starting outDC or DCC?

I personally say start right out with DCC.  Even if you are the only operator, and could have an argument for not needing the mutli-train control, there are a million other reasons you will be happy in the future. I will list 5 of them. The other 9,999,995 reasons I will leave for another time!

1- constant lighting- It is nice to have the lights stay on your cars and locos even when parked, and not get brighter the faster you go!

2- You will LOVE to not have to think about blocks- you can have ALL your locos live (some idling with lights on) ready to move when you want, even just a few (scale) feet away as you are working with another.

3- Super easy consisting. One loco can run right over to another parked unit right on the same block. Then push another button and they operate as one.

4- Switching routes. Most systems will allow you to program routes with one button that switches all turnouts for that route, so long as you have decoders running the switch machines.

5- Sound. I am not planning on using sound, at least for now. But with DCC you have so much great control of sound. Again, you can have engines idling low or boilers blowing off steam while parked. N Scale sound is not perfect, but getting better.  

The list really does go on and on.  I only chime in here, mostly because most people I talk to think of DCC as a way to run two trains without having to run blocks. My layout can only handle one train running no matter what, but I think of DCC as simply a smarter, more realistic way to run trains on any size layout.

 There's my opinion!

Paul 

Thanks for the replies.

I got similar info from the DCC thread.  Yes I would like to have a local waiting on a siding while a thru frt passes or have the passenger train picking up passengers on the siding while the switcher works the spurs! I guess I'm just going to have to learn to operate with both hands!

Thanks again for the info. Now I need to decide on brand(s) of power and controllers and which track I will use and may be I can get a move on!

Gene 

...had better move closer to the door so we can escape when all them DCC'ers decide we are no longer useful. I'm sticking with DC, also.  With careful block control planning I will be able to simultaneously run and control three trains on my layout.

However, to answer the original question.....

I think a lot depends on how much you know about electricity and electronics as you go into your first layout.  If you are well versed in electronics, including digital electronic communications and programming, I would say go DCC.

On the other hand if you have very little knowlegde about electricity at the onset, then DC would be the way to go, and the way to gain the necessary skills and knowledge to prepare for the future changeover to DCC.

Another point to ponder....

DC is far less expensive than DCC.  That may be an important point for a person just starting out.

Moose

I have to agree with Bryan, and further dispute the "ease of use" issue with DC vs. DCC.  I can still remember the rats nest of wiring and block switches I built to power my previous 4x7 layout.  Right now I have two loops of Unitrack on a 4x8 sheet, a couple switches per loop.  And one set of wires to each loop........  The best part is not even thinking about the track.  I now control trains not electricity...  Now when I go to my "empire" I will be setting up power zones.  But it will have no relation to the wiring/multi-pole block switches required (and points of failure) of a DC system.  As far as "programming" the stuff, I must truly be missing something.  The same technology is all around us and we use it daily.  ATM machnes, mobile phones, all forms of consumer electronics, they all are "programmable".  In fact, I just programmed a universal controller for my TV "stuff" that was around 100 times more complicated than my Digitrax Zephyr.  All of us here are obviously computer users.  I encourage all the doubters to actually try a little hands-on with the latest DCC systems.  I found it to be a real revelation, and the cost is minmal.  In fact, on eBay, you can pick up locos already equipped with decoders for less than the retail of the original DC versions.  Even on the smallest layouts, I contend it is a whole lot more realistic (and enjoyable) controlling trains not track.  And of course, my advice is worth every penny it costs and you know its free!!!!

Kerry

Cheers- Two points very well put. DCC doesn't have to be much more money at all- and we are all doing much harder programming figuring out how to insert a photo into a forum comment then it takes to program most modern DCC systems.  

 

Paul, I mean no disrespect at all, but after reading that post I'm afraid I have to disagree on some points, especially in regards to animation.  I am not sure where the resistance to using a computer with a layout comes from, but it is prevailent, based on what I have read from several posters here and elsewhere. 

In your post you speak of separating into dcc blocks each with a separate booster?  Why do you need to do this?  How many locomotives are you running in a block?  You used 20 locos as an example, that should be handled pretty easily by 2, or 3 boosters tops.

A PC based automation interface can also eliminate the need for a decoder for every signal or transponding decoders for the locomotives (if you choose to set it up that way).  If you know of a cheaper, ready made automation system that is not PC based, please share it, as I have looked for one and have not found one. 

I know circuit diagrams abound for just about any task you could want a signal or block to do, but there is little support to many of them, no guarantees.  I personally don't care to spend a small fortune on a bunch of electronic parts (having to buy many in packs of 10 when I only need one, and let's not forget the mandatory RadioShack part that was discontinued years ago) and then spend hours wrapping tiny little wires and soldering them, turning the back of a board into yet another rat's nest. Then trouble shooting and rework if it doesn't work the first time... My free time is worth more than that.  I'd rather spend it on things I enjoy more.  I'll stick to ready made accessories if I can make them do what I want, thank you.  That is only my opinion, though.  If electronics is your hobby, then maybe YOU can accomplish these tasks cheaper, but not all of us could.

As for your point on the PC being an additional cost... well I'd posit that a PC may already be in the house, considering this is an electronic forum.  Granted, it's probably multi-use and you don't want to dedicate it to the MR, which is fine.  The 2 automation systems I've looked into are plug in, so you're not hardwired in or anything. 

Please understand, Paul, I am not flaming.  I'm not trying to start an arguement.  Automation is frustrating and expensive no matter how you go about it.  I was just curious as to how you think it's cheaper by NOT using a PC.

Ranulf: no offence taken!  Robust discussion is great :-)

The resistance to using a computer is not my own (I've been programming for 30 years!) but rather comes from an observation that many model railroaders are not computer literate, particularly folks of retirement age.  My club and most in this part of the world have many more older members than young ones (a ratio of about 20:1.) Almost all of those folks who are computer literate are certainly not up to progamming JMRI to do animation/automation.

You mention some PC-based automation doing away with the need for transponding decoders and signal decoders - can you let me know which ones? I'm curious because I've not encountered one.  Does it also do away with the need for physical presence detectors?

I also take your point regarding the need for consumer-based products - most model railroaders are not electronics enthusiasts or engineers and don't want to be! This need has made me look at putting my own designs into commercial production (at the behest of many of my club members) because they're plug-and-play by design. DCC manufacturers are making most of their margin on the accessory decoders, boosters, detectors etc. because they realise that such things are required for all but the simplest of DCC layouts. The 'hook' is individual loco control... the bite comes from the additional costs.

As for boosters... I correct my assertion and agree you need only one for a layout if you're not running too many locos at once. That is if you don't mind the entire layout shutting down when any one of the locos derails and creates a short... in which case you need another booster or three, or circuit breakers that responds faster than your booster's built-in one.

Bryan: by implementing blocks for DCC I meant that you needed to add a detector to know where a loco is physically on the layout if you want the loco to avoid running into the one in front or going past a point that is set against it for safer railroading.  It means cutting the rail/inserting insulators and breaking into the bus feed wiring for the track to insert a circuit - all of which is contrary to the "no need for blocks" DCC mantra I hear and read all the time

I must say that in many ways DCC is great and for simple situations it gives an enormous amount of control without needing a lot of electronics nous. A switching style layout using DCC is a lot more fun and easier to wire up for your average modeller! That said I object to the notion that DCC is the panacea for all challenges to do with running a layout and all modes of running.

Indeed, if at any point you need to know where exactly a loco/train is phsyically present on the layout then DCC is no help at all... and you're back to a variation on good old block control. Not quite as bad as centralised block control of course because at least with DCC you have a signal bus to send commands to the whole layout.

All of this is just my 2c... and much of the rationale for the design of a DC-based control system for our club. During the design process I talked to all of our club members, young and old, and both DCC and DC owners. I also looked extensively at how other clubs were rolling out DCC and the issues they were encountering. I looked in detail at how our club had previously implemented DC automation to find all of the serious limitations of those older systems.

In short I've done a *lot* of thinking in the past 12 months so I really appreciate all feedback I can get from outside the "forrest" of my own making :-)

P.

Many fine points have been made reguarding DC vs DCC.  And I can't yet speak from experience with a DCC layout and as a DCC user. But I can voice my opinion in this debate.

I started out in 2006 with DC mainly because the DC locomotives were less expensive and built a 4x7 DC layout using about 14 locomotives.

I then decided to convert to DCC. I'm one of the retired old farts with a shakey hand and bad eyesight. This precluded me from doing the decoder installs myself. 

I had them converted for (a good price) 1K+ dollars by Spillage Loco Works.  If I had it to do over again I would have started with DCC. For me it would have been less expensive. 

The price of DC power packs, controllers etc. vs a DCC system is more or less equal. But IMO the advantage of DCC (controlling trains not track) outweighs the DC set up.  You can control t/os using manual or RC cables and automate them over time.

I suggest consideration of DCC over DC especially since several (other than Atlas) manufactures are now selling DCC equipped locos at reasonable costs.

See ya

Ron    

 

      

As Dexter said:
 
"2- You will LOVE to not have to think about blocks- you can have ALL your locos live (some idling with lights on) ready to move when you want, even just a few (scale) feet away as you are working with another."
 
Now to be sure, nothing electronic or computer scares me, I know persistence and research will reveal their secrets and allow them to be as useful as possible.
 
But reason 2 Dexter provided is what has been coming into my thinking of late.  To be able to move the locomotives around, leave them parked anywhere without concern for playing with switches.  Or even worse having to spend a lot of time planning for blocking that does not quite work right, and after built operating the locomotives are forever enslaved to the blocks implemented.
 
But that is me, to each his own for how he wants to plan and operate his railroad.
 
Charles