Large Scale Central

Cordless Renovations closing the doors

General Discussion
#41

Greg;

I can understand how you feel, although my problem is much less complicated…!

I read all the threads on control systems, but never see any one of them, addressing my rather simplistic, and basic needs; although, each and every one of them is trying to attract the ever-growing public desire to control, every nut, bolt, light, sneeze, movement, or assorted noise; did I forget smoke, steam, or sweat… that are imagined to come out of some machine, or even rock, that might find its way into someone’s hand or mouth, within the next twenty years…

I readily see why quite a few people dig their heels in, and refuse to leave, the old fashioned plain DC, or AC systems, now generally called “Analog” by the hi-tech wizards.

I’m just a few leasure steps past that, but not very far.

Simply; I just want to control the electric motor in my very basic Bachmann ten wheeler, so that I can vary the speed; stop and start it, with the head light on or off, depending on me throwing a simple switch in the cab. All I want is to be able to do this dependably, with a simple battery powered R/C system

The original Aristo 27Mh system was fine, but with a switch to the latest R/C frequencies, it would be better.

I don’t want all the other crap, of noise, lights, bells and whistles…NO, I do not want any power, or signal in the track, leading to dependence on clean track, or maintaining circuits…no, I don’t need or want to have locomotives running constantly for 8+ hours a day…

Greg…you represent the people who enjoy “The bells and whistles”…and know how to make them work; getting upset with those that don’t seem to care, or can’t understand you, or don’t want to…drives you up a rope…they do the same for me…!!

MEANWHILE…I’m just wanting a VERY simple, DEPENDABLE/repairable/SUPORTED , R/C Battery system, with none of the other stuff. And…I much prefer push-buttons, over knobs…but push-buttons that don’t fail after 4 years or less of service…

I don’t have any arguments, with what others, or the market wants or supplies, but I sure would like my needs and desires provided for too…is that too much to ask ?

Loosing another supplier, good or bad, is not healthy for or neich market…

Fred Mills

#42

Actually, if you read my link, what I personally choose does not affect me presenting simple, effective R/C control systems… or for that matter any other option.

While most people normally only want to talk about what they want personally, my site does indeed cover inexpensive, simple control systems and the cases for using them. I give my analysis of my opinion of pro’s and cons, but the subject material is NOT restricted to my preferences.

So, I really wish you had gone to the link I presented before you made the assumption about the information I have on my site. I would have hoped that my willingness, no, actually my enthusiasm to engage in a discussion about battery power and control systems would have already communicated this.

So, I’m doing my best to represent ALL options on my site.

Re: losing a supplier: in this case, this supplier had been circling the drain for some time, and not really shipping product… and I won’t go further than that. There are people who can tell you more in detail and have been damaged.

Soo… I’m back to my web site… just getting to my section on G Scale Graphics products.

Greg

#43

Nice write up - or even rewrite, so far, Greg.

Perhaps I fall into yet another subset of folks. I only run one train at a time and that changes a lot of the “slant” of your arguments. I didn’t go battery becuase it was cheaper, I went battery because I visited a LOT of layouts before I got started. Every one of them had track power (probably just plain old DC) and every one of them said they NEVER had any problems with the electrical connections. It must have just been coincidence that they could not get their trains to run whenever I visited. (https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-embarassed.gif)

I’m not sure I agree with the part on your page where you say “OK, now we are assuming R/C, one to one throttle to loco, battery power”. Sure, you can assume that, but in talking with the folks I know that operate with battery and R/C, (and here’s where I’m going to assume) it seems to me that folks like the idea of a throttle that will control all of their locomotives. And MAYBE they have a backup throttle just in case (but it also controls the same set of locomotives.) Yes, they are typically only controlling one locomotive at a time, so there is a one-to-one relationship at that time - but that can change. For instance, I will always use the same throttle, but on different days, or even different runs on the same day, I may pick a different locomotive. Of course what I would really like is the ability to buy Brand X receivers, to be controlled by my throttle. Or, if the throttle manufacturer decides not to be in the market, buy a Brand Y throttle, that would also work with my receiver. All on battery power. Heck, I’d love to pick from a set of throttles so I could choose the kind I liked!

Ater trying lots of different systems, I have ended up with the Revolution. Certainly not perfect, but about the best of what I have tried for what I want (which is typically just operate). I haven’t tried to upgrade my throttles to the release where you can clone throttles, but I still wonder what the heck they were thinking when they decided to store all the locomotive information in the throttle in the first place! Then choosing NOT to have a clone function built in has to qualify as a very strange set of decisions. Perhaps they felt they had reinvent the wheel and just do the opposite of what DCC had done earlier storing the information in the receiver???(https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)

#44

Yep, I have revised and I’ll double check I put it in all the places, that when you are at about 4 or less locos, and/or want to run on other’s layouts, battery is often the best choice for R/C… I totally agree… as long as there are rails you can run.

I thought these 2 paragraphs covered it, but maybe I can do better:

Battery vs. track power is an endless debate between users. There are advantages, but typically it is NOT cost. Straight DC track power is cheapest. If you need remote control, i.e. several locos on the same track, then track powered remote control systems are still cheaper (yes even accounting for aluminum rail vs other rail) once you get over about 3 or 4 locos.

The main reason you find that people are running batteries is that they either cannot maintain power to the track, or they have been told that battery is cheaper/better (or they only have a few locos). There’s also a reason if you don’t have a layout, or bringing your locos to somewhere that there is no track power, that is a very good reason if you have no layout to run your trains on .

Re-reading it I can definitely improve …

On the one-to-one of loco and throttle… I will clarify what I am trying to say in my page, but will put it here, when you are operating the loco there is a one to one relationship, i.e. no other system or throttle is involved.

That was to underscore that there is no “system” like in a DCC system… there’s big advantages to a real system, for example, a DCC system in it’s “spare time” sends speed commands to all the locos on the track… so if you lift a loco from the track and put it back down, it keeps going at the last commanded speed. You cannot do this when all the throttles are independent, i.e. no common “brain/system” between them.

In a R/C system that was really a system, you could do things like stop all locos, not just yours, and hand off locos… another thing that would be great is you could share the frequency with several throttles, which is pretty much impossible now on most “one to one” systems.

I do completely understand having one physical throttle that can control multiple locos… and this is a big differentiator in my mind with the Revolution system that many people miss in my opinion.

And the soon to be released DCC Revolution system (I have one) should bring that ease of use to you and allow you to use any DCC decoder in your locos, but under the Revolution system.

Things are looking up, and personally thank you for taking the time to read my site and comment.

Greg

p.s., regarding the strange design decisions, I went round and round with Lewis on this stuff… You may not remember, but in order to consist locomotives, the initial release required to re-link each loco in the consist… nuts! I told him about making more of a system, and sharing loco information but he was having none of it… I’ve even got the original drawings of the throttle when it had a knob and was on 900 MHz…

#45

Fred, Dave Bodner did an article on just what you want. A simple hand held, rc speed controller.

http://trainelectronics.com/Articles/RadioControl_multi-channel-RF/index.htm

#46

I think that my “problem” with reading some of your arguments is that I just can’t comprehend what you are discussing.

For instance, you write:

That was to underscore that there is no “system” like in a DCC system… there’s big advantages to a real system, for example, a DCC system in it’s “spare time” sends speed commands to all the locos on the track… so if you lift a loco from the track and put it back down, it keeps going at the last commanded speed. You cannot do this when all the throttles are independent, i.e. no common “brain/system” between them.

In a R/C system that was really a system, you could do things like stop all locos, not just yours, and hand off locos… another thing that would be great is you could share the frequency with several throttles, which is pretty much impossible now on most “one to one” systems.

And I think…well, I’m “operating” one locomotive. It goes forward, reverse, stop, whatever. Though I’ve never done it, I THINK that if I lift the loco up from the track and put it back down that it WILL keep going at whatever speed it was going before - Heck, why wouldn’t it? I can run the locomotive along my floor and I have! (Let’s not bring up my intelligence level for doing THAT! (https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-embarassed.gif))

I just don’t understand why that’s a plus. Same with your next sentence. I imagine I’m out at Andy’s and I’m switching the Industrial Park. I really DON’T want somebody running the coal train to Memphis to STOP MY loco, for whatever reason (even if it’s BEER time!) (Heck, I’ve run DCC at Stan’s and wondered WHAT just happened that made my locomotive just STOP! Argh! (Maybe it was a short?)

I’m thinking that we’re are coming from such different perspectives that neither one of us can see the great stuff that can be done with the other system/non-system! (OK, that’s probably just me, but I REALLY don’t get it. (https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cry.gif))

#47

One thing on my site, and especially in the R/C section… is to establish the requirements before you make a decision…

Fred listed some:

Simply; I just want to control the electric motor in my very basic Bachmann ten wheeler, so that I can vary the (1) speed; stop and start it, with the (2) head light on or off, depending on me throwing a simple switch in the cab. All I want is to be able to do this (3) dependably, with a simple battery powered R/C system

I’m just wanting a VERY simple, (4) DEPENDABLE/repairable/SUPORTED , R/C Battery system, with none of the other stuff. And…I much prefer (5) push-buttons, over knobs…but push-buttons that don’t fail after 4 years or less of service (5) …

And he forgot to list:

Coexistance with other systems (6)

available in different channels/frequencies (7)

range (though I would call this associated with (3)

So Dave, I think your suggestion fails requirements 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 … (I can explain each of these assertions if they are not obvious)

Thinking things through, writing what you want/need down and looking at the requirements objectively can take you to decisions quickly and eliminate the wrong choices.

Fred needs the units from G Scale Graphics… I think they meet all his needs.

Greg

#48

Greg,

You are TOO organized and rational! (https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)Or, you expect other folks to be just as organized, or even rational.

Heh…“Establish your basic requirements” before you make a decision.(https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-innocent.gif)

Great advice! But, how does one get there???

“Uh, yeah, I think I’d like to have a train outside in the yard…and it should run…or something. Oh, pull some railroad cars, yeah, that’s the ticket! And, dang it, it should stay on the track!”

“How will it be powered?”

“Well, that’s easy: appropriately”.

OK, we all know the correct answer to THAT question is “unicorn farts”, but I sure wish I had an inkling of what questions MIGHT be appropriate when I was just starting. I admire the work you’ve done on your site, but maybe the users are just not that rational to start with. Or, maybe I’m just remembering how daunting the whole thing was when I started, and just wishing I could have come up with something, anything, that might make me feel just a little bit intelligent.

Or, maybe it’s only me? (https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)

#49

I remember too Bruce… I read every forum post I could get my hands on before even posting. I read EVERY post on LSOL, and pretty much the same for MLS and LSC…

That and the help I got from people is one of the main driving reasons I have a web site, and there’s 10 pages of Beginner’s FAQs in a valiant effort to spare others the pain we all have gone through, albeit to varying extents (https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)

I’m constantly updating it, and trying to help others as I see them ping pong all over the place trying to make a decision. My role at work is a leader, but it’s more like herding cats, so I’m still learning organization. When you stop learning, then it’s trouble.

Greg

#50

No…I can speak for myself, but I don’t need G Scale graphics…

I only went so far, but now this thread has opened up into a quite different topic…

Like others, in this VERY small part of the Model Railroading hobby; In my own way I studied very well to determine what I wanted, and needed.

I tried R/C from the very start, with the old CT16 project, and its R/C add-on. We built a few of the receivers, and the main control box…using some old Futaba transmitters…but soon learned that the main, and most irritating part of the system, was that bane of all electric trains was forever with us…that very poor mechanical connection; Wheel to rail contact.

I also had all the wiring in place to support that system, because I had started with simple block control.

I planned my railroad, and determined how many locomotives a shortline like mine would require, and what types were needed for what train…I don’t collect locomotives, or cars.

You must remember it was to be an OPERATING railroad, not a typical roundy roundy.

Each locomotive needed its own throttle, as there was to be up to six crews, and 6 locomotives.

Along came Aristo and their 27Mh on board system…and it was just what was needed…too bad they couldn’t keep making it. I’m still using it today, along with the 6 volt Gel Cells…

But, today the World has changed. Just about all our "Members have basically two locomotives each. One for the SG operation, and one for the NG.

My locomotives seldom are needed, but I still have two, ready, willing, and able, on stand-bye.

To stop that smart ass…yes I do, and can operate a train, but seldom during an operation, as hosting takes my time and efforts. I’m devoted to "OUR railroad, and the friends enjoying it with me.

Fred Mills

#51

I wrote something long and tried to address what you said, but I think you just want to vent for some reason. I don’t see how the thread opened up to complain about everyone that does anything different than you do, but have at it.

Anyway I apologize if my “opening the door” caused you to be upset. I promise not to say “roundy round” for a while…

Greg

#52

It might also be pointed out…

That we were experimenting, and operating with R/C Batteries, before just about any group in North America, and even before Lewis Polk brought out his On Board system.

The story has been told many times…of Stu Moxley at one of the first ECLSTS’s speaking with Lewis Polk. Lewis noted that Stu had probably 3 or 4 of the old Train Engineer systems in a bag or bags, and Lewis started asking how many loops of track he was going to power with them…Stu, told him…no…the receivers were going in trailing cars, and Pacific tenders (After they were removed from the black boxes) and were going to use accompanying batteries…Lewis said; oh, you can’t do that…only to be pointed to the fact that the bloody things didn’t care where the power came from, as long as it was 18 volts DC…

Another of our guys put his Aristo Pacific on a table in front of Lewis Polk, and ran it across the table towards him, without any track…stopping just before it landed in his lap…

It was shortly after that when the “On Board” units appeared on the market…

There were others, mostly loners, experimenting too, but most belonged to the RED BOX BRGADE, and LGB would not approve…!! Getting people “Un-tethered” from power and signal from the track, is the most significant ADVANCEMENT in the history of ELECTRIC Model Railroading…DCC was the first step in that advancement. The only main obstacle, slowly being overcome, is the battery, or “Fuel cell”. But even that is advancing, and very slowly creeping into the smaller scales.

I’m sure there were pockets of loners all over experimenting, but in LS it often feels like pulling hen’s teeth to attract some to RC/Battery, or even DCC…usually because of the fear of not understanding, or the cost…even peer pressure of the guys “In the club” can prevent advancement. The same goes for standardizing of couplers, on club layouts…but that’s another subject…!!

Fred Mills

The small but VERY progressive gang in OTTAWA led the way…and still do in many little ways…

Paul Norton took a lead when Lewis Polk involved him in Beta Testing of the “Revolution”……

#53

Stay away for a while and all sorts of things happen. All I can say is WOW. Later RJD

#54

Greg Elmassian said:

No, it’s not, it was about the thread drift allowed by Bob, and I responded to the flurry of “chaff”.

It’s too bad, a very interesting subject, and Bob is indeed on to something in how a modular wireless control system should be working, and taking advantage of the technology already out there.

For anyone who cares to understand what Bob is asking about, and what I believe he is driving towards, I am revising my R/C section of my web site… over the next few days, there will be a lot more information, and I am addressing the very interesting and current issue Bob is asking about.

https://elmassian.com/index.php/large-scale-train-main-page/dcc-battery-rc-electronics/battery-power-remote-control

I can explain it as best as possible, and I won’t have to fight anyone to put the information forwards.

Greg

Greg,

Interesting collection of information.

If I may I would be pleased if you considered adding a type of Battery, R/C that is almost never mentioned in discussions (they usually end up in a ‘my system does this etc and is the best’ argument) and that is DIY.

As I have previously written on this and other fora, I have a custom made system that most likely falls into the first category in your list, it makes my loco go FWD and REV has simple directional lighting. It also connects to proprietary sound cards…

Reading Fred Mills’ comments I could relate quite well to them, even though I am on the opposite of the planet (I’m in a majority of 1 where I am).

A simple DIY “system” using motor controllers from the robotics arena (I think my locos and robots have something in common) I think could merit a mention in the list.

There are a vast range of DIY systems out there, so I think it is fair that DIY rates a mention in the list.

With regard to DCC via radio; my very limited knowledge of DCC is that a series of signals are passed via rails to decoders, with the decoder responding to its address.

What are the limitations of sending the information via a series of data packets that are passed to the decoders after being received via some form of interface that would effectively simulate the rails?

As for frequency to make it a worldwide standard I think 2.4GHz would have to be the go, as stated by Tony.

For instance I recall reading an article on a DIY DCC system but the frequency was 900MHz and in Aust, making was OK but using it breached the communications control regulations and that made it an issue for me.

#55

Graeme:

I’ve been revising my site to better delineate entry level systems, although personally I have a hard time trying to save $10 on a loco by re-purposing a toy car controller, when a few bucks more will buy you something much better and reliable.

On DCC over the air, many people are doing this and it’s pretty easy, because there is enough error correction in the basic protocol to just transmit it as is over the air, i.e. the radio is just like a modem… same data just different vehicle.

2.4 GHz is one frequency, and there are special 900 MHz frequencies in many countries, but you are missing the part on how you connect one throttle to one loco… that is the ideas of reserved frequencies, frequency hopping, binding, digital addresses, etc.

It can be done simplistically like AirWire, and many of the DCC over the air systems. This method needs nothing more than the radios transmit and receive the DCC signal as it “looks” on the rails.

But having multiple locos for one throttle, or sharing frequencies are more complex, and this is where a standard would help.

Greg

#56

Greg Elmassian said:

Graeme:

I’ve been revising my site to better delineate entry level systems, although personally I have a hard time trying to save $10 on a loco by re-purposing a toy car controller, when a few bucks more will buy you something much better and reliable.

On DCC over the air, many people are doing this and it’s pretty easy, because there is enough error correction in the basic protocol to just transmit it as is over the air, i.e. the radio is just like a modem… same data just different vehicle.

2.4 GHz is one frequency, and there are special 900 MHz frequencies in many countries, but you are missing the part on how you connect one throttle to one loco… that is the ideas of reserved frequencies, frequency hopping, binding, digital addresses, etc.

It can be done simplistically like AirWire, and many of the DCC over the air systems. This method needs nothing more than the radios transmit and receive the DCC signal as it “looks” on the rails.

But having multiple locos for one throttle, or sharing frequencies are more complex, and this is where a standard would help.

Greg

Greg,

I’m sorry but I must take issue with part of your reply.

In reply to the statement in bold above; the controllers I use are not “toy car” but are high end robotics controllers coupled with DSM2 Transmitters and Receivers, the same as what is offered on this site and others as being the best you can get.

Personally I feel the sort of attitude of “if its not proprietary its not good” contributes to the snobbiness of most most commercial offerings; in other word "if its not “proprietary” or “prototypical” then it is to be dismissed as not a usable method.

To clarify my decision to go the way I did was prompted by a quote for a Radio Control System for a $400 loco I purchased, the quote came back at $450 so effectively doubling the price and where I live the postage precluded me from even dreaming about thinking of buying something like that as I would have to nearly mortgage my house to buy it.

When a person does not have well paid employment, or even no income other than a small pension and does not have a large amount of disposable income they will take the best that they can get, hence DIY.

This is my personal opinion so we may have to agree to disagree on this.

By the way I do have a Revolution controller setup installed in a loco (its 2nd hand) but because of being tied to one manufacturer I will ditch it when it blows up and will replace it with my DIY setup.

As for “special 900 MHz frequencies in many countries” I am not in one of those countries In my country 900MHz is restricted so where would that leave me; out side a world standard?

#57

Graeme,

You wrote:

Personally I feel the sort of attitude of “if its not proprietary its not good” contributes to the snobbiness of most most commercial offerings; in other word "if its not “proprietary” or “prototypical” then it is to be dismissed as not a usable method.

I don’t think the problem is that “if it’s not proprietary its not good” is the problem. Proprietary can be very good maybe even better than the non-proprietary system. But, the problem comes when you want to expand your proprietary systems a few years down the road and you find out the company has gone out of business. It’s not snobbery, it’s just trying to keep a system you like.

For me, I never was too much concerned about prototypical control, since I’m using a controller to operate an electric model of a steam locomotive. (https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)

#58

Graeme, I was not referring to you about toy car controllers… I was referring to other comments here and on other forums, and really to the original post of the thread.

Also you state that you bought a loco for $400 and then the r/c system was quoted at $450 and that was too high a percentage… AGREED… you see my statement, and in that case my threshold of pain, as I stated, would have been $200…

Lastly, you should realize that there is indeed an ISM band at 918 to 928 MHz, it’s just a pain to work in, since there’s cell phone and other fixed stuff around, but it IS there. I can give you links to your country’s laws if you really want to press this point. (and the inexpensive Lynx transceiver that AirWire, QSI, and many others used works in that range).

Greg

#59

Greg Elmassian said:

Graeme, I was not referring to you about toy car controllers… I was referring to other comments here and on other forums, and really to the original post of the thread.

Also you state that you bought a loco for $400 and then the r/c system was quoted at $450 and that was too high a percentage… AGREED… you see my statement, and in that case my threshold of pain, as I stated, would have been $200…

Lastly, you should realize that there is indeed an ISM band at 918 to 928 MHz, it’s just a pain to work in, since there’s cell phone and other fixed stuff around, but it IS there. I can give you links to your country’s laws if you really want to press this point. (and the inexpensive Lynx transceiver that AirWire, QSI, and many others used works in that range).

Greg

I find it annoying that when a new comer asks something akin to “which is the best R/C system for to begin with?” on various fora they are bombarded with “System XYZ is the best, oh and it just so happens that it is sold by me”, as far as I am concerned that is commercial advertising by stealth.

A disclaimer of vested interest would help overcome this situation.

Thanks for the offer of the links Greg but I have dealt with the ACMA on numerous occasions plus I have 2 near neighbours who are licenced radio operators, not to mention all the comms engineers where I work, who provide me all the information I require regarding the Aust frequency spectrum.

Maybe I did not explain myself as well as I could in my post, I was suggesting that a mention of DIY may be appropriate to add to the site, my point being is that if a person offers to be a mentor to new comers (I am out here to help) then perhaps presenting all options should be should be the norm and not direct them into a particular direction.

I believe a hobby should involve a component of experimenting with new skills, including basic electronics (not just plug and play), weathering, scratchbuilding etc.

#60

Ain’t nothin’ at all wrong with the DIY route. We have battery R/C for our trains specifically because 35 years ago, a handful of hobbyists from various corners of the world wanted something other than track power and did it themselves. In my case, it was dad and I experimenting with old-school Futaba 4-channel radios and early speed controllers. There was too much interference with that set-up, so dad–being an electrical engineer–designed his own speed control instead. Others were experimenting with similar systems using off-the-shelf components and/or building their own systems. That’s the experimentation that laid the foundation for the array of products we have today.

There are two DIY trains of thought I see in play in today’s R/C environments, and each has the potential to be equally revolutionary. The first is more software-based, looking for new ways to control existing technology. This is what I would call the “why re-invent the wheel” way of doing business. There’s already a large pool of DCC decoders on the market, all we’re looking to do is find new ways of controlling them and making them much more user-friendly. In other posts, I’ve equated this to what Windows and Mac did to the older computer interfaces. The DCC foundation is there; the goal is to make it transparent to the user. Martin’s controller is one example of this, and I’ve read of others looking to do similar things. That’s a great model, but as we’ve read on this thread, not everyone wants all the “bells and whistles” that DCC gives you.

The other train of thought goes back to the early days of battery R/C development in this hobby–that of adapting off-the-shelf components from other hobbies and industries for our purposes. This is a more “ground-up” approach in that the modeler is compiling all aspects of control (transmitter, receiver, motor, light, sound(?) control themselves. That’s the old-school experimenting we were doing 35 years ago, but with much cooler, smaller, and more reliable technology. The primary advantage to playing in this environment is that these systems need be only as complex as the builder needs them to be. Just want basic motor control? Done. Need to add lights? Find a module that will turn lights on and off. Control a sound board? Look for something that will allow you to trigger sounds on an existing sound board. (You could design your own sound systems, but that’s quite extreme.) This is the technology that’s driving robots with far more precision than we would ever need in the garden. There’s no reason not to look in that direction for inspiration and resources.

In both cases, there’s a core reliance on technology that people have already developed and proven. The “DIY” part comes in figuring out how to tie it together for our specific purposes. To relate this to Bob’s “dream” system, I think if there’s to be something that comes close to what he wants, it’s going to come from one of these two trains of thought. It’s not going to come from an incremental development of any of the systems we currently have for model train control. It’s going to take someone looking at the issue from a whole new perspective, then realizing certain components we may already have will fit into this new architecture.

Later,

K