Guess what--- mine is still DC with MRC power packs and more blocks controlled by Atlas slide switches than most layouts my size should ever deserve. I am not contrarian by design, just someone who models at a much slower pace than the one that the drumbeat of electronic progress churns along at.
Don H.
As a former CM20 user, I find it interesting how many DC users swear by it. Too bad they're no longer made. It made walkaround control easy and affordable for the masses, asn was a darn good throttle to boot. I found mine were still quite appreciated on used market when it came time to part with them.
I do find DCC works for me for several reason, some of which I'm sure Sheldon has DC answers for. But based on past discussions, I suspect they're more like walkaround control was before the CM20, sorta mysterious to the average hobbiest and thus unlikely to be pursued. For technology, good, bad or indifferent, to be widely accepted requires a low bar to entry and easy and cheap access to the components that make it happen. There's the mission to the moon and the VW Beetle, both built during the 60s. The Saturn/Apollo vehcile was impressive and could do a lot of cool stuff on way less memory than is in your cellphone these days. But it was the VW that you saw everywhere, not just on TV or on the NASA tour.
So my list of things I find DCC work better for me (which doesn't mean they're better, just for me )
Sound - Yeah, it works on DC, I got my first Blackstones right before the DCC conversion. They were inspiring (once again, they worked for me, I understand some folks just don't buy it -- literally), but when I discovered all the many more cool things they could do on DCC, well, that was the last straw. The best part is DDE, which basically dials the motor load into the sound card, so it really sound like it digs in at the bottom of the grades and works hard to the top.
Consisting -- Well, 12 volts of brute force will smooth out lots of combinations of motive power . On the other hand, speed matching isn't as hard as it seems, unless you're OCD...OK, scratch that, I'm talking to a bunch of model rails, so let's just say, you don't need to try too hard, close enough usually works.
Atmosphere -- almost the same as sound, but here taken together rather than as individual locos, a sound landscape, if you will. Having a yard with different locos scattered around, sounding good as they wait for work, with lighting adjusted to fit their state and position in relation to the main and being part of a train by the rulebook (not that I generally have much use for rulebooks.) Then there's whistling for crossings, ringing the bell as a passenger train departs or ither trains get underway in yards, etc
Lighting -- I don't solder leads on SMD LEDs and make them into marker lamps like some of the more nimble and creative narrowgauge friends I've made over the years. But I do like to fiddle with the lights.
Control of Operating Characteristics -- With DC, it's all about the hardware and investing in that makes things better, but often it's neother cheap nor off the shelf. DCC isn't cheap, but is mostly off the shelf. And it's built right into the decoders and command stations. You don't need any special skills to implement it, other than doing a little reading and ounching some buttons. Sure, you can still do the same things as in DC that are more hardware-centric and a lousy loco on DC will still run lousy on DCC. But DCC adds a layer of interesting flexibility to getting what you want out of your motive power that's very accesible to Joe Average.
Attractiveness for Younger Modelers -- DC is pretty simple stuff for the basics, after that a steep learning curve that most kids get bored with -- or at least I did in my coursework as an electronics tech. And the digital stuff sounded even more intimidating at my advanced age. So I decided to become a historian...what's this got to do with model railroading? Well in messing around with DCC, I've found something that is both accessible and challenging at the same time. The middle part is there where you can still hop the train and start learning, even though it left the station some time ago. Yes, I got into DCC and figured it out, because there is a learning curve, but one I found engaging. Just this week, I got JMRI (Jave Model Railroad Interchange..or Interface.. or I can't rememeber that's why acronyms are handy ) going to control the layout. What you can do with that is amazing. What I did with it was take an iPad and two old iPhones, stirred in $50 worth of wiring and software and I suddenly have 3 new wireless throttles available to me. That's good news, because I was trying to figure out where to come up with the $150+ for a new radio throttle. I like this kind of new math.
Not to say that any or all of these are reason to switch to DCC, just saying that even in DC you can fiddle with this stuff if it does something you want. Of course, you can do that with DC, too, but it's often a case where some things overlap in terms of having solutions in both DC and DCC. There's no reason not to give it a try if you have a $200 budget except lack of desire. And that's cool too. My layout operated well enough on DC, but I've found some real enjoyment that is either unavailable or not easily accessible to me personally in DC by learning about DCC. 60 or so converted locos later, I enjoy it a lot and it wasn't nearly as hard as I thought it could be.
Interestingly, as was mentioned earlier, good DC wiring practices like avoiding the shortcut of common rail wiring, etc, make conversion a snap. Just don't have one on one side of a gap and the other one the other siee. It's too easy to bridge that gap with a wheel and let the smoke out. Better to switch the whole layout over as Frank does. There's plenty of room for both DC and DCC in this hobby and many people successfully enjoy both, often because they visit DC layouts to opoerate, even if they no longer do at home. Dual mode decoders have made that easier, but not perfect. Best to have a few good DC engines for the travel time, if needed.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
mlehman Not to say that any or all of these are reason to switch to DCC, just saying that even in DC you can fiddle with this stuff if it does something you want. Of course, you can do that with DC, too, but it's often a case where some things overlap in terms of having solutions in both DC and DCC. There's no reason not to give it a try if you have a $200 budget except lack of desire.
Not to say that any or all of these are reason to switch to DCC, just saying that even in DC you can fiddle with this stuff if it does something you want. Of course, you can do that with DC, too, but it's often a case where some things overlap in terms of having solutions in both DC and DCC. There's no reason not to give it a try if you have a $200 budget except lack of desire.
It takes a lot more than $200.
I dunno. A NCE PowerCab and a decoder or two to go with might even leave you some change out of that $200. Obviously, if your roundhouse is full, the cost will be corresondingly higher. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. But it's something that can be spread out over time. If you're doing your own installs, time is as important as money, so it could take awhile. In my case, it was close to a year and I still had a few stragglers.
I don't think anyone can settle on whether DCC or DC is right for someone else. That person simply needs to make a game effort to understand how either could work for them. Part of that is learning about how each one does things. Many both do, just different implementations. Others end up being very different or really not comparable. Whether any are important one way or another, to understand why you need at least a minimum set of knowledge about both. As much as Sheldon seems to be an advocate for DC, for instance, he also know his way around DCC. And if you take the average DCC devotee, they're almost certain to know a little about DC. Heck, some of them know a lot about DC or, if they're like me, they used to know a lot and just can't remember it all that much any more.
Doughless Not policing responses here.....I just cringed at the idea of people reading that and going off on the usual theoretical arguments.
Not policing responses here.....I just cringed at the idea of people reading that and going off on the usual theoretical arguments.
Alton Junction
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL So what features of DCC do you find valuable/important? Just trying to understand what value DCC adds to your operation? This would be a great topic under a separate thread - - - What Value Does DCC Add to Your Operation. Of course, the topic here is Who Still Models Old School DC Block Operation, so there is no point in sidetracking the DC discussion. But, it would be interesting to have discussion, in a separate thread, about the supposed advantages of DCC that you cannot achieve with DC. Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL So what features of DCC do you find valuable/important? Just trying to understand what value DCC adds to your operation?
So what features of DCC do you find valuable/important?
Just trying to understand what value DCC adds to your operation?
This would be a great topic under a separate thread - - - What Value Does DCC Add to Your Operation.
Of course, the topic here is Who Still Models Old School DC Block Operation, so there is no point in sidetracking the DC discussion.
But, it would be interesting to have discussion, in a separate thread, about the supposed advantages of DCC that you cannot achieve with DC.
Rich
In an effort not to derail this thread on DC, Sheldon's question was used as the basis for a new thread asking people to respond to Sheldon's questions. If you are DCC user and would like to respond to Sheldon's question, please do it there.
Thanks!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
mlehman As a former CM20 user, I find it interesting how many DC users swear by it. Too bad they're no longer made. It made walkaround control easy and affordable for the masses, asn was a darn good throttle to boot. I found mine were still quite appreciated on used market when it came time to part with them. I do find DCC works for me for several reason, some of which I'm sure Sheldon has DC answers for. But based on past discussions, I suspect they're more like walkaround control was before the CM20, sorta mysterious to the average hobbiest and thus unlikely to be pursued. For technology, good, bad or indifferent, to be widely accepted requires a low bar to entry and easy and cheap access to the components that make it happen. There's the mission to the moon and the VW Beetle, both built during the 60s. The Saturn/Apollo vehcile was impressive and could do a lot of cool stuff on way less memory than is in your cellphone these days. But it was the VW that you saw everywhere, not just on TV or on the NASA tour. So my list of things I find DCC work better for me (which doesn't mean they're better, just for me ) Sound - Yeah, it works on DC, I got my first Blackstones right before the DCC conversion. They were inspiring (once again, they worked for me, I understand some folks just don't buy it -- literally), but when I discovered all the many more cool things they could do on DCC, well, that was the last straw. The best part is DDE, which basically dials the motor load into the sound card, so it really sound like it digs in at the bottom of the grades and works hard to the top. Consisting -- Well, 12 volts of brute force will smooth out lots of combinations of motive power . On the other hand, speed matching isn't as hard as it seems, unless you're OCD...OK, scratch that, I'm talking to a bunch of model rails, so let's just say, you don't need to try too hard, close enough usually works. Atmosphere -- almost the same as sound, but here taken together rather than as individual locos, a sound landscape, if you will. Having a yard with different locos scattered around, sounding good as they wait for work, with lighting adjusted to fit their state and position in relation to the main and being part of a train by the rulebook (not that I generally have much use for rulebooks.) Then there's whistling for crossings, ringing the bell as a passenger train departs or ither trains get underway in yards, etc Lighting -- I don't solder leads on SMD LEDs and make them into marker lamps like some of the more nimble and creative narrowgauge friends I've made over the years. But I do like to fiddle with the lights. Control of Operating Characteristics -- With DC, it's all about the hardware and investing in that makes things better, but often it's neother cheap nor off the shelf. DCC isn't cheap, but is mostly off the shelf. And it's built right into the decoders and command stations. You don't need any special skills to implement it, other than doing a little reading and ounching some buttons. Sure, you can still do the same things as in DC that are more hardware-centric and a lousy loco on DC will still run lousy on DCC. But DCC adds a layer of interesting flexibility to getting what you want out of your motive power that's very accesible to Joe Average. Attractiveness for Younger Modelers -- DC is pretty simple stuff for the basics, after that a steep learning curve that most kids get bored with -- or at least I did in my coursework as an electronics tech. And the digital stuff sounded even more intimidating at my advanced age. So I decided to become a historian...what's this got to do with model railroading? Well in messing around with DCC, I've found something that is both accessible and challenging at the same time. The middle part is there where you can still hop the train and start learning, even though it left the station some time ago. Yes, I got into DCC and figured it out, because there is a learning curve, but one I found engaging. Just this week, I got JMRI (Jave Model Railroad Interchange..or Interface.. or I can't rememeber that's why acronyms are handy ) going to control the layout. What you can do with that is amazing. What I did with it was take an iPad and two old iPhones, stirred in $50 worth of wiring and software and I suddenly have 3 new wireless throttles available to me. That's good news, because I was trying to figure out where to come up with the $150+ for a new radio throttle. I like this kind of new math. Not to say that any or all of these are reason to switch to DCC, just saying that even in DC you can fiddle with this stuff if it does something you want. Of course, you can do that with DC, too, but it's often a case where some things overlap in terms of having solutions in both DC and DCC. There's no reason not to give it a try if you have a $200 budget except lack of desire. And that's cool too. My layout operated well enough on DC, but I've found some real enjoyment that is either unavailable or not easily accessible to me personally in DC by learning about DCC. 60 or so converted locos later, I enjoy it a lot and it wasn't nearly as hard as I thought it could be. Interestingly, as was mentioned earlier, good DC wiring practices like avoiding the shortcut of common rail wiring, etc, make conversion a snap. Just don't have one on one side of a gap and the other one the other siee. It's too easy to bridge that gap with a wheel and let the smoke out. Better to switch the whole layout over as Frank does. There's plenty of room for both DC and DCC in this hobby and many people successfully enjoy both, often because they visit DC layouts to opoerate, even if they no longer do at home. Dual mode decoders have made that easier, but not perfect. Best to have a few good DC engines for the travel time, if needed.
just have to say, this is a great response. As someone just getting back into the hobby after a 20+ year absence, I am having a great time learning about DCC and (a) buying new, sound-equipped models, and (b) installing decoders in locomotives I've had for decades. As far as the cost goes, I'll echo the point about the NCE Power Cab being a great way to test the waters, and I've also just gotten JMRI and the NCE usb interface to use on a Mac--wow! how cool is that? (I'm old enough to remember Bruce Chubb working off of some kind of Tandy monstrosity: truly we live in the Golden Age of Technology! )
I was a member of a moderately-sized club layout 20 years ago, and honestly the DC wiring of that layout made my head spin. The idea of programming ALL the logic of my yard ladders into an NCE Switch8 is beyond simple. While I appreciate folks who don't want to spend the $ converting a hundred locos over to DCC, I think at $20-25 a pop for simple decoders, it's not too bad of a burden and can be done gradually over time.
anyway, just wanted to say how much I appreciated reading Mike's response.
Block Control is far more prototypical than DCC.
Block Control is how the signal systems work. Obviously Railroads are not controlling power such as we are, they do not need to, but the authority to occuupy the track is conveyed by the signal blocks.
Idealy, a scale block would have no power on it. When the signal is cleared for a train to proceed, the power from the block that the train is on is routed to the block that it is entering. While your engineering is more complicated than that, the practice is not.
What DCC buys you in NOT ease of operation, operation becomes far more difficult, but it simplifies wiring and construction, and for a large layout would be far less expensive than the cost and labor of a DC wired layout.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
To Richhotrain (my quote function isn't working)
I was referring to the dcc/dc debate over the years by the entire forum where the discussion usually focuses upon what COULD be done with DCC or DC and not what someone actually does.
I explain my position, and how it makes sense for me to use simple wiring DC, by explaining how I actually operate my layout. I lot of responses aren't that specific about operation. It's always made me wonder how many folks who advocate DCC operate their layouts. I think that was the gist of Sheldon's specific question.
I think a persons direction in the hobby are guided by their preferences, and differences in preferences leads to different decisions about how best to accomplish their goals.
Even the title to the thread implied a certain operating preference....the need to use blocks with DC. I don't think it was the intent of the OP, however. Several responses pointed out that not everyone wants a layout where blocks would be necessary...as a mere point of clarification.
- Douglas
Mike, I'm going to answer this here because you posted it here. and I will try to be as brief as possible.
Personally, I never cared for the CM20 or any corded memory throttle - the idea of leaving the train run uncontrolled while I moved the throttle always bothered me.
With the CM20, or any similar throttle, you still need to assign the throttle to the track - this of course is the great advantage of DCC over DC - in many cases - but not always important depending on the needs of user or the other aspects of the control system - like CTC.
I use Aristo wireless throttles - cabs are assigned to track sections (block is really the incorrect word because it is a signaling term) by one of two means.
Method one - dispatcher - as the dispatcher clears routes through interlockings and gives green signals, track power is automaticly assigned to the correct cab. In this case the operator has an experiance nearly identical to DCC - all he does is run his throttle and obey the signals - if he runs a signal, his train stops - Automatic Train Control, just like the prototype.
Method two - walk around control without a dispatcher - operators assign their cab to the track section where their train is with lighted pushbuttons that are redundantly placed progressively around the layout on tower control panels. So as they aproach an interlocking there is a local tower panel that allows them to:
Select a route through the interlocking - one pushbutton turnout routing
Select the next track section they will enter - one pushbutton
When they make that selection, coresponding buttons for that track section light up on other panels, including the dispatchers panel to indicate their use of that section.
The interlockings are "sub sections" (seperate signal blocks) of the ajoining sections and power is automatcly routed through them based on turnout position and the combination of sections selected.
So walk around operation only involves pushing a button or two in advance of your train and watching occupancy lights for other trains ahead of you.
Very easy to use, somewhat complex to build.
Consisting - I don't need it, it is extra work - all my multi units run fine together. And since a great many are the same brand, I can mix and match 30-40 different units - that would be a lot a of speed matching in DCC.
And I fine a great many of the steamers made in the last 20 years run fine together as well - differnt brands/different wheel arrangements.
Sound - previously discussed - I run five or more trains at once, don't like the tinny noise of those things in small scales.
Yes, you can "dabble" in DCC for a few hundred dollars, but to "add" DCC to my layout would represent the cost of good used car.
120 decoders, 8 wireless throttles, likley 5-8 boosters, reversers, etc.
And I would still need the full wiring infrastructure I have for the detection, signaling and CTC - or I would need another large investment in computers and programable solid state DCC related solutions - ice cube relays are now very affordable.
DCC is the right choice for a lot of people - but not all the people.
Sheldon
I haven't posted this before but I remember when I was first getting into the hobby and building my own layout. I found it frustrating to try to control power blocks on a layout and make sure all the selectors were set correctly so I could run a train all around the layout without accidentally controlling other engines in the wrong block etc. It was then that I thought, how nice it would be to be able to control an engine or set of engines and drive them anywhere on the layout without fiddling or scratching my head over which power block to throw in what direction.
I'm talking, of course, about layouts larger than a fairly simple loop of track, layouts with manny blocks etc. such as my first garage layout - which was DC btw, with Atlas block selectors. When DCC came down enough in price as it did in the mid-late 1990's, I knew that is the direction I wanted to go so I wouldn't have to mess with power block selectors. Thats just me, and it totally depends on how your brain works. Some may be ok or used to it, so it works for them.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Doughless To Richhotrain (my quote function isn't working) I was referring to the dcc/dc debate over the years by the entire forum where the discussion usually focuses upon what COULD be done with DCC or DC and not what someone actually does. I explain my position, and how it makes sense for me to use simple wiring DC, by explaining how I actually operate my layout. I lot of responses aren't that specific about operation. It's always made me wonder how the folks who advocate DCC operate their layouts. I think that was the gist of Sheldon's specific question.
I explain my position, and how it makes sense for me to use simple wiring DC, by explaining how I actually operate my layout. I lot of responses aren't that specific about operation. It's always made me wonder how the folks who advocate DCC operate their layouts. I think that was the gist of Sheldon's specific question.
Doughless,
Thank you, yes that was my question.
I have long stated that control systems should be selected/designed around the operational goals of the layout - not simply one size fits all.
That said, based on the products and technology available today, If you want sound you need DCC or some other comand control system for good control of sounds and movement.
To me, where DCC really shines is on the very large layout with lots of operators, each with a radio throttle - not a $200 investment by any means.
The other place DCC shines is the busy medium sized layout with two or three operators working in close proximity to each other. Still likely more than $200 to outfit with DCC.
Except for the desire for sound, I cannot understand what any lone operator running one train at a time would want about DCC?
In any case, in my view, all aruguments that DCC is no more expensive than DC are false.
It it easier for many who are comfortable with todays "computer world" but who are not really "electronically literate" - I'm sure it is. And that is a fair reason to embrace it for many.
What I do is way more complex to understand and build than most anything done with DCC - but for me that is part of the fun.
BUT - it is very easy to operate. It has wireless throttles with only five control buttons, no "toggle flipping", lighted control panels that tell you where your train is, where other trains are, and where you are going. It requires only a few push buttons to direct your train around the intire layout, even as other operators do the same.
I would still love to hear more about those of you with more basic DCC systems and why you feel DCC is better for you.
riogrande5761 I haven't posted this before but I remember when I was first getting into the hobby and building my own layout. I found it frustrating to try to control power blocks on a layout and make sure all the selectors were set correctly so I could run a train all around the layout without accidentally controlling other engines in the wrong block etc. It was then that I thought, how nice it would be to be able to control an engine or set of engines and drive them anywhere on the layout without fiddling or scratching my head over which power block to throw in what direction. I'm talking, of course, about layouts larger than a fairly simple loop of track, layouts with manny blocks etc. such as my first garage layout - which was DC btw, with Atlas block selectors. When DCC came down enough in price as it did in the mid-late 1990's, I knew that is the direction I wanted to go so I wouldn't have to mess with power block selectors. Thats just me, and it totally depends on how your brain works. Some may be ok or used to it, so it works for them.
Agreed, many DC cab control systems over the years have been poorly designed and implimented - but that failing is not a universal failing of DC control.
Atlas Selectors - what a miserable way to wire a layout - IMO.
PM RailfanHey, toss my hat in here too! Too big of a collection to switch over now. And the cost of doing so would be unfathomable. Atleast according to my paygrade. (Even if I was just starting out I would skip DCC because of its prices).
I'm with you, PM. Although, it would really be nice, living on fixed income, DCC is out of my realm of possibility. Now, if I win the Powerball...
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
BroadwayLion Block Control is far more prototypical than DCC. Block Control is how the signal systems work. Obviously Railroads are not controlling power such as we are, they do not need to, but the authority to occuupy the track is conveyed by the signal blocks. Idealy, a scale block would have no power on it. When the signal is cleared for a train to proceed, the power from the block that the train is on is routed to the block that it is entering. While your engineering is more complicated than that, the practice is not. What DCC buys you in NOT ease of operation, operation becomes far more difficult, but it simplifies wiring and construction, and for a large layout would be far less expensive than the cost and labor of a DC wired layout. ROAR
Great explaination Lion - and this is also why I decided to stay DC with signaling and CTC.
I too model old DC block layout. I have never tried DCC. Not even a single time.
I may even jump to wirless radio control like Ring Engineering's RailPro without even trying DCC.
I know most of model railroaders are retired and have time to work on their layouts and program the CVs and functions of their DCC, but as far as I am concerned (being almost 30 years old) I live in a constant fast-paced world of technologies and people, lots of stress and work, barely no time for my favorite hobby. So basically, DC works fine for me now, since once the layout is wired, it will works without any programming. I think I had quality hobby time with DC so far.
Radio control like Railpro might just be the product suited to my needs once I am ready to switch.
However as DC is the main topic, I really enjoyed thinking my wiring diagrams and all, it was a really nice and thourough experience I enjoyed, especially for someone like me who has a degree in french literature. I knew nothing about electricity and all that. I had to learn everything (from how it works to how to solder it and make it work) from scratch and I liked the challenge.
The DCC programming isn't as appealing.
My two cents.
Antoine
My neighbors have a large 12 x 50 layout modeling the Rio Grande in western Colorado just prior to the UP take over. Dual track mainline, staging, working hump yard, several industrial switching areas. Typical freights are 50 to 60 cars long, with 3 or 4 engines, mostly rebuilt Athearn blue box. Block control, hand held walk around throttles. He operates weekly, weather permitting. The layout, built about 20 years ago, is in a mobile home, unheated except when operating. While humidity is not a problem, temps can range from below zero to over 100 and the layout operates flawlessly. They would never convert to DCC.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL BroadwayLion Block Control is far more prototypical than DCC. Block Control is how the signal systems work. Obviously Railroads are not controlling power such as we are, they do not need to, but the authority to occuupy the track is conveyed by the signal blocks. Idealy, a scale block would have no power on it. When the signal is cleared for a train to proceed, the power from the block that the train is on is routed to the block that it is entering. While your engineering is more complicated than that, the practice is not. What DCC buys you in NOT ease of operation, operation becomes far more difficult, but it simplifies wiring and construction, and for a large layout would be far less expensive than the cost and labor of a DC wired layout. ROAR Great explaination Lion - and this is also why I decided to stay DC with signaling and CTC. Sheldon
Is it possible to automate block control, so that it is unnecessary to flip switches when entering/exiting blocks?
richhotrainIs it possible to automate block control, so that it is unnecessary to flip switches when entering/exiting blocks?
I do not know if it is technically possible to do such a thing, but I think it would defeat the purpose.
I use a three cab system with rotary switch for cab selection for track blocks. If the block ehead of me is occupied, I must stop or else the other operator is now controlling my train as well as his own. When he leaves the block he is to rotate the switch to OFF. I may then rotate to my cab (colour coding) and proceed, remembering that he may have only cleared the block with his engine, not the train.
The advantage of this is that a loss of attention cause my train to stop when it tries to enter the next block, and automatic power routing would negate this, and if trains were running in opposite directions, might refuse to let anything proceed, even if one of them stopped on a passing siding to clear a route of the other to proceed.
Others may have different opinions.
Dave
ATLANTIC CENTRAL...many DC cab control systems over the years have been poorly designed and implimented - but that failing is not a universal failing of DC control.
Sheldon,
Undoubtedly true, but also fits my scenario of what is accessible technology. Lets face it. If everyone was able to easily implement a system such as yours, then there would have been no need for DCC. But I think you'd be the first to agree it's not a beginner's entry level system and sure isn't something you just flip through a catalog and order. But it's the best system for you because of your needs and skillset.
That may also be the most important difference betwen DC and DCC. While I can't say I love everything about DCC, it is pretty much a turnkey system, because all the design of the control system is already in place. Sure, for things like signaling, etc, there can still be a lot of work and learning involved with DCC. But the basic beginner level things that most model rails do is pretty clearly figured out and its only a matter of buying items and plugging it together to get there.
In the end, it really is about personal prefernces on what you spend your hobby time and dollars on. That's why the expense of DCC keeps coming up, although I suspect the difference really isn't all that great when all things are added up. It's not so much the money, it's just that for a lot of people DC meets their needs. And it's also the same reason, ironically enough, that DCC meets the needs of other people better. I don't see much that universally fails about either system, unless you try to make one system do what the other clearly does better in the eyes of those who build and implement it.
I do have another data point on why DCC is popular with many and that is the way it helps reduce some of the confusion when operating on other layouts. As Jim F commented, finding and orienting the power for each block/section/whatever we want to call it can be a challenge. I'd hate to think how lost my operators would be if they had to find the block power in addition to finding the switches to throw turnouts. You've solved that problem in DC, but it's not a solution likely to be widely adopted even in the DC community. It's a solution that works well with your skill set and preferences, which are both quite advanced for the average DC user. No one else who regularly posts here and is into DC has something really comparable, although I may have missed that. At least they don't seem to be talking about it here. In fact, what most people here cite is good about DC is the lack of complexity. Whether it's poorly designed or not, it just works for them.
richhotrainBeing unfamiliar with DC block control, I have to ask this question. Is it possible to automate block control, so that it is unnecessary to flip switches when entering/exiting blocks?
Rich and Dave,
That's exactly what Sheldon's system does. It automates power control and eliminates orienting all those cab power control switches. It's a sweet design and does overcome many of the same issues in DC that DCC does.
On my small 'one man' layout no DCC because:
- one train at the time (aristo remote control)
- too many old engines, and quite a lot of them not worth to modify in DCC (old engines often require more that just soldering two wires, the full wiring has to be redone!). More because of hassle as of money ...
- at the club DCC-layout I saw enough decoders go 'puff&smoke'.... I do not want to count how many my daughters (9+7 y) would have already baked!
- a few engines with sound system working also in DC (albeit with limited functions) already fulfilled my need for noise. Do not need more.
sebastian
ATLANTIC CENTRALExcept for the desire for sound, I cannot understand what any lone operator running one train at a time would want about DCC?
If I may take a shot at this.
As I have mention elsewhere I use DCC on my 1'x10' ISL because of the following CV settings,brake,momentum,voltage and speed step.I found these settings add to my switching enjoyment because I had to learn to "operate" my DCC engines like a engineer..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE ATLANTIC CENTRAL Except for the desire for sound, I cannot understand what any lone operator running one train at a time would want about DCC? If I may take a shot at this. As I have mention elsewhere I use DCC on my 1'x10' ISL because of the following CV settings,brake,momentum,voltage and speed step.I found these settings add to my switching enjoyment because I had to learn to "operate" my DCC engines like a engineer..
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Except for the desire for sound, I cannot understand what any lone operator running one train at a time would want about DCC?
Brakie, let me take a shot at this.
My layout is basically two industrial switching layouts strung together by about 35 feet of countryside mainline. I do a lot of switching. With my AristoCraft Basic Train Engineer (its orange, not black) it takes me pressing the throttle button (not a dial) 4 or 5 times before the loco starts moving. On the first or second press, the lights come on brightly (it has to do with the pulse of the current getting to the Pcboard effecting the lighting before it effects the motor..someone else can explain that better than me), then the loco accelerates extremely slowly with each press.
I have tried CV adjustments to my sound locos to get better performance on DCC than what I get from the Aristo throttle on my nonsound locos, and can't seem to do it. What I can do is use a momentum setting and program the loco to accelerate very slowly to speed step 3 (or whatever), but the automatic incremental increase in speed occurs no mre gradually than what I can get with the Aristo throttle. Perhaps those with a more "sensitive pallet" for operations can detect a difference, but I can't.
BTW, the whole reason I went with the Aristo throttle is because I needed to cover 35 feet and didn't want a tethered plug in system like the CM20. The superior lighting and excellent slow speed control was a pleasant surprise.
Well, I don’t need to justify why I went the way I went and don’t feel you need to justify why you went the way you went.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Except for the desire for sound, I cannot understand what any lone operator running one train at a time would want about DCC? Sheldon
As simply as I can make this Sheldon, this is not your decision to make, so it's easy to understand why you don't understand!
NP2626 I get the distinct impression in these types of discussions, that people feel it’s necessary to justify their decision to go one way; or the other. That’s why the can become heated. Well, I don’ need to justify why I went the way I went and don’t feel you need to justify why you went the way you went. Simply put, we each saw something we wanted, and went for it! Should be enough said!
Well, I don’ need to justify why I went the way I went and don’t feel you need to justify why you went the way you went.
The explanation part is the interesting part of the discussion, and is not necessarily a justification, IMO.
I have a large layout that runs one train at a time using a one train throttle. As near as I can tell by reading comments on this forum, by comparison to others, that situation is an outlier of extreme proportion. But I bet that there are other modelers who have similar circumstances, although not exact, and would benefit from an explanation of my situation. That helps a reader compare their situation to mine so that they can make an informed decision. I'm not trying to justify my decision to anyone.
But the thread is partially about DC block control so I'll drop out.
Of course it is, it would be complicated it. I have seen it done with stepping switches.
My point was that such was not necessary. Power is lined up by the tower operator along with the track alignment and signals. Of course most layouts do not have a tower of any sort. But it is prototypical for a train to wait for the route to be set up for it.
So, am I to interpret this to mean that DC users enjoy flipping switches as a train runs through blocks because it is prototypical?
Are we saying that it is simply more fun?
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL BroadwayLion Block Control is far more prototypical than DCC. Block Control is how the signal systems work. Obviously Railroads are not controlling power such as we are, they do not need to, but the authority to occuupy the track is conveyed by the signal blocks. Idealy, a scale block would have no power on it. When the signal is cleared for a train to proceed, the power from the block that the train is on is routed to the block that it is entering. While your engineering is more complicated than that, the practice is not. What DCC buys you in NOT ease of operation, operation becomes far more difficult, but it simplifies wiring and construction, and for a large layout would be far less expensive than the cost and labor of a DC wired layout. ROAR Great explaination Lion - and this is also why I decided to stay DC with signaling and CTC. Sheldon Being unfamiliar with DC block control, I have to ask this question. Is it possible to automate block control, so that it is unnecessary to flip switches when entering/exiting blocks? Rich
Being unfamiliar with DC block control, I have to ask this question.
Yes, it is. It has been done many times. it is called computerized block control. there is one "plug and play" type product on the market that does it. There are several guys who will build you custom microprocessor systems, or you can roll your own.
I considered it as well and decided I did not need that either.
Rich, in the explaination of my control system do you understand that if a dispatcher is on duty the operators do not have to flip any switches, push any buttons, they just run the train?
And, even without the dispatcher, in walk around mode, there is no big complex control panel to "operate". As you walk around the layout, there are small tower panels at interlockings - the same kind of thing most DCC layouts have for turnout control. You set the turnout route through the interlocking by pushing one button, even if it is a complex route through two, three, four or more turnouts, and then you push one additional button to assign your cab to the desired track section on the other side of the interlocking. Two buttons.
How many buttons do you have to push to throw a turnout on a Digitrax throttle? It is more than two.
After pushing those two buttons, you trains has green signals until the next interlocking along the line.