Just wanted to say thanks to those who posted to help me out. I got the control panel wired up today and tested the layout this evening, everything works as advertised. Still a couple of blocks to wire in (ran out of spade connectors!), but both main loops work like a charm as well as the passing siding.
Ricky
And new ones don't need a switch, they just work. At least major brands like Digitrax, TCS, and NCE.
Also, the speed variation is not as great as some make it out to be, at least if the DC loco has a diode drop constant lighting circuit in it, it has almost the exact same motor circuit loss as a loco with a DCC decoder does.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
davidmbedard Some early QSI decoders had a jumper for DC or DCC.David B
Some early QSI decoders had a jumper for DC or DCC.
David B
The early Atlas non-sound decoders did too.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
Robt. Livingston You should be able to throw a simple switch on the loco and run a decoder equipped DCC engine on a DC layout. Whether all DCC manufacturers provide this option is another question, but it is technically feasible. Carrera slot cars (Germany) work this way.
You should be able to throw a simple switch on the loco and run a decoder equipped DCC engine on a DC layout. Whether all DCC manufacturers provide this option is another question, but it is technically feasible. Carrera slot cars (Germany) work this way.
Robert, that makes intirely too much sense and would not promote conversion to DCC. To my knowledge no manufacturer has ever done that. Bachmann is the closest, they provide jumpers for the plug if you wish to remove their plugged in decoder (I've removed a bunch of them).
Sheldon
CP5415Q1 - How hard is it to wire a decoder into an Athearn BB locomotive?
Q2 - Can you run a DCC decoder equipped locomotive on a DC layout & viceversa?
CP5415 Ok, so initially, DCC can be a bit expensive, I get that. The decoders can be found cheap, ok perfect! Q1 - How hard is it to wire a decoder into an Athearn BB locomotive? Q2 - Can you run a DCC decoder equipped locomotive on a DC layout & viceversa? Thanks Gordon
Ok, so initially, DCC can be a bit expensive, I get that. The decoders can be found cheap, ok perfect!
Q1 - How hard is it to wire a decoder into an Athearn BB locomotive?
Thanks
Gordon
Q1 - If you have basic soldering skills installing a decoder in an Athearn BB loco is easy. Biggest job is isolating the motor from the frame.
Q2 - Most DCC systems have an address designed to run one DC train, motors may be noisy, may run a little hot and should not be left sitting still for long periods.
Many decoders are dual mode and will run on DC, but, some types of DC throttles use advanced pulse width modulation and all dual mode decoders are not created equal. Many will not like the signal from more advanced DC throttles. Which is ironic since many of those throttles provide slow speed performance equal to DCC for locos without decoders.
Also, most dual mode sound decoders provide very poor speed control when used on DC. Because the sound system has a high starting voltage requirement, the loco does not move until the the DC voltage is 7-9 volts typically. So speed regulation is then relegated to the remaining scale of the throttle, typically no more than 14 or 16 volts.
So while they do "crossover" performance is compromised in both applications.
But of course you must understand I am not qualified to answer your question since I am not a DCC believer. That is, while I think it is a good system that meets the needs of many modelers very well, I do not believe that it is the only or best answer in every case.
This despite the fact that I regularly operate a number of layouts with DCC, a few of which I even designed or helped build and/or wire.
If you are making the move to DCC, I'm sure you will be happy. Just understand, like any highly technical system there is a learning curve. If you keep that in mind and have the necessary resources, I'm sure your results will be good.
I will leave you with one last thought based on your opening comment, if you have 10 locos and decoders are $15, yes, in the big picture of what this hobby costs, decoders are cheap. But if you have 100 locos and some require $30 decoders the picture changes a little. And if you have 100 locos and you imbrace the idea of onboard sound, you are now up to the cost of a good used car.
We all make choices as to which aspects of the hobby are most important to us and I encourage all to find what makes THEIR railroad special to them and go for it.
To quote Sarah Palin and borrow from another forum member - "only dead fish go with the flow"
Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H!
K1a - all the way
mfm37 ATLANTIC CENTRAL But then again I did design and install the first use of a programable controller (primative computer for those who don't know) to control a pumping station in the Baltimore City waste water system back in 1981. Sheldon That's about the time my sewage bill started going up. Must be that Jones Falls station or the one down at North and Greenmount.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But then again I did design and install the first use of a programable controller (primative computer for those who don't know) to control a pumping station in the Baltimore City waste water system back in 1981. Sheldon
But then again I did design and install the first use of a programable controller (primative computer for those who don't know) to control a pumping station in the Baltimore City waste water system back in 1981.
That's about the time my sewage bill started going up. Must be that Jones Falls station or the one down at North and Greenmount.
Actually it was the Jones Falls one on Clipper Mill Road just south of Union Ave, just walking distance from Life Like's old building.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut then again I did design and install the first use of a programable controller (primative computer for those who don't know) to control a pumping station in the Baltimore City waste water system back in 1981. Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL davidmbedard Opinion - maybe some, but an opinion from someone still using, researching and expanding the development of advanced DC cab control. Sheldon And what have you contributed or expanded to the development of advanced DC cab control that wasn't thought of before? David B Well let's see, based on the extensive reading and research I've done on the subject, I was the first to: Combine the idea of the automatic buffer zone (staggered rail joints and seperate power sources to prevent trains from over running their asigned section) with the X section. I developed circuits that make each X section into buffer zone unless the whole route is set and asigned to the cab in question. This is an improvement over the conventional X section for a number of reasons. Paul Mallory proposed, but never built or saw built the use of X sections for passing tracks where the passing tracks are the X section, rather than the single track portions being the X section. I combined this never applied idea, with the development above, and my walk around cab selector circuit to provide true walk around control to a single track mainline layout using the Aristo Craft Train Engineer wireless throttle. This control scheme has been in use on a friend's layout for more than a year now, works well, had no problems and even the DCC users in our group like and understand it. And I developed a simple, inexpensive, prototypically correct signaling circuit to provide Absolute/Permissive block signals for a succession of passing sidings that are wired as described above. And my one touch turnout control circuit provides one button operation of complex interlockings while also directing the power for them to be combined buffer zone/X sections and providing all necessary interlocking logic for proper signaling of the interlocking. And is even able to provide prototypical lockout of turnout operation when a train is in the interlocking territory. And all these circuits are designed to allow the control inputs to be easily duplicated on both local and main/CTC panels. Maybe somewhere, sometime, some lone wolf may have done these things and never told anyone, but based on all the published material I can find, no one has done all of them and no one has combined them all to this effect. But then again I did design and install the first use of a programable controller (primative computer for those who don't know) to control a pumping station in the Baltimore City waste water system back in 1981. Sheldon
davidmbedard Opinion - maybe some, but an opinion from someone still using, researching and expanding the development of advanced DC cab control. Sheldon And what have you contributed or expanded to the development of advanced DC cab control that wasn't thought of before? David B
Opinion - maybe some, but an opinion from someone still using, researching and expanding the development of advanced DC cab control. Sheldon
Opinion - maybe some, but an opinion from someone still using, researching and expanding the development of advanced DC cab control.
And what have you contributed or expanded to the development of advanced DC cab control that wasn't thought of before?
Well let's see, based on the extensive reading and research I've done on the subject, I was the first to:
Combine the idea of the automatic buffer zone (staggered rail joints and seperate power sources to prevent trains from over running their asigned section) with the X section. I developed circuits that make each X section into buffer zone unless the whole route is set and asigned to the cab in question. This is an improvement over the conventional X section for a number of reasons.
Paul Mallory proposed, but never built or saw built the use of X sections for passing tracks where the passing tracks are the X section, rather than the single track portions being the X section. I combined this never applied idea, with the development above, and my walk around cab selector circuit to provide true walk around control to a single track mainline layout using the Aristo Craft Train Engineer wireless throttle. This control scheme has been in use on a friend's layout for more than a year now, works well, had no problems and even the DCC users in our group like and understand it.
And I developed a simple, inexpensive, prototypically correct signaling circuit to provide Absolute/Permissive block signals for a succession of passing sidings that are wired as described above.
And my one touch turnout control circuit provides one button operation of complex interlockings while also directing the power for them to be combined buffer zone/X sections and providing all necessary interlocking logic for proper signaling of the interlocking. And is even able to provide prototypical lockout of turnout operation when a train is in the interlocking territory.
And all these circuits are designed to allow the control inputs to be easily duplicated on both local and main/CTC panels.
Maybe somewhere, sometime, some lone wolf may have done these things and never told anyone, but based on all the published material I can find, no one has done all of them and no one has combined them all to this effect.
Oh boy. This could get ugly!
Alton Junction
Texas Zepher ATLANTIC CENTRALA few more DC FACTS: No DC system I have seen to date is truely onboard sound friendly. Another major opinion. In my opinion the PFM mini-sound, PFM sound system II, and PBL II systems still put the current DCC sound systems to shame.
ATLANTIC CENTRALA few more DC FACTS: No DC system I have seen to date is truely onboard sound friendly.
No DC system I have seen to date is truely onboard sound friendly.
I should have been more specific, I was refering to totally self contained onboard sound, not systems like those you mention which are built into the throttle.
As good as they are, and I agree they are better than the rest, the systems you mention are not currently readily available and preclude or prevent the use of other throttle options like the Aristo Train Engineer.
For me personally, onboard sound is a non issue in my chosen scale of HO. I do not care for the sound quality of any speaker that fits in an HO loco.
I have no problem with central control panels and do not consider them "obsolete" as many today do. In fact my own layouts control system design provides for both local panels and a master CTC panel with throttles for central control.
The 100 block reference was simply to the point that few layouts, even very large ones, seldom need that many seperately asignable blocks even for the maximum operational felxablity. X sections and power routing should keep even very large layouts below such a number without giving up any operational flexablity normally found in a cab control system. In fact they should add to such flexablity and to ease of use.
This thread grew a bit larger than I would have thought!
Just for information on the layout I asked about.
N Scale
36" X 80" (built on a door)
Track and most switches are Atlas, non power routing IIRC (sorry I'm normally an HO guy) but we do have two power routing Peco turnouts. Everything was donated to keep the cost down so we take what we can get.
It will be controlled from a dual power pack and a central panel. We do have two locos
While DCC may have made this a bit easier, it was not an option due to cost. We may have gone a bit overboard in the design but we had the materials and the (mostly) knowledge to build and control it. (almost sounds like a bad B monster movie!)
We have posted some pictures and will post more as I get them sent to me.
I do thank all for their help.
ATLANTIC CENTRALA few more DC FACTS:No DC system I have seen to date is truely onboard sound friendly.
ATLANTIC CENTRALA few random FACTS about DC control systems:Any layout that has 100 blocks controlled from a single panel is poorly planned.
Any layout that has 100 blocks controlled from a single panel is poorly planned.
I have found this thread to be a good source of info, as I am in the planning and building phase of my double deck all-DC layout. I have a working two-cab block system on the lower deck, hidden staging tracks (including a wye with reversing switch) so that trains can be stored in a double ended four track, eight train yard (each track divided in half), and can enter or leave the visible layout deck on two ramps, the PRR tunnels to Manhattan and points west, or the East New York Tunnel to Hell Gate Bridge and points east.
On my prior layout, I used on-off switches on loco storage tracks, and power routing turnouts, in order to minimze wiring and avoid buying any new switches (stuck in the poor-man syndrome back then). On the current layout, I bought out the local Radio Shacks of heavy duty DPDT switches.DCC? Never heard of it. Computers are for talking to others on the internet, not for model railroading. My opinion. Can you program those CV's on a Mac?
PS: You can build certain signals into a DC system if you use multi-contact switch machines, without going to any more expense than the cost of model signals. Or, if you use multi-contact switches to route the power, those extra contacts can be used as well. Signals can be scale models on the right of way, or panel lights.
I too have tried to avoid this becoming DCC vs DC, however I will respond to all DC misinformation just as others feel they MUST respond to everything they see as DCC misinformation.
I will avoid my opinions, good and bad, about DCC as I do not wish to debate that any further, but I will rebut incomplete or limited opinions of DC that are obviously based on limited or no real experiance.
Again this was a DC question, and good, sound DC imformation was provided.
Why do so many feel they must always interject "why DCC would be better" to these threads?
I could, but would never, interject a response like "if you used DC you would not have XYZ problem" to the dozens of requests for help with DCC problems that are posted every week on this forum. In fact thank goodness there are lots of you willing to help those new to DCC.
The "Electronics and DCC" forum should just be renamed the "DCC" forum, since most of the calls for help are about DCC, and one dare not ask a question about DC without getting inundated with replies telling them DCC would solve all their problems (never telling them about all the new ones they would be asking for help with).
My rant is done as well.
A few more DC FACTS:
There are DC systems that allow complete walk around operation without operators being "anchored" to a central control panel.
Many of these systems also allow and provide for the control of turnouts from multiple locations.
Many such systems are NOT very button intense and therefore are actually easy to use and easy to learn.
Even reverse loops can be made easy and automatic if properly planned.
Considered a drawback by some and a desired feature by others, all require some sort of control panels. The best systems use small simple local panels with only a few control buttons on each panel.
In additon to local panels, main CTC like panels are often desired and easily intergated into the control system providing greater operational flexablity.
What are the drawbacks/limitations?
No speed matching of locos or seperate control of helpers.
They all require advance planning along with the track plan to be effective. Minor track plan changes are usually no big deal, big ones might be.
They all involve various degrees of somewhat complex wiring, but often that wiring is simple circuits repeated over and over, AND can be prewired on the bench and installed with a limited number of final connections.
Overly crowded track plans can be problematic for multi train operation.
Reverse loops can be problematic if not well thought out.
What are the advantages:
Even the most advanced/complex system use inexpensive, off the shelf components.
No modifications to locos needed.
Many advanced DC systems are well suited to more than one style of operation, easily accommodating individual walk around, dispatcher/CTC control, and automatic or semi automatic display running all with the same system.
Additional features like signaling and collision avoidance can be added or incorporated at low or no cost. Even automatic operation can be easily added in some cases.
Reliance on any one manufacturer is minimized or elliminated do to large aspects being built from generic off the shelf parts.
While it may be old technology, there is no obsolecence factor assuming you have allready accepted the given limitations (no onboard sound, no consisting/speed matching and no seperate helper control being the main ones).
Again, many in the hobby today have never seen some of these advanced DC systems in operation, but to assume all DC systems invlove panels full of block toggles or rotary switches requiring constant "flipping" is simply incorrect.
rrinker However the Digitrax throttles have TWO knobs, unique among the popular systems, so you can have 2 traisn under actual live control - no trying frnatically to flip back and forth between controlling 2 (or 6) locos with one knob.
However the Digitrax throttles have TWO knobs, unique among the popular systems, so you can have 2 traisn under actual live control - no trying frnatically to flip back and forth between controlling 2 (or 6) locos with one knob.
Randy
I was trying to avoid this thread becoming a DCC vs DC thread. The OP was asking for help in blocking his DC layout. Another poster - a DCC user - asked about block toggle flipping becoming a nightmare on large DC layouts. I pointed out that operating style differences that are supported by the differences between DCC and DC do impact the amount of block toggle flipping in DC. I find it very interesting that the ability to fairly easily operate more than one train simultaneously in DCC has created a split in the DCC ranks.
Agreed, the Digitrax throttle with two knobs (DT-400 series IIRC) makes simultaneous operation of 2 trains even easier than going through the recall stack on other throttles. But that does nothing to help a second operator run the 2nd train (do you share the one throttle?), nor does the double throttle increase your innate ability to multitask (focus on 2 trains simultaneously). Those who are going to run 2 trains from one throttle will do so, although I maintain at least one train is going to be "display running" because of the human limitations of the operator, not the limitations of the throttle.
I see the same poor ergonomic design in a DC setup with a dual throttle power pack and a set of Atlas Selector switches at a central panel. Cheap and easy to execute - yes. Enabling realistic operation of 2 trains by 2 operators - no. Why we tend to push beginners down the more difficult to operate paths is beyond me. The OP's DC block plan would reduce the number of block toggles just by using power routing turnouts in the yard and for all spurs. He didn't say whether he was going with a central panel, or with walkaround control. Walkaround would make switching operations easier, but would require thinking about where block toggles should be, and whether or not a 2nd layer (MZL) style of block controls would be a good idea. Route control or progressive cab control (automated or manual) would also work very well for a train that is "circulating" while the other operator is switching.
Computer interface is definitely NOT required when figuring the cost of a DCC system. You cna program quite adequately from all the major systems' throttles. And still use FREE software like JMRI without it being connected to the DCC system. Also costs are often greatly exaggerated for decoders - a GOOD general purpose decoder is $12 each in 10 packs (NCE). At least for HO users. There's no need to spend $30 per. N scale is a bit different due to space limitations, but I see plenty of HO people paying extra for a tiny Z scale decoder to put in a large steam or diesel loco (ie, not a space issue). Learn to solder (which is a handy skill even if you use DC), and skip the expensive decoders with fancy harnesses. --Randy
Why are you trying to minimize DCC costs by making life more difficult for the new DCC convert? Don't I read time after time on this forum that the big objection to MRC Prodigy Advance/Express system is the lack of a computer interface - or now, the computer interface won't support Decoder Pro? Programming a Tsunami, or even a newer QSI sound decoder, without Decoder Pro is like asking somebody to go back to programming a graphics screen with Commodore 64 Basic "pokes" and "reads" instead of using a modern GUI. There are just too many interrelated CVs to write each one by trial and error, and record the result, and repeat. The new DCC guy should get more hand-holding from his equipment and software, not less. Especially now that Bachmann and Athearn/Roundhouse are equipping locomotives with limited Tsunamis already installed. So yes, when I price the conversion to DCC I include the cost of a computer interface or a PR3.
On a side note, your DT-400 throttle is an extra cost addition to the Zephyr system. Which is where I have been all along. Converting a typical home layout to DCC with 2 operator capability (the typical DC scenario) will cost about $300 plus decoders. This is a starter system plus a 2nd throttle plus computer interface - but a very capable system for a 2 operator home layout. Overkill - I don't think so. Rather it represents the minimum cost to get the DCC goodness that makes the conversion worthwhile in the 1st place.
Decoder costs are going to be all over the place depending on personal choices and number of locomotives to be converted. I may only have 5 locomotives that I want to convert, but I'd like to squeeze a micro-Tsunami in each of them. But note that your $12 fleet decoder comes in a 10 pack, so that's $120 for decoders right there.
I've ranted long enough for today.
Fred W
A few random FACTS about DC control systems:
Many well planned large DC layouts do not use block toggles.
Many of those layouts have dispatchers who's only job is to align turnouts and who's engineers still don't have block toggles or rotary switches.
Regardless of how blocks are connected to the cabs, many of those asignments can be built into turnout positions, usually cutting the number of "asigned" blocks by half or more.
As Fred explained earlier in this thread, well planned DC systems provide built in colision avoidance like prototype signal systems and operating rules.
And those systems can be the basis for fully functional signal systems.
Properly done such colision avoidance is a "free" feature and can easily be done in a way to prevent trains from overrunning their authorized territory.
There are wireless radio DC throttles that provide excelent speed control.
Again, as Fred said, much of this technology has been "lost" on the new DCC generation, and that's fine. But it is out there and does work even if YOU have never seen it in action.
fwright... based on what I gleam from the DCC owner posts here, there is a considerable amount of juggling two (or more) running trains from a single throttle
richhotrainI have always wondered how people operate DC block control. Constantly flipping switches seems pretty intensive and stressful. How did people manage with large layouts?
Computer interface is definitely NOT required when figuring the cost of a DCC system. You cna program quite adequately from all the major systems' throttles. And still use FREE software like JMRI without it being connected to the DCC system. Also costs are often greatly exaggerated for decoders - a GOOD general purpose decoder is $12 each in 10 packs (NCE). At least for HO users. There's no need to spend $30 per. N scale is a bit different due to space limitations, but I see plenty of HO people paying extra for a tiny Z scale decoder to put in a large steam or diesel loco (ie, not a space issue). Learn to solder (which is a handy skill even if you use DC), and skip the expensive decoders with fancy harnesses.
Overkill is rampant in model railroading just like other hobbies (yes, you need a $600 video card in the computer you are going to use for word processing and playing solitaire). So is a tendency to overcomplicate things with crazy wiring schemes and excessive toggle switches.
fwright And based on what I gleam from the DCC owner posts here, there is a considerable amount of juggling two (or more) running trains from a single throttle - probably because it is relatively easy to do in DCC. Unless these folks have far superior multitasking skills, all but one of the trains is going to be doing relatively unattended running - what I called "display running".
And based on what I gleam from the DCC owner posts here, there is a considerable amount of juggling two (or more) running trains from a single throttle - probably because it is relatively easy to do in DCC. Unless these folks have far superior multitasking skills, all but one of the trains is going to be doing relatively unattended running - what I called "display running".
I have two throttles to control a double mainline running on DCC. One throttle is assigned to "Track 1" and the other throttle is assigned to "Track 2". The NCE system permits 6 addresses per throttle, but I have a helluva time controlling 2 engines per throttle on a 160 foot mainline, let alone 6 engines on each track. So, I appreciate your critique. My usual practice is to run only one engine at a time on each mainline track, while other engines are working the yard, passenger station and turntable. I lack superior multitasking skills!
Rich
Bob
Just a clarification.
You and I are in total agreement on the one train/one cab concept, whether DC or DCC. And that in most situations DCC does eliminate worrying about block toggles. But when I suggest that the true cost of DCC for the traditional 2 operator home layout is a starter system plus a second throttle plus decoders plus a computer interface for programming, I'm driving up the cost of DCC unreasonably in the comparison. And based on what I gleam from the DCC owner posts here, there is a considerable amount of juggling two (or more) running trains from a single throttle - probably because it is relatively easy to do in DCC. Unless these folks have far superior multitasking skills, all but one of the trains is going to be doing relatively unattended running - what I called "display running". Quite practical and possible in DCC, and a little harder, but doable with multiple throttles in DC - unless block toggles get in your way.
The point of my post was to not to denigrate or attack DCC. A responder thought that the suggested blocking of the OP's layout would be painful to operate for multiple operators due to constant flipping of block toggles. And on larger layouts, the problem would be that much worse. He's correct - but only if the simple to implement, but difficult to operate, central panel with separate toggles for each block is used. There were systems and methods developed over the years to minimize, eliminate, or automate block toggle flipping with multiple operators in DC. And as the OP stated, his normal planned operations involve changing very few block toggles for most of an operating session.
If the OP had power-routing turnouts, the number of blocks could have been reduced without any loss of operational flexibility. Back in the '60s, Model Railroader even printed instructions on how to drill out the grommets on Atlas Custom Line turnouts to make them power routing where that might be desirable.
Again, the point is that DC doesn't have to be full of stress about keeping block toggles in the correct position. With a little planning and effort, DC can be quite operator-friendly.
just my thoughts
I will agree it is a great explanation of DC, but one comment you made I take exception to, at least in my case. My layout is fairly complex, and it runs with DCC, but only one train to a cab at a time during an op session. The advantage of DCC in this situation is of course no flipping toggles, or pushing buttons, or whatever be the case. You simply control your train and hope the dispatch keeps you away from other trains. I used DC block control from 1959 to 1984 when I then went to an early command control system called Dynatrol, which gave me the operation that DCC does today, but I didn't have the ability to run nearly as many trains as I can today with my NCE. Limited number of receiver numbers available for Dynatrol, lot more decoders addresses for DCC.
Even today, if I was doing a small switching line, I would probably choose DC, but for a large, heavy running layout, DCC still provides the superior control system and certainly a lot less wiring than DC and no toggles or switches. But then again, each of us makes our own choices.
richhotrain Texas Zepher MILW-RODROk I know how DC block control works but how is it operated? one sets the selector switch to the DC power supply (usually called a cab) that is supposed to control that train. As the train moves toward the next block one has to set that block switch to the cab controlling the train so that it can move into it under the same control. One continues to flip switches in front of each of the trains. Yikes, when I got into the hobby 5 years ago, I went immediately to DCC. As a kid, I was always frustrated that I could only run one train at a time. I have always wondered how people operate DC block control. Constantly flipping switches seems pretty intensive and stressful. How did people manage with large layouts? Rich
Texas Zepher MILW-RODROk I know how DC block control works but how is it operated? one sets the selector switch to the DC power supply (usually called a cab) that is supposed to control that train. As the train moves toward the next block one has to set that block switch to the cab controlling the train so that it can move into it under the same control. One continues to flip switches in front of each of the trains.
MILW-RODROk I know how DC block control works but how is it operated?
Yikes, when I got into the hobby 5 years ago, I went immediately to DCC. As a kid, I was always frustrated that I could only run one train at a time.
I have always wondered how people operate DC block control. Constantly flipping switches seems pretty intensive and stressful. How did people manage with large layouts?
The main reason we want to wire this layout for block control is so that either main could come in and switch the industries. We could easily just have the outside main run in circles and only have the inside loop switch. With this set up, there is no need to "flip" switches ahead of a train, each loop will be set to either cab one or cab two and the only time the toggles will be flipped is when moving a train from one loop to another. Texas Zephyrs statement of fliiping switches is right on the money of running two trains on the same track.
That is great explanation of DC control.right to the point!