Great System Comparison Video

Bruce,

Thank you for a very informative video on the Digitrax and NCE systems.  It would really be great if you could do another video on the Lenz and Easy DCC systems. 

I look forward to your column every month as I am in the process of switching from DC to DCC.  Thanks again.

John

Agreed on including other systems

I was disappointed to see only the "Big Two" covered in detail in this article.  I understand the reasoning if Bruce isn't familiar with Lenz and Easy DCC, but as much as I appreciate and respect MRH and its staff, I think it might have been more fair to the manufacturers, and your readers, to attempt to locate a co-author who could include views on the other systems.

I've been an elated Lenz user for 14 years, and have never had a problem with any language issues.  In fact, I don't even recall anything in the manual being in German, which may speak not only for the quality of their manual, but for the quality of the system - since I can't recall the last time I had to open the manual.  My Lenz system has been problem-free since the day I installed it in about 1998.

I've always been surprised that Lenz hasn't caught on more, but I'm guessing it must be due to their lack of an integrated wireless throttle offering.  No problem there, because CVP's wireless throttle system works perfectly and seamlessly for Lenz.  I think the two companies would be doing each other a huge favor to co-market their products.

I agree with Joe

Like Joe Atkinson I was disappointed with the article. Usually Lenz barely gets mentioned and seeing Lenz as the lead product being reviewed I was exited - then dissapointed in its dismissal. How is this article any different from so many MRR articles? The article's title leads one to believe Petrarca will compare DCC systems, not just the two he's familiar with. A better title would have been," DCC Impules: Choosing between Digitrax and NCE?"

Rob Carignan

Portland, Maine

Another Great Article

Thanks Bruce for another very helpful article.  You very succinctly put all of the relevant information in a nicely organized format.  Keep them coming.

Joe

dcc

I agree with Joe A. I have never seen a language problem with lenz( I have been using one for 10+ years) I would have liked to have seen more info on other systems.

John

Guys, this is part 1

Thanks

Thanks Joe, but the last paragraph, "Part two in October" only mentions digging deeper into the system. That leaves me with the impression that the second half will be about how DCC works or how Digitrax and NCE are used to set CVs.

Rob Carignan

Gotta say "huh"

 I haven't been terribly active here lately, but I do read every issue, still love the whole thing, definitely the best quality general model railroad magazine out there. Glad to see it has continued to prosper.

However, I must take exception at some of Bruce's statements in this review. Especially because with Bruce's experience, I think he knows better. The big one "If you are looking for the building blocks to a larger system, a Zephyr is a bit of a dead end" Perhaps there were limits of article space that caused some explanation to be left out, because surely some is needed. Just like the PowerCab, a Zephyr Xtra can be plugged in to a larger Digitrax system and not only have access to the throttle, but the 3 amp power output is ALSO useable - that's actually one feature point above the PowerCab. But I feel like I must be preaching to the choir, I'm SURE this isn't news to Bruce.

 Not to mention with the capacity for 20 throttles and 20 locos it can run a fairly significant layout, as is, out of the box - with perhaps a little help from some extra boosters like the nifty Tam Valley units.

I've posted before about my experience programming even sound decoders, both with my Zephyr and with the PR3 - no boosters, no blast mode. That seems to be an individual thing, some people it works for, some people it does not. Really do wish I could figure out what I do differently than others that they could try and see if it works. I'll leave that go, because people do genuinely have issues with this - although for it to not work in Blast ode really would boggle my mind, since it puts full power to the program track, like a DB150 or other systems that do not have dedicated low power program tracks.

 I had really high hopes when I saw the cover - because so many of the DCC system comparisons you find on the Internet are either old and outdated, or have incorrect info (or both, often), or are the work of one specific manufacturer. A current comparison, done by someone who has long DCC experience and is well-respected in the DCC community, it long overdue. Let's just keep it accurate and responsible.

 Sour grapes? You might say that, but I think not. True, I am a die-hard Digitrax fanatic. I make no secret of it. However, if I were to EVER use anything else, it would be NCE. Digitrax won out for me oh so many years ago for one reason: Loconet, and the huge range of third party commercial and DIY accessories for it.

                   --Randy 

"The Others"

Guys, I don't work from what I think should be. I TRY to work from what I know. I thought I laid out the ground work pretty well in the article. So, I'll try again.

I believe I explained pretty well that, while I like a lot of things about the Lenz system and have sold and worked with a BUNCH of them over the years, I don't have the day-to-day experience to do an analysis justice.

Easy DCC is always problematic. They don't have dealer pricing. When I owned Litchfield Station, I asked about selling their system and was told that I could get a 5% price break if I purchased 10 systems. That is a deal killer, when credit card discounts run 2 to 3%. Then users ask why dealers and such don't support them or compare them. I personally have only programmed a loco on Easy DCC once and that was when I was a guest at an operating session and the owner asked me to fix a problem. I've operated on a half dozen layouts (all out of town) that use Easy DCC. Sorry, but I ain't gonna use that level of understanding to make any comment, positive or negative. The only comment I can make about them is that I don't like the ergonomics of their throttles, either when used with their own system or with Lenz radio. But that is personal. Others may feel differently. That's why I say to take them for a long test drive!

Joe Fugate was incorrect in his post above. Rob is correct. Part 2 goes into what's "under the hood" on the same two manufacturers. If there is someone who has enough experience with the other brands to do a similar article for them, I'm sure Joe would welcome it.

I am sorry to disappoint!

Randy

I perhaps said things too tersely.

I pointed out 20 throttles and 20 locos for the Zephyr Xtra.

My point of comparison was that the PowerCab is a HANDHELD throttle usable on any NCE system. The Zephyr is a box, not a hand held. My point was, if you exceeded the 20 / 20 limitation of the Zephyr Xtra command system, then there wasn't a lot of use for the Zephyr box on your expanded layout, beyond a yard throttle and booster.

Blast mode is available on

Blast mode is available on most DCC systems, just PROGRAM ON THE MAIN, using address 0.

But you cannot readback!

NCE Intermediate cabs throw turnouts

I stand corrected. There are ways to throw turnouts (access stationary decoders) with NCE Intermediate cabs other than the Cab06.

However, using cabs other than the Cab06, requires programming, so their use will be layout specific. The Cab06 comes from the factoy programmed to do so, so will be more universal.

Sorry for any confusion.

Misunderstanding -- and comments on EasyDCC / Lenz

Bruce:

I misunderstood what part 2 was to be about, sorry.

EASYDCC AND LENZ

I've owned both Lenz and EasyDCC, but that was 12 years ago for Lenz and 5 years ago for EasyDCC. So any opinions I may have on them could be a bit dated.

As to user interface, I prefer EasyDCC over Lenz. Not that Lenz is bad mind you, but my bellweather feature is consisting. How a system manages consists is a deal breaker for me.

EasyDCC was the most flexible for consisting but not as flexible as my current NCE system is. I also find the EasyDCC's two throttle base station is a bit dated now. These throttles on my layout got maybe 20 hours of use total, mostly to test a loco I just programmed.

I originally went with Lenz and used it for 7 years. However, I wanted wireless and at the time (circa 2000) EasyDCC had the most mature wireless capability. I will say EasyDCC's wireless is rock solid and performed well for me. However, it was costly to expand beyond 8 wireless throttles. I moved to NCE because their system allows more wireless throttles, and I liked the new double-ended consisting feature of NCE.

Lenz was a good system - in fact I'm still using my original Lenz boosters - used them with the EasyDCC system and now I use them with my NCE system. They're going on 20 years old and still going strong. Lenz still doesn't really have a good wireless option - I don't consider their wireless phone option to be something I'm that interested in using.

I prefer a throttle with a nice knob and one-hit to change direction forward/reverse switch. Lenz's keypad throttle is okay, and I find the key sequences on their LH90 throttle to be less-than-intuitive. They tried to reduce the number of keys on the throttle to make it look less intimidating and all they ended up doing was making the key presses needed to do things harder to remember.

There's something to be said about a system that has a button labeled "select loco" to select the loco you want (that's not what Lenz does). The Lenz LH90 throttle uses a loco memory stack that you need to use the A (check) and the (up arrow) plus keys to manipulate. Somehow "select loco" seems a lot easier.

We need to all say a very hearty thank you to Lenz, however. It was their generosity to the hobby that got us the DCC standard. It was their invention and donating it to the NMRA was an excellent and noble gesture. Lenz's "goof proof" replacement policy on their decoders is one of the best in the hobby. I've personally taken advantage of this policy myself.

Lenz consisting and wireless

Joe, I can't speak for the LH90s, because I don't use any Lenz throttles for operation, but on the LH100 I use for programming, as well as on the CVP wireless throttles I use for operation, Lenz only requires you to press "#< locomotive number#" in order to acquire a unit.  I never use the stack info.  To add a locomotive to a consist, you acquire the unit, press F-3 for MU mode, and then press "+" to add to a consist.  You then give it the consist number and the direction of this unit, and you're done.  I don't mean to sound argumentative at all, but would just like to understand what it is about NCE's consisting that you like better.  I can't imagine the process being any simpler and still being able to provide the information that's necessary to build a consist, so I must be missing something.

As for Lenz's wireless, I don't even consider their cordless phone option.  If that was all they had, I'd have chosen another brand.  However, CVP's wireless system for Lenz integrates so seamlessly that it's like they're made by the same company.  It offers the features you mentioned wanting in a throttle ("nice knob and one-hit to change direction forward/reverse switch"), and has worked perfectly for me.  That's why I mentioned earlier that the two companies would do well to develop some sort of partnership to package CVP's wireless system with Lenz.

NCE consisting

NCE allows double-ended consisting. When you create a consist, you put in the lead and trailing locos numbers and their direction. Then you put in any other locos that are in the middle.

The result is the consist is a smart double-ended consist. If I select the loco number on one end, that becomes the front and all functions (headlight, horn) work the lead unit and forward is in reference to that unit. If I type in the loco number of the other end, that becomes the "front" and the headlight and horn affect that unit.

For a modern diesel-based layout that runs lots of loco lashups like I do, it's wonderful. I can run a turn and then when I get to the end of my run and am ready to run back - then the other end of the diesel lashup becomes the front - perfect!

That's how DCC ought to work - go beyond just rote consisting. After all, a DCC system is at its heart a computer, so why not make that computer do smart things for you like this beyond just poking values into CVs?

Consisting

Thanks Joe.  That's the same way Lenz works, except that "forward" isn't dependent on the unit acquired.  With Lenz, you specify the "forward" direction when you build the consist, and I always do it so that forward is to the right and backward to the left.  That way, the consist's movement is always oriented to the direction indicator lights on the throttle, regardless of what unit is acquired.  

With NCE, if the lead unit is running long hood forward (lazy hostlers, lost a unit enroute, nowhere to spin the leader, etc.), doesn't that then change the orientation of the consist?

Sounds like we both like our respective system's behavior the best, so life is good! 

Ditch the Buttonry Boondoggle already...

Yes, but it's high time we all realize a 1" x 3" digital display will never go further than poking CV values.  Has anyone taken a moment to look at what a calculator looked like in 1989 and we would hold such a design up as being "what DCC controllers should be?" 

Sorry, but the wireless "phone" IS the future route for throttles - and probably TV remotes and everything else remote too.  It should not be thought of as a "Smartphone," though, it is a Micro Computer, and as such, it's jsut a really powerful tool in a very small package!

Once you take this revolution into account, the differences between the various manufacturers' throttles and how each manufacturer things about ideas like consisting and CV interaction and even basis like how to select and dispatch a locomotive become moot points.  The Command Station that matters then is the one that offers the most connection points and is the easiest to interface with things like a PR-3 and a PC.  Any DCC manufacturer sticking money into their throttles right now is headed down the wrong road, it's a lost cause.  They'd be better off hiring APP programmers to build the best Ops App, and sell that program instead.  They will be in stiff competition with the apps already in existence, and perhaps there's already copyrights in place protecting the little guys who came out with the first wi-throttles.

To quote Yoda ...

That same old song

Agreed.  I can see the advantages to some of the GUI systems coming out these days, but we have to be careful not to equate "new" with "better."  Without commenting on the system as a whole, I really like the concept of the RailPro throttle - mechanical throttle and GUI in one unit.

Keeps coming back

First get to really understand and then specify the problem in all it's gory and important details. Only when that stage is truly complete, try to find a solution that solves it all in the "best" (your choice of cheapest/most practical/most convenient/whatever) way..

It's amazing how many "great" ideas turn out to be irrelevant, unnecessary or even negative, when you follow the process.

Aye, it is hazy...

But no, it's pretty clear...especially if you first look back, and then apply what we learn looking back going forward.

I should let you know I saw this future of the wi-throttle back between 2007 and 2008. It was poohed on because I was thinking in terms of the Nintendo DSI, and everybody could not fathom the DCC manufacturers producing the throttle, coding the software, and offering it on the market for anywhere near a reasonable price.  These people, though, were in a tunnel that stated the controller HAD to be made by a DCC manufacturer and the programming HAD to be done by a DCC manufacturer.  The technology I was invoking was way too advanced for our DCC manufacturers to afford, and they couldn't figure out how the physical button layout should look, and then ranted about how each generation would have to essentially be a whole new machine, so the DCC manufacturers would certainly NOT go down this road..

But then along came the iPhone later that year, followed a couple years late by the wi-throttle app...

I forsee that it will take as long for the present DCC population to start using a Smartphone instead of the Boondoggle, as it took for them to adopt DCC in the first place.  This means some people will be dragged into it kicking and screaming, but once they use it long enough to get used to it, it will be over.

The kickers will be the same kickers that got them into DCC in the first place:

1, The wi-throttle technology will so quickly outpace the button throttles in terms of capability that it will be like comparing DC versus DCC in terms of operability.  Refinement is merely a matter of programming, and programming is cheap [compared to making a physical object] for those who know how to do it.

3, The difference in price between the wi-throttle with software versus the button stick will be such that it make no $ense to buy the button stick.  In otherwords, people will not be able to afford the command station, PR-3 and 8 button sticks so all their friends can come over to play, but they will be able to afford the command station and the PR-3, and then use the devices most people will already own at that point - which will be the ubiquitious smart phone.

2, The alternative will be either too expensive or simply not exist any more.  A DT402D has a sticker price of $250 and it can only consist two locomotives at once.  Wi-throttle, first gen iPhones are $120 on the high end on ebay and the application costs $0.99.  And I can upgrade my software as it comes out. And as more people opt for the smart phone, less manufacturers will be making buttonsticks, while the buttonsticks will be priced in the clouds, and some manufacturers will drop their throttle product lines altogether...and/or go poof.

The beauty of the wi-throttle is that I can own one device and try out four different approaches to model train throttling and then choose the one I like best and use it - without a care in the world about what the layout operating system is [Digitrax, Lenz, NCE, Ring, Zimo, MTH DCS] so long as those other manufacturers support a JMRI computer interface.  Those manufacturers who don't offer this support to app-phone interfacing, well, this is their stage right-left exit...they will be like RailCommand or Dynatrol or any of the other's here real soon.

Instead of picking out if I like Lenz's throttle idea, Digitrax's throttle idea, Lenz's throttle idea,Ring's RCC throttle idea, MTH's DCS throttle Idea...the list goes on..., I can just pick up my smart phone, upload all four, five, six...hundred? throttle programs, and try them each out in turn.  I settle on the program I like, but if a new better program comes out tomorrow, i don't have to buy a new throttle; I just download the software.

I could then use program A while someone else in the same room could be using program B. Let's suppose I'm at Jim's layout, and Jim insists on using NCE system architecture but has Wi-throttle ability.  We suppose I prefer Digitrax's GUI layout and functionality, while Bob prefers to use Lenz's GUI throttle app [neither exist yet, but these manufacturers had best be on the ball!].  I show up with my wi-throttle [the same one that guided me to his house with it's onboard GPS!], acquire his layout, and then run my train using the Digitrax program while Bob uses his NCE App on his wi-throttle.  Jim still runs his trains with the Lenz button stick, but neither me nor Bob had to buy an NCE throttle to work the NCE layout, nor use any sort of work-around to use a different throttle on this layout, and Jim didn't have to buy three throttles so we could all play together.

When one program idea becomes obsolete due to a "better" throttle idea, instead of looking at buying a new throttle for $150 or whatever insane price they stick on their 1980's TV remote, I download the new throttle software for $0.99, or whatever it costs, and I'm on the road running; in 20 minutes, I either use it, or stick with the old one.  When I upgrade phones here, I may indeed be joining the revolution, because I'd love to have the map features of a smart phone when I'm out and about.  Hence, I'll already own the phone!

The throttle component, then, becomes is a null issue, and you're essentially hunting for the best power boosters, command stations and ancillary system architecture that supports the wireless-throttle approach.

Benny, Please

stop saying "we".   I, and apparently many others, completely disagree with your position and understanding on GUI's and enhanced wireless phones.

That's Tunnelvision, Andy...

This information changes the "what system should I buy" question significantly.

repetition does not make it true

Give it a rest, Benny.  We are tired of reading this stuff...