Past is prologue. The future is what we make of it. Dream, build, enjoy.
5 Likes
Well Greg you have repeatedly asked for more detail about my control system and then accused me of not telling you enough details.
Then you ask if it could be done with DCC and processors rather than relays.
I have repeatedly said yes it can, but I have my reasons for not doing it that way. To which you always suggest it might be easier.
Maybe for you.
Then you ask for wiring diagrams and wire counts. My wiring diagrams are the same as your software code. Have I asked you to post the code and explain it line by line?
I posted wiring diagrams of the turnout controls. You were not even familiar with wiring diagram symbols and conventions that date back to the invention of the electromechanical relay, and are still in use today.
So why would I assume you would understand the signal circuits or the power distribution circuits drawn using those same conventions?
Just like I would not understand your code if I looked at it and I don’t always understand all the terms you use.
And my diagrams are not drawn or stored electronically, so showing them to you is a job.
So you say you are not out save me, but you are pretty quick to suggest that an alternative would be better, or easier, or use less wires. Sometimes those statements are direct, sometimes clearly implied.
The number of wires is not a problem for me. As I said most of them are less than foot long on a relay panel.
You think there is some implied motive in my reponses, I always see implied motives in you questions and responses.
Sheldon
1 Like
this hobby is heading for rich person with 250 dollar loco with dcc and sound ,decoder 100 dollar plus but you buy a digitrax for 50. rolling stock 50 or more dcc system300 to 400 dollars
1 Like
Apparently you have not noticed the $700 locomotives?
Or the $300 wireless DCC throttles.
But I can’t say anything, I put $20 worth of trucks and couplers on nearly all my rolling stock, even if it started life as a $2 Athearn kit in 1970.
Sheldon
1 Like
yes had
The original post was about where we thought the hobby might be going.
I was told I was dreaming, and I admit that. I’ll dream a little more, even though I don’t believe the hobby is headed this way:
I have an N layout, and I really struggle with uncoupling cars. I usually end up knocking cars off the track or yelling at the cars or both.
My dream for the future – every car has a decoder that controls each coupler, ‘front’ and ‘back’ of each car, separately. Every car is uniquely numbered.
On my DCC controller, there is a high-def screen that has a photo of each car when I type in the number. I can signal that the ‘front’ coupler of that car will uncouple, no matter where it is on the layout!
Of course, my brain is getting smaller each year, so even if this future situation came about today, I would make a mess of it.
But … remember it’s a dream.
1 Like
I say Dream Big Dreams You Never Know Where They Take You. 
Built to Order
Lionel Vision Line Scale Hudson. This has been going on for a number of years now as more and more brick and mortar stores have closed very few remain that can afford to stock Lionel’s full line. BTO was common in all scales concerning brass models but now it’s going mainstream.
The problem I’ve seen repeatedly in the O Scale universe (no specific manufacturer is to blame) is that the promised delivery dates had become a joke with some buyers waiting years only to find out they will never receive the merchandise. Some was because of the Korea Brass fiasco but not in all of the anecdotes I’ve heard.
If BTO is going to become the norm in almost every level of the hobby these problems are going to have to be addressed. Especially if tariffs remain in effect. (Keep the politics out of it. The tariffs exist and that is fact not politics.).
York. I spoke about that earlier. I’m in HO scale.
I think addressing all of the separate couplers, and then punching in addresses might be cumbersome.
I suggested a simple magnetic implant into each coupler, like Kadee could do at the factory, then point a laser at the coupler to activate the action.
The exact technology eludes me, but standing afar with a laser pen seems convenient to me.
1 Like
i have asked you for details but you often expound on your approach numerous times in a thread
i have never heard a complete design description to fully understand your system.
I would love to understand it.
i have several of your diagrams. But i only recently asked you about
- how many panels you have,
- how many relays /panel and
- how many wires /panel
WOW ?
because i asked questions you assume i couldn’t understand relay notation
I’ve never read about relay logic (or vacuume tube logic). With your explanaton, i learned something new and understood the logic of your diagrams.
was this when you asked …
.. and i said you write the processor code once and program it into as many nodes as you have.
i ask questions when i find what you say ambiguous. By imply, do you mean paraphrasing as a quesiton what i think you said.
again, I would love to fully understand your system: the features and how they are implemented
1 Like
In that case we should take this more detailed discussion off the forum. I will contact you.
Sheldon
This is a very bad environment for me in terms of pictures, drawings, etc. It will be much easier for me to share info via email.
Sheldon
Greg. I don’t know if your intent is to ultimately try to publicly tear into Sheldon’s work, but a complete description might be something that could be handled by PMs?
I’m not the OP nor a moderator, but that convo is probably going to drain what’s left of this thread.
Sheldon has mentioned Bruce Chubb and Ed Ravenscroft as original architects of the system, and since they have been published, maybe those authors can be sourced and read as to come equipped to the convo with a bit of a start.
Edit: I see Sheldon already suggested email.
1 Like
OK, here’s another dream, and I think this may be more attainable even with today’s technology limits:
Record every square inch of the layout with a camera. With VR glasses, be able to view the layout from ground level. With virtual reality, it would be neat to walk around the layout, go up and down streets, and get right next to the tracks as the model train runs by, as if you are actually walking and seeing the layout in person.
3 Likes
But that goes back to the question of why build the actual physical universe layout at all when everything can be done in the digital realm? I know for those of us who actually DO build the physical layouts it would be a fun thing to do. But is it enough return to justify the difficulty and expense involved in trying to scan basement or attic layouts in precise detail from all possible angles?
I would suggest that miniaturization of the camera system down to a level where a tiny roving mechanical vehicle (?) robot(?) drone(?) could go wherever you want. That would give you more of the live experience of your layout “today” that I think would make the technology feasible. Even better if that tiny mechanoid could load cargo and board a train.
2 Likes
I would argue the “presence” of old technology has little to due with the impact it has, and has more to do with old dogs not wanting to learn new tricks.
1 Like
Sorry, there are more options than that. The customers will drive the hobby into whatever direction they want it to go, not some group that most of the people in the hobby are not a member of.
Don’t like it, don’t care. But to tell people to “shut up” about it is really poor form.
Wanting to learn new tricks has always struck me as little more than FOMO. I think the old dogs tend to have well reasoned decisions given their situation.
1 Like
It ought to be in its own thread with a descriptive topic name. But as Sheldon notes, it’s cumbersome for him to put up his descriptive diagrams using Discourse vs. e-mail attachments.
That means e-mail, not the PM feature here.
1 Like
directionS, not direction