All the software for a revised DCC locomotive PLUS the Bluetooth or wireless LAN can fit on a current sized DCC board. There is no need for the “control unit”.
DCC is most definitely a piggyback system. The very same wires carry both the power and the control data and from the very same device. I mean, what do you mean by a piggyback if not the sane structure carrying two things, one on top of the other? It’s called a decoder for a reason.
Full voltage DC feeds the rails and every locomotive would have a wireless throttle, even “DC” only locomotives. No bigger than one of the old lighting boards. Technically, it is also now possible to send the control signals in DC on top of the power DC with economical technology. It always was feasible but very expensive to do. But you don’t need to use wires to transmit the control signals any longer and that is the Achilles heel of DCC.
Any bells and whistles (crack me up Henry) can be installed into the board in the locomotive.
All the new DCC locomotives come with dual sound decoders that run just fine in DC mode with useful sound effects. There really is no reason not to innovate now, other than sunk costs by manufacturers who bought into NMRA standardization 30 years ago. Those sunk costs are a big deterrent to the necessary innovation in this area.
DCC goes back to the 70’s but NMRA only got involved in standardization in the 90’s apparently. Welcome though those standards were they have in fact stifled innovation. The smartphone wasn’t really a thing until the 2010’s. If only NMRA had waited …
Obviously your idea of “just fine” is different from mine.
Needing extra voltage, or turning the throttle up half way before the train moves is not “just fine”.
But most dual mode decoders will not run at all on my DC throttles.
I use DC throttles with full voltage pulse width modulation speed control and most dual mode decoders, sound or otherwise, simply do not work, the loco sits there and vibrates.
dual mode decoders are joke when it comes to DC operation.
Every person and every layout is different. Without signals, without CTC, with only a few locos, DCC is way less expensive and way more flexible than any kind of advanced DC.
But that is apples and oranges.
DCC for large layouts with large loco rosters is expensive, and all signaling solutions layered over top of DCC are just as complex and expensive as any DC signal solutions.
DCC offers no particular advantage for detection, signaling, CTC or advanced route control of turnouts.
With my particular set of operational goals, DCC would only provide a few additional features beyond my current system. And in fact I would loose a few features. And it would require purchasing and installing 130 decoders.
I’m not anti DCC, I logged lots of hours on the DCC layouts of my friends, I get it.
But those few features are not worth the work or expense for my personal goals.
I am anti sound, at least when it comes to onboard sound in HO on a large layout with lots of trains running at the same time.
Just another reason why I don’t need DCC or any other command control system.
One more thought Mike, as someone who has been in this hobby a long time, and who knows lots of others who have been in this hobby a long time.
Yes, things do change, manufacturers work on problems, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. But I’m not trading in 54 years worth of models, or even the last 20 years worth, to have the “latest thing”.
This hobby was orginally build on interchangeablity of products.
DCC would have been a better product if they had done like all the other command control systems, and said you are either all in or all out.
DCC has been around a long time now, and still has not become “universal”. That fact alone makes a statement.
Like Sheldon, I’m not a fan of on-board sound, even though I run only one train at-a-time and am a solo operator. It just doesn’t sound real to me, at least for steam. I’ve operated DCC on friends’ layouts, and don’t have any quarrel with it, but it has nothing to offer me that plain ol’ DC can’t do.
In fact, if someone were to offer me complete installation of a DCC system, including decoders (sound or not) in all of my three dozen locomotives, for free, I wouldn’t take it…simply because DC does everything I want or need.
This isn’t a “Which is best contest.”…I’d say more like which is most suitable for each individual.
The only complicated (to me, anyway) wiring on my layout was when I was using a variety of throttles from different manufacturers, but since I settled on one, that wiring is no longer used.
i don’t run block contol, [don’t have to] or signalling [don’t want to], , or ctc [whatever that is], … and only maybe 4 or 5 locos at the same time … only a couple with sound …
It’s just so much easier with far less to go wrong…Bonus!
There really aren’t that many DC controllers using PWM - if you use a more common DC power pack or power supply for DC, then the motor only decoders work perfectly fine on DC, as intended. Sound is another story, but that has everything do do with basic physics and the compromise needed to get sounds on DC before the loco is baralling down the tracks. Non-sound decoders don’t have this limitation.
You can;t please 100% of the people 100% of the time. It’s unfortunate the a full voltage DC PWM signal looks enough like the DCC signal to confuse many decoders, but the sheer number of DC modelers affected is very small. But when it’s you - it seems like a huge ‘mistake’ on the part of manufacturers. Not all DCC decoders are confused by this - but even the ones that aren’t, I suspect if you put a decoder-equipped loco on the rails with the throttle at a very specific non-zero speed setting, it could still confuse them.(if the pulse width were just so)
The only DCC loco I’ve run on my layout was a BLI Mikado that I detailed and painted for a friend. While it ran not too badly, the sound feature would cut-in and out, as if it were re-setting itself. Perhaps that had some influence on my disinterest in sound, but after almost 40 years in a steel mill, sound isn’t an attractive feature.
The throttle upon which I finally settled, (mentioned in my previous post) is a DC throttle with an adjustable PWM output. I power it from the AC terminals of a MRC Controlmaster 20. I haven’t bothered adjusting the throttle because the trains already run the way I want them to run, as-is. The manufacturer is located about 20 minutes away, and stands behind his product, so if service is required, easily done.
The throttle offers very precise control, and easily handles multiple locomotives pulling heavy trains on rather steep grades. Fits my requirements completely.
We should just scrap the internet, after all, its technology started 50+ years ago and runs on Unix, developed in the 1970s. You can’t use Unix unless you type in all those arcane commands, so it is not “user friendly”.
Function keys are usless? Faster than taking your hand off the keyboard.
DCC programming difficult? A basic decoder had to be easy to setup 20 years ago. Today we have software to do that, because an ESU decoder could have up to 10,000 CVs. Simple things like setting a Primary or Extended address are often handled by the command station, which sets the a
Well from someone on the fence still about DCC, I can tell you this. Pro’s about DCC, sound (love that feature), two or more trains on same track and no turning off a side track just so the main engine can be used. Con’s, much more fussy and prone to damage from operator error. Also DCC can be way more expencive than DC but has powered frog options that are much better and better automatic y controls for those that have that type of trackwork, These things have to be done manually in DC but can be done.
Whereever did you get the idea that DCC uses an AC power source with a DC control signal superimposed? That’s actually opposite what most pre-DCC command control systems used - steady DC power with an AC pulse superimposed.
The DCC power IS the signal - full amplitude, there is no little tiny signal to pick out from the noise of brushed DC motors operating.
Wayne - as I said, sound on DC is just a non-starter,. I think it was a silly idea to even bother - and I’m sure I’ll get plenty of responses that “I do it allt he time, it works fine”. The only people I can imagine are actually satisfied witht he way sound locos work on DC are those who don’t know any better. It’s pretty simple - the electronics need around 5 volts to operate. The only way to get 5V or more to the loco on DC is to turn up the throttle. Unless a loco is relatively poor quality, by 5-7 volts, it should eb moving. However, if a sound loco behaved like that, it would be moving, with no sound since the voltage is high enough to turn the motor but not run the sound electronics. So they are set up not to move until a relatively high track voltage, leaving enopugh for the electronics plus some dead band because not all (more like most common) DC throttles aren;t particualrly precise, so a dead band is necessary to allow you to actually stop the thing but keep the sound going. Only once the voltage gets above that point does it start moving - but at 7-8 volts, you’re already 2/3 of the way to full throttle. So you have a limited range of control for the sound loco to go from stopped but making noise to running full speed. And any other locos, without sound, at 2/3 throttle are probably already going faster than is realistic. If you want sound, go DCC, period. There are workarounds, like the MRC Tech 6, but when running that sound loco, it’s using DCC, and when running a DC loco, you’re now using the MRC pack and not that nice PWM DC throttle.
I’m not advocating replacement of DCC. I point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in “coding”.
I have a two BLI, a paragon 2 mikado and a paragon 3 pacific. I note that the pacific is very sensitive to the slightest voltage drop out while the Mike is not.
My understanding of DCC, limited as it is, is that the main power is not a true AC but it does differ from the control signal and that both sets of power are transmitted down the rails concurrently. The decoder picks out the control signal and also converts the pseudo AC into DC (I guess “rectifies” is the term) with the variations in voltage required to control motor rpm. The power is phased and the alternating aspect is alternating the voltage in tiny amounts but not the polarity.
So, the technical problem solved economically by DCC in the 1990’s was standardizing the technology required to deliver power and the control signal down the same two conductors, which effectively froze development of the supporting software.
I know absolutely nothing about coding or computer languages.
Yet referring to a one page sheet containing commands (since I don’t remember them), with two or three buttons pushed on my handheld control, I can change virtually hundreds of different commands to my locomotives.
What am I missing by using this primitive software? What am I missing by using a handheld control rather than a laptop or phone? Why should I worry how easy or difficult it is to access?
The DCC signal is not AC. Never was. It looks like this: DCC Power. The waveform is the data and the power are combined.
The decoder picks off the pulses from one rail, at full voltage, so there is no mistake which logical state the rail is in at that point in time. It takes the pulses and routes them through a rectifier to provide power for the microcontroller and the motor.
The motor is driven using full voltage PWM. There is no phasing or polarity needed, the motor’s drivers determine speed and direction by their switching sequence.
How did the standardisation of the control/power signal on th