rgmichel

I needed no excuse, but you are right, a bit of dreaming and imagination is necessary to do the trick.

O.S. Nock's book "GWR Stars, Castles & Kings, Part 2, 1930-1965" David and Charles Locomotive Monographs 1970, ISBN 0715347438 has a chapter 7 "Last work of the Stars". O.S.Nock records his footplate runs of the last work, but there are none further west than Exeter. There are quite a few pictures of Stars hauling "blood and custard" in that chapter. Wonderful book.

This is very true, and I could not possibly disagree, and as the one who started this thread I was interested in the potential of Bluetooth to open up advances in the modelling of trains. Often, if something is made easier, then it advances modelling because other things can be done that we gave up after hitting a brick wall somewhere. If dcc can be made easier through bluetooth control, making CV reading easier, locomotive control easier, etc, then we can move on to other things. One thing that comes to mind is easier or more realistic control of train operations, signaling, and so on. I am sure others might think of other issues that need attention that would advance our modelling.

Hmm.. Not many 2 year old children in your family circle, Ron? I can name quite a few 2-4 year olds who are quite firmly in the toy market and very enthusiastic about trains.... whether it is Thomas or Dinosaur Train. Its quite something to see a 2 year old slide together Bachmann's ez-track. It starts young and is the foundation of our hobby. I have heard this idea before; trying to separate the toy market from the adult end. Its just not possible. Its like saying that learning to read and write at age 4 is not the same as the great novelist at age 30! Whatever Bachmann can do at the young end is seminal for our hobby no matter which way you look at it. Oh yes, and I still have my Thomas books from the 1950s.

I agree. It would be great if Bachmann could sell trains cheaper to the very youngest end of our hobby. Unfortunately, if the track is plastic, it would not only wear out faster, then it would also be incompatible with dcc..... Does not sound like an upgrade path to me...

This is a comment I made, to which davepallant replied: Dave, are you misinterpreting the double negative in my suggestion that it would be a good thing to have a dcc-compatible system? It seems to me that its wonderful to have both the Bluetooth addressable locos already developed by Bachmann, together with Bluetooth addressable dcc-sound locos that appear to be under development. Such goodies are likely to encompasses anything that any of us are likely to want to do.

Two points about the Bachmann vid. First, it is "very easy" to control an existing dcc locomotive according to the Bachmann vid, and it will be done in the future. Second the CV control is in the iOS. I am happy. This means a lot of flexibility in the future.

I think that your comments are muddling up the iOS, Bluetooth and dcc concepts; notwithstanding that I agree there is little likelihood that Bachmann would decimate its dcc market. I don't believe I suggested that that that might be the case, although there was tinges of such a feeling in the ongoing discussion. There was also a feeling that Bluetooth may replace dcc, which is not the case, because it is a wireless communication protocol, not a protocol that controls model locomotives. When I said "as a group" I was merely trying to pull the discussion together, to prevent it wandering off into blind alleys. The fact is, there is room for a different communication protocol, as long as it maintains the ability to control our existing dcc locomotives. Some of the discussion implied that we would lose the dcc protocol, and I disagree this might happen. When I say "as a group" I am merely trying to elicit some response that Bluetooth as a protocol applied to model railways does not necessarily imply the demise of dcc. I think your comments, despite their face value, agree. So, "as a group", if we agree on this we have achieved something through discussing it in the first place.

I agree with Ravenser, above, as he is saying roughly the same thing as I said in the immediate prior post, but in a bit more detail. I believe that we should say as a group that we do not need or want a dcc-incompatible system. The discussion here has not thrown up any reason to scrap the dcc protocols, while acknowledging the open-source nature of Bluetooth and its ready availability on iOS systems. This means that we trust that Bachmann is likely making a step towards use of the latter, with a view to ongoing compatibility with the dcc protocol. The iOS approach should allow for more software variability and choices for control of dcc layouts; hopefully with easier programming of locomotives, and more intuitive control of layouts.

I am not sure about this statement. Proprietary implies closed and secret standards from one company, while the standards required for a dcc layout are open to everyone, internationally, to allow all the manufacturers to make things that will drive any locomotive made under these standards. Its the whole reason I can buy British outline OO locomotives, and buy dcc equipment in the USA that works with them. We should not accept Bluetooth as competing with dcc. Bluetooth is a wireless networking, communications, protocol that governs how devices talk to each other. Of course, it does not contain dcc protocols, but it could be interfaced to devices that do use dcc protocols. I am assuming Bachmann is presently using Bluetooth outside the dcc standards in their new product, but I do not know this. When I talked to their rep he seemed to imply that Bluetooth control of dcc locomotives is being worked on at Bachmann. If Bachmann is building something that is proprietary then this is a play to cut out dcc. This is not a good thing. If the Bluetooth technology is not used ultimately to control dcc locomotives, then it is likely a non-starter for me. We would have the long drawn out dc/dcc thing written again, as I said above. The software aspect and iOS control is a point of discussion because iOS devices have Bluetooth built in already, and has nothing do do with existing software that controls our dcc locomotives. Sure iOS software could replace our existing software for dcc control of locomotives, but this is not related directly to the Bluetooth protocol nor the dcc protocol. Its not really a core part of the present discussion.

I agree with everything said by 10000. I just worry that such a bluetooth sound locomotive cannot be made out of a dcc sound locomotive at reasonable cost, even though I can imagine lots of ways of doing it. Is the market for such modified locomotives big enough to design and sell conversion parts, sort of like we can convert a dc locomotive to dcc sound now? We know that present dcc sound has been expensive enough to justify the introduction of the abominable TTS sound! I think the market for such conversions is there. Maybe I will not survive this world long enough to see the demise of dcc sound, so it does not really matter! Now there is a way out...

I note that the cost of dcc on my side of the Atlantic is up to a factor of 2 lower, as I don't pay VAT at 20% and prices are generally lower here. It sounds as though there is potential for Bluetooth control to provide significant competition to dcc, which might lower prices for dcc, or obsolete dcc control over time.

Exactly. So, what is the point of bluetooth?

Actually, I want the Bluetooth to control the dcc locomotive. If the loco has sound, a significant investment, then it would be important to be able to control the sound functions, and also to reprogram the loco, or be able to control all the functions you would want to control. We can control many functions now with dcc, but with arcane difficulty compared to iOS control. Its not just a matter of running a bluetooth loco on a dcc layout. Also, why would you want to have both dcc and bluetooth control on the same layout? One would want to replace all the old-dcc control with Bluetooth surely? What's the point of Bluetooth if you don't do this?

I think this statement is clear from the Bachmann wording in their publicity. However, do you know whether or not it is likely to be practical/inexpensive to piggyback a bluetooth chipset to control a regular dcc loco, or a dcc loco with sound? If this can be done, is it likely to be impractical in some way or other? The only reason I ask this question is whether or not bluetooth control could be implemented on an existing dcc layout without obsoleting the locos and track configurations.

I agree. As I watch my 2-5 year-old grandchildren competently control a smartphone, whatever they are doing on there, I have no fears about Bluetooth control of toy trains in the future. Parents these days are not parking their kids in front of the TV all the time, they also park an iOS device in their hands.

I am not sure where we are in this discussion. In this thread, there has been a trend of various objections to various suggestions as to the significance of the Bachmann Bluetooth approach, but do we have a preferred direction? Is it best to think that computer control of dcc is preferable, like Hornby's system or various similar systems that have iOS devices hooked up? Do we merely think that Bluetooth is for the toy market and has nothing for the modellers' market? Does Bluetooth allow an interface between the toy market and the modellers market that may well benefit both? Is there an upgrade path from Bluetooth Toy trains to dcc modellers' trains?

I agree. Indeed, it remains a problem that there is a significant installed base of dcc. However, we can take heart in the almost infinite variety of possibilities. Hopefully, the manufacturers and hobbyists between them can come up with something useful.

I talked to the Bachmann rep at the Amherst show, and he said essentially the same things. The interpretation I understood was that the Bluetooth approach is for the "toy train" market for now. This takes advantage of iOS technology, and removes the obstacles of dcc technology which has not taken off for "toy trains".

Its a big advantage to do it this way, and its not limited to Bluetooth, as I am sure we all clear about, but I know from others' reactions to this approach in the past, putting a layout in the middle of a surround system is daunting for some. I think the problem is that if it is not done right, it will not sound right, whereas built-in locomotive sound intrinsically follows the locomotive about!!

In a sense, it has always been a bit of anachronism that we put the speaker and sound chip in every loco. The alternative, brought up by Nile_Griffith, is exemplified by the "soundtraxx" system, which puts the sound into surround sound speakers that can track a locomotive around the layout. I have never worked with such a system or seen it demonstrated, but it would allow bigger speakers to access the low notes of locomotives, as well as the library of sounds mentioned by Nile. On the other hand, to have each loco be self-contained sound-wise is conceptually easier, and avoids the need to be a A/V expert to apply the sound system. Now, if I could put my layout in exactly the right position w.r.t. my home theater speakers.... not sure the wife would want my layout in living room ... nix that idea. Well, its an exciting world... l luv the possibilities..

I am sorry to hear you have so much trouble with your computer. It is possible to find an Apple Clone, which will run the Apple OS, but Apple does not support the software. What fun commercial companies have competing with each other...! I agree with you on Bluetooth but it has the advantage that it has so much software support across platforms, and with a large number of developers. This focus of minds on one thing tends to benefit the technology. Whether this will benefit Railway Modelling is yet to be seen. I have been very surprised at how Bluetooth underwent an resurgence in recent years, although I think it started with smartphone earphones. As someone else said, it might make more sense to go with TCP/IP wireless technology, although that tends to be glitchy too.

Its a question of how you see the future of the Bluetooth technology. It could be in conjunction with or even in competition with dcc. It could go either way, or just fizzle out. I don't really think the Bluetooth discussion should be in isolation from dcc unless it becomes a real competitor. Its early days for that just now.

I was at the Amherst show, and saw the Bachmann demonstration. It was not having problems during the few minutes I was watching. I did not use my phone to try and disrupt their demo! Its a disappointing show, with more vendors, and fewer layouts than I would have liked to see. No British modelling presence at all.

I agree with this. To me the key is ease of use, but I always worry about new less expensive approaches losing me the features I had before. The market can be cruel.