To DCC or not?

[Chris M]

My experience of MERG point control at the club has been disastrous. Although being a relatively cheap system it has cost a lot more than traditional push button and solenoid control. The plastic servo mounts are flimsy. Older Farish locos cause the points to change all by themselves. So far the only cure found is to install a new capacitor in every offending loco. This ain’t going to happen. Unless a cure is found in the next few months the MERG system will be stripped out. Yes the number of wires is greatly reduced compared to the traditional way but it is just too flaky. 

[Izzy]

I believe the advantages, or disadvantages, of DCC against DC very much depend on what you want and/or expect to get. Just like DC it can be as simple or complicated as the individual wants to make it, in respect of what you want to control.

 

For me it is simply, and only, about loco control on very small (tiny really) layouts, where the DCC just replaced the DC and all else remains manually controlled as before. To my mind I have gained a big advantage, much easier to move stock and locos around where many small isolating sections would not be feasible. This alone is enough to make it worthwhile for me. 

 

But as it has been said this is really getting away from what the OP was trying to discover/decide. Whether he should make the switch to DCC as he has been advised, to enable what he wants, and is trying to find out if this is correct, and how expensive it might be. I am not sure there are easy answers to these factors.

 

Izzy

[Chris M]

I also have sound on my dc layout. I have edited some sound files to suit my layout and trigger them to a Bluetooth speaker from my phone. I prefer this because I get the whole train passing sound and I get a much richer sound than possible from a speaker in an N gauge loco.  If I use my big Bluetooth speaker I can make the floor vibrate as the trains pass but for some reason the wife doesn’t appear to be keen on me doing this. Haven’t asked the neighbours what they think!

 

 

[Chris M]

The best thing is to try both, think about what is important to you and speak with the builder. Although you can see I prefer dc it really is horses for courses. It’s what you want that is best for you.

[Junctionmad]

24 minutes ago, Chris M said:

My experience of MERG point control at the club has been disastrous. Although being a relatively cheap system it has cost a lot more than traditional push button and solenoid control. The plastic servo mounts are flimsy. Older Farish locos cause the points to change all by themselves. So far the only cure found is to install a new capacitor in every offending loco. This ain’t going to happen. Unless a cure is found in the next few months the MERG system will be stripped out. Yes the number of wires is greatly reduced compared to the traditional way but it is just too flaky. 

Merg CBUS etc is a sub hobby in itself. It’s not a production ready system , it requires a reasonable understanding of software and basic electronics knowledge ( or no electric knowledge ) 

 

I have dozens of MERG CBUS modules installed on a large O gauge layout , very very few problems ( like 1or 2) and very cost effective. Horses for courses 

 

Dave 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

 

I'm sorry but I still think you're jumbling up facts and opinions. It's very obvious you think that DCC is best and you've marshalled a set of facts to support this. However we all choose to give credence to certain facts and ignore others when we form our opinions. For example a couple of my friends use their dcc system to actuate points and signals, the cost of their DCC compatible point motors is three times more than that of the ones I will be using, both will require three wires connecting them to their respective control system. Last night by sheer coincidence my mate Trev had his Bachmann Ivatt 4MT, lovely model which he's run on my DC layout, it runs as good as it looks. However plugging in a chip to run on his DCC layout and it shorts the layout out. We tried chips that we know work in other locos, same thing, a short. Loco on the track with no chip and no blanking plug in, no short. Put the chip back in, short, put the chip in another loco, no short. It's this added layer of complexity which I don't like. The few extra wires to the track for loco stabling areas is no problem, the fault finding is a binary operation, one particular component works or it doesn't. DCC faults in this manner but like the 4MT it also faults when stuff reacts uniquely to particular combinations of circumstances. These sort of things are the facts relevant to my choice. Now the control of light and sound, the major selling point of DCC is not. In my opinion light and sound detracts rather than adds to the realism of a layout, so the fact that this is possible with DCC is not a factor in my opinion of the system.

 

 

And so have you

[Junctionmad]

2 hours ago, Neil said:

 

I'm sorry but I still think you're jumbling up facts and opinions. It's very obvious you think that DCC is best and you've marshalled a set of facts to support this. However we all choose to give credence to certain facts and ignore others when we form our opinions. For example a couple of my friends use their dcc system to actuate points and signals, the cost of their DCC compatible point motors is three times more than that of the ones I will be using, both will require three wires connecting them to their respective control system. Last night by sheer coincidence my mate Trev had his Bachmann Ivatt 4MT, lovely model which he's run on my DC layout, it runs as good as it looks. However plugging in a chip to run on his DCC layout and it shorts the layout out. We tried chips that we know work in other locos, same thing, a short. Loco on the track with no chip and no blanking plug in, no short. Put the chip back in, short, put the chip in another loco, no short. It's this added layer of complexity which I don't like. The few extra wires to the track for loco stabling areas is no problem, the fault finding is a binary operation, one particular component works or it doesn't. DCC faults in this manner but like the 4MT it also faults when stuff reacts uniquely to particular combinations of circumstances. These sort of things are the facts relevant to my choice. Now the control of light and sound, the major selling point of DCC is not. In my opinion light and sound detracts rather than adds to the realism of a layout, so the fact that this is possible with DCC is not a factor in my opinion of the system.

 

 

I’ve been involved in many DC layout wiring projects and I just finished sorting out a large DC layout for a friend 

 

he has a requirement to cross from a down yard to the up loco shed crossing two main lines 

 

this layout uses three controllers , one normally controlling the Up ( and up shed track  ) , one controlling the down line and one controlling the down yard. 

 

In order to set this move up , requires three to four sections switch combinations and painfully synchronising two controllers to ensure the polarity /speed is right .  This is aside from setting up the points and signals 

 

the same situation in DCC involves me selecting a loco address and once I have the road , driving to the destination ( or any other desired location. ) 

 

to achieve single controller operation for this move , requires this layout to be converted to DC cab control and as it has dual control panels , electrically interlocking  each controller to track selection so the other panel can’t inadvertently connect the other controller to it 

 

the amount of complexity to achieve this in DC is considerable 

 

the amount of complexity to achieve this in DCC : none 

 

remember DCC people by and large all came from DC and have both the knowledge and scars  of that system 

 

dcc provides a near prototypical running experience , that’s it selling point , DC simply never can and attempts to force it to do so , in any type of complex track work generate huge complexity , cost and install time 

 

that’s the bottom line , most other arguments are a distraction , the basic operating freedom is the key 

 

Dave 

 

ps ( I was watching Grantham at warley in 2016 , I think , and it was amusing to see the number of mis-switched DC sections causing locos to stop dead , a problem that dcc surmounts completely ) 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Junctionmad

[Chris M]

I just don’t see that dcc provides a near prototypical running experience any more than dc and yes I have tried both. There is no right or wrong, just what works for you.

 

On my garden railway and one OO loco I have installed battery powered radio control and I rate this as absolutely brilliant. No wires at all for track, no track cleaning and no stalling on points; you really are driving the loco and not the track.  I really think this is by far the best system but as yet it is not suitable for N. It is great for older 00 diesels where there is plenty of room in the body for batteries. It’s a shame that the likes of Bachmann and Hornby have no interest in BPRC because I think it would be a great step forwards. I just use NIMH batteries and they run for a long time between charges. The only down side I have found is that locos don’t stop when they come off the track...

[Andymsa]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

 

I'm sorry but I still think you're jumbling up facts and opinions. It's very obvious you think that DCC is best and you've marshalled a set of facts to support this. However we all choose to give credence to certain facts and ignore others when we form our opinions. For example a couple of my friends use their dcc system to actuate points and signals, the cost of their DCC compatible point motors is three times more than that of the ones I will be using, both will require three wires connecting them to their respective control system. Last night by sheer coincidence my mate Trev had his Bachmann Ivatt 4MT, lovely model which he's run on my DC layout, it runs as good as it looks. However plugging in a chip to run on his DCC layout and it shorts the layout out. We tried chips that we know work in other locos, same thing, a short. Loco on the track with no chip and no blanking plug in, no short. Put the chip back in, short, put the chip in another loco, no short. It's this added layer of complexity which I don't like. The few extra wires to the track for loco stabling areas is no problem, the fault finding is a binary operation, one particular component works or it doesn't. DCC faults in this manner but like the 4MT it also faults when stuff reacts uniquely to particular combinations of circumstances. These sort of things are the facts relevant to my choice. Now the control of light and sound, the major selling point of DCC is not. In my opinion light and sound detracts rather than adds to the realism of a layout, so the fact that this is possible with DCC is not a factor in my opinion of the system.

 

 

Although I agree that sound can detract I wouldnt call it a major selling point of DCC. Your loco fault is just that a loco fault not a DCc fault and I'm sure these things equally occur in dc. I'm not sure what your friends are using to control there DCC points ect but if there paying three times the price there being ripped off. Even a colbalt equipped with DCC decoder is roughly same price as a DC tortoise. If someone wants to control there layout by DC I'm not going to judge them or vice versa or is one system better than the other, both have there uses. On a large layout DCC is really the only way to go, my layout is 70ft long in DC at best I could run two trains at a time but with DCC I have no limit to the trains I run with the aid of automation and makes an interesting layout to watch, the control panel would have to be big and I would be tied to a fixed location, again DCC this is not an issue as I can use my tablet for additional control. Yes I do have a mimic panel for visitors to use on a small branch terminas station and this is to enhance the visitor experience . The issue of wiring points for DC or DCC both has positives but on my layout each point is wired back to a local accessory decoder that's two wires, with 8 points that's 16 wires as opposed with dc 16 wires right back to a control panel so yes less wiring, so again with a large layout DCC accessory wiring is more simpler. The bottem line using DCC or not and wiring accessories DCC or not is down to individual circumstances.  The whole thread seems to be descending into a DC v DCC debait, the poor old OP must be really confused by now

[Philou]

Can I suggest that the next time OP has an opportunity to get to a town that has a model shop with a working or test layout, if he can't get to a club (I understand that OP doesn't drive), that he asks to be shown a DCC loco (with/without sound) in operation. The shop owner ought to be happy to oblige - particularly if it may lead to a sale .

 

I think OP needs to see this in the flesh and decide. What floats my boat (or our boats) may or may not be for him.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Neil]

12 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

..... Your loco fault is just that a loco fault not a DCc fault and I'm sure these things equally occur in dc. ....

 

I think I know what you're getting at here, but the loco runs beautifully on DC but put a chip in (any chip) and it shows a short on DCC. Take the chip out, leave the DC blanking plate out and it shows no short. The problem seems to be with the DCC part of the installation. Yes it's a loco fault but it's a DCC loco fault; it behave impeccably on DC.

[Junctionmad]

16 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

I think I know what you're getting at here, but the loco runs beautifully on DC but put a chip in (any chip) and it shows a short on DCC. Take the chip out, leave the DC blanking plate out and it shows no short. The problem seems to be with the DCC part of the installation. Yes it's a loco fault but it's a DCC loco fault; it behave impeccably on DC.

I suspect it’s an installation fault not a DCC fault quite frankly , 10 mins with a meter would reveal the issue , 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

Quote

  The whole thread seems to be descending into a DC v DCC debait, the poor old OP must be really confused by now

Well the OP specifically asked for a comparison , so it’s not surprising 

 

the trouble with this debate , which is taking place on a DCC forum , after all, is the persistent need of DC adherents to justify the impossible , ( or to confirm their own decisions) hence the plethora of “ well I don’t like sound “ , “ I can’t get a single DCC loco to run , so that’s DCC out for me , “ I can do everything in DC you can do in DCC “ ( which is quite simply fake news ) etc etc .  Most DC adherents have simply never tried DCC or have dismissed it on trivial grounds or “ perceived “ issues , whereas many DCC adherents have actually extensive experience with both control systems and tend to be able to judge the comparisons better 

 

a poll on this site a few years showed a clear majority in favor of DCC ( I think 60 % in favor of DCC ) clearly it’s seen , despite its failings as generally Better then dc , which by  any rational comparison , it is. 

 

Again the OP needs to decide and weigh up , is the simplification in traction DCC control and the advantages of prototype running freedom , worth more then the issues of converting , some , all, or part of his fleet to DCC 

 

the rest is bum-fluff unless a particular feature is something you desire , ( sound , lights , accessory control, automation ) etc 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Junctionmad

[Neil]

58 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

..... ps ( I was watching Grantham at warley in 2016 , I think , and it was amusing to see the number of mid-switched DC sections causing locos to stop dead , a problem that dcc surmounts completely ) 

 

I'm similarly amused when locos are driven into wrongly set trailing points on DCC layouts and everything shuts down.

 

It's obvious that you have your preferences and I have mine. We both have different opinions over what constitutes complexity and what trade offs we're prepared to make when it comes to selecting a system.

 

5 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

I suspect it’s an installation fault not a DCC fault quite frankly , 

 

It's a DCC ready model with a factory fitted socket. It works perfectly on DC, with the DC  blanking plate out it shows no short on DCC yet put a chip in (one we know works, tested in another loco before and after) and it shorts. Try another working chip and it does the same. Even if there's some weird sh!t decoder/socket interface thing going on it's still a DCC problem as all is well on DC.

 

I'm not saying that DCC is the spawn of the devil, or the model railway equivalent of the emperors new clothes, but I will say that it's not without it's negative points and that pretending that it's perfect or that it will suit eveyone's needs is just plain wrong.

[Junctionmad]

Quote

 

I just don’t see that dcc provides a near prototypical running experience any more than dc and yes I have tried both. There is no right or wrong, just what works for you.

I’m sorry , seriously , read my post of the issues involved in controlling a loco from a down yard across down and up main lines and into an up side shed system .  In dc this  involves multiple section switches , synchronizing two ( or more ) dc controllers etc. it’s a mess 

 

in DCC , you set the road , pick up any controller and drive the loco from the can of that loco 

 

DC cannot provide a cab based driving experience unless you apply serious complexity or have a ridiculously trivial track diagram 

 

this is the key selling point of DCC and the reason the nmra pushed the standard. The other stuff , sound , automation etc are all add-one And are NOT the key selling point 

 

[Junctionmad]

6 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

I'm similarly amused when locos are driven into wrongly set trailing points on DCC layouts and everything shuts down.

 

It's obvious that you have your preferences and I have mine. We both have different opinions over what constitutes complexity and what trade offs we're prepared to make when it comes to selecting a system.

 

 

It's a DCC ready model with a factory fitted socket. It works perfectly on DC, with the DC  blanking plate out it shows no short on DCC yet put a chip in (one we know works, tested in another loco before and after) and it shorts. Try another working chip and it does the same. Even if there's some weird sh!t decoder/socket interface thing going on it's still a DCC problem as all is well on DC.

 

I'm not saying that DCC is the spawn of the devil, or the model railway equivalent of the emperors new clothes, but I will say that it's not without it's negative points and that pretending that it's perfect or that it will suit eveyone's needs is just plain wrong.

Yes , but clearly you have a faulty DCC socket installation 

 

that’s nothing to do with DCC per say , it’s merely a faulty install 

[Junctionmad]

46 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

I'm similarly amused when locos are driven into wrongly set trailing points on DCC layouts and everything shuts down.

Come round to mine , which uses frog juicers and you can run over wrongly set points all day every day without shorts 

 

stop reaching for nonsense points to justify your position , this is my problem with DC arguments , DC is a control system from the interwar years , DCC is a control system from the digital era , it’s far from perfect 

but this arguments is like adherents trying to argue black and white TV is better 

 

DCC allows you to simply do ,ie prototype freedom of movement , that’s awkward , costly and difficult to completely emulate in DC 

 

there is no counter argument , you can argue black and white tv is fine for you , I accept that , but stop ( not you ) telling me DC can do everything DCC can do or the argument that “ the things it does do, sniff sniff , I don’t like “ 

 

simple DC layouts are just that , simple cheap and understandable at a basic level. That suits “ some “ people ( though less and less ) 

 

DCC adds functions and features that greatly enhance realism and simplify wiring complexity , that’s not a discussion that can be argued , I’m sorry ( because to do it properly in DC is very complex ) 

 

as I said it’s not about DC versus DCC , it’s people arguing that black And white tv is “ as good as color “ type of arguments that annoy me. 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Junctionmad

[wasdavetheroad]

When I was checking out consisting for my radio controlled locos ( I want some locos to double head) I checked out how they did it in the old DC days. In simple terms it will be fine if the locos don't have wheel spin or skid. On DCC wiki they suggest speed matching within 10% will be fine. I have a pair of Hornby 2P 4-4-0's which can double head and they had a difference of about 5% out of the box. Of course with DC the two locos will run slower with a given controller setting.

 

For me the advantage of DCC would be simpler layout wiring and much better control of the individual locomotives, you are driving the loco, not the layout. As I model the late 50's/early 60's I have no need for lighting and as I have music or the radio playing no need for sound either.

 

I disassembled my extensive DC n-scale layout several years ago and moved to 00 scale. As I had played around with radio control I followed that option, however if I had decided not to use radio control I would choose DCC rather than DC simply because of less wiring and more realistic control of locomotives.

[WIMorrison]

45 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

I'm similarly amused when locos are driven into wrongly set trailing points on DCC layouts and everything shuts down.

...

 

That is easily avoided as you will find if you read my earlier post rather than regurgitating inaccurate and incorrect mantras caused by ignorance of DCC. I never have a short when a loco over-runs a point - and of course DC never has any shorts does it? (I taped the button down on my H&M Safety Minor because I kept overrunning points )

[Andymsa]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

 

I think I know what you're getting at here, but the loco runs beautifully on DC but put a chip in (any chip) and it shows a short on DCC. Take the chip out, leave the DC blanking plate out and it shows no short. The problem seems to be with the DCC part of the installation. Yes it's a loco fault but it's a DCC loco fault; it behave impeccably on DC.

Just a stab in the dark here, is this a sound chipped loco. As inrush current might be the issue and would present as a short. Or as been suggested there is an issue with the socket.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Andymsa

[Crosland]

3 hours ago, Chris M said:

 

Some say you can’t double head with dc but I have no problem. Even banking is possible.

 

 

Try running the banker up to the rear of a train without the loco at the front moving on DC.

 

Try forming a "double head"  by reversing the loco on to the front of the train on DC.

 

Both are impossible unless you have very precisely placed track breaks.

 

With DCC, both are a doddle, anywhere, anytime.

 

[Andymsa]

1 hour ago, Junctionmad said:

Well the OP specifically asked for a comparison , so it’s not surprising 

 

the trouble with this debate , which is taking place on a DCC forum , after all, is the persistent need of DC adherents to justify the impossible , ( or to confirm their own decisions) hence the plethora of “ well I don’t like sound “ , “ I can’t get a single DCC loco to run , so that’s DCC out for me , “ I can do everything in DC you can do in DCC “ ( which is quite simply fake news ) etc etc .  Most DC adherents have simply never tried DCC or have dismissed it on trivial grounds or “ perceived “ issues , whereas many DCC adherents have actually extensive experience with both control systems and tend to be able to judge the comparisons better 

 

a poll on this site a few years showed a clear majority in favor of DCC ( I think 60 % in favor of DCC ) clearly it’s seen , despite its failings as generally Better then dc , which by  any rational comparison , it is. 

 

Again the OP needs to decide and weigh up , is the simplification in traction DCC control and the advantages of prototype running freedom , worth more then the issues of converting , some , all, or part of his fleet to DCC 

 

the rest is bum-fluff unless a particular feature is something you desire , ( sound , lights , accessory control, automation ) etc 

The OP was originally asking about what systems are good, any pitfalls of DCC and what to avoid and the cost of chipping as opposed to having a mimic diagram. I don't see any questions on comparisons between DC and DCC. 

[Butler Henderson]

4 hours ago, Neil said:

 Last night by sheer coincidence my mate Trev had his Bachmann Ivatt 4MT, lovely model which he's run on my DC layout, it runs as good as it looks. However plugging in a chip to run on his DCC layout and it shorts the layout out.

Possibly the same fault I had on Standard 4 Mogul - the pick up and motor circuits on that use copper strips on the inside of the plastic baseplate with wires soldered to it to form the rest of the circuit. One wired soldered joint was contacting two of the copper strips so forming a direct connection between one set of pick ups and the motor but having no adverse effect on dc. 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Butler Henderson

[Ravenser]

16 hours ago, trustytrev said:

Hello,

       As far as I am aware MERG DCC is the same NMRA standard as everyone else. Conventional DCC.

trustytrev.

 

 

I have some experience of using a MERG accessory decoder. It was cheap (about £2.50 per output) and I built it myself , a source of pride...

 

But the thing was horribly vulnerable to any short. Eventually I got tired of rebooting the entire layout every time we had a short, ripped it out and replaced with a DS64 decoder, which was 6x the price , entirely reliable and zero hassle. It was worth paying an extra £50 to be rid of the inconvenience.

 

Now I failed to implement best practice - the point decoders are on the same single circuit as the track bus , whereas really they should have been completely separate , with the point data feeds from a separate DCC bus protected by a circuit breaker

 

There are some advantages to the MERG units. They are cheap, they draw the oomph from a separate 16V AC supply (only the data signal is off the DCC bus) ans so don't overload the DCC system, they can be readily configured during building to support LED lights (output by output .. not a whole block) . But reliability was an issue

[Ravenser]

3 hours ago, Neil said:

 

I think I know what you're getting at here, but the loco runs beautifully on DC but put a chip in (any chip) and it shows a short on DCC. Take the chip out, leave the DC blanking plate out and it shows no short. The problem seems to be with the DCC part of the installation. Yes it's a loco fault but it's a DCC loco fault; it behave impeccably on DC.

 

The sad saga of my 4MT comes immediately to mind: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/129660-dcc-concepts-zen-decoder-with-stay-alive/

 

Given that it had been in a box for a decade , not critical, but I'm still scratching my head on this one. Butler Henderson may just have solved it...

 

By the way I don't understand the concept of a "DCC ready point motor". As far as I'm concerned a Tortoise is a Tortoise is a Tortoise and the price is the same - I don't use overpriced special Wabbits - I plug 2 wires into the appropriate sockets on the decoder.

 

My DCC system offers an adequate number of "route macros" as a built in feature, so I was able to implement a route macro for every possible route combination, for a total cost of nowt. This eliminates operator route-setting error: three presses and the whole route comes off including signals.

 

That was done after experience of a similar-type terminus on DC , where the major operator error was operators forgetting to set up the whole of the route correctly and where trains routinely whizzed past red signals because the operators had forgotten to flip the relevant sperate switches under the pressure of a show.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Ravenser