ABsolutely NOT true, at least int he case of Digitrax. Check their prices for a wired throttle, a wireless throttle, adn the upgrade of a wired to wireless throttle - the upgrade cost is exactly the price difference between the two - NO penatly for starting with plug-in throttles and adding radio later. And nothign goes to waste when you upgrade - all the components continue to work together. The same is true of the NCE PowerCab, you can expand to a full PowerPro system, the PowerCab is still usable, it doesn’t sit on a shelf somewhere.
At least MRC finally realizes that people don’t want to throw away their old system when they get a new one - although it took them 4 tries to finally figure this out. But they still tell you nothign about their cab bus, nor is there any option for feedback devices liek block detection that can be monitored through the computer interface - in fact so far it seems their computer interface is only good for programming locos, and even then falls flat on its face because it only uses proprietary software. NCE had feedback and input connections that work through their bus and can be seen by the computer interface, but Digitrax has them all beat with Loconet which can monitor and interact with ALL commands in the system, including each and every throttle - ie, with Digitrax you can set up the computer to do somethign when someone pushes F3 on their throttle, or activates a certain switch address. NCE’s computer interface can’t see what a given throttle is doing, and MRC, well, that’s a big ? because they won’t tell us. Big trade secret.
Lastly, how many manufacturers in ANY business list and provide links to the web sites of other companies producing products that work
I just got back into trains in a big way after several years and I decided that even if it meant a smaller layout or few locos I would go DCC with sound in my locos. I studied the DCC systems available and purchased a Prodigy Advance Squared. I’ve never regretted it and its been ALOT MORE FUN than DC. The control you have over the locos movements and sound is great. From the amount of track you purchased, theres no way I would go DC. Way too much unneeded wiring with a large DC layout. I’ve got a 14’ coiled cord on my Buss, so I can reach any part of my layout without the need for expensive radios. Of course, that would be dependant on how you layout is laid out. I got an amazing deal for my system $195.
You could also purchase another connector panel (or two) and put them on the other side or end of your layout. That way you could use a shorter chord, as you would only need to plug and unplug your PA2 to move around your layout.
That is not the case at all. I think that you will find a lot of folks that can and do say good things about MRC DC power-packs and to some extent MRC DCC control systems. It is the MRC decoders that deservedly get the bad rap.
The big factor you should consider, that I haven’t seen mentioned yet, is “what do you have on hand now?” in regards to locomotives and power pack(s). For example, when I was finally able to build my home layout, I had a lot of “old tech” equipment from the 70’s and earlier. Many of these would need to be remotored before the installation of a decoder. I also had some home built throttles that made these locomotives run smooth as silk, plus bags of toggle switches and reels of wire in different colors. DCC didn’t make financial sense to me then (or now). I’ve been used to DC block control for decades now, so it’s simple for me to set that up.
I would say if it’s practical, start with DCC. It’s new stuff to learn if you already understand DC wiring, but it’s no more complex. It costs more than DC (especially the decoders), but you can spread that cost out over the growth of your layout - if you start DC and convert, then all that expense and effort happen at once.
Something no one has mentioned yet is the “feel” of DCC. With DC, you are driving the tracks. With DCC, you are driving the train. I was a skeptic at first - what difference does it make that I can turn the headlight on and off independent of moving the train? But that one tiny detail flipped a little switch in my brain, and really brought in the feeling that I was driving the train.
That said, it’s not always practical, depending on your scale, prototype, budget, or other factors. I model a scale and prototype with very few DCC-ready locomotives available, and a need for three decoders in most trains (one for the motor car in the middle, and one in each end car for the lights); combined with a very tight budget, I’ve opted not to go DCC at home. But I did put a decoder in one loco, which I run on my club’s layout… and that experience has me wishing it were practical for me to convert my own layout and fleet.
DCC has added a new dimension to model railroading - prototype operation.
DCC allows you to be the engineer, DCC has added value to the performance and DCC allows us to enjoy sound. DCC makes wiring a lot easier. DCC will also influence the way we build our layouts -less track, but more operation!
DCC is the train control system of the 21st century, whereas DC is the track power control system of the 20th century.
All hail DCC and kneel before Lenz, the great creator and Digitrax the great provider!
Ulrich, let’s examine this a moment. I operated model trains in a prototype manner, with timetable and train order operation when DCC was just a pipe dream.
Yes DCC allows you to be the “Engineer”, it fact it DEMANDS it, unless you ad a complete seperate infrastructure to work with it and do other wise. Not everyone with a model train (or some of us with large layouts and more than one model train) wants to be the Engineer all the time.
Sound - I’m with you 100%, if you want onboard sound in small scales than you need DCC. It is the only sensible choice right now. For me, not an issue, I don’t care for onboard sound in small scales (but I love it in large scale).
“It makes wiring a lot easier” - Well sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are so many variables of layout size, number of power districts needed, other features or needed infrastructure, etc, etc, as well as the FACT that there are lots of different ways to wire DC layouts depending on the desired operational goals, that any direct compairison is difficuilt.
I’ve built 1000+ sq ft layouts, for myself and helping friends, DCC and DC, and there is a lot of wire under all of them. I will agree that smaller, “room sized” layouts are often easier to wire in DCC. And, as I have said before some layout sizes and operational goals are ideally suited to DCC.
Unless you have battery backup and dead sections of track long enough that you don’t have to worry about either cars or engines with electrical pickup, or the metal wheels of other cas bridging the two ends of the dead section at the same time, then you would still need reversers. DCC decoders do not care about polarity either. The reason for the reversers is when you have a reversing section, at one end ajacent rails are at opposite phase(if talking DCC or AC) or polarity(if talking DC) and bridging that gap causes a short between the reevrsing section and the rest of the layout.
You and I can point out until we are blue in the face that there are some situations where DCC is not particularly valuable, and certainly not worth the $300 (plus decoders) for a minimum 2 throttle with computer interface setup. But it won’t matter. Those who are new in the hobby - and I was there once - want to be led like sheep, being told that this is the way to do model railroading.
Model Railroader is particularly guilty of that practice - pushing a set of values that all model railroaders should/must aspire to, and these are the specific steps to get there. But at least they are trying to please their advertisers. The problem is not so much the steps or technologies themselves (DCC, foam construction, linear track plans, time table operations, etc) but that the underlying goals and values may not be as universally shared as many think. Although time table operations are pushed as the ultimate goal of a basement layout, there are many participants who get their thrills from other aspects of the hobby - and who are quite satisfied to never operate a layout in TT&TO fashion.
The ultimate model railroading blashphemy is to deliberately use a more suitable (but non-mainstream) technology to better achieve your individual hobby goals. But then the blashphemers seldom are found on these forums, so few forum participants know/realize how diverse the hobby really is.
Fred, while I agree that DCC isn’t, in all cases, the cure-all/ holy-grail of model railroading , I wouldn’t say that Model Railroader magazine is guilty of pushing any set of values. They are performing the function of any magazine that’s dedicated to a specific intrest, they’re reporting on the latest developments and running articles on the new system. Most of us know DC block control and article
While I agree with most of your statements, I have to disagree with the quoted portion. Unless a beginner is directed to one of the model railroad wiring books, he is not going to learn about how to plan and execute a block control system in the pages of Model Railroader since about 2000. He is not even going to learn why he should use block control instead of the more intuitive toy train section control if he adds a second power pack and locomotive. And I can’t remember when I saw the last discussion of X blocks - probably the 1950s. But every new command control system has been thoroughly reviewed and written about - and now DCC has a monthly column.
Model Railroader has always had an agenda - even back in the days of Larson and Westcott. In the '50s, it was moving beyond toy trains into “scale” model railroading and emphasizing the need for scenery, as well as improved model building. In the '60s, the push for L-girder, hard shell scenery, zip texturing, Atlas track products, and “operations” was on in MR. Progressive construction of a layout and making changes were some of the benefits of using the approved methods. Operations became an even bigger focus for MR in the '70s and '80s. In the late '80s and '90s, project layouts became “build and finish in the week of an NMRA convention” instead of a year-long project. To meet the timeline, RTR products had to be emphasized.
How is this misleading? Last time I checked, all you need to do to hook up a DCC system is connect 2 wires and you are off and running. No one here ever mentioned a club sized layout. I will even say that a moderate sized layout does not require any boosters unless you have to go beyond your systems amp rating. If you go with a Super Chief or Empire Builder, then 5 amps is plenty for 99% of home layouts out there. Modern locos just dont draw much amps at all…
Now, if you compare the wiring of a large layout (you pick the size) wired up for DCC or DC, DCC always is simpler and more refined. With DC you always have to rewire the entire layout if you want to control another locomotive. In this case, you need to mention the aforementioned fact.
Ill stand by this…DCC…2 wires…and you are off and running.
Sheldon, “All hail DCC…!” [sigh] Can we try to keep the melodrama to a dull roar? One can disagree without being disagreeable.
DCC does not “DEMAND” that you be the engineer, at least no more than DC does. Of course it’s set up that way because that’s what the vast majority of model railroaders want to do…run the trains themselves. But it’s possible to get DCC to run your trains automatically or in any other fashion, just like with DC. In either case, it requires advanced skills, extra expense, and many hours of wiring and/or programming.
IMHO, DCC wiring is easier than an analogous DC set up, and it’s always more flexible.
I have a 25’ x 50’ DCC layout of my own (as we have discussed before). There are exactly three main wires under the layout: 1 red, 1 black (both 14AWG), and 1 six-cond. 22AWG cable. I have 2 freight yards, 1 passenger terminal, 1 staging yard, and 2 engine facilities. I have a Digitrax Zephyr, a UR91 wireless receiver, 3 wireless throttles, a half dozen throttle jacks, feeders every 9 feet, and have run with 4 operators at the same time. There is minimal wiring under my layout, and far less than any possible DC layout that does what DCC does. Just because one has a 1000+ sq. ft. layout, it doesn’t mean that one has to have a lot of wiring under it…at least with DCC.
The problem with any kind of onboard power in HO scale is the size of the batteries to get the power we want for the length of time we want. In time, we may see it. However, DCC is here now and has been around for 20 years.
BTW, layout base stations and wires are not necessarily the biggest total expense of any DCC layout. DCC decoders are actually the largest total cost for most of us. In my case, I have approx. $400 invested in DCC i
Be aware that DC has its issues and DCC has its issue also.
This will depend on what you “think” you want to do. How large a layout and how many operators do you think you will ever have?
Operating DCC can be complex when you step from the DC world into the DCC world. So much more can be done that it boggles the mind.
Running a couple engines yourself or with another operator is ok with DCC.
Consisting diesels, it gets more complex. Adding two or three operators consisting with DCC gets a little more complex. Wireless adds to the complexity at times. As the layout grows, you made need districts with modules so a short does not shut down the complete DCC layout with only one district. This happens with DCC operators.
I belong to a SoundTraxx DCC group, NCE group, MRC group, Digitrax group and I see a lot of issues as layouts grow.
There are some good books about DCC and a lot of information on the 'Net that you can search for.
I could lead you down the path I want you to go but it may not be what you really want or need. Only you can determine what you would like.
An analogy, do you need a 18 wheeler to go to work and shopping, or would a car do the same job? Ok, maybe a pickup truck. Notice, need or want?
I use the NCE Power cab as I operate alone. It can be expanded. I do not mind a cable control type. I know I do not need wireless. I can use the controller at my local club that uses the 5 amp Power Pro. I could buy the most expensive system with a lot of bells and whistles but I know I do not need it.
“Remembering which address each locomotive is”? Maybe in oen of the followign cases:
You model European, where they often have 5 digit 'road numbers"
You use an old DCC system that only supports addresses 1-99
You model the Undec RR in all its glory.
Seems pretty intuitive that the number decaled on the side of the loco would be the number used to control it. There may be issues with DCC, but this surely isn’t one of them. That would be like saying it’s hard to figure out that if you’re holding the DC cab with the yellow dot on it, you turn the block selectors to the yellow dot. Now if you really want to spend the big bucks, there are some systems now that let you select the locomotive by picking a picture of it - although how in the heck you then distinguish which of 5 GP7’s you’re selecting… or even distinguise a GP7 from a GP9 on a low-res LCD display…
DCC can be as simple or as complex as you make it. So can DC.
The ultimate will come - self-contained battery power and radio control, like they use in G scale already. Dirty track? No worries. You can even have a seldom-used rusted siding if you want. The biggest problem next to adequate batteries that can fit in HO and smaller is maintaining some sort of swap out of jumper plug for straight DC compatibility. Even assuming a massive increase in battery technology, the combination receiver/motor controller/battery pack will be bigger than a DCC decoder. Adopting some locos that currently support large and/or multiple locos is possible - say liek the Atlas Trainmaster, if the speaker area is filled with a batter pack, a radio receiver and controller can certainly be made that’s no larger than the sound decoder. Steam locos with tenders, again no problem, plenty of room for a decent battery, even today. All the goodies will fall into palce - track detection? SUPER simple - you can even do
Yes, [bow] it seems so many people make it so much more complicated than it is or needs to be. One of my common replies and bits of advice to people is “don’t invent problems that don’t exist”.
I just recently switched from DC to DCC, and I have to admit that two of the difficulties I was anticipating were the actual wiring and decoder installation (given my near total ineptitude with a soldering iron). Plus, I was sure that cost would be an issue.
Another reason I resisted DCC is that I said, “I never run more than one loco at a time.” I have a small 4 1/2 x 10 layout, two loops with numerous crossovers and some industrial stubs and a small yard. But I realized that, even though only one loco was MOVING at a time, DCC would allow me to switch back and forth between them without the artificial step of derailing all but the active loco. With DCC, I can have all 8 of my locos sitting on the layout, each ready to go at the touch of a button. Operating DCC vs. DC is like night and day.
Having made the decision to switch, cost became the main issue. Fortunately, I was able to score a Prodigy Express for $75, and have an LHS where they install decoders that you purchase from them for $10. So I managed to get into DCC and get my 8 locos converted for less than $300. I recognize that not everyone will find these kinds of deals, but it’s not dauntingly expensive either.
And you know what? I really did just disconnect the feeder wires from the DC powerpack and attach them to the DCC command unit.
While I agree with most of your statements, I have to disagree with the quoted portion. Unless a beginner is directed to one of the model railroad wiring books, he is not going to learn about how to plan and execute a block control system in the pages of Model Railroader since about 2000. He is not even going to learn why he should use block control instead of the more intuitive toy train section control if he adds a second power pack and locomotive. And I can’t remember when I saw the last discussion of X blocks - probably the 1950s. But every new command control system has been thoroughly reviewed and written about - and now DCC has a monthly column.
Model Railroader has always had an agenda - even back in the days of Larson and Westcott. In the '50s, it was moving beyond toy trains into “scale” model railroading and emphasizing the need for scenery, as well as improved model building. In the '60s, the push for L-girder, hard shell scenery, zip texturing, Atlas track products, and “operations” was on in MR. Progressive construction of a layout and making changes were some of the benefits of using the approved methods. Operations became an even bigger focus for MR in the '70s and '80s. In the late '80s and '90s, project layouts became “build and finish in the week of an NMRA convention” instead of a year-long project. To meet the timeline, RTR products had to be emphasiz