# Captain Kirk's Model Railroad. (Grab a cup of coffee before reading)



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

I canna' give her any more, captain, the crrrrown sheet'll fail and blow us to kingdom come!

Not really.

Lately there's been a lot of talk about applying a lot of "modern technology" to enhance the feel and "realism" of the operation. My goal here is to develop a "concept car" version of some of the things that have come up, and see what an engine so equipped might be like.

First, we need a way to put the operator "in the cab." Without taking a page from "Honey I shrunk the railfans" the only real way to do that is to equip the locomotive with a television camera, allowing the would-be VR Engineer to look out the window of his cab. There are a number of possibilities for this, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. One way would be to mount a micromini camera in the approximate position of the engineman's head, and equip it with a servo to allow it to swivel approximately 270 degrees. In this way, the prospective VR engineer would be able to look forward or backward (useful when moving in either of those directions) or to the outside (useful for spotting at stations, or just "looking out the window." Another possibility would be to mount two cameras back to back with a nearly 180 degree field of view ... this would allow the VR engineer to see pretty much 360 at once (with two camera windows) or the choice of one or the other on one window.) From there, the camera signals would go to their own radio transmitters (as with the Aristo-esque cameras) or into an onboard processor that would encode the signal as part of the link to the controller (more on that later.) In the case of the servo controlled camera, servo position and instructions would have to be similarly handled from the onboard unit, and controlled remotely. Now we can see, and presumably hear, as many of these camera units have audio built in. The only real drawback so far is the engineman's seat is now occupied by a camera and servo, or a double camera; or at least the engineman's head is, which might prove a detraction to the non VR crowd watching the train, or even the VR crowd watching from seats in the caboose, or trackside someplace.

Next, we need some type of interpretive control system. Probably the best way to do this would be along the lines of MS Train Simulator, with a graphic representation of a locomotive cab and its controls .... although, for the ones I've seen, it'd be fairly easy to make a better rendition than most of the steam locomotive cabs that software has available. The different window views from that program could be used to trigger different camera views ... including ones from cameras in the caboose, or different trackside points. The only thing you'd lose from an actual round of "Train Sim" is the trackside cameras couldn't be every few trainlengths along the tracks for the "runby" perspectives.... you'd be limited to a few specific points around the railroad. The X-10 camera system as it's often available commercially supports up to four cameras, so I'm figuring one complete system aboard the train, and another for trackside... this gives you two cameras in the cab, two in the caboose, and four trackside. And, if you're using something like Raildriver, these would all be available at a button press ... but you could fix the same thing up on the handheld interface too.... whatever you were using to feed the computer that controls all of this.

Which brings us to the computer. Just based on size, even the largest locomotive isn't going to have space for all the interperative hardware for all of these functions. You're going to need a computer to handle that. Onboard, you'll have your decoders to control lights, sounds, and motor control, the power supplies for the cameras, the controller for the servos (where applicable... most of this discussion assumes the two camera idea to avoid all that motion) and some kind of a device that converts all of the information going to these various devices into some kind of a bluetooth signal..... kind of along the lines of the way Airwire works. The power coming from the track, in whatever form it arrives, will be primarily for powering all of these various things, unless some way of encoding and decoding the bluetooth signal can be devised to send it over the rails ... and then it will have to be buffered and filtered to eliminate the noise generated by the pickups on the rails and the motors, as well as any metal moving parts on the engine, which to me means track power will be primarily for power, and the bluetooth will be airborne radio just like it is in any other place. Your control unit will talk to the computer, which will interface with the engine using bluetooth ... and thereby control the various decoders, video feeds, etc. Whether the user chooses a GUI on the computer screen or some kind of desktop or other physical representation of the controller is entirely optional; anything that can access the bluetooth link and provide instructions to the simulator program will do.

And the software: Engine speed can be related to a particular voltage on the engine's motor, or can be positively monitored by some kind of counter on the motor shaft or drive wheels. However this is fed back to the computer, motor control is actually a great deal simpler than many DCC applications in that there's no acceleration curve, no speed steps, and no momentum; all the controller has to do is make the motor turn faster or slower depending on what the software in the sim computer is calling for. The rest of the functions, like lights, horns, bells, and the like are all on/off decisions made by the various "function decoders" as instructed by the sim program via bluetooth. The complicated part is the sound system, which will have to take all of its instructions from the sim program based on calculated load, speed, geometry, throttle setting, etc, and will therefore require some kind of direct data stream to keep up with the computer. A simpler solution might be to have the sound be a function of the sim program itself (just as you might play it as a standalone) but broadcast as an audio feed over the bluetooth through an onboard amplifier powered from the track power source ... which might even leave room for some better speakers, and the number of possible sounds and sequences would be as endless as the day is long.... bluetooth headphones work quite well for music quality sound, so you might actually improve quality over the best of the onboard sounds.

The control interface: This is the fun part. You can design a "room" with a control stand and seat, and a couple of flatscreens behind "windows" that can give you the whole immersion experience ... basically building a whole cab around your controller, and using the windows to look at the various views on screen ... or use a desktop module and large monitor ... or even something like a new "notebook" computer linked over a wireless LAN to the control/sim computer ... you'd have live video, and even audio (you could have the system broadcast outside audio to the train, and in-cab audio to the control unit too!) as well as access to all of the control functions, and be able to operate the locomotive from wherever you were standing, so long as your LAN was picking it up. You could even use a PC Anywhere type application, or even a website, and allow people all over the world to run your train, realtime!

So, even with currently available things, you could go for the total immersion locmotive.

Some questions, and pitfalls do arise:

The onboard bluetooth link: Somebody would have to build this. It'd be a marriage of a bluetooth receiver as seen in, say, a wireless network printer, and a control interpreter as found in something like an Airwire receiver. (or, since DCC isn't strictly necessary as described above, really any module that was capable of converting the bluetooth instructions into on/off instructions, motor speed control, and routing for audio and video signals. (note here, that only two cameras have to go through any one interface; two on the engine, the caboose would have its own independant module, as would the router for the four trackside cameras. 

Whoever did build it would have the rights to it, and it would be either an aftermarket item, or OEM specified equipment -- much like the Tsunami based sound system on the 3 truck Shay. Some kind of support structure would definately have to be in place to deal with the inevitable problems that a complex system like this would probably have. As such, you'd have to have a company large enough to provide adequate support manufacturing the interface module. You'd need someone to build the speakers and amplifier that read the signal from the bluetooth interface (probably BOSE or similar, in any case a company that already makes similar equipment like headphones, or bluetooth ipod/computer speakers. All of these folks would have to be willing to coordinate with the folks making the bluetooth interface and its requisite operating software (firmware) You'd need someone to develop the software that actually did the controlling; interpreting the cab control surfaces instructions, and calculating the physics of the train, and then translating them into instructions to be sent via bluetooth feed to the locomotive, as well as interpreting the feedback from the locomotive. You'd need someone to write software to take the USB output of the four X10 cameras and translate it into information that the sim program could put up either in windows or on different monitors (or both) while the rest of things were running. And, you'd have to coordinate all of this with the folks who make the Raildriver equipment.

There's also the question of the I-Phone .... which could also be used. So far, just getting an iPhone requires a service contract with AT&T, as well as a wireless data plan ... and purchasing the phone. The application could be downloaded, assuming AT&T could be convinced to make it available (recent open development agreements might make this feasible) at which point the iPhone could interface via its own bluetooth with the computer sim network to share information about the GUI controls being used, essentially making it a remote device for the sim computer.

One odd part of all of this is, without the sim computer up and running, the locmotive doesn't know what to do. There's no sound, and while the system can be powered up from the track, without instructions or an audio feed, it pretty much imitates a shut down locomotive, which means it is essentially homebound, or at least limited to railroads using this sytem.

And then there's the shopping list. Assuming this isn't manufacturer supplied, the user needs:

1 Locomotive. Probably a big one. Oh, and a caboose, or tail end car depending on type and era of train desired, to carry rear end sound and cameras (and probably a red flashing light, just for fun.) 
1 PC
1 Software package (simulator/interface) for the PC to run
1 bluetooth link card for the PC
1 bluetooth interface/adaptor board for onboard the locomotive (and requisite function/accessory/motor decoders as needed, depending on system structure)
1 control device. (Optional: can be skipped if using the GUI on the PC that the simulator software puts up, which would be remoted on the iPhone or notebook. Also applies if the user selects some kind of standalone simulator, which would be connected by USB or Bluetooth to the sim computer.
X10 camera system and switcher, with USB adapter ... need two of the four camera systems, as well as power supplies for all cameras, and the receiver.
power supply to provide sufficient power to the track to run all onboard equipment, as well as some kind of filtering device to provide sufficiently smooth power at the locomotive end.

Repeat as necessary for additional locomotives .... the good news being you only need one set of X10's for trackside views, and the computer should be able to sort out what instructions it's receiving from which remote, and which (related) instructions it's sending (and receiving) to (and from) which bluetooth address, so you can run several of these from one system, provided the software is designed to be able to do this (should be specced this way originally.) So long as there's sufficient bandwith in the bluetooth network, and the computer can keep up with all the variables for the various locomotives, it should work.

That would probably keep even Captain Kirk entertained for awhile, between Klingons.

Matthew (OV)


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh, one other thing. None of this takes the physical geometry of the layout into consideration for things like upgrade, downgrade etc. Certainly a "trainsponding" type system could be used to relay position to the computer, which could be matched with a map of the line to provide info to the sim about grade, curvature, etc ... but it would be easy to get out of synch .... easier would be to use some kind of motor decoder that could provide via data from back EMF and current changes (or possibly just changes in motor speed at any particular voltage), what the locomotive was doing (working hard, being pushed downhill by a heavy train, etc.) and adjust accordingly .... the trick would be translating this data into something that could be sent by bluetooth, and interpreted by the sim computer to react appropriately to the changes in condition by changing the sound, and required throttle setting to maintain speed.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I remember a couple of articles in MR decades back. One guy built a locomotive cab at his control panel (this was in the days of centralized panels and before walk-around control). Another guy built a throttle and a working replica of a brake stand hooked up to Linn Wescott's early momentum throttle (can't even remember the name of it, but it was the CTC-16's predecessor if memory serves). 

Not exactly what you're talking about I realize, but as a 14-16 year old kid heavily into trains and model railroading in the mid-1960's, I thought these were the coolest things I'd ever seen! hehehe Technology sure has come a long way since then. That was around the time GE introduced Astrack, the first command control system. Way beyond my budget in those days and well before commercial IC's (the loco-mounted receiver was HUGE), but I'd have given my left arm for one!


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I have had an idea for my Live Steamers for quite some time... stymied only by my mechanical abilities to execute it and my wallet to finance it.

I use a R/C car controller to control the Throttle, Reverser Lever and Blower Valve on my Aster Mike. The "Trigger" (pistol grip type R/C transmitter/controller) controls the Throttle servo, the Steering wheel controls the Reverser Lever servo and a small Aux Knob controls the Blower Valve servo.

I want to build a small shed in the yard to represent a Locomotive Cab. It should be relatively simple to discombobulate the R/C controller to separate the three control pots to put the Steering Wheel down on the floor with a long stick on it that ratchets across a quadrant to represent the Reverser Lever. Move the Trigger to the wall in front with a long stick that also ratchets across a quadrant to represent the Backhead mounted Throttle Lever. Then mount the small knob on the backhead with a faucet handle on it to represent the Blower Valve.

Now all that is needed is 4 cameras in the cab, one facing each direction transmitting a signal to 4 display panels on the walls of the shed to display the 4 views of the cameras in the Locomotive. Another camera/display would be required to view the Pressure Gauge and Sight Glass for monitoring by the "Engineer" in the shed.

My limited R/C device will only control these three servos so the addition of more servos in the Locomotive to operate a whistle and the Bypass Valve would require the addition of another R/C transmitter in the Shed "Cab".

I even considered building the shed around a large bar-b-que so that I can experience the HEAT from the boiler, too!


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

Gents, 

This is serious stuff. As audiophiles is to music buffs, raillophiles is to model train buffs? 


Very extreme here. Interesting and a great retirement project. 


gg


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

It only overlooks one sort of important thing. While you're busy watching some pooter screen, you aren't 'railfanning' the the whole layout and getting to see the 'big picture'. 

I owned a Lionel Railcam loco once, briefly. It was somewhat amusing, for about two or three laps.... Deciding to sell it wasn't all that hard, and it had nothing to do with it's cheesy looks or crappy video quality. It was the difference in "experience" somewhat akin to that between a technical drawing and a Monet print. Both are really good, but which one would you choose to frame and hang over the sofa?


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Mik

Sorry there fella, you forget that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and as far as I'm concerned. I'll take the shop prints of a Baldwin 4-4-0, over any Monet he ever painted. And don't even get me started on Picasso.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

It seems to me--and maybe I'm wrong--that the technology required to do this is already available and functioning, and you're making it sound way more complex than it needs to be. A handheld device like a DCC throttle or like an iphone, with a touch screen. The handheld has a railsim program on it. The handheld uses bluetooth to trigger a decoder which can play sounds. It's emminently do-able.


The world of large scale is pretty hidebound, and also it's a small market. How old is DCC? Meanwhile there are literally billions of bluetooth devices in use all over the world, in all sorts of conditions. Laptops, cell phones, GPS units, etc. Billions. The Army uses it in Iraq


It would not have to be an iphone, just an iphone-like device with a reasonably sized touch screen. There are millions of them in daily operation all over the world, with camera function already built in: you can buy a touch screen cell phone for less than a phoenix card or roughly the same price as a wireless DCC throttle. It wouldn't take all that much processing power, since most of the processing power in a computer sim program goes to generating the scenery. Put the sim software on the handheld, have a screen with a graphical representation of the cab controls, and the receiver/decoder in the loco translates the commands into voltage. Onboard cameras would be fun, but here again not all that complicated. Class 1 bluetooth would work for transmission: it's a proven technology that's in daily use in billions of applications. You'd be bypassing DCC altogether, and using something like existing Sim software.


You'd probably want to get power from the track, but then again how high is the power consumption of blue tooth devices?

Also this would be an add -on system--the camera complicates it, you'd have to install the camera on the loco. But really, like I keep saying, the world is full of cheap cell phones with cameras in them--it's not rocket science. You could buy the handheld with the sim software, and then a receiver/decoder which you would install either via a drop-in socket or a by wiring in, but it would have the same number of connections as present day decoders do. Power, motor, lights. Camera if desired--speaking for myself, camera would be a low priority. If the whole "direct/sim" setup is imagined as an add-on that way you could continue to run the train on straight DC if preferred


So it's pretty straightforward--sim software on a handheld device send bluetooth signals to a receiver in a loco. The decoder could be, like QSI or Zimo, able to trigger sound files. The sim software is already configured to trigger sounds--which are already digitized. Hardly different from what we have now, except the sim software models something closer to realistic operations


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 04/22/2009 3:38 AM
It seems to me--and maybe I'm wrong--that the technology required to do this is already available and functioning, and you're making it sound way more complex than it needs to be. 



Eureka!

Here ends the epistle.

Matthew (OV)


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Sigh... 

Change is hard. And yet here we are, using computers everyday


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Change isn't hard. 
The only question is whether or not there is a need for that change.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

And of course that's always true and of course there will always be differences of opinion. It does seem to me that when dealing with toy trains "necessary" is really never going to be quite the right term. The more appropriate question might be "would it be more fun or more interesting?" And the answer would again be "depends on who you talk to." 

Would I be right in assuming that the first descriptions of plans to remotely control trains and power them by battery were met with arguments that things should be kept simple and that it was needlessly complicated? 



I've got no great passion for change here--I just think it's kind of interesting to speculate on what it might be possible to do. But apparently even something like that--just speculating about possibilities! is threatening and needs to be met with ridicule? 



The other odd thing is that what I described above--a handheld with a software sim on it sending bluetooth signals to a decoder--is barely different from existing technologies. A DCC throttle is a computer. SCARY! 

But maybe there's no interest in such a thing for most people--that's fine by me, I've got nothing invested. I just enjoy imaginative thinking


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

That's odd--double post. Sorry


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Just because I like to join in the fray... 

It seems to me that the simplest way to achieve the desired result would be to model the railroad in TrainSim or some such program (perhaps using a 3D laser scanner to digitize the layout). It should be reasonably simple to design a program which interprets the commands from the game, converts them to DCC command signals, and thus controls a locomotive running on the layout. BEMF decoders would be needed, in order to ensure a reasonably close match between the target speed and the actual speed. Some sort of feedback would be useful, to help keep everything synchronized. 

That way, we could stay in out PJs drinking coffee while we operate our layouts, getting engineer's eye views, sound effects, and whatever else you like. Wouldn't it be great? 

Of course, you could save a lot of time and money by simply not building the layout in the first place, since you're never going to see it anyway.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

When I first introduced battery R/C in 1986 there was a real need for it. Battery R/C actually did, and still does, greatly simplify the powering of large scale model trains in the garden. Battery R/C was, and still is, the best way of defeating the vagaries of mother nature in areas where inclement weather makes track power problematic. That same need exists today. 
Otherwise there would not now be a plethora of battery R/C makers all competing in an ever expanding market. 
Some manufacturers have needlessly complicated the installation of Battery R/C in Large Scale models by fitting Plug'n'Play sockets, that, whilst a good idea in theory, are not always implemented correctly. An example, I think, of change that was not really needed? 
Simple screw terminals would be a much better idea. 
There are a lot, and I mean a LOT!!!, of recalcitrant LS people who would rather their toys be kept simple and not have the "added value" that some manufacturer want to be mandatory in those toys for sale to an increasingly resentful group of unwilling customers. 

By all means have the "added play value" as options but not have such *"change"* mandated.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

If no one needs or wants such a system, then clearly there is no harm in discussing it? And yet the response to even thinking about other possibilities is ridicule and making stuff up. It's certainly true that virtually all new ideas are met with ridicule: that in itself isn't surprising. What's a little different here is the determination to shout down the discussion. NOBODY WANTS THAT! STOP TALKING ABOUT IT!


I'd certainly agree that not all change is good, and maybe in fact having a cab sim running on a handheld would NOT be fun or good. I'd like to be able to think about it and try it. But I've never found that sticking my head in the sand has any effect whatsoever on the nature or pace of change.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Lownote, 

By all means, I encourage people to discuss this and any other new or improved idea. If we didn't, we'd all be running tinplate trains with clockwork motors, or worse, live steam!  To me, it seems that the frustration on the part of certain people is that some ideas really are (or at least might be) counterproductive, but people still want to push on as though they were the next greatest thing, without listening to anyone else's opinions, ideas, comments, or suggestions. If you're not willing to discuss it, then what's the point in bringing it up here? A magazine ad would be just as useful, since all you're achieving in that case it to announce your latest idea.


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

All this hand waving and airy comments about how it would be easy to get software A to talk to device B reminds me of most of my clients. Aside from Tony, have any of you ever done anything remotely like this? 

For one thing, regardless of what you read, in real life Bluetooth has an effective range of about 30 feet. For another, unless you are going to build a real, enclosed structure, you will quickly find that most laptops are not designed to be used outdoors. The screens are crap except in total shade, and that means no light coming in over your shoulder, too. 

Having said all that, Yes, it can be done. But Scotch-taping Train Sim to Bluetooth to whatever sounds like an expensive lesson in how not to design a product. For those who want to prove me wrong, the bits on the locomotive are pretty straightforward. The PC, or whatever, end is where you'll have problems, unless you have programmed these devices before, and have the resources to do it properly. 

And in case you're wondering, I make my living designing products that monitor and control part of their environment, including motor controls, user interfaces, sensors, etc.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Well that's a useful response. Fortunately for me, I don't have to actually make anything work!


It would be an interesting idea even if it's not easy--skip the laptop. Put the software on a handheld device. You could establish what kind oi train you were running, how many cars you were pulling, whether they were loaded or unloaded. The software could track your steam pressure by matching it againt load measured by BEMF. You'd start to slow and lose power is steam pressure dropped. The water level would drop. You'd need to tend the fire. It'd be fun. Or maybe it can't be done--it seems to me it could, but I'm no expert, and then of course maybe nobody wants it. 


But just imagine--you've got a loco on the track. You enter the type into the handheld, you tell it how many cards and loaded or unloaded, and the software models the operational behavior based on that. You'd have to go through the same startup procedure as you would on that loco. You'd have to constanty adjust it just as you would in a locomotive, and you'd have the same goals--maximizing performance while minimizing water and coal use. think about how well that works with batteries, with their limited run time. It would be way more protoypical, for those that want that: it'd add an additional element of challenge and expertise. 



And it would be OPTIONAL!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 04/23/2009 5:24 AM
If no one needs or wants such a system, then clearly there is no harm in discussing it? And yet the response to even thinking about other possibilities is ridicule and making stuff up. It's certainly true that virtually all new ideas are met with ridicule: that in itself isn't surprising. What's a little different here is the determination to shout down the discussion. NOBODY WANTS THAT! STOP TALKING ABOUT IT!


I'd certainly agree that not all change is good, and maybe in fact having a cab sim running on a handheld would NOT be fun or good. I'd like to be able to think about it and try it. But I've never found that sticking my head in the sand has any effect whatsoever on the nature or pace of change.





I don't recall anybody saying "don't talk about it".
The problem was, and is, ulterior motives and agendas.

Someone tried to point out some of the things that almost happened........and the propeller idea was no better or worse than this bluetooth taped to your laptop.

You just don't see when you've been had, do you?

That's okay.

All part of the "game".

What makes you think it's going to be optional?

What makes you think someone isn't pushing some manufacturer, let's say, oh, Bachmann, to have mandated DCC on board every LS locomotive?

What if someone had put that in print somewhere?

Incrementalism.

What if part of that design eliminated the use of analog inputs?

What part of "mandatory" am I missing?


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Well no, I actually don't see where I've been had. But I'd be happy to have it explained to me in clear english, instead of in a lot of dark hints and veiled allusions and intimations. I keep looking to see if Stanley Ames is hiding under the bed. But there's nothing there but dust and some back issues of GR.


It seems like we are in a position that because Stanley Ames exists, all discussions about other possibilities are dangerous, because they will be part of some sinister agenda?


I don't even know that I WANT what I'm describing, i just think it's interesting to think about what might be possible. I don't think such talk is dangerous, and I don't understand why I'm supposed to


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

or worse, live steam! 
Careful now... I represent that remark!  

One man's poison is another man's nirvana! hehehe


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm really thinking about going to all live steam, and precisely because it's WAY more complicated!


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Don't you guys do things just because you wondered if it was possible? It happens to me sometimes when I'm building something, where I say to myself "wouldn't it be cool if...", I spend WAY too much time trying to make it work, but that's the fun of it. You aren't doing it to impress others, you're doing it for yourself because you won't be able to sleep unless you've done it. This is no different, and as Lownote says the technology is already there. It doesn't look too hard to me at all. 
Here's how I would do it using the Massoth system (which I'm familiar with) on a live steamer as an example: 
Small wireless video camera mounted on a servo so you can rotate it around as you drive. Using wireless Massoth navigator to control all the servo functions via inexpensive function decoders such as their 8FL. You would select the servo you want by pushing of the function buttons (say 1-9) Each 8FL can control two servos proportionally to the handwheel motion, or they can be set to end of limit motion functions for things like cylinder cocks etc. on a live steamer. So now you can rotate the camera at the exact speed and location you want. You can move the valve gear proportionally wherever you want. You can have servos for the whistle and regulator. You could have a servo for the cylinder drain cocks. You could use a pump like the Regner servo driven pump for water top-up. All at the push of a function button. For a live steamer, using the DRC300 reciever you can run battery, track analog or track DCC for powering your electronics. Of course all of these functions could be programmed to function in a set way using existing DCC automation software. For example, you could have it simplified so that pushing one button would trigger, "open drain cocks for 10 seconds", "full forward valve gear", "open valve gear to 20%", etc. etc. Or after so many minutes, run the water pump. Lots of possibilities that's for sure, I just used the Massoth DCC because that would be a simple way to do it. You could also use a programmable microcontroller like a Basicmicro Atom to run all the servos too, but you would need a wireless controller to give it the imputs, the way I believe Tony does with his RCS. 
Anyway, those are my thoughts.... 

Keith


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm really thinking about going to all live steam, and precisely because it's WAY more complicated!
Welcome to the Dark Side Mike!







I made that move years ago and have never looked back.

Way more complicated? I donno... it certainly requires more than turning a knob or pressing a key to get a live steamer going, so in that sense it's more complicated. OTOH, we don't have to worry about all the track cleaning, battery vs. track power, Airwire vs RCS vs Aristo TE, powered frogs, SuperSockets, P&P, motor speeds and gear ratios, chuff synchronizers, sound systems triggers and compatibility with control systems, all the other on-board electronics, and a whole range of other issues which seem to consume the Sparkie crowd.









Instead we have to worry about plugged jets (rare in my experience and easily correctable), oily slippery track (powdered chalk works good), severe grades, running butane during cold temps (correctable by a warm water bath around the gas tank), and not letting the boiler run dry.







Those running alcohol have additional concerns specific to alcohol firing - same for coal firing.

Each to his own.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 04/23/2009 2:06 PM
I'm really thinking about going to all live steam, and precisely because it's WAY more complicated!
Welcome to the Dark Side Mike!







I made that move years ago and have never looked back.

Way more complicated? I donno... it certainly requires more than turning a knob or pressing a key to get a live steamer going, so in that sense it's more complicated. OTOH, we don't have to worry about all the track cleaning, battery vs. track power, Airwire vs RCS vs Aristo TE, powered frogs, SuperSockets, P&P, motor speeds and gear ratios, chuff synchronizers, sound systems triggers and compatibility with control systems, all the other on-board electronics, and a whole range of other issues which seem to consume the Sparkie crowd.









Instead we have to worry about plugged jets (rare in my experience and easily correctable), oily slippery track (powdered chalk works good), severe grades, running butane during cold temps (correctable by a warm water bath around the gas tank), and not letting the boiler run dry.







Those running alcohol have additional concerns specific to alcohol firing - same for coal firing.

Each to his own. " src="http://www.mylargescale.com/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/smile.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" /> 




No, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NNNOOOO!!!! Ya gots it all backwards my dear Mr. Ennis!









"Battery" is the "Dark side"...









Live Steam is the ENLIGHTENED side!









You have "come unto the light!"... as should all REAL railroaders... us'n of the cognocentii...










Anyway, another comment about servos controlling a single camera and using cameras in general. I have a couple of remote video cameras:

One is an RF transmitter in the 2.x gig range similar to the X-10 brand stuff. It has a range of about 200 to 300 feet in the open; walls have a detrimental effect as does the human body getting in the way. The receiver has standard analog video out for feed to a TV or VCR.

The other is a network wireless camera; it is its own web site and I connect to it using my wireless router/network connection. It also has servos built-in that can be controlled via the browser accessing the web page it hosts. Its range is also in the 2 or 3 hundred feet.


Neither can handle rapid video movement. They tend to blur and can take a second to clear up the blurring if they are moved. They also do not handle rapid brightness changes and can take several seconds to correct for it.

The servos on the one are extremely slow moving the camera (and yet the video still blurs). So moving it is not like turning your head to look in a different direction. A 90-deg turn to one side can take about 2 seconds, whereas a pretty girl can turn my head 90-degrees in just a fraction of that time.









Granted, I suppose one could get faster moving servos to simulate the speed of "head" movement, but with the blur-recovery time it would still be quite slow for the remote engineer to fully recognize what he was seeing after a movement.

Additionally, both cameras seem to be quite slow sending the data. I can have the camera pointed at me, look right at the camera, then turn my head to look at the display and still see the image of me looking right at the camera, then see me move my head to look at the display. It is worse with the network camera but occurs with both of them to some degree.

Now, assuming one reason for the remote viewpoint the cameras provide is to allow the engineer the ability to react to what is happening and that delay really exacerbates the slow reaction time of us humanoids and one could have an accident and it be over long before the remote engineer even sees it let alone possibly react to attempt to avoid it!


Mind you... I would STILL like to try this "remote/realistic operation" of my Live Steamers and this discussion is really prodding me to turn my attention to it again... at least to get the cab simulator built with the Throttle, Reverser Lever and Blower valve operational and have provision for real (even slow) video feedback from the loco.


I am sure there are video cameras available that have better video feed, but I bet the price is prohibitive at the present time... (that may improve over time, too. It already has to some extent).


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 04/23/2009 10:50 AM

Well no, I actually don't see where I've been had. But I'd be happy to have it explained to me in clear english, instead of in a lot of dark hints and veiled allusions and intimations. I keep looking to see if Stanley Ames is hiding under the bed. But there's nothing there but dust and some back issues of GR.

*Dark hints and intimations? Really? And how many years have you been following this?* *At least you are now looking under your bed.*
*Check the closet, too.*



It seems like we are in a position that because Stanley Ames exists, all discussions about other possibilities are dangerous, because they will be part of some sinister agenda?

_*Who said that?
You?*_
_*Nobody said to stop talking about it, rather, this thread is a fine example of talking about it!*_


I don't even know that I WANT what I'm describing, i just think it's interesting to think about what might be possible. I don't think such talk is dangerous, and I don't understand why I'm supposed to

_*Obviously. Suggestion: Figure out what you want before you ask for it (just as a rule of life, not that you have in this instance).*_
_*Don't understand what you're supposed to.....what?*_


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Given that steam power has been around for a lot longer than electrical power and has remained virtually unchanged in how it actually works, I would be more inclined to say that moving to all steam power will not only greatly *simplify* your operations, but could also prove way more satisfying. 

There are all sorts of ways of actually controlling live steam models but almost none involve any sort of track power. Neither will they ever do so, until the Live Steam loco manufacturers start making all of the models with insulated wheels sets.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Ah, so all this time and it hasn't changed. 
Time for SOMEONE to generate new standards for the live steam crowd on how they should operate, eh?


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah, so all this time and it hasn't changed. 
Time for SOMEONE to generate new standards for the live steam crowd on how they should operate, eh? 


Polk tried...but it didn't take a rocket scientist to predict how well hot steam, plastic, electronics and Aristo would get along.  

Keith


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

No, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NNNOOOO!!!! Ya gots it all backwards my dear Mr. Ennis! 

"Battery" is the "Dark side"... 
Sorry... didn't mean to steal your thunder. hehehe 

I am sure there are video cameras available that have better video feed, but I bet the price is prohibitive at the present time... (that may improve over time, too. It already has to some extent).
I had one of those "X-10" cameras (still do, though I don't use it). I tried pulling it around the old layout on a flatcar a couple of times, and the results were less than spectacular. For one thing, the antenna system between the camera Tx and the Rx was highly directional, leading to very bad reception and a lot of snow at times depending on the compass direction things were pointing relative to each other as the train snaked its way along the layout. The Rx was in a bedroom window, only 20-25' max. from the Tx on the train. 

The color wasn't very good either and was very washed out. Also, the camera didn't respond well at all to differences in sunlit and shaded areas. After a few tries, I abandoned it. I get much better results with my camcorder on a fat car, though it isn't a "live view from the cab."


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...All this hand waving and airy comments about how it would be easy to get software A to talk to device B reminds me of most of my clients. Aside from Tony, have any of you ever done anything remotely like this? ...

Well, no, but what's that got to do with the price of potatoes? It's ideas and imagination that fuel innovation. If Bluetooth doesn't have the range, find a system that does. If the cameras can't broadcast fast enough, figure out a way to make them broadcast faster. If a laptop screen isn't bright enough, get one that is. Remember--50 years ago, the technology to put man on the moon didn't exist. A lot has changed because--to borrow a line from a commercial--we never stopped asking "what if..." 

...The problem was, and is, ulterior motives and agendas.... 
What makes you think it's going to be optional? 
What makes you think someone isn't pushing some manufacturer, let's say, oh, Bachmann, to have mandated DCC on board every LS locomotive? 
What if someone had put that in print somewhere?...


What makes you think it wouldn't be optional? Surely Tony would like to see his system installed in every locomotive just as much as Lewis would love to see his? Heck, Lewis could very easily sell his trains pre-installed with his controller, his batteries, and forget all about track pick-ups. He's long been a proponent of R/C. Look at LGB, MTH... any of the instigators of proprietary control systems. Not a single one of them shut the door on the foundation of this hobby--analog track power DC. Just because one individual may be pushing a particular kind of control with respect to a particular manufactuer, and has been something of a public figure in that pursuit, doesn't remotely mean it will come close to happening. The market still drives the manufacturers, not vice versa. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04/23/2009 7:18 PM


What makes you think it wouldn't be optional? Surely Tony would like to see his system installed in every locomotive just as much as Lewis would love to see his? Heck, Lewis could very easily sell his trains pre-installed with his controller, his batteries, and forget all about track pick-ups. He's long been a proponent of R/C. Look at LGB, MTH... any of the instigators of proprietary control systems. Not a single one of them shut the door on the foundation of this hobby--analog track power DC. Just because one individual may be pushing a particular kind of control with respect to a particular manufactuer, and has been something of a public figure in that pursuit, doesn't remotely mean it will come close to happening. The market still drives the manufacturers, not vice versa. 

Later, 

K


What makes you think the Ames Super Socket was optional?
What makes you think the motor interface almost wasn't optional?
What makes you think 14.5:1 gearing is optional?

IF you go back to the start of all this, over 18 months ago, I said this is for everybody, NOT for battery r/c folks.
I can fix it.
A lot of folks cannot.
I would have fought even harder if some manufacturer was making a locomotive that was ONLY available with RCS.

ANY locomotive that comes with a mandated control system, I pass on.
Quasinami, MTS, DCS, doesn't matter.

IF you go back and re-read that history, you will find out the majority of folks wanted it simple, with no add-ons.

Look at LGB and MTS.

Coincidence?

Maybe.

Quasinami, much as folks want to think it's usable on straight track power, well, over 8 volts to start and 21 volt shutdown, with no triggers available and no volume adjustment, and no chuff trigger input, all for $100 more?

I wonder who was involved in that?

The mandate is for control systems onboard, mandatory.
What we end up with is anybody on the outside of the inner circle's guess.

Doesn't mean it will come close to happening?

What flavor Kool Aid?


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

What makes you think it wouldn't be optional? Surely Tony would like to see his system installed in every locomotive just as much as Lewis would love to see his? Heck, Lewis could very easily sell his trains pre-installed with his controller, his batteries, and forget all about track pick-ups. He's long been a proponent of R/C. Look at LGB, MTH... any of the instigators of proprietary control systems. Not a single one of them shut the door on the foundation of this hobby--analog track power DC. Just because one individual may be pushing a particular kind of control with respect to a particular manufactuer, and has been something of a public figure in that pursuit, doesn't remotely mean it will come close to happening. 


Kevin, as a member of Stan's "Working Group" and a writer of reviews for Kalambach, I'm assuming that's simply a rhetorical question, right? I didn't buy a 3 truck Shay, I've got a K-27 that required nearly a thousand dollars of "Overhaul" right out of the box, and a 2-6-6-2 in pieces awaiting a solution because it's *ALREADY* happening. That's why *I* think it wouldn't be optional; it already isn't, at least where Bachmann products are concerned -- the products of the working group and its leader are already appearing in every Bachmann locomotive, and you've written reviews of them. 

And before you reach for your "moderator's hat" this isn't a personal attack. You asked a question, and I answered it, based on my experience. I hold you in the highest regard, you make fantastic models, and you sprinkle a little bit of railroad history into everything you build, and I wish I had a seventeenth of the model making and presentation skill that you have ... but I honestly think you're way off base on this one. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I recently read an interesting book about an engine man on the PRR, called "Set Up Running," and I learned a great deal I hadn't known about steam operation, particularly about balancing power and speed against steam and fuel economy and labor time. Once I started trying a live steamer this became even more interesting--the challenge is partly running at reasonably realistic rate while conserving fuel and water. Very interesting. It's interesting to me in the hobby sense and also because I got a little more insight into what it was like to operate one of the key industries of the industrial age. 

I'm no expert, but I've got most of the basic issues on my little electric layout licked--track conductivity? Check. Effective and dependable remote control? check. figured out how DCC works? check. It's not problem free, but it's not very complicated at this point. Press button and run. Move cars here. I can see the "midas touch of expertise" sneaking in. Modeling is fun, live steam is a lot of fun. It'd be interestng to be able to run a simulation--take these cars here, in this time. Do you have to stop for water and coal, or not? Can you make the specificed time? A sim could introduce challeneges, like unexpected signals or bad weather. It could add a game-like element. I'm not all that interested in an onboard camera, but it would be interesting to have the sim software in the handheld specifiy a problem--take x cars here, in this time--and then test your capacity to manage the job. The software would differentiate between operating a Pacific and a consolidation, say. You would not have to run tat way all the time, but it would be kind of an interesting challenge


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

My point is that even with all the advances in technology, the basic premise that all electrically powered locos from the major manufacturers run out of the box on regular analog DC is not going to change. The reason it is not going to change is for the very reason Dave and Matt are arguing--that the vast majority of people want things kept simple. That's the market force in play here, and that will continue to dictate the manufacturers' design. The "Quasinami" experiment supports that theory very well. Bachmann tried it with the 3-truck Shay, and it was plagued with problems. The concept died because the market reacted unfavorably to it. It was not reintroduced in subsequent locomotives. 

No, the "Ames Super Socket" was not optional, but neither is Aristo's virtually identical socket, which came onto the market a year or two earlier. But it is merely an interface. The socket in and of itself is supportive of no single method of operation. By design (and factory default) it's fully compatible with analog DC operation--the very basic control method used by the lion's share of garden railroaders. Remove the so-called "dummy plug," and you can plug a battery R/C receiver into the socket just as readily as you can plug a DCC decoder into the same socket. Therefore the arguement that the socket exists purely to promote the use of DCC over all else is simply fundamentally flawed. 

Is it "necessary?" No. We can all go back to the world of the wires hooked directly to the motors if we wanted to. In reality, though, the socket is an outgrowth of the notion that people want to keep things simple. The analog DC crowd will probably never open the tender up, so for them, it doesn't matter what's inside. But now, with a plug-and-play interface that requires little to no extra wiring, we open the world of alternative power (R/C or DCC) to the technologically clumsy. How cool is that? I can't speak for Tony, but I trust his engineering judgement enough to safely assume that if the socket was fundamentally flawed, he would not have developed a throttle to plug into it. Instead, he was first out of the gate with one. 

Have there been--and will there still be--engineering blunders on the part of the manufacturers? Absolutely. But take the example of the K's gearing. They fixed that with the 2-6-6-2 (whether the gears on the K were "wrong" or not). Again--the market drives the manufacturers. The market told Bachmann the loco was not geared to their liking, so the next loco off the boards had more reasonable gearing. 

The manufacturers make their choices of who they listen to during product development, but ultimately it's the paying public that has the final say. If the public runs contrary to the advisors often enough, the advisors get replaced. So long as we--the marketplace, the consumer, the one with the money--keep on top of the manufacturers with our wants and desires, we ensure our needs will continue to be met. That's the only thing that's not an option. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04/23/2009 10:43 PM
Remove the so-called "dummy plug," and you can plug a battery R/C receiver into the socket just as readily as you can plug a DCC decoder into the same socket. Therefore the arguement that the socket exists purely to promote the use of DCC over all else is simply fundamentally flawed. 

Later, 

K 

First reading, I thought maybe, just maybe, you had sworn off the Kool-Aid.
Except, they changed the specs on Version II from Version I.
Or, didn't you know that?
I have the e-mail.
Basically, since the socket wasn't nmra approved, Bachmann can change the specification to their choosing.

Exactly what part of "standard" is that?

Everybody wants "standards" (including me), but NOT standards that change.

You don't believe me?
Check the original spec (I have a copy should you fail to find it) with the vertical clearance above the socket on the Oscar.

And, who pushed the socket?
And who pushed the attempt for nmra standards?

Geez, Kevin.

(Like, the nmra finally accepted G1MRA as defacto wheel standards, instead of their one-standard-for-each-scale attempt, and how much you want to bet the nmra is going to change the voted on and approved standards again?)


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Actually the Bachmann socket was part of the flawed electronics package in the K-27. 
Sure I jumped in with the first (and still the only) PNP battery R/C socket for the K-27. I actually waited until I could get my hands on one to see for myself what was needed. 
The biggest problem was the chuff signal. It was back to front to how most sound systems work. A problem I took care of with my PnP for the K-27. 
Incidentally I made the RCS/EVO PnP-3BK to fit within Bachmann's own space dimensions they had Mr Ames publish before the K-27 came out. 
The K-27 socket was very much flawed for regular DC operation. The chuff signal simply would not work at low voltage. Circuits had to be devised to overcome that problem. 

I have just finished a battery R/C plus Phoenix sound install in the new 2-6-6-2T. That installation will be published soon. 
To say I was annoyed that Bachmann did not adhere to their own published socket clearance dimensions on the 2-6-6-2T, would be an understatement. It has made life difficult for anyone wanting to have batteries, R/C and sound all on board. To be fair though Bachmann have modified the socket mountings so the socket can be moved to allow the RCS/EVO heatsink to fit right up under the steam dome. You know, right where there is absolutely *no air* circulation to keep things cool. 
A bit more thought and research by the *"EXPERT"* consultant and that could have all been avoided. Apparently there is a good quality very low profile speaker that would permit a much lower socket height and thus better clearance. 
All we got from the *"EXPERT"* consultant were weasel words as to why Bachmann did not have to stick to their own specs. 

Don't get me wrong. I am not against sockets per se. As long as they cater for all eventualities then by all means have them. 

Lest anyone thinks I am bashing Bachmann, I am not. The 2-6-6-2T runs superbly. Well it does now, after I had to fix the bent crank pin on the rear driver that had been assembled like that and *all* the crankpin screws left loose so it even ran. More on that later too. 
The lights work, the sound works without any tricky electronics and the loco is actually quite easy to work on thanks to higly detailed exploded drawings. 

The next 2-6-6-2T I do will probably be gutted and decent sized Sub C batteries installed.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Dave, you are missing my point. It doesn't matter if the socket is "standard" or not. That doesn't change the simple fact that the socket in and of itself does not mandate DCC. If it did, you couldn't even plug in an R/C throttle into the socket and run the loco, let alone worry about whether you can put the boiler lid back on because someone changed the specs for the necessary airspace above the socket. No one is mandating any kind of control. Individuals may be advocating one method over another to manufacturers whose ears they have, and through this advocacy make it easier to use that particular control system, but the manufacturers are adopting it as an option, not to the exclusion of anything else. Many manufacturers have the technology and ability to mandate exactly what kind of control system can be used to run their trains, yet they all steadfastly cling to appealing to the most common denominator--old fashioned track power. They know where the money is. 

Yes, Stan was behind the push to make the socket an NMRA standard, and yes he's decidedly pro DCC. No, it didn't happen. What's more important is that the manufacturers don't seem to have cared one way or the other. Standard or not, the open protocol has been out there for over a year, and no one else is biting. That gives me no confidence that the interface being adopted by the NMRA would make any difference. Aristo and Bachmann seem to be the only two interested in this kind of concept at the present time. I'm not saying the implementation of the socket in the K-27 isn't flawed. I'll refer you to my GR review of the socket for its shortcomings (such as the chuff trigger Tony mentions). But the concept itself is laudable--and if the current batch of decoders and R/C receivers is any indication, quite practical. In my opinion, that's ultimately a benefit for the hobby. 

Later, 

K 

PS. The NMRA has neither published nor voted on anything relative to large scale wheel and track specs this go-round. An effort to arrive at standards is wrapping up. And no--there is no guarantee that the specs that are currently being discussed won't be changed again in another 4 years. That's politics.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04/24/2009 1:14 AM
Dave, you are missing my point. It doesn't matter if the socket is "standard" or not. That doesn't change the simple fact that the socket in and of itself does not mandate DCC. If it did, you couldn't even plug in an R/C throttle into the socket and run the loco, let alone worry about whether you can put the boiler lid back on because someone changed the specs for the necessary airspace above the socket. No one is mandating any kind of control. Individuals may be advocating one method over another to manufacturers whose ears they have, and through this advocacy make it easier to use that particular control system, but the manufacturers are adopting it as an option, not to the exclusion of anything else. Many manufacturers have the technology and ability to mandate exactly what kind of control system can be used to run their trains, yet they all steadfastly cling to appealing to the most common denominator--old fashioned track power. They know where the money is. 

Yes, Stan was behind the push to make the socket an NMRA standard, and yes he's decidedly pro DCC. No, it didn't happen. What's more important is that the manufacturers don't seem to have cared one way or the other. Standard or not, the open protocol has been out there for over a year, and no one else is biting. That gives me no confidence that the interface being adopted by the NMRA would make any difference. Aristo and Bachmann seem to be the only two interested in this kind of concept at the present time. I'm not saying the implementation of the socket in the K-27 isn't flawed. I'll refer you to my GR review of the socket for its shortcomings (such as the chuff trigger Tony mentions). But the concept itself is laudable--and if the current batch of decoders and R/C receivers is any indication, quite practical. In my opinion, that's ultimately a benefit for the hobby. 

Later, 

K 

PS. The NMRA has neither published nor voted on anything relative to large scale wheel and track specs this go-round. An effort to arrive at standards is wrapping up. And no--there is no guarantee that the specs that are currently being discussed won't be changed again in another 4 years. That's politics. 

You are missing MY point.
Mandated issues are inclusive and exclusive of the Ames Super Socket.
You know full well from private conversations what was "proposed".
The "borrowing" of the Polk Socket, changing the polarity of the outputs, suddenly it's "open source", yet different.
14.5:1, all you need to do (except it does not solve the current draw issue) is change your decoder settings.

What about track power?

You need to get your head.........up above the surf and look around a bit.

Screw terminals would have been perfect (and used by Accucraft, Hartland.....) without the space-robbing issues.

I have enough experience gutting the Polk Sockets out, I knew why the Ames version would be a space robber.

I am really puzzled as to why you seem to have found a supply of rose-colored glasses, and what you expect to gain by supporting everything you can possibly support.

On the PS, I wasn't referring to this go-round.
Rather last go-round.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I'm talking specifically about mandating DCC, not engineering decisions that affect how the locomotive performs regardless of how its powered. The gear ratio in the K is not ideal--and as I mentioned--was corrected in the 2-6-6-2, whether anyone from Bachmann ever went on record to say it was "wrong" or not. If I'm not mistaken, the optical chuff system in the K is gone from the 2-6-6-2, also. That's an example of the market responding and dictating what happens, and illustrates my point that as much as one might try to influence the direction of a product line, it can only be done if the market reacts favorably. 

Also, nowhere have I ever implied that the socket (Aristo's or Bachmann's) is the ideal form for such an interface. The form a standard interface would ultimately take was very much part of the early discussions when Stan, Greg, you, I and others were talking about the possibilities of a universal standard. We talked at length about the benefits of screw terminals, how much space it would take, all that stuff. In truth, those discussions have pretty much faded off due to a number of factors, including a perceived rift between Bachmann and Aristo on combining their efforts in that regard (since they're the only two using it), and a lack of support from other train manufacturers. As you correctly point out, the other manufacturers seem quite happy with their screw terminals, and have little incentive to change. The market is not clamoring for a standard socket in every locomotive sold, and unless it does, we will very likely not see it beyond where we are now. 

That doesn't change the fact that the socket in its current (if imperfect) guise has its definite merits. Part of your personal income is derived from servicing the needs of the technophobic--the people who don't know one end of a battery from the other. A plug-and-play interface caters to that market, making it easy for them to invest in alternative controls without the need to spend even more money to have someone install it for them. Assume that for every one technophobe who sends a loco to you to have R/C installed, there are 5 who would buy a plug-and-play socket and do it themselves. If all you have to do is box 'em up and drive to the post office, that beats the pants off of spending half a day in the workshop installing one system, doesn't it? To boot, you've now got 5 people playing with battery powered locos, learning the benefits, who--surprise--have non-socket locos they now want to convert. Maybe they try it themselves (expanding their own horizons even further) or maybe they contact the retailer from whom they bought the plug-and-play system and have him install it for them (expanding your bottom line with yet another system sold and installed.) Where's the downside? Sure, it's an imperfect interface, but it does what it's supposed to do, so can we really argue? If--in the future--the winds push the public to want such a universal interface in everything, we can revisit the socket, take a good, hard look at what works and what doesn't, and tailor a standard to those needs. At that point, we'll have a few years' worth of experience to draw upon from instead of speculation. 

What do I stand to gain from supporting such an interface? Beyond more time, nothing. But the hobby in general stands to gain a great deal from anything that facilitates broadening the hobbyists' horizons. I'll throw my support behind anything that allows the average hobbyist to grow in the hobby. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04/24/2009 12:20 PM
I'm talking specifically about mandating DCC, not engineering decisions that affect how the locomotive performs regardless of how its powered. The gear ratio in the K is not ideal--and as I mentioned--was corrected in the 2-6-6-2, whether anyone from Bachmann ever went on record to say it was "wrong" or not. If I'm not mistaken, the optical chuff system in the K is gone from the 2-6-6-2, also. That's an example of the market responding and dictating what happens, and illustrates my point that as much as one might try to influence the direction of a product line, it can only be done if the market reacts favorably. 

_*Yes, you are wrong. The Oscar has TWO of the silly optical chuff units, albeit correctly polarized this time.*_
_*You may not be talking mandating dcc, but we are. YOU have that information, or at least did.*_
_*You try too hard to make yourself out to be the "good guy" that everybody likes, you become lukewarm, and get spewed out.

*_Also, nowhere have I ever implied that the socket (Aristo's or Bachmann's) is the ideal form for such an interface. The form a standard interface would ultimately take was very much part of the early discussions when Stan, Greg, you, I and others were talking about the possibilities of a universal standard. We talked at length about the benefits of screw terminals, how much space it would take, all that stuff. In truth, those discussions have pretty much faded off due to a number of factors, including a perceived rift between Bachmann and Aristo on combining their efforts in that regard (since they're the only two using it), and a lack of support from other train manufacturers. As you correctly point out, the other manufacturers seem quite happy with their screw terminals, and have little incentive to change. The market is not clamoring for a standard socket in every locomotive sold, and unless it does, we will very likely not see it beyond where we are now. 

That doesn't change the fact that the socket in its current (if imperfect) guise has its definite merits. Part of your personal income is derived from servicing the needs of the technophobic--the people who don't know one end of a battery from the other.

_*Part of my "personal income" derives from customers who DEMAND that the sockets be removed.*_
_*I get blamed (often by "enthusiastic children") for trying to mandate that they be removed.*_
_*I have the capability.*_
_*I tried and tried (a lot of which was driven by communication from said customers) to get the Ames Super Socket nixed, and now maybe someone in Kowloon will listen.*_

A plug-and-play interface caters to that market, making it easy for them to invest in alternative controls without the need to spend even more money to have someone install it for them. Assume that for every one technophobe who sends a loco to you to have R/C installed, there are 5 who would buy a plug-and-play socket and do it themselves. If all you have to do is box 'em up and drive to the post office, that beats the pants off of spending half a day in the workshop installing one system, doesn't it? To boot, you've now got 5 people playing with battery powered locos, learning the benefits, who--surprise--have non-socket locos they now want to convert. Maybe they try it themselves (expanding their own horizons even further) or maybe they contact the retailer from whom they bought the plug-and-play system and have him install it for them (expanding your bottom line with yet another system sold and installed.) Where's the downside? Sure, it's an imperfect interface, but it does what it's supposed to do, so can we really argue? If--in the future--the winds push the public to want such a universal interface in everything, we can revisit the socket, take a good, hard look at what works and what doesn't, and tailor a standard to those needs. At that point, we'll have a few years' worth of experience to draw upon from instead of speculation. 

_*The problem is, the socket is too freaking big, and on the Oscar, even with last-minute modifications to the board mount to allow movement, places heat generating (5 amp full slip) components INSIDE the steam dome, and the lack of any space whatsoever for Sub "C" standard 7.2V packs.*_
_*Gut it, replace the optical chuff with reed switches, and you've got all the room you need.*_
_*Plus, you can glue the top on (no more rattle at higher volumes) AND put a proper bell rope on.*_
_*Maybe, once again, someone in Kowloon is listening.*_
_*Maybe it isn't marketing and economy?
*_
What do I stand to gain from supporting such an interface? Beyond more time, nothing. But the hobby in general stands to gain a great deal from anything that facilitates broadening the hobbyists' horizons. I'll throw my support behind anything that allows the average hobbyist to grow in the hobby. 

_*Who knows?*_
_*Other than the nod from Philly for blindly promoting what is produced?*_
_*Anyone's guess at this point.*_

Later, 

K


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Another discussion derailed

I'm going to commit a terrible heresy and say I LIKE the aristo socket. I spent a lot of time learning how to wire up locos from LGB and from Bachmann and USAT for remote control and track power, and I know how to do it, and that's nice, but if you give me a choice between tearing down the wiring or dropoping a decoder or receiver in a socket, I'm gong with the socket. More time in the sunshine, less time in the workshop inhaling solder fumes. I know how to join to wooden boards with a jointing plane, but I'm going to take a power joiner if there's one avaiable. The idea that using and liking the aristo socket (and yes, knowing about aristo's lousy quality control and inconsistent wirng) make some some kind of dupe or tool of Stan Ames is comical. But then I like the QSI cards, which puts me in the forbidden DCC camp. 


Kevin is completely right--anything that makes it easier for more people to get into and enjoy the hobby is good, even if those people enjoy themselves in ways I don't approve of. Having a socket does not require DCC. It doesn't even require using the socket.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 04/24/2009 4:13 PM
Another discussion derailed

Kevin is completely right--anything that makes it easier for more people to get into and enjoy the hobby is good, even if those people enjoy themselves in ways I don't approve of. Having a socket does not require DCC. It doesn't even require using the socket. 




_*And, once again, you have proven you don't understand what went on up to and including the introduction of said socket.*_

_*Thanks!*_


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

MIke. 
I for one am certainly not criticising DCC. 
Like other control systems, it has a place in Large Scale for those that want to use it. 
With respect, what you don't know, and really cannot be expected to know, is the background behind the *push* for mandating certain types of control equipment in certain Large Scale locos. 
I am aware of what machinations have been going on behind the scenes that fortunately, have not eventuated. Well not yet anyway. It not only extends to mandated control systems but also to particular ways the electric motors were going to be made to run. Suffice to say, if the proposed particular technology had been adopted, only one type, and probably only one brand, of control system would have been able to be used. 

I too was involved in the discussion of a suitable NMRA Large Scale socket and probably had as much input as anyone else. What I objected to was not the socket per se, but, rather the attempt to force one particular standard through without wide ranging consultation. 

BTW. RCS/EVO has been approached by another Large Scale manufacturer for input on how their future products should be set up. RCS/EVO will be helping out where we can.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Just a point of clarification on a few previous posts: 

1. Aristo has been making their socket for about 10 years, not 2 years before Stan had it implemented in the K27. 
2. There is a big difference between the Aristo socket and the ones found in Bachmann, in my opinion. 

The fundamental difference is if you pull a socket out of an Aristo loco, the worst you do is possibly lose a regulator IC on the main board for lower voltage lights. (The PWM "generator" is a voltage source for lights, same difference)

On the Bachmann products, there is a lot more electronics, like flicker and opto-electronic chuff sensing. 

It's on the same board as the socket, so you cannot just "yank" the socket. 

As someone said, the Aristo socket is an "interface" but the physical integration of the "socket" and more electronics makes the Bachmann implementations quite different in the practical sense. 

If I ran battery and had space limitations (when is that not true?) then making the socket and the extra electronics combined would cause me more grief, and I would not like it. 

If I ran DCC (which I do) then it's not as big a deal, and I like the idea of solid state chuff triggers, IF they interface well to existing controllers. This means the ability to have negative or positive triggers, and voltages that REALLY go to ground, not just near. 


Just my opinion... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 
Some AC sockets also have switch assemblies and PWM generators on them.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The Oscar has TWO of the silly optical chuff units, albeit correctly polarized this time.

I said I was unsure on the chuff sensor, and thanks for clarifying. They did--at least--correct the polarity problem, if perhaps not the startup voltage problem. It's a start... 

You may not be talking mandating dcc, but we are. 

Please re-read my first sentence, where I said I _was_ talking about mandating DCC. We are both talking about the same thing. 

You try too hard to make yourself out to be the "good guy" that everybody likes, you become lukewarm,

I'm a moderate. While a situation may not be ideal, there are most often benefits that can be derived. It's not so much trying to be the "good guy," but one who highlights the positive through all the negative. I tend to live by the credo "never ascribe to malice that which is adequatly explained by ignorance." I've talked to the same players in this whole thing that you have, know the history, and have merely come to a different conclusion than you. You believe one person is out to rule the world. I see market forces that will always be in play to keep that from happening--and evidence to support that. Therein lies the disagreement--one that we'll merely have to agree to disagree upon. 

Part of my "personal income" derives from customers who DEMAND that the sockets be removed.

And I've got three products sitting on my workbench (one of which you sell), all of which work very nicely with the socket and the electronics. Since your own product works quite well, you could save yourself and your customers a lot of time, money, and energy by simply informing them that you have something that works with the socket and the surrounding electronics, and they can go that route without issue. Why you make more work for yourself is your issue, not mine. I installed your (RCS) system in the K inside of 10 minutes, and that included pulling the batteries out of another locomotive so I could run it. If I'm charging a $200 flat rate for an electronics install, I just made $1,200/hour. Cutting and gutting would take me half a day. Perhaps the customers who demand its removal (for whatever reason) need only be shown the good in a situation? 

I tried and tried (a lot of which was driven by communication from said customers) to get the Ames Super Socket nixed, and now maybe someone in Kowloon will listen.

I know you tried to get it nixed, and I was part of the team that tried to work out something of a compromise, knowing some of the socket's limitations. The bottom line is that those attempts failed, and we have what we have, warts and all. You seem to discount the possibility that any good can come out of the socket as it exists, and it should just be tossed out. I see it as a foundation that we can build upon to get more people involved in alternative control systems. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. The reality is that both Aristo-Craft and Bachmann are invested in this socket. They've decided that's the direction they want to go in terms of electronics. The better alternative is to work positively with what's there in order to improve its implementation, not continuing to fight it tooth and nail. Dare I call it "bipartisan?" 

The problem is, the socket is too freaking big, and on the Oscar, even with last-minute modifications to the board mount to allow movement, places heat generating (5 amp full slip) components INSIDE the steam dome, and the lack of any space whatsoever for Sub "C" standard 7.2V packs. 
Gut it, replace the optical chuff with reed switches, and you've got all the room you need. 
Plus, you can glue the top on (no more rattle at higher volumes) AND put a proper bell rope on.

Again--I've never argued that the form is ideal. You and I have had that discussion from day 1, and we agree on that. Actually, it's not so much the socket, but the ancillary electronics on the board the that holds the socket that take up the space. Both the QSI and Aristo screw-terminal adaptor boards show how small of a footprint these boards need at a minimum. In that regard, it's quite on par with or smaller than the non-socket equivalent systems on the martke. Get rid of (or move to another location) the switches for controlling lights, smoke, and all that jazz, and you've got a rather small package that can easily fit in many places. 

I agree on the optical chuff, I'd much rather see a magnetic system in place. Far less complicated. Perhaps next loco. Again, if we work with the manufacturers on improving implementation, we can do great things. We have to come at it from a supportive stance. 

Other than the nod from Philly for blindly promoting what is produced?

If having a differing opinion than you makes you view me as a cheerleader for anyone, let me grab my pom-pons to complete the picture. You've read my reviews, so you know I don't shy away from calling deficiencies as I see them. (In fact, I seem to recall you rather liked my critique of the B'mann socket because it was rightly critical of certain aspects.) But I also have no trouble touting the benefits in the face of controversy. Every situation has good and bad points, and both need to be weighed in public discussions. I don't care if you don't agree with me, but to come just shy of calling me a shill because of that? I expect better of you. 

Later, 

K


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

what??? NO PICTURES????


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Just keep touting, Kevin. 
This has been a very worthwhile trip. 

VERY worthwhile. 

Oh, and Marty............. 

What pictures do you want?


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Pictures eh?

Here is Stan with the prototype... this is the beta version, China misunderstood and built a "Johnson Wheel" rather than a "Johnson Bar," but this should be corrected prior to rollout from Philadelphia...












And here, a happy model railroader "patches" in his consist. Each connection point on the wall behind represents a separate car on the railroad. After simply daisy chaining each car within the desired consist (a brief 30 to 90 minute effort depending on train length) the fun of model railroading can begin!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...VERY worthwhile.

So, you're going to take all that extra time you now have by installing PNP RCS throttles instead of gutting the electronics to improve your golf game? Glad I could help. Getting out and hitting a few will be good for the blood pressure.  Heck, you can even take some gutted electronics boards and see how far you can hit them. Gotta be good for something, eh? 

And I will keep touting, and I'll keep criticising, too. I'm an equal-opportunity critic. It's just with everyone else criticiising, I needn't present that side of the story.  

Josh--Love it!!!  

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04/24/2009 7:34 PM
...VERY worthwhile.

So, you're going to take all that extra time you now have by installing PNP RCS throttles instead of gutting the electronics to improve your golf game? Glad I could help. Getting out and hitting a few will be good for the blood pressure.







" src="http://www.mylargescale.com/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/wink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" /> Heck, you can even take some gutted electronics boards and see how far you can hit them. Gotta be good for something, eh? 

And I will keep touting, and I'll keep criticising, too. I'm an equal-opportunity critic. It's just with everyone else criticiising, I needn't present that side of the story.







" src="http://www.mylargescale.com/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/smile.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" /> 

Josh--Love it!!!







" src="http://www.mylargescale.com/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/smile.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" /> 

Later, 

K

_*Only Bud plays golf.*_
_*You tried a plug and play with batteries in an Oscar yet?*_
_*I have.*_
*Waiting for your report.*
*I am really surprised you haven't locked this and taken it to e-mail.*
*Oh, well, that's probably next.*
*I am waiting for you to admit that some folks have a hidden plan for model railroad conquest hidden behind dang near everything they promote.*
_*At least I just run trains.*
*And point out the very obvious.* *The only conquest I have in mind is another First with the Jag-ewe-ire.*


*Oh, and the spare Ames Super Sockets and the Not So Super Other Sockets......trap shooting.*
*Black powder, double-barrel, exposed hammer, Damascus barrels.*
_


----------



## Crosshead (Feb 20, 2008)

Park D, 

We're going to need a bigger tender to fit all of that. Do you know anyone who might want to work out some new and improved track and wheels standards for 1:2.032 scale? We could think of it as ten times the "Wow!" 

Richard C.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 04/24/2009 4:42 PM
Posted By lownote on 04/24/2009 4:13 PM
Another discussion derailed




_*And, once again, you have proven you don't understand what went on up to and including the introduction of said socket.*_

_*Thanks!*_






Actually no, you have yet to make it clear why I should care. I don't feel like I'm being "forced" into anything.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Not now you're not. 
We are in a calm part of the storm. 

Based upon what went on before, I would not trust a certain person as far as I could throw him. 

You don't know, probably don't want to know, and just want to continue with the "Ignorance is Bliss" outlook on life. 

Gee, that sounds like Monty Python.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Only Bud plays golf.

Perhaps you should take it up? Nothing like a round of golf with the corporate execs to get your ideas heard.  

You tried a plug and play with batteries in an Oscar yet? 
I have. 
Waiting for your report.

No, but if I can fit 14.8 volts worth of LiIon batteries and plug-and-play inside the Aristo/Delton C-16 tender, I have every confidence I can fit it in the 2-6-6-2 given the opportunity. I know you don't like LiIon batteries, but that's not my problem. You didn't specify what kind of batteries, and I'm not one who shies away from using the best technology available for the task. Remember the days of motorcycle headlight batteries? I do. Nasty things--barely fit inside an LGB box car. My, how far we've come. 

I am really surprised you haven't locked this and taken it to e-mail. 
Oh, well, that's probably next.

Why would I lock this? We're not personally attacking each other, and the debate is rather healthy. (You did come close to calling me a shill, but I'm a big boy.) Besides, in the off chance this topic wanders back to Matt's "Captain Kirk" train sim, I think we can continue to have a healthy dose of daydreaming there, too. 

I am waiting for you to admit that some folks have a hidden plan for model railroad conquest hidden behind dang near everything they promote.

You're not reading my posts correctly, then. I've repeatedly stated that some folks might have their own agendas. Let me quote myself from more than a few posts in this thread: 

1) "Just because one individual may be pushing a particular kind of control with respect to a particular manufactuer, and has been something of a public figure in that pursuit, doesn't remotely mean it will come close to happening. The market still drives the manufacturers, not vice versa." 
2) "If the public runs contrary to the advisors often enough, the advisors get replaced." 
3) "Yes, Stan was behind the push to make the socket an NMRA standard, and yes he's decidedly pro DCC. No, it didn't happen. What's more important is that the manufacturers don't seem to have cared one way or the other." 
4) "You believe one person is out to rule the world. I see market forces that will always be in play to keep that from happening." 

I don't deny the possible existance of conspiracy theories, I just argue their efficacy. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm a moderate.
Remember the immortal words of Lt. Cmdr. Montgomery Scott... *"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank!"*


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Now you know why Riker ducked every time Pickard said, "Shoot at Will!"


----------



## Charles M (Jan 2, 2008)

It would be nice to have an in cab video that worked for a different view of the world. However I am glad I run " Live Steam with insulated wheels. " " Eine Dampflok fährt mit Dampf und nicht mit Strom! " and that is how it should be . 

Charles M SA # 74


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04/24/2009 9:10 PM

Only Bud plays golf.


No, but if I can fit 14.8 volts worth of LiIon batteries and plug-and-play inside the Aristo/Delton C-16 tender, I have every confidence I can fit it in the 2-6-6-2 given the opportunity. 

*I just did a brand-new AC C-16, with 14.4V of Sub C, full-on RCS, Phoenix, and a speaker, all inside the tender, no Lithiums.*
*Piker.*

I know you don't like LiIon batteries, but that's not my problem. You didn't specify what kind of batteries, and I'm not one who shies away from using the best technology available for the task. Remember the days of motorcycle headlight batteries? I do. Nasty things--barely fit inside an LGB box car. My, how far we've come. 


I am really surprised you haven't locked this and taken it to e-mail. 
Oh, well, that's probably next.

Why would I lock this? We're not personally attacking each other, and the debate is rather healthy. (You did come close to calling me a shill, but I'm a big boy.) Besides, in the off chance this topic wanders back to Matt's "Captain Kirk" train sim, I think we can continue to have a healthy dose of daydreaming there, too. 

*Because you can. And you're right, I didn't.*


I am waiting for you to admit that some folks have a hidden plan for model railroad conquest hidden behind dang near everything they promote.

You're not reading my posts correctly, then. I've repeatedly stated that some folks might have their own agendas. Let me quote myself from more than a few posts in this thread: 

1) "Just because one individual may be pushing a particular kind of control with respect to a particular manufactuer, and has been something of a public figure in that pursuit, doesn't remotely mean it will come close to happening. The market still drives the manufacturers, not vice versa."

*Unless, because of the multi-faceted schmoozing ability and offers to "help", plus involvement with one type of control system and manufacturer....*
*You have the audacity to suggest that without Master Ames we would not have the Ames Super Socket?*

2) "If the public runs contrary to the advisors often enough, the advisors get replaced." 

_*Hopefully. Prayerfully.*_

3) "Yes, Stan was behind the push to make the socket an NMRA standard, and yes he's decidedly pro DCC. No, it didn't happen. What's more important is that the manufacturers don't seem to have cared one way or the other." 

_*That's close, but not close enough. It's a lot more pointed than that. See the "schmoozing" part above.*_

4) "You believe one person is out to rule the world. I see market forces that will always be in play to keep that from happening." 

_*Not the world. And it's not so much "rule" as the public recognition of his name in lights.*_
_*Funny, I went back to September of 07 and re-read some comments. Based upon follow up information from the other side, LSOS is the catch phrase. (Middle two are "Sack Of")*_
_*I have notes on how many things in the hobby have been affected........
The trouble with market forces is they don't react fast enough to fend off idiocy.
And, the idiots line up behind the idiocy, and are then unwilling to see they've been had.
*_
I don't deny the possible existance of conspiracy theories, I just argue their efficacy. 

_*Argue away. Won't make them GO away.*_

Later, 

K

_*Just think, Master Strong, if some moron named TOC had pulled this stunt with the socket, and say this TOC had told people he was planning to have the locomotive made so it would ONLY work with RCS, what kind of hue and cry would have gone up?*_

_*At least that TOC feller doesn't even try to convince folks he's a really nice guy.* 
(You ever notice you make some of the same spelling errors he does?)
_


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I just did a brand-new AC C-16, with 14.4V of Sub C, full-on RCS, Phoenix, and a speaker, all inside the tender, no Lithiums. 
Piker.

Ah, but you removed the socket and ancillary electronics boards. That's no challenge. Now, if you were to cram all that into the Davenport, I'd be impressed. (and no fair painting the batteries as an oversized air tank on the roof.) 
You have the audacity to suggest that without Master Ames we would not have the Ames Super Socket?

Do you mean to ask without Stan's influence, would Bachmann have adapted Aristo's existing socket? Probably not. Recall that Stan got involved as a result of the problems with the Quasi-nami. The socket was an attempt to fix that. Had he not become involved, who knows what we would have gotten in its place. I'm fairly certain we'd be lamenting about it just as much. 
That's close, but not close enough. It's a lot more pointed than that. See the "schmoozing" part above.

This is a public forum. As such, I don't feel comfortable discussing in detail the activities that went on behind the scenes. You and I were both heavily involved in the process, so we both know what really happened and who was involved. Because those discussions occurred in confidence, I'm not at liberty to talk about it here. The focus needs to be on dealing with the ends, not the means at this point. Does it really matter who left the barn door open? 
Because you can. And you're right, I didn't.

Your phone would have rang long before this topic would have deteriorated to the point where locking it would be set on the table. Now, had you called me a diesel person, them's fightin' woids.  
Not the world. And it's not so much "rule" as the public recognition of his name in lights. 
Funny, I went back to September of 07 and re-read some comments. Based upon follow up information from the other side, LSOS is the catch phrase. (Middle two are "Sack Of")

Again, I'm not going to discuss specifics in an open forum. I specifically kept my comments metaphorical and somewhat generic. 
I have notes on how many things in the hobby have been affected........

I've been watching the fallout too. I'd be willing to bet your notes differ significantly from mine. 
The trouble with market forces is they don't react fast enough to fend off idiocy. 
And, the idiots line up behind the idiocy, and are then unwilling to see they've been had.

True, sometimes the reaction is slow, but it is there. I guess I'm just a bit more optimistic as to its effects. You'd call it "rose colored glasses." 
Just think, Master Strong, if some moron named TOC had pulled this stunt with the socket, and say this TOC had told people he was planning to have the locomotive made so it would ONLY work with RCS, what kind of hue and cry would have gone up?

That, good sir, is the essence of my argument. Of course there would be huge public backlash. In fact, that's exactly the hypothetical I presented in my first post on this topic as to why that could never happen, only using Lewis and his battery R/C stuff as an example. The rumor was out that the K-27 was going to be DCC only. The reaction was swift and overwhelmingly negative. Either as a result of that backlash, or because the rumors were overblown (or a little of both?), we ended up with a locomotive that was DCC-ready, but by factory default ran on analog DC. No, the backlash didn't "kill" the socket, but the alleged attempt to "cram DCC down our throats" as it was presented at the time was suitably thwarted by the marketplace. 

Yes, we're left to deal with this socket now, but I'll leave it to you to re-read my previous posts as to why I believe that's actually something of a benefit and building block for the hobby. I think we can let this horse rest in peace now. (subtle moderator tone leaking through.) Let's get back to Star Trek... 

Later, 

K


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Er, just a moment. Before we get back to Star Trek, let me ask about one point there:

*Posted By East Broad Top on 04/25/2009 2:51 AM: "Ah, but you removed the socket and ancillary electronics boards. That's no challenge. Now, if you were to cram all that into the Davenport, I'd be impressed. (and no fair painting the batteries as an oversized air tank on the roof.)" 
* 

So ... does that mean this might impress you? http://slatecreekrailway.blogspot.com/ 











14.4 NiCD, RCS Elite Throttle, Phoenix P5, interface P5T under the hood. Radio under rear frame. Speaker under front frame. 
Modelling not exactly your caliber, but still not bad looking, and a technical success, certainly in my estimation. 

Matthew (OV) 

Oh. PS: That did require removing the circuit board and metal plates....


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

So tearing everything out, and cramming all that in, counts as as "keeping it simple," while what I was describing earlier, a drop in decoder responding to a handheld, counts as "too complex??"

I'm puzzled. 

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you managed to fit all that in there and great that you got it running exactly the way you want. But you took a loco that worked perfectly under straight DC, as simple as can be, and you added several layers of pointless complexity, and several hundred dollars worth of complicated electronics including (gasp) computers!

Eureka!

Here ends the epistle.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Lownote, I admire you.

Tenacious like a bulldog. And, you've almost got it.

Except I'm *not* anti-technology, and I'm *not* anti complexity. Read that again, and let it soak in.

Ask Dave (TOC) and Tony both ... I'm always getting on their last nerve because I'm coming up with more complex things that I want my locomotives to do.

For example, I'd like the sound system to do a lot of things it's not designed to do. I'd like it to rev up to full throttle when I'm accelerating a train, drop back to wherever it thinks it's supposed to be when I stop accelerating and just roll along under power, and drop to an idle when I"m slowing down. I'd like to be able to have the engine slow down ever so slowly when you first "shut off" and to be able to make brake reductions that would increase the rate of deceleration, and then to be able to release the brakes and have the train return to "coast mode" until I applied power again. And, I've come up with a whole bunch of relays and isolators that will make a lot of that first part happen. (The braking system is right out ... unless you have a QSI quantum engineer, where it almost does.) I'm working on a computer based system of load supply and demand that will keep track of mine production, crush plant production, bin capacity at both locations, and ship schedules at the wharf, and allow an operator to "schedule" his movements based on how everything's doing. 

So, yeah, surprise, surprise, I'm all into complexity, realism, and using interesting gizmos and gadgets on my railroad. Who knew? Everyone's so busy defending progress, technology, and anti-neo-neolithicism that they just assume I'm anti-tech. Not so. ****, I even asked Greg Elmassian awhile back about DCC systems because, being indoors, there are a lot of things I could get away with inside that wouldn't be impacted by the problems a lot of folks have outside. Having made a comparison and figured out what it'd take to do, I decided it wasn't for me... but not because I don't like technology.

Know what I don't like? I don't like people to FORCE technology on me.

You mentioned that I added "_several layers of pointless complexity, and several hundred dollars worth of complicated electronics including (gasp) computers"_ to my Davenport. TRUE! And entirely my choice of what I wanted to do. Can you imagine if to do that I had to remove "_several layers of pointless complexity, and several hundred dollars worth of complicated electronics including (gasp) computers"_ that I didn't want in there, and throw them away first? Double Jeopardy! What if the designer of those "_complicated electronics"_ decided that in an effort to SELL said electronics, he would mandate using a motor and gearbox that wouldn't work with anything else? Then I'd have to go find a machinist to make me a new drive train so that I could then install my _"several layers of pointless complexity, and several hundred dollars worth of complicated electronics including (gasp) computers"_ into my locomotive and actually have it go someplace.

I cannot simply "Drop In" a "drop in decoder" and run my train. I'd have to "drop in" a power station, a booster, a command station, and a handpiece to talk to them. I'd have to drop in a programming track. I'd have to disassemble completely two Shays and two Consolidations built before there were "Drop In" decoders, and rewire several 45 tonners, an 0-4-0, and a railtruck that were supposed to have "Drop In" decoders but didn't really. Reading folks like Bob Grosh, even with "Drop In" decoders, you still can't "Drop In" a decoder wthout wanting to DROP OUT after all of the electrical problems, reversed components, and pitfalls. 

But you know what? As everyone points out, since I"m *NOT* a technophobe, I'm perfectly capable of cutting out the board and coming up with some interesting use for it. And, I've already taken the hit on the locomotives so equipped: the boards have been cut out, leaving room for what I want to do. What started this mess several days ago, and is now making me consider becoming the next large scale HERMIT is the person responsible for all of the board cutting and locomotive reworking popped his head up and said, effectively, Gee, you know what? It's been too long since I've tried to change large scale locomotives and how they work! To me, and in my opinion ONLY, this is like the designers of New Coke saying "Gee, you know what? I have this great idea about how to make Coke taste better!" or the designer of the Edsel saying "You know what, I've just had this brainstorm on how to build a really successful car!" 

Now I suppose we're gonna have an argument about why New Coke was really better, and it was just because people were resistant to change and backwards that it wasn't the choice of a new generation. Oh, wait. That was Pepsi, wasn't it? 

Lownote, look, I get it. I'll shut up now, and go away. I've made my point, and I'm tired of this ... But don't be too proud of this technological terror you're constructing. The ability to destroy a locomotive is insignificant compared to the power of the force.

(See guys? I managed to bring it back to Star Trek. Oh wait. That's Star Wars. A for effort? Everybody happy now?)

Matthew (OV)


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm really trying not to laugh at this whole "somebody is forcing me to buy DCC" thing. The whole hysteria over it. You set up this whole thread in order to claim that what we were talking about elsewhere was needlessly complex and no one wanted it. You set it up to mock th whole idea. Now you're in favor of complexity, but the whole issue is this comical fantasy that someone is forcing you to buy excess electronics. Bachmann sends a guy with a waterboard?


Look, buy the frackin model, and if you don't like what's in it, gut it and make it the way you like. Or, dont buy the model. But nobody forced you to A; buy the model, or B; gut it. You chose both those things. If you don't like what Bachann puts in its locos, don't buy the locos! Or resign yourself to the fact that you will have to do some work to make it exactly what yu want. It could not be simpler. And if most people agree with you, then Bachmann will either A; stop making them that way, or B: go out of business. If most people DON't want what you want, well then you have a comfortable feeling of moral superiority. 


Is the "thing" that I'm supposed to not be getting the idea that the market is not always a perfect reflection of my desires? Ok, I understand that. I like really complicated, difficult jazz music, but pretty much all the radio gives me is Britanny spears and Kenny G. But nobody is forcing me to listen to either, and I'm resigned to the fact that most people have different tastes than me. I'd like to be able to find Union made clothing and locally grown organic produce. The market does not make that easy, because it serves different desires and tastes and my desires and tastes are part of a minority viewpoint. I've gotten used to it. 


Meanwhile, it seems like a perfectly good strategy to keep pestering Bachmann to make locos the way you want. What on earth does that have to do with a discussion of other possible ways of operating trains?


----------



## c nelson (Dec 18, 2008)

"Union made clothing" that is one of the funniest remarks I've ever read here on MLS!









sorry, back to the reason for my post: 



I'm a cut and toss guy, seems most of what I do is older (pre-Stan) Bachmann and LGB, so the socket is of no effect to me. Do I want some mandate that doesn't cater to my needs as well as others-No. with that said, Due to some limiting factors, I'm not so sure the socket will ever raise it's ugly head to haunt me. 

1. Money-or lack thereof. the Increasing downturn has pretty much finished my train spending (minus a Thomas set this winter). There are no Unions for the Self Employed. 


2. Bachmann's sudden and apparent lack of interest in the Scale I choose to model, Fn3 (my kids get 1:2whatever). With only a Long Caboose and a (who knows what scale) Thomas and Friends "announced" coming this year, and their really WEIRD choice not to attend but a few LS Train Shows (even the one just down the road)...One can only wonder if LS Trains are still in focus at Bachmann? esp. the Fn3 variety? With Thomas, who has been touted close to what one former mfg stated "Suitable with Large Scale" and the un-ending success of the Annie, one can only wonder if the New B-Man is setting the company up to fill the HUGE void left by LGB who never really landed on a scale, but looked good with everything (much like an Annie)? Are the days of 1:22.5, 1:24, 1:27-8-9 coming back? One can only speculate... 

cale 

Mike one thing we can agree on is the fact Live Steam may be the way to go to bypass all this other non-sense!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Matt, yes I am impressed, but you didn't use sub-C NiCads, you used a much smaller variety (I'm betting AAA or thereabouts, just based on how much room 12 AAs take up in my installations). Accepting the premise that anything other than sub-C NiCads are as verboten as LiIon batteries, that's cheating. " border="0"> BTW, if I didn't tell you before (I can't remember) cool job! 
...What if the designer of those "complicated electronics" decided that in an effort to SELL said electronics, he would mandate using a motor and gearbox that wouldn't work with anything else?...

Matt--respectfully--(and here we go bringing out the lashes against deceased equines) that's what I'm saying cannot happen due to the market forces in play. That's the argument I originally put forth (using Lewis's R/C system as an example), and Dave put forth above, using his stuff. We both agree either scenario would be met with widespread criticism and public outcry. The same would happen with your example. For such a premise to be remotely plausible, you have to stipulate that the manufacturers would be willing to abandon the vast majority of their customer base by alienating the use of analog DC. That hasn't happened in decades of DCC use in the small scales, it's not about to happen in large scale. MTH, LGB, and Aristo all have (or had) the technology to insist that their customers use their proprietary control only. They know better. It's _not_ going to happen, not if they actually want to sell the trains they're building. 

Later, 

K


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin: I'll let TOC tell you what kind of batteries are in my engine.









Lownote: Whatever, man. I told you. I'm done. Enjoy. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 04/25/2009 6:41 AM
I'm really trying not to laugh at this whole "somebody is forcing me to buy DCC" thing. The whole hysteria over it. You set up this whole thread in order to claim that what we were talking about elsewhere was needlessly complex and no one wanted it. You set it up to mock th whole idea. Now you're in favor of complexity, but the whole issue is this comical fantasy that someone is forcing you to buy excess electronics. Bachmann sends a guy with a waterboard?

*Ah, reminds me of a phrase common in the Submarine World.*

*"Can't get to me, I'm qualified!"*

*You ain't qualified.*

*The real issue is that Kevin knows.*
*He and I have had long discussions on what the "plan" was.*

*And, allegedly, that concept exists in product, somewhere.*

*But, now we are back to where we started.*

*Since the person in question is (deleted - Mod.), how do we know what was said was not part of some huge self-aggrandizement scheme?*

*We will never know.*

*All we can do is rise to each and every challenge when it presents itself.*

*If you are more comfortable with your head stuck in the sand and your aXX poking up in the air, hey, whatever spins your e-prom.
*


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

(Moderator hat on) 

Dave, watch the personal attacks. It's no secret you're not a fan of Mr. Ames. But he is a member here, and as such, entitled to be treated fairly, not be called derogatory names. I told you earlier I was not locking this because the discourse was civil. Let's keep it that way, please. 

Later, 

K


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

LSOS = what? Little sack of sunshine?! You do the "person in question" routine all the time Kevin - you can't have it both ways.... Dave used NO foul words, and didn't even say "Mr. Ames" (that was YOU)... I want SHAD to weigh in on this, as the moderator hat is becoming far too easy for you to reach for when you don't like the argument (or the person making it). 

SHAD?!? Where are you!?? It's time to review what moderators can and can't do... (or did I pay you for a lifetime membership so Kevin and others could have a bully pulpit?)


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Large Sack of Sand. 
Little Sack of Soybeans. 

Funny what someone can read into something. 


But, it's really a Lovely sack of schmoozing. 

You will notice the use of "schmooze" in various iterations in prior posts.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Has anyone else wished they could "gong" this topic? (Okay, so I'm showing my age, not that I watched that stupid show more than twice) 

It's kind of like a train wreck, makes you sick to your stomach, but you keep looking.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Mik on 04/25/2009 5:11 PM
Has anyone else wished they could "gong" this topic? (Okay, so I'm showing my age, not that I watched that stupid show more than twice) 

It's kind of like a train wreck, makes you sick to your stomach, but you keep looking.


Nah, not at all like a train wreck... train wrecks come to a conclusion and get cleaned up.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

As I have no dog in this hunt, perhaps it's better then if I say it - as I've said it 1000 times before - keep the dialog civil and impersonal, and focused on the subject matter and off personalities as much as possible. Personally directed insults add nothing constructive to the discourse in this thread or any other thread, and is only destructive to healthy debate.
Personal attacks have been against the rules here almost since Day One. You guys all know it, and it was in the Membership Agreement you all accepted when you joined. First Class membership, normal or lifetime, doesn't exempt anyone from following the well known and well publicized rules[/b][/b]. 


*1.1 - Courtesy to other members at all times is the Cardinal Rule here on myLargescale.com (aka "MLS"). Personal attacks, insults, and/or flames will not be tolerated, nor will heated arguments. Impersonal debate on products, methods, etc. is fine, just keep it civil.* 
That being so, why we need to beat this same drum over and over again is beyond me.


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

Wow and stunning thread. A clear demonstration on how the written word can be distorted due to paradigm differences. 


Wow... I agree, let's keep it civil here. We all have our opinions and we owe it to people to respect theirs as they would ours. 


God forbid if this forum was given governance of the UN for a day ! 


Not used to this! 

GG


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Josh, you raise a valid point, and I appreciate the feedback. Perception is nine-tenths of reality, and it's next to impossible to gauge how ones message is being interpreted by others without it. (And obviosly my arguments seem to be being misconstrued in this instance.) 

My objection wasn't to the vague references about whom we are speaking. A resonable person following this thread would have absolutely no question who that is, no matter which words we use as a reference. Rather, my objection to the "LSOS" reference (hence my deleting only the implied expletive). No, no swear words were used, but the implied meaning--regardless of the creative alternatives offered up in its defense--is clear. I know Dave. He's very methodical in his posts in that regard. It's not the letter, rather it's the spirit in which it was written that raised the flag. 

My job as moderator is to make sure that all members--regardless of their popularity, my personal opinion of them, or whether I agree or disagree with their arguments--are treated fairly and with respect. Dave and I are very much on the same page relative to many points in this debate, given our nearly identical experiences relative to dealing with Stan over past few years. Our disagreements lie in how best to deal with the current situation. I'm much less "doom and gloom" than he is. That outlook has nothing to do with my personal opinion of anyone or their ideas. It is merely my appraisal of the physical situation. 

I try to remain objective in open fora like this. Ideally, you would have no idea whether I like or dislike a person based on what I write about their opinions. Obviously this is subject to interpretaion. Of all people in this discussion, Dave should have the clearest understanding of where I stand on the individuals involved. If he's got questions about that based on this thread, I know something's getting lost in the translation. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04/25/2009 6:53 PM
I know something's getting lost in the translation. 

Later, 

K

*Amen!*
*First thing I've understood from you in weeks!

Of course, those who used to watch Jack Webb in Dragnet, when they started using the radio, it was a real joke.
Always "KMA.....".

Now THERE was a guy who knew how to work the censors! 
Just the facts, Kevin. Just the facts.

*


----------

