Most people tend to be on one side or the other. The facts are straight DC is the similest to build and maintain, that is for a basic lauout. Once you start getting into more complicated stuff at some point DCC becomes simpler. You add sound onboard (less likely in N scale) DCC has many advantages. Controling lights ect. then DCC also (I only have DC stuff so trying to be nutral here). Then we get into what I am trying to get into which is battery on board (in HO). Simpiler than DC as far as wiring but you get into much more complex stuf on the engine but really simple for sound as long as you don't need it onboard but once you want it onboard, that is another story. Many hybread systems out there too but not as much in N scale.
I'm going both ways of DC vs DCC. I grew up with DC wiring when DCC was still being improving and work properly.
I have the same idea as you with a 2 door layout. I will follow the idea that MR magazine did with their N Scale Red Oak project layout making it dual power.
My first DCC layout will be Conrail. Since Atlas discontinued their plain DCC with DCC Sound if will a hard to find extra money if I want them. I'll slowly convert DC locomotives like Amtrak, Union Pacific, BNSF, and others. The railroads that wouldn't change will be Chessie System and New York Central.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd while I'm here, one more time, the idea that multi train operation on DC requires constant "toggle flipping" is also simply not true.
If I may ask a question, if a dispatcher is required when you want to run multiple trains, and the dispatcher is assigning the block power to the individual trains, is not the dispatcher doing the "toggle flipping"?
I only ask this because I have a very limited knowledge of your system, and probably would not understand it anyway. But I can't quite comprehend how multiple engineers manage to stay out of each other's way without being able to assign power to their engines.
So if you can explain this to me in 100 words or less, it would be appreciated. And if the answer happens to be "my control system makes it happen and no human intervention is required", I will accept that and move on.
Thank you.
angelob6660Since Atlas discontinued their plain DCC with DCC Sound if will a hard to find extra money if I want them.
Are you sure about that, Angelo? Doesn't Atlas offer both "Gold" & "Silver" version in N-scale - like they do in HO? The Gold comes with sound; the Silver w/o sound but DCC-ready.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
tstage angelob6660 Since Atlas discontinued their plain DCC with DCC Sound if will a hard to find extra money if I want them. Are you sure about that, Angelo? Doesn't Atlas offer both "Gold" & "Silver" version in N-scale - like they do in HO? The Gold comes with sound; the Silver w/o sound but DCC-ready. Tom
angelob6660 Since Atlas discontinued their plain DCC with DCC Sound if will a hard to find extra money if I want them.
Yes, I think I wrote that way. I guess writing simplicity doesn't make sense some time.
maxman ATLANTIC CENTRAL And while I'm here, one more time, the idea that multi train operation on DC requires constant "toggle flipping" is also simply not true. If I may ask a question, if a dispatcher is required when you want to run multiple trains, and the dispatcher is assigning the block power to the individual trains, is not the dispatcher doing the "toggle flipping"? I only ask this because I have a very limited knowledge of your system, and probably would not understand it anyway. But I can't quite comprehend how multiple engineers manage to stay out of each other's way without being able to assign power to their engines. So if you can explain this to me in 100 words or less, it would be appreciated. And if the answer happens to be "my control system makes it happen and no human intervention is required", I will accept that and move on. Thank you.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And while I'm here, one more time, the idea that multi train operation on DC requires constant "toggle flipping" is also simply not true.
First I will ask you a question, do you have a basic understanding of how CTC works on the prototype? It helps to understand how CTC or other signaling works in real life - my system simulates that. I will try to be as brief as possible, it will take more than 100 words.
To answer that as simply as possible, a dispatcher does two things on a real CTC system. He aligns the turnout route at interlockings (groups of turnouts like a crossover are called an interlocking) and he "clears" the signals giving the train authority to occupy the next block.
So he effectively turns the signal green when he is ready to allow the train to proceed. Once the train enters the block, automatic aspects of the signal system turn the signals behind the train red, and turn opposing traffic signals red, etc.
Now to model trains.
First, on a DCC controlled layout, you still have to throw the turnouts right? You either do that manually or with a "toggle switch", push button, etc, correct?
So do I, turnouts are controlled by lighted push buttons in a track diagram. It only takes one button to select a complete, sometimes complex route of turnouts. All turnouts for the route change as needed, the lights indicate the selected path.
Yes the dispatcher selects these routes and "assigns" the primary blocks to the throttles, using push buttons, not toggles. And that action also gives the green signal to the engineer, just like prototype CTC.
BUT, only about half the blocks, called primary blocks, actually have to be manually assigned by this action. The rest are automaticly connected to the correct throttle as a result of the turnout/interlocking routes, which you are going to have to do even with DCC.
And, if you want CTC with DCC, than you too will have a dispatcher setting routes and clearing signals just like I do. So the progression of cab power to the blocks is "built into" the CTC process, no extra action is needed.
If no dispatcher is on duty, you can still run trains, you can still have multiple trains/operators.
In addition to the dispatchers main panel, all the elements of the dispatchers panel are duplicated in sections as seperate "tower panels" at each interlocking. So as you walk around with your train and your wireless throttle, you will throw the turnouts for your desired route at each interlocking (much like many people run with DCC), and you will press one extra button, to assign your throttle to the next block.
You need not ever go backwards to turn anything off, the next guy can just take it over with his throttle once you are out of the block.
So as a comparison, lets say you have digitrax DCC and decoder controlled turnouts. As you approach an interlocking you will have to push 5 buttons on your throttle to set a route thru (turnout, 3 digit number, throw) (yes, I know a little about DCC).
To do that same thing, I will only push two buttons on my tower panel - select route, select next block.
If your DCC layout route is already correct, you do nothing.
If my Advanced Cab Control route is already correct, I push one button, select next block.
Let's see who has the lower button pushing count at the end of an operating session..........
The big mistake people have made down thru the ages with DC block control is having too many blocks that are too small, and not taking advantage of simple wiring schemes to automate the routing of power thru groups of turnouts.
I can run my 8 scale miles of double track main line with only 16 primary blocks, and can have 4-6 trains moving seamlessly around the layout with only the occasional push of a button.
My system also is fail safe. If cabs are not properly assigned, dead spots, large dead spots are automaticly created at the interlockings. This causes any train that runs a red signal to simply stop - Automatic Train Control. The interlocking block is simply not powered until a correct route is selected and assigned on both sides.
There are alternate versions of my system for non signaled layouts, which have been built and used by other modelers. Various adaptions can be made for single track lines, double track, etc.
All require only minimal throttle assignment tasks with the same self clearing selection circuit. Turnout position does half the cab assignments automaticly.....
It is all done with inexpensive 24 volt control relays and inductive train detectors.
Sheldon
ROBERT PETRICK Hang on a second . . . I have never run a DC train, but if what you say is true... Are you saying that if the command station switch is still set to 'forward' and you advanced the throttle that the train would run clockwise, tail first? I thought you DC guys had to flip the gears or rotate the motor mount or something to have (more or less permanent) tail-to-tail consists. I guess this falls into the category of learning something new every day. Thanks for the info. Robert
Hang on a second . . .
I have never run a DC train, but if what you say is true... Are you saying that if the command station switch is still set to 'forward' and you advanced the throttle that the train would run clockwise, tail first? I thought you DC guys had to flip the gears or rotate the motor mount or something to have (more or less permanent) tail-to-tail consists.
I guess this falls into the category of learning something new every day.
Thanks for the info.
Robert
Yes, it's true. Focus on some details for a second and it should come clear:
A. As Sheldon describes later, two straight rails, one positive, one negative...your choice of rail. Pick a loco, pick an orientation for it, and set it on the rails;
B. When you apply DC current, the DC drive mechanism must revolve in one of two directions. That will make the loco move one of two ways down the tracks;
C. You pick up the loco and turn it end-for-end and replace it on the rails;
D. When you apply power once again, darned if it doesn't keep going the same way down the tracks!!! How is this possible?!?!
Answer: When you flipped the loco, but not the rails, the motor drive now has to change its direction of rotation. You turned the loco, but not the rails' polarity, so the drive now runs in reverse from previously, thus making the loco move in the reverse direction...which is now backwards. Same direction down the rails as before.
SeeYou190That sounds like it is for mainline operations. I have no desire to ever run heavy mainline operations again. . -Kevin
Kevin,A DC point to point layout with a dispatcher operating a CTC board is like the prototype as far as setting up opposing train meets,over takes and allowing time for a local to do its work. The main line engineers must obey trackside signals.
Once you spend several years operating on a point to point layout its hard to return to a simple loop operation because on a point to pont you have the feeling you are indeed going to point A to B or point B to A...
And yes,a point to point layout can be DCC.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
They do it by using the switches to energise the rail instead of energizing via the track between the switches. Or some would call this power routing via switch.
rrebell They do it by using the switches to energise the rail instead of energizing via the track between the switches. Or some would call this power routing via switch.
Yes, it is power routing, but it uses the position of multiple turnouts to decide the required power route, and it does not rely on the rails of the turnout to direct the power, relay logic looks at the whole route and decides the path.
It could be done with a computer, or a PLC (programable logic controller), but that would actually cost more and take about the same amount of wire.........
Jerry M Hello members, I am in the planning stages of my layout, originally I was going to run HO but after seeing what is available, along with my available space I am going N-Scale with KATO equipment, the reason being for KATO after reading many of the forums it just seems to work well. My issue is that I do not really know a lot about either wiring system to develop a decision tree. My layout will be two 80 by 30 doors in an L shape and I would like to run two trains. Thank you.
Hello members, I am in the planning stages of my layout, originally I was going to run HO but after seeing what is available, along with my available space I am going N-Scale with KATO equipment, the reason being for KATO after reading many of the forums it just seems to work well. My issue is that I do not really know a lot about either wiring system to develop a decision tree. My layout will be two 80 by 30 doors in an L shape and I would like to run two trains.
I am not an expert in either system. Since I operate my layout alone, one train at a time, I don't have much need for more complexity in how to wire my layout. However, I do run both DCC (onboard sound) and DC locos via wireless throttles (not at the same time).
I will say, I agree with those who say that its difficult for one person to run two trains at the sme time....ON THE SAME TRACK.....with distance between the two trains being the only form of separation. Not such a problem on a large layout where blocks can be spacious, but really a problem on a small layout (where the constant toggle flipping thought comes to mind)
Most would prefer to have two separate tracks, or paths, for each train to take. Imagine switching local industries and having to dodge an oncomimg train that it circling the layout on the same track. Whether in DC or DCC, that process is less than comfortable. IMO.
In DC, you may have to flip some toggles to assign the power to the track. However, in DCC, you have to assign the throttle to the the correct loco in order to change its speed or direction. Don't be misled, running two trains on the same track in DCC involves fiddling also, you're fiddling with loco addresses to change speeds or directions, and possibly do a lot of up front fiddling if you want/have to program the locos to run a certain way.
Either way, the least complex way to to run two trains at the same time is to have two separate tracks, at least at the choke points. For example, one train can circle the layout but duck onto a passing siding where the local switcher is occupying the main. This is simple to wire in DC, and simple to assign the throttle in DCC.
In your specific case, it sounds like you are wanting to avoid a lot of under layout wiring. For a small noncomplex layout, wiring for DCC is simpler than wiring for a DC layout where you might need power blocks. DCC requires only two wires for each track, unless you want a reverse loop or two, where the loop(s) would have to be wired the same as DC.
- Douglas
I understand it's a topic that has strong adherents on both sides, but if you want to discuss DCC vs. DC, you have to be able to do so without getting snarky toward your fellow Forum members. Because if you don't moderate yourself, I'll have to step in and do so. Posts have been deleted, and I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. Debate the topic, not the personalities.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
The real problem with these discusions on forums is that we do not realy know well the people we are dealing with. We all have different inteligent levels, skill levels etc. I myself may be very smart but my math skills are at what is now called an elimentery school level, but I am very good at finances, point being we are all different. Also we all take critisium diferently, me, dish it out, I can take it. In fact I go by the premise that to be smart you have to fist admit how stupid you are. I look at each idea and consider it and things change all the time now do to Moores law applied to everything now. People say I am crazy for planning on going the battery route but I have seen the new batterys and don't see it that way as I alway plan 10 years out (that is why I was able to retire the first time at 29, just telling you a bit more info about me, not bragging though others may see it that way).
ATLANTIC CENTRALFirst I will ask you a question, do you have a basic understanding of how CTC works on the prototype?
Yes, a very basic understanding. But I don't believe that has any relevance to my question. It is not clear to me what "toggle flipping" is, but in my opinion if there is a dispatcher required, that individual is doing the toggle flipping either by pushing a button, moving a lever, or (these days) using a stylus to point at a computer screen. The one thing that the dispatcher does not worry about is getting volts onto the tracks, which is of primary concern to most of us.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe big mistake people have made down thru the ages with DC block control is having too many blocks that are too small, and not taking advantage of simple wiring schemes to automate the routing of power thru groups of turnouts.
Unfortunately, there are sometimes reasons why blocks are small. For example, in a yard or engine terminal where there may be multiple locos lurking about, or a situation where the engineer may want to move one loco up to couple to another.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd, if you want CTC
There seems to be a misconception about the desire for CTC, both on your part and on the part of some DCC system proponents ("if you want signalling then this brand is better than that brand"). My opinion is that for every gigantic, barn sized space, model railroad that we read about, there are probably 50 small size layouts where CTC is either not practical or necessary, or beyond the owner's ability to install same. But said owners may still like to have the ability to move more than one train. For us, the simpler the better.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI can run my 8 scale miles of double track main line with only 16 primary blocks, and can have 4-6 trains moving seamlessly around the layout with only the occasional push of a button.
That just isn't happening in my 9 x 17 foot space.
ATLANTIC CENTRALIn addition to the dispatchers main panel, all the elements of the dispatchers panel are duplicated in sections as seperate "tower panels" at each interlocking.
I didn't realize from your previous posts on this topic that you actually had these duplicate panels. Sounds like some redundent effort to me. But probably necessary on a barn size railroad where a dispatcher is needed.
As a final comment, I really don't have a dog in this fight and don't personally care whether it is DC or DCC. I will say that I have operated on both types, and it was a lot more fun with DCC.
No reply necessary.
Thanks
Dick from Downingtown, Pa.
If you have archive access, or the 75th anniversary DVD, or a solid colelction of old MR back issues, check out the series of articles by Ed Ravenscroft where he introduced the MZL system. This is effectively what Sheldon uses. This is not like what you might see at a very old club where the dispatcher sits there and and connects each block to some engineer's cab. The only 'toggle flipping' in the MZL system is selecting the point position to direct which track the train will run on - no different than lining the turnouts for a more conventional DC layout, or DCC.
Behind the scenes, it is contacts on the switch machines and some added relays that eliminate what with more conventional cab control wiring is a whole lot of switch flipping to set your cab to the track your train is on, then setting it back to 'free' once out of the block. That kind of operation - I can't imagine ANYONE preferring that to DCC or Sheldon's system. It's from those systems that "toggle flipping" comes from, as either the actual engineer or the dispatcher is constnatly flipping switches to assign power.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I like DCC, and would advise any new person to the hobby to go that route until battery technology meets and surpasses the advantages to DCC. Older technology may have worked, but it doesn't mean we should stay at that level.
I like DCC for all the reasons I don't want a new car with distributor, points and a carb. (unless its a classic musclecar with a 6 pack )
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Geared Steam I like DCC, and would advise any new person to the hobby to go that route until battery technology meets and surpasses the advantages to DCC. Older technology may have worked, but it doesn't mean we should stay at that level. I like DCC for all the reasons I don't want a new car with distributor, points and a carb. (unless its a classic musclecar with a 6 pack )
maxman ATLANTIC CENTRAL First I will ask you a question, do you have a basic understanding of how CTC works on the prototype? Yes, a very basic understanding. But I don't believe that has any relevance to my question. It is not clear to me what "toggle flipping" is, but in my opinion if there is a dispatcher required, that individual is doing the toggle flipping either by pushing a button, moving a lever, or (these days) using a stylus to point at a computer screen. The one thing that the dispatcher does not worry about is getting volts onto the tracks, which is of primary concern to most of us. ATLANTIC CENTRAL The big mistake people have made down thru the ages with DC block control is having too many blocks that are too small, and not taking advantage of simple wiring schemes to automate the routing of power thru groups of turnouts. Unfortunately, there are sometimes reasons why blocks are small. For example, in a yard or engine terminal where there may be multiple locos lurking about, or a situation where the engineer may want to move one loco up to couple to another. ATLANTIC CENTRAL And, if you want CTC There seems to be a misconception about the desire for CTC, both on your part and on the part of some DCC system proponents ("if you want signalling then this brand is better than that brand"). My opinion is that for every gigantic, barn sized space, model railroad that we read about, there are probably 50 small size layouts where CTC is either not practical or necessary, or beyond the owner's ability to install same. But said owners may still like to have the ability to move more than one train. For us, the simpler the better. ATLANTIC CENTRAL I can run my 8 scale miles of double track main line with only 16 primary blocks, and can have 4-6 trains moving seamlessly around the layout with only the occasional push of a button. That just isn't happening in my 9 x 17 foot space. ATLANTIC CENTRAL In addition to the dispatchers main panel, all the elements of the dispatchers panel are duplicated in sections as seperate "tower panels" at each interlocking. I didn't realize from your previous posts on this topic that you actually had these duplicate panels. Sounds like some redundent effort to me. But probably necessary on a barn size railroad where a dispatcher is needed. As a final comment, I really don't have a dog in this fight and don't personally care whether it is DC or DCC. I will say that I have operated on both types, and it was a lot more fun with DCC. No reply necessary. Thanks Dick from Downingtown, Pa.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL First I will ask you a question, do you have a basic understanding of how CTC works on the prototype?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The big mistake people have made down thru the ages with DC block control is having too many blocks that are too small, and not taking advantage of simple wiring schemes to automate the routing of power thru groups of turnouts.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And, if you want CTC
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I can run my 8 scale miles of double track main line with only 16 primary blocks, and can have 4-6 trains moving seamlessly around the layout with only the occasional push of a button.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL In addition to the dispatchers main panel, all the elements of the dispatchers panel are duplicated in sections as seperate "tower panels" at each interlocking.
Well, a reasoned reply deserves a reasoned acknowledgment.
But I'm not good at the multiple quote thing, so here goes.
"toggle flipping" comes from the old, simple, two cab DC approach where DPDT toggles are used to connect each block to the two power packs. As two trains attempt to move around a single route, toggles must be flipped from cab A to Cab B, etc. Not the best approach to DC multi train operation, but for many it is their only "DC experiance".
My dispatcher does not worry about getting power to the rails, it happens automaticly as he does his "railroad job". Or, as noted, operators do the dispatchers job piecemeal as they progress around the layout, again, they woud be setting turnout routes anyway with DCC, the dispatching takes one extra button at each tower.
"small blocks" - yes sometimes they are necessary, but most times they can actually be eliminated with a feature called "X sections". A search of the archives may produce some articles/diagrams, but again, they are sections of track that change from one block to another based on turnout position/route selection automaticly, needing no seperate user input.
I make no assumptions about who is interested, or not interested, in CTC and signaling. I make no assumptions about how big or small peoples layouts are. I just don't think "one size fits all" - more on that later.
I agree, and have said before, that small layouts can often benefit from the features of DCC more than large layouts can, at least from a cost effectiveness standpoint.
Sound - I don't like onboard sound in small scales like HO or N. I have a HiFi trained ear (one of my other hobbies) and I suffer mildly from Noise Sensitivity. Excess environmemtal sounds bother me more than most people. The low audio fidelity of two 1" speakers trying to reproduce the sound of a locomotive gets on my nerves pretty fast, no matter how low the volume.
So I tell everyone, if you want sound in your trains, you NEED DCC. It is without question the best "delivery system" we have for model train sound.
But I don't want sound, and I know a number of modelers who feel the same way. Several informal polls on this forum have shown interest in sound to be about 60% to 70% - that leaves a sizeable number of people in the "quiet" camp.
So without sound, what are the other advantages of DCC?
Ditch lights/seperate lighting control - great feature if you need it, I model an era way before them.
Individual loco control - a great feature, that comes with added work - consisting, possiblely speed matching, some need it, some of us don't. Depends again on your modeling/operating style and goals.
Good motor control - it does that, but so do my Aristo Train Engineer throttles that use full voltage pulse width modulation speed control just like a DCC decoder.
Cost - control systems with CTC and signals are expensive no matter the control method, DCC or DC. DCC offers no built in advantages to the construction or cost of CTC or signaling. In my case I have no desire to have my CTC panel on a computer screen.
I could "add" DCC to my exisiting control system, retaining my intergrated turnout route control, CTC, signals, it would work fine.
It would cost a additonal $8,000 to put non sound decoders in my locos, replace my 10 wireless throttles, and install the needed command station/boosters/circuit breakers, etc.
$8,000 to what end? To be able to move locos independantly in close proximity to each other, mainly in the yard and engine terminals. A feature not really that necessary on a layout with a "spacious" track plan.
My layout is good sized, but not "crammed" with track.
To to reach my modeling goals, at the lowest cost, with the least un-necessary work, and not spending time or money on features I don't want, I stayed with DC and advance cab control.
Others should choose based on their needs and wants, one size does not fit all.
But for people with little or no DC knowledge or experiance to tell others what is "wrong" with DC, is well, simply wrong.
I tell people all the time that their goals are best served by DCC. But read some of the replies above. Many have no interest in sound, no interest in moving more than one loco at a time.........
On that note, when I operate alone, I only "operate" one train at a time. I do put trains on dedicated "display loops" while I "operate" another one, but real operations require an operator for each train, as several other posters suggested above.
Hope this helps you understand my postion better.
I will make one minor adjustment to Sheldon's answer on the control system. There is one advantage with DCC (or other carrier control system like the old pre-DCC systems such as Dynatrol, OnBoard, and CTC16) and that is there is always a voltage present in the track to detect even stopped trains. It can be done with DC, but it requires an additional circuit to provide a bias voltage in blocks where power is not applied. Early Twin-T systems did this with a DC voltage which was low enough for the detector but not enough to turn the motor. With today's modern motors, this could easily make a loco creep. An improved version uses a high frequency AC, which won't hurt the motor (the inductive properties of the motor filter it out). Still, it's an extra bit of electronics you would need to be able to detect a stopped or standing train in a block, as without this, the train would become invisible as soon as the throttle was turned to stop. Since with DCC you always have a constant voltage across the rails, detection does not depend on the speed or direction of the loco. So there is that slight advantage to DCC.
I do agree though, that implementing detection and signalling in a prototypical fashion is not cheap or easy, regardless of the control system being used. Especially if yoou want to use some of the nicer realistic signal modela out there - which go from at least $40 each and up from there depending on the number of heads and the rest of the structure. It takes a considerable investment and this is before any detection or control circuitry.
rrinker I will make one minor adjustment to Sheldon's answer on the control system. There is one advantage with DCC (or other carrier control system like the old pre-DCC systems such as Dynatrol, OnBoard, and CTC16) and that is there is always a voltage present in the track to detect even stopped trains. It can be done with DC, but it requires an additional circuit to provide a bias voltage in blocks where power is not applied. Early Twin-T systems did this with a DC voltage which was low enough for the detector but not enough to turn the motor. With today's modern motors, this could easily make a loco creep. An improved version uses a high frequency AC, which won't hurt the motor (the inductive properties of the motor filter it out). Still, it's an extra bit of electronics you would need to be able to detect a stopped or standing train in a block, as without this, the train would become invisible as soon as the throttle was turned to stop. Since with DCC you always have a constant voltage across the rails, detection does not depend on the speed or direction of the loco. So there is that slight advantage to DCC. I do agree though, that implementing detection and signalling in a prototypical fashion is not cheap or easy, regardless of the control system being used. Especially if yoou want to use some of the nicer realistic signal modela out there - which go from at least $40 each and up from there depending on the number of heads and the rest of the structure. It takes a considerable investment and this is before any detection or control circuitry. --Randy
Randy,
I use Dallee inductive detectors because they are completely out of the track power circuit.
They do use a high frequency signal to detect stopped trains, it works well. It does require a few extra parts......
The only short coming of the Dallee detectors is that they will not detect small loads, resistance wheelsets don't work.
But I model and era with cabooses........which are lighted, as are a suitable selection of passenger cars for the end of the trains.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL To answer that as simply as possible, a dispatcher does two things on a real CTC system. He aligns the turnout route at interlockings (groups of turnouts like a crossover are called an interlocking) and he "clears" the signals giving the train authority to occupy the next block. So he effectively turns the signal green when he is ready to allow the train to proceed. Once the train enters the block, automatic aspects of the signal system turn the signals behind the train red, and turn opposing traffic signals red, etc. So do I, turnouts are controlled by lighted push buttons in a track diagram. It only takes one button to select a complete, sometimes complex route of turnouts. All turnouts for the route change as needed, the lights indicate the selected path. Yes the dispatcher selects these routes and "assigns" the primary blocks to the throttles, using push buttons, not toggles. And that action also gives the green signal to the engineer, just like prototype CTC.
Sheldon. I think this sums up your system pretty well, if I understand it correctly. Hopefully I can say it a different way without mucking it up.
Basically, your goal is to have a system that throws turnouts and provides green signals to a designated route. Because it takes DC current to do this, the trains will automatically follow that route. Where the signal is red, the track is unpowered, so there is no chance the train will run the signal. Is this correct?
I guess its possible to have DCC controlled turnouts and signals (if there is such a thing as DCC signals), and route the power accordingly, but it would require quite a bit of up front programming to route the power and change the signal with the push of a button.
I assume there will be a day where we could program all of the routes and trains to be used during a given operating session using JMRI or something, then plug it into a PC and the whole thing could be run humanless. The only thing the modeler would do is write the program. That action sort of makes it a different hobby if you ask me.
I can also see where something like battery operated trains could be a huge problem since their independent power source could allow the trains to just blow through the signal.
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL To answer that as simply as possible, a dispatcher does two things on a real CTC system. He aligns the turnout route at interlockings (groups of turnouts like a crossover are called an interlocking) and he "clears" the signals giving the train authority to occupy the next block. So he effectively turns the signal green when he is ready to allow the train to proceed. Once the train enters the block, automatic aspects of the signal system turn the signals behind the train red, and turn opposing traffic signals red, etc. So do I, turnouts are controlled by lighted push buttons in a track diagram. It only takes one button to select a complete, sometimes complex route of turnouts. All turnouts for the route change as needed, the lights indicate the selected path. Yes the dispatcher selects these routes and "assigns" the primary blocks to the throttles, using push buttons, not toggles. And that action also gives the green signal to the engineer, just like prototype CTC. Sheldon. I think this sums up your system pretty well, if I understand it correctly. Hopefully I can say it a different way without mucking it up. Basically, your goal is to have a system that throws turnouts and provides green signals to a designated route. Because it takes DC current to do this, the trains will automatically follow that route. Where the signal is red, the track is unpowered, so there is no chance the train will run the signal. Is this correct? I guess its possible to have DCC controlled turnouts and signals (if there is such a thing as DCC signals), and route the power accordingly, but it would require quite a bit of up front programming to route the power and change the signal with the push of a button. I assume there will be a day where we could program all of the routes and trains to be used during a given operating session using JMRI or something, then plug it into a PC and the whole thing could be run humanless. The only thing the modeler would do is write the program. That action sort of makes it a different hobby if you ask me. I can also see where something like battery operated trains could be a huge problem since their independent power source could allow the trains to just blow through the signal.
Yes, that is correct. And while I don't have an operating copy right now because of moving, I have built and tested all of this.
And when no dispatcher is present, operators can perform his tasks piecemeal at each tower panel.
The dead sections at the red signals are really clever, not my idea, borrowed from way in the past, and hard to explain without some drawings, but it actually costs nothing and requires no extra parts.
And it does take lots of up front planning and relay logic wiring to build my system. But like most all electronics, it is just layers of simple circuits, each doing their job.
There is no need to route power with DCC - you issue commands. You could take something like the automated system you describe (already been done on several display layouts), but instead of the computer ALSO controlling the throttle, you use standard throttles that a user controls. Instead of being plugged directly to the DCC system, meaning the user could do anything regardless of signal indication, the throttle runs through the automation system, so if the train approaches a stop signal, the system applies braking if the engineer does not stop, just like the real thing (where automatic train control or PTC is employed). So the layout is not automated in the sense that the trains all run without human control, but the human control is watchdogged by the computer much like modern prototype control systems. Entirely possible with things that exist today, I'm more surprised no one has implemented this yet. Doesn't fit my era so not something I'd do personally, but a possible application.
The battery issue is also why I am not all that interested in some of these large keep alives for DCC. I don't see the point. Fix the dead sections, and have maybe a SMALL, fraction of a second, keep alive just in case. I haven't installed any keep alives in any of my locos, but I have one that came from the factory with one. Once charged up, it will roll across my entire work bench on the rubber mat (no longer on rails!) multiple times. On a layout this would be like a rampaging locomotive charging across the countryside should it ever derail. There is no point to 20-30 seconds of keep alive. 1 second or less? Sure.
rrinker There is no need to route power with DCC - you issue commands. --Randy
There is no need to route power with DCC - you issue commands.
Of course. The important part is that the turnouts, signals, and trains would run the same manner as Sheldon described, except with DCC it would be a series of commands and not actually turning power on and off.
Assigning the throttle, or command station, to execute the various commands to different recipients (locos, turnouts, signals) involves a lot of hectic button pushing during a session unless preprogrammed in some way to push a few buttons to select routes. The hobby would be about doing a lot of programming, I would think.
The reason to go battery is to be in total control of the train as in real trains, no rail power needed. Thats why real trains have a dead mans throttle.
Doughless...but it would require quite a bit of up front programming to route the power and change the signal with the push of a button.
It would require the same amount of programming as Sheldon has done with his relay logic (which is also "programming"). In fact if he chose to do so (hypothetical, not a suggestion), Sheldon could replace his relay logic with computer logic and have the system work exactly as it does today.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
carl425 Doughless ...but it would require quite a bit of up front programming to route the power and change the signal with the push of a button. It would require the same amount of programming as Sheldon has done with his relay logic (which is also "programming"). In fact if he chose to do so (hypothetical, not a suggestion), Sheldon could replace his relay logic with computer logic and have the system work exactly as it does today.
Doughless ...but it would require quite a bit of up front programming to route the power and change the signal with the push of a button.
Agreed, and I considered computer or PLC programing, but the relays are actually much less expensive. With the relays power level signals are switched directly (track power and switch machines), with out a second layer of switching.
Yes, Sheldon has to design his system and install it. A DCC person would have to design how to program the layout, then program it. Conceptually, I understand that. To a guy like me, it doesn't matter if its relay logic or computer logic, they are both beyond my ability to install at the present time and would not be worth the effort to learn, given how I like to run trains.
Operating a layout in a complex manner dictates how much complexity is involved with the control system, not which particular control system is chosen, IMO.
Assuming OP plans to run two trains and park one on a siding once in a while. Where DC requires some layout wiring and toggle flipping, DCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time.
I never understood the superiority of controlling the trains and not the track when they both result in the same thing with the same level of complexity needed to accomplish it, just differently.
Now, onboard sound? That's a different story, IMO.
DoughlessDCC requires the operator to push buttons to reassign the command station to give the proper commands to the correct loco at the proper time.
With "modern" command station, like Roco´s z21 or even the el-cheapo Trix Mobile Station, that´s a thing of the past for quite a few years now. DCC can be as simple as you like to have it, or as complex as you want it.
Something I really don´t understand, why this them vs. us questions pops up with a frequency matching New York´s subway system. There are benefits to each control system, depending on the user´s needs and the layout operated. 30+ years after the introduction of DCC, this shouldn´t be a question anymore, having been discussed ad nauseum in all those years.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"