|
|
Post by valenciajim on Jan 11, 2015 18:56:04 GMT -8
Maybe it is just me, but I found this a bit ironic. At the top of the cover it says, "Benefits of Digital Command Control p70." On Page 70 there is an article by Larry Pucket, MR's new DCC Corner columnist, entitled, "DCC-is it time to get off the fence?" The article touts the benefits of DCC and if you read between the lines, it says DC is obsolete. The concluding paragraph in the article says, "Hopefully, this [article] will help get some of you who have who have been contemplating DCC off the fence and on the road to discovering the increased enjoyment that DCC can bring to your model railroad operations." I must admit, that I agreed with most everything the article said. Then I flipped to the back cover where there is an MRC ad for their "Freedom One" unit, which operates under DC. Basically it is a DC decoder that "adds enormous capabilities to DC". The ad goes on to say in bold print, "No DCC system to buy. No manual and programming to delve into. And you'll be using your existing DC power pack." I'll bet the folks at MRC who paid a bunch for the back cover advertisement appreciated the article on Page 71.  |
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jan 12, 2015 2:15:35 GMT -8
Maybe it is just me, but I found this a bit ironic. At the top of the cover it says, "Benefits of Digital Command Control p70." On Page 70 there is an article by Larry Pucket, MR's new DCC Corner columnist, entitled, "DCC-is it time to get off the fence?" The article touts the benefits of DCC and if you read between the lines, it says DC is obsolete. The concluding paragraph in the article says, "Hopefully, this [article] will help get some of you who have who have been contemplating DCC off the fence and on the road to discovering the increased enjoyment that DCC can bring to your model railroad operations." I must admit, that I agreed with most everything the article said. Then I flipped to the back cover where there is an MRC ad for their "Freedom One" unit, which operates under DC. Basically it is a DC decoder that "adds enormous capabilities to DC". The ad goes on to say in bold print, "No DCC system to buy. No manual and programming to delve into. And you'll be using your existing DC power pack." I'll bet the folks at MRC who paid a bunch for the back cover advertisement appreciated the article on Page 71. I have notice such articles before..MR touts a given agenda and when things slow you see another push for that agenda.MR been like that for as long as I can remember.DC is far from dead and will be around for years to come. IMHO for small one horse layouts MRC Tech 6 is still hard to beat for DCC/Sound operation. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jan 12, 2015 9:11:56 GMT -8
The depths of DC deadness depends on how you assess it. Sure, lots of installed infrastructure and a nearly century long glut of DC models (omitting those AC Lionel offerings) means there's plenty of it around. On the other hand, name the many DC-only new items introduced in the market in recent years...yeah, what little there is tends to be ways to adapt DC to the DCC-dominant marketing environment, in other words, something just like what the Decoder Dr does. Or the Tech 6. I doubt anyone has to push users to join in DCC at this point. Manufacturers' behavior all points toward a large and growing market share. They make the stuff, it sells and they make more. For example, where's the replacement for the MRC CM20? It probably doesn't even exist on the drawing board. I suspect like many DC items, it was discontinued because the quantities the factory probably requires to make it at an affordable cost are so large that the sales demand for DC would take several years to absorb and they don't want to tie up their capital that long. So there will be no more CM20s, although I'm pretty sure it could still be built. DC isn't dead, just fighting to keep from being placed in the retirement home.  |
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Jan 12, 2015 10:59:58 GMT -8
DC isn't dead, just fighting to keep from being placed in the retirement home. Broadway Limited now only produces models with their Paragon II sound/DCC. They said the numbers for the DC or DCC ready model was so low, they no longer offer those models. I want to say another manufacturer said that sound/DCC models form the majority of reservations. DC or DCC ready models may soon fad into the sunset too. BLI is the first to put the nail in factory DC models, once an Athearn, Atlas, Bowser, Intermountain, Rapido, etc. put a second nail in the coffin, it will Katy bar the door for the dropping of the DC/DCC ready platform. It makes sense with rising prices, that you standardize on one operating platform for your chassis. In this case it will be sound/DCC as the platform. |
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Jan 12, 2015 15:54:14 GMT -8
Well, I wouldn’t say DC only operations are dead, but their days are waning. It’s a generational thing; the young people in the hobby are face with the DCC “option” that simply wasn’t there years ago. That’s not to say that some young people won’t choose DC over DCC, but they have the option that older generations didn’t (ergo DC was what they used). I thought someone was going to mention the surprisingly “grainy” photo used for this month’s cover shot. Yes, it was taken by the author of the article, but I think the shots on either page 51 or 54 would have been slightly better for the cover. And while I’m being overly critical (yes, Mark, you are!), you can see what appears to be a camera left on the layout in the background of the two-page photo on pages 58 to 59. It’s either a camera or a black leather sheathed building! Seriously, I still like reading MR and enjoy the magazine for what it is rather than get disappointed at what it is not. Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Jan 12, 2015 20:33:33 GMT -8
Well, this is one of the reasons I no longer buy MR. I have never agreed with MR's agenda (this is the same bunch of lunatics' magazine that has put in print that it is not necessary to completely strip clearcoat off a brass model prior to painting--which was definitely not the opinion of my painter friend who wrote an article for them just a few years ago--into which they inserted their unwanted editorial opinions).
I do use MRC products like the Sound Controller 2.0, which is a DC system that provides many of the features of DCC--including the ability to program DCC cv's--without being DCC. When I have to run a DCC-equipped engine, I can--piece of cake--and it's easier to use than real DCC systems.
Since I consider DCC/sound-equipped engines to be basically a luxury item that I cannot really afford and don't need, I completely disagree with MR.
I don't even open MR anymore to look at it in the store. I find other magazines to be more useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Jan 12, 2015 20:53:22 GMT -8
Perhaps sound/DCC was the majority of BLI's reservations--but I think the other guys are actually selling a lot more product than BLI right now (definitely in the particular stores I frequent), and as a result of BLI's position there are folks avoiding them entirely in their purchasing plans.
When I have sold (my lightly used) BLI Paragon II sound/DCC equipped engines on Ebay, I actually received complaints from would-be customers who were adamant that they wanted DC-only engines instead, and were looking for the older BLI DC versions.
|
|
|
|
Post by umtrrauthor on Jan 13, 2015 16:44:45 GMT -8
And then there are us in-betweeners who run both DCC and DC. Thanks to a handy DPDT switch under the layout, I can choose one or the other to use (only one at a time, of course). Engines not worth the conversion, or those that are worth it but are still in the queue, can still be run if I'd like.
I haven't read the DCC piece in the February MR yet, and I doubt that I will. I'm finding the DVD of back issues much more interesting. I'm all the way up to November 1940. War is coming...
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Jan 14, 2015 6:54:14 GMT -8
The article you reference is clearly propaganda in its most blatant form. Most motors are DC. So DC is not going away, the question is how you provide power and control the DC motor. In this case, I will state the best system is engines with decoders in them. But DCC is not it. With the decoder in the engine, the pulse signal is between the decoder and the motor. The signal in the track should be nothing or constant. This minimizes signal transients that confuse the decoders. DCC is not that. In addition, the maximum motor power is reduced by 25 percent, assuming you get the full 16 volt DC range. With most DCC systems you do not get the full 12 volts. You get a start voltage around 4 volts, so now were down to half the potential power range. The best system is the most power efficient. DCC is not that. Your putting a constant total amplitude of 30 volts of which your using at most 12. There has got to be a better way. I've had the oppertunity to repair many engines that suffered from that inefficiency. The reason the BLI DC units did not sell is they had a start voltage around 8 volts and tended to jack rabbit start. Clearly would not play well with other units. What is likely driving the DC only reduction is the decoder/sound manufacturers requiring it. My system is the best, I won't let you use it if you sell DC only models. It may also be a defense ploy. How likely is a buyer going to change something in a model, if he paid $400 for it and the change negates any manufacturer liabilities. I think most people will modify their DC only model to put in the system of their choice. Because a decoder in the engine is a good idea, but it should be the best one for you. Larry www.llxlocomotives.com |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jan 14, 2015 7:36:23 GMT -8
The article you reference is clearly propaganda in its most blatant form. Most motors are DC. So DC is not going away, the question is how you provide power and control the DC motor. Well, duh, never thought of it like that ...but it's a little like saying steam power is best because that's what nuke plants run on. There's a big difference between coal-fired and those hot rods o' poison. I'll certainly agree that there was nothing new in the article and it sounded a lot like last-minute filler. In this case, I will state the best system is engines with decoders in them. But DCC is not it. Ah, now don't hold back. Tell us what's best, unless it's classified info. With the decoder in the engine, the pulse signal is between the decoder and the motor. The signal in the track should be nothing or constant. This minimizes signal transients that confuse the decoders. DCC is not that. Well, tell the folks at Lionel, too.  Then there's pulse power and a few other waveforms. This is starting to sound like an argument between Edison and Tesla, though, speaking of the 19th century... In addition, the maximum motor power is reduced by 25 percent, assuming you get the full 16 volt DC range. With most DCC systems you do not get the full 12 volts. You get a start voltage around 4 volts, so now were down to half the potential power range. Here I'm not sure how relevant this even is unless you're doing the Gomez Addams thing and need to get everything up to full speed before the big crash...Just how much time DO you spend at full throttle? BTW, maybe someone is losing out because that can't reach warp speed with full throttle, but for many model railroaders that's largely irrelevant. Most of my DCC decoders are CV-set to limit top speed substantially. Nobody goes anywhere in a hurry in the mountains on the rails, so why should my trains? And I set maximum output on the system itself at 12.5 volts to limit potential issues from overheating and further limit top speed. The best system is the most power efficient. DCC is not that. Your putting a constant total amplitude of 30 volts of which your using at most 12. There has got to be a better way. I've had the oped tuning to repair many engines that suffered from that inefficiency. I'm not quite sure what "oped tuning" is (although the local newspaper could benefit from that on their editorial page). You MUST be a high-speed rail modeler, though, given your obsession with speed. Sometimes you want maximum performance, but it's usually a happy medium that keeps everyone on track. The reason the BLI DC units did not sell is they had a start voltage around 8 volts and tended to jack rabbit start. Clearly would not play well with other units. Aren't all dual-mode (DC or DCC) decoders pretty much set this way? Or did BLI put some extra gooey mojo in theirs? What is likely driving the DC only reduction is the decoder/sound manufacturers requiring it. My system is the best, I won't let you use it if you sell DC only models. It may also be a defense ploy. How likely is a buyer going to change something in a model, if he paid $400 for it and the change negates any manufacturer liabilities. I think most people will modify their DC only model to put in the system of their choice. Because a decoder in the engine is a good idea, but it should be the best one for you. Larry www.llxlocomotives.comHmm, last time I checked, even in China decoder mfgs can't force you to buy their product. I suspect the change is due to something decidedly more capitalist and prosaic...more and more, people simply are buying DCC-equipped products in preference to DC offerings. People have been changing locos and other rolling stock around for a long time in this hobby. If one worries about such things, there is a simple solution...wait 90 days or a year and the problem is solved...warranty expired...hack away. Note that I'm having some fun here and don't take any of it too seriously. DC will still be around until the Imperial Storm Troopers have made their last black helicopter-enabled foray to pry a DC loco from the hands of the last DC modeler.  |
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Jan 14, 2015 10:48:09 GMT -8
Mike, No offense taken. The issue on speed pertains to the conflict between sound, low speed and power to pull a train. Most recent HO models, my primary experience base, do the first two very well, but are very poor with the latter. You say, I can just add engines, yes, but the speed is down with the pulling power. Most real modern locomotivies can do 70 - 80 MPH. When & if they do it depends on lots of factors, but they have the capacity. Recent Models tend to run around 60 SMPH, engine only, at 12 volts. Thus with DCC they do not have the capacity to replicate the real thing. Adding a train or any other kind of resistance will slow the speed down further. Adding engines will not improve that. More power will. With a good control system you decide the maximum speed you want to run. With the limitations with DCC and sound you take what you get. My experience with dual mode decoders is not the same. The ones I've tested seem to handle the classic DC signal well and start as well or better than engines with out a decoder. They tend to get confused if your sending a pulse wave from a DC power supply. Larry www.llxlocomotives.com |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jan 14, 2015 11:53:01 GMT -8
So we're still wanting to know what's best since "DCC is not that". Don't worry, I've got clearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Jan 14, 2015 12:15:22 GMT -8
 Model Railroder has also been Heavy on Electronics,mainly a part of Linn Wescott's Legacy. could be why MR rarely gets purchased here. MR also never sends POLLS here,so guess there are many others that get missed in their Flawed Surveys. Locos here will stay DC only for running on the Uni-Track here. cant see this changing any time soon. Spikre 
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jan 14, 2015 16:24:58 GMT -8
It looks like MR magazine poked the bear with some people. No biggie.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Jan 14, 2015 20:52:05 GMT -8
BLI's Paragon 2 engines...are just not very good.
The E units should actually be capable of passenger train speeds--of at least 79 smph--in DCC mode. They won't do that.
So what is better than DCC?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jan 15, 2015 3:28:35 GMT -8
The article you reference is clearly propaganda in its most blatant form. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I wouldn't call it propaganda at all..No,its not that. MR pushed the idea of DCC for their DCC advertisers like they have done in the past for other advertisers with infomercial articles. DCC sales may be static or perhaps falling slightly..I see the article for what it truly is-a infomercial for promoting DCC. MRC's and Atlas new power pack and DC/DCC ready locomotives is a clue that DC is still being widely used. For the Atlas pack. www.atlasrr.com/Trackmisc/universalpowerpack.htm I'll mention again my "poor man's" DCC system that gives me all the DCC I want or ever need plus it gives me the option to run my older DC engines..My MRC Tech 6. That was the best $65.00 I ever spent on a power source since buying my first MRC Tech II in the late 70s.. |
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Jan 15, 2015 7:05:07 GMT -8
Larry, that’s a good point about the article and the DCC market. I remember when MR ran articles on building DCC circuit boards back when they were more craftsman orientated. Again, I’m going to say it’s a generational thing; the old guard was/is willing to take on a project (like layout a circuit DCC circuit board) where as the millenials are “plug & play”.
I’m still one of those “on the fence” modelers only because I’m waiting for Moore’s Law to increases the functionality of available decoders while reducing the cost. However, as you said, if sales of DCC slow, we won’t see vast improvements in the technology any time soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamline on Jan 15, 2015 12:09:04 GMT -8
Frankly, the DCC article sounded like it had been in the files for five or 10 years, got dusted off, and plunked into the magazine. Doesn't exactly cover any new ground. Doesn't raise any new ideas.
I would be really curious to know how long the various magazines retain their readers. Is MR really selling to a 75% new group of people every three years? A turnover rate like that would suggest something is seriously wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jan 15, 2015 12:41:38 GMT -8
SNIP I would be really curious to know how long the various magazines retain their readers. Is MR really selling to a 75% new group of people every three years? A turnover rate like that would suggest something is seriously wrong. So long as they stay in the hobby, there's nothing wrong about that, really. Obviously MR could increase its income if the retention rate is higher, but so long as they keep refilling the bucket, it's good for them and the hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jan 15, 2015 12:51:09 GMT -8
I would be really curious to know how long the various magazines retain their readers. Is MR really selling to a 75% new group of people every three years? A turnover rate like that would suggest something is seriously wrong.
-----------------------------------------------
I suspect MR keeps a study customer base of long time readers unlike the old RMC MR does not cater to one base of modelers.I suspect RMC failed because there are less craftsman modelers today.
I suspect there's very little need for modeling crafts in order to enjoy the hobby like years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jan 15, 2015 19:33:24 GMT -8
So long as they stay in the hobby, there's nothing wrong about that, really. Obviously MR could increase its income if the retention rate is higher, but so long as they keep refilling the bucket, it's good for them and the hobby. I agree with Mike. MR is still good for the hobby, even if a few folk here seem to feel they have outgrown it. In some ways I've felt my tastes moved on to some degree in the past 20 year and two magazines moved into my top spots as favorites - Model Railroading and Model Rail Journal - both defunct now and MR is still with us and serving as an an ambassador of the hobby. It's a good thing in my book! |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jan 15, 2015 21:47:46 GMT -8
MR has come to fill a certain niche of beginners guide to everything model railroading in the last couple of decades. That is a good thing, but it's led to a couple of no so good things.
All beginners, all the time, can get pretty stale when the same ground is covered annually.
People then tend to want to distance themselves from it as too unsophisticated for their tastes or simply because there's not much appeal to the more sophisticated side of the hobby.
I subscribe as much for the ads and the occasional narrowgauge pics. I usually don't read every article and find much of what is written relatively unnewsworthy. But consider we live in the internet age. Beginners can find extra help by surfing to MRs own forums and lots of other places like here. On the other hand, with the dearth of LHS to expose people to the hobby, I'm pretty glad MR seems to have stepped up to the plate to expose the hobby to people on newsracks across the country.
Times change and MR isn't like it was of old, for better or worse. As a private business, they have to either adapt or falter. Things we often question are probably decisions made with info beyond what we usually have access to simply as readers. They MUST change or they won't be here with us. The fact that they are speaks to the fact that they have been pretty successful at doing that, as disconcerting as it may be for some of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jan 16, 2015 2:20:14 GMT -8
MR has come to fill a certain niche of beginners guide to everything model railroading in the last couple of decades. That is a good thing, but it's led to a couple of no so good things.
------------------------------------------------
Mike,Guess again..MR has been doing that since the demised of scratch building cars locomotives and Lynn Westcott decided pushing modeling agendas was better and starting in the 70s we started to see the dawn of infomercials covering advertisers and thus statements like "When the painting is finish" was born pushing the idea one should rip up the completed layout and start anew which means one needs to buy new track and scenery material from MR's advertisers..
The old school articles about super detailing a BB engine or a yellow or red box Atlas engine no longer has appeal since we can buy highly detailed RTR locomotives.Even articles on scratch building a correct 5344 boxcar,passenger car or detailing a generic freight car is no longer needed.
The truth of the matter is the hobby grew up and left a lot of old fashion modeling and some old school modelers in its wake.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jan 16, 2015 8:09:52 GMT -8
Larry, I'm not so sure about any demise of scratchbuilding. It's not dead here, anyway, although it's far from being an article of faith that everything must be so on my layout. MR certainly isn't going to force people to quit building stuff, no matter what they cover. And scratchbuilding was even farther from dead in the 70s or 80s. I've made this point before, but it bears repeating. MR covers what is selling in the hobby. Yes, that sometimes coincides with the ad copy, but that ad copy is, once again, about what vendors think will sell...or as Jim/WI said, maybe what's already sold in more recent times since the internet. If they were failing in doing that, they wouldn't be with us any longer. Now, about blaming all this on Lynn W., he retired in 77 IIRC. The stuff you're complaining about, which does happen to a certain degree but is hardly the only thing that MR does, seems to have been mostly after that once Russ Larson took over. Certainly Lynn pushed some things, but generally good ones the hobby needed at the time, like zip texturing, L-girders, and -- GASP! -- electronics. If one wanted to declare the hobby dead, then cut the transistors out and things would be in bad shape pretty darn quick, even with your Tech 6. I was never too interested in moving electrons around, or reading about it either, but I can certainly see how vital it's been to sustaining the hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary P on Jan 16, 2015 8:25:54 GMT -8
..... I was never too interested in moving electrons around, or reading about it either, but I can certainly see how vital it's been to sustaining the hobby. That's me to a "Tee"...  |
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jan 16, 2015 9:16:01 GMT -8
Now, about blaming all this on Lynn W., he retired in 77 IIRC. The stuff you're complaining about, which does happen to a certain degree but is hardly the only thing that MR does, seems to have been mostly after that once Russ Larson took over. Certainly Lynn pushed some things, but generally good ones the hobby needed at the time, like zip texturing, L-girders, and -- GASP! -- electronics. If one wanted to declare the hobby dead, then cut the transistors out and things would be in bad shape pretty darn quick, even with your Tech 6. I was never too interested in moving electrons around, or reading about it either, but I can certainly see how vital it's been to sustaining the hobby. -------------------------------------- Mike,First and foremost I am not complaining just stating what can be easily proved by two or three afternoon of reading back issues of MR..I thought everybody was aware Lynn was a trend setter and pushed better modeling and layout designs as well as nickel silver track and the use of KD couplers over the NMRA designed X2F coupler which of course was never approved by the membership as the NMRA standardized coupler.The early years of infomercial for the benefit of MR advertisers.. Still it was for the betterment of the hobby. How many today would want to scratch build a IHB 0-8-0 or a C&O 0-10-0 from brass or tin stock if they had the needed skills? Scratch building a structure is child's play in comparison. The true craftsmen started disappearing with the importation of brass steam locomotives.We young diesel fans would wait until the likes of Alco Models,Trains Inc and Hallmark gave us nice looking brass diesel---with a KMT crappy drive-in the mid 60s. BTW..If I may share a thought I had recently..I was enjoying my morning coffee while looking at one of my Atlas RS1s and I remembered the brass RS1s I had in the 60s and how far the hobby has come over the years then,I remembered my old Alco RS1 powered Detroit Connecting and how easy it would to duplicate the DC today seeing the same BB cars can still be found at train shows..The only change in that scenario is a smooth running RS1 compared to the coffee grinding Alco Models RS1.. Ah well..To much time on my hands I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by nebrzephyr on Jan 16, 2015 9:22:20 GMT -8
.....I remember when MR ran articles on building DCC circuit boards back when they were more craftsman orientated. Again, I’m going to say it’s a generational thing; the old guard was/is willing to take on a project (like layout a circuit DCC circuit board)...... You mean like this?  I got tried of the lack of options with many of the "factory" light boards so I designed my own, which gives me, among other things, the ability to have selectable voltage for lighting (bulbs, LEDs) via the voltage regulators. Bob  |
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Jan 16, 2015 10:39:56 GMT -8
Let me say up front, I do not believe the hobby is in a death spiral or even ailing that much. It is different because the people and conditions are different. I think it is wrong to link the hobby health to new sales in the hobby. Yes, new sales may indicate a certain amount of growth because the new sales are coming from new hobbiest. However, just as the internet has changed the retail landscape on new sales, it has also changed the landscape on availability of used items. A pretty decent supply of train supplies can be had without any of it coming off the new market. Magazines in general and particular hobby magazines are also suffering from the impact of the internet. People can author books on their own with little up front money. These same endevors may not make any money either, but it certainly changes the playing field for everyone. In the past, Bob's light board would have been published with a bunch of other good ideas in a book. The book would have cost about $20, and some of us would have bought it because it had some good ideas in it. Now you hop on google, find several options for whatever your looking for and go from there. The only cost was liely the cost of your internet service. The playing field has changed. It doesn't mean the hobby is in trouble. Larry www.llxlocomotives.com |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Jan 16, 2015 11:37:47 GMT -8
Dc isn't dead
People who say it should be are missing the point
For small layouts or larger ones with simple track designs DC works just fine.
It cost less
And simple
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Jan 17, 2015 9:26:27 GMT -8
and lets not forget Mr Lynn's numorous articles on getting Mantua Loop couplers to work well for switching in the 50s. then get your Yardbird to run slow enuff to actually switch those cars. Spikre
|
|
I got tried of the lack of options with many of the "factory" light boards so I designed my own, which gives me, among other things, the ability to have selectable voltage for lighting (bulbs, LEDs) via the voltage regulators.
