My WiFi Enabled HO train

ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.


D

detz

New Member
Work in progress, I need to shrink the circuit down and try to fit it into the locomotive but my proof of concept is working. I'm doing this because I think DCC is too expensive and limiting. Any ideas on making this better would be appreciated.

[video=youtube;3XYPTrot8VY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XYPTrot8VY[/video]
 
detz said:
Work in progress, I need to shrink the circuit down and try to fit it into the locomotive but my proof of concept is working. I'm doing this because I think DCC is too expensive and limiting. Any ideas on making this better would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
I think the wifi controller will have to be much more train-throttle like. But unless I am misunderstanding, in general this idea is beyond proof of concept - see http://www.modelrailroadforums.com/...iFi-Loco-Nodes-ready-for-fabrication-assembly
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, this took a few days to do and what commands it responds to hasn't been sorted out I just wanted to make sure everything works. I didn't know that project existing, that's pretty nice, has anyone tried installing one of those yet? They have some of the same ideas I have in regards to lights, fuel (at least the perception of fuel) and sound. I'm also going to try a simple RF circuit as that's cheaper but wifi seems like an easy solution.

I started this as I said because I don't want to pay the DCC prices and with 1 or 2 extra outputs on DCC they seem very limiting. If I make the train except a plethora of commands the the software or hardware (something like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Thomas-Frie...V_Movie_Character_Toys_US&hash=item48775d5267) that controls it is limitless too. The reason I started with stop, slow, medium, fast is because my kids need some basic push buttons to control so in a few minutes I can have an app that lets them control the train but there is no reason you can't set the speed from 1 to 255 units. :-)

I can't seem to find that project actually running on a train. I see it can run some leds but I don't see it pushing a train around a track. Are there videos of this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:


tootnkumin said:
Don't we already have WIFI/DCC setups so you control your train/s with your phone?
Click to expand...

If you read my posts you would see that's not what I'm doing. ;-)

DCC is very old (20+ years, think of what's changed since then) and it's pricey and very limiting. The controllers are also very bulky and overly complicated, why can't I easily and cheaply create my own either in software or hardware? DCC isn't going anywhere so people don't have to get defensive I'm just saying that DCC isn't going to work for me so instead of sticking with the norm I'm trying something new. :-)
 
Very cool. So, like each loco will have its own IP address. With a miniature web cam you could actually put a cab view right in a browser window for a really neat control prospective. I applaud your work.
 
I am all in favor of anything that simplifies DCC and that is cheaper with greater options. I hope you get this to work as you want as I honestly and unbiastly believe there is going to be a huge market for it.

Do yourself a favor though, if you haven't already, take out a 10 year minimum copy right, or whatever, on it. Protect your ideas and future investment of work.
 
Picture this for a minute. You have an iPad or a computer and you open up a simple app. You can easily switch/swipe between each locomotive on your track or press a button in the top right to select a specific one quickly. On each page you have full control of that train with real time feedback. Swipe down to see the track layout to quickly switch turnouts and then right back to controlling the train. Want to have a page that controls other things on your layout, that's easy too. Swipe up and you can turn the church bells on or the lights on around the town. These are the things I want to be able to do, I don't want to have to enter codes into a remote to do it, I want an easy to use clean interface that lets me easily control multiple trains at one time. Anyways, it's all a dream but this is the first step in my dream.
 
Damn, having the ability to run trains, operate sounds, switches and layout lights from one source, just by clicking on something, sounds great, quick and easy. Hopefully you can make this work, it really does sound ideal.
 


There are a number of similar projects in the works, some using WiFi, some using Bluetooth. You may want to investigate these before you spend too much time and money.
 
detz said:
If you read my posts you would see that's not what I'm doing. ;-)

DCC is very old (20+ years, think of what's changed since then) and it's pricey and very limiting. The controllers are also very bulky and overly complicated, why can't I easily and cheaply create my own either in software or hardware? DCC isn't going anywhere so people don't have to get defensive I'm just saying that DCC isn't going to work for me so instead of sticking with the norm I'm trying something new. :-)
Click to expand...

No need to get testy, it was an honest question. At one of my clubs where they are setting up a DCC layout, they have already got WIFI and phone control up and running. As I'm no techy, I'm interested to know how your system will be better and easier. For instance, as you probably know there is this fellow called Mike Wolf who didn't endear himself to the HO community with his approach to marketing his proprietary DCS system. And yet on reading about it myself, it's apparent ease of use seems far ahead of DCC and had he not been so seemingly determined to squash all competition, we may all very well be using that instead of DCC.

The electrician at that same club (works for the largest energy Co) has often spoken of the better alternatives to DCC. Just make sure that you record all your endeavours and what's called "Prior Artwork" should you too, want to dispute some development of yours with another inventor/developer over patents. That's what Mike didn't do.
 
Nice work, Detz. I'm a newbie, and also find DCC pretty limiting. It's certainly ripe for an overhaul given inexpensive wifi-enabled micro controllers, etc. I was sort of pondering Raspberry Pi in a train, but that's overkill (and probably not possible to fit into anything smaller that O at this point). It would be cool to FTP stuff to your locomotive, though :) (or any other number of things you could easily do with a Linux distro on board). Your approach is good though... simpler, less current required and plenty of cpu to do anything you'd want.

As mentioned by others though, probably should look into other efforts to piggyback on first.
 
fcwilt said:
"Prior Artwork" :confused:

Two much eggnog, methinks.
Click to expand...

It's generally called "prior art", but that's not eggnog induced. The term is used in the context of patents to describe ideas of individuals on a given topic that existed prior to a patent application. A search for such ideas is generally performed before, and while submitting a patent to determine if the idea is original. Keeping notes about your ideas is important if you ever plan to implement in a commercial setting, lest someone else come along and patent your idea, then ask you for royalties. If you have "prior art", you can defend against a patent claim, and actually the validity of the patent itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art
 
fcwilt said:
Yes I know - that is why the :confused: after the text - I suspect the poster knows as well, he just typed a little too fast - or maybe too much eggnog ;)
Click to expand...

You people who still have eggnog around on the 5th of January might want to check the expiration date. It's possible that you're not too drunk to type, but are being affected by fever induced hallucinations caused by a bacterial infection. :rolleyes:

If your eggnog is fresh on January 5th, you might want to consider AA meetings. :cool:
 
Skipjacks said:
You people who still have eggnog around on the 5th of January might want to check the expiration date. It's possible that you're not too drunk to type, but are being affected by fever induced hallucinations caused by a bacterial infection. :rolleyes:

If your eggnog is fresh on January 5th, you might want to consider AA meetings. :cool:
Click to expand...

A very good point Skipjacks :)

I think we can all agree on one thing - DCC is old technology (eggnog or not) and, like DC needs to be replaced with something that is more affordable, easier to use (ie less complicated) with fewer components.

You guys may well be right about current companies trying to evolve a newer approach; however, their main focus is on sales which means a priority on the current technology. From the little I have seen, what is called new development is merely an extension of DCC - bits and pieces of the current mixed in with the new.

It seems to me that the OP is not being influenced by what is regarded as current and is trying to create something that does not involve DCC thinking what so ever. To create a 'package' that does everything, a package that will make DCC redundant, antiquated, out dated and seen for what it now is - complex, expensive and frustrating. A package that will allow a model railroader to have 'something' that is (in simple terms) plug and play and that will do everything with the push of a button, so to speak.

If I am reading the OP's intentions, and ultimate aims, correctly then the only people who could be upset about his plans are those that have (potentially) something to loose as a result of it.

Unless I am wrong, there was a lot of objection to the implementation of DCC back 20 or so years, and still is in some quarters. I see what the OP is attempting receiving the same response in the beginning, but, like DCC now, will be regarded as the best thing since slice bread within a few years after it's (hopeful) inception - when IT becomes the current standard.

I guess what I am saying is that people like the OP need to be supported and encouraged, regardless of what current companies are or maybe doing or trying.

Before I get jumped all over about this, I realise that no-one seems to be objecting to what the OP is attempting, I just think he (and people like him) should be encouraged to complete what he is doing, then let the Model Railroad Community decide if it is a good thing or not, the way they did with the inception of DCC.
 


wombat457 said:
A very good point Skipjacks :)

I think we can all agree on one thing - DCC is old technology (eggnog or not) and, like DC needs to be replaced with something that is more affordable, easier to use (ie less complicated) with fewer components.

You guys may well be right about current companies trying to evolve a newer approach; however, their main focus is on sales which means a priority on the current technology. From the little I have seen, what is called new development is merely an extension of DCC - bits and pieces of the current mixed in with the new.

It seems to me that the OP is not being influenced by what is regarded as current and is trying to create something that does not involve DCC thinking what so ever. To create a 'package' that does everything, a package that will make DCC redundant, antiquated, out dated and seen for what it now is - complex, expensive and frustrating. A package that will allow a model railroader to have 'something' that is (in simple terms) plug and play and that will do everything with the push of a button, so to speak.
Click to expand...

Well said. As a newbie (but also an EE) DCC certainly has some charm- it's a novel evolution of DC. The good thing is that the next step could (and should) be easier, as any sort of pure wireless solution is unlikely to involve any changes to how the tracks are powered. There are a lot of neat things that could be done - on the fly downloadable audio, complex start and stop algorithms, video, you name it - all possible when you've got a multi-megabit / sec stream to/from the locomotive. I think the key to getting the in-locomotive portion cheap is to use commodity parts there if possible. That's becoming easier and easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.




Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)

Back
Top