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.
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
Randy, interesting ideas.
One way to get around the power-for-replying problem would be for the booster to provide some DC voltage instead of shutting completely off during the response interval. Then the responder could superimpose a signal on top of that pretty easily. Depending on the response interval frequency, the booster could reverse the polarity of the DC voltage for each response interval, to retain DC compatibility.
Given the low required bandwidth, there is plenty of time to transmit packets multiple times (with the recipient detecting and ignoring erroneous packets), so error correcting may not be all that necessary. That said, there are far better error detection techniques than vertical parity for noisy serial transmissions (e.g. CRC) with negligible decoding overhead on the decoder (or encoding overhead on the booster for that matter).
Andy
wjstix I'm not sure the number of DC engines being sold, or the number of DCC dual-mode decoders, are a good indication in themselves as to DC's popularity. It's fairly easy to build a DCC decoder with a pass-thru circuit to allow DC use, so it's easy to understand why manufacturers would use it. There are a few engines out there that were designed before DCC were common and that are only available in DC-only versions (like the Bachmann FM H-16-44s used in the MR "Virginian" project layout) but most engines sold as DC engines today are "DCC ready" with an 8- or 9-pin receptacle. I think that may be less a sign that many folks still want DC-only engines, as it is that many folks want to choose which decoder they put in. I may want to pass on buying a sound equipped engine for $200 if I can buy a non-DCC/sound one for $100, and later find a good deal on a sound decoder for $40-50 and install it myself.
I'm not sure the number of DC engines being sold, or the number of DCC dual-mode decoders, are a good indication in themselves as to DC's popularity. It's fairly easy to build a DCC decoder with a pass-thru circuit to allow DC use, so it's easy to understand why manufacturers would use it. There are a few engines out there that were designed before DCC were common and that are only available in DC-only versions (like the Bachmann FM H-16-44s used in the MR "Virginian" project layout) but most engines sold as DC engines today are "DCC ready" with an 8- or 9-pin receptacle. I think that may be less a sign that many folks still want DC-only engines, as it is that many folks want to choose which decoder they put in. I may want to pass on buying a sound equipped engine for $200 if I can buy a non-DCC/sound one for $100, and later find a good deal on a sound decoder for $40-50 and install it myself.
Surely there are a number of DCC users buying DCC ready locos and installing their own choice of decoder for various reasons, including a lack of interest in sound or a personal preference in decoders.
BUT, such sales may also be "offset" by DC users like myself who buy DCC locos like those offered by Bachmann and promptly remove and resell the decoders.
AND, I have even bought a few normally too "expensive" locos with DCC and sound from BLI, because they were "on sale" at the right price - and I promptly removed those decoders as well - or in some cases replace whole tenders with non DCC tenders.
Any assumption that all DCC locos sold are being used on DCC layouts, or that all DCC ready locos are getting decoders added would be false by a long shot.
Just like any assumption that all DCC ready locos are being used by DC users would be equally false. I'm sure a fair to large percentage are being bought by DCC users. But the fact remains that the option to buy DC product remains and the manufacturers are showing no signs of changing that - with the lone exception of BLI, who is married not only to DCC, but more importantly to sound.
And on that note, I have consistently agreed with the notion that modelers who like onboard sound, should and will use DCC in the smaller scales. But by all measure that can be done, interest in sound is similar to use of DCC - roughly half.
randy
what kind of information would be transmitted back from the loco to the controller?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
It's as much a question about power as it is s/n ratio - without a power source, the decoder cannot generate big signal to send over the rails to report back. Remember the Lenz method actually shuts off the DCC signal - 0 volts to the track - to give the decoder a window to transmit. The only energy available is what's stored int he power supply capacitor on the decoder - that is not going to allow the generation fo 15V signals for seveal packets, so they use millivolts. Perhaps with a supercap as a keep alive the decoder could transmit a signal of several volts amplitude with plenty of ECC. The current systems to checksum the packets for error detection, so it's not just wide open. The problem is, in reverse, what was wrong with many pre-DCC command control systems - they had a large unmodulated fixed voltage and superimposed a very weak signal on top of it, and that signal was easily swamped or attenutated. DCC makes the signal the power, which gets around this very neatly - when you are talking about the command station communicating to the decoder. That very strength becomes a major weakness when it comes to the decoder talking back - if you stop the sending signal to the command station can listen to the decoder, you also stop the power source the decoder can use to generate said signal. Radio doesn;t have this problem, since the signal and the power are completely isolated. Were you to go back to a pre-DCC superimposed control signal, ay 12V fixed with a 3V P-P signal, you could easily make a bidirectional protocol since the loco decoder would have that fixed track voltage to draw on to create and send the reply messages. But if you're going to do that, why not just go direct radio?
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Santa Fe all the way!I was wondering what you folks thought the percentage of layouts are DCC vs DC today and what those percentages may be, say,5-10 years from now?
Why do you ask? If it's just idle curiosity, then I guess you've received what you came for.
If there is some underlying question, knowing what it is might get you answers and information that you could use.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
tstage riogrande5761 and - more than likely - just turn into a disagreeable disagreement of opinions. Seen it before... Tom Self fulfilling prophecy? Why not resist negative/unconstructive comments and contribute in a positive way to the topic? I've seen it happen before! Rio, I guess because - for me - there's nothing positive about speculative conversations. It's just everyone's opinion without - generally - any hard facts or conclusions. I like Greg's suggestion about discussing current sales of DCC vs. DC items. That would give you more concrete information to draw conclusions from - IMO. Tom
riogrande5761 and - more than likely - just turn into a disagreeable disagreement of opinions. Seen it before... Tom Self fulfilling prophecy? Why not resist negative/unconstructive comments and contribute in a positive way to the topic? I've seen it happen before!
and - more than likely - just turn into a disagreeable disagreement of opinions. Seen it before... Tom
Tom
Self fulfilling prophecy? Why not resist negative/unconstructive comments and contribute in a positive way to the topic? I've seen it happen before!
Rio,
I guess because - for me - there's nothing positive about speculative conversations. It's just everyone's opinion without - generally - any hard facts or conclusions. I like Greg's suggestion about discussing current sales of DCC vs. DC items. That would give you more concrete information to draw conclusions from - IMO.
Tom, we don't have any hard numbers of sales of DCC vs DC locos any more than we have a good survey of modelers. And Athearn or Walthers are not about to tell us.
But I still content that if DCC locos were dominating sales, DC locos would be dropped. There seems to be no such trend from the manufacturers.
Athearn, Atlas, Intermountian, Bowser and Walther all continue to offer DC versions with each new release. Bachmann has structured their product line around low cost decoders and/or separate sound modules to also appeal to those not really interested in DCC or sound. Even MTH has begun to offer DC versions.
Only BLI continues down the higher priced, all DCC with sound marketing plan, but even they have waffled back and forth in and out of the DC market over the years.
My opinions in my original post come not just from me, but from conversations with several shop owners here in the Mid Atlantic - an area with high number of modelers if NMRA memberships are any indication of such.
But I agree we don't really know, we can only speculate.
Sales of locos or power systems may have some value in the conversation, but what about all the established DC guys with 20 plus year old layouts who did not even buy a "power pack" 20 years ago, but rather built their own more advanced systems?
What about my own purchase of eight Aristo wireless throttles not that many years ago? Would someone analyzing those numbers assume I was in large scale because of my product choice?
And, as for locos sales, we have self admitted DCC users on this forum who have stated their loco fleets are small and their layouts medium sized.
While some of us long time DC modelers have large fleets of locos and continue to buy more? I have about 130 locos - only a hand full came with decoders - all of which have been removed.
I would politely suggest that speculating about the numbers is one thing, speculating about the reasons is a little more tricky.
There have been comments already in this thread about those still using DC not being into operation, etc. I would suggest to those people that maybe there are more "semi lone wolf serious modeler/operators" who don't belong to clubs, but maybe have a small "crew" of friends operating with them, then many of you might think.
And that the layout owners in such "closed groups" have little incentive to go DCC if the layout or layouts they operate on have well designed control systems that have worked for years and likely include signaling, CTC and other advanced features - features a great many DCC layouts do not have.
Another one that gets me is "DC and DCC cost about the same". Actually no, my DC system likely costs more than what many of those in DCC have invested - but they likely don't have detection, signaling, CTC, one button turnout routing, multiple location turnout control, eight wireless cabs on a layout with 8 scale miles of double track mainline, 130 locos and staging for 30 trains.
If they do have a layout that size, with those features, done with DCC and computers, they have spend way more than me on control system products, and done nearly as much wiring as I have.
Lots of the comments have been very thoughtful, and again DC and DCC are not the only two games in town - especially in larger scales.
Randy,
Good points.
What you don't see under the covers in radio communications is the built-in error detection and correction schemes that provide modern reliable digital wireless communications (especially in low transmit power applications very near brushed DC motors).
If similar error detection/correction were employed in DCC, similar reliability would also be available. As far as networking goes, DCC uses a rather primitive FSK encoding scheme, with only vertical parity (detection, not correction) provided. There is MUCH room for improvement before we presume that wire can't do the job.
Also, keep in mind that the actual bandwidth required for MR is VERY low. Before sound decoders, most users probably did not know that their decoders were shutting down and restarting due to dirty track, with little or no observable effects. Sound came along (which cannot restart as cleanly), and the fix for dirty track is on the power side (keep-alive caps), not the communications side. Unless we start trying to stream audio to the loco (don't get any ideas!), bandwidth requirements will remain very low.
Think of radio as a two-wire system (i.e. ground and antenna). What can be done on those two wires can also be done on two real wires.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
For me I found the best of both worlds with my MRC Tech 6..I can run my DC engines and by using my hand held I can operate several decoder equipped locomotives or by pushing the dual mode I can operate one DCC/Sound equipped locomotive..
For the topic..Guessing it still must be split evenly since all new DCC/Sound equipped locomotives have dual mode decoders.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Where 2-way communications over wires breaks down is that last mile - the rail to track interface. No matter how clean you keep your wheels and track, it's not an ultr reliable connection. The other problem is getting th esignal back from the on-board system. Getting the signal to the decoder is easy - you cna push as much power intot he railas as you need, there's no size restrictions. But within the contraints of HO and N or smaller locos, where do you get the enrgy from to send BACK? The current schemes rely on stored energy in a capacitor on the decoder and (in the case of Digitrax) sending when the DCC signal is quiet, a zero crossings, or int he case of Lenz, actually stopping the DCC signal at the command station to listen for the decoder to transmit.
Radio two-way has a better chance, because the radio signal is not the power signal, the transmitter in the loco has a better power source - either an on-board battery or rail pickup, and so can talk whenever and as much as it wants back to the controller.
The issue remains of no standard. If this technology where standardized like DCC< to the point where I could use a loco module from vendor A, and a controller from Vendor B, I would serious contemplate switching, if there were loco modules to fit all my locos. Especially if there was an on-board battery option. That recharges if it's on powered track. Dirty track? No problem. Reverse loops? Just isolate them completely. But most of all, a standard for the communications between the controller and decoder. And make sure the modules can plug in to 8 and 9 pin decoder sockets currently found in many products - that way the same loco could be used on straight DC, DCC, or the direct radio system, no need for differnet versions of the same loco for all three options.
At least one system is sort of a direct add-on to DCC< in that it goes between the rails and the decoder, responds to the radio control, and generated DCC commands for the decoder. Interesting, but it also means TWO circuit boards plus the battery - definitely out of the question for smaller than HO at the moment. It does preserve any existing invenstment in DCC decoders, especially sound ones, so that's a plus.
There may be plenty of room for batteries and proprietary radio transceivers in HO and larger scales, but not in N scale and smaller. While the electronics will shrink in time, batteries won't shrink nearly as well.
To the extent that an emerging technology is not applicable to the second largest and fastest growing segment of the model railroading market, that technology will have a harder time gaining widespread acceptance, standardization, interoperability, etc.
The above would tend to favor an approach that is applicable to at least N and HO scale, which means that at least power will continue to be provided through the rails. Leveraging existing radio technologies like bluetooth and wi-fi holds the most promise of effective wireless communications, small packaging, and most importantly, cost.
But let's not forget that there are also lots of cheap, effective methods to share power and reliable, two-way communications over two wires.
mobilman44Hi, Sheldon's early posting on this thread made sense to me. While no one knows the "right" answers to the OPs original question, I don't think anyone can deny that DCC is slowly gaining momentum. One thought I would like to add........ Newcomers to the hobby - at least those under 50 (for want of a better number) - grew up in the computer & electronic toy era. DCC is "right up their alley", and they will - IMO - gravitate towards that. After over 4 decades of DC operation, I switched to DCC in 2008 while building a new layout. It was expensive, somewhat difficult to understand, and lots of "ifs/ands/buts". That being said, I've never looked back.........
Sheldon's early posting on this thread made sense to me. While no one knows the "right" answers to the OPs original question, I don't think anyone can deny that DCC is slowly gaining momentum.
One thought I would like to add........ Newcomers to the hobby - at least those under 50 (for want of a better number) - grew up in the computer & electronic toy era. DCC is "right up their alley", and they will - IMO - gravitate towards that.
After over 4 decades of DC operation, I switched to DCC in 2008 while building a new layout. It was expensive, somewhat difficult to understand, and lots of "ifs/ands/buts". That being said, I've never looked back.........
Truth be told, and watching the trends in other areas of products, that sounds pretty right on to me. At age 53 I do find myself resisting change and new technology etc. gadgets, so I understand how people feel when they say they want to stay with what they like and keep on using DC. And thats ok for them, nothing is wrong with that. But like anything, one thing you can count on is change, and the evolution of model train control will continue to change. There will probably be a lingering component of DC in engines and train sets and power packs for years to come, but as the DCC or similar technology continues to gain momentum (no pun intended), the percentage will slowly grow. Younger folks are more willing to embrace new technology as mobile man pointed out, and the older generation which relies on DC will be replaced as time passes.
Logically, small layouts with only a couple loops of track doesn't need DCC as much as a medium sized layout or larger, so the small layouts will hang on to DC longer. I have built two medium sized layouts and immediately disliked the idea of havin got use block control to control multiple trains. I ran my 1st of the two on block control. So I immediately saw the up side to DCC, and for me it was a question of cost and ease of use. Being a techie when I delved in, I bought the Digitrax Chief, and for now, due to cost will probably just keep it, but I am willing to be open if I find something better. At least the standard allows me to run loco's on many different systems.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
There are other systems that have been in play for many years. LocoLinc is a radio system that has HO recievers and sound available. RailLynx is an infrared system that does not have sound. These systems suggest that there are alternatives to DC and DCC. LocoLinc and RailLynx continue to advertise and support their product, so it is possible for smaller proprietary systems to survive.
Ring Engineering has introduced the RailPro system that would be compatible with DC and DCC track. The consisting features of RailPro would appeal to someone who wants to MU diesels without doing a lot of programming. While there are questions about sustainability of proprietary systems, the above examples suggest that RailPro could thrive with a small market share.
It would be interesting to see how many "DCC ready" locomotives are sold to model railroaders who are still on the fence about DCC. These locomotives could be fitted with any one of the available DCC decoders or other receivers... or remain as DC.
How about how many DC vs DCC starter train sets are being sold. Or the number of new DC packs vs DCC controllers.
Jim
Greg,
I think that's a more tangible and less speculative approach to the topic at hand.
would it be better to ask what percentage of locomotives are being sold with dcc?
and when compared to the number of locomotives being sold, how many decoders are being sold?
Joe Staten Island West
I think topics like these can be the source of thoughtful discussion, as long as they remain civil. Seen it turn otherwise before.
As far as the new technology replacing DCC, it is probably started to become reality; and being seriously put into production. Why do I say this? I bought my first complete NCE DCC system about a month ago for about $150 including shipping. When companies get serious about new technology, the price of the "old" technology gets cheaper. The price I paid for my system tells me that companies think the development of DCC has been paid for, and that new technology is on the horizon.
Lost in some of these discussions is the fact that some people are very interested or intrigued by how something is done, and that may, in part, motivate them to upgrade technology.
Others have mentioned how the conversion from DC to DCC has trickled to a halt. That's understandable. The DC holdouts probably have a system that operates their trains very well already. Converting to a new system may only give them what they already have, a system that operates their trains very well. How their trains are operated may not be that relevant to them.
I suspect that reality may seep into the decision making process for those who will convert from a well operating DCC system to any new operating system technology that's developed. What will they really gain after the convertion? A well operating layout, which is something they already have.
The introduction of onboard sound, gave DCC an advantage over DC beyond being just a way to control trains. Will any new technology give an existing DCC operator a real advantage; a new feature beyond motor, light, and sound control?
How that thinking will impact the percentages I have no idea. Newbies to the hobby will likely go with the newest technology, once it achieves a certain level of acceptance to be considered stable.
- Douglas
tstage Guessing current vs. predicting future %s of either is all going to be speculative at best and - more than likely - just turn into a disagreeable disagreement of opinions. Seen it before... Tom
Guessing current vs. predicting future %s of either is all going to be speculative at best and - more than likely - just turn into a disagreeable disagreement of opinions. Seen it before...
Possibly.
I see a group of folks who I know have a wide range of opinion on the subject individually, but who are agreeing on pretty much the same thing. DC persistence, incremental DCC market gains, and the possibility of new technology changing the game for everyone in perhaps unanticipated ways.
Now, we may disagree on how we say it, but I see more common ground than serious disagreement on overall trends.
Regarding on-board battery and radio control, the issue there will be technology and cost. If one has a very flexible budget, one can get into that game right now. But I think there are limitations still to overcome, primarily due to advances in battery technology lagging behind other technological advances. Like plug-in hybrids vs all-electric cars, most people still find relying on relatively old technology is a better fit financially and expectation-wise with a hybrid than making the leap all the way to battery power in autos.
The advantage model railroading has over cars is that the power source for recharging is readily available through the tracks. In any case, in 10 years or so, that paradigm will likely have changed enough that on-board, track-charged and radio-controlled motive power will be making inroads on DCC and whatever is left of DC.
Chuck's note that we're talking about a snapshot in time is something important to keep in mind as the mix and interaction between consumer needs, market forces, and technological advances means that you should never put all your money on a single horse. After decades, I too made the leap to DCC. Given the size of my layout and my propensity to stay in one locale at this stage in my life, I'm very unlikely to face the opportunity to make a wholesale changeover like I did from DC to DCC when those new battery-lugging and onboard-charging radio-controlled locos come on the market. But I can definitely see me buying ones that are compatible with DCC, which is likely to be the existing-system choice of the vast majority of those making the leap up from DCC to it.
I'm ignorant of the form-factor of including DC transparently on the same board that a on-track-battery-charging, radio-control loco would use for DCC. If so, then that technology will be the same attractive breakthrough for those in DC, too. If not, then DC will persist that much longer, as manufacturers will be less likely to invest in new products required to specifically address the needs of the DC operators still among us at that time.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
tstage mobilman44 Hi, I don't think anyone can deny that DCC is slowly gaining momentum. Bill, What if I've turned my momentum off? Does that lower the percentage? Tom
mobilman44 Hi, I don't think anyone can deny that DCC is slowly gaining momentum.
Hi,
I don't think anyone can deny that DCC is slowly gaining momentum.
Bill,
What if I've turned my momentum off? Does that lower the percentage?
Tom,
As mobilman44 pointed out, for him, DCC is "difficult to understand", and lots of "ifs/ands/buts". He doesn't even know how to turn momentum on, let alone turn it off.
Rich
Alton Junction
Yeah but if you only turn off the acceleration momentum, you still have the deceleration momentum to keep it going
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
I haven't seen or operated on a DC layout in years. Even the few that were still using DC converted over to DCC because they want to operate, even if they only run a few trains in a session.
When you really look at it, both systems cost about the same, but one is a lot easier to get up and running, and keep it that way.
The only reason you see DC locomotives is cost. Sure, some buyers have no interest in DCC, but the majourity sees the price difference and that causes a bit of a problem. Or they buy the DC version so they can install a Tsunami in it or their preferred decoder.
Really, unless you're in the business, who cares what percentage of all modelers everywhere use what? Model railroaders are individuals, not interchangeable parts, so average means nothing.
I can say with absolute certainty that the modeler who runs trains in my garage is running analog DC, MZL system. That's true today, and will remain true for the foreseeable future. What others are doing elsewhere is of, at best, academic interest. What my heirs might do after I leave the building interests me even less.
As a former statistician, I know how much effort is required to simply gather enough data to determine where something stands - Mark! And the next time the clock ticks, the number changes. As far as what will happen years down the road, there are WAY too many variables for anything better than a wild-a** guess. Your favorite Gypsy fortune-teller would probably come up with an equally (in)valid answer.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - my way)