My WiFi Enabled HO train

[fcwilt]

So the various systems under development propose a few changes:

1. Wireless communication as opposed to "wired" - there are pros and cons to that.

2. Bi-directional communication - no real cons that I can think of - it is already available in the DCC realm but has not taken the train world by storm.

But:

More features may lead to larger boards to install, perhaps more expensive.

The basic issues of installing a decoder in a loco won't change.

The basic needs of layout wiring won't change.

Some of the suggested "benefits" may not, in practice, pan out.

One thing I am reasonably sure of is the new systems, if they ever make it to market, will not be significantly cheaper.


I'm all in favor of exploring new tech but not change for the sake of change. Remember that old saying: "just because you can doesn't mean you should".

 

[Skipjacks]

Remember that old saying: "just because you can doesn't mean you should".

That applies to things like re-writing genetic code so we can all be 7 feet tall and have tails again or something else that could bring about the end humanity.

It doesn't apply to model railroading at all. For something like model railroading the saying is "Just because you want to means you SHOULD give it a try". Nothing bad (on a large scale) can happen by trying to make a model train wifi enabled. The results could be great fun, with no larger risk.

Its just like sending men to the moon in the 60's. There was no good reason to do that other than "Because it's awesome! And because Russia sucks!" Turns out it was a lot of fun. The only risk was to the astronauts who understood those risks and willingly took them on. The result was everyone having a lot of fun watching Neil Armstrong walk on the moon, then 50 years of enjoying the spoils of the technology that was developed from the research of the space program. (Microwave ovens. Velco. Tang. Etc) All because we did something that had no real productive reason to do it.

Another saying that applies to model railroading and that goes against the quoted post is, "The more pointless the goal, the more noble the endeavor!"

 

[fcwilt]

with no larger risk.

No earthing shaking risk to be sure - but there is always the risk of market fragmentation.

 

[sphinx]

I'm so out of date (still uses DC, although PWM with variable duty cycle). Kind of like the eggnog, I've been on the shelf too long. Anyone for a rubber band powered wind-up loco? My mother showed me how to make a "tractor" out of a wooden spool, rubber band, crayon and match stick. Now everything has to be data enabled. Linux running my trains - ok. Google or Microsoft . . . .sounds like big brother, I dont' want to have to enable location services on my Varney 10 wheeler just to run it around the bend. But I'm open to new technology too. It would be cool to use a small servo to open and close the the vestibule doors on some coach cars as the 6:10 to New Orleans pulls into the station.

Maybe its time for IEEE 802.1MR standards for network communication on Model RailRoads

 

[Skipjacks]

No earthing shaking risk to be sure - but there is always the risk of market fragmentation.

There is that risk with all innovation. Should someone just stop innovating because it might hurt another product?

We see innovation overthrow older products in the model train universe all the time. For years N Scale locomotives were absolute crap. Bachmann made bad products. Then Kato came in with extremely smooth gearing and motors and hyper life like chassis designs and was the only option for quality locomotives. That was market fragmentation at it's finest. It could have killed Bachmann, but they decided to improve their own products to compete. Instead of have 1 crappy company corner the market, or 2 good companies each without enough market share to put into further R&D, we have 2 thriving companies both continuing to improve and put out quality products. (I know there are more than those 2. I'm keeping my illustrations simple)

How about with track? There's flex track, Atlas Track, Unitrack, EZ-Track, etc etc....all very fragmented with each having it's loyal users who won't consider anything else. The model train industry seems to be surviving.

For that matter how about scale?

For a decades there was only O Gauge. That fragmented into G, HO, N, and Z. All with their own loyalists. All very fragmented. Very few people use multiple different scales and virtually nothing is transferable between scales. Even the scenery materials we use are locked to scale. And yet, each segment seems to be growing.

If you don't like change because it's change, fine. Keep DCC. Enjoy your system. If there is enough interest in it companies will continue to make it for years to come. But we shouldn't discourage development of a new kind of system that might be superior to the current top of the line. If it's superior in everyway and cheaper and easier to use and all that, then the odds are DCC will fade away into history. If it ends up being just as good and an opinion of the consumer about which is preferable, I'd venture to guess that the market place is large enough to support 2 platforms. (Especially if the control boards can be made interchangeable, so any loco could be outfitted as either system, which doesn't seem very difficult to achieve) If one dies off because the other one is way better, so be it. We don't use whale oil lamps anymore for a good reason; electricity is better in every way.

 

[Iron Horseman]

Another saying that applies to model railroading and that goes against the quoted post is, "The more pointless the goal, the more noble the endeavor!"

??? That saying doesn't make sense on any level.

My argument against many of the current controllers is that I am trying to "model" a train. I want my controls to be MORE train like. Many seem more like playing a video game instead of running a train or even running a railroad (This is the original reason I did not purchase an NCE system). I want a heavy brass handle throttle, brake, and even a deadman's peddle.

 

[goscrewyourselves]

fcwilt,

Your response confirms what I was saying - companies doing nothing but bits and pieces and attempting band aide fixes, making things potentially more complicated and expensive - the very things the OP is trying to put an end to by not using band aide fixes and additions to existing technology.

Model Railroading should be about, evolving, being improved, becoming cheaper and easier to use by design, without diminishing quality or usability through the addition of more and more and more additions to an outdated and antiquated system.

Your reference to "just because you can, doesn't mean you should", doesn't apply to the logical, forward thinking, common sense evolution of something. Thank god the creators of the wheel, engines, electricity and an entire lifetime of advancements didn't adopt that way of thinking.

You may well like the way things are at the moment, and the direction things are currently going and that is fine - that is your prerogative and right. It doesn't mean that others agree, or that it is right.

It is clear that the OP, and others, don't believe what is currently available or happening is right and, where OP is concerned at least, is trying to do something about it. If you or anyone else doesn't like it, agree with it or approve of it, so be it as said, that is your right and prerogative to reject it. However if, and hopefully when it eventuates, neither you or anyone else has to use it.

I stand by what I said earlier, the original poster needs to be encouraged and given the support to move forward with his idea. To move Model Railwaying out of the 1900's and into the 2000's.

 

[Skipjacks]

??? That saying doesn't make sense on any level.

Or it makes lots of sense on many levels, but it just doesn't resonate with you.

It's a joking saying to describe the joy of doing dumb things. Haven't you ever thrown a piece of trash into a can 20 feet away on the other side of the room, then felt like a hero when you made the bucket? There is no purpose to that activity. Yet you enjoy it immensely and feel great about yourself.

Just like model railroading. Is there a point to it all? Other than to have fun? Nope. There is not. And the more detailed and granular you get at modeling, the further you get from it being anything really productive. Yet the further you get from being really productive, the more fun it is.

So the more pointless your task is, the more fun it can be. That's the point. It's just a fun saying.

 

[fcwilt]

But we shouldn't discourage development of a new kind of system that might be superior to the current top of the line. If it's superior in everyway and cheaper and easier to use and all that, then the odds are DCC will fade away into history. If it ends up being just as good and an opinion of the consumer about which is preferable, I'd venture to guess that the market place is large enough to support 2 platforms. (Especially if the control boards can be made interchangeable, so any loco could be outfitted as either system, which doesn't seem very difficult to achieve) If one dies off because the other one is way better, so be it.

I don't disagree with any of this, in theory.

But consider the new systems that are under development: What are the real problems with DCC? How do these new systems address those problems? How do they intend to make more complicated systems less expensive?

So far what I see are some talented folks with good intentions, developing systems using newer tech, that are "neat" but I fail to see what significant benefits they offer to the large numbers of hobbyist that will make for market success.

I love tech toys as much as the next guy but I think we should look honestly at these projects.

 

[Skipjacks]

I don't disagree with any of this, in theory.

But consider the new systems that are under development: What are the real problems with DCC? How do these new systems address those problems? How do they intend to make more complicated systems less expensive?

So far what I see are some talented folks with good intentions, developing systems using newer tech, that are "neat" but I fail to see what significant benefits they offer to the large numbers of hobbyist that will make for market success.

I love tech toys as much as the next guy but I think we should look honestly at these projects.

We should honestly look at them? Like there should be a model railroad committee that decides what people are and aren't allowed to develop?

What if the engineers of the Mercury program said "Well we're not sure how our research results here will affect the future Gemini or Apollo programs. So Let's just not do the research and stay on Earth forever."

You have to create the technology before you can see if it's really a net gain in practice. Not everything can be researched theoretically. Sometimes you have to just do stuff. Also, it doesn't matter if you fail to see the significant benefits this technology offers. The developer might see the significant benefits. Maybe there are no significant benefits and he just wants to do it to see if he can.

Maybe what you call significant is different than what someone else calls significant. Perhaps the developer's idea of significant is that it can lower the cost of remote control dramatically (Remember DCC is only used in model railroading. There is no R&D outside of this arena so it's just a handful of companies that ever look to make any improvements to the system. Wifi is widely used in everything and there are multiple multi-billion dollar companies constantly doing more research and development of better wifi technology that could be sourced to use in model railroading). Maybe cost isn't a factor to you.

And so what if wifi model railroading is a market failure? You aren't an investor in it. It doesn't hurt you if it fails. The developer of the technology is the only one who's got any time or resources into it. He's the only one who stands to lose anything. His time. His money. His risk. You get no say in if he should do it or not. That's not how Capitalism works.

 

[fcwilt]

And so what if wifi model railroading is a market failure? You aren't an investor in it. It doesn't hurt you if it fails. The developer of the technology is the only one who's got any time or resources into it. He's the only one who stands to lose anything. His time. His money. His risk. That's not how Capitalism works.

Never said it did.

But if the developer gets a false sense of the viability of his idea from a large group of well meaning supporters HE may suffer.

And I don't like to see things like that happen.

 

[Skipjacks]

Never said it did.

But if the developer gets a false sense of the viability of his idea from a large group of well meaning supporters HE may suffer.

And I don't like to see things like that happen.

That's called market research. He's putting the idea out to the prospective consumer base. There is a lot of interest and a lot of disinterest. It's his decision as to if the interested parties outweigh the disinterested parties.

 

[Iron Horseman]

Just like model railroading. Is there a point to it all? Other than to have fun? Nope. There is not.

I take serious objection to that comment. There are several practical purposes of model railroading. Fun is probably the lowest one on the totem. You are pursuing one of them. Model Railroading is an educational tool. Through model railroading one can teach history, mathematics, physics, chemistry, reading, writing, electricity, mechanics, etc. Model Railroading is a skill building activity. One can develop skills of eye hand coordination, physical dexterity, use of tools, soldering, welding, carpentry, etc. One of the most important to me is to preserve and protect and recreate railroad history. This applies to both the equipment and prototypical operations. This is why most of my modeling at the present time revolves around the museum and not my own layout. Those who think model railroading is just doing a dumb thing for fun are missing so much I can hardly believe it.

And no I have never thrown a piece of trash into a bucket and felt great about it - that would just be stupid. I do things like that to save the time of walking across the room so I can do things with a goal to them - like model railroading. A noble endeavor that is far from pointless.

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Never said it did.

But if the developer gets a false sense of the viability of his idea from a large group of well meaning supporters HE may suffer.

And I don't like to see things like that happen.

Like wise, if he gets a false sense of what he is doing to be a waste of time from people, that is just as counter productive and could be even more devastating to him in the long run.

I take serious objection to that comment. There are several practical purposes of model railroading. Fun is probably the lowest one on the totem. You are pursuing one of them. Model Railroading is an educational tool. Through model railroading one can teach history, mathematics, physics, chemistry, reading, writing, electricity, mechanics, etc. Model Railroading is a skill building activity. One can develop skills of eye hand coordination, physical dexterity, use of tools, soldering, welding, carpentry, etc. One of the most important to me is to preserve and protect and recreate railroad history. This applies to both the equipment and prototypical operations. This is why most of my modeling at the present time revolves around the museum and not my own layout. Those who think model railroading is just doing a dumb thing for fun are missing so much I can hardly believe it.

And no I have never thrown a piece of trash into a bucket and felt great about it - that would just be stupid. I do things like that to save the time of walking across the room so I can do things with a goal to them - like model railroading. A noble endeavor that is far from pointless.

I couldn't agree with you more regarding model railwaying involving more than just having fun, it is and you have pointed out a number of those areas.

I also believe; however, that there are two main types of model railroaders, those such as yourself who take pride in the learning, replicating the operational realism, history and the reality of building a layout; and those of us who do it not as a learning tool, but primarily for the simple purpose of the enjoyment that it brings - the fun of doing it. Same hobby, two different approaches and two different primary reasons for being involved in it. In my opinion, neither approach is the right approach and neither is the wrong approach.

I have built my layout with the primary purpose of enjoy in it and having fun doing it and the end results I have with each part of the build. Am I learning something on the way, absolutely but I am not building it to learn, that is just part of the process for me.

Generally speaking, and not referring to any posts or person here as such, what I do object to is someone 'pushing' their way of doing something onto others just because it is the way they do that something, be it in a hobby, or anything else.

Offering advice, guidance and opinions is great and should be done, especially when asked for or when those with expertise in that area see something that could be improved etc. But when giving that advice, the wants, needs, aims and final decision of the person asking for that advice has to be accepted, whether we like it personally or not and not continue to push a personal opinion.

The OP of this thread has made it very clear that he intends to do what he has set out to do. Any one notice the last time he (the OP) participated in his own thread? Not that recently ... I wonder why, not that, in my opinion, that takes much wondering about.

 

[gator do 65]

I've read through the whole thread and totally believe this could very well end up being the new DCC! Cheaper and far more feature filled! Someone said they would like a throttle, brake and a deadman peddle, no problem! Add a console (just like the simulators) with those feature's and a LCD SCREEN showing all your running loco's, with the touch of that icon (much faster transition between loco's) your now controlling that loco which now has icons for that loco's functions/features! No recall or address input's, no remembering which F button does what! This could simplify so many commands and custom programming that more people would be interested and this comes from a recent convert to DCC!

The biggest plus I see is inviting a younger high-tech crowd to the hobby. This cannot be a bad thing as that's DCC started! Just remember the first word of DCC is digital i.e. computer controlled!

By the way if I were the OP I would not return comment and I don't blame him! IMHO this post was clearly hijacked!

 

[fcwilt]

Someone said they would like a throttle, brake and a deadman peddle, no problem! Add a console (just like the simulators) with those feature's and a LCD SCREEN showing all your running loco's, with the touch of that icon (much faster transition between loco's) your now controlling that loco which now has icons for that loco's functions/features! No recall or address input's, no remembering which F button does what! This could simplify so many commands and custom programming that more people would be interested and this comes from a recent convert to DCC!

Those are all good features that would make for easier setup, control, etc.

But they are separate and distinct from the mode of communication used by the system, etc.

Those features could all be provided by a system based on DCC, WiFi, Bluetooth, etc.

Don't confuse the UI (user interface) with the communication protocols or system data structures.

 

[gator do 65]

Those are all good features that would make for easier setup, control, etc.

But they are separate and distinct from the mode of communication used by the system, etc.

Those features could all be provided by a system based on DCC, WiFi, Bluetooth, etc.

Don't confuse the UI (user interface) with the communication protocols or system data structures.

FC,

First off I thought we were talking about WI-FI to begin with?

BUT

Let me answer these in order,
Yes, your'e right those are good features.

This one doe's not make sense as it is redundant to your following statement, but I'll answer anyway! The mode of communication does not matter as long as the commands are received! IMHO! This is not reinventing the the wheel it's just improving it!

Yes your'e right again, as stated by the OP he's attempting to go WI-FI control just like Ring engineering or Bachmann trying bluetooth!

Communication protocols and system data structures should be left up to the developer of the product and should not be confused with the EUI (end user interface) as that should look SOMETHING close to what the EUI to DCC looks like, thus giving a friendly standard NMRA format!

With all this being said, I look forward to the evolution of our great hobby, weather it be will wired or wireless? Only time will tell!

I'm betting on the latter!!!!

 

[fcwilt]

FC,

First off I thought we were talking about WI-FI to begin with?

I THINK we may be saying the same thing but perhaps not.

The point I was trying get across is that folks who look at a good UI that is part of a system based on WiFi, Bluetooth, etc should understand that it is not WiFi (etc) that is making that UI possible. Using WiFi (etc) may make certain aspects easier or faster but a similar UI could be devised to control an existing DCC system, and in fact, are available.

I'm not at all opposed to using WiFi (etc) - I just don't want folks to believe that a system MUST have WiFi (etc) to have a good UI.

 

[Burlington Bob]

I tend to look at this as analogous to DOS and the advent of Windows..............I just hope it is a lot smoother transition.

 

[fcwilt]

I tend to look at this as analogous to DOS and the advent of Windows..............I just hope it is a lot smoother transition.

Yes, you might compare working with the DOS command line to having to configure/control a train control system from the throttle as opposed to being able to use a point-and-click UI.

And yes, please, let it be smoother.