pilot wrote: Now I said I IMAGINE such a throttle. I dont know if ANY of the throttles work this way. I also havent thought it through enough to know if this creates some other problem. Comments?
Now I said I IMAGINE such a throttle. I dont know if ANY of the throttles work this way. I also havent thought it through enough to know if this creates some other problem.
Comments?
The Lenz throttles work this way. Of course, with Lenz, and most other mfgs., you locate "plug-in" stations around your layout so you can take your throttle with you to follow your train. But, if you do want to run the same loco with another throttle, with Lenz the loco number flashes when you pick up the 2nd throttle and you just push a key and then you have control with no change in speed or direction.
Also, with Lenz, they have a cordless phone throttle which gives you a very inexpensive wireless throttle to follow your trains with. Of course most mfgs. also offer radio throttles.
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
There are two throttle switching scenarios. One is same loco but different throttles. The other is same throttle but different loco.
On my small layout, with as many as 8 locos(trains) available, I have two throttles (not wireless). The layout is big enough that as I follow the train I switch throttles (due to NOT being wireless) as I follow the train around. The throttle I come to has to aquire the loco. If I run two locos, I usually put one loco on each throttle and just leave it. Following the train around is necessary because I need to check/throw turnouts. So I do aquire new locos on my throttles with trains running. Due to having the potentiometer instead of encoder type throttle I have to really watch what I am doing. (Probably have to really watch what I'm doing with the other type throttle as well). I'm still not clear on why an encoder is better at switching throttles/locos.
I IMAGINE a throttle that AQUIRES the settings of the loco as soon as you push the new loco button. Now it cant actually MOVE the knob, but the knob is RELATIVE and INFINITE (no stops), so wherever the knob is set is the current value of the throttle setting. Moving it up or down from there changes it. That is what I mean by RELATIVE vs FIXED. Since the current loco settings are inherited by the throttle, there is no change in the settings and the knobs work fine slowing it down a little if you turn it counterclockwise and speeding it up if you turn it clockwise.
Lenz throttles pick up recalled or dialed in loco speeds exactly as they are presently running.
The LH100 has push button speed control and matches speed and direction precisely. I don't know if you call push button speed control an encoder but it acts the same way.
The neat thing about their new LH90, which is a potentiometer, is that you can dial in the exact speed of another loco by means of flashing lights that guide you to rotate your speed knob to the exact speed of the new loco. This is a huge improvement for a potentiometer. And, you can match direction, again with a flashing light.
The LH100 has a huge recall stack but I never use it. It's quick and easy to just punch in the new loco number.
The LH90 has an 8 loco stack that you can rotate through very quickly, selecting any of the 8 locos and matching speed and direction precisely.
I've loved the performance of my DC walk-around throttles (kit-built TAT-Vs and tethered TAT-IVs), set up in a progressive-cab system. At the time that I decided to stick with analog control (1994), DCC motor control was WAY below what my analog throttles delivered, and the cost of equipping my fleet with encoders looked prohibitive. So I designed around / lived with the inconveniences of cab control. The one weakness of my walk-arounds is that the key IC chip periodically self-destructed (a flaw in the basic design). Finally, that chip is no longer available - coinciding with incipient plans to more than double the layout size. After considerable investigation during the past three months, I've found few choices in analog walk-around control, and that they would be nearly as expensive in the short run as moving to DCC (in the longer run, the cost of installing the decoders will drive the total cost well above investment in analog, but decoders are much cheaper than in 1994 and continue to fall in price). So I've decided to at least experiment with DCC.
I'm leaning toward starting with the NCE Power Cab system. There are still some issues that I don't understand:
1. It seems that most folks have a throttle for every active train, and rarely use a single throttle to control more than one train. Is this just preference, or are there problems associated with using a single throttle to toggle between a couple of trains? The NCE web site claims that when RECALling another locomotive, the system "remembers" the speed and other characteristics of the recalled locomotive (or consist), but some posts here indicate that it is more wish than reality.
2. My intention would be to have only one or two of the fully-featured throttles, and probably two or three of the more basic "engineer" or intermediate throttles. Is this approach feasible? (If not, then the total cost increases so dramatically as to make me again question moving to DCC.) Can one adjust momentum rates from the NCE "engineer" throttles?
3. Specifically for the Power Cab, I want to also get an NCE intermediate throttle because even for my experimenting, I MUST have walk-around capability. I'm still confused about how to hand off loco control from the Power Cab to the intermediate throttle.
4. Despite helpful replies to an earlier post, I'm still confused about power districts. On a conservative basis of .5 amps / active loco, and allowing for double-heading (almost universal on my pike), the maximum power requirement for the whole layout is right at 5 amps. If I get a three-amp booster, can I restrict it to a section of the layout, or do I have to put 8 amps through the whole thing? On a similar note, can I continue to use the Power Cab for, say, the eastern terminus section, and (in the future) purchase a Pro Cab for the rest of the layout if the two sections are electrically isolated?
5. Last but not least, one of the attractions for me of the NCE system is the stated ability to use DIN plugs (I HATE the phone-style plugs and for other stuff where they are plugged / unplugged much less frequently, have found them to become unreliable over time). Presumably there is nothing to stop me from installing my own DIN plugs at a cost of about 70 cents apiece, versus the NCE pre-wired ones at $10 (MSRP) apiece? And is the NCE "coilcord DIN" item 524-210 an adaptor plug that goes from the throttle to the DIN female?
Any answers or advice will be much appreciated. I realize that a lot of this would be answered if I could try this stuff out on someone else's layout, but unfortunately that is not an option.
Hi,
I picked up the equivalent of the Digitrax Super Empire Builder about six years ago. After testing it with some loops of track, it and my railroad stuff got packed away until recently. Pulling it out now, I am a little frustrated by its limitations (no routing, no feedback) but at the time it was the only one to offer an affordable PC interface which I needed for a project. As a set its a strange mix of advanced features and missing functionality and I am not sure why its still offered for sale. The niche it was designed to fill no longer exists in my opinion, and it only serves to frustrate.
Anyway, the key feature that first attracted me to the Digitrax system was the DT400 throttle. Having two throttles on one controller seemed like a handy thing for a guy who would be a solo operator most of the time. Now as I design my next layout I am also expecting that I would want to be able to run two trains without having to switch addresses. Setting up a meet, for instance, between a passenger train and the local I will be playing w.. ooops.. I mean.. operating.. or trying to speed match two locos.
Another thing I found appealing was that the loconet specification was very much like the ethernet stuff I was working with in a network lab at the time and gave me a certain comfort factor. It intuitively made sense to me on hardware level. I don't suppose that would be much of a factor for most folks.
Anyway, as I sit here trying to decide whether to ebay my system or make do, I am wondering how other folks felt about the usefulness of having two throttles on one controller, something that seems unique to Digitrax.
Regards,
Chris
Doug,
If I interpret your statements and inquiry correctly, this is where a throttle with a potentiometer (i.e. a knob with fixed limits) is a disadvantage over a throttle with an encoder (either a wheel or knob w/o fixed limits). As you mentioned, with the Bachmann you have the former and, therefore, are subjected to a jerky transition between addresses when operating more than one locomotive at a time.
I can't really speak for the other systems but NCE throttles come with the encoder wheel, as well as gross and fine step buttons, and keeps track of each locomotive's setting stored in it. It must be noted, however, that the NCE Powerhouse Pro comes with a 6-locomotive recall stack. The NCE Power Cab - identical to the Power Pro throttle outwardly but slightly different internally - only has a 2-locomotive recall stack*.
*By recall stack, I mean the number of locomotives that you can toggle between (by pushing the RECALL button) while operating your throttle. Other DCC systems may have more or less recall stack limits.
Now, you can operate more than 2 locomotives with the Power Cab (or 6 locomotives with the Powerhouse Pro). However, if you should desire to operate a third locomotive simultaneously with the Power Cab, because of the 2-locomotive stack limit, the third locomotive will "inherit" the settings of the last locomotive you were controlling. This can make for either sudden lunges or decelerations to the 3rd locomotive - depending on whether that locomotive was standing idle or in motion when you acquired it.
Since I don't plan on operating more than 2 locomotives at a given time with any one throttle, this isn't really an issue for me. For me, running more than 2 locomotives simultaneously is just asking for trouble.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Pilot:
Any throttles that use an encoder rather than a potentiometer will behave more appropriately when changing loco assignments between throttles. NCE and Digitrax have encoder throttles.
However, when changing loco assignments on-the-fly between throttles that use ordinary pots for speed control, it's easy enough to match the throttle setting and direction *first* before making the change. It only takes a few seconds to think ahead like this.
Or like we do on the Siskiyou Line ... if we ever needed to change throttles during a session (rarely done, and when done it was usually to solve a bad throttle issue), we set the new throttle to stop and then acquire the loco. Trying to change throttles in-flight is tricky and just asking to throw things on the ground. Real prototype railroaders tend to not get too crazy or you can end up hurting people or losing your job.
Others who have regular operating sessions with their DCC systems may care to comment on how often they do this kind of in-flight throttle switching during an op session. I know we seldom (if ever) do on my HO Siskiyou Line.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
I asked once before about multiple DCC throttles but will ask again. I hope this makes sense.
One thing that is NOT good about my little DCC Bachmann is when you go from one throttle to the next, you frequently have problems. You can just touch the "new" throttle and the train goes in REVERSE! or slows WAY down! or STOPS! or speeds way UP!
There is a reason for this and it involves how throttles handoff to each other. Lets say you are running engine 3 on throttle A with the direction control right active and 1/2 throttle.
Now you go to throttle B. It is set to engine 3 but the direction control left active and FULL throttle. All is well until you touch the throttle setting and this activates throttle B and the engine goes into FULL reverse.
There is a way around this. And some OTHER throttles do it differently (although I havent used them and dont know for sure). The difference could be called ABSOLUTE throttle setting vs RELATIVE throttle setting.
Which mfgs throttles do what on handoff, wireless or otherwise?
Other throttle problems/characteristics.
Tom:
I agree, Bruce is a good guy. I first met Bruce at the 2004 National Convention and he had lots of great comments/questions in my DCC clinic I gave.
As to the NCE wireless system, I'm eager to see how it performs. So far, other than the dead-on-arrival wireless repeater, the system has performed quite well. The wireless operation is just a little more finicky than my previous EasyDCC wireless system, but then NCE is a full duplex system where the radio communication is two-way. Since the FCC sets power limits on this type of wireless devices, a two-way wireless system has to divide the power between transmit and receive so the total transmission power limit is not exceeded.
This makes NCE's wireless power about half that of EasyDCC, and the laws of physics being what they are, the NCE wireless is more touchy -- but so far I've been quite pleased with the system. The wireless operation is quite acceptable when it's just me operating. Since the human body absorbs radio signals quite well, it will be interesting to see how reliable NCE's wireless is once the layout room is full of people.
I'll be posting my conclusions here on this thread, and I will be posting a detailed report, with photos, on my personal web site.
No manufacturer is perfect. Systems and parts can fail for a variety of reasons. I'd rather have a part fail outright rather than have to deal with some intermittent problem that would be difficult to diagnose. I would be curious to hear what the eventual problem was.
Yep, Bruce is one good guy and high on my list as far as online vendors are concerned! He's always been polite and very helpful with my inquiries.
Joe, I look forward to hearing how your ops session goes tomorrow.
As I have mentioned on this thread, I just purchased a new NCE wireless system. Since we've been talking about reliability on the NCE wireless system ... my first NCE RPT1 repeater that I ordered was defective and did not work. I received it last week, plugged it in, and deader than a doornail -- in fact it brought the whole system down! I just wanted to compliment Bruce Petrarca and Litchfield Station for saving my bacon at the last minute with a desperate request for a replacement RPT1. They shot one off to me on Tuesday and it showed up today, Thursday!I plugged in the replacement and voila! Everything works just great and I'm getting an excellent strong signal throughout the layout room aisles!
That's none too soon, since my first op session with the new NCE system is in two days. I'll be posting a report of how the op session goes with the new system, if you are interested. If you'd like to know more details of the move to NCE from EasyDCC, I cover it more (with photos) in this thread on my personal web site.
WN5L wrote the following post at 08-31-2007 3:55 AM:In the end the hands down winner will be MRC-Model Rectifier. They have the resources and the might to crush all the other DCC makers whenever they choose. The new pProdigy advance Wireless is an example.
WN5L wrote the following post at 08-31-2007 3:55 AM:
In the end the hands down winner will be MRC-Model Rectifier. They have the resources and the might to crush all the other DCC makers whenever they choose. The new pProdigy advance Wireless is an example.
I think MRC logically HAD an opportunity to the the name in DCC, but it seems to me they may have waited too long to jump on the boat, and then put themselves behind with questionable decoder quality, and an initial control station offering that was too limited, and had no growth path. I think it may be too late for them to make up the lost ground. From their position at the top of the DC control ffod chain they could have grabbed DCC from the beginning, and probably stopped most of the cometition before it started, I think it is going to be a lot harder for them to do that from the rear. The good news is that it seems to be that there is still plenty of room for fresh ideas in the area, and hopefully they are providing some.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
One big negative for MRC's DCC system offerings is the fact their various system's throttles are not interchangeable. You CANNOT start with a Prodigy Express and then move up to a Prodigy Advanced without changing out both the command station and your throttles.
None of the other big 4 system vendors (Digitrax, NCE, Lenz, EasyDCC) require this. You can use their starter system and move up without replacing virtually everything.
WN5L wrote:In the end the hands down winner will be MRC-Model Rectifier. They have the resources and the might to crush all the other DCC makers whenever they choose. The new Prodigy advance Wireless is an example.
I think the jury's still out on this one. MRC's very poor decoder quality* doesn't help matters, since it shows they're willing to cut corners on quality in an attempt to lowball the price and capture market share. This doesn't mean their DCC systems are this bad, but it's enough to make you wonder.
How reliable MRC's new wireless system is will be an important data point in their efforts to capture DCC system market share. Another important point will be the inclusion of a computer interface and how scalable the system is for larger layouts. So far, MRC's systems have been more low-end with out a computer interface and lacking in significant scalability for larger layouts.
*Mean time to failure for an MRC sound decoder seems to be about 12-16 hours of use. I know of one case where a fairly well known model railroader was given 8 MRC sound decoders and he installed them all in locos to run at a weekend show. By the time the weekend was over, ALL 8 MRC DECODERS had failed. His response? "The best thing you can do with an MRC decoder is take a sledge hammer to it." He was NOT impressed.
thank you for going to the trouble of putting together this thread. I do not have a DCC system but will purchase one in the future. The opinions and experiences that are in this thread mean a lot more to me due to the fact that the information is not sales oriented but instead from fellow modelers.
Again great clinic and thank you.
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
Stevert wrote:You keep talking about how important things like "Vendor support reputation is good", and how "Reliability has to be a high priority as well, or ease-of-use just doesn't matter." But I simply don't see how this whole NCE eprom "experience" is better than having non-buggy code right from the start.Steve
Steve
Steve:
Yes it's bad to sell defective parts, and I agree, that's a reliability hit. NCE gets a black eye out of this event.
However, we all make mistakes, including vendors. It's not so much about never ever making mistakes as it is how quickly the vendor owns up to the mistake and tries to make it right. Adding more mistakes on top of previous blunders is really bad, and it helps if the vendor also "gives something" in the process by making the fix available for free, etc.
Not all EPROMs sent out by NCE were defective, only some were defective -- so that's a plus. How NCE handled the replacement of the defective EPROMs was not great according to some -- to others it was handled quite well -- in sum not a stellar performance, but okay. In the final analysis, this is an NCE reliability chuck hole -- not enough to ruin the entire NCE system journey but it does give a black eye that will pass in time as people upgrade and new systems come out with the new EPROM from the start.
But this does mean we need to watch NCE closely and if the next EPROM release is a repeat performance then that's worse. Now we have a compounding issue where NCE doesn't seem to learn from past mistakes -- and that's not good at all.
I will also grant you Digitrax's overall reliability score is probably better than NCE's. Heaven knows NCE's wireless reliability was quite poor in rev 1 and much better in rev 2 although it can still be a tad finicky even in rev 2. However, everything's a matter of degrees. The reliability glitch from this upgrade is not enough to ruin the great ease-of-use aspect of NCE since with a correct EPROM the new system works better than ever.
To say vendors should never make mistakes and if a vendor ever does make a mistake you should tar and feather them seems a bit over the top -- and rather convenient when it's for a competing system to the one you own. What if it was Digitrax that made a mistake -- like producing some system part that had a few of them defective in a batch?
Does the same level of harshness apply to all vendors, regardless of whether or not it's the vendor of the system you own? Or is this level of criticism only reserved for the vendors of competing systems, and we should be more forgiving of the vendor who makes the system you chose?
I'm sure every DCC system vendor has customer horror stories where someone got a defective system -- the real question is what did the vendor do to make it right?
jfugate wrote:P.S. Steve, I'm curious why you didn't reference the very next post in the NCE yahoogroups list: " I just want to thank the folks at NCE for their fast fix and shipping of the replacement EPROM chip this week. If you consider the price of other electron upgrades the $15.00 is a good deal to have the latest program. My chip was sent with a note saying I could kept the old chip but if they want it I have no problem sending it back if that would keep the costs of future upgrades down." This kind of ruins the previous poster's rant you referenced doesn't it? This next guy is courteous and appreciative (as are most people -- the ranter you reference is not typical). This next poster notes that NCE themselves say sending back the EPROM is an optional courtesy, a nice gesture for the good of everybody. Nobody says you *have* to send back anything, but if you do, you help everybody.
P.S. Steve, I'm curious why you didn't reference the very next post in the NCE yahoogroups list:
" I just want to thank the folks at NCE for their fast fix and shipping of the replacement EPROM chip this week. If you consider the price of other electron upgrades the $15.00 is a good deal to have the latest program. My chip was sent with a note saying I could kept the old chip but if they want it I have no problem sending it back if that would keep the costs of future upgrades down."
This kind of ruins the previous poster's rant you referenced doesn't it? This next guy is courteous and appreciative (as are most people -- the ranter you reference is not typical). This next poster notes that NCE themselves say sending back the EPROM is an optional courtesy, a nice gesture for the good of everybody. Nobody says you *have* to send back anything, but if you do, you help everybody.
No, that next post in the NCE Yahoo! group doesn't "ruin" anything. If you re-read my post, I merely said someone wasn't about to return his old eprom. Nowhere did I say anyone was required to do so. And read on. Sending the old eprom back may not help everybody.
jfugate wrote: The referenced ranter making a federal case out of mailing back the defective $5 EPROM sounds to me more like a ten-year old throwing a selfish tantrum, since NCE simply suggested that the EPROM be sent back as a favor to everybody. And if you look at it another way, it's commonly understood that if you buy a product and it's defective, you send it back for a replacement and NCE doesn't even require that. It's all a matter of perspective ...
The referenced ranter making a federal case out of mailing back the defective $5 EPROM sounds to me more like a ten-year old throwing a selfish tantrum, since NCE simply suggested that the EPROM be sent back as a favor to everybody. And if you look at it another way, it's commonly understood that if you buy a product and it's defective, you send it back for a replacement and NCE doesn't even require that. It's all a matter of perspective ...
Well, since you chided me for not referencing another post in that thread, I'll take the time to do so now. From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCE-DCC/message/34303 :
His complaint is that he paid money for a product which is defective. Instead of replacing the defective part with a good part, the seller asked Bill to pay for a new, better part. AND they are asking for the old part, which is *Bill's property*, back for free. I agree with Bill. NCE goofed here. NCE should, as a matter of good business practice, do one of two things: 1) replace the defective part at NO cost to the custom 2) offer the improved part at a price AND offer to buy back the customers EPROM at a fair market price that represents the value of a salvaged EPROM to NCE. Also, the statement " What are going to do with the old one? " has a snide tone to it. Maybe Bill is an electronics experimentor and could make good use of HIS EPROM. Characterizing a valid consumer complaint as "bellyaching" is beneath discussion.
jfugate wrote: But to pull this all back into the topic of this thread -- yes, NCE sent out some defective EPROMs to some NCE system owners (not all, just some), and yes, that's a reliability hit, and that's bad. But they handled it nicely, and that's good. Nobody's perfect, and that makes it more or less a wash to me. Neither good nor bad.
But to pull this all back into the topic of this thread -- yes, NCE sent out some defective EPROMs to some NCE system owners (not all, just some), and yes, that's a reliability hit, and that's bad. But they handled it nicely, and that's good. Nobody's perfect, and that makes it more or less a wash to me. Neither good nor bad.
So if I miskey something (I'm also in IT) and cause one of my customers (not all, just some) to lose millions of dollars, I can handle it "nicely" and they'll tell me "that's good" because "nobody's perfect"? I hardly think so.
You keep talking about how important things like "Vendor support reputation is good", and how "Reliability has to be a high priority as well, or ease-of-use just doesn't matter." But I simply don't see how this whole NCE eprom "experience" is better than having non-buggy code right from the start.
I have had a Digitrax Radio Chief since the system was first introduced. The system works great, but I would agree that programing takes some learning. Over the years I have migrated from DT-100 to DT-300 and now DT-400. I use them for throttles only. Joe Fugate's video introduced me to Decoder Pro and I use my old (Windows 98) computer with Decoder Pro for programming. In the future all of my throttles will be UT-4R as they are very easy to use, however all of the old throttles still work great.
One nice thing about Digitrax is that my old DCS-100 command station and DB-150 boosters are still up to date. I had some old UT-1 throttles which were easy to use, but sold them as they could not be upgraded to wireless. I have one Digitrax UP-91 radio reciever in an 1800 sq ft basement with no reception problems.
I consider my Digitrax system to be a great investment.
Jim, Modeling the Kansas City Southern Lines in HO scale.
And speaking of ease-of-use, I rely on my training and experience as an internet software designer to define ease-of-use. When designing a web page user interface, you can't expect people to read a manual in order to use your web page, so I rely on user interface industry wisdom to help me define ease-of-use for DCC systems.
1. Simple, DCC-standard labels on buttons
You would think this is obvious, but it's amazing how often this concept is violated by interface designers. Take consisting as an example. The DCC term for joining locos together into multi-unit lashups is a "consist". The system interface should use that term: consist, not MU, not double-header -- consist! Two systems follow this concept well: NCE and EasyDCC. Lenz and Digitrax, on the other hand, invent their own system-unique terms for more than a few things.
Take a close look at all the buttons of each DCC system you are thinking of buying. Can you guess at the function of the buttons without ever looking at the manual? Here's some good examples from actual DCC systems: "Select Loco, Setup consist, Pgm Trk, Enter". Or some less-than-helpful examples: "0M, Y+, MU, Av"
2. Simple and obvious command sequences
By using the action-object approach and buttons with obvious labels, a DCC system can make it pretty easy to get common tasks done when using a DCC system. Pressing "Select loco" or "Assign loco" and then typing in the 4-digit loco number on a numeric keypad is an example of making it really easy to connect your throttle to a loco so you can run your train.
Your best bet is to download the manuals for the various DCC systems that interest you and compare the command sequences for doing things like assigning locos to a throttle or setting up a consist. If the system vendor doesn't make their manual available to you online, then shame on them! What are they trying to hide, uhmmmm?
3. Helpful command prompts
If the user interface is well designed, you should know where to start by looking at the well labled and obvious buttons, and the system prompts should guide you step-by-step along the way. The only way you can get some idea of the prompts you'll get without playing with the system for a while is to again, download and read the manual.
4. Can you "throw away the manual"?
If a system's user interface is well designed, one in-depth trip through the manual ought to just about do it. From there, the well labeled buttons and the helpful command prompts should get you through nicely. If you find you have to put together button-sequence "cheat sheets" or that visiting operators who don't have your system keep needing help to do things with your system, then the system user interface hasn't met the "throw away the manual" guideline very well.
5. Is the system interface completely consistent across all models of the system
If you use different models of the DCC system, are all the button labels, prompts and command sequences identical for the same functions? Or does the system change button labels, move buttons around, or use completely different interfaces on their various system models?
Rating the systems as to Ease-of-Use
Based on these guidelines, my rating of the systems as to ease-of-use (from best to worst) is:
NCE, EasyDCC, MRC, Digitrax, Lenz
MRC, Digitrax, and Lenz all have inconsistent user interfaces across the various system models. If you move to a different model of system, you have to essentially start over and relearn a completely new system interface. Very annoying.
Digitrax and Lenz use their own system-unique vocabulary (rather than DCC-standard terminology) to label buttons. Lenz's set 90 throttles even make typing in ordinary numbers a chore, requiring you to press a shift key and digit keys for 1, 2, 3, 4, or 0 to get the digits 5-9.
On the other hand, the NCE PowerCab starter system uses a system interface that's identical to the full-blown ProCab system. Once you learn the command sequences with the PowerCab, graduating to a ProCab is a piece-of-cake because everything's the same!
EasyDCC has only one command panel for all versions of their system so they do this by default. Their throttles, however, exhibit some variations. Not enough to be annoying, but it does increase the learning curve somewhat between throttles.
It is also important to state that everyone has their own personal preferences with regard to user interfaces, and that you can get used to just about anything. If you love mastering technical things -- then Lenz's less-than-obvious set 90 throttles may not be a problem for you and could even be rather fun to use. Once you become intimately familiar with a given system, it can seem easier to use than any other system that you don't know.
jfugate wrote: One of the very worst in this regard is the Lenz Set 90 throttles. They didn't even include a complete numeric keypad on this throttle. To get all the numbers, you have to press shift and a button. Very annoying if ease of use is most important to you.
One of the very worst in this regard is the Lenz Set 90 throttles. They didn't even include a complete numeric keypad on this throttle. To get all the numbers, you have to press shift and a button. Very annoying if ease of use is most important to you.
I can't let this pass without a comment. The new, updated Version 3.5 of the Lenz LH90 is a terrific engineer's throttle. I use it and love it. I now even prefer using it over the CVP T9000E wireless, even though I have to plug it in!
For speed control, direction, loco selection, functions and turnout control, it's very easy to use. Many of us mostly use just Functions F0-F4 while running a train and these require no shift key. Now, while you can consist and program with it, these operations are not nearly as easy to remember how to do, nor as fast and easy as on the LH100 throttle. But, how many people use their engineer's throttles for these operations?
I really like the LH90 and don't wan't others to get the wrong impression about it. Of course this all goes back to how you interpret "ease-of-use" as discussed in my previous post.
Thanks for all of your extremely valuable info on this thread, but remember, all of us solo operating, manual readers have absolutely no problem with the likes of an LH90.
CSX Robert wrote:Joe,When Digitrax is set to decoder based consisting, you can still nest consists. When you are setting up consists with a DT300 or DT400, You do have to press "+" or -" to add or remove the engine, but the throttle prompts you with "+ = add" and "- remove", and using "MU" to mean a multiple unit consist is pretty common terminology.I am not trying to say that Digitrax is as easy to use as NCE, and that's why I rated it "good" and not "very good", I just don't think it is far behind NCE as long as you have a DT400.
Yep, Digitrax has worked to improve their user interface, and it's clear the DT400 "TV Remote" sized throttle helps a lot. The one thing to watch out for is command-station programming throttles that only have a minimal set of buttons. That minimal set of buttons is to make you think it's simpler. But you may find that in order to do anything significant, you need all kinds of less-than-intuitive combinations of button presses to get anything done.
As the DT400 illustrates, ease-of-use is actually better if you have a larger number of well labeled buttons.
jbinkley60 wrote:Now one thing missing from most of the evaluation criteria here is scalability. I chose Digitrax for scalability and expandability. Usability isn't quite as high because I figure I'll be using it all of the time so I'll learn any nuiances and quirks but I don't want to tear it all out and thrown it away when I outgrow it or nead to expand.
jb:
I consider scalability to be a system feature, as can be derived from the list I posted for features:
Features Many different throttle options Full spectrum of options for your first system System includes robust bus networking technology Many options for working with accessory decoders (beyond just loco decoders) Computer interface capability Vendor sells separate boosters that allow using “light bulb” short management Wireless system supports a dozen or more throttles on unique frequencies
Features
Many different throttle options
Full spectrum of options for your first system
System includes robust bus networking technology
Many options for working with accessory decoders (beyond just loco decoders)
Computer interface capability
Vendor sells separate boosters that allow using “light bulb” short management
Wireless system supports a dozen or more throttles on unique frequencies
All of the things listed above deal with how well the system can be "expanded" and are scaleability-related. If features, especially the upsizing capabilities, rate higher than ease-of-use, then Digitrax is a good choice. LocoNet and its device daisy-chaining features does make expansion pretty easy.
I can't remember why I picked the SEB from Digitrax. I didn't know squat, and not much has changed. (Uhhh...let me rephrase that....) What I can say is that I had no choice but to get into the manual and make things work 'cuz otherwise I was out CDN$400.
Is Digitrax perfect? Ha, ha.
Would I part with my SEB now? Nope.
Point- you find the way. Joe is telling us that "finding the way" could mean learning how to do that in a methodical approach.
jwils, I am much like you. I have no choice but to get into the VCR manual because She wants her soaps taped, and I am the designated programmer. Eventually, the manual gets committed to memory, and the machine does what it is engineered to do.
So what does ease-of-use mean? This is mentioned frequently in DCC system discussions. I think that ease-of-use means different things depending upon who you are. This can get complicated, but to use simple examples I will list the following DCC operator types:
1. Solo operator who always operates alone and is a "manual reader":
This is the guy who reads his DCC, VCR and new car manuals from cover to cover (by the way, I tend to be this type). So, ease-of-use for this person means that he easily understands the manual and can then operate his device without difficulty, and enjoys doing it because it becomes so clear to him.
2. Solo operator who always operates alone and is not a "manual reader":
This is the guy who just wants to pick up, operate or drive the device without reading anything, or at least as little as possible.
3. An operator who invites friends or family to operate with him:
This person provides throttles for his guests to use, unless one happens to operate the same system and brings his throttle with him.
4. An operator who operates at a club:
This person probably also runs the same system at home.
Now, again, keeping it simple, lets' consider which system each of the above might think is easy to use. In reality, just as no two sets of fingerprints are alike, there are probably no two modelers that are exactly alike, so obviously this is a generalization. The systems listed below are the ones that each type would probably think are easy to use (systems listed alphabetically):
Group 1: Digitrax, EasyDCC, Lenz, MRC, NCE
Group 2: MRC, NCE
Group 3: MRC, NCE
Group 4: Digitrax, EasyDCC, Lenz, MRC, NCE
But, the above assumes that all operators and guests are going to be using the primary programming throttle that comes with the DCC set. So, what if the guests in Group 3 are only going to use an "engineer's throttle", and will simply be running one loco for speed, direction, bell and horn (whistle)? Now, I would say that all groups become equal and it wouldn't matter which system was being used.
But, what if the guests in Group 3 are going to switch back and forth between two or more locos? Then, the list of "easy systems" will probably change. We could go on and on with different scenerios but I guess the point I'm tring to make is:
To choose a DCC system one needs to carefully consider exactly how, and with whom, one intends to operate. When we give advice as to what system a person should choose, we need to be careful not to just blindly say....."I use such and such system and really think it's best". Best? For whom?
But here is another problem for the newcomer. They often don't even know how they are going ot eventually operate and therefore don't really know what features are going to be important to them. We need to keep that in mind in our discussions, and this is where only a system with a good uprade path should be suggested and chosen. Actually, it seems that most of the "big five" (I'm including MRC here) seem to have good ugrade paths, although with Lenz, at least for now, you kind of have to start with a more advanced system. And, pretty soon we will probably have Bachmann Dynamis in U.S. stores. What then? "The "big six".
I'm not sure why I'm posting this other than to say what we already know......that picking a DCC system can be as complicated or as simple as we want to make it, but with good study, research and questioning one can have a better chance of finding the system that will truly work best for him.
From the loan wolf operator on an 8 1/2 x 11 or shelf , to the large layout running operating sessions with multiple users there are a vast array of needs. I run a modest layout with my 2 young sons and have the occasional visitor come and run a train or two.
My criteria were:
1. Entry level system that had good expansion capability
2. 3 or 4 operators at the same time
3. Very easy operation since the boys are young.
4. Walk around capability with true un-plug memory type throttles, where you can unplug, the train keeps running and you can plug back in again and have control. A single tether just does not work in my layout room.
5. PC interface for programming of decoders with Decoder pro.
At the time, there was only one clear choice and that was the Digitrax Zephyr. Here we are 5 years later and there have been several newer additions to the entry level DCC market, and yet the Zephyr is still the only clear choice that meets my criteria. This speaks volumes about the innovative approach that Digitrax takes. I fulfilled my criteria by adding a pair of throttles to my Zephyr and 3 plug in panels. This is just a simple daisy chain of the loconet. I also use the jump throttle capability for an old DC powerpack. This gets used by the very little kids 2-3 yrs! and also as a yard controller in my loco servicing facility. For a PC interface I use the aftermarket Locobuffer 2. I like the idea that there are 3rd party vendors and manufacturers making products that are compatible with the Digitrax loconet backbone. This gives me more choice. The Zephyr is trivial to setup and operate and has provided none of the operation headache that is implied by others for either myself or my boys.
I am planning to further expand my system in the next few months. Digitrax is coming out with a new duplex wireless system. From what I have been told, it operates in a different frequency band than current systems and should have excellent range and response time. It is not ready for prime time yet, but Digitrax was openly speaking about it at the NMRA. It will be compatible with existing loconet systems, so as always we can take advantage of the excellent expansion capability of the loconet.
I would contend that for a moderate size layout, the Digitrax Zephyr is one of the best value systems on the market.
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
pilot wrote: I have come in late on this thread (I read the last full page of posts). One thing that I am looking at is throttles. I want wireless and I would really like a feature that is hard to explain. MY present system, when you change the throttle to control a different loco, uses the setting of reverse/forward and amount-of-throttle that the throttle control unit used for the previous loco at EXCEPT, it continues to run at the new locos old setting until you change some setting. So it can happen that when you change locos, as soon as you touch the throttle setting, the train goes into REVERSE!!! (This will happen if the forward/reverse setting for the PREVIOUS loco is REVERSE for this loco). Whew! Hope that is clear.I am not sure what all the options are to solve this. I KNOW I want radio throttle. I envision a throttle that uses the current settings of the loco as it's setting regardless of where the throttle and forward/reverse is positioned. In other words these settings are RELATIVE, not ABSOLUTE. Any help here?
I have come in late on this thread (I read the last full page of posts). One thing that I am looking at is throttles. I want wireless and I would really like a feature that is hard to explain. MY present system, when you change the throttle to control a different loco, uses the setting of reverse/forward and amount-of-throttle that the throttle control unit used for the previous loco at EXCEPT, it continues to run at the new locos old setting until you change some setting. So it can happen that when you change locos, as soon as you touch the throttle setting, the train goes into REVERSE!!! (This will happen if the forward/reverse setting for the PREVIOUS loco is REVERSE for this loco). Whew! Hope that is clear.
I am not sure what all the options are to solve this. I KNOW I want radio throttle. I envision a throttle that uses the current settings of the loco as it's setting regardless of where the throttle and forward/reverse is positioned. In other words these settings are RELATIVE, not ABSOLUTE.
Any help here?
Indeed. On the DT400 the select loco button is just Loco and if you don't have a loco selected the screen says "Sel Loco". That sounds more difficult than a Select Loco button. As for consists, just set the consist address to the first locomotive. Then select the first locomotive.
Now one thing missing from most of the evaluation criteria here is scalability. I chose Digitrax for scalability and expandability. Usability isn't quite as high because I figure I'll be using it all of the time so I'll learn any nuiances and quirks but I don't want to tear it all out and thrown it away when I outgrow it or nead to expand. I'll rate that above some slight perceived usability issue. To me usability is using DS64s with local cascaded routes in my yard. Being able to select a route address and guide a switcher through 7-8 turnouts from a single button click instead of throwng 7-8 manual switches or wiring up a diode matrix. Or if I want to change a route it is just a few keystrokes to reprogram a route instead of resoldering wires. Equally good is the ability to set an entire yard or portion of the layout back to default so that all turnouts are in their normal position.
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/