Not much question that dcc is the standard today for layout control. Decoders are up to 21 pins from 8 initially. Who knows when that will be obsolete? Does anybody have statistical data regarding how many of us are using DCC. Not interested in opinions. i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. That shouldn't cost more then four figures. That would be the ultimate in my opinion but I doubt I will still be here if and when it happens.
Large is psychological, so large anything prototypical, or large in scale, is gonna cost. Always gonna cost. Trouble is, with large comes the apparent flaws, missing details, surfaces making the material more obviously fake...that kinda thing. So, large almost certainly means more going on, and that means time and money....and materials. And heft. And complication because there's more going on, like more sounds, animation, mechanical action. It's gonna cost. Always.
DCC+ and ++ are both out and gaining fans. There are other systems that are gaining popularity, but I can't opine on their efficacy, ease of use, redundancy, potential for evolutionary growth, etc.
DCC works well enough, but I think most of us agree it needs a substantial improvement in how well the engines run reliably with iffy pickup. On-board storage would make the problems of DCC largely go away. From there, DCC works like a dream as far as I am concerned.
Few things go obsolete unless there's a substantial improvement in a rival, or when the user responds to novelty. We're routinely encouraged, and there's that darned marketing psychology again, to want the latest gizmo.
DCC works, it has history, it has fans, its expandable...it's just this infernal power reliability problem with supposedly dirty track.
As for live steam in scale, YouTube is replete with videos showing all types of locomotives running at large outdoor clubs all across the planet, from Oz to the USA and in EU.
There is a very large contingency still holding on to DC. You can't call DCC the norm. 8 pin or 21 pin doesn't matter. Ninty percent of my locomotive fleet only uses two or even one lighting function.
Pete.
Hello All,
ndbprrDoes anybody have statistical data regarding how many of us are using DCC.
Other than an impromptu poll of the members of these forums and other user groups, I doubt any exists.
When I was in college; studying photojournalism, the digital camera was in it's infancy.
There was much gloom-and-doom speak about how our jobs would be obsolete because cameras would be in everyone's hands and newspapers wouldn't hire full-time photographers, they would just pay for images submitted by the general public.
Well, as it turned out photojournalism is alive and well, albeit in a different form from what was "when I went to school".
Many modelers prefer DC block control over the "New & Improved" DCC.
I suspect when the next iteration of model railroad control comes along some will still embrace DC, many will stick with DCC and others will support whatever new technologies are available.
The decoder is a single component in a vast myriad of components that make up this great hobby.
Many have speculated about "what's next".
ndbprrNot interested in opinions.
For the immediate future that might be the only thing available.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
I've pretty much always had trains. For years, though, I enjoyed war simulation games, both cardboard ones like Avalon Hill and later digital ones like Harpoon. I played around with train simulators, but found them unsatisfying. Then I discovered Flight Simulator, and I was hooked.
Eventually, though, I drifted back to model railroading. The thing I had been missing was the actual reality of it. This was solid, real, something I could hold in my hands, not disappearing when I turned the power off. The first night I powered up a DCC engine, I was hooked, even on a small oval. Likewise, I smiled with childlike pleasure at learning to cast walls with Hydrocal. I've slowly learned scenery techniques and improved my wiring skills, all just to make my railroad better.
So no, I'm not interested in virtual reality for my railroad. There's a physical presence that's important to me. To me, the challenge is to get my models as close to reality as possible. Sometimes, I even give names to my little people.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
ndbprrDecoders are up to 21 pins from 8 initially. Who knows when that will be obsolete?
The introduction of 21-pin decoders didn't make 8- or 9-pin decoders obsolete. They still work, and will still work for decades to come.
ndbprrDoes anybody have statistical data regarding how many of us are using DCC. Not interested in opinions. i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model.
I'm no historian, so I don't know when people started running AC powered model railroads, but popularity of AC power was definitely in vogue in the post-war years. At some point, DC power became the standard, at least in scale modeling. Then, DCC power emerged around 1993. The evolution of DCC power brought about a sea change in model railroading because, for the first time, commands could be issued to individual locomotives.
I personally would not consider virtual reality as a new form of model railroading because it would not involve scale model locomotives running on actual track. What would be a further evolution in model railroading would be something like wireless control. Imagine an actual layout that could be operated without any wiring whatsoever.
Rich
Alton Junction
ndbprrDoes anybody have statistical data regarding how many of us are using DCC. Not interested in opinions.
I doubt that there is any statistical data availalbe here so opinions is likely all you are going to get. Now MR magazine or other magazines may have done a poll, but the figures are probably not statistically significant.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
All the informal surveys on this forum, and other places, magazines, other forums, etc, suggest amoung HO an N scale modelers, DCC use is between 50% and 60%.
A quick scan thru some of the Facebook groups suggests about the same.
To the OP, I have ZERO interest in a control system that simulates a engine cab.
Sheldon
ndbprri see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model.
I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want.
I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want but you never know.
riogrande5761 ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want but you never know.
ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model.
I have a dream. Oh back to reality.
I can envision a control system that has low voltage AC through the rails that is only used to charge a hi tech battery pack in each locomotive. Each locomotive would have a chip that receives a control signal wirelessly from a palm sized throttle with voice commands for functions and addresses. Consists are linked to each other for speed matching, lights, horn and bell from the lead unit only no matter which direction.
Oh well. Maybe some day.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAll the informal surveys on this forum, and other places, magazines, other forums, etc, suggest amoung HO an N scale modelers, DCC use is between 50% and 60%. A quick scan thru some of the Facebook groups suggests about the same. To the OP, I have ZERO interest in a control system that simulates a engine cab. Sheldon
I agree with Sheldon.
Since I'm in HOn3 and 1900 era HO, fitting DCC is not trivial or fun. The ONLY reason I even use DCC at all is that DCC is the only control system that makes sense for modular layouts at shows. Otherwise, I'd be still using DC. I just have no reason for the features of DCC on a small shelf layout. Sound would be nice but makes DCC installation even tougher in these tiny engines.
I never saw the inside of a steam cab, although I did operate steam turbines on a ship. No interest in pretending I'm in a steam cab - again layout realities dictate.
Fred W
riogrande5761 ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want.
Oh, I don't know. But the following seems to be pretty close:
I've done a couple of DCC installations for friends, but could never decipher the lingo for programming.The first one was reasonably easy, as the owner was more than capable for doing the programming.Here's a couple of photos...
...with all-wheel pick-up...
The second one was done for the friend who had supplied the loco (gratis) for the first guy.I was somewhat taken aback when he announced that it was to be for dead-rail operations (battery powered).I managed to do the installations, but again was mystified by programming (as was the owner). However, he knows somebody who will do the programming.
A couple of photos...
...simple access to the controls...
...with easy operating instructions for the owner (who is in his eighties)...
...and the loco, (out of my hands) ready for programming...
I was surprised to get an e-mail from the programming guy, who complimented both my installation work and the paint job, too.
My layout is strictly DC, because it's simple enough for even a dummy like me to wire. I have visited and run DCC locos, but am not at all impressed (actually "annoyed" would be a better word) by sound effects for steam, as I can still hear the real ones from my very young days when steam locos were running just across the street from where I lived. I do find the diesel sound effects in DCC to be more prototypical, but of not much use on my late '30s-era layout.I have no interest in running multiple trains at the same time, and if the trailing train is heavy enough, no need to speed-match locos, either...when it's time to move that train, pretty-well all of my steam locos co-operate quite well with one another.None of my locos have working lights, because I don't do "night" operations, and in my era's timeframe, that was not necessary during the day unless it was foggy, raining, or snowing...none of which are allowed to occur on my layout.
I would guess that when I take that last train ride, the DCC-ers would not be at all interested in acquiring any of my locomotives (because there's no room in the locos or tenders as they're usually filled with lead).I'd guess too, that freight and passenger cars from the late '30s wouldn't be in high demand either.
What I have pleases me, and I'd hope too that those using DCC are equally pleased.
Wayne
OP wrote: "i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. That shouldn't cost more then four figures. That would be the ultimate in my opinion but I doubt I will still be here if and when it happens."
Check out the Roco z21 app. It can do that, right now -- providing you have one of the Roco locomotives equipped with an internal camera. You actually move the controls inside the cab of the engine to run the train.
You'll need either an Android tablet or iPad (iOS). You can download the Roco app (it's free) from either google play or the App Store. Search for "roco z21". There are actually TWO control apps -- an older one (red engine on blue background) and the newer one (letters "z21" on a dark grey background).
You don't need the Roco dcc hardware to try these in demo mode. What you're thinking about is already available in the here-and-now.
wrench567 riogrande5761 ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want but you never know. I have a dream. Oh back to reality. I can envision a control system that has low voltage AC through the rails that is only used to charge a hi tech battery pack in each locomotive. Each locomotive would have a chip that receives a control signal wirelessly from a palm sized throttle with voice commands for functions and addresses. Consists are linked to each other for speed matching, lights, horn and bell from the lead unit only no matter which direction. Oh well. Maybe some day. Pete.
I would be happy to skip the voice control part.......
I have used DCC on the layouts of others for the better part of 20 years now. And I have helped design, build and wire a few of those layouts.
Nothing about DCC had yet to motivate me to use it on my own layout.
That said, I have long suggested that the next advancement would be a direct radio system where control signals go directly from a wireless controller to the locomotive.
Well it has been available for a while now, does not seem to be catching on all that much, batteries or no batteries.
My interests in model trains is not focused around the idea of being the train engineer as the primary activity or interest. I'm not interested in proto throttles, sound effects, turning headlights or ditch lights on and off, or listening to simulated radio chatter.
It seems to me that DCC appeals strongly to people who like sound, people who want the "intimate" experiance of being the engineer, and people who are tech oriented.
Historically many people in this hobby are slow to imbrace change. No because they are backward, or unwilling to change, but because change takes time and money in a hobby that is already time and money intense.
For those modelers young and old who imbrace some sort of small layout "less is more" modeling philosophy, change might not seem like a big deal.
But for those who invest in larger more complex layouts, changing something like a control system mid stream is a big deal - time and money already spent is wasted - sometimes a lot of it.....
Think about this - if you have 5 locomotives on an 18' shelf layout, a new control system is not a big deal.
Installing or replacing decoders in my 140 locos is a bit more, so is replacing 10 existing wireless throttles.......
There were no ditch lights in the era I model, in fact many roads still ran with no headlights during the day.........
As others have pointed out, it is doubtful any statistically accurate numbers can be quoted.
In my personal knowledge of nearby people with home layouts:
1) About half use DCC.
2) All large layouts that host operating sessions use DCC.
3) A lower percentage of N scale layouts use DCC.
4) All people are satisfied with their personal choice about DCC.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Sheldon brings up some good points and at the same time demonstrates that there are proud holdouts for traditional ways. There are club members that still run pizza cutters and horn hook couplers on DC. Slow to change? Yes and no. Some don't want to change because it works, have way too much that it's not economic, and some tradition. I've also seen people seemingly change overnight. Buying new equipment and building a new layout in very short order. I call it the KD coupler syndrome. KDs work and somewhat looks better than the horn hook couplers. But if Seargent couplers came out thirty years earlier, they may be the defacto coupler today. If I didn't have to buy and change out about a thousand of them. I'll stay with the KD. Change is slow for a multitude of reasons.
ATLANTIC CENTRALIt seems to me that DCC appeals strongly to people who like sound
i chose DCC because it minimized wiring.
i think that's quite a leap. more realistic diesel and steam throttles are possible for those interested in micro operation. sound can be improved with mechanical sounds when drifting and giving more control to throttles
(dreaded 403 error)
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
wrench567 Check out Rail Pro. Does what you want using about 14V DC. Easy to program, much better control and sounds, easy to run consists, and puts the fun back in MR. Joe riogrande5761 ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want but you never know. I have a dream. Oh back to reality. I can envision a control system that has low voltage AC through the rails that is only used to charge a hi tech battery pack in each locomotive. Each locomotive would have a chip that receives a control signal wirelessly from a palm sized throttle with voice commands for functions and addresses. Consists are linked to each other for speed matching, lights, horn and bell from the lead unit only no matter which direction. Oh well. Maybe some day. Pete.
Check out Rail Pro. Does what you want using about 14V DC. Easy to program, much better control and sounds, easy to run consists, and puts the fun back in MR.
Joe
Well I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes a virtual reality rr would be like Microsoft railroad program. What I intended was a system that had a small camera(s) in the cab that could switch from front to rear view and be controlled by some sort of virtual reality so you could actually ride on your train.
ndbprr Well I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes a virtual reality rr would be like Microsoft railroad program. What I intended was a system that had a small camera(s) in the cab that could switch from front to rear view and be controlled by some sort of virtual reality so you could actually ride on your train.
Ok, still not interested, have fun.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL It seems to me that DCC appeals strongly to people who like sound i chose DCC because it minimized wiring. ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. i think that's quite a leap. more realistic diesel and steam throttles are possible for those interested in micro operation. sound can be improved with mechanical sounds when drifting and giving more control to throttles (dreaded 403 error)
ATLANTIC CENTRAL It seems to me that DCC appeals strongly to people who like sound
It does not minimize wiring if you want detection and signaling, at least not to any major degree.
And as layouts grow in size and number of locos, power districts and such also expand complexity.
One last complaint, power drops every 3 to 6 feet are wiring, wiring I don't have or need with DC.
As far as wiring goes, I have been involved in the building of a few home layouts with DCC for others. The wiring was much easier, by a factor of many times over.
Eliminating the cab selectors alone pretty much justified the use of DCC for medium sized layouts.
If you are also willing to use manual turnout controls, your wiring can be reduced by amazing amounts.
Some random thoughts....
When I decided to do DCC, like many folks, I had a working layout with two DC powerpacks. I simply replaced one power pack with my DCC controller (2 wires), I didn't have to change any other wiring and it worked fine. I did later set up a separate programming track, again very easy (2 wires from DCC controller to outputs for programming track.) Only difference was I didn't have to keep flip-flopping toggle switches for each block of track to control 2 trains, I could just set them for DCC and run the trains thru the DCC system.
Unless you want to buy blank LokSound decoders and program them yourself, all other DCC decoders come from the factory already programmed with defaults that will work fine. You should change the ID from 03/0003 to the engine ID, so you can control each locomotive separately, but that's all you really have to change. The rest is optional.
SeeYou190 As far as wiring goes, I have been involved in the building of a few home layouts with DCC for others. The wiring was much easier, by a factor of many times over. Eliminating the cab selectors alone pretty much justified the use of DCC for medium sized layouts. If you are also willing to use manual turnout controls, your wiring can be reduced by amazing amounts. -Kevin
Kevin, with manual turnouts and no signaling, agreed DCC wiring can be pretty simple. And medium sized layouts often don't need much power district wise.
But I don't get the those who defend the mutli drop feeder thing as if it is not "wiring". It may be idiot wiring, but it is still wires that need to be run and connected.
In 55 years as a DC operator I have never connected more than one pair of wires to a control section (block).
As for the complexity of cab selectors, not so complex if you use push buttons and prebuilt circuits. I don't use this one, but what I use is similar in concept.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/kstapleton3/600.HTM
5 years ago DC was still king, now it is about 50/50. What made the difference is the price has come down alot just like a lot of things in life. Also reliability improved and then the sound factor for some (thats what got me). The best idea out there is battery but the tecnoligy is just not there to get mass converts. This will change as batterys get smaller and more powerfull.
rrebellWhat made the difference is the price has come down alot just like a lot of things in life.
Something else I have seen contributing to growth in the percentage of DCC layouts is simply new layouts.
I know four modelers who have removed old DC layouts in the past few years and the new layout was DCC.
Not me, I am staying with DC. The reasons are simple.
1) My new layout is intended for single person operation (me).
2) I really do not like on-board sound.
3) I have a good collection of brass steamers I really do not want to convert to DCC.
4) I am completely comfortable installing, troubleshooting, and repairing DC wiring.
If I was going to start all-over at this point, it would be with DCC. It would also be G scale with massive on-board sound. I am not starting over from scratch, and I will happily be a DC dinosaur.
As far as the future advances, I think that better and smaller batteries may make track wiring go away. Since I use N scale, I don't think batteries will be small enough in my lifetime.
I know that radio-controlled battery locomotives are available, but still not widely used, even with garden railroads.
NDPRR suggested his idea of cab controls and some kind of virtual experience...
An advance that I know is available today, but not widely used, is front-of-locomotive mounted cameras with live feed to a TV. I think it would be neat to have a large screen mounted on the wall behind the layout with real-time views of the track.
I could drive my train, see the layout, and at the same time see the view as if from the cab. Then I would also need cameras mounted backward to get a view when the locomotive is in reverse. Then ...
York1 John