Battery power for HO locomotives?

[CNE Runner]

I recently posted on the Free Rail forum a comment on battery powered locomotives. My point, in the post, was that I was under the assumption that battery technology hadn't advanced to the point that sufficient potential electrical power could be stored in such a small space. [I was aware of a chap that runs his entire layout on battery power - having a 9v rechargable battery in a tag-along boxcar.]

My point was that the battery(s) should be completely contained within the locomotive (or tender if steam) and be easily recharged. I was informed that such technology did, in fact, exist. My question is why hasn't Bachmann (et. al.) offered such a line of locomotives?

My post can be seen at: http://freerails.com/view_topic.php?id=3769&forum_id=45&page=3

To make the concept even more interesting, I challenged the Forum's R/C 'experts' to actually convert a Bachmann GE 45 Ton locomotive to battery power...said batteries shall be enclosed within the body shell of the locomotive and be fairly easy to recharge.

If any of these talented guys is successful, we can finally be free of track power: no more electrical gaps, no more wiring, no more reverse loop magic, and no more cleaning track & wheels.

Think about it Mr. Bach Man,
Ray

[Joe323]

I do not see why this couldn't be done using existing WiFi technology (possibly on a different frequency from your computers).  I think its a question of the economics of producing the gear (throttles locos decoders transmitters etc) vs existing DCC wired technology.

But having done all the wiring on my layout for now don't look for me to rip it out anytime soon.  Maybe on my next layout though....

[richg]

Two, maybe three companies are doing this now for HO scale. You still have to charge the battery at some point so never free of needing electrical power. The ones presently available will also run on a DC layout or DCC layout which will keep the batteries charged and not affected by the system being used. O
The beauty of this is no wiring involved if you so choose except when the battery needs to be charged. Each loco has its own decoder and battery. The systems are RF wireless.
Everyone should realize, model railroad technology is continually evolving. No idea on what the next five or ten years will bring.

Lithium Iron Batteries are used. Below is a link about this technology. Yes, I know some say ignore Wikipedia but it is very informative.
Discarding Li-ion batteries is already and issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

Rich

[kamerad47]

The problem with a battery is where  do you put the speaker for the sound ?? With steam its not a problem because of the tender but diesel's it's a problem!!!!!! and for me I thought  you didn't need sound  & now it's hard for me to run them with out it now!!!!!!!

[bobwrgt]

Some of the  garden railroad (G scale) modelers have been using battery power for more than 20 years. I understand the space for the battery can be a problem plus the weight. The battery is usually in a separate car behind the engine.

Bob

[Jim Banner]

Bob, the weight and bulk of the batteries used 20 years ago was a byproduct of the technology.  Lead-acid batteries, gelled or not, are heavy and do not hold a whole lot of charge for their size.  But they do accept a lot of abuse - over charging, over discharging, and being left idle for long periods of time.  Today's technology is a whole different story.  Lithium ion batteries put lots of charge in a small, light package but they need to be coddled or they die.  Special circuits to tightly control charging and strictly limit the depth of discharge are a must but they increase the costs of an installation.  So do the batteries themselves.  Those that try to upgrade to Lithium ion batteries on the cheap by simply swapping  batteries are guaranteed disappointment.  Insistence on "one more time around the track, even if it is a very slow one" drastically reduces the number of charge/discharge cycles.  And using an unsophisticated charger designed for lead-acid batteries will end the battery's life prematurely and possibly catastrophically.

Bottom line, the possibilities are great if you can live with the drawbacks.

Jim 

[Desertdweller]

Jim,

I have a different bottom line: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Power by onboard battery would re-invent a technology that has worked well for a hundred years.

I'm not against progress, but open space aboard locomotives is better used housing things like sound systems and decoders.

Les

[CNE Runner]

UPDATE: If you have read my postings, on this thread, you are aware that I was fascinated by the concept of battery power for smaller HO [switching] locomotives. Divorcing the locomotive from track power also implied R/C control. I offered the challenge to the Free Rails forum participants to actually construct a battery powered GE 44 or 45 Ton locomotive in HO (preferably Bachmann). Well, one of the gifted forum members did just that - and has pictures to prove it. The forum post can be seen at http://www.freerails.com/view_topic.php?id=3769&forum_id=45&jump_to=43966#p43966

I love the poster's comment that it was 'easy' and took only 30 minutes. I don't know about you, but I would need half an hour to remove the body shell (just kidding). So, it can be done; was done; now we need a manufacturer to step up and offer this option.

Ray (the guy with his foot in his mouth)

[Desertdweller]

Ray,

I've had some experience building radio controlled model ships.  A model like you are describing would be a lot simpler:  unless you want to add extra channels for sound effects, a simple electronic speed control would provide the simple functions needed: start/stop; forward/backward; speed.  These are pretty small, and are probably a lot smaller these days than when I was building R/C ships.

You would still need a radio receiver.  These typically require their own battery.  And an antenna.  And electronic speed controls can generate a lot of heat, so usually require a heat sink.

Perhaps components from a miniature R/C vehicle could be used, but I doubt if the speed control, designed for high-speed running, would work well for the precise, low-speed operation required of a switcher.

Of course, you would still need space for the drive batteries.

I don't doubt that this could be done.  My only question is, why would anyone want to do this?

Les

[CNE Runner]

Thanks for all the interest in this project. If you checked the Free Rails website (and the related postings) you will see that I inadvertently started a bit of a brouhaha.

'Bill' on Free Rails actually converted a Bachmann GE 44 Ton locomotive to battery power AND R/C control (you electronic 'gee-whizzers' can read and understand what Bill accomplished more than I). So it is possible...but is it realistic? I would imagine the production costs would be more than most of us would pay for a little switching locomotive. Unless you possess the desire, and skill set, to convert your own locomotive the concept remains just that...a concept.

Les, you summed it up best when you said; "I don't doubt that this could be done. My only question is why anyone would want to do this?" So we have done our research and now you all need to get back to cleaning that track and rolling stock wheels for the next layout open house.

Keep 'em rolling,
Ray

[rogertra]

There was a UK supplier of 'O" scale convertion kits, unfortunately I can't find the web site.

I'm a big fan of the idea of battery power and have been a proponent of batteries since I first saw on line examples some five or more years ago.  It has so many advantages over power through the rails, as others have already pointed out.

Unfortunately, as I think someone else has already mentioned, it's biggest competitor and biggest hold back has been the development of DCC.  After having invested so much time and money into DCC, would the major players now be willing to drop all of that and embrace what is probably a superior method of operating model railroads?  Sadly, I doubt it as this time.

[Desertdweller]

Roger,

I'm not so sure R/C and onboard battery power would be superior at all.  R/C operation would depend on clear channels and lack of things that could interfere with radio communication.  You would have to use frequencies only that are approved by the FCC for surface operations.

All the time you are dealing with carrying your own power source and directing it by radio, your locomotive is running on metal rails that are very capable of handling these functions.  And have done so dependably for a century.

Besides this, you are going to compromise the loco's pulling power by using a good share of it to pull a heavy power source, while ignoring the virtually weightless power source your locomotive is constantly in contact with.

It is true that battery power on board can propel a locomotive over non-conductive track segments like insulated, non-powered frogs, or gaps in powered overhead wire.  But there are work-arounds for that, both mechanical and electronic.  The use of flywheels offers a simple kinetic solution to temporary loss of track power.  Alternately, a capacitor-discharge circuit could provide a temporary solution.

Les

[Doneldon]

you are going to compromise the loco's pulling power by using a good share of it to pull a heavy power source
Les

Dd-

Well, yes and no. Yes, the loco will have to use some of its power to move the power source (as do 1:1 railroads and even our models in a manner of speaking), but the battery weight can also realistically be seen as providing the weight needed for desirable traction. I would predict that battery-powered loco builders would plan on this and use less, or no, added weight for traction. True, this argument doesn't apply if the battery pack is contained in something other than the vehicle with the powered wheels like a tender or other rolling stock.
                                                                                             -- D

[rogertra]

Regarding the size of the battery and power provided.

Who says you need a large battery?  Don't think 9V, don't even think AAA size batteries, think even smaller.  All you need is enough power for what, 45 minutes on even the largest of model railroads?  Once over the road, the locomotive goes into the locomotive service area or into staging.  In either place, the batteries would be recharged from the rails where the locomotive sits.  Either on the staging tracks or on the engine service tracks.

A small battery even these days is getting close to being able to provide that much power for that length of time.  For most North American steam modellers, as tank engine were rare, the tender is a good place to place the battery and for diesels, a small watch sized battery will fit almost anywhere.  Yes, it's true, we're not quite their yet but in a few years, who knows?

So, we've used the rails to carry power for over and century.  The common man used his own two feet for tens of thousands of years and the wealthy used horses for several thousands of years before the infernal combustion engine was invented.  Wanna go back to using horses and walking everywhere?

You could use real steel rails that rust realistically, cast frogs with no insulation gaps, use scale clearances on guard rails and between the points and the closure rails.  That means switches will be easier to manufacture and and they along with track should come down in price (Yes, that's a dream).  Then there's reverse loops with no polarity issues,  no turntable wiring,  and a myriad of other potential short circuit problems disappear overnight.

As for radio control?  Model aircraft fliers don't seem to have much problem.

Radio doesn't need line of sight.  That's only for infrared so radio is far superior.

[Desertdweller]

Roger,

This is becoming just a matter of differing opinion.  But I would ask you to consider this:

Suppose the situation were reversed:  model railroad technology developed from on-board power sources.
This could have happened.  Dry cells existed a century ago that would have fit in the large-scale model railroad equipment of the time.

A wireless speed and direction control system, with on-board receivers, would have been developed using sound signals above the range of human hearing.  These would be transmitted by a battery-powered control unit, maybe even hand-held.  These signals would be received and converted to motor commands on-board, using existing telephone technology.

A typical Standard-Gauge locomotive would pull a tender holding a pack of the long, cylindrical dry cells that used to be used to power home telephones (I'm really dating myself here).  After two or three hours of running, these batteries would have to be replaced.  The batteries in the control transmitter would last quite a while longer, but would eventually need replacement as well.

Remember, all this technology either existed or could have been adapted from existing technology in 1912.

This system, although complex and expensive to maintain, works reasonably well until the batteries run down, or the neighbor blows his silent dog whistle.

Then, after a decade or two of model railroading in this fashion, somebody reasons that:
1.  The trains already run on metal track, and metal track can conduct electricity.
2.  If the train's wheels were to be isolated electrically from those on the opposite side, those wheels could draw power from the track and eliminate the need to haul batteries.
3.  The speed and direction commands can be sent into the track by controlling the voltage and polarity of the track power.  This could easily be done from the power supply.
4.  The power needed could be stepped-down from house power, providing an always-available power source.
5.  The lack of on-board power and command control results in lower-cost locomotives that can pull more.
6.  The lack of the above permits smaller scales of model railroad equipment, resulting in the ability to build model railroads in less space at lower cost, thus helping popularize the hobby.

I think the advent of track-powered and controlled trains would be seen as the savior of the hobby, and the greatest thing since sliced bread!

Les