passenger1955Is it unusual for a train control system to be introduced and for debates like this to crop up?
No. It still goes on all the time in this forum and others, unfortunately.
passenger1955I'm trying to understand if the idea of Bluetooth control is particularly disruptive
Not really. MTH's proprietary control system DCS still gets the same treatment here every few months.
But Bluerail's fans are especially enthusiastic and have lots of time on their hands to post over and over and over. (Especially the ones who have never actually used the stuff themselves and are thus free of any real-world constraints.)
The biggest issue for me personally is that so much misinformation is being posted in this forum as if it were fact. When one is unbound by present-day reality, all things seem equally possible.
But for the actual developers and users, hardware and underlying technology constraints are real and challenging -- and unfortunately for them won't be solved with a flurry of app releases.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I remember the first DCC debates and their predicessors. I remember Zero 1 and Dynatrol and etc. You know, there are still people using most of these. The real first contender to disrupt regular DC was DCC, which would have except the first systems were not great, 20 years later this is not the case (for most). Five to seven years ago, all but the most basic decoders were expencive, like over $50, that has changed.
See there's the thing, a smartphone IS a control option withotu changing all the rest of the underlying infrastructure. And has been since BEFORE the Bluerail product was announced. It was an option (at least with Digitrax) long before Apple made a smartphone even. Digitax had an option for a Palm PDA that had a throttle knob so you could run trains using the PDA, though in this case it was as a wired device. I was able to run trains with my first iPhone, which was the 3G model (the first ones actually did LESS than the Palm Treo I was using), more than 7 years ago.
Bluerail is not dead rail, so the only 'new' thing it brings is that the communications medium is the Bluetooth radio rather than the 802.11 wifi radio. 6 of one, half dozen of another. You still need the track to be powered. You still have to manage reverse loops.
There ARE true dead rail systems that run off onboard batteries. Yes they work, in HO and larger. I doubt any of them are terribly effective on N scale yet, let alone Z. The big guys with G scale have been doing this too for YEARS, with direct radio control to the loco with battery power. At least one of these dead rail systems works with existing DCC, though it sends the signal via RF< not in the rail, so you need not run any wires to the track. Despite battery advances, for nearly unlimited running you still need a way to keep the batteries charged up, they can't accomodate marathon operating sessions - at least not yet. Maybe in 5 years, 10 years. The ideal is to include the battery charging circuitry on board, which may barely fit in HO, certainly not N scale, and power the 'easy' parts of the track - skip reverse loops and any complex turnout groupings, just power the easy plain straight and curved areas, so the battery can recharge as you run, but you also eliminate the complexities of wiring reverse loops by just not powering them at all. This is available NOW, has been since before Blue Rail.
Is there anything inherently wrong with Blue Rail? No But at present it is a half baked product that doesn't do what the alternatives already do. DCC hasn't replaced DC, and the idea that Blue Rail will replace DCC is laughable at best.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrebellWhere BlueRail shines is in dead rail applications with the first solution that is not home grown.
Not correct. There are complete dead rail systems that predate Bluerail by years, such as Ring Engineering's RailPro and others.
Most of these are based on custom purpose-built hardware modules in the loco which are significantly smaller than Bluerail's off-the-shelf OEM hardware. That means that their receivers (and currently available batteries) fit in a larger variety of locos than do Bluerail's.
rrebell I remember the first DCC debates and their predicessors. I remember Zero 1 and Dynatrol and etc. You know, there are still people using most of these. The real first contender to disrupt regular DC was DCC, which would have except the first systems were not great, 20 years later this is not the case (for most). Five to seven years ago, all but the most basic decoders were expencive, like over $50, that has changed.
In those early days, I was a big proponent of CVP's Railcommand as the basis for a standard - at the time, it did more than the proposed DCC standard. We owe a lot to some of the early DCC manufacturers for pushing the standard beyond the basic Lenz system - AJ at Digitrax was one of the big drivers for 128 speed steps (the original Lenz concept was 14! The proponents were all like "real locos only have 8 notches" yes, but they also have this thing called momentum which makes a more infinitely variable control unecessary - though Baldwin switchers did not have a stepped control like EMD and Alco). MRC, love 'em or hate 'em, are the ones who pushed the functions to 29.
It's been a lot longer than 5-7 years that decoders have been under $50, I've had my DCC system for nearly 14 years now and was using $11.99 NCE D13SRJ's in a lot of my locos to get them DCC equipped for a budget. Do not be fooled by the likes of Bachmann who did (and still do - check their web site for online ordering ar full MSRP) sell a very basic motor only decoder for $50 even recently - a decoder with less features than the $12 NCE one from 13 years ago. Only in the very early days of DCC were the basic decoders from everyone in the $50 range. That changed rather quickly as DCC adoption sped up, each new decoder release did more and dropped in price.
cuyama rrebell Where BlueRail shines is in dead rail applications with the first solution that is not home grown. Not correct. There are complete dead rail systems that predate Bluerail by years, such as Ring Engineering's RailPro and others. Most of these are based on custom purpose-built hardare modules in the loco which are significantly smaller than Bluerail's off-the-shelf OEM hardware. That means that their receivers (and currently available batteries) fit in a larger variety of locos than do Bluerail's.
rrebell Where BlueRail shines is in dead rail applications with the first solution that is not home grown.
Most of these are based on custom purpose-built hardare modules in the loco which are significantly smaller than Bluerail's off-the-shelf OEM hardware. That means that their receivers (and currently available batteries) fit in a larger variety of locos than do Bluerail's.
Exactly - I highly doubt Ring uses a homebrew RF module in their throttles and receivers. The sheer cost of certifiaction for such things pretty much precludes a low volume model railroad manufacturer from doing this sort of thing. Even the Digitrax radio throttles, going back to the older UR91 simplex throttles, use a commercial RF module for the radio part of the throttle, not somethign they built and designed themselves. The DRS from Tam Valley likewise uses a standard RF module at each end, coupled to a custom board, in their case that conencts to a standard DCC decoder. Bluerail is no different, they have no throttle side since it uses an existing smartphone, but the receiver boards use commercial BT receivers that interface to their custom part of the hardware that actually drives the motor.
It would be interesting to know how many of the folks posting on this topic have actually used the Bluetooth APP. Just as an FYI - The Bluetooth equipped locos can run on a DCC layout at the same time that the DCC locos are being controlled. In other words you don't have to change anything on your layout or purchase anything other than a Bluetooth equipped loco (and own a smart device) to give it a try.
BuckscoIt would be interesting to know how many of the folks posting on this topic have actually used the Bluetooth APP
I have tried the Bluerail App on a friend's HO layout. I personally found it fairly clumsy compared to purpose-built throttles, but I only used it for 10-15 minutes.
The hardware won't fit in my own N scale equipment.
Edit: But it's probably only fair to note that I don't care for the JMRI/WiFi/DCC/Smartphone throttle either.
Bucksco It would be interesting to know how many of the folks posting on this topic have actually used the Bluetooth APP. Just as an FYI - The Bluetooth equipped locos can run on a DCC layout at the same time that the DCC locos are being controlled. In other words you don't have to change anything on your layout or purchase anything other than a Bluetooth equipped loco (and own a smart device) to give it a try.
I did a rather crude installation in a P2K E6 A and B to test dead rail and keep alive. The battery was installed in the B unit and the board in the A. I had to remove the shell as the board will not fit with the shell installed. I am using a Digitrax layout with an Android app., I think the keep alive feature has great potential.
By the way I am 76 (almost 77), went to DCC in 1999 and own both Digitrax and NCE systems, 65 of my 85 locos are decoder equiped. I am too much invested in both Digitrax and NCE hardware to consider ever leaving DCC.
Jack W.
DCC is only a protocol.
How you interface to it depends on what you or your DCC system's designer decided to do.
There is nothing stopping someone from getting a licence from Digitrax for Loconet development and making their own throttle with a touch interface and nice cute icons, using bluetooth to connect to a Loconet interface. Nothing really.
In fact the DCC protocol won't prevent you either. The Europeans are already doing it.
Saying something is going to replace DCC because the interface is so ancient is like saying that something will replace the world wide web because IE isn't all that great.
jalajoie I think the keep alive feature has great potential.
Just curious, since you said that you are primarily running DCC and because there are keep-alive solutions in DCC decoders that work well, what do you find superior in the Bluerail keep-alive implementation?
cuyama jalajoie Just curious, since you said that you are primarily running DCC and because there are keep-alive solutions in DCC decoders that work well, what do you find superior in the Bluerail keep-alive implementation?
jalajoie
So far I only have one loco with DCC keep alive a Bachmann 2-6-0 with a TCS decoder. The difference is the TCS will provide power for a brief period while with the battery it is much longer. An example, at the club I was doing scenery and had 6 feet of each rail masked with tape. My E6 equiped with an ordinary 9v battery traveled the whole length of this track without any hesitation. I doubt the TCS would do as well. I am on the hunt for a very small 6 to 9 v battery that I could fit in a hood unit, does it exist I don't know but I love trying new things.
a keep-alive may be essential for any system using bluetooth.
I believe it takes 1+ sec to establish a bluetooth connection. If the bluetooth receiver loses power because of dirty track, it may take 1+ second to re-establish communication. Therefore preventing loss of power is essential for decent performance in such an environment.
A pico-processor implementing DCC can reboot far faster.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
jalajoieSo far I only have one loco with DCC keep alive a Bachmann 2-6-0 with a TCS decoder. The difference is the TCS will provide power for a brief period while with the battery it is much longer. An example, at the club I was doing scenery and had 6 feet of each rail masked with tape.
If you regularly operate over long stretches of masking tape or unpowered track, I could see the need for battery vs. the standard DCC keep-alive products. Edit: You're probably aware of the DCC-based Dead Rail products like CVP's Airwire and CONVRTR.
cuyama jalajoie So far I only have one loco with DCC keep alive a Bachmann 2-6-0 with a TCS decoder. The difference is the TCS will provide power for a brief period while with the battery it is much longer. An example, at the club I was doing scenery and had 6 feet of each rail masked with tape. If you regularly operate over long stretches of masking tape or unpowered track, I could see the need for battery vs. the standard DCC keep-alive products.
jalajoie So far I only have one loco with DCC keep alive a Bachmann 2-6-0 with a TCS decoder. The difference is the TCS will provide power for a brief period while with the battery it is much longer. An example, at the club I was doing scenery and had 6 feet of each rail masked with tape.
If you regularly operate over long stretches of masking tape or unpowered track, I could see the need for battery vs. the standard DCC keep-alive products.
Good reply I love it
rrinker cuyama rrebell Where BlueRail shines is in dead rail applications with the first solution that is not home grown. Not correct. There are complete dead rail systems that predate Bluerail by years, such as Ring Engineering's RailPro and others. Most of these are based on custom purpose-built hardare modules in the loco which are significantly smaller than Bluerail's off-the-shelf OEM hardware. That means that their receivers (and currently available batteries) fit in a larger variety of locos than do Bluerail's. Exactly - I highly doubt Ring uses a homebrew RF module in their throttles and receivers. The sheer cost of certifiaction for such things pretty much precludes a low volume model railroad manufacturer from doing this sort of thing. Even the Digitrax radio throttles, going back to the older UR91 simplex throttles, use a commercial RF module for the radio part of the throttle, not somethign they built and designed themselves. The DRS from Tam Valley likewise uses a standard RF module at each end, coupled to a custom board, in their case that conencts to a standard DCC decoder. Bluerail is no different, they have no throttle side since it uses an existing smartphone, but the receiver boards use commercial BT receivers that interface to their custom part of the hardware that actually drives the motor. --Randy
So you are calling Bluerail the "first" because they will sell a battery. OK.
We look forward to photos of your installation.
No, a plug-n-play decoder with switch, battery, limit controls for battery charging etc. Before if you did not know what you were doing you could have things go south, very fast. Before, you could put it all together, first you would have to fiqure out which battery and then the stuff that went with it along with good souldering skills, and that was the easy part. Next you would have to decide which decoder to use with only a cryptic idea as they were ment for RC cars, wire it all up with switches and stuff. Maybe easy for you but I would rather wire or plum a house anyday.
RE: I downloaded the BlueRail app...
Did you download the "BlueRail app" to run a BlueRail plugin board? Or did you use the "BlueRail app" to run a Bachmann E-Z app loco? Or did you use the "Bachmann E-Z app" to run something? I'm not clear people are delineating between these different products.
The Bluerail app and Bachmann's EZ app are basically the same app.