Login
or
Register
Subscriber & Member Login
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Login
Register
Home
»
Model Railroader
»
Forums
»
Layouts and layout building
»
What do Modelers want?
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by joeh19012</i> <br /><br />I'm not a novice in the hobby, but I am when it comes to DCC. [/quote] <br />Well, for me it is the other way around. I have been designing electronics for model railroads over about 30 years. This has mainly been for friends or clients (I do a lot of electronics contract design). But it is only the last 12-18 months I have actually done any modelling. Now I am hooked. <br />[quote]QUOTE: I would like to see a DCC decoder (for locos) with transponding capabilities[/quote] <br />Wouldn't we all! When DCC was formalised with the NMRA standards starting in the late 80's and resulting in the standards first promulgated in 1994, no thought was given to transponding. With very little change the system used by Marklin and originating from Lenz Elektronik was adopted. For the state of the technology in the late 80's or early 90's the system wasn't bad, not real good, but not bad. It has a series of reasonably serious flaws however that have really become apparent as designers try to get around the inherent limitations of the system as technology has advanced, here are the two most significant <br /> <ul><li>The packet based transmission of data is very good, but it is a forward chanell system only - there is no acknowledgement of receipt from the recipient of the transmission. </li><li>Many features of the system (the CV's basically) are optional. But there is no way to 'discover' the capabilies of a decoder, you need to have the manufacturers documentation to do anything.</li></ul> <br />Their are decoders available that support basic transponding functions. But right now it is not widely supported. <br />[quote]QUOTE: <br /> and a simpler and smaller encodable transponder for individual rail cars. The DCC network would be able to read the transponder information and then return the relative location of the rail car or loco to a computer.[/quote] <br />So we need to add some sort of location information. A micro-GPS receiver in each car maybe? No, what we need is to provide some external form of location system. Using the current system we could split the track into blocks and when a unit responds we could tell where it is. Of course this requires a booster/receiver for each block and a return to the days of block wiring. Not really clever. <br /> <br />So expect to see passive location systems announced soon. They will be totally independent of the DCC system with purely an interface to a cab bus or similar. But of course, each manufacturer has his own ideas on cab busses, external control and computer interfacing. So don't expect to see a universal system any time soon. <br />[quote]QUOTE: <br /> Trains could be set to run automatically (e.g. through freights, interurban passenger trains, local freights with fixed stops, commuter rail trains, etc.) while switching operations, unit trains, or other deliveries are made under control of a wireless throttle. Traffic could be controlled with automated signalling, all controlled over the network and computer interface. The computer interface would also create a schematic of the layout based on power districts and controlled sections, and would have various signalling schemes available, depending upon the signal heads (2 light, 3 light, semaphore, etc.). <br /> <br />Furthermore, encoded transponder information should be available on demand at the throttle, particularly for locomotives. <br /> <br />How's that for some ideas? <br />[/quote] <br />What you are asking for is something that many of us would like. The last changes to the NMRA's standards and RP's for DCC were made in 2003 and promulgated in 2004. Since that time the public at large doesn't even know what has been discussed by the DCC working group. The last three meetings have not even had minutes published and the draft copies of various discussions on the dcc.info website seem to be infrequenctly updated, if at all. <br /> <br />Signalling is another issue altogether. To work properly signalling and command/control need to be tightly integrated, preferably with vehicle location. <br /> <br />Wouldn't it be nice if we could have all of this. I don't want the layout to be totally automatic, but, for example, we need feedback to the cab so the operator knows what signal he is facing. Then he can act accordingly. <br /> <br />Either some designers will find ways to work around the shortcomings of DCC and the DCC process, or we will see a second generation DCC evolve which will possibly be able to support 1st generation (NMRA DCC) but with lots of added capability. <br /> <br />John
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Subscriber & Member Login
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Login
Register
Users Online
There are no community member online
Search the Community
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter
See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter
and get model railroad news in your inbox!
Sign up