DC/DCC

[tetters]

snip ...and the need to clean track...

That settles it. Sign me up.

[rrinker]

Crap, what happened to my post? I'm not typing that all again., It SAID it submitted it but it's not there. Glitch because Tetters posted at the same time I did?

--Randy

[ezdays]

Crap, what happened to my post? I'm not typing that all again., It SAID it submitted it but it's not there. Glitch because Tetters posted at the same time I did?

--Randy

What happens, when someone puts in a post about the same time you do, or while you are composing it, instead of posting, you will get a message that lets you know that someone posted, just in case you want to edit your reply. You then have the option of editing your reply or posting it anyway. I know it's confusing, and I've lost a post or two because of it. It happens when you don't realize what's going on and you think you're in the forum window again, but when that does happens, and you realize you reply didn't get posted, you can always hit your "back" button until your original composition shows and try posting it again.

That's the best one can do with this for now. I'll ask Path if he can disable this function since it is a pain and you alway have the option of editing your post anyway.

[nachoman]

I'm with Larry (Brakie) on the sound thing. A nearby park recently had it's yearly "rail fair" event in which many model railroad clubs were invited to set up displays. Most displays featured some kind of modular layout, and most locomotives had sound. While the sound technology is quite fascinating and the gets the attention of John Q Public, I still find sound unrealistic and know I would be tired of it soon. Real trains have that deep rumble transmitted through the ground, and through your body. Real steam locomotives produce a deep reverberating echo from canyon walls and buildings. I just don't get that same feeling of power from sound decoders. Without that whole powerful whole body feeling, it seems like I simply have a toy train with a speaker.

[FiatFan]

I am an old school DC guy. However, I recently purchased a P2K with sound on DC. After seeing the performance increase, I may just have to go DCC. I have never been able to get an engine to start as realistically with DC.

OTOH, the noise factor can be mildly irritating after a period of time. My main issue with the noise is the sound of the engine. I need to investigate and see if I can turn the volume down a touch on that.

Tom

[tetters]

Well... if you get "tired" of the sound and just want some quiet time in the layout room you can always hit the mute function and turn off the sound for your sound decoder.

I've used the mute function several times, because sometimes, I just want to watch the train run and listen to the soft hum of the mechanicals inside. It also alerts me to any funny noises that I wouldn't hear otherwise with the sound on all the time.

[Steamtrains]

For me, the principal attraction of DCC is performance. Once you've "tuned" your running settings, you can get engine performance that is impossible to achieve with DC. The second plus is running multiple engines at the same time without resorting to the electrical gymnastics required by DC, and much greater flexibility in this regard than is afforded by DC.
As far as sound is concerned, I tend to lean towards the "quiet" mode. Even watching videos with sound kind'a gets to me after a few minutes...

[pgandw]

For me, the principal attraction of DCC is performance. Once you've "tuned" your running settings, you can get engine performance that is impossible to achieve with DC. The second plus is running multiple engines at the same time without resorting to the electrical gymnastics required by DC, and much greater flexibility in this regard than is afforded by DC.
As far as sound is concerned, I tend to lean towards the "quiet" mode. Even watching videos with sound kind'a gets to me after a few minutes...

Sorry, not quite a correct statement in regard to engine performance. A DCC decoder is nothing but a good DC throttle with a communications channel that is installed in the engine instead of under the layout. In fact you can make an expensive DC throttle by putting your decoder in a handheld or fixed throttle and wiring the motor outputs to the track. A good PWM DC throttle will produce exactly the same performance as your DCC decoder. And there are a variety of other pulse setups for great DC performance if you don't like pulse width modulation (PWM). Feedback of various kinds has been around since the TAT III throttle of 1963. Start and maximum voltages have also been available on transistor DC throttles for decades.

Because our motors still use variable 0-12 volts DC as the input (DCC decoder output), DCC does not remove DC control. It adds a layer on top of conventional DC control. Bypassing the decoder through jumpers or software (CV) settings turns a locomotive back to DC control. For this reason, DC is not/will not die. Will all RTR locomotives come equipped with DCC decoders someday? More than likely if DCC is not superseded in the next decade.

Because the throttle is located in the engine with DCC and can be addressed individually, running multiple engines on the same track is in fact much easier with DCC. As is sound because you don't have to mix and then separate the sound signal from the motor power with DCC.

just my experiences

[rrinker]

Yes, that is a 'feature' that needs to be disabled. You can always edit your post afterwards, and sinc eit takes you to your post after you submit you can see if someone posted just ahead of you.

Anyway, mainly I wrote about the impracticality of sound on DC, because you need to get power to the sound chip before the motor, unless you don;t mind your locos moving at slow speed with no spund and then having the sound kick on as you speed up. Can;t get around it unless you put a battery in each sound loco. And compound that witht he 'taper wound' concept of small speed changes at the lower throttle positions and greater incremenets at higher throttle positions, and it's a recipe for poor control. Sound for DC is just a gimmick to sell to a wider audience, IMO.

The Tech 6, well, that IS running DCC. When in DC mode it puts variable DC to the track to control a conventional loco. WHen in DCC mode it's a limited single address DCC system that puts NMRA DCC on the rails. For a bit more (assumign you already have a DC pack), you can get one of the starter DCC systems and a DPDT toggle switch and accomplish the same thing with far more flexibility. Eventually you'll never flip the switch to DC.

No one says you need to upgrade all your locos at once. And if you stay away from sound it can be very economical - as little as $12 per loco, and this is NOT for some cheap junk decoder that isn't worth the space it takes up, this is a good quality one from NCE.

I've been sold on the concept of command control since reading the Astrac chapters in Sutton's "The Complete Book of Model Railroading" when I was a kid (always wanted to build one of those cab forward Docksiders, too...). Eventually there were the CTC-16 and CTC-16E series in Model Railroader, and just when I was starting to gather the parts to build a CTC-16E system, the debate started on an NMRA standard. I remember the sometmes furious arguments on the Compuserve Model Railroad forum. At the time, Keith G's Railcommand actually did more than Lenz's system, luckily others stepped in and bumped it up from the original design to what got adopted as DCC. I was away fromt he hobby for a while after that, and missed some of the early DCC stuff, but when I came back I knew I wanted DCC.

Let me also add that while you CAN do everythign a DCC decoder does with a stationary 'DC' throttle, with DCC it's per locomotive and it stays witht he loco. Somethign the TAT IV tried to do with the DIP head and resistors for the settings for each loco, that bypassed the panel controls. Find the settings for a given loco, build a plug ion module with those settings. With DCC that's not necessary, all those settings are saved and are 'part' of the loco itself, no need to shuffle (and lose) plugs to get the proper fined tuned performance from each loco.

--Randy

[Green_Elite_Cab]

As long as I'm still around, there'll be no demise of DC.

Thats exactly it. when you're not doing trains anymore, everyone left will be DCC

Just like those new fangled i-Phones and Xbox 360s replaced home phones and board games, DCC is probably going to replace DC as the primary mode of train control. Its the younger generation that i think is really embracing DCC, as all the young people i know that have moved off the "floor" to a reasonable set up either has DCC, or is saving for DCC.

And don't forget, this is the age of instant gratification. Sure, a DC set up can do almost everything a DCC one can, but DCC does it easier. On a small layout, it adds versatility running the train that you wouldn't get on a block wired layout, and on larger ones, it lets you fine tune all your equipment so it runs the same speed in an MU, and all sorts of realistic lighting and things that would be tricky to do in DC. Again, its possible, but people will choose the simplest path.

I am afraid in some time (years) DCC decoders will be installed in all locomotives by default. That will be true for the entry level market too...

...At that time there are no newcomers asking for a more expensive locomotive without the DCC functionality they are used to from their first day.
That is my prediction of the DCC future.

Thats not going to happen, simply because people want to install their own decoders. In fact, this is exactly WHY many people i know hate those bachmann engines. There is no easy way to install a different brand, and there are questions of bachmann's "Quality", especially with their standard line stuff. I have one of their E60CPs that came with the decoder, and it can be frustrating.

[doctorwayne]

As long as I'm still around, there'll be no demise of DC.

Thats exactly it. when you're not doing trains anymore, everyone left will be DCC

Hey, I'm not gonna be around that long! Surely there'll be a handful of other holdouts left after I've gone.

Just like those new fangled i-Phones and Xbox 360s replaced home phones and board games, DCC is probably going to replace DC as the primary mode of train control. Its the younger generation that i think is really embracing DCC, as all the young people i know that have moved off the "floor" to a reasonable set up either has DCC, or is saving for DCC.

There are plenty of older modellers embracing it, too, in part because they're the ones who can afford it. Kid just starting out (and I think that their numbers are dwindling rapidly) don't have the money to jump directly into DCC and even if it becomes the default standard, prices still won't compare to what one could get in DC when I started out.
Another part of the picture that many don't seem to consider is the attention span of many getting into model railroading for the first time nowadays. Like many, an early attraction to trains lead me to model trains, but real trains figure into day-to-day life much less than they formerly did. So fewer are being attracted to the hobby initially. With most stuff becoming ready-to-run, with DCC control and everything more-or-less pre-packaged, I don't think that there's enough to hold the attention of the next generation - once the novelty of the gadgetry wears off, they'll wander off to the next "latest thing". Sure, some will stay, but I think that the hobby will begin to die out as the current crop of modellers thins. I came to the hobby because of the trains, but I stayed in it because of what it offered in historical interest, and for the opportunity (and in some cases, requirement) of learning new skills. I'm still learning to this day, and the hobby remains as interesting and attractive to me as it ever was.

And don't forget, this is the age of instant gratification. Sure, a DC set up can do almost everything a DCC one can, but DCC does it easier. On a small layout, it adds versatility running the train that you wouldn't get on a block wired layout, and on larger ones, it lets you fine tune all your equipment so it runs the same speed in an MU, and all sorts of realistic lighting and things that would be tricky to do in DC. Again, its possible, but people will choose the simplest path.

Depending on what one wishes to do, either one can be the easier path. My dog probably could have wired my layout, but he couldn't hold the soldering iron and the solder at the same time.
I run multiple locos, pushers, etc. all without programming anything. I don't use working lights 'cause I don't run "nighttime" operations (and my prototype didn't use lit headlights in the daytime in my modelling era). As a lone operator, it's my opinion that I should be in control of any train that's moving, so only one moves at a time. Suits me perfectly. I don't want sound, either - after almost 40 years in a steel mill, I've had enough "sound" for several lifetimes.

However, that which works for me would be the kiss of death for a model railroad club - members would leave in droves if there wasn't something for everybody to do. DCC is perfect for such a scenario and much simpler than DC. While I may be a Luddite in many things, I do see the benefits of DCC - I just don't see them as benefits for my particular situation.

I am afraid in some time (years) DCC decoders will be installed in all locomotives by default. That will be true for the entry level market too...

...At that time there are no newcomers asking for a more expensive locomotive without the DCC functionality they are used to from their first day.
That is my prediction of the DCC future.

Thats not going to happen, simply because people want to install their own decoders. In fact, this is exactly WHY many people i know hate those bachmann engines. There is no easy way to install a different brand, and there are questions of bachmann's "Quality", especially with their standard line stuff. I have one of their E60CPs that came with the decoder, and it can be frustrating.

People nowadays may want to install their own decoders, but I don't think that the majority of the next generation of modellers will. Most won't know (or care) if their geep sounds like a Baldwin, and they'll likely know little of operations, so running characteristics are just another option with which to fiddle. And will anyone even know how to solder? Maybe they won't have to, but if there's no challenge, is there any sustainable interest? Even little kids get bored watching a train go around in circles.
If the "techie" generation of modellers loses interest, the "techie" generation of manufacturers will, too. No market - no money. No money - no products. Cottage industries will undoubtedly fill some of the limited demand for supplies, but I think there'll be just as many left still using DC as there will be with DCC (or whatever else comes along to replace it).

Wayne

[Green_Elite_Cab]

Hey, I'm not gonna be around that long! Surely there'll be a handful of other holdouts left after I've gone.

Maybe! LOL

There are plenty of older modellers embracing it, too, in part because they're the ones who can afford it. Kid just starting out (and I think that their numbers are dwindling rapidly) don't have the money to jump directly into DCC and even if it becomes the default standard, prices still won't compare to what one could get in DC when I started out.

You'd be surprised. some of the cheaper DCC sets like those from Bachmann are ending up on a lot of starter layouts. Bachmann has been really on the ball with "hooking them early", and their cheap DCC system is doing the trick. Its cheap enough that i've encountered a few parents at train shows asking me if it was a good buy for their kids. I know several teens trying to sell their old basic Bachmann DCC system because they want to move to something bigger. The money is out there. a Video game alone costs about $60 bucks. With a little more patience, most can save up that money twice over without spending it.

Another part of the picture that many don't seem to consider is the attention span of many getting into model railroading for the first time nowadays. Like many, an early attraction to trains lead me to model trains, but real trains figure into day-to-day life much less than they formerly did. So fewer are being attracted to the hobby initially. With most stuff becoming ready-to-run, with DCC control and everything more-or-less pre-packaged, I don't think that there's enough to hold the attention of the next generation - once the novelty of the gadgetry wears off, they'll wander off to the next "latest thing". Sure, some will stay, but I think that the hobby will begin to die out as the current crop of modellers thins. I came to the hobby because of the trains, but I stayed in it because of what it offered in historical interest, and for the opportunity (and in some cases, requirement) of learning new skills. I'm still learning to this day, and the hobby remains as interesting and attractive to me as it ever was.

I have to disagree with you on that one, There are all sorts of projects and things to do. This is why i left Model Aircraft for model trains. I started off as an aviation nut, Flying Fortresses, Corsairs, Stratojets, Peacemakers. However, you can only do so much. The trains moved, and they had so many things to put together, and the more in depth you go, there more projects and creative outlets you can find. Much of it, you can do in a day (There is even a MR book called "Done in a Day" with all sorts of weathering and detailing projects). All people need is to get over their fear of "ruining" something and give it all a try.

In the long run, most of the "young" generation i know that have dropped out of the hobby did so because of college, or relationships. Even the ones who said they got bored of it still professed an interest at a later date. I know i've seen several threads here start off with "I used to model trains when i was young then i set them aside for college, now i need something to do, How has the hobby progressed?" I'm thinking it has been necessity, not boredom that temporarly ended their hobby work.

Depending on what one wishes to do, either one can be the easier path. My dog probably could have wired my layout, but he couldn't hold the soldering iron and the solder at the same time.
I run multiple locos, pushers, etc. all without programming anything. I don't use working lights 'cause I don't run "nighttime" operations (and my prototype didn't use lit headlights in the daytime in my modelling era). As a lone operator, it's my opinion that I should be in control of any train that's moving, so only one moves at a time. Suits me perfectly. I don't want sound, either - after almost 40 years in a steel mill, I've had enough "sound" for several lifetimes.

However, that which works for me would be the kiss of death for a model railroad club - members would leave in droves if there wasn't something for everybody to do. DCC is perfect for such a scenario and much simpler than DC. While I may be a Luddite in many things, I [b]do[/b] see the benefits of DCC - I just don't see them as benefits for my particular situation.

Hey, what works is what works, nothing wrong with that, but as you say, DCC is simpler, and i think thats where people will go

People nowadays may want to install their own decoders, but I don't think that the majority of the next generation of modellers will. Most won't know (or care) if their geep sounds like a Baldwin, and they'll likely know little of operations, so running characteristics are just another option with which to fiddle. And will anyone even know how to solder? Maybe they won't have to, but if there's no challenge, is there any sustainable interest? Even little kids get bored watching a train go around in circles.
If the "techie" generation of modellers loses interest, the "techie" generation of manufacturers will, too. No market - no money. No money - no products. Cottage industries will undoubtedly fill some of the limited demand for supplies, but I think there'll be just as many left still using DC as there will be with DCC (or whatever else comes along to replace it).

Wayne

I disagree still on this. People will want to add their own set of functions, or have a preferred brand (like TCS, which is super reliable and has the best warranty ever). Any company that insists on it's own brand of decoders (and makes you pay for it) will probably loose out. Case in point, Athearn signed on to use MRC sound decoders initially on locomotives like it's SD45-2. THEY'RE HORRIBLE. as a result, no one bought the sound SD45-2, because only 1 of 10 would work properly. This is why i was able to purchase a conrail SD45-2 sound unit for as much as a non-sound equivalent.

Model makers don't care if it has a decoder in it or not. they just want you to buy their stuff. If you leave the decoder out, your prices are lower, and you can get whatever decoder you need cheaply, or expensively. Except for Broadway Limited, all the other Sound decoders are made by OTHER companies, such as Soundtraxx, Loksound, and QSI. Athearn and Atlas still need to pay out to them to put those decoders in their models RTR.

If they start installing decoders already, what happens when their "basic locomotive" doesn't have a decoder that can handle all the functions i want to add? I end up spending money on a decoder i might not be able to use. Again, if its a crappy pre-installed decoder to boot, no one is going to want to spend the money on an otherwise nice locomotive.

[RobertInOntario]

I voted for DC. I'm staying with DC at the moment, mainly because of 3 reasons: 1.) About 50-60% of my loco collection is old, from the 1960s-70s, and it would either be too difficult or costly to convert them. 2.) At the cost of $25-$45 per loco, I simply can't afford the conversion right now, even on my newer locos. 3.) I'm not very techy and I'm bound to run into problems!

However, I'm really tempted by the sound features that many new locos have. Adding realistic sound to my locos might be the thing that finally gets me to convert!

Rob

[RobertInOntario]

"In the long run, most of the "young" generation i know that have dropped out of the hobby did so because of college, or relationships. Even the ones who said they got bored of it still professed an interest at a later date. I know i've seen several threads here start off with "I used to model trains when i was young then i set them aside for college, now i need something to do, How has the hobby progressed?" I'm thinking it has been necessity, not boredom that temporarly ended their hobby work."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was just skimming through this thread and came across the above comment ... I totally agree with this!

I think MRR is really suited towards folks who are more established in life. There will always be some young people interested in MRR, but it is really difficult to be very active in this hobby when you're in university, or searching for your first job or even starting your family. When you're in your 20s, or even 30s, there is very little time and money to get involved in MRR. You might not even have the space to do this if you're living in an apartment or a student residence!

I think many MRR folks are like me this respect. We had a railway connection as a child which gets rekindled in when we're in our 40s and have our own homes, jobs, are married & settled, etc.

I think the above is very obvious and that we don't have to do so much "hand-wringing" that there are not always enough younger people in the hobby.

Sorry for getting off topic here!

Rob

[Lester Perry]

Robertinontario sound is what got me into DCC. I like DCC as it simplifies running my layout. But it does come with its own headaches. For me there is a large learning curve, whatever that means. I just do the basics. I am a one man operation. I have had operating sessions and they were a lot of fun but no longer do that.