Well, I should clarify what I wrote earlier with "might not make the switch". The thing that hasn't been clarified is whether this an alternative to DCC or DCC with Bluetooth capability. If it's DCC with Bluetooth and especially if the setup can fit inside a switcher, then I can see it being taken up by those who already have DCC layouts. If it's an alternative, then it would be ignored by those already running DCC.
Comparing that to just taking out my cellphone, I'd say that Bluetooth does have some advantage. I suppose one disadvantage would be that if a layout (especially a larger one) was setup for BT control, anyone could walk up and put their train on the track and start running. Jason
Need a lot of expensive proprietary equipment. Literally all you need for this system is a power supply, ANY power supply (it doesn't even need to be for model trains) just be the correct voltage. The Bluetooth equipped loco, and an Android/iOS phone or tablet (prices start at $50). And that's it.
When it comes to overall reliability and information-bandwidth Direct-Bluetooth-Train-Control (or Wi-Fi) is way ahead of any system that sends DCC-signals by track! Plus it is a real multiple-two-way path. But the real issue with Direct-Bluetooth-Train-Control will be the creation of an open-interface (like DCC). And that is why it will probably never happen. :frustrated: This is not a manufacturer putdown. I would probably be doing just what they are doing in their shoes. Open-Interface-Bob
The Bluetooth connection is capable of being used to easily download firmware-upgrades to the locomotive something that would be unimaginable through the track. What interests me the most about DBTC is having “smart” locomotives (with open-interface). Here is just one example of what could be done. A crossing-signal has a DBTC-Beacon (as in iBeacon). The DBTC-Beacon transmits a short very-low-power identification ~every half-second. When the DBTC-Locomotive receives the signal it sends the identification to the DBTC-Throttle along with ~signal-strength. The DBTC-Throttle responds by sending the appropriate audio to the DBTC-Locomotive based on CV-like settings in the DBTC-Throttle. The DBTC-Beacon would use a coin type battery. It would probably be turn-on by touch, and have an automatic shut-down after ~12 hours (this would extend the typical 1 year battery life). Such very-inexpensive very-small DBTC-Beacons could be used many places and for many functions on a layout. Bluetooth is also capable of relaying messages so the current direct-range is not a permanent limitation and would probably go away with the introductions of appropriately designed (open-interface) Bluetooth-Accessory-Controllers. Open-Interface-Bob
As others have alluded to....the cost of underlying infrastructure. No control station, no laptop/PC, and no wifi router, for starters. Regarding DCC interoperability, it should be able to coexist *in theory* since DCC provides ~16v of power, assuming the "decoder" can handle the DCC-ified voltage. Can't imagine why it couldn't.
And will this new technology improve the pulling power of my locomotives? No? How about increasing the reliability of rail to wheel current transfer? No? Will it electrically MU two locomotives so they share continuity? No? I’ll pass.
This system is very interesting and I'm eager to see what kind of functionality it brings. I suspect (and hope) it's a software based architecture much in the same vain as Ring Engineering's RailPro, where the firmware/software can be readily updated to add new features and capabilities. I'm assuming that it will be, like RailPro, bi-directional communication between devices also. One thing RailPro does really nice is consisting and I'm hoping too that this system will follow a similar approach where the software does all the work for you and there's no speed matching required of the user (and other adjustments such as volume, light brightness etc can be adjusted on the fly). I wonder that if this approach is what RE should have done instead of dedicated handheld throttles which is fairly price competitive with current DCC wireless set ups. Almost 75% of cellphone users have smart phones in the US today and with the app being offered for free the only hardware required is a power supply and the "decoder." That should be a significant savings over DCC, especially large wireless layouts. If one is heavily invested in DCC I don't blame them for not being too eager to switch, but like RP you can operate them on the same layout and make the transition slowly if so desired. It'll be the ancillary capabilities that may (or may not) dissuade current DCC users to make the transition. IMO, this is where command control is heading, even if this isn't the format that becomes dominant. DCC will undoubtedly hang around for quite a long time I'm sure.
I think it's a cool idea and if it all goes as planned what will be the prices on accessories like switches turntables. And such
They haven't announced any MSRP on any hardware. I'd imagine it will be priced competitively with current DCC offerings.
You are absolutely correct; so the question I then have to ask myself is why I’d spend money on a technological gimmick that DOESN’T solve my main complaints with N-Scale.
A transformer doesn't solve your problems either. I think you should look at pushing your trains with your hands. Lo-tech, cheap and eliminates all your main complaints. Jason
So by this “Logic” if I am not willing to install a $1,000 sound system in my car; I should walk? I mean that $1,000 stereo doesn’t improve my gas mileage, or the car’s 0 to 60 or its braking efficiency. I guess the problem I have with all these new “Improvements” is that none of them solve any real-world problems we have with our hobby.
For whatever it's worth, my only concern is initial cost. After the market opens a bit and other makers start offering these devices/decoders, it's going to go nuts. Regarding the physical parameters of the technology; A bluetooth ("BT") chipset (on a circuitboard) is often 3mm x 8mm or smaller, and the (not always necessary) 1-wire antenna which would be easy to hide/place. Almost any N-scale decoder board has space for the added BT chip, and the size difference would only be noticeable when you get into DZ-sized micro decoders. It's a piggybacking I/O technology (I/O being shorthand for in/out data transmission) that essentially would act in place of the decoder's chip that translates what data is received from the track. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if we see BT interface chips that wire in between track power and the red/black leads of our current decoders. It's like Jack said in the Bachmann promo video, all the CV's and etc. are simply hidden under the EZ-APP interface. It's still, at its core, a DCC-based technology (correct me if I'm wrong, but cash on the barrelhead says I ain't). That's why I fully expect to see Bachmann putting out starter sets with this technology by 2015. Half the money tech companies make from their new technologies is through LICENSING. I've worked around some big tech companies who make and sellhalf the chips in Apple, Samsung, and similar phones & TVs. Don't sweat it, I am confident you'll see Digitrax and Lenz, et al making the aftermarket decoders. Heck, one of the DCC companies are likely already the ones producing the chips for Bachmann! Mind you, bluetooth tech is also cheap and ubiquitous. Here's a few examples of current BT tech;
Another video with more info: [video=youtube;vMdeUPESBJU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMdeUPESBJU[/video]
A “1-wire antenna” could be a problem (not provide the range and angular coverage). They are good for things like ear-buds. The BlueRail board shows a “printed”-matched antenna. It would not surprise me to eventually see these “printed”-matched antennas being “printed” and hidden on the top of plastic shells. Open-Interface-Bob
