BlueRail Trains - Bluetooth Locomotive Control

[Andy Reichert]

It was not new technology that caused the Titanic tragedy. Its sister ships sailed for many years before being scrapped .

 

As they say in Belfast "She was all right when she left here"

 

It was the claim (which I agree may actually not have been made by the designer) that the Titanic was unsinkable, that I included. Lots of far more modern ships have sunk since, for various reasons, so we don't appear to have made that generally the case yet.

 

Andy

[10000]

It was not new technology that caused the Titanic tragedy. Its sister ships sailed for many years before being scrapped .

 

As they say in Belfast "She was all right when she left here"

Only one was scrapped, the other sank as well. Granted it was wartime action but 2 out of 3 sunk!

[deadlyduck]

Ah did they have Bachmann blue tooth onboard ?

[rgmichel]

I am still wondering if it is possible to put a daughter board on our existing dcc sound locomotives, so that dcc commands can be sent using bluetooth to our dcc locomotives.  Its going to be interesting to see how Bachmann implements this in the future, as they do seem to be saying that they plan to do something like it.

[Andy Reichert]

If some decoder manufacturer brought the appropriate circuit points to external connectable points, then that and a whole host of other features could be possible.

[rgmichel]

If some decoder manufacturer brought the appropriate circuit points to external connectable points, then that and a whole host of other features could be possible.

The connectible points are already there at the 4, 8 or 21 pin decoder socket.  I wonder if a Bluetooth wireless communications daughter board could be designed to plug into that socket, and then the original dcc sound board into that daughter board, then the Bluetooth communications should be able to send dcc commands to the original dcc sound board, and thence back to the loco.  Then it would be nice to have a switch command so that the locomotive could be switched between dcc communications via track or wireless Bluetooth communications.   Of course, if the locomotive does not have sound, things are much simpler, and you could replace the original dcc board, which is cheap and can be thrown away, with a new one that is switchable between dcc control via the track and wireless Bluetooth control.

Edited March 23, 2015 by rgmichel

[davetheroad]

Check this out

 

http://www.cvpusa.com/mini_airwire_convrtr.php

 

You could use track power rather than a battery

[Andy Reichert]

The connectible points are already there at the 4, 8 or 21 pin decoder socket.  I wonder if a Bluetooth wireless communications daughter board could be designed to plug into that socket, and then the original dcc sound board into that daughter board, then the Bluetooth communications should be able to send dcc commands to the original dcc sound board, and thence back to the loco.  Then it would be nice to have a switch command so that the locomotive could be switched between dcc communications via track or wireless Bluetooth communications.   Of course, if the locomotive does not have sound, things are much simpler, and you could replace the original dcc board, which is cheap and can be thrown away, with a new one that is switchable between dcc control via the track and wireless Bluetooth control.

 

Not the ones I want.  But then I'm looking a long way ahead.

 

Andy

[rgmichel]

http://www.cvpusa.com/mini_airwire_convrtr.php

You could use track power rather than a battery

I agree.  Looks good to me.  All, I want is that my dcc sound locos are not obsoleted.  This link demonstrates radio control of a dcc decoder, with a simple hookup.  The leap to Bluetooth wireless is small, and the leap to picking up the power from the track is small too.

Not the ones I want.  But then I'm looking a long way ahead.

I guess I lost your point somewhere on the line...  Maybe I am not so prescient as you.

Edited March 23, 2015 by rgmichel

[Nile_Griffith]

The connectible points are already there at the 4, 8 or 21 pin decoder socket.  I wonder if a Bluetooth wireless communications daughter board could be designed to plug into that socket, and then the original dcc sound board into that daughter board, then the Bluetooth communications should be able to send dcc commands to the original dcc sound board, and thence back to the loco.  Then it would be nice to have a switch command so that the locomotive could be switched between dcc communications via track or wireless Bluetooth communications.   Of course, if the locomotive does not have sound, things are much simpler, and you could replace the original dcc board, which is cheap and can be thrown away, with a new one that is switchable between dcc control via the track and wireless Bluetooth control.

 

What you seem to be asking for could I guess be described as a Bluetooth enabled DCC emulator chip/board. Nice idea as it is I am not sure that a manufacturer could or would be inclined to develop such a product. I would imagine that the price customers would be prepared to pay for such a device would not prove viable to a potential manufacturer. I would estimate that the bulk of the cost of a Bluetooth control chip/board is within the cost of production of the circuit board itself and the Bluetooth transceiver chip. The actual motor control component of the chip/board being a relatively small percentage of the production cost and eventual purchase price. I'm guessing anyone looking to buy a Bluetooth to DCC translator board wouldn't really want to go much past 30% of the price of a fully featured Bluetooth Chip, so I think it is unlikely that we would see a manufacturer producing these.

 

However what I think we might expect to see arriving with regard to Locomotive sound. Is Bluetooth allowing sound to be transmitted to the Loco itself rather than the sound being contained in a relatively small file size on the loco's controlling chip itself. This way of working could potentially open up much more creative use of sound with regard to our models. With audio files stored within the controlling device, there is the potential to offer a wider range of sounds and also to modify those sounds to a certain degree. Taking a bold step forward. some kind of bluetooth integrated track position detection could then be incorporated into the sound playback, e.g. when a loco leaves the scenic part of a layout, sound is switched off automatically by the controller rather than be reliant on the operator. Similarly it might also be possible to make tonal adjustments to a Loco's sound dependent upon where about on the layout it is.

 

These idea's are what makes the implementation of Bluetooth as a control protocol an exciting development for our hobby. Not least because although DCC offers the potential for some very involved control concepts, it does rely on the user either being quite IT savvy or having the assistance of someone quite switched on. Bluetooth offers the chance for purchased compatible devices to be straight forwardly incorporated within an overall system and in a way that a larger proportion of users will have success in doing.

[rgmichel]

I am not talking about emulation.  Its just a matter of using the present physical connector, which transmits signals to the motor, and takes signals from the track, to take signals from the bluetooth board, and have the daughter board pass such signals to either the sound board to make the sounds, or to the decoder to drive the motor.  No emulation required.  Bluetooth is only a communications protocol, and the existing decoder will do the work.  I think this is what you are saying later in your discussion, but it is not emulation.  Emulation would have another board take over the duties of the existing boards, which is not what I suggest.  Indeed, it would mean throwing away the existing electronics in our dcc sound locomotives, which is a waste.

What you seem to be asking for could I guess be described as a Bluetooth enabled DCC emulator chip/board.

Edited March 29, 2015 by rgmichel

[Ron Ron Ron]

I spoke to someone "in the know" and very much part of the DCC manufacturing and retail industry, at Ally Pally.

He thought that the direct Bluetooth idea was brilliant, but said that Bachmann have squashed it a birth by taking out patents and licensing rights on certain aspects of the system.

Another person agreed that they've patented the system.

 

The other issue being the very high licensing price that has to be paid to be able to manufacture devices containing Bluetooth.

Small manufacturers would not be able to afford this. I'm guessing most decoder manufacturers and smaller RTR model manufacturers fall into this category?

 

I've no idea how true or accurate these comments were, but they came from people who have been looking at this development from within the industry.

 

 

 

.

[davetheroad]

I spoke to someone "in the know" and very much part of the DCC manufacturing and retail industry, at Ally Pally.

He thought that the direct Bluetooth idea was brilliant, but said that Bachmann have squashed it a birth by taking out patents and licensing rights on certain aspects of the system.

Another person agreed that they've patented the system.

 

The other issue being the very high licensing price that has to be paid to be able to manufacture devices containing Bluetooth.

Small manufacturers would not be able to afford this. I'm guessing most decoder manufacturers and smaller RTR model manufacturers fall into this category?

 

I've no idea how true or accurate these comments were, but they came from people who have been looking at this development from within the industry.

 

 

 

.

It is possible for a small manufacturers to avoid the patent and licencing issues but it means not using bluetooth!. You can use the same 2.4Ghz band as bluetooth with model plane/drone/car/boat technology. The problem is it is not bluetooth which, of course, is the big idea that Bachmann grabbed.

[rgmichel]

It is possible for a small manufacturers to avoid the patent and licencing issues but it means not using bluetooth!. You can use the same 2.4Ghz band as bluetooth with model plane/drone/car/boat technology. The problem is it is not bluetooth which, of course, is the big idea that Bachmann grabbed.

I was involved in a discussion at OOlivesteamclub where a radio control system for a car was discussed as a control system for Hornby Live Steam (FYI)  Anything is possible, of course.  However, Bluetooth allows the use of iOS and similar for control, which is more standard.

[Glorious NSE]

I spoke to someone "in the know" and very much part of the DCC manufacturing and retail industry, at Ally Pally.

He thought that the direct Bluetooth idea was brilliant, but said that Bachmann have squashed it a birth by taking out patents and licensing rights on certain aspects of the system.

 

Worth noting that the system is designed by (and "chips" will be sold separately by) a small independent called BlueRail Trains, who so far as I can see, are the ones holding the patents - Bachmann have some kind of agreement (the press releases say "partnership", which I would guess equates to a licensing agreement) to sell RTR items so fitted.

 

If that's the case, wouldn't the only companies to have trouble would be another RTR manufacturer wanting to also provide this RTR?

[Ron Ron Ron]

As I said, I don't know if the information I was given is accurate or true.

 

I had previously thought, from the information on the 'net (from press releases, company web sites, the online "radio" interviews and articles) that the only exclusivity, was in Bachmann's sole right to incorporate BlueRail Trains chips in RTR.

The chips are supposed to be going on general sale.

Both companies have stated their desire to make the technology available to all. Now we hear otherwise,

 

Who is to be believed?

 

 

.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Ron Ron Ron

[peach james]

I would find it hard to believe that the ideas contained would be patentable,

 

""Replacement of previous wired RS-232 serial communications in test equipment, GPS receivers, medical equipment, bar code scanners, and traffic control devices."" one of the listed uses of Bluetooth technology on Wiki.  Since the Marklin DCC spec was based on using RS-232 (in 1985), I think any company would be hard pressed to claim that this use of Bluetooth is not immediately apparent as an extension of an existing technology.  Of course, the only winner in a case like that would be a lawyer...just like with JMRI, which was sued by a company in an attempt to SLAPP them out of existence...they won, but at quite a large expense to the individuals who were named as the developers of JMRI.  Clearly, the same sort of information would be apparent to anyone who tried to claim that "wireless control of a model railway engine" is innovative, the HOW might be innovative, but the idea is certainly not new, as I have one downstairs that is botched together from various bits, and that really draws from other peoples work...the innovators were the model engineers in the 1930's who built RC ships (because you could fit enough radio gear into KGV at 12' long to actually be "remote" control in the late 30's). 

 

James

[Nigelcliffe]

As I said, I don't know if the information I was given is accurate or true.

 

[....]

 

Both companies have stated their desire to make the technology available to all. Now we hear otherwise,

 

Who is to be believed?

You can easily have both. See "RailCom Plus", which ESU/Lenz say a free license arrangement makes it open to others, and some others have said "no its, not you require us to disclose our product plans in advance so you can gain a jump on us".  

 

 

I would find it hard to believe that the ideas contained would be patentable,

 

We're dealing with the US patent office. You quote the JMRI case, a small part of that saga was about the US patent office which had granted patents to KAM Industries which clearly had prior art. The US patent office doesn't seem to check prior art very thoroughly if at all, so if the applicant doesn't bother to do the checks or make disclosures, the patent is granted. Getting a US patent quashed when you know there is prior art takes lots of time and a fair bit of money.

 

When I worked in a large technology R&D lab, the standing joke was that the US patent office would give a US citizen a patent on the wheel. At the time, European patent offices were a bit better at checking prior art and "obviousness", and also somewhat easier to get a patent nullified after it had been granted.

 

 

- Nigel

[Nile_Griffith]

As I said, I don't know if the information I was given is accurate or true.

 

I had previously thought, from the information on the 'net (from press releases, company web sites, the online "radio" interviews and articles) that the only exclusivity, was in Bachmann's sole right to incorporate BlueRail Trains chips in RTR.

The chips are supposed to be going on general sale.

Both companies have stated their desire to make the technology available to all. Now we hear otherwise,

 

Who is to be believed?

 

 

.

 

Must admit I was under the same impression. That Bachmann's deal with BlueRail Trains was that Bachmann had an exclusive deal in the provision of their chip for Bachmann's own RTR models only, but that the technology itself, the various control standards and protocols would be open and available for third party manufacturers.

 

My own personal thought is that to make the equipment proprietary and unique to Bachmann would be a retrograde step on their part. I don't really have a great knowledge of the U.S. market but I don't think it would be to out of line to imagine that they face some of the same future problems that the U.K. and European market faces in generating sales. From what information I have seen Bachmann seem to be initially focussing on this innovation as a way of interesting younger customers. I think it is reasonable to assume that those younger customers are only going to be retained if they can see or expect a logical progression to the technology involved with their hobby. I also don't think Bachmann are stupid enough to think that customers would be willing to make the continued investment in an exclusively Bachmann layout (unless of course you're their sales department of course...... Ha Ha Ha).

 

With regard to what other people in the "Trade" might be saying. I learn't a long time ago to take whatever a companies competitors are saying about them with the same degree of scepticism as the company themselves. I am very aware that a lot of businesses are more than happy to instruct their representatives to tout a line about a competitors products or services, which may not in itself fall into the category of libel, but is certainly designed to keep potential customers and interested parties on the back foot with regard to new developments or products.

[deadlyduck]

It might be an idea to wait till some final product is near completion before we all go on about what is n what isnt.It might be in due course someone else comes up with something else.I think we all know technology today moves apace.Who knows what tomorrow brings let alone next month next year

[Andy Reichert]

I agree.  Looks good to me.  All, I want is that my dcc sound locos are not obsoleted.  This link demonstrates radio control of a dcc decoder, with a simple hookup.  The leap to Bluetooth wireless is small, and the leap to picking up the power from the track is small too.

I guess I lost your point somewhere on the line...  Maybe I am not so prescient as you.

 

I'd be looking for some of the internal states to be flagged on pins or open links. e.g. like decoder addressed; recognized valid digital data received stream; actual motor speed detected; stuff like that.

 

Andy

Edited March 31, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[Crosland]

I am very aware that a lot of businesses are more than happy to instruct their representatives to tout a line about a competitors products or services, which may not in itself fall into the category of libel, but is certainly designed to keep potential customers and interested parties on the back foot with regard to new developments or products.

It's known as spreading FUD, or Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Plenty of that in this thread

[farren]

After reading this Topic I thought I would go to the horses mouth so to speak and I asked if he (dave rees of blue rail) would have a look though this topic! and very kindly he has done so and as also gaven this reply by email which I will post below I hope this may help some of you. (Edited only above so it reads better)

 

 

 

BlueRailTrains

 

To

fazy

 

Today at 9:09 PM

 

 

 

Farren,

 

I've cleaned up a few points in the below version. You can post what I've written here. Thank you for helping clear up any misconceptions.

 

Dave Rees

 

 

-----------

 

Farren,

 

It's amazingly controversial. I wish the forum users new the developers at BlueRail. We are anything but the evil corporate entity being depicted. I'll try to respond to a few things:

 

DCC people shouldn't feel threatened by this. BlueRail is also designing bluetooth smart products that work with DCC, we just haven't announced that yet (we are focusing on our first task of just getting a product on the market so people can start using it). Bachmann is motivated for us to support as many aspects of DCC as we can, and we will.

 

We will have sound in the locos in short order (it just didn't make sense to delay production until that aspect was completed). All our boards contain an expansion port that will allow for the eventual addition of sound modules or DCC decoders, so any board you buy today will be expandable in this sense.

 

For people who aren't already heavily invested in DCC, this provides an equipment-less way to do everything you want to do with a train using your favorite smart device. Because there is no hardware required (it's all software), the software both in the circuit board and the app can be updated wirelessly at any time, so in theory your equipment should never get old. As new capabilities are added to the protocol, your train will update and take on new functionality. I was tired of buying equipment that becomes obsolete.

 

This also allows the interface for you to run your train to be designed by user interface designers to greatly simplify how you operate and customize your train. As well as adding the ability for new apps to be designed that allow you to have fun with your train, or for realistic operating session simulations, downloadable sounds, virtual layouts... The range is great. Operate unlimited locos simultaneously. And it is not tethered to a protocol that will ever become outdated. Ideal for Dead Rail. Unlimited consisting and speed-matching. Works well with brass and die-cast.

 

For people who already love DCC, we will be making products that allow them to run their DCC (or DCC-ready) trains in this same way. So what we're doing will not care whether you have DC, DCC, TMCC, or DCS - it will work well with any of them. If you have a decoder you are happy with, we plan on supporting that. There is no need for you to change the technology in your current layout to take advantage of BlueRail products.

 

Our vision is put forwarded a technology that advances the hobby, and not become some proprietary source of distress within the industry, and Bachmann has encouraged BlueRail to design interoperability with existing DCC products. We are just trying to get the first products out the door and in people's hands right now, so we need to focus on that 100%.

 

I have been a model railroader all me life, and although this product stands to bring new users to the hobby (by removing barriers and connecting trains to handheld devices), the product is also targeted at serious users (in terms of the functionality we will ultimately be offering).

 

When I have details on availability I will post it on our website as well as on our facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/BlueRailTrains)

 

Thanks very much,

 

Dave Rees

BlueRail Trains

Edited April 13, 2015 by farren

[rgmichel]

Wonderful explanation.  This is pretty much as I understood when I talked to the Bachmann representative at the Amherst show.  I am very happy to see it explained in such a careful way.  Certainly, I agree that the conspiracy theories are put to rest here.

[Nile_Griffith]

Lets hope that people will give Bluerail a fair hearing, though I am quite sure there will always be that certain contingent of detractors regardless. As mentioned in previous posts. Ian looking forward to the potential that this kind of control application might bring and if as said in the above reply, they are trying their best to provide some kind of pain free migration path between DCC and Bluetooth, then so much the better.

 

I for one am keen to get my hands on the system and see what it is capable of.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Nile_Griffith