CSX Robert The reason the NMRA did not require that all systems support the full address range is so that manufactureres could produce DCC systems at a lower cost to both encourage manufacturers to actually produce systems and to widen the DCC user base with affordable systems. The first Digitrax system, the Challenger, did not go to 127, but only 15. The throttle for the Challenger was 4 potentiometers and 8 buttons, and no intelligence.This allowed Digitrax to produce a relatively affordable system. If the system had had to support 127 addresses, the throttle clearly would have had to have been more complicated, resulting in a more costly system. Who, knows, if that had been the case, we might not have even have Digitrax today. My first DCC system was an MRC Command 2000, which only supported 10 addresses. Again, by limiting the supported addresses, they were able to produce an inexpensive system, which was the only one I could afford at the time. The Command 2000 got me hooked on DCC. If it had not been for it, I still would have eventually converted to DCC, but it likely would have been many years later.
The reason the NMRA did not require that all systems support the full address range is so that manufactureres could produce DCC systems at a lower cost to both encourage manufacturers to actually produce systems and to widen the DCC user base with affordable systems. The first Digitrax system, the Challenger, did not go to 127, but only 15. The throttle for the Challenger was 4 potentiometers and 8 buttons, and no intelligence.This allowed Digitrax to produce a relatively affordable system. If the system had had to support 127 addresses, the throttle clearly would have had to have been more complicated, resulting in a more costly system. Who, knows, if that had been the case, we might not have even have Digitrax today. My first DCC system was an MRC Command 2000, which only supported 10 addresses. Again, by limiting the supported addresses, they were able to produce an inexpensive system, which was the only one I could afford at the time. The Command 2000 got me hooked on DCC. If it had not been for it, I still would have eventually converted to DCC, but it likely would have been many years later.
It all comes down to the NMRA bending over backwards to accomodate ONE manufacturer, Lenz. They could have set the standard so that 1-127 was ALWAYS short and 128+ was ALWAYS long, and this would have worked with EVERY system out there except Lenz. Even the simple low end systems - those addresses set by the Challenger didn;t really use addresses as far as the end user was concerned, it was more like Group 1, Blue Throttle. Behind the scenes it set a simple short address in the decoder. Same with the Command 2000. And even newer - the Bachmann EZ Command. When you set a loco to use Button 1 to select it, it sets the address to 1, Button 2, is 2, etc. All short addresses. Full-featured early systems (short address only) all supported 1-127, EXCEPT Lenz.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
It seems that the Digitrax I have is really easy to program an engine # into, I do not need to enter all of the other CV's that others seem to need. #29 is only needed if reversing the engines direction.
No need to worry about "when programming a loco address with Digitrax, if the address wanted is 45
Just add one or to"0" to the end of a two or three digit #. So easy.
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
LakeIt seems that the Digitrax I have is really easy to program an engine # into, I do not need to enter all of the other CV's that others seem to need. #29 is only needed if reversing the engines direction.
The other systems are just as easy, and there are normally no CVs that have to be dealt with. The only reason that CVs even entered into this particular discussion was that the OP wanted to take his loco, programmed on his system, to a location with another system. Go back and read the other posts and you'll see where the issue was.
And once again, this business of adding numbers to the end of the loco number may work for individuals, but it is terrible in a club environment where people are used to just entering the number on the side of the cab.
maxman And once again, this business of adding numbers to the end of the loco number may work for individuals, but it is terrible in a club environment where people are used to just entering the number on the side of the cab.
True enough. Maybe what the OP ought to do is renumber his locos.
Rich
Alton Junction