I think it would bring O gauge together. All engines could run under the same system no matter the manufacturer. Although I don't see some manufacturers giving up their proprietary systems but you never know.
Dave
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Bluetooth is certainly an evolution of the existing communication protocol, but until the limitations are resolved, I am happy with TMCC/DCS.
It would be interesting to see of Bluetooth 5.0 is on the radar of the manufactures. Most important for me is the greater range 5.0 offers. Having two devices connected are also a huge step in the right directions.
Unfortunately, for our modular group events, Bluetooth is really not an option for us, but works fine at home on the smaller layouts.
Charlie
Well first things first, Bluetooth is a communications protocol not a control system. Even if you put Bluetooth in everything, you need to all of the manufactures to adopt a control system that will be universally compatible. Adding Bluetooth to an MTH PS3 engine doesn't make it magically work with the Lionel LC App or Universal remote. You'll need all of the manufactures to settle on a control system for everyone to use first.
Bluetooth is great for a small number of devices but when you start connecting more and more devices, it becomes harder to manage those connections. For example, I decided to test how robust the Bluetooth module is on my laptop by connection as many devices as possible to it. It began to run into problems after the eighth device was connected.
The next hurdle is layout control. Will all of my accessories and switches now have to be equipped with Bluetooth? I currently use a command system that not only runs my trains but also runs all of my switches and accessories.
Also don't forget that Bluetooth runs on a ONE to MANY relationship. Many slave devices (engines) can connect to One master device (controller). For some this okay, but for those of us who like to have multiple controllers that can control the same consist, this becomes a problem.
The range of Bluetooth has been argued to be everything from ugly to great. My personal experience with the Lionel universal remote has been reliable to 20 feet with minimal obstructions. That's okay for small layouts but becomes troublesome for larger layouts where trains may disappear from your view for brief periods of time due to tunnels or other scenery obstructions.
Lastly, adding the technology will also add cost to the locomotive. I think in another thread a user reported that the MSRP difference between LC+ and LC2 on the same locomotive added $50 to the price tag.
I'd like to see it. LC+ was Bluetooth equipped already. So the price increase going to LC+2.0 could more easily be blamed on the addition of TMCC features not Bluetooth.
Mike,
That's true, TMCC features more than likely added the extra cost.
When it come to Bluetooth there are two expenses, first for the hardware, and second for the license to use Bluetooth.
Not me. I like and enjoy the handhelds I have now.
Easy answer, YES.
Ben
"So the price increase going to LC+2.0 could more easily be blamed on the addition of TMCC features not Bluetooth."
After watching the Dave & Ryan Show, it seems the price might also be due to die-cast tenders replacing plastic, back-up lights, and separately applied handrails.
Jon 
Nope, don't see the point in it.
Nope.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Bluetooth is not a reliable protocol.
Sometimes, simple traditional AC power running is just fine........
Yes blue tooth very reliable tmcc is not on my double deck layout dcs is great also
MikeH posted:I'd like to see it. LC+ was Bluetooth equipped already. So the price increase going to LC+2.0 could more easily be blamed on the addition of TMCC features not Bluetooth.
Not true. Not all LC+ has Bluetooth, specifically those engines produced prior to 2016. I, for one, don't see the need UNLESS all manufacturers get on board with a compatible system, and we know that won't happen.
Bluetooth is the wonderful and necessary for our hobby to thrive. Did any one notice how Lionel sort of sneaked it in without any major announcement? That's because of the backlash from detractors. There is a lot of misinformation and myths being perpetuated by hobbyists who know better. Resisting Bluetooth hurts the hobby, and Lionel. I have what I need for the rest of my life, but want the hobby to be accessible/affordable for others, the younger, potential hobbyist. Touch-screen control directly to the loco (or accessory) is what it's all about, and Bluetooth delivers that, simply, no peripherals.
NO!
No. The DCS and Legacy controllers are part of the novelty for me and are fun to use. They're digital but present an analog button feel.
I have to admit since MTH's announcement regarding their handheld controller at the last York I've stopped pre-ordering their engines.
Having a Universal system (one ring to bind them all) is what folks have been clamoring for as long as there's been an OGR Forum. Making it respond to a common household device like a phone or tablet is just brilliant.
Jon
NO, having fun with Legacy and MTH DCS.
Big problem with BT in my mind is the limitations it poses in the current implementations. Having a 1:1 connection to the remote is not satisfactory, at least for me. Of course, the fact that the BT seems to have lousy range in my house adds to my disdain for the idea. I see it as adding expense and reducing operating capability, not the direction I think we should be going in.
KOOLjock1 posted:Having a Universal system (one ring to bind them all) is what folks have been clamoring for as long as there's been an OGR Forum.
Jon
As the former ogr webmaster use to say . "Ain't gonna happen". There's one manufacturer who's not been wanting to share on the comand control playground almost as long as there's been an ogr forum too.
RickO posted:KOOLjock1 posted:Having a Universal system (one ring to bind them all) is what folks have been clamoring for as long as there's been an OGR Forum.
Jon
As the former ogr webmaster use to say . "Ain't gonna happen". There's one manufacturer who's not been wanting to share on the comand control playground almost as long as there's been an ogr forum too.
Well yes and no... That manufacture did however add a universally accepted standard to control their engines with their latest generations of electronics when they included DCC decoders. If all of the manufactures would include DCC compatibility, we would be one step closer to having one control system to rule them all.
so you actually think Bluetooth will still be around in another 10 years? ... hahahaha.
No!
Train time is time to get "away" from the phone for me!
I would only support Bluetooth when it matures away from the 1:1 connection (one controller dedicated to a single locomotive/accessory at a time). I envision that it would be like an LCS or WIU component where the 1:1 connection is made, and then can control any layout activity over that connection, but at that point, every device that has Bluetooth has Wifi and the LCS or WIU solution fits the bill, so why have Bluetooth (beyond the simplistic starter set)?
It is smart of LC+2.0 to have TMCC/Legacy because the biggest gripe was the lack of forward compatibility as the model railroader matures into those systems. LC+2.0 is what LC should have been in the first place.
Only if there was cross compatibility between different manufactures and different apps. Am I really going to use multiple tablets for trains from different brands so I can run trains from different manufactures at the same time? Not in my budget!
I don't care, unless it is the ONLY way to control the equipment; then, a resounding NO.
Isn't the real question how many have used bluetooth??
Since I haven't, no response!
I don't want anything with a touch screen. I am old guy with very dry fingers and when I use a touch screen, very strange things happen, none of which I want.
And I like to run my trains with positive control, not play with a phone of some sort. I like control knobs - must be old fashioned, and I like reversing switches that are toggles with a center off position. That way if I stop a loco someplace I can set the reverse to center off and not have my belly brush it against the throttle and start a train into a collision.
Phones and gadgets and computers dominate a lot of our lives anymore. I want my trains to be my trains and I want to run them, not have some program written by some goofy guy in California decide how they run.
Train Nut posted:Train time is time to get "away" from the phone for me!
Best heard reason yet.
Probably not a good fit for me. If I'm sitting and fiddling with my phone to run trains, sooner or later I'll be compelled to answer a text or email, then forget the trains are running and check Facebook and probably meltdown my railroad.
I would welcome a bridge that allows Bluetooth control of the Legacy base. This would allow for app control of non-BT Legacy locos. It could also solve some of the 1:1 issues since the slave device (the Legacy base) would be capable of controlling multiple locos. This would be useful down the road if/when the handheld remotes become impractical due to component obsolescence.
Jeff T posted:Isn't the real question how many have used bluetooth??
Since I haven't, no response!
Maybe a need for a separate post. I can truly say that after decades of being phone bound because of work, employees, and business. That being tied to a phone even when off work hours because of job contracts, etc. That I never really had a chance to smell the flowers, enjoy people and life around me till my wife talked me into throwing away all the devices after I retired.
We have one phone between us, one laptop, one TV. As some have stated, holding a controller in ones hand and making adjustments as I run my layout, is as it should be. I did see at a local train show layout, a run with Bluetooth layout, operator needed constant lowering his reading glasses and an awkward collision when panic set in on using the Bluetooth. To each his own, but holding one or 2 remotes in ones hand(s) is part of the enjoyment.
Also price increase for this innovation to be included (I'm sure its not being added for free).
Just another thing to worry about being defective.
I tried it on the engine from the Broadway Limited set just to see if it worked. Did a few laps using the app, then shut it down and returned to the remote.
I did similar with the Polar Express set I bought a year ago, pretty sure I had some sort of anomaly during my brief test where the engine spiked in speed when I did so. Engine worked fine otherwise(universal LC remote, or it's own), so I didn't pursue it. Didn't impress me when that was part of my first experience trying BT control though.
-Dave
A model railroad is a harsh environment for sensitive electronics. You have sparks, surges, uneven voltage spots, and voltage spikes. If a unit is deliberately engineered for this environment, it can work reliably but I'm not sure that the trains of today have all reached this point. Adding more complexity of operation may not be the best move but that's just one mans opinion. Also agree that there is no standardization of operating systems in today's market.
Mowin' my lawn during the summer via BlueTooth while sipping a cool beverage on my front porch? Okay, I might go for that.
Pushing snow in the winter via BlueTooth while looking out of my living room window and sipping on a mug of hot chocolate? Yeah, I'd probably do that too.
Runnin' my trains any time of the year via BlueTooth? No thanks. That's kinda' like standing in my front yard and running my motorcycle up and down the street via BlueTooth. Somehow, it just don't appeal to me. 
Jeff T posted:Isn't the real question how many have used bluetooth??
Since I haven't, no response!
I have used Bluetooth on the legacy engine I have with Bluetooth. It was easy, smooth and allot of fun. I had no issues with the engine or the Bluetooth itself. I will buy more Bluetooth equipped legacy engines in the future.
Dave
xrayvizhen posted:MikeH posted:I'd like to see it. LC+ was Bluetooth equipped already. So the price increase going to LC+2.0 could more easily be blamed on the addition of TMCC features not Bluetooth.
Not true. Not all LC+ has Bluetooth, specifically those engines produced prior to 2016. I, for one, don't see the need UNLESS all manufacturers get on board with a compatible system, and we know that won't happen.
Absolutely true. They LC+ engine that was spoken of by me was Bluetooth. Came out long before LC+2.0 did.
The 2018 LC+ I have already has BT and the diecast tender body. But the addition of 4 chuffs per revolution instead of 2 will be nice. With better sounds. More lighting. More detail. I think the 50.00 + is MSRP is more than acceptable. More than one thing can be blamed for the increase.
Back to the OP. YES! And improving the BT to LTE will be even better! Allowing more things to be controlled! And better range. Its coming folks! No more tiu, siu, AEIOU, DCC, TMCC, just a universal controller and a DC power pack!
I will say my concern is only with Lionel engines and accessories.
Jim
carsntrains posted:Absolutely true. They LC+ engine that was spoken of by me was Bluetooth. Came out long before LC+2.0 did.
The 2018 LC+ I have already has BT and the diecast tender body. But the addition of 4 chuffs per revolution instead of 2 will be nice. With better sounds. More lighting. More detail. I think the 50.00 + is MSRP is more than acceptable. More than one thing can be blamed for the increase.
Back to the OP. YES! And improving the BT to LTE will be even better! Allowing more things to be controlled! And better range. Its coming folks! No more tiu, siu, AEIOU, DCC, TMCC, just a universal controller and a DC power pack!
I will say my concern is only with Lionel engines and accessories.
Jim
Jim,
Any LC+ engine made prior to 2017 does not have Bluetooth. Those engines can be run with the dedicated remote, the universal remote, and conventionally. The app will not work with those LC+ non-Bluetooth engines.
Range has never been an issue with Bluetooth when implemented with the proper hardware. Bluetooth 2.1 from 2005 had a range of 300 feet when using a class 3 device. For whatever reason Lionel decided to use a class 1 device with a range of 30 feet under ideal conditions, everyone's mileage will vary.
As I mentioned much earlier in this thread, Bluetooth is a communication protocol NOT a control system. Picking a wireless communication standard like Bluetooth, WiFi, or some other RF technology won't solve the problem that all of these manufactures have their own dedicated control system to run trains. You'll need to get all of these manufactures to incorporate a universal control system like DCC first.
Also, nobody to date has released anything operated by Bluetooth that can control a layout. I haven't seen Bluetooth operated switches or accessories from anyone yet.
The current of implementation of Bluetooth 4 uses a Master / Slave relationship which means only one controller can run one or more engines. On larger layouts, many choose to have more than one controller that can run all of the engines on the layout to allow multple people to interact with multiple engines at the same time.
carsntrains posted:No more tiu, siu, AEIOU, DCC, TMCC, just a universal controller and a DC power pack!
No more DCC??? Now THAT'S funny. I don't think you realize how popular DCC actually is in other scales.
Opinion.
The only use that I could see for BT is connecting the sound system to a under layout subwoofer for some serious bass response!
Paul Kallus posted:No. The DCS and Legacy controllers are part of the novelty for me and are fun to use. They're digital but present an analog button feel.
I have to admit since MTH's announcement regarding their handheld controller at the last York I've stopped pre-ordering their engines.
Friends described running trains with a phone the same as distracted driving, and that like in full size railroading, it will cause more crashes. 
John23 posted:The only use that I could see for BT is connecting the sound system to a under layout subwoofer for some serious bass response!
Hmmm 
