A "Wireless" DCS?

[EightyMac]

NOTE: Since MTH is a multi-scale manufacturer, I am putting this thread here. Mods, if it belongs somewhere else, fell free to move it.

Recently, Northwest Short Line launched the S-CAB Radio DCC system, giving users the benefits of DCC without the cantankerous and costly infrastructure. The S-CAB handheld unit communicates to locomotives through radio signals rather than track signals. One can even eschew track power entirely, with each locomotive having its own on-board battery.

I liked what I saw taking shape at NWSL so much that I thought MTH should follow NWSL's lead, with a "wireless" version of their Digital Command System. Like the S-CAB, the "wireless" DCS would allow for radio communication between a DCS handheld and a locomotive (no TIU required) and allow locomotives to be powered by on-board batteries, if desired.

I want the opinions of fellow modelers--does the wireless DCS idea sound like a good one?

 

[TrinityJayOne]

There was a thread a little while back on a similar product whose name escapes me...something "Engineering" I'm sure...although the manufacturer of that one was carrying on like they had invented the best thing since sliced bread.

My thoughts on radio transmission vs current DCC transmission are that the benefits are entirely negated by the drawbacks. The obvious problem is that batteries are annoying and nobody likes things that need to be recharged regardless of any improvement to running characteristics over dirty track. The ideal solution would be to have the battery charged via track power, but then you're still reliant on that track power. At this point the only difference between your wireless, battery powered locos w/ track power fallback and regular DCC locos w/ capacitor fallback is that the wireless solution costs more.

The other problem, at least for us N scale modellers, is size. Many N scale locos struggle to fit a sound decoder + speaker, nevermind a battery sufficient to run a motor for any acceptable period of time. No, you'd want to have that loco on track power, which takes me back to the above point.

 

[sd50f]

Ring Engineering and Railflyer are both working on wireless DCC systems. The Ring one will work with your current DCC system, and the Railflyer doesn't need any infrastructure in place, as the locomotive will work with a tablet for controls and batteries in the locomotive.

Timothy Dineen

 

[Burlington Bob]

By TrinityJayOne;

My thoughts on radio transmission vs current DCC transmission are that the benefits are entirely negated by the drawbacks. The obvious problem is that batteries are annoying and nobody likes things that need to be recharged regardless of any improvement to running characteristics over dirty track. The ideal solution would be to have the battery charged via track power, but then you're still reliant on that track power. At this point the only difference between your wireless, battery powered locos w/ track power fallback and regular DCC locos w/ capacitor fallback is that the wireless solution costs more.

The other problem, at least for us N scale modellers, is size. Many N scale locos struggle to fit a sound decoder + speaker, nevermind a battery sufficient to run a motor for any acceptable period of time. No, you'd want to have that loco on track power, which takes me back to the above point.

Pretty much X2, especially with regards to N scale.

 

[EightyMac]

Ring Engineering and Railflyer are both working on wireless DCC systems. The Ring one will work with your current DCC system, and the Railflyer doesn't need any infrastructure in place, as the locomotive will work with a tablet for controls and batteries in the locomotive.

Timothy Dineen

Perhaps I wasn't clear on my definition of a "Wireless" DCS system.

By "Wireless" i meant the act of communicating between a throttle and a locomotive via radio signals instead of track signals.

On the disadvantages of battery vs. track power, why not set up pseudo-"charging track sections" on your layout near a coaling tower, water tank/column or diesel fueling station (electrically isolated from the rest of the layout of course)? Makes sense, since the locomotive getting its battery charged it the technical equivalent of "taking on fuel". Simply park the loco on the charging track long enough to restore full battery capacity, and voila!

 

[sd50f]

"By "Wireless" i meant the act of communicating between a throttle and a locomotive via radio signals instead of track signals."

That's precisely what the Railflyer system is set up for. The decoder and batteries are in the locomotive, and you only need to wire enough track to set up a charging station. Everything else is over the air from the tablet to the locomotive.

It has a bit of a high starting cost, but not too far from the cost of current DCC systems on the market. But...

There won't be the need for all that track wiring.
There won't be the need to clean all of your track.
There won't be a need for speed matching tables.
There will be a user friendly interface on a nice looking tablet.
There will be a decoder that has somewhere in the area of 42 connections for leds.

I hope it comes to fruition, because it's a more attractive option than current DCC systems on the market.

Timothy Dineen

 

[Burlington Bob]

Still some of the main problems as listed before. Until battery technology improves vastly and then the prices come down on the new technology, I think that it would still be unfeasible for use in N scale and definitely not feasible for Z scale. I think that I can live with keeping my track clean for a while.

By sd50f;

There will be a decoder that has somewhere in the area of 42 connections for leds.

Are you going to run a Christmas train?

 

[EightyMac]

"By "Wireless" i meant the act of communicating between a throttle and a locomotive via radio signals instead of track signals."

That's precisely what the Railflyer system is set up for. The decoder and batteries are in the locomotive, and you only need to wire enough track to set up a charging station. Everything else is over the air from the tablet to the locomotive.

It has a bit of a high starting cost, but not too far from the cost of current DCC systems on the market. But...

There won't be the need for all that track wiring.
There won't be the need to clean all of your track.
There won't be a need for speed matching tables.
There will be a user friendly interface on a nice looking tablet.
There will be a decoder that has somewhere in the area of 42 connections for leds.

I hope it comes to fruition, because it's a more attractive option than current DCC systems on the market.

Timothy Dineen

I have seen that. Only one problem...these decoders--and virtually all of their other products--cater mostly to fans of modern diesels (SD70ACE, GEVO, etc). In case you didn't know, my subject of interest is steam/early diesel (E-Unit, F-Unit, PA, FA, GP-7, GP-9 and RS-3, S-2). The benefit of the S-CAB is that NWSL reverse-engineered existing SoundTraxx decoders to work with their wireless transmission/battery power system.

Moreover, I have designed schematics (despite not having the money to implement them) that utilize, in addition to the Soundtraxx decoder, several NGineering light simulator boards (firebox glow, MARS light, etc), and even a fan-driven smoke unit of my own design (actually adapted from the one used in YouTube user Qora01m's modified G Gauge USA trains Hudson). The design makes use of pulses from the exhaust chuff cam wheel to drive the smoke unit's fan, and also has variable density control (now, I realize that many modellers eschew smoke units saying that it is not worth the residual deposits that the oil-laden vapor coats the scenery with, but I still think smoke units, even in diesels, adds an extra sense of realism).

In other words, I spent hours of time trying to design these devices to work with SoundTraxx decoders, and do not want to bother spending more hours to re-design my systems to work with another manufacturer's decoders.

Admittingly, another problem with sound decoders is that you can only use the sounds the decoder manufacturers give you--you can't tailor the sound scheme to your own liking without sacrificing benefits of other decoders.

 

[sd50f]

"Are you going to run a Christmas train?"

Funny, that was one of the first things I thought of building when I heard about the number of leds you could connect. I go to see the CP Rail Holiday Train when it goes by my house every year, and that would be one impressive model to build. But the number of leds it can handle does cover front and rear headlights, ditch lights, step lights and class lights.

It may end up being possible for N scale, if someone is willing to do it. Technology is, after all, getting smaller and smaller. Z scale...I don't think that's happening too soon.

Timothy Dineen

 

[TrinityJayOne]

The chips would fit in N scale easy, no doubt about it. The bottlenecks are the speaker for sound output (seemingly limited by physics at this point) and the battery. If battery technology had developed anywhere near as rapidly as the microchip we'd all be driving around in electric cars already.

 

[scroggin]

I guess that for anyone with an existing model railroad we would want compatability with our existing locomotives. Is it going to be as easy to convert our current engines to this system, as converting from DC to DCC ? and are other manufacturers going to use this same system giving us a wide variety of locomotives to choose from? . If the answer is no then why would large numbers of existing modelers adopt it even if it is a little better than what we currently have?
I can see the advantages but wouldnt want to have to ditch my current locomotives or be beholden to only one manufacturer.

 

[sd50f]

For me, it wouldn't be that much to convert over to a wireless system. I don't have a layout and don't have a DCC system at the moment. I could very easily switch to a wireless method of control. I don't think we'll have to get rid of the stuff we have in order to make the switch, as all of these wireless systems are capable of being used in any locomotive (at least in HO scale and larger), no matter who made the decoder.

For those who have layouts, I think it becomes a little more sticky. If you've spent all that time and effort to build and wire a layout only to be told that you don't need all that wiring, some might go crazy. But, at the same time, you could have your DC/DCC layout and a friend comes over to run some trains and brings his/her tablet and a locomotive...well, that's one less throttle you'd have to provide.

As for other companies adopting this system...well, it wasn't that long ago that we had several incompatible command control systems on the market. Then the NMRA stepped up and put DCC as a standard. Same thing happened with couplers. Things change...and this could be a welcome change in the hobby. But I don't have a magic crystal ball to tell me what's going to happen.

 

[Iron Horseman]

Then the NMRA stepped up and put DCC as a standard. Same thing happened with couplers. Things change...

Technically the X2F coupler was never an NMRA standard. The industry just happen to see the advantage and rallied around that proposed design. I think because it was cheap.

More recently the "standard" knuckle couplers have come about because the Kadee patent expired. Everyone jumped on that design because it was so good. NMRA really had nothing to do with it. The only thing NMRA specifies in the coupler standard S-2_2010.07 is the height above the rail tops.

But back to the thread topic - Wireless DCS.

I do not know what the wave form for DCS is but if it is anything like the DCC signal, then applying that signal to wireless technology is not an efficient use of the band width. One of the magic things of DCC is if one is getting power to the loco then one knows they are getting the control signal. When one removes the power from the equation, there are much better signalling protocols for a wireless control system that could be used.

 

[sd50f]

Sorry about that...guess I put something in a sentence that should have gone on its own. Yeah, the NMRA had nothing to do with the change in couplers. But the change has been a mostly welcome one. I'm not a fan of the knockoffs, but at least you can use them. The X2F couplers are garbage...always have been.

I also know that at one point, 12 volt motors were not the standard. When the hobby switched to 12 volt motors, there were magazine articles showing how to change the motors to work on 12 volts. Things change...I don't think anyone here would want to rewire a motor to 3 volts...and with a $200 locomotive no one should ever have to.

Back to the topic...I also don't know the waveform for wireless. I don't know what Ring or NWSL are using. Railflyer is using Zigbee, which looks like it could be interesting, but again I don't know that much about it.

Timothy Dineen

 

[Cjcrescent]

I don't think that many modelers, except the mth crowd, would really be interested in a wireless dcs system. Its a proprietary system that has no compatibility with DCC at all. Since he is the only maker of dcs, if he goes out of business, or has some financial difficulty that would preclude producing his system for HO, where will you get the parts?

Mike seems to think that because he has had good success in the O gauge 3 rail market that it would automatically translate into taking the HO world by storm. He's still learning the lesson that without DCC compatibility, he won't ever be more than a very minor player in HO.

While overall, I do like the concept of onboard power, totally independent of the track, I just don't think that the battery technology is there for this to be a real success, no matter how compatible to the current DCC equipment the systems are.

 

[Mark R.]

Tam Valley has already done this ....

http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/products/drs1wirelessdcc.html

The battery can be substituted for power pickup from the rails, eliminating the need for onboard power.


Mark.

 

[Iron Horseman]

I also know that at one point, 12 volt motors were not the standard. When the hobby switched to 12 volt motors, there were magazine articles showing how to change the motors to work on 12 volts. Things change...I don't think anyone here would want to rewire a motor to 3 volts...

Wow, that is one thing that I never knew. Of course with open frame motors it isn't that hard to rewind the armatures. Even as late as the late 60's people were "hot wiring" Aurora Model Motoring pancake motors to make the cars go faster. Back then "magnet" wire was cheap and people had more time than money. With modern can and coreless motors being so cheap and copper wire being so expensive it would not be even close to being cost effective.

 

[EightyMac]

Okay. Thank you all for your input. Note that I've talked freely about using MTH's DCS at one point and later SoundTraxx. That's because on one hand, I am planning a large-scale garden railroad, but also at the same time planning an HO layout. For my large-scale layout, I had planned to standardize on MTH's DCS for that, but since MTH does not (seemingly) offer upgrade kits for HO locomotives, I am forced to use SoundTraxx decoders for that.

I also mentioned the fact that many sound-decoder users are limited in the range of sounds (such as whistles and horns) they can choose from, and if the sound they really want does not exist on their decoder (or the MTH sound library) they have to make do with a sound that does not truly reflect the way they want their locomotives to sound. Boo Hoo. For this reason, I would also like to see MTH offer an upload-your-own-whistle/horn feature to their DCS. Provided a modeller has a pre-existing recording of the whistle or horn they want, all they have to do is import the sound to an audio editor such as Audacity or GoldWave, format it to be detected and used by DCS, and upload the file to the TIU (or in the case of my earlier wireless idea, the locomotive's circuit board).

Anyway, back to the wireless concept--in theory, the antennas needed for radio communication should be hidden inside the locomotive body, as the presence of these antennas is unsightly when mounted externally. However, the fact that most MTH steamers have die-cast metal bodies creates an interesting problem since, while radio waves can easily penetrate plastic, they can't penetrate metal, and are reflected by the locomotive or tender shell. This is one of the issues that needs to be addressed.

Tam Valley has already done this ....

http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/produc...relessdcc.html

The battery can be substituted for power pickup from the rails, eliminating the need for onboard power.

The transmitters and receivers that TAM offers are not electrically compatible with large scale. The max voltage for these transmitters and recievers is 11 volts, but large scale trains need 18-24 volts max. Any ideas?

 

[CSX Robert]

...
The transmitters and receivers that TAM offers are not electrically compatible with large scale. The max voltage for these transmitters and recievers is 11 volts, but large scale trains need 18-24 volts max. Any ideas?

One option would be to put a DCC booster between the receiver and the motor. Tam Valley sells one that might be small enough and cheap enough to use for that purpose(http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/products/dccpowerfrogjuicers.html).

 

[EightyMac]

One option would be to put a DCC booster between the receiver and the motor. Tam Valley sells one that might be small enough and cheap enough to use for that purpose(http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/products/dccpowerfrogjuicers.html).

Again--NOT HELPING!!!

I should have been clearer--I am intending to standardize that ALL my large scale locomotives--regardless their original manufacturer--would use MTH's DCS, and the DCS system would be used in conjunction with Tam Valley's transmitters and recievers. In other words, the output from an MTH TIU is fed through a transmitter, which is picked up by receivers on board the locomotives, and fed to a locomotive's DCS circuit board.

The fact that the DCS system, as a whole (not just the motor), has a typical operating voltage of 18-24 volts creates an interesting problem since Tam Valley's recievers and transmitters are designed for only 11-15 volts tops. The lower operating voltage of the transmitter makes a signal weaker than a typical DCS track signal (when track power is used), and the locomotive's DCS circuit board can't easily decode this weak signal.

I still need a better idea. I have e-mailed Tam Valley to see if they can correct this oversight themselves.