MRC Prodigy Express - Good/Bad????

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Stevert

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
The "gee-whiz" numbers I refered to came not from the marketing hype the manufacturers put out; but from the comparison chart prepared and published by Model Railroader Magazine's December 2005 issue.

Not to knock MR, but where do you think they got many, if not all of the numbers they put in their comparison chart? Do you really think they kept adding throttle plates and more throttles until they hit 99 and the PA said, "No more!", and then penciled "99" into their chart?

True; but then again, where did you get the information you based you decision on when you got your DCC system ??? I'll bet at least some of it came from the "hype" manufacturers release, or from the subjective evaluations of other DCC users.

QUOTE:

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
Until someone can provide a better way to compare and contrast system in an objective manner, what other choices do we have ???

Look again at what I wrote before:

QUOTE: Originally posted by Stevert
2) Haven't you read any of the other threads/posts on this subject? The ones where all that marketing hype and those "gee whiz" numbers are completely debunked?

When choosing between differing products, one usually compiles a list of each products features (ie: a chart, even if its only in the mind), then one proceeds to compare and contrast the differences between the products. Based on that, one chooses one product over another. Where one gets information on these products' features is important, of course. Sources should be varied; to rely solely on one source is risky.

My point is : In all the research I have done (including reading most of the DCC-related topics on this forum; speaking to LHS owners; and reading manufacturers' marketing information; etc), for every message "debunking" a "gee-whiz number", there is another supporting it. For every person trashing Sysem X, there is another who can't live without it. This is the conflict and contradictions I am talking about. There are no straight answers out there (yet).

QUOTE:

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
While I cannot speak for others, I, for one, have read almost every thread on this forum that dealt with DCC. The information provided is very often conflicting. Getting an objective evaluation from anyone is virtually impossible.

This is where your critical thinking has to come into play. I don't know that anyone was handed a sheet with that objective evaluation. At least I wasn't, so I had to study all the offerings I could, I had to weed out fact from fiction, and I had to make a choice about what system I thought was best.

Pardon me; but just what do you think I am doing here ??? I am trying to get objective information that isn't contradicting.

QUOTE:

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
So, where do we DCC newbies turn when we want objective and understandable information about the different systems ?

See above.

I'll steal your words and suggest you "see above" as well.

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher

QUOTE: Sometimes we have limitations -- budget, space, etc -- that mean we are forced to consider the less expensive systems out there, even if it means sacrificing what you consider essential.

Personally, I don't have $200+ US to spend on a DCC system -- I'm lucky to find $100 US (even then, I'll probably need a couple months to pay off the credit card).

Then you need to state up front that price is a consideration, and that you are absolutely limited to whatever.

Oh, but I have. A few months ago, when I asked for specific recommendations for a DCC system; and I also asked about a couple of the less-expensive systems. Instead of constructive information, it was suggested I buy a very expensive system even though I had said I was on a tight budget. So, how useful was that tidbit of information ?

QUOTE:

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher

QUOTE: Originally posted by Stevert
Even no space for a computer in the layout room can be a "benefit" if you ever decide to use a dispatcher during operating sessions, because you will be forced to locate the dispatcher in a remote location.

My layout room is less than 60 square feet -- about 8½ft by 7 ft -- so I have no room to put a computer in there, let alone a 2nd operator. What fun it is to have a computerized dispatcher located in another room (or another town) ?

On a "real" railroad, the dispatchers aren't sitting out next to the tracks, they're in an office that may be hundreds or thousands of miles away. Many, many model railroaders emulate this by locating their dispatcher away from the immediate layout area.

I've seen them located in adjacent rooms, hallways, closets, under stairways, and even under the layout itself on more than one occasion. Aparently it's at least some fun, or they wouldn't be doing it.

Yes, I've seen that too. But those layouts generally are HUGE in comparison to mine, so you're not alone running your trains with the dispatcher nextdoor. And there is usually a group of operators. To be two people (1 operator and 1 dispatcher) separated by walls would seem to be a boring ops session. I mean, where is the fun, the socialisation, the sharing of experiences when you're both alone ?

QUOTE:

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
I understand how useful a computer interface can be; but I just cannot afford to have one (financially or in square-footage), so it is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

Keep in mind that dispatching isn't the only reason to use a computer with DCC. As I have mentioned before, decoder programming is much, much easier with a computer. Signalling is another possibility. Neither of those uses require another operator, or even the computer, in the layout room itself. See Joe Fugate's comments (Posted: 11 Jan 2006, 13:59:17) regarding DCC/computer interfaces.

Yes, I read Joe's posting, so I am aware of the many varied uses a computer interface with the DCC system can have.

QUOTE:

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
Besides, I'd have to buy a new computer since the one I have can barely handle what little I ask of it now. So add to the cost of a Digitrax system the cost of a new computer (at least $600 CDN), and you're approaching the $800-1000 mark. I don't know about you, but, search as I might, I just can't find that kind of coin in the couch pillows.

A new computer is hardly needed. The computing (horsepower) needs are actually very slight. From what I've seen and heard, most dedicated layout computers are second-hand doorstops that were destined for a landfill. Mine certainly falls into that category.

If you knew how old and slow my computer was, you'd realise my predicament. [:(]

QUOTE:

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
So, I ask those of you who are more experienced with DCC to please refrain from making condescending comments or personal insults when we "novices" ask for help in choosing a DCC system. Don't always assume we haven't done any previous research either. As I said above, we don't always feel it necessary to discuss all our other criteria and (personal) situations which may dictate/limit what options we have. We're just trying to make the best of our situation. While many of us dream of owning a private Leer jet; most of us are lucky if we can afford to fly coach once a year.

I can understand where you're coming from here, but you have to consider the "other side" as well. I don't know how many of these Brand X vs. Brand Y threads there are in these forums, and the same questions, same inaccuracies, and same "gee whiz" numbers almost always show up in each one of them. It gets to be a real bummer seeing the same fud over and over again.

As I've said : It is beyond frustrating trying to get accurate, objective information that is helpful in choosing a DCC system.

[davekelly]

Randy,

My thought of "maxing out" a system was said kinda tongue in cheek. It was my response to the picking a system based on the various charts that are out there rather than which system would meet an individuals needs and wants.

It would be kinda neat though lol.

[jnichols]

Randy,

You make a good point about the polled setup many of the DCC systems use, and most people overlook this very improtant piece of information when selecting a system. The fact is, as a programmer I have all kinds of experience with "polled" or procedural code system, and event driven systems. While the application is different, the concept is very much the same. Polled systems will always tax the processor more than an event driven system will, making them slower and more opt to have problems when pushed to their design limits.

MRC's (and heck even Lenz's) claims of 100 thottles all running at the same time while controlling a huge layout is just fantasy IMHO. While the systems might theoretically do this in a bench test setup, in a real world application there is no way it would happen... [;)]

Jeff

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

Steve,

Your first comment on the above post reminds me of an old Calvin and Hobbes comic. As the family is driving along they pass a sign by a bridge that says "capacity 100 tons" Calvin asks his dad how do they know what the capacity of a bridge is. Is Dad says something like "they just keep adding weight until the thing collapses, write the number down and then rebuild it." I always found that one really funny.

Just for fun, it would be kinda neat to take a DCC system and totally max it out and see if the numbers given are accurate. Always wondered if running 9000 independent engines at one time would slow a system down and if so, by how much.

Stealing the topic from the Digitrax list? [:D] Only thing is, NO system can run 9000 locos at the same time, even if you had the current capacity. Maybe someone will develop a PC-based command station that could. But - with enough power, you COULD run 9000 locos if they were consisted either with CV19 or all using the same address. Heck, with enough power, you could run 900,000 locos. There should be no packet delays because all you'd be sending out would be the same packet to that one single address over and over.
Assuming you could address 9000 independent locos, you can take the specs from the NMRA web site and figure out how long it would take to send all the required packets - with 9000, a VERY noticeable amount of time, so yes, there would be delays in the control.
Throttles is another story. Assuming there was a Loconet command station capable of handling 9000 throttles, it would be severely overloaded and there would be delays in controlling the locos from that side. Think of having too many stations on a single Ethernet segment - lots of collisions and retries. The polled serial bus-type systems would quit even sooner, or at least experience intolerable delays. The PA has a switch to set the numebr of cabs connected for a reason - it can run much faster if it 'knows' it only has to poll so many cabs.

--Randy

[knewsom]

Another thing that I just discovered today, is that MRC is releasing Prodigy Advance Wireless. We can only hope that original PA users will be able to add the equipment to upgrade if they so desire. This is from one of the Yahoo Groups that I belong to:

MRC MODEL RAILROAD PRODUCTS
PRICE LIST AND ORDER FORM
Effective January 10, 2006


0001406 PRODIGY ADVANCE.................................$329.98
0001407 PRODIGY ADVANCE WALKAROUND.......................$98.98
0001408 PRODIGY EXPRESS.................................$184.98
0001409 PRODIGY EXPRESS WALKAROUND.......................$89.98
0001410 PRODIGY ADVANCE WIRELESS........................$599.98
0001411 PRODIGY ADVANCE WIRELESS WALKAROUND.............$179.98
0001501 NON-POWERED EXTENSION PLATE......................$33.98
0001502 POWERED EXTENSION PLATE..........................$49.98
0001505 DISTRICT POWER BOOSTER (3.5 AMP)................$154.98

I checked the MRC website and the information is not out there, but the person that posted it owns a Hobby shop. If wireless will soon be here for the PA, than hopefully MRC will begin working on a computer interface as well.

[Anonymous]

The PE just looks apealing because 1 the price, 2 the control cab, 3,looks simple to operate. I guess the lack of PC interface may hurt at some point, but to get into DCC for low investment then stepping up to a better system like Digitrax or others seems a logical choice.

Still waiting to make the move.

[davekelly]

Steve,

Your first comment on the above post reminds me of an old Calvin and Hobbes comic. As the family is driving along they pass a sign by a bridge that says "capacity 100 tons" Calvin asks his dad how do they know what the capacity of a bridge is. Is Dad says something like "they just keep adding weight until the thing collapses, write the number down and then rebuild it." I always found that one really funny.

Just for fun, it would be kinda neat to take a DCC system and totally max it out and see if the numbers given are accurate. Always wondered if running 9000 independent engines at one time would slow a system down and if so, by how much.

[Stevert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
The "gee-whiz" numbers I refered to came not from the marketing hype the manufacturers put out; but from the comparison chart prepared and published by Model Railroader Magazine's December 2005 issue.

Not to knock MR, but where do you think they got many, if not all of the numbers they put in their comparison chart? Do you really think they kept adding throttle plates and more throttles until they hit 99 and the PA said, "No more!", and then penciled "99" into their chart?

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
Until someone can provide a better way to compare and contrast system in an objective manner, what other choices do we have ???

Look again at what I wrote before:

QUOTE: Originally posted by Stevert
2) Haven't you read any of the other threads/posts on this subject? The ones where all that marketing hype and those "gee whiz" numbers are completely debunked?

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
While I cannot speak for others, I, for one, have read almost every thread on this forum that dealt with DCC. The information provided is very often conflicting. Getting an objective evaluation from anyone is virtually impossible.

This is where your critical thinking has to come into play. I don't know that anyone was handed a sheet with that objective evaluation. At least I wasn't, so I had to study all the offerings I could, I had to weed out fact from fiction, and I had to make a choice about what system I thought was best.

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
So, where do we DCC newbies turn when we want objective and understandable information about the different systems ?

See above.

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
Sometimes we have limitations -- budget, space, etc -- that mean we are forced to consider the less expensive systems out there, even if it means sacrificing what you consider essential.

Personally, I don't have $200+ US to spend on a DCC system -- I'm lucky to find $100 US (even then, I'll probably need a couple months to pay off the credit card).

Then you need to state up front that price is a consideration, and that you are absolutely limited to whatever.

In the case of the OP, if they said they absolutely had only $99 to spend, PE or EZ?, I would have said PE. If they said they have $99 now but could save more, I'd tell them to forget the PE and the EZ, and save for the Zephyr.

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher

QUOTE: Originally posted by Stevert
Even no space for a computer in the layout room can be a "benefit" if you ever decide to use a dispatcher during operating sessions, because you will be forced to locate the dispatcher in a remote location.

My layout room is less than 60 square feet -- about 8½ft by 7 ft -- so I have no room to put a computer in there, let alone a 2nd operator. What fun it is to have a computerized dispatcher located in another room (or another town) ?

On a "real" railroad, the dispatchers aren't sitting out next to the tracks, they're in an office that may be hundreds or thousands of miles away. Many, many model railroaders emulate this by locating their dispatcher away from the immediate layout area.

I've seen them located in adjacent rooms, hallways, closets, under stairways, and even under the layout itself on more than one occasion. Aparently it's at least some fun, or they wouldn't be doing it.

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
I understand how useful a computer interface can be; but I just cannot afford to have one (financially or in square-footage), so it is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

Keep in mind that dispatching isn't the only reason to use a computer with DCC. As I have mentioned before, decoder programming is much, much easier with a computer. Signalling is another possibility. Neither of those uses require another operator, or even the computer, in the layout room itself. See Joe Fugate's comments (Posted: 11 Jan 2006, 13:59:17) regarding DCC/computer interfaces.

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
Besides, I'd have to buy a new computer since the one I have can barely handle what little I ask of it now. So add to the cost of a Digitrax system the cost of a new computer (at least $600 CDN), and you're approaching the $800-1000 mark. I don't know about you, but, search as I might, I just can't find that kind of coin in the couch pillows.

A new computer is hardly needed. The computing (horsepower) needs are actually very slight. From what I've seen and heard, most dedicated layout computers are second-hand doorstops that were destined for a landfill. Mine certainly falls into that category.

And there's nothing that says you need a separate, dedicated computer anyway. In fact, I'd agree that given your space constraints, a dedicated computer probably isn't a good idea. But that certainly doesn't prevent you from using any computer.

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
So, I ask those of you who are more experienced with DCC to please refrain from making condescending comments or personal insults when we "novices" ask for help in choosing a DCC system. Don't always assume we haven't done any previous research either. As I said above, we don't always feel it necessary to discuss all our other criteria and (personal) situations which may dictate/limit what options we have. We're just trying to make the best of our situation. While many of us dream of owning a private Leer jet; most of us are lucky if we can afford to fly coach once a year.

I can understand where you're coming from here, but you have to consider the "other side" as well. I don't know how many of these Brand X vs. Brand Y threads there are in these forums, and the same questions, same inaccuracies, and same "gee whiz" numbers almost always show up in each one of them. It gets to be a real bummer seeing the same fud over and over again.

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
Now, if someone can help me down off my soapbox ... [;)]

No rush. Everyone gets equal time. [:D]

Steve

[jnichols]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
Personally, I don't have $200+ US to spend on a DCC system -- I'm lucky to find $100 US (even then, I'll probably need a couple months to pay off the credit card).

Timothy,

Everyone has a "train" budget they adhere to, and there are DCC systems that are very much in your budget. From what I gather, you are looking to run trains as simply as possible and for less than $100. Either the new MRC PE or Bachmann system would work for you, and both can be had for less than $100 US street price. Neither is very sophisticated, but both will run trains. The PE is more expandable but won't run analog locomotives and comes with a tethered cab rather than a base control unit, and the Bachmann is easy to use and inexpensive.

Don't let all the hype on the forums confuse you. The way I look at it, any DCC system is better than running trains analog... [;)]

Jeff

[rrinker]

The problem is, even those these charts are compiled by people who OUGHT to know what they are talking about, they often have false or misleading information, which renders their usefulness to a novice greatly reduced. Looking at the chart in MR, I can see a couple of errors in the system I DO own and am most familiar with, and a few others for the systems I don't. Someone more familiar with the other brands might see errors in those columns that I missed.
Even the chart on Tony's site isn't completely accurate. And I KNOW the people at Tony's know what they are talking about.
See the big long DCC topic by Joe Fugate, a GOOD comparison - just listing ACCURATELY what each system can and cannot do, is in the works. But it will take some time to compile.
BTW, the lack of megabucks to spend on this hobby is why I went with Digitrax. I bought my Zephyr one year, and added a DT400 throttle the next. Who knows what's coming next, probably nothing this year since I broke down and bought a PCM Reading T-1 with sound - the first loco I spent over $40 on, and I'm NOT running train-set level Bachmann. Just darn picky at train shows and on eBay.

--Randy

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Stevert
I only have two questions for the folks who say the PA is "better":

1) Can't you look past the marketing hype "gee whiz" numbers used to describe the PA, and the price of the starter sets, as the only criteria to judge which system (not which starter set) is really better?

The "gee-whiz" numbers I refered to came not from the marketing hype the manufacturers put out; but from the comparison chart prepared and published by Model Railroader Magazine's December 2005 issue. Until someone can provide a better way to compare and contrast system in an objective manner, what other choices do we have ???

QUOTE: 2) Haven't you read any of the other threads/posts on this subject? The ones where all that marketing hype and those "gee whiz" numbers are completely debunked?

While I cannot speak for others, I, for one, have read almost every thread on this forum that dealt with DCC. The information provided is very often conflicting. Getting an objective evaluation from anyone is virtually impossible. When asking about System X, how often do we see someone reply that "System X is worth less than cr@p and anyone even thinking about it is an idiotic dolt; only System Y is worth consideration" ? If the only way that person can promote System Y is by bashing System X and anyone who even thinks of using it, then I have a problem believing anything he might have to say about either system.

---

So, where do we DCC newbies turn when we want objective and understandable information about the different systems ? Please don't insult our naiveté by calling us stupid or idiots just because we admit to considering a system you believe to be less than useless. Sometimes we have limitations -- budget, space, etc -- that mean we are forced to consider the less expensive systems out there, even if it means sacrificing what you consider essential.

Personally, I don't have $200+ US to spend on a DCC system -- I'm lucky to find $100 US (even then, I'll probably need a couple months to pay off the credit card).

QUOTE: Even no space for a computer in the layout room can be a "benefit" if you ever decide to use a dispatcher during operating sessions, because you will be forced to locate the dispatcher in a remote location.

My layout room is less than 60 square feet -- about 8½ft by 7 ft -- so I have no room to put a computer in there, let alone a 2nd operator. What fun it is to have a computerized dispatcher located in another room (or another town) ? I understand how useful a computer interface can be; but I just cannot afford to have one (financially or in square-footage), so it is a sacrifice I am willing to make. Besides, I'd have to buy a new computer since the one I have can barely handle what little I ask of it now. So add to the cost of a Digitrax system the cost of a new computer (at least $600 CDN), and you're approaching the $800-1000 mark. I don't know about you, but, search as I might, I just can't find that kind of coin in the couch pillows.

So, I ask those of you who are more experienced with DCC to please refrain from making condescending comments or personal insults when we "novices" ask for help in choosing a DCC system. Don't always assume we haven't done any previous research either. As I said above, we don't always feel it necessary to discuss all our other criteria and (personal) situations which may dictate/limit what options we have. We're just trying to make the best of our situation. While many of us dream of owning a private Leer jet; most of us are lucky if we can afford to fly coach once a year.


Now, if someone can help me down off my soapbox ... [;)]

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker
I guess we've gotten far off track of the PE system, since none of the MRC systems currently have a computer interface available that would let them take advantage of DecoderPro.

--Randy

Since none of the MRC systems have a computer interface, you ought to be completely aware of what you are losing by not having such an interface.

To me, you lose *a lot* by getting a system without a computer interface. As more powerful interface tools come out (many of them *free* if you have a computer interface), making use of your DCC system gets easier and more robust.

Most people think computer interface means "the computer can use the DCC system to automatically run the railroad".

*WRONG!*

If you have a DCC system that supports a computer interface, think: "DCC the easy way -- super simple point and click".

If your system doesn't support adding a computer interface (MRC), think: "DCC the hard way -- pouring over manuals to find the CV you care about, and then tediously programming CVs one CV at a time by hand" and you'll get the picture.

A computer interface makes programming decoders childs play -- you almost never need the decoder manual any more, and you can copy entire decoder settings from one loco to another with a few mouse clicks. It doesn't get much easier -- IF you have a computer interface, that is.

Which MRC DOES NOT have, so you get to do all your programming the hard way -- which is fine if you don't do sound and you only have a few locos. [swg]


P.S. Very few people want or need a computer to automatically run their trains, so that's NOT why you want a computer interface -- it's because the computer interface makes everything else you do with your DCC system into simple mouse clicks!

[davekelly]

Nelsonb,

I thought I had answered that in my earlier post (fourth on this thread). I'll say again . . . I love my PE. I was aware of its limitations when I purchased it, accepted them and can say that it does everything I expected it to do, meets my present and near future requirements and does a great job.

Again . . . I love my PE.

[Anonymous]

No one has actually answerd the origanal ????

Prodigy Express- Good? Bad? Indifferent?

[davekelly]

Randy,

A thread that gets off track from the original post? Unheard of!!! [(-D][(-D][(-D]

[rrinker]

Gotta love DecoderPro - and it WILL support the new Digitrax sound decoders when they are available - including the sound download!

There's a nifty consisting tool in there too!

I guess we've gotten far off track of the PE system, since none of the MRC systems currently have a computer interface available that would let them take advantage of DecoderPro.

--Randy

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Stevert
Have you tried JMRI's DecoderPro? No math necessary.

Yes, I never program decoders without using DecoderPro these days. I think having a computer interface and using DecoderPro to do your decoder programming should be a *must have* for anyone's DCC system shopping list.

In fact, I like DecoderPro so well, fully half of my 100+ minute how-to DVD on DCC shows how to download, install, and use DecoderPro for Lenz, NCE, Digitrax, and EasyDCC. I show how to program consists, how to do loco speed matching, how to program sound decoder settings, and how to set up special lighting effects -- all using DecoderPro.

So, yup! I use DecoderPro. [swg]

[Stevert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by knewsom

Stevert,

I guess that I am lucky that I bought it when I did, since I saved myself a lot of money.

Good! Saved money = more trains[:D]

Steve

[Stevert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate
Of course you can always plug a value into CV19 yourself and get poor-man's advanced consisting, but it's nice if the system supports it.

Agreed.

QUOTE:
If you do CV19 yourself, you have to do math to have a unit run in reverse so it's not always just a straight number plug.

Have you tried JMRI's DecoderPro? No math necessary.

Using a DH163A0 as an example, bring the loco up (2 mouse clicks), click on the "Consist" tab, enter the Advanced Consist address, click the down arrow for the Advanced Consist direction, click on "Write changes on sheet" and you're done.

So 5 mouse clicks and the consist address and you're done.

Steve

[knewsom]

Stevert,

You are correct. MicroMark has raised the prices on all of the MRC PA equipment in their latest catalog. I guess that I am lucky that I bought it when I did, since I saved myself a lot of money.

[rrinker]

Hmm, I just skimmed my latest version of the manual and I don;t even see it mentioned other than "how to create a consist". All over the Digitrax documentation sections they do mention that they PREFER UniVersal (command-station assisted) consisting, but that's really because of all three mthods, it's probably the most comprehensive and flexible. CV19 advanced consisting is limited to consist addresses of 1-127 (or 1-99, probably, with Lenz). Hoever, at the back of the Zephyr manual is the list of OpSw configuration settings, and OpSw 17 is defaulted to closed which DISABLES decoder-assisted consisting. Setting this to thrown (open in normal speak [:D]) turns it on. I haven't tested it, but that should make consisting use CV19. I haven't had any problems using UniVersal so I never really looked at that section in my DT400 manual. Guess I'll have to give it a try and see if it really works like that.

--Randy

[jfugate]

Randy:

Agreed, all the non-starter systems* offer all 3 types of consisting -- which in my book is essential to really getting the most out of DCC if you do modern diesel lashups with sound.

But a question. It appears from the Zephyr documentation that they only do universal (command-station) consisting. Did I read that right? Of course you can always plug a value into CV19 yourself and get poor-man's advanced consisting, but it's nice if the system supports it. If you do CV19 yourself, you have to do math to have a unit run in reverse so it's not always just a straight number plug.

* NOTE: I consider Atlas, Bachman, and MRC systems to all be starter systems because of their limited feature set and expansion limitations.

[rrinker]

That's what's nice about Digitrax, Joe. You can use any of the three consisting methods. Option 1, basic consisting, is always available, and there is a configuration setting to determine if Option 2, which Digitrax calls UniVersal Consisting, or option 3, Advanced Consisting, is used by default when creating a new consist.
The other high end systems can do this as well. Others offer only 1 and (2 or 3). Bachmann only offers 1.

--Randy

[davekelly]

Steve,

Thanks for the info. Although I was pretty sure I had it right I wasn't exactly sure.

[stokesda]

As someone who's on the verge of getting his first DCC set, and being a little confused/overwhelmed by all the information out there, I'll say that this thread is one of the most useful "articles" I've read so far.... Keep it coming!

[Stevert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

How much would it cost to get a one cab walkaround Digitrax system? Doesn't have to be wireless. When I was doing my decision making I figured it would cost me around $225.00.

That is correct. The Zephyr is $159.95 and a UT4 is $64.95 at Tony's, which should be representative prices. The UT4 can be used "wired" simply by plugging it into the Zephyr itself. But it's actually a two-cab system since the Zephyr base unit includes a cab, although obviously that one isn't a walk-around.

QUOTE:
I am not that familiar with the UT4, but it is my understanding that you can't operate stationary decoders with the UT4. Is that correct?

Yes, that's also correct. The UT4 was designed with LOTS of input from Digitrax users via the Yahoo! Digitrax list (Those discussions are available in the archives). By consensus of those Digitrax users, stationary decoder operation was not deemed a requirement considering the intended use of these throttles, and therefore was not included by Digitrax when they designed the UT4.

Steve

[davekelly]

Good point Joe.

[jfugate]

QUOTE:
As for consisting ... What difference is it if the DCC system supports or doesn't support universal consisting ? A consist is a consist, isn't it, regardless of how you make it happen ?

Randy did a good job of outlining the different consisting methods -- let me just add that the different consisting methods for me is a *big* distinguishing factor between the systems.

If you model more modern times where diesel power lashups are common, having a DCC system with rich consisting features allows you to layer consisting types and do some very handy things. If a system limits consisting to one type or the other (command-station consist only or decoder-based consist only) then you may hit a brick wall with what you want to do -- especially if you run diesel lashups with sound.

[davekelly]

How much would it cost to get a one cab walkaround Digitrax system? Doesn't have to be wireless. When I was doing my decision making I figured it would cost me around $225.00.

I am not that familiar with the UT4, but it is my understanding that you can't operate stationary decoders with the UT4. Is that correct?