Ring

The bulk of the crowd is all beside themselves because Rail Pro won't work with their two decade old DCC technology. The one somewhat valid point they like to make is the fact that Rail Pro is proprietary and should Ring Engineering go away then Rail Pro users will be left in the lurch. A risk worth taking in my mind to have a 21st century control system.

...

Wes, go back 20 years and you would see the same arguments now used against Railpro to be nearly identical to the arguments used back then against DCC.

That being said, I dare say Railpro is what DCC 2.0 should look like, even if that next control system is not Railpro.  Thier patents probably run out in 25 years, so we'll see DCC 2.0 become the control standard in 25 years.  Until then, we have Railpro.

Not so ...

The DCC vendors may be a little slow to innovate, but they're seeing the handwriting on the wall.

Take note of ESU's new smartphone throttle add-on. It allows an Android device to be used as a DCC throttle, complete with an add-on big knob.

Then we have SoundTraxx's new intelligent consisting ... cut in or out of the consist with a single wave of a magnetic wand.

And I think this is only the beginning. Never underestimate the ingenuity of the current vendors - they  are starting to see the need to move into the 21st century, and it's going to come ever faster in the next few years as the ideas keep coming.

Ring will need to keep innovating as well or the DCC vendors will eventually pass them up.

Innovation

Joe, very true and the same goes for any company in pretty much any field.

Ring has demonstrated no lack of drive to innovate and upgrade, thankfully.  The original product was obviously very innovative, but they've continued to improve on it since its release.  Last year they released the second generation of the hardware (modules, controller, power supply), which was great.  The new modules are much smaller, larger capacity, more robust, etc.  They've pushed out numerous software updates for all their products to enable new features, improve existing functionalities, etc.  And there are some things coming from Ring on the horizon that will certainly make people happy.

And I agree with you Wes....there isn't any reason (besides cost) that heavy DCC users couldn't get Railpro and use it on their layout.  Throw some modules in the locomotives you would typically consist and enjoy!  Leave the other locos DCC and continue to use them as is.  You don't necessarily need to have all or nothing one way or the other.

-Kevin

RailPro is neat

K-Pack: Railpro qustion

Kevin:

When I first read this I got excited, but I'm not sure I understood it correctly:

"Throw some modules in the locomotives you would typically consist and enjoy!  Leave the other locos DCC and continue to use them as is.  You don't necessarily need to have all or nothing one way or the other".

In a consist, can I have a DCC loco as lead, then a Railpro loco?  OR, an all DCC consist as one train, followed by an all Railpro consist as a separate train?  Mixing the two types in one train would be great!  Am I dreaming?

Thanks.

Don

just some thoughts

Hi,

Thinking out aloud:

Pros: after visiting their website

Easy consisting

Speed matching in consist : I just loved that, has to be the best ever. All those hours spent speed matching.

Portability : very good can use on different layouts and runs on existing DCC layouts ( could up grade on my own layout )  Rock up to some ones DCC layout with hand piece and loco's and you are away

Cons

Not a free system like DCC one proprietor only with copyright. ( I keep thinking beta vs vhs )

If made open source with rules then it would really take of with innovation and sales

Can decoders have backup batterys installed ie keep alive.

cost : I have 50 loco's on DCC it would be a big cost to cross over.

Even if I did it slowly running two systems has its issues ie consisting

Need smaller decoders for those small loco's

How does affect signalling systems on DCC layouts, any auto reversing issues on dcc layouts.

If starting over would have to consider this. Like everything else, technology moves fast, think digital cameras.

rgds

Tom

The answer is No... (at this time)

Dear Don,

No, or at least, not unless you want to have
- a Railpro Throttle in one hand
- a DCC throttle in the other

and run the 2x physically-coupled locos as if they were being run by two seperate crew
(think "double headed steam loco style" with no MU capability)

Yes:
- First consist, all Railpro locos, controlled by a Railpro handset/throttle
- second consist, all DCC locos, controlled by a DCC handset/throttle

Hear that "SMACK!" sound?
That's your dream running straight into the end-of-track bumper which is lack-of-backwards/cross-compatibility
(Reccomend a quick whip thru the past year-or-so worth of posts, using the MRH search function.
This issue has been well and thoroughly discussed).

In short, NO, you cannot at this time:
- couple a mixed-consist of Railpro and DCC-controlled locos
- and have the entire consist "move as one" under the command of a single common handset/throttle

Sorry....

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

RailPro vs. DCC, again....

There's some validity, and not just the cost...

As far as I have been able to tell, there is absolutely no technical reason for this lack of backward compatibility.  It could have been done, and it should have been done.  DCC is and always has been (at least in some limited sense) backward compatible. Even if it's better in theory than in practice, it's a feature which helped a lot of people decide to make the switch.  If RailPro was at least able to run a DCC engine from the same control, I would be a lot more interested in it.

The technology is neat, but the decision to completely abandon DCC (and also to "diss" it in their marketing hype) leaves me feeling a little frustrated.  I guess I'm not the kind of person they want using their system.

Compatibility

Call me back when the "Rail-Pro" system is open source, where multiple manufacturers produce it, and its fully compatible with DCC.

Until then, not real interested.

I still haven't seen any major benefit other than an easier interface and I'm sure a similar DCC interface could be built (and eventually will be built).  I don't consist locomotives so easier consisting and speed matching isn't a big draw.

Not Knocking RailPro, Just not for me...

Don't be offended because others made a different decision.  Try to remember that this is a hobby and most of the time and money spent is hard won.

As I said in another thread, if the cost and time of conversion only buys an incremental improvement, I'll be happy to enjoy my free time using what I already have.  

I'm not anxious to have two different throttle systems running different engines just so I can save a few minutes on speed matching.  And while seeing a photo of my locomotive on the throttle is pretty, it doesn't do anything to improve my operations.

I'm quite glad that Railpro is pushing the boundaries and I'm also glad that you enjoy your equipment.  It's also great that the guys that still run DC only are enjoying their hobby.

DCC was a gigantic improvement because it removed the need for physical blocks and enabled speed matching.  This was a large improvement over DC for me.  Large enough for me to change.

When another large improvement comes along, I'll consider change again.  Until then, we can all be happy to enjoy whatever system we have selected.  That's what a hobby is about.

gs

The only experience I have had with Rail Pro is........

......good.  I was invited by a forum member who uses Rail Pro to visit their club layout, and when I arrived he was happily running his RDC around on their DCC (Digitrax, I think) club layout using his wireless hand controller.  It all seemed to work fine together and I was impressed by the simplicity of the controller.  

When his RDC did not appear for a while we went around the back and found it had plowed into the back of a set of cars left on the main!!  LOL.  Some operating problems cannot be solved by ANY control system.

Peter

Re: Plowing into parked cars

That is where a tiny on-board video camera sending the cab view to your smart phone or other controller with a nice-sized screen would come in handy!  

Randy 

I've had 'command control' for a long time

I built a CTC16 from kits and the articles in MR back when I was in college in the 80's.  I knew when those articles first appeared that this was the wave of the future.  I graduated to CVP's Rail Command in the early 90's, because it was compatible with what I had.  Unfortunately, Rail Command became the Betamax of the command control world.  I held out for quite some time, but eventually, when components started to fail, I switched to DCC.  Having gone through that switch, I'd be VERY wary of switching to RailPro.

As others have said, when it becomes open source, and others can make components to support it, MAYBE I could see switching.  But until then, I'll stick with what I've got, and wait for the improvements to come to DCC.

Just my 2 cents

Kerry

I have looked at their system

I have looked at their system and I like sound decoders. I also like them to have the proper sound or something close very close to it. For example there are differences in the sound of an EMD 567 in the various issues through D, Alco 244, 539, 251,FMs and Baldwins. Not to mention all the steam issues. The sound files they have are right now very small for the models I run, meaning in many instances it is not offered. Even if I were to want to convert all of the existing locos some of which I am converting from dc to dcc I could not replicate the sounds that I presently enjoy. Many of the locos on the market already come with decoders installed at a very reasonable price, some have very good sound decoders that only need to be programmed.

Right now the timing is not right for me to want to change systems. Once they become more wide spread I might think of it. I also not only think of vhs and beta max, but also the dc wireless controls that used to be available, the control master power packs from MRC just to name a few. The dropping of those big power packs and the walk around that came with them pushed me towards dcc as did the sound units. My joining of a club sealed the deal.

DCC is as good as it is going to get

That said, would you buy a new car that still had a points and condenser distributor? Sure they ran pretty good, but manufacturers were not satisfied with just that. They brought out a completely new system that was computer controlled that produced more horsepower with less fuel. The buying public at that time were very wary, and I'm sure that people did not buy new cars those first few years. The auto industry has continued to evolve technically ever since.

DCC is still in the "points and condenser" era and is as good as is going to get and manufactures are satisfied to produce this product as long as people were buying it. Then something like RailPro comes along, blows all these old ideas out of the water. DCC manufacturers need to step up to the plate or they are going be passed by these new innovations in model railroad control systems.

Mel

Poor analogy

In my opinion, a better automotive analogy would be to imagine the car manufacturers coming out with a new type of car which could not be driven in the same manner as a standard car, could not be refueled in common gas stations, and possibly might not even be usable on the same roads, at least when normal cars are on those roads.

In fact, to some extent that has happened with both hydrogen and electric cars, and neither one has been able to get much of a foothold in the mainstream market.

In contrast, the typical driver doesn't know or care how the engine works in their car.  From the operator's point of view, a '57 Chevy and an '07 Chevy are pretty much the same.  Turn the key, release the parking brake, push down on the pedal on the right, turn the big wheel in front of you to steer, put gasoline in it to keep it going.  Modern cars are more comfortable, more reliable, safer, and more efficient, but not fundamentally different from the driver's point of view.

I don't give a rat's hind end what the communication protocol is, or even the transmission medium, for my model railroad.  What I care about is knowing that when I want to buy another locomotive, I'll be able to use it on my layout.  Tomorrow, next month, next year, ten years in the future.  I don't want to be told that I have to scrap everything I already have, or only use one at a time (I am not physically able to run two throttles simultaneously, even if the systems could theoretically be used simultaneously), or that I am entirely dependent on one company to provide all of my control components.

When you consider that the two systems do the same thing from the end user's point of view, and the only real difference is the user interface, the decision between the two is really an esthetic one.  It reminds me more of the Ford vs. Chevy debate than anything.  They are different, but neither one is fundamentally better or worse.  I have reasons for preferring DCC, and others have equally valid reasons for preferring RailPro.  I just wish that, since they are so similar, that they would have been made compatible.  That simple step would completely eliminate the debate, and would likely double RailPro's market share.  If they don't, they'll be left behind when (not if) the new versions of DCC interfaces come out.

You said it!

Ken Rickman's comments and astute analogy really says it all in my view.

Bob Bochenek

Consisting

You are missing Ring's key differentiator

Not entirely accurate. Automated consisting/speed matching, full two way communications, and 1024 speed steps are just a few of the differences that have nothing to do with the UI.

Fully leveraged duplex communication is the key technology in RailPro, not the interface. DCC doesn't do duplex the way Ring does. Correct me if I am wrong, other than to a limited degree in Digitrax transponding, current DCC offerings don't do duplex communication at all. Had DCC compatibility been built into the RailPro controller it would be to the market nothing more than an overpriced throttle. If your DCC system cannot communicate back to the controller than why bother having a RailPro controller.

It makes perfect sense to me why Ring didn't worry about DCC compatibility. How many overpriced throttles would they have sold? 

A few things

I'm not really into analogies, so I'll just try to answer a few of the points and questions brought up earlier.

@Donald - the Prof answered your questions very well.  Just to reiterate, you cannot consist a Railpro locomotive with a DCC loco.  You can run separate Railpro and DCC trains on the same layout, at the same time all you want.  But Railpro does not control DCC locos and vise versa.

@Ken - I like what you said about people having valid reasons to prefer either control protocol.  I agree with that.  I think DCC is great and there are plenty of modelers who prefer it over anything else.  There's nothing wrong with that.  I happen to be one that prefers Railpro for many reasons.  I did both DCC and Railpro for a while, then found myself using my DCC locos less and less until they just sat in their boxes.  Eventually I switched them all over and have enjoyed using them again.  DCC was good, but it just wasn't something I enjoyed using.  Different strokes for different folks as they say.

@Alan - You took the words out of my mouth.  Could Ring have made Railpro backwards compatible with DCC?  Maybe, but as you pointed out, DCC doesn't do duplex communication except in very limited applications (unless I'm missing something), and it certainly doesn't do it the way Railpro does.  Two of the main reasons that Ring came up with the whole Railpro system was to take the command out of the rails, and the eliminate working with CVs.  To make it backwards compatible with DCC you'd be removing most of what makes Railpro what it is and turning it back into a very expensive DCC controller.  Like I said, you took the words right out of my mouth.

I'm not someone who enjoys getting into the control system shouting match, so I tread lightly when it comes to commenting on this whole topic.  I'm very much happy with the choice I've made, and I'm glad to see that others enjoy their control systems, whatever they may be.

-Kevin

Technical vs. functional differences

You're technically correct, Alan, but I think that you're missing the point.  I don't care about those things when I pick up a throttle.  I want the engine to run smoothly, and I want it to work with another engine if I put it in a consist.  How it does that doesn't matter one bit to me.  If somebody makes a DCC system which does the same thing, then I don't see how RailPro would offer any advantage.

To go back to the automotive analogy, I own a Subaru and a Scion (Toyota).  I would be surprised if there's so much as a nut or bolt which they share, and the basic designs are very different.  But from my wife's point of view, they are functionally identical - they have four doors and they go from point A to point B reliably and with the same controls.

I very respectfully disagree.  It would be a standalone system with all the advanced features with it already has, and simultaneously be capable of operating "legacy" DCC engines from the same throttle.  The advanced functions would not be available for those engines, but as with a DC engine on DCC, it would still function in some useful if limited way.

I do not deny that the features are nice.  What I dislike is that I am forced to chose.  It's like saying that, should I chose to park a Subaru in my garage, I have to commit to buying nothing but Subarus from now on.  I like the car a lot, but I don't think it's the only brand I'll ever own.

"It disturbs me that DCC users knock a competitive product."

      I don't see DCC users knocking the product, I just see most saying they don't need it because their DCC works fine?  I see more newbies knocking DCC even though they have apparently never used it?  Running toy trains is not really a high tech problem, they run just fine with low tech controls so most experienced folks just don't want to spend money changing something that still works fine. In a decade when our current DCC setups are getting worn out then whatever is proved and lower priced will be the thing to buy. Meanwhile  I'm not gonna spend any time worrying about if it's Ring, Stanton,or something else  I've not even heard of yet :> ) ........DaveB

"Compatibility mode" = Ginger dances round Fred

Dear Alan,

It would not be the first time in model RR tech history, (or wider "tech history" for that matter),
where a "standalone system with improved capabilities":

- is allowed to sing-and-dance it's features off when operated within it's "as designed" limited-range all-units-with-enhanced-capability eco-system

- but knows how to "dance around" the situation when forced into "compatiblility mode" to play fair in-team with "lesser spec" systems/units.

In the case of "intelligent consisting", my understanding is:
- one of the RP locos is nominated as the "master"
- each of the trailing RP locos knows they are a "slave"
- and the "slaves" match their speed in realtime, (adjusting many times a sec)
based on whether they detect that they are "shoving", or "begin dragged by", the "Master" unit

IE "Master" sets the pace, everyone else does whatever they need to to match

Now, Leaving aside the airgap which is "RP> DCC"

(needs a RP Radio> DCC Track adaptor,
kind of the inverse of the TVD "DRS-1" or S-cab "RAPA" ),

assuming a mixed-consist of RP and DCC locos could be commanded by a single RP handset,
(which the RP system and locos could presumably know via the addresses which have been included in the consist... "Oops, 4-digit number, must be a dumb DCC loco in the consist... hey RP-locos, we got a dumb master to follow this time...")

the RP locos would have to work on the principle that:
- they can't "communicate" directly with the "dumb" DCC locos

- so they (the RP locos) need to treat the "dumb" (DCC) loco as the pace-setter/"master"

(which mechanically they are, a DCC loco will blindly/stubbornly stomp down the track at the set speed-step,
irrespective of whether there is a RP-loco "dragging on behind" the drawbar or not... ),

- and they (the RP locos) talk between themselves to "match to the Master's speed"
(this assumes the RP "speed-matching" capability uses the RP locos own motor/BEMF system as the primary "am I being pulled-along, or am I shoving" sense input...) 

As an oddball analogy,
- it's often been said that "Ginger could do everything Fred could, only backwards and in heels".

IE A good dancer, whether in the externally-assessed aesthetic "lead" or "partner" role,
can "dance around" an unequally-skilled partner, and make the mis-matched ensemble "still look good". 
(look for examples of this in "So, you think you can dance" TV shows).

In our case, when presented with a "compatibility mode" situation,
the RP locos need to be able to utilise their "enhanced comms abilities"
(which the end-user has no knowledge, concept, or control of)
to "dance around" the "lesser" unit(s)...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr