richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL How large is a large layout? Dr Wayne only has a simgle power feeder. But he does not have seperate blocks in the traditional sense. Normally a larger DC layout, like mine, will have some sort of block control system, so each block has a seperate feeder. And if the power supplies/throttles are centrally located, those wiring runs will be more or less equal and shorter, resulting in less voltage drop issues. The problem here is that there is not just one answer, and there are a dozen or more ways to implement multi train block control on a DC layout - some work good, some don't. Sheldon Thanks, Sheldon. That actually makes a lot of sense to me. Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL How large is a large layout? Dr Wayne only has a simgle power feeder. But he does not have seperate blocks in the traditional sense. Normally a larger DC layout, like mine, will have some sort of block control system, so each block has a seperate feeder. And if the power supplies/throttles are centrally located, those wiring runs will be more or less equal and shorter, resulting in less voltage drop issues. The problem here is that there is not just one answer, and there are a dozen or more ways to implement multi train block control on a DC layout - some work good, some don't. Sheldon
How large is a large layout? Dr Wayne only has a simgle power feeder. But he does not have seperate blocks in the traditional sense.
Normally a larger DC layout, like mine, will have some sort of block control system, so each block has a seperate feeder.
And if the power supplies/throttles are centrally located, those wiring runs will be more or less equal and shorter, resulting in less voltage drop issues.
The problem here is that there is not just one answer, and there are a dozen or more ways to implement multi train block control on a DC layout - some work good, some don't.
Sheldon
Thanks, Sheldon. That actually makes a lot of sense to me.
Rich
Your welcome Rich. Keep this in mind, with DC there is no concern for "signal quality", we are not transmitting data to the engine like you are.
That is what makes DCC "fussy" in this regard.
I just put a DC voltage on the track and my train moves, or as I been known say, "I have little trains without brains".
Alton Junction
richhotrain So, why would a DC user settle for a single pair of feeders on a large layout? Wouldn't voltage drop adversely affect performance? Rich
So, why would a DC user settle for a single pair of feeders on a large layout? Wouldn't voltage drop adversely affect performance?
wrench567 You would need about a thousand feet of wire to notice an apreciable voltage drop. Since running on DC you're actually varying the voltage through the layout. Even very large DC layouts never really tax the system enough to notice. Grade changes is more taxing than flat running. Hope this answers your question. Pete.
You would need about a thousand feet of wire to notice an apreciable voltage drop. Since running on DC you're actually varying the voltage through the layout. Even very large DC layouts never really tax the system enough to notice. Grade changes is more taxing than flat running.
Hope this answers your question.
Pete.
richhotrain wrench567 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 Rich. Short answer. No. Voltage drop is the same. Thanks, Pete. So, why would a DC user settle for a single pair of feeders on a large layout? Wouldn't voltage drop adversely affect performance? Rich
wrench567 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 Rich. Short answer. No. Voltage drop is the same.
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
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?
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.
Short answer. No. Voltage drop is the same.
Thanks, Pete. So, why would a DC user settle for a single pair of feeders on a large layout? Wouldn't voltage drop adversely affect performance?
Like I said in the post. You would need about a thousand feet of wire to notice an apreciable voltage drop. Since running on DC you're actually varying the voltage through the layout. Even very large DC layouts never really tax the system enough to notice. Grade changes is more taxing than flat running.
SeeYou190 gregc is a DC user drawing as much current as a DCC user through the same pair of wires? Greg, That is kind of difficult to answer. I would think that my DC locomotives use more current, on average, than average DCC locomotives do. My fleet is made up of Athearn and older brass. Both of these use more current than modern locomotives. My locomotives with Kato drives are probably close to being on-par with newer locomotive models. However, if I did convert them to DCC, they would still draw the same (or maybe slightly more) current. I think it is safer to say older scale electric train locomotives draw more current than newer models, and older models are more common on DC layouts than DCC. Does that sound logical? -Kevin
gregc is a DC user drawing as much current as a DCC user through the same pair of wires?
Greg, That is kind of difficult to answer.
I would think that my DC locomotives use more current, on average, than average DCC locomotives do.
My fleet is made up of Athearn and older brass. Both of these use more current than modern locomotives. My locomotives with Kato drives are probably close to being on-par with newer locomotive models.
However, if I did convert them to DCC, they would still draw the same (or maybe slightly more) current.
I think it is safer to say older scale electric train locomotives draw more current than newer models, and older models are more common on DC layouts than DCC.
Does that sound logical?
-Kevin
For the locos you have yes. While all are DC, and no decoders, all my locos are 25 years old or newer, or have been upgraded with modern can motors.
My current draws are less than DCC because I have no decoders to power.
is a DC user drawing as much current as a DCC user through the same pair of wires?
In most cases no.
When I run a train, that train is connected directly to the power supply for that throttle. There may be 4 powered units on that train, but no other locos are on that power supply.
And the wiring path from the power supply, thru the Aristo throttle and reaching the track is in many cases shorter. ALSO, since each block is isolated, even if three blocks are assigned to that train, the locos are basically only in one at a time.
Let's say the block is 40' long, and my feeder is roughly in the middle, all the rail joints are soldered. That means the locos are never more than 20' from the feeder.
So we know the rail is the highest resistence in the circuit. Not very much rail in the circuit, and the amount of rail stays in that range, 0' to 20', so voltage drop is functionally zero.
Available power is not effected by other trains since EACH train has its own power supply.
A power supply that is as big as what many run whole medium sized DCC layouts with - 5 amps.
Yes, I have 10 throttles and 10 5 amp power supplies, there is no common rail wiring, each power supply remains completely isolated from the others.
gregcis a DC user drawing as much current as a DCC user through the same pair of wires?
Living the dream.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
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.
SeeYou190 I do not understand why this is always such a trigger issue.
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.
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.
- Douglas
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's not stir the pot. It's a hobby.
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.
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".
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.
York1 John
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
richhotrainI believe that using such an arrangement on a DCC-powered layout would result in significant voltage drop.