RTR Small Shunting Engines, Flywheels, and DCC Stay Alives

[The Johnster]

The issue in DC with small engines is that the size and weight of the loco mimimises any beneficial effect from momentum, which is already mimimal at low speed, when the voltage is at the lowest level it can be to keep the motor turning.  Lack of space further mimimises the benefit of any flywheel fitted, and it might be argued that in some cases the space would be better used for ballast.  The result is a perfect storm of stall, though Rapido Andy's assessment of the benefits of mechanical flywheels at very low motor speeds in DC is revealing.  I have one loco with a coreless motor and a flywheel, a Baccy 94xx, and it runs very well indeed, proving the principle, though it is a little lively and requires a much gentler touch on the controller than my other beasties.  Smooth and controllable once you remember it's proclivities, though.

 

I run DC on a mid-sized BLT and, for wiring simplicity, use insulfrog turnouts.  DCC would solve a lot of my problems but I can't afford it.  My running is pretty good when you take all that into account, helped by the running quality of RTR being better than it's ever been, careful tracklaying on very solid boards, and a rigid hygiene regime.  But pretty good considering isn't perfect, or as good as I'd like it to be, particularly in the colliery area where stuff gets in the flangeways of turnouts and my inset track.  So, I dream of effective, adjustable, DC stayalives small enough to fit into Hornby W4 Pecketts or Dapol L&Y Pugs.  It's a big ask, and I fully sympathise with manufacturers' reasons for not doing it.

 

But I reckon there is an answer to be found in electronic technology.  DC control technology has been completely stagnant for 40 years, 40 years during which it has advanced very significantly in every other field to which it is applied, especially in terms of miniaturisation.  The skillsets to advance the situation are probably thin on the ground in the modelling world, and the concentration has been overwhelmingly on DCC, understandably since that has been regarded as 'the future' and is a good moneyspinner.  I can't accept that the current situation in DC, unaltered since the early 80s or even earlier, cannot be radically improved upon, but it's not easy, especially when marketing does the cost-benefit analysis comparing any putative new DC control circuitry with established DCC practice; the manufacturers' answer is always going to be 'well, you can do all that (stuff you want to do) with DCC'.  That there is a healthy and thriving market for DC models is shown by the fact that new releases are always available without the DCC chips, though some are beginning to include speakers whether you want them or not and stuff like firebox flicker (harmless in DC, but no more than a steady glow, and the 94xx's already excellent running improved further, slightly, in that the loco moves off smoothly at a lower controller setting, when I removed the led). 

 

There is of course an elephant in the room; for all I know there may well be a completely new method of control in the R&D pipeline (but probably too late for this 70-year-old to worry about) that will supercede all of this.  If this is so, of course nobody will be talking about it for very good commercial reasons, not least of which is that it may well be a very long time before any such thing is reliable enough to be marketed; if anything like this is in the offing (on board power source controlled by NFC beneath the plastic track, for example), it will be under the heading of 'blue sky thinking esoterica', and if it is being thought of for the US market, it will not be developed in sympathy with tiny British shunters.  But, if it does exist as a research experiment that may bear viable fruit, it will affect the thinking of manufacturers of DC and DCC control equipment in a way that will mitigate against further DC development, 'no point, all going to be obsolete in a few years anyway'.  Or perhaps my imagination and wishful thinking is getting the better of me!

[D9020 Nimbus]

I do think Rapido should consider seriously putting a stay-alive in any sound fitted Y7s they produce. If they don't, they're quite likely to have a number of unhappy customers. It's clearly possible to do so—Roco for one manage it in a loco that's just as small; surely Rapido are as capable ?

[cctransuk]

31 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

I do think Rapido should consider seriously putting a stay-alive in any sound fitted Y7s they produce. If they don't, they're quite likely to have a number of unhappy customers. It's clearly possible to do so—Roco for one manage it in a loco that's just as small; surely Rapido are as capable ?

 

I suspect that the majority of customers who, like me, do not use DCC would prefer all available space within the body to be filled with very dense metal.

 

Stay-alives are no use to DC modellers, and should not be required if points are live frog, track is carefully laid, and electrical continuity does not rely solely on fishplate / rail contact.

 

CJI.

[D9020 Nimbus]

True, but I was suggesting they should only fit stay-alives in the DCC sound-fitted versions, not in DC ones.

[cctransuk]

7 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

True, but I was suggesting they should only fit stay-alives in the DCC sound-fitted versions, not in DC ones.

 

..... the problem is that they would have to create a void in the metal chassis, in which to fit the stay-alive.

 

On a DC model, this would be an empty space, and reduce the valuable adhesive weight.

 

Stay-alives may, to some extent, compensate for poor track when using DCC, but there is no short-cut for DC users, who rely on well laid track to avoid 'kangaroo' running!

 

CJI.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Well, I can never manage to fit rail joiners onto track so have to stick with sectional track with dead frog points in OO as I'm unaware of any range of such track in OO with live frog points—both Kato and Fleischmann offer live-frog sectional track points in N gauge, though Fleischmann HO track has dead frog points only (and is, anyway, now discontinued).

 

I'd have thought a weight could be fitted in the space where the capacitor goes. The objection to the "valuable space" that would be taken up by a stay-alive applies to the speaker too, of course…

The Roco models I alluded to — DB 333, SNCF Y8000, ÖBB 2062, NS 200 "Sik" — are as it happens, only available in DCC sound fitted format.

[Gilbert]

Speaking as very much an amateur DCC sound user I use a stay alive in all my locos if it is physically possible - not just the small ones.

A fly-wheel will not provide continuity of sound. The slightest interruption to the power supply is much more noticable with sound as the sound may disappear or re-start - not ideal especially at an exhibition where the loco noise is part of the show...

A by-product of using stay alives is that track cleaning can be a lot less frequent - and at some shows it is otherwise very necessary as atmospheric conditions often make railhead conditions worse quicker.

As for the void discussion - if there were standards for stay alives a standard cut out could be included in RTR models with a removable weight should a stay alive be fitted by the owner. However I can understand why that is not a practical proposition currently.

Chris

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Gilbert said:

Speaking as very much an amateur DCC sound user I use a stay alive in all my locos if it is physically possible - not just the small ones.

A fly-wheel will not provide continuity of sound. The slightest interruption to the power supply is much more noticable with sound as the sound may disappear or re-start - not ideal especially at an exhibition where the loco noise is part of the show...

A by-product of using stay alives is that track cleaning can be a lot less frequent - and at some shows it is otherwise very necessary as atmospheric conditions often make railhead conditions worse quicker.

As for the void discussion - if there were standards for stay alives a standard cut out could be included in RTR models with a removable weight should a stay alive be fitted by the owner. However I can understand why that is not a practical proposition currently.

Chris

 

What concerns me is that I am far from convinced that DCC sound users are in the majority.

 

Yet, in order to pander to this perceived 'need' for unconvincing sound in steam locos, great chunks of the weight of the chassis are being cut out, in order to accommodate the ever-increasing list of electronic devices - chip boards, speakers, stay-alives, smoke generators, etc.

 

In larger locos, much of this stuff can be accommodated in the tender but, in the current trend of small industrial locos, there remains precious little adhesive mass in the tiny chassis.

 

All this volume of gadgetry costs money to produce and fit - and is entirely useless to what I suspect to be the majority of purchasers.

 

I can see why the manufacturers pander to the gadget-obsessed; they can charge very significantly higher prices to those purchasers.

 

However, those of us who do not require DCC, and all the expensive gubbins that go with it, have to rip out all the unwanted electronics and fill the vacated space with lead.

 

All this is getting totally out of hand!!

 

CJI.

[D9020 Nimbus]

The real problem is that the locos that most need stay-alive have the last room for it…

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

The real problem is that the locos that most need stay-alive have the last room for it…

 

No properly adjusted loco NEEDS a stay-alive, provided the track is properly laid.

 

Far too many operators rely on fishplates as the only electrical connection between track elements - be it sectional or flexible.

 

CJI.

 

[Phil Bullock]

33 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

No properly adjusted loco NEEDS a stay-alive, provided the track is properly laid.

 

Far too many operators rely on fishplates as the only electrical connection between track elements - be it sectional or flexible.

 

CJI.

 

Until the manufacturers fit a duff pick up system that is ….. 

[cctransuk]

13 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Until the manufacturers fit a duff pick up system that is ….. 

 

Hence "properly adjusted".

 

CJI.

[Ruston]

14 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

No properly adjusted loco NEEDS a stay-alive, provided the track is properly laid.

 

Far too many operators rely on fishplates as the only electrical connection between track elements - be it sectional or flexible.

 

CJI.

 

You may be able to lay track perfectly but I can't and I know for sure that I'm not the only one. If only it was that simple to have all your running woes cured by electrically-bonding every rail!

 

With an 0-4-0, which is really what this is all about, it doesn't take much for it to lose pickup. I know because 90% of my loco fleet are 0-4-0s. I used to use DC and the locos ran perfectly well when they were running but it's that little bit when they cease to run because of a bad joint, or a bit of dirt, that took the pleasure out of operating a layout. The same thing happened when I switched to DCC but with DCC I can stick a little black box in the loco and it will run absolutely faultlessly. It will not stall - ever. My tracklaying would need to be so bad that they wouldn't even stay on the rails for a Stay Alive equipped loco to not run.

 

And, I will add, I haven't cleaned the track on my garage layout in two years. The rail tops get a quick rub over with a graphite stick every now and again but graphite is another thing that the flat-earthers of the model railway world don't believe in.

 

So, yes, you are correct, they don't NEED them, but unless you are God's gift to tracklaying and if you would rather operating the layout be a chore, they are essential. In my humble opinion, of course.

 

 

[PaulRhB]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Yet, in order to pander to this perceived 'need' for unconvincing sound in steam locos, great chunks of the weight of the chassis are being cut out

Ok so is a separate cast block that fills the space on dc models but is left out of DCC sound ones feasible financially? A normal DCC chip is so small that could be accommodated as a smaller void. As the speakers and larger chips are fairly standard sizes setting the size should be fairly easy. Tillig have provided sound chambers in their HOm locos which are similar in size to the small industrials. You simply remove the screws on the pcb pop the speaker underneath and screwing it down makes contact and seals the enclosure. 
I’ve said for ages I’d prefer sound enclosures to be in the smokebox or as near as possible and have a removable weight there. 

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Ruston said:

You may be able to lay track perfectly but I can't and I know for sure that I'm not the only one. If only it was that simple to have all your running woes cured by electrically-bonding every rail!

 

With an 0-4-0, which is really what this is all about, it doesn't take much for it to lose pickup. I know because 90% of my loco fleet are 0-4-0s. I used to use DC and the locos ran perfectly well when they were running but it's that little bit when they cease to run because of a bad joint, or a bit of dirt, that took the pleasure out of operating a layout. The same thing happened when I switched to DCC but with DCC I can stick a little black box in the loco and it will run absolutely faultlessly. It will not stall - ever. My tracklaying would need to be so bad that they wouldn't even stay on the rails for a Stay Alive equipped loco to not run.

 

And, I will add, I haven't cleaned the track on my garage layout in two years. The rail tops get a quick rub over with a graphite stick every now and again but graphite is another thing that the flat-earthers of the model railway world don't believe in.

 

So, yes, you are correct, they don't NEED them, but unless you are God's gift to tracklaying and if you would rather operating the layout be a chore, they are essential. In my humble opinion, of course.

 

 

 

Sorry, but that is simply ill-informed rubbish.

 

My current layout is my first since boyhood HD 3-rail in the 1960s - I am now 73! When laying the Peco Code 75 track, it was for the first time ever!

 

I had built, by a general property maintenance contractor, substantial baseboards, on which I glued-down standard 3mm. cork underlay - nothing fancy!

 

What I did do, having simply pinned-down the track, was to provide an electrical feed to EVERY SINGLE LENGTH OF RAIL, COMPLETELY IGNORING ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY VIA FISHPLATES.

 

The track is by no means completely level - one only needs to watch the progress of trains to see the vertical and horizontal displacement.

 

Moreover, each of the ten baseboards hinge up to the vertical position as a concession to my age and decreasing mobility. At each baseboard joint, several tracks have been cut, obliquely across radii, with no fishplate or other connection between rail ends. If this is not a recipe for poor running, I do not know what is!

 

All turnouts have been modified to operate as live frog.

 

Over 100 locos have one thing in common - the pick-ups are maintained such that each wheel with pick-up is always providing current.

 

My smallest motive power is a Bachmann platelayers' trolley and this, in common with a L&YR Pug and a Deeley dock tank, run smoothly and reliably, with no stuttering - as do all the others, without exception.

 

All this via DC, with no electronic gadgetry.

 

So, as an beginner when it comes to track laying, I believe that I have proved that the principal requirement for good, uninterrupted running is electricity in EVERY piece of rail, no matter how small.

 

DCC users can avoid the tedious soldering of numerous droppers by fitting stay-alives, but haulage capacity will suffer for every piece of chassis weight that is sacrificed to ever more electronic gadgetry.

 

CJI.

[Ruston]

21 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Sorry, but that is simply ill-informed rubbish.

Ill-informed rubbish, is it? Yes, John, sure it is, John. I am speaking from my own experience, so you are saying what? That I am making it up?

 

Have you ever used DCC with Stay-Alive equipped locos? Have you ever used DCC at all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ruston]

38 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

DCC users can avoid the tedious soldering of numerous droppers by fitting stay-alives, but haulage capacity will suffer for every piece of chassis weight that is sacrificed to ever more electronic gadgetry.

How much more haulage do you want, anyway? The loss of approximately a cubic centimetre* of a diecast chassis equates to what? A couple of wagons less on a given gradient? You're clutching at straws with this argument.

 

 

*That's a modern unit of measurement, by the way. I know you're probably still working in cubits.

 

 

[SHMD]

 

I ran DC - which ran OK.

 

Then I switched to DCC - which ran OK.

 

I then got a sound fitted loco - which ran OK.

...BUT the sound kept resetting at all the momentary lost wheel to rail contacts - with the exact same track!

 

"Stay Alive" prevents the sound from resetting all the time.

 

With small wheel base 0-4-0s you need as much weight/rotary inertia as you can get.

(An "infinite probability Drive" might help too!)

 

 

Kev.

 

[cctransuk]

9 minutes ago, Ruston said:

How much more haulage do you want, anyway? The loss of approximately a cubic centimetre* of a diecast chassis equates to what? A couple of wagons less on a given gradient? You're clutching at straws with this argument.

 

 

*That's a modern unit of measurement, by the way. I know you're probably still working in cubits.

 

 

 

Abuse simply devalues the argument.

 

My point is - from recent personal experience, as a complete novice to tracklaying and operating a moderately sized layout - not an expert in track-laying as you suggested - reliable running of extremely short-wheelbased models of tiny steam locos is NOT reliant on the use of DCC, stay-alives, or any other electronics.

 

I have watched in amazement your milling-away of RTR chassis blocks, in order to accommodate DCC and sound equipment, which must be to the detriment of what little adhesive weight such small locos possess.

 

Of course, this is your prerogative; but I would hate to think that the belief became widespread that DCC and stay-alives are a prerequisite to the reliable operation of small locos.

 

You mock my knowledge of units of measurement, too; in order to suggest that I am somehow antedeluvian in my approach to modelling.

 

Suffice to say that 40+ years as a highway engineer involved the exclusive use of the Metric System, when the UK was still largely stuck in the Imperial System.

 

Please, let's not resort to personal insults, but stick to facts.

 

CJI.

[Yarravalleymodeller]

same old issue, why are we even bothering to pick up off the rail anymore? 

 

Why are we not exploring a battery/wireless charging solution where possible. Now you'll say but this means smaller locos have smaller duty cycles because the battery size is limited but isn't that the ultimate realism... smaller locos doing a bit of work then having a break bigger locos going longer. 

 

However you cut it the solution to all our problems is to eliminate the rail as the point we collect power as it has always been unreliable and going way back dangerous. 

 

Now rotten fruit and animal parts will be thrown my direction along with all the reasons why it cannot be done. 

[Corbs]

6 hours ago, Yarravalleymodeller said:

same old issue, why are we even bothering to pick up off the rail anymore? 

 

Why are we not exploring a battery/wireless charging solution where possible. Now you'll say but this means smaller locos have smaller duty cycles because the battery size is limited but isn't that the ultimate realism... smaller locos doing a bit of work then having a break bigger locos going longer. 

 

However you cut it the solution to all our problems is to eliminate the rail as the point we collect power as it has always been unreliable and going way back dangerous. 

 

Now rotten fruit and animal parts will be thrown my direction along with all the reasons why it cannot be done. 

 

How dare you steal my thing and use it before me :P

 

Probably a subject for another thread but the hardest bit about RC is to get it to do the same things that DCC does. Having it replace Analogue Control (forwards/backwards) is relatively simple.

[BernardTPM]

Rail pick-up can work pretty well for big express trains, but battery powered shunters do make sense and can be used on both DC and DCC set-ups without extra track wiring.

[SHMD]

RC?

 

If you are struggling to find space to store a few seconds worth of "motion" then finding the space for a battery would be even harder.

(Especially if you insist on keeping the original 12v motor.)

 

...but Giles, of this parish - and others - have produced some excellent RC models.

 

 

Kev.

[Yarravalleymodeller]

10 minutes ago, SHMD said:

RC?

 

If you are struggling to find space to store a few seconds worth of "motion" then finding the space for a battery would be even harder.

(Especially if you insist on keeping the original 12v motor.)

 

...but Giles, of this parish - and others - have produced some excellent RC models.

 

 

Kev.

Even more difficult if, as a manufacturer, you insist on making hyper realistic models, yet also insist on them being able to pull a huge rake of coaches. Sacrifice the ability of your 1830s esq 0-4-2 to pull an 18 coach train and set the goal somewhere more realistic and the RC option becomes far more workable because you're not looking to make it heavy as possible by havingas much solid material as possible you're instead looking to fill that space with equipment to ensure it goes and keeps going when asked(until whatever enegery storage gives out). We sacrifice running quality to the demands of massively heavy diecast blocks to satisify pulling power. It's a vicious cycle predominately perpetuated making everything rule 1 compatible in the extreme only to have everyone from rule 1 to the most diehard realist have a bad time. 

 

Nothing implicitly wrong with rule 1 before anyone says but I to that... just it is the cause of issues and the prevention of solutions in some ways for both sets of modellers when it comes to how to get the electrons to the right places. 

[Ruston]

14 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Abuse simply devalues the argument.

No, it doesn't.

 

14 hours ago, cctransuk said:

My point is - from recent personal experience, as a complete novice to tracklaying and operating a moderately sized layout - not an expert in track-laying as you suggested - reliable running of extremely short-wheelbased models of tiny steam locos is NOT reliant on the use of DCC, stay-alives, or any other electronics.

I see. Your point, coming from your experience as a novice to tracklaying and operating a layout, over-rides my experience (my ill-informed rubbish, as you call it) as someone who has built around a dozen layouts, and who uses almost exclusively extremely short-wheelbased models of tiny steam locos on both DC and DCC, does it?

 

The thing here is that as a luddite who clearly wants nothing to do with DCC, I don't know why you're involved here at all. If you read my previous posts, including my reply to RapidoTom, you will see that what I am calling for is the provision for DCC Stay Alives, not the fitting of. That means a space in which to fit one. The great thing about a space is that its empty. If a manufacturer designs this space into the model we can fill it with whatever we want. I would fill it with a Stay Alive. You can fill your space with whatever you want to give you this extra traction that you so desire; lead, brass, uranium - I really don't care. The point here is that as a DC user it doesn't affect you, so why you have to make all this fuss and tell everyone how they don't need something that you have no experience of using I do not know.

 

14 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Suffice to say that 40+ years as a highway engineer involved the exclusive use of the Metric System, when the UK was still largely stuck in the Imperial System.

You don't have a sense of humour at all, do you, John?