Why are we running our trains with outdated technology?

Way for an older forum member to add nothing to a derailed post, and to sound like a donkey doing it. And a least he tried to stay true to the OP question

Actually he has a couple good ideas in there if you were to read it. The RFID tag is particularly good, and not that hard to do. Warehouses track items in the buildings using RFID now, the tags are cheap and would easily fit on a train. He is using Arduino, which is a great do it yourself platform (Which many here lament the loss of do it yourself) and using computers to control it. Sounds like he has some good ideas and a good start.

Sorry, just couldn't resist. I joke

quote:

Actually he has a couple good ideas in there if you were to read it.

Yes I suppose he did.

I'm not so certain it was it a good idea to tell others what they should or shouldn't post in his first post on this board. We have several official moderators to manage that.

I'll have you know I drive a hybrid (06 Ford Escape) but don't have a smart phone, have no intentions of getting one, and couldn't care less about Bluetooth control of model trains.

I also don't use ATM's, pay at the pump, avoid (when possible) drive up bank tellers and do as little financially as possible online.

I don't feel inconvenienced at all....

Color me SMUG, yessireee...

Rusty

My point exactly.

Jerry

Hi John Galt,

     Wishing you good luck with your project!!!

    I didn't see an e-mail address in your profile,  so I'll ask a couple questions here since I am trying to do the same thing but with the PicAxe chip and Bluetooth.   Do you have a working prototype and have you worked out the code for the pulse width modulation?

     Thanks!

Take care, Joe.

I had no intention of wading-in to this thread (and usually do not), but your remarks have inspired me to do so.

Regarding O-hobbyists who operate conventionally "chiming-in," I disagree with you that it did not "add anything." I think their input did add in a positive way to the conversation. This is a social community, one given to sharing ideas, creative efforts, and convictions. Any given posting is not going to be graded for consistency of expression or geometric logic. Rather, we talk and, at the very least, learn something about each other and our hobby.

From the comments in this thread about conventional running, I learned that there is a surprising (surprising to me, at least) number of hobbyists who feel so passionately about its use. It is the passion that was nice to learn about concerning conventional operation, IMO.

Learning all the technical information available through this thread's conversation has been especially edifying to me; perhaps, not to many others, but to me it has been a learning experience, as well as a socially gratifying one, to read this thread. I've enjoyed all the information and social interaction available throughout these several pages of discussion.

As far as exiting-stage-left and slamming the door (my expression for your saying you were "finished being up-in-arms on the topic" and would probably be returning to your basement and not "bother other people" that is probably not a good idea. You were interesting to read! And nobody here will proceed to roast the new guy. Letting it run its course should, likely, continue to provide an interesting read.

Just my off-topic two cents worth.

FrankM

P. S. Further advice? Spend less time in that basement and more time here, and you will catch the full tone, customs, and the flow of the OGR Forum. When other posters disagree with you, or are illogical, that does not mean they are hostile or expect you to return as quickly as possible to the basement.

We like discussions, no matter how momentarily disjointed or off-subject they may appear to wander (and wonder) at times. No test in compositional skills will be given for good transitional elements and logical flow of ideas.

Electroliner, I always enjoy reading your perspectives (and those of CW Burfle as well).  I think the issue for me is that the original poster raised an interesting point about proprietary technology, and its downsides, within the command control world. While I am sympathetic to the argument you and others make, in this context I didn't think it added that much to the original discussion as to why, for command operators, there aren't more cost effective and universal solutions.  The command vs. conventional debate is more well-worn at this point, with good points having been made (cost, reliability, complexity, operations, etc) many times before. 

As to CW's point regarding the need to make our preferences known to manufacturers, it is a fair point but at the same time I think Lionel and MTH (again, in the Notch 6 podcast Mike Wolf specifically mentioned this aspect of the O gauge market) there is a need for backwards compatibility.  I would think it shocking if at any time the manufacturers abandoned conventional control.  I also don't think it is that costly for them to keep it in place so why upset the apple cart.  Again, I think it goes to the point and interest of the original thread being diverted from a potentially more interesting discussion about the reasons why we are a bit locked in place in the O gauge command control world.

Just my .02 and opinions.

Where was that, MartyE ? I went looking for the smug aspect but couldn't find it. Huh?

FrankM

The OP had a good post just asking why it is the way it is.

But it seems too many of you have decided to turn this thread into a bash fest. After reading the last couple of pages I am convinced that many of you will never be satisfied with your trains no matter how you run them. Some of you are just plain NUTS.

Sorry for the insult but it seems some of you just respond to argue and to be a PITA.

I have an open mind toward your opinion and the question itself opened up a wider spectrum of perspectives which I don't think diverts attention away from the valid points addressing the vagaries of control systems. There are a lot of parallel thoughts, opinions that all focus on the same topic regardless of one's orientation...which is the direction the hobby is taking. In that sense I don't think the replies were off topic. I think I do agree that often these topics ask a positivist question that gets clouded by a question not asked in relation to negativity rather than moving the subject forward. It sort of nullifys the purpose of the thread. As long as these comments don't descend into silly personal attacks, I enjoy the whole spectrum of opinions..

Railride---PCJ,

I was correct. You didn't read my post thoroughly. I said "As a 2 railer" and as a 2 railer I don't run TMCC so I don't need any TMCC electronics or a base station. I run DCC and in the past I have bought about half a dozen NCE 4 amp decoders at $50 each. As I mentioned with these decoders there is no sound and of course no cruise control either, but some of the older 2 rail equipment don't need the cruise control anyway. This basic decoder will give me command control of the locomotive. I just checked and it seems the price of this decoder has gone up. It is now $60 at Tony's Train Exchange. When I was buying them they were $50. I bet at shows I can still find them for $50/$55.

I know what it costs to upgrade a locomotive. I have done all three TMCC, DCS, and DCC and if one wants the sounds and cruise (In my opinion) it is expensive but basic motor and light control for DCC is reasonable.

http://tonystrains.com/product/nce-d408sr-decoder/

I agree and I was just thinking the same thing. I am no way picking on or criticizing Gary, who I think is really nice guy, but the use of the word "We" in the title of this thread encompassed all O gauge enthusiasts. It is no surprise that conventional operators assumed he was talking about them since conventional operation as we know it today has been around more than 100 years (I don't know the year it was switched from batteries to transformers) since they did away with the wet cells and lamps.  A better title would have been "Why are O Gauge Command Control operators still using outdated technology?"

Was 'JohnGaltLine' (the poster you were initially quoting) discussing 2-rail equipment and DCC when talking about the 25-35% price premium of command versus conventional locomotives?

---PCJ

So start a new post why we need more conventional control trains and devices.  Then all the operators can join in.

Then the manufacturer can see the number in each subject and make their marketing decision.  G

At this point, I have mostly been working with control for my switches and accessories, and have that working off a breadboard.  I'm hoping to have a locomotive working in the next week or two, but am still waiting for some parts to be delivered.  

I'm not very familiar with PicAxe, but I think from what I know it may be an even better idea than arduino for a production model, however the benefit of arduino is that, PWM is built into the thing with one command all that is required to set it.  

Syntax: analogWrite(pin, value)

pin: the pin to write to

value: the duty cycle: between 0 (always off) and 255 (always on)

To be honest, I'm unsure of the capabilities of PicAxe.  For me, the arduino suits my needs, and I am familiar with it, and it is low cost enough for me at this point. I will do some more research on PicAxe in the future.  

To address the backlash, I would like to apologize to some.  Thinking about it, the concept of "letting the manufactures know we still want conventional control" does make sense to me, however I think in the hobby we've done that well enough by voting with our wallets.  With the exception of the original LionCheif sets, that were marketed to new users as starter sets, I can't think of anything without the conventional option.  I think the topic running on "is the pullmor dead" has addressed another issue with conventional and new products quite well.  all the reasons that we...(we used as I have conventional for most of my life, my trusty 2055 having logged more hours than the rest of my loco's put together.)... that we  have for preferring conventional over fancy new electronics just do not exist any longer.  All modern loco's are using electronic control, as has been the case for many years now. ( maybe with the exception of throwback reproductions?  I don't own any, and don't know if they are using mechanical e-units.)  as far as reliability, I've had to replace the 2055's e-unit 4 times in the last 20 years, and I do not know how many times my father replaced it.  On the other hand, I've never had an SCR die on me. (those are the little black things with 3 pins and a metal tab with a hole through it on top, that control power to the motor in electronic e-units.) Now, it may just be that I run the 2055 more than anything else, it just chugs through o-27 switches better than anything else I have, but with it sitting on the bench with a burned out e unit again, you can bet it is going to get an electronic e-unit this time.  What's the point of all this rambling?  Just that running conventional has not for a long time offered what it once meant.  

“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.” - Ayn Rand

Hi  John Galt,

     Thanks for the reply.  The PicAxe 18M2 (others also) does have PWM built into it, but it is still a little tricky.  I haven't fooled around with it yet.

      Again, good luck with your project.

Take care, Joe.

quote:

So start a new post why we need more conventional control trains and devices.

Do you honestly beleive that there aren't any command control enthusiasts who would jump right into that thread to talk about how much better their control systems are?

Past performance says they would.

I'd read it but I have no interest so I wouldn't dive in

So why not try it as see

Going to throw my 5c in here. The reason that DCS and Legacy still exist is that both companies have a huge installed base. Legacy controllers can control TMCC engines and such, and to this day third party firms use TMCC (since Legacy is proprietary), if they offered a new command system, their existing users would be up the creek without a paddle (if for example they went to blue tooth, at the very least you would need to have a bluetooth to DCS/TMCC/Legacy control board translator, that would pick up let's say the speed control command used by the 'new' bluetooth system, and translate it to TMCC/DCS, etc). It would be doable, since bluetooth is simply a communications system, as is wifi, but it would also mean an installed base would have conversion work to do.

Too, bluetooth or wifi still requires control boards in the engine, that can take the commands from the apps or whatever running on the tablet/phone/computer/remote over bluetooth then translate that into actions, the way the command boards do now with legacy and such. 

Actually, I think the biggest problem with Legacy and DCS (and it is just my opinion) is the delivery method to the computer, and there is an intermediate product that would work. The problem with the current wifi and bluetooth interfaces is they use the current command bases, which still send the signals through the rails, they got rid of the controller, but the rest is the same, and to me it is the command base wired to the rails that is the biggest problem. If instead they use blue tooth to talk to the command board in the engine, and you have apps that can 'talk' DCS or Legacy language, you have eliminated to me what is the biggest problem. It eliminates signal strength issues with DCS due to dirty track or bad connections, it eliminates the whole ground plane thing, they have bluetooth transmitters that are higher power that can extend the range and won't have problems with things between the engine and the blue tooth transmitter, and the same is true of wifi. For existing people, I suspect changing from the current transmission system to bluetooth or wifi would be a relatively easy swap out (again, this is assuming they use legacy and DCS commands), it might be as simple as plugging the antenna wire on a Legacy unit or the input wire from the rail on DCS, into the output of the Bluetooth or Wifi receiver.....and likewise, it would be fairly easy to build engines that could operate either on blue tooth or via the tradiational command control method via a selector switch, the technology is not rocket science. 

As far as what is better, I can't answer that one, depends on the person. I really understand the viewpoint of those who stay with conventional because they work with technology, working in information tech for 30 years, I can tell you that a lot of folks who develop this stuff and test it and so forth, in their off hours often tend to congregate around 'old' technology, putzing with carbs on cars, woodworking, stained glass work, welding, you name it, because in many ways it is a relief......

I do think they could make command control easier, and if they ever invent really good batteries, that can run for a long time and charge relatively easy, having battery power with something like bluetooth control would be relatively simple and fun. You don't have to use an ipad, you could have a remote control that is bluetooth or wifi based, you can use a table app, or a computer, could even have something that looks like a conventional transformer that all it does is transmit speed info, bell and whistle, to the engine, if that is all they want. No real wiring involved, not a lot of setup, lay track down, and you are ready to rock and roll. 

How much would all this cost ?? I saw a comparison of systems in a magazine and the cost of existing systems seems very hig. After all, it is a TOY !!

This is becoming a boring post. I'm done, thank you..............

2 wrongs don't make a right.  Your point was you needed to jump in so manufactures would know conventional matters.

The poster was spot on this was about old tech in Command Control and the conventional guys should not come in to mock or divert the post. It is called hi jacking a thread.

So my point was... your point on why a need to hijack is not valid, since you have a more powerful venue to get your point across in a separate thread.

I wouldn't go into a tinplate thread to state how much better my die cast is. G

Running trains with AC transformers and toggle switches is pretty old and a very basic technology. On the other hand, the generation and transmission of AC power to all our homes is considered high tech, so how do you classify this? Command control was a natural evolution, but delivering the signal to the locos via the layout tracks was a questionable approach.

One area where OGauge is behind the times is in not marrying robotics technology to this area of the hobby. The kids are going crazy for robotics. The HO arena has had a number of robotic applications from several suppliers for some time now.

After reading all of this, I have concluded that as long one enjoys what he has, that is what makes this a great hobby. Do your own thing.  Today, I spent 2 hours trying to add another two wire lockon to the layout, in a very out of the way location, so that speed does not drop off in that area.  Success!!  Everything works, and my wife was able to pull me out from under the layout without any adverse effects.  The beat up 2056 now cruises around the loop at constant speed.  I am happy  That is all that counts.

Hello

After reading what everyone has said.

It comes to mind in that :

We have different control over our trains.

Some very old and some very new

This new tech is a great stuff,but tech comes with a cost and some people are happy with it until the thing breaks down and the costs for repair.

While others are happy running things the way they always have,knowing that things can be repaired by ones self and at very little cost.

I think as long as we are running trains ;old & new and we are having fun.

This should be the most important thing going.

Me I like the new stuff and think its looks/runs great  ,but after dealing with tech all day at  work [ which is  $1.5 mill up grade that's going not so well ]

Its sure nice knowing that.

Two wires and a transformer ,my trains will run and I am having fun

I'm still waiting for my "Engineers Eye View™" goggles for my trip through the layout as an 0-scale engineer...

+1

After reading and then re-reading the original post and subsequent posts I think the answer is that while the technology is old it parts are mostly available. There are many systems that are much newer and surely do cost less until the user wants to find replacement parts and have backwards compatibility which leads to why we have what is currently made. Also, there are many hobbyists in our community that, while not completely technology adverse, are worried that the technology complications have the potential to infringe or reduce their enjoyment of running trains.

If you think about it, running a train by "conventional" is much like running a local shortline RR where the brakeman gets down from the train and guides the engineer and throws switches and couples cars. The only technology involved today is  radio. The larger railroads have dispatchers 300 miles away throwing switches by pressing a button and using a computer so I don't see any real conflict.

quote:

2 wrongs don't make a right.  Your point was you needed to jump in so manufactures would know conventional matters.

 

The poster was spot on this was about old tech in Command Control and the conventional guys should not come in to mock or divert the post. It is called hi jacking a thread.

 

So my point was... your point on why a need to hijack is not valid, since you have a more powerful venue to get your point across in a separate thread.

Is it wrong?

Or is it just the culture of the board?

I don't know why people get so flustered about this. What ever you like is what you like. Who care what another person likes. You have and do with what you have. If someone makes a comment about what people do, who care. More thing to worry about than someones trains.

Common CW.  Ok, "not appropriate".  But you did what you would not want done to your post, because other would do it to you??

The point was when folks post asking for help on a MTH electronic device, do you enter the post and tell them how a Lionel mechanical E- unit drum is replaced?  Probably not  G

quote:

The point was when folks post asking for help on a MTH electronic device, do you enter the post and tell them how a Lionel mechanical E- unit drum is replaced?  Probably not  G

I think that's an apples and oranges comparison.

For me personally, some asides in a thread are more interesting than the original topic. I think editing out the asides as some would have it  would severely diminish the openness of the forum that allows a wide variety of voices. There aren't any opinion police here although some would take on that role which I see as making a mountain out of a mole hill. Sometimes this takes on an air of seriousness that makes toys seem like nuclear weapons. Sheeesh.

The title of this post is why are we running trains with outdated technology? As a user of what some would call "outdated technology" I certainly felt that it is appropriate for members to respond accordingly. No one here is trying to tell anyone what they should use or run. Its just the open exchange of ideas, opinions and that's what forums are for.

It would be nullifying if they were not open. The whole narrowing of responses as a goal seems weird to me as well.