richhotrain York1 I've read quite a few comments in various threads that the main reason for having DCC is sound, and if you're not interested in sound, then go with DC. Maybe, but I would think that the main reason for having DCC is independent locomotive control, not sound. Rich
York1 I've read quite a few comments in various threads that the main reason for having DCC is sound, and if you're not interested in sound, then go with DC.
I've read quite a few comments in various threads that the main reason for having DCC is sound, and if you're not interested in sound, then go with DC.
Maybe, but I would think that the main reason for having DCC is independent locomotive control, not sound.
Rich
I agree. My point was how often I've read comments that claim the main reason for DCC is sound.
York1 John
Hello All,
York1Any over/under bets on how many pages this will go?
Well, you've expanded the discussion to the second page...
As far as sound goes- -there are several DC systems that can enable sound-equipped DCC locomotives.
I don't run sound, but I do run several consists.
DCC, DCC, DCC, that's for me!!! (I apologize to Gene Wilder and Mel Brooks.)
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
Sound came out a lot later than DCC. There were early sound units. Crude, horrible and little to no customization. The early Soundtraxx (I had one) decoder was HUGE! And it was only sound. It also operated on DC. Actually it sounded better on DC. On DCC it hummed and sometimes when powering up had a high pitch squeel. It was also very pricey. A few years later, this little German company started selling motor, light, and sound decoders. They required a 100 ohm speaker. Priced comparable to a very good motor/lighting decoder. With a special separate programming unit and computer you can customize and even change sound sets. The decoder even had BEMF at a time when even TCS was using Dither. The worst thing about it was the volume of the horn/whistle and the speaker.
Sound is optional. Just about all my steam has sound. It was just recently I started putting sound in my diesel fleet. I still have nine locomotives with just motor/lighting decoders.
Pete.
richhotrain York1 I've read quite a few comments in various threads that the main reason for having DCC is sound, and if you're not interested in sound, then go with DC. Maybe, but I would think that the main reason for having DCC is independent locomotive control, not sound.
i believe it's simpler wiring
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Not only is the wiring simplified, the amount of it is greatly reduced.
You don't need to run wire between the throttle, switches and blocks if you want something beyond a simple layout.
Just two wires, with a lot of feeders.
As someone who more recently switched, I had a few reasons. For one I like sound but I also like the juciers for turnouts, a real game changer for someone who likes small engines. Also most new stuff out there is DCC for motive power.
betamax Not only is the wiring simplified, the amount of it is greatly reduced. You don't need to run wire between the throttle, switches and blocks if you want something beyond a simple layout. Just two wires, with a lot of feeders.
I love how we gloss over the feeders every 6' like that is not wiring? Somehow it is not "wiring" because it is rock simple?
I don't have feeders every 6' on my DC layout? Typical control block 30' to 60' feet with only one feeder run thru an inductive detector for signaling.
And power district and circuit breaker wiring can get pretty involved as DCC layout get larger.
I'm not being anti DCC here, let's just tell the truth.
DCC wiring can be very simple, or complex, depending on layout size and operational goals.
The exact same thing can be said about DC.
Dr Wayne powers his DC layout with two wires - mine will have thousands for my adavanced cab control that includes signaling, one button route control of turnouts, local tower control panels, walk around radio throtttles (yes in DC), CTC and more.
Things that keep DCC wiring simple:
Signaling, advanced turnout control, very large layout, throttles for lots of operators will all increase DCC wring requirements.
Operational Philosophy
This is the real question.
DCC lets you be more like the engineer and less like the dispatcher. That's why it was originally invented.
And long before sound there were lots on Command Control systems that are not DCC, all of which worked, but they were proprietary, your controllers and receivers (decoders) all came from one company - if they went out of business, you were sunk.
If I was to switch to DCC, the driving feature would be the type of controller.
I don't want 50 buttons, I don't want a smart phone, and now that I have been using Aristo Train Engineer throttles for over a decade, I don't even want a knob.
I like push buttons - FASTER - SLOWER - EAST (forward) - WEST (reverse) - EMERGENCY STOP
Back to the idea of being the engineer.
DCC lets you:
I actually encourage most new people to go DCC despite being a deticated DC operator myself.
My reasons for staying with DC relate to my very specific tastes, goals, talents, and interests in the hobby.
I want signaling and CTC, I am building a large layout with a large loco fleet, I have extensive electrical and electronics konwledge.
I don't want sound, the remaining features DCC would add to my Advance Cab Control are not justified by my operating style considering the extra costs.
I would recommend that the OP select a DCC system based mainly on the ergonomics of the human interface (throttle).
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALTypical control block 30' to 60' feet with only one feeder run thru an inductive detector for signaling.
how do you deal with less than reliable rail joiners?
When I was building the N scale Dream House layout, construction began in 1990, if I have my dates right.
I bought a massive (ridiculous) fleet of Kato N scale locomotives. If you remember the shortage of Kato undecorated models from those days... I caused it.
Everything was DC. I do not remember the timing of DCC becoming available, but I think it was either very new, or just over the horizon at that time.
As I built the layout, I knew there had to be a better way. The wiring was getting unbearable and way too complicated.
For a large multi-operator layout, I would never suggest DC to a novice. The advantages of DCC just far out-weigh any downsides.
For a layout that is small, DCC really adds a lot of fun, you know, pretending to be an engineer and just "playing trains" for a while.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL Typical control block 30' to 60' feet with only one feeder run thru an inductive detector for signaling. how do you deal with less than reliable rail joiners?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Typical control block 30' to 60' feet with only one feeder run thru an inductive detector for signaling.
Solder - I have been soldering all my rail joints within each control block since before I was in this hobby. Meaning, my father was a "holiday" modeler, setting up a very elaborate 90 sq ft HO layout every year for the Christmas season.
It was built with Tru-Scale ready track. He soldered and unsoldered every rail joint every year.
At age 10, we had finally had a house with a basement where we intended to stay a while. He built the layout in the basement, and in two years it was mine.
I changed it, expanded it, years later built several new layouts at home, became a member of the Severna Park Model Railroad Club where I learned more track skills than what my father had taught me with the Tru-Scale products and hand laid the track on the next few layouts.
So, for 50 plus years, no electrical issues with rail joints.
ATLANTIC CENTRALSolder
is there any reason you couldn't do that with DCC?
Sheldon.
Why can't you have turnout motors and signaling systems on DCC? As a matter of fact there is a vast assortment of products. Some with wireless control. Automatic reversing units have made return loops and wyes seamless and simple. Some signaling systems are even plug and play. Optical detection can be troublesome but there are things that can be done. I'm not a big proponent of resistor wheel sets but there are other systems.
As far as soldering every rail. I've done it to my portable modules with just a pair of feeders. But my track lengths are short. The module joiner tracks rely on good joiners but they are short enough that most locomotives span both sides and the power buss is connected with automotive grade connectors.
Don't want to argue about it. Just trying to dispell some myths.
wrench567 Sheldon. Why can't you have turnout motors and signaling systems on DCC? As a matter of fact there is a vast assortment of products. Some with wireless control. Automatic reversing units have made return loops and wyes seamless and simple. Some signaling systems are even plug and play. Optical detection can be troublesome but there are things that can be done. I'm not a big proponent of resistor wheel sets but there are other systems. As far as soldering every rail. I've done it to my portable modules with just a pair of feeders. But my track lengths are short. The module joiner tracks rely on good joiners but they are short enough that most locomotives span both sides and the power buss is connected with automotive grade connectors. Don't want to argue about it. Just trying to dispell some myths. Pete.
Are you asking me about my personal choice?
I could, but I don't need or want the expense of 145 decoders, 10 wireless throttles, boosters and circuit breakers for a 1500 sq ft layout with 120 turnouts and 1,000 ft of track.
I know a fair amount about DCC and all the options for turnout control, siginaling, etc.
I have used DCC for many hours on other layouts.
Even if I had the money that I have invested in my 10 Aristo Throttles and the relays and wiring for my system, it would not pay for a DCC equivalent, not by a long shot.
Pete, I don't want to clutter up this thread with the details of my control system, but it is not like any DC system you have ever seen.
Short feature list:
Actually, if I ever wanted to, I could overlay DCC right into my existing system wiring - but I would loose the ATC feature....
As for myths, no myths here. What I do is complex and requires lot s wire and lots of planning.
I think that soldering every rail joint, especially with DCC, is a good practice. I get around this but only because I drop a pair of feeders from the outside of the rails on every section of track. I got tired of stalls on my last layout due to loss of connectivity.
Alton Junction
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL Solder is there any reason you couldn't do that with DCC?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Solder
Well, I don't know for sure. But I know guys who converted medium sized DC layouts do DCC without adding feaders, they just used their existing DC block feeders every 20, 30, 50 feet depending on the nature of their layouts. Worked fine.
And yes they were all old school like me with soldered rail joints.
I can't imagine not soldering rail joints?
ATLANTIC CENTRALI love how we gloss over the feeders every 6' like that is not wiring?
ATLANTIC CENTRALI know guys who converted medium sized DC layouts do DCC without adding feaders, they just used their existing DC block feeders every 20, 30, 50 feet depending on the nature of their layouts. Worked fine.
as you've confirmed, feeders aren't required for DCC
DCC doesn't require wiring each block thru some switching mechanism to each throttle
but this thead made me realize that DCC often needs overload protection (circuit breakers) to prevent shorts from killing the entire layout
so maybe DCC solves one set of problems (cab control wiring) but introduces another set of problems (overload protection)
the club layout i'm fortunate to work on, has two dual track mainlines: B&O and Western Maryland with several blocks in each direction, each protected with a circuit breaker. (never seen this mentioned anywhere else).
but each PSX circuit breaker also support block detection, making it easier to supprt signals
yea they're too bright (easily fixed with an adjustable regulator)
2302
Greg,
You have just made again the point I am always trying to make about this. Once you introduce larger layout size, detection, signaling, CTC or advanced turnout controls, suddenly wiring a layout using DCC as the locomotive control is not so simple, and often not much different from advanced DC layouts.
My new layout will have 15 primary signal blocks, and 14 interlocking "sub blocks" on the double track mainline.
Dispatcher, tower operators, train operators, will be able to glance at multiple layout maps and know where every train is.
The big point of my control system in intergration.
For those who understand CTC, here is the simple example. When the dispatcher sets a route, and then gives a given train authortiy on that route, the cab for that train is automaticly connected to the trackage where authority has been granted.
There is no redundant motion of operating cab selectors and CTC separately.
Without a dispatcher, train operators can become their own tower operators and preform dispatcher functions at each interlocking. Much the way many DCC operators throw manual or electric turnouts as they walk around the layout. And they give themselves track authority at each tower with the push of a single button.
Three trains in each direction will be able to make their way around the mainline at the same time.
But back to DCC. It is a fine system if it suits your needs and wants, but to suggest it is automaticly or always "easier to wire" is a myth. Depends on your goals.
I should have taken that at even-money!!!
ATLANTIC CENTRALOnce you introduce larger layout size, detection, signaling, CTC or advanced turnout controls, suddenly wiring a layout using DCC as the locomotive control is not so simple
sounds like your saying DCC makes "layout control" harder
in general, locomotive control and layout control are separate systems and layout control requires a lot of infrastructure
but DCC makes block occupancy easier, if not more reliable and i just explained that some DCC circuit breakers and auto-reversers also support block detection which is a step towards more advanced layout control (e.g signaling)
the club uses stationary decoders (DS64s) for turnout control which minimizes turnout wiring and is also a step toward advanced layout control because all the DS64s are remotely accessible
in this club's case, DCC provides some of the infrastructure needed for advanced layout control
esp32/12 processor boards can make CMRI-like nodes for communicating block occupancy, turnout feedback and signal control supporting CTC -- the final infrastructure component -- wireless
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL Once you introduce larger layout size, detection, signaling, CTC or advanced turnout controls, suddenly wiring a layout using DCC as the locomotive control is not so simple sounds like your saying DCC makes "layout control" harder in general, locomotive control and layout control are separate systems and layout control requires a lot of infrastructure but DCC makes block occupancy easier, if not more reliable and i just explained that some DCC circuit breakers and auto-reversers also support block detection which is a step towards more advanced layout control (e.g signaling) the club uses stationary decoders (DS64s) for turnout control which minimizes turnout wiring and is also a step toward advanced layout control because all the DS64s are remotely accessible in this club's case, DCC provides some of the infrastructure needed for advanced layout control esp32/12 processor boards can make CMRI-like nodes for communicating block occupancy, turnout feedback and signal control supporting CTC -- the final infrastructure component -- wireless
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Once you introduce larger layout size, detection, signaling, CTC or advanced turnout controls, suddenly wiring a layout using DCC as the locomotive control is not so simple
Greg, no, I'm not saying that at all.
I'm saying there are lots of variables bassed on your choices. And that DCC does not automaticly make other aspects of layout control easier.
But, as a DC operator with 55 years of experiance on a number of advanced DC layouts, I don't know that I agree that locomotive control and other aspects of layout control are automaticly or always separate. That is very much a DCC concept.
I have 15 blocks that need detection? How would you do that with DCC? At what cost? Actually I have more than that, but I am leaving the staging yard systems out of the discussion.
My detection system is very reliable, and it detects the trains when they are sitting still or moving. And they are solid state and are not in the propulsion circuit at all.
I have seven interlockings ranging from simple to complex representing 60 or 70 turnouts - stationary decoders? EVERYTHING about my turnout control approach is way less expensive than that. $8 per turnout averaged out over the whole system - one relay and two pushbuttons on average.
I know stationary decoders have a lot of input methods and versitility, but just for the record, I have operated DCC layouts where one choice was to use the Digitrax throttle to throw switches - that was terrible. Why push 5 buttons I can hardly see when I can push one button on a control panel where I am already standing anyway?
You automaticly assume that a digital solid state solution is better, and sometimes it is.
I don't care about wiring complexity, wiring is easy.
I do care about the cost of expensive black box equipment and the learning curve of programing protocols I have not kept up with for many years.
I don't have any interest in learning or relearning any programing. That is not fun for me.
And, I don't want any help or want to be dependent on others down the road to maintain the layout.
Again, there is nothing wrong with any of what you are suggesting, it is just not the only way.
And again, half the layout infrastructure products you are talking about did not exist five years ago, let alone 20 years ago when I developed my system. It's paid for, I have it, it works.
FACT remains, if you are going to have manual turnouts and no signaling, DCC wiring is pretty easy and provides good operational flexibility - no question.
As soon as the layout control aspects become more advanced, no matter the methods, signaling, detection, advanced turnout control all take money, time, gagets and wire - be it DC or DCC moving the trains.
I was not trying to get into this big discussion again, but we seem to agree, other aspects of layout control are expensive and involved no matter what.
It seems to me, that for many people, hooking up 15 wires blindly to some diagram and then programing something is preceived as "easier" than hooking up 15 wires that you have to actually understand what they do.
After 45 years of wiring stuff and designing electrical circuits, for me 15 wires is 15 wires. I will skip the programing part and let the wires be the programing.
The difference is, as is often said, DCC controls the locomotive, DC controls the track. Which means the basic infrastructure for blocks (layout control) is already established in DC.
DCC very much resembles what aviation calls "see and avoid". There is no inherent infrastructure to avoid collisions - it's up to each engineer to avoid being on the same track at the same time as someone else. The block infrastructure is available and can be added, but is not inherent to DCC.
For a one person layout it matters not. DCC provides sound, DC doesn't. Otherwise, both are equally simple and suitable for a one person layout.
When you add the 2nd (and more) trains running on the layout, complexity goes up exponentially no matter which system you use.
With DC, you need block wiring infrastructure, and depending on how automated you want to be, means to connect the correct block(s) to the correct locomotive(s).
With DCC, multiple trains operate on "see and avoid" which requires alert engineers. The more track tightly shared between multiple trains, the more alert the engineers must be - and the more critical planning for short circuits must be. Or you can install block control to assist or automate the "see and avoid" (I think you called this layout control). The prototype uses a combination of rules, train orders, schedules (time tables), and a dispatcher to prevent collisions using a track block infrastructure.
Modular layouts that vary from setup to setup have to use DCC and alert engineers because the modifications to infrastructure from layout configuration changes are just too time consuming for 2 days of operation. Even then, the planning and implementation required for short circuit handling on what is essentially a display layout drives DCC complexity very quickly.
Fred W
fwrightThe difference is, as is often said, DCC controls the locomotive, DC controls the track.
I have always found that to be a hugely misleading comment.
i don't believe your length post properly describes some aspects of DCC. I provide answers to some of your questions
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I don't know that I agree that locomotive control and other aspects of layout control are automaticly or always separate. That is very much a DCC concept.
sounds like you're saying control is partially built in with DC but not DCC, despite me pointing out that the PSX product, as an example provides support for control though it is used to support locomotive control
ATLANTIC CENTRALI have 15 blocks that need detection? How would you do that with DCC? At what cost?
as i just said, could be built into a circuit breaker. but i'm familiar with the Basic Block Detector where a 4 detector board can had for ~$30 and i've built pulse transformer detectors for far less
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd they are solid state and are not in the propulsion circuit at all.
what do you mean by "propulsion circuit"? the throttle?
ATLANTIC CENTRALEVERYTHING about my turnout control approach is way less expensive than that. $8 per turnout averaged out over the whole system - one relay and two pushbuttons on average.
i designed and built an interlock controller for 44 turnouts for ~$40
ATLANTIC CENTRALI have operated DCC layouts where one choice was to use the Digitrax throttle to throw switches - that was terrible. Why push 5 buttons I can hardly see when I can push one button on a control panel where I am already standing anyway?
you can use the same approach to set routes, so in 5 buttons you can align multiple turnouts, you can align all the mainline turnouts for mainline operations
but this approach also avoids building and wiring a panel and support CTC
ATLANTIC CENTRALI don't care about wiring complexity, wiring is easy. I do care about the cost of expensive black box equipment and the learning curve of programing protocols I have not kept up with for many years. I don't have any interest in learning or relearning any programing. That is not fun for me.
lot of "I"s in those statements.
but just as you don't want to learn to program, others may not want to learn about wiring or designing and building relay circuits and are willing to spend $$ to a avoid that
you've frequently mention designing and building inexpensive control systems using relays which you are familiar with,
but from my perspective, a processor based approach is less expensive (maybe ~10/processor) that can support a handful of signals and other things and can easily be changed by reprogramming not correcting a wiring bug.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd, I don't want any help or want to be dependent on others down the road to maintain the layout.
i understand this and i think it's important
i've had to help the owner of that interlock reprogram some of the i/o ports and add additional routes. so far i've been successful over the phone and he can simply reprogram the processor
i hope you understand how difficult this would be to explain to someone how to rewire a relay circuit under the layout
but i think many layout owners get help configuring JMRI
ATLANTIC CENTRALAgain, there is nothing wrong with any of what you are suggesting, it is just not the only way.
of course it's not the only way.
but you seem to compare all other approaches to your relays approach and defend it whenever a different approach is suggested
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd again, half the layout infrastructure products you are talking about did not exist five years ago, let alone 20 years ago when I developed my system.
i believe many of the DCC component being discussed have been around 20 years ago. the club layout installed the PSX and DS64s 17 years ago
and while the easily programable USB processor boards weren't, the processors themselve were. And the benefit of that approach is that the same code that runs in one node runs in them all if using CTC. the logic is not in the layout, but in the PC controlling it and that tech has been around for much longer than 20 years
ATLANTIC CENTRALFACT remains, if you are going to have manual turnouts and no signaling, DCC wiring is pretty easy and provides good operational flexibility - no question.
that's the topic of the thread, that DCC layouts are easier to wire than cab controlled DC layouts
ATLANTIC CENTRALI was not trying to get into this big discussion again, but we seem to agree, other aspects of layout control are expensive and involved no matter what.
i don't think we do
there are several options for electrical hardware at each node (cluster of turnouts, signals, ...)
i believe that instead of a custom electronics approach that may be expensive to buy components for today, to design, build and trouble shoot ... DCC provides a more uniform approach, a common set of components, that many layouts can use to support more advanced layout control and get help from others with.
and while i believe there is an exceedingly frustrating learning curve with JMRI, it can be used for CTC
2527
Greg, You still don't get it.
I'm not suggesting anyone should use my system or my approach.
Yes, when someone with your talents designs and builds stuff, it is just as afordable as what I do, but off the shelf plug and play DCC hardware as taken decades to come down in price.
My position, based on my experiance wiring PLC's years ago in industry, helping others wire large DCC layouts with lots of power districts, stationary decoders, wireless throttles, etc, is that the point to point wire count is pretty high - much like what I do.
You build a circuit board on the bench and install it with whatever connections necessary. I build a modular relay panel on the bench and install it with whatever connections are necessary.
If we each have 20 turnouts and 20 pushbuttons, the field connection count will be the same. You have to get 2 wires to each of those devices and so do I.
Agreed, some of the basic hardware has been around a while, but the unified programing and control systems for it have been in constant evolution and was much harder years ago.
Many of my circuits are repetitive as well, used over and over. Only the multi turnout route control and the relaterd signal logic in a given interlocking is custom to that location. And even that is a building block system of the same circuits.
I have seen the photos you have posted of some of your projects. I see lots of wires.
Here is a sample of my system, this is from a layout I wired with my system for one of my friends.
This wiring handled 4 control blocks and 6 route determining turnouts. This layout did not have signaling or CTC and used manual turnouts that had position feedback to the control circuits.
The relay boards you see handle the one most connection intense part of my system, the push button cab selection circuit.
Again, ALL I AM SAYING, is that when you get into advanced DCC setups you ARE hooking up a lot of wires.
I think any photo of the underside of ANY DCC layout with advanced turnout control, signals and CTC with prove me right.
DCC costs were much higher 22 years ago when I developed my system, prices have come down, in real numbers and in inflation adjusted terms.
Again, I'm not arguing pros and cons of programing vs hard logic, I'm just saying, you put in a buttom, you have to get two wires to it. You put in a switch machine, you have to get two wires to it. You put in a signal, you have to get some number of wires to it - SAME AS ME. You put in a stationary decoder, it needs power, just like my relays - two more wires.
Propulsion circuit - YES, the throttles. In my system each throttle has its own power supply and it reaches the track in a totally discrete circuit. Detection is done inductively. When trains are stopped and no power in on the track, a high frequency signal that will trip the inductive detector is in the circuit. So my detection does not use any kind of voltage loss circuit.
richhotrain York1 Any over/under bets on how many pages this will go? Yeah, it's a fairly open ended topic, getting started with DCC, so it just invites everyone, including you and me, to post comments. But, in the end, you have to wonder how helpful this will all be to the OP. I look at this topic in very simplistic terms. If you want independent control over locomotives and you want sound, that is essentially what DCC provides. Wiring in either DC or DCC is quite simple if you restrict your layout to an oval. It gets complicated in DC when you install blocks, and it gets complicated in DCC when you install reversing sections, occupancy detection, and prototypical signal systems.
York1 Any over/under bets on how many pages this will go?
Any over/under bets on how many pages this will go?
Yeah, it's a fairly open ended topic, getting started with DCC, so it just invites everyone, including you and me, to post comments. But, in the end, you have to wonder how helpful this will all be to the OP.
I look at this topic in very simplistic terms. If you want independent control over locomotives and you want sound, that is essentially what DCC provides.
Wiring in either DC or DCC is quite simple if you restrict your layout to an oval. It gets complicated in DC when you install blocks, and it gets complicated in DCC when you install reversing sections, occupancy detection, and prototypical signal systems.
jjdamnit York1 Any over/under bets on how many pages this will go? I should have taken that at even-money!!!
Yeah, this thread has gone off the rails, so to speak, but not necessarily off topic. It is just waaaay more than the OP was looking for.
My own experience with DCC wiring is that it can be simple, but it does get more involved and tedious as the layout becomes more complex. But, the wiring itself is not that complex. As Sheldon points out, it is still a two-wire protocol for each device or, at least, a two-wire protocol for each function on each device. It would probably be more beneficial to start a separate thread on the topic of DC Versus DCC Wiring.
are you sure you're not getting it? -- you seem to be advocating that your approach(s) are better if not less expensive that DCC
here's a panel of PSXs and ARs at the club. not many wires. top wires are from a booster not shown on the left. bottom wires are the bus wires that run under the track.
this would replace the cab control wiring and i believe demonstrates that DCC wiring can be simpler that DC cab control wiring
ATLANTIC CENTRALAgain, ALL I AM SAYING, is that when you get into advanced DCC setups you ARE hooking up a lot of wires.
of course when you look under the layout, there is a wire run for the track buses. but just one single cable for the Loconet that connects the stationary decoders (DS64s) controlling the tortise machines at each "node".
yes there are relatively short (few ft) wires between the tortise machines and the DS64s, the machines are not connected to some panel 10s of ft away.
this approach using "nodes" significantly reduces the amount of wiring under a layout, at least the lengths of wire
i don't recall you explaining how you control your switch machines from panels, how far those panels are from the turnouts, how many panels you might have.
2566
A few more thoughts:
Yes, a lot of my statements are "I" statements. I'm not in a club, been there, done that.
Many elements of DCC were more expensive 20 years ago, like 145 decoders I would need.
And yes, my train propulsion is highly integrated into my turnout control. All interlockings are not separate blocks that need to be assigned. They are power routed X sections that are correctly powered automatically based on the selected route.
So every time I throw a mainline turnout, those relays power the turnout motor, power the frog correctly, direct the track power thru the interlocking, and provide the logic path for the interlocking signals.
This cuts the number of control blocks in half on the typical layout.
One last thought, even if I used DCC and solid state layout control logic, I (yes I) would still want throttles and control panels with tactile buttons and lights.
I would never have a computer CTC panel or a smart phone throttle. So there we are, back to devices that need wires going to them.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI would never have a computer CTC panel or a smart phone throttle. So there we are, back to devices that need wires going to them.
because of your preference yes
but a computer controlled CTC panel, even if it has mechanical switches and lamps would only need two connections to the layout
Greg, my wiring is decentralized just like your nodes.
Tower panels are located at each interlocking, with corresponding relay panels for cab selection, signaling and turnout control right there at the interlocking and panel.
Wiring between each interlocking is minimal.
Thre is a throttle buss for each of the 6 throttles that goes all around the layout from the Aristo throttle base stations.
The only really long runs are cat5 control cables back to the dispatchers panel.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL I would never have a computer CTC panel or a smart phone throttle. So there we are, back to devices that need wires going to them. because of your preference yes but a computer controlled CTC panel, even if it has mechanical switches and lamps would only need two connections to the layout the loconet cable to control the tortoise machines a single pair of wires connecting nodes for signaling, block occupancy and turnout feedback
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I would never have a computer CTC panel or a smart phone throttle. So there we are, back to devices that need wires going to them.
But you would still have to build and wire the panel? That's the hard work?