Actually I am on this forum but generally just watch. (Thanks for the nice comments by the way - I do try to be balanced and fair).
First to address some recent emails, then to comment: I really DO think you should all read the letters re the hornby DCC article in MR though.
To those who think that very few brands actually follow the standards: You are wrong - Hornby are almost alone in not following the basic standards.. All others certainly "Make DCC for their customers not the NMRA" but know that to follow the standard is to serve their customers properly with quality product. Hornby have, in a very real sense, and probably by accident, failed their loyal client base a LOT with their mistakes.
By the way: In the real world of DCC and model railways, Hornby are far from the world leaders - sorry! (and yes, I am a happy Hornby customer and a UK modeller... I respect the company but NOT their less than auspicious start to DCC)
To those who commented that there is a trend to take the DCC subject the same way as trending models to finescale:
No, this is NOT the case. Those who have actually tried to be positive to H only want the system to do what a basic system should do properly. The select cannot do that and therefore we criticise it fairly. There is nothing in the NMRA spec that demands complication - exactly the reverse in fact, as the mandatory specs cover only the most basic issues - and only because they are ritical to good consistent performance!
To those who think that the Hornby problem is realted to CE or European emissions or similar standards:
No, that is not true. The NMRA specification specifically addresses these issues, other brands all are Ok with it and work properly/have a correct DCC waveform. The Hornby unit does NOT, it has an extreme ringing that will predjudice decoder life and it is therefore in my opinion not fit for market in a very real sense.
Both the above issues were made as "reasons and excuses" by Hornby. However, sad to say that neither these nor many of the other commenst have any base in fact - they are simply just smoke and mirrors that sail very close to being untruths - certainly they were not "informed or factual" comments in that sadly, they twist and mis-interpret the facts somewhat.
To be positive, I choose to believe that they simply misunderstand the subject. Nobody is criticising Hornby gratuitously: everyone wants them to do it well, but to remain silent when they are failing to do so or making mis-statements is simply irresponsible.
I was pleased to have MR confirm they would print (part of) my letter alongside that of Didrik (NMRA), as I really did feel that the Hornby interview was not good journalism: Answers that were clearly incorrect from Hornby were simply printed without comment or question, therefore giving validation to fundamentally wrong answers to simple questions.... and tacit approval to what was effectively smoke and mirrors - and therefore doing consumers a dis-service.
I chose to write it as it was evident from aspects of the Hornby comment that they did not really understand the standards at all.
(1) Had they read them, they would have known that not only does the DCC standard from NMRA insist on compliance with European standards, it states that the wave form of any DCC digital system needs to be clean enough that when a DCC controller is attached to a large layout the layout as a whole will not radiate in excess of EU or FCC requirements... a far tougher approach than just the unit passing C-tick and similar specs..
(2) As to the Hornby comment "We like to get our hands dirty and not look at oscilliscope pictures" .. Well, if they had simply looked at a scope they would have seen the cause of much of their problem and saved themselves a lot of grief. (Actually, I don't for one minute think that the system was designed without aid of essential test gear, but I DO think the Hornby comment was simply not the truth, and really ius just a bad example of corporate "spin")