Something I rarely see mentioned in these discussions is what I consider the biggest advantage of DCC...
If I come to your layout as a guest operator, I know how to run your trains already.
Back when I used to do this, DCC layouts were just so simple.I picked up a controller, input my locomotive number, and I was off to the races.
No instructions on how the locate block seperations, how power isolation worked for parking locomotives, how to work reverse loops, making sure the next block was assigned to my cab, or anything else.
Just run your locomotive and do your thing.
That alone... that is worth its weight in gold.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Unfortunately, I find a lot of the arguments against DCC come from misconceptions about DCC. Some examples:
DCC means sound. No it doesn't. Many companies make locomotives with factory installed non-sound decoders. Or you can install non-sound decoders yourself. Non-sound decoders are much cheaper than sound ones, and you don't have to buy a speaker and enclosure.
DCC wiring is difficult. No, DCC wiring is easy. Multi-train DC wiring is hard. If your DC layout works well, you can just connect up a DCC system to it (two wires) and the layout will work fine.
DCC doesn't allow blocks. Yes it does. Most DCC layouts still are separated into blocks to allow for detection for signals, to allow an area like a roundhouse or engine service area to be turned off, or just to help track down problems. However, you only need an on/off for each block; you don't need to switch between several DC power outputs / powerpacks.
DCC requires a degree in computer programming. No. You get an engine with a factory installled decoder. You put it on the programming track and change the ID number from 03 to the number on the engine. Then you're done, the engine will run on DCC the same as it did on DC. You can go back later and add momentum or change how the lights work, but you don't have to.
Consisting is hard. No again. Each system is different, but basically you call up the ID of the lead engine. You press a button to add an engine and enter it's ID. That's it, both engines will respond to the lead engine's ID. Add another if you want.
Installing decoders is hard. Not really. Most engines made after 2000 have a DCC plug. Remove the dummy plug and plug in the decoder. Older engines may need to be "hardwired" but it's not difficult. If you've been in the hobby a while and are use to soldering wires, it's pretty straightforward. If you can wire a DC reverse loop, you can install a decoder. Once you do one, you'll wonder why you worried so much about it.
Simon,
I only have two comments.
I have wireless radio throttles in DC, don't need DCC for wireless throttles.
And my GRAVELY is only 7 years older than your tractor. It not only has cruise control, it also has instant forward and reverse, no levers to move or safety handle to hold. Push the top of the pedal it goes forward, push the bottom of the pedal it backs up - automatically in a slower gear for safety.
And it does that with heavy duty gear drive, not hydrostatic drive. Just amazing.
I mowed two acres in two hours yesterday.
Sheldon
Thanks for the info, I would like to hear more from others, might have to start a thread. Yea, I could see blowing them on install, I did a Proto S1 (I beleive that was the type, been awhile) and I had trouble with isolating the motor because of some excess soulder.
rrebell BradenD I run DCC sound but I only recently switched over. I will say there is something peaceful about DC. I just miss the simplicity sometimes. DC operators are not worried about blowing up a decoder and that's something that I miss a lot. Now how are you sopposed to blow a decoder except when doing the inital instalation, I sopose the auto disconect could fail?
BradenD I run DCC sound but I only recently switched over. I will say there is something peaceful about DC. I just miss the simplicity sometimes. DC operators are not worried about blowing up a decoder and that's something that I miss a lot.
I run DCC sound but I only recently switched over. I will say there is something peaceful about DC. I just miss the simplicity sometimes. DC operators are not worried about blowing up a decoder and that's something that I miss a lot.
Now how are you sopposed to blow a decoder except when doing the inital instalation, I sopose the auto disconect could fail?
Simon
A lot of things have been brought up here. As far as HI-FI sound, I get it as I used to be able to hear sounds no one else could, in fact was told it was impossible for humans to hear them, yea right. When I was young I went to buy an expencive sound set up, it did not go well as I heard all the sounds that the seller could not hear and they were young, finnaly had to settle. Now many years later and doing lots of trade jobs my hearing is in the normal range so the sound from basic sound locos sounds fine to me. As far as cost for DCC or anything, you can pay what you find fits your values, I have never paid over $150 for any sound loco and most of nine are brand new. I am a bottom feeder and for an example in produce they sell a bag of small colorfull bell peppers, I pay $1.50 for these at one store and I see them sold at another major grocery store for $6, same ones. Only thing I have paid dearly for is a Digitrax UT4 throttle because I wanted one more for my layout and they discontinued them so supply dryed up.
DCC has many advantages, and yes, sound can be muted or turned down. It's probably overated for diesel locos... I think it is especially useful on larger layouts, where you can follow your loco up close to actually see it - something that is necessary when coupling and uncoupling without using the 5 finger crane. Auto-reversers are great too... And I really started to enjoy DCC at our club layout when we installed the Wifi system. No more battery issues, no more running from plug to plug to operate a throttle. The phone is not perfect, but it's way better than a throttle on a large layout.
IMHO, resistance to DCC boils down to three things: 1) initial cost of system; 2) multiple locos to convert; and 3) complexity of DCC. About the multiple locos to convert, that was my problem about 15 years ago, so I built a dual system with one switch that goes from DC to DCC. Then I realized that there was a bunch of old locos that just did not get a lot of mileage. So I gradually installed decoders in the locos that mattered (not many, when you think about it), and used the other locos for parts. I don't sell stuff... About the cost of decoders, at $20 per loco, with no sound (that people hate, apparently), it's not a big deal. Sure, you can go higher end, but I have too many locos to go all the way. I removed the DC/DCC switch when I rebuilt my layout. I also removed some decoders from old locos that did not get a lot of running time, and re-installed them in new acquisitions.
Then there is the complexity of DCC. That is something industry needs to think about constantly. Most of the members at our club don't have a clue, and just don't have the abilities, to install/program decoders. Sure, you can buy DCC equipped locos, but when things go bad, most folks are totally at loss as to how to get them running again. Resets: does it have to be that complicated?? There isn't even a standard way of doing it. How about a single button somewhere (which one company has, I forget which one) ? And changing the address: not always that simple if it's a four-digit number. The computer is probably the way of the future. I ordered a PR4 a few days ago. Let's see how simple that will be....
I would never go back to DC, even though I often get frustrated when installing decoders. The results ARE satisfying, but I wish NMRA and industry could work on making things simpler. And keep the cost of both sound and non-sound decoders down.
PS: I bought a Husqvarna tractor about 20 years ago. It's fast, super powerful and it has cruise control . My neighbour has an old Gravely. Sure, it's cool to have vintage equipment, but performance counts when you need to mow one acre of grass... You can always own both, like I did for my cars: a Toyota for the rain and snow days, and an old Alfa for sunny Sunday driving .
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Rich, Correct, the question is about independent train control. Is that important to a particular persons modeling goals? Not always, but often yes. And I have repeatedly agreed with this, and lots of people on here agree it is not important to everyone or every layout situation. Sheldon
Rich,
Correct, the question is about independent train control. Is that important to a particular persons modeling goals?
Not always, but often yes.
And I have repeatedly agreed with this, and lots of people on here agree it is not important to everyone or every layout situation.
Sheldon. To expand on this a bit. First off, I'm not a railroad or MRR technician. I forget, relearn, and forget the exact terminology for some of this because I really don't use them enough.
Just want to be clear for the reader, the lack of need for independent train control is not relegated to shelf-type layouts, or bedroom sized layouts. The space used is simply a function of what's needed.
I model a one horse short line or branch line. If I had your space, I don't think I would change the concept of my layout. I wouldn't add more trains simply because I had more space. I would just spread everything out (within reason...too much dead space can be boring). Since the op session begins with the shortline taking cars off of the interchange, with space like yours I would probably model the Class 1 dropping off cars. Traverse 20 feet of track...a long train....switch out and drop off a cut of about 10 cars for the branch line, then head forward another 20 feet and back around to staging.
There would be no need to do that with DCC.
Another point. And I'm not technical enough to describe properly, but independent train control becomes less complex when Blocks are big enough to provide separation between moving trains. IIRC, real railroads would have ways of stopping a train on a main line if it was approaching another train...signaling..now days I assume a computer shuts down a train...with several miles still in between. The goal is to not have them run on top of one another, but keep them separated far enough to prevent accidents. They operate in "blocks" too. And if one train violates another train's Block, I assume its supposed to stop. With large enough DC blocks and power routing turnout sidings, trains could be separated by a more prototypical distance. And wait on the siding for a more prototypical length of time.
I've always seen the advantage of DCC as being the ability to compress lots of ops into a relatively small space, where the DC blocks are probably linear-ly shorter than what is really desireable because of the space challenges this hobby has.
Think of it as an ops/space ratio, I guess. Some folks are simply interested in a lower ratio no matter what the size of the layout is.
IIRC, Rich models a large Chicago passenger station. Lots of trains. Lots of locos in a relatively small space. Like with engine terminals, I could see where DCC clears a much easier path for operating trains than DC would.
- Douglas
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL rather than all those separate layers necessary with DCC. what layers? a command station receives a request from a controllers and it periodically sends a DCC packet across the rails ATLANTIC CENTRAL One intergrated system rather than layers of different equipment. would you prefer everyone sit at the same PC to control their loco, along with a dispatcher operating CTC? a integrated system combines components, technologies and layers and is much easier to achieve than a single monolithic device. it makes sense for multiple devices to share information
ATLANTIC CENTRAL rather than all those separate layers necessary with DCC.
what layers? a command station receives a request from a controllers and it periodically sends a DCC packet across the rails
ATLANTIC CENTRAL One intergrated system rather than layers of different equipment.
would you prefer everyone sit at the same PC to control their loco, along with a dispatcher operating CTC?
a integrated system combines components, technologies and layers and is much easier to achieve than a single monolithic device.
it makes sense for multiple devices to share information
You still don't get it.
I will try to use an example. Rather than take the turnout position information to a whole nother set of equipment for the signaling, the actual electrons that light the signal travel thru the detector, and thru one of the sets of contacts on the relay that also operated the switch motor. And another set of contacts on that same relay actually carry the track power thru that turnout to link the proper route, and the actual electrons that energize and hold that relay illuminate the LED's that show me what position it is in.
Nobody is talking about sitting in front of a PC to do anything, PM Railfan is talking about the PC being the single multi function brain for the whole thing.
PMR :
Don't understand what your point is.
You keep talking about using a PC and how bad using a handheld controller is, BUT then you said this:
PM RailfanAnd as laughable as it is, no, you dont carry the PC around with you to run the trains. Just a hand held throttle. Much like you already have.
You don't want to use a hand held controller but you have to use a hand held controller????
You want 101 keys because 20 or 30 isn't enough, but then you are actually using a controller with 20 or 30 keys?
Are you reading what you are writing?
What are you using to communicate between the PC and the controllers and the decoders in the engines? You have to have something to communicate between the PC or hand held throttle and the decoders. There has to be some fore of software to communicate the commands to the decoders. You have to have some thing to power the rails (unless your engines are battery powered).
I use JMRI on a laptop to configure the decoders in my engines. I use that same laptop to generate my operations paperwork, both for car forwarding and track authority. I don't carry my laptop around with me when I operate. I use just a hand held throttle. The communications software I use to communicate is DCC. The system I use to facilitate the communication, that makes the hand held throttles and that supplies the power to the rails is NCE. You can but other brands, you can roll your own, but you still need all those parts in any system.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
As a nearly 20 year member of this forum, let me make this observation. There may or may not have been one or more threads devoted to the topic of DC versus DCC, but there certainly have been a number of threads that wandered into the issue of DC versus DCC. What it always seems to come down to is three issues - - independent train control, sound and cost.
DCC is more expensive that DC, mainly because you have to add in cost of the decoder.
Sound is debatable because some hate it and some love it. On the one hand, I constantly read about operators muting the sound. On the other hand, there are always new threads popping up asking which decoder manufacturer is best, and a bunch of threads inquiring about how to program a sound decoder.
The real issue is independent train control. DCC beats DC hands down when it comes to this issue. That's why early on I switched from DC to DCC before I got too deep into the hobby.
Of the 93 locomotives that I have owned, I installed decoders in 29 of them, but only one was a sound decoder. Of the remaining 64 locomotives, all of them came with a factory installed decoder and only 5 came without sound, all 5 were Atlas Master dual decoders. So, sound matters little to me but if the loco came with factory installed sound so be it.
Rich
Alton Junction
ATLANTIC CENTRALrather than all those separate layers necessary with DCC.
ATLANTIC CENTRALOne intergrated system rather than layers of different equipment.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
PM Railfan,
I understood, a single complete adaptable system.
I considered using programable controllers rather than relays - but at the time it was way too expensive.
So I built a single intergrated system around my goals, rather than all those separate layers necessary with DCC.
The same relay that allows me to throw a turnout from multiple locations also interlocks routes so multiple turnouts are controlled with one button, directs track power to eliminate extra blocks, directs signal logic thru interlockings, and powers frogs correctly.
The same bank of relays that provide progressive assignment of cabs to primary blocks also direct dispatcher permission to provide CTC signal commands.
The relays on my detection boards provide the needed detection logic for signals, power those signals directly and provide train location displays for operators.
One intergrated system rather than layers of different equipment.
Admittedly, things like waybills/switch lists, I stil do with pencil and paper.
PM RailfanGregC) Bruce Chubbs ideas were the forefront of DCC, not the end. Had the ability to superimpose control signal over voltage been available at the time, dont think for a minute Bruce wouldnt have had a schematic for it.
i do think, for much more than a minute ...
Chubbs ideas solve a different problem
there are different requirements and limitations for controlling a loco vs other devices on a layout (e.g. turnouts)
the track needs to carry both power as well as communication with the loco and that communication needs to be over a noisy communication path. it needs to be simple
communication with layout devices don't have these limitations, and there are many more devices.
why would you superimpose signal and voltage for such a thing?
do you seriously suggest sending 100 byte messages over rails?
PM RailfanDCC systems are finite in that they can only do what they do from the factory. Thats it. A PC can be programmed to do that, and so much more. Its infinite compared to finite.
perhaps you're suggesting a PC can be programmed as a 5G phone -- Its infinite -- ???
your comparisons are mind boggling
OK, let me see if I can clarify what I have been saying.
TStage) I envisioned a simple hand held control much like we used to have - throttle, direction switch, momentum and brake if wanted. And you wouldnt have to look at them either. Hand held memory throttles... the PC takes care of the voltage control, location to send it, and what locos to send it to. Much like DCC already works, but with a more robust way to go about it and an old style throttle like we all are used too. DCC doesnt shut down volatage when not used. Its constant. A PC could do that easily!
One thing with PC control, it can be as easy or not... as you want it. I spend too much time infront of a sceen too, but thats not how i envisioned using a PC to operate a model railroad. Its in the CTC room, or under the benchwork humming away controlling the layout as I operate a train across the layout. Preprogrammed like DCC and fire and forget.
DHuseman) No, JMRI is not PC controlled DCC, atleast not in the sense Im talking about. You still have to buy todays DCC equipment. Pieces compared to one pc.
Ofcourse DCC doesnt care how many keys you have. That wasnt the point. having that many more, means that many more 'options' or "functions" available to you at any given time. IF more control wasnt the case, then all DCC controllers would look the same simple way. Dont use them if you dont need them, but nice to have if the need did arise!
Now I dont know why anyone cant figure out i dont mean DCC runs the paperwork side of it - waybills, schedules, etc. As it is right now, if you operate DCC and you want to have a waybill system you get up and go over to a PC or laptop and print them. Then go back to your DCC to run them.\ So you need a DCC system AND a PC. 2 systems! Twice the cost!
Why not just let the PC do both?????????? Its called switching between windows.
From what Ive heard and seen with DCC systems, you need quite a few controllers to do this that and the other. One PC could do that. This is all I was saying.
A system to control switches, another to control signalling, one to run the trains, another to light the tiny homes, another controller to switch your traffic lights red to green.... it goes on. One PC has the power to do all that under one hood. ONE versus many!
Its as simple as you run DCC today, program a decoder, set some parameters then go run. The only difference is, you do it on one PC. Everything. lighting, swithcing, running, and yes, on a NON CONTROL SIDE..... you have the ability to run sound, do paperwork, and even...... check out the latest post on MR. Let me see you do that with your DCC!
And as laughable as it is, no, you dont carry the PC around with you to run the trains. Just a hand held throttle. Much like you already have.
GregC) Bruce Chubbs ideas were the forefront of DCC, not the end. Had the ability to superimpose control signal over voltage been available at the time, dont think for a minute Bruce wouldnt have had a schematic for it.
It was the next step. Needless to say, here was someone utilizing daughter boards and a PC. SOOO much more powerful than your current DCC systems.
DCC systems are finite in that they can only do what they do from the factory. Thats it. A PC can be programmed to do that, and so much more. Its infinite compared to finite.
That was my whole point. Unleashing the power of a PC instead of commercial built limited DCC systems.
Remember, when DCC first came out, much like everyone has a cell phone today, everyone had a PC back then. A company could have packaged the hardware (daughter boards), cables, and a software CD for us to buy and upgrade our PCs. No pc cost because everyone already had them!
Dang how simple is that!
Maybe one last way to put this that can be better understood....
Gaming. Weve all done it at some point. I know I have, Im a former kid. Im sure alot of you are too. However, you notice, the best way to play a game is on a PC, not an XBox or playstation. Or even a Nintendo. Yep PC.
PC's have way better graphics, better speeds, better everything compared to a game console. And yes, more keys than a nintendo controller for that extra fragging ability. Plus, every game ever made for a game console was written, tested, and produced by a PC. Not a game console.
Your DCC systems are game consoles compared to a PC. Limited, and not as powerful. Make sense now? If not, I will be happy to try again.
And thus, my reason for not going DCC. It just didnt turnout as good as I was expecting. It wasnt that it isnt good, or doesnt work. Its an expense that is more buck, than bang.
PMR
SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL I don't like all the fussing to consist locos and un consist them. When I left N scale in the mid 1990s, dozens of undecorated Kato EMD locomotives ended up with my friend Ron in Naples. He set them up with DCC in sets (consists) of three. The middle unit was de-motored and that is where the decoder was. I think he used HO decoders. The other two units remained powered. There was no consisting. They ran in sets of three with a single decoder/address. It worked great. -Kevin
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I don't like all the fussing to consist locos and un consist them.
When I left N scale in the mid 1990s, dozens of undecorated Kato EMD locomotives ended up with my friend Ron in Naples.
He set them up with DCC in sets (consists) of three. The middle unit was de-motored and that is where the decoder was. I think he used HO decoders. The other two units remained powered. There was no consisting. They ran in sets of three with a single decoder/address.
It worked great.
And I have to agree that was a good solution as well.
I don't change around my power that much, but I do like the idea that I can just add more power when desired with no "programing".
SeeYou190 As I have said before... If I were starting over from scratch, I would have a shelf G scale switching layout with one DCC controlled GP-9, with one very loud speaker. I think DCC/sound would be great for a one locomotive show. -Kevin
As I have said before... If I were starting over from scratch, I would have a shelf G scale switching layout with one DCC controlled GP-9, with one very loud speaker.
I think DCC/sound would be great for a one locomotive show.
Agreed, that would be the perfect way to showcase sound.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI don't like all the fussing to consist locos and un consist them.
OK, a followup on some of the reasons I rejected DCC.
I don't like any of the primary throttles from an ergonomic standpoint.
I want detection, CTC and signaling, I need blocks anyway.
I don't like all the fussing to consist locos and un consist them.
I don't like programing, adjusting, speed matching, Like the consisting, all extra tasks I don't have now.
I don't like the process of installing decoders - if I did go DCC I would hard wire all of them and eliminate factory accessory boards - but I'm not, so I won't.
I'm not replacing all my current locos just like I'm not replacing all my current rolling stock with high end RTR.
These views come from many hours of DCC use on other people's layouts.....
Others will feel differently or be in a different situation and that is fine and good.
At some point I will try to give a brief explaination of how my system works without a bunch of "toggle flipping".......
Paul3 Sheldon (re: your original post),We both agree that DC or DCC choice is about the end user. What works for one doesn't work for another. "Railfans" vs. "Operators", "Dispatchers" vs. "Engineers", and so on. So why DCC? On board sound is nice but it also needs to be scaled for the application. The volume needed at a 5000 sq.ft. club isn't a good idea in a 10'x10' bedroom layout. Likewise, kill blocks at engine terminals are a good investment (at my DCC club, all roundhouses use a rotary selector switch for radial track power). DCC walk-around isn't just for manual turnouts. We have a mix of toggle-thrown switches and throttle-thrown switches with most being both. This is very handy when trying to throw a switch beyond your current reach...say on the other side of a duck-under.Both multi-train and multi-operator layouts, regardless of size, can see signficant benefits with DCC over a simple (2+ cab) DC layout. However, one-train/one-operator layouts work just as well with DC, so DCC probably isn't worth it unless there's a specific want/need by the end user. The "neutral" issues. You say that the wiring will be the same, more or less, for turnout switch controls. Here I disagree; in certain cases, namely for any dispatcher-controlled switches, the wiring for remote switch control is vastly simplified for DCC vs. DC. Yes, for a simple home layout, wiring is about the same as wiring in a DPDT toggle (and isn't usually worth the effort). However, if you want to control that turnout (and all the others) from another location, the amount of copper required is daunting.At my club, as dispatcher, I control over 150 turnouts using a PC running JMRI. The entirety of the wiring between the layout and my upstairs tower is exactly one 6-conductor wire. That's it. No DC layout can compare. That same 6-cond. wire also tells me block detection and signalling information. It also runs the fast clocks.I have a friend in Rhode Island who recently had his layout on the cover of MR that has his dispatcher run his layout from Florida during operation sessions using JMRI. I don't think that's practical with a DC layout. Why DC?As you know, sound isn't something you have to give up with DC. Both the PFM system and the ThrottleUP! system ran on DC but good luck getting parts. :)We've had this discussion before, but you are a electronics hobbyist. You enjoy building relay circuits and control panels, but that puts you in special company. Smart phone throttles are a rarity in this hobby IMHO. Of all the people I know in the hobby (both in my 65-member club and online), perhaps 4 have used a smart phone throttle to my knowledge. FWIW, I also dislike the thought of using a smart phone as a throttle, which is why I have a ProtoThrottle. It's simply the best tactile-feel controller on the market today with an 8-notch throttle, 3-position reverser, brake lever, rotary lighting switches, a latching bell button, and a spring-loaded horn lever. It is not available for DC users.Speaking of garden tractors (quickly), last year I broke down and bought a brand new Kubota BX1880. I have been using my grandfather's 1964 A-C (Simplicity) B10 and my other grandfather's 1977 Wheel Horse C-120 since I could reach the pedals, but they are just plain worn out. Too many breakdowns, leaks, part failures, etc. these days, and I can only get new parts from eBay if I'm lucky. It was a good run with the old iron; we got 50-60 years out them. I'm not complaining, I just wanted something new for once that works every time.What do I give up by not having DCC?Engine terminals are a big DCC benfit because you can park your power where it fits, not just where the blocks are. At my old DC club layout, our engine blocks had to fit a Big Boy, which was inefficient when parking a 44tonner on that same block.Engine lighting can be important for those that model railroads that use extras, sections and TTO operations (provided the DCC engines have these lights). Some prefer the realism of flashing ditchlights, dimming headlights, etc., stuff not normally found on DC layouts, but both you and I can ignore ditchlights. :)Speed matching is pretty cool because you can mix types very easily. Not all railroads did, of course, but on the NH it would not be uncommon to see a mix of GP9, RS-11, RS-3, H16-44, FA-1/FB-1, FB-2 units on a train. For me, that would be a Athearn Genesis, Atlas, Stewart, Bowser, Proto 2000, and Rapido units. I can make them all run together with DCC. Not an issue for you with the ACR, but a big issue for me on the NH.In your summation, no one "needs" DCC...but they don't "need" DC either. But I would say to that gentlemen you visited that he should think about DCC if only to get a ProtoThrottle. For industrial switching layouts, it's the best thing since sliced bread (IMHO). Seriously, it's a lot of fun if you want to "be the engineer" on a switcher. And frankly, I hate the Aristo throttles. I've used them (years ago), but the hard plastic buttons had little feel to them. And after while, my thumb starts to hurt.
Sheldon (re: your original post),We both agree that DC or DCC choice is about the end user. What works for one doesn't work for another. "Railfans" vs. "Operators", "Dispatchers" vs. "Engineers", and so on.
So why DCC?
On board sound is nice but it also needs to be scaled for the application. The volume needed at a 5000 sq.ft. club isn't a good idea in a 10'x10' bedroom layout. Likewise, kill blocks at engine terminals are a good investment (at my DCC club, all roundhouses use a rotary selector switch for radial track power).
DCC walk-around isn't just for manual turnouts. We have a mix of toggle-thrown switches and throttle-thrown switches with most being both. This is very handy when trying to throw a switch beyond your current reach...say on the other side of a duck-under.Both multi-train and multi-operator layouts, regardless of size, can see signficant benefits with DCC over a simple (2+ cab) DC layout. However, one-train/one-operator layouts work just as well with DC, so DCC probably isn't worth it unless there's a specific want/need by the end user.
The "neutral" issues.
You say that the wiring will be the same, more or less, for turnout switch controls. Here I disagree; in certain cases, namely for any dispatcher-controlled switches, the wiring for remote switch control is vastly simplified for DCC vs. DC. Yes, for a simple home layout, wiring is about the same as wiring in a DPDT toggle (and isn't usually worth the effort). However, if you want to control that turnout (and all the others) from another location, the amount of copper required is daunting.At my club, as dispatcher, I control over 150 turnouts using a PC running JMRI. The entirety of the wiring between the layout and my upstairs tower is exactly one 6-conductor wire. That's it. No DC layout can compare. That same 6-cond. wire also tells me block detection and signalling information. It also runs the fast clocks.I have a friend in Rhode Island who recently had his layout on the cover of MR that has his dispatcher run his layout from Florida during operation sessions using JMRI. I don't think that's practical with a DC layout.
Why DC?As you know, sound isn't something you have to give up with DC. Both the PFM system and the ThrottleUP! system ran on DC but good luck getting parts. :)We've had this discussion before, but you are a electronics hobbyist. You enjoy building relay circuits and control panels, but that puts you in special company. Smart phone throttles are a rarity in this hobby IMHO. Of all the people I know in the hobby (both in my 65-member club and online), perhaps 4 have used a smart phone throttle to my knowledge. FWIW, I also dislike the thought of using a smart phone as a throttle, which is why I have a ProtoThrottle. It's simply the best tactile-feel controller on the market today with an 8-notch throttle, 3-position reverser, brake lever, rotary lighting switches, a latching bell button, and a spring-loaded horn lever. It is not available for DC users.Speaking of garden tractors (quickly), last year I broke down and bought a brand new Kubota BX1880. I have been using my grandfather's 1964 A-C (Simplicity) B10 and my other grandfather's 1977 Wheel Horse C-120 since I could reach the pedals, but they are just plain worn out. Too many breakdowns, leaks, part failures, etc. these days, and I can only get new parts from eBay if I'm lucky. It was a good run with the old iron; we got 50-60 years out them. I'm not complaining, I just wanted something new for once that works every time.What do I give up by not having DCC?Engine terminals are a big DCC benfit because you can park your power where it fits, not just where the blocks are. At my old DC club layout, our engine blocks had to fit a Big Boy, which was inefficient when parking a 44tonner on that same block.Engine lighting can be important for those that model railroads that use extras, sections and TTO operations (provided the DCC engines have these lights). Some prefer the realism of flashing ditchlights, dimming headlights, etc., stuff not normally found on DC layouts, but both you and I can ignore ditchlights. :)Speed matching is pretty cool because you can mix types very easily. Not all railroads did, of course, but on the NH it would not be uncommon to see a mix of GP9, RS-11, RS-3, H16-44, FA-1/FB-1, FB-2 units on a train. For me, that would be a Athearn Genesis, Atlas, Stewart, Bowser, Proto 2000, and Rapido units. I can make them all run together with DCC. Not an issue for you with the ACR, but a big issue for me on the NH.In your summation, no one "needs" DCC...but they don't "need" DC either. But I would say to that gentlemen you visited that he should think about DCC if only to get a ProtoThrottle. For industrial switching layouts, it's the best thing since sliced bread (IMHO). Seriously, it's a lot of fun if you want to "be the engineer" on a switcher. And frankly, I hate the Aristo throttles. I've used them (years ago), but the hard plastic buttons had little feel to them. And after while, my thumb starts to hurt.
You have an intersting way of twisting everything I say into some sort of "absolute" statement.
I never said, or even implied that walk around control was only for manual turnouts, just one example.
I control all my mainline turnouts from two or more locations, local tower panels and the CTC panel, and while it does take more than six wires you might be surprised at how few it takes for 75 or so turnouts/crossovers/slip switches without any computer programs. In fact it only takes one wire per route, plus a hot and common for the whole group, for me to add a remote turnout control panel. And that also provides a status LED. So a crossover, which is two turnouts, only takes two wires.
I have eight cabs, that is more than enough for the traffic density the layout is designed for. The layout might fill 1500 sq ft, but has only half the trackage that many others would squeeze in that space.
I have already conceded the engine terminal issue, I'm not investing is DCC just for that.
I agree for some speed matching can be important, but it has not been an issue for me personally. In fact I run matchups like my Bachmann 2-6-6-2's with Proto 2-8-8-2's and they work just fine.
A great percentage of my diesels are the same brand with similar drives, but even those that are not seem to work fine in 99% of the desired matchups.
I have no interest in the Proto Throttle, you missed all my posts in 15 years where I indicated my lack of interest in that level of being the engineer.
But, on that note, the ergonomics of the available DCC throttles do not impress me much either.
Why would your thumb hurt, you only push the button to change the speed or direction? Honestly I did not know if I would like the Aristo throttle. A generous friend lent me one and I tested it for quite a while before going that route - we all have different tastes.
Multi train and multi operator - well you are a better man than me, because I never "operate" more than one train at a time. I do however let trains "run" on dedicated display loops, or I have operators for all eight trains.
Again, others feel differently and that's ok, but I have no interest in onboard sound for my 1500 sq ft layout.
Another popular feature I dislike/have no interest in - the dispatcher sitting in a room isolated from the layout - or in another State......
And full disclosure - my signaling and CTC is "streamlined", not full on prototype controls or practice - selectively compressed like our whole model world.
Because the dispatchers panel has two functions - operating sessions and command central for display running - you can see most of the layout from there.
And the last thing I want is a PC in the train room......
Kabota builds a great machine, good choice. If I was in the new tractor market it would be a Kabota or a Ventrac.
But the 27 year old GRAVELY just keeps going, and parts are still readily available, generally most regular "wear" parts are still serviced by GRAVELY for many machines that date back to the 70's. And GRAVELY's were built with a large percentage of off the shelf industrial parts, like the standard Timken tapered bearings in my mower deck spindles that can be rebuilt, not replaced.
I just repowered the GRAVELY three years ago, so now it is set for the next 27 or more years.
Here it is at the anual GRAVELY Mow-In 2021 with my grandson at the wheel. Might be his some day.
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL In my case, I have never fully imbraced that level of being the engineer. And, there is an irony in the fact that several others have expressed this idea that sound is much better with just one loco operation - one loco operation that otherwise would not need DCC. A couple of things. My one horse layout also requires me to be yardmaster and dispatcher. Now, my yard is small, and there isn't a lot to dispatch, but it still requires thought and organization around those concepts. My op sessions are not modeling hours in a day or one day. They model days in a week. So there are several trains to make up, switch out, and organize into different runs at different times in a given op session. To your last point, part of what drives the simple vs complex issue is the amount of time I would spend finding solutions for problems I created myself. The addition of onboard sound in a multiple loco layout now creates its own set of problems...too many conflicting sounds. A satisfying part of knowing what I like, instead of always learning new things that I might like (even better?), is the direct pursuit of those goals without wasting time spinning wheels from self inflicted problems, or just plain problems that are unforseen. Its hobby, and I just want to spend time enjoying it. The scope doesn't need to be expanded. But the idea of crossing gate bells and their activators is intruiging. That might be an electronics project I could get motivated for.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL In my case, I have never fully imbraced that level of being the engineer. And, there is an irony in the fact that several others have expressed this idea that sound is much better with just one loco operation - one loco operation that otherwise would not need DCC.
In my case, I have never fully imbraced that level of being the engineer.
And, there is an irony in the fact that several others have expressed this idea that sound is much better with just one loco operation - one loco operation that otherwise would not need DCC.
A couple of things. My one horse layout also requires me to be yardmaster and dispatcher. Now, my yard is small, and there isn't a lot to dispatch, but it still requires thought and organization around those concepts. My op sessions are not modeling hours in a day or one day. They model days in a week. So there are several trains to make up, switch out, and organize into different runs at different times in a given op session.
To your last point, part of what drives the simple vs complex issue is the amount of time I would spend finding solutions for problems I created myself. The addition of onboard sound in a multiple loco layout now creates its own set of problems...too many conflicting sounds.
A satisfying part of knowing what I like, instead of always learning new things that I might like (even better?), is the direct pursuit of those goals without wasting time spinning wheels from self inflicted problems, or just plain problems that are unforseen.
Its hobby, and I just want to spend time enjoying it. The scope doesn't need to be expanded.
But the idea of crossing gate bells and their activators is intruiging. That might be an electronics project I could get motivated for.
Knowing what you like, and what you want, and what you don't want, and being comfortable with that, gives you an advantage in a hobby like like this.
My saying: "I was once well rounded until I learned what I really like".
It applies to a lot of things in life.
I run DC at home, any at our club I own two DCC sound locos. I have three Aristocraft wireless throttles, and spent a fair sum on them and three power packs.
I did this twenty years ago because I knew no one that understood DCC, and the literature was sadly lacking. I now know enough to start learning about DCC, but I find that it is not worth the bother.
Whatever works, works.
I started in DC and moved to DCC on my 1st layout and staye with DCC on my 2nd (current one). Yes, there is a steep learning curve with DCC and there is a startup fee, but I do not regret the move to DCC.
Another thing to mention with DCC is you need to ensure you do not have a short with feeders connected to the wrong buss lines. Pls don't ask how I know. I also find DCC is not forgiving with improper wiring. It took awhile for me to slow down and be patient. Never would return to DC.
AntonioFP45 Hi Beausabre, I very much agree with your statement! I keep the volume on my sound equipped units turned down low to convey "selectively compressed" distance and (depending on which decoder or sound scheme is active at the moment) prefer to have a small amount of reverb to convey that illusion. It's so cool that today, with properly baffled high quality speakers, combined with a quality decoder we can hear our motive power without the distortion and excessive treble that we often heard back in the early 2000's from some aftermarket installations of what was available then. BEAUSABRE One thing about sound. On a home layout with one operator and one train, sound is fine. But in a club setting, where you get competing sounds from differet locomotives, the racket can be anoying. Certainly the sound of multiple locomotives that are supposed to be miles apart destroys the illusion for a lot of people.
Hi Beausabre, I very much agree with your statement!
I keep the volume on my sound equipped units turned down low to convey "selectively compressed" distance and (depending on which decoder or sound scheme is active at the moment) prefer to have a small amount of reverb to convey that illusion.
It's so cool that today, with properly baffled high quality speakers, combined with a quality decoder we can hear our motive power without the distortion and excessive treble that we often heard back in the early 2000's from some aftermarket installations of what was available then.
BEAUSABRE One thing about sound. On a home layout with one operator and one train, sound is fine. But in a club setting, where you get competing sounds from differet locomotives, the racket can be anoying. Certainly the sound of multiple locomotives that are supposed to be miles apart destroys the illusion for a lot of people.
One thing about sound. On a home layout with one operator and one train, sound is fine. But in a club setting, where you get competing sounds from differet locomotives, the racket can be anoying. Certainly the sound of multiple locomotives that are supposed to be miles apart destroys the illusion for a lot of people.
There is no question that the sound quality has improved in the last 20 years. But as an experianced HiFi speaker designer, it is still something less than "full range" or HiFi, to my ears anyway.
But, as commented by several others, it is not just the sound quality or volume, but the cacophony of multiple locomotives that many find objectionable on medium sized or even larger layouts.
And let's be honest, 5 or 10 guys, operating trains on a larger layout, are not going to do that without talking. So now they must talk above the five or so sound systems........
Again, I remember operating sessions with lots of sound locos that I was happy to leave.
I managed the train department in a hobby shop when Modeltronics introduced their first sound system. I remember the PFM system. 40 years latter I still don't need it as part of my model train experiance.
I do have long range plans for some layout based sound effects on my new layout. Sound effects that will not be continious or loud, but will highlight some activities.
Specificly I am interested in working crossing gates with bells, and with locomotive horns or whistles as part of the effect.
And I have ideas for a few other things as well.
Don't quite understand what PMR is concerned about.
DCC is a communications protocol to control devices. It has nothing to do with the human-machine interface. DCC doesn't care whether you have as many keys as a Wurlitzer organ or a keyboard or a mouse driven screen with no keys. Doesn't matter. That's not a DCC thing. That's a Digitrax or NCE or whatever manufacturrer thing, not a DCC thing.
Because DCC is a system to drive devices, it has nothing to do with waybills, signal logic or track authority, other than to possiblly drive any devices connected to those systems. Just like on a real railroad, all of those systems are driven by separate "expert systems" that specialize in managing the individual aspects. None of that has anything to do with DCC (other than if they communicate with a device such as a switch motor or servoc control for a signal).
I don't understand the whole concern about a PC. You can control DCC with a PC if you want to, JMRI. The whole idea of the brand name throttle is simplicity and portability. I don't know about you but I don't want to carry a PC or even a laptop around the layout with me when I operate. I don't need 101 keys to activate functions when I'm operating. Speed control, direction control, maybe a brake function and a few sounds and I'm good. Engines have numeric ID's so the keys 0-9 do just fine. When I'm operating a layout, I'm not going to be dictating train orders on my throttle. If you want to have text and a throttle, use a smart phone, there are dozens of apps that will allow running a train and doing various paperwork. With DCC.