The famous line from the Wizard of Oz was one of fear for what might lie ahead. Such is the case for many neophyte MRs in the modern world of DCC.
Many of us old timers became used to DC operation where a good degree of mechanical and electrical skills were developed. On a pike of any size, there was the inevitable rats nest of block, switch and signal control wiring....Literally hundreds of wires routing their way to some important destination from a very busy master control panel. Today, only moderate electrical skills are required with about the same mechanical skills as in days of old.
Electronics skills are now at the forefront, but not very complex ones. Basic computer savy and a basic understanding of CV settings within the framework of the DCC's micro controller are very important to get the most out of that sound decoder. Undertable wiring on all but the largest pikes can be reduced to viritually nothing if you DCC control everything. The old slap and slam switch solenoids of the DC days have given way to silent slow motion switch machines controlled with no toggle switches or significant wiring, if desired.
In DCC, we traded in the old 110 watt weller "under the table" soldering gun for the 15 watt pencil iron, installing sound controllers. A single heavy gauge "buss" now replaces many long runs of wires of yesteryear. Model railroading has gotten much easier for the modern guy and a bit more expensive, if he goes full featured DCC all the way.
DCC can be forbidding to a startup guy as well as the old hand, in some cases. Many old MR's have long torn down their old layout of the 90's and rebuilt around the less copper filled 21st century form of model railroading. If we old guys have "kept up", then the transition was only moderately painful to the brain and the wallet. We learned new skills along the way, too.
Assuming you are currently involved in DCC....
What was your most difficult part of the transition? (For the old guys)
What is your most worrisome area of entering MR with DCC (For the new guys.)
My issue was coming into the digital technology and learning what was out there to do what task and how it was implemented before I made some bad or expensive mistakes on my new DCC layout after 15 years of being out of the hobby. Fortunately, I read a lot and while finding the experience a bit tedious, it was not so costly in time or headaches as I first thought it would be.
What about you guys?
Richard
If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed
Honestly, your opening post seems a little ... well, overwrought.
For me, and for many I know, DCC was a pretty painless transition. The trickiest bit can be decoder installation, but with more and more drop-in decoders and factory-equipped DCC, that issue is diminishing, even in N scale.
To graybeard and newbie alike, I would say, "Come on in, DCC is fine."
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
DCC is indeed fine and I would have my current MR'ing no other way, but we all see, daily, the trials of others here. Many, often have an air of despondency in their post, but it is more frustration than disappointment, I think.
I wrote my post to find out what the most common complaints might be since few post here with anything but problems that need solving. And, this is not necessarily a bad thing......It is what we are here for.......DCC/electronics issues
narrow gauge nuclearDCC is indeed fine and I would have my current MR'ing no other way, but we all see, daily, the trials of others here. Many, often have an air of despondency in their post, but it is more frustration than disappointment, I think
I will note that only those with problems post, and a good many of those problems are self-inflicted. Folks who don't know what constitutes a reversing loop, for example, will have trouble with DC or DCC. A good introductory reference such as Basic DCC Wiring for Your Model Railroad: A Beginner's Guide to Decoders, DCC Systems, and Layout Wiring would answer many of the questions seen here, but most fail to RTFB (Read The Fine Book). Others ignore the documentation that came with their DCC system.
Those for whom DCC went well don't show up here, so there is a built-in bias.
For the moment, my feet is still firmly in both camps. DC at home; DCC on the HOn3 modules when used in a club setup.
There are several things that irritate me about DCC.
- First is the attitude of many (but by no means all) DCC-only users. There seems to be a belief that modern (in terms of electronics and operating capabilities) model railroading started with DCC. The attitude that those DC dinosaurs couldn't possibly appreciate or understand how great DCC is. Truth is that virtually all the capabilites of today's DCC were available (albeit with considerable effort in some cases) to the interested model railroader before the Coming of DCC. Yes, automated routing, command control, radio control, incredible slow speed running, slow speed turnout motors, and even great sound were known and available before DCC appeared. What DCC did was bring these known capabilities and technologies (along with significantly higher locomotive prices) together to the average model railroader in the form of a couple of well-disguised programmable black boxes.
- Second, the cost of DCC systems make many users brand-centric in an effort to justify the price they paid (or will pay). At the same time, this brand-centrism causes its users to overlook the drawbacks of their particular brand of DCC (they all have their own drawbacks). What is a very minor nuisance to some is a major drawback to others. Because of the brand-centrism, many looking for advice on their DCC selection get advice which does not account for individual priorities for their DCC system.
- Third is the difficulty in getting a large group of modules built by a dozen or more individuals to work together properly under DCC control. It usually takes a couple of hours at every setup to get all modules working under DCC, regardless of DCC manufacturer. Even the club DCC experts get stumped by anamolies they don't understand, and can't explain.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
This is an issue in a couple of other web forums I attend. No one wants to read anymore. It is a lost skillset for many of the youngest, especially. They want the answers dropped in their laps. It is just too much work, it seems. The same that simple to answer questions are repeatedly asked over and over again.
In answer to Fred. The assumption in my post was that the folks queried are in DCC, are paying the price and gaining the benefits of DCC operation and not whether DCC is good or bad. It is here and many people are in it to stay.
Still, for those old guys and the new guys...What were your key issues after leaping into DCC. (Assuming you did some homework like I did, prior to your leap)
fwrightThird is the difficulty in getting a large group of modules built by a dozen or more individuals to work together properly under DCC control. It usually takes a couple of hours at every setup to get all modules working under DCC, regardless of DCC manufacturer. Even the club DCC experts get stumped by anamolies they don't understand, and can't explain.
Independent train control anywhere on a layout comprised of modules built independently by many different modelers would likely be even more difficult with DC, wouldn't you say?
Not to say that DCC is perfect, but you are describing a demanding environment unlike what folks experience with home layouts.
narrow gauge nuclear What was your most difficult part of the transition? (For the old guys)
I can't say that there was much intimidation into the decision, or much difficulty in the transition. Mine was always about having a reason to switch. The desire for onboard sound prompted me to buy a DCC system. Operating it really doesn't take much learning at all, even programming CV's. But I tend to be the type of person that buys things to replace something that is broken, not necessarily to keep up. I only recently bought my first flat screen lcd/led TV w/in the past year because the tube on the old Sony finally gave up. Probably would not have considered a different operating system like DCC if it wasn't for the newish feature of onboard sound.
I suppose the source of some frustration would lie in having to press too many buttons, especially when an errant finger presses a wrong one and you have to start over.
- Douglas
Admittedly, it was seeing and hearing Tsunami sound and the Blackstone HOn3 locos in action that dragged me back into MR in 2009 after a 15 year dry spell. I had always dreamed of an HOn3 layout since the 70's. DCC was just a tag along rider to get at the sound. I had no great trial with DCC and certainly no issues with the soundtraxx decoder or the CV's. By reading and in the doing, plowed into DCC with only a little gear grinding.
I am happy to let my 5 DC MRC II power packs, 30+ HO locos and 50 odd pieces of rolling stock of yesteryear, just rot in storage. No turning back now, except to remember an era where I had a lot of fun, but it's nothing like the fun I am having now.
cuyama fwrightThird is the difficulty in getting a large group of modules built by a dozen or more individuals to work together properly under DCC control. It usually takes a couple of hours at every setup to get all modules working under DCC, regardless of DCC manufacturer. Even the club DCC experts get stumped by anamolies they don't understand, and can't explain. Independent train control anywhere on a layout comprised of modules built independently by many different modelers would likely be even more difficult with DC, wouldn't you say? Not to say that DCC is perfect, but you are describing a demanding environment unlike what folks experience with home layouts.
I totally agree that we have a very demanding environment, that none of the popular control systems (DC, DCC, proprietary) anticipated in their design and implementation. The real difference between trying to do a multiple builder modular setup in DC and DCC is the troubleshooting tools and knowledge - not the number of issues.
For DC trouble-shooting, a few multimeters will generally suffice. However, even with lots of pre-planning and the addition of extra wiring, DC will never be as flexible for operations in the modular setup environment as DCC. Which is why no modular group I know of still uses DC.
But troubleshooting digital circuits and links is not as easy. There are 2 separate signal links in DCC - track power and throttle bus/Loconet - and both must function correctly and simultaneously across multiple modules and wire couplings. The tools to accurately monitor the links are quite complex compared to a multimeter. Unfortunately, DCC track power has less tolerance for signal loss than DC.
Radio control has been seen as a solution to get rid of the throttle bus/Loconet issues, but in reality is a bust in the normal modular environment. There is just too much spectral noise and interference at train shows (the most frequent setup location) for consistent and reliable radio communications using any of the common model railroad radio systems. At private setups - church halls and similar - radio control is a thing of beauty.
Although DC is eminently practical for my home layout situation (normal single operator, max 2 operators), I am now wiring for dual use (master switch for DCC or DC). I do the same for my modules for testing - the switch is hidden underneath the module and will be taped at a show to prevent yet another head puzzler. Once I have put decoders in my locomotives, I have no desire to operate a decoder-equipped locomotive on DC. But I want the simplicity of DC while I build, test, and tune my locomotives.
Others have made good points about the simplicity of basic DCC leading to ignorance of the basics of turnout and reversing section wiring.
I didn't explain my thoughts very well the 1st time. Thanks for leading into a 2nd chance.
narrow gauge nuclear What was your most difficult part of the transition? (For the old guys) What is your most worrisome area of entering MR with DCC (For the new guys.)
To be honest, I didn't really have a "difficult" time with the transition from DC to DCC; nor was I worried about making the jump. I just had a willingness to learn, make mistakes, learn from my mistakes, and enjoy learning - which I still am in the process of doing.
I don't have to get into the nitty-gritty of programming to enjoy the benefits of DCC. It is nice though to have the option - i.e. should I decide to wade into the deeper end of the pool on occasion.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I'm no greybeard (mainly because I shave every day...) but I was born before personal computers, though I did start young - I was 11 when the TRS-80 Model 1 came out, and I took to it instantly. I've always been inquisitive along those lines, my favorite toys (besides trains) were lego blocks and Erector sets, and any other sort of building toy - along with any number of those various X-in-1 electronic kits from Radio Shack.
So when I finally broke out of the DC world and bought by Zephyr - in reality the transition was extremely smooth. They day it and my first decoders arrived, I popped int he decoders (DH163L0 in a Proto 2000 Geep - so it took longer to take off the shell than install the decoder) and I wired it to my little test loop of Bachmann track and off I went.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
It has been a long time...a whole eight years ago. I honestly don't remember the details well, but I do recall having to call Soundtraxx and asking them why a DSD-100LC wouldn't run after I tried to programme it. I guess I did a Paged Mode, which Digitrax does with a power-off to the track. Or...whatever. I was stumped, but apart from forgetting a couple of times and having to go back to the manual, my Super Empire Builder (yes, Ye Olde Clunk) has been a robust, reliable, and most excellent joy and boon to my mrr experience.
I did start in DC with one of those Christmas themed On30 sets made by Bachmann. I was thrilled to have it after 46 years of no trains. Then, six months after retiring in 2004, I had an opportunity to vist an LHS, now closed, and I came away with a BLI TH&B Hudson modelled after the NYC 4-6-4. With sound. I had the DC controller, so I put it to good use for the first year. Then I purchased the lamentable EZ-DCC from Bachmann. Worked fine...no problems, but it was like a Porsche Targa with a Beetle engine in it. Meh.
I opted for a Digitrax SEB only because my LHS sold them and took back the EZ-DCC with that recommendation. The rest is a blur, but a pleasant one.
To close, my chief complaint with DCC and sound is that the sound decoders are mostly largely intolerant of poor pickup or dirty track. Fortunately, my stalls and sound drop-outs are attributable to track problems that I find and can fix, but eventually I would prefer to have decoders with keep-alive capacitors that are not huge and that can run about 1.5 seconds with disrupted power.
Crandell
The biggest issue I've seen in a conversion to DCC was the layout owner trying to change too many things at once, to the extreme frustration of everyone involved in running his layout.
In the subject case, the owner tried to implement DCC, radio throttles and prototypical amounts of throttle lag/momentum/manual braking in his locomotives simultaneously. This was on a layout that had been operating with a high degree of reliability for 20+ years. The layout was taken out of commission for several months while a number of the regular operators converted over 30 locomotives to DCC (and sound), and command stations and a throttle bus were installed.
The first dozen or so operating sessions following the conversion were extremely frustrating. The key issue was the crews trying to adapt to running with the large amounts of momentum effect the owner had set up in the decoders, while at the same time trying to identify and overcome radio reception dead spots. If a train didn't move, it was difficult to figure out whether it was a radio issue or the operator not being patient enough.
Eventually it got sorted out by relocating the base radio receiver and its repeaters, through trial and error, so that there were no longer "doughnut hole" dead spots right where people would most often be standing while switching towns.
A far better approach would have been to sort out the radio reception issues first, then go and complicate things for the crews by programming momentum and braking effects into the decoders.
In this case, DCC itself was not the problem, rather it was the migration strategy.
-Fritz Milhaupt, Publications Editor, Pere Marquette Historical Society, Inc.http://www.pmhistsoc.org
fwright - Third is the difficulty in getting a large group of modules built by a dozen or more individuals to work together properly under DCC control. It usually takes a couple of hours at every setup to get all modules working under DCC, regardless of DCC manufacturer. Even the club DCC experts get stumped by anamolies they don't understand, and can't explain. my thoughts, your choices Fred W
Fred,
In Free-mo we have experienced similar issues with setup. I don't think DCC manufacturers really had modular layouts in mind when it came to design and setup of their systems. I wrote an article of an advanced user's perspective of time pretty much wasted at setups trying to setup DCC on a modular layout. http://free-mo.org/node/304
Compared to DC the DCC system takes 3-4 times longer to setup. We were using a multi-cab strategy in DC that literally plugged in and was ready to go. Not so with DCC. DCC requires a throttle/booster bus plugged in and debugged, then setting up the booster farm, then routing power cables from the booster farm to each power block and debugging polarity for each. Typically 3 hours for setting up throttle bus, 3 hours for setting up booster farm, 30 min to 45 min for setting up power cables to each block and debugging polarity. 6-7 hours out of the setup day is A LOT! With DC we were up and running trains within an hour. A very much simplified and basic control system, but it was fast to set up. Looking back, the promises of DCC were so great and the operational control (including radio, which has proved to be unreliable) was so alluring that we overlooked the actual implementation time and weigh it against the old reliable multi DC throttle system.
Fortunately in most permanent layout environments setting up a DCC system is a one time event. Also fortunately DCC seems to be moving towards convergence and multiple protocol systems mean you can run Lenz, Digitrax, NCE interchangeably on the same layout. These multiprotocol systems are being pioneered by ROCO and ESU. I have noticed American DCC manufacturers reluctant and stagnant to catch up with these trends.
Don't get me wrong I think DCC is great. I just thing there is room for improvement on part of the manufacturer support and implementation that could enhance compatibility and create true PnP decoders that don't require soldering for extended functions and speakers.
As an advanced user I think there are still lessons to be had from how easy and simple DC was to use. People forget these things in favor of a more complex system. Complexity comes at a price, and many times exclusivity isolating some users from being able to adopt the newer system.
What is very exciting to me is the z21 and the ECoS system migrating to the USA from Europe. It's really bringing a new paradigm to model railroad control and simplifying the usage of the systems. There is a lot of interesting developments by those two for interchangeability of controls. Certainly exciting for club and modular layouts where participants may have different DCC systems at home.
Chris Palomarez
Richard.
When I started down the DCC trail decoders were HUGE and quite expensive too. It was a great day when the first one amp micro decoder for under $50 came out. Getting those giant decoders to fit inside loco shells without removing all the weight was a pain.
I would really like to see someone come out with an interface where different manufactures of throttles can be used on the same layout. It would be nice to have only one throttle for the different layouts I visit and operate.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
I was very interested in hearing about the issues common to modular setups with DCC. I know modules are a popular way to take the "road on the road". Most DCC folks are single pike owners though.
My own large shelf layout is single user with no guest engineers planned and not a single loconet plug in anywhere yet. If I do put in a remote plug, there will be no IR and no radio used. Only a direct connection.
I know that one of the main points in DCC is multi-user, multicab, multitrain operation, but I still went with DCC as a single user due to the luxury of not having to run many feet of wire to switches from a control panel and allowing remote control over any thing on the layout via DCC off a single pair of buss wires. All my old HO layouts down through the many years had a lot of copper in them that I don't want to have to string up and fiddle with. The Zephyr Extra with its little 3 amp supply is all I will ever need for over 150 feet of track, 5 engines and 12 turnouts.
Most of the programming issues I have seen posted here are related to new installs of sound decoders along with a few wiring issues and a lot of lighting issues that are mostly electrical issues. A certain amount of new, out-of-box issues with manufacturer installed oddball decoders also pop up.
I am lucky. I have installed two Tsunami sound decoders in old brass with out a hitch and, fortunately, learned all I needed to know about CV programming from the Tsunamis factory installed in all my Blackstone C-19s and K-27's. Staying with one sound decoder helps smooth the DCC trip a bit.
Richard Hull
Richard, do I count? I don't use DCC at home, but I belong to a round robin group and have operated on a regular basis on a number of DCC layouts, some of which I even designed the track plan for and helped construct?
I have no problems with DCC technology, I was programing some of the first PLC's used in industrial control way back in the 80's. While I don't see it as "fun", there is nothing about those aspects of DCC that is, or would be a problem for me.
My problems with DCC are in line with Fred W and his comments - Fred has very good insight into these things, him and I are on the same page - even when we have different needs and different solutions.
The biggest problem with DCC, every brand to some degree or another, is poor user interface design. All the throttles are a pain to use - period.
And Fred is right, everyone avoids that topic to justify their commitment to the brand of their choosing.
The other basic problem with DCC is extra work and expense to solve problems that may not exist for every modeler and that may actually create problems where none existed before.
Short story is, DCC does not bring any features I need, and does not make the features I want (signaling, CTC, working interlocking, ATC) any easier to implement - so I don't need it.
Sheldon
PS - I have said this before, but to be clear, if I was building a layout or a different size, with a different theme and operating scheme, for which the features of DCC would have some real advantage, I would likely be all in for DCC - or, if it was in a larger scale than HO, I would choose direct radio.
Example, if I was building a smaller layout, and planned for multi train operation, some sort of comand control would likely be desired.
And in a larger scale, with a simple theme layout, I would seriously consider sound.
But with my current scale, HO, and my current theme, 1950's double track Class I, CTC controlled, DCC is just more work and more money for features I don't like, need or want.
fwright cuyama fwrightThird is the difficulty in getting a large group of modules built by a dozen or more individuals to work together properly under DCC control. It usually takes a couple of hours at every setup to get all modules working under DCC, regardless of DCC manufacturer. Even the club DCC experts get stumped by anamolies they don't understand, and can't explain. Independent train control anywhere on a layout comprised of modules built independently by many different modelers would likely be even more difficult with DC, wouldn't you say? Not to say that DCC is perfect, but you are describing a demanding environment unlike what folks experience with home layouts. I totally agree that we have a very demanding environment, that none of the popular control systems (DC, DCC, proprietary) anticipated in their design and implementation. The real difference between trying to do a multiple builder modular setup in DC and DCC is the troubleshooting tools and knowledge - not the number of issues. For DC trouble-shooting, a few multimeters will generally suffice. However, even with lots of pre-planning and the addition of extra wiring, DC will never be as flexible for operations in the modular setup environment as DCC. Which is why no modular group I know of still uses DC. But troubleshooting digital circuits and links is not as easy. There are 2 separate signal links in DCC - track power and throttle bus/Loconet - and both must function correctly and simultaneously across multiple modules and wire couplings. The tools to accurately monitor the links are quite complex compared to a multimeter. Unfortunately, DCC track power has less tolerance for signal loss than DC. Radio control has been seen as a solution to get rid of the throttle bus/Loconet issues, but in reality is a bust in the normal modular environment. There is just too much spectral noise and interference at train shows (the most frequent setup location) for consistent and reliable radio communications using any of the common model railroad radio systems. At private setups - church halls and similar - radio control is a thing of beauty. Although DC is eminently practical for my home layout situation (normal single operator, max 2 operators), I am now wiring for dual use (master switch for DCC or DC). I do the same for my modules for testing - the switch is hidden underneath the module and will be taped at a show to prevent yet another head puzzler. Once I have put decoders in my locomotives, I have no desire to operate a decoder-equipped locomotive on DC. But I want the simplicity of DC while I build, test, and tune my locomotives. Others have made good points about the simplicity of basic DCC leading to ignorance of the basics of turnout and reversing section wiring. I didn't explain my thoughts very well the 1st time. Thanks for leading into a 2nd chance. Fred W
rrebellThat is why a third option is upon us, battery powered radio control.
Which system did you choose? Can you share some pictures of your locomotives showing the battery installations?
rrebell ...The DCCers always said that theirs was the demise of DC but I am afraid it may be the DCCers who are the first to go..
Really...? When will this impending doom befall those of us who have selected DCC as our chosen method of operation ? See, had all of us "DCCers" just waited...how many years...and continue to wait...for this new fangled battery wizardry to come en masse to HO...well, look at the time that would have been saved in these DC vs. DCC vs. soon to be copper top crowd.
Honestly, DC isn't going anywhere and neither is DCC. The best operating system is the one that is best for you. You obviously are all over battery power (as is evident in a goodly portion of your posts...). Good! I don't get why some folks can't just be happy with their chosen operating method and enjoy. To each his (her) own.
Happy modeling all!
Don
"Ladies and gentlemen, I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that both engines have failed, and we will be stuck here for some time. The good news is that you decided to take the train and not fly."
EMD.DonHonestly, DC isn't going anywhere and neither is DCC. The best operating system is the one that is best for you.
You really hit the nail on the head Don. I wish more folks would embrace your thought and stop bickering.
Joe
Let me start off by saying I don't consider myself an "old guy" but, I do remember DC, still have my MRC Twinpack . When I first got serious about Model Railroading "Command Control" consisted of a Mann-Made CTC system, and sound was a gondola with a noisemaker in it you towed around. The trains whistle was a wooden block you blew into.
All that stuff was discarded for me in 1999, when the club I was in and I each purchased DCC systems. Since then it has been a joyride ever since. Ok, there were a few potholes in the road, but nothing insurmountable. We now enjoy radio operation, computer interface simplifying programming, and wi-fi throttles. Yes, there is a learning curve. There is with everything in life.
To close, my chief complaint with DCC and sound is that the sound decoders are mostly largely intolerant of poor pickup or dirty track. Fortunately, my stalls and sound drop-outs are attributable to track problems that I find and can fix, but eventually I would prefer to have decoders with keep-alive capacitors that are not huge and that can run about 1.5 seconds with disrupted power. Crandell
Crandell, Check out the "DCC Corner" in the September MR. Watch the video, there is a fix for that!
Chris. I'm not sure how you guys are doing it, but when the club sets up the modules for shows, our DCC is usually ready before the modules are bolted, aligned and connector tracks are installed. Usually by a 2 man crew of non-module owners. 60x100 layout, 5 boosters plus a command station. You might want to re-evaluate the process there.
Me? I'll keep my DCC til one of 2 things happens. Either Battery/Radio control becomes as small as a DCC decoder . Show me a HO 0-4-0T with digital control, sound, & can motor AND battery and I'll jump ship. OR They pry my DCC controller (or my smartphone) out of my cold, dead hand. (which could be 40 years from now!)
Karl
NCE über alles!
EMD.Don rrebell ...The DCCers always said that theirs was the demise of DC but I am afraid it may be the DCCers who are the first to go.. Really...? When will this impending doom befall those of us who have selected DCC as our chosen method of operation ? See, had all of us "DCCers" just waited...how many years...and continue to wait...for this new fangled battery wizardry to come en masse to HO...well, look at the time that would have been saved in these DC vs. DCC vs. soon to be copper top crowd. Honestly, DC isn't going anywhere and neither is DCC. The best operating system is the one that is best for you. You obviously are all over battery power (as is evident in a goodly portion of your posts...). Good! I don't get why some folks can't just be happy with their chosen operating method and enjoy. To each his (her) own. Happy modeling all! Don
Don, very much agreed!
And then there is me, who would use DCC, or direct radio, or DC, each as it fit the goals of a specific layout concept, scale and modeling goals.
Battery direct radio in HO may still be a little ways off in terms of being plug and play, but battery direct radio is already the choice of most serious large scale modelers, and will continue to advance into smaller scales.
Even with track power, direct radio likely has a strong future, a future that would be stronger with a set of open standards.
DCC is here to stay, but many poeple I know with strong computer tech backgrounds, some new to the hobby, complain about its out dated architecture - I don't know if there is a fix for that.
While I would willingly use DCC for some types of layouts, I do really dislike most of the user interfaces on the market. The guy who builds a better user interface, one that makes up for the outdated architecture of DCC, will rule DCC for the next two decades.
And DC, complex like mine, or even more complex with computerized block control, or really basic and simple, will remain as well. Maybe only with limited use by new modelers, but it has its own set of advantages - ironicly some of those advantages are enhanced by advances in technology like my use of base station radio throttles with pulse width modulation motor control.
Again I will join Don in reminding all that the best control system is the one that fits your needs, your likes, your budget, your modeling goals, and your skill set.
I'll agree that learning what each system (DC, DCC, and that new RC/battery thing) does and doesn't do easily is a good starting point. Lots of folks think one system or another is the magic bullet for their particular problems, when they should really understand their problem first. Dirty track, for instance, will be a problem in DC and DCC, but maybe not RC/battery assuming it doesn't recharge via track power.
I had very few issues with my conversion to DCC when the opportunity presented itself. The only problems I've run into are the way NCE handles lighting when consisting -- and anything QSI.
But that's a good example of getting your hands dirty with different mfgs and technologies before making significant commitments based purely on marketing and user guide materials.
Someone already mentioned the perils of trying to "do it all" in the midst of a DCC conversion. Much better to take things in small incremental steps at home, although I can see the pressures of just gettin' it done in a club situation. Best to still test and confirm various things in discrete segments to avoid total confusion.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
The major problem in converting for me was getting decoders into N-scale locomotives. Over time, I somehow wound up with a fleet that was pretty much just simply replacing a board. The problem was not anything to do with hooking up non PnP decoders, I can solder like everyone else and have a decent understanding of how power gets from the rails to the motor and lights of N-scale locomotives. The problem is sheer size/space. With something as light as an N-scale locomotive, modifying the frame is sometimes dubious. But, as I said, over time the fleet evolved with locomotives not only DCC-friendly, but improved in a lot of other ways over their predecessors.
Like Randy, I have a computer background and have been around networking since it became a blip on the overall radar. I got the hang of block detection, reverse loops/double track crossovers, etc pretty quickly. That list includes JMRI on the computer and programming various functions and lighting effects.
Is it perfect? No, but nothing is. From my years in automation, the reason people don't dwell on the human interface portion is not that they are glossing over it, it is that they have gotten used to what they use and it is no longer an issue for them. I work in engineering for air traffic control software, and we once released a software build that addressed several similar issues and eliminated various workarounds. The users complained when that was first released because it changed what they were used to. It's human nature. And the human interface by flight crews in most commercial aircraft is not exactly a thing of beauty, either.
My guess is I will stick with DCC until someone develops the ability to train ants or houseflies to act as model railroad engineers and conductors. Although, given their lifespans, managing the continuous training will be a downside that I will have to weigh.
- Mark
LIONS? Tigers? Bears?... Maybe even a Leopard too, eh?
Well you cannot discuss the BIG CATS without a word from the LION.
LION uses DC Analog Automation, a system of his own devising. LION has 14 miles of SUBWAY track, and eight trains running at once on a three minute headway. Busy Busy Railroad. And for an operator, running the Local on the Route of the Broadway LION is every bit as boring as running it on the NYCT.
LIONS do not *like* to be bored. Enter Analog Automation. Him applies 15 amps of regulated 10.5V DC power to all of the tracks. Resistors slow the trains down as they approach the stations, and a gap stops the train in the station. A timer pulls a relay to allow the train to continue, and is crosses more resistors as it picks up speed.
All trains are 6 50' cars, joined by draw bars and interconnected for lighting and traction. Like the big cat says "48 wheel pickup!". Other gaps allow the train to energize relays as it passes over them, thus controlling the signals and block protection.
I it kind of a"one of a kind" sort of an operation, but then, I'm a one of a kind sort of LION.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
narrow gauge nuclearDCC can be forbidding to a startup guy
Assuming you are currently involved in DCC.... What was your most difficult part of the transition? (For the old guys)
My issue was coming into the digital technology and learning what was out there to do what task and how it was implemented before I made some bad or expensive mistakes on my new DCC layout after 15 years of being out of the hobby.
I'm going to make another couple of points here about the cost of DCC.
Regardless of the age of the modeler in question, different people have different values about spending money, and it does not necessarily have any thing to do with how much money they have, or how easily they can afford a specific item.
For some of you on this forum, you have described in the past how you have one of this DCC system, and one of that one, then you decided to go with a third, and so on and so forth.
For others this business of choosing is a tremendous decission of great difficulty.
Some people, again dispite their means, find it hard to view material things as "disposable", so buying something that proves to be less than satisfactory can be a real problem for them.
Other people, again, regardles of their means, readily accept that stuff becomes obsolete, or that they change their mind or whatever. They sell stuff off, give it away, or let it sit around - no problem to them.
These behaviors have nothing to do directly with model trains or DCC vs DC vs direct radio.
But they do affect the choices people make in this hobby.
Like me, I have never enguaged in what I call "serial ownership", that is you buy something, play with it a while, then sell it off to buy the next toy, and so on. That is wastefull where I come from, and childish, but that's just me.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I'm going to make another couple of points here about the cost of DCC. Regardless of the age of the modeler in question, different people have different values about spending money, and it does not necessarily have any thing to do with how much money they have, or how easily they can afford a specific item. For some of you on this forum, you have described in the past how you have one of this DCC system, and one of that one, then you decided to go with a third, and so on and so forth. For others this business of choosing is a tremendous decission of great difficulty. Some people, again dispite their means, find it had to view material things as "disposable", so buying something that proves to be less than satisfactory can be a real problem for them. Other people, again, regardles of their means, readily accept that stuff becomes obsolete, or that they change their mind or whatever. They sell stuff off, give it away, or let it sit around - no problem to them. These behaviors have nothing to do directly with model trains or DCC vs DC vs direct radio. But they do affect the choices people make in this hobby. Sheldon
Some people, again dispite their means, find it had to view material things as "disposable", so buying something that proves to be less than satisfactory can be a real problem for them.
Well said, Sheldon.