TheRailwire
General Discussion => DCC / Electronics => Topic started by: MoPac on October 15, 2020, 09:37:52 AM
-
Hmm? I am all for DCC and DCC sound, though to me DCC++/JMRI is still behind the curve. If someone can come up with a program that not only reads the locomotive but also knows where it is at all times on the track via electrical contact/current with the tracks and reading the decoder itself. Just like if you were giving it a command to increase the throttle or activate the horn. Doing this without using blocks and IR sensors. Yes, signals will still be used in conjunction with turnouts etc. Plus to step it up a notch and put a decoder in the caboose/EOT car so the computer can read it also. Regardless on how far apart the two signals are. the computer will understand that the distance between the two will/should stay constant unless operations will either add or subtract from the train. So whenever a train passes a signal the light will change accordingly. Also the computer should be able to detect breakaways if the caboose or EOT car suddenly stops and the locomotives are still going. If that happens this will stop the train itself and all other trains on that line or the whole layout. By preventing an pileup. Just a thought, I do have a more in-depth ideas on this. It is fairly simple, plus it would be based off of the old current detectors.
Any thoughts?
-
How would the computer know where the decoder was? DCC works via broadcast so it just sends out commands and whichever decoder recognises the id of the broadcast responds. You'd need to have the each decoder broadcasting a location back to the control station somehow. Unless you can have something above the layout simulating a kind of GPS, I'm not sure how you could make this happen.
-
The current detectors you refer to require blocks. I don't believe there is anything "fairly simple" about what you are proposing.
Reading about LiDAR sensors in the new iPhone over the past few days, (hoping I can use it to survey my backyard, but mixed feedback about that) that is about the only technology I can think of that might be able to be used, but it needs a sensor that I'm not sure can be easily disguised in a locomotive. Plus it would probably add enormous cost to the system.
-
Micro cameras and image recognition is another idea.
But, here's a slight digression:
Work is being done to upgrade/rewrite DCC++. The new version is called DCC++ EX, see https://dcc-ex.com/
I have not used it yet as one to the lead developers recently had a KickStarter project failure (see the
thread "FireBox: A Tiny DCC Train Controller").
Check out the site but use at your own risk.
Conrad
-
What you are essentially asking for is
1. A system wherein the base station is generating a layout map based solely on its raw signal/output.
2. With that system existing, also somehow having a decoder function that transmits location data that corresponds with the map generated by the base station.
3. Having a fairly robust built in algorithm that functions like the AI in a Train Simulator.
The inherent problem is that while on point 3 there are a few programs through Digitrax and JMRI that do that now with a bit less flexibility, points 1 and 2 would certainly require a change in the hardware of both the decoders found in rolling stock and the base stations. Along with my doubts that even if something similar to point 1 was made that it would be accurate enough for me to trust it over just having IR/light sensor blocks.
-
The OP seems to be saying that he wants a location system "based on the old current detectors". So, he would be able to tell which block had current, but not where in that block the current was being drawn. If he wants to add a current detector to each drop in each block, he would still need to be able to figure out how much current through each drop means a locomotive is near that drop, because the bus and rails provide multiple current paths to any locomotives in the block. And, there could be more than one train in the large blocks typically used by DCC layouts. Even with sophisticated computer analysis of currents through drops, there is no way that the length of a train could be accurately checked with such a system, even with lighted caboose or end-of-train resistors.
Even with locos and caboose/EOT cars transponding their identities through the rails, there is no way to tell where those items are located on the tracks.
If we start thinking about some completely separate train location technology, like a mini GPS system, that would need to have really good positioning capability to distinguish which of two or more parallel tracks a train was occupying. Overhead cameras with the type of computer assisted item image tracking that is being used for the aircraft-based crime-fighting areal surveillance system being tested in Baltimore would probably work, but I would not expect that to be anything like "cheap" or simple for a layout operator to set up.
This really says something about how much diverse information humans use to operate a layout smoothly, using eyes and ears and logic to integrate all we can can see and hear. Trying to duplicate that with mechanical/electrical automation is like trying to build a prototype positive train control system in miniature. And might cost something like 1/160 what the prototype guys are spending to do that, now.
-
Micro cameras and image recognition is another idea.
But, here's a slight digression:
Work is being done to upgrade/rewrite DCC++. The new version is called DCC++ EX, see https://dcc-ex.com/
I have not used it yet as one to the lead developers recently had a KickStarter project failure (see the
thread "FireBox: A Tiny DCC Train Controller").
Check out the site but use at your own risk.
Conrad
I just read into this new DCC++EX this is on the line on what I was thinking of. Where the "Current reading, sensing and ACK detection settings in milliAmps instead of just pin readings" would play into this. The computer can read, sense and detect the current shift. Doing so it will not only know where exactly the train is but it would automatically understand the diagram of the track. Yes, maybe a little high tech.
But imagine you are going to grab your beverage from the fridge or brew a pot of coffee. While letting three or more trains run on the track doing operations and a few just cutting circles. Then one of the trains EOT/caboose car and a few others along with it decided to breakaway. The computer will get the signal from the stopped caboose and then stop the train it was a part of and any other train that might be headed it's way. This is what I am digging into.
-
How would the computer know where the decoder was? DCC works via broadcast so it just sends out commands and whichever decoder recognises the id of the broadcast responds. You'd need to have the each decoder broadcasting a location back to the control station somehow. Unless you can have something above the layout simulating a kind of GPS, I'm not sure how you could make this happen.
As I have mentioned before it would be done through the track itself not radio signal. Because not everyone is running their trains directly through radio/app control it has to relay the signal through the track itself right? Doing this the computer will know the location also. We are talking bout an smarter system here.
-
Not to pee on your parade, but depending on electrical current readings to that degree seems unrealistic (especially in smaller scales). IMO, the wheel contact with the track is not reliable enough for that). Another sensing technology, such as RFID tags in each piece of rolling stock, and the readers embedded in the track woudl probably be a more realistic solution. Or barcodes on the bottom of each car and optical scanners in the track.
Or go full-monty and have overhead cameras in the ceiling tracking movements of the trains.
-
The current detectors you refer to require blocks. I don't believe there is anything "fairly simple" about what you are proposing.
Reading about LiDAR sensors in the new iPhone over the past few days, (hoping I can use it to survey my backyard, but mixed feedback about that) that is about the only technology I can think of that might be able to be used, but it needs a sensor that I'm not sure can be easily disguised in a locomotive. Plus it would probably add enormous cost to the system.
No, it will not require blocks thats the old way. The cost will be more into software. The hardware is already there.
-
Not to pee on your parade, but depending on electrical current readings to that degree seems unrealistic (especially in smaller scales). IMO, the wheel contact with the track is not reliable enough for that). Another sensing technology, such as RFID tags in each piece of rolling stock, and the readers embedded in the track woudl probably be a more realistic solution. Or barcodes on the bottom of each car and optical scanners in the track.
Or go full-monty and have overhead cameras in the ceiling tracking movements of the trains.
Well thats where technology will need to be advanced. It's neither unrealistic due to the base computer for example this new DCC++EX that Conrad has posted earlier. RIFD tags and barcode scanners are already in place. Sometimes you should think outside of the box, instead of limiting your insight.
-
What you are essentially asking for is
1. A system wherein the base station is generating a layout map based solely on its raw signal/output.
2. With that system existing, also somehow having a decoder function that transmits location data that corresponds with the map generated by the base station.
3. Having a fairly robust built in algorithm that functions like the AI in a Train Simulator.
The inherent problem is that while on point 3 there are a few programs through Digitrax and JMRI that do that now with a bit less flexibility, points 1 and 2 would certainly require a change in the hardware of both the decoders found in rolling stock and the base stations. Along with my doubts that even if something similar to point 1 was made that it would be accurate enough for me to trust it over just having IR/light sensor blocks.
Now you are cooking!!!
With number 1 yes!
Number 2 I would also add that the decoder is transmitting through the rail via current is sensing the milliamperes and know when and where the locomotive is rolling by. Because you have to pair the Caboose also with the locomotive/s. Yes, the computer is reading any shift in the tracks layout. If the said value of the locomotive and caboose decided to expand while rolling down the track. The computer will get wind of this and stop the train and others that might be affected.
number 3 Yes, and yes AI algorithm altogether.
-
There is a lot of blithely stating that "the computer will know" being proposed without any description of the underlying physics or programming of how the computer is going to "know" where each locomotive and caboose are located on the track plan. It is not as simple as reading currents, because the wiring is not necessarily following the actual track, and multiple drops makes multiple paths for currents.
So, how about addressing that? And, please don't tell me to "go read [some reference] and I will understand". If you understand it then you would be able to explain it, clearly, to the rest of us.
There is already an RFID system available for model railroads - and it is not cheap. And, it doesn't do what you say can be done in the way of real time train position tracking, at least not with any reasonable number of RFID detectors.
-
There is a lot of blithely stating that "the computer will know" being proposed without any description of the underlying physics or programming of how the computer is going to "know" where each locomotive and caboose are located on the track plan. It is not as simple as reading currents, because the wiring is not necessarily following the actual track, and multiple drops makes multiple paths for currents.
So, how about addressing that? And, please don't tell me to "go read [some reference] and I will understand". If you understand it then you would be able to explain it, clearly, to the rest of us.
There is already an RFID system available for model railroads - and it is not cheap. And, it doesn't do what you say can be done in the way of real time train position tracking, at least not with any reasonable number of RFID detectors.
How about this then. Go back and reread ALL of my post and responses. Because I have already explained What you are asking. Here's a hint read my response from dem34 and Conrad
-
The posts on here are bringing out the asshats. With their asinine no train of though simpleton minds. They are just happy to play with their Brio Thomas the train sets.
-
overhead cameras in the ceiling tracking movements of the trains.
Wasn't thinking of something like this, but this is probably easily the best/most reliable way of accomplishing this goal. Probably the cheapest too.
-
The posts on here are bringing out the asshats. With their asinine no train of though simpleton minds. They are just happy to play with their Brio Thomas the train sets.
I think you might want to ratchet your high horse down a bit. Frankly, when you use terms like "the computer will get wind of this", you're inviting the 'asshats.' You can't just wave a wand and make two wires smarter...without spending a crapload of money, at least.
-
How about this then. Go back and reread ALL of my post and responses. Because I have already explained What you are asking. Here's a hint read my response from dem34 and Conrad
He isn't off base here though. I know what kind of current sensing/mapping system that would be needed in order to do this at the most base level. However, working with wire tracers with the accuracy for N scale at my IRL job gives me the slightest hint that most modelers would not be willing to shove a 2k usd wire tracer onto their system. Which is what you need in order to be vaguely accurate enough and even then would probably be better off with the myriad of more "binary" detection methods.
Also, don't be a dick.
-
I think you might want to ratchet your high horse down a bit. Frankly, when you use terms like "the computer will get wind of this", you're inviting the asshats. You can't just wave a wand and make two wires smarter...without spending a crapload of money, at least.
Whatever simpleton
-
He isn't off base here though. I know what kind of current sensing/mapping system that would be needed in order to do this at the most base level. However, working with wire tracers with the accuracy for N scale at my IRL job gives me the slightest hint that most modelers would not be willing to shove a 2k usd wire tracer onto their system. Which is what you need in order to be vaguely accurate enough and even then would probably be better off with the myriad of more "binary" detection methods.
Also, don't be a dick.
Thanks for seeing what I was looking into. Yes, with the current technology this might be costly. Then again we are all dumping money in the next biggest advancement in modelrailroading.
Whenever people are being asshats to me I will show them what a dick I can be.
-
The "asshats" on here actually gained their reputations by making things that work. Saying that people who don't accept your unsupported pronouncements are "asinine no train of though simpleton minds" is not going to cut it here.
I challenged you to explain how what you propose would actually work, without referring me to something to read elsewhere [that really doesn't answer the question, either] and you failed the test. All you did was substitute an insult for the requested explanation. A sure sign of somebody who really does not understand what he is talking about.
So, please don't bother to ask us to throw money into some Kickstarter project based on your pronouncements. We (at least some of us, not me) just went through that, and learned a lesson about people who talk big with no ability to actually produce.
-
The OP seems to be saying that he wants a location system "based on the old current detectors". So, he would be able to tell which block had current, but not where in that block the current was being drawn. If he wants to add a current detector to each drop in each block, he would still need to be able to figure out how much current through each drop means a locomotive is near that drop, because the bus and rails provide multiple current paths to any locomotives in the block. And, there could be more than one train in the large blocks typically used by DCC layouts. Even with sophisticated computer analysis of currents through drops, there is no way that the length of a train could be accurately checked with such a system, even with lighted caboose or end-of-train resistors.
Even with locos and caboose/EOT cars transponding their identities through the rails, there is no way to tell where those items are located on the tracks.
If we start thinking about some completely separate train location technology, like a mini GPS system, that would need to have really good positioning capability to distinguish which of two or more parallel tracks a train was occupying. Overhead cameras with the type of computer assisted item image tracking that is being used for the aircraft-based crime-fighting areal surveillance system being tested in Baltimore would probably work, but I would not expect that to be anything like "cheap" or simple for a layout operator to set up.
This really says something about how much diverse information humans use to operate a layout smoothly, using eyes and ears and logic to integrate all we can can see and hear. Trying to duplicate that with mechanical/electrical automation is like trying to build a prototype positive train control system in miniature. And might cost something like 1/160 what the prototype guys are spending to do that, now.
Current detectors is not the actual design, it is based from this due to computer response and sensing commands and movement on the track. Too much overkill with overhead cameras. Yes, this can be expensive. Though it will be more of a program/software than hardware. Yes, it is based on the positive train control system in miniature no doubt! 1/160 is my speed anyway.
-
Current detectors is not the actual design, it is based from this due to computer response and sensing commands and movement on the track. Too much overkill with overhead cameras. Yes, this can be expensive. Though it will be more of a program/software than hardware. Yes, it is based on the positive train control system in miniature no doubt! 1/160 is my speed anyway.
But how is the response being handled? Under normal circumstances all decoders often do is just transit basic ID data back with most operation accomplished through passively decoding signal data from the base current. How does that data become a readable and trackable sensing command?
-
The "asshats" on here actually gained their reputations by making things that work. Saying that people who don't accept your unsupported pronouncements are "asinine no train of though simpleton minds" is not going to cut it here.
I challenged you to explain how what you propose would actually work, without referring me to something to read elsewhere [that really doesn't answer the question, either] and you failed the test. All you did was substitute an insult for the requested explanation. A sure sign of somebody who really does not understand what he is talking about.
So, please don't bother to ask us to throw money into some Kickstarter project based on your pronouncements. We (at least some of us, not me) just went through that, and learned a lesson about people who talk big with no ability to actually produce.
I am not asking anyone to throw money into any project. I feel bad if anyone was duped into a failed project. Just because you are only relying on what is available now don't mean that things will change in the near future. Using Ideas and imagination and try things out is what advances people from the rest of the crowd. The only failure I see is when people are not wanting to change something to make it work better.
-
But how is the response being handled? Under normal circumstances all decoders often do is just transit basic ID data back with most operation accomplished through passively decoding signal data from the base current. How does that data become a readable and trackable sensing command?
This is where the software and computer really has to be trained to know to read and sense the command from the decoders. On with that the computer will have to know the distance between the front of the train and the rear. How is it readable? It would have to be taught to read and sense these signals, milliamps and other decoder/controller related commands
-
[attachimg=1]
-
(http://<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/h9Npy" ><a href="//imgur.com/a/h9Npy">Golden voltage</a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>)
One I have been in this hobby since the 80's N scale 1991. Dealt with many of people like you who likes acting like spoiled brats. Here you go, this should help you heal better.
-
@MoPac do you really think the retaliatory downvotes are a good idea? I have a feeling you're not going to like how this ends. I'll give you an opportunity to reverse them out if you care to stay around here very long.
-
Wow! I'm seeing a lot of negative vibes, um, votes being used ini this thread. :facepalm:
And to answer all your questions MoPac, see my signature.
MoPac: Been in the hobby since the '80s? Lots of members have lots more experience than you. Even I have been playing with toy trains since the '70s, and I'm one of the young ones. :)
-
@MoPac do you really think the retaliatory downvotes are a good idea? I have a feeling you're not going to like how this ends. I'll give you an opportunity to reverse them out if you care to stay around here very long.
Looks like the Preparation H is not working on you. Did you apply of it properly?
-
Wow! I'm seeing a lot of negative vibes, um, votes being used ini this thread. :facepalm:
And extending beyond this thread!!! :lol: :P :RUEffinKiddingMe: Hundreds of downvotes I have now all of a sudden....woe is me. lol
-
And extending beyond this thread!!! :lol: :P :RUEffinKiddingMe: Hundreds of downvotes I have now all of a sudden....woe is me. lol
LOL! I didn't realize that. I'm just as surprised as you are. Yes, this will likely not last very long. Something set MoPac off - he seemed to be quite happy with his Tomix layout, and now this? Can we blame this on COVID-19 social isolation?
-
LOL! I didn't realize that. I'm just as surprised as you are. Yes, this will likely not last very long. Something set MoPac off - he seemed to be quite happy with his Tomox layout, and now this? Can we blame this on COVID-19 social isolation?
Pretty sure the social isolation for MoPac was loooong before COVID-19.
-
@MoPac do you really think the retaliatory downvotes are a good idea? I have a feeling you're not going to like how this ends. I'll give you an opportunity to reverse them out if you care to stay around here very long.
woe is me! What am I going to do in the endless void?????
-
LOL! I didn't realize that. I'm just as surprised as you are. Yes, this will likely not last very long. Something set MoPac off - he seemed to be quite happy with his Tomox layout, and now this? Can we blame this on COVID-19 social isolation?
Give you a hint, the negative vibes.
-
OK, well, being a bona fide a$$hat with a modicum of experience in the various fields involved in this discussion, I felt compelled to respond. I’m having a great deal of difficulty wrapping my head around the topic.
So, please correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I gather, your goal is to determine the location of a train anywhere on a layout by detecting the amount of current draw from the locomotive. I’m seeing a few issues right away. First, the current drawn by a locomotive constantly changes. As the decoder is required to perform different tasks, the load it creates varies. It’ll need more power to transmit a signal, or generate a sound, or process a command, than when it’s sitting idle.
And this doesn’t even take into account the motor. Even at a constant speed, a motor’s current draw varies. If you’ve ever connected an ammeter to a running motor, you can watch the load constantly varying. If you want to see even bigger variations in load, however, watch how it changes as wheels roll over track. Unless the rail and wheels are all polished to a mirror finish, the load will vary—sometimes significantly—because of the slightest bit of dirt or tarnish on any metal surface. Plus, there could be all manner of spurious current draws, such as semi-conductive dirt around switch points, etc.
Now, here’s a $64,000 question: How would the system differentiate between the rails and the wires that connect the system to the rails? Wires aren’t always consistent in length, gauge, connection spacing, and so on, so we cannot make any assumptions that can be programmed into the software. Also, let’s take a really simple layout that’s a circle of track. A locomotive is somewhere out on the loop, but which side of the loop? Is it at 3 o’clock, or 9 o’clock? Making matters worse, the tail-end car is also out there reporting in. Which side of the loop is it on? Because if the system got that wrong, then the assumption it makes about the length of the train can be vastly different. And finally, distance relative to what? the controller? Some arbitrarily-located sensor? In either case, wires are going to wreak havoc with any assumptions you make about distance.
And we haven’t gotten into the fact that two locomotives won’t draw the same amount of current, no matter what, unless they are 100% identical, and even then there could be variations. Then there’s the case of a passing siding on the mainline. How could the system possibly differentiate between a loco on the main and a loco on the siding? Assuming all things being equal, the current draw would be identical either way.
Furthermore, the difference in current draw when a loco is one foot or two feet away will be so minute that I’m having a very difficult time identifying the means to detect such tiny differences. Add in motor and other RF noise—which is rife on a layout—and all I see is a futile effort, inside or outside the box. Thus I’m seeing all sorts of problems if you’re relying solely on current draw to determine location.
So, let’s assume instead the system is relying on a signal round-trip time instead of current draw. The system controller pings the locomotive; the locomotive replies. Measure the round trip. Now we’re talking about a system that, in order to differentiate between one foot and two, must measure the time difference in femtoseconds. (I used to work for an instrument manufacturer, and we’d measure the times of biochemical reactions, which can happen really, really fast.) Doable, but likely not cheap.
The biggest problem with this process, however, is the time it takes the locomotive to respond to the ping. Even the best microprocessor can’t respond in the femtosecond realm. Furthermore, if the loco’s tiny CPU happens to be busy doing something else at that instant, then the delay will be greater. Now we’ve got the problem that the time can vary, and the difference between responding within one or two clock cycles could be interpreted as a distance of plus or minus several feet or more.
And it still doesn’t solve the dilemma of which side of the circle the locomotive is occupying. Indeed, because the system cannot make that distinction, and the loco is, let’s say, at 9 o’clock, the system will obtain two very different results simultaneously, since there’s no way to direct the ping to the left or right side of the circle. And it makes my head hurt to think of what the results might be if there were multiple locos out on that circle. Then there’s still the case of a passing siding on the mainline, which a time-based system couldn’t possibly solve, either.
So, bottom line, we’ve pretty much eliminated relying on current draw alone as being a reliable method, as well as using a time-differential based on round-trips to the loco, unless I really missed the boat somewhere, in which case, I am all ears. But any solutions must be based in reality: how, precisely, would these very basic problems be addressed? The answer cannot be “AI software,” because even the best AI cannot counter the laws of physics that make current- or time-based systems unreliable.
Barring any miracle cures, what have we got left? All I could imagine is a GPS-like system: a transponder for each locomotive, and several sensors attached to the ceiling of the train room. Feasible, perhaps, although the discriminators in the sensors would need to be among the finest ever designed in order to obtain a resolution down to less than a foot. You’d still have problems with passing sidings, I suspect, since resolution down to an inch is likely stretching things, so the system would need to be imbued with some pretty potent AI software.
The above all represent passive systems that require little to no input from the modeler. I maintain, however, that it’s the “lazy man’s way” of doing things, and the modeler’s wallet will suffer the consequences, since there’s no free lunch. The alternative is to hunker down, and program your actual track plan into the system software, and use a more direct approach for locating trains. To me, RFID tech offers a much more cost-effective solution. The chips cost pennies apiece—you could put one in every car—and then install off-the-shelf readers strategically around the layout.
As an aside, the subject line had me thinking, DCC-double-plus-good. But, Big Brother jokes aside, a system as proposed seems like overkill, and the more complex a system is, the harder it will be to troubleshoot. Do you really want AI involved with your layout? “Alexa, where’s my train?” Scary thought.
-
Thank you DKS!
I will add to the number of practical difficulties by mentioning things like mid-train locomotives and those BLI cattle cars that make animal sounds. Those are going to be adding to current draws through lots of track feeders in the same block. Even with current detection on every feeder (which I think he said he is not proposing), it would require a lot of assumptions or one heck of a sophisticated AI program to even begin to pinpoint the locations of multiple current drawing items on the tracks of any realistic layout. It would at least require a real-time inventory of every item on the tracks and its current operating state. And then, the results would best be stated as something like "there is an 85% probability that loco #123 is located within x inches of point y."
The real problem with the OP's description is that it seems to oscillate between measuring current in multiple places and measuring the total draw on the command station or booster feed. He has not clearly communicated where he is getting what types of data and how he thinks that data can be processed to determine positions of individual pieces of equipment.
I have some knowledge of "neural networks" and AI for "learning" how particular patterns of data are associated with specific causes. There is a physical limitation on how much you can infer that comes from the number and nature of the data points used. The OP seems oblivious to the concept that the effects measured must be logically adequate to make the desired distinctions among the potential causes.
Unless/until the OP makes some clear description of what data he proposes to collect and how he proposes to analyze it, this thread is worse than useless, because it is generating a lot of ill will.
So, I am going to stop participating until I see some value in doing so.
-
I know this thread is locked .. but some thoughts
1) Digitrax transponding -- will allow you track locomotive information in a block. It seems to have mixed results ..
2) DKS's idea of using RFID would work similar to transponding, but would require relatively costly readers around the layout .. the real railroad does that ..
3) You could set up a receiver grid at known locations -- similar to cell phone towers and transmitters .. if you mapped out the room precisely enough, you could calculate the X Y (and maybe Z axis) based on the relative signal arrival at each receiver .. then or course you would need a precise time source and some software .. might be fun, but not worth the effort IMHO