BlueRail Trains - Bluetooth Locomotive Control

[Ron Ron Ron]

Roco use XpressNet so you can certainly use Multimaus with some Lenz systems. 

 

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

 

Roco always refer to use of X-Bus, of which XpressNet is a later subset (v3 onwards or something?).

I've never worked out if the Roco MultiMaus and Z21 are using XpressNet (V3?) or an earlier version of X-Bus?

Does anyone know the answer to this?

 

 

.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Ron Ron Ron

[Nile_Griffith]

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.

 

 

 

I think Ron hits the nub of it. Yes DCC offers the ability to incorporate various forms of control and a degree of cross pollination between manufacturers equipment, but for the good majority of modellers this "capacity" requires a knowledge base and skill set that may well be beyond their capabilities or enthusiasm for. Judging by a lot of the question and queries that get posted on the forum about DCC I'd agree with Ron that the majority of users possibly venture no further than tweaking a few CV's. 

 

So a control platform that offers owners operational potential, but minimises the requirement on the user to have to delve into the complexities, In my book can't be a bad thing. 

 

 

.

.

[rgmichel]

So a control platform that offers owners operational potential, but minimises the requirement on the user to have to delve into the complexities, In my book can't be a bad thing. 

 

Yes, good point, dcc does not have a good user interface, so many don't go past driving a couple of locos.  Bluetooth is only a communications protocol, but if it provides an entry into a user interface that lets the full potential of dcc flower, then it might be an excellent avenue to explore.   Bluetooth does not provide many other advantages, as explained in great detail above, so it will come down to how good an interface the manufacturers design.  How easy will it be to build an interesting layout?  There are no answers yet, as its just starting.

[Nile_Griffith]

Yes, good point, dcc does not have a good user interface, so many don't go past driving a couple of locos.  Bluetooth is only a communications protocol, but if it provides an entry into a user interface that lets the full potential of dcc flower, then it might be an excellent avenue to explore.   Bluetooth does not provide many other advantages, as explained in great detail above, so it will come down to how good an interface the manufacturers design.  How easy will it be to build an interesting layout?  There are no answers yet, as its just starting.

Absolutely!!! At the moment our discussions are all very much hypothetical and rely very much on a degree of crystal ball gazing. But it's exciting to think that we could potentially have an alternative control platform.

[Junctionmad]

It's worth pointing out that today you can use smartphone based throttles on a DCC system via JMRI and interface that to many DCC controllers out there. It works well too. This is an open published ( albeit badly documented ) protocol and anyone can write throttle apps for it.

 

I can see Bluetooth, or maybe wifi, having a niche market in the toy train end of the business, but to suggest Bluetooth could be used to control a large number of simultaneous channels ( devices , ie locos, points , signals , accessories ) without further electronic concentrators is to assign a complexity to Bluetooth that doesn't exist.

 

There are further issues with cab to cab handover , ( stealing and sharing ) and how you integrate things like track occupancy detection, layout status etc ( since you have no centralised control )

 

Bluetooth is attractive to companies with no established DCC system investment as it offers them a way to offer very entry level cab control without having to compete against existing DCC suppliers. The use of an iPhone as a throttle facilitates this low cost model.

 

It's worth noting that you can buy a SPROG DCC controller very cheaply , ( as cheap as a decent layout supply ) , and hook it to a readily available laptop ( or via free JMRI to an iPhone ) hence building a very cheap system. ( I will accept its not intuitive for outright beginners )

 

There is much wrong with DCC, but as a layout cab control system it can act as a basic entry level , right up to very large complex layouts, something that Bluetooth( direct throttle to loco systems ) cannot technically handle.

 

Note that there is no patent issue over railcom. Railcom plus is a different issue. The main issue with railcom was Digitraks decision to go with its own proprietary transponding system , rendering railcom as primarily a European system. I have a railcom solution and it does what it says on the tin , but in reality unless you have certain layout automation desires , you don't need bi directional communications ( with the exception of decoder programming )

 

Bluetooth will be a niche entry level solution and will remain so, in my opinion. This will be especially true if there is no open source or standards applied. At present the loco command interface over Bluetooth is either open or standardised. ( merely making a Bluetooth connection is not the same thing )

 

There is by the way , some advantages to having a high speed data link to the decider ( by whatever means ) this would allow programming decders , especially sound decoders , to be completed quickly and directly from a PC/ smart device. Hence a DCC deoder with integrated Bluetooth would actually be quite useful.

 

Dave

Edited January 15, 2016 by Junctionmad

[Crosland]

Yes, good point, dcc does not have a good user interface, so many don't go past driving a couple of locos. 

 

If the customer demand is there, there is no reason why a DCC system should not have a better interface. What suits one person, will not suit everyone, however. Should it be based on a driving desk like ZTC or on a smart phone style handset?

 

How do you actually drive more than a couple of locos anyway. You either set them going roundy-roundy chasing their own tails, in which case you may as well use DC, or you need automation, which is a completely different subject.

[Nearholmer]

"Bluetooth will be a niche entry level solution and will remain so, in my opinion. This will be especially true if there is no open source or standards applied. At present the loco command interface over Bluetooth is either open or standardised. ( merely making a Bluetooth connection is not the same thing ) "

 

Interestingly, in another thread here a (young, I sense) guy is talking about how he is busily trying to sort-out direct-to-loco-control over Bluetooth, and has hit this point in the development process where he needs to either devise the command/feedback protocol to use over the link, or unpack something pre-existing and adapt/adopt that.

 

My gut feel is that very soon indeed, if it hasn't been done already, an amateur will devise a protocol to message between an app on a phone and a cheap, proprietary processor on the loco (or next to the point actuator), using bluetooth as the link, then open-source it.

 

At which point, DCC as we know it will look very vulnerable indeed.

 

But, what do I know? Some of my locos are clockwork!

 

Kevin

[davetheroad]

How do you define the upper limits of the 'toy end' of the market? Is a double track 16' x 7' roundy-roundy with a branch line, loco shed and small goods yard at the toy end of the market? I have such a layout with approaching 30 locos all on radio control using battery power and it works well for me.

 

Cab handover is possible as long as you stop the loco first, this is prototypical I think, at least for steam locos. There are options for controlling up to 45 accessories such as points, signals (with bounce) etc if you want to add the complexity of a multplexor, or just use a single 'throttle' for up to 7 devices. I use hand of god for my points but if I wanted remote control I would probably opt for wire in tube or similar, or electrically radio controlled servos or a simple radio controlled peco point motor.

 

The Deltang system I use is based on the world wide 2.4Ghz radio controlled protocols. Basically you take a model plane control system and produce a train variant. This IMO was a good business decision as far as investment was concerned as Deltang did not have to re-invent anything and had considerable experience with planes. You can even control a loco with a plane throttle!. It is not propriety as all the 'throttle' is doing is transmitting its ID and the values of several different channels. The receiver interprets those values and controls the loco. The Apple/Android app for bluetooth removes the need for any throttle hardware which is potentially even better but the problem may be that the receiver may be a propriety device and the control protocols are not universal.

 

Maybe someone should develop an app that transmits DCC commands and a receiver that takes power from whatever source and uses those commands to deliver to an existing DCC decoder, eliminating the need for base stations and re-chipping locos!.

[Nile_Griffith]

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record can I re-iterate whats known about the Bachmann/BlueRail offering. BlueRail have made much about their desire for other manufacturers and developers to make use of their code. That at present their deal to supply lies with Bachmann solely. In a nutshell that means we won't be seeing BlueRail bluetooth de-coder chips in new Hornby, Heljan or Dapol loco's on the shelf. That doesn't mean they can't be fitted to those models or indeed that Heljan, Hornby et al can not commission production of their own bluetooth decoders that follow the same BlueRail protocol. So as it stands at the moment that all sound fairly open to me. As we see with DCC both Hornby and Bachmann sell their own branded decoders and control systems with little attempt on their part to try and coral purchasers to their own proprietary equipment. So it would be fair to assume that should Hornby see a significant uptake of a Bluetooth based de-coder they would join in too.

 

Much has been said about DCC's ability to use smartphones as hardware throttles. What this statement overlooks is that as far as Bluerail is concerned a decoder, smartphone/device and a basic power supply is a complete working system. At present I haven't seen Apple, Samsung, LG, Haewii and others offering Railcom, xpressnet or whatever as a hardware option on their phones or tablets.

 

The technical elite seem to take great delight in highlighting how a fully developed DCC system is capable of a plethora of control opportunities. It is, I know, I've investigated  the various and at times bewildering options available. However not every model railway enthusiast is seeking his "Advanced Technologist" badge. Bluetooth potentially (and once again at risk of sounding like a cracked record) gazing into a crystal ball. has the ability to provide users with a much simplified and "wash and go" approach to cab and layout operation. What will make this potential come to light are those App developers who see both the opportunity and return on investment. As devising, writing and creating Apps is less reliant on investment in bespoke hardware, it is likely that we may well see a good number of App developers entering the market should uptake of Bluetooth decoders happen.

 

As for this notion that Bluetooth is somehow stunted or limited by comparison to DCC I'm not quite sure where that comes from. At present we are talking about one App that is designed to work with a smartphone or tablet. The MacBook I am writing this reply on has Bluetooth capability as do quite a few laptops out there. So it's not beyond the wit of man to see how a developer could create control software for full blown computers also.

 

At present I can stream video at 2meg from my iPhone to my Macbook via Bluetooth. My iPhone is capable of linking to my cars phone and media system via bluetooth, reading texts, making voice calls and streaming audio also. As pointed out earlier by Crosland. How do the majority of hobbyists actually drive more than a handful of locos and operate more than a dozen or so points on their layout simultaneously at any one time??? As much as I value contributions to the discussion from all sides it is I feel a good idea to keep a handle on what it is that the majority of people who enjoy the hobby are realistically looking for. Rather than solely basing opinions on esoteric and imaginary layouts that would possibly be never built or worse still in defence of that "Advanced technologist" badge I mentioned earlier.

[Nearholmer]

Isn't what we need a single, ideally open-source, protocol for use in the controller ('phone or anything else) and the processor under control (on board loco, near a set of points, etc), and is suitable for transport over a wide variety of shortish-range radio formats (2.4GHz FHSS; bluetooth etc)?

 

Once that exists (it might already, for all I know), any amount of fancy software to create super-duper interface formats can be added at the controller.

 

Am I off at the wrong angle?

 

Kevin

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Isn't what we need a single, ideally open-source, protocol for use in the controller ('phone or anything else) and the processor under control (on board loco, near a set of points, etc), and is suitable for transport over a wide variety of shortish-range radio formats (2.4GHz FHSS; bluetooth etc)?...

 

 But that is typically an outcome of a shower of different approaches which are either; proposed but never available, get as far as beta test, or achieve some real customer uptake. Then there's a shake out mediated by some unanticipated factor(s), and the winner emerges. Much whining from the early adopters of the wrong pony, who will still be claiming in 2065 that the market was misled.

Edited January 15, 2016 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[Nearholmer]

34C

 

Ah, yes, what I believe technology consultants call the FATAC or "f*****g annoying to all concerned" phase.

 

Will be interesting to see whether, this time round, it gets short-circuited by the adoption to the RM-application of an already well-proven protocol from a similar-enough application, or cut-short by a clever youngster "going open" with something developed in a back bedroom.

 

Fascinating, and all good fun. Provided one doesn't spend any money on any RM "tech" during the FATAC phase, 'cos any 'current generation' will be dead-meat soon, and whatever 'next generation' one buys, it will be of the kind that doesn't prevail.

 

Right. Let's get the keys to the clockwork engines out.

 

K

Edited January 15, 2016 by Nearholmer

[davetheroad]

34C

 

Ah, yes, what I believe technology consultants call the FATAC or "f*****g annoying to all concerned" phase.

 

Will be interesting to see whether, this time round, it gets short-circuited by the adoption to the RM-application of an already well-proven protocol from a similar-enough application, or cut-short by a clever youngster "going open" with something developed in a back bedroom.

 

Fascinating, and all good fun. Provided one doesn't spend any money on any RM "tech" during the FATAC phase, 'cos any 'current generation' will be dead-meat soon, and whatever 'next generation' one buys, it will be of the kind that doesn't prevail.

 

Right. Let's get the keys to the clockwork engines out.

 

K

For me it does not really matter which system 'wins' if my system is delivering what I want. This is how it is, if my system choice ceases to be available can still run trains for years especially as I have stockpiled a few 'spares'. I could even buy the transmitter core including software for £12 and source all the other components from my friendly online electronics retailer.Then I can have the option of adopting another system for additional locomotives, all of which will run happily together on the same track, as long as I don't want to consist them. This would work for bluetooth as well, I could run a couple of those locos on my layout which uses the 2.4Ghz spread spectrum technology. The one problem appears to be saturation of the 2.4ghz band and that only at large consumer shows. Apart from this software driven radio control systems seem to be more flexible as you have no need to put all your eggs in one basket hardware wise.

Edited January 15, 2016 by davetheroad

[Junctionmad]

well I suppose we can go round and back discussing various aspects of a hypothetical bluetooth cab control system.  We havent really seen anything yet.

 

it should still be pointed out that even an average layout will have to wired up as for DCC to enable track powered bluetooth to work, that means plenty of additional wiring 

 

on the issue of pairing , in practice with Bluetooth and the current protocol stacks in smartphones, this means you have a pairing and connect and disconnect time.  I dont see how that will be over come as you need to switch from controlling one loco  to another and then say switch to 5, 10 or 15 points and signals. 

 

Ive done a fair bit of bluetooth development and I dont really see how some of the limitations are going to be over come with the present  smartphone bluetooth stacks 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Junctionmad

[Grovenor]

 

Maybe someone should develop an app that transmits DCC commands and a receiver that takes power from whatever source and uses those commands to deliver to an existing DCC decoder, eliminating the need for base stations and re-chipping locos!.

Looking at the Bluerail website, they seem to have exactly that under development.

The protocol for the control to train direction is already defined for DCC. there seems no benefit in changing it. The protocol for the feedback direction is the one that needs to be agreed.

Regards

[Nile_Griffith]

Isn't what we need a single, ideally open-source, protocol for use in the controller ('phone or anything else) and the processor under control (on board loco, near a set of points, etc), and is suitable for transport over a wide variety of shortish-range radio formats (2.4GHz FHSS; bluetooth etc)?

 

Once that exists (it might already, for all I know), any amount of fancy software to create super-duper interface formats can be added at the controller.

 

Am I off at the wrong angle?

 

Kevin

 

I think that up until relatively recently, we haven't had that one piece of manufactured tech that has made itself financially attractive to other tech manufacturers to integrate with their own products. We look at the iPhone and tend to think of the hardware side of things when we appreciate it's impact upon our modern day lives. But one aspect that is particularly overlooked has been the creation of a whole "App" industry. I work within engineering for TV and the live events industry and we are seeing that nearly any new piece of kit brought onto the market that is capable of being networked or connected digitally, is being released with some sort of smart device App being provided by its manufacturer in support of it (whether the App actually provides worthwhile functionality or not!!!!). My own iPad has App's that allow me to control or interrogate sound mixing consoles, vision mixers, radio microphones, hard disk recorders and all sorts of other stuff. Manufacturers have become aware that the smartphone/tablet has become the remote control device of choice for purchasers and users of high end and not so quite high end equipment. In fact it's becoming a market expectation.

 

Way back when, the production of some kind of hardware remote would have been a hard won financial decision. The cost of research and development measured against a customer bases appetite to purchase. Indeed we have arrived at a situation where a particular piece of equipment is being judged as much by the functionality of its associated "App" as the functionality of it's own hardware. There are even those manufacturers who see the financial benefits to reducing the price of their own goods by doing away with factory made hardware buttons and switches and selling a "black box" solution that is dependent upon the customers own smart device or laptop for its control surface.

 

The smart device is the first time that we have seen a pice of tech that has provided a sufficient incentive to second party manufacturers to integrate into their own product portfolio's. With this kind of commercial imperative it further engenders the need for a common open source protocol.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Nile_Griffith

[Nearholmer]

Niles

 

Pretty much exactly where I was coming from.

 

I'm not exactly youthful, and from an RM perspective I'm deeply into "retro-tech", but through a combination of my work, which touches on some very-un-retro-tech, and simply observing the wider world, it seems pretty clear to me that things are going to be rather different "this time round" with RM control.

 

Kevin

[Ron Ron Ron]

.....on the issue of pairing , in practice with Bluetooth and the current protocol stacks in smartphones, this means you have a pairing and connect and disconnect time.  

I dont see how that will be over come as you need to switch from controlling one loco  to another and then say switch to 5, 10 or 15 points and signals. 

 

Ive done a fair bit of bluetooth development and I dont really see how some of the limitations are going to be over come with the present  smartphone bluetooth stacks 

 

I'm curious about this.

If I may ask Dave, has your involvement with Bluetooth development included work on Bluetooth Smart (aka Bluetooth LE)?

 

I was under the impression that this latest iteration of Bluetooth, with its different system architecture, could handle multiple connections simultaneously?

In one of the BlueRail Trains' videos, they operate 3 locos in very rapid succession.

I'm interested in what the actual limitations are with BLE, as I've also read elsewhere that multi-connections can run simultaneously.

I wonder if you could give us some insight into this?

 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Ron Ron Ron

[farren]

well

 

it should still be pointed out that even an average

 

on the issue of pairing , in practice with Bluetooth and the current protocol stacks in smartphones, this means you have a pairing and connect and disconnect time.  I dont see how that will be over come as you need to switch from controlling one loco  to another and then say switch to 5, 10 or 15 points and signals. 

 

Ive done a fair bit of bluetooth development and I dont really see how some of the limitations are going to be over come with the present  smartphone bluetooth stacks

 

Don't know about most people but how much bluetooth kit do people have laying around in cupboards. I have a laptop plus a old notebook and two phones all in working order plus the new phone on contract. This would give the kit a new lease of life. Not wanting to teach people more technically knowledgeable then me to suck eggs but being able to have kit to have multiple drivers signal operators etc for nothing except for charging old retired electronic kit. must be a mark in the favour of Bluetooth.

[NoggintheNog]

So the Bachmann locos are now out in the shops in the US.

 

Here's a review, at one point he has two locos connected simultaneously and can switch between them with the app, so multi connection is possible.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGKylokLBcI

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by NoggintheNog

[davetheroad]

That video is impressive. I especially liked the simplicity of setup and operation. What is needed now is an Android App.. If a loco is not too expensive and available in the UK I might well try one!

 

Thinks - that would mean adding back DC on part of my layout as I have no wiring at all at present but still have a Gaugemaster controller somewhere!

[davetheroad]

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

 

This is also impressive! I wonder how cheap Android devices with suitable bluetooth can be? Maybe a separate device for each loco!.If you only have 3 or 4 locos 'on' at the same time it might be doable?

[jprampolla]

Hi Folks,

 

I have really enjoyed all the ideas and observations shared here!

 

 I feel that the Bluetooth control from Bachmann by BlueRail would most likely appeal to non-model railroaders who set up a train at Christmas, or any temporary layout situation for the non-hobbyist.  I don't have any experience with DCC, but I don't think there is any risk of Bluetooth replacing it in the short term.  If you have something that works and you have all the control features you'd like, why would you change it?  I think that it will give the O gauge 3 rail 'command control' systems from Lionel and MTH a run for their money.  I am looking for the BlueRail boards to be priced at about the same as DCC boards (wishful thinking).  I intend to use the first stand-alone HO boards for my O gauge 3 rail handcars and a small O gauge locomotive.  Since these smaller motorized items don't pull more than 0.5 amp, these first boards would work for me, but I'd need the Android version of the app.  BlueRail has suggested that the boards might cost $75, and that was disappointing for me.  Time will tell.

 

Take care, Joe.

[jprampolla]

Hi Folks,

 

I just saw this on YouTube:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxUr8DidhZs&feature=player_detailpage

 

Aside from the creepy hands, this is an interesting system.  I don't know how this fits into the patent issues BlueRail might face.  Anyway, seems like a nice system for the novice.

 

Take care, Joe.

[rgmichel]

 

I just saw this on YouTube:

Interesting.  I bought an early Lego train set for my kids in the 1980s.  It had a battery box wagon to power the locomotive, and an on off switch.  The battery box had contacts that gave out after a few years.  Big improvement with Bluetooth control.  We have come a long way.  Not sure this alters the discussion here except to indicate that there is a universality to Bluetooth control that is hard to deny.

Edited January 19, 2016 by rgmichel