Good evening everyone, I might be thick or ignorant on the subject but I don't understand what commanding switches digitally means.
I have an ESU SwitchPilot v2, a Marklin m83 decoder and a few Markin decoders that control the motors, the ones that go under the C track ballast.

Everything works fine, don't get me wrong.

I ask myself where is the 'digital' control in all of this?

I could get the motors and the switches to work just as well with the white control boxes.

1) I can see switches on my layout on the ECoS monitor, press with the stylus on the desired switch and change direction.
Big deal I could do this with the white control box as well.

2) Cabling the switch motors to the 2 decoders is identical to the old style connection of the motors to the white control boxes.

I'm not planning in using a PC to run my trains, not interested and not bothered.

I still haven't looked into the possibility of having automatic routing handled by the EcOS, if at all possible.

I can say that connecting the m83 to the EcOS was extremely easy, while connecting the SwitchPilot took me quite some time, next time I'll buy another m83 decoder.

Am I missing something here ?

Thank you and sorry for the weird topic

In basic terms a Switchpilot is ESU's K83, but the Switchpilot has more functionality than a K83.

Using 7072x control boxes means all turnout/signal wiring has to be run back to a central location. Using K83's or suchlike means wiring only needs to be run as far as the location of the K83.

Once everything is set up, you can have your keyboard panels defined on the central controller and if you use another controller or mobile device with software you can have multiple remote keyboards in various locations (good for a large layout).

You can also setup automation via your controller or a PC.

I think "commanding switches digitally" means you send a digital command to the switche's decoder (be it the small one installed under the C track at the switch, or an multi-output decoder like an M83 that is mounted nearby having the analog lines run from the M83 decoder to the switch motor.

The bulk of the distance the signal travels is the digital path such as via the track's digital power feed/loop.


The non digital way would be no decoder at all, with analog push button switches or similar, where the analog switch signal lines (3 of them?) run from the switch all the way back to your switch control panel.

So do you run 3 wires from every switch to your switch panel/controller, or do you run the 2 wire digital signal around the layout and at the switch (or near it) hook up a digital decoder and then run the 3 lines from that a very short distance to the switch motor.

Yes. Turnout motor and decoder under the turnout and call up on the CS2/3 and no wiring. For me the ideal solution.

I suspect you are looking too literally for a meaning in the word that does not exist.
While the roots may have been simply to distinguish two methods, the term is more of a brand rather than a true representation of technical non-fiction.

In (1979)1984 Marklin brought out "Multi Train Control" as a tag line with "digital" mentioned as a facilitator. Even then it might have been considered misleading as it was quite possible to control more than one train on a piece of track before the introduction of the Central Unit.
All that marketing was trying to impress on the world was that you could "control MORE aspects and MORE trains MORE easily than before" - but that was too may words.
And , over time, they found that making it even shorter by just calling it "Digital" achieved their sales targets.


I wont say I disagree, but neither do I fully agree. I find terms very contextual, and when conversing you have to find a common ground.

As an example, the first time I heard the term "fly by wire" in the same sentence as an airplane, I pictured some jet powered flying fox.

At exhibitions I quite often get asked if the layout is DCC. I consider it important to tease out if they are literally referring to the DCC protocol or using the term as a distinction from their prior "analogue" sic. experience.
8 out of 10 times it is the later.
1 out of 10 it is the blinked insistence that DCC and MM and mFX et al. are mutually exclusive - These guys just want an argument (for free)
1 out of 10 it is a mother(father) picking up a brochure and latching on to marketing terms in the hope they can sound interested, but are really just wanting a train set that works for their children. (My sister made me take the batteries out of the first trainset I gave my nephew because she thought it would "stunt his imagination". I think the flying and jumping trains of Chuggington may be a stretch to far, but "I" am "NOT" the focal point of that discussion)


It certainly is.

If you wanted to solve the problems of the model railway world, by getting an agreement on language use v literal meaning, you might consider addressing ....
- AC v DC as being different from 2 Rail and 3 Rail
- resolve the branding of the S88-AC and S88-DC
(and THEN bring in "Analogue" and "Digital" over the top of that)

Peter and Clapcott thank you very much for your insight and photos.

The only thing that changes, practically IMO, is the amount of cabling required and the replacement of a 72720 with an M83 / k83 / ESU Switch Pilot.
The wires powering the M83 / k83 / ESU 'Switch Pilot' do not actually send any 'driving' information to the switch control box but just impulses that operate the corresponding attached motors :-)

Now I kind of get it :-)

Tank you