As a 30+ year veteran of the computer software and hardware industry (I currently work for Intel; my opinions are my own), I have a pretty good read on what's coming down the pike (sorry for the pun, couldn't resist) in electronics.
It has always struck me that DCC is an incredibly complex way to run a railroad. Yes, it gets the job done, but modern wireless technology leaves DCC in the dust.
Consider that you can buy an ARM-based wireless Linux PC with I/O for less than $10 (much less in some cases!). Assuming you can learn what Linux is and connect it to your home PC, isn't that cheap enough that many of us can consider putting a unit in every car and locomotive and wiring in electrically-driven couplers?
AFA sound, I, frankly, do not favor locomative-based speakers. I'd much rather see true ground-pounding sound coming from a Dolby surround-sound system than a tinny little 1" high tweeter. PBL had the right idea, but even more if we can use real-time position identification so that your headset gets only the sounds of the hardware near your train.It's important to catch the trends in development, especially high-volume consumer and industrial trends. Embedded boards for the Internet of Things are The Next Big Thing(tm) and, as I said, they're getting dirt cheap.I haven't even begun to get into what augmented virtual reality can do for us... can you smell the smoke and see the brakeman throw the switch?
Considering DCC has been around for about 25 years, and none of the technologies you are describing were not invented or mainstream then - DCC looks pretty good.
I retired from the computer industry after 33 years about 4 years ago. Just give the industry time to shrink the product and the cost..
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Hi DWilde1:
DWilde1 I'd much rather see true ground-pounding sound coming from a Dolby surround-sound system than a tinny little 1" high tweeter.
I'm not so sure I would want "ground pounding" sound in my layout room. I used to love loud sound, particularly when it was coming from my car's exhaust pipes. In my teens and twenties I was in the habit of replacing the stock mufflers with not much more than a tube with a case around it. They looked like mufflers but they didn't act like mufflers!
That was then. This is now. I'm no longer inclined to put straight pipes on the Odyssey van!
I love sound in my locomotives, but I turn it way down. Less is more, at least for me. Maybe I'm getting too conservative in my semi-old age (62).
However, sound sources are only one of many possibilities that electronics developement will have to offer model railroading, so I'm not disagreeing with you that many great things will come our way in the near future. For example, most of us are just beginning to explore the possibilities that Arduino presents.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I'm not questioning whether it works, Jim. Sure, it works. However, it's a very custom technology. It appeals to a very small market and that means it will never become volume sales tech.
Wireless LAN technology is ubiquitous. The IoT is making cheap Linux boards ubiquitous. My poimt is that cheap linux boards can be programmed to do anything a DCC board does for far less money anf far less electrical power rail hassle.In future, our rails can provide simple DC power. Our wireless devices can determine how to control themselves. These will use simple open-source protocols to access locomotive and railcar-resident devices. The future is wireless. The future is open source!
Sorry, Jim, but DCC is a dinosaur.
DWilde1 Sorry, Jim, but DCC is a dinosaur.
That may be true, but don't forget that dinosaurs lasted somewhere around 700,000,000 years. That means that DCC will still be around for another 6,999,999,975 years!
Sorry, couldn't resist. Actually, I'm rather happy being a dinosaur. I think it is much easier on the brain.
No offense intended.
Alton Junction
DWilde1It has always struck me that DCC is an incredibly complex way to run a railroad. Yes, it gets the job done, but modern wireless technology leaves DCC in the dust.
DCC is incredibly simple and doesn't require any HW interface components other than a DC bridge.
Modern wireless (LTE) is tremendously complex requiring an amazing amount of processing as well as RF components. It would be overkill for controlling a locomotive.
DWilde1Consider that you can buy an ARM-based wireless Linux PC with I/O for less than $10 (much less in some cases!).
A PC for < $10? can you buy an ARM processor (or is it IP)?
considering that that low-end decoders cost $20 using a processor costing ~$1, does using $10 processor provide that much more capability or cost reduction? Wouldn't the memory requirements for Linux excede those for a locomotive control application?
Even DCC command stations and controllers can use simple processors (even when they do support wireless).
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
DWilde1 As a 30+ year veteran of the computer software and hardware industry (I currently work for Intel; my opinions are my own), I have a pretty good read on what's coming down the pike (sorry for the pun, couldn't resist) in electronics. It has always struck me that DCC is an incredibly complex way to run a railroad. Yes, it gets the job done, but modern wireless technology leaves DCC in the dust.
I find some DC setups waaaaaay more complicated than DCC. With either technology you can make it as simple or as complicated as you want. I would dare to guess that modern wireless technology users will suffer the same fate.
Sure...if you want to operate your layout with a computer or Smartphone. Personally - the stegosaurus in me has NO interest...and I love computers. The only exception I would make to that is using JMRI Decoder Pro for programming.
AFA sound, I, frankly, do not favor locomative-based speakers. I'd much rather see true ground-pounding sound coming from a Dolby surround-sound system than a tinny little 1" high tweeter. PBL had the right idea, but even more if we can use real-time position identification so that your headset gets only the sounds of the hardware near your train.
While I agree that sound through 1" speakers in limiting, there is a thing called "scale", which is closely associated with distance. If I'm viewing my steam locomotive from 3' away in HO (87.1:1), I expect it to sound like a locomotive from 261' away (1:1); not disproportional "ground-pounding", as if I were right next to it while it was traveling at 60 MPH.
And, while I do enjoy sound, I enjoy it in doses. I don't need earth-shattering true fidelity to enjoy the sound of a chuff or a whistle from my Lima 2-8-2 Mike or 4-6-4 Hudson.
It's important to catch the trends in development, especially high-volume consumer and industrial trends. Embedded boards for the Internet of Things are The Next Big Thing(tm) and, as I said, they're getting dirt cheap.I haven't even begun to get into what augmented virtual reality can do for us... can you smell the smoke and see the brakeman throw the switch?
You must watch too much TV. I like to use my own imagination as I operate my layout so I'm not particularly interested in someone else's interpretation of "reality". Oh, sorry - There's that pterodactyl coming out in me again.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Hi,
I've been a model railroader for 60 years (yikes)! By operating systems that breaks down to 5 years AC, 47 years DC, and 8 years DCC. Making the transition each time was the logical thing to do, and it was relatively easy - as so many had done so before me.
I'm an MR because of my love of trains and building models and the minature world they reside. While I appreciate what DCC has done for my railroading fun, my interest in electronics is limited to what I have to know, to do what I need to do.
Some folks are keenly interested in electronics and computerization and such, and that is fine. But I want to control my RR "hands on", for that is one of the main attractions to me.
When the need for a "new and improved" operating system comes around, I'm sure the MR community will be there for it, just as they were when DCC came about. But for now, the NEED is just not there - IMO of course.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
DCC was designed to provide simpler and more realistic operation of layouts, by adding the ability to control multiple trains without complex block wiring or third rail, as well as provide a way to control the locomotive to a much finer degree. It's relatively cost effective, and it does what it needs to do.Equipping a linux-based microcomputer in an HO scale locomotive would not only be cost prohibitive (most of the cost of the DCC decoder in terms of parts is in the power regulation circuitry for the motors and lights, the actual decoder microprocessor is very cheap), but would generate excessive heat (which is already a problem with some decoders), consume more energy, and would still not provide the locomotive with any more features than DCC currently does, beyond the possibility of two-way communications (which Railcom is already opening up the possibility to).Adopting a new digital control standard would be a long, drawn out process, and would be very costly. On-board chips would not only need to be compatible with their own standard, but would need to be fully compatible with DCC and DC, as neither of the latter technologies are universally adopted (DC is slowly dying but still active), and people won't want to have to completely redo all of their equipment and re-wire their layout for the new standard. Multiple companies have attempted their own digital control technologies, such as MTH DCS, but all are proprietary, and have been met with limited adoption. DCC is also an open standard, which means anyone can make their own DCC products without having to pay a fee.Due to the widespread adoption of DCC, I doubt we'll see it replaced any time soon. Maybe expanded on, but certainly not replaced.
DWilde1The IoT is making cheap Linux boards ubiquitous. My poimt is that cheap linux boards can be programmed to do anything a DCC board does for far less money anf far less electrical power rail hassle.
Yes, hardware is cheap. Programmers are expensive. The changes you propose are not about technology, they are about economics. You can't ignore the simple fact that nothing happens until somebody can make money from it.
The value to the user for such changes is limited (a lot of guys still run DC) and the market is small - not a recipe for profit – no profit, no product.
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.
DCC 9
Linux 1
DWilde1 As a 30+ year veteran of the computer software and hardware industry (I currently work for Intel; my opinions are my own), I have a pretty good read on what's coming down the pike (sorry for the pun, couldn't resist) in electronics. It has always struck me that DCC is an incredibly complex way to run a railroad. Yes, it gets the job done, but modern wireless technology leaves DCC in the dust. Consider that you can buy an ARM-based wireless Linux PC with I/O for less than $10 (much less in some cases!). Assuming you can learn what Linux is and connect it to your home PC, isn't that cheap enough that many of us can consider putting a unit in every car and locomotive and wiring in electrically-driven couplers? AFA sound, I, frankly, do not favor locomative-based speakers. I'd much rather see true ground-pounding sound coming from a Dolby surround-sound system than a tinny little 1" high tweeter. PBL had the right idea, but even more if we can use real-time position identification so that your headset gets only the sounds of the hardware near your train.It's important to catch the trends in development, especially high-volume consumer and industrial trends. Embedded boards for the Internet of Things are The Next Big Thing(tm) and, as I said, they're getting dirt cheap.I haven't even begun to get into what augmented virtual reality can do for us... can you smell the smoke and see the brakeman throw the switch?
What is so complex about DCC? Yes, it can have a heavy under layout infrastructure on a large layout (boosters, circuit breakers, radio throttle receivers, stationary decoders, etc), and yes, most of the user interfaces are not that great, and yes, the technology it uses is old, but like so many others, you do not understand the limited size of this market and the costs of bringing a replacement system to market.
After nearly 25 years, DCC has only reached about HALF of the users of model trains.
The other half still use DC, AC, direct radio from several brands, onboard battery or "dead rail" direct radio, and several other proprietary command control systems.
I don't like DCC, I still use DC and relays to control 8 trains on a single layout with signals, detection, radio thorttles, CTC and ATC.
Controling model trains can be a simple or as complex as you want it to be - but we are not talking cell phones or personal computers here - there is no real market to support this.
As for sound, I agree, tiny speakers suck, my other hobby is designing HiFi speakers. But I don't want my home theater speakers in my layout room, nor do I have any interest in wearing a headset "hear" my train. Tom mentioned the "scale" of sound effects, and he is right. But sound is hard to scale because of how our ears work - I'm happy without the noise.........
Just like DCC, sound is only imbraced by about half of the model train community, despite the efforts of BLI and MTH to tell us how great it is and that we should only buy locos with sound.
So please explain what would be simpler with the system you propose? Your system would need to provide all the features of DCC and more. My DC system has more features than basic DCC.
You are likely "assuming" everyone wants to run their trains the way you do. I suspect you have no understanding of my layout goals and the fact that DCC brings no features I need or want - that's why only half the people use it, because only half the people see the features of DCC as important.
So, please, tell us what would be better? Simpler?
Would it offer easier detection for singaling and CTC?
Would it be easier/cheaper to intergrate into signaling or CTC?
Would it provide collision avoidance (ATC on the prototype) like my advanced cab control system?
Would it provide simpler programing adjustments than DCC decoders?
Would it be able to allow consisting, speed matching, etc?
What kind of user interface would it use? Something like a smart phone - that leaves me out thank you.
Fact is, DCC is here to stay for while, and it is actually going to be long time, if ever, before it or anything else completely replaces DC and all the other systems out there.
So please, enlighten us further......
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALWhat kind of user interface would it use? Something like a smart phone - that leaves me out thank you.
Agreed, I've never peronally been interested in this whatsoever. As Sheldon says, this is a different market with only so many people to support it. We all only have the funds to spec a control system (DC, DCC, Battery, etc), a lot of us hobbyists aren't interested in "upgrading" every two years like the general public does with cell phones. I chose DCC, and find it simple. Programming decoders (if you wish) is another part of our hobby, some run em with factory settings, others make adjustments to improve the performance to meet the users desires. I also use JMRI to program and keep a record of settings, if I purchase another loco that I already have, its a simple a duping the decoder settings in JMRI to the new loco.
To think we are behind the curve on technology is okay with me, but development is stirred by a need, and for alot of us, our needs are served with DC, DCC, Dead rail, etc.
My humble opinion only.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
It all comes down to money. If a new product or technology can be developed, manufactured, marketed, and sold at a competitive price and make a profit, it might have a chance. But you also need to convince the modelers that they need this new technology because it's faster, easier, or does something no one else does and you have to have it.
The other problems with bringing a new control system to model railroaders, is the limited market. It's not like cell phones or TV's. The other thing is I find model railroaders frugal. Their railroads are built with discretionary income. Why should I trash my DCC system for something new that I could spend the money on something I don't have or really need?
DCC will be around for a long time.
It all comes down to money.
I have to agree. Follow the money. It's one thing to develop the circuits and software, a whole other thing to make money from it.
Is it my imagination or have we been getting a bunch of people in here lately who a) have only a few posts and b) mainly seem to exist to say how dead DCC is and how much more awesome some propriatary wireless system is?
Which company are they shilling for?
"incredibly complex" next to wireless? I think not. People have and DO build their own DCC systems. It's widely understood and not complex at all - the actual concept is far older than commercial DCC products, predating the establishment of the NMRA standards (in concept and mthodology of genrating and transmitting the signal, not in the contents of the data stream). Compare to the fact that most if not all DCC manufactures, while offering a wireless throttle solution, do NOT make their own wireless trnascievers, they buy off the shelf parts - because they ARE complex and certification requirements are NOT cheap. The final product still requires certification but not to the same level as the already certified circuit module. Some of these other systems are getting around half of the certification by making you use a smartphone as the controller, which means there is no controller to certify. But you can do the exact same thing with 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.
rrinker Is it my imagination or have we been getting a bunch of people in here lately who a) have only a few posts and b) mainly seem to exist to say how dead DCC is and how much more awesome some propriatary wireless system is? Which company are they shilling for?
It's definitely not your imagination. I wouldn't go so far as to call it shilling or even trolling, but the purpose definitely seems to be to stir the pot. Heretofore that hasn't been our style and dead rail, wireless, DC and DCC have lived in peaceful coexistance.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
BigDaddy rrinker Is it my imagination or have we been getting a bunch of people in here lately who a) have only a few posts and b) mainly seem to exist to say how dead DCC is and how much more awesome some propriatary wireless system is? Which company are they shilling for? It's definitely not your imagination. I wouldn't go so far as to call it shilling or even trolling, but the purpose definitely seems to be to stir the pot. Heretofore that hasn't been our style and dead rail, wireless, DC and DCC have lived in peaceful coexistance.
The title to the thread is a real teaser - - - Beyond DCC: What's Next for Model Railroading.
I cannot speak for the OP or his motives. But, I have read the opening post several times, and I don't really see what he has to offer as the future for model railroading. Other than the fact that he really doesn't like DCC.
I guess that a good question to ask the OP is what type of operating system is he currently using?
Rich
My thinking follows Randy and Henry's. I think all systems play well together, and the longevity of DC proofs that. If you are into the lastest and greatest, well go for it. If you want to design, build, and/or market the lastest and greatest, go for it ! The rest of us will still be here, doing it the way we do it.
I got into DCC because I aquired a Digitrax SEB set for little or nothing. I still built my current layout with "blocks", only both rails gapped. What my appeal is to DCC is that I can run multiple locos, which in my case is two, on the same track. Thats it, period. I do not currently use DCC for any other functions. I have a second computer that I took "out of service" with Windows XP, that I installed JMRI on, for a furture use. I can easily go back to DC by unplugging the SEB and plugging in my MRC 2500, and changing two electrical switches.
I think that the OP should post this in a place like ARF's. Maybe he'll find someone that wants to pick a fight.
Mike.
My You Tube
Enter BlueRail Trains. A bit expencive for now at $75 a decoder but easily converts to dead rail, has sound, both onboard and on phone controler. They come up with new stuff and improvments about evey three months (and most of that time it was in vaporware mode) as most stuff is software upgrades. People said you need to do consisting and it is right around the corner along with sound improvements as at first you could only use sound on one item at a time (a bluetooth design feature) but they found a workaround. They are linked to a major player (Bachmann) so they are getting volume.
Volume is a good thing...Otherwise, there's no sound.
DWilde1,DCC is complex? It is actually very simple. For example, I had a 25' x 50' DCC layout that would host up to 5 operators running 5 trains at once. The total investment in layout wiring was a Digitrax Zephyr command station, 4 DT400R throttles, 1 UR91 radio receiver, and half a dozen UP5 throttle jacks. Oh, and 200' of red and 200' of black 14AWG wire, plus 22AWG feeders every 9 feet. No circuit breakers, no boosters, no block detection, etc. Yet I had a very complicated operation session with a very simple wiring set up.Modern wireless technology leaves DCC in the dust, this is true. However, I still have locos that I installed DCC decoders in back in 1999 and they still work. Do you know what else I was using in 1999? 3.5" floppy discs. It's a little hard to use them these days. Will modern wireless technology still work in the year 2033? DCC will. Maybe modern wireless won't. After all, the US Gov't could sell off the frequency bands...again (like they did with 900MHz).
DCC is an NMRA Standard. As much as folks knock the NMRA for their various flaws, NMRA Standards are remarkably stable. They don't change them that often. That means I never have to worry about DCC "going away" any time soon. If I wanted to switch from Digitrax to another DCC brand, all I'd have to do is swap out command stations and buy new throttles (boosters are compatible). If I were to go to a wireless system like RailPro and they went out of business, not only do I have to buy new throttles, but also all new decoders/receivers. Even worse, if I were to invest in the latest and greatest off-the-shelf wireless tech., who's to say those components will be available after the next, better wireless system comes out?
I'm reminded of the Digitrax throttle cable they came out with that turned one's Palm Pilot into a DCC throttle. It even had a little throttle knob on it. Care to find a Palm Pilot to use it with these days?
I am not wiring in electronic uncouplers into my car and loco fleet. The MTH ones on the market are a gimmick (overscale and just try to couple to a freewheeling car), and other ones I've seen require an incredible amount of engineering to install properly (using memory wire or even servos). Besides the expense and the time required to install them, the most important part is the total lack of operational use. How would they be activated? Using swipe menus on a smart phone? Magnetic reed switches? Functions as on a decoder? It's a completely impractical idea.
Personally, ground pounding sound is a waste. If all I wanted was big railroad sounds, I'd just play those old sound effect albums on a great sound system. The point, for me, is to have on-board sound. And to be realistic, it has to fit its environment. If I'm in a bedroom-sized layout, I should only be able to hear the loco when I'm next to it. If I'm in a 5000 sq. ft. club, it's going to have to be much, much louder.
Augmented VR for model railroading? I thought that was called, "TrainSim"?Paul A. Cutler III
Yes, DCC is an NMRA Standard and it isn't going anywhere soon.
The common thread to these "what is next?" and "Is DCC Obsolete" threads is the misconception that the technology is static and getting long in the tooth.
They don't understand that the NMRA defined DCC Protocol at the railhead, how it gets there and what happens after that is up to you. Any decoder built to accept the DCC signal will work on any DCC system.
There is no reason you can't use new $10 computers with DCC. At the same time, with the advent of the LCC Protocol and Standards, devices like a Raspberry PI could be used to operate and control signals, switches, do interlocking, and various other tasks. You could customize the programming to do whatever you wish.
In reality the RPi is already being used to control layouts with JMRI. No reason it can't become a command station also. Auduino boards are already being used for those tasks and the necessary libraries to implement DCC exist, allowing you to roll your own if you want.
Unlike other systems that came before and have followed since, whose life and death is determined by their sole manufacturer.
And it has been done, and even posted here - the DIY DCC system wiuth an Arduino command station and an Arduino throttle. I have a similar idea I want to experiment with when I get a chance to make a 'better' generic smartphone throttle (generic as in it will work with any BT smartphone AND any DCC system supported by JMRI and/or RocRail). And maybe also a standalone generic wireless throttle.
The only way DCC would die a quick death is if some replacement product cam eout that would cost no more than $5 to retrofit any existing loco, including sound, and offered demonstrably better operating characteristics, suitable for everyone from the train set loop type to the serious operator. So far, these various direct radio and dead rail systems have fallen flat in one or more of these areas. Model railroading is not and will not be a high volume market - there just aren't enough of us no matter what. The fact that DCC has gotten as realtively inexpensive as it is is as much a testament to the interoperability standards as anything. No one manufacturer cna get away with charging $60 for a basic decoder because any of the others can sell the same thing for under $20 and it will work with the first manufacturer's DCC system. There's no manufacturer lock in, like there was in the pre-DCC days. You can use Brand X DCC system, but you don;t have to use Brand X decoders, you can use Brand Y and Brand Z and know they will all work. Until and unless these various dead rail systems establish a standard, they will never have the success of DCC.
And DCC is not stagnant. Just because the manufacturers aren;t changing up the UI on the throttles every 6 months like cell phone makers does not mean it is stagnant. I'd go so far as to say the exact opposite, this constant UNECESSARY change in phones is simply catering to a throw it away attitude which is in most cases thankfully missing from this hobby. I'm a techie guy, but my phone is now 3 generations old and I'm in no hurry to get the latest gee whiz version because what I have now WORKS. It works fine as a phone and it still runs the apps I need just fine. Likewise, there have been many improvements added to DCC over its history, and over the 13 years or so I've been using it. Most of this happens at the loco end - there's no NEED to change the user side because it already can control the extra features as-is.
DWilde1The future is wireless. The future is open source! Sorry, Jim, but DCC is a dinosaur.
Hmmmmm....Maybe we need to rename this forum "Electronics and Dinosaur Command Control"???
I'm always open to new ideas. Go ahead, design and build the next technology and we'll see how it goes.
There is nothing wrong with options.
PakunaMatataAdopting a new digital control standard would be a long, drawn out process, and would be very costly. On-board chips would not only need to be compatible with their own standard, but would need to be fully compatible with DCC and DC, as neither of the latter technologies are universally adopted...
Yep. Any new control technology needs to be compatible with DC and DCC or it's dead in the water commercially as anything more than a niche product.
I also question the idea that price is a factor in the "obsolesence" of DCC or that this cost is holding the hobby back. It's probably slef-defeating, but so often that comes up in the context of someone dreaming about their 50 loco motive power fleet and, golly, it's going to be expensive to put decoders in all of them. I suppose, but not as expensive as buying all those locos. Shrink your expectations to a more normal size and suddenly the hobby becomes much more affordable. That's one of it's best features, as you can dial in affordability in the hobby to fit any size budget.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
As stated before, new app was just added to BlueRail Trains, a chuff variable calabration for chuff for us steam guys.
Has anyone read the article on page 38 of the June issue by Larry Naus. The article is not meant to replace current equipment but to show potentinal for battery operated smaller scale. I found the article very interesting. I have no intention of changing, but it may it be something a mfg might think of exploring.
Dan