GOOD DAY TO ALL.
I AM ABOUT TO BUY MY DCC STARTER SET,WHY ARE DIGITRAX NOT IN THE NMRA FOLD.
ARE THEY BIGGER THAN THE NMRA? OR WHERE THEY THERE BEFORE THE NMRA,GOT GOING.
I WOULD LIKE TO BUY A CONFORMING SET,I THINK I WILL GO “NCE”.
ANY ADVICE FOR THE THE IRISH!!!.
PATRICK
Welcome to the forums.
If you would not type in caps, that will be extremely helpful. Caps indicate shouting, and make it difficult/time consuming to read.
The only big difference I know of between Digitrax and other DCC manufacturers is the cable they use. Instead of using Xpressnet, used by Lenz, NCE, and many others, they came up with their own version, called Loconet. Loconet, while being propeitary to Digtrax, has been better technology. For some the fact that they can’t use competitor’s throttles is a problem, for some it is not. Locomotives could still run on either.
There maybe other differences, i’ll hope a more experienced member chimes in.
hi yoshi,
thank you very much for the tip on caps. i understand the point on systems a bit more now.
patrick
The NMRA conformance standard has been designed to ensure that at the track level DCC components from different manufacturers will work together. I have a Digitrax command station and throttles and run DCC decoders from TCS, NCE, Lenz, Soundtraxx, QSI and Digitrax with no problem at all. From what I understand the 00 address for control of an analog loco on a DCC system is not covered by the NMRA standard and this feature being present makes it impossible for Digitrax to be certified. I may be wrong in that, but I was under the impression that Digitrax has not submitted for NMRA certification. Anyway, if your concern is if Digitrax can work with other DCC decoders, don’t worry it is not an issue at all.
Hmm… Interesting that this comes up again and again…but only about Digitrax and no one else.
Patrick, I have to ask you…Are you this discriminating when it comes to all your model train purchases? Please be advised that Bachmann gets the C&I “football” (the NMRA seal of conformance) on all their Spectrum models, but Kato, Athearn, Atlas, BLI, Overland, et al, do not. Which would you rather have? The C&I “football” is not a true indicator of quality, only that it meets applicable NMRA Standards and Recommended Practices.
IIRC, Digitrax does have the C&I “football” on their DB150 booster, but they have not submitted any other items to the NMRA for testing. Why? You’d have to ask AJ Ireland (owner of Digitrax).
Personally, I prefer to have the advanced features of DIgitrax over having a fancy label on the box (Digitrax was the first with a radio throttle, the first to support F9 to F12, the first with a signal system, etc.), but to each their own…
BTW, AJ Ireland has been part of the DCC process in the NMRA for a long time. His wife is also a leader of the MRIA (or whatever it’s called these days), the industry trade group. So it’s not like they’re hermits in Georgia, hiding from the world…
Paul A. Cutler III
Weather Or No Go New Haven
The whole thing seems more like a joke than anything. Bachmann also has the football on their DCC system, but you can;y use your address, it decides what address to run your loco on - of course being able to select your own address is not a requirement for the C&I football. It also runs an analog loco using 00 - so that can’t be the real reason. Lenz gets a football even though out of the box usign their components it puts far too high a voltage ont he tracks for HO and smaller scales. Yes, you can set it to correct that problem, but out of the box it’s not ready. You can turn off a lot of things in a Digitrax DCS100 through configuration too.
I can understand they want to use open solutions, not those that require licensing from the originator. But this is why the standard bi-directional system is now one that requires all devices drawing track power to stop doing to during the reporting interval - no more simply hooking a light bulb across the tracks to light a car, etc. Sure it’s a simple fix (when I comment on this I seem to always get a reply here from someone in the DCC Working Group [:D]) but there’s more than just lighted passenger cars. FOr example, I hook my UP5’s to the track for yet another source of power - and to have the track status LED on the front indicate power to a section. Guess that won’t work either with Railcom.
On a final note, if it weren’t for Digitrax’s input to the WG back in the early days we’d still be stuck with 14 speed steps which any were arguing was PLENTY (not to mention the original Lenz system that DCC was developed from only supported 14 speed steps… another HMMMMMM). Digitrax participates fully. They just don;t give away everything they do. Of course in these Open Source times it seems wanting to earn some money for your inventions is somehow a bad thing. Notwithstanding that the actual license fee for Loconet for commercial developers (for hobbyists not selling a commercial product it’s FREE) is so low as to be nearly meaningless, there’s no real reason t
Regardless of the N.M.R.A. conformance warrant, when it comes to DCC, my biggest concern is how long will the company stay in business. Things are booming now for these manufacturers, because of the DCC revolution. But who will survive if or when the market becomes saturated?
Loconet and XPressnet are really not what’s standing in the way of DCC conformance. The manufacture can talk any way they want between the encoders/decoders/block control and cab controls.
Mainly it what’s put out from the booster on the track in terms of signal and protocol is what’s considered important. There’s a whole series and battery of test to ensure backwards compatibility between different manufacturers.
Sometimes a manufacturer will implement a feature not currently in the NMRA spec like “Analog function output” (AKA: Playable wistle) If the NMRA comes along and changes this spec, then you’re out of luck.
Lenz was the original creator of DCC, as such they have the inside track to conformance and stability. Their decoders are nothing short of excellent. However I have heard of no basic functionality compatibility problems with digitraxx. Many people like digitraxx for it’s control and setup. Personally I really like my Lenz 100 set, even though it’s a little harder to work with advanced function.
So you should be good to go either way.
This mirrors my understanding of the situation, which is that non-NMRA “full” compliance is usually driven by incorporating features beyond the scope of the DCC spec. In other words, being ahead of the spec (and as mentioned, maybe not being within it when they get to spec’ing newer functions).
From an everyday, practical standpoint, all systems I know of are “NMRA Compatible” meaning System X will reliably operate System Z’s decoders. To my way of thinking, that’s 98% of the issue.
The NMRA is irrelevant anyway. Digitrax works fine with our without their ‘approval’.
G00d day everybody, and thanks for the information,i have a few more weeks to play with before i go for it.
with the owners name IRELAND,i think it will be digtrax
thanks agin
patrick
So you own and will only ever own Digitrax components only? Never a sound decoder from anyone else? Never a decoder at all from anyone else? All your switch control, block control, signaling, software and everything will always and forever be 100% Digitrax?
Even if you say “Yes, I love them”… it’s awfully nice to know you’re making a choice, not being forced to conform to that.
Ignoring all the non-DCC related reasons to argue with “The NMRA is irrelevant,” I couldn’t disagree more just on the DCC issue alone.
Having lived through “Command Control” in the 70’s and 80’s I absolutely believe the standards are vital. To this very day, decades later, you find guys who put in regular analog command control hunting around ebay and swap meets for replacement parts from long-defunct outfits. That or dropping thousands to redo each and every loco and their entire control system… Ouch.
Far from being irrelevant, the standards of NMRA are what have made DCC into a viable system. Without the confidence of interoperability, far fewer folks would make the leap. And despite the lack of a “football” the reality is Digitrax did (wisely) decide to market a system that’s (on a practical level of how it affects users and operation) virtually 100% in line with those standards.
Think about the multitude of threads we already have on “which system” and how that would explode if “which system” meant a commitment to buying EVERYTHING from that vendor… decoders, stationary decoders, sound, software, power supplies, the works…
So to say “digitrax works fine without it” is shortsighted (and sounds a bit smug).
So what if there were no standards? What if Digitrax (and each of the others) was a fully proprietary system?
What if the guy who owns d
That’s exactly the point!
If your system is NMRA compliant (and I mean in operation more than does it have the official “football” – I consider Digitrax NMRA compliant, e.g.), then it wouldn’t be such a big deal. If your vendor of choice goes under, you don’t have to go out and buy all-new decoders the next day! You can continue to add to your system… And, frankly, someone out there would probably jump in and offer “aftermarket” throttles and such for that system. The whole NMRA standard is exactly what protects you in the “oh hell, my supplier went under” scenario.
Best reason yet stated for getting a DCC system!
I think Digitrax is a great system. They’ve got tons of great features, and their throttles are reasonably well done. I especially like the dual-knob controls where I can run two locos without “flipping” back and forth. I find some other systems a little easier to work with in terms of programming, functions, etc… But that’s truly a personal, subjective choice you need to make for yourself (and none of them, including DT, is “bad”… it’s shades of “better” more than anything).
BUT I think their one truly glaring weakness is wireless control. Their wireless throttles are one-way (simplex), so your throttle can’t get feedback from the system… e.g. you don’t know if you selected the right turnout to throw until you try to throw it and it goes or doesn’t. You don’t know if you have the right loco selected except by turning the throttle and seeing if it moves… But, far more problematic than that… you must plug the throttle in every single time you want to change locos… I consider that a major flaw in a wireless throttle system!
Now if you don’t care about wireless, then it’s a non-issue. If you do want, some day, to run untethered throttles, that’s the one reason I can think of not to go with DT.
I saw a quote not too long ago from a high-end model railroad manufacturer who was asked why they didn’t submit their products to the NMRA for the conformance warrant.
While I don’t remember all the details, to paraphrase, their response was that it would cost them a substantial amount of money to fix all the little nits that don’t matter anyway, and it wouldn’t increase sales.
Small businesses (and that’s really what these folks are) just can’t afford to do that.
The bottom line, for me anyway, is that while the NMRA Standards and RP’s are generally a Good Thing, they certainly aren’t the Only Thing that I consider when it comes to buying or not buying any given product.
P.S. I have a “non-compliant” Digitrax Super Chief, and wouldn’t even consider trading it in for any of the compliant systems now on the market.
Steve
Old fashioned Digitrax Super empire Builder is what I have, purchased about 10 months ago, and darned if I don’t find something new to appreciate about it most weeks. Very happy with the product.
-Crandell
Ditto. As far as I’m concerned… so long as the manufacturers observe the spirit of the standard, I don’t care if they choose not to invest piles of money in achieving the “letter” of the standard and getting their football.
The risk comes when someone decides they’re dominant enough to try and go proprietary and walk away from interoperability… I would hate to see that day come.
Frankly, if it weren’t for the NMRA and their standards the DCC market would be less than half its current size. It’s really nice when everyone’s stuff works together. Remember when some manufacturers made oversized flanges in HO scale that weren’t RP25 compliant? The C&I means they followed the standard, while most others do you have to hope that where they don’t, doesn’t give you a problem later on.
Enjoy
Paul
I don’t have wireless, so I can’t comment from experience on this subject. But I’ve seen posts in various forums from Digitrax wireless users who actually find this to be a safety feature and not an inconvenience. Their logic is that you want acquiring a loco to be a conscious action, and having to plug in is part of that consciousness.
For example, what would happen when someone walks into the layout room with “their” wireless throttle that just happens to be set to the address of a loco on the layout? And what if “their” throttle is cranked to 100% or set to reverse?
To my way of thinking, that could result in a much bigger “inconvenience” than having to plug in to acquire a loco.
And, what about all the folks who run tethered? Although some may be converting to wireless, you don’t see them knocking each other out of the way to do so. That would seem to indicate that plugging in, often repeatedly as they move around the layout, isn’t that big of an issue.
Steve