Railmagic

On 22/08/2021 at 22:53, RFS said:

 

The number one requirement for all software products that are running model railways automatically is that trains do not hit each other. 

 

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

44 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

I looked at your video on calibration of a loco. In I train or traincontroller there is no need to pick up a loco or inter fear once calibration is taking place I just go and have a cup of tea and let it get on with it.

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

10 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

there is no confusion at all, one detector or multiple detectors both are ok. 

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.

55 minutes ago, RFS said:

 

In TC you can specify a speed restriction for a block, in which case TC will slow down the train realistically within the previous block so that, when it enters the speed-restricted block, it will do so at the correct speed. 

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.

3 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

no incorrect, I’m sorry but by your own admission you really need to use both ITrain and Traincontroller in a real world situation to gain a better understanding of these programs.

 

what is truly missing is a programme that takes the best from both programs.

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. 

27 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

This is incorrect to correctly set up an acceleration or braking profile then the computer software should do this and any settings in the decoder for this should be off or disabled. This is because inaccuracies will occur because the software will not know how far the train has travelled. There are many adjustments that additionally can be enabled in software like weight type of train and gradients.

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.

12 minutes ago, RFS said:

 

When a train enters a block, TC knows what speed step it is on and therefore how fast it is travelling. Let's say you have set your brake marker at 100cm and your stop marker at 200cm, both measurements being relative to the start of the block. TC will allow the train to continue travelling for another 100cm at its current speed. Then it will decelerate the train over the next 100cm at a rate that allows it to come gradually to a stop. It is very accurate to within 5 cm.

 

In TC you can specify a speed restriction for a block, in which case TC will slow down the train realistically within the previous block so that, when it enters the speed-restricted block, it will do so at the correct speed. 

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.

15 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

Although technically correct that at a minimum only one detector is needed, I believe the more you have the more accurate stopping is achieved, as over longer distances greater errors can occur. 

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.

19 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

I be interested to know how railmagic will be able to do more than current computer control?

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.

19 minutes ago, RFS said:

 

Traincontroller has only needed one detector per block since version 5 from 2006. That became possible when decoders started to have accurate Back EMF. With Traincontroller you profile the speed of every engine, so TC is able to calculate how far the train travels based on the current speed step. There are brake and stop markers in every block, but these are simply offsets from the start of the block. So if a train has to stop in a block TC knows from the profile how to slow down the train and arrive accurately at the stop marker. Also, as it knows the train length it can also calculate when the train has cleared the previous block. (I do use resistor wheel sets on the last vehicle of every train, but this is only to protect against malfunctions, for example a coupling failure that causes the train to split in two.)

 

Here is an example of one of my engines - vertical axis is speed (miles per hour) and horizontal axis is DCC speed step.

 

 

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.

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

Does it work with stud-contact?

 

Martin.

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.

8 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

 

Why? Automation works perfectly well without this statement.

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?

14 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

Just been reading the manual for railmagic, I notice it needs access to a router. My concern is security of the product? How much outside access does it require? Personally I’m not that keen on things that require router access, but what if you have a heavily used home network, what about the latency of the network and how quick things will respond.

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.

10 hours ago, RFS said:

Although I currently use Traincontroller, I thought I would look at what would be involved if I were a user wanting automation. What would Railmagic cost me? My layout has 76 blocks and 85 engines at the moment. I've recently replaced my Lenz DCC system with Roco Z21, and in the process replaced my occupancy detectors. Traincontroller requires only one occupancy detector per block (as I believe so does iTrain), and thus I purchased 6 Digikeijs 16-port DR4000s for the Z21 R-BUS which cost me €340 (about £300).

 

For Railmagic I would need (from the web price list) Trainiac (£82), User Licence (£53), 85 Trackers (£595), 192 magnets (£48), fully-featured software (12 packages - £477). Total cost £1255.  And this does not include any costs that may be incurred in having two boosters.

 

So it would be very expensive. Using occupancy detectors I could choose fully-featured iTrain for €360 instead of Traincontroller. Plus I would be relieved of the really major task of hard-wiring a second decoder (ie a tracker) into 85 locos, many of which I know will be very difficult, if not impossible. Wiring up 76 occupancy detectors would be relatively easy by contrast. 

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.

50 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

 

a fundamental element that’s being overlooked that anyone who already has automation will have one of the software programs already, and will have some sort of occupancy system. So I can only conclude that things are directed to a new user to automation, as I previously stated automation is somewhat a niche aspect of the hobby.

You are absolutely right, we will never win-over someone already running computer control. Railmagic tries to help people getting some automation. The idea is that you control the signals and that the trains got virtual engine drivers able to slow down and brake at the signals/platforms, and run on mainlines with automatic block control. If you have a command station with a graphical interface, you can control the layout as a signalman from there. But you don't have to be the engine driver of +10 locomotives at the same time! The approach of Railmagic is completely different from the traditional "press-one-button-and-watch" idea.

JMRI is free and DIY-occupancy detectors are out there, but apparently 99% of the modellers have chosen not to follow that path. Price is not everything.

1 hour ago, Andymsa said:

One aspect not mentioned is cost, looking at the railmagic website it appears you buy add ons for each function. Ie block detection, fiddle yard, automatic running ect ect. So the total cost for everything on a complex layout would be 670 dollars. The pricing structure is far to complex. Then your reliant on there software for the mimic panel as it does not work with other software solutions. so who are the target audience, I certainly don’t feel it’s someone with an established layout. I really don’t want to be a nay sayer but I’m afraid this is just reinventing the wheel and is comparing with established solutions already in a very niche market.

Yes, isn't 670 dollars cheap compared to $639/$930 for TrainController silver/gold alone excluding occupancy detectors?

We introduced a starter kit yesterday, so the pricing should be easier to understand now ($250 for UK including VAT and shipping).

If you are into math: price = ( $170 + $7 x LOCO + $85 x BOOSTER + FEATURES ) * 1.20 due to VAT

FEATURES is in the range $0 to $150 if you are the signalman and approximately $300 if you want "press one button and everything runs".

Also, all updates are forever free, so you save maybe another $50/year.

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...

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

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

Hi, this is Ulrik from Railmagic. I just want to clear up a few things.

The description of the software and features have been changed on the website as quite a few people thought it was a subscription-based payment. It is not! All the prices are one-time payments, but I understand that it could be misunderstood.

About the last post by RFS. We are only talking about crossing between power districts from different boosters, not current-limited power districts in general. I think it is strong to call the product doomed due to a few track isolators :-) No one should ever short two boosters through a locomotive anyway. The piece of electronics that we suggest is simply a protection that everyone should use.

PS: Don't expect me to answer later responses.