2 EZ Command controlers

[Gadget63]

I have two Bachmann EZ command controllers. Is it possible to program one of them for train operation, and the other to control DCC switches? I'd hate to have to get rid of them to buy another controller.

[Bigmet]

There are ten preset addresses on these controllers, so the only way to do what you ask is to have two independent circuits: one for the rails from one unit; and a separate circuit to run the DCC switches from the second unit.

What happens once you have more than ten locos or ten DCC switches to operate? If that's in your future, I would make the decision now to go for a more capable system that can handle so many addresses that you are never going to run out of capacity.

[Gadget63]

Thanks for that quick reply! I am designing a small layout (39"x113") and it calls for 10 switches that I would like to be DCC controlled. At this time I don't see me having more than 6 loco's with only 3 operating at one time. So if one controller can be set up to operate 10 DCC switches, then my other controller can operate the loco's and a DCC turntable. Is this doable?

[Bigmet]

Yes, that is possible in principle, with a major caveat, see below, provided you adhere strictly to the limit of ten items under control from each system, and on completely independent wiring from each system. The set up is:
system one, rail power only,
system two, DCC switches only.


CAVEAT.
There is a potential trap, which you must avoid: as an example, if the DCC switches have to switch rail power on live crossing points, then there must be no connection within the DCC switch between the rail power feeds and the DCC switch supply. That you need to test on the DCC switches you are using, don't take it on trust that this will be the case.

For myself, I wouldn't contemplate or recommend what you propose doing! Straightforwardly I would suggest buying a more capable DCC system, and selling the EZ command units to reduce the net expenditure.

[Gadget63]

Thanks for the reply. That seems to be the consensus here, I appreciate the advice and feedback. I guess I should be looking for a DCC controller that won't break the bank.

[Flashbang]

Just to put proverbial cat amongst the pigeons Accessory decoders that are needed to interface between the DCC system and the items to be operated - Point motor etc use a different method of communicating than loco decoders use. The EZ will only produce loco type address numbers 1 to 9.
Think of it like there may be two number 1 houses but they are in completely different streets.

Therefore the Bachmann EZ DCC controller should not be able to operate accessory decoders, as it produces loco addresses only!

[Gadget63]

Yeah I'm beginning to see that now. Oh well it was worth a shot. I guess I will be in the market for a better DCC controller and either save these two, or sell them on eBay.
Thanks

[gppsoftware]

Just to put proverbial cat amongst the pigeons Accessory decoders that are needed to interface between the DCC system and the items to be operated - Point motor etc use a different method of communicating than loco decoders use. The EZ will only produce loco type address numbers 1 to 9.
Think of it like there may be two number 1 houses but they are in completely different streets.

Therefore the Bachmann EZ DCC controller should not be able to operate accessory decoders, as it produces loco addresses only!

This is correct. Years ago when I developed the SSI model railway control system software, the code to operate locos created completely different messages to what it did for accessories.

You analogy of two number 1's in different streets is a good one, but what it also does is highlight how out of date the 1980's-based addressing system in DCC actually is! Personally, I see no reason why locos and accessories shouldn't share the same address range and the address range should be extended to 32 or 64 bit. Or even give every decoder its own unique 'MAC address' then there will never be a need to program addresses again!
And while we're about it, DCC should have its network and message layers separated into a proper ISO network stack structure, thereby negating the need to upgrade hardware when new software ideas (like Railcom) come along.

Back on topic, I really don't understand why Bachmann still sell these 2-digit (which no-one outside the UK has been using for over 20 years), loco only 'DCC controllers' - they really are so basic that most people outgrow them straight away. Trying to flog an obsolete (Lenz or ESU ?) product for us much life as can be got out of it me thinks!

[Bigmet]

... I really don't understand why Bachmann still sell these 2-digit (which no-one outside the UK has been using for over 20 years), loco only 'DCC controllers' - they really are so basic that most people outgrow them straight away. Trying to flog an obsolete (ESU) product for us much life as can be got out of it me thinks!

You fully understand it, milk the cash cow for all its worth in the unsophisticated UK market.

Of DCC in general, it's very telling that in the more high tech oriented major railway modelling territories of Germany, Japan and North America, no rapidly dominating 'leap forward' successor has yet emerged. It is very easy to sketch it out: embedded unique address microprocessor in all powered devices, trains and track, structured track configuration mapping software (running on the many options for control devices) for the track layout, with automatic control sectioning to avoid movement conflict between the trains, integrated low current motor and compact battery design in traction with multiple options for hands free automatic recharging, sound effects mapped onto train movements and distributed by a surround sound system. This is all possible, but presumably not yet at a price which sufficient of the market will bear to make it commercially viable.

[Bufferstop]

I think half of the UK problem is down to the major manufacturers, (one of them in particular) seizing on the "just two wires" myth at their entry into DCC. Analogue systems can more easily cope with higher resistance feeds to the track, just up the voltage a bit! DCC doesn't work like that and the beginner really shouldn't be conned into believing it.

[Bigmet]

I think half of the UK problem is down to the major manufacturers, (one of them in particular) seizing on the "just two wires" myth at their entry into DCC ...

Make that 80% of the problem! That's what dealers I have known estimated was the proportion of UK OO layouts built solely or largely from UK set track. Hornby has nowhere else to go with DCC, if the majority of their customers that actually have a layout are firmly anchored in UK set track; and like it or not Hornby defines what the majority of UK model railway customers purchase. (Compare Hornby's pics of their latest introductions on their own ghastly set track; with Bachmann's typically on some neatly ballasted and weathered Peco Streamline - which they have been doing for at least 25 years - for no real impact on the majority of the market. Bachmann from their start up were shooting at the minority Hornby ignored, who were at least using a flexitrack system for their layouts, ranging to those that might build at least some track themselves.)

A forward looking Hornby management, while enjoying the boom of the 2000's as the new Chinese made product sold in boat loads, could well have funded the introduction of a 'new' set track system - probably to a design bought in from their old friends at Roco - with the superior connectivity that DCC requires. Opportunity Knocks - Off... I have an inkling that Peco may be about to rock the boat in this matter, as there was mention of the reintroduction of a curved set track point with their 'unifrog'. Live crossing in current UK set track for the first time! The present epidemic will have delayed this introduction as Peco make PPE instead, but let's just wait and see what evolves.

[gppsoftware]

Of DCC in general, it's very telling that in the more high tech oriented major railway modelling territories of Germany, Japan and North America, no rapidly dominating 'leap forward' successor has yet emerged. It is very easy to sketch it out: embedded unique address microprocessor in all powered devices, trains and track, structured track configuration mapping software (running on the many options for control devices) for the track layout, with automatic control sectioning to avoid movement conflict between the trains, integrated low current motor and compact battery design in traction with multiple options for hands free automatic recharging, sound effects mapped onto train movements and distributed by a surround sound system. This is all possible, but presumably not yet at a price which sufficient of the market will bear to make it commercially viable.

The fact that no successor has emerged is what really surprises me. There are a few systems which step in the right direction such as a few blue-tooth loco control systems and even the MERG CBus system, but they all aim to solve single problems instead of multiple problems which DCC itself solves.

What I have observed is an extreme opposition in our hobby to adopting standards which have been used in the computer industry for a couple of decades now. These standards are why our phones, computers and wireless all work together. There is no reason why that same technology cannot be applied to our hobby, but it needs new thinking - thinking in terms of bringing electronics and computers together - which is why we enjoy such ease of use of our phones and TVs today compared to the old antiquated VCR programming designed by electrical engineers with no UI experience.

What we need in our hobby is a move to a command station which acts as a wireless hub which is compatible with the wireless we all know today.
Let our locos pick up 16VAC from the track or power from an on-board battery, but communications should be wireless.
As far as accessories go, they still need a wired power supply, but they can also communicate via wireless.
All decoders should have a unique 'MAC address', so no need to ever program an address again.
And if someone wants to run an NMRA DCC decoder, well, the options could be there to put NMRA signals on the track or create a wireless backpack which sits on the back of a DCC decoder such that the backpack communicates via wireless and feeds the DCC decoder. Means that a loco could work on both DCC or DCC2.
As far as sound goes, it could be played through a speaker in a loco via the wireless or it could be downloaded to the loco decoder via the wireless. Positional proximity detection via wireless could integrate with surround sound.

The point of the whole thing is that the wireless acts as a proper fully bi-directional, high speed bus, built on current networking standards.
Decoder feature changes then become driven by messages, not requiring hardware upgrades as happens with current DCC.

It just needs the right people with an overall shared vision to get together and produce something! The problem is, most people think in terms of what they themselves can produce and that limits everything. They don't realise that a team of people is what is needed to make things work.

I actually drafted design documents for the above quite a few years ago!

[Suzie]

The Bachmann E-Z Command is a product for a very specific market, and that it is still in production shows that it does meet a very specific need, that of the ultra-simple train set controller.

If all you have is nine trains, and you want just simple speed and direction control of those trains (and perhaps the ability to control the headlight!), and you don't have more than four operators, the E-Z Command is the controller for you. Each train can be selected by its own button, and no need to remember numbers, each train can have its picture by the button!

You would be surprised how many of these you see at exhibitions, they do a very niche job very well. It would be very hard to extend its functionality without compromising the simplicity. If the E-Z Command works for you then fine, but if not there are plenty of more functional alternatives.

[Bufferstop]

Digital wireless control of locos and accessories is an ideal goal but the currently allocated bands are getting crowded. Bluetooth with it's shorter coverage is probably the best current band to be in, we could even have mini aerials mounted on our dummy signal boxes. The wireless soup we now live in is getting even thicker.
One thing that Covid has saved us from this year is the need for the Christmas afternoon router reset when the connection table gets maxed out! Putting the model railway requirements in the same band just ain't going to help. I can see that if we wait for such products to come from the US where walls a all plasterboard and shingles, or Japan where they are traditionally even thinner, might be a long wait. The best hope for seeing such a system must lie with Germany where building standards are better than our own.

[gppsoftware]

Digital wireless control of locos and accessories is an ideal goal but the currently allocated bands are getting crowded. Bluetooth with it's shorter coverage is probably the best current band to be in, we could even have mini aerials mounted on our dummy signal boxes. The wireless soup we now live in is getting even thicker.
One thing that Covid has saved us from this year is the need for the Christmas afternoon router reset when the connection table gets maxed out! Putting the model railway requirements in the same band just ain't going to help. I can see that if we wait for such products to come from the US where walls a all plasterboard and shingles, or Japan where they are traditionally even thinner, might be a long wait. The best hope for seeing such a system must lie with Germany where building standards are better than our own.

I think you might be thinking of a completely separate networking standard. I am thinking along the lines of the same standards and same networking that your computer, wireless router/modem and mobile phone use within the confines of your house. No need to worry about allocating new bands. You create a newly named network on the existing band and you attach all the required devices to it just as you would any computer network. It is possible to have more than one network operating independently down an Ethernet cable for example.
Advantages are that model railways become connectable to computers and phones and the opportunities grow from there. I think the problem is that historically, people have been thinking 'small' in terms of keeping things separate and non-standard - exactly what DCC is!