# Considering control system options for first layout



## RCJunction (Feb 7, 2016)

First, my apologies if you've seen my posts on this matter on other MRR forums. If you have, feel free to ignore it here. I'm just trying to get plenty of input.

As I don't have any existing investment in any system, my options are wide open. On the one hand, DCC is a well-established system with tons of different equipment and modules available. I've been looking into the Roco Z21 system, and it seems to address most of my concerns with DCC...most.

The fact of the matter is that DCC is long in the tooth - nearly a quarter century, which, let's face it, is ancient for any digital system. It does seem that the industry has done well with it over the years, but I wonder if it's been pushed about as far as it can go. I'm an enterprise computer systems analyst and programmer, and I can tell you that there is just no excuse for a user having to deal with things like functions and CV codes in this day and age. Better methods of device communication and interfacing became mainstream over a decade ago. For all I know the NMRA is about ready to ratify a new and expanded "DCC 2.0" specification. I've done some searching, but I haven't found anything to indicate such. It sure is due for one, though.

One of the more recent and significant innovations in command control, at least as it occurs to me, is wireless, bidirectional communication systems, that not only allow the locomotives to communicate back to the command station but also with each other. I am very impressed by what I've seen from the RailPro system. Not only does it appear to be a trivial matter to MU multiple locos (a matter of seconds start to finish, including configuration/calibration of each loco), but it enables them to actually do active and constant load sharing, as the train travels through curves and over grades. Also - and this is more than a little subjective, I'll admit - the graphical interface looks significantly more intuitive than, say, that of a DigiTrax DT402D, or pretty much any other DCC throttle (with the exception of the tablet/smart phone interface of the Z21, which is pretty amazing).

The primary factors giving me pause regarding RailPro are, 1) it's a proprietary system, and 2) in the years it's been around, it doesn't seem to have progressed very quickly. The first point, while not ideal, wouldn't concern me too greatly, if it weren't for point #2. Things like still having no N-scale support and no options for more robust graphical command devices like tablets. I'm not about new gadgets for the sake of new gadgets, but have you seen what Roco has done with the Z21? And that's using DCC.

I get that people with a sizable investment in DCC probably have little interest in something like RailPro, and I don't blame them, but for someone just getting into the hobby, it's a compelling option.

I'll wire my layout for DCC, as that approach works for both, but at this point I'm really torn between the Z21 and RailPro. I'd like to hear from those who have or are using either of them, and also from others who maybe haven't, but wouldn't mind offering their thoughts on sticking with DCC or going all in with the new tech in RailPro (or some other similar competing product I may not have considered).

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

I went with the NCE Power Cab starter kit. The reason was that it was a tried and true system with a good history for reliability and customer service. It is compatible with all of the current DCC standards. Also at $150 it was not a big investment to conver a current DC layout. The NCE HO decoders are under $15 each to convert my existing DC locomotives. Yes I do need to set CVs etc to tune each locomotive but once that is done I am set. 

I have to agree that there are newer advances that could potentially work better. Then again there is also the fact that the new systems need to have the ability to incorporate the older items. If they did not someone with a large collection would not want to go into a new system for cost reasons. Programming CVs may seem like a task but it is only really needed once. Not having to do this would be nice but not nice enough to re-invest. I think this prevents many advances. Companies will not make anything that does not run the current DCC items for fear that customers will not change their current systems.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Rich

I'm sure you'll be hearing from some of our very astute digital
people who can discuss with intelligence, the merits of the systems you
are looking into.

A major factor to consider when you leave the DCC stable is
availability of gear and it's compatibility with DC locomotives
that you would have to convert. Size of the device is
key also in that some locomotives have little spare space
under the shell.

I agree, that since most of us are well along in age, the new
systems you mention would not find many likely buyers. It would
be people like you who, first are obviously very knowledgeable
in the digital realm, and secondly are setting up their layout
for the first time.

It will be interesting what the future will bring to our hobby.

Don


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

This is just speculation on my part but what I could see as the next step in DCC systems is not a system that eliminates setting CVs but hides the process from the user. The DCC controller would translate the user input to the changes that need to be made then apply them to the decoder via CV changes. This would allow the system to work with all older equipment but improve user friendliness per say. This also would not make old controllers obsolete. Thus someone may purchase it as an upgrade with no fear of additional cost beyond that unit.

This is just my thought though.


----------



## RCJunction (Feb 7, 2016)

tkruger said:


> This is just speculation on my part but what I could see as the next step in DCC systems is not a system that eliminates setting CVs but hides the process from the user. The DCC controller would translate the user input to the changes that need to be made then apply them to the decoder via CV changes. This would allow the system to work with all older equipment but improve user friendliness per say. This also would not make old controllers obsolete. Thus someone may purchase it as an upgrade with no fear of additional cost beyond that unit.
> 
> This is just my thought though.


This is very nearly what the Z21 system does. You pretty much pick the icon for the function and set its value. I had actually watched a few videos about it, before I even noticed the function numbers are actually displayed on the bottom corner of the buttons. As for the CV values, you don't have to deal with them much - just sliders and such to adjust values - though I believe you do have access to them directly if needed. 

The robust two-way communication between the command station and the locomotive (and even between two locomotives) is really about the only compelling reason I'm even considering RailPro (well, I also like the touch screen interface over conventional button pads and LCD screens). What they're doing with that is pretty impressive. It's what makes their load-sharing consisting feature not just possible, but highly effective. But, it's proprietary tech, and they don't have much market share, so development seems to be moving a bit slowly for my liking.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

I've had a look at both systems and they are both very impressive. I don't think you'll get much reaction on here to them, many have a problem converting to DCC so they're not going to splurge on a advanced touch screen system. Some might even say considering such a device is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Most simply want to run trains, if you can also have constant lighting and sound then that's a bonus. For my part its great to have all that touch screen tech to play with but at the end of the day its OTT for most operators. Considering your background I can see its appeal to you and that's fine but as I've said most will only go down that road if dragged kicking and screaming!


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

RailPro is a neat concept. 

If you are the adventurous type and don't mind going with a propriety system from what appears to be a small firm, it might work for you.

There are other companies working on similar systems which you might investigate.


I recently replaced my Digitrax DCS-100/200 command stations with a Z21 (the black unit).

I'm very happy with it.

- state of the art design when it comes to a DCC system
- multiple control buses allowing the use of a wide variety of 3rd party gear
- "traditional" handheld throttles available in both wired and wireless (WiFi) versions
- "touchscreen" handheld throttle using app on smartphone/tablet


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

The more I read about any priority system the more I question if it is cutting edge or bleeding edge. If it is cutting edge then I can see it making it and everything being OK as at that point there is enough adoption in the market place to keep its momentum going. If it is bleeding edge then while it may be the latest and greatest it may not survive due to other factors that prevent it from being widely adopted. Allot of technology falls in each of these categories and it is any one persons choice with what type of tech they choose to go. There is nothing wrong with either choice. My preference is that this is a hobby that I participate in and I want the tried and true as I plan to relax with it. Last thing I want it to wake up one day and fine I cannot get parts or that my systems only manufacturer is gone.

This is just my opinion. I also believe that if it were not for the early adapters willing to take the risk of going with a new standard the tried and true methods that the majority enjoy would not exist. For this I respect the choice of this group.


----------

