ATLANTIC CENTRAL...assuming receiver costs could be made equal to current decoder costs, direct radio could be a big cost savings on a large layout that requires lots of boosters
That's a pretty big assumption. This receiver would have to do everything the decoder already does plus handle radio reception and battery charging. And don't forget the cost of the battery - which won't be cheap. On top of that their is the extra cost of small production runs until it reaches critical mass.
ATLANTIC CENTRALDoes it bother you that DCC might have competition?
Competition is great. It drives costs down and performance up. If someone comes up with a better mousetrap I'm all for it. Just don't bother with it after mice are extinct.
ATLANTIC CENTRALlook at its lack of use in larger scales......
Not relevant - I'm in HO. DCC is used widely enough that I can get the parts I need at a reasonable cost from enough different suppliers that I can use it risk free. That is what I waited for before adopting it. At least for now, I am now content.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
carl425So what about battery power would eliminate the wiring for the detection and signals? For that matter, with dead rail, how are you going to do the detection? Optical? That takes even more wires.
Prototype train detection is based on a low resistance path between the rails across the solid wheels. Model electrical detection using batteries is easily achieved with resistors across metal wheels, which is the way some model detection circuits work today.
Atlantic CentralBut the DCC communication protocol is old technology and some of the direct radio products currently available use DCC protocols and some do not.
While DCC is old, not sure what the new technology or new protocol is that would replace it. The market for the new wireless technology would not be limited "to new person entering the hobby" if the "new" wireless technology remains compatible with existing systems.
Radio has been around for a long time too. But while radio technology has improved in terms of miniaturization, cost and bandwidth, it's the protocols and computational improvements that make the new protocols practical that have enabled the latest (4G) phones.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
carl425 ATLANTIC CENTRAL ...assuming receiver costs could be made equal to current decoder costs, direct radio could be a big cost savings on a large layout that requires lots of boosters That's a pretty big assumption. This receiver would have to do everything the decoder already does plus handle radio reception and battery charging. And don't forget the cost of the battery - which won't be cheap. On top of that their is the extra cost of small production runs until it reaches critical mass. ATLANTIC CENTRAL Does it bother you that DCC might have competition? Competition is great. It drives costs down and performance up. If someone comes up with a better mousetrap I'm all for it. Just don't bother with it after mice are extinct. ATLANTIC CENTRAL look at its lack of use in larger scales...... Not relevant - I'm in HO. DCC is used widely enough that I can get the parts I need at a reasonable cost from enough different suppliers that I can use it risk free. That is what I waited for before adopting it. At least for now, I am now content.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL ...assuming receiver costs could be made equal to current decoder costs, direct radio could be a big cost savings on a large layout that requires lots of boosters
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Does it bother you that DCC might have competition?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL look at its lack of use in larger scales......
Karl, I understand, I don't have a dog in this fight, I still use DC with a masive wiring infrastructure for advanced walk around cab control with radio throttles, CTC, intergrated signaling and turnout controls, full working interlockings an ATC.
And, I have lots of friends with large DCC latyouts, many with DCC controlled turnouts, CTC and signaling.
But I do find a number of things about direct radio - with or without batteries - to be very interesting and appealing - should I ever decide to add "brains" to my trains.
I currently use 27 MHz Aristo Radio throttles - they work very well - they are now 20 plus year old tech as well.
As for how low prices of receivers could get, in the beginning of DCC nobody was talking about $15, or even $25 decoders - but here we are.
Sheldon
gregc carl425 So what about battery power would eliminate the wiring for the detection and signals? For that matter, with dead rail, how are you going to do the detection? Optical? That takes even more wires. Prototype train detection is based on a low resistance path between the rails across the solid wheels. Model electrical detection using batteries is easily achieved with resistors across metal wheels, which is the way some model detection circuits work today. Atlantic Central But the DCC communication protocol is old technology and some of the direct radio products currently available use DCC protocols and some do not. While DCC is old, not sure what the new technology or new protocol is that would replace it. The market for the new wireless technology would not be limited "to new person entering the hobby" if the "new" wireless technology remains compatible with existing systems. Radio has been around for a long time too. But while radio technology has improved in terms of miniaturization, cost and bandwidth, it's the protocols and computational improvements that make the new protocols practical that have enabled the latest (4G) phones.
carl425 So what about battery power would eliminate the wiring for the detection and signals? For that matter, with dead rail, how are you going to do the detection? Optical? That takes even more wires.
Atlantic Central But the DCC communication protocol is old technology and some of the direct radio products currently available use DCC protocols and some do not.
As noted above, two of the direct radio products currently on the market do not use DCC protocols - I don't know what they use, but it is not DCC. They turn on liights, blow whistles, etc - justlike DCC.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut the DCC communication protocol is old technology and some of the direct radio products currently available use DCC protocols and some do not.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAs noted above, two of the direct radio products currently on the market do not use DCC protocols - I don't know what they use, but it is not DCC. They turn on liights, blow whistles, etc - justlike DCC.
OK, DCC is old. Do the radio products do the same or more than what DCC can do or less expensively than DCC?
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL But the DCC communication protocol is old technology and some of the direct radio products currently available use DCC protocols and some do not. ATLANTIC CENTRAL As noted above, two of the direct radio products currently on the market do not use DCC protocols - I don't know what they use, but it is not DCC. They turn on liights, blow whistles, etc - justlike DCC. OK, DCC is old. Do the radio products do the same or more than what DCC can do or less expensively than DCC?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But the DCC communication protocol is old technology and some of the direct radio products currently available use DCC protocols and some do not.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL As noted above, two of the direct radio products currently on the market do not use DCC protocols - I don't know what they use, but it is not DCC. They turn on liights, blow whistles, etc - justlike DCC.
Well, they don't do it less expensively yet - in most situations. As far as what they do, which features are improtant to you?
Each of the several systems out there right now is set up slightly differently.
The ones that simply interface with a DCC decoder do everything that the decoder will do. The CVP system uses the same wireless throttle they sell for DCC with all the same functions.
I'm not an expert on them, nor am I an expert on DCC, but I have used DCC quite a bit did have one of the new Aristo systems, but never really got around to learning all its features - I passed it on to a large scale guy.
Fact is a lot of people don't need or want all the complex features of DCC - or they want other features like signaling and CTC which DCC does not make easier or harder - just more expensive.
Nice thing about dead rail, no shorts and no track cleaning. I have the stuff for doing 4 locos but still spending all my time building the layout. Mine is not battery but can be converted and is plug-n-play in any 8 pin DCC setup.
Mike
cacole Your idea means that a large club layout would have to be redone to add all the required 'charging' trackage --- no thanks. I'll stick with DCC until such time as battery technology catches up.
Your idea means that a large club layout would have to be redone to add all the required 'charging' trackage --- no thanks. I'll stick with DCC until such time as battery technology catches up.
An established layout would not have to be "redone" to add anything. The charging could be done from the existing track circuits. Once all motive power was radio controlled all the feeds to puzzle palaces and problem areas could be deactivated - but they wouldn't have to be.
My stud contact suggestion would only be applicable to new construction. Of course, it could also be added to existing track by driving long wire nails through the entire roadbed sandwich of selected trackage and connecting them together on the underside.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - analog DC, MZL)
ATLANTIC CENTRAL carl425 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Advantages - less under layout infrastructure. Have any of you looked under the layout of a LARGE DCC layout with signaling and detection - just as much, or more, hardware and wire than my advanced cab control DC layout. So what about battery power would eliminate the wiring for the detection and signals? For that matter, with dead rail, how are you going to do the detection? Optical? That takes even more wires. Wired communication is always going to be better than radio. Since the trains are running around on "wires" it sounds like a no-brainer to me to put the control signals and the power on the track. The large scale garden guys have a different set of problems than I do. As far as I'm concerned, for indoor layouts, Keep-Alive has made this a solution looking for a problem. Karl, once again, for those already heavily invested in DCC there is no advantage to changing. Signaling is complex and expensive with ANY control system, that's not going to change. Take a poll, you will find out very few modelers have signal systems.... And again, small or medium sized DCC layouts without siginaling do not require a whole lot of wiring. But assuming receiver costs could be made equal to current decoder costs, direct radio could be a big cost savings on a large layout that requires lots of boosters, circuit breakers, reversers, etc. And with batteries it could eliminate reversers, being self charging on some track and battery powered on other sections of track. Again, it will likey appeal most to those not yet invested in ANY kind of advanced system........ Does it bother you that DCC might have competition? Well guess what, in over 20 years DCC has not been able to "take over", it is not likely it ever will. And DCC has always had competition, again look at its lack of use in larger scales...... Sheldon
carl425 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Advantages - less under layout infrastructure. Have any of you looked under the layout of a LARGE DCC layout with signaling and detection - just as much, or more, hardware and wire than my advanced cab control DC layout. So what about battery power would eliminate the wiring for the detection and signals? For that matter, with dead rail, how are you going to do the detection? Optical? That takes even more wires. Wired communication is always going to be better than radio. Since the trains are running around on "wires" it sounds like a no-brainer to me to put the control signals and the power on the track. The large scale garden guys have a different set of problems than I do. As far as I'm concerned, for indoor layouts, Keep-Alive has made this a solution looking for a problem.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Advantages - less under layout infrastructure. Have any of you looked under the layout of a LARGE DCC layout with signaling and detection - just as much, or more, hardware and wire than my advanced cab control DC layout.
So what about battery power would eliminate the wiring for the detection and signals? For that matter, with dead rail, how are you going to do the detection? Optical? That takes even more wires.
Wired communication is always going to be better than radio. Since the trains are running around on "wires" it sounds like a no-brainer to me to put the control signals and the power on the track. The large scale garden guys have a different set of problems than I do. As far as I'm concerned, for indoor layouts, Keep-Alive has made this a solution looking for a problem.
Karl, once again, for those already heavily invested in DCC there is no advantage to changing.
Signaling is complex and expensive with ANY control system, that's not going to change. Take a poll, you will find out very few modelers have signal systems....
And again, small or medium sized DCC layouts without siginaling do not require a whole lot of wiring. But assuming receiver costs could be made equal to current decoder costs, direct radio could be a big cost savings on a large layout that requires lots of boosters, circuit breakers, reversers, etc.
And with batteries it could eliminate reversers, being self charging on some track and battery powered on other sections of track.
Again, it will likey appeal most to those not yet invested in ANY kind of advanced system........
Does it bother you that DCC might have competition? Well guess what, in over 20 years DCC has not been able to "take over", it is not likely it ever will. And DCC has always had competition, again look at its lack of use in larger scales......
Have there been any recent surveys which show the percentage breakdown between DC and DCC and whether it varies signicantly by scale. Of course 3-rail would be a system unto itself.
jecorbett ATLANTIC CENTRAL carl425 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Advantages - less under layout infrastructure. Have any of you looked under the layout of a LARGE DCC layout with signaling and detection - just as much, or more, hardware and wire than my advanced cab control DC layout. So what about battery power would eliminate the wiring for the detection and signals? For that matter, with dead rail, how are you going to do the detection? Optical? That takes even more wires. Wired communication is always going to be better than radio. Since the trains are running around on "wires" it sounds like a no-brainer to me to put the control signals and the power on the track. The large scale garden guys have a different set of problems than I do. As far as I'm concerned, for indoor layouts, Keep-Alive has made this a solution looking for a problem. Karl, once again, for those already heavily invested in DCC there is no advantage to changing. Signaling is complex and expensive with ANY control system, that's not going to change. Take a poll, you will find out very few modelers have signal systems.... And again, small or medium sized DCC layouts without siginaling do not require a whole lot of wiring. But assuming receiver costs could be made equal to current decoder costs, direct radio could be a big cost savings on a large layout that requires lots of boosters, circuit breakers, reversers, etc. And with batteries it could eliminate reversers, being self charging on some track and battery powered on other sections of track. Again, it will likey appeal most to those not yet invested in ANY kind of advanced system........ Does it bother you that DCC might have competition? Well guess what, in over 20 years DCC has not been able to "take over", it is not likely it ever will. And DCC has always had competition, again look at its lack of use in larger scales...... Sheldon Have there been any recent surveys which show the percentage breakdown between DC and DCC and whether it varies signicantly by scale. Of course 3-rail would be a system unto itself.
There is no reliable survey or study. There is no way to count the great masses of modelers who do not belong to the NMRA, or participate in clubs or forums.
We took an informal poll on here once, it was about 45% DC, 55% DCC - likely mostly HO modelers - on a forum - likely more tech savy and more social than the whole hobby cross section.
But I do personally know a number of hobby shop owners, at one time (long before DCC) I ran a train department in a hobby shop and I have been active in modeling in this same region of the country for some 40 plus years, and have thereby crossed paths with a lot of folks in the hobby - here in a region with some of the highest NMRA membership numbers.
I don't claim to know the answer for sure, but based on what I see and read, and what I hear from shop owners and other modelers, I think DCC useage breaks down about like this:
N scale - 35% to 45% DCC - the rest DC
HO scale - 50% DCC - plus or minus, the rest mostly DC
Note - it is very likely that you could divide HO and N scale modelers by their interest in clubs or group activities, and you would find the "social" types more likely to be using DCC. But from what I have seen, there is a very large "lone wolf" crowd in this hobby - a great many likely using DC because of their single operator situation.
The larger scales are a more complex picture, with S scale and O scale modelers who use two rail "scale" track, DCC use may be as high as HO, 50%, but they are small group overall.
Tinplate track users in S and O are generally still AC, or are using the proprietary systems from Lionel or MTH.
Large Scale is clearly dominated by the various forms of direct radio - with battery power being very popular, and with the DCC related systems being no more popular than any of the other several choices. Large scale is heavily dominated by the Aristo Craft products, which are not DCC based.
So in all of model trains, DCC useage is likely at about 30% at best. In the small scales I do suspect it is likely 50% or a little more.
But Railpro, NWSL, Aristo, and others are exploring various forms of direct radio for small scales. MRC still makes DC packs. KATO just announced a DC pack with sound built in. So these people investing relatively big money for this hobby, must think there is a market for control systems other than track powered/communicated DCC.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL KATO just announced a DC pack with sound built in. So these people investing relatively big money for this hobby, must think there is a market for control systems other than track powered/communicated DCC.
As I understand it the Kato device is not a power pack. So I guess that means that Kato thinks there is a market for sound in the small DC scales.
maxman ATLANTIC CENTRAL KATO just announced a DC pack with sound built in. So these people investing relatively big money for this hobby, must think there is a market for control systems other than track powered/communicated DCC. As I understand it the Kato device is not a power pack. So I guess that means that Kato thinks there is a market for sound in the small DC scales.
True, it is a sound box module that is added to a power pack. It is designed to attach directly to their power packs, or be wired to other brands.
Yes, they apparently feel there are modelers who want some sort of "sound experiance" without going into DCC.
Which suggests on it face that they feel the the DC market itself is still rather large.
Here's more info on batery powered trains. Scroll down three screens.
http://www.deltang.co.uk/video.htm
New York, Vermont & Northern Rwy. - Route of the Black Diamonds
protolancer(at)kingstonemodelworks(dot)com
Bernd Here's more info on batery powered trains. Scroll down three screens. http://www.deltang.co.uk/video.htm