DCC Systems

[sundayniagara]

Lenz! Best support and best warranty.
Mark

[AntonioFP45]

Have been researching and asking questions. For beginners, ease of operation and expandability the Digitraxx Zephyr system is very popular. My closest friend just purchased one and let me operate his locomotives. I was very impressed! (I am electronically challenged!). Once you get through the basics, it's pretty easy to understand.

For DCC questions and up to date info, check out Litchfield Station on the web. Pretty good site!

[nfmisso]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNlover1

I have a 10x10 foot layout in progress. I am planning on using Digitrax. The most operators I will have at one time is three. Probably no more than 7 locos at one time. Would the Zephyr system be a good choice for me?
Reed

Yes

[Anonymous]

I would recommend the lenz set-100 to anyone, spend the little extra, get the best to start off. later add a LH90 to it.

Lenz gives you the best warrenty (a 10 year compared to the others 1 year), the best customer support, even has a Yahoo group that is visited daily by the US represenitive of lenz (Yahoo group ID: DigitalPlusbyLenz), she is very knowledgeble and very friendly.

The system is state of the art, built to handle future enhancesments rather than having to buy new systems (in fact their old Set-01's from the early 90's are still running with new software that brings them up to the current set-100's code), occassionally a chip replacement might be needed, but that is minor and rare.

Lenz is cutting edge and pushing the envelope, Buy a lenz and be happy for life, or by another and be happy for a few years.

jay.

[aluesch]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chadnark

QUOTE: Originally posted by rsn48

The two big players are Digitrax and Lenz. Digitrax is number one in North America, Lenz is number one in Europe. Both are very good systems, either will bring a smile to your face. Although I own Digitrax, I'm beginning to think Zimo is the best (I'm interested in computer run trains) but it is pricey. Atlas is Lenz.

What is it about zimo that is better so far as computer/automation is concerned?
thanks

The most outstanding features

ZIMO offers many advantages (like powerful start sets, wireless cabs, supersonic decoders, etc.), but there are two outstanding features, which make the big difference between ZIMO systems and all other digital systems:

Both, the "signal controlled speed influence" and the "loco number identification" have been used for many years in ZIMO systems . When using the complete ZIMO system (command station, cabs, modules, decoders) you can benefit from the special ZIMO features: the "signal controlled speed influence" which stops trains in front of red signals or applies speed limits on certain track sections depending on actual circumstances of operation, the "section controlled function influence" which automatically operates selected functions of an assigned locomotive at specified places of a layout and ZIMO's bidirectional communication for loco and accessory decoders, which is able to send back information from the decoders to the command station and modules (used for improvement of DCC bandwidth), loco number identification, and true turnout positions feedback .




Realistic railway operation with “signal controlled speed influence”

"Signal controlled speed influence" describes a method to stop trains or to apply different speed limits on certain track sections depending on actual circumstances of operation (e.g. state of signals). The stop information and speed limit information has to be accepted by all locos independent of their decoder address.


Different ways (other than ZIMO´s):

The “conventional” method:

The power supply to the track section belonging to the red signal is switched off. Disadvantages: lights are off (also sound, etc), no control over train in a speed limit or stop section.

The computerized method:

The actual position for all trains is calculated at all times by a computer; the speed influence is made via normal commands. Disadvantages: Computer and a lot of associated equipment (occupancy detectors, etc.) distributed all over the whole layout is necessary right from the beginning; no unrestricted (manual) operation of trains possible, as computer would lose track of the trains position.

The brake generator method:

In certain track section the digital control information is replaced by broadcast commands which only contain speed information. Disadvantages: no control over the train from the cab during stop; complicated setup to avoid bridging the gap (both-rail) between sections by locos and cars.

ZIMO´s special way of “signal controlled speed influence”:

Speed limit bits (stop and 5 speed steps) are fed into the data stream, which do not replace the individual loco instructions coming from the cabs. So all disadvantages mentioned above can be avoided and some good features are added:

· full control over headlights and other loco functions (steam, sound, etc.) is maintained at all
times, even when stopped at a red signal and on sections with restricted speed,
· overriding the signal controlled stop or speed limit is possible from the cab with the special
“MAN” key, individual for each engine!
· acceleration and deceleration of locos is adjustable on an individual basis (by special
configuration variables which are added to the normal NMRA set, only in ZIMO decoders),
· bridging the isolation gap between adjacent track sections does not cause short circuits or
indefinable conditions.
· only one rail needs to be cut and isolated (blocks).

no additional hardware is needed within the decoders (which is very important because of space limitations), and rather simple electronic circuitry in the MX9 track section module allows the setting of speed limits to track sections. “Signal controlled speed influence” can be achieved with or without a computer.

For computer controlled layouts, the "STP" SOFTWARE takes advantage of this special ZIMO feature: The computer has no need to trace train numbers across the layout. No control commands are issued directly to any loco decoder; instead trains are controlled via track sections. An extra benefit to this method: manually driven trains as well as manual interventions are recognized automatically. Up to 9 computers may be connected to the same layout, should a layout grow that big!.


Loco number identification

Each loco decoder acknowledges the receipt of a command with a special pulse on the rail. Track section circuits, which give information and identification about the actual location of the locos, detect this pulse. Up to 4 locos per block will be recognized and displayed.


System architecture - The CAN-Bus

One of the most important part of a DCC system is the data link (the "Bus") between the system components like command stations, cabs, modules for feedback information, etc. The differences among the systems in this respect are not that important when starting with a DCC application, but they will be crucial when expanding the control system.
Well-known bus systems are the X-Bus (used by Lenz, Arnold), the Loconet (used by Digitrax), the NCE-Bus (used by Wangrow/RamTraxx), and the CAN-Bus (used by ZIMO/STP).

The ZIMO CAN-Bus is probably the most powerful and reliable data link used in model railroad control today. It works as a Local Area Network (LAN) with multi-master capability; there is no time consuming polling by a central device.

HIGHEST SPEED (115 kbit/s):

This is more than any of the rival systems offer. Although a bus with lower speed would be sufficient if used as cab bus only, the ZIMO CAN-Bus shows its superior performance if e.g. hundreds of occupancy detectors and loco number identification boards have to transmit continually changing information to a computer (or to several computers). Because of this high performance the ZIMO system doesn't need any separate cab and feedback buses. All data transmission is done within one network.

HIGHEST RELIABILITY:

The CAN-Bus hardware and software protocol is widely used in industrial, automotive and medical applications. The physical layer is similar to the well-known RS-485 standard, but with special capabilities in order to handle heavy traffic efficiently. Extensive automatic error recognition and correction are included in the CAN protocol. Error counters, which are provided in the micro controllers of all cabs and modules, allow successful problem diagnosis, if this should be necessary at some time

Regards,
Art

http://www.mrsonline.net/

[Anonymous]

Lenz has Stop on Red As well, and bi-directional is on hold for all systems for awhile, Zimo is sub-par but expensive.

Jay

[aluesch]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NTDN

Lenz has Stop on Red As well, and bi-directional is on hold for all systems for awhile, Zimo is sub-par but expensive.

Jay

But are you still in full control over your engine(s) while in a stop section? By full control, I don't just mean all the functions but also can you drive out of the stop section without turning the light to green first? Only this feature makes it really prototypical. Think about running a shunting loco in behind a waiting train to remove a car, for example. If you first have to power down the waiting loco and then turn the signal green to enable the switcher to run on the same track that is not like the real world operates.
Or what if you want to drive your train in manual mode (being the engineer) so the loco doesn't obey the automated signals but to your cab only? It becomes now your responsibility not to run a red light.
Yes, I know, Zimo isn't cheap. But you do get a whole lot more. I haven't even gone into any details yet. Everyone has to weigh the pros and cons for him/herself and decide how far to go with DCC. But if someone is serious about the features mentioned, there is no way around Zimo at this time.

Regards,
Art
http://www.mrsonline.net/

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NTDN

Lenz has Stop on Red As well, and bi-directional is on hold for all systems for awhile, Zimo is sub-par but expensive.

Jay

ZIMO's bi-dir is, as far as I know, the only one on the market that has been around for a little while and works.

Stop on red is only half the story; ZIMO/STP actually positions within millimeters (+/- 6mm). That has been tried out with many different engines which all have different speed configs.

As to "sub-par": compared to what?
Who has a better bi-dir that has been functioning and proven for many years?
Compared to ZIMO many of the other systems are "plain dumb", electronically speaking.

Expensive: when you calculate all the extras that you're "entitled" to buy with the other systems in order to reach the same functionality, the ZIMO system is no longer expensive. If you just like to run 3 or 4 trains on a simple layout then ZIMO is probably overkill. Any other time it's the cat's meow.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kbrant

Geoff:

Let me try to take you questions in sequence.

First, NMRA conformance. This means that the NMRA has verified that a manufacturers product meets all the S9 and RP9 requriements for interoperatibility. Digatrax is ABSOLUTLY NMRA compliant, any comments to the contrary are marketing bull.

Second, software upgrades ARE available for Digatrax, though you will probably not need them. The Empire Builder is not Digitrax's best set. Look at the Super Chief for a more direct comparision to Lenz.

The signaling systems you refer to are not software upgrades in the usual sense. They are LocoNet add on's jhat you just plug in and they work. See my reply to Cmdr.WedgeAntilles above for more details.

The bottom line is that almost any GOOD system will work. Most decoders and command stations willo play together OK. The command station you choise should boil down to what you want and how you will use it. Lenz and most other systems use a polled network while Digitrax uses a CMSACD network. How important this will depend on how much expansion you want.

If you are going to run 5 or less trains at once and don't care about computer control, transponding, or signalling, then any system will be OK. If you want an open ended system that can adapt to future options then Digatrax has all the advantages.

Regards;

Ken

[Anonymous]

I've just gone through the shopping and comparison phase of purchasing a DCC system as well. As pointed out in the first post, DCC decisions often boil down to simple user preference. In a smaller new few operator system like your's or mine there isn't much difference in functionality. In fact for the variables I considered there was no difference. That said I based my decision on the user interface, since that's the device I'll have to deal with each time I use the system. Because of that I ended up with the NCE PowerPro system. I just don't like any of the Digitrax throttles, while I do really like the NCE throttle. For clarification, I didn't say the Digitrax throttles were bad in any way, I just don't like the look, feel, layout and sequencing. If you can, I'd suggest finding a shop that allows you to look at, and more importantly, handle the throttles side by side as I did, which is why I switched from Digitrax to NCE.

[moparrailfan]

Is there anyone in the Des Moines,Iowa area using DCC on their layout who would be willing to let me come over and try it out? Club I belong to and myself are looking at switching to DCC.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

Have a gander at:

FORUM CLINIC: Twelve years experience using DCC
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=36389

[Anonymous]

I started with Lenz 100. Why? Because their XpressNet is a universal protocol network and is supported by more manufacturers than any other.

I use both the 90 and 100 throttles and have just added the CVP wireless throttle.
You have far more choices of throttles than any other single brand. Even the Atlas throttles are compatible although I do not own any.

But strangely, I prefer the Lenz 100 throttle for ease of use. With practice, it becomes second nature to use it with one hand without even without looking at the throttle. Much like using a typewiter or computer keyboard.

Any brand that supports XpressNet is compatible.

I also use the Lenz USB computer interface for all of my decoder programming.

I use Lenz decoders for all my lcomotives because of their no questions asked warranty. I have not blown a decoder (as yet) due to my own fault or otherwise.
But it is nice knowing that when it does happen Lenz will replace it... free!

I have no doubt that all manufacturers produce good working DCC systems.
But having 42 years of computer, Ham Radio and R/C Flying experience, I feel qualified to rate Lenz as a superior product.

If one always follows the crowd and buys a brand because of number of units, it will always be so for that brand. But this NEVER proves that brand as superior.

Think about automobiles 25 years ago. If we all continued to buy the leading brand because of sales figures, do you think for one minute our present autos would be much better today than they were then?

Opps... just fell off my soap box!

[Stevert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by caellis

I started with Lenz 100. Why? Because their XpressNet is a universal protocol network and is supported by more manufacturers than any other.

Umm, not sure what you mean by a "universal protocol network". All of the DCC networking protocols are proprietary, which is why you can't plug your Lenz throttles into, for example, an NCE or Digitrax system. The Atlas throttles work with your Lenz because that's who makes them for Atlas. CVP uses ExpressNet under license or other agreement , which is a common arrangement.

And not to knock Lenz , but as far as XpresssNet being supported by more manufacturers, have you ever looked at Digitrax's LocoNet? I haven't done an actual count of how many manufacturers support LocoNet vs. XpressNet, so I won't make a blanket statement one way or the other. But I've got to admit that I've seen at least as many 3rd party manufacturers of LocoNet-compatable equipment as I have for Lenz. You can even set up and run a stand-alone LocoNet using ONLY 3rd party equipment. No command station, Digitrax or otherwise, is needed. I'm not sure you can do that with XpressNet.

QUOTE: Originally posted by caellis
I have no doubt that all manufacturers produce good working DCC systems.
But having 42 years of computer, Ham Radio and R/C Flying experience, I feel qualified to rate Lenz as a superior product.

Yup, that's why there's discussions on other forums about how the LS150 has a bug that prevents you from setting up the 6th output for stall-type switch machines, and how the LZ100 rejects commands if they're sent in too rapid of succession. Again, not to knock Lenz, because ALL the DCC manufacturers have had their share of misfires. But it illustrates that Lenz isn't up on a pedestal and immune from having any misfires of it's own.

My advice to the OP is to get information about and try out as many different manufacturers as you can, to see what you like and don't like about each of them. Also consider factors like expandability, local availability and support, or whatever is important to YOU. Then, make your choice.

Steve

[warhammerdriver]

Hypothetical question:

If I wired a layout for a DCC system manufactured by the XYZ company and later decided to switch to a DCC system from the ABC company would I need to re-wire the layout assuming both systems are NMRA compliant?

[Anonymous]

Nope. Should be 100% compatible.

[Stevert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by warhammerdriver

Hypothetical question:

If I wired a layout for a DCC system manufactured by the XYZ company and later decided to switch to a DCC system from the ABC company would I need to re-wire the layout assuming both systems are NMRA compliant?

Most of the track wiring would be the same, or at the least very, very close.

However, you might need to change out the throttle buss or throttle panels and possibly some wiring for accessory stuff like detection, stationary decoders, and so forth.

The NMRA Standards basically only cover stuff like the format and content of the DCC packets. That's an over-simplication but you get the idea.

For example, anyone's decoder will work with anyone else's booster (command station) because that booster puts NMRA-spec packets on the rails and the NMRA-spec decoder knows how to interpret them.

On the other hand, the NMRA Standards don't cover things like how the throttle "talks" to the command station, or whether a stationary decoder is powered off of the track buss or uses an external power supply, etc. Those things are left up to each manufacturer. Since they don't all use the same methods, switching from one to the other may or may not require wiring changes.

HTH,
Steve