Bachmann Hall DCC on Board

Guessing a bit, but I've experienced issues with a Digitrax system with mis-matches between the speed steps on the decoder and the command station. I would check the speed steps (in CV29) and that the command station is using the same for that loco.

Hi,

I have now tested the loco on a Lenz setup and the same thing happens.

Mark

Two ideas - check the board the decoder plugs into - snip off any capacitors you can see, replace any chokes with bits of wire cut off the end of a resistor or from 4 core telephone cable. Also the Bachmann docoder is questionable, try another one if you can.

Steve Magee Newcastle NSW Aust

"Mark" wrote

As others have suggested, snip the capacitors which bridge the two brush holders and if that has no effect try adjusting the decoder feedback settings.

If all else fails fit a decent decoder.

John.

Problem solved.

The default setting for cv54 is 32. Change it to 3 and the loco works perfectly.

Thanks for all the help

Mark

That's interesting. I have a DCC-fitted Class 25 which runs poorly at low speed. There are reasons why I would rather not snip any capacitors for now. Would changing a CV value improve matters?

(kim)

Yes, but make sure there is no mechanical problem. DCC cannot compensate for a poor mechanism.

Read the manual that came with your DCC system and the decoder, it should have a list of the CVs implemented on that device, and their recommended values. Try 128 step speed control (CV29), and adjust the starting voltage setting (CV2, which is effectively the lowest-speed setting.)

For an overview on DCC CVs, see both NMRA and MOROP websites.

HTH

So why doesn't the UK (or any of the constituent countries) have a "MOROP Federation"?

Probably because you have too many little groups that are convinced that their way is The Only True path To Scale Model Fidelity.

A more likely reason is that in N. America scale modelling (as opposed to toy trains) was more affordable, so that there were more people who wanted to run trains on each other layouts, which led early on to a realisation that standards that enabled interoperability were essential. This was especially true since a very large proportion of the models were scratch or kit built, not finished products. There's also less respect for "the trade" -- if manufacturers weren't going to agree on standards that suited their customers, then the customers would do it for them.

And they did. Many companies that followed those standrads are still with us, while the major player (Lionel) that didn't want to play in that sandbox and went broke. The brand had enough cachet that eventually it was bought by investors who saw a (mostly nostalgia-driven) niche market for O gauge toy trains.

A related reason is that scale modelling and toy trains were almost from the beginning different interests, so that the major manufactures (especially Lionel and American Flyer) couldn't dominate the hobby the way that Hornby and Maerklin, for example, dominated in the UK and Europe.

HTH

Good point!

Yes thanks. I've only got the basic controller which came with the E-Z command system. I might have to buy a new controller to be able to set CV levels.

(kim)

You will need a new controller to alter any CV settings. However, as a basic controller for a simple layout, I think the EZ is well designed. Only serious complaint is that its 28 speed steps rather than 128, so one or two of my locos have distinct "notching" in speed changes.

Suggest two approaches; either:

- a circa £100 system which includes decoder value read-back (eg. Digitrax Zephyr, NCE Power Cab, but not the Dynamis as that lacks read-back. I think the Hornby Elite has readback, but not certain).

- stand alone programming tool, such as a Sprog, attached to your computer and use the JMRI/DecoderPro software.

If you are "computer minded", then JMRI is the way to go. You can attach JMRI to "normal" command stations, such as Digitrax, NCE, etc, but you need an adaptor component to do this, pushing the price higher.

- Nigel

Hardly, we have standards and accpeted bodies in all scales, and have had for years - the only exeptions being HO and the like which are little used. De-facto standards (eg Hornby) are still standards and just as relevant as, say, the 0 Gauge Guild's standards.

That's simply not true. The only conflict, from the manufacturere, was Hornby vs Triang, and that died out long ago - eveyone since, in 00, has taken Hornby compatability as read. Certainly it's true that the fine-scale types wanted better realism, three-link couplings, Sprat & Winkle etc, but then that is because we are way ahead on desiring all of the layout to be realistic and to scale. I'll bet there are more model railway clubs per square mile, even now, in the UK than elsewhere, so interoperability has been just as big an issue here as elsewhere, the solution was simply more pragmatic. The market for kits has always been huge here, and kit builders typically have never used proprietry couplings - the fact that the two almost completely seperate markets co-exist simply underlines the size of the market place. We very definately have our standards, be they manufacturer based or otherwise. The fact that the NMRA don't acknowledge them isn't our problem, and someone trying impose irrelevant "standards" is wasting their time - we will pick and choose what we want, some ideas are good and worth having, others are not.

Very true - every company that has tried to enter the UK 00 market without Hornby (or scale) comatability has failed - Trix etc.

Cheers Richard

Come on, the problem wasn't non compatibility with the then Triang-Hornby range but a simple non compatibility with the 4mm scale/OO gauge standards (or even the 3.5/HO standards!). If Trix had produced their British outline models to a true 4mm scale then they would have competed with and taken market share from Triang-Hornby - for one thing dissatisfied the ex Hornby-Dublo market share would have bought into the brand as couplings were compatible out of the box [1], unlike the available ex HD models available under the Wren brand.

[1] which we did, preferring the coupling compatibility (with our existing, re-wheeled, HD 2 and 3rail stock) whilst ignoring/accepting the slight under-scale found with the Trix models - in hind-sight we now wish we had spent the money (on new Peco track and Trix loco stock) on more second hand HD 3rail, we would have got far more for our money and the stock would have kept their value...

First, I don't claim to have an exhaustive or definitive analysis of why this or that happened in different parts of the model train world. I merely notice _some_ of the factors that were and are at work. Just how significant they compared to the ones I ignore or don't know of is another issue.

I think Jerry's decisions and regrets illustrate why some standards are necessary. It also illustrates how random factors shift the market in different directions at different times. If Trix had gone 4mm on 16.5mm gauge, then it would have pushed Hornby into upgrading its scale fidelity sooner. I'm not knocking Hornby - I think they made a superb toy, with good overall scale proportions, and very good detail for a toy. The mechs were reliable, the product as whole was very sturdy, and all in all Hornby provided excellent play value. That's wasn't my point.

My point was that Hornby dominated the UK toy train market, because of the quality of its product. The UK scale modellers followed that de-facto commercial standard of 4mm scale on 16.5mm track, because it was easier and usually less costly to adapt Hornby product to scale than to build for 18.83mm gauge. Besides, the imagination is a powerful modelling tool: railway modelling is a matter of compromises, and once one has adopted a compromise, one no longer notices it.

In N. America the scale modellers early one insisted on true scale (as close as was practicable), and ignored (and many were noisily hostile to) the toy train product (except for those bits and pieces that could be adapted to scale by rewheeling, etc.) The NMRA was initially a predominantly O scale group, BTW, it wasn't until around 1950 that HO caught up to O scale in popularity. So the NMRA was formed more or less explicitly to counteract the dominance of Lionel's "O gauge".

From the 1960s onward, there has been a decline in the toy train market for children. We now have a large pool of adults who enjoy train models, in many ways, and on many levels. But overall, the demand for scale fidelity has increased, and mfrs must keep up with that demand to survive. One side effect has been that the quality of toy trains has changed, too: more scale fidelity, but not so much robustness. But the main effect has been an improvement in quality overall.

FWIW, I think Maerklin is in trouble because it thought it could hold onto its 3-rail AC market. But the days of a captive market are over. there will continue to be a "Maerklin system" market, but it will decline. I foresee a thriving but brief trade in insulated replacement wheels for Maerklin stock...

That's enough ruminations for today. ;-)

(Triang-)Hornby dominated it for two reasons, first was price and, by the mid 60's, by being the only 4mm RTR UK model railway manufacture apart from G&R Wren - which was part owned by Lyon Bro's/Rovex anyway. Quality was never really a factor until Lima, Airfix and Palitoy entered the market from the mid to late 70's.

The UK scale modellers followed that

I'm not sure if that is true, I suspect that if one looks back at the UK model railway magazines in the 1960's and early 70's (which there were three, RM, MRC and MRN) many of the layouts/models were to EM standards or at least fine-scale OO, by the late 70's into the 1980 P4 had made quite strong inroads, by the '90s P4 had in the main moved into a more niche position due to the vast improvements made in RTR models. Of course if I have miss understood you and the fact that you were only talking about the toy train-set market and not model railways...

You seem to have overlooked Jouef-Playcraft? Cheaper than Hornby and with a more scale-like appearance in certain repects.

(kim)

I think they fall into the same category as Trix, could have made an impact but (for various reasons) didn't.

"Jerry" wrote

True, Lima barged headlong into the UK market with some (pretty horrible) HO-scale offerings but quickly realised they were banging their head in a brick wall and switched to OO.

Raivarossi tried too ................... and flopped.

Fleischmann had a pretty half-hearted attempt at UK HO and had virtually no impact, although I believe their 'Warship' and Southern coaches (strange combination if I may say) were still available until very recently; but that may have simply been Fleischmann trying to sell off initial over-production.

John.

"kim" wrote

Hmm, not quite sure where you get the 'more scale-like' from? They were pretty awful and performance matched their appearance.

John.