Jump to content
 

To DCC or not?


Tallpaul69
 Share

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, 298 said:

 

Something else DCC can't do is tolerate bad wiring- reliability has to be built in from the start and what might work for DC such as stripping wire insulation with your teeth and clumsily soldering a repair with a gas powered iron is only going to end in disappointment unless standards are improved....

DC cannot tolerate bad wiring either. Because of the lower voltages involved, it is actually less tolerant of high resistance connections

It is the recommendations for better wiring practices when people ask about DCC which colour this argument. Most who run DC just carry on with their techniques (some of them good, but they do not have the issues).

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

But DCC gives you the choice of doing this...or programming the loco to respond more closely to the real thing.

So I don't understand your point.

 

My favourite switching loco at the moment has a TCS WOWsound decoder in it- and I can operate on a fixed throttle and with just three buttons by using one button to apply the brakes, another to release it, and the third to change direction. The prime mover sound is also tuned to the back-emf produced by the motor so the loco revs up accordingly if the train is heavier. What could be simpler...? (although I can sympathise with Clive having seen layout operators struggling with the concept of a centre off controller...).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of things that I don't understand about some posts in this now humongous thread.

 

1) Is that after much discussion, Paul (the OP) has decided on going with DCC control.  So why others are persisting in bashing the DC drum is moot.

 

2) In pursuing the DC agenda there are several spurious comments being made to promote the "DC is better because ..." or conversely the "DCC is worse because ..." point of view.

 

Examples which spring to mind are "What DCC cannot do is stop trains falling off the track and operator error" and "what might work for DC such as stripping wire insulation with your teeth and clumsily soldering a repair with a gas powered iron is only going to end in disappointment" - comments that apply equally well to DC operation as well as DCC operation.

 

If you really feel passionately about DC control with all of its perceived advantages, please feel free to start your own thread where the relative merits of DC and DCC control can be discussed.

 

Further posts in this thread should focus on helping the OP ready his layout for DCC control but should be lead by Paul.

 

Regards,

 

Art

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

But DCC gives you the choice of doing this...or programming the loco to respond more closely to the real thing.

So I don't understand your point.

With DC you drive the trains using your skill not a little electronic thingy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Art Dent said:

There are a couple of things that I don't understand about some posts in this now humongous thread.

 

1) Is that after much discussion, Paul (the OP) has decided on going with DCC control.  So why others are persisting in bashing the DC drum is moot.

 

2) In pursuing the DC agenda there are several spurious comments being made to promote the "DC is better because ..." or conversely the "DCC is worse because ..." point of view.

 

Examples which spring to mind are "What DCC cannot do is stop trains falling off the track and operator error" and "what might work for DC such as stripping wire insulation with your teeth and clumsily soldering a repair with a gas powered iron is only going to end in disappointment" - comments that apply equally well to DC operation as well as DCC operation.

 

If you really feel passionately about DC control with all of its perceived advantages, please feel free to start your own thread where the relative merits of DC and DCC control can be discussed.

 

Further posts in this thread should focus on helping the OP ready his layout for DCC control but should be lead by Paul.

 

Regards,

 

Art

See my layout thread.

 

I did look for your layout thread so you could show me how DCC was better than DC but couldn't find it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

See my layout thread.

 

I thought you had asked people not to post about DCC on your thread, Clive...

 

Honestly, this is getting very tiresome. Can we just agree to disagree and move on?

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/03/2019 at 16:10, melmerby said:

You can of course get DCC mimic panels which means only a DCC bus from the panel to the turnout decoders!

DCC Concepts, LDT, Megapoints etc.

 

On 08/03/2019 at 16:21, Nigelcliffe said:

As indicated by RonRonRon, above, there is an alternative to Alan's Diagram 2.   It does not need dozens of direct wires back to the physical mimic panel, but instead, control the turnouts via DCC (as in diagram 1) and use a physical panel device which passes instructions into the DCC system.  

 

So, the only extra wires are entirely local within the panel,  its output to the rest of the world will be two, four or six wires, depending on the technology in use. 

 

 

 

Commercial examples, by far from a complete list of how to do it, and there are a lot of DIY options to reduce the cost:

 

Signatrack CML DTM30.  Works with any LocoNet system, which is Digitrax, Uhlenbrock, Roco Z21, Digikeijs, ESU (with ESU LocoNet adaptor), etc..   (The DTM30 is incredibly powerful, doing things which are quite complex to wire up on a manually connected panel).

Lenz LW150 Mimic panel module.   Works with anything offering a Lenz throttle interface: Lenz, Roco, Digikeijs, ESU, etc..

DCC Concepts Alpha system.  With the "right" combination of bits, can work with almost anything.  But that "right" combination can be expensive for some systems, lowest cost is probably if using NCE system. 

 

and others mentioned by Keith above, plus no doubt many more.

 

 

- Nigel

 

I had a brief look at some of these DCC control panel ideas - very interesting and shows that things have moved on a tad since I've been doing DCC (originally with the very old Zero One back in 1980) and more recently since I took up DCC again and converted to computer control when I acquired Train Controller in 2005 - I didnt realise it was that long since I abandoned the manual mimic control panel for on screen control. 

 

It's great to know you can set up a DCC panel without all the hundreds of wires required to everywhere around the layout - not that I will ever use a mimic or manual control panel again on mine but I have a mate who is building a new O gauge layout and intends to use the touch panels on his ECoS Controller for point and accessories control.   The ECoS panels are quite useful, but they're quite tiny, so I'll point out a few of these DCC control panels so he has some more options.  

 

Cheers ... Alan

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When planning one's choice(s) of Accessory Decoders - it may be useful to consider some of the differing options provided by the different manufacturers:  [Obviously some of these choices in your case may be in the remit/recommendations of the layout builder] 

Ranging from Power Supply needs or options,  through type-of-drive output, and physical size, to ease of programming. 

For example: 'track' (accessory bus) powered ( okay for CDU based or slow motion units with low current demand ) or, 5Vdc, 12Vdc or 16Vac...

Your choice might be related to what other devices are using power on the layout such as lighting, and animations.

For example, my loft layout (as well as using integral digital point motors and dcc-signals ) uses Lenz LS150s forthe 'analogue' motors - which conveniently have 6 outputs which can be given ANY numbers - allowing optimised grouping and wiring  especially where board joins are involved - but, for some users, the downside of only 1 output 'running' at a time ( 0.1-10seconds duration available on each output. They are now almost the only user of the 16Vac bus in the loft...  whereas on our portable (Skandinavian, H0) layout, we changed to using Train-Tech's CDU-based SIngle and Quad output decoders - sometimes the extra expense 'per output' of the single (or double with some makes like Uhlenbruck decoders) over the bulkier Quad,Hex or Octa decoders, is worth the convenience where a board -join is involved - we ONLY have the track/accessory busses (and a 12Vdc lighting supply) now connecting each board - important for a modular layout, but even a fixed-installation layout may be constructed in separately-tested modular parts.  [ the disused 16Vac connections will be replaced by the feedback bus - using digikeijs modules -currently awaiting installation]. Size is an important factor for me, as my modules are located on top of the layout - hidden in buildings or beneath platforms ... no crawling underneath nowadays.

 

I'm glad that others have already pointed  out that having a 'physical mimic' display does not in any way require individual wiring around the extent of the layout - that the same bus (and I'll assume dcc-bus, ( but others such as CAN-bus are available ) used to control the actual device, can, in parallel, through another, conveniently located decoder (sharing the same address, but probably LED outputs instead ) would be mounted INSIDE the 'micromimic display panel. and if desired, multiple panels can just as easily be used around the layout - wherever convenient.  My dcc replacement version for my original layout's 2m long Zero 1 mimic was going to be re-using displaced merg steady state accessory decoders --but as LED TV panels have come down in cost and weight - I have migrated to the 'glass panel' type display  - which is also far-easier to update as minor or major variations are made to the layout over the years .  Cost-wise over the years, I have benefitted from using 'Rocomotion' s/w - the 'free'/bundled version of the basic RR+Co - it has enough for my point/signal control [and position feedback - modules bought before they doubled in price! = how the s/w was paid for 8-) ]. Nowadays, however, there are more choices - both free and paid-for- and Raspberry Pi's can run the free versions, and Android/MacOS the Roco Z21 App which has superceded Rocomotion - so it is very economical to add 'local' or overall displays as preferred.

Edited by Phil S
added size importance
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

With DC you drive the trains using your skill not a little electronic thingy.

 

Actually it could be said you need more skill to drive the train with dcc, when you have momentum set you have to anticipate things like shutting power off etc . With dc you just set the desired speed on the controller and replicate things like acceleration ect. Try reversing using change direction without slowing first a train with dcc and cv 3/4 set, it will slow down slowly and stop then accelerates away again in other direction slowly. Try this with dc it just changes direction abruptly. My daytime job involves driving real trains and I honestly think Dcc control is the closest your get to the same feel of a real train.

 

i think we all know your stance on dc v dcc and it's your choice to go with dc I have no issue with that, I'm not saying either are without there issues but the OP was not asking originally which to go for just to make informed decisions having made that choice and to avoid any pitfalls. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

I did look for your layout thread so you could show me how DCC was better than DC but couldn't find it.

This sort of comment is plain rude.

Conversely you haven't shown a shred of evidence as how DC is better than DCC.

Heavy on opinionising. Light on fact

 

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

With DC you drive the trains using your skill not a little electronic thingy.

Patronising and the comment shows a total lack of understanding of the subject matter.

 

BTW How does the current get to the track?

I've never yet seen DC current flow without using electrons, it must be a new phenomenom.:jester:

 

As the OP seems to have settled on DCC comments about DC are now irrelevant.

Edited by melmerby
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phil S said:

When planning one's choice(s) of Accessory Decoders - it may be useful to consider some of the differing options provided by the different manufacturers:  [Obviously some of these choices in your case may be in the remit/recommendations of the layout builder] 

Ranging from Power Supply needs or options,  through type-of-drive output, and physical size, to ease of programming. 

For example: 'track' (accessory bus) powered ( okay for CDU based or slow motion units with low current demand ) or, 5Vdc, 12Vdc or 16Vac...

Your choice might be related to what other devices are using power on the layout such as lighting, and animations.

For example, my loft layout (as well as using integral digital point motors and dcc-signals ) uses Lenz LS150s forthe 'analogue' motors - which conveniently have 6 outputs which can be given ANY numbers - allowing optimised grouping and wiring  especially where board joins are involved - but, for some users, the downside of only 1 output 'running' at a time ( 0.1-10seconds duration available on each output. They are now almost the only user of the 16Vac bus in the loft...  whereas on our portable (Skandinavian, H0) layout, we changed to using Train-Tech's CDU-based SIngle and Quad output decoders - sometimes the extra expense 'per output' of the single (or double with some makes like Uhlenbruck decoders) over the bulkier Quad,Hex or Octa decoders, is worth the convenience where a board -join is involved - we ONLY have the track/accessory busses (and a 12Vdc lighting supply) now connecting each board - important for a modular layout, but even a fixed-installation layout may be constructed in separately-tested modular parts.  [ the disused 16Vac connections will be replaced by the feedback bus - using digikeijs modules -currently awaiting installation]. Size is an important factor for me, as my modules are located on top of the layout - hidden in buildings or beneath platforms ... no crawling underneath nowadays.

 

I'm glad that others have already pointed  out that having a 'physical mimic' display does not in any way require individual wiring around the extent of the layout - that the same bus (and I'll assume dcc-bus, ( but others such as CAN-bus are available ) used to control the actual device, can, in parallel, through another, conveniently located decoder (sharing the same address, but probably LED outputs instead ) would be mounted INSIDE the 'micromimic display panel. and if desired, multiple panels can just as easily be used around the layout - wherever convenient.  My dcc replacement version for my original layout's 2m long Zero 1 mimic was going to be re-using displaced merg steady state accessory decoders --but as LED TV panels have come down in cost and weight - I have migrated to the 'glass panel' type display  - which is also far-easier to update as minor or major variations are made to the layout over the years .  Cost-wise over the years, I have benefitted from using 'Rocomotion' s/w - the 'free'/bundled version of the basic RR+Co - it has enough for my point/signal control [and position feedback - modules bought before they doubled in price! = how the s/w was paid for 8-) ]. Nowadays, however, there are more choices - both free and paid-for- and Raspberry Pi's can run the free versions, and Android/MacOS the Roco Z21 App which has superceded Rocomotion - so it is very economical to add 'local' or overall displays as preferred.

Sorry Phil,

The detail of the above is almost totally meaningless to me as I am not familiar with all the different pieces of equipment you mention!

 

Am I alone in thinking that I need this broken down into a number of smaller messages??

 

Surely the choice of equipment is driven by the initial performance of the layout required, any longer term performance objectives, cost, and personal preference of the layout owner such as whether knobs, sliders, thumb wheels or curser on a computer screen are preferred?

 

For me, my layout is trying to replicate a busy mainline. I want simple control operation, so that for example, a goods train can be set in motion from a goods loop quickly after a fast express has passed through then be followed by another on the line in the other direction. So I  do not want to have to punch in  umpteen codes to set a loco going, I want to drive it, and I need points and signals to have easy route setting! 

 

Cheers

Paul

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

 

what you describe as you desired modus operandi is exactly what I do but I do it using automation and simply drag and drop trains from where they are to where I want them to be. My automation software (iTrain) then works out the best way to get from A to B sets the points and drives the train there. If I choose to stick a manually operated train in amongst the automatically routes trains then it will work out what to do and prevent any accidents.

 

i have the ability to sit and watch it all happening whilst I have a cuppa or I can drive manually using either the computer screen, using my Z21 app on phone or tablet or even my handheld Multimaus with the knob in the middle :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

 

It sounds like 'Route Setting' is your preference.  If it helps, here's a couple of screenshots I've knocked up on the Z21 App which shows how one touch of the button sets different routes.  Of course you can set many  more routes up from different start and end points to suit.  Basically once the routes are set up, click on one of the route symbols and all the points change and set that route, drive your train round.  All this is done with just the Roco Z21 and an ipad or tablet or smartphone. 

 

Screenshot_20190311-200615.png.d0b5a474dfe4142609c7a00b894c3442.png

 

Screenshot_20190311-200623.png.98ebf8f20987d3290da7d790d4298ac9.png

 

You can stick to that or take the next step which would be to automate things so that several schedules will be rostered to start at different times or in a sequence, or timetable - this would then require a computer and software.  You would still have the option to drive the train(s) yourself or have the computer drive them, or a mixture of both.

 

This just demonstrates using a screen as your control panel.  There will be other ways to do route setting using mimic panels - however I'm not best placed to advise on or demonstrate those methods.

 

I was wondering though if you have yet decided on a screen control panel or if you'll use a mimic panel, or both?  

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers... Alan

 

Edited by Alan Kettlewell
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Alan Kettlewell said:

Hi Paul,

 

It sounds like 'Route Setting' is your preference. 

 

I was wondering though if you have yet decided on a screen control panel or if you'll use a mimic panel, or both?  

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers... Alan

 

Theoretically, if you have a large enough touch screen it effectively becomes the mimic panel, you wouldn't need anything else.

I don't know what is the size of the largest iPad or Android tablet, but with the Z21 app that would be the size limit. *

However with a computer automation program (say TrainController - Windows only) you could have e.g. a 40" Windows touchscreen where you have a full layout diagram and can change points etc with a finger movement but that would be some serious cash to spend!

 

* you can get a 32" Xoro tablet(?) but the OS is out of date.

Edited by melmerby
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting horrendously complicated.

Route setting including the signals. A mimic panel. It will need programming then when a Windows update screws with a setting (which does happen occasionally), the whole thing stops working. Who will be there to fix it?

 

I am going to cause offence here, but anyone who builds layouts for a living will not be able to do this to an acceptable price. It will cost a fortune.

 

I don't want to dampen enthusiasm but that's just it. Seeing a train move under its own power for the first time is a huge boost for your enthusiasm. Go too ambitious & you will run right out of enthusiasm before you get a train running then you will pack up the hobby for good.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

 

I was wondering if you've seen the latest Railway Modeller.  There's an article covering some DCC systems - broken down into beginners', intermediate and advanced systems.  It's not too in depth but may give you a feel for what's out there.

 

Cheers … Alan

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, melmerby said:

Theoretically, if you have a large enough touch screen it effectively becomes the mimic panel, you wouldn't need anything else.

I don't know what is the size of the largest iPad or Android tablet, but with the Z21 app that would be the size limit. *

However with a computer automation program (say TrainController - Windows only) you could have e.g. a 40" Windows touchscreen where you have a full layout diagram and can change points etc with a finger movement but that would be some serious cash to spend!

 

* you can get a 32" Xoro tablet(?) but the OS is out of date.

 

Touchscreens are elegant in principle but in practice I find they can be a bit annoying. I'm sure everyone is familiar with this sort of experience: Tap <nothing happens>, Tap again <a little animation is shown but you missed the button you were trying to click>, Tap again <the display scrolls, not what you wanted>, Tap again <Finally! The button activates>.

 

And note that the bigger the touchscreen, the more of a physical workout you will have when operating the layout!

 

IMHO it's hard to improve on a keyboard, mouse and a normal monitor because you have more controls (keys, buttons and wheels), more precision, and better feedback (no hand blocking the view and useful visual hints about the UI under the pointer position).

 

 

7 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

This is getting horrendously complicated.

Route setting including the signals. A mimic panel. It will need programming then when a Windows update screws with a setting (which does happen occasionally), the whole thing stops working. Who will be there to fix it?

 

I am going to cause offence here, but anyone who builds layouts for a living will not be able to do this to an acceptable price. It will cost a fortune.

 

I don't want to dampen enthusiasm but that's just it. Seeing a train move under its own power for the first time is a huge boost for your enthusiasm. Go too ambitious & you will run right out of enthusiasm before you get a train running then you will pack up the hobby for good.

 

Yes, it would be a good idea to do it in stages where you can get basic DCC running working as soon as possible before implementing the other stuff. And as Pete hints, you could then get different specialists in for different stages.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just about to start a new layout in 7mm scale, a small branch line terminus, which in reality would have been one engine in steam, but being a modeller I guess at times there may be two. In someways I seen the benefit of DCC especially with sound, however if I do start off with DCC it wont be with sound chips. I have 4 locos at the moment (1 x RTR 3 x kit built) plus 3 to build, the main cost implication being the cost of a new control system plus a hand full of  decoders. At the club many use standard decoders and control systems rather than the larger 7 mm systems needed for larger locos and multiple units on at the same time

 

I have a large choice of controllers for DC use ranging from old fashoned H&M to Compspeed, Codar etc with inertia

 

The simple question is taking sound out of the equation what benefits would DCC give me over the inertia system I have please.

 

I have a Beamo loco which had a chip installed, worked on DC and had a wonderful slow start and stop mode or working until the chip was removed, on the other hand a fellow club member who uses DCC warned me off a bit unless I wanted sound, he said if were not for sound he would have reverted back to DC 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

Touchscreens are elegant in principle but in practice I find they can be a bit annoying. I'm sure everyone is familiar with this sort of experience: Tap <nothing happens>, Tap again <a little animation is shown but you missed the button you were trying to click>, Tap again <the display scrolls, not what you wanted>, Tap again <Finally! The button activates>.

 

 

Personally I don't like touch screen controls, my layout is still controlled with a keyboard/mouse/DCC handset (with rotary knob)

I do have the Roco Z21 app on a tablet, but it is not my main means of control.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I am just about to start a new layout in 7mm scale, a small branch line terminus, which in reality would have been one engine in steam, but being a modeller I guess at times there may be two. In someways I seen the benefit of DCC especially with sound, however if I do start off with DCC it wont be with sound chips. I have 4 locos at the moment (1 x RTR 3 x kit built) plus 3 to build, the main cost implication being the cost of a new control system plus a hand full of  decoders. At the club many use standard decoders and control systems rather than the larger 7 mm systems needed for larger locos and multiple units on at the same time

 

I have a large choice of controllers for DC use ranging from old fashoned H&M to Compspeed, Codar etc with inertia

 

The simple question is taking sound out of the equation what benefits would DCC give me over the inertia system I have please.

 

I have a Beamo loco which had a chip installed, worked on DC and had a wonderful slow start and stop mode or working until the chip was removed, on the other hand a fellow club member who uses DCC warned me off a bit unless I wanted sound, he said if were not for sound he would have reverted back to DC 

 

 

 

Ask a friend for some time operating their layout & try running a 2 locos up & down a short length of track. I was really sceptical & had to buy a cheap DCC 'troller & 2 chips to try it but this didn't cost a lot. I liked the freedom of running trains completely independently of each other without having any section breaks to worry about. Within 5 minutes, I found myself wanting to experiment with acceleration.

If after 15 minutes you really don't see much difference, then it probably isn't for you.

 

If your layout is intended to be for just 1 or 2 locos*, then you don't have to choose DC or DCC now. Isolate all points & feed all sidings from section switches. I would recommend this as good practice for any layout.

If you want to use DCC, simply close all the switches & you will have converted the layout to DCC.

 

*With a larger layout, you should consider a DCC bus with higher current capacity, but this is overkill for a small layout with low current requirements.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
38 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I am just about to start a new layout in 7mm scale, a small branch line terminus, which in reality would have been one engine in steam, but being a modeller I guess at times there may be two. In someways I seen the benefit of DCC especially with sound, however if I do start off with DCC it wont be with sound chips. I have 4 locos at the moment (1 x RTR 3 x kit built) plus 3 to build, the main cost implication being the cost of a new control system plus a hand full of  decoders. At the club many use standard decoders and control systems rather than the larger 7 mm systems needed for larger locos and multiple units on at the same time

 

I have a large choice of controllers for DC use ranging from old fashoned H&M to Compspeed, Codar etc with inertia

 

The simple question is taking sound out of the equation what benefits would DCC give me over the inertia system I have please.

 

I have a Beamo loco which had a chip installed, worked on DC and had a wonderful slow start and stop mode or working until the chip was removed, on the other hand a fellow club member who uses DCC warned me off a bit unless I wanted sound, he said if were not for sound he would have reverted back to DC 

 

 

It rather depends on how many actual track sections there are going to be.

If it is a really simple layout not a lot of benefit from DCC IMHO.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Space available dictates a simple track plan, also it would be very easy to alter the wiring to a dedicated DCC system, I think the main mover is if I ever decide to go over to requiring sound from my locos

 

Just out of interest how much would it cost to fit the hardware to convert a loco form DC to DCC sound please 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...