# DCC equipment in general



## Railroadjoe (Jul 11, 2013)

I have been a model railroader for over 50 years and have never seen so much chaos in the DCC world. I believe that the NMRA should tighten the specs on all DCC equipment. F0 – F28 inclusive functions should be the same in every decoder. Model railroader should have the option of remapping the functions if they would like to do so. CV1 – CV128 inclusive should all have mandatory meaning. No other CV should be used for any of CV1 – CV128 inclusive configuration variables again unless the decoder manufacturers give the model railroader the option to change the CVs. We the model railroader (the customer) should have the options not the manufacturers. All DCC control system should be able to read and write all decoders. NMRA should have a standard interface for these functions.

A computer is about 1000 times more complicated than a DCC decoder and I do not believe I ever had to adjust any Voltages to hook up the many Peripheral that I have attached to my computer. It seem to me that DCC manufacturers are asking too much when they say you have to raise the voltage to read the value of that DCC decoder or if you put a 1K resister across the track you can read that DCC decoder.

I wonder what other Model Railroaders think about the DCC equipment that is on the market.

Well that my 2¢ worth.


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

I read the NMRA “standards” before I started buying DCC equipment. Some of the “standards” are only “recommended practices”. So I decided to stick with one unnamed product line. My experience has been that the booster is not really NMRA compatible with the controller, and the auto-reversing unit is not compatible with either. In short the product line does not follow the NMRA “recommended practices”. Also the product line’s web site is very misleading about these compatibility issues. I was going to buy the DCC controlled turnouts, but how I only buy what I must have from this product line.

I am very thankful for the NMRA and what they have and are doing, but the presents of the “Conformance/Inspection Seal of NMRA” no longer has any value for me.
Bob


----------



## Railroadjoe (Jul 11, 2013)

We the model railroaders are all thankful for the NMRA. I believe every one read about and research products before they buy them. Also I hope other model railroader read this thread and it gets some traction.

Yes you are correct some of the “standards” are only “recommended practices”. I believe that the NMRA should tighten the spec on all DCC equipment and the DCC manufacturers should adhere to the spec. You are also correct about DCC manufacturers misleading us with the term compatibility it the word compliance I would like to see in their documentation. 

Would you buy a computer that every time you change one of its peripherals you had to change the voltage or put a 1K resister across it? I believe we Model Railroader should spend more time building our railroad than playing with a DCC system that should work with all all other DCC equipment. It is time to put some pressure on DCC manufacturers.


----------



## feldon30 (Dec 30, 2012)

Preaching to the choir.  Sure, tsunami gets to sell lots of track boosters but the darn Booster/Command Station should just work.


----------



## Railroadjoe (Jul 11, 2013)

Yes I know I am preaching to the choir, but the choir is the Model Railroader (the customer). I have also written an email to the NMRA and have got a response which I have added below.

I believe that we the Model Railroader should get better DCC systems. The Model Railroader needs compliance to a well writer specification not compatibility. I believe the specification should deal with these three issues first.

1.)	System to decoder interface: All system controllers should be able to program and read back all decoder configuration variables’ data.
2.)	F0-F28 inclusive: These functions should all have mandatory meanings, but should have the ability to be remapped if the Model railroader (the customer) wants to do so.
3.)	Configuration Variables: CV1-CV128 inclusive or maybe even CV1-CV256 should all have mandatory meanings. Also the decoder manufacturer will not be able to used any other CV for the mandatory CVs.

Below is the email that I sent to the NMRA and their response.

Joseph,
Your frustration is noted. The problem is not with the specifications totally. The primary problem is that the manufacturers ignore the specifications and NMRA cannot do anything about it. NMRA specifications have no force of law. We cannot require conformance. We can only expose with review articles in the nmra.org magazine that the product does not conform. The commercial magazine Model Railroad News also is doing conformance testing for us and discussing the results in their articles. 

I could go on for a long time about the problems with DCC but I will not.
I will address some issues with Digitrax, but as you know, it is not confined just to Digitrax. Digitrax has never submitted a decoder for conformance testing. The last command station they submitted for conformance testing was the DB-150 in 1998. Several of their current command stations do not pass conformance. Enough said.

Most command stations were designed and built before capacitors were put on decoders (Tsunami, Keep-Alive from TCS). As a result, the software in the command stations do not seem to recognize the fact that the capacitors consume a lot of energy (amps) if they are not turned off on the programming track. The capacitor on the Tsunami is not turned off. I am not sure about the Keep-Alive capacitors on the TCS decoders. The PR3 passes the instructions from the command station to the programming track and has no control on how CVs are read. The only thing the PR3 does is convert the computer code to a command message for the command station to process and back. All the commands and DCC messages are handled by the command station.

I have a meeting with the President of the Hobby Manufacturers Association during the upcoming NMRA convention in Atlanta next week. Your email will be shared with him and others that will attend.

Didrik Voss, MMR
Manager, S&C Dept.
NMRA

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joseph Silva Jr.
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:13 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: DCC Equipment Specification

To the NMRA:

I have been a model railroader for over 50 years and have never seen so much chaos in the DCC world. I believe that the NMRA should tighten the specs on all DCC equipment. F0 – F28 inclusive functions should be the same in every decoder. Model railroader should have the option of remapping the functions if they would like to do so. CV1 – CV128 inclusive should all have mandatory meaning. No other CV should be used for any of CV1 – CV128 inclusive configuration variables again unless the decoder manufacturers give the model railroader the option to change the CVs. We the model railroader (the customer) should have the options not the manufacturers. All DCC control system should be able to read and write all decoders. NMRA should have a standard interface for these functions.

One example is the PR3 manufactured by Digitrax. Now I am not putting all the blame on Digitrax there is enough to go around. I found that the PR3 will not read the CV17 on a Bachmann Two Function Decoder and a MRC Sound Decoder. I was told to put a 1K resistor across the track that did not work either. I also found that the PR3 would not read CV93, CV94, CV127 and CV128. I found that the MRC system read all these CVs and I am sure that it read the correct values of CV17, CV93 and CV94. Now CV127 and CV128 these CVs are not used so I never program them but the MRC system did read a value back, this could be good or bad. I would believe that decoder manufacturers should put some value in the CVs that they do not use or have in the spec say that CV is not readable. I also try to read a Soundtraxx Decoder with the PR3. PR3 would not read CV3, CV4, CV6-CV8 inclusive, CV10-CV22 inclusive, CV24-CV29 inclusive, CV31-CV40 inclusive, and CV42-CV128 inclusive. Note that I am only reading CVs 1-128 inclusive. I try to read the same Soundtraxx Decoder again and after CV1 which it did not read it stated operation complete. The MRC system also would not read the Soundtraxx Decoder.

I have seen some Blog on the internet that state if you increase the supply Voltage of the PR3 from 17 to 19 Volts the Soundtraxx Decoders can be read with the PR3.

Digitrax State for the PR3:
A 12-15V DC Power Supply - Digitrax recommends the PS14 (Power supply not needed for MS100 operation).

I call Digitrax about using a 17 to 19 Volt power supply for the PR3 and they really did not comment but gave me the impression that it could damage the PR3. I do not believe they will raise the power supply voltage spec on the PR3.


What do you think about tightening up the DCC specs and I wonder what other Model Railroaders think about the DCC equipment they have bought?

A computer is about 1000 times more complicated than a DCC decoder and I do not believe I ever had to adjust any Voltages to hook up the many Peripheral that I have attached to my computer. 

Well that my 2¢ worth.

Regards,

Joseph Silva Jr


----------



## niehausiiw (May 23, 2012)

Railroadjoe,

I have read your thread with great interest and it has convinced me to stay away from the DCC systems. 

The only company out there that offers anything close to what I am looking for is Ring Engineering with there RailPro system.

My requirements are pretty simple. 
- Ease of use. (Programming, installation, etc.)
- *Touch screen*, instead of the handheld push button units they use now for most of the systems. (we live in a touch screen world today)
- Cost. (lets face it though, converting to DCC or a RailPro system is expensive)


I know a lot of people who have invested there money and time into a DCC systems do not like the RailPro. For me it seems like a perfect fit. I have a small home layout 7' x10' L shape. I do not belong to a club and I have no immediate plans to join my local club.

I am not trying to bash DCC systems or the hobbyist who use's them. Nor am I trying to convince anyone to switch from DCC to RailPro.

I just prefer the RailPro interface.
The advantages as I seem them are. 
-The need for only 1 type of decoder, and can choose between 2, 1 with sound and 1 without that will work in any loco it will fit into.
-No need for a booster for your track.
-Not using your track for communication purposes. The RailPro is wireless. (loose connections and dirty track can interfere with communications between the booster/track/loco)
-Ease of operation. (There is no need to have a programming track or the need to program complicated values into a decoder)

I have not purchased a RailPro controller yet, I am just waiting for funds to to become available.

Bill


----------



## underthetire (Jun 6, 2013)

I was totally confused at the beginning when I was looking at DCC, and just couldn't pull the trigger. I agree it should be standard communication between them all, that's why I only buy a couple different brands now that are "compliant". All the confusion I had pushed me to the SPROG interface, it seemed to be compatible with most everything and made programming really easy. I've been pleased with my decision, but do miss the mechanical throttle from time to time.


----------



## ggnlars (Aug 6, 2013)

*The amazing thing is we are more than 20 years into this*

I last was interested in building a layout in 1995. At the time, the hype was all one had to do is put a decoder in the loco and magic would happen. At the time I decided the old bromine applied. "If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is!" Here we are pushing 20 years into the technology and the only thing that seems to have changed are the prices. 

In another thread it was indicated that a major manufacturer produced a product that lasted 3 hours of very careful use. It is clear that they are using the user as the test platform. I keep reading that the problem is dirty track, the wheels are out of gauge and/or you installed it wrong. Why does that seem like people are trying to create a smoke screen, pushing the blame for poor products on to the user. 

I'm not as worried about it being compliant with some standard, as I am the unit working in a reasonable operating window. And it's not just that it does not work, it burns up and an sizable chunk of change goes up in smoke. 

Is there somewhere we can go to find out what really works and what doesn't. It seems like most of the online advice comes from people who are heavily vested in the current systems.

Larry


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

I don't totally agree about the smoke screen.Even the best decoder can't compensate for dirty tracks,faulty installation,out-of-gauge wheels,etc.These problems are all common occurence and have to be taken care of.Granted you will not likely find out-of-gauge wheels on top end equipment but it happens quite often on bottom end units.Tracks need regular cleaning wich varies with the specific environment,like more often in dusty or humid surroundings.

And if you keep reading this forum on a regular basis,it won't take very long before you have a pretty good idea of what is very good,acceptable or worthless.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Larry

I have been reading your DCC concerns and think I understand
your thinking.

So much of what is posted here on the Forum has to do with
problems the poster has had. Reading only those can leave one
with a wrong impression.

Similarly, a person who works in the complaint or repair section of a company
would soon think all of the company's products are faulty since that's all they
hear. People who are satisfied do not call them. Just as the happy
DCC operators are less likely to be posting here.

What I'm saying is that while there are defects from time to time most
of the DCC gear performs as expected and continues to do so for
a long time. It can be damaged, of course, but it does seem to
be able to take some unusual electrical punishment at times.

DCC offers so much operational fun that it is well worth the extra
cost. Like any device, it must be properly installed and maintained
but that is just a part of Model Railroading.

Go ahead and shop for a system that will offer the type
of layout you want. You'll be glad you took the action.

Don


----------



## Hutch (Dec 19, 2012)

:appl:Excellent post.


----------



## blackz28 (Jan 6, 2013)

i agree with all posted , i think they need more then the i app to act as a throttle , i havent really delved into the i app since i have an android , do they have the same app for android??? i know google is my friend lol, but just curious, anyway back off my ADD segway , it should be an easy app to download & punch in the cab number & we are off to the races , alot more kids would fine that that would be something they would like & understand


----------



## Hutch (Dec 19, 2012)

I use engine Driver on my android. It works great.


----------



## norgale (Apr 4, 2011)

I'm thinking about going to DCC so I'm reading up on it here. I notice that those who are critical of some equipment are hesitant to name names. That does nobody any good at all. I would like to ask you all what name brands do you like and what ones don't you like and why. I'm assuming that the biggest problem is that some equipment won't work with other equipment of a different make. That is understandable. Parts for a Ford don't usually fit a Chevy either. However I would like to know which brand works best and which mfg tells you the truth about what you need to get started. Pete


----------



## Hutch (Dec 19, 2012)

If you are not planning to join a club and you don't mind doing a little soldering, the MERG kits are great and much cheaper than any other option except SPROG but that's limited to running from a PC? The MERG kits include Controllers, Command stations, Boosters, PC USB interfaces and there own CAN BUS "CBUS"system for running turnouts lights and detection using JMRI. There's no way I could afford the equipment I have if not for these kits. I plan on building a lot more there kits. I have used Digitraxx, Soundtraxx and NCE decoders with this system and the only issue I found was with a Digitraxx Sound Decoder that I can't program on the main. I have no trouble programming it on a programming track though. I also have to remove that one when programming other trains on the main. I don't find it to be a big deal.

At least check out their website. You need to be a member to buy the kits and get on the forum but you can check out he list of kits. It cost me $35. Money well spent.


----------



## dannyrandomstate (Jan 1, 2012)

I understand your feelings with DCC. I am not going to bash any of the systems in anyway here. I was in the hobby years ago when DC was all the rage. I boxed it up and it sat for many moons while I went off to the Army and life in general caught up with me. Fast forward to about 2010. After a move I had found the boxed up stuff and it got my attention again. I started lurking on forums doing as much reading as I could. Oh dang how things had changed. I started researching DCC. 

It took almost 2 years of reading and looking at the different systems. My brain was on overload at certain points. Then I started reading all the technical stuff. It was almost a meltdown. CV this CV that. I almost thought I was going to need a PhD in nuclear science to program these things. After much research I settled on the NCE power cab. Installation of the actual decoder was a breeze. I call that the easy part. But getting into the programming was a huge step for me (I'll just say technology hates me). I did the little things and never really got fully into it. Sure the engines sound and look great creeping along, but it was the process of getting there that left little desire for me.

I piddled with that system for a couple years. A handful of decoders and a few sound installs. DCC is a great system don't get me wrong here. I just feel at this day and age it's rather antiquated. As was mentioned it's been around for 20+ years and realistically the only thing that has changed is the price tag. It did change the scene of our hobby. Bringing more life to it. 





niehausiiw said:


> Railroadjoe,
> 
> I have read your thread with great interest and it has convinced me to stay away from the DCC systems.
> 
> ...


And again I am not bashing any system here. I have three choices to choose from in the means of throttle systems. Each has their own ups and downs.

I did purchase a Rail pro system. The first install I did was on a Kato SD70Mac. I will admit I had a goof in the install and had to send the module back. Once I got it back I finished up the install and buttoned it up. The module install was as typical as a DCC decoder install. I hardwired in the module, replaced the fans so the sound had somewhere to go. 

The beauty was in the finished product. I downloaded the correct sounds, and pic for the engine, installed them on the module, and off I went. Everything is controlled right there in the controller. The ease of adjusting everything is so simple. I understand that for someone that has shucked a small fortune into their DCC setup would be reluctant to jump onboard this new thing. But as with anything "new" that hits the market there is going to be some resistance.

I don't have the Ring power supply. I have been using my NCE to supply power to the tracks. It runs just as good on a DC power pack too. Even though the DC power pack I was using (on top of the pile of packs) had a sketchy throttle I found the sweet spot using the Rail pro controller on the info screen. It shows voltage input, current draw for the engine, track voltage and module temp. It ran just as good on the DC as the DCC. I installed another module with sound last nite on an Athearn AMD-103. All it took was unplugging the factory decoder and plugging in the module, plugging in the 6 pin for the speaker, soldering the speaker leads, installing the speaker, and then buttoning it back up. Place the unit on the track and off I went. No fuss, no muss.

I like the fact that if I were to take any of these units to someones layout and if they run DC or DCC I can still run them there. The downside would be that if someone were to bring their DCC equipped to a layout that is wired for Rail pro obviously they couldn't run their engines on it. I think that if someone is entering the hobby and doesn't want DC or DCC this would be the way to go. The ease and simplicity of a quick install and very little time assigning a couple things on the controller is a big plus.


----------



## norgale (Apr 4, 2011)

Do you suppose there is any website where the different kinds of DCC systems have been tested by a knowledgeable person?


----------



## MudbugnTX (Dec 28, 2009)

Here are some opinions based on his experience.
http://www.dccconcepts.com/index_files/DCCbrandecisions.htm
I use digitrax myself and love the systems and the expandability. Something to remember is this. Are you just running at your house or do you plan on joining a club? If you are going to join a club go there and run their system. If you join the club you will probably want to get what they are using. Many hobby shops will let you test a DCC system if you ask. 

Programming decoders is a whole different ballgame. I use my Digitrax with a PR3 and a DCCSpecialties Powerpax booster. Some people prefer using a Sprog controller to program. I use the Powerpax booster because it boost the programming current and allows me to program my Broadway Limited locos. I always program on a separate programming track. I never program on the mainline to avoid problems. Both the Digitrax and the Sprog can use JMRI DecoderPro software or if you use Digitrax you can use their stand alone Soundloader software to program decoders.

DCC is great and trust me once you start using it and then understanding it, nothing compares to it. I looked at and had many conversation with Railpro and they are just not at the point where I am willing to set that up in my house and then have nothing compatible with my club's layout.


----------

