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

[rogergperkins]

Skipgear, 
Thanks for getting this back on topic and for your insightful comments.

Nice to learn that everyone who participates in the forum does not have an axe to grind. 

[CodyO]

I never really join in on these but

I feel that this phrase should be said

Please step away from the keyboard and model!

[Denver Road Doug]

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.

I will say that I have "preached" this for years, but it just seems lost on a lot of folks and I'm not sure why.

I suppose I "get it" if you have had a lot of problems with DCC, but there are tons of DCC systems out there that actually work VERY well.   My original Zephyr...I plugged it in and quite literally had mulitiple locos programmed and running in ten minutes.  On that layout--which was a small loop with a siding and a couple of spurs--I ran trains flawlessly, for quite some time.   No runaways, no horror stories.   One set of feeders.  Could not be more simple, easy, and trouble-free. 

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.

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

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.   

[Scottl]

I really don't see the big deal about any of the opinions expressed here.  Most are reasoned and interesting to hear, but some folk just seem to take things personally.  People will see the need for DCC in their circumstances or not.  Like Doug and others, my experience with DCC on a small layout has been positive and enhances running trains.  I would not consider myself a slobbering anything, but I'll keep using DCC because it works for me.

[Lemosteam]

+1:  All very intriguing for a new modeler deciding on either way yo go.

Like dual mode as long as the cost is low.  If it's transparent to me I don't care.  Mounting a decoder is not for the faint of heart.

I like the current state of things- options galore.

[DKS]

I will say that I have "preached" this for years, but it just seems lost on a lot of folks and I'm not sure why.

What is the sign that someone "gets it"? Immediate conversion to DCC?

I "get it," no problem there, but I still have no need, desire or intention to convert. And while the "DCC meanies" aren't prevalent here, thankfully, they have been elsewhere, trust me. It ain't all blue skies and bunny rabbits out there, much as you might want to believe it.

[Dave V]

I agree with the great DKS in a great many things...  On the utility of DCC on a small layout we clearly disagree.  And that's OK.  Jeez, DCC versus DC is like politics; each side assumes that if you just badger someone enough they'll come around to seeing it your way.

Frankly it's no skin off my back if DCC doesn't do it for someone.

[peteski]

Skipgear, 
Thanks for getting this back on topic and for your insightful comments.

Nice to learn that everyone who participates in the forum does not have an axe to grind. 

Tony is not the only one wit no axes to grind.  Other modelers on this thread are axeless too.  I'm a big proponent of DCC (as long as the command station is not Digitrax  ) but I also don't have problem with modelers who prefer the old fashioned DC control.

[VonRyan]

I agree with the great DKS in a great many things...  On the utility of DCC on a small layout we clearly disagree.  And that's OK.  Jeez, DCC versus DC is like politics; each side assumes that if you just badger someone enough they'll come around to seeing it your way.

Frankly it's no skin off my back if DCC doesn't do it for someone.

And the winner of the best comment on the "DC Vs. DCC" debate goes to...

[Denver Road Doug]

What is the sign that someone "gets it"? Immediate conversion to DCC?

I'm NOT saying there AREN'T legitimate reasons not to convert to DCC on a small layout.  Some have already been mentioned.  I'm simply saying I've yet to hear a good argument that says that "in general, DCC is less useful/less needed/wasted on a small layout, versus any other size."  I've heard folks say that almost like it was a rule of thumb, so that was really my point.

[Zox]

I'm simply saying I've yet to hear a good argument that says that "in general, DCC is less useful/less needed/wasted on a small layout, versus any other size."

I would say that, like many of the software-development tools I've encountered, the utility of DCC depends more on complexity than it does on size.

Extreme case 1: A siding-less roundy-round with one locomotive, regardless of size, is probably adequately served by DC.

Extreme case 2: A union passenger station being run on timetable, with some trains passing through, others arriving and departing on various paths, and others being broken down and made up, will probably benefit greatly from DCC, because multiple things are happening simultaneously in a single location.

In general, small layouts have less complexity than large layouts. Therefore, in general, small layouts derive less benefit from DCC.

[DKS]

I would say that, like many of the software-development tools I've encountered, the utility of DCC depends more on complexity than it does on size.

I'd counter that with the argument it depends more on the number of locomotives to control, and less to do with layout size or complexity (to a point). You could presumably have a small-ish layout with one or more passing sidings (as I do) and still only be running one locomotive.

So, for a single-loco layout, DCC has virtually zero advantage. (I say virtually, because someone might come along who wants to turn ditch lights on and off, or leverage some other capability that DCC offers.)

Then, as the number of locos to control increases, the advantages increase. Probably an inverse curve, which tapers off as the loco count rises.

Of course, I could be way off here, given that I'm no DCC expert.

[Bendtracker1]

The only smallish layout that I can think of that might benefit from having DCC would be a switching layout.

1] If you have one or two independently running locos.
2] You could possibly tweak and fine tune the motor response, or speed match a pair of units.
3] If you wanted to throw the turnouts remotely from your throttle.

Then if you have DCC one could take advantage of sounds and light functions if so desired for added realism.

But I suppose DC controls could be built to over some some of these.

[TiVoPrince]

Holiday
layout is a big loop with apassing siding.  It could easily be DC operationally, by letting the Kato 6 turnouts power routing feature energize the tracks I could be running trains on DC.  How exacty I would control DC from across the room I have no earthly idea, but that is a solution I had no need to pursue. 

Desire for ditch lights, gyralights, and sound moves me to DCC.  Also, everywhere that I operate uses Digitrax DCC, so I just show up with my trains, UT1 throttle and Engine Driver on my Android phone.  If I'm going somewhere not Digitrax I have to hope to borrow a throttle for the evening.

I'm sort of an anomoly.  DC sympathetic, DCC brand agnostic, and unafraid to learn new ways of doing things.  My wants/needs/desires draw me to DCC for controllability that is not available in DC even when adding daghterboards for lighting effects...

[PAL_Houston]

Sound is not all that important to me.  I run DCC and do so primarily for locomotive c aontrol.

+1.

I have exactly one sound-equiped loco, a Walthers F-M, and I just don't run it all that much.  It sounds "tinny" to me.

I was thinking that what I would really like is a Bose sound system, for the wall TV in the train room, so I could really get into the NCAAs or the SuperBowl.  And maybe use it to play train sounds from a CD or MP3 when I am not using it for TV sports.  I am thinking a loco consist, approaching at track speed, with surround soundat full volume would be really cool, especially if it was synched to my DCC consist!!