I agree without hesitation that there are certainly safety concerns with RC control of trains. I like the effort that Chris and put into his system. I am messing around with an experimental off the shelf solution for RC. So far using a 2.4GHz spread spectrum system is pretty good. If I am using RC Pam input for the motor driver control, the failsafes are darn good. Cut off power it stops, cut the signal it stops, turn off the controller it stops, etc. The problem is with MU using pwm. I cannot transmit the signal through the MU cables. If I use an aircraft STYLE 2.4GHz system that allows me to mind three receivers to a single transmitter, I can accomplish PWM control of all locomotives which is the safest means of doing so. I have ordered some inexpensive pwm boosters to try out in the MU system. I am hopeful that it will prove to be safe and reliable, but its experimental, so we shall see. But I think that with RC, the human factor will always be the most dangerous. I think that RC trains should require a test/qualification process for both the control system AND the engineer, just like the real thing.
I am working on the air brake system too, and I plan to have a low pressure cut off setting like Chris does, but thats far in the future. So far I have the brake hangers and shoes ready but I need to build the rest of the parts.
Remote Control thoughts
Moderator: Harold_V
Re: Remote Control thoughts
7.5" Allen Mogul
3 x 7.5" West Valley Baldwin Westinghouse Electrics
The railroad is almost done.
G. Augustus
Monte Rio, Ca.
3 x 7.5" West Valley Baldwin Westinghouse Electrics
The railroad is almost done.
G. Augustus
Monte Rio, Ca.
Re: Remote Control thoughts
I've been down this path with my G scale that has all the same concerns, with a slightly lower concern on safety. I found a solution for G scale that I would feel reasonably comfortable implementing on a larger scale but there are steps to make it safe, primarily a fail-safe.
The main issue for safety is not frequency, pistol vs handheld controllers, range, redundant receivers, and so on. You have to assume everything will fail so the question becomes how you handle a complete failure. Robotic controllers _do_ take into account complete failure and ensure safety when this occurs, which is the path I took for my G scale RC control.
For my background, I'm a ham, have boxes 40 years of 72 am & fm for flight, 27 fm for boats, cars, etc, and now 2.4 for flight, surface, drone, and I'm registered with the FCC for flight and keep up on the ongoing changes. My short recommendation is to use a 2.4ghz (which is 'unlicensed' and can be used for anything from flight, surface, and your home wifi. The most critical part of the control is a controller with a proper failsafe system. The Syren 25/50 and other motor controllers I see being used in ride-on do NOT have a proper failsafe, although I think Roy with Ride Trains has overlaid a failsafe of some type into his main control boards that use a Syren as part of the design.
Electrical-only based trains are fairly easy to add a failsafe into. The Pololu controllers I use in G scale monitor voltage, current, RC input, and also support sensor inputs. This allows those controllers to detect if RC signal is lost and then perform a configurable controlled deceleration, instead of an instant off. The controller also can detect physical movement (via external sensor like a hall device, accelerometer, etc) or current/load when the signal of the RC signal is in a stop range. This allows the controller to cut all power to the motor (via another failsafe 'master power' circuit) in case there is a failure of some type in the motor controller itself. The Pololu controllers also have over wattage, heat, frequency control (for efficiency), voltage monitoring, and a dozen plus controls for setting failsafe gates for operation. A Pololu controller could also be tied into gas hydraulic trains for use as a failsafe to cut power to the ignition system and could technically use a servo to control throttle, but I'd stress having a properly designed and maintained failsafe system would be critical for that type of installation.
In short, it's worth taking a look into robotic controllers as many are designed properly, now fairly cheap, and have the failsafe support for what would be needed in ride-on trains - if implemented properly. I know Pololu controllers are used in robotics specifically for their failsafe features for everything from Battle Bots designed for serious destruction (and can obviously kill people) to STEM programs in school robotics classes.
The main issue for safety is not frequency, pistol vs handheld controllers, range, redundant receivers, and so on. You have to assume everything will fail so the question becomes how you handle a complete failure. Robotic controllers _do_ take into account complete failure and ensure safety when this occurs, which is the path I took for my G scale RC control.
For my background, I'm a ham, have boxes 40 years of 72 am & fm for flight, 27 fm for boats, cars, etc, and now 2.4 for flight, surface, drone, and I'm registered with the FCC for flight and keep up on the ongoing changes. My short recommendation is to use a 2.4ghz (which is 'unlicensed' and can be used for anything from flight, surface, and your home wifi. The most critical part of the control is a controller with a proper failsafe system. The Syren 25/50 and other motor controllers I see being used in ride-on do NOT have a proper failsafe, although I think Roy with Ride Trains has overlaid a failsafe of some type into his main control boards that use a Syren as part of the design.
Electrical-only based trains are fairly easy to add a failsafe into. The Pololu controllers I use in G scale monitor voltage, current, RC input, and also support sensor inputs. This allows those controllers to detect if RC signal is lost and then perform a configurable controlled deceleration, instead of an instant off. The controller also can detect physical movement (via external sensor like a hall device, accelerometer, etc) or current/load when the signal of the RC signal is in a stop range. This allows the controller to cut all power to the motor (via another failsafe 'master power' circuit) in case there is a failure of some type in the motor controller itself. The Pololu controllers also have over wattage, heat, frequency control (for efficiency), voltage monitoring, and a dozen plus controls for setting failsafe gates for operation. A Pololu controller could also be tied into gas hydraulic trains for use as a failsafe to cut power to the ignition system and could technically use a servo to control throttle, but I'd stress having a properly designed and maintained failsafe system would be critical for that type of installation.
In short, it's worth taking a look into robotic controllers as many are designed properly, now fairly cheap, and have the failsafe support for what would be needed in ride-on trains - if implemented properly. I know Pololu controllers are used in robotics specifically for their failsafe features for everything from Battle Bots designed for serious destruction (and can obviously kill people) to STEM programs in school robotics classes.
Re: Remote Control thoughts
I think that in rural applications, you'll have good luck with RC with proper failsafe measures in place. Unfortunately there is too much "crowding" of the unlicensed bands and all kinds of interference in busier places. Work, for example, had 2.4ghz wireless internet transmitted out to a jobsite trailer, and it kept dropping out. The provider came out with a spectrum analyzer(something that should have been done BEFORE the install IMO), and said there was way too much other 2.4ghz stuff and it was the reason for the dropouts. Even at my home, the neighbors closing their garage door across the street with their remote as they left, set off my car alarm.
-
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:05 pm
- Location: Elmwood, Wisconsin
Re: Remote Control thoughts
2.4 GHz is an ISM band available for WiFi on a non-interfering basis. Not a good idea to use it for anything that really matters.
- Atkinson_Railroad
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:27 pm
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
Re: Remote Control thoughts
Locomotive "remote control" has/and/was an intriguing objective for me to daydream about.
I thought about it in 1972 at twelve-years-old.
I worked out how I was going to do it with different tones sent over the 27 megahertz band.
Considering that the original purpose of building (or in this present day-and-age of "buying premade") equipment is/was to
physically sit, or ride upon a railroad model... the question of remote control becomes more fragmented.
Never mind all the engineering and technical "stuff".
What's the objective of having a remote control locomotive?
I'd start there first.
John
I thought about it in 1972 at twelve-years-old.
I worked out how I was going to do it with different tones sent over the 27 megahertz band.
Considering that the original purpose of building (or in this present day-and-age of "buying premade") equipment is/was to
physically sit, or ride upon a railroad model... the question of remote control becomes more fragmented.
Never mind all the engineering and technical "stuff".
What's the objective of having a remote control locomotive?
I'd start there first.
John
- Atkinson_Railroad
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:27 pm
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
Re: Remote Control thoughts
Re-read the thread from the beginning. I found the answer to my inquiry at the very beginning.
"...The purpose of this is so that my elderly father, who has a hard time picking his feet up as he walks around the railroad, won't be tethered... "
Okay.
Sorry, I should get out more often. ; )
I wish you success in your quest to remotely control your railroad locomotive due to someone not picking up their feet.
John
"...The purpose of this is so that my elderly father, who has a hard time picking his feet up as he walks around the railroad, won't be tethered... "
Okay.
Sorry, I should get out more often. ; )
I wish you success in your quest to remotely control your railroad locomotive due to someone not picking up their feet.
John
Re: Remote Control thoughts
Speaking as an aged person (82 years old now) who has fallen, I commend you for your interest in trying to help your father with controlling his locomotive.
Might not hurt to keep that in mind when you think of the objectives of others. It's not much fun slowly losing one's abilities due to aging.
H
Might not hurt to keep that in mind when you think of the objectives of others. It's not much fun slowly losing one's abilities due to aging.
H
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
Re: Remote Control thoughts
Harold_V wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:47 amSpeaking as an aged person (82 years old now) who has fallen, I commend you for your interest in trying to help your father with controlling his locomotive.
Might not hurt to keep that in mind when you think of the objectives of others. It's not much fun slowly losing one's abilities due to aging.
I'm not too far behind Harold in the age department, plus I periodically grapple with sudden hypotension, which can literally stop me in my tracks. So I'm acutely aware of how being geriatric can sabotage the quality of life in subtle ways. While I have strong reservations about wirelessly operating a locomotive using hobby controls, if it helps someone elderly enjoy a day at the railroad then it's all for the good.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Music isn’t at all difficult. All you gotta do is play the right notes at the right time!
Music isn’t at all difficult. All you gotta do is play the right notes at the right time!