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 
No.
I found it to be a novel mode but I have also noticed it takes your attention away from the trains. So like all other things if you like it do it, I will stay with my remote and transformer handles. Then I can enjoy my trains instead of the phone.
Bluetooth is the wrong solution for anything more than a few locos operated by one person on a small layout. In today's environment DCC compatibility would be the right direction for O.
H1000 posted: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.
Right I am well aware of when BT became available in LC+ engines, and that was before the LC+2.0 engines came out. The comparison was between a 2018 MSRP and a 2019 MSRP. The 2018 LC+ already had BT so it was not the reason for the MSRP to go up.
Really the great thing is the LC, LC+, and LC+2.0 universal controller. For 49.99 you can control 3 engines at one time. No other things to buy. And if you get a LC or LC+ the controller comes with it. Impressive. And I dont think Ive seen many folks run more than 3 trains at one time with DCC unless they are just running loops! And you can do that conventionally! 4 folks could run 12 trains on one layout without a problem. As long as all the engines were different.
Ryan, Dave, and other Dave have already said Lionel is going to expand greatly on that control system. No its not up to par with DCC. Its in its infancy.
ECD Bob yes I know other scales use DCC. I watch "whats neat this week" podcast on youtube lol
Jim
We were at the club last night, and a few of us were trying to use BT for several of the new Legacy locomotives. It was a most unsatisfying experience, and enough for me to write it off in it's current form! The range issues I mentioned previously for my H10 are not unique, nobody was able to control a BT locomotive from more than 15-18 feet before losing the connection. We were using a variety of smartphones, a couple of iPhones, and several Android phones of various vintages.
I say again, this is not a technology that is ready for prime time! I can count on one hand all the times I've lost control of a properly functioning locomotive using TMCC/Legacy, and I have fingers left over! I lost control of two different BT locomotives from less than 20 feet more times than that in one evening! I don't know where the capability is going, only that it's a long ways from the destination IMO. You can keep it, I don't want it!
It’s time for me to say I’ve now got enough engines for my lifetime. No Bluetooth for me. When Legacy goes, I’ll go with it. The two big guys are trying to bring youth to the hobby but I just don’t think it’s going to happen. This is an older persons hobby and it’s not going to change. Just my opinion.
gunrunnerjohn posted:We were at the club last night, and a few of us were trying to use BT for several of the new Legacy locomotives. It was a most unsatisfying experience, and enough for me to write it off in it's current form! The range issues I mentioned previously for my H10 are not unique, nobody was able to control a BT locomotive from more than 15-18 feet before losing the connection.
That doesnt surprise me. In fact, it would be a bit surprising if you could get any distance further than that ever, considering that the class of blue tooth they are using is only good for 16-33 feet. And with the metal chassis in the engines, with a metal wheelset connected to ground, I could see where it would cut the distance down even further unless you were at a higher elevation over the engine.
To me, BT may be ok for starter systems, but I certainly wouldnt want to see it in all engines, because it would be an additional cost most of us would never use. We've heard from some die-hard conventional runners who have no interest in it, but many of us with a control system already have wifi and/or RF capabilities that far exceed BT.
I would, however, like to see manufacturers settle on a standard that's similar to what MTH or Atlas has done, where DCC is either included or the engine is at last DCC-ready.
Not me.
Not me, I don't and won't use it. Its not that great, I've tried it but am thoroughly unimpressed
What an interesting and invigorating discussion! I believe I have more experience with bluetooth train control than anyone so far. Over the past two years, I converted twelve engines to BT, 10 diesels and two steamers, powered by all three modes: track AC, track DC and battery. I used the BlueRailTrains drop in board. I am not advocating BT control above all others. My layout has conventional, TMCC and LC+ as well as BT and each has its pluses and minuses. But for the record, here is my operating experience with BT: When properly installed, BT control is flawless. Over the two year period, I have demonstrated these engines at various club meets. I found the reliable operating range to be over 100 feet. BT control uses an on-screen app, which may not be to everyone's liking. Where this can be a big plus is when you are running many engines simultaneously and can see several throttles at the same time on your screen. I also found the ability to customize the PWM waveform delivered to the motors to be helpful, but that feature is not exclusive to BlueRail. Again, I run all four layout operating modes, but felt I should lay out the purely technical assessment of bluetooth. When properly implemented, it works very well.
Fun to watch folks that are 100% invested in one technology comment on a competing technology! 😁
Jim
BOB WALKER posted:What an interesting and invigorating discussion! I believe I have more experience with bluetooth train control than anyone so far. Over the past two years, I converted twelve engines to BT, 10 diesels and two steamers, powered by all three modes: track AC, track DC and battery. I used the BlueRailTrains drop in board. I am not advocating BT control above all others. My layout has conventional, TMCC and LC+ as well as BT and each has its pluses and minuses. But for the record, here is my operating experience with BT: When properly installed, BT control is flawless. Over the two year period, I have demonstrated these engines at various club meets. I found the reliable operating range to be over 100 feet. BT control uses an on-screen app, which may not be to everyone's liking. Where this can be a big plus is when you are running many engines simultaneously and can see several throttles at the same time on your screen. I also found the ability to customize the PWM waveform delivered to the motors to be helpful, but that feature is not exclusive to BlueRail. Again, I run all four layout operating modes, but felt I should lay out the purely technical assessment of bluetooth. When properly implemented, it works very well.
So BlueRail introduces yet another control system, I'm not convinced that what we need especially since other platforms can do everything it does and whole lot more. Plus to implement it, I'll need to remove a working system and pay for a board from BlueRail, I'm sure that's not free.
As you mentioned the app is nice because you can have multiple throttles on one screen at a time. Nifty but others could also this feature just as easy, It's software that can be upgraded fairly easily. Mark DiVecchio has also develop a similar feature with his RTC program that can also run multiple throttles plus other controls and hot button controls on a Windows tablet. The button and throttle layout is also customizable. It too works very well and more than one device can control the same engine if needs be.
Nobody has addressed how to get more than one Controller and or app to run the same engine on a layout yet nor have they addressed layout control with Bluetooth yet.
Don't worry about everyone using Bluetooth as their communication protocol in their engines, get all the manufactures to adopt a universal control platform first. Then worry about how their app or remote will transmit & receive data to the engines and layout.
Neglected to mention that I worked out a simple procedure for connecting two IoS devices at the same time to two engines with individual control for each engine.
BT today is in it's infancy and I would expect as time goes on it will grow into a system we all can use. Bob Walker has proved it can work.
i think dismissing out of hand is very short sighted. I'll be looking forward to the day BT is on par with other systems, just hope I live long enough to see it happen.
Dave
carsntrains posted:Fun to watch folks that are 100% invested in one technology comment on a competing technology! 😁
Fun to see someone that clearly hasn't actually tried BT try to diss comments about it's shortcomings.
BOB WALKER posted:What an interesting and invigorating discussion! I believe I have more experience with bluetooth train control than anyone so far. Over the past two years, I converted twelve engines to BT, 10 diesels and two steamers, powered by all three modes: track AC, track DC and battery. I used the BlueRailTrains drop in board. I am not advocating BT control above all others. My layout has conventional, TMCC and LC+ as well as BT and each has its pluses and minuses. But for the record, here is my operating experience with BT: When properly installed, BT control is flawless. Over the two year period, I have demonstrated these engines at various club meets. I found the reliable operating range to be over 100 feet. BT control uses an on-screen app, which may not be to everyone's liking. Where this can be a big plus is when you are running many engines simultaneously and can see several throttles at the same time on your screen. I also found the ability to customize the PWM waveform delivered to the motors to be helpful, but that feature is not exclusive to BlueRail. Again, I run all four layout operating modes, but felt I should lay out the purely technical assessment of bluetooth. When properly implemented, it works very well.
Ive read about the blue rail and wondered why Lionel didn't buy into their technology! I see they use a stronger signal, that Lionel doesn't have the license/FCC approval to use yet. Demand for the BlueRail must be very high because they were sold out and expecting an expanded board last time I checked on them.
Jim
gunrunnerjohn posted:carsntrains posted:Fun to watch folks that are 100% invested in one technology comment on a competing technology! 😁
Fun to see someone that clearly hasn't actually tried BT try to diss comments about it's shortcomings.
That would be funny! Can you point this person out?? : )
Jim
I think we'd all benefit by supporting one universal control system with interchangable components and standards, which I believe is DCC. I have read about the WiFi phne decoders and just ask why? I guess there is some novalty or even preference for using a phone, but the decoders and system did not have nearly all the features available for DCC and I dislike small, unidentified buttons. Am I missing something?
astarr posted:I think we'd all benefit by supporting one universal control system with interchangable components and standards, which I believe is DCC. I have read about the WiFi phne decoders and just ask why? I guess there is some novalty or even preference for using a phone, but the decoders and system did not have nearly all the features available for DCC and I dislike small, unidentified buttons. Am I missing something?
Im a bit confused by small unidentified buttons? Is that on DCC controllers? I remember years ago it was said that all the auto manufacturers were going to be forced to use a universal electronics system in all vehicles produced in the US. Never happened. Heck they cant even make all wheels that same lol
Jim
BOB WALKER posted:Neglected to mention that I worked out a simple procedure for connecting two IoS devices at the same time to two engines with individual control for each engine.
So you developed a hack that works on apple devices that somehow circumvents the one to many control relationship that Bluetooth principally operates on. Did you get this to work with Lionel Bluetooth products & apps? How long before Apple releases a security update and breaks your hack? Does it work on android devices?
Looking at BlueRails website, It doesn't look like they make much the really handles more than 1.5 amps of current. Not sure how I'm going get that to incorporate in some of my consists that pull many cars and the engine is pulling down about 2 to 3 amps continuously with the smoke off.
There is one comment left for an mth engine stating that the board goes into shutdown if the engine is started to slow, you have to start fast and then slow down? To me it seems like BlueRail was built to run smaller gauges and not really capable to handle high current loads with all the bells, whistles and smoke that current offerings from the major O scale manufactures.
Again, I'm not sure that another control system is what O scale needs right now or ever.
carsntrains posted:I remember years ago it was said that all the auto manufacturers were going to be forced to use a universal electronics system in all vehicles produced in the US. Never happened. Heck they cant even make all wheels that same lol
Jim
Yes this did happen, it's called OBD-II (ON BOARD DIAGNOSTICS II). All cars made 1996 and newer have an OBD-II port mounted within 36 inches of the steering wheel. This connector is the same on all cars. This allows your to purchase an OBD-II diagnostic tool that will work on any make or model 1996 or newer.
H1000 posted:carsntrains posted:I remember years ago it was said that all the auto manufacturers were going to be forced to use a universal electronics system in all vehicles produced in the US. Never happened. Heck they cant even make all wheels that same lol
Jim
Yes this did happen, it's called OBD-II (ON BOARD DIAGNOSTICS II). All cars made 1996 and newer have an OBD-II port mounted within 36 inches of the steering wheel. This connector is the same on all cars. This allows your to purchase an OBD-II diagnostic tool that will work on any make or model 1996 or newer.
Im aware of the diagnostic port. So I can take the ECU out of my F150 and put it in a 1500 Chevrolet? No. And that was the said purpose. My brother has been doing computer diagnostics for many many many years. I even have the units to read the trouble codes through the "doghouse".
Now are we going to have the government step in and force model train makers to build a system that works with one another. When the companies are trying to distinguish themselves as better than or different?
Jim
carsntrains posted:H1000 posted:carsntrains posted:I remember years ago it was said that all the auto manufacturers were going to be forced to use a universal electronics system in all vehicles produced in the US. Never happened. Heck they cant even make all wheels that same lol
Jim
Yes this did happen, it's called OBD-II (ON BOARD DIAGNOSTICS II). All cars made 1996 and newer have an OBD-II port mounted within 36 inches of the steering wheel. This connector is the same on all cars. This allows your to purchase an OBD-II diagnostic tool that will work on any make or model 1996 or newer.
Im aware of the diagnostic port. So I can take the ECU out of my F150 and put it in a 1500 Chevrolet? No. And that was the said purpose. My brother has been doing computer diagnostics for many many many years. I even have the units to read the trouble codes through the "doghouse".
Now are we going to have the government step in and force model train makers to build a system that works with one another. When the companies are trying to distinguish themselves as better than or different?
Jim
Jim that's not purpose behind obd-II. The goal was so that car repair shops and consumers didn't have to buy all of these specialized and extremely expensive diagnostic tools for each brand, and in some case for specific models. The consumer grade OBD-II readers give you the most basic troubleshooting codes that are fairly universal between manufactures. ALL ECU's need to provide this basic information in a universal format to troubleshoot drivetrain problems.
The hobby train market is way to small and insignificant for the Government to care for how we run them, I don't think that was ever suggested by anyone but you. However when a group of people got together and formed the DCC control standard for everyone to use an include into their products, that was done independently and available for all train manufacturers to incorporate at their will. Let's get this step done first, then you can choose whether you want to use Bluetooth, WiFi, wired controllers, or telepathy to run your DCC controlled trains.
H1000 posted:carsntrains posted:H1000 posted:carsntrains posted:I remember years ago it was said that all the auto manufacturers were going to be forced to use a universal electronics system in all vehicles produced in the US. Never happened. Heck they cant even make all wheels that same lol
Jim
Yes this did happen, it's called OBD-II (ON BOARD DIAGNOSTICS II). All cars made 1996 and newer have an OBD-II port mounted within 36 inches of the steering wheel. This connector is the same on all cars. This allows your to purchase an OBD-II diagnostic tool that will work on any make or model 1996 or newer.
Im aware of the diagnostic port. So I can take the ECU out of my F150 and put it in a 1500 Chevrolet? No. And that was the said purpose. My brother has been doing computer diagnostics for many many many years. I even have the units to read the trouble codes through the "doghouse".
Now are we going to have the government step in and force model train makers to build a system that works with one another. When the companies are trying to distinguish themselves as better than or different?
Jim
Jim that's not purpose behind obd-II. The goal was so that car repair shops and consumers didn't have to buy all of these specialized and extremely expensive diagnostic tools for each brand, and in some case for specific models. The consumer grade OBD-II readers give you the most basic troubleshooting codes that are fairly universal between manufactures. ALL ECU's need to provide this basic information in a universal format to troubleshoot drivetrain problems.
The hobby train market is way to small and insignificant for the Government to care for how we run them, I don't think that was ever suggested by anyone but you. However when a group of people got together and formed the DCC control standard for everyone to use an include into their products, that was done independently and available for all train manufacturers to incorporate at their will. Let's get this step done first, then you can choose whether you want to use Bluetooth, WiFi, wired controllers, or telepathy to run your DCC controlled trains.
Maybe not the intent of OBD-II... But the intent of the folks that pushed other legislation that was squashed.
I dont think you, me, or anyone else involved here has the right or the ability to tell any company what to do or use. Radio control, bluetooth, and the LC product line itself has done wonders for Lionel! It is the breadwinner for them! Says Lionel! Why would they want to drop the products that are making them money? I love it! No controllers to buy (except for the LC+2.0, which uses the universal remote). No decoder to buy. No signal coming through the track!
The sticky point for the manufacturer that is making money off of the current systems they sell. Lionel is doing their best dealing with keeping the old school folks happy while trying to develop new technology for model trains. Then keeping the TMCC/Legacy folks happy at the same time.
Just my view of what I see. What I see and hear the people at Lionel saying. And what products I see coming our way. The buzz is all around LC+2.0 and the entire LC line.
Jim
Jim, I agree if they are making money, that's great. In fact with LC+2 coming out with TMCC built in, I'm sure they have now picked up a few more consumers.
I 'm planning my purchases and some of the LC+2 engines have my eye. But not because of Bluetooth, the LC App or the the universal remote. In fact, if Lionel would offer the option to remove the Bluetooth and save me $10 on the cost of the engine I'd do it in a heart beat. Bluetooth is is a worthless feature for me due to its shortcomings that haven't been addressed. The TMCC feature addition is the only driving force that even makes me consider the new LC+2.
I'll control them and the rest of my layout with the MTH DCS remote or App using WiFi, both at the same time if I choose to and have other stationary control points (tablets) setup to allow other operators, or layout control access to occurs simultaneously. These are things that Bluetooth and their associated apps can't do as of yet.
I would like to see someone from Lionel, like Ryan Kunkle, chime in here regarding the range of their Bluetooth products, and get the official line about its limitations, if any. This will put an end to speculation and anecdotal accounts of signal loss. Also I would love to see Dave Rees from BlueRail Trains talk about their first release. The Bluetooth bashing hurts this hobby and the companies trying to introduce a new product/control system. Remember, these posts here on OGR come up in internet searches and can discourage consumers/hobbyists from making a purchase.
Well Joe here are some facts we can get behind:
Lionel's filing with the FCC for the Universal remote indicates that the universal remote has a maximum power output of 1mW. That makes it a class 3 device. You may get more range than that but it's not guaranteed. Most smart phones and tablets have Class 2 power output.
Beings that the Universal remote is a class three device, it would make sense that the locomotives are also class three devices.
If you are interested, here is a link to Lionel's FCC filing for the Universal remote (Functional description of the universal remote). Below is an excerpt from that document which indicates the 1mw power rating:
My experience with the universal remote has been mostly reliable to 20 feet on layouts with a few tunnels and scenery obstructions. I have had some problems on larger layouts with more obstructions.
Class 3 devices have a range that are less than 10 meters. Basically it works in a range of 33 feet or less. I don't think my 20 feet is out spec for the normal operating range considering the environment it is operating in. I suspect that 33 feet can be achieved in ideal operating conditions which most of us won't have.
If somebody has said something that is not correct, then please chime in. But also on the same token, lets not sell Bluetooth as a miracle technology either.
H1000 posted:Well Joe here are some facts we can get behind:
Lionel's filing with the FCC for the Universal remote indicates that the universal remote has a maximum power output of 1mW. That makes it a class 3 device. You may get more range than that but it's not guaranteed. Most smart phones and tablets have Class 2 power output.
Beings that the Universal remote is a class three device, it would make sense that the locomotives are also class three devices.
If you are interested, here is a link to Lionel's FCC filing for the Universal remote (Functional description of the universal remote). Below is an excerpt from that document which indicates the 1mw power rating:
My experience with the universal remote has been mostly reliable to 20 feet on layouts with a few tunnels and scenery obstructions. I have had some problems on larger layouts with more obstructions.
Class 3 devices have a range that are less than 10 meters. Basically it works in a range of 33 feet or less. I don't think my 20 feet is out spec for the normal operating range considering the environment it is operating in. I suspect that 33 feet can be achieved in ideal operating conditions which most of us won't have.
If somebody has said something that is not correct, then please chime in. But also on the same token, lets not sell Bluetooth as a miracle technology either.
RIGHT ON! 33 feet is about it or even a stretch! The truth is the majority of us train folks dont have a 66 foot long layout! Or even a 44 foot long layout! AND we can hope for a step up in the outputs and receivers !!! Mine works great on my 17x11. Blue tooth via tablet and universal remote. Although I only have one BT engine. Ive tried it and I like it! I also enjoy the adjustments in volume and pitch that the BT app has. Momentum also! I suggest watching Eric's Trains last video on the Santa Fe set too! You can see all of this in action!
I must say that app is super cool on a Fire HD10! HUGE! And if you have an Amazon tablet I hope you have a tech guy like I do to get around the block they put on Google Play and the apps in it. Still cant play Pokemon because it doesn't have GPS.
I still prefer the universal remote so I can run 3 engines at once.
Jim
The previously mentioned dual BT simultaneous connected smart devices is not a hack of the IoS software. It is a straight forward step by step protocol which results in two devices communicating separately and individually to two engines at the same time.
I have several locos with Bluerail boards and they have much greater range than LC+. We setup at quite a few shows every year (a few where we are the only model RR) and I have been testing the range in those environments.
Brendan
For one thing, Bluetooth is a universal standard, and I would expect the firmware and hardware to be dirt cheap for that reason. Lots of folks who complain about the proprietary nature TMCC/Legacy and, in particular DCS would I think like to have a universal standard, even if can be operated only by smart devices (and the Lionel universal remote). But I'm sure MTH could easily design a similar remote if they wanted to, at least in terms of Bluetooth capability. I don't see the downside, and I'm guessing the $10 guess as to cost may be on the money (pun intended). If Lionel is smart they might consider licensing their solution to Atlas and 3rd Rail, just as they licensed TMCC to them. One way to promote the common approach. Doesn't make Legacy or LionChief obsolete for those who want to continue to use those or TMCC, which are still part of the line.
Landsteiner posted:For one thing, Bluetooth is a universal standard,.
BLUETOOTH IS A COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL NOT A UNIVERSAL STANDARD NOR A CONTROL SYSTEM FOR TRAINS.
Adding Bluetooth to an engine doesn't make universally compatible. Notice how we can't use the LC app to run BlueRail engines and vice versa?
"Adding Bluetooth to an engine doesn't make universally compatible."
It could if Lionel wanted to share its approach as they've done for TMCC and Legacy. Bluetooth is readily licensed, and I doubt that anyone reverse engineering the Bluetooth approach in Lionel locos would have legal liability. Much like DCC, which is also a communication protocol. Everyone's implementation and hardware is somewhat different but the transmission protocol is a common one. Bluetooth could be the same, ultimately.
Compared with DCS, about which MTH has been litigious (in at least in terms of threats), anyone could choose to adopt Bluetooth as their communication protocol.
In any case, BlueRail isn't exactly a major player in this arena.
On the other hand, it will be interesting to see if Atlas, 3rd Rail, or even MTH considers Bluetooth something worth exploring as a common protocol, along with Lionel. Cheap and widely used, proven platform. More reliable, for example, in my experience than Wi-Fi. And much, much less expensive to implement based upon current costs.
If adopted in same manner, it would be the closest thing to a potential standard since Lionel licensed TMCC to Atlas, K-Line, Weaver and 3rd Rail 20 years ago. Probably won't happen, but worth contemplating. Not as the only system, but one present in all locos.
Why do you need to reverse engineer Bluetooth? It's a published standard for wireless communications it's IEEE designation is 802.15. You can look it up and they'll tell anything you want to know. All that Bluetooth does is provide a wireless conduit for control system to communicate between the controller and devices. In short, it delivers the 1's and 0's.
DCC is open standard that available for anyone to use freely without any license from anyone. Lionel could use it today if they wanted to, it's been around as long as TMCC. But DCC doesn't address the delivery system from the controller to engine. At one time this was done via wired controllers but now all sorts of wireless communications standards exist to used, WiFi, Bluetooth, and other licensed RF systems. DCS isn't a wireless communication system, they use an off the shelf 900MHz transceiver to establish a wireless link between the Remote and the TIU. That has nothing to do with the DCS control system. Others have already hacked & released the DCS Communications and you can control a TIU without a remote using software on a computer, wired or wireless.
While everyone is free to consider Bluetooth, it has it's shortcomings that have yet to addressed. It wasn't too long that we heard about how TMCC was old technology and now it's being integrated into the newest LC+2 engines. If Bluetooth was the technology to rule everything then why start including a 20+ year old TMCC with current premium LC offerings.
I think Bluetooth might have a place or purpose within 3 rail O-gauge but presently believe BT would best be served in action/sound cars and accessories not locomotives. I'd rather see 3-Rail O-gauge accept the DCC standardization. DCC standardization would allow us to use one system across all scales. Locomotive DCC customization settings appear much easier today than years past. However, the existing proprietary nature of both Lionel and MTH likely will prevent DCC from making material inroads unless there is a major shift in either those companies or the majority of their customers or their respective tech ends up reaching its component dead-end obsolence.
Keystone posted:I think Bluetooth might have a place or purpose within 3 rail O-gauge but presently believe BT would best be served in action/sound cars and accessories not locomotives. I'd rather see 3-Rail O-gauge accept the DCC standardization. DCC standardization would allow us to use one system across all scales. Locomotive DCC customization settings appear much easier today than years past. However, the existing proprietary nature of both Lionel and MTH likely will prevent DCC from making material inroads unless there is a major shift in either those companies or the majority of their customers or their respective tech ends up reaching its component dead-end obsolence.
I agree, but do keep in mind that MTH has integrated DCC with all locomotives since the introduction of PS3 about 7 or 8 years ago.
BT in our trains has to offer more range in order to be useful. Nothing worse than having a remote control communications channel that works half the time. I keep hearing that Lionel used a low power and short range standard, but guess what, that's what we're stuck with! Until the communication is reliable for more than 10-15 feet, and doesn't blank out as soon as the locomotive enters a tunnel or goes around a layout obstruction, it's pretty worthless for anything more than a loop around the Christmas Tree!
gunrunnerjohn posted:BT in our trains has to offer more range in order to be useful. Nothing worse than having a remote control communications channel that works half the time. I keep hearing that Lionel used a low power and short range standard, but guess what, that's what we're stuck with! Until the communication is reliable for more than 10-15 feet, and doesn't blank out as soon as the locomotive enters a tunnel or goes around a layout obstruction, it's pretty worthless for anything more than a loop around the Christmas Tree!
GRJ how true! Good news is I watched Eric Seagle do a review on the LC Santa Fe starter set. He used the controller and the LC/BT app. I made sure to ask him about the app on his FB page so everyone could see it. He said the app worked fine all around his layout and had no problems. I have to imagine his layout is bigger than 10 or 15 feet. And again it works fine on my 17x11 layout. Ive been meaning to do a test of mine for distance. But I'd have to leave the room the trains are in to get any further away.
OH and I got some nice Lionel rolling stock from your friends at Henning's Trains!
Jim
That's not a universal experience. We tried two of the BT equipped locomotives with a variety of smart phones at the club, and reliable operation was simply not happening! More than around 15 feet and you'd lose connection and have to start over. I thought initially it was just my H10, but apparently it's not just me or my phone.
gunrunnerjohn posted:That's not a universal experience. We tried two of the BT equipped locomotives with a variety of smart phones at the club, and reliable operation was simply not happening! More than around 15 feet and you'd lose connection and have to start over. I thought initially it was just my H10, but apparently it's not just me or my phone.
Did anybody try using a universal remote when the BT app failed?? Another problem I see with the app is if the engine looses power for a split second it disconnects with the app. Does not do that with the supplied remote or the universal remote. Plenty of things that need to be made better. For sure.
Jim
I did not try the universal remote, after all, we were specifically interested in how the BT worked with a smart phone as that's the method that's supposed to allow us to have a remote anytime we need one. 
carsntrains posted:"RIGHT ON! 33 feet is about it or even a stretch! The truth is the majority of us train folks dont have a 66 foot long layout! Or even a 44 foot long layout! AND we can hope for a step up in the outputs and receivers !!! Mine works great on my 17x11. Blue tooth via tablet and universal remote. Although I only have one BT engine. Ive tried it and I like it! I also enjoy the adjustments in volume and pitch that the BT app has. Momentum also! I suggest watching Eric's Trains last video on the Santa Fe set too! You can see all of this in action!
I still prefer the universal remote so I can run 3 engines at once.
Jim
Have been to an around the room 31 X 31 layout with a master closet in the center and the LC remote looses contact with the engine as it travels around the layout if you are out of sight, especially if located in one of the corners. (They were running the new Polar Express if that makes any difference.)
For me running it with TMCC rather than the provided remote would have made it more fun. Everyone thought the "Polar Express, All Aboard, Tickets" announcement were cool (the "I'm the King Of The North Pole" which seems to repeat over, and over, and over, not so much " How about a way to select the announcement you desire regardless of control device?
gunrunnerjohn posted:I did not try the universal remote, after all, we were specifically interested in how the BT worked with a smart phone as that's the method that's supposed to allow us to have a remote anytime we need one.
HMMM so yall weren't interested in seeing if either option would work. Only the app. I understand.
Bobby D interesting story. And yes 31x31 with an obstruction in the middle would be tough for it. I take it you can choose what crew talk is played with TMCC.. ??
And to a previous question. Why did Lionel put TMCC ability in the LC+2.0? They are trying to move forward with new to them technology without offending the folks using their aging technology. Its been discussed on notch 6 and or Lionel on Facebook.
It will be interesting to see what happens. I was sure Lionel was going to further their DC power lineup this year .. But they didn't .. But I do find the adjustable DC power pack that comes with the PE trolley interesting. I wonder how many watts it is?
I'd say its a big job trying to keep the conventional folks and the TMCC/Legacy folks happy while they develop the technology to replace it.
Jim
carsntrains posted:gunrunnerjohn posted:I did not try the universal remote, after all, we were specifically interested in how the BT worked with a smart phone as that's the method that's supposed to allow us to have a remote anytime we need one.
HMMM so yall weren't interested in seeing if either option would work. Only the app. I understand.
I was interested in seeing if the BT from various devices had similar issues to mine with a single BT engine and phone. But yes, since the major sales pitch with BT is you can "run it with any smartphone", we wanted to test that capability. It probably also figured into the testing that nobody had a Universal Remote with them that night.
And to a previous question. Why did Lionel put TMCC ability in the LC+2.0? They are trying to move forward with new to them technology without offending the folks using their aging technology. Its been discussed on notch 6 and or Lionel on Facebook.
Just maybe it's also technology that has stood the test of time and works very well.
It will be interesting to see what happens. I was sure Lionel was going to further their DC power lineup this year .. But they didn't .. But I do find the adjustable DC power pack that comes with the PE trolley interesting. I wonder how many watts it is?
What's so great about DC power that we'd be dying to have it power our trains?
I'd say its a big job trying to keep the conventional folks and the TMCC/Legacy folks happy while they develop the technology to replace it.
I predict I'll be on the other side of the grass before Lionel replaces Legacy with BT.
FYI, DCC uses AC track power not DC. So like GRJ says, not sure the motivation to move to DC.
gunrunnerjohn posted:carsntrains posted:I was sure Lionel was going to further their DC power lineup this year .. But they didn't .. But I do find the adjustable DC power pack that comes with the PE trolley interesting. I wonder how many watts it is?
What's so great about DC power that we'd be dying to have it power our trains?
@gunrunnerjohn - I would suggest we stop feeding the trolls, especially about their DC hangup
Uh all modern can motored locomotives run on DC. The boards in the locomotive turn AC current into DC via a rectifier on the board, so your locomotives are running on DC anyway. Plus AC has better distance transmission properties than DC, hence why it's used in your house.
Lou1985 posted:Uh all modern can motored locomotives run on DC. The boards in the locomotive turn AC current into DC via a rectifier on the board, so your locomotives are running on DC anyway. Plus AC has better distance transmission properties than DC, hence why it's used in your house.
Uh, you better test that theory before you espouse it here. The TMCC locomotives, including can motored locomotives, use triacs to drive the motors, if you feed them DC, you'll have a major problem. Triacs are also used on the R2LC and even the Legacy R4LC to control lights, couplers, and smoke. Feed them DC, and all that stuff stops working.
Bottom line is none of those will run on DC.
Lou1985 posted:Uh all modern can motored locomotives run on DC. The boards in the locomotive turn AC current into DC via a rectifier on the board, so your locomotives are running on DC anyway. Plus AC has better distance transmission properties than DC, hence why it's used in your house.
Yes, many modern locomotives make use of can motors operated on rectified DC, but a quick scour over the 2019 Big Book and its 3 rail O Gauge offerings has many examples where DC on the Rails/Accessory Bus isn't ideal along with giving up command control in it entirety and has all be discussed here:
https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...71#83227312740675371
Bottom line, not everything in the latest catalog is DC compatible or is fully functional in a 100% Lionel DC environment, but will run on a 100% Lionel AC environment with all features enabled.
gunrunnerjohn posted:Lou1985 posted:Uh all modern can motored locomotives run on DC. The boards in the locomotive turn AC current into DC via a rectifier on the board, so your locomotives are running on DC anyway. Plus AC has better distance transmission properties than DC, hence why it's used in your house.
Uh, you better test that theory before you espouse it here. The TMCC locomotives, including can motored locomotives, use triacs to drive the motors, if you feed them DC, you'll have a major problem. Triacs are also used on the R2LC and even the Legacy R4LC to control lights, couplers, and smoke. Feed them DC, and all that stuff stops working.
Bottom line is none of those will run on DC.
I said the motors run on DC that is rectified by the boards from AC track voltage. So the locomotive is running on DC 😁.
What's the point of have DC track voltage if the locomotives are already running on DC, provided by the board?
bmoran4 posted:Lou1985 posted:Uh all modern can motored locomotives run on DC. The boards in the locomotive turn AC current into DC via a rectifier on the board, so your locomotives are running on DC anyway. Plus AC has better distance transmission properties than DC, hence why it's used in your house.
Yes, many modern locomotives make use of can motors operated on rectified DC, but a quick scour over the 2019 Big Book and its 3 rail O Gauge offerings has many examples where DC on the Rails/Accessory Bus isn't ideal along with giving up command control in it entirety and has all be discussed here:
https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...71#83227312740675371
Bottom line, not everything in the latest catalog is DC compatible or is fully functional in a 100% Lionel DC environment, but will run on a 100% Lionel AC environment with all features enabled.
Since the motors are already operating on DC what's the point of switching track power to DC?
Lou1985 posted:I said the motors run on DC that is rectified by the boards from AC track voltage. So the locomotive is running on DC 😁.
No, you said the locomotive runs on DC. If I rip out all the electronics and run the motors on track DC, I think I can safely say I've just converted it from a modern locomotive to a soundless conventional only runner.
Lou1985 posted:What's the point of have DC track voltage if the locomotives are already running on DC, provided by the board?
No reason at all to have DC track voltage, that's why I run with AC. 
gunrunnerjohn posted:Lou1985 posted:I said the motors run on DC that is rectified by the boards from AC track voltage. So the locomotive is running on DC 😁.
No, you said the locomotive runs on DC. If I rip out all the electronics and run the motors on track DC, I think I can safely say I've just converted it from a modern locomotive to a soundless conventional only runner.
Lou1985 posted:What's the point of have DC track voltage if the locomotives are already running on DC, provided by the board?No reason at all to have DC track voltage, that's why I run with AC.
Can motored locomotives do technically run on DC, rectified by the board from AC. Feed one of the can motors straight AC track voltage, it won't go very far, but the motors will run great on DC voltage supplied by the board (which converts AC voltage to DC to operate the motors). But now we're both getting pedantic about this .
The whole point I was making is that track DC voltage is unnecessary. The boards in the locomotives already turn AC track voltage into DC current to run the locomotive's motors. Converting everything to DC track power isn't going to change locomotive performance one bit, since the motors are already operating on DC current.
Well, I'm confused! You sure seemed to be arguing for DC on the rails, now you're switching horses and going to AC? In that case, we're in agreement, job done.
gunrunnerjohn posted:No, you said the locomotive runs on DC. If I rip out all the electronics and run the motors on track DC, I think I can safely say I've just converted it from a modern locomotive to a soundless conventional only runner.
NOW, we're making progress!
palallin posted:gunrunnerjohn posted:No, you said the locomotive runs on DC. If I rip out all the electronics and run the motors on track DC, I think I can safely say I've just converted it from a modern locomotive to a soundless conventional only runner.
NOW, we're making progress!
Whatever floats your boat.
gunrunnerjohn posted:Well, I'm confused! You sure seemed to be arguing for DC on the rails, now you're switching horses and going to AC? In that case, we're in agreement, job done.
I think our (pardon the pun) signals got crossed . We were both arguing the whole time that DC track power made no sense.
Dave,
I like the idea of direct communication from the remote to engine. Simpler than having base stations.
Part of bluetooth is the low level communication prototcol. But also they do publish higher level application specs as well. Bluetooth Audio and Bluetooth Phone are ones folks are probably already familiar with. What would be great is a standard Bluetooth Train Control protocol like those above.
-Bill
Bill, having a much longer range version of BT would be a great idea, it's kind of a bummer they decided to go with the wimpy standard that has no range!
bmoran4 posted:gunrunnerjohn posted:carsntrains posted:I was sure Lionel was going to further their DC power lineup this year .. But they didn't .. But I do find the adjustable DC power pack that comes with the PE trolley interesting. I wonder how many watts it is?
What's so great about DC power that we'd be dying to have it power our trains?
@gunrunnerjohn - I would suggest we stop feeding the trolls, especially about their DC hangup
Bmoran you better quit feeding Lionel then! They are the ones that told me I could double if not triple the life of my LC, LC+, and soon to own LC+2.0 engines by running them on DC. But hey what would Lionel know about the engines they build and service.
I called Lionel to buy a ZW-L and they told me not to buy it. To instead invest in a good DC power source. At the time they didn't have any 72w units in stock. But said I may want a larger unit than the 72w units when they restock them. My local Lionel repair facility echoed that sentiment. Stating the CAPACITOR and BRIDGE RECTIFIER were the #1 and #2 reason for failure.
I think the rectifier should be removed and run them 100% on DC. But they say the rectifier does nothing and the capacitor has little work to do when running on DC. Again what would Lionel and a Lionel service center know about Lionel trains? : )
Like I should have said to start with. IF I had invested the time and energy into TMCC/Legacy and then figured out it was obsolete I would be upset too! Just like the steam guys were when diesels came about. And the phone book folks felt when Google made them obsolete. Remember BT in model trains is in its infancy. DCC in general has been around in analog form since the 40's. (says google) lol
Jim
