In DCC, the short pulse is a 1 bit, the longer pulse is a 0 bit. There is a minimum and a maximum for the short 1 bit pulse, then a dead area where the pulse is neither a 1 or a 0 and so you should never see one with a duration in that window, then there is a minumum length for a 0 bit, and a VERY large maximim. Since the 0 is already a longer pulse, making it longer for one side or the other half of the wavefor makes a net non-zero DC voltage in the track and doesn't prevent decoder equipped locos from understanding the data signal part of it. However, since you are making ever 0 bit transmitted take longer to transmit, it does reduce the bandwidth available for signalling. For the intended use - smaller layouts where you haven't converted every loco yet - the effect is not even noticable. But in a club setting, running 50 decoder equipped locos and one person tries running on address 00 - yes, response to commands for the DCC locos will be slowed. Especially noticeable with sound decoders, press the horn button and there's a very obvious delay until the horn souinds on the loco.
But you are 'running; as many DC loco as the system can handle. The same exact way you cna put 4 or more locos on the rails and use an ordinary DC power pack. It is EXACTLY the same. If you had sidings that were isolated and had toggles to kill the power, you could park one DC loco, kill the power (so it's safe sitting there - no power = it won;t heat up) and run a different one on address 00. Just like you would on a DC layout with only one power pack.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Lastspikemikeindeed, my biggest objection to DCC is that one operator can only operate one locomotive at a time anyway so why bother with multiple controls that can only be controlled one at a time?
Nope - A DCC operator can operate more than one locomotive at a time. However, I guess it depends how you want to define the word "operate".
If I have one train out on the mainline and another locomotive switching cars in the yard then I call that operating two locomotives. The switcher preoccupies my attention; the train on the mainline can run with less supervision. Both locomotives are controlled with my Power Cab throttle and both can be accessed by it at any given moment.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Mike, you still seem to miss the point.
I agree, direct radio would be a better system if we were starting today.
The point of DCC is not one person controlling multiple trains, the point is multiple people each controlling their own train, sometimes in close proximity to each other without the need for separate control blocks, and a method of assignment for those control blocks.
So yes, lone operators don't need that aspect of DCC.
Most people in this hobby are simply not going to change large investments in infrastructure, that's why it has taken DCC 25 years to reach 60% usage and finally become the deffacto starting point for most new people.
Sheldon
Someone please hand him a DT throttle and let him play with three or four locomotives, each separated by a scale mile of track, no two locos the same, and say that DCC doesn’t offer me more utility than a DC locomotive.
LastspikemikeAs for the remainder of the DCC operating, controlling and running distinctions I will just rely in my trusty dictionary. You all can remain clinging to your favourite illusions about how capable and useful DCC is...for a single operator.
You all can remain clinging to your favourite illusions about how capable and useful DCC is...for a single operator.
aka I don't have a good argument to present to keep this discussion going.
tstage Lastspikemike As for the remainder of the DCC operating, controlling and running distinctions I will just rely in my trusty dictionary. You all can remain clinging to your favourite illusions about how capable and useful DCC is...for a single operator. aka I don't have a good argument to present to keep this discussion going.
Lastspikemike As for the remainder of the DCC operating, controlling and running distinctions I will just rely in my trusty dictionary. You all can remain clinging to your favourite illusions about how capable and useful DCC is...for a single operator.
Rich
Alton Junction
selector Someone please hand him a DT throttle and let him play with three or four locomotives, each separated by a scale mile of track, no two locos the same, and say that DCC doesn’t offer me more utility than a DC locomotive.
I have to say I don't completely understand this example? A scale mile of track is about 60'. Interestingly the typical block length on my DC layout will be between 40-60 feet, with the average freight train being 20-25 feet.
What am I going to do with these randomly placed locos? Are they going to be moving at the same time?
Even if I had DCC, I personally would only "operate" one "train" at a time.
Now, Like Tom describes, I may have a train running in "display" mode on the mainline while I work the yard.
My layout is designed so that DCC offers no real advantage for that function. I have blocks, signals, and dedicated routes that "display" mode trains can on with no real attention. We were doing that in DC long before DCC was thought of.
I'm not discounting those who want to "control" two trains at once, I'm just admitting I'm not up for that task. A train is either on a dedicated safe continious route, or it is the only train I am operating.
But none of this negates the virtues of DCC for multiple operators.
Although, with good planning there are a number of DC control schemes tha come very close to the same streamlined operation of multiple trains, some with ergonomic advantages over DCC.
You still don;t grasp how putting the control and signal in one is SUPERIOR to the way it was done before DCC. A tiny, easily lost and/or corrupted AC signal sumperimposed on a steady DC voltage - that's how many pre-DCC command control systems worked, and it was not nearly as robust - that tiny signal could easily get lost int he noise, and if they made it any bigger, there would be enough of an AC component to create issues. Such sumperimposed signals has been used for ages to allow power companies to remotely control substations, and consumers got a version of it witht he X10 home control stuff that more or less started the home automation craze. But those systems inject a short burst at the zero crossing of sine wave AC. The model train controls put a steady DC on the track, and then superimposed a small AC control signal. The CTC-16 was one like this, and very well documented in MR. In fact, I was about to start building one (actually the improved CTC-16e version) when word came out about the NMRA working on a standard.
ANd the technology used for the signal distribution etc. has nothing to do with ergonomics.
Digitrax throttles have 2 knobs, so yes, one person can CONTROL two locos at the same time. And there's still an advantage with DCC even with just one person running trains - you can pull one in to the station, stop it, and just by selecting a different address, start up a second train. Yes, one at a time, but no toggles, no cab assignment.
The only way yo get what you want is if all the direct radio locos were battery powered, AND completely isolated from the rails. The the track could have DCC on it to run DCC locos, or DC to run DC locos - but you'd still have the same issue running DC and DCC. So pick 2 - direct radio and DCC at the same time, or direct radio and DC at the same time. The concept of a fixed track voltage and DC locos just don't join. Either the track voltage varies to control loco speed as in DC< or the track coltage is fixed and a control signal determines loco speed and direction. You CAN combione DCC and rail-powered direct wireless easily enough, but there still no DC option. There just can't be. Every command control system fromt eh very first, up to the latest direct radio (wifi and bluetooth) systems control the loco in the loco, DC (and hi rail O with AC) are the last systems where the speed and direction are controlled at the controller and vary the voltage on the rails.
You guys are expending way too much energy on a troll ....
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
Somehow the question of "can I use a locomotive without a decoder on a DCC powered layout" has become the equivalent of those silly arguments about CD audio in the 1980s.
Those arguments were along the lines of "Vinyl is superior as it captures all of the sound versus digital, which only captures some of the sound."
The same people now tout the superiority of high priced speaker wires with electrons optimized at the atomic level via treatment with liquid nitrogen during the application of a 10 kV DC de-polarising voltage. Your MP3s will never sound better!
Revisiting the original question:
Yes, you can run an analog (decoder-less) locomotive with a DCC system. But why bother?
Decoders are not that expensive today, and DCC offers so many advantages.
betamax Somehow the question of "can I use a locomotive without a decoder on a DCC powered layout" has become the equivalent of those silly arguments about CD audio in the 1980s. Those arguments were along the lines of "Vinyl is superior as it captures all of the sound versus digital, which only captures some of the sound." The same people now tout the superiority of high priced speaker wires with electrons optimized at the atomic level via treatment with liquid nitrogen during the application of a 10 kV DC de-polarising voltage. Your MP3s will never sound better! Revisiting the original question: Yes, you can run an analog (decoder-less) locomotive with a DCC system. But why bother? Decoders are not that expensive today, and DCC offers so many advantages.
But the best vinyl is better, and those speaker wires are BS - just my opinion, been collecting vinyl and building HiFi speakers since the 70's.
DC and DCC - yes, do one or the other, even if you do it with a DPDT switch on the same layout..........
At least the OP got his answer and bought some decoders.
I switched to DCC because I liked electronics since 1954.
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Mike,
I understand your point and experiences, but others have different goals.
Many want wireless throttles.
Many do not want to have to assign blocks to throttles.
I am a DC operator, I understand your points now. Again I think you should learn how to just say your main point, in stead of dancing around it for others to "figure out".
I will offer more thoughts later when I am not working, possibly in a separate thread.
No the question of dc on a dcc can be relivent to anyone, it is to me. DCC engines are generaly lighter and have less tractive force and with todays wheel sets and trucks unless you run really long trans or very hilly is a moot point. But as in my case you want to run track cleaner cars like the CMX or some who run muliple track cleaner cars, it is quite importaint and it can give a use to those engines you may never convert like my small fleet of Kato NW2's
I don't have a single loco I converted to DCC that is lighter than the same loco as a DC loco - I've ADDED weight if anything (not that decoders are heavy) because all I did was add the decoder - none of the existing weight was removed.
In SOME cases (although with the latest speaker designs, it's less of an issue) you might have to mill some weight away to fit the speaker for a SOUND decoder, which of course will result in a loco being lighter than the DC only counterpart.
I should have said of the current RTR, must have been thinking of my Kato NW2's. Haven't seen one yet converted to DCC without removing metal, especialy if with sound.
I have a Kato NW2 ho scale that I put a decoder in, under the fuel tank, and I removed an old decoder to do it, no metal removed.
railroady I have a Kato NW2 ho scale that I put a decoder in, under the fuel tank, and I removed an old decoder to do it, no metal removed.