Hello All,
gmpullmanThe one "sure-fire" way to make your locomotives operate on DC...power is to simply eliminate the decoder altogether.
I completely agree!
However...
As I often quote Albert Einstein,
"Once you open a can of worms the only way to get all the worms back in, is to use a bigger can."
For this "reclamation" you will need:
In my experience diesel locomotives are less complex to work on than steam.
An additional plus to this reversion to DC is you can inspect the running gear and electrical components and do any upgrades as necessary to keep them running into the future.
With steam drivetrains, from what I understand, the wheels need to be "quartered" to sync with the side rods. Be aware of this with reassembly after inspection.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
Has anyone ever really played with CV's? Mentioned BLI engines and I know they can be turned. CV's to adjust at what voltage the engine starts at for motor, and what volatage will set it to max speed, etc. That way one can get much more range out of it. Sometimes even turning back EMF off can help.
Many who run DC do have DCC or if a lot of BLI engines a DC Master, which would allow CV changes then.
As some have said, it is really easy to go DC from a DCC engine (at least BLI). If the 4 pin connector is only being used for motor and not motor and track power, then one can just move the 2 wires for motor over to the other 2 open pins on the same connector and now the motor is connected right to track power. Or worse case, splice into track power. Of course sounds will be off then, but some CV's can be tweaked to help with that, or simply unplug the speaker from the connector. That way the changes are really easy to reverse in the event DCC control is wanted back. I have done this for a couple customers who really wanted just straight DC on some of their BLI engines, and it's always worked out well.
tsdAs some have said, it is really easy to go DC from a DCC engine (at least BLI). If the 4 pin connector is only being used for motor and not motor and track power, then one can just move the 2 wires for motor over to the other 2 open pins on the same connector and now the motor is connected right to track power.
Where were you when I needed you?
-Kevin
Living the dream.
jjdamnitWith steam drivetrains, from what I understand, the wheels need to be "quartered" to sync with the side rods. Be aware of this with reassembly after inspection.
My advice was, and is, to buy or make a quartering jig, and use that to get consistent angle of quarter between opposite crankpins.
I have considerable experience running the latest brand new diesels from a number of manufacturers with both plain DC and DCC. My layout has a DPDT toggle switch to allow power to go to either the MRC Tech 7 (DC) power supply or to the NCE Power Cab.
1. Rapido specifically states NOT to use certain MRC power supplies because they do not provide the "pure" filtered DC current which is required by today's locos and instead can destroy the decoder. They are NOT the only manufacturer to recommend against use of older power supplies. Bowser specifically does NOT recommend use of their DCC/Loksound equipped engines in plain DC mode at all regardless of your power supply (this is partly for loco performance). It does NOT matter what manufacturer MRC says, if you use those older power supplies you are just ASKING for trouble. A number of people have trashed their Rapido decoders by doing this, and it's in their instructions as a warning not to do this, so I'm pretty sure they know what they are talking about. I would not trust one word MRC says on this matter because I've seen the poor plain dc performance of the current Loksound decoders firsthand. After brief testing, I stopped attempting to use plain DC.
2. In fact, the MRC 9500 is an older power supply, and while perhaps not as old as the ones specifically mentioned in the Rapido Instructions, I would not use it to run ANY dcc dual mode decoder engine at this late date. It just is not as good as today's MRC Tech 6 or Tech 7. My local train store would warn against using it for today's dual mode engines.
At my house I ran plain dc and dual mode engines for awhile, but after seeing and enjoying some of the benefits of full blown dcc operation (mainly I like the cool lighting features) there just came a point where we didn't use plain dc anymore.
My son has one engine left that does not have a decoder yet, and we might just sell it rather than attempt conversion to dcc.
When buying engines, it is now easier (and more cost effective) to just buy the full blown sound and dcc version (at least for the models I am buying). I did recently purchase two Athearn Genesis plain DC Gevo units, to try, and then when I got the full blown ScaleTrains Gevo units in with the dcc and sound, well for the $70 price difference it became more cost effective to just buy the full blown ScaleTrains dcc/Loksound units (which are much nicer models than the Athearn Genesis versions, just regarding the detailing and see-through screens).
(Realistically I am not going to be able to get the sugar cube speakers, decoder, and get somebody to perform an installation, if I wanted to do that, for less than $70. Not likely going to happen.)
LastspikemikeI had thought that the drivers on one side needed to be lined up pretty much exactly to stop the rod pins from binding. Whether the left and right sided are quartered isn't relevant at all except for appearance.
Note that 3-cylinder engines have the outside throws at an oblique angle, and some 4-cylinder engines have them opposed. Very few model engines have scale inside motionwork, and usually rely on the rods to drive all but one of the drivers, so some of the concerns with accurate phasing 'matter' there, too. If an 'opposed' engine of this kind is at FDC or BDC and there is play, slop, or misalignment, some of the rods may 'try to go the wrong way' when pushed, resulting in a bind.
Earlier version AHM/Rivarossi steam engines had plastic driver centers (with metal tires) on metal axles. Eventually, the plastic wheel centers become loose and the drivers slip out of quarter. The resulting bind will literally stop the loco in its tracks. Some would try supergluing the plastic drivers onto the metal axles, but that is only a temporary fix. I once rebuilt a Rivarossi 2-8-8-2 with new (oem replacement) drivers...
Even in the model world, quartering absolutely does matter.
My thought is to dissconnect the motor outputs from the decoder and connect them to the rail connections. This would be relatively simple with a wired connection but plug connected decoders will require some research to get the right two terminals. Once the decoder's motor motor outputs are isolated from rail power there should be no damage to the decoder. This would allow the motor to be controlled by the DC input on the rails. Available sound features would still be available through the decoder.
Martin Myers
I am likely to offend people on both sides of this question, but here goes. Everything I am about to say is my opinion, an opinion based on 50 years in the hobby and 25 years of converting DCC locos back to DC. At least a third of my 145 locos came with DCC or DCC with sound.
First, there is no ONE answer on how to do it, all of these "speculative" suggestions only apply to one brand or another, one "era" of DCC evolution, etc. You are not answering the OP's question by providing incomplete "guesses" at how to do this. But this is typical of the Facebook "sound bite" responses these days.
To the OP, I sent you a private message and offered to help. I understand that part of the forum software may not be working for you. But if you want help, let me know.
I am amused by all the wishy washy people in the world who cannot decide if they want DCC or not. No offense intended, I'm just not someone who changes my mind once I have evaluated the facts and made a choice.
Again to the OP, and others. There is no one answer, each brand/version will be different.
But three things are for sure, if you want good DC operation, you need the decoder gone, you need to forget sound, and you need throttles better than 90% of the "power packs" that have ever been made.
If you do want sound, suck it up and get DCC.
I bought BLI/PCM "stealth" locos.......... I have not bought a whole lot of BLI products in total. They have made it clear they don't care about my business, and that is their right.
In most cases until recently, factory lighting boards that are separate from decoders can be retained and rewired for DC.
But in every case, you must learn the wiring protocol for each brand/model and then understand the requirements for GOOD DC operation.
Kevin, next time you want to back convert a DCC loco, please call me. We will get it done.
And Kevin is right, me, Kevin, Wayne, the OP and other DC operators don't owe any of you an explanation for our choice, and we are tired of being told why we should have made a different choice.
All of you should have made different choices, about era, road name, layout construction, curve radius, purchases of specific brands........ How does that feel?
I think all your layouts need signal systems.......... you think I need DCC and sound, we're even.
I have not been around for a few weeks, getting started on my layout and busy with other things. Maybe you will hear from me again when I feel like sharing my progress.
Or maybe not?
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And Kevin is right, me, Kevin, Wayne, the OP and other DC operators don't owe any of you an explanation for our choice, and we are tired of being told why we should have made a different choice.
Rich (a dedicated DCC operator)
Alton Junction
SheldonMel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
I'm totally with Sheldon at home all DC he says he has aobut 145 engines so I went downstairs I'm at about 142 some have been converted from DCC those receivers I take to the club and install in anyone's engines that want or need one
Been doing this way too long to change now and would be expensive
I also use PWM throttles and they work just fine
Here's one of my older ones It's an athearn and it runs at same speed as any other engine I have
Newish to these fourms, but been around working on BLI engines since 2011. Approved/authorized by BLI directly to do so.
tsd Newish to these fourms, but been around working on BLI engines since 2011. Approved/authorized by BLI directly to do so.
First, welcome, second, so why is BLI so arigant about the DC thing? Would it really be that hard to make the factory wiring details available for those who want to make changes? Any kind of changes?
Or, are they so into the RTR mentality this hobby is moving to that they don't want us to work on them? We are too dumb, and they know better what is "good" for us?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I would not quite say they are against it or anything, but from a production standpoint I imagine it must be easier to just make 1 decoder and install 1 way verses splitting production and such. Wiring can be different too as some engines I see they use the 4 pin for both power and motor and in others just motor. So I suppose if they just always had the factory use the 2 pin connectors for power, then it would be easy for people to just move 2 wires and be DC only for the motor. I don't have much say with them as to what they do and stuff, though have made some recommendations. I am just greatful that they sell decoders to me for the purpose of putting them in other engines, even non BLI engines for those who really like their decoders. tsd Newish to these fourms, but been around working on BLI engines since 2011. Approved/authorized by BLI directly to do so. First, welcome, second, so why is BLI so arigant about the DC thing? Would it really be that hard to make the factory wiring details available for those who want to make changes? Any kind of changes? Or, are they so into the RTR mentality this hobby is moving to that they don't want us to work on them? We are too dumb, and they know better what is "good" for us? Sheldon
I would not quite say they are against it or anything, but from a production standpoint I imagine it must be easier to just make 1 decoder and install 1 way verses splitting production and such.
Wiring can be different too as some engines I see they use the 4 pin for both power and motor and in others just motor. So I suppose if they just always had the factory use the 2 pin connectors for power, then it would be easy for people to just move 2 wires and be DC only for the motor. I don't have much say with them as to what they do and stuff, though have made some recommendations. I am just greatful that they sell decoders to me for the purpose of putting them in other engines, even non BLI engines for those who really like their decoders.
MikeyChris "dual mode" locos that really don't run well on DC.
Russell
csxns MikeyChris "dual mode" locos that really don't run well on DC. Never had problems with dual mode decoders with the MRC 9500 I buy new locos and they all have dual mode decoders because that is the way they come but like I say they run great with my two 9500's.
Never had problems with dual mode decoders with the MRC 9500 I buy new locos and they all have dual mode decoders because that is the way they come but like I say they run great with my two 9500's.
Do you double head/MU locomotives? Do you do that with locos from different brands? Do you do any switching?
I do all those things with DC, but dual mode decoders are problematic for that in most cases.
The Pulse Width Modulated throttles I use will not even work with most decoders.
I use AristoCraft wireless radio throttles, and almost all my trains are pulled by more than one powered unit, not always the same brand. Yes you can do that with DC.
Lastspikemike We built a DC layout with three cabs. It is also wired to add a DCC system at some point. The DCC will plug into the same power feed as Cab B. We can easily disconnect Cabs A and C when we wish to run DCC. Some quite nice old stuff isn't worth the powder to blow it up let alone the cost and labour to add even a motor decoder. We invested in MRC 760 and 780 to power the DC layout. I've tested running DCC using my MRC Tech 6 and everything works fine. For my home layout, learning about DC and DCC with the first layout I elected to go DCC. All new locomotives are DCC with sound. Adding sound to older locomotives also isn't worth the cost or labour either so I have 6 TCS decoders on order, four are LL8 plug in type for several Proto 2000 hood diesels. Two,are those small TS1 nine pin which will plug nicely into a Genesis Mikado and I think will plug into a Mehano Santa Fe although of that has an 8 pin I'll either make a harness connector for it or use a LokPikot 5 with 8 pin wired already. I have two LokPilot 5 to install in my C Liners. Converting a DCC locomtive back to DC without just fitting a dummy plug seems to be to be like a lot of work for little advantage, just to avoid buying a MRC Tech 6 for a $100 or so.
We built a DC layout with three cabs. It is also wired to add a DCC system at some point. The DCC will plug into the same power feed as Cab B. We can easily disconnect Cabs A and C when we wish to run DCC.
Some quite nice old stuff isn't worth the powder to blow it up let alone the cost and labour to add even a motor decoder. We invested in MRC 760 and 780 to power the DC layout. I've tested running DCC using my MRC Tech 6 and everything works fine.
For my home layout, learning about DC and DCC with the first layout I elected to go DCC. All new locomotives are DCC with sound. Adding sound to older locomotives also isn't worth the cost or labour either so I have 6 TCS decoders on order, four are LL8 plug in type for several Proto 2000 hood diesels. Two,are those small TS1 nine pin which will plug nicely into a Genesis Mikado and I think will plug into a Mehano Santa Fe although of that has an 8 pin I'll either make a harness connector for it or use a LokPikot 5 with 8 pin wired already. I have two LokPilot 5 to install in my C Liners.
Converting a DCC locomtive back to DC without just fitting a dummy plug seems to be to be like a lot of work for little advantage, just to avoid buying a MRC Tech 6 for a $100 or so.
You still don't get it.
Maybe one day someone with a real control system, DC or DCC, will invite you to their layout to participate in an operations session.
Then MAYBE you will get it, maybe not.
But I am not making any effort to explain it to you.
ATLANTIC CENTRALMaybe one day someone with a real control system, DC or DCC, will invite you to their layout to participate in an operations session.
I saw my first example of real layout operations when I was going to college in Nashville in 1985.
Of course, back then, the operation was all DC. It was amazing what could be done with a well thought-out wiring plan and a signalling system. Train control was very straight-forward, and very little actual effort was put into "running the layout" as opposed to operating a railroad.
The layout owner was 100% into operations. Scenery, prototype fidelity, and general atmosphere took a back seat to realistic operation.
Once the trains were running, it all seemed very realistic.
While I have no intention of ever duplicating such operations on my own home layout, it was an eye-opening experience.
SeeYou190 I saw my first example of real layout operations when I was going to college in Nashville in 1985. Of course, back then, the operation was all DC. It was amazing what could be done with a well thought-out wiring plan and a signalling system. Train control was very straight-forward, and very little actual effort was put into "running the layout" as opposed to operating a railroad. The layout owner was 100% into operations. Scenery, prototype fidelity, and general atmosphere took a back seat to realistic operation. Once the trains were running, it all seemed very realistic. While I have no intention of ever duplicating such operations on my own home layout, it was an eye-opening experience.
Rich
richhotrain SeeYou190 I saw my first example of real layout operations when I was going to college in Nashville in 1985. Of course, back then, the operation was all DC. It was amazing what could be done with a well thought-out wiring plan and a signalling system. Train control was very straight-forward, and very little actual effort was put into "running the layout" as opposed to operating a railroad. The layout owner was 100% into operations. Scenery, prototype fidelity, and general atmosphere took a back seat to realistic operation. Once the trains were running, it all seemed very realistic. While I have no intention of ever duplicating such operations on my own home layout, it was an eye-opening experience. Speaking for myself, but perhaps for some others as well, "real layout operations" seem fascinating, but I lack the prototype knowledge or the desire to engage in such realism. It just seems too tedious and time consuming to hold my attention. Rich
Speaking for myself, but perhaps for some others as well, "real layout operations" seem fascinating, but I lack the prototype knowledge or the desire to engage in such realism. It just seems too tedious and time consuming to hold my attention.
Designing, building and setting it up can be tedious to a degree. Well thought out systems are not tedious to operate.
Just because you you have a control system that makes it easier to simulate prototype operations, does not mean every train movement has to be some big prototype like production.
Some people do get deep into that, others just want create a simple to use system that creates that illusion for the viewer.
What is tedious is control systems that require too much unnecessary button pushing, like throwing turnouts from a DCC throttle.......
That is why I have one button route control from multiple locations.
That's why my dispatcher does his job, so the engineers need only control the speed and direction of their loco.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Designing, building and setting it up can be tedious to a degree. Well thought out systems are not tedious to operate. Just because you you have a control system that makes it easier to simulate prototype operations, does not mean every train movement has to be some big prototype like production. Some people do get deep into that, others just want create a simple to use system that creates that illusion for the viewer. What is tedious is control systems that require too much unnecessary button pushing, like throwing turnouts from a DCC throttle....... That is why I have one button route control from multiple locations. That's why my dispatcher does his job, so the engineers need only control the speed and direction of their loco. Sheldon
What I often wonder is, how many lone wolf operators conduct operations, as opposed to mostly just "running trains".
My guess, based on what I read on this forum, and people I have known, 50/50.
But good control systems are not just about ops sessions, they are about easy, logical control as well. Atlas control switches and power packs do not provide that in DC.
And DCC does not automatically supply that unless other aspects are well thought out, like turnout control.
ATLANTIC CENTRALDo you double head/MU locomotives? Do you do that with locos from different brands? Do you do any switching?
csxns ATLANTIC CENTRAL Do you double head/MU locomotives? Do you do that with locos from different brands? Do you do any switching? I do all of that my Athearn Genesis runs great with Bowser but I don't do sound that might be why I don't have problems.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Do you double head/MU locomotives? Do you do that with locos from different brands? Do you do any switching?
I do all of that my Athearn Genesis runs great with Bowser but I don't do sound that might be why I don't have problems.
That does explain your success.
LastspikemikeI agree that it is a tad annoying that for all the much vaunted and widely successful NMRA DCC standards there was no compatibility standard for locomotive speeds. But then no such standard ever evolved for gear ratios in DC only, either. At least you have the option of running DCC in "consist mode" if you get the right system. Not in DC though.
As I've often said, many DC locomotives from various makers (and with varying speeds ranges or starting voltages) will cooperate quite nicely if the train they're pulling actually requires multiple locomotives in order to move it over your layout.
Of course, if the disparities between brands are too great, that won't happen. I have locos from Bachmann, Athearn, and Athearn Genesis, plus a few brass ones, and it's generally some of the brass ones that won't run well with those others, although some will run well with other brass ones.
The point is that each of us has our own needs and preferences, so I see no cause to disparage either choice...DCC offers me nothing of interest that I can't do with DC, and I'm quite sure that the DCC-ers can't see anything of use that would lure them to DC either.
I do see a lot more modellers in this sub-forum having difficulties with their DCC, though, whether it's poor quality equipment or complexity introduced by the wide range of DCC features which are now available.I've installed DCC in a couple of older locos for friends, and it wasn't something that I enjoyed, as there was a lot more wiring than is required for my DC locos, whether old or new.
Wayne
I’ve been modeling in HO since 1951 and always speed matched my locomotives for DC operation. Still today when I get a new to my layout locomotive I speed match it for DC operation.I use a combination of Diodes and or resistors in series with the motor to speed match them, been doing that since I was a teenager and that my friends is a very long time.I wired all of my locomotives (70+) for DCC operation using the old standard 8 pin NMRA connector. I can install a 8 pin decoder in any of my locomotives by just removing the dummy plug and plugging in a decoder.I prefer operating in DC mode, I only use DCC mode when I want sound or special functions.Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Lastspikemike Some of us, maybe many of us, don't run any trains from here to there. Or back again. No imaginary freight loads or passengers to move between imaginary places. Our layout is intended for running trains. My home layout will be the same. No destination, no points of origin, just trains travelling aimlessly through the scenery, assuming I get to the scenery. The common experience of people not actually running real railroads, or perhaps their customers, is of trains just passing by. Model railroading allows a representation of trains passing by but, paradoxically, on a bigger scale than in real life. You can usually see the whole route. My point is to encourage those who do not as yet appreciate what DCC offers by way of simplicity in just running the trains. It is much easier to add DCC power to your layout in order to run the one or two locomotives that (for whatever reason) only cone as DCC equipped with no dummy plug or other jumper option, than to resort to actually removing the decoder and rewiring the model as DC only. I agree that it is a tad annoying that for all the much vaunted and widely successful NMRA DCC standards there was no compatibility standard for locomotive speeds. But then no such standard ever evolved for gear ratios in DC only, either. At least you have the option of running DCC in "consist mode" if you get the right system. Not in DC though.
Some of us, maybe many of us, don't run any trains from here to there. Or back again. No imaginary freight loads or passengers to move between imaginary places.
Our layout is intended for running trains. My home layout will be the same. No destination, no points of origin, just trains travelling aimlessly through the scenery, assuming I get to the scenery.
The common experience of people not actually running real railroads, or perhaps their customers, is of trains just passing by. Model railroading allows a representation of trains passing by but, paradoxically, on a bigger scale than in real life. You can usually see the whole route.
My point is to encourage those who do not as yet appreciate what DCC offers by way of simplicity in just running the trains. It is much easier to add DCC power to your layout in order to run the one or two locomotives that (for whatever reason) only cone as DCC equipped with no dummy plug or other jumper option, than to resort to actually removing the decoder and rewiring the model as DC only.
I agree that it is a tad annoying that for all the much vaunted and widely successful NMRA DCC standards there was no compatibility standard for locomotive speeds. But then no such standard ever evolved for gear ratios in DC only, either. At least you have the option of running DCC in "consist mode" if you get the right system. Not in DC though.
Hey Spike, you would have fit right in on this forum about a dozen years ago when a bunch of people were very busy trying to explain to the great unwashed the advantages of DCC, and often told us how much we would like it if we just tried it.
I don't have DCC at home, but I would make a wager that I have more time running model trains with DCC than you have running model trains by any means your whole life.
I have been involved in building several basement filling DCC controlled layouts and have been operating DCC layouts since its inception.
That is how I know enough about it to know I don't want it for my personal goals.
And one of my goals is that "display running", or railfan running you are referring to.
LastspikemikeI agree that it is a tad annoying
What is annoying is that even though the OP asked for this thread NOT to be about DCC, you just will not let it go.
Another thread was spiked... what a surprise.
SeeYou190Another thread was spiked
Another thread was spiked? Or did you mean that another thread was "Spiked"?