wjstix I think some of the DC folks are exagerating the price of DCC a little bit; when you figure in the cost of buying a couple of dozen DPDT toggle switches to control all the blocks you need, I don't know that a good entry level DCC controller (like a Zephyr) really costs that much more. Plus history shows the price of electronics tends to go down over time, so at some point it may be so little difference that manufacturers just make all engines DCC-equipped, perhaps with an option to add a plug-in sound module (as someone noted Bachmann is doing with their 2-8-8-4 model.) Stix, I generally agree with this statement, as well as the rest of your post...the one immediately below however... I'd say the advantages outweigh the costs in any case. It's kinda like a guy I used to know that always bought cars without power steering or power brakes, because it was cheaper that way. I'd rather pay a little extra and have an easier time driving. Not to repeat ongoing points, but the DCC over DC advantages are highly dependent upon how you operate your layout. Whereas in your car analogy, EVERYBODY who operates a car uses the steering wheel and brakes, so EVERYBODY sees a clear advantage to having the powered systems . Not choosing those options is more of a pure money decision. OTOH, not everybody operates their layout in a way that makes DCC advantageous, so spending the extra money on the DCC option does not give everybody an added benefit.
I think some of the DC folks are exagerating the price of DCC a little bit; when you figure in the cost of buying a couple of dozen DPDT toggle switches to control all the blocks you need, I don't know that a good entry level DCC controller (like a Zephyr) really costs that much more. Plus history shows the price of electronics tends to go down over time, so at some point it may be so little difference that manufacturers just make all engines DCC-equipped, perhaps with an option to add a plug-in sound module (as someone noted Bachmann is doing with their 2-8-8-4 model.)
Stix,
I generally agree with this statement, as well as the rest of your post...the one immediately below however...
I'd say the advantages outweigh the costs in any case. It's kinda like a guy I used to know that always bought cars without power steering or power brakes, because it was cheaper that way. I'd rather pay a little extra and have an easier time driving.
Not to repeat ongoing points, but the DCC over DC advantages are highly dependent upon how you operate your layout. Whereas in your car analogy, EVERYBODY who operates a car uses the steering wheel and brakes, so EVERYBODY sees a clear advantage to having the powered systems . Not choosing those options is more of a pure money decision. OTOH, not everybody operates their layout in a way that makes DCC advantageous, so spending the extra money on the DCC option does not give everybody an added benefit.
- Douglas
Randy, I completely agree that if a small layout is designed for multiple operators that DCC dose really shine in that situation - but ironicly, so do wireless throttles. It's hard for two people to run a small switching layout with fixed throttles. So again the notion of the Zepher starter system is squashed.
A small layout for one operator may well desire wireless over DCC.
And, just as you discribe, my layout takes advange of large spaces with a simple track plan to limit the interaction of locos into logical "zones" or sections as Paul Mallery and I like to call them. Something the real railroads do in many ways to avoid accidents.
Even at that, my double ended freight yard is designed so that the simple positioning of manual turnouts allows a seperate crew to work eack end with out interfering with each other.
As for decoder costs, yes there are low priced high quality ones, but they are not always the best choice for a specific loco. So the conversion of a roster like mine is likely to require a wide variety of decoder costs - some $12, some may be $40 - again no sound thank you.
It all gets back to what I have been saying for years - one size does not fit every list of goals, every budget, every type of operation, every level of interest.
Sheldon
Model railroading offers so many great options for average modelers: scale, gauge, modeling time periods, steam, diesel, transition era, expensive equipment, less expensive equipment, and on and on.
Now we have options for electrical control of our trains! I'll bet that some father out there will be buying his son (or daughter, for that matter) a trainset for next Christmas; probably a traditional DC train set. Either the son, or the father, or both, hopefully, will discover the wonderful world of model railroading. They too will learn the options available to them as they get into it. More than likely they will discover DCC and can make a choice whether to continue with DC or delve in to DCC.
I just converted my layout to DCC after years of DC....dual cabs, toggles, WIRE!, and many hours of careful planning for blocks, etc. It was bitter sweet cutting out and removing all that wire that I had spent many hours installing. I did it, and didn't look back! I am glad that I did and and am enjoying learning something new and challenging. DC gave me something to stand on.....I learned about basic electricity and how to manipulate it and make it run my trains.
DC will be around for a long, long time and will be enjoyed by those who enter the hobby and who want to stay with that mode of power control. They, like many of us, will have the option of converting to DCC and enjoy it, too!........once again, one of the many options in our great hobby!
-Al
wjstix I think some of the DC folks are exagerating the price of DCC a little bit; when you figure in the cost of buying a couple of dozen DPDT toggle switches to control all the blocks you need, I don't know that a good entry level DCC controller (like a Zephyr) really costs that much more....I'd say the advantages outweigh the costs in any case. It's kinda like a guy I used to know that always bought cars without power steering or power brakes, because it was cheaper that way. I'd rather pay a little extra and have an easier time driving.
I think some of the DC folks are exagerating the price of DCC a little bit; when you figure in the cost of buying a couple of dozen DPDT toggle switches to control all the blocks you need, I don't know that a good entry level DCC controller (like a Zephyr) really costs that much more....I'd say the advantages outweigh the costs in any case. It's kinda like a guy I used to know that always bought cars without power steering or power brakes, because it was cheaper that way. I'd rather pay a little extra and have an easier time driving.
I'd say just the opposite. Proponents of DCC tend to minimize the costs by only mentioning the initial starter set and bulk buys of non-sound decoders. The cost of implementing DCC is going to vary greatly with type of operations desired, features wanted, as well as number of locomotives.
For my small spare bedroom layout that features switching and very limited continuous run, one or two operators, and 10 steam locomotive models, costs quickly exceed the $1,000 mark, as compared to $120 for a new DC setup (2 quality PWM handheld throttes, a dozen toggles). Let me list the DCC equipment:
We'll assume fascia jacks and turnout controls are equivalent. Now the screams are correct - the proposed DCC system is far more capable than the DC. But why would I want anything less in DCC? If I am going to to take away capability to save money, then I should stick with DC in the first place.
The car option analogy that more appropriately applies is the installed sound system in the car. Changing out the AM radio for a high end AM/FM radio doesn't gain me a whole lot for the extra money if my real desire is to listen to my personal music collection in all its glory. What I really want is a CD changer (or other digital format playback) plus the high end speakers and amps.
Same with DCC - getting rid of a dozen block toggles that don't get used a lot in switching operations is hardly justification for even a reduced-cost of DCC implementation in my situation. On the other hand, gaining sound along with the other benefits just might justify the spendy costs of conversion.
I'd guess for example it's been 25 years or so since Model Railroader featured an O-scale layout using outside third rail for powering steam and diesel models. Yet at one time that was by far the most common way to build O-scale layouts.
A reasonable analogy improperly applied. Converting to 2 rail was a big step forward in realism, but carried a big price tag in terms of $$ and time for those who had 3 rail O equipment as a starting point. DCC doesn't gain enough realism in the elimination of block toggles to warrant the high cost of conversion. But add sound effects, as well as block toggle elimination, and perhaps the gain in realism is worth the cost.
As for the original question, I think Bachmann has shown the most likely future path as far as low to medium cost locomotives go. Incorporate a very cheap decoder that will run on DC. The DC purist can remove the board and run better on DC. The decoder can be replaced by those who want more in DCC.
High end will eventually be DCC and sound only. After all, if you are paying $300+ per locomotive, you have probably already spent $300-$500 or more on a full-blown DCC control system for your layout.
The fly in the prediction is the cost spiral that is forcing manufacturers to squeeze every sale they can out of a production run. Ignoring the DC-only market is just too many sales to give up at present. Even Blackstone (a division of Soundtraxx) offers a limited number of DC-only versions of their locomotives to DC die-hards.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Well the point I was making (perhaps not very well) was that if you're new to model railroading and choosing between DC and DCC, the amount you're going to spend starting up isn't that much different. Many engines today have dual-mode decoders installed at the factory (especially if you want sound) so you're not really spending extra for a decoder compared to DC. Yes a Digitrax Zephyr or similar 'start up' DCC system is going to cost more than an MRC power pack, but when you factor in the cost of buying the DC power pack and DPDT toggles it's not that much different. To operate more than one engine in DC as the layout expands, you'll need to buy more power packs, and for either DC or DCC you may well choose eventually to add walk-around.
The costs are going to be different for someone with an existing large DC layout with many locomotives and such that you have to convert to DCC. I can see someone in that situation saying it's not worth the time / expense to convert. Their situation is similar to what O gaugers faced in switching from outside-third rail to two rail where they had to remove the third rail, re-wire the layout, and change all their engines to two-rail pickup. People who entered O scale later, and who started with two-rail (like people my age who bought the early Atlas O equipment in the early 1970's) didn't face that problem / expense.
Just starting?
Zephyr Extra $169.00 from model train stuff.... or $159.00 at train shows. This is the total cost of DCC if you buy engines with DCC installed. Easy DCC startup. No big deal.
If you plan to convert extant HO motive power, Digitrax DH-123D non-sound DCC decoders at train shows are had for as little as $14.00 each or $16.00 from model train stuff.
There is absolutely no need to enter DCC with a $350-$500 DCC master, walk around controller or to have sound or to change every engine immediately.
Smart DCC entry money looks around, after first snagging the Zephyr Extra, for a single key or favorite loco that comes with DCC and sound. Save the loco-DCC controller wiring bit until you have once had you DCC feet wet. If you are just starting your empire, it might only be 4X8. 30 locos with DCC and sound is silly in such a circumstance.
If you have a large DC analog empire of 30X26 already with 20 or more engines and think you want to fully convert over to DCC with all locos in sound mode, then you will need to transfer money into checking from savings and go crazy buying stuff.
Richard
If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed
fwright $500. 5 Tsunami or ESU sound decoders, speakers
How is it accurate to price-compare non-sound DC operation with sound-equipped DCC?
That's like saying, "Yeah, but if I traded in my '93 Taurus, I'd need to buy a Ferrari." It's not apples-to-apples.
fwright $200 5 ESU non-sound decoders
Why would anyone pay that much when full-featured non-sound decoders from major name brands are available for about half that price? Not to mention that more and more locos come from the factory with dual mode DC/DCC decoders for free.
DC is fine, DCC is fine. But if you're going to compare prices, it's only reasonable to do it with equivalent functionality and current street pricing.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama fwright: $500. 5 Tsunami or ESU sound decoders, speakers How is it accurate to price-compare non-sound DC operation with sound-equipped DCC? That's like saying, "Yeah, but if I traded in my '93 Taurus, I'd need to buy a Ferrari." It's not apples-to-apples. fwright: $200 5 ESU non-sound decoders Why would anyone pay that much when full-featured non-sound decoders from major name brands are available for about half that price? Not to mention that more and more locos come from the factory with dual mode DC/DCC decoders for free. DC is fine, DCC is fine. But if you're going to compare prices, it's only reasonable to do it with equivalent functionality and current street pricing.
fwright: $500. 5 Tsunami or ESU sound decoders, speakers
fwright: $200 5 ESU non-sound decoders
Equivalent functionality is only relevant if you want or need the features in question.
I have said for a VERY long time now that if you want sound you need DCC.
If you don't want sound, the story changes.
Your comments ASSUME that DCC is "better" for eveyones needs and wants - not so.
The whole point here is that many people do not care to pay for functionality they niether need nor want.
For my purposes I don't want the added complexities of MU'ing locos with DCC when the loco lashups I run work fine by simply putting the locos on the track and coupling them together. Why should I pay more money to have to do more work when, IN MY CASE, a simpler less costly method works fine?
I don't want onboard sound, it sounds like a nine transistor AM radio stuck between stations, I don't need ditch lights, they did not exist in the era I model.
I want signaling, CTC, turnout interlocking, etc - I spent my money there rather than on DCC and a bunch of features I don't need or want.
While I agree basic DCC equiped locos are basicly the same price as their DC counter parts are/would be, the same is not true about sound. I don't buy sound equiped locos. I do buy DCC "onboard" locos and remove the pesky decoders that do not work with my Aristo wireless throttles.
All price comparisons are based on the idea that DCC does cost more - what do you get for that money and is it of value to you?
Not to speak for Fred, but what I took from his post was it would cost him X to convert to DCC and the added benifit woud be sound - is that benifit worth the money? - only each individual can decide that.
It is easy to minimize the cost of DCC with all the "you don't have to do it all at once" arguments - that does not hold water. I don't have to impliment my whole advanced cab control system with signals, CTC and one touch turnout routing, all at once either - that does not change what it will ulimately cost.
PS - If the conditions included keeping and driving it on a regular basis, and paying for the upkeep, you could not GIVE me a Ferrari.
ATLANTIC CENTRALYour comments ASSUME that DCC is "better" for eveyones needs and wants - not so.
Since I specifically said (and believe) this:
cuyamaDC is fine, DCC is fine.
... you are completely misreading my comments and intent. I was only pointing out the "apples-to-oranges" price comparison.
But clearly this is a religious issue for some and I'll withdraw from the conversation.
cuyama fwright: $500. 5 Tsunami or ESU sound decoders, speakers How is it accurate to price-compare non-sound DC operation with sound-equipped DCC? That's like saying, "Yeah, but if I traded in my '93 Taurus, I'd need to buy a Ferrari." It's not apples-to-apples.
And why would I waste money to trade in my perfectly functional '93 Taurus on a new Chevy equivalent? The whole point of paying the cost of trading in would be to get benefits I can't realize from the Taurus.
The point is that unless DCC is perceived as a serious and worthwhile upgrade to DC, then there is no reason to spend any money on switching from DC to DCC.
There are really several different scenarios being confused with each other.
The newbie starting out in model railroading, perhaps with the proverbial simple 4x8 layout. In this case, straight cost comparisons might be useful in the single engine/single operator case. On the DCC side, the Zephyr takes the place of the DC power pack. Not much benefit for the extra cost ($100+) of DCC in this scenario, unless the single locomotive is sound-equipped ($100 extra).
Next scenario - the 4x8 train set is expanded to 2 train/2 operator with several locomotives available. Now the DCC operational benefits of not having block toggles start to mean something. But the true cost of DCC includes: Starter system plus second throttle plus jack(s) for second throttle plus extra cost of decoders in locomotives (either bought with decoders or installed afterwards). Total DCC cost is in the neighborhood of $250+. Cost of DC is around $100 (2 power packs plus toggles and wiring). Sound is easily added to the DCC at a cost of $100 per locomotive - which could be an equation changer.
When a larger layout than a 4x8 is being considered, very few are starting from scratch. We are now talking a conversion scenario from DC to DCC. If one is already invested in DCC, they are not likely to revert back to DC due to the planning and wiring effort for the larger layout.
Where an existing DC control system exists, the benefits of the conversion need to justify the costs of conversion. In some-to-many existing room-size DC layouts or well-developed large DC layouts, there is little benefit to a non-sound DCC conversion. Getting rid of toggles on a layout developed for DC operation is not a huge benefit for the effort and cost. OTOH, sound can increase the benefits of converting to the point where it might be worth the costs.
Where the conversion to DCC often does make sense is a first larger layout. Not having to plan a DC control system, along with flexibility for commonly-used unstructured operations increase the benefits of the extra expense of DCC. But the DCC costs of this scenario are not just a starter set, either - just like a single DC power pack would be an unacceptable answer.
And that's what I was pricing out to demonstrate true DCC costs - a DCC conversion for my room-size empire where the benefits would justify the costs. I don't compare a DC power pack to an NCE PowerCab - I compare PWM hand-held DC throttles. Neither do I compare a Zephyr by itself to a 2 operator DC system.
For my tiny HOn3 and 19th Century HO locomotives that I have re-motored and tweaked (sometimes regeared) for better operation, the ESU non-sound decoders appear to be the gold standard for getting the best out of my locomotives that have no room for speakers. Or at least that's the gist of what I get from reading the reports here on the forum. Why would I want to cheap out on a decoder when I've spent that money and time getting my small roster where I want it? So I price my DCC conversion accordingly, and know that I have a good estimate of what it's going to cost me to get the benefits of DCC that I want.
cuyama But clearly this is a religious issue for some
But clearly this is a religious issue for some
While the word religious can be divisive, I would say in the myriad of the DCC and DC threads, one thing is clear, some people's choices about this are less than logical.
That's okay. It's a hobby. Why I have 50 locomotives when I only need three makes no sense to me either. What is fun often makes no sense.
These discussions about DCC vs. DC make me chuckle. Even more, when the arguments include cost. C´mon on folks, this is a hobby, so if you want DCC, get it it.
No one actually needs DCC, just like no one actually needs a hobby. We are in it for fun, entertainment and relaxation, so forget about economics. This ain´t business!
Sir Madog These discussions about DCC vs. DC make me chuckle. Even more, when the arguments include cost. C´mon on folks, this is a hobby, so if you want DCC, get it it. No one actually needs DCC, just like no one actually needs a hobby. We are in it for fun, entertainment and relaxation, so forget about economics. This ain´t business!
I can understand why they make you chuckle, but as usual, there are few people who insist on trying to invalidate the choices of others.
And, yes that can make people defend their position with "religous" fervor.
First I would ask cuyama if he read the WHOLE thread or just jumped in based on Fred's post?
As this question was posed by the OP, even many of the strongest DCC promoters on this forum seemed to be in agreement with the DC users.
But there are always a few who feel they need to re-explain to us DC users that:
It does not really cost that much more.
We will like so much more.
It is so much "better".
So once again we reexplain why we don't need to be "saved" by their religous fervor.
Doughless While the word religious can be divisive, I would say in the myriad of the DCC and DC threads, one thing is clear, some people's choices about this are less than logical. That's okay. It's a hobby. Why I have 50 locomotives when I only need three makes no sense to me either. What is fun often makes no sense.
Calling some people's choices "less than logical" is not a proven way to reach hearts and change minds.
Will I convert to DCC? Yes, probably in the next 6 months. Why? Because that's what Free-mo and Hon3 Free-mo (and most modular standards) use. If I want to run my locomotives at a setup, I need to install decoders and have a throttle (assumes someone else provides the command station and boosters). And I need minimum equipment at home to test my module wiring and operation before a setup.
Once I put decoders in my locomotives, it makes little sense to not complete the conversion at home except for a test loop. But the cost of conversion is daunting - just as the costs of modeling an earlier era than most, and modeling both narrow and standard gauge are also daunting. It is not just a matter of buying an NCE PowerCab - which I almost did at a show yesterday. I need the S3 booster to be able to fully test throttle jacks on the module, and module track and throttle bus wiring. And the locomotives need decoders.
While I understand the $15 fleet decoder works well in standard HO diesel models - does it really work so well in tiny steam models? Or do I want the superior BEMF implementation and motor control and tiny size of ESU decoders (and if possible with a keep-alive option, given the tiny size of the models)? In those engines where a decent speaker might fit - do I want the known Tsunami steam sound? Or the reportedly less finicky motor control of ESU? Even my small roster of 10 steam models gets quite expensive to equip with decoders - and that's not counting the time to design and implement the decoder install.
My analogy is choosing between Apple and a PC. If starting from scratch, an oranges-to-oranges cost comparison is appropriate. Switching from one to the other is a whole different animal, and oranges-to-oranges cost comparisons really don't apply. It's more of making sure the benefits of converting to the other technology are worth the total costs. And usually forgotten in the cost comparisons is the retraining time, and the cost of converting to new applications.
In my case, the cost of conversion is probably $1K (as outlined in a previous post), assuming I can squeeze a respectable speaker into the Shays. No matter what, the cost is far more than just the $150 for the PowerCab. The benefits of the conversion are pretty good, too. But not needing block toggles is not a big benefit to me, especially for a thousand smackers (or even 300 smackers). Sound, and the ability to enjoy my equipment at modular setups, are what are driving me to make the conversion.
In thinking a lot about this conversion and the OP, the installation of cheap decoders in RTR locomotives will probably drive a lot more conversions to DCC than if most locomotives came "DCC-ready".
just my thoughts and my choices - you make your own
Another interesting observation.
Fred W and I have been at the heart of many of these discussions over the years, and we share a very similar understanding of the issues involved, from a technical, modeling and personal stand point.
Yet Fred is about to go DCC while I remain committed to my advanced DC cab control with wireless radio throttles - why?
Fred has explained very clearly that one of his main interests in DCC is to participate in a group that is using DCC and he sees the addition of sound as an added benifit.
Both clearly good reasons to invest in DCC in Fred's case. And I know a number of other modelers who have not only chosen DCC, but even chosen a specific brand based on their desire to participate in a group setting with fellow modelers.
I on the other hand am not as involved in "social" modeling. I belong to a round robin, I enjoy a number of social activities in the hobby, I enjoy operating on others layouts, I enjoy having others to my layout, but I have NO interest in transporting my locos or rolling stock to other layouts, group, public or private, for operation.
The complex combination of my specifc layout goals led me to my current control system choice - after DCC was available and DCC was carefully examined in the process of deciding on a control system.
Ulimately a series of improvements to the system used on my last layout, MZL control, was seen as more effecive for my goals than DCC. Do largely to my desire for signaling and CTC and my dislike for onboard sound in small scales like HO, DCC would add little "play value" over my current system for a very large additional investment of both TIME and money.
I will repeat again, one size does not fit all.
fwright Doughless: While the word religious can be divisive, I would say in the myriad of the DCC and DC threads, one thing is clear, some people's choices about this are less than logical. That's okay. It's a hobby. Why I have 50 locomotives when I only need three makes no sense to me either. What is fun often makes no sense. Calling some people's choices "less than logical" is not a proven way to reach hearts and change minds. just my thoughts and my choices - you make your own Fred W
Doughless: While the word religious can be divisive, I would say in the myriad of the DCC and DC threads, one thing is clear, some people's choices about this are less than logical. That's okay. It's a hobby. Why I have 50 locomotives when I only need three makes no sense to me either. What is fun often makes no sense.
Fred. I always find your posts very logical.
The point of my entire post is that hobby decisions need not be logical. There is no goal here other than to have fun. There may not be much logic, say, in choosing a paint scheme for your layout, so why does there have to be one for choosing an operating system? If you like to fiddle with toggle switching or programming and addressing, so be it. The latter is not more logical than the former, and visa versa.
But rather than focusing on making our choices based upon what we find fun, these threads sometime take on the flavor of one trying to defend their decisions like there is a philosophy, principal, or virtue involved. About an operating system, really?
I appreciate your's and others efforts to consistently take the time to explain things in a way that tries to remove that element from the conversation.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Ulimately a series of improvements to the system used on my last layout, MZL control, was seen as more effecive for my goals than DCC. Due largely to my desire for signaling and CTC and my dislike for onboard sound in small scales like HO, DCC would add little "play value" over my current system for a very large additional investment of both TIME and money.
Ulimately a series of improvements to the system used on my last layout, MZL control, was seen as more effecive for my goals than DCC. Due largely to my desire for signaling and CTC and my dislike for onboard sound in small scales like HO, DCC would add little "play value" over my current system for a very large additional investment of both TIME and money.
Ahhh, I sense a small crack in Sheldon's windshield. So, it is, at least in part, TIME and money holding him back. Signaling and CTC can be accomplished in DCC, and I gotta believe that HO scale onboard sound is not as objectionable to Sheldon as he protests it to be.
Realistically, Sheldon, I know that you cannot admit it. But, secretly, deep down, there is a yearning in your soul for DCC, the freedom to operate multiple trains without blocks, the sheer thrill of sounding those horns, whistles and bells. Me thinks thou doth protest too much !
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL: Ulimately a series of improvements to the system used on my last layout, MZL control, was seen as more effecive for my goals than DCC. Due largely to my desire for signaling and CTC and my dislike for onboard sound in small scales like HO, DCC would add little "play value" over my current system for a very large additional investment of both TIME and money. Ahhh, I sense a small crack in Sheldon's windshield. So, it is, at least in part, TIME and money holding him back. Signaling and CTC can be accomplished in DCC, and I gotta believe that HO scale onboard sound is not as objectionable to Sheldon as he protests it to be. Realistically, Sheldon, I know that you cannot admit it. But, secretly, deep down, there is a yearning in your soul for DCC, the freedom to operate multiple trains without blocks, the sheer thrill of sounding those horns, whistles and bells. Me thinks thou doth protest too much ! Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL: Ulimately a series of improvements to the system used on my last layout, MZL control, was seen as more effecive for my goals than DCC. Due largely to my desire for signaling and CTC and my dislike for onboard sound in small scales like HO, DCC would add little "play value" over my current system for a very large additional investment of both TIME and money.
Rich,
Your perception is distorted by your own likes and dislikes, a weakness we all suffer from. We all want to think that others are "like us".
I value my time and money too much to waste it on things I don't want, and unlike many others, I have figured out what I really want, not what others say I should want.
As for bells or whistles, that is in my long range plan, just not IN the locomotives.
Rich - how old are you? I designed and built my first HiFi speaker system in 1972, I now listen to music/movies on a surround sound system I designed, built and marketed in the 80's/90's. I have 1700 vinyl records, 700 music CD's, two tunrtables, etc, and I'm not interested in ANY sound coming from a 1" speaker.
I'm only on this computer now because personal obligations allow this activity and not actually working on the layout. think carefully about my long absences from this forum - I am often otherwise engaged.
Rich, a few more thoughts.
"signaling and CTC can be accomplished in DCC" - of course they can, but the a same or similar infrastructure is required to do that in DCC or DC.
DCC brings NOTHING to the "signaling and CTC" table. And it does not reduce the cost of signaling at all. Effective signaling systems have been being installed on model railroads LONG before DCC.
So "selling" me on DCC for my current set of layout goals would require it to proivde some other large benifit. For me those benifits do not justify the cost - in time or money.
And yes it is about time and money. I would rather be building structures, running trains, building rolling stock than installing decoders in 130 locos.
And, I choose to spend a specific amount on this hobby, well within my means. That's why I'm not that guy who sells off stuff on ebay when the economy is bad, etc. I still have virtually every model train I ever bought.
I choose a 40 x 24 layout with 130 locos, 1000 freight cars, 800 feet of track, wireless DC, signaling and CTC, intergrated one button turnout routing, staging for 25 trains, running trains 50 cars long, etc, etc,
RATHER than scaling that back to invest in bad sound in fewer locos with comand control.
MY CHOICES.
If you are happy with your choices - great.
To get back to the OP's question, and more meat n taters model railroading, the future of DC only.
DC-only will wane the more hobby producers actually manufacture more locomotives that are capable of using the advantages DCC offers.
Do producers put ditch light blinking decoders in locomotives that don't have ditch lights? Why?
My layout is post 1996, when ditch lights basically became mandatory. Although handy with rewiring locomotives, the tedious process of installing tiny LED's into the stands is something I've put off.
If the advantages of DCC include sound AND lighting, then why not make some versions of smaller locomotives have full modern light packages?
That might sound like a small market, but its 2012. Is there really that much more demand for a specific, say, 1950's SP light package version of a GP9 than a modern solid black generic shortline version with ditch lights? I would think every layout of a modern bent could use one.
Between the Atlas Genset, GP40-2W, and if Athearn would produce LED ditch light versions of the GP15, GP9, or GP38-2, there may be enough variety out there for me to scrap DC-only.
Doughless,
Great points for those they apply to. But I model the early 50's, some mars lights were showing up, that was about it. Easily done in DC.
Many railroads still ran dark in daylight, diesel or steam, the ditch light did not even exist?
My modeling needs/interests don't need DCC lighting effects either. My full votlage pulse width throttles turn on typical DC constant lighting circuits before the loco moves - simpler - cheaper - easier.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless, Great points for those they apply to. But I model the early 50's, some mars lights were showing up, that was about it. Easily done in DC. Many railroads still ran dark in daylight, diesel or steam, the ditch light did not even exist? My modeling needs/interests don't need DCC lighting effects either. My full votlage pulse width throttles turn on typical DC constant lighting circuits before the loco moves - simpler - cheaper - easier. Sheldon
Yes Sheldon. My Aristo BTE does the same thing with LEDs, and if I installed ditch lights, the ditch lights would work the same way. The issue for me is, do I want to take the next step towards accuracy and model ditch lights, and do they need to be able to strobe or alternate?
As I get more particular about accuracy, the idea of my post 1996 freelanced fleet not having ditch lights at all is beginning to bother me.
And here's an issue related to Fred's cost analysis, if I don't learn to install them myself, I may just punt and convert to DCC to get the LED ditch lights in the first place, provided the producers make more models than the Genset or GP40-2W.
However, if I learn to install them myself, and since the BTE works very well as static lighting, the only reason to convert to DCC would be to get the strobe/alternation. In which case, I'd be going DCC just to get the incremental step up to those effects, making the cost of it very expensive.
I can see a scenario where if the manufacturers delay in offering working ditch lights in smaller locomotives, I'll eventually learn to do it myself and have less incentive to convert.
Or, I might just move back to about 1995, which is the easiest fix.
And, if lone wolf modelers tend to have layouts too small for the six axle wide cabs, and as time moves on, I think this issue applies to more and more modelers.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain: ATLANTIC CENTRAL: Ulimately a series of improvements to the system used on my last layout, MZL control, was seen as more effecive for my goals than DCC. Due largely to my desire for signaling and CTC and my dislike for onboard sound in small scales like HO, DCC would add little "play value" over my current system for a very large additional investment of both TIME and money. Ahhh, I sense a small crack in Sheldon's windshield. So, it is, at least in part, TIME and money holding him back. Signaling and CTC can be accomplished in DCC, and I gotta believe that HO scale onboard sound is not as objectionable to Sheldon as he protests it to be. Realistically, Sheldon, I know that you cannot admit it. But, secretly, deep down, there is a yearning in your soul for DCC, the freedom to operate multiple trains without blocks, the sheer thrill of sounding those horns, whistles and bells. Me thinks thou doth protest too much ! Rich Rich, Your perception is distorted by your own likes and dislikes, a weakness we all suffer from. We all want to think that others are "like us". I value my time and money too much to waste it on things I don't want, and unlike many others, I have figured out what I really want, not what others say I should want. As for bells or whistles, that is in my long range plan, just not IN the locomotives. Rich - how old are you? I designed and built my first HiFi speaker system in 1972, I now listen to music/movies on a surround sound system I designed, built and marketed in the 80's/90's. I have 1700 vinyl records, 700 music CD's, two tunrtables, etc, and I'm not interested in ANY sound coming from a 1" speaker. I'm only on this computer now because personal obligations allow this activity and not actually working on the layout. think carefully about my long absences from this forum - I am often otherwise engaged. Sheldon
richhotrain: ATLANTIC CENTRAL: Ulimately a series of improvements to the system used on my last layout, MZL control, was seen as more effecive for my goals than DCC. Due largely to my desire for signaling and CTC and my dislike for onboard sound in small scales like HO, DCC would add little "play value" over my current system for a very large additional investment of both TIME and money. Ahhh, I sense a small crack in Sheldon's windshield. So, it is, at least in part, TIME and money holding him back. Signaling and CTC can be accomplished in DCC, and I gotta believe that HO scale onboard sound is not as objectionable to Sheldon as he protests it to be. Realistically, Sheldon, I know that you cannot admit it. But, secretly, deep down, there is a yearning in your soul for DCC, the freedom to operate multiple trains without blocks, the sheer thrill of sounding those horns, whistles and bells. Me thinks thou doth protest too much ! Rich
Sheldon, I am not quite sure what my age has to do with it, but I am retired in my mid-60's.
I didn't read a denial anywhere in that response. Does that mean that you do secretly yearn for DCC?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I designed and built my first HiFi speaker system in 1972, I now listen to music/movies on a surround sound system I designed, built and marketed in the 80's/90's. I have 1700 vinyl records, 700 music CD's, two tunrtables, etc, and I'm not interested in ANY sound coming from a 1" speaker.
I designed and built my first HiFi speaker system in 1972, I now listen to music/movies on a surround sound system I designed, built and marketed in the 80's/90's. I have 1700 vinyl records, 700 music CD's, two tunrtables, etc, and I'm not interested in ANY sound coming from a 1" speaker.
Having sound in an HO scale locomotive is not all about being an audiophile to appreciate it. If the sounds accurately reproduce the sounds of the prototype, that's all that should matter. That alone should be enough to enjoy sound, and DCC seems to be required to do that.
As far as true fidelity goes, even the finest surround sound systems cannot truly equal the presence of a live band or orchestra experience, so why bother with that either?
ATLANTIC CENTRALFirst I would ask cuyama if he read the WHOLE thread or just jumped in based on Fred's post?
Just to answer your specific question: the whole thread. And the myriad identical threads before it.
I have said many times that if i was building a layout with a different theme, or different set of goals, or in a different scale I might very well choose DCC - I did almost choose it for this one.
Search my posts, you find that statement over and over.
But for THIS layout, in this scale, with this set of operational goals - DCC is NOT cost or time effective.
As for sound quality, there is "close enough" and not close enough.
For me, onboard sound in HO is not even in the running.
Now in larger scales - O scale, large scale, etc, I really like it.
Again, do a search of my views on sound in model trains, I'm not anti sound, I'm anti bad sound from 1" speakers that grates on my nerves because of its poor frequency response and limited dynamic range.
I will remind you again, I use DCC almost every week at our round robin operating sessions - except for the week that we run on a friends layout that has the same system as me.
At some point when the new version of the layout is comming along, my house will likely be added back into the round robin rotation.
There is nothing about the hard to read display, or the 32 buttons I can't get my fingers on, or the tiny endless wheel throttle of a DT400R that I like - but I use them - at other peoples houses.
IF I went DCC (for some other layout scheme) it would be almost anything other than Digitrax.
If you only knew how easy well planned DC advanced cab control is to operate............
But admittedly it's not easy to build - but it does not require all the expensive black boxes of DCC - and it has signaling and CTC built in - not as another high cost extra option.
Come on, tell me what feature of DCC would make me want to switch?
I don't need consisting, I have explained that on here a dozen or more times.
I don't want sound or need fancy lighting?
I don't need or want to operate a bunch of trains at once on a 4x8, the layout is 24 x 40.
My Aristo throttles are wireless, easy to use and give great slow speed.
My CTC system provides "no toggle flipping" operation by mainline train engineers.
That only leaves coupling one engine to another in the engine terminal as a point of some compromise on my part - for that I should spend an additional $5,000 when $20 worth of kill switches and good planning can do the same thing?
Well, after reading all of this I have the answer. At least to my satisfaction.
Those who wish to keep using DC due to preference or cost of upgrading will keep doing so until they get out of the hobby or die.
Those using DCC will do the same.
Every one is correct for what works for them. But I'm sure every one already knew this.
Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Time to move on, folks.
The OP summarized the discussion correctly with saying the DC folks will continue to like DC, and the DCC people will do just the same with DCC. No need to go on from here.