DC or DCC?

[greslet]

Even assuming the results are slightly biased towards DCC (online forum, more comfortable with technology etc...), could you be comfortable in saying that more in the hobby use DCC than don't?

 

I would be interested to see a breakdown of how much from each scale/gauge and era use DCC/DC

 

 

There is a survey currently running that will be able to supply the data by Era, scale/gauge, and age of the modeller. My understanding is it has already received more responses than this one, and takes a much broader cross section of the hobby than the pedantic types that inhabit RMweb http://surveyguerilla.co.uk/2017-model-railway-survey

[reevesthecat]

The reason for this poll is that I was sent a letter that 'nobody' uses DCC and that we 'insist' on featuring DCC layouts in the magazine. I was curious to find out the split - it's not something we really do and I'm sure the adoption of DCC has changed considerably over the past decade. Granted, we're only polling the online community, but from the results thus far, it appears that more use DCC in one form or another than initially thought. We won't read too much into the results as we can't poll every modeller in the country, but running the same poll online every 5 years might indicate the changes within the online community.

Are you planning to print this letter, I remember one chap who has been a constant critic of DCC and very vocal about it. I wonder if it's from him?

Mark

 

Oh and if you do print I would suggest you start a new sub forum just to discuss it!

[greslet]

Although  I  am  a  dedicated  Digital  user   ( since  1997)  I personnaly  feel  that  Analogue will  be  with  us  for  ages, infact  I  am currently  involved  in  a  project,  in  its  early  stages which has  not  yet  had  a  decision  made  as  to  its  power  source  and  currently  the  feeling  is  it  may  well be Analogue,  due  to  the  planned  simplicity  of  the  layout,  The  baseboard  materials  were  purchased  today  and  it  is  likely  that  a   Vesta Zero Two  controller  from  Morley  Controllers will be  ordered  next  week. 

 

The  said  controller  may  give  a  clue  to  the scale  of  the  layout!

 

I was  a  user  of  H&M  Duettes  & Clippers  in  my  early  Modelling  days,  but  personally  would  not  even plug  one  in  these  days,  I feel  they  are  simply  too old  now, better  to  be  safe  than  sorry!

 

I'm a firm convert to DCC, but I still use my H&M Duette to test every loco before it gets chipped, the Duette is about 45 years old and still works as well as it did the day it arrived under the Christmas tree.

[PatB]

The cost of simple decoder is actually less than some wagon's and definitely most carriages. And really there is no reason why the device should catch fire or blow if used properly. If it does it's obviously faulty. (if used wrongly then it's a person's own fault but then they would probably wire up a DC layout wrong too) The cost of a basic DCC controller can also very reasonable. 

 

In the overall cost of making a model railway the additional cost of decoders is not a huge part. If you factor in the cost of fitting chips to five locos it's about the same as buying a sixth loco. 

 

I really don't accept that cost is a good reason if you are starting a new project with new stock.

 

 

 

Good for you. :-)  But again not a good reason not to use DCC unless you are truly impoverished but I fear your layout will be quite bare of stock and scenery in that case. ;-)

 

 

Keep the excuses coming guys and gals, please.

 

 

join merg , and you can build their DCC system for about 20 quid , if you use your smartphone as a throttle !!!!

 

Just at the moment I am truly impoverished. Any railway modelling related activity has to be, effectively, free or at least cost neutral. Even daydreaming doesn't include locos with a higher price tag than about 30 quid. Hopefully the situation isn't for ever but it's something I have to work within for the time being.

 

The MERG system does actually sound interesting. Is it also possible (for a reasonably sensible definition of possible) to self build decoders as well?

 

I'm not anti-DCC as such but, for what I currently want/am limited to do with models, it would represent an outlay of cash which could be better (or at least more excitingly) spent elsewhere on things for which I really can't make an adequately functional substitute myself. I'm not, however, quite at the point where I'd be tempted to follow the instructions in my c1950 Model Railway Encyclopedia for making a resistance controller using multiple tappings off a length of resistance wire salvaged from an electric heater .

 

I will also confess to a certain fascination with the 1970s way of doing things. The Big Dream is a large garden roundy roundy main line with full automatic block signalling controlling train movements so that I can sit and watch the trains go by. Probably an ideal application for DCC/computer control. However, one of the main reasons I want to do it is the challenge of achieving what I visualise with a sackful of relays and the contents of Roger Amos' books. Mind you, I also intend to do it in 3-rail so at least track circuiting should be fairly simple.

 

I certainly don't regard any of this as being any kind of universal reason not to adopt DCC; just my personal reasons, arising partly from a specific set of circumstances, for not currently looking at it. When the cost of a decoder is no longer 6 months' modelling budget I may well revise my outlook. Still doesn't stop me occasionally typing Bachmann E-Z Command into Ebay to see if there are any rock-bottom controllers around.

[DCB]

I don't think the real advantages of DC over DCC are commonly appreciated.

 

DCC has big advantages on micro layouts especially loco sheds where many locos are in a small area, and also on huge American style layouts where operators follow their trains around shunting as required.

 

DC has two big and overwhelming advantages to me.   1) The locos are heavier due to lead ballast instead of DCC decoders and my trains are adhesion limited due to the gradients around 1 in 35.    2) I can drive the train out from hidden sidings, or the branch terminus down the garden without needing to know which loco is hauling the train  That is a big issue as my hidden sidings have only circa 7 " clearance to tracks above and I simply can't see loco numbers or identify for instance which of 7 Castles or 10 panniers is which in the gloom.  Sometimes a month passes between operating sessions so I forget which loco is on which train

.

Many DCC layouts are only partly scenic with big open "Hidden" sidings in full view where in DC days there would have been another level over those sidings, I have a lot of 1960s magazines and it was almost compulsory to have a through station on one side of the layout and a terminus over hidden sidings on the other.

 

DCC has an advantage for double heading and banking trains and for shunting moves as in where an incoming loco follows its stock along a platform, the thing is though I have never seen anyone do this on DCC yet I do it all the time on DC.  

[Richard Lee]

One aspect of DC that I find convenient is that if I isolate a siding by using the frog to supply power to one rail, it makes it a lot less likely for me to run points that are set the wrong way.  I used to muck about with on-off switches to isolate sidings, but got rid of them and connected the siding feeds to the switched output for the frogs instead.

[terrysoham]

Neely is my first layout. It is Dcc. We had dc on our N scale club layout which was electrically a nightmare - we struggled to make it work as we wanted - it never did. Eventually I converted it to Dcc.

So two votes for Dcc.

However our new 00 club layout is still dc.

Thus one vote for dc.

[jjb1970]

I’m a relatively recent adopter of DCC, this may cause me to lose any credibility I might aspire to as a “serious” modeller but the reason I changed was that I bought my boy a Hornby E-Link trainset for Christmas a couple of years ago and we built a trainset layout using the E-Link DCC system. I had to chip my locomotives if I wanted to use them on our trainset (which being the only layout I have at home I did want to use) and so ended up converting my fleet. I find that DCC is too often presented as something for people who want sound, when to me the advantages were ease of wiring and excellent slow speed running as well as being able to drive the trains with all sort of operating freedoms you don’t get with DC. Personally I don’t like sound, although the boy likes it and loves his TTS diesels I just find it unconvincing and a distraction however many times I read posts in which it seems the only reason for changing to DCC is sound. DCC is nothing new, I remember Hornby Zero One and the early generation Fleischmann and Marklin systems.

For all that there is nothing wrong with DC and if I hadn’t bought the boy a digital trainset I suspect I’d still be DC. There is something to be said for the simplicity and robustness of DC electrics, although the flip side is that the complexity and potential for faults is with the layout wiring which can become a bit convoluted. Especially when people do not make an effort to apply a logical system with easy identification of circuits to the wiring so there is just a mass of haphazard wires when you look under the base boards. I think DC and DCC is like most of these arguments, if something works for you and you like it then be happy with it and just ignore people who try and tell you you’re wrong. As with most other things in the hobby, if you like it then it doesn’t matter what others think.

One of the nice ironies in this debate is that given DC users are sometimes dismissed as luddites we now see DCC users decrying new ideas in model railway control using batteries in place of track power supply etc. One of the aspects of modern life which model railways have not succumbed to in quite the same way as most other things is the ever-shortening product life cycle (I still have models bought in the 1980’s from manufacturers such as Roco which still look good and work well and which don’t need to be replaced because they’re still competitive with contemporary products) but in the case of digital train control I do think we will see further evolution and that DCC as we know it is just another format which will be superseded.

[Junctionmad]

One aspect of DC that I find convenient is that if I isolate a siding by using the frog to supply power to one rail, it makes it a lot less likely for me to run points that are set the wrong way.  I used to muck about with on-off switches to isolate sidings, but got rid of them and connected the siding feeds to the switched output for the frogs instead.

The exact same wiring will of course achieve the exact same thing in DCC also , if that is what you want

[Stevelewis]

Another   big  advantage  that  Digital control  provides  which  I don't  think is  often mentioned  is  the  fact  that  as  motor voltage control takes place  within the loco and  not from the track power,  the track  carries  the  full voltage  (and  amps) provided  by the  Central  station,  usually  around  16V in 00/N systems.

 

Therefore  the actual  power transfer from track  to loco is  greatly  enhanced,   when running  at  slow speeds on analogue and  hence only  low volts in the track performance can be patchy if  the track or  wheels  are not  quite as  clean as  they should  be.  This  fact  is   particularly  noticeable  on  Garden  Lines

 

Another comment on  here indicated  that  decoders  reduce  the  locos  internal  space  so  that space  for ballast  is  reduced,  decoders in  the  main are  quite  small  so I don't  see this  being  much  of  an  issue.  

[Junctionmad]

I don't think the real advantages of DC over DCC are commonly appreciated.

 

DCC has big advantages on micro layouts especially loco sheds where many locos are in a small area, and also on huge American style layouts where operators follow their trains around shunting as required.

 

DC has two big and overwhelming advantages to me.   1) The locos are heavier due to lead ballast instead of DCC decoders and my trains are adhesion limited due to the gradients around 1 in 35.    2) I can drive the train out from hidden sidings, or the branch terminus down the garden without needing to know which loco is hauling the train  That is a big issue as my hidden sidings have only circa 7 " clearance to tracks above and I simply can't see loco numbers or identify for instance which of 7 Castles or 10 panniers is which in the gloom.  Sometimes a month passes between operating sessions so I forget which loco is on which train

.

Many DCC layouts are only partly scenic with big open "Hidden" sidings in full view where in DC days there would have been another level over those sidings, I have a lot of 1960s magazines and it was almost compulsory to have a through station on one side of the layout and a terminus over hidden sidings on the other.

 

DCC has an advantage for double heading and banking trains and for shunting moves as in where an incoming loco follows its stock along a platform, the thing is though I have never seen anyone do this on DCC yet I do it all the time on DC.

 

Given modern DCC decoders are the size of a 20p , I fail to understand the " lead weight" issue. Most DCC ready locos are the same weight irrespective

 

As to the " hidden loco " issue. I don't believe that's a common problem. Very few fiddle yards have track overhead , dc or DCC as extracting derailed stock is a nightmare as is the whole purpose of a " fiddle " yard , to " fiddle" with stock.

 

The important thing is to avoid " edge" cases , given enough peculiarities, anything can be justified. In. My case I have railcom , so I can determine the DCC address by looking at the control panel , DCC can do " everything " DC can do, the reverse isn't true.

 

Also DCC would be better in your situation as the higher voltage on the track would be better , and the decoders can compensate for voltage fluctuation.

[Junctionmad]

One of the nice ironies in this debate is that given DC users are sometimes dismissed as luddites we now see DCC users decrying new ideas in model railway control using batteries in place of track power supply etc. One of the aspects of modern life which model railways have not succumbed to in quite the same way as most other things is the ever-shortening product life cycle (I still have models bought in the 1980’s from manufacturers such as Roco which still look good and work well and which don’t need to be replaced because they’re still competitive with contemporary products) but in the case of digital train control I do think we will see further evolution and that DCC as we know it is just another format which will be superseded.

 

No one " dismisses " DC , I recommend DCC because it's simpler overall , supports prototypical operation and can be integrated in things like automation and layout busses or extended to drive accessories. Overall baseboard wiring is simplified as a result

 

 

Just like DC , DCC isn't going to be " superseded " , it will exist along side other methods for a long time.

 

As for BPRC , unless we see a standards body get involved like NMRA , it's going nowhere , because it was the advent of standard setting, that spurred DCC.

 

The other issue of BPRC , aside for the complexity of multi channel radio on a large layout , is that in any sort of large layout , there is considerable baseboard wiring for block sections detection etc, signals and points , in my experience , track wiring becomes the smallest part.

 

The reality is that BPRC , is a solution looking for a problem , i.e. Layouts with poor running ( leaving aside garden railways ) , perhaps fixing the poor running might be done first. Unlike DCC over DC , BPRC doesn't really bring any additional to the party and by its very nature is always going to be more expensive then dcc. There is of course nothing to stop you fitting batteries to DCC locos either

 

Furthermore we need standards for BPRC , we need two way radio , loco status reporting , etc.

Then we still have In gauges under 0 gauge the challenge of where to fit the battery. If you look at modern centre drive diesels , fitted with a sound speaker , there isn't room now to fit anything , never mind a reasonable battery. This is then impossible in say small tank engines , where even fitting the DCC decoder is a challenge , This isn't going to change anytime soon.

 

The other significant issue for BPRC is the inability to connect loco ID to a section of track , unlike DCC with railcom. Automation becomes even more difficult

 

In a good layout , with good track , and decent locos, BPRC brings little operating advantage and that's its greatest challenge.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Junctionmad

[PaulRhB]

DC has two big and overwhelming advantages to me. 1) The locos are heavier due to lead ballast instead of DCC decoders and my trains are adhesion limited due to the gradients around 1 in 35. 2) I can drive the train out from hidden sidings, or the branch terminus down the garden without needing to know which loco is hauling the train That is a big issue as my hidden sidings have only circa 7 " clearance to tracks above and I simply can't see loco numbers or identify for instance which of 7 Castles or 10 panniers is which in the gloom. Sometimes a month passes between operating sessions so I forget which loco is on which train

.

Many DCC layouts are only partly scenic with big open "Hidden" sidings in full view where in DC days there would have been another level over those sidings,

 

DCC has an advantage for double heading and banking trains and for shunting moves as in where an incoming loco follows its stock along a platform, the thing is though I have never seen anyone do this on DCC yet I do it all the time on DC.

Sorry but you're just looking for problems there

Weight- this really only affects smaller locos as many tender locos have the chip in the tender anyway. Also unless fitting sound the space taken up by a decoder would only gain a few grams extra weight. Hampshire Hogs Leaford on here manages an equally steep gradient with DCC although mostly diesels he does run his grandsons Bulleid on there too on steam specials.

Height in sidings- have a look at Hampshire Hogs DCC sidings with less than an inch clearance. He uses a cheap camera to see what's in there but equally a piece of paper to write down what's in a hidden siding works

Double stack sidings are equally viable with either it's just up to the builder, I doubt you'll find facts to back that claim.

Double heading & shunt release- I think you've been watching the wrong layouts it's quite common on the appropriate layout if they have enough operators to shunt release. Double heading is certainly common where appropriate.

[Chris M]

Sorry but I do get bored with people telling me how good dcc is. Yes dcc is fine if thats what you want, the advantages have been hammered home ad nauseum. DC will suit some better and DCC others better. Personally I like the two big advantages of DC - cost and the fact that pressing just one button to change the points automatically selects the correct loco. I'm not bothered about keeping lights on or sound. For others it will be the other way and that is fine but lets not keep trying to tell each other which way is best because one size does not fit all.

 

In my experience BPRC is by far the best method. I use this for some locos out in the garden and absolutely love it. You simple cant beat carrying the power on board the loco for exceptionally smooth running over points etc. The batteries add weight which is also a good thing. Having said that I can't see me even contemplating BPRC on my N gauge layout in the forseeable future but I am seriously thinking about installing batteries and a chip into an old OO diesel just out of interest.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Chris M

[Chris M]

I have taken part in banking manouvres using DCC and agree this would be much more difficult, if not impossible, with DC. Great fun!

Edited March 27, 2017 by Chris M

[PaulRhB]

As said much earlier it depends how you run your railway which is best for you

[Chris M]

Although I am very much a DC person and have no plans to change I am very happy to play with friend's DCC. Here is a very short video which shows some of the advantages of DCC - permanent lights, controlled sound and banking.

https://youtu.be/tXKFPS0aO7c

[Stevelewis]

I have taken part in banking manouvres using DCC and agree this would be much more difficult, if not impossible, with DC. Great fun!

 

Likewise  I  had  a  largish DCC   00 layout in  double  garage  at  old  address,  I had  a  long  gradient up to  a  terminus  I  used  to  bank  trains  using  a  Jinty  as  banker  with  a   modified  Kadee on  the  front  (  ie half  knuckle  removed  so  it  would  push  but  not  engage with  the  coupler  on  the  last  train  vehicle)  as  it  neared  the  summit  the  Jinty  would  be  slowed as  the  train  continued to  the  terminus,.................  as  above  Great  Fun

[Junctionmad]

Sorry but I do get bored with people telling me how good dcc is. Yes dcc is fine if thats what you want, the advantages have been hammered home ad nauseum. DC will suit some better and DCC others better. Personally I like the two big advantages of DC - cost and the fact that pressing just one button to change the points automatically selects the correct loco. I'm not bothered about keeping lights on or sound. For others it will be the other way and that is fine but lets not keep trying to tell each other which way is best because one size does not fit all.

 

In my experience BPRC is by far the best method. I use this for some locos out in the garden and absolutely love it. You simple cant beat carrying the power on board the loco for exceptionally smooth running over points etc. The batteries add weight which is also a good thing. Having said that I can't see me even contemplating BPRC on my N gauge layout in the forseeable future but I am seriously thinking about installing batteries and a chip into an old OO diesel just out of interest.

 

my own viiew is that BPRCs future , i.e. a mainstream future, is it has to be inextrixably linked to DCC.  NMRA needs to specify it as an addendum to the Dcc specs. This would allow a hybrid system , where DCC command stations could have adaptors to provide a DCC radio signal and decoders could have radio receivers etc , This would allow a mix and match and the use of existing DCC command and throttle units 

 

 

 

fact that pressing just one button to change the points automatically selects the correct loco.

 

THis is only true in certain circumstances , often in any sort of DC layout other then a trivial situation , you have to either have selection or isolation switches and these have to be selected also .  One only has to watch at any major exhibition, how section/isolation switches causes occasional confusion . Feeding power solely by point switches can result in completely dead sidings for example , where you cant shunt while keeping the main line running , The step up in wiring complexity arrives quite quickly in DC 

 

it should also be pointed out that BPRC removes that "select point " to select loco  " advantage " as well of course 

 

But tio tackle a substantive part  of the argument 

 

 

 

Sorry but I do get bored with people telling me how good dcc is. Yes dcc is fine if thats what you want, the advantages have been hammered home ad nauseum. DC will suit some better and DCC others better.

With the exception of a circle of set track and a single engine , DC in reality , has little to commend it .  The main reason we still see DC layouts is a combination of lack of knowledge , a perception of complexity and  the biggest of all, NIH  ( not invented here )  i.e. inertia based on " what you know " 

 

IN the early days of DCC, yes expensive was a consideration, but these days , with mass produced decoders ( you know its mainstream when the Chinese are ripping off DCC decoders !!) and inexpensive command stations, the costs of DC taken as a whole including DC specific wiring costs , on anything other then a trivial layout is similar , and the absolute cost of DCC has fallen dramatically compared to the rest of railway modelling , where costs have increased .  Decoders are now available from about £12 upwards and good quality Lenz or Zimo can be had at around £20-25.  Command stations can be implemented for £50 upwards, and wen you remove the DC section switching ( typically run back to a control panel ) , inter base board connectors etc , costs begin to look similar 

 

Yes of course if you have a 100 loco collection then you are looking at 1200 quid to convert everything to DCC, arguably if you have a collection of that size, you have already invested 10s of thousands in the whole hobby over time. 

 

TO give you a sense of the simplicity, Our club tends to build " exhibition " layouts in 00.  usually twin track roundy roundy, a simple station and a few sidings.  The idea being that trains can be run frequently at exhibitions , but the lack of complexity means the operator can talk to the visitors 

 

recently we switched from point motors , fed back to control panels , to DCC operated points and signals , with NO control panel at all, everything is done from the DCC throttle. Now this isn't my idea of fun, but it reduces layout wiring, in both complexity and cost,  cut down on inter baseboard connections, removed the need and space for a control  panel ( which was replaced with an A4 page , giving the accessory numbers for the points and signals ) 

 

I accept , and fully understand that DC will always be with us, but I think , where I take issue is people trying to justify it , The real answer is DC will exist because it " appears " simple " to understand at a simplistic level and the NIH factor .  

 

discussions are fun !

[Junctionmad]

If the results of this survey are true and there is a greater than 60% adoption of DCC then it calls into question the assumption that DCC appeals to the younger iPad generation. 65% of our hobby are over 55, and the vast majority of those are over 65

 

The way this particular question has been surveyed is guaranteed to produce the wrong answer. You can tell be the conversation in the thread that this has become a DCC evangelists vs DC luddites battle, and there is no evidence that the result has surveyed a decent cross section of the hobby.

 

So after 300 results we can conclude that DCC evangelists outnumber DC luddites by almost 2:1 and as far as overall adoption of DCC goes, we still have no idea.

 

The other survey thats running right now at http://surveyguerilla.co.uk/2017-model-railway-survey will answer the question much more accurately and give some great insight on the age vs DCC adoption statement

You are quilty of the very thing you complain about , that is interpretation of the results in a way that suggests the results are skewed.  The fact is its a poll of 300 responses .  firstly thats not bad as polls go, secondly you cannot make any assumptions over then those that have some basis of correlation 

 

So yes , your contention that DCC is broadly based across the hobby is valid, because their is a reasonable correlation against the age of participants 

 

However there is no correlation to support "guaranteed to produce the wrong answer……...we can conclude that DCC evangelists outnumber DC luddites by almost 2:1" 

If anything the survey works against DCC as many modellers have both DDC  and  DC , and in reality thats a DCC conversant  modeller. 

 

Nor can we say they are DCC evangelists and DC luddities , since we have no survey data as to the technical competency of the respondents 

 

All we can say is that there is a 2:1 ratio in favour of DCC .  after that we dont really know any thing else. but that ratio is there and verifiable by the poll. 

[Chris M]

The expression "DC luddites" is extremely insulting and should be withdrawn by the poster with an apology. I spent most of my working life in IT and, based on my business analysis knowledge and experience, have chosen to use DC. It meets my requirements better than DCC. If people want to use DCC that is fine by me but don't for one minute think that those of us who choose DC are in any way stupid or outdated.

[PaulRhB]

Come on chaps don't take offence this hobby is meant to be all encompassing not some trend led fly by night one idea fad

You can have basic models on DCC and stunning correct to every visible detail ones on DC. What's powering it isn't important but purely that it makes the owner happy.

I like DCC sound now but others still find it falls short of their expectations, as indeed to some files I've heard, but rather than dismissing it make constructive comments and share ideas. If you're not putting the money up to help develop it though don't complain it takes too long either

I'm very happy with my two DCC layouts but I won't convert the other one as it works fine as it is and I don't see that sound would really improve an N scale electric tram! (Purely a personal limit)

I find the extra tech a bit of a faff but I like the end result and accept the learning curve because it's a very minor niche in electronics, in many cases depending on keen amateurs turning their hobby into a sideline business.

It's only your own personal taste that dictates what's acceptable to you and if you only look at UK standard gauge of one company you're missing out on a whole load of ideas that might actually transfer rather well.

No one idea, theme, scale, power is better only what works with your ideals and circumstances now

[Junctionmad]

 

The comment was made very much tongue in cheek, with a smile on my face.

 

which is why emojis are provided , to convey situations that can be misleading in purely words

[Junctionmad]

 

No one idea, theme, scale, power is better only what works with your ideals and circumstances now   

 

 

actually that isn't true, merely because " it works " for you , does not make  it better or for that fact worse.  A field can be ploughed today by a man and a horse.  For that "man" the solution " works ".  However its clearly not better( in general ) .

 

there is a debate that seeks to establish in general the best approach and thats valid , of course nothing condones a debate with any rancour 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Junctionmad

[Steamport Southport]

 

 

 

Yes of course if you have a 100 loco collection then you are looking at 1200 quid to convert everything to DCC, arguably if you have a collection of that size, you have already invested 10s of thousands in the whole hobby over time. 

 

 

 

 

 

That's my main gripe about those who advocate DCC as being the only way to do things.

 

Do all these people just have a plank with three locomotives or have a vast fortune to spend on the latest locomotives? I have neither.

 

Yes I have well over 100 locomotives bought or built over 40 odd years. Some not yet built but in the "pile". Mostly bought at bargain bin prices. Out of those I have less than five that are DCC ready. So to convert them I'm expected to spend thousands, just because someone else thinks their way is better?

 

I already have a system that works for me. So I'd rather spend that £15 for a chip on another wagon kit.

 

 

BUT I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with DCC. Nor am I totally ruling it out for future projects.

 

It's all about which is most suitable for YOUR needs.

 

 

 

Jason