeping/servicing them.  I think MTH has kind of headed in that direction with the ability to use DCC in their PS3 engines.

 

But they're still missing the concept of battery power with no power to the rails and that's what I would like to see come about.

For me I would love to have RC control with battery power. I do not have many engines so it would not be bad to convert my engines. However what I really wish either Lionel or MTH would do is to make their existing controls, (legacy or PS3/DCS) be able to receive RC commands instead of through the rails.  Then add a jack to the engine to allow plugging in a battery car or leave it unplugged and run off of track power.  

 

With that approach they, (Lionel or MTH) would still be able to sell their own control systems and no one would have to retrofit old engines.  Then they could sell a battery tender or box car that has the charging system designed to use track power and a 3-2 rail switch and you could run on 2 or 3 rail with or without power to the rails.  

 

I know this is just wishful thinking but it is nice to dream every now and then.

 

Justin

What does Lionel and MTH do that is so different from the way that DCC transmits signals? Why can DCC be sent wirelessly through a simple decoder such as the one from Tam Valley Depot but Legacy and DCS can't?

http://www.deltang.co.uk/  has all you would need to do it cheaply. Tiny receivers, simple transmitters, just enough features.  I'm in the process of converting a Weaver GG1 to this system.  Eliminate the third rail, use two-rail GarGraves track, eliminate all the bother of track wiring, voltage drops, dirt, phasing, etc.

 

I'm using the TX22 (has momentum, reversing, directional lighting) and an RX102-1 receiver. Costs about $100 and I can use the transmitter for 12 locos at the same time.

 

So, that's the rebuttal to "It can't be done" "It can't be done cheaply" "No one has a complete railroad-oriented system" "There's no room for the receivers" etc.

Because they are proprietary so only Lionel can do Legacy and MTH can do DCS wireless.  

 

DCC is an open protocol so anyone can play.

I could be wrong, but I took what Fred was saying was how (physically) they get the electrons from point A to point B, not what information those electrons contain.

 

Why couldn't all the wiring from where the circuit board ends (DCC, DCS, TMCC, Legacy), going to the motor, lights, or smoke unit use the same pins in the cable connection?  No matter what system you wanted to use, it would be a simple matter of unplugging/plugging in the circuit board.  In other words, a STANDARD.

 

Arthur, I was looking at a site last night in Australia that uses the Deltang components:

 

http://www.rcs-rc.com/

 

That's it Bob. I understand that Lionel and MTH have proprietary systems. What I don't understand is why can't these signals that are normally transmitted through the rails be transmitted over the air from a transmitter attached to the wires that would normally go to the track from the command station and then have a receiver in the engine that ties into the wires that normally go to the track there? Why wouldn't that method work like it does with DCC? Since the system wouldn't be modifying the operating systems in any way, I don't see how it would violate any patents. 

 

It's those signals that are proprietary.  TMCC was wireless.