Large Scale Central

NMRA/DCC Argument, Why?

General Discussion
#21
Ric Golding said:
Obviously, the cat was out of the bag before I deleted my post. I had it up for about an hour and nobody replied, so I thought well my thoughts are improper/unfair/silly and I'll just pull it.

Of course, this doesn’t change the way I feel and I know that 87% of the hobby is HO and they have embraced all the stuff that has fallout over into the LS community. If I read their magazine, MR, I should be expected to see their view points. The ads and decisions that Bachmann has decided to come out with in LS where only certain choices of equipment are available with certain options is just frustrating.

And to clarify, I was an NMRA member for a short while and felt they only wanted new members for the money as old members locked in their costs with “Life Memberships” and then expect the newer members to support them. I feel the DCC thing is the same way, some like it, so now they want all of us have to support it.


Ric,

Happens sometimes, I start with “Reply and Quote”, then think about it. :wink: :slight_smile:

Bachmann seems determined to do a “LGB” with the choice decision, the Nürnberg guys were firmly convinced that “Onboard decoder for everyone” was the way to go. It took a lot of hollering to change their mind and some people refused to buy all that “Man, That Sucks” content. Not good for business. :wink: :slight_smile:
That’s what I like about Kiss and Brawa, you have a choice. None of this “we know what’s good for you” crapola .

On the “how many wires between the tender and the engine” question … well … I’m really not that concerned. I have exactly one engine with a separate tender, everything else is Electrics, nice and self-contained but will benefit from a standarized DCC interface. And yes, I believe the Diesel fraternity is in the same boat, not many diesels with tenders. :wink: :slight_smile: :wink:

@ Greg,

To the Z you can add On30 and Om going DCC. And 1:32 in Europe (that apparently doesn’t include the UK, or so I was told :wink: :slight_smile: ) BTW if some people would read what some others are doing with DCC in different scales - instead of getting the glazed over look in their eyes when seeing the heading on an article - they wouldn’t protest so loudly. It may still not be for them, but they may understand some of the possibilities.
“Consisting”? What’s that? Oh hmmmm … that could be the answer to one or two annoying problems. You mean that works for mid-train helpers and I can play the whistle games? Who would have thunked!?? :wink: :slight_smile:

Yep, in this hobby most things are voluntary and if you don’t like what one mfg is doing, you look for alternatives! Or you complain very loudly and specifically in the fora and directly to that mfg. :wink: :slight_smile: The mfgs keep telling us that they listen, don’t they? :confused: :wink:

PS On that last one, keep the bitching to a dull roar, otherwise you get called a “basher”, sooner or later. People don’t like it when you find fault with their favourite mfg - doesn’t matter which mfg it is. It’s supposedly all “perfect” unless you look a bit closer and discover a few warts.

#22

Guys,

My Humble Opinion…

Go LEWIS, Go LEWIS!!

The rest will follow… They may not like it but they will follow…

#23

Bob,

I can agree with your “Go Lewis”, but could you add “please get some quality control”, it’s bad or at least could certainly use improvement.

#24

First, a quick disclaimer–I really don’t know much about DCC beyond what it does. Based on what I’ve read, there are various systems out there that may or may not be compatible with each other. But that’s not unlike many other arenas, either. Buy a camera body (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc), and you’re limited to the lenses you can use–and third party lenses that fit may still not be 100% compatible.

Ric makes a valid argument about the logic (or lack thereof) of offering only specific paint schemes with this-or-that electronics included. Either include it in them all, or none of them.

But let me play devil’s advocate just a bit. Say the electronics are included and you don’t want them. What does a DCC system need, at its most basic level? Wires coming from the track, and wires going to the motor. All electric trains have that. So, if one buys a loco with a control system they won’t be using, then it’s not difficult to disconnect the pertinent wires, box the electronics up, and sell it to someone who does use it. They’ve got older locomotives that they need only splice the electronics between the wires coming from the track and the wires going to the motor. I’d be hard-pressed to believe there aren’t myriad discussion forums on line where one can go to buy/sell/exchange DCC stuff. So, you gut your locomotive, splice in the electronics you want to install (R/C, DCC, straight track power, squirrel-driven generator), and recoup a little extra cash on the side. (You can use it to feed the squirrel.)

In truth, it’s not too much different from buying a regular R/C kit. You get the transmitter, receiver, and servos–whether you need the servos or not. So, you put the extra servos on evilBay. Trouble now is that there is such a glut of standard-size servos on the secondary market that you don’t really get much for them. One would think, however, that if such a glut existed for a DCC control system, that it would be a sign to the manufacturer that no one really wants it. (Not saying it would or wouldn’t happen.) Think of the poor Bachmann bobber caboose. Ever try to get more than $5 for one of those? I’ve got two, if anyone’s interested!

Later,

K

#25
Kevin Strong said:
First, a quick disclaimer--I really don't know much about DCC beyond what it does. Based on what I've read, there are various systems out there that may or may not be compatible with each other.
Kevin,

That’s why I mentioned NMRA-DCC Standards/features being a redeeming quality. :wink: :slight_smile: Of course one still needs to read the fine print, but at least there are some “basics”. :wink: :slight_smile:

#26

I hate to do this guys, and I’m probably going to regret even asking…What the H@%* is Red Box Locomotives?

All these short cuts and I can’t make heads or tails out of some of them!

Sorry!

#27

KGB

#28

More clearly, Allen, Red box refers to LGB…mostly in it’s old configuration. Various forums have had prohibitions on discussions mentioning LGB outright, so people would get around that by referring to them by the color of the box their toys came in…:confused:

#29

I liked Dave Watt’s reference in the latest GR to the new company being called MGB. I had one of those, a 1966, British Racing Green.

#30
Ric Golding said:
I liked Dave Watt's reference in the latest GR to the new company being called MGB. I had one of those, a 1966, British Racing Green.
Ric,

That would be a bad omen. :wink: :slight_smile:

Now apart from that there is a MGB railway in Switzerland, that would be a better omen. MGB stands for Matterhorn-Gotthard-Bahn (formerly the FO and BVZ)
Yep, Switzerland used to have a railway called FO, another one was called SOB and a third is called FART. No, I didn’t make them up. :smiley:

#31

As a newbie (18 months) to Large Scale I was equally confused by “red box”. I realize now that it refers to LGB but as far as I can see red boxes are Bachmann, red and green are LGB. I had wondered whether it was the rose tinted glasses that some have that gave rise to the soubriquet, but Warren has set the record straight.

#32

Kevin,
in so far as purchasing what the manufacturer dishes out and simply gutting the unwanted electronics, then the main problem is that the electronics are integral to the construction, as regards all the nice things like lights and firebox glow and whistle/bell, etc. Simply rewiring for a motor connection or totally rewiring the loco is required, depending on the level of ‘complexity’ intended.

     Some time ago 'agreement' was reached on compliance of the various operating systems.  A standardised platform to mount the decoder and associated electronics would certainly be a cheaper alternative for all the manufacturers.  However,  one needs to look at the refusal to compromise in largescale from the various manufacturers.  Some design their electronics so that they are not compliant with other manufacturers power supplies.



     One needs only to look at the release photographs of the three truck Shay from Bachmann to see that increasing electronic capability is not the way of the future.  Increasing complexity requires a degree of skill in the assembly process.  One wonders why a manufacturer would not allow sufficient flexibility in a loco/tender connection to allow for the locomotive to actually traverse through curves, without the wires separating from the circuit boards.   The installation on the K-27 is intended to appeal to the decoder crowd with its easy access connections in the tender.  However, at what cost,  with the multitude of electrical connections between the loco and tender.


     If signals are able to be sent down the track, in DCC,  to control various onboard electronic components, motor, lights, whistle, etc,  then why could mini-decoders not be fitted to control the various onboard functions,  utilising a simple two wire connection between the loco and tender.   The main decoder would pick up the track signal and then by multiplexing the wires (or fibre optics cable),  mini-decoders at the relevant site, say headlamp, or whistle,  could decode the required signal and respond accordingly.  Manufacturers are unconcerned with additional cost as it is borne by the consumer and he, the consumer, has shown that added complexity and related cost, are unimportant, as he will continue to buy the product.   The Achilles heel of this scenario would be the fact that manufacturers are hardly likely to standardise on onboard electronics installation.  A two wire tender/loco connection would be dependent on standardising onboard electronics from all the manufacturers and that is not going to happen.
#33
Ric Golding said:
I liked Dave Watt's reference in the latest GR to the new company being called MGB. I had one of those, a 1966, British Racing Green.
I have a '58 Morris Garages A model, its original colors were black body with red leather interior. It is now a rather ugly blue with rust trim. It is my project car, in sad condition now, but someday...

I also have 4 GN grain hopper cars that came in a red box, as well as one bubble car that came in a blue and yellow box, to get back to railroading… :lol:

#34

Ric,

We will not go there!! Had enough QC crap @ ********* when I worked there… Tired I mean “Retired” now…
Now that QSI has a decoder/sound for A-C loco’s along with Digitrax that are “PnP” may be Lenz,Zimo, Massoth & NCE will follow…

#35

Thanks Warren, I knew I’d start something, however I do like KGB! Very well fellas’, carry on. Thanks!

#36

There is security software called Kremlin that uses .kgb as it’s extension. The use of KGB as a brand name for trains could raise their eyebrows. They could cause a stink with the KGB usage…:frowning: MGB might cause the same situation…:confused: But, mention LGB and you get ventilators moving a lot of hot air around…:frowning: :frowning: :frowning:

#37

Ah the MGB. I also had one, 1978 MGB Red and black was my first car infact. My father and I restored it from front to back. It was slick I then sold it for college money and the girl that bought it wrecked it 1 week later. A few years later bought a 68 Triumph had a great time with that one also.

Todd

#38
Alan Lott said:
As a newbie (18 months) to Large Scale I was equally confused by "red box". I realize now that it refers to LGB but as far as I can see red boxes are Bachmann, red and green are LGB. I had wondered whether it was the rose tinted glasses that some have that gave rise to the soubriquet, but Warren has set the record straight.
Red: Sometimes it's the colour the Ventilators see when they read one more critique of their beloved LGB. ;) :) ;) :lol:
#39
Tim Brien said:
Kevin, ... the main problem is that the electronics are integral to the construction, as regards all the nice things like lights and firebox glow and whistle/bell, etc. Simply rewiring for a motor connection or totally rewiring the loco is required, depending on the level of 'complexity' intended.
I agree, you'd lose some functionality on your loco. But if you don't want the electronics, then it's not necessarily a sacrifice. Having everything integrated means the entire system can be dropped into another locomotive, which makes it far more appealing to a potential 2nd-hand purchaser. They get the whole shootin' match, and you're left with a loco which you can customize to your heart's content with whatever third party electronics you desire (including things like firebox flicker, etc.) Remember, I'm playin' devil's advocate here. A "typical" customer would want some features, but not others.
Tim Brien said:
...However, one needs to look at the refusal to compromise in largescale from the various manufacturers...
Aye, there's the rub. And I'll be an old and grey man before they do agree on anything.

I don’t know if there is an “ideal” level of complexity in locomotive electronics. Even the older locomotives need a bit of detective work to figure out which part of which circuit board does what. I’d like to see each function have it’s own board, to make daisy-picking and customizing that much easier for the consumer. If a locomotive includes a sound system, make it at least partially usable by others’ controlers. You still have the built-in incentive to use the manufacturer’s controls, but you don’t inherently punish your customer base for not using it. (Which is really why I’m not a fan of fancy built-in electronics at all).

Later,

K

#40

Kinda scary reading about all these problems etc … Today I greeted the UPS truck , and unboxed another perfect running LGB product , to add to my list of works fine , last a long time . This runs so smooth ! Was amazed when the hummingbirds were checking it over to see where to feed from , and a couple of bees sure checked it over close . First model train I have that they did this with . LGB Chicago Surface Lines streetcar . Last month at the IRM ,we rode in one that looked just like it except for a white line and two or three bolts difference , both the model and the fullsize one are electric powered , with the motors in the trucks . As it passes by me at eye level while seated , I can almost hear the ding ding , and the air compressor sound .

[img/] Yes Rick , it really looks like it doesn’t it !