# DCC versus old school?



## Tombo (Jan 2, 2022)

Good evening all, first post on the forum. I do not currently have a layout set up but do have both HO and O gauge from my childhood that is just waiting for us to have room for a table. My trains are either my age or older although I never really progressed past running them around the Christmas tree or on my bedroom floor. Being that most of my stuff is probably 60's, 70's, and 80's (with some 50's thrown in), I am fairly old school in that I want to run trains the way these were meant to be run with individual wiring per loop and no DCC. It seems however that most people on here immediately give new members the advice to go with DCC. So my question is, are there people here that still collect and run their layouts the old way or have the majority of users switched over? 
Thank you to everyone who takes the time to answer and share their knowledge as I have learned a lot just in my short time lurking on the site.

Tombo


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

If all you're going to run is a couple of loops of track as you did in your youth, then DC would be the correct choice. If you plan on building that railroad empire you've dreamed of since then, the DC is a disadvantage and most would still recommend DCC.


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

As one of the newbies (modeling for just over a year now), I think the answer to your question is a resounding yes. There are people that still run DC layouts the old fashioned way. But most of the newbies are advised to run DCC and they heed the advice.

I grew up with a father who was heavily into HO railroading. I had an HO train set a long time ago, but it was never more than a beginner's set with just an oval. When my son wanted to get into the hobby, he and I decided on N scale. We started with a double loop and two DC controllers, but we knew we would go DCC and we did after less than 6 months. The idea of sound and controlling multiple trains on a single loop of track was just irresistible to us.

And I am now starting a small HO layout that will be DC only. My son was given several kits that used to be my father's. He just got the locomotive running and neither of us are interested in converting the 50 year old locomotive to DCC. In addition, a friend just gave me his old play set (a Tyco set with two locomotives and about 10 cars). Again, I do not see converting them to DCC as feasible. So, we will have a layout that is DC only. I think it will be a single loop on a 4x8 sheet of plywood with a switching puzzle in the center. Two DC controllers with gapping so the switching yard is not connected to the loop and we can run the two trains at once.

Running DCC does not mean you can't run DC too. Some people even do it on one layout by using a DPDT switch to decide which system is powering the trains.


----------



## Murv2 (Nov 5, 2017)

I collect old train stuff and have no intention to switch to DCC. But if I were starting out and could afford it DCC would be a better choice.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

If you wish to have all the old archaic wiring that analog DC requires in order to run 2 or more trains on the same track without them both moving at the same time, by dividing your system into train length blocks turned off and on by toggle switches mounted on a panel, then by all means, if that's your desire, do so...
And, yes, there are several others in this forum who still run trains that way, as well; silently with analog block control.
But, If you instead want independence of all locos/train movement, control of lights, whistles, horns, bells, engine sounds, the way the 1:1 scale is, and with as little as *2* wires to the rails in order to have this kind of realism, then you need to go DCC... Dat's it !


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

Even most, many newer dcc will run on DC and even cycle through their operational sounds reasonably while doing it. Problem is... Turning it down. Then you need a dcc friend. But after that it'll still be fine on the DC track once you get home.

So by all means, dust off those DC only engines and go for it.


----------



## scott7891 (10 mo ago)

Tombo said:


> Good evening all, first post on the forum. I do not currently have a layout set up but do have both HO and O gauge from my childhood that is just waiting for us to have room for a table. My trains are either my age or older although I never really progressed past running them around the Christmas tree or on my bedroom floor. Being that most of my stuff is probably 60's, 70's, and 80's (with some 50's thrown in), I am fairly old school in that I want to run trains the way these were meant to be run with individual wiring per loop and no DCC. It seems however that most people on here immediately give new members the advice to go with DCC. So my question is, are there people here that still collect and run their layouts the old way or have the majority of users switched over?
> Thank you to everyone who takes the time to answer and share their knowledge as I have learned a lot just in my short time lurking on the site.
> 
> Tombo


O Scale is predominantly AC 3-rail which is a completely different beast to DCC 2-rail HO scale. For O Scale I would keep it traditional since it is much easier to wire for plus new Lionel locomotives coming out now all have Bluetooth technology to run your trains now so you don't need to buy TMCC/Legacy stations and can pretty much run them on the same layout with some traditional block sections. Lionel made a good video demonstrating this.





If you want to get in to HO, like others pointed out, if it is going to be a small layout to play around with to see if you like it watching a train or two go by in a continuous loop then it will be better, quicker, and cheaper to start off with regular DC. If you plan on making a huge layout with lots of switches, consisting different locomotives together, and planning on doing realistic operations then DCC is the no-brainer here.

In my case I have sold off all my DC locomotives (only keeping my Dad's DC diesel as a keepsake) and going strictly DCC for my future layout. However, if I have the space, I might make a dedicated, separate DC line (using a MRC Tech 6 controller) isolated from my DCC line to test out DCC-Ready locomotives, run DCC locos (since the Tech 6 can), or run older DC engines not capable of being converted to DCC. For O Scale though I plan on going conventional since I have a lot of those and don't want to get rid of them plus the fact as mentioned O Scale engines even with all the sound and whistles can run conventionally.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I’m still in the DC camp…..works for me…..


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

My DCC system uses a laptop, Arduino, mini tablet throttle. Takes5-10 minutes to boot up.

DC takes two seconds, power on, turn the knob, train is running.


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

I would politely suggest you take a little time before making any final decisions.

I joined this forum just over a year ago, after pulling all my stuff, (and my Dad's), from the attic.
Like you, Tombo, I was planning on using my old, DC stuff.
Had zero interest in DCC, and didn't want to spend time/money to convert my locos. 

Thread where I make my case here: First layout plan in decades - Feedback?

If you read to the end, you'll find I adjusted my position after spending many hours reading this forum.
Turns out one of my Dad's engines was DCC ready. So I found a used MRC DCC setup for cheap, and plugged a card in the engine. Even on a short piece of flex track, I could see the benefits.

So one year later, I am going with DCC. Even converted an old MDC Shay: MDC Shay HO to HOn3 conversion?
Just need to finalize a design, and start laying track.

All that being said, it's your railroad and you should do what you want. 
And if that is DC, so be it. You'll have fun either way. Good luck!


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

BobT said:


> I would politely suggest you take a little time before making any final decisions.
> 
> I joined this forum just over a year ago, after pulling all my stuff, (and my Dad's), from the attic.
> Like you, Tombo, I was planning on using my old, DC stuff.
> ...


So my experience is just the opposite. I decided to NOT go DCC after reading on the forum. This was mostly about problems, and don’t get me wrong; I realize that none are unsolvable. It’s just that I don’t do tech stuff well. 
To paraphrase Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter, ‘What makes people concerned is what they know about themselves.’


----------



## Chaostrain (Jan 27, 2015)

I'm sticking with DC, the old school way. I've done some deep investigating into DCC but find it's just not a way I want to go. To start with there's a big cash outlay to get started. It adds a complexity to running trains, to run this train you have to push this button, to run that train push that button, so on and so forth. No thanks, I just want to watch a train on each loop with its own controller go round and round. Plus with DC I have to control the throttle like the real thing, instead of using the option of pushing a button and letting the computer do it. Of course, DCC can always be added later if you change your mind.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

You said a mouthful with, "I just want to watch _a train on each loop_ with its own controller go round and round.", as that is pretty much the limit of what you can run.

Nothing wrong with that, but you are missing out on a lot of other potential operation.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Chaostrain said:


> I'm sticking with DC, the old school way. I've done some deep investigating into DCC but find it's just not a way I want to go. To start with there's a big cash outlay to get started. It adds a complexity to running trains, to run this train you have to push this button, to run that train push that button, so on and so forth. No thanks, I just want to watch a train on each loop with its own controller go round and round. Plus with DC I have to control the throttle like the real thing, instead of using the option of pushing a button and letting the computer do it. Of course, DCC can always be added later if you change your mind.


Obviously, you have to do what's right for you, but there are some big misconceptions here. To set the record straight:
1) No, DCC does not need to involve a huge cash outlay (somewhat depending jn your definition of "huge", I guess). You can get a starter system and a few basic decoders for about $300.
2) DCC doesn't need to involve button mashing and computer control if you don't set it up that way. It DOES allow the ndependent control of lighting and sound functions, as well as multiple trains in operation simultaneously. J drive my train with a handset in the same way you run a DC controller.
3) DCC wiring is not any more complex than DC wiring, and in many situations is much easier.

That said, in a situation in which all you want to do is watch one train cruise endlessly around the same loop(s) of track, DCC is an unnecessary expense. As long as you never get bored of that method of operation, you'll be fine.


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> Obviously, you have to do what's right for you, but there are some big misconceptions here. To set the record straight:
> 1) No, DCC does not need to involve a huge cash outlay (somewhat depending jn your definition of "huge", I guess). You can get a starter system and a few basic decoders for about $300.
> 2) DCC doesn't need to involve button mashing and computer control if you don't set it up that way. It DOES allow the ndependent control of lighting and sound functions, as well as multiple trains in operation simultaneously. J drive my train with a handset in the same way you run a DC controller.
> 3) DCC wiring is not any more complex than DC wiring, and in many situations is much easier.
> ...


The cost thing I hear/read a lot, and was one of the reasons I originally didn't want to go DCC.
But, turns out I had no problem finding a used MRC Advance 2 for $125. It was just missing a $5 cable. 
Last summer, there was several available at that price. Not sure about now.
But that, and a couple $20 decoders seemed very reasonable to get started.
Haven't laid any track yet, but I've actually had fun goofing around with a couple of engines on some pieces of flex track. 
At least enough to know I've made the correct decision for my layout.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

If you can operate your TV with the remote
control, you can run your layout with DCC...
it's that simple. The hand held DCC controls
are very similar to a TV remote. You change
channels when you touch a button...you change
locos with the touch of a button. 

Above said by one who still has and uses a 
1960's rotary dial telephone.

Don


----------



## Chaostrain (Jan 27, 2015)

CTValleyRR said:


> Obviously, you have to do what's right for you, but there are some big misconceptions here. To set the record straight:
> 1) No, DCC does not need to involve a huge cash outlay (somewhat depending jn your definition of "huge", I guess). You can get a starter system and a few basic decoders for about $300.
> 2) DCC doesn't need to involve button mashing and computer control if you don't set it up that way. It DOES allow the ndependent control of lighting and sound functions, as well as multiple trains in operation simultaneously. J drive my train with a handset in the same way you run a DC controller.
> 3) DCC wiring is not any more complex than DC wiring, and in many situations is much easier.
> ...


For some people $300 is a huge cash outlay, even the $125 mentioned later in this thread.

I know DCC wiring is no more complicated than DC which is why I mentioned DCC could be added later.

I had a layout that had all the sidings and yard for multiple trains and other stuff and found all I ever did was set a train on each of the two loops and watch them go round and round. I found it very relaxing while drinking a coffee or beer or cocktail. Mmmmm bourbon! I don't want sound either, it interferes with the music I have going. I also do that while watching train videos, I mute the train video, put on some music, and admire trains as they run.

TV? What TV? I haven't watched TV for many years, I don't miss it one bit, so a TV remote is a foreign object that will require a learning curve for me.


----------



## Andreash (Dec 30, 2018)

Chaostrain made a lot of points that resonate with me. My former layout had a continuous loop, along with a yard. The most enjoyment I got was watching a train just going around, and yes, with a cold beverage. That being said, I’m in the DCC camp. There are certain features that I like about it…cheers☕🍩


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

As has been said many times…..to each, his own….


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Chaostrain said:


> For some people $300 is a huge cash outlay, even the $125 mentioned later in this thread.
> 
> I know DCC wiring is no more complicated than DC which is why I mentioned DCC could be added later.
> 
> ...


Which is why I phrased my post the way I did... 

But you have draw the distinction between what may be "right' in your tiny vision of the world, and the much bigger picture that may be more generally applicable to modelers. That's why it's much more useful to say "a basic DCC system costs $X" than to just say, "it involves a huge cash outlay," or "it's too expensive". Yes, it may be more than you want to spend, especially if you're happy watching a train go around and around all day. A lot of people want more than that out of their model railroads, though. Or they think that's all there is to the hobby, overlooking all the potential to actually operate more or less like a real railroad, and if they suddenly discover they prefer that side of the hobby, DCC makes expanding in that direction much easier and more cost effective.


----------



## timlange3 (Jan 16, 2013)

DC is great to watch a train run in a loop or use some inexpensive automation to make it stop and go between stations.

DCC is what you want if you want realistic operations and run multiple trains with others.


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

I have about fifty (50) lighted cars I want to be able to run lighted, and about fifty (50) locos of which a dozen or so I would like to keep running. The number of decoders needed for this seems daunting for cost reasons, and I find it hard to see how to make decoders fit into Kato N scale passenger cars, especially because it is hard enough to get the Kato light modules to work. All my stuff is N scale. What I want to do is build a layout long enough to offer an interesting loop. Since I like the trains quiet and like to run one or two trains on separate loops, I am not seeing where DCC offers anything, but I am not ruling it out forever, and I have tried to acquire DCC ready locos for about twenty years. Makes it easier to sell the stuff as well. I am thinking I would want to pare down my collection if I were to go with DCC.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

pmcgurin said:


> I have about fifty (50) lighted cars I want to be able to run lighted, and about fifty (50) locos of which a dozen or so I would like to keep running. The number of decoders needed for this seems daunting for cost reasons, and I find it hard to see how to make decoders fit into Kato N scale passenger cars, especially because it is hard enough to get the Kato light modules to work. All my stuff is N scale. What I want to do is build a layout long enough to offer an interesting loop. Since I like the trains quiet and like to run one or two trains on separate loops, I am not seeing where DCC offers anything, but I am not ruling it out forever, and I have tried to acquire DCC ready locos for about twenty years. Makes it easier to sell the stuff as well. I am thinking I would want to pare down my collection if I were to go with DCC.


Again, see the answer just above yours... as well as several more in this thread. You're right. If all you want to do is watch trains run, and don't mind having to find an isolated section of track to park an unused loco on (or removing it from the layout completely), then DCC really doesn't offer any advantages. It's only when you start operating trains more or less like the real thing that it becomes much easier.

Yes, there is an investment involved. No it doesn't have to be made all at once.

But the problem of fitting decoders into N scale equipment has been solved by the manufacturers long ago. It's really not an issue.


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

CTValleyRR said:


> Again, see the answer just above yours... as well as several more in this thread. You're right. If all you want to do is watch trains run, and don't mind having to find an isolated section of track to park an unused loco on (or removing it from the layout completely), then DCC really doesn't offer any advantages. It's only when you start operating trains more or less like the real thing that it becomes much easier.
> 
> Yes, there is an investment involved. No it doesn't have to be made all at once.
> 
> But the problem of fitting decoders into N scale equipment has been solved by the manufacturers long ago. It's really not an issue.


So, the decoder makers might have in effect have solved the Kato light kit problems by their decoder design. I have been wondering about this. I think getting rid of a lot of the stuff I collected over the years and bringing the collection down to some theme will help to build a layout and keep the DCC costs manageable and provide funds to do it. 

Somewhere here I read that items with decoders can be run on a DC layout. If I put decoders in lighted passenger cars, would they still light on a DC layout? If they would light on a DC layout, I could use the decoders to resolve conductivity issues and gradually implement DCC.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

Why put decoders on the passenger cars? You could put a full wave bridge IC and a CL2 IC in the cars and get most of the way there. These parts come with pins or SMD type. The CL2 is a constant current LED driver delivering a constant 20 ma to an LED. You might want to use a CL2 on each LED so when the car is on DC it will light up sooner. A cap between the bridge and the CL2's would make for better operation over gaps or bad track. If you need to turn them off you can use some sort of hidden switch. If the CL2 makes the LED too bright, you could put a resistor across the LED leads to divide the 20 ma between the resistor and the LED. Note: you would need to experiment with the size of the resistor as this not the same as putting the resistor in series with the LED.


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

Lemonhawk said:


> Why put decoders on the passenger cars? You could put a full wave bridge IC and a CL2 IC in the cars and get most of the way there. These parts come with pins or SMD type. The CL2 is a constant current LED driver delivering a constant 20 ma to an LED. You might want to use a CL2 on each LED so when the car is on DC it will light up sooner. A cap between the bridge and the CL2's would make for better operation over gaps or bad track. If you need to turn them off you can use some sort of hidden switch. If the CL2 makes the LED too bright, you could put a resistor across the LED leads to divide the 20 ma between the resistor and the LED. Note: you would need to experiment with the size of the resistor as this not the same as putting the resistor in series with the LED.


Thanks for the suggestion. When I look into the inside of the lighted car, there is little room. There;s a long clear lens along the roof and the LED is pressed into the wipers at one end. I don't even see where or how a decoder could be connected. I think the lighted cars might be a show stopper for DCC, if I wanted to keep them lighted. Considering how much work and cost I have put into installing fifty plus light kits over about twenty-five or so years, the car lighting will stay. It is a source of pleasure as well. 

As far as the DCC advantage of parking trains here and there, I have used Kato track for years and have set up sidings and double crossovers . However a turnout is switched is where power goes and the other part is unpowered, so I have parked trains here and there. I get a headache with more than one train on a track. Maybe I'll just build a DC layout with possible DCC use later. I can retire and sell the non-DCC-ready locos then. I rule nothing out. A career in IT taught me that nothing is as sure as technology change. I do wonder if something better than DCC will appear.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

Keep in mind that DCC is a standard, like USB, that's why its lasted so long! If you put decoders in the passenger cars, I think you're stuck with having to use DCC to get the lights on, plus all the addresses you would need to go thru to turn the lights on and off. What runs the LED's now on DC? If the passenger car lights are already LED's then some where in the car there must be a full wave bridge and a resistor as a minimum, otherwise on a DC layout the LED's would turn off or on depending upon the forward/reverse switch. If this is the case, you may not need to change anything and the lights will work on DCC. Its just that on DCC, if track is on, the LED's will be on independent of the speed commanded by the throttle. Locomotive speed will have no effect on how bright nor whether or not the LED's are on! If the lights in the passenger cars are incandescent bulbs, again somewhere in the passenger car may be resistor that are reducing the voltage to match the bulb, and again the car will light when put on a DCC track that in on, and unlike DC the speed of the locomotive will have no effect on the brightness,. Basically I don't think you really need to change anything to be compatible with DC or DCC!


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

That many lighted wagons on a DCC system will require at least a 5 amp booster if not more, and the required circuit breakers so you're not welding wheels to the rails in the event of a derailment.


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

Lemonhawk said:


> Keep in mind that DCC is a standard, like USB, that's why its lasted so long! If you put decoders in the passenger cars, I think you're stuck with having to use DCC to get the lights on, plus all the addresses you would need to go thru to turn the lights on and off. What runs the LED's now on DC? If the passenger car lights are already LED's then some where in the car there must be a full wave bridge and a resistor as a minimum, otherwise on a DC layout the LED's would turn off or on depending upon the forward/reverse switch. If this is the case, you may not need to change anything and the lights will work on DCC. Its just that on DCC, if track is on, the LED's will be on independent of the speed commanded by the throttle. Locomotive speed will have no effect on how bright nor whether or not the LED's are on! If the lights in the passenger cars are incandescent bulbs, again somewhere in the passenger car may be resistor that are reducing the voltage to match the bulb, and again the car will light when put on a DCC track that in on, and unlike DC the speed of the locomotive will have no effect on the brightness,. Basically I don't think you really need to change anything to be compatible with DC or DCC!


Thank you for this information. That will mean needing perhaps five decoders to run the BN, Amtrak and Santa Fe passenger trains, about twenty-five cars, and dispose of the rest. Maybe a decoder for the Wabash train with four cars. Parking a few of these trains unpowered on sidings. Of course, I would handle it the same on a DC system. Sure, spend several hundred to have the latest tech with all the programming headaches the rest of you seem to enjoy. On my last layout, Kato track, I had three mainlines with sidings with a turnout at each end to isolate the power routing and park trains on them until I moved a train out and another in and moved power back to the main line. It was fairly simple and made good use of the Kato switches and turnouts. I still have all tha5t track, turnouts and elevated stuff in boxes. It is good to know that my passenger cars will light on DCC without a decoder in every car.


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

MichaelE said:


> That many lighted wagons on a DCC system will require at least a 5 amp booster if not more, and the required circuit breakers so you're not welding wheels to the rails in the event of a derailment.


There is no way I would retain fifty plus passenger lighted cars plus all the locomotives on DCC. I would get rid of most of it. I have never run all those lighted cars at once, usually only two consists powered at a time. Others might be sitting, unpowered, on a siding.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

Well, for what it is worth both old school and new are fun. Like many people when they get back into it, when I first went back I preferred old school. But over time I came to appreciate the many, many advantages of "new school" and pretty much run only that now.


----------



## timlange3 (Jan 16, 2013)

I would light passenger cars with leds and a bridge rectifier, not use a decoder. If you need to turn them off and on, add a reed switch (controlled with a magnet) to the circuit.


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

timlange3 said:


> I would light passenger cars with leds and a bridge rectifier, not use a decoder. If you need to turn them off and on, add a reed switch (controlled with a magnet) to the circuit.


I have rhought about this reply. If I go with DCC I would be concerned that my lighted passenger cars would light just in the same way as they do on DC. I don't think I care about turning lights on and off or dimming them, just that they should light at all. I really wouldn't want to have to spend $1500 for decoders just to get the lights to light. That would be a show stopper. Or I would have to seriously have ro limit what I ran on a DCC layout. I have bought quite of stuff over about forty years and don't to spend much more. Having not used DCC I don't yet see any benefits at all opther than having the latest thing. The concept of sending commands down the rails on AC seems hokey to me. I am wondering why wireless LAN technology isn't used.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

You're making this harder than it needs to be, ignoring the perfectly reasonable suggestions that others have made to help you out. Is there going to be an investment involved in upgrading? Of course. Does it need to be a budget buster/ show stopper? No it doesn't. 

Timlange3 already told you how to light your passenger cars inexpensively. Bridge rectifiers are pretty cheap, and you already have the lighting.

You say, " having not used DCC, I do not see the benefit..." is exactly the point. We don't know how you operate your layout, but if you do anything more than watch one train orbit endlessly, then there are numerous benefits to DCC, which various people have described. Try to find a club or a train show where people are running a DCC layout and see for yourself what it can do.

As far as sending commands down the rails in AC, well, now you're just being parochial. That technology is tried and true, and has been working brilliantly for over 25 years. When DCC was being developed, WiFi was in its infancy, so it wasn't considered. Wireless LAN / WiFi is commonly used for controllers to communicate with base stations, though. There is such a thing as Bluetooth / Wireless control of locomotives, and even dead rail solutions that do not require powered rails, but work from a battery. However, if cost is your primary objection, then these are probably off the table, because they are more expensive and more complex than DCC.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

If your passenger car lights are already LED's then most likely they already have a full wave rectifier in use, otherwise they would turn off and on based on the position of the forward/rev switch. What will be different is that the throttle will no longer have any effect, as the lights will always be on. You can prevent this the same way you did with your DC layout, in that you park the cars on siding and power done the siding either with a power routing turnout or a block switch, whatever you already have. If you DC layout has a single throttle then you just remove the DC throttle box and put the wires on the DCC controller. The only rewiring necessary is if you have a reverse loop, which DCC will allow you to automate so you don't need to mess with any switches.


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

Thanks. The locomotives will be the only things needing decoders, and that would be manageable.


----------



## Bighanded (Dec 8, 2020)

my O gauge fun has always been limited to the month of December around the tree. My Dad's first tinplate celebrated 90 years old 3 years ago. Family tradition that it makes some laps around the tree.
me, my kids, now my grandkids have all grown up knowing that special excitement of the trains that they only get to see at Christmas..which keeps things fresh. Since the primary users are kids, my best bet has been to stay with traditional operation. When the kids are little, I'd even fix the directional so it would simply run or stop, not have to do the E unit F-N-R thing.
As the kids got older, They could understand and enjoy being able to back it up, and even manually switch to a siding.
We always have at least 3, sometimes 4 loops on the floor around the tree.
Last couple years I grabbed a few MTH rigs so we still run them pretty traditional, but the kids love the sounds of start-up, etc...the older grandkids (and Pap) run the MTH stuff, the 4-8 yr olds still get the older Lionels and of course Thomas the Train.
They have fun loading up cars with miniature Barbie dolls and plastic animals etc at the station and creating the imaginary world of the town with all the little houses and people. When Christmas trains come out, it's amazing how their ipad games and all get left behind and they learn how to play old school.
I have for many years, stashed away some HO, thinking one day I'll retire and want to do some modeling. But all of those are older units and I don't know that I'll care for the extra work to go digital.


----------

