Ok fellow Marklinists
... I have been trying to work through the MFX faq repository and I am still a bit confused about the distinction in protocol languages...
so short of calling up a C3P0 for my protocol droid ... or sinking $1000plus into a CS3plus (which I don't plan on doing just yet)...

.... is it possible to do normal train functioning and sounds with DCC only system if the loco has an MFX decoder.
As I am not really interested in Cab control, I was hoping there was a work around of some sort
that could still run my MFX locos with the basic sound, delay and speed options while using a control unit that only has DCC with no MFX capabilities.

Am I asking for a fantasy?

What is the actual relationship or exclusivity between the two kinds?

Thank you all in advance.
If there is a post I am overlooking, your kind direction toward that post will be appreciated.

Signed, ... slightly confused,
Mark Five.

Thanks PeFu...

So you believe that the normal functions say speed and some basic sounds of early MFX decoders would not be recognizable with DCC.
However these basic functions are recognizable with a 6021 CU... What do we call protocol that a 6021 uses?

Mark Five

That is not true - no matter how often you repeat this nonsense.

MM, DCC, SX, and mfx are different decoder languages and theoretically you may find any combination of those languages in a single decoder.
Practically some combinations have not occurred yet (like e.g. decoders with mfx only).

Some mfx decoders also support DCC and can be used with DCC only controllers, some do not support DCC.
Some Märklin locos support DCC even though this is not mentioned in the catalogue/product database.

Some mfx decoders also support MM and can be used with MM only controllers, some do not support MM.

Yes, can be found in Trix locos. Can potentially be found in converted or modified Märklin locos.
If you see "mfx" without "MM" in the loco description you cannot blindly assume it also supports MM.

think of the different protocols like human languages. Some people can speak only one language and others can speak multiple languages.

If your controller and the decoder have a common protocol they can work together.

If you get a controller that supports DCC and MM, then you can run locos that support DCC or MM or both.

Very old Märklin decoders supported only MM. (6080 and Delta, etc.)
Other decoder manufacturers supported DCC and MM (Eg ESU)
Other controller manufacturers supported MM and DCC (and also Selectrix) (Eg Uhlenbrock Intellibox, ECoS I think)
Then mFx arrived on the scene, some manufacturers support it, some don't.
Some decoders support MM, DCC and mfx but there are no venn diagrams that can be relied on. I suspect that all Märklin decoders support MM. Some also support DCC, some also support mfx, some also both.

DCC is dominant worldwide and across brands.
There is nothing in MM that is to die for.
There is nothing in mfx to die for.

I think you have some existing MM equipment (6021, 6050 etc.) that will drive decoders that support MM only. If you are buying a new controller, I would say DCC support is critical, as you can use most decoders. Support for MM would enable you to control old locos with MM only decoders without having to upgrade the decoders to DCC ones.

Not tue. If one has a controller that handles DCC, there is no need (nor advantage) for the decoder to support MM.

What is not correct in H0s posting? He clarified the bit about some mfx items not having MM in a subsequent post, so what is not correct?

Quite amazing that Goofy must have tested all locomotives made by Märklin since MFX was introduced..........

Per

Goofy is right on this occasion though! All Marklin mfx locos will also work in MM.

HO's comment about Trix locos is a red herring, as we are clearly talking about a Marklin set-up if we are using a 6021 to control it.

How about we cut people some slack?

Ok Gentlemen
... how about I complicate the issue with a related problem to solve: I run a number of Roco locomotives as well as Marklin digital locomotives. ... would there be a way to control parallel systems with one controller? I would like to have a two rail line running next to three rail line and it would be nice to run them all centrally.

Imagine that I had a dead block connecting the two so that my Marklin live catenary loving locomotives that have a slider removed can run on both circuits. Do you think I am courting disaster thinking about doing this?

I guess what I want to understand is this:
is there really any fundamental difference as long as the controller can speak all languages concerned .. AND... I don't foolishly run any 3 rail/slider locomotives into and out of the dead section at top speed. The dead track section would be too to allow this to happen... of course if I got sloppy and left the power on it could occur....

We can all disagree and still love each other.
I appreciate continental frankness. :)

Peace,
Mark Five

By the way, I am currently only run analog and then digital with a 6021 (as Dale said) but I picked up an untested MS1 today... with no ugly box track section unfortunately.
If anyone has one they can part with I will buy it.

If your control unit delivers sufficient protocols, this is no problem. Your mobil station, CS3 - or whatever - neither care if there are 2-rail or 3-rail engines running, nor where they are.


Yes you are, unless you also change the wheels of your catenary driven Märklin engines. Else, this could be a sparkling event...

He he he ... just keep the dead track long enough ...

Actually I don't see no problems on your layout running your sliderless Marklin locos over two rail section via cantenary. It's only a question of feeding power and commands to the locos; decoders don't care how.

Cem.

Per

Yes, that's right Ray!

I would work in first a manual switch over of power and some kind of relay with sensors so computer knows which power is where. Has to have some kind of fail safe. Then power to rails changes when used for marklin electric loks so both rails are ground/return/brown.... Or resort to K track where both are isolated. But i want to use peco with proper concrete ties....but not sure if ties are prototypical...(another thread)

Mark Five

Yes, but only in the last years, so the vast majority of Maerklin mfx decoder will still NOT work in a DCC environment.
Regards

Some modern Märklin locos have axles of solid plastics and conversion to two-rail operation is fairly simple. For example hobby locos like TRAXX and Hercules.

Hi Costing,
Thanks for the feedback and comment...
...While I do appreciate what you are saying about shorting with Marklin wagons on two rail ....

...Actually,....There certainly is a relationship between MFX/MM and DCC, and 2 rail and 3 rail:

First there is the obvious.. they are both decoders protocols for train locomotives.
Obvious but important, since both can be run from one controller.

When using Digital 3 rail and 2 rail, both run with DC, not AC, as I understand... in that the decoder converts the power when DC is not supplied.
Which is why the new power adapters for Digitial only feed DC power into the track.
You do still need AC for the analog of course.

Also the both 2 and 3 rail would also share at least one rail as a common ground.
If you should simply shut off one of the rails and used live catenary, a sliderless locomotive would run identically weather it was wired for 2 rail or 3 rail,
as the feed or positive induction rail is the catenary line.

So ... I see quite a few relationships between 2 and 3 and MM and DCC that can be played with ...
...along with the whole history of different decoders are others have mentioned above and their multiprotocol functions.

Calling them Marklin digital "AC" locomotives is a bit of a misnomer,
since its more about the way the DC power is fed to the loco by the rails 2 or 3, slider or wheels.

Oh... and I run my Roco 2 rail passenger cars on the C-track all the time.
The issue for changing the wheels if I want to run them with greater effectiveness on Marklin rail is more about the 0.4mm (or ?) size difference between the rails and the flange size of the wheels that can make my Roco 2 rail cars more likely to derail on Marklin switches than the bigger (not-so-prototypical) Marklin flanged wheels with another spacing. BTW Does anyone know the exact size difference and is the rail distance slightly narrower or wider?
I think Ray mentioned this to me several years ago.

Still thinking of changes Roco wheel sets to Marklin when possible. .. for the above reasons and to increase conductivity for K-track especially.

Feel free to correct my errors with continental frankness.

Peace
Mark Five.

The difference is with the guard rails beside the frogs of turnouts. With Märklin H0 the gap is bigger to allow large flanges.
With Piko or Liliput I reduce the wheel spacing by about 0.2 mm. I do not modify the wheel spacing with Roco or Fleischmann wheel sets as those work flawless on my C track. Adjustment might be required for M track and the 0.2 mm mentioned may be insufficient for M track.

A minimal adjustment makes the wheel sets compatible for Märklin C track without making them incompatible for Trix C track. Full adjustment to the often recommended 13.8 mm will make them incompatible with Trix C track. I like the idea of having universal rolling stock that can run on Trix C track when needed.

please don't confuse the current that is fed to a DC motor from a digital decoder with the current in the rails that feeds the decoder.
Some digital decoders (such as Märklin 6080) provide current to an AC loco motor. Newer decoders have DC output and expect a DC motor (with permanent magnet).

The rail current in digital operation is never DC nor is it AC. It is a square wave digital signal akin to AC in that it swings from positive to negative very rapidly.

Correct: the number of rails used has nothing to do with the nature of the electricity. People simply associate 3-rail with AC because historically, Märklin was distinct in using AC and was also 3 rail.

This leads me to the question I discussed with Dale in Springfield. (a bit off topic sorry but...) What would be the best up to date decoder for the best price to install in my old Marklin 60s-70s loks with 3 pole motor?. How much of an advantage is there going for 5 pole,...cost becomes an issue as quantity increases...but obviously I want most effective way of near total digitization.

You need a permanent magnet for load regulation and you get a permanent magnet if you go for the c90 motor (60941/3/4).
Load regulation makes a big difference.
3-pole vs. 5-pole makes no big difference if you have a good decoder and if both motors have load regulation.

Going for the ESU "HAMO" magnet surrogates could be an option. In my experience the results are quite good for DCMs, but vary a bit for SFCMs and LFCMs. So maybe try two locos of each type for evaluation before converting the whole rooster.