MTennent wrote: But I must ask - which is easier, finding which of 200 blocks is causing a problem or which of 10 blocks?Mike Tennent
But I must ask - which is easier, finding which of 200 blocks is causing a problem or which of 10 blocks?
Mike Tennent
Finding the block is one thing. Now find the short and fix it.
Jim
selector wrote:Chip, I haven't gotten around to replying to your question. I would hope that we will eventually operate our train sets/layouts entirely with our PCs. Instead of the DCC systems that we buy currently, we'll get a software package in whatever format replaces CD-ROMs, and a little plug-in of some kind, a peripheral, much like the mini-data recording devices that many of us carry with us in a shirt pocket or on a chain around our neck from office to office. The trains will always have to have an onboard something-or-other, from a sound emiting device to a device that controls its electro-mechanicals. In other words, it is an analog item we are wanting to enjoy, so there will always have to be something to make the analog behave increasingly more realistically. At some point, though, I can't see any great progress beyond where we are now. We will still be stuck with something like scales, with all their inherent limitations, not the least of which will be the physics of reproducing acceptable sound. It will only be in virtual ways that we will enhance our experience, and that kind of makes me shudder. The more real the experience, the less aware one is of what is happening around the body that can spell danger. We'll need security systems of some kind to keep people safe from harm while they are in the spell, so to speak, of the holo-deck.
In a thread a while back, I suggested that a computer could track the location of an engine and through use of stereophnic sound regulation make the noise from a loco (or any ambient noises you wanted as well) appear to come from the appropriate spot on the layout.
I also thought I would get it to follow my brother around so that it played They're coming to take me away haha, very quitely inside his head when he was in the layout room.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Chip, Selector, both great points.
Chip, It would concern me though if the design was put forth with that being the intent. I'm not disagreeing with you as this is typical of corp. america however when a standards group is put in place, I'd like to think money isn't the primary agenda (pipe dream I know).
I would hope, err like to think NMRA is there to develop an extensible standards for MRR.
I think Selector hit it right, and I'd have the same concern. I can run my "Trainz" app at that point though and the entire aspect of "hands on" becomes moot. I would not look forward to the day that becomes reality, that would be a hobby killer in my mind.
As for the half-modulated DC pulse, fair enough, but I feel my point remains. There was no need to change it from straight up DC (or DC as it is on a non-DCC layout). All that is being done in DCC is/was possible with DC before NMRA was created. This goes to Chips point though and that thought gives me an uneasy feeling of what the NMRA is about.
I suspect DCC has a limited life time, this is my personal forecast and yet another reason I'm not doing it (yet). DCC as it is today is great, but should a new "standard" come out that actually meshs with technology and doesn't re-invent technology is a real long term "here to stay" direction.
I'm a "computer guy", every time I work on my layout and can't help but make the analogy of the transformer being my "hub", my rails being my "patch cables", and my trains as "computers". DCC in effect has accomplished this but it has been done in what I call a bubble (proprietary). Yet again a point to what Chip wrote.
Hmm, I wonder what would happen when my trains run Windows MR and a get a virus /chuckle
Re-rail Success :)
/ramble off
EDIT
Just realized I mis-read some of Selectors post. To clarify I'd like to use a computer for things like turnout controls and throttle but I'm not sure how much of a hobby we'd have if all we did is watch a virtual train on our monitor instead of watching the "real thing" on your layout. Although I could see how loading up a "program" that walks through your layout running a pre-defined course, etc. I guess that would be pretty cool. But would the hobby turn into more of a "programing job" than MRR?
I think that DCC, in its current form, is probably here to stay. The interface between the command station and the trains is "fast enough", it is very tolerant of noise, and it has a pretty large installed base. On the other hand, there is certainly lots of room for improvement on the user interface side, which is going to keep evolving for years.
I think the DCC method of distributing power and signal is really pretty clever, one big benefit over DC is that it provides full power to the rails at all times, allowing for more potentially interesting things at the train end in terms of lighting, sound, etc. I think that a wirless interface to the trains would be nice, but the size requirements for this in the smaller scales are pretty challenging, and were even more challenging ten years ago. I also think the potential for interference (chicken wire scenery, motor noise, other reflectors around the layout) would have made for a frustrating experience.
If someone is starting out I submit that DCC is simpler and quicker to implement, simpler to operate, and not much more expensive that a DC system that provides comparable (or as close as reasonably possible) operation. In the case of an existing layout, there are lots of factors going into the decision to convert, and I don't think there is a one size fits all answer.
So there!
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
SpaceMouse wrote: Are we talking about the same issue? We are talking about shorting out the track? It seems to me that only a couple things short out tracks: an engine sitting on a turnout or a guy that sets a coke on the track. I've heard of few melt-downs where buss lines became fused.
Are we talking about the same issue? We are talking about shorting out the track? It seems to me that only a couple things short out tracks: an engine sitting on a turnout or a guy that sets a coke on the track. I've heard of few melt-downs where buss lines became fused.
I thought we were talking about the same thing. The wiring will never become "fused" or experience "melt-downs" as you call it if circuit protection is adequate. A short circuit occurs and then the breaker opens or your light goes on.
Lets assume you do have a buss-to-buss short. Certainly within the realm of possibility. How would you find it and fix it on a 4x8 with one district?
Soo Line fan wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Are we talking about the same issue? We are talking about shorting out the track? It seems to me that only a couple things short out tracks: an engine sitting on a turnout or a guy that sets a coke on the track. I've heard of few melt-downs where buss lines became fused. I thought we were talking about the same thing. The wiring will never become "fused" or experience "melt-downs" as you call it if circuit protection is adequate. A short circuit occurs and then the breaker opens or your light goes on. Lets assume you do have a buss-to-buss short. Certainly within the realm of possibility. How would you find it and fix it on a 4x8 with one district?Jim
What context are we talking here? Are we talking about construction or thinking a mouse might chew off some insulation? Construction is a matter looking at the last place you worked on providing you used good installation techniques. I admit that if a mouse chewed off my insulation on a 4 x 8 layout and the buss lines shorted, I'd spend some time scratching my head, but eventually I'd track down the problem even if I created power districts in the process.
But I don't see how either scenario would be different in DC as opposed to DCC.
jbinkley60 wrote: Soo Line fan wrote:Actually his topic can encompass a broad area: SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC. One part of DC that does not appeal to me is in my engine terminal. I have a lot of blocks to park locos in different areas and stalls. When I want to get to the engines in the rear I have to move the ones in front. Would jockeying them around be that much easier with DCC?JimAbsolutely. I mentioned this to someone else on a similar thread. It isn't about just running multiple locomotives on a layout, with DC you have to account for all of them, whether they are moving or not. Drop 20 locomotives on a layout with DC, even if many are sitting on sidings and then try to keep straight which block switches you have to change to move the right locomotive. It can be done but it is challenging. A large yard can be worse. Or what happens when you park a string of locomotives together in a yard siding and want to peel the first one out for road service ?
Soo Line fan wrote:Actually his topic can encompass a broad area: SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC. One part of DC that does not appeal to me is in my engine terminal. I have a lot of blocks to park locos in different areas and stalls. When I want to get to the engines in the rear I have to move the ones in front. Would jockeying them around be that much easier with DCC?Jim
SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC.
Absolutely. I mentioned this to someone else on a similar thread. It isn't about just running multiple locomotives on a layout, with DC you have to account for all of them, whether they are moving or not. Drop 20 locomotives on a layout with DC, even if many are sitting on sidings and then try to keep straight which block switches you have to change to move the right locomotive. It can be done but it is challenging. A large yard can be worse. Or what happens when you park a string of locomotives together in a yard siding and want to peel the first one out for road service ?
NO! It is NOT easier because you have to address each locomotive as you move it..Its not easy on DC either because you got to find vacant blocks to park the moved engines ..In my experience and after being a hostler on a DCC layout I felt like a accountant by the time the session ended..The club layout was design for this type of operation,however, most home layout engine terminals are poorly design for DCC or DC operation which adds to the frustration.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
SpaceMouse wrote: Soo Line fan wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Are we talking about the same issue? We are talking about shorting out the track? It seems to me that only a couple things short out tracks: an engine sitting on a turnout or a guy that sets a coke on the track. I've heard of few melt-downs where buss lines became fused. I thought we were talking about the same thing. The wiring will never become "fused" or experience "melt-downs" as you call it if circuit protection is adequate. A short circuit occurs and then the breaker opens or your light goes on. Lets assume you do have a buss-to-buss short. Certainly within the realm of possibility. How would you find it and fix it on a 4x8 with one district?JimWhat context are we talking here? Are we talking about construction or thinking a mouse might chew off some insulation? Construction is a matter looking at the last place you worked on providing you used good installation techniques. I admit that if a mouse chewed off my insulation on a 4 x 8 layout and the buss lines shorted, I'd spend some time scratching my head, but eventually I'd track down the problem even if I created power districts in the process. But I don't see how either scenario would be different in DC as opposed to DCC.
Both DC or DCC layouts can have wiring shorts..The idea behind blocks is to isolate or find a short..The DCC "power districts" was also design for that reason..A 4x8 layout doesn't need to be over blocked. 3-4 blocks/power districts will suffice for these small layouts.
SpaceMouse wrote: What context are we talking here? Are we talking about construction or thinking a mouse might chew off some insulation? Construction is a matter looking at the last place you worked on providing you used good installation techniques. I admit that if a mouse chewed off my insulation on a 4 x 8 layout and the buss lines shorted, I'd spend some time scratching my head, but eventually I'd track down the problem even if I created power districts in the process. But I don't see how either scenario would be different in DC as opposed to DCC.
Because while on your layout a person would have to search the entire layout buss (potentially) until he found the short. You, or anyone else would have no clue where to begin. On a DC layout they would only search the affected block- a much smaller physical area of the wiring to search.
I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC.
Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.
Soo Line fan wrote: I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC. Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.Jim
I get that smaller blocks make it easier to isolate a short. What I don't get is why turning off a section is better than a light coming on. You asked how many districts I would make on a 4 x 8 and I answered none, truthfully because that's what I did on my layout. That doesn't mean that you can't have power districts or that I should have done it the way I did. I answered as I did. It did not bite me either. Maybe I was lucky.
But I can make a power district every bit as small as your division and two poles on a switch is the same soldering as two poles on a light bulb.
"Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout."
Jim, you're comparing apples to onions. You seem to believe that no-one blocks DCC layouts, despite several folks having told you we do.
If a DCC layout has blocks, and I'd wager that most of them do, the process is identical.
SpaceMouse wrote: Soo Line fan wrote: I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC. Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.Jim I get that smaller blocks make it easier to isolate a short. What I don't get is why turning off a section is better than a light coming on. You asked how many districts I would make on a 4 x 8 and I answered none, truthfully because that's what I did on my layout. That doesn't mean that you can't have power districts or that I should have done it the way I did. I answered as I did. It did not bite me either. Maybe I was lucky. But I can make a power district every bit as small as your division and two poles on a switch is the same soldering as two poles on a light bulb.
You most certainly can, but then you loose some of the highly touted advantages of DCC-less wiring, less switches, simpler construction. Would anybody actually build a 4x8 with 10-20 power districts?
As I said I believe that DCC has the edge in many areas, but this is not one of them.
I can't agree that DCC only has an "edge" in some areas. It has it all over DC in the way you operate your trains. No proto engineer is reaching for a multitude of switches to get two locos to hook up for a MU. He notches and watches. In DCC, he notches and watches.
In DC, you simply cannot get two locomotives to hook up unless you interfere aprotypically.
MTennent wrote: "Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout." Jim, you're comparing apples to onions. You seem to believe that no-one blocks DCC layouts, despite several folks having told you we do.If a DCC layout has blocks, and I'd wager that most of them do, the process is identical. Mike Tennent
Mike I understand that. Are you saying you guys use as many blocks as we use?
Do you block every spur, or every individual yard track? Can you turn off every siding? If not the process is somewhat similar but not identical.
How many blocks would you use on a 4x8?
Soo Line fan wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Soo Line fan wrote: I tried to give you some analogies to help you understand one of the few advantages I feel DC has over DCC. Let me try again. You have a spur track that the feeders are shorted together. On a 4x8 DCC layout with one district it all goes down. No question right? But where? Now on a DC layout that same short occurs. You turn off the blocks one at a time and you soon know it is confined to that track. The block narrows it down to a specific area before you even crawl under the layout.Jim I get that smaller blocks make it easier to isolate a short. What I don't get is why turning off a section is better than a light coming on. You asked how many districts I would make on a 4 x 8 and I answered none, truthfully because that's what I did on my layout. That doesn't mean that you can't have power districts or that I should have done it the way I did. I answered as I did. It did not bite me either. Maybe I was lucky. But I can make a power district every bit as small as your division and two poles on a switch is the same soldering as two poles on a light bulb. You most certainly can, but then you loose some of the highly touted advantages of DCC-less wiring, less switches, simpler construction. Would anybody actually build a 4x8 with 10-20 power districts? As I said I believe that DCC has the edge in many areas, but this is not one of them.Jim
In my opinion this is turning a lemon into lemonade. In the rare instance that you have an unexplainabel short, the extra time, effort, and complexity that went into wiring a DC sytem can help you. You r question about whether anyone would put 10-20 powe rdistricts on a 4x8 just proves the point you are trying to argue against. In my opinion. Did I say that was just my opinion?
selector wrote: I can't agree that DCC only has an "edge" in some areas. It has it all over DC in the way you operate your trains. No proto engineer is reaching for a multitude of switches to get two locos to hook up for a MU. He notches and watches. In DCC, he notches and watches.In DC, you simply cannot get two locomotives to hook up unless you interfere aprotypically.
I am not referring to operations, clearly DCC has the advantage in the areas you referred to.
BRAKIE wrote: jbinkley60 wrote: Soo Line fan wrote:Actually his topic can encompass a broad area: SpaceMouse wrote: A discussion that frequently becomes a side bar for the "Should I switch to or start with DCC?" posts, is whether or not you really need DCC. One part of DC that does not appeal to me is in my engine terminal. I have a lot of blocks to park locos in different areas and stalls. When I want to get to the engines in the rear I have to move the ones in front. Would jockeying them around be that much easier with DCC?JimAbsolutely. I mentioned this to someone else on a similar thread. It isn't about just running multiple locomotives on a layout, with DC you have to account for all of them, whether they are moving or not. Drop 20 locomotives on a layout with DC, even if many are sitting on sidings and then try to keep straight which block switches you have to change to move the right locomotive. It can be done but it is challenging. A large yard can be worse. Or what happens when you park a string of locomotives together in a yard siding and want to peel the first one out for road service ? NO! It is NOT easier because you have to address each locomotive as you move it..Its not easy on DC either because you got to find vacant blocks to park the moved engines ..In my experience and after being a hostler on a DCC layout I felt like a accountant by the time the session ended..The club layout was design for this type of operation,however, most home layout engine terminals are poorly design for DCC or DC operation which adds to the frustration.
Easier is relative to the person makin the judgement. I am not debating that it can be done in DC but recalling an address on a throttle or punching the 4 digit address in (I match mine to the numbers on the locomotive) is pretty simple. If the locomotive says 9255 I either punch it in or hit the recall button back to 9255, which I may have used two functions ago. I do agree that the design of the engine terminal is very important for ease of oepration with any throttle type.
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
From what I can see, the NCE handheld looks similar to one of our automotive scan tools.
What type of data is available on the screen of this unit? Can you see voltage or current data or just the address of the unit you are running? Do all the manufacturers display the same data parameters?
"Do you block every spur, or every individual yard track? Can you turn off every siding?"
Good Lord, why would I want to? That's why I switched to DCC.
Is your wiring so unreliable that you have to troubleshoot every track section often enough to justify that complexity?
Troubleshooting is not the reason for blocks, you know that as much as I. They are used in the areas I mentioned out of necessity to operate a DC layout with many engines on the layout.
I am pointing out that they can be used in a secondary purpose to electrically break up a DC layout into more parts than a DCC layout.
If you cannot understand then your an idiot.
Soo Line fan,There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned, and that's the ability in DCC to track down a short by ear.
My 25' x 50' home DCC layout is all one block. If I have a short and it's not obvious what it is (derailed equipment, etc.), then I listen for the distinctive high pitched "bzzt, bzzt, bzzt" noise that the short makes (from the breaker resetting), and I can track it down that way.
At my club, where we also run DCC, the layout is split into many blocks for short circuit protection. And I still have tracked down many a short by merely listening for that "bzzt"...and that's an advantage that DCC has over DC.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
On one hand I like DCC but there is a draw back that is happing to me. The more a DCC engine can do, the more there is to go wrong! This is my F3A and B.
http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j284/cudaken/?action=view¤t=IM000047.flv
Then there my BLI M1a, it shorts out when I hook the draw bar to the tender?
On the other hand my DC BB Athearns PK 2000's and 1000's are pretty straight foward when it comes to repairs.
A bank of MRC 9500's say 3 per line would do the same and easy to block. But all so lot more than a simple DCC system.
Only reason I went DCC is because I went steam. Bachmann GS-4 would only pull around 20 cars. Bought a BLI Class J 611 right before they became a close out and I was hooked on sound, that is why I went DCC.
Do I regreat it, yes and no. But a few months ago a great engine cost $70.00 (PK 2). Now I am looking at $250.00 engines. Of my 40 engine fleet I have spent $2500.00 $1140.00 has been for 4 BLI and F3A and B with sound?
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
You have what, 2 or 3 lines? 6 or 9 MRC 9500's plus banks of toggle switches, you think would be SIMPLER than DCC?
Sure you spent a lot on locos - but that's not the fault of DCC. ALl of my locos save 1 cost me $50 or less, plus another $15 or so to install a decoder and change the light bulbs. The one exception is my PCM T-1. And all those locos - not one is a BB type, they are all Stewart, P2K, or Atlas. Careful shopping.
The BLI tender shorting out - well that would short on DC or DCC< so not the fault of DCC there. The drawbar is plastic, dunno how that could cause a short. The cable on the other hand. It should only go in one way, but if it is flipped (shouldn;t be able to do that unless you busted the key on the socket) it would be a dead short because the outer two leads are the track power pickups from the loco back to the tender.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
As mentioned before, the quest here is to work toward the ultimate multi-train system. The shortcomings of both DC and DCC as I see them.
Programming consists.
Addressing locomotives
In "modern" layouts, turnout control.
In my mind, the next jump in layout/track management will be computer-assisted locomotive management, turnout control and dispatching. These will use the current DCC interface with the trains. Touch screen would be nice.
How much easier would it be if staging yards were controlled by computer--especially if those areas are hidden or in another room?
One thing that has not yet been touched on during this discussion is the biggest reason that I have not switched to DCC. This hobby seems to attract alot of dim-witted people that don't always pay attention to what they are doing while operating trains. With a DC block system, when people are not paying attention and run through a block boundary, the locomotive either shuts off or if that block is being operated by another engineer, the train that has just crossed the boundary will do the same speed and same direction as the train already in that block. With the current DCC system there is no protection from this. There has to be some way of having a system that gives the freedom of multi-train operation with some protection from collisions.
When the club that I belong to went to DCC I debated wether to put DCC in a few of my locomotives. It's a very large club with multiple levels and hidden tracks. After several collisions by people not paying attention I have decided against converting anything of mine. They will never see any of my equipment up there again.
I like alot of the features of DCC but while I am having operating sessions with up to 4 trains running at a time, I like the peace of mind that I get knowing that as the dispatcher I have ultimate control over all 'my' trains on 'my' layout.
el-capitan
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
I have to admit that I have not heard of the idiot factor as a reason for not converting to DCC.
Although I would say that if you don't know where your trains are and what they are doing, you are trying to run too many. I suppose that when the computer interface becomes more widely accepted, we will see automated dispatching systems that will allow you to run your four trains or more with out collisions. Until then, we DCC operators will just have to pay attention.
el-capitan wrote: .. There has to be some way of having a system that gives the freedom of multi-train operation with some protection from collisions... el-capitan
.. There has to be some way of having a system that gives the freedom of multi-train operation with some protection from collisions...
I don't understand your premise. Please develop it further for this dimwit.
Space Mouse,You can already control staging yards by computer.
You can already control turnouts by computer.
You can already have a dispatcher running the operation by computer.
But if you're talking about a GUI screen for "loco management"...well, that's interesting. I'm wondering, however, how many people will want a flat screen on the side of their layout? Or how many people would want a PDA-like device for a throttle? Digitrax has offered a PDA throttle conversion for years, and I think I've only ever seen one in use. An improved PDA-like full color screen throttle, however, is an interesting concept. If everything was graphical, that would be a big leap...but I wonder at the cost of such a thing. If a DT400 is $180, what would a large full color LCD-screened throttle cost? I mean it would still have to have a throttle knob, and a direction button/toggle (the two most commonly used items). Yet it would have to be a pretty big screen to easily show all the items wanted without being too big. A conundrum, to be sure.
el-capitan,Well, that's realism for you. If the engineer misses a red signal, they tend to crash. On my club's old DC layout, we had some big crashes, too, especially when someone would turn on the wrong block or accidently over run a block and the slow train would suddenly leap forward if it didn't short. "Who's got my train?" was a familiar refrain at my old club.
You can set up an ATS (Automatic Train Stop) system on DCC with Digitrax' Transponding and signalling system, or so I understand. This, however, would require a lot of money and time to implement, not to mention a computer to run it all. IOW, not easy.
That being said, on such a large layout you describe, I would think that block detection and signalling is a must...and some training for the engineers.