DoughlessDCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time.
Come on now. You want to run loco #1234? It's press "select loco", enter numbers 1234, then press "enter". Exactly how long and complicated was that?
Tinplate Toddler30+ years after the introduction of DCC, this shouldn´t be a question anymore, having been discussed ad nauseum in all those years.
That would indeed be the case if we were to exclude newbies from building layouts. Even newbies remember running trains on the floor as a kid with a "power pack" of some kind. Now when they rejoin the hobby as adults it's only natural when somebody mentions DCC they would ask what it is and why they might want to use it.
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.
DoughlessDCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time
Just enter the loco number. Not that hard -- all the other complexity is hidden from the user. One doesn't "reassign the command station", in any case. One Command Station is managing many locos or consists at once -- totally transparently to the user. Users select the loco or consist they wish to control with a throttle.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
maxman Doughless DCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time. Come on now. You want to run loco #1234? It's press "select loco", enter numbers 1234, then press "enter". Exactly how long and complicated was that?
Doughless DCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time.
Taking my eyes off the train to look down and hit 5 little buttons on a throttle instead of flipping one toggle by feel seems longer and more complex to me.
I'm not complaining about complexity. They are both very easy. What I'm pointing out is that many don't see the "complexity" of reassigning the commands from loco to loco in DCC. They only seem to see the "complexity" of reassigning power to the track. Somehow, flipping a toggle is a chore, but readdressing a throttle is a simple as taking a breath.
- Douglas
carl425Now when they rejoin the hobby as adults it's only natural when somebody mentions DCC they would ask what it is and why they might want to use it.
If someone computer-savvy enough to post this question here, one could assume that he is also smart enough to type "Digital Command Control" in the search box of his browser and get the information. Again, after 30 years, the web is loaded with all the information for newbies and old hands alike!
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
cuyama Doughless DCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time Just enter the loco number. Not that hard -- all the other complexity is hidden from the user. One doesn't "reassign the command station", in any case. One Command Station is managing many locos or consists at once -- totally transparently to the user. Users select the loco or consist they wish to control with a throttle.
Doughless DCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time
I know that.
The point is that in order to change any train, or turnout, or signal, or animation to doing something other than what it is currently doing requires assigning the proper command via throttle, or Iscreen, or whatever the interface-of-the-day is so the command you're about to send doesn't get sent to the wrong item.
So if you have a complex layout with a lot of things going on at the same time, and you want to change them during a session, a whole bunch of time is being spent readdressing the interface and sending different commands instead of watching the trains.
Unless you spend the time to educate yourself in computer/DCC programming and write a complicated program that will run all of the other stuff for you.
Complex is complex, regardless of system.
DoughlessTaking my eyes off the train to look down and hit 5 little buttons on a throttle instead of flipping one toggle by feel seems longer and more complex to me. I'm not complaining about complexity. They are both very easy. What I'm pointing out is that many don't see the "complexity" of reassigning the commands from loco to loco in DCC. They only seem to see the "complexity" of reassigning power to the track. Somehow, flipping a toggle is a chore, but readdressing a throttle is a simple as taking a breath.
You're not driving on the Interstate at 80 miles per hour. Taking your eyes off the train isn't an issue -- it's likely not moving yet anyway if you haven't addressed it.
And "toggle by feel" implies a two-cab system. Is that really the comparison to DCC, which offers independent control for many trains anywhere on a layout?
DC is fine. DCC is fine. But it would be great if we could stick to the facts and not invent issues that aren't there.
As usual, I've brought facts to a "feelings” fight. I'll withdraw – do carry on.
cuyama Doughless Taking my eyes off the train to look down and hit 5 little buttons on a throttle instead of flipping one toggle by feel seems longer and more complex to me. I'm not complaining about complexity. They are both very easy. What I'm pointing out is that many don't see the "complexity" of reassigning the commands from loco to loco in DCC. They only seem to see the "complexity" of reassigning power to the track. Somehow, flipping a toggle is a chore, but readdressing a throttle is a simple as taking a breath. You're not driving on the Interstate at 80 miles per hour. Taking your eyes off the train isn't an issue -- it's likely not moving yet anyway if you haven't addressed it. And "toggle by feel" implies a two-cab system. Is that really the comparison to DCC, which offers independent control for many trains anywhere on a layout? DC is fine. DCC is fine. But it would be great if we could stick to the facts and not invent issues that aren't there. As usual, I've brought facts to a "feelings” fight. I'll withdraw – do carry on.
Doughless Taking my eyes off the train to look down and hit 5 little buttons on a throttle instead of flipping one toggle by feel seems longer and more complex to me. I'm not complaining about complexity. They are both very easy. What I'm pointing out is that many don't see the "complexity" of reassigning the commands from loco to loco in DCC. They only seem to see the "complexity" of reassigning power to the track. Somehow, flipping a toggle is a chore, but readdressing a throttle is a simple as taking a breath.
They are both fine. And I run both. I simply see any complexity in layout operations requiring a flurry of activity while operating, or spending up front effort in designing and installing either wiring or programming to avoid it.
Byron, Ulrich and maxman,
There is a bit of a misunderstanding here.
Douglas is refering to the implimentation of turnout controls, CTC and signaling along with controling the locomotive.
My Advanced Cab Control intergrates all three functions into very streamlined tasks.
Having used a Digitrax throttle to control turnouts, I will take my one button route control over controling them from a DCC throttle any day.
If you look at both turnout control and CTC, DCC provides no special advantages in operation or installation.
In fact, because my system is not solid state or computer based, I don't need a "logic" level and a "power" level. Control logic for CTC and turnout control is done at the power level.
And half the cab control forwarding is done by spare (read free) contacts on relays already in play for the signals and turnout controls.
Sure aquiring a DCC address is easy enough, but turnouts still need to be thrown, and if you want CTC, signals still have to be controlled.
Aquiring a loco on my layout is easy too, look at the train, look at the diagram on the dispatchers panel or nearby tower panel, push the correct single pushbutton for your throttle number and location.
Buttons by the way that are easily seen and far enough apart to easily push......unlike a Digitrax throttle.
Sheldon
Thanks Sheldon. Conceptually I understand what you're doing.
The power to the signals and switch machines have to get there by wires. If operated with DCC, generally speaking, the devices need to receive commands separate from each other, and any other train/device that is running.
To the points others have made:
Whenever I read these threads, there is a overriding tone of many responses that implies that DCC eliminates nearly all of the complexities of a DC layout. I don't think that's true. It only eliminates a few, and introduces some that DC doesn't even have.
It eliminates the few complexities that exist in certain types of layouts. But many of those problems are caused by layout design and operating style in the first place. For many simpler operating layouts, control system choice is a push.
Byron,
Douglas had been following and understanding my Advanced Cab Contol. Which is by no means two cabs and toggle switches.
As implimented on my previous and future layout, it provides:
Eight throttles on the mainline, throttles are wireless radio.
Additional separate throttles in yards, branchlines, etc.
Signals, detection and CTC
As well as local tower control
Redundant turnout controls on local tower and CTC panels, turnout controls are "one button" per route.
ATC - automatic train control, you cannot "over run your block"
Working interlockings - once a train is detected in interlocking territory, turnouts in that interlocking cannot be thrown.
More than 50% of the "cab assignments" are route controlled.
Redundant cab assignment push buttons do not require "turning off" and are present at the beginning and end of each block, and on the dispatchers panel.
Operation with a dispatcher is pretty much the same as DCC. Without a dispatcher, operators need only set their routes and assign their next primary block, usually only two or three buttons to push at a tower panel.
Easier than throwing a turnout with a Digitrax throttle....
Of course if you are just going to run trains willy nilly, and flip PECO turnouts by hand, DCC is a better choice.
I have no intent of EVERY controlling my turnouts via DCC throttle - for reasons given. A local panal, and/or a dispatcher will do that job. No crazy button pushing while running the train. Most DCC systems have basic engineer cabs - they can't throw turnouts, they can only control the loco.
On the opposite side, you have touchscreen throttle now that you can actually load the turnout addresses into and move the points by swiping and tapping. No need to key in numbers or trying to remember the address of the turnout you are approaching.
So there are simpler ways of doing it now available (and have been available for a while), plus no one says you can't use the 'old way' with DCC and just have simple buttons or toggles. Or a combination thereof - many DCC stationary decoders have the option to add local pushbuttons. So any given turnout can be controlled by the throttle OR a button right on the fascia.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker I have no intent of EVERY controlling my turnouts via DCC throttle - for reasons given. A local panal, and/or a dispatcher will do that job. No crazy button pushing while running the train. Most DCC systems have basic engineer cabs - they can't throw turnouts, they can only control the loco. On the opposite side, you have touchscreen throttle now that you can actually load the turnout addresses into and move the points by swiping and tapping. No need to key in numbers or trying to remember the address of the turnout you are approaching. So there are simpler ways of doing it now available (and have been available for a while), plus no one says you can't use the 'old way' with DCC and just have simple buttons or toggles. Or a combination thereof - many DCC stationary decoders have the option to add local pushbuttons. So any given turnout can be controlled by the throttle OR a button right on the fascia. --Randy
Completely agreed.
My point is simply this, with DCC you still have to throw the turnouts, by one means or another.
IF you do it with push buttons on local panels, you are doing the exact same thing I do with DC. You are walking around the layout with a wireless throttle and setting turnout routes while you run your train. And yes, at each one of those local panels I push one extra button.
One extra button that saves me $8,000 in layout electronic infrastructure expense since I do desire to have my trains "regulated" by the signals/CTC.
And again, if you don't want CTC, if you do want sound, if your layout is small and you expect multiple operators/trains close to each other, than DCC is a better choice for you, no question.
But I can easily do without the few benifits DCC would provide me, and with that there is at least some reduced complexity, like consisting locos, that I don't have to do.
DC vs DCC?
.
I think I will stand by a previous comment I made a while back.
If you are an old guy like me with all your knowledge, skills, experience, technical ability, and confort level wrapped up in DC, then DC is the right choice. With this decision you are forever giving up on sound and equipment compatibility. There are also new products you will not be able to use (Walthers Plymouth Switcher).
Everybody else should use DCC.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 If you are an old guy like me with all your knowledge, skills, experience, technical ability, and confort level wrapped up in DC, then DC is the right choice. With this decision you are forever giving up on sound and equipment compatibility. There are also new products you will not be able to use (Walthers Plymouth Switcher).
Not that it matters for the purpose of this discussion, but since you brought it up, our October issue will include a review of the HO scale Walthers Plymouth switcher, equipped with ESU LokPilot DCC.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Steven Otte SeeYou190 If you are an old guy like me with all your knowledge, skills, experience, technical ability, and confort level wrapped up in DC, then DC is the right choice. With this decision you are forever giving up on sound and equipment compatibility. There are also new products you will not be able to use (Walthers Plymouth Switcher). Not that it matters for the purpose of this discussion, but since you brought it up, our October issue will include a review of the HO scale Walthers Plymouth switcher, equipped with ESU LokPilot DCC.
Is that the one with keep alive capacitors?
Joe Staten Island West
joe323 Steven Otte Not that it matters for the purpose of this discussion, but since you brought it up, our October issue will include a review of the HO scale Walthers Plymouth switcher, equipped with ESU LokPilot DCC. Is that the one with keep alive capacitors?
Steven Otte Not that it matters for the purpose of this discussion, but since you brought it up, our October issue will include a review of the HO scale Walthers Plymouth switcher, equipped with ESU LokPilot DCC.
Yes.
The older one with the Soundtraxx motor-only decoder also has a keep alive. If the ESU one uses their actual keep alive, it shoould eb configurable fooor hour long it runs on the capacitors - mine with Soundtraxx runs until the power is depleted, close to 30 seconds - it can travel quite a distance on even such a thing as my rubber work mat on my workbench. Too long, actually.
At some point I will take on the challenge of fitting a Loksound Micro in it and giving it sound. That should be fun. Absolutely doable, if you can get sound in those little 25 ton Grandt Line boxcabs, this should be a snap relatively.