Time for Hornby to move on from NEM652 8-pin?

[E100]

Is Hornby's reliance on NEM652 8 pin interface holding back progress with advanced lighting / sound etc? Interested to get people's thoughts.

[woodenhead]

Depends what it's market wants - keeping with the same 8 pin interface means it has standardised all it's add on components it sells TTS decoders and general decoders plus the hardware to use them.

 

If the vast majority of Hornby buyers are not interested in all the extra functionality then it doesn't need to alter it's interface and it really only benefits diesel or electric locomotives which have lots more lights and functions to operate, a steam loco is quite simple in comparison when it comes to functions.

 

That the other companies have moved towards ever more complicated interfaces is more about the demands of buyers of their locomotives wanting more horns and lights (whistles and bells) on their models.

[adb968008]

If they are moving to smoke (as in the Lord Nelson testing in episode 1), Would 8 pin suffice ?

 

I wonder if the steam approach is using a cold water based humidifier rather than an oil based heating element ? 

Ive been watching such a cold water system on ebay, its only around a fiver, thinking it might look good in a deltic.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/353704436059

but to chuff it will need a timed on/off power in sync to a locos beat…

can an 8 pin do this ?

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by adb968008

[Huw Griffiths]

49 minutes ago, cbrooks122000 said:

Then of course with the 8 pin socket you have the flying lead, which is an accident about to happen if you forget to insulate it. When you are struggling to put the loco body on because there isn't really enough space for the decoder and its length of wire, it is generally the wire that touches the chassis and bye bye decoder. The only thing that I like about the the 8 pin socket is that it is easy to retrofit it into old locos that are not DCC ready.

 

I'd hope that people installing DCC would be reasonably competent with wiring (with my background, I'd be rather worried if I weren't reasonably competent with this stuff).

 

Simon's got a point with his observation. I can remember chatting with another engineer at a trade show, a few years ago - especially this guy's comment about standards: "The really great thing about standards is that there are so many of them!" Cynical, perhaps - but fair comment.

 

As for the 8 pin sockets, they can actually be useful even to people who haven't gone digital (there are still some of us - even in MERG). With 8 pin sockets, isolating different parts of model locomotives, multiple units etc for maintenance is very straightforward - and it's also possible to make compatible connectors, using modified 8 pin IC sockets.

 

As for me, I've got a GWR AEC twin railcar project "on the go" - which involves adapting some RailRoad single cars - it suits my purposes that these come fitted with 8 pin sockets.

 

I think it would be fair to say that not everyone would necessarily want Hornby RTR models to come ready fitted with sockets with 22, 21, 18 or however many pins.

 

 

Huw.

[thohurst]

I feel that Bachmann have been pushing the socket dilemma in the right direction. By using the plux (8, 12, 16, 22) socket on their diesels and/or larger models, it's future proofing for plenty of functions and outputs. Along both Bachmann and Dapol with the next18 socket for smaller models and sockets inside the boilers of steam locos. If Hornby wanted to move to the plux socket I think it would be a smart idea. More functionality for those who want it, but because the socket is designed to use anywhere from 8-22 pins, they could have their TTS range still work fine with very little modification, just change the 8-pin plug to a plux8 plug. 

The move to these sockets also makes sound fitting easier and potentially more versatile. By having a socket equipped with the speaker output pins, for example what Dapol did with the mogul, a speaker in the smokebox and space for a second one in the tender, with the wires and connectors already provided in the model! It makes a lot more sense for an easy installation.  

Edited November 9, 2021 by thohurst

[RAF96]

You talk about standards but . . .

Next-18 has two standards within the one - sound and non sound so which would a manufacturer go for.

MTC21 has variation within the standard regarding hi or lo function outputs, albeit switchable within the decoder.

Plux appears to be the answer but do you fit a universal maxi socket or one to suit the loco.

Or do you build the functionality of the decoder into the loco circuit board which would rule out simple decoder of choice retro-fits.

Edited November 10, 2021 by RAF96

[mdvle]

21 hours ago, scumcat said:

Simon addressed this in an interview I saw, I remember he said something like there is no standard everyone is using different sizes, maybe we will look at it again in the future

 

But the flip side to that is Hornby, with their size in the market, could help drive the market to a newer standard.

[sparaxis]

The biggest advantage Of MTC-21, Plux-22 or Next-18 is that they have a predefined installation space. Open the loco. Remove the dummy plug. Install the decoder. Close the body.

 

There are lots of "DCC ready" Hornby locos with 8-pin sockets with no clear space or location for the decoder. I have lots of locos where the only way to install a decoder was to remove the 8 pin socket and hard wire.

 

Hornby should follow their OWN EXAMPLE (Rivarossi, Jouef etc) and use Next-18 and MTC-21.

Personally I prefer Plux...but whatever.

 

Contrary to the statement earlier in this thread, the sound and silent versions of Next-18 are compatible by specification. The sound version is larger, and has loudspeaker outputs where the silent version allows for 2 additional functions. The specification is clear the Next-18 hardware must be designed in such a way they the sound and silent versions can be swopped without hardware damage.

 

The difference between the NEM/RCN/current NMRA versions of the MTC-21 and the "Marklin" and older NMRA version is that the standard has AUX 3 and AUX 4 at logic level whereas the other version has these amplified. Many modern decoders actually allow these outputs to be configured either way using appropriate CVs.

 

So yes, Hornby needs to get their act together. As far as I am aware they are the only manufacturer bringing out new models (new tooling) with 8-pin interfaces. 

 

[thohurst]

Not to divert too far away from the intention here, but I feel like upgrading the socket goes hand in hand with upgrading the tender connection on Hornby's locomotives. Some of the latest offerings from Dapol with the mogul, KR with the GT3 and Bachmann with the new V2 (along with plenty of US steam models) have shown with great success how electrical connections can be implemented into the tender connection while still being easily removable and reliable. If Hornby were to adopt this approach, they would be able to fit plenty more than just four wires to the tender, and make it so much easier to remove, I find those small screws such a hassle. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by thohurst

[TomScrut]

On 09/11/2021 at 14:55, E100 said:

Is Hornby's reliance on NEM652 8 pin interface holding back progress with advanced lighting / sound etc? Interested to get people's thoughts.

 

I think it is pretty ridiculous from a customer's perspective that they are still using it to be honest. On the other hand, until other manufacturers are overlapping models with better DCC features and Hornby are missing out as a result then from a business perspective why should they do anything?

 

I'd love for them to start putting full lighting functionality into their models, it is about the only fault I can pick with the 60 other than the snowplough. Better sockets would enable them to pre fit speakers like pretty much everyone else in the industry does now on new tooling. Assuming the speaker is good enough to not need replacing immediately anyway.

 

TBH I'd be happy if they stopped using common negative on their circuit boards so it allows us to take matters into our own hands more easily.

 

On 09/11/2021 at 19:13, Huw Griffiths said:

I'd hope that people installing DCC would be reasonably competent with wiring

 

I don't really agree there, it's in the instructions as to where to put the decoder, and is meant to be a straightforward process and so in reality it should be exactly that. Anything other that 8 pin seems to be really easy (taking the body off taking longer than the actual installation)

 

On 10/11/2021 at 14:13, mdvle said:

 

But the flip side to that is Hornby, with their size in the market, could help drive the market to a newer standard.

 

I don't think Hornby are wanting to set standards though. When/what was the last thing they did which could be described as an innovation that has moved the game onwards?

 

They seem to do the bare minimum to get away with it, which kinda makes sense from a business perspective but then again when a new loco or whatever comes out I actually hope it isn't them who does it because it won't be fully featured. The HST/800 and APT are about OK as they need multiple decoders so can be controlled accordingly.

Edited November 12, 2021 by TomScrut

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, TomScrut said:

 

I think it is pretty ridiculous from a customer's perspective that they are still using it to be honest. On the other hand, until other manufacturers are overlapping models with better DCC features and Hornby are missing out as a result then from a business perspective why should they do anything?

 

To prevent those competing models in the first place?

 

While not DCC, take the Terrier given it was such a public example.  If Hornby hadn't ignored the Terrier, and had upgraded it, then there wouldn't have been a competing model announced that resulted in the rushed to market Hornby new version.

 

Or consider existing models - additional runs of models are generally very good for the balance sheet (assuming there is sufficient demand and that you actually sell the new run quickly).  Some low cost upgrades to much of their diesel tooling could give them additional sales as those who want the DCC lighting features upgrade to a newer model.

 

2 hours ago, TomScrut said:

I don't think Hornby are wanting to set standards though. When/what was the last thing they did which could be described as an innovation that has moved the game onwards?

 

But Hornby sets standards whether they want to or not simply based on their size.  It's just in this case the standard is the bare minimum that every DCC seller needs to support.

[TomScrut]

10 minutes ago, mdvle said:

To prevent those competing models in the first place?

 

While not DCC, take the Terrier given it was such a public example.  If Hornby hadn't ignored the Terrier, and had upgraded it, then there wouldn't have been a competing model announced that resulted in the rushed to market Hornby new version.

 

Or consider existing models - additional runs of models are generally very good for the balance sheet (assuming there is sufficient demand and that you actually sell the new run quickly).  Some low cost upgrades to much of their diesel tooling could give them additional sales as those who want the DCC lighting features upgrade to a newer model.

 

Yes, I completely agree, the point was more that they seem to react to opposition than prevent it in the first place by leading the field. So from that perspective I think that they they don't fix what sells, they just wait until it stops selling then decide what to do.

 

11 minutes ago, mdvle said:

But Hornby sets standards whether they want to or not simply based on their size.  It's just in this case the standard is the bare minimum that every DCC seller needs to support.

 

Not necessarily, they are the only company at their level now in terms of DCC in OO IMO and generally that level only leads to disappointment with DCC users.

[Ravenser]

On 09/11/2021 at 14:55, E100 said:

Is Hornby's reliance on NEM652 8 pin interface holding back progress with advanced lighting / sound etc? Interested to get people's thoughts.

You are assuming that lots of bells and whistles is what people really want. In the case of steam it definitely isn't - lights are irrelevant, steam sound is so -so , and the bulk of the market doesn't really want it.

 

The moderate popularity of Hornby's TTS budget sound decoders tells a story. Quite a bit of the potential market for DCC Sound does not want to pay top dollar and is prepared to compromise on the functionality to cut the otherwise substantial cost.

 

On the other hand sales of TTS decoders haven't been spectacular, either. They sell nicely - but non-sound decoders sell in much greater volume.

 

So no, the market as a whole isn't really chasing cutting edge son-et-luminere, so there's no great nead for Hornby to provide extra connections.

 

If I buy a Hornby decoder , I know what the socket is and I can find plenty of decoders to fit it. I generally have a couple in stock. Buy Bachmann and you are checking to see what will fit and where you can get it - and how limited your choice of decoders is

[Huw Griffiths]

35 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

Not necessarily, they are the only company at their level now in terms of DCC in OO IMO and generally that level only leads to disappointment with DCC users.

 

I'm not convinced about that - after all, I believe that Bachmann also offer basic DCC chips and controllers.

 

I'm not sure how many "serious" modellers buy either company's offerings.

 

I also seem to recall a number of years back, one company announced plans to only offer new models ready fitted with their "chips" - which prompted something of a "digital response" from a number of potential customers (some of whom would have wanted different decoders, whilst others wouldn't have wanted any).

 

I agree that some people want "all the bells and whistles" - but some don't. Also, the variety of prototype (and thus model) locomotive dimensions and shapes looks like frustrating any efforts to establish one universal standard of spaces / connections for installing decoders. Even where there is space for a decoder with a large "footprint", there doesn't seem to be agreement about which "standard" should be adopted.

 

For these reasons, if I were responsible for any RTR manufacturer's product development, I would be in no rush to adopt any specific "standard" - even if I'd try to allow the provision of enough space to allow for installation of as many decoder options as possible.

 

I realise that some people disagree with me on this - fair enough - but, at present, if (eg) Hornby were to "jump" and adopt any "standard", I'm certain they'd be met with howls of disapproval from people who've already opted for alternatives. Personally, I think Hornby are right to hold back with any decision on this issue.

 

 

Huw.

[adb968008]

26 minutes ago, Huw Griffiths said:

For these reasons, if I were responsible for any RTR manufacturer's product development, I would be in no rush to adopt any specific "standard" - even if I'd try to allow the provision of enough space to allow for installation of as many decoder options as possible.

 

I realise that some people disagree with me on this - fair enough - but, at present, if (eg) Hornby were to "jump" and adopt any "standard", I'm certain they'd be met with howls of disapproval from people who've already opted for alternatives. Personally, I think Hornby are right to hold back with any decision on this issue.

Agreed, DCC is 30 year old technology, it cant be far off being superseded.

 

Wifi, Battery tech has come a long way and will at some point kick in and replace it.

 

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Agreed, DCC is 30 year old technology, it cant be far off being superseded.

 

Wifi, Battery tech has come a long way and will at some point kick in and replace it.

Given the huge number of modellers who have yet to embrace anything but DC, the Next Big Thing - whatever it is - will take years to equal DCC in use. DCC does most of what most of us moving on from DC wanted. Replacing it with something else will require NBT to be much cheaper and make tea and toast while you run trains - it has to have huge advantages. We DCC users found - 24 years ago in my case - that DCC offered huge advantages over DC, but many, many others have not agreed. They may not make much of a move for NBT either. 

[woodenhead]

It must also be an indicator of the size of the Hornby DC market that they are bringing in new digital control equipment for DC model railways, so if they feel there is merit in investing in DC then the market importance of DCC to most Hornby customers is probably low and satisfied mainly by 8 pin tech with TTS.

 

Those that want to rise above that generally have the skills to install a non Hornby chip, speakers etc

[TomScrut]

1 hour ago, Huw Griffiths said:

I'm not convinced about that - after all, I believe that Bachmann also offer basic DCC chips and controllers.

 

I'm not sure how many "serious" modellers buy either company's offerings.

 

I was referring to the models, not the digital hardware. I don't buy anything from either of them in terms of decoders etc. other than in pre installed sound locos (which I only buy if they have an ESU decoder)

 

It is worth noting if you buy a Bachmann sound loco it comes with a fully featured ESU or Zimo decoder, unlike the Hornby options.

 

2 hours ago, Huw Griffiths said:

For these reasons, if I were responsible for any RTR manufacturer's product development, I would be in no rush to adopt any specific "standard" - even if I'd try to allow the provision of enough space to allow for installation of as many decoder options as possible.

 

The thing is, where exactly could they go wrong adopting Plux22? Plenty of decoders available already and if Rails and the like can buy them cheap from China with their sticker on I'm sure Hornby would be able to. I'd be surprised if their current decoders are made internally or any development work was actually done by them. Probably a company in China who did the work for them.

 

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Agreed, DCC is 30 year old technology, it cant be far off being superseded.

 

Wifi, Battery tech has come a long way and will at some point kick in and replace it.

 

 

Yes, something else will come along. I aren't exactly sure how much better it will be and I expect it will take ages to adopt given how few people use DCC to its fullest potential (myself included, although I expect I go further than most with a fully automated layout).

 

2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

You are assuming that lots of bells and whistles is what people really want. In the case of steam it definitely isn't - lights are irrelevant, steam sound is so -so , and the bulk of the market doesn't really want it.

 

Diesel and electric traction is a whole different kettle of fish in this respect. The lighting combinations are (in my opinion) making a far bigger difference in making the train look realistic than how many rivets there are on a body panel as they can be seen across the room.

[TomScrut]

14 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Those that want to rise above that generally have the skills to install a non Hornby chip, speakers etc

 

The issue is because there are only 8 pins AND they have common negative on their lighting etc is that it's not particularly straightforward to do. I have rewired 21 pin Bachmann stuff to make better use of the decoder fitted easily, it's more difficult on Hornby stuff.

 

15 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It must also be an indicator of the size of the Hornby DC market that they are bringing in new digital control equipment for DC model railways

 

I do wonder how popular that system will be, but they must think it is a good idea. It is probably aimed at pigeonholing those starting the hobby who want more control away from DCC (and other manufacturers hardware) than anything else I expect.

[mdvle]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Agreed, DCC is 30 year old technology, it cant be far off being superseded.

 

Wifi, Battery tech has come a long way and will at some point kick in and replace it.

 

With the caveat that the UK is a different market (it hasn't adopted DCC Sound in the way the North American market has) I would point out that the above comment has roughly been made for the last 5 to 10 years about DCC being dead and batteries and some sort of wireless control system replacing it.

 

And yet DCC still dominates, with the market shrugging at attempts to fit batteries into already crowded loco internals and ignoring the Bluetooth system that has been on the market for 3+ years (and has the sort-of backing of Bachmann US).

 

None of which says DCC will remain dominant, but rather that the alternatives simply don't offer something substantially better at this time to attract the interest of the hobby.

 

If I had to guess, I think any DCC replacement will involve:

1. no batteries (except perhaps in 7mm/O or larger) - space is too much of an issue, particularly for the smaller locos in a fleet or the increasingly popular OO9.
2. something wireless will eventually win, but only once the existing DCC Sound chip companies adopt it (the big issue for the Bluetooth company in the US is the lack of sound decoders - their solution of creating a Bluetooth board that you then plug an existing DCC Sound board into is too expensive).
3. whatever replaces DCC will need to, like DCC, be an open standard with multiple supplier support - customers want to continue to run different locos with different companies chips together using the same control system (this is currently lacking, with only 1 Bluetooth supplier creating the fear of vendor lock-in)
4. at a guess something based on Bluetooth will win - Wi-Fi is too complicated for most people
5. once we go wireless, we will still continue to power the track - but the combination of wireless control and on board capacitors will eliminate most of the issues currently plaguing systems that send commands through the tracks.  This has a side benefits of removing the need to find space for a battery in every loco, as well as leaving the ability to use a dead section of track to act as an emergency stop on a layout where the end of track approaches the end of a baseboard.

 

[TomScrut]

8 minutes ago, cbrooks122000 said:

I see no reason for DCC continuing

 

Do you mean discontinuing? The rest of your post reads that way.

 

One way I look at it is that DCC solves most of the problems with analogue DC. The only downside for me really once you have railcom and other add ons is the cost vs DC.

 

As @mdvle says, I can't see batteries being the solution either although, partially because of space but also because then we'd have to charge the bloomin' things which is making more of an issue than it solves IMO.

 

Model railways are lucky in that the prototype runs on steel rails and so power can be got to the locos discretely. Why neglect that?

[Roy Langridge]

5 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

As @mdvle says, I can't see batteries being the solution either although, partially because of space but also because then we'd have to charge the bloomin' things which is making more of an issue than it solves IMO.

Battery technology is not what is needed yet, so I fully agree. Capacity, memory effect,  charge cycles, size and the need to keep charging them if not in use are all issues that need to be overcome. 
 

I think the power will continue to come from the rails for a long time yet. 
 

Roy

[frobisher]

13 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

I think the power will continue to come from the rails for a long time yet.

 

Indeed, and any successor retrofit technology is also going to need a well defined socket standard to plug into... Oh wait...

[Chris56057]

Simple thought, they won't move away from 8 pin whilst the TTS chips are being shipped out in this format? 

[7013]

I know diddly squat about electronics etc, but I have always wondered why you can get a tiny chip with a huge amount of data on it and plug it into a phone, but a similar system has not been adopted for decoders. I envisage a tiny slot in the bottom of the loco that you just push the chip in. As I said I know nothing about the technial challenges of such a system, but it would make life easy if it could be done.