I'm by no means an expert in the DCC area but it is my undertsanding that the only system that "locks" you into using their equipment is MTH.
Correct me if I'm wrong here...........
Mark
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.
richg1998 Not hardly. Rich
Not hardly.
Rich
So every DCC system is proprietary and independent and not interoperable?
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
Yet people enjoyed 8-track tapes by the millions. Had one myself. Moved on eventually.
Qui non proficit deficit
"Who does not advance falls behind."
Crandell
I never owned an 8-track - vinyl and now CD's. I like music to actually sound like music.
8-tracks were junk they day they came out.
Sheldon
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.
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,
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.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless: Staying on topic and not wanting a general discussion opinion thread to get moved over to the rather boring electronics hobbyist section of this forum (a place I have visited about 5 times in 5 years).... another reason, I think, DC will be around for a while is that it generally does not require a specialized understanding of anything new in order to run trains. Most people know how to hook up wires to track and plug the thing into the wall. As a banker by trade, I can speak for some others who don't use their line of work to gather knowledge of electronics 24/7, when I say that programming anything, including trains, tends to take the hobby in a direction that is not really related to modeling. As I've eluded to, complicated operating systems, whether they be DC or DCC based, tends to take the hobby into the world of the electronics hobbyist, for which model railroading may be only one of many outlets for such a person, and fails to remain grounded in the miniature train world. If a person who is interested in model trains, but not electronics, is faced with the task of having to read an operating manual and learn programming, even in its simplest form, when he buys his first train set is essentially learning a new skill that he will really only use when he is playing with trains. At any other time of the day, that new skill is essentially useless. Doughless, Wow, I can see you don't like the electrical aspect of the hobby. I have to disagree with the idea that just because I (or anyone) have electrical or electronics knowledge that may or may not extend beyond this hobby that somehow how I am not deep into the other aspects of the "minature train world". In fact I resent that implication a bit - that I am more interested in the electronics than the trains. In fact the opposite is more the truth. Dispite how complex others tell me that my advanced DC system with push button turnout routing and cab selecton, detection, signaling and CTC is, after seriously considering both DCC and computerized block control, I rejected both on the basis of extra cost, complexity and work I did not need to meet my operational goals and did not want to become involved in. Realistic prototype operation, including things like CTC and signaling, are just as valid modeling goals in the "minature train world" as building great scenery, structures or rolling stock, all of which I consider very important as well. Just because you can't or won't do it does make it of zero value to the hobby. My line of work - designing houses, managing my rental properties, restoring 100 year old homes. I built my first "craftsman" kit at age 13 - it still runs on my layout - 40 years later. Sheldon
Doughless: Staying on topic and not wanting a general discussion opinion thread to get moved over to the rather boring electronics hobbyist section of this forum (a place I have visited about 5 times in 5 years).... another reason, I think, DC will be around for a while is that it generally does not require a specialized understanding of anything new in order to run trains. Most people know how to hook up wires to track and plug the thing into the wall. As a banker by trade, I can speak for some others who don't use their line of work to gather knowledge of electronics 24/7, when I say that programming anything, including trains, tends to take the hobby in a direction that is not really related to modeling. As I've eluded to, complicated operating systems, whether they be DC or DCC based, tends to take the hobby into the world of the electronics hobbyist, for which model railroading may be only one of many outlets for such a person, and fails to remain grounded in the miniature train world. If a person who is interested in model trains, but not electronics, is faced with the task of having to read an operating manual and learn programming, even in its simplest form, when he buys his first train set is essentially learning a new skill that he will really only use when he is playing with trains. At any other time of the day, that new skill is essentially useless.
Staying on topic and not wanting a general discussion opinion thread to get moved over to the rather boring electronics hobbyist section of this forum (a place I have visited about 5 times in 5 years).... another reason, I think, DC will be around for a while is that it generally does not require a specialized understanding of anything new in order to run trains. Most people know how to hook up wires to track and plug the thing into the wall.
As a banker by trade, I can speak for some others who don't use their line of work to gather knowledge of electronics 24/7, when I say that programming anything, including trains, tends to take the hobby in a direction that is not really related to modeling. As I've eluded to, complicated operating systems, whether they be DC or DCC based, tends to take the hobby into the world of the electronics hobbyist, for which model railroading may be only one of many outlets for such a person, and fails to remain grounded in the miniature train world.
If a person who is interested in model trains, but not electronics, is faced with the task of having to read an operating manual and learn programming, even in its simplest form, when he buys his first train set is essentially learning a new skill that he will really only use when he is playing with trains. At any other time of the day, that new skill is essentially useless.
Doughless,
Wow, I can see you don't like the electrical aspect of the hobby. I have to disagree with the idea that just because I (or anyone) have electrical or electronics knowledge that may or may not extend beyond this hobby that somehow how I am not deep into the other aspects of the "minature train world". In fact I resent that implication a bit - that I am more interested in the electronics than the trains.
In fact the opposite is more the truth. Dispite how complex others tell me that my advanced DC system with push button turnout routing and cab selecton, detection, signaling and CTC is, after seriously considering both DCC and computerized block control, I rejected both on the basis of extra cost, complexity and work I did not need to meet my operational goals and did not want to become involved in.
Realistic prototype operation, including things like CTC and signaling, are just as valid modeling goals in the "minature train world" as building great scenery, structures or rolling stock, all of which I consider very important as well.
Just because you can't or won't do it does make it of zero value to the hobby.
My line of work - designing houses, managing my rental properties, restoring 100 year old homes.
I built my first "craftsman" kit at age 13 - it still runs on my layout - 40 years later.
Sheldon,
I was not directing my comment specifically at you or any other specific person for that matter. Nor was I implying that you have no other interests or skills in the hobby.
I can't think of another aspect of the hobby that is so terminology and educationally specific and for which the education and terminology is not related to model railroading. Consequently, the host of this forum has created a separate section for people to discuss such terminology as it relates to model railroading. I was simply pointing out that acquiring such specific knowledge is probably a function of the personal interests and background of the person, and that it is not a necessity in making an intelligent decision towards operating system choices. Those folks probably ( "probably" here, which is not a definitive word) use their knowledge and interest of electronics in other en devours, for which model railroading is not the driving force behind learning it.
My other point was that since both systems control trains, lighting, and now apparently sound if you believe the reports of the new MRC power systems, they both accomplish the same goal. I consider learning about two separate systems for doing such to be an effort in redundancy, since only learning something about one system is all that is required in order to operate trains. I would rather learn general DC knowledge rather than some companies captive proprietary system, but only as much as I need. Although, I completely understand how accumulating such knowledge can be interesting to other people.
- Douglas
Fred W.,I agree with bullet points 1, 2, 5 & 6, but the others are not agreeable with me. On Number 3, Maximum pulling power has nothing to do with DCC when decoders can be as small as .418” x .340” x .112". Or, IOW, like this:
Yep, this 1 Amp decoder is smaller than a dime. I have yet to see a model, even a brass steam engine with a lead pour in it, not have room for a dime-sized decoder.
On Point 4, it can be argued that DCC actually improves dispatching and signalling by integrating the signalling with the power (for example, automatic train stop is possible with DCC).
And testing and tuning on Point 7 can be improved with BEMF-equipped DCC decoders.
Are any of these reasons important enough to go DCC? Only each us can speak for our own cases, and I agree to let everyone make their own choices, but let's keep the reasons to go one way or another based on logically comparable and/or factually correct debate points.
Brakie,It's certainly their right to not install DCC in any engine, but don't let them snow you on the reasons why. They either don't want to be bothered or they don't want to spend the money. The material the model is made of, or the age of that model, has nothing to do with it.
BTW, my club is also a democracy...one member, one vote on a monthly basis. We're DCC-only with the possible exception of our trolley line (which will be both...maybe). If someone doesn't like DCC at our club, I'm afraid that there's not much we can do for them. All the other clubs I know of in New England are DCC. Maybe some of them are both DCC and DC, but not to my knowledge.
Paul A. Cutler III
I too have been watching this thread with interest and I know everyone has their personal preference. Some people have a genuine need for DCC, some chose it for features that aren't really a need but a desire & then there are the ones like me that are of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosiphy. If had a large layout that was built for DC & a large amount of locos that I didn't want to retire or change over I would see no reason to change unless they were to stop producing DC equipment altogether. (I don't see that happening any time soon)
There are some people out there (not just in the model train world) that will always buy new systems just because it's new & "improved". My son, for example, buys himself a new game system when it comes out just because it's new. I, on the other hand, still do not own a flat screen TV since the old one works just fine. This also puts me in the drivers seat to buy the old system/tv/whatever for pennies on the dollar. (I have yet to purchase a new cell phone as he gives me his old one which is perfectly fine & quite nice whenever he buys a new one, about every year)
I am building a small layout & haven't decided which way I'm going to go yet but I am leaning towards DC since it is a small one person layout and I already have all the equipment. I will however set it up so it's an easy changeover if I decide to go the other way.
Michael
Never attempt anything you don't want to explain to the EMT
Wayne,
You wrote:
"having weighed the alternatives, many of us remain comfortable in our DC ways and don't wish to be converted, either"
Agreed, as a lone DC operator using selective Insulfrog turnouts as block controls and sequence operation I have just a few drops to the bus and that's about all. Oh yes, there is a rotary controling the engine house stalls, not too complicated.
Ernie C
Paul3 doctorwayne,Running your own pusher is fun. I've done it many times on DCC, and I can even cut off on the fly. How do you run pushers on DC? I assume it's all one block, and your engines just happen to run at the same speed?In addition to the multi-train/multi-operator benefit of DCC, I feel that DCC really shines at engine terminals. You can park your locos wherever they fit, not just where the electrical block is. Also, for the record, for any layout where one has multiple trains set up to run, DCC does excellently there, too, even if all you do is run one train at a time. For example, I have a 7-track passenger terminal on my DCC layout. I start with 5 of those tracks occupied with trains ready to depart, and I have just one operator running passenger trains. If I had DC, I'd have to wire every track up to a block toggle with another "kill switch" for the road power at the end of the track (so the switcher can grab the train and pull it out). With DCC, it's all wired to the same bus. So even tho' the passenger terminal is a one-train/one-operator facility, it still sees a benefit from being DCC over DC.
doctorwayne,Running your own pusher is fun. I've done it many times on DCC, and I can even cut off on the fly. How do you run pushers on DC? I assume it's all one block, and your engines just happen to run at the same speed?In addition to the multi-train/multi-operator benefit of DCC, I feel that DCC really shines at engine terminals. You can park your locos wherever they fit, not just where the electrical block is.
Also, for the record, for any layout where one has multiple trains set up to run, DCC does excellently there, too, even if all you do is run one train at a time. For example, I have a 7-track passenger terminal on my DCC layout. I start with 5 of those tracks occupied with trains ready to depart, and I have just one operator running passenger trains. If I had DC, I'd have to wire every track up to a block toggle with another "kill switch" for the road power at the end of the track (so the switcher can grab the train and pull it out). With DCC, it's all wired to the same bus. So even tho' the passenger terminal is a one-train/one-operator facility, it still sees a benefit from being DCC over DC.
Assuming your questions and comments aren't rhetorical, Paul, I'll address them.
Yes, the locos run well together when used in pusher service - it's a more important consideration than it would be for simple double- or triple headers, but most of my steam, and, when I still ran them, diesels, run well with one another and, equally important, start at the same throttle settings. Some were remotored, although not with this service specifically in mind.
When I considered switching to DCC, pusher service was the one area where it offers the ability to outperform DC with my particular operating requirements, and one which, in my opinion, appears to be under-utilised by those running DCC. However, to realise its full benefits, I would need an additional operator, a luxury I don't have. To further expand on that, were I running DCC, I'd need additional operators for each loco on that train (bear in mind that I'm running steam): after all, programming locomotives to have similar operating characteristics is simply an expensive version of what I'm doing by selecting locos which already run well with one another. I'll grant that multiple diesels run from a single throttle is prototypical and even that the pusher could be a slave unit. but relying on decoders to do the work of a steam engineers is, in my opinion, a cop-out and/or a missed opportunity. I can't, however, cut-off on the fly (that would be neat to see), although not useful for my situation - the pushers work right through.
While the layout is operated as a single block, I do have areas (yards, storage tracks, and passing sidings) where the power can be "killed". (I operate sequentially, so there may be more than one train on the track, but only one-at-a-time is active.) However, it was a simple matter to add on/off switches where required, and there's no power bus with which to contend.
Those switches may become redundant, though, as a friend suggested a simple replacement which he's used for years (though he's now a DCC convert) and which allows locos to be parked anywhere. Simply put, a latching magnetic reed switch is installed in every loco's tender (he called it the poor man's DCC), interrupting the power supply, then a magnet is passed over it to activate/de-activate the switch. So I should be able to have a line-up of locos on the ready track, with no switches required on the layout fascia, and all ready to go with the wave of a magnet: a simple solution for my simple one-man operation and at a cost of about $2.00 per loco. In addition to engine terminals, this also addresses your comments on staging yards, although all of mine are stub-ended and are switched only for cars destined for the town where the staging yard is located. All others are considered to be "through cars", and are physically removed from the layout.
I don't dispute the value of DCC in some, or even many applications, but it offers nothing for my particular situation. I think, too, that there are some DCC users who, for whatever reason (ill-informed, advice from others, forming conclusions without weighing the alternatives, blindly following trends, etc., etc.) chose DCC but who would be just as well served by a simple (and cheaper) DC system. However, if it works for them and they're having fun, far be it for me to attempt to convert them. Conversely, though, having weighed the alternatives, many of us remain comfortable in our DC ways and don't wish to be converted, either.
Wayne
Since movement is critical to our hobby and electricity is critical to that movement, understanding electronics is a part of our hobby just as much as woodworking, painting, detailing, kit building, or any other model railroading aspect.
It can be simple (two wires), it can be complicated (miles of wire or digital processors). But then so can anything else in model railroading...and yet it's all important to our hobby enjoyment.
---------------------------
I agree and one of the simplest DC block wiring is the Atlas selectors since there is one wire to each block.
Simplest DCC wiring is two wires to the track plus a programing track.
Both is simple enough that a new modeler can wire either if he can follow simple written directions.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Doughless,You are being unreasonable in calling electonics a non-model railroad pursuit. What makes model railroading different from other forms of modeling is that our equipment moves. While there are other hobbies that are based on moving minature models of real things (R/C cars, slot cars, R/C airplanes, R/C boats, etc.), no other hobby emphasizes fidelity to scale and realistic operation like model railroading does.
Since movement is critical to our enjoyment of the hobby of model railroading, the operating system we use to make them go is equally critical to our hobby. Historically, there have been wind-up trains, pull trains on a string, push trains, live steamers, and electricity (battery or track power). Of these, only electric operation has proven feasible in all scales for reliability, durability, and operation. No. 1 Gauge was based on the smallest electric motor feasible at the time...then they came out with 0 Scale, then 00 Scale and Half 0 scale. Again, all based on electric motor size at the time.
Paul3 Brakie,Having older or brass locos is no reason to avoid DCC. I've installed decoders many times in old brass, and it's no worse than putting in a constant lighting diode matrix. If they're worried about messing up their loco, I have a NJ/Custom Brass NH I-4 loco that looks 100% stock (other than the paint job). I put the decoder in the boiler and the tender light is unlit. Therefore, I was able to use the tender drawbar as it was intended and so have no wires between boiler and tender. I didn't drill or cut anything out. To me, to use the "But I have brass or old locos!" excuse is a non-starter. The real reason is money and/or laziness. Money is a good reason, but not the laziness. Others have told me they don't want to put DCC in their brass loco because it would lower it's monetary value. My answer is, "Are you ever going to sell it?" The answer is almost always, "No." I reply, "Then who cares what it's worth? It might as well be worth zero dollars if you're never going to sell it. Put a decoder in and have fun with it while you can. And who knows? It may be worth more to someone on eBay if it's got DCC already. Paul A. Cutler III
Brakie,Having older or brass locos is no reason to avoid DCC. I've installed decoders many times in old brass, and it's no worse than putting in a constant lighting diode matrix. If they're worried about messing up their loco, I have a NJ/Custom Brass NH I-4 loco that looks 100% stock (other than the paint job). I put the decoder in the boiler and the tender light is unlit. Therefore, I was able to use the tender drawbar as it was intended and so have no wires between boiler and tender. I didn't drill or cut anything out. To me, to use the "But I have brass or old locos!" excuse is a non-starter. The real reason is money and/or laziness. Money is a good reason, but not the laziness. Others have told me they don't want to put DCC in their brass loco because it would lower it's monetary value. My answer is, "Are you ever going to sell it?" The answer is almost always, "No." I reply, "Then who cares what it's worth? It might as well be worth zero dollars if you're never going to sell it. Put a decoder in and have fun with it while you can. And who knows? It may be worth more to someone on eBay if it's got DCC already.
-----------------------
Paul,I guess you missed this?
The majority-including several of the guys that uses DCC at home-didn't want to install decoders in their older locomotives for various reasons..
--------------------------
Its their right not to install decoders in their older locomotives for whatever reason they chose..As a club we had to respect these rights and decided a DC/DCC switch would be a win-win for all..
You see these are due paying members that have a equal voice and vote in club procedure and the vote went to install a DC/DCC switch for ASON and the older diesels and we voted every other week is DCC operation-another win-win for the membership.
I really miss that club but,its a 80 mile round trip.
Doughless Staying on topic and not wanting a general discussion opinion thread to get moved over to the rather boring electronics hobbyist section of this forum (a place I have visited about 5 times in 5 years).... another reason, I think, DC will be around for a while is that it generally does not require a specialized understanding of anything new in order to run trains. Most people know how to hook up wires to track and plug the thing into the wall. As a banker by trade, I can speak for some others who don't use their line of work to gather knowledge of electronics 24/7, when I say that programming anything, including trains, tends to take the hobby in a direction that is not really related to modeling. As I've eluded to, complicated operating systems, whether they be DC or DCC based, tends to take the hobby into the world of the electronics hobbyist, for which model railroading may be only one of many outlets for such a person, and fails to remain grounded in the miniature train world. If a person who is interested in model trains, but not electronics, is faced with the task of having to read an operating manual and learn programming, even in its simplest form, when he buys his first train set is essentially learning a new skill that he will really only use when he is playing with trains. At any other time of the day, that new skill is essentially useless.
The last steam locomotive I bought came with everything set up/optimized on the decoder including sound and the locomotive number. All I had to do to run it was run two wires form the command station/booster to the track, plug in the command station/booster, put batteries in the wireless throttle, and key in the locomotive number.
Enjoy
Paul
blownout cylinder I think that DC will be around for a long while to come yet...this kind of thing has come up in some local clubs about changing over to DCC but most have turned it down because of the conversion costs..and at a time when some of these clubs are doing the hunker down thing.....megh...conversion is going to be a cost factor for sure...
I think that DC will be around for a long while to come yet...this kind of thing has come up in some local clubs about changing over to DCC but most have turned it down because of the conversion costs..and at a time when some of these clubs are doing the hunker down thing.....megh...conversion is going to be a cost factor for sure...
No doubt blownout.
The club has to decide if it's worth it to them. But the number of younger modelers (40's+) comfortable with computers is increasing. These people are typically the backbone and longterm lifeline of clubs. Older members don't like crawling under layouts and doing wiring any more.
These same people are more likely to use DCC I wager and will look to a club that has DCC. There's room for both types of clubs at the moment. But long term survivalbility is pointing to DCC I think. Again, just my humble opinion.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
NevinW For those of you who have DC layouts , my advice is to reconsider conversion to DCC. It isn't that difficult and the difference in how the layout operates is remarkable. - Nevin
For those of you who have DC layouts , my advice is to reconsider conversion to DCC. It isn't that difficult and the difference in how the layout operates is remarkable. - Nevin
Nevin
Just like everything else, the control system should fit the grand plan for the layout. The best fit may be DCC - quite likely in a majority of cases - but it isn't best fit control system for all. Some examples where nothing is gained by the extra expense of DCC:
Since several of the above examples apply to me (single operator switching and display layout, separate HO and HOn3 tracks, pulling power, and building locomotives), there are other higher priorities for my limited hobby $$.
DCC fits well where the operating scheme is display running or the engineer function of running a train - although I don't believe enabling display running of multiple trains simultaneously from a single controller was part of the original command control vision.
There were many poor implementations of block control over the years - and yes, those layouts probably do benefit from changing to DCC.
Something to keep in mind - the motor in your locomotive still runs on analog DC - whether the power comes directly from the track or through a DCC decoder. In fact, you can make a pretty good, fully functional (if expensive) DC throttle by mounting the DCC decoder under the layout and running the motor wires to the track through your DC block system. That's why from a locomotive builder perspective I want to get my locomotive performing on DC without any masking of issues from the features of the decoder.
Let's let everybody make their own choices. It's a hobby.
Fred W
CNJ831 Is the DCC market slowly growing? Yes, I'd definitely say that it is. DC disappearing, however, is quite another question. I would speculate that DC is still dominant in the hobby and will likely remain viable as an operating system for perhaps the next 15-20 years. It is simply a matter of too many older hobbyists having too many DC locomotives they are unwilling to convert for there to be any truly rapid and dramatic change in the situation. I, like quite a number of other long time hobbyists I know, will likely never bother to make the change-over, simply because what we currently have operating our layouts works just fine for us. DC sales still have many profitable years ahead of them. CNJ831
Is the DCC market slowly growing? Yes, I'd definitely say that it is. DC disappearing, however, is quite another question.
I would speculate that DC is still dominant in the hobby and will likely remain viable as an operating system for perhaps the next 15-20 years. It is simply a matter of too many older hobbyists having too many DC locomotives they are unwilling to convert for there to be any truly rapid and dramatic change in the situation. I, like quite a number of other long time hobbyists I know, will likely never bother to make the change-over, simply because what we currently have operating our layouts works just fine for us. DC sales still have many profitable years ahead of them.
CNJ831
I know several people like you CNJ.
To add to this, there are several who are "toying" with the hobby. (The starter train under the christmas tree) And asking them to dole out $150 for a starter DCC set is just too much. I do believe more and more younger modelers (those who grew up with computers), and more serious modelers are getting into DCC however. The DCC numbers are growing slowly.
To answer the OP, no, DC layouts are not all going to disappear. There are still folks that like to build their own control system...like Sheldon and tomikawaTT. Heck, the MIT club is also another example. They make their own beause that's what they do. The electronics are part of their hobby, and they enjoy it. So for those people, DC will never disappear. Let me put it this way: I know someone who still uses X2F couplers and has for 40 years or more. He refuses to switch to Kadees even tho' he scratchbuilds his own brass steam engines. So if something ugly and junky as X2F couplers are still being used after decades of Kadee usage, then DC analog will be in use as well.
OTOH, among those model railroaders that don't enjoy wiring, I think it's possible that they will convert to DCC as they get seriously into the hobby. I still think DC will start newbies more than DCC (let's face it, it's always cheaper to start with DC), but I do believe that as most newbies get further along, DCC will be more appetizing than DC for the vast majority. Not for everyone, but for most.
Sheldon,Sending signals through the air would not accomplish anything without significant advancement in battery technology. If you still need to power the rails, radio tech. would be an unnecessary expense. With DCC, the power is the signal...if you have power, you have signal. There's nothing to be gained by seperating them, unless you make both "wireless" (or, IOW, trackless).
It would be like having an intercom in your house. I used to have one that plugged into a wall socket, and it used the wiring in the house to transmit and receive. All you had to do was plug another intercom into a wall socket and you had instant communications between units. Now imagine that someone invented a wireless version of that intercom, but without batteries. You still had to plug it in to a wall socket. And because it's wireless, it has to get FCC approval (Lenz still has no radio throttle), it's larger, and it's more expensive. Also, that certain kinds of house construction can render it unreliable. Where's the advantage of going wireless if you still need to plug in the units?
DCC is the same way. Where is the advantage for a larger, more expensive "receiver" that's not as reliable if you still need to draw power from the rails?
It would eliminate no "gizmos" under a DCC layout. As someone who's wired a large DCC layout (twice), the only "gizmos" are for detection, track power, throttle bus, switch-throwing, signals, circuit breakers, and a DCC "brain", all of which would still needed for a wireless, track-powered DCC system. And on my home layout, other than the "brain", throttle bus, track bus, and a UR91 radio receiver, I have nothing under my layout.
tomikawaTT,Not for nothing, but MRC throttlepacks are just as much a "black box" as any DCC system and have been that way for decades. I've opened one or two over the years, and they are full of printed circuit boards and wiring. As someone who does not have an advanced electrical degree either, I couldn't tell you what's mounted on that PCB in a Tech II, nor could I tell you what's in a Digitrax Zephyr. Both are full of mysterious hardware, where stuff goes in, gets modified, and different stuff comes out. One is digital, one is analog, but both are "black boxes" where if they fail, you don't fix it, you replace it.
Brakie,Having older or brass locos is no reason to avoid DCC. I've installed decoders many times in old brass, and it's no worse than putting in a constant lighting diode matrix. If they're worried about messing up their loco, I have a NJ/Custom Brass NH I-4 loco that looks 100% stock (other than the paint job). I put the decoder in the boiler and the tender light is unlit. Therefore, I was able to use the tender drawbar as it was intended and so have no wires between boiler and tender. I didn't drill or cut anything out. To me, to use the "But I have brass or old locos!" excuse is a non-starter. The real reason is money and/or laziness. Money is a good reason, but not the laziness. Others have told me they don't want to put DCC in their brass loco because it would lower it's monetary value. My answer is, "Are you ever going to sell it?" The answer is almost always, "No." I reply, "Then who cares what it's worth? It might as well be worth zero dollars if you're never going to sell it. Put a decoder in and have fun with it while you can. And who knows? It may be worth more to someone on eBay if it's got DCC already."
Hamltnblue,"Money pile"? For "RC folks"?Why would anyone invest in a tethered radio system? Unless one hauls around boxcars of batteries, what's the point of going to a wireless DCC system?
A lot of these "sound locomotives" will run on DC layouts. Also sound is a big selling point these days for many* (*I said "Many", not "All")
Also most DCC decoders are dual mode ready (DC/DCC) By buying the DCC versions, the store owner opens himself up to the full market.
(Although I'm sure some others will disagree)
Hamltnblue BRAKIE: One club I am inactive in went DCC but,soon realized that was a mistake..So,we installed a DC/DCC switch so we could have it both ways and rotate operating nights.This was a win-win for the membership. The reason? Brass steam and diesel locomotives from the 50/60s as well as a ton of Hobbytown locomotives and Rivarossi steamers dating back to the 60s.The majority-including several of the guys that uses DCC at home-didn't want to install decoders in their older locomotives fo various reasons.. The club should have set up a separate 4x8 layout for the ones who didn't want to change.
BRAKIE: One club I am inactive in went DCC but,soon realized that was a mistake..So,we installed a DC/DCC switch so we could have it both ways and rotate operating nights.This was a win-win for the membership. The reason? Brass steam and diesel locomotives from the 50/60s as well as a ton of Hobbytown locomotives and Rivarossi steamers dating back to the 60s.The majority-including several of the guys that uses DCC at home-didn't want to install decoders in their older locomotives fo various reasons..
One club I am inactive in went DCC but,soon realized that was a mistake..So,we installed a DC/DCC switch so we could have it both ways and rotate operating nights.This was a win-win for the membership.
The reason?
Brass steam and diesel locomotives from the 50/60s as well as a ton of Hobbytown locomotives and Rivarossi steamers dating back to the 60s.The majority-including several of the guys that uses DCC at home-didn't want to install decoders in their older locomotives fo various reasons..
The club should have set up a separate 4x8 layout for the ones who didn't want to change.
LOL!!
One problem..It would become to crowded on ASON..
BRAKIE One club I am inactive in went DCC but,soon realized that was a mistake..So,we installed a DC/DCC switch so we could have it both ways and rotate operating nights.This was a win-win for the membership. The reason? Brass steam and diesel locomotives from the 50/60s as well as a ton of Hobbytown locomotives and Rivarossi steamers dating back to the 60s.The majority-including several of the guys that uses DCC at home-didn't want to install decoders in their older locomotives fo various reasons..
Springfield PA