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

[Chris333]

 

I'd rather spend money on trains than on what fancy way I can make them move. It sort of reminds me of smart phones: Hey you need to get this app to be able to do this. But my phone has the internet and I can just do that on my browser. I swear there is a group of people somewhere all huddled up in a room trying to make a product better. But they really don't want to make it better, they just want to get more money from people to do the same thing it already does.

How many times have I read of someone putting a different decoder in a Bachmann 44T?

I have one sound equipped loco that I bought only for that, a LL 2-8-8-2 Y3. The locomotive is great and the sound is cool every once in a while, but I wish I could tear the damn DCC out of it and be able to use the throttle like normal. The loco runs on DC, but I have to turn it up to about 75% throttle before it will start to move and then the next 15% of the throttle controls the speeds. It is very frustrating tying to make it run laps.

I don't care if you use DCC, but I don't want to pay for it. DCC should be a separate hobby for those who like that sort of thing. I mean should all n-scale locomotives come with yellow Erie diamonds on them?

 

[timwatson]

Don't even think of accusing us DCers as Luddites. I have zero need for DCC;

I don't believe I ever used the word "Luddite"? I run both DCC and DC (we have a big switch on the side of the old layout that says as much). That would be very hypocritical on my part and say more about me than you if I did such a thing. Because I like DCC doesn't mean my expectation is for others to do the same.

I was merely painting a picture of where I experienced the positives in my own world. The hope would be, others would be interested in how that world works. I know at train shows when you're operating trains with a Kindle or an iPhone or iPad people notice and ask lots of questions. It's a fun new dimension of the hobby for me.

I have the computers and iDevices setup spiel down to about 2-3 minutes. 


Chris I see your point. So what if the price on dcc comes so low that you don't even notice the hit to the wallet and now you can operate on DCC or DC track? Would you still remove the decoder (just a curiosity question)?

[Chris333]

Well it is not so much the extra cost of a single locomotive as I just saw a 2-6-0 go for $55. It is the added cost of having every locomotive equipped and all the stuff under the layout.

I'll spend my $ on high detailed freight cars or better geared locomotives.

I can't even remember if I tried my 2-6-0 on DC before tearing out the board. So I'd guess I'd tear them all out no mater what. Here is 2 wires with power and here is a motor. Put a circuit board in between them and I wonder what will fail first...

Again it doesn't bother me who uses DCC, but I don't want it. I'm pretty sure Bachmann is the only one doing it now.

[DKS]

I don't believe I ever used the word "Luddite"? I run both DCC and DC (we have a big switch on the side of the old layout that says as much). That would be very hypocritical on my part and say more about me than you if I did such a thing. Because I like DCC doesn't mean my expectation is for others to do the same.

You didn't, and I apologize for suggesting same, but that's what a number of DCC fans tend to do; they don't acknowledge DC as being an option anymore, and those of us that still prefer DC are considered dinosaurs. In one DC vs. DCC thread a while back on another forum, DCCers were outright accusing DCers of holding back the hobby.

[eric220]

Yeah, and why doesn't anybody make a K.... No, not going to go there. 

It never ceases to amaze me how much passion this topic stirs up. DC and DCC are different tools for different situations. I've got two layouts. One is DC, the other is DCC. My big layout is obviously the DCC layout. I want to mess around with a lot of technology on this layout, and I really buy into the "run your trains not your tracks" plug in that situation. On the other hand, my tiny little loop-o'-track coffee table layout is DC. There's exactly one train on that layout at a time. There's no need for the complexity and expense of DCC. There are a couple of guys planning coffee table layouts on another forum that have said they plan to use DCC. I still can't understand why they think it's worth it.

I think the coolest best-of-both-worlds (no Borg involved) solution that I ever saw was my on my neighbor's layout. He built the layout with progressive cab control. It's all analog, relay driven. For those that aren't familiar with the concept, under progressive cab control, the layout powers the block that your train is in, and the next block that it's going to move into. When the train enters a new block, the next is automatically reserved for your cab and connected to your power pack. When the train leaves a block, that block is released and may be reserved by another cab. He decided to test if he could replace one of the DC power packs with a DCC booster. After installing some protection to keep the DC and DCC systems from frying each other in the event of a bridged gap, he let it rip. It worked perfectly. So, he's now got both DC and DCC coexisting simultaneously on the same layout.

[MVW]

And before anyone accuses me of having no experience with DCC, I regularly operate a large layout at a friend's house that is fully DCC. I readily perceive all of the advantages it brings to this kind of setting, yet I still I don't like running his layout nearly as much as I did back before DCC was introduced.

DKS, I have to wonder: Why do you find that particular layout less fun now that it has DCC?

I mean, I can certainly understand why you have no need for DCC on your own layouts. After all, the ability to pack a lot of railroading in a very small space is one of the chief attractions of N scale, and we've seen several outstanding small layouts here -- layouts that since they'll probably never have more than one loco operating at a time don't need either DCC or block wiring.

But in the case of a large layout designed for operation, how does DCC spoil the fun?

(And BTW, I'm 100% in favor of DCC being an option. I use it and I love it, but since not everyone wants it or needs it, it shouldn't be mandatory. But manufacturers are shooting themselves in the foot if they introduce a new model that isn't at least DCC ready. Walthers' release of that "new" SW9 earlier this year that wasn't new is the stupidest damn thing I've seen since I switched to N scale (especially since they first touted it as DCC ready, which it isn't.) Personally, I will NEVER buy another loco that isn't either DCC ready or equipped.)

Jim

[pwnj]

You didn't, and I apologize for suggesting same, but that's what a number of DCC fans tend to do; they don't acknowledge DC as being an option anymore, and those of us that still prefer DC are considered dinosaurs. In one DC vs. DCC thread a while back on another forum, DCCers were outright accusing DCers of holding back the hobby.

I see that sort of thing all the time and it's really frustrating.  I don't mind DCC technology at all, but I see no reason for the complications and completely impossible costs.  My current layout is a microlayout (a square foot with a plug-in loop) and my "master plan" layout is only going to be 2.5' x 4'.  Contrary to some of what I have heard from some "passionate" DCC people, I'm not bummed out, feeling left back, missing out, in the stone ages, "crippled", etc.  If you want DCC, go for it.  I don't.  I'm a long-time technology professional that actually also appreciates simple technology when I'm not on the clock (my car is a '66 Checker Cab... nice and easy, no computers).  Stick it on a track, apply voltage, train moves, smile, repeat.  If manufacturers made locos DCC-ready with a simple drop-in decoder option (or buy your own with a NMRA standard connector), then I think a lot more people would be happier with N-scale.

Oh, and I too, especially since I have so little money, would MUCH rather spend it on more trains/scenery/structures than on electronics like DCC.  That's the stuff I like most about model railroading.

[rogergperkins]

"I think you need to clarify what you mean by "DUAL MODE" I think you're using the terminology wrong, or you're the one that might be far off the track

Almost all decoders are DUAL-MODE, just because it is not explicitly advertised doesn't mean it does not support Dual Mode operation"

I have been accused of not using the term dual mode correcting in this post.  I have yet to find an official NMRA definition.
I have used the term as it is used by Bachmann who sells locomotives labeled a DCC on board and defined by them as "DCC-equipped locomotive with 100 percent backwards-compatible with standard DC (non-digital) railroad layouts.   I think I have used the term as described.

It has been very apparent that some participants do not enjoy the DCC options and sound as much as I do. My questions have been beaten to a pulp. 

[Denver Road Doug]

In one DC vs. DCC thread a while back on another forum, DCCers were outright accusing DCers of holding back the hobby.

I see that sort of thing all the time and it's really frustrating.

Can you guys please provide links to these accusations?   Because, honestly, I've taken part in many heated DCC debates (dozens?) yet I've never seen this, yet it always comes up as something "DCC'ers always do".    So, it should be really easy to provide a link to show me what you're referring to.   Thanks.   This is a genuine request, not trying to start anything...you can PM me to avoid a big flame fest. 

Personally, I have no real slant either way.  If there is a decoder, fine.  If it works, I'll use it.  If it sucks, I'll probably use it until I come across a replacement.   In my mind, the best thing about decoders being included is that often there isn't a decoder available for a particular locomotive on the day it hits the shelves.   So at very least you can run the thing while Digitrax or whomever delivers the appropriate drop-in decoder.

Regarding them being "forced on everyone"....well the price SHOULD be insignificant enough at this point that you wouldn't really notice it.  (why it's not, is a technology industry mystery)  If all of you remember, autoreversing headlights were an "add-on card" for forever.  I'm sure a similar debate happened then, of course not online.  "I don't need that newfangled gadgetry and I'm not paying for it!!!!"   Well guess what....try and buy a locomotive without autoreversing headlights these days.

[VonRyan]

A close friend of mine's layout is both DC and DCC at the same time using common rail wiring. This way all his block panels and original DC throttles are still in place, just the rotary knobs for throttle selection now have one more "throttle" which in this case is actually DCC. Its quite fun to be running a DCC engine at the head of the train and yet the helper engine is running off of a DC throttle in a separate block. Of course the more interesting thing is that some of the layout wiring uses old cloth-insulated wire, but that is neither here nor there.
The system my friend has in place works for him, which is what matters. This way he saves money and time where he would have had to convert engines to DCC, some of those being older steam engines that run like Swiss watches as is, so why fix what isn't broke.


-Cody F.

[DKS]

DKS, I have to wonder: Why do you find that particular layout less fun now that it has DCC?

In the old days, it was a twin-cab system. If you wanted to place a loco on the track, or pull one from the roundhouse, it was no more complicated than getting all of the wheels on the rails. Now, you have to check and see what number it is, put it on the track, then punch a bunch of buttons to acquire it. Or possibly even put it on a programming track first and go through that little ritual. It may not seem like such a burden, but in a typical evening we'd run maybe a dozen or more different engines. We weren't operating; we were doing stuff like testing locos, track and switches. Or just turning off our brains and settling for a little roundy-rounding.

These days, evenings are more often spent trying to figure out why we aren't able to acquire a particular loco, or watching a runaway as the decoder decided to do its own thing, or tracking down some short that was kicking the system offline. A layer of complexity has been needlessly applied to what was for many decades an evening of simple joys.

Bear in mind, I'm a technologist. I have plenty of familiarity with the inner workings of DCC. When the gang comes down for an operating session, I can fully appreciate all of the benefits of DCC (even though I don't operate the layout with them). But just as I am adamant about wanting a cell phone that has real buttons and only makes phone calls, I am quite particular about not having technology overrun my hobby. When you hand me a throttle that has two dozen buttons, I will want to run screaming. Not because I fail to understand DCC, or fear it, but because that's not my idea of how to enjoy my layout.

[MVW]

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.

I haven't encountered too many headaches with DCC yet. It seems (to me) fairly innocuous, easier to wire than block control, and something akin to a must-have for a large, multiple-operator layout.

To each, his own. 

Jim

[DKS]

...it should be really easy to provide a link to show me what you're referring to.

Or perhaps not. It was one of a number of discussions on the Atlas forum, and to be quite honest, I'm not going to take the time to go hunting it down.

[pwnj]

And in my case, most were live communications either in chat or in person.  Some of the times the argument devolved into straw men with people trying to accuse me of telling them trains shouldn't be DCC.  I don't think any such thing and repeat that DCC is some seriously cool technology.  But I think arguments like this work to divide us, rather than uNify us in our battle for world domiNatioN.

...or something.

[Jesse6669]

The latest idea that REALLY appeals to me for ops sessions is using "personal sound"...using smartphones or small tablets as throttles and attaching headphones that pipe in appropriate sounds.  Once "nearfield communication" becomes standard then you (as I understand it) can determine proximity to others and at that point you can bring in other trains or static layout elements (grade crossing, industry noises, etc.) into the fray.  Or I suppose you could achieve that with transponding as well, but it would be really nice to ditch that altogether.

Brilliant.     This is an idea for sound I can really get behind, because it models the environment not just the equipment--and I think is very achievable because the on-board technology would just be location transponders (no speakers, etc).  A layout could be set up like a train-sim route, with sounds "installed" at various locations (industry, wildlife, traffic, etc) triggered by proximity to the operator's transponder, which would be installed into locomotives (and/or cabooses, or anywhere an operator would want to imagine themselves I guess).  Software would blend the sounds together based on what's going on around the operator's location and send to the audio out feed..  Just a cool idea.