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?
CSX Robert wrote:I would like to point out that Digitrax does allow you to mix command station and decoder assisted consisting. If you have command station consisting set as the default, then you can not do decoder assited consisting without manually programming CV 19; however, If you have decoder assisted consisting set as the default, when you acquire an engine, you can tell the command station whether or not it supports decoder assisted consisting and if it does not, when you add that engine to a consist, it will use command station consisting. You can also do command station consisting when you have decoder assisted consisting as the default by using a consist number greater than 127.The Digitrax Zephyr is the only system I've used, other than the MRC Command 2000, so I can not compare it's use to other systems, but from my experience, I would rate it good in ease-of-use.
Robert:
Thanks for your insight on Digitrax and consists. I know that Digitrax comes from the factory defaulting to command station consisting, and that you can change it via a configuration setting to decoder-based. It's nice to know you can get some command-station consists even when set to decoder-based in the system configuration. However, I do believe when set to command station consisting, you can nest consists, but if you go to decoder based, you lose the nesting capability. EasyDCC's not much better in this regard, but NCE allows lots of freedom nesting the two kinds of consists, which I find useful.
When it comes to ease-of-use, I look for things like plain english functions and good prompting on the display as you work through the steps. Unfortunately, Digitrax uses keys labeled with things like "MU", "T+", or "Y+" to add locos to a consist, while NCE uses "add loco" in a section of the keypad labeled "Consist". As a web interface designer, inventing a "secret code" for things like Digitrax often does is poor design. Simple and obvious, as NCE does, is a much friendlier design.
I know when I go to my friends' Digitrax layouts, I'm always having to get a refresher on how to select a loco, since I can't tell just by looking at the throttle. On the NCE throttles, there's a button labeled "Select loco" -- how much more obvious can you get?
One other comment on Digitrax's user interface versus the other three systems. Digitrax is object - action, but the other three systems are action - object.
With Digitrax's object - action, you have to select something first, then do an action to it. But you have to just know that -- there's nothing on the throttle to let you know that. If you start pressing buttons without having something to act on, you just get yourself in a mess. To do a consist on Digitrax, you have to start with a loco selected, then press "MU". If you press "MU" first you get no helpful prompts to guide you.
With the other systems' action - object approach, you start by pressing the action button (and the action buttons are well labeled on NCE and fairly well labeled on EasyDCC) like "Setup Consist". Then the system says something helpful like "What loco number?" and off you go, with the system leading you by the hand through the process. Much more friendly.
Sure you can learn how to use Digitrax and once you get used to using it you can be proficient at it. But for visiting guest engineers who don't routinely use Digitrax, you'll have to coach them every single time because the system's just not intuitive to use. At least with NCE your guest operators have a fighting chance if they start with the "Select Loco" button ...
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
Joe,
I pretty much agree with your ranking of priorities, but then again maybe that's why we've both selected a system from the same manufacturer. I have used Digitrax systems. I would rank them as low for user friendliness. I have 2 friends whose home layouts use Digitrax. Each time I've operated on them there is a 'orientation' session at the start to explain how to use the throttle. Usually the trains, and consists, ahve already been made up so it is just a matter of selecting you assigned train. The layout owner always had to tell you what the consist number was to select the train.
I would rank support for NCE as medium-high to high. In the 8 years I have my PHP I've never had to send it or a throttle back to NCE for service. That would speak to reliability. My support experience has been with the software upgrades. I received that last upgrade within 10 days of send in my response card and a check. That's one check in the plus column for support. I also consider part of support the manufacturers ability to make new technology and standards available to users, especially existing users. That's the area that, based on your posts, EasyDCC has fallen down in. How does the manufacturer support older systems, and can they brought up to date without a considerable cash outlay. That's where I give NCE high marks. Two upgrades since I've owned the system and its as good as one purchased today. It has all the same features and options. Total cost of upgrades - about $40.
In selecting a system I would and did rank as low having fellow MRRs in the area using the same system. Like you, with the availability to discussion forums like YahooGroups, the ability to have others in the area to ask questions of ranks at the bottom of the decision criteria.
Cost also ranked low. I knew at the outset that this decision was more like and investment than an expense. I realized that whatever system I picked would be one I would use for a long, long time. When spending $400 - $500 dollars on a system, the fact that one is maybe $50 cheaper is not worth sacrificing things like ease of use. One other factor that came out in my research years ago, which also consisted of read each mfgs manuals and joining their YahooGroup, was there seemed to be more people who were switching from Digitrax to NCE than vice versa. The most common reason was ease of use - my highest priority consideration.
Joe - Thanks for putting together a good comprehensive list. Hopefully people will refer to this thread rather than constantly starting a new thread about which system to choose.
jktrains
jfugate wrote: I invite others to post how they would rank these consisterations and how that ranking affected their choice of DCC system.
I invite others to post how they would rank these consisterations and how that ranking affected their choice of DCC system.
My priorities would be identical to yours. However, for ease of use, I would have to rate the Lenz Set 100 as very good. For a solo operator like myself, my ideal setup would be the Lenz Set 100 with the LH100 throttle, plus an LH90 engineer's throttle (the new 3.5 version of course) and a cordless phone thottle.
My reasoning is as follows:
I pretty much agree with eveything else you have said.
Now it's true that I've never run trains with NCE, Digitrax or EasyDCC, and I have great respect for each of them. I especially like the NCE engineer's throttles, the Digitrax DT400 and the CVP wireless T9000E. I can see how tough it would be for a beginner to pick one of the "big four". I think I could be very happy with any one of them. But at this point I'm very pleased with my Lenz decision.
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
jfugate wrote:I invite others to post how they would rank these consisterations and how that ranking affected their choice of DCC system.
...and, might I add, without making personal attacks on how others came to their conclusions.
Thanks for the thread, Joe. It will be interesting to see how and why these priorities fluctuate between forum members who use DCC on their layouts.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I promised I would rate the DCC system considerations that I have posted earlier in this thread, so here it is.I'm using these priorities: High, medium, and low. Please note, these are my subjective priorties for these considerations, and your priorities may be quite different! I will then explain how my rating of these priorities affected my choice of DCC system. It might be helpful to have others post their ratings of these priorities and then explain how that affected their choice of DCC system.
From highest to lowest, my priorities are:
In case you haven't figured it out by now, Ease-of-use ranks at the top of my list. Even though I am a computer professional and thus deal with highly technical computer issues all the time, I also manage a team of internet developers and we spend a lot of time thinking about ease-of-use. As a result my "ease-of-use" radar is on full all the time and when I see a less-than-stellar user interface it really annoys me. The way I rate the big four systems on ease of use: NCE (very good), EasyDCC (good), Lenz (fair), Digitrax (fair). Digitrax used to be poor, but they've done a lot to improve their user interface in recent years with the DT400 and the UT4 throttles. But NCE rates tops in this category, IMO.
Reliability has to be a high priority as well, or ease-of-use just doesn't matter. If it's easy to use but you can't trust it to perform, who cares if it's easy to use? Here, all the systems are more or less neck-in-neck. In other words, they're all well built and will last for many years, so this area's somewhat of a wash when comparing the systems. They're the big 4 systems for a reason. I suspect Zimo also will stand up well, but I'm dubious about MRC -- their flakey decoders have shown they are willing to cut corners on reliability in order to lower their price. The jury's still out on their latest wireless DCC entry. NCE did have reliability problems with their rev 1 wireless, but a couple years ago they released their rev 2 wireless, solving this problem for them.
I watch the evolution of DCC Features closely and prefer to stay early on the curve of new features with my DCC system, with features that might appeal to a 1980s diesel era modeler highest on my list. This is why the features around consisting matter very much to me, and I've always wanted DCC systems that give me the most power when it comes to what I can do with consists. The leader of the pack in consisting features is clearly NCE, with their built-in double-ended consists and their ability to freely nest decoder and command station consists. EasyDCC is next, but their system over time has introduced some annoying limitations to nested consists. Lenz consisting is okay, but their "double headed" command station consists are limited to just two locos. Digitrax's insistance on picking only command station or decoder consists and not automatically allowing you to freely mix both types of consists is limiting unless you want to become an expert at CV19 programming. The need to learn CV19 ins and outs just furthers Digitrax's technogeek reputation.
Support is important, but not the be-all, end-all for me. Since I have been in the computer field for almost 35 years, I can read and write hex and binary in my sleep, and I know how to debug digital computer issues very well. I also am not concerned about having all my railroad buddies have the same system as me -- if I can post a question somewhere online that's good enough for me. All the big four systems rank neck-in-neck as to support as far as I can tell. They all bend over backwards to solve issues, and the fact Digitrax has the best market penetration of any system gives them the edge here. Chances are you can find someone local who can help if you have a Digitrax system and are really stuck.
I'm willing to pay a higher Price for a system if it has the ease-of-use and features I want. NCE and Digitrax have the edge here (with very affordable starter systems), followed closely by Lenz with reasonably good prices, but EasyDCC becoming the most expensive of the four since they are a sole-source supplier. Competition among distributors of the other three systems have made for some really sweet discounts on the list price. By far the most expensive system is Zimo, with its prices 1.5 to 2 times that of the other systems.
As to Availability, as long as I can order the system online, that's good enough for me. In today's world, I do most of my shopping online ... so if I can get it online somewhere, I'm happy. All the systems are available online, so this consideration is at the bottom of my list. For some people, being able to buy the system at their LHS could be their highest consideration. If that's the case, then Digitrax should be high on your list -- they have the greatest penetration into local hobby shops. Likewise, EasyDCC would be at the bottom of your list, since they are only available from one source: directly from the vendor.
In Summary, my latest system of choice is NCE, since it ranks high on the items that are a priority for me. I invite others to post how they would rank these consisterations and how that ranking affected their choice of DCC system.
jktrains wrote:I have a friend with a Digitrax system. Right out of the box his radio system wouldn't work. Nothing, absolutely dead. The problem - a bad solder joint on the circuit board. He had to wait until Monday to call since it was Saturday. He had to pay postage to send it back they sent him a replacement UR91. Did they prvide good customer service - Yes. Did he carry on about poor quality and defective parts from them - No. Sometimes bad parts get through the inspection process. As long as its handled promptly thats whats important.jktrains
I have a friend with a Digitrax system. Right out of the box his radio system wouldn't work. Nothing, absolutely dead. The problem - a bad solder joint on the circuit board. He had to wait until Monday to call since it was Saturday. He had to pay postage to send it back they sent him a replacement UR91. Did they prvide good customer service - Yes. Did he carry on about poor quality and defective parts from them - No. Sometimes bad parts get through the inspection process. As long as its handled promptly thats whats important.
jk:
Yes, that's a good example. Permit me to get on my soapbox for a moment ...
***soapbox***
Our culture admires the skeptic, and poo-poos the non-skeptic as "gullible". A skeptic is honored as being a "critical thinker", "tough negotiator", or as one who "stands up for their rights".
I think making the skeptic a hero in our culture has gone to seed to the point that we now encourage whining, complaining, litigation, and just-plain-bad-attitudes under the guise of being an honored skeptic. In my book, people who make a career of such a nasty, negative perspective are not heroes at all but simply chronic complainers whose viewpoint loses all its power because they cry wolf so much.
And worse yet, such complaining leads some people to fight back, triggering conflicts -- and nobody likes conflict. In management studies that have been done with problem solving teams and different team member types, when the team is given the option to eject their least valuable member -- it's always the chronic complainer that gets the axe first.
There's a lesson in there somewhere.
***end of soapbox***
Stevert,
The majority of the responses to the ranter was "so what, they want the old one back, what am I going to do with it." As I said, mine are just gathering dust in the drawer, I think I'll send them back. It's a matter of perspective. I have a friend with a Digitrax system. Right out of the box his radio system wouldn't work. Nothing, absolutely dead. The problem - a bad solder joint on the circuit board. He had to wait until Monday to call since it was Saturday. He had to pay postage to send it back they sent him a replacement UR91. Did they prvide good customer service - Yes. Did he carry on about poor quality and defective parts from them - No. Sometimes bad parts get through the inspection process. As long as its handled promptly thats whats important.
Thanks for sharing so much of your knowledge with all of us.
I am working on my layout, and thinking about changing over from an Atlas DCC system to one of those you use.
I also have a Bachmann Easy Command I used to check out my first mainline in HO.
Anyway, I also recently downloaded one of your videos from Kalmbach online catalog , about laying flex track. I also used grey latex caulk like you recommended, and it came out great!!
After laying several sections as you described, my confidence level was quickly boosted, and the rest of my first mainline went in easily!
A quick check by running a BLI J1 steamer around it, showed no defects or derailments!
My second mainline will go in soon, using the same methods.
Thanks again for sharing with all of us!
Ed DeBolt
Grabill, Indiana
aka TheK4Kid
Working on the Pennsy
ndbprr wrote:Just came into this thread and what I am looking for may be outside the scope but some postings of unique situations in regard to power and reversing sections, signaling, computer interface, etc. would be helpful also.
Yes, this is kind of off topic for this specific thread around chosing a new DCC system. But I do have another thread that's about issues around *using* DCC. I will resurrect that thread and I invite you to post the details of your questions there and let's discuss it.
Stevert wrote: jktrains wrote:Steve,Your recent post mentions, twice, about having to return an EPROM in reference to NCE. I have had my system for years now, I've gotten two new EPROMs for their updates/upgrades and have NEVER had to return the old EPROM to receive the new one. In fact I still have both of the old EPROMs in a drawer. Can you further explain these comments?I'll let an NCE user explain instead. See:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCE-DCC/message/34316 Steve
jktrains wrote:Steve,Your recent post mentions, twice, about having to return an EPROM in reference to NCE. I have had my system for years now, I've gotten two new EPROMs for their updates/upgrades and have NEVER had to return the old EPROM to receive the new one. In fact I still have both of the old EPROMs in a drawer. Can you further explain these comments?
Steve,
Your recent post mentions, twice, about having to return an EPROM in reference to NCE. I have had my system for years now, I've gotten two new EPROMs for their updates/upgrades and have NEVER had to return the old EPROM to receive the new one. In fact I still have both of the old EPROMs in a drawer. Can you further explain these comments?
I'll let an NCE user explain instead. See:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCE-DCC/message/34316
Steve
Just to put the referenced NCE post in context, every DCC list has those with a reputation of being extremely negative, and the poster referenced in the above link is one of those. And there are others who wear rose-colored glasses and to them their system has no defects or shortcomings, and anyone who would suggest such a thing ought to be run out of town on a rail!
I like to think I'm neither a pessimist nor an optimist when it comes to DCC systems -- I prefer to be a realist. I certainly have my likes and dislikes, but none of the systems I've ever owned (Lenz, EasyDCC, NCE) is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and it's okay to talk about *both* in mixed company!
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.
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 ...
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.
In support of Joe's criteria about upgrades/updates and how they shouldn't be expensive to implement, I like NCE's approach. The cost for the new EPROM is around $15-20. I received the last one within 10 days of mailing in the response card. That's good customer service. Another significant difference has to do with the warranty terms. NCE's warranty is not voided if you open the black box. They actually show you how to do it and what's inside. How to adjust voltage output, replace the EPROM or change the battery that helps keep the memory for various system settings. You refered to Digitrax - well, if you open their box you void the warranty, some thing with their throttles. I guess they're concerned that the 'magic fairies' that make the system work might escape if the box is opened. I don't even want to get into 'planned obsolesence.'
Joe's other selection criteria are valid items to consider. Each individual will need to go about ranking the importance of each item. It's like buying a car, some features appeal to some buyers and not to others. The buyer needs to decide what each items relative importance is to them. Joe's posting at least brings those criteria together in one place.
Steve:
These are considerations, not the laws of the universe, so by definition they are subjective. In other words, as a consideration they may be of no importance at all to you. But to someone else, they may be a top concern.
Several of these considerations play against each other too, as in:
If the vendor is not issuing regular firmware updates, then your system feature set may be falling behind and the system may have long-standing bugs that continue to annoy you. If the vendor does issue firmware upgrades every year or two, that’s a good indication they are committed to giving good support to their system.
---against---
Vendor bug fixes or upgrades are infrequent and when issued don’t cause more new bugs than they fix
As you very appropriately point out, the need to patch or issue updates can be a significant negative. Again, that's why you need to weigh these considerations and apply your own personal subjective assessment as to which one matters more to you.
However, I do stand on the assertion that eventually, every system will become obsolete *without* upgrades. But there's nothing preventing anyone from using an obsolete system.
I know of people still using old DCC systems that don't do programming on the main or that only recognize 2-digit decoder addresses. If the need to stay current doesn't matter to you and you're perfectly happy to use said system, then this consideration isn't important to you -- which is *exactly* my point.
jfugate wrote:If the vendor is not issuing regular firmware updates, then your system feature set may be falling behind and the system may have long-standing bugs that continue to annoy you. If the vendor does issue firmware upgrades every year or two, that’s a good indication they are committed to giving good support to their system.
Wow, is that ever a subjective statement!!!
Did it ever occur to you that the opposite could instead be true: That the system could be lacking features and/or be buggy right from the start, and that the firmware upgrades are an attempt to add those features or fix those bugs? Or possibly even an attempt to force an upgrade (at great expense)? After all:
jfugate wrote: EasyDCC released a major firmware upgrade this spring that more or less rendered my existing EasyDCC hardware obsolete.
EasyDCC released a major firmware upgrade this spring that more or less rendered my existing EasyDCC hardware obsolete.
How is that "giving good support to their system"? Sounds more like planned obsolescence to me.
So let's see. Needs firmware updates for:
Doesn't need firmware updates for:
Okay, Digitrax doesn't have more than 12 functions yet. I'll keep that in mind the next time I want to hit f(>12) and hear the conductor belch....
Okay, here’s the rest of the considerations – again these are in no particular priority order.
Features
Comments: The more options the vendor’s system gives you the better. Features and options allow tailoring the system to fit your needs better. The more options the vendor gives you for throttles or ways to put together a system, the better you can tailor things to fit your budget and your layout requirements. The more robust the bus networking approach used by the vendor (e.g., LocoNet, XpressNet), the more powerful things you can do with layout signaling, advanced CTC dispatching, layout automation, and the like.
As mentioned earlier, a computer interface dramatically improves the ease with which you can manipulate today’s decoders that are loaded with hundreds of complex configuration options. And a computer interface is fundamental to using a DCC system as the core of a more advanced layout signaling or layout automation project.
It’s a plus if the system can run both DC and DCC locomotives, although the “zero-stretching” technique used to run a DC locomotive is limited (only one DC loco at a time on the layout) and it’s only recommended the DC loco be run for brief periods to avoid problems with overheating.
Programming on the main (POM) is becoming popular, so if the system can support POM, then it’s keeping up with the times – same with 4-digit addressing and supporting 12 or more functions.
If the boosters supplied by the vendor work with “1156 auto taillight bulb” short management, that can be extremely useful. Many boosters have a short trip circuit that is too fast for the bulbs, rendering them ineffective. Light bulb short management is both effective and economical if the vendor’s boosters allow using it – it’s nice to have the option in any event.
If the system supports “blast mode” programming, then it will allow easy programming of modern locos with power-hungry sound decoders. If the system supports more than 10 throttles each with their own unique wireless frequency, then wireless throttle response will remain snappy, making things like “playing the whistle” on a sound-equipped loco possible.
Reliability
Comments: If the system install is easy, then it’s more likely the system will work reliably and trouble-free for many years to come. If the system exhibits many quirks or intermittent oddities, then its reliability is lower. A system that can run for over 1000+ hours without failure will last for nearly a decade if only used on average for a few hours a week.
How frequently the vendor needs to issue firmware bug fixes or upgrades tells you how reliable the system is. If the vendor bug patch/upgrade itself introduces new bugs, the system reliability is compromised.
However, no system is perfect. If the issues are well known and have a straightforward workaround or a well-articulated solution, that is a plus on the reliability score.
Support
Comments: If a lot of your local model railroading buddies also use this DCC system, that can be helpful when you have a problem with your system and need support. Similarly, if the vendor’s manual has a good trouble-shooting section, that can save you a lot of hair pulling or making an expensive support call to the vendor. Also if your local model railroading buddies use the system, you can share components like throttles easily.
If the system has an active and responsive online support community, you can often get good answers to your support questions in that way.
If the vendor is not issuing regular firmware updates, then your system feature set may be falling behind and the system may have long-standing bugs that continue to annoy you. If the vendor does issue firmware upgrades every year or two, that’s a solid indication they are committed to giving good support to their system.
If the hobby press and online hobby sources have written up improvements to the system, then even though the vendor may not provide this support, this is an indication the hobby population is eager to provide support for the system.
And finally, if the vendor has a good reputation with hobbyists, and they report the vendor gives prompt and useful answers to their support queries, then the system is well supported.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I will next take this list and tell you my personal priorities and how that influences my choice of system. Everyone will have to rank what matters to them the most, which will help them decide which system is best for them.
I think your list of items to consider are excellent. An interesting approach would be to rank each of the considerations under each area as High, Medium and Low or to put it in other terms, Gotta Have, Wanna Have, Niceto Have.
Interesting that under ease of use is the recommendation to read the manuals. So many times people want to skip this all important step. I like to recommend that someone actually read the manuals online when evaluating a system. If you can read and understand the manual without even having the system in front of you, to me, that's a good sign.
Looking forward to part II
I promised in a recent post that I would list the things you need to consider when evaluating DCC systems. These are not listed in any priority order -- you have to look at the list and decide what matters to you the most and set your own priorities. In a later post I will list my own priorities from this list and why.
Price
Comments: If the vendor offers an inexpensive starter system that can grow and not need to be replaced as you expand the system, then that shows the vendor is trying to price their system well. Vendor patches/upgrades should be free if they involve mostly bug fixes, or inexpensive if they add new features.
The cost of throttles, wireless, and accessory decoders show how concerned the vendor is with making system expansion affordable, or if they are taking advantage of the fact they have you "commited" to their system and now will make you pay a premium to expand.
Availablity
Comments: If you can purchase the system in all three of the above listed sources, then you have the best availability, especially if your local hobby shop carries the system. If the system is only available from one source (direct from the vendor), then lack of supply competition could make prices higher or limit availability when you need something fast.
Comments: The more obvious the command labels are on a system and the more it prompts you through the steps, the easier it will be to use. After you read through the manual, if you can put the manual up and rarely ever need to refer to it again, or if visiting operators rarely have to ask how to select a loco or do loco functions, the system rates high on ease-of-use.
If the system allows creating consists within consists, mixing decoder-based and command station-based consists together or allows referring to consists using 4-digit loco numbers, this can make consisting quite powerful and easy to do. If the system allows you to go to where the trains are to do programming on the main, then it's possible to do speed matching tweaks or the like right on the spot instead of having to always drag your locos back to a stationary command station (the less you have to handle your locos the better).
If the system allows using a computer interface, it will be possible to use powerful programs like DecoderPro (which is free!) to rapidly do sophisticated decoder programming using your mouse to point and click intuitive controls on your PC screen. If the system's wireless capability doesn't require you to ever plug in, that can make the system less annoying to use. And finally, if the system makes it simple to control more than one loco from a single throttle, that can be a plus.
There are more considerations ... like system features, reliability, and support. I'll discuss those in another post soon.
Appreciate the vote of confidence. So far in my use of the NCE system on my HO Siskiyou Line, I'm pleased with the results. The wireless works well and the double-ended consists are absolutely marvelous. Amazingly simple to set up and they work just as advertised -- finally, consisting heaven!
It sounds like you've thought everything out. I think you'll find the switch the NCE will be nothing but smooth and enjoyable. Your comments and reasons why you chose the system you did should be a guide for others who post here asking ‘What system should they pick?" It provides a well thought out line of reasoning regarding what features you were looking for and what compromises you made.
Two of the reasons given are ones that I've stressed in other threads - Ease of use, not just for you, but for visitors and other operators, and the ability to upgrade the system without starting over from scratch. In both of these points I think that NCE is head and shoulders above the others.
Your comments on the differences in how various systems handle consisting are also spot on. I like the recent software upgrade that allow you to select either the front or rear loco in the consist by loco address and gain control of the consist without having to remember the consist number assigned to it. I think you'll also like the feature to issue broadcast commands to all locos on the layout at once. The ability to clear all cabs and turn all speed settings to 0 will be a nice feature when setting up ops sessions.
I look forward to following your progress as the change is made and your comments on how the system performs.
Just an update on what's happening on my HO Siskiyou Line and DCC.
My aging EasyDCC system is now going on 8 years of heavy op session use and some of the wireless throttles are starting to misbehave. EasyDCC released a major firmware upgrade this spring that more or less rendered my existing EasyDCC hardware obsolete. So decision time.
I priced a complete upgrade of my existing EasyDCC system to all new throttles and the expanded 16-dedicated-frequency-throttle capability (my current system does 8 throttles on dedicated frequencies). Then I looked carefully at the latest feature set available from Digitrax, Lenz, and NCE -- and priced moving to NCE because I like their latest feature set very much.
The end result is I could save nearly $800 by moving to NCE. Plus I would get mobile handset programming on the main, powerful consisting features (like automatic double-ended consists), and up to 48 wireless throttles possible.
So I've made the switch. I sold my EasyDCC equipment and am now running the layout on NCE. Once we begin having op sessions again in the fall, I will report on how well the NCE wireless system is doing. If you want to follow the blow-by-blow account of this change, then you can read this thread on my web site.
Since this thread here on the MR forum is about picking a DCC system, let me state that I've used Lenz, EasyDCC, and now NCE -- so I can tell you the strengths and weaknesses of these from experience -- and my latest system of choice is NCE. As our op sessions put the NCE system through it's paces, I will be able to speak to its weakness as well. As to Digitrax, I use it a lot at op sessions on friends' layouts around here, and I've read and reread the Digitrax manuals over and over, so I'm pretty familiar with that system -- and I've helped friends with DCC issues on their Digitrax-based layouts.
No single DCC system is perfect, and they all have various strengths, depending on what priorities matter most to you. I'll try to reiterate the priorities you should consider in a future post on this thread, and also list out for you the priorities that matter to me. From this hopefully you can make your own list.
Actually, one of the things I have found I really like about Digitrax, is the way they do consisting. For me, making up new consists is quick and easy. On a future layout, I plan to set limits to how many cars a loco can pull; let's say 10 cars each. So, if I want to move a train of 40 cars, I can make up a loco consist of four engines, say SD40-2, AC4400, and maybe a couple of GP38-2's. With pre-assembled nested consists of 2's & 3's, I'd end up with either 5 or 6 units on the head end. My experience with having helper engines on the rear of a train, controlled by another person, has not been all that great, and I'd prefer to have all the engines on the head end with any needed DPU's, controlled by one person.
Now, I have to admit that remembering the top loco has to be in the right throttle and all the added ones on the left is sometimes a little confusing, but having to enter the top loco & calling it the top loco, and then entering the last loco, and calling it the last, and then remembering to put all the others in the middle seems a lot more confusing to me. I guess one could assemble the loco consist first and then create the consist in their system, but that seems a lot more time consuming.
Bob Hayes
jfugate wrote: I have found that with EasyDCC, Lenz, and Digitrax I can circumvent the consisting limitations by learning how to program CV19 directly myself.
I have found that with EasyDCC, Lenz, and Digitrax I can circumvent the consisting limitations by learning how to program CV19 directly myself.
Joe:
I was just wondering if there is a way to do nested consists with my Lenz Set 100 using CV19? I think I read something about using CV 19 on one of your posts, either here or on your site, so if it is possible maybe you could refer me to that post rather than having to repeat it here. Thanks.
True, just because everyone else uses a given system, that's not the ONLY consideration, but it is a SIGNIFICANT consideration. With each consideration, you have to personally weigh its importance to you and then after considering all the factors, make your decision. That's why there is no *best* system, only the *best* system for you.
To many people, what everyone else nearby is using will be the main consideration, and that's my point.
I do have to admit that for me, what everyone else nearby is using IS NOT all that important TO ME. As a web developer who thinks about easy-to-use web page interfaces all day long, coming home to a geeky less-than-friendly DCC interface just rubs me the wrong way. Every time I use such a system I think how I would send one of my web developers back to the drawing board if they came to me with a web page that works like that.
For me, a user-friendly interface is at the top of the list, which is why I recommend NCE as a first choice, with EasyDCC a second choice. But Digitrax is used by the most people, so if having others nearby with the same system is more important, you'll probably go with it.
jktrains wrote: Moral of the story - don't rely on someone else to solve your problems by thinking that everyone else owns the same system then one of them can help me out. Problem with that is what happens when its 11PM when the problem needs solved. Get the system you want, you're investing a lot of money in it, get what you want, not what everyone else wants you to get.jktrains
Moral of the story - don't rely on someone else to solve your problems by thinking that everyone else owns the same system then one of them can help me out. Problem with that is what happens when its 11PM when the problem needs solved. Get the system you want, you're investing a lot of money in it, get what you want, not what everyone else wants you to get.
Ain't that the truth. And just because a bunch of locals use and tout a given system doesn't necessarily mean that it will be good for you.
The manuals are included for a reason, and they solve the majority of problems for users. I still get into mine a couple of times a month it seems.
jfugate wrote: cwclark wrote:that's what i meant..i can take throttles over to my friends house to run on their DCC systems. One of my RR buds has more tracks and trains than he has throttles for...And this is one very good reason to go with a specific system over any other -- if all your train buddies have a specific system. Not only does this make it easy to share throttles, but it also means there's probably local help on a problem when you need it.
cwclark wrote:that's what i meant..i can take throttles over to my friends house to run on their DCC systems. One of my RR buds has more tracks and trains than he has throttles for...
And this is one very good reason to go with a specific system over any other -- if all your train buddies have a specific system.
Not only does this make it easy to share throttles, but it also means there's probably local help on a problem when you need it.
I'll respectfully disagree with you on this one Joe. I wouldn't sacrifice my preferences in a system just because other's in the area choose a different system or my LHS only sells one system. It sounds like cwclark did this and is suffering from a mild case of buyers remorse. Sure the system works and serves the purpose, but was it really his first choice?
The fundamentals of DCC apply regardless of the manufacturer's system you use. The need for a proper sized power bus, turnout wiring and control, power districts, reversing sections etc. are all handled the same whether you use D, NCE, MRC, Lenz et.al.
I was in a group with people who presented themselves as D system knowledgeable. I realized that wasn't the case when it took us 6 hours to figure out how to hook everything up and that no one had a clue as to why it didn't work. Everyone looked to me to fix the problem, yet it wasn't my system. I finally had to ask for a manual and tried to figure out what the solution was. Not a fun way to spend a morning, afternoon and into the evening. Moral of the story - don't rely on someone else to solve your problems by thinking that everyone else owns the same system then one of them can help me out. Problem with that is what happens when its 11PM when the problem needs solved. Get the system you want, you're investing a lot of money in it, get what you want, not what everyone else wants you to get.
cwclark wrote: For example: Just to run a locomotive, I have to first turn on the power button, then enter the +Y command
For example: Just to run a locomotive, I have to first turn on the power button, then enter the +Y command
Yup, default behavior for the DCS100 is to come up with track power turned off.
Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. There are times I power up the CS to do some decoder programming, and I don't need or even particularly want the whole layout powered up.
But if you don't like that behavior, you can change it by setting either OPSW 33 or 34. There's nothing stopping you from making it work the way you want it to.
HTH,Steve