Have you heard Crest Electronics (makers in the past of the Train Engineer and other control systems) is coming out with a radio control with a plug into a standard 8 pin DCC ready socket and that they will soon release a battery version, all this for HO scale!
Sounds very interesting. Hope it can operate some of the onboard sounds. That was a shortcoming of their current control systems I believe.
Supposedly yes! Their system that everyone used for HO operation was realy designed for larger scales originally. It seems that the market in the larger scales is not what it was for their products and so they are back in other scales, including HO.
Interesting. Probably need to support more than 8 to 10 locos at a time (IIRC that’s about what my old Crest Train Ehngineer supported) to make a major dent in the appeal of DCC. Of course, this will be the first generation and they always seemed to improve on what they we’re offering as things developed.
At least 50 but I remember reading about the poabilitr of going up to 99.
The current Crest Train Engineer Revolution transmitter supports 50 loco addresses. I have one of the original G scale Beta test models from several years ago - time has prevented me from doing much with it, but It can be used asa trackside radio system in any scale just like the old 10 cahannel system could.
That is what I currently use on my layout, I use the old 10 channel Train Engineer with a cab control system.
The new HO offering will simply provide HO sized recievers for use with the new Revolution transmitter - and Crest, which is part of Aristo Craft, continues to up grade the software in the Revolution. Future upgrades will be possible via download.
The new HO version will support battery or track power from what I understand.
They are expecting to have product available in the next month or two I believe.
Sheldon
I have the even older 2 cab version. It is fantastic and the only problem I ever had was when I was first setting it up. I tried to link it and it wouldn’t work (bought it second hand and the internal fuze had blowen it turned out).
Crest, being a part of Polk Hobbies, may not be around for long.
I just received this email this morning… another sad comment on the present state of things.
Polk’s Will Close Its Doors 12-31-13
October 1st, 2013
Since 1935, we have provided service and innovation to the Hobby industry. In this latest downturn, we cut back staff to the minimum required to survive. Then the government battle over the debt ceiling drove the consumer market down even further.
We’ve managed to stay in business, but the continued depression for the consumer has caused us to fall into debt that is unsustainable. We have put several million dollars into product development over recent years, but the need for customers to cut back on non-essentials has caused this investment to be lacking in returns.
We have seen leisure activities like golf courses plunge in popularity, as funds for such recreation have dried up. It seems to be the same for hobby time investments. Our products are no longer inexpensive as they were in the 1930s-era Depression. The cost of manufacturing along with minimum production runs and long lead times has caused a lack of ability to continue as a sustainable entity. It’s no longer a business!
It has been a pleasure to help our creative consumer base to enjoy their hobby and we have no regrets in doing so. Our business grew every year until the 2008 as the recess
Crest Electronics was split off from the other years ago, if my info is correct.
I believe that Polk Hobbies and Aristocraft are closing their doors but that Crest is “o.k”.
While this news does make the future of the CREST products unclear, it might further explain the new seperate web site and the move to HO with the REVOLUTION product line.
Aristo Craft was originally an HO company, then move into large scale. Like many family run businesses, this may be the end, or it just may be a major redirection.
If the large scale market is failing, maybe ending the cash problems there will allow CREST to continue with the electronics, for all scales.
Personally, never completely understood the large scale thing, maybe it has just run its course for now.
Sheldon
OK, I just spent some time on the Aristo forum and yes it appears the Crest brand and products will continue. They are closing the Aristo Craft model train brand and any remaining Polk’s model airplane products.
Crest has a new address only about 8 miles from the Aristo address and a number of product listed as in stock that has not been in stock on the Aristo site for some time now.
Business transitions like this can be hard to understand for the general public, seems they are trying to keep the Crest name out of the Aristo/Polk’s closing issue, and focus on the expansion of Crest into HO.
The Crest name was created years ago to signify that the controllers would work with ANY large scale trains, not just Aristo Craft. They are obviously trying to use that same strategy here to seperate Crest from Aristo Craft.
It is very likely that the younger Polks’ own Crest seperately from Aristo Craft and that this signifies the “complete” retirement of their father, Lewis.
This family has done great things in the hobby business, and I wish them all the best.
Sheldon
The reason for going the G route was the science of the time. The only way to go on board was to have a larger space to do so. Now about 20 years later, electronics have shrunk to the point of HO being viable. They are well aware of the new batteries coming, I am sure, and with them new possibilities.In fact the very latest is a litho battery that is 2000 times as powerful as todays and charges 1000 times as fast. This is amazing stuff and we are advancing faster than I ever thought possible in this short period of time. In fact the power of batteries has increased more than ten fold in less than 3 years. This means that batteries are getting more powerful and are shrinking faster now than electronics, maybe N scale battery powered trains is less than 10 years off and small HO battery powered trains will be able to be built. But will this mean the death of DCC? To all you DCC people, real question here, would you rather rely on track of break free of that need?
RREBELL,
Why couldn’t you just say,what you wanted to say about battery power and leave out your comments and bashing DCC people…Sounds like you want an argument…To each they’re own,leave it at that…
Cheers,[D]
Frank
??? No, it was a legitimite question to those that run DCC. I know DCC and have run with others equipment and even have some with sound myself but have not invested in a controler so how would I know if this is a game changer. It seems some DCC people are very touchy on the subject of the future. Sure I could have started another thread but I wanted to try and weed out this type of responce. DC would be dead except for the fact that it is a KISS item (keep it simple stupid) and those rairly go away compleatly. Yes I am a battery supporter brcause I don’t like the problems with track power. My layout runs flawlesly but every now and then a manuel turnout controler will malfunction just enough to lose power but not enough to derail anything in the least bit and wanting to keep things simple, I have not wired up the frog feeds yet. So in closing I am not anti DCC but I am always looking for a better way of doing things!
Back in the April 1980 issue of MR there was an article by Andy Sperandeo where seven command control systems were reviewed. These systems were by Alphatronics, Dynatrol, EMS, Onboard Control, Rail-Command, RFPT, and Salota. In addition, in the following May issue there was a review of an MRC command control system called Protrac R/C I. Of course, none of these systems would interface with another. Each of these systems utilized a receiver which was also not compatible with anyone else’s system. So far as I know, none of those first seven companies are viable today. And MRC, while still viable, probably does not offer any support for the Protrac. So anyone who had invested any amount of money in those systems is out of luck.
Now fast forward a number of years and we still have a number of different companies providing a DCC product. The systems themselves are, for the most part not compatible. The difference is that the decoders are. So if my ABC command control family run vendor decides to call it quits, at least my investment in decoders is intact.
Now along comes Crest with a new idea which requires proprietary receivers. What, exactly, is my incentive to invest in a single source supplier as had to be done back in 1980? The only way I see any expansion of this idea is if Crest licenses their receiver design so that they can be produced by others, and if other vendors are willing to develop their own systems that could utilize the Crest-like receivers. Because the market is limited, I really don’t see any other vendors looking to invest any money. And I don’t see Crest being willing to give their receiver design to anyone else since t
Well for me, the idea of a locomotive that has its own power source, sound system, motor and lighting control under its own shell that is accessed via specific RF frequency from an untethered hand held throttle would seem to be, by far, the best control system ever developed for HO scale model trains…
However, a Crest system that plugs into an existing (analog) pc board would not seem to benefit onboard sound operators, since most analog locomotives are not equipped with a speaker. At first blush, there wouldn’t seem to be enough space under the shell of a locomotive to plug in a chip, speaker, AND battery without the modeler making major modifications to the innards (weights) of the locomotive.
It will be interesting to see how Crest plans to deal with the space limitations.
My current fleet of onboard sound locomotives work fine with the DCC control system I have now. Converting from one operating system to another makes more sense for me when the conversion is both inexpensive and not labor intensive. If I were to build a new layout, it would be interesting to see if I could really get by with having no wiring at all.
I am of the same mindset. My Son and I operate his N Scale layout on a dual cab control DC operating system and I use DCC on my HO layout. Both layouts operate just fine with no major headaches (certainly nothing to stress over [:)]). We are very content as is. But more importantly, I (we) simply have far too much invested financially and time wise to pick up and shift over to a completely new operating system along with all of the new equipment and/or technological gadgetry that such a move would entail. This is not to say that a new operating system wouldn’t have a niche within the smaller scales of the hobby eventually. It’s just not even remotely something that’s on my radar. But *personally (*key word there was “personally”) I see DC and DCC here to stay for the time being and certainly well within my lifetime. Each to their own though as we so often say.
Happy modeling!
Don.
I see the road blocks you are addressing. The one I saw pics of as far as receiver plugs right into an 8 pin DCC plug to use track power, don’t know about the battery. The same one has the ability of sounds with new sounds downloadable but not sure of all the details. Oh and of the former systems mentioned, I think only Dynatrol still is viable, how viable is in question but then my Train Engineer is not supported or has been in over 10 years (I have a backup just in case). Another point is that they could licence the technology.
Pretty much my feeling as well. Do I think it’s a great idea? Absolutely. I do prefer the idea that they can charge from track power, so i can power the nice simpel tangent track and increase run times, but leave reverse loops and other tricky bits completely unpowered with no chance of shorts.
What I don;t like about current offereings is that they are all proprietary. None are compatible with the others. It’s just like the early days of command control, with a dozen systems all incompatible. No one fo them ever gains significant market share, and neither will proprietary radio systems. Some say the issue with the radios isn;t the same - kindly explain how? You have 4 or 5 manufactures each with their own idea of how it ought to be. Some of the manufacturers sell other products besides their radio systemm so they may not be in danger of disappearing tomorrow, but if they only sell a few of their radios, will they keep making and supporting it? We need a standard, like the NMRA did for DCC, otherwise the direct radio systems will be nothing more than a distant also-ran to DCC.
–Randy