BlueRail Trains - Bluetooth Locomotive Control

[Nile_Griffith]

In a sense, it has always been a bit of anachronism that we put the speaker and sound chip in every loco.  The alternative, brought up by Nile_Griffith, is exemplified by the "soundtraxx" system, which puts the sound into surround sound speakers that can track a locomotive around the layout.   I have never worked with such a system or seen it demonstrated, but it would allow bigger speakers to access the low notes of locomotives, as well as the library of sounds mentioned by Nile.  On the other hand, to have each loco be self-contained sound-wise is conceptually easier, and avoids the need to be a A/V expert to apply the sound system.  Now, if I could put my layout in exactly the right position w.r.t. my home theater speakers.... not sure the wife would want my layout in living room ... nix that idea.   Well, its an exciting world... l luv the possibilities..

 

What I failed to pick up on and what really was on my mind with the whole sound fitted loco idea, was a potential cost saving in the control chip a and sound chip fitted to the loco, coupled with a greater range of sound potential. I don't own any sound fitted loco's. But I am aware  that the chips used to store the sound have fairly limited memory capacity.......... Well everything has its limits. Memory limitations mean the careful trade of of sample length against sample quality. In our conceptual Bluetooth control system. All the sounds required by all of your layouts loco's are stored on the hard drive of your controlling laptop, desktop, tablet or smartphone. If using a laptop or desktop computer then your storage capacity has the potential to be pretty extensive. These sounds are then transmitted via Bluetooth communication to the loco's on-board control chip and emitted from the installed speaker.......... if that is your preferred choice of course. There is no reason why the software can not send an output from the computers sound card or indeed sound cards. Even that humble P4 computer you have stashed away in the corner would be more than capable of sending the sound of sixteen individual loco's simultaneously via it's headphone socket to a single, pair or array of local speakers.

 

And with the access to such capacity we can now start thinking about other sound effects. Guards whistle on the platform, door slams etc......... Should that be where your tastes take you.

 

But as pointed out, this becomes the benefit of Bluetooth control. The potential to have sound delivered to the loco individually and via its own amplification or sent to carefully placed, potentially hidden speakers around the layout.

 

It really will be within the remit of the control software developers.

[rgmichel]

 All the sounds required by all of your layouts loco's are stored on the hard drive of your controlling laptop, desktop, tablet or smartphone. If using a laptop or desktop computer then your storage capacity has the potential to be pretty extensive. These sounds are then transmitted via Bluetooth communication to the loco's on-board control chip and emitted from the installed speaker.......... if that is your preferred choice of course. There is no reason why the software can not send an output from the computers sound card or indeed sound cards. Even that humble P4 computer you have stashed away in the corner would be more than capable of sending the sound of sixteen individual loco's simultaneously via it's headphone socket to a single, pair or array of local speakers.

 

Its a big advantage to do it this way, and its not limited to Bluetooth, as I am sure we all clear about, but I know from others' reactions to this approach in the past, putting a layout in the middle of a surround system is daunting for some.  I think the problem is that if it is not done right, it will not sound right, whereas built-in locomotive sound intrinsically follows the locomotive about!!

[Nile_Griffith]

Its a big advantage to do it this way, and its not limited to Bluetooth, as I am sure we all clear about, but I know from others' reactions to this approach in the past, putting a layout in the middle of a surround system is daunting for some.  I think the problem is that if it is not done right, it will not sound right, whereas built-in locomotive sound intrinsically follows the locomotive about!!

 

Hi there! yes you are right, the operating potential is not limited to Bluetooth. The same application could be built around a WiFi based communication system. However my own opinion is that WiFi wouldn't be an ideal. Typically average Wifi transmission on something like a laptop or smartphone can be quite a distance, certainly beyond the boundaries of your own home, so potentially you are dealing with a more cluttered part of the radio frequency spectrum and the clutters growing. WiFi itself is gearing up for faster and faster data speeds, that is the speed at which information between WiFi enabled devices is shoveled backwards and forwards. Ideal for those of us looking to stream in HD to our TV's and laptop screens, but a little bit of overkill I think when it comes to the needs of even a largish layout. So I think Bluetooth with it's small radio footprint and modest data exchange rate is the ideal for our modelling needs.

 

However back to the sound issue.................... I did mention that you can't scale sound didn't I?........ Ha Ha.

 

From a purist point of view, surround sound for a layout would be quite a trick. In film we work in different surround sound fields. Mixing to differing number of stems. Most domestic viewers are used to what is nominally called 5.1 surround sound. The five denoting the number of surround stems and the one referring to the LFE channel or sub channel for general parlance (sub or low frequencies tend to loose their directionality to the listener so one sub channel is thought more than enough). For cinema we frequently mix to 7.1 formats (Front L, Front R, Centre, Side L, Side R, Rear L and Rear R, plus the sub channel of course). In fact there have been quite a few different combinations and don't even start me on ambisonics!

 

Assuming you could occupy a position at your layout that places you in the "sweetspot" of your surround mix. Any control software would have to have a means of deciding on firstly the appropriate sound to play for a designated Loco dependent on its type current speed and motor load, Location on the track (taking into account any tunnels, blocking structures) and the be able to modify the tonality of the sound accordingly. The high frequency component of any sound reduces greater than the low frequency sound as a loco travels away from you, similarly it increases as it travels towards you. Essentially higher frequencies has less legs to travel the distance (Think thunderclaps). This is why I say you can't scale sound on a model railway, using inbuilt sound chips and speakers. From your God like perspective above your layout. The three feet that you loco runs down the layout means that the sound from your loco's speaker will not be affected physically in the way that your God like perspective suggests it would.

 

But back to the surround thing. So our software needs to know what it is, where it is, how fast and how far. Not impossible and I can think of a couple of audio applications that could be modified to create the effect, but applied to a a couple of loco's at the same time could be messy. The software would then need to apply that finished mix (with whatever other loco's are running) into either, a surround encoded mix (usually Dobly cause it's one of the cheapest and all the usual reasons). Or fed to a sound card (if using a desktop PC or laptop) that creates multiple discrete outputs that can be fed to individual inputs of a surround amplifier or individual amplifiers.

 

There is the potential to have a hybrid system. It wouldn't be beyond the softwares programming to say that there are certain sounds that get transmitted to the target loco and via its own discrete on board speaker and certain sounds that are outputted from the controlling device itself and fed to an amplifier/speaker arrangement set each side or around the layout.

 

The crux of it all is. That although this scenario is not an impossible dream with DCC. It would be a great deal more expensive and less adaptable than if using Bluetooth as a communication backbone.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Nile_Griffith

[Ron Ron Ron]

Nile, as far as I can see, the BlueRail Trains system is not offering Bluetooth sound.

 

Sound files will be contained within the app on your control device and playable on that device.

They also say that sound can be transmitted via AirPlay to remote speakers.

 

The sounds are generic sound files, but they have plans to support loco specific sound files (i.e. not being delivered at the launch of the product).

 

The BlueRail Trains decoder/Bluetooth module will not store or play sounds.

They "have ambitions" to use their system to trigger on-board sound modules within locos sometime in the future (i.e. they haven't got that yet and it's currently just on a wish list).

 

I understand what you're saying regarding the technical possibilities of using wireless technologies as part of a steerable sound effect system, but as far as I can see, that has very little to do with the system being discussed here.

 

Best Regards

Ron

 

.

[Nile_Griffith]

Nile, as far as I can see, the BlueRail Trains system is not offering Bluetooth sound.

 

Sound files will be contained within the app on your control device and playable on that device.

They also say that sound can be transmitted via AirPlay to remote speakers.

 

The sounds are generic sound files, but they have plans to support loco specific sound files (i.e. not being delivered at the launch of the product).

 

The BlueRail Trains decoder/Bluetooth module will not store or play sounds.

They "have ambitions" to use their system to trigger on-board sound modules within locos sometime in the future (i.e. they haven't got that yet and it's currently just on a wish list).

 

I understand what you're saying regarding the technical possibilities of using wireless technologies as part of a steerable sound effect system, but as far as I can see, that has very little to do with the system being discussed here.

 

Best Regards

Ron

 

.

 

Hi Ron and thanks for that.

 

I haven't really read into the Bluerail system specifications yet myself. I was really commenting on the potential for Bluetooth enabled control rather than suggesting what any specific manufacturer/supplier was intending to do.

 

I guess like most manufactured products whether it be cars, motorcycles, games consoles or indeed model trains. You don't put all of your potential features out on first release of the product. Manufacturers look at a timed progression so as to keep the market interested in a particular platform over its predicted manufacturing life. I should imagine the minds behind Bluerail are considering the same strategy. What will be of interest is seeing what third parties get involved in competing software control systems and indeed which manufacturers look to manufacture their own Bluetooth enabled control devices.

[rgmichel]

Nile, as far as I can see, the BlueRail Trains system is not offering Bluetooth sound.

Sound files will be contained within the app on your control device and playable on that device.

They also say that sound can be transmitted via AirPlay to remote speakers.

The sounds are generic sound files, but they have plans to support loco specific sound files (i.e. not being delivered at the launch of the product).

The BlueRail Trains decoder/Bluetooth module will not store or play sounds.

They "have ambitions" to use their system to trigger on-board sound modules within locos sometime in the future (i.e. they haven't got that yet and it's currently just on a wish list).

I talked to the Bachmann rep at the Amherst show, and he said essentially the same things.  The interpretation I understood was that the Bluetooth approach is for the "toy train" market for now.  This takes advantage of iOS technology, and removes the obstacles of dcc technology which has not taken off for "toy trains".

[Nile_Griffith]

I talked to the Bachmann rep at the Amherst show, and he said essentially the same things.  The interpretation I understood was that the Bluetooth approach is for the "toy train" market for now.  This takes advantage of iOS technology, and removes the obstacles of dcc technology which has not taken off for "toy trains".

 

 

Hardly surprising that DCC hasn't made the bite into the "Toy train" market that the Bachmann rep spoke of. Its an expensive solution to a relatively straight forward problem and when placed against currently available tech and also public expectation and acceptance of current technologies, DCC really doesn't stack up well for anyone whose interest in model trains is approached more from a recreational play pursuit. To my mind it would be a bit of a shame if the most flexible and potential filled format became the preserve of "Toy Train" market while the hobbyist market was dominated by what is old hat technology.

[rgmichel]

Hardly surprising that DCC hasn't made the bite into the "Toy train" market that the Bachmann rep spoke of. Its an expensive solution to a relatively straight forward problem and when placed against currently available tech and also public expectation and acceptance of current technologies, DCC really doesn't stack up well for anyone whose interest in model trains is approached more from a recreational play pursuit. To my mind it would be a bit of a shame if the most flexible and potential filled format became the preserve of "Toy Train" market while the hobbyist market was dominated by what is old hat technology.

I agree.  Indeed, it remains a problem that there is a significant installed base of dcc.  However, we can take heart in the almost infinite variety of possibilities.  Hopefully, the manufacturers and hobbyists between them can come up with something useful.

[Andy Reichert]

I agree.  Indeed, it remains a problem that there is a significant installed base of dcc.  However, we can take heart in the almost infinite variety of possibilities.  Hopefully, the manufacturers and hobbyists between them can come up with something useful.

 

I see the "problem of DCC" differently. DCC at least is a cross manufacturer standard. And it was established as such long before the market filled out.. Buy another loco and it WILL still work with your existing system.

 

There are now a huge number of retired and digital tech savvy railway modellers out there, and many of whom are developing and launching their own "better" proprietary wireless control systems. Based on past experience,  it's gonna be years and years before they all either fall by the wayside, or end up being low margin HW manufacturers of an eventual (different?) wireless standard loco chip.

 

Anyone buying product before then stands a good chance of complete obsolescence, along with no support and no expansion.

 

Andy

Edited February 3, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[Nile_Griffith]

I agree.  Indeed, it remains a problem that there is a significant installed base of dcc.  However, we can take heart in the almost infinite variety of possibilities.  Hopefully, the manufacturers and hobbyists between them can come up with something useful.

 

 

I hope the manufacturers and third party software writers will have the strength of conviction or at least see the profit potential in pursuing Bluetooth control. From a software point of view, I can't see that there would be a mountain of work in re-writing the code that translates "instructional" data for bluetooth transmission rather than transmission via DCC for the various software control options are out there already.. I think there is a sufficient quantity of modellers who would make the change, certainly enough to give the market sufficient critical mass for the manufacturers to see that its worthwhile.

[Nile_Griffith]

I see the "problem of DCC" differently. DCC at least is a cross manufacturer standard. And it was established as such long before the market filled out.. Buy another loco and it WILL still work with your existing system.

 

There are now a huge number of retired and digital tech savvy railway modellers out there, and many of whom are developing and launching their own "better" proprietary wireless control systems. Based on past experience,  it's gonna be years and years before they all either fall by the wayside, or end up being low margin HW manufacturers of an eventual (different?) wireless standard loco chip.

 

Anyone buying product before then stands a good chance of complete obsolesce, along with no support and no expansion.

 

Andy

 

I can see where you are coming from with regard to "other contenders" in the market for new wireless control systems. As I mentioned in a previous post. Myself and a friend spent quite a few hours mulling the idea of Bluetooth control and this was at a time before current wave of smartphones and tablets really took a hold. Our biggest realisation was the sheer cost of development and getting things to market. I think what might be a major factor in all of this, will be the "toy train" market. It's easy to think that the only people who buy model trains are the serious hobbyist, but I am not entirely certain that is true. It might be the case for certain esoteric layout products, but I'm not so sure when it comes to the core products manufactured by the mainstream loco manufacturers. It's highly probable the Messrs Bob Bob & Wilf may well have designed, developed and brought to market a rather novel and innovative wireless control product, but if it was me I'd be watching the Bluerail product closely.

[Andy Reichert]

I'm not sure Bachmann will have designed Bluerail to include the idea of working at large model railway exhibitions. 

 

Here you run into the same problem solved by having very, very, long and unique MAC addresses on Ethernet and wireless networks.

 

With DCC, there is no need to worry about your loco having the same address as one on an adjacent layout., because they are not connected in the same "network".  With wireless, that can become a real issue, if your commands randomly cause head-on collisions on a layout on the other side of the exhibition hall - and vice versa.

[rgmichel]

I am not sure where we are in this discussion.  In this thread, there has been a trend of various objections to various suggestions as to the significance of the Bachmann Bluetooth approach, but do we have a preferred direction?  Is it best to think that computer control of dcc is preferable, like Hornby's system or various similar systems that have iOS devices hooked up?  Do we merely think that Bluetooth is for the toy market and has nothing for the modellers' market?  Does Bluetooth allow an interface between the toy market and the modellers market that may well benefit both?  Is there an upgrade path from Bluetooth Toy trains to dcc modellers' trains?

[Glorious NSE]

I'm not sure Bachmann will have designed Bluerail to include the idea of working at large model railway exhibitions. 

 

Here you run into the same problem solved by having very, very, long and unique MAC addresses on Ethernet and wireless networks.

 

With DCC, there is no need to worry about your loco having the same address as one on an adjacent layout., because they are not connected in the same "network".  With wireless, that can become a real issue, if your commands randomly cause head-on collisions on a layout on the other side of the exhibition hall - and vice versa.

It shouldn't be a problem provided they have proper "pairing" as Bluetooth "pairs" two specific devices (handset/loco) - else when somebody answers their mobile phone in a traffic jam everyone in the area would get to join in the conversation! 

[BoD]

I know nothing about Bluetooth which will probably become obvious from my next question.

Is Bluetooth a one to one pairing or can one handset (throttle) be paired to many other devices (locos)? I assume then that data would be transmitted to all locos but each would have its own 'address' and act only on its own packets of data.

[Mike Friedman]

As I see it, DCC and bluetooth are simply means of communicating commands to and from locomotives and other devices (Block detection devices, points, signals, etc.).

As a user of RR&co control software this is the brain of the system as it does most of the thinking, there is no reason why it should not send signals using whatever communications protocol wired or wireless it is able to and you choose to use.

If bluetooth proved to be a reliable and much cheaper method of by-directional communication than DCC manufacturers such as Lenz or Digitrax could simply incorporate it into their throttles (for those that prefer a dedicated controller rather than using an existing smart phone/device).

The important point is that for adoption by other manufacturers of locos, devices and control software it must be an open published standard.

Do Bachmann promise it will have open APIs with published interface definitions?

Are they prepared to work with the NMRA to standardise the system for all to adopt?

If the answer to the above is NO, then the only way I can see the system becoming successful is if Bachmann become market dominant and it becomes a de-facto standard.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Mike Friedman

[Ron Ron Ron]

Here's another thought, for what it's worth.

 

What does the manufacturer/vendor of a system such as the BlueRail Trains/ Bachmann EZ-app have to offer that will generate income for them?

 

Unlike the DCC manufacturers, who offer a wide range of equipment, peripherals and add-ons, what we are being offered here is just a decoder/Bluetooth comms chip and an app.

That's all they can sell, apart from add-on software features or more sophisticated versions of the app.

 

If this product was being made available as an open standard, there's nothing to stop any other company, established in this field or not, producing their own chips.

Similarly, there will be a plethora of competing apps appearing from all and sundry, many of which might be free.

 

The manufacturer/vendor didn't have a lot to sell in the first place. With an open standard the market will likely and simply run away from them as sales are diluted by competing products.

 

As the manufacturer/vendor, the only way this venture is going to be viable and worth investing in, with be to make it closed and proprietary.

That might be fine for the toy market, where the customer/user has a small collection of items, that will only be used for a relatively short time before being discarded, sold, dumped or moved on; but it doesn't bode well for the modeller market IMHO, unless that system, as Mike says, becomes the de facto standard.

 

 

.

[Nile_Griffith]

I know nothing about Bluetooth which will probably become obvious from my next question.

Is Bluetooth a one to one pairing or can one handset (throttle) be paired to many other devices (locos)? I assume then that data would be transmitted to all locos but each would have its own 'address' and act only on its own packets of data.

 

Hi BoD

 

You are correct in your thought. As DCC transmits the control information onto the rails and your Loco's "Listen" for the information that is specific to them. Then a Bluetooth system would use the same approach just wirelessly. Bluetooth's advantage is that communication is completely bi-directional, in that your loco would be able to send back a stream of information back to the controller.

 

Hope this helps

[Nile_Griffith]

 

 

As the manufacturer/vendor, the only way this venture is going to be viable and worth investing in, with be to make it closed and proprietary.

That might be fine for the toy market, where the customer/user has a small collection of items, that will only be used for a relatively short time before being discarded, sold, dumped or moved on; but it doesn't bode well for the modeller market IMHO, unless that system, as Mike says, becomes the de facto standard.

 

 

.

 

I'm not so sure.

 

This isn' about Bachmann investing to the same degree as the investment behind DCC. DCC is a proprietary system and an adaptation of an industrial communications protocol. from a hardware point of view it was not just an investment in the development of the control chip, but also the DCC power station, throttle controls and every other bolt on piece. Bluetooth as a protocol and a piece of kit has been with us a surprisingly long time. The manufacturing base for the appropriate chipsets is widespread and pretty much as cheap as chips. The main development cost would be the actual "control" portion of the loco mounted chip and as we are talking about power control and switching, I don't think there is too much in the way of intellectual property rights there.

 

As you rightly point out however. The key factor is whether Bachmann decide to make their "Code" open source and allow other third parties to develop apps and software accordingly. I can't see that Bachmann would steer to clear of using the existing in plug in socket, as this would restrict potential sales. My own thought is that Bachmann are as aware as the rest of us that they are facing a dwindling younger audience and something needs to be done to the humble train set to get the iPhone generation interested. 

 

I'm not saying this investment is cheap, but on paper it possibly represents the best economic investment in the hope of maintaining future sales. In supermarket terms, it's called a loss leader. Who cares if company XYZ are selling the iPhone app for five pounds on iTunes or software company Zap'n'Pow are selling the PC software for sixty quid. In theory you only buy one control system but you potentially buy maybe a dozen loco's, plus the coaches and wagons to go with them.

 

A sprat to catch a mackerel.

[cheesysmith]

I have been reading this thread, and if they decide to go open source with the code, it would allow some very cheap control systems to be made. After all, a train set would require a simple 16-18v ac transformer, a Bluetooth equipped DCC chip fitted into the already present on board socket, and a controller with a centre off rotary dial with a keypad to select the loco. The controller itself would be cheap, look how cheap a basic phone is now, you can buy a basic phone without any extras that is a disposable item already.

 

This setup would be a lot cheaper than any DCC setup already in use. And the ablilty to use something like a smart phone or a tablet instead of a simple controller would just be icing on the cake, as well as making the setup even cheaper.

 

I hope we see something become of this, and it developes further.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...it would allow some very cheap control systems to be made. After all, a train set would require a simple 16-18v ac transformer, a Bluetooth equipped DCC chip fitted into the already present on board socket, and a controller with a centre off rotary dial with a keypad to select the loco. The controller itself would be cheap, look how cheap a basic phone is now, you can buy a basic phone without any extras that is a disposable item already....

Surely the trainset 'control system' is a track power supply, the bluetooth decoder installed in the loco, and a key that permits download of the control app to your existing bluetooth equipped device, whatever it may be?

[farren]

As anyone found out the cost of a the blue tooth smart, chip is likely to be. After looking on the web I haven't been able to get a price. Which could be the making of this or even the thing that kills it of before it gets going.

[Nile_Griffith]

I think the big thing here and as mentioned before in previous posts is....... Potential.

 

Don't get me wrong I have enjoyed using my Lenz DCC stuff and I probably wouldn't have move as far into the hobby without it. But DCC drawback is it's relatively high cost and complexity to achieve the sort of functionality younger and newer entrants to the hobby might hope to achieve.

 

As also pointed out in a previous post. The application of Bluetooth control is scaleable at a much more economic level. For an example.

 

Dad has built himself a reasonable layout. A couple of loops a hand full of sidings, maybe a nice little freight yard to the side of a station area. Now his younger son/daughter wants to take part in operating the layout. Now with DCC, yes you can have multiple throttles, but even a cheap handheld throttle can be around fifty or sixty pounds and maybe not the sort of thing you want to put into a junior operators hands. A Bluetooth based system has the potential for manufacturers to offer an App suitable for a Junior user to take part in operating a more complex layout alongside their Dad, Uncle or at the local model railway club.

 

To my own mind it really is a bit of a no brainer....... We are however in the lap of the Gods...... or should I say the manufacturers. (please don't let it turn into another Betamax type debacle).

[Nile_Griffith]

As anyone found out the cost of a the blue tooth smart, chip is likely to be. After looking on the web I haven't been able to get a price. Which could be the making of this or even the thing that kills it of before it gets going

 

I would guess that on launch it would be parity with a similar spec'd DCC chip. However longterm I could see the bluetooth enabled chips being around a third in price less.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....it would allow some very cheap control systems to be made. After all, a train set would require a simple 16-18v ac transformer, a Bluetooth equipped DCC chip fitted into the already present on board socket, and a controller with a centre off rotary dial with a keypad to select the loco. The controller itself would be cheap, look how cheap a basic phone is now, you can buy a basic phone without any extras that is a disposable item already.

 

A handset with a rotary speed knob, would cost more money that you think. Note also, there's no longer any need to select loco addresses by keypad.

 

 

Surely the trainset 'control system' is a track power supply, the bluetooth decoder installed in the loco, and a key that permits download of the control app to your existing bluetooth equipped device, whatever it may be?

 

The "system" is the Bluetooth equipped decoder and a cheap (or free) app. End of.

A suitable simple power supply being a prerequisite.

 

A dedicated handset with a rotary speed knob, would be something similar to that used the Ring RailPro system, which although similar in concept, is quite different in many ways (n.b. it's also more sophisticated than BlueRail Trains too).

 

 

.