If you've read some of my other posts, you'll note that I am getting ready to make the DCC plunge. I have done lots of research, including Tony's, the Dec Model Railroader and more, and am down to a choice of two systems: the Digitrax Super Chief Radio or the NCE Power Pro R. Both seems to have their pros and cons. The Digitrax is older but more established. It doesn't appear to be NMRA compliant and doesn't allow software upgrades. The NCE system has a thumbwheel, instead of a knob, and shorter battery life for the throttles.
Can anyone share any other real world experience on either system before I take the plunge ?
Well, I think Digitrax is older (it's been around longer), but I don't know if the Chief is any older than the NCE system. Digitrax introduced the Challenger set (long gone...and the Zephyr is a lot better) in the early
90's, then the Big Boy (replaced by the Empire Builder), then the Chief in the late 1990's. NCE has been around since at least the mid-1990's, IIRC. As far as Digitrax being more established, I think that may be true, at least in North America and Japan. Lenz is big in Europe...NCE does however have a strong presence on the market. Don't worry about Digitrax and the NMRA compliant sticker. It's not that Digitrax systems aren't compatible (they are), it's that they have not submitted their products to the NMRA for testing (except for the DB150 booster, which does have the NMRA C&I warrant). All NMRA decoders work on Digitrax systems. And also remember this: Bachmann Spectrum locos all have C&I warrants, and Kato does not. And Digitrax does have the ability to have it's software upgraded, they just haven't done so in years. Mainly because of the system architecture of being a network vs. a bus. For example, when Digitrax introduced the DT400 throttle, it had the ability to access functions F9 to F12 (no software upgrades needed). When NCE got around to supporting F9 to F12, it had to release a software upgrade. Finally, don't forget that the Digitrax DT400 throttle is actually two throttles in one.
Paul A. Cutler III
************* Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
I have an old Atlas Commander DCC system, and it works fine for me, but virtually every other layout I've visited, at least on the West Coast, uses Digitrax. There are Pros & Cons for each system, of course, but next time around I'll be going with Digitrax... if only because of it seems to be the "industy standard" for the hobby.
To quote George Goble, with my Atlas Commander, I feel like a pair of brown shoes in a room full of tuxedos.
In addition to the DT400 advantage of 2 throttles in one, as Paul mentioned, it doesn't feel like having a club in your hand.
I used to operate on a layout that used an old Wangrow System1 (same throttles as NCE) and every time I picked up one of those big ol' dogbones I started looking for nails to hammer in...
You won't be disappointed with either system. I use the Digitrax SuperChief myself (with two booster, a 5 amp and an 8 amp, a pair of PM42 for power distribution); but I also have some NCE decoders, and their support has been terrific when I melted one (whoops).
I suggest you see if you can find a layout or dealer with one up and running and try it out. The hand controller may make a big difference with your comfort with the system.
Ed
in article snipped-for-privacy@thebinks.com, Jeff Binkley at snipped-for-privacy@thebinks.com wrote on 1/15/06 6:11 PM:
Yes, actually "playing" with the DCC system (especially the handheld controller) is a good way to determine which one will work for you. If there are no dealers near you, maybe you can find some layout owners who have the various DCC systems and are willing to let you drive them.
Also, there are Yahoo groups dedicated to DCC - they should also be helpful (or confuse you further). :-)
If you can't find anybody to show you a DCC setup, maybe there are open houses at some local clubs around your area which use DCC. If that is trhe case, that would be worth attending.
This is a big decision - you should really do as much research as possible. I had a chance of playing with Digitrax and EasyDCC. I think that Digitrax is a pain to program (even though I'm a "computer guy") but I really like the large analog control knob on EasyDCC. And EasyDCC is intuitive when it comes to programming. So, EasyDCC would probably be my choice. But I'm not shopping for one right now. :-)
One further word of caution about the Yahoo DCC groups, if you're new to them:
Most folks post to them when they have a problem or issue, and *not* when everything is working well, so the majority of posts will be, well, problems and issues. Don't take that as an indication of the overall merits of the system being discussed on that particular group, but rather as a gauge of how much support that group provides.
Carter, It certainly make's good sense to use the system that is the most widely accepted. Digitrax is the most popular but after all the time reading and listening to folks on this subject I finally went with NCE. For better or worse I guess having spent much of my youth around horse racing I find it difficult to place much faith in what the public favors just because they do. Bruce
"I owe my success to having listened respectfully to the very best advice, and then going away and doing the exact opposite." G.K. Chesterton
I believe both NCE and Digitrax to be the top 2 systems, in no particular order. They both can do different things but usually it takes time to know if you want these items or not. When I bought mine I knew I wanted 4 digit addressing and some other things so I went with Digitrax. Now most all systems have that and loads of other really neat features. Examples of differences; Digitrax does a short address (2 digits) up to 127 and long after that. NCE can make those same numbers either 2 or 4 digit addresses. This is just one example of differences. Tying for third is EasyDCC and Lenz, in no particular order. I personally wouldn't touch MRC but that's my opinion. The real top dog is Zimo but it's expensive, around a grand and I don't know of anybody in the US that carries it.
NCE also offers 4 digit addressing "and some other things."< I used and was familiar with computer connections which LocoNet was based on. Also I'm not sure if NCE had 4 digit at that time and if so it might have been a cost difference. It was many years ago, back in the sys 1 days. I still believe that LocoNet is a better bus but then that's another argument.
for compliance? And even more so, why would they have done it for just one product?< Because it's a volunteer organization NMRA can take a long time testing. Also the testing can be interpreted different ways by different people. Also part of it was political. Digitrax and NCE and most all the others make sure their products that are supposed to work with each other do. If fact the only decoder I ever bought that was not compatible "at the rails" was an NMRA certifited decoder (Lenz) and they had to change the software because it had a problem!
IMHO, it's because of the close association between Lenz and the NMRA's DCC Working Group (which I would think would perform the C&I check). The head of the Working Group is Stan Ames. His wife is Debbie Ames, who is the North American rep for Lenz (Digitrax' biggest rival). I'm not saying there is a conflict, because Stan is a stand up guy (he used to be a regular here at r.m.r), and Debbie is too professional (judging from when I've talked with her) to let it effect their jobs. However, there is certainly an appearance of a conflict of interest, and that may be why AJ Ireland doesn't rountinely submit new Digitrax products to the NMRA. Again, just my opinion (which is worth just as much as any other grouping of text bytes). As for how much is the C&I warrant is worth, Athearn, Atlas, Kato, Overland, and Walthers (IIRC) do not submit their products to the NMRA for a C&I warrant. Only Life-Like and Bachmann do of the biggies. Why is that?
The DB150 was the original booster/brain for "Big Boy" DCC set they released in the early to mid 1990's. The only thing older was the "Challenger" set, which used a different booster. I'm guessing that they chose not to submit the "Challenger" because it was their first product, then after their experience with the DB150 and the NMRA, chose not to submit any further products. As to why? Well, I gave my opinion above, and your guess is as good as mine.
Well, I'm using an NCE decoder on my Digitrax Zephyr layout, and at my club (Digitrax Chief), I've used Lenz, TCS, NCE, QSI, Lok, and Soundtraxx decoders...and they all work. The only ones that did not work were the MRC decoders, but since they are always behind the curve with DCC, that's no surprise.
Paul A. Cutler III
************* Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
Please let me correct your posting as it is very inaccurate. Normally I would let this pass but I think it is time to put this rumor to bed.
The
I was indeed very active in the formulation of DCC. For all practicle purposes DCC exists because of the dedicated time and energy that I and several others provided. I was indeed the chair of the DCC working group from 1991 to 1193/1994. I chaired the C&I WG from 1994 to 1996 I have had no leadership position in the WG since 1993 and have no involvement in C&I testing or deciding what products qualify and which do not. I do assist in developing the DCC standards and RPs and do assist in developing test tools for the NMRA when asked. I also help the NMRA in a variety of other ways when asked because I believe that the NMRA is the best vehicle for users to improve the hobby. The current head of the MDCCWG is Didrik Voss.
Really. Why?
I am very aware of conflict of interest and try my best to avoid it. If you check the minutes of the NMRA Board when I was a member you will note that I left the room any time DCC was discussed to ovoid even the apperance of a conflict.
To have a conflict of interest one must have a position of responsibility that has an influence over the body. I have absolutely no position of authority in which a conflict could occur. My voice is no more and no less then any other member of the WG which includes all of the major manufacturers.
I do still believe in C&I in part because a lot of compatibility problems that users have are a direct result of one or the other product not following the standards.
The tests are public as well as the standards. I suggest you run the tests yourself and judge the outcomes. I suspect you would be surprised by the results.
It is really a shame that a few prople try to deminish the importance of this key program that is targeted at supporting the modelers interests.
My hat is off to those that contribute their modeling time to assist us all be helping maintain compatibility.
And I would add "and others" in place of Digitrax. I did some checking for the following reasons; I'm retired and have time. I have a superficial knowledge of computers. I could probably hookup the stuff to test. I would even "buy" the testing board (it's $100+). Now the problems, nothing is automated. I would have to spend many, many hours with this stuff. The software has to be updated to the point of; Example, plug in a decoder and push a button or at least close to that. All tests would have to come out the same, no tweaking of software etc. for different decoders or manufactures. In other words PandP testing. To my understanding it's not even close to this but I will happily be corrected. What do I mean by PandP, I mean it would have to be as easy to use as JMRI and have a technical staff available as quickly as JMRI.
There are actually two types of tests for DCC decoders.
One is automated. The automated tests take over 24 hours to run and you need to run it at least twice, once for each track orientation.
To run it you need an older PC (ISA slot) a PC board, and a power station and a glitch generator (you need to build this one but it is a simple set of components.
The glitch tester is only needed it you want to test the decoder for layouts with lots on noise (like yours).
You do need to calibrate the tests once to ensure it is all working. The calibration is very easy (you simply use a decoder with known problems)
You plug in the decoder, start the test and come back 26 hours later. The test results are sent to a file for later analysis. If it passes it says so. If it fails you need to look at the test log to find out why. Ken and others are available by email and normally get back within the day.
The board is available at the NMRA store and the software is downloadable.
The other test is for functional compliance and yes is indeed manual. It could be automated but to date while several have volunterred to write a scripting interpreter no one has. (any volunteers)
Using your logic everything should pass the automated tests. Heck almost all the manufacturers have the test board and sotware so one would indeed think the automated tests would be a piece of cake and the manual ones difficult.
Alas most failures occur in the automated tests. Problems found in these tests deal with basic decoder functionality and are much harder to fix. Problems found in the manual functional tests are generally easier to fix because they generally deal with a bug in how the defoder functions in response to a specific packet. Few decoders that do not have warrants actually pass the automated tests.
SInce you have the time, why not run the tests yourself and post the results.
need to run it at least twice, once for each track orientation. To run it you need an older PC (ISA slot) a PC board<
Are these two statements connected. By this I mean does it take 48 hours because it's run on a computer that's normally used for a door stop.
layouts with lots on noise (like yours).< Actually mine is not very noisy at all and probably is in the normal range. I've seen the signals on a scope and they are not that bad! However adding the glitch tester doesn't seem like a bad idea. Is this part of the "official test" and if not no reason to add it!
Interesting statement. What kind of problems? Any, like say a function that doesn't work. Calibration normally means tested against some standard, and just any old decoder with some type of problem sure isn't a standard!
It could be automated but to date while several have volunteered to write a scripting interpreter no one has. (any volunteers)< As I said in my original statement the NMRA is a volunteer organization so what can be done does reflect that condition.
You call NMRA HQ and request it. I believe it is in stock and costs around $150 last I checked. It is not on the on-line site.
Go to
formatting link
click on conformance and inspection
click on DCC test tools
All the tools are there. The automated ones are in the section titles DCC Decoder test system.
The manual tools are in the packet script section.
No the speed of the computer is not really a factor. The test is sending packets continuusly at the full packet rate during that period. It takes that time because it simply takes that period to send all the packets. Actually Version 4 on the NMRA site only takes about 16 hours. Version 5 adds a lot of stretched zero bits and a few other tests and lengthens the test anouther 8 hours.
You run te tests in each track orientation because some decoders behave differently depending on the polarity of the DCC signal.
The official test use several tools not in widespread use but generally also do not find a problem.
1) noise generator per S-9.1. Frankly the noise generator specs are not very robust but the standard includes them so they are part of the test.
2) slope adjuster. The spec allows for a steep rise time or a very slow rise time. This is accomplished in the test using a special power station. You can modify one in the same way should you desire but it is not one of those tests that really find many problems.
The Glitch generator was added several years ago after a decoder passed all the tests available at the time but had problems on about 1/2 dozen layouts in the US. Yours was one of them. The problem occurs in the better wired layouts togeter with some power stations.
Ken West took a scope to one of the layouts (about an 8 hour trip) and performed some detailed measurements. The result was a a definition of an "acceptable bad layout" and the glitch generator was constructed to distort the signal to generate the required glitch. A CVP power station together with the glitch generator produces the desired results. It is part of the official test. The decoder you ad problems with fails this revised test.
If you really desire complete calibration you need a scope but in practice the board is rather exact. The formal tests uses a scope to calibrate each test but that is generally overkil.
Te reason you need to ckeck your test setup is to ensure it is working properly. Not all power stations can accept all the packets, some distort the bits in a way that some of the tests become outside the standard. Some PCs have trouble generatting the long stretched zeros. These are just some of the problems encountered over te years.
To ensure you have a proper setup, you run a know decoder against the tests and check the result against a known result. If the resulta are the same then you are set to go.
Decoders that fail have known signatures in the test and these signatures are repeatable if the test suite is set up correctly. For example one decoder may only get 50% packet reception on some bit timings or another will not accept stretched zeros or still onother can not accept bit bits. Its rather easy to ensure check someone elses test setup based on runing a few tests with know decoder samples.
Well the best set of volunteer coders I know of is JMRI. Perhaps that group could take on the scripting language. Its not all that difficult. You need to be able to specify a packet to be sent and then have if conditions loops and the like.
For example turn on te headlighht, if detected as being on, add one to a counter and turn it off. Detect if on or off, add to counter if off and loop. Run the tests 100 times and if the number of ons and offs are both 100 then you pass and go on to the next test.
Several have built a suitable scripting language but it also needs a driver to the test board or a driver to another board that can generate precise timing of the bits.
Not all that hard but like all things easier to specify then to find volunteers willing to devote the time and energy to develop it.
Stan, Thanks for taking the time. I did say you were a "stand up guy", and you've proven it again, thank you.
Geez, has it been that long? LOL So sweat, Stan, thanks for correcting me. Times like this I'm glad you haven't fallen off the (railroad) map.
Stan, Please don't take what I said as anything but an opinion based on out-of-date facts, and we all know what that's worth. :-) But perhaps you, as an NMRA leader of some repute, can shed some knowledge on us as to why Digitrax (or any other of the major hobby manufacturers, not just in DCC, for that matter) don't submit models or products to get the C&I "football". There's got to be some logical reason... (and we don't need specific details, just generalities if you get my drift...).
Paul A. Cutler III
************* Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
Yes NMRA DCC is now a teen and like all teens is rather dynamic.
Former NMRA leader! I served my time and now it is time to pursue other interests like building my railroad. New blood is always critical to the success of an organization.
I asked the manufacturers is Seattle this very question and QSI provided perhaps the most straightforward answer. "There is no market need at present to do so." It costs money to design your products to conform. Its not the submission process that is costly. Its the design cost to build your products so that they can pass all the tests.
There are a wide variety of valid reasons for not submitting products and the reasons have changed over time. For example, if your products do not conform and you know it, why bother to submit the products? Most DCC manufacturers have the tools and run them during development. They then make a marketing decision as to if it is worth the trouble to fix the problem identified.
That is why we have interchange problems in DCC. In a perfect world all would work together to enhance the standards where necessary and build compatible products. In practice it is only when someone builds a component that impacts you that you spend the energy to get it fixed.
Model railroading has changed a great deal in the last few years. The DCC industry is in many ways like model railroad manufacturers in the past in that they design and build their own products. Most DCC manufacturers actually use the NMRA tools in their development and know what the problems are during the testing phase. Contrast that to the majority of locomotive and track manufacturers. Most of the design and development work is done in a plant in china and the US outfit is more of a marketing and distribution facility rather then a design facility. Here the US operations get a sample product very close to product release and often way to late to effect any design changes due to a C&I problem.
Ultimately the NMRA will need to evolve its process and design it more to aid the development process so the factories can use it in their development. Then they need to create a true market force to encourage the manufacturers to spend a little more time on ensuring interchange. We all benefit from this and we should all encourage all the manufacturers to work towards this goal. I complement those that have made the efforts to already achieve this.
Everyone benefits when products interchange with no problems.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.