Responses to “DCC Predictions”

To “Thinking of DCC’s” John Sipple:

Rather than exciting new functions for decoders and systems, what I most want to see in 2007 is a resolution of the many sound decoder-programming problems that exist today. And quick, reliable short circuit recovery when you have many sound locomotives on the layout.

Forums frequently report problems setting addresses and CVs on sound decoders (and sometimes non-sound), where standard programming procedures and systems don’t work, or work right. True interoperability means that all standard programming outputs from DCC systems would be able to set all decoder addresses and CVs (both sound and standard units) without programming boosters or mickey-mouse workarounds.

Even more, the manufacturers need to further simplify and standardize programming procedures so that even neophytes will be successful 9 times out of 10. Perhaps a move from CV numbers to English descriptions on the LCD screen, e.g., CV5 becomes “max. speed.”

My experience with a recent modern diesel with a brand D sound decoder is all too typical. Neither of my brand D programming systems would set a four-digit address. I had to use a friend’s NCE system. After that was done, I could set CVs in direct or ops mode but not the more normal paged mode. Readback of CVs was not reliable and the whole process required several resets to default and starting all over again.

Unless this muddle is resolved, the expansion of DCC control from the initial acceptors to the wide range of less experienced and dedicated railroaders will be difficult, controversial, fraught with bad press, and much slower than it should, given the advantages of DCC control systems for model railroads. Especially given today’s apparent wider acceptance of sound-equipped locomotives.

Please, manufacturers, get your current house in order, and then you can move on to those new and more exciting things.

Roger Thomas
West Windsor, NJ

Thanks for writing, Roger, and I’m largely in agreement. I’ve learned to program on the main about 99 percent of the time because that does away with the program track and the rest of the problems that come with it. Both Digitrax and NCE allow you to reprogram the decoder’s address on the main. I find decoder readbacks to be nearly useless. Instead, I prefer to keep data on a specific locomotive on a job card (3x5 index). I’d like it if every decoder came with a small sticker that gave the company and product designation to be affixed to the bottom for quick reference. DCC is in need of a whole lotta slick or a really easy computer interface, neither of which is here yet. Maybe 2007? — JS

On the January 2007 Issue

I always look forward to the latest issue of Model Railroad News and, as always, I was not disappointed in the January 2007 issue. And, of course, my favorite articles are your product reviews (and I always read the letters).

Which brings me to my subject, the locomotives that I would like to see come from the manufacturers. One of the letters in this issue, “Big Boys Not the Only Big Locos,” does not really address the issue which concerns me (there are already lots of Big Boys, Cab Forwards, Challengers, etc.). What we are lacking are the smaller locomotives, so you hit the nail on the head in your “DCC Predictions for 2007,” in which you mention 2-6-0s, 4-6-0s, 2-8-0s, 2-6-2s, 4-4-2s, etc.

Personally, because I model the Southern Pacific, I would like to see some of the smaller Harriman locomotives, which were also used by the Union Pacific. Some years back Model Die Casting (Roundhouse) came out with prototypes of the Harriman locomotives, particularly the 4-6-0 Ten Wheeler (but falsely placing that same boiler on 4-4-2 and 2-8-0 frames and calling them Harrimans) and the S-11 0-6-0 switcher. Similarly, they came out with a prototype Santa Fe 4-4-2 Atlantic (again, falsely, placing that same boiler on a 2-6-2 Prairie).

Now that Athearn is reissuing many of the Roundhouse products with improved details, etc., I would like to see them reissue the above Roundhouse locomotives ready-to-roll and true to prototype. Of course, Bachmann did come out with a 2-8-0 Consolidation, which turned out to be quite versatile in matching various prototypes (but how do you switch the positions of a sandome with the bell to make it match an SP or UP Consolidation?).

To change the subject, I am presently operating in DC mode rather than DCC; I just have too many locomotives that are DC only (Stewart Diesels, for example), although I will likely change over some day. So I do like the new locomotive that will operate on either DC or DCC. However, I will not pay the $100 premium to have sound (thus, I like the “stealth” versions), again because I have so many locomotives that do not have sound and I don’t intend to retrofit sound.

Jim Case
Cedar City, UT

Small locos are always popular, Jim. Perhaps the biggest problem with them is the lack of standards outside of the USRA types (explaining their support among manufacturers). Not to be an apologist for Athearn or anyone else, but if they tried to produce spot-on versions of Roundhouse upgrades, they’d only be making a few hundred of each, and so the prices would go through the roof! Which is easier? Pay a couple of hundred to get one the way you want it? Or you could buy one, pry off both parts, and reinstall them as you wish. Virtually all silent DCC decoders work just fine on DC power as well as DCC; see “Thinking of DCC” in this issue. — Ed.

Model Railroad Costs

For the past year or so I have been reading letters in the RPO column about the high cost of our hobby keeping kids from starting out in it. Recently I noticed an ad in Model Railroader that got me thinking about this. Back in the “good old days” (the mid 1950s) when I first got into HO, my first purchase was a Mantua 0-4-0 kit. It cost about $15 plus another $3 for the valve gear kit. I never could get the valve gear to work right and finally gave up on it, so let’s say $15 for a entry level engine. The ad I saw was for a similar engine for $40, assembled, with valve gear that presumably works.

At the time I was buying that first engine, the minimum wage was 75 cents an hour, so the typical teenager with a part time job would have worked 20 hours to earn that $15 engine. Today the minimum wage is more like $5.25 per hour, so today’s teen would only have to work 7-3/4 hours to buy the $40 modern equivalent. It seems to me that it should be a lot easier to get started now. Not only do you work less time to buy it, but you don’t have to spend hours of frustration trying to get it to work.

Ed Ahrenhoerster
Hartford, WI

I agree completely, Ed! — Ed.

DCC Question

To “Thinking of DCC’s” John Sipple:

I have just changed to a DCC system and now I hear you talking about DCC vs. DC. What is the difference? What do the letters stand for? Thanks for your column. 

Ted Uren
Myrtle Creek, OR

Hi Ted, since you’ve already made the change, you should know that DC stands for Direct Current, a designation applied by Thomas Edison back in the 1880s. This means that in a basic circuit, the flow of electrons goes in only one direction.

DCC stands for Digital Command Control. It uses AC, which means Alternating Current, a designation applied by George Westinghouse in the 1880s. AC has the current flowing one direction briefly and then in the other direction, back and forth. In DCC, this AC power doesn’t use just a set AC frequency such as a wall power socket which changes direction 60 times each second. Instead, DCC (which was invented by Bernt Lenz around 1990) varies the frequency in order to send messages between you and the locomotive’s decoder, a small computer device installed in the locomotive. 

DC is fairly primitive, being the basis for Electric Trains going back a hundred years. DCC lets you control the locomotive instead of the track. — JS

Flaky Question

Can you help with a question on my HO layout?

A number of years ago, after some experimentation, I standardized on KATO ASF Ride Control trucks, (their #31-601). They roll superbly well. Some 250 or my freight cars are equipped with these KATO trucks. Kadee and a few other manufacturers trucks are on a handful of my other freight cars.

Question: Am I the only person in the model-railroading world that has experienced partial “flaking off” of the plating on the rolling surface of many of the wheels on these KATO trucks?

The KATO folks have been more than responsive by repeatedly replacing the trucks I have returned to them for their inspection. However, I have not heard whether the problem is limited to some transient manufacturing problem or some other cause.

My freight cars meet the NMRA weight standards. I am not aware of any operating abuse. 

The other manufacturers’ (Kadee, etc.) trucks installed on a number of other freight cars, which are similarly operated, do not show this type of problem.

Francis J. Tepedino
San Diego, CA

It’s the plating, Frank. We’ve all seen car bumpers where the chrome was peeling off. To my knowledge, most other wheel manufacturers in HO scale do not plate their wheels; hence they don’t have that problem. Plating can deliver a superior smooth rolling surface and is certainly worth the attempt, but any failure in the plating process will have the plating flaking off. — Ed.

A Small Bone to Pick

Just a very, very small bone to pick. Your review of the Roundhouse Critter says the handrails are molded in various colors. Mine are black but factory painted white. I found this out when stripping the paint from the loco, and I didn’t remove the handrails, figuring they would remain white. They didn’t. Regards, and I really like your magazine.

Ken Silva
Brownfield, ME

Ooops! Sorry about that, Ken. — Ed.