BlueRail Trains - Bluetooth Locomotive Control

[rgmichel]

I believe that we should say as a group that we do not need or want a dcc-incompatible system.  The discussion here has not thrown up any reason to scrap the dcc protocols, while acknowledging the open-source nature of Bluetooth and its ready availability on iOS systems. 

This is a comment I made, to which davepallant replied:

 

"Down with that sort of thing!".

 

What do you mean 'we'?! I don't want to say any such thing! I am just finishing DCCing my N gauge layout and even after spending that money and expecting to pay much more in DCC chipping another 50 or so locos over the next year I say 'bring it on'! It really doesnt matter what the messages over the Bluetooth link are and they might even be open source (which it sounds like Bachmann/Bluerail will do) the important thing is that for people who just want to run two or more locos at the same time on their home layout this is going to be easier and probably cheaper than putting together a DCC system. .

Dave, are you misinterpreting the double negative in my suggestion that it would be a good thing to have a dcc-compatible system?  It seems to me that its wonderful to have both the Bluetooth addressable locos already developed by Bachmann, together with Bluetooth addressable dcc-sound locos that appear to be under development.  Such goodies are likely to encompasses anything that any of us are likely to want to do.

[Glorious NSE]

However that does not seem to be what Bachmann as demonstrating . They appear to be demonstrating a control protocol completely outside DCC and incompatible with it - eg the settings are stored on the smartphone and not in the decoder, which raises huge problems in the context of an exhibition layout . If you place your Bluetooth loco on a conventional DCC layout , in the absence of your own smartphone - it won't run . 

 

I'm not sure that's true, I would have thought you could have a stored pair with multiple devices, which you activate and deactivate.

[10000]

IMHO everyone needs to forget about the sort of Bluetooth pairing that we are used to i.e . put in some sort of code to pair devices.

 

While I do not have any info I suspect that these Bluetooth devices will work in a similar method to Apple Airplay.

 

Example

In my home I have 5 Airplay receivers (think of these as locos) and 4 Airplay transmitters (Mac's, iPad and iPod, think of these as the smart control device.)

 

When I start iTunes on a Mac it see's all of the available Airplay receivers. I can then connect to 1 or more of these receivers. While the connection exists I can not connect a different transmitter to that receiver, it is a one to one.

 

To end the connection I can either disconnect in iTunes which makes the receiver available to other transmitters.

Or turn off the power to the receiver. Applying power again makes it available again to any transmitter.

 

 

(Or I may be completely wrong about it)

[Nile_Griffith]

IMHO everyone needs to forget about the sort of Bluetooth pairing that we are used to i.e . put in some sort of code to pair devices.

 

While I do not have any info I suspect that these Bluetooth devices will work in a similar method to Apple Airplay.

 

Example

In my home I have 5 Airplay receivers (think of these as locos) and 4 Airplay transmitters (Mac's, iPad and iPod, think of these as the smart control device.)

 

When I start iTunes on a Mac it see's all of the available Airplay receivers. I can then connect to 1 or more of these receivers. While the connection exists I can not connect a different transmitter to that receiver, it is a one to one.

 

To end the connection I can either disconnect in iTunes which makes the receiver available to other transmitters.

Or turn off the power to the receiver. Applying power again makes it available again to any transmitter.

 

 

(Or I may be completely wrong about it)

 

Again no other information to go on, but I agree that the pairing side of things may well be a little simpler than the usual Bluetooth pairing we see with the likes of car telephones and such. Not sure that they would follow the Airplay route though, but I agree it may well be something a lot more user friendly than inputting four figure security codes.

[Glorious NSE]

It would be good to have some security, or that (rather than exclusivity of connection) would prevent it's use in any kind of public setting.

[Nile_Griffith]

What would be welcome would be some kind of screen prompt to say that another device is trying to pair with the loco. The important thing is that stuff like this isn't beyond the scope of the technology and as was illustrated in the reply I received from BlueTrains yesterday. They are making the chips firmware up-dateable by air (I guess that means through the bluetooth connection) They hope that as other manufacturers and developers come onboard the protocols will become more refined. So as a user you shouldn't get locked out of too many improvements by becoming an early adopter.......... He says....... hopefully....

[Ron Ron Ron]

The use of a graphic user interface to adjust loco/decoder settings, rather than dabbling with CV settings, isn't new with this product.

It's been done before on other systems, whether DCC systems (e.g. ECoS, Viessmann Commander), other wireless direct communication control systems (RailPro) and on 3rd party Smartphone/Tablet apps used with DCC systems or PC based train control software.

 

The closest thing to BlueRail Trains system, is the Ring Engineering RailPro system, which is very similar to this in presentation, but doesn't use a Smartphone/Tablet interface and uses one of the high speed direct WiFi technologies (no router or network involved) instead of Bluetooth.

RailPro uses a proprietary wireless handset, with a colour touch screen and a physical multi-purpose control knob.

 

The problem with RailPro, compared to the BlueRail Trains's system, is that it is very much a one manufacturer closed proprietary system, with all system components (handset, decoders, accessory decoders etc) only available from the one company.

 

The BlueRail Trains system pretty much copies the RailPro idea, but uses low cost BlueTooth (for comms) and an app based control system that can be hosted on a variety of common devices (no proprietary main system hardware).

That is the killer application.

The key to success will be if it can do the clever stuff that RailPro can do and if it can cover all the DCC functionality (and more).

 

 

Having trawled the internet this morning, I have gleaned some interesting information, that comes directly from one of the developers.

 

He confirmed that on 16th January 2015, BlueRail Trains and Bachmann formally finalised and commenced their joint agreement.

 

The deal is that BlueRail Trains will be working only with Bachmann Trains, for the inclusion of built-in BlueRail Trains boards (Bluetooth decoders).

They will not be working with any other manufacturer.

 

However BlueRail Trains will be free to produce and sell boards and other related products, intended for use independently, or in any other model railway manufacturers products.

 

BlueRail Trains say that neither they nor Bachmann, wish to produce a tied-in proprietary system and that they wish the system to be used in any model railroad application.

However, there is no mention of manufacturing rights for the hardware (on-board and accessory decoder boards and other peripherals).

 

Speed matching for consists.

He mentioned that there will be some form of automatic speed matching, as the decoder boards will talk to each other and adjust to motor load etc.

This sounds similar to the RailPro system, but whether it's active and as clever as that, or just a passive solution, isn't clear?

Manual speed matching can also be achieved via the individual loco settings.

 

Turnouts and Accessories.

10 types of board currently in development or being planned. The first are now in production.

These include the mobile Bluetooth decoder boards, mobile boards for sound (not specified if these are sound decoders or can interface with sound decoders or modules?), and accessory boards (for turnouts, signals, lights etc).

 

Interface with JMRI.

They hadn't thought about it or even considered it (it sounded like it never entered their heads).

However, in response to the suggestion, they think that it's worth looking at.

 

They are working on a Bluetooth adapter board to connect to on-board DCC decoders.

The DCC decoder will then ignore DCC commands and will respond to BlueRail commands via Bluetooth.

No mention if it works the other way, or is switchable?

 

There are plans to offer a Dead Rail version of the standard loco Bluetooth decoder board.

 

The first products to go on sale this year (late Spring/Summer), will be Bachmann (USA) Train sets.

A hint at Bachmann's Thomas sets being fitted.

Others will be Bachmann diesels (presumably only the US company's range?).

BlueRail Trains will then start selling after market decoder boards.

 

I'll add more later....

 

Ron

 

 

 

.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Ron Ron Ron

[Nile_Griffith]

Thanks for that Ron.

 

I guess there are a few confirmations of what has been hypothesised in the course of this discussion.

 

I can't see a Bluetooth system failing to match the existing feature set of DCC and it's capabilities and as ......... Hypothesised..... by myself I can think of a few features that the Bluetrains/Bluetooth system should be more than capable of and suited for.

 

What brings a smile to my face is confirmation that there is a genuine interest on the part of BlueTrains and Bachmann not to make this a "Locked in" offering. Like the Ring Engineering set up "Rail Pro"

 

I still feel that for the hobby in general it's an exciting step forward and that with the right kind of support from manufacturers and developers. Could put a lot of features within the grasp of modellers that up until now had required a lot of investment and niche knowledge.

 

Right!!!! So this springs project is to get all my loco's ready for re-chipping........ Ha Ha!

[Mike Storey]

 

 

The key to success will be if it can do the clever stuff that RailPro can do and if it can cover all the DCC functionality (and more).

 

Ron

 

 

 

.

 

.... and has knobs or levers.......

[Ron Ron Ron]

.... and has knobs or levers.......

 

If you have a preference for knobs (Oooh Errr Missus !), let's hope some enterprising manufacturers will produce suitable clip on peripherals for Smart devices.

 

Examples of the concept....

 

1f105dcb03.jpg

 

41-8BeLl+fL._SY300_.jpg

 

linea-pro-5-pistol-grip.jpg

 

http://wimages.vr-zone.net/2013/10/gamepad_0.png

 

http://infinigeek.com/assets/powershell-controller-battery-mobile-gaming-system.png?84cd58

 

13633273041.jpg

 

http://media2.popsugar-assets.com/files/2011/08/34/5/192/1922507/aed907b26b3a43cc_e8f5_joystick_it_iphone.jpg

 

iPad -

 

https://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/numark-idj-pro-ipad.jpg?w=655

 

00128648300250____5__1000x1000.jpg

 

DDJ-WEGO2_WEBset_high.jpg

 

 

 

.

[Nile_Griffith]

.... and has knobs or levers.......

 

 

In fairness the flight-sim boys can buy pretty much an entire F-16 cockpit worth of buttons, switches, levers, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. That connects with their PC's running their chosen flight sim software all connected through USB........ and there is a niche hobby!! So I guess all it takes is some model railway fans to convince a manufacturer of the potential market and to create some Brass handled levers and a chrome plated wheel linked up to internal shaft encoders and interfaced to a computer via USB and your there!!!

 

Personally I'll be quite chuffed........ pardon the pun....... with the iPad.

[Nile_Griffith]

As said in my previous post!!

 

Just look at what the flight simulator hobbyists can spend their hard earned on!!!! Makes a Lenz DCC throttle look a bit sick............ Ha Ha Ha!

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GOFLIGHT-AIRLINER-PRO-PILOT-SYSTEM-GF-IFS-AIRLINER-FLIGHT-SIMULATOR-COCKPIT-/251815327006?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3aa15cf51e

[Andy Reichert]

My US $50 watch has been capable of wireless transmission of my arm orientation (say on a passive control panel) in real time, for several years. I'm not at the stage of reprogramming it, as I've been working on other higher priority areas. (Modelling is my hobby, digital networking just my old profession).

 

Probably still a lot easier for me to just wire up the control panel though.  My intention for wireless is to add additional functions, not waste my little time re-inventing the ones that already exist.

 

Andy

[Mike Storey]

If you have a preference for knobs (Oooh Errr Missus !), let's hope some enterprising manufacturers will produce suitable clip on peripherals for Smart devices.

 

Examples of the concept....

 

1f105dcb03.jpg

 

41-8BeLl+fL._SY300_.jpg

 

linea-pro-5-pistol-grip.jpg

 

http://wimages.vr-zone.net/2013/10/gamepad_0.png

 

http://infinigeek.com/assets/powershell-controller-battery-mobile-gaming-system.png?84cd58

 

13633273041.jpg

 

http://media2.popsugar-assets.com/files/2011/08/34/5/192/1922507/aed907b26b3a43cc_e8f5_joystick_it_iphone.jpg

 

iPad -

 

https://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/numark-idj-pro-ipad.jpg?w=655

 

00128648300250____5__1000x1000.jpg

 

DDJ-WEGO2_WEBset_high.jpg

 

 

 

.

 

Thanks Ron

 

The bottom two look the dog's wotsits!

[Andy Reichert]

Thanks for that Ron.

 

I guess there are a few confirmations of what has been hypothesised in the course of this discussion.

 

I can't see a Bluetooth system failing to match the existing feature set of DCC and it's capabilities and as ......... Hypothesised..... by myself I can think of a few features that the Bluetrains/Bluetooth system should be more than capable of and suited for.

 

What brings a smile to my face is confirmation that there is a genuine interest on the part of BlueTrains and Bachmann not to make this a "Locked in" offering. Like the Ring Engineering set up "Rail Pro"

 

I still feel that for the hobby in general it's an exciting step forward and that with the right kind of support from manufacturers and developers. Could put a lot of features within the grasp of modellers that up until now had required a lot of investment and niche knowledge.

 

Right!!!! So this springs project is to get all my loco's ready for re-chipping........ Ha Ha!

 

I'm trying to figure out what you would actually gain by re-chipping, if you already have chipped locos (and presumably bought and paid for DCC infrastructure) in the first place?

 

Andy

[Mike Friedman]

Andy, I think Nile is using that particularly British humour called sarcasm, hence the ".....Ha Ha!" at the end.

[Nile_Griffith]

I'm trying to figure out what you would actually gain by re-chipping, if you already have chipped locos (and presumably bought and paid for DCC infrastructure) in the first place?

 

Andy

 

 

Andy, I think Nile is using that particularly British humour called sarcasm, hence the ".....Ha Ha!" at the end.

 

 

Yes there is a certain degree of sarcasm involved, but a degree of honesty too.

 

At present I'm between layouts (having not long moved house). As a matter of course whenever I buy a new loco I also install a DCC chip, even though at present I only have a test plank to run them on. My last layout was limited to DCC control of loco's. Points and signalling where still in the analogue domain. Now at present I'm finalising the plans for the new layout. One of the major areas of work is going to be signalling and points, particularly as I wanted to bring them within the remit of DCC control.

 

So now that there is a potentially more flexible product on the horizon (and at my glacial paced speed of layout construction) likely to arrive at a convenient point in layout construction. I'm considering jumping ship...... so to speak.

 

Had I still being running my old DCC layout, with just loco operation, then "No" I wouldn't make the move. There is no real justification in cost against feature set. However in planning the new layout and the sort of operability I want, the promised blueRail offering has changed that.

 

Granted I have a Lenz Plus DCC system and 34 chipped Loco's. The majority of chips are Lenz silvers and golds, however there are about a half dozen rogues in there also. But to bring my DCC system in to some form anticipated Computer automation requires the purchase of the Lenz interface another £130. I would also have to replace the half dozen rogue decoders with Lenz Silver +'s (a further £150) and go through my older Lenz DCC chips to work out which ones are or more probably aren't "Railcom" compliant (potentially another £200 if they have to be replaced). So potentially I am looking at a budget of £500 to just bring the Loco side of a planned DCC system to a point where I can implement whatever layout control software I choose using a "Railcom" backbone.

 

So now steps into the ring the new kid on the block...... the contender for the crown....... weighing in at....... probably a couple of ounces...... Bluetooth.

 

Now I see great things for Bluetooth. Just off the YouTube link that I posted earlier of Bachmann's demonstration it's hard not to start joining the dots. Ron Ron Ron has already posted some useful information as to where BlueRail's current product development is going. If I'm honest I think we currently see the potential for DCC maxed out. For my own mind to achieve in my next layout the sort of control I would like to use, is going to be easier and more straightforward based on a bluetooth platform. I'm not saying that I couldn't achieve what I want to do by sticking with DCC, but put quite simply I no longer enjoy battling to try and tie various bits of tech together (I'm rather tee'd off by it all if honest). As mentioned above. I am potentially looking at an investment of anywhere between £300 and £500 pounds to bring my DCC loco's up to "Railcom" spec. Now thats money that would knock a reasonable chunk out of my changeover costs.

 

If'd I owned a well established DCC layout then I'd be happy to stick with it, the cost of changeover probably not quite providing enough bang for buck! But part of me also recognises that a lot of my reluctance in my old layout to expand it's DCC capabilities further, was an awareness of DCC's limitations. Bluetooth has a potential to move past a lot of those limitations in a much more user friendly manner and I look forward greatly to being able to take it on board......... if you'll pardon the pun. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by Nile_Griffith

[Andy Reichert]

We're proa

 

Yes there is a certain degree of sarcasm involved, but a degree of honesty too.

 

At present I'm between layouts (having not long moved house). As a matter of course whenever I buy a new loco I also install a DCC chip, even though at present I only have a test plank to run them on. My last layout was limited to DCC control of loco's. Points and signalling where still in the analogue domain. Now at present I'm finalising the plans for the new layout. One of the major areas of work is going to be signalling and points, particularly as I wanted to bring them within the remit of DCC control.

 

So now that there is a potentially more flexible product on the horizon (and at my glacial paced speed of layout construction) likely to arrive at a convenient point in layout construction. I'm considering jumping ship...... so to speak.

 

Had I still being running my old DCC layout, with just loco operation, then "No" I wouldn't make the move. There is no real justification in cost against feature set. However in planning the new layout and the sort of operability I want, the promised blueRail offering has changed that.

 

Granted I have a Lenz Plus DCC system and 34 chipped Loco's. The majority of chips are Lenz silvers and golds, however there are about a half dozen rogues in there also. But to bring my DCC system in to some form anticipated Computer automation requires the purchase of the Lenz interface another £130. I would also have to replace the half dozen rogue decoders with Lenz Silver +'s (a further £150) and go through my older Lenz DCC chips to work out which ones are or more probably aren't "Railcom" compliant (potentially another £200 if they have to be replaced). So potentially I am looking at a budget of £500 to just bring the Loco side of a planned DCC system to a point where I can implement whatever layout control software I choose using a "Railcom" backbone.

 

So now steps into the ring the new kid on the block...... the contender for the crown....... weighing in at....... probably a couple of ounces...... Bluetooth.

 

Now I see great things for Bluetooth. Just off the YouTube link that I posted earlier of Bachmann's demonstration it's hard not to start joining the dots. Ron Ron Ron has already posted some useful information as to where BlueRail's current product development is going. If I'm honest I think we currently see the potential for DCC maxed out. For my own mind to achieve in my next layout the sort of control I would like to use, is going to be easier and more straightforward based on a bluetooth platform. I'm not saying that I couldn't achieve what I want to do by sticking with DCC, but put quite simply I no longer enjoy battling to try and tie various bits of tech together (I'm rather tee'd off by it all if honest). As mentioned above. I am potentially looking at an investment of anywhere between £300 and £500 pounds to bring my DCC loco's up to "Railcom" spec. Now thats money that would knock a reasonable chunk out of my changeover costs.

 

If'd I owned a well established DCC layout then I'd be happy to stick with it, the cost of changeover probably not quite providing enough bang for buck! But part of me also recognises that a lot of my reluctance in my old layout to expand it's DCC capabilities further, was an awareness of DCC's limitations. Bluetooth has a potential to move past a lot of those limitations in a much more user friendly manner and I look forward greatly to being able to take it on board......... if you'll pardon the pun. 

 

Some of the differences in direction you and I seem to wish to go is probably due to having have different ideas as to what a layout is, in terms of track complexity and intensity of operation, and possibly what we are prepared to undertake as a DIY project.

 

My ideas of capable, reliable layout control would involve the ability to manage a couple of hundred turnouts and at least 10 trains running (overlapping frequent routes) simultaneously.  Right up front, I see a layout primarily as a collection of signal boxes and a timetable. Not as a scenic environment to manually drive an individual  train from a nearby helicopter. Preferably, my computer does the control of most, if not all, of the trains.

 

So the concept of "wanting" to throw individual turnouts by individual ID's (as though from the cab) as a train proceeds, is completely alien to me (and any BR loco driver) . It's much simpler, easier and far cheaper, from my point of view to have "switches"  grouped in various separate traditional control panels, which just have simple pairs of wires running to the various associated point motors. Points are switched by reference to their panel/map location, not by some smartphone screen "Name" or number. ( Think of each control panel as a hand painted GUI).  And a computer doesn't care how it sends commands to a loco, just that it can rely on them getting there and knows where it is.

 

Obviously I could write a book if I went into all the details, but this is not the time or the space.

 

Andy

[Nile_Griffith]

We're proa

 

 

Some of the differences in direction you and I seem to wish to go is probably due to having have different ideas as to what a layout is, in terms of track complexity and intensity of operation, and possibly what we are prepared to undertake as a DIY project.

 

My ideas of capable, reliable layout control would involve the ability to manage a couple of hundred turnouts and at least 10 trains running (overlapping frequent routes) simultaneously.  Right up front, I see a layout primarily as a collection of signal boxes and a timetable. Not as a scenic environment to manually drive an individual  train from a nearby helicopter. Preferably, my computer does the control of most, if not all, of the trains.

 

So the concept of "wanting" to throw individual turnouts by individual ID's (as though from the cab) as a train proceeds, is completely alien to me (and any BR loco driver) . It's much simpler, easier and far cheaper, from my point of view to have "switches"  grouped in various separate traditional control panels, which just have simple pairs of wires running to the various associated point motors. Points are switched by reference to their panel/map location, not by some smartphone screen "Name" or number. ( Think of each control panel as a hand painted GUI).  And a computer doesn't care how it sends commands to a loco, just that it can rely on them getting there and knows where it is.

 

Obviously I could write a book if I went into all the details, but this is not the time or the space.

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy.

 

My last layout worked along the same lines. Loco's controlled via DCC and points/signals operated from a number of traditionally wired hardware panels. It all worked rather well if I may say so myself. I'm certainly not knocking it as a methodology. however what the layout lacked overall, was a way of knowing where Loco's were, Particularly when it came to the hidden sidings (I'd kind of shot myself in the foot a couple of times at the design stage). Now I do realise that there is the scope to create block detection on a DCC enabled layout and well done and thumbs up to all those who've done it. But for me, this is where the potential of Bluetooth lies. In JMRI it's possible to load an Xtrack CAD version of a layout to create a panel. It would just then be a case of the software developer creating a menu driven structure to allow you to use the BlueTooth chips unique identifier built into the point motor or signal. To place it at the correct position on the panel. Now if you could couple that with a number of Bluetooth enabled RFID detectors placed at strategic points on the layout, reading the RFID tag placed on the bottom of a loco, coach or wagon and then sending that information back to your layout software. You have something kind of akin to todays modern railway. It wouldn't be beyond the wit of man, to manufacture a piece of hardware that comes with a number of mechanical switches or levers, that interface with the host computer running the layout software via USB.

 

It's not for everyone and I'm certainly not stating that everyone should go the bluetooth route or die in the fire'y pits of hell for not doing so. But I think it is important to remember that at the moment we are just seeing  Bachmann's utilisation of a Bluetooth communications backbone. We've seen evidence that BlueRail hope that other manufacturers and developers will get on board with it. So yes, as you eloquently put it, what we have on offer today is a smartphone throttle for our helicopter in the sky perspective over our layout. But the technology itself has the proven scope to deliver a whole lot more than that. It certainly has the means to deliver what is already being achieved by what are quite elaborate DCC layouts, but in a much simpler and inclusive way.......... and that really can't be a bad thing for modelling as a whole.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Nile_Griffith

[Ron Ron Ron]

BlueRail Trains have posted a video of a test of their system using the "Dead Rail" battery power option.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2015 by Ron Ron Ron

[Andy Reichert]

BlueRail Trains have posted a video of a test of their system using the "Dead Rail" battery power option.

 

 

 

I'll put my extra cynical hat on and think the implication is that they can (want to)  plastic mould even the rails as well eventually.  Note the ideal consumer product is both easily altered to follow fashion and self destructs over time, requiring a endless cycle of replacements.  E.g the US car industry of the 50's onwards and perhaps Apple today.

[peach james]

BlueRail Trains have posted a video of a test of their system using the "Dead Rail" battery power option.

 

 

 

Hi Andy.

 

MyTo place it at the correct position on the panel. Now if you could couple that with a number of Bluetooth enabled RFID detectors placed at strategic points on the layout, reading the RFID tag placed on the bottom of a loco, coach or wagon and then sending that information back to your layout software. You have something kind of akin to todays modern railway. It wouldn't be beyond the wit of man, to manufacture a piece of hardware that comes with a number of mechanical switches or levers, that interface with the host computer running the layout software via USB.

 

 

And as soon as you get to that point, you might as well have stayed with DCC at this point in time...because, real engineers, doing real engineering, have decided that RFID, or optical (AEI), or axle counters...are not reliable enough.  So that leaves wheel-rail contact, and that might as well leave you with a DCC solution.  (or CMRI, if you want...which is what the end solution is), and then,  you have the computer (fixed, really) communicating to the layout.  The computer will need to communicate to the locos, and again, assuming here that it has a Bluetooth output and a USB output, it then doesn't matter if you are talking to a DCC system or direct to Bluetooth for how it controls the engine, just that it does.  I am a Controls Technician, even if my experience is totally irrelevant to an electronic environment.  (analog, and pneumatic...), but I do the dance both professionally and for fun. 

 

You will have different opinions than others on here as to what are the key features for your railway.  For me, at this point, any system that doesn't substantially work better than DCC run with a computer interfaced, the ability to use wireless throttles (both proprietary and iOS/Android based), and with robust train location capability would offer me a net negative, not to mention requiring a substantial amount of work to adjust what I already have.  Even if I was starting a brand new layout, based on somewhere other than Long Marton, those capabilities are what I would be looking for...a computer, interfaced both to control the mobile decoders and stationary decoders, with at least 300 I/O ports available, preferably with an open source to allow for the possibility of the manufacturer stopping making that product.   Some of these points look to be in the "future wish list" for the BlueRail trains design, but I'm not counting on vaporware for a design.  I am using Digitrax, and all the elements are available from more than one manufacturer, even on the proprietary side of the system. 

 

(I did look at a relay based system when I started this version of Long Marton, and quickly realized that DC, with relay based controls, would mean I would have more computing using relays than work...by at least an order of magnitude...and that I probably wouldn't be up to the job of designing, installing & testing it before my brain melted...)

 

To me, if a "new" chip design is contemplated, it should be able to take a DCC track signal and use it to operate the loco, and it should be able to take whatever way it wants to (be it WiFi, Bluetooth, or IR) and run them as well.  The preferred mode would likely be set the same way that it is now- that it is selectable internal to the chip as to the priority.  (that's basic computer stuff straight out of my time well wasted in the mid 1980's, when eeprom started, that the boot start order was first adjustable- so, I would hope that any "new" system would look at that...).  After all, we keep hearing from the advocates that a Bluetooth/WiFi/IR/DeltaTang system is so much better than DCC that those of us who have invested in DCC will want to run out and junk it all... (especially if one has been victimized by a piece of vaporware by any company with either red or blue boxes...I'll get right on that...when YOUR new kit arrives at my house and I've tried it to make sure that it does what the package says it does...).  It's the same thing as advocates for DCC who don't state where it is the wrong technology...simple DC works best of all for a one layout in steam inglenook, the more you overdo the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain, so said a Canadian arty officer...

 

In an ideal world, the mobile decoder would be about as expensive as a DCC decoder (currently about $14 USD), would have DCC and **** (alternate wireless comm's), would allow for DC, DCC  and the **** system, with the choice being controlled by a CV, with the CV's all stored on the mobile decoder.  The decoder would take +- 20VDC, DCC (to the full 27VAC), and would have a LiPo battery connection as well, giving it a robust run-through capability.  The expectation over here now is that a $14 decoder will have 4 function outputs & the motor.  The wireless communications should not require any additional eternal connections (so IR is mostly out for me...).  The interface protocol should be open source, with the motor control software and the "driving" app being protected however the designer wants. 

 

 

In other words, I think that BlueRail may work for a new layout, but that it doesn't seem to offer up much advantages to me for either of my present layouts.  Even in the case of the Lego, where it should be almost a shoe-in, it isn't, quite, yet.  (& that is a children's layout...where I use the DCC so that I CAN crash trains together !).  I certainly would be interested in easing the problems I am faced with when operating multi lego trains, and I have followed the (non DCC, battery operated) threads out of interest to see what looks to be converging, but the offered solutions to date do not appear to be substantially easier than the current ones, based on where I am at with the Lego trains.  I have approximately 60 mobile decoders installed in the Lego... and usually no computer interface, although I have done some interesting lash ups of DCC & Lego Mindstorms & relay sections...

 

James Powell

[Nile_Griffith]

I'll put my extra cynical hat on and think the implication is that they can (want to)  plastic mould even the rails as well eventually.  Note the ideal consumer product is both easily altered to follow fashion and self destructs over time, requiring a endless cycle of replacements.  E.g the US car industry of the 50's onwards and perhaps Apple today.

 

How about shunning the prevalent forum mentality of looking for the hidden conspiracy and seeing the video clip for what it is. A demonstration of A.) wireless control being emphasised by the fact that there are no wires to the track and therefore no "hidden" control or B.) A demonstration of wireless control of a loco powered by an onboard battery as may be applicable to someone running for example a garden railway where on board power is required.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Nile_Griffith

[Nile_Griffith]

And as soon as you get to that point, you might as well have stayed with DCC at this point in time...because, real engineers, doing real engineering, have decided that RFID, or optical (AEI), or axle counters...are not reliable enough.  So that leaves wheel-rail contact, and that might as well leave you with a DCC solution.  (or CMRI, if you want...which is what the end solution is), and then,  you have the computer (fixed, really) communicating to the layout.  The computer will need to communicate to the locos, and again, assuming here that it has a Bluetooth output and a USB output, it then doesn't matter if you are talking to a DCC system or direct to Bluetooth for how it controls the engine, just that it does.  I am a Controls Technician, even if my experience is totally irrelevant to an electronic environment.  (analog, and pneumatic...), but I do the dance both professionally and for fun. 

 

You will have different opinions than others on here as to what are the key features for your railway.  For me, at this point, any system that doesn't substantially work better than DCC run with a computer interfaced, the ability to use wireless throttles (both proprietary and iOS/Android based), and with robust train location capability would offer me a net negative, not to mention requiring a substantial amount of work to adjust what I already have.  Even if I was starting a brand new layout, based on somewhere other than Long Marton, those capabilities are what I would be looking for...a computer, interfaced both to control the mobile decoders and stationary decoders, with at least 300 I/O ports available, preferably with an open source to allow for the possibility of the manufacturer stopping making that product.   Some of these points look to be in the "future wish list" for the BlueRail trains design, but I'm not counting on vaporware for a design.  I am using Digitrax, and all the elements are available from more than one manufacturer, even on the proprietary side of the system. 

 

(I did look at a relay based system when I started this version of Long Marton, and quickly realized that DC, with relay based controls, would mean I would have more computing using relays than work...by at least an order of magnitude...and that I probably wouldn't be up to the job of designing, installing & testing it before my brain melted...)

 

To me, if a "new" chip design is contemplated, it should be able to take a DCC track signal and use it to operate the loco, and it should be able to take whatever way it wants to (be it WiFi, Bluetooth, or IR) and run them as well.  The preferred mode would likely be set the same way that it is now- that it is selectable internal to the chip as to the priority.  (that's basic computer stuff straight out of my time well wasted in the mid 1980's, when eeprom started, that the boot start order was first adjustable- so, I would hope that any "new" system would look at that...).  After all, we keep hearing from the advocates that a Bluetooth/WiFi/IR/DeltaTang system is so much better than DCC that those of us who have invested in DCC will want to run out and junk it all... (especially if one has been victimized by a piece of vaporware by any company with either red or blue boxes...I'll get right on that...when YOUR new kit arrives at my house and I've tried it to make sure that it does what the package says it does...).  It's the same thing as advocates for DCC who don't state where it is the wrong technology...simple DC works best of all for a one layout in steam inglenook, the more you overdo the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain, so said a Canadian arty officer...

 

In an ideal world, the mobile decoder would be about as expensive as a DCC decoder (currently about $14 USD), would have DCC and **** (alternate wireless comm's), would allow for DC, DCC  and the **** system, with the choice being controlled by a CV, with the CV's all stored on the mobile decoder.  The decoder would take +- 20VDC, DCC (to the full 27VAC), and would have a LiPo battery connection as well, giving it a robust run-through capability.  The expectation over here now is that a $14 decoder will have 4 function outputs & the motor.  The wireless communications should not require any additional eternal connections (so IR is mostly out for me...).  The interface protocol should be open source, with the motor control software and the "driving" app being protected however the designer wants. 

 

 

In other words, I think that BlueRail may work for a new layout, but that it doesn't seem to offer up much advantages to me for either of my present layouts.  Even in the case of the Lego, where it should be almost a shoe-in, it isn't, quite, yet.  (& that is a children's layout...where I use the DCC so that I CAN crash trains together !).  I certainly would be interested in easing the problems I am faced with when operating multi lego trains, and I have followed the (non DCC, battery operated) threads out of interest to see what looks to be converging, but the offered solutions to date do not appear to be substantially easier than the current ones, based on where I am at with the Lego trains.  I have approximately 60 mobile decoders installed in the Lego... and usually no computer interface, although I have done some interesting lash ups of DCC & Lego Mindstorms & relay sections...

 

James Powell

 

 

Not sure that anyone in the previous postings has exclaimed that "Bluetooth" as the second coming and that anyone holding onto their DCC systems has a screw loose. I myself admit to being keen to see the new tech but have also commented that like yourself if I had a current layout that had a level of DCC investment beyond just locomotive chips, then it would be difficult to see the potential bang for buck in changing over. 

 

if there is a killer app for Bluetooth against DCC it is its potential simplicity to the user. This forum particularly, is littered with discussions about DCC cv's and what for many is a venerable minefield. Not every modeller is tech savvy and I've met quite a few who are inspired by the potential of DCC but find the realities of it intimidating.

 

Not really sure that Vaporware is an entirely fair comment of the BlueRail Trains product. Vaporware is generally a description ascribed to a product or service that exists in marketing or planning terms. A relatively brief internet trawl will bring up pretty conclusive evidence of a physical product and to a certain degree development of that product. If Ford show their new GT40 at the Genva motorshow and announce that it goes on sale six months later that car isn't a design thats in the vapour.

 

As said I think as a community we can look forward to Bluetooth and potentially BlueRails products opening up a lot of control features to railway modellers that have up until recently been within the reach of those who have possessed or had access to good IT skills only.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Nile_Griffith

[Mike Friedman]

As a user of Railroad & Co. I could use bluetooth and DCC; all it would require is RR&co to support bluetooth in the same way as it does diverse DCC systems (ExpressNet, LocoNet, etc) and is able to communicate with them concurrently in real time.

 

I could then send control commands to locos using bluetooth and Lenz (my current system) as required. Bluetooth equipped locos could be tracked by my current blocks as any other power drawing vehicle is.

 

The advantage of bluetooth is it would be a much simpler communication chain:

 

Control software = bluetooth encoding = bluetooth transmission = bluetooth decoding = accessory/ loco control

 

 

compared to the current communication chain:

 

Control software = computer interface = ExpressNet bus = DCC encoding = DCC bus transmission = DCC decoder = accessory/loco control.

 

However the big advantage of DCC is it is available NOW complete with loco, point, signal, detection and many other modules. And despite it's more cumbersome architecture it works.

 

If I had a couple of pounds for every car shown at motor shows that subsequently never goes on sale I would be able to fund my model rail habit from that alone.

 

However I look forward to bluetooth as it does have many promising features, but am not holding my breath as I fear I would be bluefaced rather than bluetoothed.