As well as model railways, I fly RC electric gliders and have a RC boat as well. The other day I was musing over a modest garden railway (probably '0' gauge) and it occurred to me that radio control lends itself quite nicely to this. I'm not too sure about indoor use though - I can see some benefits like not having to keep the track clean and simplified wiring etc.
Some radio sets (2.4 GHz) are now down around
Hi Dave,
There are a lot of advantages to radio control, as you say, not having to worry about the track, no cleaning needed for electrical contact (you still need to clear the twigs and leaves if its out side) and much better running, and no need to wire the track up if you are building new.
There is radio control equipment specifically for railways, there has been for a few years. It's small and not particularly expensive. Look at the Deltang website, they are the main source
http://www.deltang.co.uk/index.htm
and Micron who are one of the best UK suppliers
http://www.micronradiocontrol.co.uk
The technology is reasonably mature now, it is based on electric aircraft systems but adapted for model railways and works well.
I have a thread here,
http://www.009society.com/forum/index.php?topic=1106.0
There are a few on radio control on the forum.
As it happens I have a radio control demo stand at the Warrington show this week-end. I don't know where you are, but if you are nearby, come along and have a look.
Frank
There is also a very active thread on NGRM that may be worth a look for you, David. You need to register to view, though, if you are not already a member.
Thanks both - I'll have a 'delve' and see what's currently available. I'm also interested in what accessories, scenic effects etc can be triggered /controlled via RC.
Dave
The Deltang system is quite versatile and can control not just locos, but also other things. The various receivers have motor control, logic and servo outputs so a range of things can be controlled either directly or though the addition of simple electronics.
Frank
As you all tout the pro-side of Radio Control, let me add the cons for balance:
1. Limited range (by battery-size)
2. Maintenance required if not in use (charging batteries)
3. Frequent replacement as batteries don't last forever (every 2 to 5 years).
4. Frequency interference.
5. Space requirements inside engines limit minimum engine size.
6. Higher skills demand on owner/ maintainer as less ready-to-run available.
Of course, you could pick up power from the track, in which case most of above doesn't apply; and that includes all the 'pros' in the previous postings! ;D
And of course, some of those pros should be caveated:
1. Twigs on the track will most certainly derail most 009 and smaller stock, but can derail G-gauge too.
2. Even G-scale struggles to maintain traction on leave covered wet track, so track cleaning is not something you can neglect if using R/C.
Waldschrat
Deleted.
I do tend to put the positive arguments for radio control, but also I recognise thare are drawbacks. However the following assertions are not things I would accept:
Limited range due to battery size.
All my current radio control locos will run for two hours or more continuous running. When I demonstrate them at exhibitions they are typically switched on at 10.00 in the morning and continue to run into the afternoon when used intermittently.
Maintenance required ie charging batteries if not used.
Certainly the batteries will require charging if not used for a long time, but current batteries (LiPo) retain their charge for months if not years so this is very occasional, and only if the locos are not used for a very considerable time, in which case it would probably be better to take the batteries out of the locos anyway.
Frequent replacement of batteries every 2 to 5 years.
I have been building and operating radio control locos for seven years now and currently have about a dozen. During that time I have not had to replace any due to the battery failing due to age, although I have replaced 3 or so due to operator error.
Frequency interference.
The current generation of radio control systems use 2.4 GHz radio which has a wide frequency range available. The systems are intelligent enough to select vacant channels so as not to interfere with other systems. They only operate in bursts every 20 ms or so and this reduces the chance of signals overlapping. Also the system uses spread spectrum technology which means that two signals on the same nominal frequency can pass through each other without interfering due to the redundancy in the system.
I am not aware of any reports of casual frequency interference from similar systems occurring. This includes the very considerable experience of the same systems in aircraft modelling, for which high reliability is of course extremely important. If our models stop working, not real harm is done, but if a model aircraft "stops flying" in mid air the results could be vey serious.
It is of course possible for the system to be swamped by a very powerful transmission either by intention or accident. But a mains powered DC or DCC system is vulnerable to loss of mains power for example, either at the location or a wider blackout.
Space requrements inside engines limit engine size.
So far I have installed radio control in 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 locos in 009, a 2-6-2T in OO, an 0-6-0 in 3mm (TT) , and an 0-4-0 in O-16.5, and others on the forum have installed systems in 0-4-0 HOf which might be thought even more challenging.
Higher skills demand as less R-T-R is available.
This is true, but this is why many of us model in 009 isn't it?
Incidentally, I don't know how well your house is maintained, but I do not generally suffer from leaves, twigs or wet track in my house.
Frank
Dear Gentlemen,
Accepting what you said as true all the counterarguments you make are personal one-off experiences, but not statements that can be accepted as universal arguments.
1. I have yet to see R/C engines in small scales, e.g. Z-gauge or T-gauge, and while Bandai produced ZZ-scale (1:300) battery trains there is no room for the radio equipment in those. So, pointless argument, as there is a limit in size as to how small you can built, and that's a.) by the physical size of the equipment, and b.) by the skill level and capability of the builder/ maintainer/ owner; not everybody is eagle-eyed or has access to an electron-microscope. It's futile to argue where that limit is, it is there.
2 The initial query, and some of the responses, included outdoor operation. However, even if we contemplate indoor operation only, track cleaning is not made obsolete by using R/C, you still will get dirt on the track, which will affect performance.
3. Yes, I have had a 16-year old car battery ONCE, it happens. But, as I'm DEPENDANT on battery powered disability aids, i.e. heavy user of batteries with a high dependency on batteries, I can confirm that lead acid batteries TYPICALLY last 2 years and SELDOM exceed 4 years in life, and for other battery types lives quoted in my previous post are TYPICAL, lives you quote are EXCEPTIONAL. And I have my work carved out maintaining all the batteries in all those aids, I certainly don't want any more batteries around in my life.
4. No, I don't model in H0e to have a particular challenge with regards to size (I would do micro-engineering for that), or to spend more time maintaining and repairing stuff than using it; I still expect the same reliability and low maintenance as for simple DC equipment. There is nothing wrong with rising to the challenge of extra maintenance and repairs, if that's your fancy, but please be honest about it and don't deny that you're operating at a skill level that not everybody has or can attain, and that you accept that you divert more of your time to repair and maintenance than is required for simple DC operation.
Thus there are a couple more cons to add to the list:
1. Due to the limited life of batteries there is an increased impact on the environment as the R/C operation produces more waste.
2. As Lithium is a material of major environmental concern, which cannot be recycled 100% from batteries, there is a substantial increase in environmental pollution where these are used. While this is less the case for nickel-based batteries, and those containing cadmium or lead, obviously there is an increased environmental impact compared to mains-power operation.
3. Lithium-based batteries are a serious fire hazard, and even small batteries are known to set houses on fire.
4. Batteries are chemical plants containing acid or alkaline. Thus there is the hazard of chemical spills, which can damage or destroy equipment.
Cheers
Waldschrat
I have been following thoughts on R/C made by Frank and others here and elsewhere for some time now, and also seen it in action, and - despite being anything but an early adopter (as anyone who knows me will testify!) - in the unlikely event that I should ever start a new project I would be seriously tempted to go down that route.
David.
Deleted.
Could we all please take a nice deep breath and keep this thread on the merits, or not, of R/C control of 009 locos to technical discussion and let us keep comments uncontentious. Whether someone has direct experience, or not, of a subject should not be a bar to them having a valid opinion, nor should practical experience be an automatic
Hi Folks,
I would just like to say thanks for a 'vigorous debate', but, please, let's not fall out over it !
With the benefit of the various links, references and comments, I am now much better informed than before...
Best regards to all,
Dave
Sorry, Dave, as I was partly responsible for what happened I have therefore deleted the posts that Leprechaun took offence at.
I have seen OO9 R/C in action at several shows now and whilst it does have some shortcomings it does seem to work very well which certainly outweigh them. I know one user who is a regular poster on NGRM actually adopted it in HOf to make it more reliable than the DC operation of the original equipment! There is a lot more out there for you to read and I wish you good luck in the future if you decide to take it forward, just make sure you have a good magnifying glass and soldering iron!
Best wishes, Blair
All is forgiven Hobby - let's just enjoy ourselves !
A few notes on radio control (taken mainly from my aircraft /boat experience) :-
27 MHz sets - still around (very cheaply and mostly used), could be adapted for a single loco layout although the receivers are quite large compared with modern stuff.
35 MHz sets - I still use mine in electric (powered) gliders. The Tx has a memory for 6 models (could be locos) each having different settings...receivers are generally smaller. As with 27 MHz, would require a boat type ESC to give forward /reverse /variable speed. Legally speaking, these are for aircraft use only, but with the aerial down will only give a limited range (end of a large garden being typical).
2.4 GHz equipment (I think this is what Deltang use) the Tx and Rx have to 'bind' (do a type of 'hand-shake') before use. My indoor Quadcopter has just such a system and the bind takes place automatically as soon as you put the battery into the 'copter (takes about 2-3 seconds). More upmarket 2.4 sets can have up to 999 models, these are selected from a 'menu' on the Tx screen. The settings for each model can also be set up individually, but usually require some form of programming.
LiPo Care - I charge mine using a professional (multi type) charger inside a fire-proof envelope. Some modellers of the larger aircraft systems use an old ammunition box ! The problems seem to stem from over-charging, damage (crashes) and old age - although properly cared for they can last for years. Choose connectors carefully as any 'shorting' can be dramatic (I speak from experience !).
Glossary :-
Tx - Transmitter (controller)
Rx - Receiver (one per loco)
ESC - Electronic Speed Controller (one per loco, can be built in with the Rx in some designs)
LiPo - Lithium /Polymer battery (can be 1 or more cells dependant on use)
I think the multi-loco application (3+) will be solved in the near future (if it hasn't already been
done...)
I wouldn't recommend 'in-loco' charging - it would be a shame to spoil a nice model if anything went wrong.
A fascinating thread. With considerable and freely given advice from Frank I decided that my latest micro layout would be radio controlled using the Deltang system described. In my case I simplified installation slightly by omitting on train charging and an on /off switch and adapted the installation so that the batteries can be accessed and removed for charging or replacement. Three sizes of Lipo batteries are available, obviously the larger ones will provide power for longer. My chosen transmitter can be paired with up to 12 loco receivers thus giving many of the advantages of DCC at a fraction of the cost. No power is needed to the rails and by using rod operated points, signal and uncoupling ramps wiring in my case is totally eliminated as is any track insulation. I'm a simple soul and RC meets my needs admirably.
I hadn't even considered this until today but am fascinated, and I think I prefer this approach to DCC. Can I ask a few technical questions please? (Please be as technical as you like, I was an electronic engineer, then moved into embedded software design before becoming a physics teacher)
- As I understand it the RX on an R/C system includes the ESC, so I don't need to provide an external one? Amazing if that is the case
- I have read about Arduinos being used for R/C, so where do they fit, in the TX or RX?
- How hard is it to make a transmitter with modules, or control one remotely from a PC?
- Are there any options for sound?
Thanks.
Quote from: Dick Lindsay on December 17, 2019, 21:03
.. giving many of the advantages of DCC at a fraction of the cost.
I had no idea about this and agree. Where do you think it loses out to DCC?
Stephen.
I think radio control only "loses out to DCC" in that there is currently no way to indicate to a computer or a control panel where trains are, let alone where specific trains are. This need not matter to or interest many users, but it's an unfortunate weakness for those of us who are interested in automated control and signalling.
When radio controlled locomotives can tell my JMRI software which block they are on and when my JMRI knows which blocks are occupied by any rolling stock I will convert. The former could be achieved by some sort of triangulation detection which could even tell you that your locomotive is over there on the the shelf, or, the way I would prefer, by some sort of track detection system like the real railways use, but that would negate a lot of the 'wireless' advantages of radio control.
Radio control is very clever and ideal for a lot of us.
Regarding train detection, DCC wins out where decoders are able to report back. When I looked into it I think I remember there were competing feedback systems, but I see the NMRA standards show Railcom as being the accepted standard.
Typically track circuiting in DCC and DC relies on detecting current is flowing between the rails through the locomotives, carriage lighting circuits or axle resistors. DCC wins out through its association with JMRI, though JMRI is not restricted to DCC layouts. I think DCC wins out in terms of off-the-shelf integrated systems.
For other means of sensing or identification, magnets, RFID tags and even barcodes have been tried (e.g. MERG https://www.merg.org.uk/index.php (https://www.merg.org.uk/index.php) has an RFID module kit.)
Any of the detection systems could conceivably be made wireless or radio controlled, just as point control could be wireless with a wireless receiver, decoder and actuator at each and every actuator, and even a back channel reporting the status. If it is not already part of commercial products such as LGB garden railways I'm sure it will be. It just needs time, effort and money. How to power the units is another matter! I guess for a garden railway solar panels as used in garden lights is a possibility.
Given that space is not such an issue, radio reporting of train detection, control of points, signalling and other static object is likely to be a lot simpler than that of controlling a locomotive in small scales. Home-brew systems based on BlueTooth or other low-power radio modules (e.g. Zigbee) used in home automation are a possibility.
In general pros and cons terms, for any control system, DC, DCC, RC or other, the question typified by "how much light under the boiler do you want to see" plays a big part. In other words what compromises need to be made to achieve the desired result - e.g. filling the cab with a motor and flywheel to improve running or having a gear train clearly visible between the frames.
Clearly, radio control removes all reliance on the track as a means of power and control at the expense of needing somewhere to put the receiver and battery, so probably not suitable for an 009 Lister rail truck running light engine. On the other hand big boxy locomotives, rail cars and so on are good candidates. If having an enclosed van permanently attached is acceptable, then even a small loco is possible. The wagon could contain battery, receiver and even the motor.
If it is the sort of layout where trains always run in fixed rakes then there might be space in all the enclosed wagons and carriages for batteries to hold charge for a whole weekend of intensive exhibition running.
On the other hand if it is possible to charge a locomotive battery through the rails then the battery is more like a "stay alive" capacitor and a tiny battery may be all that is needed.
Thanks for that input. I didn't know that DCC did loco position detection, so hadn't considered that as an option. I can understand how that would be useful on larger complicated layouts but as I only have a small amount of room and and not much stock I am happy to reply on visual contact for now.
I have looked inside a couple of my locos this morning and can see where to fit a receiver (just) but am struggling with where to put a battery, but I might just get away with a capacitor. This would be relatively easy to keep topped up if the track was kept at a constant 12V but if it stopped on a dead spot there could be an issue.
Overall I really like the idea, and for most of my stock I think it could work for me. I like the idea of not having shiny track (why would it have to be metal?) and it seems to be much lower cost, I am just concerned that I am not going to be able to fit it all in.
Thanks
Stephen
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but fundamentally both systems are the same in that information is transported on a carrier frequency/ current.
The big differences are:
1. Battery in engine required for radio control.
2. Radio communication is one-way, DCC is 2-way.
3. R/C is more prone to interference.
4. DCC is prone to dirty tracks.
Considering these basics, DCC will allow smaller engines as the battery is required for R/C. That battery also imposes a range/time limit; whether that's positive or negative is a matter of taste, but it is prototypical.
Bottom line, take your pick, whether you rather maintain and replace batteries (with the implicit environmental impact), or clean the tracks instead. :laugh:
Just my thoughts
Waldschrat
The differences in performance of Radio Control and DCC are blurred depending on the implementation.
Radio Control is one way - for traditional RC model control, but two way communication is possible with more sophisticated RC systems which include telemetry (e.g. FrSky). If "radio" also includes other wireless systems such as Bluetooth model railway control (e.g. BlueRail) it can be bidirectional too.
Similarly standard DCC is affected by loss of contact the rail, but the Lenz decoders with "Read Through Technology" are shown communicating with a sheet of paper between rail and wheels. If there is a "stay alive" capacitor or battery to keep the locomotive powered it continues to respond to the command station, stop, reverse etc.
Quote from: GraemeD on December 19, 2019, 21:36
Radio Control is one way - for traditional RC model control, but two way communication is possible with more sophisticated RC systems which include telemetry (e.g. FrSky). If "radio" also includes other wireless systems such as Bluetooth model railway control (e.g. BlueRail) it can be bidirectional too.
I would have no issue using Bluetooth but it really hits the battery on my phone, and I am guessing that its the extra energy used for transmitting. How could we minimise that for 009? Maybe feed back through the rails?
I think an important aspect is that radio control, unlike DC but like DCC and like the prototype, allows you to "drive the train, not the track".
Quote from: Stephen Rainsbury on December 20, 2019, 02:02
Quote from: GraemeD on December 19, 2019, 21:36
Radio Control is one way - for traditional RC model control, but two way communication is possible with more sophisticated RC systems which include telemetry (e.g. FrSky). If "radio" also includes other wireless systems such as Bluetooth model railway control (e.g. BlueRail) it can be bidirectional too.
I would have no issue using Bluetooth but it really hits the battery on my phone, and I am guessing that its the extra energy used for transmitting. How could we minimise that for 009? Maybe feed back through the rails?
Warning - I am in danger of wandering off into the realms of fantasy, at least for implementation in 009, though for larger scales it would not be impossible.
I gave Bluetooth as an example. If one was developing a system from scratch there are other low power options such as Zigbee. Alternatively, companies like Radiometrix sell a range of low power radio modules that use the licence-free ISM band radio frequencies. With them, the methods of data encoding can be completely up to the designer. Other possibilities would be to use the rails for telemetry only with radio for train control, as depending on the bandwidth and latency needed, considerable dropout in communication might be tolerable. Potential starting points for a suitable protocols might be found in the area of home automation over power wiring.
Closer to model railway applications and as an illustration of what can be done in a small volume, there is a DCC-like system for Faller road vehicles called DC-Car http://modelleisenbahn-claus.de/ (http://modelleisenbahn-claus.de/) It uses IR sensors and the system might fit in well with a model tram system.
If I was set on pursuing development it would be a lot easier to work in a larger scale than 009!
'Drive the track' ???
Oh, please, please show me, I've never seen the track driving around in all my 40+ years of model railroading with DC analogue. I always drive the engine, it's called walk-around cab control, and my signalman / dispatcher is in charge of right-of-way and routing. :laugh:
Lenz always used to show that stunt at model railway exhibitions, driving an engine over tissue paper. It's the same trick that high-frequency track cleaners like Relco work with: with a piece of paper or dirt between rail and wheel you get a condenser setup, insulating to DC (proper), but conductive to AC, especially higher frequency. That's old hat. :)
Batteries, whatever they tell you, there is some new technology like LiPo that has come on in the last decades, but by and large no real breakthrough (whatever the spin-doctors with a political agenda or a business interest like Tesla try to male you believe).
In 1996 the German railways retired their last battery-electric railcars (ETA150; 30 to 37t lead acid batteries on a 19t railcar) from service after over 100years of continuous development; range 450km (250km old batteries and trailer, 350km new batteries and trailer) and 100km/h top speed.
In 2018 the Bombardier Talent 3 was presented: 40km (!) range with Lithium-Ion batteries and 160km/h top speed, at reduced acceleration. They HOPE to get the range up to 100km some day. ;D ;D ;D
Only saving grace: you can recharge it in 10 minutes (if you have a network that can handle the current), i.e. an extended stop. The old ETA needed about 10hrs, i.e. an overnight break.
Thus, unless you have the space for big batteries, they are the limiting factor.
When I was at Faller's museum, on none of several layouts did the Faller car system work, and there were some 30 or so vehicles on the workbench awaiting repairs and charging; - smart advertisement for their system. ::)
MiWuLa has their car system running beautifully, but that's because they use highly complex, i.e. computerised, monitoring of each battery pack, that sends any vehicle for automatic recharging as the battery runs empty. They have some 20 or so 'filling stations', taking up more space than most of our layouts.
Given that the 'main consumer' is your electric motor, I suspect a 'low-consumption' receiver will not save your day, i.e. won't give you another hour or more, especially if your hauling heavy trains.
That's something, we haven't discussed: add a rake of 30 or so skips, or some white-metal rolling stock to your train, and not only does the speed drop markedly, but you also run out of juice fast.
Food for thought.
Merry Christmas, lots of railway presents and a happy new year :police:
Waldschrat
Quote from: Leprechaun on December 20, 2019, 16:51
'Drive the track' ???
Oh, please, please show me, I've never seen the track driving around in all my 40+ years of model railroading with DC analogue. I always drive the engine, it's called walk-around cab control, and my signalman / dispatcher is in charge of right-of-way and routing. :laugh:
Agreed! I really wish that DCC proponents would stop using this myth. When I turn the knob on my DC controller the train moves, just as when you do the same thing (or use a series of buttons) on your DCC controller it moves. Both are being done remotely, you are not in the cab!! So we are both driving the train/loco, just a different method.
I'm sorry for offending at least two people with the 'driving the track' analogy.
I hope people realize that the intent is to distinguish a) supplying a voltage to any and all locos on a section of track (such that they must do the same thing in the same direction) from b) providing a command to a distinct loco anywhere on the layout (such that it is possible to create a spectacular collision).
Radio control also does b).
As a returning newbie I like the idea of both DCC and RC, but don't have enough experiance of either to know which is going to work best for me.
I love the idea of a self contained unit with RC that would work on any track, any where, even plastic, but am very lazy so would forget to recharge and knowing my luck it would short out and catch fire.
The computer nerd in me really likes the idea of DDC, and adding my own bits using Arduinos etc. but I know this would detract from other aspects of modelling.
However the tight wad in me recognises spending a couple of hundred on one technology and then just like a cat at the backdoor changing my mind and going down the other route.
In practice I think it will probably come down to which I can fit into a simplex :)
Quote from: Tom Haythornthwaite on December 21, 2019, 11:42
I'm sorry for offending at least two people with the 'driving the track' analogy.
You're not offending anyone, Tom. It's just that the way we "control" our locos is the same, regardless of the method used.
We are not sat in the cab. (Most) Of our trains are driven by electricity either taken from the track (DC/DCC) or unscale sized batteries (RC), and, in 009, even if we use steam it doesn't tend to use coal or oil. It just strikes me that people who make comments like " driving the track" (and that has tended to be DCC people rather than RC users so far) miss the point that the whole model railway set-up, especially in smaller scales like ours, is a compromise. At the end of the day regardless of whether you push a little lever on your RC transmitter, twiddle the knob on a GM Walkabout or press some buttons on your DCC control panel you are still "controlling" what the loco/train does just like the driver of a real loco.
I just see comments like that as a form of "one-upmanship" which in my view has no place in our hobby. Up until now it's been a (very) few DCC people who have done it, please let's not have the RC people doing it as well.
Let's just agree that it's a different way to start and stop our trains and leave it at that! Please! ;) :)
I knew what you meant Tom! I'm sure plenty of others did too.
In pre-DCC days it was typified by the terms "block control" and "cab control" for DC.
So just call it what it is Radio Control, DCC, DC, etc. No need for any other designations that can confuse...
Because not all DC systems are created equal! At least not unless you have just one controller. When you have more than one controller there is the option of tying each one to specific electrical sections (Block section control) or have them follow the locomotive around through electrical sections (Progressive cab control) - drive the track or drive the train.
A number of people may have a version with two controllers and simple to-me to-you switching, and perhaps a third centre-off position for each electrical section.
An old but still very good book that covers pretty much everything on pre-DCC electronics for model railways is Model Railway Electronics by Roger Amos:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Book-Model-Railway-Electronics/dp/185260591X (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Book-Model-Railway-Electronics/dp/185260591X)
Block section control and permissive cab control are introduced in chapters 28 and 29.
Hey folks,
Can I ask where I went wrong? My last comment was jocular, and I thought I made that perfectly clear by the way it was written, including emoticons? >:(
The statement of 'driving the track' is so obviously wrong, it doesn't deserve further attention beyond pointing out that it is inappropriate and counterproductive; - which was the intention of my comment. ???
And no, I didn't take offence, it's in my nature to pierce the balloons of inflated claims of ALL battle slogans with the needle of sarcasm. :D ;D :laugh:
Some of the comments here are as confrontational as the eternal battle between 2- and 3- rail, and between AC and DC
I thought by now you have enough battle-lines with Brexit, Scottish independence and Irish customs boarders to vent your belligerence? Do you now need to spoil a hobby with even more trench warfare? :-\
Stephen is a wise man, and he deserves proper council and unbiased advise.
Stephen, no need to invest a fortune: go now and by a cheapo 'Christmas Toy Train Set' with infrared control, and test-drive it to destruction. They are already heavily discounted, and you can gain experience with R/C. Just remember: they are designed as toys and comparatively robust; once you scale it down you get a maintenance issue. That statement applies to AC, DC, DCC and R/C, but not necessarily in equal measures.
And the rest stop jumping up & down, I know the difference between infrared - and high frequency (radio) wireless too, for what Stephen wants to know it DOES NOT MATTER.
If you got a problem with that, you might want to contemplate that you're arguing merely about whether to use the rails (DCC) or the air (R/C) for signal transmission, and whether to supply power through the rails (DCC and R/C) or through a battery (again DCC and R/C).
Time to bury all war hatchets and wish each other Merry Christmas, live up to the spirit! :laugh:
Merry Christmas to you all, and a happy new year
Waldschrat
Can all please COOL IT FOR CHRISTMAS please! >:(
OK, Enough is enough, this topic is now locked
Garry
Content Moderator