The theory behind DCC couplers is to give the couplers what one of my friends call the "do its thing any time any where" ability. The concept is sound when applied sctrictly to locomotives as the couplers then be operated from decoder functions already existing in most decoders. However almost every proposal for DCC couplers I have seen goes far beyond the scope of of just dcc-couplering the locomotives to include the freight car fleet as well. Here in lies the problem I have behind the concept.

Given the current make up of DCC, each car equipped would have to include a decoder. Now all these have to be is a simple two function decoder but still each car with a DCC coupler needs a decoder. This will cost about $10.00 per decoder.

Also in making a coupler that is operable by DCC, avoidabable costs are being added by making what is currently a pretty simple straight mechanical system and complicating it by adding miniature servos and a computer chip. Depending on where I get them and if I watch my sales I can pick up a pair of Kadee couplers for about $1.05. The knock offs (EZ Mate, Intermoutain, ect) can be gotten for as little as $35 cents per pair. Most figures I see for DCC couplers state that the production costs are going to be about $10.50 per pair. That is cost. If the person expects to make a profit and allowing a standard mark up of 50%, we are talking well over $15.00 per pair. This expense is not so obscene when limited straight to locomotives. But when freight cars are entered into the mix, you end up paying more for the couplers than you do the car. My roster has nearly 50 locomoves and 400 freight cars. At $15.00. per car I will have to fork over $6,000.00 just for couplers.

Another problem we run into with DCC is the lack of suatable number of addresses and address formats. Currently DCC is limited to addresses 1-9999. I know no one who has the combined 12000 locomtive fleet of Union Pacific. Also 9999 addresses are going to be more than adaquate for any model railroad using straight locomotive addressing. However the system is limited to a 4 digit address. Most freight cars I see have a 6 digit number. One of the reasons behind a numerical address is so that it can be set to the locomotive or in our discussion here the car number in question. Sharing 4 digit addresses with locomotives and freight cars can only lead to confusion. So even before we can discuss the practacality of DCC couplers, we need to add address capacity to the system that isn't there at the moment.

One more problem that we are going to have is multiple freight car address. This currently isn't a problem with the locomotive address system in place in DCC as the likely hood of two locomotives with the same address is low. In the home layout situation this conflict might arise over say two locomotives from different railroads with the same engine number. Example. UP 6549 and BN 6549. (I know this is more of a problem on club layouts whre their might be like more than one SP 4449 locomotive on the layout). The occurance of this happening with freight cars on the other hand is signifigantly higher. Say box car BN 968574 is on the layout with say box car CR 968574. Since both cars can be interchanged in the real world more readily than locomotives this poses an addressing conflict that is bound to rear its ugly head. If 6 digit addresses are only provided for both cars will have address 968574. So in addition to expanded address capacity I also think that some kind of prefixing ability needs to be added in as well.

I do agree with Jared (Kennedy Model Trains) that the operational capabilities will be greatly expanded with DCC couplers. However with most DCC coupler proposals I have seen, the practacle limit on size will be about a 10 foot by 10 foot layoyt due to the lack of present addressing capabilities mentioned above. Also addressing Jared's comment about being expensive but worth it. When it is going to cost you $25-$30 to add DCC couplers to a Life-Like train set car which are the cheapest freight cars I can find at around $3.50 per car in my area. You end up with a $28.50-$33.50 freight car and all you have invested in it is the couplers. Keep in mind that these Life-Like train set cars are at the price floor for freight cars. That same car can be upgraded to non DCC couplers with the final cost being about $7.00 after a truck change and instiallation of Kadee couplers. With that price spread, its hard to justify the cost of DCC couplers in the freight car fleet at the present time.

So to tie back to my first posting, DCC Couplers are for those that are electronicly inclined to beat the uncouling magnate and/or pick. Since you have to practacly be Bill Gates to be able to afford do do this even on the 10 foot by 10 foot size layout. I can not personaly justify the cost or expense.

Even though this posting seems against the idea. Its not the idea I have a problem with. I love the idea. Its just most of the proposals I have seen so far I have a problem with.

Thanks for your time

James Mitich
Staff Member
wiringfordcc.com http://www.wiringfordcc.com

[This message has been edited by Challenger (edited 12-18-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Challenger (edited 12-18-2002).]

I am with you. I am 20 years old and in college so my spending for such things is cut off. I can buy two cars for the price of one of those proposed couplers. (By the way most of the growth of my fleet happened in High School when I had money to burn, if your scratching your head as to my mentioned rolling stock fleet size) It is interesting that the premier model railroading magazine doesn't have more on DCC. I know practacly nothing about DCC util I started Reading the 24 part series on DCC now running in Railroad Model Craftsman and started helping Mr. Allen Gartner with his DCC web site. If you would like to learn more about dcc I reccomend that you come take a look. He has lots of drawings and explinations on how things work in DCC. THere is also a Quesiton and answer forum in case you have a question. Look through previous questions. You might find the answer your looking for.