IR Range for PF train

[harmacy]

Hi all - New to Lego trains here - I am just about to start work on a medium sized setup which involves a few tunnels and 'dark' areas. I am weighing up a PF or 9V setup and Im curious how the IR sensor works when a train goes in a tunnel, or in my case, behind some MDF and plywood.

My question is, does the IR sensor rely on a constant signal from the remote to keep going, or does it just switch between speeds when the user changes them?

I would like to do 9V, but the cost is quite prohibitive. So am hoping PF will be fine when the train goes behind some scenery / tunnel.

Thanks!

[Zerobricks]

The PF train controller does not need constant signal. It instructs teh receiver the speed and the receiver remembers it. You need signal only to change speed/direction.

[garethjellis]

The other important thing to remember is that IR Infra Red need line of sight to communicate, so you will not be able to send any signals to the train while its in the tunnel.

[Redimus]

Even on an open layout, finding line of sight csn prove a hit n miss affair (especially if the sensor is dlightly obscured, looking at you Yellow Freight Engine).

I started goung over to 9v track powered because it makes designing stesm locos easier, but having had a full layout of it for a few months now, im seriously considering abandoning IR entirely.

[Rail Co]

It does really depend on how you want your layout to function. PF/RC is great if you want to walk around your setup/room, and 9v is good if you want a "hub", "HQ", or "Control Center" setup where you have your regulators and maybe some other electronics (custom turntables, switches, signals, etc.). You can still do those with PF but It is more reliable on 9v track (Plus me-models track shouldn't be too far away!).

IR Receivers do not need a constant signal to work so you can start it, and it wont stop till it has another command to make it stop or go faster. So as long as you don't have an accident where you need to stop it really quickly you should be fine on that one!

Honestly, My choice would be 9v as the track from me-models will be available soon that makes things slightly cheaper. I have seen motors range from $30-$100. It all depends on where you get them and if you want them new or not (by the way $25 was retail for a 9v motor when they were still available from lego).

Hope this helps, and enjoy building your Railway!

-RailCo

[fred67]

Well... this thread can open a whole can of worms that's been gone over a dozen times before, but I'll restate my opinion that 9V was the way to go... 9V is what made LEGO Trains a comparable hobby to other model trains, and allowed me to abandon N-Gauge to completely go over to LEGO trains.

You get some advantages with PF, no doubt, like layouts that would be "invalid" in 9V, and you can run multiple trains... doing that on 9V would require something like digitrax, an expensive proposition.

Personally, I require neither of those.

The advantages to 9V are continuous running with absolute control and no battery box on the trains.

I also hate when my PF controller gets out of sync... three clicks forward, then one click back that didn't work... so another click back, and now my added handle on the dial is out of sync. Yes, I'm OCD about some things.

There are other perceived advantages with PF - like independently controlling other things on your train - you might have doors open and close, or a crane arm or something, and continuous lighting that doesn't depend on train speed... but since you can add PF to a 9V train, you can do all those things, too, and because you'd be driving the train by power from the track, the battery for your extra functions will last a lot longer.

Just my two cents... as a LEGO fan, I get why they changed; as a train fan, I'm disappointed they did. I'm glad so many others are happy with PF, but equally (or more, actually) glad that companies like ME are stepping up to give the option to continue 9V.

Edited August 24, 2014 by fred67

[peter_m]

I suggest that you get SBrick ( https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sbrick/sbrick-smart-way-to-control-all-your-lego-creation ) as soon as it is out :)

[legoman666]

I use Codefox's open source bluetooth controller with some custom wheels and electronics to pull power from the track. If I am dilligent enough I can run multiple trains on the same loop, but that requires constant attention.

[Hrw-Amen]

I have had no problems with the IR Range inside the house. The only issue is as has been said line of sight, even then I find as long as there is a wall/ceiling to bounce it off it still works even when down behind the chairs and table out of direct line of sight. It has to be really - really blocked totally with now way in whatso ever to not work.

I have tried it outside and found it totally different and hard to get to work unless you are right on top of it. I have a high wall all around my garden and it is roughly the same size as my living room but the lack of ceiling I am assuming is the issue. As has been said it is OK as once the train is going it is going, but I can only get it to change speed outside if I am right there chasing it about the garden.

[Redimus]

God, I'd love to be able ot set up in the garden... (well, it's more of a yard but there is *some* grass...) Sadly, the Chavs would have a field day. The joys of living in the north of England...

[dr_spock]

You could also try using mirrors to bounce the infrared beam into the tunnels and around obstacles if you need control. Otherwise, the train will just keep going on the last command it recieved from the controller.

[cgarison]

Mixing Power Functions trains and tunnels is the scariest scenario that you can have with any layout at a Lego show. I watched my train speed up to "four clicks" in speed when I only clicked the remote three and then it entered a tunnel with a sharp turn and the edge of the layout at the the other end of the tunnel. It was only a row of brick built trees that were mowed down by the engine that slowed it enough to keep it train from having enough inertia to slide off the table and onto the floor.

I am looking to use IR Transmitters, color sensors and a Mindstorm bricks connected to each other with Bluetooth to sense the position of the train on the layout and issue IR commands to the Power Functions receiver based on the position of the train. Maybe I will have something by next Spring with this solution, but that is how I am going to handle the quirks of PF with my sections of our layouts.

[fred67]

I have actually had terrible luck with IR... in my simple loop in my Christmas layout, which sits on a table with the winter sets TLG has been releasing, I lose signal all the time when it's behind the buildings. I also am not confident turning the dial quickly, which is guaranteed to get it out of sync.

I know it makes it a lot more complicated and expensive, but they should have gone with radio control; am looking forwards to getting bluetooth control at some point. Until then, I still say most people would have been happier with 9V to drive the train.

[zephyr1934]

While I am a big 9v fan, I bought my track and motors when they were in production. Still, there are aspects of PF that are hard to beat. PF outperforms 9v in these areas: slow speeds, and/or heavy trains. I would estimate that the pf train motor can pull 1.5x or 2x of what a 9v motor can pull (in part because dirty track and power loss at the track joints leads to less constant power supply to the motor). If you then turn to XL motors... you will pull your train off the curves before the XL motors run out of pulling power. On the flip side, it is a major pain in the !@#$% to hide all of that PF gear if you are building anything less than 6 wide hoods or want to put any detailing at all in.

[cgarison]

If you then turn to XL motors... you will pull your train off the curves before the XL motors run out of pulling power.

Even the little M-motors have way more torque than you would expect given the general experience that we have in using them to motivate MOCs. A few years back at BrickFair VA, I got tired of the little 12 tooth gears slipping off the rounded ends of 3L axles so I cut down longer, black axles to a lenth of about 3.25 studs long and then filed the ends of my axle to get the most square end possible to mount my 12 tooth gear. After this was completed, the train turned into power monster and instead of slipping or stalling, the bogeys would twist and override the rails on the track. With some improvements and running the train at a slower speed, we fixed that issue. Going forward, all the new "diesel" style locomotives that I build are going to incorporate these improvements to make life on a layout at a Lego AFOL show just a little bit easier.

And as I side note, elliminating the rounded end of a technic axle increases the difficulty of attaching a gear to the end by a factor of 3. Children would be quite frustrated if Lego did not put that chamfer the ends of the axles.

[legoman666]

Even the little M-motors have way more torque than you would expect given the general experience that we have in using them to motivate MOCs. A few years back at BrickFair VA, I got tired of the little 12 tooth gears slipping off the rounded ends of 3L axles so I cut down longer, black axles to a lenth of about 3.25 studs long and then filed the ends of my axle to get the most square end possible to mount my 12 tooth gear. After this was completed, the train turned into power monster and instead of slipping or stalling, the bogeys would twist and override the rails on the track. With some improvements and running the train at a slower speed, we fixed that issue. Going forward, all the new "diesel" style locomotives that I build are going to incorporate these improvements to make life on a layout at a Lego AFOL show just a little bit easier.

And as I side note, elliminating the rounded end of a technic axle increases the difficulty of attaching a gear to the end by a factor of 3. Children would be quite frustrated if Lego did not put that chamfer the ends of the axles.

I too have taken to cutting off the very end of my Technic axles to keep the gears from falling off.

[Xris]

Hi,

I also hate when my PF controller gets out of sync... three clicks forward, then one click back that didn't work... so another click back, and now my added handle on the dial is out of sync. Yes, I'm OCD about some things.

The PF IR-protocol allows for absolute speed control within a single command message. While LEGO's remote controls do not support this feature (or better: they use it for emergency halt only), you can tackle the described problem by using a self-built remote control:

Connecting the HiTechnic "NXT IRLink Sensor" to your Mindstorms NXT you can program it to get an advanced IR remote (not only) for your trains.

Just my two cents... as a LEGO fan, I get why they changed; as a train fan, I'm disappointed they did. I'm glad so many others are happy with PF, but equally (or more, actually) glad that companies like ME are stepping up to give the option to continue 9V.

+1

Xris

Edited August 29, 2014 by Xris

[Skystorm87]

I have a 9V layout but I have a PF engine as well. I wanted to use the PF engine to do maneuvers while other trains are running on 9V on the same line.

I don't tell you how many times I crashed because my PF controller got out of sync. Once it made collapse my tunnel!

[Paperballpark]

it is a major pain in the !@#$% to hide all of that PF gear if you are building anything less than 6 wide hoods or want to put any detailing at all in.

I only run PF, having got back into Lego long after they stopped 9V. I see the above problem as a challenge more than anything - I like that challenge of 'how do I package this?'

On the flip side, because with 9V you have to use the train motor, it makes it much more difficult to run a train such as the Emerald Night - where the power comes from a L or XL motor. There's more freedom in how you actually power a PF train.

Personally, I only run trains at shows (not got the space at home). I just set it to go fast enough to get around the bends and leave it running at that. I do use the rechargable battery box though, rather than actual batteries.

[fred67]

On the flip side, because with 9V you have to use the train motor, it makes it much more difficult to run a train such as the Emerald Night - where the power comes from a L or XL motor. There's more freedom in how you actually power a PF train.

I don't... most 9V users put the motor on the tender. If you're OCD and need the drive to be accurate... well... then it still isn't, quite, using PF motors. Ultimately, I'd be putting PF Train Motors on my trains instead of M or XL anyway.

[harmacy]

Great replies - thank you all for your input. I'd like to go 9V, so may just exercise patience and save up little more to make it happen. Now... Dark Bley or Dark Grey tracks.... hehehe. Will go off and check ME's status.