Radio Control - Pro's and Con's ?

[Dick Lindsay]

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. 

[Stephen Rainsbury]

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.

[Stephen Rainsbury]

.. 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.

[Tom Haythornthwaite]

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.

[Graeme Dunbar]

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  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.

[Stephen Rainsbury]

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

[Stefan Krebs]

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

[Graeme Dunbar]

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.

[Stephen Rainsbury]

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?

[Tom Haythornthwaite]

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".

[Graeme Dunbar]

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/ 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!

[Stefan Krebs]

'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

[Hobby]

'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.

[Tom Haythornthwaite]

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).

[Stephen Rainsbury]

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 :)