Stan Ames is the coordinator (he categorizes it as "spokesman") for a NMRA sponsored "DCC Working Group" which is working on a "universal socket" that would be mandated for all Large Scale engines from ALL manufacturers. Now why would this be a "bad" thing? Because it is being designed by DCC people with a DCC agenda that have little or no experience with Large Scale. They are trying to develope a 22 pin "Super Socket" that will make all of our older non-DCC compatable "Heritage Locomotives" obsolete. Again, what's so bad about that?
Well, it just so happens that the r/c battery industry (which has a significantly larger percentage of the LS market) is NOT an active part of this group which is working in secret and who's members are also secret! We don't know WHO is making decisions for us!!
Worse, this WG is struggling with some major problems with their design which if not corrected could spell some real headaches for Bachmann!! (Remember the "Quasinami" fiasco? Our r/c battery systems don't work with this unit!)
Worse yet, all of this new stuff isn't cheap! How many of us will care to spend an extra $100 or so just to have electronics that we can't use? I sure as heck don't!! >:(
A level headed suggestion by Tony Walsham of RCS Systems, Dave Goodson of Northwest Remote Control Systems, myself as a r/c battery layman user and nearly everybody on the thread over on MLS where this is being discussed, is for the use of screw terminals which would allow for inclusion of "heritage" equipment as well as various manufacturer's proprietary pin and sockets now currently in use. This suggestion was paid lip service but has been "double-talked" into a "decision to be made after we have decided on the socket design." The concensus among most people on the thread is that Stan Ames has an agenda and is NOT interested in changing the design to use screw terminals. This is unacceptable. Period.
I am a Bachmann enthusiast and I have five of my engines converted to r/c battery. I have NO interest in this design if it doesn't take into account the needs of the r/c battery community. Bachmann dropped the ball rather badly with the "Quasinami" unit not being r/c battery compatable. If Bachmann decides to adopt this design as is then it will be a BAD decision for Bachmann Industries! :(
Agreed Steve...this is not a consumer friendly idea at all. The socket Ames is pushing doesn't even begin to handle the current load our LS trains use.
Andre'
Considering how many LS modellers are going to battery RC forget about sockets and come out with locos that have no track pick-up and an empty tender or bunker ready for installation of our chosen system
>"little or no experience with Large Scale."
Stan has been in Large Scale for many years.
No matter which side of an issue you side up on, secret discussions on a matter that effects many of us in the hobby is a bad idea. I will be sure to inform the members of the club about this.
-Brian Donovan
President-Elect of the WVMGRS
Ah yes, so he has been but who else? The manufacturers that are supposed to be composing this WG are mostly from the smaller scales. Large Scale presents a whole plethora of new challenges that don't have to be dealt with in the smaller scales! Besides, Stan claims to be a spokesperson for the group and not affilliated with any particular manufacturer.
You know, this doesn't only affect r/c battery users! This thing is supposed to be mandated for installation in every Large Scale locomotive! Track powered people will be stuck with this as well! This will include Loco Linc and AirWire controlled engines as well! My problem with this is that it's being covertly forced on us as a "fait acompli" whether we want it or not!
I had hopes that this WG would take the concerns of the r/c battery manufacturers into consideration but the obfuscation and outright mischaracterization of their intentions as well as the intentional disregard of our concerns has left me totally disenchanted with their plan! In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that this scheme is a ploy to foist DCC onto Large Scale and I strongly suspect a certain manufacturer is already planning on monopolizing this new mandated technology!
Don't just take my word for it! There are at least 13 pages of postings over on mylargescale.com where this has been discussed, analyzed, questioned, argued, enveigled and obfuscated and even promoted! (Yes, Stan started the thread!) Check it out!
http://www.mylargescale.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48900 (http://www.mylargescale.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48900)
I think a suitable socket is a great idea. Pull out a dummy plug, plug in your radio receiver (brand of your choice) or decoder (brand of your choice) and sound card (brand of your choice). If you want to run on batteries, plug them in too. No more having to spend hours figuring out the wiring for every different locomotive or having to spend hundreds of dollars to have it done for you. Anybody with the skills to open up a locomotive for routine lubrication will be able to install their own sound, radio, DCC, on-board power, or what have you.
Where will you get these magic plug-in products? Once there is a standard socket, everyone who wants to sell products for large scale will get on board, either by modifying their products to fit the standard socket or by producing an optional wiring harness that includes a standard plug.
For those who never want to add the goodies, the added cost will be just the cost of a socket and a dummy plug, probably a buck each in quantity. For those who want to go radio, they will not have to pay for unwanted DCC items because the DCC people will be able to pop them in by themselves, taking away any motivation for manufacturers to pre install them. Same goes in reverse for DCC people who do not want radio.
For die hards who cannot imagine a life without screw terminals, or who want to reuse older radios/decoders/sound boards that do not have standard plugs, I am sure someone will produce an adapter card with screw terminals on one side and a standard plug on the other side, or at least a standard plug with long wires which will let you do as you wish.
Please note that I am taking about a suitable standard socket. I have no idea whether the socket under "secret discussion" will be suitable for large scale or not. Because of current requirements in large scale versus space availability in the small scales, I feel that one standard socket that covers all the connections in all the scales is not very likely. That does not, however, preclude using a tiny standard plug in all scales plus a larger four pin plug that is required only in the larger scales to carry the heavier pickup and motor currents. I for one will be looking forward to seeing what Ames and company come up with. If it turns out to be suitable for large scale, I believe we will see a gigantic leap forward for all of us. But if, as many doom sayers are saying, it is not suitable for large scale, then I see chaos continuing for years to come, whether Bachmann or any other manufacturer decides to use it or not. As one who basically guts locomotives then rewires them when installing radio, DCC, sound, or special effects, I believe an unsuitable socket will be just one more thing that has to be cut out, torn out, and tossed out.
LS Interface Version 0.0.0.0.0.1 is screw terminals.
Works with everything currently made, everything ever made, and nobody or nothing gets "obsoleted".
If there is one thing I HATE in an outdoor environment, it is plugs and sockets.
Avoid as many as I can.
This one adds, all by itself, 23 more sockets.
What happens to this "standard" in 2 or 3 years when someone invents something new that requires two or three more pins?
A redesign?
And what they propose now is obsolete?
That, Jim, is "planned obsolescence".
You use 8 pin sockets on H0, right?
Hang onto your hat.
> "mandated for installation in every Large Scale locomotive! "
There is no mandate, a manufacturer may do what they want, there are two "socket's" that are being proposed, one already in use in large scale..
A number of the manufactures are involved in the creating of the 'Standards'.
Stan is not 'in charge' or the 'spokesperson' , he is one of many that are trying to find better ways to do things. A number of manufactures do not like his proposal and have voted 'no' to the connector in question, but then a number have voted 'yes'.
There locomotive manufactures form all over the world, R/C manufactures form all over the world, DCC manufactures from all over the world, and Model Railroaders from all over the world that all are part of the Working Group. They all do not agree on everything all of the time.
Quote from: Jim Banner on October 28, 2007, 12:19:39 AM
SNIP
Please note that I am taking about a suitable standard socket. I have no idea whether the socket under "secret discussion" will be suitable for large scale or not. SNIP
Jim,
Judging by your comments above that just about sums up the situation.
Might I respectfully suggest you read up on the subject and I feel certain your opinion will change rapidly.
The problem with all this is that Stan Ames agreed with the concept of screw terminals mounted on the socket. Then he reneged on the idea and allowed the WG vote to go ahead on accepting the socket proposal WITHOUT the screw terminals he previously had agreed to.
Quote from: Jim Banner on October 28, 2007, 12:19:39 AM
I think a suitable socket is a great idea. Pull out a dummy plug, plug in your radio receiver (brand of your choice) or decoder (brand of your choice) and sound card (brand of your choice). If you want to run on batteries, plug them in too. No more having to spend hours figuring out the wiring for every different locomotive or having to spend hundreds of dollars to have it done for you. Anybody with the skills to open up a locomotive for routine lubrication will be able to install their own sound, radio, DCC, on-board power, or what have you.
Where will you get these magic plug-in products? Once there is a standard socket, everyone who wants to sell products for large scale will get on board, either by modifying their products to fit the standard socket or by producing an optional wiring harness that includes a standard plug.
For those who never want to add the goodies, the added cost will be just the cost of a socket and a dummy plug, probably a buck each in quantity. For those who want to go radio, they will not have to pay for unwanted DCC items because the DCC people will be able to pop them in by themselves, taking away any motivation for manufacturers to pre install them. Same goes in reverse for DCC people who do not want radio.
For die hards who cannot imagine a life without screw terminals, or who want to reuse older radios/decoders/sound boards that do not have standard plugs, I am sure someone will produce an adapter card with screw terminals on one side and a standard plug on the other side, or at least a standard plug with long wires which will let you do as you wish.
Please note that I am taking about a suitable standard socket. I have no idea whether the socket under "secret discussion" will be suitable for large scale or not. Because of current requirements in large scale versus space availability in the small scales, I feel that one standard socket that covers all the connections in all the scales is not very likely. That does not, however, preclude using a tiny standard plug in all scales plus a larger four pin plug that is required only in the larger scales to carry the heavier pickup and motor currents. I for one will be looking forward to seeing what Ames and company come up with. If it turns out to be suitable for large scale, I believe we will see a gigantic leap forward for all of us. But if, as many doom sayers are saying, it is not suitable for large scale, then I see chaos continuing for years to come, whether Bachmann or any other manufacturer decides to use it or not. As one who basically guts locomotives then rewires them when installing radio, DCC, sound, or special effects, I believe an unsuitable socket will be just one more thing that has to be cut out, torn out, and tossed out.
A socket sounds pretty nifty when described that way.
How will you connect your speakers? Or do I now have to buy a specific speaker with plugs already attached?
If I am a DC user and just want sound, where do I plug in my sound card battery?
How do I PLUG IN the batteries? Most battery packs have two wires coming from them - where do they go in this socket???
How do I charge those batteries? Does the super socket help me there?
How about an on/off switch? Do I have to open up the tender to turn on the power?
You talk about an optional wiring harness with a standard plug - what standard plug should a vendor use? How does a sound card vendor co-exist with an RC card?
If this socket isn't working correctly, what are the trouble-shooting procedures?
There's just a LOT that doesn't seem to have been thought out.
On the other hand, if I have a standard screw terminal, it won't take you hours to figure out that #1 and #2 are your power terminals.
Sierra and Phoenix just came out with some new products - now we're going to ask them to redesign everything? And stock new and old so they can sell upgrades for locomotives that don't have sockets? Do you think this will make the products cheaper, or more expensive?
And for the diehards who only wanted screw terminals, they get an adapter card with screw terminals on one side and a standard plug on the other side for some outrageous price - and now find they don't have room in the tender for all this plus the sound card, batteries and RC gear.
Tony, rightly or wrongly, I prefer to skip all the guesses and opinions and wait to see what Ames and company come up with. Being an NMRA committee, they are not going to listen to us anyway. If they listen to Stan, there is a good chance that they will come up with something useful. But I am not holding my breath.
Having seen what has been accomplished in the electronics industry in terms of standard plugs/sockets for specific applications, I think that a standard socket is a great idea. But I am not at all confident that the NMRA is capable of coming up with a great design. A couple of past fiascos leap immediately to mind - the X2f coupler and more recently their insistence on changing an existing international de facto electrical standard for large scale (left rail positive) to fit into their localized way of thinking. It is that thinking that scares me the most. The concept of a standard socket being used in all scales works only if it solves just a portion of the problem i.e. handles only a sub set of the necessary connections.
I am out of time for the moment, but will be back later to answer some of Bruce Chandlers excellent questions.
Jim,
There's something going on here that stinks to high heaven! The NMRA didn't ask for this! We have an agenda driven issue and that agenda doesn't have r/c battery as one of it's primary interests! That in and of itself wasn't enough to make me an opponent. heck, as far as I was concerned, the "universal socket" seemed like a pretty good idea! If people were wanting DCC then it made complete sense to give them this option but the Devil is in the details! Tony Walsham was asked by Stan to join the WG but there were secrecy conditions attached that were unacceptable. Still, Tony was willing to work with Stan to ensure that r/c battery's interests were properly represented.
To that end, Tony got certain assurances from Stan about using screw terminals as part of the socket issue that were non-negotiable. Stan promised and didn't deliver. More so, he denied that he even agreed to the decision stating that he always meant that the screw terminals would be part of a later discussion about internal wiring. As Tony has written, this was not what was agreed to! This "secret" WG is working in secret with a definite agenda and they are not negotiating in good faith! This is not good!
The plan that this WG has voted on is chock full of problems that are not being addressed simply because this plan is for DCC to make inroads into Large Scale by fiat! Again, this wouldn't be a problem except that this decision is supposed to be for all manufacturers and it would cause major problems for after market r/c battery (and track power!) manufacturers! Now, some (maybe most) manufacturers will look at this and say "Nope, not for us!" but Bachmann is listed as "on board" with this decision hence my posting.
TOC, I too can remember the good old days in automotives where everything had screw terminals and you could rewire your whole car without having to buy a single plug. The last car I remember doing that with was a '48(?) Chev. But times changed. They crammed more and more electrics and electronics into cars to the point that there just isn't room under the dash for all those screw terminals. They had to go to plugs. I don't know how many plugs and sockets there are in today's cars, but I bet it is in the hundreds. And they work in a much harsher environment than what we have inside our large scale locomotives. Bruce Chandler has pointed out that space is at a premium, even in large scale, with all the batteries, receivers, power controllers and sound systems that we want to cram in. Plugs and sockets can help to free up a lot of that space.
No, I haven't used an 8 pin plug in DCC for years. In small scales, I use in-line 9 pin and in large scale I use 12 pin for power and 9 pin for functions. I have not yet run into the new 24 pin plugs that are already out there but only because I have no interest in sound in the small scales. Do I consider that "planned obsolescence"? No, I believe that is just technology having advanced more in the last ten years than anybody could see when the DCC standards were set down. To me, its a lot like playing music. My Edison cylinders don't quite cut it any more. That standard is dead. Phonograph records? Dead. Eight-track? Dead. Cassettes? Dead. CDs? On their last legs. Two years ago I bought a DVD player that also played CDs. Thanks to blue ray and flash memory, that player has one foot in the grave and the other is slipping. Again, technological advance. And we haven't even started on computers yet. But, and this is a BIG BUT, a standard for a socket can be developed that will NOT make previous hardware obsolete. I will try to expand on that in a posting addressed to Bruce.
Let's look at an industry that thrives on standard sockets, the computer industry.
The wide spread interchangability of components is a result of standardized sockets: USB, ATA, Video, Firewire, Ethernet, PCMCIA, memory, etc.
The interesting aspect of this standardization is that it is not a single socket.
Your laptop does not have a super socket, it has many sockets, one or more for each necessary interface.
If we have a controller card plugged into this super socket the socket is occupied, how do we plug in a sound card? If we have a sound card plugged into the super socket, how do we plug in a speaker? (remember, the socket is already occupied.)
Interesting problem. Inovation should solve problems, not introduce them.
Uh....Jim? What does a 48 Chevy have to do with whether one uses screw terminals or a "super socket"? The comparison that you make is so non sequitor as to be completely incomprehensible! Yes, technology advances. Yes, older products become "dinosaurs" but this isn't about 8 Track vs. cassette or VHS vs DVD (at least I didn't think it was...)
Hmmm......I think I see where you are going with this! If this Hybrid DCC "Super Socket" works then it will revolutionize the Large Scale model railroad industry. Hmmm.....then I suppose that "dinosaur technology" like radio control (whether battery or track power) and digital sound cards like Sierra and Phoenix will end up on the scrap heap of history. Well, maybe. If it is to happen then it should be the market that determines that and not some secret "Star Chamber" WG that is trying to ram it down our throats!!
For now, we have a significant percentage of Large Scale using r/c and this decision would disenfranchise them! It's possible to rip out all of this "new" technology but why when there is a reasonable compromise solution that allows for everybody's technology? The only reason that makes ANY sense is that this is a clandestine attempt to push this design over r/c systems! Just look inside the new K-27 and see what's there. I understand that an earlier version of this "super socket" is already incorporated with more to follow!
My concern is not with technological progress! On the contrary, I welcome it but I don't want my chosen method of powering and controlling my engines to be rendered unuseable by decree!
Bruce, I think you have raised some very valid points that have to be considered. And Steve, I have never disagreed that a DCC only socket would be a terrible choice. That is why I keep talking about "a suitable socket" and not just an NMRA sanctioned one. I guess I have walked into (or talked my way into?) a hornets' nest here when all I really wanted to say was "Sockets could be good for us." The NMRA socket? Who knows. But having got involved, perhaps I should go the next step and say what I think a standard socket for large scale should include and how it could be implemented to keep us all happy. Just so you know where I am coming from with this, I worked in the electronics industry for many years and have been a model railroader for even more years. I install radio, batteries, sound and DCC in locomotives, and was designing and building my own multi train controls even before the days of CTC-16 and Keller Engineering. Model railroading has brought me a lot of joy over my lifetime, and I try to help others share that same enjoyment. In this case, by making it easier/cheaper to make their trains do whatever it is they want them to do. If I put myself out of the business of installing electronics because it becomes easy enough for everyone to do it themselves, then I have done something worthwhile.
As far as a socket suitable for large scale goes, I envision a single socket with many contacts, but not necessarily a single plug. Those familiar with the insides of computers know about the strips with many pins on 1/10 inch centers along two rows which are 1/10 inch apart. These strips do not mate with a single plug. Rather, a variety of single and dual in line plugs with whatever number of pins is required, and even jumper plugs to connect adjacent pins together are all used where necessary. If a particular function is not used in that particular computer, nothing is plugged in at that function's position on the socket. Best of all, these plugs and sockets are produced by the millions and require nothing special for a manufacturer to use.
A 60 pin socket is only 3 inches long by 1/4 inch wide. Such a socket would easily fit in all our large scale equipment, but to also allow its use in 0-scale, we could just as easily have it 1-1/2 inches long by 1/2 inch wide. The one major difference between what is used in computers and what we need in our locomotives is that computers use male pins sticking up from the circuit board. We need the female socket pins on the board so that any unused connections cannot be accidentally shorted by loose screws or other metal parts. The exception would be power connection pins which should be male, sticking up from the board to avoid having batteries with live male pins sticking out of their plugs. Fortunately, the way these plugs and sockets are made, intermixing male and female pins is easy to do.
How would we figure out where the various plugs had to go on the socket? Computers come with diagrams, but I think colour coding would be preferable. Then it becomes a simple matter of matching colours. Colour blind? Then we can letter or number them as well. Can't match colours or numbers? Maybe collecting bottle caps would be a better hobby for you.
As pointed out by others, many small plugs cannot carry the currents we have to deal with in large scale. But there is nothing stopping us from using more than one pin for high current applications. Let's see how that would work. Let's start out with 4 red pins. the locomotive comes with two red plugs, each with two pins. One is power pickup from the right front wheels, the other is power pickup from the right rear wheels. Next is four black pins for the two plugs from the left front and back wheels. Want battery power? Remove the four wheel pickup plugs and plug in the battery. It has a four pin plug with two coloured red and two coloured black. The black end plugs into the black socket pins, the red end into the red socket pins. Want to add a battery charger? Plug its four pin output plug into the remaining red and black power socket. Want the battery to charge from the tracks? Plug the battery input plugs into the wheel pickup plugs. Want an external charging jack? Plug the jack into the charger input and mount it where you want it. Want to add a second battery in parallel with the first? Just plug it in ... oh, there are no more power input socket pins left. But as anyone who has every installed an extra hard drive in a computer knows, Y-cables are available and cheap. Once there is a demand, such ancillary hardware would also be available and cheap for large scale too. Want to use Bruce's battery with just wires? Use a screw terminal adapter that will accept wires from one, two or maybe even three batteries.
Next the motor control. We can allot as many socket pins as we think necessary, doubling up on the higher powered ones. Add a few extras for expansion if you want. No need to coerce any manufacturers into using the mating plug but they might want to decrease their manufacturing costs by replacing their screw terminal strips with wiring harnesses and matching plugs. Of course, they would want to keep on selling their older, larger, more expensive design with the screw terminals. And they, or someone else looking for a niche market, would soon be supplying harnesses with plugs and one end and stripped wires at the other, already for us to attach to older, screw terminals units stripped out of old locomotives.
And what if those few extra socket pins turn out to not be enough? Then we can add more to that section of the socket in future locomotives. Say we alloted only 24 to start with. But later found we really needed 36. We just make the socket .3 inches longer to accommodate those extra 12 pins for the new motor controllers that need them and plug our old motor controllers into the first 24 pins if we want to reuse our existing hardware. Of course we are going to lose something that a newer motor controller could operate, but we will not lose anything that our old controller could do.
Please note that the motor controller is unspecified, but would likely be a radio receiver or a DCC decoder, but could also be some other system that no one has thought of yet. If the NMRA insists on some socket that interfaces DCC to all scales, that socket could be stuck in beside our large scale socket so that the locomotive could be sold as "Meets NMRA Specifications" although supplying each locomotive with an adapter cable from out large scale socket to this NMRA socket might also meet the requirements.
The same concept goes for sound cards. Ones that plug into a proprietary interface of the motor controller board would still do so. Ones like Sierra or Phoenix could either redesign their boards for plug in or just add harnesses. The larger problem here is the incompatibility of inputs of Sierra and Phoenix - one requires pull up, the other pull down. If this cannot be resolved, then adapter boards will be needed, as they are now, but would come with harnesses with hermaphroditic plugs that could plug into our large scale socket and have the sound card plug into them. And that, in turn, would encourage which ever manufacturer wanted the lion's share of the market to adjust the circuitry to work both ways. The advertising advantage of being able to say "works with radio and DCC" would pay for the rework.
There are other units that will, in time, have to be accommodated by such a socket. Most of them have not been invented yet. But such a socket accommodating many plugs with varying number of pins, allows for expansion as needed. And ultimately, the space saved by using plugs and socket will help make room for these new units.
I think that should answer most of Bruce's questions except what to do when things go wrong. The most likely thing to go wrong is a broken wire at a plug and troubleshooting that is exactly the same as finding a broken wire at a screw terminal. Trouble shooting below the socket is the same at trouble shooting the wiring in any locomotive. You figure out what is not working, then follow the wiring until you find out why it is not working. Socket pins are very reliable and except for a cold soldered joint, not likely to ever give trouble. The male pins that you plug into the socket can get bent and broken with careless handling but are replaceable on a board or by replacing a wiring harness. But now we are getting into the area that we were trying to avoid by using plugs and screw terminals in the first place - that horrible job known as soldering. Fortunately, there are manufacturers and skilled technicians available who will gladly puts things right if we botch them up.
I see that Steve has posted again since I started writing this. I am sorry that he does not understand what I am trying to say about the difference between screw terminals and plugs in terms of space, and missed the point of my ramblings about standards and technologies continually advancing, but I hope that TOC and other readers can figure it out. For Steve, let me say that I think we are more in agreement than you first though, but if you have read this far, I am sure you realize that.
It is not just the socket, but the space required for said socket, plus the space required above it, and the obvious disregard for battery users.
The lack of any specified nmra color coding stinks of "enfore\cement", as most non-technical users will not be able to wring out the wiring and remove the stupid thing.
For basics, 8 wires is all you need.
Track, motor, head and backup lights.
The Cu.In. requirements precludes it's use with speaker in the tender shell of a LS Bachmann Climax (we measured).
On cars, 35 years professional experience here, plugs are problems.
Continuously.
Often, we would cut them out (most were for ease of assembly in the body areas) and hard-wire them.
As far as the nmra not listening, based on previous experience, you are probably correct.
However, I have been appointed the head of the "comments" committee, and am here to receive comments, with name and phone number at the bottom, which I am categorizing in manufacturer, installer, and user, and passing along.
>"But I am not at all confident that the NMRA is capable of coming up with a great design. A couple of past fiascos leap immediately to mind - the X2f coupler"
The X2F coupler was never a never an NMRA standard. It was an attempt at the time, BEFORE THE KADEE COUPLER WE KNOW TODAY was brought to market, to allow interchange of cars from various manufactures. In the time frame there were a number of coupler designs, some hook and loop type(Mantua and others), some 'dummy'. some 'working', and vary few of them would work together.
The group that worked on it, including model railroad manufactures, was trying to come up with a reliable, low cost way to allow 'interchange'. Several manufactures started putting the coupler on the equipment they sold PRIOR to the RECOMMENDED PRACTICE being finalized and voted on by the NMRA. Once the Kadee coupler came to market, even members of the X2F design group could see it was a better design. But remember, it was patented, and that the only way one could use the design was to buy the couplers from Kadee.
This is where trying to get ALL the manufactures to work together helps. It helps them in lower parts cost. It helps the Model Railroader in allowing a person to pick and choose Locomotive from manufacture A and a control item (R/C, DCC, other) from manufacturer B and the two of them plug together and work without a lot of work on the part of the Model Railroader. There are TWO different plugs being offered for the possible standard. Once more, each has its backers. There are even several ideas with in each group of the the use of the pins.
No manufactures has to use the plug.
>The lack of any specified nmra color coding
There are PUBLISHED color standards for the DCC area. They can be looked at on the NMRA web site by any one at any time. RP-9.1.1 Electrical Interface & Wire Color Code
More colors are needed, and that does require some on to step up to the plate and come up with the ideas. Rather then spend time bad mouthing, why not be a help to all model railroaders world wide and tackle the job.
Have I done something in the area, yes, I have been working as part of the NMRA DCC working group. Do I agree with every thing it has done, NO.
But the with out EVEY ONE working together we are going to loose more long term model railroaders because they can't get two large scale cars to even couple together.
Ever try and get a USA Trains car to couple to an Aristo-Craft locomotive with out changing the couplers? How about coupler center lines?
And by the way, Bachmann is part of the NMRA DCC working group.
Jim,
A well reasoned response. Yes, we probably are more than not in agreement! Space is indeed a major consideration. The design of this plug as currently designed precludes my being able to have all of the electronics that I personally want inside my locomotive unless it's a particularly large one. That to me is unacceptable. Be that as it may, I do thank you for your well reasoned answers to Bruce's questions. I may be guilty of a "knee jerk reaction" but this entire thing is leaving me cold! :(
Jim, With respect.
If you had been following this "discussion" right from the start you would have seen that all of the above had been gone through already.
I repeat this is not rocket science.
Essentially the proposal is simply a modified AristoCraft socket which may or may not be adequate for the task at hand.
That socket already caters for the plug in (to the socket) type controllers and with which I have no argument.
Whilst I agree with Dave Goodson that for simplicity purposes only screw terminals would be ideal I am realistic enough to know that is never going to happen.
So, by simply adding a few low cost screw terminals to the socket pcb you would not need two different sockets to carry the higher current demanded by locos such as those made by USA Trains.
As far as I can determine all the high current R/C speed controllers & DCC decoders available, only have screw terminals for the power circuits. There is a very good reason for this. Only screw terminals can RELIABLY carry high currents.
Believe me I know. I make the stuff. I have been the plug and socket route and will never go back to it.
For technical and production cost reasons the screw terminals MUST be part of the socket.
Can you envisage any loco manufacturer who having agreed to a DCC socket without screw terminals and put them into production, then agreeing to another modified design? I think not.
A suitable design that kept the basic AC socket (with screw terminals and a few modifications to cater for extra accessory functions with pins and plugs that would only be required to carry the low currents required) was proposed to Stan Ames. He agreed with the design and promised that it would be incorporated.
Stan also understood that the basic method of wiring the AC Track - Battery switch would need to be modified to prevent accidentally coonecting the batteries to the track. A problem which it currently has. That fault can be easily overcome too.
The problem is, Stan reneged on the agreement and shunted the screw terminals off to the "internal wiring" part of the proposal, which they had never been a part of, before he rammed through the socket proposal for voting on WITHOUT screw terminals.
The "internal wiring" for battery R/C was only to include wiring of the battery power ON - OFF switch and the access port for actually charging the batteries in situ. Again, not rocket science and which should be left free for the LS'er to select his/her method of choice. After all the DCC user would not need that part, so why should they have to pay for it?
I am not knocking the socket per se. I just want this done correctly from the start, and cater for all the various types of controllers. I do not want this to be another balls up that would need later revision.
Those 3 inch long 60 pin headers are wonderful unless I have a new device that needs pins 2, 21, and 50, what do I do then (remember the computer manufactrer knows what to expect.) and what if someone else has already claimed pin 21 for their own use?
Being a veteran of the computer industry I see that the allegories about the computer standards is mis interpeted. The actual bus was designed by IBM for their own expansion as well as the slot backplane. This allowed users to reconfigure to their own needs.
As I see this, all that is needed is a plug for power from track, power to motor and perhaps another for lights. The R/C would plug into the two power connectors and the lights would be directly from battery or track power. That's all that's needed . The rest is a real waster of time. Think about it: the motor needs power from sopmeplace, leads to the wheels for track power are needed. Wires from a plug to the lights are needed. the power from a battery and controller, R/C in this case, is all that's needed there. If you want to run track ower, then you plug the track power leads into the motor power lines. This is the system many of us have used for 25 years on our garden railways and it works very well.
DCC was a bad concept from the start. I really don't want it and could care less. R/C has been reliable and can handle a lot of current, up to five amps thanks to the boys running cars and off-road vehicles.
I use automotive type pins and connectors which can be expanded if I like.
Let me figure out what I want to use. Let other people do what they want but don't add cost where it isn't needed.
Nathan:
"And by the way, Bachmann is part of the NMRA DCC working group."
So, you want a fight on your hands?
That is part of the problem.
Ames is part of the problem.
The nmra is part of the problem.
They are trying to fix a leaky faucet by replacing ALL the plumbing.
Color codes?
We ALL use nmra colro codes, yet the nmra rep in charge of the WG does not want it in the proposal.
If you would like, I can get the actual e-mail stating that posted here.
More colors?
The 24 pins needed for the "proposal" has all the colors it needs.
Imagine the next loco with all black wires to the board.
Or, on Tuesdays, it's pink.
Wednesdays it's light blue.
You make no sense in this.
How long have you been running radio battery out of doors in all weather again?
What part of California?
I know how long it takes to prepare one railroad in Chelmsford to run.
I just open the hatch, turn on the power, push the button, and run.
First trip I flick off twigs and leaves.
I do NOT want more plugs or more space-robbing circuit boards, and I certainly am NOT interested in an enema-ray that ignore this for 39 years to suddenly want to "fix" it.
If you are speaking for the enema-ray, then I will, in fact, tell you where to place the socket.
Curmudgeon, once more, no one, no manufacture has to use any plug they do not want to use. There is no law requiring it.
Yes, Stan has an Idea he likes, others do not like it, He does not control the Working Group. You buy what you want. I buy what I want.
I like Shay's, and other small steam. I do not need fancy sound or flashing lights. Others in our club like Dash-9's, sound, and flashing lights.
And I am not in CA, I am in TX. Some of our club members run R/C battery, some MTS, some DC, some DCC, some Live Steam, and we all enjoy our hobby of Model Railroading in Large Scale together. Even though I am the club President, I do not force the NMRA, LSOL, or anything else on any club member.
When we find a problem with anyones equipment we try and find the 'true' problem, and if it is in the layout, we try and fix it. If it is in the equipment, we try and fix that. Do we disagree on items, yes. Do we:
"If you are speaking for the enema-ray, then I will, in fact, tell you where to place the socket.",
I hope not, but then we are human, and we all get a little upset once in a while. In the end we enjoy our hobby together and try and make it a place for others to enjoy at the same time.
QuoteCurmudgeon, once more, no one, no manufacture has to use any plug they do not want to use. There is no law requiring it.
Weren't you paying attention? He didn't say, or even suggest the law required it. He said that manufacturers would do modelers a great disservice if they did use it. The WG does seem to have trouble listening carefully.
QuoteYes, Stan has an Idea he likes, others do not like it, He does not control the Working Group. You buy what you want. I buy what I want.
And if Stan has his way, we buy what he wants. Sounds like control to me. That's been explained in detail several times already. Again, the WG is apparently not paying attention.
QuoteI like Shay's, and other small steam. I do not need fancy sound or flashing lights. Others in our club like Dash-9's, sound, and flashing lights.
So do we. And we'd prefer not to have to have a 23 pin monolith to do so.
That's also been explained in detail, in fact, it's why everyone's angry about it. The WG believes all locomotives are the same, apparently, and that one size fits all. We do not. Is anyone paying attention?
QuoteEven though I am the club President, I do not force the NMRA, LSOL, or anything else on any club member.
So... why join a Work Group designed expressly to do that to the large scale community at large? Don't the rest of us merit the same "Live and Let Live" philosophy? Or did you think we weren't paying attention either?
The second string has obviously taken the field. Let's give them a big hand, folks.....
Matthew (OV)
This discussion somehow reminds me of what was taking place back in 1994 with the discussion of the 'new' scale standards. Stan and a WG came up with a proposal, which everyone knew was against common sense and would disintegrate the 1:22.5 scale market. And, surprise surprise, it did... Those manufacturers (Bachmann, Accucraft) who quickly adopted the new idea, sending their 'absolete' product line to the museum, survive quite well, others, well not necessarily. Of course I understand that most of the participants here (unlike me) are the advocates of the 1:20.3 philosophy, so the comparison above may not be what you want to hear, but this should remind you of the autocratic ways of the WG and the longlasting influence the new standards will likely have on the future of the Large Scale. Advice from me, switch to live steam;-), no sockets necessary and you can run anything that runs, as long as you manage to make it run;-) in a scale mix of your choice;-))), Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
Quote from: Nathan on October 28, 2007, 10:22:27 PM
Curmudgeon, once more, no one, no manufacture has to use any plug they do not want to use. There is no law requiring it.
Okay, I'll bite.
If it is mandated by the enema-ray in all LS locomotives, and you do not have the technical ability to wring out the wiring and remove it, who is requiring you to use it again?
Yes, Stan has an Idea he likes, others do not like it, He does not control the Working Group. You buy what you want. I buy what I want.
Wanna bet? Who "volunteered" to head it up? I just recently was told there IS no list of requirements. We have one person who is the "filter" in a secret WG, we have NO IDEA if data is being passed either way. I do know several manufacturers he claims to have "on board" are NOT.
I like Shay's, and other small steam. I do not need fancy sound or flashing lights. Others in our club like Dash-9's, sound, and flashing lights.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in India?
And I am not in CA, I am in TX. Some of our club members run R/C battery, some MTS, some DC, some DCC, some Live Steam, and we all enjoy our hobby of Model Railroading in Large Scale together. Even though I am the club President, I do not force the NMRA, LSOL, or anything else on any club member.
Hey! Good attitude! You tried to force me, we would have a problem. You mandate a socket that ONLY specific control units will drop into, now I have a problem.
When we find a problem with anyones equipment we try and find the 'true' problem, and if it is in the layout, we try and fix it. If it is in the equipment, we try and fix that. Do we disagree on items, yes. Do we:
"If you are speaking for the enema-ray, then I will, in fact, tell you where to place the socket.",
I hope not, but then we are human, and we all get a little upset once in a while. In the end we enjoy our hobby together and try and make it a place for others to enjoy at the same time.
I "fix" stuff all the time. What none of us needs is a 24 pin socket assembly, minimum space requirements 2.4" X 1.5", with 5.0 to 7.1 Cubic Inches of "air space" above it, subjected to the wet weather we often run in, corroding and having another gremlin to chase.
The rejection of the mandate of nmra color coding to the socket assembly from the loco is blatant in it's intent to remove any non-technical user from removing said socket board.
We remove them all anyway. I have bag, boxes, and drawers full of unnecessary boards, and this one will go the same place.
Personally, I don't have any problem with it, as I WILL remove it, and tell others how.It is the daily calls from folks without a clue as to how to "wring out" the wiring that has me concerned.
If you don't care, hey, good for you.
At least we all now know where you stand.
I will tell you, after a recent long conversation with one of the higher-ups at the enema-ray, they haven't got a clue about large scale.
No idea about BIG speakers.
No idea about current draw, throttles that handle 10 amps, 5 amp fuses that blow, batteries, or even weather issues.
Most are small-scalers, indoors, happy in their cozy cocoons, and when you explain real life to them, they still don't comprehend.
Nobody forcing us, huh?
If it comes in the locomotives, I shall make certain to have those in Texas contact YOU to remove it for them.
Quote from: zubi on October 28, 2007, 11:39:22 PM
This discussion somehow reminds me of what was taking place back in 1994 with the discussion of the 'new' scale standards. Stan and a WG came up with a proposal, which everyone knew was against common sense and would disintegrate the 1:22.5 scale market. And, surprise surprise, it did... Those manufacturers (Bachmann, Accucraft) who quickly adopted the new idea, sending their 'absolete' product line to the museum, survive quite well, others, well not necessarily. Of course I understand that most of the participants here (unlike me) are the advocates of the 1:20.3 philosophy, so the comparison above may not be what you want to hear, but this should remind you of the autocratic ways of the WG and the longlasting influence the new standards will likely have on the future of the Large Scale. Advice from me, switch to live steam;-), no sockets necessary and you can run anything that runs, as long as you manage to make it run;-) in a scale mix of your choice;-))), Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
Do you know who fought that original proposal to a standstill?
Do you know who was in charge of that WG?
That was NOT fun, and I should have known that name would pop up again with something we had to fight.
Whatever happened to the "fun" part of this hobby?
Now we have some guy trying to screw the rest of us over with some socket thing or whatever 99% of us won't ever use. >:( >:( >:( >:(
This is very disappointing.
:P :P :P >:( >:( >:(
Dear Curmee,
Quote from: Curmudgeon on October 28, 2007, 11:55:51 PM
Do you know who fought that original proposal to a standstill?
No, I do not. I lost my interest in this issue long before it has reached that stage.
In fact, I see no 'standstil', in all practical terms that original proposal is a manufacturer's reference standard now (which also implies that I have to buy one and the same engine type in two scales...) I solved the problem by only acquiring live steamers in non-standard scales;-) - my entire collection of electric locos is 1:22.5. This strategy will probably protect me from having to acquire and pay for super sockets, (feel the) noise making devices etc. - or will they also be incorporated in the rolling stock I pull with my live steamers?
Quote
Do you know who was in charge of that WG?
Of course? Why ask? Please enlighten me if I am missing something (per personal email if advisable) Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
Remember what happened to IBM with there Micro channel bus.... Get too proprierty and expensive and you'll get burnt.
The cost of a product has a lot to do with how many are sold .
In large scale wouldn't a standard screw terminal , be the best place to start , and everybodys favorite method to control the trains , be made to connect to the screw terminal and go on from there .
Having 44 years experience in electrical/electronic maintaince in the military and power industry , I know that screw terminals work best for maintaince and trouble shooting for years following a new purchase .
I know that many many times a plug is a connection waiting to fail .
And we all know that our large scale trains work perfectly out of the box for years and years , don't we ? ::)
Please keep it KISS [ keep it simple stupid ] ;D
Thanks
I encourage everyone to read the post at http://www.mylargescale.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48900 (http://www.mylargescale.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48900)
Also, please read about the proposed socket at http://www.tttrains.com/largescale/Topic%200707092%20Large%20Scale%20Plug-socket.pdf (http://www.tttrains.com/largescale/Topic%200707092%20Large%20Scale%20Plug-socket.pdf)
I am deeply disturbed that a socket has already been designed. Not that I'm against sockets, but Stan has recently stated that that he is still gathering requirements. I'm not sure how many of you are involved in project planning or design, but I have NEVER heard of someone coming up with a successful design before the requirements are defined.
This is just bizarre.
The "Ames Socket" is a very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very BAD idea. ( :P Sorry, had to get my point across :P)
Hey Bachmann, here is a very easy thing to do with the "Ames Socket", cross it out, like so "Ames Socket".
If I every buy an engine that has an Ames style socket, the first thing I will do is rip it out, smash it up, and send it back in pieces!
Quote from: Snoq. Pass RR on October 29, 2007, 06:13:03 PM
The "Ames Socket" is a very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very BAD idea. ( :P Sorry, had to get my point across :P)
Hey Bachmann, here is a very easy thing to do with the "Ames Socket", cross it out, like so "Ames Socket".
If I every buy an engine that has an Ames style socket, the first thing I will do is rip it out, smash it up, and send it back in pieces!
Better yet, just refuse to buy anything equipped with the Ames socket.
-Brian
A third possibility, one which I think most of us will end up choosing, is to buy it and try it. I am sure there will be enough manufacturers who will use the standard that we can easily install R/C, DCC, battery power, sound, and so forth. If we have legacy products that we want to reuse, we can still use wiring harnesses and screwdrivers. Knowing which pin is which, or even better, which wiring harness colour is which, will make installing that legacy equipment easier than ever. Manufacturers who choose not to redesign their boards to fit the standard socket will always have the option of supplying wiring harnesses along with their boards. And as a sideline, can supply the same wiring harnesses to legacy users.
What will this plug-and-play approach do to people like TOC who make a living installing radio control? Probably less than they fear. There are lots of people out there who are unwilling to install their own upgrades in their home computers, even though a little screw driver twirling and simple plugging in and out are all that are required. They would rather spend the time and money to have it done professionally. I am guessing it will be the same with plug-and-play in large scale as well. I know it is in small scales, where people are willing to pay me to install plug-and-play decoders for them.
The one change that plug-and-play will probably bring about with any installation involving batteries will be either the replacement of sealed lead-acid technology with other technologies or the physical isolation and venting of the batteries. Gelled electrolyte batteries may be called "sealed" but they are not. They have vents and vent gases when charged, particularly when over charged. I suspect this is the reason why tin plated contacts work well enough with DCC but not, apparently, with radio control and battery. The solution with these batteries is to install them in a separate, ventilated compartment and/or remove them altogether when charging them. Using alternate battery technologies will require more sophisticated control of charging and discharge, which is another opportunity for an R/C manufacturer. To accommodate all technologies, gold plated pins in both plugs and sockets are the only way to go. And if the user insists on unventilated lead-acid batteries, a shot of silicone dielectric oil or grease does wonders on gold plated pins.
I think some version of the Stanley Super Socket will come about, and good, bad or indifferent, will be useful to those who want to use it. I for one would keep on buying Bachmann large scale even if the socket were very24 bad, but I hope instead it will be very24 good.
I'm going to use one of Stanley's favorite ploys here.
"What will this plug-and-play approach do to people like TOC who make a living installing radio control?"
Doesn't matter.
You folks still don't get it.
I have the capability to rip the garbage out and fix it.
The average LS consumer probably will not.
Rather than fighting for the 6% (a number posted this week, not by me) of LS outdoor dcc users, I fight for all, heritage users, locos, control systems, sound systems.
Go ahead and push your plug-and-play.
I don't care.
Just get someone in charge of the WG without the baggage and we might get somewhere.
Quote from: Nathan on October 28, 2007, 10:22:27 PM
Curmudgeon, once more, no one, no manufacture has to use any plug they do not want to use. There is no law requiring it.
Yes, Stan has an Idea he likes, others do not like it, He does not control the Working Group. You buy what you want. I buy what I want.
I like Shay's, and other small steam. I do not need fancy sound or flashing lights. Others in our club like Dash-9's, sound, and flashing lights.
And I am not in CA, I am in TX. Some of our club members run R/C battery, some MTS, some DC, some DCC, some Live Steam, and we all enjoy our hobby of Model Railroading in Large Scale together. Even though I am the club President, I do not force the NMRA, LSOL, or anything else on any club member.
When we find a problem with anyones equipment we try and find the 'true' problem, and if it is in the layout, we try and fix it. If it is in the equipment, we try and fix that. Do we disagree on items, yes. Do we:
"If you are speaking for the enema-ray, then I will, in fact, tell you where to place the socket.",
I hope not, but then we are human, and we all get a little upset once in a while. In the end we enjoy our hobby together and try and make it a place for others to enjoy at the same time.
We seem to have an interesting bit of information circulating in our WG.
Seems there is a link to the nmra honors list....seems you keep good company.
Boy, a little digging in google, and we find all sorts of things.
At least we now know what your real association is.
Based upon your 1974 PNR Grab-Iron Award, I would suspect you lived for a while up in the wet area of the Puget Sound.
That would make it even more surprising that you didn't understand LS outdoors in the rain.
Curmudgeon,
Yes I lived in the Seattle area for a number of years. What you are not telling people is that the award was prior to DCC and was for promoting the over all hobby of model railroading.
'Z' scale was new at that time, so we did not have any members in 'Z', but we had member from 'N' up to 1 1/2" scale. One of our members had a large scale outdoor layout, is was 1/2" scale I believe. I had the chance to visit the layout several times and talk to the owner about the problems he had.
As for rain, if you will look at Google Earth, at the north east corner of the San Antonio, TX airport, go north across the road, you will find out large scale layout that is part of the transportation museum. The weather readings for San Antonio are taken at the airport.
If you will check this years weather records you will see we have had a lot of rain. Some of it very heavy. No, we do not run trains in heavy rain, but we do run in light rain. Yes we do run into problems with our DC layout. We have members who run R/C battery. They run into problems, a battery goes bad, a connection comes loose. We have members that have live steam. They have problems, a valve sticks, a steam line comes loose. An yes I even have problems when I run DCC.
And for the record I also lived in Vancouver, BC, where I traveled all of BC, parts of Yukon, and northern Alberta. I also know about snow and ice.
Quote from: Nathan on October 30, 2007, 02:33:48 PM
Curmudgeon,
Yes I lived in the Seattle area for a number of years. What you are not telling people is that the award was prior to DCC and was for promoting the over all hobby of model railroading.
'Z' scale was new at that time, so we did not have any members in 'Z', but we had member from 'N' up to 1 1/2" scale. One of our members had a large scale outdoor layout, is was 1/2" scale I believe. I had the chance to visit the layout several times and talk to the owner about the problems he had.
As for rain, if you will look at Google Earth, at the north east corner of the San Antonio, TX airport, go north across the road, you will find out large scale layout that is part of the transportation museum. The weather readings for San Antonio are taken at the airport.
If you will check this years weather records you will see we have had a lot of rain. Some of it very heavy. No, we do not run trains in heavy rain, but we do run in light rain. Yes we do run into problems with our DC layout. We have members who run R/C battery. They run into problems, a battery goes bad, a connection comes loose. We have members that have live steam. They have problems, a valve sticks, a steam line comes loose. An yes I even have problems when I run DCC.
And for the record I also lived in Vancouver, BC, where I traveled all of BC, parts of Yukon, and northern Alberta. I also know about snow and ice.
Wonderful!
Then we can surmise you fully understand the need to have connections that will not suffer from corrosion in wet weather, are in locations designed to shed water, and the need for space for batteries and other non-dcc electronics, and the sometimes much higher than 3 amp current draw experienced by some locomotives, right?
Glad to have you fully on-board!
Where's the specs that's been submitted to international comittee for fire, and explosion containment. This is the core of the interface. The boundry not to be exchanged. Irrespective of power source - this is first priority.
Dan
Quote from: Dan Love on October 30, 2007, 05:36:32 PM
Where's the specs that's been submitted to international comittee for fire, and explosion containment. This is the core of the interface. The boundry not to be exchanged. Irrespective of power source - this is first priority.
Dan
Is the super socket going to be used in live steam too?
The only explosion hazard in electric large scale is from batteries, and then only when the wrong batteries are incorrectly installed and then mismanaged. You are more likely to be injured by carrying a 9 volt battery and a set of keys in the same pocket.
Not just a Bad Decision......A Bad Idea....
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
I'm not so sure we've ever agreed that "X" is broken...and beyond that; "X" has yet to be determined to my limited understanding...
cale
I have to speak for the groups I think I serve, my customers.
Frankly, I don't care what Stanley Ames does in this regard (also a BBT customer). But I am concerned about the response/action a manufacturer does in response to nmra "requirements".
Consider a Newby coming into the hobby and discovering he can't just run a train like he did as a kid without grand electronic gadgetry increasing his purchase price.
Or a long time large scale modeler who use track power (or R/C) and wants to add to his motive power. If everything is produced "DCC-ready" or even more, then the price is going to go up.
Might this price increase preclude the entry of a new hobbyist into large scale? I don't know, but if there is enough of this "ready for", it can't help but increase prices.
What is the cost/retail price result of a 60 pin plug? Including the labor costs?
Several have noted "we'll just rip it out". Great and easy, but really we don't want it there in the first place. Alternatively, make a DCC kit with the super plug(s) and instructions for those who want such an animal.
I receive quite a few 10th Anniversary locomotives, equipped with the "politically correct" LS/NMRA switch. In my conversion, I gain a few feet of wire and a dpdt switch. But everything is simpler, and only what is needed is there.
That's it for now. This is my KISS method to solve this problem. Let NMRA do what they wish, but exert our influence with our manufacturers who are the only ones who can mess up our world.
Barry - BBT
One further subject: now they're messing with track and wheel specs.
I am not aware of any reason these topics need to be addressed. We've been operating with 45mm track and various appropriate wheels profiles with 1.575" b-t-b, very successfully.
Now they want to change all this?? For what reason? All I can think of is to put the nmra name stamp on it. Thereby showing their 'contribution'.
Bunk! Long live G1MRA!
Barry - BBT
That is completely pointless. Then again, they do want either showing their "contirbution" (like you said) or money!!!
Here is what I can see:
Showing contirbution - NMRA
Money - Ames