# How do LS clubs and groups us R/C?



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

During the AC REVOLUTION thread I have seen commentary made by Greg, Knut and others that they consider the way the OVGRS operates, ie. a mixture of brands of R/C and non typical (to DCC) ways of operating, to be be out of the norm.
That is not meant as a criticism of anyone, it is just an observation.

Rather than hi jack the AC thread, I would like to point out that the way the OVGRS works is probably much more typical of how battery R/C groups operate than do DCC clubs in smaller scales. This is likely caused by the variety of different, non compatible, R/C systems. This diversity is not going to change. Therefore the way the disparate LS groups operate with battery R/C, is not likely to change any time soon.

I would like to see responses from clubs or groups using battery R/C, to see how they handle the multiplicity of R/C brands with respect to operation.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

The CCRy, and the Dunckley Northern, and Triple Falls, and the Canadian Branch, and the DB&W, and any others I can think of, all use individual handhelds, and IF we need to "hand-off" a train, we just pass over the TX. 
Imagine these scenarios: 

Four trains running on a single track main, with one operator, who just can't quite keep track of all of them. 
What happens if he "forgets" to "nudge" one? 
It stops. 
Then, one by one, the others plow into the back of the first. 

Or, say you want to "hand-off" to the yardmaster........and you want to hand onto your handheld....as the train is moving into the yard......"What frequency" Let me set that. Hang on" Train still moving into yard. 
"What address? Let me set that......" POW! 

I can tell you that in 16 years, I have never had any of those issues, and neither has anybody else around these parts. 

The ONLY issue we have, and it happens from time to time, is some yay-who running a SD whatever with some new snazzy transmitter, sitting on a bench, totally engrossed in pushing buttons........and has no idea where his train is....as it prepares to climb into the caboose of a logging train being hauled by a Climax. 

I see those threads an laugh. 
Out loud, even. 

We actually run trains. 
One engineer per train, and one train per engineer. 

That's the way the big roads do it, right?


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

"One engineer per train, and one train per engineer. 

That's the way the big roads do it, right?" 

Well, people who live in Simi Valley CA might dispute that. Once in awhile, the UP only has 3/4 of an engineer; and it's the lead item on the 6 o'clock news for a week.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

The OVGRS club railway,


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Paul has outlined the operations of the OVGRS saturday sessions and the wide variety of battery/RC systems in use. As he pointed out, we do not have issues that I am aware of because we do not have a common system.

I would like to add two additional points - one relates to experience with ops sessions in all scales and the other to why a coomon system should be goal.

I participate routinely in ops sessions in HO and Sn3 as well as ops sessions in the garden. The sessions in the smaller scales are of course done with DCC, the de facto standard on all the smaller scale railroads I am aware of (including my own HO layout). Putting aside the DCC difficulties of power districts down whenever a short occurs and the need for clean track, DCC has wonderful functionality. The point is that DCC at the core is proprietary - that is to say, those hand held throttles, radio or tethered, are common to the brand of system in use. In our area , Lenz and Digitrax predominate with users of one or the other struggling a bit with the sophisticated throttles during ops on a railroad using the other system. I have observed that none of the large home layouts sponsoring an ops session with DCC has sufficient throttles for a full operating crew (up to 15 or more for example on Tom Hood's Canadian Northern) and other members with the correct brand bring along some extras to fill in. I will return to the point of Tx's in short supply momentarily. 

I am puzzled over the "handover" question. On all the layouts I operate on in all scales, yardmasters most often make up trains using a yard engine. The road crew takes the train by backing down a road loco to pick it up. No handover needed electronically. At times a road crew will make up its own train especially at a smaller yard. Now the road crew will use their road engine to do the switching. The only hand off situation I can envision is a single operator operating alone, assembles the train with a yard engine and then wants to run it himself with a road loco. BUT he also wants to use just one throttle? In the practical world, I do not see handoffs of trains or throttles to be an issue worth losing any sleep over.

That brings the question of why a common system? Is it important or not? As was clear from the description that Paul gave, a common system is not part of what we do in the OVGRS. I have participated in large scale ops sessions on Ric Golding's Kaskaskia Valley, Dave Goodson's Colorado Consolidated and Bruce Chandler's Jackson & Burke. Again the usage of a variety of battery/RC systems did not detract in any way from the operation.

I can appreciate that a common approach with a proprietary DCC system is absolutely essential or trains will not run. But in the world of battery/RC what are the pros and cons of a common system. I cansidered the issues at one point for my own Northland Railroad - a much more modest home railroad then the IPP&W and designed to allow ops with a mix of battery/RC and live steam. In thinking about the issue, the only reasons for a common system (batteries, chargers, Rx, Tx and sound cards) related to a learning curve around installation and maintenance combined with perhaps a lesser number of devices (battery chargers and Tx's) being required. But as my experience showed, Tx's are always in short supply on a railroad intended to be operated with a crew so I discounted that aspect. On the con side was the very clear obsolescence over time of various electronic components. My earliest Aristo 27 mobile and RCS installed gear are now obsoleted by much newer and more powerful systems BUT the early ones still work. I am not going to rip them out just to bring everything to an everchanging common standard. 

My conclusions from all this rambling:
1) a multiplicity of battery/RC systems is very common to operations in the garden everywhere I have been fortunate enough to visit and participate in ops sessions (or even just running trains as at Marty's Sept event) .. it is not something which is only done by large clubs but is the norm on battery/RC hame layouts as well
2) the oprational problems of using a multiplicity of battery /RC systems seem negligible in my experience 
3) in a perfect world, we would all choose the latest and greatest system for each of our locos (making them common of course) but the real benefits in maintenance/installation are so small that I for one will not replace older systems just to keep them common

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Madstang (Jan 4, 2008)

Speaking of multiplicity running, The River City Raliroaders run 1 train 1 engineer, then possibly hand off the Tx. We do not run op sessions, we like to watch them round and round! 

The majority of controls is Airwire on different frequencies, BUT a couple of us do use the RCS, and Aristo TEs'....and a couple still use track power, only problem we have is sometime people not paying attension!

When I used the MTS I ran 3-4 trains at a time, what a hassle, couldn't enjoy running as I had to pay close attension or "CRASH"! 

I like to set a train on the track and let it roll, whilst I work on the layout or sip something cool and refreshing, and trip the whistle when I want to OR when the wife thinks that there isn't enough noise....imagine that one!! 

Speaking of my wife she is the only person I have seen that can run 2 trains at a time without any problems..and she nevers runs trains..at all, I wittnessed this at a recent train show..BOY was I intimidated!!! I can't!!!!

Never really had a problem with the variety of controls, but everyone likes what they use, and the reasons for using them are personel preference. Everyone can state a good reason for using each of them..there is not a bad system out there, that we have used.

Bubba


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 04/07/2009 8:44 PM

We actually run trains. 
One engineer per train, and one train per engineer. 

That's the way the big roads do it, right?

Dave, very, very well said. 

Tony, a very good question for discussion.

When we have runs on our layout or on any of the others in the Phoenix area and at Marty's, it's one train per one controller. Everyone watches their own trains, (for the most part). Are there lapses in attention and "incidents", yes but rarely. I'm probably the most guilty..... Unless JJ is around.  /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sad.gif 


We're aware of overlapping frequencies and just have fun running our trains. 

Like Bubba, I can run 4 trains at one time with one controller but it ain't no fun. I'm much happier with the one train, one controller concept. 

And to quote Bubba... "Never really had a problem with the variety of controls, but everyone likes what they use, and the reasons for using them are personel preference. Everyone can state a good reason for using each of them..there is not a bad system out there, that we have used." Well said, Bubba..... 

Oh yeah.... These are just toys... eh?


----------



## paintjockey (Jan 3, 2008)

I use airwire and when I run at my house I usually run two locos alone. But when people are over I use one loco per engineer. Once in awhile I'll put two on mine and run on the mainline and operate the yard loco. We don't pass over controllers. We operate like the real railroads do. If the crew is gonna change a loco, the loco comes to a stop addresses/freqs are changed, then the loco is off. We have only had one "meeting" and it wasn't due to changing addresses. The visiting engineer straight up wasn't paying attention, I don't care what system you use nothing can fix that. 

Terry


----------



## noelw (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 04/07/2009 7:29 PM
During the AC REVOLUTION thread I have seen commentary made by Greg, Knut and others that they consider the way the OVGRS operates, ie. a mixture of brands of R/C and non typical (to DCC) ways of operating, to be be out of the norm.
That is not meant as a criticism of anyone, it is just an observation.

Rather than hi jack the AC thread, I would like to point out that the way the OVGRS works is probably much more typical of how battery R/C groups operate than do DCC clubs in smaller scales. This is likely caused by the variety of different, non compatible, R/C systems. This diversity is not going to change. Therefore the way the disparate LS groups operate with battery R/C, is not likely to change any time soon.

I would like to see responses from clubs or groups using battery R/C, to see how they handle the multiplicity of R/C brands with respect to operation.



*Hi Tony... To bad you don't have anyting for us track power R/C to work with... We are stuck in our Club with A/C remotes for our train runs.. but we do have blocks sys. set up for two Remote to run at the same time. 
Our problem is being bulky R/C's and lot of guys run two or three units in a train so ya we need the power to the tracks.. 
We are about to host another Get-together on April 18th in the afternoon on live internet broadcast so if want to see how we run you can see it there. 
http://www.mogulus.com/noelw

Not trying to advertise on your post Tony.... but hope you can see our problem... Most of our group/club have to many Eng. to go to batt. power or DCC or any other type R/C being most of us are track power only.. 
We have as many as 5 to 10 trains ready to get on the main line. but we do have fun the old fashon way with us old guys for the old track power.. 
By the way those Relay that you sent me 4yrs ago are holding up better that the one that came in the A/C units and now have them as plug in socket for them.. tks for the interest with that problem with us.... We owe you big time..... 
So Like Greg said.. besides DCC & BAtt. What else is out there to do what we are doing?????? Noel

*


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Tony, 

Interesting topic. I guess our club is a little different, in that we don't really have 'operating sessions'. Ours are more like social get togethers and BS sessions where the host runs his trains while everyone else chats or takes turns running them. We encourage others to bring their trains to run too, though. So it's not unusual at my place to have people bring live steam, battery or DCC engines to operate. We do have one club member who runs battery, and he takes his engine over to other people's open houses and runs it in the mix. I can't see it being an issue mixing different r/c types, though, since from what I've seen it's always one controller per loco so there is no interference. 
At our place, using Massoth DCC, each of us in the family has our own controller and runs our own train. If we want to 'hand off' or trade, we just trade controllers. Although technically we could each be controlling two locos each simultaneously or swapping digitally, we rarely do that--usually the second function is used to run the signal or other function like dumping a hopper car etc. It's far easier just to hand over the controller, as TOC points out. 

Keith


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

The 'group' that runs at the RGSEast (pics on the 'events' forum after ECLSTS) is pretty diverse, although Roger standardized on Airwire for his locos when he switched to battery power, and several of his friends followed suit. Most operators stay with their locos, though the Airwire controller may be changed from a parked loco to the next one going out, as we usually have a lot more locos than track space (RGS is a single track mainline) or engineers. Rog claims the range is excellent, and he has a large area to cover. 

I run RCS on two of my battery locos, with analog r/c and Spectrum on the live steamers. I haven't tested my range at Rog's track, but it seemed adequate with a 27Mhz whip antenna sticking out of the coal in the tender. The Airwire systems seem to work without a large visible wire antenna. 

We've had at least one incident of a visitor turning up with an RCS transmitter on the same frequency as mine - he wondered why his loco reversed off the end of the siding when he turned it on. (I was running on the mainline on the same xmit code.) Both my locos are now on different and not-default code settings. 

The basic operational mode is one-engine/one-engineer/one-controller, just like the real thing, or as TOC said: "One engineer per train, and one train per engineer". I do know one large track where the meets get so busy that Dr Rivet instigated a two-man-per-train, even more like the real thing, with a Brakeman watching the back of the train and the track switches, etc. It is needed, he/we found.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Any use of R/C on the Del Oro Pacific is a no no. The tower has to be able to operate any train at any instant and shut everything down in an instant and this just isn't feasible with R/C on a layout such as ours. Track power still rules!


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By noelw on 04/08/2009 11:41 AM

SNIP 
*Hi Tony... To bad you don't have anyting for us track power R/C to work with... We are stuck in our Club with A/C remotes for our train runs.. but we do have blocks sys. set up for two Remote to run at the same time. 

SNIP
*


Hello Noel.
Well actually I do make have an R/C system for controlling track voltage.
I have been doing so since 1992. Way before the TE was released in 1995. So you could say the the TE is similar to my original R/C equipment.

At the RCS website click on *"Track R/C" *for information on what I make.


----------



## noelw (Jan 2, 2008)

*Hi Tony... Is this the page???? 

http://www.rcs-rc.com/index.php?page_id=1018 

Not sure what I'm looking at.. 

I knew you started it way before Aristo came out with theres. .. I couldn't find the specks before? 

We do need around 8 to 10 amps for saftey reason and we are using two Crest 10 amp power supplys for each A & B block sys. 
Seems like we are only getting about 19 v DC out here in the country. But that fine for speed wides for these guys here on my layout. Any faster and there eng's. will end up in the 25' X 3 foot deep pond and i'm not going in after them. *


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes Noel. 
That is the page. 
Click on the names and they take you through to pictures of the units. 
You can have the TITAN-10 uncased or the TITAN-10C cased. 
Yes I know they are expensive compared to the TE. I make them here in Australia. Not in China where labour costs are minimal. 

Both can take up to 30 volts DC in. 24 volts is ideal. They give a maximum of 20 volts filtered DC out.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

At the ops sessions on my dad's railroad, it's one transmitter per locomotive. We don't have yardmasters or anything fancy like that, and if we do have a switcher in the yard, it's a dedicated switcher with its own engineer. He does his job while the road engineer takes a break to take care of any necessary tasks unrelated to moving trains. I think that's the inherent nature of battery R/C control. The throttle (controller) is an inherent part of the locomotive; a self-contained unit that can run anywhere regardless of the home power system. Everyone who operates on dad's line brings their own transmitters for their trains. Why wouldn't they? Yeah, dad could program his Airwire or RCS controller to work with guests' trains, but then how does he run his? 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I think the basic conclusion is as I suspected. 
Generally, clubs or groups that run battery R/C do not operate the way track powered DCC equipped clubs do in the smaller scales. Even if the battery R/C is DCC compatible.


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

woow, TOC is live??? good to see you posting. 

as for clubs, BYOC Bring your own controler. 
As for this "fail safe" my first thought is NOT shorting out. From there on keep your eyes on your train. 
How much harder does it have to be?


----------



## placitassteam (Jan 2, 2008)

Last Fall at my annual steam-up I think we had a manual controlled steamer, an RC controled steamer, a Goose running on one of Del Tapparo's critter controls, and 1 or 2 battery RC units all running at one time on two interconnected loops. Each had one operator, you just have to pay attention!


----------



## jebouck (Jan 2, 2008)

We use one controller for one train, all on different frequencies, of course.
Even so, we might limit the number of trains due to layout size.
And yes we have members who get un-attentive from time to time and rear end someones brass caboose.

Usually it's a mix of AW, RCS and TE.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

I have a related question: 

My layout has the form of a loop, but is designed to be operated point to point. (It's small, probably 1-3 people max actually operating... but still...) When you go from the yard, into the "main line" it's a long branch feeding a loop. While you can walk all the way around the layout, you can't walk through the part where the yard (branch) connects to the main (loop) , in fact, you'd have to walk ALL the way around to get to where your train comes out. 

Does anyone currently operating deal with this? If so, how? 

The train running back and forth from the mine to the crush plant is easy to walk with. From the crush plant to the pier, though, you have to pass through this junction once per trip (and you can't even really see from one side to the other.) I'd considered having the train "hand off" between operators, sending the controller through on board the train itself... 

And yeah, I know, that's a design flaw, but I'm not tearing it all down and starting over.... ! 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Matt

Your design "flaw" is a common occurrence on large model railroads of all scales with designs dating from pre DCC days. Trackage that takes operators down blind aisles before the track cuts across the base of peninsular benchwork is the bane of these setups. Your solution of sending the controller through onboard the train is uniquely large scale and possibly unique to battery RC.

In the smaller scales there are two main approaches taken. One is to have a different operator take the train from that point on - easily accomplished with DCC which is the de facto standard. The other is to force the original operator to walk around and rejoin his train. Neither is ideal but both are better than rebuilding large portions of finished layout.

Large scalers have been reluctant to draw on the experience of operators in the smaller scales and seem to prefer to reinvent the wheel ... but I can attest to the need of many large scalers planning layouts to adopt the principle of linearity of design that is now universal in the smaller scales. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Perhaps because so many of us aren't small scale modelers and don't know what "linearity of design" is. 

How 'bout putting an article in articles, "Applying linearity of design in the garden?"


----------



## coyote97 (Apr 5, 2009)

Hi Creek,


lol--that sounds like a bit of a problem.
Let me try to figure out:


you have to  differentiate a major point of view: how is a modell-railroad operated?
is it by operators (e.g. at a station) driving from the control of one operator to the other 


or


is it operated out of "engineers-view", so each moving unit has its own operator.


Me, i do not know about a system that allows to give control away that is not track-powered. Track-power is able to give control along either its digital or not. because theres a central unit or an electrical logic that can do this, regardless if its radio-controlled or not.


to give control along with a fully independend, non-central radio-control is difficult. the only thing i can imagine is to stop the train, switch-off the receiver and restarting it in the new system. therefore you need a flexible system like 2,4 GHz RC´s. 


in prototypical business its easy: you have an operator on each junction AND an engineer controling the train.


but back to the issue:


i think if u want to give along the control of a running train, there will be no other way than using a track-powered system that takes the "automatic-control" while one station-operator gives away the "human-control" to the next one.  such a system can be R/C either...


the only question is: what does the RC? : controling directly a battery-powered unit or controling a CENTRAL SYSTEM that gives the orders  to the units.


sending a transmitter-unit by the train it controls can be a security problem....you HAVE to grab it to stop the train...***grin


BUT when u can get it organized from a "central-table" it would be an elegant possibility to give along a train: on a line where there is a transmitterunit standing at the organizer-place there also is a train on that line, too. so no second train is allowed to enter this line.....  just like "real" business


regards
Frank


----------



## coyote97 (Apr 5, 2009)

...perhaps it is food-for-thought to the manufacturers:


for the battery-powered business there is a need of an RC-System that operates by a central unit.


So you do not control a train directly, you just send your orders to the mainunit, which gives it back to the train on another channel. So there will be the possibility to let the train run automatically operated by the mainunit, and everyone who is allowed can take that train with his transmitterunit.


The only difference to existing systems would be that the "second-line-orders" are sent "by airmail", too.
I really think it can be done just by coupling a 2,4GHz-Unit as DCC-Output.....all other things can be bought right now.




Greetings


Farnk


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Of course. 
If the transmitter costs are low it is really easy to have two (or more) TX's on the same frequency and address codes for the other operator to take over control when it is assigned to him. 
If the take over operator can live with briefly stopping the train, it is just as easy to reassign the train to a different addres code.


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Frank

The simplest solution is to design the railroad so that the operator can follow his train. This is de rigeur in the smaller scales and also among large scale live steamers. 

Track powered setups will of course let the control be done from a central console as well as by auxiliary hand held units. But allowing non linear designs (because the control system may support it in some way) is lacking in many ways in an operations oriented environment and was discarded for the mature small scale railroad a few decades ago.

Those folks interested in design issues should join the NMRA Layout Design SIG as well as read some of the layout design books that are published by Kalmbach and others. There are things to be learned from the history of the evolution of HO from standards to control systems to layout design and all subjects in between.

Regards ... Doug


----------

