I am really getting tired of reading about smart phones, tablets, Blue Tooth, WiFi and dead rail. What’s wrong with a handheld DCC throttle or a DC power pack to run trains?
Like a lot of others, as Troy Aikman so famously says in that TV commercial, “I dwell in the past”.
For my layout era, the mid-50s, none of this modern stuff even existed. I don’t even own a smart phone or a tablet. Yeah, I’ve got a laptop but that’s where it belongs, on my lap or on the top of my desk.
So, once again, I ask, what’s wrong with a handheld DCC throttle or a DC power pack to run trains?
I agree with Steve. I still have a “dumb” phone and don’t plan on a smartphone because of the expense of them per month. (As much as I use a cell phone I save hundreds of dollars a year using a pay-as-you-go plan vs. a contract.) I have no problem with others choosing to use other technologies for operating their trains. I’m perfectly content with DCC…and it will only get better over time.
My laout is just 5x10 so my two DCC wired throttles are ok for me and the grandkids.
It strikes me there are several considerations, including:
a) just plain preferences; e.g., I like the way the basic NCE throttles work (I have two types) and I may not like an alternate in terms of the way it is used, how many steps to do something, etc
b) being wired versus untethered control; this could be accomplished by upgrading my NCE, say to infrared or wireless, or a completely different approach (cell phone). Not sure whether any operating characteristics would have to be considered; e.g., does IR have to be aimed carefully? where would IR sensors be located
c) cost; not sure how much more IR or wireless would have cost me by going that way initially versus transitioning to a fancier approach
So, it’s a combination of things that make a given approach “right” for a person. Interesting to think over. For instance, I haven’t consider whether I want to upgrade (but it’s not even on my to do list low priority items.
In my area clubs use Digitrax and NCE close to a 50%/50% ratio and we visit each other on the occasion. Cell phones or tablets are now the commun denominator as far as throttles are concerned.
I started with DCC, so take my opinion for what you will:
Smartphones and tablets are easy to program, and give you a more flexible throttle based more upon the locomotive you are driving at the time. My 3 diesel models all have different controls with marked ‘buttons’ on the tablet for what each do. Rocrail takes care of this for me (I’m sure JMRI would do the same)
The physical DCC throttles from the USA are really caught up in 1980s/1990s design. Look at NCE, MRC, and Digitrax. They do not include new tooling, and the buttons are pretty much the same across the entire controller. You still have to look down to see what they do.
Now, compare that to a modern TV remote, many of which have their own screen. They aren’t expensive, especially compared to a model railroad throttle. And they look about a hundred times more modern, with the all-important shaped buttons for operating by feel.
So part of the reason you hear about smartphones, tablets, and WiFi is because they are probably already owned by the hobbyist, and the other part (the “what’s wrong with” part) is that the current examples of DCC throttles in the USA are really terrible (and VERY expensive) examples of new technology. Europe is slightly more advanced (look at ESU EcOS)
I think if you had better - heck, not even more modern, but more /thoughtful/ design, you would see more people buying physical throttles. But for some reason, the attitude toward them is either (a) it needs to be gimmicky (i.e. with a giant notching handle), or (b) if it works, it’s good enough. The industry can do better than either of these, but chooses not to. Consciously.
The trouble with smart phones and tablets is that now you need an interface like JMRI. Just seems more complicated than using the DCC system’s throttle.
Actually, you’re wrong on both accounts. JMRI can be used with physical throttles, or smartphone throttles. MTH has a smartphone based throttle, as does Roco, and both of them do not require a PC or layout control software of any kind.
The added technology accomplishes the following:
Buttons can be labled as to what they do, specific to the locomotive being operated (Steam and diesel have very different functions, but this even varies within each of those types). Those buttons can switch labels on the fly, so wrong-press mistakes are avoided.
Bizarre labels due to an awful controller screen are avoided. I’m sorry dude, but the NCE screen is laughable. It looks like a VCR clock from 1986, and has maybe 2 lines. A smartphone can display icons or notifications letting you know something is wrong.
In short, the computerized control reduces mistakes and allows the technology to communicate with you, the hobbyist, better than a static throttle does.
Finally, I’m going to regurgitate something said all over these forums. If you use DCC, you already have a computer on your layout.
What you’re describing “the notion of a “computerized” layout”
True for some of the “not used quite as often” buttons on my NCE Power Cab throttle but NOT the speed buttons or thumbwheel. THAT’S the important ones - the ones I use the most - and I know exactly where they are in my right hand - without even having to look at 'em.
Using a smartphone as a universal throttle…THAT makes a ton of sense and I have no problem with that.
It would seem that the use of smart phones, tablets, and the like would be distracting from the operation of the trains themselves. One would be concentrating more on the device than the running of trains. At times I find that the DCC throttle is distracting. Technology continues to march on which is good. For me the DCC throttle, and for that matter, a DC power pack are good enough. Call me old fashion, that’s O.K.
The reason I prefer the old school controllers is they have real knobs or buttons, which are superior if you want to keep your eyes on the trains most of the time and not have to look at your “touch screen” to see where the heck the virtual button or slider is!!! Uh huh!
My wife and I had dumb cell phones from Verizon and were paying around $80/mo. We got tired of paying that and found if we got two inexpensive Smart Phones (Nokia Lumia Window 8 phones) we could get a pay as you go plan and install apps like Viber and Skype and use those while on wifi for calls and texts and only use the T-mobile cell service as necessary. My wife and I only pay about $25/mo now for the limited calling and texting we do over the cell service and save $50/mo. We had to get Smartphones in order to make the savings work - we have jobs so still have to do some texting and standard cell calling. Sometimes modern technology helps you save money! =) Our pay as you go is a minimum of $3/mo for 30 minutes or 30 texts; obviously we go well over that but still pay an average of $25/mo combined for our service . I don’t think it’s possible to pay less than that these days and still use phones for work too!
No, I think you’re dead on. Sometimes change doesn’t provide a real benefit or convenience.
A lot of advancement taking place in the computer age is really a 3 steps forward 2 steps back process in providing convenience to the user. The problem is, you can read and learn about the 3 steps forward part from industry publications and purchasers of products, and it seems great, but you can only learn about the 2 steps backwards part with experience…after you’ve made a financial commitment…because the industry will certainly not ever point it out, and current users of the technology seem too sensitive to bring it up.
That’s just my take on it.
And…some confuse having/learning new technology with being smart, so it sometimes doesn’t even have to do with practicality.
But the real push for the smartphone train technology is so that a new generation of customers won’t be “turned off” by an electronic toy, like trains, not being able to be controlled by the devices. And the industry wants to keep trains attractive to the next generation.
You and me don’t have to really be concerned about it.
I don’t like brussel sprouts. Anybody claiming to like them is lying. They only eat them to prop up their “more health conscious than me” superiority complex.
I have a simple way of dealing with this on the cooking sites I follow. If the subject line says “brussel sprouts” I don’t click on it.
And BTW, I use my smartphone as the “throttle” on my ceramic cooker during the 18 hours my pork shoulders are smoking.
The trouble with smart phones and tablets is that now you need an interface like JMRI. Just seems more complicated than using the DCC system’s throttle.
As far as the TV remote is concerned, my TV remote has 39 buttons compared to 34 on my NCE Pro Cab. It seems to me that some guys are just caught up in the notion of a “computerized” layout, but for what. All of this added technology doesn’t appear to accomplish anything more than a DCC command station and throttle does. Am I wrong?
Rich
Actually, you’re wrong on both accounts. JMRI can be used with physical throttles, or smartphone throttles. MTH has a smartphone based throttle, as does Roco, and both of them do not require a PC or layout control software of any kind.
The added technology accomplishes the following:
Buttons can be labled as to what they do, specific to the locomotive being operated (Steam and diesel have very different functions, but this even varies within each of those types). Those buttons can switch labels on the fly, so wrong-press mistakes are avoided.
Bizarre labels due to an awful controller screen are avoided. I’m sorry dude, but the NCE screen is laughable. It looks like a VCR clock from 1986, and has maybe 2 lines. A smartphone can display icons or notifications letting you know something is wrong.
In short, the computerized control reduces mistakes and allows the technology to communicate with you, the hobbyist, better than a static throttle does.
Finally, I’m going to regurgitate something said all over these forums. If you use DCC, you already
Honestly, I think those Euro throttles that use a picture of the loco are more distracting than helpful, and more limited for north american modelers. I have a half dozen RS-3s - how big a screen do I need to have a picture big enough to read the road number on each one so I know which one I am selecting? That’s the only differentiating factor - they are all in the same paint scheme for the same road name. That option came about because it’s pretty much not possible to use the cab number for the DCC address in europe, european locos either do not have cab numbers or the numbers are 5 and 6 digits long. Most US railroad don;t go over 4 digits, so cab numbers can be directly used as the address. Typing in no more than 4 digits is FAR faster than scrollign through a bunch of pictures to find the loco I want. This is one of my examples of technology for technology’s sake - it doesn’t help me do anything easier or faster, in fact it makes a simple task MORE difficult. Not sure why modelers of north american prototypes would want something like that. It’s similar to the recall stacks - great, your DCC system is better than mine because it has 16 recalls? How so? I press a maximum of 6 buttons to select ANY loco I own, recall stack or not. Loco, up to 4 numbers, and enter. Fewer if the loco address is less than 1000. To select a loco from 16 in a recall stack, you can have to press up to 18 buttons - recall, the scroll button or thumb the wheel or whatever up to 16 times, if the loco is the last one in the stack, and enter to select it. I say again, how is this better? I look at my loco, I see that it is cab number 865, so to run it on my DCC system I select 865. Not a picture of a Trainmaster. Not scroll through 16 locos in my recall stack only to find it wasn’t one of my last 16 locos I ran. It says 865 on the side of the loco, I hit 865. Done.
I don;t think it’s a lack of fancy electronics that keeps young people away from trains. It’s a total lack of relevance o