SpaceMouse wrote: VailSouthwestern RR wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely? It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle. What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine. RFID technology may get to the point of being useful for this, but it will be a while. The question will possibly be if the benefits are worth the costs.5 Tsunami decoders (HO N or Z scale) $5005 Stationary Sounds $150Sounds coming from Stereo SpeakersWhat do you think?
VailSouthwestern RR wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely? It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle. What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine. RFID technology may get to the point of being useful for this, but it will be a while. The question will possibly be if the benefits are worth the costs.
SpaceMouse wrote: cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely? It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle. What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine.
cjcrescent wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this. Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely?
SpaceMouse wrote: You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this.
You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder.
You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.
I never did more than theorize about this.
Chip, is this similar to Digitrax's transponding, or something else entirely?
It would be different. The transmitter/receivers are in the radio unit and throttle.
What I am suggesting is putting the transmitter in the engine.
RFID technology may get to the point of being useful for this, but it will be a while. The question will possibly be if the benefits are worth the costs.
5 Tsunami decoders (HO N or Z scale) $500
5 Stationary Sounds $150
Sounds coming from Stereo Speakers
What do you think?
I've been thinking about putting some sound decoders under my (far from complete) n-scale layout for a while, with addresses matching what's up top. I think it would be fun, but I'm not sure the cost is worth it. I think it is a personal decision, for sure. At least at this point there are higher priorities. But, were money no object, that kind of system with RFID tags to keep track of where things are, and where the sound should go would probably be better than n-scale sound in locos, because of the speakers. The tags would also be grat for keeping track of things in hidden areas. The technology os there, but the market is so small I don't know what it will take to make it happen in the real world.
I keep kind of hoping that SoundTraxx will get back to the SurroundTraxx idea, though I have a feeling it was intellectual property issues that might be too much of a pain to fight that stopped it.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Sounds coming from Stereo Speakers and transmitters can move from loco to loco velcroed underneath.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote:You are correct. What would be in the engine would be a transmitter & decoder. You would not need to triangulate using multiple sensors because the the trackwork is a known quantity and for all intents and purposes fixes the engines in two dientional space. The radio directional sesnsor provides the 3rd dimention.I never did more than theorize about this.
Carey
Keep it between the Rails
Alabama Central Homepage
Nara member #128
NMRA &SER Life member
marknewton wrote:Oh, absolutely! And to judge from your posts you've achieved that goal. I only commented because I've seen some DC layouts where the operations were quite unlike anything a real railroad would ever do, but the owners/club members claimed that they were operating prototypically.
Those are Archetypical operations.
el-capitan wrote:Stop and stay. They also can radio the dispatcher and ask for clearance.Sure, there are many different operating systems. Train order and ABS to name a few. These two would both lend themselves better to DCC.I was just trying to point out that prototypical operation is possible with a DC block system.
Stop and stay. They also can radio the dispatcher and ask for clearance.
Sure, there are many different operating systems. Train order and ABS to name a few. These two would both lend themselves better to DCC.
I was just trying to point out that prototypical operation is possible with a DC block system.
el-capitan wrote:On my DC layout all of my track is handlaid and all of my frogs are scratch built and powered. The powered frogs actually extend about 6 inches past the frog so any locomotive that gets within 6 inches of an improperly thrown turnout will draw a short and stop. This has eliminated all derailments due to improperly thrown turnouts. When this happens I just throw the switch and the train continues on. The rest of the layout functions normally without missing a beat.I am not sure exactly what happens on a DCC layout when this happens but it involves more than just realigning a switch and I know that on larger layouts that have multiple trains running (6 -12) finding the problem can be very time consuming.
On my DC layout all of my track is handlaid and all of my frogs are scratch built and powered. The powered frogs actually extend about 6 inches past the frog so any locomotive that gets within 6 inches of an improperly thrown turnout will draw a short and stop. This has eliminated all derailments due to improperly thrown turnouts. When this happens I just throw the switch and the train continues on. The rest of the layout functions normally without missing a beat.
I am not sure exactly what happens on a DCC layout when this happens but it involves more than just realigning a switch and I know that on larger layouts that have multiple trains running (6 -12) finding the problem can be very time consuming.
Well, you realign the switch and press a button on the throttle, that's it.
The location of the short, if you enter an improperly set switch, should be as obvious to the engineer with DCC as with DC. When using DCC with a computer, at least in our case, the computer displays the shorted section in yellow on screen, no searching necessary
Regards,
ArtZIMO Agency of North Americawww.mrsonline.net
MTennent wrote: I know this will be a big dissapointment to you, ...
I know this will be a big dissapointment to you, ...
Not dissapointed, just misinformed. If you would reread my post you will see I started the paragraph saying "I'm not sure..." I'm just going by what others have told me including one person in this thread.
Why would I be dissapointed?
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
That is my experience as well, Mike. If a wheel set causes a short, anywhere, the system beeps and shuts down to protect expensive decoders and circuitry. It takes the same amount of time in the analog process of correction for both ways of powering a layout. When I have corrected the fault, the system does a self-restore in two seconds, and I am on my way again.
Even if there is no short, I still have the analog reach to do in order to correct the situation...no diff.
I know this will be a big dissapointment to you, but do you know what happens 99.99% of the time when I run through a turnout on my DCC layout? Nothing, except the usual derailment of a few following cars. Sorry, no shorts, no catastrophic shut down, no sparks, no engines welded to the track.
The other .01% I get a quick hiccup in the system and then everything starts back up where it was with barely a pause. Quite boring, actually.
Mike Tennent
Lego_90 wrote: This is because of power-routing through the frogs right? Power-routed frogs cause shorts when you run through a switch set against you backwards, DCC or DC, right? And a short shuts down that district, block, or whatever term is applied to it either way right?
This is because of power-routing through the frogs right? Power-routed frogs cause shorts when you run through a switch set against you backwards, DCC or DC, right? And a short shuts down that district, block, or whatever term is applied to it either way right?
pilot wrote: DC is usually more fault tolerant than DCC. Running pure DC, If I run my DC locomotive into a switch set wrong, it just jams. The other trains, even ones in that power district keep moving. Even the wheels on the jammed locomotive keep churning. With my DCC, all the trains in that power district, and sometimes ALL the power districts on that transformer stop. And sometimes they have to be individually restarted (sometimes not), which means re-throttling and turning the lights back on etc. With DC, you just throw the switch, rerail and go.
Does a DCC system take a while to "reboot" or is it just a flip of the power switch?
pilot wrote: There ARE locomotives that won't run on DCC, LOTS of them. There are even some that won't run on DC on top of DCC (which I have and think is great). Converting DC locomotives to DCC is not trivial (especially in N scale). Somtimes its very hard. There are a few locomotives that get damaged if run on DCC. There are some negative issues with DCC in a large club layout.
This is the one that I worry about... the unknown difficulty in converting N scale locomotives to DCC. At least I don't have a collection of older equipment to worry about (yet). I'm planning to wire my layout in basic blocks that could be used for DC or DCC and hedge my bets :)
DC is usually more fault tolerant than DCC. Running pure DC, If I run my DC locomotive into a switch set wrong, it just jams. The other trains, even ones in that power district keep moving. Even the wheels on the jammed locomotive keep churning. With my DCC, all the trains in that power district, and sometimes ALL the power districts on that transformer stop. And sometimes they have to be individually restarted (sometimes not), which means re-throttling and turning the lights back on etc. With DC, you just throw the switch, rerail and go.
There ARE locomotives that won't run on DCC, LOTS of them. There are even some that won't run on DC on top of DCC (which I have and think is great). Converting DC locomotives to DCC is not trivial (especially in N scale). Somtimes its very hard. There are a few locomotives that get damaged if run on DCC. There are some negative issues with DCC in a large club layout.
So there ARE disadvantages to DCC.
Having said all that, and having BOTH DC and DCC, I will say I run DCC almost all the time. You just can't beat being able to have a throttle on ALL locomotives running DCC. It's just GREAT!!
Being new to the hobby and still being open to making the decision to go DC or DCC, I found this thread highly interesting and enlightening. I know its beating a dead horse to some of you, but I was glad to have it to read through.
I think some of the clash between the two camps is in the definition of "ultimate" or "best". To some, cost is the biggest factor. To others, ease of construction may be paramount. Still others, flexibility of operation is their primary goal. And finally, I'm sure there are quite a few that are familiar with one style and would rather not learn a different one, be it new or old. I think you, the model railroader, need to evalutate your goals versus the traits of each and go that direction. Afterall, to borrow the excellent analogy, slot car racing and RC car racing are still both going strong.
With that said, operationally speaking and assuming cost and a construction are non-issues, I don't see what DC can do that DCC can't. DCC can certainly be wired to switches and in blocks like DC if that provides a desired benefit. In DC it may be required to run multiple trains, but it doesn't mean you can't get it's side benefits in DCC. DCC merely has the flexibility to let you do it either way. It's your layout, wire it how you please.
And please, PLEASE don't invite Microsoft to design the next generation of train control. It'll come with a thousand features you'll never use (including solitaire!), at least 1 of the features you do want to use won't work right, and it will consume every amp of spare energy your wiring can support. And I don't even want to see the equivalent of the blue screen of death in model railroading! :)
el-capitan wrote:I just wanted to explain how my layout operates and show that it is pretty close to the prototype.
I just wanted to explain how my layout operates and show that it is pretty close to the prototype.
Your definition of a block is correct but there are more than one meaning. I should have termed mine "electrical block". My electrical blocks on my DC layout work in much the same manner that you were describing and at the end of most of them there will be a signal. Each of these blocks or sections of track have a separate toggle switch on my dispatchers panel. I have 4 throttles that can each have their power routed to any of my blocks. For instance, if I have a five block single track with the following names A-B-C-D-E and train one is in block C I route power for cab 1 to block C and to D. Train 1 can then move to block D. Once he is clear of block C, I can route train 2 (who was sitting in block B) to follow train 1 into block C. Blocks on my layout are simply sections of track operating off the same toggle switch. Only one train can be in a block at one time (unless someone is not paying attention). Most DCC layouts will have blocks but not electrical blocks. Since multiple trains can operate simultaneously they do not have the need for toggle switches and selecting cabs but many do have signals.
Hopefully you are not more confused now than when you asked the question.
clang wrote: MTennent wrote: Jeez Tom, What's with the chip on the shoulder? Mike TennentYou are the one with this chip. Right on schedule when a modeler says anything good about DC he is questioned. Heavens to Betsey if a DC guy sticks up for his system. Funny how the DCC guys cannot stand this. Maybe it has something to do with the way we get treated here. I see where Paul3 apologized for calling me puppet and troll. Thank you
MTennent wrote: Jeez Tom, What's with the chip on the shoulder? Mike Tennent
Jeez Tom,
What's with the chip on the shoulder?
You are the one with this chip. Right on schedule when a modeler says anything good about DC he is questioned. Heavens to Betsey if a DC guy sticks up for his system. Funny how the DCC guys cannot stand this. Maybe it has something to do with the way we get treated here.
I see where Paul3 apologized for calling me puppet and troll. Thank you
Clang--
Actually, I don't think Mike was dissing me at all. I DID come on a little strong in my post, and he mentioned that if DC worked fine for me, to keep at it. So I'm not bothered by his answer--in fact it was pretty well thought out, IMO.
It's just that the DC/DCC thing has kind of gotten under my skin, most recently at my LHS, where one of the guys was as much as telling me that if I DIDN'T go DCC, I'd be sort of like those dinosaurs, just waiting for the Big Comet to strike. I asked him if he'd like to help fund the conversion for my 45 or so brass locos, and his answer was--"You actually RUN brass?" Kind of ticked me off. He's new there, hopefully the other guys will set him straight, LOL!
In the meantime, two trains is about all my mind can handle. I'll stick with what I've got.
Oh, by the way, I'm a little confused with the term 'Block' as used in this DC/DCC discussion. I hear about not using 'blocks' in DCC because they are not needed. Now I use a 'block' system on the Yuba River sub, but I use it in what I thought was the original prototypical application--a set of signals at certain intervals to let the train know whether to stop or proceed. My 'blocks' are set up to contain at least a 30-car train (the maximum number of cars I operate), and if the signal ahead is set for red, I stop the train until the signal is cleared for green. Is this what a 'block' means in model railroad parlance? I always thought it did. In fact, it seems to me that even in DCC, one would want to set his railroad up into 'blocked' sections, simply because it's what the real railroads do.
Can anyone clarify this for me?
Best,
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
MTennent wrote: Chip/Capt,Both of you refer to sensors in an engine, but I wonder if it might be best to think of transmiters in the engine. My understanding of location sensing thingees are that they are based on triangulation of a signal. For our purposes, a transmitter in an engine would send a signal to 3 or 4 our sensors around the room that were hooked to a computer. The computer would do the triangulation and act on the result. If the sensor was in the engine, it would have to sense a signal from multiple transmitters, compute it onboard, and then send the results out again (by air or rail.) I think that technology would be more difficult and prone to error. Opinions?Chip: did you ever locate a radio system for sound like you refer to? I vaguely remember then thread, but not the result. Mike Tennent
Chip/Capt,
Both of you refer to sensors in an engine, but I wonder if it might be best to think of transmiters in the engine.
My understanding of location sensing thingees are that they are based on triangulation of a signal.
For our purposes, a transmitter in an engine would send a signal to 3 or 4 our sensors around the room that were hooked to a computer. The computer would do the triangulation and act on the result.
If the sensor was in the engine, it would have to sense a signal from multiple transmitters, compute it onboard, and then send the results out again (by air or rail.) I think that technology would be more difficult and prone to error. Opinions?
Chip: did you ever locate a radio system for sound like you refer to? I vaguely remember then thread, but not the result.
CSX Robert wrote:After reading through this topic, I had to add my two cents worth. The "DC versus DCC" debate is a lot like the "which DCC system" debate in that a lot of people get tied up in which is better. Neither is inherently better, the real question is which is better for me. I love DCC, but for me to say that there are no advantages to DC and that every DC user should switch to DCC (which is the attitude that SOME DCC users have) would be ridiculous. I believe DCC control to be more prototypical, but we are not running real trains and more prototypical is not necessarily better.I wouldn’t consider myself an expert but I think I have a fairly good understanding of DCC and I know a lot about computers (I am a Computer Programmer by trade). I am not going to say that DCC is perfect, but it is much more suited to model train control than WIFI or Bluetooth. The NMRA did not “invent the wheel again.” They based the DCC standards on a system that was “tested and true” that was developed by Lenz before WIFI or Bluetooth.The reason for the DCC waveform (I’m not going to get into the “is it or is it not AC” argument here) is to provide power and control signals over the two rails. It is not necessary to put leads every 3 feet. I had a 4’ x 16’ unitrack test loop powered from one set of leads. I did have a significant voltage drop at the far end of the loop, but that would have been true for DC control also. I did not have any trouble with operation however.
My comment for bluetooth and wifi was re: "todays" technology. Eithernet was around before NMRA (if not, then ArcNet sure as heck was and you can run 10baseT over arcnet cat3 cable). Knowing they (NMRA) used a "solution" from an existing (LENZ) manufacuturer in a sense proves my point. They didn't think out of the box, they just went with the flow. Had they looked to technology with a list of criteria instead of partnering with an existing provider, perhaps the end solution would have been something extensible, standard, not bound to just MRR (i.e. bridging a gap across hobbies).
Someone else posted such that if a future solution were to become available, it would "have" to be compatible with existing DCC. I wouldn't bank on that. They somewhat scrapped DC for DCC did they not? The creation of something new and better doesn't make it required for backward compatibility.
I'm a DC guy, I see the pro's and con's of both. In some ways I would like DCC on my layout, I'm not part of a club, I'm a guy in my basement enjoying the hobby. It worries me to know, and CSX Robert and Chip clarified this somewhat for me, NMRA used an existing tech. instead of makeing a new one.
Think about this, it is in the best interests of manufacuters to keep us all guessing. Why would any manufacturer invent a new better solution that is backwards compatible, that makes poor business sense. I'm not saying drop DCC off the map, I'm saying force the hobby enthusiest to buy new as often as is tollerable.
Look at it this way, it took how long for DCC to get a foot hold (not it's birth, but have x% of the market)? I'd guess it would be about half that time to find something new and better. It will happen, it is just a matter of when.
DC nor DCC is the best it "can" be. Every train manufacturer is banking on that.
I don't know if the boards have a "Poll" option but I would be the majority of "posters" here are DCC.
If the poll had the three choices Chip had in his title
DC
DCC
The quest for something better
I'd be picking "The quest for something better".
/ramble off
Here is one guy that has BOTH DC and DCC, and DC "on top of" DCC. Either DC or DCC one at a time (I have to unplug my DCC and plug in my DC). I mostly use DCC. I can use DCC and DC "on top of" DC at the SAME time however. So I can run my DCC engines and ONE DC engine, all with their own throttle.
I can see why guys who have been using DC and have large collections of DC locomotives. It's not easy to convert, especially in N scale. (I cant even figure out how to open up some of my engines). Also, when someone comes over and brings their DC engine, I can have DC so I KNOW I wont damage it.
I primarily went to DCC becuase I have reversing loops.
Also, large layouts have special issues. DC may actually be better in some cases. Being able to run two engines in the same power district with seperate throttles and seperate reversing controls is NOT always an advantage.
Theres a lot of choices out there. Lots of great items to explore.
Mtennant,
Yes everyones layout is different. Here's how I would envision it working. You load the program on your computer and a sensor in a locomotive. You run the program and there is a button called "learn layout". After clicking on this buton you run the locomotive (DCC or DC) over every foot of track on your layout. The computer is tracking this movement and creating a schematic of your layout. When complete drop a sensor in all of your locomotives and cabooses and you can track all trains on your layout.
Similar things could be done for turnout control, signal control, etc.
If I had the brains to make this work it would already be on the market.
"Would you please explain to the rest of us where you got the fact that Mike has a "chip" on his shoulder. Mike actually said that it was cool that Tom had found the best multi-operator system for him. I agree."
Thanks carey,
My first reaction to that post was aggravation, but then I realized who wrote it.
"What I am looking for is the "Microsoft Model Railroad Control Package" or some such thing. A package that is user friendly that is plug and play and will control a layout as a whole."
Capt,
I think the packages are out there, but the "user friendly" part depends a lot on the user.
The biggest problem, of course, is that everyone's layout is different, so any program has to be flexible. There will always be a need to specificly set up a system for your layout. That adds a lot of complexity. It shouldn't involve writing code or binary numbers, but if you have more than a simple oval, it gets complicated.
Systems like CMRI and JMRI have the basic things you want, but setting them up to control a layout is still more than simple plug n play.
Perhaps the ideal program would let you draw your layout ala the existing CAD programs and the program would then generate the specs and operating software, screen, etc for your system. It could tell you where you'd need sensors, blocks, wiring diagrams etc. depending on what you wanted to do.
It's a shame part of this thread has taken on a DC vs DCC tilt, because the "ultimate" control program can be operating system independent. If you look at what is needed - train location sensing and automation, its irrelevant how you control the engines. You are still locating engines, setting their speed, setting speed and stops, setting turnouts for routes, etc. Whether that's done via a cab block system or DCC is irrelevant, a computer can handle that detail.