Having worked in electronics for 43 years before retiring, I had long believed that eventually we would see thin film batteries with enough power to run our locomotives self contained. We may not be that far from reality. Thin-film lithium-ion batteries are will go into production next year. They are less vulnerable to overheating than standard lithium-ion batteries. But it will be a while before they are used in consumer products. Instead, they may be used in surgical devices and radio-frequency identification tags. The long-life batteries can be the size of a postage stamp. They can also be recharged from a distance.
Battery technology has really lagged behind the developments in consumer electronics. There are some wonderful devices on the market like these all in one phone/MP3 player/web browser/computer that are great in concept but fail due to the lack of operational life as a result of batteries. My guess is that millions of $ are being invested in research to develop battery technology to make some of this stuff more useable.
Of course many Garden RR’s use on-board batteries now. If battery technology could be implemented to adequately run a smaller scale locomotive we would then have to come up with an alternative communications system. A DCC track not only provides power but control. Some sort of wireless control would accomplish that (BlueTooth?) but then the power consumption would go up again for the wireless transmission. My guess is that the power demands for a satisfying operating session might be a challenge for some years to come.
The reason battery technology has lagged behind is all due to the big oil companies. Imagine what would happen to the auto industry if someone were to come on the market with a solar panel that could run an electric car all day all the while charging it’s battery for night use, AND that battery be able to actually WORK? Get the picture? Big oil would suddenly be a thing of the past. To answer your question, yes I think that would do wonders for our hobby and everything else.
That is really interesting, but I don’t understand what they would revolutionize. Large scale models have been using on-board battery systems for a long time. For smaller sizes this would eliminate the issue of electricity contact through the rails, or would it? The command signals still have to get to the locomotive somehow. One of the wonders of DCC was that the power and control signal are delivered as the same thing. Separating the power source (again) still leaves the issue of getting the control signal to the locomotive. This could be done through the rails with a separate signal as the prior command control systems (RailLynx, RailCommand, CTC-16, On-board, etc.) did. But that brings back the dirty track issue. Or the control could be through a direct radio link like the current large models do. Either way I am not seeing anything revolutionary. Am I missing something?
Finally, these are “long life” relative to what. Even the most efficient model locomotive is a power hungry monster compared to power siping electronic circuits like RFID. Could the small battery power the train around the layout for any length of time or is it just once around a loop before it had to go back into the roundhouse to recharge.
there are cars that go over 100 miles per hour and have a range of 40 miles that run on batteries , it’s only a matter of time until battery operated model trains become possible in the smaller scales
I do see future battery technology making inroads into smaller scales. However, I do not believe it will be complete. Like the prototype, model railroads use track circuits to detect block occupancy. Since you have to wire and electrically isolate those track sections anyway, why not use the same circuit to provide power like we do already? Also, new sound equiped locomotives draw a lot more power and will drain batteries that much faster, delaying the availablility of a cost effective and small battery capable of powering a sound equiped locomotive.
PS. The reason battery technology has lagged behind is because it is inherently difficult. If you think it is some big conspiracy, then apparently your aluminum foil hat is on a little too tight.
Just how can “big oil” stop the development of battery technology? Do any of the battery makers have to get permission from “big oil” when deciding how to spend their R and D dollars? Would “big oil” give a rats if better batteries are developed to run cell phones and PDA’s? Battery technology and its development have nothing to do with “big-oil”, other than “big oils” own efforts to develop alternative fuel sources, upon which I suspect they are spending millions.
I think that the reason that battery technology has lagged is actually due to chemistry! While huge strides have been made in minaturization of electronic circuits, the same has not been the case for the materials needed to create the chemical reactions that release electrons. Look at the size of the battery packs needed to power a modern electric car. Drive 40 miles and wait for 2 hours to re-charge. This technology has a long way to go before most of us would accept its short-comings.
Ah, yes. It’s so clear to me now. It’s the big, evil oil companies. They are no good. Funny how the world as we know it would come to a screeching halt (at this point in time) without the products they make!
I wonder if there are any facts to back any of this up, or if it’s just blind conjecture.
Yeah, just like all those magic carburetors and mileage enhancer patents that the oil companies bought-out all these years.
Another wives tale…
Yeah! And don’t forget how the big bad oil companies tore up our yards and cut the tags off our mattresses!
Give me a break[D)]…
They can also be recharged from a distance.
This I am interested in - this helps achieves the ideal (to me) power/control system of future models - locomotives running on long-life/powerful rechargable batteries, which continually recharge from sections of track which are powered (or maybe, if non-contact rechargable, then from plates or equvialent hidden under the track, spaced about the layout) - the batteries hold the charge for a long time so you can start right up running trains, and the recharge sections ensure you don’t have to take the batteries out and fool with a recharger like current camera batteries for example, or put the whole locomotive in like a cell-phone - think hybrid loco (with no liquid refueling!). A Wireless control system is, of course, a given…
Then I guess we’ll have to introduce real block signal systems like the railroad, since our trains could then crash into each other with no problems (well, I guess they can do that currently with DCC anyway)…
Has anybody seen the radio control systeams they are useing in the real small electric RC airplanes lateley??With an real small battery they would fit in an HO steam tender you only need one chanel with an variable speed control with forward and reverse,the receivers now are realy small.
Ok now picture this: an say a 2-8-2 mike,with radio control in the tender an controler like the Astro wireless system,and a small charge jack in the tender.You would not have to mess with ELE pickups in the engine no more.thus no more wireing under the layout,not have to hassle bad spots in the track and on and onWOW![:D]
JIM
Please leave off the tinfoil hat nonsense - I suppose you also believe if not for the oil companies we’d be able to drive vehicles the size of an Expedition and get 150 mpg while doing so. Please check physics and the laws of thermodynamics - a gallon of gasoline does not contain enough energy to do this even with 100% efficiency.
Sure large scale already uses battery on board - but with better energy density batteries we could do it in HO and maybe even smaller scales. There’s no issue with the command signal, for one thing the ideal solution would be just as DCC is today, with the battery recharging when it gets power - or rig up coal and water stations with powered rails so you have to stop and ‘refuel’ the locos periodically. The command signal would be the full aplitude of the track voltage just liek DCC, so less suceptible to dirty track - the problem with CTC-16 and its varients was that the control signal was a tine (<4v peak to peak) signal on top of a solid DC carrier - not much could get lost before the signal became unreadable. That’s why DCC melds the signal and the carrier voltage, to eliminate many of those issues. The loco doesn’t need a steady stream of pulses, there actually is a timeout CV that as long as a signal is recieved within that timeout period the loco can continue to move at the same speed and in the same direction, so long as the battery has power to keep the decoder processor alive. That’s how the Lenz USP works. It doesn’t actually receive signals when the wheels are not connected to the track, but the capcitor keeps the decoder alive and following the last received instructions.
If I was going outdoor G or larger scale, I’d definitely run off battery, btu I would ALSO power the track - to keep the battery charged as much as possible to extend run times. Reverse loops? no bother, just insulate them, the batter can provide power then. The fact that we might be able to provide this ability in smaller scales is very exciting.
The same way they squeezed out a small businessman named Tucker in the 1940s. Tucker invented the 1948 Tucker Torpedo. It got over 90 miles per gallon in 1948. Read about it. The big oil companies shut him down. Do you not think they would try to stop or at least slow down battery technology? Trust me buddy, the technology exisits NOW. If companies can make a watch run 10 YEARS on a battery 1/8" in diameter, the battery technology AIN’T lacking. It’s all a bunch of politics.
Randy,
As I have already gone down the G scale path (well Fn3 to be exact), I can tell you that the current Li-Ion packs provide more run time than I am willing to sit outside and watch. Two of my Spectrum Connies with 6.8 amp hours of Li-Ion packs installed in the tenders will run for more than 6 hours while pulling cars… [:O] And even my heavy brass locomotives with 24 volt Pitman motors in them will run for 4 hours plus under the same conditions. I also use the CVP Airwire system exclusively in my outdoor stuff and have really enjoyed it. For those not in the know, it’s basically a 900 Mhz. wireless trasmitter/receiver setup with a built in DCC booster on the receiver board for running additional sound and lighting decoders. I assume it’s only a matter of time before Al reduces the size of the receiver boards to fit in HO scale and maybe even smaller models. Only time will tell!
Jeff
All I did was pass on some new technology info, and as sure as there are 7 days in a week, we have the doomsayers playing the big bad oil companies tune once again. Look, if you think they are making so much money, and they are making very good profits lately, GO BUY THEIR STOCKS and QUIT COMPLAINING!!! I DID !! 2 years ago, when I saw what was coming at us…did you see it? Or do you just sit back and complain? RANDY: Couldn’t agree with you more. No one is holding back battery technology, especially thin films technology. I KNOW, I worked in that field for over 10 years!!! I speak from knowledge not from guesswork and rumor. It costs millions to develop new technolgies and until recently, there has not been that kind of money, nor the need, for these batteries. The flood of miniaturization electronics has been one of the prime drivers. BTW, these new thin film batteries can be charged from a distance…no need for direct contact. Ans wireless is the way to go.
Tucker wasn’t squeezed out by the big oil companies, he was squeezed out by the big 3 automakers, assuming you believe the hollywood story of it. The bottom line is, the oil companies CAN’T control technology. If someone can invent something that will save people money and they can make money off of it, the oil companies can do nothing to stop it. To believe otherwise says something about you. Anyway, battery technology is advancing, just slower than a lot of people hoped. Remember about ten years ago that the hydrogen fuel cell was going to be powering vehicles that you bought today? They believed they could do it and haven’t been able to make it viable - yet. Meanwhile, Toyota took a different approach - the hybrid - and are now developing their third generation system. The second generation improved leaps and bounds over the first, and the first was quite impressive. Granted, Toyota’s system is far more than just batteries, but its very likely they could come up with things that would improve other areas of battery technology as well.
Falling back on two axioms of the aircraft maintenance business:
-
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
-
KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!)
We are modeling locomotives with conductive wheels rolling on conductive rails. Unless the object is to do away with that metal-to-metal connection, there is no need to power a model locomotive with an on-board battery. This is especially true if any kind of train detection system is to be included.
However, I can see two areas where improved battery technology could help model railroading:
-
Longer life for hand-held wireless controllers, which sometimes die if used for extended periods.
-
Power for interior car lights, cars run on DC (not DCC) systems.
At that point it becomes a cost-benefit computation. How much will we have to pay for how much of an improvement over present-day performance. I, for one, will try to keep an open - if skeptical - mind on the subject.
Chuck
Ah see, battery technology has caught up. I was basing my thoughts on the old way of doing it, using NiCad packs like used in the eletroc RC cars, complete with about 15-20 minute run times. I like to run my trains more than 15-20 minutes. But 6 hours? Yeah, that’s plenty.
I’ve always thought that miniature fuel cells will render batteries obsolete. I recently read an interesting article regarding the development of a butane fuel cell to replace laptop batteries.