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 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.
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)
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.
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?
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
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
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
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.
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.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.
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
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.
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?
Springfield PA
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
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
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.
- Douglas
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
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.
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.
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..
LOL!!
One problem..It would become to crowded on ASON..
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)
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
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
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
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.
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:
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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,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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
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.
Michael
Never attempt anything you don't want to explain to the EMT
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.
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
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.
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.