Beyond DCC

[robert3985]

I can't understand why some people just ignore the obvious solutions, which have been available to them since the beginning of this hobby.  Why oh why can't they just use the voltage supplied through the metal track to charge the batteries while they are actually operating them?  Duh!  The conductors (metal rails) are already there.  They have been there since the first electric model trains started running on track-power. 

As far as my doubts go, the line-of-sight IR control just is not reliable enough for me to even consider it. Even with all those extra repeaters which have to be installed.    I would be much more likely to accept a radio control.  But again, there is a really nice pair of electric conductors directly under every locomotive - why not use what is already there.

Actual experience with Rail Lynx in a crowded operating session has zero reliability problems.  The low ceiling bounces the IR signals enough so that the only "potential" problems were in tunnels, which the repeaters take care of.

The "line of sight" acquisition is not like through a 14 power rifle scope, but like through an 18mm lens on your DX sensor camera.

At shows, my train buddy Gregg runs nothing but Rail Lynx equipped engines along with my DCC engines.  Even with high ceilings, he doesn't have a problem operating and talking with onlookers. 

So, your unreliablity problems you imagine with Rail Lynx in reality are not there.

However, I agree that I'd much prefer Rail Lynx with radio instead of IR because of the in-engine receiver concealment problems.  However, Gregg, in his inventiveness, does a good job of it.  Once again, reliability (proven by actual hours and hours of operation) is something we don't even think about any more with Rail Lynx.

Since the whole idea was to get rid of power in the tracks, the idea of charging the battery powered engine is okay when running on somebody else's DC or DCC powered trackage, but...if you're going to power the track, why not just run the engine off it?

With batteries which would completely charge in a few seconds, the logical spots for doing so would be at fueling facilities (coaling towers, etc) or water stops...or stations.  If the battery would charge really quick, then a very short section of charging track anywhere on the layout would suffice.  Those of us interested in prototype operations would find it interesting to see fuel indications on our hand held controllers, also with water levels and maybe other operation oriented items that had to be tended to for the trains to go...kind of like John Allen's totally analog scheme of a timer simulating water (or fuel) usage, and a boxcar with a big ball bearing in it on a curved track that would hit the contacts at either end of the track and stay there when handled roughly, turning on a red light under a truck to indicate a hot box...which had to be taken care of.  These items could be done digitally and would add interest if the operator liked that kind of involvement, and turned off if he didn't.

Interestingly, at the shows with my Digitrax Radio DCC setup and "radio tower" centrally located above the skyboard, we still have radio interference sometimes from various sources, sometimes from another club who is running their radio DCC setup on the same frequency as mine.  It's easy to change the master frequency in Digitrax, so now, it only takes us about 30 seconds to go to another frequency.  Gregg, on the other hand, running Rail Lynx...NEVER has anybody taking control of his engines, whereas we do, running radio frequencies between antenna and master controller.

One of our brother N-scale clubs sometimes runs a Lenz DCC system and uses smartphones with an app to run their trains.  They've never had frequency hijacking occur and it's a pretty slick setup.  Maybe this is the future, with receivers and batteries in the engines, running off a smartphone app. with smartphones being the controllers.

Lotsa possibilities out there, and a good way for me to while away the time while recovering from the flu... 

[VonRyan]

Speaking of track, the 2mm Finescale society has done a nice job with their Easitac system.
If I was doing all UK modeling, I'd be doing 2mm Finescale.

[John]

Make it 4 ... I'm sorry to say .. but the factory QC on the switches, especially the curved ones sucked .. and yes .. most of my 70+ switches have the plating coming off the frog and closure rails

[robert3985]

Make it 4 ... I'm sorry to say .. but the factory QC on the switches, especially the curved ones sucked .. and yes .. most of my 70+ switches have the plating coming off the frog and closure rails

A couple of the guys who are "turnout conscious" here in Utah looked at Atlas 55 turnouts when they first came out.  They looked short to us, like when you lay an Atlas 55 #7 alongside a ME #6, they're just about the same length, whereas the #7 should be significantly longer.  Laying the one Atlas turnout that I ever bought on top of an N-scale (from the Engineering and Maintenance of Way Cyclopedia) the portion of the Atlas #7 that is too short is the distance from the point of the frog to the toes of the closure point rails.  This means that the effective radius of the diverging route is too small.  An Atlas 55 #10 is drastically too short and my fellow "turnout conscious" model railroad friend devised a way to get it to the correct proportion.

Atlas 55 #5's have always had a bad reputation for being unreliable.

Interesting about everybody who's coming forward with problems with the plating abrading off the Atlas 55 frogs and closure points.  Maybe a poll would be a good idea just to get a better idea of the extent of the problem.

Which means for me and my plastic track idea, something other than plating it would be better.  What that is, I don't know...especially since I was attempting to get away from the rolling wire process which seems to be so expensive that no one will do it to provide N-scale with dedicated rails which are proportioned correctly for common weights of prototype rail.

Maybe if I win one of the lotteries in the near future, I'll fix the lack-o-rail-sizes in N-scale.  That'd be a worthy project.

Just for giggles, here's a scan of prototype turnout diagrams to show actual turnout proportions:


Here's a photo comparing an ME #6 with an Atlas 55 #7.  They're almost the same length:


My apologies about the beat-up condition of the ME turnout.  It's been salvaged off of a friends old module.

I'm happy that I didn't go with Atlas 55 turnouts and just kept plugging away, making my own.

Okay...sorry about the little hijack here.  Maybe metal rails on non-powered track is the way to go still.  That doesn't inspire much confidence in me that correct rail sizes would soon be forthcoming unless (like I've said before) there's something that's plastic and injectable that has a truly metallic look to it.  Got me as to what it might be...

[John]

Bob .. I would suspect the atlas turnouts are sized to fit with the individual pieces .. rather than proto

[robert3985]

Bob .. I would suspect the atlas turnouts are sized to fit with the individual pieces .. rather than proto

Y'know, that's probably true.  I haven't used sectional track since my HO days in the 1960's so that thought didn't even occur to me.

ME on the other hand, doesn't make sectional track, so theirs is sized to prototype spec's.  Makes sense.

[DKS]

That doesn't inspire much confidence in me that correct rail sizes would soon be forthcoming unless (like I've said before) there's something that's plastic and injectable that has a truly metallic look to it.  Got me as to what it might be...

Consider, too, that it would be quite the challenge to make rail with the proper profile using plastic injection. How are you going to get the web smaller than the head with a two-part mold? Or even a multi-part mold, for that matter, without spending a fortune on tooling? Methinks this would be the deal-killer for injection-molded track, unless you don't care about the rail shape, in which case why would you be worried about correct rail height let alone a metallic effect on the rail heads...

[robert3985]

Consider, too, that it would be quite the challenge to make rail with the proper profile using plastic injection. How are you going to get the web smaller than the head with a two-part mold? Or even a multi-part mold, for that matter, without spending a fortune on tooling? Methinks this would be the deal-killer for injection-molded track, unless you don't care about the rail shape, in which case why would you be worried about correct rail height let alone a metallic effect on the rail heads...

If you were going to just inject one rail at a time, the mold wouldn't be that complex (minimally a three part mold).  However, the idea would be to make several molds with multiple cavities so you could get a bunch of rails per shot.  I've only worked with primitive injection molders when I was the Sr. Model Maker at Thiokol many years ago, so I'm not up on how the production ones work although I assume the bells and whistles are for through-put, but the basic injection process is the same.

After scratching my head for a while tonight about the non-electrical track, it appears the best solution is to just do what's already being done in HO scale, but do it in N-scale.  There's a literal plethora of track available in HO scale along with code 40, code 55 code 70, 83 and 100, standard gauge, narrow gauge etc., etc.  It'd take some deep pockets to start up a new company devoted to manufacturing another track product in N-scale, and it'd probably take a good long while for a profit to be turned.

It'd be really great (in my opinion) to see several different styles of excellent flex track and turnouts being made...mainline track, branchline/siding track and Nn3 track...and some dual gauge track.  Hahaha...THAT's a pipe-dream that I probably won't live to see.

Okay.  This conjecture for me is fun, but that's all it is.  Time to get downstairs to the layout room and finish installing that last #8 for my Emory Siding trailing point siding...

[peteski]

While I have not proof or experience in the area, I think that for a model train manufacturer, it would actually be cheaper to have someone manufacture metal rail for them rather than making very expensive steel multi-piece injection molds for the track.  Plus molds need maintenance.  Call me a luddite, but I just don't see plastic injection molded rails as a viable option in the future.  But I guess this thread was discussing how "old-school" DCC was. 

[robert3985]

While I have not proof or experience in the area, I think that for a model train manufacturer, it would actually be cheaper to have someone manufacture metal rail for them rather than making very expensive steel multi-piece injection molds for the track.  Plus molds need maintenance.  Call me a luddite, but I just don't see plastic injection molded rails as a viable option in the future.  But I guess this thread was discussing how "old-school" DCC was. 

Peteski, Although I believe that most injection molds today are made from aluminum (much lower cost, easy to CNC mill another one when they wear out, better heat dissipation than steel), after thinking about it and listening to you and DKS, I agree that metal rails are, and will be the "ticket".  Better durability, and better appearanc.  And, the technology for producing good-looking flex and sectional track, turnouts & diamonds is already here and has been for decades. 

I think it was a good move by Atlas to invest in their code 55 track.  I also think it'd be a good move for Peco to introduce a "North American Prototype" line of track too and since they've got their own rail-rolling capability, do it with code 46 rail.   

Frankly, I don't see what's so expensive about rolling wire.  The machining's not that complex...at all.  I could probably do the machining on the rollers using my 6" lathe and build an adjustable framework and drive mechanism out of steel bar stock and aluminum that would be sufficient to roll my own.  Hmmmmmmm........rolling smaller wire would be even easier...like code 30 rail that had an actual "rail" cross section.  I think there'd be a lot of Nn3 and Z scale modelers who might go for that and be willing to pay for it too.  Once more...Hmmmmmmmmm..... 

As "old school" as DCC is today, I'm not sure what extra features (other than reducing the size of the connectors and physical circuitry) would be introduced to make it "better".  Maybe someone here could 'splain that, and point out how newer technology would make what we're stuck with "better".

[DKS]

Frankly, I don't see what's so expensive about rolling wire.  The machining's not that complex...at all.  I could probably do the machining on the rollers using my 6" lathe and build an adjustable framework and drive mechanism out of steel bar stock and aluminum that would be sufficient to roll my own.  Hmmmmmmm........rolling smaller wire would be even easier...like code 30 rail that had an actual "rail" cross section.  I think there'd be a lot of Nn3 and Z scale modelers who might go for that and be willing to pay for it too.  Once more...Hmmmmmmmmm..... 

I approached several wire companies about doing rail, and there was a unanimous consensus to not roll it; the process would not be clean enough. The recommendation was to draw the wire, and for ~30-40 thou rail it would require multiple dies at a few thousand a pop. Most shops were not interested in drawing custom rail, and those that were had outrageous minimum orders. Maybe for an Atlas-sized company it would be practical, but for a smaller shop there was simply no way to make it work financially.

[Leggy]

This plastic rails thing got me thinking, just how flexible is plastic vs metal?

[robert3985]

This plastic rails thing got me thinking, just how flexible is plastic vs metal?

"Plastic" encompasses a whole world of different materials.  However, Styrene is more flexibler   than metal.  I'm not sure what the unit of "flexibleness" is.

[robert3985]

I approached several wire companies about doing rail, and there was a unanimous consensus to not roll it; the process would not be clean enough. The recommendation was to draw the wire, and for ~30-40 thou rail it would require multiple dies at a few thousand a pop. Most shops were not interested in drawing custom rail, and those that were had outrageous minimum orders. Maybe for an Atlas-sized company it would be practical, but for a smaller shop there was simply no way to make it work financially.

Ahhhh..."drawing" it is wholly different process.  I can see why that'd be really expensive.   I wonder if extruding it would work?  That would eliminate the multiple die costs, but I know next to nothing about it.

[DKS]

"Plastic" encompasses a whole world of different materials.  However, Styrene is more flexibler   than metal.  I'm not sure what the unit of "flexibleness" is.

I would be very worried about trying to flex styrene rails. If they were cast as part of the ties, I could see limitations on the minimum radius, as well as all sorts of gauge issues, not to mention how smooth arcs would be. If the rails were cast separately and slid in the ties as metal rail track does now, I would be even more worried about the integrity of the styrene rail. Consider the strength (or lack thereof) of styrene I-beams and other structural shapes of comparable sizes. The roadbed would need to be dead on in terms of geometry in order to keep the track "true."

I wonder if extruding it would work?  That would eliminate the multiple die costs, but I know next to nothing about it.

I believe extruding may run the risk of changing the mechanical properties of the metal. I'd also bet the minimums would be even higher.