When Will DCC become the standard?

[diburning]

I started out doing DCC so it's not really a pain for me to outfit my fleet. It's rather simple for me, buy locomotive, buy decoder, install, done! Hard wiring is not difficult at all.

Locomotives are DCC ready, why? It makes installing a decoder easier, without the costs to the manufacturer to actually put a decoder in. Atlas has tried and failed. Their excuse was that people wanted to use their favorite brands; which is kind of true. Although I will use any brand of decoders, some people swear by Digitrax, NCE, or TCS. I tend to use Digitrax decoders because they are less expensive and do what I need them to do.

It also satisfies the people who don't use DCC. Even if the locos have factory installed DCC, DCC decoders are "backwards compatible" with DC. DCC locomotives will also operate on DC.

By making locos DCC ready with an 8-pin or 9-pin plug (some of Athearn's boards can have both), the manufacturer can get away with catering to both crowds while saving money.

[NYW&B]

I don't beleive you can break this down into something like "The real model railroaders all use DC" or "DCC is a young mans game", or "a rich man's game". I can think of at least a half a dozen modelers, long time hobbyists who have earned their MMR through the NMRA's achievement program. Their skills are beyond question. They all moved to DCC on established layouts. One of them in particular who's layout I operated on in the early 1990's switched over from Dynatrol to NCE. Some of these guys are in their late sixties, a few in their mid to late seventies. I had another good friend who had a completed layout that worked fine on DC and a huge collection of locomotives, brass and others. He elected not to change over, and I agreed with his reasons.

I really don't buy into this theme that creeps into some discussions that "The real model railroaders build kits or scratchbuild, and the rest are just a bunch of guys with deep pockets and no real skills." That may not have been where you were going, but with e-mail you can start one place and get somewhere different than you intended without really trying! That's sort of how it read. It's unnecessarily divisive, and to boot, untrue. We're a small enough group already. Why subdivide us further? If I choose to buy an expensive model that can be plunked down after some weathering and run as is, in order to give me time to do something else, on a layout or a structure, or anything else, that does not make me any less of a model railroader than the guy who scratch builds everything. I envy him his time. I don't have it, so I make do. (lets all remember that John Allen was quite well off financially for that time, and his railroad basically was his job)

I also don't notice anything in the way of an overt tinplate influence at MR. There are less articles from outside contributors now than there used to be, but I still see about the same type of content. RMC is also a good magazine, I prefer it over MR, because there is more modeling in it, but I also see more DCC in it than DC when it comes to layouts and projects.

Alan - My post of yesterday was not about who are the "true" model railroaders, but rather was to point out that traditional hobbyists - those dominating the hobby from its inception through the end of the 1980's - have a totally different outlook on what model railroading is all about. These folks were truly creative craftsmen. Their ilk was also reflected in the editorial staff of magazines like MR and RMC, as well as the magazines' content.

Beginning in the mid to late 1990's the hobby saw a noticeable influx of new blood. The bulk of these were seemingly much more interested in simply running their trains than in the traditional model building aspect, just as had been the Lionel enthusiasts of earlier years. Likewise, the younger element within this new group was deeply interested in electronic/computers and applying variations of these to their newfound hobby. They have also come to dominate the internet forums.

During this period, although MRC's content remained true to the traditional side of the hobby, MR acquired a totally new editorial staff, headed it up with two consecutive Lionel enthusiasts and changed the direction of its content. The content of the magazine dramatically shifted from page after page of modeling and historical articles to being dominated simply by pretty layout pictures and urges to buy-this, buy-that. Compare any 1950-1985 MR with a 2000-2010 issue and the contrast will be clearly illustrated to the reader. All these points are facts easily checked and demonstrated.

This brings me to the basic premise of my earlier post which is not about who is a true model railroader, but instead that the hobby began drawing a decidedly different group of people into it beginning in the late 1990's who approach to it, together with their new sort of buying habits, resulted in a dramatic change in direction and dividing the hobby into two distinct subgroups. For the newcomers, more open to the electronics end and doing more running with less personal ingenuity and foregoing most traditional model building projects, DCC fit right into the scheme.

Now I certainly don't contend that ALL traditional model railroaders shun DCC, only that by percentage they are far fewer and much slower buying into the supposed advantages of DCC (which are much more in the eye of the beholder and his particular approach to the hobby than anything else). I too know some traditional hobbyists who have been into the electronics end of the hobby for years and embraced DCC. But my personal observation has been that they are distinctly in the minority. Far and away the bulk of old-timers I know are still into DC.

A piece in MR a year or so ago claimed that DCC usage had finally reached 50% ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN POLL. However, with the dramatic alteration in content that the magazine had seen in the past decade it had lost a very large portion of its traditional hobbyist readership. If one doubts this just read the endless threads on all the forums during the 2000's about longtime hobbyists dropping their subscriptions to MR. So...it follows that MR's polling would not have been of any true cross section of hobbyists, but likely heavily influenced by the views and practices of the newcomers. I must then ask, just where does that honestly leave DCC's usage today among all hobbyists and what does it say about it in the future?

NYW&B

[montanan]

Alan - My post of yesterday was not about who are the "true" model railroaders, but rather was to point out that traditional hobbyists - those dominating the hobby from its inception through the end of the 1980's - have a totally different outlook on what model railroading is all about. These folks were truly creative craftsmen. Their ilk was also reflected in the editorial staff of magazines like MR and RMC, as well as the magazines' content.

Beginning in the mid to late 1990's the hobby saw a noticeable influx of new blood. The bulk of these were seemingly much more interested in simply running their trains than in the traditional model building aspect, just as had been the Lionel enthusiasts of earlier years. Likewise, the younger element within this new group was deeply interested in electronic/computers and applying variations of these to their newfound hobby. They have also come to dominate the internet forums.

During this period, although MRC's content remained true to the traditional side of the hobby, MR acquired a totally new editorial staff, headed it up with two consecutive Lionel enthusiasts and changed the direction of its content. The content of the magazine dramatically shifted from page after page of modeling and historical articles to being dominated simply by pretty layout pictures and urges to buy-this, buy-that. Compare any 1950-1985 MR with a 2000-2010 issue and the contrast will be clearly illustrated to the reader. All these points are facts easily checked and demonstrated.

This brings me to the basic premise of my earlier post which is not about who is a true model railroader, but instead that the hobby began drawing a decidedly different group of people into it beginning in the late 1990's who approach to it, together with their new sort of buying habits, resulted in a dramatic change in direction and dividing the hobby into two distinct subgroups. For the newcomers, more open to the electronics end and doing more running with less personal ingenuity and foregoing most traditional model building projects, DCC fit right into the scheme.

Now I certainly don't contend that ALL traditional model railroaders shun DCC, only that by percentage they are far fewer and much slower buying into the supposed advantages of DCC (which are much more in the eye of the beholder and his particular approach to the hobby than anything else). I too know some traditional hobbyists who have been into the electronics end of the hobby for years and embraced DCC. But my personal observation has been that they are distinctly in the minority. Far and away the bulk of old-timers I know are still into DC.

A piece in MR a year or so ago claimed that DCC usage had finally reached 50% ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN POLL. However, with the dramatic alteration in content that the magazine had seen in the past decade it had lost a very large portion of its traditional hobbyist readership. If one doubts this just read the endless threads on all the forums during the 2000's about longtime hobbyists dropping their subscriptions to MR. So...it follows that MR's polling would not have been of any true cross section of hobbyists, but likely heavily influenced by the views and practices of the newcomers. I must then ask, just where does that honestly leave DCC's usage today among all hobbyists and what does it say about it in the future?

NYW&B

You made some very good point here. I will agree with you completely about having two different kinds of modelers. I have seen that the people who are new to the hobby do like the are quite different to the hobbiest that has been in it for years. I embrace scratchbuilding, trying to stay true to the era I have chosen to model in, research how industries were operated in my chosen era. I guess I would consider myself a traditional model railroader.
In my travels I have visited many club and home layouts and will agree that many of those that are new to the hobby seem to embrace the new electronics that have been coming into the hobby, such as DCC. I also have found that they seem to be very interested in running trains, but I haven't seen as much detail or weathering, with some exceptions, and in visiting clubs, found that very few of them had their own home layout, reflecting to your point of now having a home to set up a layout.
Also, I have visited amy home layouts, large and small, the majority of which are older modelers. Some, with larger layouts that have weekly operating sessions have changer over to DCC mainly for the easy of having numerous operators to have smoother running sessions. Some moved into DCC readiy, but some had put it off for a long time. Some also complained about the expense, but some who were better off financially had no problem with the change over.
On the other hand, I also visited some modelers who I would class as craftsmen modelers, and they seemed to ne more interested in the extremely fine super detailing of their railroads and no very interested in converting to DCC. To each their own I guess.
I will also have to agree with you about MR magazine. I do still subscribe, but like you said, the content has changed very much in recent years. I find less and less in the magazine that really interests me. Not being into DCC, the amount they print about the subject is of no interest to me. Not having the big bucks available to spend on the hobby that I would like to, a lot of what is in the magazine is only a dream. They do have some atricles that I am interested in, but no where as much as thay had vears ago. I am somewhat disappointed with them.

[Cjcrescent]

...Kits are going away not so much because folks don't want to build them anymore, but (just my own opinion here) many of us are working longer hours and have less and less hobby time.

This is something that I completely don't believe. Back when I was working at UAB, I put in 10-12 hours a day, and was on call to them 24/7/365. During the years I was with them, I can count on one hand when I didn't have a vacation interrupted, a day off interrupted, sick time even interrupted by a beeper call. I STILL was able to build several Westerfield, F&C, Branchline, etc every couple of months. I may not have been able to put much time each day on them, many days none, but I got them done.

When I was still in school, one of my professors stated there was no such thing as a "lack of time". It was more of the case of unwilling to "take the time", to do something. He actually considered it a poor excuse, as we all have just 24hrs in a day, to say we don't have time. How we use that time is up to us. We can be efficient with it, or not. When someone tells me they don't have time, I don't believe it.

Now while I do believe that there are a majority now that don't want to build kits, that's OK, just don't tell me they don't have time.

I remember when Roy Stewart kept telling me that I should build a resistance soldering outfit instead of buying one. My response was "Roy I'm struggling to get a layout built here, and it will never happen if I have to build the tools! I'm building less and less rolling stock kits, and this is giving me time to build the structures I want. I think it all balances out in the end!

Did he give you any plans? I sure do need one, and right now they are TOO expensive for me to buy one. Based on parts needed, I may try to build one. But I need plans to do so. As to rolling stock, I have too many now. My Railops shows 440 cars in the database, but that doesn't include the kits, (about 50 I believe) still to build and a like number to complete.I don't think that my layout can support over 500 cars realistically. I think I need a roundhouse sale!

[diburning]

When I was still in school, one of my professors stated there was no such thing as a "lack of time". It was more of the case of unwilling to "take the time", to do something.

I don't believe that. To me, someone telling me that I am "unwilling to take the time to do something" means that the person is being pretentious and trying to tell you that you should spend your time doing what HE wants you to do, not what YOU want or need to do. He's telling you that what HE wants you to do is more important than everything else and is trying to coerce you into thinking the same.

There are 24 hours in the day, most of us use at least 16 of it. Depending on our personal situations, 16 hours may or may not be enough.

Personally, the amount of time I have varies every week depending on work schedule and whether I have anything planned. I have a list of priorities and it would be a cold day in hell if someone came along and dictated what my priorities are!

I build kits when I have the time. Kits don't go bad, so if I don't have time, it can sit until I do. I don't have a problem buying or building kits. Sometimes they are enjoyable, and sometimes they are frustrating. In the end, I am always satisfied because I built it with my own two hands. If there are any imperfections, they were created by my hands, and not someone else's.

[Cjcrescent]

Eric, That's just the point I was making. This Prof was an efficiency expert, and somewhat of a philosopher, (if that has anything to do with it), and even back almost 40 yrs ago, he saw the beginning of the "down grading" of family and personal time. He never said you must do this. That wasn't his point, it was his observation.

After working for over 40 yrs from starting with a paper route, working as a gas station attendant, minor car mechanic, construction work, college, nursing school & 30 career as an RN, now that I'm retired, I can really understand his meaning. I believe that his meaning is this. You must take the time to do things for you and you alone, because if you don't, someone else will dictate what is done with that time.

After all these years, I believe he's right. Look at the upsurge in time worked, versus time off. Time spent away from home doing things that aren't exactly stress free. The less and less time parents are spending with their children. All of these and many more have been documented by more than one scientific and industry study.

[Cjcrescent]

Now to all the folks who have commented and/or followed this discussion. This, for the subject matter which can be touchy at times, has been one that has been extremely civil, matter of fact and respectful.

I don't think that this kind of civil discussion would have occurred on any other forum without someone losing their temper or getting personal. I must compliment everyone on their demeanor and especially on the respect they have shown all.

These are the type of discussions that you could have around a kitchen table while drinking some coffee with close friends.

Kudos to all and my thanks!!!

[montanan]

Out of curiosity, I sent an e-mail to MR magazine and got a reply from Jim Hediger, senior editor saying that they don't have any exact numbers, but since sound decoders have become available, DCC is used by approximately 40 percent of modelers.

[Cjcrescent]

I still wonder about how many modelers does this represent? Was this figure derived through their own magazine polls, the NMRA, MRIA, just who? If it was from their own magazine polls, that wouldn't be enough of the total modelers. Would it be through the NMRA? Again, not enough modelers are members. Now if it was through MRIA, then I would probably believe that this figure was more accurate.

[ChevelleSSguy]

Out of curiosity, I sent an e-mail to MR magazine and got a reply from Jim Hediger, senior editor saying that they don't have any exact numbers, but since sound decoders have become available, DCC is used by approximately 40 percent of modelers.

Intresting. I would have thought it would have been higher then that. I wonder what someone like Joe Fugate would estimate the percentage of his readers are? Im thinking they are likely much higher, given his publication is digital, thus more readers into a higher technology that would appeal towards DCC more.

I dont personally think DC will ever go away but I could see the numbers getting smaller and smaller over the years.