=>The problem is the manufacturers deliberately did not want true interchange. =>Where is the communication standard for radio controlled controllers or =>controllers generally? These standards would have been of greater benefit to =>the modeller, because they could be applied to all methods of control.
Different countries have different frequenceios set aside for amateur radio and radio control; that's one of the obstacles to world-wide standards.
=>Instead of compatibility, we now have incompatibility between not just DC =>and DCC but between each DCC system. If this standard was developed my =>friend could use his Digitrax controller on another friends Wangrove system, =>saving Everone money.
Automatic switching between DC and DCC is avialble now.
Wangrove didn't follow the standards, unfortunately for them (they're dead) . The existing DCC mfrs in N. America make mutually compatible devices - any decoder will work with any controller. What needs to be standard is standard: the wiring harness colours, the voltage levels, and the data structure of the command packets (including the function numbers.)
The major difference is in the programming scheme - some require a separate isolated section, some domn't. And products differ in the range of functions offered above the minimum necessary to control the locomotive or other device. Some of the entry-level systems have limited consist/device numbers, which I don't think will last long - the market demands 99+ available numbers, and it's trifling cost to add that to a system. Etc.
Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)