tstage ATLANTIC CENTRAL The one board they make, I have no way to know if it will fit in any of my locos - 28 mm x 58 mm... Roughly 1.1 x 2.3", Sheldon. Larger than any TCS or NCE HO-scale decoders; probably on par with S- or O-scale - at this point. Tom [Edit: NCE's O-scale D408 decoder is nearly the same size: 1.2 x 2.3" I'm sure the boards will eventually get smaller. However, that's where things are at presently.]
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The one board they make, I have no way to know if it will fit in any of my locos - 28 mm x 58 mm...
The one board they make, I have no way to know if it will fit in any of my locos - 28 mm x 58 mm...
Roughly 1.1 x 2.3", Sheldon. Larger than any TCS or NCE HO-scale decoders; probably on par with S- or O-scale - at this point.
Tom
[Edit: NCE's O-scale D408 decoder is nearly the same size: 1.2 x 2.3" I'm sure the boards will eventually get smaller. However, that's where things are at presently.]
Tom, thank you. I really do have metric ruler somewhere? But I will also admit that stuff still bugs me. I don't "think" in metric, I look at something like that and have no built in concept of its size. If you want to market something in the USA, were the predominant system of measurement is still english units, it might be a good idea to publish that info...........10ths of an inch I'm good with, I have rebuilt automobile engines........american ones.......
The signs on the highway are in miles and miles per hour.
The milk and gas are sold by the gallon.
The lumber I build with is sold by the foot.
The doctors nurse weighs me in pounds.
And the engine in my truck is 379 cubic inches (even though mainly described by FORD as 6.2 liters, FORD was smart enough to provide the conversion.....)
OK, mini rant over.......
Sheldon
rrebell Paul3 We DCC users have been hearing about the "new thing" that will replace DCC for decades. In 2004 on the old Atlas Forum, someone told me that they would not be buying DCC because it was going to be replaced with a superior system within 5 years. Since then, we've had Crest's Train Engineer, MTH's DCS, Ring Engineering's RailPro, and now Blue Rail. I'm still waiting... Paul A. Cutler III The original Train Engineer is way older, I used it back at my old club about 25 years ago, in fact that is what I use now but with castoffs from another club. Now I hear what you are saying about systems but this one is not as propiatery as the others in that they don't own Bluetooth, nor can they get a patent for using it to run trains. Kinda leaves the feild open for others.
Paul3 We DCC users have been hearing about the "new thing" that will replace DCC for decades. In 2004 on the old Atlas Forum, someone told me that they would not be buying DCC because it was going to be replaced with a superior system within 5 years. Since then, we've had Crest's Train Engineer, MTH's DCS, Ring Engineering's RailPro, and now Blue Rail. I'm still waiting... Paul A. Cutler III
We DCC users have been hearing about the "new thing" that will replace DCC for decades. In 2004 on the old Atlas Forum, someone told me that they would not be buying DCC because it was going to be replaced with a superior system within 5 years.
Since then, we've had Crest's Train Engineer, MTH's DCS, Ring Engineering's RailPro, and now Blue Rail.
I'm still waiting...
Paul A. Cutler III
The original Train Engineer is way older, I used it back at my old club about 25 years ago, in fact that is what I use now but with castoffs from another club. Now I hear what you are saying about systems but this one is not as propiatery as the others in that they don't own Bluetooth, nor can they get a patent for using it to run trains. Kinda leaves the feild open for others.
The 10 channel Train Engineer I use was introduced in 1999, the original was introduced nearly 10 years before that. Of couse it was only effective "onboard" in large scale do to the size of the original recievers.
Yet, 25 years later, they are still making throttles, still being used by people in all scales, making HO size recievers for their latest version, and still one of the dominant throttles in large scale.
Which speaks to my original point in this thread, alternate products will not replace DC or DCC, but they will affect the market.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe milk and gas are sold by the gallon.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
... while the civilized world has agreed to use the metric system - over 100 years ago.
Micro-rant over
Sir Madog ........civilized world has agreed to use the metric system.........
Civilized???!!!!
rrebell Choops Remember this is still new and there is sound available. It is only a matter of time before there are sound decoders. I think the phone controler opens up a whole new area for customization with an easier interface. Steve Also they have already found a way to have multiple sounds going at once, it is still in beta mode though, but like said, they have just started, what other company has produced at least 10 upgrades in four months? Not fixes, upgrades?
Choops Remember this is still new and there is sound available. It is only a matter of time before there are sound decoders. I think the phone controler opens up a whole new area for customization with an easier interface. Steve
Remember this is still new and there is sound available. It is only a matter of time before there are sound decoders. I think the phone controler opens up a whole new area for customization with an easier interface.
Steve
Also they have already found a way to have multiple sounds going at once, it is still in beta mode though, but like said, they have just started, what other company has produced at least 10 upgrades in four months? Not fixes, upgrades?
You keep talking liek this is a plus for the Bluerail side. It smacks to me of a product released way before it was ready. I don;t see the point in them releasing the system to market if it couldn;t do at LEAST what the existing systems can do, and add on from there. The fact that they have to constantly update just to reach the same feature set as the existing products tells me they didn;t think this through very well.
Kind of like MRC and their first attempts at DCC. They did their own thing which was unlike every other system out there and ended up pushing a half dozen different systems, each of which was not compatible with the previous one, nor were any of them upgradable, until FINALLY figuring it out with the current system, which operates like the others and can be expanded from the basic system to the more advanced one without tossing the whole works in the trash.
Most other DCC systems have been more or less the same since the beginning, adding additional functions and a few features along the way AS THE NMRA STANDARD EVOLVED. And that's the key. First came the standard, THEN came systems fitting it, so there was no need to release 10 updates in 2 months or whatever. The system specs were established (though in the case of DCC, not fully ratified) and THEN the hardware and software was built to support said standards.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Choops 43 Nothing wrong with a model T. It's feul mileage is a poor reason to use to avoid new technologly. Steve
43
Nothing wrong with a model T. It's feul mileage is a poor reason to use to avoid new technologly.
Ok then something more recent - we had cars 10-15 years ago that could achieve the same mileage as these gee whiz complicated as all get out hybrid cars. What's the benefit fo the complex hybnrid technology, other than it costs more? It doesn't help the environment compared to a car that gets the same mileage without the extra technology, in fact quite the opposite considering what goes in to making those battery packs and all the extra electronics. It's a solution in search of a problem.
There is more that goes into gas mileage than just the engine. Cars are getting safer and safer these days. As the crumple zones get bigger the cars get bigger (more drag) we now have multiple airbags in cars (more weight) stronger a pillars (more weight). etc. etc. To achieve the same mileage or better than a few years ago is not an easy task.
Im not a fan of the hybrid technologies complexity, I like to work on my own vehicles, but it does work well.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And still, Bluerail is a non starter for me because I don't have a smart phone, don't like touch screens, and want somthing I can use without looking at the throttle. Sheldon
And still, Bluerail is a non starter for me because I don't have a smart phone, don't like touch screens, and want somthing I can use without looking at the throttle.
I use NCE, I can control the train with the controler in my left hand without having to look at the buttons. I have my right hand free for throwing switches and uncoupling cars.
Someone asked ages, I am 57.
I've been asked to look into this thread to see if it's served its useful purpose and should be put down.
It appears to have gone off-topic a few times (Model T, anyone?), but as long as people are still interested in discussing it, I see no reason to pull the plug.
Just stay civil and on topic, please.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Bob Schuknecht ATLANTIC CENTRAL And still, Bluerail is a non starter for me because I don't have a smart phone, don't like touch screens, and want somthing I can use without looking at the throttle. Sheldon Amen! I do not have a smart phone and would not buy one just to run trains. I use NCE, I can control the train with the controler in my left hand without having to look at the buttons. I have my right hand free for throwing switches and uncoupling cars. Someone asked ages, I am 57.
Amen! I do not have a smart phone and would not buy one just to run trains.
You may not like smart phones, which is fine, but you have to understand that they are not going away. A smart phone can do almost everything a home computer can do and more. For a lot of people it has eliminated the need for a home computer. You can read this forum on a smartphone.
adding smartphone compatibility to the front of a train box at a hobby shop may interest a younger generation. And those are the future model railroaders. When they start there they may continue to use it instead of converting all of their trains to DCC.
Choops You may not like smart phones, which is fine, but you have to understand that they are not going away. A smart phone can do almost everything a home computer can do and more. For a lot of people it has eliminated the need for a home computer. You can read this forum on a smartphone. Steve
Steve,
I personally don't care what a smartphone can or cannot do nowadays. It doesn't change the interface issues that make BlueRail technology unappealing and unbeneficial to me in regards to operating and enjoying my layout.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Thinking about starting a "Positive" thread for those who are interested in using Bluetooth technology. Tired of reading why the old guard don't have a need for it.
Choops Bob Schuknecht ATLANTIC CENTRAL And still, Bluerail is a non starter for me because I don't have a smart phone, don't like touch screens, and want somthing I can use without looking at the throttle. Sheldon Amen! I do not have a smart phone and would not buy one just to run trains. I use NCE, I can control the train with the controler in my left hand without having to look at the buttons. I have my right hand free for throwing switches and uncoupling cars. Someone asked ages, I am 57. You may not like smart phones, which is fine, but you have to understand that they are not going away. A smart phone can do almost everything a home computer can do and more. For a lot of people it has eliminated the need for a home computer. You can read this forum on a smartphone. adding smartphone compatibility to the front of a train box at a hobby shop may interest a younger generation. And those are the future model railroaders. When they start there they may continue to use it instead of converting all of their trains to DCC. Steve
And I'm not saying a smart phone should not be a choice, it simply should not be the only choice if you really want to reach the model train market in a big way......
Bucksco Thinking about starting a "Positive" thread for those who are interested in using Bluetooth technology. Tired of reading why the old guard don't have a need for it.
Talking of arrogance ...
Well, for heaven´s sake, start that new thread and share your experience with BlueRail with those who are interested. I am as much interested in it as in playing Pokemon Go!
Exactly!
It's called discussion, Jack. That's what makes the forum interesting. If I am interested in something I would prefer to see/hear both the positive and negative to get a better balanced view.
I do that often when shopping on Amazon. Even a negative review on a product or book can reveal something that I hadn't considered or deemed important. I'd rather get the upside and downside so that I knew I was making the best choice for me.
Ok, back on target. First off the Bachmann engine is not the same as the BlueRail product, period. Alot is the same but the BlueRail decoder has leads if you want them that can go to a battery or a capasitor, problem solved.
Since I still haven't received an answer to any of my questions, I'll ask yet a 3rd time:
Tom,
you know the answers, don´t you?
One more point which tends to be forgotten is that our trains need 14 - 16 Volts to operate, not the 3.7 Volts most "smart" devices run on. The battery will not really be small nor cheap.
But what do we know, we are just a bunch of ignorant old people turning our back on new technologies!
tstage Can both a rechargable battery and a BlueRail board reasonably be expected to fit under the hood of an HO- or N-scale diesel locomotive? How easy or convenient is it going to be to recharge the batteries? The price for rechargeable cell phone batteries is usually $20 and up and has been for years. So, what I save using a smartphone as a throttle gets eaten up (and then some) in the purchase of batteries for each of my locomotives?
Tom, I'd suggest you read our articles "Battery power without compromises" (June 2016 issue) and "Battery power and remote control" (May 2015). Neither project uses BlueRail components, but the technology and component size is similar.
Ulrich,
I believe the term "avoid" was used to describe those who dared to examine and question whether a new technology was worth the consideration, time, and money. They are probably the same ones who would rather work on their layout than stand all night in line waiting for the latest-and-greatest smartphone to go on sale.
rrinker Choops 43 Nothing wrong with a model T. It's feul mileage is a poor reason to use to avoid new technologly. Steve Ok then something more recent - we had cars 10-15 years ago that could achieve the same mileage as these gee whiz complicated as all get out hybrid cars. What's the benefit fo the complex hybnrid technology, other than it costs more? It doesn't help the environment compared to a car that gets the same mileage without the extra technology, in fact quite the opposite considering what goes in to making those battery packs and all the extra electronics. It's a solution in search of a problem. --Randy
Hopefully without getting in trouble for going off topic, one more comment on this side topic.
Randy, Steve is right, at least on one point. Cars are larger and heavier than they have been in nearly three decades because of safety advancements. Even the move to lighter, stronger materials has only partly offset this.
Example, my wife's full sized FORD FLEX has nearly identical external dimensions to the 1969 Checker station wagon I learned to drive on. And it has similar interior utility, but actually slighly smaller interior dimensions do to safety design - thicker doors, etc.
But here is the rub, the 1969 Checker weighed 3800 lbs, was powered by a 327 cid V8 (5.35 L), had 275 HP, and got 24 MPG highway.
The FLEX on the other hand weighs a massive 4800 lbs, is powered by 213 cid (3.5 L) V6 with twin turbos, has 365 HP, and get 25 MPG highway.
So we have given up maximum fuel economy to balance the demands of improved performance and better safety.
The engine in the FLEX is way more efficent (and 97% cleaner) than the engine that was in the Checker, but we are using that power differently, not for maximum fuel economy.
As for hybrids, I'm not sold. I think either the dead cylinder approach or FORD's turbo technology are better solutions - until we come up with the ultimate battery.......
Sir Madog Tom, you know the answers, don´t you? One more point which tends to be forgotten is that our trains need 14 - 16 Volts to operate, not the 3.7 Volts most "smart" devices run on. The battery will not really be small nor cheap. But what do we know, we are just a bunch of ignorant old people turning our back on new technologies!
I bought a board to test dead rail and keep alive capabilities, I can tell you it will run at full throttle on 11 volts and it even worked on an ordinary 9 v. battery.
Jack W.
tstage Since I still haven't received an answer to any of my questions, I'll ask yet a 3rd time: Can both a rechargable battery and a BlueRail board reasonably be expected to fit under the hood of an HO- or N-scale diesel locomotive? How easy or convenient is it going to be to recharge the batteries? The price for rechargeable cell phone batteries is usually $20 and up and has been for years. So, what I save using a smartphone as a throttle gets eaten up (and then some) in the purchase of batteries for each of my locomotives? Tom
A friend of mine in The Netherlands is using a home-made bluetooth device to control his battery driven loco, which is designed to run on 7.4 Volts using two 3.7 Volt batteries.
He is modeling in 1/35 scale.
What we have here, at this point, is apples to oranges. BlueRail is not trying to eleminate DCC at this point, in that respect it is just another option. Where BlueRail shines is in dead rail applications with the first solution that is not home grown. To answer the question on "will it fit diesels", depends on the unit. It will not (at this time) fit narrow hood units. It will fit alot of other ones depending on if they have room not taken up by weight like in the NW2's by Kato, but if you can get a decoder in (which has been done), I can beleive someone will do it. Any experts here on tractive force vs weight? With our free wheeling cars these days, just as in the real trains, the tractive force is not near what was once required.
I will say this, and I have said it before in previous threads.
I like the idea of direct radio and do think it is the future of command control in general.
With DCC protocols, without them, with batteries or with rail power, it seems like a better approach, just the loco reciever/decoder and the wireless throttle, and simple straight power on the rails for power, or to charge batteries, light cars, etc.
And, a big part of my thinking on this goes to the fact that i have never seen the real point to DCC, or any command control system without having wireless throttles.
I never liked any walk around system I ever used that had teathered throttles, DCC or DC. So if you are going to be at a control panel, then multi train operation can be accomplished without command control rather easily.
Another thought many will likely disagree with - I have no need, desire or interest of any kind in running more than one train at a time with one throttle in my hand.
One train, one operator where I come from. OR, on my layout, for dispaly purposes, seperate display loop routes "hidden" in the track plan.
But thinking that any such system will replace DCC is just sillyness....
Is it unusual for a train control system to be introduced and for debates like this to crop up? I'm trying to understand if the idea of Bluetooth control is particularly disruptive, or if discussions of this nature are just par for the course. I imagine other players like MTH and TMCC were around in the 90's and so escaped such a focus of controversy. I have only been paying attention for the last 5-6 years, so I don't have a good historic frame of reference.
passenger1955 Is it unusual for a train control system to be introduced and for debates like this to crop up? I'm trying to understand if the idea of Bluetooth control is particularly disruptive, or if discussions of this nature are just par for the course. I imagine other players like MTH and TMCC were around in the 90's and so escaped such a focus of controversy. I have only been paying attention for the last 5-6 years, so I don't have a good historic frame of reference.
How to control the trains has always been a topic of debate, even back before DCC or any kind of command control. Back then the debate was about the best kinds of DC "cab control" wiring schemes, but those debates happened in person because that was long before the interweb.......
Also, both the products you mentioned are O gauge systems by original design, were modelers are more receptive to the idea of proprietary systems.
HO was built on the idea that every brand of loco will run on every layout, so the relatively new idea of command control has thrown a wrench in that thinking somewhat.
Most DCC decoders allow locos to run on DC layouts - in most, but not all cases, but performance is often compromised.
I for one would not be in this hobby if I had to buy all my locos from one manufacturer because of proprietary controls like LIONEL or MTH.