Sir Madog To me, this thread has developed far beyond the OP´s intention.
To me, this thread has developed far beyond the OP´s intention.
Just a little..
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Makes interesting reading though..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
- Douglas
gatrhumpySo 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
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
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.
davidmbedard: Bottom line..... DC is limited. DCC is not. DCC for the win!
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.
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.
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?
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
LOL Lou. Maybe I can start small and get the DCC system + one decoder.
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.
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
Are DC layouts slowly disappearing? I just don't care.
David B
I guess some like 'limitations' then...
DCC/DC...argyments about market share....
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.
Whoa.
Lou
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!
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: 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.
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:
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.
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
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?
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
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".
Forty NinerNow lets all go gang up on those poor guys who use 3 rail HO!!! That's just plain un-American!!!! ;-)
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!!!! ;-)
gatrhumpyDo they make a one-piece compact DCC system that can be easily transportable?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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...
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?
MisterBeasleyMy 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.
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.