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.
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?
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.
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.
Than Simon asked a question, I answered it.
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.
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
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.
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,
Jim Murray The San Juan Southern RR
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
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
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
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.
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,
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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