ATLANTIC CENTRALI model the 50's - no ditch lights to turn on and off.
Ditch lights didn't come along until the mid 90s..One can model CSX,CR and NS and not need ditch lights since these railroads was before the ditch light era..
--------------------------------------------
So please explain what I need DCC for?
----------------------------------------------
The truth of the matter is nobody needs DCC or sound to enjoy the hobby..
One does need smooth track work,in gauge wheels,correct coupler and trip pin height to enjoy derailment free operation regardless if one uses DC, DCC or sound.
Think of it..What good would DC/DCC/Sound be if your operation is plagued with derailments and break in twos?
Not very good I would think.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Rich, One more note - you answered your own question - and it has already been commented on at great length in the last 12 pages. Many people don't want to run more than one train simultainiously and others only do that with multiple operators for each train, or on seperate loops of track where other systems work just fine. Again - asked and answered. Sheldon
Rich,
One more note - you answered your own question - and it has already been commented on at great length in the last 12 pages.
Many people don't want to run more than one train simultainiously and others only do that with multiple operators for each train, or on seperate loops of track where other systems work just fine.
Again - asked and answered.
Sheldon
LOL
Sheldon, I knew that my comment would bring you out swinging.
But, you know what? The OP suspects rightly. DC users have been left behind by technology. They may not care, but they have been left behind.
And, re-read my post. I didn't ask any questions. Just made a statement.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain The more I think about it, the less I understand why everyone is not using DCC. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. It is expensive, it requires DC users to convert their locos, some people don't care or want to make the switch, blah, blah, blah. But the fact of the matter is that it is the ultimate way to run multiple locos simultaneously, realistic sound is available and fantastic (turn it off if you don't want to hear it), and, let's face it, it is cool. I don't want to hear any arguments to the contrary. Rich
The more I think about it, the less I understand why everyone is not using DCC.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. It is expensive, it requires DC users to convert their locos, some people don't care or want to make the switch, blah, blah, blah.
But the fact of the matter is that it is the ultimate way to run multiple locos simultaneously, realistic sound is available and fantastic (turn it off if you don't want to hear it), and, let's face it, it is cool.
I don't want to hear any arguments to the contrary.
Already asked, and answered several pages ago:
So let's see -
I don't want sound - don't need DCC to control that.
I need "blocks" (electrical sections is my preferred term as per Paul Mallery) for signals anyway. My "blocks" blocks are long, typically 15 to 25 feet, some longer, and are connected to the throttles either by the dispatcher (not the engineer) in full operation mode OR when engineers do assign their own "blocks" it is via a progressive pushbutton system that allows full walk around operation and only requires them to push one button at each new sub division section they approach - everything else is automated.
I model the 50's - no ditch lights to turn on and off.
All the locos I want to MU or double head run fine together without any speed matching (again partly a product of the era I model, and partly a result of current manufacturing trends).
I don't care for most of the user interfaces (hand held throttles) available in DCC.
I have a fleet of over 135 locos, all of which are needed/desired for the operation of the layout. (35 staged trains, average train two steamers or three diesels, ops include division point power changes on many trains - 35 x 2 locos x 2 power choices = 140 locos) This would require about $3300 in decoders and several hundred hours of work to convert.
I run one train at a time - or I run 5 trains on "display loops" - or I run 8 trains with eight operators, a dispatcher and yard master.
My Aristo Wireless throttles provide excellent speed control and simple 5 button control - FASTER, SLOWER, WEST, EAST, EMERGENCY STOP. They have great range, are easy on batteries (unlike a Digitax DT400) and they provide excellent constant lighting even for stopped trains. How you ask? Because they use pulse width modulation motor control, there are 12 volt pulses on the track long before the loco moves. This lights most common headlight circuits to near full brightness before the loco moves.
The layout and modeling goals described above were on my "want list" long before DCC came along, and will likely be the same down the road for me.
So please explain what I need DCC for? DCC is a great system and a best choice for many - just not for me.
Last night at our round robin meeting we discussed this a little. Many of the DCC users agreed that the ultimate control system would be direct radio with battery power - I will wait for that - my signal system will still work when I convert to that.
''I don't want to hear any arguments to the contrary''
Now you did it!!,,,,Lion,did you hear what Rich said?? ROAR... hee,hee,,,
Cheers,
Frank
Dan,
Are you sure,you did not miss,your,calling?? This Thread,you started,has more,review's than a TV show..LOL..
I'll try to be a little more savvy next time I ask a question, huh? At least I found a reply that made me smile. Thanks, Rich. I can see through the pages, some instructive advice has been shared for those interested.
Giving the diesels the night off, tonight I drug out some real techo-saurs, MDC and re-motored Mantua steamers, mostly, WIPs from before my hiatus that I have yet to finish, and enjoyed putting them thru a few paces. On DC, of course. MRC 2400s are still my fave. Dan
maxmanThe business of only needing two wires is probably confusing. What they mean is that you have a pair of bus wires that starts out from the command station and runs around your railroad from one end to the other.
There shouldn't be any confusion about the two wires with DCC..I do believe one needs to understand that is all the wiring you need on smaller loop layouts not the larger types that require feeders to maintain a strong track signal to the decoder-IIRC every 8' is the recommendation.Power boosters is also recommended for large layouts.
As far as pretending to be the engineer you do that in DC as well.
That "run your trains-not your track" was probably wrote by a ad man that knew very little about DC operation if he or she was even a modeler.. I'm yet to run my track even on larger DC club layouts.
Doughless I guess I'm not seeing the problems that dcc really solves in a realistic operating situation, perhaps since I'm not experiencing many of those problems in the first place. A different operating system wouldn't solve many issues with my layout, or many other layouts I would be interested in. As an example, my long shelf switching track plan requires a bus line, feeders for each spur and siding, and gaps cut into the track for seasonal expansion, regardless of how I operate it. Given that the work has to be done anyway, avoiding having to wire in a few toggles at strategic points wouldn't be a motive for deciding on which operating system to choose. Length of the layout creates that wiring scheme, nothing else. And which ever system I chose, I would already need more than "only two wires for dcc". As would about every layout that has a siding or a spur, I think. When someone claims to have had an epiphany when they replaced "toggle flipping" with button pushing to "control the trains and not the track" what exactly are they doing with their layout in the first place? I thought I knew but perhaps I don't.
I guess I'm not seeing the problems that dcc really solves in a realistic operating situation, perhaps since I'm not experiencing many of those problems in the first place. A different operating system wouldn't solve many issues with my layout, or many other layouts I would be interested in.
As an example, my long shelf switching track plan requires a bus line, feeders for each spur and siding, and gaps cut into the track for seasonal expansion, regardless of how I operate it. Given that the work has to be done anyway, avoiding having to wire in a few toggles at strategic points wouldn't be a motive for deciding on which operating system to choose.
Length of the layout creates that wiring scheme, nothing else. And which ever system I chose, I would already need more than "only two wires for dcc". As would about every layout that has a siding or a spur, I think.
When someone claims to have had an epiphany when they replaced "toggle flipping" with button pushing to "control the trains and not the track" what exactly are they doing with their layout in the first place? I thought I knew but perhaps I don't.
I don't know what your track plan looks like so I will have to make some assumptions for my comments. And for discussion purposes, the comments assume some average size model railroad.
The business of only needing two wires is probably confusing. What they mean is that you have a pair of bus wires that starts out from the command station and runs around your railroad from one end to the other. Tapping off these bus wires are feeder wires that go to all your sections of track like sidings and spurs. On your switching layout if you intend to be a solo operator and only have one loco in service, you would basically have the same situation, except instead of the command station you would have the wires start at your power supply.
Now if you intend to have the ability to operate more than one loco but have it parked when not in use, then you need toggle switches either in a central control panel or along the length of the railroad so that you can shut off sections of the railroad. You do not need these toggle switches with DCC.
If you intend to have the capability to operate more than one loco at a time, for example if you have a visitor, then you need to have a second controller. This second controller gets wired to one side of a doublepole/double throw switch. The original controller gets wired to the other side. Depending on which way the switch is thrown one or the other controller will operate the train. There is additional wiring required to connect this second controller, the length of which is determined by where you have the second controller connected. This additional wire and the toggle switches are not required with DCC.
If you have an operational situation where the incoming loco is trapped, such as when a passenger loco pulls into a stub track and a switcher is required to remove the cars so the loco can escape, you must break the stub track into two blocks so that you can keep the passenger loco stopped while the switcher does its work. With DCC, this additional block is not necessary.
If you have some engine service tracks where you might have several locos in for fueling, you need to break up all the tracks into block sections with toggle switches so that you can park them. With DCC, these additional blocks/toggles are not required.
I'm sure I could think of some more examples if I gave it some more thought.
Regarding the "epiphany" thing, I'm not sure what that is but there is probably some medication to cure it. But when they say that they are controlling the trains, not the track, I think what they mean is that with DCC you are (pretending to be) the engineer. So yes, it is easier to have cornfield meets and run through turnouts the wrong way. It is hard to do this with DC because you have the polarity thing to help you out, except when you run one train into the back of another. But doesn't the ability to run the locos the wrong way if one is not paying attention introduce the human element and make things more prototypical?
richhotrain Southgate Please, Guys! I started this thread honestly just wanting to know if DC and BB diesels were still in circulation to any degree beyond my RR. NOT to spark a debate about WHICH IS BETTER. I figured there'd be about 7-12 replies, which would have answered the question. This is the first topic that I've ever started that I didn't...couldn't read all the replies to. I do have great respect for DCC, I just haven't opted for it. Thank you, but lets let it go now. Dan LOL Before I become the only guy on the forum not to respond, I will. Wow. Nearly 5,000 views and over 150 replies But, no wonder. When you start a thread with the comment and question, ......... "Still, It seems that DCC is so dominant now. Are there still any modelers running DC, and using low tech approaches to the hobby where more high end products are so common?" ........ you are bound to get the kind of response that you now see. LOL again. You can be excused for causing all of this as a new member of the forums for less than 30 days. But, seriously, as others have pointed out, it is inevitable that the conversation will ebb and flow on a topic like this, and it has proved to be a good and civil thread. Like any robust conversation, it will digress since it raises so many other related issues. Rich
Southgate Please, Guys! I started this thread honestly just wanting to know if DC and BB diesels were still in circulation to any degree beyond my RR. NOT to spark a debate about WHICH IS BETTER. I figured there'd be about 7-12 replies, which would have answered the question. This is the first topic that I've ever started that I didn't...couldn't read all the replies to. I do have great respect for DCC, I just haven't opted for it. Thank you, but lets let it go now. Dan
Please, Guys! I started this thread honestly just wanting to know if DC and BB diesels were still in circulation to any degree beyond my RR. NOT to spark a debate about WHICH IS BETTER. I figured there'd be about 7-12 replies, which would have answered the question. This is the first topic that I've ever started that I didn't...couldn't read all the replies to. I do have great respect for DCC, I just haven't opted for it.
Thank you, but lets let it go now. Dan
Before I become the only guy on the forum not to respond, I will.
Wow. Nearly 5,000 views and over 150 replies
But, no wonder.
When you start a thread with the comment and question, .........
"Still, It seems that DCC is so dominant now. Are there still any modelers running DC, and using low tech approaches to the hobby where more high end products are so common?"
........ you are bound to get the kind of response that you now see.
LOL again. You can be excused for causing all of this as a new member of the forums for less than 30 days.
But, seriously, as others have pointed out, it is inevitable that the conversation will ebb and flow on a topic like this, and it has proved to be a good and civil thread. Like any robust conversation, it will digress since it raises so many other related issues.
now your just being a troublemaker!!!!!
sorry , I didn't want be the only guy not to post in this thread.
besides, live steam is the best , no wiring, toggles, or decoders.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Paul, OK, I get it now. The one thing you misunderstood from the literature is that any/every transmitter can transmit all 100 frequency/channel combos and that any receiver can be programed to any of the 100 combos.
Crest is a simply a trade name of Aristo used for their electronics line.
Yes it is marketed primarily to large scale, and will handle up to 10 amps. Yes they require a separate power supply, I use 13.8 volt regulated power supplies commonly sold to power stuff like CB radios from 120 volts. Mine are rated at 4 amps each - one for each receiver - they only cost about $20 each.
And yes you still need some sort of cab control for multi train operation, which I have fully integrated into my turnout control and CTC. I have eight transmitters and eight receivers in dedicated sets. Each of my eight transmitters (throttles) ALWAYS stays on the same frequency/channel setting. They are labeled throttle #1, #2, etc.
Those numbers correspond to the cab assignment push buttons that are on the CTC panel and on the tower panels around the layout. You pick up throttle #1 you push button #1 for the track section your train is in and now your cab is connected to that track section. As you progress along the layout, when you come to the next interlocking, you align any turnouts as needed, this automatically routes your cab power through the interlocking. You push button #1 for the next section you will be entering. After your loco leaves the previous section, you can turn that section off with out walking back to were you turned it on, because the tower you are now at has a duplicate set of buttons - allowing multi direction walk around cab assignment with out any "back tracking". And understand this important point - because of the use of turnout position power routing, there are only about 1/3 the amount of track sections that you must actually "assign" compared to conventional DC Cab Control.
OR - if a Dispatcher is on duty, he does all the turnout and cab assignments for the mainline from his CTC panel. You will not get a green signal for the next block until it the route is aligned, the next block is clear, and it is assigned to your throttle. You just operate your loco and obey the signals or the yard master when off the mainline.
If you run a red signal your train will just stop - because there is no common rail and section gaps are staggered so that your locos will not "see" the power form the next block while they are in that transition area with the staggered gaps. On the mainline, every interlocking is one of these "transition blocks".
And the detection system works just like the real thing, not allowing turnouts to be thrown under trains - the turnouts are locked out if a train is detected in the interlocking.
Areas off the main a broken up into logical track sections and have their own local panels for cab assignments with no dispatcher control needed and no signals.
The layout is fairly large, the blocks long, and the track plan is simple for the large space it occupies.
Anyway, did not mean to go on at such length.
And yes, if I was modeling the Ma & Pa in S scale, I would likely be using DCC or the new Aristo Revolution or Rail Pro, etc.
As you may recall, I live right in the Village of Forest Hill, once a stop on the Ma & Pa.
Thanks Paul,
After reviewing many of the responses, including some of mine...
Perhaps I'm guilty of making some assumptions instead of just stepping back and getting a better understanding of the possible answers to the basic question...
Thanks for the conversation.
- Douglas
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Paul, What Aristo system did you look at and when? They have made the 10 Channel Train Engineer for about as long as DCC has been around. Not the less expensive "HO Train Engineer" which only came in a few frequencies. I use the one with 10 channels on each of 10 different frequencies - that's 100 different receivers controlled by the one controller - or as many controllers as you want? BUT the receivers are not in the locos - they are track side under the layout. They also made one with on board receivers and it had similar capabilities - 10 channels on each of 10 frequencies. But the receivers where big and expensive. I have eight throttles, all set to different frequency/channel combinations - eight trains at once, no interference of any kind. Range about 150' even with home made short "rubber ducky" antennas. As for the Stanton S cab, yes it is a step in the right direction, but still has too many limitations. It only has 15 channels, which for a large loco fleet like mine would mean constantly reprogramming loco channels. And its too bulky because it needs the receiver, a DCC decoder, and the battery. NWSL even says it is not suitable for a room full of operators like my layout. Aristo has a new product, the Revolution, which supports 50 receivers IIRC, but it has not been marketed at HO and so there is no HO sized receivers offered. However it too can be used as a trackside radio system like the old 10 channel TE. I have one, but have yet to really do anything with it yet. Sheldon
Paul,
What Aristo system did you look at and when? They have made the 10 Channel Train Engineer for about as long as DCC has been around. Not the less expensive "HO Train Engineer" which only came in a few frequencies.
I use the one with 10 channels on each of 10 different frequencies - that's 100 different receivers controlled by the one controller - or as many controllers as you want? BUT the receivers are not in the locos - they are track side under the layout.
They also made one with on board receivers and it had similar capabilities - 10 channels on each of 10 frequencies. But the receivers where big and expensive.
I have eight throttles, all set to different frequency/channel combinations - eight trains at once, no interference of any kind. Range about 150' even with home made short "rubber ducky" antennas.
As for the Stanton S cab, yes it is a step in the right direction, but still has too many limitations. It only has 15 channels, which for a large loco fleet like mine would mean constantly reprogramming loco channels. And its too bulky because it needs the receiver, a DCC decoder, and the battery. NWSL even says it is not suitable for a room full of operators like my layout.
Aristo has a new product, the Revolution, which supports 50 receivers IIRC, but it has not been marketed at HO and so there is no HO sized receivers offered. However it too can be used as a trackside radio system like the old 10 channel TE. I have one, but have yet to really do anything with it yet.
Sheldon,
It's been many years ago, but I think it was called Crest. Anyway as I recall, the literature indicated that the wireless set up was a throttle sending unit that the operator held and a receiver unit that sat between the DC power supply and the track. The throttle unit sent a signal to the receiver unit to change the voltage (thus the speed) of the DC power. You could have multiple set ups, but each controlled one power supply, thus 1 train. While the system could be one of 10 different frequencies, you didn't know which one you had or whether you had different frequencies for 2 (or more) units until you tried them together. It was being marketed for G scale, but could be used for any other scale as well.
Since I didn't have a local hobby shop that carried it, it seemed like a lot of trouble to be able to get enough different frequencies to run 4 trains or more. Plus I still needed a block system. At the time only NEC offered a decent wireless. Digitrax didn't have a wireless and Lenz had a system that used your wireless telephone hand unit. Since the Ma&Pa was "dark" , DCC works well. While running a DC locomotive would be nice, decoder cost is not a big issue since I only plan to have 16-20 powered units at most and the railroad will only use 6-8 at a time even after I get it fully built.
Paul
IRONROOSTER ATLANTIC CENTRAL Paul, No disagreement from me as to how easy it is, I just don't want to do it. It is just another DCC feature I have no need for. I've done it few times on those the Digitrax layouts I run all the time - no thanks. IF I am running in "display" mode, I'm likely talking with guests and would rather not have to do anything with the trains. I achieved derailment free operation decades ago, so letting trains run in a forward direction on a dedicated loop is a pretty safe bet here. Sheldon, Not trying to convert you - or anyone else really, just pointing out that it is easy to do with DCC. Each of has to evaluate the systems available against our needs at the time we're buying. I considered the Aristocraft system, but at the time it was limited to one train operation - it's since been improved. Last night at our round robin meeting we discussed this a little. Many of the DCC users agreed that the ultimate control system would be direct radio with battery power - I will wait for that - my signal system will still work when I convert to that. This system seems to exist already at NWSL with their s-cab and battery power supply Enjoy Paul
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Paul, No disagreement from me as to how easy it is, I just don't want to do it. It is just another DCC feature I have no need for. I've done it few times on those the Digitrax layouts I run all the time - no thanks. IF I am running in "display" mode, I'm likely talking with guests and would rather not have to do anything with the trains. I achieved derailment free operation decades ago, so letting trains run in a forward direction on a dedicated loop is a pretty safe bet here.
Paul, No disagreement from me as to how easy it is, I just don't want to do it. It is just another DCC feature I have no need for. I've done it few times on those the Digitrax layouts I run all the time - no thanks.
IF I am running in "display" mode, I'm likely talking with guests and would rather not have to do anything with the trains. I achieved derailment free operation decades ago, so letting trains run in a forward direction on a dedicated loop is a pretty safe bet here.
Not trying to convert you - or anyone else really, just pointing out that it is easy to do with DCC. Each of has to evaluate the systems available against our needs at the time we're buying. I considered the Aristocraft system, but at the time it was limited to one train operation - it's since been improved.
This system seems to exist already at NWSL with their s-cab and battery power supply
Enjoy
Doughless IRONROOSTER ATLANTIC CENTRAL .... When I want to "run" more than one train for display purposes, all I need to is throw a couple of turnouts and create a number of discrete isolated routes and let them run - round and round - with nothing to crash into. .... Sheldon For display running, I find with DCC, it is quite easy to run 2 trains on one loop. My throttle allows one button switching between 2 trains making it quite easy to adjust speed as one train starts to catch up to the other. I don't know if this is true of all DCC throttles - mine is NEC wireless. Enjoy Paul Paul, My perspective on model railroading comes more from the Lance Mindheim approach to layouts. In that sense, every train has a purpose and a repetitive operating cycle, more or less. Crashes are not avoided by changing speeds, crashes are avoided by giving one train an opportunity to park and get out of the way of another. Once feeder wires are attached to the spur or siding, its not much more effort to install a on/off switch. Having said that, I went through great effort to convert my point to point to continuous running for the purpose of display running with minimal attention. Even though I enjoy it, I do consider it unrealistic compared to the railroad operations I'm used to. In your specific situation, you describe changing the speed of one train to avoid it creeping up on another. I consider that to be unrealistic operating if the trains are running multiple times around the loop. Its fun, yes, but trying to mimmick realism is kind of thrown out the window at that point. By comparison, a person could simply use a $35 railpower dc throttle to power both trains and simply, but unrealistically, reach out their hand and grab the faster train and hold it with wheels spinning until there was enough space again, if they wanted to run two trains around a loop and periodically adjust the speed of one train. . I think that buying and operating a dcc system is generally simpler and easier than installing and operating a dc system yourself, but I don't think the margin is as wide as many others seem to think.if you keep the comparisons similar.
IRONROOSTER ATLANTIC CENTRAL .... When I want to "run" more than one train for display purposes, all I need to is throw a couple of turnouts and create a number of discrete isolated routes and let them run - round and round - with nothing to crash into. .... Sheldon For display running, I find with DCC, it is quite easy to run 2 trains on one loop. My throttle allows one button switching between 2 trains making it quite easy to adjust speed as one train starts to catch up to the other. I don't know if this is true of all DCC throttles - mine is NEC wireless. Enjoy Paul
ATLANTIC CENTRAL .... When I want to "run" more than one train for display purposes, all I need to is throw a couple of turnouts and create a number of discrete isolated routes and let them run - round and round - with nothing to crash into. .... Sheldon
....
When I want to "run" more than one train for display purposes, all I need to is throw a couple of turnouts and create a number of discrete isolated routes and let them run - round and round - with nothing to crash into.
For display running, I find with DCC, it is quite easy to run 2 trains on one loop. My throttle allows one button switching between 2 trains making it quite easy to adjust speed as one train starts to catch up to the other. I don't know if this is true of all DCC throttles - mine is NEC wireless.
My perspective on model railroading comes more from the Lance Mindheim approach to layouts. In that sense, every train has a purpose and a repetitive operating cycle, more or less.
Crashes are not avoided by changing speeds, crashes are avoided by giving one train an opportunity to park and get out of the way of another. Once feeder wires are attached to the spur or siding, its not much more effort to install a on/off switch.
Having said that, I went through great effort to convert my point to point to continuous running for the purpose of display running with minimal attention. Even though I enjoy it, I do consider it unrealistic compared to the railroad operations I'm used to.
In your specific situation, you describe changing the speed of one train to avoid it creeping up on another. I consider that to be unrealistic operating if the trains are running multiple times around the loop. Its fun, yes, but trying to mimmick realism is kind of thrown out the window at that point.
By comparison, a person could simply use a $35 railpower dc throttle to power both trains and simply, but unrealistically, reach out their hand and grab the faster train and hold it with wheels spinning until there was enough space again, if they wanted to run two trains around a loop and periodically adjust the speed of one train. .
I think that buying and operating a dcc system is generally simpler and easier than installing and operating a dc system yourself, but I don't think the margin is as wide as many others seem to think.if you keep the comparisons similar.
Uh, we were talking about display running, not operating trains.
The point with DCC was that one could easily switch between 2 trains and occaisionally make speed adjustments to keep the 2 trains separated on the same track. Reaching out and grabbing a train is not only hard on the trains, but wouldn't really work as well. You're not really adjusting the speed. With DCC you are actually controlling both trains independently of each other. And while you could use 2 throttles for this, you can also switch between the 2 trains with 1 throttle.
Whether or not you use DCC, DC (with or without advanced cab control), Aristocraft, S-Cab, etc. is really a decision each of us has to make based on our situation.
DSCHMITT,Not all prototypes have blocks. Yards, some branchlines, most short lines, and even some mainlines are not blocked (depending on era). DC doesn't have much advantage in those situations.
With one train a day short lines or branch lines or most switching layouts, DCC still has advantages relating to engine control. IOW, if one has more than one loco at a time on the rails and they aren't coupled together or identical, than DCC's advantage is apparent. One doesn't have to worry about where to park one engine while one is using another, and one can speed match dissimilar locos so that they can run together. One can even adjust momentum effects on the fly to simulate heavier or lighter trains. Which is kind of neat to think of. Imagine doing a shortline local, and adding or removing momentum based on the number of loaded or unloaded cars coupled up to the loco. One can't really do that with DC.
You said, "Early in DCC history some overzealous promoters implied one could build fairy complex muti-train layouts with no blocks and just two wires connected to the track. Of course it's not that simple." Actually, it is that simple. I have a 25'x50' HO layout with over 300 freight cars, 50 passenger cars, and 30 engines. My last operation session had 5 people, each with their own throttle (I only have 3; the other guys brought their own). We ran 6 freights, 13 passenger trains, 2 mainline local freights and 2 yard switchers over the course of 3 hours. We did all of that with one Digitrax Zephyr, one wireless receiver, and 5 radio throttles all connected to the 200' of mainline double track with just two wires running the length of the layout. I have no blocks. So yes, it is true that one can run a large, complex, multi-train layout with just two wires.
DC layouts certainly can be more expensive than simular DCC layouts. At my old club's location, we had a simular layout room to my own (25'x50'), and it had 4 mainline cabs with 50 toggles each, 4 yard cabs with anywhere from 6 to 12 toggles each, 1 engine terminal cab with 18 toggles, and 4 branchline cabs with 5 to 10 toggles each. That's pushing 300 toggle switches. Even at $1.84 ea. (from Mouser), that's over $500 just in toggles. Now add 13 decent throttles. Even the cheapest MRC throttlepack is $85 list these days. That's over $1100. Not counting wire or anything else, that's over $1600 for our old DC system. Meanwhile, I've spent around $1500 on my layout for the Zephyr, 3 radio throttles, one radio receiver, 5 throttle jacks, and 30 decoders at $20 or less. And since my friends have their own throttles, they can come over and use them, too.
And while DCC is not perfect, at least there is someone you can go to and get answers or ideas. There have been books written and websites dedicated to DCC. If one "rolls their own" with a DC layout...you're on your own. ;)
BTW, I have also seen a cornfield meet on a DC layout. It was at a block boundry like your friend's...but one of the trains was a push-pull commuter set. Ouch. :)
Paul A. Cutler III
Ahem--
When guests come to my house, they invariably are not model railroaders and they often want to see multiple trains in operation. For the 10 or 15 minutes they are interested in my hobby, I try to accommodate them. I also gladly offer to let those who do not have a layout run their stuff on mine.
My mainline is a single track, twice folded dogbone--without any blocks.
I can operate 2 or even 3 trains on the same track (in plain DC) at the same time for the occasional guest, and not rear-end the trains. It is not all that difficult at all. Sometimes I vary the train length to equalize speed variations, and my diesel fleet generally includes very similar models with similar speed characteristics.
So, yes, some of us actually do...
Maybe perhaps I'm just better at instantly seeing speed differences than some; it's nice to think I've learned something after 40 years of playing with trains--lol
John
zstripe Larry, I'll bet the,''Tree Rats'', (squirrels),still like you..LOL.. Cheers, Frank
Larry,
I'll bet the,''Tree Rats'', (squirrels),still like you..LOL..
I don't see what the hubbub is all about. Whatever works for you both operationally and budgetary wise, and whatever you are comfortable with is really all that matters. DC has been around forever, and it will be around for decades to come I am sure. But I will restate what some others have already posted a few times, don't let a fear or trepidation of DCC or technology stop you from giving it a whirl (if that is whats standing in your way). I am pretty lousy with most forms of technology and was slow to try DCC because I figured I would never be able to deal with it or handle it. But I picked up an NCE Power Cab and honestly, if you can set your digital watch or alarm clock then you to can operate DCC if that's what you want.
But hey...whatever keeps your wheels on the rails and your trains moving is all that matters as far as I am concerned .
Don
"Ladies and gentlemen, I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that both engines have failed, and we will be stuck here for some time. The good news is that you decided to take the train and not fly."
ATLANTIC CENTRALLast night at our round robin meeting we discussed this a little. Many of the DCC users agreed that the ultimate control system would be direct radio with battery power - I will wait for that - my signal system will still work when I convert to that.
Sheldon,I glad to hear I'm not the only one to think R/C is the next step in train control..
I'll share this tidbit..Back in the late 90s I casually mention R/C would make a good control system..I was basically told I was nuttier then a fruitcake..
Maybe I'm not so nutty after all.
Dan, totally agree. I have a Athearn kit built F-7 A-B-A set that is still going strong. If more Athearn kits were being made and I could use a particular model on my railroad, I would continue to purchase them, if their prices were reasonable.
Like I said earlier, I opted for DCC, for the reasons many have stated here. I don't have a problem with anyone not being interested in DCC and wanting to stay with DC, for what ever reasons. I am an American and believe stronger in having choices than one particular idea being the best!
Threads on forums almost become living/breathing entities and only the moderators; or, administrators can put them out of their misery. Like as not, when there are two; or, more possible directions being discussed, a thread can get very heated! I'm amazed at how stupidly opinionated some model railroaders can get. It presents a pretty sad statement about this hobby and the lack of empathy of some modelers!
You have presented your question, gotten some answers and thanked those who participated by giving you their opinions. Overall, it has been a good thread!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
Yes, sometimes they get away from you. But like any good conversation they veer and move around as they progress and take on a life of their own. And while it's not going where it started, it's a nice trip nonetheless.
Amen,,,,,
Have Fun,,