They don't have a chart comparing these two on Tony's trains and I was wondering what your guys thoughts are on both the products. The Express is way cheaper. I've been looking at prices all over and the Express is constantly cheaper and what to hear your input on the products. Do these prices go even more down during Christmas? That is all! Thanks!
BTW- For the people who haven't caught on we are comparing a Digitrax Zephyr and a MRC Prodigy Express.
I am planning on having a 4x8 layout and using sound locomotives (BLI BlueLine series). Hope those details help.
Go with Digitrax.
Here is the group that I use for questions:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digitrax/
Digitrax has just about everything including signalling for me.
The PE only puts out 1.6 amps. If your going to run a few sound locos, you'll probably want more power than that. Keep the price of a walk around throttle in mind if you get a zephyr. You'll probably want one.
(disclaimer: I'm a Digitrax owner)
According to the stats on Tony's website (http://www.tonystrains.com/tonystips/2005/071905.htm), the MRC Prodigy Express (PE) has three missing features that I would want for my own layout: Universal Consisting (where the MU'ing info is kept in the system's memory), a Fast Clock, and Accessory Decoder control (the ability to throw switch machines and more with DCC). The PE only has Advanced Consisting, meaning that you have to have decoders that support this.
That being said, the PE does have a walkaround throttle, while the Zephyr (Z) is a stay-in-place throttle (walkaround throttles can be added to the Z, of course). OTOH, the Z can add up to two "jump" throttles using old DC throttlepacks, so one can run up to three trains at the same time with three different throttles.
The difference in price isn't all that much, BTW. The Z is about $160, while the PE is $139, so it's only $21.
My major concern is with MRC itself. A major player in DC analog throttles for decades, they have made several false starts with DCC resulting in orphaned DCC systems that are not upgradable, nor supported. They also made several non-conforming decoders back in the day, plus their new sound decoders leave much to be desired.
I would prefer Digitrax/NCE/Lenz over MRC if only because they are DCC companies while MRC is a powerpack company that dabbles in DCC. Someday, MRC will get serious about DCC, and that's when I'll seriously consider their products.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
I would get the Zepher. They seem to be able to program sound engines easier. BLI Blueline need an extra decoder, to control the motor. They seem to be having their own problems...
As finances permit, get a DT400 controller to go with it. Makes programming much easier, and you can use the throttle on any Digitrax layout. At home, you could run 3 trains at once: 2 with the DT400, one on the base unit.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Paul3 wrote: (disclaimer: I'm a Digitrax owner)According to the stats on Tony's website (http://www.tonystrains.com/tonystips/2005/071905.htm), the MRC Prodigy Express (PE) has three missing features that I would want for my own layout: Universal Consisting (where the MU'ing info is kept in the system's memory), a Fast Clock, and Accessory Decoder control (the ability to throw switch machines and more with DCC). The PE only has Advanced Consisting, meaning that you have to have decoders that support this.Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
One word on consisting, Advanced consisting is typically preferable to Universal consisting. Most current decoders support Advanced consisting through CV19. A few basic, bottom barrel decoders don't support Advanced consisting.
The reason Advanced consisting is better than Universal is that the consist set-up is decoder based. When the consist is setup the decoder is reprogrammed to respond to the consist address. When a command such as a speed change is sent by the command station it is only sent once to the consist address and all consist locos respond to the consist address command. With UniVersal consisting the command station maintains in its memory the locos in a specific consist. When a speed command is sent to the consist the command station sends the command to each specific loco in the consist, i.e. if there a 3 locos in the consist the command station sends out 3 commands, one to each loco. Universal consisting can significantly increase the traffic on the control bus.
Another advantage of Advanced consisting is that a consist made up on one system and be moved to another layout without needing to redo the consist since the consist info is resident in the decoder. So if you plan on taking your equipment from a home layout to someone else's layout or a club layout Advanced consisting is better. Just select the consist address and you good to go.
There is a discussion on consisting on Tony's website, check it out.
jktrains,So far, your objections to Universal Consisting are 1). Extra commands on a DCC buss, and 2). MU info is kept on the decoder, not the system.
1). I don't think this honestly matters. Has anyone ever had a problem with serious lag time on a Digitrax command buss? Digitrax uses peer-to-peer Loconet, not a polled buss (like everyone else) so there are fewer commands floating around in the first place. My club's 60' x 30' layout has run a couple dozen locos around for hours complete with Loconet reporting block detection without any problems at all because of too much Loconet traffic.
2). I don't see this as much of an advantage in having MU info kept on the decoders. For example, say you have a 4-unit MU set at home, and you Advance Consist it together. Bring it to your club, and try to run it there. Ah, but what direction were the 4-units in? Can you recall? Did that GP9, RS-11, FB-1, H16-44 lashup have all the locos going one way or the other, or some of both, or what? You have to remember which units were pointing in what direction or a "tug of war" will result.
It's not like Universal Consisting is some big chore that takes all night. Just put your un-consisted locos on the track, and take the 30 seconds or less to Universally Consist them in the right direction. Big deal.
Sorry, but I'd rather use a system that works with all decoders (even the dumb decoders) and that doesn't require me to remember what locos were pointing in what direction.
I lag in gaming.
There is no lag on the Digitrax LocoNet. Sitting while tending to one decoder does not lag make.
There is always some latency in all things network.
They're both very good systems. Contrary to popular belief, the Express is completely upgradeable if desired.
One big difference, a plus for the Express, is that it's instructions, operating, functions, etc. are MUCH easier to do and explained MUCH better in the manual vs the Zephyr.
You really can't go wrong with either set.
Paul3,
You seem a little senstive whenever someone disagrees with your perspective on things. I merely pointed out that there are inherent differences between the two methods of consisting, not only in how they are created, but in how they are handled by the command station and how the functions of locos in the consist can be controlled. On a small layout with only one consist running, there'll be no difference; on a large layout with many consists running, you might notice some lag. Maybe that's why the PE only uses Advanced consisting as a way to minimize control bus traffic.
I suggest you follow the link and read the article on consisting. Your original post had a link to Tony's comparison of systems. You should continue and read their comparison and discussion of consisting methods.
http://www.tonystrains.com/technews/consisting-guide.htm
You also seem to read more into a post than what was stated. Nowhere, NOWHERE was a specific DCC system mentioned, but you seem to have taken it up yourself to conclude that I was talking about or specifically criticizing Digitrax. No where is that apparent. Also, I never said I objected to Unversal consisting. I said that Advanced consisting is generally preferable because there arethings you can do in an Advanced consist that you cannot do in a Universal consist . There are DCC systems that allow the user to choose Universal or Advanced consisting. There are pluses and minus to both methods. Your original post criticizes the PE system for only offering Advanced consisting. Couldn't you have just as easily criticized the Zephyr system for only offering Universal consisting?? Or do you have bias to one over the other? Wouldn't a better system be one that offers both methods?
Yes, I can remember in what order and in what direction the consist was when I take it to another layout to run. Even if an individual doesn't remember, once you discover the tug-of-war, simply reverse the direction of the loco and proceed. Another way the Advanced consisting can be used is entirely at a club level. A club might have a test stand to use for testing new decoder installations. The test stand is separate from the layout and uses its own DCC system. The test track can also be used to create consists than can then be taken directly to the layout and be run. Hopefully in the 60 seconds it takes to walk to the layout the person won't forget what order the locos where in and what direction they were facing.
Apparently your preference is to have the command station do all the work and use dumb decoders. My preference is to use 'smarter' decoders, ones that support Advanced consisting through CV19, and make the consisting operation decoder based. More importantly, when provide information to a DCC newbie don't let your personal bias color the information provided.
Mailman,The Express is upgradable to the Advance, according to Tony's Train eXchange, and both can be expanded like any other DCC system with more boosters, throttles, etc. MRC's previous two DCC systems (the CM2000 and the old Prodigy) cannot be upgraded (but may be able to be expanded...that I don't know for certain). It makes me wonder if their next DCC system will be compatible with their current one.
As for the directions, I think the Z's manual is a lot better than you're giving it credit for (it's certainly not like the old DT100/UT2 days). However, I will concur that the Z's interface (the display and buttons) are not as nice as the PE. The PE has a multi-line LCD display, while the Z has a 4-digit LED display.
In operation, I think it's sort of a toss up. There are certain things that the Z does better (throttle and direction lever with braking, more amps, computer interface) just as there are certain things the PE does better (walkaround throttle, more functions, better display, etc.). It depends what you want.
Sorry Paul but,Actually I would perfer to consist the locomotives at the club rather then at home..If I did consist my units at home I would be dang sure to write the locomotive consist direction down rather then leave it at guess work once I got to the club or better put the locomotives in the carrying case in the consisted order including locomotive direction..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
As far as the Express vs. the Zephyr, I agree that either would be a good choice as a starter system. Be aware with the release of the MRC Advance Squared and the new Wireless, It's now becoming possible to pick up a Prodigy Advance for about the same price as a Zephyr. There IS no contest there, the Advance is the clear winner.
There still seems to be a lot of lingering bad information about MRC and their DCC products. After a couple of false starts, they no longer need to take a back seat to anyone, certainly not in their price range. For example, the new Prodigy Wireless is a duplex system ... Digitrax doesn't offer that at ANY level.
All I am saying is to be careful with the "comparison" charts posted on retailer web sites. They have a financial interest in what you buy. Try joining the various manufacturer Yahoo sites. There's a lot of great information and help there. There are also a lot of people there to discuss their problems and frustrations, which gives great insight on the inherent weaknesses of each system. DCC is a great operating system, but one that become easily frustrating if you pick a system that's not compatable to your needs. If your VCR always flashed zero, look for something simple. If you have a degree from MIT, the skies the limit. Most of us are somewhere in between.
Paul3 wrote: Mailman,The Express is upgradable to the Advance, according to Tony's Train eXchange, and both can be expanded like any other DCC system with more boosters, throttles, etc. MRC's previous two DCC systems (the CM2000 and the old Prodigy) cannot be upgraded (but may be able to be expanded...that I don't know for certain). It makes me wonder if their next DCC system will be compatible with their current one.
Actually, the Express is now upgradeable all the way to Advance 2 status if desired. As to whether their next dcc system will be compatible, seeing as MRC took the needed step to make the Express and Advance upgradeable to the Advance 2, I think it's safe to say that they learned their lesson re the 2000, etc. MRC's decoders stink, but in my experience, their current (Express, Advance, Advance 2) dcc systems are first-rate.
So are Digitrax's systems.
Paul3 wrote: As for the directions, I think the Z's manual is a lot better than you're giving it credit for (it's certainly not like the old DT100/UT2 days). However, I will concur that the Z's interface (the display and buttons) are not as nice as the PE. The PE has a multi-line LCD display, while the Z has a 4-digit LED display.In operation, I think it's sort of a toss up. There are certain things that the Z does better (throttle and direction lever with braking, more amps, computer interface) just as there are certain things the PE does better (walkaround throttle, more functions, better display, etc.). It depends what you want.Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Regarding manuals/operations, just my impression. Yours may very well vary. Your examples provided are good info. for the op.
mpcaboose wrote: ...There still seems to be a lot of lingering bad information about MRC and their DCC products. After a couple of false starts, they no longer need to take a back seat to anyone, certainly not in their price range. For example, the new Prodigy Wireless is a duplex system ... Digitrax doesn't offer that at ANY level...
...There still seems to be a lot of lingering bad information about MRC and their DCC products. After a couple of false starts, they no longer need to take a back seat to anyone, certainly not in their price range. For example, the new Prodigy Wireless is a duplex system ... Digitrax doesn't offer that at ANY level...
Hi, mpcaboose. I am not so sure that you will have much agreement about the part that I hilighted. In case you are not aware of it, for the past few months there have been several complaints about the MRC decoders in their high-end steamers. For some reason, a sizeable number of owners have reported losing hair over programming them. To be specific, I am talking about the Athearn Genesis models.
MRC seems to have Old Boy status in the hobby, and probably not without darned good reason, but they are in danger, from the point of view of a steam guy like me, of squandering a good chunk of good will by not competing sensibly with all the other decoder manufacturers.
Just my take on this based on my reading here over the months.
-Crandell
I use the Prodigy Advance system, and wouldn't trade for a Digitrax for all the tea in China. It's inherently simple to install and operate, and the user-friendliness can't be beat.
There's a lot of chatter about "Get Digitrax, Everyone Uses Digitrax. They can bring their throttles over to your house if you have Digitrax."
Here's a secret... It's not about everyone else.
I set up my original Advance with an extra throttle for around $300, comparable to a Zephyr. But I got two hand held throttles, advanced consisting, programming on the main etc. Each throttle is fully functional for programming, consisting and operating. With Digitrax, if you want a full function throttle you pay extra.
We have Digitrax and Lenz systems at the club I belong to, and the MRC is far and away more user friendly than either, both in terms of set up and use. I've never used an NCE system, although I understand they are also very easy, although at a higher price than MRC.
The best decoders I have are NCE's. When I get Digitrax DZ123's, I order 4 at a time for two reasons: First, most retailers discount quantities of four or more, and second, if I order 4, I usually get at least 2 that work. Fortunately Digitrax has a good customer service policy, replacing bad decoders whether it's your fault or theirs. (Sort of like Bachmann, they'll replace their products with little or no fuss because YOU are doing the Quality Control for them...)
To quote your mother, Just because everyone else is jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, doesn't mean you have to.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
I'm an MRC PE kinda guy and I love my system. Simply put - it works for me. That being said, it might not work for someone else. That is the key, not just in the Z vs PE debate, but in DCC systems in general. Decide what you need, what you want, what you may want in the future and what you don't need. I would highly suggest that you do some reading of various past threads where folks have described the various decisions they have made. Value highly, in my opinion, when an owner of a system discusses the cons of the system he owns and uses.
Three of the things the PE doesn't have that I decided that I could live without are: CV readback; computer interface capability and wireless. CV readback can be solved by using a PA handheld and MRC has just brought out a wireless upgrade - although I have no knowledge of its capabilities and how it stacks up. The computer interface is something I decided I could live without.
I haven't had any experience with MRC decoders and I doubt I ever will. On the other hand because of the NMRA standards Digitrax, NCE, Lenz etc decoders will work with all DCC systems - so I wouldn't base a system buying decision on decoders.
I really don't think any of the systems out there are bad. Some do more than others. Some do some things better than others do, but don't do other things as well. Take the time, do the research and you'll most likely be happy with your decision.
Selector --
I should have been more specific, I was only referring to MRC's DCC systems, not their decoders. I know there have been a lot of problems with the decoders, and that there always have been. Personally, I prefer TCS for non-sound, and Soundtraxx for sound.
I just hate to see someone new in the hobby being fed bad information. MRC has come a very long way in the past few years. It remains to be seen how much of the market they can penetrate while trying to overcome their misstart.
I know this ... I've operated with both Digitrax and Prodigy Advance, and that PA had nothing to be ashamed of.
Points taken, mpcaboose. Perhaps it was I who had drifted. In any event, MRC's DCC controlling systems do have their fans, and I have a DC power pack that I have used faithfully on another layout...very good quality, highly dependable. I am sure, too, that the two of us would welcome as many strong participants in the market as possible for the sakes of both the hobby and we consumers.
Thanks for your reply.
jktrains,I said that I would want Universal Consisting as a feature for my DCC system of choice. You pointed out that you thought Advanced Consisting was "better" because Universal Consisting is a drag on system resources and that MU info is kept on the decoder allowing one to bring an MU set from one layout to another without re-consisting. I replied that the drag on resources isn't noticeable even on a large layout with many DCC messenges being sent, and that bringing an MU set from layout to layout isn't all it's cracked up to be. Then you get personal and say that I'm a "little sensitive".
Do you always accuse others that you disagree with that they are a "little sensitive"? You are reading waaay too much emotion into my posts when it's simply not there. Let's try to keep the personal comments to a minimum, ok? Thanks.
Back to the topic. For your claim that "NOWHERE" did you mention Digitrax...um, did you read the topic header here? "Zephyr vs. Express" I'd understand if the topic was "Lenz vs. NCE", or even "Generic DCC System Feature", but are you honestly suprised that someone would logically assume that you were talking about Digitrax in a topic about Digitrax vs. MRC? C'mon, be reasonable. The PE uses Advanced Consisting. The Zephyr uses Universal Consisting. This topic is about comparing the two systems. It was perfectly obvious to me that you were talking about Digitrax. What else could you be talking about?
Obviously, I have a bias of one kind of consisting over the other. I stated that in my original post on this thread that I prefer Universal Consisting. And the "best system" is the one that is the best for me. The "best system" may be different for you as it may offer different features that you prefer.
For remembering consists, take for example this friend of mine in my RR club. He's got 5 M630's in CB&CNS from Overland that he keeps in one of his glass diplay cases at his home. He uses A-Line boxes to transport them to the club, and he may not run them for months at a time. Unless he either writes it down, or takes care to put the locos the same way on the layout, in and out of the box, and the display case every single time, he's going to have to either re-make the consist (which he'd have to do anyways with Universal Consisting) or pick up the $700+ locos and turn them around to suit. I don't know about you, but picking up locos with delicate detail parts more often than I have to does not appeal to me. Nor does writing down consist info to store with the locos in a display case appeal to me.
My club, BTW, does have a DCS100 (Chief) on a test cart where programming is done. It's hooked up to a computer for programming, as well. But it's just as easy to consist locos on the layout as on the test cart.
I never said I prefer dumb decoders (talk about putting words in someone's mouth!), just that I prefer a consisting mode that allows for them and I don't ever have to worry about it.
As for letting my "personal bias color the information provided", read the original post. MilwaukeeRoad said, "I was wondering what your guys thoughts are on both the products." He didn't ask for just the facts. He was asking for opinions on an internet discussion forum. I gave my opinion and oddly enough, my opinion is biased to what I think.
Brakie,It doesn't really matter where you consist the locos, or even if you have a home DCC layout or not. I simply don't want to keep track of loco directions in consists no matter if they are consisted at the club, at my home, or at a friend's layout. Therefore, I prefer Universal. That's just my opinion.
mpcaboose,Where can you pick up a PA for the cost of a Z ($160)? As for comparing the PA to the Z, since the PA retails for around $350 (IIRC) and the Z for $200, the PA better be the superior system.
FYI: The Digitrax duplex radio throttles are supposedly coming out by the end of this year. Norm from Digitrax told me that he would be surprised if they weren't out before 2008 when I asked him at the Springfield (MA) show back in January. AJ Ireland was working on getting the wireless range to what they said their customers expect.
Mailman,I sure hope MRC has learned their lesson. We have enough DCC "White Elephants" to last us a lifetime.
Hey, just to give you a heads up... If you go to www.wholesaletrains.com you can get the Prodigy Express for $102, that's the regular price. At that price it would be almost $50 cheaper than the Zephyr.
mpcaboose wrote:As far as the Express vs. the Zephyr, I agree that either would be a good choice as a starter system. Be aware with the release of the MRC Advance Squared and the new Wireless, It's now becoming possible to pick up a Prodigy Advance for about the same price as a Zephyr. There IS no contest there, the Advance is the clear winner....
Paul3 wrote: Sorry, but I'd rather use a system that works with all decoders (even the dumb decoders) and that doesn't require me to remember what locos were pointing in what direction.Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Paul,
Comments about being senstive comes from reading many of your replies over time. As far as dumb decoders, see the above. I don't think that's putting words in your mouth!
jktrains
The gap is less than you think. Trainworld currently has the Prodigy Advance for $194.99. Or for an extra $15, you can go to Wholesale Trains and pick up an Advance Squared for $209.99. That's pretty good bang for the buck.
IMO, Digitrax has done the other manufacturers a favor by sticking with an aging product line. MRC and NCE are now offering more complete systems at the low end of the Digitrax line. That's where most of the newbies live.
mpcaboose, I take offense at your idea that Digitrax is aging.
What does that leave the 12 volt DC non DCC users?
To me Digitrax is "Proven" and when it is time to run trains troubleshooting (If any) is not a mystery. It is the same reason Im not upgrading to VISTA and sticking with my 5 year old XP Pro.