Le'ts move on... (Locked)
-Crandell
Tom, watch out, its not PC to challenge the notion that you need DCC to run multiple locos of different types/brands in the same train.
Paul, you still don't get it, I'm not anti DCC, I'm anti one size fits all.
As to your beating the Radio thing to death, radio with track power, which is available right now, does have potential to be better and less expensive than DC. I know its not there yet. AND, if Aristo is smart, and has enough money, they will develope HO track power radio receivers/decoders that are triple compatable, Radio/DCC/DC. If that could be done for $25-$35 non sound, or $100 for sound, they might give DCC quite a run.
Radio with track power would/does have several advantages over DCC. It would have less, simpler and less expensive under layout infrastructure, especailly on large layouts. I understand you have good luck with track cleaning issues, so do I, but not everyone is as lucky. Radio direct to the loco would reduce lost/corrupted signal problems.
Having said that, if you read my orginal comments about this, I only indicated that I MAY be interested in such a system. I agree with you, has I have said over and over, that my main objection to DCC is the cost of decoders for my large loco fleet. combined with the fact that my layouts goals still require a complex infrastructure, the added features of DCC are not worth the cost, as Tom just explained in his case.
I called people sheep, but you, David and others want to lead ALL new people right to the DCC money pit early before they know what, how, why ,when, where they want to model. Why is that? don't you respect their ablity to learn and decide on their own?
MZL, or my version of it:
Well I had my circuit boards made, I don't like that work either, but most people would not even need those. My "control circuits" are a little complex, but are bench built modules that then mount under layout and then only require 6-12 "connections" to drops, control cables, etc. Wiring on the bench is 10 times faster and much easier than anything under a layout, no matter how well designed the under layout invironment is. Its kind of like the early days of Command Control, build a kit.
The control panels are similar to what many in DCC have, they are located at interlockings and such for turnout control and do also have the cab assignment lighted pushbuttons. I know, why have control panels? Well I thought of having a hand held control the turnouts and designed such a circuit for a MR small layout planning contest I submitted a plan to nearly thirty years ago. The track plan didn't win and my idea died with it do to the limitations of the available technology. BUT now that wireless remote control of turnouts is here with DCC, AND, I have used it on a large layout that I helped design, I don't like it one bit. Again too many buttons to find and push, not to mention knowing/finding the turnout number to enter, when on my control panels one button sets a whole route and lights up to show me how its set. i know this can be done with stationary decoders, but I do it just as easily with two $3 relays.
Well this has gotten longer than planned, but one more thought. Ulrich was the one with the retoric like speach, I just bowed and pledged like any good citizen of the peoples republic should. He still has yet to reply.
Sheldon
FWIW,
My layout is a 4' by 9.5' tabletop switching layout, with at most one mainline train and one switcher running at one time. I switched to DCC on a previous, smaller, layout and have continued to use it on this new one, for the following reasons;
1) Constant track voltage - improves reliability and performance2) Easy to maintain control of two locomotives at once - the Lenz system allows you to switch between two active locos with the press of a button3) Special effects - lights and momentum/inertia. Not so much sound in N scale, but I find that having the effect of a mars light or gyralite helps bring the trains alive for me.4) Simpler track wiring. Every section of track on my layout - even if it is 1" long - has two feeders going to it. This may seem overkill, but these are all wired to just the same two buses to the power district divider.5) Ability to transparently have separate power sections - I have two on my layout, one for staging and one for the mainline/yard area. If it weren't for the signal I put in to indicate whether the staging area was clear for a train to enter or not, you wouldn't know that there were separate power areas - no switching needed.
That's my [2c]. Ultimately there isn't a best system, just the system that's best for you. Now, to answer the original question, what you need to consider are the strengths and weaknesses of each. I can't speak for DC as I haven't used this in 1 1/2 years, but the reasons outlined above are the advantages of DCC that appealed to me.
The Location: Forests of the Pacific Northwest, OregonThe Year: 1948The Scale: On30The Blog: http://bvlcorr.tumblr.com
Sheldon,The point is that a wireless comm system direct from throttle to loco is bound to be more expensive than a central command station for anyone who has more than a few locos. That's because one is shifting the cost break from a single processor with relatively cheap "wired" receivers to many wireless receivers that need high quality batteries. Therefore, any expectation of it displacing DCC in the smaller scales is pretty unreasonable barring a technology break through.I can't believe you've brought up 8-tracks and cassettes in comparison to DCC, like DCC is some flash in the pan and soon to be replaced. It's been around for 20 years, and it's an NMRA Standard. I think it's a safe bet that any future control system will be backwards compatible with DCC due to it's current popularity. But if you want to compare to music, think about this: in all those years you never had a cassette deck, millions of people were listening to and enjoying them in their cars, in their Walkmans, etc., that you weren't able to do. Or did you have a dashboard mounted turntable?
I don't know why you brought up display layout running. I know I didn't. Of course if you have a display layout with many loops isolated from each other with only one train per loop, then any control system is needless other than basic DC to the rails. If you have multiple trains on the same loop, then you get a lot of complexity no matter if it's digital or analog.
If you are talking about MZL again, you also have to realize that not everyone is an electrical engineer. Not everyone likes to solder, design circuits, and etch boards. Plug-n-Play is popular for a reason, just like DCC is.
And those "50 wires"? Puh-leeze. They are drops, and probably no longer than 12" long on most layouts. Red to red & black to black = done. Besides, you need to install drops for any DC layout wiring. The difference is that with DCC, you only need two wires running the length of the layout and connect all the drops to it. With DC control it gets much more complicated.
BTW, nice classy move calling people "sheep". That's disappointing, Sheldon. I thought you were better than that.
As for your Anti-DCC reasons:1). Programming: You don't like programming even once. Okay, but it makes me wonder how pressing a button, entering the number, then hitting enter is such a chore. 2). Throttles: Personal choice. No argument. 3). Address selection: If the cab number is hard to read? That's the best you can come up with? And if it's too far away, walk over to it and read it. And if you can't do that, get Transponding and the PC will tell you what the number is.4). Extra track cleaning: a bit of a bogeyman, IMHO. I rarely clean my DCC layout (twice a year?) and they all run fine.Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Well, at the risk of being eaten alive, I'll take a jump at this.
I think it's all a matter of what you really WANT as far as operating your model railroad. I've got a fairly large 24x24' garage layout that has allowed me to lay generous curves (34-36" radius) and relatively realistic grades (2.00-2.25%) and a layout that offers some good long running room and yard enough (at least at this time) to make and break up trains to a fair degree.
And I'm DC. By choice. Now, I have nothing at all against DCC, I've seen some DCC layouts that absolutely amaze me with the variety that can be done with one operator (I'm strictly a Lone Wolf when it comes to my MR), and I can appreciate it. Even admire it a lot.
But it's really nothing I actually need in the eight or so years I've been operating my Yuba River Sub. Here are some reasons. Now they might not hold water with some readers, but understand, they work for me, and well and comfortably.
I do not operate on a 'scale clock.' My operating sessions are done in 'real time', and on my layout, which is a trans-Sierra mainline, there may only be one or two trains along my mainline in, say, a two hour period. This is the California mountains, not Horseshoe Curve. If I were to schedule a 24 ACTUAL hour operating session--which of course, I would not, simply from natural exhaustion--I would probably run about 20 trains, no more. Which means at no time on my mainline are there any more than two trains. I can control them by blocks. I have no problem doing this, I've been doing it for years, and it bothers me not one whit.
The other day I got 'adventurous' and decided to add two locomotives as pushers to a rather long freight I had made up. There is a rather stiff 2.4% grade right out of my main yard to my 'divide' at Wagon Wheel Gap. Now mind you, 95% of my all-steam roster is brass. Re-worked, in many cases re-motored and for the most part, re-balanced. They crawl at the crack of a throttle (my hand-held ControlMaster 20 Walkaround) , I brought a train into my main yard, hooked the two pushers on, and with more excitement than trepidation, started her up. Ran her through South Yuba Canyon up the 2.4% to the divide at Wagon Wheel Gap, cut off the two helpers, let my 4-8-2 continue up toward Yuba Pass, returned the helpers to the yard at Deer Creek. It took two toggle switches and one yard throw.
Later, I got very curious, and decided to see what would happen if the two helpers decided to push the train all the way up to Yuba Pass, which is about 4/5ths of the way around the layout on grades between 2 and 2.25%. Three brass locos, a 4-8-2 at the head, and two 2-8-2's pushing just ahead of the caboose. No problem. About 25smph. No 'stringling' on the curves, no 'accordion' on the straightaways. 3 DC locomotives working extremely well together. I have no idea how many volts they were eating, but the dial on my controller was less than halfway open.
Okay, no sound. Not crazy about sound anyway, at least in HO. But my point is that I was able to do it in DC rather easily. And yes, it was the only train on the track at the time, but as I say, I operate in "Actual Time" and at 25smph, but if there had been a meet with a local freight or perhaps a passenger train, there was still more than enough DC voltage to arrange it. I just chose not to, simply to see if my 3-steamer lashup was viable. Obviously, it is, at least under this particular circumstance. Frankly, I'm 'stoked' enough to try it with some other locos of mine. It might work, it might not. It seems that it has in the past, however with other DC modelers.
I have over fifty operating brass locos, simply because the particular railroad that I model does not have any locos that fit my prototype in new DCC plastic. At my age (close to 70), it is not financially viable to convert my roster to DCC, and I'm hardly going to junk them when there are no 'modern' replacements available. And frankly, I would have to convert them ALL to DCC, because I never know which locomotives I am going to use in an operating session. My locomotive case has a definite "Open Door" policy, LOL! And I have also heard that some brass locos, because of their limited 'left-right' pickup between loco and tender, can be extremely finicky with decoders. And I have that funny feeling that a great many of mine would fall into that category.
But that's me. And my railroad. And it works very well for me. And I'm a Happy Camper. Really! If I weren't, I wouldn't be spending so much time out in my garage!
But if someone is returning to the hobby and acquiring 'new' power and wants the freedom of running multiple trains or lashups of that new power and doesn't mind punching in numbers instead of just controlling a hand-held dial (throttle), then I certainly will be the last to tell them not to try DCC. For myself, frankly, I think the various systems need to be codified a little better and the 'bugs' I keep hearing about worked out, but that's something that has to be worked out eventually with ANY new system.
It ain't for me, but it might be for you. And EXTREMELY successful, to boot!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
rrinkerFor all but the most trrivial layout, it does not make sense to start construction of some form of cab or zone control rather than goign to DCC.
It does not make sense to you, I understand.
And therein lies the ORIGINAL topic of this thread. I defy any newbie to be shown the schematic of the MZL system, or any other 'automatic' DC block control system and understand it, vs one pair of wires run under the track with a bunch of feeders connected - NO ZERO ZILCH NADA electrical/electronic components. Electrical engineers need not apply, I'm sure they, like myself, can understand the MZL system, as well as the various others variations introduced over the years like progressive cab control, route cab control, and the like. As well as systems like Bruce Chubb's which allow you to simply drive your train around the layout, obeying signals, while int he background a computer and various circuits handle connecting your cab to your train. Sure that's as transparent to the user as DCC, and doesn't require any modifications to the loco, but it is every bit as complex as what's inside the DCC 'black box' and requires some computer programming skill to set up.
Sheldon, you keep saying "no toggles or rotary switches" and saying I and others 'don't get it' on this issue. On the contrary, I DO get it. It is NOT posisble to run multiple DC cabs withotu SOME sort of circuit or device to switch the appropriate cab's output to the section of track the train is in. I GET that this does not have to be toggle switches or rotary switches that the user has to operate manually as the train moves. I GET that there are also things like zone controls where each block has its own throttle, which may very well be suited to walkaround control, but you still have to match speed and direction moving from block to block. The point remains that while there may be an identical amount of 'wires' when you count feeder drops, the DCC wires simply connect wires to wires, you don;t even need solder for that. Any sort of DC system has SOME device connected to those wires.
Wireless, with a constant voltage to the track, that works too, but until batteries get small enough for HO and smaller you need provisions for switching the polarity at reverse loops just like simple DC and DCC. But then you're back to the issue of installign some sort of circuit in each loco.
Note I am NOT saying if you don;t ahev DCC, you should go scrap everything you have and get it ASAP. I've never said that - other than to people who were contemplating switching already. The orginal point of this thread was someone getting started. For all but the most trrivial layout, it does not make sense to start construction of some form of cab or zone control rather than goign to DCC.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
After reading through this entire thread, I have added, "Should I choose DCC or analog DC," to religion, politics and what constitutes beauty - the list of things that I avoid discussing!
FWIW, I use an analog DC operating similar to Sheldon's, based on the MZL system used by Ed Ravenscroft. No, I have no intention of urging anyone else to adopt it. Likewise, any attempt to 'convert' me to DCC will encounter a wall of resistence compared to which battleship armor is tissue paper.
So be it.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - my way)
azamiryouI can see why he'd be on the fence about it - in this situation, the differences between the two systems is probably slight. If he wants a nudge, though, I think towards DCC is the direction to nudge him. It's easier to expand, DCC will only become more common in the future, and, perhaps most important, you get to run trains instead of running the layout.
Opinions vary, some of us just offered additional information for consideration.
I went to an open house a few years ago, and this guy had a beautifully detailed, basement sized (at least 1200 sq ft), point to point, industrial theme layout. His control system consisted of one Aristo Craft Train Engineer wireless DC throttle.
He runs one train at a time, other locos are parked on tracks with kill switches. the layout is just one big "block" and these few kill sections to park locos. EVERYONE was asking why he didn't have DCC, or multiple blocks or this or that.
He said he only likes to run one train at a time, and that he was very happy with his control system just as is. It was simple and inxpensive and met his needs.
Who are the rest of us to tell him he is doing it "wrong"? But there seems to be those who would not want others to know about his way of having fun, since it does not pass their "standards".
Remember the original question? It wasn't Which is better, DC or DCC? It was Help me decide.
Georgia Flash I have been checking out this forum; have followed up on several suggestions. I am a "newbie" returning to this hobby. Just took a deep breath and ordered about $400 of flex-track, cork roadbed, joiners, etc. from Model Train Stuff. And, like we used to say when I worked for SP and released train movements, "Here we go." This forum has been helpful so far. Hopefully, you will help me decide: DC or DCC. Before I drive the requisite 115 miles to the nearest shop in Savannah, I would like to be informed when I do go. Any tips or recommendations that you may have are sincerely welcome; and will inform my decision. Thanks,
I have been checking out this forum; have followed up on several suggestions. I am a "newbie" returning to this hobby. Just took a deep breath and ordered about $400 of flex-track, cork roadbed, joiners, etc. from Model Train Stuff. And, like we used to say when I worked for SP and released train movements, "Here we go."
This forum has been helpful so far. Hopefully, you will help me decide: DC or DCC. Before I drive the requisite 115 miles to the nearest shop in Savannah, I would like to be informed when I do go. Any tips or recommendations that you may have are sincerely welcome; and will inform my decision. Thanks,
What do we know about Georgia Flash? He's returning to the hobby, so he probably knows at least a little about DC. He's been checking the forum, so he's doubtless learned a lot of "book knowledge" about DCC (with a big focus on problems). He's spent $400 on track, so we're not looking at a giant empire layout here, but we're also not looking at a penny pincher. He's a former railroad employee, so has knowledge and maybe even interest in the operational side of railroading. He's a long ways from the nearest shop, which might mean there are few people around for it to be a social hobby.
I can see why he'd be on the fence about it - in this situation, the differences between the two systems is probably slight. If he wants a nudge, though, I think towards DCC is the direction to nudge him. It's easier to expand, DCC will only become more common in the future, and, perhaps most important, you get to run trains instead of running the layout.
These are not advantages everyone needs or wants, but based on the original post, I think these are advantages Georgia Flash is likely to appreciate in the long run.
davidmbedard Also to Paul, on the idea of unattended or display running. With DCC or DC this requires additional automation infrastructure OR a track plan with independent routes, agreed? So, all other features aside, why would I need or want DCC for that? Both options, automation or seperate track routes work just as well with DC. This is a "must have" on MY goal list, as is dectection and signals. Not on my list at all are: consisting, turning on head lights, sound. You are absolutely correct, the prototype doesn't use light functions at all.......
Also to Paul, on the idea of unattended or display running. With DCC or DC this requires additional automation infrastructure OR a track plan with independent routes, agreed? So, all other features aside, why would I need or want DCC for that? Both options, automation or seperate track routes work just as well with DC. This is a "must have" on MY goal list, as is dectection and signals. Not on my list at all are: consisting, turning on head lights, sound.
You are absolutely correct, the prototype doesn't use light functions at all.......
Note to self - it is politically correct to build a model railroad and ignore signaling but it is not politically correct to ignore or simplify loco lighting - OK, another in my long list of non conforming behaviors noted.
Even if you model a time before ditch lights, rule this, rule that, when largely they just turned them on when they ran and off when they didn't. I know, it's not quite that simple and has "evolved", but 1950 and today are much different. Again, I have no interest in what the prototype is doing today, at least not as it directly relates to any models I own, since ALL the models I own are of prototypes built before 1954.
davidmbedard Tom, changing an address takes all of 2 seconds. Duplicate numbers are obvious (the system will ask you if you want to steal the number)....of course you knew that about DCC systems.
On this part I have to agree with you David, If your allready into DCC, how big a deal to just change the address?
davidmbedardAgain, we are talking about a HOME layout......HOME....... no power districts are nessesary or even recommended, rather good trackwork is recommended.
Is there a law in Canada limiting the size of home layouts? Or is this the "correct" view that home layouts should just not be big enough to need multiple power districts? All 5 the home layouts I operate DCC on regularly have more than one power district or have seperate "circuit breaker districts" and all their owners had problems trying to operate their layouts as one district, (and one of those belongs to a MMR with the best handlayed track I've ever seen).
Now, David, I will agree completely that many in the past have overdone the power district thing, and that many medium sized layouts don't need all that. But, again, so many assumptions about people's wants, needs, space, resources, goals, etc.
As well, I can think of several regulars on this board who's home layouts are surely divided into multiple power districts.
Here are a few random thoughts about some of what has been said here since my last post.
Paul, I agree radio is in the future and DCC is here now, and I have clearly said before, if the features DCC offers are important to you, DCC is the right choice. Onboard radio may or may not advance, I may or may not ever be interested. But as a comparison, let me say this: I have 1500 mint condition vinyl records I still listen to, I skipped 8 Tracks, they died, I skipped Cassettes, they died, I waited for CD's to really take hold before I invested in them, I still think many of my records sound better. Every new idea is not always the best or long range future in any technology.
Block Toggles and "who's got my train" - I will say again, there are many DC control systems, for multiple operation of more than two trains at a time, that do not use "block toggles" or "rotary switches" and that have built in collision avoidance and automatic stopping as natural features of their design. For many of you, I realize you have never seen such systems in operation and may only have limited experiance with a few poorly designed DC systems, but many of your "built in assumptions" about DC are wrong. With no extra wiring, my trains stop if they over run their assigned territory. Collisions are just about impossible. Yes, operator error can mess things up, just like it can with DCC.
Ease of wiring, for someone with little wiring background, a DCC buss with dozens of drops may seem more "comfortable" than those same dozens of drops being comnnected to various different control devices or points, but it may well be the same number of wires in actual fact. A DCC buss with two dozen drops is not two wires in the electrical school I was taught in, its 50 wires.
So many in this discussion think they know what others want. I don't know, so I don't assume to know what would be best for THEM. I lay out options rather than just trying to lead the sheeople to the "popular" choice, or my choice.
So many have said to me "but DCC will let you do this or that", and when I reply "I don't have any interest in doing this or that", they stumped. Or, my favorite, "once you try it you'll love it", but I have and I don't.
Here is some of what I don't like about DCC, I don't like the programing, even if it only has to be done once. I don't like most of the hand helds on the market. I don't like selecting the address, what if the loco number is hard to read?, what if its far away? - I know there are "solutions" to these issues, solutions that to me are more "work" than designing and building a complex DC control system. I don't like the work or expense of installing decoders, I don't like the extra track cleaning, with DC, a controlled room invironment and NS rail, track cleaning is not much of a problem.
I am not an overly "social" modeler and do not want my modeling to be "dependent" on my DCC buddy who has already been through the "learning curve" or a tech at Digitrax. I considered all of this carefully over the last 10 years in making the decission not to go DCC and to invest in the Aristo Train Engineer Throttles.
I don't care who else is interested in what I do or who isn't, but if you are, I will share my ideas and my 40 years of experaince in this hobby. And if you ask, you will get my opinions.
rrinker azamiryou TomDiehlYou forgot the big one: You operate on a club layout and the address that matches your loco number is taken by another member. I thought the question was whether to go with DC or DCC for a home layout... wasn't it? Plus there are many simple ways around that, depending on the railroad being modeled. Assigning each member an arbitrary block of addresses to use is not one of them. That's more a procedural issue than a technology one. And it still beats yelling across the room "hey, who's got my train" because someone forgot to reset block assignments, and your prized superdetailed loco is about to rear end a stopped train ahead. --Randy
azamiryou TomDiehlYou forgot the big one: You operate on a club layout and the address that matches your loco number is taken by another member. I thought the question was whether to go with DC or DCC for a home layout... wasn't it?
TomDiehlYou forgot the big one: You operate on a club layout and the address that matches your loco number is taken by another member.
I thought the question was whether to go with DC or DCC for a home layout... wasn't it?
Plus there are many simple ways around that, depending on the railroad being modeled. Assigning each member an arbitrary block of addresses to use is not one of them. That's more a procedural issue than a technology one. And it still beats yelling across the room "hey, who's got my train" because someone forgot to reset block assignments, and your prized superdetailed loco is about to rear end a stopped train ahead.
The assigning an address for club use is complicated if the club is not modeling a specific prototype. On ours you'll find Reading, Pennsy, CNJ, DL&W, Amtrak, etc, and may have numbers that are the same though on different railroads. Then if you go to the point of RTR locomotives, two members may have the same model with the same number. They assign addresses to members on a sign up chart, each member "claims" a specific address on the chart.
One question, if your "superdetailed loco," running on DC crosses over into a block with a stopped train, won't it stop, too? Speed and direction are determined by track voltage and polarity. Head-on collisions are quite possible with DCC.
rrinker "Remembering which address each locomotive is"? Maybe in one of the following cases: You model European, where they often have 5 digit 'road numbers" You use an old DCC system that only supports addresses 1-99 You model the Undec RR in all its glory. Seems pretty intuitive that the number decaled on the side of the loco would be the number used to control it. --Randy
"Remembering which address each locomotive is"? Maybe in one of the following cases:
You model European, where they often have 5 digit 'road numbers"
You use an old DCC system that only supports addresses 1-99
You model the Undec RR in all its glory.
Seems pretty intuitive that the number decaled on the side of the loco would be the number used to control it. --Randy
You forgot the big one: You operate on a club layout and the address that matches your loco number is taken by another member.
davidmbedard Also, the problem with the assertation that DCC only requires two wires is misleading. This may work on a small single loop railroad, but a large layout still needs to be broken into blocks, which I think in DCC terminology are called "control zones." Not doing this will come back to bite you in the butt when (notice I didn't say "if") you need to troubleshoot the system. How is this misleading? Last time I checked, all you need to do to hook up a DCC system is connect 2 wires and you are off and running. No one here ever mentioned a club sized layout. I will even say that a moderate sized layout does not require any boosters unless you have to go beyond your systems amp rating. If you go with a Super Chief or Empire Builder, then 5 amps is plenty for 99% of home layouts out there. Modern locos just dont draw much amps at all...... Now, if you compare the wiring of a large layout (you pick the size) wired up for DCC or DC, DCC always is simpler and more refined. With DC you always have to rewire the entire layout if you want to control another locomotive. In this case, you need to mention the aforementioned fact. Ill stand by this.....DCC....2 wires....and you are off and running. David B
Also, the problem with the assertation that DCC only requires two wires is misleading. This may work on a small single loop railroad, but a large layout still needs to be broken into blocks, which I think in DCC terminology are called "control zones." Not doing this will come back to bite you in the butt when (notice I didn't say "if") you need to troubleshoot the system.
How is this misleading? Last time I checked, all you need to do to hook up a DCC system is connect 2 wires and you are off and running. No one here ever mentioned a club sized layout. I will even say that a moderate sized layout does not require any boosters unless you have to go beyond your systems amp rating. If you go with a Super Chief or Empire Builder, then 5 amps is plenty for 99% of home layouts out there. Modern locos just dont draw much amps at all......
Now, if you compare the wiring of a large layout (you pick the size) wired up for DCC or DC, DCC always is simpler and more refined. With DC you always have to rewire the entire layout if you want to control another locomotive. In this case, you need to mention the aforementioned fact.
Ill stand by this.....DCC....2 wires....and you are off and running.
David B
The rest of the quote that answered your question has been restored.
fwright TomDiehl Fred, while I agree that DCC isn't, in all cases, the cure-all/ holy-grail of model railroading , I wouldn't say that Model Railroader magazine is guilty of pushing any set of values. They are performing the function of any magazine that's dedicated to a specific intrest, they're reporting on the latest developments and running articles on the new system. Most of us know DC block control and articles on that would be rehashing what most of us already know. While I agree with most of your statements, I have to disagree with the quoted portion. Unless a beginner is directed to one of the model railroad wiring books, he is not going to learn about how to plan and execute a block control system in the pages of Model Railroader since about 2000. He is not even going to learn why he should use block control instead of the more intuitive toy train section control if he adds a second power pack and locomotive. And I can't remember when I saw the last discussion of X blocks - probably the 1950s. But every new command control system has been thoroughly reviewed and written about - and now DCC has a monthly column. Model Railroader has always had an agenda - even back in the days of Larson and Westcott. In the '50s, it was moving beyond toy trains into "scale" model railroading and emphasizing the need for scenery, as well as improved model building. In the '60s, the push for L-girder, hard shell scenery, zip texturing, Atlas track products, and "operations" was on in MR. Progressive construction of a layout and making changes were some of the benefits of using the approved methods. Operations became an even bigger focus for MR in the '70s and '80s. In the late '80s and '90s, project layouts became "build and finish in the week of an NMRA convention" instead of a year-long project. To meet the timeline, RTR products had to be emphasized. I'm not knocking DCC - personally I think it's by far the best command control system to date for most people and most situations. However, it is a significant investment (about $300 minimum in my reckoning) to get to a 2 throttle setup with a computer interface so that you can thoroughly enjoy the important DCC capabilities with a friend or child. Whether it's worth the $300 investment depends on our individual priorities for model railroading. my thoughts, your choices Fred W
TomDiehl Fred, while I agree that DCC isn't, in all cases, the cure-all/ holy-grail of model railroading , I wouldn't say that Model Railroader magazine is guilty of pushing any set of values. They are performing the function of any magazine that's dedicated to a specific intrest, they're reporting on the latest developments and running articles on the new system. Most of us know DC block control and articles on that would be rehashing what most of us already know.
Fred, while I agree that DCC isn't, in all cases, the cure-all/ holy-grail of model railroading , I wouldn't say that Model Railroader magazine is guilty of pushing any set of values. They are performing the function of any magazine that's dedicated to a specific intrest, they're reporting on the latest developments and running articles on the new system. Most of us know DC block control and articles on that would be rehashing what most of us already know.
While I agree with most of your statements, I have to disagree with the quoted portion. Unless a beginner is directed to one of the model railroad wiring books, he is not going to learn about how to plan and execute a block control system in the pages of Model Railroader since about 2000. He is not even going to learn why he should use block control instead of the more intuitive toy train section control if he adds a second power pack and locomotive. And I can't remember when I saw the last discussion of X blocks - probably the 1950s. But every new command control system has been thoroughly reviewed and written about - and now DCC has a monthly column.
Model Railroader has always had an agenda - even back in the days of Larson and Westcott. In the '50s, it was moving beyond toy trains into "scale" model railroading and emphasizing the need for scenery, as well as improved model building. In the '60s, the push for L-girder, hard shell scenery, zip texturing, Atlas track products, and "operations" was on in MR. Progressive construction of a layout and making changes were some of the benefits of using the approved methods. Operations became an even bigger focus for MR in the '70s and '80s. In the late '80s and '90s, project layouts became "build and finish in the week of an NMRA convention" instead of a year-long project. To meet the timeline, RTR products had to be emphasized.
I'm not knocking DCC - personally I think it's by far the best command control system to date for most people and most situations. However, it is a significant investment (about $300 minimum in my reckoning) to get to a 2 throttle setup with a computer interface so that you can thoroughly enjoy the important DCC capabilities with a friend or child. Whether it's worth the $300 investment depends on our individual priorities for model railroading.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
I don't know why you'd need to direct anyone to wiring books, any more than you need to direct anyone to history books to discover what was developed several decades (or more) ago. There have been few, if any, significant changes in DC control systems for model railroads in that time period, meaning there's nothing new to report. It would be like watching CNN or reading Time magazine and having them report a story from a couple years ago like it was news. Even on this website, there's resources for beginners on all facets of model railroading, as well as shameless plugs to sell their books. There are usually beginner level articles in the December issue, since most non-model railroad people associate trains with the circle of track around the Christmas tree. Many modelers got their start that time of year.
Your second paragraph makes a great case for the actual agenda of Model Railroader (and other) magazines, to advance the hobby beyond the loop around the Christmas tree. DCC articles and reviews of associated equipment are published because they are news, advances in the technology, as with any other new ideas or equipment will build on the basics. RTR items are emphasized because people have less "spare time" and even the shake-the-box kits take too much time to assemble. Remembering back to the 60's and 70's there were many modelers that lamented those kits as the death of the hobby since they replaced scratchbuilding or craftsman kits. Evolution of the hobby will remain a constant. Some people duplicating the one week project layout may easily take a year to actually complete it. Operation was emphasized since modelers quickly got bored with "chasing their caboose" around a layout.
I just recently switched from DC to DCC, and I have to admit that two of the difficulties I was anticipating were the actual wiring and decoder installation (given my near total ineptitude with a soldering iron). Plus, I was sure that cost would be an issue.
Another reason I resisted DCC is that I said, "I never run more than one loco at a time." I have a small 4 1/2 x 10 layout, two loops with numerous crossovers and some industrial stubs and a small yard. But I realized that, even though only one loco was MOVING at a time, DCC would allow me to switch back and forth between them without the artificial step of derailing all but the active loco. With DCC, I can have all 8 of my locos sitting on the layout, each ready to go at the touch of a button. Operating DCC vs. DC is like night and day.
Having made the decision to switch, cost became the main issue. Fortunately, I was able to score a Prodigy Express for $75, and have an LHS where they install decoders that you purchase from them for $10. So I managed to get into DCC and get my 8 locos converted for less than $300. I recognize that not everyone will find these kinds of deals, but it's not dauntingly expensive either.
And you know what? I really did just disconnect the feeder wires from the DC powerpack and attach them to the DCC command unit.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
rrinkerDCC can be as simple or as complex as you make it. So can DC.
"Remembering which address each locomotive is"? Maybe in oen of the followign cases:
Seems pretty intuitive that the number decaled on the side of the loco would be the number used to control it. There may be issues with DCC, but this surely isn't one of them. That would be like saying it's hard to figure out that if you're holding the DC cab with the yellow dot on it, you turn the block selectors to the yellow dot. Now if you really want to spend the big bucks, there are some systems now that let you select the locomotive by picking a picture of it - although how in the heck you then distinguish which of 5 GP7's you're selecting... or even distinguise a GP7 from a GP9 on a low-res LCD display...
DCC can be as simple or as complex as you make it. So can DC.
The ultimate will come - self-contained battery power and radio control, like they use in G scale already. Dirty track? No worries. You can even have a seldom-used rusted siding if you want. The biggest problem next to adequate batteries that can fit in HO and smaller is maintaining some sort of swap out of jumper plug for straight DC compatibility. Even assuming a massive increase in battery technology, the combination receiver/motor controller/battery pack will be bigger than a DCC decoder. Adopting some locos that currently support large and/or multiple locos is possible - say liek the Atlas Trainmaster, if the speaker area is filled with a batter pack, a radio receiver and controller can certainly be made that's no larger than the sound decoder. Steam locos with tenders, again no problem, plenty of room for a decent battery, even today. All the goodies will fall into palce - track detection? SUPER simple - you can even do it exactly liek the prototype. No more insulated wheels, and just detect the short across the rails when entering a block.
Yes, that will be the ultimate one of these days. Until then, DCC is the ultimate in freedom of control. There may not be compellign reasons to switch from DC to DCC, particularly on a large and well-established layout, since such a conversion is best done as an all or nothing, rather than try to mix systems, and can certainly be cost prohibitive. But for all but the simplest layouts, there's little reason to start with DC
There is definitely a touch of Ludditism in model railroaders - not just about DCC, but I see it in other areas like the use of alternative adhesives and extruded foam. And I don;t see this as all driven by magazines liek Model Railroader. They ran all those articles by Bill Darnaby on using foam over 10 years ago, and just now we are seeing it used more and more. Even if not used as the main layout base, what about forming hills and mountains? Beats screen wire and plaster. And caulk - that was a less than one page article quite a few years ago. It's been barely mentioned in the mazaines until the many many posts in forums like this where people tried it and found out that - hey, it really works. I haven't found a downside to it yet, but I bet there's plenty of peopel who turn up their noses and just say it can;t work. Suddenly though, it's mentioned all over the magazines - either they were using it all along and not mentioning it, or someone there picked up on a more widespread use and started doing it for magazine articles. It's only in the past year or so I've seen heavy mention of caulk - I used it exclusively on my last layout 5 years ago, shortly after the original article appeared.
Be aware that DC has its issues and DCC has its issue also.
This will depend on what you "think" you want to do. How large a layout and how many operators do you think you will ever have?
Operating DCC can be complex when you step from the DC world into the DCC world. So much more can be done that it boggles the mind.
Running a couple engines yourself or with another operator is ok with DCC.
Consisting diesels, it gets more complex. Adding two or three operators consisting with DCC gets a little more complex. Wireless adds to the complexity at times. As the layout grows, you made need districts with modules so a short does not shut down the complete DCC layout with only one district. This happens with DCC operators.
I belong to a SoundTraxx DCC group, NCE group, MRC group, Digitrax group and I see a lot of issues as layouts grow.
There are some good books about DCC and a lot of information on the 'Net that you can search for.
I could lead you down the path I want you to go but it may not be what you really want or need. Only you can determine what you would like.
An analogy, do you need a 18 wheeler to go to work and shopping, or would a car do the same job? Ok, maybe a pickup truck. Notice, need or want?
I use the NCE Power cab as I operate alone. It can be expanded. I do not mind a cable control type. I know I do not need wireless. I can use the controller at my local club that uses the 5 amp Power Pro. I could buy the most expensive system with a lot of bells and whistles but I know I do not need it.
Good luck in whatever you choose.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Sheldon,"All hail DCC...!" Can we try to keep the melodrama to a dull roar? One can disagree without being disagreeable. DCC does not "DEMAND" that you be the engineer, at least no more than DC does. Of course it's set up that way because that's what the vast majority of model railroaders want to do...run the trains themselves. But it's possible to get DCC to run your trains automatically or in any other fashion, just like with DC. In either case, it requires advanced skills, extra expense, and many hours of wiring and/or programming.
IMHO, DCC wiring is easier than an analogous DC set up, and it's always more flexible.I have a 25' x 50' DCC layout of my own (as we have discussed before). There are exactly three main wires under the layout: 1 red, 1 black (both 14AWG), and 1 six-cond. 22AWG cable. I have 2 freight yards, 1 passenger terminal, 1 staging yard, and 2 engine facilities. I have a Digitrax Zephyr, a UR91 wireless receiver, 3 wireless throttles, a half dozen throttle jacks, feeders every 9 feet, and have run with 4 operators at the same time. There is minimal wiring under my layout, and far less than any possible DC layout that does what DCC does. Just because one has a 1000+ sq. ft. layout, it doesn't mean that one has to have a lot of wiring under it...at least with DCC.
The problem with any kind of onboard power in HO scale is the size of the batteries to get the power we want for the length of time we want. In time, we may see it. However, DCC is here now and has been around for 20 years.
BTW, layout base stations and wires are not necessarily the biggest total expense of any DCC layout. DCC decoders are actually the largest total cost for most of us. In my case, I have approx. $400 invested in DCC infrastructure (not counting throttles). I have 50 DCC equipped locos. At an average of $20 each, that's $1000 in decoders.
A futuristic system as you describe wouldn't really save all that much cash especially if you have to invest in high-end battery technology and a wireless receiver in every loco.
If you want to go large layout example, my large club DCC layout has approx. $5,777 invested in DCC technology. That does not count throttles, signalling, or wiring, but it does include all boosters, circuit breakers, block detectors, throttle jacks, wireless receivers, command station, et al. Right now, we have approx. 1000 locos on our registration list (with many more not registered, but we'll stick with the roster for now). At an average of $20 per loco, that's $20,000 invested in decoders.
Creating a system where the layout infrastructure gets cheaper but loco installations get more expensive is probably not the way to save money. In fact, I just looked up the Aristo CRE-55001 HO radio receiver. It retails at $53, and I found it for $45 online. Which means that in order to save around $5000 in DCC infrastructure, my club would have to invest $45,000 in R/C radio receivers. Um, ouch. And I haven't even talked about the batteries needed. Looking online, I can see that the Aristo LI-ON batteries (21.5v, 2 amp hours, 2 1/8" x 1 3/8" x 2 1/2") are going for $102 ea. That would add approx. $102,000 to our club's cost of conversion to Aristo R/C, for a grand total of $147,000. Um, double ouch. Compare that to the $26,000 we have invested in DCC, and I think you can see just how far R/C control has to come before it can take over from DCC.
Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
TomDiehlFred, while I agree that DCC isn't, in all cases, the cure-all/ holy-grail of model railroading , I wouldn't say that Model Railroader magazine is guilty of pushing any set of values. They are performing the function of any magazine that's dedicated to a specific intrest, they're reporting on the latest developments and running articles on the new system. Most of us know DC block control and articles on that would be rehashing what most of us already know.
fwright Sheldon You and I can point out until we are blue in the face that there are some situations where DCC is not particularly valuable, and certainly not worth the $300 (plus decoders) for a minimum 2 throttle with computer interface setup. But it won't matter. Those who are new in the hobby - and I was there once - want to be led like sheep, being told that this is the way to do model railroading. Model Railroader is particularly guilty of that practice - pushing a set of values that all model railroaders should/must aspire to, and these are the specific steps to get there. But at least they are trying to please their advertisers. The problem is not so much the steps or technologies themselves (DCC, foam construction, linear track plans, time table operations, etc) but that the underlying goals and values may not be as universally shared as many think. Although time table operations are pushed as the ultimate goal of a basement layout, there are many participants who get their thrills from other aspects of the hobby - and who are quite satisfied to never operate a layout in TT&TO fashion. The ultimate model railroading blashphemy is to deliberately use a more suitable (but non-mainstream) technology to better achieve your individual hobby goals. But then the blashphemers seldom are found on these forums, so few forum participants know/realize how diverse the hobby really is. rant over, climbing down from my soapbox Fred W
You and I can point out until we are blue in the face that there are some situations where DCC is not particularly valuable, and certainly not worth the $300 (plus decoders) for a minimum 2 throttle with computer interface setup. But it won't matter. Those who are new in the hobby - and I was there once - want to be led like sheep, being told that this is the way to do model railroading.
Model Railroader is particularly guilty of that practice - pushing a set of values that all model railroaders should/must aspire to, and these are the specific steps to get there. But at least they are trying to please their advertisers. The problem is not so much the steps or technologies themselves (DCC, foam construction, linear track plans, time table operations, etc) but that the underlying goals and values may not be as universally shared as many think. Although time table operations are pushed as the ultimate goal of a basement layout, there are many participants who get their thrills from other aspects of the hobby - and who are quite satisfied to never operate a layout in TT&TO fashion.
The ultimate model railroading blashphemy is to deliberately use a more suitable (but non-mainstream) technology to better achieve your individual hobby goals. But then the blashphemers seldom are found on these forums, so few forum participants know/realize how diverse the hobby really is.
rant over, climbing down from my soapbox
All locomotives run on DC, some take DC directly from the track that varies in voltage and polarity to determine speed and direction, some have decoders to take commands from a pulse train riding the track to derive the DC that varies in voltage and polarity to be fed the motor.
Dirty track and poor electrical connections are a problem to both, but a bigger problem to DCC since it may distort the pulse train. And if you're running vintage models or not into computer programming, then DCC definately isn't for you.
Also, the problem with the assertation that DCC only requires two wires is misleading. This may work on a small single loop railroad, but a large layout still needs to be broken into blocks, which I think in DCC terminology are called "control zones." Not doing this will come back to bite you in the butt when (notice I didn't say "if") you need to troubleshoot the system. And the push of "a button," my butt. More like a whole series of buttons in the right sequence, remembering which address is which locomotive, which aux function is what number, etc.