ndbprrAs an owner of a useless pfm sound system at this point I just don't want to get Burned again.
ndbprrHaven't made the jump yet for several reasons. Anybody see anything on the forseeable future that would obsolete current thinking? No sense switching too late In the game.
Like everthing else digital and/or electronic, train control will evolve and improve rapidly. If you wait for it to peak beore jumping in you will never own anything.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Operating from a cell phone has no appeal for me. I don't see sliding my finger across a LCD screen to be anything like running a steam or diesel locomotive, what so ever! However, as a customer of model railroading stuff, I understand that my opinion about what I want and a $1.75 will buy me a cup of coffee and makes little/no difference to the direction you all will make this stuff head!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
In recent years, we have seen a number of attempts to find a substitute for DCC, from Infrared control systems to R/C systems for battery operated trains.. I don´t think any of those systems will be capable of kicking DCC off the throne. DCC has become the industry standard and we have not yet scratched the surface of its possibilities. Just take a look a Roco´s Z21 command station, employing a smartphone to controll your trains. If you don´t go for the "cab look" of your controls, this can be had for not more money than a Digitrax Zephyr. In my opinion, DCC will stay for quite a number of years to come - long enough for me.
For the sake of argument I think the Bluetooth wireless devices have the potential to replace DCC. The other feature about them is that the engine sound emanates from the controller not the engine. I think this concept is interesting. That being said I love running DCC.
Mark
rrinkerWhen DCC was adopted as an NMRA standard, it really wasn't the most sophisticated command control system available. There were others that did more and had additional features.
while I can understand the use of batteries and optionally wireless communication, what features did these other systems provide that NMRA DCC lacks?
i wonder if decoders with keep-alive capacitors could replace the capacitor with rechargable batteries?
wouldn't wireless require more components and hence be more expensive?
would wireless require transmit capability (more components and $$) in order to read back values or would communication thru the rails still be necessary?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
The basis for the internet was in operation before microsoft even existed, and it is still here, because the basic structure allowed for future expansion to include things that were not even thought of yet.
Al Gore invented the internet. Everybody knows that.
Well, I'm still running DC, and no interest in changing. I doubt that DCC will go away, either, but the next phase, I think, will be dead rail, perhaps by radio control or perhaps through the rail using DCC-type throttles.
Wayne
Dcc will be around until someone detonates a nuclear warhead over the US generating an electromagnetic pulse wave. In that case the only thing we will be able to do is read back issues of MRR by candlelight.
It will become obsolete soon after electricity and binary.
I think the core aspect of DCC will continue for quite some time. How we control it will greatly evolve. Look at ESU's new wireless throttle ....
http://www.esu.eu/en/products/digital-control/mobile-control-ii/
.... basically an Android device with a knob throttle. I've also seen a few battery operated / blue-tooth controlled systems that utilize off-the-shelf standard DCC decoders.
The base designing / language will remain intact, but how we use it and what we can do with it will continue to evolve. Look at the first decoders - 14 speed steps and two lights and really not much else.
Most decoder manufacturers are already at their limit with what the current hardware on their decoders can do. TCS is already taking the lead by using memory cards for increased space and ESU has their next generation sound decoder in the works as they too are at their memory limits.
There still a lot of future left in DCC technology. No need to re-invent the wheel.
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
For something to replace DCC, not only would it need to offer significantly improeved features, it would also have to be a standard like DCC. When DCC was adopted as an NMRA standard, it really wasn't the most sophisticated command control system available. There were others that did more and had additional features. But each and every one of those other systems was completely proprietary. You had to buy all components from a single vendor, and if your friends used a different brand, they couldn't run them on your layout. It's part of why there never was any widespread adoption of any system, despite the significant advantages in control over any sort of DC block system. Some vendors in the past simply folded, leaving those who purchased their systems stuck with an orphan, unable to get more receivers for additional locomotives, or parts to repair throttles, or any of that. The NMRA DCC standard changed all that. Now you have multiple vendors making equipment that on the rails at least all follows the exact same standard. I prefer Loksound for sound decoders, and TCS for non sound. Someone else may think TCS stinks and uses only Digitrax decoders - but I can take my locos there and run them, it doesn't matter that there are different brands of systems and different brands of decoders.
Until there is a standard developed for direct wireless control, I can't see any mass adoption. Some people will buy it, just like some people bought pre-DCC command control systems. They may occasionally talk about what they can do with their system that I can't do with DCC. But until I can buy Brand A wireless system, and someone else has Brand B wireless system, and we can freely move locos back and forth, it's almost pointless.
There are some other issues to work out as well. Certainly we have batteries small enough and powerful enough for decent runtimes with HO and alrger. What about N and Z? What do we do for block detection? With DCC, there's always power int he rails so it's easy to detect the current flow caused by a powered, lighted, or resistor-equipped piece of rolling stock. With direct radio, ideally we want the track to NOT be powered - so there truly is no issue with reverse loops or anything. No special controllers needed, because there's no power in the track to short in the first place. What about charging the batteries? Ideally, it would be through the rails at specific locations, or else via induction chargers under the rails - something so you do't have to constantly handle your locomotives moving them from the layout to a charging station.
Settle some issues, and establish a cross-vendor standard - then we'll see.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
We are a slow group to accept new standards - even slower to give up old ones. I'll be 60 this year and I don't believe DCC will be gone in my lifetime.
Does anybody remember how long Command Control systems (digital and other) had been around before the NMRA finally chimed in with a standard? How many models still come with horn-hook couplers in the box even though we knew in the 60's that they sucked?
Battery technology has advanced to the point where they could surely power trains. The 12v lithium battery in my DeWalt screwdriver could easily be repackaged to fit into an HO locomotive. Imagine never having to clean track again (except for the "charging track").
For us the mousetrap doesn't just have to be better, the old one has to stop working, rust, and fall apart into pieces too small to hold together with duct tape.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Just like any of the latest Blu-Ray DVD players I just bought, they will still play my audio CDs from 1985.
I believe there will be some "backward compatibility" of the NMRA DCC standard for some years to come.
Any new technology would have to be a "leaps and bounds" improvement over the present DCC standard.
That's how I see it anyway... Ed
Also, the present DCC companies are improving their products.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
No. You will get a lot of speculation though. Notice that DC has not gone away.
This year a couple companies are going to market a bluetooth controllable setup for smart phones. There are three companies selling a wireless system for HO locos that is battery operated and can run on layouts with no wires, DC layouts and DCC layouts. The last two can charge the battery.
If you are not aware of it, the NMRA DCC is only one method for digitally controlling trains. The MTH DCS is another method. The others are also digital control.
Technology is advancing.
I don't think that DCC will be replaced anytime soon. Lots of great things (i.e. sound decoders and signal decoders) are available or are being developed for DCC.
If DCC someday reaches some technical 'limit' and becomes replaced, it would be interesting to see what it is replaced with. DCC 2.0?
I don't see anything to knock DCC out of the picture, at present. With all the new stuff coming along in the way of multiple function, sound decoders and keep alive type devices, DCC will be the way of the future for many years to come! My opinion!