BlueRail Trains - Bluetooth Locomotive Control

[Ravenser]

The alleged cost of DCC hardware, specifically systems, is a red herring . Whatever used to be the case , DCC systems are now available at moderate prices, and spread across an entire layout the cost is modest. The real expenditure with DCC is the decoders - and an extra fiver on the cost of a Bluetooth decoder over and above a reasonable DCC decoder will rapidly wipe out any saving on the control equipment

 

To quote specifics, the Hornby website gives a price for the elink+Railmaster : £84.99. That is also the current list price for Gaugemaster's 100M DC controller (according to the back cover of this month's RM) When I got my 100M twenty years ago, it cost £45 - and the then price for the full Lenz system was £200. The elink will support up to 8 smartphones as controllers. Meanwhile Digitrains are selling the NCE Powercab for £136

 

I can see an approach to digital control that involves using Bluetooth to communicate directly with a DCC decoder in the loco, rather than sending the control signal superimposed on the track power. This would mean decoders that are backwards compatible - ie can run as conventional DCC decoders on a conventional DCC layout.

 

However that does not seem to be what Bachmann as demonstrating . They appear to be demonstrating a control protocol completely outside DCC and incompatible with it - eg the settings are stored on the smartphone and not in the decoder, which raises huge problems in the context of an exhibition layout . If you place your Bluetooth loco on a conventional DCC layout , in the absence of your own smartphone - it won't run . And presumably likewise on DC. Place a loco with a DCC decoder in it on a DC layout, and it will run  , unless you've deliberately disabled that within the decoder

 

I have big doubts when it's suggested this non-DCC control protocol , carried on Bluetooth and presumably proprietary and not open , renders DCC obsolete and will replace it. DCC here means the NMRA specified control signal protocol between the digital system and the loco decoder

 

There should be no great difficulty in producing decoders that can support multiple protocols - quite a few European decoders support both DCC and the Maerklin/Motorola system. But again that doesn't seem to be what Bachmann are demonstrating.

 

The system architecture for future DCC is up for grabs and smartphones and software do seem to be the way it's going. But an attempt to replace the NMRA/MOROP DCC control signal protocol with the proprietary protocol Bachmann are demonstrating , on an incompatible basis, doesn't seem to me to be a good way forward 

[rgmichel]

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.

[Mike Storey]

I'm not aware of any of the smaller gauges having an availability of model steam loco's that actually work with prototypical steam engines or for that matter diesel engines. I guess by your observation then the only true railway modelling is pursued by those who model overhead line layouts who in turn derive power via the wires.

 

Our particular hobby is by it's own purpose, the pursuit of compromise and adaptation so as to realise an image of something that interests us and that we can invest something of ourselves in. As for chasing some kind of modelling Nirvana. If honest i have better things to do with my time.

 

You have unfortunately chosen a completely nutty response, which does not match the point made. I think we can agree to disagree, as your and my understanding of railway modelling clearly diverged many electrons ago. I really don't understand much of the gobbledygook being spouted about yet more new technology, experience of which I can only say is frustratingly prone to going wrong without a hen's teeth chance of working out how to fix it, without another person, versed in gobbledygook, knowing how (and charging many sovs to do it).

 

What I would ask you, and others purporting to announce this as the only sensible way forward, is to acknowledge the huge numbers of Luddites like me, who form the majority of the hobby at present. I went onto DCC only when someone started to explain it in plain english, and I am now doing the same with servos. If little Pete or Petra can be encouraged into the hobby via such new technologies, absolutely fine, but it will be Dad (or Mum), or even more likely Grandad/ma, they turn to when it all goes t1ts up (as they are used to doing already, at skool with teecha). OMG. WTF.....

[Glorious NSE]

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 don't see the need for anyone to do any such thing "as a group" - Bachmann have a good business selling DCC and DCC compatible products, and haven't given the slightest suggestion that they intend to "swap" or cease producing stuff for DCC.

 

IOS for DCC is already widely available, so i'm not sure that Bachmann need to go and invent it, and anyway that would defeat the object for them of this being cheaply included in train sets...

[rgmichel]

I don't see the need for anyone to do any such thing "as a group" - Bachmann have a good business selling DCC and DCC compatible products, and haven't given the slightest suggestion that they intend to "swap" or cease producing stuff for DCC.

 

IOS for DCC is already widely available, so i'm not sure that Bachmann need to go and invent it, and anyway that would defeat the object for them of this being cheaply included in train sets...

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.

Edited February 8, 2015 by rgmichel

[Nile_Griffith]

 

What I would ask you, and others purporting to announce this as the only sensible way forward, is to acknowledge the huge numbers of Luddites like me, who form the majority of the hobby at present. I went onto DCC only when someone started to explain it in plain english, and I am now doing the same with servos. If little Pete or Petra can be encouraged into the hobby via such new technologies, absolutely fine, but it will be Dad (or Mum), or even more likely Grandad/ma, they turn to when it all goes t1ts up (as they are used to doing already, at skool with teecha). OMG. WTF.....

 

Not sure that in any of my posts that I lauded the use of Bluetooth as the only sensible way forward. What I did do was explain my own view that the use of the protocol and that demonstrated by Bluerails forthcoming product offered significant improvements in both cost, flexibility and overall potential to those currently offered by DCC. I certainly haven't criticised those who continue to model using DCC control and although I stated that I shall on availability of suitable Bluetooth based products look to sell on my own DCC equipment. I didn't recommend or suggest that anyone else followed the same course.

 

In fact in your post which I replied to. You asked which locomotives in reality used iPads or iPhones for their own operation or which part of the railway system used such methods. Suggesting that the you prefer to model the grit and grime of the railways and replicate the rudimentary control of locomotives. My remark as to the unavailability of miniaturised steam or diesel loco's was to draw attention to the fact that any kind of modelled reality is immediately a compromise in terms of materials and facilities (unless of course your modelling in the 12 inch to the foot scale).

 

The fact that a number of modellers subscribe to.... and to quote a line from a well known Genesis track...... "I know what I like and I like what I know" mentality, is fine and dandy by me. It's a pass time a matter or personal choice (put in the words of a late friend of mine.... and sorry if this may offend..... It's not a cure for cancer). However I do take exception when self confessed luddites feel that they can express an opinion to the outcome of the use of something they have already declared a lack of knowledge or interest in.

[Nile_Griffith]

The alleged cost of DCC hardware, specifically systems, is a red herring . Whatever used to be the case , DCC systems are now available at moderate prices, and spread across an entire layout the cost is modest. The real expenditure with DCC is the decoders - and an extra fiver on the cost of a Bluetooth decoder over and above a reasonable DCC decoder will rapidly wipe out any saving on the control equipment

 

To quote specifics, the Hornby website gives a price for the elink+Railmaster : £84.99. That is also the current list price for Gaugemaster's 100M DC controller (according to the back cover of this month's RM) When I got my 100M twenty years ago, it cost £45 - and the then price for the full Lenz system was £200. The elink will support up to 8 smartphones as controllers. Meanwhile Digitrains are selling the NCE Powercab for £136

 

I can see an approach to digital control that involves using Bluetooth to communicate directly with a DCC decoder in the loco, rather than sending the control signal superimposed on the track power. This would mean decoders that are backwards compatible - ie can run as conventional DCC decoders on a conventional DCC layout.

 

However that does not seem to be what Bachmann as demonstrating . They appear to be demonstrating a control protocol completely outside DCC and incompatible with it - eg the settings are stored on the smartphone and not in the decoder, which raises huge problems in the context of an exhibition layout . If you place your Bluetooth loco on a conventional DCC layout , in the absence of your own smartphone - it won't run . And presumably likewise on DC. Place a loco with a DCC decoder in it on a DC layout, and it will run  , unless you've deliberately disabled that within the decoder

 

I have big doubts when it's suggested this non-DCC control protocol , carried on Bluetooth and presumably proprietary and not open , renders DCC obsolete and will replace it. DCC here means the NMRA specified control signal protocol between the digital system and the loco decoder

 

There should be no great difficulty in producing decoders that can support multiple protocols - quite a few European decoders support both DCC and the Maerklin/Motorola system. But again that doesn't seem to be what Bachmann are demonstrating.

 

The system architecture for future DCC is up for grabs and smartphones and software do seem to be the way it's going. But an attempt to replace the NMRA/MOROP DCC control signal protocol with the proprietary protocol Bachmann are demonstrating , on an incompatible basis, doesn't seem to me to be a good way forward 

 

 

Not sure that the DCC cost is a complete red herring. In the BlueRail example and I am using this as at the moment as it's the first Bluetooth based system from a lead manufacturer we are seeing. One Bluerail fitted loco requires in order to run. A device such as an iOS (but eventually Android) Smartphone and a supplied track voltage of some 12v or so. To achieve the same control options (wireless) with One DCC Loco requires. A DCC system, System interface and Wifi-Router. As mentioned the Hornby system possibly comes in at the cheaper end, add a half decent wifi router to that and you possibly have a setup cost of around £110. Go with some of the more robust DCC systems and it become more expensive. Admittedly with the Bluetooth option you have to buy you an iPhone/Android phone. From a cash utilisation point of view. I'm buying or have bought my iPhone as a phone/PDA, The fact that I could potentially use it for control of my layout (and a few other things I own) realistically means that I'm saving a hundred quid on buying the Hornby system. I'm also running a much more simplified hardware setup. Phone talks to Loco and Loco talks to phone. Dependent on the acquired software  or App,the user interface should be much more simplistic and those dratted CV's should be a thing of the past.

 

I'm also a bit confused with this hang up that people have about NMRA compliance in Bluetooth protocol control chips. The NMRA DCC protocol is created for a unified implementation of DCC equipment across all manufacturers. What is needed is a similarly unified protocol for devices using "Bluetooth" whether this standard is originated by the NMRA, Bachmann or becomes known as the RMWeb bluetooth protocol. what is needed is that in further any manufacturer producing a control chip utilising Bluetooth woks to a standard transmitted language and on board chipset. An NMRA DCC chip outputs voltages to the model loco's motor and lights, via it's NEM socket. In the case of sound chips they output an analogue audio signal...... There is no particular digital information involved in those signals. Similarly Bluerail's chip will output a prescribed voltage to the model loco's motor and lights. Potential new manufacturers of Bluetooth enabled chips may well output sound to a loco mounted speaker. These again are analogue voltages. So this notion that there has to be some kind of NMRA compliance is muddying the water. What there does need to be in place, is that Bluetooth has it's own communications standard that it observed by all manufacturers of equipment and the developers who create software for it. As a Bluetooth loco placed on a DCC track is only ever going to use the voltage for propulsion. The imposed digital information is redundant. So therefore any DCC control to a Bluetooth loco will be from the DCC power station via some computing interface, software and ultimately transmitted via Bluetooth. Any non-confomities of language between NMRA DCC and a Bluetooth standard would and could be handled by the software.

 

As for cost. I don't really predict that a Bluetooth control chip should exceed the cost of a similarly specified DCC one. Taking into account the market opportunity and demand for Bluetooth chips globally compared to the market demand for DCC components I don't see that price point will be different. It may well be that some DCC manufacturers design and make available a Bluetooth piggy back chip for those people who have made the investment in DCC sound chips. As for storing Loco variables to the controlling smartphone rather than the loco. I don't see this as the logical route for manufacturers to follow. In other areas where this kind of tech is used (not just model trains) device specific data or profiles are stored with the device. For example. A fitness monitor requiring personal details about age, height weight etc. Has such details stored within it's device. This allows for someone who has more than one type of smart device i.e. a smartphone and a tablet. To interrogate the data within the paired fitness device without each smart device having to be loaded with the persons physical information.

 

What will influence the debate greatly is the availability of control software. As I've mentioned previously. To my mind Bluetooths significant advantage is its direct connection to software driven computing devices and  it's 2 way communication platform. If software developers start making the most of this, then we might reasonably expect to see some very interesting and imaginative layout control solutions come to market. If Software developers choose to ignore the market then it really will become a choice of which standard to go for on entry. For those with existing DCC systems the incentive to move standards will be very little, those coming into the hobby or looking to move away from DC control. Bluetooth with it's utilisation of an already owned smart device may well be the attractive offering on a set up cost basis.

 

My own personal point of view over the use of Bluetooth is that of potential. The fact that using such a platform brings railway modelling for those of us who are not that IT savvy, closer to the easier use of available technologies. There are some quite exciting products out there that use RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) these bits of tech could be quite easily integrated into a Bluetooth communication strategy for a layout. This RFID technology could be used to reasonably accurately determine a Loco, or even a piece of rolling stocks position on a layout and for a host controlling software to make use of that information. I think most modellers can see the potential in that.

[Crosland]

What will influence the debate greatly is the availability of control software. As I've mentioned previously. To my mind Bluetooths significant advantage is its direct connection to software driven computing devices and  it's 2 way communication platform. If software developers start making the most of this, then we might reasonably expect to see some very interesting and imaginative layout control solutions come to market.

 

There is no advantage over DCC. DCC already has "direct connection to software driven computing devices". There are already a number of software packages from free open source to closed, proprietary and expensive. I know of, probably half a dozen, home brew systems connecting computers directly to the layout.

 

The real issues for layout automation, regardless of the transmission medium is instrumenting the layout, designing the panels, signalling logic and interlocking, etc. Merely switching to Bluetooth solves none of this.

 

This RFID technology could be used to reasonably accurately determine a Loco

Already done for a number of layout control systems. Note I don't say DCC as this is outside the core scope of DCC

 

I'm not against using Bluetooth (or IR or Wifi or ...) but lets be honest about what it brings to the party.

 

Andrew

Edited February 8, 2015 by Crosland

[Ravenser]

 

As a Bluetooth loco placed on a DCC track is only ever going to use the voltage for propulsion. The imposed digital information is redundant. So therefore any DCC control to a Bluetooth loco will be from the DCC power station via some computing interface, software and ultimately transmitted via Bluetooth.

 

 

Err no. The Bluetooth fitted loco is still tethered to its own smartphone. If that smartphone is not around to operate it (say the loco owner is away from the layout on a break , and using his mobile for other purposes ) the loco is inoperable. That rules out this Bluerail system for any loco that may ever operate on an exhibition layout for starters - and in the hobby in Britain ,  dominated by the exhibition circuit, that's a big restriction

 

And it bites quite sharply if your loco is ever going to run on anyone else's layout or be controlled by anyone else. That's going to be a serious issue with the big basement empires common in the US , where a crew assembles for a running session. DC is universal - locos run on any DC layout, and can be controlled by anyone . DCC is effectively universal - not only will the loco run on any DCC layout, it should also run on any DC layout. "Bluerail" as demonstrated would be anything but.

 

What happens if you lose your smartphone - People do. What happens when you get a new one - and have to reprogram every loco you own to the new phone? People change smartphones every couple of years 

 

I don't see benefits from introducing a radically new control system protocol to replace the NMRA/MOROP DCC protocol . Quite the opposite.

 

To be commercial in the short to medium term bluetooth decoders, of any form, must support the DCC signal protocol. Otherwise you head merrily down the cul-de-sac inhabited by Hornby's ZeroOne and their live steam control system

 

And realistically , any bluetooth decoder is going to be priced at the top end of the DCC decoder price range - say £25-30 in the UK  - for a good few years. The price gap between that and a decent ordinary DCC decoder (eg TCS T1 or MC2) is rapidly going to wipe out any saving on control equipment. The tipping point is going to be between 10 and 15 locos, and most folk have far more locos than that 

[Nile_Griffith]

Err no. The Bluetooth fitted loco is still tethered to its own smartphone. If that smartphone is not around to operate it (say the loco owner is away from the layout on a break , and using his mobile for other purposes ) the loco is inoperable. That rules out this Bluerail system for any loco that may ever operate on an exhibition layout for starters - and in the hobby in Britain ,  dominated by the exhibition circuit, that's a big restriction

 

 

And it bites quite sharply if your loco is ever going to run on anyone else's layout or be controlled by anyone else. That's going to be a serious issue with the big basement empires common in the US , where a crew assembles for a running session. DC is universal - locos run on any DC layout, and can be controlled by anyone . DCC is effectively universal - not only will the loco run on any DCC layout, it should also run on any DC layout. "Bluerail" as demonstrated would be anything but.

 

What happens if you lose your smartphone - People do. What happens when you get a new one - and have to reprogram every loco you own to the new phone? People change smartphones every couple of years 

 

I don't see benefits from introducing a radically new control system protocol to replace the NMRA/MOROP DCC protocol . Quite the opposite.

 

To be commercial in the short to medium term bluetooth decoders, of any form, must support the DCC signal protocol. Otherwise you head merrily down the cul-de-sac inhabited by Hornby's ZeroOne and their live steam control system

 

And realistically , any bluetooth decoder is going to be priced at the top end of the DCC decoder price range - say £25-30 in the UK  - for a good few years. The price gap between that and a decent ordinary DCC decoder (eg TCS T1 or MC2) is rapidly going to wipe out any saving on control equipment. The tipping point is going to be between 10 and 15 locos, and most folk have far more locos than that 

 

On your first point. maybe I wasn't making myself clear. i was discussing the notion of NMRA DCC compatib

 

 

There is no advantage over DCC. DCC already has "direct connection to software driven computing devices". There are already a number of software packages from free open source to closed, proprietary and expensive. I know of, probably half a dozen, home brew systems connecting computers directly to the layout.

 

The real issues for layout automation, regardless of the transmission medium is instrumenting the layout, designing the panels, signalling logic and interlocking, etc. Merely switching to Bluetooth solves none of this.

 

Already done for a number of layout control systems. Note I don't say DCC as this is outside the core scope of DCC

 

I'm not against using Bluetooth (or IR or Wifi or ...) but lets be honest about what it brings to the party.

 

Andrew

 

Sorry to disagree but your comment highlights what i see to be an advantage. As you rightly point out, there are a good number of systems out there where the DCC system is connected to some form of software run on a computer. However the hardware structure is Loco+DCC Chip > DCC Controller > DCC Interface > PC hardware/Software control. In our Bluetooth scenario our hardware structure is Loco+Bluetooth Chip > PC/Software. As a few have commented on different parts of the forum. DCC implementation for many is quite convoluted, whether it be understanding CV's or trying to work out just whose bit of hardware will work with what else in trying to achieve an end result. The Bluetooth offering potentially presents a much more straightforward offering. 

 

As for your observation on layout design signalling, interlocking etc. I'd agree a straightforward transfer to Bluetooth at this stage doesn't solve this problem. However what Bluetooth does present to manufacturers is the potential for a more user friendly range of hardware and layout accessories to be produced allowing for such designs to come about. Not remain the preserve of some IT elite.

 

In reply to your other post maybe I didn't make myself very clear. I was trying to discuss the notion of some sort of adherence to NMRA DCC protocols for bluetooth. In that for a Bluetooth placed on a DCC track and to be controlled via DCC. Then their has to be an interface between the DCC system and some form of controlling software transmitting via Bluetooth to the loco. DCC may be able to "Control" and by control, forward and reverse speed of a DC Loco. But it does that by messing with the track voltage and not in my own opinion to the benefit of the Loco's motor. Take into account you can only effectively run one DC loco on a DCC layout typically. I'm not really sure that I see your situation about not running BlueRail loco's on DCC as that much of a deal breaker (thats not to say that other bluetooth chip manufacturers don't install some kind of DC operability in their chip offerings in the future).

 

As for your question on smartphones as handsets and what happens if someone accidentally drops and breaks their iPhone. I visited one exhibition where one layout had to stop because the lack of a spare DCC throttle to replace the broken one. I think a modeller has more chance of rustling up a spare smartphone short notice than obtaining a replacement DCC throttle or power station (if going by UK stockists is anything to go by). So I personally read that as an advantage. By that also runs the implication of multiple throttles on an exhibition or club layout? How many people own exactly the same DCC hardware??? The bluetooth route doesn't see such distinctions. As for reprogramming your new smartphone. Well I'm guessing if asking your new Android phone to pair with your collection of loco's once every couple of years is going to push you to the brink, have you considered flower arranging? 

 

I would still fervently agree with your notion that somehow Bluetooth decoder price is going to outstrip current DCC prices. Bluetooth chip prices currently run in tens of pence, due to their demand in a wealth of other non model railway devices and that demand will grow. place that against the chips required for DCC boards and their limited market place. I really am not sure where you could make an informed decision that there would be such a price disparity.

 

I still don't get why you have this insistence for the Bluetooth control chip to support DCC protocol. Surely the control software should be optimised for the bluetooth devices capable of supporting that software. Why would anyone want to adhere to a protocol devised for twenty year old technology and hardware and apply it to current technology that outstrips it? As previously mentioned, all a model loco requires is a number of discrete analogue voltage outputs from its installed control board, whether that be a DCC board or a Bluetooth board. If a large exhibition layout or indeed a large private layout is so firmly established in DCC then surely the simplest solution is a sub programme that runs within whatever Layout control software is linked to the DCC power station that translates DCC to the bluetooth protocol and transmits through either it's internal or externally plugged in Bluetooth transmitter. Should of course that layouts owner or operator wish to invite Bluetooth Loco's to run.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Nile_Griffith

[Andy Reichert]

On your first point. maybe I wasn't making myself clear. i was discussing the notion of NMRA DCC compatib

 

SNIP

 

I'm finding it difficult to see the point of arguing about the possible in-depth internal details of something that doesn't exist, and apparently hasn't even been thought about.

 

But for anyone wishing to get a leg up on planning that particular area, the NMRA Standards and Compliance Technical Group are always looking for additional enthusiastic (and hopefully qualified) volunteers and are working on new both wireless and infrastructure control standards. Email Didrik Voss.

 

Andy

[Nile_Griffith]

I'm finding it difficult to see the point of arguing about the possible in-depth internal details of something that doesn't exist, and apparently hasn't even been thought about.

 

But for anyone wishing to get a leg up on planning that particular area, the NMRA Standards and Compliance Technical Group are always looking for additional enthusiastic (and hopefully qualified) volunteers and are working on new both wireless and infrastructure control standards. Email Didrik Voss.

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy.

 

I wasn't suggesting that some sort of NMRA DCC Bluetooth hybrid was in circulation, just hypothesising on potential applications and outcomes.

 

sorry if I further confused the issue.

[10000]

 

 

Err no. The Bluetooth fitted loco is still tethered to its own smartphone. If that smartphone is not around to operate it (say the loco owner is away from the layout on a break , and using his mobile for other purposes ) the loco is inoperable.

 

This may not be a problem Blue tooth LE can use a pairing method called 'Just Works' which suggests that you don't pair like you do with your phone and your car.

[Nile_Griffith]

In what turned out to be a bit of a surprise I posted a message to BlueRail via their Facebook page today, asking about one of the concerns people have about Loco variables being stored on the controlling smartphone rather than onboard the Loco's chip. They got back to me with a reply in 15 minutes!!!!! And it's Sunday!!!

 

Their reply was this.

 

"Our current plan is to store data in a chip in the loco. Our aim is to make this a standard accessible to others. The protocol will need a little time to finalize as users use the product. The boards support over-the-air firmware updates so we can update the protocols in existing boards during this period"

 

For those of you who are interested in how things like Loco acceleration and braking speeds are adjusted watch the video on the link posted. Most of the interesting stuff comes towards the end

 

[rgmichel]

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.

Edited February 8, 2015 by rgmichel

[Nile_Griffith]

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.

 

 

Think the CV thing will appeal to a lot of DCC modellers especially as it makes it quite quick and intuitive to fine tune settings. That and the ability to create names rather than in the case of the Lenz system working with four figure numbers....... Ha Ha ha!

[Andy Reichert]

Think the CV thing will appeal to a lot of DCC modellers especially as it makes it quite quick and intuitive to fine tune settings. That and the ability to create names rather than in the case of the Lenz system working with four figure numbers....... Ha Ha ha!

Here in the US we all use the last 4 digits of the loco number. Saves heck of a lot of confusion when similar locos are in use simultaneously - which of course happens a lot with the newer prototypes.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[Crosland]

I would still fervently agree with your notion that somehow Bluetooth decoder price is going to outstrip current DCC prices. Bluetooth chip prices currently run in tens of pence, due to their demand in a wealth of other non model railway devices and that demand will grow. place that against the chips required for DCC boards and their limited market place. I really am not sure where you could make an informed decision that there would be such a price disparity.

 

 

It's not clear if you are talking about a simple Bluetooth radio interface or an integrated chip with radio and processor to run the software stack. Which of the latter are 10s of pence in volumes likely to be used by decoder manufacturers?

 

The price of the interface or processor is only part of the cost of a decoder and DCC decoders (apart from sound decoders) do not use expensive chips. An integrated chip with Bluetooth radio interface and processor is likely to be a similar cost. What really matters, however, is the production volume of the final product.

 

USB-Bluetooth interfaces, for example, are made in the 1,000,000s and may well become 2 a penny. Loco decoders, whether Bluetooth or DCC are made in much smaller volumes and development costs are amortized over those smaller volumes.

 

Andrew

[Nile_Griffith]

It's not clear if you are talking about a simple Bluetooth radio interface or an integrated chip with radio and processor to run the software stack. Which of the latter are 10s of pence in volumes likely to be used by decoder manufacturers?

 

The price of the interface or processor is only part of the cost of a decoder and DCC decoders (apart from sound decoders) do not use expensive chips. An integrated chip with Bluetooth radio interface and processor is likely to be a similar cost. What really matters, however, is the production volume of the final product.

 

USB-Bluetooth interfaces, for example, are made in the 1,000,000s and may well become 2 a penny. Loco decoders, whether Bluetooth or DCC are made in much smaller volumes and development costs are amortized over those smaller volumes.

 

Andrew

 

As you rightly point out the bluetooth interface is only part of the decoder. So again I would say that an assumption by some commentators on here that somehow a Bluetooth capable Loco control board (chip really is the wrong word to use) will be markedly more expensive than it's DCC counterpart is a naive assumption. As you point out the bluetooth components of the board could realistically be priced in tens of pence. I don't have access to information that stipulates what the decoder chipsets cost that are part of a DCC board But I can't imagine they are significantly cheaper. Make the assumption that the power and accessory control side componentry of both boards  will be of similar specification and component count and its hard to see how long term a Bluetooth enable board should be more expensive than a DCC one.

[Andy Reichert]

As you rightly point out the bluetooth interface is only part of the decoder. So again I would say that an assumption by some commentators on here that somehow a Bluetooth capable Loco control board (chip really is the wrong word to use) will be markedly more expensive than it's DCC counterpart is a naive assumption. As you point out the bluetooth components of the board could realistically be priced in tens of pence. I don't have access to information that stipulates what the decoder chipsets cost that are part of a DCC board But I can't imagine they are significantly cheaper. Make the assumption that the power and accessory control side componentry of both boards  will be of similar specification and component count and its hard to see how long term a Bluetooth enable board should be more expensive than a DCC one.

 

Mounting a high volume, low cost chip onto a low volume PCB is likely to easily end up costing an order of magnitude more than mounting those same components onto a high volume PCB.

 

And that's a professional estimate, not an amateur one.

[autocoach]

Here in the US we all use the last 4 digits of the loco number. Saves heck of a lot of confusion when similar locos are in use simultaneously - which of course happens a lot with the newer prototypes.

Yes but you cant call it 21C108 on my NCE and I could possibly have another 108 on the setup. Much rather select WC Padstow to move off the turntable.

[Nile_Griffith]

Mounting a high volume, low cost chip onto a low volume PCB is likely to easily end up costing an order of magnitude more than mounting those same components onto a high volume PCB.

 

And that's a professional estimate, not an amateur one.

 

I'll bow to your professional estimate and I do see your point. However I would also offer up for consideration that I don't think in this case, Bachmann/BlueRail Trains would want to go to market with a chip cost distinctly more in price than their DCC comparable. Yes they might be able to justify a slightly higher price point because of BlueRails lack of investment cost in additional control equipment, but too far and the chip actually becomes a distinctive percentage of the Loco purchase price and that might be felt to be too much of a dissuading factor, especially for a product they obviously have high hopes for. Over the longer term we are potentially looking at how you describe "A high volume low cost chip on to a High volume PCB" and that offers an attractive situation.

[Andy Reichert]

Yes but you cant call it 21C108 on my NCE and I could possibly have another 108 on the setup. Much rather select WC Padstow to move off the turntable.

 

We're veering off topic a bit here, but  . . .

 

You can't call a loco "WC Padstow" on my layout, because I haven't invested in any supporting HW for Smartphone throttles.  So I would need the DCC address anyway.

 

What's more, In general I couldn't use names on my layout regardless, because I use classes of identical powered units. Only their unit numbers are different. And nothing has a unique name to call it.

[davepallant]

Would still contend that the power question isn't really that much of an issue.

 

I wasn;t suggesting that low power was an issue for train control. My thought was that the reduction in power meant that Bluetooth was becoming more appealing for all markets. More markets, more chips sold and the price drops. Now it's appealing as a low cost system for controlling trains.

 

 I believe that we should say as a group that we do not need or want a dcc-incompatible system. 

 

"Down with that sort of thing!".

 

What do you mean 'we'?! I don't want to say any such thing! I am just finishing DCCing my N gauge layout and even after spending that money and expecting to pay much more in DCC chipping another 50 or so locos over the next year I say 'bring it on'! It really doesnt matter what the messages over the Bluetooth link are and they might even be open source (which it sounds like Bachmann/Bluerail will do) the important thing is that for people who just want to run two or more locos at the same time on their home layout this is going to be easier and probably cheaper than putting together a DCC system. The features I expect it to have straight out of the box such as full length and descriptive loco names and maybe the ability to take photos of the locos with your phone and drop them into the app make it that much easier than selecting using four digit codes or one of a limited number of buttons. I've just spent the weekend typing four digit codes into Lenz controllers and the numbers cannot always be simply derived from the numbers printed on the sides of the locos because of duplication in whatever system is used (and whether different people in a club use the same system of reducing 5 digit numbers to 4) .

 

 

 

There is no advantage over DCC. DCC already has "direct connection to software driven computing devices". There are already a number of software packages from free open source to closed, proprietary and expensive. I know of, probably half a dozen, home brew systems connecting computers directly to the layout.

 

 

I know that these facilities are available on some combination of controllers and software but I really wouldn't wish these systems requiring PCs and customised software (I'm thinking JMRI because I am using it) on a newcomer to railway modelling.

 

Mounting a high volume, low cost chip onto a low volume PCB is likely to easily end up costing an order of magnitude more than mounting those same components onto a high volume PCB.

 

And that's a professional estimate, not an amateur one.

 

The only difference is that you are changing from a high volume low cost chip - the $0.50 processor on my N gauge decoder - to a high volume low cost Bluetooth chip with processor built in $1.00 in tens of thousands. They are both already being used in the millions and that brings the price down for everybody. I don't think you need to be worried about the cost of the Bluetooth implementation because it sounds like this system should rapidly create a new market for Bachmann, maybe cannibalise some of their DCC sales and end up with Bachmann using more of the Bluetooth parts than vanilla DCC parts anyway.

 

And who is to say that with the DCC being one way of providing the power to the decoder that the extra link for the processor to read the DCC data from the track (one or two resistors should do it) doesn't allow Bluetooth decoders to be both Bluetooth and DCC compatible? Most are already DCC and DC compatible and you can turn DC off if you want.

[Andy Reichert]

The only difference is that you are changing from a high volume low cost chip - the $0.50 processor on my N gauge decoder - to a high volume low cost Bluetooth chip with processor built in $1.00 in tens of thousands. They are both already being used in the millions and that brings the price down for everybody. I don't think you need to be worried about the cost of the Bluetooth implementation because it sounds like this system should rapidly create a new market for Bachmann, maybe cannibalise some of their DCC sales and end up with Bachmann using more of the Bluetooth parts than vanilla DCC parts anyway.

 

I'll send you a COD order for 20 blue tooth substituted decoders. Delivery 30 days, unit price $25.00 FOB.  Is that OK?

 

 

 

Andy