The Future of DCC

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JerryZeman
As far as operating my models with a PDA like device, complete with a cab appropriate to the locomotive being controlled, no thanks. I have that already, in something called Microsoft Train Simulator. Works pretty great too for a $40.00 simulator once proper physics are downloaded and installed, and a whole host of other freeware and payware is installed. Considering the low cost, this simulator does a very respectable job of conveying the feeling of operating a locomotive, boredom and all.

Extend this thought. There is no reason the camera's in the locomotive couldn't send input to MTS and use it to control the DCC trains.

QUOTE:
Transponders in every car? No thanks. Its bad enough that lower cost kits (Intermountain and Red Caboose) are getting harder and harder to find, and high end rolling stock can set back the purchaser $25.00 per car plus in HO (assuming no discounts). I really don't need transponders for every car, I am, after all, modeling 1952.

Ship-it functions integrated into the control system? I'll pass. I'd be happy just being able to figure out the current version of Ship-It that I have. I was all prepared to say the heck with it, and just use the four sided waybills with hand printed out data with car cards printed out of Ship-It car cards, but my buddy finally figured out what is required to get it to work, after playing with the program off and on for the last six years. .... I can't say that my experience with Ship-It has been pleasurable to date.

You are not alone here but that's the underlying point. With transponders in every car interfacing to the computer, it knows where the cars are on the layout (and whether they are loaded, loading, or unloaded) so the operational software becomes 95% easier. Plus it can operate in several modes, in addition to the normal train schedule mode, operation could be driven by industry demands sort of like "Railroad Tycoon" game. Much more interesting for the dispatcher who then makes up the needed trains on the fly. Since the computer also knows the location and movement of cars it can rate the operating sessions on all sorts of interesting metrics. I can imagine the clubs call-out-board being based on engineer & switchman's performance.

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by joecool1212

Here is one for dynamic breaking, going down hill with a long train, power set to 0 put the direction switch in reverse, dont apply power and the train slows quicker. Works well for the very free rolling GP 9 I have. Joe A.

Anything that puts a load on the motor.... I have a Stewart F7 that under DC full power would cost a LONG way - and generate enough power to light the headlight LED while doing so! Drop a short across the rails while it was coasting though - instant stop!

--Randy

[rrinker]

Jerry, you hit on exactly why I changed my mind and decided to NOT go with Switch-Its to control my Tortoises. Turnout control fromt he DCC controller, regardless of the brand, is not very intuitive, and if I was goign to have to put pushbuttons on the panel anyway, then why waste the money on the Switch-It when a $4 circuit can do the same thing minus the DCC connection that I wasn't going to use anyway?
On the other hand, I fully comprehend the various forms of Cab Control invented over the years - and would NEVER use any of them, not with DCC so readily available. I've never operated on a layout using DC block control with walkaround controllers, but the idea of flipping all those toggles ahead of and behind your train just does NOT appeal to me. I want to run my train, not worry about turning the block on before I get there and resetting it for the guy behind me. And if you do it RIGHT, it really saves nothing over the cost of DCC - by doign it right I mean NOT using low-current rotary switches to handle track current, but use them to control relays that have contacts rated for that stuff. We had that at a club I used to belong to, but because of the pain of wiring and the expense of all the relays and stuff, blocks were a lot bigger than they should have been for proper operation - two trains had to stay WAY too far apart. It was fine for open house continuous running, but never would have worked for a proper operating session. perhaps that's why we never HAD proper operating sessions..

--Randy

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JerryZeman
I've started to integrate other DCC features into my railroad on my double deck extension, specifically the use of Switch-It switch machine decoders, ..., and the Switch-Its are controlled directly from the hand held.

I'm underwhelmed with the experience so far. The advantage is I have greatly simplified the wiring required, and I haven't had to manufacture three new control panels for the extension. The disadvantage is the railroad becomes more difficult for new operators to learn, and the NCE throttles need to be tethered to reliably control the Switch-It decoders. I may end up rewiring the extension in the future and go back to the tried and true control panel.

I've been waiting for some feed back on this. I have never understood the twitter over controlling turnouts from the locomotive controller. It always seemed like a lot of extra button pushing switching back and forth between turnout/locomotive/next turnout/locomotive.....I've always though it seemed much more like playing a video game rather than running a railroad, but never actually met/talked anyone who had done it on a scale large enough to be significant.

[ericboone]

I don't see control of a turnout from a controller, at least in its current form, as very intuative either. Maybe with a PDA controller, a graphical station diagram might do the trick, but a simple diagram control panel can't be beat for intuativeness.
I do plan on controlling every turnout with DCC and a switch machine as the mainline I will model is CTC controlled. However, I do plan on have some form of turnout control on the fascia. Having switch machines (and controlling toggle switches or buttons) tied into the DCC system does give a lot of flexibility and allows for changes to be made in software rather than in hard wiring.
Having Microsoft Train Simulator like PDA controller is not for everyone. Some have said there is no market for it. I agree it will be somewhat of a niche, but model railroading is full of niche manufacturers. Many of the makers of software for model railroading appear to be either home based side businesses or have other non-model railroad product line. Someone will make an MTS type PDA controller as the hardware technology is already present and only the software needs to be written.

[joecool1212]

With these computer controlled systems some are talking about , knowing where the cars are and whats loaded and not we could just forget the model layout and just make believe. Dosen't sound like model railroading to me DCC or not. Joe A

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by joecool1212

With these computer controlled systems some are talking about , knowing where the cars are and whats loaded and not we could just forget the model layout and just make believe. Dosen't sound like model railroading to me DCC or not. Joe A

Well, there are a lot of people who's "thing" in this hobby is the accurate simulation of a real transportation system. In other words, "put that blue box car over byt he feed mill" isn't good enough, it has to be "the box car carrying equipment that is billed to the feed mill". Nothing wrong in that, and it's actually kinda fun.

--Randy

[BRAKIE]

Randy said:Well, there are a lot of people who's "thing" in this hobby is the accurate simulation of a real transportation system. In other words, "put that blue box car over byt he feed mill" isn't good enough, it has to be "the box car carrying equipment that is billed to the feed mill". Nothing wrong in that, and it's actually kinda fun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely! I would not even think about operating my HO or N scale industrial switching layout with some form of car forwarding system.[:D][tup]
To my mind that is when my models become a TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM and not models...[:p][:D]
Of course to each his/her own way of enjoying their layout...[;)]

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

Randy said:Well, there are a lot of people who's "thing" in this hobby is the accurate simulation of a real transportation system. In other words, "put that blue box car over byt he feed mill" isn't good enough, it has to be "the box car carrying equipment that is billed to the feed mill". Nothing wrong in that, and it's actually kinda fun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely! I would not even think about operating my HO or N scale industrial switching layout with some form of car forwarding system.[:D][tup]
To my mind that is when my models become a TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM and not models...[:p][:D]
Of course to each his/her own way of enjoying their layout...[;)]

I think we're all simulating a transportation system. The difference is what role do we want to play. Railfan, Engineer, Conductor, Dispatcher, Clerk, Accountant, etc. Some of these schemes seem to require you to play 2 or 3 roles which is fine. Personally, I like the Railfan role where you don't know why the blue box car is put over by the feed mill and the green one is put over by the lumber yard - you just enjoy watching it happen.[:D][:D] or the Engineer role where you just put it there because someone else said to, doesn't matter why. A good model railroad should let you do what ever combination you like at the moment.
Enjoy
Paul

[JerryZeman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher
Extend this thought. There is no reason the camera's in the locomotive couldn't send input to MTS and use it to control the DCC trains.

While I will concede to you that this is technologically possible, today, with the proper interfaces, the next question I have is why would I want to do that?

For me, there are specific stimuli that I get out of operating in both mediums. When I run MSTS, it allows me to run a complete route, boredom and all, in a fairly realistic fashion. Last night I didn't feel like building anything downstairs (I am on vacation, and I spent four hours working on an O scale engine house from a Pecos kit), so I fired up MSTS, and called out of memory a train I am running on the 3D Trainstuff Cajon route, I was a little south of Palmdale when I started, and I completed the run up to Mojave. Total run time spread over 4 sessions, 2 hours 42 minutes. I enjoy this occasional diversion.

Now lets transport this experience into the basement, assuming that I had cameras in the nose of my favorite locomotives (not possible today, it just isn't going to fit into an HO steamer without totally destroying the look of the beast).

I would get to operate over appx. 5 scale miles of railroad. I'd get to see all kinds of unfinished railroad, the crawlspace where my helix is located, pictures of friends chest as I round curves, etc.etc. etc. To me, this isn't a pretty picture, and would pretty well ruin the experience for me. I'd MUCH rather have a truly interactive MSTS, where a group of like minded modelers could get on line, run our trains, under control of a dispatcher. This is sorta possible now, but I haven't tried this experience yet.

When I run my railroad, I want to be WITH my railroad, looking at it from a detached "railfan" perspective. I'm not saying that your vision is not appealing, I just don't see it in my future, nor do I feel that the technology will enable an acceptable version to satisfy my tastes for quite some time.

QUOTE:
You are not alone here but that's the underlying point. With transponders in every car interfacing to the computer, it knows where the cars are on the layout (and whether they are loaded, loading, or unloaded) so the operational software becomes 95% easier. Plus it can operate in several modes, in addition to the normal train schedule mode, operation could be driven by industry demands sort of like "Railroad Tycoon" game. Much more interesting for the dispatcher who then makes up the needed trains on the fly. Since the computer also knows the location and movement of cars it can rate the operating sessions on all sorts of interesting metrics. I can imagine the clubs call-out-board being based on engineer & switchman's performance.

You have valid points here. Do you think that there is a large enough customer base to support the development cost to make this a reality?

I can see this as something that I could buy into, but it would have to remove the pain associated with having to learn complex hardware, software, and interfaces. My biggest concern with allowing this level of technology into the railroad is what the user is faced with when something craps the bed. I spend my work life dealing with broken machinery, and the last thing I want is to have to become a full time troubleshooter to figure out how to get something complex integrated into the layout, and then untold hours trying to figure out what component has failed when something does.

The attraction of DCC to me is that I could take the technology and overlay it on what was a fairly traditionally wired two cab railroad. I had it originally set up to run one cab as Dynatrol, and one as conventional. When I applied DCC, I simply placed the DCC on the Dynatrol cab circuit, and I was up an running ( I never run conventional with DCC, and only use conventional to initially test motive power prior to conversion). I haven't experienced a single failure of the DCC system, and most of the "problems" that I had encountered over the years are usually the result of layout "growth", and closure of block gaps, causing shorts. That happens one time, until I find and fix the problem.

Now, lets look at how my latest technological additions, the Switch-it decoders, have complicated my life.

I had an operating session to get ready for about two months ago. The railroad had not run for about three months before that due to layout construction. I get the railroad up and running, and the older part of the railroad, with the simple DCC overlay, runs like a champ, and not a single problem. I didn't even have to clean track, as I only track oil.

When I went to run the extension, which is exclusively DCC, my problems started. I couldn't get my staging yard to operate correctly, which uses Switch-it decoders. After one hour of crawling in and out of the crawlspace, using a voltmeter to check continuity, I determined that a Switch-it decoder failed. I have a couple of spares, so I replaced it. At this point, I have no idea whether or not the decoder merely lost it's programming, or had a hard failure, and, to tell you the truth, I really don't want to waste the time investigating how it failed. My point here is the technology is starting to run my life to the point that I do not enjoy it. I don't want to have to waste time figuring out how a board has failed, particularily when I can't do a damn thing about it except sent it back to NCE for repair.

If my staging yard WAS hard wired with toggle switches to control the switch machines, I would have found the problem in about five minutes, but, more than likely, I never would have experienced a problem. There are only three components that can fail on my conventional panels, toggle switch, wiring/ connections, and the switch machine itself. And on my older portion of the railroad, I have never had a switch machine failure, and only one toggle switch failure. The wiring has never failed.

Well, enough of my rants on the subject. I'm enjoying these discussions immensely, as it gives all of us an opportunity to see several perspectives on where the hobby may be heading.

regards,
Jerry

[Anonymous]

JerryZeman,

What ever became of the great MTH - Zeman challange ?

[Paul3]

ericboone wrote:

QUOTE: Currently, if a car is removed or added to the layout, the information about car location must be updated manually. Heaven forbid that you "play" between operating sessions and move many cars around. Well, if present trends continue, the cost of electronics will continue to fall and soon it will be affordable to put transponders or 2-way communicating decoders in each car. With the detection systems that already exist, it would be possible to electronically keep track of the location of cars on your layout.

Good luck, because the word "soon" should not be used in that statement above unless one is Bill Gates. [:)] Remember, not only would every single piece of rolling stock need a decoder, every yard track and every industry spot would need a transponding receiver of some sort. That means that this would have to be cheap, I mean real cheap, to make it worthwhile. Then you run into conductivity problems. What if some cars have dirty wheels and they don't show up via transponding when the car-forwarding software scans the layout before printing the new waybills? And how would you know that they are dirty? It's easy with a loco because it won't run, but what about a car? To me, it would all have to be completely wireless, with some kind of local and very accurate GPS system to locate the cars ($$$$$$).

QUOTE: Current DCC throttles are just that, throttles. Imagine having a
realistic controller.

Wouldn't that make them hard to carry around? RailDriver makes USB ones or MS TrainSim, but they are rather bulky.

QUOTE: You could make the PDA controller look like the inside of a real
cab.

TrainSim is bad enough, and that's on my 17" monitor. How could you shrink that down to PDA size and still be able to A) see it & B) manipulate it?

QUOTE: The back EMF technology also acts as "cruise control" for your
train. If your train starts going up a grade, the decoder increases
power to the motor to compensate. This feature is unrealistic.

That is why I don't use BEMF in any of my decoders. I want to be the
engineer and have to make adjustments when operating. I can see why
others might want it, but it's not for me. What I want is reverse or
negative BEMF (-BEMF). This would sense the load on the motor and actually
decrease motor rpms to simulate the many tons of material one is
pushing around. For example, having a 100 ton switcher run into a string of
a dozen loaded boxcars each weighing 50 tons (600 tons total) and
instantly accelerating them to whatever speed the switcher is moving is pure
fantasy. With -BEMF, the switcher would struggle to accelerate the
cars...

Phil1361 wrote:

QUOTE: I agree real trains do not have "cruise control" but I like the cruise feature especially on down grades. I don't like to be constantly adjusting the throttle on a grade. I just pretend the engineer inside the locomotive is doing just that.

That is a difference in philosophy, where one imagines oneself as either the engineer (and have to deal with all the problems that an engineer faces), or as the dispatcher (where the train running from A to B is more important than how exactly it gets there). Myself, I'm more partial to running as the engineer rather than watching them run (unless I'm at my RR club, where being the dispatcher over a dozen engineers is fun).

rrinker wrote:

QUOTE: I often thought it would be possible, at least in O scale and larger, to equip a caboose with a free-rolling gear drive with something like an open-core motor that wasn't powerful enough to actually move the train, but to provide some resistance to the movement - thus, a brake.

It's possible, but not too good an idea. Have you ever had a train "string line" on a curve? That's when you have a train stretched around a long curve, and something happens where the rear snags or somehow comes to a sudden stop but the engines are still pulling. It is not unlike bending a string around in a semi-circle and then pulling at both ends. The result is a lot of derailed cars as they all flip over on their sides. A rear brake on only the caboose seems to me to be a bad idea as it would encourage this string line effect every time you use it.

Stuckarmchairing wrote:

QUOTE: Just think of the days when DCC becomes the standard and is included in every train set.

Probably never happen. DCC, no matter how cheap, will always be more expensive than ordinary straight DC analog, so it won't be in every train set as there is always a market for cheap, entry level train sets.

foxtrackin wrote:

QUOTE: I hope they come up with a better way to uncouple cars. I am builting a large classification yard and want to be able to built trains in a more realistic way. I am hoping to do this with dcc and not have to do know so much with my hand.

Well, there already is a DCC uncoupler in HO. In fact, there are two. The Tony's Train eXchange one is rather kludgy as it moves the whole coupler up and down. The other was a custom build one that actually pulled a Kadee knuckle open with a piece of memory wire.

The real problem with class yards is that almost all of them that weren't humps were yards where the cars were simply kicked (AKA "flat switching"). This is extremely hard to model in HO scale as cars just don't roll as far as the real thing. This means that you either have to pu***hem along by hand, zoom kick them to get them to roll far enough, or you have to spot each car on every track. I go for the latter myself, as I prefer a slower, "hands-off" approach. What I use are Kadee uncoupling magnets at each clearance point in every yard track. If the appearance of these "ramps" cause you worries, there are stronger "under the track" type magnets that will work just as well.

railguyho wrote:

QUOTE: I think someday the computer will overtake all forms of train control...

Never happen. As I said above, straight DC will always be cheaper, so there will always be a market for it. There is also the reason you stated later, that you like being able to control the train. I assure you that you aren't alone. For that reason, computers wil never "overtake all forms of train control".

Texas Zepher wrote:

QUOTE: Whoo hoo, someone thinking forward. About a two years ago on rec.railroad I got involved in a rather heated discussion with some people who thought DCC was the ultimate that could never be inproved upon.

Yeah, I remember. It took me a while, but I did figure out that you are Radford Walker (or sluethraptorman) from r.m.r. I did a little searching on Google for r.m.r, but I couldn't find this long listing of yours. Perhaps you changed your handle again? I can recall the discussion, but not the particulars. Of course, there were some other interesting comments you made. For example, you stated that "RailCommand" was better than DCC, and that it was the number 1 control system in large clubs (and I pointed out that it was not the case in New England). And did you ever get to measure the DCC signal with a 'scope?

QUOTE: When the flames started and they challenged me to describe ANY way DCC could be improved upon I posted an 80 point response...A decoder on every piece of rolling stock, perhaps even on every axle. Feedback from all sorts of things about the locomotive, on not only engine load, but drawbar tension, rpm, temperature, scale speed, simulated fuel load & consumption, sand, water, air pressure in the brakes.

And this was all mentioned as something that DCC can do. Expensive, but already possible (Bi-Directional DCC was already a topic of discussion in 2002). Althought, getting a strain gage on an HO coupler is rather remote at this point....

QUOTE: Then add digital video from all sides of the locomomtive so a remote throttle booth could enable the engineer to "see out" of the cab.

Wake me up when that happens, because I'll be old and gray by then. [:)] I just don't see the need, myself. What's the point of walk around control if you're going to have a "booth"?

QUOTE: I imagine throttles that look more like a real loco cab rather than just something to increase the voltage.

Why? That won't fit in your pocket or your hand.

ericboone wrote:

QUOTE: Since the amount of data the decoder is able to send back is somewhat limited, several of the things you mentioned either could or should be simulated at the command center and throttle.

Several of the things he mentioned are either already here (Digitrax Transponding) or are coming soon (NMRA Bi-D).

chutton01 wrote:

QUOTE: Hmmm, well I've stated my preferences before, andthey are somewhat similar to what you guys posted above...

(snipped points) And these engines will cost about $100,000 ea. Geez, moving cameras in the cab? Mini-turbines for power? Sure, I can see me using them at my club, as I step off my transporter pad... [;)]

pedromorgan wrote:

QUOTE: i cant wait to see a decoder with synchronised sound and smoke. seuthe smoke machines are very realistic and with a fan added can simulate diesel plumes and steam exhaust. that would be fantastic.

Seuthe machines are realistic? That's not the adjective I'd associate with Seuthe. On mine, when it turned on, there was a "pop" and a perfect O-ring of smoke. Then it produced small quanities of white smoke until it ran dry. Big deal. Old Lionel and American Flyer smoke units were more realistic.

And I'd never put them in a loco. Every one I've heard of leaves an oily residue on the tops of equipment. Thanks, but no thanks.

QUOTE: i like thi idea of having moving vehicles on my model roads.

This has already been done for quite some time now. One can hide wire in streets, and special motorized vehicles have a magnet attached to a steering linkage that turns the wheels. Sure, you can only have loops, but at least that's a start.

Brakie wrote:

QUOTE: I suspect DCC like all of the other great controllers of the past will fade into the sunset only to be replace with a better control system that will not require decoders and perhaps not even wire to the track..There is no doubt this will happen within the next 5-7 years as the DCC market begins to stabilize and drop in sales except for decoders..

I think you're missing this one, Brakie. 5 or 7 years? Not a chance. DCC has, what, 25% of model railroaders? You don't think that's going to grow at all? I can't see anything replacing DCC for a couple of decades, IMHO. Say what one will about it, it is a standard. Look how long the X2F lasted, for pete's sake, and that wasn't even an "official" standard. DCC is an NMRA standard, and as such it will be modified, but I don't see it being totally replaced anytime soon.

CNJ831 wrote:

QUOTE: Not to rain on anybody's parade but I think Brakie is closer to the truth than most DCCers would like to hear. DCC has been around something like a decade now. yet, I have seen no major poll or survey to indicate that it is employed by more than 20%-25% of hobbyists after all that time.

Let's put this in perspective. IIRC, Bernard Lenz started DCC in 1988, and Lenz' Digital Plus was introduced in 1991. The first under-$20 decoder was released only 6 years ago, and the first decent starter set (IOW, non-MRC) under $200 was only 2 or 3 years ago.

QUOTE: The majority of longtime modelers are still DC oriented and unlikely to change in the near future.

Depends, IMHO. Anyone starting a new layout ought to consider DCC. It's not for everyone, but building a new layout is a great time to go with DCC. As such, as time goes on, I think more and more people will turn to DCC as new layouts get built. For example, I know if my club had not moved from our home of 45 years, we'd still be a DC block control layout. But we moved 6 years ago and changed to DCC.

QUOTE: Most of the potentially unique features DCC might offer/be desired in the future according to posters here are items that would honestly appeal to only a very small percentage of modelers. It is unlikely that most would ever be offered commercially because of this very limited demand.

Now that I agree with 100%. I mean, how many people are going to invest even in a DCC signal system? My club is, but I personally won't until I hit the lottery... [:D]

QUOTE: Instead, the locos will be self-powered and operated by wireless remote control and much sooner than you think. As long as power is obtained through the track or signals carried therein, there remain too many problems.

I can see them being wireless controlled, but I can't see them becoming self-powered anytime soon. Last I heard, battery tech was pretty much maxed out, and micro-fuel cells are just too expensive and look to remain so as long as we have regular batteries for most tasks. I like the new concept from Lenz for their USB decoders that uses what appears to be simple induction to pass signals between the track and the wheels.

QUOTE: With the amazing technical advancements we are seeing elsewhere in self-contained power systems, ten years from now I expect DCC (and DC as well) will likely be nothing more than a memory among model railroaders.

Even if they somehow got onboard power supplies that small, what makes you think they wouldn't still be using an updated DCC as a standard control system?

chutton01 wrote:

QUOTE: No reason DCC could not be replaced, and quickly, in the near future...Soon all locos come with this 'new Digital' standard controller, and bang - DCC is dead.

That is not going to happen. There is no way that people are going to rip out all of the millions of decoders that have already been installed. That means that all these new ideas are going to have to be compatible with NMRA DCC, which means that DCC will still be around and therefore not "dead". Sorry.

Texas Zepher wrote:

QUOTE: So with this "no-track" scenario DCC is an albatros.

Um, no. DCC still is a good protocol for running trains, track power or no track power. And since it obviously works at least in G scale, how can you say it's an "albatros"?

QUOTE: If the power doesn't neet to be transmitted, why not just use a much more efficient and common computer protocol?

Maybe because there's no standard for model railroading control? And no one makes it for model railroading? And who cares if it's more "efficient" if there is no visble difference between a "perfect" system and one that gets the job done with room for expansion?

QUOTE: Why pervert DCC into something it was not designed for, especially when there are much more robust and mature technologies out there?

Because it works, it exists, and it's affordable.

QUOTE: Exactly, the original DCC was almost obsolete before it got into common usage. Sort of like the original DVDs that can't be played on any of the new players. Anything digital becomes obsolete very quickly.

Define common usage. And how obsolete can it be if it still is the best control system available in HO scale?

QUOTE: Extend this thought. There is no reason the camera's in the locomotive couldn't send input to MTS and use it to control the DCC trains.

And one would want to do this why? So one can sit at home and run trains over at the club? How many people are actually going to do that?

QUOTE: Plus it can operate in several modes, in addition to the normal train schedule mode, operation could be driven by industry demands sort of like "Railroad Tycoon" game. Much more interesting for the dispatcher who then makes up the needed trains on the fly.

Um, the dispatcher has nothing to do with that. That sounds more like a Trainmaster and/or the Business Agent's job.

QUOTE: I can imagine the clubs call-out-board being based on engineer & switchman's performance.

My club does this already, and we don't need a wireless, futuristic system to determine who is qualified and who isn't. [:)]

QUOTE: I've been waiting for some feed back on this. I have never understood the twitter over controlling turnouts from the locomotive controller. It always seemed like a lot of extra button pushing switching back and forth between turnout/locomotive/next turnout/locomotive.....I've always though it seemed much more like playing a video game rather than running a railroad, but never actually met/talked anyone who had done it on a scale large enough to be significant.

The point is that with a large layout, one can run it by oneself without the need for a dispatcher. And, since one can throw them remotely, one does not have to be right next to whatever control panel to throw the switches in question. During operations sessions, the plan is to shut off that ability so that onlyy the dispatcher can throw them with the computer. Now, my club only uses stationary decoders on mainline switches. All local and yard switches are still controlled by regular DPDT toggles.

Oh, and with the Digitrax DT400 throttles, one can operate the train while throwing switches at the same time.

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[robengland]

Some comments:

I'm already controling turnouts with Tortoises via a DS54 DCC controller. I agree using a throttle to control them sucks. I'm using fascia mounted pushbuttons. Why go to that trouble? Because soon I'll be controlling them from a JMRI CTC panel too. A panel that can be changed any time the layout is extended or altered, without having to rebuild and repaint a hand-made steel panel.

I do feel that we lost a lot with DCC. A friend is starting out with a layout and using good ol' DC. I'm building a throttle for him, and man the stuff I can easily do with a DC signal (emulating brakes, sand, fuel and water etc) that I would have to be a super PIC programmer to do with DCC. DCC shuts out a lot of the old amateur electronics.

A chip in every bit of rolling stock is very close. RFID chips are plummeting in cost - sooin they'll be on every can of coke. How long after that before some hacker figures out how to re-use the free chips that come with everything you buy? Cut it off the can, slip it into the frame of a boxcar. A cheap home-made reader that needs only have a range of 2 inches, an old PC and you are in business. ANyone out there already have access to used RFID tags? If so, start hacking!!!

I completely agree about the video-in-cab stuff. I think we will go back to fixed cabs instead of walkaround, with prototypical controls and a monitor that can be toggled from forward view to reverse (a protptypical engineers view is pretty lousy anyway, escpecially in steam). We'll need a brakeman following the train just like the prototype too.

For the future, I want smart couplers. Point a laser at the coupler and it opens. Photo-elec cell, tiny electro-mechanical lever. Come on Kadee, how hard can it be?

[JerryZeman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JoeW14626

JerryZeman,

What ever became of the great MTH - Zeman challange ?

As soon as MTH has something to test, I assume that they will contact me. They did not have their HO offering at Trainfest in November.

I also have a few anomalies that they will have to deal with on half of my railroad:

Tony's Train Exchange PowerShields
Switch-it switch machine decoders.
Reverse Loops

I don;t know how Protosound 3, or whatever they are going to call their HO DCS system, will deal with the above. If they can't accommodate the layout the way it is currently wired, then the test will only be able to be done on the older part of the railroad, where there are no Powershields, and switch machine decoders.

regards,
Jerry Zeman

[BRAKIE]

Paul,Sorry I disagree..You can't really compare the X2F coupler to DCC..The manufacturers keep those things alive and well..I still give DCC seven years tops..I really don't see the hordes rushing out to buy DCC starter sets.
Wasn't for 6 of my units being sound equipped I would have sold my Empire Builder II long before now.Contrary to popular belief and MRR magazine DCC is not the best thing since slice bread.Read the article on DCC power blocks in the January '05 issue of MR..Nothing but supped up blocks like one would need for DC wiring.That will not really help the cause on how one doesn't need block wiring with DCC like they do with DC...Then of course most DCC'ers know one doesn't need power blocks on a less then basement size layout...

[CNJ831]

If one honestly steps back from this thread for a moment, they will appreciate that most of the concepts and ideas being expressed here are those of our hobby's electronics junkies (a term meant with no disrespect whatever). As such, it is a very different outlook than that held by the great majority of model railroaders. In this same vain, let me offer the following facts to the discussion that can be backed up by published figures.

Paul talks about the impossibility of DCC vanishing from the scene anytime soon were a different and better system to appear, if for no other reason than that there are "millions" of decoder-equipped locomotives out there. To be realistic, I very much doubt there are more than about 25k such engines currently in circulation. DCC has certainly not taken the hobby by storm (in spite of what is suggested in MR or on this forum) and for a wide spectrum of modelers there is a downright resistance to switching to DCC.

Likewise, addressing just how many folks are even into DCC, MR had an editorial about two years ago discussing this subject. At that time they cited only 15% of hobbyists were using DCC, while a further 10% thought they might consider it in the future. I doubt those figures have changed dramatically in the past 24 months and demonstrates that DCC is still really a niche market.

Approaching the subject from another direction, most posters here seem to consider DCC a God-sent for operations. But remember that, down through the years, one formal survey after another has indicated that better than 2/3 of model railroaders are not into operations in any formal manner at all. Rather, they are interested in running trains and swapping out cars here and there on a whim.

So, while DCC may indeed suit the needs on some hobbyists very well, it is far from being considered a necessity by most of us and is unlikely in my opinion to ever become more than an alternative choice to DC as a method of powering a layout. Super-sophisticated versions of DCC may or may not appear in the future but be assured, such systems will probably have a very narrow market to appeal to. There are likely to be better operating systems not too far down the road and when they appear you may well see a dramatic change in the way model trains are run.

CNJ831

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JerryZeman

QUOTE:
With transponders in every car interfacing to the computer, it knows where the cars are on the layout.

Do you think that there is a large enough customer base to support the development cost to make this a reality?

I fully expect DCC (or whatever replaces it) decoders to become much more specialized, smaller, and cheaper in the years ahead.

One of the biggest parts on a decoder is the power transistor for controlling the motor. If they made decoders that only transponded and didn't have to control anything the size and cost would drop. I expect decoders no larger than a capacitor that can be mounted across an HO wheel axle.

With the increased demand we are already seeing in the market, and the normal digital price deflation, I expect normal decoders to get down into the $2 range. The specialized ones as mentioned above would be less that $1 each.

[Paul3]

robengland wrote:

QUOTE: I do feel that we lost a lot with DCC. A friend is starting out with a layout and using good ol' DC. I'm building a throttle for him, and man the stuff I can easily do with a DC signal (emulating brakes, sand, fuel and water etc) that I would have to be a super PIC programmer to do with DCC. DCC shuts out a lot of the old amateur electronics.

We've lost a lot, alright. We've lost all those lovely little problems like "floating blocks", cries of "who's got my train?", constantly replacing lightbulbs in the panels and on Twin-T's, and accidently turning on the wrong block toggle and launching a loco out of a roundhouse into the turntable pit. Yeah, and we also lost all those hours of assembling cabs, wiring relays, and running miles of wiring from the cabs to the track. Believe me, I know about all the problems that can occur on a DC analog layout because not only did I have one, I operated on my club's ca. 1953 layout for years before we moved and changed to DCC.

QUOTE: A chip in every bit of rolling stock is very close. RFID chips are plummeting in cost - sooin they'll be on every can of coke. How long after that before some hacker figures out how to re-use the free chips that come with everything you buy? Cut it off the can, slip it into the frame of a boxcar. A cheap home-made reader that needs only have a range of 2 inches, an old PC and you are in business. ANyone out there already have access to used RFID tags? If so, start hacking!!!

Good luck. You can bet that these RFID tags are ROM and are not reprogrammable (it wouldn't do for these to be modified once these leave the factory as it would defeat the purpose of using them). So hackers can try all they want, but to my knowledge, nobody has been able to re-burn a non-reprogrammable ROM chip. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

QUOTE: I completely agree about the video-in-cab stuff. I think we will go back to fixed cabs instead of walkaround, with prototypical controls and a monitor that can be toggled from forward view to reverse (a protptypical engineers view is pretty lousy anyway, escpecially in steam). We'll need a brakeman following the train just like the prototype too.

Nope, I disagree. Oh, it might happen in a few rare circumstances (just like people that use Lionel's train cam), but that will never be mainstream. People like walkaround control for a reason.

Brakie wrote:

QUOTE: Paul,Sorry I disagree..You can't really compare the X2F coupler to DCC..The manufacturers keep those things alive and well..I still give DCC seven years tops..I really don't see the hordes rushing out to buy DCC starter sets.

Why can't you compare the X2F to DCC? Both are "standards", both were debated about endlessly, both have a bit of inertia in use (even today, some new cars still come with X2F's in a small baggy). Don't you think that Lenz, Digitrax, NCE, Zimo, CVP, et al., are going to keep DCC going?

And when have you ever seen "hordes" of people rushing out to buy anything in model railroading? Sure, there are things that sell out fast due to short limited runs, but DCC is in constant production and even then there have been shortages from time to time (but no hordes). For example, I've heard that the first batch of UT4R throttles are already sold out, and I know that the Zephyr was hard to get at first when it came out.

I don't deny that DCC will be different from now, but it will still be DCC and backwards compatible. Anything else will not fly.

QUOTE: Contrary to popular belief and MRR magazine DCC is not the best thing since slice bread.

Ok, what is? Is there something better for model railroading control in the past 10 years?

QUOTE: Read the article on DCC power blocks in the January '05 issue of MR..Nothing but supped up blocks like one would need for DC wiring. That will not really help the cause on how one doesn't need block wiring with DCC like they do with DC...

Brakie, are you serious? I just read the article in question, and I note that it would only apply to "club-sized" layouts. No way does DCC even approach the level of complexity that conventional block control does to do the same job unless you're running a big layout. For example, in block control, every place you park an engine, every yard track, and all the departure tracks all need isolated controls (at least we needed them at my club's old layout).

Now, on my home 25' x 50' layout powered with a Zephyr, I operate up to four trains at once. All I have is one block for the entire layout. Sure, if I wanted signals, I'd have to put in a lot of blocks. But I don't need to if I don't want to. All I have is a pair of 16 AWG wires under the entire mainline with feeders every 9' or so. My DCC wiring couldn't be any simpler. If I wanted to do the same thing with block control, I'd need at least 4 cabs @ 10 blocks ea. or more. No thanks.

CNJ831 wrote:

QUOTE: In this same vain, let me offer the following facts to the discussion that can be backed up by published figures. Paul talks about the impossibility of DCC vanishing from the scene anytime soon were a different and better system to appear, if for no other reason than that there are "millions" of decoder-equipped locomotives out there. To be realistic, I very much doubt there are more than about 25k such engines currently in circulation.

Ok, where is your proof that only 25k engines are in "circulation" (whatever that means)? You promised "facts and figures" that could be backed up. For me, my proof about the millions of decoders is on the front page of the Lenz website: "Over 1 Million Decoders Sold" (and that was on there a couple of years ago). Since Lenz is only one of at least 8 DCC decoder manufacturers, is it so much of a stretch to think that there are millions of decoders installed worldwide? Unless, of course, you think Lenz is lying in large bold pink letters at the top of their homepage...

QUOTE: DCC has certainly not taken the hobby by storm (in spite of what is suggested in MR or on this forum) and for a wide spectrum of modelers there is a downright resistance to switching to DCC.

DCC has not taken the hobby by storm? Oooookay. Then why is Atlas, Athearn, Bachmann, MRC, BLI, et al., offering decoder equipped engines? Why does MR have a monthly column devoted to DCC? Why does Atlas have a forum just for DCC? Why did RMC have a 20-plus part article about DCC? Why is there at least 7 different DCC companies offering systems out there? Why are we even talking about it now? If that isn't taking the hobby by storm, I'd like to know what, in your opinion, has taken this hobby by storm by comparison.

And about resistance to using DCC? To each their own. Heck, there must be some people that still like to use paper covered boxcars or wind up mechanisms, too. [:)]

QUOTE: Likewise, addressing just how many folks are even into DCC, MR had an editorial about two years ago discussing this subject. At that time they cited only 15% of hobbyists were using DCC, while a further 10% thought they might consider it in the future. I doubt those figures have changed dramatically in the past 24 months and demonstrates that DCC is still really a niche market.

How did they get their info? Even using their own feed back isn't a good measuring stick because, let's face it, not everyone gets MR anymore. And forget the web, it's too easy to be faked. A couple new starter sets have been introduced in the past couple years, leading me to conclude that even more people are into DCC these days. Finally, just using your own numbers, 1 in 4 people in this hobby are interested in DCC, and you consider that a "niche market"? Sure, compared to the "real world" it is, but when 25% of your entire hobby is interested in something, how can you call it a "niche market"?

QUOTE: Approaching the subject from another direction, most posters here seem to consider DCC a God-sent for operations. But remember that, down through the years, one formal survey after another has indicated that better than 2/3 of model railroaders are not into operations in any formal manner at all. Rather, they are interested in running trains and swapping out cars here and there on a whim.

Ah, but DCC is great for those kinds of operations, too. With DCC, you can just set them up and watch them fly by without having to worry about running into a dead block because you forgot to throw the right toggle. You can easily run two trains right behind the other without worrying about complicated controls or over-running the reverse loop.

QUOTE: So, while DCC may indeed suit the needs on some hobbyists very well, it is far from being considered a necessity by most of us and is unlikely in my opinion to ever become more than an alternative choice to DC as a method of powering a layout.

I have to disagree. I don't see DCC growth leveling out any time soon. I think as the hobby goes on, DCC will only expand. Of course, there will always be a place for DC control, but as we move from the generation of electrical tinkers to the plug-n-play generation, I see DC's lead steadily decreasing (just IMHO).

QUOTE: There are likely to be better operating systems not too far down the road and when they appear you may well see a dramatic change in the way model trains are run.

Why would you assume that? DCC isn't like Dynatrol or CTC-16 where it's quasi-obsolete after 15 or so years. DCC is already 16 years old, and yet it's still the number 1 HO scale control system. It's a very flexible standard, far more so than anything else seen in model railroading.

Texas Zepher wrote:

QUOTE: One of the biggest parts on a decoder is the power transistor for controlling the motor. If they made decoders that only transponded and didn't have to control anything the size and cost would drop. I expect decoders no larger than a capacitor that can be mounted across an HO wheel axle.

Hmm... A transponding decoder. Like this?:
http://www.digitrax.com/prd_statdec_tl1.php

The TL-1 is a single DCC function decoder with integrated Transponder, is smaller than a dime, and costs $16.95 ea. MSRP.

QUOTE: With the increased demand we are already seeing in the market, and the normal digital price deflation, I expect normal decoders to get down into the $2 range. The specialized ones as mentioned above would be less that $1 each.

Well, I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath. I can't see them going that low, really. Not every electronic device drops in price, especially when there is money to be made.

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[CNJ831]

Paul, I realize that your only purpose in responding to this and other forum threads is, and always has been, to create arguments based only on your own personal opinions as to the state of the hobby. However, I will offer some replies for the sake of reader interest.

The 15% of hobbyists using DCC as of a year or two ago can be looked up in MR's editorials. It was based on a survey they took, probably with a very suibstantial base. I'm not about to go searching for this particular issue/editorial but I will guarantee you will find it if you do. I do agree that polls on this and other forums prove absolutely nothing and the numbers are not statistically significant and often bias.

The number of DCC equipped locos out there? Lets be realistic about production runs. While many models are issued as DCC ready (with a harness to allow decoder installation), far fewer come DCC equipped from the factory. Out side of BLI, I don't recall many other engines where 100% of the run is DCC equipped. Given that most production runs currently seem to be no more than a thousand or two units (just like brass used to be!), one can not say that there are hundreds of thousands of DCC equipped units out there...let alone a million or more! Do you honestly believe that every DCC ready engine actually gets an after-market decoder? And I personally don't care what any manufacturer claims these days, most claims are just hype to sell more products. Purporting that between the 7 or 8 companies out there making decoders must have then sold millions of decoders is an absurdity when one considers only perhaps 10k to 20k hobbyists are into DCC to begin with. They'd have to be running upwards of 100 DCC locos each!

Why is this a hot topic? Because some of the DCC fellas just wanted to talk and speculate about fantastic but largely unrealizable devices in the future of DCC. Its in the same category as the articles Scientific American used to run in the 1950's, saying that by 1980 we'd have a helicopter in every garage and robot servants. It's fun to speculate but few really take it as an honest possibility.

As I've already indicated, DCC is a niche market, with something like 15%-20% of hobbyists involved. After a decade (16 years according to you) these figures hardly represent great inroads to me. As to resistance to DCC, yes there are a multitude of preferences among hobbyists, some still even running paper-sided cars. But most longtime modelers are unwilling to accept DCC simply for the reason it would require very considerable expense to convert. DCC will never have a chance at becoming dominant until the entire host of Baby Boomer hobbyists pass from the scene.

For non-operations hobbyists, except the the case of those having an "empire", DC will handle the running of trains just as well as DCC. The idea that you need to run several trains at once with just a single operator (often on nothing more than a 4x8 layout) is silliness and I've seen the Gomez-like results of this on several DCC layouts. Running several trains at the brink of control is more like slot cars than model railroading.

Finally, with the dramatic evolution of technology today, new systems of all types are appearring almost out of thin air every few years. To believe that DCC could remain the absolute best system for operating model trains over the next 10-20 years is to be naive nowadays.

CNJ831

[JerryZeman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

Paul, I realize that your only purpose in responding to this and other forum threads is, and always has been, to create arguments based only on your own personal opinions as to the state of the hobby. However, I will offer some replies for the sake of reader interest.

The 15% of hobbyists using DCC as of a year or two ago can be looked up in MR's editorials. It was based on a survey they took, probably with a very suibstantial base. I'm not about to go searching for this particular issue/editorial but I will guarantee you will find it if you do. I do agree that polls on this and other forums prove absolutely nothing and the numbers are not statistically significant and often bias.

I would be willing to hypothesize that 80% of the spending in this hobby is done by 20% of the people. And the bulk of the 20% is in all likelihood running DCC.

QUOTE: The number of DCC equipped locos out there? Lets be realistic about production runs. While many models are issued as DCC ready (with a harness to allow decoder installation), far fewer come DCC equipped from the factory. Out side of BLI, I don't recall many other engines where 100% of the run is DCC equipped. Given that most production runs currently seem to be no more than a thousand or two units (just like brass used to be!), one can not say that there are hundreds of thousands of DCC equipped units out there...let alone a million or more! Do you honestly believe that every DCC ready engine actually gets an after-market decoder? And I personally don't care what any manufacturer claims these days, most claims are just hype to sell more products. Purporting that between the 7 or 8 companies out there making decoders must have then sold millions of decoders is an absurdity when one considers only perhaps 10k to 20k hobbyists are into DCC to begin with. They'd have to be running upwards of 100 DCC locos each!

OK, so lets try to guesstimate how many actual decoders are out there. I have over 30 decoders installed in locomotives, and I truly believe that I am probably an average user. I personally know people that have 100 plus decoder-equipped locomotives. We are talking aftermarket installations here, not factory shippers. So humor me here, and go with my assumption that the average DCC user has 30 decoder equipped locomotives.

Lets further assume that the North American model railroad market is 240,000 people, and that 15% of them are DCC users. Doing the math, 240K x .15 x 30 = 1,080,000 and that is just in North America. So, I don't think that Paul's assessment is far off.

QUOTE: Why is this a hot topic? Because some of the DCC fellas just wanted to talk and speculate about fantastic but largely unrealizable devices in the future of DCC. Its in the same category as the articles Scientific American used to run in the 1950's, saying that by 1980 we'd have a helicopter in every garage and robot servants. It's fun to speculate but few really take it as an honest possibility.

I agree with your statement that the visions put forth here will in all likelihood not bear fruit, but I have to say that I hope that I am wrong. Growth in reliable, user friendly electronics for model railroading, be it DCC or some as yet to be determined successor will only promote growth in the hobby.

QUOTE: As I've already indicated, DCC is a niche market, with something like 15%-20% of hobbyists involved. After a decade (16 years according to you) these figures hardly represent great inroads to me. As to resistance to DCC, yes there are a multitude of preferences among hobbyists, some still even running paper-sided cars. But most longtime modelers are unwilling to accept DCC simply for the reason it would require very considerable expense to convert. DCC will never have a chance at becoming dominant until the entire host of Baby Boomer hobbyists pass from the scene.

I guess that we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. NOTHING has increased the enjoyment of the hobby for me more than DCC, and I've operated straight DC, Dynatrol, and now DCC. DCC is reliable, robust, and cheap to upgrade to. I don't buy arguments about the high cost to upgrade in this day of $20.00 decoders, and $450.00 complete systems (higher end system cost here, simpler systems are FAR cheaper) when people are willing to part with well over $100.00 for straight DC locomotives, $25.00 built up freight cars, and a whole plethora of other rather pricy items.

QUOTE: For non-operations hobbyists, except the the case of those having an "empire", DC will handle the running of trains just as well as DCC. The idea that you need to run several trains at once with just a single operator (often on nothing more than a 4x8 layout) is silliness and I've seen the Gomez-like results of this on several DCC layouts. Running several trains at the brink of control is more like slot cars than model railroading.

I don't dispute your statements about running multiple trains with a single operator, as it isn't my style either. But what DCC has done for me is it makes my layout run more reliably than it ever would with straight DC. And for me there is a satisfaction in being able to run a long train with a single articulated on the point up my 1.5% grade, with another locomotive slamming it in the rear, and I can do that unassisted if I so desire. When I operate the railroad, I assign a crew to the helper, and they have to work together, just like the real thing. Try doing that with DC. I no longer have to suffer with intermittant contact due to dirty track, and I [bn]ever[/b] clean my track, only oil it.

QUOTE: Finally, with the dramatic evolution of technology today, new systems of all types are appearring almost out of thin air every few years. To believe that DCC could remain the absolute best system for operating model trains over the next 10-20 years is to be naive nowadays.

Control systems hardly appear "out of thin air". As Paul pointed out, DCC has already been around for a long time,and it isn't going anywhere for at least the next 10 years. There isn't a credible control system available to replace DCC at this point in time, and I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that DCS from the House of Torts isn't going to supplant it. TMCC has made some inroads into the two rail O market, but not enought to even be considered a credible threat. Opinions on RailLynx have been rendered in other messages in this thread.

WIll something else better eventually come along? Yes, but thinking that it is going to happen in the next five years is naive, and I doubt that it would gather much initial support if it doesn't offer backwards compatibility with DCC.

regards,
Jerry Zeman

[jfugate]

$20 for a bottom end decoder? Not even ... $12.50 from Tony's Train Exchange.

LE1000W, 1 Amp, 1 Function (Headlite or Other), "Value Line" Decoder, $12.50.

See: http://www.tonystrains.com/tonystips/2004/020204.htm

At these prices, there's no excuse for not going to DCC. [:D]

If all you want to do is run something from your collection around, then sure, straight DC is fine. But if you want to really operate, then you're nuts not to give DCC a look.

[CNJ831]

Jerry, while I find a number of your points not unreasonable for someone who enjoys DCC operation, I do have to take issue with some others.

The reasoning that 80% of the money spent in the hobby comes from just 20% of the hobbyist is very likely to be valid as the hobby does indeed seem to be driven by a relative handful of hobbyists at present. But I see no reason to believe that most of the money is coming from DCC enthusiasts.

Further, the idea that, on average, these individuals have 30 or more DCC equipped locomotives sounds rather fanciful to me unless they all have truly "empire-sized" layouts. I've been in the hobby for decades and have made many purchases through the years but don't consider more than a half dozen or so of my locomotives appropriate for operation on my current layout and these only a couple at a time. Of the several dozen modelers I'm familiar with, this is also typically the situation. For this same reason, I can't accept the validity of your calculations as to DCC locomotive numbers. In fact, I very much doubt a million HO locomotives, DC and DCC combined, have been sold in the USA in less than the last 8-10 years. Current production runs are in the thousands, not even the tens of thousands. A million DCC-equipped units borders on astronomical considering the probable number of hobbyists overall. How can one possibly justify such a huge figure?

I acknowledge that many hobbyists, especially those who really like the electronics end of the hobby, do enjoy DCC. However, I can personally point to quite a few guys who have been frustrated time and again at the glitches with DCC, especially when there is a short somewhere on the layout and lacking blocks it took hours to locate, or when they were experiencing train signal continuity problems. Yes, DC has its problems too but most are more easily identified and solved than those involving DCC, at least by modelers less astute in electrical knowledge. I use wireless DC to control my trains and would never consider going to tethered DCC controller (or paying the hefty sum for a wireless one).

Conclusions? I guess it's just to each his own.

CNJ831

[ericboone]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

A million DCC-equipped units borders on astronomical considering the probable number of hobbyists overall. How can one possibly justify such a huge figure?

This was already stated once. Look at http://www.lenz.com. Right at the top of the page is written "Over 1 Million Decoders Sold". Do you think Lenz is not telling the truth?

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericboone

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

A million DCC-equipped units borders on astronomical considering the probable number of hobbyists overall. How can one possibly justify such a huge figure?

This was already stated once. Look at http://www.lenz.com. Right at the top of the page is written "Over 1 Million Decoders Sold". Do you think Lenz is not telling the truth?

I was kind of hoping the slot car industry would addopt the standard rather than creating there own. But it seems there are currently three different flavors of digital slot cars, none appear to be DCC. If we could get them "on board" it would increase the market size.

[BRAKIE]

First I will say again I am using DCC.However,I am not blinded by the fact that Manufacturers still produces more DCC ready locomotives then DCC equipped.There are 47 members in the club that I go to..Only SIX of us use DCC.There was 7 of us but one has returned to DC.
Now if everybody was using DCC then MRC would go out of business..
And Paul,I still say that DCC is not the best thing since slice bread..I still can't get over my 4 Atlas GP38s that the DCC decoder or board went bad in while running on straight DC FROM THE FACTORY!!! I never switch these units over to the DCC mode...Now removed that DCC/light board from the P2K geeps and hard wire the drive you have a little faster running units as many of the club members has found out...

[Anonymous]

I like the idea of DCC-ready better than having the decoder already built in in most cases -- that way I get to choose what DCC features I want and which vendor's decoder I prefer. My best example of why I think this way is the Atlas FM H-16-44 locos with the dual-mode decoders. The decoders are very basic Lenz OEMs that don't even support CV5 & CV6 for speed control. The only way to change the speed characteristics is to program in a custom speed table -- easy with DecoderPro, but a pain doing manual programming. They're otherwise great engines, but I'd much rather have had just a DCC socket or easy drop-in board (like for the P2K geeps) so I could install my own decoder.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

If one honestly steps back from this thread for a moment, they will appreciate that most of the concepts and ideas being expressed here are those of our hobby's electronics junkies (a term meant with no disrespect whatever). As such, it is a very different outlook than that held by the great majority of model railroaders....

I don't think anyone (well maybe one) participating in this thread is saying that everyone or even a majority of Model Railroaders has to agree with and will like, dislike, want to, or use any of the ideas begin presented. Just look at the variation in computer train games. Some people love Train Simulator and TrainZ others find it totally boring. Same at the opposite end of the spectrum with "Rails Across America". I would never want to use some of the things I've thrown into the ring, but I know people who would. Thinking about the future is about exploring all ideas and extending and expanding those ideas to the point of obsurity. This gets other people thinking about the concept and new divergent paths to contribute which rounds or weeds out the good and not so good. Then often a technology change will come along that enables a previously precluded concept. In looking at ancient computer science literature (1953-1957) it has always amazed me at some of the really neat ideas people had, but just didn't have the computing power to implement.

As far as model railroading is concerned we have all types. There is one fellow at the club who will run anything as long as it moves, his thing is working the switching problems. We have others who's main desire is dispatch and keep the trains moving smoothly. Another person likes to build locomotives with independent control of marker lamps, multiple head lamps, flashing strobe on the roof (even on his cabooses), backup lights, ditch lights, etc. He will stand there all day and turn them on and off and it never even matters if his train moves.

Whatever the future of DCC holds I think that it will enable more people to do whatever they want to do with their trains. This cannot be a bad thing.

And drat, once again I have a much longer post than I planned.

[Paul3]

CNJ831 wrote:

QUOTE: Paul, I realize that your only purpose in responding to this and other forum threads is, and always has been, to create arguments based only on your own personal opinions as to the state of the hobby. However, I will offer some replies for the sake of reader interest.

"To create arguments"? I call them debates. Arguments are, IMHO, when it gets personal. Debates are when we discuss facts, and opinions based on facts. I don't deny I like a good debate, but I do post for other reasons. Not often, but I do post informational posts from time to time.

QUOTE: The 15% of hobbyists using DCC as of a year or two ago can be looked up in MR's editorials. It was based on a survey they took, probably with a very suibstantial base.

I recall the editorial. What I was questioning was their method. Do you recall if it was done using only MR subscribers?

QUOTE: Purporting that between the 7 or 8 companies out there making decoders must have then sold millions of decoders is an absurdity when one considers only perhaps 10k to 20k hobbyists are into DCC to begin with. They'd have to be running upwards of 100 DCC locos each!

Did you take into account worldwide DCC users, or just USA users? I would have to imagine that both Japanese and European markets would add just a bit to the numbers.

QUOTE: Why is this a hot topic? Because some of the DCC fellas just wanted to talk and speculate about fantastic but largely unrealizable devices in the future of DCC. Its in the same category as the articles Scientific American used to run in the 1950's, saying that by 1980 we'd have a helicopter in every garage and robot servants. It's fun to speculate but few really take it as an honest possibility.

Strangely enough, I agree 100% with the above. Sure, moving cameras in the cab is a neat idea, but the technology is so far away from that we might as well figure on using "Star Trek" replicators to make our models with. [:D]

QUOTE: As I've already indicated, DCC is a niche market, with something like 15%-20% of hobbyists involved. After a decade (16 years according to you) these figures hardly represent great inroads to me.

I see... Do you also consider "N-scale" to be a niche market? It's only around 25% of the total MR market...

QUOTE: For non-operations hobbyists, except the the case of those having an "empire", DC will handle the running of trains just as well as DCC.

For those that only want to run one train at a time, I agree. For those that want to run with more than train, DCC only makes sense.

QUOTE: Finally, with the dramatic evolution of technology today, new systems of all types are appearring almost out of thin air every few years.

Name them.

Jerry wrote:

QUOTE: Lets further assume that the North American model railroad market is 240,000 people, and that 15% of them are DCC users. Doing the math, 240K x .15 x 30 = 1,080,000 and that is just in North America. So, I don't think that Paul's assessment is far off.

Thanks Jerry. I wonder what the percentage is if for Japanese and European modelers?

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[robengland]

I do like the way some threads just fire up[:D]

I won't enter into the debate, but just to clarify one earlier point: I believe it will be simple for a hacker to use the *existing* ID in an RFID tag. No need to write anything to the tag. Seems like a doddle to me:
peel the tag off some product
read its ID
enter the ID into a database on an old PC, linking it to, say, a particular boxcar
set up RFID readers trackside, sending the ID to the PC
update a map or other display on the PC showing the location of the boxcar
print an accurate switch list at the start of the next operating session

Who cares if the ID number originally identified a can of Coke, so long as it is unique (which they are).

The only tricky bit I see is creating readers cheap enough to have about as many as we currently have magnetic uncoupling ramps. I assume there is a single chip inside the readers - once production hits a sweet spot, those chips will be as cheap as... Volumes must be huge already.

And complete reader devices will get cheap too. If someone told me a few years ago I would buy a complete remote-controlled car and controller for less than US$10 I wouldn't have believed it.

[IRONROOSTER]

MRC has come out with their third DCC system and it is getting decent reviews. Atlas and Bachmann have DCC. Several manufacturers offer DCC equiped locomotives as well as DCC ready - just plug the DCC board in and go. This is happening in N, HO, S, O, and G. (don't know about Z).

You can argue about how many of this or that are sold, what percent are using it. But having mainstream manufacturers on board says to me that the technology has arrived. Cost is also coming down. DCC has passed from being a techie market to the main market. DC won't go away either. Just as some folks like manual turnout controls and others like remote; some will like DC and others DCC.
Enjoy
Paul