I stumbled across this thread while searching for something entirely different. As a contributor to the MRH thread in question, I found this whole discussion rather amusing. First off, while I 100% stand behind my well-deserved criticisms of RP in the thread in question, most of the posters in the thread, myself included, do not represent MRH itself. MRH is quite open to all sorts of things, and as a magazine don't seem critical of RP at all.
Joe's column was interesting in his musings about power on board. I think part of the problem stems from the confusion between direct radio using track power, dead rail, and whatever lies in the middle. Joe was looking for a wireless DCC solution, which IMO is misguided, as DCC as a protocol isn't well suited to direct radio applications, and taking a DCC system output, reading it, transmitting that wirelessly, and then turning it back into DCC seems like an epic kludge. That being said, requiring compatibility with existing DCC decoders on the locomotive end like CVP's AirWire does is perfectly reasonable, and not something that RP does, making RP more proprietary than the Tam Valley system. Using existing DCC decoders doesn't really make the system any more complex like the Tam Valley system, it simply moves the radio receiver and command station onboard the locomotive.
The constant confusion between direct radio and dead rail continually muddles up discussions, as I have never seen a compelling direct radio system that can do anywhere close to what DCC can do at anywhere close to the price of DCC, whereas dead rail for outdoor applications makes perfect sense in that the huge advantage of not having to clean track outdoors may be a worthwhile trade-off for otherwise losing some of the functionality that DCC offers. That being said, when dealing with large-scale outdoor locomotives, the best approach is to offer a receiver that outputs a DCC signal, so that you can use any DCC sound decoder that you want, and you still benefit from the advantages of the DCC standard, even if the radio transmitter and receiver are proprietary.
Part of the discussion in the thread was whether the NMRA should make a direct radio standard, and I'm sort of torn on the matter. I believe there is a way to use LCC for a direct radio application, but I'm not sure that it's really necessary. As it stands today, if I have a battery powered locomotive in the garden with CVP Airwire, and you have one with RP, they can peacefully co-exist.
Given that RailPro has an equal or better feature set to DCC, is already wireless and is no more proprietary than a DCC system in itself and no more proprietary than the wireless transmitters and receivers to make wireless DCC happen it is just anti RailPro sentiment or is it not allowed to upset the DCC fanboys that might pay for the non free products?
This is an inaccurate assessment of DCC. The Tam Valley wireless DCC system, while IMO not a good use of the DCC protocol, allows for the use of any NMRA-compliant DCC decoder in the locomotive, making it substantially less proprietary than having a proprietary non-DCC receiver like RP. Further, DCC systems are standards-based in that if Digitrax goes out of business, I can get a DCC system from one of more than a dozen different manufacturers, or even make one myself out of an Arduino, and all my locomotives will continue to work just fine. To go even further, while the throttle networks are semi-proprietary from one DCC manufacturer to another, JMRI can send commands via LocoNet or Serial to DCC command stations, opening up an open protocol for connecting other throttles through WiThrottle.
My one friend bought a TCS wi throttle to use at the club layout, but because that system and the NCE system don’t talk to each other regarding consists he won’t be able to use his throttle during operations. Because consists made by the NCE don’t transfer to TCS. So the person running the yard and building trains making consists can’t ‘hand it off’ to him using his new throttle because the lead engine doesn’t respond. Lol
That is just plain wrong. You select the lead unit in an NCE consist on the TCS throttle and you have acquired that end of the consist. When used with NCE consists, the TCS throttles have similar functionality to the NCE knobby throttles, plus turnout controls and the ability to make in-throttle consists, including the ability to consist two NCE consists. I'm no fan of NCE, but the functionality that the NCE/TCS combo offers through JMRI is pretty darn cool.
Imagine trying to explain the iPhone to someone who only knows a rotary phone.
I've met a number of people who are all excited about RP. When I actually present them with the stuff I do with DCC.... yeah RP can't do any of it. The future for indoor model railroads is modern DCC with RailCom, Wi-Fi, and multi-bus support. Outdoor dead rail is a small niche, as evidenced by the relatively small number of systems for such applications.
