DCC is sooooooo boring...

[jwils1]

If you're new to the hobby or just have 2 or 3 locos, don't even think about DC! DCC is amazing, exciting and will re-kindle your excitement for model railroading. It can be as simple as just running two or more locos on the same track, or, as complex as you want it to be. But either way you will love it! Like Tom said......for me it's also a no brainer.

Now if you have 70 brass DC locos it's a different story. But, just maybe, if you can afford it, it will be so exciting it will keep you awake at night like it does me! I can hardly wait to get to it the next day.

Jerry

[Paul3]

cjcrescent wrote:

QUOTE: 4. If it has an open frame motor, what is the stall current, slip current and probably most important, what is the startup current? Many people forget that the startup current of a motor can be as high or higher than its stall current. Even though startup current lasts only momentarily, until the motor starts to turn, this is what will let the smoke out of a decoder just as fast if not faster than a short.

Ok, I know I went to school for mechanical engineering, but can you explain how start up current can be higher than stall current? Stall current is the application of power to a motor that isn't turning at all...just like start up current. At worst, it'd be the same...wouldn't it?

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

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER
You have to remember that DCC is still in its infancy.

I have to take acception with that, originally approved in 1994 now with two revisions. Consider the other computer "state of the art" technology in 1994. Without the revisions DCC would be as obsolete at the 80486 computer chip and ArcNet communications. I remember arguing at the time (1993) that only having 1024 locomotive channels was way to restrictive.

QUOTE: The really cool effect I am waiting to see is the system that keeps track of your water and if you run out, you hear a loud boom from the speaker and the engine goes dead.

Water use and fuel economy... I really like that idea. Sellectively compressed, it could really add to the operation of a small single loop layout. How many loop can one make without having to stop? Stop too often and you waste time and fall behind schedule, go to far and you get stuck away from the station.

[cjcrescent]

QUOTE: Originally posted by twhite

Actually, guys, this discussion has been good for me. Mark Newon and Joe Fugate and Antonio have cleared up and explained several items that I must admit I was rather confused about. And I've never been called 'close-minded' by anyone that I know of, so it's given me a great deal to think about.
One question, though. Does anyone out here have any opinions on how decoders work with older brass locos? I've heard both pro and con on the subject, and I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has had experience.
Just curious (as usual).
Tom [:D]

Tom;

After installing decoders in over 100 brass locos, for myself and mostly others, I can tell you this. Each one is different. So what works on one loco may or may not work on the next. There are several criteria I look at when installing a decoder into a brassie.

1. How smooth does it run on DC? If it is a good runner on DC, it'll be just as good if not better on DCC.
2. What room is available to install the decoder in? Can I put it into the boiler, or do I have to install it into the tender.
3. How easy will it be to isolate the motor? Will brush isolation work or do I need to isolate the motor from the whole frame?
4. If it has an open frame motor, what is the stall current, slip current and probably most important, what is the startup current? Many people forget that the startup current of a motor can be as high or higher than its stall current. Even though startup current lasts only momentarily, until the motor starts to turn, this is what will let the smoke out of a decoder just as fast if not faster than a short. If it is an open frame motor and tests shows it stays below the maximum rating of the decoder, no problem, the decoder gets installed using the open frame, unless the owner wants a new can installed.
5. If the motor is replaced, will new gearing be required? Some older brass comes with a somewhat slower running open frame, and installing a new higher speed can motor causes such breakneck starts that it requires that a new gearbox be installed.

Like I said, I look at all this criteria, but overall installing a decoder into a brass engine is no more difficult than installing a decoder into any engine without a DCC plug.

[BNSF4ever]

I have nothing against DCC. I just don't see the point for my layout. My setup is a 12 x 8 rectangle with three ovals, each with its own powerpack. Sure, I'd love some complicated system like you see in the model railroad magazines but my living arrangement doesn't allow me this at the present time. So at the moment, I can run three trains at once. I do not get the cool lighting effects like alternating ditch lights or sound...but I don't think I am missing much. Sound, for instance, in diesels has never impressed me all that much for the cost. And at least I can save on the high end locomotives by avoiding DCC and sound.

[jfugate]

Tom:

Speaking of installing decoders in older brass locos ... steamers can be tough, especially if you have older SP power with vanderbuilt tenders. Some of my op crew regulars have reworked a Westside SP GS4, added a Tsunami sound decoder into it, along with working Mars lights, and painted it as 4449.

Plans are to have this loco featured in the Siskiyou Line prototype operations volume 5 DVD (due out 2007) as a special excursion run down the late 1980s Siskiyou Line. Your question prompts me to consider adding a special feature to the video where I have these guys tell us how they modified the brass loco to get the decoder and lights into it.

I know it doesn't help much at this moment, but good things come to those who wait, as they say. [swg]

Still it does show it can be done, and maybe I can convince these guys to post some info in the meantime on my Siskiyou Line forum about their efforts, along with some photos. Let me look into getting them to post this info.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by twhite

Actually, guys, this discussion has been good for me.

One question, though. Does anyone out here have any opinions on how decoders work with older brass locos? I've heard both pro and con on the subject, and I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has had experience.
Just curious (as usual).
Tom [:D]

Tom,

A few months back forum member Cmarchan took a Westside SP GS4 that he bought in 1976, repowered it with a Mashima motor, and installed a functioning Mars light in it. He let me run it at the club. It was hard to keep from drooling! Sweet running engine. To add icing to the cake, he just installed a Tsunami decoder in it. I'm looking forward to seeing it in action. I'm e-mailing this thread to him and asking him to post more info on the job he performed as well as tips for brass owners.

I think the issue with older brass and plastic locomotives is the amount of current they draw. For DCC the lower the current draw, the better. But remember, not all older units draw a lot of current. My 1970s model power E units, which have huge Roco motors, draw less than one amp. The friend I mentioned above also successfully installed a decoder in a 30 year old Athearn U-Boat.

Try this: If you have access to a basic electronic mulit-meter, you can perform "Current-Stall" tests on your brass units. This would give you a good "feel" to see if you have some units that could potentially be converted without repowering.

[tstage]

The big selling point for me with DCC was being able to run two locomotives...on the SAME track...independently of one another. You just can't do that with DC. Makes running a yard both extremely enjoyable and very realistic.

I can still respect and understand the reasons for those who decide to stick with DC. However, I would encourage you to personally try it out first and give it a fair assessment BEFORE you pass judgment on it. For me, DCC was a logical "no-brainer"...

Tom

[twhite]

Actually, guys, this discussion has been good for me. Mark Newon and Joe Fugate and Antonio have cleared up and explained several items that I must admit I was rather confused about. And I've never been called 'close-minded' by anyone that I know of, so it's given me a great deal to think about.
One question, though. Does anyone out here have any opinions on how decoders work with older brass locos? I've heard both pro and con on the subject, and I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has had experience.
Just curious (as usual).
Tom [:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by brothaslide

I like the flexibility that DCC offers for running trains, but. . .It's the programming that's a real PAIN!!!

From my perspective, DCC is like where personal computers were at in the late 1980's - using DOS. We need an Apple Computer for DCC - some company that can make it super user friendly. (Please, no Mac vs. PC quarrels here - I own a computer based business that uses all PCs but I do see the advantages of Mac for the general consumer.) Maybe there are a few Model Railroaders at Apple who have some ideas - hmmmmm?

I bought an old laptop with win95 on it for $10 and hooked up the PR1 hardware and software to it. It sure makes programming a decoder about as easy as it can get.

[DigitalGriffin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

One of the guys at my club had an interesting idea for an operations program that I am embellishing. It would use a car card-type system and would match locomotive towing capacities with car weight both full and empty and limit/increase the power to the locomotive accordingly.

Operators would have to match engines with loads and towing capacity and stage helpers accordingly.

Sounds like fun. But I cringe to think of 80 cars lashed up between 3 engines on a fast clock and a medium yard. Talk about being quick on your feet!

[Anonymous]

I just use a regular old Tech 4 220 Power Pac. I like to keep things plain and simple. An older guy that I met at a train show showed me that you can operate sound equipped locomotives on just a regular DC power pac. He said you can use the direction switch to activate and deactivate the sound and light functions. So, you don't have to have DCC in order to enjoy the extra features available on some of your more expensive locomotives.

[jfugate]

Interesting the comments by some that DC is for small layouts ... I have a fellow modeler who has a 4x6 layout and has had it since the 60s.

He recently went to DCC and he told me he's never had so much fun! *Finally* he can run multiple locos independently and do things on his little layout operationally that he's never been able to do. He has over 40 locos, and he's changing a few over at a time with $12 fleet decoders.

He told me his move to DCC is the best thing he's done in the hobby for a *long* time! [swg]

So DCC isn't just for *large* layouts ...

[DigitalGriffin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by olequa

I have to vent.

Why is it that DCC manufacturers don't get it?

And what about brakes? How come we don't have any brakes? How simple would it be to assign 2 or 3 function buttons to activate a brake? Cut the throttle and the train keeps right on going unless you hit the brake. How prototypical is that?

And how about a CV that would increase or decrease both acceleration and deceleration at the same time so we didn't have to fiddle with both CV3 and 4 whenever we make a change.

And I've mentioned here before what I think of the current straight-line velocity curve that is produced by all decoders today when using momentum. It shoudn't be that way. The actual velocity should approach the terminal velocity asymtotically (spelling may be off on that one).

Even a littlle bit of wheel slip might be simulated for steamers by applying very short bursts of full voltage to the motor.

End of rant. That's what I think. I'm wondering where the imagination went with others in this hobby.

george

George,

You're a little off base

First the tsunami does have working breaks which will slow down the train from it's given momentum. I'm sure others will follow suit soon enough with this great feature.

And yes some DCC control is clumsy. Trying to change a CV after a lashup to simulate a heavy load is a bit clunky. But people like me are trying to solve that problem.

And speed curves are programable. You can have a negative concavity acceleration curve programmed into a speed table w/o issue providing you have acceleration no set to 0.

[Anonymous]

I like my DCC just the way it is.

[SpaceMouse]

One of the guys at my club had an interesting idea for an operations program that I am embellishing. It would use a car card-type system and would match locomotive towing capacities with car weight both full and empty and limit/increase the power to the locomotive accordingly.

Operators would have to match engines with loads and towing capacity and stage helpers accordingly.

[beegle55]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CP5415

WOW!

This is why I like DC.
I use my imagination for the notches.
Sound? Again, in my head, unless I'm using an Athearn BB!
Brakes? Both of my power packs have brake controls on them.

I'm JOKING! Relax!!!!

I've never investigated DCC so I don't know, but one would figure that for the investment, you would at least have brakes! [:D]

Gordon

Im with you there. I still go with regular DC and it suits me juuuust fine! Its usually alot cheaper too!

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by twhite

Well, not understanding the concept behind DCC (I just thought it was something that allowed you to run multiple trains on the same track and control them individually), it seems to me that those of us who run one-operator railroads somewhat smaller than something like Joe Fugate's VERY admirable Siskyou Line--what a BEAUTIFUL layout, BTW--and only run one or two trains at a time, might just NOT need all the bells and whistles--and complexity-- that DCC entails.

Tom, I'm not throwing bricks, but I think you've underestimated the potential benefits DCC has for small, one-operator railroads. My current "obsession" is a small module, based on a Japanese private railway. The scenicked part is 8' by 18", fed at either end by simple traverser staging. The basic operating scenario is the interchange of freight traffic between the JNR and the private line. The other main operating theme is the division and amalgamation of electric multiple units in commuter service.

During the design phase, and before starting construction, I had a long brainstorming session with a modelling mate whose day job is as a signal electrician. I don't have any requirement to run multiple trains singlehanded, but I *do* want to run trains and switch/shunt them prototypically*. After examining my proposed operating scenario, and working out roughly what wiring and controls would be required to do everything I wanted in conventional 2-rail DC, he recommended DCC without hesitation. As he put it, "You want to build a layout, or a bloody substation?"

In my case, DCC allowed me the bells and whistles I wanted, without any great electrical complexity. I freely acknowledge that my situation is probably not typical, and that your requirements may be best met by conventional DC. [:)]

Mark.

* There are too many operating compromises inherent in DC for me to accept. Unfortunately, I think many of these compromises are accepted in general because many modellers don't understand how real railroads operate.

[Anonymous]

Or hitching a real live firebreathing steam engine weighing several hundred ton to a 10 car heavy weight passenger consist. All of that has mass, weight and needs room to run.

Once you get it going down the rail at 50 mph you are going to have a great deal of rolling mass on your hands. Dont spill the beverages in that diner now or wake the sleepers.

Hard to do with a HO scale T-1 and 10 1 foot long heavyweight models plus head end freight taking up about 15 feet of track. Especially if that track ends in a sharp curve 2 feet from a wall that is higher than the washington monument in DC.

Many of the others have said thier peice in this thread. I point to my Tech DC throttle power pack and say I got momentium, brakes and power. Or to the DCC and say this engine will move while that engine sleeps at the water tower.

I am intrigued by the computer control stand. Anyone have a direct link to the product itself?

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by olequa

And yes I was only talking about a diesel throttle. A steam throttle is different isn't it? Bet it's not a little 10 turn knob.

george, grumpier than ever

No George, it's not. Depending on the age and origin of the loco, it can be a handle rotating through 90 degrees or so from a gland on the backplate, a pullout handle on a moving quadrant on top of the firebox, or a "grapevine" handle on a fixed quadrant suspended from the cab roof. Don't forget the reverser, which may be either a handwheel driving a screw, or a lever and quadrant - the famous "Johnson bar".

Don't be grumpy, I was only having a lend of you.[:)] I tend to agree with you up to a point about DCC controller/handsets. But from my point of view, US-style diesel controls would not be any improvement over what's currently available - I'd feel silly running my model steamers and Japanese multiple units with one!

All the best,

Mark.

[AntonioFP45]

TWhite,

I hear ya, but I'm going to be a " two train" operator myself. It's the freedom and features of DCC that can offer small layout operators the "extra" fun; especially with sound equipped units.

I like to run trains prototype style and enjoy the ability to turn headlights on once a locomotive is ready to pull out with it's train, dim them down to "Rule 17" lights while idling, turn on Mars/Gyra lights on and off as called for when mainline running, and enjoy ALL of the sound effects from sound equipped units. (Even the BLI locomotives run much better on DCC).

I've always disliked looking at my locomotives in DC mode and watching the lights increase and decrease in intensity as I crack open or turn down the throttle. Yuck! The real ones don't do that.

Oh yes:
1. Constant lighting kits are available;
2. You can wire a constant lighting cirucuit yourself,
3. Plus you can pay $20 to $30+ for Mars lighting circuit boards.

But DCC decoders ALREADY have these features available! Since constant lighting is "automatic" due to the presence of 12+ volts on the track, the functions can be used for the "fun stuff" lighting.

So, for my narrow, along the wall layout in which I'll be operating two trains at the most.........it's going to be DCC via a Digitrax Zephyr. hands down. My old, reliable MRC 2500 will be plugged into the "Jump Port" feature so that a visiting operator can have fun as well.,

[twhite]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davidmbedard

Wow......these anti -DCC loonies are just that....loony.

How can you mock a technology that you havent tried. DCC is in the present and future. There will be a time when you WONT be able to buy a DC only locomotive.

David

David--I"m 66 years old and I have about 70 locomotives, mostly brass, which I run all the time, so really, if the time comes that I can't by a DC locomotive, I think I'll have enough to keep me happy.
Loony? Of COURSE I'm loony, I'm a musician, it comes with the territory, LOL!
Tom [:D]

[twhite]

Well, not understanding the concept behind DCC (I just thought it was something that allowed you to run multiple trains on the same track and control them individually), it seems to me that those of us who run one-operator railroads somewhat smaller than something like Joe Fugate's VERY admirable Siskyou Line--what a BEAUTIFUL layout, BTW--and only run one or two trains at a time, might just NOT need all the bells and whistles--and complexity-- that DCC entails.

Now I'll probably get bonked for this--and I'll probably deserve it, so if I do, it'll be a learning experince for me--but it seems to me that the way DCC is headed is exactly like what happened to Lionel Lines in the late 'fifties, when everything became so 'automated' that the fun of 'hands-on' railroading got lost in the button-pushing.

Sorry, but I don't like that idea. I'd really rather follow a train around my layout with my Controlmaster 20 and the flexible throttle and the 20 feet of phone cord that I'm forever flicking out from under my shoes. I'm not co-ordinated enough to run two or three trains on my layout at different speeds while trying to make up a fourth in my yard. I'd really rather concentrate on the beauty of one thing at a time. In other words, I want to WATCH my 2-10-2 with a coal train and take in the sight of those driving wheels and those hopper cars, and then later, see that long reefer extra hauled by a 2-8-8-4, but I want to concentrate on ONE THING AT A TIME. I don't do multi-tasking well, and I run my railroad by myself. If I'm going to make up a train in the yard, I'm going to concentrate on THAT, not the Limited running by on an adjacent track that I hope I can get stopped in time before it runs past the station.

I don't wanna push buttons, I just want to run a couple of trains at my leisure (on a shedule, of course) and watch them tug cars through my scenery. DCC? Nah, I'm having too much fun the way I am.

Okay, start throwing the bricks, guys. I may be old, but I can still duck, LOL!
Tom [:p]

[olequa]

Well that certainly brought the snoozers back to life. Thanks for the comments. Most of you guys really don't understand what I'm talking about, especially those of you who suggest that I haven't read the manual, or don't know that there is momentum in the decoder.

By the way, speed tables in the decoder are not for programming in an acceleration curve. Because if you think about it a typical acceleration curve for self powered objects (not rockets) is the mirror image of its deceleration curve, more or less. That is the rate of acceleration slows as top speed is approached, but the deceleration rate is maximum at the top speed end and least at the low speed end. The curve programmed in the decoder would simulate one or the other but not both. Back around 1990, before I knew about DCC, or anybody knew about it, I got the idea of putting a computer in the loco and built one. It had proportional acceleration/deceleration and worked very well in that regard. It's simple enough to do.

And yes I was only talking about a diesel throttle. A steam throttle is different isn't it? Bet it's not a little 10 turn knob.

george, grumpier than ever

[brothaslide]

I like the flexibility that DCC offers for running trains, but. . .It's the programming that's a real PAIN!!!

From my perspective, DCC is like where personal computers were at in the late 1980's - using DOS. We need an Apple Computer for DCC - some company that can make it super user friendly. (Please, no Mac vs. PC quarrels here - I own a computer based business that uses all PCs but I do see the advantages of Mac for the general consumer.) Maybe there are a few Model Railroaders at Apple who have some ideas - hmmmmm?

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by olequa

How about those throttles? Why wouldn't someone get the idea that maybe they should build a lever throttle that has 8 notches on it?

BAH! I don't want 8 notch throttles. I want a pull-out regulator handle, gauge glasses and trycocks, a butterfly door, a short-handle Pommy scoop, and singed eyebrows if I haven't got enough blower on! [:D]

Just pulling your leg. But I don't think simulated diesel controls would neccessarily appeal to those of us who run model steam locos...

Cheers,

Mark.

[IRONROOSTER]

You have to remember that DCC is still in its infancy. The really cool effect I am waiting to see is the system that keeps track of your water and if you run out, you hear a loud boom from the speaker and the engine goes dead. The Lionel guys will also have an exploding boiler to add to the fun.
Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

I think it might be cool and fun to switch a yard with that Desktop Train Cab Controller.

I can't find any info on RailDriver's DCC Control Module. Does anyone have any info on it?

Greg

[mononguy63]

I can't comment on the various DCC features as I will be a DC user for the foreseeable future (and beyond).

I was just impressed that somebody was able to use a derivative of the word "asymptote" in conversation. The closest I ever heard was a Star Trek episode where they said "asymptomatically." Nice try, I suppose, for an actor.

Okay all, I'm done. You may get back on topic now.

[Stevert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by olequa

How about those throttles? Why wouldn't someone get the idea that maybe they should build a lever throttle that has 8 notches on it?

You aren't a long-time member of the Digitrax Yahoo group, are you? The UT4 was designed based on input and feedback from that group. If enough Digitrax users has requested it, I'm sure AJ would have built it.

QUOTE: Originally posted by olequa
That plus a little (or a lot, your choice) of momentum would make for very much more interesting and satisfying control of the locomotive. Instead we get knobs, and in the case of Digitrax we get knobs that you have to turn about 10 revolutions to go from zero to 60.

Apparently, not only have you not read the Digitrax group, but you haven't read the manuals enough to set momentum and/or speed tables either, have you?

QUOTE: Originally posted by olequa
And what about brakes? How come we don't have any brakes? How simple would it be to assign 2 or 3 function buttons to activate a brake? Cut the throttle and the train keeps right on going unless you hit the brake. How prototypical is that?

Gee, there's that pesky momentum CV again...

QUOTE: Originally posted by olequa
And how about a CV that would increase or decrease both acceleration and deceleration at the same time so we didn't have to fiddle with both CV3 and 4 whenever we make a change.

How about because a model loco behaves differently when accelerating under power than it does coasting? Not to mention that the same model of decoder may be installed in locos with very different operating characteristics.

QUOTE: Originally posted by olequa
And I've mentioned here before what I think of the current straight-line velocity curve that is produced by all decoders today when using momentum. It shoudn't be that way. The actual velocity should approach the terminal velocity asymtotically (spelling may be off on that one).

Dang it! Not only do we have to adjust those pesky momentum CV's, now we have to program curves into our speed tables to make our locos run the way we want them to. I just don't know what those wacky NMRA guys were up to when they gave us all these adjustments. Somebody should make a computer program or something to make it easy for us hobbyists who have it so bad. You know, something like this: http://jmri.sourceforge.net/doc/Manual/Comp_Speed.html

QUOTE: Originally posted by olequa
Even a littlle bit of wheel slip might be simulated for steamers by applying very short bursts of full voltage to the motor.

"Real" engineers work hard to avoid wheel slip, and you want to introduce it at will? How prototypical is that?

QUOTE: Originally posted by olequa
End of rant. That's what I think. I'm wondering where the imagination went with others in this hobby.

george

Yeah, I hear ya! I know I sure don't have an imagination or sense of humor! [swg]

Steve