DCC obsolescence

[ColHut]

I wonder if DCC is now obsolescent with the rise of Bluetooth and wifi direct loco chip control.  Not yet obsolete but heading that way.  Possibly we might see a reversion to DC track bus in the short term before rechargeable lithium based locos make an economic appearance in another 10 years making track power obsolete.

 

Hornby and others seem most of the way there, and I think with direct wireless control of accessories then all accessories will need is a power supply.

 

All of this I think will be a good thing, so long as I can have a bluetooth controller with a real knobs and buttons to twist rather than slider bars on my iphone.

 

Just a thought

 

regards

 

 

 

 

[WIMorrison]

Dream on ...

 

Bluetooth has been around for years as a model railway controller and it hasn't impacted anything, and won't make a major dent on DCC, it uptake or it use. Even the Hornby offering is just DCC with a Bluetooth receiver grafted on top.

[DaveArkley]

11 minutes ago, ColHut said:

I wonder if DCC is now obsolescent with the rise of Bluetooth and wifi direct loco chip control.  

No. DCC is Digital Command Control, a chip in the device you wish to control. Whether the control signal is broadcast over BlueTooth, WiFi-Direct or the rails it's all DCC.

 

Hornby are no-where near, as usual they only support old protocols  and those only partially, and as usual they are trying to lock users into their own products, with little interoperability with other systems.

 

before rechargeable lithium based locos make an economic appearance in another 10 years making track power obsolete.

 

Lithium batteries will no longer be around in 10 years, haven't you heard we are short of Lithium. Sodium possibly, but I don't see anyone addressing the challenge of fitting one into an N  Gauge loco.

 

Seems a lot of hype around BlueTooth following Hornby's announcement, when really it's small beer

 

[55020]

A non-standard Bluetooth Hornby system will be obsolecent well before the DCC standard decoder is.  Standard DCC decoders are gaining more and more capability as the technology develops.  Hornby's current offerings are step backward because they simply don't capture a lot of these advances (power output, number of consecutive sound channels, number of Aux outputs (lighting), Aux outputs to control servos, higher quality sound output, etc).

 

Power still has to be fed through the rails.   What's so wrong with using that same power supply to communicate with the decoder?  Why would that concept become obsolecent, unless we can get to useable battery power?  There would have to be large tangible benefits for any existing user in order to switch, especially with the huge the costs of switching to a new method of control.  Certainly much more that "you can upload the free sound file easily".  How many times will a fitted decoder have to be reprogrammed with a different sound file?

 

The huge downside to Hornby's offering is that it is a unique eco-system, so the likelihood of being able to use different hardware or non-Hornby sound files are slim.  I also suspect Hornby will only supply sound files for their own range of models.

 

I think Hornby have introduced something of a gimmick.  The upside is that I suspect it will entice lots of modellers into "traditional" DCC once they outgrow the Hornby system.

 

 

Steve

Edited May 23, 2023 by 55020

[ColHut]

Hornby are not alone here though, there is blunami/bluerail.

 

And with the Hornby system already works with its chipped locos on ordinary DC circuits…

 

regards

[RAF96]

1 hour ago, 55020 said:

The huge downside to Hornby's offering is that it is a unique eco-system, so the likelihood of being able to use different hardware or non-Hornby sound files are slim.  I also suspect Hornby will only supply sound files for their own range of models.

Already been seen on various Hornby interviews that they will provide sound profiles for continental and other make classes of loco that they do not market, in the fullness of time. They have their own listings to fulfil for now.

[Pete the Elaner]

2 hours ago, ColHut said:

I wonder if DCC is now obsolescent with the rise of Bluetooth and wifi direct loco chip control.  Not yet obsolete but heading that way.  Possibly we might see a reversion to DC track bus in the short term before rechargeable lithium based locos make an economic appearance in another 10 years making track power obsolete.

 

Hornby and others seem most of the way there, and I think with direct wireless control of accessories then all accessories will need is a power supply.

 

All of this I think will be a good thing, so long as I can have a bluetooth controller with a real knobs and buttons to twist rather than slider bars on my iphone.

 

Just a thought

 

regards

 

 

 

 

 

You can have whatever knobs & buttons you want. I feel a phone based throttle is very limited & in many cases prefer my physical throttle.

DCC's user interface is really down to the imagination of the designer.

Have you seen a ZTC system? You control trains with a regulator, brake & reverser. It is a whole world away from a slider.

[ColHut]

If  ZTC were able to use bluetooth direct to loco chip I would be delighted, but this seems not possible at the moment :)

 

regards

[RobinofLoxley]

To operate a loco on a track requires a source of motive power and a signal to guide the source. The signal can be carried by wire or not, or a mixture. So you have certain options that will always be there. Cost and reliability will be important but also legacy. 

 

Thinking a certain solution is going to be simple robust and cheap is likely to be wishful thinking. 

 

Batteries are a good example. A lot of people have recently fitted stay alive in the form of capacitors to keep locos running over dead spots and I can see a rechargeable battery onboard doing a better job, but being charged through the track. 

 

Can you imagine running an exhibition layout on rechargeable batteries?? (Only)

[spamcan61]

26 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

 

 

Can you imagine running a exhibition layout on rechargeable batteries?? (Only)

But why would you do that anyway? as I've said before I'd leave most of the track energised for charging purposes and just have the "difficult" bits like point frogs and crossings 'dead'

[Harlequin]

On the control side:

Bluetooth has limited range, is attenuated by various materials and can suffer from radio interference.

Whereas the rails are guaranteed to reach everywhere you want your trains to go (by definition!) and the signal they carry can't be interfered with so easily.

 

But on the configuration side:

The HM7000 shows that Bluetooth is ideal for the fast transmission of large amounts of data between the decoder and your SmartPhone, which can show inter-related CV values in a graphical form that's far easier to deal with than your average rubbery-button 40-character display DCC handset.

(And it's reasonable to expect the decoder to be near the bluetooth device when you are configuring it.)

 

So that is where I see things going next: Decoders with Bluetooth interfaces as standard mainly for more convenient configuration rather than driving, with manufacturers all releasing Apps (hopefully all done to an NMRA/NEM standard so that they all work together).

 

Edit: So, No I don't think Bluetooth makes DCC obsolete but it's a useful adjunct.

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Harlequin

[WIMorrison]

Whilst the comments about Bluetooth may apply to larger scales e.g. 00, it doesn’t apply to smaller scales e.g. N, H0e, 009 as they all have DCC available but a decoder with a Bluetooth aerial isn’t going to be feasible, let alone installing batteries that will last a couple of hours, let alone all day.

 

on the larger scales can you imagine charging the batteries on 20 or more locos because you want to have a running session …

[Crosland]

14 hours ago, ColHut said:

Hornby are not alone here though, there is blunami/bluerail.

 

So we are where we were in the 70s/80s with multiple incompatible systems. Hornby were in that mix with Zero-1. DCC, as we know it today, developed, but it took time and NMRA standardisation.

 

Perhaps, one day, there will be an industry standard DCC over Bluetooth system with interoperability between manufacturers. 

[Oldddudders]

We live in a world where everyone is forever looking for The Next Big Thing. DCC took a long time to get a foothold in a DC world, and many modellers still enjoy the simplicity of the older system, so it is certainly not obsolete. Similarly, whatever the TNBT actually proves to be  - and it certainly won't start in Margate - it will take many years to overhaul DCC, which continues to be developed and is selling well.

[kevinlms]

The standardisation of DCC is it's biggest asset, with many suppliers making stuff that is compatible with one another. The key was that the Lenz system was the subject of a working party by the NRMA and they were sufficiently impressed by it, for it to become a standard.

[jjb1970]

I guess the pertinent question is to define obsolescence. If a technology is still useful and works, and newer alternatives offer little or no incentive to change then it is not obsolescent regardless of how old or primitive it is. In that context I can't see that DCC can be called obsolete. It's old, it's crude in terms of electronics and digital technology, but it works and overall it's an application that really doesn't need fancy technology.

[Railpassion]

I've seen battery radio control in O gauge and was impressed. The wonderful Bodmin layout was a trailblazer. 

For DCC I think the next developments are in stay alive. Track dirt is our constant enemy and if we can overcome it with stay alive (also in DC) then, for the moment,  it's wise to invest in DCC for all the excellent functionality. 

I don't see phone based control taking off. Gamers of all ages still relish handsets and the railway layour is a similar domain with its own protocols. Both are enhanced by separate dedicated physical controllers. 

 

A continuous recharging battery loco using simple powered stretches of plain line, with points left dead, could be a logical next stage?

 

 

[jjb1970]

I am hot and cold on battery power.

 

Part of me thinks it would be a splendid innovation, it'd free us from track power and introduce interesting operator interest as battery life could almost be a simulation for fuel tank or coal/water tender levels. 

 

Another part of me thinks that adding high energy density batteries to locomotives would increase price significantly when a layout power supply tends to be a 'buy once' spend, with DCC are there really that many advantages, and given the environmental issues of recycling/disposal of a never ending stream of batteries I'm not sure we should be adding to it. And unless there's a major improvement in battery chemistry (which is very possible given the vast sums spent on battery chemistry) there's the issue of having to replace expensive batteries periodically as they lose capacity.

 

I can see the attraction in the larger scales, but for N, TT and OO/HO I tend to think that wired is probably the best solution.

[woodenhead]

I think the future potentially is better stay alive, a kind of hybrid approach.

 

So the plain track remains wired and it charges up the stay alive and then points can be dead as @jjb1970 has alluded to.

 

Batteries still need to be charged and where better to get that charge from but the track, otherwise you are having to handle locos, plug them into something to charge them and have them die somewhere on the railway - most likely the most inaccessible part of the railway.

 

Building good stay alives into small gauges is where the most benefit will be made, imagine your little N gauge 0-4-0 models with a stay alive, it would take away a lot of the negatives perceived about small gauges.

 

Control of the chips surely has to be wireless though really it doesn't matter so much if your track can still act as a bus

[melmerby]

19 minutes ago, Railpassion said:

Track dirt is our constant enemy

It might be yours but it certainly isn't mine, as unless the track is unused for long periods, everything works.

You could get the same problem if you are using it for charging.

3 hours ago, spamcan61 said:

I'd leave most of the track energised for charging purposes and just have the "difficult" bits like point frogs and crossings 'dead'

If you consider points and crossings difficult.

 

A factor that is never mentioned in the Bluetooth+Battery argument is track occupancy feedback to let you know where the train is, useful on a large layout where some tracks are unseen by the operator.

If you are going to start fitting bluetooth enabled occupancy decoders to the track, you are heading back towards proper DCC again.

Also there are a fair few operators using computer control.

 

IMHO DCC is far from obsolescent, it still evolving.

 

 

 

[WIMorrison]

24 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Building good stay alives into small gauges is where the most benefit will be made, imagine your little N gauge 0-4-0 models with a stay alive, it would take away a lot of the negatives perceived about small gauges.

 

I wonder where they are going to put any weight into the locos when all the casting weight is removed for the stay-alive, battery, Bluetooth aerial, etc - the problem today is that the locos are already too light 😉

[woodenhead]

31 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

 

I wonder where they are going to put any weight into the locos when all the casting weight is removed for the stay-alive, battery, Bluetooth aerial, etc - the problem today is that the locos are already too light 😉

The only thing I would be concerned about would be stay alive as it would transform small locos, plus space for the speaker.

 

Then it is a case of die cast body and chassis plus good insulation!  Maybe a return to brass gears too..every bit of added weight counts

[WIMorrison]

And I bet you still want it to be as cheap as they are now and with just as much detail ...

[PeterStiles]

47 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

just as much detail ...

*more* detail!

We want working gauges in the cab that tell us, with the aid of a magnifying glass, how much charge is left in the battery, how much current is being drawn by the motor and ancillary items; we want  a speedometer and an odometer all for use by our 1/76th scale peoples!

[Dungrange]

36 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

And I bet you still want it to be as cheap as they are now and with just as much detail ...

 

No - I want it with twice as much detail and for just half the price of what a similar locomotive would have cost back in 1980 (or maybe even 1960)!  Is that too much to ask? 🤣

 

Seriously, I think DCC has just matured over the last 30 years to become mainstream and it will take as long again for the 'next new thing' to achieve similar levels of market penetration.  Only then is talk of obsolescence relevant. I don't see 'Bluetooth and wi-fi direct loco chip control' having any advantages over DCC in the world of automation (which is the direction that I see DCC progressing).

 

I see any proprietary control system as niche / dead end path.