Sorry, I didn't mean to post and run, but my day got quite busy yesterday.
Jim Scorse talked about it on a podcast. I think last year. Not sure if I'm allowed to reference it as it isn't a trains.com affiliated one.
The impression I got were that beyond replacing the db9 serial with USB, the upgrades were largely the consequence of moving to newer parts. Not per se' intentional.
He literally couldn't make the original product anymore as the parts were just not going to ever be made again post pandemic. So it was redesigned with chips that were available. And those chips were newer and more powerful.
I'd assume the program track feature just means it will do better at programming modern sound decoders.
As for the shut down thing. Yeah, I've never gone through the shut down sequence either. Perhaps we're putting the system at risk and didn't know?
YoHo1975 https://tonystrains.com/product/nce-524-035-ph5-power-pro-5-amp-dcc-starter-system
https://tonystrains.com/product/nce-524-035-ph5-power-pro-5-amp-dcc-starter-system
NCE offers a number of DCC systems, some are the lesser powered (2 amp) PowerCabs and others are the higher powered (5 and 10 amp) PH-Pro systems.
It seems apparent that NCE introduced these "updated follow on" systems to replace the original PH-Pro and PH-Pro wireless systems. Why? Probably because of the electronic parts shortages or the discontinuation of certain electronic parts, as previously discussed in this thread. Interestingly, most of the new systems are "temporarily" unavailable due to parts unavailabilty.
The upddated versions are expensive: $800 for the starter system versus $545 for the original version and $1,000 for the wireless system versus $702 for the original wireless version.
If someone already owns an NCE 5 amp PH-Pro system, I am not convinced that it is worthwhile to purchase the equivalent updated system. The main advantages of the new systems appear to be "improved program track circuit", "4x the memory, 4x the speed of previous systems", and "no complicated shutdown, just turn it off".
Regarding "improved program track circuit", I am guessing that the program track was juiced up to read sound decoders without a program track booster. But, if someone like me already has a booster installed, no big deal.
Regarding "4x the memory, 4x the speed of previous systems", OK that sounds cool, but I am not sure what that means without reading the manual that comes with the system. I have no issues with the memory or speed of my current 5 amp wireless system.
Regarding "no complicated shutdown, just turn it off", I am mystified. Isn't that all you have to do now? When I am done, I flip a switch and everything is powered down.
There are some other stated advantages, but nothing that really caught my attention.
Rich
Alton Junction
maxman YoHo1975 In fact, the only reason that NCE released a new system this year was because the original was now impossible to build. I'm interested in finding out about this. Please provide a link. Thanks
YoHo1975 In fact, the only reason that NCE released a new system this year was because the original was now impossible to build.
In fact, the only reason that NCE released a new system this year was because the original was now impossible to build.
I'm interested in finding out about this. Please provide a link.
Thanks
In the interest of providing information and context.
The TCS consisting system was designed specifically because the designers loved the way NCE consisting worked, but wanted to include specific improvements and that was combined with TCS's desire to reduce their number 1 source of support calls.
First to level set terms.
Digitrax has universal consisting which is their name for what I would generically call in station consisting. That means the base station retains the consist info. MRC calls this old consisting
Then it has Advanced consisting. This is generically called CV19 or NMRA consisting. This sets the consist bit in CV19. I do not recall if it sets the other CVs required for full consisting.
NCE only really has one type of consisting. it is CV19 consisting with in base station features.
So it sets CV19, but then retains information in the base station in order to give a more user friendly experience. So you can use the address of any loco in the consist to run the consist.
So, first, the number 1 support call that TCS receives on their decoders is users that have programmed a consist in CV19 and then completely forgotten they did so and so call angry that their engines aren't working. This is true even for NCE users. People forget to clear consists regularly.
So TCS when making their own system addressed this.
The TCS UWT throttles have 2 different ways they create consists depending on the mode they are in.
If they are in WiThrottle mode, then they create what are called In Throttle consists. That means that the throttle itself links the locomotives together and sends out individual signals. It clearly shows that the locomotives are in a consist even after turned off and back on. And the engine will run like normal for anyone else.
If the throttle is in LCC mode and thus connected to an LCC DCC system, THEN the Throttle uses what I'll call Universal consisting with NCE UI.
Basically it's an in base station consist, but has all the same features as NCE where you can select any engine number and operate the consist. Any individual locomotive will operate as normal if on another layout.
The TCS also supports CV19 consisting, but doesn't encourage it's use.
the TCS system is also has some slight functionality improvements vs. NCE, but at its core it's the same user experience.
jjdamnitOthers chimed in and asserted that our opinions are irrelevant because "newer" DCC systems offer "better" technologies. If those "newer and better" technologies are not wanted or needed then there is no reason to upgrade.
This is insulting and I kindly ask that you put some more effort into reading people's posts.
NOBODY has said ANYONES opinions were irrelevant.
All that's been done here is to point out that Digitrax and NCE are not the only game in town anymore. And that if the club is looking to upgrade, they should broaden their scope.
And then personal opinions on why that is the case were given.
I don't understand why providing personal opinions intended to give the OP new information would be considered bad.
Do you prefer a throttle from the manufacturer or a smartphone or tablet?•If the clubs DCC system is the same as the one you use on your home layout would you want to use your personal throttle? If the members are not comfortable with using their smartphones and/or tablets and prefer using the manufacturer's throttles that they don't have on their own systems that's an additional expense the club has to incur.
Do you prefer a throttle from the manufacturer or a smartphone or tablet?•If the clubs DCC system is the same as the one you use on your home layout would you want to use your personal throttle?
If the members are not comfortable with using their smartphones and/or tablets and prefer using the manufacturer's throttles that they don't have on their own systems that's an additional expense the club has to incur.
I would like to point out that this is no longer the correct list of options.
You don't only need to use the system throttles or use your phone.
You can use 3rd party Withrottle throttles. The big one is the TCS UWT100 and 50.
You can DIY your own Withrottle throttles for a very low cost.
In fact many people I know bring their TCS UWTs to use on club layouts. Very few prefer their smart phones now. Though we also make that available.
reasearchhound richhotrain In the end, my guess is that the club will resolve the booster issue and keep the current Digitrax system. Rich My hope is that the board votes to stay with Digitrax, but upgrade it with bigger (and a few additional) boosters. But I am only one vote out of twelve. I want to express my extreme appreciation to all of you who responded - some of you went above and beyond with your detailed and comprehensive replies. And although I didn't respond to each one, rest assured I read each one and I'm sharing them with the other board members, especially our electronics guys.
richhotrain In the end, my guess is that the club will resolve the booster issue and keep the current Digitrax system. Rich
In the end, my guess is that the club will resolve the booster issue and keep the current Digitrax system.
My hope is that the board votes to stay with Digitrax, but upgrade it with bigger (and a few additional) boosters. But I am only one vote out of twelve.
I want to express my extreme appreciation to all of you who responded - some of you went above and beyond with your detailed and comprehensive replies. And although I didn't respond to each one, rest assured I read each one and I'm sharing them with the other board members, especially our electronics guys.
richhotrain Good post, Renegade. I hadn't considered electronic part obsolescence. Over two years ago, I sent a Switch-8 to NCE for repair. After a fairly long wait, I call a few times to inquire about the repair. Each time, I was told that they were waiting for parts from their supplier. I never did get it back. Rich
Good post, Renegade. I hadn't considered electronic part obsolescence.
Over two years ago, I sent a Switch-8 to NCE for repair. After a fairly long wait, I call a few times to inquire about the repair. Each time, I was told that they were waiting for parts from their supplier. I never did get it back.
One thing to note that has not been mentioned is obsolescence. If you have tried to buy an NCE system recently they have been rather difficult to find especially the larger systems. Because they have not changed their system in 25 years they are struggling to find parts to manufacture their system. This also could delay manufactuter repairs. I believe this is partially why Digitrax has come out with newer models of boosters, command stations, throttles, etc. so as to not face part obsolescense. Electronic parts go obsolete at absurd rates these days, 1 to 2 years at most.
I personnally use Digitrax because of Loconet, however, I have a 50/50 mix of digitrax and RRcirkits products connected to Loconet. I think it wouldn't be much of a stretch to switch to an LCC based system such as the TCS CS-105. I have a pretty involved layout which includes block detection and signalling and a full dispatchers panel all running on loconet. Much of what I have can't be done with a polled network like NCE uses.
There are many things I like about digitrax and many things I despise. I'm not too happy with new throttles and their bugs and their loss of communication on the regular (especially at the club). I do love loconet and the endless prosibilities it provides. LCC is more powerful but I'm probably not going to switch unless I have to rebuild my layout.
Back to my original point. NCE needs a major design update to overcome obsolescence, If you can't get chips you cant build the system or fix it.
Digitrax has noticed this but I don't think their QC is the same as it once was.
TCS has the newest system on the block and its what I would go with if I were to switch systems. It's on the pricey side but its likely to be around a while and they have great support and it works well, especially the wireless.
Speaking of wireless, wifi is a great choice as it is a proven technology and they leverage industry advances instead of a propreitary system like NCE and Digitrax.
I have operated numerous layouts on NCE, Digitrax, MRC, EasyDCC, Lenz and TCS. As far as throttles go TCS and Protothrottles are my favorite. I don't have a protothrottle since is likes $600 to connect it to Digitrax system. As stated by other NCE just works and its stable.
I love NCE's consisting way more than Digitrax. I can't stand Digitrax universal consisting. It's garbage. I ended up using advanced consisting.
I hope this provides good view of both systems. It largely depends on the needs of the end users. I need Digitrax (and later maybe TCS) because of loconet/LCC. Other's needs may vary. I suggest created a list of needs and wants for your particular application and see which system meets the most of the needs/wants.
Colorado Front Range Railroad: http://www.coloradofrontrangerr.com/
It's hard to imagine a system superior to NCE's Advanced Consisting which can be easily done POM in just a few quick keystrokes.
riogrande5761Consististing is was rated as superior to NCE so that was one factor important to me.
Well, trying to stay out of this discussion.
But I am curious who rated it superior.
The UWT uses something called "in cab consisting", which appears similar to NCE but doesn't involve the command station. I am not certain, but I am guessing that CV 19 in the decoder could be used to communicate between the controller and the loco. Again I am guesing about that.
But I question what happens when the owner of the cab goes home.
And what happens when someone else wants to operate a particular consist with his own controller?
My current opinion is that yes, it is a new way of consisting, but it possibly just opens up another can of worms.
riogrande5761 So here is the thing. If you are happy with your current system, great. But this topic is about if someone was looking to buy a system or to upgrade one. I've seen several posts where people say they are happy with their current system. We get that. Repeat it umpteen times. But if someone were to go layout money on a new system, they might be happier with a different system. TCS is a very recently developed system. That means they have learned things from past systems and have improved upon them. Consististing is was rated as superior to NCE so that was one factor important to me.
So here is the thing. If you are happy with your current system, great. But this topic is about if someone was looking to buy a system or to upgrade one. I've seen several posts where people say they are happy with their current system. We get that. Repeat it umpteen times. But if someone were to go layout money on a new system, they might be happier with a different system.
TCS is a very recently developed system. That means they have learned things from past systems and have improved upon them. Consististing is was rated as superior to NCE so that was one factor important to me.
First, if a number of people reply that they own a particular DCC system and are perfectly satisfied with it, that is telling, so it is meaningful.
Second, just because a new DCC system has recently been developed does not necessarily mean that the manufacturer has learned things from past systems and improved upon them. Consider ESU for example.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
jjdamnit Hello All, ALEXANDER WOOD Saying that you have xyz system and it's good enough for what you do is both true, and not particularly relevant to someone looking to upgrade or buy a new system today. The OP asked for opinions... reasearchhound Would like to hear some of you guys on your opinions on the two systems and whether one is really that much better than the other, and why. We gave our honest opinions of the systems we own and use along with recommendations about the two systems in question. Others chimed in and asserted that our opinions are irrelevant because "newer" DCC systems offer "better" technologies. If those "newer and better" technologies are not wanted or needed then there is no reason to upgrade. There are many members of these forums that still use DC control. (I'm sure those members are laughing at this post because of the divisiveness of the various DCC system devotees.) When returning to this great hobby in 2013 I began with DC on my 4'x8' pike. I quickly realized the limitations of DC and with my particular needs DCC would better suit my individual situation. My first DCC system was the dead-end Bachmann Dynamis system, which I quickly outgrew. I'm a "lone wolf" modeler so I chose the system based on my needs not interoperability with a club and the "newest and best" technologies- -simply what worked for me. As an example... In the physical environment I work in smartphones fail and can be irreparably damaged. I have been ridiculed for my flip phone with MIL-STD-810H spec, but when I need to make a call or send and receive texts or photos at work it gets the job done. Sometimes "older" IS "better". When I need to utilize smartphone technologies I have a tablet- -including acting as a throttle for my NCE DCC system with a WiFi interface utilizing JMRI DecoderPro. We all agree that the root cause of the OPs clubs problems need to be addressed first. After that, it's up to the members to decide if "newer" is in fact "better" or will the "older" meet their needs. In my second post, I posed two (2) questions to present to the club memebers... jjdamnit •Do you prefer a throttle from the manufacturer or a smartphone or tablet? •If the clubs DCC system is the same as the one you use on your home layout would you want to use your personal throttle? If the members are not comfortable with using their smartphones and/or tablets and prefer using the manufacturer's throttles that they don't have on their own systems that's an additional expense the club has to incur. We can pontificate over the merits of our own personal choices but in the end it's up to the club members to balance cost vs. technological needs. Hope this helps.
Hello All,
ALEXANDER WOOD Saying that you have xyz system and it's good enough for what you do is both true, and not particularly relevant to someone looking to upgrade or buy a new system today.
The OP asked for opinions...
reasearchhound Would like to hear some of you guys on your opinions on the two systems and whether one is really that much better than the other, and why.
We gave our honest opinions of the systems we own and use along with recommendations about the two systems in question.
Others chimed in and asserted that our opinions are irrelevant because "newer" DCC systems offer "better" technologies.
If those "newer and better" technologies are not wanted or needed then there is no reason to upgrade.
There are many members of these forums that still use DC control. (I'm sure those members are laughing at this post because of the divisiveness of the various DCC system devotees.)
When returning to this great hobby in 2013 I began with DC on my 4'x8' pike.
I quickly realized the limitations of DC and with my particular needs DCC would better suit my individual situation.
My first DCC system was the dead-end Bachmann Dynamis system, which I quickly outgrew.
I'm a "lone wolf" modeler so I chose the system based on my needs not interoperability with a club and the "newest and best" technologies- -simply what worked for me.
As an example...
In the physical environment I work in smartphones fail and can be irreparably damaged.
I have been ridiculed for my flip phone with MIL-STD-810H spec, but when I need to make a call or send and receive texts or photos at work it gets the job done.
Sometimes "older" IS "better".
When I need to utilize smartphone technologies I have a tablet- -including acting as a throttle for my NCE DCC system with a WiFi interface utilizing JMRI DecoderPro.
We all agree that the root cause of the OPs clubs problems need to be addressed first.
After that, it's up to the members to decide if "newer" is in fact "better" or will the "older" meet their needs.
In my second post, I posed two (2) questions to present to the club memebers...
jjdamnit •Do you prefer a throttle from the manufacturer or a smartphone or tablet? •If the clubs DCC system is the same as the one you use on your home layout would you want to use your personal throttle?
We can pontificate over the merits of our own personal choices but in the end it's up to the club members to balance cost vs. technological needs.
Hope this helps.
Most of the members have switched to using their smart phones as throttles. But a few of the old timers still prefer to use a throttle, and some of the younger members (12-14 years old) have parents who don't allow them to have smart phones yet.
ALEXANDER WOODSaying that you have xyz system and it's good enough for what you do is both true, and not particularly relevant to someone looking to upgrade or buy a new system today.
reasearchhoundWould like to hear some of you guys on your opinions on the two systems and whether one is really that much better than the other, and why.
jjdamnit•Do you prefer a throttle from the manufacturer or a smartphone or tablet? •If the clubs DCC system is the same as the one you use on your home layout would you want to use your personal throttle?
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
Saying that you have xyz system and it's good enough for what you do is both true, and not particularly relevant to someone looking to upgrade or buy a new system today.
The OP and his club need to get the Digitrax system and their layout wiring working properly first. Then, think about upgrades if they are still desired. Switching the command station and throttles to something else isn't going to fix electrical or booster problems.
If after fixing the problem an upgrade is desired, the CS-105 is the logical choice, since all of the Digitrax hardware except the command station itself can come along for the ride, greatly reducing the up-front cost, and then people can switch throttles as they see fit (or not).
snjroyReally?
maxman richhotrain Tom, thanks for that info. So, then, Neal must be referring to a Power Cab upgrade, not a Power Cab upgrade. So, is he or isn't he??
richhotrain Tom, thanks for that info. So, then, Neal must be referring to a Power Cab upgrade, not a Power Cab upgrade.
So, is he or isn't he??
riogrande5761I'll toss a cat among the pigeons...
In my perception- -your suggestion was intended to obfuscate rather than educate.
reasearchhound...I am only one vote out of twelve.
To me, this seems to be a small group of enthusiasts that just want to run trains free of issues after investing in a robust DCC system- -especially when putting their best foot forward during their annual open house running- -no matter the current technology.
richhotrainI have no need to compare the NCE PH-Pro to any other system since it has operated flawlessly for over 20 years, and I cannot identify a single weakness. When I read about other DCC systems and their features, I see nothing that I want or need that is not already provided by my NCE system.
I've had my NCE PH-Pro 5 Amp wireless system since switching in 2012- -from the dead-end Bachmann Dynamis- -with no complaints.
There are many "modern" features that have been added to DCC systems- -LocoNet, RailCom, LCC, JMRI PowerPro/PanelPro, along other "feedback/identification" DCC control systems.
If I wanted any of these "improvements" I would have switched the the Märklin control system with Drei Gleiss.
Like richotrain I don't see a need to upgrade when what I have works for my requirements.
The OP asked the great folks on these forums two (2) separate questions...
jjdamnitIt seems that there are two (2) components to this thread: 1) The shutting down of the layout due to an undiagnosed cause or causes. 2) The dissatisfaction of the members with the Digitrax system.
Remember, the club membership is seeking answers to their existing Digitrax systems failures, and balancing the cost vs. benefit of switching to another DCC system.
Yes, I agree there are DCC systems that integrate the newer features that have graciously highlighted.
If you just want your system to work...no matter the manufacturer...
Solve the problems you are faced with now and then consider future options based on cost.
richhotrainTom, thanks for that info. So, then, Neal must be referring to a Power Cab upgrade, not a Power Cab upgrade.
richhotrain Dunno, I have had an NCE 5 amp PH-Pro wireless system for 20 years now, and I cannot identify a single weakness. Rich
Dunno, I have had an NCE 5 amp PH-Pro wireless system for 20 years now, and I cannot identify a single weakness.
YoHo1975 What have you compared it to?
What have you compared it to?
tstage richhotrain On the other hand, the Power Cab only has a recall of 2. Rich, With the latest upgrade firmware of V1.65, the Power Cab can now be programmed with a recall stack of 2 to 6 locomotives. Tom
richhotrain On the other hand, the Power Cab only has a recall of 2.
Rich,
With the latest upgrade firmware of V1.65, the Power Cab can now be programmed with a recall stack of 2 to 6 locomotives.
Tom
richhotrainOn the other hand, the Power Cab only has a recall of 2.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
jjdamnit Hello All, richhotrain The original ProCab does allow the user to recall as many as 6 locomotives. What am I missing? With my NCE Power Pro system; Radio V1.5B, the factory set default number of recalls is two (2). In the Power Pro System Reference Manual; pg. 65, SET UP THE CAB PARAMETERS (Shortcut = PROG 6) it states: NUMBER OF RECALLSThis adjusts the number of recall "slots" that are cycled through when the RECALL key is pressed. Enter a number of Recalls from 1 - 6 and press ENTER. This can be set differently for each cab. (factory default is 2) Press Enter to skip this parameter. During the initial setup of my system upon reading this, I set my cab to recall the maximum number of locomotives of 6. Hope this helps.
richhotrain The original ProCab does allow the user to recall as many as 6 locomotives. What am I missing?
With my NCE Power Pro system; Radio V1.5B, the factory set default number of recalls is two (2).
In the Power Pro System Reference Manual; pg. 65, SET UP THE CAB PARAMETERS (Shortcut = PROG 6) it states:
NUMBER OF RECALLSThis adjusts the number of recall "slots" that are cycled through when the RECALL key is pressed. Enter a number of Recalls from 1 - 6 and press ENTER. This can be set differently for each cab. (factory default is 2) Press Enter to skip this parameter.
During the initial setup of my system upon reading this, I set my cab to recall the maximum number of locomotives of 6.
On the other hand, the Power Cab only has a recall of 2.
So, I am confused about Neal's statement that a Pro Cab upgrade now permits a recall capacity of 6 since the Pro Cab has always provided for a recall of 6.
richhotrainThe original ProCab does allow the user to recall as many as 6 locomotives. What am I missing?
nealknows richhotrain Neal, I am a bit confused. Did you mean to say Power Cab concerning the upgrade to recall more than two locomotives? Rich Rich, I use my Pro Cabs during operating sessions and with the latest Pro Cab upgradesI can recall more than 2 engines. One of the guys who runs trains during the op sessions does it. My latest Pro Cab is version 1.71 Neal
richhotrain Neal, I am a bit confused. Did you mean to say Power Cab concerning the upgrade to recall more than two locomotives? Rich
Neal, I am a bit confused. Did you mean to say Power Cab concerning the upgrade to recall more than two locomotives?
I use my Pro Cabs during operating sessions and with the latest Pro Cab upgradesI can recall more than 2 engines. One of the guys who runs trains during the op sessions does it. My latest Pro Cab is version 1.71
Neal
The original ProCab does allow the user to recall as many as 6 locomotives. What am I missing?