CSX_road_slug wrote:I've concluded that a DT400 is a must-have. I can't possibly enjoy DCC operation with such a user-hostile device as the DT100.
Just acquired a non-DCC equipped rare Bachmann Southern Pacific Daylight Special #449, HO locomotive, BNIB, made in 1984, never run.
I would like to equip it with DCC and sound.
Any recommendations?
I could have bought one new from Bachmann for $159 with DCC (without sound), but I got this for less than $60, so I'll put sound in it myself.
TheK4Kid
TheK4Kid wrote:Just acquired a non-DCC equipped rare Bachmann Southern Pacific Daylight Special #449, HO locomotive, BNIB, made in 1984, never run.I would like to equip it with DCC and sound. Any recommendations?
I would like to equip it with DCC and sound. Any recommendations?
I don't mind the work, actually enjoy it.
Bachmann DCC version DOES NOT have sound.
This one I just bought on Ebay, is one of the collector series Bachmann put out in 1984.
I've seen them selling at train shows for 200 to 250 dollars.
The real 4449 pulled the "Freedom Train" for awhile.
10-4 on that Vail.
There are a lot of good posts on the DC thread. However, after reading over the DC thread......I find there is still an issue that makes me sigh like a diesel popping off:
It's the attitude of a number of modelers that "seem" to think or are even convinced that DCC is a "temporary technology". That it will soon be superseded by the next super-innovative technology that comes down the tracks. If you read over the DC thread posts carefully, a number of the replies seem to convey the message over and over and over that "DC is safe and will always be around because DCC costs are too high.....dirty wheel issues.....potential electronic problems.......it's overrated......etc..etc". Did some of you guys pick up on that? It's almost as if DCC seemed to represent some type of threat and assurances are made that it won't conquer the market! Which of course, it is not the case at all.
DCC is a continually evolving technology and the top DCC manufacturers ( Lenz, Digitrax, NCE, etc) have been working to make sure that new updates in the future will still work with older dcc systems.
The intent of DCC is to enable modelers to have freedom to operate trains just as prototypes railroads do. DCC has indeed accomplished this goal remarkably well.. For me, reading the post that complained about "cornfield meets" was amusingly refreshing. That's the same type of concern that prototype railroads face everyday. Now that's as realistic as it gets!
My own simplified take on this is that a number of the skeptic guys are in my age group (40s) or older. The mindset seems to be that we grew up up in the time when, for example, in home/car stereo systems we saw the 8-track tape superseded by the cassete, superseded by the CD, which is now being superseded by this "MP-3" type technology. (But LP records and reel to reel tapes still exist of course).
So perhaps this is why we see the skepticism by (as my nephew would say) my fellow "old school folks". But on the positive side I've seen a good number of the older generation folk that are very much enjoying DCC's rewards. When I was a "skeptic-extremus" my first live demo of DCC at a train show was performed by a TCS rep who appeared to be in his late 50s. At the Suncoast Model Railroaders Club, there are a number of the 50+ age members that own and enjoy operating DCC equipped locomotives (ironically some of them were originally not interested in DCC)
Perhaps I read too quickly, but one point not brought forth in the DC thread was that it is today's high school/college generation that will make DCC even more popular than what we've seen today. DCC and DCC/Sound has been improving by leaps in just the past 5 years. and that's a fact that some seem to be ignoring.
This is not to shove DCC down anyone's throat, by any means. However, for those modelers that
a. Want to operate MU lashups where different loco brands don't buck or tug at each other
b. Want to run locomotives wherever they want on a layout without having to flip those toggles.
c. want a visiting modeler(s) to be able to run the layout without having to worry about which cab/block district is which
d. Want the prototype challenge of having "to be careful" not to have head-on collisions
e. Want a simplified wiring plan for a layout, regardless of size,
f. Enjoy controlling incredibly realistic lighting effects, turning them on/off when desired (you can't do that with a BLI in DC mode)
g. Want to hear the locomotive horns they grew up listening to on specific types of locomotives (thanks to the sound "upload" feature on some decoders)
Then it's a win-win with this technology.
Not saying I'm totally correct. These are just my thoughts.................Peace
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
TheK4Kid wrote:Bachmann DCC version DOES NOT have sound.
Hi Texas Zepher,
I have always liked the looks of the GS4 and this was a good deal, even if I repower it.
My layout is mostly PRR theme, but I also am adding a NYC line and an NKP line, since I want to be able to recreate the famous PRR Broadway Limited versus the NYC Twentieth Century Limited, and also run a an NKP engine #765 since the Nickel Plate ran thru my hometown of Ft wayne Indiana, and now the real "765"( FULLY RESTORED) is parked safely in a storage building ( and it runs!!) awaiting it's next ecursion run about 15 miles from my house.
In a movie documentary I have about aviation titled "One Six Right" a former United Airlines pilot( now retired) Ben Harper tells a story of how him and a buddy would takeoff from Van Nuys airport ( California) and wait until the SP 5:10 train ran by the airport, then fly over the engineers cab, and here was this "BIG NOISE" above his cab and it would scare him!
Well the next time we did this, he was waiting on us, as we flew over the cab,he pulled on the whistle and scared the hell out of us! LOL!
I have 5 BLI steam engines with DCC and sound now.
A J1, an M1a, and M1b, and two T1 duplexes, they all run and sound great!
So I need to add the GS4, then an 4-8-4 Berkshire for my NKP , and not sure what will be pulling my NYC train yet.
We'll just say the GS4 is making another "Freedom Train" tour, and happened across my layout!
DCC and sound -THE ONLY WAY to run trains!
Forgot to mention.....
On some threads a few modelers may complain that they encountered too much difficulty with DCC. As with any thing man made, sometimes defective products are purchased off the store shelves DC and DCC. This happened to me when I purchased a brand new Atlas GP7 that wouldn't run. The store's owner promptly swapped it out for me.
There is another piece to this scenario, though. A good point a technical expert friend of mine makes is that often times some modelers (or consumers in general) want to be able to purchase a new DCC system, or surround sound stereo system , home computer, or even a bicycle.......slap it together and get it running. Potential Problem? The persons either read over the manual in "Warp Speed" mode; or doesn't read it all! Something then goes wrong and immedietly they yell, "Hey! This thing doesn't work right! Forget it, I'm putting this on the shelf! Maybe sell it." Then they brag to others that the item is on the shelf. Yes, seems weird but this scenario plays out often; especially in this hobby. But I've been guilty of this as well.
Over the years I had to discipline myself to be patient when I deal with something that's new to me. With DCC, the first rule after opening the box shold be: RTMD (Read the manual, dummy!). Add to that, reading good solid information from reputable experts such as Tony's Trains and Litchfiled Station's Bruce Petrarca will likely help DCC newbies (like myself) enjoy the experience more and calmly deal with any minor problems that may arise.
I've seen DCC in operation on a club layout and at a private residence. Very minor glitches occur every now and then......but I haven't seen the nightmare horror stories that some modelers have been posting about. IMHO, the RTMD rule and regularly reading good, reputable info helps nullify most of the problems that some of the DCC critics have complained about.
O.K, finished thinking thru the keyboard.........
CSX_road_slug wrote: Quite true, Simon - I've concluded that a DT400 is a must-have. I can't possibly enjoy DCC operation with such a user-hostile device as the DT100.Thank you everybody who responded!
Quite true, Simon - I've concluded that a DT400 is a must-have. I can't possibly enjoy DCC operation with such a user-hostile device as the DT100.
Thank you everybody who responded!
CSX_road_slug, not to offend the D lovers out there, but if what Siomon says is correct about a strong secondary market for D equipment, my recommendation is sell the D system as a complete package before buying the DT400. Save the cost of buying a DT400 ($139 at Tony's) and use that money to purchase a NCE PowerCab ($139.95 at Tony's). Using the money from selling the D system and purchase a Cab04e and a UTP for 2 train operation.
Read the manual and reviews of the system on Tony's website. Since you have the existing system since 2000 without using it and based on your earlier post, it sounds like you're operating on a solo basis or a minimal numbers operators. The PowerCab should meet your needs. It is easy to take out of the box and get setup. I know of a 12 year old who had his layout up and running on DCC in 20 minutes. All he had to do was following the steps in the manual. The NCE system is very user friendly, from set-up to progamming to operating. Everything is displayed on the LCD screen - no different color LEDs or flashing lights to interpret to tell whether you're in Ops Mode or Set-up mode etc.
At a minimum I think it something worth your consideration.
jktrains
CSX_road_slug,
Can you provide some insight as to why you waited 6 years before trying to hook your existing system?
TheK4Kid wrote: In a movie documentary I have about aviation titled "One Six Right" a former United Airlines pilot( now retired) Ben Harper tells a story of how him and a buddy would takeoff from Van Nuys airport ( California) and wait until the SP 5:10 train ran by the airport, then fly over the engineers cab, and here was this "BIG NOISE" above his cab and it would scare him! Well the next time we did this, he was waiting on us, as we flew over the cab,he pulled on the whistle and scared the hell out of us! LOL!
I can identify with the horn. Me an my spouse were walking along a parking lot and there was a train just sitting about 1/2 block away on the tracks. So we are just walking and the engineer gave two quick toots. I almost jumped out of my skin. At first I thought it was just me but later my wife said it scared her to death too. I mean this was a bit more than just being startled. It was a GE dash 9 unit, so now I want a horn like that on my auto!
I wonder if our pathetic sounding DCC controlled sound units will ever be able to startle anyone?
Bikerdad: Thanks for the tip, I'll definitely try out the decoder pro.
jktrains wrote: CSX_road_slug, Can you provide some insight as to why you waited 6 years before trying to hook your existing system?
Hmmm... thought you'd never ask! Grab a beer, this will be long-winded...
First, I moved to my present house in the summer of 2000. Had a wad of spending money from the sale of my old house, so I figured I should make my new layout DCC. My friends at the time were all using Digitrax [or nothing at all] so I bought a Chief kit, with future expansion in mind.
A month or two after I got the benchwork erected, a number of 'whammies' hit; in a nutshell, my MRR budget dried up, and the layout construction had to be put on indefinite hold. (There were plenty of other MRR-related activities to keep me occupied, so not a total disaster.)
In winter 2005, I got an unexpected cash infusion which went toward climate-controlling the garage trainroom. This enabled me to continue layout construction. There wasn't any money leftover for putting decoders in all my DC locos - and I already knew how to install block wiring - so I did that. (I thought it would have to be an all-or-nothing deal and I really wanted to operate my many DC engines.) I verified that everything worked flawlessly on DC, then spent another year or so laying scenery and building structures.
It wasn't until a few days ago that I learned I can operate my layout as DCC on some days, and straight DC on others. So I figure now I can just add decoders one-at-a-time, and run those locos on the 'DCC' days. [And my friends with decodered engines will be able to run them on my layout too!]
I'm thinking of starting with a clean slate and going with NCE, after my obsolete Digitrax throttle and their Geekspeak manuals drove me close to apoplexy this weekend. (Nuthin' personal, Digitrax guys - I'm just not as tech savvy as you are, that's all!) Another Digitrax-user friend of mine here in MD is fixing to do the same thing.
-Ken in Maryland (B&O modeler, former CSX modeler)
AntonioFP45
Although not a DCC user myself (for reasons that are not relevant to this post), as an electrical engineer I am very interested in DCC. I read almost all the posts on the subject, researched some of the sites, and have learned a lot. I may even become a convert some day, butI have a history of remaining one generation behind current electronics technology.
But I have to disagree with your premise that DCC will be around for decades. These are the destabilizing trends I see in the DCC market:
- There have been digital systems before DCC such as CTC-16. At some point, the underlying communications technologies become obsolete and/or inadequate to meet the demands of new applications and features. At the same time, manufacturing support for the needed components (data drivers, ICs) for the older protocols dries up as the new technologies take over. This has happened to virtually all data link protocols in the past 3 decades. Lionel and MTH have had to redo their command systems completely with limited backwards compatibility in just 12 years.
- I already see strong desire and anticipation for 3 extensions to current DCC. I'm not sure current network and data transmission protocols will be adequate for all of these.
1) robust, plug and play wireless control of all DCC features. This is likely to be easiest of the 3 to achieve using existing DCC, albeit with each DCC manufacturer having a proprietary solution.2) synchronized combined on board and localized under layout sound. The physics of inadequate speaker space in our models makes satisfactory sound solely from on board speakers unlikely to be achieved in the next 2 decades. A far easier solution is to create data networks and sound processing that can follow the train with decent under layout speakers. 3) implicit in #2 is a requirement for easy localization of a locomotive without having to divide and wire the track into innummerable blocks (back to DC block wiring!). Demands for accuracy of localization is going to grow quickly once the initial capability is established.
1) robust, plug and play wireless control of all DCC features. This is likely to be easiest of the 3 to achieve using existing DCC, albeit with each DCC manufacturer having a proprietary solution.
2) synchronized combined on board and localized under layout sound. The physics of inadequate speaker space in our models makes satisfactory sound solely from on board speakers unlikely to be achieved in the next 2 decades. A far easier solution is to create data networks and sound processing that can follow the train with decent under layout speakers.
3) implicit in #2 is a requirement for easy localization of a locomotive without having to divide and wire the track into innummerable blocks (back to DC block wiring!). Demands for accuracy of localization is going to grow quickly once the initial capability is established.
- Allowing proprietary architecture and protocols for the throttle and other non-track data transmissions has resulted in substantial duplication of effort in hardware, software, and firmware engineering. As a result, none of the majors (Digitrax, Lenz, CVP, NCE, MRC) has been able to develop, test, and field new systems with the latest features on a timely schedule. Because of the proprietary systems, consolidation of effort (and companies) will necessarily "orphan" some current systems. But it remains to be seen if the DCC market is big enough to support the necessary development efforts of this many incompatible systems.
- Backwards compatibility is already proving awkward. 2 digit addressing and 14 step speed curves are hardly ever used anymore, yet the capability must be maintained. Meanwhile, engineering effort used to maintain backwards compatibility is unavailable for development of new extensions and features. Systems without CV read/write capability (preferably in both ops and program modes) or computer interfaces are derided as inadequate for the "serious" DCC operator.
IMHO, the continued inability of the DCC system manufacturers to keep up with the demand for new features will result in a window of opportunity over the next decade for a new technology which can supply these features more elegantly and at lower cost. The new technology will be driven for cost reasons to drop any pretense of backwards technology.
Again IMHO, lack of backwards compatibility will definitely slow adoption of any new technology, as the installed DCC base is much bigger than any previous command system. DCC's slow adoption is mainly attributable to its incompatibility with DC. But the advantages of plug and play wireless everywhere, realistic sound that follows the train, and ease of signalling and dispatching will win converts to the new system.
Predicted timeline - the new system will be available to early adopters in less than 10 years.
just my thoughts and predictions
Fred W
fwright wrote: AntonioFP45Although not a DCC user myself (for reasons that are not relevant to this post), as an electrical engineer I am very interested in DCC. I read almost all the posts on the subject, researched some of the sites, and have learned a lot. I may even become a convert some day, butI have a history of remaining one generation behind current electronics technology.But I have to disagree with your premise that DCC will be around for decades. These are the destabilizing trends I see in the DCC market:- There have been digital systems before DCC such as CTC-16. At some point, the underlying communications technologies become obsolete and/or inadequate to meet the demands of new applications and features. At the same time, manufacturing support for the needed components (data drivers, ICs) for the older protocols dries up as the new technologies take over. This has happened to virtually all data link protocols in the past 3 decades. Lionel and MTH have had to redo their command systems completely with limited backwards compatibility in just 12 years.But none of the other systems has had the benefit of NMRA standards. I tend to think it will be around for a while.- I already see strong desire and anticipation for 3 extensions to current DCC. I'm not sure current network and data transmission protocols will be adequate for all of these. 1) robust, plug and play wireless control of all DCC features. This is likely to be easiest of the 3 to achieve using existing DCC, albeit with each DCC manufacturer having a proprietary solution.Are you thinking about wireless control of the trains, or wireless throttles. More robust and integrated wireless throttles will certainly come, whether the delivery system to the trains DCC or not. Wireless control of trains is a different story, I think, especially in the small scales. But I won't be suprised to see it happen, eventually. It could be done as an expension of DCC without too much imagination.2) synchronized combined on board and localized under layout sound. The physics of inadequate speaker space in our models makes satisfactory sound solely from on board speakers unlikely to be achieved in the next 2 decades. A far easier solution is to create data networks and sound processing that can follow the train with decent under layout speakers. I think Soundtraxx was close to having this out, but I think they ran into 'intellectual property' issues. Don't know the details, I hope it gets sorted out. Since I haven't seen a lot written about it, I'm hopeful that there may be work going on behind the scenes. I'm on the fence as to whether sound is a big issue, I wonder about whether several locomotives making sound in the relatively small space of one layout might be more distration than I want anyway.3) implicit in #2 is a requirement for easy localization of a locomotive without having to divide and wire the track into innummerable blocks (back to DC block wiring!). Demands for accuracy of localization is going to grow quickly once the initial capability is established.I think this may well be doable with DCC (with the bidirectional standard added), and a bit of effort. I think the biggest problem may be describing the layout to the system in a useful way. The biggest selling point of this to me would be the ability to control signalling. Unerlayout sound would be another application, and layout automation (which might be useful for some, but I don't think I'll ever be interested ...famous last words...) would be another.- Allowing proprietary architecture and protocols for the throttle and other non-track data transmissions has resulted in substantial duplication of effort in hardware, software, and firmware engineering. As a result, none of the majors (Digitrax, Lenz, CVP, NCE, MRC) has been able to develop, test, and field new systems with the latest features on a timely schedule. Because of the proprietary systems, consolidation of effort (and companies) will necessarily "orphan" some current systems. But it remains to be seen if the DCC market is big enough to support the necessary development efforts of this many incompatible systems. I have to think about this some more, but I'm not sure there was any other reasonable way to do this. To standardaize the interfaces would have pretty much made the only difference between systems throttle design. Besides, I think there is room for different interfaces with different advantages. On the other hand I see your point, as you say, it remains to be seen....- Backwards compatibility is already proving awkward. 2 digit addressing and 14 step speed curves are hardly ever used anymore, yet the capability must be maintained. Meanwhile, engineering effort used to maintain backwards compatibility is unavailable for development of new extensions and features. Systems without CV read/write capability (preferably in both ops and program modes) or computer interfaces are derided as inadequate for the "serious" DCC operator.I wouldn't think that mainaining the compatibility would be too hard, at this point. As far as advanced feature, that's one of the differentiators between systems, and one of the things that can traded off by the consumer.IMHO, the continued inability of the DCC system manufacturers to keep up with the demand for new features will result in a window of opportunity over the next decade for a new technology which can supply these features more elegantly and at lower cost. The new technology will be driven for cost reasons to drop any pretense of backwards technology.Again IMHO, lack of backwards compatibility will definitely slow adoption of any new technology, as the installed DCC base is much bigger than any previous command system. DCC's slow adoption is mainly attributable to its incompatibility with DC. But the advantages of plug and play wireless everywhere, realistic sound that follows the train, and ease of signalling and dispatching will win converts to the new system.Predicted timeline - the new system will be available to early adopters in less than 10 years. I'm inclined to think it will be incremental, and an extension of DCC rather than a replacement. But I could be wrong, of course. The thing that makes me wonder about wireless is the interference that lives all over the layout, from the tiny motor, snap switch machines, metal in scenery, etc. But then again, the rates can be pretty slow, and the distances are short. I think it is a ways off, for the small scales, anyway.just my thoughts and predictionsFred W
But none of the other systems has had the benefit of NMRA standards. I tend to think it will be around for a while.
1) robust, plug and play wireless control of all DCC features. This is likely to be easiest of the 3 to achieve using existing DCC, albeit with each DCC manufacturer having a proprietary solution.Are you thinking about wireless control of the trains, or wireless throttles. More robust and integrated wireless throttles will certainly come, whether the delivery system to the trains DCC or not. Wireless control of trains is a different story, I think, especially in the small scales. But I won't be suprised to see it happen, eventually. It could be done as an expension of DCC without too much imagination.2) synchronized combined on board and localized under layout sound. The physics of inadequate speaker space in our models makes satisfactory sound solely from on board speakers unlikely to be achieved in the next 2 decades. A far easier solution is to create data networks and sound processing that can follow the train with decent under layout speakers. I think Soundtraxx was close to having this out, but I think they ran into 'intellectual property' issues. Don't know the details, I hope it gets sorted out. Since I haven't seen a lot written about it, I'm hopeful that there may be work going on behind the scenes. I'm on the fence as to whether sound is a big issue, I wonder about whether several locomotives making sound in the relatively small space of one layout might be more distration than I want anyway.3) implicit in #2 is a requirement for easy localization of a locomotive without having to divide and wire the track into innummerable blocks (back to DC block wiring!). Demands for accuracy of localization is going to grow quickly once the initial capability is established.I think this may well be doable with DCC (with the bidirectional standard added), and a bit of effort. I think the biggest problem may be describing the layout to the system in a useful way. The biggest selling point of this to me would be the ability to control signalling. Unerlayout sound would be another application, and layout automation (which might be useful for some, but I don't think I'll ever be interested ...famous last words...) would be another.
Are you thinking about wireless control of the trains, or wireless throttles. More robust and integrated wireless throttles will certainly come, whether the delivery system to the trains DCC or not. Wireless control of trains is a different story, I think, especially in the small scales. But I won't be suprised to see it happen, eventually. It could be done as an expension of DCC without too much imagination.
I think Soundtraxx was close to having this out, but I think they ran into 'intellectual property' issues. Don't know the details, I hope it gets sorted out. Since I haven't seen a lot written about it, I'm hopeful that there may be work going on behind the scenes. I'm on the fence as to whether sound is a big issue, I wonder about whether several locomotives making sound in the relatively small space of one layout might be more distration than I want anyway.
I think this may well be doable with DCC (with the bidirectional standard added), and a bit of effort. I think the biggest problem may be describing the layout to the system in a useful way. The biggest selling point of this to me would be the ability to control signalling. Unerlayout sound would be another application, and layout automation (which might be useful for some, but I don't think I'll ever be interested ...famous last words...) would be another.
I have to think about this some more, but I'm not sure there was any other reasonable way to do this. To standardaize the interfaces would have pretty much made the only difference between systems throttle design. Besides, I think there is room for different interfaces with different advantages. On the other hand I see your point, as you say, it remains to be seen....
I wouldn't think that mainaining the compatibility would be too hard, at this point. As far as advanced feature, that's one of the differentiators between systems, and one of the things that can traded off by the consumer.
I'm inclined to think it will be incremental, and an extension of DCC rather than a replacement. But I could be wrong, of course. The thing that makes me wonder about wireless is the interference that lives all over the layout, from the tiny motor, snap switch machines, metal in scenery, etc. But then again, the rates can be pretty slow, and the distances are short. I think it is a ways off, for the small scales, anyway.
It will be interesting to watch, that's for sure!
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
FWright,
I see the pros and cons of your points......but I didn't see where I posted stating that DCC would be around for decades.
Don't want this to be a flame fest.......The simple point I was trying to make is that if a modeler is satisfied with DC, then it's a non issue. However, there are some modelers that have shown an interest in DCC, but have been sometimes discouraged by forum critics who persist in dismissing the technology as a temporary fad that's full of glitches. So, due to the "fear" that DCC is going to be supplanted soon by something better, these modelers decide to not even consider it. I'm glad I didn't have this attitude when I purchased my wife her Camry a few years ago instead of waiting another 10 years. We're still enjoying it.
After seeing my first DCC demo, at least two modelers I knew slammed it........but then I found out they actually knew little about it. Imho, they were likely intimidated ( as I was initially) because electronics was involved and/or would not RTMD.
I originally planned a modest DC "around the wall" layout. After much reading and asking questions I noticed that for the features that I firmly plan on (locomotive service facility, 2 track mainline with double-slip switches, 5 or 6 small industrial businesses with sidings, small yard to makeup/breakup trains, ability to run 2 trains simultaneiously while sound equipped diesels idle in the shop with rule 17 light mode) it would actually be simpler to go the DCC route.
Plus, the lighting effects and sounds I saw so often on prototype locomotives during my 1970s teen years are definetly "must have" features for me.
It is difficult to convey how enjoyable it was to see an SDP40f or U36B coming down a gleaming mainline at sunset with Gyra-Light beams bouncing off of buildings, clear melodic horns blowing, and a friendly engineer or fireman waving with a smile.
As far as the future of DCC, this seems another nebulous topic such as the "future of model railroading". I think the questions should be what features are not being addressed that could be addressed. We all seem to talk about the function of sound on the layout as good, bad, anoying, not real enough; but what other than the sound functions could be added that would be universally usefull to model railroaders. I think we can all agree that DCC could be made easier for the beginner, much like plug and play for video game consoles now and PC/macs which havn't always been the easiest to just plug in and use.
But for those of us who opperate our layouts, I can't imagine going back to blocks, let alone the wiring hassles.
And I would think that if your layout is mainly set to run trains, how much easier to run several at a time.
I guess it fits my needs and wants at the present with the only expectation being further refinement of what DCC is now and has to offer.
Hopefully they will surprise me with the next "I just gotta get that"
I saw the opposite side - I felt that one of the arguments being used by DCC users to "push" DC users into switching was that their DCC investment would not become obsolete because it is a "standard".
As one who has often tried to help out those who haven't much of a clue about DC wiring get started on their 1st layout, nobody has a better appreciation than I do for the simplification offered by DCC for multiple train operation. I generally politely decline to help anybody with DC wiring for running 3 or more trains simultaneously, and point them to DCC. I also push DCC for any situation where block toggle flipping is going to become a regular past time, or those who cannot or will not grasp the basics of DC block wiring. DCC is just that much better than DC is those situations.
In my case, nearly all my locomotives are HO and HOn3 kits of small steam prototypes, with most still to be built. The few RTR are low end (think MDC Climax) from before the DCC era that will need extensive reworking before I would bother equipping with a decoder. Reasonable speakers aren't going to fit, and light shows didn't exist in my era. I expect my planned layout to feature sequential ops by 1 (me), or 2 working in mostly independent areas of the layout. These conditions mean that DCC is not a priority for me, and that conversions of locomotives will be a slow process.
This is where the poor (IMHO) alternatives of being able to operate in both modes make my situation worse. It is only the arrival of dual mode decoders that allows me to seriously consider conversion. I don't like the idea of frequent 0-5-0 handling of a locomotive that I have spent hours building, tuning, detailing, and painting to make it the way I want it. With the dual mode decoder, I can revert to DC pretty easily. Until my fleet is converted, I will be limited in which locomotives are usable in DCC mode; the rest must be parked in track that is off limits to DCC. That is an acceptable solution for me.
Back to the "standard" issue. Wisely, DCC does not alter the internals of the locomotive 12V DC drive. The decoder is an add-on in front of the drive, thus preserving the 12V DC standard. The add-on nature helps DCC's adoption rate, and will help delay its obsolescence. But it also allows the DC "die hards" to remain where they are.
Like all past command control systems (and electronic systems in general), eventually there will be some features that are best accommodated by leaving the present architecture behind. Whether a new architecture comes into being or kludged extensions to DCC are implemented instead (the x86 processor is an example of repeatedly extending an architecture beyond suitability because of universal adoption) depends upon the DCC system designers/manufacturers talent and how universally adopted DCC is at that point.
Right now DCC engineering talent (and the ability to pay for it) appears to stretched quite thin. My evidence is that despite the knowledge that improved wireless, synchronized internal/external sound, and easy localization are technically feasible, and early adopters/enthusiasts are willing to pay for it, there is not a lot of implementation going on. Promised enhanced decoders are seeing multi-year delays. There is no regular release cycle of updates and new system features. I suspect there are too many systems manufacturers (and too many proprietary standards) for the market to sustain over the longer term, thus a shortage of development funds as well as talent.
The ultimate question is that if DCC development stagnates for a while, as it appears to be doing, will the existing feature set be enough to make DCC the defacto control standard in the near future? Or does it need additional features to sell itself, and create enough demand that virtually all locomotives (including train sets) will come with DCC by default?
just my thoughts
fwright wrote: Right now DCC engineering talent (and the ability to pay for it) appears to stretched quite thin. My evidence is that despite the knowledge that improved wireless, synchronized internal/external sound, and easy localization are technically feasible, and early adopters/enthusiasts are willing to pay for it, there is not a lot of implementation going on. Promised enhanced decoders are seeing multi-year delays. There is no regular release cycle of updates and new system features. I suspect there are too many systems manufacturers (and too many proprietary standards) for the market to sustain over the longer term, thus a shortage of development funds as well as talent.
I've got to agree with this one. I think the thing is that it's pretty much a cottage industry, and the money so pay the talent to do what needs to be done is just not there. There's probably a reason Atlas' system was a rebranding, and never was really developed. If they aren't doing it, it must be really hard for those that are.
The improvements that would really help quickly (mostly user interface, in my opinion) wouldn't be 'hard' to do, but they would take some investment that wouldn't pay off for a while. It wouldn't suprise me to see MRC go into the lead (system wise, not decoders, necessarily), since they have an established base to work from. It also seems that in the past two or three years they have made the biggest strides, and are still pushing forward.
I think it would be great fun to work in the DCC area, unfortunately fun 'don't pay the bills!'
fwright wrote:
CTC-16, or Dynatrol, or RailCommand or any of the older Command Control systems lacked two important things: an NMRA Standard, and wide-spread support. According to what I've heard, DCC is approx. 25% of model railroaders, which is pretty good when you consider that's also about the same percentage of model railroaders in N-scale.
As for DCC not having the ability to meet future demands...what demands might those be? CTC-16 could only run 16 trains at a time, IIRC. My club's DCC system can handle 120. We'll never get to that point and we're one of the bigger clubs in the country (10,000 sq ft. building).
As for chipsets and the like going out of production, it's rather telling that DCC has been around since 1988 (according to Bernard Lenz), and yet it hasn't have the same problems that Lionel and MTH have had with their systems in only 12 years.
Exactly what would this accomplish? Do you mean wireless transmitters/receivers in all locos? In all stationary decoders? In all block detectors, and so on? They still need power, and there's yet to be a way to safely transmit enough power to run a loco wirelessly, right?
Already possible with DCC. Will be even more possible with NMRA Bi-Directional decoders.
Not very possible. Sorry, but you would need something that would pin point something in all scales (G, O, HO, N, Z, etc.) down to within less than an inch through every kind of obstruction imaginable (stud walls, plaster with wire/brass screen, steel studs, concrete walls, etc.). I don't know of anything that's available that can do that. Certainly nothing that's available for the hobbiest. You would need to cover the layout room with sensors to eliminate blind spots, put some kind of transmitters in all rolling stock and locos, and so on.
And you couldn't start with something that wasn't accurate. You would need something incredibly precise right from the get go, or you couldn't even have trains pass each other in a yard or on the main.
CVP and Lenz are compatible, and probably NCE could also interact with Lenz (same technology, anyways).
As for the rest, Boosters are cross compatible (you can, for example, use a Digitrax DB150 booster with a Lenz command station). All decoders (mobile or otherwise) are cross compatible. The only thing that isn't are command stations and throttles (except for Lenz and CVP). If Digtrax went under tomorrow, my club would only have to plug in a Lenz command station and replace our throttles. What we wouldn't have to do is stop using DCC.
I use two digit addressing all the time, mainly because of the NH's Budd cars. I have also used 14 speed steps with my Atlas QSI-equipped Trainmaster to simulate the 8 notches found on the prototype (obvously using momentum effects to smooth out the throttle). It's fun, but not something I do daily. This backwards compatibility hasn't hampered my enjoyment at all...in fact it's increased the fun from time to time.
Few modern DCC systems lack the ability to read CV's (the Digitrax Empire Builder being the No. 1 example of this) or the ability to connect to a computer (even MRC is coming around).
Nonsense. What new features? Where is this big demand for more than DCC can provide. I don't see it. MTH's DCS system is supposedly more advanced than DCC for less cost than a full blown DCC system, yet I don't know of anybody who's buying in for any scale other than O. Why? Not an NMRA Standard (proprietary), limited support (one K-4) & non-compatible with DCC = no interest.
The number one reason for DCC's slow adoption to the rest of the hobby is because of the price.
Signalling and dispatching are still minority interests in this hobby. This is the second reason why DCC has been relatively slow to convert the rest of the hobby. I think it's safe to say that most model railroaders (that that's counting everyone) don't want signals nor a dispatcher. They just want to run trains.
It is only the arrival of dual mode decoders that allows me to seriously consider conversion.
Why don't you just put a mini toggle or switch on the bottom of the engine's tender to switch from DC to DCC rather than using Atlas' Dual Modes? The Atlas decoders would still require you to open the engine to switch them. A toggle, on the other hand, wouldn't need much handling.
Or it could be that these are really small companies that are having trouble just keeping up with demand.
It's not stagnating. NMRA Bi-D is on it's way to us.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Paul3 wrote:fwright wrote:- There have been digital systems before DCC such as CTC-16. At some point, the underlying communications technologies become obsolete and/or inadequate to meet the demands of new applications and features. At the same time, manufacturing support for the needed components (data drivers, ICs) for the older protocols dries up as the new technologies take over. This has happened to virtually all data link protocols in the past 3 decades. Lionel and MTH have had to redo their command systems completely with limited backwards compatibility in just 12 years....As for chipsets and the like going out of production, it's rather telling that DCC has been around since 1988 (according to Bernard Lenz), and yet it hasn't have the same problems that Lionel and MTH have had with their systems in only 12 years....
Well, I got in my order of bicolor LEDs and this weekend will hopefully see the first panel of 10 turnouts wired with the LEDs for quick direction reference. I use tortoise switch machines and I am planning to wire the LEDs as discussed in prior postings on this site. I haven't done it before but hopefully the utility will be worth the time.
I have though about using digitrax componenets to operate the turnouts but as it is an industrial switching area and PFE yard, I think it would be more cumbersome to use macro's for the turnouts as opposed to just flipping the DPDT. But on the main in the future, remote access on the throttle may be the way to go. I may also use the turnout decoders as well as a panel so that mainline trains can be routed to the correct yard lead without getting in the way of the panel and the local switching.
Has anyone used the turnout decoders