el-capitan wrote: Then before you know it the DCCers are in here with the "what about this" and "it's not that expensive". It pushes the rest of the DC guys into a position where we are forced to explain ourselves and offer a defense as to why we havn't switched. The person that started this thread put forth the question "who has not switched to DCC and why?" We were simply answering his question.
The person that started this thread put forth the question "who has not switched to DCC and why?" We were simply answering his question.
Right. But if one of the reasons for not switching is based on incomplete, or even wrong information, wouldn't you like to know? I'd say the same thing the other way round. If someone says that DC can't do something, so they 'have to' have DCC, and it is just not true, that should be corrected, too. If someone's reason for using DC is that they 'heard' that it costs $XXX to convert a loco to DCC, and that number is off by a factor of two, or even more, shouldn't he have up-to-date, correct, info? In the case of people who have DC, and are happy with it, I don't think they should switch. But new model railroaders are reading this, too. And I think they should have as much correct info as they want to base their decision on.
You don't have to defend your decision to stay with DC to me, or anyone else. There is only one person that needs to be content with that, and that is you. The only reason I posted anything in this thread was to point out a couple of things that a beginner might have taken as universal truth that were somewhat misleading, or at least incomplete. If that's bashing, I'm guilty, but it looks the other way around to me.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Larry,
I guess we should be jealous of the Garden Railroad guys. They do that now - radio control of battery operated engines. Maybe it's just a few generations of battery improvement away for smaller scales?
The "new" (50's era) house we just moved into has a huge back yard that is destined to have at least a simple oval in it.
The thought of track cleaning outside doesn't sound like fun, so when we do it, it'll definitely NOT be track powered!
Mike Tennent
MTennent wrote: Larry,I think you misinterpreted what I meant, or I didn't say it clearly. I didn't mean to say there wouldn't be another system, just that there will never be an "ultimate" system that one should wait for. That's a chimera.I'm enjoying DCC now. If another system comes along, I'll evaluate it and see if it's for me or not, just like I did with DC/DCC.Mike T.
I think you misinterpreted what I meant, or I didn't say it clearly.
I didn't mean to say there wouldn't be another system, just that there will never be an "ultimate" system that one should wait for. That's a chimera.
I'm enjoying DCC now. If another system comes along, I'll evaluate it and see if it's for me or not, just like I did with DC/DCC.
Mike T.
Mike,Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.The "ultimate" system will be the one that no longer relies on track for its power source.Think of it! No more worries over dirty track or wheels..No block or power block wiring no concerns over reverse loops or wyes.
I fully believe that will be the next step thanks to todays/tomorrows technology.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
DCC guys,
I started another thread so we can leave the DC guys alone. Clearly it's almost impossible these days to open MR and not be bombarded with DCC info. I doubt that we can add anything further to the wall of information out there already.
Folks will convert if and when they're ready, and not a moment sooner. If Digitrax wanted to pay me is a recruiter, I'd be a little more aggressive, but I think by lecturing the DC folks we're not contributing to their enjoyment.
Good points all, and thanks for keeping it civil. I'll depart this thread now, and I apologize for "crashing" the DC club!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
To all the DCC supporters who have chimed in so far:
In my initial post, back on page 2, I used the acronym DCC once, to identify a time frame. Other than that, I stated my choice of control system and my reasons for the choice (no, it isn't simple 'one train at a time' DC, but it's a lot easier to operate than standard 'cab control.')
I am not 'defending' my choice of MZL. I didn't even use the word 'money.' I DID say I don't have any desire to try to trace circuits through a microchip, but that's because I'm a firm believer in the KISS principle. I'm also a firm believer in the old mechanic's adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." My MZL system, and some of the (up to) 47 year old components thereof (including a Tenshodo power pack bought new in 1960) ain't broke.
I realize that my choice is a personal one. So is yours. If you are happy with what you have, whether it be a rheostst and DPDT connected to a 12-volt battery or the latest and greatest offspring of Silicon Valley, wonderful. If you AREN'T happy, feel free to switch. DON'T feel free to try to switch ME, because I am very happy with what I have now and have no intention to change.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Paul3 wrote: 2). Head-on collisions can be factored out with DCC, but it requires a lot of work to do so. For example, using block detection, signalling, and a form of ATS to stop trains from going past a red signal are all possible with DCC today. It is, however, much more expensive to do so. Or, you can use your kind of block control with DCC...using the Dispatcher to turn off the blocks that the trains aren't using. A manual kind of ATS, sort of.
2). Head-on collisions can be factored out with DCC, but it requires a lot of work to do so. For example, using block detection, signalling, and a form of ATS to stop trains from going past a red signal are all possible with DCC today. It is, however, much more expensive to do so. Or, you can use your kind of block control with DCC...using the Dispatcher to turn off the blocks that the trains aren't using. A manual kind of ATS, sort of.
Paul, I think you've put your finger on the aspect of DCC that's most impressive (at least, to this relatively uninformed DC user): it takes us a couple of big steps in the direction of prototype operation, without the artificialities that DC block operation can impose, or the limitations of earlier systems like ASTRAC (which maxed out, I think, at five trains) or CTC-16. You know you have attained a reasonable simulation of reality when things like cornfield meets start happening, and the list of solutions to your problem starts to look a lot like the range of solutions real railroads adopt.
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
MTennent wrote: "I thought this was to be a place to discuss DC topics? We cannot get away from the constant blah blah blah of the DCC fanatics even here."Well, why don't you post about something other than DCC? So far, most of the posts here make it look like a DC AA group. "Hi, I'm George. I run single trains and I'm DC." <polite applause>"Hi, I'm Sam. I run single trains and I'm DC." <polite applause>"Hi, I'm Bill. I run single trains and I'm DC." <polite applause>(And yes, that is meant in a humorous vein.)But really, is being against DCC the only viable topic for a DC group? Is that all there is? I happen to count myself in both camps. I have DCC on my home layout, our club layout is DC, but will be switching soon, and I make products for DC layouts. On my home layout I have a separate DC trolley line, since automating a trolley is one thing that's very easy in DC but requires more work in DCC. Our club layout will be dual. No-one is interested in forcing others to convert their engines, so we'll build in the ability to run both. It's not that hard. That is one solution for those with a large investment in difficult to convert engines. No-one ever said you had to convert ALL your engines to DCC. In most cases it would be foolish to do so. But if you have a hankering to run multiuple trains with DCC, you can just convert a few engines to run in DCC. You can still run your DC engines with a flip of a switch.But if you don't run multiple trains or don't want to run them with DCC if you do, then DON'T GET DCC! Despite the claims of a few here, I've yet to see anyone argue that everyone needs DCC. If someone did, DCC users would be the first to disagree.The argument that leaves me scratching my head is the one that contends that there's going to be another "ulitimate" control system, so it's best to wait until it comes along. Guys, that's like holding onto a PC with DOS because the ultimate computer isn't out there yet. First, you can miss a whole lot of fun while you're waiting. Second, there is no ultimate system. Technology evolves constantly.Finally, how will you know when it comes along? You've skipped the DCC train, how will you recognise your ultimate sysytem? Is it the next one to come along? The one after that? Or the third in line? How will you tell?One final thought - there's more that unites us than separates us. Scenery, signaling, track work, buildings, detailing, painting, etc, etc. None of those are based on our choice of control systems. So I ask again - what are the DC specific topics? Is being anti-DCC all there is? Mike Tennent
"I thought this was to be a place to discuss DC topics? We cannot get away from the constant blah blah blah of the DCC fanatics even here."
Well, why don't you post about something other than DCC? So far, most of the posts here make it look like a DC AA group.
"Hi, I'm George. I run single trains and I'm DC." <polite applause>
"Hi, I'm Sam. I run single trains and I'm DC." <polite applause>
"Hi, I'm Bill. I run single trains and I'm DC." <polite applause>
(And yes, that is meant in a humorous vein.)
But really, is being against DCC the only viable topic for a DC group? Is that all there is?
I happen to count myself in both camps. I have DCC on my home layout, our club layout is DC, but will be switching soon, and I make products for DC layouts. On my home layout I have a separate DC trolley line, since automating a trolley is one thing that's very easy in DC but requires more work in DCC.
Our club layout will be dual. No-one is interested in forcing others to convert their engines, so we'll build in the ability to run both. It's not that hard.
That is one solution for those with a large investment in difficult to convert engines. No-one ever said you had to convert ALL your engines to DCC. In most cases it would be foolish to do so. But if you have a hankering to run multiuple trains with DCC, you can just convert a few engines to run in DCC. You can still run your DC engines with a flip of a switch.
But if you don't run multiple trains or don't want to run them with DCC if you do, then DON'T GET DCC! Despite the claims of a few here, I've yet to see anyone argue that everyone needs DCC. If someone did, DCC users would be the first to disagree.
The argument that leaves me scratching my head is the one that contends that there's going to be another "ulitimate" control system, so it's best to wait until it comes along. Guys, that's like holding onto a PC with DOS because the ultimate computer isn't out there yet.
First, you can miss a whole lot of fun while you're waiting.
Second, there is no ultimate system. Technology evolves constantly.
Finally, how will you know when it comes along? You've skipped the DCC train, how will you recognise your ultimate sysytem? Is it the next one to come along? The one after that? Or the third in line? How will you tell?
One final thought - there's more that unites us than separates us. Scenery, signaling, track work, buildings, detailing, painting, etc, etc. None of those are based on our choice of control systems. So I ask again - what are the DC specific topics? Is being anti-DCC all there is?
First of all I know this was supposed to be humor but I have DC and the ability to run 4 separate cabs on my layout.
This is exactly what I knew would happen in this thread. Just because I have a DC layout does not mean I am Anti DCC. That would be like me saying that because most of you have HO layouts you must be anti O scale. I happen to like DCC, it's just not as good as DC for what I want to do with my layout.
This thread started out pleasantly enough with a few guys talking about their DC layouts and what type of equipment they use. Then before you know it the DCCers are in here with the "what about this" and "it's not that expensive". It pushes the rest of the DC guys into a position where we are forced to explain ourselves and offer a defense as to why we havn't switched. Just because there are certain aspects of DCC we don't like does not mean we are DCC bashing, we are expresing our oppinions. Am I HO bashing if I state that the equipment is too small for my taste?
We are not looking to be converted or reasons to be converted. Nor are we bashing. Let it go. Start a new thread entiled "The DCC Club" and discuss how great DCC is.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
Paul3 wrote: el-capitan,1). I agree that price is a big factor...but what about the Digitrax DG383AR decoder? http://www.digitrax.com/prd_mobdec_dg383ar.php It's a 3 amp decoder (5 amp peak) that's roughly 1.5" x 2.25" in size, & has 8 FX functions. At http://www.tonystrains.com/ it's only $50 ea., not $100 ea.
el-capitan,1). I agree that price is a big factor...but what about the Digitrax DG383AR decoder? http://www.digitrax.com/prd_mobdec_dg383ar.php It's a 3 amp decoder (5 amp peak) that's roughly 1.5" x 2.25" in size, & has 8 FX functions. At http://www.tonystrains.com/ it's only $50 ea., not $100 ea.
Prices may have come down to some extent since I last looked into it. Still a big investment though. And alot of work to install decoders.
I already have this with DC. Why would I switch?
Paul3 wrote: 3). With DC, you track it down to the faulty resistor/relay/power supply/transistor/etc., and replace the part (for the most part).
3). With DC, you track it down to the faulty resistor/relay/power supply/transistor/etc., and replace the part (for the most part).
My electrical game plan is K.I.S.S. (keep it stupid simple). I have no resistors, relays, transistors or etc's. If there is a problem it is either with a loco, wiring or power supply. I have yet to run into a problem that was not diagnosed and fixed within 5 minutes and solved with "common" replacement parts (fuse, wire splice, etc.)
Mike,I beg to differer there will be a new Wow by golly whiz bang control system.You see DCC is not the ultimate control system because it still relies on power though the rails and thus has the same faults such as dirty track,block-oops power districts shorts,wiring etc..DCC has it faults as we all know unless one is using the very basic DCC.
Know this..I wish I could invent the next whiz bang control system.
Sorry if I ruffled some feathers. I've been very happy with my switch to DCC so I can't help but sing its praises.
That said, I still use DC to power my signals. That's right!
I use my Tech II from my DC days to run my signals and signal animators. I use the DC current to adjust the signal brightness. It's mounted under the layout with industrial-strength Velcro.
So, on a lighter note, does this get me into the DC Club?
Clang,
"Go preach somewhere else" ......................
"Go preach somewhere else"
Is it really necessary for you to post such a nasty "in-the-sewer" reply?
Why are you saying "We"? Can you not speak for yourself?
Which modelers here have acted like fanatics? The person that made a "heated statement" apologized. That's the mark of an intelligent man. So there are no fanatics here.
BTW: Only my opinon, but chances are that 99% of DCC modelers that are over the age of 15 started in DC. So you can see that we're all binded together.
Overall this thread is full of intelligent, cool minded discussions here. Why you chose to dump trash on it is a baffling.
We have a good group of modelrailroaders here, bottom line.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
I thought this was to be a place to discuss DC topics? We cannot get away from the constant blah blah blah of the DCC fanatics even here. Why is that?
WE DON'T CARE ABOUT DCC WE DON'T WANT DCC
Go preach somewhere else.
3). I agree that troubleshooting can be difficult, but that's true with any system. Trust me. I spent years operating my club's old 1953-era DC layout, and floating blocks, relays, and dead toggles are also a pain in the rear. One time, a member who was the Narrow Gauge chairman snipped out the wires to a long abandoned narrow gauge track that was being removed. It killed the whole Division (25' x 50') because what he cut was also the common return for all the cabs! With DCC, you normally track it down to the faulty component device and replace the device. With DC, you track it down to the faulty resistor/relay/power supply/transistor/etc., and replace the part (for the most part). Not to say one is better or not, just different.
twhite,You do realize that the "dinosaur" crack was in humor, right? After all, you're the one that mentioned the "Jurassic Era" first. modelmaker51 made a funny (note the smilie), and then you rather insultingly told him to think before writing. Now you are still calling his joke (note the smilie) a "Flame".
Tom, if you don't want people to jokingly relate your trains to dinosaurs, don't say things like, "Hey, I LIKE the Jurassic Era! It's still fun!" when you talk about them.
beegle55,Shouting at someone to "shut up" for making a joke (note the smilie) is over the line. Especially since twhite is the one that compared his trains to dinosaurs in the first place!!!
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Dave and Antonio--
Good points, as usual. Actually, the only 'Flame' I've seen here on this particular thread is the guy that called my choice of control and locomotives "Dinosaurs." Everyone else has been quite civil in explaining their particular stance--DC or DCC. Which makes me think that the large majority of us model what is right for us at the present time and are not only willing to present our particular views in a reasonable manner, but also listen to reasonable opposing views in the same spirit.
Frankly, for a thread that COULD have gone to nothing but Sniping and Trolling, this particular thread has remained both lively, interesting and for the most part, quite civil. Which shows that people CAN talk without having to out-shout or out-insult each other.
Cheers to us, I say!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Dave Vollmer wrote: Virginian wrote:Dave, it must be us. I keep thinking I am getting the sour grapes mentality from DCC folks who cannot get DCers to agree it is the be all end all. Maybe I'm too sensitive... nah. Maybe I'm not sensitive enough.So let me get this straight. Never discuss (in public) politics, religion, and DCC!While I was still DC, I had to convince myself that DCC was a luxury I could do without. I talked myself into believing that it was too much for my small layout and limited operating goals, and was therefore overkill. But, the more I ran other layouts with DCC and saw it in action, the harder it was to convince myself that those grapes were sour. It just made everything so easy, convenient, and smooth.So, last year when it came time to rebuild my layout, I took the plunge and went Digitrax. Wow.Again, DC is great, and the right answer for lots of people. Nobody should look down on another for their choice of control systems. But you (third person sense) do yourself a disservice by trying to convince yourself you've made the right choice based on incorrect assumptions, fear, or sticker shock. If you've looked at DCC, maybe tried it out, or at least talked to knowledgeable people about it and still decide it's not for you, then you've got a rock-solid argument. That, and the budget. I know DCC is an investment. Otherwise, you may be missing out. I know I was missing out for the many years I wasted my money on non-DCC-ready locomotives, running them one at a time with my glorified rheostat...
Virginian wrote:Dave, it must be us. I keep thinking I am getting the sour grapes mentality from DCC folks who cannot get DCers to agree it is the be all end all. Maybe I'm too sensitive... nah. Maybe I'm not sensitive enough.
So let me get this straight. Never discuss (in public) politics, religion, and DCC!
While I was still DC, I had to convince myself that DCC was a luxury I could do without. I talked myself into believing that it was too much for my small layout and limited operating goals, and was therefore overkill. But, the more I ran other layouts with DCC and saw it in action, the harder it was to convince myself that those grapes were sour. It just made everything so easy, convenient, and smooth.
So, last year when it came time to rebuild my layout, I took the plunge and went Digitrax. Wow.
Again, DC is great, and the right answer for lots of people. Nobody should look down on another for their choice of control systems. But you (third person sense) do yourself a disservice by trying to convince yourself you've made the right choice based on incorrect assumptions, fear, or sticker shock. If you've looked at DCC, maybe tried it out, or at least talked to knowledgeable people about it and still decide it's not for you, then you've got a rock-solid argument. That, and the budget. I know DCC is an investment. Otherwise, you may be missing out.
I know I was missing out for the many years I wasted my money on non-DCC-ready locomotives, running them one at a time with my glorified rheostat...
With me it's not a sour grapes attitude. I have operated a few DCC layouts and understand the positive points of it. However, when I do state reasons why I have not converted (either on a forum or in real life) it seems like I have every DCC faithful come out and tell me I am full of BS. Here are the reasons:
1. Cost is a factor. Some of my Oscale engines pull over 2 amps and require a decoder which costs nearly $100. I just can't put a standard HO $20 decoder in my locos. You cannot argue that $1500 initial investment for my 15 locos is a major investment. And that is just for the decoders.
2. Head on collisions. I have a large layout that is in multiple rooms. Miscommunication between operators in separate rooms is common. While a head-on collision is nearly impossible on DC, it is way more likely with DCC. I have a ATSF Texas that weighs 12 lbs and 2 F45's that weigh 8 lbs each. A 30 car freight train can weigh over 40 lbs, not including the loco. I want to do everything possible to minimize the likelyhood of a head on collision between 2 50l lb trains. I'm sorry but there is no way that you can make me think differently.
3. When I have a problem with the operation of my layout I have always been able to troubleshoot it because it is simple. I would like to keep it that way. Throwing decoders and electronics into the mix always makes troubleshooting more difficult. Again, I'm not being sour grapes, I just know where my strengths are.
If you want to argue any of these points as being false or exagerated, go right ahead. You will not get any response from me though because they are not points to be debated in a committee.
I havn't really gotten the "sour grapes" feeling from the DC or DCC posts here. I have gotten into many arguments on other forums with DCC guys berating me. One guy was arguing that a block in DC operates the same as a power district in DCC. He started out the disscussion by telling me that everything that I had written was BS. Another told me that head-on collisions and accidents in general are inevitable and that I am just going to have to live with it. It seems that the DC guys can always see the good things with DCC, while there are a few DCC guys that don't see any redeeming value in DC and will jump all over you for it. I think it has to do with experience with the two systems. While there are a few DC guys out there that just don't understand DCC, there are just as many DCC guys that never had DC or if they did they really don't have a good working knowledge of a GOOD block system layout. Yet on the internet, everyone's voice is just as loud, no matter what teir experience.
Virginian,
I'll try and tread carefully here, as Vail states above........
Sour grapes mentality from DCCers? Honestly, I've read a lot of the posts on this forum over the past 3 years regarding DCC. In most cases, the DCCers seemed to have a very enthusiastic attititude. A few were condescending and were quickly "put in their place".
The "sour grapes" attitude that you mention I've seen overwhelmingly come from many DCers. Specifcally, as Vail mentions, statements about the technology that are either exaggerated or flat out untrue.
In reading Vail's post above, imho, he hit the nail on the head.
I'm going to try to tread carefully here, this has stayed so civil it's almost boring, and I'd like to keep it that way!
I feel like I've heard more 'sensitivity' from DCers defending their choice. I'm sure it is similar to me having to sometimes explain why I drive a 14 year old car, for me it is right (at least for now), and I might get defensive.
The thing that I think some DCC supporters (probably to include me) have done is point out some of the fallacies in the arguments to not convert. (In my case I'm not really that hard over on that, being somewhat from the if it works, don't fix it camp. I do think that in most cases someone starting out is going to be better served by starting with DCC rather than starting DC and planning to maybe switch later. End of commercial interruption.) I think that the cost and complexity of a DCC system are often overstated. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, DCC does not require autoreverse modules, a switch will do. Also, earlier today someone said that they didn't want the trouble of 'changing his whole layout' to convert to DCC, which is most likely extremely overstating the task.
My point is that I think in many, many, cases there are absolutely valid reasons for a DC system to stay DC. I also think that in these cases, but even more in the case of a newer model railroader, the decision should be made based on real facts and thoughts, and not on knee jerk, absolute, emotional, statements. And either solution might be the right answer.
I'm going back under my rock now. Please don't start a flame war over this!
cjcrescent wrote: MidlandPacific wrote: twhite wrote: MidlandPacific wrote: When I decide that I'm ready to expand my layout and make the leap to a bigger system, I think I'll convert to DCC. The advantages for large layouts seem pretty clear: more trains, more operators, and relatively less wiring. I put twenty-three blocks in my small starter layout, which is basically a pair of urban junctions, operated with dual-cab control. It was easy to wire it, but it was very time-consuming, and the circuit logic for a bigger layout with multiple cabs would get pretty unwieldy, I think. And I'm willing to wait awhile to see other great stuff what the electronics revolution can provide. Incidentally, per the comments on brass engines shedding parts, I have noticed that some of them do - some of the NJ Custom brass stuff seems to have detail parts that were held on with some kind of adhesive, rather than soldered, and I've noticed they will shed a bit, things like injectors and piping - as a Grande fan, Tom, you might have noticed this with their L-76 class 2-6-6-2s. Midland--Not to get off topic again (he said with an evil chuckle) but about the NJ Custom shedding parts--don't have their L-76, but I have three M-78 4-8-2's that came with drivers sprung with--of all things--GUITAR wire! Had to re-spring the little devils, because they were incredibly mushy, and the only thing that would work was a stronger Ernie Ball .013 guitar wire. You should have seen the look on the guy's face at the music store when I told him that the wire was for a model locomotive, not a Fender Stratocaster! But the stronger wire's held up for quite a few years, now. Nice to know if I need to re-spring, I can just head down to my local guitar shop, LOL! But I do have a tendency to refer to those three locos as my Rock n' Roll Mountains. Tom That's priceless! I got the same thing from a guy at a hardware store when I was buying fishing line to make truss rods. The larger guitar strings that have the "wrapping" around them also make great "insulated piping" for detailing engines as well.
MidlandPacific wrote: twhite wrote: MidlandPacific wrote: When I decide that I'm ready to expand my layout and make the leap to a bigger system, I think I'll convert to DCC. The advantages for large layouts seem pretty clear: more trains, more operators, and relatively less wiring. I put twenty-three blocks in my small starter layout, which is basically a pair of urban junctions, operated with dual-cab control. It was easy to wire it, but it was very time-consuming, and the circuit logic for a bigger layout with multiple cabs would get pretty unwieldy, I think. And I'm willing to wait awhile to see other great stuff what the electronics revolution can provide. Incidentally, per the comments on brass engines shedding parts, I have noticed that some of them do - some of the NJ Custom brass stuff seems to have detail parts that were held on with some kind of adhesive, rather than soldered, and I've noticed they will shed a bit, things like injectors and piping - as a Grande fan, Tom, you might have noticed this with their L-76 class 2-6-6-2s. Midland--Not to get off topic again (he said with an evil chuckle) but about the NJ Custom shedding parts--don't have their L-76, but I have three M-78 4-8-2's that came with drivers sprung with--of all things--GUITAR wire! Had to re-spring the little devils, because they were incredibly mushy, and the only thing that would work was a stronger Ernie Ball .013 guitar wire. You should have seen the look on the guy's face at the music store when I told him that the wire was for a model locomotive, not a Fender Stratocaster! But the stronger wire's held up for quite a few years, now. Nice to know if I need to re-spring, I can just head down to my local guitar shop, LOL! But I do have a tendency to refer to those three locos as my Rock n' Roll Mountains. Tom That's priceless! I got the same thing from a guy at a hardware store when I was buying fishing line to make truss rods.
twhite wrote: MidlandPacific wrote: When I decide that I'm ready to expand my layout and make the leap to a bigger system, I think I'll convert to DCC. The advantages for large layouts seem pretty clear: more trains, more operators, and relatively less wiring. I put twenty-three blocks in my small starter layout, which is basically a pair of urban junctions, operated with dual-cab control. It was easy to wire it, but it was very time-consuming, and the circuit logic for a bigger layout with multiple cabs would get pretty unwieldy, I think. And I'm willing to wait awhile to see other great stuff what the electronics revolution can provide. Incidentally, per the comments on brass engines shedding parts, I have noticed that some of them do - some of the NJ Custom brass stuff seems to have detail parts that were held on with some kind of adhesive, rather than soldered, and I've noticed they will shed a bit, things like injectors and piping - as a Grande fan, Tom, you might have noticed this with their L-76 class 2-6-6-2s. Midland--Not to get off topic again (he said with an evil chuckle) but about the NJ Custom shedding parts--don't have their L-76, but I have three M-78 4-8-2's that came with drivers sprung with--of all things--GUITAR wire! Had to re-spring the little devils, because they were incredibly mushy, and the only thing that would work was a stronger Ernie Ball .013 guitar wire. You should have seen the look on the guy's face at the music store when I told him that the wire was for a model locomotive, not a Fender Stratocaster! But the stronger wire's held up for quite a few years, now. Nice to know if I need to re-spring, I can just head down to my local guitar shop, LOL! But I do have a tendency to refer to those three locos as my Rock n' Roll Mountains. Tom
MidlandPacific wrote: When I decide that I'm ready to expand my layout and make the leap to a bigger system, I think I'll convert to DCC. The advantages for large layouts seem pretty clear: more trains, more operators, and relatively less wiring. I put twenty-three blocks in my small starter layout, which is basically a pair of urban junctions, operated with dual-cab control. It was easy to wire it, but it was very time-consuming, and the circuit logic for a bigger layout with multiple cabs would get pretty unwieldy, I think. And I'm willing to wait awhile to see other great stuff what the electronics revolution can provide. Incidentally, per the comments on brass engines shedding parts, I have noticed that some of them do - some of the NJ Custom brass stuff seems to have detail parts that were held on with some kind of adhesive, rather than soldered, and I've noticed they will shed a bit, things like injectors and piping - as a Grande fan, Tom, you might have noticed this with their L-76 class 2-6-6-2s.
When I decide that I'm ready to expand my layout and make the leap to a bigger system, I think I'll convert to DCC. The advantages for large layouts seem pretty clear: more trains, more operators, and relatively less wiring. I put twenty-three blocks in my small starter layout, which is basically a pair of urban junctions, operated with dual-cab control. It was easy to wire it, but it was very time-consuming, and the circuit logic for a bigger layout with multiple cabs would get pretty unwieldy, I think. And I'm willing to wait awhile to see other great stuff what the electronics revolution can provide.
Incidentally, per the comments on brass engines shedding parts, I have noticed that some of them do - some of the NJ Custom brass stuff seems to have detail parts that were held on with some kind of adhesive, rather than soldered, and I've noticed they will shed a bit, things like injectors and piping - as a Grande fan, Tom, you might have noticed this with their L-76 class 2-6-6-2s.
Midland--
Not to get off topic again (he said with an evil chuckle) but about the NJ Custom shedding parts--don't have their L-76, but I have three M-78 4-8-2's that came with drivers sprung with--of all things--GUITAR wire! Had to re-spring the little devils, because they were incredibly mushy, and the only thing that would work was a stronger Ernie Ball .013 guitar wire. You should have seen the look on the guy's face at the music store when I told him that the wire was for a model locomotive, not a Fender Stratocaster! But the stronger wire's held up for quite a few years, now. Nice to know if I need to re-spring, I can just head down to my local guitar shop, LOL! But I do have a tendency to refer to those three locos as my Rock n' Roll Mountains.
That's priceless! I got the same thing from a guy at a hardware store when I was buying fishing line to make truss rods.
The larger guitar strings that have the "wrapping" around them also make great "insulated piping" for detailing engines as well.
Carey--
Yah, Ernie Ball brass-wrapped .023 to .026 is really good for piping, especially if you're installing an Elesco FWH. Did it with my two Akane M-4 2-8-8-4's, and an Akane USRA Pacific, a couple of years back. Looks really cool. Thank God for guitarists, LOL!
I posted before on this:
1. It's not the money in my case, yeah I can afford to go out and buy the best unit out there if I wanted to.
2. Like I said in my earlier post 80 loco's I'd spend all my time converting and not running.
3. One man layout only, I just run a mainline train and then switch the yards or whatever.
4. I just don't need it, my finished ( yeah right ) layout is wired with lots of blocks and no one to wreck it for me. (except me )
I just don't want the aggravation of changing the whole layout, just to run more than two engines at a time. Call me a dinosaur I still use atlas switches because thats what I started with 35 years ago.
Jerry SP FOREVER http://photobucket.com/albums/f317/GAPPLEG/
It's how you choose to pay. I used to put off buying DCC because I thought the money could be better spent on more trains. Now that I went DCC, I find the trains I have (at least those that I've converted over) are more enjoyable.
DCC is not just a "rich guy's" toy. It's how you chose to spend your hobby dollar. Plus, DCC is much more affordable now than it used to be. Still more expensive than DC, but not as cost prohibitive as it once was.
Again, I think you should stick with DC if that's what best meets your needs. But I get the sense that there's a "sour grapes" mentality among some that because they can't (or won't) invest in DCC, it must not be all that it's made out to be.
My suggestion is to find a local club or buddy who's running DCC and try it out. If it doesn't thrill you, fine. You don't need it. But at least you will have a good idea what it is you're chosing not to use instead of this big, expensive, complicated boogie man some folks have made DCC out to be.
In the end, it's your dollar to spend.
The play more-pay more phrase is used for people who can afford to pay more. I still can play more, but I am not going to pay more.
-beegle55
Carey
Keep it between the Rails
Alabama Central Homepage
Nara member #128
NMRA &SER Life member