[Richard Johnson]

Hello Gentlemen

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.

so....

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.

Examples:

(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")

Kind regards

Richard Johnson
DCCconcepts

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hello Gary

In relation to your first question:

The wording of the standard is specific and clear. Conformance requires all DCC items to operate within the limits of relevant CE or FCC regulation. That is not ambiguous, and it is a clear obligtion of the Mfr to comply with standards in each country the product is sold in for it to be called either conformant or compliant. This is clearly stated and unambiguous. If it does not do so, then it cannot be called compliant and could not claim a conformance warrant.

NMRA are not able to police anything as they are not a regulatory body - they DO however take the issue very seriously.

Products submitted for compliance testing are run through a large battery of tests several of which will clearly show whether a product would indeed be likely to meet FCC or CE - circuits that radiate do so for a reason and those reasons are visible on any comptetent digital test equipment.

FYI the reason many do not pre-submit isn't anything to do with the fact that the specs are hard to meet or onerous - its simply that as a volunteer body, it takes the NMRA a long time to do the tests - and Mfrs are wanting to get things to market fast.

To help improve this, with the positive support of all the main brands, the NMRA are actually commissioning the design and Mfr of dedicated test computer linked equipment to simplify compliance testing, allowing Mfrs to pre-test before submission - I think that is clear evidence of NMRA's wish to make it easier for Mfrs to follow the standard.

Back to the nub of the issue:

Hornby however chose to (a) make a totally incorrect statement in relation to the NMRA specification and (

pass off their waveform error as a result of the need to meet CE standards.

Both are patently, to put it simply, untrue.

In particular the existence of the flaky waveform has been specifically blamed by Hornby on the need to pass CE standards - that is patently incorrect, and needs no other evidence to be proven as an incorrect statement as other EU compliant / NMRA compliant products did not require or end up with the select problems in order to comply.

The waveform is symptomatic of problems within the unit. In two units tested it shows a peak to peak ringing of over 60v. three other brands tested with the same source power supply and the same screen resolution on the same oscilliscope show a clean square waveform and a sensible peak to peak for that waveform.

In relation to your second question:

You ask about a square wave being transmitted at 5 amps. It is not... ever. The digital signals are created by the command station portion of a system - the same signals irrespective of current level, and the complexity and waveform that results will change based on the number of issues it is addressing at any one time.

The items on the track simply use current as available from power resources / by the booster(s) as needed... it never "broadcasts" a 5 amp signal.

(FYI - the largest layout I know of uses 30+ 5 amp boosters - if the generation of noise is within CE standards at source, and all components pass CE, the layout will not fail to meet CE either)

The control signal is simply transmitted on the top of the power provided via the booster, whether integral or separate, and variances in the nature of the signal carry the commands.

However, your question is perhaps too simplistic to have relevance. FYI I have over the past few years been involved in certification of many products to CE and C-tick - many more complex than DCC. BTW, CE would be better described as "almost global" rather then European - they have been adopted by many nations.

A clean square wave is not enough on its own to pass EU standards which have a far wider scope, however it IS what the standards require and is anyway symptomatic of a good design that has been designed to pass such regulations.

There is no reason at all why a unit designed and built to meet all NMRA requirements by those competent to do so will have any reason to fail,as these are well understood international standards and qualified and competent engineers are trained to be cognisant of needs and design accordingly.

You make the point that other manufacturers do not always submit for compliance. True, however they DO by policy set out to design to meet the standards and this is clear from the seamless cross brand performance of the brands you mention. Hornby does not design to conform and misses compatibility and any possibility of compliance, and is therefore largely incompatible with those brands that DO.

Finally - please understand: I posted on list to clarify a couple of points - and encourage those on list to read the whole story to balance the errors in the published interview. NOT to debate the clear, accurate and concise content of the letters.

Please don't look for any other agenda in the comments from myself or the NMRA - There isn't one. All parties really would be delighted to see them do it properly... And would happily recommend the brand if they did.

Richard Johnson
DCCconcepts.

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hello Gary

Overall I think that your interpretation is convenient rather than factual, sorry:

***You said: Simon Kohler indicated in his Model Rail interview that European EMC is not recognised in the United States as a legal requirement there. He also indicated that the NMRA appear not to recognise EMC either.

REJ: No, he said that the NMRA didn't seem to acknowledge CE - he was wrong, and if he had actually read the standard he would have known that he was.

***You said: The use of "and/or" is ambiguous and implies options. One or the other or both. American FCC standards are lower than European CE standards as they relate to EMC. It would be easier to meet the American FCC standard. Whilst there appear to be assurances made by the NMRA or their representative that manufacturers are aware of their obligations in this regard in order that they may claim that equipment is compliant with local regulations in whichever market they supply to, the NMRA do not police this or carry out any form of spot checks.

REJ: No, its not ambiguous at all.

I have been intitately involved with CE type issues for nearly 20 years, and directly with CE for about half that.

ALL countries and all industries and all regulations put the onus on the manufacturer or distributor to ensure that their products comply. It is proimarily a self regulation regime by design even at CE level. NMRA state the Standards clearly, state any requirements that are product category or class specific and add the over blanket of the need for local emissions compliance.

NMRA have no policing ability but its is NOT an option if the product is to be marketed in a country - its up to the Mfr to ensure the product will comply, and up to either the Mfr or the ;ocal distributor to gain local approval.

All this ignores the fact that the standards were actually created primarily by EU based mfrs before they were adopted by the NMRA and so were primarily written so that DCC product would also by default comply with FCC or CE if it met the standards. That is why a clean square wave is important, among other things.

***You said: "And what about American grey imports into Europe?

REJ: What about them: Just blowing smoke in this question I'm afraid... The issue is Hornby, and only Hornby as far as this thread is concerned. Whether other brands do or do not, it won't make hornby any different.

You Said: As an example it does seem very odd that one minute the Guagemaster Prodigy won't work with Hornby Digital and all of a sudden a new updated version is released in the UK which will

REJ: Wrong example: Gaugemaster = MRC Prodigy etc. They started upgrading units in USA long before the hornby existed - and it was primarily becasue of a wrong implementation of function operation code plus other operational problems that needed to be sorted. Like Hornby they had gone their own way and the market demanded they did it right. They statred with an upgrade programme for existing products long before the H issues surfaced.

***You Said: When it comes to the NMRA DCC standard for the signal wave there is only one acceptable waveform. This part of the standard has not been modified since 1994 it would seem. Yet the European CE regulations have been modified significantly since this date. This may have been the point Simon Kohler was making in his interview and if it was he could have made it clearer.

REJ: Nonense: The standard was written to meet all applicable regulations. The degree or basic levels aren't moving, the paperwork and test procedures do change, but the standards regime is not really different in scope or levels/degree. NOTHING will make the Select waveform correct - especially as by its very nature it will always do worse in CE tests than a pure square wave which is what it should have been!

***You said: The NMRA standard appears not to keep up with legislation outside the USA and to accomodate regulation as it changes if this is indeed the case.

REJ: There has been no need to change the NMRA spec: It clearly states that the units must pass standards in countries they are marketed in. Changes in CE paperwork don;'t change this which is a clear statement, not subject to convenient interpretation.

***You said: What I would say is that Stan Ames in his book "Digital Command Control" does make reference to circumstances where non standard signal waves may be required and does suggest that the NMRA can be accomodating. That is how I read what is said by Stan.

REJ: I'm pleased you quoted Stan. What he said in a public forum was "The hornby select is not fit to be sold and its waveform is so bad that it really should not be called DCC. His comment about the hornby decoder was also as damning. Search the archives of DCC-UK to find his posts and read them in full.

Off list, Stan also sent me a code readout of the hornby decoder vs the standards (the same check that NMRA uses). It failed on all key points, including easily satisfied and critical points like the correct implementation of the basic and compulsory CV 29.

***Yous aid: On the waveform question asked earlier, I - etc etc etc

REJ Gary, why do you act as it you are Hornbys spin doctor. Its not open to interpretaion, guess, crystal ball gazing or anything else. There is a standard and a need, it doesn't meet it. Period! You cannot futureproof a product by making is incompatible with the very market its sold in, then blaiming all other product for its problems

***You said: Hornby seem comfortable that the Elite will receive an NMRA certificate of compliance.

REJ: It may do eventually - not yet though, there are still some monir gliches they can easily fix though. I sincerely hope it DEOS end up conformant.

***You said: They also claim that the Select is compatible (works) with all European control equipment out there. There is little evidence to suggest otherwise.

Nonsense, there is reams of evidence to the contrary on my own test bench it destroyed 2 lenz gold minis, made significant programming errors and generally caused significant layout problems such as renumbering lots of loco's all back to 3 when there was a momentry short.

The Selct waveform is guaranteed to damage decoders. 60 plus volts peak to peak is not explainable, sorry.

You said: Select issues seem to arrise with American equipment.

REJ: That same american equipment is well respected, reliable and works extremely well with all other EU made and US made products. ONLY the select has problems with it. Surely that tells you something that doesn't need ANY further comment or explanation.

You said: Richard mentions that the views are based on 2 Hornby consoles that have been examined.

REJ: Actually much more than two, but only tweo placed on the oscilliscope to prove the first one wasn't just faulty: Many usits trialled in several countries, all exhibiting the same problems is the reality.

You asked: Has the Elite been examined yet

Its being looked at - its better than select, but not yet perfect. It has all the makings of an excellent unit with some good features. Its ha nothing unfixable and I'm certain hornby will get this one right soon. strangest problem is a semi incompatibility with Select

Gary: Lets not turn this into a nagging set of emails. Lets simply allow others read the two articles side by side and make up their own minds...

Regards

Richard
DCCconcepts

 

[Richard Johnson]

Oh dear Gary...

***You said: Well actually its not for those decoders that have signal dampers built into their design (European decoders by coincidence and some, but not all, American decoders).

REJ: What on earth does that mean? There is no such thing as a signal damper. Exactly which brands have this supposed feature please, and what is your experience of them?

Are you suggesting that all brands built decoders just in case hornby did what they did - they work to the standards set by the NMRA which specifies exactly wht ranges are acceptable and what are not, and what voltage levels they must tolerate.

Hornbys ringing on the primary waveform of 60 volts isn't anything to do with anything but a bad waveform that gives an excessive voltage at the rails, that is far in excess of allowable and will eventually kill decoders.

(Even worse, at recovery from a momentary short, the basic already too high peak will be magified more than 100% momentarily... a real decoder killer, so I strongly anyone with Select had better add a 3 watt 100 ohm resistor plus 0.1mfd ceramic capacitor in series across the bus to minimise it.)

not my words but they "fit" the situation: ....Why do you think hornby deoders are getting a reputation for not needing feedback as they give off smoke signals after an hour or so!

??? Perhaps Hornby forgot to add the "signal dampers" - or maybe the designer of the decoder just didn't understand, expect to have to handle so much excess!

***You said: I am so happy you have said that!

I am very glad someone has brought this issue out into the open. we can at last talk about it properly.

REJ: No, you can't discuss it becasue you don't understand it unless you work with or involved with CE. More half-informed speculation doesn't help anything other than adding irrelevant confusion. If you understood DCC inside the box and the overall scope of CE, you'd know it isn't an issue that is of concern in the case of most products anyway.

***You asked: For example there is no NMRA standard for Loconet. Does this feature have CE certification?

REJ: Loconet is proprietary to Digitrax: it is an overlaid signal on the DCC bus, and has nothing to do with NMRA DCC standards. Loconet doen't need to have CE standards certification as its simply a control concept based on a software protocol, not a product. Product which use Loconet are frequently certified though: for example - all Uhlenbrock control systems... and BTW - Digitrax is CE compliant anyway.

Gary: You try hard for hornby and I respect that, but you miss the point: We too want them to do it right, but patting them on the head when they are naughtly won't teach them right from wrong...or lead them to improve. We will all applaud equally when they get it right.

Regards

Richard
DCCconcepts

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hello Gary

Just got home from another evening teaching DCC...

Yes, I do try to be both reasonable and balanced: My business is based on knowledge plus honest and pragmatic good advice, so I am careful to say it like it is, always.

It is important for you to understand that from the very first Hornby was offered a lot of quiet behind the scenes support and I am aware of approaches to show the problems and help fix them, but Hornby chose to become defensive and lay blame elsewhere, which was totally unwarranted. Even now, NMRA and others constantly offer help and support... but improvement and acceptance is in Hornbys hands.

I appreciate its hard for them to admit an error now, as they should have done it earlier and if they had, they'd have been praised for good customer support and positiv eaction... now its much harder for them than it was.

However- DO please stop flogging that dead EMC horse... please. Its just a bad excuse by H thats bitten them on the bum a bit really.

The whole EMC and CE issue really IS nothing but a smokescreen - and it is as clear as the nose on my face to every modeller out there at any level of DCC knowledge that if all the other european brands pass (and they do) with a clean waveform, there was no need to create the sawtooth waveform that select has.

I will say it once again: The EMC part of the CE standards cannot be a problem for any unit that complies properly with the waveform requirements of NMRA DCC, and the fact that hornby decoders fail routinely and the select (and currently the Elite) cannot programme or run some of the worlds best decoders reliably (including ESU for example - the highest spec and most techincally competent brand in the world) as well as some US decoders is that its software and output waveform are NOT compatible with the DCC standards... end of story.

To be honest I am very tempted to actually submit a sample of the Select for CE testing locally just to see the result at the moment. It would be interesting I think.... anyone want to front the cost though - its expensive to do!!!

Re EMC and CE in general:

There is another aspect to this too: many of the DCC components referred to in passing in this correspondence do not NEED to pass EMC or C-tick as they are not in their own right generators of EMC noise: Only the command stations are universally covered by that, and then there is valid argument that they are only covered by CE the totality of CE requirements if they are sold with a power supply.

Its important to know that in the case of low powered electical toys so to speak, safety is much higher up the "CE totam pole" than EMC, which is a nothing really of an issue for low power systems

(Your TV, mobile phone or CD player or PWM power supply based amp in the car have a spurious radiation level thousands of times higher than the worst possible DCC system)

EMC and CE regulations are very complex - but less onerous than people think if understood...and that is why I said earlier that no, the forum could not competently discuss the issue.

As to your other comments, I think you will find that self regulation is working exceptionally well: I seriously doubt whether you will find any brand exposing themselves knowingly to the impact of non-compliance.

Just let it lie: Hornby will can the select before long - they are calling it a stop-gap product now... and with luck, if they really DO want the Elite to pass conformance, they will have to change its performance so it will programme all brands of decoders, just like all the others out there do.

And then we can all say, well done Hornby, and thanks for getting it right.

As to others jumping up and down - Gary, you can't expect them not to get annoyed - you are the one banging on the beehive you know!

Regards

Richard Johnson
DCCconcepts

QUOTE (Gary @ 18 Jul 2007, 18:45) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>By the way my Model Rail arrived just as I posted the last message.

I have now read the "DCC experts respond" by Didrik Voss and Richard Johnson. They both strike me as sensible and reasonable people and have set out reasoned argument to correct what they consider to be missunderstandings in the Simon Kohler interview and provided further information. Richard has in fact said a lot more here in the forum in relation to his own personal way of thinking. There is/was certainly no cause to be jumping up and down as some forum members are/have been and unfortuneatley that had a knock on effect as other members joined in the bunfight! Didrik Voss on the face of it should get on very well with Hornby and Simon Kohler. However it is clear that a Webster's Dictionary of the Amercian Language may be required reading by Hornby!

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hi Alistair

***You said: "These perceptions are often clouded by more material views....when the reality is within the definition?" and "The example above is the view the reliant doesn't 'handle'...has 'poor performance'....lacks 'features'.....and the ultimate supposition......." etc etc

REJ:
I'm not sure your logic is sound here. If I use your logic, that a reliant is the same as a conventional car as each in its own way is a form of motorised carriage, then a DC controller and a digital controller are both the same, in that they both make an engine run in their own way.

This is an issue of simple facts, not a zen discussion. Forget that Reliant is still "a car" but it needs "special handling". Select buyers expect standard results. Reliant buyers expect a non standard driving experience!

A real car example that is closer to pragmatism: Skoda made a pretty average car in the early 80's: It perfomed with no particular distinction. They then released a GT version. Given the "GT" Buyers could theoretically expect better performance as well as a trim change. However the trim change was all they got, and as it added weight, the cars acceleration and performance was actually worse than the standard car.

Calling the Select trainset controller DCC is sort of the same as calling that Skoda a GT. It makes promises, but it doesn't meet reasonable expectations. But actually its worse.... as at least the GT worked on the same roads as the non GT car...

Its not related to control quality of function as an issue: The select has unexpected limitations in "compatibility" that are a vey basic expectation & a user right with DCC.

DCC is a form of model railway control built to a set of common standards, with control interfaces also made to a common set of standards.
Market expectation: When modellers buy a product that is called DCC they have come to expect, and have a right to expect, a common set of responses or reactions to a common set of commands or actions.

This is also how "common law" came into existence - a set of social standards were set (DCC protocols) and became the "norm" or law(DCCstandards). Actions that defy that norm (incompatibilities) are therefore ...eventually.... under common law, regarded as "illegal" by the masses.

The H product is not made to give this expected result, and therefore it is not DCC as a modeller has a right to expect. It can therefore be fairly called Hornby digital and not DCC: DCC is now, by all rerasonable definition and market usage , NMRA DCC.

Of course... Hornby have every right to do it their own way, but then they cannot rightly say, as they try to claim, that their product is DCC and they cannot claim that it is compatible with DCC, because it is not. That is actually very naughty.

Sure, it is the same "roots" and has some things in common, but no more than a horse (DCC) and a mule (Select). Both have 4 legs, eat grass, S**t manure and carry loads, but that is where the similarity ends. You can encourage them to mate, because the parts fit together, but you cannot in reality mate them to breed and create a usable result because they are not really compatible.

For the "non-horsey" Horse + Donkey = Mule.
Mule = Mutation of both - and is in the end neither horse nor donkey
Mule = almost always genetically sterile.
Guess which is the mule in the world of DCC

I have said from the very beginning of this whole issue that the Hornby Select is simply a trainset controller, no more than that. It serves to let H sell bigger trainsets with 2 loco's, no more than that. As a trainset player becomes a modeller, he should dump the select and use a real DC controller as many do when they expand from a trainset to a model railway, going from DC to DCC.

If hornby are honest and simply take that position, and stop calling the Select DCC which it is NOT, all argument goes away.

***You Said: " what I am railling against is the creeping idea of DCC to actually mean a product, rather than simply a decription of a type of control system.

REJ:
Creeping idea of DCC?? Good heavens- Its been growing strongly for 20 years now, and over the last 5 has really accelerated. It has always been a system that has been made to a single set of standards, with a set of common interface protocols. Not perfect, but always to a common base standard.

**You said; "In the same way, the difference with the Hornby basic DCC system, compared to other stuff, lies, to me, with the quality of control" and " whether it mixes and matches with other makes, is not likely to be an issue with a potential buyer, in Hornby's view.

REJ:
Both fair comments - your opinion is fine and you are both in a way correct and reasonable in holding it.

I agree select doesn't deliver equal control BUT I do not regard it as "DCC" because it cannot control all loco's with DCC chips - - so in the end its NOT quite the same as a basic and advanced DC contoller as at least THEY can both control ALL DCC loco's.

***YOU said: Because that buyer may well view 'electric trainsets' (notice terminology) and ''railway modellers'' with much the same attitude, as has been displayed regarding, for example, the opinion of the Reliant Robin?

REJ:
Dumping the reliant commnet as I see it as adding confusion.....

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.

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.

Kindest regards

Richard
DCCconcepts

 

[Richard Johnson]

It is so comfortable for you here on this forum playing with words isn't it:

I'll start with apologizing for the other modellers on list: sorry it is such a long post.

Alistair - before I start, Re your comment about building a highland loco: &#8230;.Why should anyone care about the material: If you make the model properly nobody will be able to see whether its brass or card, will they? Brass is anyway a common but not necessarily perfect material for loco models, so just go ahead and enjoy the building of it.

Re DCC:

You are simply wrong. Totally wrong DCC is NMRA DCC, and even H say that on their website, clear and simple.

Re your later post, Zero one was an analog muti-train system, not digital. There were many at that time, most quite good but lack of a standard doomed them all.

DCC as used on list and in the real world is a short form of NMRA DCC. It was a name given to the industry with conditions - largely by the same brand that hornby claims compatibility with.

It is a name allowed to be used only by the brands that do it properly, and its stewardship is in the hands of the NMRA. It is defendable and claimable on that basis. NMRA have when necessary brought action to bear on MR issues, and they have a sunstatial legal budget so will if they see fit do again as needed&#8230; They do hope that it will never be needed in this area as they bend over backwards to make it simple to comply.

Yes, other brands did and still do it their way:

BUT - The other brands who have gone their own way use names such as MFX (Marklin) Marklin Digital (Marklin) Flieschmann FMZ etc. etc. Where various protocols were covered, they say so, such as in decoders with ESU Lokpilot and ESU LokPilot DCC where it is an NMRA DCC product

Only the one we discuss shows no respect for the standards and the DCC name.

Re Select:

I see Gary mindlessly defending Hornby and now you saying it is actually really OK that select is down and dirty or cheap and cheerful because it really isn't a serious product anyway, is probably short term and will only be bought by train set buyers.

All word games that totally ignore reality from both of you. This is a real product in a real market and real people are being let down, disappointed and disillusioned every day by it.

So&#8230;

Sorry, but to me and the many who are burned by it... it is NOT OK that it is not compatible with other digital products and it is NOT OK that it has operating quirks and a bad waveform that creates damage to decoders, it is NOT OK that it has a poor internal power supply that creates problems when recovering from a short circuit.

It is NOT OK that the select won't work with other brand and NOT OK that hornby decoders won't work with other controllers&#8230; or even work for long with a Hornby controller.

Especially, Its NOT OK for Hornby to call it compatible with DCC. because it is not.

I'm not yelling at you, but I see the reality and clearly, you do not. Let me tell you about the real world and why I take an interest in this issue:

It is because I see the aftermath of the Select every Week, sometimes several times. In the REAL world where all these word games have absolutely no value, no relevance at all in fact.

They are NOT the problems of the cogniscenti or the train-set person you talk about, they are the great mass in between them&#8230; those who are semi- aware but have no real knowledge, want a wee bit more from the next step up from the train-set level and might just if we are lucky be the next generation of modellers one day.

They are all&#8230;.simply the ones you both totally ignore in all this not so clever point scoring debate.

Like

(1) Modellers who thought they'd try DCC and bought the Select thinking it was a cheap way to experiment now totally convinced DCC is not worth the trouble.

(2) Disappointed and disillusioned pensioners who thought it might be a low cost way into DCC so they spend their precious little hobby money on it, to find that their loco's can't run at the club, their decoders die mysteriously and that those that don't reset to number 3 every time there is a momentary short on the layout.

(and lets face it, there are always momentary shorts with hornby or Peco points and badly adjusted back to backs!).

(3) School kids who come to me because nobody in the "box mover" shops really understands DCC and they are upset that they followed the instructions but their decoder, bought with pocket money or the after school job money has blown, and the retailer won't replace it.

(4) Grand-dads who buy a Hornby train-set for the grand-sons birthday because they had hornby as a child but the loco's now won't run, those that do keep forgetting their number and now grandson is annoyed with grand-dad as his new toy won't work, and grand-dad can't understand why.

(5) Modellers who had the low cost Bachmann EZ command which worked very well who then made the mistake of buying the Hornby Select because they thought it was an upgrade - but found it was in fact just a disaster.

Then, I get the retailers who look for help:

They've been sold the hornby digital as DCC and the paperwork reinforces that. They are mostly good people and they sold it in good faith..

BUT&#8230;now they are faced with angry or upset customers&#8230; Hornbys reps deny a problem and THEY end up with egg on their face, carrying the cost to both reputation and the bottom line in losses.

Gentlemen you make me very sad: You play with words and speak with no knowledge, portraying yourselves as paragons. You excuse mediocrity and error.

You defend a product that is clearly less than satisfactory.

I have said my piece on this issue clearly, politely, patiently and in non technical words that every intelligent list member can understand
.
The point is, I think, clearly made and I do not want to go on forever, so my contribution to the list on this subject will end with this email unless there are any specific sensible questions of value.

ANY other DCC or modelling subject - I'm always happy to discuss.

Richard
DCCconcepts

 

[Richard Johnson]

Paul:

I'm sure you weren't addreesing the plea for a direct answer to anyone but just for the record I have never issued a single word that on this issue is not factual and will not start now.

The Elite is a very different product to the Select.

It addresses many of the select problems, has some quite nice features but is not yet as good as it will eventually be. Much of its needed change will be able to be done via software upgrades.

So... the elite still has some quirks that need sorting, and from waht I can see Hornby seems to be doing it. There are some issues with the waveform but nothing like the Select and there is still software some unnecessary error that will stop it working with far more than TCS decoders. I cannot comment on the decoder life with select because I haven't done specific trials with elite and hornby decoder life.

When select actually works with all compatible decoder brands, it will naturally be able to pass NMRA conformance tests and allowed to be called DCC compatible - until then, its Hornby DCC.

Select has the makings of a very good product and I am really hopeful it will get there very soon.

SK's comment in the interview that they will submit it for conformance testing is hopefully true, as this will bring them into line with true DCC for most operational issues. There will still be a unique Hornby approach in some areas, but that is perfectly OK...nobody limits any Mfr from aking exclusive approaches to issues and it is down to user / buyer preferences in those areas as they doesn't create compatibility issues.

Regards

Richard Johnson
DCCconcepts

*** You asked:
Does the Elite share the same modified "Hornby DCC" signal as the Select & does it threaten to nuke your decoders with masive voltage spikes? most of the uproar has been created by the Select but not much said re the Elite. Is the Elite's troubles with TCS decoders likely to be software related, therefore curable, or does it stem from said unusual output? Earlier in this thread comment was made about the failure of Hornby's decoders, what controllers are responsible for blowing them up? I have 6 Hornby decoders and no problems yet, what is the life expectancy when combined with the Elite ? I'd like to see some level headed answers to these questions, so please no shots at Hornby that aren't factual.

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hello Gary

*** You said: It is wrong to claim that isolated incidents are commonplace without hard evidence from known customers and suppliers.

REJ:
No, these are not isolated incidents. They have existed / with initial release and continue.

I claim nothing, I state facts.

They are all suppliers, users and customers known to me. Many have tried communicating to Hornby for a very long time, they need to actually listen properly.

My responsibility is to my clients and DCC in general.

***You said: And it is entirely wrong to play an emotional card in a forum.

REJ: Please re-read your own evangelical posts a little.

Richard
DCCconcepts

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hi Gary

I was wrong: wrong product name. I meant to say Elite - sorry.

SK actually stated in the interview that H would submit it for testing... very clearly.

Actually in fact if it eventually bcomes totally compatible/complies like most other products, that'd be fine with everyone I think too - but SK/Hornby made the "submit for NMRA testing" statement, not me, and as I said, I was happy to read it as it implies they really will eventually conform.

My point:

If it is change for testing (no point in submitting it otherwise) then the decoders that will not work with Elite now (and it does currently have some quality of control problems with some ESU decoders) will work with Elite when the changes needed to the unit are done, as they will have to be for it to pass.

The Stan Ames comment needs full and proper context:

That does of course not mean that every single feature of every product will always be interchangeable, but it does mean that at the basic track level, all basic commands and responses will work properly irrespective of brand. That is the goal of the standards, not draconian insistence on brands all being clones of each other.

There will still be "frills" that aren't global - like the way Hornby chooses to segment addressing between accessory and loco decoders, and things like loconet/railcom/etc are all propritetary issues, and aren''t covered or required.

Sorry Gary: Your last statements are simply wrong: All the other brands are universally compatible at basic levels - they are compatible with DCC and entitled to be called DCC. Right now, Hornby Select never will be, and whilst Elite is close it is not yet quite there, but it does have all of us with fingers crossed that it will get there.

Richard
DCCconcepts

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hi Alistair

Fair enough: I didn't see it as emotional but trying to show that there were real people being affected in a very real way. I accept that different perspective can create a different view.

Question: Accepting commercial reality, does that make it OK to market a product that by implication is less than it claims to be, or is less reliable?

My own thought: to the CFO or accountant possibly - But to me, a multi generational brand like Hornby also has responsibilities - if not to their historic client base, then to the positive future of the brand.

I am actually not so much of a romatic to ingnore commerical reality, but I vale quality and repect clients, so I do business in black and white, not shades of gray, and expect the same of brands like H that I do, in the main, genuinely respect.

Which Highland Loco are you making?

Richard

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hi Alistair

Nice to not talk digital

Nice little loco - lots of character like most of the Scottish loco's - pragmatic designs but still with a bit of flair and style in the looks department. I model Midland but I still hanker after building a model of Inverness Shed with that lovely water tower over the turntable access tracks... I built mould masters for the shed years ago but thats as far as it got.

I do have a Jones goods in the display cabinet as a token start if I ever get it done! In post 1928 / LMS livery though I'm afraid.

Regards

Richard
DCCconcepts
(Who builds his own loco's too)

I'm having a crack at an '18' class small goods.....a 2-4-0 tender engine..probably# 27......since I have a photo...also probably kitted out as per post 1902-3!

Nice plain green paint...no lining....less complicated cab roof.....'Crewe' influence, so motion partly hidden by an outside frame ....which handily doesn't actually involve the drivers.

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hello Sid

I am a specialist reseller of DCC, a teacher of DCC, an installer of DCC, a fixer of DCC problems and a consultant on DCC issues, as well as being a modeller who uses DCC. I do not sell trains in red or blue boxes at all. I do have a great respect for current Hornby offerings except fot the digital products.

The following is my personal opinion:

The only correct or honest answer to that question is:
"No, The Select is really a basic digital trainset controller, and while it seems the same, unfortunately it is not reliably compatible with other DCC products"

What would you recommend for a very basic no frills system that IS compatible?
The Bachmann EZ command - extremely no frills but it works reliably and is compatible with NMRA DCC products with no problem. It is what the Hornby should have been - basic and reliable!

What would you recommend to someone who wants a real DCC system for around 100? my recommendations in order of preference: The NCE PowerCab, The Digitrax Zephyr and either the LokMaus by Roc0 or the Compact by Lenz come to mind.

My comment re the Hornby DCC - Sadly (I wish it wasn't the case) if it was my business I'd not sell it at all no matter what the brand pressure / customer requests are. Same with the Elite until its proven and warranted by the NMRA as Mr Kohler states it will be (its not yet able to pass from my own still incomplete evaluation).

I would 100% avoid all Hornby decoders if possible.

For the sake of customers, If its a price issue, then I think it better to consider base level as a promotional thing and sell the basic but reliable bachmann entry level decoder at a lower margin to keep the price attractive rather than risk the high return rate of the Hornby decoders with their attendant problems

Feel free to email me directy if you have other questios.

Regards

Richard Johnson
DCCconcepts

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hello Gary

Firstly, I was replying very specifically to Sid, to a specific question: Did you miss the fact my post started out by saying so?

You Said:
Not everybody is a Mr DCC and there are considerations beyond that of a "a perfect system for Mr DCC types" that UK buyers consider.

REJ:
Yes I agree: Nor am I - I'm first and foremost a modeller who understands it from both sides.

By the way - you love adding labels to people. I will say it one more time... you do not know me and you are not qualified to do so. Actually, from your comments, you don't know the UK buyer/modeller too well either.

DCC can be simple: That is why I frame my responses as I do, so any modeller on any level can understand.

Except you, obviously. Why do you decry knowledge and use such phrases. I comment on the products, you seem to delight in having a go at the people... My dear mum has an expression for those who bluster. "You protest too much for an honest man"

You Said:
Whilst the products mentioned by Richard do have sales support their customer support would be truely overwhelmed if Hornby customers started on mass to buy these products.

REJ: Bollocks Gary, you do talk some rubbish. For a start products like the PowerCab are easier to understand than any other product I've seen, and I routinely Sell powercab and Digitrax Zephyr to novices and more informed modellers alike. Irrespective of age, they all "get it" in minutes and these products at least don't have the problems of the Hornby products - and can wither control a small layout or a larger one.

You Said:
Can you imagine how Digitrax and NCE and others in the UK would react to the type of questions posed by Hornby customers in their thousands? They would not be able to cope.

REJ: I'm sure the several very intelligent and helpful UK resellers I know would be fascinated by that comment - as would Those of NCE, who give exemplary service. Then again they have the time, as they aren't tied up making excuses for product that fails routinely and is not compatible as they claim it is.

You Said:
Warley MRC has first hand experience of Digitrax sales support and we are not overimpressed with little interest in issues shown. When the system shorted at random we could not work out what the codes meant.

REJ:
Controller don't short routinely, layouts and loco's do when they aren't up to scratch. Warley MRC are not a good refrence for DCC or layout wiring obviously. The codes are all in the digitrax manual, in English.... do I need t osay more? Perhaps if you'd tried asking any of the many excellent modellers who routinely exhibit using it / very happy with their digitrax systems they may have read it to you.

You Said:
...and Digitrax were not that helpful. We were not sure if there was a console failure or not and Digitrax were unwilling

REJ:
Gary, if I saw the apporach you give to issues as a custmer service person I really don't think I'd be all that helpful either to tell you the truth.

And Hornby are helpful? How is insisiting their product is something it isn't helpful?

You Said:
Look at the equipment. In short Digitrax can be overcomplex for the beginner as can some of the other consoles mentioned by Richard.

REJ:
You are simply wrong... and choose to selectively quote anyway. Yes, the full digitrax system is complex but nobody mentioned that at all...

Firstly I said that the entry level unit is Bachmann EZ command. Secondly level the Powercab or the Zephyr. There's nothing difficult about an NCE PowerCab or DIgitrax Zephyr, as long as you can actually read basic english. I recently gave this a test with an NCE powercab... asking both an 80 year old modeller and a 10 year old boy to set it up and run a train. Both managed it within a few minutes.

YouSaid:
And Digitrax and NCE and other do have returns and failures. It is just that you hear more about Hornby product failures in the last few months because put simply they have sold more!

REJ:
Are you even half way serious! Of course thay have failures, so does every brand in every type of product. As to Hornby selling more, you can't be serious: Hornby isn't a major DCC player even in the UK market. (actually htey aren't a DCC brand at all yet - their product isn't really DCC)

You Said:
And Hornby do have a dedicated Hornby DCC forum unlike the other manufacturers so again there is much greater visibility for Hornby product issues and customer education. This honest and open approach taken by Hornby has been used by the Hornby knockers who all too readily quote from selected pieces of what they read without having first hand experience.

REJ:
Digitrax forum: Over 5,000 members last time I looked.
NCE forum: Over 2,000
ESU forum:
Lenz Forum:

Hornby how many?

ONLY HORNBY insist on running it themselves and editing out inconvenient comments though - all the others are led by non-company poeople who are impartial, and well supported by the brands directly ONLY when a from the horses mouth comment is warranted.

You Said:
Very few railway modellers in the UK will have the benefit of Richard's DCC classes which I am absolutely certain are superb! Doesn't this prove the point though? Why do you need to go to DCC classes before you can understand DCC?

REJ:
Actually those who ask for them most are novices.

They'd like to learn how to open uip a loco and add a chip, what the wire colours mean o they can check and reverse the incorrect hornby and other brand wiring so their loco's run the right way, how they can wire the layout properly so it will run well as doing it hornbys way isn't working, etc etc.

They'd like to know how to tune a loco so it runs as good as it possinbly can, and they'd like to know "the next step" once they've played for a while - with the FACTS not brand created half truths or incomplete reseller data to go by.

Nothing hard really, just the truth, told in simple words for most of it. I actually do far less advanced formal teaching stuff than you might imagine - that is mostly handled with quite different monthly workshops which I freely invite anybody to attend, and mostly do at the clubs.

You Said:
Simple products are required in the UK for the masses and Hornby do deliver on this.

REJ:
You insult UK modellers Gary. That is nonsense.

Richard
DCCconcepts