Yes I know I know... this has got to be the millionth thread on the subject over the past year, but I have some new questions to add to the pot.
Last weekend, I had the pleasure to attend two Model Railroad Open houses in my area, the York Railway Modelers Open House and the Delaware and Rutland Model Railroad Club's Open house. The YRM club layout is a beautifully detailed layout featuring the Canadian Pacific Railroad and the Canadian National Railroad in HO scale. When I walked into the room, I watched, and listened as a sound equipped CPR F-unit rumbled across a bridge pulling a string of varnish into Ingersoll on it's way to London. DCC right? Wrong! The layout was run on a seemingly flawless DC system with an additional Quantum Engineer added to one of the throttles. The trains operated extremely smoothly over the entire layout. I was shocked to see that all of this was possible with DC, for (in my current situation of non-dcc ready locomotives from IHC) much cheaper than it would be to purchase a DCC system and suitable decoders. I have done some surfing on the Internet and found that a Digitrax Zephyr System, along with ten decoders, and extra cab to be close to $1000 dollars Canadian. DC would be much cheaper, considering that all I really need is a few feet of wire and an extra throttle, and if I chose, the Quantum Engineer. I do have a BLI locomotive that I am enjoying currently by flipping the direction switch back and forth, but to be able to control all of the sound and light functions on the locomotive in DC is extremely new to me.
The Delaware and Rutland on the other hand was much the opposite. Although it too was a CN/CP Theme, it was set in current times and used DCC (not quite sure of the system though). The railroad seemed much less interesting, although not nearly as close to complete as the YRM layout, because it seemed almost too easy to get a train up and running, throwing turnouts from the handheld, chatting as your train was traversing the length of the railroad. I found that using DC, you had to have a more detailed understanding of the railroad, your train, and all of the other trains running at the same time. The sound of the locomotives was broken often by calls to other operators asking for track clearance and such (which actually had to be obtained, considering that opposite polarities in DC would short out the track). It seemed much more 'action packed.' Am I missing something? Because every thread I've read seems to have some extremely valid and direction shifting points to both systems.
I would love to hear from some other people who have experienced either flawless DC operation or perhaps, detailed and 'action packed' DCC railroads that required flipping switches, and communicating with the rest of the group in such an, if not more, intense manor.
Ghonz
- Matt
This has been said many many times before:
A small layout is impossible to operate multiple locomotives without DCC. Besides DC is dead, it is only looking for a place to fall down. The advantages of DCC and sound far outway the expense. Wiring for DC is a real pain.
Harold
nfmisso wrote: The BIGGER the layout, the less advantage DCC has over DC. This is because there is space for blocks to seperate trains from each other.
Nigel, I completely disagree. Large layouts benefit from DCC at least as much as a small layout, maybe even more so. With large layouts come many operators and places on the layout where many engines will be working simultaneously (yards especially). You can realistically do things with DCC that are IMPOSSIBLE to do with DC, such as follow a leading train closely through a yard limit, or shuffle multiple lashups through an engine facility.
Last weekend, I had the opportunity to run on the maiden op session of a VERY large and well planned layout. Each diesel lashup (the layout's set in 1970 ) had sound, and we were all ringing, blowing, and lighting appropriately. In the main yard at one point, we were running two yard engines, two inbound trains, and one outbound lashup back to the barn. The activity was completely realistic, with trains everywhere. There's NO WAY that DC would have supported the action, unless you had 3 foot blocks, and "blockmen" flipping switches like mad trying to keep up with the action.
These days, DC is ralistically only appropriate for lone wolves or 4x8 layouts. Anyone who wants to run prototypically correct trains with multiple operators, on even medium sized layouts, needs to ask themselves why they'd even consider being hampered by the limitations of DC.
Ray Breyer
Modeling the NKP's Peoria Division, circa 1943
Most of the large layouts I have operated on in recent years have been DCC. At BayRails I operated on a large DC layout using progressive cab control. While it worked very well, I quickly remembered why I like DCC so much.
We had to stop and think about the moves we wanted to make and be careful to not accidentally get two locomotives into the same power block. So we were often doing very unprototypical things like getting a long cut of cars from somewhere to use as a "handle" to pass off the couple of cars from my through train to the local switcher. With DCC, you never worry about such things. Just do what it makes sense to do and think like the prototype would think, without having to be reminded this is just some toy trains running on 12V.
The other thing I really like about DCC is the ability to individually tune each loco's performance using configuration variable (CV) settings. I can control the top speed, the startup voltage to the motor, the ramp up rate, specific acceleration and deceleration momentum, kick start for balky motors, ... and the list goes on. You just can't exercise that fine a level of individual loco performance tuning with straight DC.
About all you can do with straight DC is fiddle with the mechanism and gearing. I much prefer being able to fine-tune the loco performance with the shell on.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
ghonz711 wrote:I would love to hear from some other people who have experienced either flawless DC operation or perhaps, detailed and 'action packed' DCC railroads that required flipping switches, and communicating with the rest of the group in such an, if not more, intense manor.
Our layout is DCC but all the turnouts are hand thrown. One can put a DC control system in to a CTC like setting leaving the engineers to chat as the trains traverse the layout.
I wish I had DC experience that wasn't 45 years old...as in "ago", but I have come to appreciate the efforts of those who conceived of, engineered, and then marketed the DCC way of running trains. If I understand the block system and DC, I am happy that some folks wanted to move on.
Still, legions of early modelers ran what worked, and that means DC. That means that it required a form of teamwork, fellowship, organization, and planning that perhaps is missing amongst DCC operators? I don't mean that those who operate DCC are impoverished by a lack of friends or fellow operators, but the tenor of their meetings, the required focus, is perhaps not quite as rich... however the brain owner describes a rich encounter with other modelers, I suppose.
I effectively only have the one experience, and am satisfied with it. I feel an unease, though, because it is finicky, not intuitive when things get dicey or simply stop. I have had to learn experientially that my decoders do things that were not made plain to me in any instructions, many pages they have been, to which I subjected myself. I hate computer manuals, and have yet to read more than perhaps 300 words in any one of them. I cannot make that claim for my Digitrax system. But, the reality is that, 19 times out of 20, it requires only of me to power up the system, chose a loco or a pair, and then operate them without having to do anything more than manually line points here and there, an easy task in my operating pit. I can park a train on a siding, and and run another past it when both sections of track are powered by one set of feeders. I need no switches, no extra wiring...I can play hogger, not the guy in the interlocking tower.
Was it not Newton who said, "if I have done great things, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." We should remember what came before us with some not light humility.
(Newton didn't mean it the way we understand it, but it will serve my purpose.)
hminky wrote: A small layout is impossible to operate multiple locomotives without DCC. Besides DC is dead, it is only looking for a place to fall down. The advantages of DCC and sound far outway the expense. Wiring for DC is a real pain. Harold
Unless you are volunteering to ante up the $$$ to do with DCC what I'm already doing with DC, the good old system won't be dead until after I am. Wiring MAY be a bit more complex, but gives me the advantage of automatic control circuitry (two resistors and a diode equal auto slow/stop, without a decoder or a computer interface,) and, therefore, 'fire and forget' dispatching to hidden staging.
IMHO, DCC is great if you want to run a locomotive. I'm running a railroad.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - MZL, analog DC)
Any layout that is planned with some thought to how it will operate, will operate well on either control scheme.
If you are running a layout where only 2 or 3 train sets are operating, DC can, will and has fit the bill for decades. The short commng of DC is the complexity of the wiring and controls needed to support multiple trains on the same track. This is the type system that I cut my teeth on. Wiring is cheap on money but long on time. Since this is a hobby/ passtime; I think that those points are pretty much irrelevant. We do this stuff to pass time, not make a living.
With DCC, you can plug into any existing layout that does not have wyes or reverse loops and run trains. You just have to align all of the block selectors so that there is no shorts on the command station. For reverse loops and wye's, use the existing controls.
If you start with DCC from the inception of your layout, you can make the blocks larger. If you do not plan on running DC control at any time, your blocks can be set up as sections of the layout instead of sections of individual track. The only purpose for blocks in DCC is for trouble shooting power problems.
The real choice is in how many DPDT switches you want to wire, how much money you want to spend and how long you want to take before your layout is operational.
Operationally, DCC is throttle and communication intensive. DC is power routing and communication intensive. The differece is in how you made the control mistake not why you have to back your train up to clear a track for another train. You can have fun with either control system. It's up to you on which one you select.
Bob
------Gee, look Wally! Daffy and Bugs are at it again!
Wabbit Season! Duck Season! Wabbit Season! Duck Season!
Where's the Bayer Aspirin?
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
AntonioFP45 wrote: ------Gee, look Wally! Daffy and Bugs are at it again!Wabbit Season! Duck Season! Wabbit Season! Duck Season! Where's the Bayer Aspirin?
Why does a forum continue with this crap? It is the same characters. There should be a pool to determine how many posts on this thread before it runs out of wind then a new DCvsDCC thread starts. Then the rest of us will have something to care about in the thread.
I only posted early because DC will eventually be gone. Come back in twenty years.
Give it up guys
In total agreement Hminky, hence my sarcastic post.
Seems like there is more polarization than realized.
DC is not going to go away. Most modelers over the age of 10 started with DC. Most model locomotives are still sold in this mode.
DCC has become an entrenched, mainstay component of this hobby. It is increasing in popularity and quality, not stagnating as some have claimed. Unlike CTC 16, and the later CTC 80, the support for this technology is now worldwide and, there are a significant number of manufacturers producing the products. DCC's market share is increasing.
These are two systems used to operate TRAINS. A model railroad layout is what we operate TRAINS on. We can operate point to point, roundy-round, in prototypical and non-protoypical fashion with both systems.
We've all stated our own reasons why we prefer one over the other on the DC Club and DCC Club threads. Unfortunately things wind up getting hot sometimes.
I'm in both worlds.
1. Most of my units are DC and I run and tinker them on my narrow shelf set up. My 20 year old MRC 2500 still looks and operates like new. It kicks my old, stubborn DC Athearn BBs with ease.
2. But for me DCC is the way to go. I like the operational freedom, controllable special FX,and sound offered that now allows me to duplicate what I saw in my teen years.
Guys, it seems that things would be so much simpler if we all just supported each other instead of chipping and/or hacking away at each other. How do we do that? We've been doing it..........
A modeler posts a gear problem with an N scale Atlas unit, obviously DC. We respond and help him/her out. Another modeler posts a problem with an HO decoder install in a P2K unit. Modelers with DCC knowledge respond.
So...........can we continue to do this?
I bought an analog Onboard command control system in 1985. I knew then command control with sound was the to go. About 10 years later DCC became standardized. Now twenty years later a large contingent is using DCC with sound. The new Soundtraxx Tsunami makes your steam locomotives run better and sound great. That is why I say in twenty years DCC will be dead.
I have always felt advanced technology is good for the hobby. I built a transistor throttle in 1962 from an article in MR to improve performance. Everyone debated about that issue of better throttles, "What is wrong with the transformer and reheostat?", "Why do we need pulse Power?". Yeh, pulse power was once hi-tech.
Personally I don't care what everyone uses, just advance the new technology. You can push your trains around the track with one hand, blowing on your wooden whistle and chuffing with your box of Good n' Plenties. That is fine with me.
I've seen plenty of layouts where DCC has made operating more interesting rather than less.
I would also argue that having to be aware of what blocks are where and what switches to flip may give the train crews more to do, but isn't necessarily more realistic.
Fact is, like abortion and stem cells, people seem mostly polarized on this issue, and most will discount out-of-hand any evidence to support the opposite side.
Enjoy your slugfest, guys.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
tomikawaTT wrote:...IMHO, DCC is great if you want to run a locomotive. I'm running a railroad.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - MZL, analog DC)
CSX Robert wrote:If you want the dispatcher to have control over where the trains will go, then it is easier and less expensive to accomplish in DC(I am not saying it can't be done with DCC, but it is EASIER and LESS EXPENSIVE with DC).
Gotta disagree. With DCC you can have your computer do the dispatching, simulating real CTC. It's much cheaper to install some software (like JMRI Pro) on your computer and have it work with DCC than manually installing a real CTC machine (like Tony Koester's AM) and doing it all manually.
I would say that from what I've seen, DCC actually makes it easier to run the railroad like a real railroad.
Harold said:I only posted early because DC will eventually be gone. Come back in twenty years.
=====================================================================Harold,Sorry DC will not be gone that is why manufacturers had to open up a wider market for their sound equipped locomotive and then you are beginning to see DC Sound Equipped locomotives.Its the signs that count not bias forum opinion.In the 20 years there wil be another control system-probably long before that.
======================================================================
Ray said:
====================================================================
Ray, What a arrogant statement.I know of 5 DC clubs whose members would find your statement laughable at best.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Dave Vollmer wrote: I've seen plenty of layouts where DCC has made operating more interesting rather than less.I would also argue that having to be aware of what blocks are where and what switches to flip may give the train crews more to do, but isn't necessarily more realistic.Fact is, like abortion and stem cells, people seem mostly polarized on this issue, and most will discount out-of-hand any evidence to support the opposite side.Enjoy your slugfest, guys.
Dave,I gotta disagree DCC would not improve operations at the club..Heck,we have operation melt downs if ONE yard gets behind using DC.
As far as a computer doing the dispatching get real..The guys at the club would drop you out of the nearest 4th floor window head first just for thinking that way.WE LOVE our CTC board with a human dispatcher..
You see if they mess up they get dropped from the fire escape head first.
Sound control is just one of the advantages of DCC and not even the most important one. It is the ability to run trains without controlling the track that gives DCC the edge of DC. I was into DCC several years before I got my first sound equipped loco. You can have a smooth running layout on a DC system. It was done that way for decades and probably will continue to be done that way for several more. I do believe that DCC will soon be the standard for the hobby if it isn't already. Eventually, I believe DC will get phased out. When there is no longer a large enough market for manufacturers to make money by offering locos in both configurations, then DC will become a dinosaur. I don't think that will happen any time soon. As for me, I can't imagine going back to DC.
CSX Robert,
In prototype railroads, the dispatcher is assigning routes to various trains, adjusting schedeules, etc. If the engineers misunderstand or disobey the dispatcher, near misses or collisions can occur.
DCC duplicates this flawlessly. With DC cab controls routings, collisions between opposing trains are almost completely eliminated. But while it will help keep trains safer, imho, it deprives operators of the "feel and flavor" of what prototype dispatchers and locomotive crews have to experience as far as avoiding collisions.
jecorbett wrote: Sound control is just one of the advantages of DCC and not even the most important one. It is the ability to run trains without controlling the track that gives DCC the edge of DC. I was into DCC several years before I got my first sound equipped loco. You can have a smooth running layout on a DC system. It was done that way for decades and probably will continue to be done that way for several more. I do believe that DCC will soon be the standard for the hobby if it isn't already. Eventually, I believe DC will get phased out. When there is no longer a large enough market for manufacturers to make money by offering locos in both configurations, then DC will become a dinosaur. I don't think that will happen any time soon. As for me, I can't imagine going back to DC.
Last track I had only 28% of the modelers was using DCC.
You said it in the subject - "NOT AGAIN !"
The flies are exhausted. Can we stop beating this poor dead horse.
Brakie, 28%
O.K, what's the relevance? Is that something to celebrate?
If that's a worldwide figure than that's a pretty large amount of modelers with DCC. If that just for the U.S, then the percentage would rise considerably once you add in the Europeon, Asians, South American and Australian markets.
Sports cars only make up less than 35% of new and used cars sold in the U.S. Yet, it seems that you can't drive in any North American town without seeing a Mustang, Nissan 300 ZX, or Camaro on some street.
Point is.........what does it matter? DC modelers are not in any danger of losing their systems and DCC modelers have a technology that is well supported and is growing.
Win-win for both sides. Doesn't anyone still get this?
Robin to Batman: "Holy train wrecks, Batman! The Joker's gotta be behind all this!"
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
AntonioFP45 wrote: Point is.........what does it matter? DC modelers are not in any danger of losing their systems and DCC modelers have a technology that is well supported and is growing.Win-win for both sides.
Win-win for both sides.
Well said.
AntonioFP45 wrote: Brakie, 28% O.K, what's the relevance? Is that something to celebrate? If that's a worldwide figure than that's a pretty large amount of modelers with DCC. If that just for the U.S, then the percentage would rise considerably once you add in the Europeon, Asians, South American and Australian markets. Sports cars only make up less than 35% of new and used cars sold in the U.S. Yet, it seems that you can't drive in any North American town without seeing a Mustang, Nissan 300 ZX, or Camaro on some street.Point is.........what does it matter? DC modelers are not in any danger of losing their systems and DCC modelers have a technology that is well supported and is growing.Win-win for both sides. Doesn't anyone still get this?Robin to Batman: "Holy train wrecks, Batman! The Joker's gotta be behind all this!"
As Joe Friday would say "Just the facts."
Actually I am all for DCC on large layouts.IF I had a basement size empire I would use DCC wireless.IMHO wireless is the only way to go with DCC.
You guys need to get a life and stop this stuff. Here are my suggestions
Go out for lunch or dinner.
Work on your layout.
Build a freight car kit.
Add some detail.
Go play with your kids.
Be with a woman.
Get a job.
Take a class.
Anything but this dumb never ending argument.
hminky wrote: AntonioFP45 wrote: Where's the Bayer Aspirin?Why does a forum continue ... DCvsDCC thread starts. Then the rest of us will have something to care about in the thread.
AntonioFP45 wrote: Where's the Bayer Aspirin?
Texas Zepher wrote: I think you both missed the point of the post. This is not the typical which is best type question normally asked about DC/DCC.
That may be but it always decays into the same arguments we have seen countless times before.