# What happened to the Bachmann Bluetooth controler



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

I had seen a while back that Bachmann was coming out with a Bluetooth enabled train. I even saw one at a show at one of their booth displaying future products. I have not seen any for sale though and they seem not to be advertised anywhere anymore. Did these fail almost right away?

Not looking to get one just wondering what happened.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

My guess would be that they misjudged the potential market / sales volume. It was only going to grab new entrants to the hobby, and then only if you restricted yourself to Bachmann's offerings. They certainly weren't going to sell it to anyone with significant investment in a conventional DCC system. I didn't ever think there was much chance of it taking off,

Of course, the whole "use your smartphone for everything" craze is kind lost on me. They are convenient tools, but I don't want mine dominating every facet of my life (and I certainly don't see the need for 24/7 connectivity).


----------



## santafe158 (Jul 14, 2010)

Seeing as they have a website dedicated to that system, I doubt it's dead. The products are available at dealers.

http://e-zapptraincontrol.com


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

I can see the appeal for Bachmann, they can tie the customer to their locomotive products which it where it will come unstuck. Regular modellers can see this and won’t bite, newcomers might be tempted but they also will see the disadvantages so I think take up will be very slow. It’s a shame but it just doesn’t have enough universal appeal.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

While I have no doubt it's a capable system, I suspect a majority of folks will indeed figure out that it locks them into one manufacturer. The fact that there is very little buzz about it on any train forums pretty much tells the story I would think.


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

I guess then it is not a case of disappearing but rater one of no-one carries it in my area. I was just curious as normally when Bachmann releases something they want to be the next great thing it is at least on a shelf or two somewhere.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

santafe158 said:


> Seeing as they have a website dedicated to that system, I doubt it's dead. The products are available at dealers.
> 
> http://e-zapptraincontrol.com


Dead means different things to different people. As near as I can tell, they've stopped promoting it, which means it's dead to the marketing folks, and they're not devoting resources to selling it any more.

They would probably continue to support existing items, for a little while anyway. As far as products being available at dealers, well, you can interpret that a couple of different ways. I would say, "yeah, they're at dealers, because no one is buying them."


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

If the product really is receiving no more support it seems a shame.

Lots of folks have invested in DCC, but Bluetooth is a tech that can run on anyone's existing layout. DCC price is such a huge barrier to entry for the new hobbyist, and especially ironic when we already have all the processing power and necessary control capability in our pockets just waiting for the right software. 

It's a little shocking to me that model railroaders who seem otherwise so good at DIY and technology are still essentially using 20 year old wired technology to control their railroads.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Eilif said:


> It's a little shocking to me that model railroaders who seem otherwise so good at DIY and technology are still essentially using 20 year old wired technology to control their railroads.


because it's more than just a single technology.

It's a combinations of ideas that economically meets the needs of many.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Eilif said:


> It's a little shocking to me that model railroaders who seem otherwise so good at DIY and technology are still essentially using 20 year old wired technology to control their railroads.


What's wired?

Mine is once and done.... long ago. I don't need to futz with wiring again.

Bluetooth as a way to connect my throttle to my DCC system makes sense to me. Ripping out every decoder (many of which are soldered in place) so I can replace it with a blue tooth device, which still needs some means of getting electricity to the rails, doesn't even move the needle off the low peg on the interest scale. Or, God forbid, replacing my entire locomotive fleet with Bachmann's blue-tooth enabled locos.

As a means to attract new hobbyists, especially those who just want a "train set", there's something to this. As the wave of the future, no way. Whatever replaces DCC will have to do so in such a way that it can be phased in, and be manufacturer neutral.


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

Here is how I see it as what is needed for the 'next generation'. I had DC, everything wired that way etc. To convert to DCC I just added a decoder to an existing locomotive and an NCE Power Cab. With a switch I could go between the old and new systems and gradually move over. DCC offered significant improvements over DC but there was a cost to migrate to the new system. The Blue Tooth system offers no way to coexist. Also is Bachmann only. In-addition there is now advantage to go to it over my Power Cab. 

If the Bachmann Blue Tooth system allowed me to add a locomotive that could run on both DCC and Blue Tooth and a third cab via that phone it would by my next yard loco.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

You folks make some good points. However, it still seems to me that there is not really an affordable new-user-friendly control system out there and wireless really should be the future of control.

It does seem that it being proprietary to Bachman is a killer. If bachman made boards (and they could be really small with today's technology) for swapping with other decoders might there be more folks getting on board?

For those with DCC systems is the hassle of having different controllers for different engines (assuming running both DCC and bluetooth) an issue?

I think TK kruger is on the right track in that a non-proprietary system that allows engines to function via bluetooth or DCC would be a pretty good bridge. 

What about a comprehensive and user friendly (i.e. touch-screen compatible) control program and bluetooth receiver for the rails that allows your smart phone to control all your DCC and bluetooth at once?

Something easy and modern on a phone has such potential. I can't believe that I'm the only person coming into the hobby now who can't fathom why folks are still controlling and programing their trains with numerical keypads, parameter refference sheets and virtually the same LCD screens as 80's calculators. That's called a "barrier to entry", and one that really shouldn't be necessary. 

It may be hard to imagine, but most folks under 30 today never had to input a typed command into DOS. For a hobby that obsessively bemoans the lack of youngsters entering the hobby maybe taking a hard look at the control interface and making it more suited to modern expectations would be a good place to start.


----------



## tullnd (Jan 3, 2018)

Bluetooth has some issues with range and battery consumption. Bluetooth 5LE is just starting to show up in integrated chipsets beyond cell phones. It'll be a while before it's small enough and low power enough for trains. Plus, for larger layouts, it doesn't have the coverage just yet(although it's getting close).

Honestly...I think Bluetooth is just one way of many to connect. A real next-gen version of DCC would be to allow the controls to be picked up over the rails as we do today, or via any wireless transmission. The requirements of the wireless transmission would simply be the latency and speed of it. If bluetooth can meet the requirements, then bluetooth is fine. If a Wifi standard can work, then wifi is fine. 

The idea would be that newer DCC decoders would have the option to have wifi or bluetooth also built-in. They could continue to pull power off the rails or through another source(battery). Ideally you'd have newer decoder boards that supported both.

Actually, my long term ideal would be to just have a powered yard. Have the decoder work off power off the rails if it's present, or battery if it's not. If power on the rail is present, use that to charge the battery. Could have all trains in the yard being recharged. As soon as they cross into the rest of the layout, you switch over to battery power and it begins to handle DCC commands via whatever wireless tech your controller is using(wifi, bluetooth, maybe even both). This would let you expand existing DCC systems(if they can support software updates to handle a new wifi or bluetooth transmission device) or simply upgrade to a new DCC system, using your in place wiring and decoders, and add functionality for future decoders. 

Again, no reason to get rid of DCC, simply change how the commands are transmitted to a new medium.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

Perhaps wi-fi would be a better option than bluetooth?

The 10 buck usb wifi modem I'm currently using on this old computer is just about double the size of the section that plugs into the usb port so miniaturization probably isn't a limiting factor.

The input interface, preferably touch-screen, is as much of interest to me as the method of transmission. Most I've seen that look pretty good are programs that run on top of an existing dcc system but still require the DCC infrastructure and they don't generally seem to come ready to go right out of the box.

Just getting manual input for programing out of the equation or at least making it visual and easy out-of-the-box would be a huge step in the right direction.


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

It would be nice if they made a wifi receiver that just sent the signals over the rails with the current power. Same decoders that are in use today. That way an app could actually do all of the work. The controlling / programming could still be done the same old way it always has been in DCC under the hood. Full backwards compatibility. The interface could simplify it however the programmer wanted. That would greatly decrease the cost of converting. With that method I would be out a power cab, NCE cab04. Using my cheep Amazon tablets I would have multiple cabs as each of my kids have them too. Then again I do like the old cabs and have no issue now that I have learned the system.

I hate to say it would still be wired as I often forget to charge it and end up using it while it is plugged in.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

tkruger said:


> It would be nice if they made a wifi receiver that just sent the signals over the rails with the current power. Same decoders that are in use today. That way an app could actually do all of the work. The controlling / programming could still be done the same old way it always has been in DCC under the hood. Full backwards compatibility. The interface could simplify it however the programmer wanted. That would greatly decrease the cost of converting. With that method I would be out a power cab, NCE cab04. Using my cheep Amazon tablets I would have multiple cabs as each of my kids have them too. Then again I do like the old cabs and have no issue now that I have learned the system.
> 
> I hate to say it would still be wired as I often forget to charge it and end up using it while it is plugged in.


That seems like a very elegant solution. As long as it was paired with an easy to use interface I could easily see newcomers to the hobby being willing to buy a simple receiver that you hook right to the rails. It probably wouldn't even need it's own power since it could draw from the device like so many plug-in wifi devices do today.

Would also open up the bargain aspect of not requiring a more recent version of bluetooth to function.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

There's actually some projects moving in that direction, using the familiar DCC commands over the rails but then echoing the same commands over wifi. And bluetooth could also be used, but it does require extra work to set up.

I've been working on this project recently. It is a base station built from an ESP32 (similar to an arduino, but with built in wifi and bluetooth radios) that transmits standard DCC commands over the rail, with some initial work done to also transmit over wifi. My understanding is that you can run accessory decoders over wifi but not locomotives -- and the loco part is actually why *I* want to do so once I have all the components up and running I'll try to add more commands to the wifi portion of the code.

As mentioned above, I also feel that cross-compatibility is important for bringing folks into a newer method of doing things. Being able to transmit both over the rails and over wifi will open up a whole new world if the compatibility is maintained. DCC++ is an open standard, so anyone can jump in on it and build new hardware, and you don't have to worry about vendor lock-in.

As for touchscreen support, with wifi you have the advantage of writing web pages that can be read by any browser. This makes it immediately compatible with cell phones, tablets, or even desktop computers. The offerings I've seen so far seem to mimic traditional hardware throttles, but there is no reason to continue that in a software interface.

As for my own experience with all this... well it's limited. I have the base station running, and am now currently working on building an accessory decoder using an ATtiny85 and a PCA9685 board which can control up to 16 servos. This setup will read commands directly from the track, but it's my first step to confirm my hardware is working before I move on to the loco. I've done full wifi control in the past, but independently also decided that maintaining DCC compatibility is the way to move forward if I didn't want to design ALL the hardware from scratch. It will take some time, but more projects will appear that bring DCC into the present.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Eilif said:


> Something easy and modern on a phone has such potential. I can't believe that I'm the only person coming into the hobby now who can't fathom why folks are still controlling and programing their trains with numerical keypads, parameter refference sheets and virtually the same LCD screens as 80's calculators. That's called a "barrier to entry", and one that really shouldn't be necessary.


let's say the NMRA creates a standard for wireless decoders. what new capabilities would it offer that aren't currently provided by DCC?

is a wireless system really wireless? doesn't it need power from the track? Or is a battery system now needed?

even if it didn't cost any more than current decoders, what do you think the market is for such a system? Do you think hobbyists would be willing to purchase ($$) and spend the effort to replace their existing decoders? 

do you think there is a big enough market from new modelers to justify the investment for manufacturers.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Actually a wireless decoder could work off of batteries or track power -- whatever is convenient. It also opens up the possibility of adding new features without having to tear up existing structure to add new wiring. And of course you could add DCC to a garden train this way, even if you run under battery power.

The thing that always amazes me is that people don't have problems with DCC locomotives and dirty track. I know how hard it is just to get clean power off the tracks from a moving loco, I can't imagine trying to also read a command signal from those same tracks. By adding the option of wifi I can pull signals from the track in cases where a device can be soldered directly to the rails (such as turnout motors), but I can also simultaneously read commands from the air if I can't (or don't want to) rely on the track signal. Providing options means you have more possibilities to make things work. It won't hamper the existing DCC system, it just gives you new ways to do the same thing.


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

Out of curiosity I actually bought a couple of the Bachmann bluetooth locos last year to play with. So to clear up a couple of misconceptions. 1) you can buy the Bluetooth decoders alone from the manufacturer and hardwire them into other manufacturers locos exactly the same way we wire decoders into various locos. 2) You can run Bluetooth equipped locos on any DCC layout while DCC equipped locos are running or not. 3) If the voltage is high enough you can run them on DC layouts also.

So no you are not locked into Bachmann only products and no you don’t have to replace, rewire or get rid of all your existing DCC or DC locos to run Bluetooth locos.

One definate advantage the Bluetooth system has over conventional DCC is it is far far easier to speed-match locos using the Bluetooth system than regular DCC. Consisting is also very easy.

To my mind the biggest disadvantage with Bluetooth is the very limited sound-files that are available so far.

We who are already majorly invested in DC or DCC probably won’t completely switch over to Bluetooth....but if it adds incentive for the younger generation to get into the hobby then it can only be an advantage. Most kids have smart-phones and aren’t afraid to use them. &#55358;&#56611;&#55358;&#56611;&#55358;&#56611;


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Shdwdrgn said:


> Actually a wireless decoder could work off of batteries or track power -- whatever is convenient.


wireless isn't really wireless unless you use batteries. 

I don't think adding batteries is convenient



Shdwdrgn said:


> It also opens up the possibility of adding new features without having to tear up existing structure to add new wiring.


can you give some examples of new features




Shdwdrgn said:


> The thing that always amazes me is that people don't have problems with DCC locomotives and dirty track. I know how hard it is just to get clean power off the tracks from a moving loco, I can't imagine trying to also read a command signal from those same tracks.


you don't have to receive every command. You do need reliable power.



Shdwdrgn said:


> By adding the option of wifi I can pull signals from the track in cases where a device can be soldered directly to the rails (such as turnout motors), but I can also simultaneously read commands from the air if I can't (or don't want to) rely on the track signal.


are you suggesting DCC should be used for non-track devices (see LCC) and use wireless frontend on DCC decoders in the locomotives?

the DCC protocol and msg set are targeted for a track based system that also carries power. Do you think the DCC protocol is the best approach for a wireless system?


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Genetk44 said:


> One definate advantage the Bluetooth system has over conventional DCC is it is far far easier to speed-match locos using the Bluetooth system than regular DCC. Consisting is also very easy.


is this something that can't be done with DCC?


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

@gregc -- to answer your last question first, I think anything that is 20-30 years old is probably not the *best* approach. There are always new technologies, new and better ways to do things... but at some point you have to put a pin in it and say you're going to freeze technology at this point so that everyone has a standard from which to work. There are other technologies of course which would be better than DCC for different situations, however DCC is well-established and well known, therefore despite being an old technology it is common ground that everyone can use. So by simply adding a new channel of communications you can expand into newer technology without sacrificing any features that already exist in the old system.

Wireless most certainly is wireless without batteries. My sister has a DVD player that plugs into the wall but still makes use of wifi to communicate with the internet. Sure my cell phone runs on batteries and doesn't have any physical attachments, but that doesn't mean it is any more wireless than the DVD player except in the most absolute strict sense of the word.

Regarding new features... one thing in particular that I am pursuing is two-way communication with each loco. I don't mean just a power surge on the rails, I mean actually transmitting data from the loco and receiving a full reply. With wifi that is easy, I don't even have to use the same channel that DCC is communicating over. I want my locos to each be able to run autonomously, and that means finding out what track blocks are occupied, when loads are ready to be picked up, and even knowing when a specific car is in the right location to electrically dump its load.

An even simpler scenario is the first throttle that I created. I started out writing all my code from scratch, and sending data back from each loco over wifi. With throttle hysteresis, you can see what speed you set for a loco, but unless you have eyes on the loco you don't know what speed it is actually going while it builds up momentum to the requested speed. On my system each loco continually reported back its actual speed, so the throttle could show both the target speed and the actual current speed. If a loco fell off the track, signal would be lost and the throttle would report the problem.

So yeah, there's possibilities for improving and expanding the current system, it just depends on what your goals are.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Shdwdrgn said:


> @gregc -- to answer your last question first, I think anything that is 20-30 years old is probably not the *best* approach.


is it time to replace IP/TCP ?



Shdwdrgn said:


> one thing in particular that I am pursuing is two-way communication with each loco.


could be useful.



Shdwdrgn said:


> I want my locos to each be able to run autonomously, and that means finding out what track blocks are occupied, when loads are ready to be picked up, and even knowing when a specific car is in the right location to electrically dump its load.


does this require 2-way communication? I think this could be easier with the intelligence centralized where all the data resides, not in the loco.



Shdwdrgn said:


> so the throttle could show both the target speed and the actual current speed.


sounds like a "neat" feature to display speed on your controller.

But if a loco has the power to measure it's speed, wouldn't it be capable of controlling its speed, autonomously? does this require more hardware?

isn't maintaining speed what BEMF in decoders do today?



Shdwdrgn said:


> If a loco fell off the track, signal would be lost and the throttle would report the problem.


could be useful if it was on the ground in a tunnel



Shdwdrgn said:


> So yeah, there's possibilities for improving and expanding the current system, it just depends on what your goals are.


what we do for our own enjoyment does not need justification

are these features useful enough to enough modelers ($$) to justify the development of a system by manufacturers or even a standard by the NMRA? should it be DCC based?


----------



## PhillipL (May 5, 2012)

I looked at the Bachmann site about this system since this thread popped up. From what I saw, the locomotives can be run on standard DC or by using the app. There are many Bachmann fans out there, I think the idea was, hey I can use my existing layout without upgrading to DCC with these engines while operating it from phone or other device. It allows someone to experience DCC without the cost beyond a new locomotive. I agree it is solely Bachmann which limits the user to their locomotives. I admit I use good old DC and would try it except I don't have an IPAD or Smart phone (yep still got my trusty flip phone). But if I ever do upgrade to a Smart phone, I will most likely give a try (bet my grandkids would love it) as would I. 

If you don't want it, don't buy it.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

gregc said:


> let's say the NMRA creates a standard for wireless decoders. what new capabilities would it offer that aren't currently provided by DCC?
> 
> is a wireless system really wireless? doesn't it need power from the track? Or is a battery system now needed?
> 
> ...


Honestly, there aren't many benefits of wireless-device-based railroading over the current system for those already invested in it. The one's I see are:
-Improved interface
-More easily upgradeable software
-the ability to move about without a wired controller
-Better and easier programing of engines.

The real appeal and benefits is not going to be with those that are find with their current system satisfactory. The beneifit is putting a product out there that meets folks who have modern expectations for technology where they are at rather than tossing them onto a learning curve.

I don't know if the market presently exists, and maybe we have to stick with the core of DCC but it seems unlikely that the way to build a new market is by sticking with an interface that looks and functions like a 1980's computer game.



Genetk44 said:


> Out of curiosity I actually bought a couple of the Bachmann bluetooth locos last year to play with. So to clear up a couple of misconceptions. 1) you can buy the Bluetooth decoders alone from the manufacturer and hardwire them into other manufacturers locos exactly the same way we wire decoders into various locos. 2) You can run Bluetooth equipped locos on any DCC layout while DCC equipped locos are running or not. 3) If the voltage is high enough you can run them on DC layouts also.
> 
> So no you are not locked into Bachmann only products and no you don’t have to replace, rewire or get rid of all your existing DCC or DC locos to run Bluetooth locos.
> 
> ...


I didn't know the decoders were available separately. It does sound like they aren't controllable by DCC and that is a drawback I think if one prefers the current DCC interface.

I wonder if Bachman could have easily gone with a DCC standard interface that simply had the ability to take it's commands both from rail or bluetooth device?


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

gregc said:


> is this something that can't be done with DCC?


GregC...don’t put words in my mouth...I never said nor did I imply that it can’t be done with DCC.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Eilif said:


> I didn't know the decoders were available separately. It does sound like they aren't controllable by DCC and that is a drawback I think if one prefers the current DCC interface.
> 
> I wonder if Bachman could have easily gone with a DCC standard interface that simply had the ability to take it's commands both from rail or bluetooth device?


I didn't know the decoders were available separately, either, but that only removes the "locked into Bachmann's locos" objection, which was only a minor concern. I will say that I installed some of their non-Bluetooth decoders and was so unimpressed that I yanked them out and put jn better ones. To me, though, this still defeats the purpose of having a standard for everyone to manufacture to. If I decided to replace my MRC system with an NCE unit, I could do that without touching any of my locos.

And why would I want to have to use one controller for some trains and a separate one for others?

I'll grant the inherent upgradability of the smartphone interface, but on the other hand, when I was looking at buying into DCC, there were a whole lot of ,Oh, wow, I can do that with DCC" moments. Now in 10+ years I have yet to identify anything I really feel is missing.from DCC capabilities.

Sure, this might be attractive to newcomers, but to capture the existing market, you have to hit that level of "OMG, look at how much better this is" or you've failed. It's a marketing miss.

And in the meantime, the good folks at MRC have come up with a much better solution (for my purposes, anyway): http://www.modelrectifier.com/product-p/0001530.htm

I think their price point is a little high at the moment, but this solution might actually get me to take my smartphone into the train room.


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

I really don’t think Bachmann ever truly thought they would convert those of us who are already heavily invested in DCC to the Bluetooth system, at least not at this point in its development. But as an alternative to entice the younger guys and kids it might be attractive.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

CTValleyRR said:


> I
> And in the meantime, the good folks at MRC have come up with a much better solution (for my purposes, anyway): http://www.modelrectifier.com/product-p/0001530.htm


So that seems like step one, but why in the heck should a person need a whole "prodigy system"? 

Here comes the new-guy question. What can the Progidy system do that couldn't be handled by a smart device with the right software and a wireless reciever much like that one?

Is having a knob worth buying a 200 dollar handheld controler when all the processing power you need is already in your pocket.

Seems like alot of companies just want to keep selling us hardware. It's an honest concern in an age when software can be pirated and companies need to sell stuff to keep in business. Still, I'll be looking forward to the company that steps up to disrupt the market and says all you need is a power supply, our router and software and you can run all your DCC stuff from your tablet easily.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Eilif said:


> So that seems like step one, but why in the heck should a person need a whole "prodigy system"?
> 
> Here comes the new-guy question. What can the Progidy system do that couldn't be handled by a smart device with the right software and a wireless reciever much like that one?
> 
> ...


The Prodigy system can communicate with the locos that are on my layout right now. No new hardware required. As opposed to having to retrofit each locomotive with a new decoder. A WiFi interface makes it possible for me to use a smartphone, if I want to, without cracking open all my equipment. As I've repeatedly said, the Bachmann Bluetooth might be attractive to a newcomer, but certainly not to anyone who has any degree of investment in DCC already. I also don't share your cynicism that its "just trying to sell us something." It's providing a capability to INTERFACE new tech with the existing system, as compared to Bachmann's approach of trying to replace it entirely.

And actually, as far as ergonomics go, yes, I actually DO prefer the MRC handheld to my smartphone. The knob and physical buttons make it easy to operate with one hand. I can't do that with my smartphone, certainly not with the same degree of precision.

And finally, we also need to consider what my Prodigy system DOESN'T bring to the experience: no e-mails, phone calls, text messages, advertising, or other distractions. I don't go to my layout area to deal with life. I go there to get away from it. When I'm home, my smartphone sits on the table in the front hall. I will go to my grave long before I embrace 24/7 connectivity. I want it available, but not mandatory.


----------



## tullnd (Jan 3, 2018)

You still don't want everything to run on your smartphone. For the same reason we have issues with a PowerCab needing to be tethered. You want the system to continue to run even if your cell phone isn't there.

I'd want something that can supply power for the layout, and act as a control center. First, I don't want my phone to be the control center, as that'd just limit me to having my phone connected for it to work. Second, the constant signalling would have a noticeable impact on battery life. There's really no reason not to have the control center powered via AC and sitting at the layout. Let me add my own smart phone via an app as a throttle or have an application interface to configure the control center, but I don't want it to actually be the control center. Every time I answer a call, the trains stop? Or the phone gets hot because the CPU is humming along constantly if there's 5 or 6 individual trains running? All the additional throttles are connecting back to the individual phone controlling everything? 

Again, people are overthinking this stuff. Wifi and bluetooth are both viable options as communication mediums. There's no reason to actually change DCC itself except to upgrade it to add more functionality. I would have DCC systems basically allow connectivity modules for wifi or bluetooth to both throttles(smartphones, tablets, etc...anything that runs a compatible app) or and decoders. That means you keep full backwards compatibility and open up the option for more connectivity.

With the upcoming 802.11AD standard, which is designed to handle many many simultaneous devices on a single wifi Access Point, but all using low bandwidth applications(which DCC would qualify for...the commands are NOT large amounts of data by any means), integration of DCC systems to use an existing wifi deployment in the home would be perfect. Whether the DCC command center connects to your network via ethernet or some module interface, let us use our home wifi which is an established standard. Don't need a new one. The decoders can choose to support wifi standards based upon current tech, 802.11AC is fine, but honestly I'd think AD would be a better option for higher density layouts. Any router that supports 802.11AD will also support 802.11AC, which is what phones/tablets would use. So they'd connect(the same as the throttles work today with Engine Driver) to the command system over wifi. Or a Bluetooth module can be added to the DCC Command Center as well, and maybe decoders could also have bluetooth built-in. Many chipsets that support wifi also have built-in bluetooth support as well, so why not have both on your decoder. They're just transmission mediums. You pick which one you want to use based upon your needs.

Having a decoder that matches current sizing, with built-in wifi and bluetooth is probably another year or two off. There's also the issue of the wifi connections needing to have antennas installed, but outside of brass models(which would have issues with the signal), I don't think the trains would have too much trouble with that. It doesn't need to be super strong signal for the low bandwidth necessary. And most people could probably arrange to get an extra access point installed close to their train set these days.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

Those are good points. I do assent to the idea that abandoning DCC as a base isn't probably the best option. However, as regards:

-Desire not to be "connected". It doesn't have to be a live phone. It could be a deactivated phone, tablet or laptop. Any of those can be had for a fraction of the price of a DCC system. I definitely understand this desire as though I'm fairly active in online forums, I don't do "social Media" platforms and I often make a point of not answering non-essential texts right away.

-Physical manipulation. If someone wants or needs buttons and knobs then they will probably be sticking with the current options. I would put forth that such requirements are likely not a deciding factor for those not already in the hobby and under the age of 40.

While I see the value of sticking with DCC as a base, I just still don't see the value for many of us (especially newbies) in purchasing more hardware than is necessary based on the computing power I've already got. 

Another newbie question: 
What kind of plug-and-play (if any) hardware and software solutions currently exist for hooking your computer or tablet right to your wired DCC system and using your computer or tablet for operation and control as a way of bypassing the need for a separate controller.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

My current DCC system (Roco Z21) supports a "smart phone" application AND more traditional handheld devices like my current WiFI enabled Multi-MAUS.

It can also use Digitrax compatible handheld devices.

Having used both the app and the Multi-MAUS I much prefer the Multi-MAUS. 

Yes the phone app has more features but to use the app I find that I have to look at the phone.

The Multi-MAUS I can use without looking at it.

Frederick


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

fcwilt said:


> My current DCC system (Roco Z21) supports a "smart phone" application AND more traditional handheld devices like my current WiFI enabled Multi-MAUS.
> 
> If can also use Digitrax compatible handheld devices.
> 
> ...


I'll look into that system.

Out of curiosity, does it have compatibility with other control devics plugged into a computer or tablet? That is to say, could throttle and other functions be controlled by a wired or even wireless game controller?


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Eilif said:


> I'll look into that system.
> 
> Out of curiosity, does it have compatibility with other control devics plugged into a computer or tablet? That is to say, could throttle and other functions be controlled by a wired or even wireless game controller?


I wouldn't think so. The phone app is provided by Roco. You should be able to go online to see what capabilities it might have.

Frederick


----------



## PhillipL (May 5, 2012)

And to think this all started as "What happened to the Bachmann Bluetooth controller?". Bachmann on their website just announced another release of RS3s for the system.


----------



## Mr.Buchholz (Dec 30, 2011)

tkruger said:


> I had seen a while back that Bachmann was coming out with a Bluetooth enabled train. I even saw one at a show at one of their booth displaying future products. I have not seen any for sale though and they seem not to be advertised anywhere anymore. Did these fail almost right away?
> 
> Not looking to get one just wondering what happened.


I remember seeing something to that effect at last year's model train show, or possibly the year before. As far as I know, Bachmann still had it up on their website as of last fall. Personally, I wouldn't buy into that. As others have stated here, I don't think we need our phones intruding on the hobby.

That being said, next week is the annual model train show here in my city. I'll keep an eye out to see if any of the merchants are peddling one, and see how much it costs.

-J.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Your phone need not interrupt you, incoming calls can be disabled or better still use a tablet with no calling facility.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Cycleops said:


> Your phone need not interrupt you, incoming calls can be disabled or better still use a tablet with no calling facility.


Even a 7" tablet would be unwieldy in the extreme.

Smartphones -- here's the thing. 1) Yes, I could incur the additional expense of a smartphone to use as a throttle; 2) Yes, I could ignore incoming calls, etc.; 3) Yes, I can set my to ignore incoming calls, etc. (at the risk of forgetting to re-enable it later). And so on.

But all this is really saying, "do something extra so that you can have the same thing you already have, so that you can use a device that is less-well suited for the task than a custom built one." It doesn't pass the common sense test. Given the initial condition that having a smartphone as your throttle is the holy grail of your model railroad existence, then there are workarounds, but for folks like me for whom having a smartphone in my hand at all times is a "meh" idea at best, it would just be wasted effort.


----------



## Mr.Buchholz (Dec 30, 2011)

CTValleyRR said:


> Even a 7" tablet would be unwieldy in the extreme.
> 
> Smartphones -- here's the thing. 1) Yes, I could incur the additional expense of a smartphone to use as a throttle; 2) Yes, I could ignore incoming calls, etc.; 3) Yes, I can set my to ignore incoming calls, etc. (at the risk of forgetting to re-enable it later). And so on.
> 
> But all this is really saying, "do something extra so that you can have the same thing you already have, so that you can use a device that is less-well suited for the task than a custom built one." *It doesn't pass the common sense test.*


:worshippy:

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

-J.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

CTValleyRR said:


> Even a 7" tablet would be unwieldy in the extreme.
> 
> Smartphones -- here's the thing. 1) Yes, I could incur the additional expense of a smartphone to use as a throttle; 2) Yes, I could ignore incoming calls, etc.; 3) Yes, I can set my to ignore incoming calls, etc. (at the risk of forgetting to re-enable it later). And so on.


Except that you've already got an operating railroad that works the way you want it to so this proably wouldn't really be for you anyway. As to your points.

1) Most folks already have a smartphone and if the software and a little bit of hardware were available it would a savings to anyone building a railroad.

2) If you don't want to ignore calls, second hand phones are cheap as chips.

3)same as 2 I guess.

Alot of this is hypothetical as an out-of-the-box mobile device centered wifi DCC doesn't exist yet. What I'm suggesting is that for someone who doesn't already have a railroad such a system both makes sense and is less expensive. 

I have come around to the idea that the bachmann system is not a real replacmenet for DCC, but I'm seeing alot of folks poo-poo an idea that would break barriers of entry wide open. 

Imagine this scenario. Someone comes to your layout and asks about DCC and you could just say... 

_"See this tiny little modem thingy I've got wired to the tracks. Buy this for $100 and load some software on your smartphone and you can be programing and controlling your locomotives tomorrow"_

That's the kind of technology that can grow a hobby.


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

Eilif said:


> Imagine this scenario. Someone comes to your layout and asks about DCC and you could just say...
> 
> _"See this tiny little modem thingy I've got wired to the tracks. Buy this for $100 and load some software on your smartphone and you can be programing and controlling your locomotives tomorrow"_
> 
> That's the kind of technology that can grow a hobby.


This is how I ended up with the NCE Power Cab. $~!50 and it was all I needed to be comparable with any current DCC item. Now I already had an established DC layout so $15 for a motor only NCE decoder to convert the first locomotive to DCC and I was going for ~$165. There are entry systems such as the PowerCab that are very capable and reliable.

I think what is needed is a sub $200 system with the track, loco, cars all of reasonable quality that can do DCC or WiFi/BlueTooth. Why do I say this? The used market allows a lower price point for good stuff. Since the first year I was doing this second hand was first choice. Garage sales, then shows, EBay etc. Anything priority prevents this. The initial quality gives a good intro to the hobby. To many of the starter kits are poor quality and just discurage people.

I do understand that $200 may seem high for entry but add two cars with goof couples, wheels and trucks. An Trainline level locomotive, lower on the detail side but a reliable runner. Oval of EZTrack and the controller. Note that the cars and loco shell could be older molds thus the tooling is paid for. Track should be cheep at this point for an oval. The profit would be slight on the set but good on the next items.

Currently getting in means minimum $80 for the DCC loco, $150 for a PowerCab, $20 a car, track etc. There is $400 easy to start. I see the cost issue when looking at this by the piece. Possibly just a simple low cost quality over detail set for entry is what is needed.


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

Virtually everybody between the ages of 10 and 30 already have smartphones and the great majority of people between the ages of 30 and 60 do also, so that really isn’t an issue. You can still answer calls on your phone while operating your train...so no issue there. All that is required is a cheap power pack to deliver current to the tracks,the free phone app and a bluetooth equipped loco...it actually turns out to be cheaper than DCC and less hardware to boot.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Genetk44 said:


> and a bluetooth equipped loco...


That is the most important and difficult part. 

DCC is a standard the succeeded where earlier attempts failed.

The hobby would need a similar Bluetooth standard.

Frederick


----------



## tullnd (Jan 3, 2018)

fcwilt said:


> That is the most important and difficult part.
> 
> DCC is a standard the succeeded where earlier attempts failed.
> 
> ...


Again, no, that's not what you want.

You want to continue to use DCC. You simply need to expand DCC to include communication via wifi and bluetooth.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

tullnd said:


> Again, no, that's not what you want.
> 
> You want to continue to use DCC. You simply need to expand DCC to include communication via wifi and bluetooth.


I didn't say any new standard could not be backwards compatible.

What the hobby doesn't need is a bunch of incompatible approaches to using Bluetooth and, perhaps WiFi.

Frederick


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> That is the most important and difficult part.
> 
> DCC is a standard the succeeded where earlier attempts failed.
> 
> ...


Bluetooth isn’t difficult...Bachmann makes locos and they are putting BlueRails bluetooth decoders in them...and you can also buy the decoders seperatly from BlueRail to put into your own locos if you so choose. Right now Bachmann and BlueRail are the defacto Bluetooth standard as far as bluetooth train control is concerned.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Genetk44 said:


> Bluetooth isn’t difficult...Bachmann makes locos and they are putting BlueRails bluetooth decoders in them...and you can also buy the decoders seperatly from BlueRail to put into your own locos if you so choose. Right now Bachmann and BlueRail are the defacto Bluetooth standard as far as bluetooth train control is concerned.


I didn't mean the tech was difficult - what can be hard is getting everyone to agree on a standard.

Frederick


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> I didn't mean the tech was difficult - what can be hard is getting everyone to agree on a standard.
> 
> Frederick


I knew you weren’t referring to the tech but to standards...thats why I said that the “ defacto standard at this time is Bachmann and BlueRail”.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Genetk44 said:


> I knew you weren’t referring to the tech but to standards...thats why I said that the “ defacto standard at this time is Bachmann and BlueRail”.


Are they compatible?

Frederick


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> Are they compatible?
> 
> Frederick


Are Bachmann and BlueRail compatible? Yes, Bluerails supplies Bachmann with their bluetooth decoders and tech. for Bachmanns bluetooth locos. But you can buy the decoders directly from BlueRails to retrofit your existing locos should you choose to do so.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Genetk44 said:


> Are Bachmann and BlueRail compatible? Yes, Bluerails supplies Bachmann with their bluetooth decoders and tech. For Bachmanns bluetooth locos. But you can buy the decoders directly from BlueRails to retrofit your existing locos should you choose to do so.


Thanks much.

Frederick


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> Thanks much.
> 
> Frederick


No problem.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Eilif said:


> Honestly, there aren't many benefits of wireless-device-based railroading over the current system for those already invested in it. The one's I see are:
> -Improved interface
> -More easily upgradeable software
> -the ability to move about without a wired controller
> -Better and easier programing of engines.


a lot been posted since this post. I don't know if its been clearly said that DCC only defines the protocol/messages over the track. It doesn't define the user interface between the handheld and the "system". The above comments are concerned with the user interface.

there's no need to change or upgrade DCC to allow venders (e.g. NCE) to support wifi based handhelds that communicate with their command stations. NCE has (ISM band) wireless controllers.

the user interface to "program a locomotive" doesn't require the actual interface (DCC) to the decoder to be any more/less cryptic than it is today. The above comments suggest a GUI that describes options the user selects which it translates them into CV values programmed into the decoder. 

I believe this is what Genetk44 suggested by saying the bluetooth system is "easier to speed-match locos". I have no experience with JMRI DecoderPro, but I believe it provides a GUI for this purpose.

flat panel interface may be modern but aren't necessarily the best interfaces. would you want a flat panel device to control your non-self-driving car?


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

gregc said:


> a lot been posted since this post. I don't know if its been clearly said that DCC only defines the protocol/messages over the track. It doesn't define the user interface between the handheld and the "system". The above comments are concerned with the user interface.
> 
> there's no need to change or upgrade DCC to allow venders (e.g. NCE) to support wifi based handhelds that communicate with their command stations. NCE has (ISM band) wireless controllers.


So why do you think MRC have done precisely that?

As for driving your car with a flat screen device it would be a no no but what about driving a real loco with one?


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Cycleops said:


> So why do you think MRC have done precisely that?


great example. no need to change DCC



Cycleops said:


> As for driving your car with a flat screen device it would be a no no but what about driving a real loco with one?


i was trying to suggest that the user interface should reflect what the interface is for. Just because a flat panel interface is modern doesn't mean that it is more appropriate. i know many young and older people prefer the latest gadgets. There are different type of "modern" interfaces.

i agree with others that like a knob and buttons to control a locomotive speed and direction that can be used while looking at the locomotive being controlled.

the most modern prototype locomotive interface is a remote belt-pack, not a flat panel.


----------



## Mr.Buchholz (Dec 30, 2011)

As someone who is in his late thirties, I won't ever use anything smartphone related to run my trains. Call me a traditionalist, or call me old-fashioned, but I much prefer how it's been done since the start. Technology and gadgets are fun sometimes, but there are some hobbies/interests that technology should stay away from.

One day, I might see fit to upgrade to DCC, but that is as far as I will go.

-J.


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

gregc said:


> .......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just want to be 100% clear...when I said that speed-matching locos using blue-tooth was much easier than speed-matching using DCC I was including the JMRI in that. I’ve had my NCE system for over 12 years and I’ve been using JMRI for over 5 years. Both speed-matching locos and consisting them is far,far easier using the Bachman/BlueRails bluetooth system than it is using plain DCC programming or using JMRI.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Genetk44 said:


> I just want to be 100% clear...when I said that speed-matching locos using blue-tooth was much easier than speed-matching using DCC I was including the JMRI in that.


does anyone know if the bluetooth system relies on two-way communication to support speed-matching/consists?

it would be a shame for someone to give up using DCC because of a poor user interface. NMRA DCC standard describes the protocol/messages between machines: the command station and locomotive decoder. The human interface is vender specific.


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

gregc said:


> does anyone know if the bluetooth system relies on two-way communication to support speed-matching/consists?
> 
> it would be a shame for someone to give up using DCC because of a poor user interface. NMRA DCC standard describes the protocol/messages between machines: the command station and locomotive decoder. The human interface is vender specific.


Here is a direct quote from the BlueRails site about two-way communication..I can’t confirm the accuracy or validity of their comments but you could ask them via email...they seemed to be very responsive last year when I had questions.

“Bi-directional communication – One of the challenging issues in DCC is the lack of bi-directional communication. That is, DCC commands you send to your train are on a one-way trip. Your loco cannot speak back to you and give you feedback. This is very valuable for lots of reasons, including speed-matching and load/position management. With Bluetooth Smart, every loco is constantly in communication with the control app, and so, effectively in communication with each other, and can interact more effectively.”


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Genetk44 said:


> “Bi-directional communication ... This is very valuable for lots of reasons, including speed-matching and load/position management.


thanks for finding and posting this info. So this appears more than just a human interface issue. But it raises questions. maybe others can suggest answers

the statement above suggests that feedback is required between the locomotive and controller to maintain speed or at least keep two locos in a consist at the same speed.

But why? Can the controller measure the speed and the loco can't? Does the controller have access to trackside detectors from which the speed is determined?

RT_Coker has suggested ways for the locomotive to determine its trackspeed. If the loco can measure it's speed, the controller can communicate the speed to the loco and the decoder would control the motor voltage to maintain that speed. There's no need for two-way communication.

in this thread Shdwdrgn suggested using two-way communication to support autonomous positioning of the locomotive or cars. But the need for two-way communication is to get position information through trackside detectors from a central system. 

Is this how the bluetooth system would do it through the controller or directly with the central system that has access to the detectors?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

fcwilt said:


> I didn't say any new standard could not be backwards compatible.
> 
> What the hobby doesn't need is a bunch of incompatible approaches to using Bluetooth and, perhaps WiFi.
> 
> Frederick


Precisely.

I can dream with the best of you about the possibilities of modernizing the technology that we use. Those of you who keep trying to tell me how I can adapt a smartphone, or how cheap it could be, just keep missing the point. As yet, these technologies offer me no compelling reason to completely trash my thousand dollar investment in DCC, and you fail to grasp why I consider the smartphone, at the current state of technology, an inferior option for controlling my layout.

But an "either /or" approach like Bachmann took doesn't do anyone any good. Let's use some of that "gee whiz" creativity to figure out HOW to to integrate smartphones, Bluetooth, WiFi into the existing technology, thus growing the hobby rather than creating an "us versus them" situation, or take new practitioners in one direction and leave established hobbyists out.

The total size of the hobby isn't so big that we can afford to fracture it. Newcomers need the benefit of the experience of the old folks, and old folks want to share in the latest offerings.


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

Don’t be surprised if in the very near future the same guys who are supplying the bluetooth technology to Bachman don’t announce a upgraded system that is DCC compatible. GregC...why don’t you contact the guys at BlueRails with those questions...seems like they would be in the best position to answer most of them.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Regarding two-way communications for speed matching... I have not experienced this yet, but one situation immediately comes to mind where this would be beneficial. Lets say you have a nice tach system in both locos that allows them to precisely match each other's speed. Under normal operations these locos should stay in sync all the time. But what happens if your layout has a lot of inclines and one loco has better traction than the other? Suddenly you have one loco spinning its wheels ... both locos have the same power applied to their respective motors to achieve the speed set by the throttle, but unless you have some feedback between the locos the electronics would have no indication that one tach is reading higher than the other. If you have feedback available, then the software can constantly monitor the actual tach speed of each loco and when required slow down one of the locos to allow it to regain its footing on the tracks. That gives you 'true' speed matching, not just a generalized "when I apply this much power both locos should be going the same speed".

As for the whole cell phone debate... Funny thing is I never even thought of it, but I too have older phones laying around collecting dust. Got one recharging now, I'll set that on the test tracks to grab as needed. Sure a flat screen may not be ideal for everyday operations, however I'm still in the test phase of getting everything set up. I have no purchased DCC equipment at all, so working with a cell phone interface allows me to proceed without having to buy more equipment. One huge advantage of a digital display, though, is that it can be instantly reconfigured. I dunno, maybe you want one type of interface for your steamers and another setup for the diesels? Perhaps add another type of interface when you have multiple locos on a single train? Maybe everybody likes using the same interface for all situations, but a digital screen does have its own pros and cons.

Location information was mentioned above as an advantage for 2-way communications. The system I envision for automated control will put the intelligence onboard each loco, rather than in a centralized computer. My locos will read their location and track occupancy from the trackside signals. From there they might indicate to the base station that they are approaching a turnout and need the points set a certain way. They might query if the next load is ready down the line and hang out at the current location for extra 'services' (I plan to add some randomness so the trains don't follow exactly the same pattern every time, even having the possibility of a train running late which will change which other trains they may meet along their route and affect the other train's schedules). And for me an important possibility is if a train gets stuck on an incline and needs to call for a second loco to make it up over the top.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

One "problem" I see with the current BlueRail system is the price ($70) and the size (28mm x 58mm) of the "decoders".

If I'm reading the specs right they are four function non-sound boards. 

A similar DCC decoder from Digitrax is $32 (list) and 17mm x 27mm.

I've installed decoders in locos that didn't even have room for that size and had to go with one of Digitrax decoders aimed at the N scale world.


The BlueRail products do offer bi-directional communication which is uncommon in the DCC world.


Time will tell.

Frederick


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Shdwdrgn said:


> But what happens if your layout has a lot of inclines and one loco has better traction than the other? Suddenly you have one loco spinning its wheels ... both locos have the same power applied to their respective motors to achieve the speed set by the throttle, ...


if the locos can measure thei track speed by measuring the wheel turns per second, then each should adjust voltage to the motors to maintain that speed. They could be standing still with the wheels turning at the desired track speed



Shdwdrgn said:


> ... but unless you have some feedback between the locos the electronics would have no indication that one tach is reading higher than the other.


the feedback is in the locomotive between the wheels and the decoder

i don't understand why 2-way communication is necessary to do this unless only the controller can measure the track speed of the locomotive using trackside devices.



Shdwdrgn said:


> The system I envision for automated control will put the intelligence onboard each loco, rather than in a centralized computer.


no centralized or distributed nodes for all trackside information and control?



Shdwdrgn said:


> My locos will read their location and track occupancy from the trackside signals.


how do they communicate with trackside signals? optically read signals? wifi communication with the signal? does each signal have it's own wifi radio, or is there a single wifi node that a loco communicates with for all signal info? Does the loco need to know the ID of the nearby signal to either request information from a central device or wifi address of the specific signal?




Shdwdrgn said:


> From there they might indicate to the base station that they are approaching a turnout and need the points set a certain way.


is there any intelligence in the "base station"?

doesn't the "base station" need to know the trains route and interlock signals and turnouts to prevent trains from colliding?

are signals needed if there is only one train?

is route and switching information loaded into the base station which then transfers it to the locomotive?


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Like I said, I haven't ever speed-matched locos so I could be missing something. Yeah they might work just fine with current technology.

There's this technique called Manchester encoding which incorporates its own built-in timing and can automatically sync up. The idea is to either use the existing LEDs in each track signal or add an IR LED at each point... something that a loco can read on the fly. Occupancy will already be known due to the track signals being interconnected, and each one would be programmed with a unique ID that the loco can use to identify (or confirm) where it is at on the tracks. If the loco has a known route to follow, then it should also know what locations it will pass along the way and can use those signals to confirm it's on the right route and that it is still on schedule. Otherwise the block occupancy information will allow the loco to speed up and slow down but still try to avoid collisions without having to be expressly told to expect a train at this spot at this time. This means I can take manual control of a train, leave its regular route, and not have to worry about every other train colliding because I've broken the pattern.

The base station will provide a different type of intelligence. It will keep a record of the timing between each leg of each loco's route and at some point I hope to write some code that allows it to sort through the info and create new schedules at random to accomplish similar goals. Perhaps one day it will keep all the coal cars isolated to individual trains, while another days it will completely randomize the loads. Then instead of programming each loco to follow a specific route, a loco will get its daily instructions from the base, but otherwise navigate the route on its own including managing delays.

The point is that the ESP32 computers I'm using on my locos is vastly more capable than the electronics placed in commercial command stations. They have the processing power to easily handle navigation on their own, and with the right sensors mounted around the layout they should be able to always know what is happening around them. It's not really artificial intelligence but with the right coding their actions can appear very intelligent and with half a dozen locos all navigating around each other it could easily look like a living organism. It will take time to build up each piece, but I have a good picture of how I want it all to fit together.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Genetk44 said:


> GregC...why don’t you contact the guys at BlueRails with those questions...seems like they would be in the best position to answer most of them.


their contact page specifically asks if i'm interested in purchasing. I asked anyway without answering most of the questions. I doubt they would explain the technical details.

I watched the video: Bluerail Tains consisting and speed-matching. It showed a GUI for configuring consisting and speed-matching. It looks like speed matching is done by manually adjusting a correction for one of the locomotives to match the speed of the other at 3 speed settings.

the GUI certainly make is look easy. I don't see any benefits from 2-way communication.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Hi,

My layout is fully automated using TrainController software.

One of the features is "profiling" of your locomotives. This process involves measuring the speed of a loco at various speed steps.

On my layout I have two IR sensors for this process. 

The first sensor is positioned at the start of a section of straight track, the second sensor at the end. 

The distance between these two sensors is entered into TrainController. On my layout this is 108 inches.

During the profiling process when the loco is detected by the first sensor TrainController starts measuring the time until the second sensor is activate.

Knowing the speed step, time and distance TrainController computes the scale speed for 15 different points spread across the speed range of the loco.

TrainController runs the loco back and forth from sensor to sensor at each of the 15 different speeds accumulating information for both forward and reverse.

This information is saved in TrainController for each loco that you profile.

When running two or more locos together TrainController uses this information to set each loco to the same speed.

Works just fine.

Frederick


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

It occurs to me that it might make more sense to put a tach on a non-powered wheel so the computer would be aware if it were spinning its wheels. Since all of mine will be steamers I could put something on a tender truck, but I've seen on-powered wheels on some diesels as well. Maybe something as simple as a flat spot on a metal axle (square it up and get 4x the pulses), with an IR LED counting each reflection.

I like that idea of having a speed-test section on the layout. I have a couple spots where I could set up a 5-6 foot run and record the results over time along with the number of cars being pulled and whether they are empty or loaded (in the case of the coal cars which will have fully automated loading and unloading, a full load could easily double the weight of the car).

Speaking of, did anyone else see the recent issue of MRH with the 'working' scale track? It has me thinking, I can get low-capacity digital kitchen scales fairly cheap now, I wonder if the scale track could be made fully functional, and pass actual weights on to the computer? Once you're recorded empty and full weights of each car, that info could be useful in calculating what length of train I want to pull up the mountain. My worst mainline has a 2.7% grade, and I have some logging tracks running in the 4's and 5's (hooray for shays!) so the weight of the train being pulled will be important.


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

gregc said:


> their contact page specifically asks if i'm interested in purchasing. I asked anyway without answering most of the questions.


 Greg..try asking your questions via this email address....

[email protected]


Or via their Facebook page if you are a Facebook member


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> One "problem" I see with the current BlueRail system is the price ($70) and the size (28mm x 58mm) of the "decoders".
> 
> If I'm reading the specs right they are four function non-sound boards.
> 
> ...



Frederick...the Bluerail decoders are non-sound because the sound is via the app on your phone....and the various functions for sound,lights,momentum are also on the phone app. Check here..

http://bluerailtrains.com/userguide/


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

fcwilt said:


> TrainController runs the loco back and forth from sensor to sensor at each of the 15 different speeds accumulating information for both forward and reverse.


thanks. why is 2-way "valuable" for speed matching.




Shdwdrgn said:


> Maybe something as simple as a flat spot on a metal axle (square it up and get 4x the pulses), with an IR LED counting each reflection.


don't sound decoders have a way of synchronizing chuffs to wheels.



Shdwdrgn said:


> a full load could easily double the weight of the car).


!!



Shdwdrgn said:


> Once you're recorded empty and full weights of each car, that info could be useful in calculating what length of train I want to pull up the mountain.


if the cars are weighted to NMRA suggestion, couldn't a fairly accurate estimate of a train weight be based on car length (and loaded). how accurate does it need to be


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Honestly it doesn't have to be dead-accurate... but it would still be nice to know the standing weight of each car, and the filled weight of those with live loads. To calculate the weight of the current train you *could* estimate it by length, but you still have to look up each car to see what type it is. Why not have actual weights in the database? Not to mention that with real data you could assemble your train in a logical fashion with the lighter cars near the end.

Of course I don't need an actual working track scale for this, I could just use the kitchen scales and collect the information when each new car is added to the layout... but what's the fun in that?


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Genetk44 said:


> Frederick...the Bluerail decoders are non-sound because the sound is via the app on your phone....and the various functions for sound,lights,momentum are also on the phone app. Check here..
> 
> http://bluerailtrains.com/userguide/


So the sound would come from the phone?

Frederick


----------



## Genetk44 (Feb 26, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> So the sound would come from the phone?
> 
> Frederick


Yes....and that is one of the two main drawbacks to the system at this point IMHO.
The sound coming from the phone is fine as long as the loco is within 5-10 feet of you but much further than that its a bit odd,especially for other folks. The other drawback is the that variety of prime-mover soundfiles is still limited ....the existing diesel sounds coming out of an RS3 just don’t sound right. But BlueRails say they will keep adding soundfiles to the app.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Genetk44 said:


> Yes....and that is one of the two main drawbacks to the system at this point IMHO.
> The sound coming from the phone is fine as long as the loco is within 5-10 feet of you but much further than that its a bit odd,especially for other folks. The other drawback is the that variety of prime-mover soundfiles is still limited ....the existing diesel sounds coming out of an RS3 just don’t sound right. But BlueRails say they will keep adding soundfiles to the app.


I can see that their approach would have issues.

Fine for folks with small layouts running one train but beyond that...

Thanks for the feedback.

Frederick


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Genetk44 said:


> gregc said:
> 
> 
> > Genetk44 said:
> ...



received this from BlueRail today



Dave Rees said:


> gregc said:
> 
> 
> > how is bi-directional communication valuable in supporting speed-matching? is additional hardware required for load/position management?
> ...


----------

