Post by LiveSteamer on May 7, 2007 18:28:28 GMT -5
Even though command control and its components are usually fairly complex, it offers operational advantages that are hard or impossible to achieve with cab control. Also, for those of us that are technically inclined, it has great toy value. Even though the systems are electronically complex, the various manufacturers have done a credible job of making their systems installable and usable by even those individuals who consider themselves "technically challenged."
Command control combined with battery power (there are battery powered trains with nothing more than a power switch) allows a degree of freedom not possible with any kind of track powered trains. It allows the trains to operate on less expensive track that never needs cleaning. In some areas of the country, track contamination is such a serious problem that track powered trains are nearly impractical.
Battery power carries a couple of liabilities, and they may be considered serious by some. First, a fairly large battery is required. It can be carried inside some engines, but others require that the battery be carried in a trail car. Batteries have a limited energy storage capability and must be recharged. Typical battery run times vary and can range from less than an hour to several hours. Batteries don't last forever and need to be replaced occasionally. Multiple unit control is a problem as it is difficult to control multiple engines together to make them share the load properly. Some may consider this to be a realistic operating challenge to be met because that is the way it was done with real steam engines.
Overall, battery power with some form of command control can be considered a very successful system. It has proven itself well and operators that have converted to battery power seem ill inclined to convert back.
Track powered command control also has advantages and its own liabilities. With track power available, locomotives can run continuously with long, heavy trains and with all manner of power hungry accessories running and never run down. With some track power command control systems, multiple unit control is implemented easily and effectively. In this case it works much the same as prototype MU diesel control. The engineer has all the locomotives under the control of his throttle. Speed control and power sharing between the locomotives is handled automatically.
Track power still requires that the track be in good condition and at least reasonably clean or it just won't work. In some areas of the country, track cleaning seems to be a minor problem and track powered systems work quite well.
With either battery powered command control or track powered command control, operability of trains is materially improved. I feel that this improved performance is worth the cost and hassle of implementing command control of some kind. Which kind would work best for you will depend mostly on which of the downside issues bother you most.
Command control combined with battery power (there are battery powered trains with nothing more than a power switch) allows a degree of freedom not possible with any kind of track powered trains. It allows the trains to operate on less expensive track that never needs cleaning. In some areas of the country, track contamination is such a serious problem that track powered trains are nearly impractical.
Battery power carries a couple of liabilities, and they may be considered serious by some. First, a fairly large battery is required. It can be carried inside some engines, but others require that the battery be carried in a trail car. Batteries have a limited energy storage capability and must be recharged. Typical battery run times vary and can range from less than an hour to several hours. Batteries don't last forever and need to be replaced occasionally. Multiple unit control is a problem as it is difficult to control multiple engines together to make them share the load properly. Some may consider this to be a realistic operating challenge to be met because that is the way it was done with real steam engines.
Overall, battery power with some form of command control can be considered a very successful system. It has proven itself well and operators that have converted to battery power seem ill inclined to convert back.
Track powered command control also has advantages and its own liabilities. With track power available, locomotives can run continuously with long, heavy trains and with all manner of power hungry accessories running and never run down. With some track power command control systems, multiple unit control is implemented easily and effectively. In this case it works much the same as prototype MU diesel control. The engineer has all the locomotives under the control of his throttle. Speed control and power sharing between the locomotives is handled automatically.
Track power still requires that the track be in good condition and at least reasonably clean or it just won't work. In some areas of the country, track cleaning seems to be a minor problem and track powered systems work quite well.
With either battery powered command control or track powered command control, operability of trains is materially improved. I feel that this improved performance is worth the cost and hassle of implementing command control of some kind. Which kind would work best for you will depend mostly on which of the downside issues bother you most.