# WiFi Control



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Hi Folks,

although WiFi cannot be regarded a proprietary system - as it most strictly follows IEEE and OSI recommendations - I am posting in this category "Other ...":

After many years of project works Wifi control has become a product now in Europe (Germany).

Starting with the first laboratory works in 2010 (proof of concept 2011- Google G1, ASCII Terminal session based, hand solded boards) 




in June 2014 the product has been launched to the European markets finally.

We expect the US launch in early 2015 latest - still looking for a recommened convention with high visibility (East coast? West coast?) - any recommendations are pretty much appreciated.

Some snapshots from minor milestones:

2013 first prototyped locos based on new technology (Raspberry Pi with LINUX WiFi protocol stacks, LiIon Batteries), Android Smartphones with NETIO User interface (UI Design still Lab status):






2014 first board from automatic mass production line - functionality demonstrated in Laboratory:






Other proofs of concept: 


Switch control (all Lab status - meanwhile a product too): 





Turntable Control:




Stop positions for Turntable connections (36) are trained to the system via Smartphone - no stop sensor or hard wiring needed! 
Can be readjusted any time - manual mode any time to overrule stop positions. Smooth acceleration and braking.


Some Specification Data:

Full bidirectional WiFi & Mobile Radio Control (10+ Mbits) for locos and stationary accessories (switches, signals, lights, turntables, ...) 

Transmission protocol TCP for locos (connection oriented), UDP for acessories (connectionless)

Standard Loco Power:

24 Volts, 5 Amps each motor, by PLC Board stacking more than to 500 Amps !!! per loco can be served in parallel.

Recommendation: typically one board per motor.

A 4 pcs. motorized Dash9 should be happy with 20 Amps max. (average / peak 28 Amps) supplied by 4 synchronized boards.

8 Outputs per Board (Lights, Decouplers, Pantographs, ...) Sound supported by SUSI PlugIn computes 32 Outputs in a Dash9 .... should be sufficient. American Ditch Lights are programmed.

"Train Ride" Cab streams supported by RASPI camera plugin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dReyGvzAQw

Battery power supply as well as DC/AC or DCC/DCS track supply are standard (can "eat" all current types as long as voltage is not higher as 24 Volts) . 

As to WiFi definition, typically 200 Locos per ONE WiFi network will be served.

Config Example (limited by WiFi standard network IP address configuration / definition) :
200 locos 50 Smartphones and 4 controllers for stationary accessories, 1 WiFi Router in the middle 

At the moment in Lab: 
A MTH Big Boy is refurbished with Wifi control as DCS in Germany is very unpopular (unknown!) - cannot be used as a hosted loco on model club environements. WiFi is a suitable replacement as the original MTH sound can be coupled.

Snapshots / Movies hopefully can be provided in the next weeks.

Many other Application Ranges as well 





 (by special authorization of spouse  )





 

Still looking for a winter application - any ideas ? 

Have fun!

Regards, IPTRAIN


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

How bright is the phone screen outdoors in bright sunlight?
How long does the phone battery last at maximum brightness and continual use?
How much does the phone cost?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Tony, I'd imagine that would be dependent on the phone itself. My iPhone 5s is much brighter than my old iPhone 4 was, and battery life will similarly vary between phones. 

I'd love to sit out in my lawn chair with a tablet, and run my train with visual feedback from a cab-mounted camera showing me what's being seen from the engineer's viewpoint. I've written in the past that's where we're headed with control systems, and by George, it looks like we're getting there quickly! 

I'm presuming this can run any generic DCC decoder? 

Later,

K


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

K,
There is a quad copter with a camera that can use an iPad to control it via WiFi, showing you the view of what's going on, so I would think that this system will offer the same type of thing eventually.
Like all new systems, it will probably take a couple of generations before it's 'right'.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I've seen those, which is why I've been thinking that to be the next logical step for train control. The ESCs on R/C planes and helis are typically not the best for train control (too coarse), which has kept me from investigating gutting one of those and dropping it in a locomotive. I figured (apparently rightly so) that it was only a matter of time before someone brought that to model trains.

Later,

K


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

TonyWalsham said:


> How long does the phone battery last at maximum brightness and continual use?


Tony - just to set your mind at rest, I have a small LiPo 'recharge' battery that plugs in to most phone charger cords (USB). It will recharge a phone 3 times so it will give you more than enough time to wander around the layout all day.

The brightness under strong sunshine is an issue - my phone (Galaxy 5s) washes out to unreadable.

As Kevin says, it will be nice to do like the copter guys with their Hero cameras, which transmit what they are seeing/recording back to your phone so you can adjust the flight. We could lock ourselves in a small, cramped (air conditioned?) room and run the trains, yelling on the radio for the brakeman to set the actual switches on the layout for us!


----------



## rntfrmme (May 23, 2013)

Very interesting concept. Sounds to me like a great idea. My only concern is how user friendly would it be for someone with limited computer programing skills. If it is menu driven might work well for the uneducated masses like myself.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

rntfrmme said:


> Very interesting concept. Sounds to me like a great idea. My only concern is how user friendly would it be for someone with limited computer programing skills. If it is menu driven might work well for the uneducated masses like myself.


I doubt you'll need any programming skills. But you will need to know how to use a smartphone touch screen ! Folk with flip-phones need not apply.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Pretty obvious that this will be the next big thing and prices should drop like a lead balloon once others catch on.

It seems like most of the ads I see for the helicopters and such use similar technology and many won't even include the transmitter anymore.

When you consider how many ipad/iphones are already out there in use (e.g., people already have the transmitter and are familiar with its operation), this is a no brainer.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

WiFi for DCC has been around for quite awhile now. It is so popular they don't want anybody finding out about it. Plenty of videos showing how it is done.
The biggest drawback is the smart phone screen in bright sunlight. You know, that condition of Nature we all like to to be in sunny mode, for making running our trains more enjoyable.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

So all these kids playing with their helicopters don't have to deal with the sun?


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Hello,

let me comment some items, please!

Display, Handling & Sunlight:

I am an old fashioned Guy - used to Blackberry Hard Keys ... the BB Bold is still my favorite (Business) - but my private is the Galaxy S5 - meanwhile:

After many years looking around for NON Softkeypads on Smartphones - I have learned - lost time. Market has educated me that Soft-Keypads are commodity - no Smartphone available anymore (successors of the Google G1) that offers hard knobs.

Desperately - what did I do - I have tried Soft-Keypads meanwhile ... and after two years I am used to - I have accepted - I am adopted to the market strategies of Mr. Apple & Co. 
And I tell you - life could be even worse!

Sunlight might be a problem first, but is not that dealbreaker:
Yes sunlight is an disadvantage because no display can be brighter then any sun, doesn't matter how many pixles and colors you're implementing in new generations of technology. 

But - in conculsion of the above:

Using such a display - not yet sexy at all (Laboratory)



Bright colors can generate a visible contrast - also at daylight. Symbol details do not have priority - positions and glaring colors do rule!

In addition - the Slider on the lefts side is easy to control by your right handed thumb - with closed eyes. The leftie can swap the slider to the right side by editing the surface here - just swapping the symbols from left to right and right to left by Drag & Drop. 
Colors can be adopted as you like it. And you are able to copy, paste and modify personalized surfaces for winter summer, night, daylight and so on. 

For your loco control you just select the surface adopted to the environment conditions - controls behind are always the same. 

So you will be able to individualize surfaces to your type of loco - just switching the display on your Smartphone - and you're linked to the next loco of your yard. 

I have learned - this is the the new style of model-railwaying ...!

In addition - Power Mangement will rule always - but with 100% Brightness my Galaxy S5 will give up not erarlier than after 8 hours WiFi control. Is 8 hours that bad? I have a replacement battery (9 Dolar) for another 8 hours ... and after that day railwaying I am tired anyway.

Having said these, what are the prices?

The technology is a three tier computer system:

The Middle Level Intelligence (in the loco) is the RPi = Raspberry Pi (30 Dollar - a fully enabled LINUX PC!!!), Radio Antenna is 4 Dollar (USB-Dongle), 4 GB SD-Card is another 4 bucks - and the PC is alive! LINUX Operating Software for free! (For your interest - the RPi is sold tree millions pcs. in 18 months - worldwide!)

Upper Level (linked by radio, resp. the TCP/IP protocol) is the Smartphone (at no extra cost) - will mean, your Throttle Hardware is for free. Software is 10 Dollars - one time license fee.

The most expensive is the lowest level which is doing the "hard job" in your loco. This board is a PLC which controls all micro funtionality in your loco and can be bus stacked - up to 112 boards to one bus. The bus is controlled by the Raspberry PI (as the superior intelligence). will mean, this board is hooked up to the Raspberry by a connection plug.





Production cost of one PLC Board ist actually 50 Dollar (Industrial Production & Engineering Cost - but without Sales Channel & Profit).

Do it yourself (DiY) will mean that the overall cost for a powerfull 5 Amps loco control (state of the art and open for future upgrades) is below 100 Dollar! Power on the track is simple Transformer AC or DC - no DCC - or DCS booster needed anymore as you are using direct radio control ...! 
Using LiIon batteries you do not need to clean the tracks before enjyoing your trains. Many advantages ...!

And if you are not the electrical DiY man and you're willing to spend additional money for the Sales Channel & Engineering Profit, you will be able to get it as a product for 200 Dollars from your dealer - ready to go after clamping the wires in your loco. Just that simple!

After Sale of 100.000 pieces prices will certainly drop for 120 Dollar ....!

Best Regards

IPTRAIN


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

100,000 pieces eh? After how long? Ambitious. Good luck.


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

TonyWalsham said:


> 100,000 pieces eh? After how long? Ambitious. Good luck.



I only referred to a previous post who explained that this tech will become low cost very soon. Sorry for confusion.

REGARDS, IPTRAIN


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

> smart phone screen in bright sunlight. You know, that condition of Nature we all like to to be in sunny mode


 You won't catch me out in the bright U.S. sun! I'm English and I burn.

But Tony is right - even in the shade (or when I'm wearing my cool shades) the phone is unreadable.


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

*MTH BigBoy with WiFi Control*

Hi Folks,

attached a 



 showing a MTH BigBoy after reconverting from DCS Control to WiFi Control. Did this as DCS is very unknown in Europe. No chance to participate in Club Events.

WiFi Control can "eat" any current (DC, AC, DCC, DCS, ...)

Sound ist still MTH origin!

Have Fun!

Regards


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The problem of readibility in the sunlight is a big one. That is why I use an NCE throttle that is a mono lcd, works great in the sun... it has a backlight for night time.

Indoors, I use software on a smart phone at shows.

Greg


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

I know its early in the timeline of this sort of thing, but is there a platform that seems to be an early favorite for controlling trains via smartphone? Android vs. Apple vs. Windows? or wont it matter? (I have been smart phone shopping for the past few weeks, for the first time, so im just now diving into this world..)
thanks,
Scot


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Greg Elmassian said:


> The problem of readibility in the sunlight is a big one. That is why I use an NCE throttle that is a mono lcd, works great in the sun... it has a backlight for night time.
> 
> Indoors, I use software on a smart phone at shows.
> 
> Greg


Hi Greg,

my experience:



Displays are improving over time
After some experience you can use it with closed eyes, once knowing the knob positions
and least - not last - it is a more theoretical discussion - Smartphones will rule the world as PCs are / were doing. No Model Railway producer will invest in Hardware developments when competion offers Apps and will save customer's budget using their existing Smartphones instead extra Hardware to purchase
It will become only a matter of time!



In my humble opinion!


Regards


IPTRAIN


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Scottychaos said:


> I know its early in the timeline of this sort of thing, but is there a platform that seems to be an early favorite for controlling trains via smartphone? Android vs. Apple vs. Windows? or wont it matter? (I have been smart phone shopping for the past few weeks, for the first time, so im just now diving into this world..)
> thanks,
> Scot


As a developer I prefer Android - it is much more "open" than iOS.

General trend in Europe: Model Railway Producers are focussing on Android - just for the reason of Market Shares.

And Chinese have started dumping street prices for middle class Androids to 99 $ ....!

At the end it is individual style!

Regards

IPTRAIN


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Is this the same system that Axel (Train Li) spoke about at the last York train show?


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

CliffyJ said:


> Is this the same system that Axel (Train Li) spoke about at the last York train show?


Hi Cliffy - actually. you're right - it is! 

Regards,

Karl


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Thanks Karl, I've wanted to follow the development of that system. Is there an official web page for it yet? Or youtube powerpoint or something?

Really impressive stuff!


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

IPTRAIN said:


> And Chinese have started dumping street prices for middle class Androids to 99 $ ....!
> 
> IPTRAIN


Do you mean Android phones for $99?
if so, they are actually down to $50 now.

Scot


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

I too have been eagerly looking forward to this development.

DCC is - gulp - thousands of dollars. It also calls for the costliest track to function well.

Taking advantage of the enormous economies of scale involved in phones, and the business case for a device most customers have already justified and purchased, is smart.

The downsides I see are the huge cost of the phone ... when not purchased in conjunction with a calling plan. ($800 - $900.) That means that if the phone is dropped, you're out a thousand (maybe would get around that by agreeing to extend the calling plan, though.) An R/C handpiece is $100 or less.

I like tactile knobs shaped and arranged appropriately for controlling a locomotive. Control should be instinctive, accomplished by feel, and not require scrutinizing a device or accessing menus. (Think driving a car, shifting gears.)


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

BigRedOne said:


> The downsides I see are the huge cost of the phone ... when not purchased in conjunction with a calling plan. ($800 - $900.) That means that if the phone is dropped, you're out a thousand (maybe would get around that by agreeing to extend the calling plan, though.) An R/C handpiece is $100 or less.


Street prices in Germany for a brandnew (not contractually linked) Samsung Galaxy S3 are 240€ (fairly 300$) - decreasing.

The S3 has best experiences with sensed controls (closed eyes) - the slider even better moves (reacts - firing data packets to the loco on micro movements) than an Galaxy S5 ... (unfortunately )

Regards


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

CliffyJ said:


> Thanks Karl, I've wanted to follow the development of that system. Is there an official web page for it yet? Or youtube powerpoint or something?
> 
> Really impressive stuff!


Hello Cliffy,

Thanks for your interest - I promise to do my very best. 

I have provided a Powerpoint Presentation for German Dealers (~30 slides). The most important I will translate and disclose at convenience. 


This ist the first to start with:

Please be advised - 5 Amps is the absolute minimum (Starter Package) - more than 500 Amps Motor Power can be supplied by PLC stacking ....!  

Recommended - one PLC per motor! One RPi can link (by bus connection) up to 112 PLCs ...!

Questions are appreciated any time!

Have Fun!

Regards


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

For train controlling purposes, would we really need a $1,000 phone?
or even a $500 phone? or even a $200 phone?

I am going to buy a $50 android phone today..
I will report on how well (or not well) it works overall..
(not for controlling trains!  just its overall reliability)

Been cell-phone shopping/researching the last few weeks..
I dont really want one, but the time has come..I need one for work.
WOW do those cell phone carriers work really hard to make sure you pay as much as possible! 
the cheaper plans are difficult to find and figure out..
then when you do have a discount (like through work) the discount only applies to the most expensive plans..
so you still pay a ton..(I didn't think I would be able to get two lines for less than $90 a month, which to me is insanely expensive for something I don't even want..)

I wanted a "no data" smart phone plan..I have internet at home and work,
and wifi everywhere else..I can live very easily and happily with no data plan on a phone..
someone finally came out with one! 
The wife and I are going to try out Virgin Mobile..$25 each for the lines,
unlimited talk and text..no data.
So $50 a month total for two phones, and the phones themselves will be purchased outright for $50 each.

For my entire adult life, I have talked on a phone about 10 minutes a month, that wont change..
and I will need some texting ability for work,
so this should work well..assuming the service and the phones are up to the (light-duty) task..
I will let you know! 

Scot


----------



## SLemcke (Jun 3, 2008)

If we want to get the younger generations involved, I think phone control is the way to go. All the kids and young adults have them and have no problem using them everywhere. Alot of kids could probably text control a train as fast as I could using my controller. 
I also know a few households that have older unused phones laying around. I have two Iphones left over from when my wife upgraded. One I use as an alarm clock, the other as a camera, figured I use them for something as I don't need nor want to be tethered to a cell phone. 
But being able to have the grand children or anyone else come over and control a train via a cell phone would be great. 
Just my thoughts,
Steve


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Thanks for the diagram Karl. From what I (vaguely) recall of Axel's presentation, I really liked the idea of bringing many devices into the network -- for both control (computers / phones / tablets) and effect (locos, switches, outdoor lighting, whatever). Also, that the "decoder" can receive power from either rail or battery. Or be steam powered, I suppose (via the servos shown on the diagram).


----------



## rntfrmme (May 23, 2013)

Lurking in the background following this thread it seems more and more likely all the time. Using commercially available parts and adapting them to our uses brings the cost down. Not to mention easier to find componenets, non proprietary systems etc all make it easier and more attractive to get into the hobby. IMHO this could be a very good thing for the hobby.

Bill


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

WiFi for toy trains? What will they think of next?

Don't forget to take your Wireless Access Point and a power source with you.

Someone has a get together and is going to drop they're wireless security so everyone can use their home WiFi exposing their home PCs and private data? Including the neighbor's kid want-a-be hacker?

Someone has a get together and is going to buy a separate WiFi setup so trains can have their own WiFi?

Someone is going to have to buy a repeater (aka range extender) so all the trains of visitors or their own can get on their home network with the hacker kid and all.

Is the WiFi secured or unsecured for trains? Who does IT admin assigning or passing out id's and passwords? And whose going to be the train network IT person?

What happens when the Train WiFi network goes down and all your friends' trains either just stop or worse keep going without anyone controlling it.

_*Come to think about it you could call WiFi for trains the Train WreckWork ;-))
*_

I don't think this thing has been thunk through...

" If it sounds too good to be true... it usually is! "


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

Scot, 

I hear you!

I did feel, for myself, that the later generation of phones offer enough improvement to justify the $200 range pricing when a calling plan is included. Thus the replacement-risk cost if the phone is damaged, stepped on, hit by the lawn sprinkler, or whatever. The small R/C handpieces like Tony sells appear more durable, more serviceable, and a lot less expensive. And in my case I'd wish all controls to be operable by feel - I don't see a phone getting there (though I am sure a device could be constructed which clips to the phone and has physical controls.)

And the prices are insane! More than I pay for natural gas or electric, products which have huge asset and fuel costs. Long past time to regulate these like the utilities they are, and put the huge money pot of Comcast out of business (but there go all those campaign contributions ...)

Depending on what your needs are, look into doing away with cable and using your phone plan as your primary home internet. It may be more economical for you than basic phone plan + cable.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Chris, I'm not sure I'm understanding your perspective. I can create a unique WiFi network on my phone to communicate with WiFi-enabled devices like GoPro cameras, drones, etc. It's strictly between my phone and the device being controlled by my phone; independent of my home WiFi network. 

With each operator having a 1:1 communication to the loco they're controlling with their specific phone, I wouldn't think there'd be any need to open up a home network at all. 

Later,

K


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

*WiFi is commodity !*

Protest, Sirs!

WiFi has become commodity - every kid knows how to configure a Router. 

And prices have adopted. As WiFi is using pure PC-Technology everybody is able to understand the logic behind. Meaning of IP-Adresses and Ports are well known.

Most important: 
Support! You do not need to become a DCC or DCS specialist - you just will need your primary school basics on Home Networking and PC-Booting. The rest is the system which does the job.

And for senior beginners - scan the Barcode - and you're logged into the network: Scan & Go. 

You don't know how to make a barcode scan by Phone? Ask your grandchildren - they will explain and make the introduction - be sure, believe me!

RC technology is even the worst: You can't mix components - they are mostly proprietary technology. You're always depending on brands and market availibity. 
And they are Peer-to-Peer! Have you ever seen an installation of multiple locos, switches, signals (and so on) controlled by a SINGLE RC handheld? Or MANY RC-handhelds controlling locos and sitches in club simultaneously - with loco handovers and all these funny nice functions which make a model railway real live? 

Different in WiFi - this is standard technology (by IEEE and ISO/OSI). Existence and Interoperability is guarenteed for many decades. 

The rocket start even will be in the future - "Internet of Things" is knocking at your door - haven't you heard it? This will be more certain than Christmas once a year.

WiFi control of trains is nothing else than pure "Internet of Things" Technology! It is a great chance to get Railway technology ahead again -although it is model technology!

I always have thought, Americans are technology ahead?  After University I have started my first 10-y engineer career with the earlier most famous and leading Computer & Networking Company of the World - Digital Equipment, Maynard, MA (DEC)! 

Have you American already forgotten Cutting Edge Technology? DEC was one of them - they had Internet (DECnet) as commodity long ahead before European had entered. And now you're discussing the use of WiFi ? Hopefully you're kidding!

Regards

IPTRAIN


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

East Broad Top said:


> Chris, I'm not sure I'm understanding your perspective. I can create a unique WiFi network on my phone to communicate with WiFi-enabled devices like GoPro cameras, drones, etc. It's strictly between my phone and the device being controlled by my phone; independent of my home WiFi network.
> 
> With each operator having a 1:1 communication to the loco they're controlling with their specific phone, I wouldn't think there'd be any need to open up a home network at all.
> 
> ...


Actually - you're both right:

I can use two modes:



AdHoc Mode - Peer-to-Peer between Smartphones and Loco, no chance to control Accessories like switches and signals. This mode I call the (QR-Code based) "Scan and Go Mode" for beginners, easy and cheap migrating from Analog to Radio Control, collecting first experiences with Digital Control. And for friends visiting Club installations as a guest with their own loco.
INFRASTRUCTURE Mode which will need a Router to span the Network for your Home or Club installation. All Locos and Accessories must become IP-Members of the WiFi Club network. This network should be different of your Standard network connecting to the Internet (Recommendation - not a Must).
Wikipedia will explain in detail! Search for "AdHoc" and "Infrastructure" (Network)!



Regards


Karl


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

rntfrmme said:


> Lurking in the background following this thread it seems more and more likely all the time. Using commercially available parts and adapting them to our uses brings the cost down. Not to mention easier to find componenets, non proprietary systems etc all make it easier and more attractive to get into the hobby. IMHO this could be a very good thing for the hobby.
> 
> Bill


Hi Bill,

yes you're right! You will have probably seen only the first of the two below:

The first sketches a selection of possiblities how to manage your installation:

Just imagine, you have decided to start your first Radio Controls on your Analalog Installation. Then you will be able to connect Analog Accessories (Track Segments, Swiches, etc.) by relais technology to your Accessory Control Raspberry Pi Board. One RPi Board (Raspberry PI = LINUX PC) can control 112 PLC Boards, Each PLC Board can control 8 outputs, computes for 112*8 (=896) analog Accessory items! This means, Radio controlled Locos and Analog Locos can be used in parallel on your installation - but all to be controlled from the Smarphone at the early beginning!

Radio Locos will have their own RPi included, they will have a fixed IP-Address matching the IP-Scheme of your Installation.

The second drawing sketches the Adressing Scheme. All you need to understand - Variety is huge, Quantities are nearly without any limit!

Features and Functions will follow in detail soon.

One Specific to make you taste the capabilities of WiFi:

You can build compositions with one Lead Loco and as many Helpers in the composition as you want! 
Lead Loco and Helpers are coupled via Wifi (TCP protocol). 
The Smartphone will be linked to the Lead Locomotive. Smarthone directs the Lead Locomotive. The Helpers will get the momentary speed directve from the Lead Locomotive (in inches by second to move forward). 
Their programming will calculate monentary motor turns ... and wheel turns to be adopted to the speed directive of the Lead.

As a result all Locos will move synchronously with the same speed in the composition - derailments in coupled compositions will become experience of the past! 

To be continued (I have to catch my flight - second call)

Regards

Karl


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Speaking of cheap Wifi receiver products that are becoming available, 

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__21430__hobbyking_ios_android_4ch_wifi_receiver.html

Here's some video-enabled products...




http://www.carson-modelsport.com/en.../receiver/produktdetails.htm?sArtNr=500501010

Karl, will your system tie into such products? Or at least eventually?


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

CliffyJ said:


> Speaking of cheap Wifi receiver products that are becoming available,
> 
> http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__21430__hobbyking_ios_android_4ch_wifi_receiver.html
> 
> ...


Hi Cliffy,

Sorry to say, No. As I am using a Linux PC which is already WiFi enabled, this board is not needed, superfluous. Even more the Linux PC approach offers much more [infinite] functions, wheras such a WiFi Board has no [or only limited] programming support.

Cheap money at the beginning very often ends up with the most expensive and inflexible solution.

Regards,

Karl


----------



## riderdan (Jan 2, 2014)

*Prices are a lot lower than you might think...*



Chris Scott said:


> WiFi for toy trains? What will they think of next?
> 
> Don't forget to take your Wireless Access Point and a power source with you.
> 
> ...


I'm planning on having WiThrottle control of my trains for visitors. I have a Raspberry Pi computer and USB WiFi dongle that I bought for $45. That's $45 for a fully-functional PC setup that can act as its own WiFi router. That WiFi network using the USB dongle is just for running trains--it's unsecured since it only gets power when I have the trains powered and its not connected to my home network nor the Internet. Another $10 for the USB to serial cable to connect to my DCC setup. Putting it all together was very straightforward--took less than 20 minutes and most of that was downloading JMRI  Since the RPi is Linux, I expect administration to be very minimal if not nonexistent.

In fact, I've considered packaging this up (Raspberry Pi, WiFi dongle, pre-installed JMRI) and selling it at cost to folks who are interested in getting their feet wet. I think a complete set (w/power supply) would be around $60.


----------



## TOM_1/20.3 (Mar 28, 2013)

*TouchCab*

Hello everyone,

I'm using the TouchCab app on my iPhone to control my ECoS Command unit. It works great. Supposedly up to 8 iPhones can be used.

This is the control of an engine allowing speed and direction, F0 to F28, emergency engine stop, stop/start of power to the whole layout










This is the control of switches and routes



















This is the control of signals and in my case the engine house doors










And finally the panel for settings










As far as I know it will also work with the Lenz and Maerklin units.

TOM


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Hi All,

please find attached some other slides explaining the Control System and capabilities in more detail.

Slides are mostly self-explaining - questions / discussions are pretty much appreciated!

Have fun!

Regards,

Karl


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

*First WiFi controlled BigBoy Maiden Trip after Repair of Frame Break*

Hello Gents,

pls. find attached a link to a movie showing the MTH BigBoy "Maiden Trip" after Frame Repair (Frame was broken).






The above described WiFi control system was installed in the BigBoy - for Direct WiFi Drive Control by Smartphone. Track Power is DCC - therefore DCS control does not work.

Sound is still MTH-origin - this will be changed as soon as the Raspberry Pi will be enabled for Realtime Sound Generation. Stay tuned!

Have Fun!

Regards

Karl


----------



## benshell (Oct 1, 2008)

I operate trains exclusively from my phone, using JMRI and a MERG DCC system (which cost just over $100, not including the power supply). Here are my general thoughts on the matter:

* With the younger generation controlling trains from my phone is not revolutionary, it's the obvious way it should be. But I get a lot of comments from the older generation!

* Screen brightness is not a problem with my Galaxy S3. The only issue I've had is if I suddenly walk from inside or deep shade to outside it takes my screen a couple seconds to adjust. I just set the brightness to maximum for an operating session.

* During the West Coast Regional Meet last month my battery lasted from 9am to 7pm. I wasn't sure it was going make it so I had an extra old Android phone on standby! But I just turn my screen off when I'm not actively using it. I also had just replaced my phone battery which definitely made a difference.

* I can adjust the throttle without looking at my phone because of the way the Engine Driver app works. Once my finger is "locked on" to the throttle I can just keep my finger there as I watch the train and adjust as desired.

* One of my favorite things about the Android Engine Driver app is how easy it is to create consists and also operate multiple units or consists independently, all on the same screen.


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

benshell said:


> I operate trains exclusively from my phone, using JMRI and a MERG DCC system (which cost just over $100, not including the power supply). Here are my general thoughts on the matter:
> 
> * With the younger generation controlling trains from my phone is not revolutionary, it's the obvious way it should be. But I get a lot of comments from the older generation!
> 
> ...



Hi Ben - I can fully confirm - that is my experience as well! 
And Smartphone is a great chance also to attract younger folks to the Model Railway!

Still going via DCC (and not by direct WiFi Direct link) is still commodity but will change when more suppliers will go the direct radio control way.

New Technologies (especially in the Model Railway markets) will need some time because of the installed base (which supplier likes to give up the idea of legacy system protection and proprietary technology), but the Smartphones will accelerate finally and move the market towards open standards and technology! 

"Internet of Things" will do all the rest. All WiFi based.

Regards

Karl


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Hi,

please find attaches a nice video link from a WiFi test run of a German High Speed Train (ICE).






Unfortunately I do not know the buyer, otherwise I could advise him to correct the control layout - (easy to manage).

Have Fun!


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

_Winter app' snowplow train possibly with on/off blade control for when backing out of a high drift before running back into it to try again !? 


_writing Code/app for BB10 platforms ?


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Doug C said:


> _Winter app' snowplow train possibly with on/off blade control for when backing out of a high drift before running back into it to try again !?
> 
> 
> _writing Code/app for BB10 platforms ?


Hi Doug,

you can support any railway use case by the WiFi Control technology! Ready to go! Plug & Play!

Unfortunately in Europe nobody believes in BB (any more). As an example my company is just preparing the BB exit going for Android.

In Europe Android is dominating the markets (followed by iOS - but far away and losing market shares). 

Therefore I do not expect NETIO (GUI) support for BB - sorry to say.

Regards

Karl


----------



## Michael W (Oct 10, 2012)

Intresting thread, funnily enough, one of the reasons I started garden railroading was my desire to learn about electronic controlling and building something like this sustem, i was thinking of using arduino boards tho...
Anyhow well done! Will there be linux version for automatisation and control be available?
Kind regards


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Michael W said:


> Intresting thread, funnily enough, one of the reasons I started garden railroading was my desire to learn about electronic controlling and building something like this sustem, i was thinking of using arduino boards tho...
> Anyhow well done! Will there be linux version for automatisation and control be available?
> Kind regards


Hi Michael,

actually - I am going a Master - Slave approach:

Linux (Raspberry Pi) is the "intelligent" Master, but which is not realtime capable. 
To become realtime capable I have connected an ATMEL AVR ATtiny 167 Board which is doing the stupid but fast things (PWM generation for motor power control, illumination switch control, servo contol for decoupling etc.)

The both systems are coupled by the so called I2C Bus. 

Please find more details on this system in the attachments.

Have fun.

Regards

Karl


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

Thanks Karl for the response !

_i asked about BB thinking of their new form factor in the 'PassPort' being rolled out in the Sept sometime...

_ will chk out your attachments ya took time to add into the thread when i have a bit more time (late with supper..!) 

nite


p.s. "....Unfortunately in Europe nobody believes in BB (any more). As an example my company is just preparing the BB exit going for Android. In Europe Android is dominating the markets (followed by iOS - but far away and losing market shares)...."

Not based on what i read out there ! Obviously just another example simliar to say; GM vs ford or euro version: audi vs beemer !


----------



## SLemcke (Jun 3, 2008)

Is this system available or still in the future? I have been contemplating converting an engine to battery for visits to layouts without track power.
Steve


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

SLemcke said:


> Is this system available or still in the future? I have been contemplating converting an engine to battery for visits to layouts without track power.
> Steve


Hi Steve,

It is already available in Europe. Please contact TrainLi.http://www.trainli.com/ This is the US Sales&Service Partner of Trainline Germany.

In case the partner has not yet been provided the latest information, please let me know, I will assist.

Regards, Karl


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

*Smartphone Control of 7 Servos*

Hi please enjoy a demonstartion of 7 Servos being controlled by a Smartphone via WiFi.






This application is also intended for live steam control.

Regards

Karl


----------



## Cmorais (Mar 11, 2013)

Hi all

I've been following this thread for a while and I also think Wifi control is the future. 

Concerning the screen legibility in the sun and the lack of tactile feedback I wonder if Google Glass - or something like it - can not be a solution: an image of the control screen would "hang" in front of your eyes and the position of your finger on the phone would show up as a movable pointer - so no need to look down at the phone. If you wanted, it could also show the video from the camera installed on the train.

Not for the short term, but who knows the speed of the future? At least nobody would be concerned about privacy with this use of Google Glass. 

José Morais 
Headmaster of the Lapa Furada RR


----------



## Martan (Feb 4, 2012)

The biggest drawback for me is, well, it's a smart phone. I just do not like controlling any vehicle, terrestrial or otherwise with a slider on a touch screen. Yuck. Give me a knob or joystick. Also, from a technical perspective, I do not like Wifi, ie 802.11, as a control protocol. But I'm old and cranky so there ya go


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Hello,

a second video showing sensitivity of WiFi Control!






Have fun!

Regards


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Why don't you take this thread over to the live steam forum and see what real live steamers want for controlling their pride and joy?


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Allow me extrapolate a real experience with a cell phone controlling something to what I'd expect to happen with my Live Steamer...

Fuel and water the engine and fill the Steam oil reservoir.

Get the Smartaleckphone and turn it on. Swipe the display to find the icon of the control program. Tap it.

Tap the menu button to get to "Engine Select" on the menu... tap it again, must'a missed. NO NO NO! Not the list of running apps! Close that... tap the menu button again... again... again,... there got the menu.
Select "Engine", no, not "Layout", close that.
Tap the menu button, tap it again, again, there... Select "Engine".
Tap the only number available because I can only afford one $10,000 Live Steamer. Exit the Engine selection screen.

Tap the menu button... tap it again... again... no not the list of running apps. Reselect the control app.
Tap the menu button, tap it again... con-sarn it! Close the list of running apps again and try the menu again, and again.
There; select the "Loco control" function.

Swipe my finger over the "Blower" slider to open it... no no no, not "Throttle", close it. Try again and make sure my finger stays on the "Blower" slider.

Put the phone down and go to the engine and put the suction fan in the stack and open the fuel valve. Light the fire and wait for steam pressure to build. Do the requisite "Oiling around" on the engine. Test the Safety valves to be sure they can lift. Check things over for loose hardware.

Turn the Smartaleckphone back on; it shut down because nobody was paying any attention to it.

Play solitaire on the Smartaleckphone a while.

STEAMS UP! Remove the suction fan.

Tap to get the list of running apps and select the Control program again.
Tap the menu to select the "Loco Control" function. Oops, try it again.

Swipe my finger over the Reverser slider to set Full Forward on the valve gear. Slowly swipe my finger over the throttle control to open the throttle until the engine begins to move. Swipe my finger over the blower slider to close it... no, not the throttle! Reset the throttle and close the blower. Once up to speed, swipe my finger over the Reverser slider to "notch up" on the valve gear a little bit. Adjust the throttle and Reverser until I get the settings I like based on the track grade, steam pressure and the persnicketyness of the loco today.

Tap the menu to be able to select the layout control so I can switch the mainline into the yard where I can back in to get my train. RATS! Close the list of running apps and try again.
Ok, got the Menu opened. Touch "Layout" to see the list of switches. NO! Not Engine selection... close that! Try again.

Okay, I need to throw switch 1 to shunt the main to the switch yard lead, open switch 2 to bypass yard track 'A' and close switch 3 to enter yard track 'B'.

Tap switch 1, it indicates it is open to the yard lead.
It shows switch 2 closed to track 'A' so tap it to open it... no not switch 1.
Tap switch 1 again.
Tap switch 2 to open it.
Tap switch 3 to close it to yard track 'B'.
How'd 2 get closed again? Tap 2 to get it back open again.

Now, where is my engine? How'd it get on the back side of the layout?
WHAT?!? It went all the way around while I was busy with the switches?

WHATDAYA mean "TWICE!"?

Is that bush back there burnng? It derailed and dumped the whole load of alcohol out? MY ASTER IS UPSIDE DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CONFLAGRATION! AAAAHHHHH!

No thank you... I want a dedicated control for each device on the layout and a dedicated control for each servo on the engine. Knobs or levers with direct analog control of each device on the engine... none of this punching a button once for a 'little bit' and punch it again for a little bit more... when I want full throttle, I want to push a lever to "full" and the servo on the engine respond in real time. When I want half throttle, the servo on the engine should respond immediately to where I set the remote control.

To control something that is NOT REAL TIME (your furnace, your house lights, your garage door, etc.), a "digital" control is fine, but when I need REAL TIME control, don't bog me down with menus and touch buttons to get the controls needed to the position needed at the time needed.


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Semper, that got me thinking...
There's way too much telemetry data for a smartphone and wifi to ever be feasible let alone manage a live steam locomotive.

Maybe a poor analogy, to beat this dead horse into a completely bloody unrecognizable stump; you can drive a car via wifi and smartphone, but you will never have the feel of the car or the road unless you are sitting in the car actually driving it. Same thing with a live steam locomotive.


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

TonyWalsham said:


> Why don't you take this thread over to the live steam forum and see what real live steamers want for controlling their pride and joy?


Hi Tony,

This WiFi control is general purpose - not specifically developed for Live Steamers. Therefore I would like to keep it seperate. You can even use it for other use cases (Intelligent House ...) - all the stuff being summarized with "Internet of Things". 
Actually, this is the same Software code and Hardware stuff I have used:






You think, only Americans are crazy? No Sir, Europeans can also be!

Best Regards

Karl


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Chris Scott said:


> ...
> 
> Maybe a poor analogy, to beat this dead horse into a completely bloody unrecognizable stump; you can drive a car via wifi and smartphone, but you will never have the feel of the car or the road unless you are sitting in the car actually driving it. Same thing with a live steam locomotive.


Hi Scott,

I am a BMW V8 Holder - I know what you mean - it's the Big Block vibrations coming back from the engine which makes the difference - you're absolutely right!


Regards

Karl


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Karl.
If you intend convincing Live Steamers of the merits of your system for live steam use, then you have to present it to them. Not just sit back and hope they will pick it up on their own.
I have just bought a new Samsung Ace3 which works well enough but it is a pain in the butt to use in bright sunlight. Not as good as my old I Phone 3 and that was bad enough.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Chris Scott said:


> Semper, that got me thinking...
> There's way too much telemetry data for a smartphone and wifi to ever be feasible let alone manage a live steam locomotive.
> 
> Maybe a poor analogy, to beat this dead horse into a completely bloody unrecognizable stump; you can drive a car via wifi and smartphone, but you will never have the feel of the car or the road unless you are sitting in the car actually driving it. Same thing with a live steam locomotive.


Your analogy is true, but not because the smartaleckphone is not capable; it is because the interface technology is poor for human interaction in realtime. And I don't mean that WiFi is slow, but we humans are when trying to manipulate the tactile interface, without tactile 'seat-of-the-pants' feedback.

I am sure that if I practiced enough with it, I'd get lots better, but the initial tries with that 'other' software system (I was inferring from) were torture, and we were only simulating the controlled hardware, not personal $$$$$$$$$ toys where there is the added distraction that a mistake could mean the loss of a personal fortune.

I tried to control two Aster Mikes via R/C controls, one in each hand and found it impossible to remember which hand was controlling which engine. I solved that problem by changing the crystal in one of the receivers to match the other one and used only one handheld controller to control BOTH engines at once. Double-heading them was easy then. I discovered that each engine would naturally cycle from having more power than the other to less than the other, but they worked in tandem quite well. I did not dare try two separate trains!

And like you say, I was not "feeling" the engine's motion because I was standing trackside 10 to 100 feet away... No "seat of the pants" feedback as to what was going on, so "fine" control was near impossible.

For controlling electric trains where you have only one engine function that is necessary to control (speed) then you can forget the "bell and whistle" to turn your attention to other things (like throwing switches) and there is no loss.

Electric trains also have a natural tendency to self speed regulate... when the engine slows because of a hill or curve, the slower motor allows more current to flow which tends to limit how slow the motor will turn; likewise going down hill speeds the motor up, but the increased Back-EMF reduces current and that tends to slow the motor. So, either way, the speed remains within a narrow range.

Live steam locos have a similar response to grade changes but the reaction time can be in minutes instead of instantaneous. Come to a hill and the engine might not have enough power to climb it, so it stops dead. The fire is still generating steam, so the pressure goes up and it might get high enough to move the piston and turn the wheels... It might even pickup speed going up-hill! Woe to the engineer if he doesn't close the throttle a bit before descending on the other side of the hill... the pressure is UP and gravity is going to help the train down... hope there is not a sharp curve at the bottom!

I know there are people that can drum out a different beat with each hand and each foot (Buddy Rich for one), and there are people that can rub their tummy while they pat there head while hopping on one foot. And there are teenyboppers that can "txt" a message faster than a good, experienced secretary can type. But only when they are not distracted by other things (witness the "txt'er" walking into the pool at the mall!).

Actually, I find the idea of WiFi control intriguing and I think if the "features" are kept to a minimum and if the controls are arranged "right", it could make for a nice control for a layout, large or small. But it will need to have an interface that matches the thought processes of the user and as a computer programmer, I can attest that is NOT universal amongst humanoids, and nobody will agree on what is "minimum" or what arrangement is "right".


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Chris Scott said:


> Semper, that got me thinking...
> There's way too much telemetry data for a smartphone and wifi to ever be feasible let alone manage a live steam locomotive.
> 
> Maybe a poor analogy, to beat this dead horse into a completely bloody unrecognizable stump; you can drive a car via wifi and smartphone, but you will never have the feel of the car or the road unless you are sitting in the car actually driving it. Same thing with a live steam locomotive.


Actually, Chris, you're absloutely right: 

Telemetry is a very easy exercise - mainly because WiFi is bidirectional communication to allow feedback.

There is only need for expanding with additional resistors and sensors "plugged" on the existing Microprozessor pins and some additional Software Code lines in an Embedded System as shown.

Measures should be


Temperature (with PTC cheap Sensors)
Pressure (don't know the market standard for Model Live Steam sizes)
Water pool by level sensors
Speed (by Hall Sensors)
Especially Speed could be interesting to control steady wheel revolution by pivoting valves in a Closed Loop - when locomotive is mastering Up and Down Slopes and Load!


Regards


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Karl;
I'm really not trying to rain on your parade. You seem to have a very nice setup for controlling electric trains and mechanical devices on a layout. It's meant to replace and expand the capabilities of current methods of control.

For live steam there is no reason your device cannot replace control of speed, direction, whistle and the like. Maybe even add something like boiler pressure by absolute pressure or temperature and convert to pressure. But….. replacing the operator walking, sometimes running, alongside the locomotive to respond to one of many conditions or combinations and making adjustment(s) by hand sensing the change is the locomotive’s behavior and adjusting further, well, that is a whole different kettle of fish, as they say. Here are some of the things that occur to me;

- Boiler water level indicated by the sight glass 

- Adjusting the axle pump bypass valve to increase or decrease the feed, watching the volume/rate of water being returned to the water reservoir to calibrate the adjustments

- Temperature of the gas tank water bath, usually with one’s finger, and adjusting the steam warming valve either to raise or lower the steam feed whether the water is too cool or too warm. 

- Monitor the temperature of the gas tank water bath to maintain sufficient gas pressure. 

- On an articulated locomotive seeing wheel slip and adjusting the secondary throttle to balance the engines to reduce the steam feed to prevent driver wheel slip.

- Notice there is steam oil coming out the exhaust and adjusting the lubricator as needed based on watching changes to the exhaust.

Replacing the human interface hands on would take a very significant number of sensors (of various sizes, complexity and hardware) and or physical changes and or modifications to the live steam locomotive notwithstanding the benefits are marginal to negative utility. 

And we have barely if at all scratched the surface of the decision processes embedded in the examples above and the additional operations that would have to be comprehended in digital control whether using wifi (or 2.4GHz) communications and a smartphone, tablet, etc.. 

I and I think most live steamers do not want to nor will give up all the idiosyncratic anachronistic stuff that, as they say, is the soul in the live steam machine.

And I agree, looking down at a small screen versus the tactile feedback nature of an RC transmitter isn’t appealing or particularly agreeable to the task.

To summarize, I don’t think you have fully assessed or integrated into your appraisal the scope of implementing a digital control of a live steam locomotive whether from traditional limited control RC or wifi communications being an enabling technology. RC for live steamers needed a clean reliable communications protocol which we received with the advent of 2.4GHz spectrum for RC.

More broadly, I haven’t followed all your threads so this thought my already have been covered, that said, wifi may be an excellent enhancement for communications between operator and device, but with the exception of electric trains I cannot see an operator of an RC aircraft, robot, boat, etc. being willing to take their eyes off their device and watch a smartphone or tablet screen. So I’m not saying throw the baby out with the bathwater, wifi could be a good fit for communications between device and operator, but a smartphone screen replacing the transmitter or controller, ummmmm…not so much. It seems video games like XBox, PS2, etc., ecosystem of held mechanical controllers providing tactile feedback will prevail for quite some time. 

That all may be a little disjointed in construction (or maybe some grammar) but I’m not going to go back and edit what I think should have been baked in from the beginning. As I said, I have not read all of the posts to your threads so if this covers old ground then you didn’t need to read this and I didn’t need to write it. So there you are.


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Hi Chris,

actually you're right - I have developed for eclectrical model railways - not intentionally for Live Steam. The Servo demonstration was just a Proof of Concept what the maximum capability of WiFi might be. 

The result was a very exciting moment for me!

Even better, my Oscilloscope and Wireshark tell me that the Maximums of Processor Power and Wifi haven't been reached at all yet. Lot of reserves to rely on.
The limiting factor (at the moment) is the Smartphone Display (which only allows me 3 Slider (Servos) to move in parallel - not knowing why).

The I2C Bus is slowed down to a to a Frequency of (only) 25 KHz, screwing up to 100 KHz should be possible without any concern. 
No need to tell you about WiFi Speed and Bandwidth Capacities ...!

There are definitely some other advantages in favour of WiFi:



The Back Channel with powerful Bandwith allowing all kinds of status feedback - even streams to oyur Smartphone from the Drivers Cabin built in camera
The TCP-Protocol which is connection oriented, meaning as soon as the Microprocessor recognizes a "lost" connection he will move servos into a predfined Fail Save position to slow down the loco safely - no worries for the owner any more
Upcoming 5 GHz Frequencies will let WiFi escape from any radio polutions in R/C neighbourhood
WiFi is no proprietary technology - it is the best standardized technolgy you can think on - no dependency on a single supplier!
But at the end - Steam and WiFi Electronics are fundamentallly contradictory to each other - born in different decades. 

We would need a time machine to get them joined!

Best regards,

Karl


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

Adding to Chris' and Semper's posts, tending the fire, opening the firebox door, shoveling coal ...

But the people who want the mechanical, tactile feel of their steam locomotive likely aren't the market anyway. 

Phones do seem, to me, to be an alternative to DCC and RC systems. And the phone can easily offer cab-view perspective on its screen.


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

*Radio Direct Control becomes popular in the US as well*

Hi Folks

In the US Radio Direct Control of Model Railways is being launched:

http://www.bluerailtrains.com/index.cfm

Patent Pending will be void, as this radio technology was already shown in Europe in 2010 first time.

Nevertheless - this is definitely the right approach which other competitors will follow soon.

For garden railways - higher power consumption (24 Volts, 5+ Amps) and larger distances - products are sold since 2013.

Regards

Karl


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Well that sort of puts paid to the WiFi idea I would have thought. ;-)


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Well,

I think WiFi is far ahead anyway, there is no need to discuss, just take the worldwide installed base for evidence! 

Bluetooth is only well proven in near distances (10 ft). 30 ft. will be acceptable for indoor - outdoor will need WiFi. 
And 5 GHz WiFi technolgies can do a mile ... (by RFC)! In addition interferences with myriad of WiFi Networks will spoil the bluetooth pleasure at the end ...!

Nevertheless - just swapping Antennas (USB Bluetooth by ruggedized USB WiFi) will hopefully be possible for desperate Bluetooth users. 
Software should be always the same - (assumed the ISO/OSI Reference Model is used by BlueRail - as WiFi Applications do by default!).

But it is not obvious that BlueRail ist going the non-proprietary way, same pitfall that RC technology buyers run in for decades now. Once they have invested, they are bound to their supplier who will dictate the prices.

Regards

Karl


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Dual band Wi-Fi is very prevalent, no dual band Bluetooth yet... be careful when swapping antennas ha ha!

Greg


----------



## jbooker (Jan 15, 2008)

Karl is the wifi system for sale at this point. Trainli.com has no info that I could find.

I have yet to read all the attached docs, but is the message protocol published like RailML?
TIA
Josh
Josh


----------



## MikeMcL (Apr 25, 2013)

I confess I haven't read this whole thread, but I've been using my android phone as a throttle over my WiFi for about 2 years. I use JMRI. This is so much better than the Digitrax throttle for programming and running trains. I don't have any issues seeing the screen outside with these almost 58 year old eyes. The functions are easily available and labeled in English, and I can choose locos by the name, description, or even photo without having to remember a decoder address. Everyone young and old is impressed that there is an app for that. A neighbor kid was thrilled when I set up his iPhone on the network and he was able to run a train.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

IPTRAIN said:


> Hi Folks
> 
> In the US Radio Direct Control of Model Railways is being launched:
> 
> ...


That's a rather rash statement Karl, have you even read the patent application?
There are many patentable aspects of this radio technology that you probably have never even thought of

Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

MikeMcL said:


> .......... This is so much better than the Digitrax throttle for programming and running trains. I don't have any issues seeing the screen outside with these almost 58 year old eyes. The functions are easily available and labeled in English, and I can choose locos by the name, description, or even photo without having to remember a decoder address.


Mike,

I guess it all depends what one has had previously as a throttle.
There are many conventional, as in DCC, throttles available that show locos by name, description and an icon.
What I'm missing using a smart phone is some tactile feedback - at least of the speed control and maybe the most basic functions.
That's where I think the somewhat new ESU control shines - big knob for speed and a few actual buttons on either side plus all the soft keys of a typical smart phone.

Knut


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

ESU handheld - a very elegant design indeed. Is the speed km/h true land speed or guesstimated from the step setting or bemf ? Does it rely on a wheel sensor ?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

You can read more about it here:
http://www.esu.eu/en/products/digital-control/mobile-control-ii/

At this time Piko has branded it for their smaller scales


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

An english flyer of the Piko version can be downloaded here:
http://www.piko-shop.de/index.php?vw_type=1&vw_name=download&vw_id=13136

Currently only offered for the smaller scales


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

There was also another totally different concept of model train control shown at the Nurnberg fair called ALAN.
Couldn't find an English version - here is their German website
http://toy-tec.com/index.php?id=4

From what I remember from the demo, that system used virtual blocks so it can handle different analog, AC or DC, as well as all digital systems symultaneously.

Seems everybody and their uncle thinks they have discovered the ultimate model train control.


----------



## davidarf (Jan 2, 2008)

krs said:


> There was also another totally different concept of model train control shown at the Nurnberg fair called ALAN.
> Couldn't find an English version - here is their German website
> http://toy-tec.com/index.php?id=4
> 
> ...


From what I can understand of the toy-tec offering I could not see this as "the ultimate model train control". Like all the existing DCC offerings it is based on potentially expensive clumsy non-portable hardware that lacks the option to separate the digital control signals from the power supply to the locomotive. For me, the ultimate system would be something that has 
1. a hand held controller with a mix of physical and logical controls to allow for physical feedback for things like speed and programmable touch screen options for things like lighting effects.
2. 2.4GHz communication directly to and from the locomotives or other devices to provide solid reliable and world wide availability of data transfer.
3. the option to use the wide choice of sound files currently available for DCC sound decoders
4. the simplicity of control like the Ring Railpro system to provide on-line adjustments without ploughing through pages of CV settings
5. the ability to build intelligent consists without the need for CV based speed matching (again like Railpro)
6. the freedom to choose between rail based power or battery power
7. feedback from the locomotives to allow for acceleration, deceleration and braking effects to automatically take account of train load and gradient. 

It seems to me that all of these should be achievable with the technology available today, but no supplier seems to have got there yet.

David


----------



## Martan (Feb 4, 2012)

I've got 1 & 2 working and my own version of #3, but it's a big job software-wise to fill in all the rest of that functionality. Nevertheless, if you like to tinker with microcontrollers and such, I've released what I have as open source hardware and software, you can find the details here:

http://controlwidgets.com/

I'm off on other tangents at the moment but I will be returning to this sometime in late spring or early summer. 

Anyone who is good at C, C++, Ardunio or optionally Android or iOS, drop me a line, I could use some help. I'd really like to see an open source solution for large scale train control...


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

davidarf said:


> From what I can understand of the toy-tec offering I could not see this as "the ultimate model train control". Like all the existing DCC offerings it is based on potentially expensive clumsy non-portable hardware that lacks the option to separate the digital control signals from the power supply to the locomotive. For me, the ultimate system would be something that has
> 1. a hand held controller with a mix of physical and logical controls to allow for physical feedback for things like speed and programmable touch screen options for things like lighting effects.
> 2. 2.4GHz communication directly to and from the locomotives or other devices to provide solid reliable and world wide availability of data transfer.
> 3. the option to use the wide choice of sound files currently available for DCC sound decoders
> ...


What exactly do you like about RailPro so much that you mention it in two of your bullet points.
I had never heard of it until your post - looks like just another proprietary system to me, it's also designed for the smaller scales with no DCC compatibility which is a non-starter for me.

I tried wireless control directly to the locomotive, different systems, not reliable enough - when I command a train to stop I expect it to stop - not continue because of a short communication failure.
With pretty much all consumer wireless products either the transmitter or receiver is stationary, in a Large Scale environment both the transmitter and receiver are moving which makes maintaining constant communication more difficult.

Knut


----------



## davidarf (Jan 2, 2008)

krs said:


> What exactly do you like about RailPro so much that you mention it in two of your bullet points.
> I had never heard of it until your post - looks like just another proprietary system to me, it's also designed for the smaller scales with no DCC compatibility which is a non-starter for me.
> 
> I tried wireless control directly to the locomotive, different systems, not reliable enough - when I command a train to stop I expect it to stop - not continue because of a short communication failure.
> ...


You are right in that Railpro is a non-DCC proprietary system. It's great strengths are that they have separated the data transmission from the power supply giving the potential for battery power for those that want it, and the two way communications allow for intelligent consist operation where you control the lead locomotive and then that controls the other locomotives to keep them speed matched. This technology has, I think, great potential for future development. The screen based updating of a wide variety of operational parameters without having to resort to tables of CV values is also an important point - something addressed by the JMRI software approach to DCC - again addressing one of the fundamental flaws in the DCC concept.

As to communication failures, my experience, and that of many friends, is that the current 2.4GHz systems very rarely let us down, even in situations where multiple systems are in operation in close proximity. By contrast, my experience with DCC track based operation in small scales was far from reliable. I ran a weekly model railway club at a school and every session had to be preceded with more than an hour of track and wheel cleaning to get the trains to work. The DCC implementation also resulted in many hours of extra wiring to get every length of track wired to the power bus. Even with all this it was rare to have an operating session without a number of communication failures or complete system shutdown.

In larger scales, with the needs to work along side live steam and to have the portability to take trains to many different garden lines, then wireless control is the only viable option. Here, track based DCC is a non-starter and none of the DCC manufacturers have shown any real interest in this market. This is, in my opinion, why systems like Railpro and Bachman/Bluerail are emerging. OK, they are currently aimed at H0 scale, but the potential is there to move them on to larger scale. In fact Ring Engineering have said that they will develop a larger scale version of Railpro before looking at smaller scales such as N.

I am not suggesting that Railpro is the ideal solution, but they have at least addressed some of the problems with DCC and have shown that there is a better way to operate model trains. At present that system lacks the ability to use the current excellent sound files available for DCC decoders, and, being proprietary, is only available from one source - something that will make many potential customers uneasy. However, as I said in my comments above, I do not see yet another offering of expensive and clumsy hardware to perpetuate track based commands based on CVs as being anything close to ideal. In my opinion DCC has had it's day and is now outdated technology. It has a huge following and will no doubt continue for some time, but the manufacturers have all missed the opportunity to move on and embrace a sector of the market wanting to operate without power on the rails and to develop the potential of two way communication to give more realistic control.

David


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

There have been at least a dozen different "wireless-to-loco" control systems since I started in Large Scale in 1986. Most of them are gone now.
One of the early ones I remember was Reed's R/C for Large Scale trains.

There are two standards for Large Scale today - DC and DCC.
No other system is going to get the world wide acceptance those two systems have unless NMRA and MOROP endorses it and creates some standards.

DCC for Large Scale works just fine if it is designed correctly - it's not the same as DCC for the smaller scales with just the voltage and current bumped up, especially if one wants to run outside.
But many manufacturer fail to understand that and then fall flat on their face when they try to move into Large Scale. And from what I see, that will continue to happen.

Knut


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

krs said:


> That's a rather rash statement Karl, have you even read the patent application?
> There are many patentable aspects of this radio technology that you probably have never even thought of
> 
> Knut


Hello Knut, in one item you might be right - it is Bluetooth radio based! I was in good belief of WiFi!

Definitely there is nothing left to apply patent protection for as all model railway use cases based on WiFi radio control - just thinkable - were already published (intentionally) long before 2010! 

Even detection of RFI token in the track bed (1 per feet) using the WiFi Back Channel to signal the loco - track identification on your Smartphone display had been published already in 2005 (more than 10 years ago).

The worldwide rule is - as soon as a Use Case is being published, it can't be protected any more by a patent due to the missing innovation fundamental http://dict.leo.org/#/search=fundamental&searchLoc=0&resultOrder=basic&multiwordShowSingle=on! The date of publishing is the most critical, not the date of application!

I am pretty sure that there will remain little evidence for a successful patent defense after the first formal attack or by a competitor's patent infringement. Time stamped Web Pages and Bulletin Boards (unfortunately in German language) are still online!

Regards

Karl


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

*WIfi Direct Conrol*

For the avoidance of any doubt:

Speaking of Model Railway control by WiFi Radio is a dimension more than Model Railway radio control based on 2.4 GHz frequency!

Wikipedia says:

The Wi-Fi Alliance defines Wi-Fi as any "wireless local area network" (WLAN) product based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' (IEEE) 802.11 standards"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi

When I am speaking of WiFi Modelrailway control all these defined standards are used for (protocol) Interoperability, Security, ..., you name it!

It is not a "proprietary technology" like DCC or DCS (MTH) developed by some modelrailway companies for their special hobby use cases, eventually also based on 2,4 GHz. 

WiFi is an industry standard in bidirectional PC communication (including the ISO/OSI protocol stack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model ) - deployed billionfold worldwide. 

That is the big difference between a simple 2.4 GHz radio control and WiFi (based on 2.4 GHz radio frequency - or 5 GHz frequency meanwhile).

I am talking of controlling the Modellrailway by Direct WiFi communication (Smartphone to Loco and reverse) based on commodity industry technologies!

Best regards

Karl


----------



## Tom Lapointe (Jan 2, 2008)

*Thinking of some "Raspberry Pi".*

I'm currently running NCE's "PowerHouse Pro 10 Amp" for my "Watuppa Railway"; I've had some thoughts of playing with JMRI, initially mainly to have a "demo mode" for the railroad if we're entertaining guests. A couple of problems got in the way - the biggest one, for most of the last 2 years, was serving the role of caretaker to my elderly parents (they're both 95!) until their medical conditions required them to go into nursing homes full-time; this left VERY little time for model railroading in general.  The second was the laptop I bought a couple of years ago, with the thoughts of tinkering with JMRI on it; made the mistake of wiring it to my big-screen TV, & now my "significant other" (who defines the term "internet addict") has taken over BOTH.  Was starting to look for a cheap laptop to dedicate to railroad use, but have recently heard of people running JMRI on the Raspberry Pi - looks like that might be a potential way out, & a way to add a WiFi interface to my NCE system.

I will admit to having some reservations about WiFi control; for starters, I live in an older, VERY densely populated neighborhood; most of the houses (including mine) are "3-decker" apartments, & it seems EVERYONE has a wireless router; I frequently have to change the router wireless channel to make wireless access usable. Mention was also made earlier of using touch-screens (no tactile feedback) vs. RC transmitters; I've also been a fixed-wing RC aircraft pilot @ 20 years (although I've also dabbled in quadcopters lately). My first quadcopter was the original Parrot AR_Drone,, controlled via WiFi from an iPhone of iPad; i've often found it to be virtually uncontrollable in my back yard (where the railroad is) due to WiFi congestion. (Take it down inside the basketball court of the Boy's & Girls Club that I go to for my swim workouts, where it's not fighting other WiFi signals, it flies great!).  For actual flight control, I'll take my Spektrum DX9 RC aircraft transmitter ANY DAY over a touch screen, especially flying aerobatic RC planes. I have enough time (lately, in very short supply!) & money invested in DCC decoders & sound systems that I'm NOT going to go pulling them out just to replace them with something "new" for newness sake; on the other hand, the NCE PowerHouse cabs are starting to seem VERY dated, & I think WiThrotlle on my iPhone might be a decent substitute, as long as the WIFi link is robust enough to tolerate the local high activity levels. For my live-steamers, I'll continue to use Spectrum 2.4 GHz. RC. Just my 2cents worth!  Tom


----------



## Martan (Feb 4, 2012)

Wifi is not designed for control, it's designed for web pages and email.

Xbee is control and sensors.


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Martan said:


> Wifi is not designed for control, it's designed for web pages and email.
> 
> Xbee is control and sensors.


So that's why my refrigerator has wifi - to send me email. But I've had it for over a year and no email? Or, is it really sending email to the NSA about what I let spoil and compromising national security? OH God!

If I go missing will someone please feed the dogs? Thanks.

A refrigerator web page? Could it be a dating service for refrigerators and freezers? That's cold, man. 


_*References;*_

*Wi-Fi*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi

*Long-range Wi-Fi*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_Wi-Fi


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

What Martan posted is essentially correct - 

*Applications:* 
Wi-Fi is a preferable choice for internet connection based network and now is also encouraged to interface various media/entertainment devices wirelessly. One can find Wi-Fi in data exchange between a computer and modem, streaming music and videos on a television through a Wi-Fi enabled computer or media device.

Zigbee protocol has been precisely designed to exchange data and it is more prevalent in the wireless sensor based networks such as those in home automation systems or industrial machinery coordination systems.

Source: http://www.engineersgarage.com/contribution/zigbee-vs-wi-fi


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

krs said:


> What Martan posted is essentially correct -
> 
> *Applications:*
> Wi-Fi is a preferable choice for internet connection based network and now is also encouraged to interface various media/entertainment devices wirelessly. One can find Wi-Fi in data exchange between a computer and modem, streaming music and videos on a television through a Wi-Fi enabled computer or media device.
> ...


Depends mostly on commercial interests - saying who is advertising ...!

Big advantage of WiFi is, it can cover any demand, connections from a local area to a wide area are seamless without any gateway needed. A Smartphone for example is WiFi enabled - but not ZigBee, Z-wave or any other radio technology enabled! 

WiFi technology is available in any Mall - it is commodity! Have a look for ZigBee Technology in a Mall - hard to find!

ZigBee advantage is low power consumption - e.g. only battery power is available or micro foot print in PCB layout is needed.

Regards

Karl


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

davidarf said:


> From what I can understand of the toy-tec offering I could not see this as "the ultimate model train control". Like all the existing DCC offerings it is based on potentially expensive clumsy non-portable hardware that lacks the option to separate the digital control signals from the power supply to the locomotive. For me, the ultimate system would be something that has
> 1. a hand held controller with a mix of physical and logical controls to allow for physical feedback for things like speed and programmable touch screen options for things like lighting effects.
> 2. 2.4GHz communication directly to and from the locomotives or other devices to provide solid reliable and world wide availability of data transfer.
> 3. the option to use the wide choice of sound files currently available for DCC sound decoders
> ...


Alan is nothing more than advertising! You're right. No new technology!

With one exception: They are promising Plug&Play by using CAN technology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus ) for inner communication between devices. Definitely not for cheap prices ...!

Nothing seen in reality for Sale yet (after one year advertisement). No shop seen yet which is advertising Alan products. 

Regards

Karl


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

IPTRAIN said:


> Depends mostly on commercial interests - saying who is advertising ...!
> 
> Big advantage of WiFi is, it can cover any demand, connections from a local area to a wide area are seamless without any gateway needed. A Smartphone for example is WiFi enabled - but not ZigBee, Z-wave or any other radio technology enabled!
> 
> ...


What does wireless control of Garden Railroads have to do with the WiFi technology being available in any mall?

WiFi is really a specific popular wireless networking technology that uses radio waves to create a local area network to provide wireless high-speed Internet and network connections.
"Local Area" is a key word here.
My WiFi range with a single router covers all three stories of the house with no problem but extends only about one-quarter into the back yard. For its intended use that's perfect but for Garden Railroading I would need to extend the range which of course means more $$$.
And I wouldn't use a smart phone as a throttle either - something like the new ESU Control II comes a lot closer to being acceptable.

Knut


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

krs said:


> What does wireless control of Garden Railroads have to do with the WiFi technology being available in any mall?
> 
> ...
> 
> Knut


Very simple - commodity prices by economies of scale!

Regards

Karl


----------



## Martan (Feb 4, 2012)

For reference, and this is an engineering data point only (no marketing intended) I'm getting a 300ft range and a 10ms packet time of 16 bytes. Scope trace:
http://martinsant.net/?p=1563

Blue on top is the servo pulse, yellow on the bottom is the data stream from the xbee.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Pretty surprised that the main Zigbee selling/distinction points have not surfaced.

One thing that is not really needed or desired in Zigbee is that it is a mesh network, eliminating roaming and the need for multiple "access points".

With the latency requirements, and also if you are going to emulate the constant transmission of signals, a mesh network is just wrong.

It's great for low speed, low cost, low power sensor networks.

Not good for trains, basically.

Greg


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

Interesting debate...as always.

_It's great for low speed, low cost, low power sensor networks.

Not good for trains, basically." -_ 

I beg to differ. Trains are a low speed transportation paradigm with infinite control requirements right ? Compare them to today's jetways with planes taking off and landing every 90 seconds (JFK, ATL, FRA,..) at 270 mph avg. The control dynamics are completely different. Here latency is a different argument if you want to model that.

Okay, one of the best Use Cases for multi-dimensional control is the mesh topology available in the ZigBee world. Slow, reliable intrinsically, repeatable and sustainable at low sleep power thresholds compared to WiFi networks. The prototype does not Stop/Start instantly does it ? It just cannot. So why should the 'model' do so unless you want to repeatedly test the fragile plastic gearing found in all models? 

What's wrong is to use the power-draining Wifi in model trains with only primitive point-to-point control. Even worse is embedding a 'Linux server' in every loco like the Pi example- it's overkill on top of the bloated Wifi overhead. Given the power draining WiFi, a single interrupt to the power bus and....many seconds later a resumption..or crash or no feedback answer at all??

A simple test: On the Wifi network shutdown/restart the Pi(s) embedded inside more than three locos. Do the same with the Xbees and see the latency difference. Martan's data was sort of correct for just one loco but can be optimized even further with the mesh.

When multiple locos in a layout are doing multiple things, point-2-point _wifi_ doesn't fly. It is a primitive routing pattern at best. I tested with 9 running locos, 18 switches, 14 signals, shunting, coupling, decoupling...p2p wifi is ok for just 1 or 2 loco layout ambitions. Notice that the Wifi-ers claim 'control' when they get just one (1) loco moving 

Just another punt...

Victor


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

not really a debate, but I think you glossed over some points I made.

In comparing various control systems, you must realize how the speed signals in DCC are sent continuously. Thus if a command is missed, another comes pretty soon afterwards.

Not saying that this is the only control system that makes sense, but doing it like this means you don't have to store the last speed for very long, and know if you lose signal to stop.

the latency of a mesh network is clear, right?

the whistle command is NOT suited to a mesh network when you get a lot of hops, or a lot of users, time-critical operations are not good..

also, calling point to point primitive is, well, silly. Point to point has it's place. Try surfing the web through a mesh network.

So, sweeping generalizations are not appropriate, and when they are used a fundamental points to a position, well, I just stop there, if the foundation is flawed, I put the brakes on the rest of the conversation.

So, tighten down the requirements, the guys who want to only run one loco are different from people who want multiple loco control simultaneously.

Greg


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

_Try surfing the web through a mesh network._

Ok  But the www or 'web' is still a 'mesh' in the true sense. It has to be. No single server can cause a routing dependency, right ?...or do you disagree ? Just the meaning of 'web' would suggest that. I'd ask Tim Berners Lee...

Vic


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Back to the subject, the latency involved between the "controller" and the "controlee".

Mesh network not good for playing whistle, too much latency, and worse, the latency can measurably change as the loco moves around.

We are talking large scale, significant physical displacement of the loco as it goes around, and also how the "route" changes as the loco moves.

When you have mobility in a wireless system, a lot of things can change, which affects communication. Data rates, error rates, retransmission due to multipath, complete loss of communication, etc.

Again, each environment is different, so my requirements for my layout may not be the same as someone running a small loop with line of sight to the loco at all times.

(yes a mesh is more robust, but if the system does not perform well enough in the first place, who cares about redundancy of communication paths?)

I use Zwave in my house, and the mesh system is definitely the way to go, but none of my lights and appliances move around, or need to respond to my button presses as fast as blowing a whistle on my locos.

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Greg Elmassian said:


> Pretty surprised that the main Zigbee selling/distinction points have not surfaced.
> 
> One thing that is not really needed or desired in Zigbee is that it is a mesh network, eliminating roaming and the need for multiple "access points".
> 
> ...


Greg,

Zimo is using Zigbee with their new DCC system.
Are you saying they are barking up the wrong tree?

Knut


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

wouldn't want to lo-jack this thread...maybe I just post an example counter-view in my own thread later...

"Innovation sometimes occurs when at least more than one disagrees..."


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Nope, but throttle to the command station eliminates the problem between the controller and the loco.

Yes, you can have issues between the throttle and the command station, but the throttle is not required to send continuous commands to the command station.

The command station IS required to send continuous commands to the loco, which also has a much tougher job receiving, since it is on the ground, small antenna, etc.

Also, you are forgetting that the zigbee used is used in a point to point, i.e. throttle to command station, the mesh network capability is not being used.

What I have been talking about is a mesh network with varying number of hops and a changing topology.

Mesh network not good for latency and throttle to loco in outdoors large scale unless you go direct to loco (thus not using mesh network).

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

IPTRAIN said:


> Very simple - commodity prices by economies of scale!
> 
> Regards
> 
> Karl


Karl,

By "commodity prices" I assume you mean inexpensive......

Well, to get started with WiFi train control you would need

1 iphone6 at $649
1 WiFi receiver/decoder 179 Euros on TrainLine's website for a basic 8 function unit
1 24 volt, probably 10 amp supply at $100 or so for a cheap switching suply
1 set of Goldcap buffers as recommended on the TrainLine website
Some sort of short circuit shut down protection - short circuit protection built into the supplies usually just provide current limiting, not complete shut down.
Add it all up and you're at around $1000.- to get one loco running

And that is without sound or anything else fancy.

Same system with battery power will be in the same ball park price-wise.

For that money than that I can buy a full fledged DCC system and then basic decoders at $50.- a pop

Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Knut, to be fair, you can use an old, used iPhone or Android phone for $100 or free (I have 4 iPhones that I use for JMRI at shows).

The WiFi receiver is clearly NOT a commodity yet (or ever), so there is no economy of scale there though!

The bottom line is that for remote control, it's almost impossible to get wireless cheaper than power and control from the rails.

Just like Wi-fi will always be more expensive and slower than hardwired Ethernet, wireless transmission is always more difficult than a wire.

(and don't anyone start with some weird example where you cannot run a wire, our metal rails are already there)

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Greg Elmassian said:


> Also, you are forgetting that the zigbee used is used in a point to point, i.e. throttle to command station, the mesh network capability is not being used.


I was under the impression that Zimo used more than just point-to-point to get the range required for Garden Railroading.

Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Greg Elmassian said:


> Knut, to be fair, you can use an old, used iPhone or Android phone for $100 or free (I have 4 iPhones that I use for JMRI at shows).
> 
> The WiFi receiver is clearly NOT a commodity yet (or ever), so there is no economy of scale there though!
> 
> ...


Greg, 

I wonder if your situation is typical.
I for one don't have an old smart phone with a decent display lying around, neither does anyone in my family.

My point was more to challenge Karl's suggestion that a WiFi solution would be inexpensive.

Knut

PS: I never read the beginning of this thread until just now - from the very first post:



> Standard Loco Power:
> 
> 24 Volts, 5 Amps each motor, by PLC Board stacking more than to 500 Amps !!! per loco can be served in parallel.
> Recommendation: typically one board per motor.
> A 4 pcs. motorized Dash9 should be happy with 20 Amps max. (average / peak 28 Amps) supplied by 4 synchronized boards.


So - for a Dash-9 it's four times 179 Euros just for the decoders - that's more than the loco cost new.


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Gentlemen,

have you already noticed that Microsoft is giving windows 10 to the embedded systems world for free - as of today?

https://www.windowsondevices.com/signup.aspx

Any clue why Microsoft should have changed their business strategy to a Non Profit company suddenly? I can tell you - they are desperately trying to catch up already lost terrain - rules are dictated by Google and Apple.

Even more: While you are discussing prices of legacy technology (DCC and others, far beyond 99 Dollar) there are a lot of startups in the world having recognized that the future computer power is based on distributed Micro systems. And these system prices will be below 10 Dollars very soon! IoT is the magic keyword http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things - which will also influence our hobby dramatically. 
And the driver behind is the Smartphone - as this instrument has become the general purpose instrument (key) to control the new world! Anybody has this key - ready to work with the right App to be downloaded!

By the way - being a Raspberry fanatic (still 35 Dollars) - this part has already become legacy - footprint is much too large. Thumb footprints with more intelligence capacity are under development already.

A basic element for all such Microsystems will be a seamless Internet connection based on Internet protocols, CONNECTIVITY to the Smartphone via any network is the rule/law to follow.

Radio is the preferred physical primary transmission level - also line will be in the backyard for bundeling data messages. WiFi is the worldwide standard underlying (a commodity technology already available right now).

Power Drivers (H-Bridges, ULN2803, etc.) will become a plug & play commodity technology also, prices will drop consequently. 

At this point all customized technologies such as DCC, DCS, ... you name it (with very low market penetration / installed base) will stay beyond of any competitive price range(will cost >> 50 Dollars) as individual development cost of engineers are much too high being covered by a resonable ROI.

Therefore - the future is Internet connected (WiFi) mirco-systems. Anybody who will support with standard technologies is in, all others will be out! You will experience very soon. The Raspberry Pi "Micro System" has already placed as the most sold PC in the UK in 2014 - did you notice that?

And why not to place PC Power (Thumb Footprint) into a locomotive and do all the rest by standard software instead of engineering customized hardware & software solutions especially for some survived Model Railway Fans in spread in the world? 

Regards

Karl


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Knut, this is mostly an American forum in America.

Used old iPhone 3 and old Android phones are pretty much free, as evidenced by the 4 old ones I have been given.

You don't need a state of the art phone to use something like JMRI, and furthermore, and old $200 laptop will suffice as a server.

I believe you do not live in the US nor near any metropolitan center, which is NOT typical or the norm for the majority of the people here, so yes, I have a typical situation and you do not.

Just objecting to sweeping generalizations. Also, you do not need FOUR 5 amp controllers for a dash 9, the entire loco will typically be under 5 amps.

Oh, and I do have a Dash 9 and have measured it under load.

But the add on Wi-Fi boards will add up, and we are ignoring sound in the locos.

It's no longer 1990 gentlemen, if you have an advanced control system and you don't have sound, I submit you do NOT have an advanced control system.

For people who cannot run track power, then wireless control is necessary.

Is it cheaper? No way.

Is it faster, quicker to respond? Nope.

Is it more reliable? No, wireless adds another level of challenge in data communication.

Of course a track powered layout that has intermittent wiring is an issue, but I submit that if you cannot deal with rail joiners and bus wire, how will you deal with much more sophisticated electrical issues?

But why don't we get off the wireless is better and just concentrate on the best wireless options?

I am indeed interested in hearing solutions, but give up on the wireless is cheaper than track powered DCC or similar systems, you will never be able to prove this except in "corner cases".

Greg


----------



## Martan (Feb 4, 2012)

I am not running a mesh network with my Xbee modules. Out of the box they are point to multi-point, not mesh. These are series 1 Xbee. I'm running them in API mode with the Atmel chip as the master. The data speaks for itself.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

That sounds like an optimal network configuration.

One of the problems will continue to be controlling a loco from quite a distance, since G scale is physically large.

I don't have all the modes and fall-off specs in front of me, but EVERY wireless protocol (of any standard) trades range for speed, you cannot make distance up with more power alone.

Greg


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

_That sounds like an optimal network configuration_ -- why ? If the p-2-mp coordinator goes down....the network's gone... and no recovery till coordinator comes back . Not optimal.

At 1600 meters (1 mile) outdoor range, or 300 feet indoor radius is plenty of capability with the Series 2 Xbee in G scale layouts, even without extenders or mesh.

Victor


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Again, I vote for performance over redundancy. I've never had my base stations quit, and I can afford to have a spare $130 one.

Give me simplicity, no range problems, and lower overall cost. Track power costs less than battery power, and I have a nice big power bus to wherever the tracks run.

All my switch machine power draws from the rails, nice and simple, no rewiring in 10 years.

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

As a user of wireless throttles for 30 years, the #1 issue facing reliable operation is range. I've used systems that could broadcast 300' and then some, and I've used systems that were deaf as a post at 5' away. I like the idea of bluetooth or WiFi control, but it's got to have reliable range. If it can't do that--even if it's otherwise the greatest thing since sliced bread--it's not gonna be accepted. On the flip side, folks seem to be willing to put up with a few operational warts here and there if they can control the train in their back yard from their upstairs bathroom window. 

I'd love to see a WiFi or Bluetooth receiver that can be put onboard a battery-powered locomotive that can drive a generic DCC decoder. This doesn't strike me as particularly difficult for someone well-versed in electronics to put together. I'll be among the first in line to have a go at using it. I don't know a thing about the specific communications protocols being discussed here; I'm a simple consumer, and so long as it works with my phone one way or the other, and gets me ample range to where I can control my train from any point in the yard, I'm a happy camper.

Later,

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree on range.

This last discussion is about a wireless mesh network vs a point to point wireless (at least that is what I'm talking about).

There are a lot of factors in wireless communications, and there are tradeoffs in speed, latency, range, power and errors.

You cannot simplify it, or make gross generalizations, all these factors come into play.

One generalization I CAN make though, is there is no "free lunch", you don't get lowest cost, highest speed, lowest latency, greatest range all at the same time.

You want more speed? run more power or get closer.

You want more range, then give up speed, latency, or power or all of them.

Back to mesh networks, great for reading gas and electric meters, not good for high speed, low latency (low latency = horn honks right in sync with your throttle button)

Wi-Fi - more and more speed, but more and more antennas and more power needed.

No simple pat answers that give you the best of everything.

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

With regard to speed, what kind of delays are we talking about? If I were to press the "whistle" button on my iPhone to blow the whistle, how long would it take for me to hear the whistle blow on the kinds of networks being talked about? (Presume the decoder would blow the whistle as soon as it hears the command.) When it comes to changes in the throttle or direction, how fast does that really need to occur? Does a locomotive need to increase to the next speed step the very moment we bump the throttle? Or can we live with a half second or so delay? (I run with a fair amount of momentum programmed in, so any delay would be easily overshadowed by the rate of change programmed into the decoder.)

I've used a number of different protocols over the years to control trains, cars, and planes remotely (including WiFi and Bluetooth), and the response time is certainly adequate across the board. Is there something about the particular application we're discussing which would introduce unreasonably long delays between sending a signal and seeing a result? I'm not a network person, hence my question. 

Later,

K


----------



## riderdan (Jan 2, 2014)

I used to work for CellNet (one of those meter-reading mesh network companies Greg mentioned) and he's right about the latency. Generally, mesh networks have latencies measured in seconds (or tenths) while the Internet (the network we're all most familiar with) has latencies measured in milliseconds. A lot of mesh networks don't care about latency because there's no time-critical urgency. At CellNet we didn't care if the meter signal came in at midnight or 12:30--it was time-stamped and we weren't sending the billing info until month's end. But I bet of you're playing World-of-Warcraft and shooting an arrow is delayed by 2 seconds, someone's going to complain 

I don't think that latency is an issue for many things (speed step changes, throwing a switch, blowing a whistle) but I can think of places where I'd care. For instance, I'd like my emergency stop to happen instantly, not two (or more) seconds after the button press. Also, I like to stop my passenger and freight trains right in front of the station/loading dock, so I'd like a quick response there. I guess you could just inch along the last foot or so, but I like the train to just slow to a stop like the prototypes do.

I also do think that range is important. I'm not completely satisfied with my NCE radio cab--my layout is only about 50' long, but I don't always get good reception from the far end (the radio base is, unfortunately, all the way at one end in a storage building) I can't think that people with huge, acre-spanning layouts would be happy.


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

I work with Zigbee daily and it's very well known that no mesh network works reliably if you have constantly moving nodes. Most mesh networks can take seconds to minutes to rebuild reliable paths between nodes and moving parent nodes constantly will not give you a reliable network. PTP is going to be far more reliable and in cases where range is a problem there are already solutions for high end routers that handle pass off between radios far better than any current mesh can.


----------



## MikeMcL (Apr 25, 2013)

East Broad Top said:


> With regard to speed, what kind of delays are we talking about? If I were to press the "whistle" button on my iPhone to blow the whistle, how long would it take for me to hear the whistle blow on the kinds of networks being talked about? (Presume the decoder would blow the whistle as soon as it hears the command.) When it comes to changes in the throttle or direction, how fast does that really need to occur? Does a locomotive need to increase to the next speed step the very moment we bump the throttle? Or can we live with a half second or so delay? (I run with a fair amount of momentum programmed in, so any delay would be easily overshadowed by the rate of change programmed into the decoder.)
> 
> I've used a number of different protocols over the years to control trains, cars, and planes remotely (including WiFi and Bluetooth), and the response time is certainly adequate across the board. Is there something about the particular application we're discussing which would introduce unreasonably long delays between sending a signal and seeing a result? I'm not a network person, hence my question.
> 
> ...


Using a JMRI connected computer with my cell phone over wifi, when I press the whistle, it's instantaneous, likewise speed changes, stop, etc. The latency is unnoticeable. I will admit that I have lost wifi connection a few times and all the trains just stop as a safety precaution.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Nice to hear people who are familiar with mesh networks speak up. My company makes products that use very high bandwidth wireless capability, and one use is video, another gaming. Humans react differently when the action and sound don't sync. It is VERY difficult to make a wireless system with low latency, high bandwidth and low power. One thing is that no mesh network protocol can ever match point to point. If you go to our company website, and look up the credentials of our team, you will see that they are experts in wireless, RF, Wi-Fi, UWB, and one chairs many IEEE committees, (Wi-Fi 802.11x protocols.). http://www.pulselink.com 

Kevin, on how much delay is too much? Try playing a whistle when the system does not respond quickly.

Latency is subjective, but most people can use a system and tell you when the lag is too long.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg Elmassian said:


> Kevin, on how much delay is too much? Try playing a whistle when the system does not respond quickly.


Absolutely, which is why I asked what kind of delay we're talking about--whether we were talking about fractions of seconds (acceptable) or multiples of them (clearly not).

If I'm reading the responses correctly (and please correct me if I'm not), that the Bluetooth and WiFi controlled things I've used are likely "point-to-point" links as opposed to this "mesh" network you're describing, and being point-to-point, the communication is much faster than traveling over a mesh network. The latency of the mesh networks (if I'm reading correctly) is variable and has the potential to be quite pronounced (seconds or longer). That kind of a delay would indeed be frustrating. 

Next question, if I may, would be why a point-to-point connection would not work? Is it simply because the goal is to be able to control multiple locos, and a PTP connection is specifically between the controller and one specific receiver? 

Later,

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You got it Kevin, on the understanding of the mesh network. Also, as pointed out by another gentleman, typically mesh networks are designed to NOT be mobile, since the mesh needs to reconfigure if something moves.

Don't think I ever said a point to point network will not work. You WILL have issues with range as things move around, so you need a system to do that.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point that in a typical DCC system, the "distance" between the loco and the controller essentially never changes, since they are connected by a wire. You cut your wireless challenges in half by having the throttle only wireless. Also, remember that the "repeating" part of the command structure can be done by the command station that is connected to the rails, not requiring the throttle to transmit continuously. Think on that point and it will make sense.

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Greg Elmassian said:


> Knut, this is mostly an American forum in America.
> 
> Used old iPhone 3 and old Android phones are pretty much free, as evidenced by the 4 old ones I have been given.
> 
> ...


Greg,

Just a few points of clarification -
I do live in Canada, last time I checked that was still part of North-America.
And I'm in Montreal with a population ofseveral million
And my comment about four controllers came directly from the first post in this thread.

The only point I was trying to make is that any direct-to-loco control can get expensive real quick after the first few locos compared to DCC for instance.
It's a point you yourself have made in the past - maybe I should have been more direct and just made that statement.

Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Seems this discussion is going down a rat hole.

All the technical points are fine and good, but what are the basic advantages of WiFi control (which is what this thread is supposed to be about) over other existing versions of wireless control?

Wireless via DCC is well established, works well and has been offered by pretty much every DCC system manufacturer for years

Wireless directly to the loco has been around for years as well, mostly by the battery crowd
Wireless WiFi falls into this second category but when I look at the cost of equipping even only a handful of locos, the potential technical issues to make this work reliably under all conditions and the lack of any standard endorsed by NMRA and MOROP, this will continue to be a proprietary option for the G-Scale group that enjoys tinkering with electronics.

Knut


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The biggest advantage as I see it is that the graphic nature of the control interface is infinitely customizeable. You can eliminate function buttons, throttle knobs, and all those things we're used to having, but can never agree on the best way to lay them out, and have absolutely ZERO to do with prototypical train controls. Our phones and tablets already come with built-in WiFi and/or Bluetooth compatibility, so why not build a receiver that takes full advantage of that? 

With a GUI controller, you can potentially program the interface for whatever you want. Running a GP-30? Your control interface might be the actual control stand inside the cab of a GP-30. Running a steamer? Up pops the backhead of a steam locomotive. Forget function buttons and all that stuff. Want to blow the whistle or ring the bell? You don't hit "F2" or"F1." You pull the lever or cord that's hanging from the ceiling of the cab (or in a diesel, push the actual horn button or turn the air valve.) Want to slow down? Shut the throttle off and hit the brakes. It ceases to be a model train controller, but a locomotive control simulator. 

We've got the motor, sound, and lighting control already built into many of the DCC decoders on the market. That's where the competition currently is--who has the most "realistic" responses in terms of motion, sound, and lighting. There's nothing realistic about hitting "F6" on something that looks like a TV remote to turn on the dynamic brakes. I see a prototypical control interface as the next frontier. 

And, if none of that is your cup of tea, you can customize your own TV-remote-esque control interface with all the virtual function buttons and sliders you might want. It's all software, and it's software that runs on something that many of us currently own, and can likely be picked up for next to nothing if you don't. 

In 10 years when technology improves, consider bi-directional communication between the decoder and controller giving you feedback on power consumption, even a cab-eye view via a small camera you mount on the locomotive, or even multiple camera angles depending on direction. None of that is possible on any of the knob-and-button controllers we use today.

In terms of the total cost of equipping our locos with individual receivers, so what? Battery folks have been doing that for decades. It's not about cost, it's about what we want to achieve on the railroad. Each of us has our own personal lists of wants and needs in the control systems we choose. Those have varying costs. If we opt for the more expensive options, then we look to reduce costs elsewhere; perhaps we buy fewer box cars. But we'll have a whole lot of fun pulling the box cars we _do _have because we've chosen a power and control system that fits our personal desires. That's what the hobby's about--having fun. So long as the fun is worth the expense, that's all that matters.

Later,

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think you are right Knut, seems to have diverged way off the point, with all the network discussions.

I think Wi-Fi on trains makes sense, although range and antennas will always create difficulties. The trend is higher and higher frequencies for wireless data, because you can have greater bandwidth, and if you share the frequency, you can have either more users or lower latency.

Wi-Fi is getting pretty crowded, looking at the 2.4 GHz frequencies in use here in my back yard, there's 11 different access points visible... and that's too crowded, and I don't have any neighbors behind me for about 1/4 mile.

Going forwards, it will get worse, and also trains that are battery powered will never run high power or dual band Wi-Fi, so they will be getting "swamped" by the high power access points, and many laptops and phones and tablets running higher power and dual band.

But all 2.4 GHz will continue to get more crowded as we go forwards, since most people have no clue about the configuration of their "stuff"... and also most people do not realize that the "neat" free wi-fi in their router provided by AT&T or the cable company is also a public access point.

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

East Broad Top said:


> The biggest advantage as I see it is that the graphic nature of the control interface is infinitely customizeable.


Kevin,

I agree with you up to a point.

Picking the right function button has been an issue since day one.
I remember the very first demo I got ages ago with a Digitrax DCC system where the operator would keep pushing the wrong function button.
he'd go "and here is the whistle" and the bell would ring or the light would go on. so an icon to identify the function keys is a step in the right direction.
But or the speed control for instance, pretty much all people I talk to prefer a knob or possibly up/down buttons - something they can controlby "feel" without looking at the control.
I think ESU has come pretty close to what most model train buffs want with their new control which combines a speed control and a few real buttons with a customizable display.
There have been a number of applications for various smart phones, both iOS and android based, I haven't seen any of those take off.

Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Greg Elmassian said:


> I think Wi-Fi on trains makes sense.......


Greg,

I don't really see what WiFi brings to the table that we don't have already.

If one is really gung ho on using a smart phone, there are already applications for that and have been for years.
Via DCC mind you - but still.

And as you explained earlier in this thread - wireless communication with the DCC central station is a lot more reliable than with a moving loco.

For the battery crowd there are a number of perfectly satisfactory RC systems available,I don't see WiFi technology adding much too that.

I guess the proof of the pudding would be if a major model train manufacturer jumps on the "WiFi-direct-to-loco" bandwagon.

Knut


----------



## JerryB (Jan 2, 2008)

It seems that Bachmann is taking the BlueTooth plunge. Here is a link to Blue Rail Trains, partnered with Bachmann:

http://www.bluerailtrains.com/index.cfm

BTW, the announcement says this works with either DC or DCC, and either Apple or Android SmartPhones.

Happy RRing,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Bluetooth range not enough for outdoors, and yes, I know about high power bluetooth, and the theoretical speed.

Knut, Wi-Fi brings a non-proprietary radio system to a crowded universe, designed to work with other systems around. That is a benefit.

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Greg Elmassian said:


> Knut, Wi-Fi brings a non-proprietary radio system to a crowded universe, designed to work with other systems around. That is a benefit.


I don't see it that way.
There are three devices I can think of right now for Large Scale railroading that use WiFi -
TouchCab
WiThrottle
TrainControl WLAN

They all use WiFi as the wireless transmission medium but that's where commonality ends - it'snot like I have a choice of throttles.
With TouchCab I need to run a specific set of DCC command stations, WiThrottle depends on having a PC connected running a particular piece of software and TrainControl WLAN uses yet another incompatible app.

Conceptually this is similar the the DCC concept except even worse.
With DCC at least the receiving end (decoder) is standardized - well at least the basic functionality - with those WiFi "solutions" each one is proprietary and requires specific equipment.

We have talked about "wireless DCC" several times on this forum - replace "DCC" with "train control" .
Now if NMRA or MOROP or both get buy to establish a wireless standard, maybe then we would get somewhere.

And I can just see it - if they actually work on that, Large Scale is going to be left out again the same way we were left out of the DCC standard.
A DCC Large Scale four-pin interface, DCC voltage limited to 22 volts, gimme a break.

Rant over....

BTW - That video in the link that Jerry posted turned me more off than on.
The speed indicator popping all over the place and the tinny strange sound.

I just read this about the Bachmann system:


> I spoke with the Bachmann gentlemen from the video at the Worlds Greatest Hobby on tour in Raleigh NC. The demonstration and discussion provided a lot of insight into the EZ App.
> Currently BlueRail Trains is not selling mobile "decoders" yet and has an exclusive agreement with Bachmann for then next few years. Until the agreement is fulfilled, Bachmann will be the only ones bring this to market.
> The system works as shown in the video. But what is not readily apparent is that the 'system' is in the smart phone/ tablet and not the mobile decoder. There is no speaker in the engine. All sounds come from the smart phone. The user interface is great, but all programing is stored in the phone also. If you use a different smart phone to control the engine, none of you current settings are available.


PS: Forgot about the Piko Smart Control and the equivalent ESU product, they also fall into the first category.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

krs said:


> Now if NMRA or MOROP or both get busy to establish a wireless standard, maybe then we would get somewhere.


Put together a proposal and submit it. The NMRA isn't a think tank of folks sitting around plotting every aspect of the future of the hobby. The standards come largely from individuals who see a need and put something together to address it. Sitting around passively waiting for "them" to do something accomplishes nothing. 

As I see it, a tablet/phone-based GUI control system is coming sooner rather than later. JMRI is already working in the phone/tablet environment, so there's already a foundation upon which to build. Embrace it and run with it. It's in its infancy, so now is the time you can mold it and shape it.

Later,

K


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

When Digital Command Control was firdt contemplated by NMRA back in the 1990's, they asked for proposals. Several companies submitted,no individual as far as I know, and NMRA eventually chose the concept developed by Lenz and built on that.

I don't see any interest now by NMRA to even show any interest in a Wi-Fi direct to loco system, in fact, their interest in developing DCC further is essentionally zero - that's why the Europeans ended up forming their own group to move DCC forward.

And JMRI doesn't qualify in any case - don't know much about it, but all it is is some model train system software - the system itself that controls the locos is still DCC.
WiFi Control in the context of this thread was communication between a WiFi enabled device and a loco WiFi receiver directly.

Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Knut, I guess I just don't understand why you are going on and on.

Can you please restate (in a few words) what your issue is?

You asked a specific question, I gave you a specific answer and you went off in a rant.

Clearly you have an axe to grind somewhere, so please reveal it so we can have a conversation, not a confrontation, or extending this confusion.

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Greg,

The "rant" was about NMRA not taking Large Scale seriously
I don't really have an issue - just making the point that without some model railroad standard body taking up the concept of "WiFi-direct-to-loco" control we are just spinning our wheels.

All this technical discussion is great and interesting, but that's all it is. WiFi-to-loco control will never be 'main stream' without some standarization.

That's all

Knut


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Knut, a few thoughts...

_"When Digital Command Control was first contemplated by NMRA back in the 1990's, they asked for proposals. Several companies submitted,no individual as far as I know, and NMRA eventually chose the concept developed by Lenz and built on that."_

That no individuals saw fit to submit a proposal isn't a flaw in the system. The manufacturers wouldn't say "hey, let's do this" without knowing there was a demand for it from their customers. In that way, it was driven by individuals--individuals who talked to the manufacturers of the products they use and say "wouldn't it be neat if..."
_
"I don't see any interest now by NMRA to even show any interest in a Wi-Fi direct to loco system..."_

...because no one's gone to the NMRA and said "hey, I've got this idea, here's a communications protocol laid out, etc." Someone's got to do the legwork and bring them a proposal. They don't sit around writing standards for the sake of writing standards. There's got to be consumer/manufacturer demand. 

_"And JMRI doesn't qualify in any case - don't know much about it, but all it is is some model train system software - the system itself that controls the locos is still DCC."

_That's precisely its strength. It's _just_ software--software that makes the DCC command structure completely invisible to the end user. They open the app, push the button, and the train moves. They don't need to worry about how that happens, and you have the advantage of the already-standardized DCC command protocol allowing you tremendous freedom of choice in decoders.

_"WiFi-to-loco control will never be 'main stream' without some standardization."_

You can make the argument that since the manufacturer is not making money on either the controller or the app, the incentive is there to make that aspect open source so to drive customers to your receiver. If it ends up encouraging others to market compatible receivers, you've just created a _de facto_ standard without any input from any "official" standards organization. 



Bottom line, right now this technology is in its very nascent stages. There's still a lot of experimentation that needs to be done to figure out what works and what doesn't before we can even think about standards. It's going to take individuals going to the manufacturers and saying "wouldn't it be neat if," and the right manufacturer saying "Yeah! Let's do this," creating the products to make it happen.

Later,

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Knut, I agree with your assessment, except that if someone makes a "gadget" that is transparent to the system, one that puts what's on the rails on Wi-Fi, and someone makes another gadget that hooks to ANY decoder and connects easily to Wi-Fi, then it could be a viable product. Sure the two gadgets might be proprietary, but as long as their operation is COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT to the DCC system from rails to decoder, there's probably a good market.

Not sure that the NMRA's endorsement of DCC over Wi-Fi would make a big difference, although it could not hurt.

Greg


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

DCC over WiFi is comparable to morse telegraphy over mobile! 

The Bandwidth remains poor (~8 kbits versus 100 Mbits + ...) !

Encapsulation makes no sense - only needed for protecting legacy installations and interests of DCC lobbyists. 

As "native" WiFi technology will open new Use Case dimensions, NRMA (DCC oriented) will never jump on - much to dangerous that DCC could be elminated at the end when people will understand the needle eye and how to simplify technolgies by direct WiFi usage:

DCC:
You start with a Smartphone (WiFi) - encode your control message, use a Gateway to DCC encapsulation, transmit DCC encapsulated, use a Gateway for Decapsulation, use a DCC-Decoder to decode your control message and control you power drive ...!

"Native" WiFi: 
Smartphone encodes your control message - WiFi transmitts - Receiver decodes your message and control your power drive.

Understood the difference - just by the length of my sentence? 

Best Regards

Karl


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The exact nature of the signal being transmitted via WiFi isn't as important to the process as the ability of the receiver to translate those commands to standard DCC command packets that can be interpreted by the decoders. It could use nano-carrier-pigeons for all I care. I just want to be able to plug any generic DCC decoder into a WiFi-enabled receiver, open up an app on my phone, link to the receiver, and be off and running. The decoders are the things that need the DCC signals. Anything upstream of that can be whatever the heck it wants to be. The strengths as I see it are an infinitely-customizable user interface on the phone side of things, and compatibility with any DCC decoder on the market on the locomotive side of things. The rest--from the user's standpoint--is technical mumbo jumbo we needn't worry about. 

Later,

K


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

East Broad Top said:


> The exact nature of the signal being transmitted via WiFi isn't as important to the process as the ability of the receiver to translate those commands to standard DCC command packets that can be interpreted by the decoders. It could use nano-carrier-pigeons for all I care. I just want to be able to plug any generic DCC decoder into a WiFi-enabled receiver, open up an app on my phone, link to the receiver, and be off and running. The decoders are the things that need the DCC signals. Anything upstream of that can be whatever the heck it wants to be. The strengths as I see it are an infinitely-customizable user interface on the phone side of things, and compatibility with any DCC decoder on the market on the locomotive side of things. The rest--from the user's standpoint--is technical mumbo jumbo we needn't worry about.
> 
> Later,
> 
> K


Got you, but then I would recommend Rocrail for ZERO $ investment, why the additional WiFi effort? 

Regards

Karl


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, one thing I think you are failing to grasp here (or at least address) is that DCC was designed as a system, not a bunch of independent throttles talking to "their" locomotives. (please do not take offense, just read on)

There are a number of huge advantages to a DCC system. For example when there is a central controller (the command station), then any throttle can give a stop command to any loco or all locos.

This is huge, it's something that Lewis and company did not really realize as a fundamental architectural difference, and something they struggled to add to the Revolution hardware.

Another example is who has control of what loco? How do you "hand off" a loco from one operator to another? Can you prevent it?

It seems to me your "frame of reference" is still centered around one throttle to a "matching" loco.

Also in another completely different area, you get range issues if you insist on this kind of point to point network.

Sure, not everyone needs these capabilities, especially people who never do multiple locos, consisting, etc. (I don't need to hear you don't need this, if you don't need it, then don't use DCC).

But there are huge advantages that make it so you don't want your phone trying to talk directly to a loco,. If this is all you want, then Wi-fi and DCC are overkill for your application, keep it simple, and cheap.

I know that using DCC decoders is attractive, but building an entire DCC system into a single hand held device and NOT integrating them into a DCC system is just kind of wrong. It can be done, and I'm sure people will continue to do it a la AirWire, but the disadvantages of this type of system will continue, and a traditional system (which can be all wireless), with a central controller makes more sense. Writing code where all the controllers are peers and share the system responsibility is too complex, and really won't work.

Again, it's about a system with throttles as opposed to multiple independent throttle/loco pairs, which is not a system, and/or trying to make a peer level "system" all on portable devices.

Greg



East Broad Top said:


> The exact nature of the signal being transmitted via WiFi isn't as important to the process as the ability of the receiver to translate those commands to standard DCC command packets that can be interpreted by the decoders. It could use nano-carrier-pigeons for all I care.* I just want to be able to plug any generic DCC decoder into a WiFi-enabled receiver, open up an app on my phone, link to the receiver, and be off and running.* The decoders are the things that need the DCC signals. Anything upstream of that can be whatever the heck it wants to be. The strengths as I see it are an infinitely-customizable user interface on the phone side of things, and compatibility with any DCC decoder on the market on the locomotive side of things. The rest--from the user's standpoint--is technical mumbo jumbo we needn't worry about.
> 
> Later,
> 
> K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Karl, does RocRail work in an on-board environment without a central command station? 

Greg, no argument on DCC being designed as a "system," and is most full-functioned in that "traditional" track-powered environment. The bottom line, however, is the decoders themselves. They're the core. They're what make our trains act and sound realistic, and when people see trains moving, sounding, and looking realistic, they say "I want _my _trains to do that." QSI saw that potential when they developed their G-wire receiver, and got a whole bunch of us otherwise non-DCCers hooked on their decoders in the process. 

Different operating environments are going to have different levels of functionality, and there will undoubtedly be technical issues which need to be addressed as these models evolve. I say let them evolve even with their shortcomings, and let the user decide whether a specific environment meets their operating needs or not. I'm a big fan of choice. I like options. (That's why I run multiple platforms of R/C control.) As I see it, this is just one more option on the table. 

Later,

K


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

East Broad Top said:


> Karl, does RocRail work in an on-board environment without a central command station?
> 
> Greg, no argument on DCC being designed as a "system," and is most full-functioned in that "traditional" track-powered environment. The bottom line, however, is the decoders themselves. They're the core. They're what make our trains act and sound realistic, and when people see trains moving, sounding, and looking realistic, they say "I want _my _trains to do that." QSI saw that potential when they developed their G-wire receiver, and got a whole bunch of us otherwise non-DCCers hooked on their decoders in the process.
> 
> ...


No it doesn't (natively)! Rocrail is Central Intelligence Philosophy - therefore it is focussed on a Central Station. I have only mentioned RocRail as an easy to go convenience technology to control DCC with a Smartphone. 
But Rocrail Smartphone is "donation" software - they are asking for repetitive 10 Euro a year license cost!

The WiFi idea (in contrary) is Decentralized Intelligence, will mean, intelligence (small PC-like - as Raspberry Pi supports) is placed in the Loco!

Many other differences more - as a very important advantage - the Loco -Assignment/Occupation to the user's smartphone is managed by the WiFi network protocol TCP (natively), this is not an affair of the application software. 
Therefore Smartphone linked Locos cannot be "kidnapped" until they will have been deassigend by the owning Smartphone App before.

Regards

Karl


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Hi All

I have uploaded a movie showing Modelrailway (switch) control via WiFi radio!

As this is bidirectional communication you can let the switches acknowledge their position on all device displays in your WiFi Network simultaneoulsy.

On the PC Android OS is emulated by BlueStacks.

As soon as an additional switch module (relaisboard with 8 channels) is connected to the bus the grey softkeys will become activated and are ready to use! 
800 switches are adressable (with BackChannel Acknowledgement) in a single WiFi Network.

Switch clustering is fully supported - as shown in the movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNNYiWYidQk&feature=youtu.be

Have Fun!

Regards,

Karl


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Sorry - forgotten the link before! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNNYiWYidQk&feature=youtu.be

Regards

Karl


----------



## 93flamedstang (Nov 13, 2014)

Karl-

So are you going to keep posting videos of a product that is not available in the US yet or may never be in production or are you here to help us explorer Raspberry PI and Arduino as a potential control system for Garden Railroading?

What is your intension here and what is your contract with TrainLI? The reason I ask is because I saw the product demo at 2014 ECLSTS over a year ago. 

My opinion is that the product is no where near launching and would require to much of an investment, which would make it a risk, since it could potentially fail. Why not make it open source and provide a nitch product like pre-built receivers for customers who may not be so technically savvy? I mean are you still using NETIO for an app? How are you going to make money reselling NETIO when it is not your own to sell? I just don't think you will get this product anywhere without getting more people involved and the only way to do that is to make it open source. 

There are already many members on here who use both Arduino and Raspberry PI for various things including controlling a relay board which you can buy off of eBay for $8 just like in your video above. So if they can do this already, why would they invest in your product?

I am a fan of IP communication, so I have been following your thread since the start as well as some others. I think it is a great idea but there is obviously no traction here other than your own. 

I agree with some of "East Broad Top" comments, having a skin in an app that would put you in the drivers seat of the locomotive you are controlling would be great. It may be over the top for me, but for kids and others it could be wonderful. A lot of money could be made on this idea alone. But you cannot sell a skin, if no one has your system. 

Additionally by "East Broad Top", a receiver that would work in conjunction with existing DCC receivers would be wonderful as well, that way if I wanted to use my phone to control the loco, I could and if I wanted to use my old transmitter or dcc control station, I could. ("I just want to be able to plug any generic DCC decoder into a WiFi-enabled receiver") Something else that could be sold all you have to do is engineer the adapter board. 

Do you want to provide a shopping list for people to start investing? Or continue arguing with members on how the product will scale against other products?

Additional idea for you. You already have a working template, provide the code and for the people who cannot figure it out or would like to modify it to fit their needs, provide professional services to accommodate their projects at a fee?

Just my 2 cents, sorry if this sounds to direct. 

Thanks,
Jarret


----------



## Martan (Feb 4, 2012)

I wouldn't be so hard on Karl. I give away my code AND hardware designs and have seen scant interest if any. Are there really that many people into large scale trains that like to write code and do control systems design? I'm thinking no.


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

93flamedstang said:


> Karl-
> 
> So are you going to keep posting videos of a product that is not available in the US yet or may never be in production or are you here to help us explorer Raspberry PI and Arduino as a potential control system for Garden Railroading?
> 
> ...


 
Hi Jarret - not too direct at all - you're very welcome:

Let me answer following your sequence, please!

Actually - I am sourcing parts and systems in China, although there is no representitive in Germany available to contact and get service support. I am thinking more global - aren't we living in ONE world?

In addition, I am not aware on US- Sales agreements - whether Train-li is selling this productline actually or not. Never discussed this item in the last 12 months with the owner of Trainline (for the avoidance of any doubt - I am not the company owner - I am a friend of). 

Definitely this system has been available in European Sales Channels for the last 12 months - partly on e-bay ...! To be honest - not in the last 2 months ... , as Version 1 is totally sold out and Version 2 (fully compatible - but with much more functionality) is going to be launched next week in Dortmund: http://www.westfalenhallen.de/messen/intermodellbau/en/

With regard to open risk and commercial interest:

It was open source at the beginning - developed for my 50+ analog Locos at my home. 

Since the Raspberry Pi have come up it has been turned to a commercial product as Trainline was interested for selling it. (They had driven their own 2,4 Ghz radio control development before and have dumped it now, recognizing that WiFi will be THE worldwide open radio standard guarenteeing persistence and accessibility during decades).

By the way - it isn't Arduino based at all! In Europe Arduino is smiled at as "coffee machine programming for housewifes" (explicitly - not my opinion - at the end it is pure Sales strategy how to position your product and to convince buyers of your most professional system approach). 
In contrary it is based on Raspberry PIs master computers (which is a fully equipped PC+Linux OS!), with a Trainline PLC-Board (a proprietary Trainline Development - paid by Trainline!!!) connected by an I2C Bus underneath!

NETIO is a guarentee for openess: 
Everybody is able to look into the interface and understand the command patterns & logic! 
Have a look at the public editor http://netio.davideickhoff.de/editor to design GUI and control behavior, just give it a try. It is most powerful! So everybody can even generate his own (proprietary) interface using the commands to be read in the NETIO editor or staying with NETIO can modify / create a new NETIO GUI. I would name this openess even "Best Practice" ever exerienced / available.

In addition Trainline is launching a more Railway specific GUI soon (with detailed railway oriented GUI symbols like switches, signals etc.) - based on Android OS - however not on iOS (because of much too low market shares in the European Android focussed world). 

This Trainline GUI will be definitely proprietary (NETIO will remain available as a second interface plattform to guarentee interoperability for third party interests). 

I will stay with NETIO anyway as I am able to complete and expand my own developments - as shown in the movies- no train specific symbols are needed in my phantasy of train control - as a G-Scaler I am focussed on the train movements - rather on the display.

A "DCC Receiver" (planned for Loco onboard hookup) is already in preparation. This will eliminate the need for a central DCCpower provision - you will be able to power your tracks by simple AC current (hwatever will be available).

This "DCC - Receiver" is nothing else than a fully Trainline Control Board, which will generate itself powered DCC-signals on the H-Bridge amplifier to feed the DCC-Board with power amd DCC-signals. (In a technical expression - no encapsulation of DCC commands over WiFi).

Definitely is a "DCC-Receiver" an unnecessary luxury as you will reduce fully blown WiFi Functionality to small DCC-bandwidth (or better said bottleneck). 
But agreed - it could be useful when your loco is already fully DCC-Board wired and you will not give up your prior invested cabling works. 
Brilliant DCC-Sound in use could be another vote for this luxury as long as sound is not available navtively right now (only by SUSI-Bus extensions on the Trainline - Board - Plug & Play).

In conclusion of the said before - native Raspberry generated Sound is also in preparation - to be uploaded by WiFi and stored on it's xx GB SD-Card. 

Summarizing, the Trainline Sales Channel is worldwide - even including Australia to Hawaii. 
You can contact Meik directly, he is fluent "American". Price List is available on mail request! The import of American train equipment to Europe is no different matter - it remains a matter of confidence at the end on both sides. As said before - I have been sourcing from China over years. Quality is excellent sometimes even much better than directly sourced from any other "western civilized country" in the world (e.g. I had sourced from RadioShack in younger years ... - and I have lessons learned)

Hope, I could clarify a bit.

Best Regards


----------



## Martan (Feb 4, 2012)

See, I was trying to be nice too. "coffee machine programming for housewifes"?

Sounds like it's coming from the same people trying to convince us Wifi is a control solution, eh?

Go figure.


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Martan said:


> See, I was trying to be nice too. "coffee machine programming for housewifes"?
> 
> Sounds like it's coming from the same people trying to convince us Wifi is a control solution, eh?
> 
> Go figure.


Martan,

I am not the party telling you that WiFi controls a loco! Neither does DCC-communication control a loco!

But starting from scratch (Analog) AND having the choice between Unidirectional 8kB/s Bandwidth (proprietary) Communication and Bidirectional 54+ MB/s WiFi IEEE 802.3 xxx standardised communication I have decided for the latter.

Also I did decide, not to use the commercial license based Arduino pattform, but to hook up on the open (Freeware) GNU tools ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language) )!

Best Regards


----------



## IPTRAIN (Jun 1, 2012)

Hi,

please find attached a Youtube link, showing a H.264 Camera streaming via WiFi from the Loco to Smartphones or (Tablets).






Please notice, the Raspberry (with Raspberry Camera) is forking the streams to 3 (THREE) Clients in parallel (the third one is hidden). 

Nice evidence for the efficiency of the H.264 compressing method. Latency is fairly less half a second.

Video was taken at the German Modelrailway convention in Dortmund. http://www.westfalenhallen.de/messen/intermodellbau/en/

Have fun!

Regards Karl


----------

