I think the problem programming QSI sound-equipped engines isn't really a Zephyr issue, I think it's the same for all systems. BTW it's really only a problem with the earliest BLI/QSI engines...I can only program some CV's on my BLI Hudson from the first production run; all the BLI/QSI engines I've gotten since that one program fine with the Zephyr.
BTW computers weren't invented yesterday!! The first ones started being used during WW2. As a kid in the sixties one of my friend's Dad worked for Sperry-Univac doing computer designs; many companies were using computers for payroll etc. in the sixties.
I took computer programming classes in junior high in the early seventies.
Randall_Roberts wrote: Interesting contrast of opinions here. Simon has addressed the needs of the Zephyr from the standpoint of a "power user" and John has addressed it from the standpoint of a new entry level user.My initial idea was that an all-in-one starter should be geared towards the new entry level user. Perhpas John's ideas could be applied an entry level system and Simon's to the development of a new mid-range unit to replace the Empire Builder.I also am seeing more value in the idea of "novice" menus and an "expert" mode. With an LCD panel display both of these interfaces would simply be a matter of firmware implementation. Best!
Interesting contrast of opinions here. Simon has addressed the needs of the Zephyr from the standpoint of a "power user" and John has addressed it from the standpoint of a new entry level user.
My initial idea was that an all-in-one starter should be geared towards the new entry level user. Perhpas John's ideas could be applied an entry level system and Simon's to the development of a new mid-range unit to replace the Empire Builder.
I also am seeing more value in the idea of "novice" menus and an "expert" mode. With an LCD panel display both of these interfaces would simply be a matter of firmware implementation.
Best!
Randall you do make an interesting point regarding the Digitrax range. The Empire Builder is getting long-in-the-tooth and probably only exists in the product range still because the DB150 is sold as a booster. However, if it is significantly upgraded, then the Chief would need upgrading as well to stay ahead of it. The single most likely change we will see from Digitrax is the introduction of a DT400 replacement. Since this is the user interface for both systems then both would advance at the same time.
I don't consider myself a power user by any means. Like many, the first time I tried the Decoder Pro application on a PC interfaced to my Zephyr I realized that this is such a superior way of programming decoders. Not only is it a really simple user interface to use, but more importantly you can save the settings for a given loco. If you have spent considerable time getting speed curves set up and adjusted sound levels etc. it is very nice to be able to restore these settings to a locomotive quickly from the saved settings, if the loco gets scrambled for some reason.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
locoworks; The point is that simply adding a DT400 to the Zephyr from the get go more than doubles the cost of your entry level unit.
re: running a DC locomotive with the Zephyr, the ability to do so is part of the NMRA/MOROP specification. However, technically the DCC power/signal is AC. The speed of a single DC locomotive (using loco address zero) is controlled by varying the proportion between the positive and negative wave peaks of the "zero" pulses. Because you are actually applying AC to a DC motor the locomotive hums when it is stopped (equal proportion positive and negative pulses). It also heats up. Different DC motors perform differently under this system, but even the best performers don't run great. Most people do not use this function for fear that in the long term it may damage the locomotive.
jalajoie;
To CTValleyRR's comment I would say that the Zephyr not only requires you to read the documentation, it requires you to keep it handy as a reference.
To your assertion that you never look up things in the manual, I wll say that I don't either when it comes to acquiring and running locos, though I think to say that it's a 5 min. learning curve as someone did is a bit optimistic for most users. But programming is another matter entirely. If you don't need the manual to program CVs then you have an excellent memory my friend. I'm not being a smart A here... seriously, how long did it take you to learn all the CV functions and what their various settings do?
CTValleyRR wrote: and I have read A LOT of posts to the effect that the Zephyr pretty much REQUIRES you to read the documentation.I'm still wondering if it's worth saving a few bucks and gaining some features to have to actually crack a book to figure out how to run the darn thing. So, I'm still on the fence, not on the wagon.
and I have read A LOT of posts to the effect that the Zephyr pretty much REQUIRES you to read the documentation.
I'm still wondering if it's worth saving a few bucks and gaining some features to have to actually crack a book to figure out how to run the darn thing.
So, I'm still on the fence, not on the wagon.
You won't see many of these posts from actual Zephyr users. The Zephyr is trivially simple to use for day-to-day operation. Selecting locos, running locos, operating sound functions, dispatching locos, the stuff you do every day is very simple indeed. Once you have learned the basics of doing these things (5 min learning curve) you will be off and running. Once you have mastered these things then you can delve into the joys of programming. This does take a little more time, but once learned is fast and easy to do. Honestly if you are into programming sound locos and really get into things like loco speed tables then I would strongly suggest a PC interface, and old PC and Decoder Pro from JMRI (free!!)
Mntneer wrote: Is it true the Zephyr can run non-DCC locos while the NCE can't? I'd like to go ahead and get and install a DCC system, but don't want to have to wait to replace my locos with DCC equiped ones.
Is it true the Zephyr can run non-DCC locos while the NCE can't? I'd like to go ahead and get and install a DCC system, but don't want to have to wait to replace my locos with DCC equiped ones.
Yes it is, with the Zephyr you can run One analog loco or a Consist of analogs locos. NCE will not implement this feature in their systems. Some say it is not good for the motors in the locomotives, again an Urban Legend true only if you let the loco stand still on the track for extended period of time (hours and hours). At the local club on a Digitrax Chief System we have a member who has been running its analogs locos for 10 years without any ill effect. As a matter of fact none of his locomotive is decoder equipped.
Jack W.
Mntneer wrote:Is it true the Zephyr can run non-DCC locos while the NCE can't? I'd like to go ahead and get and install a DCC system, but don't want to have to wait to replace my locos with DCC equiped ones.
This is true. I periodically do use the Zephyr to run non DCC loco's as I have a couple that I want to run for sentimental reasons, but they simply are not suitable for decoders. But please note that this method of running is far from the perfect solution. Typically the DC motor will emit a high frequency modulating hum or buzz when used in this mode. It can get a bit irritating. It is also recommended not to leave DC locos standing on the track for any great length of time. Supposedly motors can burn up, though I have never had first hand experience with this. So yes you can run a DC loco on with the Zephyr but I would not want to use it as a long term solution.
Mntneer wrote: jalajoie wrote: CTValleyRR wrote: As someone who is trying to decide WHICH entry level DCC system to purchase, I have to say that, if features alone were the deciding point, the Zephyr would win hands down. However, I am definately NOT a user's manual reader, and I have read A LOT of posts to the effect that the Zephyr pretty much REQUIRES you to read the documentation.I'm still wondering if it's worth saving a few bucks and gaining some features to have to actually crack a book to figure out how to run the darn thing. So, I'm still on the fence, not on the wagon.This is an Urban Legend perpetuated mostly by peoples that don't even own a Zephyr in the first place.I own a Zephyr and never look up the manual for the usual tasks such as acquiring locos, running them, make/break consists and program any decoders CVs.For that matter, I also own a Power Cab and don't need the manuel to performs the same tasks but the menu driven system of NCE gets on my nerves. Is it true the Zephyr can run non-DCC locos while the NCE can't? I'd like to go ahead and get and install a DCC system, but don't want to have to wait to replace my locos with DCC equiped ones.
jalajoie wrote: CTValleyRR wrote: As someone who is trying to decide WHICH entry level DCC system to purchase, I have to say that, if features alone were the deciding point, the Zephyr would win hands down. However, I am definately NOT a user's manual reader, and I have read A LOT of posts to the effect that the Zephyr pretty much REQUIRES you to read the documentation.I'm still wondering if it's worth saving a few bucks and gaining some features to have to actually crack a book to figure out how to run the darn thing. So, I'm still on the fence, not on the wagon.This is an Urban Legend perpetuated mostly by peoples that don't even own a Zephyr in the first place.I own a Zephyr and never look up the manual for the usual tasks such as acquiring locos, running them, make/break consists and program any decoders CVs.For that matter, I also own a Power Cab and don't need the manuel to performs the same tasks but the menu driven system of NCE gets on my nerves.
CTValleyRR wrote: As someone who is trying to decide WHICH entry level DCC system to purchase, I have to say that, if features alone were the deciding point, the Zephyr would win hands down. However, I am definately NOT a user's manual reader, and I have read A LOT of posts to the effect that the Zephyr pretty much REQUIRES you to read the documentation.I'm still wondering if it's worth saving a few bucks and gaining some features to have to actually crack a book to figure out how to run the darn thing. So, I'm still on the fence, not on the wagon.
As someone who is trying to decide WHICH entry level DCC system to purchase, I have to say that, if features alone were the deciding point, the Zephyr would win hands down. However, I am definately NOT a user's manual reader, and I have read A LOT of posts to the effect that the Zephyr pretty much REQUIRES you to read the documentation.
This is an Urban Legend perpetuated mostly by peoples that don't even own a Zephyr in the first place.
I own a Zephyr and never look up the manual for the usual tasks such as acquiring locos, running them, make/break consists and program any decoders CVs.
For that matter, I also own a Power Cab and don't need the manuel to performs the same tasks but the menu driven system of NCE gets on my nerves.
I can't Speak for the NCE system but the Zephyr will run a DC loco but it will make a buzzing sound
as the speed increases the buzzing will decrease
TerryinTexas
See my Web Site Here
http://conewriversubdivision.yolasite.com/
David:
I agree with most of what you posted but have one issue:
"30 years? Wow, gentlemen, we have a founder of the computer among us!"
You are confusing the term "computer" with the term "personal computer".
Computers have been around far longer than 30 years.
Digital reprogramable computers date back to 1946, and other tabulating technologies go back much farther than that.
You are obviously refering to the Apple, and IBM PC computers that came out in the 70s.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Randall_Roberts wrote: I also am seeing more value in the idea of "novice" menus and an "expert" mode. With an LCD panel display both of these interfaces would simply be a matter of firmware implementation. Best!
Now that is a clever idea, if only I could have an expert mode with my NCE Power Cab I would use it more often to program decoders, instead of leaving it in its box most of the time.
Randall_Roberts wrote: jfallon wrote: Oh, yeah. One main thing that all Digitrax systems lack, AN ON/OFF SWITCH! JohnJohn; Excellent point. I have several DC powerpacks from various train sets. My favorite is an Athearn because it has an On/Off switch. Your point about the better display to me was a given; I'd started out with it. But I'd forgotten entirely about the power switch. CSX Robert wrote: locoworks wrote:... 1) i don't like the fact that when you acquire an already moving loco it suddenly changes speed and/or direction depending on the possition of the throttle and the brake lever...When changing locos, press the loco button and while the display is flashing adjust the throttle and direction switch to match the loco you are switching to, then enter the new number and press loco to acquire the other loco.Robert; A good tip for Zephyr users, but certainly not intuitive. If that's eplained in the documentation, I missed it somehow. I had to use my Zephyr for a while to figure it out. It also requires the operator to be able to estimate the proper throttle position for the current speed of the locomotive.
jfallon wrote: Oh, yeah. One main thing that all Digitrax systems lack, AN ON/OFF SWITCH! John
Oh, yeah. One main thing that all Digitrax systems lack, AN ON/OFF SWITCH!
John
John; Excellent point. I have several DC powerpacks from various train sets. My favorite is an Athearn because it has an On/Off switch. Your point about the better display to me was a given; I'd started out with it. But I'd forgotten entirely about the power switch.
CSX Robert wrote: locoworks wrote:... 1) i don't like the fact that when you acquire an already moving loco it suddenly changes speed and/or direction depending on the possition of the throttle and the brake lever...When changing locos, press the loco button and while the display is flashing adjust the throttle and direction switch to match the loco you are switching to, then enter the new number and press loco to acquire the other loco.
locoworks wrote:... 1) i don't like the fact that when you acquire an already moving loco it suddenly changes speed and/or direction depending on the possition of the throttle and the brake lever...
Robert; A good tip for Zephyr users, but certainly not intuitive. If that's eplained in the documentation, I missed it somehow. I had to use my Zephyr for a while to figure it out. It also requires the operator to be able to estimate the proper throttle position for the current speed of the locomotive.
that is how you have to try and do it, but if you have tram/brill trolley or a couple of PA units running back to back as a consist, how do you tell at a glance which way is forward?? if the display worked like the DT400 in 'RECALL' mode, it would show you the speed and direction of the address in the display BEFORE you acquire it. this would give you a chance of matching speed and direction fairly closely. and on that point, there is a recall stack in the DT400, 4 addresses as standard, but adjustable to 8 or 16. this is where the encoder comes in as you can scroll in either direction as far as necessary. you may find on the zephyr that if it had the function the throttle may not have enough movement left in the lever to get to the desired loco?? so if you get a DT400 from the get go, you can have a recall stack.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
simon1966 wrote: In conclusion. The Zephyr 2 would have a built in PC interface. It would have a recall stack and 28 function support. Beyond that I would not change it a bit.I would reduce the price of the basic system to undercut the PowerCab and then offer a slightly higher priced bundle that would include the Z2 and a UT4. This would I suspect give a boost to sales.
In conclusion. The Zephyr 2 would have a built in PC interface. It would have a recall stack and 28 function support. Beyond that I would not change it a bit.
I would reduce the price of the basic system to undercut the PowerCab and then offer a slightly higher priced bundle that would include the Z2 and a UT4. This would I suspect give a boost to sales.
As usual Simon, your analysis of a subject is clear and precise. I totally agree with and echo all of your comments. I wish that I could say it as well.
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
locoworks wrote:... 1) i don't like the fact that when you acquire an already moving loco it suddenly changes speed and/or direction depending on the possition of the throttle and the brake lever. the solution for me would be a big knob like the UT4 on an encoder instead of a pot, and a button to change direction like the DT*00's this way the loco keeps its speed and direction and can be adjusted accordingly AFTER a smooth acquisition. the sudden speed and direction change can be lessened by using accelleration and decelleration settings, but they are always there then and you may not want them...
I have had a Zephyr since just after Digitrax released them. The module group I am in uses Digitrax and the Zephyr can be used as a booster to power my modules during train shows. I also found that programming with the Zephyr was much easier than with the DT300 throttles on the Chief ( this was before we purchased Dt400's). I have a programming track set up with a resistor across the rails (the resistor that came with the Zephyr in the decoder/loconet test pack). I have had no trouble programming sound decoders from Soundtraxx, QSI or ESU. I have finally bought a Locobuffer-USB and use DecoderPro for programming through the Zephyr.
One thing to remember is that the Zephyr is meant to be an entry-level DCC system. As such it should be A: easy to use B: appropriately priced and C: upgradeable. To build in advanced features such as radio or computer interface would work against these requirements. You can easily add these to the Zephyr if when you want to.
The main improvement needed, IMO, is a better display, perhaps a larger version of the DT400's. Combine this with a recall stack like the MRC Prodigy Advance uses, and have it displaying up to three locomotives' address, speed and direction. This would also make it easier to MU locomotives into consists.
I doubt that beginning users would really need to access 28 functions, but if it's only a software change that doesn't cost much it would be a nice feature.
If everybody is thinking alike, then nobody is really thinking.
http://photobucket.com/tandarailroad/
[Interjection]
I think this is a good topic of discussion. However, it appears that responses are (and have been) getting a little too personal at times. Can we please stay on topic - without challenging one anothers credentials?
I would prefer to keep the discussion going, if possible. Thanks for your cooperation.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
davidmbedard wrote:A blog doesnt make a journalist. You should only list Journalism as a profession if you actually get paid or make a living doing it...let alone use it to defend your 'polls' here on these forums.
A blog doesnt make a journalist. You should only list Journalism as a profession if you actually get paid or make a living doing it...let alone use it to defend your 'polls' here on these forums.
About.com is a New York Times company. My writing for About.com is a paid position. Also, if you had looked over my About.com the site, you would see that there is much more to it than just blog posts. With the exception of your responses, this thread has for the most part been a civil discussion of why I think the Zephyr needs to be updated, and what others feel would be important features if it was updated.
If your perception is that I'm defending my polls, it is probably because you are the one attacking them. And every time I answer your remarks with specific comments related to the issue at hand, the Zephyr, you respond with further personal attacks on me. So, in fact, it is not my polls that I'm defending, it is myself.
Stevert wrote: tstage wrote:Although the Power Cab's wall transformer and PCP panel do not get utilized when upgrading to the PH Pro system like the Power Cab throttle does, they can be used and are still needed if you should ever decide to use your Power Cab to do your programming at your bench. So, essentially, they do NOT become obsolete. Tom Tom, that depends entirely on your layout/"bench" situation. In my case, I don't have a dedicated bench, at least nothing where I can set up a programming track. So for me, those components would indeed become obsolete. I would also hazard a guess that many PC users build their programming track into the layout based on the PC's stock configuration. Then they upgrade to the full PHP and leave their programming track on the layout (Who can blame them? It's there, it's wired, it works, and it' what they're used to. Why move it?), well, in that case we're still back to obsolete components. Steve
tstage wrote:Although the Power Cab's wall transformer and PCP panel do not get utilized when upgrading to the PH Pro system like the Power Cab throttle does, they can be used and are still needed if you should ever decide to use your Power Cab to do your programming at your bench. So, essentially, they do NOT become obsolete. Tom
Although the Power Cab's wall transformer and PCP panel do not get utilized when upgrading to the PH Pro system like the Power Cab throttle does, they can be used and are still needed if you should ever decide to use your Power Cab to do your programming at your bench. So, essentially, they do NOT become obsolete.
Tom, that depends entirely on your layout/"bench" situation.
In my case, I don't have a dedicated bench, at least nothing where I can set up a programming track. So for me, those components would indeed become obsolete.
I would also hazard a guess that many PC users build their programming track into the layout based on the PC's stock configuration. Then they upgrade to the full PHP and leave their programming track on the layout (Who can blame them? It's there, it's wired, it works, and it' what they're used to. Why move it?), well, in that case we're still back to obsolete components.
Steve
Steve,
I guess the point I was making is that they don't "have" to become obsolete. With the Smart Booster, there is no work around so it does become "dead weight" when you upgrade. (Unlike the Zephyr, where you can use it as an addition power booster when upgrading. That's a good design! ) However, with the PCP panel and the wall transformer, you do have the option to still use them - even if you do upgrade.
I guess I'm one of those few Power Cab users who hasn't built their programming track into their layout. So I have my programming track on a separate ~27" section of 1 x 3, which makes it very portable. I can easily use it at my layout when I need it and store out of the way when it's not in use. And, since it's portable, I can also take my programming track over to a friend's house or club meeting and program my (or anyone else's) locomotive(s) there - even if there is no layout.
So, until I upgrade to a PH Pro, every part of my Power Cab is still being used. And, even if I do upgrade, my "portable" programming track still needs and uses the PCP panel and wall transformer, which I have the option of using at my workbench...or dining room table...or office computer...or friend's house...or club meeting, etc., etc.
As you pointed out, Steve, it depends entirely how one uses their system. In my case, things dont' have to (or have yet to) become obsolete.
davidmbedard wrote:With the OP, my spidey sence just started tingling. He says he is a 30 year computer programmer, a teacher and a journalist, yet he cant get a USB item to work with his Mac and posts bias polls. Something isnt right here. David B
With the OP, my spidey sence just started tingling. He says he is a 30 year computer programmer, a teacher and a journalist, yet he cant get a USB item to work with his Mac and posts bias polls. Something isnt right here.
David B
What I believe I said was that DecoderPro would not recognize the device, even though the drivers were properly installed (the Mac OS recognized the device). And, because it worked on the first try with my Windows box, I didn't pursue the matter.
I am no longer a teacher, as surgery on my throat last year prevents me from talking longer than a few minutes at a time, and also limits my other activites somewhat. You may call the Glendale (California) College Business Division and ask the division chair whether or not I taught there in recent years. As for my being a journalist, please visit http://modeltrains.about.com and look over the articles I have written on the subject of model railroading. As I have said, most are geared towards beginners, so I don't expect that there's much if anything there you don't already know. I always welcome constructive feedback from experienced modelers.
my 2 cents on the zephyr, i have posted something similar elswhere;
1) i don't like the fact that when you acquire an already moving loco it suddenly changes speed and/or direction depending on the possition of the throttle and the brake lever. the solution for me would be a big knob like the UT4 on an encoder instead of a pot, and a button to change direction like the DT*00's this way the loco keeps its speed and direction and can be adjusted accordingly AFTER a smooth acquisition. the sudden speed and direction change can be lessened by using accelleration and decelleration settings, but they are always there then and you may not want them.
2) i think the display should be like the DT series in that it shows direction, speed and function status at a glance. maybe with a bigger display than the DT's as it is likely to be further away than a hand held unit.
3) following on from 2 really but i would like to see 2 big knobs on 2 encoders with a direction change button for each allowing the same usage and function as a DT400. in simple terms i guess i'm looking for a digitrax version of the hornby elite ( google for pictures ) it would in effect be a BIG DT400 desk console with the commmand station built in.
4) must be able to control all functions from the console, not just the first 12 or whatever it does now.
5) maybe also build in IR and the new duplex radio to the unit as an option at innitial purchase rather than add to a loconet?
the snag with all my 'improvements' and some of the other options folks would like is that what we really want is an entry level top of the range system in terms of function and cost. obviosly a contradiction in terms. as it stands if you want most things get a chief, if you are learning get a zephyr. never get an empire builder as a stand alone system, not reading back CV's or having a dedicated programming track output is a real PIA. if you want a booster and a DT400 though get it cos it's cheaper than those 2 sold individually and you get a UP5 thrown in. when digitrax eventually get duplex radio and F28 controllable from a DT400, their product will be top of the pile in terms of spec and expandabillity at a fair price. maybe i'll still have hair by the time it happens??
I believe that beginner sets in days soon to come will need a bundled DCC system, like the interesting but unsupported Roco set someone on here was purchasing at a close-out price last week. I think those Roco sets were ahead of their time. I believe train sets will soon have bundled DCC because we have seen the prices of computers, video games, and cell phones drop as their functionality and user interface features have improved. I think DCC systems, like other technologies, will follow making it cost effective to put them in a train set.
My concern is that Digitrax is neglecting the entry level market, and that this will ultimately cost them even more in terms of long-term market share. While the new Bachmann DCC command station unit is visually appealing, looking like a hand-held video game with its large LCD panel, I don't think many people on this forum would disagree with my desire to see Digitrax offer an entry level product comparable in "look and feel", competitvely priced, but with the power of the Zephyr. This is where I am coming from.
David; I have not observed anyone belittling you in this thread... unless of course you feel belittled any time someone disagrees with you.
corsair7 wrote: jalajoie wrote:There is no need to upgrade the Zephyr, simply add a DT400 to it and you are done.That's what I did but it would great if you didn't need to do that right away.Irv
jalajoie wrote:There is no need to upgrade the Zephyr, simply add a DT400 to it and you are done.
That's what I did but it would great if you didn't need to do that right away.
Irv
I agree but in my case I already had 2 throttles that I was using on the club layout, one UT1 and one DT100R I never use the Zephyr console to run train, only to program decoders. Now I added two more throttles one UT4R and the DT400R we are using radio at the club.
The Z console form factor is a deal breaker to some but was irrelevant to me. Lets not forget that Digitrax Big Boy "IIRC" was built exactly as the NCE Power Cab that is with a handheld throttle that also was the command station, years ahead of the Power Cab. Why Digitrax ditched this form factor in unknown to me.
Randall_Roberts wrote: I am doing this poll because, despite what Digitrax owners believe, it is my observation that Digitrax is losing market share to NCE because of an inferior user interface.
I am doing this poll because, despite what Digitrax owners believe, it is my observation that Digitrax is losing market share to NCE because of an inferior user interface.
Randall, this is the statement that I think many would take issue with. The notion that somehow the Ireland's and the team at Digitrax don't know what is going on in their market is not believable. Digitrax defined the entry level DCC segment with the Zephyr several years back. For the best part of 4 years they had the segment entirely to themselves. As other companies follow into the segment, new products are obviously going to take away some market share. They know it, they know the impact it is having on their business and they will no doubt respond when and if it is necessary.
Digitrax, like NCE is a small company. They have clearly been focusing on sound decoders this past few years, and quite possibly on a more profitable and growing part of their business. An innovative duplex wireless systems is coming out and higher function support upgrades are coming as well. History would suggest to me that Digitrax management has a remarkably good grasp and understanding of their market and will more than likely respond when resources dictate. The fact that their core product platform is well over a decade old and still commands a high percentage of the market tells you something about how well designed the device actually is.
Anyway, accepting the arguement that the Z should get a face-lift, what would I do?
1. Console or not console? Tough one here. For some a console is exactly what they want for a home layout. The Z just occupies the space that the old DC throttle took. Right now the Z is the only real entry level console DCC system. I would be careful about eliminating that advantage when it is so easy to add a walk-around throttle for relatively low cost (UT4)
2. Ease of use. Nothing can be simpler to operate than the Z with its nice throttle lever and direction/brake control. For day-to-day operations it is trivial. For simple basic programming like cab number etc. it is also easy to use. It all gets a bit complex with more advanced programming. If you add the PC into the equation all systems are equal. I would build in the interface in the Z generation 2.
3. Function support. Add more simply to bring it up to spec.
4. Other features. A recall stack would be a nice to. Yard mode is bunk IMO. The current throttle /brake reverse controls work great and give you yard like control. I tend to set the speed with the throttle knob and do all my control with the direction/brake lever.
Of course I don't know anything about the profitability of either the Z or the PowerCab. For all we know these systems are selling with very low margin and actually don't make much money for the companies. For all we know NCE is regretting ever introducing the PowerCab. Has the increase in PowerCab volume offset the lost margin as it takes sales away from the ProCab?
davidmbedard wrote:The selling points of the NCE power cab are its user interface and its ability to be used both as an all-in-one DCC system at home, and as a cab on a larger NCE based system....and this is different from the Z how? The Z is a MORE capable stand along system and doesnt become obsolete when you grow beyond it.
The selling points of the NCE power cab are its user interface and its ability to be used both as an all-in-one DCC system at home, and as a cab on a larger NCE based system.
...and this is different from the Z how? The Z is a MORE capable stand along system and doesnt become obsolete when you grow beyond it.
David,
Although I would generally agree with you that the Zephyr has the better upgrade path than the Power Cab, I do have to disagree with you on one point.
Now, if you were strictly referring to the Smart Booster, then I wholeheartedly agree. However, you didn't make mention of it so I wanted to clarify that point.
I'm surprised that David is a DCC dealer and not a lawyer. Personal attacks are a tactic often employed to distract listeners from what a person is saying. But it was kind of him to say that I was right about something... even if it was for the wrong reasons.
My conclusions regarding the Zephyr are based on my own observations of the industry, conversations with dealers, and with other DCC users. David asserts that he sells DCC equipment and hasn't made the same observations I have heard from others. I'll take him at his word, although his statements clearly reflect a personal bias. Perhaps some other dealers have a vested interest in increasing NCE's market share.
The first personal computer I owned was a single-board kit that I soldered together myself. It was based on the RCA Cosmac 1802 microprocessor, a chip it's unlikely you've heard of unless you were in the semiconductor industry in the late 70s. This computer's user interface was a hexidecial keypad and seven segment displays for the address and data bus. I built this kit in 1978 or 79. I also owned a few HO pieces back then, but I don't claim to have been a member of the MIT model railroad club.
Although I have been working with computers for 30 years, when I follow the installation instructions for a peripheral device and a software package explicitly, and the software does not recognize the presence of the hardware device I have no magic incantation to make it do so. Because my LocoBuffer worked on my Windows box, I never bothered to spend time on the phone or swapping emails with tech support to get it working on the Mac.
As I have often told my students, computers are like medicine (and for that matter, model railroading). There are many specialized areas, and few people if any can be a master of them all.
As to the matter of more clubs turning to NCE, I did not mean that clubs are pulling out Digitrax systems and replacing them with NCE, but that NCE is gaining market share in new installations.
Martin; I read somewhere that the Empire builder was originally the top end product and gave place to the Super Chief. If I have been misinformed as to the chronology I accepted what I read because introducing a product that can't read CVs as a mid-range product when you have a low-end product that will makes no sense.
river_eagle; thanks for your input. I believe that the best target market for low end systems is smaller layouts like 4x8 or shelf layouts. And because shelf layouts are usually switching layouts, I really like the idea of being able to put the throttle into a "yard" mode or "switcher" mode... a mode where the throttle is bi-directional like the old Bachmann brick power packs.
To those of you who have responded to my question seriously instead of using it as an occassion to belittle me for your own amusement, you have my thanks.