Accepting as a truism that there is no such thing as the "best" system for all users I am wondering if there is anywhere that anyone has done an objective study of the various pros/cons of each of the systems available today.
While I can wire a house (or a layout) and do plumbing (but can't solder worth a plugged nickle) I am hesitant to make the jump to DCC as I contemplate getting the old 4x8 restarted and making it expandable into future modules. It mostly has to do with the cost involved rather than the 'I can't do it' syndrome (although there is a little of that). I don't want to buy something that can't grow with me and I don't want to blow a huge amount of money on more system than I need.
I also am aware that because of 'Moore's Law' the DCC coming out tomorrow will make today's models look like Model Ts. But like all good tools, it will do tomorrow what I purchase it to do today, so I want to make sure I get the best system available today to handle today's (and tomorrow's known) needs.
Everybody has an opinion as to which system is best and why and if you want to post those go ahead I'm open to all input. But what I am really looking for is someone without a dog in the fight to give me their views.
Thanks in advance for all the input.
Bob
Bob,
Both initial cost, and the work needed to add decoders to engines can be daunting.
For a small home layout, both NCE Powercab and the Digitrax Zephyr are good choices. They are expandable, have good support from their manufactures, and can be attached to home computers. This last 'feature' may mean nothing to you right now, but being able to program engines from your keyboard is quite nice. The cost of the 'computer interface' is around $50-60 and the Decoder Pro software is free.
The cost of decoders has gone down, and you can get decoders in the $15-20 range. Sound decoders are more expensive and you will be spending about $100/engine for the decoder/speaker. The work involved to convert older engines that are not 'DCC Ready'(have a plug/socket) usually involves a complete 'hard wire' of the engine, and insulating the motor brushes from the chassis/frame. Digitrax for one has conversion kits for the older Athearn 'Blue Box' diesels You will need to take a serious look at some of your engines and decide if they are even good enough runners to spend a $20 bill on them. DCC will not make a poor runner run any better. I still have some older engines that are not converted, and never will be. I have about 30 engines that are DCC:
I have a Digitrax DCC system, and it does allow the running a a single DC engine, but a non-decoder engine will 'hum' when sitting idle on the track and may overheat.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Bob SanduskyAccepting as a truism that there is no such thing as the "best" system for all users I am wondering if there is anywhere that anyone has done an objective study of the various pros/cons of each of the systems available today.
Programming decoders might be another deciding factor for you. I am a computer person so it doesn't bother me if I can program by "menu" or if I have to set "CV"s. Might make a difference to you.
I also am aware that because of 'Moore's Law' the DCC coming out tomorrow will make today's models look like Model Ts.
Afterthought - I will strongly advise that you do NOT NOT NOT buy MRC decoders. This includes the Brilliance Sound decoders with the attractive (cheap) prices.
Texas Zepher The only one I understand (don't know first hand) that has an issue with expansion is the Digitrax Empire Builder.
The only one I understand (don't know first hand) that has an issue with expansion is the Digitrax Empire Builder.
Although I don't have an Empire Builder (I have a Super Chief), I'm not aware of any "issue(s) with expansion" it might have. It's a LocoNet-based system just like the Zephyr or the Super Chief; to expand, you simply plug whatever else you need into the LocoNet.
To answer the OP's question:
There isn't any truly objective study that I've ever heard of, but choosing a DCC system isn't necessarily an objective endeavor anyway. Make a list of what you MUST have, another list of what you'd LIKE to have, and see which system meets most of those criteria and is comfortable for you to use. Then buy it.
Bob-
It is intresting to view the comments. I have been away from HO for about 12 years. I have all of my locomotoves.rolling stock. structures, and related items packed in boxes until the day they emerge again which is now.
Do I build a layout with conventional wiring or move up to DCC. My layout will be a persoanl one with little anticipation of operating sessions with a group of people. I might have my grandson over for an occasionl run.
I have a 19' x 12' space to work with but, I don't anticipate running a lot of trains at one time.
Much like you, and others, is the cost and features you gain worth it? This is also a complete new learning curve. The joy, to me, of model railroading is building a lyout, scenery, details, trains, etc. If I am going to invest a great deal of time and money learning a new control system and all that goes with it - then it seems I am away from the hobby - I guess that is where it is today.
I am still researching the "pros and cons" of DCC myself.
I will be intrested to know your final decision and results.
Thanks
I came back to the hobby after a 40 year absence. I've been back about 6 years now. I went with DCC almost from the beginning. I bought a Lenz System 100 at that time, and it is still doing everything I want it to do. DCC specifications are still controlled by the NMRA, and they haven't changed very much. The thing that has evolved is the decoders on the locomotives, which have become more reliable, more capable and just, well, better. And then, of course, there's sound. I really enjoy sound in my engines. Some people don't care for it at all, and others are ambivalent. So, that one is up to you.
DCC simplifies the wiring of your layout. Traditional DC block control can take a lot to wire and a lot to operate, constantly flipping toggles to keep multiple cabs connected to the right blocks where the engines are running. Somewhere, a long time ago on a layout far, far away, someone coined the phrase, "With DC, you run the track. With DCC, you run the trains." DCC provides individual control of each locomotive, regardless of where it may be on your layout. This is particularly good for small layouts, where creating many blocks for individual control can be a problem, because the blocks can't be large enough to be run effectively.
6 years ago, I was proceeding with layout construction in a workmanlike, professional manner, consistent with my age and hair color. But, when I installed my first DCC decoder and ran my first DCC train, I became an 8-year-old kid again, playing with trains. And that kid will always be 8 years old.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I have a Digitrax Zephyr. The President of my ex-club has a 22 x 30 layout run off just the Zephyr, and we have had 10 trains running at once on that layout. Locally I have run ops sessions on layouts that use Digitrax, MRC Prodigy Advanced, and NCE Pro Cab.
The point is all these systems are really cool. There are differences, but nothing that screams get XYZ system.
So you look for other things. What do your friends run? What does your club run? What does your local Hobby shop support? (in case you don't want to wait 3 days to solve a problem.)
I suppose it is possible, but I've never seen any of these three systems break down. I've seen human error and smoked decoders, but the systems work great.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
BTW, the next major breakthrough will probably be 'dead" tracks with battery operated locos charged on service tracks. But the technology is probably a decade away.
A must have for a new DCC system is a computer interface, then download DecoderPro (Java MRI) for free.
Jim, Modeling the Kansas City Southern Lines in HO scale.
I was wondering when another one of these threads will start up again. Ford vs Chevy or less filling - great taste.
I am a user of the 3 major brands (Lenz, Digitrax and NCE) and not affiliated with any. All three are great. Then again I can say All three are junk. As with any technology innovations there are bound to be teething problems for you. Systems will deliver what you want and need if you through enough money at it. The most important thing to consider is the throttle. It is the main human/layout interface. I like the feel of my NCE hammerhead over the little Lenz ZH100. I like the knob feel of the Digitrax throttle but hate the tiny buttons. I like the configuration ability of the Lenz throttle. Your hand will be very different than mine. Pick a system with the best feel for you.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
Georgia TrainsDo I build a layout with conventional wiring or move up to DCC. My layout will be a persoanl one with little anticipation of operating sessions with a group of people.
Much like you, and others, is the cost and features you gain worth it?
This is also a complete new learning curve.
Second loco isn't much harder. Set on track. Choose program on main. Choose set loco to channel x, press button. Choose run mode. Set throttle to channel x, run train. It only starts getting sort of complicated when one starts wanting to do fancy stuff with it. Consists, special sound programming, special lighting, speed curves, etc. All of those are optional.
Even installing decoders is so simple these days. Once again the tricky part can be doing the lighting. without lighting one can install a decoder in an Athearn Blue Box in under 15 minutes. Some others are easier because the motor doesn't have to be isolated from the frame.
locoi1saI am a user of the 3 major brands (Lenz, Digitrax and NCE) and not affiliated with any.
But as you can see this is all personal preferences. Yours will most likely be different from mine.
Remember there is no more plugging in for Digitrax wireless.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
SpaceMouse BTW, the next major breakthrough will probably be 'dead" tracks with battery operated locos charged on service tracks. But the technology is probably a decade away.
In HO your decade away may be right. But I also operate a garden railroad in the backyard with battery packs mounted in the diesels along with the motor control and have since the early 1990's. I use a system called RCS. I get several hours on full charge, and in some cases, have battery packs in the loco with a toggle to switch between. I also have battery packs installed in some freight cars that can run behind a diesel and plug in to add additional battery power.
Of course the batteries at this point are heavier and the motor control is small but not small enough for HO yet. For a garden railroad, battery/radio is ideal, no problems with current, clean track, wiring outdoors. But for my HO in the basement, NCE DCC is the system of choice.
rrinker Remember there is no more plugging in for Digitrax wireless.
Here are a few thoughts from someone still using DC, who operates with DCC on a number of friends layouts, and who has considered DCC several times.
First off if you like or want onboard sound in HO you need DCC. I don't like onboard sound in the smaller scales (HO or smaller) so I don't need DCC for that.
Second, if I was building a small layout where a several trains would be expected to operate in close proximity to each other, or, where trains reveresed direction relative to the viewing position, or, where the track plan called for lots of reverse loops, I would choose DCC.
If I was modeling O scale or On30, which is large enough for me to want sound, but not large enough or onboard direct radio with battery power, I would consider DCC or Aristo direct radio (Revolution Train Engineer).
After resarching DCC several times, if I ever chose it for a layout there would be only one chioce - EASY DCC for CVP.
But for my current layout and modeling goals I have considered and rejected DCC because:
I have no interested in onboard sound.
I am building a large but relatively simple layout that is designed for both prototype operation and good display running.
I have a high interest in signaling and CTC control - which requires a complex wiring infrastructure anyway - and the DC cab control can be intergated right into the signaling and turnout controls for a lower cost than seperate DCC train control and a seperate signaling infrastructure.
I am experianced with advanced cab control systems that greatly reduce and automate the number buttons/switches that must be operated to assign cabs to trains. And, I have designed my own version combining several well proven systems from years gone by.
I do not like computer screen CTC panels so the various signal systems that interface with DCC are of no particular interest.
I have used DCC on layouts with DCC controlled turnouts, don't care for that either, too cumbersome.
I have no need for advanced consisting since I model an era of matched diesel power and double headed steam and have no issues simulating these operations in DC.
My layout plan is large and allows for 8-10 trains to operate at once. It provides stagging for about 30 trains and requires about 120 powered locos - that's a lot of decoders or more expensive factory equiped locos. I already have most of what I need and have no interest in replacing/refitting them.
I have the necessary electrical background to wire a somewhat complex control and signal system and to do it is such a way as to make it easy to install and maintain.
I use the Aristo Craft 10 Channel Train Engineer wireless radio throttles. They provide excelent speed control and are very simple - five large buttons - faster, slower, east ,west, emergency stop. No small buttons or hard to read displays. In fact the buttons are such that operation without looking at the hand held is very easy.
I actually like the self imposed restrictions of designing the layout and control system together from the start to obtain the desired goals - I'm not a "wing it" kind of modeler.
The system I have designed meets all my goals at a lower cost than what those goals would reqiure using DCC as the train control method.
So, depending on your needs, wants, goals, and your approach to modeling, DCC may well be the answer, or it may not. Only you can answer these questions and decide if its features are of value to you and if the results justify the cost.
On a medium to small layout, without signaling or complex turnout controls or CTC, DCC is very easy to wire. But once you add in any of these more advanced features, or the layout becomes "large", the required infrastructure for DCC expands rapidly. All my friends with large DCC layouts have miles of wire just like my DC layout - their wires just do different stuff, but they still have lots of it.
My wiring is mostly done on centralized panels that are wired off the layout than installed with usually less than a dozen connections - so while they may be complex, its not really "difficult".
But what do I know.............
Sheldon
Texas Zepher rrinker Remember there is no more plugging in for Digitrax wireless. Cool, How long ago did that come out? I now just have to wait for all my friends who run Digitrax wireless to upgrade.
Since the DT402D/UR92, end of last year. There is also a UT4D now as well. D for Duplex radio. Upgrades follow typical Digitrax policy - the cost of the upgrade is the same as the price difference if you had purchased the upgraded item originally, ie if the DT402D is $50 more than a DT402 without radio it costs $50 to add the radio. Both radio systems can coexist - they use different frequencies - so there is no need to do a mass upgrade at potentially great expense, you can switch over gradually. The DT402 series throttles also have user-upgradeable firmware, so the next feature update should be an quick and easy update, unless the entire hardware changes. I'm still waiting for an encoder knob utility throttle, I hate limited potentiometer controls - I don't use the console of my Zephyr and I have no desire for a UT4.
Whenever I find myself contemplating converting to DCC I take two aspirins and go to bed until the fever subsides...
Like Sheldon, I use a form of Ed Ravenscroft's MZL analog DC system, and have been ever since Ed first described it in MR back in the 1970s. I'm comfortable with it, and I find it rather more user-friendly than trying to run several trains from a device like an entertainment system remote. Add to that a roster of old open-frame-motored locos, DMU and EMU cars - many of which had an (individual) original cost less than that of a high quality decoder with the power capacity it would take to DCC-ify them.
Also like Sheldon, I can live a long and happy life without smoke, sound and smell in locomotives.
Then, too, with analog DC I can set up auto-slow and auto-stop track circuits with nothing more complicated than a few resistors and a few ten-for-a-buck diodes. I haven't priced the electronic widgets needed to do the same in DCC, or the interface with a dedicated layout control computer...
Extending or modifying my track plan does require adding to or modifying the wiring. It doesn't require me to re-write software more complex than a schematic wiring diagram.
Finally, I am a 'hands in the machinery' person - the exact opposite of the 'black box think' required for DCC.
I readily admit that there are a lot of people who love DCC. I am not trying to convert them. I am simply stating that I prefer to march to a different drummer.
As an aside, if I were to contemplate using on board battery power with in-track recharging, I think I'd prefer to put AC on all the plain-jane track, have on-board battery chargers and have the batteries on charge any time the locomotive wasn't passing over (dead) specialwork or reversing sections. This isn't exactly a new idea. The battery mine motors that moved concrete from Lomix to the base of the (now) Hoover Dam recharged from third rail - but only in the 1600 foot tunnel between the concrete plant and the unloading sidings. Lomix was shut down, and the dam was finished, before I was born.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
rrinkerI'm still waiting for an encoder knob utility throttle, I hate limited potentiometer controls - I don't use the console of my Zephyr and I have no desire for a UT4.
And when I operate my friends layouts, I prefer the UT4, I dislike encoder knobs, on anything, train controls or stereo controls.
What I see as poor user interface has kept me away from DCC as much as anything.
IMHO, the digital age has brought about many compromises in user interface simply because it is easier to do much of it the way they do, not because it is user friendly or ergomonic. This is largely true of all modern tech, cell phones, stereo's and other A/V equipment, programable thermostats, etc,etc, not just DCC model train controls.
Many people are willing to simply "settle" for what is available or what is presented to them, some of us desire things to be truely user friendly.
32 closely spaced small buttons and small display of criptic icons fails the user friendly test for me.
Easy DCC has the right ideas about user interface!
But I still think I'll wait and see if direct radio goes anywhere.
tomikawaTT Finally, I am a 'hands in the machinery' person - the exact opposite of the 'black box think' required for DCC. I readily admit that there are a lot of people who love DCC. I am not trying to convert them. I am simply stating that I prefer to march to a different drummer.
And that's fine, Chuck. I don't think anyone is saying you have to march to any one particular drummer. Both are very viable platforms and have their advantages.
And, while I think I understand where you are coming from, may I add that you can get as "hands on" or "hands-off" as you want with DCC. Some wiring requirements will be the same; whether they be DCC or DC.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I think comparing DC to DCC is like comparing a cassette tape player to an iPod. Both play music fine, but you can do a heck of a lot more with the iPod.
For instance, try adjusting two locomotives in a consist to accelerate at the same rate and run at the same speed in DC.
There are a couple of generations in technology already between DC and DCC, and the gap is just going to get wider and wider.Why? Because DCC is a computer system and the programming is going to get better and better and the hardware smaller and smaller.
I'm not advocating that everyone should switch their layouts over. Just if you are starting a new layout, this would be the time.
SpaceMouse I think comparing DC to DCC is like comparing a cassette tape player to an iPod. Both play music fine, but you can do a heck of a lot more with the iPod.
And when it comes to listening to music, I have no use for an ipod or a cassette deck. I want to actually hear music, not processed compressed digital static. So I listen mostly to vinyl and to some degree CD's - on speakers that I designed and built.
And just like the DC vs DCC discussion, if you don't need the features of an ipod, or you don't like the way you interface with it, why have it?
I installed/programed some of the very first "computers" used in industry 30 years ago, but today I don't own an ipod, a picture cell phone, a programable thermostat, a DVR, or a "blackberry" type device.
None of those things would make my life easier or better. Niether will DCC.
Sheldon,
As long as you are willing to settle for limited operations who really cares. Life is what you make of it and if your life is great no problem.
But I prefer to do some things that DC can't do--like run helper service where the helpers break off at the top of the hill reverse directions and return to the bottom to help the next train. Like having a switcher change cabins when the crews change. Or having a switcher add and remove cars while the road engine idles.
But if you are willing to spend the time figuring out and wiring a system that almost works, more power to you.
But to me, if it costs relatively the same and is easier to wire and does the job right, then hey. I'm not going to throw something out just because it is newfangled.
pastorbobI use a system called RCS. I get several hours on full charge, and in some cases, have battery packs in the loco with a toggle to switch between. I also have battery packs installed in some freight cars that can run behind a diesel and plug in to add additional battery power. Of course the batteries at this point are heavier and the motor control is small but not small enough for HO yet. For a garden railroad, battery/radio is ideal, no problems with current, clean track, wiring outdoors. But for my HO in the basement, NCE DCC is the system of choice. Bob
Bob your trains sound just like our setup, just different control systems.
We use battery/RC for the outdoor layout. I call it outdoor since we can't really grow the typical garden plants in our environment. The system we use is Airwire 900.
For the HO layout we use a Digitrax Zephyr. Our HO layout is fairly small, a few 4 x 8 boards connected together. And we're not real big on switching operations either. Mainly just a double track loop. So the Zephyr is perfect for us.
And I guess for completeness, our O scale layout is controlled with an MRC dual power O27.
But back to the main topic here. I would totally recommend converting to DCC. We used to be DC and finally made the jump. After a few years now we are so glad we converted when we did. Being able to simply program and control various sound functions is a real plus. The only concern is to look at your current loco fleet and see if they can easily be converted to DCC. As has been mentioned, some older locos are tricky to convert.
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
Fellas,
Can we stop the personal barbs and mudslinging and get back this opening statement? [Emphasis in bold mine]
Bob Sandusky Accepting as a truism that there is no such thing as the "best" system for all users I am wondering if there is anywhere that anyone has done an objective study of the various pros/cons of each of the systems available today. While I can wire a house (or a layout) and do plumbing (but can't solder worth a plugged nickle) I am hesitant to make the jump to DCC as I contemplate getting the old 4x8 restarted and making it expandable into future modules. It mostly has to do with the cost involved rather than the 'I can't do it' syndrome (although there is a little of that). I don't want to buy something that can't grow with me and I don't want to blow a huge amount of money on more system than I need. I also am aware that because of 'Moore's Law' the DCC coming out tomorrow will make today's models look like Model Ts. But like all good tools, it will do tomorrow what I purchase it to do today, so I want to make sure I get the best system available today to handle today's (and tomorrow's known) needs. Everybody has an opinion as to which system is best and why and if you want to post those go ahead I'm open to all input. But what I am really looking for is someone without a dog in the fight to give me their views. Thanks in advance for all the input. Bob
Thank you for keeping it on topic.
SpaceMouseBut I prefer to do some things that DC can't do--like run helper service where the helpers break off at the top of the hill reverse directions and return to the bottom to help the next train. Like having a switcher change cabins when the crews change. Or having a switcher add and remove cars while the road engine idles.
If those tasks were within my operational scheme, DCC would likely be important to me. BUT, actually, the cabin change thing is quite easy with advanced cab control. And I know guys who run helpers and cut them off quite easily.
Does your railroad have detection and signals? That feature is more important to me than helper service for example.
In my orginal post I did not say one negative thing about DCC, yet the "you are just backward if you still use DC" attitude is dripping off your comments like:
SpaceMouseBut if you are willing to spend the time figuring out and wiring a system that almost works, more power to you.
How much do you know about how my layout is wired to make such a statement?
SpaceMouseAs long as you are willing to settle for limited operations who really cares.
Limited by what? The fact that I can't have a corn field meet? I'm happy to not have that option.
ATLANTIC CENTRALFirst off if you like or want onboard sound in HO you need DCC.
ATLANTIC CENTRALif I was building a small layout where a several trains would be expected to operate in close proximity to each other, or, where trains reveresed direction relative to the viewing position, or, where the track plan called for lots of reverse loops, I would choose DCC.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAfter resarching DCC several times, if I ever chose it for a layout there would be only one chioce - EASY DCC for CVP.
Wow! You've convinced me! I'm going DCC!
Why don't you just "come out" of the closet and tell the truth.
Sheldon uses the most advanced DCC system out there!
It's called " Dee's are my Choo Choo's" and aint nobody gonna tell me different.
Bob Sandusky Accepting as a truism that there is no such thing as the "best" system for all users I am wondering if there is anywhere that anyone has done an objective study of the various pros/cons of each of the systems available today.
Most such studies end up being feature comparisons. There are a few out there, but they tend to be outdated by new developments, and the addition of new features. And for feature comparisons to be useful, you have to know which features are important to you, and which are not. Finally, unless the comparisons address feature limitations as well, an otherwise great system may have a limitation you don't want to live with.
As an example, MRC Prodigy Express/Advanced/Advanced 2 has a computer interface available. But the limitation is that the JMRI/Decoder Pro software cannot be used with the MRC system and computer interface. There are workarounds available to allow use of JMRI, but those add more costs and effectively bypass the MRC system. How do you capture that in a feature chart? And if you did, the importantance of being able to use JMRI/Decoder Pro software varies greatly from person to person.
Another example is the NCE PowerCab's limitation on number of additional throttles. The base PowerCab allow one other throttle. Adding the Super Booster pushes the limit to 4. But if you add the computer interface, that takes up a throttle "slot" - when the interface is plugged in.
This goes on for all DCC systems and manufacturers. Each has features with limitations. And most limitations have workarounds.
While I can wire a house (or a layout) and do plumbing (but can't solder worth a plugged nickle) I am hesitant to make the jump to DCC as I contemplate getting the old 4x8 restarted and making it expandable into future modules. It mostly has to do with the cost involved rather than the 'I can't do it' syndrome (although there is a little of that). I don't want to buy something that can't grow with me and I don't want to blow a huge amount of money on more system than I need. I also am aware that because of 'Moore's Law' the DCC coming out tomorrow will make today's models look like Model Ts. But like all good tools, it will do tomorrow what I purchase it to do today, so I want to make sure I get the best system available today to handle today's (and tomorrow's known) needs. Everybody has an opinion as to which system is best and why and if you want to post those go ahead I'm open to all input. But what I am really looking for is someone without a dog in the fight to give me their views. Thanks in advance for all the input. Bob
I don't have a dog in the fight because I've yet to buy a DCC system. But I expect to one of these days.
My selection process will go something like this:
Costs - from my vantage point, DCC costs are greatly misrepresented, depending on the agenda of the writer. My research suggests that the modest (in my opinion) setup I would like would cost at least $700 all up.
Could I go cheaper? Yes, but then I start losing important features. Could I build it a piece at a time? Yes, but I need an end state and total cost in mind when I start down the road.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Gentlemen:
I would like to thank all who have contributed as the conversation has been helpful to me no matter what side you come down on.
The salient points I have gotten so far are:
1) What features does a user want? What does DCC give you that DC doesn't? Is that a reason to make the jump?
2) What does one DCC system give you that another one may not (say computer software limitations as to programming decoders)?
3) Cost of expandability and how big do you actually need to (or plan to grow) grow?
4) Human to technology interface, how easy (comfortable) for you to use the system you choose?
All excellent points and information.
Now where on-line can I find a fairly recent feature comparison list?
Thanks again. I expect I'll be making a decision in the next couple of month's as I'm working on a number of different aspects to the total project (such as how do I modify the 4x8 to attach modules and what modules do I want to build for attachment, etc, etc).
Thaks for all that has been posted and those ideas yet to be posted.