Are the DC layouts slowly all disappearing?

[tstage]

Gentlemen,

I think we've been around the block a few times in this elevator already and the conversation is falling into its familiar furrow of discussion, which - by the way - has diverged from the OP.  Whether DCC overtakes DC in popularity or not; DC will always be around in one way, shape, or form.

As others have said (or at least implied), either option is a personal choice for everyone and I would hope that we would all support one another - whichever side of the track we end up on.  And, as I see it, we're still going the same direction on the same track in this beloved hobby of ours.  We just have different needs, wants, and interests.

With that said, let's move on.  Thanks for keeping things cordial - for the most part.

Tom

[locked]

[PhillipL]

I for one, certainly hope DC does not disappear. I have an extremely small layout (4' x 6').  From what I can see, it would alot of work for me to convert it with little real personal benefit for me.  Also, my hobby budget is relatively small so that most Atlas or Athearn DCC locomotives are beyond my budget.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

TMarsh

Personally, I've not seen a DCC only loco in my hobby shop. They are capable of running both DC and DCC. One loco appealling to both sets seems to be a good idea from a marketing and manufacturing standpoint. If you are DCC it fits, if you are DC it fits, if you are one wishing or planning to switch to the other, it fits. If you are DC and don't want to spend the few extra bucks for the decoder in some, you can choose the DCC ready, or if you have a preference for a different brand than installed you can choose DCC ready and install the one of your choosing.OR as someone said, sell the old decoder for a few bucks.

Sounds like no sign of DC going away to me, just the manufacturers accomodating both sets and slimming production costs.  Look at your car. You may not have some option, but usually you'll find the cars wiring harness will accommodate the option you do not have. More expensive per vehicle? Yes, but overall with all things considered, one wiring harness is cheaper than making and storing two. Same with the model locos.  

Todd, Not universally true. Many dual mode decoders will not run, or not run well on advanced DC throttles that use pulse width modulation speed control (just like the output of a DCC decoder) to control train speed. So Decoders need to be removable and by passable.

Inexpensive dual mode setups like in the Bachmann GE 70 tonner literially will not run on my Aristo Train Engineer wireless throttles, they just sit there and go "buzzzzzz".

Better dual mode decoders will run, but speed control is poor. Remove the decoders and the locos run smoothly at one or two SMPH.

And the Aristo Train Engineer is only one of several pulse width throttles currently on the market.

Not to mention the fact that my testing shows even with convetional power packs like those from MRC, most locos run better without dual mode decoders.

That said, as long as they are removeable and bypassable like Bachmann does, and the decoder is not adding a ton to the price, that's fine with me. I take those Bachmann decoders out and sell them cheap on Ebay.

Sheldon

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Stein wrote:

 Please explain to me again why DC and cab selection is less complex and more prototype-like, if you are going to perform the relatively simple maneuver of having a train pass through this part of the line, or if you are going to have two trains meet either at the leftmost or rightmost siding, to have to switch which cab controls which block(s) of track ?

 Say - setting Blocks 1 and 3 and 5 to be controlled by Cab A, and blocks 4 and 6 to be controlled by Cab B, in the case of a planned meet where the eastbound train goes into the siding labeled "Block 5".

 Now, introduce a third operator, a third train and a third cab. Say it the late running third train either will go into the hole at the siding labeled "Block 2", or you will try to have one train wait in the siding labeled "Block 5" while the other two trains (preferably moving in the same direction :-) pass it  on the main, one after another.

Stein,

First you are assuming that each block must be seperately controled with a selector switch or toggle - not so. Examine the control panel shown:

This is a control panel on a layout that uses Aristo Wireless DC throttles for walk around control. The two "passing siding blocks" get their power from the two "outlying blocks" based on turnout position.

Two trains can move at the same time into their assigned track on the siding. Trains with no possible route based on turnout position are automaticly on dead track. Engineers have very few "toggles to flip", and turnouts have to be alighed with any system - DC or DCC.

I suggest you find out more about Ed Ravenscroft and MLZ control (Model Railroader - Feb '74 thru May "74) and that you read Paul Mallery's work on advanced cab control before you make too many assumptions about the user interface needed to control DC layouts. Admittedly such systems envlove more complex electrical construction, but they result in user interface that is easy and similar to DCC, where aligning turnouts and/or getting "trackage rights" from a dispatcher are often the only "action" needed, not a lot of "toggle flipping".

And your 'senerio" is not very prototypical as Brakie suggests, in the type of scenerio you suggest, a dispatcher would more likely hold one of those trains "fartrher out", for safety reasons.

Paul Mallery suggested a system like I have built for the layout shown in the picture, but never saw it done. We did it and it works great.

On the control panel shown, the lower sets of buttons assign cabs to the "town" shown. There are 4 "blocks" (I dislike this term as it is a signalling term - Paul Mallery suggested "section" since our control sections and prototype signal blocks do not line up) but ony two of them require assignment. turnout position handles power distribution to the other two.

The uppers sets of buttons are redundent set for the next town in each direction, allowing trains leaving this town to set the next "block" to their cab so that they can proceed. On the single track areas, "block" gaps are staggered, and each throttle has a discrete power supply, so without both "blocks" assigned to you cab, your train simply stops. Guess who popularized that idea? - John Allen. 

This is just one of many succesful advanced cab control systems that make DC user interface easy.

Sheldon

  

[CP5415]

To DCC or not to DCC......that is the question!!

Nothing wrong with DC, never has been! Nothing wrong with DCC either, never will be!

Again, the same with rolling stock & locomotive manufacturers, it's all a matter of choice & to a latter extent,  opinion!

We all know a thing about opinions in this hobby, especially on this forum!

I'm choosing to go DC even though I want to go DCC. My choice! Nothing more. It boils down to economics! I can't afford to DCC all of my locomotives right now. Again, choice. When i go DCC, it's all in all at once! I have 100 locomotives to convert & I like using anyone of them at any given time.

Gordon

[TMarsh]

Personally, I've not seen a DCC only loco in my hobby shop. They are capable of running both DC and DCC. One loco appealling to both sets seems to be a good idea from a marketing and manufacturing standpoint. If you are DCC it fits, if you are DC it fits, if you are one wishing or planning to switch to the other, it fits. If you are DC and don't want to spend the few extra bucks for the decoder in some, you can choose the DCC ready, or if you have a preference for a different brand than installed you can choose DCC ready and install the one of your choosing.OR as someone said, sell the old decoder for a few bucks.

Sounds like no sign of DC going away to me, just the manufacturers accomodating both sets and slimming production costs.  Look at your car. You may not have some option, but usually you'll find the cars wiring harness will accommodate the option you do not have. More expensive per vehicle? Yes, but overall with all things considered, one wiring harness is cheaper than making and storing two. Same with the model locos.  

[CNJ831]

blownout cylinder

aaaahhhhhhh....bickerfesting over market share.... 

This is starting to get silly. 

Why are we having people trying to convert others to go DCC here? Is there a new religion out there? No.

I'm not so sure about that!

I don't know just how long you've been perusing model railroading forums (I'm sure some other long timers here will recall this situation), but back in the early 2000's most sites saw a plague of "DCC Zealots" descend upon them. These folks would interject their DCC opinions into absolutely every thread, regardless of its nature, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with train control. If you have turnout problems - DCC will fix that. Poor running locos because of dirty track - DCC will cure that. Have a certain car that derails...yep, DCC will fix that too! And so on. It was truly bordering on insanity. Finally it reached a point where posters were heading some threads asking would DCCers please not respond to their question, such as, "This Is A DC-Only Thread"! Even that didn't deter the zealots!

Thank goodness that sort of nonsense has subsided, but we still get threads like this one (the subject line gave its intent away to me at the very first glance) and it was clear just where the thread would go. For some reason many DCC folks simply can't stand the idea that although DCC has been in the marketplace for a long time now, it still clearly ranks second to DC in regard to use among current hobbyists. And you wonder why the public views model railroaders as a bunch of strange ducks these days?

CNJ831

[BRAKIE]

Stein,I see you know very little about the principles of dispatching-don't feel bad there are thousands of others.

----------------------------

Now, picture an even more complex situation - due to a massive mess caused by a derailment on a busy mainline, you need to tuck two short westbound trains into the long siding labeled "Block 5", to allow three eastbound trains to move past them.

---------------------------

First as a dispatcher I would not get into that situation.I would hold the shorter trains in 2 separate passing sidings(no sense in crowding a passing siding) till the Eastbound flow passes then start the Westbound flow holding any Eastbound train behind the first three in a passing siding til I got the 2 Westbounds through..

At one club we dispatch with CTC and as a dispatcher I had to manage to get 4 Eastbound and 4 Westbound trains between the yards and like a chess game I had to plan my moves ahead and aviod any situation like you describe.

I could do 3 way meets as well simply by having one train to hold the main and having the following train to stop at the signal until the opposing train entered the siding.

[Forty Niner]

Hey Stein,

Saying I'm emotional about this denotes I care, I really could give a "rat's patootie" about how you operate your railroad, that's up to you.

And for the record I didn't say anyone on this forum has referred to me as stupid or any other names, I doubt that the moderators would allow that to happen and everybody pretty well knows that.

Again, I'm not the one who is emotional about the issue, I guess if you really needed me to give you an emotion it would be closer to "amused" by the whole thing as it always goes from a discussion to an arguement, never fails here or anywhere else.

I guess now I can add "emotional" to the list with all of the others eh?

Mark

[steinjr]

 Mark --

 Why is it that you get an emotional reaction (resentment is an emotional reaction ...), and start talking how others have called you "old fashioned, out of touch, simple minded, and even stupid" in this context?

 I can't recall having seen anyone else call you "stupid" or "simple minded" or anything even remotely similar to that in this thread? If you believe you have been so treated - who did it? When?

 Stein

[blownout cylinder]

aaaahhhhhhh....bickerfesting over market share.... 

This is starting to get silly. 

Why are we having people trying to convert others to go DCC here? Is there a new religion out there? No.

I use DCC as well...I do not have a problem with others using DC ... so what is the big whoopie about here?

If people want to stay with DC let them...

[Forty Niner]

I've been following this thread from the beginning and all that comes to mind is "so what"???

The guys who are satisfied running DC only probably aren't going to up and scrap their set up to go DCC anymore than the guys running DCC are going to scrap their's.

I'll be the first to admit that there are some things DCC does that allow you to do things that DC doesn't, but again, so what? You both think you're right so just use them and enjoy them, does it really make that much difference if someone "doesn't" convert to DCC? Does that somehow make them an outcast or or something?

I really don't get this entire thread, if you like DCC then fine and dandy, I prefer to use DC only, does this threaten you or something? Do you think this means that if we don't have 100% participation in DCC that they are going to quit making it and leave you high and dry. I seriously doubt that will happen.

I have been referred to as "old fashioned, out of touch, simple minded, and even stupid" just because I don't see the need to convert to DCC. Why the animosity?

"Some" of you DCC fellows are starting to remind me of the guys that come around on Sunday afternoons and want to talk to me about Jesus when all I want to do is be left alone and play with my trains. Then I'm called a "heathen" and they leave only to return the following Sunday with the same agenda on their minds.

We aren't dumb, most of us know what DCC can do and what it can't do and we "choose" to stay with DC. Again, why does that bother you guys so much?

I spent about 25 years working with computers so I'm not computer illiterate, I actually grasp all of the things DCC can do, but at the same time when I retired I told myself the last thing in the world I wanted to do was get involved with anything electronics that I could avoid. I well know what happens when something breaks in electronics, everything shuts down which means you go on a hunting expedition to find the problem.

For me there are enough things in life to keep a person busy without adding more things to complicate it.

So you run your DCC, I'll run my DC system, and let's discuss something a bit more useful rather than who's right and who is not. Those arguements are never resolved to a satisfactory solution anyhow so "what's the point"?

Mark

[steinjr]

 

Doughless

You're right, there are more applications once one thinks about it more. I was not attempting to debate  the merits of DC over DCC.  What I have is just some frustration over some inconsistencies I see in the hobby:  

 There are certainly good arguments for why it is a bad idea to change a layout that already works well on DC.

 There are also good arguments for why the added complexity might be worth it if it saves cost (e.g if you have piles of supplies than can be reused for DC cab control, and a large fleet of engines that would need decoders for DCC) .

 There are good arguments for why it makes sense to leverage what you already know how to do, rather than learning something new.

 But that (at least seemingly) does not seem to be the main thrust of your arguments.

 Instead you seem to keep claiming that real railroads are not run in ways that would make DCC more flexible for modeling their operations than DC.

 What are we discussing here?  Are we discussing a layout where single operator runs one train and one train only per session, with no interaction whatsoever between that train and other engines?

 Or a layout where one operator will control several engines sequentially in the handling of a single train, as I described in my previous examples?

 Or a layout with multiple operators running several trains over the same layout at the same time?

 Or something else?

 In the first case, it hardly matters what you pick. One train, one operator.

 The second example we have discussed.

 Let's have a quick look at the third example. Let us assume long blocks, simple track plan, and multiple operators.

 Here is a simple schematic drawing of a linear section of an imaginary layout - nothing dramatic - a single track main with two passing sidings - you can picture each block as being 30 feet long if you think it makes a material difference to the argument.

 Please explain to me again why DC and cab selection is less complex and more prototype-like, if you are going to perform the relatively simple maneuver of having a train pass through this part of the line, or if you are going to have two trains meet either at the leftmost or rightmost siding, to have to switch which cab controls which block(s) of track ?

 Say - setting Blocks 1 and 3 and 5 to be controlled by Cab A, and blocks 4 and 6 to be controlled by Cab B, in the case of a planned meet where the eastbound train goes into the siding labeled "Block 5".

 Now, introduce a third operator, a third train and a third cab. Say it the late running third train either will go into the hole at the siding labeled "Block 2", or you will try to have one train wait in the siding labeled "Block 5" while the other two trains (preferably moving in the same direction :-) pass it  on the main, one after another.

 Now, picture an even more complex situation - due to a massive mess caused by a derailment on a busy mainline, you need to tuck two short westbound trains into the long siding labeled "Block 5", to allow three eastbound trains to move past them.

 Ooops - guess your initial wiring only allowed for two cabs being in in this area. Now what?

 One certainly can compensate for limitations in using DC track power to control trains, by the judicious placement of blocks (say routinely splitting long sidings into two electrical blocks that can be assigned to different cabs or made dead independent of each other - e.g. by ensuring that an A/D track is split into three parts, so you can use a yard engine to tack on a caboose at either end of the cut, while the road engine stands still at the other end of the cut), and by wiring cab selectors so you can assign as many cabs to any given block.

 But those things are all compensatory. You add complexity to your wiring and control system to compensate for the fact that you are varying voltage on track sections rather than controlling a train directly.

 I thought one of your core arguments was that you did not want to introduce unnecessary complexity?

Grin,
Stein

 

[Aralai]

One advantage to DCC:

It would have been much easier for me to connect a second loco to my freight train. Running DC can be an exercise in train chasing or doing it by hand.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Doughless wrote:

The trend in layout design is moving more towards shelf layouts and less track; a more linear shaped layout.  Basically, spreading things out more.  To me, when layouts gets spread out more, it tends to make operating areas and switching locations larger.  With DC, the blocks would be larger than what they were on the previous layout.  It seems to me that DC is most inefficient in a spaghetti bowl type of layout because smallish blocks cause the need for a lot of toggle flipping.  But as layouts get more linear and blocks become larger, DC becomes more efficient than it was before since the modeler has sufficient time to flip the toggles.

Also, while maybe running multiple trains at the same time is not the norm, engines running in close proximity to one another, although not at the same time, may very well be the norm.  If the trend in operations is to run your trains like a real railroad would (the definition of that can vary here), then un-consisted locomotives tend not to be that close to each other that often.  Real railroads don't like trains running in to each other, so they tend to keep them separated.  Two locomotives that are performing two different functions are likely not that close to each other.  Even in a yard that is large enough to justify having two switchers, they are likely working in their own separate areas.  Even your example of a switcher placing a caboose at the end of a train, if the train is of any length, the switcher is far away from the lead engine(s).  

Doughless,

You have hit a key point here. My layout is like this, electrical sections (blocks) are generally large, especially on the main line. And traditional "short sections" through interlockings and such are fully automated by turnout position.

As for engine terminals, there are also effective DC solutions, but it does require carefull and actually more "full scale" track planning, which as you note, can be space consuming.

And thank you for the kind words in response to my other post.

Sheldon

[challenger3980]

I think that the DCC Crowd make a lot of noise that DC is dieing, but I believe that DC will be around a LOOONNGG Time to come yet. The estimates that I have read in the hobby press have all shown DC to still be the predominate control system, those with DCC just seem to push thier choosen system harder.

 Today at the swap meet in Portland, OR the three locomotives that I sold were ALL DC, with two being DCC READY, but with just jumper plugs and no decoders, the third would be a MAJOR PITA, to ever install a decoder in, the BLI E-7 A-B(pwrd)-B(dmy) set with Sound and DCC came home with me. I had two Atlas Master DCC systems with Generator, Commander and Hand Commander, Complete in box 2 throttle systemsr $125.00 each, not even an offer on them. I did sell an MRC 280 Dual throttle power pack though.

 The simple DC only Locomotive may get hard to find in the future, I expect to see more and more dual mode decoder equipped locomotives, which the DCC group will point to, to validate their claims of DC's demise, when it just makes a single item viable to both groups, rather than having two seperate product lines.

 Don't expect DC to disappear any time soon, if technology was the end all, Lionel would have gone out of business years ago, but their AC technology is actually slowly gaining sales.

Doug

[B30-7CR]

My local hobby shop has a small layout as you walk in over by the O Scale section. It runs some DCC locomotives, mostly steam, but runs on DC cab-controlled wiring. Save for a few again, mostly steam, all the locomotives there are DC, and, as I said, is a straightforward DC cab system.

[Doughless]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Doughless,

I have been following your conversation with Stein. I hope you realize that just like you, I use DC. BUT, I use in it a much more complex form, with detection and signals, multiple cabs (eight of them) that can be assigned to track sections (blocks) from multiple locations as you walk around the layout OR can be assigned by a dispatcher. I use wireless radio throttles, and maybe most importantly I use elements from MZL control developed by Ed Ravenscroft over 40 years ago to automate many of the control functions found on some lessor DC cab control systems. This dramaticly reduces the needed "operator input commands" or "toggle fipping". Actually on my layout it is mostly "button pushing".

I am a big proponent of the idea that control systems hould be taylored to the layout design and concept and that one size does not fit all. One other modeler I know  has a layout that seems similar to how you discribe yours. He is DC as well. He has one Aristo Craft Train Engineer wirelsee throttle and a few kill switches to park locos. His industrial switching layout fills his 1200 sq ft basement.

I also operate on a number of basement sized layouts that are DCC, one of which I even designed the track plan for. And, yes, with my electrical knowledge and background, I have some hand in wiring some of these as well as my own.

BUT, in our local group, on the five DCC layouts I operate on a regular basis, NO ONE is running two seperate DCC trains at once. The only use those double Digitax throttles ever get are for switching moves like Stein just discribed above, or for pusher service. And pushers are more usually done with two operators.

I rejected DCC for my layout based on a complex set of goals, cost and complexity issues. You obviously don't need to meet your goals. For many, who have different goals, it is perfect, or at least as close as we get to that now.

My earlier conversation that got you and I going a bit was about what the future might hold, and that does have bearing on the OP's question. My point being that to overcome the original reasons I rejected DCC, some major advancements would be needed, and even then that might not cause me to change.

My layout, which is being rebuilt right now, as outlined in my first post in this thread, has lots of "advanced" features. Turnout routes through complex interlockings are aligned with the push of one button, two switchers will each work one end of a large yard independently without a bunch of "toggle flipping", switching woves like Stein discribed in his last post are easily done with minimal or no toggle flipping. But all that takes planning, and yes some complexity.

But here is the main point, my system while complex to build, it is easy to operate. throttles are simple and wireless, control panels are easy to understand and located were you need then at the time, controls are duplicated at muliple locations to allow walk around and provide flexiblity. You could learn to operate it in a half hour.

And if you make a mistake, or forget to set something correctly, nothing bad happens, the train just stops and waits for you. And it all happens without and decoders, computers, speed curve matching, etc. What is does use is hundreds of inexpensive ice cub relays, and several simple machine control circuits that have been around since the invention of the electric motor and the magnetic relay.

I chose it because, for my specific set of goals and interests, it is the least expensive and simplest solution and because it did not invloves skills beyond my knowledge or products that might become unavailable. I rejected both DCC and computerized block control and computerized signaling and  dispatching for various combinations of the above reasons.

I run multiple trains at once, but either on isoloted loops or with a crew of up to 12 people. One person never "controls" more than one train at a time. That's why the layout has all these semiautomatic safety features.

Sheldon

 

Thanks for the explanation Sheldon.  I've read your posts before and I am quite impressed with your operation and you're knowledge.  Overall, I like the way you approach the hobby.

Take care.

[Doughless]

steinjr

 

Doughless:

 

 

steinjr:

 

 

 

  For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time.

I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway.  Not everyone, but most.   

 

 

 

 

 Some fairly obvious applications that does not involve two engines moving at the same time:

 - taking a road engine to the engine house, before a yard switcher starts breaking down the cut of cars that just arrived.

 - having a switcher add a caboose to a train about to depart, take off or add a block to a hot freight train holding on the main.

 - adding or removing a helper.

 - movements in an engine terminal

 - having a switcher pull the cars off a passenger train that has arrived in a single ended passenger terminal, leaving the cars on another track, then take the formerly trapped road engine out, and turning it. Having the switcher spot the passenger cars for boarding. Have the road engine move back and couple to the cars again.

 There is quite a few moves where it makes sense, both from a prototype viewpoint and from a modeling viewpoint, to alternate between running two engines, rather than running them at the same time, using one engine to loop endlessly around the loop and the other to try to dodge it as best it can.

 Smile,
 Stein

Stein,  I haven't thought about this thread much, until it popped up on the first page again.  Not sure if I and everyone else just want's the thread to die.

You're right, there are more applications once one thinks about it more. I was not attempting to debate  the merits of DC over DCC.  What I have is just some frustration over some inconsistencies I see in the hobby:  

The trend in layout design is moving more towards shelf layouts and less track; a more linear shaped layout.  Basically, spreading things out more.  To me, when layouts gets spread out more, it tends to make operating areas and switching locations larger.  With DC, the blocks would be larger than what they were on the previous layout.  It seems to me that DC is most inefficient in a spaghetti bowl type of layout because smallish blocks cause the need for a lot of toggle flipping.  But as layouts get more linear and blocks become larger, DC becomes more efficient than it was before since the modeler has sufficient time to flip the toggles.

Also, while maybe running multiple trains at the same time is not the norm, engines running in close proximity to one another, although not at the same time, may very well be the norm.  If the trend in operations is to run your trains like a real railroad would (the definition of that can vary here), then un-consisted locomotives tend not to be that close to each other that often.  Real railroads don't like trains running in to each other, so they tend to keep them separated.  Two locomotives that are performing two different functions are likely not that close to each other.  Even in a yard that is large enough to justify having two switchers, they are likely working in their own separate areas.  Even your example of a switcher placing a caboose at the end of a train, if the train is of any length, the switcher is far away from the lead engine(s).  

OTOH, if a modeler is going to have an engine terminal on the layout, then he better go DCC.  Lots of engines in close proximity to each other.  However, with the trends in shelf layouts, engine terminals are being modeled less often than before because shelf layouts tend to consider engine terminals as space hogs.

I'm not arguing that DC is better.  In fact DCC is better because what can be done with DC can be done with DCC, but not visa versa.  Its as simple as that.  Its just that it seems to me that modelers are converting to DCC at a time when the trends in layout design and operations would make their existing investment in DC more efficient than ever.

This is just sort of a theoretical observation anyway.  None of this has any impact on what I do or how anyone else really approaches their situation.

 

[rrebell]

What is changing is everyone is going buss wiring both in DC and DCC, most of the people I know still run DC as do the clubs.

[B30-7CR]

My layout is DC only. I want to get a DCC trend going, but it costs to much for me. Pretty much all the locomotives, save for a few, are DC at my local hobby shop. It'd be a long drive from Canada to central New York, but the commute is worth the reward. WELL worth it. I actually just picked up a Spectrum Dash 8-40C for my layout and, while used, was at a deep discount. What scale are you?

B30

[papasmurf]

I, for one, DON'T have slightest interest in sound! When recently pricing new Atlas HO loco, it was considerably more expensive than than their 'dcc ready' version[which I eventually intend to buy]. In my case; extra $ saved can be spent on Peco Code 100 turnouts, Sergent Engineering couplers, scenery supplies. Sound decoders add lot of expense to any dcc loco. Got along fine for 50+ yrs.on/ off in HO, including 6 yrs. in modular  club, without sound. All the HO locos w/sound I heard at many train shows didn't impress me a bit; some were downright annoying. Even the club members there openly admitted that to me and said they often shut sound off when it bothers them too much. If I didn't already have my Lenz Set 90[bought yrs. ago] wouldn't attempt to go into dcc now, because everything has become way too expensive in the Hobby. Everyone's entitled to their opinion; that's my 2 cents. TTFN.....papasmurf in NH

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Tom,

Thank you for the kind words. I would say there is a lot of us on that "middle road" in a lot of aspects of the hobby. The balance for each person is just different from subject to subject, scenery, rolling stock, structures, control, operation, etc.

I have always said, based on what is currently available, that if you really like onboard sound in HO or N, and think it is worth the money, you should go DCC.

Personally, my experiance with hifi sound reproduction, and my general dislike of being in noisy places, combines with the poor sound quality of onboard sound in small scales to make it something I do not want.

DCC still presents lots of electrical challenges for modelers, especially as you get further into things like signals, better turnout control options, dispatching, etc.

Sheldon

[potlatcher]

Sheldon,

It sounds like you have a great layout that is fun to operate, and you should be proud of that.  I applaud you for having created such a complex and, apparently, user-friendly control system.  Based on what you have described, I'm certain that I could probably assemble a similar control system for my layout . . . someday.  However, for me it would take a lot of time, and I would face a pretty steep learning curve, before I had it assembled, had all the control panels built and labeled, and had it fully de-bugged.  And, after all that, I'm not convinced it would be that much cheaper.  That is why I chose to go with DCC.

I guess it's like the difference between scratchbuilding and purchasing ready-to-run kits.  The scratchbuilder takes his time to understand the prototype, to make a plan for replicating it, to purchase the raw materials, and to apply proper techniques to complete the model.  When he is done, he deservedly can take great pride in his model, and hopefully, others will recognize and applaud his effort.  But the novice who just wants to run a train still can go out and buy what he wants, he just won't get the same sense of accomplishment as the scratchbuilder.

Someone building their layout faces similar decisions regarding their control system.  They can follow the "scratchbuilding" path that you have chosen, and when they are finished can enjoy the same staisfaction that you have received from constructing your system.  Or they can opt for purchasing an off-the-shelf DCC system, purchase off-the-shelf locomotives with installed decoders, etc . . . and will still get to enjoy running trains, just without the knowledge that they "did it themselves".

Then there's guys like me who try to find a middle road.  I went with DCC for a variety of reasons, and it has allowed me a lot of flexibility in operating my railroad.  I do get some "did it myself" satisfaction from installing sound decoders into my older models, and also when I built my own two-point panel control for the single hidden, Tortoise-controlled turnout on my layout.  I could have opted for a DCC module to flip the turnout for me, but the cost was high and wouldn't give me a positive panel readout of the turnout position, so I went with the toggle switch and relay option.  So, for me, a middle ground between the scratchbuilding and off-the-shelf approaches works best.

Tom

[Aralai]

steinjr

 

 

 

To me, if someone had wanted to create a layout where multiple trains will be moving at the same time on intersecting paths, under the control of a single operator, DC, cab control with multiple throttles, partial automation (stopping at signals etc), and a central control desk, would be a far more obvious technical choice than a single DCC throttle, swapping desperately between trains.

 One operator, multiple trains moving at the same time is more a matter of automation than a matter of DC or DCC.

 

 

When you add a second engine, you will have to decide how to control two engines independent of each other.  How  you can have one engine standing still somewhere on your layout while the other one moves.  Or how you can have two people each controlling their own engine.

 That is the decision point where it makes sense to think about whether DCC would be a sensible option.

 It is not at all a given that it is the most optimal choice for your layout and operating style.

Smile,
 Stein

Some good points. I am not for or against either DC or DCC and can see why people would use one or the other in certain situations.

I don't agree with switching to DCC just because it seems 'newer', 'better' or can 'do more' without looking at the pros and cons for your particular situation.

For the record, I am running DC with no cab control but with the yard on one control and the mainline on another.  I am normally a single operator and will concur that one person running two trains at the same time does not work well - as Stein points out - not because of DC or DCC, but because of an operator's attention.

With my layout I CAN run a train looping on the main line while I switch in the yard. I don't usually unless I am demonstrating to people. I could have one operator run the mainline and one switch in the yard.

I did consider DCC, and the advantages to me were:

1. Sound and lights on locos.

2. Can have two or more locos on a track and operate independently.

The disadvantages were:

1. Cost. I already have DC. Would need the DCC system and decoders. DCC locos are more expensive.

2. Stopping a loco on a track and being able to operate another does not get the first loco out of the way. You still need to operate like a prototype. That means pulling into a passing track or a siding. I can do that with DC.

3. Issues with shorts - DCC is more sensitive to shutting down than DC.

The loco sound, while nice, is not something that I really need. I prefer the sound of the loco running on the track. To me the sound seems a bit fake.

I guess to answer the OP's original question - I don't think DC layouts will slowly ALL disappear. I think DCC will become more popular and there will be less DC, but for the foreseeable future I think DC is still a good cost effective fit for a lot of people.

But then I still have a crank phone and dial phones in my house. Of course the crank phone from 1918 still works and has never broken :)

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Doughless,

I have been following your conversation with Stein. I hope you realize that just like you, I use DC. BUT, I use in it a much more complex form, with detection and signals, multiple cabs (eight of them) that can be assigned to track sections (blocks) from multiple locations as you walk around the layout OR can be assigned by a dispatcher. I use wireless radio throttles, and maybe most importantly I use elements from MZL control developed by Ed Ravenscroft over 40 years ago to automate many of the control functions found on some lessor DC cab control systems. This dramaticly reduces the needed "operator input commands" or "toggle fipping". Actually on my layout it is mostly "button pushing".

I am a big proponent of the idea that control systems hould be taylored to the layout design and concept and that one size does not fit all. One other modeler I know  has a layout that seems similar to how you discribe yours. He is DC as well. He has one Aristo Craft Train Engineer wirelsee throttle and a few kill switches to park locos. His industrial switching layout fills his 1200 sq ft basement.

I also operate on a number of basement sized layouts that are DCC, one of which I even designed the track plan for. And, yes, with my electrical knowledge and background, I have some hand in wiring some of these as well as my own.

BUT, in our local group, on the five DCC layouts I operate on a regular basis, NO ONE is running two seperate DCC trains at once. The only use those double Digitax throttles ever get are for switching moves like Stein just discribed above, or for pusher service. And pushers are more usually done with two operators.

I rejected DCC for my layout based on a complex set of goals, cost and complexity issues. You obviously don't need to meet your goals. For many, who have different goals, it is perfect, or at least as close as we get to that now.

My earlier conversation that got you and I going a bit was about what the future might hold, and that does have bearing on the OP's question. My point being that to overcome the original reasons I rejected DCC, some major advancements would be needed, and even then that might not cause me to change.

My layout, which is being rebuilt right now, as outlined in my first post in this thread, has lots of "advanced" features. Turnout routes through complex interlockings are aligned with the push of one button, two switchers will each work one end of a large yard independently without a bunch of "toggle flipping", switching woves like Stein discribed in his last post are easily done with minimal or no toggle flipping. But all that takes planning, and yes some complexity.

But here is the main point, my system while complex to build, it is easy to operate. throttles are simple and wireless, control panels are easy to understand and located were you need then at the time, controls are duplicated at muliple locations to allow walk around and provide flexiblity. You could learn to operate it in a half hour.

And if you make a mistake, or forget to set something correctly, nothing bad happens, the train just stops and waits for you. And it all happens without and decoders, computers, speed curve matching, etc. What is does use is hundreds of inexpensive ice cub relays, and several simple machine control circuits that have been around since the invention of the electric motor and the magnetic relay.

I chose it because, for my specific set of goals and interests, it is the least expensive and simplest solution and because it did not invloves skills beyond my knowledge or products that might become unavailable. I rejected both DCC and computerized block control and computerized signaling and  dispatching for various combinations of the above reasons.

I run multiple trains at once, but either on isoloted loops or with a crew of up to 12 people. One person never "controls" more than one train at a time. That's why the layout has all these semiautomatic safety features.

Sheldon

 

[UncBob]

I switched over even though I only have 2 ovals with one train on each oval

I like the sound moving with the train as opposed to my static sound DC set up( 2 MRC Sound and Power 2000s)

I know the DCC/DC trains will run DC with sound but the motion was too erratic

The investment in a DCE Power cab was minimal and more than suits my needsand I already had several DCC/DC sound engines so I only had to add  sound to 3 others

One thing though I did like the sound from my static units but it didn't move with the train

[steinjr]

Doughless

 

steinjr:

 

 

 

  For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time.

I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway.  Not everyone, but most.   

 

 

 Some fairly obvious applications that does not involve two engines moving at the same time:

 - taking a road engine to the engine house, before a yard switcher starts breaking down the cut of cars that just arrived.

 - having a switcher add a caboose to a train about to depart, take off or add a block to a hot freight train holding on the main.

 - adding or removing a helper.

 - movements in an engine terminal

 - having a switcher pull the cars off a passenger train that has arrived in a single ended passenger terminal, leaving the cars on another track, then take the formerly trapped road engine out, and turning it. Having the switcher spot the passenger cars for boarding. Have the road engine move back and couple to the cars again.

 There is quite a few moves where it makes sense, both from a prototype viewpoint and from a modeling viewpoint, to alternate between running two engines, rather than running them at the same time, using one engine to loop endlessly around the loop and the other to try to dodge it as best it can.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

 

[BRAKIE]

gatrhumpy

I just bought my first DCC decoder - an N scale MRC sound decoder for a Kato SD40-2. Now I have to get the DCC system!

Another DC system bites the dust! Hopefully my electrical trackwork is OK.

 

I have the MRC Tech 6 and need to buy a sound decoder for one of my Atlas N&W GP9s or GP38s.

Since the T-6 is duel mode I can use either DC or DCC locomotives.

 

[blownout cylinder]

Sir Madog

To me, this thread has developed far beyond the OP´s intention.

Just a little.. 

[BRAKIE]

Sir Madog

To me, this thread has developed far beyond the OP´s intention.

 

Makes interesting reading though..

[Anonymous]

To me, this thread has developed far beyond the OP´s intention.

[gatrhumpy]

I just bought my first DCC decoder - an N scale MRC sound decoder for a Kato SD40-2. Now I have to get the DCC system!

Another DC system bites the dust! Hopefully my electrical trackwork is OK.

[Doughless]

steinjr

Stein wrote: 

  For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time.

I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway.  Not everyone, but most.   

I think its more typical that multiple train operations use more than one operator.  A design criteria that I am not interested in.  Since multiple train operations use multiple operators, DCC is probably preferred.

 A person picking DCC in the belief that it will allow him to split his attention more easily between many trains moving at the same time (in a situation where you actually will need to interact with the trains - ie not in a situation where you have four parallel continuous run loops and trains running around and around and around like crazed rodents) will probably be in for a rude awakening, and quickly come to the realization that the limitation is with the operator, not with the way the motors in each engine get their power from the tracks.

 To me, if someone had wanted to create a layout where multiple trains will be moving at the same time on intersecting paths, under the control of a single operator, DC, cab control with multiple throttles, partial automation (stopping at signals etc), and a central control desk, would be a far more obvious technical choice than a single DCC throttle, swapping desperately between trains.

 One operator, multiple trains moving at the same time is more a matter of automation than a matter of DC or DCC.

Agreed 

And as I tried to point out, it does not take any more knowledge of electronics for a new modeler to deal with DCC than DC.

As have I.  A few posts upstream I wrote "if you know nothing about DC or DCC, you should just learn DCC and skip the old school system"  But most modelers start out having a DC train set.  Afterwhich the decisions about what to do next usually begins. 

 The "have to learn electronic" argument is fairly irrelevant when it comes to choosing DC or DCC. Basic wiring is simpler in DCC. While some forms of automation may very well be simpler in DC.

Not really the premise of my statements. What I was responding to was the implied notion that I had to learn electronics in order to have a realistically operating model railroad., not to choose an operating system.  OPs ask questions, then some responders start using a bunch of techno-blah-blah to argue their DC or DCC points.

I've tried to point out, their techno-blah-blah knowledge is not driven by their interest in model railroading, its driven by an interest in knowing techno-blah-blah, and showing it off.  An interest that that is probably not shared by OP's who ask general electronics questions in the general section of a modeling forum website. It tends to be a hobby of its own, or a subgroup that is not shared by the generalist.

As you pointed out, there is a difference between a user of electronic equipment and a builder of electronic equipment. 

  The "general redundancy" argument is (most likely) just a way of saying "I already know how to do this in one way, so I don't want to learn another way of doing it".  I.e. plain old resistance to change.

I'm only resistant to change when I don't forsee a benefit from it. 

 That is very relevant for an experienced hobbyist who already have a working layout with DC control that works well.

 Very few of us like to start over, deliberately replacing something we know how to do with something we do not know how to do. It is irrational to create extra work for yourself, especially if it is work you don't enjoy, and if you feel that the result doesn't give you anything useful new - that it is just change for change's sake.

Agreed.

 But that argument is not very relevant for someone just starting out in the hobby - who will have to learn a lot of MR related things with very limited applications in other walks of life anyways - curve radii, turnout numbers, power handling around frogs, replacing couplers, what a switchback lead is, and so on and so forth.

Agreed.  My premise related to electronics, for which people who know the technical terminology of how analog and digital technology work is generally supported by their involvement with it in other hobbies or walks of life, more than likely.  It is not essential to model railroading.

The newb will learn those other things regardless of what op system he chooses, including basic DC wiring. The investment in proprietary stuff remains captive, to a larger degree; and therefore not at all transferable to other operating systems, if he should want to change.  Replacing a coupler is replacing a coupler, no matter what brand he chooses, or changes to later on. 

That was my rather poorly made point about interchangeable skills.

 Whether it in that situation makes most sense to learn to just turn an engine selector knob on a DCC throttle before giving commends to a second engine, or whether it makes most sense to learn enough to create a sensible number of sidings wired with on/off switches, cab control selectors or whatever depends on the inclinations of the new modeler.

Agreed.

 To me, hard wiring a bunch of spurs with an extra on/off switch to create places where a second switcher can hold on an urban switching layout is far more work than it is worth. And it creates a system where you have to plan further ahead, and where changes take more time and effort - i.e a less flexible system.

You qualified that with "to me".  Agreed, its a matter of perpective.  To me, two switchers that have separate and distinct purposes are likely going to be physically separated from each other.  Like a real railroad, who run similar trains over an over in a patterned schedule, they will be physically separated at the same location each operating session.  That's where I would locate my block.

But occasionally not, so I see your point, too.

I think when you plan a layout, it is designed around an operating plan.  Since real railroads tend to keep un-mu'ed  locomotives separate from each other when performing their duties, unless they meet at sidings, the locations for the blocks become somewhat a function of the overall picture.  Planning the operations is the hard part, where to put the blocks sort of falls into place.  Yes, the more complicated the sytem, and the smaller the space, the more planning, and wiring, and work.  But then, a complicated system in a small space becomes unrealistic anyway, (i..e spaghetti bowl) so that option is discarded before its even planned. So we're back to the beginning, a spread out system with minimal track and as few as locomotives as possible to do the job (just like a real railroad) that have distinct and separate duties so they tend to be physically far enough apart from each other (just like a real railroad) to make block wiring not that big of a deal.  A basement sized layout? Then you may need power districts anyway, sort of like block wiring, so we're moot again. 

From your perspective, of an urban switiching layout (which is NOT synonymous with a speghetti bowl) I can see where there would be more work, as you sa.  But you'd still want feeders, splicing, and soldering. anyway.  Installing an on/off switch then doesn't seem like that much more work to me.

A matter of perspective.

 Again - if you already have a functional system (that supports your existing and never changing operational scheme) in place, then it makes little sense to replace it if you do not get anything worthwhile from the change.

Agreed.

 Hopefully most of us are smart enough to understand that.

I don't believe that for a second.

The critical point is when you add a second engine. One engine - doesn't really matter whether you go DC or DCC. Especially if you don't give a hoot about playing with lights and sounds on that engine.

When you add a second engine, you will have to decide how to control two engines independent of each other.  How  you can have one engine standing still somewhere on your layout while the other one moves.  Or how you can have two people each controlling their own engine.

 That is the decision point where it makes sense to think about whether DCC would be a sensible option.

I wrote "train" to distiguish it from an mu'ed consist, which would have more than the engine moving at the same time, but not independent of each other.

Hey lookie! On the major points, we agree more than not my friend!

 

 

[tstage]

gatrhumpy

So is there a cheaper (yet just as small) DCC system as the NCE Cab system? Also, could I add layout lights to this DCC system?

gatrhumpy,

Whatever DCC system you might decide upon, you could just use an old DC power pack to power your lights with.  That way you wouldn't draw any needed amperage away from your DCC system to operate locomotives.

The other advantage of using a power pack is that you can use the knob to "dial down" the power (or voltage) so that your lights operate at less than full intensity.  This will 1) look more realistic, and 2) prolong the life of the bulbs - i.e. if they are incandescents.  (This doesn't work as well for LEDs because they need a certain amount of voltage in order to work properly.)

I operate the 12V incandescent bulbs I use for layout lighting between 50 - 60% power (i.e. 6 - 7.2 volts) and they are plenty bright enough.

Tom

[BRAKIE]

krupa

davidmbedard:

Bottom line.....

DC is limited.

DCC is not. 

DCC for the win!

 

gatrhumpy:

So I'm looking at at least $160 for the DCC system, about $70 for the DCC decoder + sound module (for two SD40-2s from MRC), another DCC + sound decoder for a Kato SD-40, and I'm at about $350.

 

I'm going to say that the "win" goes to the system that gives you want you want for a price you're willing to pay.

 

A win is only a win when the winner has won what makes him happy-in David's case he won what makes him happy- DCC while others win with DC..

Simple solution is be happy with the prize you chose.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

gatrhumpy

So is there a cheaper (yet just as small) DCC system as the NCE Cab system? Also, could I add layout lights to this DCC system?

OK just remember the advice you are about to get is coming from someone who still uses DC at home but operates regularly on a lot of other DCC layouts.

If you like the sound thing, just get over it and go DCC.

Sheldon

[gatrhumpy]

So is there a cheaper (yet just as small) DCC system as the NCE Cab system? Also, could I add layout lights to this DCC system?

[gatrhumpy]

LOL Lou. Maybe I can start small and get the DCC system + one decoder.

[krupa]

davidmbedard

Bottom line.....

DC is limited.

DCC is not. 

DCC for the win!

gatrhumpy

So I'm looking at at least $160 for the DCC system, about $70 for the DCC decoder + sound module (for two SD40-2s from MRC), another DCC + sound decoder for a Kato SD-40, and I'm at about $350.

I'm going to say that the "win" goes to the system that gives you want you want for a price you're willing to pay.

 

[blownout cylinder]

davidmbedard

Bottom line.....

DC is limited.

DCC is not. 

DCC for the win!

Are DC layouts slowly disappearing?  I just don't care.

David B

I guess some like 'limitations' then...

DCC/DC...argyments about market share....

[Javelina]

gatrhumpy

So I'm looking at at least $160 for the DCC system, about $70 for the DCC decoder + sound module (for two SD40-2s from MRC), another DCC + sound decoder for a Kato SD-40, and I'm at about $350.

Whoa.

Close your eyes. Drink the Kool-Aid. ;)

Lou

[gatrhumpy]

So I'm looking at at least $160 for the DCC system, about $70 for the DCC decoder + sound module (for two SD40-2s from MRC), another DCC + sound decoder for a Kato SD-40, and I'm at about $350.

Whoa.

[secondhandmodeler]

I hate to jump in at the end, but I thought I'd share my thoughts.  My interest in model railroads is almost strictly building my little world.  I have a big interest in trains as well, but I don't care to model the actual railroad practices. I'm a roundy rounder!  DC is an inexpensive way to add trains to my little world.  Being less expensive, it allows me to spend less on locomotives and more on kits and scenery products.  Some day I may regret my indifference to operations, but for now it suits me.  I imagine there are others out there that share my feelings that DC is good enough to start in.

Edit:  I mean it's good enough for my limited needs.

Now, I want to know which is better, HO or N!

[Anonymous]

tstage

 

Forty Niner:

Now lets all go gang up on those poor guys who use 3 rail HO!!! That's just plain un-American!!!! ;-)

 

Although not my cup of tea, I've learned to enjoy even a 3-rail layout.

Tom

Those 3-railers are beyond any discussion of DC vs. DCC

And they can also build nice layouts - here is a pic from a layout currently built by my friend Pascal in Switzerland:

[tstage]

gatrhumpy,

The command station and booster of the Power Cab are all contained inside the throttle enclosure - as one unit.  The Power Cab then plugs into the LEFT connector port of the PCP panel, where it receives its power from the wall transformer.

As far as powering lights, technically you could tap off the Power Cab's wall transformer to do that.  However, depending on the number of lights (and their total amperage), that may have an effect on how many locomotives you can run simultaneously.  The Power Cab only has 1.7A of total output.

gatrhumpy, if you have any more questions, please feel free to drop me a PM so that the thread doesn't get sidetracked.  Thanks.

Tom

[IRONROOSTER]

Fascinating, reading this thread.  What becomes readily apparent is the widely different requirements people have for their system.  For example, I have no need for signaling (Ma & Pa was "dark"), but for others it is essential.

As to the original question, I don't think DC layouts are all disappearing.  New technology has the potential, of course, to totally displace the established technology, but DCC, as it currently exists, won't do it.  It adds another option for people which is good.  But DC can be a better choice depending on what you are trying to do and what your circumstances are.

Personally I use what works best for me.  I converted to DCC because I wanted wireless walk around and at the time NCE's DCC offered the best solution.  Frankly until wireless, I had no interest in DCC - it just didn't offer enough benefit for the cost for me.  If Aristocraft's wireless had been as advanced then as it is now, I might well have chosen them.

Enjoy

Paul

[gatrhumpy]

Thanks for the reply. Would the booster and command station be compact enough to attach to the fascia of my layout? If so, would it also power my lights on my layout?

[Forty Niner]

I guess by todays standards it could be considered almost an "antique" now but it still works just fine and as the old saying goes "why fix it if it ain't broke"??

Mark

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Yes Mark it is silly not to letter your brass for your private road :-)

I only have two brass locos, but they both now have plastic tenders and say ATLANTIC CENTRAL.

But, admittedly, I don't believe in the collector value of any of this stuff.

By the way, the Aristo Train Engneer you have is the "Basic". It does not have pulse width modulation, but it is a "transistor throttle", so there isa pulse power "effect".

Sheldon

[tstage]

Forty Niner

Now lets all go gang up on those poor guys who use 3 rail HO!!! That's just plain un-American!!!! ;-)

Although not my cup of tea, I've learned to enjoy even a 3-rail layout.

Tom

[Forty Niner]

Tom,

I really don't understand why more manufacturers don't do their engines that way except of course it's still about "money" and how to transfer ours from our pockets to their pockets.

Not much irritates me more than to be forced into buying something I "don't" need in order to get something I "want", the Bachmann 2-10-2 comes to mind. Beautiful engine, great detail and a smooth runner but it really chaps my butt to be forced into buying their decoder just to get it home an remove it and throw it in the parts box. I guess they were trying to please "everybody" and of course that just never works out to well.

Now of course there are those that will instantly say "nobody is forcing you to buy it".............well DUH!! That's not the point and I've heard that comment for years and it's as stupid now as it was 40 years ago.

I buy the plastic/cast engines to use for my fictional Sierra Pacific, a line from Sacremento to Salt Lake jointly owned by the UP/SP/AT&SF. My brass doesn't get any private road decals as I just can't bring myself to paint them in a private road as silly as that may sound.

Anyhow, grew up with George Shearing on the stereo and just never outgrew him to this day, like a broken drum, he's pretty hard to beat!!!!

Anyhow, I suspect if more people just accepted things the way they are and stop making sarcastic comments we would all probably find life an easier process. After all, there are more important issues on the plate these days than whether or not you use DC or DCC.

Now lets all go gang up on those poor guys who use 3 rail HO!!! That's just plain un-American!!!! ;-)

Mark

[tstage]

gatrhumpy

Do they make a one-piece compact DCC system that can be easily transportable?

gatrhumpy,

I guess it depends on your definition of "compact".  The NCE Power Cab is a command station, booster, and throttle all rolled-up-into-one.  It's roughly 2-1/2 x 9", with the "head" ~3-1/2" wide.  You can program with it either at your layout or at your bench top.  (To program at your bench top, you'd need another power (PCP) panel and wall transformer.)

Although the Power Cab is a tethered system, it does come with a 7' cable so that you have some walk around capability.  For complete freedom, you can always go radio.

If you're interested, gatrhumpy, there's a link to an initial review of the NCE Power Cab from this web page.  You can click either the picture or the name to access the review.

Tom

[tstage]

Mark,

I think your cell phone analogy is a very good one.  Although I do own one, I seldom use it.  I find them irritating for the same reason you do - especially when I'm at a baseball game and the folks around me are more interested in texting or carrying on long conversations on their cell phones than watching the game.  That's another story.

I agree with you, too, about BLI's Blueline concept.  Like you or Sheldon, who would rather remove electronics to achieve what you are trying to accomplish, I love the idea of adding a motion decoder (of my choice) to a locomotive in order to get the low-speed response that I desire.  For me, I see it as the best of both worlds.

Lastly, you have good taste in music.  George Shearing is pretty decent pianist - albeit CD or vinyl.

Tom

[Train Modeler]

DCC and the computer interface along with sound locos are 3 distinct yet complimentary technologies that have encouraged my 12 year old son to get involved in the hobby.

Richard

[blownout cylinder]

tstage

Hey Larry,

That's why I used the term "majority" to describe those who have no problem with others operating with DC, as I know that there are those here (or who used to be here) who do/did think to the contrary.  I just hate seeing the conversation fall into a "wagon-train stance", as it were, when it comes to discussing the two methods - if that makes any sense.

Tom

I agree. It can come off like the "circling-of-the-wagons" when it comes to this...and it is good that we are not seeing the kinds of conversion scenarios that used to pepper this forum at times...

All the LHS's up here...or rather..at least the ones here in London are DCC WITH a fair representation of DC as well...no bigs here...

[gatrhumpy]

For me, until someone figures out how to get all the power from a Tech 4 dual power pack into a compact size like the Tech 4 Dual Power pack, I will stay DCC.

Although the sound would be nice.

Do they make a one-piece compact DCC system that can be easily transportable?

[tstage]

MisterBeasley

My LHS seems to be firmly in the DCC camp.  The store layout is DCC, and most of the engines on the shelves these days seem to be equipped with DCC and sound.  Because of the higher price, I'd imagine that the store makes a bit more from selling those, too.  There are DCC systems on display, too, but no DC power packs at all.  And, there is a whole wall of decoders behind the counter for those wishing to upgrade.

And the three LHSes that I support would still be firmly in the DC camp.  Although each as a good to very good selection when it comes to trains and train-related items, they have a broad base of customers that they want/need/desire to cater to.  Although DCC is offered, it's still a small offering compared to other items available at each store.

Would I love to be able to go to my LHS and pour through the lastest DCC offerings, or pick up a decoder on the fly?  Absolutely!  However, I go to my LHSes for a variety of other reasons and can get what I need DCC-wise from either train shows or the Internet.

Tom

[Forty Niner]

Brakie, I'd be willing to bet that the ones who told you that hadn't been into MRR anywhere near as long as you had at that point, in other words "still wet behind the ears".

I really feel that Mark Twain said it best when he stated that "when I was 14 I thought my Dad was the dumbest person on earth, then by the time I had turned 21 I was amazed at how smart he had become in only 7 years".

That was over 100 years ago and apparently nothing much has changed, each generation thinks they have reinvented the wheel, I was guilty of the same thing when I was that age. I'm still trying to decide if age gives a person "wisdom" or "patience" as I find myself saying "uh-hmm" a lot these days just because it's not worth the bother. I figure the smart ones will eventually figure it out and as for the other ones, well, as Ron White says "Ya can't fix stupid" so what's the point in arguing with them.

I think a lot of people look at the DC vs DCC thing as DCC being a replacement for DC when it's really not as I see it. DCC is an enhancement of DC much as the cell phone is to the standard telephone. My wife couldn't live without her cell phone since she got one about 7-8 years ago. I refuse to own one of them and she thinks I'm still living in the stone age. Truth is I figure if someone "really" needs to talk to me they know how to contact me, any more than that is just another irritation in my life. Doesn't mean I have anything against cell phones but the people using them in traffic or blocking the aisles in the supermarket while they discuss nothing on the cell phones irritates the crap out of me, but that isn't the cell phones fault.

So we get back to the main question, is DC or DCC a problem, NO. Are some of the people involved in it a problem, without a doubt the answer is yes.

As I've said before I personally think the manufacturers should offer all of their equipment as a DCC friendly item as they call it so the DCC user or the non DCC user doesn't have to yank out decoders to either replace it with a good one of their choice or in the case of the DC user remove it altogether. There are a lot of so-so DCC decoders laying in junk boxes because they either weren't needed or they didn't or wouldn't do what the user wanted them to do.

I think, again, just my opinion, that BLI has a pretty darn decent solution in their "Blue Line" series, they offer sound without a decoder but it's ready to accept the decoder of your choice, or run it "as-is" without one. Personally I opt for the "Stealth" versions as I'm not really into the sound thing unless it's some George Shearing on my turntable, you know, the old style that takes those "vinyl" disk thingies.....then just sit back and watch my trains run and let my imagination drift off into the days of my youth.

Mark

[BRAKIE]

Tom,I agree there shouldn't be a circling of the wagons..Its a matter of choice like sound,modeling style,choice of road name etc,etc and as forum members we should respect each others choices. .

 

[tstage]

Hey Larry,

That's why I used the term "majority" to describe those who have no problem with others operating with DC, as I know that there are those here (or who used to be here) who do/did think to the contrary.  I just hate seeing the conversation fall into a "wagon-train stance", as it were, when it comes to discussing the two methods - if that makes any sense.

Tom

[MisterBeasley]

DCC is right for me, and it's right for my layout.  But, it may not be right for you and your layout.  Pretty simple, really.

My LHS seems to be firmly in the DCC camp.  The store layout is DCC, and most of the engines on the shelves these days seem to be equipped with DCC and sound.  Because of the higher price, I'd imagine that the store makes a bit more from selling those, too.  There are DCC systems on display, too, but no DC power packs at all.  And, there is a whole wall of decoders behind the counter for those wishing to upgrade.

Remember, too, that decoder and sound additions can be a substantial part of a shop's business.  So, an LHS probably would rather see its customers in DCC than in DC - there is more potential business.  I'm not sure if this is causing shops to "push" DCC over DC to their customers, but it certainly would be in their best financial interests to do so.

[BRAKIE]

tstage

Forty Niner:

I guess since we didn't have the internet we didn't have anyone to tell us we were doing it all wrong...

My goodness, Mark!  No one is implying that anyone is doing it "right" or "wrong".  You choose DC.  Terrific!  I - and the majority of the other forum members here - have NO problem with that.  I was just curious how well MUing works in DC.

My understanding (or misunderstanding) was that it was a little more challenging in DC because you had to match locomotives that ran well together.  According to you and Sheldon, that doesn't appear to be the case.

With that said, please - don't feel you have to get into this "us against THEM" mentality when it comes to discussing both ways of operating a layout.  We can learn and help one another.  At least that's my position on the hobby.  I guess I can only speak for myself though...

Tom

Tom,Mark may have a point..Shortly after joining the Atlas forum back in 2001  I was basically told my method of  modeling wasn't up to today's "standards" and the Atlas forum was for "serious" modelers...

 

[BerkshireSteam]

My LHS is a mix. Most of their display models are straight DC, but it also seems that half their HO displayed locomotives are custom brass models. Last time I was there 99% of there N display models were DC. However it seems that all HO shelf models are pretty evenly split with DC and DCC models (straight DCC or DCC w/ sound). There 'clearance' rack also seems to be split pretty evenly.

They do have a small shelf built, full sceniced 15 inches wide and I think about 5 feet long, that is wired for DCC to show of their newest sound units (ex. they had an HO Little Joe w/sound out IIRC a month before the MRR Nov. issue came out with its review), But it also has push-button Tortious turn out control and working grading crossing that blinks lights, lowers gates, and automatically comes on/shuts off, along with a passenger station that has lighting. It's really pretty neat. They also have a giant display track that runs around the walls of the sales floor hung from the ceiling that runs HO scale train, O scale train, and Large scale train, but I don't know if they run DC or DCC with that. I have never asked and the controls are out of site some wheres. Next time I stop in there (probably Thu to pick up an MRP issue) I will have to ask.

[Graffen]

Sir Madog

In Japan and, to a degree, also UK, DCC is not very wide spread. Japanese locos hardly come DCC equipped, not even DCC ready!

Guess why? DCC doesn´t make much sense to have in the display-case

Or more seriously; the small space available in especially Japan and in some cases the UK, makes most layout sizes in the "Carl Arendt" range possible.

And to have DCC on a "plank" thats maybe 50" long doesn´t really compute, if you don´t want sound of course.....

The DC sound controllers, as good as they might be, can´t hold it´s own against the user friendliness of DCC.

[Anonymous]

It is a little sad that this thread with its nearly "innocent" question has drifted into a DC vs. DCC thread again, though this time in a more civilized manner.

Each system has its own benefits and disadvantages, and it finally boils down to a matter of personal preference and taste, which way you are heading down. DC is still fine for many of us, especially those, who are successfully operating elaborate layouts built with DC controls - why should they change? DC, IMHO, will remain the entry level into the hobby, perfect for those, who just want to "play a little" with trains" and are still undecided as to which way to go in terms of controls. In Japan and, to a degree, also UK, DCC is not very wide spread. Japanese locos hardly come DCC equipped, not even DCC ready!

To quote Mark Twain - Rumors of the death of DC are greatly exaggerated!

[doctorwayne]

Same situation for me, Tom, albeit on a smaller scale.  (Still HO, just not so many locos. )

While I've sold off most of my diesels, I used Bachmann 2-8-0s, Athearn 2-8-2s and re-motored Athearn switchers in any combination, double or triple heading, or as pushers and/or mid-train helpers.  Most of this activity was just to see how it would work, as my layout is mostly hills and curves.  A long train can be stretched out over several curves (not all in the same direction, either) and on various grades, with parts of the train going uphill while other sections are going downhill.  Slack action can be "interesting", to say the least.    I've operated trains in excess of 70 cars, with multiple locos spaced throughout the train and was confident enough in their running compatibility to run them up the hill pictured below.  The drop to the concrete floor ranges from 4' up to about 5' at the top of the grade, and with scenic landforms not yet in place, a derailment to either side finds the abyss.  Since the track currently dead-ends at the top of the grade, the train was backed down the hill, too.

 

Normal operation sees trains with one loco and a car or two, other ones with 10 or 15 cars and either one or a pair of locos.  Most trains switch all of the town through which they pass, and most trains over 15 cars are doubleheaded.  I keep tonnage ratings for all locos and know how much power is required to get any particular train over the line.  With simple doubleheading, it's nice when both locos run well with one another, but if the only second loco available is one of the exceptions, it's generally still used - whatever extra power it can provide will be needed.  I wouldn't, however, run such a loco as a pusher.

I've also found that if more than one loco is required to move a train, you'll have fewer problems than if that extra loco is "just for show".

 

Wayne

 

 

 

[steinjr]

Doughless

 

Thanks for your input Stein,  As usual, you're trying to be helpful.  And this response is more geared towards responding to the general reader, rather than specifically you.

Even though I am pretty simple in my approach to the hobby, I've been involved in it for about 25 years. Relative the the vast experiences others have related here on the forum, I consider myself fairly uneducated in the more "sophisticated" aspects of the hobby.  I am not really a beginner or a noob, but my simplistic desires on what I want to accomplish and choose to pursue probably makes it come off that way more so than reality.

 Just to be clear - I was not in any way saying that running DC is inferior to running DCC (or by extension, that people running DC are inferior to people running DCC). Or the other way around - that people running DC are superior to people running DCC.

 That is an underlying context that pop up way too often in these discussions - some people will get all steamed up and defensive, and act like you are calling them stupid (or unsophisticated) if you point out that there might be both weaknesses and strengths with whatever approach they have chosen.

 My comments was not to imply that DCC is superior to DC. What I tried to point out was that some of the arguments you are using about why DCC is harder to use seem (to me) somewhat overblown.

 For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time.

 A person picking DCC in the belief that it will allow him to split his attention more easily between many trains moving at the same time (in a situation where you actually will need to interact with the trains - ie not in a situation where you have four parallel continuous run loops and trains running around and around and around like crazed rodents) will probably be in for a rude awakening, and quickly come to the realization that the limitation is with the operator, not with the way the motors in each engine get their power from the tracks.

 To me, if someone had wanted to create a layout where multiple trains will be moving at the same time on intersecting paths, under the control of a single operator, DC, cab control with multiple throttles, partial automation (stopping at signals etc), and a central control desk, would be a far more obvious technical choice than a single DCC throttle, swapping desperately between trains.

 One operator, multiple trains moving at the same time is more a matter of automation than a matter of DC or DCC.

 And as I tried to point out, it does not take any more knowledge of electronics for a new modeler to deal with DCC than DC.

 The "have to learn electronic" argument is fairly irrelevant when it comes to choosing DC or DCC. Basic wiring is simpler in DCC. While some forms of automation may very well be simpler in DC.

 

Doughless

My main issue with DCC is not the language or the concepts involved, it is the impracticality of it in my particular situation, and I think A LOT of hobbyists situation's (more so than even they would admit), as well as the general redundancy of learning a new system.  

 The "general redundancy" argument is (most likely) just a way of saying "I already know how to do this in one way, so I don't want to learn another way of doing it".  I.e. plain old resistance to change.

 That is very relevant for an experienced hobbyist who already have a working layout with DC control that works well.

 Very few of us like to start over, deliberately replacing something we know how to do with something we do not know how to do. It is irrational to create extra work for yourself, especially if it is work you don't enjoy, and if you feel that the result doesn't give you anything useful new - that it is just change for change's sake.

 But that argument is not very relevant for someone just starting out in the hobby - who will have to learn a lot of MR related things with very limited applications in other walks of life anyways - curve radii, turnout numbers, power handling around frogs, replacing couplers, what a switchback lead is, and so on and so forth.

 Whether it in that situation makes most sense to learn to just turn an engine selector knob on a DCC throttle before giving commends to a second engine, or whether it makes most sense to learn enough to create a sensible number of sidings wired with on/off switches, cab control selectors or whatever depends on the inclinations of the new modeler.

 To me, hard wiring a bunch of spurs with an extra on/off switch to create places where a second switcher can hold on an urban switching layout is far more work than it is worth. And it creates a system where you have to plan further ahead, and where changes take more time and effort - i.e a less flexible system.

 Again - if you already have a functional system (that supports your existing and never changing operational scheme) in place, then it makes little sense to replace it if you do not get anything worthwhile from the change.

 Hopefully most of us are smart enough to understand that.

 But that is not an argument against DCC as such. Or an argument against choosing DCC for a new system. It is an argument against changing a existing system that already works for you.

 

Doughless

Not getting into the vast differences of how one modeler operates his railroad from another, but you said yourself that typical one or two train control can be done just as easily with DC or DCC.  When you add the third train, DCC becomes advantageous.  

 No. The critical point is when you add a second engine. One engine - doesn't really matter whether you go DC or DCC. Especially if you don't give a hoot about playing with lights and sounds on that engine.

 When you add a second engine, you will have to decide how to control two engines independent of each other.  How  you can have one engine standing still somewhere on your layout while the other one moves.  Or how you can have two people each controlling their own engine.

 That is the decision point where it makes sense to think about whether DCC would be a sensible option.

 It is not at all a given that it is the most optimal choice for your layout and operating style.

Smile,
 Stein

 

 

[tstage]

Thanks, Sheldon.  That's quite helpful.  As mentioned in my previous response to Mark, I thought speed matching DC locomotives was more problematic - even among similar brands and makes of locomotives.

Tom

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Tom,

OK, I did not list all 130 locos and what will run with what - is that what you would like to see?

I model 1953-54, my railroad, and many protoytypes in that time period, still ran diesels pretty much as matched sets.

However, fact is all the following locos have basicly the same drive and will run together fine - Early to mid production Proto2000 BL2, GP7, GP9 (actually most all the GP series, but the rest are out of my era), and ALCO FA1 & FA2.

All Athearn Genesis F units have the same drive, so F3's and F7's readily interchange - that's about as much mixing as most prototypes were doing in 1954.

As for the steam, it is trial and error - BUT most manufacturers are using similar gear ratios - so locos with similar sized drivers often run fine together - regardless of brand.

I will restate the matchups I regularly use - Proto2000 2-8-8-2 with Spectrum 2-6-6-2, Bachmann 2-8-4 (now 2-8-2's on my railroad) with spectrum USRA Heavy 4-8-2's - and either of these will run with my BLI USRA Heavy 2-8-2's.

Actually at that point we have covered a large section of my loco fleet because it is made up of multiple copies of a select list of wheel arrangements and types.

With a little careful throttle work at startup, Spectrum 2-8-0's can be run with any or all of the steam listed above.

The above listed steam locos represent a total of 26 pieces.

Now we are left with only a few more steamers, two Spectrum 10 wheelers and three various Pacifics usually run alone on local passenger trains, two Reading T-1 Northerns, a 2-6-6-6 and a 2-6-6-4 that don't need helpers or doubles, and some switchers.

So out of 38 steam locos, 26 of them can be grouped in double or triple headers at will without regard for brand or wheel arrangement. and other matched sets like the 10 wheelers or Northerns can obviously be run together if needed.

Works fine for my needs.

Sheldon

[tstage]

Forty Niner

I guess since we didn't have the internet we didn't have anyone to tell us we were doing it all wrong...

My goodness, Mark!  No one is implying that anyone is doing it "right" or "wrong".  You choose DC.  Terrific!  I - and the majority of the other forum members here - have NO problem with that.  I was just curious how well MUing works in DC.

My understanding (or misunderstanding) was that it was a little more challenging in DC because you had to match locomotives that ran well together.  According to you and Sheldon, that doesn't appear to be the case.

With that said, please - don't feel you have to get into this "us against THEM" mentality when it comes to discussing both ways of operating a layout.  We can learn and help one another.  At least that's my position on the hobby.  I guess I can only speak for myself though...

Tom

[Forty Niner]

Sheldon!!! Are you in a "defensive poster"???? Gee, I'd like to buy a copy of that "poster" if you have any spares.

Mark ;-)

[tstage]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Or don't you believe me, Chuck, Dr Wayne, Mark and others?

Sheldon,

Yes, I read John's recent PF thread on MUing and your response.  I guess my confusion was your use of the word "many" in your response to John's Question #3 & #4:

"In general i find many of todays locos run at the same speeds MU together quite well" (Question #3)

"Sure, many are just too different in speed - but there is no reason to run a Northern with a 2-8-0. No I planned my purchases to avoid such bad choices." (Question #4) - [Underscore mine]

So, would you say that it's a combination of both "good purchasing choices" and a large roster of locomotives to choose from?  Some units are bought already MU'd together (and you would assume or expect that they "should" run well together; others are bought individually - even from different manufacturers - but still lash up well as a single unit.  Also, how many or what percentage of your fairly large roster operates well together in a lash-up and how many do you not even bother with?  Thanks.

And, no reason to get into a defensive poster posture, Sheldon.  I think Chuck, Dr. Wayne, Mark and others can amply answer for themselves quite nicely.

Tom

[Forty Niner]

Yup!! Same here Sheldon, if I pull 3 F units off the shelf I give them a quick check just to make sure that one of them isn't laying down then if all is well, as it usually is, I set them on the track and "power up".

I've never had much of a problem doing this, of course I never tried to run a 30 year old Tyco with a new Proto but I think "common sense" comes into play on some of this.

Shoot, back in the 60s I used to run 4 unit Hi-F drives together, that was interesting to say the least.

And remember the old  Hobbytown "multi-drives"? One monster DC90 powering 3 F units that were all weighted, all done without the benefit of "gizmos".........how did we ever do it? I guess since we didn't have the internet we didn't have anyone to tell us we were doing it all wrong so we happily soldiered on just like we knew what we were doing.............running trains and having a good time doing it!!!

Mark (Still just running trains and having fun)

[blownout cylinder]

mmmmm...this is starting to sound like a grand loopie loppii...discussing who is going to get the bigger market share...

I've been running an NCE DCC set up for about a year now...I have about 90 locomotives in my...ern...collection. I did a quick calculation as to how much $$$ I spent on doing the DCC thing here...just on a lark I went and used NCE NMP15's ~ 32.95 a piece...I have now 22 MP15's, well guess what. It came to a total of $724.90...without my favorite 13% HST..which poked it up to $819.17...that is the price of a good hybrid HO scale steam loke right now...

If I was going to do that all at once it would/could be a Pain in the tukus..but I did the whole conversion thing over a period of time..and the luck of finding N scale lokes that already were DCC equipped in second hand flea markets and the like...

Now, back to our weekly DCC/DC dialogs....

[Coquihala and Rock Creek]

To comment on the initial posting, from where I am in the Lower Rainland of BC I see mostly DC at train shows and in Hobby Shops, but hey do carry a few DCC locos. From my point of view if a LHS was holding onto a number of locos that were DCC equiped the costs would be prohibitive as opposed to holding a well stocked shelf of DC locos.  Frank your LHS must be for rich people only (tongue in cheek here). 

I think that DC will be staying around for a long time and although DCC will be getting more and more popular it won't 100% replace DC.  Now I'll go watch a video on the Betamax.

Dan  

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

tstage

Sheldon, how often do you run across three locomotives that run "fine together" in DC?  Even in DC you still have to pick and choose which locomotives best run together.  Personally, I don't see much of a difference between doing that and setting CVs using DCC.

Tom apparently you missed all my recent posts about MU operations, especially in the recent "Philosophy Friday". I go to the hobby shop, buy an ABBA set of Intermountain F3's or FP7's or F7's, bring them home, assemble the shells, paint and letter them Atlantic Central, put them on the layout, couple them together and pull a train of 40 cars - no problems.

Same with Proto2000 FA/FB 4 unit sets, GP7's, E8's, PA's, etc, etc, and same with Genesis F units and more.

As for steam, yes I run lots of matched sets, two Spectrum 4-8-2's, three Spectrum 2-8-0's, etc. BUT I also run my Spectrum 2-6-6-2's with my Proto 2-8-8-2's - no problem, they run fine together. As do my Bachmann 2-8-4's (converted to 2-8-2's) which run fine with my Spectrum 4-8-2's and/or my BLI 2-8-2 Heavies.

All are stock except for removing capacitors and, the BLI Mikes now have Bachmann long haul tenders.

I have never had to "sort through" locos of the same brand/type to find ones that will run together?

Or don't you believe me, Chuck, Dr Wayne, Mark and others?

Sheldon 

[tstage]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

From what I see with my friends in DCC, they take three F units for Intermountain or whoever, that run just fine together on DC, put decoders in them and then have to spend a bunch of time on ajusting speed curves - no thanks.

Sheldon,

Maybe that's because your friends spend too much time adjusting speed curves.  It's not that difficult: You first match VStart (CV 3) and VMax (CV 5) on a pair of locomotives so they start and peak at approximately the same speed then add in the third locomotive and do the same.

Once VStart and VMax are settled upon, the overall speed curve (CV 67-CV 94) can just be linear - IF you desire to fine tune it more.  (In most instances this is NOT necessary.)  This can easily be accomplished by entering the values manually or - even easier - with the slide bar using Decoder Pro.

Sheldon, how often do you run across three locomotives that run "fine together" in DC?  Even in DC you still have to pick and choose which locomotives best run together.  Personally, I don't see much of a difference between doing that and setting CVs using DCC.

Course, the more locomotives you have in your stable; the more you have to choose from for speed matching purposes.  That's a huge advantage over someone who only has three locomotives and none of them match well together for MUing.  In the latter scenario, DCC would definitely pay off.

Also, how many locomotives would I need to buy before I could find three that ran "fine together"?  If I'm intent on MUing locomotives, the price of a Digitrax Zephyr or NCE Power Cab and a few decoders might more than offset the cost of additional locomotives.

So, scenarios and case points can be drawn for either way of operating...

Tom

[Doughless]

steinjr

 

 

 

 

 Well, then it is probably a good thing that a person who just wants to run trains is not faced with the task of learning "programming" or "electronics".

For a beginner with one engine on his or her first layout, DC and DCC are pretty similar.   Two wires to the track, plug in the transformer/controller in a wall socket, and twist the knob or press buttons to make the train move.

 Want to add a second train, and run that independent of the other train? With DC, you now have to start segmenting your layout into electrically separated districts.

 With DCC, you put the new engine on the track, aquire it from the controller or throttle by pressing some key combination, and assign the new engine a number - e.g. #4.

 Twist selector to #3 to control your first engine. Twist selector to #4 to control your second engine.

 Using a DCC throttle is no more complex than using a TV remote or cell phone. You don't need to know how the TV remote or the cell phone works on the inside, and you don't need to use every possible functions to do the basic things  - you just need to know how to use it for the things you want to use it for, which is a different thing altogether :-)

 To build a DCC controller you need to learn electronics. Just like you need to understand electronics to make a good DC controller. But most of us don't build our controllers - we just use them.

 Adding a decoder to an old engine takes a little courage - you may have to pop the top, cut some wires, do a little soldering and such things. Pretty analogous to Wayne's idea for turning off DC engines on DC tracks - a magnetic switch inside the engine, wave a magnet wand at it to turn it on or off.

 There are lots of ways to control functions. What each of us is comfortable with differs. Some want just run a single engine on a simple loop of track. Others want o model multiple engines moving on autopilot at the same time in some big city display layout.

 Each should look at the alternatives available, and think about which functions seem most important to them on their layout, and then decide for themselves what they want to run.

Smile,
Stein

One last comment here from me.  (applause)

Thanks for your input Stein,  As usual, you're trying to be helpful.  And this response is more geared towards responding to the general reader, rather than specifically you.

Even though I am pretty simple in my approach to the hobby, I've been involved in it for about 25 years. Relative the the vast experiences others have related here on the forum, I consider myself fairly uneducated in the more "sophisticated" aspects of the hobby.  I am not really a beginner or a noob, but my simplistic desires on what I want to accomplish and choose to pursue probably makes it come off that way more so than reality.

I have no concerns over installing decoders, since I have installed lighting circuits and replaced light boards with my personal favorite numerous times in my locomotives.  I can't figure out from scratch how to hard wire a BB athearn or old proto for decoder installation, but there is enough info on the net to make it a piece of cake, if I ever wanted to.  Beyond electronics, I've stripped down locomotives to the brushes searching for noises (darn Athearns' and proto's), and repowered others.  I've recently built a darn good representation of a dewitt geep (rebuilt rs3). Slicing shells and using body putty is requires a bit of enhanced skill, and its probably not one I will fully develop just yet, but I'm sure I could if I wanted too.  Tearing into a locomotive or competently using a soldering iron is not foreign to me. 

My main issue with DCC is not the language or the concepts involved, it is the impracticality of it in my particular situation, and I think A LOT of hobbyists situation's (more so than even they would admit), as well as the general redundancy of learning a new system.  Not getting into the vast differences of how one modeler operates his railroad from another, but you said yourself that typical one or two train control can be done just as easily with DC or DCC.  When you add the third train, DCC becomes advantageous.  But adding the third train involves issues that go beyond what type of operating system that's being used.  I think I would have difficulty keeping track of three trains, regardless of the system.  If I could manage to keep track of them, and further "enhance" my already realistic operating scheme, I would lose the visual appeal of watching my modeling efforts travel through my scenery and structure building efforts. Therefore, creating a reason to have three trains operating simultaneously is not going to happen.

Sometimes lost in the discussion of the techno benefits of analog or digital technology is that fact that the systems must actually be used in real model railroad situations.  But those situations are not always consistent with real railroad situations, something that DCC is designed to help accomplish.  Model railroads have issues that real railroads do not have, and one big difference. Real railroads exist not for their employees to have fun, but to transport good as efficiently as possible.  In real life, that's work, not fun.  Not too many railroad employees say that what they do is "fun".  Maybe satisfying, maybe a good living, all things considered, but not fun. But the focus on the hobby is to try to run our layouts like real railroads. Running a V&O style layout in a spare bedroom in a realistic fashion seems like a lot of work to me.  (not to mention a lot of wasted scenic space on the staging needed to accomplish that goal, not to digress into layout design.) However, it may be fun for others.

So, for various reasons, I'm only interested in building layouts that reflect modern short lines. Someday, that may change.  My 16 mile short line prototype is not all that complicated when it comes to operations.  Therefore, it is not complicated in how the layout is built or operated, but it is realistic. Simpleness of operations is probably the main determining factor in how I choose what operating system is needed, rather than finding reasons to use neato features or capabilities.   OTOH, it seems like some members have designed their layout as a way to accommodate the features offered in a DCC system.  Kind of like the tail wagging the dog.  No, you don't have to have a complicated system to run DCC, and what can be done in DC can be done with DCC, but more-than-simple operating plans is precisely what DCC was designed for. 

And for whatever reasons, differences in operating systems always seem to get the crowd charged up more than differences in anything else.  "Rivet counting" isn't for everyone, but those of us who don't look at ourselves as such don't get upset at those that do.  Operating systems and electronics are nothing special, they are just another subset of the hobby; just like diesel detailing, or layout design subgroups, or collecting.  I think that is something that gets lost in all the puffing.

 

 

 

 

 

[da_kraut]

Hello everybody,

thank you for all your great replies.   It certainly is interesting reading what other forum members have to say and it is good to read that DC is doing well and going strong.  It is also fascinating to read all the posts because of the different angles that have been taken on this subject.  Certainly a great discussion, and I am thorouhgly enjoying all the responses.

Frank

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Paul,

To be clear, I have no concerns about the basic DCC elements becoming obsolete, but, to meet my goals of detection, signaling, dispatching, and do that in an intergrated form with the DCC, a lot of what is out there is either incomplete or relies on other makers products, or relies of freeware. In my mind, not a secure enough future for me to invest in. And, I don't care for computer screen dispatcher panels anyway.

Same was true about computerized block control when I looked into that.

So, for the signaling logic I would just as soon stay with simple proven analog circuits. And since the heart of signaling is interlockings, and interlockings are the key to advanced cab control like MZL, the intergating of the two saves a lot of expense and builds in lots of low cost or free features. Relays and CAT5 cable are cheap these days.

I have no interest in full automation, just redundent safety features like emergency collision avoidance and overlapping cab assignment lockout.

I don't like sound in small scales (side note, it is interesting following this thread the large number of people who have expressed their lack of interest in sound), so that reason for DCC is gone from my choice list for this layout.

Your engine terminal argument is the best reason ever put forward as to why my layout would benifit from DCC - but that alone would never justify the cost. I have loco tracks broken in to small locally controlled sections that allow all needed moves. BUT, I do like Dr Wayne's idea with the reed switches.

Still for me signaling and tower/CTC control of interlockings is more important than any other feature DCC would bring. So considering the cost issues - 130 decoders - DCC is still out for me.

As for direct radio, there is still a ways to go, but I do believe it could and would reduce the cost and complexity of the layout infrastructure compaired to DCC on large, high loco count layouts. Current Aristo HO Train Engineer receivers are small enough for most HO locos, but are still much larger than the smallest decoders. It may progress, it may not. If i ever build anything O gauge or larger, it will be direct radio for sure.

As for the MU, helper, pusher thing, the locos I want to run together all run well enough together just the way they are. From what I see with my friends in DCC, they take three F units for Intermountain or whoever, that run just fine together on DC, put decoders in them and then have to spend a bunch of time on ajusting speed curves - no thanks.

Sheldon

 

[fwright]

Paul3

Fred W

I agree with bullet points 1, 2, 5 & 6, but the others are not agreeable with me.  On Number 3, Maximum pulling power has nothing to do with DCC when decoders can be as small as .418” x .340” x .112".  Yep, this 1 Amp decoder is smaller than a dime.  I have yet to see a model, even a brass steam engine with a lead pour in it, not have room for a dime-sized decoder.

Your locomotives are bigger than mine.  And most N scale locomotives are too.  I'm talking an 1890s 4-4-0 and 0-4-0T in HOn3.  And Keystone Shays as my "big" power.  Space taken for wiring and decoder, while not tremendous, is precious.  It really does affect pulling power if a sound decoder and speaker are attempted.

On Point 4, it can be argued that DCC actually improves dispatching and signalling by integrating the signalling with the power (for example, automatic train stop is possible with DCC). 

Depends on what is wanted.  To automate train running (what you suggest) requires both location and identification of the train with DCC.  To meet this requirement in DCC, all decoders must be set up for transponding.  For DC, only location of non-specific trains is needed.  Much simpler logic to implement in DC.

And testing and tuning on Point 7 can be improved with BEMF-equipped DCC decoders. 

BEMF and PWM can mask issues in the mechanism.  Which is why I tune with DC, and when I'm in an exacting mood, filtered DC.  This is also why Model Railroader reviews use filtered DC for their DC measurements - it gives the most accurate assessment of the what the stock mechanism of their model is capable of.  I prefer to get the best tune of the mechanism on straight DC, and then enhance the result with pulse and/or feedback control.  For pulse and feedback control, there are many options available in DC to pick from.  In DCC, you are limited to the scheme implemented by the decoder manufacturer.

Fred W

[Doughless]

Paul3

 

Doughless,
You can't think of another aspect of the hobby that is so terminology and educationally specific and for which the education and terminology is not related to model railroading?  How about woodworking?  That has a language all it's own that has nothing to do with trains, yet is a needed skill in order to build a layout.

As for the idea that learning new things is somehow redundant...    Do you still use stone knives and wear bearskins, too?    Yes, I think it's kinda funny that anyone would think that learning new things is something to be avoided.  Like the brain only has so much capacity and if you learn too much, raw data will leak out of your ears like molasses.    Try learning something new every day.  I promise it won't hurt. 

 

Paul, at least you inject humor into your comments about hobbies.  That's good.  Forums are meant to be fun.

Its tough to do a laundry list of skills in a public forum setting, but as some examples of interchangeable skills:

My need to build shelves in the garage is interchangeable with the need to attach plyood subroadbed to 1x4's. 

My model car building days of yore started me with the skills that are applicable to detailing rolling stock.

Refinishing furniture provided me with a basic understanding of customizing paint colors to better paint backdrops and hand weather trains. 

Mrs. Boysen's 8th grade history projects propelled me to learn more about abandoned rail lines.

My dad forcing me to  help him rework the plumbing in our house taught me how to solder. 

My occupation, which requires travel, allows me to study how towns were laid out and were influenced by railroads and rivers, etc. 

I use computers.  I know nothing about programming them.  I use calculators too.  I know nothing about programming them.

Yes, learning how to operate proprietary DCC system would be a skill solely confined to model railroading.  As well as learning the more detailed terminology associated with analog control systems.  Additionally,  other things that are unique to model railroading:  I will probably never own an airbrush or learn how to hand lay track.   When I retire, maybe.

As far as redundancy:

Perhaps its a matter of semantics, but the examples that you provided all seem like changes in technology that resulted in accomplishing a different goal, or at least the same goal to a greatly enhanced degree, justifying the migration of technology.   Carpeting covers a floor better than does a bear skin rug.  Stainless steel knives cut better than stone ones.  Additionally, the car replaced the horse and buggy because people got to their destinations faster (and warmer), not because the vast majority of car owners liked to fiddle with cars.

OTOH, my Atlas locomotives consist well with each other and run well at 3 mph on DC.  The lights shine brightly and directionally with the standard pc board and my Aristo throttle.   Sound is not a concern, but it appears MRC may be solving the issue if it was (albeit expensive).  Other rather minor or seldom used features that DCC provides are of no use to me.  Yes, the migration to DCC seems redundant and pointless.

DCC was designed for a club situation, whether it be an actual club or a home layout that operates like one,. Period.  The vast majority of new members or lurkers, who are interested in DC/DCC threads that appear in the GENERAL section of the forum do not have a situation like that.  I'm convinced of it.

HEY y'all CHECK THIS OUT!  While I'm typing, in real time here, as timing would have it:

My wife just turned off the answering machine and activated our voicemail, parroting the words of the digital communications package salesman who said " when you activate your voicemail, you no longer need to have an answering machine".  My immediate reply to both was, well, if I have a functioning answering machine, why do I need voicemail?  I already have a way of capturing messages and IT'S ALREADY PAID FOR.  I'm not joking, I don't understand why the consumer seems to want to migrate everything to digital.  I don't get it.   I really, really don't.

[Train Modeler]

krupa

 

richg1998:

 

Not hardly.

Rich

 

 

So every DCC system is proprietary and independent and not interoperable?

 

 

The network and the equipment proprietary.     However, Digitrax uses a LAN system which I can connect my computer to by using an USB connector.    I can download decoder pro and use their throttles as well as other devices to run my layout with my computer.     You can also use blackberry's or other devices.    The LAN system makes it work with a variety of other devices which is particularly useful for programming decoders.

Richard

[Aralai]

I was planning on moving to DCC, but to tell you the truth I have put it off. My layout is normally a one person operation, and even with two - one can run the yard while another runs the mainline. There is really no room for more people anyway. My good old DC dual power pack still works great, I don't have much need for sound  - I kind of like the sound of the train on the track.

Eventually I'll probably go there, but for now am spending my money on getting the scenery done nicely.

I'm not sure with a layout of my size, if DCC is really necessary.

[steinjr]

Doughless

Staying on topic and not wanting a general discussion opinion thread to get moved over to the rather boring electronics hobbyist section of this forum (a place I have visited about 5 times in 5 years).... another reason, I think, DC will be around for a while is that it generally does not require a specialized understanding of anything new in order to run trains.  Most people know how to hook up wires to track and plug the thing into the wall.  

As a banker by trade, I can speak for some others who don't use their line of work to gather knowledge of electronics 24/7, when I say that programming anything, including trains, tends to take the hobby in a direction that is not really related to modeling.  As I've eluded to, complicated operating systems, whether they be DC or DCC based, tends to take the hobby into the world of the electronics hobbyist, for which model railroading may be only one of many outlets for such a person, and fails to remain grounded in the miniature train world.

If a person who is interested in model trains, but not electronics, is faced with the task of having to read an operating manual and learn programming, even in its simplest form, when he buys his first train set is essentially learning a new skill that he will really only use when he is playing with trains.  At any other time of the day, that new skill is essentially useless.  

 Well, then it is probably a good thing that a person who just wants to run trains is not faced with the task of learning "programming" or "electronics".

For a beginner with one engine on his or her first layout, DC and DCC are pretty similar.   Two wires to the track, plug in the transformer/controller in a wall socket, and twist the knob or press buttons to make the train move.

 Want to add a second train, and run that independent of the other train? With DC, you now have to start segmenting your layout into electrically separated districts.

 With DCC, you put the new engine on the track, aquire it from the controller or throttle by pressing some key combination, and assign the new engine a number - e.g. #4.

 Twist selector to #3 to control your first engine. Twist selector to #4 to control your second engine.

 Using a DCC throttle is no more complex than using a TV remote or cell phone. You don't need to know how the TV remote or the cell phone works on the inside, and you don't need to use every possible functions to do the basic things  - you just need to know how to use it for the things you want to use it for, which is a different thing altogether :-)

 To build a DCC controller you need to learn electronics. Just like you need to understand electronics to make a good DC controller. But most of us don't build our controllers - we just use them.

 Adding a decoder to an old engine takes a little courage - you may have to pop the top, cut some wires, do a little soldering and such things. Pretty analogous to Wayne's idea for turning off DC engines on DC tracks - a magnetic switch inside the engine, wave a magnet wand at it to turn it on or off.

 That magnet switch is for all practical purposes the equivalent of a very simple DCC decoder. Put one magnet switch at the front for "stop/go", one at the rear of the engine for "lights on/off", and you have a magnet activated "decoder". A little thingy that adjust how much power is sent to some part of the engine based on some command received.

 And while that magnetic switch sounds simpler to use to several people, you still need to open the engine, cut some wires, add the magnetic switch, do some soldering etc.

 There are lots of ways to control functions. What each of us is comfortable with differs. Some want just run a single engine on a simple loop of track. Others want o model multiple engines moving on autopilot at the same time in some big city display layout.

 Each should look at the alternatives available, and think about which functions seem most important to them on their layout, and then decide for themselves what they want to run.

Smile,
Stein

 

[Forty Niner]

Hey Paul,

It took me longer to explain it then it does to hook it up, and if you don't use guages for voltage and amps you might as well be flying blind because that's basically what you're doing. If DCC is your choice that's fine with me, but don't laugh at me unless you want me laughing at you for spending your money on a bunch of electronic "gizmos".

And that old song about "I just hook up 2 wires" takes me back to "a 5 year old can program a VCR", where's a 5 year old when you need one?

Again I say, live and let live, respect my point of view and I'll respect yours, otherwise don't expect me to respect yours.

Mark

[Paul3]

Brakie,
You don't even need a programming track for DCC.  Sure, it's handy, but not necessary.

doctorwayne,
Yes, those were not rhetorical questions, I really am curious as it's something we tried to do at my old club's DC cab control layout without much success (mainly due to our reversing blocks).  For example, the best "helper" we had was a dummy loco.  It looked good, but it was just along for the ride.

In my case, I use NJ/Custom Brass locos, and a W&R, depending on the situation.  The lead loco is a 4-8-2, while the road helper is a 2-10-2.  Out of the yard, it's the W&R 0-8-0 (I have a NH video showing this and cutting off on the fly).  Since all three locos have different wheel diameters, motors, weight, and (apparently) gearing, using DCC is a boon for my pushers.  The odd part is that while the 0-8-0 is the slowest of the lot, the 2-10-2 is actually twice as fast as the 4-8-2.  Why?  I don't know, but it's true.

You don't need another pusher engineer, at least with Digitrax and the DT-series throttles.  My DT400R cab has twin throttles on it, allowing simultaneous operation of both locos (power an pusher).  I can bunch my slack wherever I want, and as long as I turn the 2-10-2's throttle twice as fast as the 4-8-2, I'm good.  I don't understand the need for another engineer per steam engine if you're doubleheading.  You're already doing that with DC...what's the difference with DCC?  If you're going to get picky about the number of people running a model train, then where's your 5-man crew?  Engineer, Fireman, Head Brakeman, Rear Brakeman, and Conductor?  There are Union rules, ya' know. 

I wish you good luck with the reed switches, I really do.  I've had some experience with them on BLI locos trying to reset them, and also with the Rapido coaches with their lights.  They can be a bit tricky to get to operate.  Sure, they work (just get the right capacity or they'll fuse shut), but sometimes I've double clutched it (OFF-ON in one sweep of the magnet).  I think that's an interesting idea, tho'.

Forty Niner,
Actually, the thing that makes some engines run real smooth with DCC is BEMF.

I've never had a motor overheat in the 12 years I've run DCC, and that's spread out over 1000 installations at my club.  Some locos run for 8 hours a day during our open houses.  Nothing's died yet due to simple use.

People have been saying DCC will be made obsolete for 20 years.  And yet, here we are, still using it.  Heck, Brakie said in 2004 on the Atlas Forum that DCC would be replaced in 5 years by something better.  Well, it's been 7 years and counting.

Computing power means nothing to DCC.  It really doesn't.  These are not video games with tons of graphics to render.

BTW, your desciption of your control system gave me a chuckle.  "It starts with a Lionel 90W transformer, (AC), then through a Variac, (remember those?), then through a selenium rectifier, then guages, then through the Aristo black box and to the track."  And people say DCC has complicated wiring?  My DCC system starts with Digitrax Zephyr connected to my track.  It ends with plugging my throttles into the throttle bus and running trains.  No gauges, no selenium rectifiers, no Variacs, and no Lionel transformers (but remember folks, DCC is sooo hard!  DC is so easy & simple by comparison, right?  Hello?).

Doughless,
You can't think of another aspect of the hobby that is so terminology and educationally specific and for which the education and terminology is not related to model railroading?  How about woodworking?  That has a language all it's own that has nothing to do with trains, yet is a needed skill in order to build a layout.

As for the idea that learning new things is somehow redundant...    Do you still use stone knives and wear bearskins, too?    Yes, I think it's kinda funny that anyone would think that learning new things is something to be avoided.  Like the brain only has so much capacity and if you learn too much, raw data will leak out of your ears like molasses.    Try learning something new every day.  I promise it won't hurt. 

Sheldon,
Your idea about not investing in some tech. that will be obsolete was my argument against DCC back in the 1990's (yes, I was against it then).  However, the one thing that changed my mind is that DCC is an NMRA Standard.  These are not known for changing often or going out of date on a regular basis.  And now with the millions (yes, millions) of DCC decoders made, I don't think any "new" system will hit the market that is not backwards compatible with DCC.  Just look at MTH and their DCS system.  Even that allows one to piggyback a DCC system, IIRC (and it's made almost zero market penetration in HO scale despite it's supposed superiority).

krupa,
DCC is an NMRA Standard, specifically NMRA S-9.1 and S-9.2:
http://nmra.org/standards/DCC/standards_rps/S-91-2004-07.pdf
http://nmra.org/standards/DCC/standards_rps/S-92-2004-07.pdf

All DCC decoders are fully interchangable on any DCC system.  One can run any Digitrax decoder-equipped loco on any other DCC system, likewise for NCE, Lenz, etc.

Track boosters are cross compatible as well, not that I've seen it done.  Also signalling, switch machine controls, and block detection can be used across systems.

However, throttles and "brains" are not compatible.  So if you invested in, say, Digitrax and you wanted to switch to NCE?  At the very least, you've have to buy at least a new "brain" and new throttles.  Everything else, including the wiring, would remain the same.  Re-investment would be minimal.

Paul A. Cutler III

[Doughless]

Who knows, DC and DCC may coexist forever... maybe even DCS....as products designed to appeal to various markets and personalities.

The fact is, is that the consumer electronics industry, whether it be TV's, Stereo's, camera's, even model railroading, has always had a certain "gizmo" element that appeals to a subset of the larger group.  Some folks fiddle with gizmo's because they enjoy it, and buy products that suit those tastes and dissect them accordingly.  Its not really rational, as may be reported, as is the lack of interest in gizmo's.  But that's okay, few things in hobbies are.

[Forty Niner]

I'm by no means an expert in the DCC area but it is my undertsanding that the only system that "locks" you into using their equipment is MTH.

Correct me if I'm wrong here...........

Mark

[floridaflyer]

i think you misunderstood Rich's comment. you can interchange decoders, you are not locked into a manufacturer. Now as far as the system that powers your layout, that is a different story. you would use the same manufacturer for add-ons to your power system. in other words, digitrax for a digitrax system or NCE for a NCE system.

[krupa]

richg1998

Not hardly.

Rich

So every DCC system is proprietary and independent and not interoperable?

 

[richg1998]

Not hardly.

Rich

[krupa]

Here's a question: 

Is DCC a standard?  In other words, if I buy a system from company X, am I locked into company X's equipment and decoders?  I understand that I can swap out decoders in locos, but would I have to make sure to have specific decoders for company X's DCC equipment?

[Train Modeler]

Forty Niner

 

Personally I feel that "all" locomotives should be DCC "Friendly" and have the connector receptacle already installed from the factory, that way people wouldn't be throwing out the factory decoders and replacing them with their own preferances at their own expense. Just seems like a big waste of time and money there and it wouldn't affect the DC users either particularly, much as Athearn is doing it.

 

Mark

 

Unfortunately a lot of the DCC "friendlier" locos have a lot of caps and other electronics making them less than satisfactory to run on certain DC systems (like the new Atlas Gensets) or difficult to work with sound decoders for programming, etc.     I have had to take out the fancy boards and just replace them with the new DCC boards.   In effect they were a waste of money.    And an 8 pin plug normally has only 2 lighting functions.    You can add a 3rd, but a lot of DCC boards now have at least 4 outputs, and I want to use them.   So the 9 pin seems best to me personally.

I support your premise.     I just wished that it was being executed in a better way.

Richard

[Graffen]

I can´t see why (or how?) there should be some "new system on the horizon" that will replace DCC.

I mean, the 12V DC control lived well for over 60 years before DCC showed up, and DC continues to thrive today almost 20 years after DCC came onto the market. The inventors of DCC at least had the intelligence to futureproof it, so that it is hard to find other functions that isn´t already possible now.

Or maybe DCS is the future.......

Sure the future might hold some surprises, but I still haven´t heard anything.....

 

[Forty Niner]

Depends on your "perspective" there Crandell, not giving careful thought as to where you are going can also send you over the cliff.

I look at the currect DCC as an attempt to make a better system for controlling our "choo-choos", certainly not the final attempt.

Personally I feel that "all" locomotives should be DCC "Friendly" and have the connector receptacle already installed from the factory, that way people wouldn't be throwing out the factory decoders and replacing them with their own preferances at their own expense. Just seems like a big waste of time and money there and it wouldn't affect the DC users either particularly, much as Athearn is doing it.

I'm of the opinion that if someone likes DCC that's great in my book, just don't look down your nose and tell me what's wrong with "my" book. And I feel that it's in everyones best interest if the manufacturers make it easily and cheaply accessible to everyone who "wants" it. But for those of us who don't, don't make us pay a penalty by having to buy it then remove it just so we can run our locomotives.

Whatever happened to "live and let live"? Or is that obsolete as well?

I spent roughly 25 years in the computer field, now that I'm retired the last thing in the world I want to do is "program anymore computers" or deal with the problems they involve. 

Mark

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

selector

Yet people enjoyed 8-track tapes by the millions.  Had one myself.  Moved on eventually.

Qui non proficit deficit

"Who does not advance falls behind."

Crandell

I never owned an 8-track - vinyl and now CD's. I like music to actually sound like music.

8-tracks were junk they day they came out.

Sheldon

[Forty Niner]

Hi Sheldon,

I'm running on some really old technology that my late father and I first started using in the 1960s. It starts with a Lionel 90W transformer, (AC), then through a Variac, (remember those?), then through a selenium rectifier, then guages, then through the Aristo black box and to the track. I also have a selctor switch ahead of the Aristo black box as a back up feature, sort of a "just in case" I need it thing.

Also I'm still running one of the old Aristo throttles, don't remember the model number but the controller is orange if that narrows it down any.

The Aristo wireless was added to the system in the early 1990s.

Mark

[selector]

Yet people enjoyed 8-track tapes by the millions.  Had one myself.  Moved on eventually.

Qui non proficit deficit

"Who does not advance falls behind."

Crandell

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Forty Niner

I have been following this thread with moderate interest and one thing always comes to mind for "me", among the other reasons I have no use for DCC is that DCC uses "pulse power" to acheive what everyone describes as "how much smoother the locos run".

Well, "pulse power" has been available since the 1960s and my personal take on it has always been if you need pulse power to make your locos run smoothly then your locos need some serious "fine tuning" in the mechanism.

I don't use pulse power either because in the old days it made the motors overheat and sometimes burned them up. Now I realize that the new can motors of today may not suffer from this malady as much as the old open frame motors but has anybody really checked.

Again, my thinking is if you need "pulse power" to make your locos run smoothly, then you have some serious mechanism problems.

As for the concept of DCC I think it's a great idea but as with many things in life I'm not that impressed with the execution of the idea, I still think we have many new ideas to come in the furture and I expect one of these will make DCC obsolete.

Remember that first handheld calculator of the early 1970s? Today we have phones that have more computing power than a lot of the PCs of 10 years ago.

As electronics get smaller and more powerful, (and more reliable hopefully), more and more inovations will come as well.

DC power is like the foundation of the structure and without it there would be no DCC, the structure may be removed but the foundation is still there.

But, as Sheldon says, what do I know, I'm just a country boy who spent 25 years in the computer field and drives a rusty old pick up truck.

Mark

Mark,

That "old" pulse power that over heated motors and modern pulse width control have virtually nothing to do with each other?

What kind of throttle do you use? Unless it is a variable transformer powered from a lead acid storage battery your power to your trains likely has some sort of "pulse" or wave form other than straight DC.

Long before DCC, pulse technology was reconized as the best way to operate DC motors at variable speeds below their "design" speed.

If your throttles use transistors, they have some sort of pulse. If you use a simple diode bridge you still have a pulse from the AC line.

The question is the frequency and wave form of that pulse - I've never burned up a motor in 40 years using transistor or pulse width modulated throttles.

You use the Train Engineer at least some of the time - correct? That's what I use. Even if you have it the PWC turned off, there is still a "pulse". The big capacitor that changes it from PWC to linear does not fully eliminate the pulse.

As for loco mechanisms, I'm not interested rebuilding every loco with different motors and gears any more than I am interested in putting decoders in all 130 of them.

But that's just me. As for your thoughts that the technology is just getting started, I agree, said that earlier and every time this stuff comes up. It too is part of what keeps be out of DCC. On that point I agree with Doughless, not investing in something likely to become obsolete.

Sheldon 

[Doughless]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

 

Doughless:

 

Staying on topic and not wanting a general discussion opinion thread to get moved over to the rather boring electronics hobbyist section of this forum (a place I have visited about 5 times in 5 years).... another reason, I think, DC will be around for a while is that it generally does not require a specialized understanding of anything new in order to run trains.  Most people know how to hook up wires to track and plug the thing into the wall.  

As a banker by trade, I can speak for some others who don't use their line of work to gather knowledge of electronics 24/7, when I say that programming anything, including trains, tends to take the hobby in a direction that is not really related to modeling.  As I've eluded to, complicated operating systems, whether they be DC or DCC based, tends to take the hobby into the world of the electronics hobbyist, for which model railroading may be only one of many outlets for such a person, and fails to remain grounded in the miniature train world.

If a person who is interested in model trains, but not electronics, is faced with the task of having to read an operating manual and learn programming, even in its simplest form, when he buys his first train set is essentially learning a new skill that he will really only use when he is playing with trains.  At any other time of the day, that new skill is essentially useless.  

 

 

 

Doughless,

Wow, I can see you don't like the electrical aspect of the hobby. I have to disagree with the idea that just because I (or anyone) have electrical or electronics knowledge that may or may not extend beyond this hobby that somehow how I am not deep into the other aspects of the "minature train world". In fact I resent that implication a bit - that I am more interested in the electronics than the trains.

In fact the opposite is more the truth. Dispite how complex others tell me that my advanced DC system with push button turnout routing and cab selecton, detection, signaling and CTC is, after seriously considering both DCC and computerized block control, I rejected both on the basis of extra cost, complexity and work I did not need to meet my operational goals and did not want to become involved in.

Realistic prototype operation, including things like CTC and signaling, are just as valid modeling goals in the "minature train world" as building great scenery, structures or rolling stock, all of which I consider very important as well.

Just because you can't or won't do it does make it of zero value to the hobby.

My line of work - designing houses, managing my rental  properties, restoring 100 year old homes.

I built my first "craftsman" kit at age 13 - it still runs on my layout - 40 years later.

Sheldon 

 

Sheldon,

I was not directing my comment specifically at you or any other specific person for that matter.  Nor was I implying that you have no other interests or skills in the hobby.  

I can't think of another aspect of the hobby that is so terminology and educationally specific and for which the education and terminology is not related to model railroading.  Consequently,  the host of this forum has created a separate section for people to discuss such terminology as it relates to model railroading.  I was simply pointing out that acquiring such specific knowledge is probably a function of the personal interests and background of the person, and that it is not a necessity in making an intelligent decision towards operating system choices.  Those folks probably ( "probably" here, which is not a definitive word) use their knowledge and interest of electronics in other en devours, for which model railroading is not the driving force behind learning it.  

My other point was that since both systems control trains, lighting, and now apparently sound if you believe the reports of the new MRC power systems, they both accomplish the same goal.  I consider learning about two separate systems for doing such to be an effort in redundancy, since only learning something about one system is all that is required in order to operate trains.  I would rather learn general DC knowledge rather than some companies captive proprietary system, but only as much as I need. Although, I completely understand how accumulating such knowledge can be interesting to other people.

 

 

 

[Paul3]

Fred W.,
I agree with bullet points 1, 2, 5 & 6, but the others are not agreeable with me.  On Number 3, Maximum pulling power has nothing to do with DCC when decoders can be as small as .418” x .340” x .112".  Or, IOW, like this:

Yep, this 1 Amp decoder is smaller than a dime.  I have yet to see a model, even a brass steam engine with a lead pour in it, not have room for a dime-sized decoder. 

On Point 4, it can be argued that DCC actually improves dispatching and signalling by integrating the signalling with the power (for example, automatic train stop is possible with DCC).

And testing and tuning on Point 7 can be improved with BEMF-equipped DCC decoders.

Are any of these reasons important enough to go DCC?  Only each us can speak for our own cases, and I agree to let everyone make their own choices, but let's keep the reasons to go one way or another based on logically comparable and/or factually correct debate points.

Brakie,
It's certainly their right to not install DCC in any engine, but don't let them snow you on the reasons why.  They either don't want to be bothered or they don't want to spend the money.  The material the model is made of, or the age of that model, has nothing to do with it.

BTW, my club is also a democracy...one member, one vote on a monthly basis.  We're DCC-only with the possible exception of our trolley line (which will be both...maybe).  If someone doesn't like DCC at our club, I'm afraid that there's not much we can do for them.  All the other clubs I know of in New England are DCC.  Maybe some of them are both DCC and DC, but not to my knowledge.

Paul A. Cutler III

[Michael6792]

I too have been watching this thread with interest and I know everyone has their personal preference. Some people have a genuine need for DCC, some chose it for features that aren't really a need but a desire & then there are the ones like me that are of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosiphy. If  had a large layout that was built for DC & a large amount of locos that I didn't want to retire or change over I would see no reason to change unless they were to stop producing DC equipment altogether. (I don't see that happening any time soon)

There are some people out there (not just in the model train world) that will always buy new systems just because it's new & "improved". My son, for example, buys himself a new game system when it comes out just because it's new. I, on the other hand, still do not own a flat screen TV since the old one works just fine. This also puts me in the drivers seat to buy the old system/tv/whatever for pennies on the dollar. (I have yet to purchase a new cell phone as he gives me his old one which is perfectly fine & quite nice whenever he buys a new one, about every year)

I am building a small layout & haven't decided which way I'm going to go yet but I am leaning towards DC since it is a small one person layout and I already have all the equipment. I will however set it up so it's an easy changeover if I decide to go the other way.

[ErnieC]

Wayne,

You wrote:

"having weighed the alternatives, many of us remain comfortable in our DC ways and don't wish to be converted, either"

Agreed, as a lone DC operator using selective Insulfrog turnouts as block controls and sequence operation I have just a few drops to the bus and that's about all.  Oh yes, there is a rotary controling the engine house stalls, not too complicated.

Ernie C

[Forty Niner]

I have been following this thread with moderate interest and one thing always comes to mind for "me", among the other reasons I have no use for DCC is that DCC uses "pulse power" to acheive what everyone describes as "how much smoother the locos run".

Well, "pulse power" has been available since the 1960s and my personal take on it has always been if you need pulse power to make your locos run smoothly then your locos need some serious "fine tuning" in the mechanism.

I don't use pulse power either because in the old days it made the motors overheat and sometimes burned them up. Now I realize that the new can motors of today may not suffer from this malady as much as the old open frame motors but has anybody really checked.

Again, my thinking is if you need "pulse power" to make your locos run smoothly, then you have some serious mechanism problems.

As for the concept of DCC I think it's a great idea but as with many things in life I'm not that impressed with the execution of the idea, I still think we have many new ideas to come in the furture and I expect one of these will make DCC obsolete.

Remember that first handheld calculator of the early 1970s? Today we have phones that have more computing power than a lot of the PCs of 10 years ago.

As electronics get smaller and more powerful, (and more reliable hopefully), more and more inovations will come as well.

DC power is like the foundation of the structure and without it there would be no DCC, the structure may be removed but the foundation is still there.

But, as Sheldon says, what do I know, I'm just a country boy who spent 25 years in the computer field and drives a rusty old pick up truck.

Mark

[doctorwayne]

Paul3

 

doctorwayne,
Running your own pusher is fun.  I've done it many times on DCC, and I can even cut off on the fly.  How do you run pushers on DC?  I assume it's all one block, and your engines just happen to run at the same speed?

In addition to the multi-train/multi-operator benefit of DCC, I feel that DCC really shines at engine terminals.  You can park your locos wherever they fit, not just where the electrical block is.

Also, for the record, for any layout where one has multiple trains set up to run, DCC does excellently there, too, even if all you do is run one train at a time.  For example, I have a 7-track passenger terminal on my DCC layout.  I start with 5 of those tracks occupied with trains ready to depart, and I have just one operator running passenger trains.  If I had DC, I'd have to wire every track up to a block toggle with another "kill switch" for the road power at the end of the track (so the switcher can grab the train and pull it out).  With DCC, it's all wired to the same bus.  So even tho' the passenger terminal is a one-train/one-operator facility, it still sees a benefit from being DCC over DC.

 

Assuming your questions and comments aren't rhetorical, Paul, I'll address them.

Yes, the locos run well together when used in pusher service - it's a more important consideration than it would be for simple double- or triple headers, but most of my steam, and, when I still ran them, diesels, run well with one another and, equally important, start at the same throttle settings.   Some were remotored, although not with this service specifically in mind. 

When I considered switching to DCC, pusher service was the one area where it offers the ability to outperform DC with my particular operating requirements, and one which, in my opinion, appears to be under-utilised by those running DCC.  However, to realise its full benefits, I would need an additional operator, a luxury I don't have.  To further expand on that, were I running DCC, I'd need additional operators for each loco on that train (bear in mind that I'm running steam):  after all, programming locomotives to have similar operating characteristics is simply an expensive version of what I'm doing by selecting locos which already run well with one another.  I'll grant that multiple diesels run from a single throttle is prototypical and even that the pusher could be a slave unit. but relying on decoders to do the work of a steam engineers is, in my opinion, a cop-out and/or a missed opportunity.    I can't, however, cut-off on the fly (that would be neat to see), although not useful for my situation - the pushers work right through.

While the layout is operated as a single block, I do have areas (yards, storage tracks, and passing sidings) where the power can be "killed".  (I operate sequentially, so there may be more than one train on the track, but only one-at-a-time is active.)  However, it was a simple matter to add on/off switches where required, and there's no power bus with which to contend.

Those switches may become redundant, though, as a friend suggested a simple replacement which he's used for years (though he's now a DCC convert) and which allows locos to be parked anywhere.  Simply put, a latching magnetic reed switch is installed in every loco's tender (he called it the poor man's DCC), interrupting the power supply, then a magnet is passed over it to activate/de-activate the switch.  So I should be able to have a line-up of locos on the ready track, with no switches required on the layout fascia, and all ready to go with the wave of a magnet:  a simple solution for my simple one-man operation and at a cost of about $2.00 per loco.    In addition to engine terminals, this also addresses your comments on staging yards, although all of mine are stub-ended and are switched only for cars destined for the town where the staging yard is located.  All others are considered to be "through cars", and are physically removed from the layout.

I don't dispute the value of DCC in some, or even many applications, but it offers nothing for my particular situation.   I think, too, that there are some DCC users who, for whatever reason (ill-informed, advice from others, forming conclusions without weighing the alternatives, blindly following trends, etc., etc.) chose DCC but who would be just as well served by a simple (and cheaper) DC system.    However, if it works for them and they're having fun, far be it for me to attempt to convert them.  Conversely, though, having weighed the alternatives, many of us remain comfortable in our DC ways and don't wish to be converted, either.

 

Wayne

 

[BRAKIE]

Since movement is critical to our hobby and electricity is critical to that movement, understanding electronics is a part of our hobby just as much as woodworking, painting, detailing, kit building, or any other model railroading aspect.

It can be simple (two wires), it can be complicated (miles of wire or digital processors).  But then so can anything else in model railroading...and yet it's all important to our hobby enjoyment.

Paul A. Cutler III

---------------------------

I agree and one of the simplest DC block wiring is the Atlas selectors since there is one wire to each block.

Simplest DCC wiring is two wires to the track plus a programing track.

Both is simple enough that a new modeler can wire either if he can follow simple written directions.

[Paul3]

Doughless,
You are being unreasonable in calling electonics a non-model railroad pursuit.  What makes model railroading different from other forms of modeling is that our equipment moves.  While there are other hobbies that are based on moving minature models of real things (R/C cars, slot cars, R/C airplanes,  R/C boats, etc.), no other hobby emphasizes fidelity to scale and realistic operation like model railroading does.

Since movement is critical to our enjoyment of the hobby of model railroading, the operating system we use to make them go is equally critical to our hobby.  Historically, there have been wind-up trains, pull trains on a string, push trains, live steamers, and electricity (battery or track power).  Of these, only electric operation has proven feasible in all scales for reliability, durability, and operation.  No. 1 Gauge was based on the smallest electric motor feasible at the time...then they came out with 0 Scale, then 00 Scale and Half 0 scale.  Again, all based on electric motor size at the time.

Since movement is critical to our hobby and electricity is critical to that movement, understanding electronics is a part of our hobby just as much as woodworking, painting, detailing, kit building, or any other model railroading aspect.

It can be simple (two wires), it can be complicated (miles of wire or digital processors).  But then so can anything else in model railroading...and yet it's all important to our hobby enjoyment.

Paul A. Cutler III

[BRAKIE]

Paul3

Brakie,
Having older or brass locos is no reason to avoid DCC.  I've installed decoders many times in old brass, and it's no worse than putting in a constant lighting diode matrix.  If they're worried about messing up their loco, I have a NJ/Custom Brass NH I-4 loco that looks 100% stock (other than the paint job).  I put the decoder in the boiler and the tender light is unlit.  Therefore, I was able to use the tender drawbar as it was intended and so have no wires between boiler and tender.  I didn't drill or cut anything out.  To me, to use the "But I have brass or old locos!" excuse is a non-starter.  The real reason is money and/or laziness.  Money is a good reason, but not the laziness.  Others have told me they don't want to put DCC in their brass loco because it would lower it's monetary value.  My answer is, "Are you ever going to sell it?"  The answer is almost always, "No."  I reply, "Then who cares what it's worth?  It might as well be worth zero dollars if you're never going to sell it.  Put a decoder in and have fun with it while you can.  And who knows?  It may be worth more to someone on eBay if it's got DCC already.

Paul A. Cutler III

-----------------------

Paul,I guess you missed this?

---------------------------

The majority-including  several of the guys that uses DCC at home-didn't want to install decoders in their older locomotives for various reasons..

--------------------------

Its their right not to install decoders in their older locomotives for whatever reason they chose..As a club we had to respect these rights and decided a DC/DCC switch would be a win-win for all..

You see these are due paying members that  have a equal voice and vote in club procedure and the vote went to install a DC/DCC switch for ASON and the older diesels and we voted every other week is DCC operation-another win-win for the membership.

I really miss that club but,its a  80  mile round trip.

[IRONROOSTER]

Doughless

Staying on topic and not wanting a general discussion opinion thread to get moved over to the rather boring electronics hobbyist section of this forum (a place I have visited about 5 times in 5 years).... another reason, I think, DC will be around for a while is that it generally does not require a specialized understanding of anything new in order to run trains.  Most people know how to hook up wires to track and plug the thing into the wall.  

As a banker by trade, I can speak for some others who don't use their line of work to gather knowledge of electronics 24/7, when I say that programming anything, including trains, tends to take the hobby in a direction that is not really related to modeling.  As I've eluded to, complicated operating systems, whether they be DC or DCC based, tends to take the hobby into the world of the electronics hobbyist, for which model railroading may be only one of many outlets for such a person, and fails to remain grounded in the miniature train world.

If a person who is interested in model trains, but not electronics, is faced with the task of having to read an operating manual and learn programming, even in its simplest form, when he buys his first train set is essentially learning a new skill that he will really only use when he is playing with trains.  At any other time of the day, that new skill is essentially useless.  

 

The last steam locomotive I bought came with everything set up/optimized on the decoder including sound and the locomotive number.  All I had to do to run it was run two wires form the command station/booster to the track, plug in the command station/booster, put batteries in the wireless throttle, and key in the locomotive number. 

Enjoy

Paul

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Doughless

Staying on topic and not wanting a general discussion opinion thread to get moved over to the rather boring electronics hobbyist section of this forum (a place I have visited about 5 times in 5 years).... another reason, I think, DC will be around for a while is that it generally does not require a specialized understanding of anything new in order to run trains.  Most people know how to hook up wires to track and plug the thing into the wall.  

As a banker by trade, I can speak for some others who don't use their line of work to gather knowledge of electronics 24/7, when I say that programming anything, including trains, tends to take the hobby in a direction that is not really related to modeling.  As I've eluded to, complicated operating systems, whether they be DC or DCC based, tends to take the hobby into the world of the electronics hobbyist, for which model railroading may be only one of many outlets for such a person, and fails to remain grounded in the miniature train world.

If a person who is interested in model trains, but not electronics, is faced with the task of having to read an operating manual and learn programming, even in its simplest form, when he buys his first train set is essentially learning a new skill that he will really only use when he is playing with trains.  At any other time of the day, that new skill is essentially useless.  

 

Doughless,

Wow, I can see you don't like the electrical aspect of the hobby. I have to disagree with the idea that just because I (or anyone) have electrical or electronics knowledge that may or may not extend beyond this hobby that somehow how I am not deep into the other aspects of the "minature train world". In fact I resent that implication a bit - that I am more interested in the electronics than the trains.

In fact the opposite is more the truth. Dispite how complex others tell me that my advanced DC system with push button turnout routing and cab selecton, detection, signaling and CTC is, after seriously considering both DCC and computerized block control, I rejected both on the basis of extra cost, complexity and work I did not need to meet my operational goals and did not want to become involved in.

Realistic prototype operation, including things like CTC and signaling, are just as valid modeling goals in the "minature train world" as building great scenery, structures or rolling stock, all of which I consider very important as well.

Just because you can't or won't do it does make it of zero value to the hobby.

My line of work - designing houses, managing my rental  properties, restoring 100 year old homes.

I built my first "craftsman" kit at age 13 - it still runs on my layout - 40 years later.

Sheldon 

 

[DigitalGriffin]

blownout cylinder

I think that DC will be around for a long while to come yet...this kind of thing has come up in some local clubs about changing over to DCC but most have turned it down because of the conversion costs..and at a time when some of these clubs are doing the hunker down thing.....megh...conversion is going to be a cost factor for sure...

No doubt blownout.

The club has to decide if it's worth it to them.  But the number of younger modelers (40's+) comfortable with computers is increasing.  These people are typically the backbone and longterm lifeline of clubs.  Older members don't like crawling under layouts and doing wiring any more.

These same people are more likely to use DCC I wager and will look to a club that has DCC.  There's room for both types of clubs at the moment.  But long term survivalbility is pointing to DCC I think.  Again, just my humble opinion.

 

[fwright]

NevinW

For those of you who have DC layouts , my advice is to reconsider conversion to DCC.  It isn't that difficult and the difference in how the layout operates is remarkable.  -  Nevin  

Nevin

Just like everything else, the control system should fit the grand plan for the layout.  The best fit may be DCC - quite likely in a majority of cases - but it isn't best fit control system for all.  Some examples where nothing is gained by the extra expense of DCC:

• single operator switching layouts
• where multiple trains stay on separate paths - common in display or multi-gauge layouts
• where maximum pulling power of locomotives has priority over other operations
• sometimes where dispatching and signaling are the primary operational objectives
• where the layout owner prefers DC technology
• where the scale is big enough to do radio control with internal batteries
• for testing and tuning when building your own locomotives

Since several of the above examples apply to me (single operator switching and display layout, separate HO and HOn3 tracks, pulling power, and building locomotives), there are other higher priorities for my limited hobby $$.

DCC fits well where the operating scheme is display running or the engineer function of running a train - although I don't believe enabling display running of multiple trains simultaneously from a single controller was part of the original command control vision.

There were many poor implementations of block control over the years - and yes, those layouts probably do benefit from changing to DCC.

Something to keep in mind - the motor in your locomotive still runs on analog DC - whether the power comes directly from the track or through a DCC decoder.  In fact, you can make a pretty good, fully functional (if expensive) DC throttle by mounting the DCC decoder under the layout and running the motor wires to the track through your DC block system.  That's why from a locomotive builder perspective I want to get my locomotive performing on DC without any masking of issues from the features of the decoder.

Let's let everybody make their own choices.  It's a hobby.

Fred W

 

[DigitalGriffin]

CNJ831

Is the DCC market slowly growing? Yes, I'd definitely say that it is. DC disappearing, however, is quite another question.

I would speculate that DC is still dominant in the hobby and will likely remain viable as an operating system for perhaps the next 15-20 years. It is simply a matter of too many older hobbyists having too many DC locomotives they are unwilling to convert for there to be any truly rapid and dramatic change in the situation. I, like quite a number of other long time hobbyists I know, will likely never bother to make the change-over, simply because what we currently have operating our layouts works just fine for us. DC sales still have many profitable years ahead of them.

CNJ831

I know several people like you CNJ. 

To add to this, there are several who are "toying" with the hobby.  (The starter train under the christmas tree)  And asking them to dole out $150 for a starter DCC set is just too much.  I do believe more and more younger modelers (those who grew up with computers), and more serious modelers are getting into DCC however.  The DCC numbers are growing slowly.

 

[Paul3]

To answer the OP, no, DC layouts are not all going to disappear.  There are still folks that like to build their own control system...like Sheldon and tomikawaTT.  Heck, the MIT club is also another example.  They make their own beause that's what they do.  The electronics are part of their hobby, and they enjoy it.  So for those people, DC will never disappear.  Let me put it this way: I know someone who still uses X2F couplers and has for 40 years or more.  He refuses to switch to Kadees even tho' he scratchbuilds his own brass steam engines.  So if something ugly and junky as X2F couplers are still being used after decades of Kadee usage, then DC analog will be in use as well.

OTOH, among those model railroaders that don't enjoy wiring, I think it's possible that they will convert to DCC as they get seriously into the hobby.  I still think DC will start newbies more than DCC (let's face it, it's always cheaper to start with DC), but I do believe that as most newbies get further along, DCC will be more appetizing than DC for the vast majority.  Not for everyone, but for most.

Sheldon,
Sending signals through the air would not accomplish anything without significant advancement in battery technology.  If you still need to power the rails, radio tech. would be an unnecessary expense.  With DCC, the power is the signal...if you have power, you have signal.  There's nothing to be gained by seperating them, unless you make both "wireless" (or, IOW, trackless).

It would be like having an intercom in your house.  I used to have one that plugged into a wall socket, and it used the wiring in the house to transmit and receive.  All you had to do was plug another intercom into a wall socket and you had instant communications between units.  Now imagine that someone invented a wireless version of that intercom, but without batteries.  You still had to plug it in to a wall socket.  And because it's wireless, it has to get FCC approval (Lenz still has no radio throttle), it's larger, and it's more expensive.  Also, that certain kinds of house construction can render it unreliable.  Where's the advantage of going wireless if you still need to plug in the units?

DCC is the same way.  Where is the advantage for a larger, more expensive "receiver" that's not as reliable if you still need to draw power from the rails?

It would eliminate no "gizmos" under a DCC layout.  As someone who's wired a large DCC layout (twice), the only "gizmos" are for detection, track power, throttle bus, switch-throwing, signals, circuit breakers, and a DCC "brain", all of which would still needed for a wireless, track-powered DCC system.  And on my home layout, other than the "brain", throttle bus, track bus, and a UR91 radio receiver, I have nothing under my layout.

tomikawaTT,
Not for nothing, but MRC throttlepacks are just as much a "black box" as any DCC system and have been that way for decades.  I've opened one or two over the years, and they are full of printed circuit boards and wiring.  As someone who does not have an advanced electrical degree either, I couldn't tell you what's mounted on that PCB in a Tech II, nor could I tell you what's in a Digitrax Zephyr.  Both are full of mysterious hardware, where stuff goes in, gets modified, and different stuff comes out.  One is digital, one is analog, but both are "black boxes" where if they fail, you don't fix it, you replace it.

doctorwayne,
Running your own pusher is fun.  I've done it many times on DCC, and I can even cut off on the fly.  How do you run pushers on DC?  I assume it's all one block, and your engines just happen to run at the same speed?

In addition to the multi-train/multi-operator benefit of DCC, I feel that DCC really shines at engine terminals.  You can park your locos wherever they fit, not just where the electrical block is.

Also, for the record, for any layout where one has multiple trains set up to run, DCC does excellently there, too, even if all you do is run one train at a time.  For example, I have a 7-track passenger terminal on my DCC layout.  I start with 5 of those tracks occupied with trains ready to depart, and I have just one operator running passenger trains.  If I had DC, I'd have to wire every track up to a block toggle with another "kill switch" for the road power at the end of the track (so the switcher can grab the train and pull it out).  With DCC, it's all wired to the same bus.  So even tho' the passenger terminal is a one-train/one-operator facility, it still sees a benefit from being DCC over DC.

Brakie,
Having older or brass locos is no reason to avoid DCC.  I've installed decoders many times in old brass, and it's no worse than putting in a constant lighting diode matrix.  If they're worried about messing up their loco, I have a NJ/Custom Brass NH I-4 loco that looks 100% stock (other than the paint job).  I put the decoder in the boiler and the tender light is unlit.  Therefore, I was able to use the tender drawbar as it was intended and so have no wires between boiler and tender.  I didn't drill or cut anything out.  To me, to use the "But I have brass or old locos!" excuse is a non-starter.  The real reason is money and/or laziness.  Money is a good reason, but not the laziness.  Others have told me they don't want to put DCC in their brass loco because it would lower it's monetary value.  My answer is, "Are you ever going to sell it?"  The answer is almost always, "No."  I reply, "Then who cares what it's worth?  It might as well be worth zero dollars if you're never going to sell it.  Put a decoder in and have fun with it while you can.  And who knows?  It may be worth more to someone on eBay if it's got DCC already."

Hamltnblue,
"Money pile"?  For "RC folks"?

Why would anyone invest in a tethered radio system?  Unless one hauls around boxcars of batteries, what's the point of going to a wireless DCC system?

Paul A. Cutler III

[DigitalGriffin]

A lot of these "sound locomotives" will run on DC layouts.  Also sound is a big selling point these days for many* (*I said "Many", not "All")

Also most DCC decoders are dual mode ready (DC/DCC)  By buying the DCC versions, the store owner opens himself up to the full market.

(Although I'm sure some others will disagree)

[BRAKIE]

Hamltnblue

BRAKIE:

One club I am inactive in went DCC but,soon realized that was a mistake..So,we installed a DC/DCC switch so we could have it both ways and rotate operating nights.This was a win-win for the membership.

The reason?

Brass steam and diesel locomotives from the 50/60s as well as a ton of Hobbytown locomotives and Rivarossi steamers dating back to the 60s.The majority-including  several of the guys that uses DCC at home-didn't want to install decoders in their older locomotives fo various reasons..

 

The club should have set up a separate 4x8 layout for the ones who didn't want to change.

 

LOL!!

One problem..It would become to crowded on ASON..

[Hamltnblue]

BRAKIE

One club I am inactive in went DCC but,soon realized that was a mistake..So,we installed a DC/DCC switch so we could have it both ways and rotate operating nights.This was a win-win for the membership.

The reason?

Brass steam and diesel locomotives from the 50/60s as well as a ton of Hobbytown locomotives and Rivarossi steamers dating back to the 60s.The majority-including  several of the guys that uses DCC at home-didn't want to install decoders in their older locomotives fo various reasons..

The club should have set up a separate 4x8 layout for the ones who didn't want to change.

 

[NevinW]

DCC will continue to grow and gradually take over the market.  I would never consider going back to DC. It just has way too many advantages complare to DC.  

I have operated on a relatively famous large layout that has been featured in many of the magazines.  It was DC the first time and the owner gave us all the same arguments against DCC that you frequently see on this website.  Too many brass engines, happy with the current operations design, wouldn't improve the layout, etc.  The truth was that the control system for the blocks was incredibly complicated and required one person to man it at all times.  The next time I was invited to operate, it was completely DCC.  Most of the brass now had decoders.  The owner admitted that most of his arguments turned out to be not true and that the improvement in the layout was substantial.  He was right, under the old system operation was fun but unrealistic.  With DCC it ran like the prototype.  No comparison.   It addition, the time spent adding decoders in his brass steamers, was saved from the time spent trying to maintain his old electrical system.  

For those of you who have DC layouts , my advice is to reconsider conversion to DCC.  It isn't that difficult and the difference in how the layout operates is remarkable.  -  Nevin  

[Doughless]

Staying on topic and not wanting a general discussion opinion thread to get moved over to the rather boring electronics hobbyist section of this forum (a place I have visited about 5 times in 5 years).... another reason, I think, DC will be around for a while is that it generally does not require a specialized understanding of anything new in order to run trains.  Most people know how to hook up wires to track and plug the thing into the wall.  

As a banker by trade, I can speak for some others who don't use their line of work to gather knowledge of electronics 24/7, when I say that programming anything, including trains, tends to take the hobby in a direction that is not really related to modeling.  As I've eluded to, complicated operating systems, whether they be DC or DCC based, tends to take the hobby into the world of the electronics hobbyist, for which model railroading may be only one of many outlets for such a person, and fails to remain grounded in the miniature train world.

If a person who is interested in model trains, but not electronics, is faced with the task of having to read an operating manual and learn programming, even in its simplest form, when he buys his first train set is essentially learning a new skill that he will really only use when he is playing with trains.  At any other time of the day, that new skill is essentially useless.  

 

[pastorbob]

I can only speak for myself, having been in model trains since age 6 months (first Lionel) and am now age 74.  I converted to HO and DC in 1959 while in college and have been in HO since.  I used DC until the first of the command control systems began appearing in the 1980's.  In my case, Dynatrol was the choice and I began converting the railroad and diesels to that system.  After using Dynatrol, I was hooked on command control, no toggles, no this no that.  DC became nothing to me.  When DCC started its conversion to standards and my Dynatrol was about to die, I converted to NCE and still use it today.  This system is the best for me.  However, I don't care much for sound, and have only 12 diesels with sound out of a roster of around 250 plus diesels.  The sound units come out for open houses, otherwise I operate "quietly".

I would never consider going back to DC, plain and simple.   I also have a garden railroad in the backyard and it uses battery power/radio control.  For large scale, that is the best in my opinion.  I may not see the day when better battery life is possible, but for now, it is great.

For the G scale, no power to the rails (onboard battery packs) is the ultimate.  I would hope sometime in the future that would be available for HO also, but probably not in my lifetime.

DC or DCC to me is windup versus electrical power.   Again, this is from an old geezer who started at abe 6 months and has lived through it all.  "that's my story and I'm stickin to it."

Bob

[fender777]

If it wasn't for DCC I  would not have got back in the hobby.I have buildt 2 dual cab layouts before and really had fun with them and all the wiring.But fast forward 10 years and advantage that DCC offers made me want to build a new layout.I love sound and even though I still like to run my trains with out the sound on sometimes'having the ability to run 3 to 4 trains at one time'consist of locos'and all the other control DCC offers.I would never run DC ever again.NO BRAINER FOR ME.DC will hang around'why not.But DCC is the way of the future like it or not.BOB

[Hamltnblue]

Doughless

ATLANTIC CENTRAL:

Doughless:

Wrong - digital proportional control - Its been done for decades with model airplanes.

Look up the Aristo Revolution or Airwire, they control sound boards, lights, smoke units, what ever - one uses DCC technology, one does not.

Sheldon

 

Well then, to get to the heart of the matter, why does one use DCC technology and the other not, if they both accomplish the same thing? 

On second thought, no matter how hard I try, my simple mind doesn't accept the clutter that's generated by understanding how to accomplish the same goal two different ways, so I wouldn't get past square one.  Nevermind. 

It's just a matter of what the designers decided to go with.  It's typically what is cheaper to manufacture, offers the functions needed, and what will sell for the price that the average system goes for.  Note that the major manufacturers have systems in the same basic price range. 

When someone finds an economical way to do it, you may find an RC train that uses both DC and DCC only as a source of power. At the moment I don't blame Digitrax and the other main players for not going there.  Why would they open up their little money pile to the RC folks?

[BRAKIE]

AntonioFP45

From what I've witnessed here in Florida, DCC is continuing to grow in popularity.  I was pleasantly surprised when just a few years ago I joined the Suncoast Model Railroader's Club.    Strictly DC, many of the members (especially old timers) were not interested in DCC...........at first.  Within a 1 1/2 year's time, the club transitioned totally DCC. The simplified operations potential, simplified wiring, total freedom for locomotives to travel on any track and anytime, and the flexibility to control lights and sound features offered too much potential to ignore. One of the members was 90 years old and enjoyed DCC.  

One club I am inactive in went DCC but,soon realized that was a mistake..So,we installed a DC/DCC switch so we could have it both ways and rotate operating nights.This was a win-win for the membership.

The reason?

Brass steam and diesel locomotives from the 50/60s as well as a ton of Hobbytown locomotives and Rivarossi steamers dating back to the 60s.The majority-including  several of the guys that uses DCC at home-didn't want to install decoders in their older locomotives fo various reasons..

These older steam locomotives is used primary on All Steam Operation Nights-we call it ASON  for short.

BTW..We still use a CTC board with dispatcher on operation nights.

[Graffen]

I started, as so many others, with  a DC layout some 25 years ago and was real happy with that until I went to a clinic in 1998 where the inventor of DCC, Bernd Lenz, showed what was possible by then. He and MMR Rutger Friberg showed some nice "function models" and sound equipped locos.

After that I reconsidered my thinking. I saw the advantages AND the disadvantages of DCC Vs DC and DCC won!

As it is more expensive, I decided to sell off all unconvertible material to finance a few locos to start with. I feel that I rather have a few more expensive loco´s than a myriad of cheap stuff....

Today it is really cheap to start with DCC, a new starter set from Roco with track, loco, cars and DCC system (Multimaus) is now only $250!!

LINK

I think that there will ALWAYS be some people that doesn´t run DCC, but they will more likely have to convert their locos themself, just like we had to do with DCC when we did it 10 years ago

[doctorwayne]

Michael6792

I dont think that DC is going to disappear any time soon, but it does pose another interesting question especially to modeler that has a large layout in Dc that they've been working on for years. If you had to start over from scratch for whatever reason, would you stick with DC or make the move to go with DCC at that point?

 

Well, my layout's not especially large, but if I were starting over it'd still be DC, even if someone gave me a bag of money to pay for the DCC.   DC offers everything I want for my particular operating preferences, including easy walk-around control.  I'm not a fan of sound and don't wish to run more than one train at a time (lone operator), although that one train may be doubleheaded steam with a pusher.  Oh yeah, and the wiring's pretty simple, too:

 

I think where DCC really shines is for club operations or home layouts which require multiple operators.  From what I've read in various forums, many entering the hobby, or coming back to it opt for DCC because it's readily available and, if you're starting out, relatively inexpensive.   Many, though, don't have need to exploit its full potential, and are content with lighting features or sound effects.  I wonder how many of them will stay with the hobby.  For now though, they're helping to make this a golden age for the availability of accurate models undreamt of 50 years ago.  I doubt that DCC will be the demise of DC.

 

Wayne

[Anonymous]

At prices from $ 600 and up here in Germany, there are not many DCC starter sets to be found under the Christmas tree. DCC raises the bar for entry into the hobby to height where most people will not be able to join in.

Most starter sets are therefore still DCand I believe it will be around much longer than we´d estimate.

Btw, my new layout will be DC, as it basically a figure 8 with some sidings - no need for DCC.

 

[tomikawaTT]

I may as well play the contrarian again, as usual.

When holiday train sets start coming with base stations and DCC controllers, then I'll believe that DC is really disappearing.  Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.

One basic fact remains.  Anyone who can attach two wires to a lantern battery can get power to the rails and run an analog DC locomotive.  For those of us who don't have degrees in electronics, DCC is a realm of mysterious black boxes that don't lend themselves to jackleg modifications.  That alone will keep me in analog DC.

I will concede that I've upgraded my ancient power packs with silicon diode rectifiers in place of the original selenium variety.  Ditto for the mini-rectifiers that were once installed for directional lighting in some of my locomotives.

(Yes, Matilda, some old Japanese prototype brass locos had selenium rectifiers in their directional lighting circuits.)

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - analog DC, MZL system)

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

CNJ831

"Are the DC layouts slowly all disappearing?"

Here's an aspect of this question that hasn't yet been mentioned and which may turn out to be critical. Since the hobby's demographic is today essentially an inverted pyramid, with the ever dwindling number of newcomers the most likely candidates for purchasing new DCC operating systems, this eventually might well almost stagnate sales of DCC. That point might conceivably even be reached before DCC attains a 50% market share!

I will say, however, that strictly DC locomotives may well pass into history in the not too distant further. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't occurred already. Certainly, the future lies with dual-mode decoder equipped engines that can service both DC and basic DCC enthusiast. Such a total shift to universal dual-mode decodes equipped engines across the industry not only would add a small additional profit per sale, but the unifying of production runs to a single system would likewise represent a savings for the manufactures (and, yes, many are already there in this approach).

CNJ831

That point might be nearing already from what I see.

To the point about DCC/DC dual mode locos. Manufacturers will have to take the Bachmann route if they want success with that because many DC operators, especially some of the more "advanced" ones, are using DC throttles that do not play well with dual mode decoders.

Any DC throttle with advanced pulse power or pulse width modulation is likely to not play well with dual mode decoders - so they need to be easily removable/bypassable.

My Aristo Train Engineer throttles hate almost all dual mode decoders and even those that run OK, the same locos run better once the decoders are gone. A few locos with really low end decoders, like Bachmann GE 70 tonners, literally will not run on the TE, in PWC mode or analog mode. BUT, after rewiring them to bypass the decoder portion of the one piece circuit board, they run very nice.

Sheldon

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Doughless,

Even if it uses the same comumincation protocals as DCC, sending the signal through the air rather than through the rails would eliminate some of the "gizmos" under large DCC layouts - it would reduce cost and simplify wiring even more on larger layouts and reduce dirty track stalling and "drop out" problems.

Is that enough reasons to do the same thing a different way?

Sheldon

[CNJ831]

"Are the DC layouts slowly all disappearing?"

Here's an aspect of this question that hasn't yet been mentioned and which may turn out to be critical. Since the hobby's demographic is today essentially an inverted pyramid, with the ever dwindling number of newcomers the most likely candidates for purchasing new DCC operating systems, this eventually might well almost stagnate sales of DCC. That point might conceivably even be reached before DCC attains a 50% market share!

I will say, however, that strictly DC locomotives may well pass into history in the not too distant future. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't occurred already. Certainly, the future lies with dual-mode decoder equipped engines that can service both DC and basic DCC enthusiast. Such a total shift to universal dual-mode decoder equipped engines across the industry not only would add a small additional profit per sale, but the unifying of production runs to a single system would likewise represent a savings for the manufactures (and, yes, many are already there in this approach).

CNJ831

[Doughless]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Doughless:

Hamltnblue:

Makes sense with the radio.  When you think about it, radio control has become more popular lately.  They work by having a radio controller transmit to a receiver, which interfaces with the DCC controller, which puts the signal on the track, which in turn is received by the trains decoder.  You would think it would be much easier to just electrify the track and have the radio receiver on the loco's.  It seems to work just fine in the RC car, boat, and airplane industry and the range is much farther than ever used by trains. 

 

I think you're right, if you just want to control throttle.  But if you want to control throttle, lights, and sound, I think you need the decoder to route the signal to the proper circuit.

Maybe have a different frequency for each circuit?

 

Wrong - digital proportional control - Its been done for decades with model airplanes.

Look up the Aristo Revolution or Airwire, they control sound boards, lights, smoke units, what ever - one uses DCC technology, one does not.

Sheldon

Well then, to get to the heart of the matter, why does one use DCC technology and the other not, if they both accomplish the same thing? 

On second thought, no matter how hard I try, my simple mind doesn't accept the clutter that's generated by understanding how to accomplish the same goal two different ways, so I wouldn't get past square one.  Nevermind. 

. 

[jmbjmb]

There are also those like me who's prototype inspiration and model are one horse (ok iron horse) branch lines.  My wiring right now with DC is two wires to the track.  No blocks, electrical switches, etc..  Operationally DCC wouldn't add a single thing for me.  I've thought about it from time to time, but haven't yet spent the money.  Perhaps when the sound get's a bit better, I may switch then.

Oh, I also think it's funny, no matter if it's this board or any other, if the topic turns to technology, someone has to turn it into "well when the older generation moves on, the younger gen will accept this technology."    Nope young padawan, it's much simplier than that -- while you may be just acquiring stuff, I have a legacy to go through, and put kids through college at the same time.  It comes down to time and money, nothing else.

[tony314]

When I was younger and was still MRRing, I obviously had DC. Now that i'm getting back into it. I'm probably going to ditch the DC controller and go DCC when money is free. For me, DCC offers me more of what I want and that is freedom to travel the layout when I want to control the train. 

I went to one shop and they sell DCC and DC loco's and I was asking questions and the guy was happy to sell DCC, but he was trying his hardest to change my mind and stay with DC ( He is NOT a DCC or sound fan ). DC will go no where anytime soon, but like all tech, things will move forward and you either pick and choose the tech you want or you don't. Not sure if I want sound in them or not,but I can always lower the volume and not here the sound if I choose!

[eaglescout]

I recently got started in the model RR hobby again in retirement.  I asked advice at our local hobby shops and on online forums about DCC vs. DC and nickel silver vs. brass track and appreciated everyones input.  However, considering I am willing to spend hundreds rather than thousands of dollars for a hobby I enjoyed a great deal as a teenager, I chose to go the less expensive route.  I was able to acquire a large amount of brass track and two double cab DC transformers on Ebay for pennies on the dollar.  My locomotives all cost at least $100 less than DCC equipped ones.  Yes, I do not have all the bells and whistles but I still enjoy what I do have and a lot of the hobby is planning the layout, track laying and scenery which is pretty much the same whether using DCC or DC.  I do enjoy going to train shows and open houses to see the more elaborate and high tech layouts but don't walk around my house wishing I had all that of my own.

So, I will stick with the "old school" and give the extra to my church or those in need.  Glad to hear so many others have decided the same.

 

[Hamltnblue]

We'll have to keep an eye on it. 

As far as multiple functions, it's available in RC.  When I was doing rc planes 15 years ago I had motor control, aileron variable, Flaps with several positions, variable rudder, Variable elevator, and a few aux functions.  I'm sure they've increased above that. I do know they are running digital these days which probably offers unlimited functions.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Doughless

Hamltnblue:

Makes sense with the radio.  When you think about it, radio control has become more popular lately.  They work by having a radio controller transmit to a receiver, which interfaces with the DCC controller, which puts the signal on the track, which in turn is received by the trains decoder.  You would think it would be much easier to just electrify the track and have the radio receiver on the loco's.  It seems to work just fine in the RC car, boat, and airplane industry and the range is much farther than ever used by trains. 

 

I think you're right, if you just want to control throttle.  But if you want to control throttle, lights, and sound, I think you need the decoder to route the signal to the proper circuit.

Maybe have a different frequency for each circuit?

Wrong - digital proportional control - Its been done for decades with model airplanes.

Look up the Aristo Revolution or Airwire, they control sound boards, lights, smoke units, what ever - one uses DCC technology, one does not.

Sheldon

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Hamitnblue,

Actually it is already availabe for scales larger than HO. It's available in two forms, the Aristo Craft Revolution and Airwire by CVP. It is the popular way to run large scale.

But, size is the limiting factor for HO - but they are working on it.

Sheldon

 

[Doughless]

Hamltnblue

Makes sense with the radio.  When you think about it, radio control has become more popular lately.  They work by having a radio controller transmit to a receiver, which interfaces with the DCC controller, which puts the signal on the track, which in turn is received by the trains decoder.  You would think it would be much easier to just electrify the track and have the radio receiver on the loco's.  It seems to work just fine in the RC car, boat, and airplane industry and the range is much farther than ever used by trains. 

I think you're right, if you just want to control throttle.  But if you want to control throttle, lights, and sound, I think you need the decoder to route the signal to the proper circuit.

Maybe have a different frequency for each circuit?

[Hamltnblue]

Makes sense with the radio.  When you think about it, radio control has become more popular lately.  They work by having a radio controller transmit to a receiver, which interfaces with the DCC controller, which puts the signal on the track, which in turn is received by the trains decoder.  You would think it would be much easier to just electrify the track and have the radio receiver on the loco's.  It seems to work just fine in the RC car, boat, and airplane industry and the range is much farther than ever used by trains. 

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Hamltnblue

When you think about it DC will probably outlive DCC.  DCC has pretty much maxed out on capability.  I think what we'll see is a next generation DCC that will be backwards compatible with current DCC, and the current technology will fade away.  DC will more than likely survive past that point.  It makes no sense for an industry to be based on technology designed when 8 bit processors ruled the day.  Even standard sound decoders have substantially more computing power than both Digitrax and NCE's best system. I had opened both up and they both run off of 8 bit processors with very little memory.

 

My thoughts exactly - well sort of. DCC has some advantages for some applications and the reasons for chosing or not have been widely discussed on here, it is a personal choice depending on your goals.

But I do suspect this technolgy has just gotten started. I joke about a lot of tech stuff that I have no use for by saying "I'll just wait for the Star Trek version". I don't own an Ipod, my cell phone does not take pictures or get on the net, I've never sent a text measage and my house does not have a programable thermostat.

But I designed and installed some of the first industrial "program logic controllers" for industrial otor/process controls back in the 80's. My house has home automation (for important stuff, not messing with the heat settings) and I have designed dozens of top quality hifi speaker systems and lots of industrial control systems, digital and analog.

IF I ever put little "decoder brains" in my locos, I want them to also be direct radio receivers, taking the control signal off the rails and reducing the under layout infrastructure now common on larger DCC layouts.

Until and unless such advancements come and make a suitable impression, I will stay with my radio DC throttles and MZL advanced cab control.

But what do I know, i'm just a hick with a pickup, some guns and some trains without brains.

Sheldon

[tstage]

Although the percentages may shrink over time, I personally think DC will always be around for the modeler.  In it's most basic form, DC is very simple; in other ways it can be quite complicated.  DCC is very much like that, too.  Either way you can put as much or as little as you want into the hobby - albeit from a financial, time, educational, and/or social standpoint.

Tom

[Hamltnblue]

When you think about it DC will probably outlive DCC.  DCC has pretty much maxed out on capability.  I think what we'll see is a next generation DCC that will be backwards compatible with current DCC, and the current technology will fade away.  DC will more than likely survive past that point.  It makes no sense for an industry to be based on technology designed when 8 bit processors ruled the day.  Even standard sound decoders have substantially more computing power than both Digitrax and NCE's best system. I had opened both up and they both run off of 8 bit processors with very little memory.

 

[Doughless]

Within the past two years, I'm pretty sure I've visitied just about every hobby shop in Indiana and many other shops in the surrounding states of MI, IL,and OH.  A corporate owned hobby chain with a location in Indy has as inventory of about 75% DCC and Sound.  The other roughly two dozen shops I've been in have about 75% DC.

I think LHS' cater to their customers, so each experience may differ.

As a trend, yes, DC is disappearing, but slowly.  For instance, as others have mentioned, there isn't much need to convert an existing layout to DCC if the current DC layout works just fine now.  OTOH, If newbies enter the hobby, they'll probably go straight to DCC since, if you no nothing about DC or DCC, why not just learn the current technology and skip the old school.

However again, a newbie may also want to just get his feet wet and start off with a DC train set.  Then, manage to get interested in other aspects of the hobby such as locomotive details, structure building, railroad history, etc, before operating systems become that interesting to him.  So his pace of change may be slower, if he changes at all.

How to judge how quickly DC will eventually disappear from hobby shop shelves involves too many factors for my brain to compute.   If the manufacturer's fail to support DC, oh well, there are always plenty of people selling off their DC stuff.  It will take even longer for the second-hand DC market to dissappear.

[AntonioFP45]

From what I've witnessed here in Florida, DCC is continuing to grow in popularity.  I was pleasantly surprised when just a few years ago I joined the Suncoast Model Railroader's Club.    Strictly DC, many of the members (especially old timers) were not interested in DCC...........at first.  Within a 1 1/2 year's time, the club transitioned totally DCC. The simplified operations potential, simplified wiring, total freedom for locomotives to travel on any track and anytime, and the flexibility to control lights and sound features offered too much potential to ignore. One of the members was 90 years old and enjoyed DCC.  

Currently during operations sessions, except for one dispatcher, modelers run the trains instead of the layout!   As strange as it sounds a prototypical aspect that operators have to watch for is collisions!  Like prototype locomotive engineers, DCC modelers operating on cub layouts have to be alert.

I don't think DC will disappear, but imho DCC will become much more popular as the technically sharp 20- something modelers mature into the 30-40 something generation.  DCC and DCC-Sound will be the norm for many of them.

Personally, after having tried DCC and DCC-sound, there is no way I'd want a DC cab control layout.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Michael6792

I dont think that DC is going to disappear any time soon, but it does pose another interesting question especially to modeler that has a large layout in Dc that they've been working on for years. If you had to start over from scratch for whatever reason, would you stick with DC or make the move to go with DCC at that point?

Several of us have already answered this question - I'm rebuilding and staying DC.

Sheldon

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

To follow up on the comments of a few others, Bachmann has the perfect strategy, offer DCC with sound for that group, and offer DCC dual mode at a price so low DC modelers are not put off, AND, they include the parts and instructions to remove the decoder.

I sell my surplus Bachmann decoders on Ebay, I don't ask much, but I don't pay much. They sell like hot cakes.

It would be a wise move for all of these manufacturers to follow.

Sheldon

[fwright]

da_kraut

I am talking about the layouts that are constructed more recently be it a 4 by 8 layout or larger....

My current layout, which was started this fall, is DC.  This is a small test layout, but its larger successor(s) will likely by DC as well. 

....At another table was a gentleman that builds layouts for people and he too tells his clients to go straight into DCC.....

I would expect that from a custom layout builder.  His clients are willing to spend more $$ on their layouts than most of us.  And unless he has an unusual contract provision to use customer's pre-existing DC equipment, there would be little reason not to push his clients into DCC.

....Do you see DC loco's except for the cheapest most basic train sets disappearing from the shelves at the LHS?....

Yes, I do.  In general, the RTR locomotive format has very little reason to remain DC.  The installation of a DCC decoder adds perhaps $5 (for non-sound) and perhaps $40 for Tsunami to the manufacturer.  The customer perceives the DCC-equipped model as adding extra value for the extra $100 retail for sound, or the customer perceives the DCC-equipped model as keeping up with the times and the competition.  Either way, not having the decoder installed is seen as a detriment by most.  Especially since present day DCC decoders run adequately on DC.  Those DC customers who don't want decoders interfering with the locomotive performance know exactly what they want, and are usually willing to order their choice, or remove the decoder on their own.  After all, the manufacturer of RTR needs the initial out-of-the-box experience for the average Joe to be good to get repeat customers - and little else matters.

Personally, since I already own and understand DC equipment, and am on a limited hobby budget until my kids finish college (8 years), DCC doesn't offer enough return on my hobby dollars.  If I had a larger, multi-operator layout or was buying sound-equipped RTR locomotives, I might be of a different opinion.  I do reserve the right to change my mind in the future, and have explored the real costs of getting the DCC setup I want.  For the present, there are other aspects of the layout that have a higher priority for my hobby dollars.  And I am content with that decision.

Fred W

[Medina1128]

lone geep

I think DC will never die untill DCC becomes more affordable.

The Lone Geep 

Just the cost of the starter system alone is keeping my layout a DC block controlled one. Let alone the cost of installing decoders in all of my locomotives.

[Michael6792]

I dont think that DC is going to disappear any time soon, but it does pose another interesting question especially to modeler that has a large layout in Dc that they've been working on for years. If you had to start over from scratch for whatever reason, would you stick with DC or make the move to go with DCC at that point?

[BRAKIE]

No. Apparently DC is still firmly in the drivers seat as witnessed by the various  black boxes for DC sound control,duel mode decoders as well as the new MRC Tech 6..

Even Bachmann's DCC on board locomotives can be operated on DC.

Let's take a closer look at Bachmann's DCC strategy..

Simply put they are marketing basic DCC equipped locomotives at a affordable price and at street price they are a bargain for many modelers that wants DCC but,has budget restraints..

I have no doubt the other manufacturers are scratching their heads and wondering how to counter this move.

[blownout cylinder]

I think that DC will be around for a long while to come yet...this kind of thing has come up in some local clubs about changing over to DCC but most have turned it down because of the conversion costs..and at a time when some of these clubs are doing the hunker down thing.....megh...conversion is going to be a cost factor for sure...

As for home layouts...megh... I see there to be a bit of an inroad being made by DCC but...not so much...just yet...

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Frank,

I'm currently rebuilding my layout so that it will be transportable when we decide where we want to retire.

The current space is a 24' x 40' heated and cooled finished room aboave my detached garage.

The layout specs are roughly as follows: 8 scale mile double track mainline on two decks, staging for about 25 trains, design train length 20 actual feet, detection, signals and CTC dispatching, seperate industrial belt line, seperate single track WM interchange line, etc, etc.

It will be DC with Aristo Craft Train Engineer wireless radio thorttles, a walk around cab selection system, redundent tower controls, provisions for 8-10 operators at once, and alternate display mode allowing 5-6 display "loops" to just run.

Mainline turnout contols provide one touch routing through even complex interlockings and are duplicated at local tower panels and on the CTC panel.

Typical power per mainline train is two steam locos or 3-4 diesels. Do that math, 25 trains x 3 locos x extras for power changes = 130 + locos. Locos I already have and don't want to add decoders to.

Cabs are assigned to throttles by redundent pushbuttons that allow full walk around operation and/or CTC panel operation. Many "track sections" (blocks) are automaticly connected based on turnout position (X sections) so the number of "track sections" (blocks) that must be "assigned" is greatly reduced  - based on Ed Ravenscroft's MZL control and the work of Paul Mallery.

It is all done with some inexpensive relays, pushbuttons, cat 5 cable, and the repetitve use of some simple circuits that have been used to control machines since the invention of the electric motor.

Important note - I have no interest in onboard sound.

I just installed a similar but simpler DC cab selection system on a friend's layout about a year and a half ago. He too uses the Aristo Train Engineer thorttles.

Rumors about the death of DC are greatly exaggerated.

Sheldon

[CAZEPHYR]

da_kraut

Hello,

I am talking about the layouts that are constructed more recently be it a 4 by 8 layout or larger.  Went to a LHS two weeks ago and admired some SD70ACE's from Athearn and the proprietor of the store said that all he orders now for display are engines with sound on board.  Special orders are the straight DC locomotives.  Went to a train show today and again looked at some of the same locomotives and again the sales person said that at their store they only get the sound version, they are ordering less and less DC locomotives.  At another table was a gentleman that builds layouts for people and he too tells his clients to go straight into DCC.

What is your experience, is this only a trend here in this area in southern Ontario?  I for one do not mind my DC layout.  I do not mind doing the extra wiring and throwing the extra switch, specially since I am a lone wolf modeller.  Also being a electrician probably helps.  If I wanted to go into DCC I am certain that the decoder installation would be pretty straight forward.

Do you see DC loco's except for the cheapest most basic train sets disappearing from the shelves at the LHS?  

Frank

The BNSF layout at the Chicago Museum is a DC layout and is not changing.  In general, you are probably correct about DCC being used now for many home and club layouts and DC is probably not so popular as it once was before DCC. 

CZ

[galaxy]

Where I shop/look its about equal at one shop and still more DC at the other. What I have noticed, though is that the plain DC locos are starting to cost the same or more than the DCC versions, and that DC power packs are getting up there in price as well.

I'm not sure DC will disappear just yet, but I think it is being forced out. Time comes with change.

If not, we'd all still be driving Model T's with standard tranny and no a/c, and not travelling more than 30 MPH.

We, too, will all be assimilated, to quote the borg.

[lone geep]

I think DC will never die untill DCC becomes more affordable.

The Lone Geep 

[Hamltnblue]

Most stuff I see at the hobby shop is predominantly DC, especially the train sets.  Even higher brand loco's are mostly DC with a DCC plug.

I find it interesting that there are several DC power packs that cost as much or more than a DCC starter set.

[CNJ831]

Is the DCC market slowly growing? Yes, I'd definitely say that it is. DC disappearing, however, is quite another question.

I would speculate that DC is still dominant in the hobby and will likely remain viable as an operating system for perhaps the next 15-20 years. It is simply a matter of too many older hobbyists having too many DC locomotives they are unwilling to convert for there to be any truly rapid and dramatic change in the situation. I, like quite a number of other long time hobbyists I know, will likely never bother to make the change-over, simply because what we currently have operating our layouts works just fine for us. DC sales still have many profitable years ahead of them.

CNJ831

[Darth Santa Fe]

My hobby shop still carries a lot of DC stuff. Individual locomotives with sound outnumber the DC ones, but the digital stuff isn't taking over. What the hobby shops carry depends on the customers. You may have more digital railroaders in your area.