OK, here's a question that will put a different light on DCC. If money was no object what radio DCC system would you buy and what decoders would you use; if possible please explain why. Thank You
Hi Always a tricky question in some ways, as I don't think the money aspect has much to do with it. Personally I am aiming for my ideal system anyway, even if it takes me longer to get there I model in N-scale, so I think that has a major bearing on any decisions I make. Currently my system is a Lenz 100, with Lenz 90 controller for driving with.. a CTI system linked to this with a Lenz LI101F computer interface for all my switch controls, train detection and signalling needs and Decoder Pro for all my programming needs. Finally, its also important to me to have systems which are to standards as I see this whole standards thing assuming more and more relevance as time goes by and new manufacturers get into the field as costs become less prohibitive. Lets start in reverse with decoders. For me the primary requirement is back-emf or equivalent as 80% of my layout is on a grade somewhere. Additionally, I only ever have a need for a basic 2 function decoder since lights fromt and back are the only things other than the motor which I control. At the moment, my decoder of choice is the TCS M1 and it fulfills all my requirements at a price I would want to afford. For Atlas locos of the majority of types I use, I use the Digitrax DN163A0 as a swap board, even if its Plug and Play moniker needs a few tweaks in my mind to get reliability.. such as soldering wires between the motor contacts and the contact pads on the decoder. (Having said that, based on the performance of the TCS M1's and their warranty, as opposed to Digitrax's warranty, if TCS came out with an Atlas board replacement decoder to the same spec as the M1, I would change instantly For radio throttles, the question is much more difficult, and probably esoteric to each individual user. Personally I like big knob throttles, like the Lenz 90, and theres no radio option like that currently available. Also it would have to be something that is useable in multiple countries (Canada and Europe) so that lets out Digitrax and most others that have a radio throttle solution. The nearest to my ideal at the moment is the Lenz with Ce system, using existing wireless networks with wireless network technology, but a palm unit dosn't have a big knob to drive with In my mind, I already have my ideal system, except no radio control, which I haven't missed as yet. Now if Lenz were to bring in an adaptor unit that allowed a Lenz 90 to use internet wireless 802 protocol communicating to the computer directly, then I would be very interested Not sure if this answers your questions, but thats my ideal
For me, if money was no object, I'd fully expand what I plan. What I mean is I would include full computer controlled signalling, transponding, etc. What I plan to do is a Digitrax based system that will be radio throttles right from the start. I think as time and money permit, I may make every turnout switch-motor controlled with a Digitrax controller. While I will plan for signalling, it will take time to implement. So, the "money is no object" question does not change what system I will buy (Digitrax), it will only affect the breadth of what I will implement.
Morning All, After attending a class in decoders a couple of weeks ago, I will put Digitrax decoders in my locos from now on. I only have 2 locoswith decoders now and I don't plan to put them in every loco unless "money becomes no object". The main reason for useing only Digitrax is because they are LAN based. All of the other decoders (the way I understand it) on the market are polling. The LAN base decoders and all of the outside devices talk to each other, where the polling decoders must look at each device one at a time. It does not take a degree in computers to figure out which one will work better for me Thats my two cents worth on the subject. Shannon WP LIVES ATSF LIVES
I'm perfectly happy with my Lenz 100 system with 3 LH 100 handheld devices and one wireless cellphone hooked up with XPA. I don't need a radio controlled system as the JJJ&E is not an expansive layout. I also use my old Lenz 01 Professional for a second power district. The LV 101 is wired to the LZV100 and can be controlled with the LH 100 handhelds as well. I like to use Lenz 521W decoders for the most part in all my hardwired loco's, mainly steamers. I do on occasion use the Digitrax DZ143 for certain situations. For most Atlas diesels I use the DN 163AO. Fore Kato diesels , I use the Digitrax Plug N' Play decoders that fit the loco's. For Kato Mikado's I use the Lenz 1025JST with harness which is an HO decoder. I've installed this decoder in all eight of my Kato Mikado's. Stay cool and run steam.....
Hi Shannon Please explain I don't understand what you mean about the decoder being Lan based. If you mean that the Loco-net system is a Lan and needs no additional feedback bus then surely any decoder that can be polled (ie all of them) are equally capable of being "LAN based" If you are just talking Transponding, then yes, at this stage you will only be able to use Transponding decoders from Digitrax, since this is proprietary technology that only Digitrax owns and may, someday, be replaced by the new NMRA bi-directional proposals.
If decoders weren't all based on the same protocol, then they wouldn't interoperate on the same layout. Or is this in reference to some proprietary transponding technology we're discussing?
I think it is the system that is lan or polling, however you need a really large system before a polling system becomes bogged down. I think it is one of those, how many fairies can dance on the head of the needle debates - and yes, I own Digitrax. It isn't the system that is important as long as it is expandible, but whay you would make the system do with all that money, that would be the issue for me. I would: 1) run signals in the modern era 2) have a dedicated computer to program the engines with something like decoderpro 3) I might also be running a program like railroad & company to run the layout or part of the layout electronically, like trains moved out of staging or into staging by the computer 4) Animation controlled by the computer 5) lighting controlled by the computer 6) Fast clock if used controlled by the computer 7) all wireless, with an exception here and there 8) computer generated ops scheduled 9) computer recording of rolling stock 10) multi camera layout withdispatch room with monitors receiving input in the dispatch room running ctc 11) possibly even a distant dispatcher running part of the layout ( a handicapped person in another state or country) 12) Doesn't exist yet - a computer program that pin points electrical problems on the layout 12) Computer running synchronized sound throughout the layout I'm sure I've left something out.
Hi Rick Good to see you back This is the one I want The rest of your list, apart from 8, 9 and the faultfinding 12 I already do, but the sound one would be the crowning glory I know Soundtraxx is doing something, but I understand it is based on Digitrax Transponding, which is a problem for me, so I may have to wait and see what it really needs to drive it. The system I have already monitors what loco is where, so I don't want to replace all my decoders and have to setup a loconet just to do the sound when I am sure something will be along sometime Regards
Rick. Does exist for many years already: ZIMO/STP indicates on screen where a short circuit is. Regards, Art Zimo Agency of North America http://www.mrsonline.net/
Graham, Transponding is what I mean. The guy who gave the class is one of these big time computer nerds. So he explained the way he knew best. I also have heard about Soundtrax. But I do not know much about it yet. The only thing I am sure of is my Digitrax locos work on a friend of mines Lenz layout. Shannon WP LIVES ATSF LIVES
For me it would be and already is an NCE system. I was lucky and my LHS has almost all of the currently avaliable DCC systems on display for the old touchy feely deal. After using all of them NCE was hands down the best. The CAB is really the reason none of the twist this then push that button 3 times and then push that stuff. The cab is clean easy to read with 2 full lines of text. They support all of the DCC protocols and newest trick stuff. They also send out "free" upgrades when they are avaliable. I now have 2 of their systems the old "teathered" cab and the new radio version. I can understand why some one would buy one of the less expensive sets but my NCE system has been a joy. I can hook it to a computer if needed so you asked and NCE is it for me. Steve
The best DCC system is the one that meets you needs today and has room for growth as technology becomes available. For me I have a Digitrax Zephyr system and right now it works for me. I'm sure; as I become use to the features it offers I will search out for more features, such as signaling and turnout controls, wireless throttles. A system that could synchronized the sound through out an entire layout that would be a dream come true. In fact at this time I’m looking at sound decoders for several of my engines. When you go buy an engine for your layout that works fine with a basic decoder and you are happy cause you have a working engine on your layout. Then you run across the must have prototype engine that you feel has to have all the bells & whistles. I hope your DCC system can accommodate the new engine. I look forward to the day when I reduce the role of my Zephyr to that of a secondary power source, which would mean that I have expanded my system to a larger one. If I remember my computerese correctly a network that polls sends a message to all deceives on the network at the same time and a LAN only sends the message to a specific device. I think it would be great to live in a world that money is not a concern our layouts would either be the size of large barns and there would be a lot more prototypical railroads out there. The fallen flags would not have fallen.
I'm afraid the use of terms like LAN and polling in the context of current DCC systems is probably techo-babble. Rather like "my car has 16 valves and fuel injection". Great, but does it actually matter in the real world? LAN usually means Local Area Network, meaning wiring that is isolated in some way from the rest of the world. There are a host of protocols that can work on a LAN, and many work alongside others at the same time. Every DCC system is a LAN . Polling is normally where a master system (eg. base station) sends a message to each connected device in turn, usually to request information. This would be used in two way decoder comms. Most of the time decoders are sent an instruction only, such as a new speed, but the base station doesn't actually know if it has been received. (It is usually repeated to be more sure.) But in both cases the master controls the communications. Once you start letting devices 'talk to each other' without a master, things can get quite hairy . Unlike chatting at a party, on a network only one device can transmit at a time (successfully) so various ploys must be adopted to ensure this - you start to hear terms like "collision detection" and "tokens". So you don't want to allow this without a good reason; and right now I can't think of why decoder A would need to talk to decoder B? Or to be more exact, why would decoder A need to talk to decoder B without the base station needing to be involved somehow? As Brett implies all the (serious) systems being discussed are NMRA based and largely interoperable. So any manufacturer specific functions must be added on top of the NMRA functions and therefore will almost certainly add to the load on the network. (But this is only a problem when the load on the system gets high enough to noticeably affect reponse times.) The catch is that they might not be compatible with future NMRA standards, so I'd be hesitant to be an early adopter of such systems. End of and being OT too
I tend to favor the products I know. Since I started with NCE, I like NCE. It has a very intuitive interface. I will add radio throttles sometime in the future, as four tethered throttles are a nuisance. I got the tethered throttles because my wife gave me a budget. Then I would like a really slick computer interface--they may be out there, but I haven't had time to look and study. Back in the mid-70s, I built a computer-controlled HO layout for a computer company. It ran four trains on a 4 x 12 platform. I wrote the program in Assembly language, of all things. But those skills are 30 years gone, and I have no desire to resurrect them. I want to be able to put my layout drawing into a computer (and I do still have the skills to develop the drawing to standards), and plug my DCC control box into the computer, and have the computer show me where every loco is--graphically. And I don't want a sensor every foot along 800 feet of track. It should be possible to locate a transponder in an engine pretty precisely with some interferometric techniques (i.e., basically sending the same signal out and comparing differences in the response). Perhaps these capabilities are already here? I don't know. But if spending were not a limit, I'd commission someone to do it.
If money was no object, I'd junk them all. First off, while Digitrax did good with loconet, Ethernet should be the standard. Everything over IP, I say. This would allow better computer integration, and standards based access for all devices. It would add a bit to the cost at this point, but not too much. Also, things like 802.11 just work at that point. So, I'd build new gear working on ethernet. Second, for radio I'd find a way to offer a much higher powered option. I want 2 mile access. You say, why would you need that? Well, look at the capitol limited, add in interfearance, and boom, you need 2 mile access in a clear field to make it all work with a single receiver. Third, I'd add SNMP as a standard offering on all gear. I like to track simple problems. How many times did a track segment short? How many locos passed a point? What was the maximum current draw? Instrument everything, make it available via a standard protocol. That said, I think Digitrax is the best (large) system on the market today. Lenz has a very nice system as well. I have no decoder preference, if they do what you want it's all good.
Agree with Pete. I'd stick w/ something I am familiar with and like. I have a Digitrax Super Empire. The only mod I'd make (And I am planning on doing within the upcoming year) is to convert it to radio control. Or, if the money works out, trade my system in on a new Super Empire radio controlled. As for decoders, I would stick w/ units that allow me the most versatile operation.. such as load compensation, etc. But then again, if money is no problem.. you'll eventually wind up w/ what you want. That is a "nice problem"
If money were no object, I'd get the devolpment of our current engineering project finished at Kingdom Hobbies. The result would be the availability of a true two-way commercial throttle system, using secure transmission frequencies that are already licensed and have essentially limitless channels, offer the ability to use not only our upcoming 2-way wireless throttles but also convert any manufacturer's Loconet-compatable throttle to full 2-way functionality with simple plug-in add-on modules, and all at a price that beats the full-featured, 1-way radio throttles on the market today. We're close (and I get to play with one already!) but we're not close enough to announce yet. The system also has several other key features that DCC users have been waiting for, but describing them would give away too much about the technology we're developing. Ahh, but for unlimited funds to payroll a half dozen additional electronic engineers! Oh well, back to reality.
