Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline wurttemberg  
#1 Posted : 09 September 2014 12:44:50(UTC)
wurttemberg


Joined: 11/03/2006(UTC)
Posts: 85
Location: ,
Hi,
Does anyone know how mFX works technically? Or if there are any links to any description of that information.
Does each device (ie decoder) have a unique ID? (Similar to MAC adress for internet devices), and does MS allocate a specific "adress" (loko name) to that unique ID, or how does MS allocate adress/Name to the Loco?

A description of the flow of actions from first recognizing the "new" loco/decoder by MS and up until MS displays what it is allocated to an with what features that device contains, would be most appreciated. (Maybe this topic is already being handled elsewhere?)



Offline kiwiAlan  
#2 Posted : 09 September 2014 14:18:53(UTC)
kiwiAlan

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 8,067
Location: ENGLAND, Didcot
Originally Posted by: wurttemberg Go to Quoted Post
Hi,
Does anyone know how mFX works technically? Or if there are any links to any description of that information.
Does each device (ie decoder) have a unique ID? (Similar to MAC adress for internet devices), and does MS allocate a specific "adress" (loko name) to that unique ID, or how does MS allocate adress/Name to the Loco?

A description of the flow of actions from first recognizing the "new" loco/decoder by MS and up until MS displays what it is allocated to an with what features that device contains, would be most appreciated. (Maybe this topic is already being handled elsewhere?)



The information available is very limited, and consists mainly of information that technical people have obtained by reverse engineering what they have encountered while running a system. However I will see what I can do to elucidate you from my understanding.

Each mfx decoder has a unique ID, rather like a MAC address, as you surmised. When that decoder is registered with an ms or cs, an address is assigned to that decoder. I believe this address is shown on the display of a cs2, but not on a cs1. I don't believe it is shown at all on either ms, certainly not on an ms1. If you go and run this loco on a different controller, a different address will probably be assigned to the loco, as the previous address may have already been assigned. I don't know if a given decoder will always be assigned the same address on a given controller, or if it may change between power up cycles. If it does change that may create problems for software like RR&Co, unless it has a method for identifying by the decoder identifier.

The name of the loco is stored in the decoder, and can be programmed, so if a loco comes up with '64 117' as the displayed name you can change that to 'Dads Br64' say, and now whenever that loco is registered on any cs or ms that is the name it will display. An example of this is a 39640 Br64 that I bought off eBay, as having no sound. The road number of this loco is 64 250, but when I put it on the track it registers as 64 304, which was produced the same year as a non-sound version of 39640. Someone had bought two 39640, and a 39646, swapped the sound decoder in one of the 39640 for the non-sound decoder in the 39646, and then sold the non-sound 39640 on to me. The loco number of the 39646 stayed as the factory programmed name of the decoder as the seller didn't change it.

There is some information on the transmission protocol between the control unit and the decoder at http://www.alice-dsl.net/mue473/mfxmenue.htm which translates reasonably using Google translate.


All the function identification icons are also set up in the decoder. It is because all this information is in the decoder that it takes so long for a loco to register with a cs or ms when first put on the track. A lot of information is downloaded from the decoder to tell the controller what fucntions are available.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by kiwiAlan
Offline H0  
#3 Posted : 09 September 2014 14:36:46(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,250
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: wurttemberg Go to Quoted Post
Does each device (ie decoder) have a unique ID?
Yes, a serial number (32 bit).

Originally Posted by: wurttemberg Go to Quoted Post
and does MS allocate a specific "adress" (loko name) to that unique ID, or how does MS allocate adress/Name to the Loco?
Each loco gets a controller-specific address (range 1 through 65535).
Each loco remembers the controller (controller ID) and will register again with a new controller.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by H0
Offline biedmatt  
#4 Posted : 09 September 2014 23:55:29(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
kiwiAlan wrote:
All the function identification icons are also set up in the decoder. It is because all this information is in the decoder that it takes so long for a loco to register with a cs or ms when first put on the track. A lot of information is downloaded from the decoder to tell the controller what fucntions are available.


It must be an awfully slow communication format. Railcom+ imports the same info in less than 5 seconds, plus you do not need to acquire the info over and over as MFX does when you place the loko on the track two weeks later. I do not understand why Marklin thinks this should be normal and MFX users should tolerate it. This is something they really need to get a handle on and fix or ditch MFX.

Only one person asked for Railcom+ in the 2015 want list thread. Are you guys happy with these MFX foibles?
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by biedmatt
ChookH0
Offline H0  
#5 Posted : 10 September 2014 07:41:40(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,250
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
Are you guys happy with these MFX foibles?
I want DCC. I don't want mfx, I don't want RailCom+ either.
Automatic registration is nice as long as it is not compulsory (the biggest flaw of mfx besides the frequent re-registrations).

Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by H0
Offline RayF  
#6 Posted : 10 September 2014 08:55:22(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,837
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post


Only one person asked for Railcom+ in the 2015 want list thread. Are you guys happy with these MFX foibles?



For what its worth, I'm happy with mfx. From what I hear about Railcom+ I don't think many in the "DCC" camp are that interested in it.

My locos, apart from those with mfx+, register in less than 20 seconds. Those wth mfx+ take longer, but I'm informed that an update to my MS2 would fix that. Once registered I don't need to re-register unless I've deleted the loco from the list.

I find mfx convenient and easy to use, and saves a lot of time trying to remember loco addresses. It works for me.
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
Offline biedmatt  
#7 Posted : 10 September 2014 11:26:03(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
Are you guys happy with these MFX foibles?
I want DCC. I don't want mfx, I don't want RailCom+ either.
Automatic registration is nice as long as it is not compulsory (the biggest flaw of mfx besides the frequent re-registrations).



You can disable Railcom+ via decoder CV if you choose and perhaps in your controller. I have never looked there. That said, I have never had a decoder fail to auto register. I have had MFX decoders fail to register and also fail to re-register when placed on the track later. That MFX foible has never shown itself in Railcom+.

Edit: if a Railcom+ loko would fail to register, then you still have the fixed address in the loko so you could create it by hand in your controller. This provides a work around to the MFX problem of lokos that will never run if they do not import correctly. But, Of my 100+ lokos, I have never had a Railcom+ decoder fail to import and it has been immediately available when placed on the track weeks and months later. "The biggest flaw of MFX" has never shown itself in Railcom+.
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline biedmatt  
#8 Posted : 10 September 2014 11:43:49(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
From what I hear about Railcom+ I don't think many in the "DCC" camp are that interested in it.


Old men affraid of change. The hobby shows it's age in the attitudes of the users.

You had to use MFX and it's auto register feature because Marklin only offers that choice. You had to use it and you have grown accustom to it and appreciate the simplicity of auto registration. Railcom+ provides those very same features, plus the ability to know exactly where on your track a particular loko is located.

Edit: Perhaps some of those DCC users are like Tom. MFX auto registration has placed a bad taste in his mouth and he is now suspicious of all auto registration formats.
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline biedmatt  
#9 Posted : 10 September 2014 12:23:47(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Sorry for hijacking the thread. That was not my intention. My intention was to try and get a handle on why so many are commited to a flawed control system and why you are not screaming at Marklin to fix the flaws. A simple brows of this website will provide a (substantial) list of those flaws. That was the direction I originally went: "Are you guys happy with these MFX foibles?"

Edit: Just to be clear, I did not switch to Railcom+ because I wanted to switch. I did not want to go to a different format. My switch was wholly motivated by the "Mostly Frustrating eXperience" (credit to Tom) I had with MFX. If they would fix MFX, I might go back, but probably not. I have now seen the other side and like that my decoders are now completely open and I can modify and configure them as I want. Like putting a bell in 39950, or adding a sound file the prototype should have but that sound file became available later. Why does Marklin lock up the decoders they supply with their lokos? Do they really care so much about their decoder configurations that they feel the need to lock them? Yes, I am aware that the retrofit decoders Marklin sells are open and unlocked. But at that point you still had to buy a replacement decoder. Why do they lock the decoder supplied with the loko?
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline H0  
#10 Posted : 10 September 2014 14:20:36(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,250
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
Edit: Perhaps some of those DCC users are like Tom. MFX auto registration has placed a bad taste in his mouth and he is now suspicious of all auto registration formats.
My Central Station can do RailCom+ only with an ESU Booster. As it is, I cannot use RailCom+. I'm not keen on trying it and I won't spend money for a booster just to get RailCom+.
If I could use RailCom+ without additional cost, I would probably try it.

RailCom+ can be disabled per loco, allowing to use it for some locos while some locos do not register automatically. Just like DHCP - I use for some devices while some have fixed addresses. I use auto focus and auto exposure for 90% of my pictures, but I don't want a camera that does not also support manual focus, manual exposure, manual shutter, manual white balance.

I don't have a "bad taste" about automatic things in general. But I have seen mfx locos that would not register and hence could not be used (or only in MM mode after disabling mfx in the CS2). mfx saves time if it works, but it wastes time if it doesn't work.


The original question was: How does mfx work?
It works fully automatically - or individual locos won't run at all if they fail to register automatically.
Or with other words: It does not work as reliably as I expect.
These answers to the question are off topic as they do not provide technical details. Sorry for that.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline Danlake  
#11 Posted : 10 September 2014 19:09:01(UTC)
Danlake

New Zealand   
Joined: 03/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,571
I must admit I never had any issues with mfx and don't understand all the fuzz... Once a new loco has registered it's always ready next time I turn on the layout.

When I put a new loco on track for the first time I use either the programming track or makes sure there is no other loco on the layout.

For my medium sized layout and only a modest loco collection the mfx works perfectly for meCool

Brgds Lasse
Digital 11m2 layout / C (M&K) tracks / Era IV / CS3 60226 / Train Controller Gold 9 with 4D sound. Mainly Danish and German Locomotives.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Danlake
Offline wurttemberg  
#12 Posted : 11 September 2014 16:43:54(UTC)
wurttemberg


Joined: 11/03/2006(UTC)
Posts: 85
Location: ,
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
Edit: Perhaps some of those DCC users are like Tom. MFX auto registration has placed a bad taste in his mouth and he is now suspicious of all auto registration formats.
My Central Station can do RailCom+ only with an ESU Booster. As it is, I cannot use RailCom+. I'm not keen on trying it and I won't spend money for a booster just to get RailCom+.
If I could use RailCom+ without additional cost, I would probably try it.

RailCom+ can be disabled per loco, allowing to use it for some locos while some locos do not register automatically. Just like DHCP - I use for some devices while some have fixed addresses. I use auto focus and auto exposure for 90% of my pictures, but I don't want a camera that does not also support manual focus, manual exposure, manual shutter, manual white balance.

I don't have a "bad taste" about automatic things in general. But I have seen mfx locos that would not register and hence could not be used (or only in MM mode after disabling mfx in the CS2). mfx saves time if it works, but it wastes time if it doesn't work.


The original question was: How does mfx work?
It works fully automatically - or individual locos won't run at all if they fail to register automatically.
Or with other words: It does not work as reliably as I expect.
These answers to the question are off topic as they do not provide technical details. Sorry for that.


Thank you, all of you, for your answers,
Even though the thread turned out a bit off my initial question, it did answer my question. My reason for asking is well summarized by Tom above, - I have trains that do not register at all as mFX, and I do not find it 100% reliable. - I have to stick to MM mode.
Thank you,
Offline kiwiAlan  
#13 Posted : 11 September 2014 17:24:57(UTC)
kiwiAlan

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 8,067
Location: ENGLAND, Didcot
Originally Posted by: wurttemberg Go to Quoted Post


Thank you, all of you, for your answers,
Even though the thread turned out a bit off my initial question, it did answer my question. My reason for asking is well summarized by Tom above, - I have trains that do not register at all as mFX, and I do not find it 100% reliable. - I have to stick to MM mode.
Thank you,


Are you saying these locos are definitely mfx capable ones? There can be a number of reasons why such a loco may not register, and it may take some delving into the actual layout to find out why. Even DCC layouts have problems, search on google for 'DCC snubber'.

Offline perz  
#14 Posted : 12 September 2014 00:43:33(UTC)
perz

Sweden   
Joined: 12/01/2002(UTC)
Posts: 2,578
Location: Sweden
I have made quite a lot of experiments with mfx in my attempts to design my own control equipment. My impression from these experiments is that the mfx protocol in itself is extremely robust. So my conclusion is that the frequently reported problems with it breaks down to poor implementation of the registration procedure in the control stations. It is long since I worked with it now, but I remember that I had one situation where a loco failed to register with the MS1 and then it was "dead" as long as you just tried it with the MS1's (I have 2 of them). But with my own home made equipment, although with very incomplete mfx support, I could easily bring the loco back to normal operation again.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by perz
Offline RayF  
#15 Posted : 12 September 2014 10:10:36(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,837
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
I don't know if this is relevant, but I have had a couple of occasions only when a loco has failed to register. After reading advice on this forum (I think it was from Tom), I did a factory reset on my MS2 and the loco immediately registered afterwards.

I don't know what the real mechanism is, but my theory is that the controller thinks that it has already registered that loco, but fails to display it in the loco list. It won't register again because it can't register the same loco twice. Resetting the MS2 to factory defaults ensures that all registrations get deleted and you can then register your loco from scratch.

Of course this way you lose everything in your loco list and you might have to spend some time re-entering all your locos, so there is some pain involved.
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
Offline biedmatt  
#16 Posted : 12 September 2014 10:56:29(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Ray, you have just described the problem with MFX that caused me to give up on the format. I believe that loko registration issues is also why Tom does not use MFX. I was aggravated when a loko would not run because it would not register and there is no work around with MFX. The only solution is a software reset of your controller. My desire was to simply run a train. Now I must clear my controller and upload my archived controller database from my laptop. After I reconfigure the controller so it will communicate again with my laptop. All I wanted was to play with a train.

This problem has been endemic to MFX for at least the 2.5 years I have been back in the hobby and perhaps even longer. It is well documented. Marklin is aware of it. That it has not been corrected leads me to one of two conclusions, either Marklin does not care (I hope I am wrong with this conclusion) or this is a flaw in the format that can not be corrected. Since ESU's controller suffers the same problems as Marklin's own inhouse controller (62015 and MS2) suggests it is not a controller bug, but a flaw in MFX that can not be identified or can not be fixed. There are other things I dislike about MFX, but those are more to do with Marklin's business model and their desire to micro manage and control my hobby, not the format itself.
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline RayF  
#17 Posted : 12 September 2014 12:27:25(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,837
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
Ray, you have just described the problem with MFX that caused me to give up on the format. I believe that loko registration issues is also why Tom does not use MFX. I was aggravated when a loko would not run because it would not register and there is no work around with MFX. The only solution is a software reset of your controller. My desire was to simply run a train. Now I must clear my controller and upload my archived controller database from my laptop. After I reconfigure the controller so it will communicate again with my laptop. All I wanted was to play with a train.

This problem has been endemic to MFX for at least the 2.5 years I have been back in the hobby and perhaps even longer. It is well documented. Marklin is aware of it. That it has not been corrected leads me to one of two conclusions, either Marklin does not care (I hope I am wrong with this conclusion) or this is a flaw in the format that can not be corrected. Since ESU's controller suffers the same problems as Marklin's own inhouse controller (62015 and MS2) suggests it is not a controller bug, but a flaw in MFX that can not be identified or can not be fixed. There are other things I dislike about MFX, but those are more to do with Marklin's business model and their desire to micro manage and control my hobby, not the format itself.


Hi Matt,

The fault I described has only happened to me twice since I got my MS2 a couple of years ago. Whereas it would be nice if it didn't happen at all, I can live with a reset once in a while like this. Most PCs needs rebooting with monotonous regularity, and yet most PC users regard it as a necessary evil.

Marklin is not alone in trying to encourage a "one-stop shop" for their products. This has been the Apple business model from the beginning, and most other major manufacturers try to do it as much as they can get away with it. It's only the small specialist companies who appeal for "open" systems, mostly because it's in their interest, not the customers.

I like the "plug and play" ideal behind Marklin's direction in the digital world. I like that I can buy a loco, put it on the track, and drive it away 20 seconds later without going into complicated programming of CVs or frantic searching through a manual. If I want to do some fiddling and fettling I can still access the most important parameters via a few simple menus. For non-mfx locos, the loco-card is a brilliant alternative!

I know how you feel about mfx, and I respect your views, though I don't agree with your solution of ripping out every mfx decoder and replacing it with a new one. I feel it's a bit drastic and an unnecessary expense, but it's your time and money.

Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
Offline H0  
#18 Posted : 12 September 2014 13:08:46(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,250
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
I feel it's a bit drastic and an unnecessary expense
The drastic remedy to avoid removing mfx decoders is simple: only buy locos without mfx or that allow mfx to be disabled.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline RayF  
#19 Posted : 12 September 2014 13:38:08(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,837
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
I feel it's a bit drastic and an unnecessary expense
The drastic remedy to avoid removing mfx decoders is simple: only buy locos without mfx or that allow mfx to be disabled.


If you feel that strongly against mfx this is a better solution, in my opinion.

However, even less drastic is to accept the loco as it is and control it with a non-mfx controller instead, or just get used to the way mfx works and work around any problems, which is my prefered option.
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
Offline biedmatt  
#20 Posted : 12 September 2014 13:43:25(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
As you operate more lokos on a layout, the registration issues become more frequent. Park a few lokos on a siding and when you power up that siding later, MFX gets lost in the ozone as it tries to acquire multiple lokos simultaneously. Be careful not to place too much on its plate.

One stop shopping is wonderful. My ESU decoders and my ESU controller work as I would expect single source systems should work. Little fiddling is needed, I can change a decoder in 30 minutes, including the speaker. ESU's auto configuration for motor CVs makes setting up the loko a snap. 99% of the time I get a perfect motor CV configuration. Apparently better than Marklin's motor configuration based on the complaints I read about three pole motors. The three pole motor does not bother me. ESU's decoders work them just fine.

The decision to scrap MFX was not made lightly. I knew it would be costly and time consuming, but in the end, these are not static toys. If you can not get them to run, then they really have little purpose. I realized I was spending too much time trying to make them run. That situation would persist unless I took action. It was all too apparent to me Marklin was not going to take the action necessary to fix it. Edit: I have 20 to 30 years left in this hobby. I am not going to fight this problem for the life of the hobby.

Our expectations and layout needs differ and as a result of that difference, we have chosen options needed to meet our expectations. The beauty of choice.

But, back to where I began. We are nearly ten years into the MFX format. Why can't Marklin make it work? I do hope we agree there is a problem. It is well documented at this site. Why don't they fix it? Or can they? Perhaps the Marklin/ESU breakup significantly benefited ESU. They can now distance themselves from a flawed format they had a hand in developing.

Edited by user 13 September 2014 16:53:07(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline biedmatt  
#21 Posted : 12 September 2014 14:02:09(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
The drastic remedy to avoid removing mfx decoders is simple: only buy locos without mfx or that allow mfx to be disabled.


When your brand is Marklin (since 1971) then buying a loko without MFX is impossible, although I wish they would offer their lokos without decoders. You can disable MFX, but then you are left with MM, a format from the early 1980s. I could drive my 1954 Jaguar XK-120 Special Equipment roadster each day too, but Honda has been able to build a more practical daily driver these 60 years later. The Honda handles better, accelerates as fast and most certainly stops better. It just doesn't look or sound as good as the Jag.

Edit: I have over 100 lokos. MM allows about 250 addresses in the extended format. 80 in the original format. Lets say each loko has 12 functions. Actually most of my lokos have more than 12. To use all 12 functions, each loko would need three MM addresses as MM only supports four functions per address. The math is simple and I am out of addresses in MM. Sure not all 100 lokos are operated at the same time, but how do you decide which will have duplicated addresses? If duplicated, those two lokos can not run at the same time. What if I decide later to run two lokos with the same address at the same time? Then I have to reprogram addresses on one of those two. Makes operations a logistic nightmare. Why would it have to be that way? The simple answer is because Marklin will not fix the registration problem with MFX. I do not think they can fix it. I think it is an unfortunate situation created because each loko does not have a fixed address when operated in MFX. This has been known for years. Marklin has seen the same problem as they test lokos at the factory. You can not build and test these lokos with this format and not have experienced the problem. Either they ignore the problem, or they can not fix it. I believe it is the latter. What I do not understand is why so many here give Marklin a "pass" in regards to this problem. Would you tolerate problems in your automobile the whole life of the car? Why is my choice to make the equipment work "as it says on the tin" considered "drastic", yet the root cause of the problem is given a mere shrug?

Edited by user 13 September 2014 16:24:00(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.856 seconds.