mobilman44 There are a number of "trigger issues" in our hobby, and "DC vs. DCC" is probably the main one. Most of us are firmly implanted on one side or the other. While many have experience with only one system, a few of us have had intimate experience with both. Over a period of 25 years, I built two somewhat identical room filling layouts in a spare 11x15 bedroom. The first (1994-2008) was DC, and the second (2008-2020) was DCC. IMO, both layouts were wired to the max, giving me the fullest operating experience I could dream up. That said, I can argue the pros and cons of both systems - based on experience. I believe most of us know them already, so there is no need my listing them here. But what I will add is that the choice is solely up to the individual. And, there is no "right or wrong" choice, just as there is no "right or wrong" choice for era, road, scale, locale, etc., etc. For what its worth.........
There are a number of "trigger issues" in our hobby, and "DC vs. DCC" is probably the main one. Most of us are firmly implanted on one side or the other. While many have experience with only one system, a few of us have had intimate experience with both.
Over a period of 25 years, I built two somewhat identical room filling layouts in a spare 11x15 bedroom. The first (1994-2008) was DC, and the second (2008-2020) was DCC. IMO, both layouts were wired to the max, giving me the fullest operating experience I could dream up.
That said, I can argue the pros and cons of both systems - based on experience. I believe most of us know them already, so there is no need my listing them here.
But what I will add is that the choice is solely up to the individual. And, there is no "right or wrong" choice, just as there is no "right or wrong" choice for era, road, scale, locale, etc., etc.
For what its worth.........
Very well said.
The beauty of this hobby is. There is no right way or wrong way. Do what works for you. From control system to ground foam, plaster to paint, scratch build to RTR. There is no need to get heated. As long as there's no government regulations and enforcement, we are free to model what and how we like.
Pete.
Doughless My old layout in Indiana was 35 x 13 J shaped. A simple but large layout. One train at a time. I ran it with DC using the wireless Aristo Craft CREST Train Engineer throttle. It was wired with only one pair of feeders. When I went to DCC/Sound, I soldered the joiners. But that didn't provide a clean enough signal to be reliable through turnouts, so I added about a dozen feeders throughout the layout. My new layout has even more feeders over its 25 x 19 U shape.
My old layout in Indiana was 35 x 13 J shaped. A simple but large layout. One train at a time. I ran it with DC using the wireless Aristo Craft CREST Train Engineer throttle. It was wired with only one pair of feeders.
When I went to DCC/Sound, I soldered the joiners. But that didn't provide a clean enough signal to be reliable through turnouts, so I added about a dozen feeders throughout the layout.
My new layout has even more feeders over its 25 x 19 U shape.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have never had issues of voltage drop within a block or from one block to the next. Like Douglas, if I only ran one train at a time, I would only need two wires.
I have never had issues of voltage drop within a block or from one block to the next.
Like Douglas, if I only ran one train at a time, I would only need two wires.
Let me use an extreme example for this purpose. Let's say that I have an around the room U-shaped shelf layout that is 100 feet long. If I use only one pair of feeder wires on a DC-powered layout, is there no voltage drop? I believe that using such an arrangement on a DCC-powered layout would result in significant voltage drop.
Rich
Alton Junction
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Doughless As far as wiring, it depends on the layout. I consider any wire that contacts track to be a feeder. Soldering is work. Soldering under the layout even more work. My old layout in Indiana was 35 x 13 J shaped. A simple but large layout. One train at a time. I ran it with DC using the wireless Aristo Craft CREST Train Engineer throttle. It was wired with only one pair of feeders. Because I built and ran the layout with unsoldered joiners, I added a long bus/feeder to the other end to compensate for voltage drop over the nearly 50 linear ft of track. When I went to DCC/Sound, I soldered the joiners. But that didn't provide a clean enough signal to be reliable through turnouts, so I added about a dozen feeders throughout the layout. My new layout has even more feeders over its 25 x 19 U shape. I figure that going from DC to DCC/Sound caused wiring to go from 2 pairs of feeders to about 28 pairs of feeders now. From my perspective, DCC requires a lot more wiring than DC.
As far as wiring, it depends on the layout.
I consider any wire that contacts track to be a feeder. Soldering is work. Soldering under the layout even more work.
My old layout in Indiana was 35 x 13 J shaped. A simple but large layout. One train at a time. I ran it with DC using the wireless Aristo Craft CREST Train Engineer throttle. It was wired with only one pair of feeders. Because I built and ran the layout with unsoldered joiners, I added a long bus/feeder to the other end to compensate for voltage drop over the nearly 50 linear ft of track.
I figure that going from DC to DCC/Sound caused wiring to go from 2 pairs of feeders to about 28 pairs of feeders now.
From my perspective, DCC requires a lot more wiring than DC.
Thank you!
On my previous layout, and on the new one, the average block, is about 20' long, some as much as 30' long.
All rail joints within the block are soldered. There is one feeder, because the feeder wire needs to run thru an inductive coil of a detector for the signal system.
Those wires come from a cab control relay board that is typically located near an interlocking at one end of the block. Those relays get the throttle power from a 12 gauge throttle buss which comes from the Aristo Craft wireless throttle base units.
My layout will be setup to run six trains on the double track mainline at the same time with a simple to use walk around control system.
My wiring is complex, but most of it is on relay panels built on the bench then installed and hooked up.
Add detection, signaling, CTC, one button route control of turnouts/interlockings from multiple locations and display panels that show where all the trains are, to your DCC layout and tell how simple your wiring is. My layout will have all that, and automatic train control - run a red signal, your train stops.
Sheldon
maxmanOh, I don't know. But the following seems to be pretty close:
Great video, maxman! I know what I want for Christmas.
York1 John
hon30critter maxman Oh, I don't know. But the following seems to be pretty close: Hi maxman, Thanks for that great video! I found it thoroughly entertaining. I had a grin on my face the whole time. Cheers!! Dave
maxman
Oh, I don't know. But the following seems to be pretty close:
Hi maxman,
Thanks for that great video! I found it thoroughly entertaining. I had a grin on my face the whole time.
Cheers!!
Dave
You are most welcome. I'm happy that at least one person watched it.
- Douglas
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
wjstix ATLANTIC CENTRAL But I don't get the those who defend the mutli drop feeder thing as if it is not "wiring". It may be idiot simile, but it is still wires that need to be run and connected. In 55 years as a DC operator I have never connected more than one pair of wires to a control section (block). If you only want to run one train / engine at a time, then you can connect each block of your track to one DC powerpack and you're good to go. If you want to run more than one, or be able to have a train stop in a passing siding so another can pass it, you now have to wire up a second power pack, and have some type of toggle switch for each block of track so you can determine which power pack controls which section of track. On a big layout, you may need to wire up blocks so they can be controlled by one of 4 or 5 different throttles. Plus for crossovers on double track mainlines or reverse loops, you have to add wiring / switches to allow the change in polarity. In DCC, you can essentially wire the layout as one big block, just separating reverse loops which are controlled by automatic reversers. If you want to stop a train in a siding, you pull it into the siding and put the throttle speed to zero. Another train can pass it - or if you have short trains and long passing tracks, two trains could occupy the block at the same time.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But I don't get the those who defend the mutli drop feeder thing as if it is not "wiring". It may be idiot simile, but it is still wires that need to be run and connected. In 55 years as a DC operator I have never connected more than one pair of wires to a control section (block).
If you only want to run one train / engine at a time, then you can connect each block of your track to one DC powerpack and you're good to go. If you want to run more than one, or be able to have a train stop in a passing siding so another can pass it, you now have to wire up a second power pack, and have some type of toggle switch for each block of track so you can determine which power pack controls which section of track. On a big layout, you may need to wire up blocks so they can be controlled by one of 4 or 5 different throttles. Plus for crossovers on double track mainlines or reverse loops, you have to add wiring / switches to allow the change in polarity.
In DCC, you can essentially wire the layout as one big block, just separating reverse loops which are controlled by automatic reversers. If you want to stop a train in a siding, you pull it into the siding and put the throttle speed to zero. Another train can pass it - or if you have short trains and long passing tracks, two trains could occupy the block at the same time.
What? Your reply has nothing to do with what I said?
News flash, I was building DC layouts with blocks and multi throttle cab control 50 years ago.
News flash, I have helped a number friends build and wire large DCC layouts.
News flash, I have designed, built and used for 20 years a multi throttle DC Cab Control system that does not use one toggle switch - it uses push buttons.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut I don't get the those who defend the mutli drop feeder thing as if it is not "wiring". It may be idiot simile, but it is still wires that need to be run and connected. In 55 years as a DC operator I have never connected more than one pair of wires to a control section (block).
As far as the future advances, I think that better and smaller batteries may make track wiring go away. Since I use N scale, I don't think batteries will be small enough in my lifetime.
I know that radio-controlled battery locomotives are available, but still not widely used, even with garden railroads.
NDPRR suggested his idea of cab controls and some kind of virtual experience...
An advance that I know is available today, but not widely used, is front-of-locomotive mounted cameras with live feed to a TV. I think it would be neat to have a large screen mounted on the wall behind the layout with real-time views of the track.
I could drive my train, see the layout, and at the same time see the view as if from the cab. Then I would also need cameras mounted backward to get a view when the locomotive is in reverse. Then ...
rrebellWhat made the difference is the price has come down alot just like a lot of things in life.
Something else I have seen contributing to growth in the percentage of DCC layouts is simply new layouts.
I know four modelers who have removed old DC layouts in the past few years and the new layout was DCC.
Not me, I am staying with DC. The reasons are simple.
1) My new layout is intended for single person operation (me).
2) I really do not like on-board sound.
3) I have a good collection of brass steamers I really do not want to convert to DCC.
4) I am completely comfortable installing, troubleshooting, and repairing DC wiring.
If I was going to start all-over at this point, it would be with DCC. It would also be G scale with massive on-board sound. I am not starting over from scratch, and I will happily be a DC dinosaur.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
5 years ago DC was still king, now it is about 50/50. What made the difference is the price has come down alot just like a lot of things in life. Also reliability improved and then the sound factor for some (thats what got me). The best idea out there is battery but the tecnoligy is just not there to get mass converts. This will change as batterys get smaller and more powerfull.
SeeYou190 As far as wiring goes, I have been involved in the building of a few home layouts with DCC for others. The wiring was much easier, by a factor of many times over. Eliminating the cab selectors alone pretty much justified the use of DCC for medium sized layouts. If you are also willing to use manual turnout controls, your wiring can be reduced by amazing amounts. -Kevin
As far as wiring goes, I have been involved in the building of a few home layouts with DCC for others. The wiring was much easier, by a factor of many times over.
Eliminating the cab selectors alone pretty much justified the use of DCC for medium sized layouts.
If you are also willing to use manual turnout controls, your wiring can be reduced by amazing amounts.
Kevin, with manual turnouts and no signaling, agreed DCC wiring can be pretty simple. And medium sized layouts often don't need much power district wise.
But I don't get the those who defend the mutli drop feeder thing as if it is not "wiring". It may be idiot wiring, but it is still wires that need to be run and connected.
In 55 years as a DC operator I have never connected more than one pair of wires to a control section (block).
As for the complexity of cab selectors, not so complex if you use push buttons and prebuilt circuits. I don't use this one, but what I use is similar in concept.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/kstapleton3/600.HTM
Some random thoughts....
When I decided to do DCC, like many folks, I had a working layout with two DC powerpacks. I simply replaced one power pack with my DCC controller (2 wires), I didn't have to change any other wiring and it worked fine. I did later set up a separate programming track, again very easy (2 wires from DCC controller to outputs for programming track.) Only difference was I didn't have to keep flip-flopping toggle switches for each block of track to control 2 trains, I could just set them for DCC and run the trains thru the DCC system.
Unless you want to buy blank LokSound decoders and program them yourself, all other DCC decoders come from the factory already programmed with defaults that will work fine. You should change the ID from 03/0003 to the engine ID, so you can control each locomotive separately, but that's all you really have to change. The rest is optional.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL It seems to me that DCC appeals strongly to people who like sound i chose DCC because it minimized wiring. ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. i think that's quite a leap. more realistic diesel and steam throttles are possible for those interested in micro operation. sound can be improved with mechanical sounds when drifting and giving more control to throttles (dreaded 403 error)
ATLANTIC CENTRAL It seems to me that DCC appeals strongly to people who like sound
i chose DCC because it minimized wiring.
ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model.
i think that's quite a leap. more realistic diesel and steam throttles are possible for those interested in micro operation. sound can be improved with mechanical sounds when drifting and giving more control to throttles
(dreaded 403 error)
It does not minimize wiring if you want detection and signaling, at least not to any major degree.
And as layouts grow in size and number of locos, power districts and such also expand complexity.
One last complaint, power drops every 3 to 6 feet are wiring, wiring I don't have or need with DC.
ndbprr Well I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes a virtual reality rr would be like Microsoft railroad program. What I intended was a system that had a small camera(s) in the cab that could switch from front to rear view and be controlled by some sort of virtual reality so you could actually ride on your train.
Well I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes a virtual reality rr would be like Microsoft railroad program. What I intended was a system that had a small camera(s) in the cab that could switch from front to rear view and be controlled by some sort of virtual reality so you could actually ride on your train.
Ok, still not interested, have fun.
wrench567 Check out Rail Pro. Does what you want using about 14V DC. Easy to program, much better control and sounds, easy to run consists, and puts the fun back in MR. Joe riogrande5761 ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want but you never know. I have a dream. Oh back to reality. I can envision a control system that has low voltage AC through the rails that is only used to charge a hi tech battery pack in each locomotive. Each locomotive would have a chip that receives a control signal wirelessly from a palm sized throttle with voice commands for functions and addresses. Consists are linked to each other for speed matching, lights, horn and bell from the lead unit only no matter which direction. Oh well. Maybe some day. Pete.
Check out Rail Pro. Does what you want using about 14V DC. Easy to program, much better control and sounds, easy to run consists, and puts the fun back in MR.
Joe
riogrande5761 ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want but you never know.
I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want but you never know.
I have a dream. Oh back to reality.
I can envision a control system that has low voltage AC through the rails that is only used to charge a hi tech battery pack in each locomotive. Each locomotive would have a chip that receives a control signal wirelessly from a palm sized throttle with voice commands for functions and addresses. Consists are linked to each other for speed matching, lights, horn and bell from the lead unit only no matter which direction.
Oh well. Maybe some day.
ATLANTIC CENTRALIt seems to me that DCC appeals strongly to people who like sound
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Sheldon brings up some good points and at the same time demonstrates that there are proud holdouts for traditional ways. There are club members that still run pizza cutters and horn hook couplers on DC. Slow to change? Yes and no. Some don't want to change because it works, have way too much that it's not economic, and some tradition. I've also seen people seemingly change overnight. Buying new equipment and building a new layout in very short order. I call it the KD coupler syndrome. KDs work and somewhat looks better than the horn hook couplers. But if Seargent couplers came out thirty years earlier, they may be the defacto coupler today. If I didn't have to buy and change out about a thousand of them. I'll stay with the KD. Change is slow for a multitude of reasons.
As others have pointed out, it is doubtful any statistically accurate numbers can be quoted.
In my personal knowledge of nearby people with home layouts:
1) About half use DCC.
2) All large layouts that host operating sessions use DCC.
3) A lower percentage of N scale layouts use DCC.
4) All people are satisfied with their personal choice about DCC.
wrench567 riogrande5761 ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want but you never know. I have a dream. Oh back to reality. I can envision a control system that has low voltage AC through the rails that is only used to charge a hi tech battery pack in each locomotive. Each locomotive would have a chip that receives a control signal wirelessly from a palm sized throttle with voice commands for functions and addresses. Consists are linked to each other for speed matching, lights, horn and bell from the lead unit only no matter which direction. Oh well. Maybe some day. Pete.
I would be happy to skip the voice control part.......
I have used DCC on the layouts of others for the better part of 20 years now. And I have helped design, build and wire a few of those layouts.
Nothing about DCC had yet to motivate me to use it on my own layout.
That said, I have long suggested that the next advancement would be a direct radio system where control signals go directly from a wireless controller to the locomotive.
Well it has been available for a while now, does not seem to be catching on all that much, batteries or no batteries.
My interests in model trains is not focused around the idea of being the train engineer as the primary activity or interest. I'm not interested in proto throttles, sound effects, turning headlights or ditch lights on and off, or listening to simulated radio chatter.
It seems to me that DCC appeals strongly to people who like sound, people who want the "intimate" experiance of being the engineer, and people who are tech oriented.
Historically many people in this hobby are slow to imbrace change. No because they are backward, or unwilling to change, but because change takes time and money in a hobby that is already time and money intense.
For those modelers young and old who imbrace some sort of small layout "less is more" modeling philosophy, change might not seem like a big deal.
But for those who invest in larger more complex layouts, changing something like a control system mid stream is a big deal - time and money already spent is wasted - sometimes a lot of it.....
Think about this - if you have 5 locomotives on an 18' shelf layout, a new control system is not a big deal.
Installing or replacing decoders in my 140 locos is a bit more, so is replacing 10 existing wireless throttles.......
There were no ditch lights in the era I model, in fact many roads still ran with no headlights during the day.........
OP wrote: "i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. That shouldn't cost more then four figures. That would be the ultimate in my opinion but I doubt I will still be here if and when it happens."
Check out the Roco z21 app. It can do that, right now -- providing you have one of the Roco locomotives equipped with an internal camera. You actually move the controls inside the cab of the engine to run the train.
You'll need either an Android tablet or iPad (iOS). You can download the Roco app (it's free) from either google play or the App Store. Search for "roco z21". There are actually TWO control apps -- an older one (red engine on blue background) and the newer one (letters "z21" on a dark grey background).
You don't need the Roco dcc hardware to try these in demo mode. What you're thinking about is already available in the here-and-now.
I've done a couple of DCC installations for friends, but could never decipher the lingo for programming.The first one was reasonably easy, as the owner was more than capable for doing the programming.Here's a couple of photos...
...with all-wheel pick-up...
The second one was done for the friend who had supplied the loco (gratis) for the first guy.I was somewhat taken aback when he announced that it was to be for dead-rail operations (battery powered).I managed to do the installations, but again was mystified by programming (as was the owner). However, he knows somebody who will do the programming.
A couple of photos...
...simple access to the controls...
...with easy operating instructions for the owner (who is in his eighties)...
...and the loco, (out of my hands) ready for programming...
I was surprised to get an e-mail from the programming guy, who complimented both my installation work and the paint job, too.
My layout is strictly DC, because it's simple enough for even a dummy like me to wire. I have visited and run DCC locos, but am not at all impressed (actually "annoyed" would be a better word) by sound effects for steam, as I can still hear the real ones from my very young days when steam locos were running just across the street from where I lived. I do find the diesel sound effects in DCC to be more prototypical, but of not much use on my late '30s-era layout.I have no interest in running multiple trains at the same time, and if the trailing train is heavy enough, no need to speed-match locos, either...when it's time to move that train, pretty-well all of my steam locos co-operate quite well with one another.None of my locos have working lights, because I don't do "night" operations, and in my era's timeframe, that was not necessary during the day unless it was foggy, raining, or snowing...none of which are allowed to occur on my layout.
I would guess that when I take that last train ride, the DCC-ers would not be at all interested in acquiring any of my locomotives (because there's no room in the locos or tenders as they're usually filled with lead).I'd guess too, that freight and passenger cars from the late '30s wouldn't be in high demand either.
What I have pleases me, and I'd hope too that those using DCC are equally pleased.
Wayne
riogrande5761 ndbprr i see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want.
I doubt that will happen. Sounds like a train sim would be pretty close to what you want.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAll the informal surveys on this forum, and other places, magazines, other forums, etc, suggest amoung HO an N scale modelers, DCC use is between 50% and 60%. A quick scan thru some of the Facebook groups suggests about the same. To the OP, I have ZERO interest in a control system that simulates a engine cab. Sheldon
A quick scan thru some of the Facebook groups suggests about the same.
To the OP, I have ZERO interest in a control system that simulates a engine cab.
I agree with Sheldon.
Since I'm in HOn3 and 1900 era HO, fitting DCC is not trivial or fun. The ONLY reason I even use DCC at all is that DCC is the only control system that makes sense for modular layouts at shows. Otherwise, I'd be still using DC. I just have no reason for the features of DCC on a small shelf layout. Sound would be nice but makes DCC installation even tougher in these tiny engines.
I never saw the inside of a steam cab, although I did operate steam turbines on a ship. No interest in pretending I'm in a steam cab - again layout realities dictate.
Fred W
ndbprri see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983