DCC starting out - I'm not a techy but so far its been worth it!

[Neil]

On 01/11/2019 at 12:05, halsey said:

....  Quite simply DCC isn't for me as if the debate has shown anything its that it is far from straightforward and very techy - not my scene.

Modelling is not affected I shall carry on in the dark ages and be happy doing so - and £00's better off!!

 

I came to a similar decision a couple of years ago, though I had the benefit of being able to experience dcc on friends layouts. I used to be an electrician many years ago so am not intimidated by wiring and fault finding (in fact I generally do the debugging of awkward faults on my friends dcc layout) but I find it far easier to sort out problems on dc as there are fewer variables to contend with.

[rockershovel]

Depends what you are looking for. A short circuit caused by a leakage to Earth is a completely different thing to a short circuit caused by bringing two rails of opposite polarity together. 

[tigerburnie]

From a personal point of view, the type of layouts I have built would run perfectly on the analogue system, the locos would be cheaper to buy, also a larger selection of types of models in the rtr market and equipment cheaper to buy, but I wanted sound locos and as I said earlier, the way I have wired up my new dcc layout it is almost exactly the same as my old Great Central station analogue. Indeed now I no longer need to isolate loads of sections in the station with switches, the dcc layout wiring is simple by comparison. I should add that my points are not powered and neither are the 3 signals that the layout will require.

I think there are people who revel in playing trains and there are people who revel in building the layouts, I sort of sit on the fence, half and half so to speak.

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, RAF96 said:

 

That’s why they took all the useful gauges out of cars in the 60’s + and replaced them with ‘idiot’ lights.

A track tester will tell you its working or not, but a multi-meter will let you work out why.

And the title of the thread is.............I'm not a techy and hate it............

[WIMorrison]

4 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

And the title of the thread is.............I'm not a techy and hate it............

 

Having the right tools to fault find your layout isn't being techy, it is being sensible - not have the right tools is simply inviting difficulties which will lead to frustration and disappointment.

[Andymsa]

May I suggest this for those who are looking for non technical.

 

[Oldddudders]

9 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

 

Having the right tools to fault find your layout isn't being techy, it is being sensible - not have the right tools is simply inviting difficulties which will lead to frustration and disappointment.

You are right, of course. But do not underestimate the fog/fear factor which many otherwise highly-intelligent people face when confronted with the most basic tech. My late F-i-L was headmaster of a large secondary skool, sometime mover and shaker within the Central London Fabian Society, yet had no idea how to wire a mains plug. Drove a car but had no clue what was under the bonnet. 

[rockershovel]

31 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

You are right, of course. But do not underestimate the fog/fear factor which many otherwise highly-intelligent people face when confronted with the most basic tech. My late F-i-L was headmaster of a large secondary skool, sometime mover and shaker within the Central London Fabian Society, yet had no idea how to wire a mains plug. Drove a car but had no clue what was under the bonnet. 

 

Well, I do that; I simply don’t care what’s under the bonnet of my car, I just expect it to work. 

 

The club I’m a member of includes a number of oilfield and railway veterans, who will spend long periods exchanging at times, highly technical reminiscences; but don’t involve themselves at all in the more technical side of wiring, DCC etc. They are relaxing, and that’s not how they relax. 

[boxbrownie]

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Well, I do that; I simply don’t care what’s under the bonnet of my car, I just expect it to work. 

 

 

And if the OP could use DCC just like that he would be happy also 

[Oldddudders]

2 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

And if the OP could use DCC just like that he would be happy also 

And that makes it frustrating for some of us who 'get' the simplicity of the DCC principle, to see people put off by what seems complex to them. As we have already agreed, a decently-wired DC layout will take DCC with very few mods indeed. But the fog descends once we talk about CVs - and that's before we get to the optional bolt-ons like radio and PC connections, discussion of which leaves the already-uncertain completely baffled and wary.

 

I must also say that DCC isn't cheap if you already have a sizeable stud of locos to convert. That alone will inhibit conversion among people with other financial responsibilities in life. 

[rockershovel]

15 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

And that makes it frustrating for some of us who 'get' the simplicity of the DCC principle, to see people put off by what seems complex to them. As we have already agreed, a decently-wired DC layout will take DCC with very few mods indeed. But the fog descends once we talk about CVs - and that's before we get to the optional bolt-ons like radio and PC connections, discussion of which leaves the already-uncertain completely baffled and wary.

 

I must also say that DCC isn't cheap if you already have a sizeable stud of locos to convert. That alone will inhibit conversion among people with other financial responsibilities in life. 

 

I was greatly put off by the blizzard of technobabble surrounding DCC, and the bickering between cliques that goes with it. The only thing I can say about the MERG group at my present club, is that I learnt nothing useful from them; but once someone took it upon themselves to fit a second (Gaugemaster) socket to the test track, and sort out the NEC controller (which needed rebooting) then a number of members made use of it, and it actually proved quite easy to get people going on a “push this button, then this one” basis. I’m sure most of them aren’t using anything like its full capacity, but it is proving useful to them, and it’s there for anyone who wants it. 

 

Conversion later, often costs more than starting out on the intended course. No surprises there. 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by rockershovel

[boxbrownie]

7 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

And that makes it frustrating for some of us who 'get' the simplicity of the DCC principle, to see people put off by what seems complex to them. As we have already agreed, a decently-wired DC layout will take DCC with very few mods indeed. But the fog descends once we talk about CVs - and that's before we get to the optional bolt-ons like radio and PC connections, discussion of which leaves the already-uncertain completely baffled and wary.

 

Absolutely correct, it can be simple but it can get very confusing for the newcomer when the complexity of the advanced features are put forward as being “a piece of cake”, some people just cannot or don’t want to get into the technical side, the same issue arises often with the larger scales talking of kit building a Loco from a box of brass Sheets and castings, a lot of posts say the skills will come eventually, some people just will never get those skills or don’t want to, either because their brain doesn’t work like that or they can’t be arsed to (what they see) waste their time burning fingers and annoying the wife even more.

[WIMorrison]

 A person who actually knows how anything works can describe it in the language that the recipient of the information needs to hear to understand it. The people who don't actually understand what they are talking about generally fill the conversation with buzz words which only serve to complicate the subject under discussion.

 

This is also true for DCC model railways and is demonstrated on here quite often

[rockershovel]

Indeed. One of the members at my club builds rather striking O Gauge brass kits, and I can only admire his skill, he being a time-served tradesman who has, in his time, fitted plaques to the FA Cup and built circuit boards for BAe. 

 

I could never learn that, in any realistic time, partly because I would never get the necessary tuition and oversight while learning. 

 

Then again, he knows absolutely nothing about positioning systems for offshore construction, nor does he care. 

[rockershovel]

2 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

 A person who actually knows how anything works can describe it in the language that the recipient of the information needs to hear to understand it. The people who don't actually understand what they are talking about generally fill the conversation with buzz words which only serve to complicate the subject under discussion.

 

This is also true for DCC model railways and is demonstrated on here quite often

 

I venture to disagree. Writing technical procedures and reports in an intelligible fashion, particularly Procedures to be followed by non-specialists  is a skill which, in my experience, few engineers possess. 

 

Writing technical documents which are undoubtedly technically correct, but incapable of being followed by anyone not possessing the ability to write the document themselves, is a much more common accomplishment. That’s why Technical Writers make a living. 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by rockershovel

[Crosland]

18 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Yes, but.... no, not really. Short circuits sometimes appear as “nothing works”, because the circuit breaker of the transformer trips out, or the wires to the track connector overheat.

 

 

You don't connect any power when laying the track! You use the tester (multimeter or battery and buzzer/LED) to test for shorts as you go. Just leave it connected all the time as you lay the track. If you create a short between the bus wires then the alarm will sound.

[Crosland]

50 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

a decently-wired DC layout will take DCC with very few mods indeed.  

 

Indeed, but too many modellers appear to be cheap skates and will skimp on the wiring, etc., even down to not fitting a 1p resistor to an LED. The old "It's OK, because it works for me" argument.

 

Comparing like-for-like layout size and complexity a DCC layout WILL be simpler to wire. No forest of wires coming back to the section switches on the control panel, for one thing. No worrying about isolated windings on the transformers and/or common return wiring for the multiple controllers that will be required on all but the simplest layout.

 

The only real difference is that DCC *requires* *decent* wiring, once you get past the simplest layout. Something that we should all strive for regardless of chosen technology.

 

 

[Neil]

2 hours ago, Crosland said:

 

.... Comparing like-for-like layout size and complexity a DCC layout WILL be simpler to wire. No forest of wires coming back to the section switches on the control panel, for one thing. No worrying about isolated windings on the transformers and/or common return wiring for the multiple controllers that will be required on all but the simplest layout....

 

 

 

In theory yes but in practice not really. If you wish to use live frog points then the wiring to switch these is the same. If you use point motors then they too require feeds (even those controlled by dcc). Large layouts will require multiple feeds to the track from the layout bus. It may require more than one power district so further wires. My mate has a large layout under construction (dcc) which is festooned with wires under the boards, my slightly smaller (full sized garage) layout (dc cab control) will end up with a similar number of feeds per square foot once complete. It's just that the wires will do different things.

 

Dcc comes into its own for features like sound and controllable lighting; if like me these aren't on the list of desirable features then dcc may not be for you. However if these are on the wanted list then it probably is the way forward.

[rockershovel]

21 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

In theory yes but in practice not really. If you wish to use live frog points then the wiring to switch these is the same. If you use point motors then they too require feeds (even those controlled by dcc). Large layouts will require multiple feeds to the track from the layout bus. It may require more than one power district so further wires. My mate has a large layout under construction (dcc) which is festooned with wires under the boards, my slightly smaller (full sized garage) layout (dc cab control) will end up with a similar number of feeds per square foot once complete. It's just that the wires will do different things.

 

Dcc comes into its own for features like sound and controllable lighting; if like me these aren't on the list of desirable features then dcc may not be for you. However if these are on the wanted list then it probably is the way forward.

 

It does a lot more than that. I spent a couple of afternoons at the club test track, working out a move by which a banker moved up to the rear of a moving train, simulated banking for a while, then dropped back. I can’t envisage how that would be done using DC analogue control. The Louth MPD layout comes to mind, with multiple engines on multiple tracks around the turntable - I’m sure that’s possible in analogue, but DCC is so much simpler. 

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

 

It does a lot more than that. I spent a couple of afternoons at the club test track, working out a move by which a banker moved up to the rear of a moving train, simulated banking for a while, then dropped back. I can’t envisage how that would be done using DC analogue control. The Louth MPD layout comes to mind, with multiple engines on multiple tracks around the turntable - I’m sure that’s possible in analogue, but DCC is so much simpler. 

And that is one of the key attractions for those who envisage complex operations on their layout - the ability to bring locos together, or to part them, or to operate them in multiple/tandem as described, anywhere on the layout, which DC only allows if section blocks are designed to permit that. The current popularity of TMD layouts, which can take up relatively little space but be packed with locos, is a classic example of a layout where DCC wins over DC - moving locos up and back, relative to each other, is easy. 

[Happy Hippo]

On 21/10/2019 at 15:23, halsey said:

Taking both comments together - if you look at the layout referred to in the "links" at the bottom of my posts that will give you an idea of my layout expectations esp the early stuff re layout design and wiring

I have no problem with "blunt" - I'll be blunt if DCC wont save on wiring (volume and complexity) then I'll probably pass.

I don't do shows but have identified a dealer in Holt Fleet Worcester - "DCC supplies.com" anyone know them??

DCC Supplies are very good

 

I physically went to their shop for advice  before I took the decision to go DCC.

 

I played with various systems and got unbiased advice based on what my requirements at the time were.

 

I went away and thought about it and then went back and bought a Powercab starter system.

 

The Powercab suited me, and my friends who later started using DCC also bought these having used mine.  However, they don't suit everyone, so my recommendation would always be to try various systems and pick the best to suit you......It might not be the cheapest, but it is going to be a considerable initial investment.

 

When I want any DCC components, DCC Supplies remain my first port of call.

 

The Powercab, originally bought for a 4mm project now powers my O gauge Railway.

 

Despite only being a 2 amp system, I've had no problems in running two or three sound fitted tank locos.

 

The current layout I'm building has no cross board connections.  The pair of latch type baseboard connectors each carrying on side of the  power bus bar. (all the points and signals being on one of the two boards.

 

I have trouble with touch screens due to nerve damage, so I'd never consider going to use a  touch screen phone as a throttle.  Likewise at exhibitions, I'm wary of such as signals can be a bit iffy.

 

 

 

 

[halsey]

I'm still here and wondering about DCC

 

A simple question to which, if you can, some simple answers please.

 

If I went down the DCC route but didn't want to motorize points or signals etc just wanted loco sound and to mix locos on the same track is the track wiring simpler or not and is there more or less of it?

 

I accept it may do different things that's not the question for now...……...

 

As the track is being laid is there still a need for isolated joints and again are there more or less of these??

 

These may seem like odd questions but the answers will help my final decision process

 

I have the possibility of going to DCC supplies next week.

 

Thanks

Edited November 11, 2019 by halsey

[WIMorrison]

If you mean mix DC and DCC locos on the same track then the answer is NO, you cannot do that.

 

Track wiring for DCC is no different to wiring the track for DC

Edited November 11, 2019 by WIMorrison
Correcting auto-corrections

[halsey]

2 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

If you mean mix DC and DCC locos on the same track then the answer is NO, you cannot do that.

 

Track wiring for DCC is no different to wiring the track for DC

Thanks - I do understand that its DCC or DC and not mixed - wiring comment appreciated.

 

[WIMorrison]

You can run DCC locos in DC track but not vice versa

 

a quick way to get up and running is to build the layout as DC but following good practices for DCC and gradually convert all your locos to DCC, initially running them all on DC. When you have enough DCC enabled then you simply switch command stations and start using DCC