All fine and good to support DCC but if you already have "Old School" (i.e., "New School" is DCC for those that don't know), equipment, then converting to DCC is a costly and laborous task, and therefore not practical from that vantage point unless you have a lot of money to buy new equipment and conversion components and time to reconfigure your equipment and layout.
Randy,
I agree completely.
Just to be clear, in my case, I have no need/interest in the rear helper, put them on/take them off thing, but I agree DCC is the way to do that - as I said, if you want those other features, you need DCC.
As for detection, I use inductive detectors, not in the power circuit, and I use a high frequency carrier signal for the detection of standing locos - but yes, the voltage on the rails all the time is one very slight advantage DCC has with detection - but it still does not really eliminate any wiring.
Sheldon
Wayne,
Thanks for your thoughts and sharing for those in the conversation who might not already know you.
The funny thing about David Bedard's comment is that you have DC and only have two wires - and if I had DCC with all my operational features, detection, signals, one button turnout routing, etc, I would still need every wire I have now. My power distribution would still be needed to keep all the detection blocks seperate. And the control wiring that "commands" them would still be needed for controling the CTC signals.
I'm a DC operator, and in the one train/one operator school of thought, too. I enjoy the social side of model railroading, too, but it doesn't, for me, include operations. A "day" on my layout might be two hours of operation every day for perhaps a month. Lots of trains will operate, but only one at a time.
I do have friends with DCC layouts who are interested in operations, and I have participated. For layouts like that (multi-track mainlines and in excess of a 1,000' of track) DCC is definitely the choice, as it is for club-type layouts. I do think, though, that most DCC users in such settings fail to fully utilise DCC's capabilities. If you're modelling current-day operations with multi-unit diesels and distributed power, consisting is probably appropriate. However, consisting multiple steam locomotives misses the opportunity for two or more operators to truly operate their train. Too difficult? In my opinion, the biggest advantage of DCC is where there are multiple operators running multiple trains. Sound and lighting effects, neither of interest to me, would be a distant second, along with consisting.I routinely run doubleheaders and pushers, too, and, like Sheldon, not just for show. However, because I don't use a block system and don't have (or want) another operator, my locomotives are, in the DC-mode of things, "consisted".
[quote user="davidmbedard"]DCC = 2 wires. ADC = more than 2 wires and a whole bunch of dusty how-to books.
DC (I doan need no steenkin' "A" ) without blocks:
I do have the capability to cut power to passing sidings and some industrial tracks, which involves a little more wire and switches on the fascia, but the two wires shown power over 200' of mainline without need of other feeders. Oh, and because the layout is so basic, my only reference was the old Atlas "Wiring Your Layout" book, although I don't use their electrical components, just their track and turnouts.
As has been noted in this discussion and the other on DC operations, there's plenty of room for all of us and just as many reasons for choosing one system over the other.
Wayne
ATLANTIC CENTRAL DigitalGriffin If you leave the sound agrument out of it.... Being able to lash up trains prototypically for helper service Being able to speed match locomotives Being able to simulate large loads (yes DC has momentum, but can it simulate both a large load coasting/hill load, and prototypical breaking?) Improved low speed operation Prototypical control of lighting (Rule 17 etc) The lack of need for blocks (A boon for those who aren't electrical geniuses) Unattended complex automation (ie: simulating the movement of steel cars at a steel mill) between high line->blast furnace, blast furnace -> open hearth. Blast furnace->slag dump. Electric furnace -> rolling mill, open hearth -> rolling mill ->rolling mill to yard No need to worry about power routing turnouts with bad contacts 100% full power 100% of the time means better motor control with PWM.List goes on and on... Don, Fair enough list, except: 2 - Speed matching is not needed for a great number of MU applications, depending on era and equipment chosen. 3,4 & 9 - lots of DC throttles use full voltage pulse width modulation - my Aristo Train Engneer does - it has excellent slow speed and smooth prototypical control. 5 - Important only if you model a more modern era, well into the transition era lights were dark during the day on most roads, ditch lights did not exist - I model 1954, don't need fancy lights. 6 - You still need blocks if you want signaling or CTC. 8 - DC or DCC, I don't use or recommend power routing turnouts and have never depended on turnout points to direct or conduct power. In fact, most advanced DC control schemes work better with feed thru turnouts like Atlas, and I use a single $2 relay to control the switch motor, power the frog, interlock the signals and power route the track. No dependence on turnout parts for power feeding. Some of the other stuff you listed - I agree, if you want that feature, you need DCC. Sheldon
DigitalGriffin If you leave the sound agrument out of it.... Being able to lash up trains prototypically for helper service Being able to speed match locomotives Being able to simulate large loads (yes DC has momentum, but can it simulate both a large load coasting/hill load, and prototypical breaking?) Improved low speed operation Prototypical control of lighting (Rule 17 etc) The lack of need for blocks (A boon for those who aren't electrical geniuses) Unattended complex automation (ie: simulating the movement of steel cars at a steel mill) between high line->blast furnace, blast furnace -> open hearth. Blast furnace->slag dump. Electric furnace -> rolling mill, open hearth -> rolling mill ->rolling mill to yard No need to worry about power routing turnouts with bad contacts 100% full power 100% of the time means better motor control with PWM.List goes on and on...
If you leave the sound agrument out of it....
Don,
Fair enough list, except:
2 - Speed matching is not needed for a great number of MU applications, depending on era and equipment chosen.
3,4 & 9 - lots of DC throttles use full voltage pulse width modulation - my Aristo Train Engneer does - it has excellent slow speed and smooth prototypical control.
5 - Important only if you model a more modern era, well into the transition era lights were dark during the day on most roads, ditch lights did not exist - I model 1954, don't need fancy lights.
6 - You still need blocks if you want signaling or CTC.
8 - DC or DCC, I don't use or recommend power routing turnouts and have never depended on turnout points to direct or conduct power. In fact, most advanced DC control schemes work better with feed thru turnouts like Atlas, and I use a single $2 relay to control the switch motor, power the frog, interlock the signals and power route the track. No dependence on turnout parts for power feeding.
Some of the other stuff you listed - I agree, if you want that feature, you need DCC.
2. Very true even with DCC, which I have been harping about for a long time now. Just because with DCC you CAN make everything run in lockstep, doesn't mean you HAVE to. However - with DCC you can much more easily operate under those older helper methods, with 2 or more locos under independent engineer control for the time where there was no such thing as MU or distrubuted power all controlled by one operater up front. You can easily have to operators, one running the steam helper which couples on to the rear of the train and, if you add sound, even use proper whistle signals to communicate as was done in the days before radio. And they'll have to coordinate - the helper can;t shove too hard, or lag back, like the real thing this is asking for derailment. There were tricks for doing this with DC, using half wave power and opposite diodes in the lead and helper, but really, this is not something you can do in DC. Or does you hill have lots of loco-length blocks so the lead loco and the helper are always in different blocks? I still say - easy, built in 'feature' of DCC, difficult to impossible with DC.
3, 4, 9 - agree, but you do have to go looking beyond what MRC offers for power packs. That stuff is standard off the shelf what you can buy anywhere with DCC. Unless your LHS carries the Aristo stuff, or there is another modeler near you using it - I'll wager many have never even heard about their excellent system.
5. Agree, no need for any of that stuff in my era either - which is why I don't even resort to the "programming simplified" features of JMRI - I have nothing complex to program in my decoders. No ditch lights, and headlights weren't even used in daytime at the time. But - it's there for modelers of modern era (and SP from the 50's on... yes, i always pick on the SP for their Christmas tree assortment of lighting used on many of their locos - but with DCC you can make all that stuff work, the way it's supposed to.)
6. Yes, but with no controlling bits. Just the rail gaps, and a gaps in one of the power feeds to connect the detection unit (which in many cases aren't even electrically connected to the track power anyway). No bias current needed for standing tracks where no cabs are connected or the train is completely stopped, since there's always power flow in the rails.
8. Agree, I never used power routing turnouts on any layout I ever built pre-DCC. Never had a reason to.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Doughless Bayfield Transfer Railway It would be interesting to correlate DCC use with modelers seriously into operations. The number of operations oriented layouts with straight DC that I know of I could count on one hand, and I've operated from coast to coast. For that matter, a lot of operations oriented modelers had switched to some form of command control long before 1994. Yeah, but then we'd have to define what "serious operations" are. I seriously operate my one train at a time layout...and it lasts for 90 minutes usually. More trains, more staging, would result in no more enjoyment for me. And I don't like to invite others into my basement (or house for that matter..me and my wife have never even had a cookout with others), so multiple operators will never be part of the hobby for me. I've said al l along, the "club style" of layout suits DCC very well, which is back to my original point...those layouts used to have DC block control.
Bayfield Transfer Railway It would be interesting to correlate DCC use with modelers seriously into operations. The number of operations oriented layouts with straight DC that I know of I could count on one hand, and I've operated from coast to coast. For that matter, a lot of operations oriented modelers had switched to some form of command control long before 1994.
It would be interesting to correlate DCC use with modelers seriously into operations. The number of operations oriented layouts with straight DC that I know of I could count on one hand, and I've operated from coast to coast.
For that matter, a lot of operations oriented modelers had switched to some form of command control long before 1994.
Yeah, but then we'd have to define what "serious operations" are. I seriously operate my one train at a time layout...and it lasts for 90 minutes usually. More trains, more staging, would result in no more enjoyment for me.
And I don't like to invite others into my basement (or house for that matter..me and my wife have never even had a cookout with others), so multiple operators will never be part of the hobby for me.
I've said al l along, the "club style" of layout suits DCC very well, which is back to my original point...those layouts used to have DC block control.
Doughless, I agree, lots of single train layouts are operated to very high "prototype operation" standards.
Bay Transfer Railway - who are you to define "serious operation"? Your experiances are based on those who choose to be heavily involved in the "social" side of group operations, inviting lots of relative strangers to their homes, so it is heavily skewed toward DCC.
And I will be the first to say, those types of layouts, those types of modelers, need DCC.
That does not mean other modelers are not serious about simulating prototype operations - nor is that type of operation the end all, be all of this hobby.
- Douglas
Rich
Alton Junction
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
selector I don't generally have a great time building layouts. I don't hate it, but it doesn't exactly turn my crank. Still, if I want to run trains, I want a realistic layout.
I don't generally have a great time building layouts. I don't hate it, but it doesn't exactly turn my crank. Still, if I want to run trains, I want a realistic layout.
Cost wise, some detractors attempt to state that DCC is far more expensive! Like everything on Earth you can spend as much; or, as little as you want to, for both systems, DC and DCC. The cost for a middle of the road good quality starter set for DCC will run you less than $170.00. Inexpensive, non-sound, full function decoders will add less than $20.00 to the cost of your locomotives. I feel these prices are very reasonable costs allowing me to enjoy the benefits we have listed for DCC! If you still feel the benefits we have listed aren’t reason enough to convert, then obviously you have made a decision; so, good enough!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
I don't generally have a great time building layouts. I don't hate it, but it doesn't exactly turn my crank. Still, if I want to run trains, I want a realistic layout. I find that DCC simplifies thiings for me greatly and gets me running without headaches. Other advantages have been listed, but I like the relatively simplicity of blockless train running. It's why I don't have signalling on my layout.
I haven't gotten into pusher service or MUing yet, but I will, and it seems to me that on any given segment of track, you can use DCC to speed match steamers with both different drive mechanism and what would be, in the prototype, different driver diameters and tractive efforts. Dissimilar drives attempting to act in concert within a block is not likely to be very successful. I believe one drive mechanism would be under much more strain, at a given voltage, than the other(s) in the consist. Strain means wear.
The biggest problem with speed matching locomotives is that there's still no simple way to do it. The first manufacturer that builds a stand that lets you set up a speed curve, put the engine on the stand, and push "program" and hey presto nonny nonny, you engine (some time later) matches this speed curve, will own this hobby.By "set up a speed curve" I mean "Speed step 128 = 65 mph, speed step 65=30 mph, speed step 1=crawl, etc" or whatever you want, but that gives the idea.
I converted to command control in 1984 because I got tired of having operating sessions where one person pretended to be a dispatcher but was really just flipping switches to route the trains for the others to "run". Much nicer to have them actually dispatch trains and let the engineers do their jobs.
I converted to DCC when it became a standard because everything became a whole lot more available, much smaller, and much cheaper.
Sound is not in the equation because I already had the wonderful PFM sound in 1981. Can't belive it took others so long to discover both.
I agree with Bob's comments although I still use a flip phone I did make the shift to DCC a number of years ago. We do tend to prostilatize about DCC primarily because, at least for me, it improved my enjoyment of the hobby and the tendency is to tell everyone. The same thing is going on when we discuss keep alive technology and JMRI advantages. While I am now a true believer in DCC I am not giving up my flip phone.
Marty C
For me, DCC meant I could:
1. Run more than one train, without complicated block wiring/switches.
2. Speed matching. I can MU two loco's, two different brands, on one train, without them fighting each other.
3. Sound. There is just something about a train, whether model or real, that just isn't right without some kind of sound, to me. Real trains make noise, my models should to. (At least some of them anyways...) To my point, operate a model train with sound, then, mid run, mute the sound....
4. Walk around control. Again, without the complicated wiring.
These are the features that made me choose DCC over DC block control.
And, I started with DC. Went through 2 layouts, (unfinished, I was unhappy with the operations/track plans.) now on my first layout with DCC. (I did alter slightly the track plan layout, for better operation. Looked good on paper, but found a issue when laid out.... But that's another discussion. )
Not here stating DCC is better for all, just for me, and what I wanted to model. (And, though I have a good friend who is an electrical whiz, I am not one. This had a effect on my choice.)
These are my reasons, and the features that I like that DCC allows me to do.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
NevinW For me this is an easy question: 1. More realistic, able to move locomotives around layout without blocks, acts like the real thing. 2. much simpler wiring 3. Sound 4. Better control The only downside to DCC for me is fitting everything into small steam locomotive. I envy those who model big modern diesels.
For me this is an easy question:
1. More realistic, able to move locomotives around layout without blocks, acts like the real thing.
2. much simpler wiring
3. Sound
4. Better control
The only downside to DCC for me is fitting everything into small steam locomotive. I envy those who model big modern diesels.
Trouble is with diesels, most of the body cavity is filled with the chassis and all the weight they can get into them! I have found steamers with what is usually a pretty empty tender actually have more room for decoders and what not.
1.) The ability to better control onboard sound locomotives, which has been made possible by finding a decent and reasonably costing wireless system. With a 35 foot long layout, a wireless system is the only option for me.
2) (Churping crickets sound effect here...)
Interestingly, again how my situation is different than almost everybody else's apparently, I actually had to ADD wiring (more feeders) when I went DCC. The onboard sound decoders can get a bit phinnicky if the signal is less than it should be, so wiring actually became more complicated for me when I added DCC...go figure.
Again, my experiences seem to be different than most.
Of course, I would never have a layout that required DC block control, so its wiring was very simple to begin with.
I feel no reason to justify my choice to DCC to anyone.
I could really care less what people are using, DC, DCC, Battery, Live Steam or goat pellets.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
I think the main statement I would want to make here is that when I found the advantages of DCC I wanted to tell everyone that hasn’t tried it how much fun it (running my trains) is now. Not that I think it is the best for everyone, but just to share the experience I had and why I like it so much. I ran DC for years and had no problem with it, even using blocks to isolated trains; but, DCC wasn’t available then, so I had nothing to compare it to. I kind of correlate it to having my flip cell phone for years and now that I finally have a smart phone, I can see the advantages of a newer technology and why everyone asked why I hadn’t changed. Not everyone needs a smart phone and I probably could have just kept my flip phone? I know of many that still do. And the same with DC or DCC control of a model train layout, it just depends on what you want from it.
-Bob
PS: I also resisted the smart phone because of the cost!
Life is what happens while you are making other plans!
SP&S modeler, 1960's give or take a decade or two for some equipment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SGTDUPREY?feature=guide
Gary DuPrey
N scale model railroader
carl425 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Are there still a few people who would say to me "just try DCC, you will love it", not realizing I likely have more DCC knowledge and operational experiance than they do - yes there are still a few. Yes, I agree with that. We must realize that DCC is not "new news". Anybody who is running DC today has most certainly evaluated their choices and made a conscious decision to stick with DC. Your blood is not on my hands if I fail to help you see the light. ATLANTIC CENTRAL I share some of what I do using DC - and why I still do it that way. Yes, I've noticed. If you were starting from scratch today would you do it that way again?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Are there still a few people who would say to me "just try DCC, you will love it", not realizing I likely have more DCC knowledge and operational experiance than they do - yes there are still a few.
Yes, I agree with that. We must realize that DCC is not "new news". Anybody who is running DC today has most certainly evaluated their choices and made a conscious decision to stick with DC. Your blood is not on my hands if I fail to help you see the light.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I share some of what I do using DC - and why I still do it that way.
Yes, I've noticed.
If you were starting from scratch today would you do it that way again?
That's a fair enough question. I have said before on here that if I went to a different layout theme, different scale, different size layout, my control choices would likely be different and might include DCC.
I like sound in the larger scales, so if I modeled in large scale I would likely choose direct radio with sound.
Here is the thing, I have been at this hobby since 1968, and I have a set of interests and goals that has not changed much since about 1980.
If I had ZERO model trains, and started over tomorrow, I might not get into this hobby at all, given some other factors not related to control systems.
I'm a modeler, not a collector, and the current state of the supply of model trains does not make me real happy - I'm happy I already own most of the model trains I want.
But if I model a 1950's Class I railroad, in HO scale, like I do now, signaling is a must have for me. DCC does not make signaling easier or less expensive - so it would still be a budget/time/available products decission at the time.
I don't like sound in the small scales, that is strike against DCC for me. I don't care for the design of most of the DCC throttles - and I have used most of them.
And I'm not a club joiner/goer any more, so compatablity with some group is not an issue.
Yet I still recommend DCC for lots of modelers, depending on their skills and interests.
Most of today's DCC users had DC first and then moved to DCC. The opposite is not usually true.
The first time I ran helpers independently on a DCC system and then turned them on a (prototypical) loop at the summit without throwing a toggle, I was sold on DCC. The fact that I had already wired a DC layout for two cab control -- and knew what a pain it could be -- was icing on the cake.
DC is fine, DCC is fine. For independent simultaneous operation of multiple trains anywhere on the layout with simple wiring (and no mechanical relays to fail, by the way), DCC is my personal choice.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
ATLANTIC CENTRALAre there still a few people who would say to me "just try DCC, you will love it", not realizing I likely have more DCC knowledge and operational experiance than they do - yes there are still a few.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI share some of what I do using DC - and why I still do it that way.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
carl425 richhotrain In my view, DC users and DCC users can co-exist quite nicely. If none of these threads, touting one system over the other, ever were started, that would be fine with me. I don't see any reason for the user of one system to convert to the other unless he simply chooses to. Excellent sentiment. I agree. Does anyone else find it strange that out of all the choices we make for our railroads, HO vs N, L-girder vs grid, foam vs plaster, diesel vs steam... it is only the choice of DCC or DC where the spirit of "my railroad, my choices" doesn't get the same respect? Why does this one area cause us to feel the need to defend our choice or question the choices of others?
richhotrain In my view, DC users and DCC users can co-exist quite nicely. If none of these threads, touting one system over the other, ever were started, that would be fine with me. I don't see any reason for the user of one system to convert to the other unless he simply chooses to.
Excellent sentiment. I agree.
Does anyone else find it strange that out of all the choices we make for our railroads, HO vs N, L-girder vs grid, foam vs plaster, diesel vs steam... it is only the choice of DCC or DC where the spirit of "my railroad, my choices" doesn't get the same respect?
Why does this one area cause us to feel the need to defend our choice or question the choices of others?
Carl,
The current atmosphere on this forum regarding choice of control system is very friendly and positive - it was not always that way.
There were a few, years ago, who treated DCC like a religion, calling people who rejected DCC "luddites', backward, tech shy, etc, etc.
This of course had the result of causing many long time, often very advanced, DC modelers to become defensive, leave the forum, or just not participate in any discussion about control systems.
My view has always been that different personal layout and operational goals, combined with different skill sets and budgets, call for different solutions - one size does fit all.
But there is a strong bias, on this forum, and hobby wide, to steer all new modelers to DCC rather than let them learn enough to make an informed choice based on their needs, wants and budget.
At least now that bias is generally repectfull of those of us still using DC - in what ever form - a simple power pack or advanced cab control with CTC and signals.
So are some of us old time DC users a still a little defensive - likely so.
Are there still a few people who would say to me "just try DCC, you will love it", not realizing I likely have more DCC knowledge and operational experiance than they do - yes there are still a few.
So now and then, when these threads show up, if I have time, I share some of what I do using DC - and why I still do it that way. For an explaination of my DC system with detection, signaling, one button turnout control, CTC, ATC, and wireless walk around throttles, check out a few of my posts in the recent DC block control thread.
Having said that, all of these threads on these forums are only people’s opinions and everyone is entitled to their opinion. The reality is that going DC; or, DCC is a choice that all can make and the reality is, it is a non-issue. If you want to make it an issue, you’re really only interested in an argument!