The older one with the Soundtraxx motor-only decoder also has a keep alive. If the ESU one uses their actual keep alive, it shoould eb configurable fooor hour long it runs on the capacitors - mine with Soundtraxx runs until the power is depleted, close to 30 seconds - it can travel quite a distance on even such a thing as my rubber work mat on my workbench. Too long, actually.
At some point I will take on the challenge of fitting a Loksound Micro in it and giving it sound. That should be fun. Absolutely doable, if you can get sound in those little 25 ton Grandt Line boxcabs, this should be a snap relatively.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
joe323 Steven Otte Not that it matters for the purpose of this discussion, but since you brought it up, our October issue will include a review of the HO scale Walthers Plymouth switcher, equipped with ESU LokPilot DCC. Is that the one with keep alive capacitors?
Steven Otte Not that it matters for the purpose of this discussion, but since you brought it up, our October issue will include a review of the HO scale Walthers Plymouth switcher, equipped with ESU LokPilot DCC.
Is that the one with keep alive capacitors?
Yes.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Steven Otte SeeYou190 If you are an old guy like me with all your knowledge, skills, experience, technical ability, and confort level wrapped up in DC, then DC is the right choice. With this decision you are forever giving up on sound and equipment compatibility. There are also new products you will not be able to use (Walthers Plymouth Switcher). Not that it matters for the purpose of this discussion, but since you brought it up, our October issue will include a review of the HO scale Walthers Plymouth switcher, equipped with ESU LokPilot DCC.
SeeYou190 If you are an old guy like me with all your knowledge, skills, experience, technical ability, and confort level wrapped up in DC, then DC is the right choice. With this decision you are forever giving up on sound and equipment compatibility. There are also new products you will not be able to use (Walthers Plymouth Switcher).
If you are an old guy like me with all your knowledge, skills, experience, technical ability, and confort level wrapped up in DC, then DC is the right choice. With this decision you are forever giving up on sound and equipment compatibility. There are also new products you will not be able to use (Walthers Plymouth Switcher).
Not that it matters for the purpose of this discussion, but since you brought it up, our October issue will include a review of the HO scale Walthers Plymouth switcher, equipped with ESU LokPilot DCC.
Joe Staten Island West
DC vs DCC?
.
I think I will stand by a previous comment I made a while back.
Everybody else should use DCC.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
rrinker I have no intent of EVERY controlling my turnouts via DCC throttle - for reasons given. A local panal, and/or a dispatcher will do that job. No crazy button pushing while running the train. Most DCC systems have basic engineer cabs - they can't throw turnouts, they can only control the loco. On the opposite side, you have touchscreen throttle now that you can actually load the turnout addresses into and move the points by swiping and tapping. No need to key in numbers or trying to remember the address of the turnout you are approaching. So there are simpler ways of doing it now available (and have been available for a while), plus no one says you can't use the 'old way' with DCC and just have simple buttons or toggles. Or a combination thereof - many DCC stationary decoders have the option to add local pushbuttons. So any given turnout can be controlled by the throttle OR a button right on the fascia. --Randy
I have no intent of EVERY controlling my turnouts via DCC throttle - for reasons given. A local panal, and/or a dispatcher will do that job. No crazy button pushing while running the train. Most DCC systems have basic engineer cabs - they can't throw turnouts, they can only control the loco.
On the opposite side, you have touchscreen throttle now that you can actually load the turnout addresses into and move the points by swiping and tapping. No need to key in numbers or trying to remember the address of the turnout you are approaching.
So there are simpler ways of doing it now available (and have been available for a while), plus no one says you can't use the 'old way' with DCC and just have simple buttons or toggles. Or a combination thereof - many DCC stationary decoders have the option to add local pushbuttons. So any given turnout can be controlled by the throttle OR a button right on the fascia.
Completely agreed.
My point is simply this, with DCC you still have to throw the turnouts, by one means or another.
IF you do it with push buttons on local panels, you are doing the exact same thing I do with DC. You are walking around the layout with a wireless throttle and setting turnout routes while you run your train. And yes, at each one of those local panels I push one extra button.
One extra button that saves me $8,000 in layout electronic infrastructure expense since I do desire to have my trains "regulated" by the signals/CTC.
And again, if you don't want CTC, if you do want sound, if your layout is small and you expect multiple operators/trains close to each other, than DCC is a better choice for you, no question.
But I can easily do without the few benifits DCC would provide me, and with that there is at least some reduced complexity, like consisting locos, that I don't have to do.
Sheldon
cuyama Doughless Taking my eyes off the train to look down and hit 5 little buttons on a throttle instead of flipping one toggle by feel seems longer and more complex to me. I'm not complaining about complexity. They are both very easy. What I'm pointing out is that many don't see the "complexity" of reassigning the commands from loco to loco in DCC. They only seem to see the "complexity" of reassigning power to the track. Somehow, flipping a toggle is a chore, but readdressing a throttle is a simple as taking a breath. You're not driving on the Interstate at 80 miles per hour. Taking your eyes off the train isn't an issue -- it's likely not moving yet anyway if you haven't addressed it. And "toggle by feel" implies a two-cab system. Is that really the comparison to DCC, which offers independent control for many trains anywhere on a layout? DC is fine. DCC is fine. But it would be great if we could stick to the facts and not invent issues that aren't there. As usual, I've brought facts to a "feelings” fight. I'll withdraw – do carry on.
Doughless Taking my eyes off the train to look down and hit 5 little buttons on a throttle instead of flipping one toggle by feel seems longer and more complex to me. I'm not complaining about complexity. They are both very easy. What I'm pointing out is that many don't see the "complexity" of reassigning the commands from loco to loco in DCC. They only seem to see the "complexity" of reassigning power to the track. Somehow, flipping a toggle is a chore, but readdressing a throttle is a simple as taking a breath.
You're not driving on the Interstate at 80 miles per hour. Taking your eyes off the train isn't an issue -- it's likely not moving yet anyway if you haven't addressed it.
And "toggle by feel" implies a two-cab system. Is that really the comparison to DCC, which offers independent control for many trains anywhere on a layout?
DC is fine. DCC is fine. But it would be great if we could stick to the facts and not invent issues that aren't there.
As usual, I've brought facts to a "feelings” fight. I'll withdraw – do carry on.
Byron,
Douglas had been following and understanding my Advanced Cab Contol. Which is by no means two cabs and toggle switches.
As implimented on my previous and future layout, it provides:
Eight throttles on the mainline, throttles are wireless radio.
Additional separate throttles in yards, branchlines, etc.
Signals, detection and CTC
As well as local tower control
Redundant turnout controls on local tower and CTC panels, turnout controls are "one button" per route.
ATC - automatic train control, you cannot "over run your block"
Working interlockings - once a train is detected in interlocking territory, turnouts in that interlocking cannot be thrown.
More than 50% of the "cab assignments" are route controlled.
Redundant cab assignment push buttons do not require "turning off" and are present at the beginning and end of each block, and on the dispatchers panel.
Operation with a dispatcher is pretty much the same as DCC. Without a dispatcher, operators need only set their routes and assign their next primary block, usually only two or three buttons to push at a tower panel.
Easier than throwing a turnout with a Digitrax throttle....
Of course if you are just going to run trains willy nilly, and flip PECO turnouts by hand, DCC is a better choice.
Thanks Sheldon. Conceptually I understand what you're doing.
The power to the signals and switch machines have to get there by wires. If operated with DCC, generally speaking, the devices need to receive commands separate from each other, and any other train/device that is running.
To the points others have made:
Whenever I read these threads, there is a overriding tone of many responses that implies that DCC eliminates nearly all of the complexities of a DC layout. I don't think that's true. It only eliminates a few, and introduces some that DC doesn't even have.
It eliminates the few complexities that exist in certain types of layouts. But many of those problems are caused by layout design and operating style in the first place. For many simpler operating layouts, control system choice is a push.
- Douglas
Byron, Ulrich and maxman,
There is a bit of a misunderstanding here.
Douglas is refering to the implimentation of turnout controls, CTC and signaling along with controling the locomotive.
My Advanced Cab Control intergrates all three functions into very streamlined tasks.
Having used a Digitrax throttle to control turnouts, I will take my one button route control over controling them from a DCC throttle any day.
If you look at both turnout control and CTC, DCC provides no special advantages in operation or installation.
In fact, because my system is not solid state or computer based, I don't need a "logic" level and a "power" level. Control logic for CTC and turnout control is done at the power level.
And half the cab control forwarding is done by spare (read free) contacts on relays already in play for the signals and turnout controls.
Sure aquiring a DCC address is easy enough, but turnouts still need to be thrown, and if you want CTC, signals still have to be controlled.
Aquiring a loco on my layout is easy too, look at the train, look at the diagram on the dispatchers panel or nearby tower panel, push the correct single pushbutton for your throttle number and location.
Buttons by the way that are easily seen and far enough apart to easily push......unlike a Digitrax throttle.
They are both fine. And I run both. I simply see any complexity in layout operations requiring a flurry of activity while operating, or spending up front effort in designing and installing either wiring or programming to avoid it.
DoughlessTaking my eyes off the train to look down and hit 5 little buttons on a throttle instead of flipping one toggle by feel seems longer and more complex to me. I'm not complaining about complexity. They are both very easy. What I'm pointing out is that many don't see the "complexity" of reassigning the commands from loco to loco in DCC. They only seem to see the "complexity" of reassigning power to the track. Somehow, flipping a toggle is a chore, but readdressing a throttle is a simple as taking a breath.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama Doughless DCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time Just enter the loco number. Not that hard -- all the other complexity is hidden from the user. One doesn't "reassign the command station", in any case. One Command Station is managing many locos or consists at once -- totally transparently to the user. Users select the loco or consist they wish to control with a throttle.
Doughless DCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time
Just enter the loco number. Not that hard -- all the other complexity is hidden from the user. One doesn't "reassign the command station", in any case. One Command Station is managing many locos or consists at once -- totally transparently to the user. Users select the loco or consist they wish to control with a throttle.
I know that.
The point is that in order to change any train, or turnout, or signal, or animation to doing something other than what it is currently doing requires assigning the proper command via throttle, or Iscreen, or whatever the interface-of-the-day is so the command you're about to send doesn't get sent to the wrong item.
So if you have a complex layout with a lot of things going on at the same time, and you want to change them during a session, a whole bunch of time is being spent readdressing the interface and sending different commands instead of watching the trains.
Unless you spend the time to educate yourself in computer/DCC programming and write a complicated program that will run all of the other stuff for you.
Complex is complex, regardless of system.
carl425Now when they rejoin the hobby as adults it's only natural when somebody mentions DCC they would ask what it is and why they might want to use it.
If someone computer-savvy enough to post this question here, one could assume that he is also smart enough to type "Digital Command Control" in the search box of his browser and get the information. Again, after 30 years, the web is loaded with all the information for newbies and old hands alike!
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
maxman Doughless DCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time. Come on now. You want to run loco #1234? It's press "select loco", enter numbers 1234, then press "enter". Exactly how long and complicated was that?
Doughless DCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time.
Come on now. You want to run loco #1234? It's press "select loco", enter numbers 1234, then press "enter". Exactly how long and complicated was that?
Taking my eyes off the train to look down and hit 5 little buttons on a throttle instead of flipping one toggle by feel seems longer and more complex to me.
I'm not complaining about complexity. They are both very easy. What I'm pointing out is that many don't see the "complexity" of reassigning the commands from loco to loco in DCC. They only seem to see the "complexity" of reassigning power to the track. Somehow, flipping a toggle is a chore, but readdressing a throttle is a simple as taking a breath.
DoughlessDCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time
Tinplate Toddler30+ years after the introduction of DCC, this shouldn´t be a question anymore, having been discussed ad nauseum in all those years.
That would indeed be the case if we were to exclude newbies from building layouts. Even newbies remember running trains on the floor as a kid with a "power pack" of some kind. Now when they rejoin the hobby as adults it's only natural when somebody mentions DCC they would ask what it is and why they might want to use it.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
DoughlessDCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time.
With "modern" command station, like Roco´s z21 or even the el-cheapo Trix Mobile Station, that´s a thing of the past for quite a few years now. DCC can be as simple as you like to have it, or as complex as you want it.
Something I really don´t understand, why this them vs. us questions pops up with a frequency matching New York´s subway system. There are benefits to each control system, depending on the user´s needs and the layout operated. 30+ years after the introduction of DCC, this shouldn´t be a question anymore, having been discussed ad nauseum in all those years.
carl425 Doughless ...but it would require quite a bit of up front programming to route the power and change the signal with the push of a button. It would require the same amount of programming as Sheldon has done with his relay logic (which is also "programming"). In fact if he chose to do so (hypothetical, not a suggestion), Sheldon could replace his relay logic with computer logic and have the system work exactly as it does today.
Doughless ...but it would require quite a bit of up front programming to route the power and change the signal with the push of a button.
It would require the same amount of programming as Sheldon has done with his relay logic (which is also "programming"). In fact if he chose to do so (hypothetical, not a suggestion), Sheldon could replace his relay logic with computer logic and have the system work exactly as it does today.
Yes, Sheldon has to design his system and install it. A DCC person would have to design how to program the layout, then program it. Conceptually, I understand that. To a guy like me, it doesn't matter if its relay logic or computer logic, they are both beyond my ability to install at the present time and would not be worth the effort to learn, given how I like to run trains.
Operating a layout in a complex manner dictates how much complexity is involved with the control system, not which particular control system is chosen, IMO.
Assuming OP plans to run two trains and park one on a siding once in a while. Where DC requires some layout wiring and toggle flipping, DCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time.
I never understood the superiority of controlling the trains and not the track when they both result in the same thing with the same level of complexity needed to accomplish it, just differently.
Now, onboard sound? That's a different story, IMO.
Agreed, and I considered computer or PLC programing, but the relays are actually much less expensive. With the relays power level signals are switched directly (track power and switch machines), with out a second layer of switching.
Doughless...but it would require quite a bit of up front programming to route the power and change the signal with the push of a button.
The reason to go battery is to be in total control of the train as in real trains, no rail power needed. Thats why real trains have a dead mans throttle.
rrinker There is no need to route power with DCC - you issue commands. --Randy
There is no need to route power with DCC - you issue commands.
Of course. The important part is that the turnouts, signals, and trains would run the same manner as Sheldon described, except with DCC it would be a series of commands and not actually turning power on and off.
Assigning the throttle, or command station, to execute the various commands to different recipients (locos, turnouts, signals) involves a lot of hectic button pushing during a session unless preprogrammed in some way to push a few buttons to select routes. The hobby would be about doing a lot of programming, I would think.
There is no need to route power with DCC - you issue commands. You could take something like the automated system you describe (already been done on several display layouts), but instead of the computer ALSO controlling the throttle, you use standard throttles that a user controls. Instead of being plugged directly to the DCC system, meaning the user could do anything regardless of signal indication, the throttle runs through the automation system, so if the train approaches a stop signal, the system applies braking if the engineer does not stop, just like the real thing (where automatic train control or PTC is employed). So the layout is not automated in the sense that the trains all run without human control, but the human control is watchdogged by the computer much like modern prototype control systems. Entirely possible with things that exist today, I'm more surprised no one has implemented this yet. Doesn't fit my era so not something I'd do personally, but a possible application.
The battery issue is also why I am not all that interested in some of these large keep alives for DCC. I don't see the point. Fix the dead sections, and have maybe a SMALL, fraction of a second, keep alive just in case. I haven't installed any keep alives in any of my locos, but I have one that came from the factory with one. Once charged up, it will roll across my entire work bench on the rubber mat (no longer on rails!) multiple times. On a layout this would be like a rampaging locomotive charging across the countryside should it ever derail. There is no point to 20-30 seconds of keep alive. 1 second or less? Sure.
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL To answer that as simply as possible, a dispatcher does two things on a real CTC system. He aligns the turnout route at interlockings (groups of turnouts like a crossover are called an interlocking) and he "clears" the signals giving the train authority to occupy the next block. So he effectively turns the signal green when he is ready to allow the train to proceed. Once the train enters the block, automatic aspects of the signal system turn the signals behind the train red, and turn opposing traffic signals red, etc. So do I, turnouts are controlled by lighted push buttons in a track diagram. It only takes one button to select a complete, sometimes complex route of turnouts. All turnouts for the route change as needed, the lights indicate the selected path. Yes the dispatcher selects these routes and "assigns" the primary blocks to the throttles, using push buttons, not toggles. And that action also gives the green signal to the engineer, just like prototype CTC. Sheldon. I think this sums up your system pretty well, if I understand it correctly. Hopefully I can say it a different way without mucking it up. Basically, your goal is to have a system that throws turnouts and provides green signals to a designated route. Because it takes DC current to do this, the trains will automatically follow that route. Where the signal is red, the track is unpowered, so there is no chance the train will run the signal. Is this correct? I guess its possible to have DCC controlled turnouts and signals (if there is such a thing as DCC signals), and route the power accordingly, but it would require quite a bit of up front programming to route the power and change the signal with the push of a button. I assume there will be a day where we could program all of the routes and trains to be used during a given operating session using JMRI or something, then plug it into a PC and the whole thing could be run humanless. The only thing the modeler would do is write the program. That action sort of makes it a different hobby if you ask me. I can also see where something like battery operated trains could be a huge problem since their independent power source could allow the trains to just blow through the signal.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL To answer that as simply as possible, a dispatcher does two things on a real CTC system. He aligns the turnout route at interlockings (groups of turnouts like a crossover are called an interlocking) and he "clears" the signals giving the train authority to occupy the next block. So he effectively turns the signal green when he is ready to allow the train to proceed. Once the train enters the block, automatic aspects of the signal system turn the signals behind the train red, and turn opposing traffic signals red, etc. So do I, turnouts are controlled by lighted push buttons in a track diagram. It only takes one button to select a complete, sometimes complex route of turnouts. All turnouts for the route change as needed, the lights indicate the selected path. Yes the dispatcher selects these routes and "assigns" the primary blocks to the throttles, using push buttons, not toggles. And that action also gives the green signal to the engineer, just like prototype CTC.
To answer that as simply as possible, a dispatcher does two things on a real CTC system. He aligns the turnout route at interlockings (groups of turnouts like a crossover are called an interlocking) and he "clears" the signals giving the train authority to occupy the next block.
So he effectively turns the signal green when he is ready to allow the train to proceed. Once the train enters the block, automatic aspects of the signal system turn the signals behind the train red, and turn opposing traffic signals red, etc.
So do I, turnouts are controlled by lighted push buttons in a track diagram. It only takes one button to select a complete, sometimes complex route of turnouts. All turnouts for the route change as needed, the lights indicate the selected path.
Yes the dispatcher selects these routes and "assigns" the primary blocks to the throttles, using push buttons, not toggles. And that action also gives the green signal to the engineer, just like prototype CTC.
Sheldon. I think this sums up your system pretty well, if I understand it correctly. Hopefully I can say it a different way without mucking it up.
Basically, your goal is to have a system that throws turnouts and provides green signals to a designated route. Because it takes DC current to do this, the trains will automatically follow that route. Where the signal is red, the track is unpowered, so there is no chance the train will run the signal. Is this correct?
I guess its possible to have DCC controlled turnouts and signals (if there is such a thing as DCC signals), and route the power accordingly, but it would require quite a bit of up front programming to route the power and change the signal with the push of a button.
I assume there will be a day where we could program all of the routes and trains to be used during a given operating session using JMRI or something, then plug it into a PC and the whole thing could be run humanless. The only thing the modeler would do is write the program. That action sort of makes it a different hobby if you ask me.
I can also see where something like battery operated trains could be a huge problem since their independent power source could allow the trains to just blow through the signal.
Yes, that is correct. And while I don't have an operating copy right now because of moving, I have built and tested all of this.
And when no dispatcher is present, operators can perform his tasks piecemeal at each tower panel.
The dead sections at the red signals are really clever, not my idea, borrowed from way in the past, and hard to explain without some drawings, but it actually costs nothing and requires no extra parts.
And it does take lots of up front planning and relay logic wiring to build my system. But like most all electronics, it is just layers of simple circuits, each doing their job.
rrinker I will make one minor adjustment to Sheldon's answer on the control system. There is one advantage with DCC (or other carrier control system like the old pre-DCC systems such as Dynatrol, OnBoard, and CTC16) and that is there is always a voltage present in the track to detect even stopped trains. It can be done with DC, but it requires an additional circuit to provide a bias voltage in blocks where power is not applied. Early Twin-T systems did this with a DC voltage which was low enough for the detector but not enough to turn the motor. With today's modern motors, this could easily make a loco creep. An improved version uses a high frequency AC, which won't hurt the motor (the inductive properties of the motor filter it out). Still, it's an extra bit of electronics you would need to be able to detect a stopped or standing train in a block, as without this, the train would become invisible as soon as the throttle was turned to stop. Since with DCC you always have a constant voltage across the rails, detection does not depend on the speed or direction of the loco. So there is that slight advantage to DCC. I do agree though, that implementing detection and signalling in a prototypical fashion is not cheap or easy, regardless of the control system being used. Especially if yoou want to use some of the nicer realistic signal modela out there - which go from at least $40 each and up from there depending on the number of heads and the rest of the structure. It takes a considerable investment and this is before any detection or control circuitry. --Randy
I will make one minor adjustment to Sheldon's answer on the control system. There is one advantage with DCC (or other carrier control system like the old pre-DCC systems such as Dynatrol, OnBoard, and CTC16) and that is there is always a voltage present in the track to detect even stopped trains. It can be done with DC, but it requires an additional circuit to provide a bias voltage in blocks where power is not applied. Early Twin-T systems did this with a DC voltage which was low enough for the detector but not enough to turn the motor. With today's modern motors, this could easily make a loco creep. An improved version uses a high frequency AC, which won't hurt the motor (the inductive properties of the motor filter it out). Still, it's an extra bit of electronics you would need to be able to detect a stopped or standing train in a block, as without this, the train would become invisible as soon as the throttle was turned to stop. Since with DCC you always have a constant voltage across the rails, detection does not depend on the speed or direction of the loco. So there is that slight advantage to DCC.
I do agree though, that implementing detection and signalling in a prototypical fashion is not cheap or easy, regardless of the control system being used. Especially if yoou want to use some of the nicer realistic signal modela out there - which go from at least $40 each and up from there depending on the number of heads and the rest of the structure. It takes a considerable investment and this is before any detection or control circuitry.
Randy,
I use Dallee inductive detectors because they are completely out of the track power circuit.
They do use a high frequency signal to detect stopped trains, it works well. It does require a few extra parts......
The only short coming of the Dallee detectors is that they will not detect small loads, resistance wheelsets don't work.
But I model and era with cabooses........which are lighted, as are a suitable selection of passenger cars for the end of the trains.