As a former CM20 user, I find it interesting how many DC users swear by it. Too bad they’re no longer made. It made walkaround control easy and affordable for the masses, asn was a darn good throttle to boot. I found mine were still quite appreciated on used market when it came time to part with them.
I do find DCC works for me for several reason, some of which I’m sure Sheldon has DC answers for. But based on past discussions, I suspect they’re more like walkaround control was before the CM20, sorta mysterious to the average hobbiest and thus unlikely to be pursued. For technology, good, bad or indifferent, to be widely accepted requires a low bar to entry and easy and cheap access to the components that make it happen. There’s the mission to the moon and the VW Beetle, both built during the 60s. The Saturn/Apollo vehcile was impressive and could do a lot of cool stuff on way less memory than is in your cellphone these days. But it was the VW that you saw everywhere, not just on TV or on the NASA tour.
So my list of things I find DCC work better for me (which doesn’t mean they’re better, just for me )
Sound - Yeah, it works on DC, I got my first Blackstones right before the DCC conversion. They were inspiring (once again, they worked for me, I understand some folks just don’t buy it – literally), but when I discovered all the many more cool things they could do on DCC, well, that was the last straw. The best part is DDE, which basically dials the motor load into the sound card, so it really sound like it digs in at the bottom of the grades and works hard to the top.
Consisting – Well, 12 volts of brute force will smooth out lots of combinations of motive power . On the other hand, speed matching isn’t as hard as it seems, unless you’re OCD…OK, scratch that, I’m talking to a bunch of model rai
I haven’t posted this before but I remember when I was first getting into the hobby and building my own layout. I found it frustrating to try to control power blocks on a layout and make sure all the selectors were set correctly so I could run a train all around the layout without accidentally controlling other engines in the wrong block etc. It was then that I thought, how nice it would be to be able to control an engine or set of engines and drive them anywhere on the layout without fiddling or scratching my head over which power block to throw in what direction.
I’m talking, of course, about layouts larger than a fairly simple loop of track, layouts with manny blocks etc. such as my first garage layout - which was DC btw, with Atlas block selectors. When DCC came down enough in price as it did in the mid-late 1990’s, I knew that is the direction I wanted to go so I wouldn’t have to mess with power block selectors. Thats just me, and it totally depends on how your brain works. Some may be ok or used to it, so it works for them.
I have long stated that control systems should be selected/designed around the operational goals of the layout - not simply one size fits all.
That said, based on the products and technology available today, If you want sound you need DCC or some other comand control system for good control of sounds and movement.
To me, where DCC really shines is on the very large layout with lots of operators, each with a radio throttle - not a $200 investment by any means.
The other place DCC shines is the busy medium sized layout with two or three operators working in close proximity to each other. Still likely more than $200 to outfit with DCC.
Except for the desire for sound, I cannot understand what any lone operator running one train at a time would want about DCC?
In any case, in my view, all aruguments that DCC is no more expensive than DC are false.
It it easier for many who are comfortable with todays “computer world” but who are not really “electronically literate” - I’m sure it is. And that is a fair reason to embrace it for many.
What I do is way more complex to understand and build than most anything done with DCC - but for me that is part of the fun.
Agreed, many DC cab control systems over the years have been poorly designed and implimented - but that failing is not a universal failing of DC control.
Atlas Selectors - what a miserable way to wire a layout - IMO.
I’m with you, PM. Although, it would really be nice, living on fixed income, DCC is out of my realm of possibility. Now, if I win the Powerball… [C):-)]
I too model old DC block layout. I have never tried DCC. Not even a single time.
I may even jump to wirless radio control like Ring Engineering’s RailPro without even trying DCC.
I know most of model railroaders are retired and have time to work on their layouts and program the CVs and functions of their DCC, but as far as I am concerned (being almost 30 years old) I live in a constant fast-paced world of technologies and people, lots of stress and work, barely no time for my favorite hobby. So basically, DC works fine for me now, since once the layout is wired, it will works without any programming. I think I had quality hobby time with DC so far.
Radio control like Railpro might just be the product suited to my needs once I am ready to switch.
However as DC is the main topic, I really enjoyed thinking my wiring diagrams and all, it was a really nice and thourough experience I enjoyed, especially for someone like me who has a degree in french literature. I knew nothing about electricity and all that. I had to learn everything (from how it works to how to solder it and make it work) from scratch and I liked the challenge.
My neighbors have a large 12 x 50 layout modeling the Rio Grande in western Colorado just prior to the UP take over. Dual track mainline, staging, working hump yard, several industrial switching areas. Typical freights are 50 to 60 cars long, with 3 or 4 engines, mostly rebuilt Athearn blue box. Block control, hand held walk around throttles. He operates weekly, weather permitting. The layout, built about 20 years ago, is in a mobile home, unheated except when operating. While humidity is not a problem, temps can range from below zero to over 100 and the layout operates flawlessly. They would never convert to DCC.
I do not know if it is technically possible to do such a thing, but I think it would defeat the purpose.
I use a three cab system with rotary switch for cab selection for track blocks. If the block ehead of me is occupied, I must stop or else the other operator is now controlling my train as well as his own. When he leaves the block he is to rotate the switch to OFF. I may then rotate to my cab (colour coding) and proceed, remembering that he may have only cleared the block with his engine, not the train.
The advantage of this is that a loss of attention cause my train to stop when it tries to enter the next block, and automatic power routing would negate this, and if trains were running in opposite directions, might refuse to let anything proceed, even if one of them stopped on a passing siding to clear a route of the other to proceed.
Undoubtedly true, but also fits my scenario of what is accessible technology. Lets face it. If everyone was able to easily implement a system such as yours, then there would have been no need for DCC. But I think you’d be the first to agree it’s not a beginner’s entry level system and sure isn’t something you just flip through a catalog and order. But it’s the best system for you because of your needs and skillset.
That may also be the most important difference betwen DC and DCC. While I can’t say I love everything about DCC, it is pretty much a turnkey system, because all the design of the control system is already in place. Sure, for things like signaling, etc, there can still be a lot of work and learning involved with DCC. But the basic beginner level things that most model rails do is pretty clearly figured out and its only a matter of buying items and plugging it together to get there.
In the end, it really is about personal prefernces on what you spend your hobby time and dollars on. That’s why the expense of DCC keeps coming up, although I suspect the difference really isn’t all that great when all things are added up. It’s not so much the money, it’s just that for a lot of people DC meets their needs. And it’s also the same reason, ironically enough, that DCC meets the needs of other people better. I don’t see much that universally fails about either system, unless you try to make one system do what the other clearly does better in the eyes of those who build and implement it.
I do have another data point on why DCC is popular with many and that is the way it helps reduce some of the confusion when operating on other layouts. As Jim F commented, finding and orienting the power for each block/section/whatev
That’s exactly what Sheldon’s system does. It automates power control and eliminates orienting all those cab power control switches. It’s a sweet design and does overcome many of the same issues in DC that DCC does.
too many old engines, and quite a lot of them not worth to modify in DCC (old engines often require more that just soldering two wires, the full wiring has to be redone!). More because of hassle as of money …
at the club DCC-layout I saw enough decoders go ‘puff&smoke’… I do not want to count how many my daughters (9+7 y) would have already baked!
a few engines with sound system working also in DC (albeit with limited functions) already fulfilled my need for noise. Do not need more.
As I have mention elsewhere I use DCC on my 1’x10’ ISL because of the following CV settings,brake,momentum,voltage and speed step.I found these settings add to my switching enjoyment because I had to learn to “operate” my DCC engines like a engineer…
My layout is basically two industrial switching layouts strung together by about 35 feet of countryside mainline. I do a lot of switching. With my AristoCraft Basic Train Engineer (its orange, not black) it takes me pressing the throttle button (not a dial) 4 or 5 times before the loco starts moving. On the first or second press, the lights come on brightly (it has to do with the pulse of the current getting to the Pcboard effecting the lighting before it effects the motor…someone else can explain that better than me), then the loco accelerates extremely slowly with each press.
I have tried CV adjustments to my sound locos to get better performance on DCC than what I get from the Aristo throttle on my nonsound locos, and can’t seem to do it. What I can do is use a momentum setting and program the loco to accelerate very slowly to speed step 3 (or whatever), but the automatic incremental increase in speed occurs no mre gradually than what I can get with the Aristo throttle. Perhaps those with a more “sensitive pallet” for operations can detect a difference, but I can’t.
BTW, the whole reason I went with the Aristo throttle is because I needed to cover 35 feet and d
I get the distinct impression in these types of discussions, that people feel it’s necessary to justify their decision to go one way; or the other. That’s why they can become heated.
Well, I don’t need to justify why I went the way I went and don’t feel you need to justify why you went the way you went.
Simply put, we each saw something we wanted, and went for it! Should be enough said!
The explanation part is the interesting part of the discussion, and is not necessarily a justification, IMO.
I have a large layout that runs one train at a time using a one train throttle. As near as I can tell by reading comments on this forum, by comparison to others, that situation is an outlier of extreme proportion. But I bet that there are other modelers who have similar circumstances, although not exact, and would benefit from an explanation of my situation. That helps a reader compare their situation to mine so that they can make an informed decision. I’m not trying to justify my decision to anyone.
But the thread is partially about DC block control so I’ll drop out.
Of course it is, it would be complicated it. I have seen it done with stepping switches.
My point was that such was not necessary. Power is lined up by the tower operator along with the track alignment and signals. Of course most layouts do not have a tower of any sort. But it is prototypical for a train to wait for the route to be set up for it.