Smith SR,
Respectfully, if you had been following this conversation, or if you were familiar with me as a moderately active contributor to this forum, you would know, as as I explained earlier in this thread, I do not care for on board sound, and do not have any sound equipped locos, nor do I want any.
To fill you in briefly, I have a background in HiFi speaker design and find on board sound in small scales like HO to be of too poor a sound quality for my tastes.
But I do have plans for horns and whistles at crossing on my layout - layout based sound triggered by the same detector that will flash the lights and lower the gates.
What is a modern phone? No I don't have a smart phone, I don't send text messages, I don't take pictures with my phone and send them to people. That too is money I don't want to spend for things I don't need. But I wrote the programing for some of the first Programmable Logic Controllers put to use in industrial control back in the early 1980's.
I love the Blue Tooth and navigation in the dash of my new FLEX, and my home has had home automation for the last 16 years.
Are you volunteering to come over and speed match all 135 of my locos if I switch to DCC? Most of them run fine MU'ed together now without all that fuss.
I model the 50's, no ditch lights, or other fancy lighting. In fact, in the 50's most roads were just beginning to run with headlights always on - that's how we run here on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL. My DC trottles light the headlight to full brightness before the loco moves - don't need DCC for that.
And my grand children, 2 and 7, run my trains with my Aristo Train Engineer wireless radio throttles - so what?
And the truth is, I am not alone. Even on this forum, where we expect more tech savvy people, every informal survey on sound and DCC has resulted in fairly balanced results with DCC usage and interest in sound at only about 60% at the highest - that still a lot of people with DC who are not interested in sound.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Rich, When I run my layout by my self, it is much like the set up dougless has as well. I know my posts can be lengthy, but if you read what I write, I have said many times if my layout design and goals were different, I could easily choose DCC.
Rich,
When I run my layout by my self, it is much like the set up dougless has as well.
I know my posts can be lengthy, but if you read what I write, I have said many times if my layout design and goals were different, I could easily choose DCC.
Sheldon, as you know, I admire your layout, your operating system, and your skills.
And, I do read your posts in their entirety.
As Doughless noted, I am speaking mostly tongue in cheek on this whole matter.
But, I will say this. Most long time DC users have little motivation to convert to DCC and that is understandable. The OP has been away from the hobby for 6 years but has kept his old equipment so he may want to remain as a DC operator too. But, anybody new to the hobby ought to seriously consider DCC because the learning curve is far less challenging and DCC has greater flexibility.
Rich
Alton Junction
ATLANTIC CENTRAL BRAKIE SpaceMouseOkay, I confess. I usually try to steer newbies to start with DCC because I think in most ways it is better. Maybe it would be best to steer them toward smooth track work,correct wheel gauge and coupler height? DCC can come later after they learn the most important steps after all what good is DCC or even DC if the newbie is frustrated from having constant derailments and break in twos? The way I see it there's a time and place for everything. Starting right out with DCC is OK if you are tech savvy, but there is a lot of stuff to learn. Question is, if you are new, how big a layout are you building right off? How many trains are you trying to run? One loop on a 4x8 does not need DCC any way, any how.
BRAKIE SpaceMouseOkay, I confess. I usually try to steer newbies to start with DCC because I think in most ways it is better. Maybe it would be best to steer them toward smooth track work,correct wheel gauge and coupler height? DCC can come later after they learn the most important steps after all what good is DCC or even DC if the newbie is frustrated from having constant derailments and break in twos? The way I see it there's a time and place for everything.
SpaceMouseOkay, I confess. I usually try to steer newbies to start with DCC because I think in most ways it is better.
Maybe it would be best to steer them toward smooth track work,correct wheel gauge and coupler height?
DCC can come later after they learn the most important steps after all what good is DCC or even DC if the newbie is frustrated from having constant derailments and break in twos?
The way I see it there's a time and place for everything.
Starting right out with DCC is OK if you are tech savvy, but there is a lot of stuff to learn.
Question is, if you are new, how big a layout are you building right off?
How many trains are you trying to run? One loop on a 4x8 does not need DCC any way, any how.
Being tech savvy has nothing to do with starting out with DCC control. Have you seen a modern phone? My 4 year old operates her train with either the nce power cab, or my cell phone.
Layout size has nothing to do with DCC, although the larger and more complex you make a railroad, the better and easier the choice to use DCC becomes. Ask a good club.
Shape and dimensions(oval) are not parameters for deciding to control locomotives with DCC either.
We're controlling locomotives, consisting them by road number, controlling a vast selection of lighting possibilities, and operating sounds on demand.
How do you blow the horn on your locomotive at a crossing on a layout?
I use the Horn button.
I have to agree with Larry, a foundation in basics is the best place to start in any new activity. Starting right out with DCC is OK if you are tech savvy, but there is a lot of stuff to learn.
And why buy some entry level DCC system just to replace it latter? I realize some of them are not that expensive, but they are generally more than a simple DC power pack - which can always serve other uses after you progress to DCC - if it turns out to be what you want.
maxman I am familiar with the "toggle flipping" issue. I belong to a club that was designed/built 40+ years ago. ... So, as you can imagine, there was a lot of toggle flipping going on while the operator was trying to move trains through his area of responsibility. ...
I am familiar with the "toggle flipping" issue. I belong to a club that was designed/built 40+ years ago. ...
So, as you can imagine, there was a lot of toggle flipping going on while the operator was trying to move trains through his area of responsibility. ...
Thanks again Maxman...
I knew that the toggle flipping would be an issue with a club layout, but thanks for providing the clearer explanation.
I need to condense your situation down to figure out how it applied to more home-based layouts...down the road.
I use the 4 digit road number to assign the "commander" throttle to each of my locos. Its easy enough, no hassle.
Thanks
- Douglas
richhotrain Doughless richhotrain The more I think about it, the less I understand why everyone is not using DCC. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. It is expensive, it requires DC users to convert their locos, some people don't care or want to make the switch, blah, blah, blah. But the fact of the matter is that it is the ultimate way to run multiple locos simultaneously, realistic sound is available and fantastic (turn it off if you don't want to hear it), and, let's face it, it is cool. I don't want to hear any arguments to the contrary. Rich Hey Rich, tongue-in-cheek aside... My layout operates like this, and see what you think... Doughless, you make a good case for DC. I will modify my thinking. Rich
Doughless richhotrain The more I think about it, the less I understand why everyone is not using DCC. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. It is expensive, it requires DC users to convert their locos, some people don't care or want to make the switch, blah, blah, blah. But the fact of the matter is that it is the ultimate way to run multiple locos simultaneously, realistic sound is available and fantastic (turn it off if you don't want to hear it), and, let's face it, it is cool. I don't want to hear any arguments to the contrary. Rich Hey Rich, tongue-in-cheek aside... My layout operates like this, and see what you think...
richhotrain The more I think about it, the less I understand why everyone is not using DCC. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. It is expensive, it requires DC users to convert their locos, some people don't care or want to make the switch, blah, blah, blah. But the fact of the matter is that it is the ultimate way to run multiple locos simultaneously, realistic sound is available and fantastic (turn it off if you don't want to hear it), and, let's face it, it is cool. I don't want to hear any arguments to the contrary. Rich
The more I think about it, the less I understand why everyone is not using DCC.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. It is expensive, it requires DC users to convert their locos, some people don't care or want to make the switch, blah, blah, blah.
But the fact of the matter is that it is the ultimate way to run multiple locos simultaneously, realistic sound is available and fantastic (turn it off if you don't want to hear it), and, let's face it, it is cool.
I don't want to hear any arguments to the contrary.
Hey Rich, tongue-in-cheek aside...
My layout operates like this, and see what you think...
Doughless, you make a good case for DC. I will modify my thinking.
I can assign all track sections (blocks) I plan to use to one throttle and just walk around with my Aristo wireless throttle. If a loco is pulled into a siding, and the turnout thrown to trap it there, the power is automatically cut off by contacts on the turnout.
And like Doughless, when I'm alone I only run one train at a time - or, maybe I put one on a loop and let it run around the mainline while I switdh the yard. The whole mainline can be set to one thrttle and left that way for display running.
On of my big objections to DCC is speed matching. I run lots of 3-4 unit diesels, mostly matched sets, and I have duplicates of those matched sets - example three complete ABBA sets of Proto FA's. They all run fine together out of the box on DC. They also run with most all my other B-B Proto diesels. If I add DCC, and don't use identical decoders all those locos, they will likely require speed matching. A lot of work to speed match 35 locos that already run fine together.
Yeah right...you probably didn't even read the whole thing...
Not making a case...just explaining I'm not stupid..at least trying.
Doughless I'm still trying to figure out how they operated their dc layout with all of the "toggle flipping" that drove them nuts. I find that flipping one toggle to assign the throttle to one of my locos by controlling the track is easier than pushing six small buttons on the dcc commander to assign the throttle to control the train. That's why I only use the dcc system to operate the sound locomotives and then put the layout in DC mode to use Aristo Craft throttle and toggles when I want to operate the nonsound locos. Thanks again for the post. I was preparing to explain my layout but you've saved me the effort.
I'm still trying to figure out how they operated their dc layout with all of the "toggle flipping" that drove them nuts.
I find that flipping one toggle to assign the throttle to one of my locos by controlling the track is easier than pushing six small buttons on the dcc commander to assign the throttle to control the train. That's why I only use the dcc system to operate the sound locomotives and then put the layout in DC mode to use Aristo Craft throttle and toggles when I want to operate the nonsound locos.
Thanks again for the post. I was preparing to explain my layout but you've saved me the effort.
First, you are welcome. If what I posted even remotely described your railroad I guarantee it was purely accidental.
I'm not sure what you mean about the 6 small buttons on the commander. However, for most all DCC systems all one needs to do to operate a loco is just enter the loco number into the controller. Four button pushes max, less if the loco has a 1, 2, or 3 digit number.
I am familiar with the "toggle flipping" issue. I belong to a club that was designed/built 40+ years ago. The track plan was point to point. We operated that with 9 or 10 control panels located around the railroad, so each operator (or tower operator) was responsible for a section of the railroad. The basic track plan for each panel consisted of a passing siding with an additional track segment or two at either end of the siding. Each control panel had a transformer and controller. Because it was originally thought that maybe more than one operator might want to operate from the panel, there were two sockets for the handheld controllers. Each socket fed to a DPDT toggle, and from there was a run of wire to each block or electrical section. Because there needed to be a way to get a train out of town and over to where the next guy could pick it up, we needed to have joint blocks where operator A could stop the train by shutting off the block until operator B was ready to run it. This allowed operator A to go about his business of either moving the train he had in the siding out the other direction, or bringing in another train in the same direction. And you could not walk around with the train without plugging/umplugging the controller.
So, as you can imagine, there was a lot of toggle flipping going on while the operator was trying to move trains through his area of responsibility. In addition, there was always some more anxiety as the operator tried to remember which direction to set his controller, since a portion of the railroad folded back on itself and east and west swapped sides while the operator stood in one place.
Then someone came along and suggested DCC. After some experimentation, the railroad was converted. We were able to plug the DCC track power into the same sockets where the DC controllers had been. Now all the block toggles are left on. We have eliminated the transformers. The operator does not need to worry about east and west. All he has to know is which way is forward which most, but not all, of the members can understand.
So basically DCC works for us. I'm sure that DC systems can be set up to do the same thing, and if that works for others I'm not about to try to convince them to do otherwise. However, I am of the opinion that those who have the more complicated DC systems have obviously designed/constructed/built those systems to satisfy their own needs. But in a club environment that knowledge leaves when that member does, leaving everyone else sort of out on a limb. Personally, I find it a lot easier to follow things when all I'm dealing with are the two wires. To each, their own.
A 35 x13 J shaped shelf layout with two switching districts at each end and turnback loops at each end, but they are irrelevant for operations. There are three locos.
Its a single block with the exception of one hidden staging track and parking spur (part of a small yard) at one end, and two parking tracks at the other end (covered by an engine house, so we can call it servicing).
The staging and three spurs have on/off toggles. Here is how it operates in dc (and dcc/sound):
Turn on the correct power strip supplying power to the dc power pack/Aristocraft throttle or the dcc/sound commander/throttle (its NCE). If you pick the wrong one, no biggie, all of the dcc locos are dual mode.
Choose the locomotive you want to run by flipping one toggle on , the rest are already off. (in dcc/sound all toggles are on and you assign throttle to the loco by entering road number address)
You are now connected and ready to run on the layout.
Use loco to build train, run 40 feet to the other district or interchange, switch industries, pick up empties, run back from where you came and park to get it out of the way. Flip toggle off. Flip toggle on to the staging track (or assign loco by entering its 4 digit number) Take the quarry train out of staging and run it 40 feet to the other district's load out track (a loop for continuous running) . If you would have not parked the other loco, you would have run into it. Swap out empties, run back 40 feet to staging. Flip toggle off. Flip toggle on to other loco at engine house (or assign its address) and run more cars to the districts and switch out cars. You don't have to run back to the engine house each time since there is a parking area at the other yard. You can vary the plan.
An important point: No matter how you operate, you do need to park the locos TO GET THEM OUT OF THE WAY, not because you need to shut off the track. You need to park the locos on the parking tracks for dcc too.
Running 40 feet at 20 mph. nonditchlight, HO speed, it takes quite a while to do all of this depending upon what industries are switched. I don't have a car-ordering or switch list method yet.
How would it be easier if I used DCC for motor control of the nonsound locos instead of the Aritso Craft wireless throttle? The time spent toggling, assigning the short parking track to the DC throttle, is the same time spent punching in the road number to assign the DCC throttle.
Ops on my layout takes 3 locos. Because I like locos, I have at least 50. All arranged in sets of three by era, paint scheme, model, a variety of reasons. Gensets, and MP15's are the most common. RS-27's, B23-7s, C420, MP15's are the sound locos. I have about 8 of those.
Even though the ops are simple, I enjoy swapping out the sets and get a variety of trains. Running mu'ed Atlas S-1's are one of my favorites. They run just fine together on DC. I also use the loops for continuous running when at the workbench.
If I used the dcc system for the nonsound locos, I would have to install decoders into about 50 of them. Can anybody see a benefit to me for doing that?
Every layout is unique. There are reasons we make our choices.
ATLANTIC CENTRALJust as one example, you may not be able to fathom it, but on my DC layout, separate yard crews can work the opposite ends of my double ended 8 track yard and work together with out "throwing any block toggles". How you ask? turnout position does all the toggle flipping for you.
Thanks. I always enjoy learning new things. (I knew I was in trouble when I said I couldn't fathom how.)
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And way cheaper than 135 decoders.
I always wondered about this in his layout--that and providing 35 throttles - and recently he upgraded all to duplex.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
richhotrain BRAKIE richhotrain The more I think about it, the less I understand why everyone is not using DCC. Rich Rich,I wonder where I stand in this DC/DCC mess..I use the DCC mode on my Tech 6 for operating my Bachmann DCC/sound equipped S4 and found my Bachmann 70 Tonner operates better in DCC mode after adjusting some CV settings. Now,I taint afraid of setting DCC settings nor adjusting the acceleration and deceleration momentum setting in the DC mode along with the start and top volt settings. However,I don't see any reasonable need for full DCC operation. ahh, Larry, the very fact that you mess with DCC at all makes you a good guy and a wise man, Rich
BRAKIE richhotrain The more I think about it, the less I understand why everyone is not using DCC. Rich Rich,I wonder where I stand in this DC/DCC mess..I use the DCC mode on my Tech 6 for operating my Bachmann DCC/sound equipped S4 and found my Bachmann 70 Tonner operates better in DCC mode after adjusting some CV settings. Now,I taint afraid of setting DCC settings nor adjusting the acceleration and deceleration momentum setting in the DC mode along with the start and top volt settings. However,I don't see any reasonable need for full DCC operation.
richhotrain The more I think about it, the less I understand why everyone is not using DCC. Rich
Rich,I wonder where I stand in this DC/DCC mess..I use the DCC mode on my Tech 6 for operating my Bachmann DCC/sound equipped S4 and found my Bachmann 70 Tonner operates better in DCC mode after adjusting some CV settings.
Now,I taint afraid of setting DCC settings nor adjusting the acceleration and deceleration momentum setting in the DC mode along with the start and top volt settings.
However,I don't see any reasonable need for full DCC operation.
ahh, Larry, the very fact that you mess with DCC at all makes you a good guy and a wise man,
I use DCC all the time on the layouts of others in our group, even helped build and wire a few of those layouts, and designed one of them.
I just don't have any DCC at home - matter of fact, I just removed the sound decoder from a BLI Pacific, think I will give it one of the guys in the group.
My first experience in operating was on huge layout--4 decks in a 75 x 30 room. Dispatching was done by a computer with two monitors in a separate room. My favorite job that day was running a switcher in a yard as an subordinate to the switcher run by the yard master. I can't fathom that being possible with DC.
Just as one example, you may not be able to fathom it, but on my DC layout, separate yard crews can work the opposite ends of my double ended 8 track yard and work together with out "throwing any block toggles". How you ask? turnout position does all the toggle flipping for you.
The yard is two large blocks - east and west - but individual tracks are powered based on turnout position. And, if the east end ladder is routed to track 3 for example, and the west end has ladder is not routed to track three, the east end has complete control of track three.
Any track not routed is dead and can park a loco. If both ladders are routed to the same track, the track divides in half with a buffer zone in the middle automatically. To run all the way through the yard, both ladders get assigned to the same throttle - push one or two lighted push buttons, depending on previous status.
All done with a simple wiring scheme published in MR about 35 years ago. And way cheaper than 135 decoders.
SpaceMouse"Should I go DC or DCC?" they have every right to my opinion and what it's worth.
Absolutely! I fully agree..A newbie should be able to make a wise decision based on the knowledge gain through his question..The answers should be unbiased and based on the modeler's specific needs..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
maxman Doughless I guess I'm not seeing the problems that dcc really solves in a realistic operating situation, perhaps since I'm not experiencing many of those problems in the first place. A different operating system wouldn't solve many issues with my layout, or many other layouts I would be interested in. As an example, my long shelf switching track plan requires a bus line, feeders for each spur and siding, and gaps cut into the track for seasonal expansion, regardless of how I operate it. Given that the work has to be done anyway, avoiding having to wire in a few toggles at strategic points wouldn't be a motive for deciding on which operating system to choose. Length of the layout creates that wiring scheme, nothing else. And which ever system I chose, I would already need more than "only two wires for dcc". As would about every layout that has a siding or a spur, I think. When someone claims to have had an epiphany when they replaced "toggle flipping" with button pushing to "control the trains and not the track" what exactly are they doing with their layout in the first place? I thought I knew but perhaps I don't. I don't know what your track plan looks like so I will have to make some assumptions for my comments. And for discussion purposes, the comments assume some average size model railroad. The business of only needing two wires is probably confusing. What they mean is that you have a pair of bus wires that starts out from the command station and runs around your railroad from one end to the other. Tapping off these bus wires are feeder wires that go to all your sections of track like sidings and spurs. On your switching layout if you intend to be a solo operator and only have one loco in service, you would basically have the same situation, except instead of the command station you would have the wires start at your power supply. Now if you intend to have the ability to operate more than one loco but have it parked when not in use, then you need toggle switches either in a central control panel or along the length of the railroad so that you can shut off sections of the railroad. You do not need these toggle switches with DCC. If you have an operational situation where the incoming loco is trapped, such as when a passenger loco pulls into a stub track and a switcher is required to remove the cars so the loco can escape, you must break the stub track into two blocks so that you can keep the passenger loco stopped while the switcher does its work. With DCC, this additional block is not necessary. If you have some engine service tracks where you might have several locos in for fueling, you need to break up all the tracks into block sections with toggle switches so that you can park them. With DCC, these additional blocks/toggles are not required. I'm sure I could think of some more examples if I gave it some more thought. Regarding the "epiphany" thing, I'm not sure what that is but there is probably some medication to cure it. But when they say that they are controlling the trains, not the track, I think what they mean is that with DCC you are (pretending to be) the engineer. So yes, it is easier to have cornfield meets and run through turnouts the wrong way. It is hard to do this with DC because you have the polarity thing to help you out, except when you run one train into the back of another. But doesn't the ability to run the locos the wrong way if one is not paying attention introduce the human element and make things more prototypical?
Doughless I guess I'm not seeing the problems that dcc really solves in a realistic operating situation, perhaps since I'm not experiencing many of those problems in the first place. A different operating system wouldn't solve many issues with my layout, or many other layouts I would be interested in. As an example, my long shelf switching track plan requires a bus line, feeders for each spur and siding, and gaps cut into the track for seasonal expansion, regardless of how I operate it. Given that the work has to be done anyway, avoiding having to wire in a few toggles at strategic points wouldn't be a motive for deciding on which operating system to choose. Length of the layout creates that wiring scheme, nothing else. And which ever system I chose, I would already need more than "only two wires for dcc". As would about every layout that has a siding or a spur, I think. When someone claims to have had an epiphany when they replaced "toggle flipping" with button pushing to "control the trains and not the track" what exactly are they doing with their layout in the first place? I thought I knew but perhaps I don't.
I guess I'm not seeing the problems that dcc really solves in a realistic operating situation, perhaps since I'm not experiencing many of those problems in the first place. A different operating system wouldn't solve many issues with my layout, or many other layouts I would be interested in.
As an example, my long shelf switching track plan requires a bus line, feeders for each spur and siding, and gaps cut into the track for seasonal expansion, regardless of how I operate it. Given that the work has to be done anyway, avoiding having to wire in a few toggles at strategic points wouldn't be a motive for deciding on which operating system to choose.
Length of the layout creates that wiring scheme, nothing else. And which ever system I chose, I would already need more than "only two wires for dcc". As would about every layout that has a siding or a spur, I think.
When someone claims to have had an epiphany when they replaced "toggle flipping" with button pushing to "control the trains and not the track" what exactly are they doing with their layout in the first place? I thought I knew but perhaps I don't.
I don't know what your track plan looks like so I will have to make some assumptions for my comments. And for discussion purposes, the comments assume some average size model railroad.
The business of only needing two wires is probably confusing. What they mean is that you have a pair of bus wires that starts out from the command station and runs around your railroad from one end to the other. Tapping off these bus wires are feeder wires that go to all your sections of track like sidings and spurs. On your switching layout if you intend to be a solo operator and only have one loco in service, you would basically have the same situation, except instead of the command station you would have the wires start at your power supply.
Now if you intend to have the ability to operate more than one loco but have it parked when not in use, then you need toggle switches either in a central control panel or along the length of the railroad so that you can shut off sections of the railroad. You do not need these toggle switches with DCC.
If you have an operational situation where the incoming loco is trapped, such as when a passenger loco pulls into a stub track and a switcher is required to remove the cars so the loco can escape, you must break the stub track into two blocks so that you can keep the passenger loco stopped while the switcher does its work. With DCC, this additional block is not necessary.
If you have some engine service tracks where you might have several locos in for fueling, you need to break up all the tracks into block sections with toggle switches so that you can park them. With DCC, these additional blocks/toggles are not required.
I'm sure I could think of some more examples if I gave it some more thought.
Regarding the "epiphany" thing, I'm not sure what that is but there is probably some medication to cure it. But when they say that they are controlling the trains, not the track, I think what they mean is that with DCC you are (pretending to be) the engineer. So yes, it is easier to have cornfield meets and run through turnouts the wrong way. It is hard to do this with DC because you have the polarity thing to help you out, except when you run one train into the back of another. But doesn't the ability to run the locos the wrong way if one is not paying attention introduce the human element and make things more prototypical?
Maxman
Thank you for your long explanation. It explains exactly what I've done with my layout (except I don't need a block to escape a loco). I will add that I have also cut gaps into the rails for expansion along the mainline. I do shut off power to the loco storage tracks and the staging track, but I don't really consider those "blocks" in an operating sense.
Exept the toggles, all of the wiring would have had to have been installed if I went DCC from the start; bus line, feeders, physical gaps in the main. Since I had to branch a feeder off to each track anyway, hooking up a few toggles was easy peasy mac and cheesy.
There was hardly any more effort to do the wiring for the power on/off toggles to control the track, than if I just wired it as a DCC layout from the start.
I will have to disagree with you, I think in virtually all instances, the vocal dcc proponents mean only two wires when they say "only two wires".
BRAKIE Maybe it would be best to steer them toward smooth track work,correct wheel gauge and coupler height? DCC can come later after they learn the most important steps after all what good is DCC or even DC if the newbie is frustrated from having constant derailments and break in twos? The way I see it there's a time and place for everything.
I do. Look I don't get on a soap box and preach DCC to all who will listen. But if a newbie posts a question "Should I go DC or DCC?" they have every right to my opinion and what it's worth.
UP 4-12-2The real benefits of DCC are for those having large layouts and/or running multiple engines in a consist. So for the benefit of a relatively small number of people, compared to the total numbers in the hobby, the manufacturers and the "elite" model railroaders who review their products have foisted the added cost and complexity on everyone else they possibly can--to the point that now some manufacturers no longer offer a plain DC engine at all, on the latest product runs. The marketing was excellent--it worked!
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement. What constitutes my "railroad" is basically an around the walls 9 X 17 foot loop. I like to have more than one engine, but not necessarily trains, on the track. I use DCC because I didn't want to deal with building a control panel, especially since the track plan is not cast in stone, nor having to have toggle switches here and there to isolate the non-running locos. I just find it easier using DCC to accomplish what I want to have done.
Concerning the manufacturers, I don't know how they decide to make what they make. I assume that they are business people and do some sort of research. You imply that there are financially stupid model railroaders who flock to these products like mindless lemmings, buying products they don't really need and therefore keeping some vicious manufacturing cycle going. I don't really believe this. I think we are smarter than that, and will walk away from products we don't want. And when those products start to pile up on the shelves, then the manufacturers will make something different. So time will tell.
Controlling trains has always been something where there has been innovation. First trains were hand powered on the floor. Then came, in no particular order, windup, car battery powered, AC, DC, and DCC. I think the latest innovation is the battery-powered stuff that I have been reading about. I suppose that I could state, subject to being flamed, that I think this mode of operation is attractive to model railroaders who can't manage to keep their track clean, and haven't figured out how to wire a frog. It is interesting to me that some of the most fervent anti-DCC folks seem to be looking forward to this new technology. Anyway, just as DC users see no need for DCC, I see no need for whatever this new technology is.
Just my pennies worth.
Actually, I have had a wonderful time running HO brass models with just a few friends on a regular basis in an informal "club" setting.
It was all plain DC and we had a ball. The mainline was four scale miles long--we had plenty of time to get one train out of the way if needed--you could see the entire layout across the whole attic.
Fifty car freight trains, including 15 or 20 heavy brass freight cars, on 3% grades at wide radius, behind large brass articulated steam power--it was the most fun I've ever had in the hobby.
There was no DCC at all, and we double-headed Overland Models steamers, with others of the same model. We also had very few issues mixing different Overland diesels together as long as they all had the tower gear drive.
John
I can't believe I just read through all of this.
Okay, I confess. I usually try to steer newbies to start with DCC because I think in most ways it is better. So blame me if you want for the perception that people push DCC. It's much easier if you start with it and don't have to "convert." In terms of what you can do with trains as you grow in the hobby, I think DCC is easier all the way around. My first experience in operating was on huge layout--4 decks in a 75 x 30 room. Dispatching was done by a computer with two monitors in a separate room. My favorite job that day was running a switcher in a yard as an subordinate to the switcher run by the yard master. I can't fathom that being possible with DC. From that I realized that operations is a team sport. I want my friends to be able to run trains with me, and at the same time, I want to be able to hand my non-operating friends a throttle and say, that makes it go, that one makes it change directions, and if you want to toot the horn push right there. On the other hand, if you've a system that works for you I don't feel the need to convince you my way is better.
That said, I have really no experience "operating" on a layout with DC. All the layouts in which I've participated in ops are DCC. (And BTW, I see no significant advantage of Digitrax, NCE, or MRC over one another--that is if you need fuel to start another war.)
vsmithCan someone educate these guys that sound should ALSO be in scale, namely it should only be loud enough to be audible es the train gets close, passes then gets fainter as it recedes. Its calle the Doppler Effect for a reason, instead we get blaring from all point of a room room size layout CHUG-CHUG-CHUG-WOO-WOOO at volume that can drown out conversations!
I agree..Some times during the week of the county fair I need to step outside to clear my hearing.
A lower volume works wonders and sounds much better.
Off-topic posts deleted.
I don't care how long you guys want to debate a topic none of you will ever change your minds on, but keep it on topic, please.
(And keep it civil -- but I don't really have to tell you guys that, do I? )
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
I can agree 100% about the comments regarding sound, it is very abused by most modelers especially at shows.
Can someone educate these guys that sound should ALSO be in scale, namely it should only be loud enough to be audible es the train gets close, passes then gets fainter as it recedes. Its calle the Doppler Effect for a reason, instead we get blaring from all point of a room room size layout CHUG-CHUG-CHUG-WOO-WOOO at volume that can drown out conversations!
I have NO plans to ever go DCC, I have no reason to. my layout is small switching layout, one track mainline, so multi-train ops isnt a real option. I am very comfortable with good ol' Atlas style controls, should be -been using the darn things since the 70's, and the thought of having to fork out $$$ for decoders and then wire and program my rather large roster just so I could maybe run 2 at the same time just makes no darn sense at all. As for train control I use a Crest Basic Train Engineer R/C throttle control which allows train following operation without surgery to a single engine.
Have fun with your trains
tatans OK guys just what is DC (direct current? ? ) and I really don't want to know what DCC is - - direct current -current? ? I'm sticking with AC and am very happy with it.
OK guys just what is DC (direct current? ? ) and I really don't want to know what DCC is - - direct current -current? ? I'm sticking with AC and am very happy with it.
DC = direct current
DCC = digital command & control
richhotrain But, you know what? The OP suspects rightly. DC users have been left behind by technology. They may not care, but they have been left behind. Rich
But, you know what? The OP suspects rightly. DC users have been left behind by technology. They may not care, but they have been left behind.
No, they have not been left behind by technology, but by financial stupidity. The real benefits of DCC are for those having large layouts and/or running multiple engines in a consist. So for the benefit of a relatively small number of people, compared to the total numbers in the hobby, the manufacturers and the "elite" model railroaders who review their products have foisted the added cost and complexity on everyone else they possibly can--to the point that now some manufacturers no longer offer a plain DC engine at all, on the latest product runs. The marketing was excellent--it worked!
Some of us just simply don't have the need for it and utterly resent having to pay for features we simply don't need. Some of us are on a "budget" of some kind, and would like to be able to afford more freight cars, scenery, or what have you than spend it on decoders we don't even want.
I love my new BLI E units--but I would have loved them much more without the sound and DCC, if they only had the same lights. They are not available that way. That also does not necessarily mean I will pony up for other BLI releases.
Sorry guys, I can't contain myself any longer..............
Who really cares what operating system another modeler uses?
I was on DC for 50 years, and it served me just fine. I went to DCC in 2008, and I love it (thorns and all).
The thing is, it was my choice, my money and time invested, and my learning curve that had to be addressed.
We have a choice - a wonderful thing - and its up to the individual to do what works best for him (or her).
Goodness, everytime I read the "DCC vs DC" threads I keep thinking of the "Ford vs. Chevy" or "Flyer vs. Lionel" discussions of my youth.....................
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Agreed, to a point - Not so much left behind as choosing to stay behind on certain issues - I don't have a smart phone or a tablet, or programmable thermostats either. I don't use a lap top unless I have to, I don't send text messages and I'm not on Facebook. But I love the bluetooth phone and navigation system in the dash of my new car, my house has had home automation for 16 years now, I have a killer surround sound system with Blue Ray, etc. I'm tech savy, but not a tech junky, I pick and choose based on my needs, wants and likes. And again, as I have said repeatedly in thread alone, I'll stick with what I have for two reasons - it meets my needs, and I'm waiting for something better than DCC.
Agreed, to a point - Not so much left behind as choosing to stay behind on certain issues - I don't have a smart phone or a tablet, or programmable thermostats either. I don't use a lap top unless I have to, I don't send text messages and I'm not on Facebook.
But I love the bluetooth phone and navigation system in the dash of my new car, my house has had home automation for 16 years now, I have a killer surround sound system with Blue Ray, etc.
I'm tech savy, but not a tech junky, I pick and choose based on my needs, wants and likes.
And again, as I have said repeatedly in thread alone, I'll stick with what I have for two reasons - it meets my needs, and I'm waiting for something better than DCC.
Sheldon, I am pretty much like you. No smart phone or tablet, no programmable thermostats, no text messages, no Facebook.
As to the layout, the difference for me was that I got into the HO scale side of the hobby back in 2004. I started out, briefly, in DC and then quickly made the jump to DCC. For long time DC users, the advent of DCC was not necessarily a blessing in their view, at least for some of them.
Yet, I will stand by my original statement.
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL Rich, One more note - you answered your own question - and it has already been commented on at great length in the last 12 pages. Many people don't want to run more than one train simultainiously and others only do that with multiple operators for each train, or on seperate loops of track where other systems work just fine. Again - asked and answered. Sheldon LOL Sheldon, I knew that my comment would bring you out swinging. But, you know what? The OP suspects rightly. DC users have been left behind by technology. They may not care, but they have been left behind. And, re-read my post. I didn't ask any questions. Just made a statement. Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Rich, One more note - you answered your own question - and it has already been commented on at great length in the last 12 pages. Many people don't want to run more than one train simultainiously and others only do that with multiple operators for each train, or on seperate loops of track where other systems work just fine. Again - asked and answered. Sheldon
One more note - you answered your own question - and it has already been commented on at great length in the last 12 pages.
Many people don't want to run more than one train simultainiously and others only do that with multiple operators for each train, or on seperate loops of track where other systems work just fine.
Again - asked and answered.
LOL
Sheldon, I knew that my comment would bring you out swinging.
And, re-read my post. I didn't ask any questions. Just made a statement.