Why Didn't Live Steam Take Off?

[Hitchin Junction]

 

Mechanical inertia drive. Unfortunately was only in production for a few years in the 80's I think. Probably because it cost several times the price of most motors at the time. That type of mechanical stuff costs a lot of money to make, especially in low volume.

 

Tim

[wasdavetheroad]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

All this talk of batteries and radio control is very interesting - but as with the 'Live steam' product you start to tun into problems of where to put the kit in 00!

 

Yes large tender locos will potentially have space in the tender (although possibly not if you fit them with a speaker and DCC sound), but what about smaller tender or tank engines? They would have to drag round a dedicated 'power car' which rather ruins the ability to model small branch lines or shunting operations.

 

The battery / radio control solution is a better fit with diesels - the have a large body in which to put the gubbins (and potentially easy access from underneath if the battery needs changing / fiddling with), but as manufactures will still want to sell them with DC / DCC functionality all the extra expense just to satisfy a small section of the market isn't worth it.

I have 28 steam locos converted  all tender except a jinty 0-6-0 and a smokey joe 4-4-0. the classes range from 8x 4-6-2, 6x 4-6-0, 5 x 4-4-0, 3 x 0-6-0 and 4x 2-6-0. I also have a 2-6-4 tank awaiting conversion as it requires the batteries to be integrated into the tank space. I have not got round to it because it is a fiddly job. I also have 14 diesels from class 08 to class 40, all Lima or Hornby, plus 2 DMU, a Hornby class 101 and a Bachmann Derby Lightweight. I find about 12 to 15 locos are all that needed for a full afternoon operating session. none have sound as I listen to the radio when playing trains.

 

anyway all this should really be in the radio control section

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, billbedford said:

Try again....

 

 

Scroll down to the middle of the page to see how radio control fits into a 14xx

Ah!  I have to admit that seems to tick the boxes, Bill.  

 

3 hours ago, wasdavetheroad said:

Well this protagonist does not!

 

My vision of the future is a system that can work on track or battery power and seamlessly switches between them. Charging the battery from the track should be included which means the battery can be considered a large stay alive with unlimited capacity. This would allow for considerably simpler wiring as there would be no need to wire the fiddly bits of the layout.  Track/battery switching has already been demonstrated in BlueRails first board which was too large for most OO locos. There next board should be  a lot smaller with more features.

 

What we will end up with is a system that allows you to run your locos on track power, either DC or DCC, battery or a combination of them. Radio control will be the norm and it already demonstrates the capability to have hundreds of locos on your layout if you wish. It might well be using DCC command protocols as well but that does not matter as it is under the hood. As for batteries eventually needing replacements, model railways have running costs like many other things.

I think it is possible that future control systems will be based on digital NFC 'Bluetooth' technology rather than radio control; NFC is more adaptable to large studs of locos.

 

48 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

It has been said many times liquids don't scale well (hence real water never looks quite right on a model) and the same with gasses or anything else governed by the rules of science.

Some things scale quite well, notably minerals such as coal and limestone, and wood.  In the case of water the illusion is destroyed by surface tension, and any material that moves, such as liquids and gases (steam effect for our purposes), cannot be made to act in a scale way, and looks too fast, well. to scale, it is!  Ye canna change the laws 'o fezzicks, Jim...

[wasdavetheroad]

41 minutes ago, Hitchin Junction said:

 

The "running costs" of regularly replacing batteries for hundreds of locos would be well beyond my budget or even most people' sensible consideration. And that extra cost will always be greater than for a track powered loco, no matter what the manufacturing quantities are. I'm OK with using wireless for control, if it becomes as cheap as DCC, but exhibiting that at Warley would be interesting. Who gets to decide and assign which of the thousands of RC addresses your locos will use, to avoid duplication and multiple layouts reacting to the same commands?  

 

BTW, a land-line phone handset is still way cheaper than that an iPhone, and their manufacturing quantities are in the millions.

 

Tim

Easy, basically each radio control transmitter  and receiver has its own unique global identifier code. With the latest developments you can assign locos to a password protected 'local group' from which your operators can select locos (you call the loco what you want), if the loco is in use it is listed but not selectable until released by the current operator. The system I use is simpler but still secure. The locos are bound to handset transmitters, once bound they will only obey that transmitter. This works as only I play trains with my layout

[wasdavetheroad]

3 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Ah!  I have to admit that seems to tick the boxes, Bill.  

 

I think it is possible that future control systems will be based on digital NFC 'Bluetooth' technology rather than radio control; NFC is more adaptable to large studs of locos.

 

Some things scale quite well, notably minerals such as coal and limestone, and wood.  In the case of water the illusion is destroyed by surface tension, and any material that moves, such as liquids and gases (steam effect for our purposes), cannot be made to act in a scale way, and looks too fast, well. to scale, it is!  Ye canna change the laws 'o fezzicks, Jim...

Yes, check out BlueRail    bluerailtrains.com/about-bluerail/

 

For my 'umbler requirements I use Deltang stuff which is R/C planes based

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, wasdavetheroad said:

I have 28 steam locos converted  all tender except a jinty 0-6-0 and a smokey joe 4-4-0. the classes range from 8x 4-6-2, 6x 4-6-0, 5 x 4-4-0, 3 x 0-6-0 and 4x 2-6-0. I also have a 2-6-4 tank awaiting conversion as it requires the batteries to be integrated into the tank space. I have not got round to it because it is a fiddly job. I also have 14 diesels from class 08 to class 40, all Lima or Hornby, plus 2 DMU, a Hornby class 101 and a Bachmann Derby Lightweight. I find about 12 to 15 locos are all that needed for a full afternoon operating session. none have sound as I listen to the radio when playing trains.

 

anyway all this should really be in the radio control section

 

Well done - but home conversions are not comparable a manufacturer designing in such features from scratch!

 

Firstly RTR models are already expensive in many hours to assemble thanks to all the extra details modellers demand - the more assembly time it takes the higher the costs and the higher the retail price needs to be. Thus any battery / radio controlled solution needs to be SIMPLE and easy to install while at the same time not compromising DC / DCC capability which the majority of the market still uses.

 

Secondly, while you personally may not use sound fitted locos - lots of others do (in increasing numbers year on year) and manufactures have responded to this demand by making provision for speakers etc whenever possible. It is simply not viable to junk something which modellers want and which can boost manufacture profits though the sale of sound decoders in favour of a control / power system that the majority of purchasers do not use.

 

As has been noted, if manufacturers did feel it viable to look at radio control / battery power in 00, it would be in diesels due to the relative ease of fitting the stuff WITHOUT comprising the DC/ DCC functionality

 

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, Titan said:

 

Quite the contrary. As model steam boilers in this size are usually brass or copper, they don't deteriorate anywhere near as quickly as their full size steel counterparts.  Plenty of 80 year old+ steam toys still happily running on their original unrepaired boilers, and the Hornby live steamers are likely to be much better engineered than those to boot!

It does not matter that they are copper or brass. The problem is they boil liquid, typically water. Tap water in particular leaves scale behind.

You can recommend all you like but there will always be some customers who ignore this & use the most freely available source...tap water.

A scaled-up kettle can only be partially cleaned. A kettle or iron only has a limited lifespan for this reason.

Some of the steam channels will have a small diameter, so the build-up of scale will become significant more quickly.

 

What makes you think Hornby locos will better engineered than something from the 30s/40s? Most things back then were built to last as long as possible rather than to a price which lasts xx number of years.

Home made models would often be more likely to have been built to a quality with less regard for cost. Hornby models would definitely have been built to a price.

[wasdavetheroad]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Well done - but home conversions are not comparable a manufacturer designing in such features from scratch!

 

Firstly RTR models are already expensive in many hours to assemble thanks to all the extra details modellers demand - the more assembly time it takes the higher the costs and the higher the retail price needs to be. Thus any battery / radio controlled solution needs to be SIMPLE and easy to install while at the same time not compromising DC / DCC capability which the majority of the market still uses.

 

Secondly, while you personally may not use sound fitted locos - lots of others do (in increasing numbers year on year) and manufactures have responded to this demand by making provision for speakers etc whenever possible. It is simply not viable to junk something which modellers want and which can boost manufacture profits though the sale of sound decoders in favour of a control / power system that the majority of purchasers do not use.

 

As has been noted, if manufacturers did feel it viable to look at radio control / battery power in 00, it would be in diesels due to the relative ease of fitting the stuff WITHOUT comprising the DC/ DCC functionality

 

You never know what will happen just round the corner, meanwhile if it never takes off I won't worry as the system I have works for me. Plus if the manufacturer ceases trading I have a LOT of redundancy in my system. for example I have 14 large passenger locos for mainline use but only 2 mainline express rakes for them to pull. It is almost as easy to move a receiver to a different loco as change the battery. with 4 locos per operating session I actually have 10 'spare' receivers!

[The Johnster]

23 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Well done - but home conversions are not comparable a manufacturer designing in such features from scratch!

 

Firstly RTR models are already expensive in many hours to assemble thanks to all the extra details modellers demand - the more assembly time it takes the higher the costs and the higher the retail price needs to be. Thus any battery / radio controlled solution needs to be SIMPLE and easy to install while at the same time not compromising DC / DCC capability which the majority of the market still uses.

 

Secondly, while you personally may not use sound fitted locos - lots of others do (in increasing numbers year on year) and manufactures have responded to this demand by making provision for speakers etc whenever possible. It is simply not viable to junk something which modellers want and which can boost manufacture profits though the sale of sound decoders in favour of a control / power system that the majority of purchasers do not use.

 

As has been noted, if manufacturers did feel it viable to look at radio control / battery power in 00, it would be in diesels due to the relative ease of fitting the stuff WITHOUT comprising the DC/ DCC functionality

 

If it can't be put in a 57xx, it's no use to me.

[The Johnster]

17 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Tap water in particular leaves scale behind.

This is only true in hard water areas where the water comes from a calcarious aquifer such as limestone or chalk which can be dissolved into even very mildly acidic groundwater.  These areas consist of the most populous parts of England; London (which is supplied from an artesian aquifer on the chalk downs that surround), The Midlands, Yorkshire, and Lancashire.  In Cardiff, where water is sourced from the sandstone Brecon Beacons, we have no problems at all with scaling despite the continued enthusiastic attempts to sell us Calgon...

[PaulRhB]

Getting back to the original topic I’d say the lack of track voltage compatibility limited its appeal plus a significant price jump from the standard range meaning it was never going to be mass market. I’ve seen two dedicated loop layouts running very well and impressively with these locos but they really are for running rather than operation as the starting and stopping was a bit sudden. 

Live steam is never going to be clean compared to straight electric so it was more of a pleasant novelty for those with the finances. 

Even in 16mm and G the preparation and post run cleanup require more dedication and it’s devices like the slomo that have made fine control easy. I’ve owned a couple and run lots of 16mm live steam, including a friends coal fired examples, and it’s a lot of fun but it’s never made me want to abandon the finesse of control and ease of the electric models. 

I don’t think Hornby ever expected it to take over, much like the 3 ½ inch Rocket it’s a wonderful novelty. 

 

[Butler Henderson]

5 hours ago, wasdavetheroad said:

Easy, basically each radio control transmitter  and receiver has its own unique global identifier code.

IME the receiver is the size of a normal decoder (Lenz Standard, Bachmann 36-553 etc) and the voltage convertor to boost the battery supply to around 12v the same so basically it seems that every loco needs the space for two full size decoders as well as the battery and many do not have the space for one full size decoder. No doubt smaller versions exist at a price but battery power I would suggest is going to remain very exclusive to a few. The issue of the voltage convertor for battery locos does raise the thought that could a voltage convertor be fitted to a Hornby live steam loco to allow it to run off a normal dcc system; obviously some issue with the fact that the supplying voltage is not dc.

[billbedford]

17 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said:

IME the receiver is the size of a normal decoder (Lenz Standard, Bachmann 36-553 etc) and the voltage convertor to boost the battery supply to around 12v the same so basically it seems that every loco needs the space for two full size decoders as well as the battery and many do not have the space for one full size decoder. No doubt smaller versions exist at a price but battery power I would suggest is going to remain very exclusive to a few. The issue of the voltage convertor for battery locos does raise the thought that could a voltage convertor be fitted to a Hornby live steam loco to allow it to run off a normal dcc system; obviously some issue with the fact that the supplying voltage is not dc.

 

Nope, you are looking at RC as an add-on. When RTR RC comes to market it will have to be a self-contained system - plug-and-go, if you like. That means that it can be built with a clean slate. So there is no need to use 12v motors, 3.4v will match the output of the battery and give an acceptable running time. Charging will either by via rail pick-ups or inductance. and there will be no need for a DCC chip on the loco as all that logic is probably superfluous, but could be handled by the controller/transmitter. (as some current US rc systems do)

[RJS1977]

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

As has been noted, if manufacturers did feel it viable to look at radio control / battery power in 00, it would be in diesels due to the relative ease of fitting the stuff WITHOUT comprising the DC/ DCC functionality

 

 

I would imagine there must be some way of designing a r/c battery and receiver unit that could plug into a DCC chip socket for a quick installation.

[RJS1977]

Going back to the OP, I found the steam from the loco quite impressive. What was somewhat less impressive was the overscale water being deposited on the carriage roofs when it condensed!

 

I would have liked to have seen someone build a 'live steam' version of Stoke Summit or similar though!

[billbedford]

6 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

As has been noted, if manufacturers did feel it viable to look at radio control / battery power in 00, it would be in diesels due to the relative ease of fitting the stuff WITHOUT comprising the DC/ DCC functionality

 

 

Why on earth would anyone want to power a RC battery loco from 12v track pick-ups?

 

As for being able to fit more stuff into diesel models, well. some manufacturers are looking at making chassis blocks out of sintered tungsten, which even in a small Uk steam loco should make enough room for all the electronics you would want.

[traction]

Having still got my Mallard set and the Flying Scotsman Loco  the biggest issue is size of layout and speed of loco.

I wired the tracks as I normally do for DCC, that is a bus which was 2.5mm² twin&earth ring main.

I then soldered some heay duty droppers to the track, to connect to the bus.

This would easily handle the current from the controller.

 

I made it so I could easily disconnect the Live steam controller and connect up a DCC controller and all worked fine.
After the initial heat up time to get the water boiling I just turned the regulator down to simmer and could run for over 20mins on a full boiler.

Once you got to grips with the lag and speed control it was good fun running them.
The speed was pretty worrying though.

Where I think Hornby went wrong was not giving enough information on how to actually drive these works of art.

You really needed to practice on the rolling road to get to feel how the loco would run, each loco was completely different and that changed after they had been run in.

Hornby didn't explain this well enough at all, and just gave a big oval with 3rd or 4th radius curves, the instructions being nowhere near good enough to control the locos correctly, so on first try you would end up with the loco flying around the first curve and very likely coming off, and that's where most people gave up!

I would always run 3 coaches each filled with liquid gravity so that one coach would weigh about the same as 3 coaches. I managed to run it very well around a small oval (baseboard was less than the 6x4ft) but you did have to be very gentle with the throttle and always use the coaches to add that extra drag to reign the speed in.

Still have them and the distilled water that you have to use in the boiler, just no longer have the layout to run them on, but will have one day......I hope!

 

Cheers

 

Ian

 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by traction

[phil-b259]

2 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Why on earth would anyone want to power a RC battery loco from 12v track pick-ups?

 

As for being able to fit more stuff into diesel models, well. some manufacturers are looking at making chassis blocks out of sintered tungsten, which even in a small Uk steam loco should make enough room for all the electronics you would want.

 

Because you don't have to either (i) take the battery out when it goes flat or (ii) put your loco aside or a few hours while it charges up again.

 

I would have thought it obvious - just like the class 800s bi-modes on the prototype can use their own on board power source AND externally supplied electric power where it is available , a model which can use power from the track AND an internal battery will be far more flexible.

 

You might have say just the platforms or key sidings wired thus allowing the battery to charge up while the loco is paused on the layout but use battery power through complex trackwork. For those whose railway extends outside then just the 'indoors' portion could be live. Similarly those who lack fixed layouts could have just one section / module with powered track and have the others use battery power.

 

From a manufacturing perspective its a no-brainer to have 'dual fitted' models - just as locos are all supplied with DCC sockets theses days so that they can be sold to both DC and DCC modellers, keeping track power pick ups as well as a battery means no separate tooling needed to cover all markets.

 

 

 

 

[RJS1977]

But analogue or DCC users aren't going to want to pay extra for R/C gubbins they're not going to use (just as analogue modellers tend not to buy DCC fitted locos).

[Hitchin Junction]

21 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Nope, you are looking at RC as an add-on. When RTR RC comes to market it will have to be a self-contained system - plug-and-go, if you like. That means that it can be built with a clean slate. So there is no need to use 12v motors, 3.4v will match the output of the battery and give an acceptable running time. Charging will either by via rail pick-ups or inductance. and there will be no need for a DCC chip on the loco as all that logic is probably superfluous, but could be handled by the controller/transmitter. (as some current US rc systems do)

 

A 3v motor will take 4 times the starting and running current of a 12 v motor. So the output silicon power bridge will have to be a much higher current rating ( i.e. bigger) than the ones in the current DCC chips,   I doubt the power needed to overcome the friction of the loco and train will be less.  Charging by inductance won't help if you have 20 locos and 50 lighted carriages to charge at once. So you'd need a fair length of charging track to keep a larger layout operational.  It may happen, but I don't see it as any kind of "killer ap".

 

Just adding a small "keep alive" cap to DCC seems like a much simpler, smaller and far cheaper way to go.

 

Tim

[kevinlms]

7 hours ago, wasdavetheroad said:

You never know what will happen just round the corner, meanwhile if it never takes off I won't worry as the system I have works for me. Plus if the manufacturer ceases trading I have a LOT of redundancy in my system. for example I have 14 large passenger locos for mainline use but only 2 mainline express rakes for them to pull. It is almost as easy to move a receiver to a different loco as change the battery. with 4 locos per operating session I actually have 10 'spare' receivers!

People said the same thing for Zero-1. Only need a small fleet of locos for their layout.

[billbedford]

 

 

 

 

46 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Because you don't have to either (i) take the battery out when it goes flat or (ii) put your loco aside or a few hours while it charges up again.

 

But battery capacity is a problem. Most of the systems I heard of will let a loco run continuously for several hours, certainly, batteries would not likely to run down in even a long normal running-session where running is the usual intermittent nature. Even the tiny battery in that 14xx will give a couple of hours continuous running.

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

46 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

From a manufacturing perspective its a no-brainer to have 'dual fitted' models - just as locos are all supplied with DCC sockets theses days so that they can be sold to both DC and DCC modellers, keeping track power pick ups as well as a battery means no separate tooling needed to cover all markets.

 

 

The smart way would have pick-ups feeding a rectifier that charges the battery. That way, any current on the track, however intermittent it was would help keep the battery charged. As for DCC, it really is 90s technology and most of it can be handled by the transmitter software.

[wasdavetheroad]

3 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

IME the receiver is the size of a normal decoder (Lenz Standard, Bachmann 36-553 etc) and the voltage convertor to boost the battery supply to around 12v the same so basically it seems that every loco needs the space for two full size decoders as well as the battery and many do not have the space for one full size decoder. No doubt smaller versions exist at a price but battery power I would suggest is going to remain very exclusive to a few. The issue of the voltage convertor for battery locos does raise the thought that could a voltage convertor be fitted to a Hornby live steam loco to allow it to run off a normal dcc system; obviously some issue with the fact that the supplying voltage is not dc.

The chips I use are not plug in but a bit like hard wired DCC chips. My typical receiver is 11x22.5mm and gives 1.3A output at up to 13V. a smaller receiver is 9.6x16mm and gives up to 1A output at 4.2V or up to 0.5A at 8.4V. The voltage regulator (Pololu) is 8.2x13.1mm. The outputs are PWM DC at 16Kh or less if you wish

[The Johnster]

I'd like to take the opportunity of thanking Sir Topham Hatt for this thread; it has been a lively and highly informative discussion that has been a pleasure to be involved in.

 

Clearly the way to eliminate the electrical pickup problems inevitable with as system that relies of rolling wheels to conduct electricity is to have a power source aboard the loco, whatever that power source is.  Equally clearly this is extremely difficult to achieve in 4mm as firstly you have to find space for the fuel or battery and secondly you have to devise a method of control.  For live steam you have the extra challenges of heat, pressurised steam, and oil contamination to overcome.

 

Time was I spent a good bit of time thinking and designing systems that would improve the performance of conventional DC mechanisms, but while it is interesting to review and discuss this, current conventional DC (I can't afford DCC), though not perfect, is pretty good and I no longer bother with anything different.  In this way I can get on with running the layout and providing a railway service to an imagined South Wales mining village in the 1950s, which is imagined in an actual place.

 

 

[phil-b259]

9 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

But analogue or DCC users aren't going to want to pay extra for R/C gubbins they're not going to use (just as analogue modellers tend not to buy DCC fitted locos).

 

I agree  - BUT the point is that all locos designed theses days come with a decoder socket (and many also with a mount for a speaker) as its far more effective from a manufacturing point of view to have a common design to cover all markets and the extra cost of doing so is negligible.

 

Were battery / RC to take off then I would expect a similar thing to happen - the model design would have all the wiring and suitable mounting points in place for both the battery and RC module, its just that the factory would not actually fit them to all models in the same way as they put blanking plates instead of DCC decoders.