Musings on Rapido

[rapidobill]

Well a bus makes sense as a travelling office

DON'T ENCOURAGE HIM!!!!!!! 

 

Bill

[BR60103]

I suggested this to Bill or Thomas on the weekend.  For a train like the APT^e with predictable clearance problems, put a downloadable plan outline, with bogie centres marked, on the website. This could be printed and cut out in card and used by the modeller to see what doesn't fit.

[Phil Parker]

We've been hearing of people trying to operate a sound-equipped APT-E with a home-built DC controller they bought secondhand 30 years ago. You don't expect to run today's computer software on a BBC Micro, but people expect that today's top-of-the-line models will operate using 1950s-built model railway control.

Good luck trying to persuade modelers to upgrade.

 

If I had a pound for every time someone at a show had asked me how my loco run so well, been shown my 1990s Gaugemaster handheld and then said, "Oh, I use an H&M Duette" I'd be able to buy an APT-E at eBay prices!

[Coach bogie]

 

That being said, I really think that the UK needs to embrace DCC with much more gusto. DCC is worth the expense and the time to learn, even if you do have 25 locos that need to be fitted. That there are still new layouts being built today that are DC is like buying a new phone system for your office and then only using rotary/dial phones. They are lovely, they work well, but there are a whole bunch of phone numbers you can't call because the computer receptionists no longer give you the option not to press a button. (I own and use four different rotary phones, incidentally, including one at the office.)

 

 

 

Jason

 

I hear your point but, along with many others who are enthusiastic about DCC, have never been able to prove to me that there is any improvement over a well designed cab control system. Yes there are lost of benefits but....

 

Everyday I have Microsoft contacting me with details of all the different functions and possibilities of their software. BUT before they design these functions, did they ever bother to ask the end user if they actually want or need them? If it means I can no longer buy 'modern' releases, so be it (though I would no doubt just rewire it as I have done many times)

 

I find the same with DCC. For instance

• There are all the sound options - no thanks, I play music when in the railway room.
• You can have the lights on all the time - of no interest as it is alway Summer daytime on my layout.
• You can have more than one engine running at once - I already can with cab control
• You can set speed function, balance with other engines etc - Never had the need. My Gaugemaster and All Components modern controllers offer all the control I ever need.
• You can create a track plan on a laptop.- yes portability is a benefit but I have a large user friendly control panel three feet wide. No tired eyes, no small screen, clear and concise control at a glance.
• 25 engines??? I have 80 kit builds (all used) along with a selection of rtr, plus my fun trains (inc APT/E) At current prices I will be looking at about £4,000 in decoders. I can only and want to run 4 trains at a time so whats the point? With engines not in use isolated, here is no advantage with DCC.

 

Clearly there are many people who love and embrace DCC, but equally there are those who know that there is no advantage for them.I stare at PC screens all day. I just want to watch the trains go by, not continue the day job.

 

One DCC monent that does make me smile - on occasions I  operate a DCC system and where my Cab control wins every time is when there is a short circuit. When the DCC goes down EVERYTHING stops. Not with cab control, only the sections allocated to the offending engine etc are affected and diagnosed instantly. Now I find DCC layouts are recommended to be broken down into 'zones' to get around this problem.....in otherwords Cab control!

 

Mike Wiltshire

[PaulRhB]

Mike, I'd agree DCC fitted isn't essential but designed to accept it with socket should be.

DCC has advantages if you want those features and Jason's view is partly from their more common walk around layouts where ours tend to be controlled from one place.

Cab control needs lots of concentration on routes and power on a complex layout, DCC only on routes so it is a little simpler but requires decoders so it's really a matter of taste and how the layout operates

[Talltim]

I hear your point but, along with many others who are enthusiastic about DCC, have never been able to prove to me that there is any improvement over a well designed cab control system. Yes there are lost of benefits but....

 

Everyday I have Microsoft contacting me with details of all the different functions and possibilities of their software. BUT before they design these functions, did they ever bother to ask the end user if they actually want or need them? If it means I can no longer buy 'modern' releases, so be it (though I would no doubt just rewire it as I have done many times)

 

I find the same with DCC. For instance

• There are all the sound options - no thanks, I play music when in the railway room.
• You can have the lights on all the time - of no interest as it is alway Summer daytime on my layout.
• You can have more than one engine running at once - I already can with cab control
• You can set speed function, balance with other engines etc - Never had the need. My Gaugemaster and All Components modern controllers offer all the control I ever need.
• You can create a track plan on a laptop.- yes portability is a benefit but I have a large user friendly control panel three feet wide. No tired eyes, no small screen, clear and concise control at a glance.
• 25 engines??? I have 80 kit builds (all used) along with a selection of rtr, plus my fun trains (inc APT/E) At current prices I will be looking at about £4,000 in decoders. I can only and want to run 4 trains at a time so whats the point? With engines not in use isolated, here is no advantage with DCC.

 

Clearly there are many people who love and embrace DCC, but equally there are those who know that there is no advantage for them.I stare at PC screens all day. I just want to watch the trains go by, not continue the day job.

 

One DCC monent that does make me smile - on occasions I  operate a DCC system and where my Cab control wins every time is when there is a short circuit. When the DCC goes down EVERYTHING stops. Not with cab control, only the sections allocated to the offending engine etc are affected and diagnosed instantly. Now I find DCC layouts are recommended to be broken down into 'zones' to get around this problem.....in otherwords Cab control!

 

Mike Wiltshire

If you are building a new layout then cab control takes a lot of wiring up. If you've already built it with cab control then DCC offers no saving.

For me the main benefit of DCC is allowing control of two locos very close to each other, without worrying about having to have lots of sections, although I do like sound and the walk around ability on modular layouts would be nigh-on impossible using DC

Edited May 11, 2016 by Talltim

[JSpencer]

I have something like 260 locos and there is no one that lot will get upgraded to DCC, but have about 30 DCC sound locos now and a handful multiple units as plain DC.

 

While diesels in the UK market are easy to upgrade, steam locos are different, being small tight things, some barely considered for DCC let alone sound, and hardly any with fitted lights and other exciting features. As a good chuck (say 2/3rds) are steam engines, I believe this has greatly impeded conversion.

 

Some recent models also have DCC as an after thought. The small adams radials using 8 pin chips from both manufacturers, making sound a nice challenge and plain DCC only just. Fortunately a couple manufacturers have started to design for DCC sound first, but really only in the last year or so. My layout switches between both systems with ease, though agree it has an awful lot of wiring.

 

 

That being said, I really think that the UK needs to embrace DCC with much more gusto. DCC is worth the expense and the time to learn, even if you do have 25 locos that need to be fitted. That there are still new layouts being built today that are DC is like buying a new phone system for your office and then only using rotary/dial phones. They are lovely, they work well, but there are a whole bunch of phone numbers you can't call because the computer receptionists no longer give you the option not to press a button. (I own and use four different rotary phones, incidentally, including one at the office.)

 

Many models today worldwide are designed for DCC first, DC as an afterthought. In North American HO scale, DCC now has about 75% of the market. In the UK, it's more like 25%. But as the model railroad technology moves further and further away from 1930s DC control, it will get harder and harder to make the models backwards-compatible to DC layouts. We've been hearing of people trying to operate a sound-equipped APT-E with a home-built DC controller they bought secondhand 30 years ago. You don't expect to run today's computer software on a BBC Micro, but people expect that today's top-of-the-line models will operate using 1950s-built model railway control.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Jason

[Pete the Elaner]

I hear your point but, along with many others who are enthusiastic about DCC, have never been able to prove to me that there is any improvement over a well designed cab control system. Yes there are lots of benefits but....

 

Clearly there are many people who love and embrace DCC, but equally there are those who know that there is no advantage for them.I stare at PC screens all day. I just want to watch the trains go by, not continue the day job.

You are missing a very important point. One which gets mentioned less than it should:

DCC is not about features, it is about driving trains.

 

I bought my first budget DCC system a few years ago: 1 controller/throttle & 3 chips. I was happy with DC & cab control but thought I would give DCC a try just to see what all the fuss was about.

Within minutes I had learned to program acceleration & deceleration rates & this changed things completely. All of a sudden I was driving trains for the first time. I had to think about braking well in advance of where I wanted to stop. Isn't this what a train driver has to do?

It felt completely different to operating with my DC simulator controller. It was too easy to cheat with that by winding up the brake to max.

It also put me in control of trains. I was no longer choosing which one by switching sections on & off.

The feeling of driving the train is understated. It is more fun than I can make it sound in a few sentences.

 

Features (lights & sound) are extra toys made possible by DCC. They are addictive & fun but only a minor benefit compared to the feel it gives you of driving a train.

 

I also found a potential issue with a larger DC cab control layout. It has 5 different circuits & requires 3-5 controllers. I was going to use rotary switches to choose controllers because they have enough selectable positions. I then discovered that the standard electronic rotary switches have a max current rating of 300mA, so a loco under moderate load could easily burn it out. I searched for suitable switches & found that they are upwards of £30 each. Ouch!

DCC provides a solution to this issue.

 

I've heard the comment about "staring at PC screens / being controlled by computers" before. It is complete nonsense & I am sure I am not the only person to think you sound silly by saying it.

I have a PC in my layout room but it is rather pointless for running the layout. My system's throttles provide a much better interface for this. I sometimes use the PC for playing music while I work on the layout but it is most useful for displaying photos of the location I am modelling so I can re-create it as accurately as possible.

 

Not wanting to spend for a more expensive control system because you would rather spend your money on other things (more trains, some new shoes for the wife etc) or even just because you want to do things the traditional way are as good reasons as any for using DC.

[Fenman]

...

That being said, I really think that the UK needs to embrace DCC with much more gusto. DCC is worth the expense and the time to learn, even if you do have 25 locos that need to be fitted. That there are still new layouts being built today that are DC is like buying a new phone system for your office and then only using rotary/dial phones. They are lovely, they work well, but there are a whole bunch of phone numbers you can't call because the computer receptionists no longer give you the option not to press a button

...

 

I hear your point but, along with many others who are enthusiastic about DCC, have never been able to prove to me that there is any improvement over a well designed cab control system. Yes there are lost of benefits but....

...

 

I'm with Mike on this. I'm not interested in manufacturers telling me that I "need" to buy something for my (sic) hobby, because the "features" will make it better. The manufacturer has literally no idea how I enjoy my hobby, nor what features might make it "better" for me - I know this, because not a single manufacturer has ever asked me what I get from my hobby (not that I expect them to).

 

But if the manufacturers want me (as opposed to all the dexterous and skilled modellers of RMWeb) to switch to DCC, they are going about it in a pretty dumb way: years and years ago, Pat Hammond on MREmag was asking why chips didn't fit into models in the same way that SD cards fitted into digital cameras?: a little flap on the bottom, maybe hidden in the undersides of a fuel tank or somewhere equally as inconspicuous; a quick press to fit, and your model is now DCC. I am absolutely not going to start ripping off the bodies from delicate steam locos in order to try to fit a chip, using my sausage fingers and failing eyesight. That's before even considering the models I own that were not designed with DCC in mind, which apparently I am meant to start attacking with a soldering iron. I believe the correct TLA of exasperation in these circumstances is "FFS!".

 

I wish everyone well in their enjoyment of their hobby. I am delighted at the quality of the products that many of the manufacturers are now producing. I haven't the slightest interest in spending my leisure time in converting my toy trains to DCC, thanks.

 

Paul

[jjb1970]

I'm a fan of DCC but it is a case of you like it or you don't and if people do not want to change to DCC then it is their choice. I was a late convert and came to DCC because we got the boy a digital train set which uses the Hornby E-link system for Christmas and the train set layout we've been building uses E-link. Before anybody say's anything, yes I'm guessing E-link is low end and a bit passé, however given it's budget nature we have been really happy with it and the boy loves controlling his trains on a computer. That said, I am not a fan of sound equipped models, not because I'm a luddite, but rather I just don't find digital sound convincing and rather than make models realistic I find it is a distraction. Again, if people like sound then fair play, I wouldn't try and argue that people shouldn't go for sound, it is just my preference that I don't like it. One of the nice things about model railways is that the hobby is whatever you want it to be, from fine scale to playing with a train set and everything in between.

[PaulRhB]

Pat Hammond on MREmag was asking why chips didn't fit into models in the same way that SD cards fitted into digital cameras?: a little flap on the bottom, maybe hidden in the undersides of a fuel tank or somewhere equally as inconspicuous; a quick press to fit, and your model is now DCC. I am absolutely not going to start ripping off the bodies from delicate steam locos in order to try to fit a chip,

 

Yes and especially when there are delicate pipes between body and chassis that break because acted too much glue was used in assembly!

It is possible as I've seen models with removable roof sections and two screws in the underside giving access to the chip.

The worst so far I've come across is the Heljan Railbus where you have to force a screwdriver into a recess and inevitably slightly damage the finish and have to unplug handrails too.

On my Large scale locos I actually made a sledge that slid into the Smokebox with decoder and speaker on it so the sound came out the right place and the chip was easily accessible simply by opening the door. Kernow are almost there with the Beattie and O2 but it's a Blummin tight fit to get decoder and speaker in the Smokebox that takes quite a lot of careful work to not damage the wiring as you squeeze it in.

[jonklein611]

.... But if the manufacturers want me (as opposed to all the dexterous and skilled modellers of RMWeb) to switch to DCC, they are going about it in a pretty dumb way: years and years ago, Pat Hammond on MREmag was asking why chips didn't fit into models in the same way that SD cards fitted into digital cameras?: a little flap on the bottom, maybe hidden in the undersides of a fuel tank or somewhere equally as inconspicuous; a quick press to fit, and your model is now DCC.....

 

So this is done by a few companies, Rapido included.  My kato N scale trains have a flap at the bottom, and I can slap a decoder in about 3 seconds.

[Fenman]

So this is done by a few companies, Rapido included.  My kato N scale trains have a flap at the bottom, and I can slap a decoder in about 3 seconds.

 

Good to know. I wonder why it hasn't spread to any manufacturers of UK outline - especially since Rapido are now working in both markets?

 

Paul

[Talltim]

Presumably Rapido's reference to the lack of take up of DCC in the UK refers to the manufacturers as well as the modellers. It's taken until now for UK manufacturers to start making fitting chips easy in new models yet how many newly designed models have been released in the last 20 years?

Edited May 12, 2016 by Talltim

[jjb1970]

The Bachmann Class 350 Desiro was a lesson in how to do it, and that was released a few years ago, it is a bit disappointing that Bachmann moved things on in OO RTR at that time but failed to implement the idea more widely.

[Steven B]

I find the same with DCC. For instance

• There are all the sound options - no thanks, I play music when in the railway room.
• You can have the lights on all the time - of no interest as it is alway Summer daytime on my layout.
• You can have more than one engine running at once - I already can with cab control
• You can set speed function, balance with other engines etc - Never had the need. My Gaugemaster and All Components modern controllers offer all the control I ever need.
• You can create a track plan on a laptop.- yes portability is a benefit but I have a large user friendly control panel three feet wide. No tired eyes, no small screen, clear and concise control at a glance.
• 25 engines??? I have 80 kit builds (all used) along with a selection of rtr, plus my fun trains (inc APT/E) At current price s I will be looking at about £4,000 in decoders. I can only and want to run 4 trains at a time so whats the point? With engines not in use isolated, here is no advantage with DCC.

 

Clearly there are many people who love and embrace DCC, but equally there are those who know that there is no advantage for them.I stare at PC screens all day. I just want to watch the trains go by, not continue the day job.

 

One DCC monent that does make me smile - on occasions I  operate a DCC system and where my Cab control wins every time is when there is a short circuit. When the DCC goes down EVERYTHING stops. Not with cab control, only the sections allocated to the offending engine etc are affected and diagnosed instantly. Now I find DCC layouts are recommended to be broken down into 'zones' to get around this problem.....in otherwords Cab control!

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

 

It's perfectly possible to have computer control of a DC layout, so saying that you need to create a track plan on laptop for a DCC is a fallacy. Similarly there have been many systems that attempt to add sound into a DC controlled environment. All DCC has done is to make both a little easier to implement for those that choose to do so.

 

Yes a short circuit on a DCC layout can shut down the whole layout. What makes me smile is that for every layout paralysing short circuit I've seen on a DCC layout, I've seen a many DC layouts where the operator is pushing and prodding a loco to move because he's forgotten to flick a switch, or where a "parked" loco has driven off into the buffer stops because a switch wasn't turned off, or because the loco wasn't parked 100% on a switched length of track. Regardless of the control method the human controlling the train will always make mistakes resulting in shorts or crashes.

 

 

Both systems have their benefits. I feel that DC is probably better suited to a large roundy-round layout where the track is significantly longer than the trains. For something where the train density is higher (a depot based layout, or a busy terminus) DCC is probably the one to go for.

 

 

Happy modelling.

 

Steven B.

[JSpencer]

I'm a fan of DCC but it is a case of you like it or you don't and if people do not want to change to DCC then it is their choice. I was a late convert and came to DCC because we got the boy a digital train set which uses the Hornby E-link system for Christmas and the train set layout we've been building uses E-link. Before anybody say's anything, yes I'm guessing E-link is low end and a bit passé, however given it's budget nature we have been really happy with it and the boy loves controlling his trains on a computer. That said, I am not a fan of sound equipped models, not because I'm a luddite, but rather I just don't find digital sound convincing and rather than make models realistic I find it is a distraction. Again, if people like sound then fair play, I wouldn't try and argue that people shouldn't go for sound, it is just my preference that I don't like it. One of the nice things about model railways is that the hobby is whatever you want it to be, from fine scale to playing with a train set and everything in between.

Your first experience was the Hornby E-Link and yet you managed to become a DCC fan? Wow. I nearly gave up thanks to this thing.

 

Some sound chip noises are bad, but listen to a class 40 from south west digital, this really captures the spirit of the loco.

[wombatofludham]

One of the nice things about model railways is that the hobby is whatever you want it to be, from fine scale to playing with a train set and everything in between.

 

My sentiments exactly and one of the reasons why I get annoyed by some of the more extreme, entrenched and sneering attitudes that sometimes crop up here although I'm sorry, even the nicest, most handbuilt finescale stock is still "playing trains" as the last time I saw one, real steam locos don't have giant electric motors hidden within them.  Nor should we be over sensitive about "playing trains", it's no more ridiculous than spending £100s on drinks to give yourself liver or kidney failure every weekend..

 

And just to really annoy both sides of the argument, because I actually like DCC sound but have a number of second-hand kit built items which can't be converted to DCC (not without cutting and soldering and we all know I have a phobia of solder) both my shed layouts will be switchable DCC-DC and should any manufacturers then subsequently release DCC compatible LNWR 4-4-0s and Class 81s, then the layouts will easily be switched over to full DCC.  Sorted.

[Legend]

Good luck trying to persuade modelers to upgrade.

If I had a pound for every time someone at a show had asked me how my loco run so well, been shown my 1990s Gaugemaster handheld and then said, "Oh, I use an H&M Duette" I'd be able to buy an APT-E at eBay prices!

And what's wrong with that? After a hard day battling with SAP, Oracle , Peoplesoft. Excel,look ups,pivot tables, dealing with 100s of emails , frankly the last thing I need is another user interface, this time with a DCC model railway controlled with something that looks like a pocket calculator. Just plug it in , turn the controller knob and listen to the swish of my train run round my oval with satisfying clatter at the points. Bliss. Computers.........they'll never catch on I tell you! And of course the only chip I've paid for is the greasy one that accompanies my fish.

 

Also I don't like being told what I really must buy. Prefer to make my own mind up ta

Edited May 12, 2016 by Legend

[jjb1970]

This may be just me being wilfully pedantic about words, but one of the reasons I do not like the term "serious modeller" is that to me it goes against what the hobby should be about, having fun and finding satisfaction in it. I much prefer the term "passionate modeller" as to me that conveys the idea that you might be very enthusiastic and invest heavily of your time and effort into the hobby but it is about enjoyment. We have an 8x4 double oval layout, I purposefully call it a train set rather than a model layout as it was designed to have fun with the boy rather than any attempt to replicate a real railway. On the other hand I'll admit that I can also be very demanding when it comes to certain models.

On Hornby E-link, I found it rather fiddly to install and get working initially but once it was up and running we've found that it is very easy to use and has worked very well. I like the idea of moving the control unit onto a software platform rather than the sort of dedicated DCC control units that you can get. One of the things that put me off DCC for many years was that I was in a club which installed a Lenz system to one of the club layouts and I hated it. By contrast I really find the PC interface easy to use and a lot of fun.

[Phil Parker]

And what's wrong with that? After a hard day battling with SAP, Oracle , Peoplesoft. Excel,look ups,pivot tables, dealing with 100s of emails , frankly the last thing I need is another user interface, this time with a DCC model railway controlled with something that looks like a pocket calculator. Just plug it in , turn the controller knob and listen to the swish of my train run round my oval with satisfying clatter at the points. Bliss. Computers.........they'll never catch on I tell you! And of course the only chip I've paid for is the greasy one that accompanies my fish.

Also I don't like being told what I really must buy. Prefer to make my own mind up ta

Where in my post did I say you had to buy DCC?

 

The 1990s Gaugemaster handheld is a DC controller. I'm not sure there was much DCC then. And I'm a bit of a ludite as far as control is concerned. Turn the knob and the train goes exactly as you are looking for apparently.

 

My point was, since I obviously wasn't clear enough, that you can't expect the same results from worn out 1960s technology that you get from something a bit more modern. Anyone unwilling to move to a slightly more modern DC controller isn't likely to go for full fat DCC no matter what people tell them.

[newbryford]

 One of the nice things about model railways is that the hobby is whatever you want it to be, from fine scale to playing with a train set and everything in between.

 

I must remember the above for any thread involving gauge, scale, diesel v steam, what radius of curve to use, and pretty much any controversial thread on RMweb.....

 

Cheers,

Mick

[PaulRhB]

I must remember the above for any thread involving gauge, scale, diesel v steam, what radius of curve to use, and pretty much any controversial thread on RMweb.....

 

Cheers,

Mick

They'll be suggesting we ain't all the same next, mark my words

 

I wonder why RMweb has so many different sections . . .

 

A manufacturer embracing DCC doesn't mean forcing it on people just giving them choice and a socket easily accessed does that nicely.

[Legend]

Where in my post did I say you had to buy DCC?

The 1990s Gaugemaster handheld is a DC controller. I'm not sure there was much DCC then. And I'm a bit of a ludite as far as control is concerned. Turn the knob and the train goes exactly as you are looking for apparently.

My point was, since I obviously wasn't clear enough, that you can't expect the same results from worn out 1960s technology that you get from something a bit more modern. Anyone unwilling to move to a slightly more modern DC controller isn't likely to go for full fat DCC no matter what people tell them.

You didn't Phil. Sorry should have made it clear that was a reference to Jason's post in #22, where he is looking for people to upgrade to DCC because of all the advantages it has to offer. I don't dispute that and for some DCC is the way forward, I was just trying to point out that for others DC has advantages. It's horses for courses and as long as models continue to be supplied with capability for either then I'm happy. It's not a done deal that people should upgrade to DCC as a matter of course though

[newbryford]

You didn't Phil. Sorry should have made it clear that was a reference to Jason's post in #22, where he is looking for people to upgrade to DCC because of all the advantages it has to offer. I don't dispute that and for some DCC is the way forward, I was just trying to point out that for others DC has advantages. It's horses for courses and as long as models continue to be supplied with capability for either then I'm happy. It's not a done deal that people should upgrade to DCC as a matter of course though

 

I agree that models should be made compatible for DC or DCC, there does come a point at which they aren't made compatible for 1960s technology DC controllers to the detriment of being DCC ready. Which is the pint Jason was making about operating a DCC equipped APT-E with an old controller.

 

If we didn't move forward, we'd still be on HD 3rd rail.

 

Cheers,

Mick