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
Rich.
Short answer. No. Voltage drop is the same.
Alton Junction
is a DC user drawing as much current as a DCC user through the same pair of wires?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregcis 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
Living the dream.
gregc 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.
Sheldon
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
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.
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
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.
Hope this answers your question.
Pete.
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.
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.
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
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
Thanks, Sheldon. That actually makes a lot of sense to me.
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".
richhotrain I guess that I just don't fully understand DC operation.
You can't. Every DC layout has different controls, and there is no standard.
I will have no cab selection switches on my layout. All club sized DC layout need these. Sheldon has his own system. DR. Wayne uses nothing and is simple and reliable.
That is one of the biggest advantages of DCC. If you know how to run a Digitrax controller, you can go to any layout using that system and know how to operate it.
Every DC layout requires custom training and instruction.
SeeYou190 richhotrain I guess that I just don't fully understand DC operation. You can't. Every DC layout has different controls, and there is no standard. I will have no cab selection switches on my layout. All club sized DC layout need these. Sheldon has his own system. DR. Wayne uses nothing and is simple and reliable. That is one of the biggest advantages of DCC. If you know how to run a Digitrax controller, you can go to any layout using that system and know how to operate it. Every DC layout requires custom training and instruction. -Kevin
richhotrain SeeYou190 richhotrain I guess that I just don't fully understand DC operation. You can't. Every DC layout has different controls, and there is no standard. I will have no cab selection switches on my layout. All club sized DC layout need these. Sheldon has his own system. DR. Wayne uses nothing and is simple and reliable. That is one of the biggest advantages of DCC. If you know how to run a Digitrax controller, you can go to any layout using that system and know how to operate it. Every DC layout requires custom training and instruction. -Kevin Thanks, Kevin. I think that goes a long way towards explaining my lack of understanding regarding DC operation. I started late into scale modeling back in January, 2004 when my LHS guys easily talked me into using DCC. So, I have no background in DC operation nor actual operating experience with DC. Rich
Thanks, Kevin. I think that goes a long way towards explaining my lack of understanding regarding DC operation. I started late into scale modeling back in January, 2004 when my LHS guys easily talked me into using DCC. So, I have no background in DC operation nor actual operating experience with DC.
Rich,
One of the fundamental problems with these discussions is that unlike you with zero DC experiance, many of the people who are critical of DC only have bad experiance with DC having never operated on a well designed DC system.
They tried on their own early on to build a layout, and wired it from the Atlas wiring book, and found it hard to operate.
There are good and bad approaches to DC, and what suits one persons goals may be totally useless to the next person.
I have known more than one modeler like Wayne, who just run one train at a time and the whole layout is one circuit with some kill switches to isolate parked locos.
And I have operated on systems more complex than my own.
One simple way to start to understand more advanced DC systems - they are less about being the engineer and more about being the dispatcher. By one means or another you progressively give the train, or trains, "authority" to proceed into the next block - much like real trains - which do not just drive around willy nilly like DCC lets you do........
richhotrain 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
Rich, on my 50 linear feet of track, the voltage drop was significant for the last 10 feet...when the rail joiners were unsoldered.
(I like to get the train up and running ASAP, and the effect of the voltage drop was to decelerate the train as it approached the town, and accelerate the train as it departed, built in momentum so to speak, so I was in no real hurry to solder the rails).
Once I soldered the rails, the voltage drop went a way.
Dr Wayne might chime in. I believe that he powers that large DC layout with only 2 wires, but solders every rail connection.
I can't expaling the physics, but I assume fully soldered nickel silver code 83 rail functions just like a buss wire, albeit I think the thickness of the rail might cause more reisistance than a properly gauged buss...unless I have that backwards.
- Douglas
Doughless richhotrain 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 Rich, on my 50 linear feet of track, the voltage drop was significant for the last 10 feet...when the rail joiners were unsoldered. (I like to get the train up and running ASAP, and the effect of the voltage drop was to decelerate the train as it approached the town, and accelerate the train as it departed, built in momentum so to speak, so I was in no real hurry to solder the rails). Once I soldered the rails, the voltage drop went a way. Dr Wayne might chime in. I believe that he powers that large DC layout with only 2 wires, but solders every rail connection. I can't expaling the physics, but I assume fully soldered nickel silver code 83 rail functions just like a buss wire, albeit I think the thickness of the rail might cause more reisistance than a properly gauged buss...unless I have that backwards.
Your unsoldered rail joiners was acting as resistors instead of conducters. Restricting the flow of electricity. Electricians hate the water hose analogy when discussing electrical faults. So here goes. Take two garden hoses and join them together loosely and without a washer/gasket. Turn on the water. You get some water out the end of the hose but the joint is leaking a good portion of the water is being wasted because of the leak. Put your thumb over the end and look at the leaking joint.
Good connections are very important to good electrical flow. Code 83 rail probably has the same conductivity as 18 gauge copper wire. A continuous run of 600 feet of nickel silver rail should have nearly zero voltage drop and handle 1 amp of current without issues.
Sheldon.
I run DCC and my trains don't run wily nily. They follow the rules or crashes happen. Just like the real thing. No PTC needed so far.
wrench567 Doughless richhotrain 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 Rich, on my 50 linear feet of track, the voltage drop was significant for the last 10 feet...when the rail joiners were unsoldered. (I like to get the train up and running ASAP, and the effect of the voltage drop was to decelerate the train as it approached the town, and accelerate the train as it departed, built in momentum so to speak, so I was in no real hurry to solder the rails). Once I soldered the rails, the voltage drop went a way. Dr Wayne might chime in. I believe that he powers that large DC layout with only 2 wires, but solders every rail connection. I can't expaling the physics, but I assume fully soldered nickel silver code 83 rail functions just like a buss wire, albeit I think the thickness of the rail might cause more reisistance than a properly gauged buss...unless I have that backwards. Your unsoldered rail joiners was acting as resistors instead of conducters. Restricting the flow of electricity. Electricians hate the water hose analogy when discussing electrical faults. So here goes. Take two garden hoses and join them together loosely and without a washer/gasket. Turn on the water. You get some water out the end of the hose but the joint is leaking a good portion of the water is being wasted because of the leak. Put your thumb over the end and look at the leaking joint. Good connections are very important to good electrical flow. Code 83 rail probably has the same conductivity as 18 gauge copper wire. A continuous run of 600 feet of nickel silver rail should have nearly zero voltage drop and handle 1 amp of current without issues. Pete.
Thanks for explaining it. Yes, understanding that breaks cause restriction makes sense.
And when you say that code 83 rail offers about the same conductivity as 18g copper wire, is there a concept that says a piece of rail can be too large of a diameter that impedes current flow over a linear distance? (but that our model train tracks probably never approach that diameter).
wrench567 Sheldon. I run DCC and my trains don't run wily nily. They follow the rules or crashes happen. Just like the real thing. No PTC needed so far. Pete.
I understand, I have many hours of opps sessions on DCC layouts.
I also understand that I don't like onboard sound, I don't want to install 140 decoders, my era and operational scheme does not require controling headlights or speed matching largely dissimilar locos, and CTC and signaling are not made easier or less wiring intense by DCC.
I understand very well the few features I give up, and I understand well the features I gain.
I'm a "big picture" guy, and I like running trains both in and opps session or just in "display mode".
I like vast scenery, modeling more than just the 80' either side of the tracks, I like long trains.
In case you have not been following, here is the track plan for my new layout. Room prep underway, first area of bench work soon.
I've been at this hobby since 1967, I watched the whole developement of command control, I seriously considerd DCC - twice.
Again, my layout will have:
Wireless radio throttles
Detection, signals and CTC
Simple one button route control of turnouts which will be controlled at the dispatchers panel and at local towers. This allows full operation with and without a dispatcher on duty.
With a dispatcher on duty, a mainline engineer will have an experiance pretty much like DCC - but with less buttons to push......
Even without a dispatcher, walk around control is provided by local towers by simply setting the route thru the next interlocking (one button) and selecting the next block (one button).
System maps will display the location of all active mainline trains to operators.
ATC will stop any train that runs a red signal.
And it does not even take a computer to do all this.
Industrial areas and yards are largely route controlled and turnouts will be manually controlled in those areas for the most part. Occasionally some cab assignments require a button or two in those areas.
The layout will supppot 10 operators and make use of a dispatcher (or two) and a yardmaster.
Or, for dispaly purposes, allow operation of 5 deticated non conflicting routes, while still allowing switching of the yard and primary industrial areas.
The layout will stage about 30 trains ranging from 35 to 50 average 1950's freight cars, or passneger trains as long as 15 cars.
Douglas,
Our rail has a higher resistance per foot than wire becuase the metal used for rail is not a good conductor - it is plenty big enough in cross section.
wrench567Electricians hate the water hose analogy when discussing electrical faults.
I hated trying to explain electricity to someone that refused to give up the "It is just like water in a pipe" theory.
DoughlessAnd when you say that code 83 rail offers about the same conductivity as 18g
i've read that nickle silver wire is comparable to 26g wire, 41 mOhm/ft, not 18g, 6.4 mOhm/ft
i mentioned this earlier, but it got lost in the haystack of words
Yes truly understanding electical stuff is hard. Even though I have rewired entire buildings and understand all the codes, I find truly understanding all of it hard, especialy pole transformers.
DCC vs DC vs twisted or utp
Boy you guys really get going on stuff. 1st, cables. Over the years I found out that you ALWAYS twist and bundle cables. A cable all by itself and not working will grab anything it can get to so it can tangle. It is like sex to a cable. You know the scenerio - have cables in a bag or box? Bet you can't just pull ONE out! I have even gone so far to put individual Cat5 cables or a couple of them into their own baggie. You do not need a bunch of twists per inch for this, just enough to keep things together. One of the fall-out of this is that twisting *could* help with your leading edge ringing in the DCC case. Doesn't do anything for overshoot if present. Now you possilbly have bundles of cable that are controlled. If you need to change something you *usually* can pull one set of cables from the mix with no sex involved. Or, it might be easier just to mark both ends 'spare' and run a new twisted pair or pairs to where you need it. Also, with Cat5 cables - riser cable is NOT twisted per-say - if you peel back the plastic you can see that the cable pairs are somewhat twisted and are solid. Patch cables are different, these might or might not be twisted at a specific twist per inch and are stranded. Riser cable is the easier to deal with as it is a more solid of cable and you can 'punch down' to terminate it where you choose. I still am amazed that the new DCC devices do not have punch down blocks as it would make stuff way more easy.
DC is just that - plus and minus ( ground ) current and in one direction. Simple Ohms law governs this as to voltage drop per length of cable; assuming you have everything soldered proper and tight.
DCC is different as there is a frequency component to it. DCC is still for the most part a plus and minus, but has rise and fall times that must be met ( slew rate ). As far as I am concerned, best way to keep DCC cables working at their best is to solder your rail joiners for each block ( if you are using detection ) and provide multiple paths from the big DCC bus to the rail; not necessarily at those joiners. If you use 14ga for the big DCC bus, there is no reason you can not use smaller and shorter wire for those feeds - some say 28ga, some say 18ga. I suspect that what ever you use you should stick with it ( and same color code ) for ease of figuring out what is wrong when it goes sideways.
1st thing I do when DCC goes sideways is to hang a scope on the big DCC line and see if my signal is doing what it is supposed to be doing. If so, start splitting stuff up and see where is doesn't work. If not, what happened: did you add yet another DCC device? Did a DCC device die? What?
In the case of DCC the manufactures are continously adding new widgets to put on the DCC bus. Guess what, each time you insert something, that bus gains in capacitance ( impedance ) which will slightly slow those rise and fall times a bit. If you have a small(er) layout you may not notice. Medium and bigger you *may* see stuff not working immediately as it used to, and/or is intermittent. Sooner or later you will get to the point where it will not work at all and then you would need to split the bus with yet another power district. Splitting the bus is not guesswork, although giving it your best guess as to where to split it could help. Keep in mind that you could be wrong.
Todd Hackett
Libby, Montana 59923
I take only pictures then leave footprints on railroad property that I know is not mine, although I treat it as such...
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.
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.
First, i dont think anyone is keeping stats on the use of DC vs DCC. I expect its pretty even nowadays. That is until alot of us old hoggers (who only had DC when amassing our fleets) head for that great enginehouse in the sky. Then DCC will take over almost completely. I expect manufacturers will drop out of the DC only game. Only DC left will be us hold outs, and those with old equipment (still running i will add). AI should take the fun out of it for sure.
As for running your trains while looking out the model's cab window via micro-cam, well..... that exists today already. One pair of Oculus (the original, not the one Disgracebook owns now [all after the originial Oculus]), a lil bit of programming, and your on your way.
We already have multiple train control systems (like we need to run a train from a cell phone! gees thats lazy but we have it.), we already have micro cams and videos galore of people running their layouts. So instead of piping the video to a monitor to watch, pipe it to your Oculus. Oculus #1 is plug-inable to things like the electronic sewer (internet) or your local wifi.
I cant imagine this taking a rocket scientist to pull off. Just one good Model Railroader (as usual)! Most expensive thing here will be your DCC loco, those are astronomical in price and mostly unattainable. A pair of Oculus, new, went for $600 (remember - go for Oculus #1) if you cant still get the #1. The programming should be done free.... its just typing and in todays world, any millenial can do this.
With Oculus 1, DCC loco, mini cam, your prolly looking at $2000. With DC loco you can drop that down to prolly $800. Sounds like a good project for you - Good luck!
Respects,
PMR
PS: Id leave companys like Micro-whatever and CrApple out of this. If they get involved, youll need an account to play with your trains, 3 tap verification, and i wouldnt be at all suprised if a fee wasnt imposed, and certainly "ADs" all of the place because people still think you need ads to do ANYTHING! Not to mention the scam email youll have to sift through to get to your waycards, employee schedules, etc.. Think of all the malware youd have to clean out of your trains if you used a 'Chrome' controller. You think your track and wheels are gunked now - HEH!
PM Railfan(like we need to run a train from a cell phone! gees thats lazy but we have it.)
Well, not to involve myself in someone else's strong opinion, you fail to point out that a smart phone allows one to run trains on the railroads of others without needing to purchase a dedicated throttle for the other person's railroad.
The folks around here have installed dedicated routers which they have interfaced with their railroads that allow this to happen. All the smart phone owner (and I'm not one of them) needs to do is download the appropriate app to their phone. And the bare bones version of that app is currently free, with the full version around $10. Much more cost effective than needing to purchase the dedicated item.
My friends at Bowser have shared with me that approximately 55% of the new locos sold are dcc, with 45% or so plain dc. That was during 2021, and applicable to the pre-orders and sales at that time. They acknowledged that each run sees a slight increase in dcc orders.
As for me, I use both. I control which power is going to the track through a DPDT (center off) toggle switch. I have brand new Athearn Genesis diesels that are plain dc and run just great pretty much right out of the box, and I have some of the very same model that have full dcc/sound/etc. and also run well. I actually prefer the plain dc units for their running characteristics at this time, even after adjusting the acceleration and deceleration on the dcc units to smooth them out.
I have no plans to convert over the last MTH plain dc unit on hand or the newest Genesis plain dc units to dcc at this time. I plan to continue to use both modes of power for the forseeable future.
John
maxman PM Railfan (like we need to run a train from a cell phone! gees thats lazy but we have it.) Well, not to involve myself in someone else's strong opinion, you fail to point out that a smart phone allows one to run trains on the railroads of others without needing to purchase a dedicated throttle for the other person's railroad. The folks around here have installed dedicated routers which they have interfaced with their railroads that allow this to happen. All the smart phone owner (and I'm not one of them) needs to do is download the appropriate app to their phone. And the bare bones version of that app is currently free, with the full version around $10. Much more cost effective than needing to purchase the dedicated item.
PM Railfan (like we need to run a train from a cell phone! gees thats lazy but we have it.)
The day that a smart phone, or other touch screen device, is the only way to run a model train, would be the day I would get out of the hobby.
My new layout will support 10 operators, I have 10 throttles.
I agree and understand that most new people go DCC, even if they still start out with a simple DC setup.
I also understand that there are several factors that drive this, not just youth or technology.
I think I covered much of this earlier.
Trends, modeling approaches and philosophies change over time, and cycle around again.
Right now, "being the engineer", small layouts, simple methods of operation, are popular trends. That combined with sound is a natural fit for DCC without busting the budget.
Large layouts are a different story.
Yet large individual layouts do persist. Not everyone buys into "less is more".
And again, it is unlikely that any new technology will completely displace DCC or DC.
Pete
DCC does not inherently put any restrictions on where a train runs. It is much like "see and avoid" VFR flight rules. A set of rules has to be implemented to prevent crashes - like you said. DCC is inherently very effective at givng the experience of the train crew operating independently out on the railroad. An overlay of some kind - rules or signal system - has to be added to DCC to restore dispatcher control.
A DC block system is much more like IFR in the aviation world - a ground controller (dispatcher) gives you clearance to operate in a particular block of air space. Other aircraft are not permitted in the same airspace block at the same time. A DC block control system is well-suited to emulating dispatcher control of the layout. The DC block system is not nearly as well suited to mulitple train crews each doing their own thing - unless there is a lot of track between them.
I use DCC for our modular setups, but still use DC at home where I'm operating on my own. I have too much to do to convert my locomotives to DCC. Because true modular layouts are different every setup, DCC makes a lot more sense than DC, even though operating rules are needed to keep the layout functional.
Everybody should use the control system that best suits their operating needs/desires, and not worry about others.
Fred W
....modeling foggy coastal Oregon, where it's always 1900....
ATLANTIC CENTRALHow large is a large layout? Dr Wayne only has a simgle power feeder. But he does not have seperate blocks in the traditional sense.
I'd consider my layout to be a medium-size, and yes, there's just one pair of wires powering all of the layout's track.I do have blocks, but their purpose is simply to allow a train to be parked, while another train on an adjacent track can pass, either in the same or oposite direction of the parked train.There's normally only one train running at any one time, but it may have multiple locomotives, depending on how many cars are beng pulled, and especially if the train is on an ascending grade. Even if the locos cannot be programmed like a decoder-equipped one, I've found that multiple locos, even only somewhat similar in size and power, will co-operate quite well if the train is heavy enough to actually require that number of locos.
The main lines on my layout are single track between towns, but with double track where they pass through the towns...that's where the so-called blocks are located.
When some of my grandkids were quite young, I used to let them run a diesel locomotive (not pulling a train), then added another loco when they weren't looking, and continued doing so until there were a dozen-or-so in motion (some had caught-up and coupled to other ones), then as they circumnavigated the layout, I began plucking them off one-at-time, until there was only one left....end of the game.Even with that many locos in motion, I never noticed much of a difference in speeds as locos were added or removed.Nowadays, with most of my diesels either gone or simply in a display cabinet, it's usually only me running a train with maybe only one steamer, but if I get well into it, it could be multiple locos, front, middle, and rear and maybe 50 cars (or more).
DoughlessDr Wayne might chime in. I believe that he powers that large DC layout with only 2 wires, but solders every rail connection.
You're certanly right about the two wires, and most of the rail connections being soldered, but my layout has five fairly large bridges, all of which are removable, mostly for periodic cleaning of the fake water beneath the bridges.Those rail joints do have joiners, but they're not soldered in place, and I've had only very minor glitches in the many years the layout has been in place. Usually sliding the joiner back and forth a bit, or giving it a squeeze with pliers will fix any interruptions.
I'd venture that when I shuffle-off to the last roundhouse, nobody will want any of my locomotives, due to the fact that there's likely no room in them (loco & tender) for a decoder of any type.I sorta think that my freight and passenger cars would meet the same fate, too, simply because I've modelled an era (late '30s) in which few modellers likely have any interest.
Wayne
PRR8259 My friends at Bowser have shared with me that approximately 55% of the new locos sold are dcc, with 45% or so plain dc. That was during 2021, and applicable to the pre-orders and sales at that time. They acknowledged that each run sees a slight increase in dcc orders. As for me, I use both. I control which power is going to the track through a DPDT (center off) toggle switch. I have brand new Athearn Genesis diesels that are plain dc and run just great pretty much right out of the box, and I have some of the very same model that have full dcc/sound/etc. and also run well. I actually prefer the plain dc units for their running characteristics at this time, even after adjusting the acceleration and deceleration on the dcc units to smooth them out. I have no plans to convert over the last MTH plain dc unit on hand or the newest Genesis plain dc units to dcc at this time. I plan to continue to use both modes of power for the forseeable future. John
Interestingly, those percentages are very much in line with every random survey we have conducted on this forum over the years. And just like Bowser is reporting, further change is slow.
These numbers also suggest that interest in sound is similar percentage wise, or at least not a high priority for many people.