DCC - Do I really need it?

[Guest Max Stafford]

I've come to a bit of a crossroads here. I have a Dynamis unit awaiting completion of the layout (starting it in the first place might be a good idea... ). I also have a few DCC equipped locos.

However, I still have the majority of locos unequipped, but ready to receive decoders. This will therefore be a considerable expense. Additionally, I've started to kit-build locos and the metal superstructures and projections bring complications all of their own. This, and the fact that double-heading appears to be a real faff around in DCC has got me thinking if it's really worth the bother and expense. A conventional Gaugemaster controller and wiring would be less expensive and I wouldn't be worrying about frying decoders on brass brake rodding?

 

What do the rest of you think?

 

Dave.

['CHARD]

'I think,' he says, having just taken his flippant pill, 'that I'm gonna sit back and enjoy the drama that this thread brings.'

 

I'm in pretty much an equivalent predicament all in all. I've got the layout, 75% of the eventual track at least, no kit built, but I do have a Class 40 fleet to contend with, and they are Italian plastic. My Gaugemaster is doing a grand job, as the layout's energised via droppers, but I'm about to click 'send' on a Dynamis order. It is the 60-odd loco fleet that's winding me up, especially as only about half a dozen will be on the layout at any point (ignore the pics on my blog at this stage, ta).

 

Sorry for the hijack Dave, but I'm in the same boat. All comments welcome...

[Adrian Wintle]

What sort of operations are you planning for the layout?

 

If you plan to have a number of locos in close proximity (shed etc.) or to do double-heading (which is easy when the controller supports it sensibly - I have no idea how Dynamis supports it) or helper operations, then DCC may be very useful. If you only plan to have one engine in steam, then maybe not. If you plan to have sound or locos with lighting, again DCC may be the better option.

 

The whole issue with kit-built, brake rodding, etc... is a bit of a red herring. The fact that, under DC, inttermittent shorts can happen with no noticeable effect doesn't mean they are a good thing (and it shouldn't fry decoders if your motor terminals are isolated from the rest of hte metal mass). DCC just points out the problem a bit quicker (by shutting down the controller until the short is removed).

 

I personally like DCC, and my North American N is run under it, but our OO club layout is (mostly) DC. My next home OO layout (when it gets built), I will run DCC, accepting that initially only a small proportion of my locos will be converted. I like the control allowed under DCC.

 

Adrian

[Ragtag]

Personally I like DCC as it does enable you to drive the train rather than the track. I'm running the Gaugemaster Prodigy system. It supports consists (locos in multiple eg double heading) very well but I'm not sure what the setup of the Dynamis is like.

 

That said, I don't see anything wrong with continuing to operate on DC, especially for large loco fleets. Even using the Bachmann chips you're looking at ??10 a loco, about ??20 a loco to use a Lenz standard and considerably more if you want sound.

[coachmann]

Do you really need DCC? My experience on seeing my pals sound equipped DCC outfit was, it would be neat to have locos chuffing up through Greenfield, or idling with the blower on in the bay, or shunting the yard, but it would be a severe drain on funds and time and how long is a life. I also have a lot of layout construction ahead AND I like a variety of locos. So the decision was taken to roll with the Gaugemaster DC controller with brake control and the steam-age-luddite experience.

 

IF however I were starting out with diesels, then yes I'd go with DCC and sound. Why? Because they're bigger than steam locos and there'd be no worries about where the chip and speaker would go. Plus, the diesels DO sound very good and realistic.

 

Larry

[ChrisB]

All I can say is, don't take up any offers to spend any time alone with a sound equipped loco. I did and nothing has been the same since.

 

Once I decided to convert to DCC, I sold a bunch of locos that I hadn't taken out of their boxes for ages which funded the purchase of chips whilst simultaneouly reducing the amount of chips required............but sound! Once you're hooked, it's a very slippery slope!

[peach james]

Horses for courses. If the layout is a plank, the only real advantage is...well, there really aren't any. One engine on the layout at a time = one section = fairly basic electrical to begin with = why bother unless you want sound?

 

If the layout is a plank with a oodle of engines on it (aka a MPD layout...which seem to be as common as dirt right now), then DCC may be of assistance.

 

As the layout gets bigger, then DCC makes more and more sense. But, seeing people saying "I've got 60 locos, and the expense of chipping them all...". How many do you plan on running? 10? 20? 30? I have ~20 locos chipped, and find that enough, with a almost silly large space to run trains in. (24x36 ft). Mind, I am a scenery type guy, really.

 

If you have a large number of locos and don't intend on running all of them, might you be better off to dispose of some of them via Ebay or here, and recoup the cost into DCC chips? Certainly, that is what I am doing right now, I had 2 locos that are up for sale as surplus to requirements, and I will spend the resulting dosh on something else model related that I am after.

 

The other area which DCC offers advantages in is automation of multiple (2+) trains. There are other ways of doing it (C/MRI being the most noted), but DCC intergrates well with software to control both train and layout together. If your interest is in operating a signal box, then you can set up DCC to be the train drivers...or vice versa, if you want proper signaling, then you can set up to drive and have the DCC signal for you.

 

James Powell

[PhilH]

I've gone with DCC because that's the way I started - right from the outset the layout was planned around a large junction station which would involve lots of engine changes, station pilot working, engine shed movements etc which necessitated locos being in close proximity to, and being able to move independently of, each other.I also have planned a US urban shunting type layout with sound equipped diesels in consists of twos and threes.This consisting (double- or triple heading in English money) is an absolute doddle with a system such as the NCE Powercab, which is the system I employ. I'm satisfied that in these layouts I can achieve the level of complex operation I hope to eventually attain with DCC. I'm not sure that I can do that with DC, as has been pointed out in a previous post I want/need to drive the locos not a particular section of track. However, I also one day hope to have a small O gauge layout which will be a one or two loco set up. For this simple operation I am happy to go with DC.

[Oldddudders]

I love the idea that DCC makes double-heading difficult! How, I have to ask, do you couple the locos in the first place on a DC layout? How do you divide them - realistically - later? How many section switches do you have to throw on a DC layout to shunt in a station with multiple locos and trains stooging about? How many controllers do you wire each DC section switch for? How many soldered connections is that? How much scope is there for cocking it all up in operation? If you are confident that the answers to all my questions are easily managed, maybe you don't need DCC. Dream on. Nothing is as liberating in operational terms as DCC. Bite the cost bullet and you'll never look back.

[Gordon A]

I am sold on DCC

I converted to DCC when building my 8ft x 2ft shunting plank.

For me there were two big advantages:

The first is the true independent operation of locomotives, to such an extant that, heaven forbid, if one loco sticks, another can be sent to give it a nudge(tongue in cheek).

The shear lack of electrical section switching and associated wiring, through multipin plugs and sockets, compared to that required for a DC layout. My shunting layout is assembled using three bolts to join the baseboards together, and similarily the mini desk / coffe cup holder to the layout.

Each set of three bolts also act as the sole electrical connections across baseboard and controller joints. These groups of three bolts carry power and control signals from the master controler and up to 4 hand helds to operate the locomotives, points, including route selection, and uncoupling magnest, plus anything else I dream of.

 

It is a case of chosing between very simple wiring combined with the cost of the chips required, against the probable cheeper option of assembling looms of wiring, multipin plug and socket assemblies, and building a control desk for all the switches, along with the time taken to assemble / build the control system.

 

What I would very much reccomend is to have a play with some layouts that are DCC to get a feel of the practical differences in operations.

 

In DCC, if the layout is set up correctly you drive the loco / train as in real life, locos can be parked anywhere, even parked buffer to buffer with out worrying as to the length of isolating sections.

 

A very satisfied user.

 

Gordon A

Bristol

[Cliff Williams]

DCC - Do I really need it?

 

 

Yes

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

I'm with Olddudders on this. The freedom to stop & start a loco wherever I want, independantly of anything else, is worth the upgrade alone (& I have 100+ locos, many of which have not been chipped).

My basic throttle does not support advanced consisting, but basic consisting is better than DC.

 

If you model diesels, then controllable directional lighting is brilliant & you can extend this to control coach lighting too.

It also gives you the scope to go even further: sound has already been mentioned (but I've yet to try it), but also remotely-operated Kadee couplings & pantographs also become possibilities.

 

& if you are still unsure, wire your layout up for cab control then you can just throw all the circuit switches open & your layout is DCC ready.

 

I'm not interested in DCC signalling but I've read that it works well.

[Kenton]

I can see that there are layouts where DCC would be an advantage - those with many locos potentially in operation at once or as mentioned in close proximity. But I also see many layouts where the use of DCC is just a gimmick, a desire to be "in" with the latest whizz bang and a feeling of being left out of it.

 

The only significant disadvantage of DCC over DC is cost (and add to that the seeming regular cost of replacing/upgrading the chips), and the control units (all the way up to a PC)

 

To me there is another disadvantage and that is sound - I hate it - but I see that for some it can be the main reason they choose DCC so that is a personal choice.

 

There is nothing wrong with DC just as there is nothing wrong with DCC - you just have to decide what you want from the layout and if you are prepared to spend extra on the DCC option. But I just cannot see the point of DCC when there is only one loco in steam and another parked in a siding.

[Simon_R]

I'm a definate yes. I used to do DC, but got sick of the limitations of isolation requirements if you want to run more than one loco. With DCC i can park a whole fleet of them in a siding and shuffle them out one at a time as required just as per the real thing. I can run a train into a terminus, pull a pilot up to the rear, and pull the stock away with or without the original loco attached. And i do all of this with one hand and without moving from my comfy seat.

 

As for sound i went down that route, but actually got bored with it. The constant tinny ying ying started to drive me mad.

[Trains4U]

 

As for sound i went down that route, but actually got bored with it. The constant tinny ying ying started to drive me mad.

 

The same could be said of real 66's though - you should try some proper diesels...

 

 

I'm sure I've said this before, but whenever I'm asked about DCC, the first thing I ask is "What do you want to achieve from your railway?" The answer will usually tell me whether DCC is suitable and what type of system would be good for them.

 

Olddudders pretty much hits the nail on the head, that you have the ability to control locos individually without the need to introduce complex wiring solutions for terminii and stabling points.

Decoders at ??10 a pop are actually not that expensive when you consider the cost in time and components when creating isolating sections!

 

When it comes to chipping your locos, ensure you have a good audible circuit detector to check for short circuits before installing decoders. Also consider spending a little extra on decoders with a warranty, such as TCS who will replace decoders without question up to a year after purchase, just in case it does go wrong.

 

Also, the "I've got 100+ locos to chip" is a common argument against DCC. But how many of those locos are regularly used. If you are like me, you'll have favourites which probably account for 20-30% of your collection. Chip these first, then gradually work your way through the rest of the fleet. If and when you choose to upgrade any decoders in your favourites, put the old decoders in some one of your other locos.

 

DCC is not for everyone, and I will advocate DC if I feel it is more appropriate, but DCC does offer tremendous advantages over analogue and I wouldn't use anything else.

 

on a seperate note, the Dynamis can only hold 40 locos anyway (unless you have multiple handsets and no pro-box) so if you eally wantto go chipping 100+ locos, you'll need a different control system.

[96701]

I've decided to go for DCC. The thing that swung it for me was that I couldn't be bothered to work out where to put isolating sections. I've since discovered a few things; number 1, I don't buy that many locos because I'm thinking that if I want to run trains, it is going to cost me more; number 2, some of my older locos are not worth chipping, so I accept the fact that they won't run on my layout; number 3, because I've got a pc in the same room, I can operate the points on screen, so I can be a signaller; number 4, I can still drive trains and they all still have different characteristics so I can be a train driver as well.

 

I'm happy with the decision I've made, and although my experience doesn't really help you because your train set belongs to you and mine belongs to me, I hope you will be happy with the decision that you make

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Yes

 

 

NO!

but then I only have room to run one train at a time, and my whole layout is live just like DCC. I guess if you want sound/lights and stuff its the only way to go... but tried it once and didnt like it! plus 4-5 decoders equals one new loco

 

Decision ultimatley must be yours though!

[TartanTrax]

Now, I recently had reason to pop into my local toy shop and noticed they had a train-set for sale. It had three brightly coloured plastic coaches and the large locomotive had no motor or other complicated electronics ??“ you just push it around on the tracks by hand. It was much cheaper than any of the electric ones I've seen. Just think - no complicated wiring or potential electric shocks and short-circuits. DC - Do you really need it?

 

Well, sarcasm aside, for me the answer's simple really. Pushing a train around by hand isn't really very realistic or prototypical. Pushing your train around with DC is a clear improvement and you can even have smoke and lights although these will dim when you slow down and go out altogether when you stop. To run multiple trains you need multiple controllers and each train needs its own sequestered circuit fed by one of these controllers. The wiring for even relatively simple layouts can be amazingly complicated.

 

So what does DCC offer? The chance to get as close to prototypical realism as the modeler's imagination and budget will allow. Most layouts, despite appearances will have a single electrical circuit and a single controller with realistic train acceleration and stopping and where lights and smoke can be switched on or off by the operator rather than as an accident of the voltage currently being supplied to a particular section of track. Also sound is already pretty good and improving all the time.

 

You may not be ready to go from DC to DCC yet, but if you are really serious about railway modeling you are bound to want to switch eventually. I've been attending various model railway shows over the last 10 years or so and over the years there has been a gradual but definite move towards DCC on exhibitor's layouts. The future is digital.

[Ron Ron Ron]

The others have already said it all.

But even if you only run one loco at a time, there are still things you might miss out on if you only have DC.

 

One of the most underplayed aspects in favour of DCC is the abilty to tune each loco to operate just the way you want it to run. Driving locos with different characteristics adds another refinement to the driving experience.

 

To a degree, decoder tuning also allows you fettle the running of a loco without having to strip down the mechanism (provided the mechanism is in reasonable running condition and you have a suitably capable decoder installed).

 

An obvious one is lights. But it's not just the ability to have lights on, regardless of whether the loco is moving or not; individual lights can be switched on and off according to prototypical practise or at your whim.

Once above very basic decoders, you can also dim those lights to more realistic levels of brightness.

 

40, 50, 60.....locos to convert?

Again others have made suggestions about this. Do you have to do it all in one go?

 

Another way to look at it...

Even converting 40 locos all at once with cheap sub-??10 decoders = ??400 But....

With some new locos now being priced around the ??100 mark, this is only the equivalent of 4 or 5 new locos.

 

If you phase in the conversion of the existing fleet, the equivalent cost is much easier to bear.

e.g. 10 locos @ ??10 each = ??100 eqivalent to 1 to 1.5 loco and gets a whopping 25% of the fleet done.

 

Not only does this approach help to spread the cost, it might actually cost nothing if you reduce the purchasing of new locos by the equivalent cost amount, or if as suggested above, you sell of some surplus stock to fund the process.

In fact a combination of resisting the odd one or two new purchases, selling off a few surplus locos and/or other kit, phasing the conversion process (...and maybe with a little extra expediture), will get your whole fleet done relatively cheaply and in a reasonable timescale.

 

It can be done without too much financial pain if you look at it this way and will also allow you to consider using some better quality and more capable decoders rather than those basic Hornby or Bachmann items.

 

 

The benefit will be be well worth it IMHO.

 

p.s. Consisting isn't a faff with the right set-up. Once stored the consists are a doddle.

 

.

[NoggintheNog]

I do think that, even for a modest sized layout, if you are contemplating having several engines on the layout at once, the wiring complexity difference between dcc and dc gets very big very quickly.

 

Having said that, some people love the isolating sections and cab control of dc, so it all really falls beack to personal choice.

 

I do have one comment though 'difficult double heading' .

 

I dont really follow this, on most DCC systems Ive tried, you select one loco, drive it right up to the other until they couple (impossible with DC barring having two engines positione exactly on the edge of a section) , press two buttons, select the second loco, and drive both off.

 

DCC signalling, point control , computer control, all are extras you dont have to even contemplate to enjoy the benefits of dcc engine control , which I think gets forgotten sometimes, as we all get carried away with the possibilities of the technology as it develops.

 

the truth is, a basic DCC control system is probably the simplest way to get more than one engine running on any given layout. If thats what you are after, thats what I would suggest.

[coachmann]

You may not be ready to go from DC to DCC yet, but if you are really serious about railway modeling you are bound to want to switch eventually.

Do me a favour! Here we are in 2009 and all of a sudden you need DCC if you are really serious about railway modelling!

 

Do you model a prototype location? Do you only run engines that were acturally seen in thet area? Do you kitbuild or scratchbuild your loco and make no compromises. Do you use only 3-link and screw-link couplings? Does your scenery replicate the real scenery in that area? Are your building scrtachbuilt from scale drawings? Do you run your trains to a timetable? Are your coaches the type that actually ran in your area? Is your track P4? Do you have curves of 10ft radius? Do you always run your trains with the appropriate headcode lamps if steam?

 

"Serious modelling can only be done using DCC".....You read it here first, on RMweb....

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Larry, it would be such a shame to put in all that effort to create a wonderful layout with such visual effect and them not utilise the best method of running your trains through it. Don't-cha fink?

['CHARD]

But, seeing people saying "I've got 60 locos, and the expense of chipping them all...". How many do you plan on running? 10? 20? 30?

 

If you have a large number of locos and don't intend on running all of them, might you be better off to dispose of some of them via Ebay or here, and recoup the cost into DCC chips? Certainly, that is what I am doing right now, I had 2 locos that are up for sale as surplus to requirements, and I will spend the resulting dosh on something else model related that I am after.

With due deference to Dave as it is his OP, may I make a couple of clarifications with regard to above quote, as it's possibly directed at my co-post.

 

I merely stated the facts as they relate to my DC vs DCC decision. It wasn't some go-faster stripe posturing, I have a fleet of locos/ DMUs of that size because I plan to run a T/T analogous to a prototype W/T/T. This fleet has been arrived at through some basic principles of logic and prototype research, and funded by the sale of roughly 100 locos on eBay [do others wince at 'Ebay'? I know I only trade items of good quality].

 

Back on RMWebIII I posed this very question, and asked the ancillary one: have other DCC users chosen to allocate certain locos to pools and given them the same DCC i.d? For example I will have roughly 30 'home' locos/MU of 64B, 64G and 60A sheds that will each have individual identities, but visiting Yorkshire locos - only one of which is likely to be found operating at a given time - will all be coded 55, say. Likewise visiting LNWL locos will all be coded 12 or something.

 

Thanks for the replies regading double-heading, as this is my signature dish where Claytons are concerned. Keep the opinion coming, it's very useful.

 

Cheers!

[coachmann]

My model is on the Standedge mainline and lots of different variations of locos ran over it. Yet despite this, only one or two locos would be running at any one time. No engine changes and but a single isolating switch for a loop. What I am saying is isolating sections and wiring have been a way of life for older modellers, as has building most of our needs.

 

Fortunately we don't need simplistic solutions...... we dont need RTR...... we have choices. We may have grabbed RTR locos and resin buildings with both hands because they save time and dosh, but DCC is another matter if it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the operation of ones layout. All DCC represents to me is the sound facility, something I just might take on board if steam sound ever improves in 4mm.

[Neil]

My own view on DCC is that it's not for me. I have a large yet simple trainset and I'm very happy to install the few sections I'll need to be able to operate as the real thing would. Reading the advice that is often offered good practice in DCC would be to arrange a similar number of discrete sections anyway. I believe that fault finding is easier with DC, as there's an extra layer of variables introduced with DCC which would give more steps in a logical diagnostic procedure. Obviously we'd hope that faults don't occurr, but life being what it is there's a fair chance they will. Taking a look through the DCC section here, there do seem to be an awful lot of posts asking questions or complaining of problems, which may be beginers just getting to grips with the first stages of DCC (the equivalent of the recurring questions about live frog point wiring) but it might also be indicative of the complexity of a whole new sub genre of the hobby.

 

Please don't blindly follow my advice, it's as likely to be wrong as right. If there's been something that's helped, then great, if you think I've been talking out of my backside then that's fine too, hopefully it too will have helped firm up your own view on the matter.