Joined
·
3,966 Posts
gary weather it is designed to be NMRA compatable or not is irelevent. weather it IS complient with the standards is the important question.
Peter
Peter
Problems with Hornby Select
- Status
101 - 116 of 116 Posts
QUOTE (Gary @ 26 Nov 2006, 12:59) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It is an absolutely pointless discussion until there is clear evidence presented pinpointing the part of the NMRA standard that Hornby Digital does not comply with.
NMRA conformance requires compliance with both the standards and all applicable reccomended practices. I rather doubt that the Select complies with RP 9.2.1 in respect of address partitioning.
NMRA conformance requires compliance with both the standards and all applicable reccomended practices. I rather doubt that the Select complies with RP 9.2.1 in respect of address partitioning.
As someone who is DC but was contemplating DCC, what this thread has done is confirmed my worst suspicions, that DCC is far too complicated .
For DCC to become widespread there needs to be clarity. Hornby "Select "or "Elite" needs to work with all decoders ie be universal or the whole thing will backfire and non technical users (of which I include myself) will simply be put off. In my case back to DC but for people with only a marginal interest in trains, that needs to be nurtured,they may simply be put off model railways for good.
Hornby needs to make a clear statement that it is NMRA compliant or not. We don't want any spin ie "designed to be compliant......". Leave that for the politicians!
Russell
For DCC to become widespread there needs to be clarity. Hornby "Select "or "Elite" needs to work with all decoders ie be universal or the whole thing will backfire and non technical users (of which I include myself) will simply be put off. In my case back to DC but for people with only a marginal interest in trains, that needs to be nurtured,they may simply be put off model railways for good.
Hornby needs to make a clear statement that it is NMRA compliant or not. We don't want any spin ie "designed to be compliant......". Leave that for the politicians!
Russell
QUOTE (Nick @ 26 Nov 2006, 11:59) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Can anyone confirm if you can alter CVs on the Select on Bachmann decoders, I am asking since I believe that the Bachmann decoders are factory set at 28 and I would prefer to run them at 128 speed steps, could this be done on the select or not?
There is no decoder setting to choose between 28 or 128 speed steps. You have to get the command station to send the appropriate packets. The decoder will support either one or the other or both and respond appropriately.
Andrew
There is no decoder setting to choose between 28 or 128 speed steps. You have to get the command station to send the appropriate packets. The decoder will support either one or the other or both and respond appropriately.
Andrew
QUOTE (rb277170 @ 26 Nov 2006, 14:24) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hornby needs to make a clear statement that it is NMRA compliant or not. We don't want any spin ie "designed to be compliant......". Leave that for the politicians!
Saying it is compliant without having it tested (by the NMRA) might incur the risk of trading standards action if any defect was later found (and if they haven't tested it and it is a new design rather than something bought in from an existing DCC supplier then there is a significant risk that something is not quite right). The wishy washy "designed to be" avoids this possibility.
So the clear statement would be to go and get it tested, or at least announce that testing was in progress. However they are likely to feel that their dominance in the UK market means that they needn't bother --- if there is a compatibility problem with xyz's decoder, that is xyz's problem not Hornby's.
Saying it is compliant without having it tested (by the NMRA) might incur the risk of trading standards action if any defect was later found (and if they haven't tested it and it is a new design rather than something bought in from an existing DCC supplier then there is a significant risk that something is not quite right). The wishy washy "designed to be" avoids this possibility.
So the clear statement would be to go and get it tested, or at least announce that testing was in progress. However they are likely to feel that their dominance in the UK market means that they needn't bother --- if there is a compatibility problem with xyz's decoder, that is xyz's problem not Hornby's.
Not sure if I'm coming back in at the right place but I'll clarify by saying I ran a loco fitted with a TCS decoder using a Select...I didn't try programming - I'll do so to see what results I come up with. Decoder programming is the area where people have most problems - Digitrax equipment operates a programming track at a different voltage (IIRC lower) which means that there can be difficulties with other decoder brands. I know someone who had this problem with a Bachmann Jinty.
Thinking again about this, I'd say that this statement sums up the compatabilty/compliance issue
"A decoder from Brand A that complies with the NMRA Standards will be compatible with DCC equipment from Brand B that complies with the NMRA Standards"
My 'Select' observation is that it's possible to set a high decelleration inertia value - the speed control knob can be returned to zero leaving the loco running around the track with absolutely no way of stopping it until the inertia has run its course! Just what is the point of that?
Rgds
Rick
Thinking again about this, I'd say that this statement sums up the compatabilty/compliance issue
"A decoder from Brand A that complies with the NMRA Standards will be compatible with DCC equipment from Brand B that complies with the NMRA Standards"
My 'Select' observation is that it's possible to set a high decelleration inertia value - the speed control knob can be returned to zero leaving the loco running around the track with absolutely no way of stopping it until the inertia has run its course! Just what is the point of that?
Rgds
Rick
IKB:
Many thanks . This is at least some first hand facts, and pins down any potential TCS decoder issue to the programming area. (The original email was of course vague as to what the issue might be). We'll await your findings on programming TCS decoders using the Select with interest
"Digitrax equipment operates a programming track at a different voltage (IIRC lower) which means that there can be difficulties with other decoder brands". So in theory Digitrax systems could also have a problem with other people's decoders - yet nobody would suggest Digitrax "is not NMRA compatible" or "doesn't work"
I agree that excessive inertias that you can't turn off looks like an undesirable feature. I suppose we need to distinguish clearly between the question of whether the Select works with other DCC and the question of whether its features/quirks are attractive and useful
Many thanks . This is at least some first hand facts, and pins down any potential TCS decoder issue to the programming area. (The original email was of course vague as to what the issue might be). We'll await your findings on programming TCS decoders using the Select with interest
"Digitrax equipment operates a programming track at a different voltage (IIRC lower) which means that there can be difficulties with other decoder brands". So in theory Digitrax systems could also have a problem with other people's decoders - yet nobody would suggest Digitrax "is not NMRA compatible" or "doesn't work"
I agree that excessive inertias that you can't turn off looks like an undesirable feature. I suppose we need to distinguish clearly between the question of whether the Select works with other DCC and the question of whether its features/quirks are attractive and useful
QUOTE (IKB47484 @ 26 Nov 2006, 15:15) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Just what is the point of that?
How long would it take the prototype to stop?
How long would it take the prototype to stop?
Joined
·
16 Posts
QUOTE (Mark Thornton @ 26 Nov 2006, 14:10) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>NMRA conformance requires compliance with both the standards and all applicable reccomended practices. I rather doubt that the Select complies with RP 9.2.1 in respect of address partitioning..
I'm afraid that this looks like here we go again It seesm like an assertion with no evidence. Why do you "rather doubt that the Select complies with RP 9.2.1 in respect of address partitioning"?
Is anyone going to answer Gary's simple question?
I'm afraid that this looks like here we go again It seesm like an assertion with no evidence. Why do you "rather doubt that the Select complies with RP 9.2.1 in respect of address partitioning"?
Is anyone going to answer Gary's simple question?
QUOTE (Beerhunter @ 26 Nov 2006, 17:53) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm afraid that this looks like here we go again It seesm like an assertion with no evidence. Why do you "rather doubt that the Select complies with RP 9.2.1 in respect of address partitioning"?
There are two pieces of evidence, 1) the Hornby description of the Select functionality where it mentions using addresses upto 60 (59?) for locos, and addresses above that for static decoders; 2) RP 9.2.1 on the NMRA web site. Then you have to decide if these two can be reconciled.
Did you read RP 9.2.1? It reserves addresses up to 127 for multifunction decoders and another address range for static decoders. It is hard to reconcile this with Hornby's use of addresses from 60 to 99 for things like turnout decoders. Now they could map those numbers onto the proper range (the standard only seems to apply to what is on the bus and not the number seen by the user), it would at the very least be very confusing when attempting to interoperate with other equipment. Admittedly the Roco multimouse did something similar (using loco addresses for static decoders), but that doesn't make it right.
Ultimately though, only the NMRA themselves could say if this was an acceptable practice or not.
There are two pieces of evidence, 1) the Hornby description of the Select functionality where it mentions using addresses upto 60 (59?) for locos, and addresses above that for static decoders; 2) RP 9.2.1 on the NMRA web site. Then you have to decide if these two can be reconciled.
Did you read RP 9.2.1? It reserves addresses up to 127 for multifunction decoders and another address range for static decoders. It is hard to reconcile this with Hornby's use of addresses from 60 to 99 for things like turnout decoders. Now they could map those numbers onto the proper range (the standard only seems to apply to what is on the bus and not the number seen by the user), it would at the very least be very confusing when attempting to interoperate with other equipment. Admittedly the Roco multimouse did something similar (using loco addresses for static decoders), but that doesn't make it right.
Ultimately though, only the NMRA themselves could say if this was an acceptable practice or not.
I have been watching from afar as I am a DCC user of ZTC and I think I may have some input they may help.
ZTC (from their website) "All of our products are designed and manufactured in the UK and have and will remain fully compatible with the existing ZTC equipment and other NMRA compliant DCC manufacturers' products."
I think this means the same as Hornby's statement and I have no trouble with Decoders or addressing or such. Yes it is a high end system but works with other manufactures decoders, I have Zimo and ZTC decoders and no problems with either. ZTC also do 4 wire 8 pin decoders for basic steam loco's that don't need functions, I have one in a Hornby Fowler and does the job very well.
2 digit addressing may be a pain for some (I use it as I don't have enough loco's to go over to 4 digits yet) but as the Hornby system can cope with 60, it should be fine for most user's (not around when I made my choice but I would have given it a go at the price).
I think the best course of action is for this discussion to be parked until we get a full review by a mag or individual and then come back to it and update everyone and then lock it so we don't get "we told you so" replies. Nothing to gain from that.
Darren
ZTC (from their website) "All of our products are designed and manufactured in the UK and have and will remain fully compatible with the existing ZTC equipment and other NMRA compliant DCC manufacturers' products."
I think this means the same as Hornby's statement and I have no trouble with Decoders or addressing or such. Yes it is a high end system but works with other manufactures decoders, I have Zimo and ZTC decoders and no problems with either. ZTC also do 4 wire 8 pin decoders for basic steam loco's that don't need functions, I have one in a Hornby Fowler and does the job very well.
2 digit addressing may be a pain for some (I use it as I don't have enough loco's to go over to 4 digits yet) but as the Hornby system can cope with 60, it should be fine for most user's (not around when I made my choice but I would have given it a go at the price).
I think the best course of action is for this discussion to be parked until we get a full review by a mag or individual and then come back to it and update everyone and then lock it so we don't get "we told you so" replies. Nothing to gain from that.
Darren
QUOTE Now they could map those numbers onto the proper range (the standard only seems to apply to what is on the bus and not the number seen by the user)
Surely all consoles that claim to be able to address 9999 locomotives directly (or whatever) have to map as they have to bypass the partition for the extended address?
Ditto those that claim to be able to adress 9999 accessories directly?
QUOTE Ultimately though, only the NMRA themselves could say if this was an acceptable practice or not
It appears to be an accepted practice.
QUOTE I think the best course of action is for this discussion to be parked until we get a full review by a mag or individual
How do others feel about this idea?
Happy modelling
Gary
Surely all consoles that claim to be able to address 9999 locomotives directly (or whatever) have to map as they have to bypass the partition for the extended address?
Ditto those that claim to be able to adress 9999 accessories directly?
QUOTE Ultimately though, only the NMRA themselves could say if this was an acceptable practice or not
It appears to be an accepted practice.
QUOTE I think the best course of action is for this discussion to be parked until we get a full review by a mag or individual
How do others feel about this idea?
Happy modelling
Gary
Joined
·
8,102 Posts
QUOTE I think the best course of action is for this discussion to be parked until we get a full review by a mag or individual
How do others feel about this idea?
Please please please.
![]()
How do others feel about this idea?
Please please please.
QUOTE (Gary @ 26 Nov 2006, 21:37) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Surely all consoles that claim to be able to address 9999 locomotives directly (or whatever) have to map as they have to bypass the partition for the extended address?
The RPs cover this. Numbers in the range 1-99 should be handled as 'short' addresses, those >127 are of course long addresses, and for 100-127 there seems to be some dispute (I think Lenz treat them as extended, which isn't how I would read the RP).
Unfortunately the very limited documentation available on the Select doesn't give much indication as to how the accessory addresses are being handled. So we don't know, for example, if a layout setup with addresses for a Select could also be controlled by a Compact (without readdressing the accessory decoders). Or to what extent a Compact could be used as a walk around for a Select or vice versa.
The RPs cover this. Numbers in the range 1-99 should be handled as 'short' addresses, those >127 are of course long addresses, and for 100-127 there seems to be some dispute (I think Lenz treat them as extended, which isn't how I would read the RP).
Unfortunately the very limited documentation available on the Select doesn't give much indication as to how the accessory addresses are being handled. So we don't know, for example, if a layout setup with addresses for a Select could also be controlled by a Compact (without readdressing the accessory decoders). Or to what extent a Compact could be used as a walk around for a Select or vice versa.
Joined
·
2,783 Posts
QUOTE (Gary @ 27 Nov 2006, 07:37) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Surely all consoles that claim to be able to address 9999 locomotives directly (or whatever) have to map as they have to bypass the partition for the extended address?
Ditto those that claim to be able to adress 9999 accessories directly?
It appears to be an accepted practice.
How do others feel about this idea?
Happy modelling
Gary
Gary,
Systems which operate 9999 addresses are those which I have continually referred to on this thread as '4 digit systems' because that it what they are. 4 digit systems generally don't bother with 2 digit addressing or thresholds - thechnology has moved on so as not to require such complications. They simply output a two byte addresses which contain a 1 to 9999 contiguous address range.
Some systems (I thing NCE does it) will perform two digit addressing if you type in 23 or 4 digit addressing if you type in 0023.
As I and others have said in this thread, two digit technology is obsolete. The global market hasn't used it for between 5 and 10 years now. Only the UK seems to be trying to hang on to it!
Why do you think 4 digits was introduced ? Do you not think it had something to do with technology moving forward and people wanting better systems ?
Following on from some of your previous comments, I think there is some misunderstanding on the viewpoints being put forward.
I think that all of the serious DCC'ers here are in agreement that there is definately a place for entry level DCC systems. I think we all agree that the type of user who wants such a system (and one that just simply works with no fuss and bother and no need to concern oneself with technicalities) is by far in the majority within the hobby. Entry level systems definately offer the opportunity for people to get into DCC in a simple and affordable way.
Where we are in disagreement is the actual products.
For those who have concerns about DCC being a technological mess, you need not have such concerns. On a global scale (ie outside of the UK), DCC is now stable, it is reliable and compatibility has been the norm for quite a number of years. You can pretty much buy any (trackside) component from any manufacturer and mix and match.
One of the key drivers of this was the move from 2 digit to 4 digit addressing between 5 and 10 years ago.
Unfortunately, we have two UK manufacturers who have muddied the waters by introducing products which use obsolete technology which in turn, has the effect of re-introducing all the compatibility issues we used to have in the early days of DCC. They are adopting obsolete standards. This is a very short sighted approach which is very likely to backfire and give some users a bad impression of DCC when they find they have compatibility and upgrade problems because they bought the wrong product.
It is very easy to retort to the DCC'ers that such issues don't matter, but in the end they do matter and can become costly mistakes. I for one would not purchase a system which put a relatively low limit on my loco stud size and limited me to 2 digit decoders because I know that I will have to replace all those decoders if I ever upgrade to a proper DCC system. I'd far rather have an entry level system which was compatible with high-end systems.
There are several entry level products available from other manufacturers such as the Roco LokMaus and Gaugemaster/MRC Prodigy. These products offer an entry level solution at an affordable price and use 4 digit technology which is the accepted norm on the global stage. Personally, I have used the Gaugemaster. It is quite easy to use and I happen to like the handsets. It is certainly a good starter system.
I think Hornby should drop Select and make Elite its entry-level product. Although limited to (an arbitrary limit) 500 addresses, I am advised by Hornby that it does output 4 digit addressing all the time, even in the 0-99 range, so it should not suffer the compatibility issues of Select. As you quoted, it has a number of Lenz compatibility features and a computer interface as well. This is a much better system.
If you are going to stick with your Select forever more, are not likely to expand your loco stud beyond Select's limits, you're not going to run your locos on other people's DCC layouts and they are not going to run their DCC locos on your DCC layout, then Select is the product for you.
However, as many of us have pointed out, the reality is that locos do move between layouts and users of such systems quickly find out what the limitations of their systems are when they try to operate with other users and other systems.
I'm not really sure what else the DCC'ers in this group can say. All of the relevant points have been made in a clear and concise manner. We're all here to help and advise.
What I will say is: please don't ask us for advice, only to ignore it and go and purchase the product you had already decided on before asking for advice and then complain and accuse us of techno-bable unfounded arguements when you have compatibility problems and find that what we told you was in fact correct!
It is better to ask for advice first, _then_ go and purchase!
Interesting that some refer to ZTC as a 'high end system'. I don't know how it can be called this when it doesn't (please correct me) support feedback. It has always struck me as being a low middle range product with many reliability problems (locos taking off randomly, lights going the wrong way when a train stops etc) masquerading at a high end price!
Graham Plowman
Ditto those that claim to be able to adress 9999 accessories directly?
It appears to be an accepted practice.
How do others feel about this idea?
Happy modelling
Gary
Gary,
Systems which operate 9999 addresses are those which I have continually referred to on this thread as '4 digit systems' because that it what they are. 4 digit systems generally don't bother with 2 digit addressing or thresholds - thechnology has moved on so as not to require such complications. They simply output a two byte addresses which contain a 1 to 9999 contiguous address range.
Some systems (I thing NCE does it) will perform two digit addressing if you type in 23 or 4 digit addressing if you type in 0023.
As I and others have said in this thread, two digit technology is obsolete. The global market hasn't used it for between 5 and 10 years now. Only the UK seems to be trying to hang on to it!
Why do you think 4 digits was introduced ? Do you not think it had something to do with technology moving forward and people wanting better systems ?
Following on from some of your previous comments, I think there is some misunderstanding on the viewpoints being put forward.
I think that all of the serious DCC'ers here are in agreement that there is definately a place for entry level DCC systems. I think we all agree that the type of user who wants such a system (and one that just simply works with no fuss and bother and no need to concern oneself with technicalities) is by far in the majority within the hobby. Entry level systems definately offer the opportunity for people to get into DCC in a simple and affordable way.
Where we are in disagreement is the actual products.
For those who have concerns about DCC being a technological mess, you need not have such concerns. On a global scale (ie outside of the UK), DCC is now stable, it is reliable and compatibility has been the norm for quite a number of years. You can pretty much buy any (trackside) component from any manufacturer and mix and match.
One of the key drivers of this was the move from 2 digit to 4 digit addressing between 5 and 10 years ago.
Unfortunately, we have two UK manufacturers who have muddied the waters by introducing products which use obsolete technology which in turn, has the effect of re-introducing all the compatibility issues we used to have in the early days of DCC. They are adopting obsolete standards. This is a very short sighted approach which is very likely to backfire and give some users a bad impression of DCC when they find they have compatibility and upgrade problems because they bought the wrong product.
It is very easy to retort to the DCC'ers that such issues don't matter, but in the end they do matter and can become costly mistakes. I for one would not purchase a system which put a relatively low limit on my loco stud size and limited me to 2 digit decoders because I know that I will have to replace all those decoders if I ever upgrade to a proper DCC system. I'd far rather have an entry level system which was compatible with high-end systems.
There are several entry level products available from other manufacturers such as the Roco LokMaus and Gaugemaster/MRC Prodigy. These products offer an entry level solution at an affordable price and use 4 digit technology which is the accepted norm on the global stage. Personally, I have used the Gaugemaster. It is quite easy to use and I happen to like the handsets. It is certainly a good starter system.
I think Hornby should drop Select and make Elite its entry-level product. Although limited to (an arbitrary limit) 500 addresses, I am advised by Hornby that it does output 4 digit addressing all the time, even in the 0-99 range, so it should not suffer the compatibility issues of Select. As you quoted, it has a number of Lenz compatibility features and a computer interface as well. This is a much better system.
If you are going to stick with your Select forever more, are not likely to expand your loco stud beyond Select's limits, you're not going to run your locos on other people's DCC layouts and they are not going to run their DCC locos on your DCC layout, then Select is the product for you.
However, as many of us have pointed out, the reality is that locos do move between layouts and users of such systems quickly find out what the limitations of their systems are when they try to operate with other users and other systems.
I'm not really sure what else the DCC'ers in this group can say. All of the relevant points have been made in a clear and concise manner. We're all here to help and advise.
What I will say is: please don't ask us for advice, only to ignore it and go and purchase the product you had already decided on before asking for advice and then complain and accuse us of techno-bable unfounded arguements when you have compatibility problems and find that what we told you was in fact correct!
It is better to ask for advice first, _then_ go and purchase!
Interesting that some refer to ZTC as a 'high end system'. I don't know how it can be called this when it doesn't (please correct me) support feedback. It has always struck me as being a low middle range product with many reliability problems (locos taking off randomly, lights going the wrong way when a train stops etc) masquerading at a high end price!
Graham Plowman
Joined
·
5,345 Posts
I think that Graham's post wraps up this subject - at least for a while. I suggest that we change topic, open the windows and air the debating room.
Lets calm down, collect out thoughts and perhaps look at some of these products under discussion a bit closer before continuing.
If anyone has anything substantial and positive to add, please PM me to re-open the topic.
Lets calm down, collect out thoughts and perhaps look at some of these products under discussion a bit closer before continuing.
If anyone has anything substantial and positive to add, please PM me to re-open the topic.
101 - 116 of 116 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
