Hi Ed,
I have gone through the process you question. I *have* a fully
functional Digitrax system. My reasons for the change were these:
a) I was tired of the stalling of the engines, and the subsequent
cleaning-of-track chore.
b) I was looking to simplify my DCC system, and lost interest in sound
(as was mentioned; too many sound engines is too much).
c) My Digitrax system gives me so much trouble with it forgetting my
engine numbers, sometimes not working (e.g. not interacting with the
engines), having to plug the throttle in to select a different engine,
not having an on/off button on the throttle, etc.
d) On our club layout, as with any large, multi-operator layout, shorts
happen, the electrical system doesn't work for some reason or another,
etc. I do software development and debugging during the day, and I don't
want to do electrical debugging as part of my hobby, which is supposed
to be relaxing.
In my particular situation, a) was the dominant reason for the change. I
wanted battery power (which then also solves "d", for me at least).
AristoCraft has a battery/radio-frequency system for G-scale and they
were working on reducing the size of the components to get them to fit
in HO-scale engines. Model Railroad News magazine did a review of the
existing system at the time. I wrote an e-mail to AristoCraft, two in
fact, and each time I got the reply of "it will be available in three
months". It is still not available. Maybe they couldn't figure out the
miniaturization.
I found out about the S-CAB system before I learned of the Tam Valley
approach. I would still prefer the S-CAB approach at this time, if I
were to start over with my evaluations, but that's just me.
Actually, I found out about the S-CAB system via the FreeRails forum web
site.
http://freerails.com/view_forum.php?id=45
They have a very large forum about using radio-control (as in R/C
airplane/cars) components to control your trains. Several people
demonstrated the equipment fitting in small engines. You would use a
normal R/C airplane controller to run your trains. All battery powered.
That was actually what got me interested in this. Eventually someone
mentioned S-CAB and I liked the more complete approach that that system
provides over the cobbled-together R/C parts that I'd then have to
figure how to fit and make work.
Anyway, now that I have the S-CAB system, I have found two more pluses.
One is that I didn't realize how much of an improvement pure DC battery
power would make on the running quality of my two converted engines.
Two, the ergonomics of the throttle is WAY better than the Digitrax
DT400 throttle that I have been using ever since that came out (and I
also wasn't looking forward to using the big, bulky R/C joystick
controllers!). The simple fact that I can turn off the throttle, rather
than having to take the battery out (like I have to do with the DT400),
is a big improvement. Some of these are little things, but little
annoyances can turn into big ones. :-)
My frustration with the Digitrax system did indeed lead me to evaluate
the other DCC systems. However, then I'd also have the expense of buying
into a new system, *but* I would still be left with the dirty
track/dirty wheels issue, which, to me, is a major detriment to my
enjoyment of this hobby. It was the main reason why I changed from
N-scale to S. I thought that going to bigger, heavier engines would
reduce or eliminate that problem. The fact that I couldn't read the car
numbers without extra glasses was a close second!
Yes, I admit that the change-of-systems is easier for me since I only
have three engines (only two of which I run on my layout; the FA-2 is
only used on the club layout).
I hope this gives you some insight as to why I am changing. As soon as I
have converted my RS-1 to S-CAB (assuming I can with its tight
quarters), I plan to sell my Digitrax components.
Please note that if you are interested in Tsunami sound decoders
controlled by S-CAB, you will still need some sort of system to program
that decoder's settings. The S-CAB throttle cannot communicate that
information to the decoder. If you are interested in that approach, be
sure to join the S-CAB Yahoo group (a low-volume group) and/or contact
Neil Stanton or NWSL about any questions you have. They have all been
very responsive in answering my questions. The person converting the
Tsunami for you can program it to your specifications, if you don't have
a system, but you won't be able to change the settings later on. I have
no experience with this; I just read some e-mails about those installs.
Anyway, my e-mails and web articles are just showing you all what my
experiences are. If it appeals to you, great! If not and you are happy
with your current system, by all means stay with your current system. I
just wasn't happy with my "current" system, and hadn't been for a number
of years. I am happy now!
- Peter.
On 03/27/2013 12:39 am, Ed wrote:
If economy is the goal, is the S-CAB cheaper after considering the
purchase of the new hardware (cabs & etc.) to make it run? That is a
question based on my ignorance. I am not trying to say one is more
expensive than the other. Just that total cost is more than just what
goes into the loco. That is my point, you already have the
infrastructure in place for DCC. Do you need/want two infrastructures?
If it makes sense, than go for it! My question is if it really is
cheaper for just the switchers or some other small quantity of locos?
Is it cheaper when you eventually replace the S-CAB onboard hardware
with DCC decoders later? In the long run, it seems to me to be more
expensive. But knowing that you are a wealthy retired hobby shop
owner, perhaps cost is not a major factor. (still grinning)
--
Peter Vanvliet ([email protected])
Houston, Texas
My Model Railroad Site <http://pmrr.org/> (RSS feed
<http://pmrr.org/rss.xml>)
Fourth Ray Software <http://fourthray.com/>
Houston S Gaugers <http://houstonsgaugers.org/>
N.A.S.G. <http://nasg.org/>
--
