@RCMan I guess the best system then would be Ethernet/wifi based. Shields are easy to buy and simple to configure. I was thinking that what someone should try and do, and this would require updating JMRI too, but use UPnP, this way JMRI can auto detect the base stations and update them together. It would save having to hardcode IP addresses into each sketch. If using wifi users would have to provide the SSID and PWD for their wifi, but hardwiring would be simple plug and play. Have JMRI self populate a list of detected base stations and from there people can configure their I/O for sensors and turnouts. Thoughts....
You guys are making this much harder than it needs to be. Long runs would be much easier than with USB. At the data rates needed for DCC, two wires will easily carry the signal hundreds of feet. The command station to booster "bus" is not really a bus in the normal sense because there is no communication going on between the devices. The signal is just a low current version of the DCC signal that is boosted by the DCC booster. The only significant difference between manufacturers is some use a uni-polar signal and some use a bi-polar signal. All you need for the booster "bus" is two wires, and they don't need to be anything special. Some manufacturers call for something different simply because they include the booster wiring in the cab bus wiring, but in these cases it can be split out. Mixing boosters from different manufacturers does not give you "limited capability", it's no different than using all the same manufacturer. The command station to booster interface is spelled out in NMRA standard 9.1.2, and this is actually better than any of the other options discussed here. You want the output from multiple boosters to be synced as closely as possible because any variation in timing will cause current to flow between the boosters anytime a loco is straddling a power district boundary. The easiest and most accurate way to accomplish that is for all of the boosters to be amplifying a single signal instead of having each one generate it's own.
!00% agree with CSX Robert on this one. Pick one command station and then boosters are dummies. They read the command station signal and amplify it. The wires from the base station ("the bus") are pretty dumb as mentioned. They mainly just shoot out a PWM wave and then do some current sensing but as far as handshake communications, etc etc. you are much better off doing that with something else. YOu can certainly communicate to the command station with a bunch of cabs in any system so control shouldn't be a problem this way. It's why the nmra standards are there though. Even if you were using two base stations of the same maker (Dcc++ or commercial) you would have to worry about the timing being off and build something that is pretty complicated (phase sensing and shifting to match) to keep them in phase to prevent any issues when the locos move across districts. What would actually be nice if if the way commands are produced was standard and we could plug anyone's cab into anyone else's system but while that is probably possible (Heck JMRI can interface with them all so there are mapping/translation tables that could be created to go from NCE cab to Digitrax base station, etc but that is different then the goal here unless I misrepresented.
Hey RCMan -- LCC is an Accessory Bus for connecting accessories, and is meant to run in parallel to one's traction system (DCC, DC, Marlin, etc.). It is transport-agnostic, and so is meant to run on many different transports, such as Ethernet, CAN, RS485, Wifi, RF, etc. Connecting the output of one booster to another was not one of its contemplated duties, although communication between command-stations and boosters for coordination is a possibility. .
Agree LCC would certainly work using multiple base stations. I think LCC has lots of potential and could be the solution here but it does add. Layer of complexity and as stated is probably still not yet to the point I would like to see it. My wish list would be wireless first rather then canbus and as I stated a any cab to any basestation (though this would probably be actually done in jmri). But I digress as I'm getting off topic.
From what I have seen in the LCC demo videos is you can use different DCC controllers from different manufacturers. I haven't seen or read anything more on that. I would love to get DCC++ to that point
Yes that's absolutely correct. You can hook up multiple base stations from multiple manufacturer s and it will handle it through JMRI. I'm assuming you could hook up 2 or more dcc++ to an LCC bus and be fine though I have not tested it nor seen or heard of such.
I agree Scott. LCC (NMRAnet/OpenLCB) have not taken off as expected. The first company that built the prototypes went out of business, RR-Circuits is making some now, but the major DCC companies are not. I guess they all want to make there own proprietary LCC.
Wasn't it rockstar or rocrail or something similar that went out of business? Seemed promising. Yes the DCC manufacturers are going to get a run for their money especially with the open development communities and Dead Rail....Blue trains has a good system and CVP has come aboard too...the others need to play catch up
It might have also been Rockstar but Rocrail is a software program to operate your trains and is doing well. Doing more searches is not giving me a warm fuzzy that LCC is going to make it, just like Railcom and Railcom Plus is not getting any support either, especially in the US. They do work well but the majority of DCC companies do not want to support it or even conform to the standard. As for myself I like both products, but do not want a third party clone of either.
