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

[TiVoPrince]

Zealots
on both sides will argue train control to no end.  Sound in the Atlas S2 will test the water in ways unseen before.  A swtcher with sound will appeal to a wide audience that might have only been DC in the past. 

Controlling DCC features may also create demand for a simple command station/booster for one loco only (default address3) (or maybe 16 addresses) serving the single loco switching layout users.  A simplified command station and booster using a WiFi smart phone throttle controlling a single sound loco could be the cool factor to gain some folks who have left the hobby or are looking for an exciting reason to get started or come back. 

Somethng like a RaspberryPi micro computer specifically tasked and running Java/JMRI producing only DCC locomotive control signals.  No programming, signalling, turnout control, detection or anything else, just basic control that can be packed in a briefcase along with your trains.  What a demonstration!  Switching layouts could be popping up just about anywhere, all around the world. 

Switchers always presented issues based on size that precluded DCC because of design/space issues, this would be the Wallys/LL models that predate DCC.  Installation of the smallest of decoders is possible but not for the 'faint of heart'.  My two SW1200E's still await a next size down decoder that is gyralight capable.  Atlas and Kato have both advanced DCC with DCC friendly switcher mechanisims. 

Atlas has lifted thier game yet again, I'm hoping for some SW1500 wallet abuse soon...

[mark.hinds]

RESTATING QUESTION AND BREAKING IT INTO TWO PARTS.
I did not add DCC until mid-2012 and then did so retaining dual mode function.  I model steam and am pleased with the Bachmann dual mode steam locomotives.
I also model B&O and added BLI B&O DCC with sound locomotives when I learned about them.
I had decoders added to three Kato GS-4 locomotives. 
 
PART 1: I am wondering why more manufacturers are not offering dual mode, and with or without sound as a standard option.
 
PART 2: 2ND question is: If a locomotive came dual mode and with either DCC sound or no sound which one would you purchase? 
Thanks

My answer to "PART 1" is implied by my answer to "PART 2", assuming that manufacturers see others who share my preferences. 

My answer to "PART 2":  At the moment, I would hope that a 3rd option of buying a locomotive *without* DCC would be offered, as that is what I would currently pick.  My layout is designed to operate prototypically with 1-3 operators using DC, due to judiciously positioned block boundaries, under-track uncoupling magnets, slow-speed mechanisms, and carefully adjusted automatic couplers.  I can / will be able to add and remove helpers, classify cars in the yard, run multiple locomotives on a single train, and do switching off the mainline in between through trains.  Given these facts, DCC is in the category of "nice to look into after I finish my layout".  Even then, I would probably look into computer control first. 

With respect to sound, it is not a big deal for me.  The most I envision is a background sound loop in each of my 3 scenes, with the volume low enough so that they don't interfere with each other. 

MH

[peteski]

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.

DKS, you are now venturing into another contentious topic.  The difficulty of operating various brands of DCC systems.  Some are so difficult to figure out and non-intuitive that every time I operate those, I get frustrated having to re-learn the way to operate them. By "operate" I don't mean just controlling speed, direction and headlights. I mean all the ancillary stuff you have to do like selecting a locomotive, etc.

Other DCC systems are much easier and intuitive to operate and the programming is assisted by the system prompting you in plain English.  These systems are pleasure to operate.

I have to agree that using DCC, initially seems to slightly complicate the operations. But I also operate on DC layouts that are very complicated to operate. Like the complication of trying to figure out all the rotary switches or whatever method the layout builder utilized for block control.  I often find DC layouts more frustrating than DCC layouts.  On other DC layouts you have to constantly ask the dispatcher to set the blocks for your throttle.

Sure, DCC layouts have their share of glitches and runaways. But so do DC layouts. OPerators run over a block and their train takes off, being controlled by someone else. In my experience, the level of glitches and faults during an operating session seems roughly the same on both DC and DCC layouts.

Friend of mine has a DCC controlled layout which is a pleasure to operate. He has one of those easy to use and intuitive DCC systems and he also has individual throttles assigned to each train run during the operating session. So there is no fumbling with reprogramming the throttles. This makes operating even simpler than on an equivalent layout with DC block control.

But I do agree that there really is no need for DCC on small layouts which are operated by a single person.

[pwnj]

But I do agree that there really is no need for DCC on small layouts which are operated by a single person.

+1

[DKS]

DKS, you are now venturing into another contentious topic.

And you then raise yet another topic. Once you choose your DCC system, you're pretty much stuck with it, unless you have deep pockets and replace the whole shebang if you're dissatisfied with it.

On top of that, when there's a failure, you must replace whatever unit failed, or send it somewhere for repair, for some non-trivial amount of money. By contrast, if my DC throttle dies, I can take it back to my workbench and make repairs myself, at very little cost.

I've never been a fan of the "black box." I like knowing what's inside every box on my layout, how they all work, and how to repair/modify them. I prefer having as little as possible come between me and my locomotives.

[Zox]

I have to agree that using DCC, initially seems to slightly complicate the operations. But I also operate on DC layouts that are very complicated to operate. Like the complication of trying to figure out all the rotary switches or whatever method the layout builder utilized for block control.  I often find DC layouts more frustrating than DCC layouts.  On other DC layouts you have to constantly ask the dispatcher to set the blocks for your throttle.

On small layouts, DCC is probably overkill; a couple of powerpacks and half-a-dozen switches provide all the control necessary for the average hollow-core door.

On large modular layouts, DCC can be painful. The combination of disparate user-supplied equipment, and the number of boosters and blocks required for reliable operation, makes using DCC costly in both time (for setup/takedown and for throttle and locomotive coordination) and money. Its main benefits are the ability to walk around with one's train, and the ability to compensate easily for different-speed trains, which certainly aren't anything to sneeze at.

On big, club-sized permanent layouts, DCC is definitely useful, and the time factor is less important since the system only has to be set up once. But again, the sheer scale of hardware required makes it expensive, especially since DCC on a layout is an all-or-nothing commitment; it's not generally practical to "ease into" DCC.

It seems to me that the "sweet spot" for DCC is the large home layout--something on the order of the V&O, or the Sunset Valley, or the Allegheny Midland (to use some well-known examples). They're large enough to be running crews with multiple trains, yet small enough to be covered by a single DCC command station and maybe a couple of boosters.

And oddly enough, the "leading lights" of the model-railroading publishing industry tend to be people with large home layouts. They also tend to model the late steam to early diesel era, in HO scale.

Thus the current Holy Trinity of Mao Zedong Model Railroader Thought: transition era, HO, DCC.

[pwnj]

And you then raise yet another topic. Once you choose your DCC system, you're pretty much stuck with it, unless you have deep pockets and replace the whole shebang if you're dissatisfied with it.

On top of that, when there's a failure, you must replace whatever unit failed, or send it somewhere for repair, for some non-trivial amount of money. By contrast, if my DC throttle dies, I can take it back to my workbench and make repairs myself, at very little cost.

I've never been a fan of the "black box." I like knowing what's inside every box on my layout, how they all work, and how to repair/modify them. I prefer having as little as possible come between me and my locomotives.

+10

Just like my car, I can pull bits apart, test components easily, and even scavenge parts from other equipment to make things work.  Other than the wiring or maybe the LED, there's not much you can fix on a decoder.

All of that translates into expensive, non-stress-reducing "work", for me.  And yet I fully agree that on a large club layout, DCC can certainly have some very good advantages, just ones that I doubt I'll ever have to deal with.

[peteski]

And you then raise yet another topic. Once you choose your DCC system, you're pretty much stuck with it, unless you have deep pockets and replace the whole shebang if you're dissatisfied with it.

On top of that, when there's a failure, you must replace whatever unit failed, or send it somewhere for repair, for some non-trivial amount of money. By contrast, if my DC throttle dies, I can take it back to my workbench and make repairs myself, at very little cost.

I've never been a fan of the "black box." I like knowing what's inside every box on my layout, how they all work, and how to repair/modify them. I prefer having as little as possible come between me and my locomotives.

Um, who says that someone with your skills has to buy a DCC system?  There are plans available for do-it-yourself DCC command stations and boosters out there. You can rolll your own and that way you can also repair it yourself. 

[R L Smith]

Quote from Chris333:

I mean should all n-scale locomotives come with yellow Erie diamonds on them?

Why, yes!!

 

[SkipGear]

Whew, that was a lot of reading.


To Roger's original topic....

Bachmann so far is the only company that has pretty much committed to DCC in everything new. By definition, an NMRA compatible decoder is "dual mode" as mentioned earlier. If they can put the decoder in the loco cheaper than it costs to have seprate production runs for DC and DCC versions, DCC installed is my choice. If it adds to the cost of a loco, then DC only with easy DCC install is my choice. The current decoders are pretty invisible on a DC layout, other than the start up voltage.

Sound in everything is more of a technological issue than anything. Sound doesn't quite fit in everything yet and the cost to do so would scare average people away.

As far as liking sound in locos....

I have no clue why people seem to think an N scale loco should rattle the windows to give you a "realistic" experience. It should be just the opposite. You should only hear the loco clearly a few feet away at best. Keep in mind when you are watching an N scale model train go by at let say, "the 3 ft rule", then you are 500 scale feet away from that loco. How loud is a real locomotive when you are 500 feet away from it. You may be able to hear a little rumble and the horn if it blows but not much else. I live roughly 1 mile and up on a hill from a train that passes through 3 grade crossings in roughly 500'. Unless the weather is just right, I can't hear the train until it is at the crossing blowing. If everything is just right, I can hear the rumble a couple miles away because the sound of the train echos up the river valley that it is traveling in but nothing else.

DCC in a small layout......

 .....in my opinion is much more usefull than on a large layout. Mark Hinds explained it perfectly in his post. A large layout can be run with blocks and controled just like the prototype very easily with DC. You have sidings long enough to be its own block and seperation between scenes that make running trains less of a task of throwing toggle switches and more like real opperations. On a small layout, especially trying to do switching with multiple cabs, you find yourself spending more times throwing toggle switches than actually running the loco. DCC simplifies opperations and wiring on a small layout much more than it does on a large layout.

[TiVoPrince]

On top of that, when there's a failure, you must replace whatever unit failed, or send it somewhere for repair, for some non-trivial amount of money. By contrast, if my DC throttle dies, I can take it back to my workbench and make repairs myself, at very little cost.

Personally
I have repaired a couple of Digitrax UT1 throttles.  My DT400 will someday get sent in to Digitrax for upgrading to DT402 with many more features for $25US.  Finding components for the UT1 was a bit of challenge but eventually I bought a multi lifetime supply for less than $10US.

I find these amounts to be fairly trivial, but your definition may be different...

[mark.hinds]

<snip>
The current decoders are pretty invisible on a DC layout, other than the start up voltage.
<snip>

Whoops; that would be an argument for retaining a no-DCC (DCC-ready) variant of each locomotive.  Otherwise, it sounds like it would be one more factor causing speed incompatibility for the DC guys. 

MH

[SkipGear]

Whoops; that would be an argument for retaining a no-DCC (DCC-ready) variant of each locomotive.  Otherwise, it sounds like it would be one more factor causing speed incompatibility for the DC guys. 

MH

Not really, because the decoder still can use Vmax and other setting in DC. You can still use the decoder to speed match locos in DC at least with basic control although you still need a way to program these features.

[DKS]

Um, who says that someone with your skills has to buy a DCC system?  There are plans available for do-it-yourself DCC command stations and boosters out there. You can rolll your own and that way you can also repair it yourself. 

That assumes I'm inclined to do so; I'd much rather be modeling than assembling a lot of fancy do-dads to make my choo-choos run. Also, I make my point on behalf of those without such skills (TiVoPrince notwithstanding).

My preference above all is the KISS principle: the more complex the system, the greater the likelihood for problems. Just a casual scan through a DCC forum is enough to give me pause.

How loud is a real locomotive when you are 500 feet away from it.

I think you'd be surprised. I lived for several years about 1000 feet from the Reading line, and I was thankful I wasn't any closer.

[peteski]

    How loud is a real locomotive when you are 500 feet away from it.

I think you'd be surprised. I lived for several years about 1000 feet from the Reading line, and I was thankful I wasn't any closer.

However, since the majority of N scale layout have greatly compressed distances, that is one more good reason as to why the sound should also be "compressed" by lowering the volume.