I think one of the keys to whether or not DCC is appealing is whether or not you operate prototypically and have lots of people run the trains with you.
Straight DC wiring and the associated block controls needed to make it possible to run many trains at once greatly complicate things. Not to mention, the expense of wiring a larger layout for flexible straight DC to run multiple trains is not cheap either.
In a recent Layout Design Journal (publication of the Layout Design SIG), modeler Peter Brahan reported his Layout Design Lessons Learned. In the article, Peter told of his experience on the DC versus DCC question:
“I decided to save a few bucks and go DC [on my previous layout]. Therefore my layout had over 100 toggle switches and saying it was a complete mess to run would be an understatement. It used to take 30 minutes to train new operators to even get a train running, and my operators were all nuclear engineers – no kidding. I am going to make the transition to DCC on my new layout. This is a no-brainer for many people, but it's not worth the up front savings of money for all the headaches of DC when it comes to installation, troubleshooting, and ease of operation.”
But if you're mostly a railfan who just likes to watch the trains run and often run the trains solo or just with another guy or two, then I can see why DCC might not be very appealing.
INDIVIDUAL LOCO TUNING
However, as I've said elsewhere, don't overlook one of DCC's very powerful traits: individual loco tuning. Some of the best slow speed loco performance I've seen has been on DCC using a Back EMF decoder ... the loco literally "floats" smoothly through complex trackwork like it has tremendous mass. Very impressive!
No more fiddling with power pack settings to try and get the best performance out of each-and-every loco or trying to remember what settings worked best last time with this loco. No more concerns about compensating for a stiff mechanism or tight trackwork by cranking up the throttle briefly while starting out your train or while running the train through the yard ladder.And no need to pull off the loco shell to adjust loco performance by fiddling with the mechanism. You can easily adjust loco performance settings while it's on the track using DCC programming on the main.
That's one thing DC just can't match.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
4x8 are fun too!!! RussellRail
RRTrainman wrote:....if someone give's a complete system and all the decoder's for my loco's that's the only I'm going to make the switch.
And for some of us, even that wouldn't be incentive enough to switch.
Wayne
Antonio wrote:Rule 17? There are those of us that enjoy emulating the prototype as close as possible, which includes the flexibilities of manipulating the lighting and sound effects. For me (and I'm sure for others) something as simple as having a cut of locomotives idling in front of the loco shop with the lead unit's headlight in the "dim" mode, getting ready to go out on a new assigment offers a pleasant sense of satisfaction.
----------------------------------------------
Agreed but,safety rules should be followed as well especially while switching cars.I know you have seen modelers do "crash couplings" and high speed switching as well as slam into a car at a industry..Obeying the more simple safety rules goes hand in hand with emulating the prototype lighting..
Also more then likely any unit sitting in a engine terminal or outbound ready track will have the lights shut off.
Savvy mi amigo?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE wrote:As far as "back up" lights that is only found on model locomotives..Real locomotives lights stay on in either direction.To be honest "reversing" headlights been my pet peeve for years since we strive to emulate the prototype.As far as rule 17..Why do we try to emulate that rule when breaking tons of safety rules when we operate our trains?
As far as "back up" lights that is only found on model locomotives..Real locomotives lights stay on in either direction.
To be honest "reversing" headlights been my pet peeve for years since we strive to emulate the prototype.
As far as rule 17..Why do we try to emulate that rule when breaking tons of safety rules when we operate our trains?
Brakie, I should have been more specific as I was thinking of the E and F units that were equipped with a light on the back.
Rule 17? There are those of us that enjoy emulating the prototype as close as possible, which includes the flexibilities of manipulating the lighting and sound effects. For me (and I'm sure for others) something as simple as having a cut of locomotives idling in front of the loco shop with the lead unit's headlight in the "dim" mode, getting ready to go out on a new assigment offers a pleasant sense of satisfaction.
Guys,
We don't want to turn this into a DC vs. DCC thread as there have been a lot of good responses. Point is that many of us enjoy the 'flexibility" offered by DCC, clear and simple. If you're satisfied with traditional DC, go for it. It will likely be around for a long time. One of my colleagues is building a simple layout and is going DC, but is curious about DCC.
Currently DCC is much cheaper now than a decade ago with some basic decoders selling for $11 dollars now. A far cry from the $40 to $60+ of the early 90s. But there is still a cost. But a similar argument can be made for those of us purchasing brass units vs. plastic.
There are some saying that this DCC technology will eventually become obsolete. So.......is that a good reason not to invest and enjoy it if one is looking for operating flexibility and special effects? Suppose that 20 years from now, a revolutionary technology emerges and supersedes DCC. Will today's naysayers, (who will be much older then ) jump up and say "See! See! I told you so!" but then turn around and say "Well, uh this new technology will be replaced 10 years down the line! Just wait and see! You kids just don't listen!"
Good grief, instead of waiting for this new super-technology to break onto the scene..............I think I'll have some fun with the current command control technology while I can still walk and breathe and my hair hasn't grayed over yet!
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
DCC will most likely go before DC does...reason, DC is reliable and it is much cheaper to manufacture products using it. Like the ''old fashioned'' X2F couplers, DC was the mainstay for years, then when DCC came along everyone rushed to buy it. Then the troubles started, remember the first DCC products?? Horrid pieces of junk, both locos and controllers, and it took a while for the maunfacturers to get their collective acts together and fix it. Now the systems are reliable and moderately priced, but as with all things electronic, someone, somewhere, is working on a way to make it more sophisticated [read---complicated].
The next generation of ''smart'' control devices will most certainly use a form of DCC, but it will involve PC's and most likely some type of hand-held device similar to Blackberries. The DCC you know today will be relegated to the junk bin and termed ''old school'' by the new generations. But, the standard DC products will still be manufactured, bought and used.....and yes, even those much malighned and hated X2F couplers will still be around, the reason......reliabilty.
Is VHS dead? not even close!! If you can't find VHS movies and blank tapes you must live in the Amazon! WallyMart sells movies and blank tapes and a VHS\DVD player for under $100......perhaps you need to get out of the train room a little more??
jecorbett wrote:It doesn't seem that long ago that VHS won the battle with Beta as the standard VCR recorder/player but now that technology is considered to be Stone Age. I'm sure many of us still have them and use them but for the most part, they have been replaced by DVD and DVR. Good luck trying to buy either blank or prerecorded VHS tapes unless it is at a garage sale. So will DCC become so popular that DC layouts will soon be considered obsolete. For a long time, knuckle couplers were considered add-on equipment but now they are the standard and most equipment I buy doesn't even include the horn-hooks anymore. Likewise, will manufacturers quit offering DC locomotives and go strictly with decoder equipped locos. I can't see DC becoming completely extinct. There will always be some holdouts. I still know of people who play vinyl records and have working 8-track players. Is the day coming when DCC will completely push DC offerings out of the market place and the DC holdouts will have to REMOVE the factory decoders and build their own powerpacks just so they can continue to operate their DC layouts.
Though I own a couple of DVD players and a nice collection of discs, I still get my VHS blanks at Wal-Mart, have three VCRs in the house and two new in the box in storage and my layout is and always will be DC. It's the younger generation that's into all of the latest technology, not most people my age...
Tracklayer
It seems that the saving grace for many/most of the issues we face, whether in DC or DCC, will be when we can power locos from a tiny cell easily accessed and replaced as needed in the engine itself. Once an on-board power system is available, the entire thread will be moot. Real radio throttles and their responding systems will be the next challenge, after which improvements in details and realism will continue to be our pursuit....
..I think.
Admiral_Ritt,For throttles, there is a system that, if you have DC throttlepacks, can operate up to 2 additonal throttles for no extra cost. The Digitrax Zephyr has two "Jump" ports that allows one to plug in up to two DC throttlepacks that can be used to have independant control of two more trains.
In all other DCC systems, you must buy more throttles to control more trains independantly (unless you use a computer to do it). But that's not any different than DC. In fact, it's better. If you have a single operator DC layout and you have a friend over, how do they control a 2nd train independantly? You can't. But with DCC if you have a half dozen friends come over and they all have DCC throttles that work with your system, they can all control trains independantly from each other.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
This is a very interesting topic and the posts are most interesting as well. I'm a DC person myself and will probably always be one. I'm very much into technology..but I really like operating my layout..not a large one( but on two independent levels) in good old DC.I also hesitate at this point in time to fork out the extra dollars for DCC equipped locomotives. In lots of cases I can buy two DC ones for the price of one DCC one.
It would be very interesting to take a poll on this subject every three months or so and at the end of a two year period to see if ther had been any sizeable migration to one format or the other. I think also it will be some time before DCC will be offered in starter train sets.Thanks for listening
If I undestand correctly, buying an intro DCC system, you will get precisely ONE
controller, that can program a heck of a lot, but basically that single controller is the
only unit you get if you want to directly command your trains. So if your friend comes
over and operates another train you have to what... play hot potato with it?
or buy another controller (does that work and is there a limit to how many controllers are operating??)
I would much prefer single station RC system with eight channels that can provide 2 channels
for each of 4 engines. As for swichting (I believe a real man should use the full sized levers
yardmasters use.) but since that would mean cutting up your floorboards....
I am old school, which is strange since I haven't even made a layout more complicated than
a figure eight. I like the Swiching controll box with diagrams and togle switches, how else is
an apprentice yardmaster going to learn. In my new layout plans What I may do is split the
difference, with transtiing trains running on DC and working trains at the yards/assembly inDCC
Occams Razor wrote: Hopefully. Once DC is gone there won't be as many issues with having to install decoders, they'll already be there...in all models not just some. Why use a vastly inferior technology?I have some concern though over people that think that DCC only benefits those with large layouts. In my opinion, there are far more advantages provided to small and mid-size layouts (provided they want to run more than one engine) by DCC then there are to large layouts.
Hopefully. Once DC is gone there won't be as many issues with having to install decoders, they'll already be there...in all models not just some. Why use a vastly inferior technology?
I have some concern though over people that think that DCC only benefits those with large layouts. In my opinion, there are far more advantages provided to small and mid-size layouts (provided they want to run more than one engine) by DCC then there are to large layouts.
Hi Occams,
Though command control will continue to become more and more popular, imho, DC won't die anytime soon.
I agree that DCC is beneficial to small layouts as well as large layouts. For those of us that enjoy the prototypical "Special FX", it adds more to the enjoyment. Just to be able to turn headlights, back up lights, Mars lights, Gyra lights, Rule 17 mode lighting, complements the fun on even a small shelf layout.
DC will never go away. I won't change to DCC, even though I do have a layout that operates Lenz. It's too much of a pain to switch everything.
A die-hard modeler down here says that he will never switch to DCC. He has about 150 brass steamers and an equal ammount of diesels. I can't imagine trying to get all of those switched.
Phil
tsgtbob wrote: Price is one issue, especially considering that I'm a 2 rail O scaler, and the decoders for some of those Amp Hogs are not what I would call cheap! A MRC 3500 G gauge power supply works my loop layout just fine.
Price is one issue, especially considering that I'm a 2 rail O scaler, and the decoders for some of those Amp Hogs are not what I would call cheap!
A MRC 3500 G gauge power supply works my loop layout just fine.
Decoders isn't cheap in HO or N Scale either..
tsgtbob wrote:DC will be with us for a very long time, as there are those out there who don't want to mess with DCC, don't care, or for that matter, don't have the extra $$$$ to spend on DCC accessories.
Flipping through one of the recent catalogs, I noticed that a DC only version of an engine is roughly $100 less than the DCC version. I don't know about you all, but that's a serious premium, one that I'm unwilling to pay. With car payments, mortgage payments, and other bills, I simply can't justify spending that kind of money on something that's basically a toy. (Not trying to slam anyone here, folks.)
Also, it's not that I don't want to mess with technology (I do tech support for a brokerage company), but again, it's a bit expensive right now.
Lateral-G wrote: Brunton wrote: Both DC and DCC will go the way of VHS. Here's why:http://cs.trains.com/forums/1452043/ShowPost.aspx This is the only sensible reply so far. -G-
Brunton wrote: Both DC and DCC will go the way of VHS. Here's why:http://cs.trains.com/forums/1452043/ShowPost.aspx
Both DC and DCC will go the way of VHS. Here's why:
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1452043/ShowPost.aspx
This is the only sensible reply so far.
-G-
I disagree with you on several points, first being there have been many well thought out, and sensible replies to this thread. DC in MY OPINION( Which is all ANY of these replies are, is OPINIONS, none of us has a crystal ball) is going to be around a LOOOONNGGG time to come yet. Something that only a couple of others have touched on is how most new Locomotives that come DCC equipped, the majority are DUAL-MODE decoder equipped, so that they can be operated EITHER WAY. This does not have to be an either/or subject. There is no reason for the manufacturers to lose a market segment over the small cost of making the decoders DUAL-MODE.
I believe it was 1906 when Joshua Lionel Cowen first introduced 3-Rail AC, and 102 years later, while not the LARGEST segment of the Hobby, it is still a Healthy segment that is not going away any time soon. 3-Rail AC may very well out live BOTH DC and DCC. Talking to the owner of my LTS, he has said that while still a minority scale now, O-Gauge sales have been INCREASING.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Brunton wrote:Both DC and DCC will go the way of VHS. Here's why:http://cs.trains.com/forums/1452043/ShowPost.aspx
wjstix wrote:Anyway...I can't see young folks joining the hobby not using DCC in the future, so I suspect DC will go like outside-third-rail in O scale - you'll see people using it for a long time, (MR featured such a layout around 1990 IIRC)
Anyway...I can't see young folks joining the hobby not using DCC in the future, so I suspect DC will go like outside-third-rail in O scale - you'll see people using it for a long time, (MR featured such a layout around 1990 IIRC)
FYI, last Feburary, MR did a story on an outside 3rd rail O scale layout.
John Armstrong's Canadaguia Southern!
Friends of John's told me he was seriously considering converting it to outside 3rd rail DCC before his passing!
DC will be with us for a very long time, as there are those out there who don't want to mess with DCC, don't care, or for that matter, don't have the extra $$$$ to spend on DCC accessories.
This is kind of like asking "Will electric guitars ever replace acoustic guitars?" and the answer is, No! Yes, the electric guitar is far more common, but the acoustic is still made and used in large numbers in the non-rock industry. And even then, many rock bands will bust out an acoustic version of a single. (Such as the acoustic version of "Tears Don't Fall" by Bullet for My Valentine.)
Not to mention DCC just doesn't make sense for some layouts! If you have a display layout, with say 4 independent tracks with trains just running in circles, it would not make sense to use a DCC system on that layout. You'd be better off with 4 DC powerpacks. Or 2 MRC dual control power packs.
And as was stated earlier in the thread, DCC isn't a completely new format. It is a middle man. The tracks are fed an unusable Bi-polar DC, the current has commands for a specific decoder in it, and the decoder responds by turning x-amount of Bi-polar DC into usable Uni-polar (correct my terminology if I'm wrong) DC for motor. So no, DC layouts will never go away.
Dallas Model Works wrote: Randall_Roberts wrote: loathar wrote: Blank VHS tapes are still readily available. Like DC locomotives will be for a long time to come.Anynody know WHY VHS beat out Beta?Beta wasn't slightly technologically superior, it was VASTLY superior. It used a single-arm spindle mechanism that pulled the tape 3/4 around the tape head for better contact and a vastly improved image. The VHS mechanisms used two spindle arms that only gave 1/2 diameter contact with the tape heads.VHS beat Beta, as others have said, on price and storage capacity. But the unseen factor was that it was a proprietary system made only by Sony while Matsushita opened the VHS specifications up to other manufacturers, just as IBM opened up their vastly inferior PC architecture and had contracts that allowed MS to sell the OS to other PC manufacturers, while Apple kept the vastly superior Macintosh architecture proptietary. As with the Mac, A variant of Beta did survive, Betacam was a popular commercial format and is still around.However, the DC standard in model railroading has a history dating back well over half a century, while these electronic products barely reach back two decades. DC will be around in some form. But it will be interesting to watch and see how much of the market DCC takes, and what forms it evolves into.Best! Randall -- Good to see that somebody knows the Beta/VHS - Mac/PC parallels and the reason for their respective failure/success!Moral of the story: sharing will make you richer.
Randall_Roberts wrote: loathar wrote: Blank VHS tapes are still readily available. Like DC locomotives will be for a long time to come.Anynody know WHY VHS beat out Beta?Beta wasn't slightly technologically superior, it was VASTLY superior. It used a single-arm spindle mechanism that pulled the tape 3/4 around the tape head for better contact and a vastly improved image. The VHS mechanisms used two spindle arms that only gave 1/2 diameter contact with the tape heads.VHS beat Beta, as others have said, on price and storage capacity. But the unseen factor was that it was a proprietary system made only by Sony while Matsushita opened the VHS specifications up to other manufacturers, just as IBM opened up their vastly inferior PC architecture and had contracts that allowed MS to sell the OS to other PC manufacturers, while Apple kept the vastly superior Macintosh architecture proptietary. As with the Mac, A variant of Beta did survive, Betacam was a popular commercial format and is still around.However, the DC standard in model railroading has a history dating back well over half a century, while these electronic products barely reach back two decades. DC will be around in some form. But it will be interesting to watch and see how much of the market DCC takes, and what forms it evolves into.Best!
loathar wrote: Blank VHS tapes are still readily available. Like DC locomotives will be for a long time to come.Anynody know WHY VHS beat out Beta?
Blank VHS tapes are still readily available. Like DC locomotives will be for a long time to come.
Anynody know WHY VHS beat out Beta?
Beta wasn't slightly technologically superior, it was VASTLY superior. It used a single-arm spindle mechanism that pulled the tape 3/4 around the tape head for better contact and a vastly improved image. The VHS mechanisms used two spindle arms that only gave 1/2 diameter contact with the tape heads.
VHS beat Beta, as others have said, on price and storage capacity. But the unseen factor was that it was a proprietary system made only by Sony while Matsushita opened the VHS specifications up to other manufacturers, just as IBM opened up their vastly inferior PC architecture and had contracts that allowed MS to sell the OS to other PC manufacturers, while Apple kept the vastly superior Macintosh architecture proptietary. As with the Mac, A variant of Beta did survive, Betacam was a popular commercial format and is still around.
However, the DC standard in model railroading has a history dating back well over half a century, while these electronic products barely reach back two decades. DC will be around in some form. But it will be interesting to watch and see how much of the market DCC takes, and what forms it evolves into.
Best!
Randall -- Good to see that somebody knows the Beta/VHS - Mac/PC parallels and the reason for their respective failure/success!
Moral of the story: sharing will make you richer.
I really hate to harp on this, but it was JVC that invented VHS, reference: http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/history_center/vhs.html . Matsushita (Panasonic) had nothing to do with it's invention other than being the first manufacturer to be licensed to produce VHS and brought the first VHS vcr to market six months before JVC.
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
Craig
DMW
Doesn't Brunton have a parallel thread on the same subject? Maybe you guys are driving me insane............ That would be an easy accomplishment.
Marl
To get back to the original subject...
I rather suspect that sometime in the future DCC as we know it today will go the way of 8-track stereo when some new, completely incompatible supersystem featuring on-board batteries and totally dead track moves in to replace it.
In the meantime, stone-age throwbacks who can figure out how to make a DC power supply out of a wall wart, a bridge rectifier, a rotary switch and a fistful of resistors will continue to run DC. At that point, I'll be laughing my head off.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - analog DC, MZL system)
betamax wrote:The IBM PC was quickly designed using off the shelf parts. Nothing special. The only thing special was the BIOS. Didn't take Compaq long to create their own reverse engineered version, thanks to all the documentation IBM published about their BIOS. IBM's big mistake was not locking down the operating system, giving Compaq access to an almost identical OS.
They didn't need to reverse engineer. All that documentation included a bios source code listing. I had that manual.