Railmagic

[Railmagic]

On 19/07/2021 at 13:54, Richard Johnson said:

Actually, that is not how you posted or what you said at all.... but you already know that.

 

I am not in the habit of explaining why I do things... but seeing as you asked, the  deletion means I thought the presence of the post was a "not useful" distraction as its still largely a vapourware product.  As you very well know there is plenty of discussion that is not DCCconcepts on the forum... But we manage it for inclusiveness, relevance and value, not willy-waving.

 

No, we have ZERO interest in how Rail magic works (Although it is quite obvious anyway).

 

It has huge restrictions and is a typical "Half thought through" solution, such as we see regularly. Given the device load in on a  model railway, and the conflict issues, wi-fi will never be a reliable solution for model railways in its current form. You will see our chosen direction soon enough. All I will promise you is NO wifi, no BS setup, no computer screens and B-all wires. You'll have to wait for the rest :-).

 

kind regards, Richard

 

Hi Richard,

 

I wish you guys at DCCConcepts all the best with your solution. I'm excited to see what you are doing. As you find the Railmagic solution obvious, I have high expectations for yours. They seem similar though, as we neither use wifi, BS setup and computer screens. Our vapourwave has been through the condensation process and can now be ordered :-)

 

Please keep respect for our solution and don't spread untrue information. As a professional business competitor that is illegal! 

 

Good luck, Ulrik

[Grovenor]

Quote

No one should ever short two boosters through a locomotive anyway.

But the instructions from every booster supplier describe just that, and it does not seem to be causing any problem in the real world.

[Crosland]

17 hours ago, Railmagic said:

No one should ever short two boosters through a locomotive anyway.

 

Sorry, but that's EXACTLY what happens every time a loco crosses between booster power districts.

[Oldddudders]

I think it is a bad day for our hobby when two manufacturers start duking it out on a public forum. Such full and fundamental discussions should take place offline. 

[Grovenor]

1 hour ago, Crosland said:

 

Sorry, but that's EXACTLY what happens every time a loco crosses between booster power districts.

But won't happen if the Railmagic proposal is followed, might be important to Railmagic to keep their comms working but it was the attempt to suggest it was a generic, 'shouldn't do', that I was commenting on.

[NIK]

Hi,

 

In support of Crosland's post I suppose it depends what Ulrik means by short but locos bridging two boosters happens every time a loco (or any vehicle with through wired pickups) crosses between two sections with separate boosters.

 

If RailMagic needs a switchable section longer than the longest train in order for a train to go between boosters than that looks like a downside to RailMagic. What happens to an existing layout if one booster is for the up line and associated tracks and another booster for the down line/tracks linked to that and there are crossovers?.

 

There might be a technical fix where boosters are yet to be purchased by buying one high current booster and splitting the output between a number of district cutouts.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Ron Ron Ron]

2 hours ago, NIK said:

……If RailMagic needs a switchable section longer than the longest train in order for a train to go between boosters than that looks like a downside to RailMagic. ……..

 

I wouldn’t call it a “ downside” Nick.
I’d call it a fundamental conceptual and design failure.

 

 

 

.

[WIMorrison]

Given that no-one has actually tried the product, is all the mudslinging not just in the realms of fantasy? Also given that the designer is not a native English speaker the terms used in his language may not translate fully to your understanding.

 

To be clear, I am not defending Railmagic, I know little more than what is seen on the website - it just seems that this thread is unnecessarily going down a rathole that does not provide any useful information about what the actual product requirements or capabilities are.

[KingEdwardII]

I agree with Iain - this product ain't been through manufacturing as yet, so no-one has had any chance to try it out. I think that we should bide our time until examples are available along with final documentation.

 

Mike.

[NIK]

7 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

Given that no-one has actually tried the product, is all the mudslinging not just in the realms of fantasy? Also given that the designer is not a native English speaker the terms used in his language may not translate fully to your understanding.

 

To be clear, I am not defending Railmagic, I know little more than what is seen on the website - it just seems that this thread is unnecessarily going down a rathole that does not provide any useful information about what the actual product requirements or capabilities are.

Hi,

 

RailMagic themselves have said that for the time being multiple boosters cannot be used.

When a switching unit is made available by RailMagic then multiple boosters can be used providing a switchable track between the boosters is provided that is longer than than the longest train that will pass between boosters. That seems to be a product requirement.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Richard Johnson]

There is no argument from our point of view.

 

The structure, vision and approach are both totally different to our long term objectives in this area and I suspect that no matter what is proposed by anyone, consumers will, as they should, retain their own perspectives... following one path or another.

 

What is certain is that forum discussion that is totally based on assumption will not help anywhere or anyone. I just hope that speculation doesn't turn perhaps well intentioned smoke and mirrors into a barrier for anyone. There's already enough BS and misunderstanding in the world as it is when it comes to technology.

 

Richard Johnson

[Railmagic]

On 16/08/2021 at 11:46, Ron Ron Ron said:

I wouldn’t call it a “ downside” Nick.
I’d call it a fundamental conceptual and design failure.

 

 

 

.

Hi all,

 

Regarding the booster shorting/bridging, does the follow explanation make sense?

 

In order to ensure that the transfer of responsibility is smooth, the track which connects the two different power districts must be double isolated. This means that a piece of the track longer than the trains must be isolated at each end. We are aware that some people divide their power districts into "westbound/eastbound" traffic and therefore have many locations at stations with power district crossing. We suggest that entire stations use the same power district and that the power district crossing happens at the main lines. At the main lines should be plenty of track to ensure a smooth crossing.

 

Best regards, Railmagic

[Crosland]

The explanation of the requirement has always made sense.

 

It's the requirement that does not fit with normal DCC practice.

[Ron Ron Ron]

7 minutes ago, Railmagic said:

Hi all,

 

Regarding the booster shorting/bridging, does the follow explanation make sense?

 

In order to ensure that the transfer of responsibility is smooth, the track which connects the two different power districts must be double isolated. This means that a piece of the track longer than the trains must be isolated at each end. We are aware that some people divide their power districts into "westbound/eastbound" traffic and therefore have many locations at stations with power district crossing. We suggest that entire stations use the same power district and that the power district crossing happens at the main lines. At the main lines should be plenty of track to ensure a smooth crossing.

 

Best regards, Railmagic

 

Hi Railmagic,

 

I'm sorry to say, if you require an isolated section of track between Power Districts, then you have a fundamental error in your design.

 

DCC does not require this.

Adjoining Power Districts only need to be separated by isolation rail joiners, or a tiny gap in both rails.

As long as the boosters are connected correctly and the track is wired consistently to the same polarity, then a loco/train bridging the two Power districts will pass without any interruption, or any shorting.

There is no need for an isolated section of track longer than any train, no matter how long it is.

 

If Railmagic requires a change to this, with the introduction of an isolated section, you have introduced an unnecessary complication that could possibly result in other track planning and wiring difficulties.

 

Maybe it's time for a rethink?

 

regards

Ron

 

.

[Andymsa]

The debate on adjoining power districts is reminiscent of the vhs v Betamax arguments of the 80s even although technically Betamax was better VHS became the dominant force because of market forces.  The same could be said of the power district issue of railmagic. It may be better from a technical aspect for joining power districts but the current methods are established and used by everyone. Individuals are not going to rewire there layouts to accommodate this isolated section and then there is the issue of train length. For example the original fleischmann ICE set I have is 126 inches in length and that’s not even full length for this set, and I use 7 power districts, do the math for length of isolated sections alone. Ok my example is extreme but gives the point this method of a isolated section is flawed.

[WIMorrison]

If there is a fully isolated section between booster power districts can someone explain where this section gets its power from?

 

or do you have to drive the train into this isolated section using power from one booster, stop the train and then flick a switch to drive out using the other booster?

 

perhaps I am being thick but that appears to be what is being said?

[NIK]

32 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

If there is a fully isolated section between booster power districts can someone explain where this section gets its power from?

 

or do you have to drive the train into this isolated section using power from one booster, stop the train and then flick a switch to drive out using the other booster?

 

perhaps I am being thick but that appears to be what is being said?

Hi,

 

Railmagic say they will develop a unit which switches the isolated section between the two boosters.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[WIMorrison]

Thanks Nik, I am still confused though as the DCC Signal is the same from either the command station booster or any additional booster and Railmagic says it is independent of the track control, using the magnetic field to position the trains. The need to separate booster section would tend to suggest that something is being carried on the DCC Signal which, if true, could potentially cause issues with the myriad of accessories that people use iron their layouts - think of the railcom issue which can cause some devices to fall over completely if it is present, yet the same device on another layout will perform perfectly even when railcom is present.

 

I guess we need to wait until the product is released and there is some real documentation available for us to understand the strengths and limitations of this new system.

 

I also wonder how it will integrate with the current automation packages which will all need interfaces created - if the developers intend for Railmagic to be used these systems.

[RFS]

17 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

I guess we need to wait until the product is released and there is some real documentation available for us to understand the strengths and limitations of this new system.

 

I also wonder how it will integrate with the current automation packages which will all need interfaces created - if the developers intend for Railmagic to be used these systems.

 

I agree that there's a lot we don't know yet about how this product works, so it's difficult to form opinion on its viability at this stage. The reason I originally raised the issue about the way multiple boosters would be handled was because a) there is a clearly-worded explanation on the web-site saying how they would be managed, and b) the solution proposed appeared to be at some distance from the DCC norm, and likely to be impractical for many potential users.

 

My layout is 33ftx10ft (11mx3m) and is divided in half lengthways, with a main scenic section on one side, and an extesnsive storage yard on the other. Each half has its own booster and there are 4 crossing points between them at one end and 5 at the other. I don't think my layout's arrangement is unusal and hence my comments on the possible impracticality of the Railmagic proposal. 

[NIK]

Hi,

 

RailMagic uses trackers in the locos that sense the magnetic field. So the sensing is independent of the track control.

 

However the trackers have to get the information to the RailMagic control units and its that bit that has problems when trains that are crossing between districts supplied by different boosters.

 

It looks from the info on the RailMagic website that the RailMagic software won't integrate with existing automation software. Presumably this is because it has to know so much about the layout including possibly real time data from the DCC output of the DCC command station and possibly comms with the DCC command station. So the computer comms port of the DCC command station will be connected to the RailMagic control unit.

As far as I know no existing automation software uses continuous positioning data so they are probably not set up for the improvement in position control that RailMagic promises.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Railmagic]

Allow me to do some brainstorming with opinions from the public. I could design the system to handle bridging between the boosters for a short period of time (< 1 sec.). So if you absolutely want to do it the old way, it might be possible, depending on what you are going to answer to these questions:

 

1) Can you agree to never stop a loco in the bridging position, i.e. the bridging is less than 1 sec.?

2) How many locos are running per booster? Are more than 8 locos rare? Note I said running!

3) Would you be able to divide your boosters into two groups, such that the bridging always occurs between one booster from each group? This is important, so give it an extra thought.

 

PS: I have added a signature to my profile...

[WIMorrison]

9 minutes ago, Railmagic said:

1) Can you agree to never stop a loco in the bridging position, i.e. the bridging is less than 1 sec.?

This can never be 'guaranteed' - ideally nothing should stop at a change between boosters, however it cannot be 'guaranteed' never to happen.

 

9 minutes ago, Railmagic said:

2) How many locos are running per booster? Are more than 8 locos rare? Note I said running!

 

That very much depends on the layout. I often have 10 running on one booster, with another dozen or so static.

 

9 minutes ago, Railmagic said:

3) Would you be able to divide your boosters into two groups, such that the bridging always occurs between one booster from each group? This is important, so give it an extra thought.

 

This again dependent upon the layout design. It is entirely possible that when there are on or more boosters (e.g. 3 boosters) that a train could be leaving Booster B going into Booster C when at the same time a train is entering Booster B from Booster A. It is also possible that a multiple trains could be leaving Booster A into Booster B and even multiple trains leaving Booster B into Booster C, and potentially Booster C back into Booster A.

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by WIMorrison
correcting auto-correct

[Ron Ron Ron]

Railmagic, I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding you, but to even consider limitations or restrictions around locos moving from one power district to another, suggests there is a fundamental problem with your whole approach.

If you then try to find workarounds and fixes to subsequently make it work, I’m sorry to say you’re going to end up going down a classic technological blind alley.

To achieve the objective of a much simpler method of detecting and tracking trains on a layout, you should be looking at reducing complexity and either adopt a method that is either fully integrated within DCC without affecting any of its present operation and functionality, or something that sits outside of DCC entirely and also has no impact on DCC operation and functionality.

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, Railmagic said:

Allow me to do some brainstorming............

 

1 hour ago, Railmagic said:

1) Can you agree to never stop a loco in the bridging position, i.e. the bridging is less than 1 sec.?

 

No. ideally, that should never be a consideration.

 

1 hour ago, Railmagic said:

2) How many locos are running per booster? Are more than 8 locos rare? Note I said running!

 

With regard to a detection and tracking system, the number of locos running per booster should be irrelevant, unless it's some technically limiting, hypothetical number in the several dozens or hundreds.

 

1 hour ago, Railmagic said:

3) Would you be able to divide your boosters into two groups, such that the bridging always occurs between one booster from each group? This is important, so give it an extra thought.

 

Why is that even necessary?

If you have to consider this a technical necessity, you have a fundamental problem with your approach.

 

 

.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[Trofimow]

One wonders how the magnetic sensing will cope with multi level layouts, helices and the like....