Why are we running our trains with outdated technology?

Yeah, this thread went real South fast didn't  One reason why i don't post as much as I used to.

I should of clarified my question had nothing to do with those who run there trains conventional, they are the smart ones.  But with us who spend hundred of dollars on a particular system or both, isn't it little nuts?  Guess we techno geeks are stuck as I wish there was one system, one standard, that was my goal of the thread. Technology is out there to make competing systems a thing of the past.

Not sure what all the conventional user thought the were contributing to the original question by chiming in here.. I did want to contribute my attempt to answer the question, but there was too much old school moaning to bother. 

Why not just go back to rocks? Simple.....very simple.

That's what I thought you meant Gary.

When I was in 3 rail I got into TMCC around 1998. I had so many signal problems it drove me up the wall. I really hated it. I had no forum to turn to. I couldn't understand (back then) why the signal had to go to the outside rail and emanate from there to a antennae in the locomotive.  I said to myself why didn't they just put a RC board in the engine and transmit the signal directly there? I don't know the reason but maybe the components weren't small enough back then. I bought a Thomas remote set for wife's grandson and it was SO MUCH more reliable than the TMCC I had 15 years ago. I said to myself if Lionel would have had this back then I might have stayed in 3 rail.

A transformer and 2 wires to the track.

Works every time.

It doesn't matter what we tthink!

If the model train manufacturers discover that there is a demand and they can make a profit on any new technology in any gauge, they're going to do it.  Young kids and technology buffs of all ages are very comfortable with new technology.  That is the market that will be persued, not those who are happy with standing still.

Of course, new customers have to get interested in trains first.  Time will tell!

I tried something with my grandkids.  When I first let them operate the trains, with conventional, Legacy and DCS set up, I only let them operate the transformer handles. They were done with it in 15 minutes, going back to their portable video games.  Months later I showed them the 'new' remote control.  We ran trains for two hours.  They loved being able to walk around following the train and blow the whistle, blow the horn, ring the bell and change speeds to a crawl.  Now they come over and want to go to the train room as soon as they arrive!

I kinda like it!

Still using my ZW, I'm running XP on my PC, Just upgraded from my flip top cell phone this weekend. Will be texting soon! But, I have been sniffing around at the LionChief.

There is a certain elegance (and reliability) in that simplicity.

As a 2 rail modeler, my layout remains simple block control DC w/o and other control systems installed.  Simply do not have any need for such systems to run the layout.

I find most conventional runners to be SMUG.  If I wanted to be bored out of my mind I would have stayed conventional, just my personal experience, but wanted to get more out of my trains so I opted for command control.

If you love your conventional that's just great, more power to you, but anymore when a thread like this comes up the conventionals have to jump in and SMUG the place up.

quote:

I find most conventional runners to be SMUG.  If I wanted to be bored out of my mind I would have stayed conventional, just my personal experience, but wanted to get more out of my trains so I opted for command control.

Interesting. Maybe the replies you find offensive are written due to a long history of negative comments about conventional control, and things like universal (pullmor) motors. Comments like "If I wanted to be bored out of my mind I would have stayed conventional"

At times there seems to be a general lack of respect for how other people enjoy their hobby. People should remember that in the real world, people who like toy and/or model trains are often viewed as "different".

Or maybe he's just compensating for other inadequacies....

I do have one concern about Bachman system using Bluetooth, I have many bluetooth devices on my car, phone, computer and even on my wrist. At least once a week one of those devices stops communicating. Either I have to restart everything or pair it again. I am curious how stable the connection will be.

If I wanted to be bored out of my mind I would have stayed conventional, just my personal experience, but wanted to get more out of my trains so I opted for command control.

If you love your conventional that's just great, more power to you

Having a bad day, week or is it month mwb?  The personal attack isn't required.  That is usually a sign of inadequacy in defending your point.  So instead of conceding, attack character.  Poor form.  This is not an NFL forum.  G

Whats even more nuts is guys who have a dozen or more $1000 scale engines....... and thousands invested in a basement sized layout.......have an issue with spending $500 total for 2 operating systems

My comment was half tongue in cheek but half the way I feel.  And I would be blind to say that some command folks don't do the same and I would call them out as well.  But as always we have a variety of opinions and we are here to express them.

I think sometimes the difference between conventional and "the latest technology" is with conventional the trains are the stars of the show, with the electronic controls it becomes an  electronic game like the rest of the stuff.

Electronic game?

Conventional prototype articulated:

Command control prototype articulated:

Which is the better " show"?

The connection is very stable. If there is a mishap (e.g. train derails) the connection is almost instantaneously re-established. Basically unoticable.

Gaming is actually part of the idea.....

Show and tell as an arbiter suggests that one such system is superior by an objective standard and the other inferior by inference.I suggest there is no objectivity in any of this if you review this thread and to make a dividing line misses the point of diversity. Do we who run conventional have an inferred inferiority by suggesting this? I can only speak for myself but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. One could say a lithographed tinplate toy is superior due to the fact it has no pretense of being anything other than a toy. I don't believe for a moment there is a better or worse.

For me to think otherwise is naive.

This may get long but should be worth the read:

I'd like to start by saying that while I've been lurking on the forums here for a while and always end up here to find information for my trains, THIS POST is the reason I finally felt I should join up.

This reply comes in two parts, A response to the conventional runners and an answer to the original question. The topic caught my eye because I have been designing a fully backwards compatible WIFI train control system, and have also been wondering why we are using obsolete technology and paying an arm and a leg for it. I wrote this all twice now, as the thread has escalated since I applied to join the forum and noticing that I rambled for 4 pages in the original draft.

Part 1: Conventional operators:

Without rehashing all the comments made, the facts are simple. Have fun with your trains however you like, but if you go to a taste test for coke and pepsi, don't say you like dr. pepper. Why are you wasting time and muddling up the post when it has nothing to do with conventional control? The OP was pretty clear that they wanted to know why people THAT ARE USING command systems are using outdated tech. It was never a question of “two wires, a transformer, and some track.” so those that do not, and have no intention of ever using a control system really have NOTHING to add to this thread, from an operations stand point. Run your trains as you wish, but when you hear people talking about options in advanced control systems, don't clog yo the thread with useless nonsense that contributes nothing to the question that was asked.

Now that I've enraged half the board,

Part 2: Why are we using old tech?

Moving on to the actual question asked in the thread, there seem to be four main points that have come up as to why we use the current systems. 1. The cost of a new system would be prohibitive. 2. It's what we have already, and we are not replacing everything that already works just fine. 3. What more do you need? What Legacy is amazing, what more do you need? And, 4. Touchscreens are dumb. I want buttons.

So, why do we want, or need something new? The reason I have started designing my own system is simple: The stuff that is out there costs too much money for my low budget railroad. Now someone said something to the effect of “You can have both systems for $500”, and I agree with the premise there. The problem is that you don't spend $500 one time then are done with it. You continue to pay 25-35% premium on every new locomotive. You continue to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for devices to connect the system to your layout. Having 20 turnouts on my last layout, and more on the one I'm now building, those $115 ASC controllers really tend to add up, so much so that lionel simply priced me out of TMCC. It seems to me the cost is already quite out of hand for the current systems, and especially when one considers just how obsolete they are. More to come on the cost of new systems below.

The other reasons are pretty simple to negate. If a new system is backwards compatible you can keep all your stuff just as it is. While Legacy does offer an amazing array of options, what is wrong with adding even more capability to a system, especially when it costs less to do so? And as for a touch screen, no one is making you run your trains that way, it is just an option. You could use a handheld remote, you could use a smartphone, a computer, or even open up control of your layout to useres around the world over the internet. You don't have to, but it is there if you want. In my case I'm planing to run most things from a small base station, but as my design allows TMCC to communicate, I can also use my cab-1 to control it's devices.

Reinventing the wheel: What I've come up with so far:

The primary devices I plan to use are Arduino microcontrollers. For those that don't know, these are mass produces, open source devices used in hobby electronics. For anyone that knows about these things, don't get bent out of shape by the generalization, but they are pretty much mini computers that you can program to do what in the world of trains is practically limitless functions. At about $10 for a board that will do anything you ask it to, it makes you wonder what all you can do.

In a locomotive the electronics needed would be one arduino board, one wifi adapter, and a few transistors(scr) and such to drive the motors. Total cost to add control system to a conventional loco? About $25 from US based sellers. In quantity, ordered direct from china, about half that.

That $115 switch controller that got this whole thing started for me? How about one that controls twice as many turnouts and costs $35 to build? So what does this mean to us? Well, if I were to sell the system the costs would look like this, and the hardware is all open source allowing the public to make improvements. These prices include a reasonable profit to me for designing the system and writing the code.

Locomotive control upgrade: $50.00

ACS 16 channel board: $50.00

Motor accessory board 16 channel: $50.00

Base station to connect this system to TMCC/Legacy/DCS/other control device: $100.00

I have not yet experimented with sounds yet, so I'm not sure what the added costs will be for that, however adding a level of sound equal to my Lioncheif Polar express set would cost about $5 in parts for a speaker and op-amp. Better sounds will take me some time to figure out.

So far the only real issue I have thought of is that I'm unsure if I can sell a product that interfaces with TMCC/Legacy/DCS. I would think it would be fine to plug something into the serial port, but companies get funny about such things. You would still need those companies system fully installed yo use their system, Mine is just capable of talking with it, allowing one to control the other.

Some other things that I'm playing with: Due to the practically limitless amount of data that can be sent between devices, and the insignificant cost of readily available parts there are man neat things that can be implemented into the system.

A recent post about why two loco's report the same speed but are moving differently gave me this idea. How about a $20 add on you can put in a caboose that talks to the loco to report back real speed on the rails? While it's in there this unit can also stop the locomotive if any cars accidentally uncouple, maybe not important for a lot of guys, but when you are running old, beat up, and low cost rolling stock, you'd be surprised how many times a coupler has let go at just the moment I'm not looking. The control board may as well run some directional lighting, and some sound effects while it's in there.

I like the LCS detectors lionel is coming out with, and that sort of system could be easily replicated, but how about this instead? With a small sticker on the bottom of each car, an RFID system could keep track of where every piece of rolling stock is, allowing for advanced yard ops and such. The RFID tags could also be used with one sensor in the locomotive and a sticker every foot or two along the track to let the loco know exactly where it is on the layout.

These are just some ideas I have been kicking around. If you have any that would benefit from a computer riding on train, let me know. The Mini Arduino that I am planning to use has 20 input/output pins, but with a few cheap additions that number easily becomes 1024... more than you can fit in a tender shell, I think.

If anyone would like more information on what I'm working on, let me know.   

I remember a small company called "Digital Dynamics" that used to make a command board called "The Equalizer". It plugged into protosounds 1 engines to make them able to be operated in command mode via tmcc. A wonderful idea, unfortunately, that company is out of business now, but thats outside the box thinking that I like to see individuals come up with, IMO, to help out the hobby as a whole.

Let's hear it for the new guy for deciding who gets to put their 2 cents in on a post!

And if what they do post is nonsense or not!

Way to go!

Jerry

Well, this forth page has been interesting to read to say the least. 

I thought my message was pretty clear on why I thought it was nonsense, but I suppose not, so I'll explain further.  I am not wishing to pick fights, and I have operated my trains conventionally for 20 years and with TMCC for 4 months now.  However one has nothing to do with the other.  The question was related to TMCC/Legacy/DCS.  Chiming in that you prefer convention is well and good, but it really doesn't add anything.  

In the example I used, you are to choose between Coke and Pepsi in a taste test.  If you don't like cola, don't take the test.  

As for putting in your 2 cents, how about this one from a veteran of conventional control:  

Conventional has two significant advantages over other systems and those are that it is reliable and simple.  the third advantage that has kept a lot of people from purchasing engines and such that run on command and conventional is that conventional only is relatively cheap.  I don't know what else there is to say on conventional control, and I'm pretty sure that everyone already knows this information.  

If there are any conventional runners that are operating with a really sweet control panel I'd love to hear about that. If you like your trains simple, but have knowledge in electronics, microcontrolers, or programing, I'd love to hear about that as well.  If, however you want a water at the cola taste taste, wouldn't it help anyone else that comes to the forum for information just to create a new post called "TMCC is stupid, I like conventional and here's why!"

Lets procede to roast the new guy, I'm used to it.  "New guys" are never taken seriously in this hobby in my experience.  Probably why I sit in my basement and tinker with my trains, and don't bother other people most of the time. 

Anyway, I'm finished being up in arms on the topic, so I'll let it run it's coarse from here on with no further talk of answering the questions that were actually asked in a post.  

“If one's actions are honest, one does not need the predated confidence of others, only their rational perception.”


— Francisco d'Anconia

George, I enjoyed reading about your ideas. I like your ideas and wish you the best of luck. The problem I can foresee is that no locomotive will come with your system installed from the factory. You mention that folks pay a 25 to 35% premium for a command locomotive but what does it cost to upgrade a conventional locomotive to command? I'd estimate $200 to $300. So in many cases it's worth it to pay that premium. If you can make your system cheap enough I could see folks buying conventional locomotives from the secondary market (of which there are many out there) and then upgrading them to your system. As a 2 railer I can upgrade a locomotive to command control for $50 if I am willing to not have any sound.

I seriously doubt that Lionel or MTH will allow you to produce anything that talks to their system. They don't want to lose that premium you mentioned. 

For the scenario you describe (just want to operate a conventional unit in a command environment, no sound necessary), the cost is actually about $65-70, assuming you have a TMCC base station.  

Now if you want sound and cruise control, yes the cost can go into the 'couple hundred or so' range. But not everyone desiring a command upgrade will want/need to give the complete "Overhaulin' treatment to their conventional locomotives. 

---PCJ

Wow great stuff. Being in the business of reconditioning old Lionel track, switches and a few other items, we get a lot and I mean a lot of questions regarding the "old technology". From my view I seem to get a lot of requests from people who remember their grandfathers train rooms in the 50's or earlier and want to duplicate what they had.
Most all of them have some inventory, but thru the years of bad storage, end up coming to us for help. My take on this is these folks are on a nostalgic trip which is terrific. I really enjoyed the comment about the experience of Traindiesel with his grandkids. He is absolutely correct, but the fact is while many of this wish our grandkids would be excited about our trains, compared to the action they have available on a hand held phone, guess what. How many times do we go to a restaurant and see kids have their heads buried in their hand held devices, virtually ignoring the people they are with. Seems like an addiction to me.  I think the facts are we do this hobby in large for ourselves. Believe me when I tell you there are lots of us, and many more that just don't understand what the heck is being discussed on these forums, but still enjoy reading them. (myself included) good job guys.

Will the next or better the next after that have any interest? Frankly I doubt it. Did you know the average age of a licensed ham operator with a general license is 70?

I typically agree with what you write but in is case the new guy has a point insofar the original poster wasn't asking for views on conventional v. command, and nor was  the original poster taking sides within that endless debate.  People like drama, and they love this argument.  I never quite understood it because I don't presume to tell others what to do or how to do it.  Moreover, I think trains are fun in any form, the rest is just details.

JohnGaltLine, Your costs are not realistic. Your costs apply to a garage shop, low production set up. For a volume set up with distribution like Lionel and MTH, costs will double or triple. Others before me point this out.

I think that some people comment about preferring traditional control because we all know that train company representatives read these boards, and they want their desires known.
The comments also serve to inform newbees that there are still people who prefer traditional control.

I actually thought my noted prices were quite high.  I just bought a arduino pro mini tonight at microcenter, off the shelf for $7.99.  Add a $5 wifi adapter off ebay, a few SCR's that cost about $2 each from radio shack, or 75 cents online, Maybe what? $5 for the bridge rectifier and a 5v voltage regulator.  and you have a train you can control from a wireless device.  These are current retail prices for the parts as sold to hobbyists, with the exception of the Wifi card, as the ones sold in local brick and mortar shops are too large to use in a train.   All come in at less than $25 in parts.  

Now I am a bit confused by the concept of volume increasing cost.  First, right at this moment all of these parts are available with discounts of 25-50 percent in high volume( 10,000 pieces) orders.  If I were making that many units , I'd have a custom board made with all components in one unit, and that would drop costs further.  If a major manufacturer wanted to add WiFi option to any conventional train in the quantities they make, it would likely add less than $10 in cost.  

The second thing that would keep the cost from rising is that all of the parts used are open source.  This means that any company can make them and any user is welcome to make improvements.  It also means that any guy that likes to tinker about with their trains can buy the same parts and put it together them selves.  The only bit that you wouldn't be able to put together in an hour is the software to be installed on the mcrocontroller. Hopefully that software would be worth a few bucks to someone, but if you are savvy in some rudimentary programing, you could do that yourself as well.  

Now, when it comes to sales and marketing, I have no intention of dealing with it.  When I get a finished product together, an ad at the top of this site Might be worth the trouble, but mostly, I'm interested in helping us low budget guys.  If I can make a few bucks along the way, that would be nice.

I ditched conventional control years ago for DCS/TMCC and never looked back.  At this point, I like what I have and have no interest in investing in anything "new".

Good technology is simple and inexpensive. If a mobile application can hook up to my current DCS system and replace the handheld I'm all for it.

With a mobile device you have a much greater view of what you are controlling. Instead of all the button sequences with todays handheld, you see the status of everything right on the screen. Simple controls to make things work.

A help system by every control to answers on how to use it. A wizard to walk you through creating e a lashup or set subway train stops. Use your imagination.

People complain that this technology is too difficult to understand. With a much more capable interface maybe some of these difficulties could be eliminated thus leaving more time to enjoy watching your trains.

This all has to fit in to what I currently have however. I'm not buying devices and opening up all my engines to make it work. Plug and Play or stay away.

I think JohnGaltLine accurately addressed the off topic responses including my own and yet in another sense they were not off topic due to the question of the original post's title. It could have been worded better as it also posed a more general rather than specific issue in that it inferred a great deal. You can read the results here. I do somewhat resent having choices made for me by the manufacturers. At one time I had two out of three boards fail on new equipment and doing the same thing by going further down that road and expecting different results would have been insanity. And so, I have to admit that when I read the title my mind immediately went to those two fails and the money I spent on them may as well have burned in a barrel. I do think that that the further response in expressing that control systems need "improvement" etc, brings up another issue..planned.obsolescence..and I think sooner than later backward compatibility with older versions will vanish. Then the current operators will be bemoaning that ( like conventional operators ) these changes have been forced on them. Once the manufacturers opened the door to a ever changing scenario the impression that a sleight of hand has occurred is inevitable. I look at these Lionchief units and think ..here we go..again. Another variation on a variation. And so it goes. I like the concept but I dont want eight remotes...Bachmann could not provide a simple screw for a brand new engine. So..do I want to go down that road again with control systems? I had a hard enough time getting the tv, the recorder and the cable box to be compatible on one remote. 

After reading through this thread I believe that the reasons why so many train operators are still running conventional old technology are:

1. Its simple to hook up and operate.

2. Its very affordable, easy, inexpensive to repair and provide Value for your money.

3. Its extremely reliable.

4. They will run for several lifetimes. My dads set from 1948, 66 years late still runs perfect. I know owners of 5344 scale Hudson's made in 1937 that are still running.

To be fair and realistic, TMCC, Legacy and DCS certainly do run FAR better, no question about that. It can also be said that LionChief+ addresses some of the issues ( and I am considering buying it) but if I go that route, I must accept that they will never be as reliable as the old stuff. 

We regularly replace all of the digital electronic controlled stuff in our home. We may get 2-10 years use if we are lucky, but they are all "throw away devices" and most are priced accordingly. If you buy new Legacy trains and appreciate that the operating characteristics are superior, you may need to accept that they too are replace only devices. The question is how long will they last?

Agreed. I think this is also the point of those of use who posted that we run conventional. Those that want to continuously upgrade their technology are free to do so, just don't condemn those who wish to stay with whatever "old" technology they prefer or are comfortable with.

To use the soda pop analogy, when asked why nobody drinks New Coke lots of folks chimed in that they don't want to drink New Coke, they prefer Coke Classic, Caffeine Free Coke, Diet Coke, Dr. Pepper, Mt. Dew, A&W or whatever to New Coke! Basically we are not drinking New Coke because we would just rather not drink it! If you like it, fine. Just don't expect everyone else to chug it down with you and we who don't like New Coke will try to not look down on those who do!  LOL

why old technology...?

For one thing - money!

I can not afford to refit currently.

I don't get it. It would seem to me that the first one that's "lashed up" with the diesels would be the command version (with all smoke units turned off) as you are running three locos together, while the one that is smoking (like an old conventional engine that does not have a smoker switch) is running by itself, like most conventional locos are run.