Wright writes.....

[Chamby]

Thanks Ian,

 

I really don't mind confrontation (I've learned a lot from it on many occasions). It's just that, why is it that DCC is perceived (not by anyone who thinks) as the one-stop-shop cure for poor running on model railways? There's no doubt that (if used correctly, by those who know what they're doing) it can bring a whole raft of (desirable) functions to a layout's operation, but it is not a 'medicine'. 

 

As you say, there is no difference in the wiring (other than one doesn't need as many on/off switches) between DCC and DC. If the wiring is poor, won't a DCC layout suffer more? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Tony, you are right of course. As a DCC user, I do find it more fickle. And if things aren’t running sweetly, and your loco has sound as well, the interruptions in sound make things far worse than not having any sound at all. The disciplines of clean track, wheels etc are just as, if not more relevant for DCC users. Which is, I guess, why the use of stay-alives has come about in DCC more than analogue control, because the problems of poor running can be exaggerated.

 

The upside of DCC for me is the ability to control things more accurately. When programmed well, you can adjust the amount of inertia, the rate of acceleration etc, as well as turn things on and off, eg: lights. With sound, you can synchronise the chuffs to the wheel rotation throughout the speed range, the list goes on. It does bring in a whole new dimension to modelling, and some of the more recent sound programmes are becoming very good indeed. But you really need to get into programming to get the best out of it. Again this comes back to time, patience, skill and effort. Far too many DCC users have a ‘plug and play’ mentality which, to be fair to them, is being peddled by the RTR manufacturers. RTR DCC sound is a step ahead of being ‘toy-like’ but is still well short of the real thing. I see many parallels between the comparisons made in this thread regarding kit built loco’s versus RTR, and doing the DCC Sound side of things properly.

 

If you have not seen it yet, can I recommend that you watch the Locoman 8F demonstration video on the DC Kits website? This more than anything else I have seen demo’s how much DCC sound has come on.

 

I am not trying to convert you Tony, or saying that DCC is any better than DC. It is a different way of doing things with its own pro’s and con’s. But It is not a lazy way to model if you do it properly. Far from it, in fact.

 

Phil

[Tony Wright]

Agreed.  

 

My DCC layout has six wires not two.  Two for the up line, two for the down and two for the accessories (point motors, signals, lighting).  Every rail section has its own dropper, connecting to the appropriate bus.  Every accessory has its own two-wire feed from the bus.  Every frog has its own live feed, so also two wires from the rail bus to the changeover switch on the frog.  So still lot of wire and a lot of soldering.

 

However, there are easier things about DCC:

 

Every baseboard join only needs the same six wires - the six buses.  Except in one location, where a seventh is needed because the point motor is on the opposite side of the joint to the frog!

There are no isolating sections required, or switches.

Everything can be controlled from one handset, simply by bridging the three pairs of buses. So in this configuration (essentially just two bus wires) the whole layout can be operated from one handset with no control panel required, because each loco, point and signal has its own address.  (This is a lot less intuitive than using a control panel though).

Because the up and down lines each have their own bus, visiting analogue loco's can be run on one line, whilst DCC locos are run on the other.  (Just remember not to use the slips...)

Re-wiring under the baseboards is easy, because there are only six wire colours, one for each bus and its related droppers.  Plus a seventh for the frogs of course!  Just connect any wire to one of the same colour and you're done.

 

Also, re: my post earlier today about illuminated loco lamps, a pic below of the DCC Concepts LMS style lamp (painted white) attached to the front of a DC wired Bachmann 3MT tank, otherwise straight out of the box.  It comes more into its own when run in the evenings...

 

IMG_1975.JPG

 

Phil

Thanks Phil,

 

Some most-interesting points..............

 

Clearly, your wiring is very sound and you, I would surmise, get excellent running from DCC. 

 

I'm not disagreeing with anything you say, but may I list the things I find easier/better/enlightening in my use of analogue, please? 

 

1. A stray short doesn't shut everything down.

2. Locos never lose their address because there is no address to lose. 

3. Fault finding is far easier with DC, though, at times, it would be nice on encountering a fault to just switch off the 'juice', then switch it back on and things work again. I think it's called re-booting!

4. I can run any DCC-fitted loco anywhere on my layout (as long as the chip has not been programmed not to respond).

5. Having a separate controller for each circuit and an independent control panel is much easier to understand. No real railway runs all its operating functions from only one console - roads, points, routes, signals, trains, etc........

6. It is much cheaper.

7. Because almost all my locos are built from metal kits (with the obvious chance of a stray short), there's less of a chance of a problem with DC.

8. I needn't bother leaving space in the locos for a chip. 

9. From time to time, I've assisted others in getting their model railways to work properly. In every case, I've found it far more difficult to get DCC systems (with faults) running to the standard I insist upon than DC systems (with faults).

10. Where I have given assistance, those I've helped seem much easier to grasp what I'm trying to do if their system is DC. Which begs the question; why do folk buy into a system which they don't understand and are stuffed when things go wrong? To be fair, many analogue-users don't understand their railways, either. 

11. When confronted with a DCC loco which needs my doctoring, I suggest the owner visit one of the traders specialising in the systems. In those cases, I'm stuffed!

12. Over 50% of the users of DCC I know have now abandoned it and returned to DC.  

 

Nothing on the above list should be taken as my being anti-DCC (despite my being reported as thinking it to be the 'spawn of Satan!'); they're just my personal thoughts and observations. It's interesting how this thread keeps on coming back to DCC (it won't be long until it's back to P4!). I know I'll never use it, so that's that as far as I'm concerned.............

 

I believe my own layout of Little Bytham would benefit not a jot from DCC for some of the reasons cited above and because I obtain reliable, smooth and trouble-free running without it. 

 

Finally, though I'm sure the illuminated loco lamps are very effective, LB runs to a timetable set in the high summer of 1958, between the hours of 8.00 am and 6.00 pm, when lamps on locos would not be lit. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

Tony

Perhaps with the ever increasing price of RRT models folk maybe are thinking of alternative options, a certain stand not far from you that weathers locos add crews etc and it’s near £200 for a model ?

I will try the bogie arrangement with my B16 as I think the linkage causes problems with that long wheelbase and I like the way you achieved it on the H16.

Dennis

Dennis,

 

One thing I should have mentioned, is that the bogie has a coil spring on top of it (half a Jackson screw-coupling one). This helps with the road-holding. 

[jwealleans]

...has anyone been able to get inside an RTR 2-4-0 well tank yet?

Yes. I wouldn't recommend it unless absolutely necessary, but it is possible.

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by jwealleans

[CF MRC]

All ready for the paint shops (after the Missendon weekend).

Tim

[grob1234]

Almost a shame to paint it, Tim. 

 

What a brilliant piece of work, astonishing. Thank you for sharing.

[Barry O]

Tony

Carlisle would never have got to where it is if it had been dc. Miles and miles of wire, hundreds of switches would have been required..it just would have taken far too long.

Similarly Bob Harper's magnificent On3 and On2 empire would be inoperable in dc(I was there when he tried it..9 way rotary section switches just doesn't lead to prototypical train movement).

 

You can split dcc controlled layoutsinto sections allowing things to run if one section is shorted out but

If you get a mysterious short on a loco, wagon, coach or track in dc it does affect performance but most people would turn a blind eye to it. DCC makes you sort out these niggly faults.

 

DCC is not a universal panacea - If you have badly laid and wired track and logos and stock which have shorts dcc will not cure those...but neither would dc.

 

Try operating LB in the dark and watch for the shorts!

Baz

[Tony Wright]

All ready for the paint shops (after the Missendon weekend).

Tim

Wonderful work, Tim,

 

It's a good job you're a better model-maker than you are a speller - Missendon? 

[Tony Wright]

Tony

Carlisle would never have got to where it is if it had been dc. Miles and miles of wire, hundreds of switches would have been required..it just would have taken far too long.

Similarly Bob Harper's magnificent On3 and On2 empire would be inoperable in dc(I was there when he tried it..9 way rotary section switches just doesn't lead to prototypical train movement).

 

You can split dcc controlled layoutsinto sections allowing things to run if one section is shorted out but

If you get a mysterious short on a loco, wagon, coach or track in dc it does affect performance but most people would turn a blind eye to it. DCC makes you sort out these niggly faults.

 

DCC is not a universal panacea - If you have badly laid and wired track and logos and stock which have shorts dcc will not cure those...but neither would dc.

 

Try operating LB in the dark and watch for the shorts!

Baz

Thanks Baz,

 

The running of locos (on test or on layouts) is something I've always done from time to time in the dark. One can immediately tell if there's a short because a spark can be seen; from a bogie wheel, frame, brake block or any other metal parts of opposite polarity. On DC it (usually) just causes a twitch; on DCC, it shuts everything down. 

 

I most certainly do not turn a blind eye to shorts (even if they do no more than cause a twitch) and eradicate every one at source. 

 

Speaking of shorts; how can it be that on Carlisle one evening I'd been running lots of trains, positioning them for photography with ease (yes, I can operate a DCC layout, even a vast one), only to return next morning for more photography, and find a short circuit. Because of Mike Edge's excellent arrangement of 'zones', I was able to find which section the short was in and it turned out to be a loco which I'd placed into position (by driving it) the night before (perfectly) without the slightest problem. Then, overnight (and much, much cooler), by next morning, something on the loco (a Princess) had shorted out. I moved it half an inch, and the short went away. I have never, ever experienced that on LB, or any other DC layouts I've built/operated. I know changes in temperature can cause shorts over a (relatively) short time, but it's usually an increase in temp which causes the problem. One observation, on examining the all-metal, and beautifully-built, Prinny, was the mass of wires inside it. Ironic, isn't it, that though DCC lessens the amount of layout wiring needed, it substantially increases the number of wires needed inside a loco (much, much more if sound or lights are contemplated)? All those extra wires increase the risk of short circuits in all-metal locos. Not so for mine; all my locos need are two wires from the pick-ups, one to each brush terminal (only one insulated because I build live chassis). There, I'll use that as propaganda for DC - all one needs are two wires! Sounds good, doesn't it?

 

And, I agree, wiring Carlisle for analogue would have been much more time-consuming (not more difficult, just lots more wires and switches). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited February 13, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Barry Ten]

I'm not sure four wires, as opposed to two, counts as "substantially more", Tony! Yes, sound and lights etc do add to the wiring loom, but if the connections are properly soldered and heat-shrink insulated, there shouldn't be any possibility of a short, even in a metal body.

 

 

Al (happily using both DC and DCC without needing to be for or against either camp)

[Enterprisingwestern]

All ready for the paint shops (after the Missendon weekend).

Tim

 

Bloody impressive, and I not even a kettle fan!

 

Mike.

[Ray Chessum]

Indeed there are a number of features normally associated with DCC that can be also installed successfully on analogue loco’s.

 

Stay-alive capacitors will work with DC, with a little simple circuitry attached.

 

Adding an orange LED with an appropriate resistor can be used to create a firebox glow, though to get it to flicker will require a little wizardry such as that sold by Train Tech. The advertising blurb for one of Dapol’s new loco’s for 2018 says they will be including this feature RTR.

 

My own favourite is to use DCC Concepts loco lamps, which contain micro LED’s. These work great with DC loco’s too. Wire the lamps with an appropriate resistor and if you wire them with the right polarity, because they are a diode they will only illuminate when the polarity is corect for the direction of travel. I also think they look better than Springside’s cast lamps, more delicate. The illumination as sold can be too ‘bright white’ but this can be toned down with a thin smear of yellow colouring on the lens.

 

These thing are not difficult to do. Whilst some may regard them as gimmickry, I suggest you give it a try before knocking it. It certainly adds an extra dimension to the model, especially when running in the dark, or even with slightly dimmed lighting.

 

Phil

 

Phil, could you please tell me where I could find more information about the 'stay alive' function for DC, Thanks, Ray

[grahame]

All ready for the paint shops (after the Missendon weekend).

Tim

That looks impressive, but also lanky and phallic.

 

G.

[Tony Wright]

I'm not sure four wires, as opposed to two, counts as "substantially more", Tony! Yes, sound and lights etc do add to the wiring loom, but if the connections are properly soldered and heat-shrink insulated, there shouldn't be any possibility of a short, even in a metal body.

 

 

Al (happily using both DC and DCC without needing to be for or against either camp)

Al,

 

I'd think 100% more counts as 'substantial', dependent on points of view. In my case, it's 400% more because I only have one insulated wire; the other connection acts as the motor stay as well. 

 

Many of Carlisle's locos have tender pick-ups as well (which I don't need), which means another two wires to consider..................

 

Am I against DCC? It certainly might seem so, but if one is 'for' something, is it automatic that one must be 'against' something else? You're certainly not, and both systems work for you. 

 

Since you're a professional author (which I am as well, well sort of), I've no wish to argue semantics, but may I offer the following pictures of what I consider 'substantial', please? 

 

 

 

This is a DCC-fitted chassis for an A7 which I've built for a friend (the complete loco). I think it's safe to say that there are a 'few' wires. Obviously, it has no tender, but if I'd fitted pick-ups to the bogie/pony, there'd be a few more. One advantage of my live-chassis construction is that, in most cases, every bogie/pony/tender wheel is live to one side as well, giving excellent pick-up through every axle. It's advantageous to have as many pick-ups as possible (whether it be DC or DCC), but live chassis are not really recommended for DCC, hence my point about a 'substantial' number of wires needed for a DCC-fitted loco in comparison to my DC ones. 

 

 

 

I hope the pictures above show my point. This is the basic chassis for a DJH A2/3 I've just built.

 

 

It goes under this (just a few details to add). It goes really well, does not short anywhere and was an absolute doddle to wire up - with just one insulated wire needed (this one only has live wheels on the pony and tender, because I've used Alan Gibson bogie wheels). 

 

Multiply this by over 150 (the number of locos I've built for LB), and I think the number of extra wires needed were the locos DCC-fitted might well be described as 'substantially more'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited February 13, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Bloody impressive, and I not even a kettle fan!

 

Mike.

I'd agree entirely with your assessment of Tim's incredible P2. 

 

However, might the cabside windows be a tiny bit small? Especially in comparison with the spectacles. My observation is based on the amount of 'land' on the cabside between the cab front and the vertical edge of the leading cab window, which seems to me to be too much. There is a greater gap above the windows as well. I've checked against the drawings I have, and dozens of pictures.  

 

I offer the above entirely in the spirit of 'constructive criticism', and at least it gives us mere mortals a chance when even the very best model makers (would appear to) get things slightly wrong. 

 

If I'm wrong in my observation, then I most sincerely apologies to Tim. 

 

Anyway, it's still an incredible piece of work, especially in 2mm! 

Edited February 13, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Anglian]

The P2 is an amazing model judged by any standard. Until Tony mentioned it I had no idea that the cab windows might not be exact. Having viewed a few images I agree – the side openings should be a little bit larger. The images I've seen also suggest that the spectacles' lower edge falls in line with the centre line of the cab side windows.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Anglian

[Lecorbusier]

Al,

 

I'd think 100% more counts as 'substantial', dependent on points of view. In my case, it's 400% more because I only have one insulated wire; the other connection acts as the motor stay as well. 

 

Many of Carlisle's locos have tender pick-ups as well (which I don't need), which means another two wires to consider..................

 

Am I against DCC? It certainly might seem so, but if one is 'for' something, is it automatic that one must be 'against' something else? You're certainly not, and both systems work for you. 

 

Since you're a professional author (which I am as well, well sort of), I've no wish to argue semantics, but may I offer the following pictures of what I consider 'substantial', please? 

 

 A7 05.jpg

 

This is a DCC-fitted chassis for an A7 which I've built for a friend (the complete loco). I think it's safe to say that there are a 'few' wires. Obviously, it has no tender, but if I'd fitted pick-ups to the bogie/pony, there'd be a few more. One advantage of my live-chassis construction is that, in most cases, every bogie/pony/tender wheel is live to one side as well, giving excellent pick-up through every axle. It's advantageous to have as many pick-ups as possible (whether it be DC or DCC), but live chassis are not really recommended for DCC, hence my point about a 'substantial' number of wires needed for a DCC-fitted loco in comparison to my DC ones. 

 

DJH A2 3 05.jpg

 

DJH A2 3 06.jpg

 

I hope the pictures above show my point. This is the basic chassis for a DJH A2/3 I've just built.

 

DJH A2 3 04.jpg

 

It goes under this (just a few details to add). It goes really well, does not short anywhere and was an absolute doddle to wire up - with just one insulated wire needed (this one only has live wheels on the pony and tender, because I've used Alan Gibson bogie wheels). 

 

Multiply this by over 150 (the number of locos I've built for LB), and I think the number of extra wires needed were the locos DCC-fitted might well be described as 'substantially more'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Interestingly, with Protocab radio control you have both more wires and perhaps less complication - of course assuming you can put up with the requirement to charge the battery! You have the two wires coming from the motor and linking to the logic board. You then have a small cable which has a plug which connects the battery to the logic board. You have another small cable and plug which links the charging point to the logic board. Finally you have a small cable with plug from logic board to proximity switch. All of these small cables with plugs come ready connected to the logic board and the only wiring required is soldering the two wires to the motor. However, you have no pick ups on the model ... so no arrangements and paths to find. You also have no issues with shorts as the loco is not connected electrically and nor is the track powered. You also have no issues with dead spots or dirt effecting pick up and therefore running. Wiring the layout is far simpler - particularly if you look at mechanical point actuation.

 

It strikes me that all the systems have pluses and minuses and when push comes to shove its down to personal preference. One makes excuses for one's preferred system and the annoyances of the out of favour system grow into over large problems, whilst the benefits are ignored because not sought. 

[Denbridge]

Interestingly, with Protocab radio control you have both more wires and perhaps less complication - of course assuming you can put up with the requirement to charge the battery! You have the two wires coming from the motor and linking to the logic board. You then have a small cable which has a plug which connects the battery to the logic board. You have another small cable and plug which links the charging point to the logic board. Finally you have a small cable with plug from logic board to proximity switch. All of these small cables with plugs come ready connected to the logic board and the only wiring required is soldering the two wires to the motor. However, you have no pick ups on the model ... so no arrangements and paths to find. You also have no issues with shorts as the loco is not connected electrically and nor is the track powered. You also have no issues with dead spots or dirt effecting pick up and therefore running. Wiring the layout is far simpler - particularly if you look at mechanical point actuation.

 

It strikes me that all the systems have pluses and minuses and when push comes to shove its down to personal preference. One makes excuses for one's preferred system and the annoyances of the out of favour system grow into over large problems, whilst the benefits are ignored because not sought. 

Interesting system. But one of the things that makes me refuse to switch to DCC is cost. Judging by the website it is nigh on £100 per loco plus the initial outlay for protocab. I'll pass on that. 

[Lecorbusier]

Interesting system. But one of the things that makes me refuse to switch to DCC is cost. Judging by the website it is nigh on £100 per loco plus the initial outlay for protocab. I'll pass on that. 

For Protocab I think you need to be starting out, rather than established ... both in terms of stock and layout. Unless of course you are well off and want it! I buy my kit at shows where there tends to be a promotion. I buy them on a loco by loco basis as I build them and the last set cost £80. Its my second loco so far .. the first costing £75. The controller is comparable to any other system.

 

I think the price will come down just as it did with the DCC chips ... but that is still in the future!

 

However I was not advocating Protocab, or trying to persuade anybody ... just suggesting that we will all find justification for our own system and reasons not to change to another .... which I think you have just proved?

[Enterprisingwestern]

Pedant mode on.

Tony, as an ex teaching professional, you should know you cannot have more than 100%.

Pedant mode off.

 

Mike.

[Denbridge]

For Protocab I think you need to be starting out, rather than established ... both in terms of stock and layout. Unless of course you are well off and want it! I buy my kit at shows where there tends to be a promotion. I buy them on a loco by loco basis as I build them and the last set cost £80. Its my second loco so far .. the first costing £75. The controller is comparable to any other system.

 

I think the price will come down just as it did with the DCC chips ... but that is still in the future!

 

However I was not advocating Protocab, or trying to persuade anybody ... just suggesting that we will all find justification for our own system and reasons not to change to another .... which I think you have just proved?

I wasn't knocking protocab, nor DCC, although cost is a factor, I find a well thought out analogue control system gives me fully prototypical operation. I'm happy to stay in the dark age

[micklner]

Re the P2 a superb model.

 

This is 2mm gauge any very slight difference  in sizing (if any) will easily be "lost" once it is painted and lined. I have seen far worse r.t.r and kits in N gauge which doesn't even come even close to this standard, and certainly much better than any "layout" model . 

 

Well done to the builder , I look forward to seeing more photos of the finished model.

Edited February 13, 2018 by micklner

[t-b-g]

One factor not really mentioned yet is the availability of fancy control systems in the future.

 

If somebody chose to use something like the Protocab system, which looks very clever and would appeal to me far more than DCC, what would happen if you get half way through your big project and the bits became unavailable? The firm could decide that they don't sell enough to carry on, or people may retire and not find a buyer for the business.

 

With DC, as long as I can still get motors and gears, I know my modelling is "future proof" and anything I build in the future will be compatible with anything I have now.

 

All those people who purchased Zero 1 will know what I mean!

[Mallard60022]

Interesting system. But one of the things that makes me refuse to switch to DCC is cost. Judging by the website it is nigh on £100 per loco plus the initial outlay for protocab. I'll pass on that. 

Ordinary DCC can cost just about a tenner for a simple decoder without bells and whistles (literally); but you knew that didn't you and were talking about DCC Protocab? OK, it probably is a bit off a faff to fit the decoders, but there you go. Protocab for a small shunting layout maybe?

Sound DCC is silly money and I won't bother with any steam sound chips, apart from maybe one decent Bulleid Pacific example if I can find a programme that actually sounds like a Bulleid Pacific and not some sort of toilet cistern filling in a tin hut. I'll do that just so I can sound the whistle as it whizzes through my layout station area and hear the Doppler effect; goose bump time for me. (For those that have not had that sensation, imagine Chime through Grantham at about 80m.p.h.

That A2 looks the works Tony, but not as intimidating as that Thompson on your Donny display; stealth fighter piece of engineering that one. I want one!

Hope you are better and so glad to hear Mo is now OK.

Sincerely

Phil

Edited February 13, 2018 by Mallard60022

[The Fatadder]

I love seeing photos of models missing the body, gives a great opportunity to learn different ways of getting it working.  

 

Thanks to the advice last week I think I now have the (live) chassis for my 47xx running on DC,

 

I am not exactly looking forward to fitting a decoder to it, but given a decoder will be less than a replacement set of Markits (insulated) wheels will be more than a replacement decoder I will give it a go with a live chassis (and a ton of insulation).   My biggest worry remains getting the decoder and wires into the resin boiler without causing damage, as its going to be a tight fit given the firebox is filled with motor.