Has the emergence and popularity of DCC systems fundamentally changed basic layout design concepts?
If so, in what way?
From the design perspective, what’s different about designing a DCC layout as opposed to one designed for traditional DC block control?
Your thoughts are appreciated.
I don’t know if it’s really changed how layouts are designed, but it may have affected the type of layouts that are designed and built. Building a layout that was essentially a roundhouse / turntable and engine servicing area, with engines going back and forth to staging, was contemplated many years ago…but would be very hard to operate in DC with all the blocks needed as engines move around. Sometimes three engines might be on the same lead track to the turntable for example. But in DCC, it would be pretty simple to do. So it may be more people are tackling that type of layout / operation now than would have in the past.
It has probably encouraged some folks to build a walk around layout that might otherwise have built a layout that operated from a single control station. But walkaround layouts were being built before DCC. DCC just made them easier. And there is no reason not to use DCC from a central control station and operate the trains while sitting down. So no, I don’t think DCC changed any basic design concepts.
Enjoy
Paul
Hi!
Having just demo’d my long term HO DC powered layout, I am in the midst of building a new one - and converting to DCC at the same time. I did a LOT of research beforehand (esp. regarding DCC), and spent a lot of planing time to finally come up with scale drawings of the new layout.
My previous layout had 30 plus blocks, and two reverse loops. The layout was powered by two MRC Controlmaster 20s, giving me more power than I could use, and some really nice handheld controls. BUT, if I stayed away from the layout for more than a few days, I tended to have to relearn how to properly use lesser used functions of the layout - such as the reverse loop polarity (on the first run thru the loop of course), which block controls were for little used blocks (they were labeled but complicated), and which turnout control was for little used turnouts.
Last year I did go through and simplify, by reducing blocks, better turnout labeling, and removal of several switch machines and replacement with ground throws. The result was better, but it was time for a change after 14 years of the same thing.
To get to your question… DCC greatly reduces the concern about wiring reverse loops and turntables and operation thereof. So, I suspect more layouts may incorporate them. Also, blocks are no longer a concern, although we still wire for power districts which are pretty much the same as a block. But the new layout has 8 power districts, compared to 30 plus on the prior one - and I have NO controls to concern myself with for their operation.
FWIW,
Mobilman44
My take is that DCC has had NO impact on track planning (or non-planning) and NO impact on choices of scenery, buildings or backdrop.
People are still building to plans first published when Astrac was still in the future - and will continue to do so.
Other people are selectively compressing the prototype trackage at (fillintheblank) or freelancing track plans to approximate the ‘flavor’ of (fill in prototype of choice.)
The only place that change is significant is in the way electrical power makes its way from the house current line plug to the motors and lights on the layout. A couple of black boxes and a fistful of decoders now do what was once done (and still is done, on most layouts) by a simple power pack, electrical switches and some attention on the part of the operator. This change has simplified wiring to the point that the electrically challenged are now willing to build more complex trackwork and larger empires, secure in the knowledge that they won’t have to think about how to get the right power and polarity to each locomotive’s motor(s) and lights.
Whether or not this particular change is an improvement…
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - analog DC, MZL system)
Respectfully disagree. There are definitely differences when I do a layout design project for a client planning for DC vs. a client planning for DCC. For DC, I’m usually trying to minimize the number of reversing connections, to avoid operating complexities. And for layouts where multiple trains will operate simultaneously, thinking ahead to likely block boundaries and overlaps of block control is important, especially in congested yard areas and engine service trackage. DC is also a little more cumbersome in loop environments, such as loop staging tracks.
For DCC, I find that it’s just a bit easier to configure the tracks to manage the flow of trains without worrying about how to manage the flow of electrons.
Either DC or DCC can work fine, but I certainly find a difference in the track planning process.
In answer to the orignal poster’s question, I don’t think DCC has changed basic design principles at all. But DCC has allowed more freedom in applying various track configurations to best meet the layout owner’s desires.
Byron
Model RR Blog
I would say that the fundamentals haven’t changed. For all the layout designs that I do, how the track is going to be powered is the last thing on my mind (If I ever think of it at all). but…
It is much easier to deal with power for reversing-loops, wyes, and turntables. So a novice might not be nearly as gun shy to include these elements into a layout design.
DCC encourages more trains to be running at the same time and I think that affects layout design in a couple of ways. Most obviously large staging yards that can emit a steady stream of trains tend to be encouraged by the greater ease of sending a train out on the line that comes with DCC.
Also DC and block control tend to encourage the use of sequential scheduling – admittedly maybe just among the more timid. Now that it is practical to have meets and passes and even saw-bys without having had to wire the layout with those things in mind, I suspect some guys learn that their existing layout which was fine for sequential scheduling needs more sidings for timetable and train order operation and having trains actually do meets and passes.
DCC also encourages mking use of helpers, and helper districts. Prototype helper districts had unique track arrangements, such as turntables and water tanks out in the middle of nowhere.
Dave Nelson
I’m with Chuck on this,
Most people in this hobby had long since abandoned spaghetti bowl track plans long before DCC. And the ability of DCC to simplify wiring has not created and return to such track plans. So all the common principals in use now, where well in place before DCC.
Maybe DCC has made some more likely to build larger or slighly more complex layouts, but that is different from changing design principals or trends.
Walk around was well intrenched long before DCC or any command control was viable for the masses and that has not changed one bit.
As for reverse loops and DC, they are only problems if you let them be problems. The simple solution is always to require the train to stop before it changes from “East” to “West”. It is then very easy to semi-automate reverse loops and make them very user friendly. AND, since linear layouts are the order of the day, this should be no problem even for stagging loops, etc.
DCC does do one thing, it allows developement of a track plan and layout construction without/before any wiring planning. I’m not sure thats a good thing. A friend is now about to add signaling to his DCC layout, had some planning been done in that department, power drops, power districts and other track wiring may have already been in place for his signal system. Now he has a lot to “redo”. Not something I would look forward to.
Sheldon
I began design of my current layout when DCC was in its infancy and the overall plan did not fundamentally change when I decided to go DCC prior to construction. DCC did make things operationally easier. My loop staging tracks were designed to hold more than one train and to do that with DCC, I would have had to have multiple blocks and decide how long to make each block. With DCC, that isn’t necessary. Also, I can line up multiple locomotives on the same track in my engine terminal without multiple blocks on each track so that makes things easier as well. I can’t imagine what my control panel would have looked like if I had to block so many sections of track.
Yes, the principles of good design have been around a lot longer than DCC. But who was taking advantage of them? Consider the people ‘known’ for operation in the popular press: Allen McClellend - he used Astrac back in the day. Tony Koester - he used Dynatrol. Bruce Chubb - he used CTC16. See a trend here? Sure there were large prototypically operated layout before DCC - but a lot of them used some prior form of command control! Is it possible to build a large prototypcially operated layout and use only DC controls? Absolutely. But I really do think layout designers were ahead of themselves prior to the advent of ‘affordable’ command control. Without having to worry about block control toggle and extra wiring for reversing sections, DCC and most previous command control systems left you free to exactly duplicate a prototype track plan without ending up with something that looked real because it was a direct copy but was a nightmare to wire and run.
–Randy
Randy and all those with the counter view,
We could ask all three why they experimented with those systems, but they all had the same layouts before DCC. No one is challenging the “virtures” of DCC here. We have been through that before. They are great virtures, just not the vitures everybody needs and wants.
Fact is, Bruce Chubb’s layout ran well with tower cab control with integrated three color signals and cab selection protection (read the articles from the early 70’s) long before he used CTC16. Being the person he is, he was bound to try every new idea and push the envelope in the electrical area. Glad he did.
That supports me and Chuck in the notion that DCC has not changed layout design. All those layouts “converted” to DCC but worked well before.
None of our track plans are “direct copies of the prototype”. Even the biggest clubs and the few really big private layouts are all selectively compressed in some way. That has no bearing on control. In fact, except for the “engine terminal” and “helper” examples, if we really did have “scale” distances the locos of two trains would never get close enough to each other for DCC to be a benifit. It is in fact because of our compressed mainlines that it can have advantages if you wish to model certain things.
All of you who’s experiance with DC involved too many buttons, switches, selectors or whatever, should accept the fact that even if YOU have never seen or operated on such layouts, there are and have been lots of DC layouts without excessive “knobs” to work. I’m sorry no one ever showed you the better ways to wire a layout.
Example: The Severna Park Model Railroad Club (well published in MR over the years) - roughly 16’ x 35’ layout, running well for 45+ years, runs 4 trains on a loop to loop main line, and additional ones on a branch line, two yards and an engine t
I’ve been thinking about this for a few days now. Maybe the title should have said “Track Plan” instead of “Layout.” With that change, we get rid of the discussion of wiring, which I don’t think was the original idea of the post.
After a few beers and a few looks at this post, I decided that the only thing I could think of that I would really do differently, assuming I had the space to do it, would be to add a significant grade that required helper engines. This is one aspect of model railroading that DCC can do easily, and realistically, while DC would be more limited.
I urge you to go back and read Bruce’s article he wrote about his switch to CTC-16 and how in not only IMPROVED his operation, but allowed him to change some of the layout for even more operating possibilities.
I’m not trying to switch anyone, you’re going to keep using your insane MZL DC wiring and I’ll keep using my insane DCC controller. But I will say you’ve fallen into the more buttons MUST mean it is harder fallacy. Dedicated buttons are always better than each button performning 4 or 5 different functions.
ALso note I did not say it changed layout design - I’m more of the opinion that command control in general finally allowed the COMPLETE realization of track planning ideals that had developed years before. ANd made it more accessible to more people who’s modeling skills trend towards anything but wiring (Tony Koester’s famous “if it’s purple, it’s wire” case in point). DCC is more or less a standardized realization of the many different and incompatible command control systems that came before it. Because of that standardization it is now possible to buy off the shelf locomotives ready to use DCC. Meanign even LESS potentially intimidating wiring to get the same results. That woudl haev NEVER EVER happened had there not been a DCC standard and we still had a dozen incompatible systems on the market.
–Randy
I think that DCC has changed the way model railroads operate (how trains may move with respect to each other across the layout) and if there is any change in the design, it is because the changes in operation mandate the design changes or that the design changes facilitate the operation. Its a subtle difference. With DC you have to keep the block limits in mind. With DCC you are freed from that and only have to keep the operation in mind.
Randy,
It was those who support DCC complaining about the number of buttons, my complaint with the DT400 is not the number of buttons, but their small size and close proximity to each other as well as the hard to read display. Not to mention the endless turning wheels. Not to mention pluging in to aquire, not to mention…
Now, it is not fair for me to criticize DCC on the features of one product. Nor is fair for those not familiar with various advanced DC systems to make assumptions about the operation of such systems when they have no experiance with them or to assume all DC systems are like a few poorly thought out layouts they built or ran in the past.
I have operated DCC layouts, many and often. Have you operated a layout with MZL, or my Wireless Cab Control system, or any DC layout with extensive use of X-sections?
Again I will say, all of this assumes a particular set of operational goals and desires. Those using DCC either had the “DCC” want list OR when it was presented to them they acepted it. That’s OK its not a bad list. It’s just not my list.
I really laughed at the guy who said DCC encourages multiple train operation at the same time. Maybe on his layout, but I can’t watch two of those things by myself and I don’t want my prize locos crashing into my prize cabooses. So, that means an operator for each train OR seperate track routes OR a bunch of controls above and beyond DCC, no different than DC!
So, if I don’t want helper service, and I don’t want to be the engine terminal hostler, and I don’t need to run a PA1 with 2-10-2 and I want to spend my money on my signal system instead of decoders, and I don’t want to disassemble 100 locos to install decoders, and I want to run four to six trains by my self OR with a crew, and I like the idea that the train will sto
That’s one reason I went with Lenz. Big, easy to see buttons. The Dispatcher’s throttle is all digital, with a big LCD display and no speed wheel. (The lower-priced Engineer’s throttle has a LED display and a throttle knob.) And once I’ve got an engine, I’ve got it until I change, or someone takes it away from me. As I recall, there’s an indicator that comes on if you’re trying to acquire an engine that somebody else already has, too.
I have used both Lenz and Digitrax, and I find the Digitrax easier to use. More information on the DT400 display. I am not a fan of push buttons for speed control, but I do have that option on the DT400. I can run 2 trains at a time, with a knob for each.
I don’t mind the plugging in to acquire. Makes sure it actually worked. Some guys just need a UT4: speed, direction, and turn the headlights on. I have pretty much given up on using a Lenz knob throtttle.
Yard operations and other congested areas are where DCC shows the greatest advantage. 2 or more crews can be in the yard, along the same switch lead, and do their work without worrying where the other guy’s block begins/ends.
The crews should be watching where they are going anyways. Only the heaviest duty lines have ATS/ATC, which stops the train if needed. Otherwise, the crew needs to be in control.
Well I can’t say this never happens on the prototype, but my son the railroad engineer says it is rare. If one crew is working a yard, and another crew needs to “pass by or through” the yardmaster generally stops the primary crew and tells them where to sit until the other crew moves past for safety reasons.
Again, every one assumes that the only reason to run the trains is for a full blown prototype operating session. How about shows/open houses? How about just for fun? How about by yourself? Why is this so hard for some to understand?
DCC assumes you ALWAYS want this full blown “walk in the engineers shoes” experiance. Sometimes I just want to be the railfan or the railroad President. Model railroading is not always a group (reference to crew) activity and it should be what is fun for the owner.
I want BOTH, good prototype operation and good display value operation.
Sheldon
Your last line explaisn EXACTLY why I use DCC. Full blown operations, but I can ALSO just start some trains and put down the throttle and let them run and go railfanning if I want to. Even if there are reverse loops. Completely hands off. Yes, I realize you cna wire a reverse loop to automatically operate with DC as well - but pray tell how you accomplish this when there is another train on the main, you can’t just reverse polarity at will. Back to short blocks so the only thing being ‘reversed’ is the block just past the loop so the train turning can continue automatically but the other train down the line can keep on moving. Now, how do the blocks get switched to direct power to the correct train? Back to some sort of control system like Bruce CHubb’s with the computer directign power to each block. Now, if all you want to do is let ONE train circulate, then it’s just as easy to do with DC as DCC.
–Randy