As a 30+ year veteran of the computer software and hardware industry (I currently work for Intel; my opinions are my own), I have a pretty good read on what’s coming down the pike (sorry for the pun, couldn’t resist) in electronics.
It has always struck me that DCC is an incredibly complex way to run a railroad. Yes, it gets the job done, but modern wireless technology leaves DCC in the dust.
Consider that you can buy an ARM-based wireless Linux PC with I/O for less than $10 (much less in some cases!). Assuming you can learn what Linux is and connect it to your home PC, isn’t that cheap enough that many of us can consider putting a unit in every car and locomotive and wiring in electrically-driven couplers?
AFA sound, I, frankly, do not favor locomative-based speakers. I’d much rather see true ground-pounding sound coming from a Dolby surround-sound system than a tinny little 1" high tweeter. PBL had the right idea, but even more if we can use real-time position identification so that your headset gets only the sounds of the hardware near your train.
It’s important to catch the trends in development, especially high-volume consumer and industrial trends. Embedded boards for the Internet of Things are The Next Big Thing™ and, as I said, they’re getting dirt cheap.
I haven’t even begun to get into what augmented virtual reality can do for us… can you smell the smoke and see the brakeman throw the switch?
Considering DCC has been around for about 25 years, and none of the technologies you are describing were not invented or mainstream then - DCC looks pretty good.
I retired from the computer industry after 33 years about 4 years ago. Just give the industry time to shrink the product and the cost…
I’m not so sure I would want “ground pounding” sound in my layout room. I used to love loud sound, particularly when it was coming from my car’s exhaust pipes. In my teens and twenties I was in the habit of replacing the stock mufflers with not much more than a tube with a case around it. They looked like mufflers but they didn’t act like mufflers!
That was then. This is now. I’m no longer inclined to put straight pipes on the Odyssey van![swg][(-D][C):-)]
I love sound in my locomotives, but I turn it way down. Less is more, at least for me. Maybe I’m getting too conservative in my semi-old age (62).
However, sound sources are only one of many possibilities that electronics developement will have to offer model railroading, so I’m not disagreeing with you that many great things will come our way in the near future. For example, most of us are just beginning to explore the possibilities that Arduino presents.
I’m not questioning whether it works, Jim. Sure, it works. However, it’s a very custom technology. It appeals to a very small market and that means it will never become volume sales tech.
Wireless LAN technology is ubiquitous. The IoT is making cheap Linux boards ubiquitous. My poimt is that cheap linux boards can be programmed to do anything a DCC board does for far less money anf far less electrical power rail hassle.
In future, our rails can provide simple DC power. Our wireless devices can determine how to control themselves. These will use simple open-source protocols to access locomotive and railcar-resident devices.
The future is wireless. The future is open source!
That may be true, but don’t forget that dinosaurs lasted somewhere around 700,000,000 years. That means that DCC will still be around for another 6,999,999,975 years![:o)][swg][(-D][(-D]
Sorry, couldn’t resist. Actually, I’m rather happy being a dinosaur. I think it is much easier on the brain.
I think most forum members are open to new technology and innovation, but you are fighting a losing argument to show up and dismiss DCC, or DC for that matter.
DCC was just recently introduced at a time when DC operation required incredibly complex wiring, single train operation, and no sound options. It has opened up a whole new world for model railroading enthusiasts.
DCC is incredibly simple and doesn’t require any HW interface components other than a DC bridge.
Modern wireless (LTE) is tremendously complex requiring an amazing amount of processing as well as RF components. It would be overkill for controlling a locomotive.
A PC for < $10? can you buy an ARM processor (or is it IP)?
considering that that low-end decoders cost $20 using a processor costing ~$1, does using $10 processor provide that much more capability or cost reduction? Wouldn’t the memory requirements for Linux excede those for a locomotive control application?
Even DCC command stations and controllers can use simple processors (even when they do support wireless).
I find some DC setups waaaaaay more complicated than DCC. With either technology you can make it as simple or as complicated as you want. I would dare to guess that modern wireless technology users will suffer the same fate.
Sure…if you want to operate your layout with a computer or Smartphone. Personally - the stegosaurus in me has NO interest…and I love computers. [:D] The only exception I would make to that is using JMRI Decoder Pro for programming.
While I agree that sound through 1" speakers in limiting, there is a thing called “scale”, which is closely associated with distance. If I’m viewing my steam locomotive from 3’ away in HO (87.1:1), I expect it to sound like a locomotive from 261’ away (1:1); not disproportional “ground-pounding”, as i
I’ve been a model railroader for 60 years (yikes)! By operating systems that breaks down to 5 years AC, 47 years DC, and 8 years DCC. Making the transition each time was the logical thing to do, and it was relatively easy - as so many had done so before me.
I’m an MR because of my love of trains and building models and the minature world they reside. While I appreciate what DCC has done for my railroading fun, my interest in electronics is limited to what I have to know, to do what I need to do.
Some folks are keenly interested in electronics and computerization and such, and that is fine. But I want to control my RR “hands on”, for that is one of the main attractions to me.
When the need for a “new and improved” operating system comes around, I’m sure the MR community will be there for it, just as they were when DCC came about. But for now, the NEED is just not there - IMO of course.
DCC was designed to provide simpler and more realistic operation of layouts, by adding the ability to control multiple trains without complex block wiring or third rail, as well as provide a way to control the locomotive to a much finer degree. It’s relatively cost effective, and it does what it needs to do.
Equipping a linux-based microcomputer in an HO scale locomotive would not only be cost prohibitive (most of the cost of the DCC decoder in terms of parts is in the power regulation circuitry for the motors and lights, the actual decoder microprocessor is very cheap), but would generate excessive heat (which is already a problem with some decoders), consume more energy, and would still not provide the locomotive with any more features than DCC currently does, beyond the possibility of two-way communications (which Railcom is already opening up the possibility to).
Adopting a new digital control standard would be a long, drawn out process, and would be very costly. On-board chips would not only need to be compatible with their own standard, but would need to be fully compatible with DCC and DC, as neither of the latter technologies are universally adopted (DC is slowly dying but still active), and people won’t want to have to completely redo all of their equipment and re-wire their layout for the new standard. Multiple companies have attempted their own digital control technologies, such as MTH DCS, but all are proprietary, and have been met with limited adoption. DCC is also an open standard, which means anyone can make their own DCC products without having to pay a fee.
Due to the widespread adoption of DCC, I doubt we’ll see it replaced any time soon. Maybe expanded on, but certainly not replaced.
Yes, hardware is cheap. Programmers are expensive. The changes you propose are not about technology, they are about economics. You can’t ignore the simple fact that nothing happens until somebody can make money from it.
The value to the user for such changes is limited (a lot of guys still run DC) and the market is small - not a recipe for profit – no profit, no product.
What is so complex about DCC? Yes, it can have a heavy under layout infrastructure on a large layout (boosters, circuit breakers, radio throttle receivers, stationary decoders, etc), and yes, most of the user interfaces are not that great, and yes, the technology it uses is old, but like so many others, you do not understand the limited size of this market and the costs of bringing a replacement system to market.
Agreed, I’ve never peronally been interested in this whatsoever. As Sheldon says, this is a different market with only so many people to support it. We all only have the funds to spec a control system (DC, DCC, Battery, etc), a lot of us hobbyists aren’t interested in “upgrading” every two years like the general public does with cell phones. I chose DCC, and find it simple. Programming decoders (if you wish) is another part of our hobby, some run em with factory settings, others make adjustments to improve the performance to meet the users desires. I also use JMRI to program and keep a record of settings, if I purchase another loco that I already have, its a simple a duping the decoder settings in JMRI to the new loco.
To think we are behind the curve on technology is okay with me, but development is stirred by a need, and for alot of us, our needs are served with DC, DCC, Dead rail, etc.
It all comes down to money. If a new product or technology can be developed, manufactured, marketed, and sold at a competitive price and make a profit, it might have a chance. But you also need to convince the modelers that they need this new technology because it’s faster, easier, or does something no one else does and you have to have it.
The other problems with bringing a new control system to model railroaders, is the limited market. It’s not like cell phones or TV’s. The other thing is I find model railroaders frugal. Their railroads are built with discretionary income. Why should I trash my DCC system for something new that I could spend the money on something I don’t have or really need?
Is it my imagination or have we been getting a bunch of people in here lately who a) have only a few posts and b) mainly seem to exist to say how dead DCC is and how much more awesome some propriatary wireless system is?
Which company are they shilling for?
“incredibly complex” next to wireless? I think not. People have and DO build their own DCC systems. It’s widely understood and not complex at all - the actual concept is far older than commercial DCC products, predating the establishment of the NMRA standards (in concept and mthodology of genrating and transmitting the signal, not in the contents of the data stream). Compare to the fact that most if not all DCC manufactures, while offering a wireless throttle solution, do NOT make their own wireless trnascievers, they buy off the shelf parts - because they ARE complex and certification requirements are NOT cheap. The final product still requires certification but not to the same level as the already certified circuit module. Some of these other systems are getting around half of the certification by making you use a smartphone as the controller, which means there is no controller to certify. But you can do the exact same thing with DCC.
It’s definitely not your imagination. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it shilling or even trolling, but the purpose definitely seems to be to stir the pot. Heretofore that hasn’t been our style and dead rail, wireless, DC and DCC have lived in peaceful coexistance.
The title to the thread is a real teaser - - - Beyond DCC: What’s Next for Model Railroading.
I cannot speak for the OP or his motives. But, I have read the opening post several times, and I don’t really see what he has to offer as the future for model railroading. Other than the fact that he really doesn’t like DCC.
I guess that a good question to ask the OP is what type of operating system is he currently using?
My thinking follows Randy and Henry’s. I think all systems play well together, and the longevity of DC proofs that. If you are into the lastest and greatest, well go for it. If you want to design, build, and/or market the lastest and greatest, go for it ! The rest of us will still be here, doing it the way we do it.
I got into DCC because I aquired a Digitrax SEB set for little or nothing. I still built my current layout with “blocks”, only both rails gapped. What my appeal is to DCC is that I can run multiple locos, which in my case is two, on the same track. Thats it, period. I do not currently use DCC for any other functions. I have a second computer that I took “out of service” with Windows XP, that I installed JMRI on, for a furture use. I can easily go back to DC by unplugging the SEB and plugging in my MRC 2500, and changing two electrical switches.
I think that the OP should post this in a place like ARF’s. Maybe he’ll find someone that wants to pick a fight.