To DCC or not?

[RedgateModels]

I had a problem with one when new but that got replaced no problems. They have been fine since then. Fourgig does not get many outings though, so duty cycles are not as high as a home layout .....

[Oldddudders]

5 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Slow response to accelerator, spongy brakes?

Sounds more like the real thing to me.

 

BTW that actually seems more like problems with the kit than DCC itself, especially as you said they ran worse.

I can have instant start stop or gradual acceleration/deceleration depending on how things are set up.

 

 

 

Indeed so. You might have identical decoders in two locos, but their characteristics can be set to perform very differently. So the 350 hp DSL has a low top speed and instant stop/start, while the pacific has a high top-speed and is inhibited to slow acceleration irrespective of throttle setting. As I said just now, DCC can offer almost whatever you want. 

[WIMorrison]

9 minutes ago, RedgateModels said:

As I've said before, if you want best of both worlds with DCC point control try the Traintronics TT300 slow acting motors. They have DCC built in but can also be operated by an external push to make switch. I use them on Fourgig East, it's great to be able to set a route using the handset and a macro to fire off two or three points and signals etc but for a quick change if you are next to the button you can just press it and go

 

They are not cheap though ....

 

Cobalt IP Digital can also be operated by push button and DCC. They are also much more reliable (and can be bought cheaper than the TT300 :))

[Andymsa]

Having read all the posts I think the original poster must be totally confused. So my advice would be look at what you want to achieve, taking into account things you don't want to do now but may in the future. Look at the various Dcc systems some are better than others in there capabilities. Possibly build a small test layout if costs allow it. Your layout size and complexity is a factor if not that complex maybe DC might be better as you have over 200 locos to chip. Yes you can get decoders at a bargain price but you get what you pay for but the conversion costs have been conservative at best. I'm using DCC myself and love what can be done with it and there is nothing more relaxing than a beer in hand and just watching trains go by.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Andymsa

[Izzy]

15 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Implementing DCC for train control does not demand DCC control of points or signals. I have a fair-sized walkaround layout and such functions are very simply controlled from local switches on the layour facia. The faff of dialling up a point number to throw it quickly palled, so I have only a handful of those, and all can be worked by the simple local switch. MERG and others no doubt make mimic diagrams etc possible, but it isn’t an integral part of opting for DCC. DCC can be virtually whatever you want - but few people who have enjoyed a successful implementation will want to revert to DC. 

 

10 minutes ago, RedgateModels said:

As I've said before, if you want best of both worlds with DCC point control try the Traintronics TT300 slow acting motors. They have DCC built in but can also be operated by an external push to make switch. I use them on Fourgig East, it's great to be able to set a route using the handset and a macro to fire off two or three points and signals etc but for a quick change if you are next to the button you can just press it and go

 

They are not cheap though ....

 

Yes, that was the aspect I was trying to make. That the OP stated in the first post that he was told going DCC would be an cheaper option than what he uses at the present - DC, but it is doubtful that is the case. Different, yes, better, most probably, less costly........no.

 

Izzy

 

 

 

 

[F-UnitMad]

9 hours ago, trustytrev said:

Clockwork is ideal for people whom do not want to better themselves and wish to live in the past. Wind it up and let it go. Simple and ideal for Luddites.

trustytrev.

....and thus another interesting DC/DCC discussion is once again dragged down to the throwing insults level...   

 

[Vecchio]

Small summary from my point of view for the confused poster:

 

DCC brings you better driving performance, you can optimise the control to the motor you are using, you can add stay alive if there is room enough, the headlights stay on when you stop at the station, if you play around a bit you can also dim the lights when in the station, or switch off the side where the train is coupled or add cab lights. Using the right decoder you can use servos or memory wires to add extra functionality like automatic de-coupling or moving pantographs, the limit is your phantasy.

And of course there is sound, for those who want (and can afford) it. I use DCC since 2005 (cannot exactly remember the year...) and I do not want to miss it.

 

Point control: chose what you like, as many others wrote pure DCC may be fiddly and complicated. If you have point control with a mimic board - so why to change? Will not give you many additional benefits.  There are also combined systems as for instance the megapoints controller, you can run it on its own or add a DCC interface. There are many choices.

 

What about trying it out at the local club? Most of them are running minimum one layout with DCC. I am sure somebody would help you and explain it.

 

Vecchio

[Butler Henderson]

In terms of point control agree with WIMorrison re using Cobalt IP Digitals; all the benefits of a slow motion point motor with changeover switches built in and an accessory decoder fitted within as well - prices vary and they are available in quantities but as an example Track Shack list them at £18.78 each (albeit presently out of stock) compared to £14.50 for a low amp PL-10W Peco Solenoid and a PL-15 twin micro switch on top of which an accessory decoder at around £7+ an output is needed. (NB I know there is the cheaper PL-13 Accessory switch which would save £4 but my experience with them is that they simply do not last). Another advantage of using Colbalt IP Digitals is that they reduce the length of wiring further as they can be connected directly to the adjacent dcc bus, be it the main or accessory one as opposed to running  a set of wires potentially some distance from an accessory decoder.

[Tallpaul69]

55 minutes ago, Izzy said:

 

 

Yes, that was the aspect I was trying to make. That the OP stated in the first post that he was told going DCC would be an cheaper option than what he uses at the present - DC, but it is doubtful that is the case. Different, yes, better, most probably, less costly........no.

 

Izzy

 

 

 

 

Thanks Izzy,

So if its not cheaper, how much more expensive might it be, bearing in mind I am having this layout professionally built, and I do want a mimic diagram, I need automation of the fiddle yard where most tracks will hold three trains. The mimic could well be on a laptop or large screen TV on the wall? 

Cheers

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

50 minutes ago, Vecchio said:

Small summary from my point of view for the confused poster:

 

DCC brings you better driving performance, you can optimise the control to the motor you are using, you can add stay alive if there is room enough, the headlights stay on when you stop at the station, if you play around a bit you can also dim the lights when in the station, or switch off the side where the train is coupled or add cab lights. Using the right decoder you can use servos or memory wires to add extra functionality like automatic de-coupling or moving pantographs, the limit is your phantasy.

And of course there is sound, for those who want (and can afford) it. I use DCC since 2005 (cannot exactly remember the year...) and I do not want to miss it.

 

Point control: chose what you like, as many others wrote pure DCC may be fiddly and complicated. If you have point control with a mimic board - so why to change? Will not give you many additional benefits.  There are also combined systems as for instance the megapoints controller, you can run it on its own or add a DCC interface. There are many choices.

 

What about trying it out at the local club? Most of them are running minimum one layout with DCC. I am sure somebody would help you and explain it.

 

Vecchio

Vecchio,

Thanks for the summary. Unfortunately there is no club that I can access in the evenings as I do not drive, and taxis get expensive!

May try a small single circuit plus siding test layout that can be set out on our large dining table (back to the playing trains of my childhood!). I have a while to decide on the kit as it looks like it will be about a year before any of the constructors I am talking to have a slot to build it!

Cheers

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

16 hours ago, Ravenser said:

This is the big advantage , and the potential benefits in time and functionality are huge. If you're going to go DCC , do it when you build a new layout...  (Yes nearly all of it can - in theory - be done with DC . But the quantity and complexity of wiring required to implement the equivalent in DC puts it out of the reach of 98% of the hobby. Unless you have a professional electrical background and plenty of time, it won't happen) 

 

But it comes at a cost - decoders for 200 locos will cost between £3000 and £4400 . Accessory decoders are currently about £6 per output - so another £400 for 60 points /15 signals

 

And if 50% of the locos require hard-wiring, then that is a very substantial commitment in wiring in itself . Some of them will prove pigs to do. Some of them won't work. You say you run 5 periods / 5 suites of stock. That's a big commitment : I struggle to get on top of three suites of stock , which are less than half the size, what with kits to build, installations to make, lights, weathering, detailing....

 

The reality is you'll focus on the DCC Ready items of 2 suites of stock , start tackling the locos that need hard-wiring in those two suites, hit the awkward ones  ... After a long haul , you'll start to conclude you're never even going to start converting the  fifth suite of stock... And anything unconverted can't run.

 

Are you going to accept that?

 

 

 

 

Wiring for both DC and DCC is definitely the worst of all worlds - all the cost of DCC , all the work of DC , double work in some areas. Insisting on dual capability strikes me as the way die-hard DC adherents seek to negate the benefits of DCC - and then argue that it has none. (My old club seems to have gone that direction - driven by the "DCC? wouldn't touch it with a bargepole" members)

 

The size of layout / size of fleet you are talking about will require a full-fat system - the Powercab delivers only 1.1 - 1.5A , and stall motors on 60 points will take 0.6A to 0.8A  on their own. Sound locos can draw up to 1A per loco

 

You could make the whole thing a single electrical section - but its a bad idea - one short anywhere stops everything. I would suggest 2-3 sections for the layout, plus a separate section for the points/accessories. . If the total current draw is safely under 5A you could simply have one supply , split into 3 sub-sections via fast-acting circuit breakers. If the current draw is  over 5A , you'll need to go for several "power districts" , each controlled by a satellite command-station called a booster, with its own transformer

I 

I had been thinking of having the two main lines plus a couple of fiddle yard roads each way switchable between DCC and DC, to allow running of my vintage Hoornby00 two rail and vintage Triang locos.(the track will be code 100). This would also allow running of some other older locos that cannot be chipped or others awaiting chipping. I will not be doing the chipping myself, my skill level/eyesight is not up to it!

Cheers

Paul   

[melmerby]

At the simplest if you do want to add point control from DCC is using just one power circuit via a breaker to the track and drive another circuit for the points directly from the command station.

That way a track fault doesnt stop point operation.

[Corbs]

One of the things that weighed upon our decision was that Analogue control has arguably been taken to its ultimate development, whereas DCC is still a developing technology that is expanding all the time. So in a way, we wanted to 'future proof' our layout as it is intended to last for at least 15 years.

[Junctionmad]

2 hours ago, Neil said:

It seems that the weight of opinion here is for dcc and as we're in the dcc section of the forum that's perhaps only to be expected. However this opinion might not fully represent the hobby at large, those happy with dc may well have caught the title, shrugged their shoulders at another dcc dilemma and moved on without comment.

 

My local modelling mates all use dcc and so I bought a couple of locos, chipped them and went along to play trains. I had planned on my new garage layout being built to the same standards using the same dcc system to ensure maximum compatibility. Having the chance to try out dcc at friends was a bit of a blessing because after the initial enthusiasm/novelty wore off I started to notice some aspects which I wasn't happy with. The first was that some of my locos (by now I had chipped a few more) ran worse on dcc. There's a slight sense of disconnect too as though the directness of the control has been softened, like driving a car with play in the accelerator and spongy brakes. Fault finding is harder with dcc, there's all the stuff that can go wrong with dc overlaid with all the dcc stuff that has its own particular sensitivities. I used to be a telecoms electrician so fault finding isn't a problem but it does take longer with dcc as there are more possible sources of trouble. It's a fallacy that dcc requires less wiring than dc, apart from loco stabling sidings. In fact on a large layout this is probably balanced out by the need to run bus wires and connect to the track at regular intervals.

 

You'll probably guess that plans for my garage layout have changed and it's now going to be dc controlled. This is my choice and I recognise that others will have other views on the subject but I thought it worth while pointing out the factors which have influenced my decision to stick with dc.

 

 

Let’s try out some of the shibboleths mentioned here as it’s important the OP  can understand the issues 

 

(a) there’s is no real electrical requirement to bus DCC using droppers etc , this is more “ good practice “ then an electrical requirement 

 

I have a friend with a DC layout , with huge reliance on fishplate connectivty , who converted to DCC simply by closing all his DC section switches and connecting in his NCE pro. That was 5 years ago , it’s been running perfectly ever since , I know cause I get to play with it , and it’s a big complex layout 

 

so the electrical truth is , DCC can be wired very minimally if required . If you then use DCC , or any layout bus to control points and switches , you further remove stacks of DC wiring , multi pole baseboard connectors etc 

 

now onto fault finding , having spent several days on my back under a big DC layout , sorting out failing connectors , confused wiring schemes and removing extraneous connections and section feeds , I will say that DCC fault finding   Is very simple in comparison , all track is powere , hence all you have to do is verify DCC track power is successfully getting to that section of track , no confusion over polarities , section isolation , etc etc

 

i also designed and operated a big O gauge club DCC layout which uses MERG CBUS as the layout control bus and a Z21 as the DCC traction control , the wiring is MASSIVELY less then if this was a conventional DC system , with DC signals and point control . We have about 500 meters of wire in the layout ( 32’ by 16, , 20 baseboards ) , yet all we have is 6 wires  running between each baseboard , yet we have full signal , points , accessory controls and feedback from point positions , track occupancy detectors and even some remote signal proving 

 

 

to achieve the same system in DC , I estimate would have involved 3 km of wiring and the resulting high quality baseboard interconnections would have cost more then all the MERG CBUS electronics modules combined ! 

 

This is is not supposition , this is a real life example. 

 

In in any sort of large or complex layout , ie any sort of decent track plan , DCC wins hands down. First you get prototype running freedom , secondly you massively reduce the wiring complexity ( note complexity ) and thirdly as a result you improve reliability and faultfinding ( cause complexity of wiring generates faults ) 

 

many prople dismiss DCC cause they “ don’t understand it “ , mind you a typical Q&A session shows they don’t really understand DC either ! 

 

Avoiding something that that we don’t understand , yet has clear advantageous is rather silly , if it was so, we’d largely still be riding around on horses. ! 

 

Dave 

[Junctionmad]

1 hour ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Thanks Izzy,

So if its not cheaper, how much more expensive might it be, bearing in mind I am having this layout professionally built, and I do want a mimic diagram, I need automation of the fiddle yard where most tracks will hold three trains. The mimic could well be on a laptop or large screen TV on the wall? 

Cheers

Paul

Paul 

 

the layout install in DCC , assuming say using JMRI as a virtual mimic panel will be considerably cheaper then an equivalent DC install using good quality mimic panels and baseboard interconnections , but duplicating the advantage ( running freedom) of DCC in DC is very difficult and expensive to achieve 

 

the main cost difference is converting the installed base of locos 

 

decoders are available from about £15 upwards , plus the time and effort to convert them 

 

Of course you might discover the joys of sound , Railcom and other features of DCC ( auto uncoupling of locos etc ) which more then compensate for the costs of changing 

 

Nor will you expend all the money in one go, 3K over a couple of years is easier to bear then all at once , 

 

you picks your horses 

 

ps never cost your hobby , it will drive you mad , I sail , I never really do a cost benefit analysis , I direct you to mr heaths MP famous quotes on the subject 

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Thanks Izzy,

So if its not cheaper, how much more expensive might it be, bearing in mind I am having this layout professionally built, and I do want a mimic diagram, I need automation of the fiddle yard where most tracks will hold three trains. The mimic could well be on a laptop or large screen TV on the wall? 

Cheers

Paul

 

I think the goalposts have just moved with your statement that the layout is being built by others (on a time/cost basis I presume). This will alter how you look at the economics simply because of the hours involved in building anything, and I don't think it's been mentioned before. If you have been advised by them that it would be a cheaper/easier route to get what you want then you have to bear that in mind, and then just add the cost of converting the locos on top of that.

 

Izzy

 

[Silver Sidelines]

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

Slow response to accelerator, spongy brakes?

...

 

BTW that actually seems more like problems with the kit than DCC itself, especially as you said they ran worse.

I can have instant start stop or gradual acceleration/deceleration depending on how things are set up.

 

 

 

I wonder how many correspondents have experienced DC anaogue control wth a 'Simulator' - such as the Gaugemaster DS and P controllers.

You can coast gently to a halt or you can apply the brakes and just STOP.  You don't have to tweak CVS,, such as Back emf, start and stop voltages, etc.

 

Cheers Ray

[Corbs]

So far I’ve used cheap and nasty LaisDCC decoders from eBay. About £10 each plus about £3.50 for the stay-alive. If a few break then it’s not big deal. Limited functionality but all I want is to get a large number of locos up and running quickly, so for less than £50 a month I can convert a loco every week.

[Tallpaul69]

2 hours ago, Corbs said:

One of the things that weighed upon our decision was that Analogue control has arguably been taken to its ultimate development, whereas DCC is still a developing technology that is expanding all the time. So in a way, we wanted to 'future proof' our layout as it is intended to last for at least 15 years.

Yes, that is a good point. I will only have one chance to get a layout being now 70years young, so I want 10-15 years (after that I will probably be too old to take much interest!).

Junctionmad said earlier that you should not cost your hobby, which generally I agree with but when you are looking into a large expenditure and you are on a fixed income, you have to be sure you can afford what you are looking at!

Thanks to all for their comments, one last question:-

Anyone got any experience of using Gaugemaster 18 decoders? Do they work well? Drawbacks?

Best regards

Paul 

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Silver Sidelines said:

I wonder how many correspondents have experienced DC anaogue control wth a 'Simulator' - such as the Gaugemaster DS and P controllers.

You can coast gently to a halt or you can apply the brakes and just STOP.  You don't have to tweak CVS,, such as Back emf, start and stop voltages, etc.

 

Cheers Ray

 I had something similar about 50 years ago, when Codar had a module that allowed substantial inertia, even after you closed the throttle. I think my Gutzold VT137 Flying Hamburger took about three laps of the loft to come to a stand if you maxed out the faciity. 

 

No-one is saying we should all use DCC, and for small, simple layouts DC may provide all the fun and the facilities the operator needs. But few of us who have DCC look back with regret.  

[Ian Morgan]

As you say you want a layout professionally built, then I would really advise you talk to the prospective builders to find out what systems they have had experience with. It would be no good specifying using system XYZ if the builder has never used it before. A good knowledge of the functionality and peculiarities of a system will dictate how the layout is prepared and built for it.

 

If you were building it yourself, I would advise finding out what other people close to you are using, so you will have a support network on tap for when things get messy.

 

Other than that, there are so many ways of skinning this particular cat that saying you need system PQR without fully understanding what you want from your layout, both now and in the future, is not particularly helpful.

 

Personally, I am a committed Merg user. What I have built does what I want at a cost I am happy with, and I have taken the time and effort to learn enough about what is on offer from Merg to be able to choose what to use for each layout I have been involved with. However, I know it does not suit everyone; it is not a complete 'out of the box' system, and it does involve a lot of soldering iron work and mental acrobatics to set it all up.

 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Silver Sidelines said:

I wonder how many correspondents have experienced DC anaogue control wth a 'Simulator' - such as the Gaugemaster DS and P controllers.

You can coast gently to a halt or you can apply the brakes and just STOP.  You don't have to tweak CVS,, such as Back emf, start and stop voltages, etc.

 

Cheers Ray

I had that in the 60s (early 70s?) with a circuit I built from the Wireless World.

There was two ways to control speed, one with a variable resistor (potentiometer) and the other was with up/down controls with varying amounts of inertia. It also had BEMF.

You could accelerate/decelerate as slow or as fast as you wanted. No change and it would coast. It was great for doing station stops as you had judge at what rate to decelerate to park the train in the right place.

But DCC is still  better.

[Philou]

Not wishing to hijack the thread - but yay for Codar. Still have one in working condition!

 

Go on, go DCC. As others have said it can be done relatively cheaply (I can't advise on function only chips as I do sound), and you don't have to convert all at once.

 

One thing I have had experience is that the (generally) more expensive DCC controllers are better. I had an ECoS II unit - wonderful. Colour TFT screen, ability to visibly control two trains at once (plus others in the background), on-screen point control - you name it and it seemed able to do it.

 

Why do I use the past tense? Well, over Christmas it and I had a falling out. My fault entirely - I got tangled in some cabling while I was plugging it into a low wall socket and it hit the ground, couldn't stop it time. I expect I shall have little change from £300 to get it repaired - very 'oops' on my part.

 

I don't regret it and I shall have it repaired and be more careful, but I might get something cheaper to use until such time as I have a permanent layout in place.

 

Perhaps something to think about when you're costing things up?

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited February 22, 2019 by Philou

[Imustbemadatmyage]

My advice, as a total newcomer to the hobby after 50 years away, is to go for dcc. On my very small test track in n gauge I have 3 separate locomotives.  I have a Graham Farish class 37 diesel, and 2 Dapol " Grange" class steamers. They all have different decoders and ran very differently out of the box. The 37 had quite marked delays on starting and stopping whereas one Grange started and stopped immediately and the other about half way between the two. A one off CV adjustment to each loco produced a most realistic effect and this, alone, was enough to convince me of the benefits of dcc

[Neil]

3 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

 

 

Let’s try out some of the shibboleths mentioned here as it’s important the OP  can understand the issues 

 

(a) there’s is no real electrical requirement to bus DCC using droppers etc , this is more “ good practice “ then an electrical requirement 

 

I have a friend with a DC layout , with huge reliance on fishplate connectivty , who converted to DCC simply by closing all his DC section switches and connecting in his NCE pro. That was 5 years ago , it’s been running perfectly ever since , I know cause I get to play with it , and it’s a big complex layout 

 

so the electrical truth is , DCC can be wired very minimally if required . If you then use DCC , or any layout bus to control points and switches , you further remove stacks of DC wiring , multi pole baseboard connectors etc 

 

now onto fault finding , having spent several days on my back under a big DC layout , sorting out failing connectors , confused wiring schemes and removing extraneous connections and section feeds , I will say that DCC fault finding   Is very simple in comparison , all track is powere , hence all you have to do is verify DCC track power is successfully getting to that section of track , no confusion over polarities , section isolation , etc etc

 

i also designed and operated a big O gauge club DCC layout which uses MERG CBUS as the layout control bus and a Z21 as the DCC traction control , the wiring is MASSIVELY less then if this was a conventional DC system , with DC signals and point control . We have about 500 meters of wire in the layout ( 32’ by 16, , 20 baseboards ) , yet all we have is 6 wires  running between each baseboard , yet we have full signal , points , accessory controls and feedback from point positions , track occupancy detectors and even some remote signal proving 

 

 

to achieve the same system in DC , I estimate would have involved 3 km of wiring and the resulting high quality baseboard interconnections would have cost more then all the MERG CBUS electronics modules combined ! 

 

This is is not supposition , this is a real life example. 

 

In in any sort of large or complex layout , ie any sort of decent track plan , DCC wins hands down. First you get prototype running freedom , secondly you massively reduce the wiring complexity ( note complexity ) and thirdly as a result you improve reliability and faultfinding ( cause complexity of wiring generates faults ) 

 

many prople dismiss DCC cause they “ don’t understand it “ , mind you a typical Q&A session shows they don’t really understand DC either ! 

 

Avoiding something that that we don’t understand , yet has clear advantageous is rather silly , if it was so, we’d largely still be riding around on horses. ! 

 

Dave 

 

Well I've learned something today; thanks to google I now know what a shibboleth is.

 

As to the rest, it is, like my post, all a matter of opinion.