MOROP (European Union of Model Railroad and Railroad Fans)

...

Bit of a borad brush there Terry. Provided they both conform to the published NMRA standard then any decoder should work with any base station, i.e. track signal. What you describe is the issue of throttle to base station communication.

Several years ago I did enquire as to if the NMRA would put out such a standard, the gist of the reply was they felt this was a matter best left to the discretion of each vendor. Don't ask me why, I didn't think it was a particularly strong argument.

As I understand it there are now two major de facto standards, LocoNet and X-Bus, towards one or other of which vendors are tending?

Reply to
Chris White
Loading thread data ...

That's Flynn all over - never let the facts get in the way of the story

- particularly when it features his two pet hates.

Mark.

Reply to
Mark Newton

=>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)

Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir

Why would you want - or expect - to take your controller to operate on another layout? Locos and rolling stock, yes - but controllers?

Or perhaps you take some of your buildings when you visit another layout? :o))

Terry Flynn wrote:

snip

snip

Reply to
Dick Ganderton

The BRMSB became defunct almost 50 years ago!

The so called BRMSB Standards were so poorly written and ill-defined that they simply didn't work. They were probably written that way so that all manufacturers' products conformed!

Terry Flynn wrote:

snip

snip

Reply to
Dick Ganderton

Personal preference for ease of operation or perhaps the host has insufficient slave controllers!

Dave W.

Reply to
David Westerman

That's right, incompatibility between base stations and hand controllers and non track fed accessories. There is no reason for lack of conformity in these areas other than manufacturers wanting to lock you in to their brand of products. If the standard covered these areas DCC would be more flexible.

I thought there are more than 2 buss systems out there.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

Were are you facts? As usual you have no credible argument.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

NEC is basically son or former part of Wangrove. Digitrax seem to be able to avoid some of the standards and still do OK.

The bare minimum is standard.

Now wouldn't it be nice if all manufacturers used the same programming scheme. Then you would only need to learn one system. The part compatibility between entry level systems would not exist if the standard was broader. You could upgrade using different manufacturers equipment without the need to dispose of your older system, and mix controllers from different manufacturers. All good for the modeller, but unfortunately the NMRA stuffed up again.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

My friend has a large layout using DCC, when he is alone he only needs one or 2 controllers, that's all one person can control on his layout. However when he invites enough friends to operate his layout fully he can have 9 or more trains needing separate controllers. So It saves my friend allot of money. Unfortunately one operator has a different brand of DCC system. So he ended up buying an extra controller. I do not use DCC on my home layout, however if the bus system was standard for DCC if would use it for DC, and again I could use my controller on DCC. All a dream because the NMRA gave in to manufacturers.

Not a bad idea.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

Only two facts need stating re Flynn's posts in this thread.

  1. Flynn is anti-NMRA.
  2. Flynn is anti-DCC.

See any number of his postings on either subject to Usenet over the years - what is there to argue?

Reply to
Mark Newton

Mark,

I'm sure Terry will find something :-)

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Guthrie

LOL! You're not wrong! :-)

Reply to
Mark Newton

Now wouldn't it be nice if all manufacturers used the same programming

compatibility

Not just the nmra. By your standards we should be able to buy a brand new audi, but when it needs servicing, replace all the parts with ford. What you describe is a eutopia that cannot exist for commercial purposes.A company HAS to have a marketing angle(ie. difference) to promote and sell product.Without that- no company, no dcc.If all base stations and handhelds were identical by protocol, what would be the reason for buying one over the other?No new companies would enter such a market for that very reason, which would mean that the only manufacturer would be lenz- the first I believe.Or elase others would start up, but ignore nmra standards completely, destroying the premise of LOCO compatibility from one layout to another. Do you not understand the simple laws of business and marketing? M Bishop Not dcc as yet, will be after Warley.

Reply to
Mark Bishop

...

I think it was more a case of Terry not stating his case clearly rather than it not being based on factual accuracy.

...

Let's not get lost in 'Flynn bashing'. There's nothing wrong with the two viewpoints listed, peer review is a well accepted mechanism for improvement.

Reply to
Chris White

Hardly. Flynn's tirade's are frequently founded on factual inaccuracies. He seldom states his case clearly, owing to his inability to write in comprehensible English.

Why not?

Peer review may well be accepted in academia - what Flynn writes bears no resemblance to peer review. His splenetic rantings on both topics litter Usenet like rat turds in a flour mill.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Mark simply cannot comprehend the information supplied.

And why should UK, Eiropean or Austyralian modellers be pro NMRA, it standards are simply inappropriate.

Only anti DCC propergander. The fact is I regulary operate DCC layouts.

We are still waiting for some useful information on this subject from Mark Newton the expert sacked broom pusher. As usual he resorts to foul language, which seems to ammuse people with limited interlect such as Mark. It shows he has minimal knowledge and experience on the subject.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

There are many differences in the various hand controllers available, a common protocol does not make them the same. Also there are many manufacturers making decoders which all comply to the standard. According to your argument, no one would make DCC decoders. The reverse is true. The standard has expanded the DCC market. Standard controller protocols would expand the market for walk around hand controllers, DC or DCC in a similar way.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

"He seldom states his case clearly, owing to his inability to write in comprehensible English.

And this rambling, misspelt farrago is your idea of comprehensible?

Reply to
Mark Newton

"Comprehensi(ve/ble)" relates to including the majority of relevant material (in the posting). "Comprehend able" relates to how well the (posting) can be understood.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

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.