Anybody have an answer to my post above, or just has had the same irritating thing in their mind long enough, already already ? Hey Bachmann, it ain't rocket science and does not even require retooling for; only molten, black plastic [delrin I believe] poured/injected into the mold (s) instead of the' Tropicana orange juice'-flavored plastic. And if ya could maybe make it flat black, we'd really appreciate it. We really would ! Really....... M
Mark, Where's the paint brush and some flat black paint? I don't know! We can fix a lot of things in this life but we can't fix stupid. You got to love the attempts Bachmann has made at improving everything but then we are still left scratching our head and wondering what happened here? It is what it is.
So very true! Sorry to read you have given up on DCC. If you decide to try again, let me know, and I will help you get DCC really under control. I have heard from several folks now that some of the early MRC controllers can send spikes out that can fry decoders when spiked enough times. I just may have a better solution for you. Personally, if I had to go back to DC, I would give up the hobby and take up cattle roping.
Cattle Roping? I've done that believe it or not. Not so good at it but I didn't miss very often. It was the tug of war that followed that got to me. Twisted my back. Interesting about MRC and the decoder killing spikes. Do you mind if I quote you on BarstowRick.com? There is something wrong with my MRC unit and the cost of replacement is beyond my present budget. So, I shut it down...pulled the plug. I'd rather buy a Great Northern Passenger Train. Grin!
This was a great discussion. Enjoyed reading through it. I agree that the programming interface stinks, though JMRI is a step in the right direction. The DCC vs DC comes down to cost and complexity vs convenience. I have a modified Time Saver layout with 4 or more engines on at a time. DCC makes this easily possible. I really think base decoders should be coming down in price as the field expands. As it is, I have dozens of engines I can't afford to run in my financially deprived retirement!
Are you adverse to trying a different controller? I am converting to the ESU system and have some excess Digitrax gear......
This is now Dec. 16, 2016. What about hard-wired 'keep alive' ?! Since no one but no one wants stall outs, have 'keep alive' a standard, built in feature on every brand of throttle. Or if K A is on the engine decoder then make it a standard there. No? I wouldn't complain if it raised the cost of the throttle or engine by $10 if I never again had to experience that sinking feeling we get at each toyish unrealistic 'railroadinginterruptus'.. .....M
Very interesting discussion. I personally can see some fundamental changes on the horizon. First will be the use of Brushless Technology for motive power. This will give reduced current consumption for the same power output and an inherent turns count for auto speed detection/control. The present brushed motor requires an H bridge to give forward and reverse capability while a brushless motor would only require an extra half bridge for 3 phase control. The decoder processor should have the I/O and processing capacity to switch the half bridge drivers directly. The weakest point with any layout, (DCC or DC), seems to be the power pickup. It is high maintenance and inherently unreliable for both track to wheel pickup and wheel to chassis pickup. I can see battery operation becoming the norm with wireless control and wireless charging at predefined stations. This would simulate fuel stops, (recharging) and allow bidirectional communication with a command station. Cost should be low since the integrated technology is or very soon will be available with the development of the IOT. (Internet Of Things where all electronic devices are interconnected). On the question of present day costs, the Ex works cost of a decoder in large quantity would be approx £1 ($1 since the BREXIT vote), so the price should be drastically reduced once enthusiasts start converting their stock of locomotives. ( Most of my fellow club members seem to have in excess of 100 locos each!!). Just the way I see things at the moment, Ron
Have seen a couple of ads lately that seem to be heading in these directions. CVP has been advertising a battery powered system on each loco, with DCC controls. That would end the need for Keep alive. And I think it was a B-man ad for a new system coming out that is smartphone app compatible. Supposedly simple to set up, etc. Just ads I have seen, but I haven't researched it at all.
Hey Rick, since when has DCC "pushed its way out of marketability" ? Almost everyone getting into trains goes DCC. It's the new normal. Is there really such a big diff in buying a $95 loco than a $125 loco, in the great realm of things ? An NCE PowerCab ,which I have, was something like $135. There seem to be other types of digital control systems being born, true. But that's progress. I only own 3 HO DCC locos (and lots more old analog HO and N). It took somewhat of a learning curve to have it become natural in my mind and hand. But since having swallowed that pill I'd never go back to gapped rail sections (blocks) with on-and-off toggles (only train independency DC has available), and silent-train-city, again. No chuffs (steam), no idling sounds, bell (with speed selectivity/whistle (with 3 types of)..front and rear headlights (W on /off/dim), walk around control panels, and a myriad of other features. For one who either has never gone DCC or who has tried it, didn't get to understand it and thus 'sent it in the bottom of a trash can', I don't think you have much say in it; we who graduated from analog to digital and thus now have lots of say in it..IE. You are passing judgement on a facet of the hobby with obviously little to no full-on experience with it...You misunderstood it, called it craps, and gave up. If you filled in all those block-gaps in your rails, took care of polarity reverse sections (which can still be done with DPDT toggles) and bought one good 'DCC/sound' (not 'DCC' or 'DCC Ready') and one NCE PowerCab (where the only thing you need do is wire its 2 leads to the rails and to run this loco on factory default #3 (until you learn later [easy] to assign it a real # like 3991, or 12, or 199, say), I'm quite sure you'd be very happy you finally took the plunge. OK, now you laid out $250 to do this. As long as you can afford that, eventually you will have forgotten this big old colossal outlay in 5 years when it now looks like peanuts. I did and have lived below poverty throughout.... Having to relocate 2 times in the last year, I have no more layout. But I'm glad I have all the engines and the PCab stored and 'Mark/ready' for when the day comes to fire it all up again...It's the total independence of locos which is the major virtue of digital MRRing; we can even have an accidental head-on if not careful dispatchers/engineers out on the road....You can even double head a diesel and steam by volleying back and forth from one engine # to the other; rear begins, lead loco matches it, rear speeds up, lead matches it, until both are at desired running speed for the train...Then you gotta begin braking; lead first, then trailing, lead, trailing, slower, slower, etc...Lots of proto Ops to add reality to the session; more 'railrodianic' I like to say... Rick, don't take this as my putting you down. It's meant for you to conceivably give digital RRing a second chance and in turn have new parameters to adjust for. At the same time, if you are steadfast in the control you have, I can not call you wrong for your personal choice of what floats your boat (powers your train)... Have fun ! M
I'd like to see brake on the throttle (F9 is it ?) act realistically; each application slows train down to that new speed and when released train stays at that speed until adding more speed...
Applying the brake does not change the throttle setting on a real loco, if I am not mistaken. So, your idea, while it might be convenient, is not realistic nor prototypical as far as I understand. I have decoders that work prototypically, and the designers work very hard to make it like a real loco. My brake works as it should. Greg
Greg, I know very well, thank you, that the real brake doesn't affect the throttle, that the throttle must be brought down too, same as an automobile..We're talkin throttle of a, hello, model loco; that being mine and many others, an NCE PowerCab throttle, not the real throttle ! I mean in the hobby throttle, that when applying the brake (button), electronically it acts as if engineer did already drop his throttle and has applied the brakes. It shouldn't have to be done the exact real way. No one has to know we didn't actually drop the speed from 'run 8' to 0. The digital throttle already 'performs' this (circuit design-wise)..So, I'm rolling on road. Situ up ahead requires I begin to slow down. I hit 'brake button' and train slows to wherever I wish, and when released loco remains at new speed..Cabeesh ?
Hi Markin There are many different grades of model railroaders!! Personally I am interested in the control side of things so scale realism is not my top priority. Others however require a model railroad to emulate the real thing down to the finest detail. I had this amply demonstrated at my local railway club recently - I test ran my newly purchased Mullard loco with sound and I thought it the Bees Knees at the time until one of the Die Hard members announced it was rubbish because that was the sound of a 2 cylinders and not 4 as it should be. (It may have been the other way round - I have no idea). Everyone to his own I say and I still think it sounded great!! Ron
Yeah I "capiche" / "capeesh" (I even know how to spell it ha ha, first is accepted spelling, and second is common here in the US)... you want it your way, irrespective of how realistic or prototypical it is. That is cool, but you said: "I'd like to see brake on the throttle (F9 is it ?) act realistically; each application slows train down to that new speed and when released train stays at that speed until adding more speed... " I took exception with your statement and the word "realistically"... it is NOT realistic, nor prototypical (pretty synonymous) ... I have no problem with you wanting an easier or more convenient way. I have a problem with you calling it realistic. Greg p.s. with most modellers wanting the higher end control systems as prototypical as possible, even wanting controllers with levers, etc. I think your idea will not migrate there... it might well be implemented in more basic or entry level remote control systems, I do agree it might be easier.
It's kind of sad that DCC has not really kept up with the technological advances in the computer world since the 1990s. I use a Digitrax system with a PR3 USB interface and run JMRI on my laptop but today we have mobile devices, bluetooth, wi-fi, tablet computing, cloud computing and even USB as we know it is changing. The major DCC manufacturers could have come out with a command system that has a GUI with touch screen and built-in USB, wi-fi and bluetooth.
I do not think it is only the manufactures - some of my club members balk at the thought of DCC so any of the modern technology involving computers and touch screens would have them running to the nearest signal box. The next generation of railroaders will be another matter. They would have grown up with computers so computer control of everything (IOT) will be second nature to them. By that time, locomotives will be fitted with video cameras and you will be able to drive/run your or other modellers locos from any where in the world via the internet. (Just done something like this and I have no idea where the layout was). The open source/DIY systems give the opportunity to install high tech solutions at very low cost. With the likes of JMRI, RocRail, DCC++, OpenDCC etc, a little work can get a simple railroad up and running with the possibility of developing into a very comprehensive system as experience is gained. On the other hand, future railroaders might bypass the construction phase completely and run computer generated simulations viewed through VR goggles. Ron
