# Ideal controls on train remote?



## nychris (Dec 11, 2016)

I'm planning to make a fully custom remote control for G gauge trains; I've done it before for a bulldozer toy and quadcopters, so the technical side is entirely achievable, what I am undecided on is the buttons/knobs/levers comprising the actual user controls.

So my question to the group is, if you could have _anything_ what would you choose?

My initial target operators are my young niece and nephew, which means I'm trying to start with something that needs to be fairly simple and user-friendly. Since this Christmas they have the more recent Playmobil RC diesel which they can operate, but has a few aspects I dislike:

- Center-off rotary speed knob makes for difficult emergency stops - usually they end up going right through stop and putting it in reverse.

- Fairly high lowest speed step (at least when batteries are freshly charged) makes any precision driving like stopping at a platform or coupling gently hard even for me

Obviously many who have tried their own RC/battery conversions end up with stock RC controllers designed primarily for aircraft (or possibly pistol grip car radios) neither of which seems very ideal.

One idea was just to have three buttons in a row "more backward" "stop" "more forward" with the train gradually responding to the outer two and cutting power on the central one.

Another was to use a rotary encoder knob for a similar purpose, though again with some kind of discrete stop/kill button.

There's a certain temptation to go to a spring-return type of "only runs while you hold it" control scheme, but that seems to be atypical of the entirety of model railroads, even if in a certain respect it models prototype railroad safety mechanisms.


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

I know you are interested in making a user interface simpler for children but have a look at what Tony Walsham has on offer. 
http://rcs-rc.com/pages/battery-r/c-for-beginners

Andrew


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I run Live Steam so I want analog proportional control of the Reverser and Throttle levers and I want the same for Whistle control.

The mechanical aspect; I'd like them to exactly mimic the real controls in the cab of the engine.

Ideally, I want to build a 2 wall mock-up of a Steam Locomotive cab (backhead and engineer's window, with a floor, seat and ceiling.

The Throttle should be a 2-ft. long lever with a friction escapement so it will hold in any position. 40 degree rotation from full On to full Off, maybe with a few degrees of over-motion past Off to help hold the Throttle closed on the engine. The Throttle lever can be attached either to the ceiling or the backhead.

The Reverser should be a 3-ft. long lever with a notched quadrant and mechanical escapement that will fit 4 notches Forward and 4 notches Reverse, with a center notch for neutral (so 9 notches in the quadrant). 80 degrees of rotation (40-0-40), (notches at -40, -35, -30, -20, 0, 20, 30, 35, 40. The Reverser should be mounted to the floor in front of the seat.

The Whistle can be a lever (or wheel/pulley with attached rope) with spring return to off. Attached either to the backhead or ceiling.

Of course, all of these need a Trim control to match the control to the movement of the servo in the engine.

If I ever add electrical lighting, then that could be digital control (simple On/Off). (Mounted on a panel behind the seat.)

I suppose that is too much to hope for! Maybe mimic the same, but make them fit on a handheld box with the levers only 3 inches long?


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

nychris said:


> I'm planning to make a fully custom remote control for G gauge trains; I've done it before for a bulldozer toy and quadcopters, so the technical side is entirely achievable, what I am undecided on is the buttons/knobs/levers comprising the actual user controls.
> 
> So my question to the group is, if you could have _anything_ what would you choose?
> 
> ...


Chris,
My pal in Cape Coral who makes electronic devices for a living discovered that his MRC power pack in the garage wasn't too convenient when he was sitting on the patio with a beverage in hand, so he made himself a remote r/c control.

His first attempt was designed to be very simple, and it had a rotary with 'more forward' or 'more backward' as you rotated it. I found it impossible to use as you couldn't find the dead spot. Your 3 buttons would be very easy for a young person (or an old guy) to handle.

RCS' handsets are, I believe, made by Deltang [ http://deltang.co.uk/ ] David (the owner) has an extensive product line which might give you some ideas.

But, as I said to my pal, why re-invent the wheel? We already have 4 or 5 manufacturers supplying similar systems, with Crest/Revolution just re-appearing.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think something that mimics the real thing would be fun.

But how in the heck could you make it portable? Impossible.

So, unless you want to sit in a small booth like Semper's idea... you have to find something that gives you the "feel" and can be portable.

Now, some people might be ok with a desktop, like the rail driver









but I suspect most outdoor modellers want something a lot smaller. 

So maybe a box about the size of a model airplane controller with more levers and feedback/resistance?

In my case, I want a small throttle that I can operate basic functions of speed and direction without looking at it.

This is what I use:


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

For me this question would depend on what type of model I was running (steam, electric) and whether I wanted the controller to serve multiple locomotives. If the control is expensive, then the ability to use one control for multiple locomotives would be a consideration.

I'd want the throttle to be a rotary knob or lever, either infinitely proportional or with fine detents, with a range of zero to 100% (e.g., not center = off.) Reverse should be a separate control, with coarser detents and this is center = off. Proportional reverse is needed on live steam, but wouldn't be necessary on an electric model. I'd like a deeper detent for the neutral position.

A third proportional lever or knob (similar in size to the auxiliary knobs on an R/C aviation transmitter) should be available for cylinder drain control.

A forth lever or knob, in this case spring-loaded to the end of its travel, for whistle.

If I was in the market to purchase an R/C control, in addition to the above I'd like two more proportional knobs (for fuel delivery and feedwater bypass) and at least two switched channels (for lights, uncoupling, or other non-driving functions.)

In my experience with R/C aviation, I liked having some unused channels, because the best control placement and operation might be different for flaps on an airplane and mixture control on a helicopter, for instance.

I would not want spring-loaded or "dead man switch" type of effect on a model railway, as I usually set a speed and let the train run, as opposed to the constant control manipulation I did when I flew.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Pete.
The RCS handsets are made by me here in Australia.
The only Deltang made part is the TX2 DSM2 RF module which can be up to 7 x channels.

For 4 proportional channels and one servo snap action channel there is:










For 5 x proportional channels and four pushbutton functions there is:










The above Tx handpieces can use the RCS OMEGA-3v8 Low OFF control ESC combined with the Deltange made Rx102-1(AB)LR DSM2 RX's or any DSM2 compatible Rx's.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

> In my case, I want a small throttle that I can operate basic functions of speed and direction without looking at it.


Greg,
Your throttle doesn't look too basic. I like Tony's RCS handsets!


----------



## placitassteam (Jan 2, 2008)

I have one of Tony's 5 function Tx units and use it on steam and battery. I like it better than the aircraft controller that I was using. I can hold it in one hand or my shirt pocket. The knobs have a center detent and hold their position better than the levers on the aircraft model. I once ran a train off a raised layout at full speed by accidentally bumping the throttle lever while trying to explain something to an interested kid.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Pete, look at the original post, it is NOT about a basic control, quite the opposite.

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

If it were me, I wouldn't worry about re-inventing the wheel in terms of motor/sound control. The current generation of DCC decoders are aces in this department. My dad and I started out 30+ years ago designing custom sound and control systems for large scale trains, and pretty much everything on our "wish list" in terms of sound and control has been answered by these decoders. What's lacking, however, is an intuitive, reasonably prototypical way of controlling them. Knobs and pushbuttons a la a telephone keypad or similar are nothing like the real thing. They work, and onceyou learn button 6 does this, button 9 does that, you can at least run your train and have it behave properly. However, I think that's missing a great opportunity for user interaction. Here's an example of a handheld that's being designed to mimic a diesel control stand:










More info *here*.

You've got levers for the controls that are supposed to be levers, etc. If you're asking "What would you like to see," this would be my answer. This, in a wireless R/C environment a la Airwire that can communicate via a receiver to any generic DCC decoder.

Later,

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Well actually Greg.
The original post was calling for something very basic. For children.
Low OFF control was preferred as Centre OFF control can be awkward to stop quickly.
There is no mention of any other control functions required.


----------



## nychris (Dec 11, 2016)

Lots of good ideas! And it's being obvious that preferences are as distinct as users and the locomotives you run!

In terms of my personal goals, at the present I'm thinking mostly about the user interface to basic motion, and particular the distinction between "I am driving it" (short distance, low speed, precision goal) vs "I am letting it run" (set it and then put down the control), and trying to think how to map this to a very simple interface, especially one that encourages "good habits" in young users rather than what in the model aircraft community they would call "overcontrolling".

What I like about center-off is the clean "mapping" of the control model - but that needs a good detent, and it works better with "encoder" type inputs than potentiometer ones where the center would be an analog value that could drift.

A potentiometer control has a lot to offer, but introduces the mapping complexity of a direction switch and also, if it has software lockout against reversing at speed a fault/re-arm model. Though I suppose the software doesn't have to lock out reversing at speed, it could just execute it slowly with reasonable acceleration.

Another option is to have a potentionmeter-type unidirectional control with reversing switch, but actually implement the knob as an incremental encoder, as that means that when software locks out an action, it can consider the current position of the knob to be zero and force you to dial up the speed in the new direction to the desired value.

In terms of _why_, admittedly in no small part because I can and because it seems like an interesting project, and I have a cute little loco here to add to their set that won't run at all on unpowered track until I do some sort of battery/radio conversion to it, which is to say an opportunity.

But also at some level having personal engineering preferences at odds with the behind-the-scenes details of the systems that are out there - once you have an microcontroller on each end, there's little reason to delegate the communication to an RC aircraft set's module rather than use a 2.4 GHz chip directly, not only as an unnecessary cost, but also as an unnecessary constraint on the flexibility of the system and some of the particular bells and whistles I personally want to add later.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, I was unable to find any articles on the sound systems your father (and you) designed... I'm missing this part of large scale history, so to speak.

Can you point me to this information?

Also, you designed sound systems when you were 15 or younger? Congratulations, that is indeed impressive. 

Greg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Dear Tony, you are correct... :

"I'm planning to make a fully custom remote control for G gauge trains; I've done it before for a bulldozer toy and quadcopters, so the technical side is entirely achievable, what I am undecided on is the buttons/knobs/levers comprising the actual user controls.

So my question to the group is, if you could have _anything_ what would you choose?

My initial target operators are my young niece and nephew, which means I'm trying to start with something that needs to be fairly simple and user-friendly. 

I was keying on controls that would work on a bulldozer, and forgot the third paragraph. Thank you for steering me back on the OP's target.

Greg


----------



## nychris (Dec 11, 2016)

Personally I consider both what might work for a little kid, and what a participant in this thread would like for their live steamer to be on topic. Granted, I may be more likely to _act_ on the first in the near term, but it's all _interesting_.

Additionally the way that software is invariably now involved now means that we're no longer limited to what a virtual "mechanical" linkage between a user control and parts of miniature electric loco could do; the software can potentially now model more complex interactions.

In terms of those wanting sophisticated virtual cabs, likely the biggest challenge/cost is fabricating big controls with a good physical feel. It's easy to 3d print something crudely approximate, but a more interesting challenge may be getting just the right friction feel (and even sense of mass) without a machine shop.


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

We are always hearing how the hobbyist as a group are growing older and we need to bring young people into the hobby. Well, if you're really interested in bringing something totally new to market that is kid friendly, it needs to be operated from a phone and app. Kids these days are using apps on phones at 2 years old. So along with controlling all the stuff a real engineer has to use to operate a real train, the app needs to have the ability to issue way bills and change orders. Throw a breakdown in the mix for good measure. Face it, kids today won't give you a second look unless they can do it from their phone.


----------



## nychris (Dec 11, 2016)

Phones are interesting, but also present some problems - for example, unless your app forces the screen to stay awake (with battery consequences), they tend to time out and screen lock, which makes stopping the train a pain.

But they are potentially quite powerful as a platform for adjusting preferences, control behaviors, servo trims, sound settings, etc.

And obviously virtual control panels can be quite complex - though the lack of tactile position feedback makes them unfriendly for controlling models, unless you are watching video through the phone rather than looking at the model.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Smart Phones also have a couple of other drawbacks.
No phone that I am aware of has a screen bright enough to use in bright sunlight and they lack tactile feel.
There have been suggestions on how to solve that.
Here is just one thread about it:
http://www.freerails.com/view_topic.php?id=7479&forum_id=45


----------



## nychris (Dec 11, 2016)

Largely agree - personally, I think it makes more sense to have a dedicated mechanically tactile remote for operation, and save the phone as an interface for changing customization settings.

Though I could see using a large mounted (and powered) tablet to control switches and related layout features on an indoor layout. Once you have DC power and permanent mounting of a dedicated device, acquiring a screen wakelock has fewer consequences than it does on someone's actual phone.

If there's a "product" missing it might be something like an Arduino derived kit for constructing transmitters with custom control inputs. Well, that, and an inexpensive source of big metal levers with satisfying physical feel.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

nychris said:


> Phones are interesting, but also present some problems - for example, unless your app forces the screen to stay awake (with battery consequences), they tend to time out and screen lock, which makes stopping the train a pain.
> 
> But they are potentially quite powerful as a platform for adjusting preferences, control behaviors, servo trims, sound settings, etc.
> 
> And obviously virtual control panels can be quite complex - though the lack of tactile position feedback makes them unfriendly for controlling models, unless you are watching video through the phone rather than looking at the model.


I concur that phones are the way to go if you want to attract younger people.

I have a WiFi receiver in one of my steamers with an app on the phone. It works fine - the attached photo shows that it emulates a stick tx as it was designed for aircraft. Move the lever and the phone vibrates and beeps - good tactile feedback.

Bluetooth is another serious option. Besides the Bachmann-sponsored Bluerail, there's another (BluTom) which is promising.

And I haven't seen the two problems mentioned. I'm in Florida, where you can't get brighter sunlight and I have no problem seeing the screen. The timeout issue is easy - just change it to 5 or 10 mins when you start the session.

And let's not forget the cost advantage of using your phone.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Pete, I have one of the brightest and biggest phones in the industry, and it's still hard to see with the sun shining on it's face. I'm glad yours is acceptable, but the consensus of opinion seems to be that it could be better.

When I changed from my monochrome NCE system to a color touch display, even though the unit was 3 times the cost it was 3 times harder to see in the sun.

Another comment about cost... sure it appears cheap because you already have a phone, but buying another $600 to $1000 phone for a controller makes it anything but cheap. Sure you can buy old crappy small cell phones used, but they are not good at all outside. I have 4 old iPhones I use for indoor shows where all we do is speed and direction.

So, you can hook the kids on using a cell phone, but then graduate them to something more powerful and capable and "tuned" to running trains.

I'd love a small controller with tactile feedback on brake and throttle levers.

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg Elmassian said:


> Kevin, I was unable to find any articles on the sound systems your father (and you) designed... I'm missing this part of large scale history, so to speak.
> 
> Can you point me to this information?
> 
> Greg


We never wrote it up for the magazines, so you won't find any references beyond what I've posted anecdotally over the years. (Dad never visited the forums.) What we were doing was too technical for GR at the time, and there was no internet yet to which to post the design. 

But since this is a part of large scale history which you say you're missing, allow me to fill you in. 

Dad held a Ph.D in electrical engineering and spent his career designing supercomputers for NASA, so designing analog sound and R/C control systems were just fun mental exercises for him so he and I could have a better experience running trains. He had definite ideas about what he wanted in a railroad in many aspects, and had the combination of creativity and skill to pull it off. No doubt you've seen photos and videos of his railroad over the years, so his attention to detail should not surprise you. It's definitely something that rubbed off on me. (It's a shame you didn't get a chance to meet him a few years ago in Phoenix. You share common interests in computer architecture and electrical engineering.) 

The early sound system designs he began working on in the late 70s were based on the architecture of the PFM sound systems of the day. These were totally analog sound systems, with no proprietary programming or anything. For certain sounds like bells, air pumps, etc., they relied on endless cassette tapes which played constantly. "Turning on" the bell meant simply turning up the volume on that specific channel so you could hear it. We had purchased one, and they sent a schematic with it. Dad built a second one, improving on the original design by developing new whistles and analog equivalents for the bell and other sounds for which PFM relied on cassette tape loops. 

In early 1984, a friend introduced us to the concept of using very early R/C car ESCs to control our trains in a battery R/C environment. (This system was written up in the May/June '84 GR.) That was the cat's meow for dad and I, and within a month, we had two battery cars built and all three of our locos converted, including me mounting a servo in the hood of our diesel switcher to control the front coupler. (Pre-Kadee.)

Alas, those early R/C car controls were very coarse in terms of speed control, and also incredibly prone to RF interference. (I can still hear the relay clicking wildly back and forth to change the direction, with the loco shivering in place like a freezing toddler.) We took the output of a standard R/C receiver and developed new motor controls with finer speed control which were less prone to interference. With regard to sound, it was natural to adapt the sound system he designed based on the PFM architecture to an on-board environment. The digital-proportional control of the 2-stick controllers lent themselves easily to things like quillable whistles and simulating the effect of the Johnson bar on the cut-off of the chuff. 

These were all concepts dad and I both sat around the table contemplating; looking at how the prototype worked, and figuring out ways to work that into the limitations of the controls we had at our disposal (4 channels, 2 sticks, lots of potential for interference). It was a collaboration in that I'd come up with an idea, and he'd figure out the electronic circuitry to make it happen, followed by a lot of field testing and adjusting to make it work better. Along the way, dad made a point to explain how the circuits he was designing worked, so I knew what was going on and could offer better suggestions as to how to improve weaknesses as we discovered them. I was also into analog music synthesizers at the time, so I was able to build some sounds on my synthesizer, then dad would re-construct them on the sound boards. 

The early designs were built so to fit in a trailing car, as batteries were still large and not easily fit inside smaller locomotives. The last design of that genre consisted of what amounted to a parallel bus with multiple sockets into which you'd plug individual cards for specific functions. One card would be for the bell, one for the whistle, one for the throttle, etc; the idea being that we could make improvements to any one given component without having to re-invent the wheel for everything every time. It was bulky, but since it was in a boxcar, we had the room. It did make revisions easier, but advances in technology would soon render that system obsolete.

Once NiCad batteries came much more into vogue (late '80s) and we could begin to cram batteries and control into some of the larger locomotives without the need for battery cars, we looked at simplifying and miniaturizing things a bit. At this point, we had refined the throttle control to the point where we could fit it on a pretty small (2" x 3") board that could be easily assembled. As I was the one building the locomotives, it also fell upon me to etch and assemble the control boards for them. We'd then added sounds on separate boards as we had room. 

Not too long after, (early 90s) we began to see the emergence of stand-alone sound systems for large scale, along with new technology for motor control, such as Tony Walsham's RCS pushbutton control. We latched onto Tony's pushbutton control pretty early, as it was immune to the interference issues which still affected the 75mHz transmitters we were using. (You can only build in so much delay before it feels like the control is not responding.) We sacrificed the digital proportional aspect of the control with this, though, so our two battery cars remained in service for a while. 

Once Sierra and Phoenix digital sound boards came onto the stage in the mid 90s, we pretty much abandoned the home-built control systems in favor of the newer, commercially-available tech. Sierra and Phoenix sounded great (they were digital!), they integrated very easily with commercial motor control systems, and they were small enough to fit in small-ish locomotives. Dad migrated from RCS to Airwire because he liked the knob-based throttle better than the pushbuttons--much more akin to the older 2-stick throttles we started with. In 2010, we completely retired the old battery cars thanks to Li-Ion battery packs which fit easily into the tenders of the steamers, and that's remained the status quo for dad's railroad until just the past few years. 

In the most recent years, I've been digging pretty heavily into the latest generation of DCC control from QSI, Soundtraxx, Zimo, TCS, etc. with everything they offer in terms of prototypical sound and control. In that time, I've pretty much converted the entire roster for my railroad, and the last few locos I had done for dad's railroad also use these latest-generation decoders. He and I both liked how far the technology had come, and often talked about new ways of controlling them with phones, tablets, etc. Dad often said if he were 20 year younger, he'd be working in that direction, no question about it. Alas, he was well retired and quite happy to leave that frontier to the next generation. He had no desire to build new circuits anymore. 

Dad passed away last June, ending what amounted to close to 40 years of creative collaboration between us. I'm still every bit as full of ideas now as I was when we first started, so when I see innovative new technology, it gets my creative juices flowing even more. I don't know that I'll ever see my "100% ideal" control system, but I'm sure never gonna stop prodding folks in that direction. Someday, I'll find someone with dad's love of a good mental exercise, and who knows where we'll take things...




Greg Elmassian said:


> Also, you designed sound systems when you were 15 or younger? Congratulations, that is indeed impressive.
> 
> Greg


Designing on my own? Again, dad was the brains behind the specific circuitry; my input was theory, operation, and user interface. Having said that, my high school senior engineering thesis was designing a robot controlled by different tones. Think of the robot as an electronic sheepdog responding to whistles from its owner. I was 17, and it was largely due to my dad's and my collaboration on these sound and control systems that I was able to tackle that thesis on my own. The old man done taught me pretty good, I think.  



*****

Anyway, sorry to bore those who aren't interested in my history, but if nothing else, it illustrates why I love talking about new control systems for our trains. It's pretty much been a passion of mine for nearly 40 years. I've played with many of the systems on the market over the decades in addition to the home-built ones I had. Nothing excites me like seeing innovative new approaches to the age-old issue of making our trains move. It's simply how I grew up.

Later,

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Here's a segment on dad's Woodland Railway that aired on "Tracks Ahead" back in 2002.






The Mogul (with yellow cars) I think by this time had been converted to RCS/Sierra. The green loco was still running the original home-brew control and sound system. You have to listen carefully for the sounds of the trains themselves, but it's there. Listen about the 3:40 mark, there's a shot of the green engine with the whistle blowing--that's an analog, real-time quillable whistle--which remains elusive in today's digital world. Your controller needs a dedicated sliding control for that, not a simple pushbutton. I'm also not sure you can recreate that very well simply by playing digitized samples; you'd likely have to go into the realm of digital sound modeling, which is a whole different ball of wax. 

Later,

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Aaaaaahhhh!!
Quillable whistles. Easy peasy with live steam.
Would be doable with RCS for battery R/C. Just needs a sound system that can read a regular Digital Proportional signal.
That will happen sooner than you think.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Thank you Kevin... I appreciate you sharing this. I know your dad was a top-flight engineer but did not know he was in the supercomputer field. Cool.

It explains a lot and it really helps me in my appreciation of your dad's contributions to the hobby, as all I could find were pictures of the layout and buildings. 

Regards, Greg


----------

