Does anyone have a feel for the percentage of active UK modellers who run DCC layouts?

[Dunsignalling]

13 minutes ago, john new said:

That option of propelling back the uncoupled cut is one to try.  May need to put an extra set of magnets into the straight part of the point for siding three. Buying the Kadees for a trial is a future project but the magnets can be fitted now, pre ballasting. 

Hi John,

 

I saw you on your SLS stand at Bridport (assuming you are the same John New), but didn't get chance to stop and talk.

 

I've been using Kadees for longer than bears thinking about and have fallen into and climbed out of most of the pitfalls. If you have any queries that arise from your trials don't hesitate to PM me. Note that, whilst most of the Kadee magnets allow pre-uncoupling, there are one or two that don't. Also that if your stock is light and free-running, you'll be better off using the electro-magnetic version. Unwanted uncoupling can and does take place over permanent magnets when locos hesitate and couplings lose tension.   

 

Regards

 

John

[Reorte]

23 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I agree, I can't see any real advantage in DCC without sound and TBH, with a few honourable exceptions, I've found that even that only really holds my attention for the ten or fifteen minutes I spend looking at most exhibition layouts. As with any other aspect of modelling it has to be done well if it is to truly enhance the whole.

 

I started with DCC mostly for the wiring, so no having to worry about isolating sections and keeping different locos in them, only need to control the points and signals and drive the trains. I doubt I'd be tempted to switch if I'd already had a significant amount of DC stock on a DC layout though. I tried one sound loco but I wasn't all that convinced (sounds more convincing on diesel than steam), I eventually messed something up anyway and fried the decoder, so I don't use it for that.

[john new]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Hi John,

 

I saw you on your SLS stand at Bridport (assuming you are the same John New), but didn't get chance to stop and talk.

 

I've been using Kadees for longer than bears thinking about and have fallen into and climbed out of most of the pitfalls. If you have any queries that arise from your trials don't hesitate to PM me. Note that, whilst most of the Kadee magnets allow pre-uncoupling, there are one or two that don't. Also that if your stock is light and free-running, you'll be better off using the electro-magnetic version. Unwanted uncoupling can and does take place over permanent magnets when locos hesitate and couplings lose tension.   

 

Regards

 

John

Yes, it was me at Bridport. Thanks for the offer. 

 

A bit like Reorte above - "I started with DCC mostly for the wiring, so no having to worry about isolating sections and keeping different locos in them, only need to control the points and signals and drive the trains....... I tried one sound loco but I wasn't all that convinced (sounds more convincing on diesel than steam)...." Re sound agree.

 

In my case a low three figure lottery win allowed me to buy the DCC kit as a trial with no budgetary consequences. Without that, given my extensive fleet of older DC locos,  I doubt I would have switched yet; however, for the long term I suspect DCC will take over almost completely for new hobby entrants. I will also go so far as to speculate that at some point there will be a change over to DCC installed being the norm on r-t-r, at least with those manufacturers who also supply own-brand chips, and DC modellers will need to buy and fit the blanking plugs. Why, demand and the fact that it will be as easy to fit a chip during production as a blanking plug. My W-I-P layout can already be run one-engine in steam/diesel in throb on DC or DCC, the hassle to come will be wiring all the droppers/sections  (currently cross-bonded at the feed point) to individual section switches to allow a second loco' on DC.

 

My experience so far is that DCC is definitely easier to wire for, I have yet to be convinced that selecting by a number on the handset will be easier than switching a section switch to energise/move a loco, but it does give some flexibility with where you can position your locomotives when running more than one. As for sound, I've yet to hear a convincing DCC steam loco at a show but some of the diesel sounds are well done. A shunting layout with a sound equipped 08 on it I saw recently was convincing for the loco noises but it lacked all the other ambient sounds you hear when actually at the line-side. Sound - not for me currently.

Edited July 30, 2019 by john new

[PatB]

19 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Kadees faithfully ape the prototype knuckle-coupler, in that curves are a pain, it’s true. I recall at Purley, where buckeye-coupled trains were split and joined twice every hour, so the staff were ‘on it’, there would occasionally be delays when the kit just refused to play.

 

I take it that the major delay was retrieving the rear half of the train from the fiddleyard where it bounced when the coupliings didn't mate ;-).

[Dungrange]

On 27/07/2019 at 13:45, Stentor said:

Does anyone have a feel for the percentage of active UK modellers who run DCC layouts?

 

I think the problem is, how many of us actually know a statistically representative sample of "active UK modellers".  

 

On 27/07/2019 at 13:52, AY Mod said:

My feel for it, photographing exhibition and home layouts which are levels above 'train set', is that it's about 60/40 in favour of DCC these days as a whole. Towards the scratch/kit built stock 'finescale' end though I would say it's 75/25 in favour of DC.

 

I've seen the figure of a 60/40 split in favour of DCC before and looking at layouts in an exhibition hall and reading magazine articles, that would seem a reasonable estimate, but I've no idea how representative that subset of modellers is of the market as a whole . 

 

All I can add is that DCC is much less popular in the club that I am a member of.  We currently have about 25 members, of which I'd say only two (ie eight percent) are committed DCC users (ie everything they own has a DCC chip in it).  One of these members is also a member of MERG.   There is about four of us (ie 16 percent), including myself, who are moving in that direction (ie I now have a DCC command station and a couple of chipped units, but most of my stock is still at this point in time DC).  The rest (around three quarters of club members) are all still exclusively DC users.   For that reason all of our club layouts are still DC controlled.  I think some of our members would consider switching to DCC if the club had a DCC layout for them to run stock on, but equally some have no interest in DCC.  Their reasons for sticking with DC include cost, but also because some already have a DC layout at home and a large collection of kit built locomotives and they simply see no benefit in changing at the point that they are at in life. 

 

However, I agree that the switch from DC to DCC will continue for the hobby as a whole.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Clearly none of us have a complete overview of activity. What I have observed among a circle of friends and acquaintance is that all that have decided to build a new layout over the last twenty years have gone DCC. But that's a limited sampling. 

 

This needs retailer input to gauge what take up they see. Some might even be able to exclude the pure collectors who simply don't need any control gear, as distinct from those foolish enough to actually operate their models, who do...

 

18 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

... I gave up on tension locks twenty-five years ago and I've yet to see anything that would tempt me back to using them...

That's before the Bachmann version of the miniature tension lock then, so the game has changed. I feel this has two major assets:

 

Appropriately positioned it allows a realistic loose coupled effect on SWB wagons, buffering up when pushed, pulling out to 2mm between bufferheads, with full protection against buffer locking down to 24" radius (and even smaller, lower limit not defined.)

 

Magnetic uncoupling is possible by the simple BK modification. (Using the Kadee magnetic uncouplers, which doubles the joy in my case as I also use Kadees for much of my passenger vehicle stock.)

[john new]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

....

 

That's before the Bachmann version of the miniature tension lock then, so the game has changed. I feel this has two major assets:

 

Appropriately positioned it allows a realistic loose coupled effect on SWB wagons, buffering up when pushed, pulling out to 2mm between bufferheads, with full protection against buffer locking down to 24" radius (and even smaller, lower limit not defined.)

....

Probably a contentious comment but a converse view - I find these new small couplings are what causes/exacerbates the problems of operating with tension locks. If you mix them with older ones the swing from the older, longer, hooks sometimes derails the newer vehicle. They may look better but the prime purpose of a coupling is to couple reliably and allow the pushing of a rake during shunting. Look is significant but it has to be a secondary to function.

 

The older Tri-ang/Hornby style (the screw on metal one's) may have been noticeable but they worked. Just a shame UK manufacturers have never swapped to either the continental hook and loop or Kadees, both less noticeable.

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by john new
To make better sense.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 minute ago, john new said:

Converse view - I find these new small couplings are what causes/exacerbates the problems of operating with tension locks. If you mix them with older ones the swing from the older, longer, hooks sometimes derails the newer vehicle...

I should have reiterated - no mixing of types whatsoever - as there is no standard tension lock coupler. In fact it is a complete mess, and I can state that determined by experiment the Bachmann and Hornby patterns of miniature tension lock are incompatible, if complete reliability is required.

 

Use a single manufacturer's pattern of miniature tension lock, and all is well. (My choice was Bachmann's because all the RTR wagon stock I was then purchasing was from their range, and their product now dominates my wagon fleet. The kit wagons, and all other manufacturer's product are fitted with the Bachmann pattern. It is reasonable to believe that similar reliability may be obtained by sole use of other manufacturer's miniature tension locks, but I have not tested this.)

 

Installation needs to be given the same attention to correct position as that necessary for Kadee: then you can have complete reliability.

 

The further modification I make to position the bumper bar face coplanar with the bufferhead faces requires a minimum radius greater than set track - my choice is 24" minimum radius -  and based on other experiments the smallest point I use is nominally 36" radius.

 

16 minutes ago, john new said:

... the prime purpose of a coupling is to couple reliably and allow the pushing of a rake during shunting. Look is significant but it has to be a secondary to function.

You have my total agreement.

 

With all that is described above in place, I can propel a train of sixty wagons through any point network all day long, and they stay on the rails. There is always at least one bufferhead on each wagon end in contact with a bufferhead on the adjacent wagon when propelling, but the bumper bar acts to positively prevent buffer locking.

 

Both looks good and works perfectly: it is attainable with miniature tension locks.

[Ian Morgan]

The Basingstoke club currently has 7 layouts being worked on by members:

 

An O gauge layout which is at baseboard stage, no track, awaiting more members interested in O gauge before making a decision on track standards (I did not realise there were so many different ones) and DCC or Analogue.

OO and N "Santa's Globetrotting Vacation", our Channel 5 Challenge Heat 3 layout. DCC for both gauges.

N gauge "Bridge Too Far" being constructed from our Channel 5 Challenge Final layout, Analogue.

2mmFS "Camford Junction", Analogue.

OO "Lulworth", Analogue.

OO "Beggarwood Lane", DCC.

OO9 "Lynton", DCC.

 

So, for club layouts, Analogue/DCC is 50%/50%, excluding the undecided O gauge layout.

 

[Andy Hayter]

Overlaid on Andy Y's perspective, I think we need to look at the fact that Hornby are now releasing some versions of their models as DCC only - and rumour has it that you need a DCC set up to reset the decoder so that it will work on DC.

 

Some of this may well be marketing push trying to convert DC modellers to DCC*, but I doubt it would have any traction if there was no market pull.

 

* Far too late for me with my stock of locos I would need a couple of years modelling budget just to convert the stock, let alone rewire as required and purchase new controllers etc..

[Dunsignalling]

5 hours ago, john new said:

Probably a contentious comment but a converse view - I find these new small couplings are what causes/exacerbates the problems of operating with tension locks. If you mix them with older ones the swing from the older, longer, hooks sometimes derails the newer vehicle. They may look better but the prime purpose of a coupling is to couple reliably and allow the pushing of a rake during shunting. Look is significant but it has to be a secondary to function.

 

The older Tri-ang/Hornby style (the screw on metal one's) may have been noticeable but they worked. Just a shame UK manufacturers have never swapped to either the continental hook and loop or Kadees, both less noticeable.

 

I don't think it really matters what type of coupler one uses, the key to good performance lies in the pursuit of uniformity.

 

Just because the old large T/Ls from Hornby, Airfix and Lima, the medium Mainline/Dapol, and the small from most everybody will couple after a fashion, you, along with many others, have discovered they don't work properly together other than on straight track. Some of my T/L using friends even reckon the small ones only work really well if you keep to those produced by one maker. 

 

Me, I'll be sticking to Kadees in 4mm - they do everything I want and are pretty much maintenance free if installed properly.  Anyhow, after 25 years using them, I'm simply too far down that road to change even if I wanted to. However, I am experimenting with some of the Mini T/Ls I've removed on O gauge wagons, uncoupling manually by paddle. Waste not, want not.

 

 John 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[PatB]

10 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Me, I'll be sticking to Kadees in 4mm - they do everything I want and are pretty much maintenance free if installed properly.  Anyhow, after 25 years using them, I'm simply too far down that road to change even if I wanted to. However, I am experimenting with some of the Mini T/Ls I've removed on O gauge wagons, uncoupling manually by paddle. Waste not, want not.

 

 John 

 

I've often thought that TLs were worthy of wider consideration as an auto coupler for 0 gauge, being inexpensive, widely available and a lot less obtrusive in the larger scale. Not that I've ever done anything about it. Couplings only become important when you've got more than one vehicle to join together, something I've not yet managed in 7mm :D.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎31‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 12:46, john new said:

... Just a shame UK manufacturers have never swapped to either the continental hook and loop or Kadees, both less noticeable.

Bachmann have equipped UK stock with both their Kadee clone and the hook and loop.

 

Their Kadee clone through the bufferbeam of modern bogie wagons which are knuckle coupler equipped in reality. I rate these the best UK RTR wagon models available: a coupler that looks right, in the right location, it's a winner!

 

The hook and loop, is used on the inside ends of two car DMU's, presumably to encourage correct orientation coupling up? I don't find it superior in appearance to the miniature tension lock, if anything more obtrusive due to its solid bulk.

[The Johnster]

On 31/07/2019 at 13:15, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I should have reiterated - no mixing of types whatsoever - as there is no standard tension lock coupler. In fact it is a complete mess, and I can state that determined by experiment the Bachmann and Hornby patterns of miniature tension lock are incompatible, if complete reliability is required.

 

Use a single manufacturer's pattern of miniature tension lock, and all is well. (My choice was Bachmann's because all the RTR wagon stock I was then purchasing was from their range, and their product now dominates my wagon fleet. The kit wagons, and all other manufacturer's product are fitted with the Bachmann pattern. It is reasonable to believe that similar reliability may be obtained by sole use of other manufacturer's miniature tension locks, but I have not tested this.)

 

Installation needs to be given the same attention to correct position as that necessary for Kadee: then you can have complete reliability.

 

The further modification I make to position the bumper bar face coplanar with the bufferhead faces requires a minimum radius greater than set track - my choice is 24" minimum radius -  and based on other experiments the smallest point I use is nominally 36" radius.

 

You have my total agreement.

 

With all that is described above in place, I can propel a train of sixty wagons through any point network all day long, and they stay on the rails. There is always at least one bufferhead on each wagon end in contact with a bufferhead on the adjacent wagon when propelling, but the bumper bar acts to positively prevent buffer locking.

 

Both looks good and works perfectly: it is attainable with miniature tension locks.

I second the notion that no mixing of types is essential for proper operation of t/ls, or any other sort of coupling.  Problem with t/ls is that what is supposed to be a standard system is anything but, with different materials, hook profiles, bar profiles, sizes, and methods of mounting.  The best I've managed is to get the bar height above the rail standardised, and this with a lot of fiddling and faffing.  Most of my stock has Bachmann NEM couplings, but not all as it is impossible to mount them on older coach bogies.   Ultimate answer is to replace all my bogies with NEM pocket fitted ones, but this cannot be achieved until my eventual acquisition of a round tuit.

 

You also have to be careful of buffer locking when propelling.  All my stock can be propelled anywhere on the layout, but my minimum curvature is no.3 in the fiddle yard and there are no reverse curves this sharp.

[tomparryharry]

I've never had a problem with 'my' 3-link couplings.....

 

My eyes hurt sometimes though....

[Dunsignalling]

Just out of curiosity I've just had a rummage through my jar of removed mini tension locks. So far, I've found eight different sorts, half of which come from Bachmann, and that doesn't include their two screw-on varieties....

 

The ones I'm playing with for 7mm are flat with long steel hooks, Hornby I think, easy to separate from the rest using a magnet but I have found a small number of Bachmann [?] short, dropped loops with steel hooks, too.

 

Mounting will be via screw-on blocks/pockets taken from Bachmann wagons to which I have fitted #146 Kadees.  

 

John

Edited August 2, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[The Johnster]

Apart from the different profiles, tension locks have to be mounted in different ways on different vehicles, as mounting them on the buffer beams of bogie vehicles limits their function on setrack curves.  As there are no standard bogies despite the attempts of the companies and BR to institute them, there is no standard mounting method, as the bogies are different height above the railhead, are different lengths, and have differently placed pivots relative to the buffer beams, which themselves are different depths and have different clearance requirements.  

 

Please, don't tell me the answer is Kaydees.  I have yet to see an exhibition layout where these function to my satisfaction; there's always a bit of knocking the wagon back and forth before it uncouples properly and I've never seen 100% reliable coupling.  Kaydees are the right idea, though, with a 'standard' coupler with a variety of mounting options to cope with the above problems; NEM t/ls are heading that way but aren't quite there yet!  Both are just as ugly on British outline stock, but IMHO the t/l is less unacceptable on account of being less of a solid lump that draws attention to itself.  Mine are painted track colour and I am able to mentally 'tune them out' of my awareness to a possibly greater extent than I could do with Kaydees or Hornby Dublos. I'd considered Hornby Dublos at one time as they make lifting individual vehicles out of a train in the fiddle yard very easy.

 

My requirement is for a reliable coupling that will function on a no.3 curve hauled or propelled, automatically couples, and can be manually uncoupled at any point on the layout with a shunting pole.  AFAIK only t/ls meet this requirement, as Kaydees require access from above to manually uncouple and some of my stock has gangways which prevent this.

[Andy Hayter]

My French blt uses Kaydees and I can operate it without  the shuffling you describe.  My aversion to them is that they look far from prototypical but for function they work just fine.

[Dunsignalling]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Apart from the different profiles, tension locks have to be mounted in different ways on different vehicles, as mounting them on the buffer beams of bogie vehicles limits their function on setrack curves.  As there are no standard bogies despite the attempts of the companies and BR to institute them, there is no standard mounting method, as the bogies are different height above the railhead, are different lengths, and have differently placed pivots relative to the buffer beams, which themselves are different depths and have different clearance requirements.  

 

Please, don't tell me the answer is Kaydees.  I have yet to see an exhibition layout where these function to my satisfaction; there's always a bit of knocking the wagon back and forth before it uncouples properly and I've never seen 100% reliable coupling.  Kaydees are the right idea, though, with a 'standard' coupler with a variety of mounting options to cope with the above problems; NEM t/ls are heading that way but aren't quite there yet!  Both are just as ugly on British outline stock, but IMHO the t/l is less unacceptable on account of being less of a solid lump that draws attention to itself.  Mine are painted track colour and I am able to mentally 'tune them out' of my awareness to a possibly greater extent than I could do with Kaydees or Hornby Dublos. I'd considered Hornby Dublos at one time as they make lifting individual vehicles out of a train in the fiddle yard very easy.

 

My requirement is for a reliable coupling that will function on a no.3 curve hauled or propelled, automatically couples, and can be manually uncoupled at any point on the layout with a shunting pole.  AFAIK only t/ls meet this requirement, as Kaydees require access from above to manually uncouple and some of my stock has gangways which prevent this.

What you describe sounds like the operator not knowing where the magnets are. If it's not that, individual items of Kadee-fitted stock that so misbehave just aren't set up properly. if it all does it, the magnets haven't been set up properly or somebody has devised their own money-saving arrangement which clearly doesn't work.

 

Kadees actually do lock under tension which needs to be released before they will uncouple. Experienced users develop a knack of doing so as they bring the movement to a halt. Otherwise it's necessary to back up by all of a millimetre. The only time any greater shuffle should be required is after uncoupling when it is desired to propel the uncoupled vehicles without them becoming re-attached. This is because the open knuckles need to be separated before being brought together again over the magnet so as to stay that way. 

 

Kadees can be lifted out of a train in exactly the same way as HD couplers, which (as you say) makes fiddle yard operation much less of a fiddle. Also, sorting out the aftermath of a derailment is easy compared to T/Ls, the hooks of which seem capable of tying themselves into all manner of knots.  

 

If you want to fit mini-T/Ls to old bogie stock, NEM pockets are not essential, Bachmann do two different lengths of non-NEM coupler with the same mounting hole pattern as the old Tri-ang / Hornby large metal T/L and the Mainline plastic sort.

 

As for appearance, Kadees are narrower than the mini-est T/Ls and don't stick out so far. Agreed, they aren't prototypical for steam-age UK vehicles, but at least they resemble something used on some full-sized railways. My take is that real couplings are narrow and hang down under the middle of the buffer beam and so do my preferred Kadee #146s, though I find the NEM-fit ones rather less acceptable visually.

 

John    

Edited August 3, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[Reorte]

Loads of incompatible couplers - well, the model world's reflecting the prototype I suppose.

[GreenGiraffe22]

I have yet to venture into the world of DCC, when I was little at exhibitions I used to wonder how on earth people manage to have several trains on the same track and just make one move- witchcraft! :p

 

Alas, the bigger my collection gets the more expensive it's gonna be to DCC chip everything! Defo something I want to do though when I have a layout that's worth it. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎03‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 18:32, Dunsignalling said:

...As for appearance, Kadees ...  aren't prototypical for steam-age UK vehicles, but at least they resemble something used on some full-sized railways...

Alternative dessicated perception. The progressive railways of the UK adopted knuckle couplers from late C19th, and made its use general at the Grouping, and BR standardised on it for their gangwayed stock. So that's a good 70 years of steam age appropriateness for the model version.

 

On ‎03‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 18:32, Dunsignalling said:

What you describe sounds like the operator not knowing where the magnets are. If it's not that, individual items of Kadee-fitted stock that so misbehave just aren't set up properly. If it all does it, the magnets haven't been set up properly or somebody has devised their own money-saving arrangement which clearly doesn't work...   

Complete agreement. No fooling around: set up exactly as Kadee specify on all vehicles and operate to an appropriate standard (and really that means DCC in my opinion for the extremely reliable dead slow movement it provides) and the operation is very refined indeed.