Hobo, is your advocacy of WiFi stemming from wanting to trump the dependency on custom wiring the layout? Just wondering. To me it seems the need to custom wire each layout uniquely is a major impediment to any wired solution. Still, I wonder if something along the USB model (if not specifically USB itself) might help with that. It's only a half baked thought in my head, though.
Yes. As discussed in another thread I'm inclined to agree that, along with onboard power (eg. battery) for mobile stuff, wireless is probably where they should point their efforts.
I advocate wifi, because trying to run complex digital coms on 2 nickel silver rails that have been soldered together by amateurs of various skill level, with differing rail sizes, track switches, reverse loops, unterminated spurs, etc, etc, etc, is ridiculous. The more I think about it, the more impressed I am that the system works as well as it does. In short Model Railroad track is a horrible data bus. We shouldn't use it if we don't have to. As for computers. In this world of iPhones/Pads/Touch. Droid phones, Netbooks and cloud computing. I think it's a mistake to ignore these devices in the hobby. One of the big pushes in the standards is to make the computer an option not a center piece. I think this is a waste of engineering. The computer would make so many of these things so much easier. I agree if all you want to do is run a train with the functionality of DCC, you shouldn't need a PC to dedicate to it, but anything more than that and I'm sorry, I think you do. Your DCC controller is already a computer anyway. Its just designed not to look like one and it's simplistic. As for running trains when others are using the system. With a modern operating system (Vista/7/Leopard) and a handheld device, be it DCC style throttle or smartphone you shouldn't need to have the computer in front of you and as long as its left turned on, it should provide the basic functionality support needed. It should operate as a server. Heck, I run iTunes from my user account in Vista all the time while my wife switches to her account to surf the web. I know its complex to think about for the non-computer literate, but lets be honest here. The non-computer literate are going to struggle with the types of features this new standard is intended for anyway. You aren't going to be able to dumb this stuff down enough. In fact, the computer might make dumbing it down easier.
Whoa, is it 2020 already!?:tb-biggrin: Why would you not expect to get more than 5 years out of the electronics? My first DCC command station and first decoder equipped locos were purchased sometime around 1999, and they all still work fine. My first PC still ran fine after over 15 years when I finally got rid of it. I still have a couple of Atari 8 bit computers from the early 80's that still work fine. I would much prefer they NOT use ethernet. I would hate to wire a throttle bus using ethernet. With Loconet and most other throttle busses, the plug-in panels are just wired on parallel around the layout. With ethernet, each plug-in panel would have to be a switch or hub, or have each plug-in socket wired back to a switch or hub. And double or triple the cost of the decoder.
First of all, I'm not talking about front panel hookups. I'm assuming wireless throttles. I don't anticipate many people would do that. this discussion is primarily about other extraneous layout system. Switch machines, Occupancy detection, Ambient layout surround sound, video locations to monitor tunnels or just act as a webcam. Crossing gates... etc etc etc. All those devices could have an ethernet jack hidden underneath the scenery to interconnect with the rest of the system. Further, just how many loconet ports do you think you can wire that way? And how much data can those ports handle? The answer is not much. When you start talking about huge numbers of devices on large home or club layouts. It becomes a no brainer. Oh, and that's not even mentioning Power over Ethernet. Wouldn't THAT be an interesting twist. And even given all that, even if you look at TIA 568A/B is to hard to wire and punch, There are plenty of suppliers of pass through panels out there. It would actually be simpler to use than loconet. Just mount the panel, buy a premade cable and plug it in...done. And all of a sudden you'll support more bandwidth than any single port would need in the forseeable future. Not to mention its a huge standard with billions of ports installed. Not some niche hobby standard. As for the cost of those wifi nics. You can currently get devices for around a $50 price point. So that's pretty spendy, but come on, this is computer hardware. A year from now those will be down to $20 and they will have a model half the size. It will become a commodity product. The actual DCC functionality of a decoder is nothing anyway. I'd argue that every single DCC decoder on the market it overpriced...as far as electronics go. The small lot size is what keeps the price up.
did someone say hi jack I am unfamiliar with NCE, had to look it up. No power transformer, huh? I use Digitrax 8amp which doesn't actually power track, it routes power to the track and it can't even do that without a PM42 to prevent cooking my engines or itself and by all means mind the gap and the "spinny bits". (If I were you I would start knocking on wood with that 'what could possible go wrong,' comment) We used to joke at US Robotics about how long the solder joints would last with use. You got me there, you would have to have at least a P2 with XP to surf the net, use word and run trains at the same time but every PC built from 2005-2025 would do fine. I am freelancer, don't do Ntrak yet so don't know the percentages but every convention layout, museum, multi-room, basement, closet or club layout I have ever seen has had at least one staging yard with 8-40 switches, and a control panel that looks like there should be tubes somewhere. That is my point bunch of redundant systems that all do the exact same thing convert digital data to dc/ac analog work, time for one universal command center that doesn't need new boards to handle the min 110 address for DCC and should be as simple for additional addresses as adding a pc board to a pc and a wire to the accessory, true plug and play. Ah, I found this helpful app when living in Lambeth, behind the War Museum, it's called DOSbox and I use a front end to auto configure to run programs called D-Fend-Reloaded both are freeware available on every shore of every pond. Ok, I promises not to touch your Powerhouse Pro if you agree that the NMRA might want to plan for the next 25 years instead of the last.
I was just using the throttle bus as an example, of course the same thing applies to anything else you wanted to hook up - everything would have to be wired back to a switch or hub leading to a lot more complicated wiring than what is needed now. No, actually the answer is a lot. Loconet didn't have any problem handling the N-Trak layout at the Derby City Express. Of course the Loconet specifications already include power. It would not be simpler to use than Loconet. All you have to do with Loconet is "mount the panel, buy a premade cable and plug it in." With Loconet, however, you can go from device to device to device, etc. without having a bunch of switches or hubs. That $20 part will still double the cost of the decoder. You still need the functionality of the decoder, so it's not like the wifi card can completely replace it. In fact, you'll need more functionality from the decoder part because it would have to talk to the wifi card instead of just decoding the relatively simplistic DCC signal.
math 101 nice... typing faster than math, still 35 sounds more dramatic. The criteria for NMRAnet doesn't address any of these points, you'll still need stationary decoders, signaling, detection hardware and the pc is just a redundant system. So yeah the NMRA will stick with hodge-podge for ten more years, ha ha recovery.
That $20 part is a $2 IC with $18 of hardware around it that the decoder won't need. With the wifi integrated into the decoder (which is the only sensible commercial option for anything smaller than O scale), most of the cost would evaporate. And yes, the decoder will have more work to do, but not likely work that it can't already handle.
First, sorry about the "Hobo" quote. I posted that from my iPhone and the auto-correct nailed me. Second, you make some good points here. There really is no good reason not to make a PC the center of the system. If the system were PC-centric, then folks who already have PCs already have their command station. And it would take NCE or Digitrax about ten minutes to create a "master control box" that is simply a PC core with a 10" LCD touch screen running Linux or Windows CE or something for those who want "stand-alone" operation. And yeah, getting the signal off the rails makes a lot of sense, at a minimum for those scales large enough to carry the hardware inside the locos. N and Z might have to make do for a few years until the battery and logic miniaturization catches up. One thing that will really hurt N and Z is the required size of the antenna. At least for very small locos (think 4-4-0's or Plymouth switchers), there literally may not be room for the antenna in the loco.
lemme see, my powercab hasn't failed me yet. I have plenty of room for expansion and the past few years have DEFIANTLY bought around some improvements over the original system. Do I need feedback? Nope, if your not paying attention to your train and watching it or listening for it, you have no business operating on my layout. Do I need sensors for CTC? Nope. Track Warrants work just fine. Do I need extra stuff for Switch machines? Nope, I use caboose industry ground throws, my crews have to interact with the layout with their hands, makes operations more fun :thumbs_up:. I don't care if they look unproto, this ain't the real thing, its something for me to have fun with. DCC is plenty expandable as it is. I see some false limitations listed as to reasons why to update the standards but there are valid points. Personally I like to plug throttles in and occasionally use Wireless, not my favorite thing in the world. I can see why some people want the full CTC systems and stuff, but even the owner of the cat mountain and santa fe gave up on installing it and went to the good ol' wire nuts and non-connected CTC. Its a want, not a need.
When did you work at USR? My First Job out of College was at 3Com Rolling "ghettos" in the former USR cable modem group. 99-01 If you think that the amount of data needed to drive even the largest N-trak layout...locos only is a lot of data, then you and I are operating in different worlds and may not be able to have a conversation. Yes, but they are low bandwidth and proprietary. Why are you stuck on this? Wiring up switches is ridiculously easy. Compared to any of the tasks required to build a model railroad, wiring up a switch is easy. And I don't know why you think Daisey Chaining is somehow a great thing. Again, a Daisey chained bus has less power and less bandwidth. Orders of magnitude less. Daisy chaining may be simpler for a DC centric guy, but it is a pain to deal with a in a digital data bus. EXACTLY!!!! This is basic electronics manufacturing 101. They make Toothbrushes and Razors with more smarts than a DCC decoder. It would be literally no effort at all and no cost to tack that on to a wifi card. The price would be the same with so much more power. You don't need a model railroad at all. It's all a want. And I'm sorry, but I would rather that those features are offered so the people that want them can have them easily. If you don't want it, well I won't make you buy them I promise. The idea that it's "good enough" is just...I don't know why that argument should apply to model railroads when it doesn't apply to anything else in our lives.
I think that sums it up quite well. The specs should allow for options. With digital TV some people will buy a PC and use Windows Media Center to manage recordings, etc. Others (like me ) will buy a dedicated PVR (at a fraction of the PC+Windows price). It's daft to force everyone to use a multifunction thing like a PC when a smaller piece of dedicated hardware may be better for them. The only thing that is certain is that whatever they come up with the NMRA will get a lot of flack from some quarters about the result, so kudos to them for taking the job on.
The only reason the NMRA would get flack from me, is because they're aren't keeping up with technological innovations of this decade. There is no reason that Model Railroading should be the province of the dark ages. People are all amazed by the powers of DCC, I am not. It is old technology. It could be better and cheaper.
Down with the industrial revolution! That is completely false logic. Using cross-industry standards of the current (last decade, not future tech) makes parts, suppliers and end products cheaper and more assessable to more modelers, and here is the kicker, supported by three of the largest mfg and programming sectors. Our niche market cannot fund it's own tech research in hardware, it's all reverse engineered from 1980's tech, which is not cheaper because discounts come with volume, the kind trains may never have. Why do you think China is starting to cancel small contract manufacturing of injected molded parts, too much hassle not enough profit. So, why continually try to re-invent a better wooden wheel when you can go buy a cheap rim and tire off the shelf? All of these new features are software driven, with minimal hardware additions similar to adding a new PIC, resistor or connector. The cost associated with adding ten lines of code is negligible. So the industry should pretend that DCC isn't already a PC so that we can pretend to be Luddites? These trains below, work, are eco friendly and are great exercise, time to replace Amtraks fleet of F40PHs. thad
OK, everybody. Mint Julep time. This thread is supposed to be about brainstorming the next generation of train control... let's not let it devolve into a heated argument. Let's keep the arguments/discussions on the merits, and minimize the rhetoric, please. I'd rather not see a rehash of the "AC/DC" debate... Nevertheless, very nifty picture, Thad!!
Exactly as last skunk said. This will make it cheaper. DCC is artificially expensive, because its a proprietary model railroader standard The number of model railroaders in the world is small and therefore making proprietary hardware for them with technology from the 80s is expensive as all heck. DCC is way way way overpriced for the level of technology it represents. Using devices and systems that are more universal will lower costs. It's time to drag model railroading into the 21st century kicking and screaming.
