I look at this another way

I look at this another way ... what can DCC do that this can't? And in return it looks like an easy to use system that just works, not mucking around with CVs or speed matching or differences between different manufacturer's decoders.

I also like the ability to take your controller and your locomotives to any layout and have everything work without any extra configuration.

With radio for communications, it also seems like it would be a lot easier to switch a layout based on this system to full loco battery power and unpowered tracks than a DCC system.

This particular system may or may not be the future, but I think that a system like this definitely is. The pioneers who brought us DCC in the first place made a huge mistake by exposing control variables instead of a clean easy to use interface for configuration.

...

Ever since I got a good look at what it takes to load images and sound files onto that controller, I am thus turned off frmo the system completely.  Its a great idea, but there's a better hardware configuration - it's done by Stranton/NWSL, AND their setup is compatible with either traditional DCC or RCC.

I'm quite amused by the "All or none' crowd who insist that by going Battery power/power onboard we then remove All power from the rails.  What RCC does is remove COMMUNICATION from the rails, the one real crux of current DCC.  Regular DC operation has proven for decades that you don't need to clean the rails like we do with DCC, so I welcome this change.  In this regard, the ability to always communicate with my decoder, even when the engine is off rails or in a "Deadspot" is very desireable.  DCC + battery power = locomotive off the track with no way to turn it off.  BAD mojo!!

At the risk of turning this

At the risk of turning this into another version of several other threads..

RailPro has one major advantage and one minor one in my opinion.

Major: It has what looks like a very nice user interface, making it simple to configure engines as needed.  Kudos on that.

Minor: Radio control sounds nice.  I call it a minor advantage because 1) it is being done with DCC as well and 2) the end user doesn't really care how it works, as long as it works.  A simple reliable through the rails system (theoretical only at this point) would be just as good as a radio system - IF it worked as reliably.  And now that I think about it, yes, it looks like adding a battery backup would be fairly simple with the RailPro system - a small one to deal with minor interruptions, or a full time battery powered system.

The big negative with RailPro is the fact that the whole system is proprietary.  It does not look like they will be allowing other companies (especially those with strong market support and good reputations for customer service and quality, like Digitrax or TSC) to manufacture receivers.  Bummer - if I don't like the RailPro receivers, I'm out of luck.

Note that the two advantages I mentioned have nothing to do with the control protocol, and could in theory be done with equal success using DCC.  On the other hand, the negative is a direct result of NOT being DCC or DCC compatible, or even DCC-like.  I'll make this commitment here - if RailPro would support full DCC operation as well as (or instead of) its own system, I would buy it at least to try it.  It looks like a nice system, but I am not interested in a proprietary and non-standard control system.  If it could interface with a LocoNet and work as well and as easily as things like JMRI, I would buy it gladly.  In other words, if I could use it without a complete re-investment, I would.

Given their stance so far, I seriously doubt that will happen, but the market is out there for somebody.

I think that's the main sticking point

Ken, Benny and others have pointed out the proprietary nature of this product as well as the fact if you want to update certain things, you HAVE to go through them to get it done, you can't do it yourself.  I believe this is a betamax type product.  Sure, it might be a better system, but by closing it off to all current standards and forcing users to send information to them to update, I think its doomed to failure and that is unfortunate.

Keep in mind also that that

If Railpro stays proprietary, i think they will fail.

If the company is still in business in 5 years, I'll look at the system.  I think they will be out of business within 12 months, then what do you do if you have their system?  It will be like those folks who had the old analog command control systems that were all proprietary, and would not communicate with the competitors system.  Where did those systems go when dcc came out?

The Levels of Proprietary...

See, I'm not of the attitude that Proprietary itself is bad.  I'm not against persay something proprietary like Windows or MS Office.  I like these products.  But what Ring has done here is really kind of like the iPhone battery.  

But now imagine that the ONLY apps you can use on your iPhone are those made by Apple.  And if you make an app, to get it on your phone, you have to Give it to Apple and then Apple has the rights to distribute it as THEY please.  THAT is where I object, and heavily.

This means the image files are not in .jpg format, and further I cannot upload computer files into the file space/database on the controller.  I cannot manage my personal files in that space.  I cannot use my controller at a train show to look up what locomotives I already have, both with and without decoders [yes, I'm looking Further for what the ultimate model railroad database app could do!!]

This here was the knife through my heart:

That's simply Too much for me to stomach. The level to which Ring wants me to rely on them for their services is simply overbearing. And honestly, in this day and age, it's uncalled for. The simple fact that the controller does not use standard file types where standard file types are appropriate, that I cannot upload them myself, that they did not bundle a file converter with the unit so I can do it myself on my PC, it's all quite simply unsettling.

Like I said in the title, there's levels of proprietary.  This level, well...I seem to recall MTH trying to be something like this; "You can only access advanced features with our DCS system, so you have to buy our DCS system"  What did we the users say?  "FINE - we'll GUT OUT your electronics and put in OUR OWN!!"  And I seem to remember MTH's latest offerings are coming around to see the light that model railroaders are NOT going to buy their DCS system, even if it does handle scale speed in a very nifty manner, so MTH is now offering more DCC-friendly options.

Railpro Fail?

"It will be like those folks who had the old analog command control systems that were all proprietary, and would not communicate with the competitors system.  Where did those systems go when dcc came out?   I think they will be out of business within 12 months"

In the early days of DCC,  computer technology was changing constantly.  It took a while for DCC to become technically standardized AND for the model railroad world to embrace the concept so its not surprising the early analog systems failed.  Things are VERY different today however, people are much more computer experienced and want things to operate "fast and simple".

The world of model railroading is a niche industry primarily, I see a lot of small companies that have been producing some really great products for years....and their STILL in business.  Ring Engineering is a small company, and in todays world this means great customer service and technical support.

Almost all the negative comments I read on this forum are from established DCC users who are drawn to Railpro because they like the throttle interface but are upset it cant be incorporated into their DCC system.  I feel Railpro's concept will change the DCC throttle design and ALL the DCC systems on the market will soon follow suit with new throttles of their own.  I dont think Railpro was brought to market to draw current users away from DCC.   Its simply a new concept in direct train control

I think Railpro will survive and flourish.  Its a breath of fresh air in the stale world of DCC.

The failure of proprietary systems

I think you're narrowly missing the point, James.  While DCC certainly had the advantage of coming along at the right time for the technology, the biggest advantage it had (and still has) is an open standard.  As IBM did with it's PC, the NMRA developed standards that anybody could work with.  Apple made up its own standards, and the Mac has had a very small market share ever since.  I submit that what doomed all of the old command control systems, and what will probably doom RailPro, is a proprietary standard that nobody else is allowed to use or make parts for.  Unlike the personal computer market, the model railroad control system market is not large enough to support two competing platforms.  Heck, the computer market is hardly large enough - until Apple started making cute and expensive techno-bling, they were a little second rate company playing David to the PC/Microsoft Goliath.

RailPro is very clearly in direct competition with DCC.  The web site compares the two systems head to head, and the advertising hype is pretty consistently "look what we can do that DCC can't."  As such, I submit that it was brought to market expressly to draw customers (current or future) away from DCC.  As a new concept, it may well influence future DCC designs, and I would be happy to see that happen.  What I do not see happening is the RailPro system, in its current state, surviving as a viable alternative to DCC.  They will either have to change their market and service philosophy, or go the way of Astrak, CT-16, and all those other cool oddities of years past.

Oh, and just because a company is small does not automatically mean they will have great service and support.  In fact, the whole loco picture thing makes me think that they have put customers' needs and ease of use decidedly second to keeping a very close control over how and where the system is implemented.

But...

If all the other manufacturers change their throttle interface, that means they will all be compatible with the current DCC standards.  How many people are going to go out and buy Railpro that is stand alone and supported only by Railpro when other DCC manufacturers have a standard compatible throttle and a long line of users already?  Part of the decision for a lot of people purchasing a DCC system is compatibility with club operations and such.  Railpro is more expensive on top of it all.

If you read much of the comments, many of us like the way Railpro has done a lot of things, but their business model of requiring users to send them stuff to update their own throttles for a fee, complete incompatibility with standard DCC and being a new company without a basis of trust like current companies like Digitrax, NCE, TCS and Lenz have add up to a no go for a LOT of people.  In order to be sustainable in the market, you need to sell a lot of products and by alienating a large chunk of your potential market based on these factors, you are already behind the 8 ball.  I hope, like any MR manufacturer, that they not only survive but thrive, but I think they are really going to have to do a self-examination and learn quickly how the market will deal with their product in the long term.

Another Apple

Proprietary to the max.  Not for me.  Not now, not ever!

Open development works, IMO.  I think that's been proven.  A show of hands, how many MRH users ONLY have an Apple Computer?  BTW, my first computer was an Apple.

I think Ring can expect a similar level of participation is the US.

As for the rest of the world, the system does not meet RF standards anywhere but the USA, or so I heard.

Regardless of violating any regulations, how would one even know if other APPROVED devices will cause interferance with a device that may not conform to your specific locales RF standards?  Maybe a non-issue, maybe not?

I think I'll Ring-off on this one. [wink]

Apples to Apples

Well... I think Apple Computer is still around...and doing better than ever!  Granted they have reached out to Microsoft and gave their product  the ability to be fused in with Apple which is what could happen with DCC.

My observation is simply this:  Model Railroaders:" The Next Generation" ...will they tolerate DCC in its current state or will Railpro be a better choice?   If the DCC manufactures change their DCC to a command station to wireless throttle design similar to Railpro, than Railpro is finished.    My guess is DCC will work its side of the street and DRC the other....just like Apple and Microsoft.

Really? Apple again?

Really? Apple again? Can't we just leave them out of a model railroad discussion? If you're going to use them as a comparison, lets do this quickly and accurately, and ignore personal opinions.

By 2012, Apple will be the number one PC vendor in the world, probably the number one mobile computer vendor, is the number one portable music player, and was the number one handset maker as well ( PC MAGAZINE). I think a lot of folks would like a piece that very small market share. When was, exactly, the last time IBM made and sold a PC? 6 years ago?

Apple - their market capitalization also far exceeds anyone else in their area, or for that matter the market. By all measurements, other than personal opinion, the company is wildly successful and popular.

Folks were impressed with Bernie's trailer video last week - Great stuff. That video was fully produced on an Apple computer, using Apple software. With the extra inital costs, come the ability to do some things you just can't do as easily on other systems - or want to.

So what does any of this have to do with RailPro and model railroading? Not a bloody thing, other than it would appear that some folks are applying similar biases against a new company in the hobby who's doing things a bit differently. 

I'm not running out to buy a system tomorrow, but from the looks of their interface (and thanks to Jeff for a nice run through, and not the first I've seen that's been open minded and positive) RailPro has an idea where the future lies.

I was stunned when I came back into the hobby in 2008, and the best visual interface for DCC was no better than a Ti-35 (that's a calculator, in case folks are not sure.) Really? Almost a decade into the 21st Century, and this is the best the manufacturers can do?

I don't know if the RailPro system will develop to be the best, but I do know that something based on these principles will be.

I'm certainly not going to dismiss their efforts though, simply because I'm unwilling to change, or unwilling to pay for what maybe a better system that allows me to do more (and therefore, ultimately worth the investment.) Hell, I use Sergent couplers!

The Next Generration

I recall some discussions lately where newer modelers and older heads were discussing which control system to choose, and RailPro came up.  Lack of compatibility with DCC was a major concern, and nobody in our admittedly small groups expressed any interest in RailPro due to this issue.  It has features that looked interesting to many, but incompatibility killed any potential sales.

Some people like to be early adopters.  In a market as small as model railroading, depending on that relative few to establish a product may not be enough with something as expensive as a control system.  I started in command control with Dynatrol back in the 80s, followed by CVP Products RailCommand, but there weren't too many other users around at first.  Establishment of the DCC standards really saw the market take off since there now was a "safe" choice.  When it came time to build my current layout I went with DCC, figuring that if my chosen manufacturer disappeared I may be stuck with some proprietary items like throttles, but I won't have to replace everything else, at least not the decoders.  I'm running a fair sized layout and all that replacement cost adds up.

When the new guys look for advice, they often ask experienced modelers.  Given our experiences with proprietary systems, we may not be likely to advise the purchase of one, regardless of how good it might seem.  Newbies also frequently join clubs so they can gain experience and run their stuff.  Clubs tend to make safe choices also, so I'd imagine most will stay with DCC instead of switching to RailPro.  If the newcomer wants to run at the club, that limits his options.

I'm not anti-RailPro per se.  I just see some big challenges facing them.

Interfaces

Agreed.  If something like the RailPro interface was offered with DCC compatibility I think there's a real opportunity for some market penetration.  

Really? Scarpia again?

Well, no it seems like you can't leave Apple out seeing as you've perpetuated the discussion.  In any event I'm not letting you dictate what I can and can not use as an example, as if!  As for opinions, here's a direct quote from the PC Magazine Article you refer to.

Sounds like an opinion to me, I mean that's what a prediction is, someone's opinion, not.

No question about it though, Apple is here to stay.  Their gadget technology is the most popular with those that need the gadgets in their lives.

I think the valid point in the comparison is that Ring is doing the same thing Apple did, but in a world where people are waking up to the benefits of open source and open development.  I think it's going to hurt Ring's entry into the command control market, but that's just another opinion.

In any event, this isn't about whether your precious Apple is better than a PC.  Get over it!

Buttons are better

Well, the European DCC manufactures have had touch screens and adaptive guis for a while, but they are mostly part of their command stations.  You are only seeing the North American approach here.  To be honest, though, I don't really want the touch screen, myself; it's just extra cost which doesn't make the trains run any better, and you need to look at the screen to do anything with it, which will distract you from watching your train.  Buttons are better, in my opinion.

Touch Screen's

I have some difficulty with touch screens because my fingers are large.  Even the buttons on my phone are too small, too close together.  I miss my shoe box sized cell phone for that, big buttons!

I don't have a problem with screens for displaying data, but the input is best in button form, IMO.

It depends

Railpro like Apple, DCC like the IBM PC?

That depends - and it's also quickly becoming a dated argument. Predictions are Apple will sell more internet-connected devices in 2012 than the entire PC market by all vendors. Predictions also are by 2015 the PC market will clearly be second fiddle to tablets and smartphones - and that iOs devices will be king, with Microsoft a fading also-ran.

What this analogy shows is that eventually, the best user interface wins. I have owned both Android and Apple iOS devices and the iOS user interface is clearly superior in most regards. It just works, and works very well. Android, on the other hand, can lead to much head scratching sometimes when trying to do some things.

Applying that to RailPro - the touch screen part doesn't really matter - the part that does matter is the totally visual tap-and-go nature of the interface. Need to link two speed-matched locos into a consist? Fine, tap the link button, tap the two locos, and go. The system figures out how to adjust the two locos so they run completely synchronized like they should.

RailPro has shown we should let computers do what computers do best - compute values - and all we should have to do is tell the throttle our desire - to link two locos - and let it figure out the details for us.

RailPro's approach is clearly the future. They have a big throttle knob - good - if they also had a direction toggle, I could run trains without looking at the handheld - and then only look at it when doing something more involved like consisting.

Convert to RailPro?

Would I convert to RailPro? That's the beauty of the system - you don't need to convert - you can evolve.

RailPro runs on top of any DCC system you have now - we ran it on my Siskiyou Line layout (demo video coming soon in MRH Theater).

I could get a loco set, put in RailPro decoders, get a throttle handheld, and be off and running. I could add more locos to the system over time - evolving to ever more RailPro bit-by-bit.

The decoders cost about the same as a good sound decoder - and the RailPro decoders include sound.

RailPro consisting is amazingly easy - the system does the speed matching for you.

I've been giving this some serious consideration - I would not rule out the possibility of RailPro on the Siskiyou Line.

Track Voltage for "Larger Scales"

Jeff, you said in your review "For larger scales [in context, larger than HO], it would be best to measure the track voltage."

Along with many many others, you are mis-informed regarding track voltages for "larger scales" (larger than HO). AFIK all contemporary S scale (not S high rail) and O scale (2-rail, not O gauge) motors are 12 volt DC. Thus an HO track voltage will work for those scales. What is important it the current capacity of the boosters, as some O scale locos can draw significant current even if equipped with some of the newer can motors.

Regards,

Rod Miller

Rail Pro

I think Rail Pro has a very good thing going.  I've been using DCC since the 80's, starting with a Keller System. And its true, it has not changed much in the past thirty years. Especially when you spent a lot of time controlling and trying to figure out which CV to adjust. With Rail Pro, it brings you to the 21st Century technology. Very user friendly, quick and the touch screen is the way to go. Just because we are accustom to do things one way it does not mean that the newer way is a bad thing. I think that they are a great pioneer in doing something new in the way we will control our train in the future.

That's the frustrating part, Joe

Railpro has some excellent features that are desired by a lot of people.  I just spent half an hour speed matching two locos the other day.  To have the system do it for me would be fantastic.  But I just can't get past the need to send my updates to Ring, and get charged for it to boot, to customize my own system.  However, the thing that ends it for me is that at this point in time, it doesn't even work in my scale (N).  As I said, I hope they succeed and force other manufacturers to do a re-think on their user interfaces, but its tough to jump in at this point and invest so much in a brand new company not knowing if they will be around in 5 years to support the product.

I agree with Joe on RailPro

I think RailPro brings some fresh blood to model railroading.. I am also seriously considering purchasing a handheld and a couple of loco modules. I'll just use my Digitrax Super Chief for power. I believe to get new people in the hobby we will need all the "bell and whistles" we can get. Some thing like this is the future of model railroading. It"s about time to get rid of CV's in this hobby and truly have some fun. CV's are bearable but there has to be an alternative. It's not perfect but it's on the right track. RailPro that is. The ability to consist like that is a major plus and speedmatch also. I have a lot invested in DCC and do like it, but I believe Ring Engineering's RailPro is a hint of the future of model railroad control. Maybe someone else will bring this type of technology and DCC full circle. It is time for us to move to the 21st century.If they can add to the RailPro system I believe it will only help, Maybe including a crossover for DCC users..  Let's see what happens.

   Patrick Waltz