ATLANTIC CENTRALBut I don't get the those who defend the mutli drop feeder thing as if it is not "wiring". It may be idiot simile, but it is still wires that need to be run and connected. In 55 years as a DC operator I have never connected more than one pair of wires to a control section (block).
If you only want to run one train / engine at a time, then you can connect each block of your track to one DC powerpack and you're good to go. If you want to run more than one, or be able to have a train stop in a passing siding so another can pass it, you now have to wire up a second power pack, and have some type of toggle switch for each block of track so you can determine which power pack controls which section of track. On a big layout, you may need to wire up blocks so they can be controlled by one of 4 or 5 different throttles. Plus for crossovers on double track mainlines or reverse loops, you have to add wiring / switches to allow the change in polarity.
In DCC, you can essentially wire the layout as one big block, just separating reverse loops which are controlled by automatic reversers. If you want to stop a train in a siding, you pull it into the siding and put the throttle speed to zero. Another train can pass it - or if you have short trains and long passing tracks, two trains could occupy the block at the same time.
wjstix ATLANTIC CENTRAL But I don't get the those who defend the mutli drop feeder thing as if it is not "wiring". It may be idiot simile, but it is still wires that need to be run and connected. In 55 years as a DC operator I have never connected more than one pair of wires to a control section (block). If you only want to run one train / engine at a time, then you can connect each block of your track to one DC powerpack and you're good to go. If you want to run more than one, or be able to have a train stop in a passing siding so another can pass it, you now have to wire up a second power pack, and have some type of toggle switch for each block of track so you can determine which power pack controls which section of track. On a big layout, you may need to wire up blocks so they can be controlled by one of 4 or 5 different throttles. Plus for crossovers on double track mainlines or reverse loops, you have to add wiring / switches to allow the change in polarity. In DCC, you can essentially wire the layout as one big block, just separating reverse loops which are controlled by automatic reversers. If you want to stop a train in a siding, you pull it into the siding and put the throttle speed to zero. Another train can pass it - or if you have short trains and long passing tracks, two trains could occupy the block at the same time.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But I don't get the those who defend the mutli drop feeder thing as if it is not "wiring". It may be idiot simile, but it is still wires that need to be run and connected. In 55 years as a DC operator I have never connected more than one pair of wires to a control section (block).
What? Your reply has nothing to do with what I said?
News flash, I was building DC layouts with blocks and multi throttle cab control 50 years ago.
News flash, I have helped a number friends build and wire large DCC layouts.
News flash, I have designed, built and used for 20 years a multi throttle DC Cab Control system that does not use one toggle switch - it uses push buttons.
Sheldon
maxmanOh, I don't know. But the following seems to be pretty close:
Hi maxman,
Thanks for that great video! I found it thoroughly entertaining. I had a grin on my face the whole time.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
As far as wiring, it depends on the layout.
I consider any wire that contacts track to be a feeder. Soldering is work. Soldering under the layout even more work.
My old layout in Indiana was 35 x 13 J shaped. A simple but large layout. One train at a time. I ran it with DC using the wireless Aristo Craft CREST Train Engineer throttle. It was wired with only one pair of feeders. Because I built and ran the layout with unsoldered joiners, I added a long bus/feeder to the other end to compensate for voltage drop over the nearly 50 linear ft of track.
When I went to DCC/Sound, I soldered the joiners. But that didn't provide a clean enough signal to be reliable through turnouts, so I added about a dozen feeders throughout the layout.
My new layout has even more feeders over its 25 x 19 U shape.
I figure that going from DC to DCC/Sound caused wiring to go from 2 pairs of feeders to about 28 pairs of feeders now.
From my perspective, DCC requires a lot more wiring than DC.
- Douglas
hon30critter maxman Oh, I don't know. But the following seems to be pretty close: Hi maxman, Thanks for that great video! I found it thoroughly entertaining. I had a grin on my face the whole time. Cheers!! Dave
maxman
Oh, I don't know. But the following seems to be pretty close:
You are most welcome. I'm happy that at least one person watched it.
Great video, maxman! I know what I want for Christmas.
York1 John
Doughless As far as wiring, it depends on the layout. I consider any wire that contacts track to be a feeder. Soldering is work. Soldering under the layout even more work. My old layout in Indiana was 35 x 13 J shaped. A simple but large layout. One train at a time. I ran it with DC using the wireless Aristo Craft CREST Train Engineer throttle. It was wired with only one pair of feeders. Because I built and ran the layout with unsoldered joiners, I added a long bus/feeder to the other end to compensate for voltage drop over the nearly 50 linear ft of track. When I went to DCC/Sound, I soldered the joiners. But that didn't provide a clean enough signal to be reliable through turnouts, so I added about a dozen feeders throughout the layout. My new layout has even more feeders over its 25 x 19 U shape. I figure that going from DC to DCC/Sound caused wiring to go from 2 pairs of feeders to about 28 pairs of feeders now. From my perspective, DCC requires a lot more wiring than DC.
Thank you!
On my previous layout, and on the new one, the average block, is about 20' long, some as much as 30' long.
All rail joints within the block are soldered. There is one feeder, because the feeder wire needs to run thru an inductive coil of a detector for the signal system.
Those wires come from a cab control relay board that is typically located near an interlocking at one end of the block. Those relays get the throttle power from a 12 gauge throttle buss which comes from the Aristo Craft wireless throttle base units.
I have never had issues of voltage drop within a block or from one block to the next.
Like Douglas, if I only ran one train at a time, I would only need two wires.
My layout will be setup to run six trains on the double track mainline at the same time with a simple to use walk around control system.
My wiring is complex, but most of it is on relay panels built on the bench then installed and hooked up.
Add detection, signaling, CTC, one button route control of turnouts/interlockings from multiple locations and display panels that show where all the trains are, to your DCC layout and tell how simple your wiring is. My layout will have all that, and automatic train control - run a red signal, your train stops.
There are a number of "trigger issues" in our hobby, and "DC vs. DCC" is probably the main one. Most of us are firmly implanted on one side or the other. While many have experience with only one system, a few of us have had intimate experience with both.
Over a period of 25 years, I built two somewhat identical room filling layouts in a spare 11x15 bedroom. The first (1994-2008) was DC, and the second (2008-2020) was DCC. IMO, both layouts were wired to the max, giving me the fullest operating experience I could dream up.
That said, I can argue the pros and cons of both systems - based on experience. I believe most of us know them already, so there is no need my listing them here.
But what I will add is that the choice is solely up to the individual. And, there is no "right or wrong" choice, just as there is no "right or wrong" choice for era, road, scale, locale, etc., etc.
For what its worth.........
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Doughless My old layout in Indiana was 35 x 13 J shaped. A simple but large layout. One train at a time. I ran it with DC using the wireless Aristo Craft CREST Train Engineer throttle. It was wired with only one pair of feeders. When I went to DCC/Sound, I soldered the joiners. But that didn't provide a clean enough signal to be reliable through turnouts, so I added about a dozen feeders throughout the layout. My new layout has even more feeders over its 25 x 19 U shape.
My old layout in Indiana was 35 x 13 J shaped. A simple but large layout. One train at a time. I ran it with DC using the wireless Aristo Craft CREST Train Engineer throttle. It was wired with only one pair of feeders.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have never had issues of voltage drop within a block or from one block to the next. Like Douglas, if I only ran one train at a time, I would only need two wires.
Let me use an extreme example for this purpose. Let's say that I have an around the room U-shaped shelf layout that is 100 feet long. If I use only one pair of feeder wires on a DC-powered layout, is there no voltage drop? I believe that using such an arrangement on a DCC-powered layout would result in significant voltage drop.
Rich
Alton Junction
mobilman44 There are a number of "trigger issues" in our hobby, and "DC vs. DCC" is probably the main one. Most of us are firmly implanted on one side or the other. While many have experience with only one system, a few of us have had intimate experience with both. Over a period of 25 years, I built two somewhat identical room filling layouts in a spare 11x15 bedroom. The first (1994-2008) was DC, and the second (2008-2020) was DCC. IMO, both layouts were wired to the max, giving me the fullest operating experience I could dream up. That said, I can argue the pros and cons of both systems - based on experience. I believe most of us know them already, so there is no need my listing them here. But what I will add is that the choice is solely up to the individual. And, there is no "right or wrong" choice, just as there is no "right or wrong" choice for era, road, scale, locale, etc., etc. For what its worth.........
Very well said.
The beauty of this hobby is. There is no right way or wrong way. Do what works for you. From control system to ground foam, plaster to paint, scratch build to RTR. There is no need to get heated. As long as there's no government regulations and enforcement, we are free to model what and how we like.
Pete.
richhotrainI believe that using such an arrangement on a DCC-powered layout would result in significant voltage drop.
why would there be less voltage drop on DC than DCC? is the resistance of the track different?
one difference is that typically there is only 1 loco running in each DC block controlled by a single throttle, while on DCC, there may be several locos powered thru a common bus.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
mobilman44There are a number of "trigger issues" in our hobby, and "DC vs. DCC" is probably the main one. Most of us are firmly implanted on one side or the other. While many have experience with only one system, a few of us have had intimate experience with both.
I do not understand why this is always such a trigger issue.
I have decided to stay with DC for the reasons I mentioned. I have never suggested anyone new to the hobby use DC.
These are the three questions I always tell new people to ask themselves...
1) Do you already own a large number of DC locomotives?
2) Do you NEVER want sound effects?
3) Are you comfortable designing, installing, and troubleshooting a DC control system?
I tell people that unless they anser "YES" to ALL THREE questions, they should definitely go with DCC for their layout.
I don't know why anybody new, or someone changing scales, would even consider DC at this point.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
gregc richhotrain I believe that using such an arrangement on a DCC-powered layout would result in significant voltage drop. why would there be less voltage drop on DC than DCC? is the resistance of the track different? one difference is that typically there is only 1 loco running in each DC block controlled by a single throttle, while on DCC, there may be several locos powered thru a common bus.
richhotrain I believe that using such an arrangement on a DCC-powered layout would result in significant voltage drop.
Because DC systems, on larger layouts in particular, tend to be more of a "hub and spoke" wiring approach from the central control panel, or whatever kind of cab selection is used. Actual wire runs from the power supply to the track are shorter.
As you point out there is only one train on each throttle at a time and most (best approach) DC throttles each have their own power supply. Length of rail resistance is minimized, 20' to 40' typical on my system.
Power supplies centrally located, large bus wire until it gets to the "spoke".
In my case I use lots to mini hubs, each one supplying 4-6 blocks.
Each of my Aristo throttles has its own 4 amp regulated power supply, so there is plenty of "headroom" in the power supply even powering a consist of 4 to 6 powered units.
SeeYou190 mobilman44 There are a number of "trigger issues" in our hobby, and "DC vs. DCC" is probably the main one. Most of us are firmly implanted on one side or the other. While many have experience with only one system, a few of us have had intimate experience with both. I do not understand why this is always such a trigger issue.
mobilman44 There are a number of "trigger issues" in our hobby, and "DC vs. DCC" is probably the main one. Most of us are firmly implanted on one side or the other. While many have experience with only one system, a few of us have had intimate experience with both.
richhotrainI do not believe that the OP intended that "DC vs. DCC" be the issue of this thread.
You are completely correct. Unfortunately, it went there.
ndbprrWell I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes a virtual reality rr would be like Microsoft railroad program. What I intended was a system that had a small camera(s) in the cab that could switch from front to rear view and be controlled by some sort of virtual reality so you could actually ride on your train.
That would work for those interested in pure running but wouldn't be very useful for those interested in switching.
Cab cameras are great for those wanting to be the "engineer", not so good for those wanting to be the "crew".
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Sheldon, as I read your post, you were saying that DCC people act like their layouts don't need wiring. Of course they do. The point I was making was, yes, the wiring for each block is probably going to be the same. If you have a block of track on a DC layout that is fine with just one feeder going to it, one feeder is going to work fine if you change the power source to DCC. If a block requires several feeders for DC, it will need several for DCC.
In my case, I don't use the heavy wire underneath the tracks with feeders going up to the track as recommended in a lot of books and articles on DCC, I just wire blocks the way I did in DC - except (and this was the key point I was making) I don't need to have multiple toggles wired together so I can choose which powerpack controls which block(s) of track. However, with DCC I only use a few blocks - much fewer than I would need for DC, since all the track power is coming from one source.
wjstix Sheldon, as I read your post, you were saying that DCC people act like their layouts don't need wiring. Of course they do. The point I was making was, yes, the wiring for each block is probably going to be the same. If you have a block of track on a DC layout that is fine with just one feeder going to it, one feeder is going to work fine if you change the power source to DCC. If a block requires several feeders for DC, it will need several for DCC. In my case, I don't use the heavy wire underneath the tracks with feeders going up to the track as recommended in a lot of books and articles on DCC, I just wire blocks the way I did in DC - except (and this was the key point I was making) I don't need to have multiple toggles wired together so I can choose which powerpack controls which block(s) of track. However, with DCC I only use a few blocks - much fewer than I would need for DC, since all the track power is coming from one source.
I understand how you converted your DC layout, using existing D C block feeders. Several of my friend did that with very good results.
But when building a medium to large DCC layout from scratch, the common recommended practice is a heavy buss wire with drops every 6 feet.
I was say that alone is a lot of wire and a lot of work. It represents a large number of connections to make.
But because it is wiring that does not require much thinking, many DCC proponents dismiss it as "easy" compared to wiring a DC blick system.
For someone like me, with decades of commercial control wiring experience, running a DCC buss is mind numbing busy work I can do without, and a well built DC system will never need it.
richhotrain SeeYou190 mobilman44 There are a number of "trigger issues" in our hobby, and "DC vs. DCC" is probably the main one. Most of us are firmly implanted on one side or the other. While many have experience with only one system, a few of us have had intimate experience with both. I do not understand why this is always such a trigger issue. I do not believe that the OP intended that "DC vs. DCC" be the issue of this thread. He was simply asking if anyone has statistical data regarding how many of us are using DCC. Rich
I do not believe that the OP intended that "DC vs. DCC" be the issue of this thread. He was simply asking if anyone has statistical data regarding how many of us are using DCC.
And he insisted on hard data which does not exist, but based on my new but limited exploring of train groups on Facebook, there are a lot of "beginners" out there with room size DC layouts.
dehusman ndbprr Well I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes a virtual reality rr would be like Microsoft railroad program. What I intended was a system that had a small camera(s) in the cab that could switch from front to rear view and be controlled by some sort of virtual reality so you could actually ride on your train. That would work for those interested in pure running but wouldn't be very useful for those interested in switching. Cab cameras are great for those wanting to be the "engineer", not so good for those wanting to be the "crew".
ndbprr Well I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes a virtual reality rr would be like Microsoft railroad program. What I intended was a system that had a small camera(s) in the cab that could switch from front to rear view and be controlled by some sort of virtual reality so you could actually ride on your train.
Thank you Dave,
When I do switching I'm the crew, when I run the mainline I like to be more the dispatcher and less the engineer.
My layout and control system are designed accordingly.
SeeYou190 I do not understand why this is always such a trigger issue.
It's only a trigger issue for people who don't have confidence in their decisions and thus resort to defensive behavior and disingenuous arguments.
Like the argument that DCC requires a lot of wiring for feeders while completely ignoring the amount of wiring necessary for multiple-cab block selection switches and neglecting to mention soldering rail joints.
ndbprri see the next iteration involving virtual reality to run controls from a real engine while looking out the cab window of the model. That shouldn't cost more then four figures. That would be the ultimate in my opinion but I doubt I will still be here if and when it happens.
Since this thread began with what we can dream of in the future of model railroading, how about this.
The cameras forward, backward, and sides. On a large screen on the wall behind each section of the layout, it's no problem having all those views (and more) at once. In my job, the secretary had 10 camera views (one large and nine small) of hallways and parking lot on her monitor at the same time.
Then, each car identified with numbers (both on the car and on the screen) with both couplers electrically controlled, much like DCC controlled locos. Cars could be coupled or uncoupled from the cab. Would it be difficult? Maybe. Beyond my skills to control? Definitely. But remember we're dreaming. Cars could be coupled or uncoupled anywhere on the layout by pushing a couple of buttons.
No worries about toggling through hundreds of car numbers to find the right ones. The numbered cars in the train are all automatically added to or removed from the train, so the number to find would depend on how many cars are in the train. In my case, that's less than 15. Cars not in the train could be identified by numbers on other large screens, identifying them in the sidings.
If I don't want to bother, I can still run the layout without all that. But it would sure be neat
Anything can be done if we want it bad enough and we have enough money. Who could have ever seen that today, your car lets you out at the store's door and then parks itself. You fill your grocery cart with what you want, and walk out the door without even having to check out. Your car starts, drives itself to the door, and picks you up. That's not even the future -- that can be done today at certain stores if you drive certain cars.
AEP528 SeeYou190 I do not understand why this is always such a trigger issue. It's only a trigger issue for people who don't have confidence in their decisions and thus resort to defensive behavior and disingenuous arguments. Like the argument that DCC requires a lot of wiring for feeders while completely ignoring the amount of wiring necessary for multiple-cab block selection switches and neglecting to mention soldering rail joints.
Let's not stir the pot. It's a hobby.
I fear you have completely misread me.
I know for a fact that what I do takes a TON of wiring and is very complex. I make no claim otherwise.
I am simply pointing out that if you include all the features I have, on a layout as large as mine, detection, signals, route control of turnouts, CTC, control of turnouts from multiple locations, 10 wireless throttles, then DCC and all the support for these features ALSO takes a TON of wiring.
If you don't want or need any of those features, yes DCC is much easier to wire.
But I have no interest in building a layout without those features, so I am doing the wiring in any case, DC or DCC.
So I pick DC for a number of reasons.
A few more thoughts:
Maybe you did not read all my posts, I made clear I solder all my rail joints.
My cab selectors are not a bunch of individual toggle switches that need to be wired, but I do have lots of little led lighted push buttons to wire. My actual cab selector is a printed circuit board of 12 relays. The push buttons hook up, the throttle buss hooks up, the track feeders hook up.
gregc richhotrain I believe that using such an arrangement on a DCC-powered layout would result in significant voltage drop. why would there be less voltage drop on DC than DCC?
why would there be less voltage drop on DC than DCC?
richhotrainSince Douglas and Sheldon both seemed to be making the argument that only one set of feeder wires would be required on a single block DC powered layout, that would suggest that there would be less voltage drop in DCC. Is that the case?
additional feeders on either DC or DCC would reduce the total resistance between the power supply and loco resulting in less voltage drop.
nickle silver track is roughly equivalent to 26g wire which has a resistance of ~41 mOhm/ft. there would be ~0.4V drop across 10ft of track at 0.5A between the loco and the feeder
18g wire has ~6.5 mOhm resistance and would have a ~0.06V drop if there were multiple feeders on that same length of track
but there will be more current and more voltage drop if there are multiple locos on a DCC layout drawing power through common wiring than if there were only one loco.
richhotrain gregc richhotrain I believe that using such an arrangement on a DCC-powered layout would result in significant voltage drop. why would there be less voltage drop on DC than DCC? My question in that prior post was, would there be less voltage drop on a DC powered layout than on a DCC powered layout? Since Douglas and Sheldon both seemed to be making the argument that only one set of feeder wires would be required on a single block DC powered layout, that would suggest that there would be less voltage drop in DCC. Is that the case? Rich
My question in that prior post was, would there be less voltage drop on a DC powered layout than on a DCC powered layout? Since Douglas and Sheldon both seemed to be making the argument that only one set of feeder wires would be required on a single block DC powered layout, that would suggest that there would be less voltage drop in DCC. Is that the case?
Rich.
Short answer. No. Voltage drop is the same. The main reason for bullet proof wiring in DCC is loss of signal to decoder. You would actually need almost a thousand feet of wiring before you would notice any appreciable voltage loss through 14 gauge wire. The cleaner the DCC packet arrives to the decoder is crucial. The longer the run of wire the more susceptible to noise and degredation.
Another good reason is the amps being pushed through. Most DCC systems are pushing 5 amps. You need to be able to trip the breaker before frying a decoder or burning down your house.
My understanding of digital signals is that they need a more robust or "clean" pathway for them to maintain all of the embedded commands. Not just DCC model railroading, but any digital signal. I don't think that can always be measured by voltage. (The voltage carries a signal/commands) So its not the same thing, in that voltage may not drop much, but if any portion of the signal gets compromised due to pathway constrictions, or interuptions, it sort of blows up the whole command sequence and digital stuff wigs out.
Voltage can still power through the interuptions making locos that run solely on voltage alone (DC locos) more forgiving of imperfections in the flow.
Its also why DCC powered locos have less tolerance for dirty track.
I'm a layman at understanding this stuff, obviously.
Also, in my example, my J and U shaped layouts are point to point.
My J shape had the power supply and feeders at one end requiring the voltage to traverse the entire 50 feet (then I added a long buss wire/feeder at the other end....assuming voltage flows through wire better than unsoldered rails). If that 50 feet was a loop, the voltage would essentially run in both directions from the feeder and meet in the middle, so to speak, keeping the linear footage to about 25.
My U shaped layout has the power supply mid run, meaning that one pair of feeders would run voltage about 30 feet in either direction. Perfectly fine if I was using DC and soldered joiners (and assuming the turnout pathways were always what they are supposed to be).
Since I use DCC/Sound I use a buss with multiple feeders, and the the buss is essentially forked in the middle...shaped like a T.
Since the need to solder rail joints is viewed the same whether DC or DCC by almost everybody, I think I was the only one who carved it out as being a difference because of personal experience.