# Is DCC antiquated?



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

DCC has many positive aspects. It's widely adopted, there's a healthy market of products by many different vendors and so forth.

But to me it seems ancient and in need a technology refresh. One issue I have is it appears married and closely coupled to sending signals over the track. In our increasingly wireless world, this seems a little out of place.

Then commands themselves are codes and not defined in an abstract way -- there's no "bell command" -- there's just command/function-code F8. But this is not an official bell command, this is just how industry has self organized. And so as one expands out into ever more function codes, there's going to be less commonality among vendors. If the command set was abstract, the mapping to codes could be done in independent manner.

Well those are just some of the reasons I think it's antiquated. Which isn't to say I'm not a happy enough user of the thing. It's has many strengths: it's a standard, no one vendor owns it, there's lot of products and many hobby projects for it out there.

What do you think?


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

I don’t even have DCC yet, so I am ancient vice antiquated. I am looking forward to this discussion for sure !


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

well, in some ways yes, it's antiquated, but it does work, and work rather well for what it is ..
i did recommend an improvement, not in the DCC structure itself, but in the way power was sent to the locomotives primarily .. but it received zero support, lol ..
i do detest cleaning track which was the main reason for the change....


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Doesn't NMRA set standards for DCC?

I agree with what you're saying. Kind of like how MTH has their own version of digital control. So at least DCC has some standards that helps to be sure that functionality is the same within the DCC world.

Wireless would add a bit of bulk to the circuitry inside a loco, and would likely just replace the signal from the tracks to one that is sent/received over Bluetooth or WiFi. The end result is the same underlying codes and their meanings.


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

JeffHurl said:


> Doesn't NMRA set standards for DCC?


Yes; although they basically adopted the original Lenz spec. But this open specification allows all DCC manufacturers to conform to an interoperable standard. That standardization is what allowed DCC to be become what it is. Otherwise, every manufacturer would have their own proprietary and incompatible system.

You do see some alternative systems to DCC, like the MTH DCS, or RailPro, etc. but each of these is totally proprietary.


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

Severn said:


> Then commands themselves are codes and not defined in an abstract way -- there's no "bell command" -- there's just command/function-code F8. But this is not an official bell command, this is just how industry has self organized. And so as one expands out into ever more function codes, there's going to be less commonality among vendors. If the command set was abstract, the mapping to codes could be done in independent manner.


While there's no body to enforce this, there are some widely accepted standards for the functions.

0 is the headlight, [on sound units] normally 1 is the horn, and 2 is the bell, and 8 is mute sound/shutdown/startup.

My NCE controlled has "Headlight" "Horn" and "Bell" buttons, which are basically just programmed to trigger function 0, 1, or 2 since those are the accepted functions to activate those features.

You're right there's little standardization for other functions, but also many decoders even allow users to re-map some of the functions, and custom lighting functions depend on the decoder install.

On another forum, there was a thread where a poster (after standardizing all his functions) added a stick-on overlay to his throttle's keypad indicating which feature lined up with each F#, as a visual reference to show which feature that button would be controlling.


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

Wireless isn't impossible. MRC and XL Systems both have wireless remotes for some of their decoders. No reason that couldn't be adopted industry wide and controls become wireless instead of over the rail. 

Yes, these are full DCC decoders and work with standard DCC controllers OR the remote. I have several and they are great. Basically you get an extra throttle but it's dedicated to a specific locomotive. 

I think that technology in combination with full color touch displays are the future of DCC. Most controllers, while digital, seem to be stuck in the 1980s and are grossly over priced in my opinion. The technology is not complex. Programming decoders is FAR simpler with a phone or computer app than any of the overpriced boxes on the market now.

So yes, it does need a refresh. The tech is out there, just not in use widely. 

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

While there can be wireless digital control or some other
'fawuncy' technology, there remains the fact that you must
have clean rails, clean wheels and all wheel power pickup
for good juice to the motor and lights. Maybe some of you
techies can look into the classic Tesla wireless power distribution system.

Don


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

DonR said:


> While there can be wireless digital control or some other
> 'fawuncy' technology, there remains the fact that you must
> have clean rails, clean wheels and all wheel power pickup
> for good juice to the motor and lights. Maybe some of you
> ...


That's also possible, but I don't know how reliable it would be on a moving train. Many cell phones have wireless charging now. 

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## Thelic (Jan 10, 2018)

I'll post more later. But here Don.


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

I think I heard that Samsung? remotes as in tv are going to recharge by wifi floating about. Which is on the one hand kinda cool but on the other a little disturbing.

Ok here's my list for what I like about dcc.


Broadly adopted, big market, lots of choices
simple enough that a hobbyist can make a functioning base station with cheap readily available electronic parts and software
similar for a homebrew basic decoder
tons of open source I guess we'll call it, projects even I can get working...

So that's the good list!


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Old or antiquated I will grant you, but not obsolete or even obsolescent. There are so-called dead rail systems, and trains that receive commands entirely by Bluetooth. The reason they haven't really taken off is that DCC, in more or less it's original format, still works perfectly well. I'm certainly not about to run out and buy some fancy new system, and replace all the decoders in 14 locos, when what I have serves my needs very well. I don't LIKE cleaning track, but I knock it out in about 15 minutes when I need to, so it's not something that sucks the joy out of the hobby. Installing tech just because the tech is available isn't necessarily an improvement. Touchscreens in cars are fine when you're parked, but when I'm bouncing down the road at a nice clip, I want a nice button I can push, or a knob I can turn.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

But you’re not bouncing down the road when you are operating your layout, so that example is not even close to being relevant to the discussion….


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

But I agree if dcc is ever going to be revamped, it would need some compatibility maintained. Or some kind of way to not require all the decoders to be replaced.

My thinking though is more to do with architecture.

To me the track signals, the packaging of a command over that and the actual commands could be seperated...

That way one might be able to more easily move to say wireless or heck whatever the latest thing is... To send the commands themselves.

To the end user it would just mean maybe even more options ... Without a huge lift in new cabs at least to say change from track to wireless. In fact you might be able to mix and match more products. 

Commands would be abstract and there'd be a dictionary I guess ... Well a list. The list would grow over time perhaps and users or vendors could add their own.

That means you send "bell ring 3s, loco bigsteam7" for sake of illustration. (Note: a button, an icon, a something sends this)

This is converted to an appropriate and efficient and error correcting package or packet, then it's sent over the track or through the air as these are designed.

See everything split up, abstraction for people, common computer friendly representation of it, then different hardware transportations as is desired, etc...

But but but... Maintaining some kind of compatibility or transition or something to existing...

I hadn't thought about that at all... And that's a really good point.


----------



## LocoChris (Jun 26, 2021)

Yes DCC is antiquated. It was developed in the early 1990's, back when computer technology was much more ancient and less user friendly. If you want to check out something more modern, look into RailPro by Ring Engineering (Ring Engineering RailPro). I don't have any RailPro equipment myself, but I've read a lot about it and it seems really cool. Some model railroad clubs use it. One nice thing about it besides the simplicity is that locomotives in a consist communicate with each other over wireless (Bluetooth or something, can't remember), so you don't need to speed match. I'm too invested now into DCC to get into it and the sound options are more limited I think. Plus it is not an open standard, but it is a nice example of what could be if DCC was revamped.


----------



## Thelic (Jan 10, 2018)

I'm not in agreement with the "abstract" comment.

Commands are sent as just that, a command for a numbered function. The decoder designer/programmer is responsible for deciding what a given command does. The framework to do whatever you want is there. Could it use some standardization? Maybe. That's where I think your argument is. Moving this to wireless is still just the same argument.

I also think the NMRA standards may have failed to keep pace with the developments and that's where your getting hung up. Manufacturers have started branching out beyond the standard which leads to incompatibilities, at least on some level, usually for advanced features.

If anything the future in dead rail is for maybe HO and anything larger, but current battery technology is not going to get you far with N scale. Lithium is just not energy dense enough to get meaningful run time from an N scale locomotive while leaving enough room for decoders, speakers, drivetrain, and the all important weights. I don't see N scale getting away from at the very least power being delivered through the tracks. 

And being powered through the tracks is NOT a bad thing. It brings advantages such as unlimited run time and block detection (even modern prototype railroads use some voltage in the rails for detection).

One thing I would like to see more of is like Chris has suggested. Commands being issued wirelessly to both locos and stationary decoders. Moving to wireless commands for locos we could eliminate the need for onboard storage of a lot of data. Why keep the sound package on the loco when we have the bandwidth to just send it the sounds from the command station or computer?

Wireless stationary decoders could be really easy to set up. If we use a Digitrax layout for example there is no reason that you couldn't have everything on Loconet be wireless rather than run Loconet cables all over. Granted its the least of the wiring demons, but its one that isn't necessary. Think of moving all your pushbuttons and panel LEDs to a wireless module that talks to your stationary decoders. In theory you could be down to just track power and an accessory bus.

A real world example. I work with heavy winter plow/sand trucks, we are constantly battling electrical problems due to salt corrosion, ice tugging on wires, etc. Lately the trend has been to move as much of the intra-module communications to wireless, this means only running power and hydraulics to each unit. Slide in sander box? No problem, two hydraulic lines, a single 12V connection, and a wireless controller in the cab suction cupped to the window and you're ready to go. No more running 20+ control lines for lights, chain speed sensors, multiple hydraulic lines. Its all one module sealed and connected wirelessly to the cab.


----------



## Yoppeh7J-UPmp954 (Nov 23, 2014)

This is 2 first 2 paragraphs copied from the NMRA web site. Quit complaining about DCC and get involved in the development of LCC. OpenLCB Needs your input.
*Layout Command Control® (LCC)*

*Layout Command Control*
Model railroaders expect a lot from the electronics on their layouts. They want to automate accessories, simplify operation of their staging yards, have fine control over layout lighting, and build realistic dispatcher panels. Home and club layouts are getting more detailed and complicated, and existing electronics for control systems are having a hard time keeping up.
*Layout Command Control Development*
The process of developing networks and protocols for layout control are not trivial. No small group of individuals are able to fully develop the necessary code, protocols and the like to sucessfully impliment the concept of having complete, integrated control of a layout, be it a simple 4 by 8 foot sheet of plywood to a large complex, multi-deck masterpiece. Using the current open source development process, a group named OpenLCB has stepped up to take on this task. You can find the details of their work, process, organization and even how to participate on their development process at their website located at: https://openlcb.org/. OpenLCB is developing the Standards and providing Technical Notes to support those Standards that will be used in the development of hardware to control a layout.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

dcc is old, but what offers significant new features or reduces $$$
the NMRA accepted the Lenz design; who has a breakthrough solution today?
LCC offers features that are unneeded even on large layouts
wireless communication makes 2-way communication easier but adds circuitry and does not address how power is supplied


newer technology can improve command station and user interfaces 
the railcom dcc 2-way communication features is still not fully developed
2-way communication allowing load (BEMF) feedback makes possible throttles that control acceleration (speed) based on train length and grade


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

DCC -- as a control system -- is not so much "antiquated" as are many of the control systems still being marketed, particularly in the USA.

DCC is "a standard". Until it's replaceable with "a NEW standard", all the other "alternate" systems will remain on the outside, looking in, coming into being, and then fading away. Look at MTH's "DCS". How did that do?

Things like "dead rail", direct wifi control (not via dcc), bluetooth, etc. are all doomed to failure, because (again) there is no "standard", no "universality" or "commonality" between them.

If you look at what the Europeans have done with dcc, it's far more up-to-date.
More flexible.
More "customizable".

For an example of this, let's consider what Severn wrote:
_"there's no "bell command" -- there's just command/function-code F8"_

Not if one uses something like the Roco z21 or Digikeijs DR5000 systems (I reckon there might be one or two others out there that are similar).

The bell becomes _whatever I wish to assign it to be_ -- any "number", or actually no particular "number" at all (at least that I can see on my control surface), but rather an "icon" -- and I can even choose that.

Look at the pic.
Without knowing the "f key number", can you tell which are the headlights?
The number boards?
The long horn?
The short horn?
The bell?
The mute button?








These controls that you see above are not "fixed".
I _created them myself_ -- choosing my own icons, f number, etc.
_I can even reposition them to appear in any order I wish._

And I can do this _independently for every locomotive in the fleet._

The American manufacturers need to pull their control interface designs from the 1990's into the present, as the Europeans have done. User-customizable interfaces, wifi, etc.

It's not dcc that is the problem.
It's the stultified human interfaces that are hobbling it and holding it back.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Old_Hobo said:


> But you’re not bouncing down the road when you are operating your layout, so that example is not even close to being relevant to the discussion….


It's an example of a technological advance that does not improve over the basic, older generation technology, so it's not only relevant but dead on the mark. I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

J.Albert1949 said:


> DCC -- as a control system -- is not so much "antiquated" as are many of the control systems still being marketed, particularly in the USA.
> 
> DCC is "a standard". Until it's replaceable with "a NEW standard", all the other "alternate" systems will remain on the outside, looking in, coming into being, and then fading away. Look at MTH's "DCS". How did that do?
> 
> ...


Thank you for posting a vivid graphical example of something where the addition of technology is detrimental to the user experience. That screen has far too much information on it to be useful. What makes it worse is that it's packed into a small screen 25% smaller than my handheld (if it's a phone), and heavier as well, OR it's on a tablet that is not only much more cumbersome, but much heavier and fatiguing to hold for a long operating session. I can also map the function keys of my DCC system to do something different.... but why bother? They work just fine as is. The human interface of the "antiquated" technology doesn't hold me back; "unnecessary information overload" does. If I want to play with tech widgets, I'll use my computer. When running trains, KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) is the rule.


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

CTValleyRR said:


> It's an example of a technological advance that does not improve over the basic, older generation technology, so it's not only relevant but dead on the mark. I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you.


I think I would disagree and it chives Duan to personal preference. I prefer some physical knobs, sick as volume in the car, or speed for trains. But I greatly appreciate the touch screen for presets, changing inputs etc. Reason being that I can have them clearly labeled and have more of them. Can't do that with the old tech. So yes, it is an improvement. 

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

CTValleyRR said:


> Thank you for posting a vivid graphical example of something where the addition of technology is detrimental to the user experience. That screen has far too much information on it to be useful. What makes it worse is that it's packed into a small screen 25% smaller than my handheld (if it's a phone), and heavier as well, OR it's on a tablet that is not only much more cumbersome, but much heavier and fatiguing to hold for a long operating session. I can also map the function keys of my DCC system to do something different.... but why bother? They work just fine as is. The human interface of the "antiquated" technology doesn't hold me back; "unnecessary information overload" does. If I want to play with tech widgets, I'll use my computer. When running trains, KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) is the rule.


Again personal preference maybe but that screen is very intuitive to me and looks much easier to switch between trains. Heck your even have an image that matches what your running. So if you want to run more than one by yourself I think that would be much simpler. 

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Using a touch screen bouncing around in your car and using it to operate your train layout are the same….?

Not in my world, but I guess everyone’s different….I embrace change….. 😆


----------



## GNfan (Jun 3, 2016)

Thelic said:


> If anything the future in dead rail is for maybe HO and anything larger, but current battery technology is not going to get you far with N scale.


I'm old enough to remember Hot Wheels "Sizzlers", which had a 1970's NiCad which was as a 1/3 height AA. They'ed run for 5 to 10 minutes and then you recharged them from Zinc-Carbon D's. Couldn't something like that work with modern Lithium AA's hidden in N scale box cars?


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

Maybe another way to think about is from an overall feature point of view... such as:


backwards compatible
track and wireless
direct or battery or "Mr fusion"
two way messaging
vendor mix n match
similarly priced to existing
hobbyists can still do things with it too
consist support mix n match

...

I'm assuming it's, whatever is it is, is a standard.


----------



## LocoChris (Jun 26, 2021)

Haha, I don't think there's one thing in this hobby that everyone agrees on.


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

What I get is most people are happy with it. And while I can't say that, I'm not dissatisfied either and do appreciate it's many strengths. I just see it increasingly as impeding further innovation.


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

Severn said:


> What I get is most people are happy with it. And while I can't say that, I'm not dissatisfied either and do appreciate it's many strengths. I just see it increasingly as impeding further innovation.


I would agree with that. I'm not really "happy" with it, but not entirely dissatisfied. I'm frustrated with the offerings and the outrageous prices they are asking for them. For $200 I would expect a more substantial product. The dcs51 feels VERY cheaply made. I get that it's the low cost leader, but $200 is still a lot of coin. I wish companies would put something for the more average home user rather than club layouts or the extreme users. I'm betting there are a lot of folks out there like me that want basic DCC function with 2 or 3 throttle options at a reasonable cost. Enjoying trains with your kids really seems like it would be something in demand. But the cost to get a system with multiple physical throttles just gets absurd. I don't need 10000 functions or 1 eleventy billion users. Just a handful of functions and 2 or 3 users so my kids and I can run trains together. I'm amazed that this doesn't seem to cross their minds. 

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

I'm rather found of an "auto" mode which appears a little in a few products ...


----------



## Thelic (Jan 10, 2018)

GNfan said:


> I'm old enough to remember Hot Wheels "Sizzlers", which had a 1970's NiCad which was as a 1/3 height AA. They'ed run for 5 to 10 minutes and then you recharged them from Zinc-Carbon D's. Couldn't something like that work with modern Lithium AA's hidden in N scale box cars?


Well those would be 300mAh batteries @ 1.2V so they have 0.36 watt hours.

To be safe lets say an N scale loco with sound pulls somewhere around .5A @ 12V or about 6 watts.

You could run a single loco for about 3 and a half minutes on those batteries.

I'm not really keen on tethering a box car to my loco, so lets make it fit in the shell. So lets jam 2 lithium AAA size cells (AA are actually already wider than a narrow hood diesel) into a loco. 900mAh @ 3.6V x 2 = 6.48 watt hours. So a little over an hour. I mean I guess its possible, but that doesn't leave a lot of room for anything else in there and probably actually removes weight compared to the standard frame.

If we could get 2 AA size lithium cells in its a little over 3 hours run time. (3000mAh each).


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

Wireless DCC exists as an add on. As with all wireless things, that added benefit comes with added cost…. And I do not mean in cash. I mean in loss of reliability of signal. For example; do an internet speed test while on wifi. Then run the test while using an ethernet cable. Mine was 35Mbps & 115Mbps. So the cost incurred for the portability benefit was 80Mpbs. 
Not everything loses signal at the same rate, but everything wireless does lose signal & a greater susceptibility to interference. As more things go wireless, the more congested the air gets. Unchecked, some day your EMDs will blast their horns every time the microwave is used. There’s only so much bandwidth. Wireless is beneficial at times. It isn’t the solution for everything. I’ll use a half dozen wireless LEDs due to hurdles, everything else is hardwired or mechanical. Wifi smoke detectors are overwhelmingly beneficial, though need to become rechargeable. Wireless EV charging along roadways would be better than stationary chargers for another example. EVs would get a trickle charge on the fly, eliminating the need for large capacity batteries, & reducing EV cost. That trade off with tip the scales in our favor. But typically wireless is a great loss just for convenience sake… Which is a fancy way of saying “waste.”

DCC has a basic standardization, as stated. There are reasons that standardization is limited. I’m no expert but even I can see why. Leaving more elbow room for manufacturers encourages innovation, at a geometric rate. Not having a “bell command” specifically but rather a series of numbers is more logical in tech coding, more versatile, and adaptive to future change (i.e. what if new locomotives don’t have bells at all in 2060?)
Speed steps are also, I think unofficially, standardly adopted. 
Keeping wiring harnesses color coded a standard is obviously necessary. Keeping F12 the ditch lights or rotary beacon or whatever is not. But the headlight, rear light (which are reversible), the bell & horn all the same function is helpful for everybody, including manufacturers. If you want to go in and map any of those, I think that procedure follows a standard as well. Also, all decoders are shipped having the same pre-set factory address. That’s helpful.

I think DCC (wired or wireless) is about tech peak for train control. Computers have been integrated to some degree. But what’s the next evolution, A.I. control? Might as well take the hobbyist out of the hobby. Go let your brain melt in front of netflix while R2-D2 builds your layout & runs your trains. Nope. Ya can’t improve sliced bread. All tech has a peak in evolution. I don’t think smartphone control will ever become the dominant control method. Heck we’re one Carrington Event away from pushing trains with our hands as it is.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

OilValleyRy said:


> I think DCC (wired or wireless) is about tech peak for train control. Computers have been integrated to some degree. But what’s the next evolution, A.I. control?


it's shouldn't be a question about what tech is used ... but what it can do that can't be done today

DCC economically allowed independent control of multiple locos on the same track


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

gregc said:


> it's shouldn't be a question about what tech is used ... but what it can do that can't be done today
> 
> DCC economically allowed independent control of multiple locos on the same track


Economically you say? DCC in most cases is absurdly overpriced and anything but economical! 

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

vette-kid said:


> Economically you say? DCC in most cases is absurdly overpriced and anything but economical!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


I am curious how much you think it should cost?
Just coming back into the hobby, I found it rather reasonable. 
One can get a used, basic system for under $150, and decoders are only $20 each.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

vette-kid said:


> Economically you say? DCC in most cases is absurdly overpriced and anything but economical!


if it were absurdly priced, there would be no market for it.

from a business perspective, manufacturers should charge what the market is willing to pay.


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

My overall feeling I keep coming back to is dcc is tied to track delivery. Which may well always be the best option for some. I'm a little familiar with one brand of "dcc wireless". It's not dcc over the rf but instead spoofs the dcc signal from the battery to the standard sound decoder, injecting somehow commands from the rf. Or... that's what I got out of an explanation given to me by the designer.

Anyway I just have this idea that if what we think of as dcc which are the commands was decoupled from the delivery system... 

Then there might be multiple standard based choices for you to choose from on in the marketplace. So maybe track signalling for you but Bluetooth for your friend. And maybe even these could be mixed on the same layout... Or I think that's be a good goal in such a utopian design.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Severn said:


> My overall feeling I keep coming back to is dcc is tied to track delivery.


i think you're understanding that DCC only describes the electrical interface over the track between the command station which also provides power and the decoders, some in locos. venders can decide what the "codes" do (e.g. lights, bell, ...) and how to label buttons on their controllers

many people have issues with the user interface (e.g. what do the buttons do) which is not defined by DCC. NCE defined a "cabbus" between it's command station and controllers (human interace), locoNet is used by DigiTrax. JMRI supports several smartphone WiFi interfaces between applications on a PC or Raspberry Pi that know how to communicate to NCE, DIgiTrax, ... systems using a vender specific interface (often serial)

DCC++ is a DIY Arduino based command station that connects to the track to control DCC locomotives


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

BobT said:


> I am curious how much you think it should cost?
> Just coming back into the hobby, I found it rather reasonable.
> One can get a used, basic system for under $150, and decoders are only $20 each.


The key word there is "used" new systems range from $200 (digitrax) to $400 or more. Many places are charging nearly $150 extra for a sound decoder! I'm sorry, no way the additional hardware for sound justifies the additional $100+ over a basic decoder. 

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

gregc said:


> if it were absurdly priced, there would be no market for it.
> 
> from a business perspective, manufacturers should charge what the market is willing to pay.


Oh I get that. The problem though is that it's short sighted. The bulk of the hobby right now is retired, older gentlemen (sorry fellas, it's life) with disposable income. That however, tends to price the younger crowd out of the hobby. This has been discussed here many times. Market something useful at a price a family man could justify spending on his kids and himself and my bet is you would sell a ton of them. Most just aren't willing/ able to spend $1000+ on a basic multi train setup. 

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

Severn said:


> My overall feeling I keep coming back to is dcc is tied to track delivery. Which may well always be the best option for some. I'm a little familiar with one brand of "dcc wireless". It's not dcc over the rf but instead spoofs the dcc signal from the battery to the standard sound decoder, injecting somehow commands from the rf. Or... that's what I got out of an explanation given to me by the designer.
> 
> Anyway I just have this idea that if what we think of as dcc which are the commands was decoupled from the delivery system...
> 
> Then there might be multiple standard based choices for you to choose from on in the marketplace. So maybe track signalling for you but Bluetooth for your friend. And maybe even these could be mixed on the same layout... Or I think that's be a good goal in such a utopian design.


I dint think this is correct. Look at the MRC loco genie. It's simply a wireless receiver built into the decoder. And its completely viable. You would just need a controller with the ability to select an address rather than individual remotes. I surprised there isn't more like that out there. The MRC and XL Systems offerings can also work on DC. Set the power to 70% or greater and use the remote and it functions just like a dcc layout. You just have a remote for each loco. They are a good option and work rather well. But having 10 remotes is a bit cumbersome. 



Loco Genie<sup>TM</sup>





Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

vette-kid said:


> I think I would disagree and it chives Duan to personal preference. I prefer some physical knobs, sick as volume in the car, or speed for trains. But I greatly appreciate the touch screen for presets, changing inputs etc. Reason being that I can have them clearly labeled and have more of them. Can't do that with the old tech. So yes, it is an improvement.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


Well, yes, obviously, it's a matter of personal preference. It always is. My objection isn't to the application of technology. It's to the assumption that something MUST be better because it uses newer, flashier technology. Like touchscreens in cars (which I'll throw out there again precisely because it gets Old Hobo's panties in such a wad).

I'd also argue that cramming more buttons into the same space isn't a good thing -- anything that make it harder to find and hit the right button without having to focus your attention on the controller isn't -- and yes, you COULD easily use a label maker or computer printed label to add labels to your handheld, if you were so inclined.


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

I tend to agree on this one, the newer technology is often harder and more expensive to repair as well. I want a quality product built to last and what does what I want it to do easily. I do not want to have to buy a new product each time something breaks down if at all possible.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

There seems to be confusion about physical equipment and a DCC standards specification. No where in the DCC standards does it say anything about how the throttle should look and operate, DCC is only a communication standard and that's why its lasted so long and will continue to last. It makes your buying of equipment much easier, in that if its DCC it has to meet the DCC standards. You can argue over which system is best, or that "DCC" needs to be replaced, but really do you think people are going to throw out all the decoders and buy a new non standard communication spec decoder that is different for different manufactures? Having a DCC standard spec is what makes DCC universal.


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

No I think someone above mentioned it and any new fancy spec which I think has nothing specifically to do with whether you're using a flat panel or steam punk lever and dial controller ... As these would just implement this fantasy spec... 
But that there'd need to be a backwards compatibly aspect to it.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

One of the major reasons a hobbist selects DCC for
their layout control system is it's simplicity...DCC is very
easy to set up...and very easy to operate. That basic
feature must be maintained. However, those who are
tech minded and wish to widen the capabilities of the
system should have readily available devices that can
be easily added to the basic DCC controller. It would
seem unwise to permit 'alternate' designs to conflict
with the NMRA standards. The result would be proprietary 
designs that are not easily compatible with other makes. That
would bring chaos to the model train market.

Don


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 19, 2013)

DonR said:


> The result would be proprietary
> designs that are not easily compatible with other makes. That
> would bring chaos to the model train market.


Agreed. Just like the PC world before the PCI standard came along in 1992. Sure most PCs were "IBM compatible", but if you had a Gateway brand PC, for example, you had to buy Gateway cards. And every maker had their own ideas about assigning peripheral/device interrupts.


----------



## LocoChris (Jun 26, 2021)

DonR said:


> One of the major reasons a hobbist selects DCC for
> their layout control system is it's simplicity...DCC is very
> easy to set up...and very easy to operate.
> 
> Don


I wouldn't say it's very easy. DC is very easy. DCC has a learning curve because of the CV programming. Granted you don't HAVE to do CV programming but for anything beyond the most basic setup, you do. Even for just controlling the volume of the locomotive (and there are separate CV's to control the volume of each type of sound usually). That doesn't seem super easy to me. It's definitely flexible though, beyond a doubt.


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

If you just want to run trains it's easy

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## LocoChris (Jun 26, 2021)

vette-kid said:


> If you just want to run trains it's easy


If controlling the locomotive volume and speed matching locomotives to use them in a consist is considered part of "running trains" then I wouldn't say it's easy. Then there's the fact that each locomotive manufacturer has different CV's depending on what decoder they use. You end up having to go online to learn how to do it. Once you learn, then yeah it's pretty easy.


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

Isn't volume a standard CV? Why isn't there a hard key for volume on controllers? 

I would argue that consists and asked matching are advanced features. The basic use is just simple independent control of 2 or more trains. 

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

I prefer to push my trains around by hand. 

After that, I don't mind the good, plain ol' transformer control with 3-rail track, because there is no such thing as a reverse loop (at least, not in electrical terms). 

But DCC? Don't know if anyone has heard the greatest technical revolution in the modern age, but it is............... a double-pole, double throw, center-off electrical switch!!!!

Your preferences/results may vary!


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

I have read this thread and have thought about DCC for years, but never implemented it. I get the issue of sending signal over the track, but the hardwired connection of the track does offer a speed advantage, as someone above pointed out. Before I retired I was a computer technologist and trchnical lead person for a city, and we avoided wireless whenever possible, as it is slower and possible to intercept and hack. So, the track signals are fast and secure in a world where hackers will mess with anything at all just to be messing with it or holding your railroad for ransom.

I haven't done dcc yet, because every time I almost pulled that trigger I realized I could buy a lot of passenger cars instead. N scale. Now I have macular degeneration, with poor close up vision, and DC is probably all I can do. I don't want anyone hacking my trains either.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

vette-kid said:


> Isn't volume a standard CV? Why isn't there a hard key for volume on controllers?
> 
> I would argue that consists and asked matching are advanced features. The basic use is just simple independent control of 2 or more trains.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


NEM DCC communication standards were set up before sound decoders were available and NMRA adopted most NEM basic standards.

Global volume control is not a standard CV. You also have individual volume CVs for control of sound effects on many brands. Other CVs often have to be adjusted or set before individual volume control can be performed.

Lighting CVs are another non standard CV except for headlight and there are many lighting controls on modern decoders.


----------



## Fifer (Apr 21, 2011)

When will we see the frame of the loco as the battery for that loco long with wireless control and charging as it goes around the track?
Mike Fifer


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

I don't know but its an interesting idea. is there enough braking to charge a battery when you run it? maybe? and i guess you can charge a little from the wireless signal too.


----------



## Djsfantasi (Mar 19, 2019)

I think you’re not seeing the picture. DCC is so flexible that it is difficult to become antiquated. The fact the control is via functions rather than a concrete assigned function makes it programmably extensible and hence NOT antiquated by definition. Someone who is more concrete in thought might see it as antiquated but someone more abstract with a programming background will find it very powerful.


----------



## Fifer (Apr 21, 2011)

Severn said:


> I don't know but its an interesting idea. is there enough braking to charge a battery when you run it? maybe? and i guess you can charge a little from the wireless signal too.


I think it would be totally do-able as Wunderland does this with vehicles on it's layout.
Mike


----------



## NickelPlate (11 mo ago)

Having just recently jumped on board to DCC myself, doing a lot of research I'd have to say it does seem antiquated. Here are my thoughts as a DCC newbie so far:

I have an NCE Power Cab on loan and it's my first foray in DCC. The train control is great and the system works but fumbling through menus on a 2x16 LCD (or whatever small size it is) seems limiting and old school. The Pro Cab handheld itself has a nice feel, but the rotary knob is junk and I don't even use it. Going wireless is expensive, you have to buy NCE's RB02 base station and one of their wireless cabs to the tune of $400 to $500 more. There is this option WifiTrax, but that requires the latest Cab firmware and the handheld I got loaned is running a really old firmware version even though it came packaged with a manual for the newest version 1.65. In spite of this, NCE won't send me a free firmware upgrade chip which leaves a bad taste in my mouth for them as a company. Charging for firmware updates these days is BS IMHO. And no firmware upgrade port? You have to buy a through hole DIP PIC microcontroller for $32.95, open up the cab and install it yourself. Talk about antiquated. Most chip manufacturers have phased out through hole processors years ago. Everything is surface mount now. They need a redesign.

I'm going to try a Digitrax system next. Probably the Zephyr. The only problem though is they don't have increment and decrement buttons for speed like NCE which I actually like over using a knob. Digitrax support told me the Zephyr can control multiple trains simultaneously but wherever the throttle is currently set will take affect as soon as you key in the next loco you want to control. To me that means you can't maintain consistent speeds when switching between trains using one throttle which is a deal breaker. And I do not want to have to buy 4 throttles to control 4 trains, that's just crazy. They're LNWI module is very cost effective and works well with wi-throttle. But I don't have any experience with wi throttle. I have another thread going on about that in this forum.

At this point I'm seriously considering just building my own DCC++ EX system using the freely available open source software and Arduinos. For under $100 you can have a command station and wifi module that allows control using wi-throttle and ties in with JMRI for really advanced functions. And the developers seem to be committed to updates and fixing bugs.


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

I built the original dcc plus plus, use jmri which is ok.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

Use a digitrax EVO starter system, it uses encoder rotary dials instead of pot so as you switch loco's you won't get a sudden speed change.


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

As I mentioned in your other thread, I think you should look into LC-DCC. you can have it loaded on your phone, tablet and/or computer. Less than $50 depending on how you build it and the enclosure. It works well, just the lack of physical throttle i is the turnoff for me. 



Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## NickelPlate (11 mo ago)

I started serious model railroading back in the early 90s when DCC was just beginning. I haven't looked at using it at all until now and frankly I'm amazed it hasn't advanced as much as I would have thought. I'm not being critical, the stuff we have available now works and works well but to me the ideal DCC system is a modernized, single box which contains all of the necessary electronics and functions plus built in display, wireless support for wifi and bluetooth apps, and wireless handheld throttles out of the box. No need to have to buy a bunch of add on modules, bare circuit boards with no enclosures or on/off switches, 3rd party mods and such and string them all together with a mess of wires that you have to hide and secure, all to the tune of $800 or more. Probably a pipe dream, but one can always wish. I'm eager to see what TCS comes out with.


----------



## NickelPlate (11 mo ago)

vette-kid said:


> As I mentioned in your other thread, I think you should look into LC-DCC. you can have it loaded on your phone, tablet and/or computer. Less than $50 depending on how you build it and the enclosure. It works well, just the lack of physical throttle i is the turnoff for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


I'll take a look thanks again for the suggestion. For now I just decided to bite the bullet and buy the firmware upgrade chip from NCE. I won't have wireless but at least I'll be able to save 6 different locos to memory and switch between them and have the option to use the wifitrax board in the future for controlling from a tablet.


----------



## FlightRisk (Dec 6, 2019)

DCC++EX has been moving forward at a pretty good clip. With EX-RAIL automation and the new multiple motor controller/district option, it will run the entire layout. I think once people see what EX-RAIL can do regarding running any kind of turnout, signals, LEDs, and responding to sensors to manage routes and sequences, it will change the way they think about running a layout. It integrates with Engine Driver and JMRI. Picture setting up sequences like "at sensor 1, switch the turnout, set the signal to green, put down the gate" and when the loco hits the sensor, all that happens. Or setting routes for different locos to run and how fast they should go, what things happen on the track, and then you press the route button on jmri and let the train an the layout run. If you have multiple trains running, you can take control of any of the locos and run them for a while, then hand them back off to run automatically. If you run a loco, the other locos that are running under automation, know how to not crash into you 

Fred
DCC-EX


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

Fred I was looking at the code. I'm adding a adafruit current sensor to my uno+pololu original dcc plus plus. I saw your post of a similar topic about 2? Yrs ago on the GitHub issues area. I wonder if you get it to work? I have one sensor installed. It works. It's ina219 based one. I only put it on the programming track. I modified the original "check monitor" class to use it and well,it seems to work fine. I'm getting ready to modify the original sendcv method to use the ina for the programming track. Even though I'm still using the old code base I've found the dcc ex info to be invaluable ...


----------



## FlightRisk (Dec 6, 2019)

We did do a lot of work with current sensors. We have code built into the CS now that allows you to computer a "current sense factor" for the sensor based on its volts per amp reporting and then to get a base reading to know if it is a bi-directional sensor that has 0 current at 2.5V (for a 5V sensor) with max positive current at 5V and max negative at -5V or one that goes 0 - 5V.

The problem is always dealing with so many variables. What is the sensitivity? What is the precision? What range do we need to detect. For example, it is easy to sense ACK pulses on a programming track when you only will have a max of 2A, but if you are trying to read a range from 0 to 10A, that presents challenges.

The INA219 is I2C based, so it needs to read data rather than an analog voltage. We can read I2C devices, but that would be too slow for what we need it to do. It would be interesting to see what you did to get it to work and if it would fit in our HAL system that abstracts all the hardware through a common interface. We could easily write a driver for it, which keeps things out of the core code.

"Ash++" in our Discord channel (and DCC-EX team) has probably done the most detailed work on testing current sensors and calibrating to come up with a current sense factor. If you are on our Discord, you can reach out to him. I would love more people trying out the combinations.

Fred


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

I have no DCC and haven't had a layout since about 2007. If I build a layout with two separate tracks, would I need two DCC systems?


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

No.


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

Thanks.


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

I believe I'm detecting the ack pulse with it on the programming track. Im using an uno, and I set the i2c clock to 400 khz. My ack pulse code is not clean yet though and imperfect. If it turns out to be too slow and I wondered about that after I got it -- I'll buy whatever to make it work. For example, as I understand it, some Arduinos will support i2c up to something like 1+ mhz. This particular board by adafruit I believe will go there. 

All in all i'm construing this effort as ... fun...


----------

