Well, I have another manufacturer’s system, but I have several Digatrx decoders in use and it all works together just fine. One of the questins fingalrails asked was if Digitrax has been around longer than the NMRA. Since the NMRA dates back to the 1930s and Digital Command Control has been around less than twenty years the answer is obvious. Digitrax kinda goes their own way on a lot of stuff and there are a LOT of loyal Digitrax users out there. If you try their stuff on someone else’s layout and like it–then there you go. If you try it and don’t like it, keep shopping.
Just as with throttle design and so many other issues, it’s a very personal-to-you matter what bugs you and doesn’t. For those who don’t want to go wireless or who don’t mind plugging in, great for them! To me it is a deal-breaker. I’ve seen enough others saying the same to think it perfectly reasonable to point it out, and let the person reading it make their own judgment about whether it’s an issue for them.
I’m not sure your example is accurate, though:
[quote]
QUOTE: For example, what would happen when someone walks into the layout room with “their” wireless throttle that just happens to be set to the a
Yeah but they’re Kiwis [:D][:D][:D][:D]
What I love is when the true operators say Digitrax radio is bad because of having to plug in. If anything, it’s the causual runner who would be more inconvenienced by having to plug in to select a different loco (other than the two they can already have selected). I don’t see much need for someone running a train during an operating session to select a different loco in the middle of their run. The exception being a hostler in a yard who needs to take incoming locos to the service track - but with all that activity concentrated in a single spot, why even bother with wireless? A hostler job in my book would get a regular tethered throttle anyway. AT the terminal, the crew plugsn, selects their train, unplugs, and runs to the end of the line. simple.
ANother argument is the elmination of runnignt he cab bus wiring. Well, unless your layout is small enough that you cna get away with one booster, or all boosters crammed into one area without excessive length bus wires, you have to run the lines anyway to feed the remote boosters. The differences here is Loconet - Digitrax uses the same bus for throttles as well as additional boosters and other accessories. Every other brand of DCC uses at least two seperate busses - one for the throttles and one for the boosters. So if you have a remote booster in Digitrax, you ALREADY have the wiring in place to connect plug in panels. My full layout plan will be like this - I can;t possibly locate a booster in my system and keep the length of any bus run under 50 feet, so I will have to space out boosters in multipel locations. Loconet cables must be used to connect them to the command station, so it will already be there. PPlus I plan to operate signals and detection as well as local control panels throught he Loconet as well. The only other system right now that can possibly handle all that is the new Marklin system that uses regular Ethernet. That’s possible today because Ethernet is cheap. Back when Loconet was developed (you computer guys will rememebr this) even a 'ch
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker
What I love is when the true operators say Digitrax radio is bad because of having to plug in. If anything, it’s the causual runner who would be more inconvenienced by having to plug in to select a different loco (other than the two they can already have selected). I don’t see much need for someone running a train during an operating session to select a different loco in the middle of their run. The exception being a hostler in a yard who needs to take incoming locos to the service track - but with all that activity concentrated in a single spot, why even bother with wireless? A hostler job in my book would get a regular tethered throttle anyway. AT the terminal, the crew plugsn, selects their train, unplugs, and runs to the end of the line. simple.
ANother argument is the elmination of runnignt he cab bus wiring. Well, unless your layout is small enough that you cna get away with one booster, or all boosters crammed into one area without excessive length bus wires, you have to run the lines anyway to feed the remote boosters. The differences here is Loconet - Digitrax uses the same bus for throttles as well as additional boosters and other accessories. Every other brand of DCC uses at least two seperate busses - one for the throttles and one for the boosters. So if you have a remote booster in Digitrax, you ALREADY have the wiring in place to connect plug in panels. My full layout plan will be like this - I can;t possibly locate a booster in my system and keep the length of any bus run under 50 feet, so I will have to space out boosters in multipel locations. Loconet cables must be used to connect them to the command station, so it will already be there. PPlus I plan to operate signals and detection as well as local control panels throught he Loconet as well. The only other system right now that can possibly handle all that is the new Marklin system that uses regular Ethernet. That’s possible today because Ethernet is cheap. Back when Loconet w