BlueRail Trains - Bluetooth Locomotive Control

[rgmichel]

This is in no way different to how the dc users felt when DCC came along, ...out with the old and in with the new.

I am not sure that it is absolutely necessary to think that it is either DCC or Bluetooth.  As things stand now, the two can co-exist on the same track.  So, the benefits of Bluetooth might be available for some aspects of operations; for a subset of locomotives, for example; or a subset of other operations like lighting, signalling, etc.; or the other side of the same coin you could transition to a Bluetooth layout with a subset of locomotives that might run DCC.  This was not really the case with the dc to dcc situation.  For Bluetooth/DCC - joint operations you would use two controllers of course, in this assumption of an existing DCC investment.  There are lots of opportunities in such a scenario, but I am not long-winded enough to go into them.

[Ron Ron Ron]

An excellent post Nile.

I was very sceptical at first, but now believe there is tremendous potential in a software based wireless system, whether carried by Bluetooth or by any other suitable radio technology.

 

With regard to your "crystal ball gazing", I think the main question is, will developers take this up with sufficient drive and enthusiasm to deliver product that exploits that potential?

A product that can offer all that DCC can do and more?

 

Bachmann and BlueRail Trains have initially gone for the low hanging fruit, the children's train set and novelty market.

Will they take it much further on from there?

 

 

.

[rgmichel]

A product that can offer all that DCC can do and more?

 

 I am not sure we need a single product.  Once the Bluetooth communication protocol is in each device, locomotive, point motor, etc., the concept of many "apps" from many vendors comes into play.  You should be able to control equipment using any "app".  I will be disappointed if Bachmann or anyone else is able to tie it all up so that it is not "open source".

[Ron Ron Ron]

By "product" I did mean the system in a broad generic sense.

[Nile_Griffith]

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.

 

I guess the deciding factor will be one of commercial imperative. Will a potential "Blue Tooth" hardware manufacturer feel that there is a potential return on deployed investment, by creating some sort of "Hybridisation" for the DCC sound community. It's certainly not beyond the wit of man to see how a form of DCC emulation could be built into a Blue Tooth based loco controller. The question is would it be a justifiable market for a manufacturer.

 

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.

 

Ha Ha! yes certainly know that feeling of dismay looking at the piles of obsolescent technology littering the corners of my unit at work (not to mention the thousands of pounds invested). 

[Nile_Griffith]

An excellent post Nile.

I was very sceptical at first, but now believe there is tremendous potential in a software based wireless system, whether carried by Bluetooth or by any other suitable radio technology.

 

With regard to your "crystal ball gazing", I think the main question is, will developers take this up with sufficient drive and enthusiasm to deliver product that exploits that potential?

A product that can offer all that DCC can do and more?

 

Bachmann and BlueRail Trains have initially gone for the low hanging fruit, the children's train set and novelty market.

Will they take it much further on from there?

 

 

.

 

Wearing my commercial hat. I actually think Bachmann have taken a wise choice in pitching the Blue Tooth product at their train set market at an early stage. As a customer base they are possibly the least demanding in model terms but probably the most tech conscious and from a product point of view there is a lot of mileage in creating brand loyalty at an early age (especially as the trend is for consumers to return to the hobby later in life). Also I think there is a real case for finding a way to re-energise interest by kids in model trains right now and something that links the "smart"world with the "traditional" one has to be worth maximising at the earliest opportunity.

 

 I am not sure we need a single product.  Once the Bluetooth communication protocol is in each device, locomotive, point motor, etc., the concept of many "apps" from many vendors comes into play.  You should be able to control equipment using any "app".  I will be disappointed if Bachmann or anyone else is able to tie it all up so that it is not "open source".

 

From what I can gather from the Blue Rail people they are pretty keen on keeping the whole thing open source, as they feel that the format itself can only be successful with multi-manufacturer involvement. Obviously Blue Rail have a contract to exclusively supply Bachmann at this stage, but they do seem very open to the idea of other manufacturers and software developers coming on board each with their own manufacturing/authoring agreements.

[rgmichel]

.... a form of DCC emulation could be built into a Blue Tooth based loco controller. The question is would it be a justifiable market for a manufacturer.

 

Well, a third party might find that the installed base of DCC sound locomotives is sufficient justification. 

[RandyWales]

Hi again...

Quick update...using Bluerail to control the trains and Bluetooth to send sounds to the loco or adjacent stock...a step up from the sounds being emitted from the tablet or phone. A very practical method for cheap onboard-the-locomotive sounds especially for 7mm and above.

I reckon it's only a matter of time until the user can choose the sounds to be transmitted.

regards

Randall

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Assuming all this stuff will eventually deliver a fully featured control system and decent sound quality, then it can't get any better.

 

Digital Control system for £0  (zero)

On-board Sound for $10

 

Despite my own investment in DCC kit, I'm rather hoping this really does take off in a big way.

 

 

 

.

[Junctionmad]

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.

 

 

It should be pointed out that today railcom , available in more then 6 manufacturers decoders , fully supports two way communications AND is part of the current NMRA DCC standards

 

In practice two way comms doesn't actually bring huge benefits, as most uni-diectional DCC layouts demonstrate

 

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?

 

 

 

The fact is today , if you want bi directional DCC and use it to receive loco speed . Diagnostics , and decider ID, for track occupation , then all that can be done by remaining within DCC

 

Bluetooth is merely an alternative way of doing the same thing. It brings very little to the market and adds complications without any benefit

 

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!!!!!!!!).

 

 

My reaction to this piece , is what I call " microprocessor do wonder " , ie wild claims of what the technology " might" be capable of

Currently using DCC railcom , diagnostics can be returned , IF a manufacturer of DCC decoders decided it was useful.

 

To suggest that Bluetooth streamed sound to say 20 locos is practical is not supported by Bluetooth itself. You are extending the technology into areas that it wasnt designed to go

 

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.

Bluetooth simply is an alternative method of communicating with a model loco. Given that power collection , with current battery technology , continues to be via rails , it offers very little benefit , other then being " different "

 

Today an enthusiast can build a DCC system from a kit very simply , for about £30 , the whole spec is in the public domain

Elements of Bluetooth are not in the public domain, especially specific manufacturers interfaces

 

I would also say you are very uninformed as to the totality of DCC and what's available , that's over a dozen controllers , numerous add on bits,

 

And there is a DCC point motor ( cobalt )

 

Bluetooth , other then being a bit more whizz bang , offers very little , and in fact adds unnecessary complication

 

This leaves aside the issues of interference, throughput, multi channel issues associated with Bluetooth

 

In reality , it's more likely in time that Wifi will be used direct to the loco not Bluetooth . To me that a far better system , then the inherent compromises that exist in Bluetooth

 

Dave ( embedded systems engineer )

Edited January 12, 2016 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

Assuming all this stuff will eventually deliver a fully featured control system and decent sound quality, then it can't get any better.

 

Digital Control system for £0  (zero)

On-board Sound for $10

 

Despite my own investment in DCC kit, I'm rather hoping this really does take off in a big way.

 

 

 

.

Firstly , due to Bluetooth streaming , only one audio stream can be supported , a single loco solution is not a solution

 

Secondly it needs to be in the loco.

 

Thirdly , most of the cost of DCC sound is the licensing assisted with specific loco recordings. The actual decoder is not the source of much cost.

 

Bluetooth is simply an alternative communications method , that all . As I said before , wifi to the loco would be far better ( more throughput , better addressing schema)

[Nile_Griffith]

Firstly , due to Bluetooth streaming , only one audio stream can be supported , a single loco solution is not a solution

 

Secondly it needs to be in the loco.

 

Thirdly , most of the cost of DCC sound is the licensing assisted with specific loco recordings. The actual decoder is not the source of much cost.

 

Bluetooth is simply an alternative communications method , that all . As I said before , wifi to the loco would be far better ( more throughput , better addressing schema)

 

Going to play devils advocate with this one, but why does it need to be in the Loco?

 

A TV's speakers aren't placed in the middle of the screen. In fact for some users their audio speakers of choice can be a distance two or three time the size of the screen away from the TV set. In fact it is only in a cinema situation that the sound is emitted from speakers within the objective view and that audio content is dialogue music and FX with surround FX coming from speakers poisoned around the auditorium.

 

The human brain is quite adept at both scrutinising sound and making compromises, taking positional cues from what the eye sees as much as what our two ears hear. There is actually no real reason why a perfectly acceptable sound scape cannot be modelled for an average size layout by the placement of a pair of well placed and capable speakers. If of course you make the assumption that the layout is being controlled from a relatively defined position (and no I don't mean 'X' marks the spot). In my sound studio I produce soundtracks for both TV and Film and also stereo recordings for music. I have an area behind the mixing console of about 4 square meters where I can rely on either a stereo mix or a surround mix being consistent wherever I sit within that 4 square meters. Now I'd be the first to concede that the acoustics of my studio and the speakers I use for monitoring have had a good deal of thought and cash put into them and at a cost possibly beyond what you would be comfortable with to invest in a model railway layout.

 

However. Loco installed sound does not present any advantages that could not be achieved through the use of software controlled streamed audio through a discrete speaker system place around a layout. Admittedly this software is not available to the model railway market at present. But the required building blocks to create such a package are available and have been available to the media/entertainment industry for quite some time now. What it does require is for a software developer to see the profit potential and technology base to make it available to the model railway sector.

 

Unless your particular motivation for fitting sound to a model loco is to have your head placed six inches away from it while you step through all of the various sound samples. A sound fitted loco as they stand at present, has few if any advantages. Limited on board storage. Limited audio reproduction in terms of the ability of what size or type of speaker can be fitted to what differing varieties of model. You can't scale sound. So scale movement across the length or breadth of a layout does not see an appropriate change in the sound of that Loco (loss of high frequency detail against a growing presence of mid and low frequency information). The reverberant effects of modelled buildings (sound echoes from within stations, covered platforms and brick retaining walls). 

 

So I ask the question why the necessity of on board sound? 

[Ron Ron Ron]

I'm sure Dave was referring to the limitations preventing Bluetooth streaming to multiple locos?

[Ron Ron Ron]

It should be pointed out that today railcom , available in more then 6 manufacturers decoders , fully supports two way communications AND is part of the current NMRA DCC standards

In practice two way comms doesn't actually bring huge benefits, as most uni-diectional DCC layouts demonstrate.....

 

 

....Currently using DCC railcom , diagnostics can be returned , IF a manufacturer of DCC decoders decided it was useful.

RailCom is a platform that should allow DCC developers to make good use of it.

The fact that they don't is due to a number of likely reasons, mostly down to the fact that most DCC systems currently available are effectively dated, legacy technology, tied to their own system architectures and cannot be readily adapted to new features.

For those modern systems (software based) that have the theoretical capability, it remains for imaginative minds to exploit the potential.

 

 

Bluetooth is merely an alternative way of doing the same thing. It brings very little to the market and adds complications without any benefit......

 

.....Bluetooth simply is an alternative method of communicating with a model loco. Given that power collection , with current battery technology , continues to be via rails , it offers very little benefit , other then being " different "....

 

.....Bluetooth , other then being a bit more whizz bang , offers very little , and in fact adds unnecessary complication...

You are missing out one huge advantage that the Bluetooth, or any direct wireless  system has.

No need for costly system hardware.

 

 

Today an enthusiast can build a DCC system from a kit very simply , for about £30 , the whole spec is in the public domain...

 

Seriously Dave, what fraction of 0.000x% are going to, or are capable of, building their own DCC system?

Particularly one that encompasses the more advanced features that are attainable with the latest commercial systems available today?

 

 

And there is a DCC point motor ( cobalt )

Agreed.

There are a couple of other DCC fitted point motors, beside the Cobalt.

 

 

In reality , it's more likely in time that Wifi will be used direct to the loco not Bluetooth . To me that a far better system , then the inherent compromises that exist in Bluetooth

Although not a techie, I do realise other wireless protocols offer more potential, but I think you have to look at where the Bluetooth idea is coming from. The ubiquity of everyday Bluetooth equipment.

Almost everyone has the "controller" hardware in their pocket already. The system is a free app.

I don't think you could get a better starting point than that.

Whether the system can be developed into something that competes with DCC in terms of functionality and capabilities, remains to be seen.

 

I don't know enough about the latest versions of Bluetooth Smart (BT4/LE) and future developments in multi-device capabilities (MPS etc) to say where this could go.

 

 

 

.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Ron Ron Ron

[Nile_Griffith]

I'm sure Dave was referring to the limitations preventing Bluetooth streaming to multiple locos?

 

Hi Ron. 

 

Yes I did pick up on that and neglected to agree with his point about wifi versus Bluetooth however it was his second point that sound needs to be in the loco that I was particularly picking up on.

 

Oooooooooooooo this devils advocate lark is hard work.

 

Although I do wish Bluerail would hurry up with the chips........... LOL.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Nile_Griffith

[Junctionmad]

Ron Ron Ron

 

Rather then picking through your reply to me

 

Railcom is there today , it's implementation is scare primarily because the layout integration software to make use of loco supplied information isnt easy to setup. Automation can be readily achieved without any loco comms , as demonstrated by JMRI and R & R train controller software

 

Bluetooth is just a communications methodology , any layout automation will be situated in an attached computer, and that's likely to be an attached high horsepower permanently powered computing device.

 

On the subject of smartphones as throttles , I don't know if you have ever used in anger a iPhone throttle app , I've extensively played with WiThrottle and there are serious drawbacks with smartphones. The first is lack of tactile feedback, forcing you to constantly look at your phone , and secondly , the lifetime of the battery , continuously running an app and comms.

 

Both mean , that I suspect, as I did, any serious layout operator will prefer to a dedicated throttle with tactile controls.

 

Let's deal with costs .

 

In any meaningful layout, the major cost of DCC is tied up in decoders, especially if sound equipped, this is likely to be similar for Bluetooth, Since specialised decoders are still required.

 

Further more , as the layout must be DC fed, you still need power supplies , district cutouts , frog switching , short circuit protection, reversing loop switching and all the other bits that make up a track powered layout. Many parts of this are already built into typical DCC controllers. These would have to be provided separately in a Bluetooth layout, negating much of the cost advantage of a " free" if unsuitable smartphone throttle.

 

Today a fairly high end DCC system , with integrated power supply , automatic short circuit protection , and separate tactile throttle can be had for under 150 quid. I suspect not much will be really saved by going to Bluetooth

 

On the question of technology , Bluetooth is around since 1994 , it's hardly whizz bang . It has serious limitations when you try and control more then a few channels. There issues with interference , and session drop out too.

 

On layout sound, I agree, it has the potential to be far superior to sound integrated into the decoder.

But , Bluetooth offers nothing in that regard. The layout is fixed and doesn't benefit from wireless communications. Proper layout sound is very complex , really requires train location feedback to work , it's requires a considerable piece of software complexity to make it all hang together. Bluetooths ability to merely transport sound data is irelevsnt in that solution.

 

 

DCC is not legacy technology , pulse coded information on wires is all the rage , your car couldn't function without it. DCC is updated regularly , as is witnessed by the new layout bus specifications just released . New DCC devices appear regularly and with increasing sophistication and decoder become more integrated and cost effective

 

To summarise , Bluetooth is rather like Hornbys Zero 1. Attractive to the very entry level " kids toy train set " , one or two locos and an oval of track , as it offers cab control at a low entry level cost.

 

As a serious contender for reasonable size layouts , typically seen, it's a dead end technology. As a wireless technology it's largely been surpassed by wifi , which is now as cheap to implement at silicon level , with far superior technical advantages. Hence DCC over wifi would be a far better future possible solution. It's multi channel restrictions mean it will never be a serious contender.

 

Wireless communications to 00 gauge locos will have little traction , until we have workable battery solutions ( or maybe inductive coupling ) , if we can implement dead rail systems , then wireless control ( of whatever type) then becomes very suitable.

 

Regards

 

Dave

Edited January 13, 2016 by Junctionmad

[rgmichel]

Ron Ron Ron

 

Rather then picking through your reply to me....

 

Dave

I have not requoted all Dave's points, but I cannot but agree with everything he says above.  Bluetooth IS just a communications protocol, nothing more, so everything else is still needed including the sound decoder.  This is one reason I think Bluetooth could be added to existing dcc sound locos; not that I think it should be added.  Putting a loudspeaker into something trailing behind a loco, as illustrated in the above vid showing the use of a USB speaker, is neither significant nor novel.  Just because it is a USB speaker does not add any wizz-bang at all.

[Grovenor]

DCC is updated regularly , as is witnessed by the new layout bus specifications just released .

The new NMRA layout control bus is not part of DCC it is an independent system similar to the MERG CBUS. It can be used as a comms link instead of a lenz or Digitrax bus but that does not make it DCC.

Regards

[Nile_Griffith]

I too am not going to re quote Junctionmad's quotes. i would say that I enjoyed reading his observations and he does indeed raise some very astute points that have been overlooked in the discussion.

 

Junction mad is quite right in saying that a reasonably complex Bluetooth controlled layout would still require similar levels of track wiring and such like to that of a comparative DCC layout. OK so that puts it at a "no score draw" as the football fans would say. Cost of loco control chips/devices would comparatively be the same for both layouts. So at this point both control options present pretty much the same cash investment. So the reality is that what we are arriving at is a question of personal choice.

 

And this is possibly where Bluetooth gains ground. DCC to a larger extent means opting for a certain manufacturers hardware. Yes there is stuff like railroad and co and JMRI and the like. But DCC itself requires you to make that initial choice. Bluetooth itself gives you a certain freedom. discussions about tactile response aside. Bluetooth potentially allows you to match your choice of control surface to your choice of app. Importantly if say three months down the line a new app comes along that is particularly appealing to you, then you are just looking at the cost of acquiring the App, not the purchase of a new hardware controller. To the best of my knowledge I can't just plug in an ECoS controller into my Lenz 100 power station. Notably if I invite a couple of friends around to run their own bluetooth chipped loco's on my bluetooth controlled layout, then so long as they bring their iPhone, iPad, Android phone or whatever device along, then integration of their loco's and importantly their hand controllers should be seamless (no re-addressing of loco's should there be a clash of numbering for one). Are current DCC hand throttles universal?

 

In all areas of technology, not just model railways, there are a plethora of standards all vying to be king of the hill. In my own industry the number of standards available for connection of digital audio is eye watering at times and making an informed choice when it comes to which standard to plumb for is daunting. But the key is that we have a choice. I have tried not to decry DCC (I own a lot of it) or criticise it's use. It works well and for many and if it puts a smile on their face and more power to their elbow for it. But for a new entrant to modelling or someone who wants to make the move away from conventional DC control but is a bit wary of the complexities of DCC, then Bluetooth has a lot to commend it.

 

I would agree that wifi would be a more "capacious" communication structure to use, but some of the criticisms levelled at bluetooth about available channels and interference could well be aimed at WiFi too.

 

As remarked it's all about choice and I for one am all for it.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Nile_Griffith

[Nile_Griffith]

Just to touch on (pardon the pun), the whole iPad, iPhone, Android touch screen control surface discussion and lack of tactility.

 

Below is a rather bad but hastily took snap of my iPad linked to a Yamaha MCL7 digital audio mixing console via WiFi. In a nutshell the free App that Yamaha supply allows me to control and adjust certain aspects of the mixing console just so long as I am connected via the wireless network. This means I can adjust desk settings from on stage or at various points around the auditorium.

 

However what I am driving at is that although agreed there is nothing quite like the feel of a fader or knob at your finger tips. From a professional standpoint (and after all it's where I earn my living) I don't and haven't felt that my ability to operate using the iPad interface is significantly compromised. Indeed I have had a couple of gigs where I've mixed the performance of the iPad as a whole (we had space limitations meaning I couldn't get the desk I was using at that time in the spot I wanted).

 

What makes the difference is how well the control App is written and the "surface" has been devised.

 

 

 

[Crosland]

And this is possibly where Bluetooth gains ground. DCC to a larger extent means opting for a certain manufacturers hardware. Yes there is stuff like railroad and co and JMRI and the like. But DCC itself requires you to make that initial choice. 

 

That's simply not true for DCC, and it has nothing to do with software. Decoders (loco or accessory) are interchangeable and always have been.

 

Even the older generation layout control busses such as XpressNet, LocoNet, S88 all have cross-manufacturer support as well as lots of open source hardware. Note that these are NOT part of DCC in the same way a Bluetooth scheme will not be.

 

Absent any agreed open standard, any Bluetooth system will only be as manufacturer independent as the manufacturer chooses to make it.

 

The real problem with Railcom, as I see it, is that it is patented technology and my understanding is that the newer developments are not covered by the original grant of a license to the NMRA.

[Ron Ron Ron]

The real problem with Railcom, as I see it, is that it is patented technology and my understanding is that the newer developments are not covered by the original grant of a license to the NMRA.

 

IIRC, Lenz said that the patents on RailCom were taken out as protection against potential claims that it infringed on other patents.

That sounds like, get your flag in the sand before anyone else does and sues you.

 

They have given the licences over to the NMRA for free though, for that body to issue licences as they see fit.

 

There's an NMRA reference to licensing of the original (basic) RailCom in S-9.3.2

 

"Portions of intellectual property needed to develop products that utilize this Standard have been licensed to the NMRA by Lenz GmbH under patents 6,494,410 and 6,853,312 and by Stan Ames under patent US 6,539,292 B1.

 

The NMRA grants a no‐cost sub‐license to use the technology covered by this intellectual property to any user for their personal non‐commercial use.

 

The NMRA will grant a no‐cost sub‐license for the use of this technology for any Manufacturer's DCC product that the NMRA certifies meets all the requirements contained within this STANDARD and has been granted a C&I Warrant by the NMRA."

 

 

The enhanced RailCom Plus is another matter though.

 

 

.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Ron Ron Ron

[Nile_Griffith]

That's simply not true for DCC, and it has nothing to do with software. Decoders (loco or accessory) are interchangeable and always have been.

 

Even the older generation layout control busses such as XpressNet, LocoNet, S88 all have cross-manufacturer support as well as lots of open source hardware. Note that these are NOT part of DCC in the same way a Bluetooth scheme will not be.

 

Absent any agreed open standard, any Bluetooth system will only be as manufacturer independent as the manufacturer chooses to make it.

 

The real problem with Railcom, as I see it, is that it is patented technology and my understanding is that the newer developments are not covered by the original grant of a license to the NMRA.

 

So can I plug a Rocco Multimaus handset into my Lenz system????

[Ron Ron Ron]

I agree with Nile, that Dave (Junctionmad) makes some very good points and observations, many of which I quite agree with.

 

Just a note to Dave.

I did not say that DCC was a legacy technology.

I might have worded it better, but I simply gave my opinion that many of the currently available DCC systems are legacy products, some of which have been in production for 15 to 20 years in pretty much the same form as when they were first released, albeit with minor revisions and occasional firmware upgrades along the way.

As such most don't lend themselves very well to some of the more recent developments in DCC such as RailCom for example and in some respects are positively archaic in terms of technology.

That's not a failing of DCC, but rather a failing, or a lack of willingness, or simply a lack of resources on the part of the particular manufacturers involved.

 

I'm personally very pro-DCC, but like Nile I see potential in direct wireless technology for model train control.

If something like the Bachmann/BlueRail Trains Bluetooth based system is able to offer a suitable level of functionality and usability, it has the potential to be a very easy way into Command Control for new entrants and converter's.

For many modellers, it's all they would ever need.

I'm reminded of that adage, "DCC can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be"?

Many users of DCC currently don't venture beyond the more basic operational aspects of driving trains and operating loco functions.

 

 

.

.

[Crosland]

So can I plug a Rocco Multimaus handset into my Lenz system????

 

Probably, but I don't know which Lenz system you have. Roco use XpressNet so you can certainly use Multimaus with some Lenz systems. as Google is your friend here.

 

Even of you can't, I didn't say compatibility was 100%, only that your assertion that you need to stick with one manufacturers hardware was wrong.

 

ZTC and Lenz hardware will play together via XpressNet, for example.

 

The Roco Z21 Black has XpressNet and Loconet and the data sheet clearly shows Lenz and Digitrax hardware being connected to it.

 

It is a long time since choosing DCC meant choosing a manufacturer.