[Gordon H]

It seems rather pointless having this forum if the topics keep being closed before anyone can come back with a comment.

I can only participate during lunchtimes, and to find a topic I raised closed by the next time I can get to see it is very annoying and frustrating.

All I was suggesting was that manufacturers ought to publish which aspects of the standards their products support so that people with sufficient knowledge could make a judgement. So what if the majority of the public don't understand how to interpret specifications? Some of us do, and those who don't can choose to ignore them. If manufacturers are reluctant to provide this information it might imply they feel they have something to hide. Just a list of supported features would be better than nothing if they are reluctant to state what they have left out - we can work that out for ourselves.
It is not merely a matter of stating whether a piece of kit is compatible with NMRA standards - we need to know which aspects of the standards are included (or not) because some are mandatory and some are not. For example, taking the standards literally, any system which does not include baseline addressing ('2 digit' as most will know it) is not compatible with the standard because that capability is mandatory (or at least it was last time I looked). Same applies to certain CV programming modes.
Waiting for a particular exhibition isn't really going to clarify matters much either - we need the information in advance so that relevant questions can be asked at the event.
No doubt my comments here might appear to some to put me into the category of what some people would call a 'self-appointed expert'. Just for the record then, my active involvement with DCC started back in 1998 when I designed my own Command Station from scratch, just using the NMRA Standards and RP documents. Come and see me using it on the MERG stand at Warley if you like, this weekend.
Having gone through the process myself of deciding which of the available features to include in my system, I respectfully suggest that I am in a rather better position than most to interpret what other manufacturers have implemented - if only they'd tell us!

 

[Doug]

Gordon, the topics were closed for other reasons, not for anything you said. If you look at the threaded arguments going through the closed topics you may pick up why they were shut.

We welcome any constructive comment on any subject. Also it's great to have you hear with your hands-on experience. I'm very keen on what MERG collectively produce.

 

[Gordon H]

QUOTE (Doug @ 29 Nov 2006, 13:18) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Gordon, the topics were closed for other reasons, not for anything you said. If you look at the threaded arguments going through the closed topics you may pick up why they were shut.

We welcome any constructive comment on any subject. Also it's great to have you hear with your hands-on experience. I'm very keen on what MERG collectively produce.
Thanks for that. I realise it is difficult in such a situation to discern the 'worth' (for want of a better term) of any postings, hence my reluctant inclusion of a bit of background.
Hopefully we will be able to persuade the manufacturers that production of relevant specification material (not just salesman's hype) is a worthwhile pursuit. As in most industries, I suspect that the people who write the stuff we get to see are salesmen rather than engineers. What we really need to see are the back pages of the user guides, not glossy brochures!
If the intention is merely to get people talking about the kit to raise awareness, it seems to backfire very badly once the ill-informed speculation starts. That's not to say it is all bad information, intentionally or otherwise - it's just unsubstantiated. All this could be avoided by providing a few of the relevant facts up front, and there seems to be no obvious reason why this couldn't be done.

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (Gordon H @ 30 Nov 2006, 00:44) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thanks for that. I realise it is difficult in such a situation to discern the 'worth' (for want of a better term) of any postings, hence my reluctant inclusion of a bit of background.
Hopefully we will be able to persuade the manufacturers that production of relevant specification material (not just salesman's hype) is a worthwhile pursuit. As in most industries, I suspect that the people who write the stuff we get to see are salesmen rather than engineers. What we really need to see are the back pages of the user guides, not glossy brochures!
If the intention is merely to get people talking about the kit to raise awareness, it seems to backfire very badly once the ill-informed speculation starts. That's not to say it is all bad information, intentionally or otherwise - it's just unsubstantiated. All this could be avoided by providing a few of the relevant facts up front, and there seems to be no obvious reason why this couldn't be done.
The lack of information is what is really fueling the speculation. If more information from the manufacturer was forthcoming it would put an end to it. Unfortunately the tendency is for people to bridge the information gap with their suspicions or bias rather than hard facts.

Most manufacturers you'd have thought would go out of their way to publicise what their system can do. The Ecos and new Viessmann products are highly spec'ed and have quite a bit of information on their spec's and capabilities. If a manufacturer is going quiet you know there is something wrong.

As Doug said if you look at the previous threads on the Hornby Select you can see why any DCC thread is closed down immediately. I would ignore the "self appointed experts" comment as the individual who made this remark will not accept any source of information other then Hornby as factual and gets incredibly defensive where Hornby are concerned. Don't take it personally. Anyone who disagrees with him falls into this category.

QUOTE As in most industries, I suspect that the people who write the stuff we get to see are salesmen rather than engineers
You got that right. My suspicion in this case is that they had a say in the design too.

QUOTE Just for the record then, my active involvement with DCC started back in 1998 when I designed my own Command Station from scratch, just using the NMRA Standards and RP documents. Come and see me using it on the MERG stand at Warley if you like, this weekend.
Having gone through the process myself of deciding which of the available features to include in my system, I respectfully suggest that I am in a rather better position than most to interpret what other manufacturers have implemented - if only they'd tell us!
In my opinion that would make you an expert. I'd be interested to hear your views on some of the current DCC command stations available?

Any views or preferences you'd like to share with us?

 

[dwb]

>In my opinion that would make you an expert.
I second that.

>Most manufacturers you'd have thought would go out of their way to publicise what their system can do.
There is an interesting "side swipe" on the Zimo site something along the lines of "We haven't put that feature in a decoder since the last century" Ouch!

David

 

[Ozzie21]

There's a ton of information out there on DCC, some good and some bad and most of it from the US. I think the major problem was that the UK market took so long to decide wether to bother with DCC after the Hornby debacle with Zero1. Now it's here big time, your being swamped with information and DCC equipment and belive it or not the same old arguments are coming up as they did in the US and here in Oz, "why should i change", " I have a hundred locos how can i chip them all" , "It's to expensive" etc. and the big one "I don't understand it" You don't really have to understand how it all works just that if you follow a few simple instructions and have wired up a DC layout then a DCC layout is a snap. I used to have layout with cab control, 6 cabs, using up to 25 rotary switches to get around the layout and diode route matrix to select points for the yard routes. I think I used about 4klms of wiring including signaling and the panels. I remember the night I first saw DCC, Lenz, in operation and I looked under this fellows layout to see his wiring as his layout was similar size to mine, 36'x16'. Imagine my suprise at the how simple wiring loom was.

The thing I see with DCC after 20yrs of it is that it can be as simple or as complicated as you want it. I think we should give the NRMA and Bernard Lenz a big thumbs up for what they've given the hobby because if it it gone the other way it would be helluva of a lt more complicated.

Ozzie21

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE The thing I see with DCC after 20yrs of it is that it can be as simple or as complicated as you want it. I think we should give the NRMA and Bernard Lenz a big thumbs up for what they've given the hobby because if it it gone the other way it would be helluva of a lt more complicated.
I would second that

 

[Brian Considine]

QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 29 Nov 2006, 23:20) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I would second that

Me too.

 

[Gordon H]

QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 29 Nov 2006, 21:54) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I would ignore the "self appointed experts" comment as the individual who made this remark will not accept any source of information other then Hornby as factual and gets incredibly defensive where Hornby are concerned.
There was a time when I too regarded whatever a manufacturer said as 'gospel'. Fortunately I am now in a position to know somewhat better in many cases. The problem that manufacturers have is how to minimise comeback from their customers who might want to do things the manufacturers would find awkward to explain in layman's terms. Sad to say, but the general public are rather ignorant on technical matters these days, so it is much easier for a manufacturer to avoid the subject - or specify a minimum level of capability to avoid awkward questions.
Much of what has been discussed regarding the capabilities of these systems is only down to the software created for them anyway - once you have a sufficient level of knobs and switches on your kit, what it produces at the output is down to the effort put in to writing the code to make it do all the things you think you need. This happened when I was designing my own system - I wanted to add Advanced Consisting, so I wrote some extra code to interpret the way the buttons were pressed on the handset and produce the required set of output packets to the track. Any manufacturer could do the same if they choose to add features.

QUOTE I'd be interested to hear your views on some of the current DCC command stations available?

Any views or preferences you'd like to share with us?

I get asked this quite often, but because most of what I do is based on my own (and others) designs, I don't have much experience of commercial command stations. Also, it is only fairly recently that I have started using commercial decoders, most of my previous efforts having been based on Mike Bolton's MERG designs. Nowadays, unless there is a good technical reason for needing a 'special', it is usually not cost effective to build decoders yourself.

However, as a general rule, given the option between Digitrax and Lenz I would go for Lenz. This is for a number of reasons - first and foremost being that it was Berndt Lenz's original concept. Beyond that, I was less than happy with Digitrax's response to some queries I made a few years back regarding how their decoders respond when using Advanced Consisting. Their response was not to use that method. The fact that by a strict interpretation of the standards their decoders gave an 'Ack' response when they shouldn't didn't seem to worry them. Lenz decoders did not exhibit the same problem.
All water long gone under the bridge, but the die was cast...

 

[7113]

Sorry to appear completely dense, but who or what are MERG?

Regards

John

 

[Gordon H]

QUOTE (BRITHO @ 30 Nov 2006, 15:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Sorry to appear completely dense, but who or what are MERG?
The Model Electronic Railway Group

See http://www.merg.org.uk

or come and see us at Warley over the weekend!

 

[7113]

QUOTE (Gordon H @ 30 Nov 2006, 15:45) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The Model Electronic Railway Group

Thank you.............now several other posts make sense.

Regards

John

 

[neil_s_wood]

Thanks for the info Gordon. Have you seen or have any views on the ESU Ecos?

 

[Gordon H]

QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 1 Dec 2006, 00:25) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thanks for the info Gordon. Have you seen or have any views on the ESU Ecos?

Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to do any investigation at Warley because our stand was so busy.

 

[Gary]

I didn't get the chance to say hi because your stand was so busy even with 6 members in attendance. From what I saw though if you have any interest in model railway electronics then you would be crazy not to join MERG!

We sometimes forget that railway modelling electronics is not just about DCC but also about DC. MERG covers both.

Maybe Model Rail Forum should open a "model railway electrics" section?

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE Maybe Model Rail Forum should open a "model railway electrics" section?
Thats a good idea.

 

[Gordon H]

QUOTE (Gary @ 5 Dec 2006, 13:44) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>We sometimes forget that railway modelling electronics is not just about DCC but also about DC. MERG covers both.
It is unfortunate that many now seem to see a dividing line separating DCC from all other techniques. In simple terms, DCC is still two conductors passing current down the track to a loco, same as it ever was. In reality, DCC is merely another technique to be applied where it brings the benefits it was designed for. For traction and other loco on-board controls it is hard to beat. Trackside accessory control is rather less clear cut in this regard. I tend to go for a combination of the most suitable techniques for each case.