DC vs DCC  is often a subject in many forums and can bring the good & bad out of people.

To me, if one has large DC fleet and or a one-man operator ( or maybe two people operating at the same time), unless the owner is in to loco lights & sounds - stay DC. It will be cheaper than converting to DCC

For someone just starting out & finance is tight & you are having a plank layout with one or two locos, then DC , it would be relatively easy to convert to DCC later. But if finance is not a problem, go straight to DCC.

But for those who are into

1. computer operations like RR & Co, etc or
2. multiple operators or
3. loco sounds and lights or
4. a combination of a)  b)  & c)

    then IMO, DCC is the only way to go

As others have said, wiring DCC is not that much different in total wires to DC.

I grew up with DC  but DC switching between 4 controllers & track sections at the same time was not  fun.

As I  had operated on a couple of DCC layouts, I converted to DCC to simplify operations as I have 5 crew plus myself on my D&S with upto 4 locos on the move in the main station at the same time. 

Outside of my layout, I also work on 8 other DCC layouts that require from 4 upto 7 people to work them satisfactorily - 2 maybe OK on DC but then the owners wanted sounds & loco lights.

Those who remember Penhayle Bay by Gwiwer in the early days, his layout was DC and it took MaxSouthOz, a DCC user, some time to realize that fact.

As technology changes, even DCC as we know it now, will also change .

I agree with you Ron, and my advice to people who ask is very similar to yours.

My old layout was DC when it started out, with cab control. DCC came late in the piece and was simply added by replacing one DC controller and switching every track section to the DCC one.

Hi Ron

I think it is fair to say that if most of use were starting out now, we would probably consider DCC very carefully - particularly as, within the next 10 years or so, I would imagine that DC will be regarded as obsolete (and as hard to find) as spring-drive is now.

The sound/lights thing is not so much of a worry - there are DC solutions for lighting, albeit cruder than the DCC versions and I have just come across the YouTube channel for a guy called Lewis (aka Mouldy Raspberry on YouTube) who's Yorkshire Dales layout featured in Hornby mag a few issues back and who's videos use recorded & carefully synchronised sound.  As a result, it is compelling viewing and certainly offers a bar to aim for.

At the other end of the scale, my 8yo Grandson has a train set (care of Grandpops) populated with Hornby 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 GWR tanks, etc on Peco Settrack.  Its analogue.  Total outlay so far for a useful pile of track bits, 2 second-hand engines and a box of wagons to fill with Jelly Babies - about the same as a decent (and very breakable) DCC engine!!

When he is older and if he gets the bug, its all expendable……….

Barry

Time for another Poll, (without the complication of Steam Vs Diesel) ?

http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=15537&forum_id=27&view_results=1



Ed

I haven't changed my opinion - an ex DC user, I'm now very firmly in the DCC camp - however, I'm a lone modeller and I do love sound !

In terms of track wiring, DCC is far more simple than DC - there are no section switches, no requirement for isolated sidings to store locos on, no "cab control" or any other quirks associated with controlling locomotives via the current in the trackwork.

On the other hand, track aside, wiring for DCC can become highly complex given the possibilities of electronic control offered by DCC.

In terms of cost, DCC locomotives are certainly more expensive than their DC counterpart.  One has to buy a chip for every locomotive.  Adding sound is very expensive - usually doubling (and some) the cost of the locomotive.  As far as other devices are concerned, point control costs are similar with both DC and DCC.  The initial outlay for a half-decent DCC outfit is probably more than an equivalent DC system but, whilst it is claimed a good DC controller will give similar performance to a DCC system, I find that hard to believe, particularly in terms of slow running characteristics.

Point control via DC is more intuitive than DCC control but one needs to be standing in front of a fixed panel flicking switches or making contacts with probes etc.  With DCC point control, one has a single hand set (throttle) controlling locomotives, signals, points and any number of other electronic devices of choice.  That single hand set can, once the necessary simple wiring is in place, move around the layout with you being unplugged from one site and replugged in another without any loss of control between the 2 (or more) operating sites.

All in all, and without detailed research I'd say DCC is more expensive than DC but offers far more for your money.

Conversion from one to the other is a different matter.  Some pre-DCC locomotives are the very devil to convert and adding a minimum of £20 to every locomotive for a decent chip could very quickly become prohibitive.  I still have 4 or 5 perfectly good locomotives which I won't bother, for one reason or another, to convert so to me, they're "dead" stock.

Apart from train sets at Christmas, and one layout when I was starting back in the hobby in 2004 (and reading all about block control and trying it out on the club layout) I have only ever used DCC. What a lot of modelers still don't realize is that both systems still drive the motor the same way - DC current. What is different to the "old days" is the way the current is applied. DCC decoders use rectification and pulse width modulation (PWM), constant voltage applied  to the motor. Very sharp transitions between off and on. Old DC controllers (and even some basic new ones) use only voltage regulation. Newer ones use PWM, but if you research the output characteristics it is a combination of PWM and voltage regulation. Unless you have a really good (= expensive) DC controller, changes in gradient will require manual adjustment, as will the degree of inertia when slowing down. Double heading, banking? All handled by the decoder with DCC.

Why does this matter? It has nothing to do with sound, signals, lights, bells or whistles. Newer motors are designed to use DCC and are much smaller than old ones (can versus open frame does not mean better). Multiple skewed poles, optimized windings, smaller more efficient magnets, low stall voltage. That doesn't mean that old 3-pole straight cut open frame motor responds better to a DC controller than to a DCC decoder. Quite the contrary. Assuming you have a decoder that will handle the stall current required to get the beast rotating it will respond with much less cogging at low speeds when compared to even a good DC controller. Buying the latest steam or diesel model with a DCC optimized motor and then running it with DC is to my mind false economy. 

Is it worthwhile converting that old DC model to DCC? Yes, most models are easily converted, even those with a live chassis. But only do this if it runs well with DC. 

From my reading on the hobby this looks just like the arguments coming from the clockwork modelers in the 1920's who insisted that electric motors were not for them. I like sound, modern speakers are pretty good, given that it is at 1:76 for most of us. Shunting used a system of whistles, as did early GWR autocoaches. An essential part  of setting the scene. If you want sound in DC you can have  it, even to the extent of using full scale hi-fi speakers and amplifiers with cross-overs And lots of bass. Along with Doppler effects as it goes around. 

I still use DC, but not for controlling locomotives, even on a "one engine in steam"  plank layout. I am full of admiration for anybody who runs a multi-train layout with multiple blocks using DC. For anybody building a new layout I do however ask myself why not DCC? I think that the argument regarding cost is in many ways a red herring, when the overall cost of even a simple plank layout is considered. Given the similarities between DC and DCC wiring, rewiring for DCC is not that difficult, especially if the points are kept as DC.

Nigel

Personally I don't think there is a right or wrong way to control your trains, it is about what suits the individual and although cost to convert may be considered a guiding factor this may only be part of the equation. I model Australian prototype in N scale and have always hand crafted my own models simply because there were no manufacturers having models made in China. That is changing and the new generation of modellers will be able to buy RTR Chinese made product off the shelf. The problem I have is that Australian Railways have a considerably smaller loading gauge than those in other countries and this creates a few issues when you try to use a mechanism from either British or American locos to power your models. If you want to use DCC in an N scale Aussie prototype locomotive your best option is to hand build the mechanism to accommodate the DCC chip which is beyond most people, or as one person has done, 3d print models considerably larger than they should be. The photo here shows the difference between my NR loco and the 3d body I purchased which is designed to fit an American loco mechanism. The internal dimensions of my model where the mechanism needs to fit is barely 10mm wide x 13mm high and doesn't leave much room for a DCC chip and the associated wiring, or even a DCC board. 


So at this stage I will continue to use DC until I can perfect my hand built mechanism. The other issue here is the fact that for some older modellers who even have problems using a mobile phone, the best option for them is still DC. I have discussed this issue with quite a few older modellers who, in some cases, have quite large layouts and equally large locomotive fleets and the thought of converting all that stock to DCC and then rewiring the layout is a cost few can afford let alone really need as they can still run their trains and above all else still enjoy the hobby. Like it or not there are still people who collect and love running clockwork trains and yes, they still think it is the best way. This hobby has gone through many generational changes and even more to the point a massive technological leap in recent years and these changes suit some people and others prefer to stay with a method that works for them. I think we need to respect all aspects of the hobby and understand that no matter how you build your models, what your prototype preference is or how you power them, the passion for the hobby is no less enjoyable for everyone.

  Here is my two bob.
   
  I think when people hear ‘DCC” they automatically think everything has bells and whistles and everything is controlled by the hand controller i.e. trains, signals, points etc. I understand that this is not everyone’s cup of tea but personally I would not want to operate a layout with everything controlled by the hand controller either. Hence on our layout only the trains are controlled by DCC (and some accessories like a welding light) all points are operated as per traditional style DC toggle switches. The best thing I find is the absence of isolating switches which in the case of engine shed and sidings, govern the amount (and type) of locos you can have in the track at any one time.
   
  Yes, DCC is complicated with the changing of CVs but I have never had too much to do with them. Furthermore, it is difficult to get DCC chips working practically from what I have heard in kit built locos. The expense of decoders is another negative but when it allows extra realism like DMU/diesel lights being on constantly in a station instead of off when stopped (would have never happened in real life unless they were faulty or the driver turned them off), surely the realism justifies the extra cost.
   
  Certainly DC is perfectly adequate if that is how people want to operate/run trains (Rule 1 applies) but for me, currently, it has to be DCC.
   
  Regards Connor   

[user=211]CCGWR[/user] wrote:

  Furthermore, it is difficult to get DCC chips working practically from what I have heard in kit built locos.

 

Hi Connor,

Another OWT.. In the good old days when electric motors for model trains had one insulated brush terminal, and one connected to the live chassis directly through the frame of the motor, DCC (yet to be dreamed of) would not have been that difficult. I've put DCC decoders in locomotives with half insulated axles and a live chassis and a half insulated motor, not recommended though. Usually safer to change the motor for a new (DCC optimized) one. I converted an old Tenshodo SP9 which had a half insulated motor, and a live chassis a few years ago. Modern DC motors have isolated brush terminals, and the commutator is also insulated, as are the armature wires. My kit models ran/run fine with a new insulated motor (can or open-framed) and gearbox. I'm in the process of converting an old Atlas/Roco SW9 chassis that had insulated axles, but a live chassis and a half insulated motor, to DCC. Easy conversion that just required rerouting of the wires from the pickups and some kapton tape. .

If it runs on DC it will run on DCC.

Nigel

[user=1680]RobynT[/user] wrote:

The other issue here is the fact that for some older modellers who even have problems using a mobile phone, the best option for them is still DC.

Hi Robyn,

How do you classify an older modeler? I suspect most members of this forum are well beyond retirement age. The median age of the local NMRA group I belong to is probably around 75. Nearly all are using DCC. Many new modelers are often returning to the hobby on retirement, so do we advocate that they should stick with DC and not enter the realms of DCC as it could be too complicated for them? I would hate to think that ageism or mental acuity is a valid justification for using DC.

Our dishwasher is more complicated than my NCE system, and I use maybe 10% of the capability of my cell phone (out of choice, many my age are well into the wonders of social media). I use my car daily, the electronics are well beyond what I need to know. I once watched an expert reprogram my SAAB ECU to optimize turbine output. Fascinating to watch what she was doing, but I was only interested in the end result - bhp and torque. The instructions for setting up and running my DCC system are one small page of very clear language. The current car's clock is one hour out for 6 months of the year as changing it is too complicated to remember, and takes a full page of instructions.

DCC is as simple or as complicated as you want it to be. Most of us will not need to mess around with speed tables, ABC, consisting, and the like, and will quite happily run the already installed decoder as is. Belong to a club, or have a layout where others come and play trains on, and you will soon learn to change locomotive and cab numbers as required, and set the speed table so there is no lag in starting the engine and it runs to prototypical speeds. Nothing like peer pressure to get you motivated to rein in that 150 mph steam locomotive.

Anybody with a large layout with block control (especially with automatic switching, locomotive sensing, and short detection control) is using a system that is a lot more complicated than DCC. Working the club DC layout made me realize that DCC would be a welcome relief. If as a modeler you have one of these layouts and it is working fine, why bother changing? For anybody else coming into the hobby or building a new layout the question really should be "why are you using DC and not DCC?" Cost? Given the cost of a layout (and I wish more people would keep an accurate track of what they are spending, time included) it soon becomes apparent that the investment in a DCC system is not that great. I was reading a post on this forum from several years ago where the comment was made that 6 locomotives could be bought instead of 5 if it was DC and not DCC (must have been basic no sound decoders). Fair enough, but are you going to run 6 at once or just 1 or 2?

As you quite rightly point out, anything smaller than HO/OO can pose problems, but like all things electronic it all gets smaller and more efficient. If I was building a DC layout today I think I would make sure the wiring is going to be easily convertible to DCC. Just in case.

Nigel

My small DC layout has no section switches, only four switches to operate the points and one push type switch for the signal.  I turn the knob on the Gaugemaster controller and the loco runs immediately.  No delay whilst tapping in numbers.  Control of modern locos is super smooth and quiet.  Locos can be run as slow as a snail if that's your thing.  Personally, I find loco sound to be rather irritating.  I have tried it in the past and actually have a couple of locos so fitted. Quite honestly, after ten minutes the noise gets well and truly 'on my wick' as we say here in England.  Don't ask me about the weekend spent exhibiting a layout in the same room as a Gauge 1 diesel depot complete with the sound of numerous idling locos.  I was ready to kill someone by five o'clock closing time on the Sunday!

Sound aside, I can't see any advantage of DCC on a small layout.

Terry

 

BCDR "so do we advocate that they should stick with DC and not enter the realms of DCC as it could be too complicated for them? I would hate to think that ageism or mental acuity is a valid justification for using DC."

Hi Nigel, You are correct that the modelling fraternity is mostly "mature age", in fact even I am getting close to 70, however, I am not advocating anything and in the context of my statement I did say "some older modellers" . I never said all older modellers. In fact a large number of modellers within all age groups that I have been associated with use DCC and I applaud there involvement in this aspect of the hobby. On the other side of the spectrum a layout I featured in the magazine belongs to a man who is in his 80's, his layout is 40 years old and he has over 150 locos left from a collection of 250, the remaining models include recent purchases and a number from the past and he runs them all. His layout covers an area of 20' x 25' and after two heart attacks and a recent mild stroke the opportunity for him to convert his fleet would be too costly and his layout is now becoming difficult for him to maintain like he did just a few years ago. With this in mind it would be difficult for him to rewire his massive layout for DCC due to his mobility, so it matters little how "simple" the task may be. I am currently building a layout for a friend who is 84 and as much as I would love to set it up for DCC he is one of those people who just can't get it. I have tried to teach him how to use a DCC hand controller but he struggles to grasp that it is quite easy. As for me I have hard wired DCC chips for people, and I recently purchased a 3d printer and started doing CAD drawing and yet I still prefer to hand craft my models using base materials. In reality I would not try to convert others by advocating what is the best method, you can point out in a simple manner the benefits of a method but it is their choice and whatever that is, if I can help them I will. In the last comment in my post I said: "I think we need to respect all aspects of the hobby and understand that no matter how you build your models, what your prototype preference is or how you power them, the passion for the hobby is no less enjoyable for everyone."
Like it or not everyone makes their choices in this hobby because it suits them, their financial situation or their interest and they have every right to do that and I for one respect that.

Most technological change has one thing in common, it is enabling. For those happy with what they have, such changes may be unappealing, opposed and even dismissed as inferior. Examples of this are photography, audio, video. Digital advances in all these technologies have enabled a large number to experience what previously only a privileged few could enjoy.

The “inferior” issue is an interesting one when touted by those with a vested interest in the existing technology. I’m sure many can remember the old chestnut about vinyl being better than CD, - qualified of course by “when played on really good equipment”. Or digital photos being inferior to film etc. Now both these points might be valid for the lucky few able to afford the absolute best, but is there just sometimes a sense of “entitlement” under threat when there’s push back over technological change?

When you look back at how those various digital technologies have improved our access to media, knowledge, family and friends etc. in ways previously beyond our reach, surely those pushing back at the start of the digital age look very silly in retrospect.  That’s not to deny the many negatives which came with these advances, but to use these as a basis to argue against change, surely a way can be found to manage them.

Clearly DCC vs DC sits squarely in the middle of a similar technology transition. Many who have a big investment of their time, hardware and knowledge in DC have little incentive to change - fair enough. But it seems to me that the enabling aspects of DCC make it the logical route for new entrants today and to argue otherwise is to ignore the lessons from history .

I keep a very small technology “museum” to amuse the grandchildren, a SONY Walkman, a 1987 Amstrad which ran up until its 30^th birthday etc.etc. We do need to remind ourselves, change happens – get over it!

[user=1680]RobynT[/user] wrote:

……respect all aspects of the hobby and understand that no matter how you build your models, what your prototype preference is or how you power them, the passion for the hobby is no less enjoyable for everyone.

Right there is the beauty of our hobby.  There is no contest between DC and DCC, neither is right or wrong, neither is (IMHO) better or worse than the other - they are two of the options available.

Barry

"I think it is fair to say that if most of use were starting out now, we  would probably consider DCC very carefully - particularly as, within the  next 10 years or so, I would imagine that DC will be regarded as  obsolete (and as hard to find) as spring-drive is now" I didn't say it though.

Sums it up for me, and essentially what I have been saying. Rule 1 applies - it's YMR. Keep in mind that North America is much further along this road, even in N-scale.

For those interested in what some DC controllers actually do, see Model Railway Controllers

Even I can understand it.

Nigel