davidmbedard Bottom line..... DC is limited. DCC is not. DCC for the win! Are DC layouts slowly disappearing? I just don't care. David B
Bottom line.....
DC is limited.
DCC is not.
DCC for the win!
Are DC layouts slowly disappearing? I just don't care.
David B
I guess some like 'limitations' then...
DCC/DC...argyments about market share....
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/
davidmbedard Bottom line..... DC is limited. DCC is not. DCC for the win!
gatrhumpy So I'm looking at at least $160 for the DCC system, about $70 for the DCC decoder + sound module (for two SD40-2s from MRC), another DCC + sound decoder for a Kato SD-40, and I'm at about $350.
So I'm looking at at least $160 for the DCC system, about $70 for the DCC decoder + sound module (for two SD40-2s from MRC), another DCC + sound decoder for a Kato SD-40, and I'm at about $350.
I'm going to say that the "win" goes to the system that gives you want you want for a price you're willing to pay.
LOL Lou. Maybe I can start small and get the DCC system + one decoder.
So is there a cheaper (yet just as small) DCC system as the NCE Cab system? Also, could I add layout lights to this DCC system?
gatrhumpy So is there a cheaper (yet just as small) DCC system as the NCE Cab system? Also, could I add layout lights to this DCC system?
OK just remember the advice you are about to get is coming from someone who still uses DC at home but operates regularly on a lot of other DCC layouts.
If you like the sound thing, just get over it and go DCC.
Sheldon
krupa davidmbedard: Bottom line..... DC is limited. DCC is not. DCC for the win! gatrhumpy: So I'm looking at at least $160 for the DCC system, about $70 for the DCC decoder + sound module (for two SD40-2s from MRC), another DCC + sound decoder for a Kato SD-40, and I'm at about $350. I'm going to say that the "win" goes to the system that gives you want you want for a price you're willing to pay.
davidmbedard: Bottom line..... DC is limited. DCC is not. DCC for the win!
gatrhumpy: So I'm looking at at least $160 for the DCC system, about $70 for the DCC decoder + sound module (for two SD40-2s from MRC), another DCC + sound decoder for a Kato SD-40, and I'm at about $350.
A win is only a win when the winner has won what makes him happy-in David's case he won what makes him happy- DCC while others win with DC..
Simple solution is be happy with the prize you chose.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
gatrhumpySo is there a cheaper (yet just as small) DCC system as the NCE Cab system? Also, could I add layout lights to this DCC system?
gatrhumpy,
Whatever DCC system you might decide upon, you could just use an old DC power pack to power your lights with. That way you wouldn't draw any needed amperage away from your DCC system to operate locomotives.
The other advantage of using a power pack is that you can use the knob to "dial down" the power (or voltage) so that your lights operate at less than full intensity. This will 1) look more realistic, and 2) prolong the life of the bulbs - i.e. if they are incandescents. (This doesn't work as well for LEDs because they need a certain amount of voltage in order to work properly.)
I operate the 12V incandescent bulbs I use for layout lighting between 50 - 60% power (i.e. 6 - 7.2 volts) and they are plenty bright enough.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
steinjr Stein wrote: For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time. I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway. Not everyone, but most. I think its more typical that multiple train operations use more than one operator. A design criteria that I am not interested in. Since multiple train operations use multiple operators, DCC is probably preferred. A person picking DCC in the belief that it will allow him to split his attention more easily between many trains moving at the same time (in a situation where you actually will need to interact with the trains - ie not in a situation where you have four parallel continuous run loops and trains running around and around and around like crazed rodents) will probably be in for a rude awakening, and quickly come to the realization that the limitation is with the operator, not with the way the motors in each engine get their power from the tracks. To me, if someone had wanted to create a layout where multiple trains will be moving at the same time on intersecting paths, under the control of a single operator, DC, cab control with multiple throttles, partial automation (stopping at signals etc), and a central control desk, would be a far more obvious technical choice than a single DCC throttle, swapping desperately between trains. One operator, multiple trains moving at the same time is more a matter of automation than a matter of DC or DCC. Agreed And as I tried to point out, it does not take any more knowledge of electronics for a new modeler to deal with DCC than DC. As have I. A few posts upstream I wrote "if you know nothing about DC or DCC, you should just learn DCC and skip the old school system" But most modelers start out having a DC train set. Afterwhich the decisions about what to do next usually begins. The "have to learn electronic" argument is fairly irrelevant when it comes to choosing DC or DCC. Basic wiring is simpler in DCC. While some forms of automation may very well be simpler in DC. Not really the premise of my statements. What I was responding to was the implied notion that I had to learn electronics in order to have a realistically operating model railroad., not to choose an operating system. OPs ask questions, then some responders start using a bunch of techno-blah-blah to argue their DC or DCC points. I've tried to point out, their techno-blah-blah knowledge is not driven by their interest in model railroading, its driven by an interest in knowing techno-blah-blah, and showing it off. An interest that that is probably not shared by OP's who ask general electronics questions in the general section of a modeling forum website. It tends to be a hobby of its own, or a subgroup that is not shared by the generalist. As you pointed out, there is a difference between a user of electronic equipment and a builder of electronic equipment. The "general redundancy" argument is (most likely) just a way of saying "I already know how to do this in one way, so I don't want to learn another way of doing it". I.e. plain old resistance to change. I'm only resistant to change when I don't forsee a benefit from it. That is very relevant for an experienced hobbyist who already have a working layout with DC control that works well. Very few of us like to start over, deliberately replacing something we know how to do with something we do not know how to do. It is irrational to create extra work for yourself, especially if it is work you don't enjoy, and if you feel that the result doesn't give you anything useful new - that it is just change for change's sake. Agreed. But that argument is not very relevant for someone just starting out in the hobby - who will have to learn a lot of MR related things with very limited applications in other walks of life anyways - curve radii, turnout numbers, power handling around frogs, replacing couplers, what a switchback lead is, and so on and so forth. Agreed. My premise related to electronics, for which people who know the technical terminology of how analog and digital technology work is generally supported by their involvement with it in other hobbies or walks of life, more than likely. It is not essential to model railroading. The newb will learn those other things regardless of what op system he chooses, including basic DC wiring. The investment in proprietary stuff remains captive, to a larger degree; and therefore not at all transferable to other operating systems, if he should want to change. Replacing a coupler is replacing a coupler, no matter what brand he chooses, or changes to later on. That was my rather poorly made point about interchangeable skills. Whether it in that situation makes most sense to learn to just turn an engine selector knob on a DCC throttle before giving commends to a second engine, or whether it makes most sense to learn enough to create a sensible number of sidings wired with on/off switches, cab control selectors or whatever depends on the inclinations of the new modeler. Agreed. To me, hard wiring a bunch of spurs with an extra on/off switch to create places where a second switcher can hold on an urban switching layout is far more work than it is worth. And it creates a system where you have to plan further ahead, and where changes take more time and effort - i.e a less flexible system. You qualified that with "to me". Agreed, its a matter of perpective. To me, two switchers that have separate and distinct purposes are likely going to be physically separated from each other. Like a real railroad, who run similar trains over an over in a patterned schedule, they will be physically separated at the same location each operating session. That's where I would locate my block. But occasionally not, so I see your point, too. I think when you plan a layout, it is designed around an operating plan. Since real railroads tend to keep un-mu'ed locomotives separate from each other when performing their duties, unless they meet at sidings, the locations for the blocks become somewhat a function of the overall picture. Planning the operations is the hard part, where to put the blocks sort of falls into place. Yes, the more complicated the sytem, and the smaller the space, the more planning, and wiring, and work. But then, a complicated system in a small space becomes unrealistic anyway, (i..e spaghetti bowl) so that option is discarded before its even planned. So we're back to the beginning, a spread out system with minimal track and as few as locomotives as possible to do the job (just like a real railroad) that have distinct and separate duties so they tend to be physically far enough apart from each other (just like a real railroad) to make block wiring not that big of a deal. A basement sized layout? Then you may need power districts anyway, sort of like block wiring, so we're moot again. From your perspective, of an urban switiching layout (which is NOT synonymous with a speghetti bowl) I can see where there would be more work, as you sa. But you'd still want feeders, splicing, and soldering. anyway. Installing an on/off switch then doesn't seem like that much more work to me. A matter of perspective. Again - if you already have a functional system (that supports your existing and never changing operational scheme) in place, then it makes little sense to replace it if you do not get anything worthwhile from the change. Agreed. Hopefully most of us are smart enough to understand that. I don't believe that for a second. The critical point is when you add a second engine. One engine - doesn't really matter whether you go DC or DCC. Especially if you don't give a hoot about playing with lights and sounds on that engine. When you add a second engine, you will have to decide how to control two engines independent of each other. How you can have one engine standing still somewhere on your layout while the other one moves. Or how you can have two people each controlling their own engine. That is the decision point where it makes sense to think about whether DCC would be a sensible option. I wrote "train" to distiguish it from an mu'ed consist, which would have more than the engine moving at the same time, but not independent of each other. Hey lookie! On the major points, we agree more than not my friend!
Stein wrote:
For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time.
I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway. Not everyone, but most.
I think its more typical that multiple train operations use more than one operator. A design criteria that I am not interested in. Since multiple train operations use multiple operators, DCC is probably preferred.
A person picking DCC in the belief that it will allow him to split his attention more easily between many trains moving at the same time (in a situation where you actually will need to interact with the trains - ie not in a situation where you have four parallel continuous run loops and trains running around and around and around like crazed rodents) will probably be in for a rude awakening, and quickly come to the realization that the limitation is with the operator, not with the way the motors in each engine get their power from the tracks.
To me, if someone had wanted to create a layout where multiple trains will be moving at the same time on intersecting paths, under the control of a single operator, DC, cab control with multiple throttles, partial automation (stopping at signals etc), and a central control desk, would be a far more obvious technical choice than a single DCC throttle, swapping desperately between trains.
One operator, multiple trains moving at the same time is more a matter of automation than a matter of DC or DCC.
Agreed
And as I tried to point out, it does not take any more knowledge of electronics for a new modeler to deal with DCC than DC.
As have I. A few posts upstream I wrote "if you know nothing about DC or DCC, you should just learn DCC and skip the old school system" But most modelers start out having a DC train set. Afterwhich the decisions about what to do next usually begins.
The "have to learn electronic" argument is fairly irrelevant when it comes to choosing DC or DCC. Basic wiring is simpler in DCC. While some forms of automation may very well be simpler in DC.
Not really the premise of my statements. What I was responding to was the implied notion that I had to learn electronics in order to have a realistically operating model railroad., not to choose an operating system. OPs ask questions, then some responders start using a bunch of techno-blah-blah to argue their DC or DCC points.
I've tried to point out, their techno-blah-blah knowledge is not driven by their interest in model railroading, its driven by an interest in knowing techno-blah-blah, and showing it off. An interest that that is probably not shared by OP's who ask general electronics questions in the general section of a modeling forum website. It tends to be a hobby of its own, or a subgroup that is not shared by the generalist.
As you pointed out, there is a difference between a user of electronic equipment and a builder of electronic equipment.
The "general redundancy" argument is (most likely) just a way of saying "I already know how to do this in one way, so I don't want to learn another way of doing it". I.e. plain old resistance to change.
I'm only resistant to change when I don't forsee a benefit from it.
That is very relevant for an experienced hobbyist who already have a working layout with DC control that works well.
Very few of us like to start over, deliberately replacing something we know how to do with something we do not know how to do. It is irrational to create extra work for yourself, especially if it is work you don't enjoy, and if you feel that the result doesn't give you anything useful new - that it is just change for change's sake.
Agreed.
But that argument is not very relevant for someone just starting out in the hobby - who will have to learn a lot of MR related things with very limited applications in other walks of life anyways - curve radii, turnout numbers, power handling around frogs, replacing couplers, what a switchback lead is, and so on and so forth.
Agreed. My premise related to electronics, for which people who know the technical terminology of how analog and digital technology work is generally supported by their involvement with it in other hobbies or walks of life, more than likely. It is not essential to model railroading.
The newb will learn those other things regardless of what op system he chooses, including basic DC wiring. The investment in proprietary stuff remains captive, to a larger degree; and therefore not at all transferable to other operating systems, if he should want to change. Replacing a coupler is replacing a coupler, no matter what brand he chooses, or changes to later on.
That was my rather poorly made point about interchangeable skills.
Whether it in that situation makes most sense to learn to just turn an engine selector knob on a DCC throttle before giving commends to a second engine, or whether it makes most sense to learn enough to create a sensible number of sidings wired with on/off switches, cab control selectors or whatever depends on the inclinations of the new modeler.
To me, hard wiring a bunch of spurs with an extra on/off switch to create places where a second switcher can hold on an urban switching layout is far more work than it is worth. And it creates a system where you have to plan further ahead, and where changes take more time and effort - i.e a less flexible system.
You qualified that with "to me". Agreed, its a matter of perpective. To me, two switchers that have separate and distinct purposes are likely going to be physically separated from each other. Like a real railroad, who run similar trains over an over in a patterned schedule, they will be physically separated at the same location each operating session. That's where I would locate my block.
But occasionally not, so I see your point, too.
I think when you plan a layout, it is designed around an operating plan. Since real railroads tend to keep un-mu'ed locomotives separate from each other when performing their duties, unless they meet at sidings, the locations for the blocks become somewhat a function of the overall picture. Planning the operations is the hard part, where to put the blocks sort of falls into place. Yes, the more complicated the sytem, and the smaller the space, the more planning, and wiring, and work. But then, a complicated system in a small space becomes unrealistic anyway, (i..e spaghetti bowl) so that option is discarded before its even planned. So we're back to the beginning, a spread out system with minimal track and as few as locomotives as possible to do the job (just like a real railroad) that have distinct and separate duties so they tend to be physically far enough apart from each other (just like a real railroad) to make block wiring not that big of a deal. A basement sized layout? Then you may need power districts anyway, sort of like block wiring, so we're moot again.
From your perspective, of an urban switiching layout (which is NOT synonymous with a speghetti bowl) I can see where there would be more work, as you sa. But you'd still want feeders, splicing, and soldering. anyway. Installing an on/off switch then doesn't seem like that much more work to me.
A matter of perspective.
Again - if you already have a functional system (that supports your existing and never changing operational scheme) in place, then it makes little sense to replace it if you do not get anything worthwhile from the change.
Hopefully most of us are smart enough to understand that.
I don't believe that for a second.
The critical point is when you add a second engine. One engine - doesn't really matter whether you go DC or DCC. Especially if you don't give a hoot about playing with lights and sounds on that engine.
When you add a second engine, you will have to decide how to control two engines independent of each other. How you can have one engine standing still somewhere on your layout while the other one moves. Or how you can have two people each controlling their own engine.
That is the decision point where it makes sense to think about whether DCC would be a sensible option.
I wrote "train" to distiguish it from an mu'ed consist, which would have more than the engine moving at the same time, but not independent of each other.
Hey lookie! On the major points, we agree more than not my friend!
- Douglas
I just bought my first DCC decoder - an N scale MRC sound decoder for a Kato SD40-2. Now I have to get the DCC system!
Another DC system bites the dust! Hopefully my electrical trackwork is OK.
To me, this thread has developed far beyond the OP´s intention.
Sir Madog To me, this thread has developed far beyond the OP´s intention.
Makes interesting reading though..
Just a little..
gatrhumpy I just bought my first DCC decoder - an N scale MRC sound decoder for a Kato SD40-2. Now I have to get the DCC system! Another DC system bites the dust! Hopefully my electrical trackwork is OK.
I have the MRC Tech 6 and need to buy a sound decoder for one of my Atlas N&W GP9s or GP38s.
Since the T-6 is duel mode I can use either DC or DCC locomotives.
Doughless steinjr: For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time. I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway. Not everyone, but most.
steinjr: For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time. I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway. Not everyone, but most.
Some fairly obvious applications that does not involve two engines moving at the same time:
- taking a road engine to the engine house, before a yard switcher starts breaking down the cut of cars that just arrived.
- having a switcher add a caboose to a train about to depart, take off or add a block to a hot freight train holding on the main.
- adding or removing a helper.
- movements in an engine terminal
- having a switcher pull the cars off a passenger train that has arrived in a single ended passenger terminal, leaving the cars on another track, then take the formerly trapped road engine out, and turning it. Having the switcher spot the passenger cars for boarding. Have the road engine move back and couple to the cars again.
There is quite a few moves where it makes sense, both from a prototype viewpoint and from a modeling viewpoint, to alternate between running two engines, rather than running them at the same time, using one engine to loop endlessly around the loop and the other to try to dodge it as best it can.
Smile, Stein
I switched over even though I only have 2 ovals with one train on each oval
I like the sound moving with the train as opposed to my static sound DC set up( 2 MRC Sound and Power 2000s)
I know the DCC/DC trains will run DC with sound but the motion was too erratic
The investment in a DCE Power cab was minimal and more than suits my needsand I already had several DCC/DC sound engines so I only had to add sound to 3 others
One thing though I did like the sound from my static units but it didn't move with the train
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
Doughless,
I have been following your conversation with Stein. I hope you realize that just like you, I use DC. BUT, I use in it a much more complex form, with detection and signals, multiple cabs (eight of them) that can be assigned to track sections (blocks) from multiple locations as you walk around the layout OR can be assigned by a dispatcher. I use wireless radio throttles, and maybe most importantly I use elements from MZL control developed by Ed Ravenscroft over 40 years ago to automate many of the control functions found on some lessor DC cab control systems. This dramaticly reduces the needed "operator input commands" or "toggle fipping". Actually on my layout it is mostly "button pushing".
I am a big proponent of the idea that control systems hould be taylored to the layout design and concept and that one size does not fit all. One other modeler I know has a layout that seems similar to how you discribe yours. He is DC as well. He has one Aristo Craft Train Engineer wirelsee throttle and a few kill switches to park locos. His industrial switching layout fills his 1200 sq ft basement.
I also operate on a number of basement sized layouts that are DCC, one of which I even designed the track plan for. And, yes, with my electrical knowledge and background, I have some hand in wiring some of these as well as my own.
BUT, in our local group, on the five DCC layouts I operate on a regular basis, NO ONE is running two seperate DCC trains at once. The only use those double Digitax throttles ever get are for switching moves like Stein just discribed above, or for pusher service. And pushers are more usually done with two operators.
I rejected DCC for my layout based on a complex set of goals, cost and complexity issues. You obviously don't need to meet your goals. For many, who have different goals, it is perfect, or at least as close as we get to that now.
My earlier conversation that got you and I going a bit was about what the future might hold, and that does have bearing on the OP's question. My point being that to overcome the original reasons I rejected DCC, some major advancements would be needed, and even then that might not cause me to change.
My layout, which is being rebuilt right now, as outlined in my first post in this thread, has lots of "advanced" features. Turnout routes through complex interlockings are aligned with the push of one button, two switchers will each work one end of a large yard independently without a bunch of "toggle flipping", switching woves like Stein discribed in his last post are easily done with minimal or no toggle flipping. But all that takes planning, and yes some complexity.
But here is the main point, my system while complex to build, it is easy to operate. throttles are simple and wireless, control panels are easy to understand and located were you need then at the time, controls are duplicated at muliple locations to allow walk around and provide flexiblity. You could learn to operate it in a half hour.
And if you make a mistake, or forget to set something correctly, nothing bad happens, the train just stops and waits for you. And it all happens without and decoders, computers, speed curve matching, etc. What is does use is hundreds of inexpensive ice cub relays, and several simple machine control circuits that have been around since the invention of the electric motor and the magnetic relay.
I chose it because, for my specific set of goals and interests, it is the least expensive and simplest solution and because it did not invloves skills beyond my knowledge or products that might become unavailable. I rejected both DCC and computerized block control and computerized signaling and dispatching for various combinations of the above reasons.
I run multiple trains at once, but either on isoloted loops or with a crew of up to 12 people. One person never "controls" more than one train at a time. That's why the layout has all these semiautomatic safety features.
steinjr 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. 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
It is not at all a given that it is the most optimal choice for your layout and operating style.
Some good points. I am not for or against either DC or DCC and can see why people would use one or the other in certain situations.
I don't agree with switching to DCC just because it seems 'newer', 'better' or can 'do more' without looking at the pros and cons for your particular situation.
For the record, I am running DC with no cab control but with the yard on one control and the mainline on another. I am normally a single operator and will concur that one person running two trains at the same time does not work well - as Stein points out - not because of DC or DCC, but because of an operator's attention.
With my layout I CAN run a train looping on the main line while I switch in the yard. I don't usually unless I am demonstrating to people. I could have one operator run the mainline and one switch in the yard.
I did consider DCC, and the advantages to me were:
1. Sound and lights on locos.
2. Can have two or more locos on a track and operate independently.
The disadvantages were:
1. Cost. I already have DC. Would need the DCC system and decoders. DCC locos are more expensive.
2. Stopping a loco on a track and being able to operate another does not get the first loco out of the way. You still need to operate like a prototype. That means pulling into a passing track or a siding. I can do that with DC.
3. Issues with shorts - DCC is more sensitive to shutting down than DC.
The loco sound, while nice, is not something that I really need. I prefer the sound of the loco running on the track. To me the sound seems a bit fake.
I guess to answer the OP's original question - I don't think DC layouts will slowly ALL disappear. I think DCC will become more popular and there will be less DC, but for the foreseeable future I think DC is still a good cost effective fit for a lot of people.
But then I still have a crank phone and dial phones in my house. Of course the crank phone from 1918 still works and has never broken :)
My Build Thread: https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/185298.aspx
Follow me on Instagram: https://instagram.com/stephenkingsmaine
Sheldon,
It sounds like you have a great layout that is fun to operate, and you should be proud of that. I applaud you for having created such a complex and, apparently, user-friendly control system. Based on what you have described, I'm certain that I could probably assemble a similar control system for my layout . . . someday. However, for me it would take a lot of time, and I would face a pretty steep learning curve, before I had it assembled, had all the control panels built and labeled, and had it fully de-bugged. And, after all that, I'm not convinced it would be that much cheaper. That is why I chose to go with DCC.
I guess it's like the difference between scratchbuilding and purchasing ready-to-run kits. The scratchbuilder takes his time to understand the prototype, to make a plan for replicating it, to purchase the raw materials, and to apply proper techniques to complete the model. When he is done, he deservedly can take great pride in his model, and hopefully, others will recognize and applaud his effort. But the novice who just wants to run a train still can go out and buy what he wants, he just won't get the same sense of accomplishment as the scratchbuilder.
Someone building their layout faces similar decisions regarding their control system. They can follow the "scratchbuilding" path that you have chosen, and when they are finished can enjoy the same staisfaction that you have received from constructing your system. Or they can opt for purchasing an off-the-shelf DCC system, purchase off-the-shelf locomotives with installed decoders, etc . . . and will still get to enjoy running trains, just without the knowledge that they "did it themselves".
Then there's guys like me who try to find a middle road. I went with DCC for a variety of reasons, and it has allowed me a lot of flexibility in operating my railroad. I do get some "did it myself" satisfaction from installing sound decoders into my older models, and also when I built my own two-point panel control for the single hidden, Tortoise-controlled turnout on my layout. I could have opted for a DCC module to flip the turnout for me, but the cost was high and wouldn't give me a positive panel readout of the turnout position, so I went with the toggle switch and relay option. So, for me, a middle ground between the scratchbuilding and off-the-shelf approaches works best.
Tom,
Thank you for the kind words. I would say there is a lot of us on that "middle road" in a lot of aspects of the hobby. The balance for each person is just different from subject to subject, scenery, rolling stock, structures, control, operation, etc.
I have always said, based on what is currently available, that if you really like onboard sound in HO or N, and think it is worth the money, you should go DCC.
Personally, my experiance with hifi sound reproduction, and my general dislike of being in noisy places, combines with the poor sound quality of onboard sound in small scales to make it something I do not want.
DCC still presents lots of electrical challenges for modelers, especially as you get further into things like signals, better turnout control options, dispatching, etc.
I, for one, DON'T have slightest interest in sound! When recently pricing new Atlas HO loco, it was considerably more expensive than than their 'dcc ready' version[which I eventually intend to buy]. In my case; extra $ saved can be spent on Peco Code 100 turnouts, Sergent Engineering couplers, scenery supplies. Sound decoders add lot of expense to any dcc loco. Got along fine for 50+ yrs.on/ off in HO, including 6 yrs. in modular club, without sound. All the HO locos w/sound I heard at many train shows didn't impress me a bit; some were downright annoying. Even the club members there openly admitted that to me and said they often shut sound off when it bothers them too much. If I didn't already have my Lenz Set 90[bought yrs. ago] wouldn't attempt to go into dcc now, because everything has become way too expensive in the Hobby. Everyone's entitled to their opinion; that's my 2 cents. TTFN.....papasmurf in NH
My layout is DC only. I want to get a DCC trend going, but it costs to much for me. Pretty much all the locomotives, save for a few, are DC at my local hobby shop. It'd be a long drive from Canada to central New York, but the commute is worth the reward. WELL worth it. I actually just picked up a Spectrum Dash 8-40C for my layout and, while used, was at a deep discount. What scale are you?
B30
Crap happens. When it does, stop, take a deep breath, and call the wreck train.
What is changing is everyone is going buss wiring both in DC and DCC, most of the people I know still run DC as do the clubs.
steinjr Doughless: steinjr: For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time. I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway. Not everyone, but most. Some fairly obvious applications that does not involve two engines moving at the same time: - taking a road engine to the engine house, before a yard switcher starts breaking down the cut of cars that just arrived. - having a switcher add a caboose to a train about to depart, take off or add a block to a hot freight train holding on the main. - adding or removing a helper. - movements in an engine terminal - having a switcher pull the cars off a passenger train that has arrived in a single ended passenger terminal, leaving the cars on another track, then take the formerly trapped road engine out, and turning it. Having the switcher spot the passenger cars for boarding. Have the road engine move back and couple to the cars again. There is quite a few moves where it makes sense, both from a prototype viewpoint and from a modeling viewpoint, to alternate between running two engines, rather than running them at the same time, using one engine to loop endlessly around the loop and the other to try to dodge it as best it can. Smile, Stein
Doughless: steinjr: For instance - you seemingly keep coming back to the idea that a typical application of DCC would be one operator juggling his or her attention between three trains all moving at the same time. I have no statistics to back me up but, for one operator who has a DCC system, yes, I do think that is the typical application, at least two trains anyway. Not everyone, but most.
Stein, I haven't thought about this thread much, until it popped up on the first page again. Not sure if I and everyone else just want's the thread to die.
You're right, there are more applications once one thinks about it more. I was not attempting to debate the merits of DC over DCC. What I have is just some frustration over some inconsistencies I see in the hobby:
The trend in layout design is moving more towards shelf layouts and less track; a more linear shaped layout. Basically, spreading things out more. To me, when layouts gets spread out more, it tends to make operating areas and switching locations larger. With DC, the blocks would be larger than what they were on the previous layout. It seems to me that DC is most inefficient in a spaghetti bowl type of layout because smallish blocks cause the need for a lot of toggle flipping. But as layouts get more linear and blocks become larger, DC becomes more efficient than it was before since the modeler has sufficient time to flip the toggles.
Also, while maybe running multiple trains at the same time is not the norm, engines running in close proximity to one another, although not at the same time, may very well be the norm. If the trend in operations is to run your trains like a real railroad would (the definition of that can vary here), then un-consisted locomotives tend not to be that close to each other that often. Real railroads don't like trains running in to each other, so they tend to keep them separated. Two locomotives that are performing two different functions are likely not that close to each other. Even in a yard that is large enough to justify having two switchers, they are likely working in their own separate areas. Even your example of a switcher placing a caboose at the end of a train, if the train is of any length, the switcher is far away from the lead engine(s).
OTOH, if a modeler is going to have an engine terminal on the layout, then he better go DCC. Lots of engines in close proximity to each other. However, with the trends in shelf layouts, engine terminals are being modeled less often than before because shelf layouts tend to consider engine terminals as space hogs.
I'm not arguing that DC is better. In fact DCC is better because what can be done with DC can be done with DCC, but not visa versa. Its as simple as that. Its just that it seems to me that modelers are converting to DCC at a time when the trends in layout design and operations would make their existing investment in DC more efficient than ever.
This is just sort of a theoretical observation anyway. None of this has any impact on what I do or how anyone else really approaches their situation.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless, I have been following your conversation with Stein. I hope you realize that just like you, I use DC. BUT, I use in it a much more complex form, with detection and signals, multiple cabs (eight of them) that can be assigned to track sections (blocks) from multiple locations as you walk around the layout OR can be assigned by a dispatcher. I use wireless radio throttles, and maybe most importantly I use elements from MZL control developed by Ed Ravenscroft over 40 years ago to automate many of the control functions found on some lessor DC cab control systems. This dramaticly reduces the needed "operator input commands" or "toggle fipping". Actually on my layout it is mostly "button pushing". I am a big proponent of the idea that control systems hould be taylored to the layout design and concept and that one size does not fit all. One other modeler I know has a layout that seems similar to how you discribe yours. He is DC as well. He has one Aristo Craft Train Engineer wirelsee throttle and a few kill switches to park locos. His industrial switching layout fills his 1200 sq ft basement. I also operate on a number of basement sized layouts that are DCC, one of which I even designed the track plan for. And, yes, with my electrical knowledge and background, I have some hand in wiring some of these as well as my own. BUT, in our local group, on the five DCC layouts I operate on a regular basis, NO ONE is running two seperate DCC trains at once. The only use those double Digitax throttles ever get are for switching moves like Stein just discribed above, or for pusher service. And pushers are more usually done with two operators. I rejected DCC for my layout based on a complex set of goals, cost and complexity issues. You obviously don't need to meet your goals. For many, who have different goals, it is perfect, or at least as close as we get to that now. My earlier conversation that got you and I going a bit was about what the future might hold, and that does have bearing on the OP's question. My point being that to overcome the original reasons I rejected DCC, some major advancements would be needed, and even then that might not cause me to change. My layout, which is being rebuilt right now, as outlined in my first post in this thread, has lots of "advanced" features. Turnout routes through complex interlockings are aligned with the push of one button, two switchers will each work one end of a large yard independently without a bunch of "toggle flipping", switching woves like Stein discribed in his last post are easily done with minimal or no toggle flipping. But all that takes planning, and yes some complexity. But here is the main point, my system while complex to build, it is easy to operate. throttles are simple and wireless, control panels are easy to understand and located were you need then at the time, controls are duplicated at muliple locations to allow walk around and provide flexiblity. You could learn to operate it in a half hour. And if you make a mistake, or forget to set something correctly, nothing bad happens, the train just stops and waits for you. And it all happens without and decoders, computers, speed curve matching, etc. What is does use is hundreds of inexpensive ice cub relays, and several simple machine control circuits that have been around since the invention of the electric motor and the magnetic relay. I chose it because, for my specific set of goals and interests, it is the least expensive and simplest solution and because it did not invloves skills beyond my knowledge or products that might become unavailable. I rejected both DCC and computerized block control and computerized signaling and dispatching for various combinations of the above reasons. I run multiple trains at once, but either on isoloted loops or with a crew of up to 12 people. One person never "controls" more than one train at a time. That's why the layout has all these semiautomatic safety features. Sheldon
Thanks for the explanation Sheldon. I've read your posts before and I am quite impressed with your operation and you're knowledge. Overall, I like the way you approach the hobby.
Take care.
My local hobby shop has a small layout as you walk in over by the O Scale section. It runs some DCC locomotives, mostly steam, but runs on DC cab-controlled wiring. Save for a few again, mostly steam, all the locomotives there are DC, and, as I said, is a straightforward DC cab system.
I think that the DCC Crowd make a lot of noise that DC is dieing, but I believe that DC will be around a LOOONNGG Time to come yet. The estimates that I have read in the hobby press have all shown DC to still be the predominate control system, those with DCC just seem to push thier choosen system harder.
Today at the swap meet in Portland, OR the three locomotives that I sold were ALL DC, with two being DCC READY, but with just jumper plugs and no decoders, the third would be a MAJOR PITA, to ever install a decoder in, the BLI E-7 A-B(pwrd)-B(dmy) set with Sound and DCC came home with me. I had two Atlas Master DCC systems with Generator, Commander and Hand Commander, Complete in box 2 throttle systemsr $125.00 each, not even an offer on them. I did sell an MRC 280 Dual throttle power pack though.
The simple DC only Locomotive may get hard to find in the future, I expect to see more and more dual mode decoder equipped locomotives, which the DCC group will point to, to validate their claims of DC's demise, when it just makes a single item viable to both groups, rather than having two seperate product lines.
Don't expect DC to disappear any time soon, if technology was the end all, Lionel would have gone out of business years ago, but their AC technology is actually slowly gaining sales.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Doughless wrote:
You have hit a key point here. My layout is like this, electrical sections (blocks) are generally large, especially on the main line. And traditional "short sections" through interlockings and such are fully automated by turnout position.
As for engine terminals, there are also effective DC solutions, but it does require carefull and actually more "full scale" track planning, which as you note, can be space consuming.
And thank you for the kind words in response to my other post.
One advantage to DCC:
It would have been much easier for me to connect a second loco to my freight train. Running DC can be an exercise in train chasing or doing it by hand.
Doughless You're right, there are more applications once one thinks about it more. I was not attempting to debate the merits of DC over DCC. What I have is just some frustration over some inconsistencies I see in the hobby:
There are certainly good arguments for why it is a bad idea to change a layout that already works well on DC.
There are also good arguments for why the added complexity might be worth it if it saves cost (e.g if you have piles of supplies than can be reused for DC cab control, and a large fleet of engines that would need decoders for DCC) .
There are good arguments for why it makes sense to leverage what you already know how to do, rather than learning something new.
But that (at least seemingly) does not seem to be the main thrust of your arguments.
Instead you seem to keep claiming that real railroads are not run in ways that would make DCC more flexible for modeling their operations than DC.
What are we discussing here? Are we discussing a layout where single operator runs one train and one train only per session, with no interaction whatsoever between that train and other engines?
Or a layout where one operator will control several engines sequentially in the handling of a single train, as I described in my previous examples?
Or a layout with multiple operators running several trains over the same layout at the same time?
Or something else?
In the first case, it hardly matters what you pick. One train, one operator.
The second example we have discussed.
Let's have a quick look at the third example. Let us assume long blocks, simple track plan, and multiple operators.
Here is a simple schematic drawing of a linear section of an imaginary layout - nothing dramatic - a single track main with two passing sidings - you can picture each block as being 30 feet long if you think it makes a material difference to the argument.
Please explain to me again why DC and cab selection is less complex and more prototype-like, if you are going to perform the relatively simple maneuver of having a train pass through this part of the line, or if you are going to have two trains meet either at the leftmost or rightmost siding, to have to switch which cab controls which block(s) of track ?
Say - setting Blocks 1 and 3 and 5 to be controlled by Cab A, and blocks 4 and 6 to be controlled by Cab B, in the case of a planned meet where the eastbound train goes into the siding labeled "Block 5".
Now, introduce a third operator, a third train and a third cab. Say it the late running third train either will go into the hole at the siding labeled "Block 2", or you will try to have one train wait in the siding labeled "Block 5" while the other two trains (preferably moving in the same direction :-) pass it on the main, one after another.
Now, picture an even more complex situation - due to a massive mess caused by a derailment on a busy mainline, you need to tuck two short westbound trains into the long siding labeled "Block 5", to allow three eastbound trains to move past them.
Ooops - guess your initial wiring only allowed for two cabs being in in this area. Now what?
One certainly can compensate for limitations in using DC track power to control trains, by the judicious placement of blocks (say routinely splitting long sidings into two electrical blocks that can be assigned to different cabs or made dead independent of each other - e.g. by ensuring that an A/D track is split into three parts, so you can use a yard engine to tack on a caboose at either end of the cut, while the road engine stands still at the other end of the cut), and by wiring cab selectors so you can assign as many cabs to any given block.
But those things are all compensatory. You add complexity to your wiring and control system to compensate for the fact that you are varying voltage on track sections rather than controlling a train directly.
I thought one of your core arguments was that you did not want to introduce unnecessary complexity?
Grin,Stein
I've been following this thread from the beginning and all that comes to mind is "so what"???
The guys who are satisfied running DC only probably aren't going to up and scrap their set up to go DCC anymore than the guys running DCC are going to scrap their's.
I'll be the first to admit that there are some things DCC does that allow you to do things that DC doesn't, but again, so what? You both think you're right so just use them and enjoy them, does it really make that much difference if someone "doesn't" convert to DCC? Does that somehow make them an outcast or or something?
I really don't get this entire thread, if you like DCC then fine and dandy, I prefer to use DC only, does this threaten you or something? Do you think this means that if we don't have 100% participation in DCC that they are going to quit making it and leave you high and dry. I seriously doubt that will happen.
I have been referred to as "old fashioned, out of touch, simple minded, and even stupid" just because I don't see the need to convert to DCC. Why the animosity?
"Some" of you DCC fellows are starting to remind me of the guys that come around on Sunday afternoons and want to talk to me about Jesus when all I want to do is be left alone and play with my trains. Then I'm called a "heathen" and they leave only to return the following Sunday with the same agenda on their minds.
We aren't dumb, most of us know what DCC can do and what it can't do and we "choose" to stay with DC. Again, why does that bother you guys so much?
I spent about 25 years working with computers so I'm not computer illiterate, I actually grasp all of the things DCC can do, but at the same time when I retired I told myself the last thing in the world I wanted to do was get involved with anything electronics that I could avoid. I well know what happens when something breaks in electronics, everything shuts down which means you go on a hunting expedition to find the problem.
For me there are enough things in life to keep a person busy without adding more things to complicate it.
So you run your DCC, I'll run my DC system, and let's discuss something a bit more useful rather than who's right and who is not. Those arguements are never resolved to a satisfactory solution anyhow so "what's the point"?
Mark