Doughless I think Sheldon's comment was simply offering an example to Brakie about why some of Brakie's friends went back to using DC. I offered another example of slow speed control, based upon my experience. Why Larry's friends went back to using DC is anyone's guess. But the fact that in certain operating scenarios, accomplishing something on a layout may be simpler with DC than with DCC. If people refuse to believe that, come see my layout. What one person believes is complicated may be simple to another. That is primarily driven by a level of interest one has in a particular matter, and the time they want to devote to that matter, not their aptitude. In the context of this thread, what the future holds for the percentages, and what new technology develops, there will be some who value the end result over the process of getting there, and will look at everything in total. And there will be some who will be intrigued by the processes, and enjoy devoting more of their time to exploring those processes. Neither is better, and both can lead to an enjoyment in the hobby.
I think Sheldon's comment was simply offering an example to Brakie about why some of Brakie's friends went back to using DC. I offered another example of slow speed control, based upon my experience.
Why Larry's friends went back to using DC is anyone's guess. But the fact that in certain operating scenarios, accomplishing something on a layout may be simpler with DC than with DCC. If people refuse to believe that, come see my layout.
What one person believes is complicated may be simple to another. That is primarily driven by a level of interest one has in a particular matter, and the time they want to devote to that matter, not their aptitude.
In the context of this thread, what the future holds for the percentages, and what new technology develops, there will be some who value the end result over the process of getting there, and will look at everything in total. And there will be some who will be intrigued by the processes, and enjoy devoting more of their time to exploring those processes. Neither is better, and both can lead to an enjoyment in the hobby.
Doughless,
Thank You
Stix,
Read the responses from Dougless - he is right on target.
I do understand that if I put the exact same decoder in 3 matched units, I can expect the same performance I had before. I know more about DCC than you think.
My point remains, multiply everything you do to install and set up a decoder x 130 in my case.
I have NEVER needed to add resistors or make other electrical modifications to match any of my DC locos for MU operation. So that time spent is ZERO for me.
DCC is great for those who need or want its features - as several smart posters have noted throughout this thread, not every set of layout goals or desires requires or benefits from those features.
Or, in my case, the small benefits gained with DCC, compared to the cost of DCC, would be way past the point of diminishing returns when compared to my goal list and the features already present with my integrated radio DC system with signaling, CTC and turnout control.
My goal list does not include onboard sound, turning headlights on and off, or helper service.
Sheldon
- Douglas
Rich,
From wikipedia, a good short explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Command_Control
A digital command control system was developed (under contract) by Lenz Elektronik GmbH of Germany in the 1980s for two German model railway manufacturers, Märklin and Arnold (models). The first digital decoders that Lenz produced appeared on the market early 1989 for Arnold (N) and mid 1990 for Märklin (Z, H0 and 1; Digital=).[1] Märklin and Arnold exited the agreement over patent issues, but Lenz has continued to develop the system. In 1992 Stan Ames, who later chaired the NMRA/DCC Working Group, investigated the Märklin/Lenz system as possible candidate for the NMRA/DCC standards. When the NMRA Command Control committee requested submissions from manufacturers for its proposed command control standard in the 1990s, Märklin and Keller Engineering submitted their systems for evaluation.[2] The committee was impressed by the Märklin/Lenz system and had settled on digital early in the process. The NMRA eventually licensed the protocol from Lenz and extended it. The system was later named Digital Command Control. The proposed standard was published in the October 1993 issue of Model Railroader magazine prior to its adoption.
The DCC protocol is the subject of two standards published by the NMRA: S-9.1 specifies the electrical standard, and S-9.2 specifies the communications standard. Several recommended practices documents are also available.
So we're roughly two decades into the DCC age.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
A lot of that depends on which decoders you use. I now use TCS motor decoders exclusively, and for every one of those, I've had to not adjust a darn thing to get them to creep along beautifully at tie counting speeds. Others may require tweaking of the BEMF parameters which are best undersootd by an EE specializing in motor feedback since they involve parameters in a complex formula. Although some of THOSE have listed in their documentation fairly simple trial and error methodologies for setting them, without knowing that engineering stuff.
DCC is no harder nor no easier than you make it. And that's the beauty of it all, if one manufacturer doesn't do things the way you like, another will, and it will all run together.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
What Stix said.
And if you have two completely different locos with different decoders, then the CVs allow one to speed match. I try to adjust such a pair so they will run a few inches apart at all speeds. That is not completely necessary but it makes me feel good.
Enjoy the day.
Lee
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But on my own layout it would mean hours, maybe hundreds of hours of work that I don't need or want to do. And I don't mean to install the system or the decoders, but that would be a big job too. Eaxmple - MU and speed matching of locos. All my DC lashups run fine together, and most of my steam will double head together regardless of brand or wheel arrangement. BUT, if I had DCC, all these locos would require speed matching, CV adjustments, test loop running, etc, etc, etc, - which would take time. I have over 130 locos, all of which are part of the layout operating scheme. I know from the experience of others that two DC locos that run fine together will likely not after decoder installs - until they have their CV's adjusted - matching my fleet of 130 locos to run as well together on DCC as they do now on DC would be a big job. Also, the whole process of consisting and "un-consisting" locos is extra work I hate when operating DCC on others layouts - at my house they just get coupled together - no 5 minute button pushing exercises. Sheldon
But on my own layout it would mean hours, maybe hundreds of hours of work that I don't need or want to do. And I don't mean to install the system or the decoders, but that would be a big job too.
Eaxmple - MU and speed matching of locos. All my DC lashups run fine together, and most of my steam will double head together regardless of brand or wheel arrangement.
BUT, if I had DCC, all these locos would require speed matching, CV adjustments, test loop running, etc, etc, etc, - which would take time. I have over 130 locos, all of which are part of the layout operating scheme. I know from the experience of others that two DC locos that run fine together will likely not after decoder installs - until they have their CV's adjusted - matching my fleet of 130 locos to run as well together on DCC as they do now on DC would be a big job.
Also, the whole process of consisting and "un-consisting" locos is extra work I hate when operating DCC on others layouts - at my house they just get coupled together - no 5 minute button pushing exercises.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL BRAKIE I know three guys that gave up DCC as being to "complicated".. I don't understand that reason at all either. Larry, I will give you my personal reasons why DCC is too complicated for me. It is not that I don't understand it or know how to use it, I use it on other peoples layouts all the time. But on my own layout it would mean hours, maybe hundreds of hours of work that I don't need or want to do. And I don't mean to install the system or the decoders, but that would be a big job too. Eaxmple - MU and speed matching of locos. All my DC lashups run fine together, and most of my steam will double head together regardless of brand or wheel arrangement. BUT, if I had DCC, all these locos would require speed matching, CV adjustments, test loop running, etc, etc, etc, - which would take time. I have over 130 locos, all of which are part of the layout operating scheme. I know from the experience of others that two DC locos that run fine together will likely not after decoder installs - until they have their CV's adjusted - matching my fleet of 130 locos to run as well together on DCC as they do now on DC would be a big job. Also, the whole process of consisting and "un-consisting" locos is extra work I hate when operating DCC on others layouts - at my house they just get coupled together - no 5 minute button pushing exercises. That is time I would rather spend building a structure or freight car or running the trains. So for some of us, DCC comes with unwanted and unneeded complexity. Sheldon
BRAKIE I know three guys that gave up DCC as being to "complicated".. I don't understand that reason at all either.
I know three guys that gave up DCC as being to "complicated".. I don't understand that reason at all either.
Larry, I will give you my personal reasons why DCC is too complicated for me.
It is not that I don't understand it or know how to use it, I use it on other peoples layouts all the time.
That is time I would rather spend building a structure or freight car or running the trains.
So for some of us, DCC comes with unwanted and unneeded complexity.
Sheldon,
I just recently purchased and installed a NCE DCC system, and I agree with your statements above. I run slow speed operations and to get the decoder equipped locomotives to operate as well as they did with my Aristocraft DC throttle (before I installed decoders in them) required a lot of experimentation with the starting and mid range voltage CV's, as well as some others.
I wouldn't use the word complicated as in difficult, but rather complicated as in fiddling with button pushing to get the motor control set up correctly, as opposed to just placing the loco on the layout and hitting the throttle; with the end result of smooth slow speed operation being the same.
mlehman Stix, I doubt that any new loco models will be introduced from this point on that are DC-only. In fact, someone better acquainted with current models might be able to tell us whether or not any have been introduced in the last few years. Sure, there's continued production of models already on the market. But even those are being converted to be DCC-ready when updates are done to them by the manufacturer.
I doubt that any new loco models will be introduced from this point on that are DC-only. In fact, someone better acquainted with current models might be able to tell us whether or not any have been introduced in the last few years. Sure, there's continued production of models already on the market. But even those are being converted to be DCC-ready when updates are done to them by the manufacturer.
All very interesting.
What specific development(s) made DCC possible?
Rich
Alton Junction
rrinkerKinda suprised the concept didn;t take hold even before DCC,
Randy Here something I would like to share.I recall the discussion me and three other student members had at the Columbus HO club way back in '64.
We discussed how nice it would be to have independent locomotive control..Our thoughts back then was to use R/C using AA size batteries in the fuel tank..
Of course the old heads told us that independent train control won't happen but,it was nice to be young and dream the impossible.
Looking back I fully believe we knew that had to be a better way.
I will be using my Tech 6 for DCC/sound control on my 1' x 10' switching layout.I also have the Tech 6 hand held throttle in case I want to emulate Progressive Rails Lakeville operations.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
We're at $11.99 for decoder now, and have been for some time - 10 packs of NCE D13SRJ;s are $119.95 at several places.
I think that short of cheap train set bits, the days of DC only are done. Apart from a few design mistakes, most any new loco is pretty darn easy to add a decoder to. It would be nice if the industry could reach a consensus on just what "DCC Ready" means, because there are still too many products being made that stamp this label on the box but they most dfinitely aren't.
Kinda suprised the concept didn;t take hold even before DCC, since the idea of providing a socket in between the track pickup and motor wires isn;t just for DCC - it would work for any sort of control system requiring a loco install, PLUS you just short the appropriate pins and it's a plain old DC loco. Zero downside to DCC users, zero downside to DC users, and zero downside to any potential future system.
mlehman 50 cents in industrial scale quantities was what I was referring to; our street price would be something like $10, if it was available separately.
50 cents in industrial scale quantities was what I was referring to; our street price would be something like $10, if it was available separately.
Oh..Ok..
I also forgot seeing decoders for $16.95($19.95 MSRP) at Tony's Train Exchange so,I can see where a 10 buck decoder could become a reality.
As far as tiny decoders they already make a plug and play decoder for Z Scale.
BRAKIEI don't think we will see 50 cent decoders any time sound..
Larry,
The Europeans tend to be ahead of us in miniaturizing decoders. After all, most decoders are essentially what would be one or more integrated circuits (IC) in most other devices these days. Once you think about it, it makes sense for decoders to be bigger than they actually need to be for us ham-handed folks. The wire hookups, capacitor and the board itself are all bigger than most need to be. However, it's an acceptable form factor that works for most of what we need in HO. The N scalers probably see something closer to an IC in size for many of theirs already, but I'm talking even smaller than many of them.
And there are many, many ICs out there that designers just drop into devices when they need a certain range of functions. No real reason for not making them smaller, DCC-decoder on a chip, but when they do, people will likely be paying less for them pretty quickly after they're first introduced. In a world of increasingly scarce resources, an IC-sized DCC decoder will eventually have a price advantage over the relatively bulky decoders we tend to use now.
mlehman It will actually get to the point soon when doing that cost the manufacturermore than simply putting the decoder in and letting those who want either DC or a different DCC board deal with it after purchase.
Just about all of Bachmann's latest locomotives are DCC equipped..I'm told the C44-9W and GP7/9 will be released with sound and the H16-44 will become DCC/Sound equipped...Street should be around $100.00
Seems like Deja vu from when Life Like was turning the hobby world upside down with their highly detailed P2K locomotives.
So,if the other manufacturers follows suit with affordable DCC equipped locomotives,we may see a study growth in DCC..As you know a Bachmann GP40-2 with DCC on board can be had for around $40-45.00. One could use a EZ DCC system(less then $100.00 street) for simple DCC operations.
BTW and food for thought..The EZ DCC system cost less then some DC power packs.
I don't think we will see 50 cent decoders any time sound..
wjstix Maybe we should clarify terms a little. To me a "DC only" engine is one like some of the Bachmann engines, like their FM H-16-44 or F40 where the motor uses the frame to collect power. You have to disassemble the engine, isolate the motor, and do a 'hardwire' DCC installation to convert it. I think those engines will eventually disappear. They will either be discontinued or the manufacturer will upgrade the motor / chassis to have an isolated motor and provision be made for an easy plug-in or drop-in DCC installation. "DCC ready" to me means an engine that out of the box will run only on DC. It doesn't have a decoder installed but has the motor isolated from the frame, and an 8- or 9-pin DCC receptacle (or at least a lightboard that could easily be replaced with a replacement drop-in decoder) for easy conversion. I think those type of engines will be made for a long time, as many folks prefer to buy those engines and choose which decoder they want to install, rather than going with the (often inferior grade) factory installed decoder.
Maybe we should clarify terms a little. To me a "DC only" engine is one like some of the Bachmann engines, like their FM H-16-44 or F40 where the motor uses the frame to collect power. You have to disassemble the engine, isolate the motor, and do a 'hardwire' DCC installation to convert it. I think those engines will eventually disappear. They will either be discontinued or the manufacturer will upgrade the motor / chassis to have an isolated motor and provision be made for an easy plug-in or drop-in DCC installation.
"DCC ready" to me means an engine that out of the box will run only on DC. It doesn't have a decoder installed but has the motor isolated from the frame, and an 8- or 9-pin DCC receptacle (or at least a lightboard that could easily be replaced with a replacement drop-in decoder) for easy conversion. I think those type of engines will be made for a long time, as many folks prefer to buy those engines and choose which decoder they want to install, rather than going with the (often inferior grade) factory installed decoder.
Stix, nearly everything in production in the last 10 years or more is "DCC ready", at least to the degree of the motor being isolated from the frame.
And just to be "clear", all my references to DC locos refer to locos without decoders installed, DCC ready as they may be, they are still DC out of the box.
"DCC ready" is only important to someone who plans to install a decoder - to a DC operator it is just a DC loco that does not have parts we don't want.
Any successor to DCC will probably be wireless like RailPro. RailPro can use DCC power and will not interfere with DCC operations. The point is that DCC layouts can continue to be DCC layouts while entertaining other systems that do not require DCC signals. The DCC investment can be retained.
About half the people I know use DCC. The other half is looking at it. So, I would say in 5 to 10 years about half of that half will be DCC, leaving 1/4 still DC. Sound, ease of operations and MUing is driving a lot of it from those I speak with. I went DCC( before sound) because of the easy radio capability/operations.
Richard
DCC-ready will still be around for awhile. But when a large percentage of buyers are going to use DCC and the decoder is now about 50 cents (maybe not yet, but I bet it's not far away -- well that's what I was trying to explain anyway in my last comment) and dual DC/DCC mode, then there's little incentive to produce and stock two otherwise identical forms of the same model. It will actually get to the point soon when doing that cost the manufacturermore than simply putting the decoder in and letting those who want either DC or a different DCC board deal with it after purchase.
Of course this assumes an OEM DCC board is decent. Bachmann is almost there, the board in my newish 44 tonner is pretty good and much better than the ones that came in the 70-tonners, which I just pitch on arrival. Maybe next year they'll have that all fixed.
richhotrainI just hope, if that is true, that the successor to DCC is backward compatible,
Rich,Guessing here but,that could be done-maybe a dual mode CV setting?
That's way over my head.
BRAKIE richhotrain Interesting, so you think that DCC is a passing fancy? Rich Nope,all I'm saying is technology can not be held back and there will be a better control system invented. Its a matter of time.
richhotrain Interesting, so you think that DCC is a passing fancy? Rich
Interesting, so you think that DCC is a passing fancy?
Nope,all I'm saying is technology can not be held back and there will be a better control system invented.
Its a matter of time.
I just hope, if that is true, that the successor to DCC is backward compatible, given all of the equipment and expense that I and so many others have committed to this aspect of the hobby.
Another factor that may influence the percentages is layout theme or operating plan. I run one train at a time, and therefore, have no real need for DCC (although I bought a system to run onboard sound locos). Others may like to run one train unattended while switching a local, and use two separate circuits to accomplish this. No real need for anything other than DC in that case too. So as long as there are these types of layouts, there will be a demand for lower cost DC.
Who knows what those percentages will be in 5 - 10 years. Do those types of layouts fade away over time? I wouldn't think they would.
Also, as the population ages, perhaps mobility and other concerns take over and folks will be moving from a complex basement empire to a simpler layout that will only need DC (although once converted to DCC, they will likely stay with DCC on a smaller layout)
Rick Mugele ]5 or 10 years from now, you will see about as many DC layouts as landline telephones.
]5 or 10 years from now, you will see about as many DC layouts as landline telephones.
hobo9941 5 or 10 years from now, you will see about as many DC layouts as landline telephones. At some point, manufacturers will just stop making DC equipment, just like they stopped making vinyl records, cassette tapes, and 8 tracks, when sales drop below some pre determined level. In 5 or 10 years from now, there will still be millions of landline telephones, so if there are going to be that many DC layouts, by then, we better start building lots more now.
5 or 10 years from now, you will see about as many DC layouts as landline telephones. At some point, manufacturers will just stop making DC equipment, just like they stopped making vinyl records, cassette tapes, and 8 tracks, when sales drop below some pre determined level.
In 5 or 10 years from now, there will still be millions of landline telephones, so if there are going to be that many DC layouts, by then, we better start building lots more now.
DC will be around till the end of the hobby..There will always be those that prefer DC over DCC due to the cost.
Of course if other manufacturers follow Bachmann's lead and have a line of inexpensive DCC equipped locomotives then the tide could turn.
I decided years ago I will never do the job of a hostler on a DCC layout again.Once is enough.
After a 3(4?) hour operation session I felt like I was a accountant.
I used a Tech 6 for my DC and my lone decoder equipped locomotive and I just bought the Tech 6 handheld..I will need that more for walk around then its intended DCC use.I do plan on adding DCC/ Sound equipped locomotive or locomotives in the near future..
I do like DCC's big plus..Programable CVs.
]5 or 10 years from now, you will see about as many DC layouts as landline telephones.[/quote][quote user="hobo9941"]
Landline Phone [only] - check
Vinyl records [cassette decks, too] - check
True, there are a lot of us out here, but I'm not kidding myself when there's only one model of phone available with a cord among the 100s of wireless offerings at the big box.
I doubt DC will ever get quite that scarce, though, at retail; just too many people want a train set for Xmas.
Any discussion about technology necessarily includes people and what they want. People want an affordable train to run around the tree without having to decrypt some new computer language to get it to go. They want simple, I doubt that's going away.
Real DC layouts will still be with us in numbers for several more decades. I tend to think that there will be a few new DC layouts built, too, and that the available hardware will still be available in used, if not always in new form and even cheap enough eventually that people will seek it out for that reason alone. The price of copper will affect that some, because those old power packs will rise in scrap value if it keeps going up, tending to whittle away as more unfortunately go to recycling than to new owners willing to put them to work.
I suspect the trend towards more DC versions of locos being offered lately likely has more to do with an ailing economy, however, than with any reversal in trends. Some people don't want DCC, so they ditch the decoder. Some manufacturers think they need more offerings for those who can't afford that, but will if a decoder [that will be surplus to them) is taken out of the equation.
Of course, given that a decoder is an electronic device, its cost is more likely to fall according to Moore's law (http://www.laits.utexas.edu/~anorman/61N/Text/microelectronics/micro%20III.html), unlike the non-electronic components of a loco. Eventually most locos will likely be sold as DCC-equipped, but DC-capable, because the cost of the decoder will be low enough it makes more economic sense to to stock one version, rather than two throughout the manufacturing and distribution chain. Bachmann's use of these DC/DCC decoders is an example of this trend, although those decoders often still need work. What did you expect for "free"? Eventually, they will get that right, too.
Does this mean DC will go away? Nope, because inclusion of dual mode, DC/DCC technology for those decoders will fall along with the overall price of the decoder according to Moore's law, too. I guess what I'm saying, as shocking as it may seem, is that DCC will eventually save DC, so long as those Xmas sets are out there. They'll come with a DC powerpack, but with a dual mode loco instead. The real question will be how fast command station technology follows decoder technology in dropping costs. That lag will determine the actual cut-off date for new DC-only production, but I think it's really hard to say when that might be, perhaps even IF it might be.
BRAKIE hobo9941 5 or 10 years from now, you will see about as many DC layouts as landline telephones. At some point, manufacturers will just stop making DC equipment, just like they stopped making vinyl records, cassette tapes, and 8 tracks, when sales drop below some pre determined level. I'm surprise DCC is still around seeing how things has revolved over the past 10 years. Of course I remember when VCRs and Atari was all the rage and how fast they came and went replaced by newer technology. I recall when MRC "Golden Power Pack was top notch technology then came their ControlMaster 10 with adjustable track voltage and momentum.Now there's the Tech 6 that gives you the best of both worlds. So,in the next 5-10 years who knows? Maybe in the next 20 years we may hear the question what's the percentage between DCC users and (say) Super Controler Mark 5?
hobo9941 5 or 10 years from now, you will see about as many DC layouts as landline telephones. At some point, manufacturers will just stop making DC equipment, just like they stopped making vinyl records, cassette tapes, and 8 tracks, when sales drop below some pre determined level.
I'm surprise DCC is still around seeing how things has revolved over the past 10 years.
Of course I remember when VCRs and Atari was all the rage and how fast they came and went replaced by newer technology.
I recall when MRC "Golden Power Pack was top notch technology then came their ControlMaster 10 with adjustable track voltage and momentum.Now there's the Tech 6 that gives you the best of both worlds.
So,in the next 5-10 years who knows?
Maybe in the next 20 years we may hear the question what's the percentage between DCC users and (say) Super Controler Mark 5?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL hobo9941 5 or 10 years from now, you will see about as many DC layouts as landline telephones. At some point, manufacturers will just stop making DC equipment, just like they stopped making vinyl records, cassette tapes, and 8 tracks, when sales drop below some pre determined level. You might be surprised to learn how many people still have land line telelphones, and they still make vinyl records. Maybe one day they will stop making DC (or DCC ready) locos, but there is NO trend in that direction yet. Broadway Limited alone does not constitute a trend, in fact the trend is slightly in the other direction. MTH added DCC ready to what started out as only DCS/DCC with sound offerings. Bachmann chose to offer the EM-1 only with a low cost non sound dual mode decoder and make sound a plug in up grade. Everyone else still offers both. Sheldon
You might be surprised to learn how many people still have land line telelphones, and they still make vinyl records.
Maybe one day they will stop making DC (or DCC ready) locos, but there is NO trend in that direction yet. Broadway Limited alone does not constitute a trend, in fact the trend is slightly in the other direction. MTH added DCC ready to what started out as only DCS/DCC with sound offerings. Bachmann chose to offer the EM-1 only with a low cost non sound dual mode decoder and make sound a plug in up grade. Everyone else still offers both.
I agree with Sheldon.
It is hard to imagine discontinuing DC locos any time soon.
It is much cheaper and much easier to operate in DC mode. The locos are less expensive and the power supplies are less expensive. Most hobbyists still operate smaller layouts and don't need the added flexibilty of DCC.
Even BLI locos operate on DC power right out of the box.
DC is here to stay, and that said from a proud DCC operator.