I did it. I bought the NCE Power Cab today from Caboose Hobbies. The sales person told me the price will be going up and the system was not as much as I had planned on. Besides I get my bonus from work this coming Friday. Now I have to get the layout ready.
rrinker cgrubb80 Just one of many future questions have come to mind. I have an Atlas turntable set-up on my layout. What do I need to do to concert this DCC? Nothing. Just hook up the track power wires. You can't easily control the rotation with DCC because of the way the mechanical indexing works. I don;t ahve one, but I was always under the impression that they stopped at each track and continued on until you let go of the button. You MIGHT be able to conenct a DCC decoder to the turntable motor. The free-turnign types are a bit easier, and then there's always the Walthers ones - not cheap but they are fully indexed, the new version can be controlled via DCC, and they are a much more realistic model of a turntable than the Atlas. Although many times I have seen articles where up top and visible is a very detailed turntable model, under th ebenchwork moving it all is the Atlas mechanism because while somewhat crude, the Atlas mechanism is a fraction of the price of anyone else's index and drive system. --Randy
cgrubb80 Just one of many future questions have come to mind. I have an Atlas turntable set-up on my layout. What do I need to do to concert this DCC?
Just one of many future questions have come to mind. I have an Atlas turntable set-up on my layout. What do I need to do to concert this DCC?
Nothing. Just hook up the track power wires. You can't easily control the rotation with DCC because of the way the mechanical indexing works. I don;t ahve one, but I was always under the impression that they stopped at each track and continued on until you let go of the button. You MIGHT be able to conenct a DCC decoder to the turntable motor. The free-turnign types are a bit easier, and then there's always the Walthers ones - not cheap but they are fully indexed, the new version can be controlled via DCC, and they are a much more realistic model of a turntable than the Atlas. Although many times I have seen articles where up top and visible is a very detailed turntable model, under th ebenchwork moving it all is the Atlas mechanism because while somewhat crude, the Atlas mechanism is a fraction of the price of anyone else's index and drive system.
--Randy
I guess I should have said that I already the Atlas turntable and it is wired for DC right now. I didn't if I had to buy the Walther one or if I could use the one I have. Yes, the table stops at each section.
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I'm not sure you can make that DCC since there would be no way to let it align the tracks. Try doing a google with DCC Turntable maybe you'll find a solution.
Springfield PA
Is that a question or a statement?
The Digitrax Super Empire Builder was the right choose for the following reasons.
1 Makes running two trains on two lines very simple with the DT 400 throttle.
2 I now have walk around capability.
3 5 amps will power anything I want to a this point.
4 Don't need to read the CV's with the command station, I use my computer with a Digitrax PR 3 and Decoder Pro for that.
5 I wanted walk a round throttle, looked at the Zepher, DT 400 and UP 5 port for the DT 400. Cost was the same as the SEB and had 2.5 amps less.
6 My LHS run's Digitrax on our club layout. So if I need local support I have it.
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
Got The DCC Guide book today. I have already read three chapters and it seems really good. Also, brongs back a lot of my school knowledge. I am getting excited about getting a DCC system. Still don't know what system to go with.
I love DCC but as others have stated troubleshooting a problem gets a bit more involved. Also the conversion process for my engines will probably never end!
I saw the Digitrax signal demo (N scale, RDC ran back and forth) fail, all because they were using the MS100 as their computer interface - being unbuffered and generally a poor piece of hardware (which is why users developed the original Locobuffer) it tended to drop packets so the computer runnign the automation software didn;t 'see' that the loco entered the last block, so the RDC hit the bumper and kept trying to go the same way. I told whoever was fixing it that htey should get a Locobuffer
My first hands on with DCC was a different show several years earlier, a dealer not a manufacturer had a small loop layout set up with Digitrax and a pair of locos. I promptly managed to pull a Gomez as I did not expect momentum on the one loco, but when I ran them the same direction hey, here were two locos runnign under independent control ont he same 2x4 loop of track. Cool. But then ever since reading the chapters on Astrac in Sutton's The Complete Book of Model Railroading I KNEW I wanted some sort of independent control like that, no layout I built after that with ordinary DC control was ever totally satisfying.
As for the cornfield meet in DC - the idea of directly adjacent blocks being under the control of different cabs is possible with plain toggle flipping mania cab control, but the more sophisticated route cab control systems generally require a 'buffer' block between potentially opposing trains, so it's highly unlikely that a cornfield meet would happen.
grizlump9 while i have a bunch of you guys all lathered up let me tell you this. a lot of my opinion is base on the two or three dcc layout operation sessions i have attended. it seemed like they spent more time trouble shooting than they did running trains. maybe i have not yet been to a good one and doing so would change my mind. any thoughts? (except about my bladder control) grizlump
while i have a bunch of you guys all lathered up let me tell you this. a lot of my opinion is base on the two or three dcc layout operation sessions i have attended. it seemed like they spent more time trouble shooting than they did running trains. maybe i have not yet been to a good one and doing so would change my mind. any thoughts? (except about my bladder control)
grizlump
The first time I saw DCC was at a local show. The "expert" in the Digitrax booth spent about 4 hours trying to demonstrate his little 2x6' test layout. Couldn't get the locos, signals or turnouts to work at all. It was pretty sad. And this guy billed himself as the Digitrax Answer Man!
selectorThe difference is that in the case of DC, power on the throttle means all engines will move, and will move the same way...no matter which way they are facing (unless internally reversed) with a switch).
Yes, but that's the rub. If you have one engine powered by one throttle and another engine powered by another throttle going in the opposing direction on a single track main, and the two adjoining track sections are isolated from each other, it is very easy to have a cornfield meet. If you have an opportunity to read my response to Sheldon describing the configuration of our club's railroad, you might have a better idea of the circumstances we have.
By the way, the only part of this particular point I'm questioning is the "more likely to happen" part. As a matter of fact, there are members of our club that happen to think that using DCC during our open house will lead to fewer collisions (all past open houses have been DC).
I remain skeptically optimistic!
ATLANTIC CENTRAL DC throttles are never "forward" or "reverse", they are "east/west" or "north/south" relative to the layout. Good planning of both the layout and the controls solves these problems, as does good labeling of the layout and/or panels. On my layout you are always looking at the train with "west" to your left an "east" to your right - no confusion at all.
DC throttles are never "forward" or "reverse", they are "east/west" or "north/south" relative to the layout. Good planning of both the layout and the controls solves these problems, as does good labeling of the layout and/or panels.
On my layout you are always looking at the train with "west" to your left an "east" to your right - no confusion at all.
Those toggle switches on the DC handset may not be forward or reverse, but in my opinion they are not east/west and or north/south either. I think they are really nothing more than polarity changers.
Regarding the "good planning" thing, yes, maybe in the ideal world. I joined this club back in 1983. The railroad itself was laid out and built in the late 1960s. The original trackplan was basically a go out on one track and come back on another track (looked like double track but actually the second track was a theoretical continuation of the first) with a return loop style double ended staging yard. When space permitted, the staging yard was removed and two individual staging yards were added, making the railroad true point to point. Originally the railroad was controlled by a large master control panel located at about the midpoint of the railroad. After I joined, the large control panel was removed and 7 smaller control panels (plus one for each staging yard) were built at various points around the railroad. The idea behind this was that more people could play (I mean participate). Each panel controlled a section of the railroad, typically configured as a single track portion, a section with a passing siding, plus another single track portion. Typically the single track portions were broken into two controllable track sections. Each of the last track sections could be powered either from the first panel, or from the next panel down the line. We called these joint blocks, and this allowed one operator to send the train to the next and then stop it. That operator then shut off his joint block, and the next tower operator turned his on and moved the train. Remember I said that the trains are moved bi-directionally, not round and round, so trains could pass each other in opposing directions.
All of these panels were located so that they were somewhat in the proximity of the track they controlled, but the configuration of the space we have also factored into the locations.
So, to summarize, maybe in the ideal world we could have good planning. But sometimes you just have to play the hand you're dealt.
grizlump9 it seemed like they spent more time trouble shooting than they did running trains.
Of course the funny part was it was these very people causing the problems with there equipment who blamed the DCC system. We added a 2nd system in the work room and banned all new locomotives from the layout until they had been programmed and run through a vigorous testing plan. It was amazing all those "problems" with the layout DCC system magically disappeared.
grizlump91=you like to fiddle with electronics and constantly wonder why things don't work properly
2=you enjoy buying and installing a bunch of heavy gauge wire.
3=you relish the pain of burning your fingers trying to solder tiny connections.
4=you want your locomotives to pull fewer cars than they did before you lightened them up to install the decoders.
5=you want to tinker and modify lots of switches
6=you enjoy the possiblility of head on collisions like Gomez Adams.
7=you have extra time and money that are not needed for other hobby related things.
8=you relish the possibility of high current draw and faulty wiring starting an under-layout fire.
9=everybody else is doing it.
While I would not have chosen DCC as the command control standard, now that it is I will use it to my advantage.
Here is another simple theoretical situation that might be considered. I have an existing layout all nice and configured to run to run two trains simultaneously and independently. Now I want to expand and run 3 trains simultaneously and independently. How hard, expensive, and time consuming to do in DC how about DCC?
Grizlump, if you saw people having problems with DCC they probably had murphy visiting the same time you did. Don't let that stop you. Your sig doesn't show the general location you're at but if you post it, maybe someone knows a club you can visit and see it done right and allow you to talke face to face with someone. DCC really is worth checking out.
maxmanI really wish someone could explain the "more likely to happen" part of this...
I'll take a stab...
Assuming both DC and DCC users line their route properly, neither should have cornfield meets.
In the case of a non-isolated siding, one that isn't segregated from throttle inputs (DC or DCC, doesn't matter), a stopped and sided DCC engine is more likely to get smacked by another moving engine if the points are not lined for the passing route because the stopped train won't move if not commanded to in DCC. In DC, both locos will move if they are on a route assigned power.
The probability is greater only because if the route is lined, in either case, DC or DCC, so is that route powered, and that is where a moving, or two moving, engines will come to grief. The difference is that in the case of DC, power on the throttle means all engines will move, and will move the same way...no matter which way they are facing (unless internally reversed) with a switch). Two engines moving the same direction are less likely to encounter each other, unless subject to gross neglect, whereas it just takes a few seconds of inattention in DCC for one or both engines to actually run straight into each other due to nothing more than inattention to the route lined.
If an engine is sided, and stopped in DCC, it stays stopped. If the points are lined for the main on each end of the siding, the other engine safely passes by. In DCC, though, you could have the one main controller sending DCC signals, and therefore full system voltage, to the rails...all rails...siding and main concurrently. Yet the sided engine dutifully awaits commands from the operator to resume its journey.
If it is a DC layout, and the points are power routing, and the points are inadvertently lined on each end for the sided engine, the oncoming engine will enter the siding in DC...but in the meanwhile the sided engine continues to get the voltage for that lined route and will concurrently reverse at the speed permitted by its drive. It could be that the two engines will never get close to each other. So, what we do in DC is to isolate the siding to rid it of rail voltage, and that can be by power-routing via the points or by a toggle/block set-up.
I hope I explained that well enough.
-Crandell
I am going to try and get to Caboose Hobbies this weekend and see what the have in DCC and check out the difference systems. I have been in Colorado almost 4 years and have not made it there yet.
maxmanThere is also the issue of "which direction of the toggle switch on the hand-held DC controller is forward"? The mainline at the club loops back alongside itself at a couple points. So an operator standing at the control panel sees the train moving east to west at one point, and then apparently west to east at another. So if he happens to stop a train at one of the visually confusing points, he has to "remember" that the direction toggle on his controller doesn't have to be changed. We have one member that is very accomplished at backing a train into one of his own trains that he has stopped in a siding. At least with DCC, there is a visual indication on most of the hand-helds that indicates either forward or reverse, and most (I didn't say all!) people are astute enough to figure out which direction they want the train to go.
Sheldon
Paul36). Head-on collisions are more likely with DCC, and that's the truth. But they also could happen with DC. It would take some doing, but it's possible.
I really wish someone could explain the "more likely to happen" part of this. Are we defining "head-on" as a moving collision, or as any collision where one train smacks the front of another, moving or not?
The club I belong to has a single track mainline with passing sidings that we try to operate bi-directionally. If one train is stopped at the end of a siding and someone forgets to throw the siding turnout, the non-attention paying engineer of the on-coming train can very easily cause a head-on, DC or DCC. As a matter of fact, we have one club member who is very accomplished in this procedure.
There is also the issue of "which direction of the toggle switch on the hand-held DC controller is forward"? The mainline at the club loops back alongside itself at a couple points. So an operator standing at the control panel sees the train moving east to west at one point, and then apparently west to east at another. So if he happens to stop a train at one of the visually confusing points, he has to "remember" that the direction toggle on his controller doesn't have to be changed. We have one member that is very accomplished at backing a train into one of his own trains that he has stopped in a siding. At least with DCC, there is a visual indication on most of the hand-helds that indicates either forward or reverse, and most (I didn't say all!) people are astute enough to figure out which direction they want the train to go.
selectorAnyhoo....Griz, who can say why you have the impression you do about your few exposures to DCC? It may be a bias that only allows you to recall certain problems, or it may have been the several and collective ineptitude in installation and understanding of the DCC system in those whom you observed, or it may have been a genuine problem that creeps into all layouts at some point, which doesn't come to light until a period of methodical diagnosis and problem solving.
I agree completely, DCC should be judged on how it works when done correctly - not on a few problems or a poor installation.
And may I submit that the same standards be applied to DC, that we not judge it based on some limited knowledge or exposure to a few poorly designed and executed systems that one might have seen. But rather let it be judged on its best examples as well, memory walk around throttles, Aristo or RCS wireless throttles, well plained track segments with X sections, MZL control or progressive cab control, etc. - not a piece of masonite and 20 poorly thought out rotary switches.
I still say if you want like/want onboard sound - go DCC and don't look back. If you socialize with a buch of guys using DCC, go DCC.
But if your goals are different, learn about all the possiblities and make the best choice for you.
As DCC system go, I recommend Easy DCC by CVP http://www.cvpusa.com/
Their wireless handheld has the best ergonomics in my view.
My least favorite DCC system is Digitrax, the DT400 is worse than the rediculous remote to my stereo receiver.
Disclaimer: I don't us DCC myself, but I use Digitrax on 4 friends layouts almost once a week.
Still very happy with my Aristo Craft Train Engineer wireless DC radio throttles and modified MZL control.
We should be talking about venting spleens, not bladders...but, I digress.....
Anyhoo....Griz, who can say why you have the impression you do about your few exposures to DCC? It may be a bias that only allows you to recall certain problems, or it may have been the several and collective ineptitude in installation and understanding of the DCC system in those whom you observed, or it may have been a genuine problem that creeps into all layouts at some point, which doesn't come to light until a period of methodical diagnosis and problem solving.
I had next to no DC experience when I decided that DCC seemed to offer something more appealing to me, and I have not looked back. As a non-techy, physicist, engineering type, I even had the effrontery to purchase those horribly complicated Digitrax systems with their unintelligible manuals that only a physicist/engineer could decipher. Well, sooooorrrrrryyyyy! If I had known I wasn't allowed to succeed with Digitrax, I would never have bought the darned thing. But, here I am, the manuals long since gathering dust, and my layout works like a hot darn, even with my incipient soldering skills.
I have about 19 different locomotives in HO, no two alike, many different builders. All have DCC and sound, some factory, some done by a friend. I have had three problems with decoders, all easily rectified, none cost me any more than return shipping. As for that wretched Super Empire Builder and the unfathomable DT400 throttles, of which I have two since the first was so marvelous, none have given me a lick of problems that a simple power down, wait-two-three, and then power up haven't rectified.
For me, DCC has been as simple has plug and play. Sure, on my current layout I needed a bus and some soldered tail light bulbs for shorts management on each of the four main modules, but aside from soldering feeder pairs here and there, everything has worked well. Honestly, I have had some feeders lose contact due to bad solders up front, and once I metered the rails to find out the bad connections, and re-did the solders, I was back running trains in a few minutes. That has nothing to do with DC/DCC...it has to do with my skills at wiring a track system for continuity.
I can only answer for myself, but DCC, for me, was and continues to be a pleasure. Straightforward, too, horrible manuals not withstanding.
thanks for all the responses. it was just what i wanted. a chance to stir you guys up and get some point/counterpoint dialog going.
yes, i am getting old. actually i am too old to fight and too crippled up to run so the only way i can get some crap going is over the internet.
seriously, though, thanks for all the replies and input. (even if my bladder is none of your business) bye for now, got to change my catheter.
Sigh. This is like the old days in the DC vs. DCC wars.
1). "Fiddling with electronics" happens on every DC layout with more than one throttle, but you're fiddling with toggles, relays, and light bulbs vs. programming decoders and throttles. It's the same amount of work, just software vs. hardware.
2). Heavy gauge wire is needed for all larger, multi-throttle layouts no matter if it's DC, DCC, or AC. I use 200 feet of 14AWG on my 25' x 50' HO layout, and it runs fine. Therefore, it's irrelevant.
3). Making small solder connections happens just as easily in DC as DCC. Putting in a diode matrix for constant brightness bulbs was just as bad as any DCC installation for soldering. But considering that most locos these days have DCC in them or have a DCC plug and don't need any solder, it makes this point irrelevant, too.
4). Removing weight to add a decoder? Find a loco first that needs it as even the tightly packed Atlas S-units don't need to have any weight removed at all for a decoder. This one is also irrelevant.
5). Modifying switches was only needed on No. 6 or smaller switches with non-insulated throwbars, like old Walthers/Shinohara and old Micro Engineering. So anything with a plastic throwbar does not need modification, like all Atlas, Peco, new Walthers, and new Micro Engineering switches.
6). Head-on collisions are more likely with DCC, and that's the truth. But they also could happen with DC. It would take some doing, but it's possible. I know, because I saw it happen.
7). DCC is an added expense, but then so is multi-cab DC controls. A 50-block toggle cab would cost $250 alone, just for the DPDT's. Add a good throttle like a PSI and a power supply, and you're easily over $350 just for one cab. Multi-train control is not cheap...unless you happen to have a source for cheap electronic parts. One guy I know uses a car attery, a 2x4" with nails for block toggles, and a pair of clips for block power on his DC layout...but most people want a little more than that on their control system.
8). Ha! For one thing, DCC electronics are more sensitive to shorts than any DC system. They will shut down in a half second or less. At my old DC club, we had a grounding screw that had a dozen or more ring lugs on it. The wood it was screwed into was charred black due to the heat of the resistance when the screw got loose.
9). Sigh. "Independant as a hog on ice" is no way to live life, either.
Paul A. Cutler III
HamltnblueIt's a shame when someone feels that they are too far into anything or too old to change. I'm sure every 100 year old person out there wishes they had tried something new 30 years ago when they were 70.
It's a shame when someone feels that they are too far into anything or too old to change. I'm sure every 100 year old person out there wishes they had tried something new 30 years ago when they were 70.
grizlump is 100 years OLD? Geez no wonder the rant. He's got more problems than worrying about DCC, like bladder control
grizlump9 let me play the devil's advocate here. your question was WHY should i convert to dcc. 1=you like to fiddle with electronics and constantly wonder why things don't work properly I do, but mine work 2=you enjoy buying and installing a bunch of heavy gauge wire. Thin wire doesn't work well with DC either. Dunno why people use solid, it's hard to manage. Stranded is easy, even in #12 3=you relish the pain of burning your fingers trying to solder tiny connections. Haven't done that in a long time, but I've been soldering for around 35 years now 4=you want your locomotives to pull fewer cars than they did before you lightened them up to install the decoders. Have yet to need to remove weight to install a decoder. N scale might be different. 5=you want to tinker and modify lots of switches Never modified any of mine. 99% of the shorting issues are wheels out of gauge. 6=you enjoy the possiblility of head on collisions like Gomez Adams. Who doesn't? 7=you have extra time and money that are not needed for other hobby related things. No more time that it takes to wire up the miles of wire for a more complex block system where you don't have to constantly flip switches to keep your train moving. 8=you relish the possibility of high current draw and faulty wiring starting an under-layout fire. Uhh...sure. 9=everybody else is doing it. Because it's FUN! i wonder how many guys went with it and regretted it later. hopefully very few seriously, i think DCC is one of those things, like most things, that folks either love, hate, or don't care about at all. i am somewhere between the last two and am too far down the road to change. if you are going to do it, better get a move on before you are too far gone the other way. Hate it? Hopefully the stuff above is not why you hate DCC. I can understand having a huge investment in a large layout and lots of rolling stock, the cost of conversion could be rather extreme. But HATE? grizlump
let me play the devil's advocate here. your question was WHY should i convert to dcc.
1=you like to fiddle with electronics and constantly wonder why things don't work properly
I do, but mine work
Thin wire doesn't work well with DC either. Dunno why people use solid, it's hard to manage. Stranded is easy, even in #12
Haven't done that in a long time, but I've been soldering for around 35 years now
Have yet to need to remove weight to install a decoder. N scale might be different.
Never modified any of mine. 99% of the shorting issues are wheels out of gauge.
Who doesn't?
No more time that it takes to wire up the miles of wire for a more complex block system where you don't have to constantly flip switches to keep your train moving.
Uhh...sure.
Because it's FUN!
i wonder how many guys went with it and regretted it later. hopefully very few
seriously, i think DCC is one of those things, like most things, that folks either love, hate, or don't care about at all. i am somewhere between the last two and am too far down the road to change. if you are going to do it, better get a move on before you are too far gone the other way.
Hate it? Hopefully the stuff above is not why you hate DCC. I can understand having a huge investment in a large layout and lots of rolling stock, the cost of conversion could be rather extreme. But HATE?
Cgrubb80, at stall means just that. While testing the motor, grab a flywheel and stall the motor and see the amps it is pulling.
The big differences between a DC and DCC engines besides the motors are the chassis. DC Chassis are hot, they carry current, DCC is cold. Isolating the motor is easy, but the frame is still hot. What that means and the reason I have quite installing decoders in the older engines for now is. If the wheels hit the chassis from either cleaning the wheels, putting the engine on the track there is bump on the layout it will cause a short short. Ever time you have a small short, it wares away at the decoder till it cooks.
You can make the chassis cold. You know the metal plate that is on the top of the truck (not the L shape power bracket) that the chassis rest on? You cut that out, and replaces with a pieces of plastic. Then you have a cold chassis.
Many here will tell you, you don't have to do that step. I will not say they are wrong either. But for what ever reason it seems to bite me in the caboose more than once. Case in point, old BB FP 45, installed a new Hex Drive Athearn motor (Current RTR Motor) and it ran great. Then one day it derailed on a turnout, smoked the decoder? Installed another decoder, ran great for weeks. Then one day I had it going to fast and it derailed again, ate the decoder. This happened 3 times, cost me $70.00 plus. I do not have many derailments but they happen to all of us when Mr Murphy drops by. It was not install mistake, it ran 30 to 40 hours on each decoder till it derailed.
Yep, been there.
grizlump93=you relish the pain of burning your fingers trying to solder tiny connections.
Or have glob of solder fall off onto you sock.
grizlump95=you want to tinker and modify lots of switches
Never had to change any of my turnouts Griz.
Good luck with your up grade.
Hamltnblue*** Oddball said in the Dirty Dozen. Don't hit me with them negative waves. Especially with the DCC Stuff.
*** Oddball said in the Dirty Dozen. Don't hit me with them negative waves. Especially with the DCC Stuff.
That's from Kelly's Heros, not The Dirty Dozen.
Per the list of topics of why you shouldn't switch, I haven't found any of the points listed as being true at all. I've run both DC and DCC on my layouts on the same infrastructure; installing decoders isn't any more difficult (and I think actually easier) than hand forming brass ladder rungs, for instance.
If you do decide to switch, I changed from a large DCC setup to the NEC Powercab due to a move and related downsizing, and love it - the Powercab does everything I want it to, including programming sound decoders without a booster.
Cheers.
I'm trying to model 1956, not live in it.
grizlump9 let me play the devil's advocate here. your question was WHY should i convert to dcc. 1=you like to fiddle with electronics and constantly wonder why things don't work properly 2=you enjoy buying and installing a bunch of heavy gauge wire. 3=you relish the pain of burning your fingers trying to solder tiny connections. 4=you want your locomotives to pull fewer cars than they did before you lightened them up to install the decoders. 5=you want to tinker and modify lots of switches 6=you enjoy the possiblility of head on collisions like Gomez Adams. 7=you have extra time and money that are not needed for other hobby related things. 8=you relish the possibility of high current draw and faulty wiring starting an under-layout fire. 9=everybody else is doing it. i wonder how many guys went with it and regretted it later. hopefully very few seriously, i think DCC is one of those things, like most things, that folks either love, hate, or don't care about at all. i am somewhere between the last two and am too far down the road to change. if you are going to do it, better get a move on before you are too far gone the other way. there, that should bring some howlers out of the woodpile. grizlump
there, that should bring some howlers out of the woodpile.
LOL!! WOW Grizlump, do you still listen to 8 tracks while running your layout? Not trying to bash you or anything. I was a long time hold out to my cassette colection before I switched to CD's. Why would your locos have to be lightened to the point where they would pull fewer cars just to add DCC??
Making the switch to DCC made things so much easier and more fun. Running a block based layout was never much fun to me.