In the first issue of Model Railroad Planning (1995) there was a great description of a meet between two steam powered trains (page 58). The author, Bill Darnaby, describes the sounds of the locomotives working against the train brakes to slow their trains while keeping the slack stretched. This was standard practice in the caboose era, to keep the slack action from slamming the caboose crew.
A study of available sound decoders shows that none of them allow the operation of the throttle against a simulated application of train brakes. It should be possible to set train brakes, then adjust the throttle to control the speed of the train with the simulated brake application creating the effect of extra load. Most important, the exhaust sound should reflect the throttle setting as it is adjusted against the simulated load of the train brakes.
This is not a new concept. Development of the True Action Throttle (TAT) and DC sound systems in the 1960s showed some interest in realistic locomotive operation and sound. This development stopped with the introduction of DCC. DCC sound features, like playable whistles, and synchronized exhaust are just beginning to catch-up to what was available in DC, in the late 1960s.
Others have remarked that the mindless drone of locomotive sound can be annoying. Perhaps the sound would be more enjoyable if it reflected the drama of locomotives working against the mass and momentum of their trains.
Our model trains do not have brakes and our model locos do not have the ability to free roll - both aspects of the prototype that are part in parcel with the prototype “action” you describe. The TAT, while a good throttle in its day, has been replaced by newer designs and technology both in DC and DCC.
Without all the adjusting and separate controls of the TA
Stepping aside from the sound discussion, since I enjoy any sound over the silent clickety click, I don’t see how this meet and the situation make any sense. A locomotive working against the braking of the cars behind it seems to be both costly and self-defeating. Any rolling stock not equipped with an independent is going to brake commensurately with the degree of application and the condition of its brakes, not to mention its load and traction on the rails. So, suppose only the caboose were to effect its brakes somehow. It would provide a single unit of drag and stretch the couplers forward of it, starting with the one between it and the car in front of it. In quick succession, the slack would run out and the locomotive would be the last item to feel the sharpest jar. I get that, and that this is what we want to avoid in reverse for the sake of the cabin/van/caboose/waycar/crummy crew.
In our scenario, the train brake is applied, but not the independent. As each car experiences its loss of pressure in the cylinders, the brakes set. In succession, the hard or light braking will cause the collapse of the column of stretched couplers, also hard or light. No matter what, the caboose will have to endure the worst of it. How will straining against the first item behind the tender slow a train more gently than a light application would if the result is always going to be the same column collapse in a succession of coupler bunching ending in the very same caboose? Working the locomotive against the train might make sense if the train is draped over a hill and you want to prevent breaking knuckles due to stretching, but I don’t see how you can work a locomotive against a train you are attempting to slow in the first place and still spare the last item in the consist from any effect, unwanted or intended, slight or hard. If anything, you would want only the last two or three cars and the caboose to do the braking and the locom
Actually, using locomotive power against a LIGHT application of brakes was a standard method of bringing a passenger train to a stop in proper relation to the station building, waiting baggage carts and such. Easier on the passengers (no abrupt motion) as well as more convenient for the folks on the ground.
As passenger operations vanished, the caboose joined the Dodo and fuel prices headed for orbit the practice died away.
I have watched EMU d’raiba use a notch or two of throttle to stretch the stopping roll to bring the little marker right next to the front corner of the car. What little marker? The little white square on a slender pole that indicated where a train of a certain length was supposed to stop. An experienced throttle jockey could stop within 50mm of the mark, every time.
As far as the sound aspect of modeling this phenomenon, I’m with Sheldon. Until somebody figures out how to get realistic low-pitched sound out of a speaker that will fit in a JNR style tender (or the bunker of a 1:80 scale 0-6-0T) my locomotives will remain like submarines - the silent service.
The Tsunami offers a train brake that will work against the throttle setting (Although imperfectly). There are also several chuff settings that reflect loading as well as rod clank when drifting. These features do add to the enjoyment of running sound equipped trains. I will use an application of the brakes to slow a train down coming down grade…pretty cool.
True, some find sound annoying, but keep in mind that there are lots of us who enjoy sound even in small scales. Every layout I operate at has been operating using sound and DCC for at least five years and many for a lot longer. I can only think of one DC layout left among the local train guys - (but he has dual mode sound locos)…The rest have gone DCC.
Those of us who like sound understand the sonic limitations but enjoy it anyway. Even a Teisco has its place…
I remember train watching along the Long Island Railroad during my brief residency there as a teen. On day in Huntington Station a west bound drag of empty hoppers caught a red signal at the station. When he got the green, and released the brakes only about half of the 70 car string released - that did not matter, the engineer just throttled up the two smokey ALCO’s and drug the resistant hoppers along until they decided to roll - very noisy to say the least and more than a few passengers on the platform looked alarmed.
It only makes sense that groups of like minded modelers who participate in local clubs, operating groups and round robins would likely embrace DCC to a large percentage - it suits their particular modeling and social goals.
Somewhat true here with the group I operate with, but not quite to the same percentages as your experience.
But every survey, scientific or casual, on DCC use suggests that only about half of those who have working layouts and consider themselves active modelers are using DCC.
As for sound, despite my objections to it, I have agree that it can be a pleasing effect if done carefully, even in small scales and I find it very effective in larger scales.
But I personally do not find it appropriate for large layouts in HO or N with lots of trains moving at once - too much poor quality noise - no matter how low you set the volumes.
And for me personally, the infrastructure cost of DCC and sound cannot be justified for my goal set and large fleet of locos - a search of my posts will provide more explanation if you have any interest.
Personally, while I enjoy prototype operations, there are limits. For me, I have no interest in turning lights on and off (I model the 50’s, they only turned them on at night) or having to activate special sounds while trying to control the speed of my loco.
As for sound, despite my objections to it, I have agree that it can be a pleasing effect if done carefully, even in small scales and I find it very effective in larger scales.
And if CVs are matched to the sound you should hear something like this.
I wonder if the pleasantness of the sound experience can also be related to the ability to hear as we age. There is a reason older people usually prefer a quiet dinner vs a loud party.
Having said that we run about 5 to 25 sound locos(almost all diesel) depending on operators and so we have worked with much effort usually putting in 2 high bass speakers to make the sound quality as good as possible and normally set the volume at about 25% more or less. This way we can hear the locos coming and going as well as experience silence to realistic sound effects when they enter tunnels, round mountains(I love the echos of a 567 next to a mountain), etc–depending on where you stand. Several sound decoders aren’t that good, some are great. The newer EPA compliant quieter locos make sound reproduction frustrating for some who want to have a loud loco(if you have UP6936 next to a new SD70ACe, guess what you notice in sound as they throttle up and move away?–we try to recreate that effect). Some locos are just louder prototypically and when you recreate that difference on a layout the guy who owns the new EPA compliant loco may get frustrated that few can hear his new expensive sound equipped loco leaving the yard. The Tsunamis for the most part have the prime mover pretty well done–I would like to be able to select the effects of notching up to speed step one, but that is another discussion. Some of their horns could be better too.
We use F11 braking. When I get a chance I am going to see if with manual notching and F11 braking we can simulate the OPs scenario on one of our steam locos. Out of about 30 sound locos, I think we only run 1 with manual notching and it isn’t on the layout much.
It will be interesting to see how much if any train handling will change using PTC. Some of you probably already know. I have never liked the curren
Don’t you just love that. It’s a great time to be in our hobby. To me, the sound may be set too loud when you’re running several?
OK, the upcoming statement may be a little over the top–but where’s the horn communication and that annoying bell–LOL. We turn the bell way down and the ring rate very slow, btw. Too many of those drives you nuts even in a prototype yard.
This forum may be able to answer a few questions I have on sound systems for trains, the concept is great but any train shows and other instances of being around sound equipped trains I find the sounds very shrill and (tinny) sound, almost like they were in a long plastic tube, at one train show I heard comments from some train fans and many non-train people, they all seemed to say the sounds were very artificial and not realistic. The concept is tremendous but I feel there should be more research on improving the quality of the sound. If there was a wish come true for me I would like more realistic and functioning couplers and a true locomotive sound, maybe Santa will solve the problem.
Am I the only person to comment on the quality of the sound, not the concept?
I’m a model train builder, and I’m also a professional musician. My plan from day one has been to run all train sounds through my main stereo system. Why would I use a transistor radio speaker (showing my age) when I’ve got 4 matched Sansui speakers with 10" woofers in each?
OK, the upcoming statement may be a little over the top–but where’s the horn communication and that annoying bell–LOL.
But,here’s the rub…90% of the modelers doesn’t fully understand the use of the horn by the way they toot the horns with every move.
Railroads have neighbors too that likes quiet…
So,the rules was allowed to be changed…Durning routine terminal yard or passenger terminal switching there is no need to sound your horns every time you change direction nor is there a need to ring the bell continually.
If you roll by the yard office ringing the bell suffices or if you’re using a unflagged shop track then the bell will be used.
Soundtraxx has Surroundtraxx which uses larger speakers and follows the loco.
We had a sound system using large speakers and MUing the loco to a sound decoder which went into a preamp. Sound had the growl, but didn’t follow the loco. Great for a yard maybe.
I’m only 55 and have NEVER at any age liked the noise “chaos” of a big party or crowded bar - that is more a personality issue, not an age or hearing issue.
I like my music loud, clear and well reproduced, as if I am at the concert.
Again, you are all welcome to tolerate the poor sound quality of 1" speakers, be they in your trains or your computer monitors - I will pass thank you.
Regardless of the reproduction, I don’t want a room full of loud locos where the sound reproduction doesn’t model distance’s effect on sound for example.
Richard, I’m aware of the Surroundtraxx system. My problem with a lot of this stuff is what I consider to be very high cost in relation to the result.
I use an advanced cab control DC system after carefully considering DCC and rejecting it twice regarding my particular layout goals.
The issues of volume/distance/freq. range are compounded by the natural selective compression in our hobby.
In my case, a double deck layout also compounds the distinction of which sound is coming from were and what it relates to.
I think sound effects like whistles/bells at crossing gates, fixed bell noises at yards and stations, and “background” sounds can all add to the model experience.
BUT, to truly capture the working sounds of each loco/train, you need to design a layout that is more of a “stage” then most of the typical layout concepts in use today. This is why I have said sound can work well on “branch line” shelf layouts with one loco, or just a few locos not working near each other.
Building such a layout would for me compromise other important goals too much.
Everything we do in this hobby is a compromise - there is no one answer.
But my answer is no onboard sound, and possible layout based sounds later on to be experimented with.