Should for all n-scale locomotives come with DCC installed?

[Kisatchie]

I just read this entire thread straight through. Do I get some kind of award?

If some day I can build my dream layout, it'll have to be DCC. With that in mind, I don't need sound, nor fancy options. All I think I'll need are DCC friendly locos that I can install very basic decoders in.


Hmm... Kiz ended his
sentence with a
preposition...

[eja]

Hmm... Kiz ended his
sentence with a
preposition...

This is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put !

W.S Churchill

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html

[pwnj]

Funny, because "straw men" is exactly what I think when someone post "DCC Zealot" comments.   Where are all these evil DCC folks?

Like DKS said, they're out there.  And I too am glad they're not really here.

There just unfortunately seems to be a lot of misinformation out there, which is a bit surprising.   I would never try to "force" anything on anyone...will I try to tout the positives, you bet!  IMHO, for me it turns model railroading into a completely different hobby almost.  So for me to get that kind of enjoyment out of something then absolutely I'm gonna want to "share the wealth" so to speak.   However, I'm not gonna beat down somebody over it.   If a slobbering DCC fan  like me doesn't sell the concept quickly, then I'll move on...you have your reasons and I respect that.   But some of the "reasons" for not doing it are pretty out there.   "Too many locomotives"...probably a good one.   "Flat not interested" or "no budget"....sure.   But expounding bizarre DCC myths and huddling against the ferocious meanies (referenced third-hand, no less) trying to take over the world and force you to DCC....come on.   

1) Glad you're not going to try to force something on someone. (like it would work, anyway... unless you're payin', then I'm playin'!)
2) I'm not denying the positives.  I see MANY of them in MANY situations, especially for larger and/or club layouts with multi-train ops sessions.  I just don't see a need, nor do I want any of those things for the small layouts I have planned.  And back to my original post, I don't have the money anyway, so the point is for the foreseeable future a moot one.
3) No DCC-myth expounding here.  I don't want the relative hassle (as compared to plug-and-play DC) taking time and money away from the activities I really prefer (building models, scenicking, and running trains).  That's what does it for me with this hobby.  And thankfully, it fits my non-existent budget right now.
4) Referenced third-hand?  I'm not huddling against "ferocious meanies", I'm enjoying model railroading any way I can.  People ask me if I do DCC and I tell them it's neat, but I don't use it.  Generally speaking, people are OK with that.  But there have been enough occasions when people have really gone overboard with their pro-DCC rants.  If someone wants to buy me some DCC equipment to tinker with, I'm not gonna stop them. I just have no money or interest in what DCC has to offer me for what I'm doing. 

MU and speed synching for my tiny harbor switching layout? Not needed or wanted (note that I didn't say it was wrong).  Running multiple locos simultaneously?  It doesn't have a full loop and there isn't much space.  Plenty easy enough to handle with blocks.  Could some of that be generally easy with DCC?  Maybe, but I'm happy as-is, so no reason to bother.   

Wasn't it Dave Vollmer recently who was talking about the sweet spot between work and enjoyment in model railroading?  DCC is one of the things that makes the work curve go up too quickly.  I'd rather expend that effort on making tiny fire hydrants out of parts-box junk, and spend my non-existent money on more trains, structures and supplies.

MODEL RAILROADING IS FUN!

And I mean that.

[jdcolombo]

Wasn't it Dave Vollmer recently who was talking about the sweet spot between work and enjoyment in model railroading?  DCC is one of the things that makes the work curve go up too quickly.  I'd rather expend that effort on making tiny fire hydrants out of parts-box junk, and spend my non-existent money on more trains, structures and supplies.

MODEL RAILROADING IS FUN!

And I mean that.

I believe consumers should have choices, and therefore think "DCC ready" is the way manufacturers should go.  I also understand that entry into DCC is expensive, and many folks may not want or be able to afford the entry (though there are some relatively inexpensive starter sets out there).  But I don't understand the "DCC makes the work curve go up too quickly" comment.  With a small layout, you attach two wires and you're done.  Of course, you can do this with DC, too, unless you need blocks to run more than one loco at the same time, in which case the work quotient (wiring the blocks and block switches) goes up exponentially for DC.  Converting a modern DCC-ready diesel from DC to DCC is about a 10 minute job, and you can often today buy them with decoders already installed.  Programming?  Changing the DCC address from the standard 03 to the engine number takes 20 seconds and can usually be done without a programming track of any sort via programming-on-the-main.  DCC certainly CAN be complex and time consuming if you want it to be - automating turnouts via route control, speed matching locos, setting up signaling, etc.  But it certainly doesn't HAVE to be.

Again, I recognize some layouts really don't benefit from having DCC; some folks don't want to spend the extra money; etc.  Manufacturers shouldn't force it on people, any more than auto manufacturers should force folks to buy a sunroof if they don't want it.  But the notion that DCC is necessarily this highly complex monster that eats large chunks of modeling time puzzles me.

John C.

[MVW]

Well put, John. Or as the kids say, +1.

Jim

[Denver Road Doug]

MODEL RAILROADING IS FUN!

THIS is something I think we can all agree on, and should be installed in every product!   

[VonRyan]

THIS is something I think we can all agree on, and should be installed in every product!   

The fun is there. It is just up to the individual modeler to find it and have it.

-Cody F.

[pwnj]

I believe consumers should have choices, and therefore think "DCC ready" is the way manufacturers should go.  I also understand that entry into DCC is expensive, and many folks may not want or be able to afford the entry (though there are some relatively inexpensive starter sets out there).

+1 on DCC-ready.  Maybe even sell combo packs  that have the  loco  and  the plug-in decoder  for those that want  it, too.  And yes, for me, DCC is extremely expensive, even the  "inexpensive starter sets".  My train budget is seriously $0 (bad economy, medical  expenses, wife and kids to take care of, not  enough money for all that, much less optional hobbies).

But I don't understand the "DCC makes the work curve go up too quickly" comment.  With a small layout, you attach two wires and you're done.  Of course, you can do this with DC, too, unless you need blocks to run more than one loco at the same time, in which case the work quotient (wiring the blocks and block switches) goes up exponentially for DC.  Converting a modern DCC-ready diesel from DC to DCC is about a 10 minute job, and you can often today buy them with decoders already installed.  Programming?  Changing the DCC address from the standard 03 to the engine number takes 20 seconds and can usually be done without a programming track of any sort via programming-on-the-main.  DCC certainly CAN be complex and time consuming if you want it to be - automating turnouts via route control, speed matching locos, setting up signaling, etc.  But it certainly doesn't HAVE to be.

Again, I recognize some layouts really don't benefit from having DCC; some folks don't want to spend the extra money; etc.  Manufacturers shouldn't force it on people, any more than auto manufacturers should force folks to buy a sunroof if they don't want it.  But the notion that DCC is necessarily this highly complex monster that eats large chunks of modeling time puzzles me.

The work curve goes up (for me) because I have to hook up the DCC system, install decoders  (in EVERYTHING I have), program those decoders, etc.  Obviously it's kind of moot due to budgetary issues, but I don't want to sit around and wire up all of my locomotives, especially considering the hassles involved in putting them into the tiny critter  locos I prefer.  That sounds like work to me (again, to _me_) when I'd much rather be ballasting (OK, I'm weird, I actually like ballasting, so sue me!).

With DC it's put it on the track + apply voltage = train goes.  DCC is more complicated, no matter how simple the setup it is.  I spend all day working on technology (physical IT stuff, and web and database programming  stuff).  When I'm done with that, most of the time I'm not interested in any more technology stuff.  If you are, fantastic, nothin' wrong with it. 

Can't we all just get along?

THIS is something I think we can all agree on, and should be installed in every product!   

+1000

Edited to fix link. --DKS

[Mike C]

I prefer that they come with DCC, but its not a deal breaker if they don't...As long as they convert easy.  For the most part I run steam in N scale. Probably some of the hardest to have to install a decoder in. But I can buy the Bachmann locos with decoders, and in my opinion the cheap decoders in their locos run just fine. All I really need is for them to run smoothly and have a good speed range. Consisting isn't needed for what I do. The locos that don't come with decoders have all been an easy conversion....so far. Still haven't tackled the Kato 2-8-2.
  I also have a small layout. I find that DCC makes running it much eaiser, as I usually have 8 or so locos on it at the same time. Its much easier to select each locomotive than to have to isolate everything and throw electrical switches. On the other hand, I do have the layout wired so that I can run straight DC if I want. Just a D.P.D.T. switch to select DCC or DC. Kinda the best of both......Mike

[DKS]

I spend all day working on technology (physical IT stuff, and web and database programming  stuff).  When I'm done with that, most of the time I'm not interested in any more technology stuff.

Oh, that is soooo familiar... +1

Can't we all just get along?

+100

[mmyers]

Personally, I hope they stick with DCC ready. That way I get to choose my brand of decoder and still avoid the extra work of isolating motor brushes.
Apparently the market is not there for DCC equipped in every engine offering. If it was, the manufacturers would be doing it on everything. Besides, any manufacturer that sells a DCC equipped engine is putting themselves in the decoder warranty business as well. Screw that up and a lot of business could be lost.
Dual mode decoders have gotten better over the years but they still suck on analog. Best way to do dual mode is with a jumper like the HO engines do. That effectively removes the decoder from the electrical path to the motor.

Just my opinion which is worth the paper it's written on,
Martin Myers

[Catt]

Modeling in three scales keeps me broke most of the time .When I am told I can't get a loco with out DCC then I will stop buying.As for sound ,if I had just a switching layout I would probably have sound but as has been expressed by others a whole lot of sound turns into a whole lot of noise in a short time.

My HO locos have DCC because the club layout is strictly DCC,The N scale layout is not DCC though it could be.My home N scale layout will have DCC but no sound.

The Z layout is for display only and has no need for DCC.

[rogergperkins]

Apparently some of marketing people believe that DCC has arrived; noticed a DCC train set in MR May 2013.
Also saw a section of what new in DCC.