FIRST OP SESSION USING NCE WIRELESS
As promised, here's a summary of the results of my first op session with NCE wireless.
I bought a Lenz system in late 1993 to use on my new Siskiyou Line layout which was shown at the 1994 National in Portland, OR. In 1997 we started official monthly op sessions on the layout using the Lenz system. By 2000, the now 7-year old Lenz system was in need of some major upgrades -- but I wanted wireless and EasyDCC had the best wireless offering at the time, so I went with EasyDCC and have been using it with great success since 2000.However, the system is now obsolete and some of the throttles were misbehaving so I priced a complete overhaul and upgrade. I found I could move to wireless NCE (which had some great features I wanted) for several hundred less, so I sold my EasyDCC system and moved to NCE. This last Saturday, September 8th, was the first op session with NCE.In my layout room, I found I could get good wireless reception (15 foot radius max) with one RB02 and one RPT1. My existing operators have been used to the EasyDCC wireless, which has rock solid reception and performance -- you could run trains and not think twice about the fact you were running wireless.We found out that is not the case with NCE's wireless. It is what I would call quite "finicky". You cannot just "punch the buttons" like we did with the EasyDCC wireless throttles. You have to slow down and be extremely deliberate with each and every key press.
SUMMARY
In short, the first op session experience with NCE wireless was so-so. It's clear you need to train your operators to be slow and deliberate because of NCE's finicky nature, which means you are more aware of "model railroading" thoughts with NCE wireless as compared to EasyDCC's wireless system.Am I sorry I went with NCE instead of staying with EasyDCC? No, but I am a bit disappointed at how less-than-stellar NCE's wireless operation was the first time out. I'm hoping the tweaks and new operator habits will yield more consistent performance in future op sessions.
You can get more details here of this op session's experiences using NCE on my personal web site.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
From the information I got in the previous discussion pages I am very interested in the NCE Power Cab system but the NCE site says nothing about reversing sections. How is that handled ?
Also, is it possible to wire in more than one additional throttles ?
Martin
Québec City
pilot wrote:How many wireless throttles can you have with Digitrax?
It depends on what system you're using. The Zephyr can handle 10, but I'm not sure about the others.
Martin4 wrote:Also, is it possible to wire in more than one additional throttles ? MartinQuébec City
Martin,
Only if you purchase the NCE Smart Booster. The Smart Booster (SB3) increases the total number of additional throttles you can use with the Power Cab from one to three, as well as increase the maximum output from 1.7VA to 3VA.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Thanks to CSX Robert for the quick reply !
If you're curious how our first op session went with NCE wireless, here's my op session report for the session.
Thank you Joe for a very interesting thread. I have spent the last days reading it.
When I decided to start building a model railroad a year ago (October 2006) I found out that the only reasonable way to go was DCC if you want to run several trains and have a relatively easy wiring of the layout. I talked to a couple of other modelrailroaders that mentioned Lenz and Digitrax as the two systems mostly used here (Sweden). I also found out that Atlas seems to market the Lenz system with their own brand.
I decided to buy Digitrax Super Chief from the beginning because I didn't want to spend money on upgrades when I eventually will build a bigger layout. If I then had known about this forum I will probably have had a much harder decision to do. I have now used my Digitrax for seven months.
To tell the truth I didn't even thought of connecting and trying out anything without reading the manual. IMHO reading the manual is part of the fun with a new 'toy' and the manual instructed me to do everything correct the first time.
When it comes to consisting I think Digitrax solution is quite logical. Start with selecting the lead engine on the right throttle, run it to where you want to build your consist. Select another engine on your left throttle and run it to the first so they are coupled together and press the 'MU' and the '+' buttons. I think this is quite clear and easy. You must run the locos to the same spot and have them coupled regardless if you consist them this or the other way. This object - action sequence is also consistent with all (i think) other actions you do, you select a loco and then the speed, select a turn-out and then throw it.
What drawbacks have I found? Well I don't know if I should blame Digitrax, the throttle or myself for the following two problems- Running more than two trains. I mostly am to slow changing the throttle to control another train when I need to stop or slow down.- Using the throttle to control my turn-outs. Sometimnes I have used the buttons for selecting a loco and forget to switch the throttle to controlling turnouts.
The solution to these problem is to use JMRI to contol the turnouts and even some or all trains. I prefer running the trains with a throttle so I'm planning to buy an extra throttle.
I have used the throttle to program my decoders but that is a lot of trouble compared to using Decoder Pro in JMRI. To program a speed table is much faster using the computer than using the throttle.
nof wrote:What drawbacks have I found? Well I don't know if I should blame Digitrax, the throttle or myself for the following two problems- Running more than two trains. I mostly am to slow changing the throttle to control another train when I need to stop or slow down.
What drawbacks have I found? Well I don't know if I should blame Digitrax, the throttle or myself for the following two problems- Running more than two trains. I mostly am to slow changing the throttle to control another train when I need to stop or slow down.
Nils,
There's nothing wrong with you. You're as normal as the rest of us. Any more than 2 locomotives at a time and my brain is tapped out.
nof wrote:Thank you Joe for a very interesting thread. I have spent the last days reading it.What drawbacks have I found? Well I don't know if I should blame Digitrax, the throttle or myself for the following two problems- Running more than two trains. I mostly am to slow changing the throttle to control another train when I need to stop or slow down.- Using the throttle to control my turn-outs. Sometimnes I have used the buttons for selecting a loco and forget to switch the throttle to controlling turnouts.The solution to these problem is to use JMRI to contol the turnouts and even some or all trains. I prefer running the trains with a throttle so I'm planning to buy an extra throttle.I have used the throttle to program my decoders but that is a lot of trouble compared to using Decoder Pro in JMRI. To program a speed table is much faster using the computer than using the throttle.
Nils:
You're welcome! However, this thread is what it is because many others with great insights have posted to it.
I heartily agree with your comments about JMRI and DecoderPro. Once I started using DecoderPro to program decoders, I won't do it any other way. The "decoder discover" feature on the programming track is very helpful, and being able to program decoders by pointing and clicking with a mouse is far easier. It's especially helpful with today's complex sound decoders that have over 100 CVs to set! With DecoderPro I just set the features I want and I never have to remember what CV does what.
Because of my day job managing web developers, I'm constantly thinking in terms of making a user interface (UI) that doesn't need a manual. My head's in this space most of the time, so Digitrax's UI grates on me, as does Lenz's UI -- but I understand these are usable systems by most people -- especially once you get used to them. And neither system is short on features, especially Digitrax with its robust LocoNet protocol.
I'm liking my new NCE system and am working out the wireless reception issues such that the system's quite usable. I believe the remaining NCE wireless issues are mostly software, and my money's on rev 3 NCE wireless being more rock-solid than the current rev 2 wireless. I think it's only a matter of time before NCE gets this issue licked completely, and I wouldn't doubt it if there's something in their labs already that improves things even more.
Stevert wrote:QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate"How easy is it to just guess how to do something by looking at the command unit, and not using the manual?" I disagree with this one. Have you ever tried to "steer" an airplane on the ground? You don't use the "steering wheel", you use the rudder pedals. But I'd bet that the vast majority of folks, their first time in the cockpit, would try using that "steering wheel" because it looks similar to what they've always seen ground vehicles steered with. Sometimes ya just gotta RTFM!Steve
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate"How easy is it to just guess how to do something by looking at the command unit, and not using the manual?"
Hi Steve!I do have to agree,but have you ever read an Ercoupe flight manual????You'd have a difficult time steering mine with the rudder pedals, hmmm, what rudder pedals??? LOL!!!! Some later versions did have them, but the original Ercoupes didn't.Great airplane to fly!Flying is my other hobby, but I also love MRR'ing!!!
And Joe Fugate has really made MRR'ing much easier for me with his many forums, and at length detailed explanations, being so kind as to share his wealth of experience with us as have so many others on these forums.
Ed
Joe,
It's been 2 years since you started this thread, and as you have said DCC is being improved all the time. How likely is it that we will see an updated version of your original comparisons?
Greg H. wrote:Joe, It's been 2 years since you started this thread, and as you have said DCC is being improved all the time. How likely is it that we will see an updated version of your original comparisons?
Darn good question!
Things get obsolete quickly in the field of electronics, and my DCC video I did in 2004 will shortly be 4 years old ... oh, boy. These days I'm hearing an entire generation in the computer industry is 18 months. Fortunately, the DCC world doesn't move *that* fast, but 3-4 years is enough to make some information obsolete.
I am working on a DCC clinic for the Anaheim NMRA Convention, and out of that material will no doubt come more "latest and greatest" comparisons.
One of the things I've been thinking about is developing a list of "Features you WANT in your DCC system" and then comparing the existing systems to this list. For example, one feature you want is the ability to read back CV settings, and the MRC Prodigy Express doesn't provide this.
So while I may not get to this update right away, by the time I've developed my new DCC Clinic, I will have collected the information -- and can make it available. I'm less inclined to post it on this forum, however, because the chronological organization on here kinda sucks for reference material ... so we'll see.
One thing I keep hearing about is back EMF capability, and I would like to see that and controling things other than loco's covered a bit.
From everything else, it sounds like NEC might be the way to go especialy if they solve the wireless issue - I wonder if a half wave antenna helps, what a full wave antenna or perhaps even heterodyne circut would do ( besides increasing cost ) to help cope with RF trash to the system?
< shrug >
It's not like I need wireless now, but, it is something that I probably need to consider for future expansion.
Back EMF is a decoder function, and not related to the control side at all, other than set-up of CVs.
A little writeup on how stationary decoders are accessed by the various systems might be a good thing. Which throttles can do it, how obvious the keystrokes are, etc. Lots of people don't use these, but as the price of stationary decoders seems to be dropping, and their cleverness increasing, more and more may, over time.
As far as NCE's radio system goes, I visited Joe's layout for this month's operating session. The only issue I ever had with the RF system was in initial acquisition of the loco. Once I had control, I noticed no lag, no dropouts. I never felt like I was not connected to the train. It makes me think that the problem may be in the software side of things rather than the hardware. In which case, a real fix might not be too hard, and might not take too long.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Greg:
There are a couple of popular techniques for enhancing loco performance with a DCC decoder. They are:
DITHERING/TORQUE COMPENSATION
Dithering or Torque Compensation (D/TC) is something like DC pulse power in effect, although that's not technically what's happening. TCS decoders call it Dithering, NCE decoders call it Torque Compensation. In both cases, the effect is strongest when the loco is first starting, and it tapers off as the loco comes up to speed. You set the amount of extra kick voltage and the frequency of the kick.
D/TC is a fixed amount you set, and it's only altered by loco speed. When starting up the loco, D/TC is at its strongest, and it fades away as the loco speed increases.
BACK EMF
Back EMF (BEMF) uses the natural electricity generated by a spinning motor to determine when the loco is lugging down and needs a voltage boost. Decoders with BEMF allow setting the amount of BEMF compensation to apply, and also allow turning BEMF off in consists, since locos can fight each other on a consist if BEMF is set high.
BEMF depends on constant feedback as to how hard the motor is working, and a BEMF decoder will compensate dynamically. This creates a loco that can "float" through complex trackwork like silk at slow speeds, for example. But BEMF has its downsides as well. If you crank up the BEMF settings, you can get a loco that will act like it's on "cruise control" -- it will pull a train around curves, up a grade, and down a grade at a constant speed -- you never have to touch the throttle.
Getting a loco to behave in "cruise control" fashion is a neat stunt, but it's not at all realistic -- and it takes all the fun out of running a train.
Perhaps the worst "side effect" of BEMF is consisting locos with BEMF decoders. If the BEMF has been set high enough to get great low speed performance through yard ladders and such, if the loco is consisted with another such loco, the two locos will often "fight" each other, bucking violently. In effect, one BEMF decoder is saying "speed up", while the other BEMF decoder is saying "slow down" and the two locos will fight each other, alternating trying to speed up or slow down to compensate for the other loco's behavior. For this reason, most BEMF decoders allow you to turn off the BEMF when the loco is consisted.
MY OWN PREFERENCE
I have used BEMF decoders and D/TC decoders, and I have found for a loco that has fairly good performance on straight DC, a D/TC decoder will get excellent slow speed performance. BEMF decoders generally cost about twice as much as a D/TC decoder, so I only reserve BEMF decoders for those locos in my fleet that have mechanisms that can be "tight" or that are especially sensitive to trackwork, where they slow noticeably through turnouts or when pulling a train up a grade that has lots of curves.
Brunton wrote:This is off the topic of DCC, but is in reply to an earlier post, so skip this unless you're curiousQUOTE: Originally posted by jfugateI would also argue that the reason the airplane and the automobile user interfaces behave differently is because they both appeared at roughly the same time and each evolved their own convention. Had the automobile been well entrenched for 30 years before the airplane, the wheel on an airplane would steer the airplane as expected when on the ground.Without trying to raise any hackles, your argument is incorrect, Joe. I've been designing aircraft for nearly two decades, and a pilot about as long, so let me explain.The reason the airplane and the automobile user interfaces behave differently is because the vehicles are fundamentally different. An automobile navigates in two dimensions, while the airplane navigates in three. Rudder pedals steer the airplane on the ground because rudder pedals control the yaw, or left-right pointing of the aircraft, in the air. So they also control that on the ground. The steering wheel ("yoke" on an airplane) controls roll, or tilt, of the aircraft wings via the ailerons. There is no corresponding control on an automobile. A combination of rudder pedal and yoke input controls turns in an aircraft in the air (the ailerons are the primary turning agent, with the rudder assisting - different even than a submarine, another three-dimension navigator).I could go on a lot more, but probably most folks don't care anyway, so I'll stop. Suffice it to say, though two different systems may get you to the same ultimate goal, the methods employed to do so may dictate very different interfaces. It depends on what is required in of the control system.By the way - the auto and airplane controls developed over ten years apart, not at roughly the same time. Autpmobile controls developed basically in the very late 1890s and early 1900s, with some refinements to the basic concepts at slightly later dates. The airplane, meanwhile, developed it's "modern" control interfaces in the mid-1910s, with WWI being the main standardizing driver. It had refinements come much later.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugateI would also argue that the reason the airplane and the automobile user interfaces behave differently is because they both appeared at roughly the same time and each evolved their own convention. Had the automobile been well entrenched for 30 years before the airplane, the wheel on an airplane would steer the airplane as expected when on the ground.
You have a point my friend! Don't tell em about the INS,FMC (Flight Management Computer),Fuel Management systems,Etc,ETC, and more ETC.
Kinda reminds me of my DCC system. But I love my Super Chief!!!
Hey, I come onto the new DCC forum and what do I see but my DCC clinics ... nice job Bergie!
It's hard to believe these forum clinics are now 3-4 years old already ... as a bit of news I will be doing a DCC clinic this summer at the NMRA National and plan to include new updated info in the clinic. Maybe we can even put the clinic on video -- we'll see.
Things have changed in new system area with MRCs new wireless system ... the PowerCab now has a computer interface ... NCE's new Rev 3 wireless is super reliable ... EasyDCC's had isolated reports of more loco runaways with their latest firmware upgrade ... Digitrax has a new wireless pending release ... the decoder price-performance ratio just keeps getting better and better -- and in the meantime new DCC features keep coming out.
So lots to talk about!
I previously posted this product review on another forum but have now added some additional info and editing.
I now have my new MRC wireless up and running. I would like to give you all some info about it. I've had experience with Atlas DCC, Lenz, CVP wireless on the Lenz system, and NCE Power Cab. But what I've been wanting is a duplex radio system with one full featured cab that woud do everything from anywhere on the layout. So my choices were only between MRC and NCE. Here is what I've found regarding MRC so far:
Basic specs:
3.5 amp system with approx. 14.5 track voltage.
2 or 4 digit addresses
14/28/128 speed steps
Advanced and Universal consisting
Main and Program Track programming (read back on Programming Track)
433 MHz frequency
Maximum number of cabs is 32
Items included:
Full featured wireless cab
Base unit
Power supply
(4) AAA rechargeable batteries
Cord for recharging the handheld cab
User's Manual
My cost was $329.95 + shipping
Ease of use:
Very easy to use. I would rate it a notch or two above Power Cab for intuitive operation and ease of use. The manual is fairly small, well written and easy to follow. It is often directed to beginning DCC users but everthing is there for the more sophisticated user without cluttering it up with uneccesary verbage.
Keys are well marked in clear english as well as clear and understandable on-screen read-outs and instructions.
The trouble shooting section is written is a very clear and logical progression.
Cab operation and train control:
I definitely prefer the speed control knob to NCE's thumb wheel. MRC also provides push button speed control via one step per push. This can come in handy at times if you need one-handed cab control for uncoupling, etc. . Normally, the MRC cab wil require two handed operation for most efficient use.
The encoder speed knob has nice feel to it with a very, very slight feel to the individual speed steps.
I really like the 25 cab loco stack. This is an exciting feature that really works well. With just one push of the recall key you can scroll thru all the locos. When you reach one you want, you just start running it. No further key presses necessary to accept the loco. And any loco can be quickly deleted with a double press of the delete key. This allows you to quickly tailor the stack to just those locos needed and you can cycle thru them very quickly.
The display screen is large with sharp, easy to read lettering but is not back-lit.
There are keys for Accessories, Routes, Consists, Programming, Speed Steps, Time (fast lock), Battery voltage check, but no Macro key like NCE. There is also a cab power switch to turn it off when not in use to conserve battery life.
With just two key presses you can pop in and out of Yard Mode.
Engineer's throttle:
MRC does not have one. They only have the full size cabs. Tethered and wireless can work at the same time.
Consisting:
MRC doesn't compare with NCE here as their's is kind of a bare-bones offering. No double ended consists and advanced consists can only be run from the consist number. If running sound you must play with CV's to get them to operate from the consist number. You also have to remember the consist number as there is no way to reference it in the system. One 4-loco universal consist is allowed per system. MRC consisting will certainly work just fine for many users. I'll have to use it for awhile to make a better judgement.
Computer Interface:
MRC doesn't yet have one but it is listed on their website and should be out this year. It's apparently wireless. Certainly Decoder Pro is a must for many of us. For the time being I'm running a dual system. With the flip of a switch I can run on Lenz and use Decoder Pro. But you can also use Decoder Pro on your home computer to determine CV values needed and then program them into the MRC system. To do this see: http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1281624/ShowPost.aspx
Radio performance:
This is what I was especially interested in and I'm not disappointed. A duplex system that really works well. No plugging in to acquire or dispatch locos. Response to throttle commands is immediate with no noticeable lag. I'm in a fairly large basement room and it works everywhere. I can go upstairs and still hear the horn blow.
The rechargeable batteries are nice. They're supposed to last about 5 hours. You can run while plugged in if necessary but the charging then takes longer.
The cab has no exterior antenna's to worry about and no dangling wires like Digitrax. Just a nice clean looking cab that's easy to hold and use.
Things it won't do:
Okay, I haven't put it thru all of it's paces yet but here are some things to consider:
1. This display is not backlit.
2. Binary programming is not available (I hope I'm using the correct term). You can't set individual bits but must calculate the decimal value in insert in the CV that will set all of the bits correctly. This isn't too big a deal as there are handy charts that allow you to do this easily.
3. If you want to control turnouts via DCC (as I do), you cannot control loco speed and direction while the turnout controls are on the screen. But as soon as you hit "Enter" you're back in control. My Lenz system allowed this and it is very convenient when doing a lot of switching (if you control turnouts by DCC).
4. There is no way to set Function keys to momentary. However the F2 key (horn/whistle) is alreadu factory set to momentary, which is want most people want.
5. MRC does not have an engineer's throttle, just the one size, full featured cab. This is not a problem for me as I only want the one cab that does everything. If you do want extra cabs for additional operators you don't have to worry about them messing up things by programming as you can lock out any cabs from doing this.
6. No double ended consists like NCE and only one Universal consist allowed per system.
7. Will let you know if I run across anything else for this list.
Final comments:
For the price, this is really a fine system. Approximately $200 or so less than NCE radio so it's a good deal. You give up some features but for a typical solo operating home user like myself it does everything needed. People should not confuse MRC decoder quality with their train control system quality. Their train control seems to be excellent There may be some shortcoming that I haven't yet discovered but for now it appears to be a good system for many of us. Now, we'll just have to wait and see what Digitrax comes up with when they develop there duplex system, and that may make for an interesting competitive situation. NCE has already announced their upgraded radio that offers great operational improvement.
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
Here is a correction to my previous MRC wireless review:
And any loco can be quickly deleted with a double press of the delete key.
That should read....... with a 2 second press of the delete key.
I also apologize for the typos and misspellings in the review. I'm afraid I rushed it a bit.
You got that right. I have had my Digitrax Chief for a little over a year and have never been able to get the setting up of routes to work. Sent the whole works in twice and they tell me nothing is wrong. I use there DS64 stationary decoders and I believe that is the problem so I have to set up my routes through the DS64s instead of the DT400. If anyone has been able to work this feature I would like to hear from them. Got no help from the Digitrax forum.
Bill
fkrall wrote:jwils1: You said " I now have my new MRC wireless up and running."You've been such a strong Lenz supporter and have piqued my interest in Lenz, so I have to ask: Why did you switch?Rick Krall
That's a good question. I'll try to answer.
Lenz is an excellent system. I have all three throttles, including the cordless phone, plus I used an Atlas Commander as an extra throttle. For awhile, I even used a CVP radio throttle designed for the Lenz system. All have performed flawlessly.
I have a 6' x 18' table-top layout, so to run things, I need to walk all the way around the table. I have reasons for going table-top instead of around the wall, but that's another story.
I found myself using the LH100 throttle for programming, consisting, speed matching, etc. I preferred the LH90 for just running trains. But, to move quickly to another part of the layout to do some switching, clear a short or a derail, I usually grabbed the cordless phone throttle. I tried the CVP radio throttle to use in lieu of the cordless phone, but it really didn't work any better, or do any more than the phone (although it has some nice features like a display and a speed knob), and the CVP is very expensive.
So, for a long time, I've been wishing that Lenz would develop a full featured wireless throttle that would do everything (programming, consisting, system changes, etc.). This is apparently not going to happen any time soon. So, for me, a solo operator, who often runs 3 or more trains at one time, and who would like to do consisting and some programming on the fly, I've been looking for a full featured duplex radio throttle.
MRC and NCE appeared to be my only possible choices at this time. MRC advertisements sounded good, performance reports from users sounded good, the price sounded good, so, I decided to take a gamble and make the switch. Actually, I haven't completely switched, because with a flip of a switch and can still run on Lenz. But, as good as Lenz is, I've found that the MRC wireless is working so well for me, I've had no desire to go back to running Lenz. I can now do anything, anywhere, with just one throttle. For me and my setup, that's just perfect.
Now, time will tell how well the MRC holds up. Lenz has been excellent and has a 10 year warranty. That's reassuring. We'll just see about MRC, but I will probably sell the Lenz as I don't think I'll need to go back to it. As good as it is, it wasn't the ideal for me.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Just posting to get this on the "My Forums" list.
I have been pleasantly surprised at both the tone of the postings and the value of the information posted. Keep it up.
I've been using DC for my 12 years (4 of them in the '70s) in the hobby. I had been ignoring DCC as an expensive luxury that I could easily get by without. Then, 3 weeks ago, I spoke with the MRC and Digitrax reps at the Amhearst Railway Society Railroad Hobby Show in Springfield MA (5.5 ACRES of dealers, demos and layouts) and realized how far out in left field I was. Now very interested, and planning to buy later in the year.
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
Just a slight Bump for those of you with cash flowage...and the rest of us...we continue our never ending quest for that all elusive free posted schematic of a complete DCC system, so we can etch some PC board and build one from our huge inventory of spare parts, and join yous guys in the 21st century... but in the meantime we read this AWSOME THREAD and dream on......
THANK YOU MR.FUGATE!!!!
You're welcome!
I will be presenting a DCC clinic at the NMRA National this summer in Anaheim, and I plan to include lots of updated info. The clinic will be in the NMRA clincs book, and I will be running a video camera ...
This clinic thread is going on 4 years old now ... sheesh how time flies!
Thank you for the topc .. the timing is excellent for myself (and I'm sure for others too). I am a complete noobe; I don't have anything yet, but that will quickly change! I've been reading everything I can get my hands on about model RR.
I will be purchasing a DCC starter system and am leaning towards the Digitrax Zepher or the NCE PowerCab. I have eliminated the Bachmann EZ-command because of lack of functions, such as programming CV's. I have read the complete manual for the Digitrax Zepher and most of the manual for the NCE PowerCab. The writers for Digitraxx did a wonderful job. That is one of the best technical/user manuals I have ever read. The writers at NCE are engineers, the writing was more technical and less user manual.
Both of the systems had their pluses and minuses. The Zepher had a little more power (2.5 amps vs 2.0 amps with the PowerCab). The emg stop on the Zepher also shuts down everything on the system when press vs only shutting down the selected loco on the PowerCab. Hey, if it is an emergancy ... I want it all to STOP!!
The CAB on the PowerCab allows you to move around the layout, while the Zepher is stationary. The controls on the PowerCab also seem to be more user friendly than the Zepher. Over all both sound like they are decent systems at about the same price point.
So the question then becomes ..... From the experienced users on the Forum, which system has given the better results, least problems, better support, and of course the most fun!
Enjoy!
Kent S
kent s wrote: So the question then becomes ..... From the experienced users on the Forum, which system has given the better results, least problems, better support, and of course the most fun!
Kent, both NCE and Digitrax support their products well. You will get glowing accounts from both sets of users, so I don't think that there is much to choose between them in that regards. The Zephyr has been on the market a lot longer than the PowerCab so there are a lot more Z users out there, as one would expect given the extra years of sales. The oldest PowerCabs are around 2 years old, the oldest Zephyrs are close to 8 years I believe.
The PowerCab supports more functions than the Z and as you have noted is a walk around form factor compared to the console of the Z. You can of course add walk around throttles to the Z very easily, by simply plugging them into the Loconet port. Both of the systems are fun to use. I really don't think you can separate them on the basis of your criteria "better results, least problems, better support, and of course the most fun!"
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