DCC - why not?

For those of you not using a DCC system on your layout... why not?
Is it because your layout is already operating fine with conventional power;
the cost of converting; the effort to convert your existing locos; your club has decided not to use DCC; etc.?
Do you think DCC is in you future? ... already planning to do a conversion in the future; maybe you will convert if the price is right; you might do it if the time is available; don't want to mess with a system that's already working; etc.?
The recent thread on MTH's entry into HO scale with a non-DCC system has me wondering how saturated the DCC market has become. Has everyone who would have been likely convert to DCC already made the change? Are there many more modelers out there waiting for the right time to make the switch?
I'd like to see opinions from the non DCC modelers/operators.
__________ Mark Mathu The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com / "I started out with nothing and I still have most of it."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

An interesting questions. Here are some of my random thoughts.
* The four digit numbering system for locos isn't a good fit for the loco rosters on many foreign railways, and there isn't always a logical/simple translation (some European systems are working around this already) * A large slice of our layout operation is at exhibitions, and adding DCC makes this sort of operation more complex and more work each time a train is changed. (with DC its change the points, set speed direction and you're off. With DCC it's the above plus drop the current train, select the next train. Not something I can literally do with my hands behind my back) * Lack of a DCC retailer within 500km of here (except the Bachmann system . . .) * Lack of a suitable handset for some roles in certain systems * Lack of licensing to use the radio capability of certain systems * I'd be lying if I didn't say price was an issue. Not so much the base units but the outlay to equip the whole fleet over the first few months, and the desire to use not the base level decoders (or are these OK??)
Having said that, all new layout work for the last 5 years has been done to allow easy conversion to DCC when the time comes. I've done a lot of thinking and planning, and came close to handing over the Visa card last month (except the shop only had 5 suitable decoders on the shelf when I wanted 20 straight up!). May consider it before March next year, but that will be more on the basis of doing it while I can afford it rather than because I see any major benefit in the immediate term. I suspect I'll be the first in the local group to go, and that the others will follow within the next 12-18 months with the same system, so I'm choosing for them too in many ways.
I see this is the way to go, and for many layouts/groups will make life easier. On the other hand, its not the solution for everybody and they shouldn't be "punished" (in whatever way) for their modeling choices
Regards, Stuart Dix Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stuart D. wrote:

Stu:
Yup, I can see the trouble with reducing something like 141R.72001 to a four digit code. "Fhat? Ze Americain systeme electronique das naht fit ze Gallique systeme tres logique? By ze holy zacraments!" (Heh heh. SNCF froods will note intentional irony in the class no.)
I don't have an operating layout now (sigh) as I have been hard at work fixing up an old house, but when I do I won't use DCC. I have a philosophical dislike of complexity and layers of separation between operator and equipment. Yes, I can already hear you saying 'But isn't the multitude of block switches a worse layer of separation? With DCC you just pick it up and go." Well, call me a techno-Luddite then. I have other reasons.
First, I like smaller locos, and it's hard enough to fit the motor in a HO early 4-4-0. Second, in the interests of economy and more Luddism I model a small shortline, so I don't have many engines or many trains to run simultaneously. Finally, DCC introduces problems of electrical contact and short avoidance (through flawed and non-robust engineering, IMHO) that are less of a problem using straight track power. I just can't justify the expense for my purposes.
Cordially yours: Gerard P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A fellow club member is putting them in his TT equipment, and our HOn3 is going to be DCC. While I agree it's harder, it's not impossible.

I've always said that a one train/one operator layout won't see much benefit from DCC. But once you start adding trains and/or operators, then DCC should be a serious consideration.

Sorry, but that's poppycock. The only difference between straight DC and DCC is that you can't power through a short. And quite frankly, if you see sparks shooting from your wheels with DC, you really should fix that problem.

That is the only reason you gave that I agree with 100%. It's in each person's mind what's worth what. If it ain't worth it for you, well, then it's not worth it.
What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that are just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL
Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven *************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No doubt that's the same feeling of merriment that I get when DCC proponents (especially those who've never built a DC layout) explain to me all the things that I can't do with DC - except, usually I can.
ron
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

proponents
Well, I built two multi-cab DC layouts for myself, and operated and maintained a 2500 sq. ft. layout at my club that was DC (built 1953, added on in 1980). So I'm quite familiar with most of the problems, issues, and tribulations that occur with a cab controlled DC layout.
Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven *************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pac Man wrote:
> What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that are > just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL
My favourite is that old reliable comment, "I have 200+ locomotives - it would cost too much to buy and fit decoders to convert them to DCC!"
And yet it didn't cost too much to buy 200+ locomotives in the first place? LOL!
Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, god, that brings me back. I made the same comment on the Atlas Forum many moons ago, and I thought I was going to be drawn and quartered after being hanged...especially by David Harrison. I said I had far more sympathy for the guy that has a couple locos that says he can't afford DCC then the guy that has 200 locos who can obviously afford a great deal more. You would have thought I poked him in the eye by the response I got. Jeez.
Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven *************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pac Man wrote:
> Oh, god, that brings me back. I made the same comment on the Atlas > Forum many moons ago, and I thought I was going to be drawn and > quartered after being hanged...especially by David Harrison. I said I > had far more sympathy for the guy that has a couple locos that says > he can't afford DCC then the guy that has 200 locos who can obviously > afford a great deal more. You would have thought I poked him in the > eye by the response I got. Jeez.
I can imagine! Mind you, I'm buggered if I know why anyone would *want* 200+ locos - how often would most of them get a run?
Cheers,
Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The problem with having been around long enough to collect 200+ loco's (all of which you might enjoy running from time to time) is that some if them could be very difficult to convert to DCC. Several club members, who have far fewer than 200 (combined) loco's will never convert entirely to DCC for just this reason. Looking here at the total cost of conversion (TCC :) not just the $$. Thus the club will, most likely, never convert totally to DCC. So we are stuck running alternately DC and DCC.
Each has it's own basket of pluses and minuses. Being relatively new to collecting my 200+ loco's, I find the DCC basket of minuses to be rather small ... but, that's me not necessarily you (the generic you).
Paul
--
The lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now.
Modular furniture is cruel and unusual.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

I think I'm the the only one in this thread that mentioned having 200+ locomotives. I did NOT say the cost of converting them was too high. I said they are N-scale, and are not designed for a decoder. That means, there is no room inside to put a decoder without a lot of reworking of the interiors.
As for the cost of buying 200 locomotives, I've been buying them for about 24 years. When the cost is spread out over 24 years, it is very affordable.
And why would I want 200+ locomotives? Because I like the way they look. (About 2/3 are part of passenger sets). And I will admit that they do not get heavy usage.
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

said
no
You're the only one *here* who has said "200 locos", but that number was also used on the Atlas Forum's flame fest a couple years back, so don't take it personally.

24
And who would buy 200 decoders at once? This reminds me of the reasons that people give to not convert to Kadee's: "I have X number of cars...it'd cost me $Y to convert. No way!" Well, yeah, but who converted to Kadee's overnight? I sure didn't. I had a couple "conversion" cars with a horn hook on one end and a Kadee on the other until I could afford to change all the cars. A good way to do this, BTW, is to ask for Kadee's for X-mas and birthday gifts. Makes a great "stocking stuffer".

(About
heavy
I don't begrudge anyone for the number of locos they own. However, if you can afford hundreds of locos, you can afford DCC. You just choose not to. That's all I'm saying.
Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven *************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right. If I wanted DCC, I'd have it. Right now I would rather put the money towards other aspects of the hobby. I've got my eyes on a few more engines. <G>
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pac Man wrote:

Pac Man: What I find amusing is the pseudo-religious devotion DCCers have to their own pet system. :-)
Cordially yours: Gerard P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gannon.edu wrote:
> Pac Man wrote: > >> What I find amusing is all the reasons that non-DCCers give that >> are just not correct. That's always fun to listen to. LOL > > Pac Man: What I find amusing is the pseudo-religious devotion DCCers > have to their own pet system. :-)
LOL! We're no more or less evangelical than some of the more strident members of the DC camp! :-)
Cheers,
Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:17:13 +1000, mark_newton wrote:

And some of them are right up there with Franklin Graham and Muktada al Sadr in terms of bloody-minded fundamentalist bullsh-t!
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article 1ar7gz10jjvnn$. snipped-for-privacy@40tude.net, Steve Caple at snipped-for-privacy@commoncast.net wrote on 8/4/06 10:05 AM:

I'm not sure where the strident evangelicalism comes from for either camp; maybe misery loves company. I personally like DCC because it is simpler (for me) to set up and run. Others find the same benefit with DC.
This is a HOBBY folks, and the goal is to enjoy yourself; if DC makes you happy: great; if DCC rings your bells, that's great, too. If you like using the palm and digital system to push your brio trains around, that is likewise cool.
--
Ed Oates
http://homepage.mac.com/edoates
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes but, we're right. *8^P

--
The lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now.
Modular furniture is cruel and unusual.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gannon.edu wrote:

Yep - it's definitely a religious issue, on both sides :-). But at least the argument is pretty much limited to the bishops and cardinals of the hobby - the lowly parishoner just keeps running his one train around his 4x8, blissfully ignorant of the whole debate :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pac Man wrote:

And that type of layout is probably 80-90% of all layouts :-). And in fact, if the layout is designed for it, you can have at least three trains running with two or three operators and not have to flip switches. One train making laps on the main, another loco working the yard, and a third climbing the switchbacks on the branch line.
But I think the only reason for a club, formal or informal, not to go DCC is a large investment already made and the expense of changing.
-- It's turtles, all the way down
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.