Did anyone here ever build the CTC-16 DCC system that was feature series in Model Railroader in 1980? It looked like a pretty good system for the time.
Todd
OntarioTodd Did anyone here ever build the CTC-16 DCC system that was feature series in Model Railroader in 1980? It looked like a pretty good system for the time. Todd
Well, according to a survey by Model Railroader published in 1984, of all the command control systems in use at the time, CTC-16 came in at about 11%. So some people did build and use them.
Remember, those numbers reflect only those with command control who bothered to participate in the survey. In reality, the true number is probably lower, and when plain old vanilla DC is factored in, it would be a lot lower.
There were other systems out there, but no one was dominant.
I got my number from: http://www.dccwiki.com/DCC_History .
Way back then, I had just joined the local HO scale club. They had about 15 members and one of them was pushing for CTC-16 installation on their layout. He was trying to build an electronics board of some type copied from Model Railroader magazine, but never did finish it. IIRC, he was so inexperienced in electronics that he was trying to solder a circuit board and transistors using a 250-Watt plumber's soldering iron and acid core solder. Even if he had finished the board, it would never have functioned.
I didn't know enough about it at the time to have any interest in the argument for or against CTC-16, but other club members eventually rebelled at the potential cost and complexity and the CTC-16 idea died a slow death.
Eventually, all of those members passed away or quit the club, and today we are using DCC.
I started collecting parts in preparation for building one, but by that time the initial discussions that lead to DCC were starting, so coupling that with another of my brief periods of inactivity, I never did get around to building it. I was reading through those articles, plus the followup CTC-16e, and Bruce Chubb's C/MRI so much that I was destroying the issues containing them, so I photocopied them all and had a second set for reading while leaving the actual magazines alone.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Yes I built one the 1 thing I remember is that the decoders were so big that I had to run a dummy unit,In HO.And the decoders address had to be hard wired in with jumper wires!!!!!
Don't forget the followup article where they used x-ray photos to show how they chopped the receiver circuit into 4 or 5 pieces and connected them with jumper wires so they could cram the thing in a powered loco. Later on they DID get smaller, but stopped being DIY items since not too many peopel have surface mount gear at home. Essentially they still make them - CVP still sells RailCommand which is at its heart a vastly upgraded CTC-16.
rrinkerCVP still sells RailCommand which is at its heart a vastly upgraded CTC-16. --Randy
CVP still sells RailCommand which is at its heart a vastly upgraded CTC-16.
Yes, but they also recommend that people give up on RailCommand and switch to DCC, because they are apparently the only company that still supports RailCommand and don't have enough customers to continue supporting it.
As far as I know, CVP was the only company doing anythign with Railcommand, they never got anyoen else to join in, mainly because DCC came about. I remember back when the initial DCC discussions were taking palce, there were many heated threads on the old Compuserve Trainnet forums. In a large part due to the fact that Railcommand, already available at that time, actually did MORE than the original Lenz spec that was being talked about as the basis for an NMRA standard. At that time I was one of the active defenders of Railcommand, which from a technical point of view was actually superior. I sort of dropped out at that time, but with the additions put in by some of the other participants, like 128 speed steps, what ended up as the DCC standard addressed the shortcomings it had vs Railcommand, plus by being a stndard it had instant multi-vendor support, something none of the previous command control systems really had. Yes there were some previous systems that had some level of compatibility, but each one had features that only worked if all th equipment was fromt he one manufacturer.
When I was constructing my first layout, I started with two MRC20 power packs, but soon realized that this was going to be very expensive to add additional operators. One of the factors in selecting DCC is who else in your area utilizes that system. A MR friend was also constructing a layout at the time and he selected Railcommand. I had about made up my mind to go this direction but I happened to attend a regional NNRA train show. A Digitrax dealer made a presentation about Digitrax DCC. At the end of the presentation he had a sample HO locomotive with a sound unit which was under development. The potential of sound sold me on DCC. One of the things that I didn't like about railcommand was you had to cut traces on the decoder to set the address. The address was fixed and could never be changed.
Jim, Modeling the Kansas City Southern Lines in HO scale.
Analog command control never really caught on. Part of the reason was there were a number of completely incompatible systems out there, and no one manufacturer really became dominant as a result.
They all had several issues in common. First, they were expensive. A DCC decoder does a lot more for a lot less money today than what you got for your money 20-30 years ago. That would slow down adoption right there.
Incompatibilities. No two systems were compatible with each other. So you had to make a choice, and were limited to what that system offered. Then your system may not be compatible with your friend's system. At least DCC offers a basic level of interchange. Not being tied to one supplier is nice too.
The limitations imposed by the technology used, and available at the time. Digital systems are much simpler, and in time become cheaper to make. Analog systems will have more parts, some can be critical, some need more space, then need tuning to work properly. Which costs more. Unlike digital, adding features may in fact render older technology devices useless with no backwards compatibility. DCC decoders all have the same basic feature set, and any extras are just that. The decoder just ignores commands it doesn't understand.
My brother and I built a CTC-16 system. I used it on my rr between 1990 and 1992 when I dismantled my rr and moved from Illinois to Minnesota. I even purchased some of the newest receivers in 1993 - they were factory assembled and much smaller then the kit built units. I switched to Digitrax when I started building a new rr in my new location. The CTC-16 did a nice job - 4 or 5 operators on a mid sized layout. We had a few issues -mainly in the type of power supply transformer that we used, but that was eventually sorted out. I still have the old system stored under the new layout - do you need any parts?
Dave H
Plymouth, MN
I found one this week and found your post while doing some what is it research
i am starting it tonight on e bay