# Question on Aristo Train Engineer



## candsmogul9 (May 4, 2009)

Hi guys.

I'm looking at Aristo Train Engineer systems. Which one will work for me. 
Here are my layout specs:

Size: 22' x 19'
Style: 2 loops, crossover, passing siding and 2 spurs to come...bell shape
Track: LGB
Locomotives: LGB (2-4-0, 0-4-0T Porter, looking at a 2019S on eBay, more to come possibly
Cars: LGB so far, more to come

I would also like to get info on a power supply that'd go great with this for the power.

Thanks,
Dan


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

There are several TE systems, and while some are no longer manufactured, many are still in use. 

First question: do you want just one loco running per each loop (the power to the rails is DC), or do you need more than one loco running per track (a receiver in each loco)... first way is cheaper and simpler, and second way gives you more control and options and fun in my opinion. 

Power supply recommendations will be 24v 10amps in all cases, many options there, don't worry about that now. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## candsmogul9 (May 4, 2009)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05/05/2009 3:34 PM
There are several TE systems, and while some are no longer manufactured, many are still in use. 

First question: do you want just one loco running per each loop (the power to the rails is DC), or do you need more than one loco running per track (a receiver in each loco)... first way is cheaper and simpler, and second way gives you more control and options and fun in my opinion. 

Power supply recommendations will be 24v 10amps in all cases, many options there, don't worry about that now. 

Regards, Greg


I will be having one loco run per loop, with one more in the passing siding.

Dan


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

so the question of more than one loco per track is not quite answered. 

is there one passing siding per loop? or is there only one on one loop? 

assuming that the passing siding is to hold a train on at least one of the loops... there must be a time when both trains are on the main track, unless you do a "saw by" type of thing. 

To keep it simple you could have switches to turn off the power to the passing siding, and to the part of the main line, so you could turn one section off and run on the other. 

Would this be acceptable, or do you need to run both trains at the same time on one loop? 

Really trying to see if you need a decoder per loco, or just track power... 

While we are getting this figured out, do you want a wireless controller? 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Aristo's new "Revolution" version of the TE is probably going to be your best bet. It's a new system, so it's likely to be supported well into the future. I've had one for review, and it's definitely up to do what you need to do (and then some). The thing with the new system is that it controls individual locos, not tracks. As such, you'll need to install a receiver in each locomotive you want to control. This isn't difficult, but if you're all thumbs, it may be a bit daunting. The alternative TE system is the old trackside TE. This system is easier to install in terms of locomotives (you need do nothing to them), but for passing sidings, etc., you need to wire them as you would a conventional model railroad. There are plenty of books available to help you with that, if needed. 

Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. If you see yourself running only your own locos, and not squeamish about opening up a loco to install a receiver (really, it's pretty simple), then I'd recommend the new Revolution TE system. It's got some great features, and eliminates the need for fancy track wiring, since each loco is controlled individually. It also allows for great flexibility as you go forward. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Not really Kevin, his best bet might be a trackside TE or 2, costs less and handles more power, and he does not have to modify his locos... 

Let's find out how he wants to run his trains. By the way, did you see the problem with overheating on the new TE posted in the Aristo forum? 

I was trying to to take it slow and easy and find out what he needs. The new system is also more complex, and we have not learned anything about what Dan would prefer... 

And running the trackside TE does not require fancy track wiring.... as hundreds of satisfied users will tell you. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I really don't understand the continued appeal of the 27 mhz trackside unit. I'm not sure why Aristo is still making it. It's the cutting edge technology of 1985


To the original poster, a simplified history: 


The original Train Engineer was deigned so that you used a handheld transmitter to control power to the track. It ran at 25 mhz. Some people put the trackside unit in a boxcar and used it to run individual trains on batteries. But mostly it gave you the advantage of a wireless throttle for the entire track


The 2nd generation Train Engineer was designed as a handheld transmitter and individual receivers that went in each loco. Each loco then ran independently. You could use batteries to power the train, or track power. I'm still using this system in some locos--I send 21 volts to the track, and each loco has a 75 mhz receiver in it, so each one is controlled independently. This system works pretty well but is very basic. Aristo has stopped making it. You can still find it for sale, but it's out of new production


The 3rd generation Train Engineer, the "Train Engineer Revolution," is just out--actual production units should be in stores, they say, by the middle of the month. Early reports suggest that it's easy to use and very flexible, and it's reasonably priced. I looked at it and decided I liked other systems better, but early reviews have been very enthusiastic.


If you want to go with an Aristo system, I'd say Kevin is right--the new one is the way to go. It's not hard to install, and you can post questions on the Aristo forum


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Might be able to get the trackside's cheap from guys changing to Revolution


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...Not really Kevin, his best bet might be a trackside TE or 2, costs less and handles more power, and he does not have to modify his locos... 

Er, Greg, not to belabor a point, but that's pretty much what I said in the second part of my first paragraph. Either system will work well, each with its advantages and disadvantages. 

...and we have not learned anything about what Dan would prefer... 

The way I read Dan's inquiry, it seems he's not sure what he would prefer, hence his asking the question in the first place. Maybe I'm misunderstanding his intent. 

...By the way, did you see the problem with overheating on the new TE posted in the Aristo forum? 

I saw a post where one person said he was experiencing difficulties with one historically problematic locomotive causing the new unit to go into thermal shut-down (an SD-45 with two motors, pulling 13-car trains over steep grades). Time will tell if his experiences are unique, or signs of a larger issue. The product is just coming on the market. The only people who have experience have with it are the alpha and beta-testers. My own usage is not overly heavy-handed (short trains, 2% grades) but have had no troubles. My test locos are an LGB mogul, Bachmann K-27, and Aristo-Craft C-16. The small locos Dan is discussing would likely not draw anywhere near the current limits of the new TE receivers. 

...And running the trackside TE does not require fancy track wiring.... as hundreds of satisfied users will tell you...

No, if all you're doing is using the trackside unit to power a simple loop. When you start adding passing sidings, spurs, and crossovers that Dan stated he intends to have, you begin to get into the more selective block-style wiring used by many indoor model railroaders. Compared to simply connecting two wires to the rails and calling it a day, it is more complex. Whether that's harder than installing a receiver in each loco depends on where the installer's comfort level is. 

What Dan hasn't alluded to is how he plans on interfacing with his railroad. If he's looking at the TE, it's presumed he wants a wireless system. But how does he plan on powering his switches? Is there going to be a central control panel to throw them, manual throws, or what? If there's going to be a central control panel for the switches, then including block wiring for spurs and sidings on that control panel will be a logical progression. As such, the trackside TE (especially if one can get some used units) becomes a very viable method. On the other hand, independent train control has its distinct advantages, as any DCC-esque operator will attest.  

(Let me add--if a user is looking to control sounds from a 3rd-party sound system, the new Revolution is the best of the TE systems to do that. The trackside TE does not allow for independent sound control at all.)

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Hah! Don't let Lewis see you called the SD45 "historically problematic"! (I won't disagree on the electrical side though!). 

Yes, if reverse loops were added things could be more complex, but a crossover or spurs or even the passing siding is no extra headache. 

But my post was to sort of slow down, and find what he wants to do, without getting into the complexity of solutions that might not be appropriate in the first place. 

But a spur adds no extra electrical complexity, and heading off in that direction was sort of where I was trying to put the "Answer" brakes on, and try to do a good job of finding out what Dan wants. 

(And you are mistaken, using the Trackside TE "system" includes the accessory controllers that respond to the buttons (A-E) on the handheld, so yes it's not in the same box, but the Trackside TE _system _has been used successfully by many people for independent sound control and is much more proven than the brand new system.... this is exactly the kind of extra detail and discussions that get the "cart before the horse") 

I'll await further discussion until Dan comes back with his "plan" for his layout... it may be that none of the TE systems are a good choice... let's hear what Dan wants and needs... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

I really don't understand the continued appeal of the 27 mhz trackside unit. I'm not sure why Aristo is still making it. It's the cutting edge technology of 1985


_Mike for a good many, dare I say majority (and the largest majority don't post or read a Forum) prefer simple operations on their railroad. I decided on the 27Mhz. TE last year and as my RR is small it is ideal. I don't have whistles, bells or smoke but I do often run three trains but not simultaneously. I can run two as track power and when shutting of power run the third by battery (or another combination). None of this requires me to interfere with the locos mechanisms or bodywork.
_

_Being a technophobe this system suits me, though I accept other will want and spend more on their operations._


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ask anyone who has one. It fills their need, it's simple and reliable. It's not for everyone, but not everyone needs all the bells and whistles. It far outsells any other remote control system in large scale. 

Many people want the basics, and using it trackside allows no modification or extra cost to locos. It handles 10 amps, and can be put into a trailing car. 

It's not for everyone, but it has it's place. You cannot fight the numbers of happy users. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, I was paraphrasing the post on the Aristo forum where the author described his particular locomotive as having difficulties. It was not a generic reference to Aristo's locos in general. 

...Yes, if reverse loops were added things could be more complex, but a crossover or spurs or even the passing siding is no extra headache. ...

It does if you want to park a locomotive on the track and run another one next to it. You need to electrically isolate the siding (or spur). That's where the complexity comes in. No, it's not that difficult, but with the Revolution (or DCC or Airwire or RCS or...) you needn't worry about that. As a vocal advocate of DCC, you yourself tout that advantage quite often. 

I know about the accessory functions (A through E). What you cannot do with the trackside system is install a sound system in a locomotive, and using the trackside-based TE press a button on the transmitter and have that locomotive blow the whistle, without installing the accessory receiver onboard the locomotive with the sound system (and its attendant power supply). If you're going to install electronics inside the loco, then the Revolution system is (of all the TE systems) the best, most effective, space-saving method of doing that. I never said it was the "only" way. You can put the trackside TE inside a box car--many have. 

If you want to wait for the Revolution system to be "proven" technology like the older stuff, then let's have this debate in another 10 years. In the interim, we have to base its effectiveness on those who have actually had one in their hands and have used them thus far. It hasn't been long, but the results I've heard (and experienced myself) are positive. If you think I'm just being a fan-boy, ask Lewis what I thought of his first on-board system. 

Later, 

K


----------



## candsmogul9 (May 4, 2009)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05/05/2009 7:58 PM
so the question of more than one loco per track is not quite answered. 

is there one passing siding per loop? or is there only one on one loop? 

assuming that the passing siding is to hold a train on at least one of the loops... there must be a time when both trains are on the main track, unless you do a "saw by" type of thing. 

To keep it simple you could have switches to turn off the power to the passing siding, and to the part of the main line, so you could turn one section off and run on the other. 

Would this be acceptable, or do you need to run both trains at the same time on one loop? 

Really trying to see if you need a decoder per loco, or just track power... 

While we are getting this figured out, do you want a wireless controller? 

Regards, Greg


There will be a passing siding on only one of the loops with a crossover between the two loops. I would believe I'd have to have the two trains run at the same time because it is a garden railroad and I do not see a control panel outdoors. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/tongue.gif Also, wireless is what im looking for, something in radio control.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I don't have nearly as much experience as greg or kevin, but two or so years ago I was a total novice at this. I started out with conventional DC and a loop with a cutoffand I would run two or more trains by wiring in a remotly operated switch and switching one onto the cutoff. The I installed a switch to kill power to the cutoff, so I could park a train on the line while another one ran. Finally I broke down and installed an aristo 75 mhz TE in one loco. Pretty soon I had TE receivers in a bunch. Then I went with the QSI/Airwire system and I'm gradually abandoning the Aristo. 


If you want to have more than one train running at once, then I think Kevin is right--the New Aristo Revolution is probably a good choice. It has some weak points--in my opinion, the way it works with sound is one. But it should be easy to use and easy to expand, and it will do what you want with a minimum of fuss. It will work with track power or with batteries, if you decide to go that way

There are a bunch of ways to skin the cat and they all have advantages and disadvantages. George Schreyer has a good website with an overview:

http://www.girr.org/girr/tips/tips.html

Adding RC to some LGB locos can be tricky, but there is plenty of help available


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

With one loco per loop, I'd say get a couple of trackside train engineers, put a toggle switch to kill the power on the siding, another to kill the "matching" section on the main line (insulate those 2 sections to only be powered by the toggle switches). 

Then run your trains and enjoy... if you ever decide to go multiple trains per track, you spent very little on controls and ZERO additional on the locos. 

The new Aristo TE system will have a trackside unit, but it will take a year for it to appear. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Mike, I'm curious--what issues have you heard about controlling the sound? I found the control and connection to sound systems to be on par with Airwire, RCS, and the various DCC systems out there. I used a Phoenix PB9 as a guinea pig. Have you heard compatibility issues with other sound systems? 

Dan, I think either system will work well for you, but if your track is fairly simple and you don't mind toggling a few spurs and sidings, the trackside system will be adequate, and certainly save you the task of installing the receivers in each loco. If you don't want to do a control panel for your switches, etc., I've seen some guys use the outdoor electrical outlet boxes placed strategically around the railroad to hold the toggle switches. One I saw used regular light switches, since all you're doing is connecting one rail. Another screwed a metal cover plate instead of the outlet, and drilled holes to hold the various necessary switches. They're certainly smaller than a full-fledged control panel, and can blend into the landscape a bit easier. (Hide 'em in a bush if you want to.) 

One thing--if you haven't bought your turnouts yet, the Train-Line 45 turnouts are set up so that they can be made to be power-routing, meaning the direction of the points determines which way the power goes. That saves the trouble of installing a toggle switch, since the turnout will control that for you. Once the train is safely in the siding and the points moved to the other rail, the siding is shut off. This is very common in small scale wiring 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned--the trackside TE has the ability to select between a linear voltage out or pulse-width-modulation signal. It's been reported that some on-board electronics don't particularly care for PWM signals, so the linear signal might play better there. (I can't recall a specific incidence of a failure based on that, and some say the warnings are over-cautious, designed to sell the manufacturer's own power supplies. Someone here may be able to provide more concrete examples.) The Revolution's voltage out is PWM to the motor, though the power supply giving it power would be a linear supply. This keeps the aforementioned on-board electronics happy, as they'd get their power from the the input voltage (from track or battery), not from the signal going to the motor. I do think that in the long run, you'll find the functionality of having an on-board receiver in each locomotive to be a cool way to run a railroad, but that can come in time, too. If rewiring locos is a walk in the park, then I'd just bite the bullet and go with the new system from the start. 

As for power supplies for either system, I've got a Crest (Aristo) "Elite" power supply that works well, but quite frankly, I'd look at HAM radio power supplies. They're typically just as good, and often much cheaper. You'll want something that gives you at least 14 volts and 10 amps minimum. 

Later, 

K


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, I haven't actually heard anything bad or negative about controlling the sound in the new Aristo system, I'm just so much more impressed with the way sound works with QSI. The Revolution seems to do sound "the old fashioned way," where you wire in a card. Seems kludgy in comparison, and as far as I can tell it's more expensive. I only think it's an issue relative to the way sound orks with QSI/Airwire, which I like a lot.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

It's kind of a six-one-way, half-dozen-the-other thing. The QSI board does both sound and throttle control, but you need to plug in a separate receiver to control it. (QSI recommends the G-wire, but I believe Airwire's receiver will work also). The Aristo system has the receiver and control all in one board, but you have to plug in the sound. In either case, there are two boards you have to make room for. Pricewise, when taking the two components into consideration, they're virtually even depending on where you shop. Aristo's receiver is cheaper than the Airwire receiver, but Phoenix's sound system is more expensive than the QSI board. The difference between the two really boil down to the user interface--how easy they are to program, and how one prefers to interact with the controls. (i.e, Airwire has a knob to control speed, Aristo used pushbuttons.) Those are largely personal preferences. In terms of functionality and price for the average user, they're pretty much on par with each other. 

If you're using the Airwire receiver/throttle, then the installation is virtually identical to the Aristo in that the separate sound board gets wired to the receiver/throttle board. The advantage there is that the Airwire receiver works under the DCC protocol, so Phoenix's less expensive P5 sound board can be used. Again, the prices more or less even out since the receiver is pricier than Aristo's.  

Later, 

K


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

That's interesting--I've only ever wired up one Phoenix board, to an aristo 75 mhz and then to a 75 mhz with the "accessory board" to trigger sounds, plus the reed switch to trigger the chuffs. It was way more of a pain than the QSI boards, even with the Gwire card. But was I'm thinking more of the way the QSI responds to motor load--instead of just going faster as vltage increases, the QSI board changes volume and speed as timbre as the loco hit a grade, which makes it less monotonous. 


It's not a huge deal and I wish Aristo all good luck with the new system. If it sells a lot it will do the hobby good.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Why not just park the loco on the siding and turn the track power off on the loco and forget all the extra wiring when using the TE. Simple Later RJD


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 05/07/2009 6:15 PM
Why not just park the loco on the siding and turn the track power off on the loco and forget all the extra wiring when using the TE. Simple Later RJD

Fine, if your loco has a track power on/off switch. Not all do.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*Or just wire in a simple toggle on/off switch in the siding?*


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

Easier to use a switch connected to the turnout motor, when the turnout is closed, the power is off


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*Yup Goerge that sounds good as well !!!!!!







*


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

And when using a switch to control siding power, I do the rail that goes to the frog. I isolate this rail from the bottom of the switch thus letting me use standard joiners/clamps for the rails and no ugly insulators in funny colors.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I hope all this detailed conversation has not muddied the answer for Dan, the person who asked the question. 

It sure sounds like a "Trackside" system where the power is fed to the rails and unmodified locomotives is a good solution. The Aristo Train Engineer in 27 MHZ is still in full production and is inexpensive and not overkill for this application. There are no reverse loops or strange wiring problems, and you have an inexpensive wireless system, buy 2 of them, one for each loop. You will find plenty of happy customers. 

I am sensing rah rah for the new Aristo TE system where you must purchase a receiver for every locomotive. It's a nice new product, but it's not the answer for everyone, and needless expense in this situation in my opinion. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...I am sensing rah rah for the new Aristo TE system where you must purchase a receiver for every locomotive. It's a nice new product, but it's not the answer for everyone, and needless expense in this situation in my opinion.

It's certainly not necessary, but it is viable, and since the original post asked for an analysis of all the TE systems, that's why it's being discussed and put forth as a possibility. Had the discussion not mentioned the TE specifically, I think the conversation would have taken exactly the same track (pardon the pun) concerning all manufacturers. We'd simply replace "trackside TE" with "analog DC", and "Revolution" with "DCC-esque" control. We'd also be looking at Bridgewerks power supplies, Airwire, NCE, Digitrax, and probably migrate to battery control, giving RCS an undoubted nod. 

The choice is really about personal preference. I think the information given here has been fairly objective as to the benefits and costs of both methods. Individual posters have added their own opinions about what they might choose, but ultimately it's not their choice. I'm a long-time battery R/C guy--have been for 25 years. If I was going to champion any cause, it'd be to cut the wires to the track altogether. But that was outside the scope of this discussion. I personally like the flexibility that command control (either track based or R/C) gives the operator, so I tend to advise people to think long-term, and if that's something they find attractive, go ahead and get moving that direction from the start. Otherwise, don't worry about it if their situation allows (as is the case here). 

BTW, using MSRP as a guide, two trackside TEs will set you back about the same as the Revolution and two additional receivers. (Yes, additional receivers will set you back additional money, but given the scenario as stated here--two loops, three locomotives, it's a wash.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## GaryY (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05/08/2009 9:17 AM
I hope all this detailed conversation has not muddied the answer for Dan, the person who asked the question. 

It sure sounds like a "Trackside" system where the power is fed to the rails and unmodified locomotives is a good solution. The Aristo Train Engineer in 27 MHZ is still in full production and is inexpensive and not overkill for this application. There are no reverse loops or strange wiring problems, and you have an inexpensive wireless system, buy 2 of them, one for each loop. You will find plenty of happy customers. 

I am sensing rah rah for the new Aristo TE system where you must purchase a receiver for every locomotive. It's a nice new product, but it's not the answer for everyone, and needless expense in this situation in my opinion. 

Regards, Greg







---------------------------------
Exactly! And that is why I bought two of the Aristo 27mhz TE's ... 1 for each loop. Straight forward, inexpensive and I am a happy customer. 
Well said Greg.

Regards,
Gary


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

No rah rah from me--I was also just trying to explain the different systems and what they do.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, as soon as there are more than 2 locos the 27 MHz system is more cost effective and then gets more with each loco, right? 

2 loops and a passing siding = 3 locos.... 

I run DCC, I like "command control", but we are looking at Dan's needs. The new TE does not do EVERYTHING better. It has no trackside unit yet. The control is more complex. So, it has it's place, but it has not instantly obsoleted the very popular 27MHz system. 

So, the "rah rah" I was feeling was that you specifically were promoting the new TE was better in every respect. It just ain't so. Yes in some, no in others. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Cost depends on how many locos you want to run at the same time. The TE trackside system runs $240, with additional receivers at $160 each (MSRP). So you're looking at $400 for one transmitter controlling two tracks. (My original calculations assumed two transmitters.) So, yes--your breakeven point in this scenario is one transmitter, two locos. Adding a receiver for the third loco under the Revolution system adds another $105. But you can independently run all three locos at the same time--something you cannot do with only two trackside cabs. If you want to run three locos at the same time on the trackside system, you need a third trackside receiver at $160, (and a third loop of track). A 4th loco requires a 4th receiver. So, cost savings depends on whether you want to consider how many trains you can run at once. Stick to the original two trains at once, the trackside TE is cheaper because you're done purchasing controls. If you want to increase the number of trains you can run at once, the Revolution becomes more cost effective. 

I've been rather consistent from the outset in saying that the trackside TE is quite adequate for the needs as specified. It will most decidedly get the job done. Yes, I did call the Revolution system the "best bet." The operating scenario called for multiple trains on two interconnected loops. This is very easily accomplished by energizing all the tracks with one power supply and controlling each locomotive individually. This allows the locos to run wherever, however, the operator so chooses. That assessment presumes the user is comfortable with installing a receiver in each locomotive, which I stipulated in my original post. If the user is not, then it's a non-starter, and the trackside system becomes the only viable option regardless of its capabilities or limitations. If you don't want to do the work to make the upper-end systems function, you implicitly limit yourself to work within the capabilities of the traditional systems. I presume when someone asks about a comparison of systems, that he/she is willing to at least contemplate the work needed for the various systems to function properly. 

The other thing I take into consideration is future flexibility. The trackside TE is adequate for the specifications given, but it's at the upper end of its flexibility. As I mentioned above, if you want to add the ability to run a third train, you need to add a third cab to control it, wiring in the appropriate blocks (or adding a third loop of track). Each additional locomotive to be controlled would require similar effort in rewiring or tracklaying. Controlling each locomotive independently (with the Revolution or similar) carries with it its own requirements of wiring each loco with a receiver. Whether you'd rather wire a locomotive or rewire the railroad is an individual choice. 

So, yes, in a way, perhaps I am taking a "pro alternative control" stance. (You could call it "pro-Revolution" but only in the context that the Revolution is the specific system being discussed.) I believe the situation merits it. If the operating scenario was different; a loop of track in a store display, modular display, or some situation where each loco has its own dedicated tracks and expansion limited or non-existant, then clearly the trackside unit would be more ideally suited. For a garden railroad that will inevitably be expanding, a system with inherent flexibility and few limitations on the upper end of the spectrum is the better option. If traditional track power were capable of being the end-all-be-all, we wouldn't have the plethora of alternative controls that we do. If you're going to be spending the money anyway--and have the technical skill and desire to make it work--why not go with the system that allows for the greater flexibility down the road? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

Gee, I spent less than half of what was mentioned for my 27mhz TE. 

Last year buy transmitter/receiver and get second receiver free ($10 shipping). I spent $150!!!! 
24 volt 12.5 amp regulated power supply closeout at MPJA, $25 plus shipping. 
I am well under $200 and can run most any engine and engine combination on 2 separate tracks and have both linear and pwc capability. 

I even found the 55475 closed out at $27 once, but only 1 was left. This now put me just over $200. 

So my answer on cost is be smart and shop around, you can find used and deals almost anywhere.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

One of my two most often used hobby shops has the Trackside TE and receiver listed at $171


Individual receivers are $115


The revolution is listed at $233 for transmitter and receiver

Individual receivers are $83




171 plus 115 plus 115= $401 


233 plus 83 plus 83 = $399



Makes it a wash. To my mind, there is no question the new TE is a better choice--of course, it's not actually available yet, and the "May 15" availability seems to have been pushed back to June!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

This is getting almost amusing. 

Kevin, you keep picking scenarios that are not what Dan is doing. My point is let's keep this for Dan, not remote control in general. 

You start by saying it depends on how many locos are running at the same time, but this answer is clear, and it won't be 3 or more. 

Your first paragraph gets off track right away, he has 3 locos, 2 tracks, and from all the polls conducted recently, as well as common sense, he needs two hand controls. You start talking about 1 throttle with the Revolution system to get more cost competitive. 

Then you start talking about independently controlling 3 trains at the same time (apparently again with one handheld). 

Your examples are not valid for Dan's operation. 

If you want to start a thread about running 3 (or more) locos at the same time and one handheld, and the benefits of independent train control, then let's have one, and we can open it up to having sound in locos and then we can start comparing all the systems in the world and their features. 

Your general comments are correct, but why espouse all the advantages of independent train control (with it's added cost) on a thread where the thread originator has clearly expressed the situation and requested advice for HIS SITUATION, not train control in general? 

That's my point. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Greg - It's really not amusing at all. It is getting old. (all that followed this has been deleted due to the "Take a breath before hitting send rule".)


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You are right Del. I've made my point enough times. 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, you do not need two transmitters. The earliest versions of the TE had a selector switch for track 1 and 2. I believe we still use that set-up at the Colorado Railroad Museum display. Dan never specified he wanted a separate control for each train, so the option of saving money by using only one transmitter is a perfectly valid suggestion. 

...Your examples are not valid for Dan's operation...why espouse all the advantages of independent train control...on a thread where the thread originator has clearly expressed the situation and requested advice for HIS SITUATION...

I've stated in every post I've made that the trackside TE _is adequate for Dan's current needs._ Having said that, Dan also stated something to the tune of "and more to come..." which tells me he--like the vast majority of garden railroaders--anticipates his needs expanding over time. That's where the concept of individual train control has its advantages over traditional track power. Not for what he's doing now, but for what he might do in the future. Why not at least plan for it from the start? 

And I agree--this is getting old. Like you, I cannot make my point any clearer than I have. Dan can take this information and run with it (and probably run away screaming from us lunatics). 

Later, 

K


----------



## SailorDon (Jan 6, 2008)

I am in the planning and selection stages of an outdoor reverse loop layout. AristoCraft Revolution wireless control along with battery powered operation seems to be the optimum solution.

Previous in this topic, I think Kevin mentioned he used the Revolution on an AristoCraft C-16. Questions for Kevin or anyone else with specific knowledge on the AristoCraft C-16:
1. Does the revolution reciever fit inside the AristoCraft C-16 locomotive? 
2. Is there room for Li-ion batteries in the tender?
3. What are the battery requirements for the AristoCraft C-16 assuming moderate loads and 1 to 2 hours of run time?

Thanks in advance for any detail info anyone may have on this kind of setup.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The receiver plugs into the socket in the tender. If you're not going to be using any of the switches (for lights, smoke, etc) that are on the main board, (and with batteries, there's no reason to) I'd yank it and wire direct to the much smaller adapter board that comes with the TE. All the wires are right there in the tender for easy access. That frees up a bunch of room in the tender for batteries. Otherwise, just plug it in. You may have to play around to get the batteries to fit, though. In that case, I'd cut a hole in the top of the tender under the coal load, making it removable, so you can fit a pack on top of the electronics. (This also makes it easy to remove the batteries for recharging if you wanted to do that. Makes swapping out for a fresh pack easy.) 

I don't remember if the main board has any circuit protection on it, but if you yank it, you'll want to install a fuse in line with the power from the batteries. Aristo makes an adaptor board that has fuses on it, so I'd be tempted to go that route. It's still much smaller than the board that's in the tender!

For batteries, I'd look to a 14.4v, 2200mAh to 2600mAh pack, with the cells arranged either in a square (2x2) or 2x2 laid flat, which is longer, but narrower. I'm not sure if the 4x1 packs will fit inside the tender, as the tender's a bit narrow. 2200mAh should give you adequate power for running at least 90 minutes to perhaps three hours depending on your load. If you're not going to run sound, then I'd lyank the speaker and ook to one of the 4400mAh packs (essentially two 2200mAh packs wired in parallel) to give you even longer battery life. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Torby on 05/06/2009 6:34 AM
Might be able to get the trackside's cheap from guys changing to Revolution " src="http://www.mylargescale.com/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/wink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" />




VERY true. My father just bought several from those switching to DCC. For simply wanting to run trains with a remote/wireless system, this is the way to go, or at least has been for us for well over a decade now in HO and 1:22,5.

The system requires no retrofit of equipment, a simple DC supply for yoru needs, and depending on amperage, a 12V computer fan for the TE itself.
http://www.girr.org/girr/tips/tips1/te_programming.html 
A lot of good info on the systems here: http://www.girr.org/girr/tips/tips1/te_programming.html

Others may need more functions or want onboard capabilities, but for basic operation, these systems are hard to beat!


----------



## SailorDon (Jan 6, 2008)

Kevin,
Thanks for the details on installing Revolution wireless in Arisotcraft C-16. 

To preserve the original features of the C-16, I'm thinking that a dedicated battery car might be best. From your description, it sounds like the Revolution adapter board fits in the tender with the main board still in place. Is there any issue with keeping the adapter board cool? Is a cooling fan required or recommended?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I don't want to go into this in detail. Put a cooling fan blowing on the board in the tender if your tender is not vented or the ambient temperature is over 50 degrees F. 

You will thank me, and agree with me after installation. I guarantee it. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## SailorDon (Jan 6, 2008)

Greg,

I sort of suspected that the adapter board would need auxiliary cooling, especially if mounted in the tender.

I was running a single loop of track power in the backyard yesterday. It was 95 degrees in the shade. I wonder if even a cooling fan will be sufficient. Maybe I need to mount the adapter board in a separate cooling car (with ice).


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

My advice would be to make sure that hot air can escape from the top of the tender, and that there are some holes in the bottom of the tender to allow cooler air to enter. A small fan is all that should be needed, i.e. the fan does not really cool, but alllows the air to circulate, natural convection will do the rest. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Had a little trouble with the TE in my annie getting hot. I put one of those tiny computer cooling fans in the front where the fireman gets the coal, and a vent in the back underneath.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Tom and Greg, what sorts of troubles have you encountered relative to heat build-up in the controller? (i.e., what should the average user be on the lookout for in terms of compromised performance?) I think providing ventilation is a great idea if it can fit, but at least based on what I've experienced (with this system and others), if your trains are short and grades mild (low current draw applications), you shouldn't have to worry too much. I've had my Revolution running for 4 hours at a time in 90-degree Colorado sun, with no ventilation at all, and not noticed any problems. Again, I'm pulling short trains on mild 2% grades. (Which is also why I ask what the problems are, so I can keep my eyes open for potential trouble down the road.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I've seen a few posts now over at the Ariso forum about overheating. Also a few about the revo receiver losing the link on even very slight disruptions in power. Some seem to report that the Aristo capacitor board fixes it


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Sounds like from recent post on AC forum that over heating caused by incorrect wiring of Phoenix sound boards, especially the new ones. Supposedly Phoenix has corrected the problem. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It seems pretty clear that brief power interruptions cause problems. The Aristo capacitor board arrived as an unannounced product, so you can pretty much assume they found a problem and a solution before the problem got out of hand. Too bad it's bigger than the decoder! 

I'll be very interested in how the overheating is caused by a sound board. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Lewis made a couple posts last year where he basically said the future was battery power and the Revo was great for batteries. I remember there were some people responding to this with some concern. I agree, it looks like the cap board was a pre-emptive strike. But I'm guessing in the long run it will push more people towards battery.


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

But I'm guessing in the long run it will push more people towards battery. 


Sounds good to me!


----------



## Bret W Tesson (Jan 6, 2008)

I started a posting on the Aristo forum about the Rev shutting down (most likely to lack of conductivity). I found that the capacitor board fixed the problem on 3 different engines (2 SF E-8s and a Mallet). The really odd thing about the issue is that my Bachmann K-27 works flawlessly without the capacitor board after several hours of running. I'm still not completely conviced however since both of my E-8s initially ran fine WITHOUT the capacitor board installed. It wasn't until they had over an hour of run time that they started acting up. I suppose the issue could be dirt on the wheels versus dirty track. Another phenonmenon I can explain is that as the engine stops, it will move again in a few seconds so long as the throttle setting is low. I've seen the engine move slowly, stop, pause for a few seconds, start again and stop 2 inches down the track and this process repeats itself. If however, I have the throttle set to a higher setting, the engine won't move at all until I shut everything down and restart. It is interesting that the capacitor board did arrive somewhat unannounced....kind of makes me wonder. 

Regardless of the initial problems, I am really impressed with the Rev system. It's simplicity and capabilities have made battery RC a lot more enjoyable AND relliable.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, an unannounced solution to an unannounced problem... pretty sure they saw it in testing. My guess is the system is sensitive to brief power interruptions, also reading between the lines of what Lewis said when he announced the capacitor board, well in advance of your initial post. 

My guess is the "restart" algorithm may be affected by what the last throttle setting way, crazy things can happen in brand new firmware. 

One ongoing concern seems to be overheating, please let us know how your testing and usage progresses, it's hard to get objective information sometimes! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## rmcintir (Apr 24, 2009)

In building my own RC system I have found that when running at really slow speeds using BEMF I am more susceptible to dirty track problems. There simply isn't enough kinetic or stored capacitive energy to get me through an extremely dirty track section that is negotiable at higher speed. My locomotives are really crawling slow, I've been told slower than the prototypes. I've run using battery power and not had any problems at all. I have minimal capacitors on my current boards and only in the worst conditions do I have a drop-out.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Well, I can't offer any input on the track power issue, but I can provide two datapoints for the overheating problem. As I have stated on the Aristo forum, I have one Rev. receiver in a GP-40, and one in an RS-3. In neither of them have I had any overheating problem running in Florida's high humidity at temperatures up to the low 90's. I have no insights on why some folks are having a problem, I just know that my two receivers, in trailing cars, with Phoenix soundboards right next to them, perform flawlessly. I've encountered no problems with them at all.

Ed


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

everyone, BE CAREFUL. You are talking about an Aristo product! Don't want to infringe upon copyright! This has been discussed on the Aristo forum. Wooops, can I say Aristo Forum? HEY! Who put that GP40 in my avatar?


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Seems to me most of the folks having problems are the ones operating on DC. I believe that the beta testing was not conclusive of all scenario. I.E not operating long trains, and not operating on DC. Never saw mention of handling any cars either battery or track powered. Now that folks are operating the system on DC with cars a problem arises of over heating and poor loco continuity to track. Very interesting. I guess as Lewis said the system was to promote the world of battery. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think we can wait and see what the bottom line is... some reports that ground loop in connecting phoenix causes overheating in TE (very werid), I am also getting private communications about overvoltage on PB9 can cause component failure, and we have the overheating reports with no sound card, and we have people with no problems. 

I refuse to buy one now, because to test it out, I need 2 handhelds and 3 receivers... I talked to Navin at the show and told him I would be willing to do an evaluation and review, and promise not to reveal any details to the public until I reported back to Aristo AND they had an opportunity to fix/address problems. 

With all the current reports and the current economy, I don't want to spend $460 to find out what is right and what is wrong with the new TE. 

Regards, Greg


----------

