Is this the end of DCC

[PaulRhB]

$400 for a wireless controller and $100 for EACH locomotive module! - way, Jose!

ESU loksound £98 at the moment, so that's more than $100 per loco.

 

Esu ECoS £587, and radio control and receiver £253

 

These are actually higher prices than the subject of this thread! Admittedly it seems the additional throttles will soon catch up with the ECoS and handsets but it's still very close and this is a new system where prices will drop if it's taken up widely.

Still the main long term issue is the one manufacturer support, MTH have seen problems with this and seen their DCS system have to adapt to be compatible with DCC.

DCC's success is the sharing and not trying to make a mint, if they don't free up some of the patent even with cheap licensing then they'll follow MTH and only have a small band of devotees like a lot of rc systems do.

[Dagworth]

It's not systems that generally need a binary input, some of the more friendly set-ups have it as an option, it's the requirement to calculate CV29 values by adding up binary values or using a look-up table for the options you require.

 

Andi

[spamcan61]

So, back in the world of 'normal' DCC, how close could I get to the RailPro in user experience terms?

 

The ESU command station?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuWaHdxzsag

 

Uhlenbrock Intellibox 2?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PuR2WQuloI

 

The latter seems to be from the 'if in doubt, add another button' school of UI design.

[Oldddudders]

It's not systems that generally need a binary input, some of the more friendly set-ups have it as an option, it's the requirement to calculate CV29 values by adding up binary values or using a look-up table for the options you require.

 

Andi

But how many different CV29 values does each layout need? You either do or do not enable speed tables, ditto DC operation, and then it's either 2-digit or 4-digit, according to loco number. Adding 1 for reversed direction doesn't need any tables! In my case, therefore, all my locos - well over 50 - either have 2 or 34 in CV29, with a handful adding 1 if I'm too lazy to have reversed the feeds. I remain convinced that the myth of complicated programming and the assumed need for perpetual button-pushing are major hurdles to greater DCC take-up. Even though the system under review here seeks to make those tasks easier, it offers so many options in the video - all with a crowded GUI that is supposed to be reassuring - that it actually adds fuel to the "complicated" view of all systems beyond DC.

[Tim V]

Get a Sprog, and do all the "complicated" stuff on the computer, no need for any binary there.

 

I still don't see an advantage over DCC with this new system, what is on offer is either already here, or just round the corner. Now if it had been a true "Wireless" - ie no wires at all, it might have generated some real interest. As it is, the easy set up, auto configuration, in my book, is not enough to justify throwing away the current setup.

[Michael Delamar]

While some people like or don't mind setting up cv's, it must be noted that some people don't like doing it, this is what it takes advantage of.

 

Would you want to do the same thing to turn your cooker up, tv volume or dimmer switch?

[Glorious NSE]

Hi Martyn. We seemed to have missed there.

 

Yeah I think my post managed to cross with both Natalies and your reply.

 

Although Hornby's N. American presence is quite minor (is it nearly all Scalextric?), their European mainland brands will soon if not already account for the bulk of the companies model railway revenue.

 

Hornby have some North American railroad stuff via Rivarossi, but to call them a 'small player' would be an understatement! I think it's a couple of loco's, a handful of coaches and one wagon...

 

Even still, I don't believe either of these groups would risk going it alone.

 

My gut feeling would be to agree - I still think it needs to have multiple sources if it's to take off though.

 

Catching up on the thread....

* Programming isn't hard on DCC and you can do it via a graphical interface using the likes of a Sprog and Decoderpro - not 'pretty pretty' - but very usable and click/tick/slide/dropdown rather than calculate, convert, sliderule...

* I hadn't picked up on the auto speed matching - if that works reliably and accurately that *is* a "killer app" for the US market....I know folk that spend several hours per loco speed matching them so they will all match a standard curve exactly. Being able to consist quickly and visually and automatically match across that consist is a real breakthrough.

 

Ref my earlier question, anyone know what 'direct radio' actually means yet?

[spamcan61]

 

Ref my earlier question, anyone know what 'direct radio' actually means yet?

 

Nope, I haven't managed to track down a patent application or FCC part 15 filing yet.

 

Edit: Although the phrase "Without you even knowing it, the locomotive modules will communicate to each other using Direct Radio to be sure that each engine is pulling its share of the load and runs smoothly together." here:-

 

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/5445?page=1

 

Implies a level of communciation way beyond current DCC it would seem.

[buffalo]

...I remain convinced that the myth of complicated programming and the assumed need for perpetual button-pushing are major hurdles to greater DCC take-up. Even though the system under review here seeks to make those tasks easier, it offers so many options in the video - all with a crowded GUI that is supposed to be reassuring - that it actually adds fuel to the "complicated" view of all systems beyond DC.

Exactly. We know that programming CVs is easy, but it terrifies many people. On the other hand for those of us who are used to doing it the old-fashioned way an over-complex 'modern' user interface can be just as off-putting.

 

Nick

[Xerces Fobe2]

I have no idea about binary to decimal conversion. I input simple decimal values, usually in the range 0-255, and those are passed in whatever form to the decoder. What is the problem here? My throttle - Digitrax DT400 - is now getting on for 10 years old, so which system is still requiring binary input? Programming is very easy - isn't it?

 

For example when you set up CV29 on your loco you count up the bits e.g. 8,4.2,1to get the value It is not the system that requires it is the decoder manufacturer’s instructions which break the settings down to binary format.

 

XF

[Ravenser]

Interesting :

 

I'm not a techie (English degree) nor an "early adopter", and so a natural Luddite but:

 

- I remain sceptical about wireless/radio . The potential for interference or signal problems seems high. It is the wireless link and it's intermittant unreliability that has been the Achilles heel of Dynamis. I've heard of a case where a medical implant can block the Dynamis signal , and the more electronic devices there are around kicking out electromagnetic junk the worse it's going to get. When my mobile phone's in a coat pocket in the wardrobe I get intermittant buzzes on the speakers of the computer on the other side of the wall. We've all speculated about what might happen in an exhibition hall containing multiple wireless DCC systems - it's just we've not really had any such systems so it's remained speculation. We hear about "warchalking" and hacking of wireless digital hubs . We worry about the return of TV interference Etc etc etc

 

There is no real saving from removing the wires in this case, because the rails are still going to be there and still need to be live . Wireless DCC clearly has potential for users - who I suspect are largely operators of large permanent basement empires in the US, many of which are presumably in sparsely populated areas where space is cheap and plentiful and radio/electromagnetic "noise" pretty low. For most of us its a long way from a major benefit

 

- The system's graphic user interface is impressive, and clearly there is a lot of potential for something like that to be bolted onto a DCC system . That after all is how Windows and graphic interfaces were bolted onto operating systems (I'm old enough to remember being taught at school about typing in "RUN" after a flashing cursor on a black screen with text characters on it . Never had to do this for real though...) Though my NCE system does run to a simple step by step programming menu already - and is vastly better than the clunky Lenz

 

But that doesn't mean DCC needs to be replaced. The vast majority of DCC users don't use most of the more advanced features today and the advantages being floated for this newcomer product are probably completely irrelevant to 99% of modellers . What exactly is the point of 2 way communication? Is the reason Railcom hasn't developed simply that it is a solution looking increasingly desperately for a problem it can address.

 

- Lastly Railpro is hideously expensive in an age of austerity. I simply do not believe that costs will come down - DCC costs have been remarkably stubborn and decoders always seem to cost £17 despite all the assurances over the last 20 years that the cost will come down as soon as we all start using it. High cost remains a significant barrier to adopting DCC and RailPro is massively more expensive. It makes even Gauge O look affordable

 

I do like Andy's description of ZeroOne for the 21st century. That system did work....

[t-b-g]

Technology undoubtably moves on and the next "big thing" in model railway control is probably already under development somewhere. I am not against technology at all, I use a computer and do emails and all sorts of things.

 

However, I am involved with around 10 different layouts, some having over 100 locomotives on them. A couple of them have hidden fiddle yards with up to 30-40 trains on them. If I set the points to that loop/siding, with good old fashioned DC, whatever loco is on the train will run when I turn the controller on. With this new system, as with DCC, as far as I can tell I would need to know which loco was on the train before I can drive it. One of the layouts has mainly proprietary locos, most of which carry their "as bought" numbers. So that layout has many identical locos, as there are up to around 20 of each class scattered around its 12 stations.

 

So a photo of the loco isn't going to help much, if it is out of sight and there are 19 more like it on the layout! Or will all 20 move at once? Unless everybody I work with all agrees to switch to DCC or anything else, at a huge cost, financially and in time fitting decoders into locos, we will be sticking with DC.

 

Please nobody take this the wrong way, as being negative towards the new technology. All I am trying to do is to point out that there is room for (and suitable applications for) DC, DCC and radio control, plus anything else that comes along in the future. DCC hasn't killed of DC and I don't see that radio control will kill off DCC unless it offers such significant advantages in cost and performance to make people want to replace their existing DCC equipment. The cost side certainly doesn't seem to be there just yet but that may change as it usually does with new technology.

 

There is also a possibility (edit - ravenser beat me to it!!) (already there with wireless DCC) of a couple of layouts turning up at a show and driving each others locos! Now that would be interesting..........

[GoingUnderground]

ESU loksound £98 at the moment, so that's more than $100 per loco.

 

Esu ECoS £587, and radio control and receiver £253

 

These are actually higher prices than the subject of this thread! Admittedly it seems the additional throttles will soon catch up with the ECoS and handsets but it's still very close and this is a new system where prices will drop if it's taken up widely.

Still the main long term issue is the one manufacturer support, MTH have seen problems with this and seen their DCS system have to adapt to be compatible with DCC.

DCC's success is the sharing and not trying to make a mint, if they don't free up some of the patent even with cheap licensing then they'll follow MTH and only have a small band of devotees like a lot of rc systems do.

Loksound V4 is GBP 98 in the UK, EUR 120 in Germany, but Loksound Select, made specially for the USA has a list price of USD 109.99, and can be had for under USD 90 from many US dealers.

 

ECoS is expensive, but you get 2 throttles, not one, and the screen is large enough for a track plan. The sort of difficulties that spamcan was showing us with the ECoS is I undestand a thing of the past with RailcomPlus.

[Ian J.]

Bi-directional communication has uses:

 

In combination with triangulation, it can provide absolute position, direction and speed information. The wireless system is 'perfect' for this, if developed properly.

 

It can allow feedback from active items on a vehicle, so if feedback couplings are developed, it can report on whether they are engaged or disengaged (or somewhere inbetween). While that might not be of much interest on small shunting planks, it can be useful on larger layouts, or those where coupling/uncoupling can happen on screened off parts of a layout.

 

The V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle) communication can allow individual vehicles to 'talk' to each other, providing information in coupling up scenarios as to how far apart the vehicles are. This is particularly useful in fully automated operational scenarios.

[Glorious NSE]

- I remain sceptical about wireless/radio . The potential for interference or signal problems seems high. It is the wireless link and it's intermittant unreliability that has been the Achilles heel of Dynamis

 

Dynamis isn't radio or wireless though, it's "line of sight" infra red IIRC?

 

We've all speculated about what might happen in an exhibition hall containing multiple wireless DCC systems - it's just we've not really had any such systems so it's remained speculation.

 

There are 2 or 3 systems up and running for DCC handsets via smartphones, plus a variety of efforts from companies. Most if not all of those have run under exhibition conditions and will not interfere with each other just as when I connect to my wireless router at home it doesn't interfere with my neighbours wireless router.

 

We hear about "warchalking" and hacking of wireless digital hubs

 

Relevance of this to the current discussion? Is there really an issue with railway modellers scouring shows to try and hack your router and steal your trains?

 

There is no real saving from removing the wires in this case, because the rails are still going to be there and still need to be live

 

Hmmm.....

 

On a larger layout you would save by not having to have a throttle bus (or feedback bus, or accessory bus, or booster bus) first of all. I can also see a potential saving in boosters if you just need plain power to the track.

 

If we were creating our module spec now i'd be arguing for speccing wireless throttles to reduce costs - even with todays high prices for Android mobiles I think they may already be cheaper than adding faceplates to all modules.

 

Wireless DCC clearly has potential for users - who I suspect are largely operators of large permanent basement empires in the US

 

There's a fair few in the UK running the usual small layouts off smartphones which are pretty much the antithesis of your description...

 

But that doesn't mean DCC needs to be replaced.

 

Not sure that's really the point...does any new technology come about because the users think it needs to be replaced, or because somebody has a good idea that they think they can sell (or more cynically, a way of getting users to buy something else!)

 

and the advantages being floated for this newcomer product are probably completely irrelevant to 99% of modellers

 

Really? 99%? Which bits are you talking about that 99% of modellers would not use?

 

I simply do not believe that costs will come down - DCC costs have been remarkably stubborn and decoders always seem to cost £17 despite all the assurances over the last 20 years that the cost will come down as soon as we all start using it

 

Erm - seventeen quid 20 years ago was worth a lot more than seventeen quid today - so even if the price tag hasn't changed (and IMHO it has!) - the price has dropped dramatically!

[Ron Ron Ron]

Ref my earlier question, anyone know what 'direct radio' actually means yet?

Nope, I haven't managed to track down a patent application or FCC part 15 filing yet.....

.....Implies a level of communciation way beyond current DCC it would seem.

As far as I can see, "Direct Radio" is just Ring's marketing name for the wireless technology being used.

In other words, it's meaningless in itself, just as say Sony use the Bravia name; e.g. "....using Sony's Bravia Technology..... blah blah".

There isn't any such thing as a Bravia; it isn't a component or a software algorithm, just a brand name. There are lots of technologies being used, but they have nothing particularly "Bravia" about them.

 

In this case it appears to be the name used to describe a p2p network system, possibly Mesh based.

[Rob Hayes]

i havent looked at this new system yet, and im not likely too, i love dcc its simple and easy to use,

and if you dont know how to do it a quick read will sort you out, i dont like the new idea of a new system and another new system coming out, like vhs or beta max, or dvd, then blue ray, and now they are talking about hd2, its rediculous, i have spent so much investing in dcc im not gonna change to another system especially when dcc is proven and so many of us are in love with it,

 

in short ,,, stroll on.

[Ron Ron Ron]

The potential for interference or signal problems seems high. .......the more electronic devices there are around kicking out electromagnetic junk the worse it's going to get. ........We've all speculated about what might happen in an exhibition hall containing multiple wireless DCC systems -

There is also a possibility (edit - ravenser beat me to it!!) (already there with wireless DCC) of a couple of layouts turning up at a show and driving each others locos! Now that would be interesting..........

Martyn has already addressed this concern......

 

There are 2 or 3 systems up and running for DCC handsets via smartphones, plus a variety of efforts from companies. Most if not all of those have run under exhibition conditions and will not interfere with each other just as when I connect to my wireless router at home it doesn't interfere with my neighbours wireless router.

 

These digital systems use encoding and can tell each others traffic from their own.

Just imagine a busy shopping centre, where there are dozens and dozens of people in fairly close proximity, all using their mobile phones. A typical scene that can be witnessed every day all over the planet.

Except in unusual situations (disasters, terrorist attacks etc,) where the network itself gets swamped, their phones don't usually interfere with each other.

 

In our house we have two WiFi networks running and a Mesh network (for the Sonos music system). That's 3 wireless networks. Plus, when searching for networks, my main wireless router can pick up between 6 and 8 other networks nearby (I can identify 2 of them as near neighbours. We don't suffer any interference or dropouts on any of the 3 networks.

 

.

[newbryford]

i have spent so much investing in dcc im not gonna change to another system especially when dcc is proven and so many of us are in love with it,

 

That's a similar view to those with large DC collections when DCC came along................

 

If I were to start a new project with new stock, then the Railpro system would be looked at. As it is, my next potential project is likely to utilise a lot of my existing stock so will firmly be DCC, but it'll probably include a step forward from the previous layout such as full DCC control of points and signals with a proven system.

 

I know of modellers who must have the latest gadgets so it'll find a market somewhere.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Michael Delamar]

for the man in the street

 

as soon as you get to the point where you mention CV's and have to explain, then its too complicated.

[brian777999]

It's sure as eggs that radio control will eventually eclipse rolling contact through the wheels for control commands and data. That was always the weak point of the 30-year-old technology in DCC.

 

Whether this will be the product to do it remains to be seen. Other manufacturers are surely working on their own versions.

 

Martin.

 

I agree. All this business about dirty wheels and dirty track should become a thing of the past !

[buffalo]

...In combination with triangulation, it can provide absolute position, direction and speed information. The wireless system is 'perfect' for this, if developed properly...

Are you speaking from experience here or just speculating? Wireless positioning systems using trilateration (not triangulation) can be made to work reasonably reliably, most of the time. They are far from foolproof. Would you trust a satnav to tell you when you've reached the cliff edge?

 

...In our house we have two WiFi networks running and a Mesh network (for the Sonos music system). That's 3 wireless networks. Plus, when searching for networks, my main wireless router can pick up between 6 and 8 other networks nearby (I can identify 2 of them as near neighbours. We don't suffer any interference or dropouts on any of the 3 networks...

Are you sure? The networks are probably having to do quite a lot of work to correct for interference. The communication protocols are specifically designed to determine whether data is recieved correctly and, if not, to re-send it. The effects are not usually visible unless you actually monitor the networks' activity at the low level. Three WiFi networks on different frequencies is about the limit in close proximity before serious problems start to be seen. Forget the neighbours' systems, if you're lucky the signal strength on most will be too low to cause serious problems.

I agree. All this business about dirty wheels and dirty track should become a thing of the past !

You still have to get power to your locos! Battery technology is still some way off being able to fit adequate rechargeable batteries in the smaller scales.

 

Nick

[JackBlack]

I actually don't mind it. but if it was cheaper, I'd consider it

[Ian J.]

Are you speaking from experience here or just speculating? Wireless positioning systems using trilateration (not triangulation) can be made to work reasonably reliably, most of the time. They are far from foolproof. Would you trust a satnav to tell you when you've reached the cliff edge?

Speaking from theory, rather than experience.

 

Satnav is a poor illustration, due to there being far more issues with it, for instance having to take into account Einstein's theories for example, as well as, in the case of GPS, deliberate mis-guiding by the US military.

 

Obviously, as I can't speak from experience I can't vouch for it entirely, but I'm reasonably sure that it can be made to work sufficiently reliably in a small scale model railway context.

 

Apologies for the misleading use of the term triangulation.

[melmerby]

In our house we have two WiFi networks running and a Mesh network (for the Sonos music system). That's 3 wireless networks. Plus, when searching for networks, my main wireless router can pick up between 6 and 8 other networks nearby (I can identify 2 of them as near neighbours. We don't suffer any interference or dropouts on any of the 3 networks. .

 

I've given up on wireless interconnections at home due their unreliable performance over anything other than minimum distance and massive reduction in speed at times.

I now use Homeplugs which have much greater range and consistent speed.

My Railway Room is 25 meters from the house and gets virtually the same internet speed as the base computer. With wireless, speed was down to half or less and sometimes wouldn't even connect!

 

 

Keith