Next Model Railroaing Tech Breakthrough...

[up1950s]

Constant current diodes?  I have never found one with the current of less than 10mA which is way too much for white LEDs.  While safe for the LED itself, it makes them glow way too brightly.  Plus they introduce additional voltage drop (with 3V already needed across the white LED) so the DC voltage needed to illuminate the LED will be quite high.  CLDs are also very sensitive to reverse voltage (as are white LEDs), so you need to add another diode in series with the resto of the circuit. That addy yet another 0.5-0.7V of voltage needed to illuminate the LED.

Thanks for that info . I thought John Sing had used them a few years ago , and that they were only available over in China or Japan . Oh well .

[VonRyan]

Just get Kato to produce a PRR K4 and we can call it a day. 

[basementcalling]

Control technologies would benefit many. I would love something simpler than DCC. I am plunging into that pool on my current layout and I feel like I almost need a degree in computer or electrical engineering to configure the control system for my layout.  JMRI, DS64, PM5, AR5, RTR, TDT, OMFG? It's an alphabet soup of electronic noise at this point. I am hoping as I force myself to learn and with more frequent use of the system that I will remember better how to simply program a decoder and choose a locomotive with the throttle.That "Hook up two wires and you are ready to operate" line is one of the biggest myths in model railroading. And each decoder, don't ask about sound equipped locos, adds to the cost of participation. New technologies expand what is possible in our hobby, but also can restrict the number of participants.

I'd like to see new technologies that cut expenses, because most of our technological advances have increased the cost of hobby participation. Yes I expect I'll get flamed on that, and I know the arguments that the quality has increased dramatically because of new technologies. I get that. Pad printed cars sure look nice with that 4 color process, but 3 cars can cost what 5 used to. I love the new MT weathered offerings, but they cost more and are packaged in 2 packs or in runner packs that increase the price. Adding details like underframes or free standing grabs or road specific  loco details make better products  that can be more "advanced" than other older models, but again at a higher cost. The more of the old "modeling" activities the manufacturers do for us with technology....

Our sound equipped Challengers,  Big Boys, and PA1s are exquisite models, but the price tags are equally high on the pain  chart. The sound isn't the only improvement if you compare a new Athearn 4 6 6 4 to a Con Cor Rivarossi version, but they both still do essentially the same thing. Probably the only solution to the cost challenge is a larger market and savings on quantities of scale, but growing the hobby is harder when the new technological gizmos that could hook the new generation of hobbyists price the hobby out of their range.

New technology is great, and desirable, but new modelers and more layouts would be even better for the hobby.

[victor miranda]

technology I'd like.
...
a way to add weight to n-scale locos.
(Gold is an expensive path to what I want
lead is a little soft and while pewter is servicable
it is not a lot more weight than zamac.)

reliable pick-ups

brushless motors

scale size couplers that work
(over 100 cars and over uneven track)

a paint the stops light.
(so my structures do not look like jack-o-lanterns.
this will help with headlamps as well.)

better anti-static protection for all electronics in my model railroading.

these seem simple and yet they are not.

[C855B]

You guys have forgotten about tungsten - better density than lead, just impossible to machine or cast with conventional tech. A technology to machine tungsten into frames and shaped weights would be a genuine breakthrough.

[mrbmac]

Things that I would like to see:

- Bluetooth technology could replace DCC control.  This would allow easier integration into computer systems without the need for adapters and specialty programs.
- RFID technology for occupacy detection
- cheaper sound decoders

Other thoughts:
 Would it be possible to have a loco that would get power from its own battery system?  I know people have negative thoughts on this, but I would think that if you have a battery car, similar to a sound car, you could handle it space wise.  There could be charging tracks similar to how we use programming tracks. 

The big benefit to this would be that it would essentially eliminate most all of under track wiring.  No more worrying about soldered joiners, insulated joiners, dropping feeder wires, etc.   You could essentially run the trains on plastic rails if you wanted to.

I would think that the benefit of simpler wiring and electronics would outweigh the downsides of having to keep your locos charged up.   Sure, the battery tech would add cost to the locos, but you would save with track costs (cheaper and simpler turnouts), wiring costs, boosters, terminal blocks, etc, etc.

[Jesse6669]

I would think that the benefit of simpler wiring and electronics would outweigh the downsides of having to keep your locos charged up.   Sure, the battery tech would add cost to the locos, but you would save with track costs (cheaper and simpler turnouts), wiring costs, boosters, terminal blocks, etc, etc.

It would be an interesting proposition to have engine facilities that actually served to "fuel" the model (the EF rails would be "live" to charge up the locos, whereas the rest of the layout would be "dead").  Perhaps fuel tanks of diesels, and tenders of steamers, can be re-purposed to house battery/capacitors.  And maybe even small motors--think cell phone vibrator motors--could be used like traction motors in the trucks.   Powering some kindof RF control system would be a trick though.  And sound would also drain the system I would think.

The point is well taken that wiring for power would be eliminated, but signalling and turnout power would still require wiring..  Unless turnouts were similarly powered and controlled. 

Fun to think about but I'm not holding my breath! 

[Lemosteam]

Fun to think about but I'm not holding my breath!

You guys might want to take a look at the "dead Rail Society" yahoo group....  I get some interesting emails from them periodically...

[victor miranda]

You guys might want to take a look at the "dead Rail Society" yahoo group....  I get some interesting emails from them periodically...

this will put a premium on efficient locos.

I know it can be done....
yall sure ya want it?

[Lemosteam]

Victor, define efficient.  If a rail powered loco has to move all this tungsten or lead for traction, then a battery will have weight and mass in a similar fashion, but no pickup worries.

What if the FRAMES were the batteries... 

[victor miranda]

Hi lemosteam,

for trials I'd jam a battery into a boxcar....

efficient would be a little power to haul cars as possible
to make that battery last more than a loop or two.

as far as pick-up goes... If we could find a simple, cheap, and VERY effective pick-up
no one would ever consider batteries.

funny what technology trumps what.

victor

[peteski]

Other thoughts:
 Would it be possible to have a loco that would get power from its own battery system?  I know people have negative thoughts on this, but I would think that if you have a battery car, similar to a sound car, you could handle it space wise.  There could be charging tracks similar to how we use programming tracks. 

The big benefit to this would be that it would essentially eliminate most all of under track wiring.  No more worrying about soldered joiners, insulated joiners, dropping feeder wires, etc.   You could essentially run the trains on plastic rails if you wanted to.

I would think that the benefit of simpler wiring and electronics would outweigh the downsides of having to keep your locos charged up.   Sure, the battery tech would add cost to the locos, but you would save with track costs (cheaper and simpler turnouts), wiring costs, boosters, terminal blocks, etc, etc.

That's totally unacceptable to me. The power source needs to be in the locomotive (not some permanently coupled 2nd car or dummy loco.  If you want to go that route, you can already install keep-alive super-caps in a dummy or a 2nd car and run uninterrupted using existing DCC.

Even is some heavy and high-capacity rechargeable battery is developed, all the rechargeable batteries have a limited life. I don't want to have to replace the batteries in my locos every few years.

A separate charging track or charging section is also unacceptable to me.  Charging would have to be tranaparent to the user.   I still think that through-the-rails charging makes most sense. Wiring is very simple and the track doesn't really have to be very clean to still be able to continuously charge the batteries.

[mmagliaro]

Ahem, to quote myself from page 1:

Whatever it is, it must eliminate the burden of cleaning track.
I still think that by far the biggest pain in the rear end that gets in the way of enjoying my trains
is keeping the track clean.

That means either a new battery that can pack larger amounts of charge in smaller spaces
(OR...  a few other crackpot ideas).

The battery is the thing.
Efficiency?  That problem is solved.  I have climbed to the mountaintop and I have seen the coreless, and it is good.
I don't think I have a single coreless-powered engine that draws 100 mA, and most of them draw under 60, and
that's pulling a decent length (i.e 30 car train) and including the headlight LED.

Pessimistically: 3 hrs of run time x .100 =  300 mAh

The helicopter LiPO batteries are not quite there yet in a size that would be handy for N Scale.
But they pack a wallop for their size and I bet we will see batteries with 10x the capacity soon enough.
Nobody would have imagined capacities like LiPO before that appeared.

I *could* manage it in a larger steam loco if I filled the tender with batteries, but the size has to go down
to make this really practical.  Charging circuitry can all be external, so that's no problem (i.e. a little "port"
on the bottom of the engine, you roll it over a service track, push some sort of button or lever to raise
a plug, and you're in business.  Make it a magnetic port like the power cables on Apple laptops and you
eliminate all the hassles of broken pins and exactly locating the engine.

Need a little circuitry to shut off/protect the battery when it's output drops so you don't destroy the battery.
Also very small.
We really are close on the battery.

The control signal... that's another story.  WiFi?   RF?   Too big, too battery hogging.

[peteski]

You guys have forgotten about tungsten - better density than lead, just impossible to machine or cast with conventional tech. A technology to machine tungsten into frames and shaped weights would be a genuine breakthrough.

I have a tiny Dapol Terrier 0-6-0 loco which has tungsten ballast slab in it.  It appears to have been formed by powdered metal sintering. That process could be utilized to make complex-shaped frames without needing for machining.

[mmagliaro]

That's totally unacceptable to me. The power source needs to be in the locomotive (not some permanently coupled 2nd car or dummy loco.  If you want to go that route, you can already install keep-alive super-caps in a dummy or a 2nd car and run uninterrupted using existing DCC.

Even is some heavy and high-capacity rechargeable battery is developed, all the rechargeable batteries have a limited life. I don't want to have to replace the batteries in my locos every few years.

A separate charging track or charging section is also unacceptable to me.  Charging would have to be tranaparent to the user.   I still think that through-the-rails charging makes most sense. Wiring is very simple and the track doesn't really have to be very clean to still be able to continuously charge the batteries.

I'm with you on point 1.

Not on points 2 and 3.   Changing a rechargeable battery does not have to be arduous.
If I had to change a battery in a loco every 2 years, that would still be a lot less work than cleaning wheels and track,
and a lot less aggravating.   If smartly designed, and when the batteries get small enough, I would hope the battery
could be changed just by popping the engine shell, unplugging the battery, and plugging in a new one.   I probably
have to clean and lubricate an engine every few years anyway, so why not change the battery?  Pop the shell,
put a drop of oil on the motor bearings, clean out any dirt and fuzz, change the battery.

As for the separate charging track, why not?  A real railroad has to bring engines into servicing facilities to
refuel them.  They can't just refuel "on the fly".  So why not make the model work like the real thing?
And you could have more recharging spots located around the layout  for convenience.  I don't think
it would be very inconvenient.

I guess recharging through the rails would be handy, but I don't see that as necessary at all.