tstage Nevin I'm a bit surprised by some of the negativism in some of the responses to your post considering that such dead rail systems are already commercially available. Nevin, And I'm equally amazed that if one doesn't jump on and embrace the next wave or craze of technology you are quickly labeled with "negativism". As mentioned, one has to determine what's important to them and move in that direction to achieve those goals. I hardly ever experienced a probelm with clean track and/or electrical conductivity on my layout so why should I spend additional money to fix a problem that I never had? That's not being negative; it's being practical. For me - battery technology creates more problems and issues now and down the road than the technology that I'm currently using. Should they come up with a battery/charger/decoder that I can easily retrofit and maintain in any of my nearly 40 HO-scale locomotives at low-cost, I might consider it. Until then I'm perfectly content to stick with current technology (no pun intended) that works quite well for me. So, change for change sake isn't always the best and wisest path to take for everyone. Embrace certain aspects of new technology if you desire to do so but don't label those with "negativism" who choose not to for sound and practical reasons. Tom
Nevin I'm a bit surprised by some of the negativism in some of the responses to your post considering that such dead rail systems are already commercially available.
Nevin,
And I'm equally amazed that if one doesn't jump on and embrace the next wave or craze of technology you are quickly labeled with "negativism".
As mentioned, one has to determine what's important to them and move in that direction to achieve those goals. I hardly ever experienced a probelm with clean track and/or electrical conductivity on my layout so why should I spend additional money to fix a problem that I never had? That's not being negative; it's being practical.
For me - battery technology creates more problems and issues now and down the road than the technology that I'm currently using. Should they come up with a battery/charger/decoder that I can easily retrofit and maintain in any of my nearly 40 HO-scale locomotives at low-cost, I might consider it. Until then I'm perfectly content to stick with current technology (no pun intended) that works quite well for me.
So, change for change sake isn't always the best and wisest path to take for everyone. Embrace certain aspects of new technology if you desire to do so but don't label those with "negativism" who choose not to for sound and practical reasons.
Tom
Wow, I am impressed. In my personal opinion, this is one of the more well reasoned, and best, posts I think I've ever read on any train forum anywhere. Thank you Tom!
I only run a few trains at a time, on a layout with all power-routing turnouts, and only a couple sets of feeder wires. I'd love to have signals, but never got there yet. My wiring was simple, fast and cheap. I run the trains and have fun.
I am not totally completely opposed to DCC, but this idea that DCC is "plug and play" for me is a misnomer, because in my experience, it is less far less "plug and play" than it really should be. That is the real problem. I don't want to spend forever editing cv's and programming engines to do run together. I'd rather buy multiple units of something, like some of us used to do, and run them in sets. It's just "easier" for me. I hate programming anything.
I would be much more inclined to "accept" battery power at some point in the future than some system that requires me to key-in stuff on a screen or handheld...
John Mock
Battery power can't really be brought to market until a battery pack and charging system is developed that is guaranteed to be safe. By that I mean no manufacturer will be willing to sell a rechargable battery pack so long as it is not totally safe in regard to charging. I have used Lipo battery packs with an R/C charger in On30 and it works well but you need to know what you are doing so that you don't overcharge it by accident. I remember a story about a guy who overcharged a battery pack for a Large Scale loco and burned down his house. He tried to sue the manufacturers of the Loco, battery and charger even though it was his own fault.
That being said I think the thing that really needs to change is the control interface. I envision a smart device app that will control DCC. If it is intuitive and eliminates all of the machinations of having to deal with configuration variables I would be totally happy.
rrinker Simple - just run your layout on time table and train orders. All ground throws. That's the only real way to reduce the amount of wiring.
Simple - just run your layout on time table and train orders. All ground throws. That's the only real way to reduce the amount of wiring.
In point of fact, that's exactly what I did. Actually, I did it because I wanted TT&TO with manual turnout throws in dark territory, but it definitely saves wiring. Power bus and feeders; boom, done.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
BuckscoThat being said I think the thing that really needs to change is the control interface. I envision a smart device app that will control DCC. If it is intuitive and eliminates all of the machinations of having to deal with configuration variables I would be totally happy.
Already on the market - try Trix Mobile Station.
gregc IRONROOSTER So (for indoor layouts) I don't see this becoming anything more than a novelty product for those who enjoy tinkering with it. I believe Howard suggested that with dead rail, track wiring can be simpler even on small layouts because there's no need to worry about reverse sections or powering frogs.
IRONROOSTER So (for indoor layouts) I don't see this becoming anything more than a novelty product for those who enjoy tinkering with it.
I believe Howard suggested that with dead rail, track wiring can be simpler even on small layouts because there's no need to worry about reverse sections or powering frogs.
It doesn't get much more basic than just hooking two wires up from the powerpack to the track. That's all my DCC layout is. If I want to add an automatic reversing loop, it's another 2 wires and a $10 circuit.
All that aside, my local club layout is about 1 mile of track to complete one loop around the layout. No battery powered engine could hope to complete it in one charge, to say nothing of our public ops nights...
And the install of DCC decoders or any other control device will never be plug and play unless the industry can come together and set a standard for what "DCC Ready" means. Sometimes it means the hardest aprt of the job is getting the shell off, other times it means you have to do quite a bit of modifications for it to work without frying anything.
The previous comment about all sorts of CV programming needed to make locos run together is EXACTLY the thing I am constantly railing against. Just because you CAN configure locos to run perfectly in lockstep by setting all those speed table entries does NOT mean you need to. People were runnign multi-unit consists long before DCC came along, and there is absolutely no need to do any different with DCC. So now here is another person sayign DCC is way too complicated because of this absolutely unecessary OPTION.
The only thing you NEED to do (at least if you own more than one loco) with DCC is assign an address, and that process is automated in every popular DCC system without having to know anything about CVs. All the rest are extra goodies that can make operating more fun but are not required just to run a loco.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
BMMECNYC ...would be nice to add pickups to my intermodal cars to power the sound units in containers, vice having to lug around a bunch of 9volt batteries).
...would be nice to add pickups to my intermodal cars to power the sound units in containers, vice having to lug around a bunch of 9volt batteries).
Unless you glue your containers into your cars, you can lift out your sound equipped containers (I have two, myself), and drop them into your home-made charger:
A rechargeable 9V inside the container, a couple of contacts on the bottom of same. Charger design should be self-evident.
Ed
TheWizard Bucksco That being said I think the thing that really needs to change is the control interface. I envision a smart device app that will control DCC. If it is intuitive and eliminates all of the machinations of having to deal with configuration variables I would be totally happy. Have you tried using JMRI? I believe ESU also has a command station that integrates with their decoders in the same manner.
Bucksco That being said I think the thing that really needs to change is the control interface. I envision a smart device app that will control DCC. If it is intuitive and eliminates all of the machinations of having to deal with configuration variables I would be totally happy.
I have tried JMRI. I have it now, on a spare computer. I find it not at all beginner friendly. By this, I mean that, while it may be super clear once you know how it works; the "directions" really aren't that good. What I'm saying is that the product might be wonderful, but the directions are not.
So JMRI, and the spare computer it's on, have not been used for a very long time. I do my programming with my NCE cab: Input CV--CV changed.
When I have some spare time, perhaps I'll get it out and try again. Instead of modeling, say.
...and NOW
Another option!
No endorsement, just an FYI since this was just announced today.
http://www.esu.eu/en/products/digital-control/cabcontrol/
After watching Matt's introduction I can say that the ESU system addresses some of the throttle "human interface" issues very nicely.
Good Luck, Ed
Finally, what looks to be a good user interface for DCC. But I'm still not interested in putting decoders in 130 locos or in sound, so what I have will continue to work for me.
And so there you have it, I have no reason to change, so I won't.
Sheldon
gmpullmanAfter watching Matt's introduction I can say that the ESU system addresses some of the throttle "human interface" issues very nicely.
Ed,
I do like some of the features the above ESU system offers. And it would be interesting to try a Mobile Control II throttle sometime to see how well the tactile buttons along the sides actually minimize the need to look at the screen (as Matt claims) and how intuitive they are to use. One thing I'm sure of: As nice as it is, it will command the usual ESU pricing for the given features.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
tstageAs nice as it is, it will command the usual ESU pricing for the given features.
Hi, Tom
It looks like the MSRP is $499.99 as shown on the poster in the background.
That might be good for some, not so for others. If it hits the streets at around $425 or-so that might be within the range of other manufacturer's systems.
I'm heavily invested in Digitrax so probably wouldn't go the ESU route but for someone just entering DCC this is simply another option.
Still, ANY new product will tend to raise the level of available technology and we can all benefit from it down the road... I paid $3.00 for my first white LED!
Regards, Ed
I'm assuming the $499.99 includes both the Mobile Control II and the command station? I saw the MC II listed by itself on eBay for $387. Another seller had it posted for around $270. So goes pricing on eBay.
We will know more when the 50310 is released in mid-November. The Ebay listings are for the European Union market and are a different product, of course.
The "Flyer" shows a throttle, reciever and power supply, MSRP $500 minus a penny.
http://www.esu.eu/fileadmin/download/brochures/2017/CabControl_Handout_eBook.pdf
Howard's original question mentions features that may attract new people to the hobby. New systems attempt to make things simpler at potentially greater expense and new features. They are not for everyone.
legacy vs. new
there's little incentive for anyone with an existing wired layout to abandon both their investment in equipment and time to switch to a new system that offers little benefit. A battery powered wireless loco control system would mostly benefit those building new layouts, who are willing to pay the extra expense and are less confident about wiring.
wireless loco communication
unwired/un-powered track implies wireless loco communication which requires more expensive electronics in the loco. Two-way communication comes for free and supports auto recognition of new locos once powered up (not necessarily on the track). And more expensive controllers with graphic interfaces can support identfying loco thru icons instead of entering a loco address. Reprogrammable buttons is another new feature.
These new features help justify this expense but haven't been required to operate a layout.
throttle ergonomics
it seems that the user interface is the primary feature determining the choice of system. I'm familiar with NCE which has a variety of throttles: w/ and w/o LCD, LED address, no display, analog speed control, wireless. Newer systems suggest that their controllers are easier to use.
I'm sure a manufacture could provide an Android phone app and wireless interface to their command station for those who like a phone interface (which would cost them sales of handheld).
A manufacturer could make a throttle with a different arrangement or programmable buttons. There's no need for a new system although any new system would probably support new features like these to attract buyers.
battery vs keep-alive
it's hard for me to imagine economical battery systems that can fit into all sizes of HO, much less N gauge locomotives. I wonder if keep alives are sufficient to allow longer lengths of unpowered track instead of totally unpowered layouts to avoid the issues of reversing sections or powered frogs. Of course, DCC command can not be received on these unwired sections.
is it possible to have short unpowerd sections of track where polarity reversals typically occur?
better vs. different
i believe Howard's original question addresses features that would entice some people to build layouts who wouldn't otherwise. It's better for them and unnecessary for the majority of existing modelers who have built layouts with exsiting technology. Not every modeler is into this hobby for the same reasons and different aspects appeal to different modelers.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Sheldon,I'll tell you plain DC and DCC works after all the smoke and mirrors it basically the same,place a engine on the track turn a nob and go or address the engine and go and enjoy. Sound is a option since F8 returns the sound of silence and for me that's about thirty to forty minutes..
I'll tell you true though I will never ever again be a hostler on a DCC layout because after four or maybe five hours of operation I felt like a accountant.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Larry,
There's a CHANCE that the new ESU system could relieve you of your accounting tasks. I saw their intro video. I saw hints that there was going to be some proper simplification. And accomodation to the user (YOU).
With DCC and JMRI and all this digital electronic stuff, a big problem I see is NOT that the equipment can't do what I want; it's that it's a royal pain to figure out how to program it and a royal pain to activate it.
Ideally, the system should be transparent. And reliable. And that takes simple "doing".
A HUGE problem with all this hi-tech "stuff" we've been getting for the last 30 years is that the people who make it are totally familiar with how it works. And totally unable to imagine what it's like for a civilian who walks in the door. And not at all interested in hearing anything negative about their "baby". Which is perfect. Just ask them.
gregc Howard's original question mentions features that may attract new people to the hobby. New systems attempt to make things simpler at potentially greater expense and new features. They are not for everyone. legacy vs. new there's little incentive for anyone with an existing wired layout to abandon both their investment in equipment and time to switch to a new system that offers little benefit. A battery powered wireless loco control system would mostly benefit those building new layouts, who are willing to pay the extra expense and are less confident about wiring. wireless loco communication unwired/un-powered track implies wireless loco communication which requires more expensive electronics in the loco. Two-way communication comes for free and supports auto recognition of new locos once powered up (not necessarily on the track). And more expensive controllers with graphic interfaces can support identfying loco thru icons instead of entering a loco address. Reprogrammable buttons is another new feature. These new features help justify this expense but haven't been required to operate a layout. throttle ergonomics it seems that the user interface is the primary feature determining the choice of system. I'm familiar with NCE which has a variety of throttles: w/ and w/o LCD, LED address, no display, analog speed control, wireless. Newer systems suggest that their controllers are easier to use. I'm sure a manufacture could provide an Android phone app and wireless interface to their command station for those who like a phone interface (which would cost them sales of handheld). A manufacturer could make a throttle with a different arrangement or programmable buttons. There's no need for a new system although any new system would probably support new features like these to attract buyers. battery vs keep-alive it's hard for me to imagine economical battery systems that can fit into all sizes of HO, much less N gauge locomotives. I wonder if keep alives are sufficient to allow longer lengths of unpowered track instead of totally unpowered layouts to avoid the issues of reversing sections or powered frogs. Of course, DCC command can not be received on these unwired sections. is it possible to have short unpowerd sections of track where polarity reversals typically occur? better vs. different i believe Howard's original question addresses features that would entice some people to build layouts who wouldn't otherwise. It's better for them and unnecessary for the majority of existing modelers who have built layouts with exsiting technology. Not every modeler is into this hobby for the same reasons and different aspects appeal to different modelers.
Great analysis Greg.
So, just looking at how long it has taken for DCC to reach 50% or greater use/acceptance, any new system has an uphill road......
One of the main reasons it has taken DCC to reach its current level of use is tied directly to your last point - not everyone has the same needs or goals, making "legacy" systems still very appealing to many. (I find this new use of the word "legacy" both amusing and interesting, like calling a hospital a "medical center")
Over the last 20 years I considered DCC very seriously on two occasions, and still rejected it for similar reasons each time.
Cost of decoders for 130 locos
No interest in sound
No benefits for CTC or signaling
Few operational advantages for my layout style and era modeled (no need for ditch lights, headlight control, MUing works fine with my fleet in DC, no sound to control, large but simple layout does not require close operation of different trains, etc)
And most of all - poor user interfaces
Today, decoder costs are down, and finially there is some future with better user interfaces (not smart phone aps in my view) - but I am heavily invested (time and money) in a system that meets my needs.
I don't take my trains to a club with DCC, or even to my friends houses, so that is not an issue.
And I know for a fact I am not alone in my thinking.
So my somewhat complex DC Advanced Cab Control, built almost entirely of generic components, will continue to be my system of choice. It uses only two commerical components that could be sourced from other brands if needed.
And again, as far as attracting new people, not really something I give any thought to - I'm not a social bug, and, I no longer work in the model train industry, so I have no vested interest in attracting new people......
BRAKIE Sound is a option since F8 returns the sound of silence and for me that's about thirty to forty minutes..
Sound is a option since F8 returns the sound of silence and for me that's about thirty to forty minutes..
Hey Larry-
I agree. Model railroad sound gets pretty annoying pretty fast, and since I run N scale, it is inherently annoying from the get go. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Besides, I like the noise my trains make: the high-precision whirr of the metal wheels of 30 or 40 Kato coal porters behind a matched brace of Dash 9s . . . I dunno. Who wouldn't like that?
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
The "annoyability" of sound varies for me.
I've got an Atlas Alco switcher with sound, and the sound really contributes to a feeling of operating a "real" engine. Not only does it sound "right", but the sound is also nicely synced with the engine. So I am happy to have it on all the time. It adds to the fun.
I've also got a set of 4 F's, and when it starts up a passenger train, it is very very nice. For that matter, when it's running light to go pick up its train, it sounds great, too.
Going the total opposite direction, I've got a UP turbine. The sound is incredibly irritating. I only turn it on to reconvince myself it's as bad as I thought it was.
And I've heard a lot of steam where the exhausts just sound cheesy--like they're just made up out of white noise, instead of like a real exhaust. And those cheesy sounds are coming out of the TENDER.
First off DCC is only about 20% of the market in HO scale (note, I am talking users, not what gets sold today). Wireless, depending on the system, gets about 5% but alot of that is not supported anymore (and I am not talking battery power which counts for less than 1% ). On this forum DCC accounts for around 50% in HO scale. As you go up in scale, battery users go up and down the inverse. DCC goes down for both directions. Just remember how vast the market realy is and alot don't ever visit a forum or buy anything but used stuff. Myself, only 1% of my stuff is bought new.
rrebell First off DCC is only about 20% of the market in HO scale (note, I am talking users, not what gets sold today). Wireless, depending on the system, gets about 5% but alot of that is not supported anymore (and I am not talking battery power which counts for less than 1% ). On this forum DCC accounts for around 50% in HO scale. As you go up in scale, battery users go up and down the inverse. DCC goes down for both directions. Just remember how vast the market realy is and alot don't ever visit a forum or buy anything but used stuff. Myself, only 1% of my stuff is bought new.
Respectfully, every informal survey, on here or elsewhere, suggests that DCC is used by about 50% of the active HO and N scale modelers. Obviously many of the the non DCC users are long established modelers not purchasing lots of locos, which creates the current market situation of nearly all new locos being DCC.
In all the other scales, DCC is an "also ran" at 20% or less, but those other scales have always been dominated by proprietary control systems, AC and "do it yourself" systems.
I agree that this, or any, forum represents only a very small, likely less than 1% of the hobby. And a great many people in the hobby have no interest in online forums.
But my 50% number comes from a great many other sources, club memberships, shop owners, etc.
Point remains, while I like the idea of both direct radio and dead rail, neither offers me any advantages over my current system using Aristo Train Engineer radio throttles and Advanced Cab Control.
So why spend the money and do the work? I have other models to build....
The suggetion of "dead rail" was only for bringing possible newbies into the hobby as I have seen far too many possible new model railroaders become intimidated by "excessive" wiring. I cannot think of any model rail I know who would convert their now viable system to dead rail.....unless it is not too viable.
When I first entered into HO (1962), wiring was a lot simpler and all we wanted then was for the loco to go fowards and backwards without stalling. I was influenced by the art of the hobby by published greats such as John Allen, Whit Towers and others. My epithany was the 1962 cover on a Railrad Model Craftsman magazine. Had the cover been about Bruce Chubb's way advanced electronics for the time, I would have bought the Penthouse rag on the newstand instead, and to the extreme delight of my wife at the time, would never have became a model rail.
HZ
Howard,Judging by my grandson and his generation of modelers(20 -30 yeard olds) they lean toward DCC/Sound,plain DCC, with the higher detailed cars and locomotives. Quality over quantity seems to be their mantra.
They are well read in the phases and detail of locomotives prototype or model,fright car details and layout designing..
7j43kI've got an Atlas Alco switcher with sound, and the sound really contributes to a feeling of operating a "real" engine. Not only does it sound "right", but the sound is also nicely synced with the engine. So I am happy to have it on all the time. It adds to the fun.
I fully agree. Some times I let one of my sound engine idle while I sip coffee and look over the newest issue of MR or Trains and when my SW7 or GP9 notches up it sends chills down my back.
Howard Zane Sheldon The suggetion of "dead rail" was only for bringing possible newbies into the hobby as I have seen far too many possible new model railroaders become intimidated by "excessive" wiring. I cannot think of any model rail I know who would convert their now viable system to dead rail.....unless it is not too viable. When I first entered into HO (1962), wiring was a lot simpler and all we wanted then was for the loco to go fowards and backwards without stalling. I was influenced by the art of the hobby by published greats such as John Allen, Whit Towers and others. My epithany was the 1962 cover on a Railrad Model Craftsman magazine. Had the cover been about Bruce Chubb's way advanced electronics for the time, I would have bought the Penthouse rag on the newstand instead, and to the extreme delight of my wife at the time, would never have became a model rail. HZ
Howard,
First, let me say that I have every respect for your modeling talents and skill. While you likely do not remember me, we have met and I have been to your home to see your layout. I was at the time an active member of the HARM group in Harford County.
Additionally I am a past member of the Severna Park Club and worked in several hobby shops in the 70's and early 80's.
I understand that you are a scenery, and rail history guy more than a tech guy, and I have heard you sing the praises of those who have helped you with the technical aspects of your layout.
But for a great many of us who are your age, or just a decade or two younger, the hobby is about all of its aspects, artistic and technical. And the "necessity" of learning new things is part of what makes the hobby interesting and challenging.
I live pretty well, and I have a nice layout space, 25' x 40', above my detached garage/shop. I'm working a a new version of my layout that fills that space. But I don't have roster of brass locos, or a collection of equipment beyond what I am interested in running on the layout, and I don't have a team of people to help me build it.
In fact I prefer that my layout be my own work, scenery, controls, benchwork, and models.
But I am not invested in this idea of being an ambassador for the hobby. I did my share of that behind the counter for 10 years. And I am no longer interested in being involved in the hobby for business purposes - even working in the hobby shop started to spoil the hobby for me.
But even if I was so inclined, I don't think dead rail would make one bit of difference. In fact, anything that further splinters the hobby into different groups is likley bad for its future. Interchangeability and compatability built the HO hobby, but today the hobby has splintered along many lines, control systems, RTR vs craftsmanship, "art" vs technical, freelance vs prototype, etc.
It's a big tent, all are welcome, but someone else will have to hold the hands of the newbys.
I already feel like a great many "modelers" are in a completely different hobby than I am in. A fact that has prompted me to remove myself from most social aspects of the hobby.
I am not interested in "conforming" to new trends, and thereby find I have less and less in common with many modelers I meet. And being an introvert by nature, modeling has always been my escape from dealing with people anyway.
And I control my trains with wireless DC throttles and a control system I designed based on Ravenscoft's MZL and Chubb's original CTC system.
I don't need DCC, it offers little to a CTC controlled double track mainline set in 1954.
I don't like sound, in HO they all sound like cheap 9 transistor radios (my other hobby is designing/building HiFi speakers).
I still freelance (mixed with prototype modeling), to get the best of history and "artistic license".
So, I may be wrong, but I suspect dead rail will remain a control system of choice in large scale, and will have some limited advancement in smaller scales, but it will surely not become the entry product in a train set.
My 6 year old grandson does just fine with the two wire plug that came with his Bachmann Chuggington set.........and he handles my Aristo Train Engineer throttles with no problems.
I think it is time for me to head to the train room.......
ATLANTIC CENTRALSo, I may be wrong, but I suspect dead rail will remain a control system of choice in large scale, and will have some limited advancement in smaller scales, but it will surely not become the entry product in a train set.
I agree and it would be a uphill fight for the manufacturers to agree to produce them.Look how they rejected the idea of producing DCC equipped or DCC ready locomotives when DCC was fairly new.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL rrebell First off DCC is only about 20% of the market in HO scale (note, I am talking users, not what gets sold today). Wireless, depending on the system, gets about 5% but alot of that is not supported anymore (and I am not talking battery power which counts for less than 1% ). On this forum DCC accounts for around 50% in HO scale. As you go up in scale, battery users go up and down the inverse. DCC goes down for both directions. Just remember how vast the market realy is and alot don't ever visit a forum or buy anything but used stuff. Myself, only 1% of my stuff is bought new. Respectfully, every informal survey, on here or elsewhere, suggests that DCC is used by about 50% of the active HO and N scale modelers. Obviously many of the the non DCC users are long established modelers not purchasing lots of locos, which creates the current market situation of nearly all new locos being DCC. In all the other scales, DCC is an "also ran" at 20% or less, but those other scales have always been dominated by proprietary control systems, AC and "do it yourself" systems. I agree that this, or any, forum represents only a very small, likely less than 1% of the hobby. And a great many people in the hobby have no interest in online forums. But my 50% number comes from a great many other sources, club memberships, shop owners, etc. Point remains, while I like the idea of both direct radio and dead rail, neither offers me any advantages over my current system using Aristo Train Engineer radio throttles and Advanced Cab Control. So why spend the money and do the work? I have other models to build.... Sheldon
rrebellFrankly I would be happy with 6 good running engines, even before the downsize at my new place.
.
Absolutely! I can only control one locomotive at a time anyway. We are much better off with few great runners.
-Kevin
Living the dream.