DCC - Do I really need it?

[Kenton]

I'm a definate yes. I used to do DC, but got sick of the limitations of isolation requirements if you want to run more than one loco. With DCC i can park a whole fleet of them in a siding and shuffle them out one at a time as required just as per the real thing. I can run a train into a terminus, pull a pilot up to the rear, and pull the stock away with or without the original loco attached. And i do all of this with one hand and without moving from my comfy seat.

Although the choice is entirely yours the reasons given are not.

All it takes is a simple switch to isolate a section of track in a terminus and a series of isolating switches in a loco storage siding.

That is simplicity itself and require no movement other than a flick of the switch also from your seat.

 

But if you are running many locos into that siding like in a MPD then the balance starts to swing to DCC slightly.

Wiring itself can never be an excuse to go DCC.

Most of us managed with complicated layouts and DC for many years before DCC was ever dreamed up.

[ChrisB]

Whilst I understand that it is everyone's free choice one way or the other, the wiring side of things is all the justification some people need as it is something that some people struggle with.

 

Personally, I miss some of the automation I used to have on DC like a DMU shuttling back and forth in the background. I understand that this is possible with DCC too but not very refined yet.

 

I must say I find the reasoning that "We always managed with the way things were in the past" as a reason for not switching brings to mind the fact that people always used to live in caves in the past!

[NoggintheNog]

Personally, I miss some of the automation I used to have on DC like a DMU shuttling back and forth in the background. I understand that this is possible with DCC too but not very refined yet.

 

There is a US manufacturer who produce their locos and decoders, that include this.

 

The latest Broadway imports models have what they refer to as a 'macro' facility.

 

The decoder memorises up to 27 moves (including playing a sound as well as a movement duration) and will, at the press of a single function, repeat them ad infinitum.

 

Its a very effective way of performing simple automation as you describe without the need for extra wiring, computers or anything.

 

I hope the UK market catches up eventually, some of the gadgets now available from RTR in the us, such as fan driven smoke output timed to both driver revolution and chuff sound, having station announcments or background noise tied to functions on passenger loco sound decoders and the like are not things I find add much to my enjoyment, but the likes of the macro facility do make an operational difference I think.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

You can have fun with a DC operated model railway, I still can and do. But DCC is more fun, because there is more freedom, I still get a kick out of parking a dozen locos nose to tail in a siding, buffered up, without the limitation of isolating sections. Double heading requires a procedure as do many other operations: like becoming familiar with a new car's control layout, you just have to learn how and practice until you are unconciously competent. Then you can run a loco light engine with lively performance onto a heavy freight, bang in the higher inertia settings while the crew are 'coupling up', and then drive very carefully with due regard for the much greater stopping distance required. You can add some tail traffic, bring on a banker, or put an assistant engine inside the train engine, or rescue a loco that has developed a failure in service. All manoeuvres that were standard on the steam railway, and add much to operational interest. I don''t need the sound though, there's a very realistic audio track going in in my head...

 

...Personally, I miss some of the automation I used to have on DC like a DMU shuttling back and forth in the background. I understand that this is possible with DCC too but not very refined yet. ...

Lenz. Has been standard on their gold decoders for years and is very refined. All manuals are online http://www.lenz.com/index.htm

[Bob Reid]

All I'll say Dave is

 

??183 http://www.ehattons.com/StockDetail.aspx?SID=25705

 

against

 

??99 http://www.ehattons.com/StockDetail.aspx?SID=25749

 

That's a lot of bucks for double heading your Glasgow-Aberdeen's

 

Chuffin eck!

[Kenton]

Whilst I understand that it is everyone's free choice one way or the other, the wiring side of things is all the justification some people need as it is something that some people struggle with.

But it is a myth that DCC wiring is simpler than DC wiring - if done correctly with adequate droppers DCC can have as many wires - sometimes even more.

 

 

I must say I find the reasoning that "We always managed with the way things were in the past" as a reason for not switching brings to mind the fact that people always used to live in caves in the past!

Change for change sake is a not good. Especially if the change does not offer any real advantage.

 

If we are really honest with ourselves and realise that the change/motive is just because we like to have the latest gadget or be in with the latest crowd then that's fine. But all this nonsense about it being better when it clearly is not does get my back up.

 

I have nothing against DCC - for the right sort of layout (as said above) it has distinct advantages.

If I was starting to build such a layout I would certainly go DCC (assuming it could be afforded - if it couldn't I would just purchase less or more slowly). But for someone who already has quite a large stable of locos cost could be a big problem. For someone who rarely has more than 2 locos on a layout at a time (if that) then it is simply a waste of money.

[shortliner]

Re the comment at the top of the page - it is possible to have DCC sound equiped locos running on DC and still have the sound available. See the advert for the MRC Tech 6. controller on the back of December 2009 Model Railroader - no doubt the info is available on-line as well

[298]

I've had a quick look through this thread, and although I usually find such discussions to be quite boring, feel I have to add the fact that a DCC loco will perform alot better than one without a decoder. My new layout is strictly one loco in steam, but i'd still use DCC even if starting from scratch because of this. DCC also has the advantage that it is easier to learn a new layout once you are familiar with how a DCC controller works. I've recently operated a Digitrax layout, and managed to move a train and throw points from a handset i've never used before without resorting to reading the user manual.

 

A previous point about a DCC layout having more wiring is interesting, as there is a difference between lots of red & black wires that can easily be fault finded, compared to dozens of other wires for isolating sections that can go through multi-connectors and switches that are a pain if something goes wrong.

[Andy C]

No you don't REALLY need it Max - if you did you wouldn't have started the thread in the first place. Don't fall into the trap I fell into with New Hey, thinking it would be a panacea for a lot of ills, it brings its own set of problems. Just do what YOU feel is right and that way you will be comfortable operating the layout, what other people think becomes irrelevant.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Thanks to all who have posted. I intended this thread to generate informed comment and this it certainly has. As I originally stated, I do have a Dynamis system waiting in the wings for the layout, so I'm a bit limited as to the amount I can do as far as playing around with it goes just now. My comments about the difficulty of double heading relate to my experience with my club's Lenz 90/100 set up. It appeared to be a very cumbersome and time consuming process to effect a pairing and my success in doing so was limited - I was never truly happy with the result.

 

My other concern was due to the number of kit-built locos that will eventually use the layout. I was worried that despite my best prevention efforts, I might lose decoders due to shorting issues. If the worst that can happen is that the system cuts out requiring a push of the reset button then things may not be as bad as I feared.

 

There is much that I like about DCC - when used with quality motors and transmission, it appears that extremely smooth performance is possible - this was demonstrated to an impressive degree on the micro layout demonstrsted by the brave soul on the 2mm FS stand at Wigan. B) I was just needing some re-assurance that I was travelling along the correct path. I remain to be completely sold on sound as my ear is very sensitive to 'loops' and only Bachmann's 37 and 'Baby Sulzer' sounds have so far been acceptable to these sensitive lug'oles. Steam sound has a very long way to go indeed yet, so it's not something on my near future shopping list.

 

Thanks again, I'm fairly satisfied that I should stick with DCC, based on the evidence offered here but as the thread is generating lively and measured debate, please carry on with it. It is rather interesting to measure peoples comment on the subject.

 

Kind regards,

 

Dave.

[Guest Max Stafford]

All I'll say Dave is

 

??183 http://www.ehattons.com/StockDetail.aspx?SID=25705

 

against

 

??99 http://www.ehattons.com/StockDetail.aspx?SID=25749

 

That's a lot of bucks for double heading your Glasgow-Aberdeen's

 

Chuffin eck!

 

 

Thanks Bob. As I say, the steam sound thing is as yet not nearly good enough for my needs, so I'm sticking to the lower priced option of a regular loco with a basic chip in it for now!

 

Dave.

[beast66606]

Ignoring cost ..

 

DCC is the only way to drive trains prototypically, the real things never stopped at section breaks - and the real one occasionally had failures which required assistance, even on one engine in steam lines... this, for me, was the motivator to go DCC - all those years ago, it allows all of the above, and much much more.

 

But ..

 

DC can do most, but not all the above and can require complex solutions to do so.

 

bigger but ...

 

DC or DCC systems are not responsible for wiring errors, either system fails if you don't get it right

 

biggerer but ...

 

Your choice ..

 

 

And of course DCC can tweak individual locos, do lights, sound, camera, smoke etc ...

[3737]

I have gone DCC because:

 

1) I can drive my locos individually.

2) There's 16V AC on the track all of the time, which I hope improves current collecting, even when running extremely slowly.

3) Max. and min. speeds can be adjusted in the decoder for each loco individually.

4) Gradual starting and stopping speeds can be adjusted in the decoder for each individual loco.

5) Lights functions independently from speed, even when the loco stops. It's even possible to adjust the intensity of the lights.

 

I'm sure there's a lot more that DC cannot offer so easily, but those were my main reasons for purchasing the Lenz 100 set.

In the mean time I have chipped 50+ locos, mainly with TCS "goofproof" decoders. I managed to fry one in a J72, and it was instantly (well, within 3 weeks) replaced by TCS.

Of course all this doesn't mean that one NEEDS DCC. You can easily do without, but still...

The main snag is, that when you have more technical equipment, there's more fuss if it doesn't function properly. Problem solving is probably easier with DC.

 

Leen.

[Butler Henderson]

Aside from the less wiring benefit of DCC there is also, if you DCC your points and any working signals, the lack of any need for a control panel. All that wire, switches, connectors etc seems to be costs that get ignored in the DCC costs more than DC debate.

[Jamie]

FWIW, I'm sticking with analogue (after a flirt with DCC previously) because:

- I prefer the simplicity and ergonomics of one knob, one direction switch

- modern mechanisms and 5-pole motors perform smoothly enough for my needs

- I have and desire few/no gizmos

- it's a really simple layout with little scope for fancy movements

 

however if a future layout was more complex in scope I'd certainly consider it - esp. if the layout could justify full or semi automation.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....What I am saying is isolating sections and wiring have been a way of life for older modellers....

All it takes is a simple switch to isolate a section of track in a terminus and a series of isolating switches in a loco storage siding.

That is simplicity itself and require no movement other than a flick of the switch also from your seat....

....Wiring itself can never be an excuse to go DCC......Most of us managed with complicated layouts and DC for many years before DCC was ever dreamed up.

....I must say I find the reasoning that "We always managed with the way things were in the past" as a reason for not switching brings to mind the fact that people always used to live in caves in the past!

What Coachmann and Kenton fail to say, is that those isolating sections and the necessary switching only came about in the first place because that was all that was generally available to modellers at the time.

It's a WORK-AROUND to solve an inherent problem with DC control.

Today, with the availability of a different method for operating the layout, this particular work-around is rendered totally unnecessary; unless you want to encumber yourself with the old way of doing things, or have an existing set-up that you'd rather stick with.

There's nothing wrong with sticking with what you've got and are happy with, but for new modellers or if starting a new layout from scratch, the odds are stacked very heavily in favour of DCC.

 

 

 

...But it is a myth that DCC wiring is simpler than DC wiring - if done correctly with adequate droppers DCC can have as many wires - sometimes even more.

Sorry to be impolite Kenton, but one word springs to mind..."B*****ks !"

 

 

 

....Change for change sake is a not good. Especially if the change does not offer any real advantage.

I would generally agree with that, but in the case of DCC I don't think that applies. The advantages are too numerous to mention here.

 

 

....

If we are really honest with ourselves and realise that the change/motive is just because we like to have the latest gadget or be in with the latest crowd then that's fine. But all this nonsense about it being better when it clearly is not does get my back up.

There will always be people who want the latest thing, either for their own gratification or to feel good about themselves in the company of others; and I'm sure there are some modellers who in the past, for these very reasons, have felt good about having the latest or most sophisticated DC controllers and cab set-ups. But in the main people will buy what they know or believe is the best product to do the job.

At the end of the day, DC and DCC are just methods of controlling our toy trains; but I have to say (at the risk of "getting your back up")...DCC really is better!

 

 

....I have nothing against DCC - for the right sort of layout (as said above) it has distinct advantages.....

If I was starting to build such a layout I would certainly go DCC (assuming it could be afforded - if it couldn't I would just purchase less or more slowly).

OK

 

...But for someone who already has quite a large stable of locos cost could be a big problem.

Indeed. See above posts where suggestions have been made about how it might be possible for some people to deal with this issue. Unfortunately for others it's an insurmountable problem - without the aid of a lottery win, so they'd best stay with what they've got. That's life!

 

 

...For someone who rarely has more than 2 locos on a layout at a time (if that) then it is simply a waste of money.

Not necessarily the case. There are still advantages to be gained from DCC, even with one loco.

 

 

.

[GoingUnderground]

For all of you who say why pay for a DCC decoder in every loco when I only run one or two at once, has it ever occurred to you that exactly the same could be said about the electric motors in each loco? You only need motors in the locos that you are running and you could economise by swapping the motors between the locos according to which ever one you want to run.

 

Just think how many extra locos you could have if you bought them without motors and swapped the motors around.

 

So regard the decoder as part of the motor, same as the armature or commutator brushes.

 

It always amazes me just how anti-DCC some people can be when many of those most opposed to DCC apparently haven't tried it, unlike the DCC proponents who will have tried DC, as almost everyone who now runs DCC started with DC, wth apologies to those who ran straight AC before migrating to DCC.

 

 

[coachmann]

What Coachmann and Kenton fail to say, is that those isolating sections and the necessary switching only came about in the first place because that was all that was generally available to modellers at the time.

 

DCC has been promoted by Hornby and Bachmann for newcomers who are put off by wiring. It's a choice, not a replacement for DC.

And "Modellers are living in the past if they havent got DCC"... is a classic.

 

There's more to modelling than DCC and RTR. (Incidentally, I understand DCC technology from working on my friends layout down the road).

[Nigelcliffe]

Personally, I miss some of the automation I used to have on DC like a DMU shuttling back and forth in the background. I understand that this is possible with DCC too but not very refined yet.

 

Easy peasy in DCC.

 

Lenz Gold decoder, will stop train in same place every time, wait pre-programmed number of seconds before reversing away. Acceleration and braking behaviour pre-programmed by owner. Cost of auto-stop modules is a few pence for five or six diodes plus single pole on/off switch to bypass the auto-stop. Works on any command station maker. If wanting intermediate stops (eg. at a halt or a signal), then Lenz will sell you the relevant module for a few tens of pounds.

 

Or

For NCE Command Stations, use the ??30 minipanel to drive any loco automatically.

Or

For Digitrax Command Stations, use the CML electronics "shuttle" module with something like 20 descrete programming instructions possible.

Or

For ESU, there is a shuttle feature in the command station

Or

Use a laptop with one of half a dozen programming tools. I was running a DCC controlled loco for a weekend up and down a test track at Wigan; forward half the length, stop, uncouple, continue to end, reverse to half way, collect wagons, reverse to start, repeat....

 

 

- Nigel

[Nigelcliffe]

Thanks to all who have posted. I intended this thread to generate informed comment and this it certainly has. As I originally stated, I do have a Dynamis system waiting in the wings for the layout, so I'm a bit limited as to the amount I can do as far as playing around with it goes just now. My comments about the difficulty of double heading relate to my experience with my club's Lenz 90/100 set up. It appeared to be a very cumbersome and time consuming process to effect a pairing and my success in doing so was limited - I was never truly happy with the result.

 

That may be a limitation of easy of use of the Lenz controllers, or it may be that you don't quite understand the different methods of double heading, so end up typing in stuff on buttons following a manual rather than knowing what you are trying to achieve.

There are at least three different ways of achieving the result, and each has different pros and cons:

a) give all the same loco address

b ) use the command station to remember the locos in the "consist" and send parallel commands to two or more locomotives. (Sometimes called "universal")

c) use CV19 in each loco to temporarily store a short address of the "consist", and send one command to the consist loco address (sometimes called "advanced").

 

Not all decodes support CV19, so it only works if all the locos in the consist support it.

 

My other concern was due to the number of kit-built locos that will eventually use the layout. I was worried that despite my best prevention efforts, I might lose decoders due to shorting issues. If the worst that can happen is that the system cuts out requiring a push of the reset button then things may not be as bad as I feared.

 

This is an issue, but good wiring practise inside the loco will remove most possible internal shorts and should make things totally safe for the decoder. If your decoders come pre-wrapped in a sleeve that also helps protect from internal short circuits. I sometimes wrap "open" decoders loosely in a paper sleeve to ensure they cannot contact metal parts.

Using the better decoders may help; I often recommend Zimo for motor control reasons, but I'd also recommend them for their internal protection against user wiring errors; the decoder will shut itself down in an overload or short condition (such as a mistaken connection from decoder outputs to track inputs).

 

There is much that I like about DCC - when used with quality motors and transmission, it appears that extremely smooth performance is possible - this was demonstrated to an impressive degree on the micro layout demonstrsted by the brave soul on the 2mm FS stand at Wigan.

 

Possibly me (I was there for the weekend). The locos on the demo were mine apart from the part-built 08.

 

I would emphasis that DCC is potential control improvements for an already decent locomotive. If the loco doesn't run well on a decent analogue supply, then DCC won't fix that badly running locomotive. I have come across people who have bought DCC in the mistaken belief that it will fix their running problems (be they track or locos), in general it won't.

 

The locos on Clive Road (the 2mm shunting plank) were either fitted with quality coreless motors and a huge effort to ensure that all wheels pickup at all times (such as sprung pickup wires onto axles to deal with 0.1mm movements), or in the case of the Farish 04, it had new wheels with steel tyres which seem to work better than the alloy originals.

Then some care in selecting a good decoder for the model (all were using CT DCX74 or DCX75), and then setting up the motor parameters in the decoder; the PWM settings, and the track reference voltage.

 

 

 

- Nigel

[Etched Pixels]

You would have to drag me kicking and screaming back to DC, rotary switched sections and under layout wiring that looks like the stringing of a welsh harp.

 

For simple layouts DC is often fine - things like branch likes operated in a realistic manner with one train in steam but the moment you want fancier stuff like direct control of lighting/sound, blocks, or to be able to run one pair of wires between boards for all the point/signal control DCC gets very attractive very fast.

 

I understand why people like to stay with DC - familiarity, price, technology they understand etc - it's just not for me. I am however quite sure DC will go the way of clockwork in time and for similar reasons of control.

[40192]

What an interesting thread.............

 

As a modeller about to build my first layout in adulthood, I have chosen DCC purely from the advice of those who know, and have been using it for a while.

 

I had a DC layout in my teens, and remember the difficulties and frustrations!

 

I have been collecting loco's for around 5 years, all DCC ready and all diesels, and the cost of fitting them all with decoders will be high, but someone above pointed out that you will have particular favourites amongst your fleet, so do them first. I was going to add that point, and read somone else had put that, so I'm in agreement with that.

 

When I start buying decoders, I will do my personal faves first.

 

A couple of decoders per month should be affordable to most of us, and it will keep your layout interesting introducing new locos in stages.

 

Thats what I intend to do, as I certainly can't lay out the cash for 30+ decoders all at once.

 

As everyone always says though, its your layout, and only you can decide whats best for you!

 

Good luck with whatever you decide.

 

Cheers.

 

John.

 

 

[Phill Dyson (onslaught832)]

I'm teetering on the edge of DCC at the moment,I'm not really interested in running a dozen loco's at once, the main appeal for me has got to be sound chips.....not cheap though in O gauge but they are very very tempting , I'm also a little unsure about DCC's ability's outdoors (I have a garden railway )

 

Interesting thread Max :icon_wink:

 

Cheers Phill

[Ravenser]

Thanks to all who have posted. I intended this thread to generate informed comment and this it certainly has. As I originally stated, I do have a Dynamis system waiting in the wings for the layout, so I'm a bit limited as to the amount I can do as far as playing around with it goes just now. My comments about the difficulty of double heading relate to my experience with my club's Lenz 90/100 set up. It appeared to be a very cumbersome and time consuming process to effect a pairing and my success in doing so was limited - I was never truly happy with the result.

 

 

Dave.

 

 

That is because consisting on Lenz is damn near diabolical . An NCE PowerCab takes about 3 button presses - there's even a nice user friendly button marked "Consist" . I can do it in about 3 secs flat. Our club experience with trying on Lenz is much the same as yours, only worse.

 

I've no idea how Dynamis supports consisting, but I suspect it's a lot closer to NCE than Lenz in ease of operation

 

As for the "no saving with wiring on DCC" , I've had 2 folk tell me the same about a club project . It's , with the greatest respect, quite untrue. They weren't familiar with the wiring on the project , but there would have been exactly the same number of droppers whether DC or DCC. And exactly the same point wiring. Its just that going DCC dispensed with all section switching , any hard-wired panel and associated wiring, and most of the point control wiring. There are precisely 4 wires across baseboard joints for a double track continous circuit main line with up to 4 operating positions. I saw the panel off a previous club layout, and I really did feel slightly faint looking at the mass of wires and components , tagstrips and connections crammed into a large plywood box

 

If double heading ispart of the intention, and if you will need a lot of operational flexibility then DCC will show advantages with a new build layout

 

But bearing in mind a previous thread , I'd be inclined to suggest you need at least a small "test bed " layout or test track to allow you to set up your Dynamis and have a play with it , and fit and test locos with decoders . That way you'll know whether you can make kit built locos work on DCC and you'll have stock sorted out before any final layout - its not an extra job to do at the same time. At this point the "marginal cost" of that is minimal - you already have the DCC system and the stock.

 

Its also difficult to assess the benefits or otherwise of DCC until you know what your layout project will require. That more or less requires you design the thing.

 

While I may not have finished my little challenge layout, Blacklade , its seen quite a bit of use as a test track/DCC programming facility and it's proved invaluable in that respect

 

 

 

 

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

For me it was an easy decision.

 

I have never been happy with the idea that two trains running on a layout have to be completely isolated from each other.

 

I have never liked the 'twist it half way round before it leaps off the mark like a jack rabbit' DC control.

 

I wanted sound.

 

I was just starting out in model railways.

 

Beyond the above and much later, I could never understand those people who say 'I have 60 locos(substitute any number between 10 and 100)' who are contemplating the change. Since when did anyone run that many at any one time on DC and, if so, how?

 

Having said that, it is much easier to make expensive mistakes in DCC by buying the wrong gear at the outset.

 

I still maintain that for adequate operation of any multi loco layout you need a s many throttles as you can get. It saves huge amounts of button pushing and adds serious extras to the hobby. At least with DCC you don't have to study all the track sections and have huge banks of section switches. You need a card index to run this sort of layout and god help you if you want to change anything, operations wise.