FORUM CLINIC: Picking the best DCC system

[Tom Bryant_MR]

Okay. Looks like I'm the junior here; only had my DCC system since Feb 2005. As a newcomer to the hobby I choose my first system for many of the reasons that have been listed here. Mine specifically where:

What's available locally
1) Of two LHS in area, the LHS being around the longest recommended brand X because of large usage in area. Other LHS only carried competitor brand Y and this LHS was new to the area. I choose brand X with following criteria also
2) Cost
3) Additional features could be added as my needs grew.

Reliability and support
I haven't had enough time with it, so I can't give any credible input here.

Ease of use
Twenty twenty hindsight. Easy of use is now one of my most important considerations and the reason I am really considering a new DCC system. I also work with computers all day long and do not want to spend hours figuring out how to program this and that. I also agree that reading the manual is a good thing - and I did , I also believe that the human interface plays a very very important part. My next system needs to be a bit more intuitive.

Now ... where did I place that darn manual [V]

So, it is with great zeal that I will follow this post knowing that I will be much wiser for that next purchase. [:D]

[rolleiman]

Well, Here's my 40 cents.. I have a Digitrax Chief that I've been using for about 5 or 6 years. It originally came as a kit with the booster/command station, a test plug for the loconet, the DT100IR throttle, instructions and a video.. I also have a second DT100IR for guests as well as a UT1 for the kiddies..

I originally started with the Empire builder but wanted a little more than that system offered. First of all, the EB offered a loco refresh stack of 22 locos.. What that basically means is that each time a signal is sent out it will poll the most recently used 22 decoders. At the time, I thought that it meant that the system could ONLY support 22 locos. Not entirely true. You can have as many as you want but only the most recently used 22 would be adressed on each pass of the network. The thing that really got annoying to me was lack of a dedicated programming track for addressing. Anything else could be done in a broadcast type mode but to set an address, a track had to be either blocked or all the other locos removed from the layout (or they would all have the same address).. Well, I went digital to get rid of the blocks.

The Chief, while it defaults to the same 22 loco stack, will support up to 120. When I was first readng up on DCC and loco stacks a lot of lip service was given to the time it would take to refre***he loco stack. The claim was that if a lot of locos are in operation, there would be a time lag between issuing a command and the loco decoder acting on it.. This lone wolf operator has seen no such lag but I guess if you had 20 throttles controlling 20 trains, you might notice some delay. The system also has a dedicated programming output that I personally have found invaluable. Both systems came originally with the DT100IR so erganomics and user interface didn't change with the upgrade. The chief can also run on an 8 amp supply while the empire builder was limited to 5.. What I have today amounts to what they sell as the Super Chief, with a DT400IR throttle..

If I were advising a novice today, and the only offering were the DT100, I don't know how vigorously I would recommend it.. The one line display has to change to get all the information to the user.. That is, if you Wanted a 4 digit address, say 1234, the display would blink 12 and then 34.. Programming and selecting a 4 digit address was also a pain so I didn't do it. Truthfully, I was completely happy using 2 digit addresses until I aquired locos that ended in the same 2 digits.. I found the shift button to access functions 4-8 Very annoying. A lot of other double button pressing is needed on the 100 to get to other functions, like program. When the DT400IR was introduced with a full number pad and support for 12 functions, and a seperate key for the most used operations, I was probably first in line to get one. They've also introduced a DT300 that looks to me like a 100 with a 2 line display. Don't have one so I can't comment further on it. Although I have the hardare to hook this thing to the computer, I've never used it so I can't really comment on that either...

The system is connected to the layout via a PM4 which sets up 4 power districts. Sort of.. One of them must be used for short circuit detection while the other 3 can be used for autoreversing functions on reverse loops.. Well worth the extra time and effort to install one of these. I can't say anything bad about it.

I don't know if it's changed but written documentation is where Digitrax really fell flat on thier face. By trade, I'm an Electrical Engineer so I understand most it (or at least what I need to) but a novice, someone with no computer experience (other than turning it on) would have found the docs a little hard to live with.

My advice to the DCC beginner is this.. Never say Never.. Don't assume you'll always only want to run one or two trains. Or that you'll never want sound. Decide how much you want to invest (be realistic) and get the system in that price range that best fits your needs. Ask questions, view the reviews online. Compare systems (yea I know that's the purpose of this thread).. Factors that drove me to DCC included

1. No more block toggles and cab control
2. Possibility of sound (not as refined then as now)
3. Possibility of setting up CTC using a computer
4. And yes, third party support.. At the time, everyone supported digitrax.

What drove me to digitrax was that I had heard the most about them. That and previous experience with the MRC2000 system.

I hope something I've written in this long winded response is helpful to someone.. If not, I needed the practice typing anyway..

Good luck,
Jeff
[8D]

[jfugate]

TOPIC THIS POST: Let's rank the systems against these considerations

Last post we looked at some non-feature based considerations when selecting a DCC system to buy. Let's take the practical considerations in this post and rank some systems. We'll look at the other considerations - ease of use and reliability in the next few posts. Then we'll get into some more considerations.


Practical considerations

What's available locally for this system?
Obviously this will vary depending on where you are located. However, there are some observations I can make, like what system is *most likely* to be what other modelers own, based on making an educated guess about sales numbers.

I don't have the actual sales numbers, but I can get a sense from talking with modelers and from looking at the size of the Yahoo support forums gives us some idea of who owns what systems. Here's the size of the various support forums:
[code]
Digitrax 5676
NCE 2176
Lenz 1687
MRC 519
EasyDCC 455
Zimo 308
Bachmann 200
Atlas [none][/code]
This does not necessarily mean Digitrax is the best system, or that Atlas is the worst system ... but at least you can see Digitrax does a very good job marketing and hence is well known, and to a certain degree it also shows how long the various manufacturer's systems have been on the market. For instance, the first DCC systems to market in 1993 were Digitrax and Lenz, and Bachmann is the most recent entry into the DCC market.

And if I want to be cynical, the membership numbers on a support forum *could* be construed to give some indication of how much support a system needs. I don't think that's necessarily true, but it could be a factor in driving at least some of the membership numbers you see on the support forums.


Does the LHS carry it?
Again based on the size of the support forums, if your local hobby shop carries a system, it will most likely be Digitrax or NCE. I also suspect the low-end systems from MRC and Bachmann will also likely be something you find at your LHS because the entry price is so low.

EasyDCC is only available via mailorder direct from the manufacturer, so it's one system you will never find at your LHS. Zimo is also primarily available overseas, so you won't see it much in the US.

TOPIC NEXT POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use, reliability, and support

[NZRMac]

Surely if Digitrax has the largest support forum then it's either harder to use or people are having more trouble with it!! LOL[:o)][:o)][:o)]

Ken.

[tstage]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

I hate to pee in the pickles...

Crandell,

I have to say that you have some of the most original and/or unusual sayings that I've heard in a while. (Brrr! Time to turn up the heat in the house. It's as cold as a dragon's rear end around here.) Thanks for the chuckle...

Tom

[jrbernier]

Joe,

Having been in DCC since about 1994, let me make some observations. I was at a Divisional Meet last night(about 50 folks). A 'show of hands' resulted in about 40% indicating that they have or were starting down the DCC road. The rest were split on 'I am interested' to the 'I do not understand it' or 'I have too many engines to convert'.
DCC is still stuck in the old PC hobbyist mentality. You sort of got to like to 'play' with technology, and DCC is just another 'hobby' in it's own. We have not come to the point where DCC is just another 'appliance' that I plug in and run trains with. PC's are just getting to the point where a 'end user' can get a PC at Best Buy or order it from Dell and just 'use' it. DCC is still 'way out there' for many modelers. Now, do not take me as 'old school', resisting change all the way. Like I mentioned, I have been into DCC for over 10 years, and have a 'layouts' worth of it installed. I am a 'Technical Solutions Mgr' for a large computer company and deal with complex technical issues every day.

I see two major issues with deciding to go DCC:

o - User Interface(cab) I have operated with EasyDCC, Lenz(including the wireless
phone option), Digitrax, and NCE. None of these have the 'penultimate' throttle that
has alll the 'features' and is user friendly all in one cab. I have Digitrax DT400R
throttles, but I like to use my 'Palm Pilot' throttle best for some reason. I think it is
because everything is laid out so nice.

o - Decoder installs This one is tough as many folks want to install a decoder in a 20
year old engine that does not run good on DC to start with! I have about 60 engines,
only about 20 have decoders(the ones that are used on the layout). Many of the
others will never get a decoder and are 'display case' material(they hold some
'special' value or 'memory').

Jim Bernier

[jfugate]

Jim:

Your example of people raising hands at a meet isn't exactly a scientific poll, but it sounds like you are saying 60% of the modelers out there don't do DCC. If there are 200,000 model railroaders in the world and the 60% figure is anywhere in the ballpark that still means there are 80,000 DCC users worldwide. Of course, this pie is divided up across some 6-8 DCC system producers, which means each system maker probably has somewhere between a few thousand customers to 20,000+ customers.

And DCC is just over a decade old at this point. It typically takes about 20 years for a technology to really saturate the market. If as your unscientific poll suggests, we're nearing the halfway mark, then we're pretty much on track. That means in the next few years more people will own DCC than don't. That also means the day is coming in the next few years when everything you buy will come DCC equipped out of the box.

You say you love your palm pilot throttle but you don't elaborate. What system is it for, and does the software allow you to rearrange your throttle controls to your liking? If so, that could explain why you prefer it. Can you tell us more?

The whole throttle question is an interesting one. I see there's a throttle thread going now on this forum, and we'll get to throttle comparisons in this discussion too.

[brothaslide]

As a side note. I found this on the DIY Network homepage. It's a series of articles on DCC from the "Workin' On the Railroad" series:

http://www.diynetwork.com/diy/shows_dwrr/episode/0,2499,DIY_23302_40727,00.html

[jjbmish]

I have to say that I am really enjoying this forum. I am currently looking at purchasing a DCC system for my home layout and have been doing tons of research. The systems I have looked at all have their pros and cons, but discussions like this one make it easier for me to limit the number of systems to consider. Hopefully by Christmas(??) I will be purchasing a system and let you know what I decided to purchase. Keep up the discussions because they are very helpful.

Thanks

John

p.s. the systems I am considering are the Digitrax Super Chief (hopefully radio controlled), the NCE system and the Lenz system (originally the 90, but now the 100)

[jrbernier]

Joe,

The Palm Pilot throttle is a combination of a hardware cable/encoder that plugs into my Palm Pilot and some software that I had to download into it. Digitrax sell the H/W, and LocoPalm sells the software. It is not 'wireless' but it is very easy to use, and is great for consisting, etc...I keep my unit plugged into a port by the yard. I have taken my cable and my Palm Pilot with me an business trips, and I have a throttle if at a Digitrax powered layout.
Digitrax has a weak point - the throttles are not everything I want(though the DT400 series can do anything I want to do). I really think they need to invest some more time in the 'ergononic' aspect of the design. I ran trains this past summer with the Lenz 'wireless' using some cheap home wireless phones. I had written off this type of throttle when I first heard of it, but they really were pretty nice to use!

The inhibiting factor for a lot of modelers is the cost of decoders(I know they are down to about $15 each). These guys multiply $15 times 50 engines and all they can see is 'I could have bought 2 more BLI sound equipped engines'(and run them on straight DC)! New modelers who are serious about the hobby will 'decoderize' engines as they buy them(and most will be DCC Ready or have DCC and/or sound in them).

Jim Bernier

[Anonymous]

I was under the impression MR made the forum rules.

QUOTE: Originally posted by NZRMac

QUOTE: Originally posted by On30Shay

Just pick out which Digitrax unit you want and the search is over. NEXT

Great suggestion about some RULES Joe.

I have Lenz
1. Local dealer (advise on the phone, invited to run my loco's )

2. Price, although I can import cheaper.

3. Expandability, I first bought the Lenz Compact (basic) I now have a the Set 100 which allows the Compact to plug in.

4. Warranty!! Who can beat 10 yrs.

5 Wireless, some people scoff at a cordless phone, but once you know which buttons to push it's obvious and easy.

6. Future proof, the hardware is there for bidirectional comms tec.

[tup][tup][tup][tup][tup][tup][tup] Ken.

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by On30Shay

I was under the impression MR made the forum rules.

The rules I suggested are for this Forum Clinic that I'm hosting ... no need to get your panties in a wad, On30 -- as my daughter likes to tell me if I try to make a big deal out of something that's not. [swg]

[electrolove]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

Steve:

No problem, it's fine to disagree with me, and your example is a good one.

However, I still maintain the less you have to keep the manual handy, the more user friendly the system is.

Since I do software design for a living, here's a list of user friendly questions that apply pretty well to DCC system interfaces too. This list is from "Don't Make Me Think - A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability":

- Where should I begin?
- Where did they put ____ ?
- What are the most important things on this [DCC command unit]?
- Why did they call it that?

The consisting question provides a concrete use case for you to try where you have to actually go through these questions as you figure out how to do it.

I 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.

So it's possible, when starting at the beginning to design a system to make things simpler and more obvious, and that's what we're looking to assess here as we consider the various DCC systems.

Joe, you are absolutely right about that. I'm also into webdesign and I have worked as a programmer as well. The goal for me when building an app is that the user must be able to use the app without the manual. If I succeed I know that the app is user friendly. I try very hard to leave the complicated coding under the surface. Often when I talk to other people they think that an app is advanced just because it's very hard to use. I think that is completely wrong. The app is advanced if the user can use it without any problems and still do complicated things with it. It's easy to forget sometimes that an app is a tool to make things easier. If that's not the case we don't need it.

I'm going to give a very great example from the music industri. I'm also interested in music and have my own music studio. One of the first synthesizers where the Minimoog.



As you can see there is one button for each function, very easy to use. Then after a while came the digital revolution and one of the first synthesizers that changed the user interface for many years to come was the Yamaha DX7.



The user interfaces started to change dramatically. One little display and a parameter button. To edit this synth you needed to first select the right parameter code, and then change the parameter value of that parameter. Very hard and unfriendly.

So music software companies realized that something must be done. They started to make software apps where you could see all the buttons and sliders again on your computer screen like this.



It's much easier to program a synthesizer when you can see everything at once and how it's connected.

After a while the user was forced to have tons of apps just to be able to use his synthesizers and other things you have in a studio like mixers, effect units and so on. And you could not reach 100% of the synthesizers functions from your app, because the manufacturers could not agree on anything. And on top af that, bugs in the synthesizers operating system that forced the software to do so called workarounds, and that was not always possible, a real mess. Ask me, I once made an app like this for every synth there is. It took me 2 years before I realized it's not gonna work 100% whatever I do. A nightmare!!! I even changed the operating system in one of my synthesizers (reverse engineering) and it worked but was it worth it? NO WAY!!! And there is one more thing that complicated things for the user. Many manufacturers used a hardware dongle in the computer for copy protection of the sound editor software. With lots of synthesizers in the studio there was no room to connect all these hardware dongles at once to the computer.

So the manufacturers started to change the way everything worked one more time like in this Roland JD-800.



And we are back where we started with the Minimoog, one buttom for each function (almost). A good idea is always a good idea. I think that dcc will be much easier to use if we have on button for each function, wherever it's possible. No codes to remember, no hidden functions. And no manual.

[Anonymous]

I've never been able to put it so succinctly, but I couldn't agree more. Even without realizing it, I've always found myself favoring interfaces that provided "one button per function".

To some extent, it's why I moved to JMRI and running the layout via computer. Despite the fact that I did (still do) dislike sitting at a terminal rather than walking around throttle-in-hand, the "soft" interface (i.e. a screen rather than "hard" buttons") means JMRI offered a great deal of "one button per function" operability.

My interest in the whole topic is really driven by just that. I want to get back to running the layout "by hand" rather than from computer and am seeking the best way to do so. Thank you for a post that (at least for me personally) really exposed the core of what I need to seek out.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I didn't see where YOU posted any suggested rules until I was accused of my panties bein wadded up. Quit lookin under my skirt.

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

QUOTE: Originally posted by On30Shay

I was under the impression MR made the forum rules.

The rules I suggested are for this Forum Clinic that I'm hosting ... no need to get your panties in a wad, On30 -- as my daughter likes to tell me if I try to make a big deal out of something that's not. [swg]

[electrolove]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kchronister

I've never been able to put it so succinctly, but I couldn't agree more. Even without realizing it, I've always found myself favoring interfaces that provided "one button per function".

To some extent, it's why I moved to JMRI and running the layout via computer. Despite the fact that I did (still do) dislike sitting at a terminal rather than walking around throttle-in-hand, the "soft" interface (i.e. a screen rather than "hard" buttons") means JMRI offered a great deal of "one button per function" operability.

My interest in the whole topic is really driven by just that. I want to get back to running the layout "by hand" rather than from computer and am seeking the best way to do so. Thank you for a post that (at least for me personally) really exposed the core of what I need to seek out.

Thanks for your great answer, very interesting to read.

[Anonymous]

Electro,

I have used guitar processors and recording gear for the past thirty years. Your synth. example is right on...Man how I hated those boxes that would force you to scroll through 20 menus to change a sound level...You knew you were in trouble when all that was on the face of the device was six buttons and an LCD single line window.....

The most recent guitar processors are almost back to square with one button, one function... Now if we could do something about poorly designed hard disk recorders....Sorry for the digression here...back to trains.

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jrbernier

Joe,

Having been in DCC since about 1994, let me make some observations. I was at a Divisional Meet last night(about 50 folks). A 'show of hands' resulted in about 40% indicating that they have or were starting down the DCC road. The rest were split on 'I am interested' to the 'I do not understand it' or 'I have too many engines to convert'.
DCC is still stuck in the old PC hobbyist mentality. ...

Jim, I have to agree with Joe's initial comment. You would be mistaken, as well, to walk into a community hall dealing with "Managing Your Money", and asking how many people in the audience are millionaires. I'll bet no hands go up. But you would be in error to assume that there were few millionaires in the city.

You club has its own culture, ways of doing what they do the way they do it, and the reasoning behind it. Generalizing to the railroading population at large is a stretch without also polling another twenty or thirty clubs scattered throughout the country.

Just my observation. [:)]

[davekelly]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate
you are finally beyond the "new system buzz" and can probably tell us a few system gotchas you've experienced.

Joe,

New system buzz? Is that when I took my PE out of the box, ran two wires to a piece of flex track and then giggled for about an hour watching an engine run back and forth while ringing the bell? And then calling the wife in with a "look at this!!!!! Its DCC!!!!!! No toggle switches!!!!!!!!!" If this is it, then I have it........big time.

Seriously. I agree. Right now there is not a single thing that I don't like about my PE. It's limitations are minor. Glitches are probably my fault. You'll have to kill me to get my PE from me and I'll slug anyone that talks bad about it. In time a person does remove those rose colored glasses and that's when, I think, that an opinion is much more objective, accurate and helpful.

I do love your rule that a person has to post a couple of shortcomings. No system is perfect.

[rolleiman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by electrolove




I'm going to give a very great example from the music industri. I'm also interested in music and have my own music studio. One of the first synthesizers where the Minimoog.

.........

And we are back where we started with the Minimoog, one buttom for each function (almost). A good idea is always a good idea. I think that dcc will be much easier to use if we have on button for each function, wherever it's possible. No codes to remember, no hidden functions. And no manual.

Boy does THAT bring back memories.. Dad had a recording studio equipped with 3 full synths (with keyboards), several modules, a controller keyboard, MIDI patch bays, and the computer to track it all.. Even within a single manufacturer things weren't always compatable.. The magic 5 letters, R-O-L-A-N-D had a new one every month, and each one made the old obsolete.. with it's newer sounds.. I would LOVE to have a Roland TD-12 drum synth but I'm not willing to pay the bucks for it.. The constant button pressing on the GR30 Guitar synth to get from one sound patch to another Really gets annoying too..

To bring it back to trains, I have to agree 100%.. A button for each function, or at least the most commonly used functions, has become a must have... It's just no fun to have to do a lot of scrolling to get where I want to be..... running the trains..

Jeff

[jfugate]

Thanks for the system info postings, guys.

I have an op session today, so I won't be doing much on this thread yet, but I wanted to tell you what I hope to do for the next posting on ease of use.

I'm going to post an image of each command station and we'll step through setting up a consist on each, and then I'll give you my assessment as to which is easier to use.

And since I will show you how it's done on each system, if you don't like my assessment, you can judge for yourself. [swg]

But today, it's on to my op session. I'll be posting an op session report over on my site in the next few days, in case you're interested.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

bump

[rockythegoat]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tom Bryant_MR

bump

bump and also a "Shout Out" to Joe for doing this! Between this thread and the other thread "DCC Throttle Shoot Out" I'm learnin' a hoop of good info!

Thanks for doing this!

[stokesda]

Joe, are you out there?....

Just patiently waiting for the next installment on this topic [:)]

[Pruitt]

This is off the topic of DCC, but is in reply to an earlier post, so skip this unless you're curious

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

I 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.

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by stokesda

Joe, are you out there?....

Just patiently waiting for the next installment on this topic [:)]

Yes, I'm here ... I'm pulling together the examples from the manuals to demonstrate ease of use. It's an ambitious undertaking, with pictures, diagrams and step-by-step examples of making a consist for each system. The idea is to allow you to do a side-by-side comparison.

It's been a busy week here with me doing some things for MR, like shooting the cover to their new Realistic Layouts issue. And then my sister loses her apartment and ends up on our doorstep, so that shoots a couple evenings consoling her. You know how it goes.

This weekend, I hope to get this thread back on track! [:D]

[jfugate]

Mark:

Thanks for your comments ... my argument is all theoretical anyhow and what I suggested is not what happened, probably for good reason as you mention.

The main point is that you can make user interfaces simple and obvious enough you don't need a manual most of the time once you "get it". That's also true of DCC systems and I hope to demonstrate that soon with the next official post on this clinic.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

Mark:

Thanks for your comments ... my argument is all theoretical anyhow and what I suggested is not what happened, probably for good reason as you mention.

The main point is that you can make user interfaces simple and obvious enough you don't need a manual most of the time once you "get it". That's also true of DCC systems and I hope to demonstrate that soon with the next official post on this clinic.

[:D]I just couldn't resist - the engineer in me coming out, I guess.

But your main point is excellent, and one that should be kept uppermost in mind by anyone who creates a product. From my perspective, the second most important feature of any product (the first being that the product can do what it's supposed to do) is its user interface. Far too many people don't give that enough consideration, and we wind up with great products that no one wants because they're such a pain to use!

in fact, the one thing that sold me on NCE for my DCC system was that it has what is, to me, the easiest-to-master user interface. I think I could learn any of them, but I didn't want to have to. For the way my mind works, NCE was most intuitive. But if someone else's mind works a little differently, another vendor's product may have a more intuitive interface to them.

[waltersrails]

any one that works

[icmr]

I agree with waltersrails.



ICMR

Happy Railroading.[swg][swg]