locoi1sa Hi. Is DCC turning a hobby into another hobby? It seems when someone asks a question about a decoder they get responses with JMRI decoder pro, sound file, function control, consisting, advanced consisting, PR3, RTC, BEMF, P&P, FFN, RFN, 28SS 128SS, and other acronyms thinkable in the answers. What happened to the KISS (Keep It Simple & Stupid) methods? Even though I have been into DCC for over a decade I sometimes feel I am still in the stone age sometimes. With 72 decoder equipped locos and over 100 decoder instals I have never found a reason to change a sound file or hook my laptop to my modules. I have decoder pro but never hooked it to a track. I rarely use more than 4 functions and really don't need my locomotive to talk to the scale cattle on the miniature farm in their native tongue. I also don't need to have my decoder tell me what address it is. I can read that right on the side of the loco. I feel that I should not need an engineering degree to set up ditch lights. Why does it take 4 pages in a manual that is 120 pages long to do so? Do we make it harder than it has to be? Do we spend more time fooling with decoders instead of running them? Do have a $160 programer for your $100 decoder? Is it a hobby in a hobby? Pete
Hi.
Is DCC turning a hobby into another hobby? It seems when someone asks a question about a decoder they get responses with JMRI decoder pro, sound file, function control, consisting, advanced consisting, PR3, RTC, BEMF, P&P, FFN, RFN, 28SS 128SS, and other acronyms thinkable in the answers. What happened to the KISS (Keep It Simple & Stupid) methods?
Even though I have been into DCC for over a decade I sometimes feel I am still in the stone age sometimes. With 72 decoder equipped locos and over 100 decoder instals I have never found a reason to change a sound file or hook my laptop to my modules. I have decoder pro but never hooked it to a track. I rarely use more than 4 functions and really don't need my locomotive to talk to the scale cattle on the miniature farm in their native tongue. I also don't need to have my decoder tell me what address it is. I can read that right on the side of the loco. I feel that I should not need an engineering degree to set up ditch lights. Why does it take 4 pages in a manual that is 120 pages long to do so?
Do we make it harder than it has to be? Do we spend more time fooling with decoders instead of running them? Do have a $160 programer for your $100 decoder? Is it a hobby in a hobby?
Pete
If you are in the stone age with 72 decoders then what am I running DC only? However that is my choice to run DC and not 'upgrade' to DCC. From what the original q was, there seems to be more stuff in DCC than what the average guy wants. Much like PCs, cell phones, even new cars, have way too much stuff that the average user will ever need to use. I have a cell phone to call people and not do banking while hanging from the side of a mountain. It seems like that if DCC was less packed with features rendering it more user friendly, more modelers would go for it. My roster of old locos, brass, and other orphans don't seem to be DCC compatible. Well, maybe a better term would be they certainly may need more than just a drop in decoder to get them running. I am not about to go through this work when I can be either running trains or building stuff.
I am one who likes to paint rolling stock and kitbash buildings other than what the original product was supposed to be. Isn't that a hobby within a hobby as well? Being a model railroader means you need to know someting about woodwork, electronics, painting, and all the other things needed to complete a layout. It doesn't mean you have to be an expert in every field but knowing something, even a little, helps considerably to complete the overall picture. I can't paint for the life of me but I gave my backdrops the old college try and came up with something that I could call my own. People are amazed that just about every single thing in my train room is my own handiwork. Do I ever agonize over the littlest of things, sure I do. But in the end, I love to run trains. What else is there?
-Paul
Being electrically illiterate in many ways, I feel like a fish out of water posting here, but the "hobby within a hobby" concept caught my attention. Yes, I feel that dcc ,or even complex dc, is a subset of the broader model railroading hobby. I don't really get involved in that aspect of the hobby much.
But a poster upstream suggested that, in a way, the complex (at least visually) circuitry that accompanies a control panel such as Sheldon's, is in many ways similar to the complex circuitry and programming that is printed onto decoder boards. Both approaches involve complex circuitry. Neither of which may be understood very well by the casual "electronics" modeler.
At $20 per decoder, for 50 locomotives, that complexity costs me $1,000. Could I hire someone like Sheldon to install a DC system that does the same thing as the decoders do for the same amount of money? Keeping in mind that a lot of Sheldon's complex (to me) wiring is for his signaling and such, something that a printed DCC circuit board doesn't do anyway. How much time would it take to wire 50 decoders? I mean the circuits that are within the decoders, not wire the decoders to the locomotive.
Could a modeler hire someone to wire a 4x8 layout to run three trains for the same price another would spend if he bought a DCC system to run three trains? The installer could explain, maybe even write down, how to operate the layout. Just like the DCC manufacturers do with the manuals for their systems.
Requiring the DC modeler to be able to design and install the circuitry that's under his layout, but not requiring the DCC modeler to install and understand the proprietary software that's on the dcc board he buys, seems like an unfair comparison to me.
Kind of feeds into the old "scratchbuilding VS RTR" debate. In some ways, modelers like Sheldon scratch-build the circuitry that's needed to run their layout , whereas others buy the circuitry that's needed to run their layout, RTR, since its already printed on the decoder. Hmmm...
Depends on how involved you want to be in whatever aspect of the hobby is enjoyable to you.
- Douglas
rrinker I suppose I would be a naturel, had I not become enamored of command control after readign about Astrac way back when (well after it was gone from the market, but long before DCC). I ALWAYS gapped both rails and controled both on my DC layouts, I never was a fan of common rail wiring, it just didn't seem right to me, and that was long before I knew enough to actually understand why. It's easy, for 2 cab wiring using Atlas components, but then you are reduced to toggle flipping to run your train. Hardly fun and it's no wonder it goes by the wayside and something else is tried. Even many big clubs - until the abortive attempt at RailLynx at the club I used to belong to, and subsequent conversion to DCC, all we had were 2 cabs on the main. We wired it for up to 6, but never had more than 2. Plus another in the hump yard. Hardly conduceive to operationg. Another local club operates the old fashioned way, all power assigned by the dispatcher and the engineers sit in a crow's nest and run from there - you can hardly see your train at the furthest reaches of the layout from there. Double yuck. --Randy
I suppose I would be a naturel, had I not become enamored of command control after readign about Astrac way back when (well after it was gone from the market, but long before DCC). I ALWAYS gapped both rails and controled both on my DC layouts, I never was a fan of common rail wiring, it just didn't seem right to me, and that was long before I knew enough to actually understand why. It's easy, for 2 cab wiring using Atlas components, but then you are reduced to toggle flipping to run your train. Hardly fun and it's no wonder it goes by the wayside and something else is tried. Even many big clubs - until the abortive attempt at RailLynx at the club I used to belong to, and subsequent conversion to DCC, all we had were 2 cabs on the main. We wired it for up to 6, but never had more than 2. Plus another in the hump yard. Hardly conduceive to operationg. Another local club operates the old fashioned way, all power assigned by the dispatcher and the engineers sit in a crow's nest and run from there - you can hardly see your train at the furthest reaches of the layout from there. Double yuck.
--Randy
Randy, that's thing, imagine all those old layouts with wireless throttles, and it was being done way before me.
That's why I joke all the time with my comment "what is the point of DCC if it is not wireless?"
It is not so much DCC or DC, or operating a few buttons here or there, it is about not being tied to a single control panel. And as you well know, the truth is that has been being done in DC for decades now.
Sheldon
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
jwmurrayjr And is it not the point of the forum to share with others what we do in the hobby? Sheldon, I, for one, found your detailed description of what may be done in DC (Cab control?) very interesting. Also Simon's comments. If it weren't for MRR forums and folks like you who will take the time to share their experiences and knowledge some of us (rookies?) would waste a lot of time and money "reinventing the wheel". And, I guess, there's always room for "critics". Thanks to all of you for your help and have fun,
And is it not the point of the forum to share with others what we do in the hobby?
Sheldon,
I, for one, found your detailed description of what may be done in DC (Cab control?) very interesting. Also Simon's comments. If it weren't for MRR forums and folks like you who will take the time to share their experiences and knowledge some of us (rookies?) would waste a lot of time and money "reinventing the wheel".
And, I guess, there's always room for "critics".
Thanks to all of you for your help and have fun,
Thank you, glad you found it interesting. Yes it is a form of Cab Control. Systems like mine and the orginal MZL, and Bruce Chubbs original system are commonly called "Advance Cab Control Systems" by those who have written about and documented them.
One important point here is that there are lots of misconceptions about advanced DC cab control amoung many who are newer to the hobby. Many in the hobby today have never seen any of these systems in operation on a layout - yet they are full of second hand "opinions" about DC control - or their opinons are based on a few experiances with a few poorly designed control schemes on a few layouts. And I will admitt, there have been some nightmare DC layouts in this world - and many examples of layouts wired with poor wiring practices - rats nest wiring!
But there have also been many easy to operate, very advanced feature DC layouts, going back many decades before DCC.
rrinker Or people who have old issues of MR The basic MZL system was described in a series of articles by Ed Ravenscroft way back in 1974. And Bruce CHudd did automatic power assignment as part of the C/MRI system - in two forms. One used relays to assign power to the block your train was in, the other used a throttle per block and connected your control to the throttle for the block your train was in. Bruce used the former on his Sunset Valley, until switchign to DCC for the latest version of it. --Randy
Or people who have old issues of MR
The basic MZL system was described in a series of articles by Ed Ravenscroft way back in 1974. And Bruce CHudd did automatic power assignment as part of the C/MRI system - in two forms. One used relays to assign power to the block your train was in, the other used a throttle per block and connected your control to the throttle for the block your train was in. Bruce used the former on his Sunset Valley, until switchign to DCC for the latest version of it.
Yes, different elements of what I do have been covered in MR and RMC over the years. My version takes many elements from Ed Ravenscroft's MZL, and also uses strong elements of Bruce Chubbs original cab control and signal system, long before he computerized it.
It also uses several concepts proposed by Paul Mallery, that Paul himself admitted to never trying. We have tried them and they work as Paul predicted. I'm sure he is smiling about that from above.
it also uses several "out of the box" ideas from John Allen - one of which is NO COMMON RAIL WIRING - the simple secret to easy automatic collision avoidance and block over run protection.
Taking elements from each of these great modelers, and combining them with the wireless radio throttles has provided a very good system that is very flexible from an operational standpoint.
As stated previously, is best suits a particular set of goals and several particular types of layouts. It does require planning and advance knowledge of your goals - if your not a planner, or don't know what you want to , you might like DCC better.
But for me, with about 8 scale miles of double track mainline, staging for 30 trains, 100 plus powered units ot pull those trains, and a relatively simple, uncluttered large layout to support the operation of that many fairly long trains, it is a good choice, especailly considering my lack of interest in onboard sound.
Yes, it is a hobby within the hobby.
Jim Murray The San Juan Southern RR
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Look, I don't want to debate DCC vs DC, but I will not be shouted down everytime someone asks a DC question, or a related question, and I answer it. The OP raised a question, I simply pointed out that advanced electronics need not be limited to DCC for it to be "a hobby within the hobby" and that in fact advanced DC, signaling and CTC may all be more of a hobby within the hobby than DCC alone could ever be. You like DCC, great. I use it all the time, its fine, but I don't need or want it at home. I'm having more fun with less money doing what I do. It that not the point - to have fun? And is it not the point of the forum to share with outher what we do in the hobby? Or must it pass some PC test before we can share our knowledge and experiance? We know David thinks so. Sheldon
Look, I don't want to debate DCC vs DC, but I will not be shouted down everytime someone asks a DC question, or a related question, and I answer it. The OP raised a question, I simply pointed out that advanced electronics need not be limited to DCC for it to be "a hobby within the hobby" and that in fact advanced DC, signaling and CTC may all be more of a hobby within the hobby than DCC alone could ever be.
You like DCC, great. I use it all the time, its fine, but I don't need or want it at home. I'm having more fun with less money doing what I do. It that not the point - to have fun?
And is it not the point of the forum to share with outher what we do in the hobby? Or must it pass some PC test before we can share our knowledge and experiance? We know David thinks so.
Nor do I wish to debate. As a matter of fact, I don't think you can find any post of mine where I've stated that that one should chose one manner of control over another. And I don't believe that you will find any post of mine where I have "shouted you down", unless you consider a difference of opinion"shouting". If you feel that someone has shouted you down, you should take that up with them directly.
As regards any sort of PC test and David's requirement that there be such a thing, that's another thing that you need to address with him directly. FWIW, there is many a time where I don't agree with him either.
maxman ATLANTIC CENTRAL: Maxman, in addition to Fred's detailed answer, maybe you should learn more about the prototype, in particular Automatic Train Control and Automatic Train Stop, systems used on many North American Class I passenger trains going all the way back to the 1930's. A relay box on the loco (even on steam locos) would shut the throttle and apply the brakes if an Engineer ran a red signal or exceeded the allowed speed. Sound just like my control system - run a red light, your train stops. Sheldon I am well aware of automatic train control and train stop. However, I don't believe that all locomotives are equipped with that, such as those freight diesels which operate on lines where passenger trains are present. If they were, how would that guy on the Amtrak line north of you have managed to run those engines in front of the pasenger train?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL: Maxman, in addition to Fred's detailed answer, maybe you should learn more about the prototype, in particular Automatic Train Control and Automatic Train Stop, systems used on many North American Class I passenger trains going all the way back to the 1930's. A relay box on the loco (even on steam locos) would shut the throttle and apply the brakes if an Engineer ran a red signal or exceeded the allowed speed. Sound just like my control system - run a red light, your train stops. Sheldon
Maxman, in addition to Fred's detailed answer, maybe you should learn more about the prototype, in particular Automatic Train Control and Automatic Train Stop, systems used on many North American Class I passenger trains going all the way back to the 1930's.
A relay box on the loco (even on steam locos) would shut the throttle and apply the brakes if an Engineer ran a red signal or exceeded the allowed speed.
Sound just like my control system - run a red light, your train stops.
I am well aware of automatic train control and train stop. However, I don't believe that all locomotives are equipped with that, such as those freight diesels which operate on lines where passenger trains are present. If they were, how would that guy on the Amtrak line north of you have managed to run those engines in front of the pasenger train?
You used the phrase "nothing on the prototype". True, freight locos are not equiped with ATC.
Ricky Gates had his cab signal warning buzzer disabled and ignored the big red light in his cab, and the big red light on the signal - taking drugs will do that to you.
Than Simon asked a question, I answered it.
"DCC a hobby inside a hobby?"
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Maxman, in addition to Fred's detailed answer, maybe you should learn more about the prototype, in particular Automatic Train Control and Automatic Train Stop, systems used on many North American Class I passenger trains going all the way back to the 1930's. A relay box on the loco (even on steam locos) would shut the throttle and apply the brakes if an Engineer ran a red signal or exceeded the allowed speed. Sound just like my control system - run a red light, your train stops. Sheldon
simon1966 Thanks Sheldon, I appreciate the detailed response. The beautifully executed wiring makes the rats next behind my friends panels look like a real complex disaster. From your description it is clear that a well planned and thought out solution, with clearly defined limits, that is implemented with care, can result in an almost bullet proof solution that is simple and very elegant to use. It may look daunting, but as you point out, if approached as smaller elements, the whole can be created. But as we see from comments, time and time again on the forum, a 200 page sound decoder manual is rather daunting for people as well! How many postings have there been from assorted DCC gurus saying "if you only do the basics, it is not all that complex" As has been stated many times, either solution, DC or DCC can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. In your case the complexity is in the planning and execution, the simplicity comes in the operation where it all works together. Frankly a DCC system with full signalling and dispatcher control would not be appreciably simpler IMO. The Cab control and DCC power bus probably would, but the switch control and signalling wiring would be the same. If the DCC solution is simpler, it is because someone has created rather complex boards designed to perform specific functions and done the work for the modeller. There are some tasks, for example a decision to add an additional Cab, which I suspect are profoundly simpler on a DCC system than a DC cab control system? This I think is probably the biggest difference. The notion of growing and expanding a system is much easier with DCC than DC. Which means that a DCC owner does not have to have a clear picture in their mind of their end point. I think a well planned DC system does. Thanks again for your description. I think it illustrates well that with care and planning, much of what people want in a layout can be achieved with DC, just as well as with DCC.
Thanks Sheldon, I appreciate the detailed response. The beautifully executed wiring makes the rats next behind my friends panels look like a real complex disaster.
From your description it is clear that a well planned and thought out solution, with clearly defined limits, that is implemented with care, can result in an almost bullet proof solution that is simple and very elegant to use. It may look daunting, but as you point out, if approached as smaller elements, the whole can be created.
But as we see from comments, time and time again on the forum, a 200 page sound decoder manual is rather daunting for people as well! How many postings have there been from assorted DCC gurus saying "if you only do the basics, it is not all that complex"
As has been stated many times, either solution, DC or DCC can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. In your case the complexity is in the planning and execution, the simplicity comes in the operation where it all works together.
Frankly a DCC system with full signalling and dispatcher control would not be appreciably simpler IMO. The Cab control and DCC power bus probably would, but the switch control and signalling wiring would be the same. If the DCC solution is simpler, it is because someone has created rather complex boards designed to perform specific functions and done the work for the modeller.
There are some tasks, for example a decision to add an additional Cab, which I suspect are profoundly simpler on a DCC system than a DC cab control system? This I think is probably the biggest difference. The notion of growing and expanding a system is much easier with DCC than DC. Which means that a DCC owner does not have to have a clear picture in their mind of their end point. I think a well planned DC system does.
Thanks again for your description. I think it illustrates well that with care and planning, much of what people want in a layout can be achieved with DC, just as well as with DCC.
Simon, Your are most welcome and thank you for the kind words.
You are correct, DCC layouts with full detection, signaling and CTC are very similar in wiring complexity to a DC system like mine. Actually my one button route turnout control, detection and signaling would all work with DCC. But since a lot of the power routing is done simply by additional contacts on the same relays that handle the turnouts and signal interlocking, there is actually a built in economy in the fully intergrated DC version.
I can do one button turnouts routes WAY cheaper than with stationary decoders for example.
And, my system does not depend on any proprietary products other than the Aristo Throttles - everything else is simple relays and common electrical items. No special circuits, other than one relay board I made myself to make wiring easier, no software, etc.
I do use a commercially offered detector, but could build those myself if I needed or wanted to.
maxman fwright: davidmbedard: DCC only requires 2 wires......and does more than what your layout does. David B David I assume you are trying to goad Sheldon. Otherwise, your statement makes no sense. Two wire DCC sets up a "see and avoid" system, not a signaled, interlocked, CTC system. They are 2 totally different control philosophies. To replicate the signaling and interlocking in DCC takes far more than 2 wires - this I have learned from signaling in Free-mo. Because DCC's inherent structure is "operate anywhere you like at your own risk", it takes more logic (and associated wiring), not less, to replicate the inherent track sectioned structure of DC. Either DC or DCC can be used to mimic the operational style of the other, but it takes added complication to mimic the non-native structure or architecture. Fred W Well, goading aside (and yes, he does an excellent job of that), can you explain what you mean by your sentence "Because DCC's inherent structure is "operate anywhere you like at your own risk", it takes more logic (and associated wiring), not less, to replicate the inherent track sectioned structure of DC."? Isn't "operate anywhere you like at your own risk" more like the real world? Are not prototype engineers able to run across derails, through switches thrown against them, and through red signals if they are not attententive? I'm pretty certain that there is nothing in the prototype that shuts the power off to the track if the dispatcher has not aligned things the right way, except maybe in the subway.
fwright: davidmbedard: DCC only requires 2 wires......and does more than what your layout does. David B David I assume you are trying to goad Sheldon. Otherwise, your statement makes no sense. Two wire DCC sets up a "see and avoid" system, not a signaled, interlocked, CTC system. They are 2 totally different control philosophies. To replicate the signaling and interlocking in DCC takes far more than 2 wires - this I have learned from signaling in Free-mo. Because DCC's inherent structure is "operate anywhere you like at your own risk", it takes more logic (and associated wiring), not less, to replicate the inherent track sectioned structure of DC. Either DC or DCC can be used to mimic the operational style of the other, but it takes added complication to mimic the non-native structure or architecture. Fred W
davidmbedard: DCC only requires 2 wires......and does more than what your layout does. David B
DCC only requires 2 wires......and does more than what your layout does.
David B
David
I assume you are trying to goad Sheldon. Otherwise, your statement makes no sense. Two wire DCC sets up a "see and avoid" system, not a signaled, interlocked, CTC system. They are 2 totally different control philosophies. To replicate the signaling and interlocking in DCC takes far more than 2 wires - this I have learned from signaling in Free-mo. Because DCC's inherent structure is "operate anywhere you like at your own risk", it takes more logic (and associated wiring), not less, to replicate the inherent track sectioned structure of DC. Either DC or DCC can be used to mimic the operational style of the other, but it takes added complication to mimic the non-native structure or architecture.
Fred W
Well, goading aside (and yes, he does an excellent job of that), can you explain what you mean by your sentence "Because DCC's inherent structure is "operate anywhere you like at your own risk", it takes more logic (and associated wiring), not less, to replicate the inherent track sectioned structure of DC."? Isn't "operate anywhere you like at your own risk" more like the real world? Are not prototype engineers able to run across derails, through switches thrown against them, and through red signals if they are not attententive? I'm pretty certain that there is nothing in the prototype that shuts the power off to the track if the dispatcher has not aligned things the right way, except maybe in the subway.
maxman .....can you explain what you mean by your sentence "Because DCC's inherent structure is "operate anywhere you like at your own risk", it takes more logic (and associated wiring), not less, to replicate the inherent track sectioned structure of DC."? Isn't "operate anywhere you like at your own risk" more like the real world? Are not prototype engineers able to run across derails, through switches thrown against them, and through red signals if they are not attententive? I'm pretty certain that there is nothing in the prototype that shuts the power off to the track if the dispatcher has not aligned things the right way, except maybe in the subway.
.....can you explain what you mean by your sentence "Because DCC's inherent structure is "operate anywhere you like at your own risk", it takes more logic (and associated wiring), not less, to replicate the inherent track sectioned structure of DC."? Isn't "operate anywhere you like at your own risk" more like the real world? Are not prototype engineers able to run across derails, through switches thrown against them, and through red signals if they are not attententive? I'm pretty certain that there is nothing in the prototype that shuts the power off to the track if the dispatcher has not aligned things the right way, except maybe in the subway.
"All things are possible, but not all things are beneficial."
My experience was as a helicopter pilot who did a lot of operations under both VFR and IFR rules. I have never been a train engineer, although there are some similarities. It is from the aviation perspective that I wrote what I did.
As you point out very clearly, an engineer can (and certainly there are examples) ignore the structure and rules put in place to prevent more than one train from being in the same place at the same time. Similarly, a pilot can fly where he wants, whether permitted by the rules and structure or not. In either case, breaking the rules is not conducive to longevity or long term employment in the occupation.
In the VFR (visual flight rules) world, a pilot is responsible for his own clearance from any obstacles and other aircraft - hence the term "see and avoid". A real world engineer on a short line where he is the only train running on the track has the same responsibilities - he has to line his own turnouts, and visually detect and avoid any obstacles or track problems. The stock DCC setup (2 wires to the track) automatically puts the operator into the "see and avoid" mode of being responsible for lining his own turnouts and keeping from hitting other trains or track obstacles. There are no signals or other aids other than eyeballs. Sometimes, in model railroading we call this "engineer" style ops. This is DCC's inherent structure - to allow the engineer to guide his train anywhere he wants.
In aviation, IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) impose a structure on operations so that planes can safely operate under conditions where they cannot see the obstacles and other planes they need to avoid. IFR also allows more efficient use of the airspace by requiring pilots to adhere to a set of rules and routes. Similarly, CTC operations and signalling were implemented by the railroads to provide safer operations where train speeds, braking distances, and visibilities were not sufficient to use simple "see and avoid". The added benefit of dispatching was more efficient utilization of the track.
Dark territory and timetable operations are an in-between category that is suitable for less dense operations. The class rules and order of precedence gave much greater safety than "see and avoid". But the rules required one train hold for another at a given passing siding, even though real time communications and dispatching might have allowed advancing further before holding. The analogy in the aviation world might be VFR or Special VFR operations at an airfield with a control tower.
DC cab control has the same inherent division of the track into sections as the signalled prototype. And the objective in both cases is to prevent two trains from being in the same section of track at the same time. To implement the same sectionalized track structure for signalling in DCC requires dividing the track into electrical sections, which implies wiring similar to the DC case. And unless extensive interlock logic (more wiring) is employed, the DCC engineers must have the self-discipline to observe and comply with signals and dispatching. As numerous club-size and large personal layouts have proved, DC lends itself to interlocking power since the track sections are already there. The prototype emplys interlocking at key junctions and crossings to enforce the self-discipline of the engineer - he can't go change the turnout to his liking when he wants, or go through the smash board without telltale evidence of his violation.
Personally, my layout is dark territory, and I use sequential ops as a lone operator (similar to the short line example). Both DC and DCC work fine and are easy to implement under those circumstances. Modeling small 19th Century prototypes in HO and HOn3 leads to onboard sound being less desirable than in larger models. And the trade-offs of speaker encloser space vs improved mechanism and extra weight in such small models tend to further the argument against sound. Given that I already have the DC power packs and throttles I need, DCC does not represent sufficient extra value for my limited hobby budget.
OTOH, DCC is a requirement for Free-mo modules. So I will eventually go down the DCC road so that I can use my locomotives when I attend a setup. Wiring-wise it is very easy to wire a module set to use either DC or DCC at home.
All goading aside. It is clear that there are many hobbies inside the model railroad hobby. From the woodworking that goes into the layout building to the finish scenery. Is model railroading really a hobby at all? I believe it breaks down into many separate arts and crafts into an exercise that can be as simple as we like or to any combination that requires complex engineering and execution. Can you call DCC a hobby? Yes you can. Can it be a separate hobby away from model railroading? No it can not. So the question should be, Is model railroading a hobby? This question is what makes this a great hobby.
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
fwright davidmbedard: DCC only requires 2 wires......and does more than what your layout does. David B David I assume you are trying to goad Sheldon. Otherwise, your statement makes no sense. Two wire DCC sets up a "see and avoid" system, not a signaled, interlocked, CTC system. They are 2 totally different control philosophies. To replicate the signaling and interlocking in DCC takes far more than 2 wires - this I have learned from signaling in Free-mo. Because DCC's inherent structure is "operate anywhere you like at your own risk", it takes more logic (and associated wiring), not less, to replicate the inherent track sectioned structure of DC. Either DC or DCC can be used to mimic the operational style of the other, but it takes added complication to mimic the non-native structure or architecture. Fred W
fwright davidmbedard: DCC only requires 2 wires......and does more than what your layout does. David B David I assume you are trying to goad Sheldon.
I assume you are trying to goad Sheldon.
Of course David is! Actually David is quite an expert at it. Note how the carefully crafted minimalist 13 word sentence manages to squeeze in several trigger words
I rather like that there are passionate, opinionated individuals on this forum that really know their chosen subject very well and are not afraid to spout off about it.
Of course Sheldon should now ignore David's posting with the "contempt that is deserves"
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
davidmbedard DCC only requires 2 wires......and does more than what your layout does. David B
Simon,
First, my system is not fully automatic, but such systems do exist and are not really as complex as you might think. You need to understand that systems like this are just like your car, or any other complex machine/system - lots of smaller, usually simple, systems connected together to preform a more complex task or group of tasks. And, building and using them does require learning how they work and taking it step by step - not trying to "look at the whole picture" at once.
What I have works like this:
First a few terms - rather than "block", which is a signaling term, lets call the isolated sections of track "sections", each throttle is a "cab".
The cabs are assigned to some sections manually, but not with toggles or rotary switches, but with a series of lighted pushbuttons that can be duplicated at as many different locations as is needed around the layout. Basic example, one set at the begining of the section on a small local panel, one set at the end of section, and one set on the dispatchers CTC panel of the whole layout.
Other sections are assigned to a particular cab based on turnout position or route selection. This part happens automaticly as routes and turnouts are selected, based on the manually selected sections.
Rather than try to explain the circuitry, it is easier to explain how it operates:
Walk around with no dispatcher - you have throttle A in your hand, your train is in section 1, on one of the two local panels for that section you push the button for cab A. Any other cab previously connected is automaticly disconnected and you are connected. You start your train. As you proceed you come to a complex interlocking (crossovers, juction, or both). Rather than having to select both the turnout route and a cab asignment, you need only select the route, which is done with one button, and select the next section after that, and your power is automaticly routed through the interlocking. This is known as an X section. Hope that was clear enough.
In this mode your are still manually assigning your cab to track sections, but only for about half as many "sections" as in simpler, more traditional cab control systems - in other words half the sections (or blocks) are selected for you by route and turnout position, greatly reducing the number of, in this case, buttons you must push. And because the buttons are duplicated where needed, you walk around and are not tied to one control panel.
While all this was happening, full ABS signaling was happening with it, and when your route was clear and correcly set you got green signals, when not you got red signals.
With a dispatcher - now the dispatcher controls the cab assignments and signals from his panel, but it is all intergrated. He too only pushes one button to route your train through a complex interlocking or route and only one other button to give you clearance for your next section. Those two actions on his part, just like a REAL CTC dispatcher, sets your route, align the turnouts and gives you a green signal - all you do is operate the train with your wireless throttle - you never touch a button on a panel.
This is just like real mainline operation with CTC, the engineer responds to the signals and to his timetable.
The goal in my case is to simulate CTC type mainline operation with full working CTC and interlocking signals on a double track mainline. Since the track must be divided into "blocks" for detection and signaling, and real railroads go to great lenght to prevent two trains from being in the same place at the same time, it is all very prototypical.
This type of system does require good track planning and system planning. And it lends its self to medium to large layouts. It is not good for trying to "squeeze" the most operation into the smallest space.
The throttles I use are the Aristo Craft Train Engineer and they have great control and range. They are simple to use - only 5 buttons to control the train - faster, slower, east, west, emergency stop. Each throttle has its own 4 amp power supply.
While it works a little different than on my double track layout, I have also installed this on a friends single track layout. Here are some photos of his control panels:
The third photo is typical of the wiring needed to support one of the typical panels shown. They are built on the bench and then only about 10 wires get hooked to the layout and panels.
There is a panel like this for each of his passing sidings and two trains can meet and pass with only a few buttons being pushed and the necessary turnouts thrown. Again he uses the same wireless throttles.
Again, without trying to explain the circuitry here, it is virtually impossible to "overrun" your section, that is one of the features built in. If you go past trackage that has been assigned to you, your train just stops dead. It is actually very simple, but hard to explain in words - I could e-mail you a drawing.
I never meant to imply this was for everyone, or that it is "easier" than DCC - quite the opposite. Like the question posed by the OP, it is a hobby within the hobby and is truely an advanced aspect of the hobby - but this is true of signaling be it on a DC layout or a DCC layout.
My specific version of this is not on the web, I doubt if any of the these circuits or methods are documented on line, but they are well documented in past issues of MR and RMC and in the Electrical Handbook for Model Railroads by Paul Mallery and in a book that I am writing - as I have time. Send me a PM and I will send you a list of references and other info.
Hope this helps answer your questions, feel free to ask more specific questions.
This question is out of genuine curiosity because you are the only person I know of that has a DC system with the capability that you have described many times.
Before asking the question I want to confirm my understanding.
10 plus wireless DC throttles work simultaneously running multiple loco trains. Block control is fully automatic with trains moving from block to block without the need for the operators to switch toggles or turn knobs to go from block to block. In effect all the trains are running fully independent in their own blocks at all times. All signalling and interlocks are integrated with the block system and work somewhat automatically. Is this somewhat correct?
Now for the questions. Since my only experience with DC block control has been operating on a friends manually switched block system, and since I was staggered at the wiring complexity of his layout, I really struggle to imagine how complex the wiring must be, behind the scenes, to create a system that works as seamlessly as yours appears to? I am guessing that the integrated interlocking and signal system goes a long way to ensuring that trains don't end up in the same block at the same time?
I have no doubt that your layout is at the upper end of the bell-shaped-curve when compared to most DC layouts, but I wonder if it is something that is within reach for most modellers? If someone is genuinely overwhelmed by DCC would they find your solution any more accessible?
Final question, is there anywhere on the web that you can go to learn how to implement such a solution as yours?
maxman said "I don't think it would be possible to do this without DCC. In fact, I'd like you to direct me to the club or home layout with DC where it is possible for a "group of 30 plus operators" to walk around an area that big and actually do anything."
Why not? My much smaller (24 x 40 - two decks) DC layout supports 8-10 engineers, a dispatcher and a couple of yard masters. I use wireless radio DC throttles. I have seen several layouts using similar systems much larger than mine, with 20-30 operators and trains moving - no problem.
I'm not trying to take you back to anything, but I'm just as tired of being told how "great" all this stuff is. I use DCC on six different layouts on a regular basis, including one I going to tonight - I know more than enough about it - I don't need or want it.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL cmrproducts: The playing with all of the CVs is for those modelers that just run around in circles ;-) If they were Operating their layouts and had a group of 30 plus operators into their layout to have a full blown OPs Session all the layout owner would be worried about is - Are the engines running! As for setting all of the sounds - Horns and the like - with 20 some sound engines ALL RUNNING at once - you can't tell the difference between one engine and another - IF ! You are concentrating on your switching JOB! If not then you are just running trains around in a circle! ;-) BOB H - Clarion, PA This sounds like a lot of the reasons I don't need DCC.
cmrproducts: The playing with all of the CVs is for those modelers that just run around in circles ;-) If they were Operating their layouts and had a group of 30 plus operators into their layout to have a full blown OPs Session all the layout owner would be worried about is - Are the engines running! As for setting all of the sounds - Horns and the like - with 20 some sound engines ALL RUNNING at once - you can't tell the difference between one engine and another - IF ! You are concentrating on your switching JOB! If not then you are just running trains around in a circle! ;-) BOB H - Clarion, PA
The playing with all of the CVs is for those modelers that just run around in circles ;-)
If they were Operating their layouts and had a group of 30 plus operators into their layout to have a full blown OPs Session all the layout owner would be worried about is -
Are the engines running!
As for setting all of the sounds - Horns and the like - with 20 some sound engines ALL RUNNING at once - you can't tell the difference between one engine and another -
IF !
You are concentrating on your switching JOB!
If not
then you are just running trains around in a circle! ;-)
BOB H - Clarion, PA
This sounds like a lot of the reasons I don't need DCC.
Well, gentlemen, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, erroneous though they may be. I participate in "full blown" operating sessions on someone's home layout on a monthly basis. These sessions regularly attract 25 to 30 people, all using walk-around DCC cabs. Yes, there is sound. And when I operate my particular yard position I can assure you that I'm pretty much hearing my engine and not paying attention to the other locos that pass by.
Yes, I suppose you could say that the trains are "running in a circle", in as much that the trains loop around the 30 by 80 foot barn with an addition half again as big as they make their point to point way from one end of the railroad to the other.
I don't think it would be possible to do this without DCC. In fact, I'd like you to direct me to the club or home layout with DC where it is possible for a "group of 30 plus operators" to walk around an area that big and actually do anything.
So far as sound goes people can take it or leave it, and have their reasons (technical or otherwise) to support their positions. I'm fine with that. But to be quite honest, the one sound that bothers me the most is the annoying drumbeat of the detractors who wish to transport me back to the thrilling days of yesteryear.
HI, HO, SILVER! AWAY!
cmrproducts The playing with all of the CVs is for those modelers that just run around in circles ;-) If they were Operating their layouts and had a group of 30 plus operators into their layout to have a full blown OPs Session all the layout owner would be worried about is - Are the engines running! As for setting all of the sounds - Horns and the like - with 20 some sound engines ALL RUNNING at once - you can't tell the difference between one engine and another - IF ! You are concentrating on your switching JOB! If not then you are just running trains around in a circle! ;-) BOB H - Clarion, PA
Well, computers have been a hobby for some people forever. I actually built my own back in the 70s. But after over twenty years programming, designing systems and managing those who do, I like my model railroading simple. DCC - 75% "straight from the box".
But if you think about it, MRR-ing is a high-tech hobby, at least compared to whittling or knitting and other simpler (and cheaper!) hobbies. So it's not a huge surprise to see those who choose it also overly interested in computerization. I've found similarities with my fellow gearheads and our cars.
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler
That's why I intend running d.c. on my small, narrow shelf switching layout to start, with only 3 locos, (maybe a fourth later) I can spot all un-needed ones on spur, shut off power by simply resetting my Peco t/o to the main and run my single switcher with a big grin. IF I finally go DCC, t'will be all Lenz; (already have set 90, XPA throttle) only need max of 4 Standard Plus decoders which will only set me back 80 bucks plus postage. My 2 cents....papasmurf
locoi1sa Do we spend more time fooling with decoders instead of running them? Do have a $160 programer for your $100 decoder? Is it a hobby in a hobby?
Do we spend more time fooling with decoders instead of running them? Do have a $160 programer for your $100 decoder? Is it a hobby in a hobby?
Do I spend more time building scenery for my trains to run through than I do running them? Yes
Do I have a hundred-dollar decoder in a forty-dollar engine? Yes
Is it a hobby within a hobby? Of course! Scenery-building is a hobby within a hobby. And hydrocal casting is a hobby within a hobby within a hobby. It's this breadth and depth of skills and experiences that makes model railroading so engaging.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.