Paul3 Oh, and I perfectly understand the reluctance about the DT400. I've instructed many newbies in it's operation at my club, so I've heard all the complaints. And for the most part, I agree with them. The numbers are small, the display is pretty cramped, and the learning curve can be steep. However, once learned, the DT400 can be used for hours without tiring one's fingers.
Oh, and I perfectly understand the reluctance about the DT400. I've instructed many newbies in it's operation at my club, so I've heard all the complaints. And for the most part, I agree with them. The numbers are small, the display is pretty cramped, and the learning curve can be steep. However, once learned, the DT400 can be used for hours without tiring one's fingers.
Maybe I'm taking this a bit off topic but this subject alway puzzles me. Maybe "newbie" is the key word though. For me, I love the DT400. It's my favorite. At age 76, with arthritis setting in and wearing trifocals, I have no problem whatsoever with this cab.
I like the size and spacing of the buttons, and they have very positive feel when pressed. I also like the NCE Power Cab but do find the number buttons to have a slightly more mushy feel to them and I have to be more careful to get a positive "push".
The DT400 size is perfect. I hold it in my left hand and push buttons with my right thumb, and they are spaced nicely so you don't have to reach very far. The display gives a lot of info and doesn't take long to learn, if its your system. If you're handing it to a newbie though I can see where they might not take to it very quickly, but that's what the UT4 is for, simplicity itself.
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
Ah--I'd just assume it was a bad case of indigestion on the part of someone who could be seen as a DC or DCC fundamentalist. Marking behaviour is quite strongly imprinted in these fellows---
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Having just scanned all the way through the posts to this thread, I dare say that if there's a war coming on, it's between the people who want to dictate how EVERYBODY will do things THEIR way, and the laid-back types who are content to let everybody do their own things in whatever ways they wish.
Yes, DCC is the greatest thing since steam supplanted sail - if you want to cross the North Atlantic. Yes, analog DC is adequate for many people with simple needs who only put a single piece of motive power on the head end of each train and can live without all the bells, whistles, coupler clash and turbogenerator whine. Neither is right for 100.000...% of everybody.
As for needing a computer to program a DCC locomotive - what do you think that gadget in your hand has at its heart? These days, almost everything more complex than a table lamp has a computer chip (or several) built in.
As for availability of things to make analog DC control system components - unless it becomes impossible to acquire discrete resistors, rotary switches and low-voltage transformers, we'll do fine, thank you.
So, I will continue to go my way, and each of you are welcome to go yours. If anyone not wearing your shoes tries to tell you what YOU should be doing, remind that person of the golden rule:
He who puts up the gold, makes the rules.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - my way)
no i didn't follow the thread or read any deleted posts, or many others, but DC V DCC war was where is was coming from. i agree that because technology exists we don't all have to upgrade to it, and i hope i didn't come over that way. what i think i'm trying to say with the horses for courses opening line was that there is no right or wrong way, just different ones to suit different people in different situations. i was reading into the title that some DC users are slagging DCC as unnecessary to the hobby, and some DCC users are calling DC obsolete. there is plenty of room for all systems each with its merits and limits, but i still personally think DCC is at the minute the muts nuts in control options. and the DT400 is great to, i dont like hammer heads ( unless the DT500 is going to be one?? :-) ) like every other aspect of the hobby there are different manufacturers and designs for everything, we use what we like.
Jay and locoworks,
I don't know how much of this you have followed or if you read any of the deleted post that started all this. I had no intention of "bashing" DCC or starting all this controversy. I simply want to share my ideas and work with others who have not choosen DCC.
I may have said some things that where taken wrong, and many don't accept my reasons for not wanting DCC. But my intention was not to start all this. I am a very technically informed person, with a strong electrical, electronics, mechanical, architectural and structural background. I am a retired electrican/electrical designer and am self employed as a residential designer and historic restoration consultant.
I do patently reject the idea that just because a technology exists, that we all should need or want it. I don't own a camera cell phone, i-pod, programable thermostat, or a lap top. I do have a LCD HD TV and an all wheel drive car with antilock brakes, roll stablity control and GPS. I can afford most anything I want, I choose not to afford a lot things I simply don't need.
This has happend before, when I propose this idea that everyone might not need or want DCC, most just say OK fine, but when I suggest that my (or some other) Advanced DC Cab Control may be a good choice for some modelers, there is always a group of DCC people who feel their owneship of the future is threatened. DCC is a good system, is it the best system? That is subjective in my view.
There are also those who assume everyone wants the same things from their layout as they do. That's arrogant and condesending in opinion. I've been building model trains for 40 years, seen and heard a lot, I know what I like and don't like, I know what I want. Here's a little story for you. Long before DCC, I thought it would be great to be able to throw turnouts from a teathered walk around throttle. I designed several circuits to do that. I even submitted one to MR as part a layout for a Small Room Layout Planning Contest years ago. Fast forward to now, several of my friends used Digitrax and have all there turnouts decoder controlled. It takes more button pushes to that, than my old idea, but in any event, now that I've used it, I don't like it. With or without DCC, I like local control panels.
Just wanting to share with those interested, not argure with those who are not.
Sheldon
Personally, I don;t care what anyone uses, it is a personal decision and if you are happy with what you have then great. I note that for some reason this thread has its fair share of Digitrax bashing going on again. With all the aforementioned criticism of the DT400, I don't think I could live without mine. The dual throttle in the hand is an incredibly useful feature. I use it all the time. The ability to run 2 locos from one throttle without switching back and forth is worth any perceived shortcomings IMO. and that is all it is, it is my opinion and I am very happy with my system. I have now run on most of the others NCE, MRC and Lenz and would not change. MRC is without doubt the simplest to just pick up and use, but there are other issues that come into a decision that would eliminate it from contention where I in the market now. Each to their own and lets all be happy.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
Hey, I take offense at that CRT TV & PC remark! Wait a minute while I wind up my computer.......
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
it's horses for courses. many of the anti's don't have the desire or even see the need for DCC as they only want to operate a few loco's in certain sections and are 'happy' with the limitations and cost factor of their layout ( which may be the perfect/ultimate model for them? ) along comes a new system of control offering many enhancements? to a model railway. sound, multiple loco control on ONE section of track, the abillity to call up bankers/helpers on inclines, light control etc.just like full size?? suddenly their perfect little layout becomes a mud hut by the side of the empire state buildng and they have effectively been downgraded.. some will be jeleous of the enhacements they don't have and deem them pointless ( maybe a different view if they had it?? ) others are just stuck in their ways. not every one moves on with technology, many folks with still have a CRT TV or PC monitor ( if they have either and they are not further behind the times. clockwork?? ) then some will have LCD and/or plasma, ( we'll call that DCC ) and others will have LCD or plasma HD!! ( thats DCC with sound ). for peoople that can't afford the HD LCD TV, they swear that an LCD is ok, and those with CRT's say they are ok with no need to upgrade. so in short, some of it is jeleously, some of it is cost factors, and some of it is just not having the need or desire. we don't all drive the same car or live in urban semi's, but we all live on the same planet and should get along in our own way without stuffing our oppinions down someones throat like some ancient historic crusade.
Sheldon, you seem to have put together what maybe the pinnacle of DC control and my hat's off to you, but to keep bringing up the so-called need for a computer to program locomotives is misleading. I would venture a guess that most DCC owners don't use a computer for that including myself. I just program the engine number and make sure the lights are working and that's it, it takes nearly a minute.
As far as speed matching goes (this one's for the pro-DCC guys), I just put the faster loco in the lead when consisting, just like I did in my DC days. Granted, I spend my time doing what's need to make them run smooth and fairly equal, again, as I always did in the DC days, so no need for speed curves, etc. Signaling is also a low priority and is complicated whether DC or DCC.
I don't like the DT400 for all the aforementioned reasons, so I went with NCE, the ProCab was very easy to learn and use and the utility throttles I like even better with their big knobs and they feel a lot like my old home-built DC throttles.
I have the knowledge and skills to do a lot of the electronics myself, but my hobby is not electronics, my hobby is modelling trains. The electronics, DC or DCC are only a means to an end; moving the trains. I'll admit I did get tired of maintaining the old DC APB block system and was intrigued with the "train control" versus "track control" of DCC.
This whole discussion is rather pointless, people are going to chose whatever they feel most comfortable with. Both DC & DCC can be as simple or as complicated as you want to make it. For younger newbees DCC may in fact be easier to start with as they have grown up digital and have not had much exposure to "older" DC technology. For us older guys, the new technolgy can be a bit mysterious and intimidating.
Before I switched to DCC, I read everything I could, spent a little time running a couple of trains on a local club layout and most of info and technology went over my head, (and I'm an electronics techie), it wasn't until I bit the bullit and bought a system, unpacked it, hooked it up to my ol' DC layout in 5 mins and had a train running 5 minutes later and 3 of them running simultaneously a few minutes after that, that I realized it wasn't as mysterious or complicated as all the reading and info out there made me believe.
We had a saying in the A/V biz, "there is no BEST system", only what's best for you and that's a completely personal choice.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL...What took them so long? CVP has had wireless aquiring for years...
David,
What took them so long? CVP has had wireless aquiring for years.
Randy,
I agree about detection. With my DC I use the Dallee detectors for the same reason, sensing by induction coils (I could build them, but they do make a very nice product at Dallee) with no voltage drop.
To all,
One thing that maybe sets me apart from others is this. I have built several layouts, of various sizes and degrees of completion. BUT, unlike many modelers, I always had a complete plan and deviated from that plan very little as construction progressed. I am not comfortable in any project with an open ended "we will just see how or where it goes" approach.
So for me, planning hard wired signal logic or control logic (which may need some changes at some point) is not a problem or limitation. To me planning is important, and part of the fun.
I'm very much a roll your own person too, which is another reason I went with Digitrax over other DCC systems. My computer interface - built it myself. My I/O boards? Build them myself. When I get to the point where I can build "the bigone", there will be a CTC panel for dispatcher operations as well as local panels for when I don't have a crew around, or if I want to try TT/TO operations. The CTC panel interface to the layout? a single 6-wire phone cord. Each local panel's interface to the layout? A single 6 wire phone cord. The I/O boards will handle the panel switches/buttons and send out Loconet signals that will operate the switch machines. I've seen plenty of circuits for block detection and so forth as well - most of the DIY stuff is for Digitrax Loconet. However, it's hard to beat Dick Bronson's preassembled bits - the detectors themselves are transformer type so the sensing circuit it totally isolated from the track current and there's no voltage drop.
All in all, there's a LOT more DIY to DCC than you might think - there's even DIY decoders, and even entire systems -throttles, command stations, boosters. Even with a basis of a commercial Digitrax system, if I so choose I can, rather than use circuit breakers for power districts, build up a whole bunch of 1.5 or 3A boosters so each segment has a dedicated boster. DIY stuff, not buying some commercial boosters. There's even a dedicated mailing list group on Yahoo for Digitrax Loconet experimenters, called Loconet Hackers. The people on there have come up with some really amazing projects - the latest is a version of the computer interface that uses Bluetoth t talk to your computer insteadof a serial or USB port.
You can DIY as much or as little as you like with DCC, just like DC.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Paul,
Again I agree, and as for my friend I just repeating the concerns he expressed, and lack of interest in using computers, although I don't have much interest in using one for that aspect of modeling either.
I have a real tough time with laptops, the keyboards/mouse pads are just uncomfortable to me. Setting up a desktop in the layout room or work bench (not real close to each other in my case) would be both and expense and and a space problem. And, for me computer are tools, I use them if I need them, I have no use for them as a toy, my trains are my toys. This message board or ebay are the most advanced things I do on a computer. Not because I can't, I just don't want to and don't have to.
Maybe his track would have been fine, but he was afraid it would not after what he has seen and heard from others. The decoders in the shays, etc, was by far his biggest factor.
I do bring up sound because I think there is one important point - If you like sound, than those features of DCC ARE important. If you like sound, I think you almost need DCC, at least right now. Not caring for onboard sound eliminates any need for that set of features. But more work is still being done!
I know and agree about the throttles and other brands, I can say this for sure, if I did use DCC on any layout of any scale or type, it would not be Digitrax (Plugging it to aquire the loco - I don't even have that with my old time DC system - usually just push one button that is on a panel where the loco is).
I like all aspects of the hobby, fairly equally I suspect. But I have yet to develope an interest in this intense "be the Engineer" role with the lights and sounds and such. DCC is really good for that, but if I'm not into that?
jasperofzeal,I agree that DCC has a lot of offer for any model railroader, no matter the size of the layout. However, there are even more benefits to DCC in multi-train/operator layouts than in the one-train/operator layouts (for example, running two trains in opposite directions on the same track really doesn't mean much to a guy who only ever runs one train at a time). For many modelers, those differences are enough to give them second thoughts about investing in DCC if they only have a one-train/operator layout. That's why I said "probably not for you" rather than "definitely not for you". But once one starts adding track blocks to their layout or another cab, then DCC becomes the best choice, IMHO. Not the only choice, but the best one.
Sheldon,I understand the "roll your own" idea. With me, I'd rather be running my trains than building anything at all (models, circuits, scenery, etc.), but that's just me. I do all this hobby work because I want to run trains, not because I want X-Acto scars, solder burns, or dried glue on my fingers. YMMV.
FYI: I spend very little time programming decoders (both at home and at the club). I spend more time installing Kadees in the loco than I do in programming non-sound locos. With sound locos, I take my time with because there's certain things I like to hear more or less of, but I don't have to. On soundless locos, I put in the 4-digit address and CV29 and I'm usually done with it for as long as I own it. I may speed match them later, but I don't have to...and usually I don't.
Oh, and I perfectly understand the reluctance about the DT400. I've instructed many newbies in it's operation at my club, so I've heard all the complaints. And for the most part, I agree with them. The numbers are small, the display is pretty cramped, and the learning curve can be steep. However, once learned, the DT400 can be used for hours without tiring one's fingers. That's something I can't say about the Artiso. If they replaced those hard plastic buttons with nice soft ones...
The DT400 is not the only DCC throttle around. The Zephyr's controls are very "MRC Thottlepack"-like, and the UT4 has a pot and a toggle rather than an encoder and a button. The NCE throttles are easier on the eyes (and they also have a knob throttle available), and the Lenz throttles aren't that bad either.
That logging layout you mention... With DCC friendly switches, in general terms if it works with DC it'll work with DCC. If you see sparks flying with DC, then it's not going to work with DCC as one can't "power through a short" like one can with DC. When we were doing experiments with switches at my club, the Walthers Code 83 No. 6 switches had problems with big steam and big electrics. Somehow, I don't think that's going to be a problem on a logger layout as smaller equipment didn't short on the points.
Installing DCC in small brass is a challenge, but not that bad. I'd say it's easier than, say, an Athearn BB hardwire job. But if your logger guy didn't want to do it, I can't argue with that.
BTW, you said the logger guy didn't choose DCC for two reasons: track and decoder installs. But why did you close your post with "...happy not using a computer to program decoders"? That sounds like someone who doesn't like DCC because it's solid state instead of vacuum tubes. Computer programming of decoders just makes things easier and faster when programming complicated tasks like speed matching, ditch lights, rotary beacons, etc. For a turn of the century logger layout, simple addess programming is all he'd need for most of what he'd be doing. For example, I don't use a computer for my home layout because I model the NH (no special lighting effects for me). Throwing the "happy to not use a computer" statement out there sounds like a guy being happy that he rides a horse over that new-fangled Rail Road they're building called the Baltimore & Ohio.
Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Again I think we agree on most points. One exception is that I have run a fair amount of DCC and still don't care much for it.
Yes, I would rather "roll my own" than buy and play. It has always been a "building" hobby for me, not a buying or collecting one. The time spend programing decoders alone is totaly unapealing to me. And, I have already expressed my desire for my layout to be my work. I like a certain amount of the social side of the hobby, but I do not want my layout to be a team project or be dependant on others. For one thing I do not plan to live in the same area for ever and help for those tasks I dislike may not always be at hand.
I was not sure I would like the pushbuttons on the TE either, I was so hesitant about that and other aspects I would not even spend the $150 on one to try it out. I found a guy to lend me one first. I played with it for a week than bought eight of them.
I understand why you might not care for the buttons on the Aristo, why is it so hard for others in this discussion to understand that I don't care for the endless wheel knobs on the DT400 or the small hard to read icons or the close spacing of the tinny buttoms?
I agree, hitting a dead track section is not realistic, but it is just a fail safe for operator error, not a operational practice. A fail safe that is free.
One thing that did get lost in the orginal post that should be repeated now - I have installed my system on a layout other than my own. Here is that story. One member of our local group has a basement sized layout that depicts a 1900 era eastern logging operation. His control system was the typical tower cab control with rotary switches and teathered throttles and panels at each town/passing siding. As I explained my proposed system he became interested. He had rejected the idea DCC for two reasons, his fleet of about 40 locos are mostly old, brass, small. Now we all konw it can be done, but we also know its not like plugging them in a Bachmann tender either. While he may have the skills, he lacked the desire to do these decoder installs, and paying for it would be a major added expense.
Additionally, his trackwork is all older power routed turnouts, not very DCC friendly, code 70 rail. Lots of work to rework that for DCC.
He asked what it would take to install my system and how it would work, I explained it, devepoled a plan for his layout and we did it. It works very well. He does not have detecton or signaling and we stayed with the existing method of ground throws for the turnouts. That did require installing ground throws with electrical contacts on about 20 turnouts. We built new control panels and went from 6-12 "blocks" per panel to just two "sections" in most cases. Most wiring drops from the track where easily cut loose from the old system and connected to my prebuilt relay panels. Only a very few track modifications (just moving a few gaps actually) where needed.
He now has a four cab system for the main line and two additional ones for his dual guage branch. It works well, all the members of our group (many use DCC) like operating it and find it easy to use, and operation flexiblity is way better than before, even if its not quite like DCC.
The train Engineer throttles have been VERY reliable with no droped signals or range/command problems. The performence of EVERY loco on the layout have imporved to DCC like smoothness with the Pulse Width Control of the TE.
The cost was about the same as a DCC conversion would have been. And if we assume he might have paid for many of those decoder installs it was less.
Remember, he did NOT do any signaling. I will admitt that my system is only slighly less expensvie than DCC, if at all, wihout signaling. But the installation of the system, especially in its advanced forms with turnout controls, is an intigraded signal/detection/control system similar to those built years ago by Ed Ravenscroft or Bruce Chubb - BUT with wireless walk around throttles and can easily be built for less than a comparable DCC system with a similar signaling system. And I agree you get less, but that only a problem if you want/need those things your not getting.
The bottom line is that this person is very happy with the improvements to his layout, happy not using a computer to program decoders, happy to have not had to install any decoders in his brass shays and spent no more, maybe a little less than he would have with DCC.
Paul3...I will say that for one-operator/one-train layouts, DCC is probably not for you...
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
DigitalGriffin,Sorry, sorry. I just couldn't resist the humor in the topic header. It was just too much, and I just had to have some fun!
Ahem, right...back to DC vs. DCC.
The "tension" has existed on the 'net for at least 10 years, and probably goes back to when mainstream DCC systems came out back in 1993. This is nothing new. Heck, in the first few days of this very DCC forum's existance, there was a humdinger of a discussion between factions. I've heard of tensions in clubs that got pretty bad, but then you're talking about clubs (we once had a long meeting talking about what kind of doors to install at our new club).
I think a problem in a lot of these discussions that get heated is that many (not all) pro-DC'ers have never even tried DCC let alone built a DCC layout. Some just don't have any experience, they only know from what they read and from what others tell them. They don't study it nor use it every day (why would they?), so they don't really know what it can and cannot do, how much it costs, etc. A lot of my reponses to these sorts of threads are based on correcting bad information.There's also a lot of pride in doing it yourself. DCC really doesn't offer that...it's mostly plug-n-play. DC, OTOH, is almost exclusively done in a unique fashion. There's a lot of pride built into these complicated DC layouts, in keeping them running, etc. It could take hours of studying a problem to come up with a fix, then hours more wiring up a solution, then more time to work out the bugs and the operational difficulties as well. Getting it all to run well, and look good, takes a lot of work. DCC, however, can accomplish more than what complicated DC layouts offer (in most cases) just by hooking up two wires and away you go.
Why do I say the above? Because prior to 1998, I used to be very anti-DCC and pro-DC. I ran trains in my club's ca. 1953 DC layout, and yes, I took pride in getting 40 year old tech. to work right. It wowed me to see all the things we had to do just to get a train running, and after I mastered it, it gave me a little thrill to know that I was one of the few that could actually do it and do it well. It was a learned skill, and I liked knowing it. I also didn't know much about DCC, and almost every reason I ever had against DCC was explained away when I actually started asking questions and listening to the answers.
I will say that for one-operator/one-train layouts, DCC is probably not for you. But once you starting adding people or trains, DCC should be strongly considered as the first option.
Sheldon,In response to your questions:1) Wireless w/ 5 buttons: Um, I prefer knobs to buttons. I've used the Crest Train Engineer, and my thumb got tired after a while especially when switching (the buttons are hard plastic). I also like having a digital display so I know what's going on with my train with just a glance.
2) DCC does all that (momentum, lighting, etc.), and it's all adjustable for every loco on the fly.
3) Um, my DCC layout has no block toggles of any sort.
4) DCC switch controls can either be thrown locally, controlled by a PC, controlled by analog devices through a PC, or thrown by the throttle. Routes can also be thrown the same way.
5) Hitting a dead block is hardly realistic, and in any event it's not much of a concern on my double track mainline.
I'm not saying your ideas don't have merit because they do, but about the only place where DCC doesn't do as well is in comparison to detection and signalling, and that's only because there needs to be a lot more invested to get it to run 100% realistically (by that I mean a PC, detectors, signal cards, etc.).
BigRusty,Few (if any) have ever said that DCC is for everyone. I do think that DCC is the best control system (but not the only system), and that everybody should at least look at it when building a new layout.
BTW, why did you throw sound into this? This is what drives pro-DCC guys like me batty. DCC decoders cost $15 or less in bulk. DCC sound is an option, not a requirement. One could also put sound in DC locos decades ago (PFM anyone?), but one would hardly put that into any cost consideration for DC. So why do it for DCC? Imagine if I said, "Add in the sound and the installation cost for DC locos and it is way too expensive." It just doesn't hold up.
I think most pro-DCC people respond with "DCC is the best answer", not that it's the only answer. Sure, there are some out there that are just too excited and want everyone to have DCC, but then there are those that think that DC is more realistic than DCC, so it all evens out.
You say you bought the Quantum Engineer... Why? You just said you'd rather spend your money on buying more New Haven equipment (an honorable act, of course!). Buying a QE goes against that philosophy of buying more equipment over "bells and whistles", doesn't it? BTW, just for giggles, I know a "brass hat" in the NHRHTA bought 10 BLI I-5's, if you can imagine that. Cheesh. I only have one.
In your ABBA sets, how did you assemble them in the yard? Even B units had hostler controls unless they were drawbarred. At my old club, we had to park an engine so the coupler was over the block break, then drive the other loco over to it to make the hitch (but many guys would just push them together with their hands...tut, tut). With DCC, the consist can be made anywhere.
DCC is only a nightmare if one is impatient with technology. When I started to learn DCC, I found that most of my problems were caused by my errors in not reading the manual or understanding the terms.
wcu, I think you can relax. DC will be available for perhaps a couple of decades yet, and maybe many more. Even DCC will be supplanted in time, maybe even sooner. Something new always comes along and is sufficiently attractive to a critical mass of a market that it takes on a life of its own.
And for what it's worth, DC should suffice very nicely for the layout you describe. Once you introduce a new non-mu'd engine to the same layout without making any changes to your wiring and gaps, that is when you might want to take the leap to DCC. Even then, not necessarily.
-Crandell
I don't see why there shouldn't be a market that could handle both. It would have to come down to imaginative research and marketing. And then maybe an open frame type of system may come along different in kind and then we'd see the same discussions ag'in---
DigitalGriffin,There's a "War Bruin"? Um, you mean, there's a bear that's built for combat? And there shouldn't be one? Well, I think I can agree with that. I know we have the right to keep and bear arms, but I draw the line at keeping armed bears!
Oh noes! Run for your lives, it's a War Bruin!!!!
Oh, wait, you mean there's a conflict brewing between users of DC vs. DCC? Um, I'm sorry. That's different. I now return you to your regular on topic discussion...
Therefore, help me with this. I am slow in getting my layout started. All of my diesels are DC only. I fully realize that I can add decoders and invest in a fairly expensive DCC outift versus purchasing a reasonable transformer. But since I have only a 2 X 8 layout and I am only going to be running one diesel at a time, then are my engines going to not be able to be used because DC has the potential to be killed eventually by DCC if your thoughts are correct. If this is true, it is a sad future and a sad day for me personally.
If I chose DC as my operational process and DCC eventually kills DC, then my diesels will be eventually be non-workable in a DCC-only world. It does not seem fair.
Am I mistaken?
rrinker If it starts getting too rough I'll be forced to put in the Hanson brothers....
If it starts getting too rough I'll be forced to put in the Hanson brothers....
Throw a bunch of teddie bears out----
wjstix...and keep our sticks on the ice!!
Will we get 5 for fighting?
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
selector So, let's keep talking...and listening.
So, let's keep talking...and listening.
...and keep our sticks on the ice!!
I am interested in this discussion because it has great potential to reveal all the benefits of each way of doing things if we can keep a lid on it. As is the case in any debate on any subject, the more factual information each camp can establish, with good will on both sides leading to a nod, even if grudgingly , the result could be a highly informative and useful thread for those who know what they want to do and what they need from their layout. Their choice of operating method, or system, would then be made clear for them, and that would be a great achievement.
For me, the hobby wouldn't be where it is now had it not been for legions of determined, gritty, and experienced hobbyists who had vision and found a way to work around the limitations that DC seemed to present to them prima fascie (at first glance). Every great discovery came on the heels of the efforts of others, but it often came from one person who "got it", and not from the legions of naysayers. We should embrace new ways of doing things, even if they are troubling or seem to come from old methods or materials. And as is often the case, the melding of two ideas can often yield something far greater than each of them singly.
DigitalGriffin 3. Pull another F-7A (Hobbytown), 1524 out of yard, and lash that up to 1514/1518. (You have a big load that day to haul over the mountain) This will be "extra 524" for the day. 4. Pull Train # 9524 into the service yard on the adjoining track
3. Pull another F-7A (Hobbytown), 1524 out of yard, and lash that up to 1514/1518. (You have a big load that day to haul over the mountain) This will be "extra 524" for the day.
4. Pull Train # 9524 into the service yard on the adjoining track
If your lead engine is 1524, that would be "Extra 1524, not Extra 524". (I assume that's just a typo ) And what's "Train 9524" now?
8. You are now crossing a grade. Have your ditch lights come on as you cross the gate crossing. Have them turn off automatically as you pass the crossing
Ditch lights stay on all the time, not just for crossings. Some engines/roads set up the ditch lights to flash when the horn was blown. Many are constant-on with none of that flashing.
On the other hand, older electronics books and magazines have lots of tricks using magnets and reed switches to activate horns etc. automatically when approaching crossings. So that can be done, with a little setup.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
BigRustyTo be honest with you DCC zealots, I have been reading this forum since it was established. It makes DCC look like a nightmare to me. Gee, I just have to put a train on the track and it runs.
Thankfully, Big Rusty, DCC isn't as nightmarish as it may be perceived. I've had DCC-equipped sound locomotives - like my Trix 2-8-2 Mike - that have run beautifully right out of the box on address 03.
Although I prefer DCC, I don't look down on DC or DC users. As in your case, sticking with DC is a wise move. I will agree that the "zealots" in either camp can get to be a little much sometimes.
I think in these kinds of situations, we should heed the words of the great Canadian philosopher, Red Green:
"Remember, I'm pullin' for ya'. We're all in this thing together."
(Hmmmm...or was it, "Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"?: "When all else fails, play dead.")
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Very true - and a great race car builder I knew years ago said "speed costs money, how fast do you want to go".
I'm going fast enough thank you.