Dave Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Hi Guys, spotted this while trawling the web. Very clever system that could possibly replace DCC. http://ringengineering.com/index.html Here's a video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richrua Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 It is interesting and similar to Dcc. The fact that it uses the existing connectors will certainly help it become established. I am still exploring the possibilities of DCC so maybe some time in the future. It is certainly a well designed and tested product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiveController Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 One thing that it does is to modernize the user interface which several members particularly Noel have alluded to in the past. Radio technology is already in use for both OO gauge and larger gauges. Not only that but standalone power for the locomotives themselves in the form of rechargeable batteries that have been miniaturized for mobile phones. So when their power fails during a show the loco is the only one to stay running on unpowered rails as it is not at all dependent on the tracks. The cost per locomotive for these is presently too high if you have more than few locomotive, so cheaper to install a DCC system if this is the case. I wonder how well this system works on a larger layout and whether it is a strong enough system to avoid line of sight issues. Using the DCC connector was essential to allow it to to introduced tot the market to compete with existing technology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Hi Guys, spotted this while trawling the web. Very clever system that could possibly replace DCC. http://ringengineering.com/index.html Thanks Dave. "RailPro" is an interesting find. For an new introduction the pricing is not as bad as one might fear and it looks a good system (e.g. €90 for a sound decoder), but for it to take off pricing would have to drop. Clearly designed by an engineer with a passion for the hobby. Hopefully he also has business skills to make go of it and get the NMRA on board (forgive the pun). Its a catch 22, if he has a patent he may not wish to open it up to other manufactures unless through licensing. If its not adopted by most of the main manufacturers it will be another inventors idea consigned to history with a small dedicated follower base. Without gaining NMRA support it won't get traction. I don't know much about NMRA politics, but I've heard they are mainly a conservative base. Replacement for DCC? Something like this is definitely needed to replace jurassic DCC and bring control from the 1980s into the 21st century. Ideally a revised DCC2 standard backed by NMRA which has the same variety of 6,8,9 and 21 pin connectors for co-exhistant and phased migration. If I was him I would try and sell the patent to somebody like Lenz or ESU, who have enough business clout to attempt a deal with other manufacturers. Few observations: Fast two way data is attractive Decoder modules look significantly larger than current DCC decoders, but this could change Other review videos show the 'auto discover' feature and auto motor tune which is really nice compared to DCC Like the physical control for throttle combined with touch screen for programming and functions If the control is exclusively via RF then an existing DCC powered layout should also be able to run locos with RailPro decoders driven by RailPro cab, just no power supply. (i.e. for migration) IMHO, a DCC replacement needs a compact 'stay-alive' capability as standard. Until a replacement for DCC has NMRA backing I wouldn't buy it, but I do hope it happens someday. NMRA means open market for interconnectivity between different manufacturers products, hence competitive pricing. Proprietary just won't fly. Edited August 3, 2015 by Noel Typo NMEA and NMRA two diff standards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 3, 2015 Author Share Posted August 3, 2015 I agree Noel, it's definitely a step in the right direction. The build quality doesn't look great either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Dcc with integrated railcom plus , solves almost all the issues inc CV programming The issue isn't reinventing dcc just moving the spec along Battery operation in gauges under 0 doesn't really work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 6, 2015 Author Share Posted August 6, 2015 Battery operation in gauges under 0 doesn't really work Who said anything about batteries? The locos take the power from the track. There is another system out there that uses batteries in the locos and radio control. Li Po batteries are incredibly powerful and compact. Just look at what Eoin has done with the Faller truck conversion on his workbench thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Also this system can operate on a DCC layout without modifying the layout. So you don't have to convert all your stock straight away. I'd like to see the size and price of the non sound unit come down but the system has huge potential and has clearly been well thought out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) Who said anything about batteries? The locos take the power from the track. There is another system out there that uses batteries in the locos and radio control. Li Po batteries are incredibly powerful and compact. Just look at what Eoin has done with the Faller truck conversion on his workbench thread. If you have to have reliable track fed power. Then you might as well feed the data down it as well. Radio in that context offers no real advantage. I have years of designing with lipo , it's not all it's cracked up to be. etc All the deficiencies of dcc can be fixed it's the nmra and us dcc manufacturers that have spoiled the pot. The issues with dcc are not a function of dcc per se , rather the way things got implemented. If you implement two way dcc, radio brings very little to the party. Edited August 6, 2015 by Junctionmad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richrua Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I must say I am extremely happy with my US NCE power cab. It is a well designed and easy to use, yet powerful piece. I also think that hobbies such as ours really need standards as encouraged by the NMRA. Without some form of standardisation we would not be able to use equipment from Ireland, UK, Germany, the U.S. etc together. The result of DCC standardisation is the creation of a global link in the hobby which has created a great choice for the consumer. The NMRA aren't too bad in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 7, 2015 Author Share Posted August 7, 2015 I have years of designing with lipo , it's not all it's cracked up to be. Care to elaborate? The Li Po has taken the RC world by storm. Li Po batteries pack a huge amount of power for their size. Without them drones wouldn't have developed to where they are now. I have a 4000 lumen led torch using a 18650 Li Po battery capable of putting out 20 amps. The torch lasts for hours! No other battery can do that. The only drawback is they can be dangerous if not handled correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiveController Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 Who said anything about batteries? Dave, I think that was me http://www.s-cab.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 I must say I am extremely happy with my US NCE power cab. It is a well designed and easy to use, yet powerful piece. I also think that hobbies such as ours really need standards as encouraged by the NMRA. Without some form of standardisation we would not be able to use equipment from Ireland, UK, Germany, the U.S. etc together. The result of DCC standardisation is the creation of a global link in the hobby which has created a great choice for the consumer. The NMRA aren't too bad in my opinion. And that's the vital link IMHO - NMRA. Without an NMRA stamp, main stream manufacturers won't take anything new on no matter how good it is functionally. Hence 'most' consumers won't buy non-standard gear. If 'railcom' solves the issue of slow data rate and brings fast two way data to all manufacturers decoders and is an NMRA standard, then tend to agree with JM. BUT at the moment 'railcom' does not appear to be widespread and not all manufactures have gone with it. Data protocols and speeds should be such that sound decoders can be fully programmed and uploaded with sound tracks on track without need for test tracks, or plugging decoders into USB devices. It should be possible to write 512 CVs in less than one second, rather than ridiculous slow 15minutes DCC currently has. IMHO, 'keep-alive' should also be standard on all loco motherboards (i.e. easier for manufacturer to fit a small capacitor into a chassis than the user). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayner Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) And that's the vital link IMHO - NMRA. Without an NMRA stamp, main stream manufacturers won't take anything new on no matter how good it is functionally. Hence 'most' consumers won't buy non-standard gear. QUOTE] The NMRA is the main reason American modellers can mix and match different manufacturers locos, stock, track and control systems. Like Hornby Dublo and Triang in the 50s a manufacturer may have a vested interest to ensure a customer only buys into their system. This still goes on today with some of the high end manufacturers that have developed control systems that will not interface with DCC in order to maintain a captive market. The MTH DCS system is a good example http://www.mthtrains.com/. The large scale manufacturers also tend to design in-compatible knuckle coupler systems for much the same reason. Edited August 8, 2015 by Mayner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 Care to elaborate? The Li Po has taken the RC world by storm. Li Po batteries pack a huge amount of power for their size. Without them drones wouldn't have developed to where they are now. I have a 4000 lumen led torch using a 18650 Li Po battery capable of putting out 20 amps. The torch lasts for hours! No other battery can do that. The only drawback is they can be dangerous if not handled correctly. The available space in small tank locomotives in 00 predicates against the success of even Li batteries. Hence it's unlikely batteries are a viable solution. Li technology, while benefitting from improved Wh density , suffers from many issues , including thermal instability, Li metal dentrile growth , separator punctures, under and overcharging sensitivity and ageing issues. I cannot see the technology being suitable for 00 steam outline etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) And that's the vital link IMHO - NMRA. Without an NMRA stamp, main stream manufacturers won't take anything new on no matter how good it is functionally. Hence 'most' consumers won't buy non-standard gear. If 'railcom' solves the issue of slow data rate and brings fast two way data to all manufacturers decoders and is an NMRA standard, then tend to agree with JM. BUT at the moment 'railcom' does not appear to be widespread and not all manufactures have gone with it. Data protocols and speeds should be such that sound decoders can be fully programmed and uploaded with sound tracks on track without need for test tracks, or plugging decoders into USB devices. It should be possible to write 512 CVs in less than one second, rather than ridiculous slow 15minutes DCC currently has. IMHO, 'keep-alive' should also be standard on all loco motherboards (i.e. easier for manufacturer to fit a small capacitor into a chassis than the user). The politics of the nmra coupled with lenz patient issues has stopped the introduction of railcom and especially railcom plus , the standards were drawn up and essentially withdrawn by the nmra. Railcom has remained a feature of European originating decoders and been ignored by digitrax in particular. It's available from lenz, Zimo, lok sound etc . Lenz also make a low cost railcom add on board to add the facility to non railcom enabled decoders However it does not support large data transfers like sound files etc. this is a minority activity anyway and best done ex-loco The ability to transfer at large data rates using imperfect track-work and pickups would require very sophisticated protocols and considerable processing power. It does remove the need for programming tracks and all programming can be done on the main, with complete verification ,Cv programming is considerably faster without the need to use the dcc current surge method of verification , which is the main reason Cv programming is slow. ( as to say if all can be in a sec , I can't confirm ) Railcom allows auto detection of address and hence auto Cv programming from a central database , plus provides train feed back, speed, current , temp etc and can be used for block occupancy detection and hence automation The key is for nmra to move dcc forward , not to dump the whole process and embrace utterly non standard, questionably useful , alternative means of communication which provide ittle concrete advantage Edited August 9, 2015 by Junctionmad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c363cdf5c3fb7955cd92a55eb6dbbae0.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.