Why DCC?

[Fazby]

I apologize if this was already done. Searching for "DCC" will yield nearly the entire forum.

I have a small layout, and no desire for sound. Therefore cannot think of a reason to go to DCC. For the added expense of the basic equipment and converting the engines does not make sense to me. Then there are the new electronic headaches....

As I see it, the only things it will really give me are:
1. constant headlights (cool, but not important especially since I pulled the bulbs from my Athearn BBs); and
2. the ability to run a second engine (switching while another loops the mainline, which could be done with DC).

Am I alone here?

 

[lmackattack]

1) less wires under the layout = less tmie spent under they layout

2) you can run more than one loco at a time without a maze of blocks and toggles that need to be operated.

3) DCC controls the locos, DC controls the track

4) cost of a cheep DCC system will be cheaper in the long run if you plan to have blocks in your layout. In the end you will likely save or brake even. at this point you will have a layout that was less hastle and your options are endless.

your not alone, some people will not make the switch to DCC, but the hobby has been heading further and further into DCC/DCC ready without looking back to DC...

Trent

 

[Espeefan]

As I see it, the only things it will really give me are:
1. constant headlights (cool, but not important especially since I pulled the bulbs from my Athearn BBs); and
2. the ability to run a second engine (switching while another loops the mainline, which could be done with DC).

Am I alone here?

Not alone, but in a group that is steadily shrinking
Your lack of desire for sound could change. More and more locos are being offered with DCC on board. No toggle switches or complicated block control are required. You still might use blocks, but they'll be simpler to wire. No switching blocks to a throttle anymore.
it's easy to install decoders, especially on BB locos. Digitrax offers decoders that will do this right out of the bag. You can railroad without DCC if you choose, but you'll enjoy it more with DCC.

Basically what Trent said. Know anyone who has it? Try it.

 

[cv_acr]

DCC can run multiple engines independently on the same piece of track.

DC requires separated electrical blocks, and only one engine or set of engines can be independently controlled within each block.

DCC is more expensive an outlay when starting out, but will make up for itself in controllability, operation and less complicated wiring (blocks can be made much larger - still recommeded to divide up into some sections for maintenance/troubleshooting on a larger layout) * Note - not necessarily less wiring; you want lots of power feeders througout the layout to power all your rails, but without separate blocks everywhere you can just run a single main power bus.

DC is much cheaper for a small layout.

If your layout is only designed to run one train/engine at a time, and you don't want sound then there is very little reason to go with DCC. Then DC will be much simpler and cheaper. Go with that.

For a small one-train-at-a-time layout I can't recommend DCC. Stick with DC. DCC will be overkill: more expensive and technically complicated. But for anything that runs two or more trains at the same time I recommend DCC all the way - especially for a cramped smaller layout so you can just control your train and not worry about wiring blocks onto every track and constantly flipping block selector switches to assign which throttle is controlling that piece of track. (The "control your trains not your track" that some have turned into a sort of mantra...)

I like DCC control and would never go back and wire a layout with block control, but evaluate your layout, your wants and your needs and then make an informed decision.

 

[TMLW]

I have pretty much grown up using DCC. When i got into this hobby when I was 11 my dad had bought a Digitrax system. I guess that's partly why I like it so much. Layouts are a lot easier to wire up for DCC than a non DCC layout. It does allow you to run more than one train at a time which can be fun. However, it can be over kill if you have a small layout. I am slowly working on a 2X7 switching layout and really do not need DCC for it, but since 75% of my engines are converted, it only makes sense. Sound is expensive, but is nice if done well. Really depends how big of a layout and how you want to run it.

 

[Rico]

Well a small layout wired with the "common rail" method doesn't need to have more than a few toggle switches, depending on the number of isolated tracks or trains to be run. Some turnouts are power routing for stub ended sidings. I'd imagine you'd have only two power packs.
Any layout can have DCC added later on when you decide to go that route.
I'd think that DCC would be the way to go if you were starting fresh with blank plywood and grand dreams of expanding later on.
All good advise thus far, guess I'm really not adding much here am I?

On a similar topic... the real railways actually run more like layouts with DC with blocks and such and rarely have two trains on the same track.
There, I'm rambling again, sorry.

 

[Joe Daddy]

So long as you are sure you will NEVER buy a second locomotive, stick with DC.

Joe

 

[Doughless]

I apologize if this was already done. Searching for "DCC" will yield nearly the entire forum.

I have a small layout, and no desire for sound. Therefore cannot think of a reason to go to DCC. For the added expense of the basic equipment and converting the engines does not make sense to me. Then there are the new electronic headaches....

As I see it, the only things it will really give me are:
1. constant headlights (cool, but not important especially since I pulled the bulbs from my Athearn BBs); and
2. the ability to run a second engine (switching while another loops the mainline, which could be done with DC).

Am I alone here?

No, you're not alone. I have a fairly large layout but I operate it like a small one. Two switching districts separated by 30 feet of track which, operationally, could really be separated by about 2 feet of track. The extra feet traveled is merely for distance and realism and I withstood the temptation to overload the space with track and operations. Its a shortline. So the local switches the industries. There's only one locomotive running at a time. I do have a dedicated plant switcher, but I switch the plant after I run the local back with the empties. I've isolated the plant spur so I only need one throttle for both locomotives.

But most modelers would do "much more" with my space.

Your plan would require simple isolation block wiring. It could get more complicated if you add a third train (at the same time). But your eyes might start spinning and your head might explode if you cram too many moving trains into a small space anyway. Whether its flipping toggles in DC or pressing buttons when changing addresses, speeds, horns, etc in DCC, things may get complicated if there are too many trains running at the same time.

It sounds like you are approaching the decision correctly by asking yourself what does DCC do and do I plan I doing those things with my layout, rather than wondering what everybody else may be doing. They may not have the same modeling goals as you.

 

[Selector]

I have a small layout, and no desire for sound. Therefore cannot think of a reason to go to DCC.

You can have sound in DC, too, and not just with BLI's Blueline locomotives. Sound bugs many people. Usually it is because they don't know what to do with sound decoders once they get one. They need to be turned down to about 50% of the factory set volume level. Other engines getting power from the rails should be muted, or have their decoders put to sleep entirely (QSI's do this...very handy) when you are playing with one or two others. The sound generated by the models does not scale properly, so nearby idling engines a whopping 400 yards away sound like you are next to them. It drives most of us crazy...or out of the train room. But I will never buy an engine that doesn't get a sound decoder or have one already. I love the added realism.

2. the ability to run a second engine (switching while another loops the mainline, which could be done with DC).

Am I alone here?

If you know with absolute certainty that you will only ever run the one engine, or one at a time, I can understand your question. But, in DC, you'll still have to manage the track power. In DCC, you don't care, and you only need to line the route...much like a simple oval and siding arrangement in DC. Say, though, that you get a hankering for a new spiffy engine (and you will...I know it...). Would you run it by itself, or maybe you'd like to lash it up to the first engine as they do in the real world. Which way should they face? Doesn't matter in DC...they'll both move in the same direction around the track. Okay, now you break them up and want to operate one and leave the other idling on a ready track. As soon as you raise the track voltage, both will want to move. So, you must lift one off the rails. In DCC, you don't care. You break up the MU and don't task the one engine you wish to idle. It doesn't get a command from you, so it just sits there...muted or idly making low sounds if you have that function. The other loco will do as you ask with full 14 volts in the rails.

And then there's the lights. Or you want to run one engine up to the other to lock couplers and have them work as a MU team. Can't do that in DC unless you make their couplers meet across a gap in the rails.

Besides my plug 'n play DCC system, the most complicated thing on my layout is a PSX-AR auto reverser for a reversing loop. And what a whizz it is...works silently, reliably, and I forget it is there. Simple...four wires to it. The next most complicated items on my Digitrax-powered layout are four 12 volt tail-light bulbs that act as current sinks if I get a short. That is just cheap and simple insurance against decoder-damaging shorts in case my Super Empire Builder's circuitry doesn't manage to detect it in time...but that has not happened.

In a nutshell, yes, for typical layouts, DCC is more costly up front. But for more complexity and blocking, DC gets more complicated and expensive in my opinion.

Crandell

 

[Fazby]

Never buy a second loco? Ha! I already have 11. They run one at a time. Turntable provides storage.

But I only run one at a time. No multiple unit required. The number of cars that would warrant it would loop the track. (4x10 - a glorified oval - sketch posted a while ago)

So, it appears I am not insane (with respect to this only). However, if I ever go toward an "empire" I agree that DCC would make sense. That said, I have learned so much from this little layout!

Thaks for the feedback!

 

[bobwrgt]

I have over 200 engines and don't care to convert to DCC.
I only use DC with no problems or additional expense for a decoder.
I often run more that 2 or 3 engines together in a single train with no problems. I just choose the ones that are close to speed matched.
I also have several dummy engine i can run with anything even at the rear as a helper.
I have over 10 sound engines Blueline and QSI all run on DC. Some i can run together.
I also have an MRC Syncro sound unit w/both Steam and diesel sound using 2 speakers set apart. Now have sound for all engines with a simple volume knob.
Almost all DCC engines made today will run on DC with no modification but it's not good to run DC engines on Dcc system or track.
You can also get an MRC Black box for around $50.00 that will control a DCC sound engine for all 28 functions. Lot cheaper that DCC or installing decoders in over 200 engines.
I've spent 40 years in HO and won't give up some of my older engines for anything.

Bob

 

[NYW&B]

I concur with Bob that while DCC may appeal to many of the newcomers in the hobby, DC will work just as well and decidedly more cheaply in many, if not most, situations and is far from a necessity.

Too often the fiction that you need DCC to run more than one locomotive at a time is posed by DCC enthusiasts as THE justification for not only starting out in, but the absolute need to convert to, DCC. Well, I've "operated" on my modest-sized (13x20) layout for years using DC, running multiple lash-ups without difficulty and finding it no inconvenience in occasionally needing to flip a few toggles. While DCC certainly has benefits for the truly large layout that regularly employs multiple operators (I "operate" monthly with an 6-9 man crew on a friend's very large DCC layout), probably 95% of hobbyists today still run their layouts alone and it is honestly unrealistic to expect one man to run multiple trains at one time (except on independent loops of track, just as easily done in DC) and remain fully in control.

I'd add that the cost factor of a properly installed DCC system on anything more that a fairly small layout costs many times what a similar DC system does. It is certainly not as simple as a two wire connection, as is often claimed. Most DCC applications will necessitate virtually as much wiring as for DC, plus the added expense and installation of power district boosters, plus the isolating of layout segments as with DC. Add to that the large expense for established DCers of purchasing decoders for their existing locomotive rosters and we are talking costs running into the thousands of dollars to convert. Not surprisingly, many established DCers are sticking with what they already have.

Sound is also touted as some great benefit of DCC. However, all the really necessary basic train sounds are operational in DC today. And many of the additional sound features in DCC locomotives in my opinion are beginning to approach the "playing with Lionels" level, especially things like supposed engineer radio communication. Ugh!

If you are a true newbie in the hobby, then perhaps starting out with DCC will have its benefits down the line, but DC is definitely here to stay for probably much of the next generation. In fact, it isn't likely to fully disappear until DC, along with DCC, are made totally obsolete by on-board battery power with radio control, perhaps a decade, or less, from now.

NYW&B

 

[Espeefan]

I concur with Bob that while DCC may appeal to many of the newcomers in the hobby, DC will work just as well and decidedly more cheaply in many, if not most, situations and is far from a necessity.

Too often the fiction that you need DCC to run more than one locomotive at a time is posed by DCC enthusiasts as THE justification for not only starting out in, but the absolute need to convert to, DCC. Well, I've "operated" on my modest-sized (13x20) layout for years using DC, running multiple lash-ups without difficulty and finding it no inconvenience in occasionally needing to flip a few toggles. NYW&B

While I would certainly agree that an established layout, a large roster, both DC, and a happy owner are all excellent reasons not to convert. I also think a little clarification is in order on a couple of your talking points: NO, you don't need DCC to run more than one loco, and I don't believe that anyone has ever said that, at least here. YES, DCC does make it easier, not necessarily with two GP-9's, but with dissimilar power like models from different manufacturers, or different loco types, such as a low drivered 2-10-2 assisting a high drivered 4-8-4 on a passenger train in a helper district. DCC makes speed matching a consist like this easy, while it is not really possible with DC.

While DCC certainly has benefits for the truly large layout that regularly employs multiple operators (I "operate" monthly with an 6-9 man crew on a friend's very large DCC layout), probably 95% of hobbyists today still run their layouts alone and it is honestly unrealistic to expect one man to run multiple trains at one time (except on independent loops of track, just as easily done in DC) and remain fully in control.NYW&B

Agreed, except you could set one train, say a passenger, to run continuously on a loop, then operate a local peddler freight and have to stay out of the passenger train's way while you switched your industries. This is an interesting excercise and you have a red button on the throttle to shut the layout down if you goof

I'd add that the cost factor of a properly installed DCC system on anything more that a fairly small layout costs many times what a similar DC system does. It is certainly not as simple as a two wire connection, as is often claimed. Most DCC applications will necessitate virtually as much wiring as for DC, plus the added expense and installation of power district boosters, plus the isolating of layout segments as with DC. Add to that the large expense for established DCers of purchasing decoders for their existing locomotive rosters and we are talking costs running into the thousands of dollars to convert. Not surprisingly, many established DCers are sticking with what they already have.NYW&B

Love to see how you figured the costs on this, because that's not necessarily the case. I could probably convert your entire 13 x 20 layout with a single command station/booster combination, and at most something like the Digitrax PM-42 that lets you split the layout into up to four power districts. Auto reversers are cheap now (20 bucks or so), and you won't need all those toggles or extra wires either. The cost difference is not as much as you think. The next benefit is, if you have guests over to operate, you don't have to give lessons on what switches operate what blocks, where the reversing sections are, and so forth. Form DC layout to layout, this is always different. Most DCC systems are pretty user friendly, and easy to get the hang of, and all the toggle switches go away.

Sound is also touted as some great benefit of DCC. However, all the really necessary basic train sounds are operational in DC today. And many of the additional sound features in DCC locomotives in my opinion are beginning to approach the "playing with Lionels" level, especially things like supposed engineer radio communication. Ugh!NYW&B

YES you can have sound without DCC, but with DCC, you get the most use out of it. You take full advantage of the capabilities of the models and gain many things that DC users are locked out of. Even the "black boxes" available from MRC and others don't let you use everything that's there in those decoders.

I am with you totally on some of the sound model features though. I don't care for talkies, puffing smoke or other circus sounds showing up in some of todays models. Those are for the three rail crowd. Even lit passenger cars aren't very high on my list. If they come that way, fine, but I won't pay anything extra for the capability

If you are a true newbie in the hobby, then perhaps starting out with DCC will have its benefits down the line, but DC is definitely here to stay for probably much of the next generation. In fact, it isn't likely to fully disappear until DC, along with DCC, are made totally obsolete by on-board battery power with radio control, perhaps a decade, or less, from now.
NYW&B

I've often heard the statement "I have too many locos to convert, it isn't practical, I'd go broke!" Then, about once a month, these same guys are posting the latest loco they just bought. It isn't about how much money you have to spend, it's about where you want to spend it. We have faced the same problem on a smaller scale with other issues, like that first conversion to all metal wheels, or for the older guys (including me) converting to Kadees. Then too, how often to those 200 locos get run? I have an embarrasingly large roster myself, with many models slated for DCC conversion down the road, but only about 10-15% of the roster sees regular service, so it isn't like you have to go and buy 200 decoders all at once. Eat the elephant one bite at a time.

I agree that DC is not ever likely do disappear, but the option is likely to get more and more limited, no matter which system you favor, because the market is going DCC. It's what the manufacturers are doing, and they are following the money. Most modelers want DCC these days, though we don't want to take your DC away. If you're happy with it, by all means keep it, after all, this is supposed to be fun!

 

[Selector]

It has always been my great fear, getting aside the topic for a second, but the previous gentleman touched on it...buying two or five locomotives every year until I die, and those left behind having to figure out how to dispose of the 10 or 20 plastic tubs of unused, essentially "new-in-box" engines. I have a so-far firm resolve to limit purchases to one a year. At 20 locomotives, I have to start trading off one for one. It hasn't hurt yet because I am still at 18, but I have begun to draw up a list of culls. First one to get 'exchanged' will be the in-pieces IHC Mikado.

You just know I'm going to succeed.....................................right?

 

[Doughless]

It isn't about how much money you have to spend, it's about where you want to spend it.

To jump back in here for a bit. There are always threads about DC/DCC, and what was said above struck a nerve. Its not only about money, but its also about time.

How much time do I have and where do I want to spend it?

MRRing is a diverse hobby that can hold the attention of many folks who enjoy the various aspects the hobby has to offer. Myself, I like: designing realistic trackplans, laying roadbed and track, building structures and some scenery, even laying ballast. I enjoy detailing locomotives, painting and decaling, and operating the trains. I enjoy railfanning, finding old rights of way, and reading about existing or defunct shortlines or branchlines. I enjoy reading about other modeler's experiences and like to contribute when I can. I very much enjoy looking at photos of other modelers' work and admire their skills.

I don't like electronics. So, I don't find operating systems themselves that interesting.

Unfortunatley for me, model trains run on electricity, which forces me to deal with operating systems as much as I have to. It's not that I'm scared of them, or too dumb to learn them, or resistent to change, I just find them boring relative to all of the other things I could be doing. Time spent dealing with electronics is time wasted in the hobby, as far as I'm concerned. Looking at schematics is boring. Reading manuals about electrical circuits is boring. Reading manuals about what buttons to press to execute the proper circuits is boring. Fiddling with detail parts like lift rings is tedious, but fiddling with little wires is tedious AND boring. Have I said the word boring enough?

Others may be just the opposite. They might think expanding their railroad to do as many things as possible one of the more enjoyable aspects of the hobby. Good for them. They probably immersed themselves in DCC as soon as they could because they found that aspect of the hobby interesting, but not because they are more receptive to change, or more intelligent, or more courageous.

I designed my layout to have the simplist electronics possible because that suits my interests. One bus line, some feeders, and one isolated spur, and one throttle. That works because I like short lines, but also because I want to spend as little time as possible wiring layouts, reading manuals, and flipping toggles and buttons. But that's me.

This approach is also a benefit to me because I also don't have to pre-order 6 new GP40-2's or 8 Genesis GP15's just to make my operating plan work. Therefore, what the manufacturers do as far as offering DC or DCC is irrelevant to me. There are plenty of items on the secondary market auction sites to keep me in "new" equipment for a long time. And if the manufacturers' get to a point where they only offer DCC items, well, then they will become as irrelevant to me as I am to them. Personally, I don't care what they do.

 

[Secondhandmodeler]

Doughless,
What you said sums up how I feel about model railroading. It was interesting to read someone else put it into words.

 

[Espeefan]

To jump back in here for a bit. There are always threads about DC/DCC, and what was said above struck a nerve. It’s not only about money, but its also about time.

How much time do I have and where do I want to spend it?

True, but when reasons why not to do this are discussed, it’s most commonly money, and a fear of complexity. I think you may be the first I have seen who has made time an issue.

MRRing is a diverse hobby that can hold the attention of many folks who enjoy the various aspects the hobby has to offer. Myself, I like: designing realistic trackplans, laying roadbed and track, building structures and some scenery, even laying ballast. I enjoy detailing locomotives, painting and decaling, and operating the trains. I enjoy railfanning, finding old rights of way, and reading about existing or defunct shortlines or branchlines. I enjoy reading about other modeler's experiences and like to contribute when I can. I very much enjoy looking at photos of other modelers' work and admire their skills.

Me too. Right now I’m doing a book review on Signature Press’ new book on branch line railroads in Arizona, which deals mostly with narrow gauge shortlines and how the copper mines were serviced. Fascinating reading!

I don't like electronics. So, I don't find operating systems themselves that interesting.

Unfortunately for me, model trains run on electricity, which forces me to deal with operating systems as much as I have to. It's not that I'm scared of them, or too dumb to learn them, or resistant to change, I just find them boring relative to all of the other things I could be doing. Time spent dealing with electronics is time wasted in the hobby, as far as I'm concerned. Looking at schematics is boring. Reading manuals about electrical circuits is boring. Reading manuals about what buttons to press to execute the proper circuits is boring. Fiddling with detail parts like lift rings is tedious, but fiddling with little wires is tedious AND boring. Have I said the word boring enough?

Others may be just the opposite. They might think expanding their railroad to do as many things as possible one of the more enjoyable aspects of the hobby. Good for them. They probably immersed themselves in DCC as soon as they could because they found that aspect of the hobby interesting, but not because they are more receptive to change, or more intelligent, or more courageous.

Well…maybe for some, maybe not for others. For me, electronics is a necessary evil. We have to have it in some form, or the trains don’t run. I have wired layouts for both DC block operation and DCC. Complexity for both was pretty much a tie. The DCC harness was a little simpler because I didn’t need toggle switches, though I did divide the layout into blocks so that a short or electrical problem somewhere didn’t shut the entire railroad down. I don’t find DCC particularly interesting; in fact I like it because it’s not. I installed it on my layout and promptly forgot about it. It just works. I don’t have to think about it at all. You have to make sure your wiring is correct and your connections properly made no matter which way you go. I ultimately wound up with an NCE system which is very simple to use. I haven’t been in the manual more than twice in several years, and those were because another user asked me a question, and I needed the manual to help me answer it properly. It does not have to be complicated, or expensive. We can choose to make it that way, but in the case of a small railroad, all you have to do is replace the powerpack with a handset, and you’re done. You won’t even have to isolate that siding. You’ll have to do a couple of decoder installs, depending on your roster size, and that’s all. This is not to say you should. After all, those of us who use DCC don’t want to force it down your throat. We just want you to see that it is not necessarily complicated, expensive, or difficult to use. And it does offer more in the way of operability and enjoyment. I’ve used both, as I started in the hobby before it was available and waited years for the prices to drop to where I could afford it.

And since the thread is basically asking why or why not, here is another thing I like about DCC: In every instance I have compared them, a given loco steam or diesel out of the box will run better on DCC than it will on straight DC. Starts and stops are smoother. You can add momentum by pushing one button (on some systems) and have realistic stops & starts. This is fun because it can require you to operate your model like the real thing. It won’t start as soon as you open the throttle, and it won’t stop as soon as you close it, just like the real ones!

I designed my layout to have the simplest electronics possible because that suits my interests. One bus line, some feeders, and one isolated spur, and one throttle. That works because I like short lines, but also because I want to spend as little time as possible wiring layouts, reading manuals, and flipping toggles and buttons. But that's me.

Me too! And it happens to be DCC. By all means, if you like what you have why bother with change, but if you are considering changing, as the fellow who originated the thread seems to be, then I’d like to see that he gets information that is as accurate as possible.
This choice will be with us for a long time. Even now, with every Walthers car you buy, every Proto 2000 loco (and other manufacturers too) you’ll find a little bag with two horn hook couplers in it. Lots of people still use those, but the cars come with Kadee compatible couplers mounted. I see the same trend with the DC/DCC choice.

No matter. Whatever you like, do it and have fun.

 

[tomstockton]

Some very interesting thoughts coming out in this thread... and most of them are so well considered that I can't make up my mind!

Naturally (being an old fart), I'm currently a DC guy. But my best friend is in the process of converting to DCC, and he loves it. He is going "slow and steady" with the conversion... and some of the stuff DCC can do is pretty cool!

I have (probably) the same drawbacks as stated elsewhere in this thread:

1. Cost. I have nearly 70 engines, and while I only run a few on a regular basis, it's nice to have the ability to run them all... one at a time...

2. "Convertability". A lot of my stuff is older -- Athearn blue box, Rivarossi, etc. And I have a couple that are probably too small to find room for a decoder.

3. Time. I'd never really thought of it in that way, but that one really struck a nerve. I love building kits, kit-bashing and scratchbuilding, weathering and scenery. At the other end of my spectrum is electronics -- I'll grit my teeth and do the bare minimum that I HAVE to do, and then I'm done with it. If the "DCC fairy" would come in and wave his/her magic wand and I'd be converted to DCC -- that'd be great! Otherwise... mmmm, I dunno... let me put another kit together and I'll get back to you!

Regards,
Tom Stockton

 

[Doughless]

For whatever reason, the DC/DCC discussions get charged up like its a political debate or something. It all comes down to interests and how you want to spend your time and money. And even how you socialize. I'm sure there are social motivations as well, like not wanting to be the last in your group to convert. Or maybe even wanting to be the first one. Or being forced to in order to continue playing in the same group.

I'm sure I'll convert to DCC, or whatever other technology there is at the time, when my plan demands it and I've accomplished other goals. Slightly off topic, I'm sure I'll finally replace all of my VCR video tapes with DVD's, and my DVD's to the blueray or bluetooth in the future too. But replacing a perfectly good tape with a DVD of the same movie seems to be a no-win effort. Similarly, I can't think of why someone would replace a perfectly good model train operating system that already allows them to run mulitple-unit consists, with a newer one that still allows them to run multiple-unit consists, unless it substantially enhances their operations from what they already have or unless the process of converting from the old to the new is rewarding by itself.

Same way with new locomotives that may only be DCC in the future. I'll buy them when I have to or buy whatever new technology is offered or required at the time, to the extent I really need to buy anything new at all.

For me, and I assume some others, the issue is really no more complicated than that.

 

[Doughless]

And since the thread is basically asking why or why not, here is another thing I like about DCC: In every instance I have compared them, a given loco steam or diesel out of the box will run better on DCC than it will on straight DC. Starts and stops are smoother. You can add momentum by pushing one button (on some systems) and have realistic stops & starts. This is fun because it can require you to operate your model like the real thing. It won’t start as soon as you open the throttle, and it won’t stop as soon as you close it, just like the real ones!



Me too! And it happens to be DCC. By all means, if you like what you have why bother with change, but if you are considering changing, as the fellow who originated the thread seems to be, then I’d like to see that he gets information that is as accurate as possible.

I know what you're saying about realistic operation and I value it tremendously. That's why chose my power pack and locomotives the way I did. My railpower 1370 does just fine with my Kato's, Atlas's and broken-in, regeared, and de-peanut-buttered P2K's and my Athearns (which have poorer slow speed operation than the others right out of the box). I can't imagine anybody wanting them to creep any more slowly than what mine do. And I'm sure there are more sophisticated DC systems than mine out there.

For $35 bucks for the railpower and a $60 Atlas from Ebay, the OP will do just fine with slow speed operation.

Now, when I was a kid, my old Tyco power pack and AHM locomotives started at about 30 mph. I tried to make them do wheelies but I never could, even with traction tires.

I'm not disagreeing with you on any specific point, nor am I saying that the OP should not consider DCC. And I'll admit, overall, DCC is a better product because of its numerous features, but its not always necessarily more desireable in every model railroad. IMO, the real advantages to DCC is its ability to control multiple locomotives independently. How much of that is desired varies from modeler to modeler, and those modelers who have DCC for that reason should not assume that that kind of operation is what everyone wants (not that you have done that). In fact, controlling many locomotives at the same time does not ensure greater realism than controlling only one at a time, especially if the modeler has limited space.

But for a lot of model train operators, it is more fun.