Railmagic

This is where you computer control guys might have missed the point of Railmagic. At running sessions in clubs Peter, Edward and Thomas are driving one train each with a handheld throttle working around on the floor. Mick and Charlie are controlling one station each and giving permission to use the mainlines. Railmagic can replace Peter, Edward and Thomas or be their's invisible friend and control additional trains. Mick and Charlie will still be needed - at least until the "press-one-button-and-watch" feature is ready. Equivalently, you can have great running sessions all by yourself at home with tens of trains running. The world is not black and white. Why must it then be full automation or none? The majority of modellers has no automation at all and will welcome Railmagic to give them an extra hand and two. Railmagic gives you engine drivers and they have never been responsible for prevention collisions. When it comes to my knowledge about computer control, I might have downplayed myself to be polite and ask open-ended questions. I could do more research, but the answers from a couple of you guys shows that trying to find out the truth about computer control is like finding the truth in politics. Thank you for taking the time, this debate has been valuable for me. Best regards, Ulrik

I'm afraid Railmagic has finished the calibration process before the water is boiling

And this is how it goes: You go for one detector per block and spend $300 on detectors and $250 on iTrain. One year later: You find out of that it is not good enough and you need two detectors per block. You double the number of detectors (how to do this easily?), another $300. You are not happy with iTrain and change to TrainController, yet another $639. So in theory computer control costs $550 but in reality you spend $1489.

It is not just a question of whether computer control is able to do something, but whether an averaged skilled person within reasonable time and effort can do it.

There is apparent inconsistency between what users of computer control say. Some claims one detector per block is enough, others that more is better. Some claims speed can be changed while crossing between blocks, others that speed changes occur inside blocks. No wonder we who dream of automation are confused.

You indicates that both programs have limitations and room for improvements. Can you specify? To me it is still a kind of "in this block do this, in the next block do this" causing what I call robotic movement.

It is unclear whether you describe what computer control "is" doing or "should" be doing. What you describe is how Railmagic does it, so again the systems are very alike.

But it has to enter a block with a constant speed, right? This means you have to decide where the trains are going to slow down before building the layout. Railmagic can slow down anywhere. Further, you specify where the speed limit begins. The engine drivers start to brake at different locations to reach the desired speed at the same location.

I agree, TrainController is designed to use 3 detectors per block, and that is probably because it is best to do so. But I am not the right person to be be claiming this. I have just been looking in the manual and not tried.

Computer control relays on the deceleration profile in the decoder, therefore the braking is the same for a train independently on the number of wagons attached. Railmagic can brake with any profile and make it dependable on situations as load, downhill, snow on the track etc. How well computer control can slow down a train at stations before starting to brake is a little unknown to me. I believe that the profiling of the engine that RFS told about somehow demand that an engine has a constant speed when entering a block. I have a feeling that computer control is a bit robotic in movement. Railmagic can change the speed without restrictions on the position in the block. For example, the virtual driver can make sure that the first turnout at the station is reached at 40 MPH if going into track #1 and 60 MPH if going into track #2. Prototypical railways are moving away from block control into moving blocks. This makes trains possible to run with a constant distance between them and signals are not needed. Railmagic can do this because it has a continuously known position of the train similar to GPS for prototypical trains. Hard to see how a system based on blocks can do that. This alone is a reason to support Railmagic (can be done on our website from $10) because in 10-20 years computer control cannot simulate real behavior. A change is needed! We have also been thinking about an ATC-system, where a person can drive one loco manually (popular to do in clubs at running sessions). However, Railmagic will emergency brake the loco if a signal is passed at danger (or assumed to be). With no limitation on how often the driver changes the speed of the loco, I don't believe computer control will be able to know how far the loco is from the signal. Railmagic does by the millimeter.

Thanks a lot RFS. Then it works as I assumed (I have been researching). The point here is that the majority of people reading this topic didn't know it. Thank you again for bringing everyone aligned. Then I want to conclude: 1) Both Railmagic and computer control demand decoders with back-EMF, though the demand for decoders is reasonable. 2) Both Railmagic and computer control use the length of the train to clear previous blocks. 3) The accuracy of computer control comes from back-EMF, calibration data and known fixed locations. So does Railmagic just that is got more fixed locations. Though it is reasonable to assume that Railmagic is at least as precise as computer control, as long as the principle of using magnets works.

My lack of native English might be an issue here, but do you mean stud-contacts as in Märklin M-tracks? Then it works. The base of M-tracks are not magnetic.

Please make a full disclosure of missing features then. Someone just told that one detector per block was enough. Then I don't see how the computer knows whether the train has fully entered a new block and can clear the previous one. Could you enlighten me?

Then have a router just for your model railway. It doesn't have to be online. The router is needed because you will use an app on your smartphone. How would you do that without a router? The DR5000 has a router build in, that doesn't seem to be a security threat.

Thanks RFS for sharing details about your setup. With more engines than blocks the price will favor computer control over Railmagic, but it also indicates that your layout is crowded. The tracker costs around 2-4% of the price of an engine. Railmagic will eventually be able to do more than computer control system can do, so be careful when comparing one-to-one. But to sum-up all features is wrong. They overlap. It's of course my job to make that clear for customers. For example, if you buy the Routing Automation feature, you will not need many of the other ones. Most users would spend maximum £100 on features. For someone just starting to collect model trains, Railmagic should be a better alternative. For someone with a working computer control, there will always be issues to point at. It is fully understandable. Humans will always defend what they know and resist the unknown. Didn't you for example forget to tell that you have to make the wheels of your wagons conductive? Some people have difficulties climbing underneath the layout whereas the trackers can be installed by friends/shops. Because the system approaches are so difference I don't think the battle between pros./cons. brings any clearness.