I returned to the HO scale after being out for a number of years. I had little investment in locomotives and was able to get them converted to DCC. So for me it was a no brainer. I now have DCC with sound in all of my locos and really enjoy running them.
The pleasure of having 2 or 3 engines on the same refueling track is very, very cool.
Bob
Photobucket Albums:NPBL - 2008 The BeginningNPBL - 2009 Phase INPBL - 2010 Downtown
TZ:
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20090411/BUSINESS/904110364
FYI
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Don,
All very true BUT, headphones work because of the small air volume between the driver and our ear drum, so it does not take a very "loud" sound to be perceived as loud. I did point this out in my orgian comments about this.
In a room, or even in an automobile, the perceived volume is so low as to not even be heard by most people or the excursion becomes excessive which introduces distortion. Distortion is allready one of the factors I find unacceptable with these sound systems.
The folded horn in the hi-cube might get close, but I model 1954. Again, I too am a speaker designer, I know all this, I also know what sounds accurate and what does not.
I believe many like onboard sound just because it is "neat", and that's OK. For many I believe ANY noise remotely close triggers sound memories in their brains, and that is fun for them. At one point I considered using sound just for bells and whistles (no chug, or diesel prime movers), since high freq. are obviously much better/easier with this size speaker. But in the end the result was deemed not worth the time, given a number of other modeling goals higher on the list.
Sheldon
It is very possible to get 100Hz, even dare I say 40Hz out of a 1" speaker. If you couldn't reach these frequencies, then a set of headphones wouldn't work. Neither would Tuba's from a little mouthpiece.
The question is volume. Too achieve good bass volume, a large amount of air has to be moved. This can be compensated several ways: Volme of air moved = surface area * excursion
1. A large large array of smaller speakers. (Increases suface area)
2. A higher excursion speaker. (Increase the voice coil length with very high power magnets to a small magnetic gap between voice coil driver and magnet) (
3. Tuned ports & folded horns. This is the principle behind tuba's and speaker ports. The wave travels through a tunnel which emphasizes long waves. Unfortunately it can only be tuned for a small range of frequency.
I ended up on this discussion a few months ago with a speaker designer. (I myself used to put together amps from scratch components.) We started talking, and he gave me a bug to try to put a folded horn/Tuned port into a Hi-cube, or possibly a large tender (C&O H-8 tender) I managed to get a hold of some simulation software, and I can get down to ~160-200Hz -3dB with a hi-cube and one of QSI's hi-bass speakers (1.22") down from it's normal bottom end of 330Hz. (Based on his specs) This is another octave lower.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
RRTrainman You don't have to have one of these's to control your layout. Or one of these's.
You don't have to have one of these's to control your layout.
Or one of these's.
My dad had both at one time or the other---
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/
4x8 are fun too!!! RussellRail
blownout cylinderI ended up getting for christmas an NCE Power Cab and we put the thing together on my small layout. It has worked like a charm ever since--I'm thinking the only real issue could be the dang instruction manual but then anything that involves a learning curve for some may be just that issue---or summat-----
Barry,
Download and print out the most current Power Cab manual from the NCE web site. I have mine in a 3-ring binder. I like it better than the small spiral manual that comes with the Power Cab because I can jot any notes I want in the wide margins that are provided.
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 didn't read all the responses but for me I would have to say the cost. I figure for the controler and the decoders, that the costs are close to a fifth of the total layout cost. I can't image running without it though.
Peter
I lived just up the hill from McIntosh Labs in Binghamton, NY until they were bought by Clarion in 1990.
I will say one thing further - the Loconet cable that ties all the Digitrax/Loconet compatible products (there are MANY - you can do all the signally and accessory control without a single product from Digitrax), is NOT additional infrastructure, it's there already for your cab jacks. ONE control bus for everything. Even my localized control panels will tie together and to the layout with nothign more than a 6 wire phone cord. That's right, if there's pushbuttons for a group of 10 turnout motors, there will NOT be a 20 wires going to the layout plus 2 more feeding power ot the panel. And even if I used wireless throttle,s that 'infrastucture' of a single phoen cord would still be there - it's what connects additional boosters.
You can argue MZL, PCC, u-pick'em advanced DC cab control that hey, you get 75-80% of the functionality of DCC, and it's the 75-80% that you are interested in, and fine, it compeltely meets your needs. But unless you are talkign a simple 2 cab cab control system, there is plain and simply MORE wire in a multiple cab DC system. You cannot escape it, short of some system nearly as sophisticated as DCC where a multipel channel receiving device is connected to each block. Now, if you want to consider all the 'wires' inside the integrated circuits in DCC decoders and the command station as part of the 'wires' on the layout, then DCC indeed has many many times the number of 'wires'. But then, those fancy radio DC throttles and receivers certainly have some ICs inside them as well.
To be honest, I think it is quite misleading to tell a newcomer that they can have 'simple multipel train oepration' with DC. To be 'simple', meaning 'nearly transparent' you need somethign more advanced than basic cab control with 6 position rotary switches for each block. That's not particularly 'transparent'. You need something more sophicticated like route cab control or MZL. I will with my last breath, having the actual MR articles where Ed Ravenscroft showed you what MZL was and how to implement it, refute the concept that it is 'easier' to understand than DCC. I have the articles. I've read them, and looked at the schematics over and over again. I completely understand electrical and electronic schematics - it's been my life for, well, I started building electrical dn electronic things when I was 5 or 6. This is not a case of "I don;t get it" I get it all too well. You probably can;t get any easier for the OPERATOR than MZL, short of some automated computer system or DCC. But to build it... I'm glad it works for you. Parts aren't cheap liek they used to be, multi-deck rotary switches are disappearing from the surplus market because they aren;t used in industry as much as they used to years ago. And to buy new - ouch.
But just what level are we talking about here? Pretty much anyone can buy a book from Atlas along with a pair of DC power packs and some electrical switchs from Atlas and wire up a layout that allows 2 trains to run at a time. The Atlas books even show you exactly where to connect each wire. The Atlas switches hide the tedious wiring for each cab, so it comes out with no more wires than if you wired the same layout for DCC (assuming multiple feeder drops). It's a wash, and cheaper to do it with DC. But that's a basic 2 cab system, you have to flip those toggles (ok slide switches) as your run your train around, and never can two be in the same block at the same time, other than doubleheaders. So we're back to the artificial block boundary, there to control the track and not regulate train movement. Is a person with a layout book from Atlas not sophisticated enough to perhaps want more? I don't think so.
Of course DCC is not for everyone. If you are tuly a lone wolf, or the purpose of the layout is for display purposes - DC is plenty adequate. If you stick to one manufacturer you can even have, literally, all the bells and whistles, even with DC. My bottom line is that for a complex layout, with multipel oeprators, DCC is the simpler choice. ANd for flexibility - I'm PA Dutch by descent and we are not know for being pigheaded for no reaosn, but what's funny is my layout design (from a control standpoint) covers just about every possibility with a single system. Fire up a train and railfan? Check. Fire up a train and do realistic operations? Check. Some friends come over and we just run trains willy-nilly around? check. Some friends come over and we operate realistically? check. With or without a dedicated dispatcher? check. Yes, this is beyond basic '2 wires to the track' DCC, this requires detection circuits and signals. Yes that part of it could be done in DC - right down to oen button flippign between having a dispatcher and just allowing each operator to throw turnouts. But let's not get into cost - compare per-bit costs of a system worakble with DC (I'm thinking C/MRI here - which also happens to be popular with users of DCC systems that do NOT have an integrated control bus like Digitrax), to the per-bit costs of one of the many Loconet-comaptible systems. C/MRI is significantly more expensive. Neither is 'cheap' depending on how you define 'cheap', but C/MRI, while a mighty fine design, is on the high end of the scale vs soemthign like, say, Dick Bronson's Tower Controller. This integrated bus system is one of the primary reasons I use Digitrax vs some other DCC system, by the way.
Point 2: You can do ANYTHING with ANYTHING. It all depends on how much you want to spend. You can make a Civic beat a Mustang on a drag strip if you throw enough money at it, and it gets fairly complicated once you reach those levels. The point is - there's no "you can only do this in DC, or only in DCC" You can, I do not doubt, build a DC system that completely emulated DCC with no decoders. And I bet it could be made to work GREAT. But there's no denying all that functionality and ease would cost far more than just getting a DCC system. And yes, I've seen the rebuttal "I'm not interested in those features" Fine, I have no problem with anyoen doing what works for them. I'm not exaclty all that hot on much more than just making the trains start and stop and change direction - just add in there "more than one" and the attraction of DCC goes up a hundredfold.
Point 3: We are at a turnign point in this hobby. Command control has come of age. It's available to everyone. There are standards so you aren;'t stuck with on brand. The control system is no more expesive than a GOOD DC power pack (by 'good' I mean ones with pulse or PWM control, etc. - vs cheapy train set power packs that fry faster than eggs in a hot pan). DC may never totally go away, there are still more DC users than DCC - but the interest level in DCC continues to rse. Once newcomers reach the multiple train stage, they are more and more turning to DCC - when's the last time you saw an article on wiring more than a simple 2 cab system in DC? Because, as I continue to state - DCC is actually SIMPLER. The inner workings may or may not be of interest to you, but you do not have to know how to build your own just to use DCC. I'll also refute the argument that you need to with the fact that I doubt you know exactly how many of the even more sophisticated electronic items you use every day work, yet that does not prevent you from using them.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Phoebe Vetthe sound to my stereo (remember quadaphonic?).
Paul3 I have a question. what's to stop one from buying a second sound decoder and installing it on your layout in a stationary manner? Then one could hook it up to whatever giant speakers and woofers and whatever one wants and get lung-shaking sound that matches the one's model.
... I think it would sound pretty good...wouldn't it?
P.S. I love on-board sound. I think it is pathetic sound quality wise, but I still love it.
BTW, all you guys that don't like onboard sound, I have a question. Other than the expense, what's to stop one from buying a second sound decoder and installing it on your layout in a stationary manner? Then one could hook it up to whatever giant speakers and woofers and whatever one wants and get lung-shaking sound that matches the one's model. MU the stationary chip to the matching loco you have, and you can get all the bass rumble you want for the prime mover, etc. It wouldn't be from the loco itself, but at that kind of volume, would it really matter?
Obviously, this wouldn't sound as good on a big layout, but for any bedroom sized layout, I think it would sound pretty good...wouldn't it?
Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Sheldon,What I don't understand is why you and some others bring up additional DCC expenses without bringing up additional DC expenses to get the same sort of system.
I think we can all admit that DCC had many added expenses if one wants detection, signalling, circuit breakers, transponding, computer control, radio throttles, walkaround control, etc. But so does any control system. I don't care if it's DC, DCC, AC, clockwork, or pull toys. Saying that there needs to be extra infrastructure needed for advanced DCC layouts without saying anything about the extra infrastructure needed for advanced DC layouts is unreasonable.
The main point here should be that non-DCC controls can be built by the electrical hobbyist, while DCC controls, for the most part, can only be built by those who can program code (IOW, a computer hobbyist). If one is an electrical hobbyist (one who solders for fun) and not a computer hobbyist, then DCC is probably not for you because there's not much one can do in DCC with a soldering iron (and don't take me literally, you folks know what I mean).
I am willing to bet, Sheldon, that there are very few non-club layouts that have detection, let alone working signalling. I know I can't think of too many (and none from personal experience). I don't see the point in bringing up these advanced layout ideas when the majority of model railroaders will never add it to any of their layouts in their hobby life.
It's not that we DCC users are afraid, we just get ticked off when folks misrepresent what DCC offers. That includes statements like:
"I don't want DCC because one needs thousands of dollars of equipment for radio throttles, computers, stationary decoders, signalling, transponding, and more when compared to my DC layout with my old car battery, old rheostat, and alligator clip on 10p nails driven into a 2x4 that I got for free!" Oh, sure, it's fair to compare the most complicated DCC layout imaginable with the most basic DC layout imaginable.
"DCC is a flash in the pan! It'll be replaced in 5 years, so why bother?" DCC: 21 years old and counting.
"I don't want DCC because I can't understand hex programming." Who programs in hex on DCC anymore? I haven't done that in 8-9 years, ever since the DT300's came out.
"DCC is too expensive because I have to buy sound decoders for $150 ea.!" Just because it's possible to have sound in every engine doesn't mean you have to install it.
And so on.
If one is starting over after a 20+ year hiatus from a single loop HO layout, they would basically be starting over with little to no need to convert older DC equipment to DCC. Thus, even the expense of DCC isn't much of an issue. As others have already noted, DCC can be extremely simple if all you want to do is run trains. On the other hand, today's DCC systems will allow you to do things you couldn't imagine 20 years ago, if you choose to pursue such advances.
Hornblower
Sheldon:
I was a CTM (functional equivalent of an Electronics Technician but with a higher security clearance) in the Navy in the late '60s. I added an audio out to my television and ran the sound to my stereo (remember quadaphonic?). But televisions were all mono back then. It did, however, sound a lot better.
Vet,
In the eighties I dsigned a complete suround sound speaker system, all matched components, with multi directional rear/side speakers. People in the business said "that can't work", but it did and a few years later half the industry was doing the same. We marketed them for a while but could never compete with the big boys.
I still listen to those speakers, watching TV or listening to music.
Your so right David, I meant that to read "two 1" speakers". But its about frequency response not volume. The laws of physics do limit sound reproduction based on room volume and speaker size. No 100 Hz tones are coming from any 1" speaker, in even the smallest layout room, at least not at a spl that will move a human eardrum. And I was the one who told my local buddies about Soundtraxx and their layout based system a while back when it was announced. Our biggest DCC fan took one look and said too expensive for him (and you could buy a nice used car for what he has spent in DCC with all his turnouts decoder operated, etc. And he's just starting on signals).
When all this is perfected, been around a while, prices stablize, market weeds itself out, if I decide its worth it then I will be able to just replace my Aristo units with some DCC equipment and my signaling and CTC and turnout controls will still work just fine, as they, including the dectection I use, are fully DCC compatible.
That could happen, or not. For now I'm very happy with what I have.
I understand your acoustic complaint. I have external speakers, complete with sub woofer, on two of my four computers and 7.1 home theater for the largest of the televisions.
But I just can't figure out how to get a 15 inch subwoofer into those HO scale engines. Perhaps Bose can come up with something.
Mr B,
I have often made that same point, one of the places DCC really shines is on small layouts where mulitple trains must operate in close proximity to each other.
One of the whole goals of my layout is for it to be large enough for nearly scale length trains, but actually not be complex or have unnecessary trackage. While somewhat large, it is actually very simple.
Thereby going to oposite end of your example and not requiring electrical sections (blocks is really a signaling term) to be short.
And, I will, in the spirit of fairness here, remind everyone who may not know, that I personally do not like or use onboard sound on my HO layout. And we need not debate that, its just another thing where I have my own standards and opinions. For MY ears, after designing and building Hi Fi Speakers for 35 years, two, 2" speakers just does not do it. (I don't listen to music on my computer monitor either). In larger scales I think its great, and if you like it, great (and I would say you need DCC). There is a future for onboard or layout based sound with what I do, but if it never works out, I won't care.
So because of the My list of wants and don't needs, DCC is not a good investment for me. And I have met more than just a few modelers with similar views.
If I loved onboard sound, that may be different, If I was in a different scale or modeled a different type of railroad, that may be different. I might be using DCC (but then again I might not have 100 locos to put decoders in or want to build a signal system).
Mr. B:
People like Sheldon have a system that has grown with them over a period of many years, which they have learned slowly as it grew, and that does everything they need it to do. They subscribe to the conservative doctrine of "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". There is absolutely nothing wrong with that attitude, and I wouldn't dream of trying to get him to change to a new system.
I, on the other hand, have always wanted to explore possibilities. My whole life I have been constantly trying new paths. I have never been a follower. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. When I was a child, everyone I knew had a Lionel O gage train set. I had American Flyer S gage because it had two rails and therefore looked more like a real train. I eventually changed to HO while all my friends just quit playing with "toy trains". I am an absolute believer in DCC. I have the Digitrax Super Chief, 2 DT-400s, and 7 DS64s.
The only reason I contributed to this thread was because the DC promoters were exaggerating the complexity of DCC in the presence of people who have no knowledge of either system. I see the same process used in television commercials for various products.
Since the thread is degenerating into just an argument, I have withdrawn.
I'm a DCC user, and I'd like to bring up a point that I don't think anyone has made. I've got a 5x12 foot table layout, a bit larger than the OP's plans. My earlier layout, when I was much younger, was a similar size, and that was DC.
When building a DC layout, you don't want your blocks to be too small. With rolling stock equipped with metal wheels, the entire train, not just the engines, must be in the same block, because the adjacent block might have a different polarity, which would cause a short. So, those of us with small layouts have a problem. Do we limit our operational capabilities, like the number of trains we can run simultaneously, or do we limit ourselves to short trains? With a larger layout, this isn't as serious, but it becomes a real conundrum for smaller-space modellers.
DCC solves that problem. It also lets you park an engine anywhere on your layout and run another. The ability to run multiple trains involves more than running multiple simultaneous trains. As a lone wolf guy myself, I really see the advantages and convenience of DCC running. I typically have a couple of trains running loops around the layout on independent tracks, while I am in active control of a switcher. DCC lets me scoot across the main against the prevailing traffic, as long at the other train is a safe distance away. All I have to worry about is where the other trains are physically. I don't have to think about where they are electrically.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Steve,
Thank you.
I know all that about Digitrax, but even just a phone cord is additonal infrastructure. And, digitrax is not the only DCC game in town, and, I was being general, not brand specific. And, even Digitrax signaling requires software they don't make or control, and so on.
Again, I not saying what Digitrax sells as solutions to these things are bad, or does not work, or whatever. And there are lots of other DC and DCC compatible products out there for detection, signaling, CTC, etc - or they can be built on your own.
I am saying all this additional hardware is expensive and nobody tells the new guys this. Its always after they buy a starter set and 15 decoders that someone says, "Oh, to do that you need to buy a ...."
As an experianced modeler with a specific set of goals I looked at DCC, all brands, twice now in 8 years, have run lots of it on others layouts and still said no, its not for me.
Yet somehow I should not share why or tell others what I'm doing in place of it. What is the DCC community afraid of? If DCC is so much better for EVERYBODY, then they should not be afraid of one lone wolf on a different path. Maybe I'm not as alone as it would seem judging from some of the recent comments on this forum.
And, again, I think for a lot of people DCC IS the best choice, no question, no problem. But to assume it is best for every person and every layout is like saying we should all model the PRR.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut all should remember if you want detection, signals, CTC or dispatchers panels, interlocking, collision avoidance, good display operation, route turnout control, hidden staging monitoring, crossing gate operation, multiple location or handheld turnout control, or wireless throttles, than understand you need to get your checkbook out and your wiring tools ready with DC or DCC.
But all should remember if you want detection, signals, CTC or dispatchers panels, interlocking, collision avoidance, good display operation, route turnout control, hidden staging monitoring, crossing gate operation, multiple location or handheld turnout control, or wireless throttles, than understand you need to get your checkbook out and your wiring tools ready with DC or DCC.
That is true, as noted, for both DC and DCC
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Even with DCC, you will need a complete additional infrastructure for most or all of this.
Not entirely true for DCC, at least not with Digitrax. SE8c's for signals and turnout control, plug into the existing Loconet throttle bus. BDL168's for detection (and transponding) plug into the existing Loconet. DS64's for turnout control and routes plug into the existing Loconet. Computer connection? Plugs into (you guessed it!) the existing Loconet. No "additional infrastructure" other than 6-conductor flat phone cable required.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And lots of extra hardware.
fwright...So if we don't switch-and-bait for either system, and using today's street prices, give me the true price for all of the following: starter system - PowerCab, Zephyr, or Prodigy Express 2nd throttle - has to have programming capability for Zephyr and Prodigy Express Super Booster for Power Cab, 2nd handheld throttle for Zephyr 4 face plates for throttle plug-ins computer interface auto-reverser if there is a reversing loop cables and/or wire and plugs to link components together...My main point is that when the price is presented to assist with the decision, it should be the true price, and that we are comparing apples to apples...
...My main point is that when the price is presented to assist with the decision, it should be the true price, and that we are comparing apples to apples...
DCC does cost more than DC, no doubt about it, but to throw in extras that are not required exagerates the cost difference. I do think it is good to point out that with DCC, there is a good chance you will want these extras, but it is no longer an apples to apples comparison.
I also think it is important to point out that if you go the DCC route, from now on your engines will tend to cost more(this difference tends to not be as much in HO scale, but in N-scale this can be anywhere from less than 20% to as much as 35% per engine). I believe on most layouts, the greatest difference in cost between DC and DCC is the decoders. When starting out, this may not be the case, but most people eventually have enough engines that it does become so. Especially for "engine collectors," this can be a major consideration.
davidmbedard Keep in mind with DC you have to plan the number of cabs required to run the layout. So you cannot compare it in that respect to DCC. With DC if you want to add another cab, you have to rewire the entire layout. With DCC, you plug in another throttle. So you are comparing apples to oranges. In your example, you are wiring the layout for 2 cabs. What if you have friends? Do they just watch? With DCC, I can have as many throttles plugged in as the system allows. With the Zephyr that number is 9. With the Chief it is 120. No extra wiring needed..... Also, another advantage to DCC is that I can use my Digitrax throttle with any Digitrax system. I just bring it with me and plug it in. Ive got loads of friends with Digitrax systems and they can just bring their throttles and play on my layout.......party at anyone's place! OH, the MS100 can be had for 40 dollars...easy. Huge difference. Again, look at my sig..... David B
Keep in mind with DC you have to plan the number of cabs required to run the layout. So you cannot compare it in that respect to DCC. With DC if you want to add another cab, you have to rewire the entire layout. With DCC, you plug in another throttle. So you are comparing apples to oranges.
In your example, you are wiring the layout for 2 cabs. What if you have friends? Do they just watch? With DCC, I can have as many throttles plugged in as the system allows. With the Zephyr that number is 9. With the Chief it is 120. No extra wiring needed.....
Also, another advantage to DCC is that I can use my Digitrax throttle with any Digitrax system. I just bring it with me and plug it in. Ive got loads of friends with Digitrax systems and they can just bring their throttles and play on my layout.......party at anyone's place!
OH, the MS100 can be had for 40 dollars...easy.
Huge difference.
Again, look at my sig.....
David B
I agree with you David that in general a DCC system is much easier to expand than a DC system. I am assuming a walk-around throttle bus implementation in DC, so the number of throttles that can be used is dependent on the capability of the block allocation system (has to be be pre-planned). The limit of 2 throttles is easy to implement in DC because of simple DT toggles.
Before DCC, the most common control scheme pushed for an island-sized layout was dual cab control DC. 2 MRC power packs and Atlas Selectors for block toggles were the norm. The system was reasonably easy to understand and wire, and had marginally passable utility for actual use in operations. For a single operator watching trains run, it worked well. But note that in operational use there was little to no improvement over my dual transformer Lionel setup of the 1950s. And this is still the standard setup pushed on beginners as soon as they expand beyond the trainset oval on their 1st 4x8.
Just remember that my Lionel setup of the 1950s allowed to me easily blow the whistle or horn of an engine across the layout, and allowed me to uncouple remotely anywhere I had an uncoupling magnet installed. Oversize knuckle couplers were the standard. Sometimes, I think we haven't progressed a bit from those toys. :-)
Meanwhile, transistor throttles were developed to more acurately simulate the performance of prototype locomotives. The walk-around form factor was developed to encourage switching operations at locations besides right in front of the control panel. But DC was still limited in its ability to separately control trains operating on shared trackage (a problem the prototype has, too). Power-routing turnouts, relay logic, X blocks, route cab, and progressive cab control were all developed as ways to allocate the track to the correct train. Large layouts eventually ended up with some kind of dispatcher
OTOH, if track allocations are relatively static (double track with 2 trains, or single operator with sequential operations, for example), DC is the easiest, simplest, and cheapest control system.
DCC goodness is in all its glory with multiple operators playing engineer on shared track. Note that by controlling locomotives directly, track allocation is no longer required. But the engineers must operate by what aviation calls "visual rules". Each engineer is responsible for lining the turnouts he needs correctly, and making sure the track ahead is clear. In the DCC ideal, you accompany your locomotive on its journey, adjusting speed, sound, and lights as needed for the task. For the prototype, visual rules by themselves were insufficient to prevent deadly accidents, and track allocations systems of various types were developed as an augment to visual rules. Since a cornfield meet is not deadly in the model world (unless one engineer goes into DCC rage :-) ), visual rules can be sufficient by themselves with a cooperative group. A Free-mo setup is probably one of the better examples.
But my point was that a starter DCC system by itself does not get you to the full DCC goodness described, even on a typical island layout. Simply replacing an MRC power pack with a Zephyr only gets me to the point of being able to blow the whistle across the layout, just like my Lionel, and letting one train run unattended while I switch the town in front of me (just like I could with my dual MRC setup). That's why I insist that the minimum 2 walk-around throttles and computer interface are necessary to experience the DCC goodness you folks talk about. Anything less, I can come pretty close to duplicating with DC for considerably less money. A third throttle might be desirable depending on the nature of the track plan.
In the OP's case, the estimated total for a solid DCC implementation comes to between $300 and $400, depending on exact system and a few decoders, and whether they have sound or not. And this would be a realistic figure for most island layouts.
At this point, I think I've said enough.
Fred W
And I can get my head around decoder programing, loconet, stationary decoders and computer interfaces - but none of that is fun for ME - so what?
I'm not pushing anything except offering more information, information many DCC supporters would have suppressed. Up to now I have GIVEN the drawings and info on "MY SYSTEM" (which I made no mention of in this thread until now) to dozens, what I do in the future remains to be seen, but at least I am honest.
But of course it is OK for shop owners and custom layout designers/builders to post their views, with the names of their compaines as their screen names.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But I still think the OP should go DCC, he doesn't like or understand wiring and he is new. He can grow into either just as well.
But I still think the OP should go DCC, he doesn't like or understand wiring and he is new. He can grow into either just as well.
You seem to be confused regarding the OP. He never said he doesn't like or understand wiring. He stated:
I am planning a 5'x10' layout to begin with. I was convinced by a local train dealer to start with the conventional dc block wiring layout. I'll be honest, I have not completely gotten my brain totally around this concept yet. So I read the "How has DCC enhanced your train experience" thread and am now leaning toward DCC. It seems to make a lot more sense for me.
What he said was he can't get his head wrapped around DC Block wiring. Neither could I, but I sure could understand only needing to run 2 wires under my layout to give me the ability to run 2 trains on the same track in different directions at the same time.
Just because you like DC blocks and everything associated with them doesn't mean that you should push it on anyone any more than a DCC user should push their system as the only way to wire a railroad.
Your thinly veiled advertisements for 'your system' are tiring.....my
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
Cuda Ken,
I have over 100 of them. 100 x $21 = $2100.
I can aford that but don't want to.
I can aford a BMW, but I consider my Ford a better value.
My point has never been that one is better than the other, but that each has its place depending on resources and goals.
As an example, I know two guys who build a lot of custom layouts, one does the layout, the other the wirng. All the "display" layouts they build are DC Computerized Block Control, not DCC.