SP&S modeler, 1960's give or take a decade or two for some equipment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SGTDUPREY?feature=guide
Gary DuPrey
N scale model railroader
I run DC only for two reasons: my railroad is already over budget and does not have the funds in their capital improvements budget for DCC conversions....and the second and most important reason: I absolutly love toggle switches.
What does running trains stupidly, ie fast, have to do with wether or not the control system is DC or DCC? I believe the trains will go equally fast regardless of power source. Perhaps a shot at DCC users is more to the point. Which system to use is a personel choice based on the needs of the owner of the railroad. both systems allow for the railroad to be run the way the owner wishes.
theodorefisk Floridaflyer - you are off base. I have no issue with those that use DCC. But do it prototypically or at least not toy train like. At a show that happens annually, I see trains being run as if they were racing, ON THE SAME TRACK, SAME DIRECTION. In normal operation, two trains should not occupy the same block. What I saw was the train following the other one very close to the front trains caboose. Do all do that? probably not. But doing it at all is running trains stupidly and DCC allows that to happen. Any club should have rules. Staying with DC as it is easy to understand. I have read the DCC column in MR and while it is interesting, I rather stay with something I understand as I am more interested in running my trains than getting screwed up in some technological nightmare that takes away from the hobby I enjoy. MY OPINION. Ted
Floridaflyer - you are off base. I have no issue with those that use DCC. But do it prototypically or at least not toy train like. At a show that happens annually, I see trains being run as if they were racing, ON THE SAME TRACK, SAME DIRECTION. In normal operation, two trains should not occupy the same block. What I saw was the train following the other one very close to the front trains caboose. Do all do that? probably not. But doing it at all is running trains stupidly and DCC allows that to happen. Any club should have rules.
Staying with DC as it is easy to understand. I have read the DCC column in MR and while it is interesting, I rather stay with something I understand as I am more interested in running my trains than getting screwed up in some technological nightmare that takes away from the hobby I enjoy. MY OPINION.
Ted
This will always be a bigger debate than DC vs DCC.
Do you run your trains "just for fun" or do you run them to simulate the actions of a real railroad?
Obviously some do both at different times, and some are very much in one camp or the other.
There is no doubt there are those from the "old school" of this hobby who are not thrilled that HO scale has taken on a new group of people who approach the hobby in a way similar to how O gauge Hi Rail is normally approached.
That is a more casual, collector, RTR, build the layout and "run for fun" with mixed and matched road names and eras, etc. And with no interest in, or real knowledge of, prototypical operation.
And, it is likely that this new group of collector/RTR user/casual operator types are one of two primary groups using DCC in HO. Why? That same group is likely to also be big fans of onboard sound.
So, without meaning to offend, some in the "old school" see that kind of operation, as "toy like" - and they build and operate models, they don't buy and run toys.
I'm not on either side here, I'm just pointing out how this age old debate about the nature of the hobby plays into the DC/DCC question.
It also has direct bearing on why some on the DCC side have trouble understanding why some of us don't switch to DCC, or why we would want a complex system like my signaling/CTC centered Advanced Cab Control.
Some of us in the old school want some real life type structure and restriction on how and where the trains run - advanced DC systems do that.
I said very early in this thread - the real railroads have gone to great care and expense to prevent two trains from occupying the same space at the same time - I want to simulate that with my models.
So the both of you that I quoted above need to simply understand that different people have different interests and goals for their models and modeling.
And control systems are best when matched to the goals of the layout owner.
None of what I said above imples that ALL DCC users have no interest in prototype operation - so lets not go there.
As for clubs, especially clubs with big club owned layouts, they are a nice place to visit, but I don't want to live there - been there, done that, never again.
Sheldon
theodorefisk I see trains being run as if they were racing, ON THE SAME TRACK, SAME DIRECTION. In normal operation, two trains should not occupy the same block. What I saw was the train following the other one very close to the front trains caboose. Do all do that? probably not. But doing it at all is running trains stupidly and DCC allows that to happen. Any club should have rules.
Yeah that can happen in DC as well, and it did happen on probably the exact layout you are speaking of before they switched to DCC. Train shows are for the entertainment of the public, not prototypical operation. Children want to see trains running, not trains doing switching or sitting on a passing siding. I would like nothing more than to give up the 2 mainlines on my modules and operate with TT and TO, but you lose the public interest.
When my club switched from direct current modules to a DCC system, the club members ripped out a mile or more of copper wire that was no longer required.
I can see for someone who has a home layout that is DC there being no reason to switch. As for a new layout, if its a really small shelf switching layout I could go either way. Anything larger than 2 or 3 blocks and you spend the same money on a starter DCC system and $20 decoders for each locomotive as you did for all the switches, rheostats, copper wire and powersupply for DC.
One of our club members did a partial DCC conversion. He added an extra block off of an unused selector dial position that connects to the whole layout. He can still run his older DC only locomotives or he can unlock the potential of DCC/sound if he wishes for operational purposes. Additionally the DC locomotives are much less sensitive to dirty tracks so he uses those to run track cleaning cars before op sessions. Best of both worlds if you ask me.
Anything larger than 2 or 3 blocks and you spend the same money on a starter DCC system and $20 decoders for each locomotive as you did for all the switches, rheostats, copper wire and powersupply for DC.
Perfectly true for a new guy starting out, but not true for an experianced modeler who wants signaling and CTC. DCC does nothing to reduce the cost or complexity of signaling and CTC. Signaling requires blocks......and miles of wire.......no mater how the trains get their "go/stop" commands.
Advanced CTC based DC systems use the same infrastructure for both track power and detection, and can intergrate turnout control, collision avoidance, and other features at little or no additional cost.
Because, proper signaling requires knowing where trains are, and how turnouts are aligned, that same matrix of wiring can be used to direct power and reduce the needed number of "track power input controls" in a DC system.
Sheldon,I also prefer the pots over the encoders myself, but I don't have that much trouble with the encoders. In fact, I recently replaced the original factory knob on my DT400R with a larger knob from an old rotary switch. The extra leverage makes the encoder feel a little smoother...to me, anyways.
As for the Aristo throttles, they have hard plastic buttons that don't have much give to them. And they have words and arrows cast into the hard plastic button tops, from what I recall. When using them for switching, it was a lot of pushing down on these uncomfortable surfaces. I prefer soft buttons as found on most TV remotes or DT400-type throttles.
And not for nothing, Sheldon, but the Aristo Radio throttles aren't that well designed either. No knob = no bueno...at least for most folks, I'd wager. Otherwise, why all the knob throttles (and DC powerpacks) being sold today? Even the Ring Engineering system uses a knob, and they have a touchscreen.
When you say "simple is better", in general I agree with you. For example, I ran my entire DCC layout with just two bus wires.
I agree that you converting to DCC would be a lot of time, but why not compare that to the installation of your high-end DC system? I bet that didn't happen overnight, either.
theodorefisk,Oookay. Did you know that DC club layouts also run fast? I should know; I was a member of one for 8 years. The use of DC, DCC, DCS, AC or pulling the trains along with a string make not a bit of difference in unprototypical operation. Heck, the worst offenders I've ever seen in "racing trains" are tinplaters running their Lionel AC ZW's wide open...and if they didn't have Magne-Traction, they'd all roll over at the first curve.Secondly, telling a club that they should "follow the rules" during a show when you're not a member of it is rather strange. And I have to throw this in... You're commenting on an online forum, which means you must have at least a working knowledge of computers. DCC can be just as simple as learning how to turn on a PC and log in to the MR Forum. Sure, it can be complicated, but it doesn't have to be a "technological nightmare". And for every DCC "nightmare" you've heard of, I can counter with a DC one.Paul A. Cutler III
BMMECNYCTrain shows are for the entertainment of the public, not prototypical operation. Children want to see trains running, not trains doing switching or sitting on a passing siding.
Don't sell the public short..
A lot of kids and adults will stand for long periods of time watching cars being switched or watch a meet.I learn that years ago at the Columbus HO Club during visitor nights or open house.We had a point to point layout with yard switching and most visitors would watch the yard action more then trains running on the main line.They would stand behind the dispatcher and watch him throw switches and line up meets on CTC board.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
A friend in the San Francisco Bay Area was an early user of DCC. However his N scale layout had been designed and substantially built before DCC. It was a very nice layout (even featured in Model Railroader).
Before my last visit he told me he had reverted to DC operation because his layout operation was not enhanced by DCC, the hastle of converting locos and although it didn't happen often, replacing burned out decoders. This was before many locos were came with DCC or even DCC ready. He said he had nothing against DCC it was just that his layout worked better on DC.
After he retired he moved to another State where he he joined a modular/sectional layout club that is fully DCC.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Before my last visit he told me he had reverted to DC operation because his layout operation was not enhanced by DCC, the hastle of converting locos and although it didn't happen often, replacing burned out decoders. This was before many N scale locos came with DCC or were even DCC ready. He said he had nothing against DCC it was just that his layout and operation method worked better on DC.
After he retired he moved to another State where he he joined a modular/sectional layout club that is 100% DCC.
Paul3 I agree that you converting to DCC would be a lot of time, but why not compare that to the installation of your high-end DC system? I bet that didn't happen overnight, either. Paul A. Cutler III
Paul A. Cutler III
Paul, you keep missing the point. Signaling and CTC, I want signaling and CTC.
That is a completely seperate infrastructure above and beyond DCC.
But it is built into the design of my Advanced Cab Control.
With DCC I would still need turnout controls, I would still need blocks, I would still need my tower panels, I would still need 40 detectors, I would still need my CTC panel.
I would still need every foot of wire I have now - plus I would have to install 130 decoders.
I would still need eight wireless throttles, I would need to replace eight base stations with similar number of boosters and circuit breakers.
And NO, with or without DCC I do not want a CTC panel on a computer screen.
Any way you break it down, DCC would be a lot more work and a lot more money for only small gains in operational flexibilty - based on MY needs and goals.
Wow, people certainly get fired up on this forum? And that shows the passion folks have for model railroading.
To Paul A Cutler III - read my post again about what I said about rules. I said clubs should have rules about operations. I did not say anything to the people about what they were doing. I merely walked away, hoping to not hear trains hitting the floor.
Again, I am staying with DC. I get enough of computers at work and when I come home, flipping on the power packs, I run my trains. No rebooting or any of that jazz. again MY OPINION.
Paul3 Heck, the worst offenders I've ever seen in "racing trains" are tinplaters running their Lionel AC ZW's wide open...and if they didn't have Magne-Traction, they'd all roll over at the first curve. Paul A. Cutler III
Heck, the worst offenders I've ever seen in "racing trains" are tinplaters running their Lionel AC ZW's wide open...and if they didn't have Magne-Traction, they'd all roll over at the first curve.
Worst offenders?
My 4 year old grandson and I love racing Lionel trains on a double track oval - he with one and I with the other. Blowing the whistles the whole time.
There is no wrong (or stupid) way to run trains. Run them the way you want. Railfan, race, operate (whatever that means to you), crash them, etc.
This is a hobby do what's fun for you.
Enjoy
Paul
Guys,Allow me to share a recent event..We had a special open house for a tour group and I decided to run my BB GP35/GP7 consist and 22 cars..I smile as I simply and slowly turn up the knob.
My point?
It wasn't about using DCC or DC to run this train..It was watching a train start slow and build its way up to scale track speed as I watched 22 IPD short line boxcars pass me and for me that was pure enjoyment..
Brakie,In my experience, you're incorrect about folks watching switching. I've been in my club for 25 years, have attended close to 100 Open House operations, and the public wants to see movement. The more, the better, and slow speed switching is not that attractive to the public. They want to see a dozen trains moving at around 60smph or so...not too fast, and not too slow. As dispatcher, I can see the public cluster around the best looking mainline scenery, and the yards...not so much. When they do, they're talking to the yardmasters, and not watching the switcher.
And the thing they will walk away from? A stopped train on a siding, waiting for a switch.
Sheldon,No, actually, I do get it. You and I have been over this ground many times, and I totally understand your viewpoint about CTC, signalling, etc. The thing is, I was thinking more about normal average layouts where CTC & signalling are not used, not your layout. Very few people are going to add signalling to their layouts so it seems unusual to try to sell (or not sell) DCC to other people over it. DCC wiring can be very, very simple and yet it can do things that would require a whole bunch of electronics and perhaps an electrical engineering degree to replicate in DC. That's the point I was trying to make.
theodorefisk,Honestly, this is nothing. No one here is "fired up" at all, merely discussing and debating. In yon olden days on the unmoderated MR Forum (or on the old newsgroup, rec.model.railroad) you would see fireworks quite often. This thread, OTOH, is more like a library discussion by comparison. About the clubs (and as a long time club member), it's the judgemental tone that sort of rubs me the wrong way. How do you know they don't have rules? And running trains for hours is not as simple as it would appear, especially in a crowd. You often can't see your train because of the scenery or the people in the way. People, who you try to be as nice as possible to since they paid to see the layout, and ask questions which distract the operators (again, we like to talk trains, but we have to walk with our trains or else).What I tell our operators during shows is that we are not in the model railroading business during an Open House. We are in the entertainment business. People pay to see our trains run, and these people want to see a lot of trains moving with some speed (in our case, 60smph...or 1 foot per second). Slow coal drags are 100% realistic, but few people want to see it crawling along the layout at 20smph (especially since it makes all other trains slow to 20smph). And the second a train stops moving for more than 10 seconds, the public's eyes drift towards something else, so long waits at passing sidings are frowned upon.
IRONROOSTER,The point is that Ted, above, seemed to imply that DCC layouts cause peope to run stupidly and "race". My point was that the control tech. doesn't matter, and that tinplaters are the "worst offenders" in regards to Ted's complaint about the "racing". Not that they were offensive for doing so.Paul A. Cutler III
I agree, for some types of layouts, DCC is the perfect choice, and can be very simple.
What is a "normal, average layout"?
Around here, among the modelers I know, that is a 20 x 40 basement nearly filled with layout, all with wirelsss DCC or wireless DC, many with CTC and/or signaling - but acording the the experts in the recent thread on layout size, I'm nuts if I think that is "average".
So here is a question - why is it that more people are not interested in signaling, and or CTC?
Personally, I know a number of other modelers who are, but of course people with common interests do seem to "find" each other.
Paul A Cutler iii
Pal, you certainly like to parse messages and zero in on what you want to criticize and not take in the whole message and consider it.You certainly have a judgemental tone all by yourself. You seem such the expert on clubs and operations and the rest of us apparently are morons.
Well, sorry, pal, I was in a club way before DCC was even thought of, and I will never join another one due to the infighting and egos and all that. Everyone had ideas about how track should be laid and if someone put some track down, by the next meeting, that track was ripped up and relaid somehow else, even though we had bylaws and folks who were leaders. There were too many 'experts' and the rules were ignored.
When I go to a show, I want to see trains running, on all tracks. Unfortunately what I want and others want sometimes doesn't happen. The members of those layout groups stand around, pushing pizza into their faces, and not running trains. And I don't want to see a train whizzing around at the fastest speed the transformer can make it go. and I doubt that kids want to see that either as it would be better that they could focus on it and learn than see a blur. I don't really think people want to see one train go by and another one right on its markers. I have been to many shows. MY OPINION.
Back to the original reason of this thread. I will stay DC because of the expense and technological nightmare of computerizing things and the decoders and all that jazz. This hobby has many many ways of doing things and folks that run and dispatch a layout by computer and DCC certainly can do it that way. It is not for me and I know it.
Disclaimer - all of this is MY OPINION.
Paul3In my experience, you're incorrect about folks watching switching. I've been in my club for 25 years, have attended close to 100 Open House operations, and the public wants to see movement. The more, the better, and slow speed switching is not that attractive to the public. They want to see a dozen trains moving at around 60smph or so...not too fast, and not too slow. As dispatcher, I can see the public cluster around the best looking mainline scenery, and the yards...not so much. When they do, they're talking to the yardmasters, and not watching the switcher.
Try loop running on point to point club layouts..Won't happen..8 out of the 13 clubs I been a member of over the last 50 years has been point to point.Folks do like to watch switching and meets espically when there are signals governing train movements.Guess where most visitors stood? Yup,watching the yard action.
What most loop layout club members want is all eyes on their train as it runs at slot car speeds around the layout.I see this a lot at train shows and some loop layout clubs I been a member of and these type of members are the ones that speaks out against switching and seldom do they share the track so other members may run their trains but,don't you dare switch cars in the yard(s) since that takes attention away from their train.
Let me take a stab at this....
What I take away from Theodore's and Sheldons comments is an aspect of DC operation that I've been talking about for years, if anyone has noticed.
Real trains take a long time to stop. To avoid crashes, real railroads try to keep their trains from running too close to each other. Generally speaking, the faster they go, the farther apart they stay. If one is to pass another on a siding, the train entering the siding does so WAY EARLIER and sits there WAY LONGER ....before the oncoming train is even in sight....than what most typically want to model. Afterall, as Paul mentioned, to most people, a sitting train is boring.
However, if you did simulate that type of operation in a model railroad, the DC user would have PLENTY of time to flip toggles and assign blocks...not hectic at all. Also, we have the ability to stop our trains on a dime relative to the prototype, making operating like that strictly a matter of personal choice.
However, if you're running trains with DC and find yourself keeping up with the trains by frantically flipping toggles to where you may not even be enjoying the trains, then you probably have too many trains running too quickly relative to the size of the blocks and, most likley, the size of the layout. JMO.
Using some common sense and intuition, I would assume that if someone had a DC layout that operated in that manner, I would assume they consider DCC to be a godsend, and quickly converted... possibly a long time ago. No assumption fits everyone, but there were probably a lot of conversions because of this, where as if they had a layout that operated differently, they may not have converted.
This is not a DCC vs DC thingy. It simply illustrates how the type of layout we may have and the type of operation we enjoy influences our opinions of DC.
I think when people respond to threads like this, they can't help but look at the situation from their own point of view and can't clearly see the basis for someone else's point of view.
- Douglas
Doughless Let me take a stab at this.... What I take away from Theodore's and Sheldons comments is an aspect of DC operation that I've been talking about for years, if anyone has noticed. Real trains take a long time to stop. To avoid crashes, real railroads try to keep their trains from running too close to each other. Generally speaking, the faster they go, the farther apart they stay. If one is to pass another on a siding, the train entering the siding does so WAY EARLIER and sits there WAY LONGER ....before the oncoming train is even in sight....than what most typically want to model. Afterall, as Paul mentioned, to most people, a sitting train is boring. However, if you did simulate that type of operation in a model railroad, the DC user would have PLENTY of time to flip toggles and assign blocks...not hectic at all. Also, we have the ability to stop our trains on a dime relative to the prototype, making operating like that strictly a matter of personal choice. However, if you're running trains with DC and find yourself keeping up with the trains by frantically flipping toggles to where you may not even be enjoying the trains, then you probably have too many trains running too quickly relative to the size of the blocks and, most likley, the size of the layout. JMO. Using some common sense and intuition, I would assume that if someone had a DC layout that operated in that manner, I would assume they consider DCC to be a godsend, and quickly converted... possibly a long time ago. No assumption fits everyone, but there were probably a lot of conversions because of this, where as if they had a layout that operated differently, they may not have converted. This is not a DCC vs DC thingy. It simply illustrates how the type of layout we may have and the type of operation we enjoy influences our opinions of DC. I think when people respond to threads like this, they can't help but look at the situation from their own point of view and can't clearly see the basis for someone else's point of view.
Very well said.
DoughlessHowever, if you're running trains with DC and find yourself keeping up with the trains by frantically flipping toggles to where you may not even be enjoying the trains, then you probably have too many trains running too quickly relative to the size of the blocks and, most likley, the size of the layout. JMO.
While that is true in general the 8 point to point clubs I was a member of a dispatcher and CTC board was used for block,signal and switch control and all the main line engineers had to do was to obey the signals and run their train at scale speeds.
The yard engineers and passenger terminal engineers just made trains up.In all but one club the inbound/outbound tracks was jointly operated by the yard engineer and dispatcher by a simple flip of a toggle switch but,permission was needed from the DS for the yard engineer to enter the inbound track-a simple radio call...A hostler attended to locomotives after the yard engineer placed them on the inbound/outbound locomotive lead again,track was jointly operated by a flip of a toggle switch.Same principle worked for outbound engines except in reverse-hostler to yard engineer.
It was a very smooth operation.
BRAKIE Doughless However, if you're running trains with DC and find yourself keeping up with the trains by frantically flipping toggles to where you may not even be enjoying the trains, then you probably have too many trains running too quickly relative to the size of the blocks and, most likley, the size of the layout. JMO. While that is true in general the 8 point to point clubs I was a member of a dispatcher and CTC board was used for block,signal and switch control and all the main line engineers had to do was to obey the signals and run their train at scale speeds. The yard engineers and passenger terminal engineers just made trains up.In all but one club the inbound/outbound tracks was jointly operated by the yard engineer and dispatcher by a simple flip of a toggle switch but,permission was needed from the DS for the yard engineer to enter the inbound track-a simple radio call...A hostler attended to locomotives after the yard engineer placed them on the inbound/outbound locomotive lead again,track was jointly operated by a flip of a toggle switch.Same principle worked for outbound engines except in reverse-hostler to yard engineer. It was a very smooth operation.
Doughless However, if you're running trains with DC and find yourself keeping up with the trains by frantically flipping toggles to where you may not even be enjoying the trains, then you probably have too many trains running too quickly relative to the size of the blocks and, most likley, the size of the layout. JMO.
Larry,
That is the same way my layout works. BUT, just my opinion, unless one has a space even larger than my 900 sq ft, the mainline run is not long enough to support two terminals and all the restructuring of trains at both ends.
I prefer a continous loop, with hidden through staging, with the working "teminal/yard" in the middle, not two of them at the ends.
This creates a better balance of mainline running to yard work in most cases and has the side benefit of display running when desired.
It also follows a layout planning rule I like very much - model each "element" only once. One major passenger terminal, one freight yard, one engine terminal, etc, etc.
It operates effectively as a point to point with trains stopping in the hidden staging without every train having to be broken down, turned, etc, at each end.
Loads east, empties west hopper trains can run the same direction forever, and be switched, or have power changes in the middle of their run.
When complete I will have nearly 8 scale miles of double track - not nearly long enough to justify terminals at both ends in my view.
And this also fits in with the point Doughless is making about layouts being too "busy" for their size.
So in my operational scheme, some trains are just power changes, others end at the "yard", others begin at the yard, and some are just through hauls.
And then, seperate from the doulbe track mainline, is an industrial belt line - just like one of your ISL's.
And, there are times when I just want to "watch them run", so a nice big "loop" is necessary in my mind.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Larry, That is the same way my layout works. BUT, just my opinion, unless one has a space even larger than my 900 sq ft, the mainline run is not long enough to support two terminals and all the restructuring of trains at both ends. I prefer a continous loop, with hidden through staging, with the working "teminal/yard" in the middle, not two of them at the ends. This creates a better balance of mainline running to yard work in most cases and has the side benefit of display running when desired. It also follows a layout planning rule I like very much - model each "element" only once. One major passenger terminal, one freight yard, one engine terminal, etc, etc. It operates effectively as a point to point with trains stopping in the hidden staging without every train having to be broken down, turned, etc, at each end. Loads east, empties west hopper trains can run the same direction forever, and be switched, or have power changes in the middle of their run. When complete I will have nearly 8 scale miles of double track - not nearly long enough to justify terminals at both ends in my view. And this also fits in with the point Doughless is making about layouts being too "busy" for their size. So in my operational scheme, some trains are just power changes, others end at the "yard", others begin at the yard, and some are just through hauls. And then, seperate from the doulbe track mainline, is an industrial belt line - just like one of your ISL's. And, there are times when I just want to "watch them run", so a nice big "loop" is necessary in my mind. Sheldon
Alton Junction
"Who runs DC only?".
Not me, I preferred advanced technology.
To each his own though, I could really care less who runs DC and why they do it.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
ATLANTIC CENTRALThat is the same way my layout works. BUT, just my opinion, unless one has a space even larger than my 900 sq ft, the mainline run is not long enough to support two terminals and all the restructuring of trains at both ends.
All 8 clubs I mention had large(largest was 2200 sq ft) point to point layouts with no hidden staging or reverse loops and required 3 men in each yard plus 8 main line engineers and a dispatcher.
You ran between yard A and yard B and ran a train from B back to A..
Sadly only 2 remains and their new layouts features point to point or loop operation with staging. One has a hidden track to return loaded hopper cars to the coal marshalling yard.This is a neat operation since it looks like mine runs returning from or leaving for the mines.A hidden member runs these trains between the harbor yard and marshalling yard.
Sheldon,What's a "normal, average" layout? We'll never know. My guess is between a bedroom-size to approx. 50% of a basement, but who can really say? In my own experience, the only layout that was bigger than that was either my own 25' x 50', or a club layout. Most others I've seen are smaller than a full basement. I do think the 4x8' is not the typical layout these days (like most people did for a long, long time, judging by the old layout plan books).
As for the lack of signals/CTC installations, I think the No. 1 reason is money. As you know, it's not cheap. With DC block control, you really didn't need signals (my club's old layout didn't actually use signals for 45 years, just the blocks; see link: http://ssmrc.org/oldlayout/scan0051.jpg). With DCC, you might need 'em, but that means more money and work to install blocks over just running the trains in "dark territory". And generally, one doesn't really need signals with DCC unless one has more than one train running at a time. I'm thinking that most layouts operate as lone wolf/one-train types, so the utilization of signals is not as widespread just because it's not necessary no matter the control system.
Ted,Please don't put words in my mouth. I never called nor implied that anyone was a "moron". I do know a thing or two about clubs, large layouts and model train operations since I've been doing that for 25 years, but I'm not what I would call an "expert" like, say, Andy Sperando or Tony Koester. Quite frankly, I consider myself more of a hack when it comes to operations, especially compared to real engineers (of which we have a few in the club). As Operations Chairman of a 70-member club, I must tune my operations to the people that run it, and I don't have the "luxury" of forcing people to do things the "right way"...even on my own layout. Why? Because every operator I deal with is either a dues-paying member, or is an invited friend (and on the home layout, my own father). I can't hire nor fire anyone. I'm more of a practical operator who is willing to overlook certain unrealistic things to ensure everyone has a good time. It's just like why we still use Kadee #5's and not Sergent couplers. Sergents are far more realistic, but Kadee #5's are a lot less frustrating.
What is interesting is that you appear on this thread to be very anti-DCC, yet in 2013 on this Forum you were "looking into it". What happened?Brakie,I don't understand. "Try loop running on point to point club layouts..Won't happen." That's exactly what we did on our old club layout, and exactly what we do on our new layout. Both layouts are point to point, yet have looping tracks that allow continuous running for shows and open houses (but are not used during Operation sessions).As for getting yardmen to switch trains, it's not that anyone doesn't want them to switch at our club. The trick is to actually get people to do so. We have a half a dozen guys willing to be yardmen, but compare that to the several dozen that only want to run trains all day long, and the division of interest is apparent.Paul A. Cutler III
Paul3I don't understand. "Try loop running on point to point club layouts..Won't happen." That's exactly what we did on our old club layout, and exactly what we do on our new layout. Both layouts are point to point, yet have looping tracks that allow continuous running for shows and open houses (but are not used during Operation sessions).
None of the 8 point to point club layouts had a means to run loops..You ran between yard A and Yard B and terminated your run upon arrival.
Why these clubs decided on point to point layouts is because many of the old members did not want to run loops and I know at one it was because they wanted everybody to run trains instead of standing around while "track hogs" ran their trains this happen on their first club layout and the "new" layout was deigned as a point to point layout to stop that or so I was told after I joined.
For the record the first club I joined in '64 was point to point-the Columbus Model Railroad Club that was located in the basement of a A&P store.
BRAKIE Paul3 I don't understand. "Try loop running on point to point club layouts..Won't happen." That's exactly what we did on our old club layout, and exactly what we do on our new layout. Both layouts are point to point, yet have looping tracks that allow continuous running for shows and open houses (but are not used during Operation sessions). Why these clubs decided on point to point layouts is because many of the old members did not want to run loops and I know at one it was because they wanted everybody to run trains instead of standing around while "track hogs" ran their trains this happen on their first club layout and the "new" layout was deigned as a point to point layout to stop that or so I was told after I joined.
Paul3 I don't understand. "Try loop running on point to point club layouts..Won't happen." That's exactly what we did on our old club layout, and exactly what we do on our new layout. Both layouts are point to point, yet have looping tracks that allow continuous running for shows and open houses (but are not used during Operation sessions).
Gotta at least have a continuous loop.
Rich
Paul,
Interesting that your layout and mine are about the same size. But around here, home layouts the size of yours and mind, and some bigger, are "typical" if not also average.
Clubs - as you know, that's not my thing anymore.
I'm thinking that most layouts operate as lone wolf/one-train types, so the utilization of signals is not as widespread just because it's not necessary no matter the control system.
Who nees DCC to run one train at a time? Maybe that's why there are a fair number of DC users still?
Nobody "needs" signals to run model trains - I just want the added realism - I model a kind of rairoad that would have them in real life.