Jump to content
 

BlueRail Trains - Bluetooth Locomotive Control


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Hard cheese would have taken a lot less time to right bob.

 

For the DDC users I don't think this should trouble you much standard AC is still being used, And the world hasn't ended for ether camp. All it does for now is give a third option to the newbe which will be around tomorrow is a different question.

 

For me I am now looking at this carefully as I have a dcc system (Bachmanns wireless one cant remember the bl€@dy name) with 20 odd locos chipped and40+ still to do. So I have to work out costs with possible new controler in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard cheese would have taken a lot less time to right bob.

For the DDC users I don't think this should trouble you much standard AC is still being used, And the world hasn't ended for ether camp. All it does for now is give a third option to the newbe which will be around tomorrow is a different question.

Yes, but "hard cheese" makes for hard reading for those with whom you might disagree, but you are right.

Yes, analogue is still going strong, so you are right on that point, and indeed there are some dcc systems with nice iphone interfaces, or so I understand... Life is a box of chocolates, even if it is laced with hidden cheese...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Good point bob. What would be of interest to me will be the way the new technology is received each side of the pond especially as it seems to be targeted at the other side for now anyway.

 

And on this side of the pond we can be see as a conservative and highly suspicious lot of such dark arts! (TECHNOLOGY)

Edited by farren
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just don't see the point of Bluetooth any wireless control, if you still must retain traction power via the rails...

 

 Not just Bluetooth, any wireless comms methodology. It has to have a dead rail capability (my ideal small on board cell pack, recharging from plain track sections only; with other cell pack options and charging methods such as larger capacity with physical plug in or contactless recharge) fully integrated from the off to be of interest.

 

If as appears this system's in-loco decoder is roughly four times the price of a good DCC decoder, the economy advantage in not having to buy a DCC system completely runs out of gas in under a dozen loco installs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

And I can't see the point in having to take 60+ delicate locos apart to change or charge the batterys each time I want to use them. or trying to remember which ones are low/fully charged so I can play trains.

 

Contactless not a bad idea but has anyone got a working model?

 

And part powered track seems workable but again you have live track. And can you get the lot small enough for a 0-4-0

Edited by farren
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just Bluetooth, any wireless comms methodology. It has to have a dead rail capability.......

 

If as appears this system's in-loco decoder is roughly four times the price of a good DCC decoder, the economy advantage in not having to buy a DCC system completely runs out of gas in under a dozen loco installs.

Your second point is a very good one. Unless the cost of the decoders ("boards" in BlueRail Trains speak) can be brought down to not much more than the cost of a decent DCC decoder, then the savings made by not needing a DCC system will be mostly, if not completely, wiped out.

 

On your first point about dead rail, I think it's largely a dead end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting - particularly the option of power from the rails with a back-up battery to take you over non-powered track (points). There are a couple of questions that I would need to know the answer to before I could seriously considered it:

 

1) Cost. I couldn't find any prices, but new technology frequently does not come cheap;

 

2) Does it pass the Hornby Terrier test? Can it fit in smaller tank locomotives such as Terriers, O2s and the Adams Radials (when they become available)?

 

For me, something to be aware of and keep an eye on, rather than to bash on with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting - particularly the option of power from the rails with a back-up battery to take you over non-powered track (points). There are a couple of questions that I would need to know the answer to before I could seriously considered it:

 

1) Cost. I couldn't find any prices, but new technology frequently does not come cheap;

 

2) Does it pass the Hornby Terrier test? Can it fit in smaller tank locomotives such as Terriers, O2s and the Adams Radials (when they become available)?

 

For me, something to be aware of and keep an eye on, rather than to bash on with.

That control board is huge!. they need to shrink it a lot as it certainly won't pass the Terrier test. 2.4Ghz radio receiver boards are available down to 22.5 x 11mm or even smaller if your loco can handle 6V.

 

ps - as this topic is not about DCC would it be better to move it to the special interest radio control section?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ps - as this topic is not about DCC would it be better to move it to the special interest radio control section?

The are several references to Bluerail being used to compliment DCC...maybe the topic should be left to develop to see what happens?

Randall

Link to post
Share on other sites

The are several references to Bluerail being used to compliment DCC...maybe the topic should be left to develop to see what happens?

Randall

OK, this is how i see it all ending up.

 

Blue rail eventually introduce their DCC interface which sends commands to the decoder from the handset using the rails to provide the power or a battery if you desire or a combination of both. Other manufacturers follow suit.

 

This eliminates what for me seems to be the main problem with DCC. That horrible wheel rail interface and its arcing generating spurious signals that confuse the decoder. This results in a more stable system for the benefit of everybody.

 

The manufacturers might not like it as there is no need to buy those expensive base stations. All you will need is a good AC or DC power supply and the advantages will drive the market.

 

They will have to reduce the size of the receiver/decoder to the size of present day decoders to pass the Terrier test.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, this is how i see it all ending up.

They will have to reduce the size of the receiver/decoder to the size of present day decoders to pass the Terrier test.

I've just read the interview linked to above. Smaller receiver/decoder boards are promised next year. We'll have to wait and see how this pans out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

...This eliminates what for me seems to be the main problem with DCC. That horrible wheel rail interface and its arcing generating spurious signals that confuse the decoder...

 

That's a non-problem in my DCC experience. DCC works with significantly higher reliability than I have ever seen achieved with DC, which was for me a qualifying requirement before I adopted it coming up 13 years ago. Not prepared to spend any money on 'going backwards'; any new system has to match at minimum the demonstrated capabilities already available, while presenting new capability to justify the change.

 

... This results in a more stable system for the benefit of everybody...

 

DCC will be my benchmark for evaluating any wireless system. DCC represents quite a challenge to any new entrant: cheap, stable and trouble free, and with my reliability engineering hat on looking good for lifetime serviceability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since I dipped my toe in this particular pool and I'm not sure whether to be pleased to read that the conversation is still going on or dismayed to read the same old, same old just constantly re-gurgitated. From a personal point of view I am rather glad that the purchasers of technology (in whatever form) don't follow some of the opinions voiced here. For if they did I think we would still be driving to work in venerable old Ford Escorts and waiting for the telly to warm up.

 

But any old how.

 

What I would like to re-iterate is a comment that I made somewhere near the start of this discussion. The use of a Bluetooth based communications protocol allows for a true two way control system. A lot of commentators on here seem somewhat fixated by how Bluetooth is going to allow them to continue to do what they have always done, rather than actually take a little bit of time to think about how a Bluetooth transmitted control system could allow them to do things that they either can't do now, or control functions that would require quite involved proprietary hardware systems. There seems to be a general pre-occupation with Locomotive de-coders and no discussion as to where else de-coders could be used. We are seeing DCC controlled points motors, so why not Bluetooth? And for that matter lets not stop at points motors, what about bluetooth controlled lighting? or best of all, Bluetooth control based track detection. There are available currently, set ups that use RFID tags placed under Loco's and rolling stock. These RFID tags are "read" by RFID devices placed at key points on a layout, the controlling system allowing for location of a train on the layout. But as said these are functions that can be achieved with currently available technology, although you would be having to incorporate various "formats" with some applications, to arrive at a finished result. So what aren't we doing now that potentially Bluetooth could help us with? Well what about Loco diagnostics? How well is that Loco actually running? And while we think about it, wouldn't it be handy if we actually could built our own test trains? It's not beyond the remit of someone like BlueRail to develop a de-coder that could provide a stream of diagnostic data as the loco runs around your layout. Just calibrate your Test Loco on a rolling road and then set it off around your layout. Diagnostic data could provide useful information such as current spikes, voltage drops and dead spots. I'm not particularly a fan of sound fitted loco's. But a two way control system capable of track location would allow for a more convincing use of sound. Bluetooth could potentially allow for audio to be streamed to the Loco from a system laptop/PC/Tablet (after all how many of us are streaming audio from our iPhones in our cars to the cars stereo system? or using bluetooth speakers around the home). The control system would have the potential to know if a Loco is off-scene and know to turn the sound off automatically. Loco's standing in or passing through stations could re-play a modified sound file to reflect the change in sound (Just like in the real world!!!!!!!!).

 

What Bluetooth offers, is the potential for a whole new range of control possibilities to be incorporated by the hobbyist in their layouts and all in a fashion that doesn't require a masters degree in information technology. No..... they aren't here yet. But when DCC first arrived it was just a system for motor control, no lights and no sound and certainly no manufacturer had incorporated them into a points motor. At present within DCC there is a fairly limited range of physical hand controllers available to buy. As the control hardware is taken care of by mass manufacturers Bluetooth allows for smaller niche developers to create software applications for railway modellers without facing expensive expensive physical hardware R&D costs. This much lower cost makes it more attractive for a larger number of providers to get into the market.

 

Finally. I'm not aware of any legislation that will come into play outlawing the continued use of analogue or DCC control systems. The men in dark glasses will not be watching you and you will not be considered somehow to have fallen from grace or be an outcast in certain social circles should you rightfully choose to pursue the control format the suits you. Bluetooth control represents another available choice. Personally I'm looking forward to making the move. For me it's the future potential of Bluetooth, or should I say the ease with which future potential could be obtained. I daresay that there will be a DCC enthusiast out there who will benefit from my decision as I won't want another shelf full of perfectly useful gear that I don't use. DCC makes a lot of people happy and they are reaping the rewards of their investment in the platform, so good for them!!! As said, no ones loading up a gun to place at anyones head.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

What Bluetooth offers, is the potential for a whole new range of control possibilities to be incorporated by the hobbyist

Its always a good idea to listen to naysayers, in order to highlight and understand the issues under discussion, but otherwise I am inclined to agree with Mr. Griffith, in the immediately prior post.  I too can't wait to have my mitts on some Bluetooth technology that will not only dance to Nile's oft repeated tune, but also control my existing dcc sound locomotives.  While many Luddites don't like dcc sound, I love it, and I am not keen on having to throw out my dcc sound decoders just to use Bluetooth technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....For if they did I think we would still be driving to work in venerable old Ford Escorts and waiting for the telly to warm up...

 And we are not, because the tech advances that have moved us forward in respect of these and other devices were well developed, and brought immediate and manifest progress. To take one well known example, the CD: it didn't require a moment's thought to junk the dross of vinyl and move to perfect sound forever, (32 years and counting from my oldest purchases) for a vast improvement in sound reproduction, freedom from deterioration, convenience, and much reduced maintenance effort and cost.

 

Don't see this yet from any of the proposed wireless control players, it's all half baked, and much of it from organisations who haven't analysed what they need to benchmark with a view to exceeding what current control technique offers. So, yes, I will be playing that same cracked old record until I see evidence of better thinking. And when that superior product based on better thinking emerges I'll buy it for the extra facilities it offers that I very much want: and so will 'everyone else'. But not before, and there are going to be just as many false starts as there were with digital signals embedded in track power; so expect plenty more cracked record replays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 And we are not, because the tech advances that have moved us forward in respect of these and other devices were well developed, and brought immediate and manifest progress. To take one well known example, the CD: it didn't require a moment's thought to junk the dross of vinyl and move to perfect sound forever, (32 years and counting from my oldest purchases) for a vast improvement in sound reproduction, freedom from deterioration, convenience, and much reduced maintenance effort and cost.

 

Don't see this yet from any of the proposed wireless control players, it's all half baked, and much of it from organisations who haven't analysed what they need to benchmark with a view to exceeding what current control technique offers. So, yes, I will be playing that same cracked old record until I see evidence of better thinking. And when that superior product based on better thinking emerges I'll buy it for the extra facilities it offers that I very much want: and so will 'everyone else'. But not before, and there are going to be just as many false starts as there were with digital signals embedded in track power; so expect plenty more cracked record replays.

 

 

The CD is actually quite a good example of how technology through the adaptation of existing knowledge, techniques and tech products can result in a new and exciting platform. The broadcast world had been playing with digital tape for some years (Donald Fagan's album "Nightly" was one of the first commercial successes recorded on the 3M digital tape format) and it was Phillips development of the Video Lazer Disc that provided the donkey work for the Audio Compact Disc. Todays modern cars are replete with technology that has either cascaded down from the upper echelons of the motor industry over many years or has been transplanted from other commercial technologies (does anyone remember BL's dalliance with the talking car in the 80"s). The reality is that as novel and as new some technologies may appear. The large proportion new consumer technologies are an example of constant evolution. DCC wasn't some virgin birth, born specifically for the model railway industry. DCC is an application of a fairly old industrial methodology for transposing control information upon a power cycle.

 

As for a Bluetooth control system been half baked, one could possibly level the same criticism at DCC. Considering that one of the key issues of operating a model railway is knowing where exactly your loco's are on your layout at any one time. DCC is rather inept at this control application (though to be fair DCC was just aimed at making things go faster or slower). Solutions to the problem tend to centre around using various technologies providing various process stages to provide a satisfactory result. Now I am not suggesting that these solutions are worthy of ridicule. Hats off to those who quite obviously spent many hours finding a way to build a solution. But if Bluetooth currently is showing any limitations with regard to layout control, then those limitations have been brought about by commercial influences rather than a limitation of the technology. As we are well aware, commercial influences change. I remember the price of Lenz decoders being close to double their current price eight years ago and those de-coders where not as developed a product as those available today. 

 

Much is remarked about sound fitted loco's (and I shall re-iterate again my personal lack of interest in this area..... because frankly.... you can't scale sound adequately). The current DCC controlled set ups require a sound file to be loaded into some form of non-volatile RAM and contained within the Loco (or tender). DCC is limited to essentially switching a particular sampled sound on and at a particular volume. The sound chips themselves present the first limitation. Just how much memory is commercially viable? And just how many individual files can be indexed and accessed by the chips inbuilt software? What DCC can't do is send a stream of audio from its base station to a target loco (let alone multiple loco's), but this is something that is technically possible utilising Bluetooth. Imagine having the ability to store gig's worth of audio information on your laptop. Audio information that can be accessed and controlled by information from your layout (position, loco speed against motor load). And we are not talking about a technology application that requires layers of hardware and technologies from desperate suppliers. But technology that requires minimal and importantly uniform hardware products and easily configurable software apps.

 

If Bluetooth is a half baked consideration of the problem, then I am not quite sure how you describe what has gone before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

Nile agree with a lot of your post, however

 

DCC never has been or has to my knowledge claimed to have any degree of loco detection loco detection has always been a separate action to dcc, however the more advanced DCC systems are able to incorporate a display of loco detection based on hardware which Is compliant with the system ECoS Detector and the ECoS being one of them.

 

Your completely correct in that sound cannot scale, however any person that thinks that DCC sound is a case of shut your eyes and your there is misguided...and before anyone jumps on me I own over more that 60 dcc sound fitted locos because I can see its a representation...and you will never convince me that a decent sound fitted class 37 sounds worse than a non sound fitted class 37. In addition dcc sound can do a little more than you describe and there are varying degree's of intelligence on the sound routines available. The amount of memory is scalable to the power available to supply it, but since you can get over 4gb on an SDmicro there's no reason why a loksound or similar couldn't hold it. And this is where you hit the nail on the head in that commercial decisions commonly hold a technology at a set pace.

 

However.....much has been said about using offboard sound and yes you are then almost without boundary in-terms of quality and capacity, however using the video above shows that in that case only 1 sound fitted loco could be heard at one time.....having two sound fitted trains on the same channel would be horrendous, if we take the average layout have up to 5 locos running at the same time, how do you achieve that with off board sound.....your loco's can move....but your off board speakers cannot! OK you could then go back to onboard sound...but then your constrained to the amplification and channel capabilities of the on board decoder which would be on par with a dcc sound chip.....as we all know amplifiers get hot, and draw lots of power.

 

if I'm honest far too much faith is being put into Bluetooth, indeed the current Bluetooth specification.

 

the Bluetooth v4 specification promises a circa 100m range but remember that's at the maximum allowed transmission power of 20db @100mw, and that's in a class 1 device, which is industrial strength....a iphone is a class 2 device which has a stated range of circa 10m so not all devices will have that capability...., anyone else with older hardware or tablets may not even be able to achieve that and the advantage dcc offers is that everyone is on a level playing field when it comes to control...my ECoS cannot control any of my trains any better than Bachmann ez command.

 

Bluetooth v4 offers a maximum theoretical throughput of 24mbits per second....in the real world as I said before...that's 3mbs per second essentially curbing drastically your off board sound capability advantage, esp when you have potentially 10 locos fighting for bandwidth.

 

finally Bluetooth has evolved far faster than DCC has we are now on the 4th revision of Bluetooth how will this technology keep up? will people have to upgrade as vendors transmitters keep pace with the ongoing security changes and standards changes......the figures stated are the maximum Bluetooth standards capabilities and unlikely to be what you get in the real world.

 

DCC in contrast doesn't appear to be going anywhere, and when im invested in that im glad!

Edited by pheaton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nile agree with a lot of your post, however

 

DCC never has been or has to my knowledge claimed to have any degree of loco detection loco detection has always been a separate action to dcc, however the more advanced DCC systems are able to incorporate a display of loco detection based on hardware which Is compliant with the system ECoS Detector and the ECoS being one of them.

 

Your completely correct in that sound cannot scale, however any person that thinks that DCC sound is a case of shut your eyes and your there is misguided...and before anyone jumps on me I own over more that 60 dcc sound fitted locos because I can see its a representation...and you will never convince me that a decent sound fitted class 37 sounds worse than a non sound fitted class 37. In addition dcc sound can do a little more than you describe and there are varying degree's of intelligence on the sound routines available. The amount of memory is scalable to the power available to supply it, but since you can get over 4gb on an SDmicro there's no reason why a loksound or similar couldn't hold it. And this is where you hit the nail on the head in that commercial decisions commonly hold a technology at a set pace.

 

However.....much has been said about using offboard sound and yes you are then almost without boundary in-terms of quality and capacity, however using the video above shows that in that case only 1 sound fitted loco could be heard at one time.....having two sound fitted trains on the same channel would be horrendous, if we take the average layout have up to 5 locos running at the same time, how do you achieve that with off board sound.....your loco's can move....but your off board speakers cannot! OK you could then go back to onboard sound...but then your constrained to the amplification and channel capabilities of the on board decoder which would be on par with a dcc sound chip.....as we all know amplifiers get hot, and draw lots of power.

 

if I'm honest far too much faith is being put into Bluetooth, indeed the current Bluetooth specification.

 

the Bluetooth v4 specification promises a circa 100m range but remember that's at the maximum allowed transmission power of 20db @100mw, and that's in a class 1 device, which is industrial strength....a iphone is a class 2 device which has a stated range of circa 10m so not all devices will have that capability...., anyone else with older hardware or tablets may not even be able to achieve that and the advantage dcc offers is that everyone is on a level playing field when it comes to control...my ECoS cannot control any of my trains any better than Bachmann ez command.

 

Bluetooth v4 offers a maximum theoretical throughput of 24mbits per second....in the real world as I said before...that's 3mbs per second essentially curbing drastically your off board sound capability advantage, esp when you have potentially 10 locos fighting for bandwidth.

 

finally Bluetooth has evolved far faster than DCC has we are now on the 4th revision of Bluetooth how will this technology keep up? will people have to upgrade as vendors transmitters keep pace with the ongoing security changes and standards changes......the figures stated are the maximum Bluetooth standards capabilities and unlikely to be what you get in the real world.

 

DCC in contrast doesn't appear to be going anywhere, and when im invested in that im glad!

Hi

 

Was purposely trying to keep my observations as brief as possible and in doing so possibly left some more exact detail out of my observations.

 

I didn't actually say that DCC as a system had made any kind of claims on offering "loco location" merely that the platform itself was unable to provide it natively and that to accomplish track location on a DCC operated layout required the integration of further bespoke hardware and fairly involved interfacing. In fairness a Blue Tooth controlled layout is looking at the same conundrum. There will be a need for some form of track detection hardware that communicates back to the Blue tooth based controller the model loco's identity and "Geographic" position. Now this could be achieved either as part of the individual Loco's communication with the controller (a sensor incorporated within the loco de-coder reads the identity of a location device placed upon the track) or a track positioned device communicates back via Bluetooth to the controller the passing of a loco (probably by sensing some kind of RFID tag placed on the underside of the model loco). What I was driving at is the fact that the control centre no longer has to be a bespoke physical device, manufactured by an individual company or cadre of businesses. Importantly because the controller can be a personal computing device it makes the controlling software the purchasing choice and not necessarily the hardware. Now these comments are based on a certain amount of crystal ball gazing, because at the moment we are only currently dealing with a very limited supply base for Bluetooth control.

 

I must also apologise if my comments on DCC sound were a bit vague. From a personal point of view (I've spent a good part of my professional life working in Film & TV sound, so I'm probably erring on the snob'ish about the whole thing). DCC sound has little attraction for me and is somewhat encumbered by the platforms limitations. I wasn't particularly evangelising the notion of off board sound as being some great thing. More trying to draw attention to the fact that because of where the control of the layout takes place in a Bluetooth system i.e. within a computing device. The options for sound, open up. Again this is all very much looking into that metaphorical crystal ball. But once again Bluetooth as a control system will allow interested developers to sit down and come up with innovative ideas and concepts that will take advantage of a whole gamut of existing pieces of software that are already out there and used for things that at present appear completely unconnected. Importantly these developers will be working with product development costs based upon their own time and not costs related to manufacturing physical items requiring pre-production runs, appropriate certifications and such like.... In a nutshell as railway modellers we are potentially looking at a greater variety of choice.

 

One issue I'd like to pick up on is a point you raise with regard to DCC's lack of further movement forward and how that offers a sense of security with your investment in it. DCC as a platform requires to a greater or lesser degree a certain amount of planned allegiance to a particular manufacturer or way of working. The forum is full of questions from members asking for guidance on which system to buy and how difficult or not as the case may be, will it be for them to expand or improve upon that system as time and funds progress. I have a Lenz system. It has worked very well for me now for many years, but essentially it is locked. The last firmware update was years ago and realistically the manufacturer isn't going to offer anything to me that will improve that product. So a real shift in features and facilities is going to require a significant investment in new hardware and lets be honest, for what is in the box, DCC equipment is pretty expensive by comparison for what you actually get. With Bluetooth I am not buying a model railway manufacturers hardware. Priced at a cost that reflects a relatively small consumer base when compared to personal computing devices. I'm not tied into buying control products that are developed by a manufacturer and are priced on what they feel the product life/cycle is and just how much they can justify continued development of that control hardware or more likely convince their customer base to re-invest in their next gen product. Blue Tooth control potentially should allow a greater number of control offerings within the market place and with that the ability for users to migrate between those offerings as their own needs dictate at a much lower cost.

 

But as said before. For those who are well invested in DCC and happy with their layouts then really there is no concern or argument! Continue to enjoy your chosen path.... No ones going to accuse you of somehow being less for doing so. But for anyone who is new to the hobby or has dabbled with DCC and finds making the move into more involved control of locos and layout using DCC a bit daunting. Then Blue Tooth has some real potential to deliver.

 

Its about choice. I could understand the moaning and whingeing if it was about a lack of it. Not because we have it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But as said before. For those who are well invested in DCC and happy with their layouts then really there is no concern or argument! Continue to enjoy your chosen path.... No ones going to accuse you of somehow being less for doing so. But for anyone who is new to the hobby or has dabbled with DCC and finds making the move into more involved control of locos and layout using DCC a bit daunting. Then Blue Tooth has some real potential to deliver.

 

The real question is whether or not those who are invested in DCC, and DCC sound particularly, can realize the potential of Bluetooth without losing some or all of their investment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Nile,

No need to apologise at all, and i apologise if it looked like i was dropping the shield and charging, thats not how it was meant to come across :)

 

This is in now way different to how the dc users felt when DCC came along, and putting my cards on table I do feel threatened by it, and coming from the IT profession I know all to well as I don't doubt you know that its out with the old and in with the new.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...