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.
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
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.
- Douglas
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
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
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.
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
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 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.
mlehman 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, thanks for providing this info.
What I meant, though, is electronic developments that led to DCC as an alternative to DC.
I am no electronics expert so I don't even know the right terminology.
But, was it the process of miniaturization, circuit boards?
In other words, what electronically opened up the opportunity to develop DCC and even more specifically, the decoder, where it wasn't possible before?
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrainMike, thanks for providing this info. What I meant, though, is electronic developments that led to DCC as an alternative to DC. I am no electronics expert so I don't even know the right terminology. But, was it the process of miniaturization, circuit boards? In other words, what electronically opened up the opportunity to develop DCC and even more specifically, the decoder, where it wasn't possible before? Rich
do you really think it was impossible to implement a remote control system before 1993? (at what $$$)
I think the availability of sufficiently inexpensive processors and power transistors which were more targeted for motor control applications made the price of decoders reasonable. Many small pico-processors now have built in digital-to-analog converters, used to receive commands, and pulse-width modulated outputs, well suited for simple voltage control.
greg
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregc richhotrainMike, thanks for providing this info. What I meant, though, is electronic developments that led to DCC as an alternative to DC. I am no electronics expert so I don't even know the right terminology. But, was it the process of miniaturization, circuit boards? In other words, what electronically opened up the opportunity to develop DCC and even more specifically, the decoder, where it wasn't possible before? Rich do you really think it was impossible to implement a remote control system before 1993? (at what $$$) I think the availability of sufficiently inexpensive processors and power transistors which were more targeted for motor control applications made the price of decoders reasonable. Many small pico-processors now have built in digital-to-analog converters, used to receive commands, and pulse-width modulated outputs, well suited for simple voltage control. greg
Actually, there have many attempts at command control over the years.
The first commercial product was Lionel's Electronic Set in 1949. It featured independent frequency control of coupling, direction, and operation of the operating cars (dump cars). In each case, a relay was tuned to a separate frequency, and when that button was pushed on the controller, the designated relay would activate for its function. Very expensive for the day ($99), and difficult to keep receivers and transmitters aligned.
Next up in commercial command control was GE's ASTRAC system, produced in the 1962-1963 era. It also used discrete frequencies for independent control of 5 locomotives. ASTRAC was explained in the pages of Model Railroader, but sales apparently were very few. Decoders were small cubes of discrete components, capable of fitting in steam tenders and diesels.
CTC-16 was the first digital command control scheme that I know of. It was fairly successful, with a number of adopters in the 1980s. It was expanded - I'm not sure with how much backward compatibility - as digital processing power became more available and cheaper. You could build your own circuits and decoders - or buy commercial.
I believe one of the attractions of the Lenz DCC spec in the beginning was the combining of track power with the command signal. Previous command control systems had relied on super-imposing the command signal on fixed AC or DC track power. This tended to create engineering challenges in keeping a sufficiently robust command signal and signal timing throughout a layout without impacting the track power.
Once battery power becomes usable and available in N and HO scales, I believe command control will move to direct radio control. The attraction of being able to run with dirty track or wheels will be almost impossible to ignore.
my thoughts and experiences
Fred W
Obviously a few others in there, just prior to Lenz was the Hornby Zero-1 system which like Lenz's system used the full amplitude of the power waveform as the signal, MR even had an visit to the factory adn they were shown around, unfortunately Hornby was already in rather dire financial straits and it all but died.
Some of the CTC-16 successors were at least partially compatible, with limitations. First there was CTC-16, which itself was an update to the Alphatronics system that came after Astrac, then CTC-16E, then CTC-80, and finally Railcommand.
Then there was Dynatrol from PSI (who also made some very nice DC power packs with lots of features, including walkarounds), and the OnBoard system from Keller, which had sound modules for the locos as well as receivers (they called them 'throttles'). Those are pretty much all the ones that had any decent amount of advertising presence in MR over the years. Keller even offered an adapter to convert to DCC.
I remember the fights over definining a standard on the CompuServe Trainboard forums back in those days. At the time, the CVP Railcommand offered a lot more control features than did the Lenz design - the early Lenz system offered only 14 speed steps, and just forward and reverse headloights, no extra functions, and also a max of 99 addresses. Wish there were still archives of that stuff, it was pre-internet so there's no option of using Wayback or anything to find it, but I was very much in favor of the Railcommand system being adopted over the Lenz.
What I meant, though, is electronic developments that led to DCC as an alternative to DC. I am no electronics expert so I don't even know the right terminology. But, was it the process of miniaturization, circuit boards? In other words, what electronically opened up the opportunity to develop DCC and even more specifically, the decoder, where it wasn't possible before?
Simple: the switch from analog to digital computers, and the ever decreasing cost and size of those components.
This page on DCC History has most of the details.
betamax, thanks for posting that link. Very interesting and very helpful.
richhotrain Mike, thanks for providing this info. What I meant, though, is electronic developments that led to DCC as an alternative to DC. I am no electronics expert so I don't even know the right terminology. But, was it the process of miniaturization, circuit boards?
It was two things that made DCC possible vs DC. People have filled in a number of things about predecessors to DCC, a rather large number. All utilized discrete components, rather than integrated circuits, although a few right at the end did use simple ICs. In fact, Sheldon or someone else who is up on all the latest DC hardware may be better placed than I am whether DC throttles currently produced use ICs and to what extent.
So you're real close as far as the circuit board being one focus, although more correctly what replaced it, the IC, and made the complex implementation we enjoy the benefits of possible in DCC. The IC is a way to implement those digital instructions affordably. Most still go on a board with a number of other discrete components, but as I noted DCC-board-on-a-chip is either alreayd here or will soon be, if you want really tiny.
The key to the IC is the transistor, which preceded it in the 1950s and making tubes, the logic system of the day obsolete. Transistors also made the more complex DC throttles possible, as even as discrete components, they still allowed a considerably more compact and practical control system than anything with tubes would've ever been. An IC is basically a maze of transistors that are programmable to do various operations. The military was a leading supporter of the use of both transistors and IC, in the 50s and 60s respectively.
Putting the technology to work then was a case of using digital implementation in DCC of things that were previously done with analog devices via DC.
Of course, all that is a gross oversimplification of a complex set of rapidly changing technical design paradigms since WWII, a caveat I throw out as a historian of science and technology writing early on a Saturday morning.
If I mispoke, I'll fix it in the morning, but I think that was what you're looking for.
Tesla demonstrated a radio control boat in 1898. The model railroad hobby has been a bit behind the R/C boat hobby in adapting wireless technology Railroads first used pulse codes in CTC starting in 1927. Time division multiplexing (TDM) goes back to 1853 and was used in telegraph communications. It just takes the model railroad community a wee bit longer waiting on the communications technology to be miniaturized.
DCC adoption is growing steadily -- I just made the jump to DCC earlier this month.
I would guess that at somewhere between 40-60% of model railroaders run DCC. I do think Model Railroader magazine has an agenda to increase that percentage; I'm not a subscriber but I buy copies occasionally at my LHS. I have about 9 issues from the past 5 years and 5 of them include an article entitled, "10 Easy Tips To Convert Your Layout to DCC."
I know the industry wants to see DCC become the standard, which I think is good, but I don't think the industry making a good enough effort to make that happen. Train sets are the entry into the hobby, and very few of them are DCC-equipped.
Even with online hobby store discounts, the cost of a locomotive with a factory-installed decoder is still more than buying a DCC-ready loco and the appropriate drop-in decoder separately. That sort of becomes a barrier for non-DCC uers to adopt it.
Most important is user-friendliness. Programming DCCs and the very confusing and awkward user interfaces of DCC controllers can make programming CVs difficult. I'm an extremely technologically-savvy person; I've designed websites and can program music synthesizers, but it even took me a while to wrap my head around CVs.
Computer applications like JMRI make DCC programming and operation much more easier -- but why does it require the purchase of another piece of equipment to interface a DCC controller with a computer? Why can't DCC systems come with USB built in? We have radios, clocks and automobiles with built-in USB, why not DCC systems?
Unless those things can be addressed by the model railroading industry, DCC adoption will still be slow, and by the time people will have caught up, the protocol will be outdated for the times.
Every magazine has an agenda, be it a bigger boat, better golf clubs, or six horsepower boosts for under $300. Don't think the model airplane magazines ignore radio control either.
Since DCC is the way forward, and MR tries to appeal to a broad spectrum of modellers, they will talk about DCC and how you can upgrade to it.
DCC is a standard, that is why it has been so successful. Of course the sellers want to see more people embracing command control, and if they go with DCC, that means more business for that industry segment. Train sets are all about the cost, so many of them throw in a $2 power pack. A basic DCC system might double the price of the set.
One reason a DCC equipped locomotive costs more is people are willing to trade time for money. You buy it, take it home and drop it on the track. Ready to go. While some are not willing to spend the time installing a decoder and speakers, the idea scares others. So you pay a premium. The flip side is you can decide which decoder to use, and when to install it.
You are right that some systems are very hostile toward the user. That is where the external third party software comes into the picture. There are packages out there to help you do many tasks. But if you are a glutton for punishment, programming a Tsunami manually is the way to go. JMRI can do all of it in a matter of minutes, with easy to follow prompts.
As to the interface, well, every company has a different idea. Some use USB, others serial ports, and some have no connection to the outside world, or just refuse to allow anything other than their own software. Just like they all have different throttle buses. At least with an interface adaptor, you can choose what you need, based on the computer you have. Something like a LocoBuffer can be used to program your system and decoders, then taken to another layout and connected to its LocoNet as well. You don't need to get access to the command station either.
At the same time, people don't have to choose between products from one brand that come with or without an interface, or purchase features they will never use. Or be forced to buy an additional command station they don't need so they can have an interface.
Most of these issues are minor and don't really discourage adoption. The feature everyone wants is the ability to buy a DCC system secure in the knowledge that it works with any DCC compatible product. Your friend's locomotive will run on your layout if he has DCC too. If he has the same brand, your throttles are usable on his layout during an operating session.
betamax One reason a DCC equipped locomotive costs more is people are willing to trade time for money. You buy it, take it home and drop it on the track. Ready to go. While some are not willing to spend the time installing a decoder and speakers, the idea scares others. So you pay a premium. The flip side is you can decide which decoder to use, and when to install it.
I will add another reason, my reason.
I have the time to install decoders, and I have done quite a few myself. Money is not the issue with me because I can afford to buy a factory equipped DCC loco with sound.
For me, I prefer to buy a factory equipped DCC loco with sound over a DCC Ready loco because of the quality control factor. While I have never ruined a loco doing the decoder installation myself, at times it is difficult to remove the shell and/or fit the decoder. I fear damaging fine detail by messing with the shell. And, I feel that I lack the skill to do a "professional" installation job. And, I have managed to fry one or two decoders in my time.
So, time, money and confidence I have, but I prefer to let the manufacturer handle the installation for me.
I just got back into model railroading again after a 12 year lapse i chose to do my layout in DC i felt that a 6 x 10 layout didnt justify my cost especially since i had to start getting everything all over again. Another was the cost factor i just didnt want to pay the high prices for a DCC equiped loco call me cheap but i budget what i spend on my hobby and i dont want to sick my money i use for it on 1 item. I am very pleased with my results and the operation of my layout layoutALLzps8bda064f.mp4.html
Nice upbeat video, Keith. I wonder how you would place the two consists on the same blocks of track and get them to move in opposite directions without decoders and DCC installed.
Crandell
When I finally had room to build a layout, I considered DC. But as the planning went on, and the issue of providing power and routing it came into play, I started thinking about DC vs DCC. I concluded that a Zephyr didn't cost that much more, and I would save a lot of time and money on wiring the layout. After a lot of thought I realized that DC would probably cost as much, if not more than going to DCC right from the start, while saving time and money on a later conversion.
Besides, I wanted to run trains, not wires. Everyone I talked to in the local community was running DCC, it was just that much simpler. Plus I could get sound locomotives! Converting a modern locomotive to DCC is no big deal, nor was ripping out the Zero 1 decoder from a Royal Hudson and upgrading it to DCC.
selector Nice upbeat video, Keith. I wonder how you would place the two consists on the same blocks of track and get them to move in opposite directions without decoders and DCC installed. Crandell
Keith has already posted on another thread that he has the layout wired for dual cab control, so in the video each train is controlled by a separate throttle. Not hard or overly complex on a layout that size.
And yes those two trains could just as easily be going in opposite directions.
betamax When I finally had room to build a layout, I considered DC. But as the planning went on, and the issue of providing power and routing it came into play, I started thinking about DC vs DCC. I concluded that a Zephyr didn't cost that much more, and I would save a lot of time and money on wiring the layout. After a lot of thought I realized that DC would probably cost as much, if not more than going to DCC right from the start, while saving time and money on a later conversion. Besides, I wanted to run trains, not wires. Everyone I talked to in the local community was running DCC, it was just that much simpler. Plus I could get sound locomotives! Converting a modern locomotive to DCC is no big deal, nor was ripping out the Zero 1 decoder from a Royal Hudson and upgrading it to DCC.
Agreed - to a point.
In the many discussions of DC vs DCC, many enlightened people have stated that DCC has distinct advantages for small or medium sized layouts where multi train operation is desired. And in the small to medium sized layout range, with any signals or advanced turnout control, it does simplify wiring.
You will get no agruments from me on those points in those situations.
BUT, as soon as you start talking about a large layout, that will require multiple power districts, multiple reverser's, and you add signaling, advanced turnout control for CTC or control from wireless throttles, than the wiring infrastructure of a DCC layout quickly expands to rival the most complex and advanced DC systems ever built.
And the point still remains on small layouts, if only one operator is in play, DC is still simpler and less expensive.
And before any rebuttal about sound is made, I am well known in my view that if you want onboard sound in small scales, you need DCC.
DCC's advantage comes the minute you want to run a second train.
The size of the layout has little bearing on how complex the wiring for DCC will be. For operation in the old analog DC world, as the layout size grows (or really the trackage increases) the wiring is going to get ever more complex to install, maintain, and even use. Multiple toggle switches to route power from the power supply to the throttle and then to the track. Multiple power supplies with the need to route their power from one area to another. Switches to control reverse loops. Plus other issues that don't appear in DCC.
Signalling and detection is going to increase the amount of wiring, but that has little bearing on DCC. Same goes for controlling turnouts. There are easy and there are complex ways to deal with it, but ultimately they have no impact on the simplicity of wiring the track where DCC is concerned. They would be there anyway.
Wireless advantage comes the minute you want to run a second train. You do not have to add a DCC base station or change any wiring or put decoders in all of your locomotives.
Most of the train sets in the Walthers "Flyer" are DC which suggests that most folks will start with DC. This is where the future of DC will remain strong. If we include the short happy life of Christmas train sets, the percentage of DC "layouts" will remain high.
There are a growing number of wireless options that will allow multiple train operation without converting to DCC:
LocoLinc is a radio control system that has been around for a long time and has recievers and sound units that will fit HO.
Rail-Lynx is an infrared system that is affordable but does not offer sound systems.
RailPro is a new system that runs best on filtered DC, but will run on power-pack DC or DCC track power.
NWSL S-CAB has a great battery charge system that will recharge from any power above 4 volts on the track.
MRC has been making decoder/recievers for Athearn steam locomotives and the Walthers GP-15. A handy wireless remote is included with these recievers.
betamax DCC's advantage comes the minute you want to run a second train. The size of the layout has little bearing on how complex the wiring for DCC will be. For operation in the old analog DC world, as the layout size grows (or really the trackage increases) the wiring is going to get ever more complex to install, maintain, and even use. Multiple toggle switches to route power from the power supply to the throttle and then to the track. Multiple power supplies with the need to route their power from one area to another. Switches to control reverse loops. Plus other issues that don't appear in DCC. Signalling and detection is going to increase the amount of wiring, but that has little bearing on DCC. Same goes for controlling turnouts. There are easy and there are complex ways to deal with it, but ultimately they have no impact on the simplicity of wiring the track where DCC is concerned. They would be there anyway.
Betamax, respectfully, have you read this entire thread?
No one, not even me, is disputing the "features" of DCC. The real point regarding universal adoption is whether or not everyone wants and needs those features and will be willing to pay for them, and whether or not they will choose to learn how to use them.
You make a number of assumptions about DC on larger layouts that are not necessarily true.
My DC layout has wireless throttles, no toggle switches, supports the independent operation of 8 trains, and the turnout wiring in integrated into the track wiring and signaling.
Yes it is complex, but actually very reliable.
To argue that DCC is the best control system for every modeler and every layout theme is to assume everyone wants the same type of layout and operation as you do. I assure you that is not the case. If it was, DCC would have taken over by now - rather than only be at about 50% in HO and N and much less than that in the larger scales.
Advanced cab control in DC has been around since the 1930's. Just because you might never have had the opportunity to operate on a GOOD DC system, don't assume you know all about it.
If you where to operate my system as a mainline operator, your experiance would be similar to DCC. You would pick up your hand held wireless throttle, the yardmaster and dispatcher would give you clearance to leave the yard, and then the CTC signals would instruct you from there. You would not have to "flip any toggles", or even push any buttons with dispatcher on duty. You would just run your locomotive. And if you made a mistake, and ran a red signal, the ATC (automatic train control) would simply stop your loco - just like in real life.
That sounds like a realistic railroad operation to me?
The simple actions of the dispatcher, aligning routes and clearing signals for you also directs all your track power.
If there is no dispatcher on duty, you can also perform all of his duties AS YOU WALK AROUND WITH YOUR TRAIN, just like many of you do with turnouts on your non signaled, non CTC DCC layouts.
With all due respect Sheldon, automobile carburetors worked fine too, but eventually autos all went to a version of fuel injection that we use today. Just because its old doesn't mean there isn't better method of doing something, now we have 300 hp v-8 that gets 26 MPH cruising on the interstate instead of 135 HP that gets 12 mpg.
Trainsets are now shipping with DCC controls and locos, can you imagine Bachmann trying to supply a system in a set as you described above?
When they figure out how to improve the battery life, and size them so the fit in a loco tender or under a diesel shell, and add radio control, wires going to our rails will no longer be required, and there will still be DC and DCC operators having this discussion.
Basically if you already have a DC layout built with hundreds of locos, and it works fine for your needs, there is no reason to invest in the latest technology. But if your like me, and returned to the hobby 8 years ago, it makes all the sense in the world to begin with DCC.
When all of the veterans pass on to that roundhouse in the sky, that is one less DC system in the world, for every new modeler that enters the hobby, odds are he will be DCC, because he was sold on the simple controls for his locos, turnouts, lights and sound. Why would he wish go "old school" with hand built controls, soldered rheostats and miles of wire circuits?
The dude just want to run trains, and this is why DCC will easily overtake those older home built control systems that broke trail for the fine DCC control systems we use today.
(It won't be the downfall of society either btw)
My opinion only.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Santa Fe all the way!Sheldon, thanks for that reply, it really taught me something about the possibilities of DC. I, like to previous poster, thought you needed lots of switches on a large DC layout. I would love to be an engineer on your layout, you made it sound like a very good time.
Santa Fe,
You are most welcome. Please understand that a system like mine is complex, but not necessarily expensive, to build, especially when total system cost is compared to the total cost to do the same things with DCC and computers. You can buy a lot of $3 control relays for the price of the 130 decoders it would take equip all my locos.
And understand, my layout does not feature sound, but as noted does use wireless throttles.
A great number of different, but similar, Advanced Cab Control systems have been developed and used throughout the history of this hobby. Some of them are described in Paul Mallery's Electrical Handbook, others have been documented in Model Railroader and RMC over the years.
They do require advanced planning to work well - but then so does any signal/CTC scheme on any layout, regardless of train control method.
They are not for everyone - but neither is DCC.
While the DC vs DCC debates go on, some DCC manufacturers are going wireless for garden railway applications. CVP has had the Airwire 900 for some years, and NCE has a GWire ProCab that runs the QSI reciever/decoders. Efforts are being made to work to NMRA DCC standards for compatibility.
Wireless battery power is already established in the garden railway world. With CVP and NCE involved, it is only a matter of time before their direct radio DCC systems are scaled down for HO.