To DCC or not?

[Andymsa]

9 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

Only the same if somehow the extent of wiring is the same - suspect the 12 tortoises all cabled back to a dac20 are going to loose a lot more wires than 12 cobalts connected to an adjacent bus.

 

I mount the dacs local to the points they control 

[trustytrev]

Hello,

       Much has been said about the cost of converting locomotives to DCC. I have  some DC locomotive but do not intend changing them to DCC because they are obsolete, crude, inaccurate or no longer fit in with my requirements.

I will hopefully sell them in the future to someone whom finds them satisfactory. By the numbers of more up to date realistic more accurate models being sold I would suggest this is a route many follow.

At risk of this disappearing was that not the fate of clockwork ? In these times I would suggest DCC controlled locomotive are more desirable than plain DC for exactly the same reasons more features. Track/layout control is a separate subject whether using DCC or DC so should not be a factor really.

trustytrev.

[Ravenser]

7 hours ago, melmerby said:

Using the diodes as in that diagram (lifted from Lenz!) works fine for the tortoise.

The main bug is that only one output on an LS150 can be operated at a time and you have to wait for it to finish before the next one operates.

You need between 3 & 4 seconds to move a tortoise from end to end.

If you have 5 points in a ladder that can be up to 20 secs for all of them to throw.

(I've got 7 in a row on one part of my layout) [Emphasis added]

 

Using something like a Switch-8 all outputs can be operated in quick succession and as a soon as the command has been sent the next output can operate. Result: almost simultaneous movement of lots of points.

This would also apply when using individual digital Cobalts.

 

You cannot get away with just diodes and/or resistors when using a 12v DC device like the DR4018 without losing considerable output voltage

Using a 2 resistor, 2 diode, 2 transistor arrangement a sort of flip-flop can be created with full 12 volts applied either way round to the tortoise.

 

Ah-ha!

 

We were bit - and after 10 years, I now know what it was, and not the "you've overloaded the auxiliary transformer" claimed by the "electrical guru" at the time.

 

Hence replacing motor drive (not Tortoise) with Hoffmann/Conrad resolved the issue , since those don't take 3-4 secs to throw.....

[Tallpaul69]

I think it is time, as Lord Sugar says on the Apprentice, for me to summarise:-

 

So I think the summary of the advice is:-

 

Use DCC only for the control of the trains

Have separate DCC circuits for areas (districts) so that if there is a fault the whole model does not stop working and it is easier to find the fault.

Isolation is not necessary to hold multiple trains on each of the fiddle yard lines, the digital addressing takes care of this.

In the case of my model, this could be 3 districts:- up line, down line, and branch

Retain isolated sections in dead ends

Control points, signals, and uncoupling by conventional solenoids, wiring and switches as the cost of the wiring saved using digital is less than the cost of the accessory modules.

Use a conventional mimic diagram rather than an electronic one on a laptop

Try to look in detail at an existing DCC layout similar to what I propose.

Try to view if only on a simple shop layout a number of different makes of DCC controller and chip(both sound and non sound).

Non DCC locos can be used with DC controllers on a DCC layout but at changeover care must be taken to remove the non DCC locos before running under DCC or to remove the DCC locos before running under DC

 

I have the following thoughts:-

 

I still cannot see how the reduction in wiring for power to the tracks is going to offset the cost of chipping my locos, so I have to decide whether the benefits of digital are worth the extra cost of getting my locos chipped.

In DCC I have a problem with stopping trains in correct place in the fiddle yard tracks that hold a queue of three trains. (Isolated sections do this in DC). This area will be behind me when I am sat in the operating position, so difficult to see, and not part of the “real world” of my model. 

Uncoupling needs to be related to places on the layout not specific items of rolling stock so the digital uncoupling of specific stock doesn’t really work for me. My intention is to use small tension lock couplers.

What size would a mimic be, would it be a lot bigger if it had switches mounted in it or smaller if it uses stud and probe?

 

Lastly, and this is my problem which you cannot help me with:-

In the light of the last point in the above summary of the advice, I need to try to find an area of the house where I can set up a separate small layout for my vintage locos and stock so that the main layout can be DCC track only.  

 

Many thanks to all who have contributed

Best regards

Paul

[Chris M]

Sounds like you won't gain a lot from DCC but you might lose a bit drawing trains forward in the storage sidings. 

Megapoints do a mimic that works for all types of control. It may be worth looking into.

[shiny]

 

1 hour ago, Tallpaul69 said:

I think it is time, as Lord Sugar says on the Apprentice, for me to summarise:-

 

So I think the summary of the advice is:-

 

Use DCC only for the control of the trains No. re-read advice given in thread regarding accessory and points decoders on DCC (or chosen system).

Have separate DCC circuits for areas (districts) so that if there is a fault the whole model does not stop working and it is easier to find the fault. Yes

Isolation is not necessary to hold multiple trains on each of the fiddle yard lines, the digital addressing takes care of this. Yes

In the case of my model, this could be 3 districts:- up line, down line, and branch Yes. If you want - that sounds fine. Add another district for point motors and accessory decoders for reliability if going DCC route.

Retain isolated sections in dead ends Yes/no/maybe. Depends why - you never said.

Control points, signals, and uncoupling by conventional solenoids, wiring and switches as the cost of the wiring saved using digital is less than the cost of the accessory modules. Cost? maybe. Complexity? no. Show track plan and include where panels are please. Who mentioned uncouplers? Labour costs for building it that way will be a significant factor unless you are willing to do it yourself.

Use a conventional mimic diagram rather than an electronic one on a laptop No - unless you want to. Or use both - doesn't matter.

Try to look in detail at an existing DCC layout similar to what I propose. Yes. look for one or more similar features. Or having different features for comparison. Can be any shape or size or complexity - doesn't matter at this stage - you're gathering actionable intel. Ask them about it - they will tell you.

Try to view if only on a simple shop layout a number of different makes of DCC controller and chip(both sound and non sound). Yes. Advice invaluable, you only buy what you need - no waste. And will warn you if "extras" are needed to make the stuff work.

Non DCC locos can be used with DC controllers on a DCC layout but at changeover care must be taken to remove the non DCC locos before running under DCC Yes. or to remove the DCC locos before running under DC No. DCC locos will run fine on DC.

 

I have the following thoughts:-

 

I still cannot see how the reduction in wiring for power to the tracks is going to offset the cost of chipping my locos, so I have to decide whether the benefits of digital are worth the extra cost of getting my locos chipped. That is for you and builders to work out. But you are basing this on a very dodgy assumption to begin with. Try asking a plasterer why he asks for £100 to slap a tenner's worth of plaster up onto a wall. You are paying for his time, skill, experience and costs of running his business (heat, rent, tools, stock, taxation, pension etc etc) with the expectation it will be done properly - the cost of parts are insignificant compared to that.

In DCC I have a problem with stopping trains in correct place in the fiddle yard tracks that hold a queue of three trains. (Isolated sections do this in DC). This area will be behind me when I am sat in the operating position, so difficult to see, and not part of the “real world” of my model. You never asked. Use a cheap CCTV camera and monitor.

Uncoupling needs to be related to places on the layout not specific items of rolling stock so the digital uncoupling of specific stock doesn’t really work for me. My intention is to use small tension lock couplers. You never mentioned that. Try asking.

What size would a mimic be, would it be a lot bigger if it had switches mounted in it or smaller if it uses stud and probe? Not necessarily. Use any method you please, mix and match to your heart's desire. But don't forget to add isolating switches to mimic for DC. And signals. What about LEDs? You're being too general - ask about specifics.

 

Lastly, and this is my problem which you cannot help me with:-

In the light of the last point in the above summary of the advice, I need to try to find an area of the house where I can set up a separate small layout for my vintage locos and stock so that the main layout can be DCC track only.  Why? What makes you think that the trains will run any better on a layout you build - especially using same code 100 track and points as professionally built main layout? Sounds like you are wasting money doing that.

 

Many thanks to all who have contributed

Best regards

Paul

 

Sit down again, re-read the advice. and look at your design again. Some very dodgy assumptions being made there..

Start separate threads and ask more detailed questions. Avoid witholding information and avoid being vague. Questions like "item x - thoughts? comments? drawbacks?" are not good questions to ask. Try "what can I use on DCC and DC to uncouple Hornby tension locks?" etc. Better and more focussed responses will ensue.

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by shiny
missed a bit

[newbryford]

On ‎26‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 09:19, melmerby said:

But they wont control Tortoises or analogue Cobalts without these adaptors:

https://www.digikeijs.com/en/dr4101-switch-motor-interface.html

That's another £30

 

There's also the DCCconcepts version

https://www.dccconcepts.com/product/dcc-decoder-converter-3-wire-to-2-wire-6-pack/

[Junctionmad]

I can’t possibily imagine why you would want isolated sections in DCC , it defeats the whole point of DCC 

 

in a big layout wiring and inter board connectors of good quality are expensive . But yes you are right , DCC conversion of your locos , of you do them all will be the overriding cost and will be considerable , no matter how you crumble the cookie 

 

you can control point and signals etc from DCC and gain simplicity from not having to runs loads of wires. However I would suggest you always need a mimic panel , but this can be physical or virtual and still be DCC 

 

or you can implement a layout control bus , which is separate to DCC 

 

Dave 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Junctionmad

[Andymsa]

4 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

I can’t possibily imagine why you would want isolated sections in DCC , it defeats the whole point of DCC 

 

Dave 

 

One use I use an isolation section in dcc is where I have my traverser. I can have up to 25 locos at this location and it just saves on them all drawing valuable booster power. Of course this wouldn't work if sound is required but do I want 25 locos all at idol.

[shiny]

39 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

I can’t possibily imagine why you would want isolated sections in DCC , it defeats the whole point of DCC 

 

Dave 

 

A bunch of TTS equipped locos parked up behind me making a racket? Abso-bloody-lutely those tracks should be isolated. Preferably permanently. And put somewhere else / buried in concrete..

 

Seriously though, I can think of one reason.

OP has already mentioned his extremely poor eyesight and anticipated difficulties lining trains up accurately. If he is going to have trouble seeing the buffer stops from his seated position in the first place, an isolated section seems to be a fairly straightforward and sensible way of stopping trains before they go hurtling through the buffer stops and onto the floor.

Not much use if he drives the entire train in backwards though or if the section is too short. Or the loco has a stay alive unit.

 

But definitely a sensible way of stopping a loco, especially if it has gone rogue - or the OP simply makes a mistake.

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by shiny

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

I think it is time, as Lord Sugar says on the Apprentice, for me to summarise:-

 

So I think the summary of the advice is:-

 

Use DCC only for the control of the trains   [Using DCC to control points etc will significantly reduce the wiring - resulting in a significant saving in man-hour - and a reduction in cost. The extra man-hours involved with analogue point control will probably be far greater than the extra cost of the DCC equipment]

Have separate DCC circuits for areas (districts) so that if there is a fault the whole model does not stop working and it is easier to find the fault.  Yes 

Isolation is not necessary to hold multiple trains on each of the fiddle yard lines, the digital addressing takes care of this. Correct

In the case of my model, this could be 3 districts:- up line, down line, and branch  . Seems the best division

Retain isolated sections in dead ends  [Why?]

Control points, signals, and uncoupling by conventional solenoids, wiring and switches as the cost of the wiring saved using digital is less than the cost of the accessory modules. [ Not when you cost in the man-hours needed to do the wiring. An extra 8-10 manhours work will probably wipe out any saving in equipment costs] 

Use a conventional mimic diagram rather than an electronic one on a laptop  [ A laptop mimic display will be vastly quicker to build - and so cheaper - , much more flexible, and more portable. If you want a mimic display, I think this is better done under DCC]

Try to look in detail at an existing DCC layout similar to what I propose.

Try to view if only on a simple shop layout a number of different makes of DCC controller and chip(both sound and non sound).

Non DCC locos can be used with DC controllers on a DCC layout but at changeover care must be taken to remove the non DCC locos before running under DCC or to remove the DCC locos before running under DC

 

I have the following thoughts:-

 

I still cannot see how the reduction in wiring for power to the tracks is going to offset the cost of chipping my locos, so I have to decide whether the benefits of digital are worth the extra cost of getting my locos chipped. [ If you do your own work, and cost your time at zero per hour , it can't. If you are paying someone £40-50/hour , and building a DC control panel takes a week then the numbers look different. The question is whether the reduced bill from your builder outweights the cost of fitting decoders to the locos]

In DCC I have a problem with stopping trains in correct place in the fiddle yard tracks that hold a queue of three trains. (Isolated sections do this in DC). This area will be behind me when I am sat in the operating position, so difficult to see, and not part of the “real world” of my model. 

Uncoupling needs to be related to places on the layout not specific items of rolling stock so the digital uncoupling of specific stock doesn’t really work for me. My intention is to use small tension lock couplers.

What size would a mimic be, would it be a lot bigger if it had switches mounted in it or smaller if it uses stud and probe? [ It could be quite large - more so if switches are mounted on the panel. Take a look at photos of 1970s power signal boxes, and the panels the signalmen used] 

 

Lastly, and this is my problem which you cannot help me with:-

In the light of the last point in the above summary of the advice, I need to try to find an area of the house where I can set up a separate small layout for my vintage locos and stock so that the main layout can be DCC track only.  

 

Many thanks to all who have contributed

Best regards

Paul

 

[Clive Mortimore]

To date we haven't seen the track plan. You seem to want quite a few features that are by nature are also DC, power districts/ sections, isolating sections, traditional point control and a mimic/control panel. You also want to run the layout DC or build a second DC layout. Are you sure you want DCC?

 

Remember one of the DCC advisors said "simple DC layouts are just that , simple cheap and understandable at a basic level. That suits “ some “ people ( though less and less )"

 

Show us your proposed tack plan. Viewing it might make it easier to understand what you want.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[Junctionmad]

53 minutes ago, shiny said:

 

A bunch of TTS equipped locos parked up behind me making a racket? Abso-bloody-lutely those tracks should be isolated. Preferably permanently. And put somewhere else / buried in concrete..

 

err, you press F1 usually and the sounds goes off, why isolate 

 

if you dont like sound , you'll hate our club O gauge , 8-10 locos on the layout at any one time, all loud sound ( we attract people at  exhibitions !) 

 

 

[Junctionmad]

Quote

You seem to want quite a few features that are by nature are also DC, power districts/ sections, isolating sections, traditional point control and a mimic/control panel. 

These can be implemented in a number of ways including lots of DC/AC wiring , a layout control bus , or via DCC accessory decoders 

 

after all DCC is also DC !

[shiny]

18 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

err, you press F1 usually and the sounds goes off, why isolate 

 

if you dont like sound , you'll hate our club O gauge , 8-10 locos on the layout at any one time, all loud sound ( we attract people at  exhibitions !) 

 

 

I modified my original answer to suggest a reason why OP wishes to include it.

 

I really really really really hope I hate your O gauge, well engineered, painstakingly researched and built sound-equipped layout. The alternative is that I will love it - which I probably will, then I will want one - flog my OO stuff and blow my life savings on it. That worries me..

Hopefully one day I'll get to see it in the flesh. It sounds impressive.

 

Tongue in cheek comment and no offense meant to any sound users. And I do not advocate cruelty to trains in any form.

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by shiny

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Andymsa said:

 

One use I use an isolation section in dcc is where I have my traverser. I can have up to 25 locos at this location and it just saves on them all drawing valuable booster power. Of course this wouldn't work if sound is required but do I want 25 locos all at idol.

If they don't have sound the actual draw isn't that high.

I have 25 or more 4mm locos on the layout at a time and the total (non-moving) current consumption is in the order of 750mA (30mA per loco) and that includes some lighting in vehicles and buildings.

 

[Dungrange]

3 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

I think it is time, as Lord Sugar says on the Apprentice, for me to summarise:-

...

I still cannot see how the reduction in wiring for power to the tracks is going to offset the cost of chipping my locos, so I have to decide whether the benefits of digital are worth the extra cost of getting my locos chipped.

 

 

Ultimately, it's a case of doing some sums and without providing more details, no-one can really answer that.  However, it's not the costs of the wiring per se, but the labour costs from the time taken that are important.

 

It would not be unreasonable for a layout builder to charge say £250 per day (£30 per hour) and that means if your layout builder estimates that it would take them ten days to build and wire a DCC layout of the complexity that you envisage using off the shelf modules, then the labour cost would be £2,500.  The cost of materials would be over and above that.  However, to do the same thing in DC, may take them 20 days, in which case the labour cost would be £5,000.  The increase in time (and therefore costs) would be due to the more bespoke design of the electrical control (eg wiring of relays) in DC layout (a lot of DCC equipment is closer to being plug-and-play) along with the increased time spent soldering all the additional cross-baseboard wiring.  The more wiring you have, the more time will be spent on continuity checking when it comes to final checking before shipment to the customer.  Some of that potential £2,500 cost (time) saving of going DCC may be eroded by the additional cost of the accessory decoders, but you would probably still end up with a layout that might cost say £2,000 less than if the builder was to build something comparable but DC controlled.  That saving would arise solely due to a reduced build time.

 

A saving of say £2,000 would be sufficient to convert many analogue locomotives to DCC, but how many would depend on the quality of the decoders that you would want to fit and whether or not you would be doing that work yourself.  Using Budget chips at £10 each and doing the work yourself, you could chip your whole fleet from the savings from the layout build.  However, if you want to install better quality decoders and pay someone to fit them for you, then the savings of going DCC for the layout may only cover the cost of converting a quarter of your locomotive fleet.  Since you've already indicated that you would be paying someone else to fit locomotive decoders, I suspect that the DCC option will be higher overall.  The question that you have to ask yourself is whether you think the benefits of DCC are worth the extra costs.  To many on this forum, the answer is yes, but to others the answer is no.

[Andymsa]

2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

If they don't have sound the actual draw isn't that high.

I have 25 or more 4mm locos on the layout at a time and the total (non-moving) current consumption is in the order of 750mA (30mA per loco) and that includes some lighting in vehicles and buildings.

 

 

Thats nearly an amp of current being used on dormant locos. although I'm still yet to do power calculations, my layout has 6/7 boosters the command station powers only my signal modules. And with over 300 power hungry locos and railcars and lighted coaches aswell as resistors on wagons every Ma is important not to waste.

[Dungrange]

On 26/02/2019 at 12:24, Ravenser said:

My rule of thumb calculator says 60 points at £6 per output = £360 . On the other hand 200 loco  decoders @ £15 a pop (ie budget decoders) = £3000

 

Where on earth did this idea that accessory decoders would cost more than chipping the loco fleet come from??

 

 

I don't think anyone has said that the cost of accessory decoders would be more than the cost of locomotive decoders.  It was merely highlighted that much of the discussion had been about the cost of locomotive decoders without mentioning the costs of accessory decoders and £400 is still a lot of money.  I agree with your figures above, which indicate that the cost of converting the locomotive fleet could be ten times greater than the cost of the DCC accessory decoders.  However, I think it was correct that it was pointed out that the additional costs of DCC accessory decoders had not been mentioned. 

[Harlequin]

I have an uneasy feeling about this topic. It's generating huge amounts of (heated) discussion about the finer details of a layout that we have no evidence will ever become reality.

 

It doesn't feel right: 12ft by 8ft, with a need for 200 locos and 3 power districts?

 

[Ravenser]

14 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I have an uneasy feeling about this topic. It's generating huge amounts of (heated) discussion about the finer details of a layout that we have no evidence will ever become reality.

 

It doesn't feel right: 12ft by 8ft, with a need for 200 locos and 3 power districts?

 

 

 

I think the OP said he had/was hoping to run 5 periods , so that's 5 suites of stock at 40 locos each. I doubt it needs 40 locos to run it , but we all overbuy 

 

Three power districts arose  from a division between each mainline + a branch. It's probably not great practice to put the whole of a medium-sized double/triple track continuous circuit layout on a single power district

[shiny]

30 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I have an uneasy feeling about this topic. It's generating huge amounts of (heated) discussion about the finer details of a layout that we have no evidence will ever become reality.

 

It doesn't feel right: 12ft by 8ft, with a need for 200 locos and 3 power districts?

 

Agreed.

OP is clearly struggling to grasp the basics - that much is obvious. He started the thread by questioning the advice given to him by a professional layout builder - because he didn't understand what he was asking the professional to do. And judging by his most recent posting - still doesn't get it. Yet.

He hasn't done himself any favours either by being selective about what information he chooses to share.

Heated discussion about a dozen separate technical topics at once - whilst entertaining - are not going to help OP in any way shape or form if he doesn't understand what any of us are talking about. It just adds to the perception that xyz is over priced and over complicated. Whilst educational and informative to those who understand it - it is nothing more than noise as far as OP is concerned.

Anyway, chances are that said layout builder whose professional judgement was questioned - may read this and simply refuse to do business with him. If for no other reason than a customer who doesn't know what he is buying is going to be extremely unhappy with the finished product.

 

I vote Lock.

 

.

Edited February 27, 2019 by shiny

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

 

Ultimately, it's a case of doing some sums and without providing more details, no-one can really answer that.  However, it's not the costs of the wiring per se, but the labour costs from the time taken that are important.

 

It would not be unreasonable for a layout builder to charge say £250 per day (£30 per hour) and that means if your layout builder estimates that it would take them ten days to build and wire a DCC layout of the complexity that you envisage using off the shelf modules, then the labour cost would be £2,500.  The cost of materials would be over and above that.  However, to do the same thing in DC, may take them 20 days, in which case the labour cost would be £5,000.  The increase in time (and therefore costs) would be due to the more bespoke design of the electrical control (eg wiring of relays) in DC layout (a lot of DCC equipment is closer to being plug-and-play) along with the increased time spent soldering all the additional cross-baseboard wiring.  The more wiring you have, the more time will be spent on continuity checking when it comes to final checking before shipment to the customer.  Some of that potential £2,500 cost (time) saving of going DCC may be eroded by the additional cost of the accessory decoders, but you would probably still end up with a layout that might cost say £2,000 less than if the builder was to build something comparable but DC controlled.  That saving would arise solely due to a reduced build time.

 

A saving of say £2,000 would be sufficient to convert many analogue locomotives to DCC, but how many would depend on the quality of the decoders that you would want to fit and whether or not you would be doing that work yourself.  Using Budget chips at £10 each and doing the work yourself, you could chip your whole fleet from the savings from the layout build.  However, if you want to install better quality decoders and pay someone to fit them for you, then the savings of going DCC for the layout may only cover the cost of converting a quarter of your locomotive fleet.  Since you've already indicated that you would be paying someone else to fit locomotive decoders, I suspect that the DCC option will be higher overall.  The question that you have to ask yourself is whether you think the benefits of DCC are worth the extra costs.  To many on this forum, the answer is yes, but to others the answer is no.

So a DCC layout will cost less?

 

Again I will quote one of the DCC advisors "simple DC layouts are just that , simple cheap and understandable at a basic level. That suits “ some “ people ( though less and less )"

 

Everyone is shooting from the hip simply because we do not know what the target is. A new layout......5 periods......200 locos...... 12 feet by 8 feet..... 60 plus points......sorry this is a bit vague without a track plan.

This is my "simple" DC layout. It took less than a week to wire up. It works, and what is even better it is fun to operate. By myself I will only have three trains/light engines moving but with a second operator 4 is the practical maximum. 

 

Something that I should not be able to do on DC, four 2 car DMUs in multiple snaking across the station throat. All four powered. Sorry to offend people with some part made models but I enjoy modelling more than electronics......having worked for Marconi's.

 

Last weekend I was operating a shunting layout which was DCC operated. I just didn't get the hang of the inertia control, as soon as the train started I had to take of the power and apply the brake, it was pot luck if I stopped where I wanted to. Far harder than driving a real loco.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[Vecchio]

" I vote lock"

 

So if somebody askes the community for help and when people are giving unfortunately more than advice but also starting discussions between each other we should lock the thread ?

 

Do we need a minimum requirement in practical layout design, electrics, control systems and so on to be allowed to write here?

 

There is always the ignore this topic function - if you think it is not right for you - use it.

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Vecchio

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

......

 

Everyone is shooting from the hip simply because we do not know what the target is. A new layout......5 periods......200 locos...... 12 feet by 8 feet..... 60 plus points......sorry this is a bit vague without a track plan.

 

 

 

My strong suspicion about the situation:

 

- The OP has built up a large very miscellanous collection of locos/rolling stock over many years. This includes a little vintage H-D and Triang

- He now has a space 12' x 8' available to build the "dream layout" he has always promised himself on which to run his collection

- Because of eyesight limitations/age (he is 70) , he has decided to get this professionally built for him

- A trackplan - probably quite dense - for a double track continuous circuit layout with ? relief line / branch line has been drawn up and signed off

- The builder has now turned round and said "You know , if we did this DCC I could charge you quite a bit less than doing it in DC"

 

At this point , he has come on here and started the thread

 

The OP will no doubt be able to confirm /clarify.

 

Now the big issues are crawling out:

 

- The Triang is probably incompatible with modern Peco track (B2B too tight) . On the other hand the H-D would be compatible with Peco code 100 (which he has said he intends to use) - if he goes DC

- Half the fleet would require hard-wired DCC installations, and the OP isn't happy doing his own DCC-Ready installations , never mind hard-wiring

- The OP quite likes the idea of DCC Sound, but has realised the cost implications are huge on a fleet this big . Hence the interest in TTS

 

We've all be casually assuming Tortoises and Cobalts as point motors , but I suspect that solenoids may be specified to keep costs down  

 

I also suspect the spec may call for insulfrog points.

 

A professional build of the sort of "mighty wurlitzer" control panel required under DC would clearly take a lot of work, at a hefty cost per man-hour

 

The cost of professional installation of DCC decoders on 200 will also be very expensive, even without sound decoders