Why are we running our trains with outdated technology?

Having learned most of what I know about programing from my father who wrote software for the commodore 64, I have a pretty good grasp of what can be done with very little memory.  Mind you, that machine had a whopping 1 MHz processor and 64k on board ram.  So far in the various projects I've done I haven't managed to use more than 9k memory while leaving all libraries included.  In any case the example was more for size that is available.  Aside from sounds, I can't think of a need for the 16k, and for that, you store it on a micro flash card.  I can not fathom why you would need megabytes of data to tell motors to turn on or smoke to puff.  

Moving along.  You don't power things directly off a micro-controller.  Depending on the application a transistor, SCR, or MosFet would be used to bring logic level current up to the levels needed.  So, in addition to the micro-controller ( arduino, Rasp.Pi, Basic stamp, PicAxe, or whatever you like to use, you would need a board similar to an electronic e-unit capable of handling the current of whatever loco it is used in. From what I read on another thread about reverse engineering an e-e-unit, lionel made these with as little as 1 amp capability, which seems pretty low.  Depending on the application, a 4 amp tip120 for $0.35 is a nice choice.  if more current is needed you can go up to a 2n3055, which is quite large, but can deliver up to 15 amps current (the full output of a lionel ZW at 18 volts.) So far in my testing, my 2055 with a metal frame universal motor is the most demanding motor I have to test with, and it draws 3.5 amps stalled.  

Edit:  I have not yet decided yet what is the best bang for the buck, vs bullet proof design between various power transistors, MosFets, SCRs, etc. for delivering current, but am leaning toward MOSFETs, at the moment, for bullet proof current delivery.  

"A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others."  --A.R.

Interesting thread. Conventional runner only, but have learned a lot.

My PW equipment gets operated conventionally. On the modern can motor equipment, I got fed up with incompatible proprietory control systems, and jumping through hoops to make them play nice together.

So I gutted them, installed either Soundtraxx or LokSound decoders in them, and run them with an NMRA compliant DCC control system. A function output connected through a relay turns the smoke unit on and off.

I get enough technology in my daily life, beyond the DCC controller I don't need even more in my hobby.

And I think the conventional guys jumped into this thread because of a gut reaction to it's title, "Why are we running our trains with outdated technology?" Not because of anything in the first post.

I've had it all over the last 15 years and I'm working on DCC now.  I'm finding aspects of DCC that are superior to Legacy and DCS, something I wanted with the other systems.  What I wanted is some control over features.  DCC allows that.

All that said, within the last few years I picked up some Conventional Classics, and in it's infancy, my 2-rail layout is simple DC with no sound in some of my most expensive engines.  With both products, I've found the quietness of trains without sound, running on track to be almost therapeutic.  Your concentration becomes more visual than auditory.  

When will this thread die?  Good grief.

I wish it would end. Close this thread.

And I stayed at a holiday Inn.    Not trying to be too smart of an ___ but you need to build this and then the proof is in the pudding.

You discount the knowledge of a lot of smart people who started companies providing these types of command based engines.  It seems to me you do it by discounting elements that don't fit your model.  I think you under estimate what some of these newer command control engines can do.  I also think you underestimate the factors involved in trying to integrate all the various components you will have to add to make your board an Engine with synchronized smoke and sounds, cruise control with repeatable speed, lighting and other effects including sounds. Including the programming.

If you can do it, you will have some patent tech you can sell to Lio and MTH or start your own company.

This thread started with the question why is the tech old and outdated.  Some implied it was from the 90s, which it is not.  Some implied it is two years old so no good as if I have to replace my computer, or router, or tv or car, or you name it every 2 years because the new tech is faster, or has more memory or you name it.

All I asked for was what does the new tech give you in capability that you deem useful.  That is what I use in my decision process before I change an appliance or device that is still working fine as designed.

If the real issue here is common operating system or lower cost I can accept that.  A board from MTH or Lionel cost what it cost because that is what they can charge, not because it only cost a few $ to make.  

The person that can make a device that plugs into any engine and immediately gives it all the capability the engine had while operating from any typical I/O device will have an immediate market.

But trust me, you will be doing more programming then hardware building.  All based on what I see the manufacturers doing to keep there products relevant and what capability differences are in a Vision Line Bigboy vice a Legacy Diesel.  Same for MTH.   G

GGG,

I totally get what you are saying. 

Its like, why should i switch to a 900MHz digital walkie talkie when my 455MHz analog radios work just fine and do the exact same thing. 

But there are always better ways to do things. New capabilities to explore.

Thats what this thread is all about. 

And to the others.

NO.

This thread should not die. It should remain open for those who wish to discuss the possibilities of using the newest technology with model trains. 

Wish it would end, move on etc. Sorry do not agree. It is great to see so much interest in our hobby. Granted I assume that if this is over my head, it is probably to others and totally boring to those who insist on staying old school. It is however one of the purposes of this entire forum, and as a sponsor, I am delighted. Go for it fellows.

Fair enough.  It's not my place to tell others what to do.  That being said, as a practical matter at some point GGG will start charging you and others for the education. 

;-)

That is not true! .  My advice is always free.  This is the part of the hobby I like. So I am glad to see this thread go on.  There are plenty of other threads for others to enjoy.

One is "How Happy I am to have model trains"  G

Flash, I agree.  There are plenty of folks that have gone off and done that.  So have at it.  I just have an appreciation for the human nature and market element of this.

There have been plenty of new ideas that can't get off the ground because they can't influence or change human paradigms.

Why do all the different manufacturers transformers look like PW ZWs?  Why do we still use AC, when the first thing the electronics do is convert it to DC, why do we hate batteries?  Get my drift!

Gunrunner built a devise to fill a gap Lionel couldn't close with TMCC smoke integration. 

You build the universal device or a comparable CC device at much lower cost and you will have a pretty good supplemental income! G

Hi Folks,

     One thing I really hope for with any new control system is that there will be a simple under-the-loco switch to select either conventional or remote control.  I am a conventional runner with the exception of a remote controlled throttle I build from an RC car's circuit board and its handheld controller with a telescoping antenna.  What Bluetooth promises me is a more affordable remote control system with apps on a tablet, no router, whether I use a product from a hobby manufacturer or make something myself.  If you look on the internet there are all sorts of robotic things, games, toys, etc., which use Bluetooth.  (I think Lego has a Bluetooth system, to name at least one.)

    There is a place for everyone in the hobby, however not everyone is tolerant of what the other hobbyist likes or wants to do.  I read recently on this forum where someone said they "detest the whimsical layouts," or words to that effect.  Could I get away with saying the same thing about hi-rail?

    If you pride yourself on already having the latest and greatest control system, you are going to be rattled a little.

Take care, Joe.

It is interesting reading this thread, and I think some people have written well thought out responses. I don't think the problem is DCS and Legacy are outdated totally, the fact that they were created in the 90's doesn't mean the entire thing is outdated. There are a lot of factors here, ones that are endemic to new technology, and I think it is interesting to talk about why things are done the way they are done.

Think about TV sets. The digital television system we use, the digital cable and broadcast formats for HDTV, were created about 25 years ago, and haven't changed (the standards I mean). And will all the bells and whistles that have been added since then, LCD flatscreens, smart tv's, higher refresh rates, the 4k tv's (that basically take the standard 1024 and 'upscales' it to 4k, like DVD's that get upscaled). You can argue that getting tv over a cable box or over the air is ancient technology, that you can stream and so forth, but the reality is it works well for people, and it like in many cases is not that easy to upgrade technology.

Lionel's command control systems are a classic example, when they upgraded to Legacy they could have shifted the paradigm, and tried for example to use direct radio control instead of the kluge they came up with. However, had they done that, it would have left their installed base not able to use the legacy controller, or they would have to keep the in rail and direct radio control, which would be a pain in the you know what to implement. 

Likewise, with Legacy, they could have totally rewritten their command language and operations interface, but again, it would hurt their installed base, because it wouldn't have backwards compatibility if they did that. So basically, legacy was an extension of TMCC (so a legacy engine can run on TMCC, albeit not with all features, and legacy can control TMCC), it was added features and so forth, but the basic architecture did not change. If I remember correctly, TMCC has something like 250,000 unique control codes, and they were running out of space, so legacy allows some ridiculous number. This allowed the things you see on vision, the better control capability, better smoke synchronization, better sounds, etc.....

When you have an installed base it becomes more difficult. Video games, on the other hand, don't bother with backward compatibility (they did at one point), but with video game consoles you upgrade games as new versions come out, and if a game doesn't offer new versions it likely won't be played by many people over time, so upgrading to the new system is a given, eventually PS3 and the Xbox owners will upgrade to PS4 and Xbox360 to take advantage of the latest generation of games that will not be available. 

Intel faces the same problems with their CPU chips, because of backwards compatibility, people running various versions of windows, and for a while DOS, and old applications, Intel had to keep support for the original intel 808x chip base. For example, it meant they had to keep the crazy segmented memory structure found in the 808x series (that allowed the 640k on the original pc's), which in turn kept them from switching to 32 bit architecture which for example put windows machines at  disadvantage to the Mac and linux machines running true 32 bit cpu's from Motorola. It was only when the old generations finally died out, that Intel was able to redesign their chips away from the 808x architecture. 

There also is the point that advanced technology in of itself is not necessarily going to give you what you want. Legacy can handle a lot more than it currently does using its current architecture, it can handle an almost endless collection of engines and devices and such, it can handle all kinds of undreamt of functions. Besides updating firmware, Lionel also can update the components in the unit while being the same architecture, they can always add more memory and faster processors for example in updated versions. 

I think what this complaint really is is why are we still stuck with two competing systems, rather than having one system like DCC that is standard, and why are we stuck with the quirkiness of the Lionel and MTH delivery systems that use the rails to get the signal out, whether through the middle rail or via radiation from the outside rails. The answer to that isn't technological, it is because Lionel and MTH see their control system as a way to induce customers to use their products and not use the other guys, pure and simple, and a proprietary system makes them money. I personally think they would do better with a universal system, but that is just my opinion, for a number of reasons. 

DCC could potentially be answer, the problem is that DCC is quite honestly even more old tech than TMCC or DCS, it doesn't have all the features in large part because it was designed with scale model railroading in mind where there isn't the kind of bells and whistles kind of things associated with 'toy trains', the operating accessories and the cutsey things that have been a large part of this market. A lot of DCC is about operational speed control, with sound coming in second, but for example, a swinging bell wouldn't be a high priority or controlling an operating accessory. Obviously DCC could be encoded to do a lot more, but to the manufacturers who through the NMRA maintain DCC, there hasn't been much will to add to it (like Lionel and MTH, DCC can be added to, allowing a new DCC controller to work on existing DCC receivers, but also handling features in an expanded, newer one).

Since DCC is open, someone in theory could create a 'super DCC' that would be aimed at the 3 rail market, comes up with a receiver board that can use the stuff already in Lionel and MTH products (the flywheel speed control apparatus, the smoke units, and so forth) or in accessories,and control them (wouldn't violate any patents of Lionel and MTH, since they wouldn't be using the DCS or legacy command sets or receivers). Problem is, of course, that it would be very expensive and probably not worth the cost. Someone else with a deep pockets legal team might be able to reverse engineer the MTH and Lionel command sets, and develop a one shop control for both, and have the deep pockets to make a lawsuit from MTH and Lionel not worth fighting...but not likely to happen. 

Want my radical idea? If we really as a community want Lionel and MTH to come up with 1 system (and I have no irons in this, since I currently don't have a layout, and my equipment is pretty much all conventional for now), we would vote with our feet, refuse to buy legacy and PS control systems, and buy only the conventional engines where they exist, it would probably send a message, but like with higher prices, don't catch your breath. Speaking hypothetically, when I finally have the space and the money to invest in the hobby (paying for a very expensive college), I would love to have a single control system that used direct radio control technology rather than the through the rail Rube Goldberg special we have, and also have an easy upgrade path for command and conventional engines that would allow it to be used with the new system (at the very least, on conventional engines, relatively simple speed control and sound that would work similarly to what it has in conventional, but allow controlling individual engines; wouldn't need a flywheel and fancy speed control, a basic system to vary voltage to the motor and send the right pulse to the whistle/sound in the unit would do)...but I doubt it is going to happen, I think we will have to live with DCS and Legacy for a long time to come, whether controlled via a hand controller or through WiFi or Bluetooth doesn't matter, I think the actual meat and potatoes will be the same. Lionchief does show an interesting parallel, but since it is designed to operate one engine at a time remotely, doesn't sound like that has hopes to be a multi engine control system with direct radio control, though it could be.

The system your looking for is AirWire from CVP.  The G scale and outdoor rail folks use it.  RC and DCC based.   G

GGG has raised some points for me to think about, and I will.  Unfortunately, having to go to work has cut into my play time. Just to touch on some last thoughts:  

I have done nothing with sound as of yet.  I'll play with it as time allows, and see nothing in the theory holding back an equal level of sound to a LionChief sort:  limited to one sound playing at a time.  I'll get to seeing what's involved more once I have everything else sorted out to my satisfaction.  

The other thought I have circles back to many of the conventional guys.  Many expressed that they enjoy being able to fix and tinker with their engines, and I suppose when it comes down to it, this is what I like most.  I think a lot of folks shouldn't be so intimidated by electronics in general, and might enjoy it if they gave it a chance, I know I've been having a ball taking what little I remember from helping my father, and adding it to some research on the internet, plugging it into a breadboard, and staring at wonder at what can be done with current, low cost, tech.  There hasn't been a day in weeks that I haven't wished my dad was here to see what exists today and what can be done.  

When I have some progress to report, I'll post a thread on it for anyone that is interested.

"Tell me and I forget.  Teach me and I remember.  Involve me and I learn"  -- Benjamin Franklin.

Thanks for involving me me, in trains, electronics, computers, cooking, cars, and LIFE, Dad.

Nothing bad can be said about tried and true. work with what you are the best at and you will get the best results. also From a function point of view can you tell the number of features apart by the method of signal carrier?

Great comment John, if I ever get caught up, I agree, time to look at some of these. Mine and others, with a lack of shops around, am not sure how to start. Like everything else, seek and yee shall find I guess.

quote:

The other thought I have circles back to many of the conventional guys.  Many expressed that they enjoy being able to fix and tinker with their engines, and I suppose when it comes down to it, this is what I like most.  I think a lot of folks shouldn't be so intimidated by electronics in general, and might enjoy it if they gave it a chance, I know I've been having a ball taking what little I remember from helping my father, and adding it to some research on the internet, plugging it into a breadboard, and staring at wonder at what can be done with current, low cost, tech.  There hasn't been a day in weeks that I haven't wished my dad was here to see what exists today and what can be done.  

For me, I don't think I would call it intimidation.
The fact is, I have all sorts of parts on hand to repair locomotives with mechanical e-units (and other trains), and the knowledge to use those parts. Plus, I have the factory documentation if I need it.

I know how to solder, and can replace components on a simple PC board. I replaced parts on an early Lionel electronic e-unit board, and got it going again. But when I tried to fix an early sound of steam board, I got nowhere. Some of the components were either unmarked, or had their markings obliterated. I showed the board to an acquaintance who was more familiar with electronics than I. They couldn't decipher the parts either.

Most of today's boards are much more densely packed, and would be much more difficult to diagnose and repair.

I know there are people on this board who are capable of doing component level repairs on boards, but I think they are the exception. It's my impression that Lionel does not support this sort of repair, that replacing an entire board in the norm.

But then there is the basic question of command control itself.
I don't think having command control would add anything to my small layout.

Nothing I have written is intended to be a negative comment. Obviously many people do enjoy their electronically controlled trains. But those folks should also recognize that there are many others who enjoy their mechanically controlled trains.

Whistle relays, and perhaps the 1946-49 electronic control trains are about as high tech as I want to be.
I've had enough of computers and networking.

  I checked out the the Blue-Rail layout integration with the computer as a "game". It is actually very interesting exercise in railroad, and locomotive operations.

Like Railroad Tycoon played on a layout.

 I could see this being very attractive to those into "running orders", those unable to have a big, or highly detailed layout, and those wishing others, like Happy Pappy, could run in an operating session, on occasion with a camera, from his bed-online, 1000s of miles away.

(that was if someone was able)

Hey, I would pay to run a variety of cool layouts online a while.

 I'm still running conventionally, and will continue to until the price of the control investment, is well below the value of the train it goes in.

 Being easy, and I mean no-training easy, would be a must. And I saw it.

 I'm tired of chasing new technology, and always liked to focus on the "fads" once stabilized, and established. That stability doesn't last long enough for my consumer tastes anymore. So, if its not "plug and play", for me, it better dance jigs, and never forget a step.

The 30ft BT range is easily in the middle of an average suburban basement. (my mic/headphones reach 40'+. Lucky?).

What I saw, looked cool enough for me.

Now.. How to, & how mu¢h to convert a PW motor for each wi-fi BT today?

Are there similar operations software to the Blue Rail, ready for the buildable wi-fi systems?

As a retired EE and long term model train enthusiast, it is great to see just how much interest there is in the technology side of this hobby. I run my trains using four distinct methods, two from the manufacturers and two I designed myself. They all work well and deliver the fun this hobby can create.

With all due respect to Lionel and MTH with their proprietory control systems that dont conform. My Vote would go to DCC, it's been successful and proven to work in the N, HO and O 2 rail scales for almost 20 years. Decoders are $15-30 dollars without sound and plentiful and easy to find.