# PRODIGY PRO-ELITE Item # 0001417 - First Look



## Peter Osborne (Jan 5, 2008)

I had the opportunity to see and discuss the new unit at the Springfield Train
show this weekend. MRC had a working production sample there which looked very
similar in size to the sketch on the MRC site except it has a digital readout
panel on the front instead of the analog meters shown in the sketch.

This in NOT just a booster. It's a higher output alternative to the MRC Advanced
2 unit. It has the three RJ-45 sockets on the front of the unit, and two
separate connectors on the back for the track and programming track hookup
unlike the 4 pin connector on the regular model. The sign clearly said 10 amps.

It does not include built in wireless so those wishing to use it that way would
need the wireless upgrade "dongle" that is already available for the Advance 2.
It was shown with a tethered throttle but I forgot to ask if that was included
but it seems logical that it would.

The MRC guy said the output to the programming track had been beefed up to
handle Soundtraxx tsumani decoders. I asked him about the ability to adjust the
output voltage to the main track, since it is being targeted to G scale setups,
but he didn't know anything about that.

They should be shipping in 2-3 months and several internet retailers are taking
orders now. The best price I've seen is $300 at Wholesale Trains.

I will probably get it as I currently use an older Advance base station with the
wireless adapter and the 8 amp booster they release last year. I run G scale so
could use a littel more voltage to the track than the current booster provides.

Don't ask why I didn't take a picture. It never occurred to me. Duh.

Peter.


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

Since MRC rates their decoders for 21 volts max, how can they upgrade a new station for G operations without blowing up their own decoders? 

Just a thought.........


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

At those price levels and considering that their hendheld are still 1970s technology, one can question why not spend a couple of 100 more and get get state ofthe art.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

$300 for a 10 amp system is inexpensive, but what does a complete system with wireless throttle cost? 

Just want to compare apples to apples. 

Also, what is the output voltage again? Did you say 16 volts or around that? 

Thanks, Greg


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Greg:

I don't know where you found $300?

Go here: http://www.modelrec.com/search/prod...p?ID=12155

And you see it is $529.98 and you see that it is an 8A system (or should I say and 8+ amp - as they write themselves - which only indicates it is just a tiny bit ober 8A - probably under certain conditions.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hello Axel.

It took me all of 30 seconds to Google the item and I found this.

http://www.wholesaletrains.com/Detail.asp?ID=200853695


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Axel, in the first post on this thread it says: 

"They should be shipping in 2-3 months and several internet retailers are taking 
orders now. The best price I've seen is $300 at Wholesale Trains." 

I'm trying to figure it out too... 

0001417 is indicated as an 8 amp booster (and I imagine a control station, using standard DCC terminology) on the MRC site.


*http://www.modelrectifier.com/searc...p?ID=12155* 










So, back to my question, what is the street price for this and a wireless throttle? 


The voltage is way too low for any mainline type of trains, you would not be able to hit 60 smph with most locos.


Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Curious, Axel, why you consider their handheld "1970s" technology? I'm not meaning to sound flippant, I'm just trying to understand your perspective. What's the MRC handheld controller lacking that "state of the art" controllers possess, and why is that important to the average modeler? 

As for "why not spend a couple of 100 more and get get state of the art," if you never pull a trailer, why pay for a hitch. Sure, (from the limited specs we've seen since it's not out on the market yet) it's not as beefy as its bigger, more expensive brethren. But if your needs are easily met by what it _can_ do, how do you justify wasting money on something you'll never use? Greg says it nicely - "it's way too low for any mainline type of trains," but if you're not running trains at mainline speeds, it should be plenty adequate, and you'll have some money left over for an additional loco, decoder, etc. 

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out on the market. The wireless "adapter" retails for $330, so probably a street price between 1/2 and 2/3 (guesstimate), so you're still around $500 for a wireless DCC system assuming their current adapter works with this new system. No, I wouldn't want to use it to run Greg's railroad, but it'd probably be more than enough if I were to want to pump electrons through mine. I think anything that gives users a more affordable entry into DCC is a good thing, even if there are "speed limits" imposed.  

Later, 

K


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 06 Feb 2012 02:19 PM 

The voltage is way too low for any mainline type of trains, you would not be able to hit 60 smph with most locos.


Greg 
Is the maximum output voltage of this new unit actually specified anywhere?
All I have seen so far is a current spec of 10 amps 


Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Intelligent guess and a little thinking thrown in! 

Peter mentioned 14 volts on another thread, the unit is specified for HO use on the MRC site, and look at the picture from the MRC site above, the meter is reading 14.10 volts. 

HO systems are typically 13-14 volts, since the locos come with 12v motors. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

But the link to MRC you posted just above specifically states it's meant for G 

..........the Pro-Elite will be a perfect fit for large club layouts or large outdoor G gauge displays


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

ahhh... i looked at it's predecessor was for ho... seems they think that G is the same voltage as HO, just more amps.. 

oh well... 

Greg


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 06 Feb 2012 03:26 PM 
Curious, Axel, why you consider their handheld "1970s" technology? I'm not meaning to sound flippant, I'm just trying to understand your perspective. What's the MRC handheld controller lacking that "state of the art" controllers possess, and why is that important to the average modeler? 

As for "why not spend a couple of 100 more and get get state of the art," if you never pull a trailer, why pay for a hitch. Sure, (from the limited specs we've seen since it's not out on the market yet) it's not as beefy as its bigger, more expensive brethren. But if your needs are easily met by what it _can_ do, how do you justify wasting money on something you'll never use? Greg says it nicely - "it's way too low for any mainline type of trains," but if you're not running trains at mainline speeds, it should be plenty adequate, and you'll have some money left over for an additional loco, decoder, etc. 

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out on the market. The wireless "adapter" retails for $330, so probably a street price between 1/2 and 2/3 (guesstimate), so you're still around $500 for a wireless DCC system assuming their current adapter works with this new system. No, I wouldn't want to use it to run Greg's railroad, but it'd probably be more than enough if I were to want to pump electrons through mine. I think anything that gives users a more affordable entry into DCC is a good thing, even if there are "speed limits" imposed.  

Later, 

K Well, let's start out and define the typical environment for a DCC system:

1. Decent size layout
2. 3-x trains on the layout
3. 4-x switches on the layout
4. Locomotives with DCC/Sound decoders
and to a little lesser degree
5. More than one handheld in use with multiple users potentially interacting which each other

A modern handheld, has optical feedback on the status of sound functions, and switch positions by either representing the switches on a display and/or through illuminated LED's indicating the status quickly associated with each function key. 
When switching from one running locomotive to another, quick indication of its current running speed so that you can make the proper adjustment to speed if you need to while knowing were the current status is.
Address-ability of switches in concatenation, meaning you don't have to either enter the next switches address or go round robin through a recall buffer but you have up to 10 switches on a single main address available as function F0-F9.
Single button switching mode
Single button take over mode (engine handed over from one handheld to another)
Single STOP button with diversification between single engine stop and universal stop or TOTAL Power off
Uncomplicated programming on the main and programming on programming track with guided help text
Touch screen color screen with 100% optical representation of the engines and switches you are running
Display and recall of all environmental functions of the DCC layout.

Just to name some top down capabilities. But of course if you like I can expand on this.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Those are all great things to have, but are they really that important to the DCC experience? Look at NCE's latest controller--the Cab06. It's a keypad with a 4-digit LED display. In terms of graphical feedback, it's about as archaic as you can get, and it's their newest thing! Look also at Digitrax and other manufacturers' simple control cabs. The MRC handheld is right in line (if not more graphically informative) than many of those handhelds. The practical reality is that many guys in DCC can't even program their own locomotives. They take them to local clubs or friends to have them programmed. In my quest to gain a better understanding of DCC, I've talked to clubs which use the technology. Few remotely scratch the surface of what the technology can do. For the most part, the primary advantage DCC offers them is that it greatly simplifies how they wire their railroads. The fact that they can have much better control over their locos (and sound, etc.) is secondary. One guy told me they use the "simple" versions of the throttles because they're easier for their club members to understand. 

Again, I agree with you--the attributes you list are nice features to have, and for those "power users" for whom such functionality is necessary, they're definitely worth the extra money. I don't think that's the market MRC is courting. MRC has always catered more to the "basic hobbyist" market, and let the other guys court the high-end users. This system is aimed towards the basic DCC user--the guy who wants turn a knob and watch the train move. They want to provide a lower-cost option for those users who don't need all the bells and whistles that the more expensive systems offer. When you look at their overall product line, they rarely show up in the top 10% on anything. Their analog power supplies don't remotely approach Bridgewerks in terms of quality and capacity. Their sound systems fall far short of Phoenix. Their DCC control system certainly isn't NCE, Zimo, etc. But when you look on ebay, go to swap meets, etc., you see a LOT of their stuff being sold because it's perfect for the average user. That's a business model that's served them well for, well, longer than I've been alive. I see this improved capacity DCC system as a continuation of that philosophy. It's not designed to compete at the same level as the top-end systems any more than a Toyota is designed to compete with a Mercedes. Yet, Toyota is consistently one of the top-selling brands because they do one thing well--give the average consumer a good car that meets their needs for a good price. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

I think you will that a well designed handheld makes using the advanced functions easier, and actually makes it easy and natural for the average user to progress. I don't need to reiterate my love for the Massoth Navigator, but it reminds me of the philosphy that Steve Jobs had with Apple and their products. He put a lot of emphasis on design and wanted his products to be so nice to use that people couldn't resist them. I have tried the NCE cabs and it's no wonder few go beyond the basic functions, yet with the Massoth and Zimo they make it easy and even fun and make you want to play with them. Just try taking away someone's iphone, Navigator or Zimo cab and you'll realize there is more to it than just bare bones functionality. 

Keith


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

As one who's become addicted to my iPhone, I haven't a clue what you're talking about.  

Seriously, that's a valid argument, but that presumes that by adopting the technology, people are inherently going to progress. No doubt that will draw some to want to play with the higher-end functions, but I think more are probably never going to venture outside their comfort zone regardless of how simple it may be. And if that's you, why spend the money on functionality you'll never use? Believe me, I'm all for a Jobs-esque graphic interface for DCC. It's a technology that's just _screaming_ to be wrapped in an intuitive blanket. And I think--in time--that influence will work its way down through the price ranges. But whether it draws more people up to use the "higher functions" remains to be seen. I think what's more likely to happen is that what we see today as "higher end" functions will become baseline functions five years from now. People are going to be drawn up simply because the floor is going to push them. But the "high end" will always be there for those who insist on the ultimate in control, and the "middle of the road" will always be there for those who could care less. 

Later, 

K


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

I'll have to agree with your take on it Kevin, and for proof of concept you needn't look very far, e.g. personal computers, digital cameras, digital cell phones, remote controlled televisions and home entertainment center equipment, etc. etc. Just how many individuals that actually have the previously mentioned technology that I've exampled, use that particular implementation anywhere near its potential very few in comparison to the number that have it. Not to mention the disparity in the percentage that have the technology and those that don't. I would venture to say that out of the above mentioned implementations of technology, cellular telephones have made the greatest public penetration. Which I'm pretty sure has more to do with "price point" (usually a very highly subsidized one I might add) more than any technological advantages.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

There's features and then there's FEATURES, but the level of how great they are is definitely in the eye of the beholder. 

I too do not believe that just exposing people to greater technology means they will use it. 

Most people would most likely call me a "DCC power user", but according to some of the posts above I am not. Why? Because the functions I want/need are supporting MY direct operation of the trains and turnouts. I don't want them to run themselves, I don't want automated anything. If I want to go into the yard, I'll line up each switch one by one. I don't need a single big red button that says "run 13 trains all automatically", as in another thread. 

Likewise, doing a bunch of advanced programming of sounds and functions on a teeny tiny screen, as opposed to using a nice software program on my nice laptop does not interest me. 

So, as an example, the NCE system is just right for me, all the functions I need are right there and handy, without a lot of navigating through a bunch of menus. The Massoth and Zimo have about 50% more stuff than I need, and the extra menus required just make the user interface more complex than is needed for MY use. 

I'm not talking down these 2 systems, which are built to extremely high quality levels, and have more gadgets than a swiss army knife... it's just that I don't need them, and you DO pay a price to have them. 

I like to spend time looking at my train and running it, I do enough programming in other arenas to satisfy those other technological needs. 

Just another perspective. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

I think what we're seeing here is that we all have our priorities and things that matter to us. Like you Greg, I don't have any desire to run my trains automatically, at least not yet--but maybe someday. At the same time, I do pay a lot of attention to slow speed operation, sound, and ease of use. What I do know, though, is that I want a system that doesn't fight my way of thinking, and as you point out we like different things (menus vs more buttons) and it's a good thing there are good options for all of us out there. We are really lucky in that most DCC systems will do the job and they're improving all the time. 

Keith


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I really enjoy the fussing around with DCC. I just added some ground lights to a diesel just because I had a function output for them. It's fun to tweak the parameters, and mess with what you can and can't do. 

JMRI is a really nice piece of open source software that makes DCC much much easier, but it's still relatively clunky. For example, QSI has about a dozen parameters for adjusting how the motor runs, in relation to BEMF and that's just on one "sheet" (Page) of JMRI. It ought to be possible to make those changes obvious and intuitive, while still letting people who want to tweak tweak away. 




It's exactly like the arguments people used to make about the original Apple OS. I remember my brother scornfully denouncing the need for little pictures and insisting on the virtue of the command line interface. People still use command lines, for good reason, but most people manage to do really good work on a graphical user interface
@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

I am not trying to tout into my own horn, but once I have used the MX32 and scroll engines by real pictures rather than engine numbers or pictograms, I can't imagine ever going back. I admire Greg that he keeps 13 engine in his head and knows which one is what. If if he programmed the by the cabin number, as soon as that engine would be out of site I would have forgotten its number









nd to Keith point, you can easily get stuck in the basics if your unit doesn't entice you to go a bit further out.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Axel, you illustrate quite clearly the central point--that the "right" user interface for the modeler is as unique as each one of us. It's impossible for any of us to tell another what the "best" for them will be. We can tell them what works for us and why, but it's ultimately how they interact with each system that will ultimately seal the deal for them one way or the other. I'd argue that with the exception of what kind of trains we prefer to run, how we choose to control them is probably the most subjective attribute of model railroading. If there was a "one size fits all" solution, we wouldn't have the myriad products we have today. 

Later, 

K


----------

