This sounds fantastic.
Sadly it is yet ANOTHER bus system (6Mb/s using twisted pair) but they are trying to future proof it.
That is the prime reason for my not adopting the Marklin system - it costs so much to get the next generation of hardware (MS1, MS2, CS1, CS2, ???$$$) and the previous controllers are then not upgradeable. How disapointed did the guys who paid full price for the CS1 feel when after a couple of weeks Marklin announced the release of CS2?
Great for profits but I'm sick of planned obsolescence by large companies.

These guys are using a PC (or smart phone) for the man machine interface and they are cheaply upgradeable.

Go railcom / rail commander!

Regards.......Chook.

This argumant is now an old one.

Basically it comes down to whether you prefer a general purpose PC loaded with suitable software, or the more classic case of a dedicated machine for running your trains.

Those who are heavily into computers will always see the advantages of the former, whereas those whose primary interest is in the trains and are not so computer literate will choose the latter.

There is no right or wrong approach, but both camps must be aware that there is another way of looking at the hobby.

Automation is possible with either approach, and we have to remind ourselves that many layouts operated automatically before the advent of digital control. In fact many still do so.

For myself, I embraced digital control years ago, but I am of the opinion that just because a new system comes out does not mean you have to immediately convert to it. I was quite happy to continue with my 6021 for years after many had upgraded to MS1, them CS1, and then CS2. Recently I acquired a very cheap MS2 which is ample for the needs of my small layout. I am quite happy with the capabilities it offers, and feel no pressing need to upgrade it. Although I keep up to date with technology I don't subscribe to the view that you have to keep constantly upgrading your software. In fact I feel strongly that technology companies try to bully you into upgrading all the time just to feed their own interests.

Hi Ray S,

Welcome to the forum.

Ian.

Hi again chaps,

Firstly thanks for the welcome messages.

Ian, do you live near the Forth Rail Bridge in your picture? We live about an hour and a half to the north in Angus. Email us if you ever feel like meeting up for a chat.

And hello again John and as you have surmised, yes we are based in Scotland. I have been playing trains since I was 6 (with a Fleishmann Startset) which is well over 50 years ago now.

I also started programming computers in 1972 - punching cards for a huge IBM Mainframe. My son Nicholas seems to have inherited this aptitude and started writing software aged 8. Today he is very talented both with electronics as well as software. When we discovered the digital age had penetrated the model railway arena we were first very excited, given the huge possibilities this now opened up. This was soon followed by frustration because progress has been so slow. Also some of the software out there is very basic and requires users to read manuals of biblical proportions and then set things up in quite complex ways. We wanted users to not have to learn to be computer programmers but rather just plug stuff in and it should work. Also having endless rules and limits to what can be done is annoying and unnecessary. We have decided we only want one limit and that is 5 Amps on the tracks. This is because we don't wish to set fire to your house or weld your locomotives to the tracks. Apart from this - no limits.

Train detection for automation has been done in many ways. Zimo first introduced a system where their decoders could trigger an acknowledgement pulse when addressed as an extension of the way the programming track does. A good idea but limited to only giving the train's identity. Then AJ Ireland at Digitrax came up with what he referred to as "Transponding" which is quite difficult to get working properly and detectors chattering to each other if too close together is a common problem. Many of these problems can be fixed but haven't been and years have gone by since the system came to market. As it stands the NMRA in America was unwilling to adopt it. Then other systems such as RFID were tried by people like MERG but if the detectors read one train going over a bridge while another is going under the bridge it can't tell them apart. Same problem with multiple layers in tunnels. Many of these problems can be solved using "prediction" in software but then, provided you tell the software which train you have just put on the tracks, it can predict where it is by using occupancy detectors (detecting local current draw) and you then don't need the RFID detectors. But software prediction isn't perfect either and large beds of points (not occupancy detected) can leave the software confused and train IDs may need to be re-entered.

So, when Bernd Lenz (the man who invented DCC) came up with the RailCom spec it finally looked like a problem solved and the NMRA was quick to adopt it. Much more information than just the locomotive's address could be transmitted and it could be done fairly cheaply as well as further upgrades added if the need arose. It must be said that all the decoder manufacturers that produce RailCom decoders have complied fully with the spec. Also a growing number of manufacturers have come on board to include this technology in their products, the most recent being Rocco and Uhlenbrock but to date only one of the manufacturers in the USA has incorporated the system in their decoder range so it is very Euro-centric at the moment.

Then the system requires a cutout which is a short-circuit lasting less than half a millisecond in the DCC packet stream. It is easy and cheap to build this into a command station or booster but for the many people who already own equipment that either can't do this or some, like the Hornby Elite, that only produce a cutout during a CV transmission, a stand-alone cutout generator was needed. Surprisingly we are the only company that has made one to date. Equally surprising is that our RailCom Readers seem to be the only ones built fully to spec - i.e. can read more than one RailCom Decoder in a zone and where lights in coaches and other resistors on the tracks can't damage the RailCom signal etc. I can understand why some manufacturers may have cut some corners as it could significantly reduce the number of components on the boards. As a general rule of thumb, we have found that each component on our boards ends up costing the end user about ten times as much as we paid for it. This is due to PCBoard manufacturing costs, distribution costs, retailer markup and, by far the biggest, the 20% VAT Her Majesty's Government slaps on top of everything. (A transformer on one of our prototypes has just gone up to £10 (from £4 last year) and because this single component could mean an extra £60 retail cost to the customer, we have scrapped the item from the design and have started a new search for a much cheaper alternative which will cause some further delay.) So our 16 Zone RailCom Readers which cost an average of £10 per zone for both RailCom and simple occupancy combined, is something we are very proud of, especially considering that each board has 225 components on it.

Since we started selling these boards the one problem that seems to confuse most users is which rail is which and what about wiring points, crossings and reversing loops? Not insoluble, just a little tricky. Which was why I started wondering about all the Märklin users out there. For you it couldn't be easier because your middle rail is always your middle rail. (No surprise then that the biggest layout in the world at Miniature Wonderland in Hamburg uses mostly three rail track. It is really just so much simpler.

Then if anyone is looking for inexpensive RailCom decoders you should look at the Tams range if you want fairly small, good quality RailCom enabled decoders. I bought a bunch of "function only" Tams RailCom decoders on Ebay for less than £10 each. (Their locomotive decoders for DC motors have a "G" at the end of their model number as opposed to those for AC motors which have a "W" at the end.) They also make lighting strips for coaches which have RailCom "function only" decoders built in so possibly also worth a look, as might be their range of conductive couplings.

I'm rambling on again so probably time I shut up. We really do enjoy email contact via our website so also feel free to drop us a line if any of you have any questions.

Regards,

Ray S

Hi RayS. I'm afraid you lost me! I only have a small layout and automation is not a high priority for me, so I'm quite happy to carry on with what Marklin offers me, currently in the form of the MS2.

However, if I was ever in the Market for a large, fully automated layout then I have no doubt I would check out your products at that time. Good luck with your venture into the digital Model railway world!