I'm done with DCC, or nothing wrong with KISS

[peteski]

I guess I am one of the only ones that thinks DCC isn't "that hard" 

Not at all Mike - there are plenty of modelers (in all scales) who love DCC.

But you do have to admit that when the gremlins show up (like they do in any computer-based devices), things can sometimes get a bit hairy (to use a highly-technical term). 

[Hamaker]

What peteski said !

[Rich_S]

DCC is not only for gadget-whores.    Where it comes real handy is for the die-hard operators who don't even care about lighting effects or sounds, and who often have plywood-prairie layouts.  Why? Because DCC removes the cumbersome aspect of DC (block selection). You can make-up and break-up multiple-unit lashups on the same track or add or remove helpers all on the same track (no need to futz around with block selection or mismatched loco speeds).  Basically you can have an operating session without the hassle of DC. It is more realistic that way.

Pete, I agree 120% if that's possible  I regularly operate on a friends layout, that when constructed 35 years ago and was setup with block control and two cabs at each block tower. This is a large home layout that fills a 25' x 35' basement, in some sections is multi decked and had four block towers plus the main yard tower. Just like one of the popular DCC manufactures says, stop controlling your track and start controlling your trains. With the DC layout you controlled the track and the popular expression at the time was "Who has my train" because a toggle switch was thrown in the wrong position, or someone forgot to clear a toggle switch behind them. Also with only two cabs per block tower, that meant only two different trains could operate within that tower district. When it came to helper operations, it was easier just to allow the head end engineer operate both the helpers and head end power. Now that we converted the layout to DCC, all of those issues are gone. Locals can now continue switching on industrial tracks, while meets takes place on the main and passing siding. Two crews now operate coal trains that require helpers and multiple locomotives can move about in the main division yard. We now operate just like the prototype and if someone does not follow their 19 order to the letter, we can also have corn field meets just like on the prototype. Honestly, as many issues as I've had with DCC, I'd never go back to DC and I don't consider myself a techno wizard.   

[randgust]

I do custom building of my kits, and as would be expected, there are always people that want them done via DCC.   My Climax models in particular are VERY small, usually about 27' long, and I'd only found one decoder that would fit, at least until lately.   So I have a Digitrax Zephyr and a test track, and also provisions to hot-wire it into my layout for some specific glitch-free blocks.

Mind you, I'm as techno as the next guy.   Background in IT and I've set up more than a few networks and servers.  And I have a degree in both programming and microelectronics from the early robot age and was CV'ing back in the Heathkit era.   But my last go-around with a decoder install in one of my Climax builds about drove me nuts.   The TCS decoder had worked for about four installs, and then they 'improved it', and two blown decoders and a year of diagnostic time later (with both Lee Weldon and TCS tech support) and there was no explanation for the on/off/on/off surging at low speed, finally gave up and refunded the project as a failure.    Downright maddening.    At that point, I swore off DCC for my own use although I'll still put in decoders and set them up for others if they insist.

Unlike some computer guys, I'm not a hobbyist.  I don't love the stuff.   It's a tool for my customers, that's all.  And in this case, at least for me, the added layers of technology on top of already bleeding-edge micro-mechanics and electrical contact issues is more than I can still call fun.    My 'main' layout is still really a one-person operation, and when I have a second operator I can dedicate one person to each main on essentially a two-track layout.   But I've also been on bigger layouts where I can see that DC and blocks are just completely unworkable - the single-track mains with multiple trains, passing sidings, etc.   That was always a nightmare on DC - I had a friend of mine with rotary switches and six cabs and it was pretty awful to operate - you either shorted out or lost a train about every 30 minutes.     I have another friend with a BIG DC layout and a two-track main and we ran all night and never got in each others way once.  Flawless.  Depends on application.

And I've had no particular problems with speed matching - every consist has 2-4 units on it.  Another thread.   Doesn't get any benefit for me at all.  Now mind you, I can't stand 'stuck location' rheostat-based DC either - went over to momentum-based hand-held transistor throttles back in the 1970's and never really looked back.  So what I refer to as "DC" is somewhere in the nether regions beyond rheostat control but still under setting up CV's on a board. 

I do like what I see on sound for steam, for diesels the removal of additional weight in the frame is just a killer for tractive effort performance even if it does work OK.  I also 'guest ran' some sound-equipped diesels on my layout with the Zephyr and was surprised I had way more problems with electrical pickup, arcing, and wheel carbonization than I ever did on DC.   So I'm not sure how that trade-off works for me either.   I've operated others layouts where its very enjoyable on DCC, but converting my own layout to it really doesn't seem worth the hassle.    The only real hook that has me leaning is sound, maybe....

[davefoxx]

Craig,

If it's an Atlas chassis it sounds like you may have a loose connection at the motor tabs. This problem is quite common with Atlas engines unfortunately.   

Jon

Happens in Kato locomotives, too.  I hardwired decoders into my F40PHs.

DFF

[davefoxx]

I guess I am one of the only ones that thinks DCC isn't "that hard" 

Nope.  But, DCC is only as hard as you make it.  A small layout could get by with two feeder wires, but you could still control many locomotives independently without blocks and the complications of block wiring.  That said, DCC can sometimes be seen as easier than DC.  When you start adding multiple districts, sound, JMRI, reversing circuits, etc., it gets more complicated, but the same could be said for DC.

I'll never go back to DC, and I'm not an IT guy.

DFF

[C855B]

Yes. I'm thinking back to my club layout days a gazillion years back. I converted one layout from "district" throttles to two-cab. That wasn't totally awful, other than by the time I finished rewiring the control panels the club lost the building and therefore the layout. There was another club with a "phoenix" layout big enough to need six - count 'em - cabs possible on every block, so my spare time was pretty much consumed trying to stuff all that wire into a panel with rotary switches recovered from the old layout. That one didn't ever get finished, either, under similar circumstances (the '70s were hard on clubs).

When DCC issues vex me - rarely, thank goodness - all I have to do is conjure memories of the old club layouts and the misery of being "the wiring guy". Even with the increased administrative and cost overhead, bus-based architecture in general trumps separate block feeders to a central point any day in my book.

[JMaurer1]

Without reading all of the replies, have you bothered to test the locomotive with DC only? All DCC locomotives should work in DC mode without having to do anything to the locomotive. Just hook up DC and see if it runs. If it doesn't, the problem is the engine, NOT the DCC. Most likely (as already stated) the motor connectors if this is the case.

Solutions, not complaints

[Blazeman]

First DC V. DCC debate of the year. We haven't had one for a while, maybe back into 2014.

I'll add my $.02:

Running trains, not operating, on a DC layout the other year with stationary power packs raised a question in my mind if that's what I wanted. I'm building a layout where I want to follow the train to "work" industries and such and be able to jump into a passing siding when meeting a superior train. Only way to do that without more wires than a telephone switchboard is DCC.  So I am taking the plunge.

Conversion costs versus purchasing new locos now the item on the agenda. May have to part with or set aside older DC loco's unfortunately since conversions would be difficult and costly versus buying new DCC units. Price of progress.

Do I feel I have a grasp of DCC? Hardly. Baby steps might get me comfortable in a year or so to the point I can reach out and perhaps take advantage of some of the enhancements it makes possible. Meanwhile, I'll read what our very conversant members say and share and be mesmerized.

Such a situation as the OP shared with us would be understandably frustrating. But the first couple rockets NASA sent up didn't do to well either, and they had a lot more riding on it. NASA didn't have the resources in terms of knowledge like we have here to consult, so consider we have an advantage.

[craigolio1]

Without reading all of the replies, have you bothered to test the locomotive with DC only? All DCC locomotives should work in DC mode without having to do anything to the locomotive. Just hook up DC and see if it runs. If it doesn't, the problem is the engine, NOT the DCC. Most likely (as already stated) the motor connectors if this is the case.

Solutions, not complaints

I tried nothing. I have no layout to run it on now so I'm not investing any time in it. It was working fine before and couldn't have been caused by a power surge or something as it hasn't been run since I first tested it. I'm sure it won't be a tough fix.

[mecgp7]

I didn't hit the Powerball so I won't be converting to DCC anytime soon. With the number of locos that I have, it would take thousands of dollars to purchase a decoder for each. Then again I am a runner vs. an operator. I run long trains through the countryside. Little to no switching. I do have a Digitrax system for testing DCC locos that I purchase. Generally if I am keeping the loco, then I trade the decoder for a DC light board. The other guy is always thrilled with the deal he got. 
What little experience that I've had with DCC has been nothing, but frustration. To many reasons that they don't work and I don't want to spend the time troubleshooting.

I will say that I would go DCC if I started in a different scale. I can see having fun with an ON30 steamer with all the bells and whistles.

[JMaurer1]

OK, looks like it is time for my rant:

I swear that one of these days I'm going to either design my own DCC system or figure out how to hack the Digitrax firmware and 'fix' it. There is NO REASON that DCC should be this hard. I am an IT and former software writer and if I don't use Digitrax on a regular basis (and I don't since I'm a member of an N Trak group) I can't begin to remember everything I need to program and operate the system. I've been into model trains since WELL before DCC was available (I had a Keller system and MR CTI system...anyone even know what those were?) and have always been dumbstruck with how hard and user/operator evil it is. At the time it came out, the 'excuse' was that it was designed by engineers and that it would be simplified over time...didn't happen. Digitrax still has a controller with dozens of buttons that you have to hit in the right order to get it to do anything (and are poorly labeled as well). DCC was also to be inexpensive and possible for anyone to build and it isn't. If a DCC decoder retails for $21 (even though most newer locomotive decoders retail for $35), why do locomotive manufacturers charge that same $35 (full retail price) and more for an engine equipped with a decoder? Why does it cost $65 for a device that will ONLY control 4 switches (and you still have to buy the actual device to throw the switches). Shouldn't ONE device be able to control DOZENS of switches?           

However, if you ever want to run more than 2 locomotives at the same time (or two different locomotives MUed), DC makes it very difficult to do this as well. Isolating tracks and rails, reverse loops, yards are all a challenge and in a large layout you have to be an electronic master to be able to wire it (do you even know what a diode bridge is?) and it takes training to be able for someone to come in and operate it (flip this switch then set the rotary switch to here before turning the knob to make the engine go...oh, and make sure the next block is also set correctly before passing GO or you will go directly to jail).

Is DCC better than any other option available: yes. Is it as easy to use as it can be: not by a mile. Should it be: yes.

Rant ended 

[peteski]

But my last go-around with a decoder install in one of my Climax builds about drove me nuts.   The TCS decoder had worked for about four installs, and then they 'improved it', and two blown decoders and a year of diagnostic time later (with both Lee Weldon and TCS tech support) and there was no explanation for the on/off/on/off surging at low speed, finally gave up and refunded the project as a failure.    Downright maddening.    At that point, I swore off DCC for my own use although I'll still put in decoders and set them up for others if they insist.

I seem to recall reading about your TCS decoder problem in the critter chassis.  Witch such extended troubleshooting, I'm surprised that TCS did not borrow your model to do some in-house testing to see if they can fix the bug.  But it is what it is.

You might try revisiting this type if install.  Digitrax now has DZ126T ("T" for tiny - how cute) which is about the same size as that TCS dec0oder (and also cheaper).

[peteski]

OK, looks like it is time for my rant:

I swear that one of these days I'm going to either design my own DCC system or figure out how to hack the Digitrax firmware and 'fix' it. There is NO REASON that DCC should be this hard. I am an IT and former software writer and if I don't use Digitrax on a regular basis (and I don't since I'm a member of an N Trak group) I can't begin to remember everything I need to program and operate the system.

There are many others (me included) who share your frustration with Digitrax.  I also only operate Digitrax-exuipped layouts, but not constantly and I agree with you about how cumbersome and non-intuitive it is to program and operate.  But there is no need to design your own simple system - there are pelnty other brands of DCC systems much easier to operate.than Digitrax.  Two of the top of my head are CVP EasyDCC (lives up to its name) and NCE.  There are also few European DCC systems which seem to be designed with a model railroader rather than electrical engineer in mind, but I haven't had a chance to try them.

DIgitrax is the most popular system and the owners are very defensive about their choice. But a good DCC system should be one which an average model railroader should be able to use pretty much out of the box (with maybe a quick glance at a well-written manual). Digitrax system is anything but.   Just last week I had to re-learn how to use DT400 throttle with all its cryptic buttons and display messages, just to program some CVs in a loco.

[Roger Holmes]

What DCC system are you using? If it's Digitrax , is track power is suspend mode? Suspend mode puts power on the rails so the lights may light. No DCC packets are sent in suspend mode so the train will just sit there.

Martin Myers

Martin-- Tell me more about this "suspend mode" please  I have been in DCC for 15+ years all with Digitrax.  I currently have a Radio Super Chief (pre duplex).  Often when I go to fire up the system I get lights and locomotive background sounds but no motor control.  I am doing the startup with a DT400 or DT402, plugged in, and hitting the PWR and Yes+ button.  After I try it a few times I get motor control. I haven't noticed any pattern as to how many attempts it takes to acquire motor control. How does one enter/exit "suspend mode"?

My 2 1/2 cents--I have long double track mainline runs and run multiple trains on each main by myself.  I wouldn't have the dexterity to pull this off in DC while throwing a succession of block switches.  In other words, in my case it's the DCC that allows me to watch the roundy-rounds.