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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.....
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
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
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?
Not hardly.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
richg1998 Not hardly. Rich
So every DCC system is proprietary and independent and not interoperable?
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.
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...........
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.
- Douglas
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.pdfhttp://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
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.
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.
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
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.
My Build Thread: https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/185298.aspx
Follow me on Instagram: https://instagram.com/stephenkingsmaine
krupa richg1998: Not hardly. Rich So every DCC system is proprietary and independent and not interoperable?
richg1998: Not hardly. Rich
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
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.
ATLANTIC CENTRALFrom 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
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
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?
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
If you cannot fix it with a hammer;
You have an electrical problem!
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....
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/
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)
ATLANTIC CENTRALOr don't you believe me, Chuck, Dr Wayne, Mark and others?
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.
Sheldon!!! Are you in a "defensive poster"???? Gee, I'd like to buy a copy of that "poster" if you have any spares.
Mark ;-)