Gentlemen,
I think we've been around the block a few times in this elevator already and the conversation is falling into its familiar furrow of discussion, which - by the way - has diverged from the OP. Whether DCC overtakes DC in popularity or not; DC will always be around in one way, shape, or form.
As others have said (or at least implied), either option is a personal choice for everyone and I would hope that we would all support one another - whichever side of the track we end up on. And, as I see it, we're still going the same direction on the same track in this beloved hobby of ours. We just have different needs, wants, and interests.
With that said, let's move on. Thanks for keeping things cordial - for the most part.
Tom
[locked]
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I for one, certainly hope DC does not disappear. I have an extremely small layout (4' x 6'). From what I can see, it would alot of work for me to convert it with little real personal benefit for me. Also, my hobby budget is relatively small so that most Atlas or Athearn DCC locomotives are beyond my budget.
TMarsh Personally, I've not seen a DCC only loco in my hobby shop. They are capable of running both DC and DCC. One loco appealling to both sets seems to be a good idea from a marketing and manufacturing standpoint. If you are DCC it fits, if you are DC it fits, if you are one wishing or planning to switch to the other, it fits. If you are DC and don't want to spend the few extra bucks for the decoder in some, you can choose the DCC ready, or if you have a preference for a different brand than installed you can choose DCC ready and install the one of your choosing.OR as someone said, sell the old decoder for a few bucks. Sounds like no sign of DC going away to me, just the manufacturers accomodating both sets and slimming production costs. Look at your car. You may not have some option, but usually you'll find the cars wiring harness will accommodate the option you do not have. More expensive per vehicle? Yes, but overall with all things considered, one wiring harness is cheaper than making and storing two. Same with the model locos.
Personally, I've not seen a DCC only loco in my hobby shop. They are capable of running both DC and DCC. One loco appealling to both sets seems to be a good idea from a marketing and manufacturing standpoint. If you are DCC it fits, if you are DC it fits, if you are one wishing or planning to switch to the other, it fits. If you are DC and don't want to spend the few extra bucks for the decoder in some, you can choose the DCC ready, or if you have a preference for a different brand than installed you can choose DCC ready and install the one of your choosing.OR as someone said, sell the old decoder for a few bucks.
Sounds like no sign of DC going away to me, just the manufacturers accomodating both sets and slimming production costs. Look at your car. You may not have some option, but usually you'll find the cars wiring harness will accommodate the option you do not have. More expensive per vehicle? Yes, but overall with all things considered, one wiring harness is cheaper than making and storing two. Same with the model locos.
Todd, Not universally true. Many dual mode decoders will not run, or not run well on advanced DC throttles that use pulse width modulation speed control (just like the output of a DCC decoder) to control train speed. So Decoders need to be removable and by passable.
Inexpensive dual mode setups like in the Bachmann GE 70 tonner literially will not run on my Aristo Train Engineer wireless throttles, they just sit there and go "buzzzzzz".
Better dual mode decoders will run, but speed control is poor. Remove the decoders and the locos run smoothly at one or two SMPH.
And the Aristo Train Engineer is only one of several pulse width throttles currently on the market.
Not to mention the fact that my testing shows even with convetional power packs like those from MRC, most locos run better without dual mode decoders.
That said, as long as they are removeable and bypassable like Bachmann does, and the decoder is not adding a ton to the price, that's fine with me. I take those Bachmann decoders out and sell them cheap on Ebay.
Sheldon
Stein wrote:
Please explain to me again why DC and cab selection is less complex and more prototype-like, if you are going to perform the relatively simple maneuver of having a train pass through this part of the line, or if you are going to have two trains meet either at the leftmost or rightmost siding, to have to switch which cab controls which block(s) of track ?
Say - setting Blocks 1 and 3 and 5 to be controlled by Cab A, and blocks 4 and 6 to be controlled by Cab B, in the case of a planned meet where the eastbound train goes into the siding labeled "Block 5".
Now, introduce a third operator, a third train and a third cab. Say it the late running third train either will go into the hole at the siding labeled "Block 2", or you will try to have one train wait in the siding labeled "Block 5" while the other two trains (preferably moving in the same direction :-) pass it on the main, one after another.
Stein,
First you are assuming that each block must be seperately controled with a selector switch or toggle - not so. Examine the control panel shown:
This is a control panel on a layout that uses Aristo Wireless DC throttles for walk around control. The two "passing siding blocks" get their power from the two "outlying blocks" based on turnout position.
Two trains can move at the same time into their assigned track on the siding. Trains with no possible route based on turnout position are automaticly on dead track. Engineers have very few "toggles to flip", and turnouts have to be alighed with any system - DC or DCC.
I suggest you find out more about Ed Ravenscroft and MLZ control (Model Railroader - Feb '74 thru May "74) and that you read Paul Mallery's work on advanced cab control before you make too many assumptions about the user interface needed to control DC layouts. Admittedly such systems envlove more complex electrical construction, but they result in user interface that is easy and similar to DCC, where aligning turnouts and/or getting "trackage rights" from a dispatcher are often the only "action" needed, not a lot of "toggle flipping".
And your 'senerio" is not very prototypical as Brakie suggests, in the type of scenerio you suggest, a dispatcher would more likely hold one of those trains "fartrher out", for safety reasons.
Paul Mallery suggested a system like I have built for the layout shown in the picture, but never saw it done. We did it and it works great.
On the control panel shown, the lower sets of buttons assign cabs to the "town" shown. There are 4 "blocks" (I dislike this term as it is a signalling term - Paul Mallery suggested "section" since our control sections and prototype signal blocks do not line up) but ony two of them require assignment. turnout position handles power distribution to the other two.
The uppers sets of buttons are redundent set for the next town in each direction, allowing trains leaving this town to set the next "block" to their cab so that they can proceed. On the single track areas, "block" gaps are staggered, and each throttle has a discrete power supply, so without both "blocks" assigned to you cab, your train simply stops. Guess who popularized that idea? - John Allen.
This is just one of many succesful advanced cab control systems that make DC user interface easy.
To DCC or not to DCC......that is the question!!
Nothing wrong with DC, never has been! Nothing wrong with DCC either, never will be!
Again, the same with rolling stock & locomotive manufacturers, it's all a matter of choice & to a latter extent, opinion!
We all know a thing about opinions in this hobby, especially on this forum!
I'm choosing to go DC even though I want to go DCC. My choice! Nothing more. It boils down to economics! I can't afford to DCC all of my locomotives right now. Again, choice. When i go DCC, it's all in all at once! I have 100 locomotives to convert & I like using anyone of them at any given time.
Gordon
Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H!
K1a - all the way
Todd
Central Illinoyz
In order to keep my position as Master and Supreme Ruler of the House, I don't argue with my wife.
I'm a small town boy. A product of two people from even smaller towns. I don’t talk on topic….. I just talk.
blownout cylinder aaaahhhhhhh....bickerfesting over market share.... This is starting to get silly. Why are we having people trying to convert others to go DCC here? Is there a new religion out there? No.
aaaahhhhhhh....bickerfesting over market share....
This is starting to get silly.
Why are we having people trying to convert others to go DCC here? Is there a new religion out there? No.
I'm not so sure about that!
I don't know just how long you've been perusing model railroading forums (I'm sure some other long timers here will recall this situation), but back in the early 2000's most sites saw a plague of "DCC Zealots" descend upon them. These folks would interject their DCC opinions into absolutely every thread, regardless of its nature, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with train control. If you have turnout problems - DCC will fix that. Poor running locos because of dirty track - DCC will cure that. Have a certain car that derails...yep, DCC will fix that too! And so on. It was truly bordering on insanity. Finally it reached a point where posters were heading some threads asking would DCCers please not respond to their question, such as, "This Is A DC-Only Thread"! Even that didn't deter the zealots!
Thank goodness that sort of nonsense has subsided, but we still get threads like this one (the subject line gave its intent away to me at the very first glance) and it was clear just where the thread would go. For some reason many DCC folks simply can't stand the idea that although DCC has been in the marketplace for a long time now, it still clearly ranks second to DC in regard to use among current hobbyists. And you wonder why the public views model railroaders as a bunch of strange ducks these days?
CNJ831
Stein,I see you know very little about the principles of dispatching-don't feel bad there are thousands of others.
----------------------------
Now, picture an even more complex situation - due to a massive mess caused by a derailment on a busy mainline, you need to tuck two short westbound trains into the long siding labeled "Block 5", to allow three eastbound trains to move past them.
---------------------------
First as a dispatcher I would not get into that situation.I would hold the shorter trains in 2 separate passing sidings(no sense in crowding a passing siding) till the Eastbound flow passes then start the Westbound flow holding any Eastbound train behind the first three in a passing siding til I got the 2 Westbounds through..
At one club we dispatch with CTC and as a dispatcher I had to manage to get 4 Eastbound and 4 Westbound trains between the yards and like a chess game I had to plan my moves ahead and aviod any situation like you describe.
I could do 3 way meets as well simply by having one train to hold the main and having the following train to stop at the signal until the opposing train entered the siding.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Hey Stein,
Saying I'm emotional about this denotes I care, I really could give a "rat's patootie" about how you operate your railroad, that's up to you.
And for the record I didn't say anyone on this forum has referred to me as stupid or any other names, I doubt that the moderators would allow that to happen and everybody pretty well knows that.
Again, I'm not the one who is emotional about the issue, I guess if you really needed me to give you an emotion it would be closer to "amused" by the whole thing as it always goes from a discussion to an arguement, never fails here or anywhere else.
I guess now I can add "emotional" to the list with all of the others eh?
Mark
Mark --
Why is it that you get an emotional reaction (resentment is an emotional reaction ...), and start talking how others have called you "old fashioned, out of touch, simple minded, and even stupid" in this context?
I can't recall having seen anyone else call you "stupid" or "simple minded" or anything even remotely similar to that in this thread? If you believe you have been so treated - who did it? When?
Stein
I use DCC as well...I do not have a problem with others using DC ... so what is the big whoopie about here?
If people want to stay with DC let them...
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/
I've been following this thread from the beginning and all that comes to mind is "so what"???
The guys who are satisfied running DC only probably aren't going to up and scrap their set up to go DCC anymore than the guys running DCC are going to scrap their's.
I'll be the first to admit that there are some things DCC does that allow you to do things that DC doesn't, but again, so what? You both think you're right so just use them and enjoy them, does it really make that much difference if someone "doesn't" convert to DCC? Does that somehow make them an outcast or or something?
I really don't get this entire thread, if you like DCC then fine and dandy, I prefer to use DC only, does this threaten you or something? Do you think this means that if we don't have 100% participation in DCC that they are going to quit making it and leave you high and dry. I seriously doubt that will happen.
I have been referred to as "old fashioned, out of touch, simple minded, and even stupid" just because I don't see the need to convert to DCC. Why the animosity?
"Some" of you DCC fellows are starting to remind me of the guys that come around on Sunday afternoons and want to talk to me about Jesus when all I want to do is be left alone and play with my trains. Then I'm called a "heathen" and they leave only to return the following Sunday with the same agenda on their minds.
We aren't dumb, most of us know what DCC can do and what it can't do and we "choose" to stay with DC. Again, why does that bother you guys so much?
I spent about 25 years working with computers so I'm not computer illiterate, I actually grasp all of the things DCC can do, but at the same time when I retired I told myself the last thing in the world I wanted to do was get involved with anything electronics that I could avoid. I well know what happens when something breaks in electronics, everything shuts down which means you go on a hunting expedition to find the problem.
For me there are enough things in life to keep a person busy without adding more things to complicate it.
So you run your DCC, I'll run my DC system, and let's discuss something a bit more useful rather than who's right and who is not. Those arguements are never resolved to a satisfactory solution anyhow so "what's the point"?
Doughless You're right, there are more applications once one thinks about it more. I was not attempting to debate the merits of DC over DCC. What I have is just some frustration over some inconsistencies I see in the hobby:
You're right, there are more applications once one thinks about it more. I was not attempting to debate the merits of DC over DCC. What I have is just some frustration over some inconsistencies I see in the hobby:
There are certainly good arguments for why it is a bad idea to change a layout that already works well on DC.
There are also good arguments for why the added complexity might be worth it if it saves cost (e.g if you have piles of supplies than can be reused for DC cab control, and a large fleet of engines that would need decoders for DCC) .
There are good arguments for why it makes sense to leverage what you already know how to do, rather than learning something new.
But that (at least seemingly) does not seem to be the main thrust of your arguments.
Instead you seem to keep claiming that real railroads are not run in ways that would make DCC more flexible for modeling their operations than DC.
What are we discussing here? Are we discussing a layout where single operator runs one train and one train only per session, with no interaction whatsoever between that train and other engines?
Or a layout where one operator will control several engines sequentially in the handling of a single train, as I described in my previous examples?
Or a layout with multiple operators running several trains over the same layout at the same time?
Or something else?
In the first case, it hardly matters what you pick. One train, one operator.
The second example we have discussed.
Let's have a quick look at the third example. Let us assume long blocks, simple track plan, and multiple operators.
Here is a simple schematic drawing of a linear section of an imaginary layout - nothing dramatic - a single track main with two passing sidings - you can picture each block as being 30 feet long if you think it makes a material difference to the argument.
Ooops - guess your initial wiring only allowed for two cabs being in in this area. Now what?
One certainly can compensate for limitations in using DC track power to control trains, by the judicious placement of blocks (say routinely splitting long sidings into two electrical blocks that can be assigned to different cabs or made dead independent of each other - e.g. by ensuring that an A/D track is split into three parts, so you can use a yard engine to tack on a caboose at either end of the cut, while the road engine stands still at the other end of the cut), and by wiring cab selectors so you can assign as many cabs to any given block.
But those things are all compensatory. You add complexity to your wiring and control system to compensate for the fact that you are varying voltage on track sections rather than controlling a train directly.
I thought one of your core arguments was that you did not want to introduce unnecessary complexity?
Grin,Stein
One advantage to DCC:
It would have been much easier for me to connect a second loco to my freight train. Running DC can be an exercise in train chasing or doing it by hand.
My Build Thread: https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/185298.aspx
Follow me on Instagram: https://instagram.com/stephenkingsmaine
Doughless wrote:
The trend in layout design is moving more towards shelf layouts and less track; a more linear shaped layout. Basically, spreading things out more. To me, when layouts gets spread out more, it tends to make operating areas and switching locations larger. With DC, the blocks would be larger than what they were on the previous layout. It seems to me that DC is most inefficient in a spaghetti bowl type of layout because smallish blocks cause the need for a lot of toggle flipping. But as layouts get more linear and blocks become larger, DC becomes more efficient than it was before since the modeler has sufficient time to flip the toggles.
Also, while maybe running multiple trains at the same time is not the norm, engines running in close proximity to one another, although not at the same time, may very well be the norm. If the trend in operations is to run your trains like a real railroad would (the definition of that can vary here), then un-consisted locomotives tend not to be that close to each other that often. Real railroads don't like trains running in to each other, so they tend to keep them separated. Two locomotives that are performing two different functions are likely not that close to each other. Even in a yard that is large enough to justify having two switchers, they are likely working in their own separate areas. Even your example of a switcher placing a caboose at the end of a train, if the train is of any length, the switcher is far away from the lead engine(s).
Doughless,
You have hit a key point here. My layout is like this, electrical sections (blocks) are generally large, especially on the main line. And traditional "short sections" through interlockings and such are fully automated by turnout position.
As for engine terminals, there are also effective DC solutions, but it does require carefull and actually more "full scale" track planning, which as you note, can be space consuming.
And thank you for the kind words in response to my other post.
I think that the DCC Crowd make a lot of noise that DC is dieing, but I believe that DC will be around a LOOONNGG Time to come yet. The estimates that I have read in the hobby press have all shown DC to still be the predominate control system, those with DCC just seem to push thier choosen system harder.
Today at the swap meet in Portland, OR the three locomotives that I sold were ALL DC, with two being DCC READY, but with just jumper plugs and no decoders, the third would be a MAJOR PITA, to ever install a decoder in, the BLI E-7 A-B(pwrd)-B(dmy) set with Sound and DCC came home with me. I had two Atlas Master DCC systems with Generator, Commander and Hand Commander, Complete in box 2 throttle systemsr $125.00 each, not even an offer on them. I did sell an MRC 280 Dual throttle power pack though.
The simple DC only Locomotive may get hard to find in the future, I expect to see more and more dual mode decoder equipped locomotives, which the DCC group will point to, to validate their claims of DC's demise, when it just makes a single item viable to both groups, rather than having two seperate product lines.
Don't expect DC to disappear any time soon, if technology was the end all, Lionel would have gone out of business years ago, but their AC technology is actually slowly gaining sales.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
My local hobby shop has a small layout as you walk in over by the O Scale section. It runs some DCC locomotives, mostly steam, but runs on DC cab-controlled wiring. Save for a few again, mostly steam, all the locomotives there are DC, and, as I said, is a straightforward DC cab system.
Crap happens. When it does, stop, take a deep breath, and call the wreck train.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless, I have been following your conversation with Stein. I hope you realize that just like you, I use DC. BUT, I use in it a much more complex form, with detection and signals, multiple cabs (eight of them) that can be assigned to track sections (blocks) from multiple locations as you walk around the layout OR can be assigned by a dispatcher. I use wireless radio throttles, and maybe most importantly I use elements from MZL control developed by Ed Ravenscroft over 40 years ago to automate many of the control functions found on some lessor DC cab control systems. This dramaticly reduces the needed "operator input commands" or "toggle fipping". Actually on my layout it is mostly "button pushing". I am a big proponent of the idea that control systems hould be taylored to the layout design and concept and that one size does not fit all. One other modeler I know has a layout that seems similar to how you discribe yours. He is DC as well. He has one Aristo Craft Train Engineer wirelsee throttle and a few kill switches to park locos. His industrial switching layout fills his 1200 sq ft basement. I also operate on a number of basement sized layouts that are DCC, one of which I even designed the track plan for. And, yes, with my electrical knowledge and background, I have some hand in wiring some of these as well as my own. BUT, in our local group, on the five DCC layouts I operate on a regular basis, NO ONE is running two seperate DCC trains at once. The only use those double Digitax throttles ever get are for switching moves like Stein just discribed above, or for pusher service. And pushers are more usually done with two operators. I rejected DCC for my layout based on a complex set of goals, cost and complexity issues. You obviously don't need to meet your goals. For many, who have different goals, it is perfect, or at least as close as we get to that now. My earlier conversation that got you and I going a bit was about what the future might hold, and that does have bearing on the OP's question. My point being that to overcome the original reasons I rejected DCC, some major advancements would be needed, and even then that might not cause me to change. My layout, which is being rebuilt right now, as outlined in my first post in this thread, has lots of "advanced" features. Turnout routes through complex interlockings are aligned with the push of one button, two switchers will each work one end of a large yard independently without a bunch of "toggle flipping", switching woves like Stein discribed in his last post are easily done with minimal or no toggle flipping. But all that takes planning, and yes some complexity. But here is the main point, my system while complex to build, it is easy to operate. throttles are simple and wireless, control panels are easy to understand and located were you need then at the time, controls are duplicated at muliple locations to allow walk around and provide flexiblity. You could learn to operate it in a half hour. And if you make a mistake, or forget to set something correctly, nothing bad happens, the train just stops and waits for you. And it all happens without and decoders, computers, speed curve matching, etc. What is does use is hundreds of inexpensive ice cub relays, and several simple machine control circuits that have been around since the invention of the electric motor and the magnetic relay. I chose it because, for my specific set of goals and interests, it is the least expensive and simplest solution and because it did not invloves skills beyond my knowledge or products that might become unavailable. I rejected both DCC and computerized block control and computerized signaling and dispatching for various combinations of the above reasons. I run multiple trains at once, but either on isoloted loops or with a crew of up to 12 people. One person never "controls" more than one train at a time. That's why the layout has all these semiautomatic safety features. Sheldon
I have been following your conversation with Stein. I hope you realize that just like you, I use DC. BUT, I use in it a much more complex form, with detection and signals, multiple cabs (eight of them) that can be assigned to track sections (blocks) from multiple locations as you walk around the layout OR can be assigned by a dispatcher. I use wireless radio throttles, and maybe most importantly I use elements from MZL control developed by Ed Ravenscroft over 40 years ago to automate many of the control functions found on some lessor DC cab control systems. This dramaticly reduces the needed "operator input commands" or "toggle fipping". Actually on my layout it is mostly "button pushing".
I am a big proponent of the idea that control systems hould be taylored to the layout design and concept and that one size does not fit all. One other modeler I know has a layout that seems similar to how you discribe yours. He is DC as well. He has one Aristo Craft Train Engineer wirelsee throttle and a few kill switches to park locos. His industrial switching layout fills his 1200 sq ft basement.
I also operate on a number of basement sized layouts that are DCC, one of which I even designed the track plan for. And, yes, with my electrical knowledge and background, I have some hand in wiring some of these as well as my own.
BUT, in our local group, on the five DCC layouts I operate on a regular basis, NO ONE is running two seperate DCC trains at once. The only use those double Digitax throttles ever get are for switching moves like Stein just discribed above, or for pusher service. And pushers are more usually done with two operators.
I rejected DCC for my layout based on a complex set of goals, cost and complexity issues. You obviously don't need to meet your goals. For many, who have different goals, it is perfect, or at least as close as we get to that now.
My earlier conversation that got you and I going a bit was about what the future might hold, and that does have bearing on the OP's question. My point being that to overcome the original reasons I rejected DCC, some major advancements would be needed, and even then that might not cause me to change.
My layout, which is being rebuilt right now, as outlined in my first post in this thread, has lots of "advanced" features. Turnout routes through complex interlockings are aligned with the push of one button, two switchers will each work one end of a large yard independently without a bunch of "toggle flipping", switching woves like Stein discribed in his last post are easily done with minimal or no toggle flipping. But all that takes planning, and yes some complexity.
But here is the main point, my system while complex to build, it is easy to operate. throttles are simple and wireless, control panels are easy to understand and located were you need then at the time, controls are duplicated at muliple locations to allow walk around and provide flexiblity. You could learn to operate it in a half hour.
And if you make a mistake, or forget to set something correctly, nothing bad happens, the train just stops and waits for you. And it all happens without and decoders, computers, speed curve matching, etc. What is does use is hundreds of inexpensive ice cub relays, and several simple machine control circuits that have been around since the invention of the electric motor and the magnetic relay.
I chose it because, for my specific set of goals and interests, it is the least expensive and simplest solution and because it did not invloves skills beyond my knowledge or products that might become unavailable. I rejected both DCC and computerized block control and computerized signaling and dispatching for various combinations of the above reasons.
I run multiple trains at once, but either on isoloted loops or with a crew of up to 12 people. One person never "controls" more than one train at a time. That's why the layout has all these semiautomatic safety features.
Thanks for the explanation Sheldon. I've read your posts before and I am quite impressed with your operation and you're knowledge. Overall, I like the way you approach the hobby.
Take care.
- Douglas
steinjr Doughless: steinjr: For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time. I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway. Not everyone, but most. Some fairly obvious applications that does not involve two engines moving at the same time: - taking a road engine to the engine house, before a yard switcher starts breaking down the cut of cars that just arrived. - having a switcher add a caboose to a train about to depart, take off or add a block to a hot freight train holding on the main. - adding or removing a helper. - movements in an engine terminal - having a switcher pull the cars off a passenger train that has arrived in a single ended passenger terminal, leaving the cars on another track, then take the formerly trapped road engine out, and turning it. Having the switcher spot the passenger cars for boarding. Have the road engine move back and couple to the cars again. There is quite a few moves where it makes sense, both from a prototype viewpoint and from a modeling viewpoint, to alternate between running two engines, rather than running them at the same time, using one engine to loop endlessly around the loop and the other to try to dodge it as best it can. Smile, Stein
Doughless: steinjr: For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time. I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway. Not everyone, but most.
steinjr: For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time. I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway. Not everyone, but most.
For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time.
I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway. Not everyone, but most.
Some fairly obvious applications that does not involve two engines moving at the same time:
- taking a road engine to the engine house, before a yard switcher starts breaking down the cut of cars that just arrived.
- having a switcher add a caboose to a train about to depart, take off or add a block to a hot freight train holding on the main.
- adding or removing a helper.
- movements in an engine terminal
- having a switcher pull the cars off a passenger train that has arrived in a single ended passenger terminal, leaving the cars on another track, then take the formerly trapped road engine out, and turning it. Having the switcher spot the passenger cars for boarding. Have the road engine move back and couple to the cars again.
There is quite a few moves where it makes sense, both from a prototype viewpoint and from a modeling viewpoint, to alternate between running two engines, rather than running them at the same time, using one engine to loop endlessly around the loop and the other to try to dodge it as best it can.
Smile, Stein
Stein, I haven't thought about this thread much, until it popped up on the first page again. Not sure if I and everyone else just want's the thread to die.
OTOH, if a modeler is going to have an engine terminal on the layout, then he better go DCC. Lots of engines in close proximity to each other. However, with the trends in shelf layouts, engine terminals are being modeled less often than before because shelf layouts tend to consider engine terminals as space hogs.
I'm not arguing that DC is better. In fact DCC is better because what can be done with DC can be done with DCC, but not visa versa. Its as simple as that. Its just that it seems to me that modelers are converting to DCC at a time when the trends in layout design and operations would make their existing investment in DC more efficient than ever.
This is just sort of a theoretical observation anyway. None of this has any impact on what I do or how anyone else really approaches their situation.
What is changing is everyone is going buss wiring both in DC and DCC, most of the people I know still run DC as do the clubs.
My layout is DC only. I want to get a DCC trend going, but it costs to much for me. Pretty much all the locomotives, save for a few, are DC at my local hobby shop. It'd be a long drive from Canada to central New York, but the commute is worth the reward. WELL worth it. I actually just picked up a Spectrum Dash 8-40C for my layout and, while used, was at a deep discount. What scale are you?
B30
I, for one, DON'T have slightest interest in sound! When recently pricing new Atlas HO loco, it was considerably more expensive than than their 'dcc ready' version[which I eventually intend to buy]. In my case; extra $ saved can be spent on Peco Code 100 turnouts, Sergent Engineering couplers, scenery supplies. Sound decoders add lot of expense to any dcc loco. Got along fine for 50+ yrs.on/ off in HO, including 6 yrs. in modular club, without sound. All the HO locos w/sound I heard at many train shows didn't impress me a bit; some were downright annoying. Even the club members there openly admitted that to me and said they often shut sound off when it bothers them too much. If I didn't already have my Lenz Set 90[bought yrs. ago] wouldn't attempt to go into dcc now, because everything has become way too expensive in the Hobby. Everyone's entitled to their opinion; that's my 2 cents. TTFN.....papasmurf in NH
Tom,
Thank you for the kind words. I would say there is a lot of us on that "middle road" in a lot of aspects of the hobby. The balance for each person is just different from subject to subject, scenery, rolling stock, structures, control, operation, etc.
I have always said, based on what is currently available, that if you really like onboard sound in HO or N, and think it is worth the money, you should go DCC.
Personally, my experiance with hifi sound reproduction, and my general dislike of being in noisy places, combines with the poor sound quality of onboard sound in small scales to make it something I do not want.
DCC still presents lots of electrical challenges for modelers, especially as you get further into things like signals, better turnout control options, dispatching, etc.
Sheldon,
It sounds like you have a great layout that is fun to operate, and you should be proud of that. I applaud you for having created such a complex and, apparently, user-friendly control system. Based on what you have described, I'm certain that I could probably assemble a similar control system for my layout . . . someday. However, for me it would take a lot of time, and I would face a pretty steep learning curve, before I had it assembled, had all the control panels built and labeled, and had it fully de-bugged. And, after all that, I'm not convinced it would be that much cheaper. That is why I chose to go with DCC.
I guess it's like the difference between scratchbuilding and purchasing ready-to-run kits. The scratchbuilder takes his time to understand the prototype, to make a plan for replicating it, to purchase the raw materials, and to apply proper techniques to complete the model. When he is done, he deservedly can take great pride in his model, and hopefully, others will recognize and applaud his effort. But the novice who just wants to run a train still can go out and buy what he wants, he just won't get the same sense of accomplishment as the scratchbuilder.
Someone building their layout faces similar decisions regarding their control system. They can follow the "scratchbuilding" path that you have chosen, and when they are finished can enjoy the same staisfaction that you have received from constructing your system. Or they can opt for purchasing an off-the-shelf DCC system, purchase off-the-shelf locomotives with installed decoders, etc . . . and will still get to enjoy running trains, just without the knowledge that they "did it themselves".
Then there's guys like me who try to find a middle road. I went with DCC for a variety of reasons, and it has allowed me a lot of flexibility in operating my railroad. I do get some "did it myself" satisfaction from installing sound decoders into my older models, and also when I built my own two-point panel control for the single hidden, Tortoise-controlled turnout on my layout. I could have opted for a DCC module to flip the turnout for me, but the cost was high and wouldn't give me a positive panel readout of the turnout position, so I went with the toggle switch and relay option. So, for me, a middle ground between the scratchbuilding and off-the-shelf approaches works best.
steinjr To me, if someone had wanted to create a layout where multiple trains will be moving at the same time on intersecting paths, under the control of a single operator, DC, cab control with multiple throttles, partial automation (stopping at signals etc), and a central control desk, would be a far more obvious technical choice than a single DCC throttle, swapping desperately between trains. One operator, multiple trains moving at the same time is more a matter of automation than a matter of DC or DCC. When you add a second engine, you will have to decide how to control two engines independent of each other. How you can have one engine standing still somewhere on your layout while the other one moves. Or how you can have two people each controlling their own engine. That is the decision point where it makes sense to think about whether DCC would be a sensible option. It is not at all a given that it is the most optimal choice for your layout and operating style. Smile, Stein
To me, if someone had wanted to create a layout where multiple trains will be moving at the same time on intersecting paths, under the control of a single operator, DC, cab control with multiple throttles, partial automation (stopping at signals etc), and a central control desk, would be a far more obvious technical choice than a single DCC throttle, swapping desperately between trains.
One operator, multiple trains moving at the same time is more a matter of automation than a matter of DC or DCC.
When you add a second engine, you will have to decide how to control two engines independent of each other. How you can have one engine standing still somewhere on your layout while the other one moves. Or how you can have two people each controlling their own engine.
That is the decision point where it makes sense to think about whether DCC would be a sensible option.
It is not at all a given that it is the most optimal choice for your layout and operating style.
Some good points. I am not for or against either DC or DCC and can see why people would use one or the other in certain situations.
I don't agree with switching to DCC just because it seems 'newer', 'better' or can 'do more' without looking at the pros and cons for your particular situation.
For the record, I am running DC with no cab control but with the yard on one control and the mainline on another. I am normally a single operator and will concur that one person running two trains at the same time does not work well - as Stein points out - not because of DC or DCC, but because of an operator's attention.
With my layout I CAN run a train looping on the main line while I switch in the yard. I don't usually unless I am demonstrating to people. I could have one operator run the mainline and one switch in the yard.
I did consider DCC, and the advantages to me were:
1. Sound and lights on locos.
2. Can have two or more locos on a track and operate independently.
The disadvantages were:
1. Cost. I already have DC. Would need the DCC system and decoders. DCC locos are more expensive.
2. Stopping a loco on a track and being able to operate another does not get the first loco out of the way. You still need to operate like a prototype. That means pulling into a passing track or a siding. I can do that with DC.
3. Issues with shorts - DCC is more sensitive to shutting down than DC.
The loco sound, while nice, is not something that I really need. I prefer the sound of the loco running on the track. To me the sound seems a bit fake.
I guess to answer the OP's original question - I don't think DC layouts will slowly ALL disappear. I think DCC will become more popular and there will be less DC, but for the foreseeable future I think DC is still a good cost effective fit for a lot of people.
But then I still have a crank phone and dial phones in my house. Of course the crank phone from 1918 still works and has never broken :)
I switched over even though I only have 2 ovals with one train on each oval
I like the sound moving with the train as opposed to my static sound DC set up( 2 MRC Sound and Power 2000s)
I know the DCC/DC trains will run DC with sound but the motion was too erratic
The investment in a DCE Power cab was minimal and more than suits my needsand I already had several DCC/DC sound engines so I only had to add sound to 3 others
One thing though I did like the sound from my static units but it didn't move with the train
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
Doughless steinjr: For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time. I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway. Not everyone, but most.
gatrhumpy I just bought my first DCC decoder - an N scale MRC sound decoder for a Kato SD40-2. Now I have to get the DCC system! Another DC system bites the dust! Hopefully my electrical trackwork is OK.
I just bought my first DCC decoder - an N scale MRC sound decoder for a Kato SD40-2. Now I have to get the DCC system!
Another DC system bites the dust! Hopefully my electrical trackwork is OK.
I have the MRC Tech 6 and need to buy a sound decoder for one of my Atlas N&W GP9s or GP38s.
Since the T-6 is duel mode I can use either DC or DCC locomotives.