The wide world of LCB's.

Layout Control Buses that is.

As with any efforts to produce standards, particularly open ones, their has been an attrition of projects in recent years. Layout Control Buses for model railroads are not new, but those that exist now are often based on simplistic and not greatly flexible schemes. Possibly the classic is Dr Bruce Chubbs C/MRI which first appeared in Model Railroader magazine in February of 1985. Based on a simple microprocessor module with an RS-485 or RS-422 interface, connected to a PC, the C/MRI system then uses a series of IO expansion cards to connect to pretty much anything. Updated fairly regularly the Chubb designs are now starting to show their age but are still a viable control system. Information and parts can be found at the JLC Enterprises website.

From the ever industrious MERG group in the UK comes Gordon Hopkins RPC system. Of similar vintage and technology to the Chubb system RPC relies on a series of interconnected interface boards. Having the pleasure of meeting Gordon I can only attest to his keen modelling interest and his designs reflect that. However like the Chubb system it is now getting dated, much of the work on it having been done in the late 90's.

In 2007 or so their again emerged from MERG the CBUS system conceived and developed by Mike Bolton in the UK and Gil Fuchs in California. Based on CAN bus this comparatively new system marks the beginning of the new LCB era. General purpose modules, well connected, using something akin to the producer/consumer model of operation. CBUS has a Yahoo Group as well. The boards are based on PIC controllers with CAN bus. The early boards had some issues with ground bounce and offset, but the later 12V board versions are reported to be somewhat more stable. However the practicve of sharing ground and power for the communications and operation power does detract form the stability of larger layouts. CBUS is a credit to its developers and certainly deserves a look.

OpenLCB arrived on the scene also in 2007 but began life in 2005 when I designed a DCC and accessory system that never saw the light of production. Discussions surrounding this approach stimulated Dr. David Harris and myself to explore further and through our acquaintance with Alex Shepherd in New Zealand we started devising what was at first an object oriented network which transitioned to a producer consumer network as we developed. The principal developers for OpenLCB are myself, David Harris, Bob Jacobsen (of J/MRI) and Alex Shepherd. Their is also an active Yahoo Group. Some hardware has been designed and is in use but much OpenLCB development was done on the Silicon Railway LEDuino (which includes CAN bus, DCC decoder input and rudimentary response signalling, LocoNet interface and the usual serial and USB interfaces) and other Arduino type boards. John Plocher has an Arduino model railway shield.

Don Voss proposed an RS-485 based system (as I recall) which he later moved to CAN bus in 2008 or so. Very little data has been published, but what has can be found linked on the largely outdated NMRAnet website as the S9.5 system.

There have been others, but quite honestly the details are rather vague in my mind right now and I would have to dig back into history. I should also say that I am directly involved with OpenLCB, and I have been a part of the NMRAnet community since essentially before it existed!

Tune in again for some technical discussion very soon.

If at first you dont succeed, just wait, they will kick you again!

As of today it seems the news is out. The board did actually consider the matter, and now we know officially. The NMRAnet working group hasn't been told yet, nor have the authors of the document submitted.

NMRANET standard adopted

The board reviewed two versions of S-9.x.1 for the definition of the physical layer of the

layout control bus called NMRANET. The version modified by Didrik Voss, manager of

the Standards & Conformance Dept., was adopted. With this approval, the sponsors for

the other version will be invited to present their concerns to the Board at the Sacramento

meeting. S-9.x.1 was re-designated as S-9.5.1 and will be posted on the NMRA web site.

Several manufacturers of electronics for model railroading have been waiting for this

new NMRA standard so they can adopt it for their product line.

The actual BOD meeting report summary can be found online here.

As well as not being informed even informally about the BOD meeting considerations and vote we have yet to receive our invitation to address the board in Sacramento in July. Let's hope it arrives soon, we need to dust off all the material that we guess wasn't presented to the board in February. But why does it have to be this way?

We don't know in any detail what happened at the BOD meeting, today is the first we know of anything other than the appearance of the S9.5.1 document on the NMRA web site. What is even more galling is that we now know that the NMRA board has sanctioned a document which is a derivative work from material where copyright is claimed by its authors. No permission was sought or granted, no acknowledgement given. It is as though the NMRA feels it is above the provisions of copyright law in the US and Canada (two of the authors are either Canadian or Canadian residents) and the DMCA in the USA. Pretty shabby treatment really when all things are considered.

Back in December 2010 I responded to a help wanted ad placed with Gerry Leone, communications director for the NMRA, for electronics engineers to help with the development of NMRAnet. This request was never sent to the NMRAnet working group list, nor to the DCC working group list. But it was in the NMRA magazine and so I responded. The day after Gerry acknowledged my email I received this response form Di Voss:

John,

 

You must be the only Electronics Engineer in Canada or, at least, the only one that responds to my help wanted ads.

Since you are already part of the effort, I do not need to provide you a summary of our work.

 

Didrik

It seems that my work is to continue to provide soundly based, well argued professional work. Seems that my job is to accept being treated like a mushroom, kept in the dark and fed with .... well, I think you know the answer (at least any self respecting Aussie would). I am to toil diligently in the fields, submit my work, have it used to creative a derivative document without permission or acknowledgement, not be told what the considerations of the material submitted are and to just keep on taking it and liking it.

So disheartening, so disillusioning. No wonder nobody wants to play in the NMRAnet or NMRA-DCC sandboxes any more, if this is how we are to be treated. Onwards and upwards OpenLCB!