I heard the other day that it is possible to program your computer to control trains. I am sure it would have to be DCC. Have any of you ever heard of this? I also heard of a tiny TV camra that fits INSIDE the loco, to get the engineers view. Ever heard of this either?
Mike, once you have a DCC system with a PC interface then computer control is not exactly a snap, but fairly straight forward. There are several programs available to control a layout offering automatic schedules linked into signalling, detection etc. It can get quite complex.
http://www.cti-electronics.com/
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/
http://www.trainpriority.com/
Here are a few links, there are more and I am sure some users will chip in with other suggestions.
You can also get a camera to mount in a loco or piece of rolling stock. Micromark is offering one in their current flyer.
Tony has a discussion of this http://www.tonystrains.com/technews/traincam.htm
DCC is computer control. Every locomotive on your DCC layout would have a small computer board in it with an address programmed by you. When you press an address button on your controller, it activates the locomotive with the matching address. you then control that locomotive with the controller. With today’s DCC systems, you can control form 1 to 15 or more trains at once. This is of course, with the better systems. The system I’m getting only allows control of a few trains. The better systems give you control of speed, direction, sounds and much more. I’m sure one or more of the other hobbyist’s will give you much better advive than I can. I’m a newcomer to DCC and haven’t had much experience with it.
As for the miniature TV camera, I’ve heard of it. I don’t know how small they are now, but when I heard about the HO sized ones about 5 or 6 years ago, they had to be mounted in a dummy locomotive or in a freight car because there wouldn’t be space in a powered locomotive. They may be smaller now.
TV cameras in HO trains have been around for about 20 years but miniaturization has made them much more practical. The original ones transmitted the signals to the receiver over the track. The picture quality was naturually poor. Current systems use wireless technology. I haven’t seen them but my guess is this greatly improves picture quality.
As for computer controlled layouts, sure it’s possible but why would anyone want to go to the trouble and expense. Train movements could be controlled by computer but unless the program were very complex, it would perform the same scenario over and over again. A more complex program could add variety and allow user interface but running trains is the fun part of this hobby. Why should I do all the hard work of building the layout and then let the computer have all the fun. If my computer wants to run trains, it can build its own layout.
Like the man says “Sure it’s possible to astro-physics to a 5 year old chimp, why would you want to.”
By like token, why would I want to teach my computer how to run a train, or let it run one on it’s own. Next thing we know, it’ll take over the KCS and run it into the Union Pacific!
No thanks. I agree completely Jecorbett, if my computer wants to run trains, let it build it’s own layout. That I’d like to see!
Each to their own of course, but I watched a video on the web a month or two back, I can’t remember or find the link, but it was for a layout in the UK that had a very effective use of computer control. (Anyone remenber the link as it was from here that I got it) It was a fully integrated Digitrax solution with transponding, and a full singaling system. All the information was displayed on a large panel CTC type display. Trains could be run to schedules fully automatically, but there was provision for an operator to run a train within the framework of the computer control, obeying signals and keeping to a time table. It was an abselutely fantastic demonstration of what is possible using off the shelf technology and software. Far from just sitting and watching the computer run things, it allowed for a very realistic interactive model RR session.
Sounds like a very complex and very expensive system.
As others have already pointed out, yes, it’s quite possible with today’s technology to program a computer to run your layout. And as some have also pointed out, why bother?
I would tend to think that most of the folks who would actually do that are more computer hobbyists than model railroading hobbysts. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course, it just illustrates where their main interest lies.
Personally, I can see using a computer to enhance certain aspects of a layout, just like any other tool, without it ever actually having direct control over a train.
For example, DCC as they say lets you run your trains instead of running your track, and there are several computer programs that make programming decoders much easier.
C/MRI signalling is another example. You still control the trains, with DC or DCC or whatever, but the computer runs a very prototypical and sophisticated signal system.
As a third example, I use JMRI software in conjunction with my Digitrax system for a fully functional, human-controlled dispatcher’s panel, as well as to automate certain layout functions such as sound and eventually other effects.
In all three of the above examples, the computer can be considered an enhancement, but it doesn’t directly control the trains themselves.
Nope, it sure wouldn’t. Computer controlled DC block systems such as C/MRI’s CBC have been around for a long time.
Steve
why have computer controlled trains as a option ?
well let’s imagine you build yourself a nice basement sized (or smaller) layout capable of being operated by more than one person . and let’s imagine that there are times when you can’t get other people to come over and operate your layout . sure you could run one or two trains , maybe run an operating session one train at a time rather than simultaniously . wouldn’t it be great if at times like that you could have the computer run two or three trains while you run another one or two yourself ? maybe have the computer control the through freight and passenger specials while you run the local doing the switching along the line . or maybe you’re someone who really enjoys being the yardmaster , making up trains that you hand off to the computer , which runs it around the layout and brings it back to you to break down in the yard
yes , it’s going to be very expensive , and computers will probably be your second or even first hobby . but it’s just a different way of having fun
I really would like to have a camera mounted in an engine I think that would be very interesting to get that view. However I don’t want a computer to run my trains - I want to run them.
I have run trains completely by computer on my friens layout. He hooked his computer to his DCC powered system. I ran 4 trains soly by computer. It was awsome. He also acted as the dispatcher vrom anotther room. Could not see the loyout but could see trins running via occupancy detectorsw. He controlled all mainline switches and signals. A lot of fun.
There seems to be some semantic differences here - running trains with (via) computers vs. the computers or other automated devices running the trains themselves. The latter has been around a while with automated detection and block control. There was a system sold a few years back (1996) that was a large black box about the size of a VCR that was configured through its block detection to move trains on a large club-type layout. It mainly just allowed the trains to follow at prescribed distances and/or times - switching was definitely not an option. I can’t recall the name of the product, but I do remember it was complex and expensive. I’m sure there are earlier examples of automated train control.
Running trains with computers (PC’s) as intermidiaries is newer, as computers cheap yet powerful enough to be relegated to such chores are a recent phenomena. FWIW, I was using WinLok and Digitrax’s Empire Builder and MS100 to “drive” trains via a Compaq DeskPro in 1998.
Yes, why not? Did you guys ever give it some thought, or simply ignore it without considering the great possibilities an automated system offers?
Everybody seems to cry the blues that not enough young kids are entering the hobby. This could by one way of attracting more youngsters!
It is also a very satisfying part of the hobby and as such no different from building great scenery for example. It can be quite exhilarating to see that a shuttle train stops in a station, waits for some time, switches headlights and then takes off in the opposite direction, just as you programmed it.
With the right system you can do automated point to point operations and take control of any train the computer operates at any time, by simply hitting a dedicated key on the cab. You can also return that train back to computer control by hitting the same key again.
You can’t get much closer to realism than having a computer run all your trains while you run your own train. The computer sets all routes for me (switches and signals) where my train has to go to so that I can concentrate on running my train according to the signals. As erreimer said there are plenty of times where your crew can’t be in your basement and all you can do then is running one or two trains. That may be OK for some but to me it sounds pretty boring after using a computer with my DCC system for over 15 years to take the place of a crew…
Regards,
Art
ZIMO Agency of North America
www.mrsonline.net
I think having a computer control SOME trains is a great way to enjoy a layout when a full operating crew cannot be assembled. There are two scenerios I would like to make possible on my future layout:
-
Solo/Duo (my wife and I) operation with full timetable. This means having a computer run scheduled trains (passenger, through freights) while my wife and I run yards and local freight switching manually. Should add a lot of interest to operating the layout.
-
Internet supplimented operating sessions. Run a full operating session with a full crew with SOME of the operators controlling trains through Internet connections/throttles/wireless cameras in loco cabs. The others would be physically present. Should help with assembling a crew and/or allowing operators that have moved from the area to continue running the railroad.
Of course the “everybody physically on-site” operating session would remain as the preferred scenario. And the “run one or two trains only between sessions with no computer control” scenario is still possible (and sometimes desired for relaxation). But it is nice to have more options for the times when neither of the non-computer controlled scenarios satisfies. Computers controlling trains gives those options.
I found the link with the great example
http://www.thetrainshow.com/screening_room2.htm
Look at the Mckinley Railway links on this page. This is a very nice example of a PC interface to a layout.
Just wanted to dig this up. I have really been thinking about this, as I have a free comp, and think it would make a good project.
Thoughts?
http://www.cti-electronics.com/hardware.htm
Found this, looks really interesting.
My thought is that your model railroading is going to become very boring if you set up a computer to run your trains for you.
Simple, simple, simple minded people. Did you never think that a railroad may run more than one train at one time? Never tried it, but I assume using 5 controllers at once is rather hard. Lets try to think out of the box shall we now? Thats right climb on out of there.
My question what are peoples thoughtsa bout using a PC to run multiple trains WHILE YOU RUN ONE YOURSELF, ie a local or such.
Well a lot of big club layouts as well as some bigger home layouts use computers to control /monitor switching. Technically thats what a CTC machines is a primitive computer if you will with a human interface.
From what I understand some signaling systems as well use computers, but the actual running of the trains should be left up to the man with the throtle in his hand. I could see it being doen just for the sake of saying it could be or maybe perhaps a museum or small display railroad but in this as in the rest of the 1:1 world computers have their place and their limits.
Your question was, SIMPLY, “Thoughts?”
I haven’t found anyone on the forum to be simple minded. If you ask for someone’s thoughts, then don’t followup with an insult. [V]