QUOTE Dumping the reliant commnet as I see it as adding confusion.....
placed to denote an 'attitude' rather than a sound opinion.
QUOTE I agree that a trainset buyer doesn't know or understand the difference. In itself that is fine, if its both sold and bought as a short term toy.
Given the [apparent] volume of items shifted by Hornby, by their own admission.......and seeing the evidence that ongoing progression to 'railway modelling' [in the UK] is in fact conducted by a small minority of those buyers......I sense Hronby consider this market as 'short term'...therefore, their 'digital'...ie two engines or more, but 2 wires only...controller , for them, is adequate.....equivalent to the battery things included in sets in the past.
QUOTE BUT, when the same set is bought by a more aware / committed modeller and both the retailer (in words) and Hornby (in writing) tell him it is a DCC system as he buys it, and it isn't, then that is WRONG. In that case, it is serious as it starts to become a consumer rights issue.
although an 'aware' modelling buyer is likley not to rely on a manufacturer's/dealer's blurb, but have already made their own minds up regarding the type of control....ie not made the purchase simply 'on the spur of the moment, because they like the idea'......the Hornby system does seem to work, (maybe not to an enthusiast's standards) by itself, ie as a stand-alone setup, and within the trainset limitations.
just like the old battery controllers.....which were included for the same reasons as Hornby's digital efforts...ie were as cheap as chips to make, therefore improving profit margins.
as such, it does what most non-cognoscenti understand DCC control does, ie two wires only, and each engine moves on demand?
which is very much what DCC control did in those early days way back in the 80's/90's?
except that DCC control has seriously moved on since then?
since no-one seems to have a financial or legal 'claim' to the defintion of DCC....it being an umbrella term to define a type of control , as distinct from a rheostat and transformer.........I cannot see a problem with Hornby's usage.
ok..so for the cheapo end of the overall trainset market, they've jumped on a band wagon........but, to quote your automotive example of the S100 and S110R Skoda....using a term which was ONCE upon a time understood as meaning something else, isn't a crime....seeing as GM, Ford, and everybody else did the same thing!
and skoda did rectify any performance situation with the 110R....later moving to the Rapid..which is quite a bit lighter than it's 4 door cousin.......which in itself isn't necessarily a useful attribute.
plus, I don't think Hornby are/were actually alone in doing what they have done.
Other mainstream trainset makers have done similar with their low-end products....Hornby are perhaps a little late joining the fray?
The factual side of this discussion I have no problem with.
Since it's introduction I have read critical reports on the Hornby product.
therefore, as an 'aware' enthusiast,I would not consider purchase.
not because of an incompatibility problem...we face that issue every day in modelling terms...couplings, wheelstandards, track standards, even different types of motors...
but because I cannot see the 'point', for my purposes.
it was a 'brave'..or cheeky?...attempt by Hornby to produce a control system cheaply enough for trainset usage.....
would we have had this outcry if they had simply provided a cheaply-made battery controller?
I think not.
because enthusiasts EXPECT to find such an item in a trainset, not aimed at THEIR market sector.
and there lies my point..it's a system produced to a price, for a trainset.
why every body is getting up-in-arms at Hornby I fail to comprehend.
If it doesn't suit, don't buy!
After all, we apply this same purchasing logic to other model products? (Vitrains #37 v Bachmann's??)
Hornby have already gone some way to re-dress the issue to pacify the enthusiast?
but it costs!