# Steam Locomotives & Features You'd Like to See



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

Here we go again with another question thread.

Recently I've been cooking up a little idea for a manufacturing company that would make ridiculously detailed locomotives in HO Scale. It is only an idea, but it is always fun to wonder. If you'd like an idea of what I mean by 'ridiculously detailed', try imagining all these things on one locomotive:

Dynamic Steam & Cylinder Steam 




Besides that, of course, they would have functioning marker lights, headlights, number boards, etc. As for sound, it would be quite high fidelity, with three speakers on larger locomotives (two in the locomotive itself and one in the tender).

Some more outlandish ideas I've had include moving fireman and engineer figures (engineer that looks back and forth, fireman that moves between coal and firebox) and a coal load that gets lower over time.




Anyway, the question I'd like to ask is this: what kind of features would you like to see on an HO Scale locomotive? What kind of features do you enjoy the most on HO Scale locomotives?



Further, what types of HO Scale Steam locomotives would you like to see? I'm thinking of focusing on previously unmodeled locomotives, especially non-Northeastern locomotives, since that market is already quite saturated. 



EDIT: Another idea that LateStarter had was company policy ideas. What kind of policies would you like a company to have? If you want an example, he submitted Company Loyalty Vouchers. 


Thanks for any replies.

Dreadnought


----------



## LateStarter (Mar 12, 2016)

Although the primary certain outcome of detail accouterments is higher manufacturing and consumer cost, I'll submit an outrageous list...

STEAMERS:
• Periodically opening firebox door, rendering an LED bloom in the cab.
• Whistle steam.
• Individually applied styrene 'scale' detail parts on plastic or resin models... i.e., compressors, pop valves, generators, injectors, piping, etc.

BOTH STEAMERS & DIESELS:
• Smoother action & more pulling power -- i.e., better gear ratios, and digital stepper-motors.
• Kadees on everything.
• KeepAlive circuit in everything.
• DCC-controlled 5-character number boards, that'd allow changing train numbers from the control pad.
• Accurate cab/unit numbers.
• Period-accurate headlight LED color.
• Scale thickness window sashes.
• No more cast-on handrails.
• Included changeable hi/low hoods where applicable.
• Unpainted models available in different versions... i.e., hi/low hood, stacks, dynamic brake, etc.
• Pre-weathered versions... mild/moderate/severe.
• Company Loyalty Coupons... money off on your next purchase, (no minimum) with mail-in or online registration (valid for XXX days).

Also, I'd like to see more small switchers... both steam & diesel, i.e., 0-4-0's, 0-6-0's, GE's, Alcos, etc.

And please, will somebody come back out with a box-cab diesel, a CRT set, and the RSD-5!!


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

LateStarter said:


> Although the primary certain outcome of detail accouterments is higher manufacturing and consumer cost, I'll submit an outrageous list...
> ...........


Some great ideas! I guess I should go ahead and mention some other ideas I was just toying around with.

DEAD RAIL SUPPORT - Dead Rail (i.e. battery power) is a great innovation, at least in my belief, and having full support - i.e. factory installations of it - would be a great simplification in comparison to the way you have to get it now.

MODEL GRADES - Basically, the company would have four grades of model: Silver, Gold, Diamond and Sapphire. For Silver, think standard Bachmann - acceptable detail and solid runners. These would either be DC or DCC. For Gold, think Bachmann Spectrum - superior detail, with DCC or sound. Diamond would be top end locomotives today, such as BLI, while Sapphire has all the bells and whistles (literally!). Diamond and Sapphire would come with sound standard. All models would be offered in this format. That way, every model will be accessible at every price point. You won't need to cough up hundreds of dollars to get the type of locomotive you really want, even if it means the detail won't be as good.

MODEL TRIALS - Since Sapphire will cause some open-wallet surgery, an idea I had was, production permitting, sending locomotives out for a trial run on a consumer's layout. Say you want to see if an articulated locomotive will be able to haul sufficient loads up a certain grade on your layout. You can request a locomotive for a trial, and you only pay the shipping and insurance for it. Then, you get to try it for 30 days. If you like it, you can buy it directly for 15% off. If you don't, just send it back. 

While we're on the topic...

MODEL REQUESTS - The company would have an e-mail address or a PO Box where you can send requests or ideas for models you want to see; sort of like this thread, but as an actual company policy. Naturally, not every request would be granted, but it would be an easy way to let the company know which models are highly sought after.


I suppose I'll open up the floor to general 'Company Ideas' as well - such as the loyalty voucher thing or Model Trials.


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

How about a half-full coal load in the tender. It bothers me that every steamer that I own looks like it just left the coaling tower.

Then you could park you loco under a WORKING coal tower and fill it up if you wanted to.


----------



## 3.8TransAM (Jan 13, 2016)

Start with quality control.

Don't model crap that cannot be seen in operation.

Reliable.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Trouble with a thread like this is that it always comes down to personal preference. 

For example, molded on handrails. If that's how you keep the price point of a locomotive low, then I don't object. I'm not about hyper-realism. I'm willing to forgive a lot if it keeps the prices low. Likewise, no smoke and no sound for me, by personal preference.

I shudder to think what it would cost to produce a loco with all the features you mention, postulating for a second that everyone wanted them. Even producing the same loco in four different trim levels (e.g., silver, gold, diamond, platinum) adds cost.

I personally think the hobby is better served by keeping the default standard pretty low, along with the price point, and letting those who wish bells and whistles (figuratively and literally speaking) customize their own. Some of these "wishlists" sound like modelers wanting manufacturers to do things that they just don't want to deal with.


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

CTValleyRR said:


> Trouble with a thread like this is that it always comes down to personal preference.
> 
> ........


Of course. I'm not saying that having this kind of features would become the new market standard. If you don't want them, then you won't _have_ to buy them. I'm just saying that it would be nice if this type of detailing existed on the market, for, while some people don't want that kind of detailing, others do.

I agree that the base level for how much you pay for a locomotive shouldn't become a lot higher. All I'm saying is that, for those of us who wish to have hyper-realistic locomotives, that option should be available. For right now, it's simply not possible to put together the kind of features I listed for the average modeler. If it were, I would do it in a heartbeat, but, unfortunately, I don't really have the expertise to rip out the cylinder smoke unit from the French locomotive I posted a video of, the whistle smoke unit from the BLI Big Boy, and then rig up a working bell on a single chassis. If I could, I would, but I simply can't. That would be the point of this type of realism. The technology we're dealing with nowadays is such that you can't really jury-rig it with any kind of ease. The same kind thing goes with modern cars. You need computer know-how to fix all sorts of things, and some of us just don't have that.

To go back to the car analogy, you could think of this type of detailing as being like a Bentley or a Rolls-Royce. It's very expensive and exclusive, but very nice when you have it. Then, you have the detailed but affordable models, which are like the BMWs and Mercedes. Below that are the run-of-the-mill models, which are like Chevrolets or Fords. Finally, you have the really cheap stuff, which are like Hondas or Kias. Just because you have one doesn't mean you can't have the other.

To add to that, the closest things we can get to that sort of detailing - BLI and MTH (the Mercedes or BMWs), to be specific - only make models of a select few regions of the country, and a select few railroads. If you want to model the Pennsy, you're pretty much set for detailed locomotives. If you want a southern road like the Atlantic Coast Line or Southern, not so much, and that really shows for modelers like me. The only options I have if I want to model one of those roads is brass (which has problems of expense just to get the right dimensions and quality for older models) or kitbashing (which takes time, expertise and research, and still may not come out correctly). That's why I'd like to know what types of roads and locomotives are under-served by the market right now.


----------



## LateStarter (Mar 12, 2016)

Before DCC & sound, I was dumb and happy with a state-of-the-art power pack...
But when I got lightning-struck, it changed everything -- including my finances.
Detailing minutia isn't all that important to me, but it adds a juicy element to the overall effect... I like it when I see it, and I get it when I can afford it.
I'd much rather spend $60 on a Con-Cor Branchline sleeper, than $75 on an MTH, but Con-Cor doesn't make one, and heavyweight sleepers are hard to find.
The fact that MTH cars have detail you can't even see, (not to mention appreciate) notwithstanding, at least they'll run on 22" radius, and fill a void in a train.
I look for locos in DCC now, so I can at least power them up without burning them out. If they don't have sound, it's fine.
As for 'super-detail', I can live without it... it's just nice to know it might be there if I get into a crazy mood.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> I personally think the hobby is better served by keeping the default standard pretty low, along with the price point, and letting those who wish bells and whistles (figuratively and literally speaking) customize their own


I don't know.....take a look at this new tank car from Tangeant....I don't think I could do the details as good as they do...sure, I'll pay for it, but I like this level of detail, so I don't mind.....but as has been said, to each their own....

And, they seem to be able to sell them out, so there seems to be more people willing to pay money for super details than one might think......

http://www.modeltrainforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=298706&stc=1&d=1491331170

Please don't let my wife know that I'm paying for a Hooker....


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

How did you find room in the dockside for all that?


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

Lemonhawk said:


> How did you find room in the dockside for all that?


It's not my locomotive. I just found the video of it on youtube. You'd have to ask the person who made the video how he did it!


----------



## ebtnut (Mar 9, 2017)

Before delving too deeply into visual effects, someone needs to devlop a smoke material that won't gum up the track and drive you out of the room with the smell (oh, and be safe). I've seen videos of some European 7mm model steamers that puff in sync, exhaut steam from the cylinder cocks, and other neat effects. Don't care to know how many Euros they cost. And, some enterprising EE needs to find a way to shrink a capacitor down to something less than the size of a little finger so that KeepAlive doesn't fill up the entire tender body.


----------



## ExONRcarman (Feb 7, 2017)

So here is my idea. have your company have a build your own web site. Like the chevy dealer on your street. It will eliminate having several different series. You sell them your WELL PERFORMING chassis, let the customer build to their level of satisfaction or price tag, and then send them a kit with the parts they ordered. like a model car. that would give the customer a challenge and a chance to build or paint as they see fit. if it dont turn out, they cant blame your company.

I know id buy this way in a heart beat. not only for the fun and challenge, but for the spare parts that you could offer. or if i want to change my mind on details, i can order the parts to do so.

Maybe a loyalty card, by 10 get one free base level free. or something to that effect.

You will also find that having a good help line is the way to beat out the competition. 

As noted several times throughout this site, we all old. 40 - 60 pre senior discount then a real senior discount?

A 10$ flat rate shipping fee! in north america, oooohhhh love you long time


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

Hmm, that's a very interesting idea, carman. That would be a very interesting feature. 

I wonder how that works on the manufacturing end. I guess you just produce a bunch of standardized parts and then assemble them in different ways? That would be a very easy way to get freelanced steamers as well, since it's rather difficult to get those nowadays.


----------



## ExONRcarman (Feb 7, 2017)

i would think a warehouse type building with all the different parts for your different detail levels, then pack the items on the order and ship. hard to describe even tho i have a clear pic in my mind.


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

I wonder what types of chassis people would like for that, then. I've been thinking and here's a little sampling:

0-6-0 and 0-8-0, 51" Drivers
2-8-0, 57", 62", 63" Drivers
2-8-2, 62", 63" Drivers
2-10-2, 63" Drivers
2-10-4, 69", 74" Drivers
4-6-2, 73", 79", 80" Drivers
4-8-2, 69", 73" Drivers

I guess the basic idea would be to choose whatever chassis suits your needs and then modify it to be exactly what you want. In a way, this was exactly what the prototypes did, which makes for a very interesting situation.

Of course, once you start producing standardized parts like this, it would be relatively simple to sell customized models of certain locomotives as well. For example, you can just take the 4-6-2 chassis with 73" inch drivers, a suitable boiler, and detail it to be a Southern Ps-4. This way, you can either sell the specific models at a slight premium for those willing to pay, or give those who want the challenge of making the model themselves the opportunity to do that. You'll note that even though car companies do give you the option to 'build your own', they still produce and sell standardized models as well.

A very interesting idea indeed, I really like it.


----------



## 1905dave (Sep 18, 2016)

1. The engine must run reliably.
2. Smaller engines : 4-4-0, 4-6-0, 2-8-0, 0-6-0
3. Interchangeble boilers : Straight boiler, camelback, tapered boiler.
4. Interchangeble or options for different headlights, oil, arc, electric.
5. Variety of driver diameters 48/50", 55/56", 60/62".

Don't care about smoke.
Don't care about incredible super detail.
Don't care about wiz bang lighting details (class lights, markers, firebox, etc).
Make it DCC and sound ready, with options of factory installed or not.

Basically the MDC or Arbour concept only with more detail and options in the boilers.


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

*'Build Your Own Locomotive'*

So here's what I'm envisioning based off feedback from this thread. 








Edit: Added Driver Diameter to Chassis.

As you can see, this is generally similar to the 'Build Your Own _____' from any website today, but applied to HO Scale locomotives. This way, you can build whatever type of locomotive you want and have it shipped right to your doorstep. Alternatively, you can choose to buy it as a kit (for less money, of course) if you enjoy the challenge of putting it together.

There would probably be more options on the real interface, but due to the constraints of Paint, I couldn't really put everything I wanted onto this image. But, I think you get the idea.

What do you guys think of this? This way, you get only the features you want exactly the way you want them. Want sound but don't want fancy schmancy smoke effects and unreasonable detailing? You can have the locomotive that way. 

I really feel confident that this could be a very viable business proposition. I'd really like everyone's feedback on this as well.


----------



## 1905dave (Sep 18, 2016)

Sorta. As you change driver diameter, you change wheel spacing so that means a different frame which may mean a different gear box and drive train, plus different rods and a different pilot mount and coupler box mount.

I would suggest a couple different driver diameter, wheel base, wheel arrangements as stock (50" 2-8-0, 56" 2-8-0, 62" 2-8-0) with some interchangeable boilers. Just try and make it something reasonable. IHC produced a 2-6-0 and 4-4-0 mechanism that shared an "SP" boiler, and then a camelback boiler that fit the 2-6-0 mechanism. But they never offered the camelback boiler on the 4-4-0 mechanism. How many 2-6-0 camelbacks were there? Maybe a couple dozen in all of history. How many camelback 4-4-0's were there? Hundreds, if not thousands.

Its not going to be as simple as you make it sound, you will need to limit the choices based on the platform you build for the engine. Some things can be swapped out with little or no modifications (cab or tender). Some things will be a lot harder, like feedwater heaters and air compressors (they change all the piping and the configuration of the running boards.)


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

I suppose so. I understand the thing about driver diameter changing the chassis, though. I forgot to make the 'interface' to reflect that. 

I suppose you're right about the heater or compressor piping though. I was thinking that perhaps there would be a few different configurations to choose from, based on typical practice. That way, you could still customize it, but it would make manufacturing relatively simple (you might be able to make it all in one piece if it's plastic or even metal if it's in the same configuration every time). 

Do you all feel like this would be a popular service? I've been thinking it over and I certainly feel it would be. The main reason for this would be because of how difficult it is to freelance steam without having experience (or confidence) in kitbashing, which many people don't. It would make having a freelance roster a lot simple, and perhaps less expensive.


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

How's this look for a some of the smaller locomotive chassis sizes:

4-4-0: 57”, 63”, 64”, 69”
4-6-0: 55”, 57”, 62” 
2-6-0: 50”, 52”, 56”
2-8-0: 50”, 56”, 62”

The 4-4-0 and 2-6-0 could probably use the same boiler sizes. Ditto for the 4-6-0 and 2-8-0.

It definitely would be simpler to start with older locomotives because they have less accessories to mess around with. All of these driver diameters are for locomotives around 1900 or earlier, since that market isn't very well-served by current offerings.


----------



## /6 matt (Jul 7, 2015)

I'd actually like to see a company start making steam locomotives with little to no detail to make it easier for the customer to superdetail. Or even better maybe a company who sells complete steam locomotive drivetrains. The frame, drivers, side rods and valve trains, cylinders and motor. Then the end user just scratch builds their own body. Which yes you can buy this from the bachmann service department but in most cases it costs almost as much as the whole locomotive does. What a joke.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Not really a joke....take a look at your car....you can buy it all assembled for a fraction of the cost that all the parts cost individually.

That's why we'll never see this dream materialize....there's not enough profit for the manufacturers to do it....most people want locomotives and cars assembled and ready to run right out of the box now, so that's where they will concentrate their efforts.....and investment....


----------



## dsertdog56 (Oct 26, 2014)

Old_Hobo said:


> Not really a joke....take a look at your car....you can buy it all assembled for a fraction of the cost that all the parts cost individually.
> 
> That's why we'll never see this dream materialize....there's not enough profit for the manufacturers to do it....most people want locomotives and cars assembled and ready to run right out of the box now, so that's where they will concentrate their efforts.....and investment....


Exactly...it would be history attempting to repeat itself. The results would be disastrous for the makers.
In the 50's, 60's and early 70's, Varney, Tyco/Mantua, Aristo Craft, and probably a couple of others made very generic steam engines. You had to really up the ante' into imported brass to get something pretty true to prototype.

However whole market of brass castings became available so you could customize your locomotive. It took work but modelers back then were willing to do it.
Many even bought the tools and hacked out or learned to cast their own parts.

No one would do that now, and the minuscule few that would, cruise the interwebs looking for generic zinc die cast and plastic, and those little packets of brass.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Regarding the cost of car parts... keep in mind that most of what you're paying for there is the packaging, and the cost for the dealer to keep it on the shelf. If you just went to a manufacturer and said you wanted one of everything, unassembled, they would probably be willing to give you a steep discount reflecting the true cost of all the pieces.

I think what we're really looking for here is a large database of CAD files that could be used for hi-resolution 3D prints... This would eliminate a model dealer having to stock a lot of parts. I think it would be great if rivet counter could sit down with a CAD operator to create the basic models as mentioned above, and then other people could come in and create alternatives that add different levels of details to the base model. Of course someone would have to stock the metal parts, but you could offer a few different motor speeds, options of different common gears, and the drive wheels.


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

Shdwdrgn said:


> Regarding the cost of car parts... keep in mind that most of what you're paying for there is the packaging, and the cost for the dealer to keep it on the shelf. If you just went to a manufacturer and said you wanted one of everything, unassembled, they would probably be willing to give you a steep discount reflecting the true cost of all the pieces.
> 
> I think what we're really looking for here is a large database of CAD files that could be used for hi-resolution 3D prints... This would eliminate a model dealer having to stock a lot of parts. I think it would be great if rivet counter could sit down with a CAD operator to create the basic models as mentioned above, and then other people could come in and create alternatives that add different levels of details to the base model. Of course someone would have to stock the metal parts, but you could offer a few different motor speeds, options of different common gears, and the drive wheels.


I definitely agree with this. A model company functioning in this way could definitely benefit from a lot of 'slimming' compared to other model companies since those other companies do not focus on interchangeable parts, while this kind of thing would.

For example, let's say Bachmann wants to come out with a new steam locomotive. They're going to have to go get new tooling for the boiler, detail parts, cab, tender, etc. The drive train will probably have to be modified from an existing one. And then they will only sell that one specific model one way. 

In comparison, with this system, a manufacturer creates a basic set of drive trains, a basic set of boilers, a basic set of firebox styles, etc. that can then be used for a very large number of models without ever having to retool. Eventually, of course, to expand the product line, new drive trains would have to be added and new boilers and etc. but the basic business model is such that having four types of drive trains and four types of boilers will get you a lot more bang for your buck. Since there are sixteen possible combinations, rather than the maximum of four if sold in the traditional way, it is a lot simpler to make more profit with less retooling than having to tool specifically for each model.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

And don't forget about the detail parts... You could decide if you wanted to build your loco with the 1927 upgrades or see it as it came off the factory line in 1883. You could pick the exact headlight used by your line instead of having to modify the more common style used by everyone else. The small variations that could be created are endless.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

If I wanted a super-realistic steam locomotive outside of the 1:1 scale, I'd be spending huge dollars or making it myself and spending somewhat less.

As it stands, my HO steamers, brass, plastic, or pot metal, all have enough detailing and lighting that my mind can fill in the rest. Unless it's 1:1, my mind has to suspend disbelief anyway, and I need my mind involved. The scale sound systems toy with being unbelievable anyway because of the physics of sound at that size. Forget smoke...it's as obviously bogus as real water running around a layout hoping to look convincing.

I can't expect to see the piston rods on a cross compound air pump working up and down, but my decoders make a reasonable approximation of their working sounds. That's lots of detail for me when I can see the appliance mounted under the running board. Same with the feed-water pump.

I cut off my trip pins routinely on the front coupler so that images don't give it all away. 

I strongly believe the brain has to work to enjoy the hobby. Some things need to be left to the imagination, just like how a pretty woman presents herself when she's hoping to attract attention with more than just her good looks. Too many details and effects just drives up the cost, but worse, it also presents more things to nit-pick and get in the way of believability.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I predict an influx of many Frankenstein locomotives with a system such as suggested......:laugh:


----------



## ExONRcarman (Feb 7, 2017)

i think it would be pretty cool hobo :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

Anyway, to get back to the main topic of the thread..

Are there any other features that you would like to see on a locomotive?

Are there any locomotives that you would like to see produced in HO?


----------



## LateStarter (Mar 12, 2016)

Dreadnought said:


> Are there any locomotives that you would like to see produced in HO?


Yeah, but my list doesn't include steamers.


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

LateStarter said:


> Yeah, but my list doesn't include steamers.


That's fine with me.

It would be better than the 'Discouragement Division' posts we have been getting..


----------



## LateStarter (Mar 12, 2016)

Dreadnought said:


> That's fine with me.
> 
> It would be better than the 'Discouragement Division' posts we have been getting..


• Boxcab Diesel
• Chicago L -- CRT, w/at least 4 numbered coaches.
• Doodlebug
• F-A/B or P's in Lark paint.
• Rail Grinder -- Combo Cab/Track Cleaner.
• GP7 & 9
• Reissue the RSD-4/5
• Reissue the GP30.
• Reissue the 0-4-0 Dockside.

Also, IMO, we should allow plain DC to die a natural death.
Make everything DCC... period.
That way, those with powerpacks could keep on keepin' on, and DCC folks wouldn't burn anything out.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I don't want DCC, so why take that way? That wouldn't help anyone else in any way, so why take away something that many still want?

So, but that's a dumb idea......hwell:


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

I'm not sure about you, but I've not seen many (or, really, any...) people with more than one locomotive who enjoy the good old days of wiring multiple cabs for DC operation.

I'd have to agree with LateStarter. In general, it doesn't really make a ton of sense to offer anything but the cheapest locomotives without DCC anymore. A basic decoder runs about $20.00 retail. I don't know about you, but those of us with little to no wiring experience would be happy to pay the slightly greater cost for not having to go to the hassle of wiring up a decoder ourselves after purchasing the locomotive. That's a pretty big way it would help other people - I happen to hate wiring myself.

Good decoders are dual-mode so they can run on DC still, but I think it would be better to make DC an option rather than having DCC be one, considering the amount of people who have switched over. DC is more of a starting block nowadays because of how much more operation DCC allows. Naturally, there will be those who hang onto the older technology, but it's a pretty safe bet to assume that, among larger layouts, the majority are run on DCC.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

IMO, we should allow DCC to die a natural death. Arduino is the path of the future, with options for bluetooth, wifi, and falling back to old-fashioned DCC when needed.  The rails should only be a source of power, not an archaic and (generally) one-directional communication system.


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

I agree with Shdw as well, though I've never heard of Arduino before. However, we're going to have to let DC die before we can let DCC die. Its time will certainly come, though.

In my opinion, the rails shouldn't be a source of power, either. My favorite option for control is Dead Rail, which is what I plan on making my next railway run solely on. Basically, it's radio control for model railroads (that aren't G scale) with batteries and such. As I understand it, it's still in its infancy as a control system for smaller scales, but several companies produce components and you can adapt it for use with existing DCC systems. All you need is a little transmitter for the commands.

It would basically allow a complete removal of wiring, at least with regards to track power, which is a huge plus for me. Downsides are limitations of battery life and the fact you have to charge the batteries somehow.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Arduino is a computer chip small enough to fit inside a loco... It can accept commands, but it powerful enough to even make its own decisions if you wire it up with sensors to see what is around it.

However my point is, and I think your answer shows it exactly, that any system you want to replace or retire can also be replaced by another system, and everyone has their own reasons for running their layout the way they do. Is DCC really a valid choice for a loop around the christmas tree? Are batteries or powered rail really the best choice if you can create a hybrid system? The answers are as meaningless as someone saying one scale is better than another.


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

Well said! To each his own, I say.

That's an interesting concept, though I don't know why I would want a locomotive to make its own decisions unless I lost command of it for some reason. I'm sure there's a reason for that. Maybe to run trains automatically without having to interfere?


----------



## LateStarter (Mar 12, 2016)

Old_Hobo said:


> I don't want DCC, so why take that way? That wouldn't help anyone else in any way, so why take away something that many still want?
> 
> So, but that's a dumb idea......hwell:


What???
You didn't read it.
Go back and read it again.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Regarding my projects, I've always been a one-man show, and I love writing computer software. My purpose is to build a layout where several trains can follow complex routes and switching operations under their own control, while following block signals and avoiding unexpected collisions. I'll still have the ability to manually control individual locos, but I want to see how far I can take the software while working in a limited system. That's MY idea of fun. 

Every choice has a reason, and we all run our layouts in a certain way because something led us to that decision. There are no wrong answers because every goal is unique.


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

LateStarter said:


> • Boxcab Diesel
> • Doodlebug


When you say 'Boxcab Diesel', is this the sort of thing you're thinking of?









B&O #50

Or maybe a Passenger One?








Same locomotive but with a different shell as the 'Abraham Lincoln'. 

Then there are boxcab doodlebugs:









If you like these kinds of images, I found all of them at this site:
http://sbiii.com/boxcabdx.html#index

I can agree with wanting to see those in scale, they're very nice and I've never seen any models of them before.


----------



## JNXT 7707 (May 5, 2013)

LateStarter said:


> Also, IMO, we should allow plain DC to die a natural death.
> Make everything DCC... period.
> That way, those with powerpacks could keep on keepin' on, and DCC folks wouldn't burn anything out.


A little militant, wouldn't you say? 

I'll die off soon enough! :laugh:
But seriously, make _all_ DCC? Why should us Old Curmudgeons have to pay for decoder-equipped locos? You want DCC? Pay for it!:cheeky4:

It's a moot point anyway though, my days of paying for brand-new locos are behind me


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

LateStarter said:


> What???
> You didn't read it.
> Go back and read it again.


I did.....this is what you said:



LateStarter said:


> Also, IMO, we should allow plain DC to die a natural death.
> Make everything DCC... period.


What else could that possibly mean then?

Also, it appears JNXT 7707 read the same meaning into your words as I did......


----------



## LateStarter (Mar 12, 2016)

I guess some folks have a reading problem...
Dyslexia maybe.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Please do explain what you mean by that then......


----------

