# Operating a Steam Locomotive II



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Since the other thread quickly went off topic and digressed rapidly in part because of some very poor English on my part and sloppy typing, I will humbly start over.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss how prototype main line steam is operated.

The reason is simple.

We spend a great deal of time on the fidelity of our models and our scenery. The latest offerings from the manufacturers are truly amazing as to how accurately they have reproduced the model for our enjoyment.

Some then go to great lengths to weather the model and then place the model in a scene that represents a particular place at a particular time. The static modeling can be absolutely stunning.

Then we operate the model and the illusion is gone. Our models simply do not operate at all like the prototype.

For example, on our models we spend most of our time adjusting the throttle. On the prototype very little time is spent on adjusting the throttle, instead the time is spent adjusting the valve gear and the brakes and for a significant amount of time you glide the prototype with no power being applied and the valve in a neutral setting.

To me this is a very interesting topic worthy of serious discussion.

Stan Ames http://www.tttrains.com/largescale/


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Ok, I'll bite.

As a professional locomotive engineer, I feel somewhat competent to comment on the differences between model and prototype train handling and operation. I've also given the subject considerable thought, trying to figure out how the two could be brought closer. Here's what I've come up with so far:

1) There is a fundamental difference in the mechanical properties of model vs. full sized locomotives. Model locomotives cannot, for the most part, roll freely. The almost universal use of a worm gear to reduce speed and change direction of rotation results in a model that MUST be powered to be moving. The result is that any attempt at realism will require a SIMULATION of true locomotive operating dynamics, rather than the real thing.


2) There is a fundamental difference in the operating properties of model vs. full sized trains. Our models do not have brakes, in any form. That means that, if a locomotive could free-wheel, the train would quickly get away on a down grade, and be rather difficult to stop at a desired location.


3) Most model railroads, in whatever scale, do not have the complexity of even a mile-long branch line, when if comes to train handling. Generally, they will be flat, or a simple up-down arrangement.

4) Most model railroaders do not want the complexity. After all, I spent eight months in training, in addition to the 7 years as a conductor before that. I doubt that the average model railroader really wants to devote that amount of time to learning to operate his railroad.


Based on these points, I've come up with a few conclusions. First of all, it would be a neat technical achievement, and great for bragging rights. However, I don't think it's practical, or desirable in the long run. It's far more satisfying for most people to be able to let the train run, turn the knob to the right to go faster, left to go slower, flip the switch to go the other way.

Also, if you think about it, whether you control the voltage (on a model), the cut off (on a steam engine) or the generator field (on a diesel electric) is really immaterial - you're varying the level of power developed at the wheels. In fact, if you think about it, DCC basically IS varying the cut off - you apply full voltage, and vary the pulse width to determine the percentage of power used. Sounds a lot like applying full steam pressure, and varying the length of stroke during which that steam is supplied.


Finally, there are only two ways I can think of to really implement the sort of changes you're suggesting. The first, most obvious, most desirable (in my opinion) and most difficult, would be to completely re-design our models so that they have the ability to roll freely, and working, controllable brakes. That's a tall order, especially in the smaller scales. It's doable, but impractical in the larger scales. The other option is to implement everything in software installed in a DCC decoder or controller. It makes the most sense to implement it at the control interface, and still use a standard decoder. That keeps it equally applicable to all scales, and does not require rebuilding or re-designing models. However, it requires an entirely new operator interface and the hardware & software to go along with it.


Can it be done? Of course. Has it been done? Yes. Is it desirable? Yes, to some people. Is it practical commercially? I doubt it.


Just my $0.02 worth
Kenneth Rickman


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...Then we operate the model and the illusion is gone. Our models simply do not operate at all like the prototype...

While I agree that our models operate nothing like the prototype, I don't think that diminishes the illusion in any way. For most, the illusion lies not in the actual mechanical operation of the locomotive, but the overall movement of the train through the garden environment. Generally speaking, we operate our trains from the conductor's perspective. When I operate my railroad, I want to enjoy the visuals of the train rolling through the miniature landscape. I don't need to have my hand on the throttle to be transported where I want to go. Just the sight of the trains running is sufficient. I know I want the train to stop in front of the station, so I play the role of the conductor, and tell the engineer via my controller that I want him to stop. When I want to "drive" the trains through the garden, I bring out one of my live steam locos. They are far closer to the prototype than the electric mice ever could dream of being, but still lack mass, inertia, and all those other tangibles that go along with full-size railroading. In truth, I find myself concentrating more on the ways the live steam isn't as "controllable" as the electric locos, and how it actually lessens the illusion of realism for me. I can't do the slow, smooth starts or stops, and speeds are generally faster than how I run my electric ones--simply because the physics isn't on my side. 

Curiously, the one electric locomotive on the market that behaves most like the prototype is Bachmann's K-27. Because of its gearing, it needs a bit of extra throttle to get up hills and you need to back off the throttle when running down them. But if you listen to the critics of this loco, its gearing is something of a significant failing. I personally don't see it that way; the ones I've had on my workbench have all run very smoothly, and are very controllable locos, but you do need to tend the throttle a bit more with them. 

The problem lies in that in the garden, we don't have feedback beyond visual cues as to how the loco is working. We can see it speed up or slow down, but that's pretty much it. We're not physically on the train, so we can't feel it working harder or easier. Therein lies the major obstacle to any system that tries to mimic the prototype. That's why flight simulators on your home PC are nowhere near as effective as a full-size simulator with hydraulic lifts. There's no sense of movement that tells your body how things are going. 

While I do think a control system that can mimic the controls of a steam loco would be cool (I think someone did something like that years ago for an article in Model Railroader or something), I don't think it would have the effect of fulfilling the "illusion" that Stan finds missing from his experience. I think anyone who has run 1:1 equipment will readily admit there's no way to replicate that experience in miniature. 

What we can do, however, is mimic certain attributes. The momentum of a train is perhaps the easiest to replicate using today's technology. Most (all?) DCC and many R/C throttles have some level of adjustable momentum on them. I've been playing around with that on Aristo's new system, and am looking forward to getting the railroad cleaned up so I can try it in a true operating session. It is something of a challenge when doing switching operations to press "stop" and have the train prototypically drift to the point where you actually want it to couple to your train. I think that's one inherent advantage of a push-button throttle control. It's not necessarily instant; you've got to plan a few feet in advance. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

4) Most model railroaders do not want the complexity. After all, I spent eight months in training, in addition to the 7 years as a conductor before that. I doubt that the average model railroader really wants to devote that amount of time to learning to operate his railroad.
This is a great point Ken, and one well worth considering! As an analogy, I was very into the air combat simulations in the late 80's and very early 90's. They were full of combat action and lots of fun! As the 90's progressed, simulation makers strove for ever greater realism. As a result, the learning curve on each new sim became steeper and steeper, and the airplane harder and harder to control, and to use effectively in combat, making these sims less and less fun. 

By the time Falcon 4.0 came out in 1998, the damn thing had umpteen-million radar modes, and that was just for air-to-air. Air-to-ground had another umpteen million radar modes. The airplane itself was relatively easy to fly due to the F-16's fly-by-wire nature, but trying to manage all the combat systems while in the middle of a furball was impossible without hours and hours (weeks and weeks) of practice. 

The WWII sims had gotten just as bad in their own way. Engine torque had been modeled requiring constant adjustment of airplane trim. Tip stalls and sudden spins were also now modeled. I ended up spending more time fighting my airplane than I did fighting the enemy. 

Were the sims more realistic? Definitely. Were they still fun? Not hardly - at least not for me. The way air combat sims fell out of favor around that time tells me they weren't all that much fun for most others either. 

To bring it back to trains... based upon my experience with these sims, I heartily agree with your point quoted above. Most modelers don't really want and wouldn't really like the complexity of a control system that modeled the functionality and operating characteristics of a real train. One need only look at the speed with which most people switch cars and couple to see this. 

MHO.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Just a couple of minor points. Most DCC decoders and systems can be set up to act very much like a locomotive, large momentum values, a button to apply brakes, etc. 

But with today's mechanicals, prototype action cannot be completely modeled with just mechanical bits, you have to do this with electronics and a microprocessor. 

One thing I have found, there are very few people that have visited my layout and want to (or can) work with prototypical momentum. Of course you could argue that our layouts, being much shorter than the prototype, need shorter starting and stopping distances. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## KYYADA (Mar 24, 2008)

Stan first of all let me say I read your first post and was angry over the way you were treated, it was very rude and humiliating. I don't think we are passing ourselves off as english majors here. I think at the very least that post should have been deleted and (he/she/it) should have been given a warning that if (he/she/it) posted like that again (he/she/it) would be banned. 

I think that if your interests are in prototypical operation you have some points as to changes that could be made on some models of power packs or controls. As for myself in HO and still in G I am more interested in modeling equipment and structures and wanted a realistic layout to run them on, as for the controls not being very prototypical that was of no concern. 

Johnny


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, on the button to apply brakes--on a locomotive, you set the handle to "apply" to add more pressure to the brakes, then back to "lap" to keep the pressure constant. To translate this to our controls, this would be akin to using the button to change the rate of deceleration (i.e., the longer you hold the button down, the quicker you'll come to a stop) instead of just holding the button to decelerate at a constant rate to whatever speed you want to travel once you release the button. I've always thought that would be a very simple thing to set up on a DCC controller. I seem to recall a regular DC throttle that had some kind of arrangement like that, though I don't remember exactly how it worked. 

Later, 

K


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Stan, 

I have one question only. 

Is it your contention that steam locomotives everywhere are operated in the way the ones you ran in Poland are? If your goal is to make for "more realistic operation" it seems to me that the thing to do would be to study operating practice on the actual locomotives we're modelling. No one would attempt to describe operation of the San Juan in terms of how close to the "feel" of the "Mallard" it came, any more than they would in terms of an F-40PH, becauses it's a proverbial comparing of apples to coconuts. 

There are two operational K-27's, one of which runs on its own original territory. There are several operating K-36's, and two operating K-28s, as well as several C series Colorado consolidations. There are steam locomotives running on the White Pass and Yukon doing pretty much what they always have, and their operating rules, training, and practice are not state secrets, and none require travelling halfway around the world to observe. 

I'm sorry, but this really looks to me like a justification of the jackrabbit starts and stops of the poorly geared K-27, unless you've convniced Bachmann to release Polish outliine trains that would actually make sense running .... well, like Polish outline trains. 

I suppose your cheering section will now call for my head. So be it. It won't be the first time you've managed to have the opposition silenced. But you're not fooling everyone. 

I have responded to this issue, and to you, in the most respectful, levelheaded manner I know how. It will be interesting to see how the issue progresses from here. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

For those whose Live Steam locos do not have true operational valve gear it is impossible to operate the engine "prototypically".

I do run my Live Steam locos in a prototypical manner... as far as the scaling of physics will allow. I set the Reverser to full forward, then open the Throttle until the engine starts to move. I then vary the Throttle to get the speed I want, and then back off on the Reverser to reduce the cut-off to control power and speed, given the load and grade involved. BUT, that is difficult to do when I am not a passenger on the train. I cannot FEEL the momentum and the minor changes that the body can sense and react to properly. I am controlling the engine from my lounge chair via R/C so prototypical operation is limited somewhat.

I can atest that paying attention to the cut-off setting does limit water usage, but because I do not also have control over the fire, either by variing the fuel flow or dampers, etc. that I cannot control fuel usage the way the prototypes can.

But, for the most part, I am running the steamer because I want to SEE it operate. Sometimes I play "slot trains" to see it go fast and sometimes I run as slow as possible. Sometimes I let it run around and around my double loop-backs and other times I just run it back and forth in front of me on just a few feet of track. I have attempted some "operations" with it, but that was not enough fun to do often enough to expend the energy or cash (to expand the layout) to make it a common occurance.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Just another thought on "momentum" as implemented on model controls..

I understand the logic. I've built simple transistor throttles, and understand how the "momentum" works. I understand the perceived need.

I don't like "momentum" one bit.


I have two problems with it. For one, it is (usually) not determined by the theoretical load of the train, but on some arbitrary average determined by the manufacturer. I played with the idea of putting capacitors in each car, which would help, but I couldn't get around a number of technical problems, including the fact that cars left standing in a track would still be counted toward a train's tonnage, and DCC pretty much killed the idea.

Second, "momentum" is really only appropriate for a train starting on level track. Stopping without using some form of braking control is like using the locomotive brakes only. Brakes are much more difficult to implement realistically, and without them the momentum effect becomes unrealistic as well. It's also not realistic for switching, where the mass of the train will vary constantly and widely. If all you want to do is bunch the slack behind a locomotive, simulating the momentum of an entire train is unrealistic, and a hassle.


For example, when I'm at work, here's how I like to switch:
If someone is riding the car, or if we're spotting a car, and especially when shoving, I like to use the air brakes. That way, when I back off the throttle, the train stops right away.
If I'm making a coupling with a light locomotive, I set the throttle, and use the independent (locomotive only) brake to control the speed and come to a final stop.

If I'm on a grade, I might use gravity to move the train and use the brake to control the speed, or I might set the brake and use the throttle to control the speed.


I cannot see a simple way to realistically model these various operations, or a real need to do so.


Personally, I'd rather have a speed knob (or throttle, or whatever you want to call it) which will give ME, rather than some software or electrical engineer, the ability to simulate what MY train is doing on MY railroad, at MY discretion. If I want "momentum," I simply turn the speed up gently. If I want "brakes" I turn the speed down appropriately.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By KYYADA on 04/17/2009 12:47 PM
Stan first of all let me say I read your first post and was angry over the way you were treated, it was very rude and humiliating. I don't think we are passing ourselves off as english majors here. I think at the very least that post should have been deleted and (he/she/it) should have been given a warning that if (he/she/it) posted like that again (he/she/it) would be banned. 

I think that if your interests are in prototypical operation you have some points as to changes that could be made on some models of power packs or controls. As for myself in HO and still in G I am more interested in modeling equipment and structures and wanted a realistic layout to run them on, as for the controls not being very prototypical that was of no concern. 

Johnny


You didn't like that?
Really?
Do you have any idea, even the slightest clue, as to why so many folks react like that?

Maybe if you asked some questions, off-forum of course, you might gain such a clue.
And, this is NOT picking on you.

You are doing a fine job all by yourself.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04/17/2009 11:57 AM
Generally speaking, we operate our trains from the conductor's perspective.
I believe that Kevin has hit the nail squarely on the head with this one. We're not trying to be engineers, really. We're trying to be conductors.


Of course, there are those that want to be engineers, and I suspect that any pseudo-prototypical control system would be greeted by them as the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I suspect that they are an extreme minority.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

I'm sorry, but this really looks to me like a justification of the jackrabbit starts and stops of the poorly geared K-27, unless you've convniced Bachmann to release Polish outliine trains that would actually make sense running .... well, like Polish outline trains. 

Yup!! 



Personally, I'd rather have a speed knob (or throttle, or whatever you want to call it) which will give ME, rather than some software or electrical engineer, the ability to simulate what MY train is doing on MY railroad, at MY discretion. If I want "momentum," I simply turn the speed up gently. If I want "brakes" I turn the speed down appropriately.



*AMEN!!!! *That has worked for what? 60, 70 years in model railroading? Maybe Longger?! (in other words... it ain't broke - DON'T try and fix it...)


Stan - if you want this, then do it to your *OWN* locomotives - DO NOT SCREW UP ANOTHER BACHMANN ENGINE! You already blew the K-27...


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 04/17/2009 1:21 PM
I can atest that paying attention to the cut-off setting does limit water usage, but because I do not also have control over the fire, either by variing the fuel flow or dampers, etc. that I cannot control fuel usage the way the prototypes 

Yes, let's not forget the fireman in all this. Any steam locomotive engineer would have started as a fireman. You cannot accurately model the control of a steam locomotive without including control of such things as the depth of the fire, the water level, the draft, rocking the grates, timing the use of the injectors to maintain proper temperature and pressure, using the blower in stations to maintain the fire, etc. etc. My point is not to mock the original idea, which I admit may have some limited appeal. It is, rather, to point out that there is a practical limit to the level of realism attainable or desirable in a model.

Let's not forget that these are, after all, expensive TOYS. If you really want to get that deeply involved in prototypical operations, go volunteer at a museum. It reminds me of a comment many years ago (by John Allen, I think) about model railroaders installing CTC panels. He said that, if you really want CTC, you should install the system and use it on an un-modelled portion of the railroad, with circuitry to simulate the trains. I take this to be a reminder that we don't need or want a truly prototypical railroad, no matter how much we think we do.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By SlateCreek on 04/17/2009 1:18 PM
Stan, 

I have one question only. 

Is it your contention that steam locomotives everywhere are operated in the way the ones you ran in Poland are? If your goal is to make for "more realistic operation" it seems to me that the thing to do would be to study operating practice on the actual locomotives we're modelling. No one would attempt to describe operation of the San Juan in terms of how close to the "feel" of the "Mallard" it came, any more than they would in terms of an F-40PH, becauses it's a proverbial comparing of apples to coconuts. 

There are two operational K-27's, one of which runs on its own original territory. There are several operating K-36's, and two operating K-28s, as well as several C series Colorado consolidations. There are steam locomotives running on the White Pass and Yukon doing pretty much what they always have, and their operating rules, training, and practice are not state secrets, and none require travelling halfway around the world to observe. 

I'm sorry, but this really looks to me like a justification of the jackrabbit starts and stops of the poorly geared K-27, unless you've convniced Bachmann to release Polish outliine trains that would actually make sense running .... well, like Polish outline trains. 

I suppose your cheering section will now call for my head. So be it. It won't be the first time you've managed to have the opposition silenced. But you're not fooling everyone. 

I have responded to this issue, and to you, in the most respectful, levelheaded manner I know how. It will be interesting to see how the issue progresses from here. 

Matthew (OV) 


This is typical of commuter ops, right?
Screech to a stop, set the engine brakes, release the train brakes, crack the throttle, wait for the "highball", dump the engine brakes and hang on?

So, now all we are looking for is something to justify jackrabbit/stonewall?

Kevin isn't right about the K.
Close, but not right.
While it does need more "oompf" to get it moving, it is WAY too fast.
It's like saying a NASCAR unit run on the streets to get groceries takes a but more to get it moving.
Right.
But once it does get moving (and quits burning rubber), Katy bar the door!

Maybe, just maybe, the secret consultant is developing a Polish Train for Howard.
Maybe Howard has run out of western obscure prototypes to model.

I mean, after all, to come out with a never-built Mallet, which is shown on the drawings to BE a Mallet, make it as a Meyer, and then let the shills and enthusiastic children scream that it was never built so they can make what they want.
Maybe, just maybe, the Thomas stuff which was announced next is fitting.

I wonder what gearing the Thomas stuff will have in it?

You're right about the cheering section, too.
Seems whenever there is trouble, someone calls on the Mighty Mice.


Ah, here it is!

http://www.televisiontunes.com/Mighty_Mouse.html


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SlateCreek on 04/17/2009 1:18 PM
Stan, 

I have one question only. 

Is it your contention that steam locomotives everywhere are operated in the way the ones you ran in Poland are? If your goal is to make for "more realistic operation" it seems to me that the thing to do would be to study operating practice on the actual locomotives we're modelling. 

I have responded to this issue, and to you, in the most respectful, levelheaded manner I know how. It will be interesting to see how the issue progresses from here. 

Matthew (OV) 




This is very true. 

I imagine from his discussion on the type of running that he is operating PKP's own Tkt 48 class (2-8-2T) steam locos, these are/were assigned to light local passenger/commuter duty, with many still in Wollstein to this day. 

The closest US steam that comes to mind would be the PRR E6 Atlantics used in "Clocker" commuter service. Jackrabbit starts and fast operations were the the norm for these.

Not the kind of operation a narrow gauge Baldwin would often see, maybe in a museum today?

In the same theme, my father operated a 3' gauge Shay this week on 8% grades out in California, oil fired. 

Would the PKP passenger express loco operate the same way?


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 04/17/2009 1:59 PM

Maybe, just maybe, the secret consultant is developing a Polish Train for Howard.
Maybe Howard has run out of western obscure prototypes to model.





Please, please, PLEASE give us a Px48....heck, even in On30 or in H0e via Bachmann-Liliput?

It would make a lot of us Polish fans happy!!!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Here is some more. 
Stanley seems to like to gain a little information, and run with it. 
Ask Greg, RJ, Keven and others about the dissertation on how tires/fillets/flanges work. 

Now, go back and look at the photos. 

Buffers. 
Chains. 
Tight. 

Do you know what happens on a 100-car freight if you just slam the throttle open and sit back? 
Somewhere back about, oh, halfway, the draft gear will part company with the car it was attached to, the air hoses will separate, and you will go into emergency. 

I've been around 1:1 stuff long enough to know, and to see the draft gear slung over the edge of the roadbed. 
One place I know of, the wood end beam and coupler still exists. 

So, to take one type of specialized operation, and try to develop and operating protocol from it, is ludicrous at best. 

I've had first-hand experience with his protocols, and want nothing more to do with them.


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By SlateCreek on 04/17/2009 1:18 PM
Stan, 

I have one question only. 

Is it your contention that steam locomotives everywhere are operated in the way the ones you ran in Poland are? If your goal is to make for "more realistic operation" it seems to me that the thing to do would be to study operating practice on the actual locomotives we're modelling. No one would attempt to describe operation of the San Juan in terms of how close to the "feel" of the "Mallard" it came, any more than they would in terms of an F-40PH, becauses it's a proverbial comparing of apples to coconuts. 

Matthew (OV) 



Matthew

I have only operated 3 different steam locomotives and each one operates differently. I only have about 20 hours as an engineer and therefore do not want to even imply I have expertise in this area. 


While the operation is different the characteristics are the same. And in evening conversations it would appear that from a main line high speed steam passenger service the operation is not all that different from what England, Australia, Japan and the US had. And last I checked the K-27 was not a high speed mainline passenger engine so I have no idea why you bring it up. 

As for jackrabbit starts, you simply cannot do this on the prototype. If you put on two much throttle the wheels slip and you do not accelerate at all (which can also result in a fine of a beer). This is an example of something you likely cannot totally duplicate in a model. 

Passenger service works on a schedule and rapid starts and stops are needed to keep on schedule I hauled several passengers this morning and what the passengers care about is getting to the destination safely and on time. That is no different then passenger service in the 40s in the US. 

What is most different to me at least is the glide. About a mile or more out of the station traveling at about 60mph, you cut off the throttle and the speed is maintained with only a very slight slowing down. When you are almost at the station you perform a brake application, The brake has a rather rapid result so the concept of momentum is not at all like what I have experienced in model operation or expected. 

While not all prototypical operation can be duplicated or likely would be useful to duplicate. I for one feel that duplicating some of the feel of locomotive operation would enhance the fun of operating a model railroad. 

Stan Ames 

PS For those of you who have not experienced this, I understand this is the last such service in the world and it is not that expensive to participate in. I highly recommend it. I know of nowhere else you can operate a high speed steam locomotive at over 60mph for a 55 mile run carrying paying passengers. 

PPs It is raining hard and the rails are very greasy so tomorrow mornings run should offer a totally new experience.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Stan, 

I agree, you cannot make the entire prototype train do a jackrabbit start. You could though really jerk things around if you had not taken up slack. I think though TOC mentioned about this being different on this passenger train, don't know if it's different couplers, or link and pin locked down till the buffers touch, etc. 

But on a model, you definitely can make jackrabbit starts. What the physical differences are I don't know for sure, more power in our models, better tractive effort, less "scale" weight... have not analyzed... 

But I think I do take exception, or at least want a justification for the statement: "While the operation is different the characteristics are the same.", based on the previous sentence: "I only have about 20 hours as an engineer and therefore do not want to even imply I have expertise in this area." I would ask for some other information to justify that statement. Since you state immediately afterwards you don't have expertise, then exactly what characteristics and who says so? 

Not giving you a hard time, but I just cannot see what you are trying to say, and how that statement is supported. 

If the "characteristics of all steam locomotives" are indeed the same, I follow your line of reasoning. But I believe they are not; however, I too, am not an expert in this area. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Just wait until he tries opening the throttle on a non-superheater equipped loco after being "trained" on a superheater. 

Next thing you know, Greg, he'll run a cog engine and expect that to be the "prototype".


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By StanleyAmes on 04/17/2009 2:27 PM
Posted By SlateCreek on 04/17/2009 1:18 PM
Stan, 

I have one question only. 

Is it your contention that steam locomotives everywhere are operated in the way the ones you ran in Poland are? If your goal is to make for "more realistic operation" it seems to me that the thing to do would be to study operating practice on the actual locomotives we're modelling. No one would attempt to describe operation of the San Juan in terms of how close to the "feel" of the "Mallard" it came, any more than they would in terms of an F-40PH, becauses it's a proverbial comparing of apples to coconuts. 

Matthew (OV) 



Matthew

I have only operated 3 different steam locomotives and each one operates differently. I only have about 20 hours as an engineer and therefore do not want to even imply I have expertise in this area. 


While the operation is different the characteristics are the same. And in evening conversations it would appear that from a main line high speed steam passenger service the operation is not all that different from what England, Australia, Japan and the US had. And last I checked the K-27 was not a high speed mainline passenger engine so I have no idea why you bring it up. 

As for jackrabbit starts, you simply cannot do this on the prototype. If you put on two much throttle the wheels slip and you do not accelerate at all (which can also result in a fine of a beer). This is an example of something you likely cannot totally duplicate in a model. 

Passenger service works on a schedule and rapid starts and stops are needed to keep on schedule I hauled several passengers this morning and what the passengers care about is getting to the destination safely and on time. That is no different then passenger service in the 40s in the US. 

What is most different to me at least is the glide. About a mile or more out of the station traveling at about 60mph, you cut off the throttle and the speed is maintained with only a very slight slowing down. When you are almost at the station you perform a brake application, The brake has a rather rapid result so the concept of momentum is not at all like what I have experienced in model operation or expected. 

While not all prototypical operation can be duplicated or likely would be useful to duplicate. I for one feel that duplicating some of the feel of locomotive operation would enhance the fun of operating a model railroad. 

Stan Ames 

PS For those of you who have not experienced this, I understand this is the last such service in the world and it is not that expensive to participate in. I highly recommend it. I know of nowhere else you can operate a high speed steam locomotive at over 60mph for a 55 mile run carrying paying passengers. 

PPs It is raining hard and the rails are very greasy so tomorrow mornings run should offer a totally new experience. 



Hee hee hee... I can slip the drivers very easily with a heavy load... I've even seen them heat up and generate steam/smoke... but that scared me that I was damaging rail/tires so I don't do that anymore









I do, though enjoy going fast forward, throwing the valve gear in reverse and opening the throttle all the way to see the drivers run in reverse whilst the engine and train is still going forward. (I'm a BAD engineer! Oooooo shame on me!). Doing the opposite (going fast in reverse and throwing it to forward gear) will chuck rolling stock off the elevated mainline, so I try to control my impulses in that realm!


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By StanleyAmes on 04/17/2009 2:27 PM


Matthew

I have only operated 3 different steam locomotives and each one operates differently. I only have about 20 hours as an engineer and therefore do not want to even imply I have expertise in this area. 

*> I hope then, that the "Eventually" part of "eventually translat[ing] the experience to help influence the design of a system ... " ... etc. means you wouldn't run off half cocked and try to institute a bunch of changes either with a manufacturer, or a "standards committee" without not only a lot more experience but consulting a whole lot of other people who have that kind of experience to base those changes on the most pertinent and correct information possible. *

While the operation is different the characteristics are the same. And in evening conversations it would appear that from a main line high speed steam passenger service the operation is not all that different from what England, Australia, Japan and the US had. And last I checked the K-27 was not a high speed mainline passenger engine so I have no idea why you bring it up. 

*> I bring it up because Bachmann Industries, for whom you are the Technical Advisor makes 1:20.3 scale models of American narrow gauge locomotives, which do NOT operate at high speed on the main line, and one specific example is the K-27, the drive for which was the product of your "expertise." You operate, on your own layout, this 1:20.3 scale, narrow gauge equipment. When you recently wrote "*My goal is to eventually translate experience to help influence the design of a system that would allor operation to be a tad more realistic" *I understood this to mean that you intended to apply your "experience" to the operation of your own equipment, or the products of Bachmann Industries, for whom you provide such "influence." I was hitherto unaware that on your own layout or from the production lines of Bachmann a la Kader, that "main line high speed steam passenger service" equipment had appeared, or even been proposed, so my conclusion was that you intended to effect your proposed changes in the areas in which you had the capacity to exert some influence or control. 
*
As for jackrabbit starts, you simply cannot do this on the prototype. If you put on two much throttle the wheels slip and you do not accelerate at all (which can also result in a fine of a beer). This is an example of something you likely cannot totally duplicate in a model. 

*> I suspect you'd find that with practice you would learn just how much you could ask for from your locomotive before that happened, resulting in significantly less beer expenditure. In the model world, a straight up DC power pack often provides the same results, allowing you to start and stop your train nearly on a dime, but as long as you don't get carried away, you won't spin the wheels. Interestingly, the trend toward realism is to build up speed more slowly, and slow down more gradually, based on oft observed characteristics of the trains being modelled.*

Passenger service works on a schedule and rapid starts and stops are needed to keep on schedule I hauled several passengers this morning and what the passengers care about is getting to the destination safely and on time. That is no different then passenger service in the 40s in the US. 

What is most different to me at least is the glide. About a mile or more out of the station traveling at about 60mph, you cut off the throttle and the speed is maintained with only a very slight slowing down. When you are almost at the station you perform a brake application, The brake has a rather rapid result so the concept of momentum is not at all like what I have experienced in model operation or expected. 

*> Once again, as you build experience, you'll find that the "On Time" and "Efficient" station stop is not so much a factor of a changing deceleration curve as it is knowing WHEN to start that brake application so that you don't waste time slowing down early, and you don't burn up your equipment by using too much brake too late (or overshooting the platform entirely, which can be worse!) Once you've learned the "feel" of your train, you know when to shut off, and when to start your application. Changes in grade, weather, and train weight make this behave differently from time to time, and you learn to "feel" what your train is doing to compensate. New enginemen find themselves making several brake applications, and occasionally having to reapply power, while the experienced ones can shut off, and spot the train exactly where they want it, sometimes even making a game of how closely they can line up a point on the train with a point on the ground. * 

While not all prototypical operation can be duplicated or likely would be useful to duplicate. I for one feel that duplicating some of the feel of locomotive operation would enhance the fun of operating a model railroad. 

*> I would have to agree with that statement. One way to ensure that it would be POSSIBLE would be to make certain that the locomotive was capable of operating equally well over the entire range of its speed, and that the range of its speed was commensurate with the operating speeds and limits of the prototype being modelled. From there, whether you vary your acceleration and deceleration manually with some kind of speed controller, digitally with a computer algorithm in the motor controller, or as a response to a set of computer determined parameters as with a simulator (MS Trainsim, Trainz, Raildriver, Etc.) it's not a problem since the locomotive will simpy do what's asked of it, without any particular need for a device to compensate for its shortcomings, and wil lend itself to more modellers in general, whether they wish to be engineman, conductor, or passenger.* 

Stan Ames 

PS For those of you who have not experienced this, I understand this is the last such service in the world and it is not that expensive to participate in. I highly recommend it. I know of nowhere else you can operate a high speed steam locomotive at over 60mph for a 55 mile run carrying paying passengers. 

PPs It is raining hard and the rails are very greasy so tomorrow mornings run should offer a totally new experience. 

*>> Enjoy the rest of your trip! Only a fortunate few get to try this for real. 
Matthew (OV)
*


----------



## jbwilcox (Jan 2, 2008)

Okay, I will demonstrate my stupidity:

Is Stan Ames an Employee of Bachmann?

or 

Is he just an Advisor?

It sounds like to me, also having no experience with real steam engines, that he really doesn't know what he is talking about. I have ridden on the Cumbres and Toltec. Those engines do not make rapid starts and certainly do not move at 60 mph. So how does his experience with Polish engines have any bearing on the operation of the engines that we have here in the US?

John


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

John you can not compare a RR such as the Cumbres and Toltec RR to the RR over in Europe. Your RR is a tourist line verses a true passenger RR that does start and stop more quickly and operate at higher speeds. Pass equipment is designged a lot different than freight to handle the faster Acceleration. Also trains are near as long as frieght so can handle a quicker acceleration rate as long as the enginner knows how too. It's an art to operating a steam or diesel passenger train. To quick starts and folks will have spilled coffey and very up set at the engineer. Later RJD


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Gentlemen, let's keep the personal criticisms of individuals off the board, lest this version of the topic get locked, too. The differences in various operations (prototype vs. model and differences between various prototype operations) are certainly appropriate and enlightening. I'm sure no one would argue that operating a fast passenger train is different than operating a heavy freight or mountain railroad, and both are completely different from running a small trolley. 

Later, 

K


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

This is an interesting topic, partly because I know very little about running an actual steam lcomotive. I just finished reading "Set Up Running," an interesitng book abut a engine man on the PR. It was enlightening to read about how he ran the engine with the throttle and the johnson bar in tandem. I learned a lot.

It seems to me that DCC would enable you to simulate this kind of operation, and in a card lke the QSI, you could trigger changes in sound to match changes n throttle/cutoff seting. Be fun to try. Id rather have a quillable whistle though



Also "real" momentum is fun to simulat except that it takes nearly 3/4 the entire length of my small layout to stopo a train! I assume it'd only be practical on a really huge layout


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

We worked this out last night in our Working Group, and actually have a solution. 
We are getting it all in print now, and all the technical aspects thereof. 

We have a working model, of sorts. 

I think we have the cutoff solved, too.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Gentlemen, 

I cannot really think of anything new to add to the original discussion. In case anyone has forgotten, the subject was more closely simulating the various controls of a steam locomotive. I've already given my opinion on the pros and cons of such a plan. 

I have two more things to say, though. 

1) Mr. Ames, I am happy for you that you have found a rare opportunity to experience running a steam locomotive first hand. I hope that you find a way to make your hobby experience more rewarding as a result of that. I even hope that you find commercial success doing so and sharing it with other like-minded individuals. However, I beg of you, please do not encourage anyone, EVER, to make any such system an integral part of ANY commercial rolling stock or industry standards. If you, or Bachmann, or anyone else, wants to develop a new DCC control system that uses STANDARD decoders, that's fine. But please do not ask me to pay for more electronics, which I will never use and do not want, in order to purchase a locomotive. 

2) To everyone else. Lay off. I understand the bad blood. It's getting old. Take your mother's advice, and if you can't say something nice (or at least helpful), don't say anything at all. I have absolutely no reason to like or support Stanley Ames or anyone else out here, and if you read my comments in this thread I think you'll find me rather critical of his idea. However, I do not think there is any purpose in bashing him just for opening his mouth. He may be wrong. He may be arrogant. He may be unwilling or unable to recognize a mistake, or admit it and move on. He may not be worth your time. I don't know, because I don't know him personally. He may be an absolute saint, as well. Personally, I think he's a bit misguided and myopic, but generally wants to help improve the hobby. If you really don't think you can change him, ignore him. If you think you CAN change him, then make a constructive comment. 

And above all else, we must remember one thing. These are TOYS! We got into this hobby because we like trains, because we enjoy building models, because we want to see the choo-choo running around the garden, or whatever your reasons may be, but we're here to relax and enjoy ourselves. 

Oh, and I'm very curious to know what you've come up with, Curmudgeon. I look forward to hearing about it whenever you're ready or able to share.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Okay, here's the basics (plus a bit more). 

LGB had it pretty close at one time, and we are using that model, then expanding on it. 

Fortuna Flyer. 

Locomotives shall be equipped with a 2, 3, 4 or even 5 bladed prop. 
The specialized on-board electronics shall be specially set for the locomotive you are modeling, which shall enable such factors as locomotive weight, tractive effort, maximum speed, etc. 

EACH car will have a decoder. 
This will help out the decoder manufacturers, as now all rolling stock shall have a decoder. 

The empty weight of the car shall be entered in from the special hand-held computer with interface you will carry, which is tethered to the belt-pack transponders. 

When the conductor has entered all the data from the cars (which also calculates drag), and the loaded cars are set with weight for loads, the data will be transmitted to the locomotive decoder, so it will know how to respond to the train. 

The engineer then cracks the throttle. 
The blades start turning. 
Slack comes out, more power is applied, and the train starts to move off. 

Now comes the revolutionary part! 

When you get to speed, you don't touch the throttle, rather, you play with the valve gear.....errrr....fiddle with the prop pitch. 
This will allow you to achieve the best pulling power, speed, and fuel economy. 

Talkback functions will give you a readout on your handheld computer screen, so you will know at all times how your train is functioning. 

Just think. 
You can spend all your time looking at the screen, fiddling with the bits, and never once looking up to see what your train is actually doing! 

Trackside transponders will send data to the locomotive indicating speed signs, and signal aspects. 
These in turn will be relayed to your handheld, as will function as a "popup", for red, yellow, green, lunar, and speed restrictions. 

Slowing down can be a function of coast, but for simulated braking, feather the prop. 
Then, start engaging reverse pitch (think Curtiss Electric, not Hamilton Standard). 

A bonus is this will also keep your track clear of all debris and small animals. 

When cars are set out, once they have been parked next to the selected industry for a prescribed period of time, transponders in the industry will transmit change data to the car decoder, changing the setting parameters from load to empty, or empty to load. 

This is absolutely revolutionary! 

Polish Inspired Super Smooth Electric Device.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By DKRickman on 04/18/2009 3:24 PM
Gentlemen, 

However, I beg of you, please do not encourage anyone, EVER, to make any such system an integral part of ANY commercial rolling stock or industry standards. If you, or Bachmann, or anyone else, wants to develop a new DCC control system that uses STANDARD decoders, that's fine. But please do not ask me to pay for more electronics, which I will never use and do not want, in order to purchase a locomotive. 

THAT is why nobody lays off.
After the Super Socket, the 14.5:1, the inverted chuff, the caboose with dcc sockets, the new smaller socket in the Couch (Davenport), when he opens his mouth, and wants to "fix" something, watch out!

Go back and re-read the locked thread.
He wants to develop a protocol.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Actually, Curmudgeon, et al, you may be on to something. 

I dunno if I'm a fan of the fan, so to speak, but let's think about the possibilities of some "Advanced Physics Emulation" model trains ..... 

Let's assume some kind of "express" passenger train, consisting of a locomotive (tender if steam, but the kind of drive strikes me as needing something like an E-9 or an FP-45 to have enough space in the body to accomodate the drive ) and four coaches. 

First thing, you equip all of the associated rolling stock with quality ball bearings, and weight all of the cars in such a way that they have momentum. Alternately, you could provide a weight box in each car to be filled with shot or whatever by the customer to keep shipping weights reasonable. On level track, the consist should roll freely. 

Next, you come up with a locomotive drive that doesn't have a worm gear, and uses a motor with very little internal friction, and good bearings, so that again, the locomotive rolls pretty much freely. Maybe you could use a hydrostatic drive with enough blowby that pressure building up behind the pump wouldn't slow the train down any when the throttle was backed off. 

Now you send the motor voltage in one direction to move forward, and the other to move in reverse. But the trick is, you make the controller a center neutral one, so that you can use reverse voltage for braking effort. And, then you put a "momentum" circuit on the controller, so that the response to the commands happens more gradually as you add cars. (You'd need some way of inputting how many loaded and empty cars were on the train at any given time.) 

Now you have "accelerate" "coast" and "brake" functions. And you'll probably need a couple of scale miles to stop from 80 SMPH too... and you'll have to have wiring that can handle the load when you reverse power for braking effort. You'll also have to come up with something to prevent the train starting off in the opposite direction once a full stop at full braking has been accomplished. Maybe something along the lines of anti-lock brake technology, which could also be used for maximum acceleration start wtihout spinning the wheels.

"Throw 'er in reverse, Jeb!"

Personally, I'd rather have a more traditionally powered locomotive that was engineered to run smoothly and well over the range of scale speeds that correspond to the speeds of its prototype. They could then put the extra R&D money into making sure the detail and accuracy of the model itself were that much better.

But that's just me.

Matthew (OV)


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Why not put a motor on every axle of the whole consist with one controller per car and program them to provide braking when starting (simulating stationary inertia) and to provide forward drive when stopping (simulating forward momentum). Each car could then be programmed to whatever weight it is to simulate. Those that do not want the "simulation" would benefit in that they cars could also be programed to just provide additional tractive effort to move the train... imagine the length of trains that could be run!!!!!


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

You know, Kevin mentioned trolleys ..... 

I wonder. If you made a model of a trolley car, and made it really heavy... maybe a solid metal frame and trucks, and metal plate sides or something... and built the trucks with the non-worm free rolling drive, and good bearings, you could build it with a mockup of a K controller where you have to go through all five series notches before shutting off, or going on to parallel .... and then make some kind of proportional brakes programmed to give you small doses of reverse power to simulate braking effort (but, only five full cycles in say, 2 minutes to simulate the possibility of running out of air...) 

You'd have a prototypically simulated control, inertia driven momentum, and no train effects to worry about .... you could even use the dynamic effect of the front truck feeding the back truck to make emergency stops (again, "Throw 'er in reverse, Jed!") and use decoder functions to raise and lower the poles, swap lights, etc. 

Of course it wouldn't be anything like running a narrow gauge steam locomotive. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SlateCreek on 04/18/2009 5:38 PM
You know, Kevin mentioned trolleys ..... 

I wonder. If you made a model of a trolley car, and made it really heavy...Of course it wouldn't be anything like running a narrow gauge steam locomotive. 

Matthew (OV)


Actually, it might be a LOT closer to the operations of our model "electric" steam locos????


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/17/2009 2:44 PM
Stan, 


But I think I do take exception, or at least want a justification for the statement: "While the operation is different the characteristics are the same.", based on the previous sentence: "I only have about 20 hours as an engineer and therefore do not want to even imply I have expertise in this area." I would ask for some other information to justify that statement. Since you state immediately afterwards you don't have expertise, then exactly what characteristics and who says so? 


Regards, Greg 




Greg 

The two OL49 class locomotives I ran in Wolsztyn were in the same class but had two very different valve gears and operated very differently. On one the more traditional operation of setting the valve +60 and then as the locomotive picks up speed reduce it in steps to +30. Note these locomotives used a screw reverse but it works the same as a Johnson Bar. When you cut off the throttle you move the gear back to 60. 

The second OL49 had a Trofimow valve gear. The primary advantage of the gear is its efficiency. It is apparently one of the most efficient locomotive valve gears produced but the general consensus of the engineers was that the Russian that invented it should be shot. With this valve gear the start was the same but on cutoff you returned the value gear to +60 and then immediately back to 0 (dead natural). After the stop is completed you return it to +60. The resulting glide of the locomotive is fantastic but what a pain to operate. 

The individual locomotives in the same class are different and in fact how each engineer operates the locomotive is also slightly different as well.

The Narrow Gauge locomotive was again very much different from the OL49s with much slower speeds and less need to adjust the value gear on the runs we made but the principles and the sequences were exactly the same between all three locomotives.

You have a throttle, you use the valve gear to adjust the power, you cutoff power (the throttle is reduced to 0) and the locomotive glides, To stop the locomotive you apply a braking application which has off, lap (maintain the application) and apply the brakes. With practice you can smoothly stop the train with a single well timed brake application but normally two or three were needed.

The deceleration momentum setting could be used at a high setting to approximate the glide but an override operation is needed to simulate the brake application and there is really no concept yet of the combined interplay between throttle and value gear setting.

The reason I started this thread was to seek opinions from others on what parts of more realistic operations they desire. Hopefully in the years to come we can get some systems in the market which provide the option for more realistic operation. I think we all can benefit from a constructive discussion on what features might be most useful in such a system.

Stan Ames


----------



## c nelson (Dec 18, 2008)

"More Realistic Operation" 

well I for one like to press the forward arrow on my remote and the locomotive begins to move forward. If I want to stop, I press the Stop key and it de-cells like a real locomotive...if I need an emergency stop, there is a key for that as well. When reverse is needed, I press the change direction button, and then acce/decell as I choose. Whistle...yep a key just for it too! and a bell!...pretty realistic to the kids and I...oh, did I mention it was simple? 

I for one am not interested in *any* "AI" type model train experience, it seems to me that can be obtained with the sim software avail worldwide; so go sit behind a monitor if you want to play Star Trek with your trains! 

Why do we keep having to remind those who didn't listen the first time-"I DON"T WANT IT"? 

I'd even dare to say that most of _us_ want easy to understand, easy to operate, easy to engage, fun to run trains...not some Sci-Fi mess that will _never_ satisfy either side of the coin. 

K.I.S.S. -keep is simple................. 

cale


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By StanleyAmes on 04/20/2009 2:41 PM

You have a throttle, you use the valve gear to adjust the power, you cutoff power (the throttle is reduced to 0) and the locomotive glides, To stop the locomotive you apply a braking application which has off, lap (maintain the application) and apply the brakes. With practice you can smoothly stop the train with a single well timed brake application but normally two or three were needed.

The deceleration momentum setting could be used at a high setting to approximate the glide but an override operation is needed to simulate the brake application and there is really no concept yet of the combined interplay between throttle and value gear setting.

The reason I started this thread was to seek opinions from others on what parts of more realistic operations they desire. Hopefully in the years to come we can get some systems in the market which provide the option for more realistic operation. I think we all can benefit from a constructive discussion on what features might be most useful in such a system.

Stan Ames



See?
Where has any input from others changed your determined march over the cliff?
The only ones it seems who have any input are those who have the same idi.....errr.......mindset as you do.
"Yes Men" wanted. All others need not apply.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I would love to have a brake on my throttle, but I think the problem is that a pressures sensitive button is just too "coarse". Now, my NCE throttle has a thumbwheel, and other throttles have a knob, maybe something could be done. 

One comment on momentum. I have a little momentum dialed into my DCC decoders. It helps make my operation more realistic, since it's hard to "feel" the loco. Also, since I run many different locos (as opposed to people who often "marry" one remote to one loco), my locos don't all start at the same speed step (yet!)... so a touch of momentum helps. It also makes me think ahead, because I cannot stop the train like a toy without hitting the emergency brake. 

Dialing in fully realistic momentum curves really does not work for me. Maybe I'm just not good enough of an engineer, oh well... (or it could be that our compressed distances help also). 

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Speaking for myself I'd enjoy being able to simulate more realistic operation. One of the fun things about my little live steamer is messing with the johnson bar and the throttle at the same time--and it doesn't even have a real valve gear. If it had a servo-triggered quillable whistle I'd be in heaven. It's one of the reasons I've been thinking about going to live steam--the operation is more interesting. 


It'd be fun to have a controller with a throttle wheel/knob and and a johnson bar wheel. Gliding you could simulate pretty easily, I suppose. Brakes would be harder? If it's all in software it would be easy to disable for those who want simplicity 




I also have a good bit of momentum programmed into the DCC decoders, but nowhere near prototypical, and I agree because of the compressed space you can't have prototypical braking.


The more I think about it the more interesting it seems. When I first got an onboard remote, an Aristo 75 mhz TE, I was delighted that there was some very limited momentum control available. But mostly it's just "push button and go," which is nothing like an actual steam train. why not come closer to the real deal?


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

I have a very nice digital SLR that was given to me as a wedding present. It is the newest camera I own by at least 20 years, and probably closer to 30. It is the only camera I own with the ability to auto focus. It's got built-in flash, metering, red-eye reduction, multiple program settings, and just about every other option imaginable.

Stick with me, I'm getting to how this relates to trains, I promise.

Now, anybody that knows anything about cameras knows that there are really only 5 things you can control. You get to choose the lens focal length, film speed, aperture diameter, shutter speed, and focus. That's it. All those fancy settings really only boil down to those 5 things. I've had the camera for 3 years, and there are still things I don't know how to make it do. I finally gave up and set it to full manual mode, which has allowed me to take pictures just as good as, or better than, what the camera wanted to take.


Yes, trains.. I'm getting there...

My wife has an automatic transmission in her car. It's got the usual positions, plus a cute little O/D OFF button, which basically forces it to downshift. Around town and on the highway, it's pleasant enough to drive. I have a manual transmission in my car. 5 speeds, neutral, and reverse. That's it. I have to tell the car what to do. Funny thing is, her car is a pain to drive in mountains, or if you really need to get into traffic or pass quickly. It's not that the car CAN'T do it, it just WON'T. I've never had that problem in mine.


OK, now to the trains. The moral of all this is that putting any sort of automatic or artificial control between an operator and a tool is a hassle for the operator. For a live steam locomotive, it makes perfect sense to control the throttle and the cutoff separately. The only way to do anything comparable with an electric model would be to vary both the voltage and (via pulse width modulation) the length of time that the voltage is applied to the motor. Of course, the only way to control the voltage electronically is to via PWM, so in reality you'd be cascading two PWM controllers, for no real benefit. What I'm getting at is that I would rather control the model directly, that control the controller controlling the model.


Want a locomotive example? How's this?
I dread catching GE locomotives in a consist. The newer they are, the worse they are. The latest offerings from EMD are almost as bad, especially the SD70M-2. Now, they're all perfectly good, reliable locomotives, as far as that goes, and a Dash-9 will pull amazingly well at low speeds, but they are a pain in the rump to operate. You see, they have software which interprets the various controls on the control stand, and translates them into commands for the locomotive itself. In other words, the engineer controls the computer, not the train. That computer has a delay built in, which causes the engine to build load much more slowly, and in some cases prevents the dynamic brakes for working for a period of time. In theory, this reduces the risk of broken knuckles due to poor train handling, and improves fuel economy. In reality, it means that the engine will not pull until it's half way up the hill. On territory like ours, where you're constantly changing from up to down and back, that's a real hindrance to smooth running. I figure a train with 3 brand new GEs is a good 5 MPH slower than the same train with 4 40 year old SD40-2s. And don't even get me started on the various electronic brake controllers....


So, again, I DO NOT WANT a computer controlling my trains. I want to control them myself. That goes for everything from a tiny Z scale train all the way to a 15,000 ton coal train at work. Fly-by-wire is fine, as long as the control inputs are passed straight through without change. Since I cannot see any way to directly control a model in a fashion that simulates the operation of a steam locomotive, it means that any such system would, by necessity, interpret the operator commands, adding another layer of complexity.


No thank you.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I have to say I can't really see the logic of what you're arguing here. It seems to me that even on conventional DC, a rheostat is controlling the train, not me. I already have computers controlling the trains, with DCC commands. I tell the computer to make it go faster, and it does. Why not take advantage of the possibilities? It's not like this is some kind of zero-sum game--it'd be easy enough to defeat the more complex features and just have a big green "press here for go" button.


Also live steamers manage the terrible complexity of operating the johnson bar and the throttle at the same time. It's not that hard. I've got RC on mine, so it's not even direct--the commands go through a computer to the servos. Is that me controlling it, or the computer? 



It's true that you'd have to learn the operating variables for each loco, and that would be tricky. In my opinion, it'd be fun too. It's like guitars--you play guitar, don't you? They're all pretty much the same, the fun is in the small differences and learning how to get the most out of the different kinds. 


I'd still settle for a quillable whistle!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Geez, Ken. 
I thought I was about the only one waving the red flag. 
GOOD job! 

The problem with the proposer is we cannot trust what he will do. 
A computer (or other) interface is most likely, based upon past experience, the direction we are headed. 
And, the push will be for "mandated". 
"Manufacturers WILL get on board", "or left behind". 

I recall a particularly distasteful conversation some time ago about this new interface, which made the locomotives really run nicely......but, the motor was an integral part of the system, and without the interface, the locomotive ran like garbage. 

Even though it wasn't admitted to, it was obvious it was designed to eliminate some control systems, as it would ONLY pass dcc or susi signals. 

Like your GE's, and like Airbus (ever see the video of the Airbus going into the trees because the computer would not allow a touch-and-go?), when you try to make the equipment do all the work, in a computerized, pre-programmed way, you A) take the fun out of it, and B) take the fun out of it. 

The more electronics you stick into something, the more there is to fail. 

I'd really like to see what kind of 2X4 the crew would use up against somebody's head if they tried that on any of the K's.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

It's absolutely true that a computer is WAY more complicated than a typewriter, which is WAY more complicated than a pencil. 


I'm not going back to typewriters. Sure, complexity introduces problems. It also introduces more interest and more fun. 


I have no dog in the stan ames hunt--none whatsoever. My limited experience with live steam tells me that the tinkering and tweaking and puttering is the fun part, and it's fun to run my little Ruby partly because it's a WAY more complex process than pushing a button.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 04/20/2009 7:27 PM
It's absolutely true that a computer is WAY more complicated than a typewriter, which is WAY more complicated than a pencil. 


I'm not going back to typewriters. Sure, complexity introduces problems. It also introduces more interest and more fun. 


I have no dog in the stan ames hunt--none whatsoever. My limited experience with live steam tells me that the tinkering and tweaking and puttering is the fun part, and it's fun to run my little Ruby partly because it's a WAY more complex process than pushing a button. 




I think you're missing the point.
To do it manually (or control those manual functions directly with a radio), is a WHOLE LOT different than having some computer in between you and it programmed to make it work like a Polish Commuter Train.

I can see it now.
The New Lens DCC PCT control system (and, no, I didn't spell that wrong)


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Direct control of your train is exactly what I like too. But how do you control the throttle and Reverser lever of a steam locomotive when you are running a toy electric train that only looks like a steam locomotive? How do you control the train and independent brakes when neither the cars nor the locomotive have brakes? The idea is to add realism to the toy pike using some sort of computer control to interpret your control of simulated knobs/levers/buttons/etc. to the visual motion of an electric motor decorated to look like a steam locomotive pulling some fully loaded and some empty railroad cars that might have sloshing liquids in them or passengers in the dining car that don't want the wine in their glasses to slosh upon their Filet Mignon with Greenbeans Almondine.


Some people like to see their trains run in circles around the Christmas tree, others want to watch a trolley traverse a short point to point, others want to see the train emerge from the tulip patch, still others want to see the train run through a city with lots of houses, factories and commercial business, some want to track box cars from city to switch-yard to business and back. Some people like to spend the hobby energy making detailed displays others just want to play with the train and don't care what it looks like.


There is NOTHING WRONG with those that want to experience the operation of a train from the standpoint of HOW the experience exists.
If you don't like it, FINE. Sure, it would be some programmer's interpretation of what happens and applying the same simulation to multiple trains would be lacking in realism in some manner and lots of folk would complain that it doesn't match their experience in running some or other type of locomotive or train... just remember, the first sound cards were all the same sound... I've even seen/heard a Diesel that had a "Whistle" sound... as the hobby has progressed things have improved and we have sound units that know when the engine is running hard and when it is not, smoke units that "chuff" in time with the wheels instead of just smolder and "quillable" whistles that run from a single pushbutton.

Yes, it could get too complicated and ruin the joy of "playing trains" but that is what I think of "Operations" and those that weather daylights out of their trains, but I am not about to tell someone to not pursue the idea. If it fails, it fails... if not, YOU might like it.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

So, are you going to guarantee that the proposer does not have mandatory, on-board, non-removable interfaces in mind with this? 

The entire process is not well thought out. 
It appears that a lot of it wasn't. 

I still hear of folks saying there is nothing wrong with the gearing on one of the locomotives the proposer was involved with. 
Yet, not only is it way too fast, but, 3-5 cars, current consumption is okay, on level track. 
10 cars, it crosses to "knee" in the curve, and the current goes through the roof. 

Well thought out? 

Carefully read the part in these various threads about the motor interface, and realize just where this is going. 

The same proposer has his nose in wheel and track standards. 
You want a thrill, look at the "interim" wheel profile on the K. 

With a magnifying glass. 

Look closely at the fillet. 

Then tell me they have this well planned out.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

It's possible to make a train operate realistically with just about any kind of control system out there, at least within certain given limits. 

Working brakes on cars, except as an aid to holding parked cars, really doesn't make a lot of sense, because the smallest force is enough to overwhelm the car's rolling characteristics. Look at all the posts on the old AMS center cupola caboose, where it behaved like it was dragging a handbrake because of the wipers on the wheels for the light inside the car .... most of what makes running a real train interesting is the part where you try to accelerate and brake in such a way that you don't wear out the equipment, break the cars or their contents, and still manage to maintain an even speed even with relatively constant change in grade and curves. 

Now, you can simulate this in a number of ways. You can slowly turn up the power handle on the power pack until the locomotive just barely starts to creep forward, then add a little more... and a little more... and so forth until you reach a "cruising" speed. You can then turn the knob the other way slowly to simulate the long deceleration time required to stop a heavy train ..... until it stops. If you have sound on board, you can cause the horn to sound at the appropriate time, or the lights to flash, or change directions ... there are a lot of things you can do to "enhance realism." 

Lately, there have been some commercially available products that do this "enhancing" for you. There are power supplies with "momentum" that automatically ramp power up and down to whatever the user selects. DCC systems allow you to program all manner of complex speed values and acceleration/deceleration curves for different engines and situations. There are even custom interface devices that allow you to substitute a series of handles, levers, and buttons for your computer keyboard, and let your computer make all of the decisions based on the positions you put those handles and levers in. 

The thing is, up until now, it's been left to the taste of the model railroader as to how to "enhance" things. People like our resident 1:1 engineer, and TOC, and several others prefer a more "hands on" approach. Some others prefer the technology to do the "enhancing" for them. Some people like to argue very loudly about the most effective way to make a train handle realistically, who have no idea how a "real" train handles, having never handled one, but find it entertaining to jump into the fray and take sides. 

Normally, at the end of the day, it wouldn't really matter. We'd all run our trains the way we saw fit. 

The problem comes in a different form of "enhancement." I think Gallagher said it best .... it's where the money goes from your "hance" to someone else's "hance" ... the idea that in the name of "improved" technology, or "more realistic experiences" that proprietary devices useable by some, but not others, are a required purchase. Kind of like making everyone pay a dollar tax on every can of non-diet soda because the government is interested in "encouraging healthy eating habits." We hear what they say. We know what the reason really is. And, we wonder, with our healthy eating habits in mind, why we're force fed so much Bologna on a regular basis. 

What's more frustrating is, we've done this all before. We've voted in the forums, in private communications, and with our wallets, and apparently nobody's listening. 

So, I have a proposal, for anyone who wants to make realistic model trains: First, make a really good model. Make it run really well over a reasonable range of operating speeds, and powerful and resillient enough to handle the kind of loads and terrain one might reasonably expect of such a model. Don't use electronics and complicated technology to cover shoddy engineering. And then let we operators use whatever works the best for us to simulate realistic operations once the locomotive hits our rails.... whether with a speed controller, radio control rig, DCC system, computer control, or psychokentic electroencephalic interface. We'll all appreciate a well built, well running locomotive, and the adaptability to what we choose to use for control. Of course, you won't be able to profit by making us buy one gizmo or another to control it ... but if we're already buying your locomotive, the only people who really lose here will be the hangers-on who try to ride the coattails of your successful models to financial gain, and end up causing them to drag in the mud . . . making a mess for everyone. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

I'd like to clarify my opinion a bit...

First off, I understand that turning the speed knob or pushing the faster/slower buttons does not in some way DIRECTLY control the motor in my model locomotive. There is other circuitry, software, etc. However, the net effect of all the interposing bits is to give me direct control. By that I mean that turning the knob enough to yield a 50% increase in power yields a 50% increase in power.


Second, I know that I am capable of learning to control both the throttle and valve gear of a steam locomotive. If I HAD a steam locomotive, I'd be happy to do so. And no, I don't play guitar - that has to be the most evil device ever invented to torture a man's hands into unnatural positions. I tried, but my fingers just refused. I could have forged on, I suppose, but it's a lot easier to push "play" on a beautiful recording. Not that's even slightly related to the current topic...










Third, I understand the desire to simulate the smooth starting, stopping, coasting, etc. possible at the hand of a skilled engineer. I do it every time I run my trains. I just chose to do it by turning the speed up gently. Does anybody really go from stop to full throttle, and expect the train to somehow react realistically? Since all we can do is to simulate the results of the various controls, and since all that simulation ends up doing nothing but varying the voltage to the motor, I'd just as soon save my money and do the simulating myself by turning a knob.


Fourth, as I've commented earlier, I don't have anything against somebody designing a system that forces a simulation of the various aspects of steam locomotives. I DO have a problem with any such system which is required in order to use a given model. Given some of the models we've seen lately, I'm afraid that somebody will have the bright idea of building this system into the tender of a locomotive, and then try to force me to buy the control system needed to run it, or force me to accept a significant loss in the quality of operation.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm not guaranteeing anything--I'm just the consumer who is interested in a more "prototypical" experience. I've been really impressed with the way QSI models the sound of an engine under load, and the way DCC models momentum. It's not "real" momentum, it's a computer simulation. And in fact an engineer does not create momentum--momentum is a function of physics and it's there regardless of what the engineer does. That's why, in my opinion, slowly turning the throttle down is very unrelaistic. Brakes would be better, but they would have to be done by simulating momentum. 



I really have no clue--none, zero, zip--about the alleged nefarious deeds of Mr. Ames. I've tried to understand it, and given up. I only have one bachman product, an Annie. But it seems worth it to me to have a discussion about how and if and whether or not modern technology could be used to make running a steam model more like running a steam train. I'd like it if my Bachmann Annie ran a little bit more like my Accucraft Ruby. It'd be nice to have that discussion, at least noce for me, because I'm still learning. I understand that not everyone would agree that this is a worthy goal. But is it really necessary to keep shouting the discussion down?


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

OK so I read the replies and some things are clearer. DR sorry, I thought you played guitar. 

As I understand it, some of you guys are worried that there will be expensive decoders installed with preset parameters. Is that it? 

I'm imagining basically a software solution. There's a decoder socket (or not!) and you can plug in a decoder and fiddle away with simulating steam operations all day long using DCC commands. It'd be nice to have throttle, johnson bar, brakes. Additional DCC functions like sound and lights. Nobody has to install the decoder, the modeling is done in software, so it's both modifiable and optional


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 04/20/2009 8:49 PM
OK so I read the replies and some things are clearer. DR sorry, I thought you played guitar. 

As I understand it, some of you guys are worried that there will be expensive decoders installed with preset parameters. Is that it? 

I'm imagining basically a software solution. There's a decoder socket (or not!) and you can plug in a decoder and fiddle away with simulating steam operations all day long using DCC commands. It'd be nice to have throttle, johnson bar, brakes. Additional DCC functions like sound and lights. Nobody has to install the decoder, the modeling is done in software, so it's both modifiable and optional




Maybe.
Mandatory, preset SOMETHING.
It's been threatened before.
And, produced (inverted signal optical chuff trigger).
I have not one ounce of trust that whatever comes out won't be to promote his chosen cotrol system and manufacturer(s).


I'll give you one guess as to which manufacturer came up with the integral motor interface.

You ALMOST had that in one locomotive.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I am tired of your vendetta against this man. You keep bringing it up to derail any topic he gets involved in. 

PLEASE limit your comments to the subject of the thread, NOT your perception of the poster.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Okay, I'll start by qualifying my post with my real world experience and lack thereof. First, my only in cab experience on a full sized steam locomotive was when the hostler let me bum a VERY short ride as he backed one of the EBT mikes off the turntable to where he could add water. HOWEVER I've run both steam and gas mechanical 15" gauge locomotives, AND also operated 9 different brands of steam traction engines. I'm also smart enough to ask questions, and actually LISTEN to what other people have to say.

Now, here's my 2c, and I'm certain some will demand change. IMO you'll NEVER be able to simulate the smell, sounds or feel of a REAL steam engine well enough to suit me. 1. You can't feel ANY sound system through the soles of your feet. Even the fancy expensive ones are just so much noise. My usual "sound" of choice is Big Band music on the stereo while I run trains. 2. Most smoke fluid smells like a cheap kero heater, even the fancy expensive scented stuff does NOT come anywhere close to the magic aroma of coal smoke, oil, steam and hot metal. So unless my daughter asks for it, I leave that off too. 3. Some "momentum" is ok. But the soft start/stop on the basic Crest/Aristo power pack that they throw in their sets is all I really want or will ever need. Why would I want to foodle with more? 4. As was mentioned, a REAL steam engine gives you feedback through ALL your senses. Enough different feedback that it feels almost alive. And yes, they each have their own distinct "personalities". Each road and consist has it's own quirks, as well. There is simply not enough electronics in Japan (or bootlegged in China) to get the experience "right", or even "close enough" without the help a full-sized cab mock-up and a truckload of industrial magic tricks. 5. I can tram a chassis, I can scrape a valve seat, adjust shoes, wedges, and shims, I can even time 4 different types of reverse gears. I MIGHT even be able to explain any of the above well enough to talk YOU through it over the phone...but when it comes to gee whiz gadgets, I'm totally lost, and trying to figure out which button does what doesn't much interest me. My VCR/DVD player perpetually blinks 12:00, and I don't care. 6. Lastly, I don't know about the rest of these fellows, but I'm on a REAL restrictive budget. Adding even just $20 worth of extra electronics crap in any locomotive would probably make it a deal breaker for me, especially if it was for something I'd rarely, if ever, use anyway. 

Is this all in prain enough Engrish? If not, what part of "no" didn't you understand?


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Mik on 04/20/2009 9:11 PM
Okay, I'll start by qualifying my post with my real world experience and lack thereof. First, my only in cab experience on a full sized steam locomotive was when the hostler let me bum a VERY short ride as he backed one of the EBT mikes off the turntable to where he could add water. HOWEVER I've run both steam and gas mechanical 15" gauge locomotives, AND also operated 9 different brands of steam traction engines. 

Now, here's my 2c, and I'm certain some will demand change. IMO you'll NEVER be able to simulate the smell, sounds or feel of a REAL steam engine well enough to suit me. 1. You can't feel ANY sound system through the soles of your feet. Even the fancy expensive ones are just so much noise. My usual "sound" of choice is Big Band music on the stereo while I run trains. 2. Most smoke fluid smells like a cheap kero heater, even the fancy expensive scented stuff does NOT come anywhere close to the magic aroma of coal smoke, oil, steam and hot metal. So unless my daughter asks for it, I leave that off too. 3. Some "momentum" is ok. But the soft start/stop on the basic Crest/Aristo power pack that they throw in their sets is all I really want or will ever need. Why would I want to foodle with more? 4. As was mentioned, a REAL steam engine gives you feedback through ALL your senses. Enough different feedback that it feels almost alive. And yes, they each have their own distinct "personalities". Each road and consist has it's own quirks, as well. There is simply not enough electronics in Japan (or bootlegged in China) to get the experience "right", or even "close enough" without the help a full-sized cab mock-up and a truckload of industrial magic tricks. 5. I can tram a chassis, I can scrape a valve seat, adjust shoes, wedges, and shims, I can even time 4 different types of reverse gears. I MIGHT even be able to explain any of the above well enough to talk YOU through it over the phone...but when it comes to gee whiz gadgets, I'm totally lost, and trying to figure out which button does what doesn't much interest me. My VCR/DVD player perpetually blinks 12:00, and I don't care. 6. Lastly, I don't know about the rest of these fellows, but I'm on a REAL restrictive budget. Adding even just $20 worth of extra electronics crap in any locomotive would probably make it a deal breaker for me, especially if it was for something I'd rarely, if ever, use anyway. 

Is this all in prain enough Engrish? If not, what part of "no" didn't you understand?


SO.... why are there smoke units and sound cards? Hmmmm? Nobody wants those things... they are not at all like the "real" thing. Does your train shake the ground when it passes you? Can you get IN the cab? WHAT???? Your "Steam Locmotive" has an electric motor in it???? OOOHHHHH NNNOOOOOoooooOOOOoooo! What a waste! Who'd want to run a TOY train that only simulates smoke and sound and shaking the ground using a dinky electric motor to make it go? I certainly would not waste MY money on such a "TOY"!!!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 04/20/2009 9:02 PM
I am tired of your vendetta against this man. You keep bringing it up to derail any topic he gets involved in. 

PLEASE limit your comments to the subject of the thread, NOT your perception of the poster.


You don't know, do you?
I mean, you really, really don't.

It's not a vendetta.
A vendetta is what occurred with a certain publisher and manufacturer.

All this is, and I mean all, is an attempt to get the general hobbyist with some faint clue of reality what this is all leading to.

If nobody speaks, and you end up with garbage, well, you must be happy with garbage.

The problem really is, you need to look deeper that what he says.
You need to learn to read between the lines a bit.
You need history.

Yet, when I try to give you history, you call it a vendetta.

Personally?
I don't care.
I can fix it, even if it takes gutting the electronics, changing the motor and/or gearbox.

Unfortunately, with the current generation of plug-and-play hobbyists, not all can do that.

Sometimes, it gets a tad overwhelming trying to get this stuff he has had his influence on to work satisfactorily for the general hobbyist.

Can I start sending these folks to you?


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 04/20/2009 9:24 PM
SO.... why are there smoke units and sound cards? Hmmmm? Nobody wants those things... they are not at all like the "real" thing. Does your train shake the ground when it passes you? Can you get IN the cab? WHAT???? Your "Steam Locmotive" has an electric motor in it???? OOOHHHHH NNNOOOOOoooooOOOOoooo! What a waste! Who'd want to run a TOY train that only simulates smoke and sound and shaking the ground using a dinky electric motor to make it go? I certainly would not waste MY money on such a "TOY"!!! 


If you want em, fine. But why should _I_ have to pay for something I don't want, just because _you_ do? If I want to run a steam engine, I'll run a steam engine. If I want to play with toy trains, then I play with toy trains. But I generally don't try to Walter Mitty one into the other.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 04/20/2009 9:25 PM
Posted By Semper Vaporo on 04/20/2009 9:02 PM
I am tired of your vendetta against this man. You keep bringing it up to derail any topic he gets involved in. 

PLEASE limit your comments to the subject of the thread, NOT your perception of the poster.


You don't know, do you?
I mean, you really, really don't.

It's not a vendetta.
A vendetta is what occurred with a certain publisher and manufacturer.

All this is, and I mean all, is an attempt to get the general hobbyist with some faint clue of reality what this is all leading to.

If nobody speaks, and you end up with garbage, well, you must be happy with garbage.

The problem really is, you need to look deeper that what he says.
You need to learn to read between the lines a bit.
You need history.

Yet, when I try to give you history, you call it a vendetta.

Personally?
I don't care.
I can fix it, even if it takes gutting the electronics, changing the motor and/or gearbox.

Unfortunately, with the current generation of plug-and-play hobbyists, not all can do that.

Sometimes, it gets a tad overwhelming trying to get this stuff he has had his influence on to work satisfactorily for the general hobbyist.

Can I start sending these folks to you?



Yes, I DO know. I read all the vehement arguments when it all occurred in history.

I am capable of reading between the lines and I am reading your lines.

I am seeing a "BLOOD FEUD" betwix you and him and you cannot seem to let it go no matter what he says. If you "don't care" then why do you consistently derail any conversation about anything he posts?

If all we end up with is garbage, then DON'T buy it and the company that puts it out will cease to do so and some other company will step in to fill the void and take the money that you have burning a hole in your pocket because you did not waste it on the unwanted electronics.

I don't care about you or your vendetta. I do care about the discussion that was attempted to get started here.

If you don't like idea presented, you can say so, but then you have had your say and it is time to let others yak about it to their content and not time for you to derail the discussion back to your vendetta!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I am so happy to see you have the new "Moderator" tag affixed to your log-in name. 

I am also quite pleased to see you have taken the stance, in public, you have taken. 

Initially, I had an issue. 
Then, it became a tad more severe. Part of it is that the proposer does behind doors things you have no idea about. 

Finally, when asked by the nmra to contact manufacturers about getting some better proposal on the table thn the HUGE socket we had, and I got to talk to some of these folks.......and found out I am far from being alone.........well, keep supporting him! 

Basically, what you're saying, Mr. Moderator, is we can speak once and then never again on an issue? 

"If you don't like idea presented, you can say so, but then you have had your say and it is time to let others yak about it to their content and not time for you to derail the discussion back to your vendetta!" 

I am certain we will read these new "rules" shortly.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Nobody wants ME for a moderator, especially you.... I'd edit too many of your posts to remove off topic comments.

I am NOT supporting "him"... I am letting you know that I am tired of your derailing the subjects to "warn" us about "him".


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

TOC, can I suggest a compromise of sorts? Would it be possible for you to focus mainly on shooting holes in the dumb ideas du jour. I'm more interested in hearing your take on current projects than rehashing the old arguments. That doesn't mean you can't whack a particular mole again WHEN it pops up, just that maybe you shouldn't use a sharp stick under his behind to get him to stick it up so you can whack it again. 

Believe me, I fully understand where you are coming from. I have a black Irish temper, when there is something I feel is really WRONG, and there's nothing I can do it eats at me too. However, when I stew on stuff too long it eats ME up inside, and I make people I care about and who care about me miserable over something neither of us can do doodly about. And that's unhealthy. At some point you just gotta make a conscious decision to NOT care, and move on.... at least until you're in a position to enjoy your revenge cold.


----------



## Crosshead (Feb 20, 2008)

You're almost there, Semper, but just yelling, sarcasm, and being over the top and bossy isn't enough. Try all caps, and a little profanity next time; you'll get the thread locked for sure, thereby preventing people with whom you disagree from saying things you don't like. 

Enjoy your steam powered, no electronics required, train. I'd take you more seriously if you had a dog in this fight. 

And remember, it was you who escalated this to shouting: 

SO.... why are there smoke units and sound cards? Hmmmm? Nobody wants those things... they are not at all like the "real" thing. Does your train shake the ground when it passes you? Can you get IN the cab? WHAT???? Your "Steam Locmotive" has an electric motor in it???? OOOHHHHH NNNOOOOOoooooOOOOoooo! What a waste! Who'd want to run a TOY train that only simulates smoke and sound and shaking the ground using a dinky electric motor to make it go? I certainly would not waste MY money on such a "TOY"!!!


If that's not inflammatory, I'm not sure what is, but I suspect I'm about to find out. 

Richard C. 

Richard C.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Mik on 04/20/2009 10:06 PM
TOC, can I suggest a compromise of sorts? Would it be possible for you to focus mainly on shooting holes in the dumb ideas du jour. I'm more interested in hearing your take on current projects than rehashing the old arguments. That doesn't mean you can't whack a particular mole again WHEN it pops up, just that maybe you shouldn't use a sharp stick under his behind to get him to stick it up so you can whack it again. 

Believe me, I fully understand where you are coming from. I have a black Irish temper, when there is something I feel is really WRONG, and there's nothing I can do it eats at me too. However, when I stew on stuff too long it eats ME up inside, and I make people I care about and who care about me miserable over something neither of us can do doodly about. And that's unhealthy. At some point you just gotta make a conscious decision to NOT care, and move on.... at least until you're in a position to enjoy your revenge cold.


The problem is, there are three threads.
One of which is locked.

Sometimes, when they are 2, 3 or 4 pages long, kinda hard to figure out what was said in the others.

I didn't poke him.
He popped up on his own.

I am dead tired of whacking the mole.
Was really hoping he'd done hisself in with his supporters.

But, alas and alack, 'twas naught to bee.

I quoted his original statement, from the locked thread, "My goal is to eventually translate experience to help influence the design of a system that would allor operation to be a tad more realistic." in his latest thread on the subject, http://www.mylargescale.com/Community/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/4/postid/96402/view/topic/Default.aspx

That one sentence sums it up.
Design of a system?

Okay.
Mandated?

Silence.

I suspect why there has been a push to get LS into dcc, oh, probably a whole lot more than "suspicion", and my commentary with the propellers......that included a decoder in every car with a computer interface to "tell" the locomotive what kind of train it is hauling, is probably not too far off the mark from where back-room discussions have been.

This would certainly be a boon for decoder manufacturers, and anyone narcissistic enough to need their name attached to all sorts of "proposals" would be ecstatic.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Jeez, I can't leave this place alone for five minutes! Knock it off 'gentlemen' - if you wish to argue, chastise, feud, do it in email. Don't do it in the public forums. 

If you wish to comment upon another member's behavior, send them a PM.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

{Moderator hat on} Gentlemen, stick to the topic at hand, please--the merits and feasibility of a control system that mimics the operation of the prototype locomotives. Feel free to discuss why you think it might work, why it might not, pitfalls to look out for, features you'd like to see, how you'd implement it if you wanted it...PLENTY of room for discussion. 
{Moderator hat off} 

Me personally, I'm of the same school of thought as Lownote. It's not for everyone, but it's certainly an idea worth entertaining, and can probably be done with a microprocessor or two and a little programming. I can't say I'd use it on a daily basis, but I'd probably love to try my hand at it if a friend brought one over. My dad and I were discussing this over breakfast today, and there's no reason why this couldn't work with a number of different environments. The various train sim software already mimic the controls, so there's room there to tie that software into actual voltage signals going to the motor. Whatever your speedometer on your sim says translates into a given voltage to the motor. The software would simulate the effects of braking, throttle position, Johnson bar, etc, and how all that relates to that single tangible result. 

You could do high-speed passenger, slow freight, superheated, non-superheated, articulated, auto-stoker, 1870s or 1950s vintage locos, you name it. Just program in the various parameters and go for it. I'm thinking a decoder of sorts that you could install (plug-and-play or however), that receives a signal from a computer via Bluetooth, with a USB-connected cab mock-up like you have USB yokes and steering wheels for plane and car sims. Heck, I can see a wireless RF camera installed in the cab feeding back to the laptop, and running the sim on your own railroad! That would be flippin' COOL! I could definitely see myself bringing the laptop onto the back porch for that once in a while. 

Later, 

K


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Not particularly great for steam, Kevin, but this might go well with what you're talking about: 

http://www.raildriver.com/products/ 

Does sound like a lot of fun, doesn't it? I've considered putting components of that plan into action (though, my control will probably be a bit more traditional) .... 

I do wonder how many engines sold with all that on board/OEM might be something folks could afford... particularly given the price of a well detailed model without those things ... but just like looking at the "Knight Rider" car and wondering if some of those things could be done ... it's fun to think about! 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## KYYADA (Mar 24, 2008)

Lownote...Lownote...Lownote I can't believe you as a musician said all guitars are basically the same...for shame for shame! I remember my boss once said all cheese tasted the same...for shame for shame. But I'll try real hard to forget you made such a statment...  I can't really forgive my boss..... 

p.s. I use to have a 340 Gibson Orange label....Out of that racket but wish I had kept it! 

Johnny


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04/20/2009 11:13 PM

Me personally, I'm of the same school of thought as Lownote. It's not for everyone, but it's certainly an idea worth entertaining, and can probably be done with a microprocessor or two and a little programming. I can't say I'd use it on a daily basis, but I'd probably love to try my hand at it if a friend brought one over. My dad and I were discussing this over breakfast today, and there's no reason why this couldn't work with a number of different environments. The various train sim software already mimic the controls, so there's room there to tie that software into actual voltage signals going to the motor. Whatever your speedometer on your sim says translates into a given voltage to the motor. The software would simulate the effects of braking, throttle position, Johnson bar, etc, and how all that relates to that single tangible result. 

You could do high-speed passenger, slow freight, superheated, non-superheated, articulated, auto-stoker, 1870s or 1950s vintage locos, you name it. Just program in the various parameters and go for it. I'm thinking a decoder of sorts that you could install (plug-and-play or however), that receives a signal from a computer via Bluetooth, with a USB-connected cab mock-up like you have USB yokes and steering wheels for plane and car sims. Heck, I can see a wireless RF camera installed in the cab feeding back to the laptop, and running the sim on your own railroad! That would be flippin' COOL! I could definitely see myself bringing the laptop onto the back porch for that once in a while. 

Later, 

K

Yes! What Kevin said. I would not want this ALL the time but there's no reason it might not be available via a drop-in decoder triggered through a handheld like, say, an iphone, with a largeish touch screen. You could operate the "cab" controls via the sim on the handheld. You wouldn't even need a laptop--smartphones have more than enough computing capacity for a sim, especially if they aren't generating scenery. So you could walk around with the cab controls and they would include all or most of the control parameters on a real locomotive. And yeah, why not have an onboard camera, and have that view on the handheld cab? It'd be very cool


----------



## c nelson (Dec 18, 2008)

Posted By DKRickman on 04/20/2009 8:31 PM
I'd like to clarify my opinion a bit...

Fourth, as I've commented earlier, I don't have anything against somebody designing a system that forces a simulation of the various aspects of steam locomotives. I DO have a problem with any such system which is required in order to use a given model. Given some of the models we've seen lately, I'm afraid that somebody will have the bright idea of building this system into the tender of a locomotive, and then try to force me to buy the control system needed to run it, or force me to accept a significant loss in the quality of operation.







Kenneth, it is this same _*perception*_ that keeps this discussion alive....!


cale 


So, I have a proposal, for anyone who wants to make realistic model trains: First, make a really good model. Make it run really well over a reasonable range of operating speeds, and powerful and resillient enough to handle the kind of loads and terrain one might reasonably expect of such a model. Don't use electronics and complicated technology to cover shoddy engineering. And then let we operators use whatever works the best for us to simulate realistic operations once the locomotive hits our rails.... whether with a speed controller, radio control rig, DCC system, computer control, or psychokentic electroencephalic interface. We'll all appreciate a well built, well running locomotive, and the adaptability to what we choose to use for control. Of course, you won't be able to profit by making us buy one gizmo or another to control it ... but if we're already buying your locomotive, the only people who really lose here will be the hangers-on who try to ride the coattails of your successful models to financial gain, and end up causing them to drag in the mud . . . making a mess for everyone. 

Matthew (OV)


Yeah, what He said, _*Again*_!


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Matthew. 

Now you are talking. 
Shouldn't be hard to mount that desktop device to a belt holder and have the various controls hooked up to a good quality Digital Proportional 2.4 GHz R/C set up such as SPEKTRUM. 
Diesel operators get ready for BELT-TROL. 

Just remember when it does happen where you read about, and who came up with, the idea first.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I was thinking that exact same thing on my my way in today. All this talk about recreating the in-cab experience, while the prototype is working to create the trackside experience for their engineers. Not sure how that would work for a steam loco, but there's absolutely no reason we can't recreate the prototype R/C controls. Still woldn't make a diesel person out of me, but I'd try it.  

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin, 
Actually the steam version is simpler than the diesel version. 
The Johnson bar and regulator can easily use the two backwards and forwards sticks of a 5 channel Spektrum rig. Both without springs of course. 
Ideally the brake release should be another stick also oriented in a backwards - forwards direction. However, I don't know of any off the shelf R/C that is configured like that. 

The next best alternative would be a rotary knob, or slide pot, for the brake control. Easy enough to then dial in the required amount of brake effect. R/C's with rotary knobs are bit thin on the ground but they are around. 

A 6 x channel rig could then give you 6 sound trigger functions as well.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Tony, 

Belt pack? 

http://www.raildriver.com/products/professional.php 









Maybe they'd sell you the box to put your own RC guts in? 

Of course I like the control stand better, but then the controller would cost more than the whole railroad.... and I'd have to build something like a 1:20.3 DL535 to justify it! 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By SlateCreek on 04/24/2009 11:12 PM
Tony, 

Belt pack? 

http://www.raildriver.com/products/professional.php 









Maybe they'd sell you the box to put your own RC guts in? 

Of course I like the control stand better, but then the controller would cost more than the whole railroad.... and I'd have to build something like a 1:20.3 DL535 to justify it! 

Matthew (OV)


Anybody who shows up on my railroad with one of those things will be summarily executed as a traitor! OK, maybe I won't be quite that harsh, but I'll politely ask them to put it where it belongs, and show them the trash can. Of course, I have a slightly different perspective - I used to have a nice cushy 5 day per week job, 8 hours/day, until the RR decided to let some wet behind the ears conductor play little junior engineer, and force me back to the extra list. 

Now it'll be years before I have the modelling time that I used to.


----------



## james brodie (Mar 28, 2008)

Dear Sirs, If I may add my two penneth worth to this subject. Those moddellers of you who have practical experience in handling a train will know anyone with a modicom of sense can start a train away and realisticly BUT the loss of realism comes in the braking. A glaring example is the stop at a signal or platform end or even coming onto a train. "They" just shut the power off on the controller and the engine stops. A fast running train ,again, turn the power off and the train most unrealisticly stops. No coasting No applying the brake to get the "feel" of where you are going to stop and No releasing the brake to come to a stop on a rising brake....that is to stop with the brakes off. This stops a jerk to passengers or on a loose coupled train with just the engine brake the guard in the van (caboose)at the rear dosn't get a jerk/jolt/bump/pour tea from his can over his vest!!!and so on.
We worked loose coupled trains to the end of steam and even into the diesel era maybe as late as 1976/7/8. I was on the footplate for twenty three years before I was passed for driving starting as a cleaner/passed cleaner/fireman/past fireman-that is passed the rules ,regulations,train handling ready for when a permanent vacancy into the next higher grade--driver--(engineer) came avaiable.
I had no pleasure in operating trains on my layout because of this unrealistic feeling UNTIL I came across the GaugeMaster Simulate controllers. I usually made my own controllers up from Army Surplus Stores ie Transformer,variable resistance,DPDT switches (for the reverser) an Ammeter and a Voltmeter and ofcourse a rectifier to change the AC current to DC.
With the gaugemaster (but it could be any simulate type controller) the slow power build up like on a full size engine you once you opened all the couplings out so there was no snatch at the van end
A guard could get hurt with a too rough a start or stop soss on loose coupled trains we opened the couplings out gently and buffered the wagons together gently starting and stopping. A steam engine when you shut steam off the restance from the engine gear(valve gear) tended to buffer the wagons up for you. An old driver of mine used to say "look after the guard son and the train will lookafter itself".
Now to stopping the train on the model-you drivers will or can experience this feeling comparing the model action to your full life feelings of stopping a train. I'm not talking so much about a fully fitted train as you had the train brakes to help you but there again you ran faster. Shut of power/regulator/throttle and the loco/train gives the immpression of coasting. The simulate controller has a separate brake application handle. THIS is where the realism or realistic feel comes in. Do not allow the brake handle to apply more that 30% of the brake, make that the absolute maximum. I fitted a restrictor bar on my controller and a bar on the brake handle/knob/wheel etc. many a time friends have actually bent the bar when trying to apply more brake. When going to stop the apply full brake(30%) and when you "feel" see the train or light engine is slowing down you can start releasing the brake so as to stop in a gentle manner. It takes practice. Even coming onto a train with just the engine you need to slow right down and even put steam/power on to take you upto the buffers or auto couplings if your train has buckeye couplings.
It put a brand new highlight into model train driving for me and brought back lots of happy memories.
Hope this helps you all to enjoy "playing " trains. I've had my three score and ten but hope to have a few more scores if the good Lord allows me to play with my loose coupled trains.
Jim Brodie.


----------

