I for one fall into the catagory of "wire & switches" for point control - I know of very few (friends & customers alike) people who use DCC for point/signal control. Don't know if this is the same across Europe - I suspect that a higher ration of people use DCC there for point/signal control.
DCC or control panel, which is best?
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
QUOTE (markw @ 15 Oct 2007, 15:59) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi Neil
If you're after taking a bit of a straw poll here i'm afraid i'm not going to be much help. I have to sit on the fence and can see both sides point of view.
I am involved in building a new exhibition layout with a bunch of mates that is going to have only dcc control of locomotives. Point control, route control and signalling are all going to be run conventionally at the beginning but with an eye on introducing DCC / computer control at a later stage. My mates are seasoned modellers with conventional control layouts but are pretty much DCC virgins so don't feel terribly confident with the technology at the moment. So a decision was taken on three points, the first being cost, the second Knowledge and the third Time.
Being an ECoS and RR&Co owner, for my own layout i intend to go the whole hog and DCC control pretty much everything possible. I don't have the time constraint of exhibition dates already booked for mid 2008. On my layout i can spread the cost and learning curve over as long as i like and then through a process of demonstration to my mates i'll be able to (hopefully) transfer the acquired knowledge, familiiarity and confidence in the technology both to them and the exhibition layout over the next couple of years or so.
So. personally i'd go for DCC every time but my 3 mates are pushing back against it for the time being. That's a 1:4 ratio and in my opinion is probably a fairly true representation of where most of the modelling community lies. As new generations of modellers progress through the hobby this will change. DCC has been around for about 30 years in one form or another and it's only the past 3 or so years where it is even beginning to become anywhere near close to mainstream. Down at the club, there are still looks of absolute terror from most of the members when i hook my ecos up to the club layout for a DCC session.
Mark
Hi Mark,
that pretty much sums up my experience. I noticed that the pro dcc community was very much a minority when there was a show of hands but when it came to DCC control of anything else I felt pretty conspicuous. There were only two others in the room.
![]()
Neil
If you're after taking a bit of a straw poll here i'm afraid i'm not going to be much help. I have to sit on the fence and can see both sides point of view.
I am involved in building a new exhibition layout with a bunch of mates that is going to have only dcc control of locomotives. Point control, route control and signalling are all going to be run conventionally at the beginning but with an eye on introducing DCC / computer control at a later stage. My mates are seasoned modellers with conventional control layouts but are pretty much DCC virgins so don't feel terribly confident with the technology at the moment. So a decision was taken on three points, the first being cost, the second Knowledge and the third Time.
Being an ECoS and RR&Co owner, for my own layout i intend to go the whole hog and DCC control pretty much everything possible. I don't have the time constraint of exhibition dates already booked for mid 2008. On my layout i can spread the cost and learning curve over as long as i like and then through a process of demonstration to my mates i'll be able to (hopefully) transfer the acquired knowledge, familiiarity and confidence in the technology both to them and the exhibition layout over the next couple of years or so.
So. personally i'd go for DCC every time but my 3 mates are pushing back against it for the time being. That's a 1:4 ratio and in my opinion is probably a fairly true representation of where most of the modelling community lies. As new generations of modellers progress through the hobby this will change. DCC has been around for about 30 years in one form or another and it's only the past 3 or so years where it is even beginning to become anywhere near close to mainstream. Down at the club, there are still looks of absolute terror from most of the members when i hook my ecos up to the club layout for a DCC session.
Mark
Hi Mark,
that pretty much sums up my experience. I noticed that the pro dcc community was very much a minority when there was a show of hands but when it came to DCC control of anything else I felt pretty conspicuous. There were only two others in the room.
Neil
With previous layouts my decision in the past has been to use conventional control panels over DCC control for turnouts. The reason for this has been:
1. Cost there is no doubt the DCC control is more expensive.
2. localised control, placing a control panel at the area on a layout where localised control is required is more convenient. The alternative is return to your
centralised DCC control such as the ECoS and then switching to the turnout control screen, and then making the necessary change. Hardly convenient on a
large busy layout.
3. An alternative is to wire for DCC turnout control and use a combination of the two methods, or hand helds with a localised turnout diagram/matrix. This is
probably the method I will use in the future, where localised control remains in the future.
There is no doubt that currently DCC control of turnouts is far more expensive, and this is the reason why folks remain with conventional control.
If using RR & Co you have to add the cost of a suitable laptop. I personally would prefer to operate a larger layout with a crew, and have the interface of friends, with convential control panels, than than singley and have a laptop as a companion. At the end of the day this is a hobby and it's got to be fun, interesting and perhaps challenging, rather than having some centralised computer doing all the work.
![]()
![]()
1. Cost there is no doubt the DCC control is more expensive.
2. localised control, placing a control panel at the area on a layout where localised control is required is more convenient. The alternative is return to your
centralised DCC control such as the ECoS and then switching to the turnout control screen, and then making the necessary change. Hardly convenient on a
large busy layout.
3. An alternative is to wire for DCC turnout control and use a combination of the two methods, or hand helds with a localised turnout diagram/matrix. This is
probably the method I will use in the future, where localised control remains in the future.
There is no doubt that currently DCC control of turnouts is far more expensive, and this is the reason why folks remain with conventional control.
If using RR & Co you have to add the cost of a suitable laptop. I personally would prefer to operate a larger layout with a crew, and have the interface of friends, with convential control panels, than than singley and have a laptop as a companion. At the end of the day this is a hobby and it's got to be fun, interesting and perhaps challenging, rather than having some centralised computer doing all the work.
2
So will you operate your layout with friends ?, I think friends are better than computer screens.
![]()
![]()
2
QUOTE (Makemineadouble @ 15 Oct 2007, 10:47) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So will you operate your layout with friends ?, I think friends are better than computer screens.
![]()
![]()
For those people who have friends
![]()
, there are four options:
(1) One acts as signaller, the others are drivers.
(2) I only plan to use RR&Co on the colour light signalled main line, the branch line will have manually-worked semaphores though probably with some kind of override so trains can still run when there are no operators available.
(3) It is possible to wire conventional switches and lights to DCC modules, and set up the computer to take the relevant action when the switches are worked. In this way remote control panels can be provided.
(4) I don't plan to do this, but with some of the available software several computers on different parts of the layout can be linked.
For me computer operation is attractive because I don't have the space for a big panel or the time to do the wiring, because it is closest to the prototype for my contemporary layout (some years ago I wrote some of the software for the prototype!), and because it gives flexibility to run a layout alone or with others, including automatically driving some of the trains. However I do see that these reasons are not important to everybody and understand why many people will stick with conventional control panels.
For those people who have friends
(1) One acts as signaller, the others are drivers.
(2) I only plan to use RR&Co on the colour light signalled main line, the branch line will have manually-worked semaphores though probably with some kind of override so trains can still run when there are no operators available.
(3) It is possible to wire conventional switches and lights to DCC modules, and set up the computer to take the relevant action when the switches are worked. In this way remote control panels can be provided.
(4) I don't plan to do this, but with some of the available software several computers on different parts of the layout can be linked.
For me computer operation is attractive because I don't have the space for a big panel or the time to do the wiring, because it is closest to the prototype for my contemporary layout (some years ago I wrote some of the software for the prototype!), and because it gives flexibility to run a layout alone or with others, including automatically driving some of the trains. However I do see that these reasons are not important to everybody and understand why many people will stick with conventional control panels.
3
QUOTE MMAD:
3. An alternative is to wire for DCC turnout control and use a combination of the two methods, or hand helds with a localised turnout diagram/matrix. This is
probably the method I will use in the future, where localised control remains in the future.
That's what I intend to do. That way I can gradually add DCC control to the points starting with the storage yard and working my way along the main lines.
On a brighter note, the cost of entry level laptops continues to drop. I believe the entry level may be as low as £250? If you do get a laptop with a hole in the side - it probably came from our offices
![]()
David
3. An alternative is to wire for DCC turnout control and use a combination of the two methods, or hand helds with a localised turnout diagram/matrix. This is
probably the method I will use in the future, where localised control remains in the future.
That's what I intend to do. That way I can gradually add DCC control to the points starting with the storage yard and working my way along the main lines.
On a brighter note, the cost of entry level laptops continues to drop. I believe the entry level may be as low as £250? If you do get a laptop with a hole in the side - it probably came from our offices
David
My last laptop suffered unrepairable damage when I dropped a Heljan 47 on it from quite some height during sound programming operations.
![]()
![]()
If it has a hole in the screen it probably came from the tip.
If it has a hole in the screen it probably came from the tip.
2
QUOTE (Makemineadouble @ 15 Oct 2007, 17:36) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>With previous layouts my decision in the past has been to use conventional control panels over DCC control for turnouts. The reason for this has been:
1. Cost there is no doubt the DCC control is more expensive.
2. localised control, placing a control panel at the area on a layout where localised control is required is more convenient. The alternative is return to your
centralised DCC control such as the ECoS and then switching to the turnout control screen, and then making the necessary change. Hardly convenient on a
large busy layout.
3. An alternative is to wire for DCC turnout control and use a combination of the two methods, or hand helds with a localised turnout diagram/matrix. This is
probably the method I will use in the future, where localised control remains in the future.
There is no doubt that currently DCC control of turnouts is far more expensive, and this is the reason why folks remain with conventional control.
If using RR & Co you have to add the cost of a suitable laptop. I personally would prefer to operate a larger layout with a crew, and have the interface of friends, with convential control panels, than than singley and have a laptop as a companion. At the end of the day this is a hobby and it's got to be fun, interesting and perhaps challenging, rather than having some centralised computer doing all the work.
![]()
![]()
This seems to be the concensus.
I was going with DCC as my layout isn't very big 15' by 9'. Over here people tend to have very big layouts and as MMaD says you have many freinds over to help operate and have several localised control panels. There's one guy here whos place we run trains at who has over twenty people operating trains and points at any one time. This is a pretty fun activity as we use a schedule and signalling techniques. If we used DCC we would all be standing around drinking tea and watching someone else operate them.
My layout is a bit small to have any more than one or two other people running trains so it's not that practicle to do this with mine. I suppose I also want to get as much out of my DCC system as possible after having forked out for it. The DCC option certainly isn't cheap.
I have thought about this a bit over the last couple of days and I don't see that on a very large layout DCC is an option unless you use computer control. Which, as previously said is a lot more money or have several central station or ECoS's located around the layout which is a lot more money too.
1. Cost there is no doubt the DCC control is more expensive.
2. localised control, placing a control panel at the area on a layout where localised control is required is more convenient. The alternative is return to your
centralised DCC control such as the ECoS and then switching to the turnout control screen, and then making the necessary change. Hardly convenient on a
large busy layout.
3. An alternative is to wire for DCC turnout control and use a combination of the two methods, or hand helds with a localised turnout diagram/matrix. This is
probably the method I will use in the future, where localised control remains in the future.
There is no doubt that currently DCC control of turnouts is far more expensive, and this is the reason why folks remain with conventional control.
If using RR & Co you have to add the cost of a suitable laptop. I personally would prefer to operate a larger layout with a crew, and have the interface of friends, with convential control panels, than than singley and have a laptop as a companion. At the end of the day this is a hobby and it's got to be fun, interesting and perhaps challenging, rather than having some centralised computer doing all the work.
This seems to be the concensus.
I was going with DCC as my layout isn't very big 15' by 9'. Over here people tend to have very big layouts and as MMaD says you have many freinds over to help operate and have several localised control panels. There's one guy here whos place we run trains at who has over twenty people operating trains and points at any one time. This is a pretty fun activity as we use a schedule and signalling techniques. If we used DCC we would all be standing around drinking tea and watching someone else operate them.
My layout is a bit small to have any more than one or two other people running trains so it's not that practicle to do this with mine. I suppose I also want to get as much out of my DCC system as possible after having forked out for it. The DCC option certainly isn't cheap.
I have thought about this a bit over the last couple of days and I don't see that on a very large layout DCC is an option unless you use computer control. Which, as previously said is a lot more money or have several central station or ECoS's located around the layout which is a lot more money too.
2
QUOTE I was going with DCC as my layout isn't very big 15' by 9'. Over here people tend to have very big layouts and as MMaD says you have many freinds over to help operate and have several localised control panels. There's one guy here whos place we run trains at who has over twenty people operating trains and points at any one time. This is a pretty fun activity as we use a schedule and signalling techniques. If we used DCC we would all be standing around drinking tea and watching someone else operate them.
Both Johan De Villers and myself have been operators on the same large (US) DCC controlled layout. All loco's equipped with sound operating to a time table. DCC control, but conventional control of turnouts with localised control panels. This layout works brilliantly and continues to provide great entertainment for the operators month after month, because every operator is involved. Yes there's a bit more wiring, but it's a lot cheaper, Who needs RR & Co with this type of operation ?. I'd rather share a coffee with an operator / mate than bites with a laptop.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Both Johan De Villers and myself have been operators on the same large (US) DCC controlled layout. All loco's equipped with sound operating to a time table. DCC control, but conventional control of turnouts with localised control panels. This layout works brilliantly and continues to provide great entertainment for the operators month after month, because every operator is involved. Yes there's a bit more wiring, but it's a lot cheaper, Who needs RR & Co with this type of operation ?. I'd rather share a coffee with an operator / mate than bites with a laptop.
3
I have to agree with MMD
Conventional operation of points by levers, stud & probe or centre off sprung switches from a central control panel is easy, considerably cheaper than DCC and much, much more fun.
With DCC operation you will need to leave the last loco being controlled and then enter the address of the point to be moved (if you can remember all those numbers!) press enter then wait a second for the point/s to operate, then return back to the loco originally being controlled or enter an address for another loco etc. During all this time your eye has been taken off the loco/s that are moving. Often with the result that they aren't where you expect them to be or have collided with another one. Of course much money can be spent on pc control with block sections etc. but isn't the joy of the hobby all about running and controlling locos yourself?
![]()
![]()
![]()
Conventional operation of points by levers, stud & probe or centre off sprung switches from a central control panel is easy, considerably cheaper than DCC and much, much more fun.
With DCC operation you will need to leave the last loco being controlled and then enter the address of the point to be moved (if you can remember all those numbers!) press enter then wait a second for the point/s to operate, then return back to the loco originally being controlled or enter an address for another loco etc. During all this time your eye has been taken off the loco/s that are moving. Often with the result that they aren't where you expect them to be or have collided with another one. Of course much money can be spent on pc control with block sections etc. but isn't the joy of the hobby all about running and controlling locos yourself?
3
QUOTE (Brian @ 16 Oct 2007, 17:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I have to agree with MMD
Conventional operation of points by levers, stud & probe or centre off sprung switches from a central control panel is easy, considerably cheaper than DCC and much, much more fun.
With DCC operation you will need to leave the last loco being controlled and then enter the address of the point to be moved (if you can remember all those numbers!) press enter then wait a second for the point/s to operate, then return back to the loco originally being controlled or enter an address for another loco etc. During all this time your eye has been taken off the loco/s that are moving. Often with the result that they aren't where you expect them to be or have collided with another one. Of course much money can be spent on pc control with block sections etc. but isn't the joy of the hobby all about running and controlling locos yourself?
![]()
![]()
![]()
My take on this subject is; to each his own. My layout is 20'x10' area and all my points(switches) are operated thru DCC. I even have some street lights, neon building signs operated with DCC. Why? Because I want to and because I can.
I would even op layout shed door with DCC if I could. There is a chap here in Aelaide that has a lift bridge on his garden G scale tram layout operated with his Lenz DCC system. It is the only way to get into his house thru the patio door.
I have been a Lenz user since Aug 95. I can switch any point on layout singularly with hand control from anywhere without having to move to a control panel. The elimination of miles(kilometers) of wire was also a very big attraction. I also had an old laptop(Win 98) set up as central train control which allowed route setting etc., using Zug DCC.
Nov06 I replaced the laptop with an Ecos which allows point control,route setting and a lot more.
I still use my Lenz system connected to sniffer port of Ecos which gives me full walk around etc .
How do I identify each point? Most point motors(Peco) are surface mounted. Getting to old to be crawling around under layouts trying to fit point motors.
Over each p/motor is a small scratch built hut. Each hut is numbered corresponding to DCC accessory number. Those very few p/motors that are attached under layout has post with number on a disc attached adjacent to point. Which means that all points are easy to identify.
The rule on my layout is such that all points must be set before starting train. I have seen many disastrous mishaps occur on DC analogue layouts(control panels) because points were not changed quick enough in front of a moving train.
My main lines are blocked with thru the rails block detection which operate signals which must be obeyed by operaters at all times. My points are slowly being fitted with ground signals to show which line is set.
I use Lenz LS150 accessory decoders which allows op of six(6) points per unit. I have found that operating two points(cross over) wth LS150 is not a problem.
So for me, the more I can operate with DCC the happier I am.
Happy DCCing
Iansa
Conventional operation of points by levers, stud & probe or centre off sprung switches from a central control panel is easy, considerably cheaper than DCC and much, much more fun.
With DCC operation you will need to leave the last loco being controlled and then enter the address of the point to be moved (if you can remember all those numbers!) press enter then wait a second for the point/s to operate, then return back to the loco originally being controlled or enter an address for another loco etc. During all this time your eye has been taken off the loco/s that are moving. Often with the result that they aren't where you expect them to be or have collided with another one. Of course much money can be spent on pc control with block sections etc. but isn't the joy of the hobby all about running and controlling locos yourself?
My take on this subject is; to each his own. My layout is 20'x10' area and all my points(switches) are operated thru DCC. I even have some street lights, neon building signs operated with DCC. Why? Because I want to and because I can.
I would even op layout shed door with DCC if I could. There is a chap here in Aelaide that has a lift bridge on his garden G scale tram layout operated with his Lenz DCC system. It is the only way to get into his house thru the patio door.
I have been a Lenz user since Aug 95. I can switch any point on layout singularly with hand control from anywhere without having to move to a control panel. The elimination of miles(kilometers) of wire was also a very big attraction. I also had an old laptop(Win 98) set up as central train control which allowed route setting etc., using Zug DCC.
Nov06 I replaced the laptop with an Ecos which allows point control,route setting and a lot more.
I still use my Lenz system connected to sniffer port of Ecos which gives me full walk around etc .
How do I identify each point? Most point motors(Peco) are surface mounted. Getting to old to be crawling around under layouts trying to fit point motors.
Over each p/motor is a small scratch built hut. Each hut is numbered corresponding to DCC accessory number. Those very few p/motors that are attached under layout has post with number on a disc attached adjacent to point. Which means that all points are easy to identify.
The rule on my layout is such that all points must be set before starting train. I have seen many disastrous mishaps occur on DC analogue layouts(control panels) because points were not changed quick enough in front of a moving train.
My main lines are blocked with thru the rails block detection which operate signals which must be obeyed by operaters at all times. My points are slowly being fitted with ground signals to show which line is set.
I use Lenz LS150 accessory decoders which allows op of six(6) points per unit. I have found that operating two points(cross over) wth LS150 is not a problem.
So for me, the more I can operate with DCC the happier I am.
Happy DCCing
Iansa
3
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
