DCC will continue to grow and gradually take over the market. I would never consider going back to DC. It just has way too many advantages complare to DC.
I have operated on a relatively famous large layout that has been featured in many of the magazines. It was DC the first time and the owner gave us all the same arguments against DCC that you frequently see on this website. Too many brass engines, happy with the current operations design, wouldn't improve the layout, etc. The truth was that the control system for the blocks was incredibly complicated and required one person to man it at all times. The next time I was invited to operate, it was completely DCC. Most of the brass now had decoders. The owner admitted that most of his arguments turned out to be not true and that the improvement in the layout was substantial. He was right, under the old system operation was fun but unrealistic. With DCC it ran like the prototype. No comparison. It addition, the time spent adding decoders in his brass steamers, was saved from the time spent trying to maintain his old electrical system.
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
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.
- Douglas
I can only speak for myself, having been in model trains since age 6 months (first Lionel) and am now age 74. I converted to HO and DC in 1959 while in college and have been in HO since. I used DC until the first of the command control systems began appearing in the 1980's. In my case, Dynatrol was the choice and I began converting the railroad and diesels to that system. After using Dynatrol, I was hooked on command control, no toggles, no this no that. DC became nothing to me. When DCC started its conversion to standards and my Dynatrol was about to die, I converted to NCE and still use it today. This system is the best for me. However, I don't care much for sound, and have only 12 diesels with sound out of a roster of around 250 plus diesels. The sound units come out for open houses, otherwise I operate "quietly".
I would never consider going back to DC, plain and simple. I also have a garden railroad in the backyard and it uses battery power/radio control. For large scale, that is the best in my opinion. I may not see the day when better battery life is possible, but for now, it is great.
For the G scale, no power to the rails (onboard battery packs) is the ultimate. I would hope sometime in the future that would be available for HO also, but probably not in my lifetime.
DC or DCC to me is windup versus electrical power. Again, this is from an old geezer who started at abe 6 months and has lived through it all. "that's my story and I'm stickin to it."
Bob
If it wasn't for DCC I would not have got back in the hobby.I have buildt 2 dual cab layouts before and really had fun with them and all the wiring.But fast forward 10 years and advantage that DCC offers made me want to build a new layout.I love sound and even though I still like to run my trains with out the sound on sometimes'having the ability to run 3 to 4 trains at one time'consist of locos'and all the other control DCC offers.I would never run DC ever again.NO BRAINER FOR ME.DC will hang around'why not.But DCC is the way of the future like it or not.BOB
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL: Doughless: Wrong - digital proportional control - Its been done for decades with model airplanes. Look up the Aristo Revolution or Airwire, they control sound boards, lights, smoke units, what ever - one uses DCC technology, one does not. Sheldon Well then, to get to the heart of the matter, why does one use DCC technology and the other not, if they both accomplish the same thing? On second thought, no matter how hard I try, my simple mind doesn't accept the clutter that's generated by understanding how to accomplish the same goal two different ways, so I wouldn't get past square one. Nevermind.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL: Doughless: Wrong - digital proportional control - Its been done for decades with model airplanes. Look up the Aristo Revolution or Airwire, they control sound boards, lights, smoke units, what ever - one uses DCC technology, one does not. Sheldon
Doughless:
Wrong - digital proportional control - Its been done for decades with model airplanes.
Look up the Aristo Revolution or Airwire, they control sound boards, lights, smoke units, what ever - one uses DCC technology, one does not.
Sheldon
Well then, to get to the heart of the matter, why does one use DCC technology and the other not, if they both accomplish the same thing?
On second thought, no matter how hard I try, my simple mind doesn't accept the clutter that's generated by understanding how to accomplish the same goal two different ways, so I wouldn't get past square one. Nevermind.
It's just a matter of what the designers decided to go with. It's typically what is cheaper to manufacture, offers the functions needed, and what will sell for the price that the average system goes for. Note that the major manufacturers have systems in the same basic price range.
When someone finds an economical way to do it, you may find an RC train that uses both DC and DCC only as a source of power. At the moment I don't blame Digitrax and the other main players for not going there. Why would they open up their little money pile to the RC folks?
Springfield PA
AntonioFP45 From what I've witnessed here in Florida, DCC is continuing to grow in popularity. I was pleasantly surprised when just a few years ago I joined the Suncoast Model Railroader's Club. Strictly DC, many of the members (especially old timers) were not interested in DCC...........at first. Within a 1 1/2 year's time, the club transitioned totally DCC. The simplified operations potential, simplified wiring, total freedom for locomotives to travel on any track and anytime, and the flexibility to control lights and sound features offered too much potential to ignore. One of the members was 90 years old and enjoyed DCC.
From what I've witnessed here in Florida, DCC is continuing to grow in popularity. I was pleasantly surprised when just a few years ago I joined the Suncoast Model Railroader's Club. Strictly DC, many of the members (especially old timers) were not interested in DCC...........at first. Within a 1 1/2 year's time, the club transitioned totally DCC. The simplified operations potential, simplified wiring, total freedom for locomotives to travel on any track and anytime, and the flexibility to control lights and sound features offered too much potential to ignore. One of the members was 90 years old and enjoyed DCC.
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..
These older steam locomotives is used primary on All Steam Operation Nights-we call it ASON for short.
BTW..We still use a CTC board with dispatcher on operation nights.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I started, as so many others, with a DC layout some 25 years ago and was real happy with that until I went to a clinic in 1998 where the inventor of DCC, Bernd Lenz, showed what was possible by then. He and MMR Rutger Friberg showed some nice "function models" and sound equipped locos.
After that I reconsidered my thinking. I saw the advantages AND the disadvantages of DCC Vs DC and DCC won!
As it is more expensive, I decided to sell off all unconvertible material to finance a few locos to start with. I feel that I rather have a few more expensive loco´s than a myriad of cheap stuff....
Today it is really cheap to start with DCC, a new starter set from Roco with track, loco, cars and DCC system (Multimaus) is now only $250!!
LINK
I think that there will ALWAYS be some people that doesn´t run DCC, but they will more likely have to convert their locos themself, just like we had to do with DCC when we did it 10 years ago
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
Michael6792 I dont think that DC is going to disappear any time soon, but it does pose another interesting question especially to modeler that has a large layout in Dc that they've been working on for years. If you had to start over from scratch for whatever reason, would you stick with DC or make the move to go with DCC at that point?
I dont think that DC is going to disappear any time soon, but it does pose another interesting question especially to modeler that has a large layout in Dc that they've been working on for years. If you had to start over from scratch for whatever reason, would you stick with DC or make the move to go with DCC at that point?
Well, my layout's not especially large, but if I were starting over it'd still be DC, even if someone gave me a bag of money to pay for the DCC. DC offers everything I want for my particular operating preferences, including easy walk-around control. I'm not a fan of sound and don't wish to run more than one train at a time (lone operator), although that one train may be doubleheaded steam with a pusher. Oh yeah, and the wiring's pretty simple, too:
I think where DCC really shines is for club operations or home layouts which require multiple operators. From what I've read in various forums, many entering the hobby, or coming back to it opt for DCC because it's readily available and, if you're starting out, relatively inexpensive. Many, though, don't have need to exploit its full potential, and are content with lighting features or sound effects. I wonder how many of them will stay with the hobby. For now though, they're helping to make this a golden age for the availability of accurate models undreamt of 50 years ago. I doubt that DCC will be the demise of DC.
Wayne
At prices from $ 600 and up here in Germany, there are not many DCC starter sets to be found under the Christmas tree. DCC raises the bar for entry into the hobby to height where most people will not be able to join in.
Most starter sets are therefore still DCand I believe it will be around much longer than we´d estimate.
Btw, my new layout will be DC, as it basically a figure 8 with some sidings - no need for DCC.
I may as well play the contrarian again, as usual.
When holiday train sets start coming with base stations and DCC controllers, then I'll believe that DC is really disappearing. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.
One basic fact remains. Anyone who can attach two wires to a lantern battery can get power to the rails and run an analog DC locomotive. For those of us who don't have degrees in electronics, DCC is a realm of mysterious black boxes that don't lend themselves to jackleg modifications. That alone will keep me in analog DC.
I will concede that I've upgraded my ancient power packs with silicon diode rectifiers in place of the original selenium variety. Ditto for the mini-rectifiers that were once installed for directional lighting in some of my locomotives.
(Yes, Matilda, some old Japanese prototype brass locos had selenium rectifiers in their directional lighting circuits.)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - analog DC, MZL system)
CNJ831 "Are the DC layouts slowly all disappearing?" Here's an aspect of this question that hasn't yet been mentioned and which may turn out to be critical. Since the hobby's demographic is today essentially an inverted pyramid, with the ever dwindling number of newcomers the most likely candidates for purchasing new DCC operating systems, this eventually might well almost stagnate sales of DCC. That point might conceivably even be reached before DCC attains a 50% market share! I will say, however, that strictly DC locomotives may well pass into history in the not too distant further. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't occurred already. Certainly, the future lies with dual-mode decoder equipped engines that can service both DC and basic DCC enthusiast. Such a total shift to universal dual-mode decodes equipped engines across the industry not only would add a small additional profit per sale, but the unifying of production runs to a single system would likewise represent a savings for the manufactures (and, yes, many are already there in this approach). CNJ831
That point might be nearing already from what I see.
To the point about DCC/DC dual mode locos. Manufacturers will have to take the Bachmann route if they want success with that because many DC operators, especially some of the more "advanced" ones, are using DC throttles that do not play well with dual mode decoders.
Any DC throttle with advanced pulse power or pulse width modulation is likely to not play well with dual mode decoders - so they need to be easily removable/bypassable.
My Aristo Train Engineer throttles hate almost all dual mode decoders and even those that run OK, the same locos run better once the decoders are gone. A few locos with really low end decoders, like Bachmann GE 70 tonners, literally will not run on the TE, in PWC mode or analog mode. BUT, after rewiring them to bypass the decoder portion of the one piece circuit board, they run very nice.
Doughless,
Even if it uses the same comumincation protocals as DCC, sending the signal through the air rather than through the rails would eliminate some of the "gizmos" under large DCC layouts - it would reduce cost and simplify wiring even more on larger layouts and reduce dirty track stalling and "drop out" problems.
Is that enough reasons to do the same thing a different way?
"Are the DC layouts slowly all disappearing?"
Here's an aspect of this question that hasn't yet been mentioned and which may turn out to be critical. Since the hobby's demographic is today essentially an inverted pyramid, with the ever dwindling number of newcomers the most likely candidates for purchasing new DCC operating systems, this eventually might well almost stagnate sales of DCC. That point might conceivably even be reached before DCC attains a 50% market share!
I will say, however, that strictly DC locomotives may well pass into history in the not too distant future. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't occurred already. Certainly, the future lies with dual-mode decoder equipped engines that can service both DC and basic DCC enthusiast. Such a total shift to universal dual-mode decoder equipped engines across the industry not only would add a small additional profit per sale, but the unifying of production runs to a single system would likewise represent a savings for the manufactures (and, yes, many are already there in this approach).
CNJ831
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless: Hamltnblue: Makes sense with the radio. When you think about it, radio control has become more popular lately. They work by having a radio controller transmit to a receiver, which interfaces with the DCC controller, which puts the signal on the track, which in turn is received by the trains decoder. You would think it would be much easier to just electrify the track and have the radio receiver on the loco's. It seems to work just fine in the RC car, boat, and airplane industry and the range is much farther than ever used by trains. I think you're right, if you just want to control throttle. But if you want to control throttle, lights, and sound, I think you need the decoder to route the signal to the proper circuit. Maybe have a different frequency for each circuit? Wrong - digital proportional control - Its been done for decades with model airplanes. Look up the Aristo Revolution or Airwire, they control sound boards, lights, smoke units, what ever - one uses DCC technology, one does not. Sheldon
Doughless: Hamltnblue: Makes sense with the radio. When you think about it, radio control has become more popular lately. They work by having a radio controller transmit to a receiver, which interfaces with the DCC controller, which puts the signal on the track, which in turn is received by the trains decoder. You would think it would be much easier to just electrify the track and have the radio receiver on the loco's. It seems to work just fine in the RC car, boat, and airplane industry and the range is much farther than ever used by trains. I think you're right, if you just want to control throttle. But if you want to control throttle, lights, and sound, I think you need the decoder to route the signal to the proper circuit. Maybe have a different frequency for each circuit?
Hamltnblue: Makes sense with the radio. When you think about it, radio control has become more popular lately. They work by having a radio controller transmit to a receiver, which interfaces with the DCC controller, which puts the signal on the track, which in turn is received by the trains decoder. You would think it would be much easier to just electrify the track and have the radio receiver on the loco's. It seems to work just fine in the RC car, boat, and airplane industry and the range is much farther than ever used by trains.
Makes sense with the radio. When you think about it, radio control has become more popular lately. They work by having a radio controller transmit to a receiver, which interfaces with the DCC controller, which puts the signal on the track, which in turn is received by the trains decoder. You would think it would be much easier to just electrify the track and have the radio receiver on the loco's. It seems to work just fine in the RC car, boat, and airplane industry and the range is much farther than ever used by trains.
I think you're right, if you just want to control throttle. But if you want to control throttle, lights, and sound, I think you need the decoder to route the signal to the proper circuit.
Maybe have a different frequency for each circuit?
.
There are also those like me who's prototype inspiration and model are one horse (ok iron horse) branch lines. My wiring right now with DC is two wires to the track. No blocks, electrical switches, etc.. Operationally DCC wouldn't add a single thing for me. I've thought about it from time to time, but haven't yet spent the money. Perhaps when the sound get's a bit better, I may switch then.
Oh, I also think it's funny, no matter if it's this board or any other, if the topic turns to technology, someone has to turn it into "well when the older generation moves on, the younger gen will accept this technology." Nope young padawan, it's much simplier than that -- while you may be just acquiring stuff, I have a legacy to go through, and put kids through college at the same time. It comes down to time and money, nothing else.
When I was younger and was still MRRing, I obviously had DC. Now that i'm getting back into it. I'm probably going to ditch the DC controller and go DCC when money is free. For me, DCC offers me more of what I want and that is freedom to travel the layout when I want to control the train.
I went to one shop and they sell DCC and DC loco's and I was asking questions and the guy was happy to sell DCC, but he was trying his hardest to change my mind and stay with DC ( He is NOT a DCC or sound fan ). DC will go no where anytime soon, but like all tech, things will move forward and you either pick and choose the tech you want or you don't. Not sure if I want sound in them or not,but I can always lower the volume and not here the sound if I choose!
I recently got started in the model RR hobby again in retirement. I asked advice at our local hobby shops and on online forums about DCC vs. DC and nickel silver vs. brass track and appreciated everyones input. However, considering I am willing to spend hundreds rather than thousands of dollars for a hobby I enjoyed a great deal as a teenager, I chose to go the less expensive route. I was able to acquire a large amount of brass track and two double cab DC transformers on Ebay for pennies on the dollar. My locomotives all cost at least $100 less than DCC equipped ones. Yes, I do not have all the bells and whistles but I still enjoy what I do have and a lot of the hobby is planning the layout, track laying and scenery which is pretty much the same whether using DCC or DC. I do enjoy going to train shows and open houses to see the more elaborate and high tech layouts but don't walk around my house wishing I had all that of my own.
So, I will stick with the "old school" and give the extra to my church or those in need. Glad to hear so many others have decided the same.
We'll have to keep an eye on it.
As far as multiple functions, it's available in RC. When I was doing rc planes 15 years ago I had motor control, aileron variable, Flaps with several positions, variable rudder, Variable elevator, and a few aux functions. I'm sure they've increased above that. I do know they are running digital these days which probably offers unlimited functions.
Doughless Hamltnblue: Makes sense with the radio. When you think about it, radio control has become more popular lately. They work by having a radio controller transmit to a receiver, which interfaces with the DCC controller, which puts the signal on the track, which in turn is received by the trains decoder. You would think it would be much easier to just electrify the track and have the radio receiver on the loco's. It seems to work just fine in the RC car, boat, and airplane industry and the range is much farther than ever used by trains. I think you're right, if you just want to control throttle. But if you want to control throttle, lights, and sound, I think you need the decoder to route the signal to the proper circuit. Maybe have a different frequency for each circuit?
Hamitnblue,
Actually it is already availabe for scales larger than HO. It's available in two forms, the Aristo Craft Revolution and Airwire by CVP. It is the popular way to run large scale.
But, size is the limiting factor for HO - but they are working on it.
Hamltnblue Makes sense with the radio. When you think about it, radio control has become more popular lately. They work by having a radio controller transmit to a receiver, which interfaces with the DCC controller, which puts the signal on the track, which in turn is received by the trains decoder. You would think it would be much easier to just electrify the track and have the radio receiver on the loco's. It seems to work just fine in the RC car, boat, and airplane industry and the range is much farther than ever used by trains.
Hamltnblue When you think about it DC will probably outlive DCC. DCC has pretty much maxed out on capability. I think what we'll see is a next generation DCC that will be backwards compatible with current DCC, and the current technology will fade away. DC will more than likely survive past that point. It makes no sense for an industry to be based on technology designed when 8 bit processors ruled the day. Even standard sound decoders have substantially more computing power than both Digitrax and NCE's best system. I had opened both up and they both run off of 8 bit processors with very little memory.
When you think about it DC will probably outlive DCC. DCC has pretty much maxed out on capability. I think what we'll see is a next generation DCC that will be backwards compatible with current DCC, and the current technology will fade away. DC will more than likely survive past that point. It makes no sense for an industry to be based on technology designed when 8 bit processors ruled the day. Even standard sound decoders have substantially more computing power than both Digitrax and NCE's best system. I had opened both up and they both run off of 8 bit processors with very little memory.
My thoughts exactly - well sort of. DCC has some advantages for some applications and the reasons for chosing or not have been widely discussed on here, it is a personal choice depending on your goals.
But I do suspect this technolgy has just gotten started. I joke about a lot of tech stuff that I have no use for by saying "I'll just wait for the Star Trek version". I don't own an Ipod, my cell phone does not take pictures or get on the net, I've never sent a text measage and my house does not have a programable thermostat.
But I designed and installed some of the first industrial "program logic controllers" for industrial otor/process controls back in the 80's. My house has home automation (for important stuff, not messing with the heat settings) and I have designed dozens of top quality hifi speaker systems and lots of industrial control systems, digital and analog.
IF I ever put little "decoder brains" in my locos, I want them to also be direct radio receivers, taking the control signal off the rails and reducing the under layout infrastructure now common on larger DCC layouts.
Until and unless such advancements come and make a suitable impression, I will stay with my radio DC throttles and MZL advanced cab control.
But what do I know, i'm just a hick with a pickup, some guns and some trains without brains.
Although the percentages may shrink over time, I personally think DC will always be around for the modeler. In it's most basic form, DC is very simple; in other ways it can be quite complicated. DCC is very much like that, too. Either way you can put as much or as little as you want into the hobby - albeit from a financial, time, educational, and/or social standpoint.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Within the past two years, I'm pretty sure I've visitied just about every hobby shop in Indiana and many other shops in the surrounding states of MI, IL,and OH. A corporate owned hobby chain with a location in Indy has as inventory of about 75% DCC and Sound. The other roughly two dozen shops I've been in have about 75% DC.
I think LHS' cater to their customers, so each experience may differ.
As a trend, yes, DC is disappearing, but slowly. For instance, as others have mentioned, there isn't much need to convert an existing layout to DCC if the current DC layout works just fine now. OTOH, If newbies enter the hobby, they'll probably go straight to DCC since, if you no nothing about DC or DCC, why not just learn the current technology and skip the old school.
However again, a newbie may also want to just get his feet wet and start off with a DC train set. Then, manage to get interested in other aspects of the hobby such as locomotive details, structure building, railroad history, etc, before operating systems become that interesting to him. So his pace of change may be slower, if he changes at all.
How to judge how quickly DC will eventually disappear from hobby shop shelves involves too many factors for my brain to compute. If the manufacturer's fail to support DC, oh well, there are always plenty of people selling off their DC stuff. It will take even longer for the second-hand DC market to dissappear.
Currently during operations sessions, except for one dispatcher, modelers run the trains instead of the layout! As strange as it sounds a prototypical aspect that operators have to watch for is collisions! Like prototype locomotive engineers, DCC modelers operating on cub layouts have to be alert.
I don't think DC will disappear, but imho DCC will become much more popular as the technically sharp 20- something modelers mature into the 30-40 something generation. DCC and DCC-Sound will be the norm for many of them.
Personally, after having tried DCC and DCC-sound, there is no way I'd want a DC cab control layout.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
Several of us have already answered this question - I'm rebuilding and staying DC.
To follow up on the comments of a few others, Bachmann has the perfect strategy, offer DCC with sound for that group, and offer DCC dual mode at a price so low DC modelers are not put off, AND, they include the parts and instructions to remove the decoder.
I sell my surplus Bachmann decoders on Ebay, I don't ask much, but I don't pay much. They sell like hot cakes.
It would be a wise move for all of these manufacturers to follow.
da_kraut I am talking about the layouts that are constructed more recently be it a 4 by 8 layout or larger....
I am talking about the layouts that are constructed more recently be it a 4 by 8 layout or larger....
My current layout, which was started this fall, is DC. This is a small test layout, but its larger successor(s) will likely by DC as well.
....At another table was a gentleman that builds layouts for people and he too tells his clients to go straight into DCC.....
I would expect that from a custom layout builder. His clients are willing to spend more $$ on their layouts than most of us. And unless he has an unusual contract provision to use customer's pre-existing DC equipment, there would be little reason not to push his clients into DCC.
....Do you see DC loco's except for the cheapest most basic train sets disappearing from the shelves at the LHS?....
Yes, I do. In general, the RTR locomotive format has very little reason to remain DC. The installation of a DCC decoder adds perhaps $5 (for non-sound) and perhaps $40 for Tsunami to the manufacturer. The customer perceives the DCC-equipped model as adding extra value for the extra $100 retail for sound, or the customer perceives the DCC-equipped model as keeping up with the times and the competition. Either way, not having the decoder installed is seen as a detriment by most. Especially since present day DCC decoders run adequately on DC. Those DC customers who don't want decoders interfering with the locomotive performance know exactly what they want, and are usually willing to order their choice, or remove the decoder on their own. After all, the manufacturer of RTR needs the initial out-of-the-box experience for the average Joe to be good to get repeat customers - and little else matters.
Personally, since I already own and understand DC equipment, and am on a limited hobby budget until my kids finish college (8 years), DCC doesn't offer enough return on my hobby dollars. If I had a larger, multi-operator layout or was buying sound-equipped RTR locomotives, I might be of a different opinion. I do reserve the right to change my mind in the future, and have explored the real costs of getting the DCC setup I want. For the present, there are other aspects of the layout that have a higher priority for my hobby dollars. And I am content with that decision.
Fred W