First I would like to thank those who responded to my last post! The layout isn't mine, and I needed to see if my "fix" was viable.
Meanwhile, I am a veteran of DC...and in process of building a new layout. The more I read about DCC systems on the market, the more confused I get. Whose is best for the midsize home layout...multiple engine lash-ups, soem older engines t o convert, etc.
I would focus on what YOU are trying to do, and pretty much ignore babble about things that don't matter to you.
1. Because the DCC track signal is a standard, any decoder should work with any DCC system. So converting older locomotives has nothing to do with selecting a particular DCC system.
2. This is a "new" layout. Will you be using DCC from the very beginning, doing a combination of DC and DCC for a while (gradual conversion), or converting to DCC all at once at a later date? This will drive how much of a DCC system you have to have at a particular point in time.
3. There is no "best" DCC system. There is a system (or systems) you prefer for various reasons - some logical, and some more of a personal preference. Your priorities for DCC (walk-around or central control, cost, expansion to include signaling and/or turnout control, compatibility with JMRI, compatibility with friends or club, a particular style of consisting, wireless, etc) may also lead you to a particular system.
I would list in priority order what features matter to you. Post that list, along with operating parameters (how many operators, how many simultaneous engines and trains, etc) and DCC users can give you a better feel as to how the system(s) they are familiar with can meet your situation.
Fred W
i have a small layout. I chose to use DCC to avoid all the block wiring issues
almost all DCC controllers and decoders from different manufactures are compatible.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregc i have a small layout. I chose to use DCC to avoid all the block wiring issues almost all DCC controllers and decoders from different manufactures are compatible.
Sorry, but No DCC controllers are compatable from one manufacturers system to another manufactures system. Only DCC decoders are compatable between systems.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Actually, gandydander19, that's incorrect. Lenz and CVP's EasyDCC throttles are compatible. In fact, many Lenz users in the USA use CVP radio throttles since Lenz does not make them.
And, technically, if you set up a PC to talk to different layout systems and you use the right software, you can use a smart phone as a throttle on any layout. It means lugging around a laptop and plugging it in to any layout you visit, but it could be done.
Paul A. Cutler III
gandydancer19gregc i have a small layout. I chose to use DCC to avoid all the block wiring issues almost all DCC controllers and decoders from different manufactures are compatible Sorry, but No DCC controllers are compatable from one manufacturers system to another manufactures system. Only DCC decoders are compatable between systems.
i have a small layout. I chose to use DCC to avoid all the block wiring issues almost all DCC controllers and decoders from different manufactures are compatible
almost all DCC controllers and decoders from different manufactures are compatible
You are right. I wasn't trying to say that you can use different types of controllers on the same layout, but that you can use a particular brand of controller (e.g. NCE) with different brands of decoders.
Welcome to the forums.
There several good basic systems, as noted above. Also mentioned is how you plan to use it makes some difference, walk around or control panel. Look at the literature on each, see which appeals to you. If you can, get a little hands on experience to get the feel of a handheld. They are different sizes and shapes and some folks prefer one, while others like a different one. Expandability is another thing to look at. Will your children, grandchildren, wife, neighbor or someone else want to join you? You would need a second set of controls. Expandability should also consider increasing power for your system. (Power needed is determined by the number of locos, locos with sound and accessories you run, not so much the physical size of the track plan.)
A question I was asked when shopping was, "what do others near you have?" If there is a club or operating group in your area, you can often take your controller and join them or they can come enjoy your layout. It also gives you a good source of hands on information close by. Even if you don't plan to participate or have others visit, having someone close by to physically show you, is a great asset.
Good luck,
Richard
PCNDon Whose is best for the midsize home layout...multiple engine lash-ups, soem older engines t o convert, etc.
Whose is best for the midsize home layout...multiple engine lash-ups, soem older engines t o convert, etc.
I'm no seasoned expert, and even I can tell you that the criteria you list is not really relevant to who's is best. They are all pretty much the same in that regard.
What I would ask is, how big is "midsize home layout" If you would use a tethered throttle to operate your layout in DC, you'll probably want to do the same in DCC. The NCE system comes with its command station and throttle located on a 7 foot cable that is tethered to the power "supply" that attaches to fascia. The Digitrax and other systems command station and basic throttle are stationary, they look more like a standard DC power pack.
You can always buy tethered throttles, or even go wireless with each system, but the NCE system may be more versatile right out of the box if you walk around the layout as you operate.
- Douglas
PCNDonThe more I read about DCC systems on the market, the more confused I get. Whose is best for the midsize home layout...multiple engine lash-ups, soem older engines t o convert, etc.
I would say look at the systems throttles and choose based on the one that "feels" the best in your hand. First hand I can say you cannot go wrong with a CVP, Digitrax, Lenz, NCE (power or pro). Second hand I understand Prodigy Advanced and Zimo are excellent as well. I consider my primary system to be a Lenz with CVP wireless throttles. Were I buying a new one today I would probably go with a CVP easy-DCC wireless.
My experience, my latest layout is small, about 50' of total mainline run, about 100' of total track, I wired it using the method for DCC, with main bus and feeder wires, but also divided it into blocks, with both rails insulated, and added the feeders accordingly. My previous layout used blocks and cab control, so I used the Atlas controlers left over from this layout. I started out using DC, but as I added more DCC locos, either factory or wired with decoders, I eventually have gone over to using DCC only. The locos I have that are not DCC, have been wired with the harness and dummy plugs, so I run them on DCC.
What I like, and use, with the DCC, is the ability to have a train on the main, running, and still being able to switch the yard and industries. I even bring the switcher out on the main, while moving cars, and get it done and out of the way, in time for the main line train to pass. I think this is the coolest part, and to be able to have a local follow the main line train, to the siding, for switching industries. It's just totally awesome to be able to run multiple locos, without the hassle of using cab control.
I use the Digitrax Super Empire Builder, with the DT400 throttle, and the DP150. I'm the only operator, and as of yet, not involved with any club, although I would like to explore that option, and try an "operating session" on a club layout. My layout is not big enough for anything like that.
Good luck in your choice.
Mike.
My You Tube
davidmbedardMine is best...
In that case, mine is bester.
Alton Junction
richhotrain davidmbedard Mine is best... In that case, mine is bester.
davidmbedard Mine is best...
Oh, yeah? Mine is bestest!!
maxman richhotrain davidmbedard Mine is best... In that case, mine is bester. Oh, yeah? Mine is bestest!!
LOL
Your move, David.
selector Mine is best times N to the n-1 Thanks for playing, boyz'ngirls.
I believe that N to the +1 power beats N to the -1.
Well, since N is just an arbitrary number....
If my N is 5 and your N is 4, I win. LOL.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
My system is the finest, greatest, foremost, preeminent, premier, supreme, par excellence, unrivaled, second to none, without equal, unsurpassed, peerless, matchless, unparalleled, optimum, optimal, ultimate, incomparable, ideal, perfect.
Rich
richhotrain My system is the finest, greatest, foremost, preeminent, premier, supreme, par excellence, unrivaled, second to none, without equal, unsurpassed, peerless, matchless, unparalleled, optimum, optimal, ultimate, incomparable, ideal, perfect. Rich
maxman richhotrain My system is the finest, greatest, foremost, preeminent, premier, supreme, par excellence, unrivaled, second to none, without equal, unsurpassed, peerless, matchless, unparalleled, optimum, optimal, ultimate, incomparable, ideal, perfect. Rich So, you have one of those MZL systems?
I beg your pardon.
Frank
Master Zone Layout
Probably the most flexible DC cab system, at the expense of LOTS of wires. Instead of frantically flipping toggle switches or rotary switches (if you have more than 2 cabs) as you try to drive your train around the layout, the power is assigned by the selected route so if for example you set up a meet where one train takes the siding and one stays on the main, they can keep running towards each other, the cab for the one taking the siding will be assigned to the siding and the cab for the one on the main will be connected to the main. Once both are in the clear and the turnouts aligned to let the one int he siding back out and the one on the main to proceed, the cabs are assigned and you drive on.
It lets you set up a more prototypical dispatcher control without all the arbitrary electrical blocks of lesser cab control systems and an engineer can simply drive the train, watching signals, instead of flipping controls to connect power. Still has issues if you overrun your block and bridge power to the next block, but then this is an issue no matter what the control system since you will either short something or crash into the other train.
The whole thing was explained in a series of articles in MR back in the late 60's/early 70's.
That last patient, sober description of MZL by Randy notwithstanding, the best DCC control system is none at all. The best control system is Third Rail or Overhead Catenary. No reversing problems, simple to wire, prototypical for many real railroads and easy to set up for signals.
There. I usually resist wasting gasoline on a well established fire but I just couldn't this time. Where's Sheldon when we need him? Come on pal, you know you want to!
As far as all the adjectives that have been used to describe how much better our control systems Dad is than your control systems Dad I'll just go with what the narrator on an old Rio Grande Southern film said about a trip through the Gorge, "Superlatives are inadequate".
Lou
Javelina Where's Sheldon when we need him?
Where's Sheldon when we need him?
richhotrain maxman richhotrain My system is the finest, greatest, foremost, preeminent, premier, supreme, par excellence, unrivaled, second to none, without equal, unsurpassed, peerless, matchless, unparalleled, optimum, optimal, ultimate, incomparable, ideal, perfect. Rich So, you have one of those MZL systems? I beg your pardon.
See, I knew someone would explain it to you if I waited long enough
maxman richhotrain maxman richhotrain My system is the finest, greatest, foremost, preeminent, premier, supreme, par excellence, unrivaled, second to none, without equal, unsurpassed, peerless, matchless, unparalleled, optimum, optimal, ultimate, incomparable, ideal, perfect. Rich So, you have one of those MZL systems? I beg your pardon. See, I knew someone would explain it to you if I waited long enough
maxman, I am humbled in your presence.
Outside third rail has its own issues when negotiating complex trackwork, like multi track junctions - which is why even thr prototype did things like add tiny pantographs and put overhed wire at those kinds of spots. And live overhead - well, if you have the patience for that, good for you.
ALl that actually solves is loop and wye polarity issues, it doesn't solve the control issue, you still need some sort of block system to run multiple trains. Thoeretically you can run 4 at a time with overhead - assuming all axles are insulated and the two rails are likewise isolated, but you end up with problems with reverse loops again. The trick is to use each runnign rail as a seperate return - that's two trains right there, and then yo use AC and put a diode in the control and the loco, so two locos running off the left rail, and two off the right rail. Of course, you can;t reverse then. But all four could run right up next to each other under independent control with no block toggles or any other sort of power direction.
Yeah Randy, you're right, not even third rail/overhead catenary (the control system of the ancients) is perfect. Didn't they call the diode setup using opposing rails the Philadelphia system? Or was that the Poukeepsie system? Or the Detroit? No wait, the Detroit was a haircut.
This is fun, but it'd be a scream if we could get Sheldon to come out and play. But as Rich pointed out, he's probably busy trying to decipher his DCC controller handbooks.
The poor OP must be reeling with confusion..........
rrinker Master Zone Layout Probably the most flexible DC cab system, at the expense of LOTS of wires. Instead of frantically flipping toggle switches or rotary switches (if you have more than 2 cabs) as you try to drive your train around the layout, the power is assigned by the selected route so if for example you set up a meet where one train takes the siding and one stays on the main, they can keep running towards each other, the cab for the one taking the siding will be assigned to the siding and the cab for the one on the main will be connected to the main. Once both are in the clear and the turnouts aligned to let the one int he siding back out and the one on the main to proceed, the cabs are assigned and you drive on. It lets you set up a more prototypical dispatcher control without all the arbitrary electrical blocks of lesser cab control systems and an engineer can simply drive the train, watching signals, instead of flipping controls to connect power. Still has issues if you overrun your block and bridge power to the next block, but then this is an issue no matter what the control system since you will either short something or crash into the other train. The whole thing was explained in a series of articles in MR back in the late 60's/early 70's. --Randy
Good decription Randy, but actually if you build MZL, or any adavanced DC cab control system, without using common rail wiring, it can be wired to completely prevent a train from overrunning into a track section that is not assigned to it. By having seperate power supplies for each throttle, and gaping both rails, staggering the gaps at each "section break" will make it impossible for a train to pass from one section to the next unless both sections are assigned to the same throttle.
The offending train will simply stop in the "dead" zone because there will be no complete circuit from the + of throttle "A" on one rail to the - of throttle "B" on the other rail. With good planning this works just like ATC on the prototype - run a red signal and your train stops.
In a well executed MZL system, signaling, cab assignments and route selection are all fully intergrated, and with a dispatcher on duty, main line operators have the same experiance as those running DCC - they run their train.
But I surely understand why few people want to build anything like MZL today, since it requires understanding a lot of boring stuff about electricity, relays, polarity, signaling, and so on, and actually building a somewhat complex wiring infrastructure - even if the parts are inexpensive.
Depending on your modeling goals, skills and interests, DCC is often the best choice for many today, but in my case I want signaling and CTC, and my hybrid MZL with wireless radio throttles provides all that at a much lower cost than it could be done for on a layout the size of mine with DCC. Without expenses for decoders or features I don't need like speed matching and sound.
Some people want to play engineer, some want to play dispatcher, some want to play division superintendent. Basic DCC without signaling is great for those who want to just play engineer, I prefer to focus more on those other two job descriptions, but still be the engineer from time to time - MZL does that for way less expense than DCC.
DISCLAIMER - I have no interest in onboard sound in scales as small as HO. If you like onboard sound, you need DCC. I don't, so I don't.
A few more thoughts -
DCC is great for small layouts where multi train operation is desired.
DCC is great for layouts with lots of congested trackage.
MZL works best on medium to large layouts with only medium to low "trackage densities".
As explained above, MZL can provide simple effective collision avoidance that is basically free.
Contrary to popular myth, running multiple engines does not automaticly require DCC speed matching features, we have been doing it in DC long before DCC came along.
Many DC throttles can provide speed control as fine as DCC and even stopped trains with their lights on like DCC.
For me personally, I considered DCC several times but rejected it for a number of reasons.
The biggest reasons being cost of decoders for my 130 locomotives and poor ergonomics of all the wireless handheld controllers on the market.
But what do I know?
I'm just a hick with a pickup, some guns and some little trains without brains, so I built something like this to control them:
Sheldon
All kidding aside Sheldon, I do wish you'd make good on your threat to publish something on your MZL system. It sounds interesting, and a lot of folks, myself included would probably like to know more about it. I don't fear relays or wiring diagrams ever since I rebuilt my old Porsche 914s Bosch K-Jetronic fuel injection. I do confess to a near pathological revulsion to computerizing every durn thing though. I even pine for the days of "old school" phone systems, the ones where you could actually hear every word, rather than every third one. As a machinist familiar with both conventional and CNC systems I remember the old timer who told me "CNC makes the hard stuff easy and the easy stuff hard!" Geezer had a point.