Tom,I agree there shouldn't be a circling of the wagons..Its a matter of choice like sound,modeling style,choice of road name etc,etc and as forum members we should respect each others choices. .
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
DCC is right for me, and it's right for my layout. But, it may not be right for you and your layout. Pretty simple, really.
My LHS seems to be firmly in the DCC camp. The store layout is DCC, and most of the engines on the shelves these days seem to be equipped with DCC and sound. Because of the higher price, I'd imagine that the store makes a bit more from selling those, too. There are DCC systems on display, too, but no DC power packs at all. And, there is a whole wall of decoders behind the counter for those wishing to upgrade.
Remember, too, that decoder and sound additions can be a substantial part of a shop's business. So, an LHS probably would rather see its customers in DCC than in DC - there is more potential business. I'm not sure if this is causing shops to "push" DCC over DC to their customers, but it certainly would be in their best financial interests to do so.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
tstage Forty Niner: I guess since we didn't have the internet we didn't have anyone to tell us we were doing it all wrong... My goodness, Mark! No one is implying that anyone is doing it "right" or "wrong". You choose DC. Terrific! I - and the majority of the other forum members here - have NO problem with that. I was just curious how well MUing works in DC. My understanding (or misunderstanding) was that it was a little more challenging in DC because you had to match locomotives that ran well together. According to you and Sheldon, that doesn't appear to be the case. With that said, please - don't feel you have to get into this "us against THEM" mentality when it comes to discussing both ways of operating a layout. We can learn and help one another. At least that's my position on the hobby. I guess I can only speak for myself though... Tom
Forty Niner: I guess since we didn't have the internet we didn't have anyone to tell us we were doing it all wrong...
My goodness, Mark! No one is implying that anyone is doing it "right" or "wrong". You choose DC. Terrific! I - and the majority of the other forum members here - have NO problem with that. I was just curious how well MUing works in DC.
My understanding (or misunderstanding) was that it was a little more challenging in DC because you had to match locomotives that ran well together. According to you and Sheldon, that doesn't appear to be the case.
With that said, please - don't feel you have to get into this "us against THEM" mentality when it comes to discussing both ways of operating a layout. We can learn and help one another. At least that's my position on the hobby. I guess I can only speak for myself though...
Tom,Mark may have a point..Shortly after joining the Atlas forum back in 2001 I was basically told my method of modeling wasn't up to today's "standards" and the Atlas forum was for "serious" modelers...
My LHS is a mix. Most of their display models are straight DC, but it also seems that half their HO displayed locomotives are custom brass models. Last time I was there 99% of there N display models were DC. However it seems that all HO shelf models are pretty evenly split with DC and DCC models (straight DCC or DCC w/ sound). There 'clearance' rack also seems to be split pretty evenly.
They do have a small shelf built, full sceniced 15 inches wide and I think about 5 feet long, that is wired for DCC to show of their newest sound units (ex. they had an HO Little Joe w/sound out IIRC a month before the MRR Nov. issue came out with its review), But it also has push-button Tortious turn out control and working grading crossing that blinks lights, lowers gates, and automatically comes on/shuts off, along with a passenger station that has lighting. It's really pretty neat. They also have a giant display track that runs around the walls of the sales floor hung from the ceiling that runs HO scale train, O scale train, and Large scale train, but I don't know if they run DC or DCC with that. I have never asked and the controls are out of site some wheres. Next time I stop in there (probably Thu to pick up an MRP issue) I will have to ask.
Sir Madog In Japan and, to a degree, also UK, DCC is not very wide spread. Japanese locos hardly come DCC equipped, not even DCC ready!
In Japan and, to a degree, also UK, DCC is not very wide spread. Japanese locos hardly come DCC equipped, not even DCC ready!
Guess why? DCC doesn´t make much sense to have in the display-case
Or more seriously; the small space available in especially Japan and in some cases the UK, makes most layout sizes in the "Carl Arendt" range possible.
And to have DCC on a "plank" thats maybe 50" long doesn´t really compute, if you don´t want sound of course.....
The DC sound controllers, as good as they might be, can´t hold it´s own against the user friendliness of DCC.
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
It is a little sad that this thread with its nearly "innocent" question has drifted into a DC vs. DCC thread again, though this time in a more civilized manner.
Each system has its own benefits and disadvantages, and it finally boils down to a matter of personal preference and taste, which way you are heading down. DC is still fine for many of us, especially those, who are successfully operating elaborate layouts built with DC controls - why should they change? DC, IMHO, will remain the entry level into the hobby, perfect for those, who just want to "play a little" with trains" and are still undecided as to which way to go in terms of controls. In Japan and, to a degree, also UK, DCC is not very wide spread. Japanese locos hardly come DCC equipped, not even DCC ready!
To quote Mark Twain - Rumors of the death of DC are greatly exaggerated!
Same situation for me, Tom, albeit on a smaller scale. (Still HO, just not so many locos. )
While I've sold off most of my diesels, I used Bachmann 2-8-0s, Athearn 2-8-2s and re-motored Athearn switchers in any combination, double or triple heading, or as pushers and/or mid-train helpers. Most of this activity was just to see how it would work, as my layout is mostly hills and curves. A long train can be stretched out over several curves (not all in the same direction, either) and on various grades, with parts of the train going uphill while other sections are going downhill. Slack action can be "interesting", to say the least. I've operated trains in excess of 70 cars, with multiple locos spaced throughout the train and was confident enough in their running compatibility to run them up the hill pictured below. The drop to the concrete floor ranges from 4' up to about 5' at the top of the grade, and with scenic landforms not yet in place, a derailment to either side finds the abyss. Since the track currently dead-ends at the top of the grade, the train was backed down the hill, too.
Normal operation sees trains with one loco and a car or two, other ones with 10 or 15 cars and either one or a pair of locos. Most trains switch all of the town through which they pass, and most trains over 15 cars are doubleheaded. I keep tonnage ratings for all locos and know how much power is required to get any particular train over the line. With simple doubleheading, it's nice when both locos run well with one another, but if the only second loco available is one of the exceptions, it's generally still used - whatever extra power it can provide will be needed. I wouldn't, however, run such a loco as a pusher.
I've also found that if more than one loco is required to move a train, you'll have fewer problems than if that extra loco is "just for show".
Wayne
Doughless Thanks for your input Stein, As usual, you're trying to be helpful. And this response is more geared towards responding to the general reader, rather than specifically you. Even though I am pretty simple in my approach to the hobby, I've been involved in it for about 25 years. Relative the the vast experiences others have related here on the forum, I consider myself fairly uneducated in the more "sophisticated" aspects of the hobby. I am not really a beginner or a noob, but my simplistic desires on what I want to accomplish and choose to pursue probably makes it come off that way more so than reality.
Thanks for your input Stein, As usual, you're trying to be helpful. And this response is more geared towards responding to the general reader, rather than specifically you.
Even though I am pretty simple in my approach to the hobby, I've been involved in it for about 25 years. Relative the the vast experiences others have related here on the forum, I consider myself fairly uneducated in the more "sophisticated" aspects of the hobby. I am not really a beginner or a noob, but my simplistic desires on what I want to accomplish and choose to pursue probably makes it come off that way more so than reality.
Just to be clear - I was not in any way saying that running DC is inferior to running DCC (or by extension, that people running DC are inferior to people running DCC). Or the other way around - that people running DC are superior to people running DCC.
That is an underlying context that pop up way too often in these discussions - some people will get all steamed up and defensive, and act like you are calling them stupid (or unsophisticated) if you point out that there might be both weaknesses and strengths with whatever approach they have chosen.
My comments was not to imply that DCC is superior to DC. What I tried to point out was that some of the arguments you are using about why DCC is harder to use seem (to me) somewhat overblown.
For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time.
A person picking DCC in the belief that it will allow him to split his attention more easily between many trains moving at the same time (in a situation where you actually will need to interact with the trains - ie not in a situation where you have four parallel continuous run loops and trains running around and around and around like crazed rodents) will probably be in for a rude awakening, and quickly come to the realization that the limitation is with the operator, not with the way the motors in each engine get their power from the tracks.
To me, if someone had wanted to create a layout where multiple trains will be moving at the same time on intersecting paths, under the control of a single operator, DC, cab control with multiple throttles, partial automation (stopping at signals etc), and a central control desk, would be a far more obvious technical choice than a single DCC throttle, swapping desperately between trains.
One operator, multiple trains moving at the same time is more a matter of automation than a matter of DC or DCC.
And as I tried to point out, it does not take any more knowledge of electronics for a new modeler to deal with DCC than DC.
The "have to learn electronic" argument is fairly irrelevant when it comes to choosing DC or DCC. Basic wiring is simpler in DCC. While some forms of automation may very well be simpler in DC.
Doughless My main issue with DCC is not the language or the concepts involved, it is the impracticality of it in my particular situation, and I think A LOT of hobbyists situation's (more so than even they would admit), as well as the general redundancy of learning a new system.
My main issue with DCC is not the language or the concepts involved, it is the impracticality of it in my particular situation, and I think A LOT of hobbyists situation's (more so than even they would admit), as well as the general redundancy of learning a new system.
The "general redundancy" argument is (most likely) just a way of saying "I already know how to do this in one way, so I don't want to learn another way of doing it". I.e. plain old resistance to change.
That is very relevant for an experienced hobbyist who already have a working layout with DC control that works well.
Very few of us like to start over, deliberately replacing something we know how to do with something we do not know how to do. It is irrational to create extra work for yourself, especially if it is work you don't enjoy, and if you feel that the result doesn't give you anything useful new - that it is just change for change's sake.
But that argument is not very relevant for someone just starting out in the hobby - who will have to learn a lot of MR related things with very limited applications in other walks of life anyways - curve radii, turnout numbers, power handling around frogs, replacing couplers, what a switchback lead is, and so on and so forth.
Whether it in that situation makes most sense to learn to just turn an engine selector knob on a DCC throttle before giving commends to a second engine, or whether it makes most sense to learn enough to create a sensible number of sidings wired with on/off switches, cab control selectors or whatever depends on the inclinations of the new modeler.
To me, hard wiring a bunch of spurs with an extra on/off switch to create places where a second switcher can hold on an urban switching layout is far more work than it is worth. And it creates a system where you have to plan further ahead, and where changes take more time and effort - i.e a less flexible system.
Again - if you already have a functional system (that supports your existing and never changing operational scheme) in place, then it makes little sense to replace it if you do not get anything worthwhile from the change.
Hopefully most of us are smart enough to understand that.
But that is not an argument against DCC as such. Or an argument against choosing DCC for a new system. It is an argument against changing a existing system that already works for you.
Doughless Not getting into the vast differences of how one modeler operates his railroad from another, but you said yourself that typical one or two train control can be done just as easily with DC or DCC. When you add the third train, DCC becomes advantageous.
Not getting into the vast differences of how one modeler operates his railroad from another, but you said yourself that typical one or two train control can be done just as easily with DC or DCC. When you add the third train, DCC becomes advantageous.
No. The critical point is when you add a second engine. One engine - doesn't really matter whether you go DC or DCC. Especially if you don't give a hoot about playing with lights and sounds on that engine.
When you add a second engine, you will have to decide how to control two engines independent of each other. How you can have one engine standing still somewhere on your layout while the other one moves. Or how you can have two people each controlling their own engine.
That is the decision point where it makes sense to think about whether DCC would be a sensible option.
It is not at all a given that it is the most optimal choice for your layout and operating style.
Smile, Stein
Thanks, Sheldon. That's quite helpful. As mentioned in my previous response to Mark, I thought speed matching DC locomotives was more problematic - even among similar brands and makes of locomotives.
Tom,
OK, I did not list all 130 locos and what will run with what - is that what you would like to see?
I model 1953-54, my railroad, and many protoytypes in that time period, still ran diesels pretty much as matched sets.
However, fact is all the following locos have basicly the same drive and will run together fine - Early to mid production Proto2000 BL2, GP7, GP9 (actually most all the GP series, but the rest are out of my era), and ALCO FA1 & FA2.
All Athearn Genesis F units have the same drive, so F3's and F7's readily interchange - that's about as much mixing as most prototypes were doing in 1954.
As for the steam, it is trial and error - BUT most manufacturers are using similar gear ratios - so locos with similar sized drivers often run fine together - regardless of brand.
I will restate the matchups I regularly use - Proto2000 2-8-8-2 with Spectrum 2-6-6-2, Bachmann 2-8-4 (now 2-8-2's on my railroad) with spectrum USRA Heavy 4-8-2's - and either of these will run with my BLI USRA Heavy 2-8-2's.
Actually at that point we have covered a large section of my loco fleet because it is made up of multiple copies of a select list of wheel arrangements and types.
With a little careful throttle work at startup, Spectrum 2-8-0's can be run with any or all of the steam listed above.
The above listed steam locos represent a total of 26 pieces.
Now we are left with only a few more steamers, two Spectrum 10 wheelers and three various Pacifics usually run alone on local passenger trains, two Reading T-1 Northerns, a 2-6-6-6 and a 2-6-6-4 that don't need helpers or doubles, and some switchers.
So out of 38 steam locos, 26 of them can be grouped in double or triple headers at will without regard for brand or wheel arrangement. and other matched sets like the 10 wheelers or Northerns can obviously be run together if needed.
Works fine for my needs.
Sheldon
Forty NinerI guess since we didn't have the internet we didn't have anyone to tell us we were doing it all wrong...
Sheldon!!! Are you in a "defensive poster"???? Gee, I'd like to buy a copy of that "poster" if you have any spares.
Mark ;-)
ATLANTIC CENTRALOr don't you believe me, Chuck, Dr Wayne, Mark and others?
Sheldon,
Yes, I read John's recent PF thread on MUing and your response. I guess my confusion was your use of the word "many" in your response to John's Question #3 & #4:
"In general i find many of todays locos run at the same speeds MU together quite well" (Question #3)
"Sure, many are just too different in speed - but there is no reason to run a Northern with a 2-8-0. No I planned my purchases to avoid such bad choices." (Question #4) - [Underscore mine]
So, would you say that it's a combination of both "good purchasing choices" and a large roster of locomotives to choose from? Some units are bought already MU'd together (and you would assume or expect that they "should" run well together; others are bought individually - even from different manufacturers - but still lash up well as a single unit. Also, how many or what percentage of your fairly large roster operates well together in a lash-up and how many do you not even bother with? Thanks.
And, no reason to get into a defensive poster posture, Sheldon. I think Chuck, Dr. Wayne, Mark and others can amply answer for themselves quite nicely.
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)
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/
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
One last comment here from me. (applause)
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.
- Douglas
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."
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.
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.
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.
As for the idea that learning new things is somehow redundant... Do you still use stone knives and wear bearskins, too? Yes, I think it's kinda funny that anyone would think that learning new things is something to be avoided. Like the brain only has so much capacity and if you learn too much, raw data will leak out of your ears like molasses. Try learning something new every day. I promise it won't hurt.
Paul, at least you inject humor into your comments about hobbies. That's good. Forums are meant to be fun.
Its tough to do a laundry list of skills in a public forum setting, but as some examples of interchangeable skills:
My need to build shelves in the garage is interchangeable with the need to attach plyood subroadbed to 1x4's.
My model car building days of yore started me with the skills that are applicable to detailing rolling stock.
Refinishing furniture provided me with a basic understanding of customizing paint colors to better paint backdrops and hand weather trains.
Mrs. Boysen's 8th grade history projects propelled me to learn more about abandoned rail lines.
My dad forcing me to help him rework the plumbing in our house taught me how to solder.
My occupation, which requires travel, allows me to study how towns were laid out and were influenced by railroads and rivers, etc.
I use computers. I know nothing about programming them. I use calculators too. I know nothing about programming them.
Yes, learning how to operate proprietary DCC system would be a skill solely confined to model railroading. As well as learning the more detailed terminology associated with analog control systems. Additionally, other things that are unique to model railroading: I will probably never own an airbrush or learn how to hand lay track. When I retire, maybe.
As far as redundancy:
Perhaps its a matter of semantics, but the examples that you provided all seem like changes in technology that resulted in accomplishing a different goal, or at least the same goal to a greatly enhanced degree, justifying the migration of technology. Carpeting covers a floor better than does a bear skin rug. Stainless steel knives cut better than stone ones. Additionally, the car replaced the horse and buggy because people got to their destinations faster (and warmer), not because the vast majority of car owners liked to fiddle with cars.
OTOH, my Atlas locomotives consist well with each other and run well at 3 mph on DC. The lights shine brightly and directionally with the standard pc board and my Aristo throttle. Sound is not a concern, but it appears MRC may be solving the issue if it was (albeit expensive). Other rather minor or seldom used features that DCC provides are of no use to me. Yes, the migration to DCC seems redundant and pointless.
DCC was designed for a club situation, whether it be an actual club or a home layout that operates like one,. Period. The vast majority of new members or lurkers, who are interested in DC/DCC threads that appear in the GENERAL section of the forum do not have a situation like that. I'm convinced of it.
HEY y'all CHECK THIS OUT! While I'm typing, in real time here, as timing would have it:
My wife just turned off the answering machine and activated our voicemail, parroting the words of the digital communications package salesman who said " when you activate your voicemail, you no longer need to have an answering machine". My immediate reply to both was, well, if I have a functioning answering machine, why do I need voicemail? I already have a way of capturing messages and IT'S ALREADY PAID FOR. I'm not joking, I don't understand why the consumer seems to want to migrate everything to digital. I don't get it. I really, really don't.
krupa richg1998: Not hardly. Rich So every DCC system is proprietary and independent and not interoperable?
richg1998: Not hardly. Rich
Not hardly.
Rich
So every DCC system is proprietary and independent and not interoperable?
The network and the equipment proprietary. However, Digitrax uses a LAN system which I can connect my computer to by using an USB connector. I can download decoder pro and use their throttles as well as other devices to run my layout with my computer. You can also use blackberry's or other devices. The LAN system makes it work with a variety of other devices which is particularly useful for programming decoders.
Richard
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
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.
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.
Hey Paul,
It took me longer to explain it then it does to hook it up, and if you don't use guages for voltage and amps you might as well be flying blind because that's basically what you're doing. If DCC is your choice that's fine with me, but don't laugh at me unless you want me laughing at you for spending your money on a bunch of electronic "gizmos".
And that old song about "I just hook up 2 wires" takes me back to "a 5 year old can program a VCR", where's a 5 year old when you need one?
Again I say, live and let live, respect my point of view and I'll respect yours, otherwise don't expect me to respect yours.
Mark
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.
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
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.