Based on a thread by John / Western Way in that a forum ran a poll on the subject DV vs DCC; Steam vs Diesel,
I thought let us see what YMR members vote for

Difficult as I started many years ago in DC.Was away from the hobby for about twenty years plus but came back about eight years ago using DCC.
So DCC for me.

I was a DC user for many years but also a DCC user on other layouts. I eventually went DCC as it was the easiest way for my operators to be able to drive on my new layout which had ability for 5 drivers to go over any track & DC switching got complex.
Diesels as it means I don't need turntables to turn steam locos and less problems in picking them up.

Ron, Queensland Railways used single-cabbed hood type diesels for many years (many still in service now), and train crews refused to drive them for long distances or on the suburban system with the long hood leading, so turntables or turning 'angles' (actually triangles!) remained as fixtures long after steam finished.

Once the Brisbane suburban area was electrified, the turntables and 'angles' at the suburban termini gradually fell out of use.

So, I'm not saying you should change anything on your layout, but it is something to bear in mind for others planning layouts that may allow for steam-era features to remain on a diesel-era layout if they want to hedge their bets.

On the subject of DCC, I am a convert, as it allows so much more flexibility and added control features. Even so, I have some cherished older stock that will never be converted to DCC, so allowed my lower level circuits to be switchable from DCC to DC control, with the added complications to the wiring and isolating sections so I don't have to remove everything from the tracks when on DC.

I think I'm one of the few members who actually started in DCC (and sound at that). I did dabble in DC to see what it was like for a few weeks (although I did use DC for N-scale for about a year, at the time stuffing a decoder in was problematic). Luckily I started with an NCE system, a very gentle learning curve, almost plug and play. Given the minimal price difference between a decent DC set-up and a DCC one, I still have problems understanding why anybody would want to start in DC (or run a layout using block control), especially as many locomotives are available DCC equipped, installs not required. When I started in the hobby 14 years ago having DCC usually meant converting a decidedly DCC-unfriendly DC locomotive, and where even "DCC-Ready" was in reality wishful thinking and best dealt with by ripping out the electrical innards and starting from scratch.

Nigel

I'm DCC for the same reasons as Nigel, but I can't see the poll option.

[user=269]MaxSouthOz[/user] wrote:

I'm DCC for the same reasons as Nigel, but I can't see the poll option.

Now I've posted from the email Reply box, I can see the poll.

DC to DCC  said I never could (to expensive) said I never would (not worth it with my beat up old stock) then had a one off chance and am doing it anyway.  I have steam but am concentrating on old diesels first as more room in them.  I look on in wonder as an old wreck most would consign to the scrap heap stutters to life and crawls away. . . Then I stop looking in the mirror and get on with bodging in another cheap chip to an old loco   :thumbs
Cheers
  Matt

[user=321]SRman[/user] wrote:

Ron, Queensland Railways used single-cabbed hood type diesels for many years (many still in service now), and train crews refused to drive them for long distances or on the suburban system with the long hood leading, so turntables or turning 'angles' (actually triangles!) remained as fixtures long after steam finished.

Once the Brisbane suburban area was electrified, the turntables and 'angles' at the suburban termini gradually fell out of use.

So, I'm not saying you should change anything on your layout, but it is something to bear in mind for others planning layouts that may allow for steam-era features to remain on a diesel-era layout if they want to hedge their bets.

On the subject of DCC, I am a convert, as it allows so much more flexibility and added control features. Even so, I have some cherished older stock that will never be converted to DCC, so allowed my lower level circuits to be switchable from DCC to DC control, with the added complications to the wiring and isolating sections so I don't have to remove everything from the tracks when on DC.

Hi Jeff, 

Actually QR in 1973 used many but not all their diesels long hood forward depending on their end destination. I rode a 1550 from Pinkenba to Central long end forward and saw many 1460's and 1720's either way (12 Cylinder EMD) but apparently there was a move at the time that 2100/2200 (16 Cylinder EMD's) and 2350 classes were only on Ipswich and Shorncliffe trains so they could be turned… not sure but I think there was a  triangle at Caboolture and Petrie as there were many bigger units on the heads of those trains. The crew on that Pinkenba train told me they did not like the 2100/2200's long hood forward for the longer length and AFAIR I never saw those bigger units, nor 1270's long hood forward on the locals.

Also had a cab ride on a 1200 from Shorncliffe to Central so definitely saw the turning process. They had the same 10 notch controller as 900 class on the SAR but being on the other side, it was reversed.  Cab rides then were literally for the asking… those were the days!

Cheers

Trevor

I think both systems have their merits - and disadvantages.

Like many others "of mature years", I started in DC but, having seen what others on here were doing via DCC, finally took the plunge.  Just ask Max and John Dew how much of a "dyed in the wool" DC man I was ………………

I "understood" DC but am completely baffled by DCC - electronics is just something I don't seem able to get my brain around ….. :oops: :oops:  Fortunately, there are members on here whose brains are wired differently so there's always someone to hold my hand.

As Nigel said, there maybe isn't a huge difference between a starter DCC and half decent DC system initially but, from then on, costs with DCC start to mount. 

Every loco needs a chip - that's at least £15 per loco, even if you fit a cheapo yourself.  However, you'll soon learn that you get what you pay for and your chips will end up costing at least £20 plus fitting. 

Then, with DCC, it's a bit like showing a child a bag of sweets.  Of course he (or she) will not be content with just looking ………………they'll become a "must have".  DCC point control, route setting and, dare I say it - sound - ultimately maybe, even complete computer control…………………

Sound will virtually double the price of a loco but, my oh my,  does it add another dimension to your "train set".  I've heard, and accept, all the criticism regarding exhibitions and multi running of sound locos but normally, one is "testing" trains in one's own train room enjoying the realism of a single locomotive - perhaps with a second simmering quietly in the station - or is that just me ……………..

DC is for those who like dials and switches.  A good DC control panel resembles the cockpit of a Jumbo jet - complete with runway lighting.  DC is also, in the long run, cheaper than DCC because, once you have bought your locomotive, there are no further costs involved to get it up and running.

Modern DC systems are very, very good - gone are the days of "on" or "off" systems, and slow running - my yardstick - can be remarkable given a good controller. 

To me, apart from the sound aspect, the major drawback with DC is that you will always be driving the track and never the train. Until I changed to DCC, I didn't really understand how different it would be.  Now, in spite of electronics constantly trying to get the better of me, I feel I'm in control of my trains and not simply providing a roadway for them to use.

My vote is for DCC.  

[user=2080]Barchester[/user] wrote:

……………………………………………………  I look on in wonder as an old wreck most would consign to the scrap heap stutters to life and crawls away. . . Then I stop looking in the mirror and get on with bodging in another cheap chip to an old loco   :thumbs
Cheers
  Matt

Back to the actual thread,  this will make me look like a dinosaur but I am DC (even though I have dabbled with DCC modules in two of my locos) and will probably stay so mainly because I like replicating the action of the "air" brake with my throttles combining with the inertia. I know DCC can have inertia but not the braking with the control I would like. 
I have spent many more hours in the cabs of locos than what one should admit to, including unofficially driving and the artistry to me is in the braking control. I would like to perfect a two stage brake, viz an independent and an automatic braking circuit to be able to keep a train "stretched" even though the inertia is purely a locomotive function. 

Two things I can replicate very well with my throttle are the concepts of "Power Braking" and "Dynamic Braking" by judicious use of the voltage controller and the braking controller and the loco appears fairly realistically to respond to replicate what I remember in my mis-spent youth!  So DCC for me has a long way to go!

Cheers

Trevor
  

I run 00 scale steam and diesel but no other options as all my locos are radio controlled and battery powered, some may say weird but it works for me

[user=374]xdford[/user] wrote:

Back to the actual thread,  this will make me look like a dinosaur but I am DC (even though I have dabbled with DCC modules in two of my locos) and will probably stay so mainly because I like replicating the action of the "air" brake with my throttles combining with the inertia. I know DCC can have inertia but not the braking with the control I would like. 
I have spent many more hours in the cabs of locos than what one should admit to, including unofficially driving and the artistry to me is in the braking control. I would like to perfect a two stage brake, viz an independent and an automatic braking circuit to be able to keep a train "stretched" even though the inertia is purely a locomotive function. 

Two things I can replicate very well with my throttle are the concepts of "Power Braking" and "Dynamic Braking" by judicious use of the voltage controller and the braking controller and the loco appears fairly realistically to respond to replicate what I remember in my mis-spent youth!  So DCC for me has a long way to go!

Cheers

Trevor"
  

Some of the newer Zimo sound decoders from British suppliers have the brake function, usually set up on F2.

Before I went to DCC, I really liked using inertia controllers on DC, including some H&M Walkabout controllers I still own.

As an aside (off-topic again!) Petrie had a turntable; the location can still be seen in Google Earth or Google Maps satellite views. Pinkenba used to have an "angle" but I suspect that may have been truncated later. Shorncliffe and Mitchelton had "angles", Ipswich had a turntable, and Beenleigh had a turntable, at least when it was still a terminus (not sure if this one can still be seen with all the development that's been going on). Some other terminating points (especially intermediate ones) only had run-rounds, so it was unavoidable to have long hood running in one direction.

Long hood forwards was certainly not unknown but was also not the preferred choice because it required two-man crews. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I thought the 1550/2400 classes were the same length as the 2100/2200 classes. 2350/2370s were a story of their own: as the first QR type with alternators, they would move off as soon as the brakes were released, and there were a few stories of guards on suburban trains being left behind! While these latter types were intended for use on mineral lines, and were overweight for Brisbane suburban duties (they limited the fuel load to compensate), they did find themselves on certain peak hour suburban duties; with twice the horsepower of the usual 1720 class, they could be relied upon for lively runs home. :)

Sorry, I know that's taken us a little off topic (perhaps not entirely, as Ron  started with DC vs DCC and steam vs diesel). My original intention in mentioning this was to give a precedent for running diesels with all of the old steam infrastructure still in place.

DCC does have some advantages when it comes to auto-switching polarity for points and things like turntables. I will be setting up my old Fleischmann turntable soon. On the old layout I had a DPDT switch to change the track polarity, but for the new layout, DCC-only for the upper level where the turntable is situated, I can use an auto-reverse module. I have already used auto-frog polarity changers, with some success, where the lower level tracks (switchable from DCC to DC as required) rely on mechanical micro-switches attached to the point motors.

HI Jeff, 
You are correct, the 1550's and 2100/2200's are the same length but I remember what I was told by the crew on the Pinkenba run back in 76 about the "bigger locos"… Unless they were referring to 2350's but those according to Wikipedia are shorter!

Sorry if I misled anyone only remembering what I was told!

Cheers

Trevor

No probs, Trevor. I think the 2350/2370 hoods were wider than the EMD locos, which would make them more difficult to drive long hood leading.

Before electrification, I used to catch a train from Central leaving at 5:21pm, which ran express Roma Street to Corinda (my stop), and was nearly always hauled by a 2100 class loco, with an 8-car Evans set. It was always a great run home!

I'm sure there had to be some flexibility with the driving of locomotives with the limitations of some of the suburban network as they were. 

Even in Britain, there was much resistance to driving what became class 20 diesels with the bonnet (hood) end leading. I'm not sure what they thought of the class 15s and 16s, when they chose to run at all. The longer term solution for the class 20s was to run them in pairs with the cab ends outwards.

Bringing us back to DCC, I have a semi-permanently coupled pair of class 20s, with one of them de-motored, leaving room for a large bass reflex speaker. This is connected to the motorised loco through a 2-pin plug and socket arrangement. The motorised one has a sound decoder with Howes' sounds, with an added engine start (i.e. two engine starts on the one decoder), and is also attached to a small speaker (the largest that would fit inside the bonnet). On its own, the motorised loco sounds rather tinny, but hooked up to the second loco and speaker, it sounds really good. I have fitted a lighting unit to the motorised loco with disc headcodes, and have a second lighting kit to do the unpowered one, which has 4-character headcode boxes, thus simplifying the lighting a bit. That will require a decoder to operate the lights, and is a good use for some of the cheaper decoders. At best it will require four functions to operate the headcode and tail lights independently (I don't want the tail lights to be on when in tandem, but there may be occasions where the positions are reversed temporarily, putting the Kadees I have used between them to the outside when hauling Kadee-equipped stock).

That sounds complicated in DCC, but if you think about doing the same with DC analogue, you would need to wire various switches to select which lights are on or off; one instance where DCC reduces complexity, while giving more control to the operator.

Great thread  :thumbs

I had an ancient Atlas S2 with a Roco chassis and motor (biased 5-pole armature, minimal clagging, dual flywheels) crawling along last night at a scale 1 mph (in HO) with one of Digitrax's budget decoders (total cost $40, loco and decoder). I could probably get even slower if I played around with the speed table. No stuttering either. Best I can do with an expensive PWM DC controller is about 3-4 mph, with stuttering (PWM on DC is usually far from optimal, and usually nowhere as good as that found in DCC systems, and this is an expensive MRC controller).

If you only have one locomotive in steam (or diesel?) and are OK with fairly unsophisticated momentum and braking, use DC. More than one locomotive - you will be into block designs. If you really want to control how a locomotive starts, runs and stops, go with DCC. And no blocks, just power sectors (not usually required for a small layout). And if you want to double head a King with a County or a Manor, (or a class 20 with a class 60) you really do need to use DCC, which allows you to adjust different motors with different outputs so they work together.

It's not all about sound (which you can have with DC and one locomotive if you want to). And in my experience the wiring on DC and DCC controlled layouts can both get, well, interesting.

Most of my DCC sound decoders run around $80, well worth the investment I think for the dividends they pay in the ability to really control locomotive running (especially prototypical-slow shunting/switching).

Nigel

Just finished messing around with the settings on the Atlas S2 diesel with a Digitrax DN135 decoder (about as basic as you can get). I clocked a scale 0.23 mph at speed setting 1 on the NCE system. Not bad for a model that must be getting on for 30 years old and with wheel rim pick-ups. Bit of clagging, speed 2 gave 0.34 mph and no clagging. Glaciers move faster than this.


Nigel

My Voting has been a bit weird, because I have one layout under rebuild, the N gauge layout, Tiree, and one EM gauge layout under Construction, Ludgershall.

Tiree is settled that was DCC and will be, although All the Locos I've bought since will need converting.

Ludgershall is not settled, it will either be radio controlled or DCC, I'm leaning toward Radio control as it will be a huge layout with a circuit of track in the garden, and I really don't fancy that amount of track cleaning.

As for steam or Diesel I have a preference for steam,
Tiree is set in 1963, so it should be Steam with the odd Diesel.
Ludgershall is set on 29th May 1940, so entirely Steam.