Crosland

In what way is DCC proprietary? I don't see many open source bluetooth control systems for Model railways. The level of investment required for layout automation will vary little whether the commands are sent via the rails or through the air. The software is just as complex and the hardware required to instrument the layout will end up being just as complex and costly as it is today. That will explain why the European manufacturers have made little investment over the last few years then. You don't think manufacturers of bluetooth system will find a way to lock you in? I think you are being very naive. At the basic control level, DCC does not lock you in at all. Decoders are interchangeable and mix and match with any control system. It's only when you get to throttle busses and control busses that there is significant differentiataion. Even then, you are locked into a particular technology rather than a manufacturer. You can connect a computer to a DCC layout (direcct to the rails) for the same cost as a high end decoder. DCC control is then just "software" Andrew

I am somewhat sceptical about the low power claims. The electronics themselves (e.g. the processors used in smart phones) are always advancing in terms of lower power but when it comes to radio communications there are fundamental laws of physics, related to bandwidth and range, that cannot be circumvented (we aren't quite there yet with the processors). The lowest power bluetooth devices save power by transmitting very short packets and not transmitting continuously. A train control handset need to be "always on" sending a continuous stream of packets, and there will be little or no benefit in battery life compared to earlier Bluetooth or WiFi implementations. Andrew

How does Bluetooth use the allocated radio spectrum? Simply adding more dongles will not increase bandwidth if they are competing for the same spectrum. Andrew

Technically it would be quite easy to have a Bluetooth module drive an existing DCC decoder, but why bother? Half of the circuitry would effectively be redundant and you would need to find the space for two "decoders" in the loco. Andrew

Not neccessarily true. The sale of goods act trumps all manufacturer or retailer warranties. How long you get (up to 6 years) depends on the reasonable expectation of the products longevity. E.g. I expect my £100 Antex to last and I would certainly claim outside the normal "guarantee" period, except it's already well over 6 years old. For a sub £10 Aldi jobbie, expectations are obviously lower and may well have to rely on the retailers or manufacturers goodwill. Andrew

If space is at a premium you could stick tiny surface mount resistors to the caps and wire them with fine copper wire. The charge balancing current will be negligible. Andrew

The theory is correct but given the way some railway modellers ignore best practice in other areas (e.g. the comment "it works for ME!") ... Andrew

Did he say why they don't just use the connection to the PC rather than faffing with memory sticks? Andrew

Is this the same Black 5 kit sold by the association shop? Andrew

The hardware is a no-brainer to people designing this sort of thing, but simply adding a network port is completely useless unless the DCC kit runs an appropriate server to allow iThingies to connect. I doubt ZTC have even thought of this. With a USB connection the "PC" can be as simple and cheap as a Raspberry Pi running the WiThrottle server in JMRI, again assuming the USB port on the DCC kit talks a sensible protocol. Andrew

But is it supported by JMRI or rocrail or...? Andrew

The cost of the electronics in a command station (not counting colour screens and wifi) is peanuts compared to the asking price for the 611. The problem, as I see it, is custom manufacturing of the control knobs, and maybe the case, in relatively small quantities. Even the simple, off the shelf, plastic case for a SPROG is a considerable %age of the cost when the machining is accounted for Andrew

I use the tissue that Nigel Hunt wraps his etches in and add a drop of light oil (Braun shaver oil in my case) to the paper, to help prevent the solder flowing down the crank pin and soldering everything up solid. Andrew

I was listing those I believe to manufacture in the UK I am happy to be corrected, or widen the definition. Andrew

http://signalist.co.uk/ is another UK designer and manufacturer. Also http://www.cmlelectronics.co.uk/ and http://www.dcc4pc.co.uk/ Andrew

This came up on the MERG forum recently. The 6N137 is multi-source and is not obsolete. Farnell have plenty. It's only some particular Fairchild variants that are discontinued. Andrew

Please stop making that claim or at least qualify it. Andrew

I have made the roof detachable but it tends to detach itself at the moment. I need to rework the fixings. Here's a more recent pic with handrails and springs fitted and showing the roof trying to escape Andrew

Exhibit A... I used an extra long PCB spacer beneath the motor to keep the chassis nice and stiff, visible between the motor and gearbox. This has the added benefit that the blu-tac is squeezed in between the spacer and the motor and holds the motor in place. Andrew

As well as Phil's three/four technology based groups you should also consider the operational differences that mean different systems can tell you; - who is at a particular point (RFID, LISSY) - who is on a particular section (railcom, transponding?) - someone is at a particular point (magnetic, optical) - someone is in a section (block detectors) RFID is a little different as it can detect across multiple tracks at the same time giving a "who" is nearby. This can be a advantage or disadvantage. Software can (potentially at least) track the trains using simple "someone" single point detectors around the layout once the layout is calibrated so you only need to detect "who" at particular pinch points (or enter the information manually), so long as the hand of god does not intervene. Andrew

With all the superb pictures from the AGM I am feeling unworthy:) Here are a few pics of my best effort so far, Nigel Hunts 2-4-2T. Just waiting for the castings to be available from N Brass. The bits sticking out at the from will form the clams for the smokebox door. I may have departed slightly from the recommended order of construction I am very pleased with this kit and the chassis runs really well. I think this is down to the simpler 4-coupled mechanism (compared to my other efforts) and the radial trucks being lightly sprung, giving good pickup. Andrew

JMRI is open source software that runs on mainstream desktop OSs. It is not an "app". The apps such as Engine driver and WiThrottle are provided by third parties and do not use any manufacturer specific protocol to communicate to the core JMRI code. As with most open source software, features get added by someone who wants them. Clearly no one is currently interested in interfacing to the Z21 Andrew

If you go "there" you stand a good chance of getting the ear of the developers if the question is more than something basic. Here you will be relying mainly on users, who may not understand the subtleties. There's no reason you shouldn't set up a forum on RMWeb but I doubt it will ever offer the same level of expertise as jmri-users on Yahoo. Yahoo v Forum debates can get quite heated Andrew

Am I correct in thinking that the chassis assembly jigs have a fixed width central spacer, so uing thicker than intended frame material will increase the external width over the frames? Are they supplied as a set of two as shown in the shop photo, or does "each" really mean each? Andrew

On the subject of small drills can anyone explain the price difference for 0.3mm HSS bits between Chronos at 72p and Eileen's at £5.60? Is there really a vast difference in quality? Andrew