For my first post here, I'd like to first say that I'm glad to be here. I own two BLI locomotives, a PRR T1 (unlettered) and an SP GS-4 #4449. I do not own a layout, and have been running my T1 at a local club layout. I eventually plan to build my own module layout according to Free-Mo standards.
My topic today is: Why aren't DCC systems for large layouts simply "plug and play"?
I mean, soldering wires to the tracks is easy enough, but I've seen what it looks like under the club layout and it looks like a mess of wires that I wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of. That makes me worry that I won't be able to build my own module layout without extensive help.
And today, the guy responsible for managing the layout's roster had trouble getting JMRI to recognize my GS-4, despite the Digitrax command station being able to control it from the default factory address. Pretty disappointing, right? Even the programming track setup is a mess.
When you consider that the average model railroad layout has a mess of wiring under the baseboard, you don't have to wonder why the hobby seems to be having trouble finding its cachet with the younger generations. The answer is simple: there is a lack of defineable standards for easy set-up of the power districts, boosters, etc. Everything required to run a layout larger than your average 4x6 layout, ends up pushing the difficulty level beyond what is reasonable.
I sometimes wonder if we were better off sticking with DC control systems over DCC. When we're babying the DCC systems more than we are running the locomotives, then there is a problem with the model railroading product industry. Instead of shrugging our shoulders, it would be better to push the manufacturers of DCC systems to hold some kind of summit to find a way to make the hobby more accessible - and affordable.
It is not surprising when I see the vast majority of children at my local hobby shop preferring R/C vehicles over model railroads - both because they can tinker with the vehicles on their own without a lot of adult supervision, and because of its cost. A single Broadway Limited Imports steam locomotive can easily equal the value of a used race-ready Team Associated buggy, complete with batteries, radio control system, charger, and the full kit. The barrier of entry is significantly lower.
Chris Palomarez over at Free-Mo.org has it right: In today's age of advanced computing electronics that fit in the palm of our hands, DCC standards need to "just work".
The idea that DCC standards would reduce the amount of wiring involved is a big fat ugly myth that needs to be sacrificed, posthaste - or at least rectified with the aforementioned suggestion of improving DCC standards to include plug-and-play capability for larger, complex layouts.
I think that about sums it all up. share your thoughts if you like.
-NK
I think it's interesting that you're blaming DCC for the sloppy wiring job at your club. That is sort of like blaming your computer for the messy paperwork on your desk. Let's look at Chris P.'s wiring he's complaining about in the link you posted:
How is this DCC's fault? Using wire nuts? Really? That Zephyr laying on half-filled grocery bags...seriously? He's got a BDL168 and three DS64's mounted on the same panel (and in different orientations), and all the wiring is going all over the place. These are terrible wiring practices being shown here. Show this to any electrician or electrical technician (or heck, even a car mechanic), and they'd either cringe, laugh, or cry. All of them would make you do it over again until it's right.
Being neat and tidy with the wiring has nothing to do with DCC. A rat's nest of wiring can happen with any layout when the folks doing the wiring are uninterested in neatness. It's no different then blaming Microscale for a decal job full of crooked lines, air bubbles and silvering that you did with their product.Folks also have the tendency to over-estimate their DCC needs, and this results in way too much wiring for what they want to accomplish.
I had a 25'x50' HO layout with a 200' long double-track mainline that was DCC w/ wireless throttles for 10 years. I ran with up to 6 operators at the same time with 4 yards and up to 30 locos (several of them sound-equipped) on the layout. According to some people, I should have had multiple boosters, breakers, and wiring all over the place. Instead, I ran my whole layout with a lone Digitrax Zephyr system with a UR91 radio receiver. I had no other boosters or breakers. The entire wiring consisted of a pair of 14AWG (one red, one black) bus wires running for 200' directly under the mainline, with two more pairs of 14AWG bus running under two of the yards (the other two used the mainline bus). I dropped feeders from the mainline every 9 feet and once for every yard track.
That's it. It can barely get any simpler than that. Of course, when one operator had a short, everything stopped. But it also meant that everyone knew when someone else screwed up (there's no hiding it).
I'm amused at your idea that we should of stuck with DC due to wiring issues. You have apparently never dealt with a large DC layout. At my old club (2500 sq. ft.), we ran the same layout (DC cab control) for 45 years, and I ran there for the last 8. We once had a situation where the Narrow Gauge committee removed a narrow gauge siding, including cutting the wires that led to the removed track. One of the wires they cut was the common return for the entire layout. It killed the entire standard gauge division, and since the narrow gauge guys never noticed, it took club days to figure out what happened. And who can forget the refrain of "Who's got my train?" that would be called out at least once per operation session because someone turned on the wrong block or forgot to turn off another?
There are no such things as "standard" power districts. Every layout is different. One person who has a bunch of sound-equipped locos with brightly lit passenger cars and sound-equipped freight cars will have far different power requrements from the guy who just runs one soundless loco around a bedroom switching layout.DCC is as simple or as complicated as you want it to be.
Paul A. Cutler III
No further comment needed - Paul has said it all!
I am just wondering what the wiring may have looked like in a traditionally DC set-up - a giant bowl of multi-colored spaghetti?
I hate wiring, so I have a friend helping me - he is an electrician by trade...
Well said, Paul.
NKato...A single Broadway Limited Imports steam locomotive can easily equal the value of a used race-ready Team Associated buggy, complete with batteries, radio control system, charger, and the full kit...
Why would you compare a NEW Broadway Limited Locomotive to a USED RC car? Also, you can find locos for much less than what you would proabably spend on Broadway Limited steam.
NKatoThe idea that DCC standards would reduce the amount of wiring involved is a big fat ugly myth that needs to be sacrificed, posthaste
It's not a myth. Wiring a large DC layout for multiple independent train operation anywhere on the layout takes a vast amount of wiring.
Have you personally ever wired a large DC layout for independent control of multiple trains anywhere on the layout? I have. I have also helped wire layouts for DCC. DCC is significantly easier.
NKatoIn today's age of advanced computing electronics that fit in the palm of our hands, DCC standards need to "just work".
For many of us, they do. Off-the-shelf, right out of the box.
NKatoA single Broadway Limited Imports steam locomotive can easily equal the value of a used race-ready Team Associated buggy, complete with batteries, radio control system, charger, and the full kit. The barrier of entry is significantly lower.
There are many lower-cost ways to enter the hobby than with a BLI steam locomotive, as I'm sure that you know. When you contrast the list price for a brand-new top-of-the-line locomotive with the cost of a second-hand R/C car, you're not really setting up a fair comparison, are you?
Everyone is welcome to post an opinion, of course. But you can also expect those with differing experience to post as well.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
My layout sits in a space that is 14' x 26'. It was built in the late 1980s with code 100 track and power routing switches. About 6 years ago I switched to DCC. I connected two wires to the track from the booster, two wires from the power supply to the booster, and plugged the throttle directly into the booster. Then plugged the power supply into the wall and ran my first DCC locomotive. ( An Atlas DCC Trainmaster ) It wasn't perfect, but the engine did make it all the way around the layout.
This is an over simplification of my first DCC wiring job, but it is correct as far as just attaching two wires to the tracks to run trains and two wires from the power supply to the booster. The DCC manufacturers have no control over how complicated you want to make it, or how sloppy you make it.
NKatoWhen you consider that the average model railroad layout has a mess of wiring under the baseboard, you don't have to wonder why the hobby seems to be having trouble finding its cachet with the younger generations.
i think many recreational activities we call hobbies require a significantly investment in money and time that I think most kids can't afford and even less so after entering college and getting married. I only really had time for such hobbies after the kids became more independent.
most of the members at the club layout I belong to are retired. I think the target market for our hobby isn't kids, but adults with older kids. Adults who have more spare time and no college bills.
NKatoIt is not surprising when I see the vast majority of children at my local hobby shop preferring R/C vehicles over model railroads
I think most kids, at least the kind I knew when I grew up, can't afford our hobbies. Most kids are interested in activities that recquire a small number of investments: baseball mitt, hockey skates, basketball, skate boards, guitar.
i can't see how DC, requiring block wiring and control panels to run multiple locomotives, is less complicated than DCC.
There are many levels of participation in the hobby from off-the-shelf to building from scratch. It takes time to develop an understanding.
"user friendly isn't powerful"
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I do a lot of the DCC and Electrical work for a fairly large NTRAK club. We have a boat load of heavy wiring on our modules. Why? Because we have to maintain compatibility with analog DC power systems. If we could run DCC exclusively, I could rip out about 2/3 of the cables.
As far as JMRI not recognizing your engine. If the Digitrax command station could run it the DCC part is working. JMRI is running on a computer linked to Loconet. Loconet works if the train runs. Problem is on the computer end. We run JMRI on a Linux based computer. Very stable.
Martin Myers
NKato My topic today is: Why aren't DCC systems for large layouts simply "plug and play"?
Rich
Alton Junction
The OP needs to do a lot of research.
DCC is only ONE way to control model trains with Digital Contrel. That is the NMRA version.
DCS is another.
There are at least five other ways.
Three or four are wireless. Battery and decoder in the loco or tender. No wires, runs on DC or DCC layouts. The power on the rails can charge the battery.
A couple use a smart phone or iPad.
Google it and store the links in Favorites or Bookmarks.
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
The OP ignored the fact that a lot of the wiring he was looking at was switch power, switch control, and signal wiring. Plus wiring for any lighing on the layout. He assumed it was all DCC.
I think the OP is just having a good time reading how we struggle along giving a good answer. Whoever is beyond setting up the track of a starter set and feeding two wires to a powerpack knows that there is the necessity of doing a certain amount of wiring.
Or maybe he is one of the dead rail & bluetooth gurus poking at us.
Wanna bet we won´t see him around any longer?
Hi!
Lots of good replies so far, and I certainly agree.
But I have to add.......... its just another case of a "newbie" making his first post a complaint - and a baseless one at that.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Sir Madog I think the OP is just having a good time reading how we struggle along giving a good answer. Whoever is beyond setting up the track of a starter set and feeding two wires to a powerpack knows that there is the necessity of doing a certain amount of wiring. Or maybe he is one of the dead rail & bluetooth gurus poking at us. Wanna bet we won´t see him around any longer?
mobilman44 Hi! Lots of good replies so far, and I certainly agree. But I have to add.......... its just another case of a "newbie" making his first post a complaint - and a baseless one at that.
Well, for a first post, it certainly does cover the waterfront of potentially controversial topics.
- DC vs. DCC
- A system with a near complete lack of standards
- The hobby is too expensive
- Today's kids are not interested in model railroading
- R/C vehicles vs. model railroading
- Dead rail
- Bluetooth vs. spaghetti wiring
- Forcing manufacturers to attend a summit
Will the OP return to defend his position? Dunno, but time will tell.
Free-mo is controversial???
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
tstage Free-mo is controversial???
It's the first that I had heard it being a "debateable" topic, Rich; hence my question. Nothing more than that...
Tom
DCC wiring can be as simple as one wishes or as complicated as any DC layout. The reason is simple wiring overkill by the builder.
My 12' ISL uses two wires from my Tech 6 to the track a friend of mine uses a feeder with drop wires every three feet and every industry siding on his 16' ISL and he uses a NCE Powercab. I can see feeders every 9 feet but,every three feet plus the sidings? Overkill.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Paul, where did you get that picture from the underside of my previous layout? OK not really, my Zephyr didn;t sit on a pile of grocery bags, it sat right on the floor. But the DB150 driving the rails was on a shelg with nice terminal strips and the wires all had crimped (AND soldered!) ring terminals on them. But i DID have 2 of my Tam Valley Singlet servo controls on a control panel made from the flap of a cardboard box, with the track lines drawn on with a sharpie pen.
I would LOVE to see how you can do "plug and play for a large layout". How large? What's the track plan? No reverse loops? 10 reverse loops? How many trains run at the same time, 3? 30? This is like saying there should just be one type of car on the road that automagically fits every purpose.
The sloppy wiring I'm SURE has a lot to do with the problems experienced. I have yet to be unable to read and program any brand of decoder in any brand of loco I've come across - I cheat at home and use one brand for all my non-sound locos and one brand for all my sound locos, but I do take my laptop with JMRI and program track to club shows and work on anyone's locos, not just my own, and there is a huge variety of decoders among club members.
It absolutely IS a lot less of a "mess of wire" with DCC, even for a larger layout. Our club modular layout assembles to somewhere around 160x30 feet now. DCC power? Under each section is one simple wiring harness with Power Pole plugs and sockets at each end, one pair of wires is for the track power, and another pair is for power to light up structures and run accessories. That's it. Theonly modules with a "huge mass of wiring" under them any more are some older ones where the old DC wiring was bypassed but the DC wires and toggles were not yet removed. Both my previous layouts had little more underneath than some strans of #12 wire running more or less parallel under the track, with occasional feeder taps. I had less wiring in a bedroom size layout than we had on the old 4x8 we used to set up when I was a kid
Sloppy wiring would just as likely result in a poorly running DC layout as well. DCC pretty much has nothing to do with it, other than the ability to handle more simultaneous operators may expose such issues more quickly than running on DC.
How many feeders really depends on how good your track joints are and how many you solder. I WAS able to run an 8x12 donute dual track main with exactly 2 wires connecting to the track, it ran fine, even asfter painting all the track. But would it be long term reliable? The load with continuous running is a little different than a switching layout where you only run at slow speeds. By the same token, I had a basic 4x8 oval set up and under DC operation, trains would slow down despite 4 sets of feeders equally spaced around it - but that was made up of mostly Bachmann EZ Track sectional track. The 8x12 donut was all Atlas flex track with some breaks for Atlas turnouts. At some point, an unsoldered rail joint WILL work loose and not conduct as well - that's where having a feeder for every section of track comes in, at no point should the rail joiners (unsoldered ones) bes the sole path for power to get to a piece of rail. If you solder the joints on every other piece of flex track, then every 6 feet IS probably just fine.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinkerI would LOVE to see how you can do "plug and play for a large layout". How large? What's the track plan? No reverse loops? 10 reverse loops? How many trains run at the same time, 3? 30? This is like saying there should just be one type of car on the road that automagically fits every purpose.
I would run a bus with feeders every 9' and a power booster as needed-simple wiring. The whole idea behind DCC.
I've seen my fair share of wiring overkill including my friends DCC switching layout. A 4x8 with a feeder on every track is overkill.
I'm yet to find the need to solder rail joiners.Of course I go the extra step to ensure they have a tight fit even if that requires a light squeeze with my 6" needle nose on the sides of the joiner just behind the rail joint.
BTW,I keep telling my friend Steve I need to bring my dikes over and clip some of that excessive wiring.
Seriously I told him on his planned Godzilla size basement "U" shape switching layout he will probably be wise to use boosters as needed since the layout will be 30' along the sides of the "U" and 24' at the bottom of the "U" and I recommended feeders every 9'.
As someone whose first post was a DCC post (it must be a union rule for newbies), it's clear DCC is the way to design things. It may be more expensive for the decoders, base system, and throttles. That said, while I haven't run the numbers, I'd be curious how much more expensive DCC is over DC when you factor in needing the extra transformers and the labor cost of wiring the blocks etc.
If you're just getting into the hobby, I think DCC is only slightly more expensive than DC. You can get most locos with DCC for a little more money, but it's not usually twice the cost of the loco*. Where I think the expense comes into play isn't someone new to the hobby, but someone returning from a long absense. I'm not sure which of my old fleet of locos I want to hardwire new chips into.
Almost every hobby has a big initial expense to get into it. I also play the guitar and my first guitar and amp were still around $600. What is nice for people getting into the hobby is the ability to join a club and use their stock while you get up and running.
If you just factor in club dues, railroading can be a very inexpensive hobby to get into.
*not counting sound
BRAKIE DCC wiring can be as simple as one wishes or as complicated as any DC layout. The reason is simple wiring overkill by the builder. My 12' ISL uses two wires from my Tech 6 to the track a friend of mine uses a feeder with drop wires every three feet and every industry siding on his 16' ISL and he uses a NCE Powercab. I can see feeders every 9 feet but,every three feet plus the sidings? Overkill.
Then you can also run virtually all current DCC/sound locos on DC alone. This is a little limiting if you really do plan on separately running two or more locos, but for the standard 4x8 or small shelf layout, is really not a problem. You can do DC dirt cheap and the Tech 6 that Larry mentions isn't much more and truly versatile.
Keep in mind this is different than RC (fly, crash/fly, crash/fly, crash ) where you get to keep the controller
With model railroading, like the real thing, you invest and build infrastructure, faster or slower according to your resources. But you get to keep it and with any crashes finding the pieces is somewhat easier/more recyclable
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
mlehmanThen you can also run virtually all current DCC/sound locos on DC alone. This is a little limiting if you really do plan on separately running two or more locos, but for the standard 4x8 or small shelf layout, is really not a problem. You can do DC dirt cheap and the Tech 6 that Larry mentions isn't much more and truly versatile.
Mike,That's exactly why I choose Tech 6 over the NCE Power Cab.I needed DCC to operate my DCC/Sound engines and the DC to run my other engines.A simple push of the button and I'm back to DC.
While DCC/Sound engines can be ran on DC one is IMHO loosing a lot of choices like horn type,bell ring rate,the ability to dim or brighten the headlights speed steps etc. Now add the T6 hand held throttle and you can run up to six DCC eqiupped locomotives.
Like some of MRC past DC power packs you can adjust momentum and braking plus start volt on regular DC locomotives
Now,With the help of my brother in law I been slowly adding DCC decoders to my favorite engines and I been thinking about upgrading to MRC's Prodigy Explorer but,that remains to be seen simply because my T-6 and its hand held throttle is still filling the bill for my DCC needs and gives me all of the current CVs..
Gotta laugh......... the OP throws a skunk in the room and then disappears.
New people tend to do that at times I have seen over the years.
Why are not all cars and trucks Plug and Play? We don't read the instruction manuals anyway.
Thank you for your response to the thread, everyone. This has been a good read, and I do admit that I may have overestimated what DCC entails - I do not have the money to buy my own Command Station, nor to buy a PC3 to hook a layout up to my computer; hopefully, after I get certified as a machinist, the money will start rolling in.
Until then, I'm stuck with running my locomotives at the club layout.
To answer the guy about the BLI locomotive choices I made, they were originally meant to be static displays that I could eventually take out for a spin - I'm an illustrator, so I wanted to use the locomotives as an art reference for a story I was developing years ago.
Paul: Your response was very well thought out and written, and has the mark of someone who's very experienced with the hobby. I've been brainstorming a two-part module layout that I think will be fun to run at home and at shows. The idea I'm running with is that I'd put in a switchback inside a faux mountain to allow locos to get to the upper track, and on the upper track, I'd put fake powder snow for a rotary snowplow to work with. The problem is finding the right kind of powder snow that won't cause a short on the tracks, and is sling-able by a modded rotary snowplow. I have plans to take an Athearn rotary snowplow and mod it with an micro air pump or some other design that will make it functional. Fun project to take a crack at.
To everyone else on the following points:
Regarding wiring on the trackage, I'm not 100% sure how I should approach that for a layout that's about 14 feet long in two module segments that's 7' each. If anyone can provide some advice on this point, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to try to keep the wiring as simple as possible, and maybe separate it into a total of four power blocks - "mainline/railyard" and "upper level" (there will be tracks about 7" above the mainline closer to the wall).Here's a picture of the layout as I drafted it from SCARM:
The light blue tracks are the "second district" leading to the top level tracks (the really bright cyan tracks). Pink tracks is the "engine house" wing of the railyard, while the dark orange-red tracks is the shunting yard. The regular orange tracks is the passenger station bypass for loading/unloading at the station. Yellow is the mainline track, as per NMRA/Free-Mo module standards. Feedback is greatly appreciated. :)
As an aside, I'm a new member, and my posts have to be approved by a moderator, and in addition, it's been only three days since the original post was approved by a mod, and you're implying I'm a troll or ghost? :P
I would say some of you have a pretty bad sense of time. :)
mobilman44 Gotta laugh......... the OP throws a skunk in the room and then disappears.
In all fairness, he might still be on probation and his replies may take three or four days to clear the censors.
Time will tell...
Regards, Ed
When you are right, you are right! But I doubt it takes more than a day to release a post.