Andy, as stated above Railpro does not communicate with JMRI in any way. Railpro is not DCC and does not communicate through the rails. It receives power through the rails only, which means it can be used on any layout that has a constant power supply, be it DC, DCC, Railpro, or whatever. Battery power shouldn't be a problem concept-wise, but how you would fit all that in a 4-axle hood unit is beyond me.
Yes at the moment Railpro requires you to send a pic of your loco to them for conversion into their format. On the positive side it is quick....they turn it around within 24 hours. On the negative side, you have to have them do it. I would prefer to do it myself, but I think it will take some time before Railpro allows that. At the moment they seem to be focusing on getting their core lineup of products developed and available. The other stuff will probably come with time.
The two-way communication is really the key to Railpro. I'm not an electronics expert but I don't think that two-way communication with DCC would be possible just yet. At any rate, if it did become possible, you'd probably have to change out your decoders, or add something to them. You'd probably need to buy new controllers if two-way communication between controller and locos became possible. Then the question arises would it be able to do what Railpro already does in that respect? Just something to consider.
To answer your question about 'load-sharing' as opposed to 'speed matching'....load sharing is designed to have all locos conrtibute the same amount of pulling power to the load, meaning that the couplers are tight with no slack. When viewed on the Railpro controller, you will see that lead loco will be drawing the most power, while the followers will be drawing a little less. This spreads the load out through the entire consist. To illustrate, if the last follower was drawing the same amount of current as the lead, it would in fact be pulling the entire train itself while the lead locos were merely running. Railpro automatically sets each loco in the consist to draw the right amount of current so that all locos pull equally. All locos in a consist communicate with each other in real time to distribute the load....if one loco is pulling harder than the others, the others will automatically increase their power to correct it.
Speed matching in DCC works, but I found it very tedious (for me) and also noticed that it would only work well when the locos were matched in a certain direction. If I matched locos going forward, then tried to run them in reverse, they would no longer be perfectly matched. With Railpro I can use any loco with any other one, in any direction and they run equally well. This was a HUGE plus for me, and the main reason I got it.
Your questions about BEMF speed control....don't quote me on this, but I think that applies only to DCC. If you're wondering how the motor control is, I would say it is comparable to TCS. All my locos had DCC in them before....a mix of TCS and Tsunami. Slow speed control with Railpro is great and locos run smooth. Far better than Tsunami, which I found to be less than ideal.
As far as scale goes, yes HO is the only scale for which it is available at the moment. Going back to my above comment, it seems they are trying to get the basic lineup finished before branching out. I wouldn't be surprised to something in the next year or two for larger scales, maybe even for N....hopefully!
I hope this answers some of your questions. I'm definitely pleased with the system and have enjoyed using it much more than DCC. Don't get me wrong, I like DCC a lot...I just like using Railpro more.
-Kevin
aj1sCan JMRI communicate with RailPro, or is RP a "closed system"?
Rail Pro communications is from the Throttle to the LM-1 decoder in the locomotive. JMRI is not even involved. JMRI will not even see the decoder. The Rail Pro decoder only takes power from the rails, there is no communications between them.
That being said, maybe some day there will be a wireless interface.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
BNSF80, thanks for the update.
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
Watson, I like it quite a bit. I have 8 sound modules in locos now: all kato 4 AC4400CW, 2 SD40-2 and 2 SD70MAC. These were all easy installs including speakers. I've never installed speakers before. These were all Kato installs because these locos just had DCC decoders in them. Downloaded my sounds, lights from the Ring Engineering site to my handheld HC-1. Then from my HC-1 to each loco as I progressed. Everything worked smoothly. The speed control with the knob is easy and there is probably 1000 speed steps. I've managed to get the HC-1 to go .1/.2 speed steps at a time. The motor load test used for consisting is simple. No CV's used there or anywhere for that matter. So far, I've been very impressed. I've talked to Tim at Ring Engineering 3 or 4 times and he is very customer oriented. Always very helpful. Only problem I had was trying to download Ring Engineering RE Internet Access program. That was just because of my computer's firewall. I'll soon be buying more loco modules LM-1's to install and I've already ordered more speakers to install with them. Down the road I'll be buying another HC-1 handheld for my crew to use. I'm still going to use my Digitrax Super Chief system with it. Railpro runs very well with it and running DCC locos at the same time as the Railpro. I'm very glad I bought it and can't wait til Railpro has LM-2 loco module out w/o sound. Not every loco needs sound.
Patrick Waltz
Now that you have had th e RailPro system awhile do you still like it and would you recommend it to anyone
Can JMRI communicate with RailPro, or is RP a "closed system"? From the review, I got the impression that RailPro has to convert all picture and sound files for you. Really?... Without openness, you are completely dependent upon what they want to or can (financially) do to improve/expand the system. JMRI is a perfect example of what an open system such as DCC. You say DCC needs to move forward?
That said, I can see areas where DCC could improve, particularly with two-way communication between the control system and the locomotives. Transponding may be a start in that direction, but it is non-standard, and a long way from being able to communicate back to the system what RailPro can.
RailPro seems to use that communication to good effect, for operator feedback and for consisting (load sharing). I'd like to know a little more about how they are load sharing, before I consider whether it is "better" than speed matching with DCC systems. My point is, DCC could expand a lot if it had similar feeback.
Is there back-emf speed control available with RailPro?
My other concern, since I'm in N scale, is the size of the decoders (HO only).Those things are huge! Unless they support other scales (including enought power for O and G), I don't see this getting past the proprietary stage (to an industry standard), and thus you will always be dependent upon the existence/ability of the sole supplier to support. If they go out of business, or change directions, you are one failed component (the controller) away from a completely useless railroad. I think I'd put a wrist strap on that controller if they go under...
Andy
The history of command control is littered with companies and products that failed quickly or just never really got any significant share of the market.
Hornby introduced Zero 1, only to go into reorganization shortly thereafter. The product was frozen at that point and never really changed, and within a few years the new company began discontinuing the Zero 1 product line. There still are a lot of people using it, as it was well engineered and robust, but it is a dead end, and has been for 20 years.
GE dumped ASTRAC within a year. Gone. It didn't sell well enough.
There still are other command control systems out there, with enough users to sustain their makers. But none have ever experienced the success DCC has.
Thanks for the come back on the RailPro question I had. I live in a area with no hobby shops and the closest one is 100 miles away. No model railroad clubs either so running the radio controled system would work for me. Just starting to build up my locomotives and layout so don't have dcc to worry about changing. Thanks
What I meant was not being stuck was, if they went under, you could still use your currently equipped engines and throttles with any DCC system should you be forced to go in a different direction. Couldn't do that with past proprietary systems that are now gone (Zero-1, etc.).
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
A member here did a personal review of the system here ....
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/744/t/209886.aspx
I'm going to give Railpro a shot. It definitely has some good ideas. I've been a Digitrax Super Chief user since 1998. I was a Railcommand user before that. Hard wired 25-30 locos for that. I'm looking for something more up to date. We'll see where DCC goes from its standpoint. I just talked 45 minutes to Tim Ring from Ring Engineering yesterday. I really believe this is one of the best directions to go. IMHO. Many more things coming down the pipeline for Railpro. Just going to take time. There LM-2 loco module is hopefully 3-6 months from delivery. Has all the features as the LM-1 except for sound. He said even something about a LM-3 well on down the road. I'm going to use Railpro with my Digitrax Super chief system. Way too many sound locos on DCC like 26 of them. I'm not afraid to move forward on this. Been downsizing my collection from 90 locos with decoders and freight cars among other items. If battery power comes to be Railpro would work with it. Fitting their loco module will be an interesting fit in some smaller locos. With Tam Valley and NWSL Stanton S-cab using batteries that will be interesting where it goes on their own. Tim said they're always looking for a smaller loco module. I'm getting ready to order my Railpro system at this moment. I know it's not for everyone, but DCC needs to move forward. I'm a satisfied DCC user, but there is more out there including Railpro and I'm going to test the waters. I guess I'm not to worried about them ever going belly up. Too each their own. Model Railroading is fun!
Where would you get more Railpro receivers to convert more locos? Or more throttles? That's what I meant by being 'stuck' - you're stuck where you're at. The vendor going under doesn;t mean you stuff you already have magically stops working, but you can;t expand any further.
Or the other case, where a standard finally gets adopted, and it's not the system you've been using.
Some of the systems feed in to a standard DCC decoder, with those at least you cam just recoonect the decoder to the track pickups and go back to DCC
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Actually, with RailPro, you wouldn't be entirely "stuck" if they went under. You can run a RailPro equipped engine on ANY DCC layout - all it needs is the voltage off the rails. Communication is sent directly from your throttle to the engine, not through the rails.
So, you can take your RailPro equipped engine and your throttle to ANYone's place that has DCC and run your engine(s) with your throttle totally independant of their engines running on their system. To me, that is the only saving grace with the system. If you HAD to use their power supply only, then no - any proprietary system will eventually come back to bite you years down the road. They've circumvented that limitation by being able to utilize most any form of power on the rails.
Railpro looks neat, and there are two other siumilar systems. And here is the problem - none of them are compatible with each other!
If you invest in Railpro, and Ring Engineering goes belly-up, you'sre stuck. If you invest in the Stanton system from NWSL and they go belly up - you're stuck.
DCC is an NMRA standard, so if you happen to buy a system from a manufacturer that goes bust - and that's not likely, it's been around long enough that that shakeout has already occurred - you don;t have to go and swap out the decoders in all your locos to switch to another system.
I do think direct radio, with onboard batteries, charged from the track - meaning, you can just leave reverse loops completely isolated but you can put power to the track ant convenient spots to keep the batteries charged for longer operating time - will indeed be the way of the future. But until a standard is set that more than one manufacturer follows, nope, not a chance I will invest. It's like all those different command control systems back before DCC - none worked with any others, and once there was an official standard, they all quickly vanished, leaving users high adn dry in some cases.
I like the concept of Rail Pro, but the cost and limitations turns me off. I have DCC, and at least there are multiple vendors making DCC stuff that is basically interchangeable. What I do like is the Rail Pro's MU load balancing feature.
I think the concept is solid, but the costs have to get in line, and there appears to be limitations when running on a DCC system. NWSL is also marketing a radio system, but not compatible with Rail Pro products . This sort of reminds me of early command control - lots of different system(Hornby Zero 1/CTC-16/80/etc...). Are any of these even available anymore? DCC has been around since at least the early 90's, and keeps evolving.
If you are basically going to be a 'Lone Wolf' modeler, and not interact with others, this may be the system for you. Myself; I have 3 friends with DCC layouts, and belong to a club that is DCC only. Being able to use my DCC equipped locomotives at the club is very important for me.
Coming back from long time away from model railroading. Being as I am starting over I kind of like the radio controlled product called RailPro. as compared to dcc stuff. What do you all think. Thanks