I don't see the computer interface as being that expensive. What I see is that the manufacturers have not yet decided that it is worth the extra $5 to put a USB port in their base units. (Let the customer run down to RS for the cable.) They are still in cost competition mode and don't see the future of software development using their equipment.
But this chicken or egg dilemma will be crossed and one of the manufacturers will put the interface into their base unit then they all will. Then we will be able to add the power of the PC to the layout. Add intuitive mind reading and Brakie won't feel like an accountant.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
I'm another back-after-40-years guy, and I'm also a big fan of DCC. I find it particularly helpful on my small layout (5x12 feet) because a small layout is difficult to effectively block-wire, but with DCC I can run a bunch of trains without worrying about them crossing block boundries every 10 or 15 seconds.
There are already much more user-friendly options for doing complicated things with DCC, but they involve interfacing a computer to the DCC system. In all cases that I know of (feel free to correct me if I'm ignorant of some) it's necessary to buy an add-on interface unit to connect your DCC system to the computer, and then obtain some software. These should be relatively simple things, but right now they are pricey enough that you run into that "Should I buy a computer interface, or another locomotive?" question. Also, the interfaces are DCC-system specific, I think, so you can't use your laptop-and-Lenz combination on someone else's Digitrax layout.
As the cost of things like USB interfaces comes down, the DCC manufacturers should start including the interface and some rudimentary software packages with the basic DCC hardware, and it would be good for everyone involved if there were interface protocol standards so that they could all talk to each other, the same way that all decoders work on all systems. This would make it a lot easier for software developers to get into the act, since they wouldn't have to either deal with proprietary interfaces or choose between competing protocols.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
pilot wrote: The biggest problem I see with DCC is lack of robustness. If one user runs his locomotive into a switch and jams, the WHOLE transformer block gets shut down...
The biggest problem I see with DCC is lack of robustness. If one user runs his locomotive into a switch and jams, the WHOLE transformer block gets shut down...
Not true. When I get a short, only the one district experiencing the problem shuts down...the rest of my system continues to function merrrily...my locos still chugg and move, just not the one having the issues.
If you are interested, I can tell you how that happens.
..or, maybe I am not understanding you? You say there is a difference, apparently, between the two ways of operating in that in DC, nothing shuts down when a short takes place?
Or are you saying only a block shuts down? Well, see my initial comment above. No difference.
The biggest problem I see with DCC is lack of robustness. If one user runs his locomotive into a switch and jams, the WHOLE transformer block gets shut down. That doesn't happen with DC. It's not much of a problem on small layouts, but on big ones it can be. The guy on the other end of the room has no idea why he is shut down. Everyone has to punch a bunch of buttons. Biggest advantage of DCC is the ability to run two engines at different speeds in the same block. The other problem is not all locomotives are available in DCC or convertible, and a few wont run on DC on top of DCC (if you have that). People with large collections of old and vintage and foreign and whatever locomotives are reluctant to convert. I don't think having to "program" an engine is any big deal. It's really easy if you have the instructions. Like takes 15 seconds and 3 or 4 button pushes on my system.
Ultimately, I think the solution is battery and wireless. Get the power out of the track entirely. You could even charge the batteries off of the track voltage if it is there. Extra batteries could be carried in the tender or auxilairy car. And it would run on ANYONE's power system, DC, DCC or XYZ. Park it on a siding and charge it. Could have rubber traction wheels to REALLY pull grades!
BRAKIE wrote: The REAL question remains: Will there be a cure all system for multi train operation? As I already stated DCC or DC is not the cure all answer for multi train operation.Both require fiddling to include programing,then addressing EACH locomotive or throwing toggle switches.Both have their pros and cons to include block wiring(aka power blocks on DCC layouts) on larger layouts..There must be a superior but,simpler way to operate multiple trains..And no I don't have the answer if I did I would design it,have it produce,package it and sell it..I fully believe both DC and DCC is outdated technology in todays high tech world. This should not be yet another useless DCC/DC debate..We should look into another form of multiple train operation that is simpler to use then DC or DCC....
The REAL question remains: Will there be a cure all system for multi train operation?
As I already stated DCC or DC is not the cure all answer for multi train operation.Both require fiddling to include programing,then addressing EACH locomotive or throwing toggle switches.Both have their pros and cons to include block wiring(aka power blocks on DCC layouts) on larger layouts..There must be a superior but,simpler way to operate multiple trains..And no I don't have the answer if I did I would design it,have it produce,package it and sell it..I fully believe both DC and DCC is outdated technology in todays high tech world.
This should not be yet another useless DCC/DC debate..We should look into another form of multiple train operation that is simpler to use then DC or DCC....
Fair enough. Perhaps then what we should look at are the issues that limit both DC and DCC in multi-train operation, and then look at how these issues can be resolved. A good example of the limitations of both systems is the previously mentioned synchronization of engines. DC has no good way and the DCC approach is convoluted and clunky at best. (I had one Proto 2K A/B unit bought at the same time with the same engines in which the B unit was near twice as fast as the A unit. DCC programing could not resolve this issue. In fact, the pro it was ultimately sent to resolved the issue by making the B unit a dummy.)
I believe we are up against a cost vs. limited-use wall, if you will. We are not a big enough market to justify the development of a "Blackberry" comparable unit. Think about it. These suckers are basically a Windows compatible mini PC with a camera and internet access built in, for the cost of a locomotive sound decoder.
Someday they may get around to a "Windows version", that plugs into your computer and you can program in plain english, maybe choose from different speed curves, etc., but we are light years away and I do not see much impetus to develop anything 'new' because they are selling what they have available now like hot cakes to some people. The current technology is soooooo primitive in comparison to the rest of the increasingly computerized world.
I agree there is something better 'down the road'. I refuse to change before that gets here. I doubt I will live to see it.
Chip,
Speaking as a modeler who has returned after a 40-year lay off, I have to say that DCC makes the whole model railroading experience more rewarding for me. With DCC, my grandson and I can operate up to 4-trains on the BRVRR with just throttles. No blocks to worry about unless we are doing some switching.
While my current layout is not large at 4 x 10-feet, a couple of smaller DC predecessors were infinitely more difficult to operate more than a couple of trains at a time on.
I'm sure that you are right. There is a lot of room in the current standards for expansion. Expansion will come with time, but if everyone waits for the latest and greatest to fall into his or her lap, progress will be very slow. Compare DCC to computers. The technology changes so fast that your brand new computer is obsolete by the time you load it in your car to take it home. DCC technologies are similar; the change is just not as obvious.
If someone comes up with a significantly better idea, particularly something 'transparent' to existing technology, they could make a mint. In the mean time, the DCC manufacturers are advancing one-step-at-a-time. Witness the 'functions' battle going on in sound locomotives and DCC controllers.
The future looks bright for DCC IMHO.
Remember its your railroad
Allan
Track to the BRVRR Website: http://www.brvrr.com/
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Only one question, how do you speed match locos with DC?
Jack W.
A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC.
Some members of the forum insist that anything that can be done with multi-trains on DCC can be done with a little thought and DC. That the programming of consists and stitching road-numbers on the keypads is every bit as complex as running trains through multiple cabs and power blocks.
My personal opinion is that we are just on the beginnings of the rise of DCC technology, and that the NMRA standards have a lot of room for expansion. I also foresee that as other systems like DCS push beyond the common ground of the DCC standards, that the NMRA will have to find a way to leave the original standards behind.
However, DCC for all it's limits, seems far more versatile than DC in it's current state of technology.