Joe Fugate's Siskiyou Line : Forum Specific Post

DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

MODERATOR NOTE:While this thread started out as a discussion about MRC's new DCC system offering, several people have chimed in, making this somewhat of a "DCC University" thread, hence the retitling of it. Several forum members have shared their in-depth experience and knowledge of the various DCC systems they own or have owned. The posts run the gamut of how they swear by or swear at their system -- or both! You'll find lots of good meaty discussions and friendly debate here if you're willing to wade through some rather long posts. Enjoy! Saw an advertisement on the back of MR mag about their new system. They always had great DC transformers, any opinions how it stacks up against Easy DCC & NEC? Supposedly alot of F functionality and all the bells and whistles for less cost than others. Any info or opinions would be appreciated since I am in the process of choosing a DCC system.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

You guys certainly give a person a lot to think about.My layout will be double decker (N scale) in a 20 X 40 space. You think reception is effected on the lower level for wireless?Also I am finishing it a few module sections at a time so I can start operating sessions soon, so I will add to the DCC system as I go along. I guess one thing to look at with Easy DCC is more individuals may have this system and therefore could bring their throttles to operating sessions which would save me some costs of having enough throttles in inventory to accomodate everyone. I am guessing that you can't have a person bring their Easy DCC throttle and have it work on your NCE or MRC system? Hope the thread keeps going it gives me a better idea of everyone's actual opinions and experiences. Thanks again.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

MRC is realeasing wireless soon, but when? The NCE command stations all have serial ports on them, and have since 1999 or before. You are thinking of the smaller Powercab system, which does not have a computer interface (yet). The Powercab is a pretty limited product, with only one extra throttle being able to be added. The Powercab itself is tethered, as it is the booster. The Zephyr, on the other hand, can have up to 10 (realistically about 5).The PA can handle 99 throttles, but if you look at thier product offering, the power of their boosters, the plug panels, and everything else, it is clear the system is aimed at railroads with one or two operators. I have never heard of a large layout or club using that system, although I have heard of/ seen clubs using NCE or Digitrax. Some larger home layouts use Lenz or CVP, although they are much less common.Digitrax's user interface was updated in 2005 with the DT400(R) Super Throttle. These things are AWESOME! I find they are VERY easy to use, once you read the manual for a minute. For programming, just hit prog until Po shows up (thats ops mode), and then dial up the CV with the left knob, and the value with the right. For consisiting, just put the lead loco on the right, the second on the left, hit MU and Y+. They could not be any simpler or easier to use. To grab a loco, just hit Loco XX Loco (loco being the address, it can also handle extended addresses for clubs and such). Digitrax is the only throttle to have two throttle knobs, and they are AWESOME!. The UT4(R) utility throttles are pretty aweful, as they have like no functionality, but so are the basic cabs (cab 04E(R), Cab04P(R), and Cab05(R)) from NCE. On NCE, you can only have a certain number of each type of cab, and a certain number of radio cabs, in certain address ranges, whereas on Digitrax, you can just plug in up to 120 throttles, all could be DT400R Digitrax Radio Super Throttles!EDIT: Capitalization

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

If the Prodigy Advance had1. wireless throttles2. computer connectivityI would have happily gone with it instead of EasyDCC. Other than tethered throttles and an inability to hook up DecoderPro I had no real complaints about my original Prodigy System. I'm getting definitely antsy waiting to add wireless to my EasyDCC CS2...

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Jeff summed it up pretty well. The MRC system is not full-featured, and is not as expandable and scalable as the other systems, particularly NCE and Digitrax. They say the interface is like NCE, but then why not just get NCE? NCE has the wireless and computer interfacing, as well as different types of cabs and such. The MRC system is a system for one or two operators on a small layout. As far as I know, it does not support Zero stretching, although other systems like NCE don't support it either. All systems other than Digitrax were not architecturally built for train control, they are based on an old serial computer interface, RS-485. Digitrax built Loconet for controlling trains, and as a result, Loconet can handle the command station, boosters, throttles, power managers, stationary decoders (so they are independent of the track power bus with a 12 volt power supply), signals, block occupancy detection, transponding, wireless, a computer, CTC panels, fast clocks, button inputs, and any combaination of those things without regard to any topology for the wiring, as long as there is not more than about a mile of it. Digitrax is also the most cost effective system. These reasons are why I chose it, and why most large clubs, essentially all modular groups, and 55% of users choose Digitrax. It is simply an unparalelled system in terms of value, expandability, scalability, functionality, and installed user base. As for the other systems, NCE has a good interface on the cabs, but is premium priced, and creates a ton of wiring, with separate radio, cab, and booster busses. CVP has nice wireless throttles, but their system is dated, as you have to go back to the command station to program and consist, unlike Digitrax, NCE, Lenz, and MRC, where it can be done on the higher end handhelds. CVP also sells their wireless throttles and base stations for Lenz and NCE. Lenz is a very European system, as it uses wireless phones for the wireless, so no matter what frequency a country uses, you can get a $10 cordless phone locally, and it is legal. Lenz's system is not terribly interesting, as there is not a lot of options as far as adding stuff on. Digitrax is the technically superior system, and has a little bit bigger of a learning curve, but not that much. It require you to plug to acquire and consist on wireless, which is DUMB, but other than that it is an AWESOME system. If you are going to do signalling, detection, computer control, or anything like that, Digitrax is basically the only choice, and otherwise, it is the strongest system out there. I have the Zephyr, a UR-91, and a pair of DT400R radio throttles. The DT400 throttles are awesome, and the Zpehyr is a neat little starter set at only $160. With Loconet, you can add whatever throttles you want, everything Loconet is compatible with everything else Loconet. Radio and IR are both options for wireless. If you need more, the Super Chief is a huge system used by many clubs that can handle 120 operators!EDIT: yikes!, I needed some paragraphs for my rambling, discursive thoughts! spelling too.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

the MRC wireless controllers are due out shortly. I also talked with their support and they will be releasing a computer interface as well. Note that the computer interface for NCE is not out as yet either.Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

The only problem with Digitrax is that it's user interface is stuck at 1975.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Oh, and the Prodigy Advance can use 99 throttles.Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

It is too bad that the NMRA didn't include the throttle bus as part of the DCC specification. Although, to that same point, if they had, they probably would have used the old RS-485, so maybe it is good that they allowed Digitrax to take it to the next level the Loconet.I'm not sure what MRC is trying to do. I think they feel left out of the market, as they used to have the uber-popular TechII back in the DC days. Now that DCC is pretty much standard, and for any layout that still uses DC, a train show bargain gets you a used TechII for like $12, they probably have smaller sales. Their DCC system just seems late to the game, and it doesn't have all of the random accessories that Digitrax and NCE have. While they are just getting wireless and computer interfacing, Digitrax and NCE had those features like 10 years ago! MRC really doesn't bring anything to the table that NCE or Digitrax doesn't have.As for the UT4 throttles, what if an operator wants to consist? Program in ops mode? They are SOL with a UT4. The UT4 also uses the dated potentiometer form factor, while the DT400 uses the awsome digital encoders. I suppose the UT4s are cheaper than the DT400s, but I still see a lot more value in the DT400s, with all their capabilities. I would never get a UT4, when I can get all DT400 throttles. If the budget is tight, you could always get DT100R or DT300R throttles off of Ebay. Bad for programming, fine for running.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I like the UT4s. They are simple and easy operation throttles.Just before christmas a friend of mine operated my yard - and so did his children, age 3-7!Even if they just could run the trains a few feet, they quickly got the hang of it.And they loved testing my only sound equipped loco - which for now is set up with manual notching.I can operate the up and down with F5 and F6 with one of my fingers while operating the throttle knob and direction/stop toggle and still use just one hand!The MRCs look great and may be simple to use.In their add on the backcover page of the february 2007 issues of ModelRailroader (which I got here in Norway a couple of days ago) they write:"these systems can be upgraded to wireless and computer interface operation"So MRC are definitively into something.But why is the throttle knob on the bottom of the throttle?For me it seems like you have to use both hands when using these throttles, if not you have 5 thumbs on every hand.I find it is very pitty that the LocoNet has not become a NMRA standard for the throttlebus - and the acsessorybus.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

As for your not liking Digitrax, they are priced very competitively, well below CVP and NCE, which are their main competitors.I can't understand the whole action>>>object thing. Not only is the use of the throttle and what it does a pretty small thing, as they all do the same thing, just a little bit differently, but the action>>>object method seems wrong. Do you eat a potato chip and then pick it up (action>>> object), or do you pick it up and then eat it (object>>>action)? When I chose Digitrax, I chose it based on specifications, expandability, scalability, cost, and LOCONET. I had never actually used the throttles before I bought. I hate when people are always like "use the throttles before you buy". The throttles are like TV remotes. Would you buy a different kind of TV because it had a better remote? No. I bought based on the fact that Digitrax's system was the only system in the industry to use a real network, Loconet, and I LOVE the system.Not sure how Digitrax looks like a "kit", I have never heard it put that way before.MRC does have a good brand in the DC market, and some of this may carry over to DCC. I think, however, that most new customers will still go with the Zephyr. There are a couple of reasons for this. If they do some reasearch, they will find out that Digitrax is the most expandable system, with radio (that exists as of today), turnout control, two different types of throttles, etc, etc, etc. Next, many people are in a club. Most clubs (especially modular) use Digitrax. They will often go with what their club uses for thier small home layout, as they are familiar with it, and they can get support from the club "DCC guru" if something explodes. Next, the online forums like The-Gauge and MR are heavily pushing the Zephyr. Many people have them, and they love them, and so they are recommending them.The Diigitrax system is simple too, and the manual is written for people who have never used DCC before, at least the beginning part about how to get up and running. If people don't know anything about DCC, they need to do some research, and learn about how DCC works, and what consisting, CVs, decoders, boosters, command stations, stationary decoders, throttle networks, and other basic stuff like that are. Heck, even NMRA S9.1 and S9.2 are a good read. They do in detail about the DCC signal and such, and you can calculate the data rate of the rails and all kinds of other cools stuff from them.Sure, people may not "max out" the MRC system in terms of numbers, but in reality, the MRC system is harder to add cab panels to, as it usues 8-wire cable, as opposed to the industry-standard six, and is really meant for only four cabs. It also does not have a turnout decoder that is MRC- branded, although an NCE/ CVP/ Digitrax one should work. It also does not have much power, and has more limited booster options. Sound equipped locos suck the juice.As for the generation of DCC, we are in the second generation, although Digitrax systems with their signalling and detection can be in the third generation, as can an NCE or CVP system if Chubb C/MRI is added. Not for the beginning modeller. The MRC system is a much better starter system than the Powercab, even with its limitations. The Powercab is a joke, as it can only have one more cab. It is more like an accessory to a PH Pro system, for bench programming and such. The Zpehyr, on the other hand, is very expandable, with up to ten throttles, and it can use any loconet component that the Super Chief uses, including signalling, turnout control, etc, etc. Bachman already has their horrible system (I have a right to say that, I owned it before going to Digitrax) bundled in train sets. Train sets are more for setting up on the floor or around the Christmas tree, and DC is just so simple and cheap, it will probably always be in train sets. DCC is more for people who want a layout, and get some flextrack and DCC equipped locos and whatnot.Large clubs may be early adoptors, but they drive a lot of sales. In general, when a club goes with a system, all of its members who have layouts also go with that system if they do not already have DCC. Clubs are also a lucrative market, as they buy boosters, and a bunch of throttles, radio gear, signalling, detection, power management, the list goes on and on. Some clubs have tens of thousands of dollars of gear, and as new stuff comes out, many of them will upgrade. While the board edge connector is a pain to install, it is brilliant on Digitrax's part, as a big club can swtich out hundreds of boards (power managers, block detectors, signal controllers) quickly when new technology comes out. The DCC guru from a club was posting on the Digitrax Yahoo! boards, and his club had 50 BDL168's, more than 50 PM42s, 50+ DS54s, at least a few boosters, a bunch of throttles, and the list went on.On the other hand, I think the large clubs are not the first beta testers. I think a select few modellers really are. On their own layouts, they can deploy new technology, like Transponding, to their locomotive fleet and layout on the day it comes out, not months later like a big club with a ton of locos, and a process to make decisions.Digitrax was able to change, with the DT400, which is super easy to use, unlike earlier throttles, and just an overall awsome throttle. They still kept the basic interface, just made it easy to use. The DT400 is awesome. It would be more awesome, however, if they had radio acquisition.What hobby stores carry varies from place to place. My LHS has only the Bachman system. I am not sure why someone would buy it from a LHS, as a place like Tony's knows about DCC, wheras most hobby shop owners are not DCC gurus. I buy from Tony's, but there are a couple of other online place that specialize in DCC as well.Most DCC users hate potentiometers. They let you accelerate too fast. A digitral encoder like NCE or Digitrax usues creates a tiny bit of momentum, as you have to turn the thing like a zillion times to get it to stop, and it gives much finer speed control, 1% at a time.I doubt that MRC will ever be a market leader. Digitrax has 55% market share, and a wide audience of fans (like me). The Zephyr looks like the familiar MRC Tech II in a way, and can be added to, as Andy Sperandeo shows (with the awful UT4R) in the Black River Junction article (Jan '07 I think).Even though NCE's intro system is pretty limited, I think they have a MUCH better chance than MRC, as they have a fully developed system with the Procab, and many different types of add-on cabs, radio that finally works, after a few years, and turnout decoders. Digitrax is still so far ahead of NCE, however. Digitrax already has the amateur system. The Zephyr is awesome, as it is really just a mini-Chief. This is reflected in its name, the DCS50. It has all of the features of the Super Chief other than the amperage, voltage, and memory (in terms of throttles and locos). You could get a Zephyr, a UT4, AND a couple of UP5s for the same price as the MRC PA. Maybe Digitrax should sell a bundle like that, and advertise the walk-around capabilities of it. The Zpehyr, unlike the MRC, has a throttle on it, two jump ports for DC throttles (which is a BIZZARE feature, and I haven't tried it on mine), AND the walkaround throttle, all for the same price as a Powercab with an extra throttle, a PA which only one throttle total, or a PE with an extra throttle. Digitrax is still wayyy ahead of everyone else in the market, especially with Loconet. I don't see that changing, as the other systems would have to abandon their old systems, and swtich to a loconet- like system. Of course, there is still a lot more to develop in the DCC market. I hope Digitrax comes out with a throttle that allows radio acquisition, AND is in the 2.4GHZ band for longer range, and less interference with other systems. It should also have an internal Li-on battery, as the 9V batteries are a PAIN. I have a feeling that with the way Digitrax has been introducing new technology first to the DCC market, if anyone brings 2.4ghz to DCC, Digitrax will be first.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Well, DCC is a funny beast.Among the problems that I have with Digitrax is the price and that I just can't stand their controllers. Joe's DCC reviews describing the object>action paradigm that Digitrax uses vs. the more natural action>object paradigm is another big factor for me. Aside from the actual mechanics, the MRC looks much more professional. The Digitrax looks very much like a home-made kit type product. Granted, that doesn't mean it's not, but appearances to mean a lot in the marketing end of things.But what I think MRC brings to the table is a strong brand, strong product placement, and a very approachable system for the casual model railroader. Let's face it, the majority of model railroader are one person operations, and most of them are probably ameteurs compared to enthusiasts like us. The Prodigy express system is affordable, and has all the basic features that a new modeler needs. It's easily upgradable, and the forthcoming wireless and PC connections pretty much complete the package in regards to what has been missing.I honestly believe that their market share will be steadily increasing. Not necessarily because it's the best (the Prodigy Advance is really a better match against the Power Cab, but is priced much higher), but because their packaging, marketing, and brand recognition will make it the most common 'basic' set. Think about it, Dad, who's used MRC for decades, is helping his kids pick out their own train set - the pick up a new DCC locomotive, and need to move to DCC. MRC has exactly what they're looking for.While it only took a 'few minutes with the manual' for you, to somebody not all that up on DCC the manual can be pretty intimidating. the MRC is simple enough to use without picking up the manual, and the instructions are printed on the back of the controller if you do feel the need to check up on something.They are definitely behind the development curve, and because of their target market they have oversimplified a few things. But 99% of the people that get DCC would probably never max out the capabilities of the most basic DCC controller on the market. The limitations on the Prodigy are very minor for the majority of modelers.Besides, from what I can tell, DCC is really just starting to come into its own. I'm not sure what generation DCC we're in, but the Prodigy Advance and NCE Powercab both seem to be hitting on that magical combination of power, ease of use, mainstream design, and price. I think that MRC should drop the price for the Advance to $150, and the Express to $50-$75 and they'll give everybody a real run for their money. In fact, I think they should be working on getting the wholesale pricing low enough to put it in train sets. And large clubs are some of the early adopters that have basically been the beta testers for what's to come. Digitrax is in a strange position because they do have a large base of installed users that are accustomed to their way of doing things and so they don't need to change it (or changing it may cost them some of their existing base). On the other hand, I don't think they have the system that is right for the masses (the 4'x8'ers). That market is far more lucrative than the clubs and large layouts, since it seems to me that once the system is in place it's not being replaced for 10 years or so. So new customers is the way to go.Also, while the couple of clubs in my area use Digitrax, I don't know of any hobby shops within my state that actually stock the Digitrax systems. But the MRC and Powercabs are right there on the shelf to pick up now.As for the throttle on the bottom - that's one of the things I've wondered about. I just got a Prodigy for Christmas (haven't even taken it out of the box - I need some decoders first). That's one of the design features that I like better about the Powercab - the placement of the throttle. On the other hand, I really like the knob better than the dial.As I'm sure we all know, the 'best' isn't always what sells. Windows, VHS, mp3/AAC vs lossless audio formats (or high definition audio for that matter), etc, etc. It's all about marketing, and looking at the Feb 2007 MR - Digitrax has a 3 sentence, 1/2-page ad on page 11. On top of that, the ad is for the Zephyr which looks clunky, and is not a walk-around form-factor. MRC has the back cover with a lot more information, and the product looks great, and it's a hand-held unit. Anyway, the real answer is that there is no one system that is perfect for everybody's needs. But I suspect that MRC will be one of the bigger players in time, although NCE has just raised the bar a few notches. I think that Digitrax has been leading the way, and has some great technical advantages, but they need to come out with a true mass-market product (for the ametuers) to stay on top. The company that will have the greatest impact will be the one that gets their starter system into the most hands as long as the starter system is fully upgradable/expandable into their full-featured system. I think MRC is closer to that than anybody.Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

While I am pleased to see someone who really likes the Digitrax system, I think the whole Loconet component is not an aspect of the system that will matter much to most people, and like all the systems, Digitrax has its own set of quirks that irks people as you use the system for a while.The whole loco slots thing that Digitrax uses has really driven my friend Charlie Comstock, who has a Digitrax system, to distraction. And in research done by Tony's trains, they have found the Digitrax systems are the most sensitive to issues with QSI locos and the current inrush, making it easy to "swamp" a Digitrax system so they will not reset on a short unless you start taking QSI locos off the track. My friend Charlie mutters under his breath a lot at op sessions because of issues with his Digitrax system on his large home layout. So much so he has been giving some serious consideration to moving to some other system.As to the question of the Zephyr being much more expandible than the NCE PowerCab, I would have to disagree with you there. I have an NCE Powercab, and for another $160 I can add the NCE Procab command station and I can hook the NCE up to my current boosters and have a completely functional DCC system with a computer interface where the sky's the limit.From there I get a wireless receiver for $125 and now I can start adding wireless cabs -- with true wireless acquisition. I don't have to plug in the throttle to acquire a loco. It's almost as if Loconet became a hindrance to Digitrax in this instance, making you have to plug in with an otherwise wireless system.One big reason I want a wireless system is to NOT have to run a throttle bus or some other network all over the layout. Just let me run two wires around the layout to power the track and no more. The TRACK is the data/command bus on a DCC layout. I don't need or want any more than that.I also find Digitrax is very limited with how they handle consisting. Out of the box, their system defaults to command station consisting, which means the loco consists are carried in the command station and so command traffic to the layout is increased dramatically with each loco in the consist getting its own commands through the rails. Decoder-based consists are the clear trend in DCC, since the consist only needs one set of commands sent to it, reducing command traffic on the rails.Digitrax does allow nesting command station consists, which is handy. But their system does nothing to support decoder-based consisting. If you want a decoder based consist with Digitrax, you have to program CV19 by hand yourself -- oh yes, and don't forget to add 128 to the consist number for locos running in reverse.Now to be fair, you can set an option in Digitrax to make it use CV19 for consisting instead of doing command station consists -- but now I can't do command station consists! But all the other systems allow you to do both types of consists natively, which is very powerful, especially if you model the diesel era as I do where loco consists are common. Digitrax's either/or approach to consisting is extremely limiting and like much of their system's approach, requires you to get under the hood and mess with primitive programming techniques yourself if you want to use all the features of DCC.NCE's consisting, on the other hand, is amazingly well thought out. Even with decoder consists, they allow you to enter the lead and trailing loco numbers, then you can address the consist using the loco number, not some artificial consist number. And to top it all off, if you address the loco at the other end -- hey now that's the front of the consist, that end responds to functions and so on. Very handy and useful. And did I say that NCE lets you nest a decoder consists within a command station consist? Very handy for things like helpers.In fact, this consisting example is one reason why I find Digitrax might look really cool as to its technical specs, but in actual practice, the system feels less-than-friendly. We can all discuss how cool loconet is, but if I can't mix and match different kinds of loco consists easily, and if I have to plug in my so-called wireless throttles to acquire a loco -- just how useful is loconet to the day-to-day operation of my modern diesel layout? Not very. And that's my point when I say that Digitrax is just a rather unfriendly DCC system. Can you learn to live with it, and even make Digitrax do cool things? Sure. Is their system well built? Yes. But if you regularly operate on various layouts and get a feel for how each of the DCC systems work, in day-to-day op sessions, you may learn, as I have, that Digitrax will make you mutter under your breath a lot, too.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I think everyone agees that each person's situation is unique. System requirements can vary widely depending on how your railroad is run.For example, take a lone wolf modeler who runs lots of sound, needs one fixed or tethered throttle that does F0-F12, easy/quick decoder consisting, read/write programming, runs stationary decoders, has a large loco stack, plus, also needs one wireless throttle that does F0-F8 and operates stationary decoders.Lenz 100 plus a cordless phone does all of that for $360 (now $380) plus provides 5 amps and a 10 year warranty.What other system can beat that price and quality for one with these requirements?P.S. Oops, maybe I wasn't supposed to talk about Lenz on this thread but it's terrific and really works for me. I've studied the other systems in detail, and, while I really like several of them I would still have to go with the Lenz setup for my specific situation. By the way, for extra cost, I have added Decoder Pro for with a $90 interface but this was just for fun and I didn't really need it. I have ZugDCC ($25 one time cost) which provides throttles, turnout control (including a layout map) and programming. Again, this was just for fun and I didn't really have to have it.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I guess the "problem" with Lenz is simply that so few people have used it - despite having invented the standard!

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Yep, I started with a Lenz back in 1993. I had the option of purchasing a Digitrax system or a Lenz system back then at a stiff discount (since the NMRA National was coming, and the vendors wanted to get some DCC layouts as a promo), but I opted to go with the Lenz system because I preferred their more substantial feeling throttle design.I used the Lenz system for 7 years, then the system starting having issues and needed some repair work. I wanted wireless, and so revisited the systems again. NCE's interface was the simplest, and Digitrax's manuals just struck me as full of tech-head key sequences, and EasyDCC's system wasn't quite as simple as NCE's but close. Finally EasyDCC had real wireless throttles on the market then (2000), but everyone else's wireless offerings were just a promise -- and EasyDCC had a nice simple throttle design, so EasyDCC it was.Now, my EasyDCC system has become largely obsolete and if I need to do any replacement of parts, I will have to sink up to $2500 into doing a total system upgrade. I can completely replace my EasyDCC system with NCE for $1800, and get all the great features of NCE. So that's my direction over the next year or so -- to migrate to an NCE system.Just a note on the Digitrax tech-head key sequences. With my computer background, I can learn and use tech-head systems just as good as anyone. But from several years experience with an operating layout, if there's one thing I've found, keep it simple. Your operators will thank you for it. People make much of the NCE Cab4 and Cab5 NCE cabs as not being very powerful. Hey, my operators don't need powerful, they need simple and obvious. The Digitrax DT400 throttle is powerful, but it is not simple ... just like the NCE dogbone throttle is not simple. I don't want my operators dealing with something that looks like a DVD remote on steroids.I look at the NCE cab 04 and I find buttons labeled "Select loco", "horn" and so on ... all pretty obvious stuff. Even EasyDCC's latest crop of throttles have gone arcane on me, with "#" and "*" being the magic keys that do these common functions. Even Digitrax's "SEL" key on the UT4 is better than that.So for me, EasyDCC's system design is moving in the wrong direction, and at $200+ for their good throttles, the pricing is also moving in the wrong direction. If Digitrax's consisting was handled better, and if their wireless was true wireless, that would go a long way toward making their system more worth serious consideration for my needs. But Loconet doesn't sway me one way or the other, because I just don't need it. I don't use accessory decoders and when I get around to doing signalling, I'm not going to use DCC -- I going with tried and true (and more flexible) CMRI.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I am the afore mentioned under-my-breath mutterer.My relationship with digitrax could be described as a love-hate relationship except I don't think I've ever loved the bugger. Between arcane throttles and problems dealing with the inrush current of QSI equipped locos. Ugh. And the default short detection period is 125ms (1/8 second) which turns out to be too short for an 1156 lite bulb to reliably light up. There's a 500ms short detect option which I now use - but reluctantly as I really don't like the idea of dumping full current through track and wheels and what not for a half second before the booster cuts out.Yeah, I know. I'll probably spend the bucks on a Tony's 4x block isolator and replace all the tail light bulbs (which seem to introduce acceleration and pogoing artifacts into certain locos when ascending or descending my long steep grade.I finally invested some bucks in a LocoBuffer USB last fall. Probably the best money I've spent on DCC component. In the past I've had problems with the Chief overflowing its throttle slots (the symptom is that some throttles refuse to acquire some trains - real nice...). With the decoderpro throttle slot monitor I can see how full everything is getting. When a loco decides to go walk-about during a session I can emergency stop it from the dispatcher station (where the computer is located) or free up it's throttle slot. (But why should I have to know that much about the inner workings of the system?). Decoder pro also lets me control the chief's configuration switches (honestly, why do they call these "thrown" or "closed"? Why not on or off? Or enabled or disabled? Or even 1 or 0?)With 6 blocks protected with 1156 bulbs I've pretty much tamed the QSI inrush current problem. Of course with my turnouts being "DCC friendly" I don't get too many shorts unless someone really hits the ties big time so that helps.In fact, this last Saturday I don't think the booster short circuit protection triggered even once. Did I mention that one of my two main 5 track staging yards is set up so only the track pointed to by the yard ladder has power? I suspect this helps with short recovery too...I gotta agree that the graphics on the Digitrax throttles looks pretty amatuer to me. But I don't have a problem with the toggle switch used for direction changing on the UT series throttles. Anything in the DT100 to DT300 range is a joke in terms of arcane button pressing sequences (especially so if you have sound - which I admit was not available when these throttles were design.As far as needing a throttle bus for wireless throttles to plug in its true. BUT you only need one throttle jack in the towns where locos might be acquired or dispatched. You don't need the fascia festooned with 'em.I don't like DT400s because the sea-of-buttons intimidates me. Plus theres too much chance of a beginner (or even me) hitting the wrong button and putting the system in moose -mode. Speaking of buttons, the buttons on their throttles seem toy-like. And the tiny rotary selectors on the UT4R I have are too darn small and close together for my prototype thumbs.A digitrax plus is I can use page mode programming (programming track) while the system is in operation. Can't do that with NCE.NCE also (after monitoring the NCE egroup list for a while) seems to require delicate handling of the buttons with radios (and lots of radio repeaters). They're more expensive than the lazy D brand too. As in "you need to be deliberate when pressing the buttons so as not to overrun the command station".NCE is full duplex so you don't need to plug in to do anything. But with the lethargic and somewhat intermittant button pressing response (as alledged on the NCE list - I've never used one) there are enough problems to go around. FWIW Tony the K has determined he needs a NCE radio repeater within 15 feet of every location in his train room. That sounds like the cash register at the hobby shop going "Ka-ching" to me.Of course being simplex radio the lazy D radio throttles have a different set of problems. As far as I can tell they are: o gotta plug in to acquire or release - which I don't really regard as a problem o no feedback leds or lcd display on the throttle to know which functios are active or not (the UT1 throttle had this but with only 2-digit addressing and no radio they are on the way out)o Loconet is (as far as I remember from reading their personal LN spec) a 16.7 kbaud multidrop protocol using collision detection and retries (somewhat like ethernet). This means that if you press a throttle button at the same time a BDL whatever blathers about detecting something both the throttle and BDL need to re-blather at a later time (retry the transmission). This has the advantage of not requiring the master station to poll all the secondary stations but has the disadvantage of when the retry count gets too high retries collide with retries causing even more retries to occur. But a WIRELESS simplex lazy D throttle has NO means of determining that a collision occured. So that button press or throttle twist gets lost. There is good potential for a single throttle to work pretty well. But a roomful (yeah a highly precise number there...) of D. radio throttles can suffer collisions. Now I don't know how many collision would occur in practice. I don't work for Dx so the following is conjecture, but if I were designing the radio throttles I 'd have the radios sending their packets at very high speed (mega bits per second) so the transmission duration would be much much shorter than a packet on the wired Loconet. This would tend to reduce collisions, probably to the point where they become rare.Finally, being simplex the Dx brand radio throttles get to use a slightly higher power radio transmitter than the duplex NCE throttles. This results in a better range. For a highly inaccurate example I have one (1) radio receiver in my 1100 sqft train room. I didn't hear complaints about radio drop outs at last Saturday's session. Or course, I did get some complaints during the December session. But I think these were likely due to batteries with insufficient change left.Speaking of which, if you choose to go radio throttles and op regularly you'll probably want to invest in a cadre of NiMH batteries and a good charger. Or you'll be enriching the energizer bunny and putting lots of toxic stuff into the local landfills. (of course the same is true for radio head sets).Decoder Pro has been a life saver for me. The ability to configure and program a loco from the computer and save the configuration for a later reburn should the decoder happen to "reset itself" is a blessing that can not be over appreciated.The throttle slot monitor and command station config switch editor I think have saved my life (or at least what's left of my sanity) by letting me see and control what's going in within the command station (Chief). Looking over all this stuff from a hand held throttle is a nightmare....So what else is wrong with digitrax?Their consisting is stone knives and bear skins. Sure, I can consist up to 4 locos together. But they don't neccessarily (spelling?) have a semblance of intelligent head light management. If the consist is in reversethe lead units backup light is on with nothing on the tail unit.There's also no way to reverse a consist. If a consist consists of (front to back) 12 13 14 you can't say 12 is the consist address for foward and 14 is the consist address for reverse.Plus it doesn't (as best I know anyway) integrate advanced consisting into the UniVerSal (or however they capitalize it) consisting.NCE does a much better job on the consisting.What would I like? The ability to put all engines into an advanced consist and send NO lighting commands to the consist. Instead the command station would keep track of the leading and trailing units in the consist and send lighting commands directy to their address. Want to swap directions? No problem the command station reverses its concept of head and tail units and sends lighting commands accordingly. Consists are added and broken up using on-the-main programming.NCE does some of this. They've reserved the top 27 consist addresses for use with their special consisting mode (don't remember what their marketeers decided to call it). NCE also allows dynamically changing the accelleration curve of a consist. Something to do with changing the throttle commands sent to the consist (putting momentum in the command station instead of the decoders). So you 're running with 20 cars and the yard gives you 20 more. Do a little consist momentum adjustment and now your train behaves like it's twice as heavy. Neat feature.Sorry, I don't know diddly about Lenz, Zimo, Atlas, or MRC (other than an impression that MRC and Atlas are toy-like).So why do I stay with digitrax if I think it sucks? Bucko's matey. I have 5 UT1 utility throttles and a UT4R radio throttle and an antique DT100 system throttle. My sessions can use a fair number of throttles at once (up to a current max of 7). If I went fully radio I'd need to spend about 6 x $110 = $660 for radio throttles. If I switch to NCE I'm looking at about $1600 (Ouch!) But it gets even worse. None of my crew has NCE. Several have Digitrax radio throttles. I don't really need to buy any more throttles at this point (maybe when the layout is finished and there may be 10 throttles in use at a time.Signalling? Pah, I'm 1) too cheap for signalling and 2) I want a dark railroad because it's a lot more fun to operate than following a mother-may-I set of greens around the mainline (which is fun for the DS in front of the CTC machine but kind of boring for the crews).A personal observation: The Dx brand looks like a bunch of semi-knowledgible geeks got together and designed it in their garage. Over time they go more knowledgible and the quality of engineering got a bit better. But it's still a techo-nerd system. I've been a pro computer geek for around 30 years now and I find their documentation painful to read. User interface? Oh that's right, we might need one of those. And why on earth do they have keep alive batteries in the command stations instead of using a seeprom to hold consist settings when the power is off? And the AR-1 auto-reverser won't work with brass steamers or if the gaps in the track are not directly opposite each other. I can't recommend 'em. Pay the extra for a TTX auto reverse unit if ya gotta have one. Unless you can live with a relatively slow reverse needed detect period and are sure you'll never, ever have brass steamers on the layout.What would I do if I were starting from scratch? I'd be tempted to go NCE. The cost difference when starting from scratch would be much less (although still noticible D.radio throttle=$110 N.r.t=$150 x10 throttles = $400!!Someone mentioned buying a system without trying the throttles. They claimed it was like buying a TV because you liked the remote control. I say "not so!". With the TV you set the station or select the DVR and let her rip making an occaisional volume change. With a DCC system you are CONSTANTLY using a throttle while running a train (unless you are a put a train in endless orbit, get something cold to drink and sit back to watch 'em run type). If you are serious about operating in an at least somewhat proto-like manner the throttle - human interface becomes even more significant. Frankly I'm concerned about the delays reported on the NCE list regarding button pushing. I'd definitly need to try them out before I'd invest that many buckoroonies.Joe is the only guy I know with Easy DCC. It gives a hack around solution to the double ended consists. But I've not been very impressed by it's level of relibility of late. And it's only 2 digit addressing. It's radio range also seems week when at the far end of the Coos Bay aiso or sometimes standing in front of Oakland. And their new pricing is simply outragesously expensive...A final note. ALL DCC systems suck. They all have stuff in them that will make you want to puke (least-wize I haven't met one yet that didn't). Unfortunately, being able to dispense with block switches and have direct control over a loco, its lighting, and what ever sound capabilities it might have is a pretty necessary thing. Once you know how to use one of the DCC throttles and have aclimated to its idiosyncracies you can settle back and run on a foreign layout without needing to under how to get power to the block occupied by your loco (and where that block ends). Fully independent helper control is also really really really cool (necessary). So I put up with the crap that masquerades as DCC products.So what would I like? How about wireless USB in each loco and throttle or perhaps bluetooth? Each loco would be completely full duplex meaning a throttle could show actually train speed (instead of throttle notch). The engine could communicate back to the throttle (or command station if there is one) how much fuel or water is left. Fuel (and water) consumption could be monitored by back-emf computation. If you you're driving a steamer and don't get enough water (at an approved water plug with a rate of tender fill computation possible with the water plugs also being wireless) you'll run out on the mainline and either stop moving (if you're smart) or blow up the bolier if you didn't pay attention to the sight-glass ont he throttle! It also could be feasible to have a micro-camera in the loco and put a display on a wireless handheld throttle so you can have a loco-style view of what ever on-coming signals may be in view.Whatever... And yes, I do have an attitude problem about DCC systems (and other stuff)...Charlie ComstockSuperintendent of Mysterious Electical MaladiesThe Bear Creek and South Jackson Railway Co.Hillsboro, OR

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

JeffShultz said ...I guess the "problem" with Lenz is simply that so few people have used it - despite having invented the standard!Yes that's true. I wonder why that is? It must have something to do with their overall marketing and sales plan. Maybe their satisfied with their overall sales worldwide and are just not zeroing in on the U.S. Their cordless phone wireless option seem indicative of that. At any rate, I think that if they had a fully expandable starter set, priced competitively with Zepher and Power Cab, and if they put on a customer oriented marketing effort that their system could really catch on. Many people apparently are just hesitant to spend $310 (Set 100 inc. power supply at my LHS) for their first entry into DCC.Anyway, I can certainly see why Joe and others on this forum go with the systems that they do because their specific needs dictate it. I continue to be fascinated by the Digitrax/NCE debates. They really give everyone good food for thought.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...Unfortunately, the Lenz throttles have the same problem that the DC Aristos have, in that they use a pushbutton style throttle, and have no indication of what speed step you are on.Maybe I'm misunderstanding but the Lenz LH100 throttle does show the speed steps you're on.Everytime you adjust the speed the speed notch is shown in the display. Or you can toggle back and forth between the loco data and speed notch by hitting the "Enter" key. If you want to check the speed step mode that you're in, hitting the + key will display it while the loco is running.Also, the LZV Command Station supports a loco roster of 256 locos.Well, I feel like I'm attending DCC System University on this thread. Thsi is powerful and very usefull stuff. Thanks.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

WOW, a lot to think about, and some really good information about all the different systems and DCC in general.JoeF (first post):I have to disagree about Loconet. Loconet is the reason I chose Digitrax, and the reason that I think it is the best system out there. Not only does it speed up the response, but it makes the system as a whole easier to use. While NCE systems need an address for each cab, the Digitrax system does not, plug and play. Also, for larger installations, the NCE system can only have a certain number of Procabs, a certain number of engineer cabs, and a certain number of radio engineer cabs, and the addressing system is complicated.With Loconet, you can combine the signalling, detection, and everything else into one system. This way, a computer can monitor all of the loconet packets, which is great for troubleshooting. Loconet is Digitrax's biggest asset, and if they were using an RS-485 interface like the others, then they would not have many of the advanced products for Loconet, like turnout feedback reporting, signalling, detection and transponding. Not only that, but for modular applications, it is the system of choice, as the boosters and throttles and radio all connect to the same network, although that has less to do with the Loconet architecture, and more to do the way the cables are wired, as Lenz has done something similar with XpressNet, which is NOT a network, and is based off of RS-485.All systems have the idea of slots. They may or may not have the same number of slots, or manage them in the same way, but they all have them. In general, unless the system is VERY large, the slots, for all practical purposes, are just there, and no one has to worry about them or what they are doing. Even on a large layout, using opsw 36 after every op session clears all of the addresses out the system, so it is ready for another session. The Super Chief has 120, and as long as locos are dispatched after they are used, everything is fine.As for the current inrush, there are some solutions out there. There are some new Tony's breakers that do something to help (delay the start-up of each district slightly), and this is usually not a big issue, as most layouts don't have more then a couple of sound locos per booster district. If it is their boosters, you could always use an NCE or Lenz booster with Loconet, it is simple to make an adapter cable, is those other brands of boosters just needs pins 1 and 6 of loconet (rail sync).Joe, you are not the typical "new customer" to a particular brand. You happen to have a bunch of boosters. In my comparisons, I was assuming that the user has no equipment, and that the decoders are a constant cost, as one brand can work with another system, most of the time (Bachman decoders are an exception for programming. Ugh.). The Powercab can only have one cab added before going to the full PH Pro system, which is even more expensive than the Digitrax Chief. If you want more than one extra throttle on the Powercab, you have to add the Smart Booster, which is $140 including the PSU, and that investment is lost if you move up to the PH Pro system.The Zephyr, on the other hand, can handle 10 throttles out of the box. If you need to move up to a bigger system, then you can add a DCS100, and essentially have a Super Chief. The Zephyr can still be three throttle (internal plus two jump), AND a booster, which would be useful for accessory decoders or a small yard that needs a separate circuit breaker. The Powercab, on the other hand, can be added to the larger system as a Procab, but then you lose the Booster functionality, and are just using it as a cab. The Zephyr feels like a full system (mini-Chief), wheras the Powercab feels like a Procab that someone stuffed a pathetic booster into. That being said, the Powercab is a great accessory for PH Pro users, whether it is for testing, or decoder programming, and as a regular ProCab during an operating session.As for having to plug into the Digitrax system, this is a total pain. It is simply a stupid design move on Digitrax's part, NOT a feature of Loconet. Clearly, it is possible to acquire a locomotive through a radio based system, as CVP does it with EasyDCC. The Loconet command station may need to send a signal back to confirm that the loco has been gotten. In this way, the radio reveiver could receive this signal, although the operator would not know for sure that he has gotten the loco, like CVP's system. The 2nd direction, however, is the user's eyes when the loco moves or not. This "safety feature" should be able to be disabled through an option switch, as some users may want it, although many do not. There are actually four different things that could happen when the user requests a loco that is already in use. This would have been a good use of and opsw. 1, radio acquisition is not allowed. 2, The person trying to acquire just doesn't get the loco. 3, both people have control (like stealing). 4, the person trying to acquire gets exclusive control.As for having to have a throttle bus, EASY DCC is the only system that is a "Radio system", and it just happens to have a wired bus as well. All of the others are wired systems with cab busses, that just happen to have radio for the one or two users that are running commuter trains or whatnot and need wireless. There are a few problems with wireless. The biggest is probably the batteries. With NCE and CVP, you have to have 4 AAA batteries, Digitrax uses 1 9V. Either way, you have to find NiMH batteries for the throttles, have chargers for them, and then remember to actually charge them! This is already a pain with the Digitrax radio throttles. If it were just for my home layout, I would order 5 UP5 panels from Tony's, and abandon radio altogether. I am going to be using it with my modular club, so I need the radio.Also, there are some performance issues with radio cabs, and they vary from system to system, but none of them are perfect. I have heard with with CVP, if there are too many users in one small area, the performance drops way off, sometimes not working at all. And, if you have more than 8 throttles, they have to share a channel, leading to low performance. At least with tethered throttles, operators can operate with tangled cords that work, as opposed to wireless freedom that has limited or no functionality.NCE's radio system cannot be used with modular layouts, as it sort of kills Digitrax's system. As it polls over the radio, it spits out a TON of garbage at 916.5mhz, and thus when Digitrax tries to "talk" in its non-polled fashion, it momentarily disrupts NCE, and NCE has to ressent, effectively killing the Digitrax system, and killing the NCE system while the Digitrax use is trying to transmit. Their earlier systems with 1/4 wave antennas needed an aluminum pie plate stuck between the antenna and the base to work well at more than just a short distance from the radio base. They have since fixed that issue with the longer 1/2 wave antennas, but they legally have to have one half the TX/RX power that a one-way system has, so it has significantly less range than the CVP and Digitrax systems. It also shows problems sooner than the other systems, as the polling has to work in both directions for the throttle to function correctly, not just one way. You can add radio repeaters to combat this, but they have a separate bus, in addition to the cab and booster busses. Digitrax only has one.Digitrax is far from perfect, with the obviously dumb "feature" of plug-in acquisition. Also, if there are more than about 10 throttles on the Digitrax system, it starts to slow down quite a bit. Also, if there are "twiddlers", who are constantly changing the speed, it can make the system slow with only a few users. If most of the users just set their speed and let their train roll, significantly more throttles can be used. For switching, users should be plugged into Loconet.A really good radio cab would have to have a few things. First, it would have to be in the 2.4ghz range. Not only would that stop interference between systems, and it could work around wifi, phones, and other stuff, but it would increase the range significantly. There is a model airplane control system based on 2.4ghz technology, and it has some SERIOUS range, as you would expect. Next, it would have to be full two-way and the features of a master cab, and not require a plug-in, like the CVP system, and the NCE system on a lucky day.It would also have to have an internal rechargeable battery. Some people would want to have regular batteries, so it would have a standard size NiMH battery, like 9V or 4xAAA, but it would have the charger built-in, so that the batteries would never have to be taken out. It would then have a "charging station", where 6 throttles could be plopped in slots to charge overnight. This would be EASY, as opposed to the current process of taking the batteries out and recharging them and putting them back in. It would also use NO power when shut off, so that it doesn't kill its batteries when it is not being used. Digitrax radio throttles have this issue, and one workaround is to separate ThrottleNet and BoosterNet, and then supply constant DC voltage to ThrottleNet all of the time, regardless of whether the system is on or not. What a Kludge. The Lenz system essentially has an internal rechargeable battery, as all cordless phones recharge themselves. If the phones bases' wall-warts were put on a different power strip than the system, then that strip could be left on to charge, while the system is off.Unfortunately, the Lenz throttles have the same problem that the DC Aristos have, in that they use a pushbutton style throttle, and have no indication of what speed step you are on. The problem with this "ultimate" throttle is that it a) doesn't exist and b) if it were to exist it would cost $500. Basically, what I am saying is that wireless throttle sound cool, but they are really a pain. Coily cables have been around forever on phone handsets, and the 6-wire version for throttles works very well.I have seen a couple of the layouts of other members of the club, two of them being powered by NCE DCC. Both owners say that they have no desire for radio, as they have plug panels every 4 feet or so, and they just plug in. They don't have to worry about batteries, their throttles are just connected to the command station's power. One of them, who built his layout in 1978, used to use the radio Aristo-Craft radio throttles before 1999, when he converted to NCE DCC. He said that the ProCabs with the coiled tethers are just as good as the totally radio Aristos.You can't possible only have a track bus. You have to have a booster bus, and with the NCE system, you may need a radio bus. Don't you have an old cab bus from the Lenz system? If it has 6-wire plugs it should work with anybody else's system, if not, you could always replace the little panels with UTP style panels. I will say more about busses later on in the post.Having both kinds of consisting sort of defeats part of the purpose of having advanced consists, and if you don't have a track bandwidth issue, why even bother with the more complicated advanced consists that some types of decoders may or may not work with? I don't seem to think the track bus bandwidth is an issue, as it can send out 33 commands per second. On the biggest Digitrax system, with 120 slots for locos or advanced consists, that means that even if EVERY person on the layout sent a command at the SAME time, it would take 4 seconds to run through them all. Probably not going to happen. Realistically, there could be a half-second wait with all 120 slots in use, not exactly a big deal. Using decoder-based consists is more for HUGE layouts, like the Club in New Jersey that once had 98 throttles running simultaneously on their Super Chief!Isn't the artificial consist number just a regular (not extended) DCC address? Thus, you could give the consists the same address as the lead loco's normal address. Or am I missing something about advanced consisting? I think Digitrax can nest as well, as the advanced consists are just another DCC address. The double-ended consists are cool, but having the right headlight on is not exactly a selling point for a system.I will say more about having Loconet later in the post. I am also learning the power of an AWESOME DCC system with a true peer-to-peer architecture that allows super fast throttle response. AWESOME!jwils1:Yes, system requirements vary from modeller to modeller. Because of its wide range of accessories, and great architecture, Digitrax is the only system that could serve ALL DCC users (in HO scale anyways, G gauge is another story). Some people would be BETTER served by another system, however, if they want to sacrifice on the system architecture to gain other features (like $60 auto re-charging throttles).Lenz is a neat system in some ways, in others it is dead last, as there are few add-ons, and a limited system capacity (31 throttles). On the other hand, it would be awesome for G scale, as you could get a cordless phone that is waterproof, and run trains from the pool or hot tub!!!It is good that you brought Lenz into the discussion, as it is one of the four (in descending order, Digitrax, NCE, CVP and Lenz) big DCC systems. ZugDCC is cool, but what does it do over the JMRI suite?JeffShultz:Lenz is big in Europe, NCE in Austrailia, Digitrax in the US. In Europe, there are like 20 different countries, with DIFFERENT radio frequencies, so they have to get a cordless phone locally, and use it with Lenz to have wireless. Lenz is also a very European company, based in Europe, whereas NCE is in New York, and Digitrax is in Norcross, Georgia. NCE is big in Australia, because a dealer got it approved for use there (the radio part). They use the same radio frequencies as the US, but the government has to test and approve products. Some CVP and Digitrax systems have been smuggled in, even though they have not been approved by the government.Lenz is also a very European system, as Europe typically has smaller everything, including layouts, than the US, and thus they don't need a "mega" system like NCE or especially Digitrax.JoeF (second post):Wow. You have had DCC longer than just about anyone else. Did you use proprietary command control or DC before you got your DCC? Stiff discount. About the same price as the stuff is today?? Digitrax has had wireless since 1995 or before. All of the radio systems are exactly the same as the one they use today, although they now have radio versions of the easy-to-use DT400, as opposed to the earlier and somewhat more cryptic DT100 and DT300 series throttles. I should pick one of those old ones up off Ebay. It would be fun, as they program in Hex! That would be fun to program in Hex!A total system upgrade to the newer throttles? I bet you can still get parts for your system on Ebay.You will be pretty happy with the NCE system. It is not Digitrax, but it is still a strong competitor in the DCC market, it would be my choice if Digitrax didn't exist. I like the interface on the ProCab, although it is a bit big.The Digitrax interface is easy to use. Just hit Loco XX Loco (XX being the loco address, it can use extended addresses if you have a SERIOUS collection of locos), and you have the loco. Hit Loco Disp to dispatch. To MU, grab the lead loco on the right throttle, the second loco on the left, hit MU Y+ . Repeat for additional locos, setting direction if necessary. Programming is even easier. Just hit Prog until Po shows up (ops mode), and dial away! With a few clicks of the dial, you can access any of the normally useful CVs (1, 2, 5, 6). For sound locos, you have to spin the wheel a bit to get up into the 50's or higher, but still super easy to do!What if your operator needs to change a CV quickly, or consist? Then they need a full cab. The only reason not to get full cabs for all operators would be cost, which is significant on a large fleet of cabs. I think the Cab04 is like $70, while the ProCab is $125. Multiply that $55 out over a dozen cabs, and well, thats a bunch of money. The ProCab, DT400, and Lenz 100 all have nice LCD displays, so you can see the speed and direction of a loco and the loco acquired on a throttle. Also, the ProCab has the really neat yard mode.Digitrax has little pictures above the number buttons for functions, at least for the bell and whistle, and headlight. Of course, operators should know the function numbers of those very basic functions.Based on their web site, I think CVP is going three different directions, none of which include selling new EasyDCC systems as their main goal. In increasing importance, the first is to sell EasyDCC users upgrades to their existing systems, with the new throttles, chip upgrades and such. This brings me to another point. I HATE how NCE, CVP, and Lenz have hardware upgrades. NCE has the EPROM, which can be upgraded to add new devices and such. This is like buying a new computer to support a new model of DSLR. Ugh. Meanwhile, Loconet hasn't changed since it was born in like 1993. The NCE systems have to poll everything on the cab bus, including input and output devices. Digitrax's Loconet, on the other hand, can have two devices on it that do not need to ever "talk" to one another. For example, a command station and an SE8C signal decoder may never need to communicate, and the SE8C is being instructed by the computer, which is not dealing with the the throttles, but the BDL168's, DS64s, and SE8Cs.As for CVP, the second is to sell their throttle to Lenz customers in the US. Small market. Big opportunity. Why develop a new command station and system throttle that can do programming, when you can just supply the other 75% of a system? I think they are intending to get customers who don't like EasyDCC's rather fixed master cabs. These people can get Lenz, and then get CVP throttles. On a decent sized system, the throttles are most of the cost. I think they are phasing out the NCE throttle base, as they have not made a new one for the newer throttles. I think NCE's throttle system, which has the same throttles as NCE's wired system, is completely killing this business.The single biggest thing they are going towards is the AirWire9000. It allows a G scale loco to have its DCC, radio, and power gear in a trailing boxcar, and to have NO track wiring, power supplies, etc. Because people tend to only have a couple of locos in G scale, this is the perfect application, and it can even have a DCC decoder attached to it for functions/ sound. There is direct radio control, so the range is not an issue. There are no longer issues with dirty track and reversing loops and such with this system. With newer, higher capacity NiMH and Lion battery systems, users can get more than four hours of running time on a single charge. This system also allows users to bring their locos to a friend's railroad, and use their loco with DCC regardless of whether the layout own is using DC, DCC or direct radio. It is like the next generation of AristoCraft's direct radio control systems, which *I think* could use track or battery power. Although running off of track power in G scale may seem like the best method, direct radio has some serious advantages, especially in wet climates where it is nearly impossible to keep good electrical contact with the rails.Ah, Loconet again. There are a number of advantages to using Loconet for signaling and detection, some of them independent of whether you use it for your DCC system (Loconet can run in parallel to a different brand of DCC or even for DC). The first is that with Loconet, you can use the awesome Railroad & Company. It is a pricey piece of software, but awesome nonetheless. Using it has little to do with Loconet's architecture, and more to do with the fact that RR&Co doesn't have hardware support for C/MRI. RR&Co has a neat new throttle, called the SmartHand. It is a neat little throttle, a little like MRC's throttle, that has cab signaling, and a huge display built in for graphical representations of turnouts and tracks. It can also send text messages back and forth with the computer. Its main problem, however, is that it uses a proprietary RS-485 bus, with 8-wire connectors, so you need ANOTHER bus just for these throttle, in addition to Loconet. If they made a Loconet version, they would be a pretty awesome throttle for users who want lots of control from their computer. You can also control where people can go on the layout with the SmartHand. You can also simulate needing to get fuel (and water in the steam era) with the SmarHand. It is a neat idea, but not quite ready for prime-time yet. The other main option is JMRI's PanelPro, which is neat, because you can mix C/MRI and Loconet components, with the computer acting as the bridge between the two systems.With Loconet, you can have your throttle, wireless, booster, and signalling/ detection buses on ONE 6-wire cable. Earlier you said that you did not want more wires running everywhere, BUT C/MRI will add to the tangle a lot more than Loconet. Although the newer C/MRI systems are decentralized, the Loconet systems are MORE decentralized. Many people complain that Digitrax's components are really expensive, which they are, but now the guys over at RR-Cirkits (makers of the Locobuffer USB and Locobuffer II) have made the TC-64. This is a 64-line universal I/O module for Loconet. They can be used directly with some types of signals and CTC panel switches. There are also daughter cards to drive other types of signals, turnout motors (although without turnout position feedback reporting), and do block detection (although not transponding).Your signaling system will probably need to know what position the turnouts are in, which could probably be accomplished even with manual throw turnouts, using a TC-64 for input. I think a TC-64 is about $100, so it is really cheap for 64 lines of I/O. C/MRI is based on the RS-485 system, which again limits expandability, and slows the system down. Another issue with C/MRI is that it is owned by Dr. Chubb, and if Dr. Chubb stops supporting it, then it is a dead system. Loconet, on the other hand, is owned by a company, Digitrax, that is not likely to stop supporting their stuff anytime soon. C/MRI seems like the old pre-loconet way of doing things. Loconet is neat, because all of this stuff can be plugged into Loconet, and it still works really well, as there is only a signal sent over Loconet when something actually happens (like a train enters a block). As for the actual signaling, Loconet is very flexible. The SE8C can do many different types of signals, and the TC-64 can be programmed to do anything. It is just an I/O module. The sky is the limit with the TC-64.Another key advantage of Loconet is transponding. Transponding is the only system that can talk bi-directionally with locomotives, to see where a particular locomotive is. This helps in dispatching, and allows fully automated operations! This is an easy way to show "civilians" they layout, or let some trains roll while you are working on the layout, and then, with the click of a button, you can switch it over to being a system made for operations, with dispatching and operators and whatnot.Transponding can also be used for surround sound, using good quality speakers mounted under the layout, instead of those tiny little speakers in the locomotives. Transponding is a pretty heavy investment, as it requires BDL168 block detectors, and RX4 transponders. It also requires Digitrax decoders in all of the locomotives that need to be able to transpond. You can have a layout where some can transpond, and some can't, and the ones that can transpond are the ones that would be run automatically and with surround sound. The non-transponding locomotives can still be detected as being in a block. For locomotives and cabeese that do not have Digitrax decoders in them, you can add the tiny TF-4 function decoder, and use it only for transponding, or in a caboose, for four lighting functions, and transponding.Another interesting note pertaining to the use of a computer, are the possibilities for that "ultimate" wireless throttle mentioned above in the form of a PDA. Some PDAs have digital encoders (scroll wheels), as well as wireless to connect to a computer. You could even have it use a "yard mode" like NCE, or push the button to reverse direction. The few buttons could also be used for common functions. The disadvantage is that to do anything else, you would have to look at the screen, and then hit it with your finger. This would be like a wireless version of the rather hilarious LocoPalm. There is some software already out there for doing just that, but it is from KAM industries, who both have terrible software, and sued JMRI for stealing their code, when in fact, they stole JMRI's code. That was such a big deal, that it made it to /. .This can be done for a single user with a remote desktop connection to a PC running JMRI's throttle. Although very expensive and clunky, a very powerful system (4GB/ RAM, Core 2 Duo) could run 8 or 10 VMs of Win 2K in VmWare, each having its own instance of JMRI, and having a PDA remote desktop into it. Clunky, but it would be pretty cool. Other than the problem that PDAs are expensive compared to dedicated throttles, using a PDA could give users a true two-way wireless system, an internal rechargeable battery, and long-range operation (300+ feet with a big antenna on the AP) in the 2.4GHZ band. If RR&Co would make a piece of software to do this, it would be pretty cool. It would also be a cash cow for them, as they could charge $50/ license, with the average (RR&Co controlled) layout need a dozen licenses or so.Sorry about the long post, but I just have so much to say... Lots of interesting points that people are making.jwils1:The Atlas system was their starter kit. It was even worse than the Powercab when it was actually sold, as it has to be sold when you move up to the full Lenz system, as it is the command station. You can, however, run the Atlas throttles on a Lenz system, as they both use XpressNET (which IS NOT A NETWORK!!!). Lenz is now doing a lot with Bachman, as Bachman's system is horrible (I had it, so I have the right to say so), but it has mass-market appeal, at $99 WITH locomotive. They also supply the decoders for Bachman and Atlas.The Digitrax/ NCE debates are pretty interesting. This particular post is like an all-you-can-eat buffet for thought, as are Joe and Charlie's posts.Bear Creek:wow. More info. Your post just rolled in, as I have been working on this post in my spare time since around noon. wow.You are not dumping full current, as the bulbs limit the shorts to 2.1A, and eat the current up.Adding higher amperage lights (see the thread about that) may help your pogoing, maybe 3A or so.Interesting that you say you like the Locobuffer. I got one, and I have not used it yet. I just use the throttle for everything, as I find that it is plenty easy to use, and quick just to dial up the CV and punch in a value in Ops Mode.If you dispatch locos correctly, and enable the 120 slots, instead of the default 22, you shouldn't have any problems. You can get at the opsws through the throttle as well. They named them opsw in order to make it sound "railroady". Its easy. Its all in the manual, and eventually I will know them all from memory.As we discussed either earlier in this thread, or in another thread, there is not prefect turnout control method. With your DCC friendly turnouts (my preference BY FAR), you can run the loco over a turnout thrown the wrong way, and it probably won't derail. Then, the cars will start derailing, and you will finally figure out why. With a power-routing turnout, you would have shorted the system before running over the turnout the wrong way. I prefer the DCC-friendly ones, as they are sooo much easier to wire.Those staging yard tracks sound pretty cool. Especially to shut up those annoying sound equipped locos. I have played around with a sound-equipped Athearn Genesis Challenger, and it has convinced me to avoid sound AT ALL COSTS. What a pain sound is. DCC YES! Sound NO!The DT100 and DT300s are pretty bad, but the DT400 is AWESOME.True you can have just one throttle jack, but see what I said above (I should have posted this in parts so you would have seen my earlier responses. oh well).The DT400 may look bad, but it is not. It is really easy to use, and the only time that you can hit an extra button is when you are dialing up a loco. Even then, it is not too bad, as it is just Loco XX Loco. The dials are just dumb. The DT400 is worth the extra $$, even for regular operators.I would love to say that the programming track running simultaneously is an awesome features, but the programming track does DO anything that ops mode doesn't, other than read back. Of course, you can just write your settings down, so you have them handy to use again, or store them in DecoderPro. You can even read back CVs in ops mode on a transponding-equipped system (definitely not one of its selling points, but its a cool technical implementation nonetheless).Yeah, polling radio is a BAD idea. Even CVP wasn't dumb enough to try it, even though they use polling on their throttle bus.The UT1 is still a perfectly good throttle, even though it is a limited throttle, which as you can tell I don't like. Its not like anyone other than the biggest clubs actually use 4 digit addressing, as you need 100 locos to justify its use, and you can put a loco up for grabs, even a four digit one, and snag it with a UT1, or one of those weird European home-brew Loconet throttles that cost like $20 to build, and have only a potentiometer speed-control knob and direction switch.I think the throttles use a high speed wireless, faster than Loconet, not sure though. I would think that the radio receiver makes sure that the command is sent out, as long as it gets it from the radio throttle. Because there is no polling, Loconet is faster than any of the other systems, even with a couple of hundred devices. I read that there is no way to run out of Loconet bandwidth, as the current biggest uses have used up about 35% of its data capacity, and the collisions are resolved faster than a polled system gets all of the way around to poll again. The collisions are also resolved faster than a human can perceive. If a single throttle notch is lost, the next will be picked up, and the user will probably not even know what happened, unless they were at like 1% or 2%.For the NiMH, I can't find a battery that will fit correctly. I have an old Rayovac one for R/C cars, and it works fine, but a newer Energizer one is too big. It sort of fits, but it really hard to get in and out. I am afraid it may damage the throttle over time, so I am going to look for one that does not have the plastic casing, which doesn't have the same depression on the end that the metal casing has. As I mentioned above, if it were not for the modular club, I would just abandon radio, and buy UP5s.I don't see that DecoderPro is that great. Just keep a paper of setting, and then dial them up on a DT400.Yeah, the headlights are a little annoying. Oh well. Just get fast at re-consisting the locos. NCE's system for dynamic momentum sounds like the way it was done in DC, applied to DCC. Kinda weird. I hate momentum myself, I only like a little TINY bit, as to not jerk the couplers when starting up, or coming to a grinding halt.MRC is almost becoming a real system, as we described earlier in the thread. Now they just need a pathetic throttle (engineer throttle), and they will have a full-featured system. I guess since their cab is only $75 anyways, they don't need a pathetic throttle.You have the BEST DCC system on the market. Why on earth would you want to downgrade to NCE?Interesting points on signaling. When I have a big layout, I will probably do signaling, just because I can, I mean just because my prototype does it (guess I will have to pick a prototype that does signaling , I want to do something present-day, so that shouldn't be too hard.). It does require a lot of gapping and wiring, however. And a lot of cost. But it is cool, and eliminated the need for radios and such, and allows the dispatcher to easily route trains around the layout in a prototypical fashion.Yes, Digitrax was made by geeks. What's documentation? Oh, that stuff that sits at the bottom of the box. Actually, I had to use it for the Digitrax stuff, and the documentation is great. Step by step, and really easy. The geeks made a system like ethernet, and that is why their system is the biggest and best system, and the most expandable. They were smart in setting up an architecture.Yeah, the AR-1 is pretty bad. I wonder if the PM-42 is any better? It can report the data back to Loconet, although I am not sure what the point of that is. The Tony's ones are MUCH better, and easier to install as well. No 44 pin board edge connector. Who has brass steamers anyways? Anything but plastic is pretty rare from what I see. And brass is a pain to get decoders in, as the whole locomotive is a conductor!But Digitrax is a better system. And it is cheaper.I mentioned the TV analogy. I just learn to use whatever I get. Digitrax was my choice because it was affordable, expandable, and the inner geek in me can't tolerate RS-485 polling. With a DVR, you do a LOT, like FF commercials. I love the Peanut (TiVo's remote), but if I were to get another DVR, I would use a low-power, no-noise computer for it, even though they have pretty bad remotes. A PC is technically better, and you can add software to it, even though the remote is the part I touch all the time.Thats a sort of negative look at DCC. My way of looking is that Digitrax is the closest to perfect, no system is perfect, and good is good enough. DCC is better than DC any way you look at it.Having wireless in the loco is impractical. The receivers are too big. See above about the "ultimate throttle". And about RR&Co and the SmartHand. I think you can already monitor your consumption, you would just have to "know" and refill, and the computer could stop you if you ran out. You would have to reduce the capacity in relation to the prototype, just like a fast clock, otherwise the locos would have like 45,000 gallon diesel tanks in them! You would need transponding or RFID for the approved water stop. You could also use RFID for car-forwarding. A few people have used bar codes, and also used them for automated hump yard routing, but RFID would be better, and the computer could keep track of the cars without cards, and if you were randomly doing stuff, the computer would still know about it. How about 4th generation DCC?Having a wireless camera would require a LOT of bandwidth, current systems can only handle a couple of cameras, and they are not the most compact systems, and have big, tethered receivers. They are fun for displays, though, as people see their shirts on the TV as the trains goes by, and visitors have to figure out which train has the camera (if it doesn't have an antenna sticking out!!!).Thats all for now. Sorry for the long post, but you know, so much interesting info. I think this thread is VERY sidetracked. I keep forgetting the initial subject was about MRC, until I see it in my browser bar. wow. BTW, I added some semi-arbitrary paragraph breaks, in case you were wondering. I tried to make it less painful to read, I ofen don't put enough paragraphs in, as my writing can go from on thought to the next to the next to the next, and never have a break. I don't have an paragraphs that are longer than the Reply To Thread box. I typed most of this in notepad and textedit, because it is so long! I think this is the longest forum post I have ever made! BTW, I am NOT getting paid by Digitrax to push their system, I just have their system and LOVE it!

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Wow, tons of great first hand experience and research knowledge about Digitrax, EasyDCC, and NCE. Not much about Lenz or MRC, unfortunately. Glad to see Charlie chime in. Being an EE sort, he knows the under-the-hood electronic realm really well and he can see how the DCC designers could have made their systems really cool ... but haven't. I guess when you know what's possible technically, you get a bit jadded. NY -- I and my crew also prefer just enough momentum to smooth out loco performance, just as you said you prefer.What a thread! Lots of meat and not much fluff here.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I was referring to the cordless phone option, which is the main radio option. Of course, as I mentioned, CVP is looking to get a part of the Lenz throttle market with their Lenz receiver.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Bluetooth DCC... now there is an interesting idea....

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I gotta disagree that the DT400 is awesome. I feel its closer to awful. I detest sea-of-buttons throttles and wouldn't dare to hand one of the "full" lazy D throttles to someone not fully trained in D-land lest they get into moose-mode by accidentally hitting the wrong button and start changing command station configuration.When playing with sound (especially the horn/;whistle) throttle response is very important. On a layout with 10 locos advanced consisting won't make any difference. But when there are 40 locos around and especially if there are MUs with three or more locos in a lash-up then advanced consisting can make a difference in how long it takes for a loco to get issued a horn off/on command. Even an extra 10th second delay is noticible. And that gets added onto what ever throttle bus delays are present.I'm somewhat concerned about large digitrax layouts that have full signalling, block detection, and transponding. All over the same bus as the throttles. With the loconet's transmit whenever you want to, listen for a collision, and retransmit later protocol, there will come a time when too many collisions creates too many retries creating yet more collisions and the bus dies under the load of infinite command retries. I don't know how much stuff it would take to cause this to happen. This is not an issue with a polled network. A polled network will get slower as more things are added but it doesn't come to a halt.Someone made the comment that certain clubs had spent tens of thousands of dollars on digitrax stuff as an argument in favor the the D brand. Frankly that kind of expenditure freaks me out. Where do those clubs get this kind of bucks? How does all this stuff compare with Chubb's CMRI devices (which have been around for decades but don't have a deep pockets marketing department behind them). I resented the heck out of D. spending all their time on stuff like block detection and transponding that I don't have a use for instead of getting a decent single knob throttle out with a usable number of function buttons on it (finally the UT4 throttles arrived - not perfect but much better than the UT1s).Headlights don't matter? Well, I'm glad you can live with headlight direction issues. I guess before DCC we were lucky just to have constant intensity headlights. Unforetunately having the wrong head light lit up drives me nuts. And even more so since NCE has demonstrated relatively simple user interface solutions to the problem.As far as really advanced throttles costing $500 I don't believe it. The electronics for the wirelss part could use the standard wireless parts used in cordless phones. If off-the-shelf radio stuff is used they shouldn't cost more than the current crop of throttles.But I still think the ultimate control system will be more like Rail Lynx (a direct throttle to loco IR connection - there is no command station). I'm not proposing to use IR. And much as I like Rail Lynx the highly proprietary design and the need to use expensive decoders without sound options makes it a non-usable solution for me.But putting blue-tooth transceivers in each loco would enable direct throttle to loco(s) radio communications. Not command station. And with full-duplex communications between loco and throttle feed back of loco performance characteristics (actual speed, actual power used, fuel/water consumption, mabybe even the curvature of the track the loco is on (for flange squealing) becomes trivial. Bluetooth transceivers are a commodity part.Oh well, there ain't not perfect DCC system out there.C.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I can drive trains with my bluetooth earphone, just by talking to the train... cool! hey, just kidding! the bluetooth idea is brilliant, I think some big manufacturer should think about it. bluetooth now is a very cheap technology.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Bear Creek:The DT400 is great, because it doesn't have the arcane sequences of button presses that you have to learn in order to to anything. It is not a bad "sea of buttons", the NCE Pro Cab is worse if you hate that sort of look. The Pro Cab is larger and has a sea and a half of buttons. Overall, the more buttons, the easier to use.Good point about the response for sound. In this case, you would want ALL advanced consists, which Digitrax can do. You also would want Loconet, with wired throttles. Any other system (wireless or an RS-485 based system), is going to make the response of those sound equipped units much slower.As for the collision detection, people used to put 50 computers on a hubbed network, before swtiches were cheap and popular. Those networks were send megabytes of data, loconet is only sending bits and bytes at a time. No matter how many devices are attached to the network, Loconet will always be faster than an RS-485 system. Also, with an RS-485 system, the polling makes the actual amount of data that is able to be transmitted much smaller than on a peer to peer system like Loconet. No one has been able to use more than 30% of Loconet's data capacity. No one probably ever will, and thats a good thing to ensure that the largest setups still work fine.Also, if it was an issue, you could have two parallel Loconets, one for throttles, boosters, and the command station, and another for track detectors and signal decoders and such. These two would be separate, but their data could be bridged by the controlling computer, by having a pair of Locobuffer-USB interfaces. Right now, there is no Digitrax controlled layout big or complex enough to get anywhere close to needing this type of an implementation.Some clubs have been doing DCC for the last 13 years or so, and if they have 50+ members, and value realistic signalled operation with DCC, they have accumulated a lot of Digitrax gear. Their layouts, sometimes made over a half-century, probably have hundreds of times more into them than their Loconet control systems.Chubb C/MRI is a very different system. Before Loconet and many of the detection and signalling stuff that Digitrax has done, they were the only game on the market. Chubb C/MRI is also not Dr. Chubb's main career, so it may or may not have been profitable. Dr. Chubb made this system for his own use, and to benefit other model railroaders, not particularly for profit, although he probably makes some money on it, to make it worth his while.It is an older system, with a polled serial bus, and less advanced hardware and software than Digitrax. It is much more complex to install on a layout, as it needs a new bus, and a power bus and a bunch of other stuff. It is a good system, but just doesn't have the ease-of-use (relatively speaking here, the Digitrax stuff is still very advanced) or the new advanced technology (like transponding), that Digitrax's system has. Chubb doesn't have a marketing department, but he also doesn't have to run a company or make a living off of C/MRI. That being said, what Chubb did was amazing, and he created a really cool system, that was the first of its kind for having detection and signalling, which is really good for a DCC controlled layout. He paved the way for what Digitrax is doing now with the much newer Loconet.I didn't say the headlights were perfect, for yard switching, it is downright dumb (I use a pair of GE 70 tonners back to back), but it is still a lot better than having the headlights of all of the units on when in a large consist (I will be running a 6-unit consist this weekend at a train show).As for the cost, there is a big cost in getting the stuff appproved by the government, and the research and development for a radio throttle would not have very many customers to spread the cost over, as UP5s and RJ12 wire works better, so they would be $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.Do you want to pay $100 per loco, and have a receiver that is so big, it doesn't fit in many smaller locos? And forget about N scale, or anything less than a full-sized road diesel in HO. DCC, on the other hand, has tiny little N and Z scale decoders that work well in HO, can handle 1 amp of current, and are $16.Bluetooth? How about the $300 decoder? I wouldn't do it. Wifi or other 2.4ghz to a base station like today's DCC radio systems might work at a high cost, as I said above.There ain't a perfect system out there, but Digitrax is pretty close, and NCE is not too far away, although they can't get much closer, as the RS-485 architecture was a very poor choice for this application. And they really can't change to a network-based system now.GM:The lower level vs. upper level shouldn't matter, as it all has to do with the position of the throttle in the user's hand, and the receiver. You can use one receiver (non-NCE) for your layout. As I said above, radio is not very practical, and a good wired throttle bus will serve you better. The older EasyDCC throttles have a base station for NCE, as well as one for Lenz, in addition to EasyDCC. The newer generation of throttles, however, don't support NCE, only Lenz and EasyDCC. I have a feeling NCE's full-function two-way radio essentially killed CVP's support for NCE. MRC and Digitrax are not supported by CVP, Digitrax because CVP uses RS-485, MRC because they have a small, inexpensive system. You should always use your own throttles for everyone. This will ensure they have all of the same settings, the right addresses (on a non-Digitrax system), etc.EDIT: Wrote in Parts. I did not get to respond to all of the posts that I wanted to, so my next post will cover some that come before this post. Sorry if I confused anybody.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

GMOne of the biggest things effecting radio communication is the number of bodies in the train room. A room crammed full of bodies will likely have more radio throttle problems than one with few bodies. The use of sheet aluminum for backdrops can also be a problemBoth of these can be overcome by either 1) putting the radio receiver/transceiver up high 2) adding extra transceivers.So far I've gotten by with one digitrax receiver in my basement layout room. And it worked well (at least I didn't hear complaints about it) this laster Saturday with 13 bodies in the train room with it. And its mounted hanging under the layout instead of hanging from the ceiling.You shouldn't need to worry too much about it.C.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&HMy apologies to those for whom to following discussion may get a bit techincal...I'll agree that the DT400 is an order of magnitude (or more) better than the DT100/200/300 throttles. But when I look at it I see a sea of buttons. But then the NCE procab appears to be a sea of buttons also. Not being an NCE user I don't know whether one can put a PowerHouse whatever into moose-mode through uneducated and inadvertant button presses.Luckily for me, Digitrax finally released the UT4 and UT4R throttles which are a lot close to what I want in an engineer's throttle. Enough buttons to run (most of) the sound fx but a simpler (at least in appearance) operation. And a UT4R is substantially less expensive than a DT400.I may actually break down and buy a DT400 one of these days. But it will be to replace the aging DT100 that came with my chief, won't be radio, and will only be used to "operate" the command station.As far as computer networks transferring megabytes and megabytes of information - this is true. It's still in use in computer networks today (where giga-bytes are transferred). But with networks being an imperfect means of conveying data the TCP/IP protocol was devised which layers significant amounts of flow control, error detecting, and automatic retries of faulty communications on top of the hardware. Modern ethernet hardware is running at 100 megabits or even giga-bits per second of data. In the old days megabit per second connections are considered hot stuff. Unless I'm remembering wrong LocoNet is running at 16.7 thousand bits per second. Making it far easier to saturate. But the low data rate has the advantage of allowing relatively crude wiring. Terminators don't seem to be required, nor is the use of shielded, twisted pair wiring. Being able to use standard 6 conductor modular phone cable is a blessing for the hobbyist looking to string LocoNet around a train room.If the most complex digitrax loconet installations now in place are using 30% of the bandwidth available that would be a good thing as going beyond this number would quickly result in the LocoNet becoming useless.Having a second LocoNet dedicated for signaling while the other LocoNet is used by throttles and/or boosters would be a good solution. But it would require the command station to monitor two LocoNets at once, I'm not aware of any LocoNet products (command stations) that can do this? Using a router to combine the two loconets into one would then be subject to the same kinds of problems having everything on a single LocoNet would have (except that such a router should be able to avoid collisions from the 2 into 1 combination). But a command station with mutiple loconet spigots might be a better solution (and would avoid being an extra box).While I'm not anywhere near the LocoNet/Digitrax fan you seem to be I'll say that my Chief is now working satisfactorily for me in that my trains run and with DecoderPort and the USB/LocoNet interface and my computer control of much of the idiosyncratic behaviour I previously saw is now possible. Yeah, I could wish for better consisting control. And the NCE "consist momentum" feature is waay cool. And funny headlights does drive me nuts (but with modern decoders and consist address specific function enabling it's possible too so I'm choosing to live with it.Digitrax, while functional and having some advantages over the competition seems a lot like Mircrosoft to me.Finally, please, I'm not attacking you. I just don't have as high an opinion of the D brand you have developed. Perhaps if I felt I needed a fully signaled, block detected, and transponded railroad I would feel differently.Regards,Charlie Comstock

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Regarding CMRI and how much support it does or doesn't get, Bruce Chubb is a personal friend, and I'm very aware of his true dedication level to his baby. He uses CMRI on his own layout extensively, and is actively updating his manuals and writing new addendums on how to use it all the time.CMRI is not only used in the model railroading hobby, it is used to control dams, building systems and more than a few other industrial applications. Bruce is commited to supporting and continuing to keep CMRI as up-to-date as humanly possible because its use is so far flung. Bruce also has a small army of others who work with him to fill the orders they get for CMRI boards and built-up products. While CMRI is not his primary source of income, it's not an insignificant source that he has any interest in abandoning, either.I got to know Bruce very well when he decided to rebuild his Sunset Valley along the route of the Siskiyou Line. Bruce and I have spent many hours together face-to-face discussing Siskiyou Line trivia, CMRI, and other model railroading topics.The fact I know Bruce personally has some *small* influence on my preference to use CMRI as my signaling/accessory technology.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Denny:Bluetooth is a very cheap technology, but it is for a relatively short range, not a long range like throttles wouldl need. And, as I said above, it is nearly impossible to put this type of technology on the locomotives.Bear Creek:The idea of mounting it up high is a good one. Some Ntrak clubs do this, as a modular layout could have hundreds of people around it at any one time, and avoiding at least some of those people by putting the receiver higher is a good idea.Bear Creek:What exactly do you describe as Moose Mode? Is that where it activates all of the function decoders that run the animated Meese on your layout? jk, but what do you actually mean by Moose Mode? Like command station CV's? There must be a Moose Mode on NCE as well, and a way to get into it. The Digital encoders are soooo nice on the DT400, and can give any engineer great speed control (and a display), as well as a bit more built in momentum, as it is physically impossible to spin the encoders fast enough to create a bad sliding stop. Loconet has basically the same collision detection, probably more even, as ethernet doesn't really have collisions any more, as everything is switched. Loconet is sending a few bytes of commands in a packet, while a computer is sending a few MEGAbytes of data, not just commands. Thus, each is appropriately designed for its application. I seem to think loconet is 33kbps, but I may be wrong. Of course I know Fast Ethernet is 100mbps, with gigabit (1000 megabits per second) available relatively cheaply.Loconet should be pretty useful, even at high traffic levels, things may get slowed down a bit, but it would still work decently well. RS-485, on the other hand, uses most of its bandwidth up before it actually does anything USEFUL, as it is polling all of the time.For the split Loconet, you would have two Locobuffer-USB interfaces, each on a different USB port of the same computer, and the computer would bridge the commands that needed to be bridged. This is similar to the way C/MRI can be bridged with a DCC system that usues its own bus system, or the way that an NCE DCC system could have Digitrax signalling and detection components. If the Loconets were set up well, very little traffic would ever have to go between them, and the computer could deal directly with each for signalling and automation.It is hard to compare a system to an OS. I use a Mac most of the time. And Digitrax.Yes, I know. We are not attacking each other, just having a friendly debate as to the extremely specific pros and cons of particular DCC systems (we seem to be focusing on Digitrax/ Loconet vs. NCE/ Chubb C/MRI :D:D).JoeF:I read the MR article about C/MRI, he does have an amazing installation. 400 detectors!!! 36 boosters!!!! NCE DCC and C/MRI working together! Wow. That being said, he still doesn't have the resources that Digitrax does, as he is not a company, like Digitrax.Wow, I did not know it was used to control stuff in the full-sized world. Yeah, I found it interesting how some of the same places show up in both the Siskiyou line and the SVOS, although 30ish years apart. Now someone needs to make the present day version. The scenery is so gorgeous on both layouts, in part because the locale offers nice pine trees and lots of green stuff.The basic problem with C/MRI is that it seems outdated. Digitrax's system is more closely integrated with their DCC system, so it allows more functionality. For example, on a Digitrax system, the turnouts are controlled with DS-64 turnout decoders, and can be addressed directly from the throttle. On C/MRI, if that is even possible, it would have to be bridged through a computer. Having throttles that can do switches is a huge thing, as it cuts way down on the wiring time and expense of creating pushbutton controls on small control panels, as Dr. Chubb has done on the SVOS. Next, Digitrax is the only system right now that can talk bidirectionally with the locomotives, which has many advantages, as I have discussed above.While C/MRI is a good system, it just seems dated. Like many technologies, it has been surpassed by Digitrax's system, which is top-of-the-line right now. Who knows, in five years, we may not be using track-based detection. It may all be based on RFID chips in everything on the railroad, and scanned on every track, for both locos and rolling stock. This, on its own, or combined with Digitrax's signalling system, would allow for the computer to do car cards and routing, with the user having a tablet PC, similar to what the BNSF does on the prototype.KnuT:Wow, that guy has some messed up throttles! You can order a Procab with a potentiometer like the encoder that is in the Procab, but the encoder is much more versatile, as you can stack recall with it, and not have whacky speed jumps. I am not sure why one would modify their stuff like that, as NCE has already done a fine job with having different types of throttles and such. If that guy is so obsessed with his old-school potentiometer control, he should just use the cheapie Cab04P. The battery charging stuff was really neat, buy pointless, as I said earlier, as you can just use wired cabs, and have them draw power from the layout.The direct radio/IR systems are impractical, expensive, and in general, a joke, at least in HO. In G, they are catching on, as the locos cost more, so the expensive decoders are justified, the locos are bigger, and there are track pickup problems that justify the use of an onboard power source in many cases.In general, the transition for the few who have direct radio is the OTHER way, from radio to DCC. I know for a fact that the Aristo direct radio system runs with DCC just fine, and Rail-Lynx probably does as well, if not a rectifier would do the trick. This way, DCC locos run on DCC, and direct radio locos run off of DCC power, but get control signals from their radio transmitter, and can thus run on the same layout, at the same time.The standard is DCC. Try getting a DDC reveiver inside of an HO loco that will BARELY fit an N-scale decoder. Not going to happen. Try equipping a 30 loco fleet with DDC receivers, thats $3000 for DDC, and $500 for DCC. Big difference. The DCC gear for the layout would make DDC not quite so bad in comparison, but still more expensive. Next, most people use DCC, so it is interchangable from one layout to another, AND you can buy locos with DCC installed, or with a plug for it, which is not the case with DDC.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

There ain't a perfect system out there, but Digitrax is pretty close, and NCE is not too far away, ......Charlie, I do agree, although all my experience so far is the D as do most of my friends.To illustrate this I found that some people even try to make there "not so perfect" system better, like Marcus Amman does with his NCE-systemHe has made a Knob on his ProCaband added a direction toggle switch on his CAB04PYour idea of bluetooth DCC - DDC? (Direct Digital Control) - could is interesting.At last Denny could run trains with his bluetooth cellphone Until the standard is all DDC, we might need new decoders or some "box" which could plug into the NMRA-plug to translate the radiosignals to DCC for the decoder - a box which a "normal DCC" deocoder could be plugged into -or soldered into.But it have to be small.And then sometime the enginees could be powered by battery or straight DC from the tracks like in RailLynx

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Actually Rail Lynx is direct IR from throttle to loco. And it works pretty well. Decoders are in the $50-$60 range. The locos pick up power only from the track. No commands come through the track. This means a Rail Lynx loco can run on DC power or DCC power or the AC accessory output of your old power pack.But because the Lynx decoders have a set of IR receivers in the locos Aristo radio throttles would be strictly ornamental and non-functional. Before saying Rail-Lynx is junk perhaps you should chat with Lee Nicholas as the Utah Colorado Western is run by them.The biggest problems with RailLynx are:o Gotta have line of sight from throttle to loco - if the loco hits a tunnel or goes around a bend repeaters are necessary.o Sound isn't availableo Single sourced product (but it did survive the untimely death of Jerry Belina, its inventor)o No, it ain't gonna fit in N-scale.For me the standardization of DCC won out over the advantages of not having a command station (direct throttle to loco communication doesn't need one).btw. One of the inovations on the UCW is the mole operator who dynamically stages trains. The dynamic staging makes it possible to run lots and lots of trains without needing to have a 1000+ car fleet. The mole stages a train in the "hidden" mole yard, The the train is sent either to Flannigan or to East Yard. The train is given a "lets go" command by the Mole's throttle. When it hits the proper place to stop (with nose peeking out of the staging lead "tunnel" power is momentarily disrupted on the staging lead track stopping the loco. When the crew for that train is ready to go they set the engine #, point their throttle at the loco, twist the knob and off they go. No need to dispatch or release engines. And no need for fancy computer programs or electronics to issue a "stop" command for that train to the DCC command station (otherwise when the power comes back the train starts in motion again).Simple and elegent and effective.But decoders are a bit more expensive, are a bit harder to install, and no sound fx.FWIWC.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

said ...The direct radio/IR systems are impractical, expensive, and in general, a joke, at least in HO. Well then, what about Rail Lynx? Check the facts ... it's a very nicely designed system. It is very practical, affordable, and works darn good all things considered. The late Jerry Belina was at least a decade ahead of his time. It proves this direct from throttle to loco approach will work and is not pie-in-the-sky. In HO.Lee Nicholas uses Rail Lynx with great effectiveness on his layout. I've run on Lee's layout and the wireless Rail Lynx in HO is a blast to use.And that's no joke.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...Denny:Bluetooth is a very cheap technology, but it is for a relatively short range, not a long range like throttles wouldl need. And, as I said above, it is nearly impossible to put this type of technology on the locomotives.I'm afraid I don't agree. why should it be IMPOSSIBLE? of course the first experimental prototypes will be expensive and perhaps the first commercial throttles and decoders, too. but so was DCC 10 years ago.20 years ago everyone thought it was very hard to control trains indipendently without lots of gaps in the rails and switches. 40 years ago they all believed nobody could reach the moon with a rocket, but NASA did it - well, somebody still think they didn't actually - but that's another story

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Moose Mode is a piece of jargon that comes from a computer company where I worked a number of years ago. The old block mode terminals (remember those? 24 linex of text with 80 characters per line plus a line 25 status display?) had a number of special "alternate" character intended for crude graphics such as putting oultlines around text.Anyway, an enterprising programmer used the graphics characters to create a crude animation of a number of mooses grazing in a field. Their heads would bob up and down as they "grazed" and periodically they'd move to a new location where presumably the phosphors were greener (on the other side of the screen). The program was called simply "moose".Some times when a program using these terminals in block mode would fail it would scribble graphics characters around on the screen which people sometimes referred to as having gone into "moose mode".I've seen my command station (and sometimes locos) enter a mode where nothing much seems to happen except that the moose are grazing somewhere...One major trouble spot I had for years (before LocoBuffer USB and the slot monitor) was that the slot table would fill up and certain throttles would not be able to select certain locomotives. However, other throttle(s) (plural here!) could select the loco in question and the first throttle could select certain other locos.I've also had an unfortunate (and unknown to me what I did exactly) misadventure with button pushing on my DT100 (admittedly nowhere near as user friendly as the DT400 - maybe someday I'll buy one) put it into "moose mode" on the display where it wanted me to do something but I couldn't figure out what it was. I hate resorting to RTFM (if I can even find the FM!) but the digitrax system seemed to push me in that direction waaay too often.I also found it incredibly confusing to have to adjust the opsw (op switches?) manually through the throttle. It's a pain to select the individual switches and all too often a misadventure in button pushing land would result in undesired things happening. And the Lord help to poor fellow who accidentally sets the OPSW that turn off command processing in his DCS-100 which then becomes a booster and won't listen to commands on the throttle bus again until the keep-alive battery is removed and replaced!!!I also have witnessed a train going walk-about after a short-circuit and recovery. The throttle that had been previously controlling this train just fine and dandy sudden was no longer in control and the train could not be deselected and reselected until the command station had waited for some timeout period to elapse. With more advanced throttles (I was using a UT1 when this happened) perhaps the loco could have been "stolen" but that's another trip to RTFM land for me.However, since I got the LocoBuffer USB and decoderpro installed I've not been torpedo'd by these problems. That slot monitor is a wonderful program. It lets me clear out unused slots (why doesn't the command station clear out a slot once a loco has been deselected for more than about 30 seconds?) and clearing the slot and/or hitting the ESTOP button has served to prevent locos that have a desire to go walk-about. I had a couple of cases of locowalk-about 3 sessions back (which ESTOP and slot clearing fixed) but the last few sessions I've not had this problem.The throttle slot table could be cleared by setting some OPSW (more RTFM to figure out which one) but I found that the OPSW clear command for it also clears out the consist information. Which led to a goodly dose of the "muttering" that Joe referred to in an earlier message. Now if only decoderpro would let me directly make and break digitrax consists. (The best consist that I have is an ABA set of F units. There's a motor in each of the A units and a DSX soundtrax in the B unit. All units have the same 2 digit address. The headlights behave and the sound fx operate all on the same throttle address without messing with consisting stuff at all - reprogramming requires the programming track but so be it!)Anyway, like I've said previously although I might well go NCE if I was starting over in DCC from scratch the cost of a complete start over is too high for a guy who already has a servicable DCC system (antique Chief) and lots of other things in the train room crying out for financing.But my advice to anyone buying a digitrax system is get a LocoBuffer and decoder pro (yes it can sometimes be a pain to get it configured) but imho it is not an option with the D brand.For now anyway the single DCS100 is running 13 trains and up to 7 throttles at once during a session. Things aren't perfect but it's a usable system. And if you want radio throttles UT4R's are $100 each compared with $150 for the cheapest competitor).Regards,Charlie ComstockSuperintendent of Soap Box Standing and Large Mammal ZoologyThe Bear Creek and South Jackson Railway Co.Hillsboro, OR

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Bear Creek:Yes, I know Rail Lynx is direct IR. The Aristo system that I was talking about was direct RADIO, and is a direct competitor to the Rail Lynx system. Both systems, AND DCC can be used in the same block of track, with the Rail Lynx/ Aristo systems just using the DCC for power.DCC is really the only practical system out there. Try getting a Rail Lynx revceiver in a Critter. Forget it. You can barely get an N scale DCC decoder in one of those things. The same thing is true for many switchers, as well as many steamers. That being said, if you really like the Rail Lynx system (although it doesn't do anything DCC can't, and it is a lot more expensive), you could run with both at the same time.I am not following what you are saying. With DCC, you can steal a loco, or dispatch and get, even if the train is still moving. Stealing would be like what you are describing with Rail Lynx.Wow, the receivers are only $50-60!!! Thats cheap. Like only 4 times as much as a DCC decoder! That added up over a fleet of locos isn't too pretty on the wallet.Joe:I never said it was a bad or poorly designed system. It was probably pretty good in the old command control days, but it has been ecplipsed by technology, to an even bigger degree than C/MRI. DCC really wasn't a whole a lot better technically, but it is a standard, and thus it is a lot easier to implement, and there are decoders for just about every loco. Even some HO locos need Z scale decoders, particularly switchers.That being said, existing locos that are equipped with Rail Lynx don't have a big reason to be converted to DCC, as they can run on DCC with their own throttles. On the other hand, you still have all of the problems I described a few posts ago about why radio will never work very well, IR is basically the same, maybe even worse, as you need LOS, or a nice white surface to bounce off of.The big question really is:What market share does DCC have (of HO command control users)? My guess would be 97% or more. Rail Lynx probably has 1% or less. Direct radio is a great option in G scale, there are even some direct radio battery powered units in L guage now, that use AA batteries, and could probably be modded to use DC track power.Oh yeah, and find me an Athearn RTR loco that is "Rail Lynx Ready". Yeah right. They are "DCC ready". Which is awesome, as $16 and 10 minutes later, they are equipped for DCC.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Wow, posts almost crossed on that series of tubes. By the time I got back to the page and saw that there were two more posts, I had to go.Denny,The industry has already figured out the solution to the problem of being able to control multiple trains in one electrical block. That is DCC. DCC is so common now, compared to any other command control system, that it is here to stay. No one is going to swtich over to Direct IR or Direct Radio, as they aren't any better than DCC, and cost MORE. That being said, DCC has a very bright future. I think we will see transponding used more, although it does require quite a bit of wiring, and newer and smaller decoders, including those annoying sound decoders will come onto the market. We may see newer systems, like Zimo innovate, and maybe some of those features will trickle down to more mainstream systems like Digitrax and NCE. Direct Radio/ IR will not be any bit of a market force in the forseeable future. Don't compare trains to the government, as our model railroads don't have taxpayers to keep them alive. Bear Creek:Wow, great story about "Moose Mode".You need to clear out locos and consists using opsw 36 before each operating session. This will stop any weird behavior. Use basic and/ or advanced consisting if you want to keep consists, or just get your operators DT400s, so they can make the consists that they want to. The DT400 does not have the "easy Moose Mode" feature, and it is super easy to set up option swtiches with. You need to upgrade.If you used opsw 36 before each operating session, you wouldn't have to use JMRI, and you would not have any weird problems. I tried JMRI, and I found it to be pretty pointless to use for non-signalling applications. The programming is easy on the DT400, as is everything else. Don't worry about the slots, just opsw36 before you run, and you will be fine. You may waste a bunch, but with 120 slots, who cares. They will just get reset anyways. If you only have 22 slots enabled, enable all 120. This will give your railroad some slots to waste.You can make your Chief super easy to use and not very antique for $140 with a DT400. Then, an operator can just use your DT100 for basic running.The UT4s are very limiting. Don't you want your operators to be able consist, and program if they need to? I suppose the cost could become an issue with a bunch of operators, but other than cost, the DT400 is far superior to the UT4 in every manner whatsoever.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Umm, I don't have any critters nor do I expect to. Perhaps DC is still a good option for the critter hungry as those style of layout normally aren't infested with massive loco fleets needing independent control.I wonder if the raillynx decoders now fit in a nmcr 8 pin DCC socket.DCC may be the standard but we aren't done yet until we have full duplex communication with the train instead of merely with the command station (and no Rail Lynx doesn't do this either...).I do NOT want my operators (at least not most of 'em - sorry guys) setting or modifying consists during a session. I take the trouble to have the layout ready to go when the operators arrive. MU'd lash ups are already lashed up. When I need helpers for the grade I much prefer a separate crew for the helper (and MU'ing arbitrary engines can cause some serious speed mismatch problems that is applied to head and tail end locos could easily stringline a train).Plus a DT400 is $140 for non-radio and $180 for radio (Tony's current prices + shipping). A UT4 is $65 and radio is $100. Weren't you the guy complaining about the cost of decoders as though money was a serious debating point? Encoders are ok but I'm not in love with them or their tiny knobs. And having two on a throttle is of little use to me as I would freak out if I found someone trying to run a helpered train up the hill with lead units on one knob and tail units on the other. There's not enough attention span or eyeball bandwidth to do this properly. I don't want my operators having to feel guilty for throwing a bunch of rolling stock on the floor because I was permissive with what I said was ok. Beasides which, separate crews for helpers are more fun.Oh well..."fi they took the antlers out of the chocolate mousse it wouldn't be crunchy now, would it?"C.ps. Instead of 2nd hand opinions and info if anyone is interested Rail,.-Lynx has a website: http://rail-lynx.com/(and it appears that yes, they now have N-scale decoders) (not that I'm planning on converting myself - the decoders are more expensive than DCC but for a small layout with a handfull of locomotives you can have wireless command control for less than the cost of one of the big-boys systems)

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

168551886=NYNH&H said ...The industry has already figured out the solution to the problem of being able to control multiple trains in one electrical block. That is DCC. DCC is so common now, compared to any other command control system, that it is here to stay.don't get me wrong, I think DCC is GREAT. just thinking about a simple alternative. and, about cost you should consider that bluetooth train control wouldn't require a command station, so probably the price would be comparable with DCC.however, I like DCC the way it is

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Bear Creek,Even if you don't have a critter, you probably have some small loco. Like a switcher. Of any kind. In fact, DCC is really beneficial for yard switching, as having blocks in a complex yard is a complex matter, both for the installation and operation.What would bi-directional communication do? Secondly, for layout location, Digitrax's Transponding already does this.Mu'ing is really easy, and could be just part of getting some locos to run with. This is part of the operating process, at least on modern diesel layouts. You could also use advanced consisting, which has little to do with the command station. Mu'ing arbitrary locos is fine if they are speed matched using CV's 2, 5, and 6, the best three CV's other than 1.I did admit the DT400s were a bit more expensive, and I also said that except for price, the DT400s are better than the UT4s in every manner whatsoever.Tiny knobs are easy to use with one hand, and offer awesome precise speed control.Helpers are not the only possibility with respect to the two knobs. How about extreme yard switching! Oh, and because there is one on each side, they can accomodate both left and right handed users equally well. And, while MU'iing, you can use it to couple the locos together, and uncouple them when de MU'ing.Sure, a Rail-Lynx system for two locos is cheaper than a Super Chief. But then again, a Zephyr with a throttle, and a few DCC chips is competitively priced. When outfitting a layout, there are generally the most locos, more than operators or peices of DCC layout equipment (other than a signalled layout, which couldn't be done with Rail-Lynx). Thus, the price of the decoders is important.The availability of different kinds of DCC decoders for different locos is great. Not the case for Rail-Lynx. They have like one or two receivers, not like a hundred like DCC. Oh yeah, good luck finding a Rail Lynx "Equipped" loco for sale. Yeah right.Denny:At $100 a loco for direct radio, the price of the DCC system looks very low compared to outfitting a fleet of locos with direct radio. For 10 locos, that is $1000, plus $300 for the throttles, thats $1280. With DCC, that is $130 for decoders, and $635 for a nice DCC system like the Zephyr with a pair of radio throttles, for a total of under $800. Its not quite so bad with Rail-Lynx, as it is a cheaper IR system.Rail-Lynx's DCC page (PDF) is worth a read. Not saying the system is bad, its OK, but the marketing stuff is ridiculous. They try to say that MNRA standards are worthless, that DCC decoders don't have good compatibility with another system, that they don't have substandard systems (as if the Zephyr is sub-equipped, it is a mini Chief!), that no command control system has major advantages over the other (they forgot to mention that like EVERYTHING is DCC now, at least as far as command control), and that is has all of the features of any DCC system. What a joke!They then go on to show how "complicated" DCC wiring is, and how "expensive" throttle panels are. They show this comparison for a 10amp system for two operators (again, ridiculous), and how it is so much cheaper to use Rail-Lynx. They didn't count the decoders on either system, and Rail-Lynx decoders are 3X the price of DCC decoders. Not only that, but hooking a 10 amp PSU up to a layout with no ciruit breakers or shot protection is just asking for a melt-down. Then, they should two 5-amp DCC boosters, which, in reality, for the comparison, you would have to use 1 10 amp booster and circuit breakers to prevent those ugly meltdowns. Ugh, that document is ridiculous. Its a pretty funny read, actually.In conclusion, Direct Radio is dead, other than those systems that were installed pre-DCC, and still "just work". DCC is the new standard, and will eventually trump all other forms of control- including its only serious competitor, DC cab control. Does anyone actuallly know the split between DC cab control and DCC? I have heard everything from 75/25 to 25/75. No one seems to know. DCC will also continue to improve. I think they should add cheap Loconet RFID scanners, so that a car forwarding system could be implemented on a computer, and it would actually know where the cars are.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

joef said ...Lee Nicholas uses Rail Lynx with great effectiveness on his layout. I've run on Lee's layout and the wireless Rail Lynx in HO is a blast to use.And that's no joke. Ah, is that the name of the gentleman with cabinet grade benchwork down on Front St. in Salem? It was indeed interesting, and one of the other guys there put forth the very interesting idea that you could run Rail Lynx equipped locomotives on a DCC layout since all they need are 16v AC power.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Hmmm. I thought I had posted this before.Anyway, I'm going to an MRC DCC clinic in a couple of weeks. Any comments or questions that you all would like me to bring up?Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Jeff:Actually Lee is located in Utah ... the fellow you are referring to is one of Lee's buddies, I think.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H:Perhaps you would describe your layout and operation? How much track? How many locos? How many cars? Do you run op sessions? How many trains move? What is the nature of the trains? What is the range of engines required to move a train? Do you require helpers? Do you MU the helpers with the main power or use independent crews? Front end or pusher helpers? How many people are involved in an op session (if you have 'em)? How much signaling / detection do you use on your layout?C.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I don't use a laptop to run DecoderPro. I just strung a longish USB cable between the train room and my computer and plugged the LocoBuffer USB into the front USB port of the computer. Most any computer will work with decoderpro if it has a USB port. A laptop in the train room is nice but not entirely necessary. Having a way to force feed an entire set of CV's into a decoder without having to mash buttons on a cab for an hour (not to mention remembering what all those settings were!) is a big benefit. However, I'll confess that my computer is adjacent to the train room. A computer upstairs with trains downstairs would be a lot less practical. But I peridically see $300 computers in the Fry's ads...Joe, is there a way to connect Decoder Pro to a NCE Power Cab?Cheers,Charlie ComstockSuperintendent of Engine Programming ServicesThe Bear Creek and South Jackson Railway Co.Hillsboro, OR

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Or my lack therof? I am part of a modular group, and that is my main focus in MR'ing. I have a 2x4 module, which is built to club specs, and has three tracks and a siding.I have a small layout (8x12 L-shaped island), that is bascially an entertaining proving ground for the stuff that I run at train shows (about 10 of 'em a year). It is also my first real layout, so I am learning what not to do (like use Code 100 rail and solder the joints- its not terribly prototypical).I am working on putting a backdrop up so that I can have some informal operations (probably solo), without the whole "Nascar" effect. I have a maximum of two operators. The main line track length is a little under 50 feet. It also has a yard, with 6 tracks and a 4 track engine servicing facility.It will eventually have three passing sidings, a logging line, and some industried to swtich. It is code 100 Atlas, with one block powered by the Zephyr. I don't really do helper ops, as the layout is not big enough.I have 25 locos, 12 of which are active, have DCC, and operate on the layout. Two of them have major mechanical gremlins, however, and are on the end of the engine serivicing/ storage tracks for show, and to play with the lighting effects.I have thirty something peices of active, metal-wheeled kadee-couplered rolling stock, and I am accumulating more rather quickly. I have more rolling stock, but it is not operated, because it is either part of my collection of railroads I have been to, old stuff with horn hooks that can't be converted, or even older stuff from Germany that I sort of inherited.I was going to have signalling on my layout, but when I added up the cost, it just wasn't worth it for this layout. It also didn't make any sense for a layout this small, as two operators can just talk to each other and figure out who has permission to go where. This is just a starter layout not prototype based AT ALL.In the future, I wish to build a larger, high-and-narrow walkaround, based on a modern protoype in the northwestern part of the country (I like the UP and BNSF with big-time modern railroading, and I like the evergreen trees and mountainous territory that Joe has on his layout, and grow in the Northwest). At first, I did not like the idea of prototype-based modelling, but now I do. This future layout will have Digitrax DCC with signalling, transponding, the whole works, assumming nothing better comes along in the mean time.I learned so much about DCC, signalling and whatnot, because I am computer inclined, and I like to have the latest and greatest technology, although in this case, signalling was just not practical. I had to choose between NCE, which two other members in my modular groups usues, and Digitrax, the only system with a good architecture. The choice was easy, and now I have the AWESOME Digitrax Zephyr system. I started out with the Bachman system, which is great competition to a pair of MRC Tech IIs and some DPDTs, but not even close to full-featured as a DCC system.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Having read through this entire thread, I feel compelled to comment even though I have no layout as yet and have only an acquaintance with 1 system (NCE Power Pro in a club I belonged to but dropped out of because the drive was 100 miles round trip). This diatribe/dissertation/rant will not be full of techno-babble. I had enough of that when I was employed in the IT department of a large metropolitan semi-conductor equipment manufacturer. It seems to me, from reading all the verbiage I�ve read by advocates of this or that system is that no one has thought of what to me is the obvious beginning question and that is, �What am I trying to accomplish with my layout and how much capability do I need now and with any conceivable expansion of my layout�.Lemme give you an example:Layout (planned): Monterey Branch of the Southern Pacific ca. about 1948 in a space about 1/2 a 35 x 25 foot basement.LDE�s: Monterey Station, Cannery Row, Pacific Grove station and yard, sand plant at Lake Majella.Loco Roster (all steam): 2 x 2-8-0, 1 x 4-6-0, 1 x 4-6-2, 1 x 4-8-0 (Note 1)Max. number of trains/session: 8 (3 EB frt., 3 WB frt., 1 EB pass., 1 WB pass., (note 2)Max. Number trains on layout at one time: 2 (early in op session, Note 3).All locomotives will be sound equipped, in part because I believe that sound actually enhances a low traffic volume layout than more than it does one that models a main line. Basically, the Monterey Branch will be a glorified switching layout, although, for reasons too lengthy to go into here, it will not be built in its originally planned location.The layout was planned so that it can be realistically operated by just one person, although multiple operators could be accommodated using such devices as 2 man crews (1 engineer, 1 conductor/brakeman) and having each operator/operator pair be responsible for 1 round trip. As you can see, if the maximum number of trains on the layout is going to be two at any one time, then the maximum number of throttles necessary is two, unless I want a spare in case one of the pair craps out . Actually, I could get away with 1 if necessary per Note 3.Given that I will be running steam exclusively, there�s no real need for consisting unless I want to run an occasional ad hoc double header. However, all locomotives will be speed matched so that double heading will be possible. I don�t need fancy lighting effects, although all locos will be equipped with head and backup lights. To the best of my research, SP did not, as a matter of course, run steam with the headlights on during daylight except possibly the �Daylight� and other GS-4/5 equipped trains in this time period. Given the relatively small number of trains to be run (the freights were dispatched out of Watsonville Junction and ran as turns, see Note 3), and the lack of multiple trains on the layout at one time, it appears to me that running wireless throttles would be a case of gilding the lily and a total waste of resources better used for other things (like, say, the 4-8-0 mentioned above which has only been done in brass). The use of DecoderPro and a laptop to enable easy programming of the locomotives is one of those things that could be labeled a luxury in my case. While second hand laptops may not break the bank, the price of a laptop could get me a nice brass locomotive or two. With only five locomotives to worry about, a piece of paper is probably sufficient to keep track of all the locomotive settings. However, this is the 21st Century, so that info would be kept in an Excel document. As it stands now, it appears to me that either the Prodigy Express or the NCE Power Cab would be quite sufficient for my needs, even allowing for such things as changing the date to 1958 and running the railroad with GP-9�s equipped with those neat SP light packages. In other words, I don�t really give a rat�s behind who has the latest and greatest whiz-bang system as long as the one I use has sufficient capability to do what I want it to do now and for the foreseeable future.MikeGeneral note: All SP trains were eastbounds or westbounds by timetable direction. Any train heading in the general direction of San Francisco was considered westbound regardless of geographical direct. Obviously, an eastbound was headed away from SF.Note1: I list five locomotives. In point of fact, the layout could be run with as few as two locomotives, a 2-8-0 for the freights and the 4-6-2 for the �Del Monte�. I just want a little variety, and I especially like SP�s TW-8 4-8-0�s.Note 2: According to Signor�s �Southern Pacific�s Coast Line�, three freights are listed as running in and out of the Monterey Branch. However, no time frame is indicated. It would seem from the location of the discussion in the book, that the time frame is probably WWII, when there would have been considerable traffic into and out of Fort Ord. The 1952 timetable, mentioned below lists only 1 freight. Note3: According the 1952 employee timetable, the �Del Monte� and the morning freight met at a siding called Ord, timetable east of Monterey. This would be in staging on the model. It was my thought to move the meeting point to Monterey. However, this is not necessary for actual operation. It�s just one of those things that adds a bit of �excitement� to the operation.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Great post!After some further research, I would say the Prodigy Advance is more comparable to the Power Cab, but it is still quite a bit more expensive.The major additions to the Advance (which are also present in the NCE): Yard mode and fast clock, among other things. The advantage that the Prodigy Advance has over both the Express and the NCE? Power. You said you are planning on running all sound-equipped locos and the Prodigy Advance comes with 3.5 amps vs the 1.6 for both the Express and the Power Cab.For me, I still just really like the design of the MRC cabs, and with the wireless and PC hookup coming there is little else I'm concerned with.I will be using manual turnouts, and I am designing my own signalling electronics (the commercial ones are too expensive for me).The signalling will not be tied into DCC, at least not initially, although there are ways I could change that. The most likely scenerio I will use will be to simulate the Hartford line Automatic Cab Signalling by automatically switching a red block to DC. The DCC decoders can be set to stop on DC, and I'll mount a push-button switch on the fascia that the engineer must press as he enters a red block to switch it back to DCC. If he fails to push the switch, the block will be DC and the train will automatically stop, as on the prototype.On the other hand, I do like the idea of controlling some trains with DCC entirely, because then a singl-person operating session could focus on the local freight, with the DCC system running (and stopping at stations, etc.) the scheduled passenger and though freight trains.That, however, is a long way off for me, requiring more space, a larger layout, more trains to run, and a lot more money. In other words, that will be 5-10 years down the line (at least), when I'll be ready to upgrade to a new system anyway.Wireless would/will be nice. Not for multiple cabs, but because it will eliminate the need to run cable and place connectors in the fascia. My current layout in progress is a 20' x 10' L along the wall, and a tethered throttle will reach the entire thing from one location. I probably won't put a connector plate in the fascia, instead placing the unit on a shelf right under the layout, and I'll eventually get a wireless throttle.Computer control is appealing, with an old PC as the planned controller. It too will sit under the layout, and I'll probably set up an RDP connection to access it remotely from my laptop. The PC cost me $75, and will barely run Windows XP (or linux), but that's all that's needed for jmri.Obviously, everybody has their own preferences, but the simplicity and professional look of the MRC is a great starting point. I'm really hoping that their Express system will soon drop to under $100, and their advance will drop to $150-$175 to compete directly against the Power Cab.Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

The PA is not meant to compete with the PowerCab. The PowerCab is sort of a joke, more like an accessory to the PH Pro. The Digitrax Zephyr is only $160, and you can add two old power packs on the jump ports. You can also make a cheapie throttle out of a project box, $10 of Radio Shack parts, and some Cat-5 or four conductor phone cable. Each jump throttle needs its own power supply. For sound locos, you need a DCC throttle, for fuctions, the UT-4s are only $60ish. Putting a cab bus in is not a big deal, you can use low cost phone plates if you have less than 4 throttles. More, and you have to worry about power, but you can inject DC on pins 1 and 6. The big limitation of the PowerCab is that you can't unplug the PowerCab itself, due to the architecture of the system, and you can only add one walk-around throttle. With the Zephyr, you can add a couple of $60 basic throttles, and have nice walkaround control. I don't like the little basic throttles, but some people don't mind them.The PA or PE are also nice systems. For a small setup, they should work fine. The only weird part about their throttles is that there is no option for the much more precise digital encoders, which also allow stack recalling without loco speed jumps. On the other hand, the throttles are very affordable priced. If MRC does gain market share, its all about the price. Their system is NOT an NCE or Digitrax type system, but the price is right for some.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

The Powercab may be a joke to you, NY, but it's not a joke to me. It has the full NCE feature set, including their very nice consisting features -- which far outshines Digitrax's approach to consisting.From Tony's Train Exchange, and I quote:"So far, the PowerCab is the most high performance entry level DCC system ever offered. We suspect it will soon have a big piece of market."That doesn't sound like a joke to me. I've always felt the Zephyr's power pack form factor (and EasyDCC's stationary command station) to be out of step with the Ops mode programming trend in DCC. NCE's Powercab handheld command station form factor is a brilliant move for a starter system. What happened with the Zephyr? Why do you have to buy more stuff with the Zephyr to make it actually useful?For $140 the Powercab makes an excellent small layout or workbench system. I got it for use at my workbench and it's a pleasure to use in that capacity -- so much so that I plan to spend another $160 for the command station and move to NCE on my layout.Every DCC starter system has its limits, both the Zephyr and the Powercab. But neither system is a joke and I would be careful making such heavy-handed statements. They each elected to go with different tradeoffs for a starter system.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

The Powercab is EXTREMELY limited in being a DCC system. It would be great for a member of a club who has no layout, and wants to program at home, or for someone who has the PH Pro system, and wants to use it to program, like you are describing doing.The Zephyr's form factor is indicitive of the fact that it is a command station, not a throttle. It is a DCS50, the smaller version of the DCS100 (super Chief). In fact, it is lovingly called a "Mini Chief" by Digitrax enthusiasts. It can be expanded with a number of throttles, and with the Jump ports, which allow people to use their DC power packs or walkaround throttles as DCC throttles. It is a fixed command station, which has a lower price than the Chief (and includes a power supply), and is meant to be interfaced with a human through Loconet throttles. In fact, I am no fan of the Zephyr's interface, and I only use it if I am too lazy to get one of my DT400s. I am working on a cab bus, so this will no longer be an issue, and I will never have to touch the Zephyr, just the DT400s. The DT400s are the best interface on any Digitrax system, Zephyr or Super Chief. You can have ten (realistically five due to limited loco slots and power) users, each with a DT400 on the Zephyr. Then, there is a 'freebie" throttle on the DCS50, great for a guest, as it has the powerpack-like form factor with a potentiometer based throttle. EasyDCC is different, as with the Zephyr, you can do ops-mode programming with a DT400, which can be located anywhere on the layout.The PowerCab, on the other hand, can only have one throttle added to it. It seems like NCE purposely crippled the memory in it, so that they could sell PH Pro systems and their accessories. Their strategy could be a really dumb one, or a really smart up-sell. They are trying to have a really low entry point, and then get the junkie hooked, so they come back and buy the $500+ PH Pro, that is not crippled like the PowerCab. If this plan works, it is BRILLIANT marketing. The Powercab itself cannot be moved from its tether, as it will kill track power if you unplug it. NCE has come out with the Smart Booster, which allows you to have four throttles that have walkaround capability for ANOTHER $100. Try getting 5 cabs. You can't. NCE's system is just more expensive in general, and quite limited. In fact, before buying, I compared the two systems, their capabilities, and their pricing, and the only advantage NCE had was that a couple of other guys at my club use NCE. Other than that, Digitrax won hands down, so I went with Digitrax. I would buy a PowerCab for a coffee table layout, though. For the full-sized systems, they are much more comparable, with NCE and Digitrax having a similar number of throttles and such for all practical purposes, and NCE only has a 10-20% price premium. For all systems, however, Digitrax offers the best value. You get more for less with Digitrax. And Loconet.When you decide that you want to upgrade, the Zephyr wins again. With the Powercab, it is just a throttle. The Smart Booster may be able to become a regular booster, or it may just be a brick, I am not sure. The Zephyr, on the other hand, becomes THREE throttles, AND a booster on Loconet. The booster could be used for an accessory bus, or for a yard for extra short protection, and custom-built cabs could be added to the jump ports for awesome yard operation. Then, the rest of the layout could use DT400 throttles and DB150 boosters with a DCS100 command station.While the Powercab is very limited, Digitrax didn't trade off much of anything with the Zephyr, giving it the full feature set of the Super Chief, and 10 loco slots/ 10 throttle slots. For running a layout, and not having to spend $500 to upgrade to a capable system, the Digitrax Zephyr delivers where the PowerCab does not.EDIT: The Smart Booster require a power supply, which is ANOTHER $40. Still not sure if it can be a slave booster to a PH Pro.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

bear creek said ...Joe, is there a way to connect Decoder Pro to a NCE Power Cab?Cheers,Charlie ComstockCharlie:NCE has announced a USB computer interface for the Powercab, but NCE is legendary for announcing things and then repeatedly missing the ship date -- and it's no different here >sigh< . We'll see the USB add on one of these days -- it will be extremely handy at the workbench!

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NY:Most of the PowerCab system is also useable in a full NCE ProCab system as well. From Tony's review of the Power Cab, and I quote:"If you upgrade the Power Cab to the full Power Pro DCC system, most of the Power Cab components can be used. The Power Cab would work on the Cab Bus. The Power Supply could be used to as an auxiliary power source for the Cab Bus. Any optional cabs you�ve added would also work with the new system. Even the Power Panel could be used as a UTP for connecting more cabs. (You would need to rewire the LED because it is wired to lite with track power.)"Oh yes, and the Powercab is NOT limited to only a second cab. If you get a smart booster ($77 from Tony's) you can add up to 4 more cabs, plus the two you have already for a total of 6 cabs -- and it ups the system to 3 amps. And the basic Powercab does not need any extra power supply or parts. It comes with everything you need to get started for the $140. And like the Zephyr, you can add on from there.And for $50 each you can add additional 3 amp boosters to run a large layout.Each additional engineer cab is $70 from Tony's. If you add an RB02 receiver ($125 from Tony's) off the Power cab's coax connection on its basic panel, you can use NCE wireless throttles.So you spend $140 to get a basic Powercab system, then you buy a smart booster ($77) and then buy as many cabs as you want (up to 5 more at $70 each) and you now have a 3 amp system with 6 cabs. It's $210 for the beefed up system, and $70 for each cab. Any additional 3-amp boosters are $50 each. And you can add wireless throttle capability for a song. Yes, the Zephyr is very upgradeable, but so is the Power Cab. So where's the high-priced system that's "very limited" and that's not usable if you upgrade to a full Pro system?I must be missing it somewhere ...

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Oh yes, and one other point ... some consider that removing the dogbone handheld on the Powercab kills the system to be a big negative.Well perhaps, but it is the command station, remember. Try removing the Zephyr from a Digitrax combination built around the Zephyr and see how far you get without a command station. It's all about tradeoffs. Personally, I greatly prefer a handheld form factor for the command station in a starter system.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H says:While the Powercab is very limited, Digitrax didn't trade off much of anything with the Zephyr, giving it the full feature set of the Super Chief, and 10 loco slots/ 10 throttle slots. For running a layout, and not having to spend $500 to upgrade to a capable system, the Digitrax Zephyr delivers where the PowerCab does not.I'll leave Joe to argue the technical merits of the various systems as he's the man with the experience. However, it seems to me that being able to expand to 10 loco slots/10 throttle slots is irrelevant UNLESS one is planning to build a layout which might ultimately require 10 locos to be running simultaneously. Not everyone is building their own version of the Siskiyou Line or Tony Koester's NKP. I can see why Joe or Tony need lots of capacity. What I can't see is why anyone whose bliss involves something a more modest in scope need concern him/herself with vast expansion capabilities. If the maximum number of locos simultaneously running on my layout will be 2, what advantage for me is there that the Zephyr can run 10, especially since the Power Cab can be expanded up to 6? The one negative thing I've heard from multiple sources about Digitrax is that it's not user friendly. That's a biggie for me, not because I don't think I can learn all the ins and outs of the system, but because one of my high priority criteria is ease of use. I don't want to be a Digitrax techno-geek, I want to run trains. It's Digitrax's awkwardness that has virtually eliminated Digitrax from consideration as far as I'm concerned. Unless Digitrax has something I consider absolutely vital that no one else has, then my DCC dollars will be going elsewhere. On a non-model railroading note, we recently replaced our 15 year old TV because the picture tube finally crapped out. It was replaced by a modern, but run of the mill TV. We could have gotten a plasma TV with Dolby surround sound and all the latest bells and whistles. We didn't, simply because the one we did buy was sufficient for our needs now and in the forseeable future. Why buy capability you don't need and won't need? Mike

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

What, do you think the interference at 2.4ghz would be bad? You could use 5.8ghz, BUT some newer model airplane systems run at 2.4ghz, and they work really, really well, with uber long range, even with other sources of interferance near. No more repeaters or multiple receivers. Plus, 2.4ghz is standard in all countries, not just the US and Austrailia, so it would solve the problem of international sales and the scale of economy, although as I noted above a perfect throttle would be so expensive, that it would no longer be perfect, and thus, on a regular layout, plug panels and wired throttles are the best solution.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Bear Creek:Our posts crossed. Most people have laptops now, they are the domiant form of computers. If not, there are some other options for computer interfaces. If your computer was a long way away, you could run a cat-5 cable, and use USB extenders, or just run Loconet to the computer room. That would be a little clunky though. Try a DT400, they are a breeze to program on. I haven't even bothered learning how to use Decoder Pro, as it is so easy. And on non-sound locos, there are really only a few CVs: 1-6.JoeF:I am well aware that the Powercab can become a ProCab. If you spend another $430 on a Ph Pro. You should be able to add ten cabs to the PowerCab, like the Zephyr. If you use it as a ProCab, you lose the booster functionality, whereas the Zephyr can be a booster and three cabs on a larger system.Yes, you could pay $77 for a Smart Booster, AND $40 for its power supply, but now you have a system that is limited to four cabs, and has an extra $137 in there to get a command station. Then, if you upgrade to the PH Pro from there, you lost the Smart Booster. The Zephyr doesn't require an upgrade to add on cabs, you just plug them in. There is no reason to add boosters to a Powercab, you can't get enough users on the thing (4) to need more than the SB3's 3 amps. Because of this extra cost, in order to get two WALKAROUND cabs (not the PowerCab itself), it costs $440 with the Zephyr and $527 with the PowerCab. To have the same thing with radio, it costs $635 with the Zephyr and $771 with the PowerCab.The Smart Booster supports 4 cabs total. On the other hand, the basic Zephyr without spending another $137, supports 10. The radio expansion is pretty limited to one cab with the PowerCab, three with the Smart Booster, as the PowerCab counts as one. They use an RJ-12 bus, not a Coax one. Only CVP uses Coax.NCE's radio base costs $125 vs. Digitrax's $115, and NCE's radio cab costs $194 vs. Digitrax's $180. EVERYTHING is more expensive, and less flexible on the NCE system. Upgrading to the PH Pro is quite expensive, and is a whole different game, which is not in comparison with the starter systems. To get the same 2 cabs above, Digitrax would be $530, with NCE being $545. For radio, Digitrax would be $720, with NCE being $735.With Digitrax, you can have a bunch of operators all using DT400 cabs, while on NCE, someone has to use the Powercab itself, as the cab expansion is very limited. Digitrax's Zephyr is a full DCC system, with expansion, while the PowerCab really isn't. It is an accessory for the PH Pro, or a system for one operator. The Powercab would be great for a coffee-table layout. The Zephyr, on the other hand, can handle a good sized layout with four of five operators.AndreChapelon:I basically just answered your question in my post above, but the Powercab is a one-man system.Saying that Digitrax is hard to use is a MYTH. The DT400 is super easy to use. How to program a CV? Just hit prog until Po comes up, and then use the two dials to dial up the CV and value. It couldn't be much easier than that. How to consist: just put the first on the right, second on the left, set direction, hit Mu Y+. Get a loco: loco XX loco. Drop one: loco disp. Super easy. The days of dozen-key sequences, and indirect function control with hex programming are gone. Unless you want a $50 throttle off Ebay, which is cool too. Digitrax has more flexibility and expansion than any other system. It is top of the line in every way. It is the only system that has a network for its throttles and devices. Digitrax is an awesome system any way you look at it. Plus, it is cheaper than NCE. Double awesome!

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Jumping back in...Basically, I think that it's pretty clear that everybody's right about what's best for them. While it is possible that a system may come along that does everything in a manner that everybody agrees is the best, it's not likely to happen soon.I'll mention three products here, but this would apply to all of them:Digitrax: $150. Endlessly expandable. Offers unique networking capabilities. Not so user-friendly in design (from appearance, programming ease, and it's not a walk-around form factor).Now programming ease is subjective, however the majority of the designs seem to be going in the opposite direction. Without purchasing a walk-around throttle, however, there is no LCD. Just the 4-spot alpha-numeric display which can be pretty cryptic. Adding a DT400 throttle is $140 or you can get a started set for $280 that includes one.So for a walkaround starter set with an LCD: $280. That puts it way out of my budget.NCE: Walkaround form factor. $179. LCD and easy to understand and use without referencing the manual (largely because of the LCD). For most people this is all you'll need to purchase, and it's easily upgradable.MRC: Basic set at $150. Less features than either of the other two, but also easily upgradable. Wireless and PC hookups not released yet. Walkaround form factor and very easy to understand and use. They really need to bring the Advance system down to this price.So as an uninformed shopper with a limited budget, what do I buy. Well, I think the obvious choice is the NCE Powercab. Are there any downsides? Well, yes. To get all of the possible features that NCE supports you will have to spend more money in the future, but this is a given since you're looking for a starter set. On the other hand, there are very few features that are not included, and fewer still that aren't available at all from NCE (compared to the general market).What about MRC? The Express set is a bit to basic for my tastes, but for the casual hobbyist they definitely have the simplest approach and will fit many customers needs. My issue is that it should be priced for under $100, and the Advance should be $150 since it is more comparable to the PowerCab. And Digitrax? Probably the most upgradable, and the only one that I'm aware of that has bi-directional capabilities for controlling the layout in ways that the other systems can't. Sounds great, but do I need it? But the real deal breakers for me is the design and the cost.And that's where I think Digitrax will lose out in the future. Casual hobbyists aren't going to be interested in all of the advanced features they don't even understand or care about. They want something at a reasonable price, that's easy to learn (the basics should be obvious without having to pull out the manual), and is upgradable.If somebody asked me what they should look for in a DCC system, there are three things that I would recommend (keeping in mind that I don't even have an operating DCC system yet):Walkaround/wireless throttlesLCDExpandibilityThe only one that doesn't meet these criteria out of the box is Digitrax. And in most cases, unless there are some real issues, folks stick with the choice they make for a long time.I realize that Joe has switched brands and systems several times now, but I think that's largely because of the evolution of the DCC system. That is, the evolution into a mainstream, tried-and-true design.I don't see quite the same level of variation in the future in regards to design and basic features. From this point I think MRC and NCE in particular have a very solid starting point to add whatever features are necessary with add-ons rather than redesigning the concept of a DCC system. And I still believe that if Digitrax doesn't recognize that, and trump them by offering a walkaround starter system, with an LCD, and a new look for $150, they will be missing the boat. If Digitrax had a new system that looked like the MRC/NCE for even $175, they would have a real shot because of their extra advanced features. But until then, I'm not interested.From another perspective, think of it from an economic standpoint: Walkaround for the price of 2 locomotives or 5 locomotives? If I'm starting out and I have to choose between another locomotive or two, or upgrading to DCC (and I only have 2 locomotives), I wouldn't even look at Digitrax.In my opinion, the magic number is DCC for the cost of 1 average locomotive. Give me a Prodigy Express for $75 and you'll open up a whole segment of the market that has not even considered DCC. Once they've picked up that system and used it for a year or two, they can start upgrading components. As long as MRC offers the components (wireless, PC, additional throttles, etc), then there's no reason to switch to somebody else.Of course, NCE or Digitrax could beat them to the punch, but I see that as the killer marketing spot that will allow whoever is there first, with the right product, to be able to define the DCC market for the foreseeable future. The one advantage Digitrax has is a large installed user-base, and they were the first to the market. If I recall that is an apt description of Apple Computer, circa 1980, just before the launch of the IBM PC.Edit: Changed Digitrax prices to reflect current prices at Tony'sRandy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Laptops are not the dominant form of computer. They are outselling PCs at this time, but that's just new computer sales (and not by much).The vast majority of computer users continue to use PCs that are 2+ years old. It's only when they replace those that they are (about 51%) more likely to buy a laptop.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

AndreChapelon:I basically just answered your question in my post above, but the Powercab is a one-man system.Assuming Joe knows what he's talking about, no, it's not other than in its simplest form. In any case, that's not a big deal. Why would I care about multiple operators on a layout designed for one man operation? Saying that Digitrax is hard to use is a MYTH. The DT400 is super easy to use. How to program a CV? Just hit prog until Po comes up, and then use the two dials to dial up the CV and value. It couldn't be much easier than that. How to consist: just put the first on the right, second on the left, set direction, hit Mu Y+. Get a loco: loco XX loco. Drop one: loco disp. Super easy. The days of dozen-key sequences, and indirect function control with hex programming are gone. Unless you want a $50 throttle off Ebay, which is cool too. Digitrax has more flexibility and expansion than any other system. It is top of the line in every way. It is the only system that has a network for its throttles and devices. Digitrax is an awesome system any way you look at it. Plus, it is cheaper than NCE. Double awesome! I'm sorry, man, but whoever designed the human interface on the DT-400 ought to be shot. The worst that could happen to the shooter would be that he would be charged with discharging a lethal weapon into a public nuisance. Maybe I'm biased because I've actually used the NCE Power Pro, but the DT400 looks like a technogeeks wet dream rather than something that's pretty intuitive from the get-go.Mike

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

rghammill:I hadn't even noticed that there is no LCD on the Zephyr, this may be why I don't like programming on it. The Zephyr and Powercab are pretty simliar in cost, as you need to add a ProCab to the PowerCab in order to have walkaround capability, as the Powercab is not much more portable than the Zephyr, it does have a few feet of cable, but that is not that much better than the Zephyr's power pack form factor.If you ask on the Modelrailroader.com forums, you will get like 20 "buy a Zephyr". Digitrax has 55% market share, with most big clubs using Digitrax. All of those people are out there talking about Digitrax, and recommending the Zephyr as a starter system. Plus, a lot of people have the Zephyr itself, and can recommend it. It could use an LCD though.Although you do need the manual (or to have used the system at a club or home layout), Digitrax is easy to learn.While Digitrax doesn't have all of those things you list right off of the bat, it has better expandability, so people can have their friends over and run trains. Or their kids. Or prototypical operators. Plus, people like the ideas that they can use their existing power packs as throttles, and that the Zephyr is like their familiar Tech II. Not that the jump ports are actually that great, they have no functions, but they are appealing to the first-time DCC user.If Digitrax could offer a mini mini Chief (like a Zephyr with no display or controls, just track, power in and Loconet), with a DT400 for $160, that would be AWESOME. It would be a TRUE walkaround system, like the MRC, and unlike the PowerCab.For just one walkaround throttle, Digitrax is a few $$$ more, everywhere else, Digitrax is a MUCH better value. People like value.MRC might do well, or they may not. Thier ad went on and on about how other systems need expansion plates to hook up throttles (theirs are harder to find/ make, and you need them anyways for walkaround), and how they have step by step programming, neither of which are terribly interesting. Step by step programming? Why not just do it directly, dial up the CV, and put in the value. They are well documented in the decoder's manual, and on non-sound decoders, there are really only CVs 1-6. The rest of them are for uber advanced applications, or clubs.Laptops are more than half of sales, they have been for a year, and many households have one now, as many people have multiple computers, like a desktop and a laptop.AndreChapelon:What if you want to let your kid/ grandkid/ neice/ nephew or a "civilian" friend run your layout? Good time for a few walkaround cabs.Have you ever used a DT-400? They are AWESOME, and once you learn a couple of things, they are easy to use. At a train show, I had another club member using mine in a couple of minutes. He was programming sound CVs with the thing.The DT-400 is a highly efficient and powerful but easy to use human interface for the most powerful DCC system out there. It has twin digital encoders, and is super easy to use.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

What if you want to let your kid/ grandkid/ neice/ nephew or a "civilian" friend run your layout? Good time for a few walkaround cabs.Uh, I'll just hand them the throttle, show them how to use it and watch. The grandkids are as yet too young to be interested in a layout that won't allow continuous loop operation and hasn't yet been built. Besides, I've got some 3 rail O gauge that they can (and have) run. In any case, the Power Cab is expandable up to 6 throttles, 5 of which could be walk-arounds and can be bumped up to 3 amps which would be plenty of power in my situation.I'm also considering MRC's Prodigy Advance, which is selling at Tony's for just a bit over a c-note over the prices Tony is charging for either the Prodigy Express and NCE Power Cab. On a bang for buck basis, the PA is looking awfully good. Have you ever used a DT-400? They are AWESOME, and once you learn a couple of things, they are easy to use. At a train show, I had another club member using mine in a couple of minutes. He was programming sound CVs with the thing.The DT-400 is a highly efficient and powerful but easy to use human interface for the most powerful DCC system out there. It has twin digital encoders, and is super easy to use. No, I haven't used a DT-400. The only system I've actually used is NCE using a Pro Cab and I really like the look and feel. Just from the pictures, I don't like the DT-400. It looks like it was designed as an afterthought after the engineering people figured out how to get the circuitry into an oblong box. That's the thing, it looks like what an engineer would design for other engineers. And yes, look and feel do matter to me. As for Digitrax's market share, you're talking to the wrong guy. I bought Apple stock back when there was a question of whether or not it would even survive. I'll grant you that their computer market share is low, but that's not what's driving the share price. I'm inclined to take a chance on Brand "X".Edit:One more thing about market share. It's temporary unless you can stay ahead of the competition. First adopters of a technology tend to be willing to put of with quite a bit of inconvenience so Digitrax's interfaces weren't that big a deal. The market's maturing and DCC is becoming mainstream. If Digitrax wants to maintain its market share, they need to hire someone who knows something about industrial design. They need to raid a couple of employees from Apple's design department. Otherwise, what happened to Ford back in the 1920's could well happen to Digitrax.Mike

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

All,We tested both systems at our club and we choose Digitrax for a couple of reasons.1. Although the NCE throttle is nice, the buttons on the throttle itself drove us nuts. Lack of response or they would get stuck. Very easy to use and read. Although I like the DT400, i wish they would have taken a little more of a queue from NCE here.2. System response was better. There was a noticable delay between pressing a button with Powercab and the response from the locomotive. Digitrax is instantaneous response, very nice. The delay on the NCE caused some operators to have the loco take off too fast. This reminded of us DC on our layout with dirty track.3. Digitrax was expandable and you can buy off the shelve companents for signaling, turnout control, ect. Yes, they will cost more than C/MRI, but we don't have any electrical gurus here. It must simple, less wiring the better. Plus, throwing turnouts from the throttle works real well when you have to reach over the display glass to throw turnouts!!!4. We liked the consisting features of Digitrax. Unlike a home layout where you may be able to get away with fixed consists, we like to mix and match everytime we setup and run. The ability to remove a loco from a consist without breaking up the whole consist was a big selling point. NCE didn't allow us to do that. Plus on the DT400, it was real simple to do and it works for our application. It may not work well for all applications, especially if you don't want your operators to break your consists.The point is, pick which ever system that works best for you. There are a lot of downsides to entry level systems, but pick one that works best for your layout and how you operate. You can buy too much system and then you may have wasted your money. You can also buy too little system and have to spend more later. Do your research and TEST if possible each one you are considering. You will save yourself time, trouble, and spend the right amount money.Paul

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Yes, if consisting is one of the most important things to you, then NCE has a very rich feature set, allowing you to mix and match decoder-based and command-station based consists as needed. NCE has the richest feature set for decoder-based consists, which are the state-of-the-art in DCC.Unfortunately, Digitrax is a bit behind the times, standardizing on command-station consists and forcing you to do primitive CV19 programming if you want to also do decoder-based consists with command-station consists.Digitrax takes an all-one-or-the-other approach to consisting. You can change a command station setting and make consisting use CV19 instead of command-station consisting -- but now you can't do nested consists. Digitrax's consisting feature set when it comes to what real modelers want to do when operating their layout prototypically leaves a lot to be desired.IMO, consisting is one of NCE's strongest feature and one of Digitrax's weakest. Since I do lots of diesel consisting as part of modeling the modern SP, I greatly prefer NCE's approach to consisting over Digitrax's.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

AndreChapelon:The NCE Powercab supports ONE addition throttle. If you spend ANOTHER $137, you can get the Smart Booster and its PSU, and add THREE throttles to the Powercab, and the PowerCab becomes walkaround, as the Smart Booster is really a command station. With Digitrax OR MRC, you don't have to add that extra $137 for a new command station.The MRC system is a decent value. While it just ain't Digitrax (or even NCE), it is an OK system for a small layout, and if price is your first priority, then you might want to go MRC. The PA is $250, for only $50 more, you could get the scalability, features and performance of market-leader Digitrax. The PE is ok, but doesn't support regular consisting, and only has 1.6A of power. It can support 20 cabs. If cost effective scalability and high end performance with an extensive feature set are factors, Digitrax is the only game in town.If you ever use a DT400, you will love it. The two throttles are awesome, as one is for right handed use, the other for left handed, use, but the operation is simple, so you can switch it between hands depending on which loco you are using. The encoders feel really nice, and the operation is simple and fast.I am an Apple user myself.The iPod throttle! With clickwheel and menus! All with wireless at 2.4 ghz that connects to Loconet! Actually, Digitrax has a LOT of momentum. Not only do they have the only peer to peer system, but Digitrax is implemented on most club layouts, and almost all modular layouts. And that is not going to change. The members of those clubs will probably buy Digitrax as they build/ convert layouts.nosredna13:You bring up some great points about Digitrax and NCE. NCE and others can't change their system to the much more modern and robust peer to peer system, as they would have to abandon all of their old command stations and throttles.EDIT: Contradictory statements

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

The NCE Powercab supports ONE addition throttle. If you spend ANOTHER $137, you can get the Smart Booster and its PSU, and add THREE throttles to the Powercab, and the PowerCab becomes walkaround, as the Smart Booster is really a command station. With Digitrax OR MRC, you don't have to add that extra $137 for a new command station.That last statement is why the MRC PA is under serious consideration since Tony's is selling it for a little over $100 above the cost of the PE or the NCE Power Cab. The Zephyr may be in the price ball park, but it's in foul territory (or rather at the bottom of the list).The MRC system is a decent value. While it just ain't Digitrax (or even NCE), it is an OK system for a small layout, and if price is your first priority, then you might want to go MRC. The PA is $250, for only $50 more, you could get the scalability, features and performance of market-leader Digitrax. The PE is ok, but doesn't support regular consisting, and only has 1.6A of power. It can support 20 cabs. If cost effective scalability and high end performance with an extensive feature set are factors, Digitrax is the only game in town.Price is not my first priority, it's just one factor. However, I'm not going to buy more system than I need. All along, I've been trying to indicate that I'm shooting for modeling a branch operation. Regardless of actual physical size, that constitutes a small layout since, from the point of view of electrical requirements, the required load on any control system will be relatively light even allowing for the fact that all locomotives will be sound equipped. All turnouts will be manually operated, using either ground throws or Joe's handy dandy door bolt mechanisms. There will be no signals. I will only have 4 or 5 steam locomotives. The layout is designed (in my head) to be operable by a single individual, but will have the capability of having one or two additional operators. All that being said, this exchange has been both entertaining and informative and I've pretty much said all I can say on the subject.Mike

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Foul territory? Sheesh. The Zephyr is an affordable way to experience the power, flexbility and features of the market-leading top of the line DCS100 (Super Chief) system, without buying extra capacity. It's not the cheapest, but it has the most capability, even on a small, simple system.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...The iPod throttle! With clickwheel and menus! All with wireless at 2.4 ghz that connects to Loconet!2.4 GHz???

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

nosredna13 said ...4. We liked the consisting features of Digitrax. Unlike a home layout where you may be able to get away with fixed consists, we like to mix and match everytime we setup and run. The ability to remove a loco from a consist without breaking up the whole consist was a big selling point. NCE didn't allow us to do that. Plus on the DT400, it was real simple to do and it works for our application. It may not work well for all applications, especially if you don't want your operators to break your consists.Actually it's darn easy to remove a loco from the consist on NCE. Hit the 'DEL' button on the consist section, enter the Loco number when prompted and your done.To add a loco, hit the 'ADD' button on the consist section and follow the prompts.To delete the whole consist, hit the 'CLEAR' button and follow the prompts.To setup a consist hit the 'SETUP' button and follow the prompts.NCE's handling of consists is about the best in the business. It's easy to set up a consist that has say a 3 units with a centre sound unit, so that I can still blast the horn for a grade crossing without having to have to resort to special tricks like you need to do with other systems.Tim

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

bn7026 said ...Actually it's darn easy to remove a loco from the consist on NCE. Hit the 'DEL' button on the consist section, enter the Loco number when prompted and your done.To add a loco, hit the 'ADD' button on the consist section and follow the prompts.To delete the whole consist, hit the 'CLEAR' button and follow the prompts.To setup a consist hit the 'SETUP' button and follow the prompts.NCE's handling of consists is about the best in the business. It's easy to set up a consist that has say a 3 units with a centre sound unit, so that I can still blast the horn for a grade crossing without having to have to resort to special tricks like you need to do with other systems.TimAw gee, that's too easy. Why not something way less obvious like T+ or Y+? Feels more like Star Trek that way, don't you think?

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

joef said ...[1169012165=bn7026]Actually it's darn easy to remove a loco from the consist on NCE. Hit the 'DEL' button on the consist section, enter the Loco number when prompted and your done.To add a loco, hit the 'ADD' button on the consist section and follow the prompts.To delete the whole consist, hit the 'CLEAR' button and follow the prompts.To setup a consist hit the 'SETUP' button and follow the prompts.NCE's handling of consists is about the best in the business. It's easy to set up a consist that has say a 3 units with a centre sound unit, so that I can still blast the horn for a grade crossing without having to have to resort to special tricks like you need to do with other systems.Tim[/quote1169012165]Aw gee, that's too easy. Why not something way less obvious like T+ or Y+? Feels more like Star Trek that way, don't you think? That's N- Joe. - as in - a loco, + as in + a loco. It makes too much sense.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

169039500=NYNH&H said ...Having nested consists is cool, but it doesn't seem terribly useful. have you ever heard of Joe Fugate's "double ended consisting"? that's when you need a combination of decoder and command station consist.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

joef said ...Yes, if consisting is one of the most important things to you, then NCE has a very rich feature set, allowing you to mix and match decoder-based and command-station based consists as needed. NCE has the richest feature set for decoder-based consists, which are the state-of-the-art in DCC.Unfortunately, Digitrax is a bit behind the times, standardizing on command-station consists and forcing you to do primitive CV19 programming if you want to also do decoder-based consists with command-station consists.Digitrax takes an all-one-or-the-other approach to consisting. You can change a command station setting and make consisting use CV19 instead of command-station consisting -- but now you can't do nested consists. Digitrax's consisting feature set when it comes to what real modelers want to do when operating their layout prototypically leaves a lot to be desired.IMO, consisting is one of NCE's strongest feature and one of Digitrax's weakest. Since I do lots of diesel consisting as part of modeling the modern SP, I greatly prefer NCE's approach to consisting over Digitrax's.If you need the advanced consists for the speed or memory capability they offer, than you won't want normal consists. And if you want normal consists, then you wouldn't need the capability of advanced consists. Having nested consists is cool, but it doesn't seem terribly useful. Helpers could just be added to the normal consist. Not to mention some decoders don't support advanced consisting, or are stubborn to be programmed on the main or whatnot. Disallowing normal consists in favor of advanced consists is a feature for a large club or Ntrak type layout, where memory and rail data speed (normally about 1 kbps) are big issues.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...What, do you think the interference at 2.4ghz would be bad?not! I thought you were talking about the current wireless system in model railroading which is set at 900MHz, too bad for who like me lives in europe and can't buy anything else than digitrax IR throttles. 2.4GHz would be great.and yes, I know there are wireless throttles manufactured in europe that can be used without any frequency issues but their throttles are totally a @#!%. don't want to run my trains with a TV remote or a cordless phone...

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

denny,There is a Loconet throttle that works in the ident band, only for Europe, not sure if it is available in Italy or not. Definitely not for the US. A PDA with that is VNC'ed to a computer with JMRI would work too.Can't double ended consisting be done on an NCE system without any hackish workarounds (like nesting)? How does Joe do his on EasyDCC?

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Nested consisting of both decoder and command station consists give you the ultimate in consist flexibility. You can add a helper set consist to an existing consist as if it was a single unit, and then break it off just as easy.NCE doesn't need the double-ended trick because their consisting is rich enough to do double-ended consists for you. But being able to link two consists for a time then easily break it (nested consists) is very powerful and handy.It's convenient to say, "Well if Digitrax doesn't do it, then it must not be all that useful", but that reeks of the "not invented here" philosophy, big time. I'm thrilled when I see people who like their choice of DCC system. But "my daddy can beat your daddy" sort of statements regarding systems just end up being a smokescreen and don't address the issue. Believe it or not, some non-Digitrax DCC systems actually address real operating layout needs with their feature set in a way that Digitrax doesn't appear to have a clue as yet.It's great that Digitrax's technical underpinnings are darn clever, and I don't argue that point. But the day-to-day use of their system on a large operating layout can be anything but clever -- more like hold-your-noise annoying for some of what should be the simplest operations.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

"Actually it's darn easy to remove a loco from the consist on NCE. Hit the 'DEL' button on the consist section, enter the Loco number when prompted and your done.To add a loco, hit the 'ADD' button on the consist section and follow the prompts.To delete the whole consist, hit the 'CLEAR' button and follow the prompts.To setup a consist hit the 'SETUP' button and follow the prompts.NCE's handling of consists is about the best in the business. It's easy to set up a consist that has say a 3 units with a centre sound unit, so that I can still blast the horn for a grade crossing without having to have to resort to special tricks like you need to do with other systems.Tim"We found in our experience that it wasn't that easy and liked how Digitrax handled it on the DT400 throttle. We found this to be our liking vs the powercab. Not everyone will agree and I don't expect them to, but we tested both systems for 30 days on our layout. We bought the one we liked the best and suited our needs. That is why I highly suggest you TEST the system before you buy one. Paul

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I did not test the system I bought, and I don't think that there is always reason to. I picked the Digitrax system based on capbilities, features, and price. It just happens to have an easy to use interface. Even if the throttles were still like the DT300s with hex and long button sequences, I would still have gone Digitrax, as they have Loconet.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...denny,There is a Loconet throttle that works in the ident band, only for Europe, not sure if it is available in Italy or not. Definitely not for the US. A PDA with that is VNC'ed to a computer with JMRI would work too.never heard of any loconet radio throttle/receiver usable in europe, apart from a product made by Massoth but the throttle is AWFUL... and yes, appearence and ergonomics does count, at least for me the PDA is very uncofortable. I like the EasyDCC or UT4 throttle style: a large knob, a switch to change direction and some F buttons tu activate functions. all programming and consisting is made BEFORE an op session with a command control or a DT400 throttle, but when it comes down to running trains, simpler throttles are the best for me.NYNH&H said ...Can't double ended consisting be done on an NCE system without any hackish workarounds (like nesting)? How does Joe do his on EasyDCC?I can't answer on behalf of Joe, but I think he uses both advanced and command control consisting to program his lash-ups. with EasyDCC is, well... easy take a look here: Joe explained that to me

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I still don't get how nested consisting can do dual-ended consists, or does it not? Is that just done by using decoder-assisted consists? I guess I will have to watch volume 3 chapter 5 when I order the videos. The one time where this would be neat is if I am going to use yard switchers, as they reverse direction, the the front unit's rear headlight comes on even when I am backing up. For road diesels, they can just be re-consisted when changing direction. Although, I would really rather not mess with advanced consisting. Maybe I should use the simple solution and turn the headlight off. Denny:I meant dect. Doh. Stupid me. Linky:http://www.beathis.ch/lgb/shop/funky/funky_e.htmlNot sure if it is legal in Italy. If it is not, don't bother importing it illegally, as it will probably be swamped with much more powerful cell phone stuff. That would be the case in the US.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Yes, to get back to this thread's original question, MRC's new "advanced wireless" system that sports a computer interface could be very interesting, especially if they price it agressively. If they make it so the wireless throttles don't have to be plugged in to acquire locos, and they provide some sort of convenient upgrade path, well ...It could eclipse #1 Digitrax. If I was Digitrax, I'd be watching this one very closely ...

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Oh, just read the other thread, and I got the double ended consist thing. Wouldn't work for switching.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

never heard of any loconet radio throttle/receiver usable in europe, apart from a product made by Massoth but the throttle is AWFUL... and yes, appearence and ergonomics does count, at least for me Denny, have you forgotten the Funky-throttle?Oh yes, I know they cost a bit.BTW, I think Busch markets the Massoth-throttle in its own line.Well, that is one reason to go for Digitrax in the Europe as the UT4 and DT400 are wireless IR ready with a good price.But then, what if MRC has a radio-wireless which can be used worldwide (like 2,4 Ghz)?Maybe even Roco or Lenz have some surprises in the N�rnberg toy fair this winter which could be good for your Xbus/Xpressnet, Denny?

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I don't think MRC is any threat to Digitrax. NCE might be, as even though they don't have a peer to peer network, they have leveraged their RS-485 bus to have input sensors for limited applications (like showing the position of an out-of-sight turnout), and handle four different kinds of cabs. NCE has a full system, with different kinds of loco and turnout decoders for most any application. MRC has ONE turnout decoder, and many people, myself included, have a bad taste in their mouth about MRC, both due to bad technical support, and due to their disappointing sound decoders.MRC's system just doesn't have the range of options for expansion and different scales that NCE has, and NCE is nowhere near where Digitrax is with Loconet. Loconet is useful even to modellers who do not need signalling and whatnot, as it can do turnout decoders that are independent of the track bus. MRC has almost no market momentum, whereas NCE and Digitrax have both been making systems for well over a decade, and have refined their products a lot in that time. MRC may get some more customers in the low to mid-range market, and while they do have a "complete" system (assuming the computer and wireless stuff comes out), they still don't have the selection of accessories and add-ons that others have.Digitrax has a lot of momentum in the club, modular, and large home layout sectors, where they have a large number of systems installed, and a flexible architecture for signalling on the latter two, and easy setup on modular systems. There is also so much knowledge out there for Digitrax, and to a ceratain extent NCE, as there are a lot of DCC gugrs using Digitrax, and some using NCE, while there aren't really any gurus or DCC hobyists (whose main interest in MR'ing is DCC and electrical) on the MRC system, as it is more limited and for the more basic user.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

KnuT said ...Denny, have you forgotten the Funky-throttle?Oh yes, I know they cost a bit.ehm, yep. I forgot it but as you stated its pricey, so I discarded the option. a throttle would cost more than 3 times a UT4... KnuT said ...But then, what if MRC has a radio-wireless which can be used worldwide (like 2,4 Ghz)?Maybe even Roco or Lenz have some surprises in the N�rnberg toy fair this winter which could be good for your Xbus/Xpressnet, Denny?the main problem with lenz is the command station. you don't have all the features other command stations like digitrax, nce or easydcc have. but I think I'll wait a bit more and we'll se what 2007 brings

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

MRC's system just doesn't have the range of options for expansion and different scales that NCE has, and NCE is nowhere near where Digitrax is with Loconet. Loconet is useful even to modellers who do not need signalling and whatnot, as it can do turnout decoders that are independent of the track bus. MRC has almost no market momentum, whereas NCE and Digitrax have both been making systems for well over a decade, and have refined their products a lot in that time. MRC may get some more customers in the low to mid-range market, and while they do have a "complete" system (assuming the computer and wireless stuff comes out), they still don't have the selection of accessories and add-ons that others have.Has it ever occurred to you that the low to mid-range market may be where the unit volume is? As I've repeatedly tried to point out in one way or another, the large model railroads of the Tony Koesters, Joe Fugates, Bill Darnaby's, Bruce Chubb's , etc.. of this world are the exception and not the rule. While I like what I see of those model railroads, I don't have any particular inclination to emulate them either in size or complexity. Digitrax has a lot of momentum in the club, modular, and large home layout sectors, where they have a large number of systems installed, and a flexible architecture for signalling on the latter two, and easy setup on modular systems. There is also so much knowledge out there for Digitrax, and to a ceratain extent NCE, as there are a lot of DCC gugrs using Digitrax, and some using NCE, while there aren't really any gurus or DCC hobyists (whose main interest in MR'ing is DCC and electrical) on the MRC system, as it is more limited and for the more basic user.Gurus? DCC hobbyists? If that's what they want to be, more power to them. The rest of us want to model the railroad and use DCC to enhance its operational capabilities. IOW, the control system should be subordinate to the overall purpose of the railroad. The system should be appropriate to the layout and not the layout to the system. It almost seems that you think (although you don't explicitly state it) that there is some shame in being a "more basic user". I could be wrong, but you do keep touting all the "advanced" features that Digitrax supposedly has and how the "experts" really love it as if the rest of us, must, of necessity, follow the lead of "experts" rather than figure things out for ourselves. I can't speak for anyone else, but while I will listen to advice from experienced users, ultimately I will make the decision as to what's appropriate in my situation.Mike

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Even the low-end market might want to get a turnout decoder for their selenoids or something, and MRC only has one. While you can use many turnout decoders with other systems, people usually want to stick to one brand. The clubs and large home layouts are not the norm, but they buy a LOT more volume of stuff per layout than a small layout. They also influence individual buyers, as people who have a small layout at home and belong to a club are likely to use Digitrax if their club uses Digitrax, NCE if their club uses NCE. I doubt very many clubs are using a more limited system like MRC.On the other hand, if someone buy a system, say Digitrax, and the local or club DCC guru/ electrical engineer knows almost everything there is to know about the Digitrax system, wouldn't they be inclined to use that system at home? The same is true for NCE. That way you could ask a question or get help with a problem more easily.I don't think there is any shame in being a basic user. Even a basic user can appreciate the power and cost effectiveness of Loconet if they have a few UT4 throttles, and maybe a DS-64 to control some Atlas selenoids, with separate power.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Even the low-end market might want to get a turnout decoder for their selenoids or something, and MRC only has one. While you can use many turnout decoders with other systems, people usually want to stick to one brand. The clubs and large home layouts are not the norm, but they buy a LOT more volume of stuff per layout than a small layout. They also influence individual buyers, as people who have a small layout at home and belong to a club are likely to use Digitrax if their club uses Digitrax, NCE if their club uses NCE. I doubt very many clubs are using a more limited system like MRC.Yeah, they may buy a higher volume per layout, but they're vastly outnumbered by the small to moderately sized home layout. As for turnout decoders, they're unnecessary if you design a layout where everything is reachable and you don't have the traffic volume equivalent of the Northeast Corridor or some significant percentage of the NEC. Joe runs a pretty hefty sized railroad using manually operated turnouts except in staging. Fascia mounted switches will operate powered turnouts just fine.Mike

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

IMO Using throttles to throw turnouts is kinds of like using the 16" guns on an Iowa class battleship to hunt quail.Yes, the quail tend to die, but the infra structure and overhead is ridiculous.Unless you are using CTC or its like and want the DS to be able to throw turnouts using electrical turnout throws (solenoid or slow motion) is kind of overkill. And doesn't model the climb off the train, hike over to othe switch-stand, unlock the bugger, tug on the handle, re-lock, hike back to train (at some point), and climb on board again process terribly well.Not that I want to start another endless debate about whether its possible for a model train crew to hike down the layout to get to a switch without crushing the scenery With a turnout costing somewhere between $8 and $30 if you buy it (depending on brand and store) and a home built costing between $3 and $8 depending if you really scratch build everything and whether you're amortizing $140 of Fast Tracks jigs it's already expensive enough for someone building a largish layout.Add onto that the cost of a Tortoise ($12 and up).And the cost of the toggle switch to actuate if ($1).And the cost of some diode matrix electonics to allow push button route selection ( $???)and you're hitting an additional $13 to $25 per turnout. If you fish in one one of those hare or wabbit thingees its getting pretty darned expensive.So if this is what you're already looking at (hare or wabbit) I suppose the cost of DCC turnout controllers isn't that much more.But unless you NEED remote control of that turnout why bother? It's more electrical and electronics that can go on the fritz (most likely when you have a group of people coming over to run the layout) and require troubleshooting. Make sure you keep a few extra pieces around so when there's a mid-session failure you can get it back together again.Jeesh! And lets not even get back to my personal preference which is that throttles should be kept SIMPLE (the KISS principl.e).I can build hand operated, fascia mount turnout controls for about $1. They take a bit of adjustment but work well once installed. On a layout with 100 turnouts that comes to an additional cost of $100 vs a cost of $2000-$3000.And I don't need to run extra power supply wires around the layout. Or run control wires back to a control panel(which is one place where a DCC or CMRI based turnout solution excels).And frankly I think a crew shouldn't be able to throw turnouts ahead of them until their train actually arrives (ok, they can hike ahead and cheat).So unless you want the DS to control the turnouts I think remote controlled tortoises are a complete waste of money. Use the bucks saved (even caboose hobby ground throws are 1/4 the cost of a tortoise) to buy your wife that new couch she wants (or with the cost difference for 100 turnouts I could buy a brass cab foward and tsunami to put in it).Regards,C.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...Oh, just read the other thread, and I got the double ended consist thing. Wouldn't work for switching.why not? you don't HAVE to change address to reverse direction, you just hit the button or flip the switch on the throttle and the engines runs backwards. just like the real thing.couldn't be easier.now a dumb question about command station consist. do they persist when the command station is powered off?

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Denny:Yes, command station consists persist after the command station is turned off ... unless the battery in the command station goes dead.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

What Charlie says about using accessory decoders to control turnouts is true ... overkill 90% of the time.Real loco crews don't push a button in the engine cab to throw a turnout in front of them.Just because you can do it in DCC, doesn't mean you should. People who's hobby is electronics might get a kick out of it I suppose, but it's not railroading. It's more akin to layout automation and having a computer run the trains.I can see using DCC accessory decoders if you want to do CTC. Then you can build yourself a panel in JMRI and have fun.But more and more, CTC is becoming passe on operation-oriented layouts because from the train operators' point of view, just doing no-brainer what the signal said to do isn't very challenging.Now ABS or Permissive ABS block signalling is interesting, and will be what I implement on my Siskiyou Line. I have a hard time seeing why the signal and detector commands need to be on the same bus as the loco commands.In checking prices, I can also see that using CMRI for signaling gets me what I want for less money. I have more options with CMRI than with DCC for signaling.So it may be cool that I can use whiz-bang DCC technology, but that's less well understood. CMRI has been constantly revamped and updated since its introduction in the 80s and is now a very mature technology with lots of experienced people to consult.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

The quantity of stuff clubs buy is equally vast as the number of smaller layouts, and the clubs have influence over their member's purchasing decisions. Also, most modular clubs use Digitrax, and so people ask a club at a trainshow about DCC, and they will probably get "buy a Zephyr".Some people like electric turnouts. Even selenoids. Others like manual ones. Its not just signalled CTC controlled layouts that have powered turnouts. Using the throttles makes the wiring a LOT simpler. I was a member of a club which used NCE. Because of my exposure to NCE, I am favorably inclined to that make or a make that has a similar look and feel (e.g. MRC). However, that's not the sole criterion. I'm not going to need Starship "Enterprise" capability, so anything that's MORE than adequate to my needs will be quite acceptable. The fact that some people like powered turnouts is of little consequence to me (and quite a few others). It's cheaper to do it manually and if they're not required, why go to the trouble and expense? How in the name of all that's holy does using the throttles to throw turnouts make the wiring simpler? A manually thrown turnout is as simple as you can get. The club I belonged to had Tortoises on all the turnouts, with switches mounted on the fascia to operate them. Most of those could have been thrown manually without degrading operaional capability, although the main yard certainly required some since a number of the tracks were a stretch to reach and the yard was of a size that the additional cost was worth it. Every else, hand thrown turnouts would have worked just fine.Charlie Comstock sez:IMO Using throttles to throw turnouts is kinds of like using the 16" guns on an Iowa class battleship to hunt quail.Yes, the quail tend to die, but the infra structure and overhead is ridiculous.I would have said that using throttles to throw turnouts is kinda like using nuclear weapons to kill cockroaches. While the roaches will die, the net effect will be to make the neighbors irate because you're driving property values way down. Great minds tend to think alike. Mike

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

What Charlie says about using accessory decoders to control turnouts is true ... overkill 90% of the time.Real loco crews don't push a button in the engine cab to throw a turnout in front of them.Just because you can do it in DCC, doesn't mean you should. People who's hobby is electronics might get a kick out of it I suppose, but it's not railroading. It's more akin to layout automation and having a computer run the trains.As much as I agree with this - I am also using manual throw - there is a prototype for this, well almost.I read in an issue of trains of a shortline somewhere in the USA where the engineere - or conductor - actually throwed turnouts (switches) from the cab by dialing up the switch, did they use the cellphone? I am not quite sure.Charlie,this is a bit of-topic, but how do you make your turnout controls?I can build hand operated, fascia mount turnout controls for about $1. They take a bit of adjustment but work well once installed. On a layout with 100 turnouts that comes to an additional cost of $100 vs a cost of $2000-$3000.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Hi-First post from a new member.A previous post said: "Do you eat a potato chip and then pick it up (action>>> object), or do you pick it up and then eat it (object>>>action)?"It illustrates a problem with DCC as it stands now and that problem is that we still are using programming language to describe what we do to a certain extent. All technologies go through this stage.The statement should read "Do you eat a potato chip (action>>> object)and then pick it up (action>>> object), or do you pick it up (action>>> object) and then eat it (action>>> object)?Notice that it is all (action>>> object.) To write it (object >>>action) it would be "Potato chip, pick up; potato chip, eat." For those of us who go back far enough with calculators, Reverse Polish Notation had its day and then was swept away by "natural" syntax. I think the same will happen with DCC operating systems.Sorry for the semi-rantCharley

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

It is off topic but in brief I used similar under the layout mechanics as Joe's door bolt throws. A couple of scraps of 1x2, about 6" of .040 piano wire and a few screws.I make the throw mechanism using about 3/4" of 1" dowel for a knob, about 3" of 3/8" dowl for a shaft. A couple of bits of 3/4" plywood, a few nails and a cup hook.It's kind of hard to describe without pictures. I'll try to throw some diagrams together and post 'em.They operate by grabbing the knob, pulling it out a little, twisting it 1/4 turn and shoving it back in.Total parts cost is probably around a $1. But in exchange for that I can't just go to the hobby store and buy 'em ready to install... And I need to plan ahead where I'm going to put 'em in the fascia.Regards,C.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I'd agree that a staging yard is one place where remote controlled turnouts make sense. I'll bite the bullet (and the credit card) and use tortoises to run my main staging yards below the main peninsual. Routing will be by pushbutton, there will need to be four groups of buttons, one for the east and west ends of each of the two yards tucked away. Being able to grab a track with one button press is nicer than needing to mess with up to 10 hand throws in a dimly lit area.I was just over at Tony's website and a package deal with a wabbit, two edge connectors, and two tortoises is going for $56 plus shipping. Vs about $24 for plain tortoieses. I'm perhaps weird that I enjoy making my own electronics to control all this. But I can build my own to control the yards for less than the cost of the 18 wabbits plus.With wabbits 36 / 2 * $56 = $1008 Tortoises only: 36 *$12 = $432 leaving me a budget of $576 to build my own electronics (which I like doing anyway).I find computer ribbon cable a good way of connecting multiple identical control panels with each other and there are outfits on the internet that make custom PC boards quite affordably so I don't need to solder a ba-jillion connector wires together.And the hidden cost (for me) is that I'd need the more expensive DT400 throttles instead of UT4 throttles to control the turnouts. Add on about $80 per throttle (but I'm fortunate that many of my operators already have Digitrax throttles so I don't need to buy more than I already have)But if you really like throttle controlled turnouts then per rule #1 (it's your railroad) then I say go for 'em.Regards,Charlie ComstockSuperintendent of Turnout Construction and ActivationThe Bear Creek and South Jackson Railway Co.Hillsboro, OR

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Bear Creek:Using throttles to throw turnouts is a great way to not have to use anything other than the throttle to control the layout, not having to reach into the layout to throw a turnout, and not having to have a big control panel that is like the old cab control panels. That being said, due to the cost, they are cetainly not for all dark railroads. I personally use ground throws and they are great. Not quite as great as DCC controlled turnouts, but for the cost, I use ground throws. However, in a big yard, having routes set up is pretty cool. That way it is one number for a track, not five ground throws. For singalled lines, you have to feed the data in as to the position of the turnout, either through C/MRI input lines, or through DCC accessory decoders, (either would be in combination with ground throws with contacts) so why not just control them while you are at it?Denny:I could use a double ended consist, but it wouldn't help much, as the issue is the headlight while I am switching, constantly changing directions to sort cars.My command station consists persist. (DCS50). I assume the same is true for the DCS100, so long as the battery does not go flat (not likely). This is why before an op session, a reset of opsw 36 is a good idea.JoeF:It seems that more layouts are doing CTC. It allows more traffic to be routed by a dispatcher, and would be especially useful on a club layout, or a layout with many operators. It is also often the prototype practice to have CTC on more modern prototypes, especially on present-day prototypes.Loconet signalling gear is well understood, and it is great stuff. It can also do transponding for totally automated operation of the entire layout, which would be great for showing a "civilian" a layout. Then, with the click of a button it is back to prototypical CTC operation. It is also easier to set up, and has wide software support. Loconet with thrid party devices, like the TC-64 has as many or more options than C/MRI. It can do virtually anything as far as signalling and such. Which C/MRI is a mature technology, it is does not have the latest and greatest peer to peer architecture or bidirectional communication with locomotives. Transponding also adds ops mode read back of CV's, although that seems sort of pointless.Andre Chapelon:While you may not buy what your club has, many people do. Using DCC to throw throttles makes the wiring simple than having control panels to do it. It is, of course, more complex than ground throws. Using throttles to throw turnouts is a neat alternative to ground throws, and is NOT overkill. A guy at the club has a turnout on his layout that is too high to see (it is on a logging line on a mountain), so he used a feedback module and a turnout decoder to show the operator how it is set, and allow them to set it through an NCE ProCab.CCSII:What Joe and others were saying is that the action>>> object method (NCE) was easier to use than the object>>> action (Digitrax), while I argued the opposite, as Digitrax seems more like eating potato chips, which is usually pretty easy. KnuT:Cool. Probably some sort of more direct system, like wifi on the loco and switchstand, but I don't know.EDIT: I forgot a space.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Say, NY, a question.Seeing all the discussion with Space Mouse over on his thread about fixing his club's Digitrax system, you mention how "goobered" Digitrax can get with all its slots.How come I had a Lenz system for 7 years, and an EasyDCC system for 7 years and never had problems with "goobered" loco slots? Why does the more 'advanced' Digitrax DCC system have this rather low-level, under-the-hood issue when I've never seen it surface with these other "less advanced" DCC systems?And this makes Digitrax the recommended DCC system for the "rest of us" ?

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

JoeF:In order to have a DCC system, you need "slots" to hold the info. Addmittedly, Digitrax needs more of them to trash, like NCE. NCE has 250 I think, instead of 120, so the system just about never needs to be reset, as it just trashes dozens of them over its lifetime. Eventually, on a large club type setup, it too would probably need to be cleaned out, unless it somehow auto cleans them, which it would be nice if Digitrax did this. It is really nice, however, the Digitrax lets us see the slots, and clear them all if we want to, so we can make the system work the way we want to. Cleaning consists and locos out before an op session is a great way to make sure you will have top performance. Heck, I do this to my Zephyr before a train show. Its not like throwing opsw 36 is hard.Bear Creek:That would be pretty cool if you can design some sort of electronic control for the turnouts. Complicated, but if it works reliably, really cool.The same thing could be acheived with off the shelf components by using a TC-64 or a DS64 for input, and having the buttons feed into the DCC system, which handles the logic, and then back to the turnouts. I don't think the Wabbit is the most cost-effective decoder. CVP, Lenz, and NCE make awesome turnout decoders for many turnouts that are cheaper, and Digitrax's DS-64 and DS-54 are not bad. The TC-64 can also control turnouts, and, in fact, one TC-64 should be able to do all of your turnouts and the input for them. There is also the Smail, although I think they are even more expensive.Lastly, the kludgy method would be to have a DTX00 throttle by the yard for operators of UTX(R) throttles to throw the routes with.With selonoids, you can make a diode matrix, although then you need a capacitive discharge unit, and the selenoids make a bad noise, and they put out bad interference that can, under certain circumstances, mess with a DCC system.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Well, this just confirms it all the more for me ... with Digitrax, everything's a "procedure" ... meaning many steps that have to be put in writing cuz no one would remember them otherwise.The whole "deselect loco procedure" surprises me.I have no written procedures for my operators who used my Lenz knobby throttles, nor do I have any for my EasyDCC operators.There's gotta be procedures, says the system design engineers -- okay, here goes:Lenz (not wireless)1. Plug in throttle2. Dial up last two digits on the cab with the number thumbwheels3. Run train4. When done, unplug throttleEasyDCC (wireless)1. Turn on throttle2. Dail up last two digits on the cab with the number thumbwheels3. Run train4. When done, turn off throttleYou mean Digitrax needs more than this? Time to take the system designers out and have a long talk with them about how to design a system that mere mortals can use.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Digitrax is not hard or clunky to use. Dispatching just makes sure everything goes smoothly. At a train show, I showed another member of the modular club I belong to how to use my Digitrax system. He had a sound equipped steamer, and he wanted to lower the volume and find a different whistle. He had an NCE Powercab at home, but had never programmed CVs or anything, as he does not have a layout at the moment. I showed him how to use the throttle, step by step, and how to program CVs. He then got the manual for the sound decoder and started programming, while running around on the layout. Then, an experienced NCE user who had never used Digitrax started helping him with the sound CV's, and the only problems they had were the weirdnesses of the sound decoder, and the fact that there was only one (HORRIBLE) whistle.EDIT: Clarity

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

The "procedure" for using a Digitrax UT4R throttle is:o Always take the batteryout at the end of a sessiono Put the battery back in at the start of a session.1. With the throttel unplugged dial the # of the loco you want to control on the thumbwheels2. Plug it in. The loco should now be selected3. Unplug4. Run train5. When done with train set dial address 0000 on the thumbwheels6. Plug it in. The engine should now be deselected a avaialble for another throttle7. Unplug.(note: this is the proceedure I learned and it seems to work. However lthis is not the result of extensive RTFM sessions nor of consulting the manufacturers procedures. YMMV)FWIW,Charlie ComstockSuperintendent of Useless DocumentationThe Bear Creek and South Jackson Railway Co.Hillsboro, OR

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

The DTX00 throttles are a lot easier to use, just plug in (the battery thing is the same if the operator wants radio), and hit Loco XX Loco. At the end of the session, hit Loco Disp. Simple. Easy.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Charlie,Thanks for the description of your turnout controls. I would love to see pictures as I am searching for good - and cheap - turnout controls.As for the UT4, after finish running, I always - disconnect the throttle- reconnect it while pressing the "dispatch" button- the light should turn to red.Well, it is just an other method, best when using tethered mode.I also use the IR wireless function

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...Denny:I could use a double ended consist, but it wouldn't help much, as the issue is the headlight while I am switching, constantly changing directions to sort cars.headlight changing with direction has nothing to do with consists. you just program you decoder so that is doesn't change direction when you reverse your engine direction. couldn't be simpler.you press F0 and the headlights stay on until you press F0 again, no matter the direction. I think this is much more prototypical.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Hi all,my first post, and after reading every response in this thread (probably the most informative on the net!!!), i have some remaining thoughts that I'd like addressed by you all (if possible on a technical level):Digitrax vs NCE:1. full slots problem. is the only weakness here that digitrax get's full of un-dispatched consists? or why is this not a problem with NCE? are consists and decoders the only things stored in slots? what am i missing here? 2. loconet vs polled networks (data delay). some people say the response is slow on NCE or digitrax, some say it's fast. It all seems very subjective reporting to me and very dependent on the layout. - Is the slow datarate on loconet with regard to data collisions really a problem on a layout with signalling, block detection and normal train operation? and what about polling? how much time does it take for a typical "poll" or loconet transmission?I'm very experienced in RS485 and ethernet data comms (i'm an electrical engineer), but I have no idea about the practical feeling in loconet and NCE's polling system with signals, throttles, detectors, decoders, and perhaps points (turnouts) running on the same bus.3. ease of use. From what i've read, NCE is ahead here. Consisting, clear text on buttons, more informative LCD. The digitrax throttle is clearly made by an engineer, not a user. while this is a big point for me, other operating issues may have more weight...4. walkaround throttles. I know it works for digitrax, but is it possible to unplug a throttle on an NCE network and replug it without losing any consist? I ask this since the throttle can give no response when polled if it is unplugged! I assume the command station has to be inteligent here.5. transponding. what is the advantage of transponding (immediately replying to a command) over providing feedback to a command station at any time (block detectors, aux contacts on a point/tunout, etc...) is it absolutely necessary to NEED transponding? in the real world, device statuses are not transponded. the device status is always transmitted when it changes, regardless of if it was asked to or not. eg. if a turnout is manually thrown without being asked to by the PC... the status is reported accordingly to the signalling PC - thus remaining safe at all times.6. serial communication port. is this polled separately to the throttle/track bus on NCE? I would prefer to design my own signalling software and operate signals and turnouts via the serial bus. is a locobuffer on digitrax better than the built in NCE interface???7. is the NCE system delivered with RJ12 plugs on the throttles? (there are references to a jack cable in the manual)8. more later... that's enough for 1 post! So, to round up, Dad and I have been trying to work out a decision between NCE and digitrax for about one year now.... slowly things are being answered, but i think we have found the right place to ask to get the nitty gritty details answered!Trev.Joe: my father visited you with some other australians last year i believe. perhaps you remember Merv, Duncan Rien and Cheryl?

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I managed to fix the Chief myself. There were cold solder joints on the main rectifier. Somehow (a miracle) they had survived the last 9 years. But one of 'em let loose. I could measure 16VDC on the output leads of the rectifier with my trusty Fluke VOM but no voltage across the filter capacitors.I resoldered the rectifier leads (the old joints were horrid blobs of solder - how it made it through QA I can't understand - or perhaps there was no QA other than "duh, does it appear to work?")There were also a number of excessively long leads on several components some of which were dangerously close to shorting to other traces/components. All and all a pretty amatuer assembly job in some places. If I'd done my rework like that (bad solder joints and excess lead length) when I was a computer board tech in the late 70's they would have taken away my soldering iron...Hopefully, since then Digitrax has improved their assembly techiniques. I'm just glad this didn't happen in the midst of an op session.The digitrax egroup tried to be helpful but much of what was said turned out to misinformation (or her mother MrsInformation...).I sent another email to digitrax telling them to never mind as I'd fixed it myself. Still no response to either message.On the other hand I sent a question to NCE yesterday asking about brass steamers crossing between booster districts and again I had a reply by early this morning. Come to think of it, I don't think I've **ever** gotten a timely reply from digitrax by email.Whatever...Charlie ComstockSuperintendent of DCC BashingThe Bear Creek and South Jackson Railway Co.Hillsboro, OR

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

tricky_trev:1. I am not sure. I think it may have to do with the fact that NCE tends to use advanced consists, so they can wipe out the command station on startup? Or they just use fewer slots? Also, NCE is limited to 63 throttles, although most systems are not more than 20 or 30. They have 250 slots. Digitrax, on the other hand, caan do 120 throttles, and 120 slots. The club in NJ got up to 98 throttles, and large modular layouts can get pretty busy as well, especially with modern MU'ed diesels.2. Loconet has never been maxed out, or even anywhere close. Some clubs have 300+ devices spitting data out, and they are fine as far as bandwidth. NCE's system can have an AIU (auxiliary input device), but for all practical purposes, it is ONLY for throttles. Any AIU or other device sucks up a throttle slot, whereas on Digitrax, you have 120 throttles PLUS an essentially unlimited number of block detectors and accessory decoders.I have a feeling that NCE is using some sort of doubling scheme on their RS-485 bus. They have the capability for 63 throttles, while RS-485 only handles 32 devices. What I think they are doing, because of limitations of the number of ProCabs and Engineer cabs, is assigning a ProCab and an engineer cab to the same RS-485 address, polling them at the same time, and then having two different data formats, one for Procabs, on for Engineer cabs. The Command station shares an address with one type of cab. In that manner, you would have 63 devices. Note that this is a sort of educated guesstimate. IT IS NOT FACT AND NCE DID NOT SAY IT.3. They are different systems to use. I find Digitrax easy to use. But they are different.4. I think it is a true walkaround system, not 100% sure. The PowerCab is not, however, as it is supplying track power.5. Transponding allows a computer to see which train is in a block. It really has nothing to do with turnouts. Block detection shows that a train is in block 12, transponding shows you that train #27 is in block 12. It is useful for CTC applications, and it is really useful for switching over to automated operations for civilian visitors. It is also great for surround sound. It is prototypical on the modern BNSF, as they are using some GPS and RFID type technologies to track trains. With tranposnding you can also run in a "protected mode", where the computer prevents someone from slowing a signal and causing a pile-up.6. Not really sure. I think it would have to be separate though, but this is a guesstimation. If you use NCE for train control, you need to have a separate hardware system for the signals, either C/MRI or custom made. You can also go this route with Digitrax, but Digitrax has awesome plug and play signalling stuff, and everything connects to the same loconet, communicated with the computer through the same Locobuffer. A Locobuffer-USB is better than NCE's system if your PC doesn't have a serial port. Look at Railroad and Company, which works well with Digitrax stuff. It is an awsome peice of software that has everything you could ever need. If you want to write software just because its fun, there is a PDF on Digitrax's site specifying how to address the Loconet. You could also download JMRI and add to it, as it is open source.7. Now it is. Older systems sometimes used 1/4" headphone or 5 pin DIN sockets, which are a little more durable, but a lot more expensive.For geeky layout automation/ signalling/ computer control, Digitrax is where its at. If you use JMRI, you can also combine C/MRI and Digitrax stuff, or with all Digitrax stuff, you have the option of the commerical Railroad and Company, or JMRI.5.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

FWIW I had a problem with my Chief this weekend. I sent email to -email-. Thus far I've not received any response.Yesterday as a test I sent email to NCE support. I had a reply first thing this moirning.ymmv and the other usual disclaimers.C.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

If its not a send it back to the factory sort of thing, try the Yahoo! Digitrax groups. Some of the people there have been using Digitrax since it was first intoduced, and have gained a lot of knowledge.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

FWIW, my LHS says the MRCs support is very good, and they back their stuff up, no questions asked. I have sent them a couple of emails and received very quick responses back as well, very helpful.For an update on what I'm doing (no decoders yet, so I won't have anything up and running for at least a few more weeks on DCC).I received a Prodigy Express for Christmas. There are two major features that the Prodigy Express is missing, that the Advance includes: Fast Clock and Yard Mode. These are also available on the NCE Powercab.For whatever reasons, I really like the MRC throttles, and I like the company and their products. So I've decided to keep the PE, and I'll add to that when I really need to. It might be one of their new wireless, or it might be a PA cab.In any event, this is a small layout (10'x 20'). It has two towns, each with a small industrial yard. I will have two small staging areas, and another small yard to substitute for the major interchange points that I don't have room to model yet.In the future, I have a very large layout (waiting for a very large basement) planned. It will have 2 1/2 major yards, a major interchange, and somewhere around 10 small towns, many with small yards.In both cases I will be using manual turnouts, and a full permissive signalling system that will be controlled independently of DCC. This is all based on the prototype.On the future layout, wireless will be a must (based on the size and design). For the current layout, the throttle will be in the middle of the 20' length and a relatively short tethered connection (6'-12') will work fine.The fast clock is something that I won't need for some time, and it certainly doesn't have to show up on the throttle anyway.So I can skip those features for now, knowing that I can upgrade to them in the future -specifically because I'm planning on a wireless throttle in the future no matter what, and I can always use the PE as my programming throttle at my workbench (which is under one of my staging yards).So for my situation, as well as my personal preferences: I don't like the form factor/design of the Zephyr system; I don't like the Digitrax throttles; I like the support and design of the MRC equipment, etc. I also did not design a place to put a stationary command station on my layout, so I need a hand-held form factor.This is just personal preference. To me the Digitrax equipment still looks like a Radio Shack project rather than a professionally designed product. For some people, their approach is the perfect design.For me, money is also a very big factor, not necessarily down the road, but right at this moment. So the starter system cost plays a big part, and that limits me to the MRC and the NCE. I really like both designs. But I'm really familiar with the MRC brand, I like their product and design, and I think they are headed in the right direction (very similar to NCE).I realize that at this time I am sacrificing some functionality by going with MRC instead of NCE. I personally don't see any significant technical advantage for Digitrax if I'm not interested in signalling/turnouts, etc via DCC. I do understand the advantages of the peer-to-peer system, but they aren't great enough to overcome the start-up cost/design issues that I have with Digitrax.In any event, I think they all have their advantages and disadvantages. So for most people it will be a combination of choices.My local club uses Digitrax. My local hobby shop owner uses MRC. My model railroad hero (No names, but his initials are JF), is thinking about switching to NCE and has used Lenz and EasyDCC.At some point you just have to pick a system and go with it. So I have. I am really looking forward to talking to the MRC techs at the upcoming clinic I'm attending, which is another factor for me. I'm a PC-guy by trade, and the technological hurdles/learning the system isn't really an issue for me. But I hate poorly-designed stuff. I wouldn't say the Digitrax design is poor, per se, just dated.I have limited experience with the Digitrax (at my club). I have no actual experience with NCE, and limited experience with MRC. However, just by looking at the MRC and NCE I could understand how to use it. With the Zephyr, I had a lot of guesses, some of them right, some of them not. I can't afford to upgrade the Zephyr to a handheld controller (the biggest reason why I won't consider Digitrax at this time).So I'll keep you posted as I play with the new system. Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

So are you planning on using the MRC system for the larger layout? I don't know if there are many large installations of MRC. Both Digitrax and NCE have been installed on large layouts many times. If the MRC system ends up working well on a large system, you will have a cost-effective system, as their throttles are cheap. They are also all full function, unlike the NCE Cab04/05 and Digitrax UT4. The problems may arise with the Cab bus and other layout wiring. The cab bus plates are pricey ($25), so you may want to figure out how to make your own system, possibly using phone punch down panels, just make sure there are 8 wires there. You will probably need a plug in panel every 10ish feet or less. MRC doesn't have any 5 amp boosters, take a look at NCE's boosters. Even a lot of Digitrax people use the NCE PB105, as it is cheap and good. Other problems may include powering the cab bus. While many clubs have been down that road with NCE (using cab bus repeaters or aux power supplies) or Digitrax (powering every tenth UP5 or injecting voltage on the railsync of ThrottleNet), there are probably very few large installs of MRC. Take that into consideration as you plan a large layout. Also, if you want different types of cabs (I hate 'em, but some people love 'em), NCE and Digitrax have those. NCE offers an encoder based cheapie throttle in addition to a potentiometer based cheapie throttle, and a somewhat bizarre pushbutton model. Digitrax offers only a potentiometer based throttle, but it is as idiot proof as they get, good for letting a civilian operator romp around on your layout.As for the wireless, you will probably find that it is somewhat impractical. I only have the wireless because I use it with my modular club, and we have no cab bus, as we are officially DC. I have found the batteries are a PAIN, and they will be with any radio based system other than Zimo (I think they have Li-on rechargeable batteries). Two members of my club have layouts with NCE's system, and both have pure wired systems with a ton of cab bus panels. Having a lot of cab bus panels is a lot more reliable and convenient."To me the Digitrax equipment still looks like a Radio Shack project rather than a professionally designed product."On the other hand, it looks like NCE, CVP, Lenz, and MRC borrowed a system architecture from the computer industry that is not well suited to running model trains. Digitrax built a system for running model trains, from the ground up.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

It is really interesting to see our different point of views here.some of us like this and some of us like thatand some of us are like Winnie the Puh: "Yes, I want them both"Even though I do have Digitrax, and it is not likely that I change, I like to see what other systems can do (or not do), and hope my system could include things like the doubleended consists.BTW,anyone know if this would be possible to do with the JMRI?A question to you, Randy:How do you like the MRC throttle knobs?How do you like the placement at the lower end of the throttle?Is it still possible to use the throttle with a single hand?I would like to see a NCE ProCab with a throttleknob/(encoder with larger knob) instead of the mousewheel style encoder and the speed pushbuttons.Charlie,I read about your problems on the Yahoo/Digitrax-group.And yes, some people complain of late respons or even no responsbut others say they get fast respons.One thing to remember - it is important that you in the subject line include "Digitrax" and the name of the product:Like "My Digitrax Chief DCS100 is dead"But you have probably already done that Knut

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

rghammill:MRC and NCE may not think alike, it may just be that MRC copied NCE, because they like NCE's design. That in itself says something about the designs.You still need cab bus panels for fault recovery if the radio drops out. Also, you will quickly get tired of charging all of those batteries all the time. And what if you don't have any charged batteries? With radio throttles and a cab bus, you can just plug in.The other issue is that the MRC system has not been tested. It is a two way system, and due to FCC limits, IF it is in the 900mhyz band, the performance will not be very good. If it is a 2.4ghz system, it can use a higher TX/RX power, and it should work fine, like wifi. The FCC limits on rx/tx power is the same reason that NCE's radio did not work very well for a while, and now requires 6" antennas to get decent performance. Digitrax and CVP use one way systems. I don't think CVP's system has a way to plug in, which is bad if you run out of batteries, and Digitrax's system is kludgy to use, without radio acqusition. If MRC goes into the 2.4ghz band, and has internal rechargable batteries with a charger or something, their system will be the first good radio system. They could get some serious market share that way. Digitrax's radio system is proven to be kludgy and have good performance, while NCE's system is proven to work well, although usually with the help of some repeaters. MRC's system may or may not have good performance, so don't count on it. I *think* Zimo's system has rechargable batteries and 2.4ghz, but it is ridiculously overpriced.The NCE Procab can be used with the pushbuttons in one hand really easily. I am not sure if it is by speed steps or by percent. Not sure about the encoder wheel. The Digitrax DT400s can be held in one hand, and the encoder turned with your thumb. The right encoder is for your right hand, the left for your left. If you switch hands, you can switch between the two trains you have. Not prototypical at all.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I call them on the phone, and they are great. Sadly they don't have a 1-800 number. I usually use my cell phone to call long distance, but basements and cell phones... Twice they have answered my questions quickly.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NY - it's obvious that we're going to disagree on the merits of the design of Digitrax vs the others. However, I think the form factor is pretty simlar between all three. It's not the form factor, but the actual quality of the design itself. The way it looks, the way it looks like it's assembled, etc. It's just more polished. Again, it's just a personal opinion. On the other hand, the fact that NCE and MRC (and probably others) have very similar designs is a good indication that they are well designed for their function. Regardless, if you need the extra features of Digitrax/like their controllers better, etc. then use Digitrax.For the large layout/cost of cab bus plates issue, as I said I am intending on using wireless regardless of the system I use for the larger layout.The design is a folded loop, but on two levels. It's a semi-mushroom design, where you'll never be able to see the two levels at once. The area I'm modeling is from Hartford to Springfield - the mainline (mostly along the west side of the CT River) and the Armory line (runs along the east side of the river) form a loop, although they were independent lines and the trains remained on one line or the other.In any event, because of the design, and not wanting to have to unplug/plug in throttles, etc. I'm planning on wireless. I also don't want to have to wire the DCC bus around the whole layout, just power districts.KnuTThe throttle knobs are one of the reasons I really like the MRC controllers, especially for yard mode. Since I have the PE I won't have that functionality yet, but that's OK.It's certainly feels natural to use them two-handed, but since I don't actually have any decoders yet I have only used it a little at my LHS. However, they seem to be pretty easy to use one-handed if you put your thumb on top of the knob, rather than the side. The knob is "notched" so it requires a little pressure to go turn it, and it gives a nice tactile feel as well. If you're really particular and you learn your locomotives well - especially in yard mode at low speeds - you could easily count the 'clicks' as you increase or decrease the throttle. I have not had enough experience with it to know how many clicks equal what change in speed (if that's practical), and I'm sure it will be different depending on the number of speed steps you are using.What I haven't figured out yet, since I haven't had extensive use, and I don't have any sound locomotives yet, is how frequently I'll need to move my hand, or if I'll simply use the other hand for other functons. On the NCE it seems that I'd have to be moving down a lot. The Digitrax, with the throttles above the LCD, feels very strange.I suspect I will probably use it two handed most of the time, as a result of other functions once I have sound anyway. It feels very natural to hold it near the bottom, as opposed to the middle (for the NCE) or top (for Digitrax, if you want to use it one handed).So, the jury's still out on the knob/button placement, although in general I like the knob better and it feels very natural. I am planning on prototypical operation in the future, with paperwork, so one-handed use may be more of an issue then. But I'm also hoping to have enough people running trains to do two-man operations, so the conductor/flag-man/everything except engineer could carry the paperwork.One disadvantage that the Prodigy has that you should know about. It defaults to 28 speed steps. When you add a locomotive you have to tell it to use 128 speed steps if that's how you have your loco programmed.It does retain 5 locomotives in memory when turned off (I don't remember if it remembers them when unplugged).I'll keep you posted.Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Hold on, major update...I just checked the MRC site to verify something in my last post. Prodigy Advance is now listed as discontinued, and Prodigy Express and Prodigy Advance Wireless are the only systems listed.The wireless is listed as coming soon. The wireless handheld is a full DCC controller - full duplex programming wirelessly. Tony's lists the Prodigy Advance 2 (squared) with the following changes: 2 new features - meets the NMRA protocol for sounds or functions up to F 28; equipped to be able to operate Prodigy Wireless without having the system upgraded.Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Also from Tony's on MRC Wireless:Stand alone system that comes equipped with power supply, console and wireless hand-held. Most importantly, the customer can use it to not only operate his trains but can also program from the handheld. This Total Control Radio System (TCRS) is called duplex control and something Digitrax does not offer with their wireless system.Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Also from Tony's - to upgrade exisiting PE or PA systems to Prodigy Wireless requires you to send your system to MRC.Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Randy,Thank you for the comments.I prefer to use the UT4, not the DT400.The UT4 fits my (small) hand well, I can operate the throttle knob and the direction toggle with one hand, even F5 and F6 for notching up and down my only soundtraxxloco.When operating alone, this is good news.And ad to this that my UT4 is wireless ready (IR), which works resonable well when the battery is OK and there is a close enough line of sight to the reciever(s).I just can't use the Digitrax and NCE radio systems here in Norway.Anyway, most of the large systems has a dealer or two in our country, not bad with a population of less the 5 million, not all of them are modelrailroaders

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Thats excellent battery. Digitrax DT400Rs get about 8.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Thats interesting about the upgrade, I would think they would offer a radio base that acts as a cab on the bus, like NCE, CVP, Lenz and Digitrax have. Thats good news for new buyers though, they get to upgrade to radio for only the cost of the cab.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...rghammill: I don't think CVP's system has a way to plug in, which is bad if you run out of batteries, No, CVP's doesn't plug in, but, their newest release (T9000E) promises 80 hours of continuous use on (4) AAA's. I don't know how this compares to other systems but it sounds pretty good. I do think that most people running radio would have extra charged batteries on hand so that isn't much of an issue.I have a new T9000E (for my Lenz system) on order so I'll let you know how it works when I get it installed.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Randy,Thank you for sharing your experiences with your MRC system.It looks like all systems have their good and bad features.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

rghammill,I was bouncing around the show both days, buying, photographing, and more. What a show is right. I hear it is one of the three biggest in the country, and a number of times bigger than anything the NMRA does.Interesting info about MRC. I tried NCE at the Tony's booth, they have nice pushbutton speed controls on the ProCab. NCE has fast increase/ decrease, so it essentially makes 10 or 7 speed steps, which would be great to avoid having to hit up or down a ton of times. You don't even need the wheel on NCE. Free market competition is pretty good! My Digitrax radio didn't work at Springfield. Too much interference. Now, if someone would make a wireless system that actually worked well, and had an internal rechargeable battery.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

MRC Report:I went to the Clinic last Sunday, it was basically a walkthrough of how to use the Prodigy Express, but we were able to ask questions. I also had a decoder installed (TCS) so I hooked up my Prodigy at home.KnuTIt is very easy to use 1-handed. In fact, it seems to be the natural way to use it. It seems equally easy for left- or right-hand use.It is very well designed and easy to use. A few comments:I find it odd that their isn't a power switch at all. Looking at the literature, there doesn't seem to be one on the NCE Powercab either. Right now I make sure I turn off the locomotive light, and disconnect the cable (partially because I don't want it hanging down, and partially because I don't want my three-year-old to get her hands on a live throttle...When you go through programming a locomotive, it prompts you for several things automatically (changing the loco number, starting and top voltage, etc.). Their belief is that these are the most commonly changed CVs, and instead of having to know how to program them, they walk you through it.I have mixed feelings. It is very convenient when first setting up a locomotive. It's a little annoying when changing settings on an existing locomotive if you want to change other CVs. To change a CV I have to press Prog > Prog (to program on the main instead of the program track), then enter 7 times. Not a huge deal, but not entirely necessary. On the other hand, I don't think I'll program the locomotives all that often, and I don't think I'll be doing so while running/operating. This will also be less of an issue when their PC-link comes out.Throttle - the throttle is very easy to use one-handed, and very comfortable. The knob (on mine at least) has one quirk. It's notched so you can feel when you are stepping up one number on the throttle as you turn it. The problem is that it doesn't actually step up until you hit the beginning of the next notch. A lot of times I'd go one step up, but I didn't roll the knob far enough and it wouldn't register the change. Just apply a little pressure, but not enough to go past the next notch, and it will register the number. You actually get used to the feel and I don't do it as often (after only a couple of days). But I'm finding that at low speeds, like for coupling, etc, that I'm using the buttons to punch in speed changes as much as I'm using the knob.Other things I've found: It saves the last five locomotives entered in flash memory. So you can unplug the throttle altogether and it will still retain them. It will retain the last 25 locomotives while the throttle is plugged in. Note that if you are planning on following a train and will have to unplug the throttle to go to the next jack, you'll lose the 20 older trains. I'm not sure what the benefit is, though, other than the fact that you don't have to type in the 2- or 4-digit locomotive or consist number to pull up the train. If you're using 4-digit addressing, pulling up a train takes 5 keystrokes. Pulling up train #6 in the "stack" takes 6 presses of the recall button, and more for #7-25. So NCEs approach of jumping between 2 trains may make more sense.Consisting. The last locomotive entered is the lead locomotive. I'm not sure if you can add a helper (I only have 1 loco with a decoder), but even if you could, it would become the lead loco since it was the last entered. I don't think it recognizes the first entered as the reverse loco. So to have special features (like the lead loco headlight only, and only the rear loco headlight when reversed) can't easily be done. Adding helpers will probably mean that you'll have to deleted then rebuild the consist. This will take a little time, but that isn't entirely unprototypical when adding another locomotive to the train. To make a consist you have to press prog 3 times, then start adding locos (The first sets programming on the program track, the second is programming on the main, and the third is programming consists).I can understand their logic (program consist), but I would have gone the route of NCE on this one. If you haven't read the instructions (either the book or the back of the controller) you won't know how to make a consist.For future expansion, they're very good. All of their units are upgradeable, and as new NMRA standards are released they will upgrade Prodigy Advance and Prodigy Express systems that have at least one Advance throttle for free. You pay the shipping to NJ< they pay the shipping back and have "less than a week" turnaround time.You'll need to send them in to be wireless compatible. The wireless conversion kit (which I think includes the wireless base station and a throttle) is $289. Additional wireless throttles are $189. They expect them to be available by the end of March. It's going to take a lot more of experimenting. The only real downside I can see is the consisting issue. I'm not so worried about the time it will take to make new consists. In fact, I didn't even think about it, but they consider it a good practice to delete the consists when you're done, or at the end of a session so you don't accidentally have several locomotives active the next time you run in case you forget that some of them were in a consist.The only thing I'm not sure about with their current system that the NCS seems to have down is identifying where each locomotive is in a consist, so you can adjust their features (headlights, bells, whistles, etc) so they will behave properly.Whether that's enough for me to return this and go with NCE, that's still up in the air. Oh, and NYNH&H - I made it over briefly to see your layout, but I didn't get a chance to find you. What a show, huh? It was my first time there.Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

On MRC:I was looking at the full page ads that they have on the back of Model Railroader and there is one BIG thing that troubles me with the Prodigy systems - they change their keypad layout. Comparing the Express and the Advance systems on one the Route Button becomes a sped step selector on the other, a consist button on one is a function button on the other and then comes the clanger - the direction button shifts location.To me this is bad design - it's like changing a keyboard layout of a computer - you just don't do it. This requires the operator to continually look at the keypad to confirm the correct button especially if both types exist on a layout.Mind you MRC are getting a good market share and I'll bet a lot of it is due to their full page colour ads, the small ads that Digitrax and NCE do can easily get lost in a magazine.RegardsTim

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

bn7026:If MRC is getting marketshare due to their ads in MR, this would sugest that the DCC buying population is doing literally NO reaserch on the systems. This may very well be the case, and DCC buyers who are not thoroughly researching Digitrax, NCE, CVP, Lenz and MRC are doing themselves a great disservice. The manuals are all free, and easy to read. There is so much infomation on the internet about all 5 systems. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people are not doing the nececary research, however, as in America, people seem to just buy, buy, buy, all without thinking.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

See this link, some new DCC products being featured at the Nuremberg, Germany train show by Bachmann and especially look at ZEMO. Ever evolving DCC.http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=1074

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Tim - That's a good point. I had noticed it, but since I haven't played around with the PA yet, it hadn't been a problem.I can understand their reason for doing it, though. There are features on the Advance that aren't available on the Express. I also suspect that most people who add the Advance throttle probably won't use the Express one very much (I know I won't). Most likely when I pick up an Advance or wireless throttle I'll use the Express one at my workbench for the programming track.Either way, I suspect that once you upgrade to the Advance there will be a short learning curve to make the change, which won't be all that different from moving from an NCE or Digitrax at a club or friend's house, and Prodigy at home.Incidentally, that's another thing I wanted to mention:Among the throttles I have access to now:One club uses DigitraxOne uses NCEMine is MRCThe layout I've operated on is DC with wireless throttles (I forget the brand).A few other layouts that I will probably end up running trains on in the future use either MRC or NCE.I should also note that a number of the folks I met or talked to at the show liked the MRC design because of its simplicity. They were really overwhelmed by the concepts of DCC, and for the most part would not be doing any programming at all. The main advantage to them for DCC seemed to be that they would be able to run more than one locomotive without learning how to wire blocks, etc.Granted, with all the DCC manufacturers at the show, customers who had more complex questions or a better understanding of DCC probably when directly to them. But for the rest of the people (and there were a lot of them), they would not be installing decoders themselves, and they had a very basic understanding of what DCC could do. In reality, they are interested in running trains, probably 2-3 max. Other than that, they want something no more difficult to understand than a DC throttle. BUT, they were also very concerned about being able to upgrade in the future. And, of course, price was a factor as well. Not always the biggest one, but it was a factor.As far as their ads and the amount of research people do. That depends on your needs, your access to information, and your comfort level with the various technologies. A large number of people in the hobby don't use a computer for any more than email and some basic internet surfing. They aren't aware of the vast amount of information available, and rely on the ads, and an article here or there, and their friends and local hobby shop for information. MRC has much better ads in regards to the information that I see on the other ads. They are marketing directly to the novice to intermediate customer, precisely because the enthusiast relies more on personal recommendations, testing the systems, and personal research. They aren't swayed by the ads. But for the novice to intermediate customers, who have never used DCC, the manuals can seem a bit overwhelming, if they even know where they can get them.I'll keep you posted as I continue to use my system. I have 3 more locomotives that are having decoders installed, so I can experiment more once they're done. It will be a while before I get additional throttles or wireless, though. This one is more than enough for now, and the money is better spent elsewhere (my airbush is on the way too...)Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Randy,Good points about consumer's research habits (or lack therof). The amount of research done with DCC is representative of the sad state of American consumerism. A lot of people buy $3000 HDTVs without knowing much about them, the technologies, the inputs they have, or anything else. This is also true for many other devices in the home.Some of MRC's programming, however is just plain false or misleading. They say why have to buy a power supply? The Zephyr and Powercab both come with an appropriate power supply. They talk about cab panels, where theirs are proprietary and expensive (RJ-45), and the other systems use simple and cheap RJ-12 wires. If your layout is more than a 2x8 shelf layout, you need walkaround panels anyways.Then they talk about 28 functions. Who can remember 28 functions? 8 seems like enough, 12 like so many there is no way to run out. Then they go on to talk about hex conversions, which were needed for Digitrax systems before the DT400, and are not needed for any system today. They also talk about guided programming, which doesn't seem useful at all. Can't people RTFM? Its all in there for the different CVs and values. NCE has guided programming, but luckily, they made one of the options, #2, to program a CV, the simple way, by just plugging in the CV and value. Simple. Easy. Direct. Quick.GM,Interesting stuff in that article. It is interesting that Bachman is expanding their DCC systems. It find it bizarre, however, that they have their own system with proprietary stuff, while Atlas, also a partner of Lenz, made stuff that worked on XpressNet (which is NOT a network). If Bachman made stuff that worked with XpressNet, they would have a good upgrade path to Lenz without actually having their own upgrade path. Although Atlas didn't do very well in the DCC market, and their stuff is disappearing now.Bachman, on the other hand, seems to be selling a ton of those Cheesy EZ-Command systems. I fell for their tricks, and then had to upgrade to a capable system with programming, radio, and everything else, the Zephyr. Even this system they announced with IR and CV programming probably won't be able to compete feature wise with the big four (soon to be five), although I think they can compete even more effectively than MRC on price, as they produce stuff in mass quantities.On the other hand, their EZ-Command systems have a lot of potential in the 4x8 train set market, as they are far superior to a DC power pack that can only run one train.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

While the fact that NCE carries a 10-20% price permium over Digitrax is a big deal, Zimo's 100-150% premium over Digitrax is just too big to have a big marketshare in North America.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Zimo MX31ZL cab Zimo announced new Digital Command Control items. The MX31ZL cab features a built-in mini command station and its own power supply. The cab measures and displays track power, has a built-in detector for bidirectional communications, and Universal Serial Bus (USB) ports for joy sticks and computer conectionsAny ideas and of the pros and cons on this unit with it's built in command station and power supply? This seems to take DCC to the next level for loco control. Have some additional info on sound and CTC dispatching also.Looks almost like a TV remote control.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

GM said ... Zimo MX31ZL cab Zimo announced new Digital Command Control items. The MX31ZL cab features a built-in mini command station and its own power supply. The cab measures and displays track power, has a built-in detector for bidirectional communications, and Universal Serial Bus (USB) ports for joy sticks and computer conectionsAny ideas and of the pros and cons on this unit with it's built in command station and power supply? This seems to take DCC to the next level for loco control. Have some additional info on sound and CTC dispatching also.Looks almost like a TV remote control.GM,production start of the MX31ZL is planned for next month. While the MX31ZL is new, the basic MX31 cab is not and is used as the basis for the ZL. It will therefore have all the great features of the MX31 with a mini command station added and many of the typical ZIMO features, among them:- adjustable and stabilized track voltage from 12 � 20V, track power up to 3A with adjustable upper limit (3A power supply included)- built-in volt and amp meter (in the display)- global detector for RailCom (bidirectional communication)- USB host interface (for memory sticks and other devices)- USB client interface (for computer connection)- all other features of the standard MX31 cab (GUEST, OPERATOR and EXPERT mode, extensive system and cab menu, multi lingual �)- expandable in any direction with more cabs, radio cab, ZIMO command station- it can be used for software updates of all ZIMO components (command station, cabs, decoders) via Internet either direct from a PC or with memory stickPrice is not yet firm but is expected to be in the US-$520.00 to US-$550.00 range.Here is an interesting link of a Nuremberg visitor to the ZIMO booth: http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2043&hl=Regards,ZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

CVP Wireless Radio Throttle for Lenz SystemsJust received my CVP radio throttle for use with my Lenz Set 100 system. Don�t know if any of you have used this new throttle so I will describe it below.As you know, Lenz does offer wireless control using a cordless phone. Depending on the phone cost, it will run about $60 to $70. It really works pretty well but has no informative display and requires a lot of key presses to operate. And the beeping key presses can be a bit annoying.So, I decided to get the CVP T9000E radio throttle that�s made for use with Lenz systems. It�s fairly expensive at $219 for the throttle plus $99 for the receiver. But it has knob control and a display, and makes a nice engineer�s throttle. Radio is somewhat of a luxury but the freedom it offers is wonderful. It�s hard to go back to a tethered throttle.I comes nicely packaged and well protected for shipment:http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h309/jwils1/DSCF0986.jpgHere's the T9000E throttle, ALR900 Receiver and a 7' long, 6 conductor DATA cable with RJ12 plugs. The antennas ship loose for protection:http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h309/jwils1/DSCF0990.jpghttp://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h309/jwils1/DSCF0991.jpg The Receiver settings are simple and quick. Just set one switch and plug into the ExpressNET and you�re ready to go.http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h309/jwils1/DSCF0991.jpgThe T9000E is a little smaller than the Lenz LH100. It�s easy to handle, has a nice weight and feel, and I quickly learned to operate it with one hand, although think it�s a little more comfortable to operate with two hands. But when a free hand is needed for switching, the one hand operation works. http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h309/jwils1/DSCF0988.jpgThe LCD display is sharp and clear with good contrast (this photo is a little out of focus).http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h309/jwils1/DSCF0997.jpgHere are some of the features:1. The instruction manual is well done and easy to follow.2. Power is via (4) AAA alkaline batteries and provides an amazing 80 hours of continuous use. It can operate on as little as one battery but with shorter life.3. My layout is a 6� x 18� table-top and I located the receiver on a shelf under the table. My throttle is never more than about 16� to 18� from the receiver. 4. Throttle response is immediate with no noticeable lag. When acquiring a new loco there is always a 2 second delay which is hardly noticeable.5. Setting up the throttle is very easy with about a half dozen options. 6. You press #nn# or #nnnn# for loco selection. The buttons have a nice sharp feel with a slight click.7. I really like the recall method for up to 15 locos in memory. I run solo and usually want fairly quick access to 3 to 5 locos (but usually only 2 or 3 moving at one time). Selection from memory is by pressing SHOW 1, then rotating the speed dial thru all stored addresses and pressing # to take control. This work nice for the way I operate. Deleting locos from the memory list is a similar procedure.8. I love the large encoder speed control knob. Encoders are great. It turns very smoothly with an ever so slight click feel to control the speed steps. My Lenz LH90 has a potentiometer which I don�t like nearly as well due to tricky speed matching.9. This throttle has 3 separate speed step choices (has nothing to do with the command station/decoder speed steps) that simply change the number of rotations of the knob needed to cover the full speed range. The steps are 16, 32 and 128. 32 and 128 give super smooth control. Even my roughest starting loco starts more smoothly at 128.10. Direction control is by a push switch built into the speed knob. You can run speed and direction with your thumb.11. You can view your speed number by pressing SHOW 0 and then return with the * key.12. Supports 9 functions (FO � F8). Just press the number key.13. Accessory decoder control is available for addresses 1-99. My turnouts are DCC controlled but can be controlled manually, by computer or from the throttle. This comes in handy when you�re walking around the layout and want to throw a turnout at a remote location.14. No programming with this throttle. It�s strictly an engineer�s cab.15. So the total cost of my Lenz/CVP radio system is $617, including power supply. Current Lenz pricing would be about $10 higher. Some drawback as I see them. These are minor for my operation methods but may be more important for some:1. No programming.2. No ability for making or breaking up consists.3. No back-lighting.4. No F9 � F12 functions.Overall I�m very pleased with the T9000E. It works well for my set-up.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

David:It's my understanding that CVP removed the emergency "all stop" function from the 9000 series throttles.Apparently they felt people would fat-finger the "all stop" just a little too often. But when you need it, you need it, I say. I think in 7 years of using EasyDCC on my layout we've had maybe two instances where somebody shut the layout down this way. It's easy to fix, just press and hold down the button again until things start up again.This, among other things with EasyDCC's drift in design philosophy and the upward drift in their pricing have made me seriously consider switching systems. My current EasyDCC system is all but obsolete, but to replace it will cost me $2500. I can completely replace it with an equivalent NCE system for $800 less.By moving to NCE I can still have simple engineer throttles, 40+ wireless throttles, automatic double-ended consists, mobile programming on the main, and a built-in computer interface that uses a normal DB9 data cable.And I am $800 richer, too.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

jwils1 said ...CVP Wireless Radio Throttle for Lenz SystemsJust received my CVP radio throttle for use with my Lenz Set 100 system. Don�t know if any of you have used this new throttle so I will describe it below.What provisons are there to stop a train in a emergency? Twisitng the knob back to 0 may not work in time, just wondering.Regards,David Head

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

On the T9000 there are two options for the emergency stop key SPR. On the first option one press of SPR stops only the active loco. You can start it moving again by turning the speed knob.The second option allows for stopping the entire system. A second press of SPR then automatically starts everything moving again.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Jerry:That's good to hear. The emergency stop function is too useful to just remove.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

It's great to see a DCC debate that hasn't gotten down to a school yard name calling match! There is truly some great info on many of the systems now available, both pro and con.For the record I am an NCE user and have been for over 5 years. The club I belong to here in Columbus, OH is all Digitrax, mostly because 2 of the members are authorized Digitrax dealers. I too find the DT400 confusing to use simply because many of the buttons don't convey their meaning. For the most part I have no need to use a DT400 as I have purchased a UT4R for use there and it will come in handy when attending op sessions out of town. That being said I find it much easier to do any kind of programming on D-trax using Decoder Pro and have had no problems doing it that way.Dave MathenyOpSIG Mid-Central Region Coordinatorhttp://www.OPSIG.org

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Dave:As far as I'm concerned, DecoderPro is the only way to go if you need to program more than a couple of locos. That's why I consider any DCC system without a computer interface to be little more than a trainset level system only.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Joe,I have found that programming with a DT400 is much easier than getting out the laptop, Decoder Pro, the Locobuffer and such. In fact, I tried out Decoder Pro, and have not used it since. I have used the Loconet and slot monitors, however, which helped me to get some locos that were stuck in a consist out. The DT400 is just too quick and easy to justify Decoder Pro, and the other systems are probably just as easy, if not more so. Since there are only a couple of really useful CVs (1,2,5,6) on normal decoders, it seems much easier to use the throttle. Even with an advanced sound decoder, it seems to make much more sense to set a CV # to a # value, as opposed to having text options on a screen. My only complaint is that the DT400 shows CV1 as AD2, which is really annoying. If I read the NCE manual, the ProCab is even better, you hit "Prog" and then "2", and then you can just punch in a CV# and value. On the DT400, you scroll through the CVs and values, although I think you can directly input them as well. Direct number input is the way to go, it is super simple. Digitrax also offers hex, while NCE offers binary, which is probably useful for CV 19 and CV 29, although those are rarely ever changed from factory defaults. I suspect most users of DCC don't have computer interfaces, mostly because they don't offer any functionality over the throttle, other than monitoring the slots of a DCS50/DCS100.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

To each his own, I guess. Programming individual CVs with a command station (handheld or powerpack form factor) feels too much like looking through a porthole to view the world.With DecoderPro, I don't care what CV does what, or if it's bit 2, 5, or 7 of CV 29 that I need to set. I just click the option I want with the mouse and click send.The big advantage of using DecoderPro that no system alone gives you is the ability to quickly record and remember all the settings for all your locos. You can review all a given loco's settings in just a few moments.It gets even more powerful when you get a new loco. In less than 60 seconds I can copy the settings for another loco with the same decoder and shazzam -- the new loco decoder is programmed with all the same CV settings.Try that with your DT400.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I just write them down on paper. That way, they are there for easy access. Plus, when speed matching, I love the radio throttle, as I can run around with the locos to adjust CV5.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Ah, but as we say at work, paper and pencil doesn't compile ... meaning you still have to put the code into the computer. You'd have to be moving pretty fast to program over 100 CVs in a sound decoder off a piece of paper in 60 seconds. I can copy the settings from another SoundTraxx decoder that fast, or reload all the values in a scrambled decoder that fast.Having all the values recorded in a computer really helps ... that way there's no copy errors, and I have a record of all the CVs. I bet you don't record the values of all 100+ CVs on a sound decoder on that piece of paper.With EasyDCC or NCE, there's no extra computer interface parts besides a cable to your command station. So it's grab the laptop (usually nearby), plug in the cable (already connected to the command station, and it's serial to USB, so doing a hot plugin is fine), and fire up DecoderPro. Simple, quick, and easy.If I put everything down on paper, I'd probably lose track of the paper then be sunk. It's a lot harder to lose track of my laptop.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

100 CVs??? WOW. The most advanced decoder I have ever programmed is an MRC sound decoder. That one had about 20 that were useful (volume). What do they all do? I could see why you would want a computer to program a decoder like that.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NY ... remember, you asked. Here's a list of CVs for a SoundTraxx Tsunami decoder.CV # Description Default 2 Vstart 03 Baseline Accelaration Rate 04 Baseline Braking Rate 010 BEMF Cutout 011 Packet Time Out Value 012 Power Source Conversion 113 Analog Function Enable 1 014 Analog Function Enable 2 315 Unlock Register 016 Lock ID Code 017 Extended Address 19218 Extended Address 319 Consist Address 022 Consist Function 023 Consist Acceleration Rate 024 Consist Braking Rate 025 Speed Table Register 029 Miscellaneous config bits 230 Error Info/Alternate Mode Selection 0 FUNCTION OUTPUT CVs 33-46 Function Output Mapping MISCELLANEOUS CVs 47 Analog Whistle Control 0 LIGHTING EFFECT CVs 49 - 52 Hyperlight Effect Select 49 Headlight Effect Select 1550 Backup Light Effect Select 1551 FX5 Effect Select 152 FX6Effect Select 159 Flash Rate 360 Crossing Hold Time 4 MISCELLANEOUS CONTROL CVs 11 Braking Rate 0 TRANSPONDING CVs 62 Transponding Control (Digitrax) 0 SPEED TABLE CVs 66 - 95 66 Forward Trim 12867 - 94 Loadable Speed Tables Speed Step 67 1 968 2 1869 3 2770 4 3671 5 4572 6 5573 7 6474 8 7375 9 8276 10 9177 11 10078 12 10979 13 11880 14 12781 15 13782 16 14683 17 15584 18 16485 19 17386 20 18287 21 19188 22 20089 23 20990 24 21991 25 22892 26 23793 27 24694 28 255 95 Reverse Trim 128 SOUND CONTROL CVs 112 Sound Config 1 0113 Quiet Mode Timout Period 0114 Bell Ring Rate 4115 Whistle Select 0116 Engine Exhaust Control 80119 Effect Processor Select See Page 60 and 95 of Technical Manual128 Master Volume Control 192 (75%)129-136 Frgrnd Sound Effect Mixer (Volume) Varies137-152 Bkgrnd Sound Effect Mixer (Volume) Varies153-160 Seven Band Equalizer 0144-160 Cut/Boost Controls 0161 Reverb Control Presets 0162 Reverb Output Levels 128163 Reverb Delay 255164 Reverb Gain 64169-176 Reverb Mixer 0 DYNAMIC DIGITAL EXHAUST REGISTERS 177 Throttle Gain 10178 Motor Load Gain 32179 DDE Attack Time Constant 10180 DDE Rlease Time Constant 10181 DDE Exhaust Low Volume Limet 255182 DDE Exhaust High Volume Limet 255183 Side Rod Clank Low Volume 255184 Side Rod Clank High Volume 255185 Filter Initial Frequency 42186 DDE Filter Gain Control 64187 DDE Filter Damping 255188 DDE Tracking Coefficient 102 AUTOMATIC SOUND CONTROL CVs 193 Bell-On Set Point 15194 Bell-Off Set Point 19195 Grade Crossing Whistle Sensitivity 4196 Brake Squeal Sensitivity 3197 Analog (DC) Mode Auto Sound Config 0198 Digital Mode Auto Sound Config 0201-208 Event Probablility Generator Varies ADVANCED MOTOR CONTROL FEATURES (HYPERDRIVE) 209 KP Coefficient 25210 KI Coefficient 20212 Back EMF Feedback Intensity 255213 Motor Control Sample Aperture Time 15214 Motor Control Sample Period 15 ANALOG (DC) OPERATION Default 12 Power Source Conversion 129 Miscellaneous config bits 213 Analog Function Enable 1 014 Analog Function Enable 2 3197 Analog (DC) Mode Auto Sound Config 047 Analog Whistle Control 0193 Bell-On Set Point 15194 Bell-Off Set Point 19195 Grade Crossing Whistle Sensitivity 4196 Brake Squeal Sensitivity 3Analog Mode Motor Control Parameters 62 Analog Mode Motor Start Voltage 63 Analog Mode Maximum Motor Voltage... Just a few.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Do they have CVs 5 and 6? Those are quite useful. Most of those other than 1-6 and 128 look pretty useless.EDIT: Typo

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Tsunami's 100+ CVs not useless if you like lots of motor and sound tuning ability. They're not considered to be the "cat's meow" in sound decoders for nothing.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

i doubt that anyone buys them because they have a lot of CVs. I also doubt that more than 2% of the buyers actually program more than 10 of them, as they just don't care about fine tuning things that don't actually matter, like speed tables and the way sounds work. The reason people buy a SoundTraxx decoder is because it sounds good.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...i doubt that anyone buys them because they have a lot of CVs. I also doubt that more than 2% of the buyers actually program more than 10 of them, as they just don't care about fine tuning things that don't actually matter, like speed tables and the way sounds work. The reason people buy a SoundTraxx decoder is because it sounds good.Speed tables don't matter? Have you tried to match two or more locomotives to each other for consisting without using a speed table? As for the way sounds work, I suppose that if you only care if you get a diesel sound out of a diesel locomotive, you're fine. On the other hand, from the conversations I've seen, most people would like prototypically accurate sounds from their decoder, so those sound CV's are probably being used by more people than you think.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I have to agree with Ken. I have several modeler friends who also have railfanned the prototype enough that they can tell me which kind of sound comes from what part of the locomotive -- and if it doesn't sound right, they are quick to tell me what's wrong with the sound.Having the ability to tune sounds to the level the Tsunami decoder allows is a whole lot simpler if you can do it with buttons and knobs on a screen lie DecoderPro allows. Reading a manual and figuring out what hexadecimal value to plug into a CV is a lot more painful.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NY it says in the Prodigy advanced 2 ad that there is a fast clock feature. Are you saying you can not broadcast it on the system. That its only on the loval controller? hrer is the link:http://www.modelrec.com/search/product-view.asp?ID=7735

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

First of all, the CVs are NOT entered into the throttle in hexadecimal, at least not on an NCE or Digitrax system, unless it is an older Digitrax throttle. Plug and play is the name of the game. In fact, I know a bunch of people who run sound on DC. There are NO CVs there. They don't use controllers or anything, they just use the direction switch to activate the horn or bell. Although I run a sound loco on DCC, I do not really customize anything other than the sound. Gotta love factory defaults. They work really well, other than maybe the master volume. The default settings offer so many cool automatic sounds, including braking and squealing noise. Once in a while you will find a steam decoder that needs a new whistle, but that is an easy CV program.As for the speed curves, they are pretty useless. I use CVs 2, 5, and 6 to speed match locos, one in front of the other. With a radio throttle, I can follow them around the layout, and see if one catches up to the other, and use ops mode programming to even out the speed differences. After a bit of programming, they run like 40 feet, and one gains or looses less than a half inch on the other.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

little zip,WOW. you read a lot. This discussion has been going on for a while, and there is a LOT of info. It is information overload.Chuck said it pretty well as far as a the five brands of DCC. MRC is not considered to be a top tier system because it does not have the same programming and operation features. I think it is in this thread that someone mentioned you have to go through like seven screens to program something! With NCE, you hit Prog 2, and with Digitrax you hit Prog until it says Po. Digitrax is NOT harder to use once you read the manual for a few minutes and figure things out. Basically, Universal consisting is the main difference. Advanced consisting is done through CV 19, it doesn't have anything to do with the command station. Programmig is basically the same on them all now, you enter the CV# and the value you desire. NCE also has some obnoxious wizardy things where it asks you what you want to program and junk like that, but it is really easy to bypass, unlike MRC, so it does not detract from the system at all. Digitrax offers the option of hex, NCE offers binary. Neither is really a big deal. NCE's consisting is a bit different from Digitrax's, but they do the same thing. On Digitrax, you dial up the locos, then make a consist, on NCE you choose to make a consist and then select the locos.Digitrax is a desireable system because it is cheaper than other systems (like NCE), it has the only peer to peer architecture, and because of the architecture, you can add antying from an extra throttle all of the way up to detection, signalling and transponding on ONE cable.The other problem with MRC is that it uses 8 pin throttle connectors, and as a result, it is hard to add more unless you buy the panels from MRC, which is more expensive. Many of the things that the Prodigy series advertises is easier programming, which is silly, as it is actually HARDER to get to real programming on their system. They also advertise they have more throttle ports, but they don't mention if you want to walk around, it costs MORE than the others, with NONSTANDARD COMPONENTS. They advertise that it comes with a power supply, but the comparable Zephyr and PowerCab both come with power supplies.Digitrax is NOT even close to the result of spare parts from the Rat Shack. They just haven't made their throttles a peice of consumer electronics with shiny, curvy plastic. NCE has. Its just plastic, and it really doesn't matter.MRC is not just late to the table, they are still years behind the technology and features of the other systems, although they seem to be aiming at the low end, the same low end that would be better served with a Zephyr, that is much more expandable and feature-rich.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Hello all, I'm new to your forum. I found the thread while trying to research the new PA Wireless and have to say that this is probably the most interesting material I have read on the subject of DCC. Thanks from a novice!I "discovered" the joy of MR operations recently and can now see the benefits DCC offers. After reading 16 pages of facts and opinions I still don't understand the value of having a system as complex to operate as a digitrax. I also don't understand why the NEW Prodigy Wireless (with computer interface when available) is perceived as an entry level system.What are the reasons for needing the features in Digitrax? What makes them so valuable that I should pass up a feature rich system with sleek and simple interface backed by exceptional customer service (based personal experience) with what appears to be a feature rich system that I would liken to PLC controller with a plastic cover and a throttle made from spare parts from radio shack?Is the MRC stigma just the result of them being "late to the table" or is there some critical feature that is missing?Finally, could someone summarize, in one post (i think it may all be here somewhere!), the differences in how each handles consists as well as with the NCE?Thanks for the advice and input, Bryan

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Welcome to the forum. I believe the Digitrax systems ( The super chief ) have a few extra features that other systems don't have. They can read back CV's and can operate up to 120 addresses that other systems don't do. If you are looking for a good system there are a lot of systems, but the most popular are Easy DCC, NCE, Digitrax, and Lenz. These systems are considered the best with the most up to date features. Any of these will be great systems. The digitrax is the most complicated of the systems but if you study the manual that comes with the system, it's not all that hard to operate after a few sessions. A friend of mine installed the MRC DCC system and I haven't been over there to see it yet, but he really doesn't like it at all and wants to install a different system.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NCE does have nice throttles and such, but they are not dramatically easier to use than Digitrax. Digitrax should copy NCE's fast up/down buttons though. Digitrax's system is not so hard that you need the manual all of the time, once you get the opsw's set up in the command station, and the options in the throttle, it is not a big deal to operate without the manuals. MU'ing and CV programming are both easy to do. On the other hand, I have heard the signalling and detection stuff requires experimentation and some page-turning of the manuals, but Digitrax is the only system to offer that, so there is nothing to compare it to. As far as just using the system for normal stuff, Digitrax has the fastest throttle response with Loconet. If NCE was cheaper than Digitrax to account for their fundamentally weaker system architecture, they would be extremely competitive, but economies of scale allow Digitrax to offer the best system overall in the market today. Note that I am saying this all from the New England, where NCE has a high (40%???) market penetration compared to the rest of the country (10%???), and many of the other modellers I know use NCE.What would be awsome is if the manufactuers got together and made THE system. THE system would have a Digitrax command station, system architecture, signalling, detection, transponding, and non-throttle I/O, NCE boosters and throttles, and CVP would make the radio boards for the throttles and the radio receivers. THAT would be awesome. Oh yeah, it would use Digitrax's great pricing scheme.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

little zip:To each his own ... the friendly disagreement on here shows there is no one best DCC system, only the best system for you.For instance, the issues NY says get in the way with NCE I find to be helpful (who needs the manual?) while the need to read the manual with Digitrax applies to just about everything you want to do, so I find you need to keep the manual handy, especially if you do something that you don't do every day. I build professional web applications all day long and you can't require people to read a manual in order to use your web site, and I see no reason why a DCC system can't be built the same way so it steps you through the process in a friendly manner. Digitrax's need to get out the manual just rubs me the wrong way -- if a web designer did one of his pages that way I would send him back to his office to rethink his interface design. NCE gets high marks from me for its excellent and friendly user interface, while Digitrax would get sent back to their office to rethink their interface if they were working for me.But in the final analysis all the systems work well (except perhaps MRC, which to-date has too many limitations), and Digitrax does have the advantage they are good marketers, so more Digitrax systems have been sold than any other DCC system. Chances are, if you want a flesh-and-blood person to help you with your system, there's someone local who is a Digitrax user.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

MRC is a standard ethernet cable. I found some coiled (like a phone cord) ethernet cords that I like very much for the MRC.Now, to cover a few things:Bidirectional capability: All command stations can read the CVs in a decoder, but it takes time. Reading the CVs can be done on the program track, and on some (most?) systems, the main. MRCs forthcoming wireless is the only wireless system at this time that will have the capability of reading CVs.However, Digitrax has the capability of receiving real-time bidirectional information from what I understand. More like a standard computer network than the send-only of most throttles. If you have all of your turnouts and signalling running through your DCC system this is a unique and powerful feature. Just not important to me.However, full computer automation doesn't have to solely be DCC. For example:http://www.dccbitswitch.com/tcsbraking.htmAnother well documented example is the C/MRI systems that can tie into, DCC and utilize a PC as a controller. Plastic/design. NY - we've been over this many times. For you, the look and feel of the Digitrax is fine. For a lot of us, it's not. That's why cars, computers, furniture, stereo equipment, clothes, etc. come in so many different styles. Some of it has some impact on the usability, some of it is just fluff.The 7-press thing is a mild annoyance, but in all honesty, once you get used to it, it's really not a problem, it becomes kind of automatic. However, I still wish it were an option to disable the feature. Regardless, I really haven't programmed CVs much other than just to mess around with some settings, and once you are in the CV mode, you type a CV#, press enter, type the value, press enter, and it's back to prompting for a CV#. So as long as you have your list of necessary CVs together (like programming a speed table) you only have to go through the 7 presses once.Zip - I know what you're saying about the Prodigy. I had read a lot about it's 'shortcomings' but found that most of them weren't 100% true. What I really like if the knob instead of a dial for the throttle. It's easy to use the throttle one-handed, and the whole form factor is very comfortable. A few other things I found after going to a Prodigy clinic by MRC:All of their systems are upgradeable. For example, the Prodigy Express Squared is the newest version with support for the (now) 28 NMRA functions. For the older Prodigy Advance, or Prodigy Express if you have at least one advance throttle, can be upgraded for the cost of shipping it to MRC. They upgrade it at no charge, and ship it back at their cost, usually spending being sent back out the same day or day after they receive it. They can all be upgraded in the same manner to allow you to purchase the wireless upgrade package as well.I also liked the MRC 'brand' since I too was familiar with them, and they have solid support.So, deal breakers for me, or more specifically: what was I looking for?Hand-held form factor. I did not want to be tied in one place.Future wireless options (I don't need it right now).PC hookup (again, I don't need it right now).As low a startup cost as possible (money is tight now, but over time I will have more money to put into upgrades).The entry level Digitrax is the Zephyr, which is not a walk-around. The lowest starter set with a walk-around is the Super Empire, but Tony's says it's lacking some key features, especially in regards to sound-equipped locos. I don't have sound now, but my intention is to have all of my locos with sound. That puts me with the Super Chief at $350 and I still need a power supply. Add to that the fact that I personally don't like their throttle's physical design (whether it's a good reason or not), pretty much put them out of the running.Next was NCE. I like the PowerCab product. A lot. In fact, this is what I asked for for Christmas. All the features are in their entry-level throttle, the 'drawbacks' being a 1.6 amp system. Some folks complain about the throttle having to be plugged into the left side, etc. but that to me is a non-issue, because when you get around to upgrading it simply becomes another throttle. The only other downside I can see is they still come across as a bit more 'techy' than the MRC systems. That doesn't bother me, because the design is so intuitive and solid, it's more their approach to their website, manuals, etc. that are a bit less polished than MRC.Instead, for Christmas I got the Prodigy Express. I fully intended to return it and exchange it for the PowerCab. But I decided to check it out (since I had it at home already anyway). I sent MRC a few questions and they responded in less than 24 hours with complete answers to my questions. I found that I really did like the feel of the throttle, and also that with the exceptions of a wireless option and PC-link option that any other complaints seemed to be mis-information. So I checked with MRC and they confirmed the about-to-be-announced (at the time) wireless and PC links.The main downsides - the Prodigy Express and Advance throttles are laid out slightly differently (pointed out by somebody here, I didn't notice since I haven't picked up an Advance cab yet). While I agree that it would have been wise to standardise, NCE and Digitrax both have a variety of different throttle designs. The only issue with the MRC approach is that perhaps their two throttles are too similar.In any event, there are only a few potential drawbacks for the MRC:Prodigy Express is lacking a fast clock, routing (also known as macros where you can program a button to control several turnouts), and yard mode. I'm using manual turnouts, I'm not sure how big an advantage a fast clock on the throttle vs. a separate one would be, and I don't need yard mode on every throttle. So they ended up not being deal breakers for me. Prodigy Advance is more expensive than NCE Powercab, but it's a 3 amp system vs the 1.6 amp system or PowerCab or Prodigy Express.As I have said before, what I think MRC has going for them is a solid background as power for model railroads, very good marketing (check out their ads and ad placement in magazines vs their competitors), great placement in hobby shops (mine has Prodigy Express/Advance, plus auto reversing units, NCE Powercabs, and no Digitrax), and they are marketing to the casual/beginner/intermediate markets, but not crippling their products so they can be used on advanced layouts as well. In my opinion, the DCC market has just hit 'mainstream' in the last year or so, where the products are ready for general consumption. Whatever company can get their product in the hands of the modelers just starting out will have a great advantage provided their system is easily upgradable. If you bought MRC as your 'first' DCC system, only to find that it will handle advanced functions as well, and it's cheaper to upgrade than to move to a new system, then I think you're likely to stick with MRC.Just like to early adopters who went with Digitrax are more likely to stick with Digitrax, or whatever.So, take it for what it's worth. I've posted a similar comparison before:Entry Level systems with walk-around throttle, full expandability, wireless and PC link capable:Digitrax: Empire ($275+$40 power supply or Chief ($350+$40 power supply)NCE: Powercab ($140) Power Pro ($390)MRC: Express ($140) Advance ($250)Extra panels: NCE/Digitrax $15, Prodigy $25. One last thing: The only other issue I've found on the Prodigy is that when you build a consist, you simply enter the numbers of the locos and the last added is the 'lead' loco. On the NCE, for example, you can assign a lead, rear, or 'middle' loco(s). What I haven't determined is what the benefit is. You can add and remove individual locos on the NCE, with MRC you delete the consist and recreate it. Joe adds helpers, so I can see the benefit of adding and removing an individual loco, but I'm not sure it would add all that much time or difficulty to just rebuild it and punch in the new consist. I also don't think that indicating a loco is in the middle or rear of a consist has any effect on its running. For example, I don't believe middle locos automatically run with their lights off. I haven't been able to confirm this yet. So there are some minor differences between them. To me, there are huge differences in the useability and design (not to mention price) of the entry-level handheld NCE and MRC systems over Digitrax. Had I gotten the PowerCab for Christmas, I wouldn't have considered the MRC system. Now that I'm up and running with it, I can handle it's quirks. I'm sure I could handle the NCE quirks as well. I accept the fact that the 'Big Wheels' will probably look at the MRC with some disdain. I've always done things differently (I'm a Dungeons & Dragons playing, Model Railroading, King Crimson fan and guitarist - I've yet to find another one). Of the systems I know among the folks of the two clubs I am attempting to frequent (I work Wed-Fri nights, they meet on Wed and Thu nights): One is Digitrax, the other is NCE. Of the club members, I am aware of at least one (two I think) who personally use MRC, and one who uses NCE at home on their own layout. That's not including my system. My local hobby shop owner has a Lenz system, but will likely switch to MRC when the wireless system is available.I have seen it reported that the Prodigy is slightly less powerful than its advertised rating. Prodigy's 3.5 amp booster is $116, but I believe that you can use any booster with any DCC system. NCE's 3 amp booster is $55. Bottom line - My instinct is that the NCE is a better system, but in the long run I think the MRC might be cheaper (no concrete study to prove it), and I haven't found the reason NOT to stick with MRC. Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I have the MRC Prodigy Express, and I love it. It is easy to program, and easy to program CVs. The only issue (which I mentioned earlier) is that they prompt you for the starting voltage, acceleration and deceleration values and the end voltage before prompting you to enter a CV# for entering specific CVs. So to get to the point where you can enter in a specific CV# you press Program twice (if you are programming on the main, just once if you are programming on a program track) and press enter 7 times. Not really a big deal, although it would be nice to turn that feature off.However, since programming is a 'down-time' operation, it's not a problem. In any event, once the PC-link is released I will probably do major programming through that.I'm admittedly new to DCC, and actually only a year back in the hobby. But from an operational standpoint, I don't see any real advantages between NCE, MRC or Digitrax, just personal preference.The (big) difference (advantage?) that Digitrax has is a bidirectional capability. That means that it can read the state of a given decoder, which is useful for a lot of things, like signalling and so on. I'm not planning on controlling anything except locomotives with my DCC, so it doesn't interest me. And I much prefer the "shiny, curvy, plastic" controllers of NCE and MRC. I like the knob on the MRC in particular.Although the last I looked, MRC didn't have their wireless available just yet, I have yet to run into any serious limitation with it. That coupled with the fact that I like the controller, and it was given to me for Christmas, is why I've keeping it at this time.I also am going to two local clubs, when my work schedule permits, one with NCE and one with Digitrax. I'll be bringing along a locomotive or two when I can to test out the systems more thoroughly. My recommendation is to find the one that makes sense for you, especially from a usability standpoint. What others find comfortable may not be the same for you. My recommendation might still be NCE, because the Powercab has a few features that the Prodigy Express does not have, at the same price. The Prodigy Advance is more comparable in features, but is more expensive than the PowerCab. With the current state of DCC, though, I think that we've reached a point where the form and approach (and price) are going to become bigger factors because the actual functions are pretty well covered by all of them.Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

7 times? Thats pretty bad. With Digitrax is it like two or three button presses, NCE is only two. Ops mode programming could be desired during an op session, especially if you want to use advanced consisting or you use sound decdoers and need to adjust the volume.What is it with the plastic? I mean, it would make sense if you liked the speed buttons more or something but the plastic? The question that I have to pose is if MRC is like NCE in its throttle usability, why not get a full-featured NCE? Just a question for thought, but an interesting one nonetheless.Another deciding factor is what your club uses, if you belong to one. Most clubs are Digitrax, although there are some that are NCE. I doubt any other system has a meaningful marketshare with clubs, and this could be a big deal for people, if only so that they can use their throttle at the club.The Powercab is a cool accessory for a PH-Pro, but it isn't really much of a system, so it is really hard to compare it to the MRC system, which is a system, although not a full-featured one. The only easy comparisons come with the PH-Pro and the Super Chief, as they are extremely similar, and the two main systems out there on the market. In the end, some competition is good, as NCE and Digitrax can keep each other going forward, which was evident with NCE's ten minute signal system, which appeals to a bigger audience even though it is not a complete or prototypical signal system. It is actually quite cool, and will be just the ticket for casual DCC users who compare it more to going without signals than to setting up a full Digitrax system with dozens of Loconet devices. And I *think* it can be used with Digitrax systems.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

"The other problem with MRC is that it uses 8 pin throttle connectors, "Isn't this just a standard RJ45 type, Cat 5, run-of-the-mill computer network connector?"Digitrax is NOT even close to the result of spare parts from the Rat Shack. They just haven't made their throttles a peice of consumer electronics with shiny, curvy plastic. NCE has. Its just plastic, and it really doesn't matter."Sorry for the knock. While I'm sure it is fully functional, they just made no effort to make if look friendly, The NCE and Prodigy kind of look like cool remote controls for your 1:160 (or 1:87 if you prefer) entertainment system. They look modern. Oh yeah, and they look cool.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

[quote1172717240=rghammill]The (big) difference (advantage?) that Digitrax has is a bidirectional capability. Whoooooaaahhhhh. I ASSumed ALL systems had the ability to read the current state of a device (decoder). What value is a computer interface beyond a programming dump if you can't see the state a device is at? Does this mean with Digi you can see how many amps a motor pulls in real time but on a Prodigy you can't?Does this mean that only a Digi can achieve full computer automation to duplicate something like CTC from a remote PC?As background to this assumption, I have always thought of the DCC command station as much like a programmable logic controller with lots of inputs/outpus/motors/loads used in factories and such to control everthing from line speed to calling me at home at 12:00am because the veriflame detected a flameout on the cure oven. With the right software, you can have it do anything.Thanks, Bryan

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

[quote1172718394=NYNH&H]7 times? Thats pretty bad. With Digitrax is it like two or three button presses, NCE is only two. Ops mode programming could be desired during an op session, especially if you want to use advanced consisting or you use sound decdoers and need to adjust the volume.***********How many times a month do you access these bits and bytes once an engine has been programmed?***********What is it with the plastic? I mean, it would make sense if you liked the speed buttons more or something but the plastic? ************I AM a well trained consumer! Actually, I am an engineer by day and the total lack of effort to make it appealing to anyone who doesn't use an HP15C (like both of mine!) is shocking. It's like less than a days work to model it and a bit of time to find a source in China to make it.***********The question that I have to pose is if MRC is like NCE in its throttle usability, why not get a full-featured NCE? Just a question for thought, but an interesting one nonetheless.**************Thank you Joe, CW, and New Haven for the input. Please note that I do not wish to throw poison darts at any system or attempt to attack anyone's choice of systems. I�m mostly impressed by the loyalty each faction shows toward their system of choice. In the end though, I suppose it is sort of the like the Ford � Chevy rivalry in the gearhead world or telling a Q or MILW man the CNW had better passenger service to the twin cities. I also find it interesting that I can�t think of a �Big Wheel�, if you will, that brags about their prodigy system. Is that because the �Wheels� always get in first and previous offerings were weak or is there something seriously deficient with the newest system? I have delayed buying into DCC until 1. the product matured, 2. I matured in the hobby, and 3. I see a system I like. I think the time is right. I have spent the past few years building a humble layout and learning the ins and outs of CC&WB. Personally, I like the Prodigy. I like the MRC brand because it has always proven reliable and the one time I had a problem they fixed it, no questions asked. There was also a time that I would only shop for a Ford until I got stranded in a new one in BFE in the dead of winter and found out how good their service was... I guess I am looking for a reason NOT to buy the Prodigy. For my position, as a DCC novice, an operations novice, but fairly active in the hobby since age 7...some 30+ years ago... it is obvious that Digitrax is "The System". NCE fields a decent looking system although a bit pricey in comparison. The latest, yet to be released, MRC product "looks" good. I am limited on opportunities to test drive for many reasons. My club has Digitrax which I have used a few times only as an expensive throttle. I have admittedly made no effort to open a manual to learn more about it because by the time I find enough time to actually sit down and run a train, somehow finding a manual to turn it on does not seem appealing. I am at the stage where that will become necessary to truly answer my questions, no doubt.Regarding the MRC product, I have read concerns about the 8-pin plug. Does anyone know, is this NOT a standard RJ45, Cat5, common computer network cable? I have read concerns about the lack of power. I also read about some guy�s test on amp draw that leads me to wonder if this is even a valid concern. If it truly becomes an issue, can�t I add a booster or �power pack� of sorts?They now offer wireless so that is out. They will have a computer interface at some point if it�s not standard on the latest so that is out. They meet or exceed all of the other �bullet point� topics which in my mind leaves only the issue of human interface and possibly the loconet?/architecture issue.I apologize for the knock on the Digi controller previously but it is just not appealing. I see it and immediately go from Windows XP to DOS mode. I go from a touch-screen to a Funac controller. It�s not that I am technologically inept, I just don�t want to feel like I�m programming the next part to run or how fast my conveyor should advance when I�m trying to enjoy the worlds greatest hobby. Unless the architecture issue (or some other point I�m missing) is so significant, the look and feel of the throttle is a deal breaker for me�even if it is just a plastic box. Is the architecture debate much like the VHS-Beta, Cassette-CD, DVD-BlueRay??, Mac-PC debates of the last 20 years? What do the differences in architecture allow me to do? How does it affect my ability to spot a car at the team track? How does it affect my ability to create a consist? How does it improve my wireless reception? Does it limit me in any way to not have one or the other? I suspect the answer to all of these is no or na. That then leaves me with two systems, NCE or Prodigy. As near as I can tell from reading, the major difference is the thumb wheel vs. knob and ease of consisting/programming? Is there some other feature or function or unknown that I just don�t know about yet? I have read about the ease of setting CV�s and such. Once they are set up, how often do you need to access or tweak them? Maybe in the end the real question is, what was the �deal-breaker� for any of you? What is the one feature, function, bullet point that made you not buy a specific system?

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

rghammill said ...I also am going to two local clubs, when my work schedule permits, one with NCE and one with Digitrax. I'll be bringing along a locomotive or two when I can to test out the systems more thoroughly. RandyI would really like to know what your opinion is after such an experience. Please post or email me! Thanks, Bryan

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Hey zip ... if you want to compare apples to apples, then add $75 to the price of any Digitrax system to add a loco buffer USB computer interface. The NCE full system (not the PowerCab) comes with a computer interface built in.After you've programmed decoders with a computer interface and DecoderPro, you won't want to do it any other way. I can tune the decoder CV settings for a given loco model and save off the settings, then install the same type of decoder in another loco by the same manufacturer, and load all my carefully set CVs settings into the new loco in about 60 seconds with DecoderPro.It doesn't get much better than that. But this makes the Digitrax systems closer in price to the NCE system.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

joef said ...Now if you are running a turn, once you reach the end of your run, you just select the loco on the other end. Now that's the front and the function keys operate the lights and functions on that end.Cool. Technology at work...for me! Now to decide how much that is worth... to me.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

rghammill said ...One last thing: The only other issue I've found on the Prodigy is that when you build a consist, you simply enter the numbers of the locos and the last added is the 'lead' loco. On the NCE, for example, you can assign a lead, rear, or 'middle' loco(s). What I haven't determined is what the benefit is. You can add and remove individual locos on the NCE, with MRC you delete the consist and recreate it. Joe adds helpers, so I can see the benefit of adding and removing an individual loco, but I'm not sure it would add all that much time or difficulty to just rebuild it and punch in the new consist. I also don't think that indicating a loco is in the middle or rear of a consist has any effect on its running. For example, I don't believe middle locos automatically run with their lights off. I haven't been able to confirm this yet. RandyThanks, Randy! I really appreciate the feedback. I have found a place where I will be able to get the wireless system, a second wireless cab and a PA tethered cab for about $450. Based on this, for me it becomes a question of cost and consisting. Cost being the lesser of the two.Joe, do you know from your experience with the NCE consisting if the ability to specify a lead, middle or rear unit has provisions to properly control the lighting automatically?As always, thanks!

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

zip:Giving the lead and rear locos makes it possible for the system to automatically do double-ended consists, which are extremely useful for a diesel era layout like mine.With a double-ended consist, you select either end of the consist by using the loco number and that becomes the front of the consist. Function keys control the lights etc on that end of the consist, and so on.Now if you are running a turn, once you reach the end of your run, you just select the loco on the other end. Now that's the front and the function keys operate the lights and functions on that end.You can "trick" other DCC systems into doing this behavior by using a nested decoder consist inside a command station consist, but it's a somewhat less-than-obvious manual operation to set up, and since Digitrax wants you to either do all command station consists or all decoder consists, you'll have to program all the decoder consists by hand by plugging CV19 directly adding 128 if you want the loco to run reverse, etc. NCE just does it all automatically once you give it the two end locos! Like I've said, regardless of all the cool loconet or transponding Digitrax has, most people don't really need or care about all those extra under-the-hood "goodies", it's something like NCE's double-ended consisting that's everyday stuff that you notice as you operate the layout. And NCE has really put some thought into the everyday stuff regular modelers use.Digitrax has always seemed to me to be more out in la-la land having fun with geeky technology gadetry, and IMO, it shows in their whole system design. Plastic and geeky, not ergonomic and friendly.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

OK, this keeps coming up, and since I've been using the MRC I still can't figure out what I'm missing.So what features is the MRC Prodigy family missing that makes it not full featured once the wireless and PC link are available?Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Regarding the ability to read back CV values from a decoder.NOT all systems can do this. The Digitrax Empire Builder has no way to read back CVs.However, all other systems that I'm aware of anyway, CAN read back decoder CVs.However, there is NO way in the current DCC standard to read back decoder CV values anywhere except on the programming track.This makes decoders basically "write only" devices while on the main. A decoder may know how much current its feeding to the motor. It may know the rpm a motor is spinning at. But it can't return this information in real time through the standard DCC protocol.Another problem with reading CVs is that a command station can only guess at a CV value and the decoder says "yes that's it!" or "no, try again".This means that a command station says "are you 0?" "Nope" "Are you 1?" "Nope" "Are you 2?" "Yes!". This isn't too bad for reading CVs with low numbers in them. But it takes quite a while to read/guess a CV with a value like 234 (out of 255 possible). Multiply that by the large number of CVs in a modern decoder and it can take what seems like eons to read all CVs from a decoder.In computers, there is a thing called a binary search "Are you higher than 127?" "No" "Are you higher than 63?" "No" "Are you higher than 31?" "No" "Are you higher than 15" "No" "Are you higher than 7?" "No" "Are you higher than 3" "No" "Are you higher than 1?" "Yes" Bingo! You're a 2! This allows any value from 0 to 255 to be guessed with a maximum of 8 guesses. That's less efficient if the value is less than 8. But its a LOT more efficient if the value is 234! But those that implemented the DCC standard apparently didn't think this was worthwhile or weren't technologically knowledgible enough to know it existed. Sigh. This is where a program like Decoder Pro comes in handy. It remembers what was programmed into each loco so a scrambled loco can be quickly set to rights. It's much, much easier than trying to remember to write down every change you make to a decoder (and then find the log book later on when trying to reprogram).FWIWCharlie ComstockSuperintendent of Grumbling About Improper Technology UseThe Bear Creek and South Jackson Railway Co.Hillsboro, OR

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

bear creek said ...This is where a program like Decoder Pro comes in handy. It remembers what was programmed into each loco so a scrambled loco can be quickly set to rights. It's much, much easier than trying to remember to write down every change you make to a decoder (and then find the log book later on when trying to reprogram).Two questions then. How frequently does a locomotive flip it's bits? In a basic setup using something like a TCS 2 function decoder, no sound, roughly how many CV's do you really use, assuming you want to speed match?If I ran 2 hours a day every day and it happens once a year, it's a managable catastrophe. If it happens once a week, the computer interface almost becomes a necessity!Make that three. If I have a 2-function decoder, can I use one for the basic directional lighting and the other for something cool like a mars light? Or do you need a function for each direction

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

little_zip:Yes, RJ-45 is a standard connector for COMPUTER networks, not for DCC networks. The standard for DCC networks, which is used by Digitrax, NCE, CVP, and Lenz is the RJ-12 connector. Some systems use other connectors for the actual cab plugs, or even the cab busses. CVP uses coax for the cab bus, but the core system bus that hooks the cab bus boards and the radio receivers is RJ-12. The Lenz system uses 5 pin DIN sockets for the cabs, but the bus itself is done with RJ-12 sockets, and the cabs can be used with RJ-12s if a new cord is put on them. NCE uses RJ-12s for the cabs, but DIN sockets or 1/4" headphone jacks could also be used. This would be useful for Joe if he goes with NCE, as he could use his 5 pin DIN Lenz cabling with NCE, and it is also used on some clubs because it is slightly more durable than RJ-12 connectors. RJ-12 is the only standard for Digitrax, as Loconet is a very advanced yet flexible and fault tolerant network, so it needs all six conductors. NCE and Lenz are electically identical (but different in software so that throttles are not compatible, but they *might* be able to be made compatible with a command station EPROM update), and they both use only 4 of the six pins, but the 2 extra ones don't hurt anything.Digitrax looks even more modern and cool with 2 knobs. Seriously though, who CARES what they look like? Maybe feel like, but all of the major systems feel just fine to use. It is more about features and capability, and maybe price than how it looks. Its just plastic people.little_zip #2:Decodres cannot talk back to the command station unless they are Digitrax transponding equipped with transponding devices on the layout. On most systems, you can read back CV's on the programming track, but it is a game of 20 questions (this is covered in a better manner and in great detail in Video 3 of the Siskiyou Line Video Series, buy all four they are REALLY good, especially Volume 4), and it takes forever. Joe says something to the effect of "grab lunch if you want to read back all of the settings in a decoder". With all of this, however, you need a programming track, which is not hard to setup, but it just isn't practical because it doesn't offer any useful benefit over ops mode. Many people use ops mode programming exclusively, like myself, as it does everything I could ever desire. A way to keep track of decoder settings is to write them down on a peice of paper, or to program only with Decoder Pro, and save them on the hard drive of the laptop you are using. Ops mode is great because with a system with full walkaround cab (like Digitrax, NCE, or Lenz, but not CVP), you can program anywhere on the layout.The main application of transponding, however, is to figure out what train is in a block, for computer automation or signalling, and software could even "grade" an engineer based on if they obey signals. Software can also keep track of the water, fuel, and sand a loco has. Non transponding detection can only see that *a* train is in a block, but with transponding, the system can tell that loco number 85 is in that block (as would be the case with Challenger 3985, whose DCC address would be 85). This, however is a VERY advanced applcation of 3rd generation DCC that only Digitrax can do, and 90+% of model railroaders have no interest in doing.little_zip #3:You might want to access CVs a lot if you are using advanced consisting, adjusting sound levels, or want a different whistle. If someone brings a loco and it has the same address as one of yours, you may need to move a loco's address around. This is especially true if you have operating sessions, or it is used in a club environment.Digitrax's design is not a total lack of effort. In fact, it is quite logical and simple to do the normal things, like selecting a loco, consisting it, and programming it. It may take a little bit of getting used to, but it is a great interface for quickly doing things. It is good that they got rid of hex though. Hex is a little confuzzling, as is setting command station opsw's and throttle settings, but the manual clearly states all of the settiings for those, and those complicated settings give you a lot more control than other systems.In general, people don't go around talking a lot about the Prodigy system, because the serious DCC nuts all use one of the big four, Digitrax, NCE, CVP, or Lenz, and most use Digitrax or NCE. The MRC system doesn't have a fanatical following, because it is not an advanced system that appeals to the vocal and advanced DCC users, but rather to simpler users who are on a budget, or want basic DCC control, basically cab control without the switches. Owners of other systems delve deeply into DCC and how to leverage more out of it. This is the most true of Digitrax users, who are often very enthused about their systems and what they can do to go "above and beyond" the regular DCC functionality, whether to make a prototypical signalling system or just to have fun making electronics do cool stuff.If there is a reason NOT to buy the Prodigy, it is because the NCE PH-Pro is easier to use without bothering to read the manual, if that is your thing, and because the PH-Pro is expandable with four different throttles, radio that actually works (it took a while, but they have it working decently), and has many decoders, and even some basic signalling stuff. NCE has extended the RS-485 architecture to the limit, innovating and creating cool products, even though the architectural limitation means they can't do the same things that Digitrax can. They have made their system competitive in other ways, like offereing four different throttles, and inventing yard mode and using great pushbutton control on the ProCab.It is a regular RJ-45 port. It is hard to make a throttle bus unless you buy the ones from MRC, however. This is due to what the systems are really meant to do. RJ-12 is really an extension of RJ-11, the telephone system. It is meant to daisy-chain around a house, so it is easy to daisy-chain and split the wires. RJ-45 is meant to be in a star topology, however, with Ethernet switches, so the ports and connectors don't exist to electically split it. Thus, you have to buy the MRC panels, which are expensive. With the 6 pin networks, you can use Tony's cheap panels, the ones that the manufacturer offers (NCE and Digitrax both offer nice panels for their systems), or various types of phone panels. Note that you need a plug in every four feet, so in a sincere, narrow walkaround layout, that is a LOT of panels, and multiplied out can add a LOT of cost to the seemingly low-cost MRC system. The same is true of the far more basic Bachman system, which is a total joke. I had one. Then I upgraded to Digitrax. And I love my Digitrax system.In terms of "MRC now has everything", you need to consider a few things. It look NCE like 5 years to make their radio work right, the first generation systems needed aluminum pie plates on the base station to have decent range, and they finally switched to a better antenna design. How long will it take MRC? MRC has essentially no turnout decoders for their system, or any signal stuff, even just simple stuff like NCE has. They also have no input boards, which NCE, and to a much larger extent Digitrax offers. These could be useful for reporting turnout position for a hidden turnout. MRC has limited loco decoders. Sure you can use a regular decoder with any system, but these manufacterers offer some system integration, and input boards.More later, I have to do some work. EDIT: Typo

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...Digitrax's design is not a total lack of effort. In fact, it is quite logical and simple to do the normal things, like selecting a loco, consisting it, and programming it. It may take a little bit of getting used to, but it is a great interface for quickly doing things. It is good that they got rid of hex though. Hex is a little confuzzling, as is setting command station opsw's and throttle settings, but the manual clearly states all of the settiings for those, and those complicated settings give you a lot more control than other systems.More later, I have to do some work. In a stroke of good fortune, I received my first DCC loco today in very quick time. It's a beauty...a UP H16-44. As luck would also have it, the club is doing a show saturday so I will get a chance to handle a Digi throttle once again. Hopefully I will be able to find out if "it is quite logical and simple to do the normal things".I don't suppose, NH, you would know where I could come up with a "Cliff Notes" version of the Digitrax manual or a cheat sheet of common tasks so that I can get the most of this opportunity?I did some quick shopping for the NCE options. Wow! That's some BIG $$$ for a wireless set up. I was not able to determine quickly if the entry level model could be upgraded to wireless. Anyone know?

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

little_zip #3 (continued):The Digitrax throttle is not harder or more complicated than other systems in regular operation. Many of these impressions of difficulty or complexity come from the days of the DT300, when you had to press 27 buttons to do anything, and the programming was all in Hex. With the DT400, there is a sea of buttons just like the ProCab, so it may look complicated, but in reality it is very simple, because each button does one thing, like the ProCab.The differences in architecture are more than Beta-VHS or HD-DVD/ Blu-Ray. They are fundmental, almost like DCC is different than DC cab control. Comparing Beta and VHS is like comparing NCE's bus and Lenz's bus. Lenz has a faster RS-485 bus, and they claim that it is this super duper "XpressNET", even though it is NOT a network, it is an RS-485 polled serial bus. Loconet is totally different, and it is a whole dimension above the other architectures. Even if you do not care about advanced uses of Loconet, it provides basic and fundamental improvements in operation for any user. Because of its peer to peer nature, it can handle any number of throttles, and they will all be very fast, whereas an RS-485 bus is slower to start off with, and gets even slower as you add more throttles.In this same way, Loconet is much slower, in terms of data rate than the RS-485 based networks. Because of the architecture, however, it has thousands of times the capacity. Because of its lower speed, it can have longer runs, is more tolerant of interference and weird cabling, and can be split all over the place. Its total maximum run is huge, and can cover any layout with ease. This is great for clubs, and especially modular groups. Ntrak uses this capability extensively at their larger setups. Even a small user with a couple of throttles is better off, as the network is more reliable with interference from other wiring or devices in the room.Another Advantage of Loconet, is that its peer to peer architecture can handle multiple radio receivers right on Loconet, unlike NCE. NCE require one radio base station, and repeaters connected to the base, so that there are two busses running around the layout, whereas Digitrax only uses one. The irony is that NCE's system usually needs repeaters, and Digitrax's usually doesn't. Digitrax has also packaged the railsync lines in the Loconet cable, so that boosters can share this network as well, although that has little to do with RS-485 vs. Loconet, as Digitrax and Lenz both do this, while NCE does not, and NCE requires a separate booster bus. In many cases, they are actually separated back out, and then the railsync lines are injected with DC power so that throttles don't pull the railsync voltage way down.For me, the main thing was good, reliable radio that does not cause terrible interference (I am part of a modular group, so we are often next to other layouts with various radio systems as well), and the architecture. Loconet is like ethernet, and I know how well ethernet works, so I wanted the same speed and reliability for my DCC system.JoeF:Not quite. As you say in Video 3, most comptuers have no serial port. Add $50 for a USB>>>RS-232C converter to the price of NCE.When speed matching, I want to be able to walk around with my locos, and the hassle of hauling out the laptop and cables is a lot more than just punching the value in on the throttle. In fact, it is very easy to punch the values in on the throttle, and a pain to use a peice of software that adds more complexity. Most CVs in decoders are also solutions to questions that no one ever asked, so I would rather not even know that anything other than 1,2,3,4,5,6, sound volume, and 19 even exists.rghammill:Only Digitrax transponding can read CVs on the main, as it needs current pulses to play 20 questions, and the main has tons of spikes from locos and stationary decoders. Transponding usues a totally different method that is faster than programming track readback, it uses a higher frequency to send data signals to a BDL168 with RX4s attached, and then the data is dumped to Loconet.A lot of automation is in hardware, pretty inflexible, and limted to only a small section of track. Digitrax's system can do just about anything in software, as it has full data input/ output capabilitiy for all locos and blocks, so the data can be interpreted in software, and used in any capacity desired. C/MRI is a neat system, but it is more complicated and doesn't have bidirectional communication like Digitrax's system does. There are some YouTube videos of a layout that is linked to on Digitrax's website, it is AMAZING.Good luck remebering more than the standard 8 functions. Digitrax's systems can be upgraded by adding components to Loconet, and since they don't nececarily have to communicate with the command station, they can be used without a new command station or a serious upgrades. There are also many undocumented opsw's and Loconet data types that may be used in the future, as Loconet is only being used partially now, and it is way ahead of the other systems, imaging what it will be able to do in five or ten years. How about RFID scanners everywhere to keep track of rolling stock without car cards and waybills?You're missing the whole point with the starter systems. The PowerCab is a joke, as unless you have a 12' shelf layout, you can only have one person using it, or pay much more to expand features, and than have equipment that is useless if you go for the PH Pro. Also, the PowerCab is not completely utilized when part of a PH Pro system, as the booster is wasted. It is an accessory to a PH Pro, or for a coffee table layout. Their ad even says so, saying "A ProCab at the club, and a complete HO/N system at home", basically aiming at people who have very small layouts or no layout at home but want to program and test decoders, and then run at an NCE equipped club, who has a PH Pro.As discussed above, MRC is not a full featured system like Digitrax, NCE, CVP, and Lenz.Lastly is the Zephyr. The Zephyr is a full featured system that is in fact a "mini-Chief". Everything except the memory and voltage is identical to the Chief. In this way it is not just a system for one person, but one for a half-dozen operators. You can add walkaround throttles, and your investment is protected, as it will act as a booster and three throttles (one integrated, two jump) if you upgrade to a full Chief. This is the flexibility of Loconet.If the PowerCab did not have the dumb limitation of one cab, it would be a LOT better. It could be left on the shelf as the command station/ booster, and other throttles could be used for runing trains. It would be a legitmate competitor to the Zephyr if this was the case. Wait a minute. Dumb limitation? No. It is a brilliant marketing plan to get people to buy the really cheap PowerCab, get hooked on DCC, and buy a PH-Pro. It is actually a brilliant marketing plan if it works. It is also a great way to get people who belong to NCE clubs more involved with DCC, and possibly get another throttle to have a single walkaround operator on a tiny home layout, or just to upsell them on something they can use to program at home. It is a great accessory for a PH-Pro, not a great system, although I would probably buy one for a coffee table layout, as the walkaround capability isn't so important as a small system.Fast clock in the system is a big deal if you can't all see one central clock. Both Digitrax and NCE have (3rd party I think) fast clocks for their cab busses, so you can have a bunch, and they get synchronized over the bus, the same would be true for MRC, except without separate fast clocks.MRC's advertising is a lot of fluff and BS.DCC has been mainstream for a while, but it is becomming even more popular with many sound decoders coming out.You forgot the Zephyr in there, and the PH Pro needs a $40 power supply. The PH Pro and Chief are directly comparable, but there is nothing in the league of the Zephyr, as it is full featured but for small layouts, the MRC systems are a bit bigger, but not full featured, while the PowerCab is a joke, as a system anyways, although a great PH Pro accessory. It is really hard to compare.Digitrax can add and drop as well. Basically, all of the systems do the same thing, just in slighly differnt ways. They all can consist, they all get the job done.The usability isn't much difference. If you get used to Digitrax, it is just as easy as any other system. It has great manuals as well, that actually explain the why as to how stuff works and what the reasoning is for a certain aspect of the system to be a certain way.When you look at the overall cost of adding things on, the Zephyr fares the best of any of the three systems, the PowerCab because it needs more stuff at add two more cabs, the MRC because it has expensive plug panels. For the Chief and PH-Pro, the PH-Pro will generally be 9% more expensive, unless you have all wired system throttles, in which case it is basically a break even.The results of your tests of the two top systems will be very interesting.Yeah, you can use any booster with any system, if you can figure out what wires are what and make a custom cable, which is not hard to do for putting an NCE booster on Loconet, as NCE boosters are cheaper. Note that it is actually not connected to the two loconet wires, but to the NMRA standard railsync lines that are in the 6 conductor cable with the Loconet wires. You can probably do this with any other system, like Joe does with his Lenz boosters on a CVP system.I think that booster need a power supply as well, which is another $40. You may as well go with a 5 amp booster, so you have plenty of power to use tail light bulb short protection, which can suck up 2.1 amps. The Zephyr, supposedly rated at 2.5 amps, shuts down at 2.1 amps. Many other boosters are the same way. This *could* also be due to having a really short trip time though, I would have to do more testing to confirm that it is the current.NCE offers many more options, and is probably the same price or cheaper when you figure in the panels and NCE's engineer throttles, if you like that type of throttle.JoeF:See above about Loconet and practical applications for train-only DCC.As for consisting, as your EasyDCC system is using an older system design, with the programming/consisting only at the command station, consists are pretty important to your operators, BUT if you get NCE, your operators can all have consisting/programming, so busting up a consist at the end of a turn and making a new one is no big deal. The same goes for Digitrax. This method is more flexible, and locos can be consisted with more or less units on the fly as needed for a given train.Digitrax's awesome dual encoders for twin loco control and excellent radio reception are definitely ergonomic and user friendly. A fundamentally better system architecture is not a geeky toy, but a vehicle to obbtain high system performance, easy intsallation, and great expandability, whether or not someone wants signals or turnout decoders or whatnot.bear creek,The Empire builder, although capable technically of being a command station, is not really a system. It could be a backup though, normally acting as a booster, and if the Chief fails, it would keep the layout running. It is even noted in Digitrax's naming schemes, DB150 being Digitrax Booster, and DCS being Digitrax Command Station. The Zpehyr is the DCS50, noting that it is the "mini Chief" or "baby Chief". The DB150 is a great booster though.Great 20 questions explaination. Maybe it should have been designed to be intelligent, and use the more basic method for momentum CVs, but the more advanced method for CVs 5 and 6, where the values are often very high.little_zip:You use CVs 2,5,6 for speed matching. 2 is vstart, 5 is vmax, and 6 is vmid. I run them around in circles, and adjust the CVs with my DT400 is radio ops mode programming to get them just right, then I record them in my loco roster excel spreadsheet for future reference. And yes, I do have Decoder Pro, but the only thing I ever program with it is the command station!You need the first two functions for front and rear lights, if you want that loco to have front and rear lights. 4 or 6 function decoders have the ability to do other types of lights, like ditch lights, etc. with the additional 2 or 4 functions.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

little_zip,The DCC loco sounds cool!Cliff Notes:To get a loco:Click the throttle you want to grab a loco on. If you are right handed, try the right throttle, if you are left handed, try the left. Hit "loco" XX "loco", XX being the address of the loco, you could also get a four digit address if the club require that, or there are no more 2 digit slots left at that club. When you are operating, you can hold the throttle with one hand, and turn the encoder with your thumb. If you need to use the other encoder, you can use your other hand, or do it two handed. If you want to get a loco on the other encoder, just click that encoder first, then "loco" XX "loco". This is also true for programming, and important when consisting. Whatever you need to do to a loco, you need to have it active, so click the encoder you want to deal with if you have two locos selected. When you operate, the encodeer's speed is displayed from 0-99%. The direction button for each loco is located under its encoder. When you are done, make sure to dispatch the locos by hitting "loco" "disp". If you want to consist, select the lead loco on the right throttle, the second loco on the left throttle, and hit "mu" "Y+", and then click the left encoder to select the loco and "loco" "disp" to dispatch the left loco. Then you can repeat the process to add more locos, and dispatch the left loco when you are done. After that, you refer to the consist by its lead loco. When you want to de consist, select the last loco on the left, the lead loco should be selected on the right, and hit "mu" "n-", and then repeat for the middle locos. Note that when consisting, you need to set the direction before consisting if a loco is going backwards. For programming, hit "prog" once if you are in radio mode, or until "Po" comes up if you are plugged in to get ops mode. Then, use the left knob to select the CV, and the right knob to select the value. Note that CV001 shows up as "ad2", one little annoyance when programming. Then hit enter to send the CV out. Ask permission of the digital master before running ops mode, some clubs don't use it, as some weird stuff happens with old decoders or something. That is for a DT400. DT300/100s, and UT1s/2s/4s are different. It sounds a lot more complicated than it actually is, and if their Digitrax geek is there, he should be able to show you how to use the throttle quickly.I am pretty sure the PowerCab can take radio, but it is pretty pathetic, as you only have one cab. If you are using it for your own layout, putting in a cab bus and plugging in is much more economical, and much more practical, as there are no batteries to worry about, and it is more reliable. The reason I chose the radio system is because I use it at train shows with my modular group, and we are officially DC, and thus have no cab bus, although we are working on a couple of panels to go around the layout. We may be going DCC soon, as many people want to use sound equipped locomtives, although we have some hard-core luddites in the group who never want to use DCC.EDIT: Clarity/ spacingEDIT: Typo

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...Decodres cannot talk back to the command station unless they are Digitrax transponding equipped with transponding devices on the layout. The main application of transponding, however, is to figure out what train is in a block, for computer automation or signalling, and software could even "grade" an engineer based on if they obey signals. Software can also keep track of the water, fuel, and sand a loco has. Non transponding detection can only see that *a* train is in a block, but with transponding, the system can tell that loco number 85 is in that block (as would be the case with Challenger 3985, whose DCC address would be 85). This, however is a VERY advanced applcation of 3rd generation DCC that only Digitrax can do, and 90+% of model railroaders have no interest in doing.Sorry, I have to jump in here as not many are familiar with some of the facts mentioned. ZIMO has had loco number ID 12 years before Digitrax introduced Transponding. It does everything mentioned above and could also be used for CV read-back on the main. However, when the possibility of a NMRA sanctioned bidirectional communications format was on the table, ZIMO decided to wait. As a result, all ZIMO decoders sold since 2004 are equipped for bidirectional communication and can now be updated with appropriate software; free of charge by downloading the new software from the ZIMO web site and installing it by the end user without even removing the decoder from the locomotive!Unlike Transponding, bidirectional communication is now a NMRA standard and can be applied by any DCC manufacturer.About the communications bus: I understand that Loconet is a peer to peer system. So is the ZIMO CAN bus, but with 125kbit/sec the fastest bus in the model railroad industry. It is an industrial CAN bus designed by Bosch and heavily used in the automotive industry and in the medical field. I know the second fastest is Lenz with 67kbit/sec. Unfortunately I never found any specs about the Loconet speed.Regards,ArtZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Art:Welcome to the forum! Glad to see Zimo get some air time on this thread from someone who knows! I know as to architecture, Zimo has one of the coolest DCC architectures going, and if you're looking to invest in one of the most flexible and adaptable DCC systems out there, Zimo is worth a look.Zimo systems tend to cost more than any of the so-called "big four" DCC vendors, but as they say, you often get what you pay for.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

rghammill #2 (continued):The Zephyr is the only system that offers an easy upgrade to a full-featured system, because it IS a full-featured system. The Powercab can be upgraded, but it just becomes another cab, and you have to shell out $430 for a PH-Pro, which is not a bad deal if you really want a big system and features of the PH Pro. The MRC systems can't be upgraded to a full-featured system, because MRC does not offer one.For the USB>>>RS-232C converters, many will not work correctly, as they do not emulate a serial port well. They might work for some things, but not for others. Shop carefully.Yeah, a fast clock probably isn't a big deal, but no MRC system that I know of can have fast clocks plugged into the busses like NCE and Digitrax.That MRC- Digitrax comparison is not fair, as MRC is not a full-featured system like Digitrax and NCE. There is really no way to compare the systems, as they are all different. The only good comparisons come up at the $600 level with the big systems, the PH-Pro and the Super Chief.If you are loading speed tables, you will probably need to use DecoderPro. Unless you are actually using a whole bunch of parts of the curve, CVs 2,5, and 6 work just fine. Using a menu that prompts for things seems very cumbersome and just adding junk that is not needed. Just entering in the CV# and value is the simplest and quickest way to program, there are no text menus to wade through.Great example of why not to use automatic CV29 programming on any system. NCE can do this automatically, but like your example, there is room for error, and thus much easier to do manually. NCE offers binary programming, which would be great for CV29, as each feature is just a 0 or a 1, there would be no addition of values.What tail light bulbs are you using? If they are even close to 1.6 amps, that leaves little room for another train to run, making them pretty useless, and if they are lower than about an amp, that only leaves about 500ma of current for locos to run on, which with sound locos is hard. This is why it is hard to use tail light bulbs unless you have 4 or 5 amps of current.It is not odd to not have a power switch. First of all, when you kill track power, the command station should kill the railsync lines, and the boosters should automatically shut down, not sure how this all works. That being said, if you are away from your layout and you won't be using it, it should be on a switch, either on the surge protector, or on a wall switch that is connected to an outlet. This way, everything is shut off, phantom loads are eliminated, and the trains are safe from power surges or accidental damage caused by family members. NCE can do 6 locos in stack recall on a PH-Pro system. Two is great, but more than that is just a stunt to see how long you can keep them from crashing! Digitrax has two throttle knobs, so it is even easier to run two trains, although more than that is somewhat hard. The NCE Cab04e also has some sort of two loco control, but I think it is a hardware switch.little_zip:The headlight is F0, the functions do not vary from system to system, as they are NMRA standards. Anything other than the light should be listed in the loco or decoder's manual.bear creek,I find that keeping a loco roster helps. I have the loco, roadname, DCC address, which for me is totally arbitrary, I started at 1 and went up from there, and the settings for CVs 2,5, and 6. This is a great way to keep track of what loco has what setting, so that you can start off really close to the desired performance when speed matching. As far as programming speed curves, I like to follow the locos around the layout, and that is a great application for a radio throttle, which is rather more convenient than using my laptop as a walkaround throttle. The "normal" CVs are 1-6. Anything else is above and beyond normal configurations for a decoder, unless it is a sound decoder. CV19 is all that is needed for advanced consisting, although most users have no need for advnaced consisting.GM,If you are interesting is layout automation and/or signalling, check out Railroad and Company. Not sure if it works with Zimo, I know it works with Loconet. It does so many really cool things.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I seem to recall that the Powercab has a second jack for adding a second cab and I'm pretty sure you can add panels to allow more. I don't feel that the MRC $25 for a panel is expensive, although it is a bit more expensive than the NCE and Digitrax ones at $15.Why would you need a throttle jack every 4 feet? I have a shelf layout around a 10'x20' room, with only the Prodigy express in the the middle, with a 14' coiled ethernet cord and I can reach every point on my layout. While the other manufacturers may use phone-type cords, it's a far cry from a standard since most of the DCC hardware is not designed to be interchangeable between companies anyway. To me, saying that RJ-12 is the standard is the same as saying that cork is the standard roadbed and Kadee couplers are the standard couplers in HO-scale. They are certainly predominant, and well represented, but there is no standard. In any event, the only standard that matters is what your system uses. Until there's a large market for third-party accessories that tie into a DCC hardware standard (not something I see happening), it just doesn't matter. I don't see how I'm missing the point on starter systems, although we may disagree on their purpose. For me, a starter system should provide an easy to use, affordable system, with an easy upgrade path to entice you to continue to purchase the same brand of DCC controllers, rather than switching to another brand.Apparently I (and others) DO care about what the throttles look like. NY doesn't. He's probably smarter in that regard, but for me the appearance is only a part of the equation.Where I shop a USB>serial converter is $15, not $50.The fast clock is on the Prodigy Advance throttle, just not the Express. My point was that I don't think the fast clock is that big a deal on a starter throttle. I know I always had problems in math, but...3 walkaround throttles with LCD, with two panels (You need a third if you start with the Prodigy Express):Zephyr: $160 includes power supply)2 panels $303 walkaround DT-400 throttles $420Total: $610Prodigy Express $1403 panels $752 Prodigy Advance cabs $150Total: $365Heck, start with the Prodigy Advance and add another $120, subtract 1 panel $25, and your cost is $460.I can see the simplicity and beauty in reversing the consist in the NCE systems (and it was really the biggest concern I had with the MRC). But, I'm running in 1948, not running turns, not adding helpers, and I think that creating consists, and killing them at the end of the session will be more prototypical, and less likely to cause the problem of forgetting that a locomotive is part of a consist later.I use the more advanced speed tables than the vmin, vmid and vmax. But with the Prodigy, it's even easier to program the vmin and vmax because it automatically prompts you for those CVs.Press the Prog key twice (the first selects program>Program track, the second selects program>main).It shows you the current loco number. Press enter.It prompts you to change the loco number if desired, if not press enter.It prompts you for Starting voltage (vmin). Enter a value, or press enter to skip. It then does the same for Acceleration rate, Deceleration rate, Top voltage, and CV#. If you don't want to program any of these options, just press enter to skip them.The concept behind their design is that these are the most commonly changed CVs, and by prompting you you don't even have to know what a CV is. So if somebody brings their loco over to your layout and you need to make some changes in these settings, it's a piece of cake.On my layout, the other things I have had to configure is the lighting, so it will dim when stopped, and so I can press function 4 to dim the lights. I also loaded speed tables (based on the recommended settings for the TCS decoders I have). I also changed the TCS dithering (to help low speed performance). All of these changes only needed to be made once, and I won't need to change these while operating. I will do a little more work on the speed tables on some of the locos, but on the NH in 1948 they only consisted the same models of locos. All my DL-109's are proto1k, my FA1/FB1s are Walthers, etc. so for now they will only be consisted with a 100% matching loco, so I should only have to make minor modifications.The one problem I ran into that took a little bit of thinking was with two locos that I had decoders installed for me. They were wired backwards (so when the throttle said it was going forward, it was going backward). This was easy to fix, and I also had to reverse the light settings so the headlight didn't turn on when it was in reverse. However, the MRC programs CV 29 automatically and that was one of the CVs I needed to change to reverse the motor. When I then set the loco number to a 4-digit number it lost the motor reversal. This is because you have to make another change in CV29 to allow a 4-digit number, and it didn't carry over the other modification. Not a big deal, I just had to program CV29 manually, which is what I would have had to do on any other system anyway.I'm using the tail light bulbs with the Prodigy Express (1.6 amp) with no problems yet. In fact, my 3-year-old daughter figured out that if she touches two of the wires that hadn't been attached to the layout that she could turn on the light. I've decided that it's a good idea to unplug the booster when the layout's not in use...Does anybody else find it odd that some of these DCC systems don't have a power switch on the booster?Another minor difference. I believe that with the PowerCab you can use a recall feature to jump back and forth between two locos. On the Prodigy you can do that with up to 25 locos, although it only retains 5 when you unplug the throttle. Realistically, anything more than 5 doesn't make much sense, because it's more keystrokes to recall loco #7 than the press loco, type in a 4 digit address and press enter. Although it is a bit faster (and easier 1-handed) to just keep pressing recall. Since I only have 4 locos with decoders right now I may find I feel differently in the future.Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Art Luescher:Zimo is doing some great stuff, but outside of Europe, there just aren't many users, and the pricing is extremely high. They have some great technology, and I think they will come up with some neat stuff in the future, but today they aren't a force in North American DCC.The bidirectional system that the NMRA has proposed has not been widely implemented and is an unproven technology. Transponding is made to take advantage of the very advanced Loconet system, and all of its varitable plethora of accessories. For people who are looking to get this level of automation or signalling, installing a small transponding decoder in their locomotives, or putting in a new decoder entirely is probably not a big deal.Interesting, the Zimo bus is a bit faster. Lenz's bus is effectively MUCH slower, as it is an RS-485 bus, so even Loconet, which I think is 16kbps, far outperforms XpressNet (which is NOT a network).rghammill:As I and others have mentioned before, MRC uses nonstandard cab bus panels, has an unproven wireless system, does not have the same selection of cabs as NCE or Digitrax, and does not have any accessories that go above and beyond basic functionality. There is also no option for a digital encoder, which is offered by both NCE and Digitrax.rghammill #2:Its not about the PowerCab's jacks, it is about the command station and internal memory. It can only handle 1 extra cab, or 3 extra cabs if the Smart Booster is purchased. This is an arbitrary limit of the design. Other panels can be added so that the additional cab can be unplugged and moved to another area.Add that $10 up over a dozen panels, and see if you think the same thing. Or compare it to phone jacks from Home Depot for $3 each, and then figure it out. Plus, there is limited flexibility in the 8 wire bus as compared to the industry standard 6 wire bus.If you have more than 15' of layout, and you need to unplug and replug, you need them every four feet. Joe even says so on one of the videos, video 3 I think.Tony's has their own, cheaper, universal panels that work with NCE and Digitrax, and even Lenz, and there are cab bus splitters and F-F connectors that work with all of the systems as well. Try getting all of thsoe in RJ-45.More Later...

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NH, could you also provide "Cliff Notes" for a simple, 2-unit consist and how to turn on/off a headlight or marker lights. I believe this little beauty has red, green, and white markers. A real treat for N-scale.I hate to ask, but my club is challenged by our system.EDIT...Sorry, I guess it is all there! my bad

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

little_zip said ...Two questions then. How frequently does a locomotive flip it's bits? In a basic setup using something like a TCS 2 function decoder, no sound, roughly how many CV's do you really use, assuming you want to speed match?With 2 digit addressing you probably have adr, start, mid, top, acceleration, decelerationplus any CVs used to control lighting functions.Most decoders (that I've seen anyway) have separate leads for headlight and tailight which both run off F0. The second function F1 is available for mars lights or whatever (assuming it has those capabilities).If the loco will be used with the advanced consisting enabled you'll add a couple more CV's for that. And some decoders have CV's for controlling the lights based on direction when in a (advanced) consist. So add a few more CV's.It's not a whole lot. And some engines I've had run for years without losing their brains. But trying to remember how you had an engine setup so you can reload the CVs is one of lifes great non-pleasures. If you have two identical engines you are MUing together then you need the start, mid, top, accel and decel to all be set the same. Yeah, you can remember which CV does what, then use the programming track to read these values from your "good" loco so you can plug 'em back into the scrambled loco. But this is not even close to fun.Another place where the computer is an advantage is when you are trying to speed match locos. Even if you're only using start, mid, top instead of a speed table it's much easier to have the computer remember what got stuck in there last time so you can see it and tweak it than it is to put the engine on the programming track, read 'em back, write 'em down, move the engine to another track where its start up and speed range and acceleration can be tested. Maybe you are so organized that you would never consider putting a new value in a CV without writing it down in your loco programming notebook. My hat's off to you if you can do this. But I've never been that organized.YMMVC.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

TO ART:Since I am still looking at getting a DCC system, could you give us some details on ZIMO? I am interested and saw some interesting things in the link I posted earlier on this thread regarding the convention in Germany. I thought I read this but can you verify. There is a way to program/replicate fueling so that you have to monitor when to get the engine in for fueling/servicing. If that is correct kind of shows you how advanced things are really getting. That would make another scenario that would have to be monitored and get some hostlers involved in operation night. All the monitoring functions were also interesting for tracking locos on the layout. I am getting wireless and liked your hand unit from the picture and the function capabilities that it has.Maybe you can just give us some highlights what you think is unique to Zimo that isn't available on other systems yet. You don't have to address similar capabilities. Stuff like signaling and controlling switches etc...Also if you could address customer support and how you feel response time is. Thanks for any info.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

rghammill:If you use regular phone jacks on the others, it is $20. Either way, you need a panel every 4 feet (not my idea, see video 3), so that is quite a few panels even on a smallish layout.The PowerCab can supposedly do radio, but for only one additional cab. For a decent expanability, you have to go up to a PH-Pro.Again, in terms of the Zephyr, you are treating it is the wrong thing. It really isn't much of a throttle (although for a yard it might be nice to free up a hand for the switcher/ hostler if mounted nicely), but it is a mini chief. A local club uses it on their modular layout for the whole layout, with three operators and maybe four trains.It is actually $90 less expensive than the Chief, when you include the power supply for the Chief, as the Zephyr comes with a power supply. You'd have to figure out whether you need the additional power or whether you want the extra throttle to be available for the yard operator. You can also make a pair of $5 tethered cabs for the jump ports, it could have a 10 foot cable, and be used by the yardmaster. That way, you could make whatever type of cab you wanted, there are some plans on Tony's Trains for a pushbutton one for yard use. That would effectively give you three bonus throttles in case you found yourself with an operator of three more than you have throttles.I'm not sure how you figured out the numbers, but some of that is overkill. On your layout, you can use plug panels to emlinate the need for pesky radio solutions that run out of batteries.For NCE, you wouldn't need a wireless upgrade if you get a wireless cab. That is only for regular cabs that you want to upgrade. Even with radio, you wouldn't need a radio repeater unless your layout is bigger than 60ish feet. Even with a larger layout, you could probably cover the bulb of it nearly perfectly, with plug in recovery at the edges.The power supply is $40 no matter which system you buy. The one Tony's recommends for Digitrax, NCE and Lenz is the Magna-Force MF615, which is a powerful supply well suited, and designed for DCC.Unless your layout is going to have more than 10 sound locos on it, you won't be needing a booster. The rule of thumb is to get half as many as you think you need (usually 1), and see if any shut down. If they do, then you can spend the dough on a booster.Good point about the LCDs. Only 16 functions? There are only 12 NMRA sped'd and no one can seem to remember more than 8. Again, you are counting the panels wrong. They have to go every four feet on the layout, whether you are operting alone or for a big club like the one in NJ who has had 98 throttles running simultaneously on a Super Chief. Plug ins are great, because the response is faster, there are no batteries, and there is one less dimension of problems that could occur. The only reason I use radio is for running at the modular club, where the chaos and lack of any plug ins other that on my own system makes it worth it.Its not just about cost, but about how good the system is, and what future potential the system has. NCE has a lot, Digitrax has even more. MRC seems a cheap knock-off of NCE. Their sounds decoders are hated in the DCC world, their systems aren't liked a whole lot better.espee3004:I had bad one, got it swapped out. The first one would work intermittently. They are rushing to get the product out, as it is so hot, they can't make enough of it. joef:The NCE decoders are awesome, they have some cool ones with lighting effects that are pretty neat. Lenz, on the other hand. I have three huge reasons why I will NEVER buy a Lenz product. The first is that they make the decoders for Bachman for their DCC ready locos, which are NOT programmable except through an undocumented mode called blast mode programming, which I had some limited luck with. As a result, I have them all down in the 01-09 range that they can be programmed into by the Bachman EZ-Command system that I had before I got the Digitrax system (and still have). These things must be out of NMRA spec, and it is really annoying. At least they actually RUN on someone else's system, but forget about adjusting the voltages, as that has to be done in ops mode.The second is that they call XpressNET a NETWORK, and claim it is better than a peer to peer system which is a flat out lie. I have no problem with NCE's RS-485 bus, as they don't try to claim it is anything particularly good, in fact they really don't say anything about it, because they know it is not as good as Loconet. Instead, they sell the Procab's look and feel, which is a decent throttle, and a strong competitor to the DT400 and system. In fact, I got to use one (actually a PowerCab) today, and it was nice. It wasn't any more intuitive than the Digitrax throttle when I first got it, but the pushbuttons are actually useable, and very nice at that. I could see someone buying a PH Pro because of those buttons. No kidding.The third reason I will never buy Lenz is that they were partnererd with that slimeball company, Kam Industries. Kam has a terrible CTC and PDA throttle software suite, that Lenz was using as their radio throttle solution. Kam doesn't actually have a very marketable product, however, so they tried to sue JMRI (decoder pro) out of business, which in fact Kam stole JMRI's stuff, not the other way around. Suing a company is one thing, but suing a free open source product is simply sleazy.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

joef said ...Art:Welcome to the forum! Glad to see Zimo get some air time on this thread from someone who knows! I know as to architecture, Zimo has one of the coolest DCC architectures going, and if you're looking to invest in one of the most flexible and adaptable DCC systems out there, Zimo is worth a look.Zimo systems tend to cost more than any of the so-called "big four" DCC vendors, but as they say, you often get what you pay for.Thanks Joe. This seems to be a more civilized forum compared to others I belong to. BTW, I have no intention to put other systems down. However I do like to correct any misconceptions about ZIMO and correct false statements that are of no use to anyone. After all, only a well informed customer can make an intelligent purchase decision....Regards,ArtZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...Art Luescher:Zimo is doing some great stuff, but outside of Europe, there just aren't many users, and the pricing is extremely high. They have some great technology, and I think they will come up with some neat stuff in the future, but today they aren't a force in North American DCC.The bidirectional system that the NMRA has proposed has not been widely implemented and is an unproven technology. Transponding is made to take advantage of the very advanced Loconet system, and all of its varitable plethora of accessories. For people who are looking to get this level of automation or signalling, installing a small transponding decoder in their locomotives, or putting in a new decoder entirely is probably not a big deal.Interesting, the Zimo bus is a bit faster. Lenz's bus is effectively MUCH slower, as it is an RS-485 bus, so even Loconet, which I think is 16kbps, far outperforms XpressNet (which is NOT a network).Whether ZIMO at this time is a force in North America is really an irrelevant statement !It is not a cheap system but believe it or not there are customers that are willing to pay for what ZIMO has to offer. BTW, the new MX31ZL mini system, due this summer, is expected to sell for about a third of a current ZIMO system but offers all the features of the �big� one. Up to 3A of power without a booster, can of course also be used as a cab, allows connection of additional cabs including 2-way radio, serves as an update module for updating other ZIMO components including decoders and sound decoders (installing different sound files) and comes with a USB port. The latter can also be used to update ZIMO decoders and system components without a PC in the model railroad room by simply downloading the new software onto a data stick and inserting the same into the USB port of the MX31ZL.Over time when North American model railroaders get the taste for automated layouts that still allow you (and all your operating crew) to be engineers on �their� trains, interest will no doubt grow. In fact, when I first joined a model railroad forum about 7 years ago there was virtually no question popping up about layout automation. Today, these questions show up a lot more often!Bidirectional communication may be unproven technology to you but not to the companies working with it. I remember that at one time DCC was an unproven technology too, in fact when ZIMO started out as a DCC manufacturer in 1979 the term DCC was not even coined (back then it was simply called �multi train control�) and except for another contender in England there was no other system on the market. Look how far DCC has come today. Of course bidirectional communication has not been widely implemented yet because it hasn�t been approved as a standard by the NMRA until just recently. So most companies didn�t feel like doing anything with it. In the end, the customer will decide whether this is a worthwile feature to have Unlike other companies with their own version of bidirectional communication, ZIMO�s version of called �loco number ID� along with �signal controlled speed influence� and �location dependent function control� can all work side by side with bidirectional communication. And yes the ZIMO features as well as bidirectional communication will also take advantage of the �veritable plethora� of accessories. Well maybe I can�t call it that, after all, a track section module and accessory module is all that�s needed to access all the features Because ZIMO had the foresight to build their decoders for the last 3 years with the necessary hardware for the new technology, getting ready for bidirectional communication requires a simple firmware update, that�s it On the other end of the spectrum, the command station requires a global detector, which comes with the new MX31ZL mini system, the MX1EC command station sold since 2002 needs a firmware update only (again via Internet, no need to open the command station to change an EPROM) and the MX1 command station built since 2000 will receive an add-on detector board.The ZIMO bus is a bit faster? 125kbps versus 16kbps makes it almost 8 times faster. I�m not an electronics engineer but simple arithmetic would tell me that.Regards,ArtZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Art Luescher:Market penetration is a big deal, as there are other users of Digitrax and NCE in many parts of the country for help, support, and you can use your throttle and other people's layouts with Digitrax or NCE, depending on what other people around you have.The mini system sounds interesting, we will have to see if it can compete with the current market leading Digitrax Zephyr in terms of price, flexiblity, ease of use, and performance.Zimo seems to be the only company actually using the new birdirectional communication, and Digitrax's transponding stuff has been out there a long time. They have already gotten rid all of the bizzare problems of their first block detectors, and upgraded many times since. It will be very difficult for any other system to catch up to transponding. Currently, there is no other system out there that can hook up the same number of accesories that Loconet can.Digitrax didn't wait for a standard to be made, they just made the system, and now they are very far ahead. It works great now and has many products available for it now.Can the automation in the command station be overridden by a PC running Railroad and Company. This is very important, because if it is not running on a full fledged Windows XP box, it has limited customization and logic capabilites. Also, is the customer paying a lot for these features that they will probably just have to override? If each signal and section has a separate decoder, how do they fare in terms of cost. Often times a semi-decentralized system that has nodes where a dozen or two signals, blocks, and turnout decoders hook into the DCC system is the most cost effective way. Everything having its own decdoer can seriously bloat the price of a system, as can a totally centralized system with twenty miles of wiring. Only somthinig in-between is really practical.Good god, software updates? This sounds like Microsoft. Even EPROM updates are a little over the top, I like my Digitrax that is built with Loconet so that it never needs updates.Ok, you got me there on the speed of the bus. But here is another question for you. Is this bus as easy to string around a layout with 6 conductor cable and as fault tolerant as Loconet? Also, what future applications will use 125kbps, as no one can figure out how to use more than a very small percentage of Loconet's 16kbps speed? If it was 8 mbps, and you could stream video from the loco to the throttle, THAT would be cool. :D:DOdyknuck:I am saying that there is no add on fast clock that connects to the cab bus like Digitrax and NCE. Also, the PE does not have a cab bus while the PA does, but only on the throttle.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

And yet another thought on the subject of throttle design.We need only to look to our favorite prototype to find the value of industrial design. During the years of �34 to �38 nearly every railroad in the country recognized the importance of presenting an appealing product when they launched into the Streamline Era. The early industrial designers, Lowey, Dreyfus, Kuller, et.al., changed the way the general public perceives the world around them. Not just the trains, but toasters, radios, water heaters, automobiles� Nearly every single item you purchase today has been affected in some way by an industrial designer. The railroads embraced this "revolution" with the launch of the Zephyr, M10000, and Comet and the public loved it. So much so in fact, that by 1938, every premier passenger train in the country was streamlined.We all, most likely, get a bit emotional when we see a vintage heavyweight passenger train snaking down the main. What a beautiful sight. We do love our trains, you know. But oh what a sight to the M10000 or a Zephyr or a Comet or Daylight or a (insert name train here) streaking along, overtaking everything in sight. Nothing but green lights for them. The shape of the streamliner was more important for perception than anything. Sure, it did reduce drag, which improve fuel consumption. The whole concept of streamlining was really just a marketing program to increase ridership although it did drive innovation that improved the user-interface of the train. It led to a well-decorated and more comfortable environment.On my layout, there are lots of plastic boxes. Some used to be brass, but hey, I have to finance this venture somehow! Their shape is what makes them unique. A silver boxcar does not elicit the same emotional response as the sleek shovel-nosed Zephyr. Nor does my new icing station elicit the same response as that silver boxcar. The shape of the plastic box can be as critical as it�s function.If you set all of the throttles on a table in front of a crowd at a train show, which one gets the most attention? Regarding wireless range, as reported to the MRC yahoo group, "In house testing at MRC yielded approx. a 100 foot range, we have not done any outside testing as of yet". Probably layout specific but it sure seems acceptable.Regarding the 8pin plug, I did not see anything the suggested a standard in the systems listed. It appeared each had their own configuration to keep you using "their" product. Some quick research turned up this line splitter for six bucks. With some serious research, I�m sure there is some sort of computer networking device capable of serving the needs of a MR at a reasonable price. Cat 5 has been around for quite a while.UC-40108BModular Jack Splitter, B List11.00each 0.0437 lbs/each$9.95 eachSpecial: $5.95Also regarding the 8-pin plug, as quoted on the yahoo group, �PA uses 4 wires and then over lapsthem to give you eight. So what is on pin 1 is on pin 5, pin 2 also on pin 6 and so on. This insures better contact. I think it's a good idea.� Does this then suggest that the command bus is the same as NCE and Lenz? If so, does that make any accessory useable with MRC with the possible addition of an adaptor? Regarding the computer interface, it will become available. And once it does, someone will surely create a "Decoder-Pro" to use with it.Regarding full-featured, I�m still confused as well. How is that defined?Prodigy has (or will have) three levels of systems, entry - express, mid � advanced, pro � wireless. They have one basic style of throttle, each with step-up features. Most importantly, to me anyway, they are priced nicely at about $100 for the wireless on the street. They offer decoders, reversing modules, add-on wireless, 3.5 (or something close) and 8 amp boosters, cab plates, and sound.As I see it, they offer three systems - small, medium, large. It�s well designed and attractively packaged. It has been simplified to the level of a gameboy. A point that I think is critical to get DCC to the masses. It should not require a degree in engineering to use it. IMHO, that makes it even more impressive. Factor in a low overhead cost to implement it (even a "pro" version) and it has the makings of great product.NCE and Digitrax do have an impressive array of systems and accessory decoders. It is definitely a plus for the bigger layouts.I have to believe the average Joe is simply overwhelmed by it all� I certainly seem to be. I have a green bean theory. When I go to the store I just want a can of green beans. I don�t care if they are french cut, italian cut, seasoned. I just want a can of beans. As someone else stated, just keep it stupid simple. But that�s just my opinion.I�m curious, Joe, how does the cost of DCC and all of these accessories influence your theory of layout cost being cheaper than the rolling stock? At what level does this sophistication and automation bring the curve much closer together?Bryan

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

GM said ...TO ART:Since I am still looking at getting a DCC system, could you give us some details on ZIMO? I am interested and saw some interesting things in the link I posted earlier on this thread regarding the convention in Germany. I thought I read this but can you verify. There is a way to program/replicate fueling so that you have to monitor when to get the engine in for fueling/servicing. If that is correct kind of shows you how advanced things are really getting. That would make another scenario that would have to be monitored and get some hostlers involved in operation night. All the monitoring functions were also interesting for tracking locos on the layout. I am getting wireless and liked your hand unit from the picture and the function capabilities that it has.Maybe you can just give us some highlights what you think is unique to Zimo that isn't available on other systems yet. You don't have to address similar capabilities. Stuff like signaling and controlling switches etc...Also if you could address customer support and how you feel response time is. Thanks for any info. GM.Programming/replicate fueling is one of the features that bidirectional communications will offer.Highlights of the ZIMO system can be found on the 2006 system brochure on our web site or in the different instruction manuals (also on our web site). I tried to stick to unique ZIMO features as you�ve asked but it is at times hard to decide when similar features between manufacturers are unique to one system. It is also often difficult to find certain information, especially specifications, on some manufacturer�s web site or literature. A good example might be �stabilized track power�. This is an important feature to have but ZIMO is the only one that states that track power is 100% stabilized. All other that make the same claim never seem to disclose to what degree stabilization takes place. On many of them stabilization is left to the power supply and has little to do with track power stabilization�.So when you see a claim that �this system does the same as ZIMO� you have to compare the same relevant specifications of the two manufacturers to be able to accept or dismiss that claim.Some highlights unique to the ZIMO system:Command stations: - digital display shows two volt/amp meters (one for each track output), CAN bus activity, programming information, system status information and progress information during recording or playback of a automated operating sequences (w/o a PC). - fully stabilized track power, infinitely variable between 10 and 24V, - auxiliary inputs for automated shuttle trains (up to 4 trains, without any additional sensors, modules etc), external panic buttons, switch inputs.- �Automatic Operating Sequences� (AOS) for automated train movements with switch and signal settings, again without any other sensors, equipment or computer (with the exceptions of accessory decoders for switch and signal actuations).Cabs:-112 x 64 pixel tri-color backlit display (the three different colors tell you instantly whether you are in the loco (green), switch (red) or programming mode (yellow)).- built-in daylight sensor automatically adjusts display and LED indicators to ambient light.- volt/amp meter displayed- 3 color LED above each function key for loco function state (on/off, yellow), switch/signal state (red/green), turnout ladders or automation state (i.e. flashing yellow for a running automation).- true turnout feedback if turnout is equipped with end switches (LED above function key flashes if turnout didn�t reach end position).- �MN� key (as mentioned in previous post), which allows the operator to manually control any train (or consist or several trains) that is otherwise under computer control.- two control elements for running two trains simultaneously (one with the slider, another with the encoder wheel).- names instead of address numbers for locomotives, turnouts, turnout ladders. For example, instead of remembering the turnout ladder number of a station exit route you can simply give it a name (i.e. east entry, east exit etc.). Names can also be handed over to other cabs (like address numbers). - extensive menu in 7 languages. - 2-way radio cab with built-in 1800mA/h lithium-ion battery, operational for at least 8 hours. Battery automatically recharges when used in tethered mode, a wall-wart is plugged in or the leads are connected directly to the track (ideal for outdoor layout emergencies!).- 3 operating modes: �Operator� with a �clean� display, �Expert� with as much information on the display as possible and �Guest� for newbies with password protected and definable function lock-out.System wide:- as mentioned previously, loco number ID and location- signal controlled speed influence for braking and stopping of trains for use with or without a PC. 5 (!) different speed limits to choose from for gradually slowing down a train ahead of a stop section or for limited speed sections (construction scenes, limited speed in stations etc.). Can also be programmed to automatically turn track power off after the train entered a staging yard for example. - individual override of the above with the already mentioned �MN� key on the cab. This makes it possible to enter a stop section with a switcher engine where a train is waiting at a red signal without first having to set the signal to �green� (otherwise the switcher engine would also stop in that section). Also removes momentum in various degrees.- location dependent function control (automatically turns functions on/off, plays whistle etc.).- position code transmission, used in connection with bidirectional communication and ZIMO�s �ARS� (Automated Route Sequencing, for automations without a PC). The decoder sends its location back to the command station, which in turn selects a route based on programming and loco/train classification). - STP computer software connects directly to the fast CAN bus network, taking full advantage of the ZIMO features above, up to 9 PC�s per layout.- RS232 port communicates with ADaPT software (decoder CV adjusting program) or other similar programs simultaneously with STP layout program (on CAN bus). Other software such as Railroad &Co communicates via the RS232 interface.- big difference to other hardware/software solutions: ZIMO/STP when operated by a PC or with �ARS� can only limit a train�s speed below the speed dialed in on the cab. It can never exceed the set speed. Also, speed commands don�t have to be issued by the computer at just the right time (i.e. when a train enters a stop section), because all necessary speed limit and stop commands for the individual sections of a route are sent to the MX9 track section modules that are part of that particular route at the time the route is set. A route is of course set before the train enters the route. The MX9 track section module is then responsible to send the right commands to the train as it enters the individual track sections. It makes those decisions on its own at the right time without the help of the PC or command station. This frees the computer up for other tasks as soon as the commands are sent, before the train even started to move. It is therefore impossible for situations that can occur on larger layouts where you can have several trains all arriving at a decision making point at the same time (i.e. each in a stop section), which could delay stop times for some of the trains because the PC is busy processing one train at a time.- easy consumer updates. Download the latest firmware for the command station, cabs and decoders. Install them without opening command stations or cabs to replace EPROM�s or removing decoders to send them back for updates. There have been numerous features added to all ZIMO components over the years but equally important, if a glitch has been identified by ZIMO (which happens to all software controlled items of any manufacturer!), a simple software update provides the fix. If you are interested to see what sort of features were added to their system and decoders you can check the update pages of the ZIMO web site (English content is in purple).Please keep in mind that many features have not been mentioned because this post is already too long and it is hard to verify if they are available from other manufacturers (e.g. �soft� headlight dimming of decoders or adjustable dimming speed of signal lights to mimic the heavy bulbs of a real signal).As to service, I�m responsible for customer service in the US and Canada. Response time, as in answering customer questions, is as quick as I get them (usually by email). In the few cases where I need ZIMO�s input, I get responses between an hour and a few days, depending on whether some key people happen to attend a show at the time of asking. For example, I recently had a case where a large-scale decoder could not be programmed for ditch light delay�s as per the instruction manual. I sent this information to ZIMO. The next day I received a firmware update that I passed on to the customer and took care of the problem. Instant gratification Turn-around time of warranty cases depends on the nature of the problem. Most warranty is taken care of by us. The few things we can�t do ourselves that has to go back to ZIMO takes between 3 � 4 weeks.My advice when deciding on a system is to look at each system what it has to offer. If you find a feature that you�re not familiar with, ask the manufacturer or its Rep about it. Often a feature is being dismissed because the person doesn�t understand it, only to find out later after using DCC for a while that hey this would be a neat feature to have.Regards,ArtZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

little_zip:As for the look of the throttles at a train show, what does it matter which one people look at? It matters more what they do, not what they look like. Some people might like one more than another for whatever reason, but the look of the throttle doesn't matter that much. NCE would probably win though, just because they have four different throttles, and because the ProCab looks like it came from an alien spacescraft (or from under the sea). Not saying that is good or bad, it just looks weird.100 feet?? Thats crazy. Even NCE can beat that out with proper antennas, and Digitrax goes way beyond 100 feet. If it is running in the 900mhz band, it will suffer from the same problems that the NCE throttles suffer from due to FCC limitations.Tony's trains sells a lot of stuff for 6 conductor, and it is a much more standard jack for DCC applications. The computer networking stuff can't be used for model railroading, as it is made for a start topology. Some of the wires in Loconet are redundant as well, this doesn't mean anything in terms of compatiblity with other systems. The only thing that could be compatible would be a booster through a proprietary interface.Yes, NCE, Digitrax and Lenz's busses are incompatible, but they still all use the same wiring, so Tony's UTP panels, splitters and F-F connectors can be used with any of the systems.MRC's "advanced" system is no where near NCE or Digitrax, so they really only have mid range offerings. With the crazy competition between Digitrax and NCE, the MRC system puts on a really whimpy show.Digitrax does not require a degree in computing, but rather a 5th grade education to read the manuals. It is pretty simple. The DT400 was designed to be almost idiot proof, no DCC system is totally idiot proof.The Basic Joe should do extensive research like I have about each system, and read the manuals, web sites about wiring (like wiringfordcc.com), and then he can make an educated DCC system buying choice. I can't stand it when people don't bother to do research before buying, whether it is DCC or a car or anything else.Art Luescher:The question that has to be asked is, "How useful are these features, and how much are they costing me?" With stabilized track voltage and meters, the cost they are adding to the system is probably more than they are worth. The biggest problem with stabilized voltage is that layout wiring often drops a volt off at the end of a power district anyways, or light bulb current limiters might whack a few volts under a good load. An extreme case of this was an Ntrak group using Digitrax who were losing 60% of the voltage from the system at the extreme end of a power district due to light wiring. With normal fluxuations due to wiring, the system adding in a volt or two is no big deal. However, Digitrax does regulate them somewhat if the PSU is of a higher voltage than the track output. The meters are cool, but why? Because they're cool?The Zimo system seems to be oriented toward automated operations, which is not what most modellers want. They want a system that is for operators to control their trains, and the DCC system to take backstage. The advantage of the Digitrax Loconet architecture with RR&Co is that the system can be a singalling system first, but because the data is all handled in the software of a computer, if all of the data is being input into Loconet (with transponding), then the computer can run trains automatically for a occasion where you want to show the layout to civilians, or if you operate by yourself, the other trains can be automated.As far as the cabs go, they are again going to be subject to severe limitations due to FCC rules, unless they are at 2.4ghz. The operating modes, coloring, meters, and other stuff seems to be adding more complexity than is needed. The operating modes with password protection seems to be a solution to a question that no one asked. If you don't trust an operator not to reprogram your decoder, why are you letting them touch your layout? And if they just truly are a klutz, then NCE and Digitrax have cheapie throttles that can't do anything buy run one train. The Li-on battery though, NCE and Digitrax need that badly. On recharging off of the cab bus, it sounds like each panel needs to be plugged into the track or a wall wart? Is there a way to charge the cabs without turning the system on so that they can be charged when the layout is not in use?All of the computer automation simply can't be a good as a computer, so why bother? A computer can do, in software, more than any hardware/ firmware system can ever do. This is evident with Loconet. The command station is completely oblivious to what the signalling system is doing, which is controlled solely by a PC. With Zimo's configuration, it sounds like the command station could start interfering with a computer's control if not set up perfectly.I thought the thing has a USB port? RS-232C is way old-school.Oh god, things making autonomous decisions without the computer's help. That is a recipie for trouble. The computer has plenty of power, more than plenty in fact, to do all of the processing even on the largest of club layouts, and by doing it all, and using the hardware solely as logicless, input and output devices, the computer can keep track of what is going on, and avoid the out-of-sync-departments-in-a-big-company effect.Wow, a DCC system that needs to be updated like my computers. No thanks. By keeping the logic of signalling out of the hardware on Loconet, the only thing that ever needs to be updated is the computer and RR&Co, as the system isn't convoluted with signalling logic, instead it is focused on actually running the trains.A system from Europe means that I can't call up and talk to the dude who designed it, like I can with Digitrax, or NCE or CVP. Digitrax is from Georgia, NCE is from New York, and CVP from Texas.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H wrote:Market penetration is a big deal, as there are other users of Digitrax and NCE in many parts of the country for help, support, and you can use your throttle and other people's layouts with Digitrax or NCE, depending on what other people around you have.Art: Being able to take your own throttle to your friend�s layout is certainly an advantage. Would that be a reason for me to buy a system that doesn�t convince? No way.Friends support is nice but sure wouldn�t be the only support I would want to count on. Good support is in my opinion first the responsibility of the DCC manufacturer and is what sets one company apart from another. I have nothing against Digitrax but because you keep bringing this particular brand up in every post, let me tell you that I have many Digitrax users in our area that have no clue how to use their system to program a decoder, even though they consulted each other about this on many occasions. They even asked me on how to use their equipment. I rest my caseThe mini system sounds interesting, we will have to see if it can compete with the current market leading Digitrax Zephyr in terms of price, flexiblity, ease of use, and performance.Art: In terms of flexibility (I thought my descriptions made that clear) and performance, no problem. Ease of use is subjective anyway. Zimo seems to be the only company actually using the new birdirectional communication, Art: No, Lens as well. After all it was Lenz that developed bidirectional communication. Your statement that no other company is using it is premature since the standard has just been accepted by the NMRA. Why don�t we give it some time until people see what it can do�.and Digitrax's transponding stuff has been out there a long time. They have already gotten rid all of the bizzare problems of their first block detectors, and upgraded many times since. Art: Did you actually read my post? ZIMO loco number identification has been out there 12 years longer than Transponding and could also be adapted to read back CV�s on the main. It will be very difficult for any other system to catch up to transponding. Currently, there is no other system out there that can hook up the same number of accesories that Loconet can.Art: If as you say there is no other system that can hook up the same number of accessories to their bus, I would sure like to know what that is. Zimo handles all features I listed with just two modules, a track section module and accessory module (or accessory decoders). These take care of occupancy detection, speed influence, function control, signaling turnouts and so on.Digitrax didn't wait for a standard to be made, they just made the system, and now they are very far ahead. It works great now and has many products available for it now.Art: The truth of the matter is that Transponding was developed long before bidirectional communication was presented. So was ZIMO�s loco number ID as I said, 12 years before Transponding. However, ZIMO loco number ID can operate side by side with bidirectional communication, which as I understand is not possible with Transponding. Can the automation in the command station be overridden by a PC running Railroad and Company. This is very important, because if it is not running on a full fledged Windows XP box, it has limited customization and logic capabilites. Also, is the customer paying a lot for these features that they will probably just have to override? Art: The same command station can be used for either automation, with or without a PC. The command station automation is simply an answer to the many that said they want automation but don�t want a computer connected to the railroad.If bidirectional communication is employed together with ZIMO�s �ARS� feature (automated route sequence) it has the logic capabilities of a PC, without using one. This form of operation does require the track section modules that operate autonomous from the command station.If each signal and section has a separate decoder, how do they fare in terms of cost. Often times a semi-decentralized system that has nodes where a dozen or two signals, blocks, and turnout decoders hook into the DCC system is the most cost effective way. Everything having its own decdoer can seriously bloat the price of a system, as can a totally centralized system with twenty miles of wiring. Only somthinig in-between is really practical.Art: This is what you call an in-between system. All location dependent functions (speed, functions, occupancy detection, signals etc.) are handled by the track section modules. Turnouts, signals and other accessories by the accessory module or accessory decoder.Good god, software updates? This sounds like Microsoft. Even EPROM updates are a little over the top, I like my Digitrax that is built with Loconet so that it never needs updates.Art: No, this sounds like a top of the line advanced system that offers update possibilities you can only dream of. Over the years ZIMO added to their command stations features like:New CV�s for automated shuttle train operation of up to 4 trains with adjustable stop times, external and timed turnout ladder control, adjustable stop times during directional change, 12 function mode, new CV�s for programming �difficult� decoders (remember Soundtrax in the past?), pulse-chain control of LGB decoders, the feature �AOS� (automatic operating sequences) mentioned above, added volt/amp meter display in the cab, new binary RS232 protocol in addition to the ASCII.The cab received:An added address input page displaying the most common decoder features, with possibilities to make changes right on that page without going through CV programming, operating mode �EXPERT�, softkeys for the actuation of up to 30 turnouts while in driving mode (that�s not the same as being in the switch mode and still maintain limited access to the last activated loco, which ZIMO can do as well), 3-level multi language menu, operating mode �GUEST� and global name�s handling. Decoders received:SUSI, improved driving characteristics (although many considered ZIMO decoders already as the best performing decoders), feature �special CV sets�, improved analog control, full function mapping F0-F12 (not possible with NMRA mapping), special effects extended to more outputs, �asymmetrical DCC signal stop� (Lenz), distance controlled stopping for �ABC� and �Signal controlled speed influence�, automated uncoupling (loco automatically pushes against train to unload couplers, uncouples and moves away from the train by simply pressing the assigned uncoupler key), virtual cam sensor added for sound modules, optimized coreless motor control (beyond high frequency drive) and smart stopping (automatically prevents locomotives from stopping on powerless (dirty) track sections).Now, tell me when you could add so many features to your system components and decoders at no charge, simply with a few mouse clicks!But of course, you can always be content with what you bought 10 years ago Ok, you got me there on the speed of the bus. But here is another question for you. Is this bus as easy to string around a layout with 6 conductor cable and as fault tolerant as Loconet? Art: I�m not out there to �get� you or anyone else for that matter. The CAN bus uses the same 6 conductor cable as Digitrax or NCE. In fact you could even use the same fascia plates (Digirax or NCE). Also, what future applications will use 125kbps, as no one can figure out how to use more than a very small percentage of Loconet's 16kbps speed? If it was 8 mbps, and you could stream video from the loco to the throttle, THAT would be cool. :DArt: Well, I leave that up to ZIMO. One thing a can say though is that the quick response time of the bidirectional radio cab (including all cab display and function indicator updates when handing over a loco or when programming via radio) is in no small part due to the speed of the CAN bus. At least the bus is not a bottle neck.Regards,ArtZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

[quote1172883823=NYNH&H]"As for the look of the throttles at a train show, what does it matter which one people look at? It matters more what they do, not what they look like. Some people might like one more than another for whatever reason, but the look of the throttle doesn't matter that much. NCE would probably win though, just because they have four different throttles, and because the ProCab looks like it came from an alien spacescraft (or from under the sea). Not saying that is good or bad, it just looks weird."****************Actually, after looking at the Zimo, I'm pretty sure it would get the most attention. Now that's got some lines. But the PDA interface has potential. How about operations on a PDA? How cool would it be for the DS to email everyone on the line a new set of flimsies! Or to be hanging out in the lounge and have a clearance form pop up thus notifying you that your train is ready and waiting. It matters because of perception. The average Joe is not going to do extensive research. He is going to talk to a few friends, poke around a few forums to see what people are talking about, check out a few ads. If he does not hear anything bad, the price is right, and it looks good, he'll buy it. Or at least that's what I'm doing.... My boss "perceives" I am woking incredibly hard while I discuss the merits of these DCC systems. :? ***********"MRC's "advanced" system is no where near NCE or Digitrax, so they really only have mid range offerings. "***********Fair enough, after taking a much closer at everything out there, Prodigy is a solid MID range system. I shot a little long with the pro ranking. The more I look there is definitely some ni$e stuff out there. Zimo, NCE, Digitrax, Lenz. But, IMHO, the Prodigy surely seems to offer enough functionality for the masses. And it's simple. There are still quite a few people who find email challenging after all.Thanks to all for sharing your knowledge. I'll let you know what I think of the DT400 test run.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Art Luescher:Digitrax has awsome support, I have talked to their tech support people a couple of times, my main problem being some Bachman decoders, which it turns out are fakes in the DCC decoder world, as they are not compliant with the DCC spec.As for the Digitrax users who can't program, can they read? Its in the manual. In fact, I had a club member at a train show wanting to program the volume in his (sound) his loco, and he went from not knowing what a CV is to programming on the DT400 in about 10 minutes. Not hard at all.Lenz's system has a very limited capacity to DO anything with it, as they have an old RS-485 bus and limited I/O. They have little potential for a full signalling/ detection type system. Zimo is not even close to Digitrax, but has serious potential with a true peer to peer bus to go above and beyond even what Digitrax is doing in the future.Yes, I read your post. Has Zimo's current system even been out for that long? How many people have actually applied it on a layout?Like I said, it is not cost effective to make electronics for one section, which is why Locnet's semi decentralized approach works well with wiring nodes that probably also have a booster, or a half of one.In terms of programming loco, there is no need for updates, as there are CVs with values, and not much else to be said about that.In terms of updates for the automation, Digitrax effectively has this, as the logic is all in software on a computer that can be updated, but the command station does only what it needs to do, which is controlling trains, and leaves the rest for the computer to do, essentially independently of the command station, unless it sends a command to a decoder.My system components don't need updates, they already do everything I want them to do. The decoders are simply to have an address, and be speed matched, nothing more. I couldn't care less about tuning motors or all sorts of other strange things. Another question: are the decoders $16 like the Digitrax ones?Actually, most Digitrax users are content with command stations and boosters they bought ten years ago, because Loconet is flexible and can grow, and the newer, better designed throttles have the newer features, but can be used along with older throttles on the same Loconet. In fact, the Chief is so awesome it really hasn't changed since the mid-nineties. The same is pretty much true with NCE, although they have done some minor tweaks to the hardware, and released an EPROM or two to fix some bad bugs.Good to know Zimo hasn't made the same mistake as MRC on the cab bus.The bus isn't the bottleneck in any current radio system, its the FCC. This is true for Zimo as well, as they have to listen to the FCC in the US. What frequency does the radio run on? The Zimo bus probably can't be strung as far as Loconet. Loconet is extremely free-form, as shown by some of the big Ntrak setups that use it.little_zip:Yes, the PDA has some potential, but as a supplement for advanced users, not a replacement for a traditional throttle, as they are $$$$$$$$. They could have some cool apps though, like a car tracking system with a database and RFID scanners around the layout just like the real BNSF uses.The average Joe *should* do some reasearch, although I agree he usually is the average dumb American consumer and just buys, buys, buys without reasearch and planning. They might ask the local club DCC geek, who most likely has twenty different Digitrax products and will recommend Digitrax because he truly beleives in its power, flexiblity, and ease of use.The Zimo stuff is $$$$$, but Digitrax and NCE are well priced.Hope my instructions will be helpful, be sure to find the club Digitrax geek and have him show you around the throttle. You'll pick it up quick, and most of all, be sure to have FUN!! :D:D

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

So, this is the list of disadvantages for MRC thus far:MRC uses nonstandard cab bus panels: Doesn't matter if you are using all MRC throttles. Either way, this doesn't make it a "mid-range" or less feature-rich system, just different.Has an unproven wireless system: this may or may not be true. It is unreleased at this time. The wireless system (technology) could be a very tried and true system that will benefit from the successes and failures of the other companies' systems. We'll have to wait for testing and reviews, although this is an area in which they are behind. This could turn out to be an advantage in the quality of the design since others have exposed the bigger issues.Does not have the same selection of cabs as NCE or Digitrax: The PA/wireless throttles are well designed and fully functional. From what I can gather, a lot of the other available cabs have fewer functions/capabilities, although I'm not sure for what purpose. To save money? Because people find their regular cabs too confusing? Either way, I'm not sure what the advantage is. If you like the MRC cab, then it doesn't really matter if they don't have another option.Does not have any accessories that go above and beyond basic functionality: I'm not sure what you mean by this. For the DCC system I'm concerned about the throttle/command station portion of it. Anything that has a decoder and receives commands is a separate issue for me, and just because somebody makes a good throttle doesn't mean they make a good decoder.There is also no option for a digital encoder, which is offered by both NCE and Digitrax: I'm not sure what is meant by this at all.In any event, I still have not seen anything in regards to the features of the command station/throttle that limits the MRC system. The MRC throttles allow you to program any/all CVs.Depending on which of the two throttles, they allow you to access all 18 NMRA defined functions.They have an easy-to-use, walkaround form factor.Wireless and PC-link are current shortcomings that are being addressed in the near future.What can you do with an NCE or Digitrax (or Zimo, etc) that you can't do with MRC. What is it missing? What is simply just a different implementation (for example, how to create a consist). Of the missing features, how many people actually implement or use them if they have another system?Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

rghammill:Of course you have to be using all MRC throttles, as they don't work with any other system or visa-versa. The point is, it is much more expensive to equip a walkaround layout with a nonstandard system. And yes, RJ45 IS a standard in computer networking, but not in DCC.There is no question that the wireless is unrpoven right now. It hasn't even been released. Just because a technology has been used before is irrelavant, because it could be implemented in a better or a worse way in the MRC system.The main reason for the other throttles is to same money, but some people want a different type of control, or want kids to have throttles without screens or settings. Personally, I just use the DT400s with Digitrax, as I don't like the limits of the UT4 throttles.NCE and Digitrax have thrid party or in house accessories like input devices, turnout decoders, fast clocks, and other stuff that often connects right to the proprietary cab bus, which MRC does not have.Does MRC have a digital encoder? In this case it wouldn't have a potentiometer, which would be a problem still. Digitrax has encoders on the DT400, and a pot on the UT4, which NCE has an encoder on the ProCab, but has the option of a pot or an encoder on the Cab04. NCE also has the best pushbuttons, with the ProCab. Some people like pots, some like encoders. I like encoders, as they are quite precise, and can be used with stack recall without speed jumps like a pot.MRC is simply not a well expanable system, and I have never heard of a large installation that proves its reliability and scalaiblity. I have, however, heard of big clubs who use NCE and big clubs who use Digitrax. MRC uses proprietary connectors, has an interface that is a cheap knock off of NCE, and has a very limited product line. If you want an NCE-like system, why not get a PH-Pro from NCE? It has many more accessories and expandability than MRC, and uses normal connectors. It also has the real NCE interface, not a cheap knock-off of it. NCE is also adding stuff rapidly, as they are in a big competition with Digitrax, and Digitrax keeps rolling out new sound decoders and all kinds of cool stuff to get back. I don't know about NCE, but Digitrax is selling the stuff faster than they can make it, thats how popular it is.Digitrax and NCE are also DCC companies, whereas MRC is really a power pack company who has attempted to make a dumbed-down DCC system thats not dumbed down, but is a knock off of another company's interface, thats not fully developed, which seems to be a poor attempt to gain a peice of the market that is moving away from DC and their Tech II and Tech IV power packs.Also, the MRC users tend to not be very sophisticated DCC users, so there is not a lot of knowledge and support of the system's hardware out there. On the other hand, there are many people who are really into Digitrax, and who have figured out things about the system, and know nearly everything about the system (more than any manufacturer would ever tell like undocumented future expansion opsw's, and ways to avoid buying Digitrax panels and supplies but have Loconet power that is independent of the command station), and even ways to do great little "hacks" to it. NCE also has some enthusiasts, but MRC doesn't. This is important if you ever want to do more than the bare minimum, and you need some help. There are many local Digitrax enthusiasts just about everywhere, and in some places there are NCE entusiasts as well, and Digitrax has a very active Yahoo! group, with many true system experts talking about solutions to problems that their unique layout configurations cause.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

NYNH&H said ...Zimo is not even close to Digitrax...Like I said, it is not cost effective to make electronics for one section, which is why Locnet's semi decentralized approach works well with wiring nodes that probably also have a booster, or a half of one.In terms of programming loco, there is no need for updates, as there are CVs with values, and not much else to be said about that.In terms of updates for the automation, Digitrax effectively has this, as the logic is all in software on a computer that can be updated, but the command station does only what it needs to do, which is controlling trains, and leaves the rest for the computer to do, essentially independently of the command station, unless it sends a command to a decoder.My system components don't need updates, they already do everything I want them to do. The decoders are simply to have an address, and be speed matched, nothing more. I couldn't care less about tuning motors or all sorts of other strange things. Another question: are the decoders $16 like the Digitrax ones?OK NYNH&H Are you really that narrow minded and ignorant? I tried real hard not to step on any other products and be as objective as possible presenting facts that you can double check.But every feature/function that ZIMO offers exclusively, most of them you most likely never heard of until today, you counter with no-good, just adds to the cost, useless, stupid people that want password protection, RS232 port is obsolete although I just explained to you that ZIMO uses a CAN bus for computer applications 8 times faster than your beloved Loconet (you never realized that the RS232 was added for the obsolete stuff you�re used to), first you claim that centralization of commands is no good and when I explained to you that ZIMO offers both, centralized and decentralized (shared depending on the way you set the system up and the kind of decision to be made) you turn around and say �Oh god, things making autonomous decisions without the computer's help. That is a recipie for trouble� (although you never had a chance to find out for yourself!), then, and this is a really good one, after claiming that there is nothing out there more advanced than Digitrax and that ZIMO doesn't even come close to Digitrax, you go on record stating that updates are for the birds and �In fact, the Chief is so awesome it really hasn't changed since the mid-nineties.� You must be kidding right? No seriously this is hilarious Awesome? Mid-nineties? Doesn�t that make it kind of obsolete compared to, well, what the competition offers today, like ZIMO Well, obviously you�re happy with old technology that, according to you, never requires any new features, ergo no updates required and that�s fine; your choice. But the real (offensive) clincher is your last line (at least to anyone not residing in the USA), not being able to talk to the dude that designed ZIMO. I�m not sure, but didn�t you guys invent the telephone? And that thing you keep (ab)using, the keyboard, it can also be used for emails. And this may come as a surprise to you but we have that in Canada too and even in Europe! So what�s holding you up from talking to that dude?Although, I�m not so sure that dude would want to talk to you either especially with an attitude that comes through loud and clear that �if it ain�t made in the USA it can�t be any good�. Here is some free advice you might want to consider. Forums are here for the good of the community, so that people can ask questions and may learn something in the process. I tried to give you answers to questions regarding a DCC system that offers features that are just not available with Digitrax. Rather than keep repeating that there is nothing more advanced out there than Digitrax (although proven different) and putting down immediately every feature you are not familiar with, you may want to take some time out and think first. This is the way we learn, although not the only way, it is your choice to learn by ignorance and mistakes.It is now time for me to bow out of this fruitless discussion. Anyone open-minded enough and not afraid to learn about more advanced DCC components is free to ask more questions or contact me direct or visit the ZIMO forum. Regards,Art Luescher (a real dude with an actual name attached )ZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Art Luescher:First of all, you took my quote about Zimo and Digitrax completely out of context. After I said, "Zimo is not even close to Digitrax" I said, " but has serious potential with a true peer to peer bus to go above and beyond even what Digitrax is doing in the future." As in, I am staying tuned to see if Zimo can get the costs in control and offer a system that is comparable in cost to NCE or Digitrax, while adding new features that Digitrax doesn't have. The future looks promising for DCC, Zimo included.I was not saying that the functions are completely useless, they are quite neat, but they are not worth it if the system costs 3x as much as its competitors. Zimo will be a very attractive system if it can get in line with the pricing scheme of DCC, which is shared by Digitrax, NCE, Lenz and CVP to a certain extent through free market competition.How was the RS-232C port added for obsolete stuff? Are you saying computer control is obsolete? Computer control is the only way to do full signalling and CTC. On the other hand, simple timed signals can be done without a computer and aren't protoypical, but are quite cool nonetheless...My point about Digitrax is that it does not NEED updates, as it doesn't try to do more than run trains. The rest is left to a cheap and flexible computer system. It shouldn't be terrifically funny. In fact, the NMRA DCC spec is essentially the same as it was in 1994, except I think they added 4 more function (f9-f12) which is why DCC decoders from back then are compatible with systems from now and visa-versa. Digitrax has, however, improved the throttles significanly from their older throttles, making them way more user friendly.I don't think that would be offensive. If I lived in Europe, I would probably say the same thing about Digitrax or NCE, as they are in the US. If I was in Europe, I would probably be a lot more inclined to buy Zimo, as it seems to have a much bigger precence there. I still probably wouldn't buy Lenz. The telephone and keyboard don't have a whole lot to do with this discussion, as they are common and widespread devices, unlike a particular DCC system.I am perfectly familiar with amperage meters. We have them at my modular club, and people always put papers over them, and use that part of the control panel as a shelf for more junk or for a throttle that isn't being used, becuase no one ever looks at the meters with DC OR DCC. They might be cool, but the cost should be a bigger factor than having dozens of cool features that don't really add to the DCC experience, as most people are on a budget, and have to do a cost/benefit analysis of systems, and look at what features are great features, and which ones are like the glowy lights in tricked out computers: really cool, but not very useful.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Well I had the opportunity to test the DT300 today. A useable throttle, just not appealing. I managed to figure out the function stuff but apparently forgot to get a number for the appropriate CV I need to set for the marker lights so didn't get to check that out. I found it interseting that the club has had this for at least 5 years and there is still no club geek. In fact, I was not even able to get a "hands on" feel for using the system because they are so intimidated by it that one does not dare step out of the box during a meet. People pacing, warning, advising. Crazy stuff man. "There is an expert on the north side who can help you if you want to do any of that". Wow. And these are well educated men mind you.I did get the opportunity to sit through a seminar on the Digitrax signaling system. Pretty cool stuff. I found it ironic that the speaker listed as one of the required materials, lots of wire and connectors. Isn't the simplification of wiring one of the key selling points of DCC? Neat stuff. Powerful too. The JMRI software is pretty slick stuff for free. I would love to have a computer generated CTC panel displayed on a widescreen flat panel TV in the DS office. That would be impressive..I also found out that a semi-local hobby shop has an NCE Power Cab in stock so I am going to have to check that out. But mostly just for curiosity since it appears to be designed as strictly a tethered unit.One thing this discussion has done is help me clarify in my mind what I am hoping to gain from DCC. These are "must haves" in the initial system or I may as well stick with DC cabs and Blocks and 0-5-0 things around when I get into an traffic jam. My pike is simple and still temporary. When it is permanent it likely won't make the pages of Great Layouts so the investment in a "full featured" system is just too hard to justify. I want to be able to focus on learning about railroading in 1958 and to create that feel as (if) people see my layout. My interest is in modeling and history not high-tech automation. I want the control of my trains as I develope my "operations" to be as transparent as possible. I do not want to spend hours managing it. As much as I hate to be limited by it, price is critical. I'll spare the details of my life, but family first, second, and soon to be third. Trains if there is any time and money left. That means MY short list for a system is (still):1. Wireless - MRC yes NCE yes Digi yes2. Simplicity - MRC yes NCE yes Digi no3. Price - MRC yes NCE no Digi noFor me personally, it looks like I still have not found a reason not to go with the MRC. I'll take a chance on the wireless technology this time. I'll report back on my opinion of the wireless when I get it. Thanks all.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

little_zip:The DT300 is not terrifically appealing, and that is probably why you didn't have a great experience with Digitrax. The current throttle, the DT400, is MUCH better, and very easy to use, unlike the somewhat geek-tastic DT300. You should find somewhere that has a 400, and try it out. It is a great throttle, very similar in functionality to the NCE ProCab. It has the same sea-of-buttons effect to allow quick access to any function, unlike the DT300's eight-button sequences to actually do anything. Digitrax also offers the UT4 for basic operations, which I *think* is the cheapest throttle on the market for a DCC system, it is under $70, $99 for the radio version. I personally want the full system throttle, so I love the DT400. It is interesting that the club has no in house geek, I know the one from a local club, and he is the go-to guy for that club's layout and modular layout in terms of wiring, some contruction, and DCC. He is a Digitrax expert and long time system user.That signalling system is as simple as it can be, as it has to have separate blocks for train detection, and boards to drive the signals. Digitrax's system is pretty much as simple as it gets as far as signalling, because everything connects to Loconet, which is the throttle and booster bus. In the future, RFID sensing might change this. A system without signalling is much simpler, basically just two busses, maybe train blocks for tail light bulb protection or power districts with a Tony's PowerShield. If you are only having two or three operators, you can actually just wire the whole thing with two wires, as a short wouldn't be that annoying in that case. If you compare cab control, which has less functionality to a basic DCC system, the DCC is wiring is MUCH simpler. If you compare cab control to a signalled DCC system, the wiring is only a little bit simpler, but it is a whole dimension more of functionality in terms of CTC and signalling. JMRI is neat, they have AWESOME hardware support. Some people use it to bridge a C/MRI and Digitrax system, with one doing input, the other output, or whatnot.Another point I should mention if you have walkaround DC throttles now, or even tethered ones, if that the Digitrax Zephyr comes with two "jump" ports, where you can hook up DC throttles (as long as they are not run off of the same PSU, as they are essentially wired common rail), and use them as DCC throttles, to get you over the hump and into DCC. Adding phone panels for throttles is about $5 per jack, and the cheapie throttles are $70. If price is that big of a deal, the Zephyr isby far the best choice on the market. Otherwise, the NCE PH-Pro would be a good choice to get the *REAL* look and feel of NCE. It is $430 with PSU, you might be able to get one cheap used.A bunch of people on The Gauge talked about how easy the Zephyr is to use, I don't really know as I have very little experience with it. I use mine as a booster/ command station, and I do literally EVERYTHING on the DT400, so I can wander around and program. The Zephyr is $160, and with the capability to have 10 cabs, it is the best value in the DCC market.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I still don't see how an extra $10 per panel is going to make a difference in the overal price of the system.On Tony's I've priced 3 systems, each with 5 walk-around throttles (with LCDs - no crippled throttles), with a panel for each. In reality, these three are considered the top-of-the-line models for each brand, as far as I can tell.The PowerCab was not considered because it seems that you can't unplug the PowerCab itself to follow your train from panel-to-panel. You would have to use a second throttle to do that. I also am not sure if you can add more than one additional throttle without upgrading to the Power Pro system. It also doesn't appear to have a wireless upgrade path without getting the Power Pro anyway.The Zephyr was not considered because it doesn't have an LCD and it is not a walk-around form factor. If you wanted to start with the Zephyr, you would need an additional DT400 throttle as well. This works out to be about $50 less expensive than the Super Chief, so that would be one way to go, and it would basically put the NCE and Digitrax neck-and-neck as far as price is concerned. With the configuration stated (5 LCD, walk-around throttles) I don't see any way that you can come close to Prodigy's combination of price and features.Prodigy Express wasn't considered out of fairness to the others Really, the limitations are small, in that the throttle is missing a fast clock, yard mode, routing, and handles only advanced consisting and 16 functions. In addition, the PE is upgradeable to use PA and wireless. If you chose to start with the PE, then you save over $100. In reality, the largest limitation of the PE is the 1.6 amp booster. Adding a more powerful booster later eliminates this savings, so in the end I'd recommend the Advance system to start.MRC (all Prodigy Advance) $709.75 (using the more expensive, powered panels. with only 5 cabs you could use the regular panels and save $40).NCE (Power Pro) $953.55Digitrax (Super Chief) $1009.30Here are the price lists:MRC Prodigy Wireless $449.95 Wireless Upgrade $217.50 Prodigy Advance $259.95 Prodigy Advance Cab $74.95 Prodigy Advance Wireless Cab $189.99 List price, not on Tony's yet Extension Plate $25.50 Powered Extension Plate $37.50 3.5 amp Booster $116.95 NCE 3 amp Booster $54.95 Needs Power Supply, works with any DCC system 5 amp Booster $124.95 Needs Power Supply Power Pro $389.95 Power Pro Wireless $545.95 Panel $15.95 Pro Cab Wireless Throttle $194.95 ProCab Throttle $124.95 Wireless base station $124.95 Wireless Repeater $101.95 Wireless upgrade $79.95 Doesn't include base station Power Supply $30.00 Digitrax Chief $349.50 No power supply Wireless Chief $499.95 No power supply DT400 Throttle $139.00 DT400 wireless $179.00 Wireless receiver $114.95 5 amp booster $226.00 No power supply Power Supply $40 These items were not considered due to various limitations:MRC Prodigy Express $138.95 No Yard mode, fast clock, routing Prodigy Express Cab $67.50 No Yard mode, fast clock, routingNCE PowerCab $139.95 See above for why this wasn't considered PowerCab Panel $19.95 Smart Booster $77.95 Intermediate Cab $71.95 No LCD Intermediate Cab $97.95 Includes Yard Mode, and recall, No LCD Intermediate Wireless cab $164.95 No LCDDigitrax Zephyr $159.95 Includes power supply, no LCD or walk-around Empire Builder $274.95 No decoder read-back, No power supply Wireless Empire $439.95 No decoder read-back, No power supply Basic Throttle $64.95 no LCD Basic wireless throttle $99.95 no LCDThe bottom line for me remains the same. I don't see any significant features (really, no features that I plan to use) missing from the Prodigy. I like the NCE consisting a bit better, but otherwise they all have the same basic feature-set. MRC is obviously less expensive.Even the wireless will come in a bit less expensive (I don't know how much Tony will discount the wireless throttle, but the other MRC stuff is consistently discounted 25% which would put the wireless throttle at about $143.)Sure, you could pay less for cheaper throttles on NCE or Digitrax, but in that case the $67 Prodigy Express is far more feature rich than the $65 Digitrax or $71 NCE. The only features that the PE is missing from the advance is routing (switch macros), a fast clock, yard mode, universal (old-style consisting), and only handles 16 functions. The others are more limited, and don't have an LCD. Personally, I won't consider a throttle without an LCD. Digitrax does appear to have the least expensive wireless throttle option (as NY pointed out). However, it still doesn't have an LCD.And even if you buy the most expensive MRC panel ($37 for the powered version if using more than 5 throttles), the price comes in less expensive per throttle/panel combination ($155 for Digitrax, $140 for NCE, $112 or $102 for MRC).Assuming you needed a whole bunch more panels, but 5 throttles was enough, the $10-$20 difference in MRC panels means that you'd have to add 10-25 additional panels to your layout before the Prodigy becomes more expensive. That sounds like a good time to consider wireless...Randy

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

I use the Zephyr with UT4R throttles. I have not needed a Dt400Ralph

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Trying to get a defective UR91 radio receiver replaced by Digitrax. They have sent me three bad ones in a row. Is this very bad luck or do they have some quality control problems? Does anyone know?

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Ralph:My sense is they have quality control problems now and then, and especially lately. I've gotten a rash of bad decoders from them and as a result have stopped buying Digitrax decoders.I'm finding I now prefer Lenz or NCE decoders over Digitrax. Two years ago Digitrax was at the top of the list, but the recent quality control issues got me looking elsewhere.For what it's worth ...

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

GM said ...To Art: #2Thanks for your reply. Zimo really has an interesting system. I will wait till summer to look over the mini system. You said this will have the same functionality correct? Thanks again.Yes it does. It won't of course deliver 8 amps to the track but still a respectable 3 amps without an extra booster. We will have it at the ZIMO booth in July at the NMRA show in Detroit but the unit should be out sometimes in June.Regards,ArtZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

To Art: #2Thanks for your reply. Zimo really has an interesting system. I will wait till summer to look over the mini system. You said this will have the same functionality correct? Thanks again.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

To Art:Any Zimo dealers in the Chicago area?

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

GM said ...To Art:Any Zimo dealers in the Chicago area?All ZIMO dealers are listed on the ZIMO web site. The English site is currently under construction but you should still be able to access the dealer page: http://www.zimo.at/web2007/index2.htmClick on the tabs "Service" and "dealer list" and scroll all the way down.If you have a favorite dealer you like to deal with, get him to contact me.Regards,ArtZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

denny,Great point! I assume you are referencing the legality of radio bands, 2.4ghz being legal worldwide, with 900mhz only being legal in some parts of the world. That was the idea of Lenz's phone throttles, although a 2.4ghz system would solve this issue completely.What features would this new throttle have? Would there be two versions? It looks like the new CVP throttle (sadly 900mhz just like the others) has ops mode programming, stack recall and maybe consisting?Personally, I would want this new system to have bases for Lenz/Atlas, CVP, NCE/Systemone/Ramtraxx, and for Digitrax. It would be a true universal throttle. I think it would be beneficial if the system had two types of throttles, one really basic, with a potentiometer, and costing only $100, and one that can do ops mode, consisting, stack recall, and has an encoder for $200. Base station for $99.A great way to keep the cost down would be to have the throttles run on AAA batteries, like CVP's throttles do now, but put a pair of charing contacts and circuitry in to the throttle, so that if used with an NiMH battery, the throttle would become a trickle charger. They could sell a multi-throttle charger with wall wart for recharging them.Thoughts?

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

GM,Although not a local dealer, it looks like Tony's Trains is going to stock Zimo systems, they already stock Zimo decoders. I think they carry everything that is sellable in North America except CVP, which only sells direct to customers.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Art, I can't read the German (5 years there, but it was a long time ago), but it's pretty obvious that Zimo knows that their website is atrocious in Firefox.... I hope they've got fixing that set as a fairly high priority.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

JeffShultz said ...Art, I can't read the German (5 years there, but it was a long time ago), but it's pretty obvious that Zimo knows that their website is atrocious in Firefox.... I hope they've got fixing that set as a fairly high priority. Hi Jeff.Did you go to the English site? It is far from perfect but still has a lot of information. They are aware of the problems and are working on it. For starters they want to get rid of the flash content, which is what most users seem to have difficulties with.Regards,ArtZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Art, I couldn't even get to the English site in Firefox, as elements of the German site covered up the link to the English one....

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

In Firefox 1.5.0.10 under WinXP SP2 fully patched I was able to get to the English site, and look at the product catalog. YMMV. FF 2.0.x.x may be different.There is some interesting stuff, that hopefully will ooze over to the heavy hitters in America. I was disappointed, however, to see that the radio is in the same problematic band as Digitrax, CVP, and NCE. It seems like a mistake that has already been done three times. If Zimo had 2.4ghz wireless with a good range, that could be the selling point.On a sort of not really related note, it says on Lenz's website that they are working to be interoperable with NCE's system, which should only need a command station EPROM update, although I think this was a while ago, as they refer to Wangrow and RamTraxx. It would be great if the two systems were interoperable, so [almost] everyone would either be on RS-485 or Loconet, as CVP already supports both Lenz and NCE with their wireless throttles, although only Lenz in the latest generation.On that same point, it seems like Zimo, and even CVP should make radio bases/ throttles for Loconet. Even though Digitrax's system is by far the leading system, both in marketshare and technology, their radio system still leaves a LOT to be desired. As the throttles are the most abundant item to be sold in a system, there is the most money in throttles, and Zimo or CVP could sell wireless throttles to hardcore Digitrax users like me who would never, ever consider switching to a non-LocoNet system, and to people who use it with a club system, or to Ntrak/Free-mo clubs who have to use LocoNet. If it was 2.4GHZ with an actual 300 foot range, it would sell like MAD, as modular groups and large clubs have terrible issues with 900mhz radio throttles. Heck, I'd buy a LocoNet Zimo throttle if it was at 2.4 ghz, had the same rechargable system Zimo has now, and sold with both throttle and receiver for $300. This Loconet market is probably 10X as big as any smaller player (CVP), or relative newcomer (Zimo) can expect to have with their own system.Back to Zimo, the idea of an interface to wifi is pretty cool. This can currently be done with KAM Industries' software, although they are a pretty bad company. The direct interface is a neat idea, as it would not require a laptop to work. On this same note, however, if creating a non- KAM peice of software for Palms to interface with a DCC command station through a computer would be pretty cool.Edit: Clarity

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

That "same problematic band" that everyone is in is that way for one reason: it's unlicensed. You want to try an license a chunk of spectrum all over the US, be my guest.... I suspect that 2.4ghz or the newest, 5.8ghz equipment is significantly more expensive. It should also have more line of sight issues. I don't mind 900mhz though - my phone is 5.8 and my wireless lan is 2.4 - no conflicts there.

Re: DCC University (was: MRC DCC)

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 10:00:00 -0600

Oh - and I wouldn't mind seeing CVP come out with a receiver that would work with the Digitrax UT-4R. Seems like a nice basic throttle there.