It continues to amaze me how heated 'discussions' on particular model railroading subjects can become. The most heated topics, about which I've learned to approach gingerly, are, in no particular order:
- Choice of flex track
- Switch manufacturers/design
- DCC System
- Strict prototype interpretation
These are what are best called 'religious' subjects in model railroading. There are many more, I imagine, but these are the ones that are most religious in my circle. Let's be very clear on what I mean here by religion and religious.
Having worked in the IT/enterprise software field for the past 20 years, a common term in our vocabulary for understanding buying behavior is 'religion.' IT departments pick their platform of choice, network of choice, operating system of choice and will defend those choices fiercely. Back in the day, Java versus Windows was one of those topics we learned to navigate very carefully. The defenses are as well-thought-out and passionate as one's religion - hence the name. As someone who has made his living understanding technology buying behaviors, this understanding of religion has served me very well in closing a lot of business in my career.
In model railroading the passion about a particular technology or approach can be just as intense, making it potentially a religious discussion beyond reasonable agreement. Another aspect I draw from my IT career to make model railroading decisions is standardization.
Here is my real point: In order to figure out, with my limited knowledge of such things as track, switches and DCC, what was the best approach for my layout, I had to learn early to look past religious arguments to understand the best solution for my requirements. Although I work in technology, I am not a technology geek. I have little patience for deep technical discussions. That's why I get help in making such decisions. I'll be the first to admit that I am not an expert and will seek counsel in making decisions about my layout's infrastructure - roadbed, track, wiring and DCC.
The same is true of switches. In preparation for building my yard ladder and passenger terminal, I evidently bought up every last Peco #8 switch available through the major US distributors of said item. What a feeling of mad power I got with the idea, however fantastical, that I had 'cornered the market' on Peco #8s! When I mentioned it to a friend, he responded summarily that 'everyone here uses Micro Engineering switches.' Needless to say, an argument ensued, and we walked away even more entrenched in our previous opinions. That's how religious arguments work in technology.
The same is true of switches. In preparation for building my yard ladder and passenger terminal, I evidently bought up every last Peco #8 switch available through the major US distributors of said item. What a feeling of mad power I got with the idea, however fantastical, that I had 'cornered the market' on Peco #8s! When I mentioned it to a friend, he responded summarily that 'everyone here uses Micro Engineering switches.' Needless to say, an argument ensued, and we walked away even more entrenched in our previous opinions. That's how religious arguments work in technology.
Back to standardization. In my IT/enterprise software applications world, standardization has several obvious advantages over hybrid environments. One is consistency across the system. If I use the same track, for example, I can expect it to behave in pretty much the same way across my operation.
The bigger, and more important consideration for standardization is support. Here is where one must be cognizant of religion in technology. Passionate defense of one system over another - NCE versus Digitrax specifically - can obscure the critical facts I need to make the best decision for my operation. Each system has its advantages and shortcomings for my requirements. For me, Digitrax has huge advantages for its power and scalability (at least in how I approach these requirements). The fact that I can build a database of 400+ locomotive addresses, as many throttles, and add signals, block control and other accessories seamlessly on the same platform makes the system one that I can learn how to expand as my needs grow. Digitrax looks and feels like an IT platform that I understand (my religion coming out!) - its set of services, network functions, power and component functions.
The bigger, and more important consideration for standardization is support. Here is where one must be cognizant of religion in technology. Passionate defense of one system over another - NCE versus Digitrax specifically - can obscure the critical facts I need to make the best decision for my operation. Each system has its advantages and shortcomings for my requirements. For me, Digitrax has huge advantages for its power and scalability (at least in how I approach these requirements). The fact that I can build a database of 400+ locomotive addresses, as many throttles, and add signals, block control and other accessories seamlessly on the same platform makes the system one that I can learn how to expand as my needs grow. Digitrax looks and feels like an IT platform that I understand (my religion coming out!) - its set of services, network functions, power and component functions.
NCE, on the other hand, has a great user interface for programming and operation. The throttle is well-designed for how I think - its shape, thumb-driven speed control, and display are ideal for the way I operate trains. Programming locomotives in NCE PowerCab is a breeze - smallest learning curve for me, easy to remember. Digitrax's user interface (hardware and software behavior) leaves a lot to be desired. It's step programming requires more brain power than I like to apply. Its dial-based speed control requires two hands to use. I can go on and on about these UX (User Experience)) issues but have made my point.
With these features noted, how did I choose my DCC system? The decision was simple: I chose the core system with the most local support. In IT the choice of vendor often turns on that vendor's ability - and willingness - to troubleshoot and fix issues quickly over the life of the product. In Salt Lake City, Digitrax is most often the system of choice, and because of that, it has the widest knowledge base from which I can draw for support. My Chief Layout Engineer and builder-partner, Brad, has intimate knowledge of its ins and outs, so I can rely on that knowledge when backed into a corner (which, left to my own devices, I will do with technology). Also, he local Train Shoppe has deep knowledge of this platform, providing more support when I need it.
My selection of Digitrax ultimately came down to the issue of support and power I understand. Once that was decided, I did what every technology geek wants to do - GO BIG! Technology quickly runs up against its capacity limits, so overbuying now saves money in the long run. I bought the most powerful of everything I could get from Digitrax:
- DCS240 Command Base
- DB150 for boosters (a command base in itself)
- PS2012 Power Supply (20 amps - More Power!)
- Radio and Duplex receivers
- 2 DTS500D duplex throttles
- Separate booster and bus for switches, signals
For programming I went with the NCE PowerCab in my staging/programming environment. I had purchased the system a few years ago and wanted to use it on my layout (originally I planned to use it for a narrow gauge layout in my head). A number of people pointed out the advantages of NCE for programming and how to configure it for a Digitrax-based operation. By isolating the programming from operational environments, I get the best of both worlds.
My plan is to implement JMRI for operating the mainline, which has the advantage of providing a prototype CTC-like interface for more authentic prototype control and is fully compatible with both of my base platforms. Ultimately, this hybrid environment is the best suited approach to my layout's requirements (emphasis here because of Model Railroader's Rule #1: It's MY layout). Here I cannot overestimate my biases in my decision. After working for IBM for over a decade, I grew quite comfortable with the notion of picking IT platforms based on their power, scalability, componentization support, and general product support over their User Interface/Experience (UX). That said, my hybrid approach to DCC allows me the best of all of the platforms while maintaining standardization and the best product support for my operating environment.
Comments
Post a Comment