I'd think that it would not be too hard, in theory, to make current DCC systems wireless. All you need to do is take the signal that currently runs out to the track and encode that into a radio signal. At the loco end the decoder then needs an aerial to pickup the signal and then it's business as usual. (I'm sure it won't be quite that easy, but that is really all that is needed.) The gotcha is the power needed by the loco - the batteries, or maybe a fuel cell There are also some practical and safety issues with battery power that I feel are being skated over. First is charging - if you have 3 or 4 locos then this isn't a big deal, but if you have a dozen or two then keeping up with charging will become quite a chore, not to mention the racks of chargers you may need. Safetywise batteries introduce some issues. As any regular reader here will know, lots of people manage to smoke decoders, but similar mistakes with a powerful battery pack can be far more dangerous - extreme heat and toxic fumes in the trainroom are not desirable.
Yes, batteries are the biggest part of an r/c installation. As for safety, slow charge rates keep them from overheating and proper handling can make rechargable Li-Poly batteries last years. There are dangers, but there are dangers to getting out of bed in the morning. I would rather live a good life doing what I want than to lay in bed hoping that space junk doesn't hit me or I might catch the flu from someone. My view of this is that if one likes to watch trains run around and around, r/c is not the thing to use. But the operator who likes to do lots of switching, turning locos, running in a prototype manner, r/c might be the answer. I admire those engineers who can control multiple locos at once, but I prefer to run one at a time (no multitasking) and enjoy what I'm doing. I began this thread hoping it will start some "conversation" and exchange of ideas. Looks like it just may do that. Woodie
It does not have anything to do with not wanting to try something new. It was the DCC people who tried something new. If you want to sell them anything, it's a bad strategy to accuse them to fear something new, as they were those who made the switch from old, reliable but limited DC. Having said this, it's important to offer something better than we have now. I find it appealing not to be dependent on clean track. So, what would you have to offer to convince me to convert: multi tractions DCC compatible (i.e. the commands are sent via radio) each loco independent controllable battery small enough so that not much weight is lost. (After all, I need to lift 30 car trains up a 3% incline. I do this with 3 or 4 locos now) I would be more than glad to test.. hth Michael
I wonder if a good short- to mid-term compromise might be DCC signaling over wireless, and 12 or 16V DC (or AC) power via the rails. Removing the signaling from the rails should at least HELP with the sensitivity to track conditions. Leaving the power on the rails would certainly improve the "where do I put the batteries" problem.
I was actually more concerned about shorts occurring - such as poorly made joints touching when the shell is crammed back in place. That can lead to some quite substantial power discharges that would make a smoking decoder smell like a breath of fresh air. And you just raised another point - batteries don't last forever and you could go through a few sets in the life of a loco. Need to factor that in the costs - unless they manage to make an everlasting, massive capacity, tiny size battery that costs 50 cents Batteries are fairly heavy, so as long as they are in the powered unit chopping out weight to make space for them shouldn't be a huge problem. It's when they are part of the trailing load that weight is an issue. It really needs a manufacturer to start making 'battery friendly' locos. One thing that would help is to use advances in motors to fit a motor in each truck (as is often done in largescale) so the volume above the frame is clear space to fit batteries and rc cards (and speakers). Some sort of standard for charging would be nice too. You need a socket somewhere and a charge controller preferably on the loco, since different engines will have different batteries, so you don't want a mix up there.
It could be an extension of the Lenz system - small battery good for a few minutes operation, recharged from the live track. You then only need to power most of the rails, but can leave tricky bits like turnouts dead.
I wouldn't expect it to help that much. The way DCC works, either you have power and thus signal or you don't have power and thus no signal. Wireless would introduce new problems of wireless dead spots. Honestly, to me the biggest problem is that I refuse to compromise on the size of the motor in the locomotive. And I think some of you are misunderstanding on multiple engines. I'm not talking about multiple engines doing different things. I'm talking about multiple engines grouped together without co-channel interference. I'm a Telcom test engineer by trade and I have a maxim in network design. If you can have a solid physical cable, then you always always always choose it over wireless. Wireless has it's place, but if I don't need to use it (such as in delivering commands from a base station to a locomotive) then only a fool would. You're just adding complexity for no value. In the case of a single engine in switching service, I think it makes sense. As the basis for a basement empire? Not so much. Having said that, I think that basing any such wide use system on current R/C standards would be a horrible mistake. I would agree, cellular, or more likely 802.11 WiFi would be a much better standard to use. Every Engine would have a MAC address and would get an IP. It would also simplify computer integration. Blue tooth would be another option though you would encounter range issues. But again, I want a big motor, Sound, Smoke units. It's going to be hard to accomplish that on any modern battery. And as was stated, the basement empire would pose a problem.
It occurs to me, that perhaps the best place to put the battery, for diesels anyway is to hollow out the fuel tank and use that space. Or make the batteries fuel tank shaped.
I wonder if someone could accomplish the same thing with on-board "keep alive" capacitors? Of course, those "tricky sections" would be dark territory for a through-the-rails command system.
I've always been annoyed that the DCC system didn't just rely on existing networking standards. I mean heck, there's already a powerline networking standard out there. Just tack on to that. Make the track AC. The biggest hurdle left from a wiring perspective with DCC is the Wye and that's what battery operated would fix. A large Cap or Battery would be good to bridge those gaps.
Wow, now some conversation is going! Everybody has their own views and ideas on the subject of radio control. For me, I have been running On30 and 35n2 r/c locos for almost 10 years now. Buying a bunch of batteries? Two of my locos have had the same rechargable lithium polymer batteries for...10 years. I guess that my modeling style is different from most, I love funky narrow gauge and operate almost daily and have had nothing but fun with my choice. I don't care for sound effects nor do I have signaling or any other "out of character" things on my layout. I like to see what everybody else thinks or knows. I will not change my ways, I am satisfied, but I do believe that the future of this hobby just may be radio control. I am not talking about power in the track to charge caps in the locos nor "TV clicker" technology with base stations and other stuff...just a loco with batteries, a transmitter, and a good time running trains. I have my future now, everybody else can play catch-up. Carry on the discussion, I am just an old fart who likes to stir the pot. Woodie
Well, over the weekend, I got to play with a Clubmate's R/C Battery operated HO GP35. It was based on the Aristocraft CREST system which is a wireless throttle first and having the receiver in the loco is second. I liked the ability to run over the entire system and even sections than weren't yet powered, but the pulling power was absolutely sad. Nice slow speed, but more than 3 cars and it would stall on a 1% grade. This is not acceptable to me as anything more than a fun curiosity. Of course, the Aristocraft/CREST product is interesting in and of itself. Rather than rely on batteries, you could use track power running at 12V constant output and install the radio receivers same as DCC. That would be interesting.
It could be that your friend had wimpy batteries. I have no trouble hauling rather heavy ore cars up & down heavy grades. I am not an electrical engineer, just a "hacker" and blacksmith who wanted something better than the old traditional stuff. I found what I wanted and I guess everybody else can just keep looking and wishing. Good luck with that. Woodie
The battery took up fully half the GP35 long hood. Any more and he would have had to go to a smaller motor which would have had the same effect. It's also now only a single trucked engine, because that battery takes up the space of the other gear tower. You're running On30. That's bigger than HO and has the luxury of a Tender into which one can stuff many things without limiting the power of the motor and drivers. It's a completely different animal. I myself am very happy with current DCC and don't need to keep looking. I find your standoffish attitude rather confusing. Why do you assume I am unhappy?
