DC or DCC?

[PaulRhB]

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 ) .

 

Er try telling that to an environmentalist

Faster isn't always better which is why we have a food mountain going to waste at times

Anyhoo we are drifting away from toy trains into some weird philosophical debate on society

There's no one answer because we are all different and some won't agree on that either.

 

As Fraser would say "we're doomed"

 

But at least some of us are reasonably happy

[Chris M]

 With the exception of a circle of set track and a single engine , DC in reality , has little to commend it .  

  !

Somehow I get by in dc with two controllers

https://youtu.be/bkvb_p6c-VQ

[Colin_McLeod]

An alarming number of near misses in that video.

[Andy Hayter]

An alarming number of near misses in that video.

 

None of which would have been avoided with DCC.

 

I confess to being a DC man, and while I have considered the possibility of moving to DCC, I have discounted it on the basis of cost and time needed to convert stock - even discounting that some stock might not be convertible.

 

That is not to say that I cannot see the advantages of DCC and if I were starting today I would probably opt for it. 

 

From the posts I have read (and I confess to having skipped over several) I have seen quite a bit of misinformation or misunderstanding.

 

DCC allows double heading anywhere on the layout - well yes, but in real life the points where locos attach or detach from double heading activities are quite limited and these can equally be handled in DC with sectional planning.  So unless you plan to model a rescue loco to pick up a dead train, I see no advantage in DCC there.

 

I had thought that the simplicity of layout wiring with DCC had been shown to be a myth for all but the most simple of layouts.  I do however concede that DCC wiring is probably more straightforward than DC.  However DC wiring cannot really be considered as complicated.

Someone wrote that they saw the major advantages of DCC with diesels, I however take another view.  DCC offers the possibility not only of synchronised sound but also synchronised smoke ejection; the ability to mimic the blow down of the cylinder drain cocks etc.  At this stage the quality of "smoke" is still a little lacking, but it has improved and I think will improve further.  So I see the future major advantages of DCC to lie with steam operations.     

 

It would be for such future facilities that I would have taken up DCC if starting now.

 

The one thing that has surprised me a little is just how many people already use DCC.  Good Luck to you all.

[Colin_McLeod]

None of which would have been avoided with DCC.

 

My post was a comment on the operation of that layout. It was not a comment on DC v DCC.

[Chris M]

One of the regular operators of this layout is very keen on DCC has two DCC layouts of his own. His view is that, whilst his layouts are better with DCC, he thinks this layout is best served the way it is with DC. Having operated his layouts I would agree. There doesn't need to be conflict or arguement, just respect for each other.

[jjb1970]

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.

 

I wasn't naming you, nor was it intended at you, however I've seen plenty of people dismiss DC as being of little interest other than to luddites.

 

On the other question, Ithink your post kind of demonstrates the point I was making in being very defensive about existing DCC technology and dismissive of the potential to create better systems. Two rail DC DCC is just one solution for model railway control, it is a significant advance on DC (in my opinion) but I certainly don't see it as the end of the technological road. Battery technology has improved hugely and I see no technical reason why battery power for HO/OO models is not a viable solution without needing to make compromises in models. That opens up the prospect of a wireless model railway with no compromises in operability. All the track accessories could also be made wireless. OK, it won't be a good option for layouts that run constantly, but how many layouts are operated for hour after hour? For the locomotives themselves inductive coupling to re-charge would be interesting, model depots and fuelling points could actually become just like the real things in a way. The technology is already there, things like standards will develop in response to a market in the way that DCC standards evolved. And I have no idea where technology will ultimately end up. I think the hobby is on the cusp of a transformation as I think we will see advances in train control, 3D printing is opening up terrificpossibilities for model making and it won't stop. I find it all very exciting.

[Junctionmad]

I wasn't naming you, nor was it intended at you, however I've seen plenty of people dismiss DC as being of little interest other than to luddites.

 

On the other question, Ithink your post kind of demonstrates the point I was making in being very defensive about existing DCC technology and dismissive of the potential to create better systems. Two rail DC DCC is just one solution for model railway control, it is a significant advance on DC (in my opinion) but I certainly don't see it as the end of the technological road. Battery technology has improved hugely and I see no technical reason why battery power for HO/OO models is not a viable solution without needing to make compromises in models. That opens up the prospect of a wireless model railway with no compromises in operability. All the track accessories could also be made wireless. OK, it won't be a good option for layouts that run constantly, but how many layouts are operated for hour after hour? For the locomotives themselves inductive coupling to re-charge would be interesting, model depots and fuelling points could actually become just like the real things in a way. The technology is already there, things like standards will develop in response to a market in the way that DCC standards evolved. And I have no idea where technology will ultimately end up. I think the hobby is on the cusp of a transformation as I think we will see advances in train control, 3D printing is opening up terrificpossibilities for model making and it won't stop. I find it all very exciting.

You'll see in other posts , I foscued down on BPRC . My view is that Nmra need to make it a subset of DCC to ensure its future. Otherwise the likihood of chaos is high with competing systems and protocols. (,rather like the way auto DCC brake has gone )

It remains to be seen what develops. BPRC could just remain niche market. increasing the insides of models are ful, of " stuff" and it's hard to see it being widely suitable for OO/ HO etc

I'm not against it. But it needs to complement DCC to become mainstream in my opinion.

[DCB]

There does seem to be a big difference in the amount of baseboard area used for fully scenic areas between DC and DCC layouts, plenty of DCC layouts have 30% to 50% baseboard area available for scenic treatment whereas the DC ones I have been involved with approach 100% with controls and hidden sidings below the scenic sections.   If you need to see locos and read their numbers to know which buttons to press you can lose 50% of your potential layout.    See pic of one of my 9Fs about to leave the low level sidings. I just turn the selector to the right road and push the button, select one of 6 controllers and off it goes.  The low level sidings are against the shed wall, 6 roads 15" wide under a 2ft 6 baseboard so not exactly super get attable.

I took the pic to show the wiring run in trunking.   I think there is a King behind the 9F on the road nearest the wall.

Edited March 28, 2017 by DavidCBroad

[RichardS]

There does seem to be a big difference in the amount of baseboard area used for fully scenic areas between DC and DCC layouts, plenty of DCC layouts have 30% to 50% baseboard area available for scenic treatment whereas the DC ones I have been involved with approach 100% with controls and hidden sidings below the scenic sections. If you need to see locos and read their numbers to know which buttons to press you can lose 50% of your potential layout. See pic of one of my 9Fs about to leave the low level sidings. I just turn the selector to the right road and push the button, select one of 6 controllers and off it goes. The low level sidings are against the shed wall, 6 roads 15" wide under a 2ft 6 baseboard so not exactly super get attable.

I took the pic to show the wiring run in trunking. I think there is a King behind the 9F on the road nearest the wall.

That is certainly one way of looking at things David.

 

Have you considered however that those using DCC with more open space are seeking greater realism over all?

 

Certainly this is my goal; to model a railway in context 'Barry Norman style' ( a model of a railway) rather than 'Cyril Freezer style' (a model railway.)

 

But that's just another singular view.

 

Really it doesn't matter what you use in what circumstance or why so long as you enjoy your hobby.

[PatB]

Whilst DCC can, without question, allow for operating moves which would be impossible, or at least very difficult with DC, many layouts that I've seen using DCC (and this is a very small sample, given that we have, basically, one exhibition a year and I'm an antisocial git so I don't get to see club or private layouts much) don't use it to anything like its full potential. Indeed it often seems to add complication to operation, resulting in an excruciatingly long period of button pressing and false starts before, for example, moving a loco from loco spur to train in departure platform; a move which would have required a couple of knob twiddles and throwing a couple of fairly obvious switches in DC.

 

This is not, I would add, an inherent issue with DCC, just the manner in which I've seen it applied. Perhaps the DC layouts have had more rehearsals for the show, which could be entirely coincidental. Mind you, playing Devil's advocate a little further, perhaps the perceived simplicity of DCC operation can breed a degree of complacency regarding preparation, or leads to inexperienced operators being thrown in at the deep end, which isn't really fair on either them or the paying public.

 

That said, it may just be a function of an environment where nobody is really well practiced at exhibiting. If you only get one go at it a year it makes it hard to put on a really polished performance and that has nothing to do with the control systems employed.

[coachmann]

DCC Sound is probably the reason for loco movements being on the slow side, as one can tell from the exhaust if a loco is being controlled unrealistically. Real locos just dont dash off here and there like bloodhounds.

[Andrew F]

Whilst my layout is DCC and any future layout I build will also probably be, I think DCC is too sensitive and a lot of loco's need better pick-ups. It's alright saying that all track and wheels should be spotless which is a task in itself on a large layout with a big stud but the pressure from wiper pick-ups needs to be greater for reliable DCC running than on DC. This is obvious when setting decoder CV's to operate a loco with realistic acceleration and the loco stalls then shoots off at the higher speed step.

Under DC H&M Clipper with Relco control, stalling was much less of a problem.

 

There's also the problem on a layout like mine that has been converted to DCC where there is a momentary short between loco and point frog due to the higher track voltage at lower loco speed. My next layout will be designed for DCC rather than DC without the hidden lines and hidden storage.

 

I like DCC a lot but would never bad mouth DC. DCC users still use DC to run loco's in and fault find. It cuts out the middle man.

[Colin_McLeod]

[cheeky mode] It's also the reason thete are so many.videos of model trains sitting still while they run through the full range of sounds (and lights) before moving for a few seconds. [/cheeky mode] :)

DCC Sound is probably the reason for loco movements being on the slow side, as one can tell from the exhaust if a loco is being controlled unrealistically. Real locos just dont dash off here and there like bloodhounds.

[New Haven Neil]

Snip<   Indeed it often seems to add complication to operation, resulting in an excruciatingly long period of button pressing and false starts before, for example, moving a loco from loco spur to train in departure platform; a move which would have required a couple of knob twiddles and throwing a couple of fairly obvious switches in DC.

 

This is not, I would add, an inherent issue with DCC, just the manner in which I've seen it applied.

 

I would agree, but the reasons for this have always surprised me.  I just don't see the point (badoom-tish) of operating turnouts from a DCC handset - it is cumbersome at the very least.  It isn't compulsory to use your DCC control for doing so!  There is no reason not to use any one of the traditional systems for point control (be it a panel or in my case manual using bicycle spokes, I have a walk around type layout) whilst using DCC  for loco control.  Thus no delay when trying to find the right button.

 

Scale speeds are a different bag, and Larry is spot on that sound helps with that. It seems to me that many layouts run too slow or too fast, with few getting it right.  The very fine scale crew are the worst for too slow running, almost as if it is a competition.  The Yardmaster would have been going nuts if shunting was taking that long.....

[Ravenser]

I would agree, but the reasons for this have always surprised me.  I just don't see the point (badoom-tish) of operating turnouts from a DCC handset - it is cumbersome at the very least.  It isn't compulsory to use your DCC control for doing so!  There is no reason not to use any one of the traditional systems for point control (be it a panel or in my case manual using bicycle spokes, I have a walk around type layout) whilst using DCC  for loco control.  Thus no delay when trying to find the right button.

 

Scale speeds are a different bag, and Larry is spot on that sound helps with that. It seems to me that many layouts run too slow or too fast, with few getting it right.  The very fine scale crew are the worst for too slow running, almost as if it is a competition.  The Yardmaster would have been going nuts if shunting was taking that long.....

 

If you work the points one-by-one on an awkward system - yes. All mine are set as complete routes using the macros available on the NCE PowerCab . Three key presses and the whole lot comes off. It takes about 3 seconds

 

In my experience as an operator on a similar style but DC layout, one of the major sources of operator error/running glitches was operators forgetting to set one or more of the points needed to set up the route. This approach eliminated that particular source of error - though operators can still forget to set up the route at all, or set the wrong route....  

 

Building a panel would have been a significant job - attaching it to a portable layout with skeletal underpinnings a problem to solve that I was very glad to avoid. And having seen the inside of the panel for the similar but DC layout - it was a mass of wires I'd really prefer to avoid . Total additional cost - the price of two Digitrax accessory decoders (about £70) , less the cost of the components which would have been needed to arrange conventional point control. The macros came as a feature of the system, ie for nowt

 

So I'd politely dissent from the suggestion that "There's no justification for using DCC to control points" 

[coachmann]

[cheeky mode] It's also the reason thete are so many.videos of model trains sitting still while they run through the full range of sounds (and lights) before moving for a few seconds. [/cheeky mode] :)

Spot-on Colin. Gawd knows why they do this even on promo-videos whe we know there is everything from shovelling coal to cooking bacon....

[New Haven Neil]

If you work the points one-by-one on an awkward system - yes. All mine are set as complete routes using the macros available on the NCE PowerCab . Three key presses and the whole lot comes off. It takes about 3 seconds

 

In my experience as an operator on a similar style but DC layout, one of the major sources of operator error/running glitches was operators forgetting to set one or more of the points needed to set up the route. This approach eliminated that particular source of error - though operators can still forget to set up the route at all, or set the wrong route....  

 

Building a panel would have been a significant job - attaching it to a portable layout with skeletal underpinnings a problem to solve that I was very glad to avoid. And having seen the inside of the panel for the similar but DC layout - it was a mass of wires I'd really prefer to avoid . Total additional cost - the price of two Digitrax accessory decoders (about £70) , less the cost of the components which would have been needed to arrange conventional point control. The macros came as a feature of the system, ie for nowt

 

So I'd politely dissent from the suggestion that "There's no justification for using DCC to control points" 

 

Not quite my words, but I take your point.  However I, as a DCC user of 20 years, will be sticking with my bicycle spokes and micro switches, with no panel or accessory decoders, thus hardly any wiring, just for the frogs. 

[Stevelewis]

Spot-on Colin. Gawd knows why they do this even on promo-videos whe we know there is everything from shovelling coal to cooking bacon....

 

Wont  be  long  now,  built  in  smells  soon,  including  the  Bacon!!

[Steamport Southport]

Wont  be  long  now,  built  in  smells  soon,  including  the  Bacon!!

 

Already been done.

 

At least one of the manufacturers of smoke oil has a bacon scented version.

 

http://www.petersspares.com/megasteam-smoke-oil-with-coalfired-steam-smell-60ml-dropper-bottle.ir

 

 

 

Jason

[coachmann]

Already been done.

 

At least one of the manufacturers of smoke oil has a bacon scented version.

I heard its a pig to fit....

[Andrew F]

Not for the ham fisted or sausage fingered. You might end up with egg on your face.

[John Tomlinson]

Hmmm

 

"The Machine Stops" comes to mind...

 

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html

I must have read this getting on for 50 years ago at school, and I've never forgotten it. It seems increasingly relevant as the years go on, and our civilisation becomes more and more dependant on technology that is outside of any individual's control. I wouldn't however put DCC in the category of "threat to mankind"!

 

John.

[Colin_McLeod]

So does confused.com have the analogue version of RMweb then?

[jamesg]

Very interesting discussion so far, but the one point I picked up on is how DC can be superior on very large layouts, particularly where a locomotive in a siding or hidden fiddle yard can't be seen clearly enough (or at all) to determine the address and direction.  DCC is great on my small layouts, but I can see it being difficult to adapt to certain situations.  Battery powered radio control suffers from the same problem - a train must be identified before it can be moved.

 

I'm also curious as to how the complexity of the wiring changes with layout size on DC as opposed to DCC.  Any DC layout will have isolated sections, but with multiple power districts on a DCC layout, does the wiring complexity start to 'catch up' with that of DC as layout size increases?