Model Rail issue 107 August 2007 Hornby Digital

QUOTE (Gary @ 18 Jul 2007, 08:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hornby say in their interview that CE EMC is not recognised in America
<Sigh> What point are you trying to make in repeating this? It's a EUROPEAN regulation, of course it's not recognised in the US, just as we in Europe do not recognise FCC regulations. There's no argument over this.
QUOTE and that the NMRA appear not to recognise it either. There are claims made here in this thread that this view is entirely inaccurate.
Read the standards for yourself, Gary. It's quite clear that an NMRA conformance warrant requires "all applicable" regulations to be met. The NMRA recognise both FCC and CE regulations. Again, no argument.
QUOTE However, the NMRA cannot speak for the manufacturers of DCC equipment and it is claimed that they do not police those manufacturers.
Correct, and nor should the NMRA police the EMC compatibility of products. The NMRA could not afford to equip and run their own EMC test house nor pay for independant testing of products submitted for conformance warrants (all products, not just DCC). The manufacturers have already invested in design and testing, why repeat all their work?
QUOTE They simply test what is offered to them in America and take it on trust that the same equipment is offered to customers worldwide.
So, it comes down to a conspiracy theory that manufacturers are hoodwinking the NMRA and their customers by presenting different systems for conformance testing, to those actually put on the market? I would argue against that.
QUOTE There is an argument that if a product has a CE marking then by default it "complies with EMC requirements".
No argument. If a product is CE marked, it can be assumed to meet all the requirements, which vary depending on the product. For electrical goods, EMC is, indeed, one of those requirements.
QUOTE It is interesting however that Hornby choose to highlight EMC.
My theory is that they tried to add some filtering to meeet EMC and screwed it up resulting in the resonance we've all seen in the scope traces. Highlighting EMC is just an excuse "we did it that way because we had to".

Andrew

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

That was a fantastic response Richard, so much so that I feel a little guilty for following it over a day later when you said everything that needs to be said. However whilst I have no need to respond to Gary's post addressed to myself as there is little point, I would like to take issue with Alastairs last post. By your analogy it would be OK for a Manufacturer to introduce a new product based on, lets say on a disc format but when you went to use it, it would be difficult to load the disc, the disc would keep spitting itself out, it would record sometimes but then forget what it recorded nomatter what brand of disc you used.... and yet they can still call it a DVD recorder?

The car thing was also great, I've been fortunate to own a string of fabulous cars over the years but no way on gods earth would I ever had a Robin, they do not handle they have poor performance lack features and are condsidered by most, not to be a real car. It kind of reminds you of another product doesn't it?

Sid.

QUOTE The car thing was also great, I've been fortunate to own a string of fabulous cars over the years but no way on gods earth would I ever had a Robin, they do not handle they have poor performance lack features and are condsidered by most, not to be a real car. It kind of reminds you of another product doesn't it?

yet..the Reliant IS a car, regardless......it's definition only changes because of some peoples' PERCEPTIONS of what they consider to be a 'real' car?
These perceptions are often clouded by more material views....when the reality is within the definition?

The example above is the view the reliant doesn't 'handle'...has 'poor performance'....lacks 'features'.....and the ultimate supposition.......QUOTE and are condsidered by most, not to be a real car.

the reliant's handling issue is largely due to the inadequate driver skills......the performance is relative.(consider that an entire racing formula...which spawned some ofthe truly great motor racing heroes....is based upon the Reliant engine), etc....what are 'features?'......toys to attract a buying public?..........the list goes on.....

the example of the DVD player doesn't really work....in more than one sense.

leastwise, no more than the Hornby one....

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.

a simple, old-style trainset controller with provision for a few D-type batteries for power...is a controller in exactly the same sense as the finest feedback item from, say, Gaugemaster.

They both do the same job...ie move a loco.

the difference lies in the quality of that control.

In the same way, the difference with the Hornby basic DCC system, compared to other stuff, lies, to me, with the quality of control.

whether it mixes and matches with other makes, is not likely to be an issue with a potential buyer, in Hornby's view.

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?

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

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!

QUOTE 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??)

Thats pretty much what Chris Leigh said in his Model Rail editorial and also what Simon Kohler said in his interview. The Select has been designed for those who simply want to run several trains at a time backwards and forwards and control a few points. There are very few Select customers who will start mixing and matching components. Why would users already into "top-end" established equipment and who already mix and match go out and buy the Select?

There does seem to be a consensus that the Elite is better.

Happy modelling
Gary

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 20 Jul 2007, 03:57) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>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

I think this point has been well over looked by Gary, Alastair and the like.... what does the retailer answer when his potential customer asks "is this Hornby digital set compatible (and please dont go on about US/UK terminologies... lets keep this simple) with other DCC brands?" Of course you cant ask this if the set is bought at a huge high street discount chain because there is no one to ask, but how does the hobby store/small retailer honestly reply to this question wether its to parents buying it for their offspring or to an existing railway modeller who wishes to go Digital?

Sid

QUOTE Thats pretty much what Chris Leigh said in his Model Rail editorial

I really must read what he says more often.........

Hornby produced Zero One years ago........whilst I have little electrical knowledge beyond that necessary for models and vehicles....wasn't that system a 'digital' system?

did it not move individual loco's 'on demand?'

I have seen large layouts operated using zero one...and they work.

I do believe double deck buses used a similar system once, to allow the driver to change gear,electrically....with but one wire going to the back (where the gearbox lived?),
I feel that with the Hornby systems, it is going to be down to the dealers to advise anyone wishing to expand......and possiby mix and match brands?
In the same way, in the past, a dealer advised on compatibility of stock and track?

only downside, is that many retailers of Hornby sets aren't actually model shops.

I will now go back to building a Highland Railway locomotive out of scraps, card and wood.....but I wont 'show it off' when finished.....I don't want it being denigrated as not being a 'proper' scale model railway engine, because it ain't made of brass......

QUOTE (alastairq @ 20 Jul 2007, 09:40) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I really must read what he says more often.........
Hornby produced Zero One years ago........whilst I have little electrical knowledge beyond that necessary for models and vehicles....wasn't that system a 'digital' system?

did it not move individual loco's 'on demand?'

I have seen large layouts operated using zero one...and they work.

If Hornby had called it Hornby Digital then all would be fine.

But they call it DCC and they (Hornby) define what they think DCC as.

QUOTE DCC
Digital Command Control.The application of computer technology to control the movements of locomotives.Each locomotive is fitted with a decoder (or 'chip') which is uniquely programmed and recognises its own identity and responds only to those control signals which are addressed to it. DCC also allows a wide range of extras including controllable lighting and on-board sound.The accepted standards have been laid down by the NMRA (National Model Railroad Association) an American Association.

The above was taken from the digital glossary on the Hornby Website (Link)

Given the above, and the failure of the select to comply with the NRMA standards, the Select is probably not fit for the purpose for which it was sold.

James (A fairly satisfied Elite User).

EDIT: The above definition of DCC is also in the Select manual available online.

QUOTE I feel that with the Hornby systems, it is going to be down to the dealers to advise anyone wishing to expand......and possiby mix and match brands?
In the same way, in the past, a dealer advised on compatibility of stock and track?

only downside, is that many retailers of Hornby sets aren't actually model shops.

Precisely!

And are those who buy from a shop that is not a model shop ever going to pick up a copy of Model Rail or participate in a forum?

Only a very small percentage of train set buyers get hooked. A very large number of Selects sold will not be used after 6 months. That is the reality.

It seems entirely unfair that Hornby have had to take the flack that they have taken from "high-end" users. They have little knowledge of the UK train set market. Until now for all the "top-end" equipment available DCC has never really taken off in the UK. Can you wonder why?

Hornby make absolutely no claim about NMRA compatibility on any of their packaging. Hornby Digital simply does what it says on the box!

What I am wondering is how much sleep Hornby would loose if they did go down the "Hornby Digital" route?

I have a sneeky feeling that suppliers of DCC equipment to the UK who understand the UK market would be a lot more concerned by this than the current approach Hornby have adopted!

Happy modelling
Gary

QUOTE The accepted standards have been laid down by the NMRA (National Model Railroad Association) an American Association.

that is a stand-alone statement of fact.

QUOTE Given the above, and the failure of the select to comply with the NRMA standards, the Select is probably not fit for the purpose for which it was sold.

'compliance' requires 'submission for testing?'

Has that been done?

also to be borne in mind, whilst the NMRA are an august body, their 'standards' are not a legislative requirement.

merely a 'suggestion' for manufacturers/suppliers to follow to achieve across-the-board compatibility.

[A 'suggetsion' , I might add, supported by the sheer numerical buying power of the US model railroader market?]

The aim of the NMRA standards, across the whole spectrum of modelling railroads, in my view, is to make life easier for the modeller.

If Hornby does not wish to comply, or even be 'compatible' with other makers, that is their business.

I may have missed something, but I haven't actually seen Hornby make a claim that their system are 'compatible' with any other maker?

In the same way, Hornby don't claim their couplings are 'compatible' with other makes?

As for 'fit for purpose?'

the question is...does it work for Hornby products?

does it work in the trainsets?

If so, it's fit for purpose.

If not, then the customer has recourse, from the dealer who sold the item.

If the Select system does not meet the standards required by an enthusiast customer, then they should look elsewhere?

[an anology..I bought a Vitrains#37....out of preference to the Bachmann model. My choice, it met my needs. I'm not over sure whether the Vitrains item meets NMRA standards...I don't actually care....but like the Hornby product, it does 'what it says on the tin?' For me.]

Hornby's Select system IS DCC control.......

If it works in its context as sold by Hornby, it is fit for purpose.

If the box is opened, trains set up, and it doesn't do what Hornby says it will, then it's not fit for purpose.

like an engine that doesn't run properly from the box?

as I've observed before.........just because a car doesn't have 4 wheels, doesn't stop it being a car.

QUOTE (alastairq @ 20 Jul 2007, 10:34) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hornby's Select system IS DCC control.......

If it works in its context as sold by Hornby, it is fit for purpose.

If the box is opened, trains set up, and it doesn't do what Hornby says it will, then it's not fit for purpose.

like an engine that doesn't run properly from the box?
as I've observed before.........just because a car doesn't have 4 wheels, doesn't stop it being a car.

Hornby's selected system is not DCC as defined by Hornby.

Hornby define what they mean by DCC (in product glossaries and manuals and elsewhere) as being the NRMA standard.

If it they claim it's DCC (which they do), define what they mean by DCC (which they do), and the product fail to meet that standard, then it probably isn't fit for purpose.

James

QUOTE Q. Is the Hornby system compatible with other systems?

A. Yes! It can be integrated with other similar systems currently on the UK market, i.e. Lenz and Gaugemaster, for instance.

Only ommision seems to be, Hornby haven't ACTUALLY stated which system they are talking about.....Select or Elite.

perhaps they should add ''only the Elite system can be etc'?

QUOTE Designed to be NMRA compatible

This is mentioned solely under the Elite specifications....not Select!

It doesn't state the system IS NMRA compatible, just that they have DESIGNED it to be so.......if it fails to meet the NMRA criteria, IF SUBMITTED FOR TEST......then they WILL need to re-write things.

from the above, I see no problems.

It IS advertising blurb at the end of the day..and I am well used to kidology...but they don't actually tell porkies.

I agree there is an issue of waveform....but that appears only to be with the basic, Select system....am I right there?

this in mind, a query I raise is Hornby's statement

QUOTE The "Select" can be used as a Walkabout Unit when connected to the Hornby "Elite" Digital Unit.

would the Select waveform superimpose itself over that of the Elite system?