DCC - Do I really need it?

[Glorious NSE]

I really don't know why Kenton has got such a bashing on this thread. He clearly sees a role for DCC on a range of layout types, but not to the extent that it is the only way to go. That strikes me as a well-balanced position

 

That is indeed a well balanced position, and one that I totally agree with - but he has managed to counter that stated well balanced comment with plenty of, erm, less well balanced ones, such as:

 

* DCC layout wiring is the same as DC layout wiring (except it's plainly not the same thing!)

* The unreliability of DCC (except it's not unreliable, I wouldn't be using it if it were less reliable than DC!)

* The need to connect computers and automate (except you don't need to do any of that, it's an option if you want to!)

* Lights aren't prototypical (except they can be, depending on prototype and personal preference!)

* Sound isn't prototypical (except trains making noises is entirely prototypical in concept, although I completely understand it's a personal thing whether you like it or not!)

* DCC is a progression from DC (except you can buy your starter train set with DCC and arguably it's an easier place to start from!)

* Assorted comments to the effect it's "the latest fad" (except it's been around for years, it's established technology!)

 

I'm not convinced any of those, which you can dig back through the thread and find for yourself, are particularly balanced viewpoints.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Isn't DCC just the current , most up to date method of control, utilising digital technology which will one day itself be obselete? I'm waiting for radio control and rechargeable locos to appear on the mass market, then I won't have to have any current in the track at all!

DCC is so well established that it will not fade away overnight, much as DC hasn't so I'm not sure this helps the discussion

Going off topic (in the best RMweb tradition )...

The often talked about re-chargable batteries and radio control isn't going to be "the replacement" for DCC.

That's distinctly "old technology", just as DCC is itself.

When a replacement eventually comes around, I'm sure it's likely to involve different communication techniques such as are used in modern networking solutions, irrespective of how the signals are transmitted.

 

Currently we are seeing the first examples of Bi-directional communication (RailCom) beginning to be rolled out and only time will tell how this technology will be fully exploited in railway modelling terms; and whether there is significant interest in its use. Any replacement for DCC is bound to make use of the much more advanced bi-directional communication systems that are available today or will be in the future.

 

Admittidly, wireless communication (and possibly on-board rechargeable power) may or may not be the carrier of the signals in future systems, but that in itself doesn't constitute a control system.

There are, I understand, a number of groups already looking at adapting the curren NMRA DCC system to use radio transmission and on-board power, but these are just extentions of DCC.

However, I'm not aware of any serious attempt to develop an advanced system intended to replace DCC. To do so would almost certainly require industry wide concensus and participation through the NMRA. The advantages that have been gained from an agreed de-facto standard are plain to see and IMHO it would be "brave" if not stupid to try and go it alone.

 

As the case for Bi-Di hasn't been proven and with the almost certain need for standarisation, the drivers for change simply don't exist at the present time. It could be that DCC gives us most of what we'll ever need, again limiting the need for change? Whatever, there's still lots of potential left to exploit in the current system.

For those reasons I believe you can expect NMRA DCC to be around for some time yet.

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

That is indeed a well balanced position, and one that I totally agree with - but he has managed to counter that stated well balanced comment with plenty of, erm, less well balanced ones, such as:.............

etc, etc, etc....

.......I'm not convinced any of those, which you can dig back through the thread and find for yourself, are particularly balanced viewpoints.

Very well put Martyn.

Sorry if I appear to be joining any alleged "bashing", but I think you've highlighted some less than balanced comments.

 

If I may add to your answers to the quotes above....

 

"* DCC is a progression from DC (except you can buy your starter train set with DCC and arguably it's an easier place to start from!)"

Personally I never "progressed" at all (a comment that's often been levelled in my direction... ).

Apart from initially using my son's Hornby DC controller, I went DCC right from the start when I laid my first test track. I've used two systems - a Lenz on a long loan (now returned) and a cheap Dynamis. In the meantime I've purchased a Gaugemaster controller simply for testing locos on DC (it doesn't get much use).

Many starting out today and in the future will begin with a train-set that may well have a simple DCC system included (ala Hornby, Bachmann, Roco etc.), so "progression" will probably only apply to those who are established in the hobby and wish to make the change.

 

 

"* Assorted comments to the effect it's "the latest fad" (except it's been around for years, it's established technology!)"

DCC has indeed been around for a long time (mid 90's) and is very well established around the world. I'm sure most people are aware that the UK has been a little slow in catching up, but it certainly is doing nowadays.

 

I'm not sure why some people get so defensive about change and see DCC as some sort of threat, if you don't want it or can't afford it (I think this is something many have difficulty admitting) then that's fine, no problem; but when people lash out with misleading statements or just create arguments for whatever reason, it's bound to elicite a response from those who wish to set the record straight.

It seems to be quite rare that someone stands up a says something like... "I'm a DC user, but I think DCC is a great addition to the hobby blah blah.... I'd love to have it, but it's not for me because...the cost, established layout, too late to change, age etc, etc", without knocking or bandying around misleading or untrue statements.

I don't know if it's just me, but that seems more like a balanced view. Live and let live...and a little more honesty please.

 

.

 

.

[Kenton]

* DC layout wiring is the same as DC layout wiring (except it's plainly not the same thing!)

other than the obvious mistake in that sentence..

My point has always been that track that has been wired correctly for DC is always going to be easy to convert to DCC - simply throw the section switches. No additional wiring required just new DCC controller. and possibly upgrade the power supply. For all the points etc (if adding DCC control units - additional expense) then you still require wires to the units and to rewire from the point to the DCC point control board - not a big deal)

 

* The unreliability of DCC (except it's not unreliable, I wouldn't be using it if it were less reliable than DC!)

I go by all the posts on RMWeb DCC forum. Locos that require CVs adjusted, chips changed/blown, controllers that fail and spares required, the xtra process of chipping (granted this should be easy) but still seems a common complaint or something extra you have to pay someone to do.

I'm not suggesting it is unreliable even so, just that you don't get so many questions on DC control on things like "my loco goes backwards when I connect the two wires to the track" or "my loco will not move because the motor blew up" or "my DC controller has stopped working". Perhaps these things happen but the answers seem less complex.

 

* The need to connect computers and automate (except you don't need to do any of that, it's an option if you want to!)

I don't think I have implied that you NEED computers - just that it is one more step forward for a big layout. One I would certainly make on a complex layout and would probably encourage others to make. But I guess we have to also remember that the DCC controller - even in its most basic form, is in fact a dedicated computer. As such there is a learning curve on which buttons to press to get what result and settings to enter ... a bit like a mobile phone I guess

 

* Lights aren't prototypical (except they can be, depending on prototype and personal preference!)

I refer you to a parallel discussion on a separate thread about DCC lighting. But my point was that these are not really good excuses to convert to DCC unless perhaps you ran trains of that particular prototype and really wanted lights. I did clarify the point that personally I didn't think they looked right even when they were prototypical. Perhaps contrasting coloured light signals where, in period, they always look right when operating correctly. But a coloured light signal on a 1920's layout?

 

* Sound isn't prototypical (except trains making noises is entirely prototypical in concept, although I completely understand it's a personal thing whether you like it or not!)

Not just a personal thing when you inflict that noise on others - at shows for example. Even worse when the volume is so loud it detract from the different locos running on the layout next door.

Prototypical I still think the sound quality is so poor that it adds nothing more than the operator going beep beep, chuff chuff, brmm brmm - ok slightly but I would rather do without both.

Once again, if you think it is wonderful and sounds just like you remember it on the real thing then why not go DCC?

 

* DCC is a progression from DC (except you can buy your starter train set with DCC and arguably it's an easier place to start from!)

I really did think DC came first and DCC developed from it - how wrong can one be?

Sure you can pay more and start with a DCC "starter" set - and probably go on to build many layouts of all sizes and get many hours of pleasure from them without any basic understanding of DC. Certainly wrong of me to even imply otherwise. But I thought this thread was all about changing from DC to DCC. Probably even more about what should be the trigger point of that change. So we have gone a bit off topic. Though as you say

arguably it's an easier place to start from!

 

* Assorted comments to the effect it's "the latest fad" (except it's been around for years, it's established technology!)

Fad is the wrong word perhaps, as it implies a fashion that will eventually be superseded by another fashion.

But to those who use DC it is certainly something that, unless convinced of its benefits and making a rational decision to change, remains a change - as I have stated - just to have the latest toy in the playground. And even that is just fine if you realise that is why you are making the decision.

 

balanced viewpoints.

Sure I agree with that. Right back at the beginning it was mentioned how these discussions semm to degenerate into two waring camps of "I believe in the pagan god DC" and "I believe in the New Age Thinker DCC"

My camp seems pretty well planted in the middle. DC good for some things and DCC good for others.

I am not a denier of either existence - just a plea for rational decision from every viewpoint.

But I reckon that really ought to be my last word on this thread.

[Oldddudders]

 

"* Assorted comments to the effect it's "the latest fad" (except it's been around for years, it's established technology!)"

DCC has indeed been around for a long time (mid 90's) and is very well established around the world. I'm sure most people are aware that the UK has been a little slow in catching up, but it certainly is doing nowadays.

 

Indeed, but DCC is "merely" the current (sorry) answer to some modellers' wish to improve the operational possibilities of their layout. Not that I imply it will fade away, nor be replaced wholesale by anything better in the near future. In the '60s there was something called Astrac, which, in an era before integrated circuits, was a brave but genuine predecessor to the control system we call DCC. It was made by General Electric, I think, who were just starting their successful tilt at the US diesel market at the same time. As Kenton pointed out earlier in this "full and frank" thread, large layouts with multiple operators were the biggest initial market for DCC, and so they were for its predecessors. Before any of us had home PCs, a number of US layouts had command control of one sort or another. PSI's Dynatrol comes to mind, but there were other systems, too, I think.

 

DCC is what you want it to be - that's what sold it to me a dozen years ago, and I have no reason to regret it. As Martyn has said - some people can't wait to link their layout to a PC, to implement full track circuiting, automate their signals, uncoupling etc. That's all good, clever, impressive stuff, but I don't aspire to much of it, and it isn't necessary in order to get good results from DCC - which has simple play value, after all. You have a roundy-round? Fancy having two or three trains circulating at once, chasing each other but each infinitely adjustable so they don't quite touch? Even the most basic DCC should enable that. Sound? Lights? Your choice - but at least with DCC you can change your mind later, or simply turn the sound off when Fred comes round, 'cos he doesn't like it.

 

As has been said - most of us started with, or have used, or currently use, DC. We know its virtues - and its limitations. In some respects DCC's very scope and apparent complexity are its own downfall - thoroughly bright people sometimes fear it will go bang if they make one false move. This very non-technical modeller has found otherwise. If your budget could afford DCC, and you feel your operations could be more prototypical or realistic, then seeing a decent DCC demo by a club or fellow modeller is a worthwhile aim, surely.

[Glorious NSE]

other than the obvious mistake in that sentence..

LOL - since corrected!

 

My point has always been that track that has been wired correctly for DC is always going to be easy to convert to DCC - simply throw the section switches. No additional wiring required just new DCC controller. and possibly upgrade the power supply. For all the points etc (if adding DCC control units - additional expense) then you still require wires to the units and to rewire from the point to the DCC point control board - not a big deal)

 

But, as the OP has a new layout about to be started if he went for the DCC option then wiring it for DC blocks and running DCC through that would be, at best, wasting time/money and at worst potentially degrading the performance of it and introducing more complexity and more potential for failure.

 

I go by all the posts on RMWeb DCC forum. Locos that require CVs adjusted, chips changed/blown, controllers that fail and spares required, the xtra process of chipping (granted this should be easy) but still seems a common complaint or something extra you have to pay someone to do.

I'm not suggesting it is unreliable even so, just that you don't get so many questions on DC control on things like "my loco goes backwards when I connect the two wires to the track" or "my loco will not move because the motor blew up" or "my DC controller has stopped working". Perhaps these things happen but the answers seem less complex.

 

Not sure i'd agree there's a big number of threads here on the subject of DCC causing toy trains to explode (the horror! Won't somebody think of the children!) I can't say it's ever happened to us or in fact anyone we've talked to.

 

All I can say is my own experience on the subject, i'm not a techie, I can't do neat electronic-standard soldering and what I generally want out of the hobby is for the dratted thing to just work. Reliably. Amazingly I even use normal light switches.

 

My over-riding experience with DCC is that in terms of loco's I take the body off, I plug a chip in, I give it a number and then I drive it. Job done. Exactly what it says on the tin.

 

DCC for the majority of folk out there should be (and there's a deliberate double meaning there) exactly that simple.

 

From memory i've killed one chip by doing something silly (dropping it to short across a live track whilst installing it) and i've had one die in a loco - both were replaced under warranty by the manufacturer so no cost.

 

I don't know how many chips I have at the moment, probably in the region of 10 to 15 - they tend to get swapped between loco's to provide the right power for the era we're running at the next show, that's me cost saving to match my budget.

 

My impression is most of the queries on here are folk trying to do something more than that basic kind of use though, again that's an option for people but you don't need to do it.

 

There are even some queries in the DCC section that are more about the mechanics of the model than any DCC-related issue as well - so I think using the numbers of threads to judge reliability is slightly flawed!

 

I don't think I have implied that you NEED computers

 

I think it could have been taken that way - you've commented on the high cost of DCC including a computer and the complexity of DCC including a computer, but given that's not an integral part of things it's not particularly relevant to either.

 

It's a bit like saying "Cars are expensive, look at the cost of that Ferrari" whilst ignoring that you can get a car that'll work for under ??500...

 

Apologies if that's not the way you meant it, but it's the way I read it.

 

I refer you to a parallel discussion on a separate thread about DCC lighting. But my point was that these are not really good excuses to convert to DCC unless perhaps you ran trains of that particular prototype and really wanted lights. I did clarify the point that personally I didn't think they looked right even when they were prototypical. Perhaps contrasting coloured light signals where, in period, they always look right when operating correctly. But a coloured light signal on a 1920's layout?

 

Not quite sure where signals come into it, they will either be right or wrong for your given prototype, but I appreciate you later tried to clarify that you didn't mean lights in general.

 

The other lighting thread again is really era and country related, I've already said that personally i'd not bother lighting UK stock pre high intensity headlights, other stuff I think needs them to look right.

 

Interestingly if you have a loco that comes RTR with lights and don't want them at all, that's one simple button press on any DCC system to switch them off, and the change is entirely reversible if you change your mind or want to resell it. Under DC i'd presume you're out with the snips.

 

I really did think DC came first and DCC developed from it - how wrong can one be?

 

I was talking about this comment, which has nothing at all to do with one coming before the other:

 

I have always seen DCC as a progression from DC and when the time is right and there is REAL justification then conversion is a move forward.

 

But it's perfectly possible, and simpler, to start first-off with it.

 

I agree it's of little relevance to the OPs post though!

[Steven B]

 

I go by all the posts on RMWeb DCC forum. Locos that require CVs adjusted, chips changed/blown, controllers that fail and spares required, the xtra process of chipping (granted this should be easy) but still seems a common complaint or something extra you have to pay someone to do.

I'm not suggesting it is unreliable even so, just that you don't get so many questions on DC control on things like "my loco goes backwards when I connect the two wires to the track" or "my loco will not move because the motor blew up" or "my DC controller has stopped working". Perhaps these things happen but the answers seem less complex.

 

In the UK, DCC is still a reasonably new technology and is now being used by less technically minded folk (just like DVDs & Digital TV) so it's not unreasonable there there will be lots of questions and queries on it.

 

There have been and always will be lots of DC questions like how to wire up 6V lamps for a 12V supply or how to wire up a reversing loop.

 

A modellers who's been playing trains for 20-30 years will have lots of experience with DC electrics. It's not unreasonable to ask a few questions on the "new" technology if they make the switch to DCC.

 

DCC does have many advantages over DC. In fact the only disadvantage I can see is the cost and the perceved complexity. Several of the postings mention that DC is better suited to one engine in steam type layouts. I'd say that DCC is better as you're more likely to be shunting and shuffling a loco about at slow speeds, something that DCC is much better at doing due to the higher track voltage.

 

I do have to chuckle when those firmly in the DC camp grumble about all the button clicks needed to control a loco - they seem to forget the switches that need throwing before a DC loco will move and how many of us have seen layouts at exhibitions where two locos move because someone forgot to put a switch back in the off position.

 

DCC vs DC is a re-occurring theme on most web forums/email groups. Was there the same discussions (or even hostility in some cases) when DC became more popular than AC and two rail took over from three rail supply.

 

 

Happy modelling,

 

Steven B.

(recent DCC convert, four locos done so far, plenty more to go)

[coachmann]

It seems to be quite rare that someone stands up a says something like... "I'm a DC user, but I think DCC is a great addition to the hobby blah blah.... I'd love to have it, but it's not for me because...the cost, established layout, too late to change, age etc, etc", without knocking or bandying around misleading or untrue statements.

I don't know if it's just me, but that seems more like a balanced view. Live and let live...and a little more honesty please.

Hear hear......Yet it is even rarer to see someone stand up and say "I'm a DCC user, period!"

 

When I mentioned earlier it would cost me ??300.00 for a DCC controller, I was going off what my Lenz outfit cost last year.

 

I saw an instance yesterday of where DCC was ideally suited and where DC would be a bit of... er... a faff at intersections. My pal has a mixed gauge layout and is currently laying standard gauge outer rail and complicated pointwork. One rail is the common return, and the other two outer rails are wired together too. With DC the standard and narrow gauge locos would set off as soon as they recieved current. As he has DCC, the standard and narrow gauge locos can be run independantly.

[peach james]

other than the obvious mistake in that sentence..

My point has always been that track that has been wired correctly for DC is always going to be easy to convert to DCC - simply throw the section switches. No additional wiring required just new DCC controller. and possibly upgrade the power supply. For all the points etc (if adding DCC control units - additional expense) then you still require wires to the units and to rewire from the point to the DCC point control board - not a big deal)

 

Wiring for DCC is NOT the same though, because you don't need to run to (I'm going to use my layout) 120 section switches, with 2 bus wires to each one, plus the track feeder from them. If it is blocked in DCC for detection, then it reasonably would have been a section in DC...right there, at a pound each, is a substantial portion of the cost of the DCC system. Instead, you have 2 common rails, wired to a bus wire which would give you performance which beats DC for controlling locos hands down. No matter where you abandon the train, it will not move if the controller is not set to GO. Leave it across both mainlines and have a meet? Go right ahead...Adam's Family style train crashes are certainly possible with DCC, but rather harder to achieve with DC.

 

If you were going to equal the performance that I (or others) have undertaken with DCC on DC, then you end up with a electrical system like that of Blea Moor. Having had a look under the hood in 06, I was truely amazed at the herotic effort that Peter Kirkmond went for. Before anyone thinks I can't do it that way, I used to maintain a air operated analog computer for a living- probably one of the last large scale installations of its type in the world. If you feel that making a computer by hand using ex PO relays is the way ahead, feel free to proceed that way-but don't expect it to have less wiring than what DCC allows for. By the same token, if you have a 6'x18" layout, then DCC is like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly- there may be other reasons(1) why it is the way to go, but it isn't because you are going to run 4 trains at the same time.

 

 

(1) Sound, Lights, better performance of 4 wheeled engines (via Zimo/Lenz Gold + UPS), ability to use 2+ engines and leave them anywhere on the layout stopped...those are good reasons why I would still use DCC on my plank now, but they can be more easily offset on a small layout than a big one.

 

 

I go by all the posts on RMWeb DCC forum. Locos that require CVs adjusted, chips changed/blown, controllers that fail and spares required, the xtra process of chipping (granted this should be easy) but still seems a common complaint or something extra you have to pay someone to do.

I'm not suggesting it is unreliable even so, just that you don't get so many questions on DC control on things like "my loco goes backwards when I connect the two wires to the track" or "my loco will not move because the motor blew up" or "my DC controller has stopped working". Perhaps these things happen but the answers seem less complex.

 

Perhaps then, you need to look at the forums, and how much answer you get from the DC vs the DCC forum. How many people on here ask about reversing the direction that their brand new HornBach loco goes on DC? Not too many. How many ask how to reverse (permanantly) CV29? Lots, because it is fairly easy to do once you do the first one. Loco wired the wrong way around? Not a problem, CV29 takes care of that...no need to open the case up and change the wire. In DC, if you want a different performance from a loco from the same controller position, would you care to explain how to acchieve it? (as in changing the speed of a loco to match another one, with the same voltage on the track?) I know how- its brilliantly simple. Change the gear ratio... And as for the "my loco won't move because the motor blew up" has been a complaint in the past about DC too- I've let the smoke out of a couple of DC motors. Some chips have a justly deserved reputation of the smoke coming out- generally, at the bottom end of the market. You get what you pay for...nothing more, or less.

 

How many people ask how to wire a reverse loop in DC now? That's probably a telling comment- that the use of reversing loops on DC layouts has dropped off, because DCC is a far easier to understand way of doing things...it's still 2 wires to the track. (the SAME 2 wires, put through a revesing unit...and yes, I am aware of the issues with Dynamis and its fast acting cut off- that is a system problem though, not a style thing- I have 1 electronic and 5 mechanical reversing sections and they work like hotcakes on Digitrax)

 

 

I don't think I have implied that you NEED computers - just that it is one more step forward for a big layout. One I would certainly make on a complex layout and would probably encourage others to make. But I guess we have to also remember that the DCC controller - even in its most basic form, is in fact a dedicated computer. As such there is a learning curve on which buttons to press to get what result and settings to enter ... a bit like a mobile phone I guess

 

 

Not really. The basic throttle that I use (UT2) is very easy to use- 2 rotary switches + 1 push button select the train, and then the throttle mechanism. (dial & reverse switch). My 4 year old (literally, he turned 4 in November) can manage it...and has for a while now. If there is much of a learning curve, it is as low as that for a very simple sectional DCC layout. (like 4 blocks worth or so...)

(it's kind of cute to get the son to say DMU or Shed . I realize that a DCC controller of any sort is a computer, but so are simulated momentum controllers- just because it is not digital doesn't make it not a computer. Even the much vaunted "Pentroller" is probably classified as a computer- it takes a input and alters it, in a fixed ratio, to a output...not a direct 1:1 proportion like using a Variac or a reostat to control the voltage on track.

 

Again, as I posted above- it really does come down to what the layout looks like as to if DCC is something that you need or want. There are lots of reasons why to go to DCC, and relatively few to stay with DC, in my opinion. Of course, that is my view of it, and not of necessity something that Andy (New Hay) would share...as the old internet saying is, YMMV.

 

James Powell

[beast66606]

But a coloured light signal on a 1920's layout?

 

Mersey / Liverpool Overhead / Underground - need I go on ? (they are colour lights btw )

 

Wiring for DCC is NOT the same though, because you don't need to run to (I'm going to use my layout) 120 section switches, with 2 bus wires to each one, plus the track feeder from them.

 

With common return (on DC) you have a single bus "the common return" and then a single wire from the control panel to each section, this is switched in the panel to connect to the required cab (and there can be many) or be "off" - not sure where the 2 bus wires and track feeder come into it (and I'm a DCC fanatic of well over 10 years use)

[298]

I saw an instance yesterday of where DCC was ideally suited and where DC would be a bit of... er... a faff at intersections. My pal has a mixed gauge layout and is currently laying standard gauge outer rail and complicated pointwork. One rail is the common return, and the other two outer rails are wired together too. With DC the standard and narrow gauge locos would set off as soon as they recieved current. As he has DCC, the standard and narrow gauge locos can be run independantly.

 

But couldn't he isolate the two gauges from each other, and use a DC controller for each to independently control separate locos, as per Trix-Twin...? Just thought i'd add that before anyone else did....

 

With such complicated trackwork there might be instances where a diamond can be wired through a DCC reverse loop module, so the operator doesn't have to think about it's polarity, throw a switch, or risk a short circuit. Some may baulk at the cost of such a unit, but i've learnt from other modellers that investing a bit of money to save a bit of time now and in the future is often a good decision. Especially when what looks like the cheaper option involves soldering up lots of section switches and connectors. Have a think about how long it takes to wire an average exhibition layout for DC, I bet it's a considerable number of modelling hours.

 

And has anyone mentioned how bad soldering is for you...?

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

I think you're taking my remark a bit too literally David. My use of the word 'need' was not meant to imply a missing life or death requirement. I'm perfectly aware that in the grand scheme of life it's not something that's all that important. I was merely questioning whether within the narrow field of the hobby, the system was really necessary for my requirements. It's only a hobby after all.

 

Dave.

 

I would be quite 'up' for the criticism Max but can I respectfully point out that the use of the word need was a Freudian slip. Then again if you had posted 'Do I Want DCC' I doubt we would have got to five pages and an orange briefcase either.

[Guest Max Stafford]

I don't blame any of this on my mother David, but I'm not sure about that briefcase being an appropriate colour. Surely a nice functional aluminium one would be more fitting.

 

Dave.

[peach james]

 

With common return (on DC) you have a single bus "the common return" and then a single wire from the control panel to each section, this is switched in the panel to connect to the required cab (and there can be many) or be "off" - not sure where the 2 bus wires and track feeder come into it (and I'm a DCC fanatic of well over 10 years use)

 

 

Cab A/ Cab B would have bus wires (wires from which a large # of connections would be made), which have to wander their way around the layout to each of the section switches. Of course, add Cabs C-Z as appropriate, if using Rotary switches... So, you end up with a common return wire, and 2 live wires snaking their way around the entire scenery of the layout with ~2A on them. In my case, that would have meant 40+ft each way of wire to the ends of the layout, or a tie in across the middle. I had 3 panels built before I realized that there was simply no way that DC would do anything like what I wanted it to do, and that I had better bite the bullet and restart with DCC at that point. The panels in question were fairly simple- 2of 4 track staging yard panels+ the start of a 3rd 4 track staging yard. But, without operating the same train for multi loops, I could see that it would not be easy to convert to computerized control of the staging yards based on how I was wiring.

 

Now am I making sense? It's all this complicated, hard to understand DC wiring stuff...

 

Perhaps I should be posting this in the DC forum instead, because, you know, the DCC forum has too many posts about how hard it is to wire DCC- a N and a S wire, to each bit of track, and Alexander Keith's your uncle, away go your trains...and that DC stuff is SO easy to wire. /off sarcasm

 

I do have a DCC layout wired with a R and Y wire, one to each rail every 10 ft or so...it's my Lego model railway... "2 Wire" it ain't, but it is very close (just lots of the same 2 wires). That's another area DCC scores heavily- it is very easy to set up temporary railways with large #'s of locos moving around, with no classic limits, and then tear it apart again. The biggest space we had was 40x50', which we had for Fri/Sat/Sun. Something like 800 ft of track, wired in around 2 hours to run up to 8 trains on at once, including MU'ing trains. No remote control of switches though, they were all hand o matic.

 

This is likely another consiquence of being a UK modeler in Canada, I have been exposed to both roundy round and peninsula style layouts, and know what I prefer, which is more the peninsula style. Mine is a giant roundy round, but that has to do with putting a scale length version of Long Marton together rather than a generic UK location. I know that my space problem is the exact opposite of most UK modelers, in that I have at present 24x30', and will have another 24x16 in the future to fill...

 

 

James Powell

[Neal Ball]

Personally I am looking forward to building the next layout as DCC.

 

Start date: Tues 29th Dec 2009

[The Stationmaster]

Right back at the beginning it was mentioned how these discussions semm to degenerate into two waring camps of "I believe in the pagan god DC" and "I believe in the New Age Thinker DCC"

My camp seems pretty well planted in the middle. DC good for some things and DCC good for others.

I am not a denier of either existence - just a plea for rational decision from every viewpoint.

But I reckon that really ought to be my last word on this thread.

 

 

I'm 100% with you Kenton - DC good for some things, DCC is clearly advantageous for others. Many folk model what are effectively 'one engine in steam' branch lines or nests of sidings - so operationally they don't need DCC.

 

Others model something where there could be a need for several locos to be on the move at a time or lots of locos are stabled and there is a need to move only one - easily, cue the advantages of DCC.

 

DCC also seems to offer advatages when it comes to sound and things like loco headlights (on diesels/electrics at any rate) and that will obviously appeal to some folk although to be quite honest a lot of the sound I have heard so far is not wonderful, especially for steam outline locos).

 

So I rerckon there's a fair element of horses for courses when it comes to choice of system; it boils down to what you want for your railway and just because someone else makes a different choice doesn't mean that one or other of you is wrong.

[beast66606]

Now am I making sense? It's all this complicated, hard to understand DC wiring stuff...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/6100-dc-cab-control-the-basics/

[Peter Kazmierczak]

One of the beauties of the internet and groups such as this, is that we can have discussions about various aspects of modelling which would only have happened in the past at club nights or in the letters pages of the magazines. Long may they continue, so long as they don't become too personal or aggressive.

 

From my own viewpoint, as many have said previously, it's down to personal preference. I can see many advantages of using DCC but I'll never change for many reasons (time, cost and inclination being three).

 

Using DCC doesn't make anyone a "better" or a "more serious" modeller than anyone else. I still use 00 track; doesn't bother me one bit. Much more important to me is capturing that elusive railway atmosphere and sense of time/place.

 

Anyway, back to the layout. Now where's that piece of Tri-ang Series 3 track for my extension.....

[jc2001]

I've come into this thread rather late but would like to add my 2ds worth.

 

I switched to DCC half way through making my O14 model of the K1 Garratt. I had been attempting to make the reversing gear operational and direction mapped function outputs powering memory wire provided the eventual solution. Early this year I finally finished (after 12+ years) the main loop on my layout and I discovered a whole new set of operational joys. It is very easy to stall a train loaded to the max on my 1 in 28 bank. Of course with DCC it is easy to send a banking engine to assist it and then let it fall back when the train has reached the summit. I doubt if this could be easily achieved with DC.

 

Load dependent sound adds another dimension and I am sorely tempted to follow Paul Holmes' lead with DCC controlled smoke - including steam around the drain cocks at startup!

 

I am convinced DCC is better for controlling locos but still use/prefer a manual control panel for points (I don't have signals).

 

Here is a sample video of my Garratt: K1 on the PLR. Apologies to those who have seen it before.

 

John

[Oldddudders]

Mersey / Liverpool Overhead / Underground - need I go on ? (they are colour lights btw )

 

And, darn sarf, Blackfriars Junction, for example, in 1926. See http://www.wbsframe.mste.co.uk/public/Blackfriars_Junction.html

or Borough Market Junction, see http://www.wbsframe.mste.co.uk/public/Blackfriars_Junction.html in the same year, among other installations. [i think the signalman in the Boro' Market picture is Bert Murton, who transferred to London Bridge MPSB when it opened in 1976.]

[Oakydoke]

Many folk model what are effectively 'one engine in steam' branch lines or nests of sidings - so operationally they don't need DCC.

I agree that they don't need DCC, but DCC can still give them some extra benefits over and above DC.

e.g. No wiring of sections (if employed), individual configuring of loco performance, so they don't all respond to control inputs in the same way, lights, controllable smoke units, sound, DCC remote uncoupling, servo operation of various moving parts etc, etc.. and generally much smoother performance.

Naturally it's up to the individual if they want to take advantage of what's on offer. Nobody should be telling them they're wasting their money.

 

 

....it boils down to what you want for your railway and just because someone else makes a different choice doesn't mean that one or other of you is wrong.

Absolutely. From my observation, DCC advocates are generally more fair and balanced in this respect, after all most of them are experienced users of DC control too. On the other hand very anti-DCC ranting and raving seems to be all too common when this perenial subject is hotly debated. It's often accompanied by complete rubbish being spouted in attempt to denounce the newer technology. I can't understand what motivates such people to react this way?

['CHARD]

This is getting further away from the OP now, but for what it's worth I'll share an anecdote about where 'CHARD goes into grumpy old man mode about 'new technology.'

 

There are hopefully no parallels worth drawing with DCC, but I get rage when anyone can now conceivably drive their car from somewhere to anywhere using Sat-Nav, thus rendering directional map-reading redundant at a stroke.

 

This is probably because maps have been a love of mine since I first started an interest in railways about 40 years ago, and the new technology seems to negate any respect for the cartographer's trade. It feels that Johnny-come-latelies can be just as effective in pursuit of the desired outcome as a skilled time-served practitioner, but without paying their dues.

 

This is a debate about the embrace of technology to achieve desired outcomes. Sat-Nav is probably safer for novices in 99% of cases than having an atlas open on the passenger seat (can we ignore Darwin contenders here that turn left at level crossings for the purpose of argument, please?). But for a novice to railway modelling, the desired outcome of moving different trains about is vying for their leisure time and pocket-money with a market full of technology-packed, easy-entry alternatives. For this reason and the future of the hobby (think tinplate and 3-rail etc before 2-rail DC) DCC is undeniably the way forward.

 

I remember being flamed very publicly on a predecessor of RMWeb for chiding those driving headlong towards what I feared was a costly sound-fitted, smoke-belching DCC future. For reasons I have expounded further up this thread, I've changed my point-of-view. And this is from someone happy to pay the price for realism in RTR that would not have been dreamed of ten years ago. And yes, I have paid my dues to both DC and scratchbuilding

[coachmann]

....it boils down to what you want for your railway and just because someone else makes a different choice doesn't mean that one or other of you is wrong.

 

Absolutely. From my observation, DCC advocates are generally more fair and balanced in this respect, after all most of them are experienced users of DC control too. On the other hand very anti-DCC ranting and raving seems to be all too common when this perenial subject is hotly debated. It's often accompanied by complete rubbish being spouted in attempt to denounce the newer technology. I can't understand what motivates such people to react this way?

There's no answer to that....

[Ron Ron Ron]

Is time up on this one?

 

Next week we shall mostly be talking about........

 

 

Gauge wars. 00 v 00-SF v EM v P4 v X5 v ST220 v R2D2......

Better looking RTR 00 track.....

Bachmann's new 47 has the wrong type of light switches on the drivers console....

Why Hornby are rotters and they won't be getting any of my dosh....sulk, sulk.....

 

Merry Christmas everyone !

 

 

.

[Guest Max Stafford]

We do appear to be going around in circles now. I suggest we put the thread to bed now before things become ungentlemanly.

 

Dave.